Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0049-0175
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-03-19T05:00Z

From:
Elmosa
[
elmosa@
imasar.
com]
Sent:
Monday,
August
19,
2002
1:
38
PM
To:
Sunda,
John
B.
Subject:
Re:
InvisiHead
­
Thank
You
Dear
John,
There
are
so
many
variables
that
will
not,
in
this
stage,
help
us
to
zoom
in
on
refined
cost
estimates;
however,
as
a
guideline
indication,
we
can
make
reasonable
assumptions.

Water
Environments:
The
cost
of
carbon
steel
systems
is
about
20­
30%
less
than
ss
for
fresh
water
but
nearly
the
same
for
seawater
(
about
5%
less)
due
to
the
elaborate
coating
for
corrosion
protection.

Mobilization
Costs:
Type
and
no.
and
size
of
equipment
to
be
brought
to
the
site
including
barges,
cranes,
etc.
are
dictated
by
the
size
and
no.
of
InvisiHead
pcs.
and
whether
the
job
is
for
a
new
system
or
a
retrofitting
process.
That
is
why
you
see
a
fairly
large
span
of
the
range.

Other
Costs:
Engineering
is
included
but
contingencies
are
not
since
they
are
geo­
variable
and
location
related,
they
are
dealt
with
on
case­
by­
case
basis
Good
luck
and
best
regards
Mo
Elarbash
"
Sunda,
John
B."
wrote:

>
Dear
Mo,
>
Thank
you
for
your
prompt
and
detailed
response
to
my
questions.
This
data
>
will
provide
the
majority
of
what
I
need
for
the
cost
estimates.
After
>
reviewing
the
information
provided,
I
have
the
following
clarifying
>
questions:
>
>
*
I
had
originally
intended
to
develop
separate
costs
for
saltwater
>
versus
freshwater
installations
based
on
differences
in
materials
of
>
construction
and/
or
other
requirements.
My
interpretation
of
the
>
information
you
provided,
is
that
the
cost
are
for
stainless
steel
equipment
>
that
is
suitable
for
saltwater
(
corrosive)
environments.
Are
the
costs
for
>
using
coated
carbon
steel
(
freshwater
environments)
significantly
lower?
If
>
so,
can
you
provide
similar
equipment
costs
or
a
relative
cost
factor?
>
>
*
The
mobilization
costs
are
presented
as
a
range.
What
factors
drive
>
this
cost
to
the
higher
or
lower
value?
>
>
*
I
intend
to
add
indirect
costs
of
10%
(
of
total
direct
costs)
for
>
engineering
and
10%
for
contingencies?
I'm
not
sure
what
is
included
in
>
your
costs
and
wonder
if
these
additional
cost
factors
(
or
others)
should
be
>
applied
and
whether
they
seem
reasonable
to
you?
Note
that
we
tend
to
err
>
on
the
high
side
unless
the
costs
seem
excessive.
>
>
Again
Thanks,
>
>
John
Sunda
>
Science
Applications
International
Corporation
(
SAIC)
>
11251
Roger
Bacon
Drive
>
Reston,
Virginia
20190
>
Voice
­
703­
318­
4607
>
Fax
­
703­
318­
4646
>
john.
b.
sunda@
saic.
com
>
>
>
­­­­­
Original
Message­­­­­
>
>
From:
Elmosa
[
SMTP:
elmosa@
imasar.
com]
>
>
Sent:
Friday,
August
09,
2002
7:
07
PM
>
>
To:
JOHN.
B.
SUNDA@
saic.
com
>
>
Subject:
InvisiHead
>
>
>
>
Dear
John,
>
>
>
>
I
highly
appreciate
your
interest
in
the
InvisiHead.
I
would
have
>
>
responded
earlier
but
your
message
came
through
the
general
email
address
>
>
and
not
the
Elmosa
address
elmosa@
imasar.
com.
>
>
>
>
There
are
so
many
variables
as
you
mentioned
in
your
message
that
would
>
>
contribute
to
raising
or
lowering
the
costs,
however,
I
am
going
to
give
>
>
you
an
indication
that
would
help
you
in
your
work.
We
are
using
for
the
>
>
cost
parameters,
in
this
case,
the
Great
Lakes
as
the
location
for
the
>
>
intake
systems.
The
costs
are
nearly
linear
for
the
capacities
you
>
>
indicated.
Mobilization
and
demobilization
costs
are
nearly
fixed.
For
the
>
>
matter
of
redundancy
and
continuity
of
operation
we
usually
design
our
>
>
intake
system
of
multiple
pipes
and
intake
heads
unless
capacities
are
too
>
>
small
to
justify
the
approach.
Here
is
the
indicative
costs
(
delivered):
>
>
>
>
5,000
gpm
1
head
@
$
30,000
>
>
10,000
gpm
1
head
@
$
30,000
>
>
25,000
gpm
1
head
@
$
40,000
>
>
50,000
gpm
2
heads
@
$
35,000
ea.
>
>
100,000
gpm
2
heads
@
$
80,000*
ea.
>
>
200,000
gpm
4
heads
@
$
80,000
ea.
>
>
350,000
gpm
4
heads
@
$
106,000
ea.
>
>
>
>
*
This
is
the
most
recent
price
for
stainless
steel
structure
I
got
from
>
>
Fabrication
Department
for
a
recent
work.
If
you
need
more
fine­
tuned
>
>
prices
please
let
me
know.
I
will
try
to
get
better
figures
from
>
>
Fabrication.
>
>
>
>
Installation
per
head
is
about
$
35,000.
Mobilization
is
about
>
>
$
15,000­$
30,000
for
all
types
of
InvisiHead
installation
jobs
whether
for
>
>
an
existing
structure
or
a
new
one
including
diving,
cutting,
welding,
>
>
etc.
>
>
Installation
time
ranges
between
2­
7
days.
>
>
>
>
The
InvisiHead
virtually
requires
no
maintenance.
Its
progressive
staging
>
>
of
the
flow
acts
as
an
entrance
self
cleaner
so
as
to
remain
continuously
>
>
fully
open
to
deliver
the
required
flow
capacities
at
all
times
with
>
>
highly
clean
water.
>
>
>
>
However,
for
retrofitting
of
existing
structure,
we
simply
have
to
design
>
>
the
proper
InvisiHead
to
fit
each
structure.
We
do
turn
key
jobs
around
>
>
the
world.
The
costs
may
go
down
substantially
if
a
number
of
jobs
becomes
>
>
available
at
a
fairly
close
time
intervals.
>
>
>
>
The
location
usually
dictates
what
type
of
material
to
be
used
and
how
>
>
heavy
the
structure
should
be.
Wave
action,
depth,
and
submarine
currents
>
>
play
major
roles
in
the
engineering
of
the
system.
The
InvisiHead
creates
>
>
through
its
progressive
flow
stages
a
good
degree
of
shock
absorption
and
>
>
flexibility
to
let
the
high
speed
currents
through
during
stormy
>
>
conditions.
This
is
one
the
features
that
helped
us
reduce
the
weight
and
>
>
material
used
in
fabrication.
We
use
carbon
and
stainless
steel
as
well
as
>
>
FRP's
in
the
construction.
Although
the
InvisiHead
is
hydraulically
immune
>
>
to
be
blocked
by
Zebra
Mussels,
it
can
be
constructed
of
Mussel
repellent
>
>
alloys.
The
costs
are
not
much
different
for
salt
water
since
carbon
steel
>
>
costs
become
about
the
same
as
stainless
steel
when
done
with
rust
>
>
proofing.
FRP's
also
get
costly
when
stability
becomes
a
major
factor
in
>
>
the
open
seas.
For
fresh
water
CS
is
a
cheaper
choice
for
larger
>
>
structures,
FRP's
become
cheaper
for
smaller
heads.
>
>
>
>
Should
you
need
any
further
information
please
let
me
know.
>
>
>
>
Regards
>
>
Mo
Elarbash
>
>
905­
760­
9039
>
>
416­
609­
1439
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
­­
>
>
_______________________________________
>
>
Please
visit
us
at
<
http://
www.
imasar.
com/
elmosa>
!
Thank
you
>
>

­­
_______________________________________
Please
visit
us
at
http://
www.
imasar.
com/
elmosa
!
Thank
you