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.