Technology Costing Modules Applied to Model Facilities EPA developed the following costing modules for assessing model facility compliance costs for the Notice of Data Availability ( NODA):

1. Fish handling and return system ( impingement only) 2. Fine mesh traveling screens with fish handling and return ( impingement & entrainment) 3. New larger intake structure with fine mesh, handling and return ( impingement & entrainment) 4. Passive fine mesh screens at shoreline ( impingement & entrainment) 5. Fish barrier net ( impingement only) 6. Gunderboom ( impingement & entrainment) 7. Relocate intake to submerged offshore with passive fine mesh screen ( impingement & entrainment) 8. Velocity cap at inlet of offshore submerged ( impingement only) 9. Passive fine mesh screen at inlet of offshore submerged ( impingement & entrainment) 10. Add/ modify shoreline tech for submerged offshore ( impingement only or I& E) 11. Add double entry, single exit with fine mesh and fish handling and return ( impingement & entrainment)

The derivation and background for each of these technology modules is presented in public record under the item titled, " 316( b) Phase II NODA Cost Modules."

For the main NODA option, each model facility had three potential compliance actions: ( 1) no impingement and entrainment controls, ( 2) impingement controls only, or ( 3) impingement controls plus entrainment controls. A facility qualifies for compliance action ( 1) if it has recirculating cooling systems in place. Figures 1 and 2 at the end of this document provide a decision tree for assigning compliance actions ( 2) and ( 3) to the in scope Phase II model facilities. The following files included in the public record present a roadmap of technology upgrades for those facilities and intakes receiving compliance actions ( 2) and ( 3):

  316b_ Phase2_ DQ_ MainOpt_ Estuary. xls ( compliance actions for estuarine and tidal river facilities responding to the detailed questionnaire)   316b_ Phase2_ DQ_ MainOpt_ FreshRiver. xls ( compliance actions for freshwater river and stream facilities responding to the detailed questionnaire)   316b_ Phase2_ DQ_ MainOpt_ Lake_ Ocean_ GL. xls ( compliance actions for freshwater lake and reservoir, Great Lake, and ocean facilities responding to the detailed questionnaire)   316b_ Phase2_ STQ_ MainOpt_ Estuary. xls ( compliance actions for estuarine and tidal river facilities responding to the short technical questionnaire)   316b_ Phase2_ STQ_ MainOpt_ FreshRiver. xls ( compliance actions for freshwater river and stream facilities responding to the short technical questionnaire)   316b_ Phase2_ STQ_ MainOpt_ Estuary. xls ( compliance actions for freshwater lake and reservoir, Great Lake, and ocean facilities responding to the short tech. questionnaire)

Of the modules listed above, numbers 1, 5, 8, and in some cases 10 are dedicated to impingement controls alone. The Agency generally applied the remainder of the technology modules ( including number 10 in some instances) for cases where the model facility received entrainment and impingement requirements.

In the cases that a facility had a functional impingement control system at baseline and was deemed to require upgrades to entrainment controls, the Agency generally assigned costs to the Technology Costing Modules Applied to Model Facilities, cont.

2 model facility to upgrade the existing impingement controls in addition to the entrainment upgrade. The Agency learned through its research subsequent to the February 2002 proposal that in most cases when upgrading a technology for entrainment controls, the effort and cost of replacing the attached impingement controls generally compared with the effort and cost to retain and reuse the existing impingement controls ( for more details, see the traveling screen technology module documentation). The Agency assigned entrainment only ( with no additional impingement upgrade costs) requirements to a few unique situations for the main option in the NODA. This included the case of a low velocity, double entry, single exit screening system operating in place at baseline. The Agency assigned only the costs associated with adding finemesh overlays for this system because the model facility had additional, redundant impingement technologies in place. In addition, those facilities with barrier net systems in place that required entrainment upgrades received only the entrainment system costs, as the existing barrier net would be functional regardless of changes to an intake structure.

The Agency based its approach of assigning costing modules to model facilities on a combination of facility and intake specific questionnaire data in addition to satellite photos and overhead maps, where available. Because not all facilities received the same questionnaire, the Agency attempted to utilize data responses to questions that were asked in both the short technical and detailed questionnaires whenever possible. In the end, the primary difference in data analysis between short technical and detailed questionnaire respondents was the level to which the Agency developed costs. The short technical questionnaire responses did not provide significant intake level data, outside of intake identification information and velocity. For instance, for the short technical questionnaire, the Agency did not obtain intake specific information on the exact technology in place for each intake. The Agency instead obtained technology in place information at the facility level for short technical questionnaires. Necessarily, the Agency utilized this facility level information for the short technical respondents and treated the facility as though it were a single intake with the characteristics reported for the facility. For the detailed questionnaire facilities, the Agency obtained sufficient intake level information to develop individual costing decisions for each intake.

The Agency utilized questionnaire data as the primary tool in the assessment of the types of intake technologies applied at each model facility. For those facilities utilizing recirculating cooling systems in place, the Agency assigned no compliance actions as they met the standards at baseline. For those with once through, combination, other, or unknown cooling system types, the Agency treated the facility as though all intakes were of once through configuration. The Agency chose this method so as to conservatively estimate the compliance costs, as the Agency's methodology utilizes flow as the independent variable. The Agency then determined those intakes ( facilities) that met compliance requirements with technologies in place. These facilities received no capital or annual operating and maintenance compliance upgrade costs ( although they may receive administrative or monitoring costs). The Agency then categorized facilities by questionnaire type ( that is, short technical questionnaire and detailed questionnaire respondents). Following the questionnaire division, the Agency categorized facilities according to waterbody type from which they withdraw cooling water. The Agency then sorted the intakes ( facilities) within each waterbody type based on their configuration as reported in the questionnaires. ( Note, as discussed above, the Agency examined short technical questionnaire facilities on the facility level and detailed questionnaire respondents by the intake level.)

Generally, the categories of intakes within one waterbody type are as follows: canal/ channel, bay/ embayment/ cove, shoreline, and offshore. Once the intake ( facility) is classified to this level the Agency examines the type of technology in place and compares that against the compliance requirements of the particular intake ( facility). For the case of entrainment requirements, the only intake technology ( outside of recirculating cooling) that qualifies to meet the requirements Technology Costing Modules Applied to Model Facilities, cont.

3 at baseline is a fine mesh screening system. Few intakes have fine mesh in place at baseline. Therefore, in the case of entrainment requirements, most facilities with the requirement would receive technology upgrades. The methodology for choosing these entrainment technologies is explained further on in this discussion. For the case of impingement requirements, there are a variety of intake technologies that qualify to meet the requirements at baseline. The intake types meeting impingement requirements at baseline include the following: barrier net ( the only fish diversion system which qualifies), passive intakes ( of a variety of types), and fish handling and return systems. A significant number of intakes ( facilities) have impingement technologies inplace Therefore, some intakes ( facilities) require no technology upgrades when only impingement requirements apply.

For facilities that do not pre qualify for impingement and/ or entrainment technology in place credits, the Agency focuses next on questionnaire data relating to the intake type   canal/ channel, bay/ embayment/ cove, shoreline, and offshore. Within each intake type, the Agency further classifies according to certain specific characteristics. For the case of bays, embayments, and coves, the Agency determined if the intake is flush, protruding, or recessed from shoreline. For the case of canals and channels, the Agency similarly focuses on whether the intake is flush, protruding, or recessed from a shoreline. In addition, the Agency calculates an approximate approach velocity using reported information on the canal flow rate and crosssectional area, where applicable ( specific to detailed questionnaire respondents only). The approximated approach velocity aided the Agency in verifying the reported mean intake velocity. For the case of shoreline intakes, the Agency necessarily assessed whether the intake is flush, protruding, or recessed. For the case of offshore intakes, the Agency examines whether or not the intake has an onshore terminus ( or well) and assesses the characteristics of the onshore system.

The information the Agency gathers up to this point is sufficient to narrow down the likely technology applications for each intake ( facility). However, in order to determine the best technology application, the Agency also utilizes commercially available satellite images and maps where available. The use of the satellite images and maps aided the Agency in determining the potential for the construction of expanded intakes in front of existing intakes, the degree of navigational traffic in the near vicinity of the intake, the potential for an intake modification to protrude into the waterbody ( such as a near shore t screen) and whether a protrusion might be tolerated, the possibility of installing a barrier net system, obvious signs of strong currents, the relative distance of a potentially relocated intake inlet, the possibility for fish return installations of moderate length, etcetera. The Agency was able to collect satellite images for most intakes ( facilities) for which it required the resource. However, in some cases ( especially those in the rural, mid western US), only maps were available. Hence, for the case of a significant number facilities located near small freshwater rivers/ streams and lakes/ reservoirs, the Agency utilized only the questionnaire data and the overhead maps available.

The Agency prepared a crosswalk and breakdown of the application of the technology modules. The crosswalk provides specific factors that EPA considered in the application of each module. The following sections provide the factors that the Agency used in determining the proper technology application and explain any exceptions to these cases.

Module 1  Add Fish Handling and Return System: This technology applies almost exclusively for the case of impingement only upgrades. The Agency applied this technology generally to facilities that when requiring the impingement only upgrade had an existing traveling screen system. The Agency applied this technology generally when the intake velocity of the intake ( facility) was roughly 1 ft/ sec or below. The rationale behind applying this technology in this case is that because the intake velocity is relatively low and the existing traveling screen system is Technology Costing Modules Applied to Model Facilities, cont.

4 functional, the fish handling and return system could be added to the operating system and would perform under these conditions. Vendors noted that approximately 75% of the existing screen components would require replacement when adding fish handling and return. It would be more prudent to replace the entire screen unit. ( See Traveling Screen cost module, page 5)

Module 2  Add Fine Mesh Travelling Screens with Fish Handling and Return: This technology generally applies for the case of impingement and entrainment upgrades. The Agency applied this technology to intakes ( facilities) with an existing traveling screen system in place. The Agency applied this technology when the intake velocity was roughly 1 ft/ sec or below. The rationale behind the application is similar to that of Module 1, in that the low existing velocity allowed for replacement of the existing screen overlays without expanding the size of the intake appreciably to lower the velocity. As a general approach, the Agency applied this technology to a variety of waterbody types and intake locations ( such as in canals, in coves, and along shorelines). Note: in addition to adding fine mesh screens that this technology also replaces the fish handling and return system of the intake. Note: this scenario requires replacement of all screen units with units that include fish handling and return features plus additional spray water pumps and a fish return flume. Note: for those facility with existing screens and fish handling and return and only entrainment reduction is required only fine mesh screen overlay panels is applied.. See the documentation for this particular module for more information.

Module 3  Add New Larger Intake Structure with Fine Mesh, Handling and Return: This technology generally applies for the case of impingement and entrainment upgrades. However, in a few select cases, the Agency applied it for the case of impingement only, more on that below. The Agency applied this technology to intakes with a variety of onshore configurations. The Agency applied this technology when the intake velocity was above roughly 1 ft/ sec. The rationale behind the application is that demonstrated cases of operable fine mesh screening systems for large plants have used design velocities of roughly 1 ft/ sec or below. Because of the velocity implications, the Agency necessarily required certain intakes ( facilities) to enlarge their intakes. Therefore, these intakes would be constructed anew in front of an existing structure and tied in after construction complete. As a general approach, the Agency applied this technology to a variety of waterbody types and intake locations ( such as in canals, in coves, and along shorelines). Note that the Agency verified ( through observation of satellite images and overhead maps) that sufficient open water area in front of the existing intake, and that the new protruding intake would not hinder boat traffic. In a select few cases, the intake velocity of a facility complying with the impingement only requirements was extremely high. In these cases, the Agency may have applied this module to allow for proper operation.

Module 4  Add Passive Fine Mesh Screens at Shoreline: This technology applies mostly for the case of entrainment and impingement upgrades. The Agency applied this technology generally in a very similar fashion to Module 3 above. The primary difference for their applications is that Module 4 is slightly more flexible in its location than Module 3 and that Module 4 has the ability to be retrofitted to unusual intake structures, such as protruding intakes, submerged shoreline intakes, etc. In addition, the passive wedgewire t screen system is very well suited for application where currents are present, as the system is designed to utilize currents for controlling impingement. The Agency applied this technology generally when the intake velocity of the intake ( facility) was above roughly 1 ft/ sec. However, that is not exclusively the case, as there were exceptions where even for low velocity, unusual passive screen systems, the Agency upgraded these intakes with Module 4. This module, similarly to Module 3 above, would apply for a select few cases that had extremely high intake velocities, even though they were required to comply with impingement only. Technology Costing Modules Applied to Model Facilities, cont.

5 Module 5  Add Fish Barrier Net: The Agency applied the barrier net module to control impingement, both in the case of impingement only upgrades and the combined impingement/ entrainment upgrades. As a general rule, the Agency applied the barrier net only to cases where it could acertain that a favorable geographical condition existed, such as the case of a wide mouth canal without boat traffic and low current potential, the similar conditions in a wide mouth cove/ bay, and the similar conditions for a lake/ reservoir shore. In a select number of situations, the Agency applied both the fish barrier net system and an entrainment controlling system. Generally, this was for the case that a fish handling and return system could not reasonably be configured to deliver impinged fish safely away from the intake. Therefore, the barrier net served the purpose of preventing the cyclical impingement/ reimpingement condition in several cases. The Agency did not examine velocities when applying barrier nets. Instead, the Agency focused on the configuration of the intake and its adjoining shorelines.

Module 6  Gunderboom: The Agency did not apply this module for any of the intakes/ facilities for the Notice of Data Availability.

Module 7  Relocate Intake to Submerged Offshore with Passive Screen: The Agency applied this costing module to address impingement and entrainment requirements. The Agency applied this module, generally, to any waterbody for which there was a clear advantage to its implementation. What the Agency defined as an advantage for this module generally related to the fact that an onshore or short canal intake provided no clear avenue for applying one of the velocity reducing modules, such as numbers 3 and 4. As a rule the Agency applied the relocation of an intake to submerged offshore only for cases where the existing intake velocity was significantly above 1 ft/ s. Additionally, the Agency relied on this module to represent situations where there was not one module that stood out as the clear choice solution. Contrary to intuition, the Agency learned in its research of offshore submerged intakes that a good number are used in river environments. Hence, the Agency utilized this module in several cases for large rivers. The relocation distance utilized for each case was that derived from the median of those within the intake's waterbody class.

Module 8  Add Velocity Cap at Offshore Inlet: The Agency applied a velocity cap at the inlet of a submerged offshore pipe in several cases to address impingement only requirements. The prerequisite for this module was that the intake/ facility had to have a submerged offshore intake with no reported impingement controls. This combination was rare, as most submerged offshore intakes had at least passive offshore intake inlets. However, for the small number of cases where facilities did not have impingement controls ( or at least did not report them in the questionnaire), the Agency applied this module to meet the impingement only requirments. As a general rule, the Agency has reservations about the ability of a velocity cap system to meet the numerical requirements of the impingement standards. However, it should be noted that in the case of offshore intakes that the " location" of an intake can be considered for the compliance action. Therefore, an offshore intake with a velocity cap is a combination that the Agency feels reasonably represents the costs of complying with the impingement requirements.

Module 9  Add Passive Fine Mesh Screen at Inlet of Offshore Submerged: The Agency applied a passive, fine mesh, wedgewire, t screen system at the inlet of a submerged offshore pipe to address impingement and entrainment requirements. The prerequisite for this module was that the intake/ facility had to have a submerged offshore intake with no reported entrainment controls. In some cases, the intake ( facility) may have reported impingement controls, but the Agency generally ignored these controls and presumed that the installation of the passive fine mesh at the offshore inlet would suffice to control both entrainment and impingement effectively. This module obviously is one of the simplest in application, as it is clear for all intakes ( facilities) through the questionnaire whether or not their intake is submerged offshore. The primary Technology Costing Modules Applied to Model Facilities, cont.

6 nuance for this situation exists where the intake ( facility) may have reported both offshore inlet controls and onshore screening controls. See module 10 for more discussion of onshore screening technologies for submerged offshore intakes. For the purposes of the discusssion of this module, it should be noted that the Agency treated the existance of an offshore inlet as the primary location for the application of a compliance technology over an onshore modification where both pre existed.

Module 10  Add/ Modify Shoreline Tech for Submerged Offshore: The Agency did not apply this module for any of the intakes/ facilities for the Notice of Data Availability. Even though this technology would be a reasonable method for an intake ( facility) to comply with the rule, the Agency chose not to use it. The basic reason that the Agency did not use the technology was that in most cases where entrainment controls would be required this method did not allow the reconfigured intake to be enlarged in order to lower the intake velocity. In addition, the passive screen intake at the inlet of the offshore pipe was more expensive, and therefore, likely more applicable for a wider range of applications.

Module 11  Add Double Entry, Single Exit with Fine Mesh, Handling and Return: The doubleentry single exit screen provides a way for facilities with limited ability to expand the size of their intakes to lower the intake velocity ( that is, increase the cross sectional area of the intake screens) without expanding the foot print of the intake. This would be a useful application for facilities attempting to comply with the impingement and entrainment requirements in the narrow terminus of a canal or cove. Additionally, in cases where the intake is recessed from shore, this technology can be applied to shoreline applications. The Agency generally applied this technology when the intake velocity was above roughly 1 ft/ sec.

The Agency compiled a breakdown of the application of each module by compliance requirement and waterbody type. These results are presented in Tables 1   3.

Table 1. Technology Module Applications for Facilities with Impingement Requirements Only Waterbody Type Module Lake/ Res. Great Lake Ocean Estuary River/ Stream All Waterbodies 1 44 1 4 26 42 117 2 0 0 0 1 3 4 3 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 0 0 0 1 6 7 5 31 1 0 14 13 59 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 0 0 1 0 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 0 2 3 Table 2. Module Applications for both Entrainment & Impingement Requirements Waterbody Type Module Lake/ Res. Great Lake Ocean Estuary River/ Stream All Waterbodies Technology Costing Modules Applied to Model Facilities, cont.

7 Waterbody Type Module Lake/ Res. Great Lake Ocean Estuary River/ Stream All Waterbodies 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 13 2 23 34 72 3 0 7 0 10 4 21 4 0 5 1 13 42 61 5 + 0 2 0 1 1 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 2 1 4 10 17 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 12 11 2 6 31 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 17 5 19 15 56 Note: Module " 5+" represents the application of module 5 combined with another module.

Table 3. Module Applications for All Requirements and All Waterbody Types Module All Waterbodies 1 118 2 76 3 23 4 68 5 63 6 0 7 17 8 9 9 31 10 0 11 59 Examples of the Application of Technology Modules to Model Facilities Because the determination of the best technology application depends on a variety of factors and there is a large population of intakes to which these multiple factors apply, the Agency views a series of examples as the best means for demonstrating the logical progression that it applied to the decisions. Based on the classification system described above, the Agency presents examples of each major intake type   canal/ channel, bay/ embayment/ cove, shoreline, and offshore   to aid the understanding of the Agency's costing assignment process.

Example 1: Canal or Channel Intake In this example, an intake withdraws cooling water through a canal branching off a tidal river. The intake is a shoreline intake, flush with the shore and built at the terminus of the canal. Based on its characteristics, the facility is subject to impingement and entrainment requirements. The Agency determined that the intake is at the terminus of the canal by examining the satellite imagery and overhead maps, using the reported latitude and longitude of the intake. The detailed questionnaire reports that the existing intake is a coarse mesh traveling screen with a Technology Costing Modules Applied to Model Facilities, cont.

8 fish diversion system in place. The Agency determined that the reported fish diversion technology in place was a fish bypass technology using the satellite imagery. The reported mean intake velocity is 1.5 ft/ s, and the Agency calculated the approximate canal approach velocity as 1.4 ft/ s based on the canal cross sectional area and flow rate reported in the questionnaire. Therefore, the Agency concludes that the reported intake velocity is accurate. The canal length is reported at 100 ft. Both the overhead map and satellite photo demonstrate that the intake is close to this estimated length. In addition, the Agency observes that the intake location at the terminus of the canal is less than 100 feet from the bank of the tidal river. The Agency determines that the mouth of the canal is not significantly wider than the canal itself and that the apparent route of boat navigation is to utilize a portion of the canal for barge docking and traffic. Based on the above factors, the Agency determines that the best technology for this model intake application is a double entry, single exit traveling screen with fine mesh overlay and a fish handling and return system. The reason that the Agency utilized a double entry, single exit system in this case is that the velocity of the intake is significantly above 1 ft/ s. The double entry, single exit systems provide increased surface area ( compared to a single entry, single exit system) without significantly enlarging the horizontal footprint of the intake. Therefore, for the case of a canal terminus, where enlarging an intake's width cam be impractical, the double entry, single exit system allows the intake velocity to be lowered to level that is in keeping with current practice for fine mesh, entrainment controlling systems. The Agency studied existing cases of retrofit fine mesh screen applications and found the 1 ft/ s threshold a reliable design criterion for large intake systems where surface area can be constricted. The fish handling and return system in this case addresses the impingement control requirements. Because the canal is not long and the return branch would be of reasonable length, the Agency considered the fish handling and return system to be appropriate. The existing fish by pass system is not considered to be adequate ( in and of itself) for meeting the impingement requirements of the national rule. In addition, the navigational use of the canal and the canal's limited throat width necessarily prevents the use of a barrier net system. In this case, the Agency determines that the debris loading potential near the intake is high. This is due to the clear evidence of boat/ barge traffic and the known nature of the particular tidal river from which this facility withdraws water.

Example 2: Bay/ Embayment/ Cove In this example, an intake withdraws cooling water from a Great Lake. The intake is a shoreline intake, flush with shore and built at the terminus of the cove. Based on its characteristics, the facility is subject to impingement and entrainment requirements. The Agency determined that the intake is at the terminus of the cove by examining the satellite imagery and overhead maps, using the reported latitude and longitude of the intake. The detailed questionnaire reports that the existing intake is a coarse mesh traveling screen with no impingement reducing technologies in place. The reported mean intake velocity is 2.0 ft/ s. Both the overhead map and satellite photo demonstrate that the cove recedes approximately 500 ft from the main water body. The Agency determines that the mouth of the cove is approximately 250 feet in width. Based on the overhead map and satellite image, there is no evidence of boat traffic in the cove. The railroad access and highway access of the plant apparently meet the fuel delivery needs of the plant. Based on the above factors, the Agency determined that the best technology for this model intake application is construction of a new, larger intake directly in front of the existing structure. In addition, the Agency determined that a barrier net system would address the impingement requirements imposed on the intake. The reason that the Agency utilized a new, larger intake system in this case is that the velocity of the intake is significantly above 1 ft/ s and the there is ample room directly in front of the existing intake to allow for the larger intake. Another alternative would be to use the double entry, single exit screen as in the above canal Technology Costing Modules Applied to Model Facilities, cont.

9 example. The larger intake system provides increased surface area ( compared to the existing single entry, single exit system), thereby reducing the intake velocity to a level that would facilitate use of the fine mesh system. A fish handling and return system in this case would be difficult to implement due to the orientation of the deep cove. The Agency would be concerned about the creation of a cyclical impingement condition, which would exacerbate the strain on the organisms. A 500 foot return system could be built, but the alternative system of a barrier net is favorable for this particular situation, in the Agency's view. The lack of navigational use of the cove and the cove's wide throat provides a good environment for barrier net deployment. In this case, the Agency determines that the debris loading potential near the intake is low. This is due to the lack of boat/ barge traffic evidence and the known nature of the particular Great Lake from which this facility withdraws water.

Example 3: Shoreline In this example, an intake withdraws cooling water from a freshwater river. The facility withdraws more than 5 percent of the mean annual flow of this river. Hence, it is subject to impingement and entrainment requirements. The intake is a shoreline intake, protruding from shore. The Agency determined that the intake extends 10 feet into the waterbody by examining the satellite imagery and overhead maps, using the reported latitude and longitude of the intake. The Agency also observes that the apparent river width at the intake location is well over 100 feet. The intake is located on a straight section of river, and an approximately 15 foot protruding diversion wall protects the intake from river debris and traffic. The detailed questionnaire reports that the existing intake is a coarse mesh traveling screen with a fish handling and return system. The reported mean intake velocity is 3.0 ft/ s. Based on the satellite images, there is evidence of coal barge traffic near the intake, but significantly far away to allow for the protruding intake. Based on the above factors, the Agency determines that the best technology for this model intake application is construction of a fine mesh, cylindrical, wedge wire t screen system. This passive intake would be constructed to branch from the original protruding intake. In the Agency's view, the wedge wire t screen system will address the impingement and entrainment requirements imposed on the intake. The reason that the Agency utilized a new intake system in this case is that the velocity of the intake is significantly above 1 ft/ s and there is already precedence to allow for a protruding intake. With the construction of a properly sized replacement intake, the velocity can be lowered for entrainment and impingement controls, and the current of the river can be utilized to aid the operation of the intake. Another alternative would be to use a new, larger intake protruding into the waterbody as in the cove example above. Both of the larger intake system provides increased surface area ( compared to the existing single entry, single exit system), thereby reducing the intake velocity to a level that would facilitate use of the fine mesh system. However, the wedgewire screen system would provide additional advantages in the form of inherent impingement controls. A fish handling and return system with a traditional traveling system could be an option. In this case, the Agency determines that the debris loading potential near the intake is high. This is due to the clear evidence of boat/ barge traffic and the known nature of the particular river from which this facility withdraws water.

Example 4: Offshore In this example, an intake withdraws cooling water from a submerged offshore intake in an Ocean. At the offshore inlet of the intake is a velocity cap crib built approximately 500 feet from shore. The facility is a short technical questionnaire facility, and the Agency has no information as to whether or not the intake delivers water to an onshore well. Based on Technology Costing Modules Applied to Model Facilities, cont.

10 observations of the satellite imagery, the Agency was also unable to identify an onshore well. Based on its characteristics, the facility requires an entrainment technology upgrade. The existing intake   a velocity cap system   is insufficient to meet the entrainment requirements. The facility reports no other impingement or entrainment technologies in place. The reported mean intake velocity is 1.0 ft/ s. The Agency is unable to verify or disprove the length of the submerged offshore intake with overhead maps and satellite photos, as it did for the cases of canal and cove distances. However, the distance of the intake offshore may not be relevant for certain costing modules. Based on the above factors, the Agency determines that the best technology for this model intake application is construction of a fine mesh, cylindrical, wedge wire t screen system constructed at the inlet of the offshore, submerged intake piping. The reason that the Agency utilized an inlet t screen system in this case is that, to the best of its knowledge, the Agency determined there is no onshore technology in use. Had an onshore technology been reported or observed for the facility, the Agency could have considered upgrades to that technology system ( such as replacing coarse mesh screen overlays with fine mesh, etc.). However, the Agency opted to utilize a technology that would work for the description of the facility in its possession. With the construction of a properly sized replacement intake, the velocity can be maintained at a low level ( 1 ft/ s) for entrainment and impingement controls, and the natural currents of the Ocean can be utilized to aid the operation of the intake. In this case, the Agency determines that the debris loading potential near the intake is high. This is due to the fact that this intake is in a coastal Ocean setting.

No costs for impingement controls. Does the facility have impingement controls in place? Yes No Facility will incur costs for impingement controls Impingement: Non Recirculating Facilities Technology Costing Modules Applied to Model Facilities, cont.

11 Figure 1. Impingement Controls Flowchart for Model Facility Compliance Costs Facility will incur costs for entrainment controls. No No costs for entrainment controls. Does the facility have entrainment controls in place? Yes No Entrainment: Non Recirc. Facilities Does the facility withdraw from a Lake or Reservoir? Yes No costs for entrainment controls.

Does the facility withdraw from an estuary, tidal river, or Great Lake? Yes No Continue to Next Page  Technology Costing Modules Applied to Model Facilities, cont.

12 Figure 2. Entrainment Controls Flowchart for Model Facility Compliance Costs Figure 2 ( cont.). Entrainment Controls Flowchart for Model Facility Compliance Costs Facility will incur costs for entrainment controls Does the Facility withdraw > 500 MGD from an Ocean? Yes No Facility will incur costs for entrainment controls Entrainment: Continued from Previous Page Is the intake flow greater than 5 % of the freshwater river/ stream flow? Yes No No costs for entrainment controls.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 50 (Friday, March 13, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14681-14682]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05132]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2020-N-0008]

Circulatory System Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory
Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) announces a
forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Circulatory System
Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee. The general
function of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to
the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the
public.

DATES: The meeting will be held on April 16, 2020, from 8 a.m. to 6
p.m.

ADDRESSES: Doubletree by Hilton Washington, DC North/Gaithersburg,
Salons A, B, C, and D, 620 Perry Pkwy., Gaithersburg, MD 20877. The
hotel's telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. The hotel's website is at:
https://doubletree3.hilton.com/en/hotels/maryland/doubletree-by-hilton-washington-dc-north-gaithersburg-GAIGWDT/index.html. Answers to
commonly asked questions including information regarding special
accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation
may be accessed at: https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aden Asefa, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5214, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>301-796-0400, or FDA Advisory Committee
Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC
area). A notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications
that impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot
always be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore,
you should always check the Agency's website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate
advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee
information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to
the meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Agenda: On April 16, 2020, the committee will discuss, make
recommendations, and vote on information regarding the premarket
approval application (PMA) for the TransMedics Organ Care System
(OCS)--Heart, by TransMedics, Inc. The proposed Indication for Use for
the TransMedics OCS--Heart, as stated in the PMA, is as follows:
    The TransMedics Organ Care System (OCS) Heart System is a portable
ex-vivo organ perfusion and monitoring system indicated for the
resuscitation, preservation, and assessment of donor hearts with one or
more of the following characteristics for transplantation into a
potential recipient in a near-physiologic, normothermic, and beating
state:

 Expected cross-clamp or ischemic time >=4 hours due to donor
or recipient characteristics (e.g., donor- recipient geographical
distance, expected recipient surgical time)
 Donor age >=55 years
 Donors with history cardiac arrest and downtime >=20 minutes
 Donor history of alcohol use
 Donor LV ejection fraction (LVEF) <=50% but >=40%
 Donor history of left ventricular hypertrophy (septal or
posterior wall thickness of >12 <=16 mm)

    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's website after the meeting. Background material is
available at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
April 9, 2020. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled on
April 16, 2020, between approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Those
individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should
notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general
nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and
addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the
approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before
April 1, 2020. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If
the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be
reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing
session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the
scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify
interested persons regarding their request to speak by April 2, 2020.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please
contact AnnMarie Williams at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or 301-796-
5966 at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: March 9, 2020.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-05132 Filed 3-12-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 37 (Monday, February 25, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6041-6043]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03142]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2018-0114 (Notice No. 2018-24)]

Hazardous Materials: Information Collection Activities

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, PHMSA
invites comments on 3 information collections pertaining to hazardous
materials transportation for which PHMSA intends to request renewal
from the Office of Management and Budget.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
April 26, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Docket Number
PHMSA-2018-0114 (Notice No. 2018-24) by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management System; U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Routing
Symbol M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: To the Docket Management System; Room W12-
140 on the ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
Docket Number (PHMSA-2018-0114) for this notice at the beginning of the
comment. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four
methods. All comments received will be posted without change to the
Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) and will include any personal
information you provide.
    Requests for a copy of an information collection should be directed
to Steven Andrews or Shelby Geller, Standards and Rulemaking Division,
(202) 366-8553, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    Docket: For access to the dockets to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or DOT's Docket
Operations Office (see ADDRESSES).
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Andrews or Shelby Geller,
Standards and Rulemaking Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 1320.8(d), title 5, Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) requires PHMSA to provide interested members of the
public and affected agencies an opportunity to comment on information
collection and recordkeeping requests. This notice identifies
information collection requests that PHMSA will be submitting to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for renewal and extension. These
information collections are contained in 49 CFR 171.6 of the Hazardous
Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180). PHMSA has revised
burden estimates, where appropriate, to reflect current reporting
levels or adjustments based on changes in proposed or final rules
published since the information collections were last approved. The
following information is provided for each information collection: (1)
Title of the information collection, including former title if a change
is being made; (2) OMB control number; (3) summary of the information
collection activity; (4) description of affected public; (5) estimate
of total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden; and (6) frequency
of collection. PHMSA will request a 3-year term of approval for each
information collection activity and will publish a notice in the
Federal Register upon OMB's approval.
    PHMSA requests comments on the following information collections:
    Title: Radioactive (RAM) Transportation Requirements.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0510.
    Summary: This information collection consolidates and describes the
information collection provisions in the HMR involving the
transportation of radioactive materials in commerce. Information
collection requirements for RAM include: Documenting testing and
engineering evaluations for packages, documentation for DOT 7A
packages, revalidation of foreign competent authority certifications,
providing specific written instruction of exclusive use shipment
controls, providing written instructions for exclusive use shipment
controls, obtaining U.S. competent authority for package design,
registering with U.S. competent authority as user of a package, and
request for a U.S. competent authority for special form. The following
information collections and their burdens are associated with this OMB
Control Number:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Total annual      Hours per     Total annual
             Information collection                 Respondents      responses       response      burden hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document Test and Engineering Evaluation or                   50             100              40           4,000
 Comparative Data for Packaging--Reporting......
DOT Specification 7A Package Documentation--                  50             100              80           8,000
 Reporting......................................
DOT Specification 7A Package Documentation--                  50             500          0.0833           41.67
 Recordkeeping..................................
Revalidation of Foreign Competent Authority                   25              25              80           2,000
 Certification--Reporting.......................
Offeror Providing Specific Written Instruction               100           2,000             0.5           1,000
 of Exclusive Use Shipment Controls to the
 Carrier--Reporting.............................
Offeror Obtaining U.S. Competent Authority for                10              40               2              80
 Package Design--Reporting......................
Register with U.S. Competent Authority as User                25              50             0.5              25
 of a Package--Reporting........................
Request for a U.S. Competent Authority as                     10             100               2             200
 Required by the IAEA Regulations for Special
 Form--Reporting................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Affected Public: Shippers and carriers of radioactive materials in
commerce.
    Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden:
    Number of Respondents: 320.
    Total Annual Responses: 2,915.
    Total Annual Burden Hours: 15,346.67.
    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
    Title: Hazardous Materials Public Sector Training and Planning
Grants.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0586.
    Summary: Part 110 of 49 CFR sets forth the procedures for
reimbursable grants for public sector planning and training in support
of the emergency planning and training efforts of States, Indian
tribes, and local communities to manage hazardous materials
emergencies, particularly those involving transportation. Sections in
this part address information collection and recordkeeping with regard
to applying for grants, monitoring expenditures, and reporting and
requesting modifications. The following information collection and
burden is associated with this OMB Control Number:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Total annual      Hours per       Total annual
           Information collection               Respondents       responses         response       burden hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous Materials Grants Applications.....              62               62            83.23            5,160
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Affected Public: State and local governments, Indian tribes.
    Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden:
    Annual Respondents: 62.
    Annual Responses: 62.
    Annual Burden Hours: 5,160.
    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
    Title: Subsidiary Hazard Class and Number/Type of Packagings.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0613.
    Summary: The HMR require that shipping papers and emergency
response information accompany each shipment of hazardous materials in
commerce. In addition to the basic shipping description information, we
also require the subsidiary hazard class or subsidiary division
number(s) to be entered in parentheses following the primary hazard
class or division number on shipping papers. This requirement was
originally required only by transportation by vessel. However, the lack
of such a requirement posed problems for motor carriers with regard to
complying with segregation, separation, and placarding requirements, as
well as posing a safety hazard. For example, in the event the motor
vehicle becomes involved in an accident, when the hazardous materials
being transported include a subsidiary hazard such as ``dangerous when
wet'' or a subsidiary hazard requiring more stringent requirements than
the primary hazard, there is no indication of the subsidiary hazards on
the shipping papers and no indication of the subsidiary risks on
placards. Under circumstances such as motor vehicles being loaded at a
dock, labels are not enough to alert hazardous materials employees
loading the vehicles, nor are they enough to alert emergency responders
of the subsidiary risks contained on the vehicles. Therefore, we
require the subsidiary hazard class or subsidiary division number(s) to
be entered on the shipping paper, for purposes of enhancing safety and
international harmonization.
    Shipping papers serve as a principal means of identifying hazardous
materials during transportation emergencies. Firefighters, police, and
other emergency response personnel are trained to obtain the DOT
shipping papers and emergency response information when responding to
hazardous materials transportation emergencies. The availability of
accurate information concerning hazardous materials being transported
significantly improves response efforts in these types of emergencies.
The additional information would aid emergency responders by more
clearly identifying the hazard.
    The following information collection and burden is associated with
this OMB Control Number:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Total annual     Seconds per      Total annual
           Information collection               Respondents       responses         response       burden hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidiary Hazard Class on Shipping Papers..         260,000       43,810,000                2           24,339
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Affected Public: Shippers and carriers of hazardous materials in
commerce.
    Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden:
    Number of Respondents: 260,000.
    Total Annual Responses: 43,810,000.
    Total Annual Burden Hours: 24,339.
    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 19, 2019.
William S. Schoonover,
Associate Administrator of Hazard Materials Safety, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2019-03142 Filed 2-22-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


1 Memorandum and attachment from W. Maxwell, EPA/ CG, to Utility MACT Project Files, December 2003. Power plant efficiency table. TO: Bill Maxwell, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, OAQPS ( C439 01)

FROM: Jeffrey Cole, RTI International DATE: December 2003 SUBJECT: MACT Floor Unit Conversion from Input based Standard to Output based Standard in the Proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; and, in the Alternative, Proposed Standards of Performance for New and Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Steam Generating Units Since all the reported data obtained throughout the development of the proposed rule are in the current input based format of pounds per trillion British thermal units ( lb/ TBtu) heat input,

EPA applied an efficiency factor to the current format to develop the output based HAP limits ( pounds per megawatt hour; lb/ MWh). The efficiency factor approach was selected because the alternative of converting all the reported data in the database to an output basis would require extensive data gathering and analyses. Applying a baseline gross efficiency would essentially convert the selected heat input based HAP level to an output based emission limit.

The output based standard must be associated with a baseline efficiency. Most existing electric utility steam generating plants fall in the range of 24 to 35 percent efficiency1. However,

newer units operate around 35 percent efficiency; therefore, 35 percent was selected as the baseline efficiency for new units; 32 percent was selected as the baseline efficiency for existing units. 2 Memorandum and attachments from W. Maxwell, EPA/ CG, to Utility MACT Project Files, November 26, 2003. Analysis of variability in determining MACT floor for coalfired electric utility steam generating units. 2 The efficiency of electric utility steam generating units usually is expressed in terms of heat rate, which is the ratio of heat input, based on higher heating value ( HHV) of the fuel, to the energy ( i. e., electrical) output. The heat rate of a utility steam generating unit operating at 32 percent efficiency is 11.3 joules per watt hour ( 10,700 Btu per kilowatt hour; Btu/ kWh); the heat rate for units operating at 35 percent efficiency is 10.3 joules per watt hour ( 9,800 Btu/ kWh).

Equation 1. Conversion factor for Hg or Ni from TBtu to lb/ MWh for Existing Sources 1 TBtu/ 1,000,000,000,000 Btu * 3.414 Btu/ W h * 1,000,000 W h/ MW h * ( 1/ 0.32) = 10.7 x 10 6 TBtu/ MW h Equation 2. Conversion factor for Hg or Ni from TBtu to lb/ MWh for New Sources 1 TBtu/ 1,000,000,000,000 Btu * 3.414 Btu/ W h * 1,000,000 W h/ MW h * ( 1/ 0.35) = 9.8 x 10 6 TBtu/ MW h Existing coal fired electric utility units have to meet a MACT floor based on the top 12 percent of the bituminous coal fired data ( 4 units), the top 12 percent of the subbituminous coal fired data ( 4 units), the top 5 lignite fired units, the top 2 refuse coal fired units, and the top 2 IGCC units. The average is adjusted for variability and a confidence interval of 97.5 percent. 2 This MACT floor limit is then converted from input based standard ( lb/ TBtu) to output based standard ( lb/ MWh) by multiplying by 10.7 x 10 6.

Newly constructed coal fired electric utility units have to meet a MACT floor based on the top unit in all coal ranks or process types. This top unit is the unit with the lowest emission level after adjusting for variability and a confidence interval of 97.5 percent. This MACT floor limit is then converted from input based standard ( lb/ TBtu) to output based standard ( lb/ MWh) by multiplying by 9.8 x 10 6.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 43 (Monday, March 6, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 13817]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04453]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 10939-002]

James B. Adkins, Secesh United, LLC; Notice of Transfer of
Exemption

    1. On February 13, 2023, James B. Adkins, exemptee for the 45-
kilowatt Zena Creek Ranch Hydroelectric Project No. 10939, filed a
letter notifying the Commission that the project was transferred from
James B. Adkins to Secesh United, LLC. The exemption from licensing was
originally issued on December 27, 1990.\1\ The project is located on
the Secesh River, Valley County, Idaho. The transfer of an exemption
does not require Commission approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ James B. Adkins, 53 FERC ] 62,275 (1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Secesh United, LLC is now the exemptee of the Zena Creek Ranch
Hydroelectric Project No. 10939. All correspondence must be forwarded
to Ms. Deborah Kane, Managing Member, Secesh United, LLC, 5055 SE 34th
Avenue, Portland, OR 97202.

    Dated: February 27, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-04453 Filed 3-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P