Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0002-1396
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-01-05T05:00Z

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Science
Applications
International
Corporation.
11251
Roger
Bacon
Drive,
Reston,
VA
20190
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
October
20,
2005
TO:
Paul
Shriner,
USEPA
Regno
Arulgnanendran,
Tech
Inc.
Shari
Goodwin,
Tetra,
Tech
Inc.

FROM:
John
Sunda,
SAIC
RE:
Evaluation
of
Similarities
Between
Intakes
at
Phase
III
Food
and
Kindred
Products
Facilities
and
Other
Phase
III
Manufacturers
The
attached
table
provides
a
summary
comparison
of
the
NODA
cost
tool
input
data
for
Food
and
Kindred
Product
Facilities
(
SIC
Code
20XX)
to
all
other
Phase
III
manufacturing
facilities.
Two
different
comparisons
are
provided.
First,
only
those
facilities
that
have
a
design
intake
flow
(
DIF)
greater
than
50
million
gallons
per
day
(
mgd)
and
that
were
assigned
a
cost
for
the
NODA
are
included.
In
this
comparison,
only
3
Food
and
Kindred
Product
(
food)
facilities
were
potentially
subject
to
the
Phase
III
regulations
and
therefore
comparable
to
the
complete
set
of
89
manufacturers
costed
for
the
NODA.
Since
this
represented
such
a
small
number,
a
second
analysis
that
includes
all
Phase
III
manufacturers
(
regardless
of
DIF)
is
provided.
In
this
case,
there
were
12
food
facilities
in
a
universe
of
235
manufacturers.
1
As
shown
in
the
following
table,
some
data
fields
show
some
differences,
but
not
to
a
large
degree.
Overall,
the
data
show
that
the
distribution
of
intakes
for
food
facilities
is
not
significantly
different
than
for
other
manufacturers.

1
Note
that
these
facility
counts
include
some
facilities
where
individual
intakes
("
split"
intakes)
were
costed
separately.
Some
facilities
reported
more
than
one
technology
in­
place
and
also
operate
more
than
one
intake,
indicating
that
the
facility
has
two
distinct
types
of
intake
structure
(
e.
g.,
a
facility
may
have
a
shoreline
intake
and
a
submerged
offshore
intake).
None
of
the
food
facilities
have
intakes
that
necessitated
individual
costs.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Science
Applications
International
Corporation.
11251
Roger
Bacon
Drive,
Reston,
VA
20190
SUMMARY
COMPARISON
OF
INTAKE
ATTRIBUTES
FROM
COST
TOOL
INPUT
DATA
All
Phase
III
Facilities
Phase
III
Facilities
>
50
mgd
Intake
Menu
Selection
or
Statistic
SIC
20XX
All
Other
Mfr
SIC
20XX
All
Other
Mfr
Number
of
Facilities*
Number
of
Facilities*

12
235
3
89
Input
(
Intake)
Location
Input
(
Intake)
Location
Shoreline
Intake
(
flush,
recessed)
67%
28%
100%
30%

Intake
Canal
8%
14%
0%
22%

Near­
shore
submerged
intake
25%
20%
0%
4%

Waterbody
Type
Waterbody
Type
Estuary
17%
7%
0%
11%

Great
Lake
8%
6%
0%
13%

Freshwater
River
75%
76%
100%
64%

Mean
Intake
Depth,
ft
Mean
Intake
Depth,
ft
Mean
12.2
19.1
11.3
18.9
Intake
Well
Depth,
ft
Intake
Well
Depth,
ft
Mean
12.9
21.7
19.6
23.2
Design
Intake
Flow,
gpm
Design
Intake
Flow,
gpm
Mean
37,301
68,171
118,333
145,715
MRIF
gpm
MRIF
gpm
Mean
22,649
42,457
66,836
97,409
Average
Intake
Flow,
gpm
Average
Intake
Flow,
gpm
Mean
18,930
63,773
56,106
80,492
Design
Screen
Velocity
(
fps)
Design
Screen
Velocity
(
fps)

Mean
1.2
1.6
0.8
1.5
Water
Type
Water
Type
Freshwater
83%
91%
100%
85%

Marine
17%
9%
0%
15%

Impingement
Tech
In­
Place
Impingement
Tech
In­
Place
None
of
those
listed
25%
33%
0%
12%

Traveling
Screens
50%
35%
100%
67%

Passive
Intake
17%
31%
0%
20%

Barrier
Net
8%
0%
0%
0%

Qualified
Impingement?
Qualified
Impingement?

Not
Qualified
67%
57%
33%
66%

Qualified
33%
43%
67%
34%
*
Includes
"
split"
facilities