Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0049-0320
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-03-19T05:00Z

This
document
represents
the
best
judgment
of
the
EPA
staff
conducting
analyses
to
support
the
Phase
II
Section
316(
b)
rule
at
this
time.
It
does
not
represent
the
final
position
of
the
Administrator
or
EPA
on
this
rulemaking.
EPA
reserves
the
right
to
change
or
amend
any
of
the
statements
within
this
document
up
until
the
time
that
the
EPA
Administrator
takes
final
action
on
this
rule.

Page
1
of
5
Response
to
Greg
Seegert,
EA
Questions
Regarding
Derivation
of
Study
Costs
Presented
in
the
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
for
the
Proposed
Phase
II
Rule.

On
June
20,
2001,
EPA
staff
and
their
consultants
participated
in
a
conference
call
with
Greg
Seegert
from
EA
Engineering,
Science,
and
Technology,
Inc.
He
has
been
retained
by
the
Utility
Water
Act
Group
(
UWAG)
to
review
the
rulemaking
record
associated
with
the
proposed
section
316(
b)
Phase
II
rule
for
cooling
water
intake
structures
at
large
existing
utility
and
nonutility
power
producers.
His
questions
concerned
the
derivation
of
study
costs
presented
in
the
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
for
the
Proposed
Phase
II
Rule.
To
respond
to
his
questions
and
to
provide
additional
clarification,
the
following
was
developed.

General
Derivation
of
Study
Activities
and
Costs
Burden
estimates
developed
for
the
Source
Water
Biological
Characterization
Study
(
SWBC)
for
the
Phase
I
final
rule
were
used
as
the
basis
for
the
burden
estimates
for
the
Impingement
Mortality
and
Entrainment
Characterization
(
IMEC)
study
for
the
Phase
II
proposed
rule.
The
IMEC
study
for
the
Phase
II
proposed
rule
covers
the
same
types
of
activities
as
the
SWBC
study
for
the
Phase
I
final
rule.
Labor
rates
were
based
on
the
BLS
Occupational
Outlook
Handbook
2002­
2003.
Based
on
the
experience
of
scientists
who
have
performed
similar
studies
in
the
past
it
was
estimated
that
most
facilities
will
not
have
the
appropriate
expertise
in­
house
and
will
contract
the
study
to
consultants.
Therefore,
the
burden
estimates,
operation
and
maintenance
costs,
and
labor
rate
loading
factors
for
the
anticipated
activities
reflect
that
the
work
was
performed
by
both
in­
house
staff
and
contract
biologists.

The
following
steps
were
followed
in
deriving
the
study
burden
and
cost
estimates.

 
Step
1:
Develop
list
and
description
of
each
study
activity.
 
Step
2:
Develop
initial
hourly
burden
estimates
for
each
of
the
activities.
 
Step
3:
Develop
estimates
for
the
labor
categories
and
experience
level
of
the
people
performing
the
tasks.
These
estimates
were
derived
using
best
professional
judgment
(
BPJ)
of
consultants
who
have
many
years
experience
doing
similar
studies.
The
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistic's
(
BLS)
Occupational
Outlook
Handbook
2000­
2001
was
used
to
derive
hourly
wages
for
each
labor
category.
Then
the
BLS's
Employment
Cost
Trends
for
March
2001
were
used
to
develop
a
fully
loaded
labor
rate.
 
Step
4:
Develop
estimates
of
the
likely
capital,
operation
&
maintenance,
and
other
direct
costs.
This
document
represents
the
best
judgment
of
the
EPA
staff
conducting
analyses
to
support
the
Phase
II
Section
316(
b)
rule
at
this
time.
It
does
not
represent
the
final
position
of
the
Administrator
or
EPA
on
this
rulemaking.
EPA
reserves
the
right
to
change
or
amend
any
of
the
statements
within
this
document
up
until
the
time
that
the
EPA
Administrator
takes
final
action
on
this
rule.

Page
2
of
5
Below
is
a
description
of
each
study
activity
and
the
assumed
burden
by
labor
category,
followed
by
the
anticipated
number
of
total
hours
for
the
study
in
parenthesis.

Implement
Sampling
Samples
will
be
taken
at
each
facility
on
a
biweekly
basis
over
three
years
(
i.
e.,
26
sampling
events),
assuming
3
sites
and
5
samples
at
each
site,
for
a
total
of
1,170
samples.
It
was
estimated
(
based
on
experience
performing
similar
studies)
that
sampling
will
require
30%
more
effort
at
estuary
sites
than
at
freshwater
sites,
due
to
increased
logistical
complexities
and
the
higher
density
of
organisms
typically
present.

 
The
facility
manager
will
make
occasional
seasonal
visits
to
supervise
the
sampling
(
8
hrs
freshwater
/
10
hrs
estuary).
 
Facility
junior
technical
staff
spend
approximately
one
hour
every
two
weeks
to
review
the
monitoring
results
from
the
sampling
events
(
78
hrs
freshwater
/
101
hrs
estuary).
 
The
manager
of
the
contracted
firm
spends
two
hours
supervising
the
sampling
every
two
weeks
(
160
hrs).
 
A
biologist
and
a
biological
technician
each
spend
20
hrs
every
two
weeks
(
approximately
1
hr
20
minutes
each
per
freshwater
sample
and
1
hr
45
min
each
per
estuary
sample)
conducting
sampling
(
1,560
hrs
freshwater
/
2,028
hrs
estuary).
 
A
statistician
spends
a
week
each
year
analyzing
the
sampling
results
(
120
hrs).
 
Clerical
staff
spend
20
hours
a
year
handling
and
delivering
sampling
results
to
the
facility
and
contracted
employees
(
60
hrs).

Profile
of
Source
Water
Biota
Based
on
the
past
experience
of
consultants
who
have
performed
similar
studies,
it
was
assumed
that
much
of
the
work
of
profiling
the
source
water
biota
will
be
carried
out
by
contracted
employees.
However,
the
facility
manager
will
take
a
more
active
role
in
reviewing
this
work
as
this
information
will
form
the
basis
of
the
study
results
that
he
submits
to
the
Director
 
The
facility
manager
spends
1
day
per
year
reviewing
lab
results
and
documentation
(
32
hrs).
 
Facility
junior
technical
staff
spend
approximately
6
to
7
hours
a
year
assisting
the
facility
manager
with
the
review
of
lab
results
and
documentation
(
20
hrs).
 
The
manager
of
the
contracted
firm
spends
1
day
per
year
reviewing
lab
results
and
documentation
(
32
hrs).
This
document
represents
the
best
judgment
of
the
EPA
staff
conducting
analyses
to
support
the
Phase
II
Section
316(
b)
rule
at
this
time.
It
does
not
represent
the
final
position
of
the
Administrator
or
EPA
on
this
rulemaking.
EPA
reserves
the
right
to
change
or
amend
any
of
the
statements
within
this
document
up
until
the
time
that
the
EPA
Administrator
takes
final
action
on
this
rule.

Page
3
of
5
 
A
biologist
spends
20
hrs
per
year
reviewing
and
characterizing
the
data
based
on
lab
results
and
statistical
analysis
(
60
hrs).
 
A
biological
technician
spends
approximately
6
to
7
hours
a
year
assisting
the
biologist
with
the
review
of
lab
results
(
20
hrs).
 
Clerical
staff
spend
approximately
2
to
3
hours
a
year
handling
the
lab
results
and
documentation
(
8
hrs).

Identification
of
Critical
Species
The
identification
of
critical
species
will
be
based
on
the
profiles
of
source
water
biota,
the
results
of
the
statistical
analysis,
and
a
review
of
current
information.
Identification
of
critical
species
will
be
carried
out
by
the
contracted
employees.
However,
the
facility
manager
will
take
a
more
active
role
in
reviewing
this
work
as
this
information
will
form
the
basis
of
the
study
results
that
he
submits
to
the
State.

 
The
facility
manager
spends
3
days
reviewing
biota
profiles
and
current
information
(
32
hrs).
 
Facility
junior
technical
staff
spend
approximately
20
hours
assisting
the
facility
manager
with
reviewing
biota
profiles
and
current
information
(
20
hrs).
 
The
manager
of
the
contracted
firm
spends
approximately
20
hours
assisting
the
facility
manager
with
reviewing
biota
profiles
and
current
information
(
20
hrs).
 
A
biologist
spends
one
week
assisting
the
facility
manager
with
reviewing
biota
profiles
and
current
information
(
40
hrs).
 
Clerical
staff
spend
3
hours
gathering
materials
and
documents
(
3
hrs).

Write
Study
and
Submit
for
Review
by
Director
The
study
will
be
written
towards
the
end
of
the
third
year,
primarily
by
the
facility
manager
and
junior
staff.

 
The
facility
manager
spends
2
weeks
outlining
the
report,
writing
critical
sections,
and
reviewing
the
work
done
by
the
junior
staff
(
80
hrs).
 
Facility
junior
technical
staff
spend
approximately
4
weeks
drafting
the
bulk
of
the
report
and
supporting
materials
(
160
hrs).
 
The
manager
of
the
contracted
firm
spends
approximately
one
day
assisting
the
facility
manager
by
providing
expert
opinion
when
needed
and
one
day
reviewing
a
draft
of
the
study
(
16
hrs).
 
A
biologist
spends
one
day
assisting
with
providing
expert
opinion
and
reviewing
study
(
8
hrs).
This
document
represents
the
best
judgment
of
the
EPA
staff
conducting
analyses
to
support
the
Phase
II
Section
316(
b)
rule
at
this
time.
It
does
not
represent
the
final
position
of
the
Administrator
or
EPA
on
this
rulemaking.
EPA
reserves
the
right
to
change
or
amend
any
of
the
statements
within
this
document
up
until
the
time
that
the
EPA
Administrator
takes
final
action
on
this
rule.

Page
4
of
5
 
A
statistician
also
spends
one
day
assisting
with
providing
expert
opinion
and
reviewing
study
(
8
hrs).
 
Clerical
staff
spends
8
hours
assisting
with
preparing
the
report
for
submission
(
8
hrs).

Recordkeeping
Due
to
the
necessity
of
the
study
for
obtaining
a
permit,
the
facility
staff
and
the
contracted
employees
will
spend
time
to
ensure
that
both
paper
and
electronic
copies
of
all
results,
analyses,
studies,
and
reviews
are
maintained.

 
The
facility
manager
spends
6
hours
maintaining
records
(
6
hrs).
 
Facility
junior
technical
staff
spend
12
hours
maintaining
records
(
12
hrs).
 
The
manager
of
the
contracted
firm
spends
6
hours
maintaining
records
(
6
hrs).
 
Clerical
staff
spends
3
days
maintaining
records
(
24
hrs).

Finalize
Study
based
on
Director
Review
EPA
anticipates
that
the
Director
will
have
questions
and
comments
on
the
study
that
will
require
the
facility
staff
to
revise
the
study
further.

 
The
facility
manager
spends
2
days
reviewing
the
Director's
comments
and
questions
and
then
crafting
appropriate
responses
(
16
hrs).
 
Facility
junior
technical
staff
spend
4
days
revising
the
study
(
32
hrs).
 
Clerical
staff
spend
one
day
resubmitting
the
study
and
maintaining
records
(
8
hrs).

Other
Direct
Costs
Other
direct
costs
(
ODCs)
were
also
expected
to
vary
for
facilities
depending
on
whether
they
were
located
adjacent
to
freshwater
waterbody
or
an
estuary.
It
was
estimated
based
on
the
past
experience
of
consultants
who
have
performed
similar
studies
that
estuary
facilities
will
incur
30%
more
ODC
costs
than
those
located
on
freshwater
rivers
or
streams.
The
three
year
totals
are
as
follows.

 
Study
ODCs
for
freshwater
facilities
is
$
7,800.
 
Study
ODCs
for
estuary
facilities
is
$
13,000.
This
document
represents
the
best
judgment
of
the
EPA
staff
conducting
analyses
to
support
the
Phase
II
Section
316(
b)
rule
at
this
time.
It
does
not
represent
the
final
position
of
the
Administrator
or
EPA
on
this
rulemaking.
EPA
reserves
the
right
to
change
or
amend
any
of
the
statements
within
this
document
up
until
the
time
that
the
EPA
Administrator
takes
final
action
on
this
rule.

Page
5
of
5
Capital
and
Operation
&
Maintenance
Costs
Based
on
the
experience
of
consultants
who
have
performed
similar
studies
in
the
past,
it
was
assumed
that
the
actual
laboratory
analysis
of
samples
will
be
performed
by
an
outside
laboratory.
Therefore
these
costs
were
considered
O
&
M
costs.

 
The
laboratory
analysis
cost
per
sampling
event
was
estimated
at
$
100
per
freshwater
sample
($
117,000
total
lab
cost),
and
$
130
per
estuary
sample
plus
30%
effort
increase
($
197,730
in
lab
costs).
 
Additionally,
it
was
anticipated
that
the
facility
will
be
charged
approximately
$
500
annually
in
additional
fees
for
materials
and
other
incidental
costs
incurred
by
the
laboratory
($
1,500
total).