Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0049-0007
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-03-19T05:00Z

Comparison
of
316b
Phase
II
Compliance
Module
Cost
Estimates
Developed
for
the
Proposed
Rule
Versus
the
NODA
The
table
at
the
end
of
this
document
presents
the
capital
and
net
O&
M
compliance
costs
for
several
hypothetical
Phase
II
facilities.
These
cost
estimates
are
the
result
from
applying
all
of
the
different
compliance
technologies
(
except
for
cooling
towers)
used
in
the
economic
impact
analyses
for
both
the
Proposed
Rule
and
the
NODA.
In
order
to
simplify
this
effort,
facility
attributes,
baseline
technology,
and
equipment
sizes
were
assumed
and
are
described
below.
The
effect
of
the
simplifying
assumptions
would
be
such
that
a
direct
comparison
of
the
costs
presented
herein
should
not
be
made
to
the
more
rigorous
costs
developed
for
the
analysis
included
in
the
NODA.
Therefore,
the
Agency
cautions
against
utilizing
the
included
cost
comparison
for
any
analysis
other
than
a
basic,
cursory
effort
to
understand
general
differences
in
technology
costs
between
the
Proposed
Rule
and
the
NODA.
In
addition,
the
Agency
states,
emphatically
that
the
assumptions
and
methodology
utilized
for
this
simple
comparative
analysis
do
not
correspond
to
those
utilized
in
the
analysis
of
the
NODA.
For
specific
information
on
the
cost
development,
assumptions,
and
methodology
utilized
by
the
Agency
for
the
analysis
of
the
NODA,
see
the
following
items
in
the
public
record:
"
316(
b)
Phase
II
NODA
Cost
Modules,"
"
Technology
Costing
Module
Applications
for
Model
Facilities,"
and
the
preamble
to
the
NODA.

Note
that
technologies
with
fish
handling
must
also
have
a
fish
return.
Therefore,
wherever
the
term
"
fish
handling"
is
used,
the
associated
costs
include
the
addition
of
a
fish
return,
where
applicable
(
i.
e.,
where
the
baseline
technology
did
not
already
include
a
fish
return).

Hypothetical
Facility
Attributes
Flow
A
review
of
the
Phase
II
facility
level
data
indicated
that
the
median
design
intake
flow
was
approximately
300,000
gpm.
For
the
cost
comparison,
a
low
flow
of
80,000
gpm
and
high
flow
of
850,000
gpm
were
selected
to
represent
small
and
large
intakes.
The
low
flow
of
80,000
gpm
was
close
to
the
15th
percentile
(
i.
e.,
15%
of
the
facilities
had
lower
values)
and
the
high
flow
of
850,000
gpm
was
close
to
the
85th
percentile.
The
range
was
approximately
36,000
gpm
to
2,700,000
gpm.

A
review
of
the
data
showed
that
there
were
both
nuclear
and
non­
nuclear
facilities
that
had
design
intake
flows
that
were
close
to
the
low
and
high
hypothetical
values
used
here.

Waterbody
Type
Costs
are
shown
for
freshwater
and
saltwater
environments.
Note
that
no
such
distinction
was
used
for
noncooling
tower
compliance
cost
estimates
in
the
Proposed
Rule.

Facility
Type
Costs
are
shown
for
nuclear
and
non­
nuclear
facilities.
Note
that
the
cost
for
the
design
low
flow
of
80,000
gpm
when
applied
to
nuclear
facilities
should
be
considered
as
representative
of
make­
up
water
intakes
for
recirculating
wet
towers.

Proposed
Rule
Cost
Estimates
Comparison
of
Compliance
Module
Cost
Estimates
for
the
Proposed
Rule
Versus
the
NODA,
cont.

­
2­
Capital
Costs
°
In
this
comparative
analysis,
costs
for
14­
ft
wide
screens
are
used
for
all
applications
since
the
criterion
for
14­
ft
screens
is
greater
than
60,000
gpm
and
less
than
225,000
gpm.
For
the
high
flow
of
850,000
gpm,
the
Agency
divided
the
design
flow
by
four
to
obtain
intake
costs
which
are
then
summed.

°
Regional
cost
factors
are
set
equal
to
"
0."
Therefore,
cost
estimates
represent
national
averages
in
1999
dollars.

O&
M
Costs
°
For
this
analysis,
no
baseline
technology
O&
M
costs
are
deducted
from
compliance
costs
as
was
done
for
the
NODA.

NODA
Cost
Estimates
Baseline
Equipment
Assumptions
For
this
analysis,

°
All
intakes
are
assumed
to
have
25
ft
deep
screen
wells
which
was
the
assumed
value
used
for
Short
Technical
Questionnaire
(
STQ)
facilities.

°
All
intakes
are
assumed
to
have
a
baseline
through­
screen
velocity
of
1.5
fps
as
was
assumed
for
any
facility
where
such
data
was
not
available.

°
The
above
assumptions
result
in
calculated
baseline
total
traveling
screen
widths
of
10
ft
and
103
ft
for
small
and
large
intakes,
respectively.

°
Regional
cost
factors
are
set
equal
to
"
0."
Therefore,
all
cost
estimates
represent
national
averages
in
2002
dollars.

Technology
Assumptions
and
Comments
Add
Fine
Mesh
Screen
Overlay
(
Scenario
A)

°
Baseline
technology
is
traveling
screens
with
fish
handling
and
return.

Add
Traveling
Screen
With
Fish
Handling
(
Scenario
B)

°
Baseline
technology
is
traveling
screens
without
fish
handling
and
return.

°
Fish
flume
extension
capital
costs
should
be
added
for
facilities
with
intake
canals/
channels.

Add
Traveling
Screen
With
Fish
Handling
&
Fine
Mesh
Overlay
(
Scenario
C)
Comparison
of
Compliance
Module
Cost
Estimates
for
the
Proposed
Rule
Versus
the
NODA,
cont.

­
3­
°
Baseline
technology
is
traveling
screens
without
fish
handling
and
return.

°
Fish
flume
extension
capital
costs
should
be
added
for
facilities
with
intake
canals/
channels.

Add
Dual
Flow
Traveling
Screens
with
Fish
Handling
&
Fine
Mesh
°
Baseline
technology
is
traveling
screens
without
fish
handling
and
return.

°
Fish
flume
extension
capital
costs
should
be
added
for
facilities
with
intake
canals/
channels.

Add
Larger
Intake
With
Traveling
Screen
With
Fish
Handling
&
Fine
Mesh
°
Baseline
technology
is
traveling
screens
without
fish
handling
and
return.

°
Compliance
intake
screen
width
is
15
and
155
ft
for
low
and
high
flow
facilities
respectively.
Technology
is
not
applied
to
low
flow
facilities
in
NODA
costing.

Add
Fish
Flume
Extension
at
Facilities
with
Intake
Canals
°
Intake
canal
is
assumed
to
be
1,000
ft
long
for
freshwater
facilities.
Default
(
median)
values
used
for
STQ
facilities
is
690
ft,
800
ft,
and
1460
ft
for
freshwater
streams,
lakes/
reservoirs,
and
Great
Lakes
facilities,
respectively.

°
Intake
canal
is
assumed
to
be
2,500
ft
long
for
saltwater
facilities.
Default
(
median)
values
used
for
STQ
facilities
is
1,650
ft
and
3,370
ft
for
estuarine/
tidal
rivers
and
ocean
facilities,
respectively.

Add
Passive
Screens
Submerged
Near­
shore
or
Offshore
°
Baseline
technology
is
traveling
screens
without
fish
handling
and
return
°
Near­
shore
installation
(
20
meters)
is
assumed
for
low
flow
facilities.
The
module
restricted
application
of
near­
shore
screens
to
design
flow
of
<
163,000
gpm.

°
Relocation
to
125
meter
offshore
is
assumed
for
high
flow
facility.

°
Cost
for
freshwater­
bodies
with
Zebra
mussels
is
not
included.
These
costs
generally
fall
between
freshwater
and
saltwater
costs.

Add
Fish
Barrier
Nets
°
No
baseline
O&
M
costs
are
deducted
from
the
net
value
since
shore­
based
intake
screens
are
expected
to
continue
operation
°
A
20
ft
net
depth
is
assumed
for
saltwater
facilities.

Add
Passive
Screens
to
Existing
Submerged
Offshore
Intake
Comparison
of
Compliance
Module
Cost
Estimates
for
the
Proposed
Rule
Versus
the
NODA,
cont.

­
4­
°
Baseline
technology
is
traveling
screens
without
fish
handling
and
return.

°
A
125
meter
distance
is
assumed
for
freshwater
facilities.
Default
(
rounded
up
median)
values
are
125,
125,
and
500
meters
for
freshwater
streams,
lakes/
reservoirs,
and
Great
Lakes
facilities,
respectively.

°
A
250
meter
distance
is
assumed
for
saltwater
facilities.
Default
(
rounded
up
median)
values
are
125
and
500
meters
for
estuarine/
tidal
rivers
and
ocean
facilities,
respectively.

°
Cost
for
freshwater­
bodies
with
Zebra
mussels
is
not
included.
These
costs
generally
fall
between
freshwater
and
saltwater
costs.

Add
Velocity
Cap
to
Existing
Submerged
Offshore
Intake
°
No
baseline
O&
M
costs
are
deducted
from
the
net
O&
M
value
since
shore­
based
intake
screens
are
expected
to
continue
operation.

°
Costs
are
independent
of
offshore
distance.
Comparison
of
Compliance
Module
Cost
Estimates
for
the
Proposed
Rule
Versus
the
NODA,
cont.

­
5­

80,000
850,000
80,000
850,000
80,000
850,000
80,000
850,000
Source
Technology
Capital
$
236,000
$
2,063,000
$
236,000
$
2,063,000
Net
O&
M
$
6,900
$
56,300
$
6,900
$
56,300
Capital
$
728,000
$
5,810,000
$
842,000
$
6,718,000
Net
O&
M
$
20,500
$
140,800
$
20,500
$
140,800
Capital
$
887,000
$
7,361,000
$
979,000
$
8,122,000
Net
O&
M
$
27,700
$
204,100
$
27,700
$
204,100
Capital
$
19,000
$
200,000
$
35,000
$
364,000
$
34,000
$
359,000
$
63,000
$
655,000
Net
O&
M
$
8,800
$
53,300
$
8,800
$
53,300
$
11,700
$
70,900
$
12,800
$
77,300
Capital
$
230,000
$
2,101,000
$
381,000
$
3,453,000
$
414,000
$
3,781,000
$
684,000
$
6,216,000
Net
O&
M
$
30,800
$
289,500
$
37,900
$
366,200
$
40,900
$
385,000
$
55,000
$
530,900
Capital
$
245,000
$
2,269,000
$
413,000
$
4,125,000
$
441,000
$
4,085,000
$
743,000
$
7,426,000
Net
O&
M
$
39,600
$
342,800
$
46,800
$
419,500
$
52,600
$
455,900
$
67,800
$
608,200
Capital
$
282,000
$
2,610,000
$
475,000
$
4,744,000
$
507,000
$
4,698,000
$
855,000
$
8,540,000
Net
O&
M
$
2,100
$
24,100
$
2,900
$
29,900
$
2,800
$
32,000
$
4,200
$
43,300
Capital
$
2,684,000
$
11,143,000
$
2,930,000
$
13,854,000
$
4,830,000
$
20,058,000
$
5,275,000
$
24,937,000
Net
O&
M
$
60,900
$
575,000
$
72,400
$
700,200
$
81,000
$
764,700
$
104,900
$
1,015,300
Length
(
ft)
1,000
1,000
2,500
2,500
1,000
1,000
2,500
2,500
Capital
$
111,000
$
377,000
$
278,000
$
941,000
$
200,000
$
678,000
$
500,000
$
1,694,000
Meters
20
125
20
125
20
125
20
125
Capital
$
1,035,000
$
20,252,000
$
1,143,000
$
22,040,000
$
1,863,000
$
36,453,000
$
2,058,000
$
39,671,000
Net
O&
M
$
10,600
­$
30,500
$
8,600
­$
52,100
$
14,000
­$
40,600
$
12,500
­$
75,600
Capital
$
18,000
$
117,000
$
31,000
$
265,000
$
33,000
$
210,000
$
56,000
$
477,000
Net
O&
M
$
16,000
$
59,600
$
24,000
$
94,500
$
21,200
$
79,200
$
34,800
$
137,000
Meters
125
125
250
250
125
125
250
250
Capital
$
916,000
$
8,796,000
$
1,559,000
$
15,669,000
$
1,649,000
$
15,833,000
$
2,806,000
$
28,205,000
Net
O&
M
$
2,000
­$
62,700
$
100
­$
84,300
$
2,700
­$
83,400
$
100
­$
122,200
Capital
$
187,000
$
1,508,000
$
218,000
$
1,723,000
$
336,000
$
2,714,000
$
393,000
$
3,101,000
Net
O&
M
$
7,000
$
37,300
$
7,000
$
37,300
$
9,300
$
49,600
$
10,200
$
54,100
*
This
technology
cost
is
added
only
where
fish
handling
is
added
where
none
existed
before
and
the
intake
has
an
intake
canal.

Based
on
the
assumptions
used
to
develop
these
costs,
this
includes
all
traveling
screen
modules
except
for
Scenario
A.

Non­
nuclear
Freshwater
Saltwater
Nuclear
Freshwater
Saltwater
Same
as
Freshwater
Add
Traveling
Screen
With
Fish
Handling
(
Scenario
B)

Add
Fine
Mesh
Screen
Overlay
(
Scenario
A)

Proposal
(
1999
Dollars)
Add
Fish
Handling
Add
Fine
Mesh
Traveling
Screens
Add
Fine
Mesh
Traveling
Screen
With
Fish
Handling
Add
Fish
Barrier
Nets
Add
Passive
Screens
to
Existing
Submerged
Offshore
Intake
NODA
(
2002
Dollars)
Add
Larger
Intake
With
Traveling
Screen
With
Fish
Handling
&
Fine
Mesh
Add
Traveling
Screen
With
Fish
Handling
&

Fine
Mesh
Overlay
(
Scenario
C)

Add
Dual
Flow
Traveling
Screens
with
Fish
Handling
&
Fine
Mesh
Add
Velocity
Cap
to
Existing
Submerged
Offshore
Intake
Add
Fish
Flume
Extension
at
Facilities
with
Intake
Canals*

Add
Passive
Screens
Submerged
Nearshore
or
Offshore
Facility
Type
Waterbody
Type
Design
Flow
(
gpm)

Comparison
of
316b
Phase
II
Capital
and
Net
O&
M
Compliance
Costs
for
Technologies
Costed
in
Proposed
Rule
and
NODA
Facilty
Attributes
Same
as
Freshwater
Comparison
of
Compliance
Module
Cost
Estimates
for
the
Proposed
Rule
Versus
the
NODA,
cont.

­
6­