TECHNICAL
MEMORANDUM
10306
Eaton
Place
Ste.
340,
Fairfax,
Virginia
22030
Tel
703.385.6000
Fax
703.385.6007
www.
tetratech.
com
To:
Kelly
Meadows
From:
Alejandro
Escobar
Subject:
ICR
Costing
For
Split
Facilities
Date:
February
3,
2006
For
Phase
III
of
the
316(
b)
rulemaking
analyses,
the
intakes
of
six
facilities
that
have
multiple
intakes
were
split.
Five
of
these
facilities
(
DMU
3207,
3240,
3237,
3260
and
3231)
have
both
their
resulting
intakes
in
the
same
waterbody
type.
To
estimate
ICR
burden
and
costs,
the
higher
of
the
two
Design
Intake
Flows
(
DIFs),
or
the
most
conservative
type
of
intake
if
the
DIFs
were
the
same,
was
assumed.

For
one
facility
(
DMU3329),
the
two
split
intakes
withdraw
water
from
saltwater
and
freshwater
sources.
To
estimate
ICR
burden
and
costs,
this
facility
was
assumed
to
be
one
facility
for
some
of
the
activities,
but
two
facilities
for
other.
Table
1
below
shows
a
list
of
activities
and
the
assumptions.

Table
1.
Activities
and
facility
split
assumptions
for
DMU3329
Activities
One
Facility
Two
Facilities
Facility
Cost
and
Burden
Estimates
for
NPDES
Permit
Application
Activities
Start­
up
Activities
x
Permit
Application
Activities
x
Proposal
for
Collection
of
Information
for
Comprehensive
Demonstration
Study
x
Source
Water
Body
Flow
Information
x
Design
and
Construction
Technology
Plan
x
Impingement
Mortality
Study
and/
or
Entrainment
Characterization
Study
x
Pilot
Study
for
New
Impingement
&
Entrainment
Technology
x
Technology
Installation
and
Operation
Plan
x
Verification
Monitoring
Plan
x
Facility
Cost
and
Burden
Estimates
for
Annual
Activities
Annual
Monitoring
for
Impingement
(
Freshwater)
x
Annual
Monitoring
for
Impingement
(
Marine)
x
Annual
Monitoring
for
Entrainment
(
Freshwater)
x
Annual
Monitoring
for
Entrainment
(
Marine)
x
Biannual
Status
Report
Activities
x
Verification
Study
x
Note:
not
all
activities
might
apply
to
the
specific
facility.
