[Federal Register: December 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 237)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 73517-73521]
[DOCID:fr12de05-26]

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

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 112

Oil Pollution Prevention; Non-Transportation Related Onshore
Facilities; Proposed Rule

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 112

[EPA-HQ-OPA-2005-0003; FRL-8007-1]
RIN 2050-AG28

Oil Pollution Prevention; Non-Transportation Related Onshore
Facilities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to extend the
dates by which facilities must prepare or amend Spill Prevention,
Control, and Countermeasure Plans (SPCC Plans), and implement those
Plans. This action would allow the Agency time to promulgate revisions
to the July 17, 2002 final SPCC rule before owners and operators are
required to meet requirements of that rule related to preparing or
amending, and implementing SPCC Plans. The proposed revisions to the
2002 final SPCC rule are published elsewhere in today's Federal
Register.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 11, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OPA-2005-0003, by one of the following methods:
     Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: The mailing address of the docket for this
rulemaking is EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPA-
2005-0003, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: Such deliveries are only accepted during
the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should
be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPA-
2005-0003. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov The http://www.regulations.gov. Web site is an

``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of the
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
 index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket, EPA/

DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1303 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.
The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number to make
an appointment to view the docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the
Superfund, TRI, EPCRA, RMP and Oil Information Center at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or TDD<PHONE_NUMBER> (hearing impaired). In the Washington, DC
metropolitan area, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or TDD<PHONE_NUMBER>. For more
detailed information on specific aspects of this proposed rule, contact
either Vanessa Rodriguez at<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or Mark W. Howard at<PHONE_NUMBER> (howard.markw@epa.gov), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC, 20460-0002, Mail Code 5104A.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Authority

    33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 33 U.S.C. 2720; E.O. 12777 (October 18,
1991), 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351.

II. Background

    On July 17, 2002, the Agency published a final rule that amended
the SPCC regulations (see 67 FR 47042). The rule became effective on
August 16, 2002. The final rule included compliance dates in Sec.
112.3 for preparing, amending, and implementing SPCC Plans. The
original compliance dates were amended on January 9, 2003 (see 68 FR
1348), again on April 17, 2003 (see 68 FR 18890) and a third time on
August 11, 2004 (see 69 FR 48794).
    Under the current provisions in Sec.  112.3(a) and (b), a facility
that was in operation on or before August 16, 2002 must make any
necessary amendments to its SPCC Plan by February 17, 2006, and fully
implement its SPCC Plan by August 18, 2006; a facility that came into
operation after August 16, 2002 but before August 18, 2006, must
prepare and fully implement an SPCC Plan on or before August 18, 2006.
Thus, for facilities in operation on or before August 16, 2002, the
regulations provide a six-month period between the compliance date for
Plan amendment and the compliance date for Plan implementation. In
addition, Sec.  112.3(c) requires onshore and offshore mobile
facilities to prepare or amend and implement SPCC Plans on or before
August 18, 2006.

III. Proposal To Extend the Compliance Dates

    This proposed rule would extend the dates in Sec.  112.3(a) and (b)
by which a facility must prepare or amend and implement its SPCC Plan.
As a result of this proposed rule, a facility that was in operation on
or before August 16, 2002 would have to make any necessary amendments
to its SPCC Plan, and implement that Plan, on or before October 31,
2007. In addition, a facility that came into operation after August 16,
2002 would have to prepare and implement an SPCC Plan on or before
October 31, 2007.
    This proposed rule would similarly extend the compliance dates in
Sec.  112.3(c) for mobile facilities. Under this proposal, a mobile
facility must prepare or amend and implement an SPCC Plan on or before
October 31, 2007.
    The Agency believes the extension of the compliance dates proposed
in this notice are warranted for several reasons. The Agency is
proposing revisions to the 2002 SPCC rule elsewhere in today's Federal
Register. Those revisions would provide significant regulatory relief
to some facilities and to some types of oil-filled equipment. The
Agency believes that the regulatory relief proposed in that Federal
Register notice is important to ensure that the SPCC regulation remains
protective of human health and the environment but, at the same time,

is not overly burdensome to the regulated community. Since the Agency
will not have time to promulgate the proposed regulatory relief before
the current compliance dates for SPCC Plan preparation, amendment, and
implementation, the Agency believes it is appropriate to extend those
dates. This approach would allow facilities opportunity to make changes
to their facilities and to their SPCC Plans necessary to comply with
revised, less burdensome requirements, rather than with the existing
requirements.
    Further, the Agency believes that this proposed extension of the
compliance dates would provide facilities time necessary to fully
understand the regulatory relief offered by revisions to the 2002 SPCC
rule. This would allow facilities to take full advantage of any
regulatory revisions the Agency might promulgate. Regarding
modifications of the SPCC regulations, to the extent practicable, EPA
will establish deadlines for compliance implementation that commence
one year after promulgating the regulatory revisions.
    In addition, the Agency has issued the ``SPCC Guidance for Regional
Inspectors,'' which is intended to assist regional inspectors in
reviewing a facility's implementation of the SPCC rule. The document is
designed to facilitate an understanding of the rule's applicability, to
help clarify the role of the inspector in the review and evaluation of
the performance-based SPCC requirements, and to provide a consistent
national policy on several SPCC-related issues. The guidance also is
available to both the owners and operators of facilities that may be
subject to the requirements of the SPCC rule and to the general public
on the Agency's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/oilspill. The Agency

believes that this proposed extension would provide the regulated
community opportunity to understand the material presented in that
guidance before preparing or amending their SPCC Plans.
    Finally, the Agency is concerned that the effects of the recent
hurricanes on many industry sectors might adversely impact their
ability to meet the upcoming compliance dates if no extension is
provided.
    It is important to note that we considered whether to maintain the
six month interim period between the compliance dates for Plan
amendment and implementation or to combine the two dates in order to
allow an additional six months for Plan amendment. Since facilities are
not required to submit SPCC Plans to the Agency at the time of Plan
amendment, the Agency is proposing to combine the compliance dates for
Plan amendment and implementation so that they both coincide on October
31, 2007 in order to allow facilities an additional six months to amend
SPCC Plans in accordance with the requirements under Sec. Sec.
112.3(a) through (c).
    The Agency is seeking comment on this proposal to have one date by
which SPCC Plans must be amended and implemented in accordance with the
2002 amendments to the SPCC Rule, and on the extension of these dates
to October 31, 2007 for all facilities. Any alternative approaches
presented must include appropriate rationale and supporting data in
order for the Agency to be able to consider them for final action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
    Under the terms of Executive Order 12866, this action has been
judged as not a ``significant regulatory action'' because it would
extend the compliance dates in Sec.  112.3, but would have no other
substantive effect. However, because of its interconnection with the
related SPCC rule proposed elsewhere in this Federal Register notice
(see discussion above in section III), which is a significant action
under the terms of Executive Order 12866, this action was nonetheless
submitted to OMB for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the
impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, small entity is
defined as: (1) A small business as defined in the Small Business
Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201--the SBA defines
small businesses by category of business using North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) codes, and in the case of farms and
production facilities, which constitute a large percentage of the
facilities affected by this proposed rule, generally defines small
businesses as having less than $500,000 in revenues or 500 employees,
respectively; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town, school district or special district
with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization
that is any not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and
operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, the Agency certifies that this action would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant
economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603
and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive
economic effect

on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
    This proposed rule would relieve the regulatory burden for small
entities by extending the compliance dates in Sec.  112.3.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted.
    Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed under section 203 of UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small
governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of
EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental
mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on
compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any one year. This proposed rule would reduce burden
and costs for all facilities.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. As was explained above, the effect of the proposed rule
would be to reduce burden and costs for all facilities, including small
governments that are subject to the rule.

E. Executive Order 13132--Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It would
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. Under CWA section 311(o), States
may impose additional requirements, including more stringent
requirements, relating to the prevention of oil discharges to navigable
waters. EPA encourages States to supplement the Federal SPCC regulation
and recognizes that some States have more stringent requirements (56 FR
54612, (October 22, 1991). This proposed rule would not preempt State
law or regulations. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
proposed rule.

F. Executive Order 13175--Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    On November 6, 2000, the President issued Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249) entitled, ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments.'' Executive Order 13175 took effect on January 6, 2001,
and revokes Executive Order 13084 (Tribal Consultation) as of that
date.
    Today's proposed rule would not significantly or uniquely affect
communities of Indian tribal governments. Therefore, the Agency has not
consulted with a representative organization of tribal groups.

G. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risk

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866; and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the
potential to influence the regulation. This proposed rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically
significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency
does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children.

H. Executive Order 13211--Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as
defined in Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards such as materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations

when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards.
    This proposed rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore,
NTTAA does not apply.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 112

    Environmental protection, Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 2, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 40 CFR, chapter I,
part 112 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended
as follows:

PART 112--OIL POLLUTION PREVENTION

    1. The authority citation for part 112 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 33 U.S.C. 2720; E.O. 12777
(October 18, 1991), 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351.

    2. Section 112.3 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), and
(c) to read as follows:

Sec.  112.3  Requirement to prepare and implement a Spill Prevention,
Control, and Countermeasure Plan.

* * * * *
    (a) If your onshore or offshore facility was in operation on or
before August 16, 2002, you must maintain your Plan, but must amend it,
if necessary to ensure compliance with this part, by October 31, 2007,
and implement the Plan no later than October 31, 2007. If your onshore
or offshore facility becomes operational after August 16, 2002, through
October 31, 2007, and could reasonably be expected to have a discharge
as described in Sec.  112.1(b), you must prepare and implement a Plan
on or before October 31, 2007.
    (b) If you are the owner or operator of an onshore or offshore
facility that becomes operational after October 31, 2007, and could
reasonably be expected to have a discharge as described in Sec.
112.1(b), you must prepare and implement a Plan before you begin
operations.
    (c) If you are the owner or operator of an onshore or offshore
mobile facility, such as an onshore drilling or workover rig, barge
mounted offshore drilling or workover rig, or portable fueling
facility, you must prepare, implement, and maintain a facility Plan as
required by this section. You must maintain your Plan, but must amend
and implement it, if necessary to ensure compliance with this part, on
or before October 31, 2007. If your onshore or offshore mobile facility
becomes operational after October 31, 2007, and could reasonably be
expected to have a discharge as described in Sec.  112.1(b), you must
prepare and implement a Plan before you begin operations. This
provision does not require that you prepare a new Plan each time you
move the facility to a new site. The Plan may be a general Plan. When
you move the mobile or portable facility, you must locate and install
it using the discharge prevention practices outlined in the Plan for
the facility. The Plan is applicable only while the facility is in a
fixed (non-transportation) operating mode.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-23916 Filed 12-9-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


1 MEMORANDUM TO: The 316( b) Rule Administrative Record FROM: John Sunda, SAIC DATE: February 11, 2004 SUBJECT: An Analysis of the Confidence in Accuracy of the Phase II 316b Compliance Cost Modules.

INTRODUCTION This memo provides an overview of the confidence in the accuracy of the compliance capital and O& M costs developed using the 316( b) Phase II Compliance Technology Cost Modules. A key element in cost estimation is the available data and information about site conditions. Some site conditions are favorable to design and construction works while others may involve higher degrees of uncertainty. In sites with favorable conditions design and construction costs are expected to be lower than the cost of the same project designed and constructed under " typical" or " normal" site conditions. On the other end of the spectrum, the costs are expected to be significantly higher than that for the " typical" job site. The cost estimates developed for the 316b compliance technologies assume a " typical" rather than the exceptional job site, except where noted below.

In every design and construction endeavor a level of confidence is developed based on many factors. These factors include factual or data attributes and non factual or information attributes. The data attributes have to do with level of detail that is available to the designer, the estimator, and the contractor. Also important is the information about the end product function and architectural features of the job site where construction or installation of equipment needs to take place. The confidence also has to do with the confidence in the source data and how the data was used to generate the information and confidence in the experience that is often used by engineers and cost estimators to bridge gaps in the available data. As such, many professional organizations and authorities in the engineering and construction arena have developed scales to identify necessary confidence levels at every stage of a project in order to keep a project within the realm and context of reasonableness within budget and execution potential limits.

For example, the American Association of Cost Engineers International ( AACEI) recommends the following three construction cost estimating categories with the corresponding different levels of accuracy shown in Table A. EPA generally develops budgetary level cost estimates to forecast compliance cost estimates for a regulation. However, for the 316b compliance technology cost estimates, EPA took an additional step in developing costs that were closer to definitive or preliminary design costs estimates. 2 TABLE A Construction Cost Estimating Categories Category Purpose Timing Expected Accuracy 1) Conceptual Estimate  Preliminary Estimates for Proposed Projects,  Generally Used for Screening of Alternatives  Major equipment is sized and specified  Process flow is approved  Utility requirements are specified  Preliminary plot layout + 50% to  30%

2) Budget Estimate  To commit engineering budget  To commit purchase of critical delivery of equipment  Appropriation request  Check contractor's bids Same as above except:  process design basis is approved  selection of alternatives has been made + 30% to  15%

4) Definitive Estimate  Detailed control budget  Cost control and reporting  Finalize contract structure  Fee: adjust or convert  Plot plan finalized or approved  Equipment size and specs firm  Flow diagrams complete  Complete set of specifications  Production engineering may be completed up to 40% + 15% to  5%

Source: ( AACE 1996)

As described below some of the cost components such as equipment costs and technologies available from a limited number of providers have an accuracy level that is much higher than a budgetary cost estimate. In general, given the context of the 316b developed cost estimates, the accuracy of any module is not expected to be less than that of a " budget estimate."

The discussion below attempts to generally assess in more detail the accuracy of elements of the cost modules. For clarification purposes, examples concerning the selection of assumed values used in the technology design or input variables are presented below. In order to ensure that the national totals are reasonably accurate or exceed median values high side design values were assumed where noted.

In some modules, median values of the data provided by the detailed questionnaire facilities are 3 assumed for facilities where specific data input are not available ( e. g., short technical questionnaire facilities). In some cases the overall median is used and in others waterbody specific medians are used. The use of medians is intended to produce the best estimate of costs at the national level by equally over and under estimating individual facility costs as a result of the assumed median value being higher or lower than the actual value. A select set of modules were designed to err on the high side ( i. e., overestimating the costs) because of the known unpredictability of job sites and technology performance.

Inaccuracies due to regional differences in labor and materials costs are accounted for where necessary through the use of regional cost factors. Where unit costs are based on RS Means data, the unit costs should be considered as having an accuracy of a definitive estimate as these costs are derived and routinely updated using numerous national construction project data sources.

The Agency also considered the elevated costs for capital and operation and maintenance costs at nuclear stations. These costs were applied as numerical multipliers to the costs discussed below. As such, the analysis of confidence levels discussed below for fossil fuel facilities will apply to nuclear facilities as well.

PASSIVE SCREENS Cost Modules Covered:

° Module # 4: Add Passive Fine Mesh Screens ( 1.75 mm mesh) at Shoreline ° Module # 7: Relocate Intake to Submerged Offshore with Fine Mesh Passive Screen ( 1.75 mm mesh) ° Module # 9: Add Passive Fine Mesh Screen ( 1.75 mm) at Inlet of Offshore Submerged ° Module # 12: Add Very Fine Mesh ( 0.75 mm) Passive Screen at Shoreline ° Module # 13: Add Very Fine Mesh ( 0.75 mm) Passive Screen at Inlet of Offshore Submerged ° Module # 14: Relocate Intake to Submerged Offshore with Very Fine Mesh ( 0.75 mm) Passive Screen.

The differences between the fine mesh ( 1.75 mm) and very fine mesh ( 0.75 mm) screens were that the " per screen" flow rate was set lower for finer mesh similar sized screens based on vendor recommendations. The per screen cost was slightly higher for similar sized screens, and O& M cost were adjusted upward for finer mesh due to higher retention of debris with finer mesh. The analysis below focuses on fine mesh screens but should also apply to the very fine mesh screen modules.

Passive Screen Capital Costs Input Variables The primary input variable was the intake design flow. Other variables included saltwater versus 4 freshwater, and distance offshore. To reduce inaccuracy due to differences in distance offshore, costs are developed for 4 distances offshore; 20 meters ( which corresponds to the " near shoreline" modules # 4 and # 12), 125 meters, 250 meters, and 500 meters. As can be seen in Table B the distance offshore has a significant effect on the costs. Inevitably some inaccuracy will exist due to the potential mismatch of the module distance and the actual distance. For adding passive screens to existing offshore intakes at facilities where the distance was known, the next highest module distance was selected with a maximum of 500 meters. In general, this tended to bias the capital costs upward but increased the confidence that the costs would not be underestimated. However, for those with existing distances greater than 500 meters the costs were biased downward. For the short technical questionnaire facilities, the distance offshore for existing submerged intakes was assumed to be equal to the median value for the data provided in the detailed questionnaires for each waterbody category. This value was then rounded up to the next of the four module distances to increase the confidence that the costs would not be underestimated. The assumption that there would be sufficient depth for larger size screens, provides a potential bias of costs towards the low side where high design flows require large screens to be installed near shore in shallow water. For larger flows, shallow water requires multiple smaller screens which would tend to increase screen and piping costs. To limit this potential bias, facilities requiring multiple large screens were rarely considered as candidates for near shore applications.

Capital Cost Components:

The total estimated capital costs for adding passive wedgewire t screens consists of the following cost components:

° Screens ° Backwash Equipment ° Backwash Air Piping ° Steel Pipe ° Connecting Wall The proportion and significance of each to the total capital cost depends on the specific application. The proportion of the total for each component varies most with distance offshore. Table B presents the proportion of each component calculated as an average of those for each of the 10 input flow values ranging from 2,500 to 163,000 gpm for the shortest ( 20 meters) and longest ( 500 meters) submerged intake pipes in freshwater applications. Each component cost includes installation costs and is discussed separately below. 5 TABLE B Relative Proportion of Each Capital Cost Component for Freshwater Applications for Adding Screens to Existing Submerged Intakes and Relocating Submerged Offshore for 20 Meters and 500 Meters Offshore Relocate Passive Screens Offshore Components Add to Existing Submerged Intake Relocate Offshore 20 Meters Offshore 500 Meters Offshore 20 Meters Offshore 500 Meters Offshore Screens 64% 20% 29% 6%

Backwash Equipment 17% 6% 7% 2%

Backwash Air Piping 20% 74% 9% 24%

Steel Pipe 0% 0% 28% 62%

Connecting Wall 0% 0% 27% 6%

Screen Costs The screen cost component includes the sum of the cost of the screens, installation, mobilization, and steel fittings. Installation and mobilization can comprise from 80% of the screen costs for low flow operations to about 20% for high flow operations. The screen costs were obtained from a vendor who reported that the accuracy of the screen costs as that of a detailed estimate (+ 15% to  5%) ( Whitaker 2004). The installation and mobilization costs are based on the BPJ application of vendor provided cost estimates for velocity caps. While the equipment costs were reported be relatively accurate, vendors of nearly all of the technologies have noted that installation costs are much more variable and dependent on site specific conditions making a " typical" estimate potentially less accurate. As such, the installation and mobilization component costs ( 20% to 80% of total screen costs) should be viewed as having the accuracy of a budget estimate.

Actual project screen costs were obtained for six 48 in. screens installed at the Zimmer Power Plant on the Ohio River. The reported screen equipment cost when adjusted to 2002 dollars for inflation was $ 204,680. Comparable total screen costs using the cost module component data was $ 190,000 for Cu Ni screens. In this example the actual screen costs were 8% higher than the Module Cost and are well within the estimated accuracy range. 6 Backwash Equipment The backwash equipment costs were also obtained from a vendor. This backwash equipment cost data came with the caveats that " the Air Burst system is very custom, based upon distance from screen, multiple compressors, receiver size, controls, etc." Thus, the accuracy of this cost component is difficult to quantify and the costs provided by the vendor should be viewed as having the accuracy of a budget estimate since it included variation due to differences in equipment sizes.

Backwash Air Piping The costs for backwash air piping is based on unit costs reported in RS Means Costworks 2001 for installed stainless steel pipe ( in an above ground application) multiplied by an underwater installation factor of 2 which was derived from looking at similar data for the steel pipe installation costs. While the cost of materials for the stainless steel pipe should have the accuracy of a definitive estimate, the installation factor was developed using BPJ and should be viewed as having the accuracy of a budget estimate.

Steel Pipe The steel pipe costs were derived from the submerged steel pipe cost estimating methodology as described in Economic and Engineering Analyses of the Proposed Section 316( b) New Facility Rule, Appendix A, but modified based on a design pipe velocity of 5 fps. The pipe cost estimate is the result of a detailed engineering estimate and should have the accuracy of a budget estimate. The actual methodology used in the installation of the manifold piping may differ from the method used in developing the module costs.

The use of different pipe installation methods, however, does not necessarily indicate costs will vary widely. For example, a comparison of the bid costs provided for installation ( using a coffer dam in this instance) of a 220 meter 10ft diameter steel pipe on a submerged drinking water intake on the Potomac River for the Fairfax County Water Authority was $ 2,856,000 for the wining low bid. The comparable Module component for a 250 meter pipe was $ 2,818,000. Note that the module pipe length was 14% greater than the example, but the cost of the accepted bid was within nearly one percent of the cost predicted by the module. While the installation method was different the costs were very similar.

Connecting Wall The connecting wall design is based on the use of a sheet pile using sheet pile cost from RS Means. The primary independent variable used to develop costs for different flow values was the cross sectional area of the front of the intakes to be covered. Several general assumptions were made that tended to bias the costs of this component upward, including assuming an existing through screen velocity of 1.0 fps ( whereas the median was around 1.5 fps) and a percent open 7 area of 50% ( rather than 68% for " typical" coarse mesh screens cited by traveling screen vendors). The cost was developed using a detailed engineering estimate and should have an accuracy of a budget estimate but biased somewhat on the high side.

Relocate to Submerged at Shoreline or Offshore As described above the screen equipment costs have the greatest accuracy ( approximately + 15% to  10%) but this only comprises 20% to 80% of the installed screen cost which itself is 29% to 6% of the total capital cost depending on distance offshore. Combined the screen equipment costs component ( accuracy of + 15% to  10%) constitutes roughly 25% to 1.2% of the total capital cost. The remaining components are considered as having an accuracy of a budget estimate (+ 30% to  15%). In addition, as noted above several of the assumed engineering values were selected such that, on average, the capital costs would be biased towards the high side.

Add to Existing Submerged Offshore In this option the installed screen cost represent a greater portion of the total costs ( 64% to 20%) and therefore the total capital cost will have a greater overall accuracy. Combined together, the screen equipment costs component ( accuracy of + 15% to  10%) constitutes roughly 51% to 4% of the total capital cost. The remaining components are considered as having an accuracy of a budget estimate (+ 30% to  15%). As with the relocate offshore option, the non screen costs increase as the distance offshore increases. In addition, as noted above several of the assumed engineering values were selected such that, on average, the capital costs would be biased towards the high side.

Passive Screen O& M Costs O& M Input Variables The primary independent variable was the intake design flow. High and low debris was selected as a secondary variable to increase confidence that the costs would be accurate for different environments. Distance offshore and saltwater versus freshwater were not considered as additional sources of variation in O& M costs. However, freshwater and saltwater determinations did play a role in designation of the debris level.

O& M Cost Components O& M costs consist of labor, power requirements and periodic underwater inspection and cleaning. A high debris and low debris option was developed for each scenario to increase the confidence of the estimates by accounting for the differences in backwash frequency and underwater inspection and cleaning frequency that would be expected for waterbodies with higher and lower amounts of debris. Costs for existing submerged intakes do not include any additional dive team costs above that which is already being performed prior to the installation of the 8 screens. Table C presents the average proportion of each component over the range of flow values costed for fine mesh screens. As can be seen the power cost component represents a very minor proportion and therefore will not be discussed further.

TABLE C Relative Proportion of Each O& M Cost Component for Freshwater Applications for Adding Screens to Existing Submerged Intakes and Relocating Submerged Offshore Relocate Passive Screens Offshore O& M Component Add to Existing Submerged Intake Relocate Offshore Low Debris High Debris Low Debris High Debris Power 1.6% 4.5% 2% 5%

Labor 64% 62% 98% 75%

Dive Team Inspection & Cleaning 35% 33% 0% 20%

Labor The O& M labor rate per hour is $ 41.10/ hr. The rate is based on Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS) Data using the median labor rates for electrical equipment maintenance technical labor ( SOC 49 2095) and managerial labor ( SOC 11 1021); benefits and other compensation are added using factors based on SIC 29 data for blue collar and white collar labor. The two values were combined into a single rate assuming 90% technical labor and 10% managerial. This labor rate is fairly accurate being based on national average BLS data and is used in other module O& M cost development as well. The number of hours applied is based on vendor quotes of several hours per week with a notation that during certain periods some systems must be manned 24 hours/ day for a week or more during seasonal high debris. The selected rates of 2 4 hours per week plus one week at 24 hours per day for low debris or 3 weeks 24 hours per day for high debris are based on BPJ interpretation of the vendor supplied information for " typical" operations. It is expected that the actual labor annual total will be quite variable. Therefore, while the labor dollar per hour rate is very accurate, the labor hours are considered to have a moderate accuracy with a wide range resulting in the derived costs being that of a budget estimate.

Dive Team Inspection and Cleaning The dive team costs are based on a vendor quote for a supervisor, tender and diver, including equipment, boat, and mobilization/ demobilizations. Costs are calculated in single day increments. These costs should be considered as fairly accurate for typical diver costs. However, as with the 9 labor hourly requirements, the frequency and duration of the dive team requirements are based on general vendor quotes with caveats that actual frequencies and durations may vary greatly from site to site. As such, the dive team costs are considered as having an accuracy of a budget estimate.

Several facilities with submerged intakes were surveyed and annual underwater inspection and cleaning costs were reported by three facilities, the total annual costs were $ 3,800, $ 10,000, and $ 30,000. The first value is below the minimum one day module dive team cost of $ 5,260 ( 28%) and the $ 30,000 value is greater than the high debris annual cost of $ 18,480 (+ 62%) for a comparable flow. This reported range confirms that Such costs do vary considerably on a sitespecific basis. However, it does show that EPA's estimates do represent a middle or " typical" value. Note that the higher value was for a facility experiencing zebra mussel problems that may have not been designed to prevent this problem. The EPA module technology applied to such situations include higher up front costs for screen materials ( CuNi) that tend to inhibit mussel colonization.

Overall O& M Considering the above discussion, the O& M costs for passive screens should be considered as having the accuracy a budget estimate without any bias.

TRAVELING SCREENS Cost Modules Covered:

° Module # 1: Add Fish Handling and Return System ° Module # 2: Add Fine Mesh Traveling Screens with Fish Handling and Return ° Module # 11: Add Double Entry, Single Exit with Fine Mesh, Handling and Return Based on the advise of traveling screen vendors, facilities receiving technology Module # 1 received costs for replacement of the traveling screen units as well as the addition of a fish return sluice. The alternative was to replace only the baskets and screens and add fish spray equipment. This was based on vendor advise that a partial retrofit that would retain a portion of the original equipment would cost approximately 75% of the cost of replacement units saving only about 25% but possibly compromising system effectiveness and longevity. Thus, this was a conservative ( high cost side) assumption that could offset future costs that would be difficult to quantify. This increases the confidence in the O& M cost estimates for module # 1 by eliminating any uncertainty with regard to future performance and the need for corrective measures.

Facilities where module 2 was specified, received different costs depending on whether the data available indicated they a fish handling and return system already in place. If they did not, then the compliance costs included replacing the traveling screens as well as adding a fish return sluice. If they did, then only the costs for adding fine mesh overlays applied. With the exception of 10 Module # 3 ( add new larger intake), the screen equipment size for traveling screens is limited to the size of the existing intake.

In general, the above approach increased confidence in the accuracy of the capital and O& M costs by tailoring the cost estimates to the known technology in place.

Traveling Screen Capital Costs Input Variables The cost of traveling screens are dependent on both the height ( well depth) and width of screen unit. Screen cost data indicates that two screens with the same effective screen area but with different size height and width will have different costs. To increase the confidence in the cost estimates for this final rule applying to existing facilities, the design flow was combined with other data such as intake water depth and through screen velocity to determine the calculated total effective screen width of the existing intake screens. Since the size of replacement screens is limited to the size of the existing intake structure, the estimated total screen width was considered a much better variable for estimating screen equipment costs compared to design flow alone. For all facilities the percent open area ( POA) of screens already in place was assumed to be 68% which was identified by screen vendors as the prevalent POA for coarse mesh screens. One vendor said that approximately 97% of existing intake screens use coarse mesh with 3/ 8 inch mesh upon which this value is based. Flow data and through screen velocity data were available for most facilities, while intake water depth was only available for detailed questionnaire facilities. Median values from the detailed questionnaire facility data were assumed for those without data. Well depth was another important screen sizing variable. In order to simplify the effort but still retain confidence in the costs over a range of sizes, costing scenarios for five different well depths were developed ( 10ft, 25 ft, 50 ft, 75 ft, 100 ft). One of these five costing well depths was then applied to each facility based upon the actual or calculated well depth. Calculated or actual intake well depths that exceeded approximately 20% greater than any category was assigned to the next highest category. In general, this tended to bias this portion of costs slightly upward as the majority of those falling in between the well depth categories were costed for deeper wells. In many cases well depth data was available but if not, the well depth was assumed to be 1.5 times intake water depth which was the median value for those facilities that had provided both water and well depth data. Other variables include saltwater versus freshwater, which primarily affected screen costs due to differences in material costs, and the presence of a canal or intake channel. Where a canal or intake channel was present, cost for the added fish return flume length was added.

Capital Cost Components:

The total estimated capital costs for modifying and/ or adding traveling screens consists of the following cost components: 11 ° Traveling Screens ° Screen Installation ° Fine Mesh Overlays ° Spray Water Pumps ° Fish Flume ° Added Fish Flume Length for Those with Canals Table D presents the cost components and the percent of total cost of each component for a single 10ft wide 25 ft deep through flow traveling screen. A 10 ft wide screen was selected as an example because it represents a commonly used standard screen size and the 25 ft depth was selected based on the median values from the detailed data. Dual flow screens would present a similar cost mix as shown in Table D but with slightly higher costs for the screen equipment component. Note that the proportions given are for facilities without canals. For those with canals, the fish flume component would be a higher proportion depending on the canal length.

TABLE D Compliance Module Scenarios and Corresponding Cost Component Relative Proportions for 10 ft Wide and 25 ft Deep Screen Well Compliance Action Cost Component Included in EPA Cost Estimates Existing Technology Traveling Screens Without Fish Return Traveling Screens With Fish Return Module 2  Add Fine Mesh Only ( Scenario A) New Screen Unit NA 0%

Screen Installation NA 0%

Add Fine Mesh Screen Overlay NA 100%

Add Spray Water Pumps NA 0%

Add Fish Flume NA 0%

Module 1  Add Fish Handling Only ( Scenario B) New Screen Unit1 Freshwater 67% Saltwater 80% NA Screen Installation Freshwater 14% Saltwater 9% NA Add Fine Mesh Screen Overlay2 0% NA 12 Add Spray Water Pumps Freshwater 2% Saltwater 1% NA Add Fish Flume Freshwater 17% Saltwater 10% NA Module 2  Add Fine Mesh With Fish Handling ( Scenario C and Dual Flow Traveling Screens) New Screen Unit Freshwater 63% Saltwater 74% NA Add Fine Mesh Screen Overlay Freshwater 6% Saltwater 7% NA Add Spray Water Pumps Freshwater 2% Saltwater 1% NA Add Fish Flume Freshwater 16% Saltwater 9% NA 1 Replace entire screen unit, includes one set of smooth top or fine mesh screen. 2 Add fine mesh includes costs for a separate set of overlay fine mesh screen panels that can be placed in front of coarser mesh screens on a seasonal basis. 3 Does not include initial installation labor for fine mesh overlays. Seasonal deployment and removal of fine mesh overlays is included in O& M costs.

Screen Equipment As can be seen in Table D the majority of the screen costs are for the screen units. Screen equipment costs were obtained from vendors, one set for freshwater only in 1999 and one set for freshwater and saltwater in 2002. EPA found that the 2002 costs for freshwater screens were about 10% to 30% less than the 1999 cost even after adjusting for inflation. The screen cost data were reported by the vendors as " budget" level estimates ( i. e.,+ 30% to  15%). EPA chose the higher 1999 costs ( adjusted to 2001) because they were most suited for application to the selected screen size scenarios and as a conservative ( high cost side) approach. The ratio of saltwater to freshwater screens from the 2002 data was used to derive corresponding saltwater screen costs. Thus, the screen equipment costs for both freshwater and saltwater have an accuracy equivalent to budget level estimates and may be biased on the high side by 10% to 30%.

Screen Installation Costs Screen installation costs are much more variable than the equipment costs and can increase by 30% if screens must be installed in sections due to overhead obstructions. Two vendors provided values that differed by about 50% but all noted that site specific situations made estimating " typical" installation costs was difficult. The installation costs were adjusted for screen size and selected to span the range of costs cited. Thus, the installation costs should be considered as having the accuracy of a budget estimate. 13 Fine Mesh Overlays Fine mesh overlays are calculated as a percent of screen costs. A vendor quoted that the cost would be 8 to 10% of the screen equipment costs and EPA chose to use a 10% factor resulting in a slight bias on the high side. Otherwise these costs should have the same accuracy as the cost of the screen equipment alone. The assumption of using fine mesh overlays rather than permanent fine mesh screens for scenario C would be a conservative assumption for locations that do not have seasonal debris problems. This assumption increases the confidence that the module would not underestimate costs where seasonal debris problems exist.

Spray Water Pump Costs As show in Table D, the spray pump costs only contribute around 1% to 2% of the total costs and thus will not contribute significantly to variations in the data accuracy. However, as noted in the O& M discussion below the estimated volume of spray water has a significant effect on the O& M costs. Spray water pump costs are derived based on a vendor supplied water use factor per ft of total screen width. Only the additional volume needed for the low pressure fish spray component is costed for additional pumps. A range of 26.6 to 74.5 gpm/ ft total flow was cited by vendors. Only one vendor gave a breakdown between the two requirements as 17.4 gpm for debris and 20.2 for the fish spray. EPA chose a 30 gpm rate for the fish spray as a conservative ( high end) rate, which when compared to the single 20.2 gpm/ ft example may bias the flow upward by nearly 50%. The pump equipment and installation costs are based on flow and engineering unit costs for similar equipment and thus should be viewed as having the accuracy of a budget estimate but biased towards the high side.

Fish Flume The cost of fish return flumes will vary with flow volume and length, and other site specific factors. All facilities that did not already have a fish return in place received costs for a fish flume. The flumes are sized to return the entire flow generated ( 60 gpm/ ft screen width) which as noted above may be biased toward the high side. A screen vendor cited flume lengths of 75 ft to 150 ft and survey data for facilities without canals reported a length of 30 ft to 300 ft. EPA chose the high end of this range of 300 ft as a conservative estimate of a " typical" installation. Thus, the flume length chosen by EPA may be biased upward by up to 100%. EPA notes that in some tidal applications two return flumes are used to ensure that the debris is deposited downstream and this assumption ensures that such situations are accounted for.

For those facilities that reported the intake was at the end of a canal, an additional costs was added to account for the added distance needed to reach the main waterbody. This additional length was set equal to the canal length and was an additional cost above the 300 ft length. Note that the 300 ft length provides for placement of the debris discharge away from the intake. Flume costs include costs for PVC pipe and support pilings spaced at 10 ft. Costs for a 12 in diameter PVC pipe were developed from RS Means data and then converted to a rate of $ 10.15/ inch dia. 14 ft length including sitework and indirect costs. Flume diameter was calculated based on an assumed velocity when full of 1.5 fps. As such, the flume costs are based on engineering design assumptions that are conservative ( high side) for the " typical" site to increase confidence that this component will not be underestimated. Therefore, the cost estimates should be viewed as having the accuracy of a budget estimate and may be biased towards the high side.

Module 2 Scenario A The relative accuracy of these cost estimates should be equal to that of the screen equipment (+ 30% to  15%) and the cost factor ( 10%) which could be biased toward the high side by an additional 10% ( the Agency used the 10% factor as opposed to the 9% midpoint between 8% and 10%).

Module 1 Scenario B The screen equipment costs which have an estimated accuracy of + 30% to  15% accounts for 67% to 80% and may be biased toward the high side by 10% to 30% for the example screen. The remaining components are considered as also having an accuracy of a budget estimate and also may be biased toward the high side for spray water pumps and flume length.

Module 2 Scenario C The screen equipment costs which have an estimated accuracy of + 30% to  15% accounts for 63% to 74% of the costs and may be biased toward the high side by 10% to 30% for the example screen. The remaining components are also considered as having an accuracy of a budget estimate and also may be biased toward the high side for spray water pumps and flume length.

Module 11 Scenario C ( Dual flow)

The capital costs for dual flow screens were developed by multiplying the through flow screen total costs by factors recommended by a vendor. Thus, the component proportions and relative accuracy should be similar to that for through flow screens.

Traveling Screen O& M Costs Baseline O& M Costs O& M costs for facilities that have traveling screens in place are calculated on a net basis. In other words a cost estimate is calculated for the existing intake screens and then subtracted from the compliance technology O& M cost estimate. As such, there is an additional O& M cost option for traveling screens without fish returns. In general, this option involves less operating time, no extra fish spray pumping and as a result labor, power, and parts replacement costs ( less wear and tear) are lower. All assumption for this baseline option are based on vendor estimates of " typical" 15 operations. In addition, the costs derived under Module 2 Scenario B also served as the basis for baseline O& M costs for facilities with existing traveling screens with fish returns.

Net cost calculations were limited to facilities where the compliance technology was an upgraded version of the traveling screen technology or where the existing traveling screen technology was being replaced in function and would no longer be required. An example is where fine mesh passive screens replaced traveling screens. An example where baseline costs were not deducted is the addition of fish barrier nets. The accuracy of the net O& M costs are therefore, a combination of the accuracies of the positive and negative components. When deviations of the module results from the actual costs of both components ( baseline and compliance) have the same sign (+ or ), the differences will tend to cancel each other out somewhat. But when they have different signs, the accuracy of the net value will be reduced.

For facilities with fixed screens or other non traveling type screen technologies, no baseline costs were deducted because there was no reliable way to estimate baseline O& M costs. This results in a bias toward the high side of net O& M costs for these facilities since even for fixed screens there would be certain amount of labor associated with periodically inspecting and cleaning the screens.

O& M Input Variables The O& M costs use the same input variables, total screen width, well depth and saltwater versus freshwater as the capital costs ( see discussion above).

O& M Cost Components O& M costs consist of labor, power requirements, and parts replacement. Table E presents the corresponding O& M cost component relative proportions for 10 ft wide and 25 ft deep screen well. 16 TABLE E Compliance Module Scenarios and Corresponding O& M Cost Component Relative Proportions for 10 ft Wide and 25 ft Deep Screen Well Compliance Action Cost Component Included in EPA Cost Estimates Existing Technology Traveling Screens Without Fish Return Traveling Screens With Fish Return Module 2  Add Fine Mesh Only( First Column) and Add Fine Mesh With Fish Handling( Second Column) ( Scenarios A and C)* Basic Labor Freshwater 35% Saltwater 29% Freshwater 35% Saltwater 29%

Overlay Labor Freshwater 15% Saltwater 12% Freshwater 15% Saltwater 12%

Motor Power Freshwater 2% Saltwater 2% Freshwater 2% Saltwater 2%

Pump Power Freshwater 30% Saltwater 26% Freshwater 30% Saltwater 26%

Parts Freshwater 18% Saltwater 31% Freshwater 18% Saltwater 31%

Module 1  Add Fish Handling Only ( Scenario B) Basic Labor Freshwater 41% Saltwater 33% NA Overlay Labor 0% NA Motor Power Freshwater 2% Saltwater 2% NA Pump Power Freshwater36 % Saltwater 29% NA Parts Freshwater 21% Saltwater 35% NA * The O& M costs are assumed to be he same for compliance scenarios A and C but the net costs will be different for each since the baseline technologies are different.

Basic Labor A vendor provided general guidelines for estimating basic labor requirements for traveling screens as averaging 200 hours and ranging from 100 to 300 hours per year per screen for coarse mesh screens without fish handling and double that for fine mesh screens with fish handling ( Gathright 2002). If the range shown represented a single screen size then the accuracy would be roughly 17 + 50% to  50%, however a good portion of this variation in hours is related to intake size. Estimates for various screen sizes were scaled to span these ranges. Thus, the accuracy of the basic labor cost estimates should be considered as having the accuracy of a budget estimate because it included estimated hours. The hourly wage rate is fairly accurate as discussed under passive screens above.

Overlay labor Overlay labor is based on recommended screen change out times per screen panel. The number of screen panels is very accurate for each screen and so the accuracy of the labor estimate is associated with the accuracy of the estimated time for placing each screen overlay and whether the annual frequency estimate of once per year was correct. As such, it is reasonable to consider the overlay labor estimate as having an accuracy of a definitive estimate.

Motor and Pump Power Power requirements for the motors comprises only 2% of the total and therefore will not be discussed. The spray water pump requirements, however, could be significant. Several aspects of the pump power requirements tend to bias these costs upward. The first as described in the pump capital costs above is that the flow rate chosen was somewhat biased toward the high side. Secondly, the pump power requirements are based on the entire flow being pumped to the high pressure needed for debris removal. If the low pressure stream results from passing through a regulator from a high pressure pump then this is a valid assumption. However, if a separate set of low and high pressure pumps are used, then this assumption will result in an overestimation of the pump energy and therefore power requirements. As the flow requirements are based on engineering estimates, it is reasonable to consider the pump power estimate as having the accuracy of a budget estimate but potentially biased toward the high side.

Parts replacement These costs are based entirely on proportions of the screen equipment costs using rough estimates provided by a vendor. As such, it is reasonable to consider the pump power estimate as having the accuracy of a budget estimate but potentially biased on the high side since it is based on a factor multiplied by the screen equipment costs.

Overall O& M Costs for Through flow Screens In general, the Agency views the best way to quantify the accuracy of the components as being on the order of a conceptual estimate with bias towards the high side for the components as noted.

Dual flow Screens The O& M costs for dual flow screens ( Scenario C only) were calculated as a fixed proportion of 18 through flow screen costs reported by a vendor as the typical values they have observed. As this factor itself is a rough estimate, the dual flow screen O& M estimates will reflect similar accuracies as the through flow screens.

LARGER INTAKES Cost Module Covered:

° Module # 3: Add New Larger Intake Structure with Fine Mesh, Handling and Return Larger Intake Capital Costs Input Variables In this case the independent variable was the estimated " compliance total screen width" which was calculated in a similar manner as the baseline total screen width used in the traveling screen cost estimates. As with the traveling screens, use of screen sizes, rather than flow alone, increases the confidence in the accuracy of the estimates Differences in calculating the compliance screen width include using a through screen velocity of 1.0 fps ( instead of the actual velocity or data median of 1.5 fps that was used for the baseline) and a percent open area ( POA) of 50% instead of 68% that was used for baseline total screen width. The 50% POA is consistent with use of fine mesh screens. In this case the independent variable may be biased toward the low side if facilities select a lower through screen velocity than 1.0 fps. This same independent variable was used for estimating the capital and O& M costs for dual flow traveling screens installed in the new larger intake.

Overall Accuracy The new larger intake costs are based on a detailed engineering estimate of costs for a larger intake located just in front of the existing intake. A review of the construction components, component quantities and indirect costs does not indicate any items that may have been estimated in a way that would tend to bias the cost estimates either high or lower. Unit costs are based on costs reported in RS Means Costworks 2001. Considering the detailed nature of the estimation method, the cost estimate should be viewed as having the accuracy of a budget estimate.

Larger Intake O& M Costs No separate O& M costs were derived for the structure itself since the majority of the O& M activities are covered in the O& M costs for the traveling screens to be installed in the new structure.

FISH BARRIER NETS 19 Cost Module Covered:

° Module # 5: Add Fish Barrier Net Barrier Net Capital Costs Input Variables In this case the independent variable was the design intake flow. A secondary variable was freshwater versus saltwater. Water depth was considered in the development of saltwater barrier nets but a single depth close to the median value reported by facilities was used in the application. Different support and anchor strategies were used in freshwater and saltwater. These different approaches to freshwater and saltwater applications increases the confidence in the cost estimates by accounting for differences in design due to the presence of tidal currents in saltwater environments. Research indicated that nets are designed on a site specific basis and that limited engineering guidelines to follow exist. Therefore, the barrier net costs are based on design and cost data from two facilities with barrier nets that had similar net velocities. The estimates were not just simple scaled costs but rather an evaluation of each cost component was performed and then scaled for different sizes. Barrier net costs are primarily based on the required net size and support structures/ equipment. Two facilities, one on a lake and another on an estuary, reported essentially the same velocity of 0.06 fps. Lacking more detailed engineering guidelines, use of actual reported net velocities was determined to be the best method to develop relatively accurate net costs.

Freshwater Barrier Nets ( Scenario A)

Net costs are based on the unit costs in dollars/ sq ft for both the installed net and a back up replacement for the example facility. The freshwater unit costs include costs for shipping, floats and anchors. The freshwater facility cost data indicated that the unit costs used may be biased slightly toward the high side if shallower nets are used ( e. g., 10 ft or less). The example facility had a net depth of 20 ft. The total reported installation cost was split into a fixed component of 20% ( based on BPJ) and a variable dollar/ sq ft component. While this module will provide a definitive estimate quality estimates of the net costs at facilities similar to the example facilities, the fact that there are limited guidelines indicates that actual designs may vary considerably tending to temper the accuracy of this module to an accuracy of a conceptual design estimate.

Saltwater Barrier Nets ( Scenario B)

In this scenario, net costs are based on using two concentric nets, supported on pilings as is the case with the example facility. The costs for the nets are base on the costs cited by both the facility and its supplier. Costs for the pilings are based on engineering design using the 20 ft spacing at the example facility and RS Means unit costs for barge driven piles. Costs were derived for depths of 10 ft, 20 ft, and 30 ft. However, in developing the compliance cost 20 estimates, only the 20 ft depth was used. In the case of this saltwater net design, shallower depths will tend to drive costs upward due to the requirement for more pilings. While this module will provide definitive estimate quality estimates of the net costs at facilities similar to the example facilities, the fact that there are no guidelines indicates that actual designs may vary considerably tending to temper the accuracy of this module to an accuracy of a conceptual design estimate.

Barrier Net O& M Costs Input Variables O& M costs use the same independent variables as capital costs. Duration of deployment was also considered.

Freshwater Barrier Nets The O& M costs are based on reported labor requirements and net replacement rates. The period of deployment is also important. The example facility reported a deployment period of 120 but others reported longer periods. EPA chose to base the costs on a deployment period of 240 days as a conservative ( high side) estimate. EPA scaled up the labor hours cited by the facility and added an additional net section replacement step. Costs for the example facility were developed and then converted to a straight line cost curve by assuming 20% of costs were fixed. While this module will provide a definitive estimate quality estimates of the net O& M costs at facilities similar to the example facilities, as with the O& M costs, the fact that there are no guidelines indicates that actual operations may vary considerably tending to temper the accuracy of this module to an accuracy of a budget estimate with a potentially biased toward the high side.

EPA notes that other O& M costs reported in literature are often less than what results from the cost module. For example, 1985 O& M cost estimates for the JP Pulliam plant ($ 7,500/ year, adjusted to 2002 dollars) calculate to $ 11,800 ( compared to $ 57,000 for the example facility) for a design flow roughly half that of example facility. This suggests the scenario A estimates represent the high end of the range of freshwater barrier net O& M costs ( biased upward as noted above). Other O& M estimates that also were lower, however, do not describe the cost components that are included and can not be used for comparison since they may not represent all cost components.

Saltwater Barrier Nets The saltwater barrier net O& M costs are based on the net maintenance contractor costs plus replacement net costs. Nearly all of the O& M labor for Chalk Point facility is performed by a marine contractor who charges $ 1,400 per job to simultaneously remove the existing net and replace it with a cleaned net. The reported annual job frequency was used along with the reported net replacement rate. As with the capital costs, while this module will provide a accuracy of a definitive estimate at the example facility, the fact that actual designs may vary considerably 21 indicates that the accuracy of this module can be considered as having the accuracy of a budget estimate VELOCITY CAPS Cost Module Covered:

° Module # 8: Add Velocity Cap at Submerged Inlet EPA identified only one vendor that supplied preconstructed velocity caps. This appears to be primarily due the fact that, for many installations, velocity caps are custom designed and constructed.

Velocity Cap Capital Costs Input Variables The primary input variable was design intake flow. Freshwater versus saltwater was an additional variable that affected equipment costs.

Capital Cost Components:

Capital costs consist of equipment, installation, and mobilization/ demobilization. For higher flows, multiple heads are used with the costs including inlet piping modifications. The saltwater/ freshwater differences are due to use of different materials. The vendor was very confident about the equipment, installation, and mobilization/ demobilization costs as they had performed numerous recent jobs. The mobilization/ demobilization costs were reported as a range of $ 15,000 to $ 30,000. This was applied such that the range spanned the range of flow rates costed.

The proportion of the total for equipment costs ranged from 39% for a 5,000 gpm freshwater intake to 71% for a 350,000 gpm freshwater intake and were roughly 7% less for saltwater. Due to the apparent limited number of prefabricated cap suppliers and the confidence expressed by the vendor the equipment portion should be considered as having an accuracy of a definitive estimate and the remainder having an accuracy of a budget estimate. This estimate of accuracy should be limited to the use of prefabricated velocity caps. As noted above many are custom designed built onsite and in those instances costs may vary considerably. This will tend to temper the accuracy of this module to an accuracy somewhere between a budget and a conceptual estimate when multiple methods of construction are considered.

Velocity Cap O& M Costs Input Variables 22 The primary input variable was design intake flow. Freshwater versus saltwater was not considered as significant source of valiance in the O& M costs.

O& M Cost Components Since this was a passive technology, O& M costs were limited to periodic inspection and cleaning by a dive team. The same per day dive team costs that were applied to the passive screen O& M costs are applied to the velocity cap O& M costs. As such, the dive team costs are considered as fairly accurate but the duration and frequency estimates are considered as less accurate resulting in an overall accuracy of a budget estimate.

AQUATIC FILTER BARRIERS Cost Module Covered:

° Module # 6: Add Aquatic Filter Barrier Net ( Gunderboom)

Currently only one vendor ( Gunderboom Inc.) is available to design install this technology. The technology has been demonstrated but is still somewhat in the developmental stage.

Aquatic Filter Barrier Capital Costs Input Variables Design intake flow was the primary variable.

Capital Costs The cost data was provided for three flow values by the vendor in 1999 prior to any full scale installations. Three different capital costs representing low, average and high costs were provided. These costs have been adjusted for inflation. The average costs were selected to served as the basis for compliance costs for this module. No updated costs based on recent experience were made available. Given the lack of recent experience input the cost estimates should be considered as having an accuracy somewhere between a budget ands a conceptual estimate. Also note that additional filter fabric grades with different ( mostly larger) pore sizes are now available. An increase in pore size can reduce the lateral forces acting on the barrier resulting in the ability to reduce the required barrier total effective area. This in turn can result in reduced costs.

The vendor recently provided a total capital cost estimate of 8 to 10 million dollars for full scale MLESTM system at the Arthur Kill Power Station in Staten Island, NY. The vendor is in the process of conducting a pilot study with an estimated cost of $ 750,000. The NYDEC reported the permitted cooling water flow rate for the Arthur Kill facility as 713 mgd or 495,000 gpm. 23 Applying the cost equations results in a total capital cost of $ 8.7, $ 10.1 and $ 12.4 million dollars for low, average and high costs, respectively. These data indicate that the inflation adjusted cost for an average cost estimate in this application are within the accuracy range of a budget estimate. However, the cost estimates provided by Gunderboom are themselves estimates and may or may not accurately reflect project costs after completion. The vendor estimate for this project do however, indicate the vendors confidence in the module estimates at least in this flow range. The vendor had expressed a concern that for low flow applications the module costs may be too high. The range of module results ( low and high) shown for the above example are consistent with budget estimate accuracy when compared to the average.

O& M Costs Input Variables Design intake flow was the primary variable.

O& M Costs O& M costs are for the operation of the airburst system and fabric curtain maintenance. The cost estimates were obtained in a similar manner as the capital costs but in this case there was no recent corroboration of the original estimates. The range between the low, average, and high cost estimates indicate that the average O& M cost estimates should be considered as having an accuracy of a conceptual estimate and the cost estimates may be somewhat more accurate for higher flows. 24 REFERENCES AACE. American Association of Cost Engineers. Certification Study Guide. AACE International. 1996.

Whitaker, J. Hendrick Screens. Telephone contact report with John Sunda, SAIC regarding accuracy of Passive Screen Costs. February 3, 2004.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 142 (Monday, July 25, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48373-48374]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17405]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 171

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0183; FRL-9947-75]
RIN 2070-AJ20

Notification of Submission to the Secretary of Agriculture;
Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide Applicators

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notification of submission to the Secretary of Agriculture.

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

SUMMARY: This document notifies the public as required by the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) that the EPA
Administrator has forwarded to the Secretary of the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) a draft regulatory document concerning
the certification of pesticide applicators rule revisions. The draft
regulatory document is not available to the public until after it has
been signed and made available by EPA.

DATES: See Unit I. under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0183, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading
Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading
Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is
(703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional
information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Arling, Field and External
Affairs Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What action is EPA taking?

    Section 25(a)(2)(B) of FIFRA requires the EPA Administrator to
provide the Secretary of USDA with a copy of any draft final rule at
least 30 days before signing it in final form for publication in the
Federal Register. The draft final rule is not available to the public
until

after it has been signed by EPA. If the Secretary of USDA comments in
writing regarding the draft final rule within 15 days after receiving
it, the EPA Administrator shall include the comments of the Secretary
of USDA, if requested by the Secretary of USDA, and the EPA
Administrator's response to those comments with the final rule that
publishes in the Federal Register. If the Secretary of USDA does not
comment in writing within 15 days after receiving the draft final rule,
the EPA Administrator may sign the final rule for publication in the
Federal Register any time after the 15-day period.

II. Do any statutory and executive order reviews apply to this
notification?

    No. This document is merely a notification of submission to the
Secretary of USDA. As such, none of the regulatory assessment
requirements apply to this document.

List of Subjects in Part 171

    Environmental protection, Agricultural worker safety, Applicator
competency, Pesticide safety training, Pesticide worker safety,
Pesticides and pests, Restricted use pesticides.

    Dated: July 15, 2016.
Jack E. Housenger,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2016-17405 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 16, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 94)]
[Notices]
[Page 28316]
[DOCID:fr16my06-67]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-349-000]

Southern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Fuel Sharing Refund
Report

May 9, 2006.
    Take notice that on May 5, 2006, Southern Natural Gas Company
(Southern) tendered for filing a refund report showing refunds that
were made to Southern's customers regarding fuel over-recovery pursuant
to Section 35 (Fuel Sharing Mechanism) of the General Terms and
Conditions of Southern's tariff for the period March 1, 2005-February
28, 2006.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated
below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or
protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve
motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time May 16, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-7382 Filed 5-15-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 17, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68925-68926]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27146]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC20-25-000.
    Applicants: BP America Production Company.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act, et al. of BP America Production Company.
    Filed Date: 12/11/19.
    Accession Number: 20191211-5061.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/2/20

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1882-004.
    Applicants: PSEG Energy Resources & Trade LLC.
    Description: Report Filing: Record Effective Date for Keystone and
Conemaugh Cancellation to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 10/17/19.
    Accession Number: 20191017-5097.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/2/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2013-009; ER15-2020-007.
    Applicants: Talen Energy Marketing, LLC., Talen Montana, LLC.
    Description: Notification of Change in Status of the Talen
Northwest MBR Sellers.
    Filed Date: 12/11/19.
    Accession Number: 20191211-5045.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/2/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2050-003.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.,
GridLiance Heartland LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2019-12-10_Deficiency Response
GridLiance Heartland Attachment O to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 12/10/19.
    Accession Number: 20191210-5074.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/31/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2567-001.
    Applicants: FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing to Reflect
Effective Date for Rate Schedule FERC No. 1 to be effective 11/7/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/10/19.
    Accession Number: 20191210-5143.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/31/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-90-004.
    Applicants: Clean Energy Future--Lordstown, LLC.
    Description: Report Filing: Refund Report to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 12/10/19.
    Accession Number: 20191210-5100.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/31/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-557-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Second Revised ISA No. 3767;
Queue No. AC2-117 to be effective 11/10/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/10/19.
    Accession Number: 20191210-5188
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/31/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-558-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: DEC-NCEMC NITSA Amendment
(SA No. 210) to be effective 1/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/11/19.
    Accession Number: 20191211-5002.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/2/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-559-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Progress, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: DEP-City of Camden, SC
Reimbursement Agmt (RS No. 378) to be effective 2/10/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/11/19.
    Accession Number: 20191211-5003.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/2/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-560-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 3055R2 Associated Electric
Cooperative, Inc. NITSA NOA to be effective 8/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/11/19.
    Accession Number: 20191211-5044.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/2/20

    Docket Numbers: ER20-561-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Progress, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: DEP Rate Schedule No. 381
(Nuclear Decomissioning) to be effective 1/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/11/19.
    Accession Number: 20191211-5066.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/2/20

    Docket Numbers: ER20-562-000.
    Applicants: AEP Texas Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: AEPTX-LCRA TSC (Stafford
Hill) Facility Development Agreement to be effective 12/4/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/11/19.
    Accession Number: 20191211-5092.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/2/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-563-000.
    Applicants: San Diego Gas & Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2020 SDGE RS Annual Update
to Transmission Owner Tariff to be effective 1/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/11/19.
    Accession Number: 20191211-5096.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/2/20

    Docket Numbers: ER20-564-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Pinnacle ISA,
SA No. 2432; Queue No. N47 (amend) to be effective 2/3/2010.
    Filed Date: 12/11/19.
    Accession Number: 20191211-5103.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/2/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-565-000.
    Applicants: Louisville Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Interconnection with
Gridliance and notice of termination of EEI Interconnection to be
effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 12/11/19.
    Accession Number: 20191211-5113.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/2/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-566-000.
    Applicants: Kentucky Utilities Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: KU Concurrence to Gridliance
Rate Schedule 512 to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 12/11/19.
    Accession Number: 20191211-5123.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/2/20

    Docket Numbers: ER20-567-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2019-12-11 EIM
Implementation Agreement with Avista Corporation to be effective 4/1/
2020.

    Filed Date: 12/11/19.
    Accession Number: 20191211-5124.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/2/20.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying
facility filings:

    Docket Numbers: QF20-388-000.
    Applicants: Lancaster General Hospital.
    Description: Form 556 of Lancaster General Hospital.
    Filed Date: 12/11/19.
    Accession Number: 20191211-5030.
    Comments Due: None-Applicable.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    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.
    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: December 11, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-27146 Filed 12-16-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 125 (Thursday, June 28, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30444-30445]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13922]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0348; FRL-9979-77-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants
(Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR)--NESHAP for Primary Aluminum
Reduction Plants (Renewal), EPA ICR No. 1767.08, OMB Control No. 2060-
0360--to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a
proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through June
30, 2018. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal
Register on June 29, 2017, during a 60-day comment period. This notice
allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller
description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden
and cost to the public. An Agency may neither conduct nor sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to a collection of information,
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 30, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2013-0348, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to [email protected], or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email
to [email protected]. Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov, or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants (40 CFR part
63, subpart LL) were proposed on September 26, 1996, promulgated on
October 7, 1997, and most-recently amended on October 15, 2015. The
2015 amendment includes: (1) Polycyclic organic matter (POM) emission
limits for new, existing and reconstructed prebake potlines; (2)
revised POM limits for new, existing and reconstructed Soderberg
potlines; (3) carbonyl sulfide (COS) emission limits for new, existing
and reconstructed potlines; (4) POM emission limits for existing pitch
storage tanks; (5) particulate matter (PM) emission limits for new,
existing and reconstructed potlines, paste production plants and anode
bake furnaces; (6) mercury (Hg) limits for new, existing and
reconstructed anode bake furnaces;

(7) arsenic, nickel and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) limits for new,
existing and reconstructed Soderberg potlines; (8) new work practice
standards for anode bake furnaces, paste production plants and
potlines; and (9) eliminates the exemptions for periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunctions (SSM). The amendment also reduces the
testing frequency for total fluoride (TF) from prebake and Soderberg
potlines and POM from Soderberg potlines from monthly to semiannually.
These regulations apply to the following affected sources at a primary
aluminum reduction plant are covered: Each new and existing pitch
storage tank, potline, paste production plant and anode bake furnace
that is located at a plant site that is a major source as defined at
Sec.  63.2 (except for anode bake furnaces that are not located on the
same site as a primary aluminum reduction plant). New facilities
include those that commenced construction or reconstruction after the
date of proposal.
    In general, all NESHAP standards require initial notifications,
performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the
affected facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the
occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the
operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the
monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and
records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of
all affected facilities subject to NESHAP.
    Form numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Primary aluminum reduction plants.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart LL).
    Estimated number of respondents: 11 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially and semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 71,900 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $7,630,000 (per year), which includes $78,500
in either annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance
costs.
    Changes in the estimates: There is an adjustment decrease in the
total estimated burden as currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved Burdens. This decrease is primarily due to a program change.
The 2015 amendment reduces the frequency of TF performance tests from
monthly to semiannually. This ICR combines burden from the existing
provisions with the burden associated with the 2015 amendment to the
rule, resulting in a net decrease in burden. Additionally, there is an
adjustment decrease because the total number of affected sources has
decreased as compared to the most recently-approved ICR. There is an
adjustment decrease in the total estimated capital and O&M costs as
compared to the most recently approved ICR. This decrease occurred
because there is a decrease in the total number of respondents subject
to the rule.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2018-13922 Filed 6-27-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P