ppendices
ppendices
to
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
to
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
ong
ong
Term
2
Enhanced
Surface
Water
Treatment
Rule
Term
2
Enhanced
Surface
Water
Treatment
Rule
A
L
PREPARED
FOR:

U.
S.
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
Office
of
Ground
Water
and
Drinking
Water
PREPARED
BY:

THE
CADMUS
GROUP,
INC.
1901
North
Fort
Myer
Drive
Suite
900
Arlington,
VA
22209
US
EPA
CONTRACT:
68­
C­
02­
026
Work
Assignment:
1­
21
June
2003
Proposal
Draft
LT2ESWTR
EA
Appendices
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
Appendices
Appendix
A:
Pre­
LT2
Removal
Credit
Appendix
B:
Predicted
Plant
Binning
Appendix
C:
Benefits
Appendix
D:
National
Costs
for
Rule
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Appendix
E:
Unit
Costs
for
Technologies
Considered
in
the
LT2ESWTR
Appendix
F:
Technology
Selection
Forecast
Methodology
Appendix
G:
Technology
Selection
Results
Appendix
H:
Treatment
Costs
for
Filtered
Plants
Appendix
I:
Unit
Costs
for
Uncovered
Finished
Water
Reservoirs
Appendix
J:
Estimation
of
Household
Costs
Appendix
K:
Additional
Information
on
the
Approach
For
Valuing
Time
Losses
Appendix
L:
Calculations
Supporting
The
Cost
of
Illness
(
COI)
Analysis
Appendix
M:
Small
Community
Surface
Water
and
GWUDI
Systems
by
State
Appendix
N:
Dose­
Response
Analysis­
Revised
Following
SAB
Review
Appendix
O:
Assigning
LT2ESWTR
Costs
and
Benefits
Appendix
P:
Sensitivity
Analyses
for
Cost
of
Illness
Values
Appendix
Q:
Treatment
Costs
for
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
Plants
Appendix
R:
Sensitivity
Analysis
for
AIDS­
Related
Mortality
Rate
Appendix
S:
Analysis
of
Individual
Risk
by
Initial
Bin
Appendix
T:
Risk
Assessment
Model
 
Program
and
Data
Files
Appendix
U:
Cost
Models
Appendix
V:
Total
Annualized
Costs
for
Rule
Alternatives
Appendix
W:
Screening
Analysis
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
A­
1
June
2003
Appendix
A
Pre­
LT2ESWTR
Removal
Credit
A.
1
Introduction
To
appropriately
assess
the
costs
and
benefits
of
the
LT2ESWTR,
it
is
necessary
to
estimate
how
many
plants
will
be
required
to
provide
treatment
as
a
result
of
the
rule
and
the
level
of
treatment
they
must
provide.
One
essential
factor
in
performing
this
assessment
is
determining
the
number
of
plants
that
may
be
able
to
get
Cryptosporidium
removal
credit
for
treatment
technologies
already
in
place.
This
appendix
discusses
the
various
technologies
that
could
earn
removal
credit
and
will
estimate
the
percentage
of
plants
by
size
category
that
have
or
will
have
such
technologies
in
place
prior
to
promulgation
of
the
LT2ESWTR.

Specifically,
this
appendix
addresses
the
following
toolbox
technologies:

°
Combined
filter
performance
°
Softening
plants
with
multiple
settling
basins
°
Conventional
plants
with
multiple
settling
basins
°
Multiple
filters
Data
sources
and
the
population
size
categories
are
discussed
first,
followed
by
an
analysis
of
each
treatment
configuration.
The
appendix
concludes
with
a
summary
of
log
removal
credits
for
existing
treatment.

A.
2
Data
Sources
A
number
of
information
sources
were
reviewed
to
determine
the
performance
and
layouts
of
surface
water
treatment
plants.
A
summary
of
each
source,
the
information
it
contains,
and
its
advantages
and
disadvantages
follow.

A.
2.1
The
Information
Collection
Rule
(
ICR),
USEPA
1996
The
ICR
was
a
survey
conducted
by
EPA
from
1997
through
1998.
It
consists
of
18
months
of
data
collected
from
all
large
systems
serving
over
100,000
people.
Information
in
the
survey
included
water
quality
parameters,
such
as
turbidity
and
pH,
along
with
process
units
in
the
plant
and
their
sequences.
The
ICR
survey
is
the
most
comprehensive
database
available
for
large
systems.

A.
2.2
Partnership
for
Safe
Drinking
Water
Data,
1999
Analyses
in
this
appendix
draw
from
the
Year
2000
annual
report
for
the
Partnership
for
Safe
Drinking
Water
(
the
Partnership),
as
well
as
additional
turbidity
data
gathered
and
analyzed
by
EPA.
The
Partnership
is
a
cooperative
effort
among
EPA
and
several
professional
water
associations.
Plants
in
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
A­
2
June
2003
Partnership
undergo
voluntary
audit
programs
in
an
effort
to
improve
their
plant
performance
and
achieve
better
water
quality.
According
to
the
annual
report,
about
211
of
the
total
Partnership
plants
were
large
plants
serving
more
than
100,000
people,
81
were
medium
plants
serving
between
10,000
and
100,000
people,
and
33
were
small
plants
serving
less
than
10,000
people.
All
of
these
plants
were
surface
water
plants.
Because
of
this
representation,
the
survey
is
best
suited
for
use
with
large
systems.
It
is
less
appropriate
to
use
for
medium
systems,
although
with
a
sample
size
of
81
medium
plants,
it
is
probably
a
fair
representation
of
medium
plants.
It
is
probably
inadequate
to
represent
small
systems
as
its
small
plants
are
less
than
half
a
percent
of
the
small
plants
nationwide
and
most
of
the
plants
in
the
database
are
larger
systems.
Because
the
Partnership
is
a
voluntary
association
of
plants
actively
seeking
to
improve
water
quality,
these
plants
are
likely
to
perform
better
than
plants
nationwide.

A.
2.3
American
WaterWorks
Association
(
AWWA)
Water:\
Stats
Database,
1996
The
AWWA
Water:\
Stats
Database
contains
the
results
of
a
survey
of
the
AWWA's
members
conducted
in
1996.
It
contains
information
on
the
treatment
processes
in
place
at
the
plants
that
responded
to
the
survey
along
with
information
on
disinfection
byproducts
and
other
water
quality
parameters.
The
database
includes
information
on
1,134
treatment
plants.
Of
these,
377
are
large
plants,
722
are
medium
plants,
and
only
35
of
the
plants
are
small
plants.
Of
these
plants
540
were
surface
water
plants.
Because
of
the
large
number
of
medium
plants,
this
is
probably
the
best
available
source
of
data
for
medium
plants.
It
is
also
a
good
source
of
data
for
large
plants.
The
small
number
of
small
plants
probably
makes
this
source
less
adequate
for
characterization
of
small
plants.

A.
2.4
Community
Water
Systems
Survey
(
CWSS),
1995
The
CWSS
was
conducted
by
EPA
in
1995.
It
surveyed
2,000
community
water
systems
across
all
size
categories.
It
includes
information
on
the
type
of
treatment
processes
the
plants
have
in
place.
Although
the
sample
size
in
this
survey
is
adequate
to
represent
plants
in
all
size
categories
nationwide,
there
are
some
significant
problems
with
using
this
data
source
to
estimate
in­
place
treatment
technologies.
First,
there
were
a
large
number
of
non­
responses
to
the
survey,
especially
by
small
systems.
There
was
also
a
great
deal
of
confusion
over
the
wording
of
many
of
the
questions
on
the
survey,
leading
to
difficulty
in
classifying
many
of
the
process
units.
This
resulted
in
a
large
number
of
processes
being
classified
in
"
other"
categories.
As
a
result,
this
survey
is
probably
the
least
reliable
source
used
in
this
analysis.

A.
2.5
National
Rural
Water
Association
(
NRWA)
Survey,
2000
This
survey
was
conducted
of
members
of
the
NRWA
in
1999­
2000.
It
includes
data
on
water
quality
parameters,
as
well
as
treatment
configurations.
The
survey
includes
information
on
129
small
surface
water
systems,
the
largest
survey
of
small
systems
available.
It
should
be
noted,
however,
that
the
survey
still
only
encompasses
about
1
percent
of
small
systems
nationwide
and
the
plants
were
not
necessarily
chosen
to
obtain
a
representative
nationwide
sampling
of
various
types
of
systems.
The
water
quality
data
also
only
includes
two
samples
per
plant
 
one
in
the
Summer
and
one
in
the
Winter
 
instead
of
the
monthly
data
included
in
other
surveys.
Therefore,
although
this
is
the
best
data
source
available
for
small
systems,
it
is
still
very
limited
in
its
usefulness.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
A­
3
June
2003
A.
2.6
Regulatory
Impact
Analyses
(
RIAs)
for
the
Interim
Enhanced
Surface
Water
Treatment
Rule
(
IESWTR)
(
1998)
and
the
Proposed
Long
Term
1
Enhanced
Surface
Water
Treatment
Rule
(
LT1ESWTR)
(
2000)

These
reports
analyzed
the
impact
of
these
two
rules
on
surface
water
systems.
The
reports
include
characterization
of
plants'
performance
prior
to
the
promulgation
of
these
rules
and
predictions
concerning
what
types
of
treatments
plants
that
would
need
to
add
to
comply
with
these
rules.

A.
2.7
Interview
of
Industry
Experts
To
assess
the
applicability
of
the
various
data
sources
and
the
assumptions
made
about
them,
industry
experts
were
interviewed
on
the
topics
analyzed
in
this
appendix.
Experts
on
the
subjects
of
small
systems,
large
systems,
data
surveys,
and
treatment
technologies
were
interviewed.
The
experts
were
asked
questions
concerning
the
validity
and
applicability
of
the
data
sources
listed
above.
They
were
also
questioned
regarding
the
reasonableness
of
the
assumptions
in
this
appendix.

A.
3
Comparison
and
Use
of
Data
Sources
Using
the
expert
opinion
and
information
from
each
of
the
sources,
determinations
were
made
on
which
data
sources
to
use
for
each
of
the
size
categories
and
treatment
categories.

A.
3.1
Large
Systems
The
ICR
is
a
comprehensive
survey
that
was
mandated
of
all
large
systems
in
the
country.
The
large
number
of
systems
makes
it
the
most
comprehensive
and
least
biased
source
of
information
for
large
systems.
In
addition,
although
the
information
on
treatment
trains
was
self­
reported,
EPA
performed
a
data
quality
check
that
should
have
lessened
inconsistencies
in
reporting.
Both
Water:\
Stats
and
CWSS
were
voluntary
surveys
with
non­
response
rates
much
greater
than
50
percent.
The
low
response
rate
could
lead
to
some
bias
in
the
data.
There
was
also
little
independent
review
of
the
data,
which
means
that
there
could
be
inconsistent
labeling
of
process
units.
This
was
a
noted
problem
in
CWSS.
Therefore,
ICR
data
was
used
preferentially
for
large
systems
to
obtain
treatment
train
data.
The
Partnership
data
were
used
for
information
on
turbidity.
For
treatment
processes
that
could
not
be
determined
from
ICR
data,
Water:\
Stats
or
the
CWSS
was
used.

A.
3.2
Medium
Systems
Water:\
Stats
and
CWSS
are
the
two
main
sources
of
data
about
treatment
trains
for
medium
water
systems.
They
contain
similar
numbers
of
medium
systems
and
both
were
voluntary
surveys
with
high
non­
response
rates.
There
was
some
confusion
noted
with
the
listing
of
technologies
in
the
CWSS
survey
that
may
have
led
to
a
higher
rate
of
misclassification
than
with
Water:\
Stats.
There
was
not
enough
information,
however,
to
clearly
favor
one
data
source
over
the
other,
so
the
two
were
considered
equivalent,
and
when
data
existed
in
both
databases
they
were
averaged.

Medium
and
large
plants
have
been
found
to
be
similar
both
in
terms
of
water
quality
and
treatment
effectiveness.
Examining
the
medium
and
large
plants
in
Water:\
Stats
revealed
that
source
water
quality
as
measured
by
source
turbidity
and
finished
water
quality
as
measured
by
disinfection
by­
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
A­
4
June
2003
products
were
nearly
identical
for
medium
and
large
plants
(
see
USEPA
2003d
Appendix
B).
Therefore,
the
types
and
effectiveness
of
the
treatment
processes
are
thought
to
be
fairly
similar,
and
using
data
from
large
plants
(
ICR
data)
for
medium
plants
results
in
an
acceptable
estimate
of
medium
plants.
For
this
reason,
ICR
data
were
used
for
medium
plants
when
specific
information
on
medium
plants
was
unavailable.
For
turbidity,
data
from
the
Partnership
were
used.
The
Partnership
data
are
an
aggregate
of
medium
and
large
plants,
but
they
are
acceptable
to
apply
to
medium
plants.

A.
3.3
Small
Systems
Water:\
Stats
database
contains
information
on
only
33
small
plants.
Therefore,
this
source
was
not
used
for
small
plants.
CWSS
contains
the
largest
number
of
small
plants
of
all
the
data
sources.
The
size
of
the
sample
may
offset
the
possible
misclassification
and
the
low
response
rate.
The
NRWA
survey
has
a
smaller
number
of
plants
that
are
less
representative
of
the
national
population.
However,
the
survey
was
conducted
by
making
site
visits
to
the
plants,
so
there
is
probably
less
miscategorization
of
data.
For
that
reason,
NRWA
was
used
as
the
preferential
database
for
small
systems
with
CWSS
being
used
when
data
were
unavailable
from
NRWA.
For
turbidity
data,
the
data
collected
for
the
proposed
LT1ESWTR
RIA
(
USEPA
2000l)
was
used,
as
it
contained
the
largest
number
of
plants
and
had
better
quality
data.

A.
4
Population
Size
Categories
Evaluated
Because
of
the
limited
number
of
plants
in
many
of
the
above
sources,
it
was
decided
not
to
split
plants
into
nine
population
categories
as
is
traditionally
done
in
such
analyses.
Such
a
split
would
leave
many
of
the
small
size
categories
with
too
few
plants
to
be
statistically
significant.
Therefore,
only
the
small
(<
10,000),
medium
(
10,001­
100,000),
and
large
(>
100,000)
population
size
categories
were
used
for
analysis.

A.
5
Combined
Filter
Performance
The
combined
filter
performance
option
requires
systems
to
achieve
turbidity
of
0.15
NTU
in
the
combined
filter
effluent
(
CFE).
Conventional
plants
will
need
to
meet
the
requirements
of
0.3
NTU
95
percent
of
the
time
in
the
CFE
per
the
IESWTR
and
the
LT1ESWTR.
Plants
that
can
optimize
their
process
to
achieve
0.15
NTU
95
percent
of
time
in
the
CFE
will
be
able
to
receive
an
additional
0.5
log
Cryptosporidium
removal
credit
for
the
LT2ESWTR.

A.
5.1
Medium
and
Large
Plants
 
Turbidity
To
determine
the
number
of
medium
and
large
plants
that
can
achieve
the
Cryptosporidium
reduction
credit
for
the
combined
filter
performance
option
prior
to
implementation
of
the
IESWTR,
1999
data
from
the
Partnership
were
examined.
The
data
include
turbidity
results
from
220
plants
of
the
325
that
are
members
of
the
Partnership.
As
noted
earlier,
most
plants
in
the
Partnership
are
in
the
medium
and
large
size
categories.
So
this
data
set
is
assumed
to
be
representative
of
medium
and
large
plants.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
A­
5
June
2003
A.
5.2
Pre­
IESWTR
Exhibit
A.
1
summarizes
these
data,
showing
the
percentage
of
plants
that
exceed
monthly
95th
percentile
turbidities
of
0.1,
0.2,
and
0.3
for
a
given
number
of
months.
To
interpret
the
exhibit,
consider
the
following
example:
the
value
for
1
month
and
0.3
NTU
is
20
percent.
This
means
that
20
percent
of
the
plants
exceeded
0.3
NTU
in
their
CFE
for
at
least
1
month
out
of
the
year.
Conversely,
80
percent
of
the
plants
never
exceeded
a
95th
percentile
turbidity
value
of
0.3
NTU.

To
estimate
the
percentage
of
plants
in
the
Partnership
below
0.15
for
all
months,
linear
interpolation
was
used.
From
Exhibit
A.
1,
estimates
of
plants
above
0.1
and
0.2
NTU
for
any
given
month
are
42
percent
and
74
percent,
respectively.
The
value
for
0.15
NTU
would
then
be:

(
42%
+
74%)/
2
=
58%.

Therefore,
42
percent
(
100
percent
­
58
percent)
of
plants
did
not
exceed
0.15
NTU
and
met
the
requirement
to
obtain
the
0.5
log
Cryptosporidium
removal
credit
(
less
than
0.15
NTU
95
percent
of
the
time).

To
directly
extrapolate
Partnership
estimates
to
all
medium
and
large
plants
nationwide
may
be
misleading.
The
plants
in
the
Partnership
tend
to
be
the
largest,
best
run
plants
in
the
country.
Also,
by
virtue
of
their
voluntary
participation
in
the
program,
these
plants
are
likely
to
be
dedicated
to
improving
plant
performance.
This
may
lead
to
plants
in
the
Partnership
performing
better
than
those
not
in
the
Partnership.
Therefore,
other
information
was
evaluated
to
determine
the
percent
of
medium
and
large
plants
that
can
obtain
these
values.

The
Technical
Work
Group
(
TWG)
for
the
IESWTR
estimated
the
number
of
conventional
systems
that
would
need
to
take
action
to
achieve
95th
percentile
turbidity
goals
of
0.1,
0.2,
and
0.3
NTU.
The
TWG
estimated
that
there
would
be
no
difference
in
the
number
of
plants
that
would
need
to
make
changes
to
achieve
0.1
and
0.2
NTU;
there
would
only
be
changes
in
the
type
of
treatment
they
would
use.
Examining
Exhibit
5.2
of
the
IESWTR
RIA
(
USEPA
1998b)
shows
the
TWG
determined
that
20
percent
of
medium
systems
and
23
percent
of
large
systems
would
not
have
to
make
changes
to
comply
with
a
0.1
or
0.2
NTU
95th
percentile
turbidity
limit.
These
values
were
used
to
represent
the
levels
that
all
plants
could
achieve
prior
to
implementation
of
the
LT2ESWTR.
The
Partnership
plants
were
not
analyzed
separately
as
the
IESWTR
analysis
would
have
already
taken
these
plants
into
account.

Exhibit
A.
2
summarizes
the
estimated
percentage
of
Partnership
plants
and
all
plants
estimated
to
be
meeting
the
combined
filter
performance
requirement
prior
to
the
IESWTR.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
A­
6
June
2003
Exhibit
A.
1
Percent
of
Plants
that
Exceeded
95th
Percentile
Monthly
Turbidity
at
least
N
out
of
12
Months
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Number
of
Months
(
N)
Percent
0.1
NTU
0.2
NTU
0.3
NTU
Source:
Personal
Communication,
Eric
Bissonnette,
EPA
2/
28/
01.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
A­
7
June
2003
Exhibit
A.
2
Percentage
of
Medium
and
Large
Plants
Estimated
to
Meet
Combined
Filter
Performance
Requirements
(
Pre­
IESWTR
and
Pre­
LT1ESWTR)

Size
Category
(
Population
Served)
Total
Plants
in
Size
Category
No.
of
Plants
in
Partnership
[
1]
Percent
of
Partnership
Plants
Meeting
<
0.15
NTU
[
2]
Percent
of
All
Plants
Meeting
<
0.15
NTU
[
3]

a
b
c
d
Medium
(>
10k
and
<
100k)
1,645
81
20%

Large
(>
100k)
464
211
23%

Total
2,371
325
Notes:
[
1]
Number
of
all
plants
in
the
country
in
the
given
size
category
that
belong
to
the
Partnership.
Estimated
from
Partnership
for
Safe
Water
Annual
Data
Summary
Report
­
January
2000.
[
2]
Estimated
from
EPA
evaluation
of
Partnership
data
(
personal
communication
from
Eric
Bissonette,
EPA
2­
28­
01).
[
3]
Derived
from
Exhibit
5.2
of
the
RIA
for
the
IESWTR
(
USEPA
1998b).

A.
5.3
Post­
LT1ESWTR/
IESWTR
Exhibit
A.
2
summarizes
data
from
1999
or
before,
prior
to
implementation
of
the
IESWTR.
It
is
expected
that
many
plants
will
improve
filter
performance
to
comply
with
the
requirements
of
IESWTR.
The
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis
(
RIA)
for
the
IESWTR
(
USEPA
1998b)
estimates
that
approximately
51
percent
of
medium
and
46
percent
of
large
systems
will
modify
their
treatment
processes
to
comply
with
the
rule
requirements.
Plants
are
expected
to
make
changes
such
as
adding
additional
polymer,
automating
filter
monitoring
and
control,
and
implementing
better
filter
inspection
and
maintenance
programs.
These
are
plants
that
would
not
have
been
performing
at
these
turbidity
levels
in
1999,
but
are
predicted
to
achieve
lower
turbidity
limits
of
at
least
0.3
NTU
before
the
promulgation
of
the
LT2ESWTR.
It
is
reasonable
to
assume
that
some
plants
that
make
changes
to
achieve
0.3
NTU
will
also
be
able
to
achieve
0.15
NTU
without
additional
changes.
To
estimate
the
percentage
of
these
plants
that
will
achieve
the
additional
removal
to
levels
of
0.15
NTU
95
percent
of
the
time
after
implementation
of
the
LT1ESWTR
and
IESWTR,
the
following
assumptions
were
used:

°
The
ratio
of
plants
that
achieve
0.15
NTU
to
those
that
achieve
0.3
NTU
is
the
same
for
the
universe
of
plants.

°
Based
on
Partnership
data
(
Exhibit
A.
1),
about
half
the
plants
that
achieve
0.3
NTU
(
80
percent)
also
achieve
0.15
NTU
(
42
percent).

Although
the
Partnership
plants
tend
to
be
better
run
on
the
whole,
many
of
the
elements
of
the
Partnership
program
are
similar
to
those
required
by
the
IESWTR.
For
example,
both
the
IESWTR
and
the
Partnership
require
filter
benchmarking
and
peer
reviews.
Therefore,
using
the
ratio
of
Partnership
plants
that
achieve
0.3
NTU
to
those
that
achieve
0.15
NTU
is
a
reasonable
proxy
for
how
all
plants
might
be
expected
to
perform
after
the
IESWTR
and
LT1ESWTR
are
implemented.
Applying
this
1
A
package
plant
is
a
plant
that
treats
small
amounts
of
water
and
is
modular,
usually
shipped
from
the
factory
whole.
The
plants
need
only
to
be
hooked
up
to
an
inlet
and
outlet
pipe
to
be
operational.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
A­
8
June
2003
percentage
(
50
percent)
to
the
percent
of
medium
and
large
plants
expected
to
implement
filter
changes
to
comply
with
the
IESWTR
(
51
and
46
percent
respectively)
gives
26
and
23
percent
of
medium
and
large
plants,
respectively.
For
example,
for
large
systems:

%
achieving
0.15
NTU
=
(
%
achieving
0.3
NTU)*(%
achieving
0.3
NTU
that
can
achieve
0.15
NTU)
=
(
46%)*(
50%)
=
23%

It
should
be
noted
that
these
numbers
may
be
slightly
optimistic
because
many
plants
may
also
have
to
change
operations
to
remove
more
total
organic
carbon
(
TOC)
to
meet
Stage
1
Disinfection
By­
Products
Rule
requirements.
Increasing
TOC
removal
may
interfere
with
turbidity
removal
in
some
plants.
The
percent
of
plants;
to
qualify
for
the
credit
above
are
in
addition
to
the
plants
that
were
calculated
as
meeting
the
requirements
for
the
0.5
log
removal
credit
before
promulgation
of
IESWTR.
Exhibit
A.
3
summarizes
the
percentage
of
plants
estimated
to
achieve
the
combined
filter
performance
requirements
at
the
time
the
LT2ESWTR
takes
effect.

Exhibit
A.
3
Percentage
of
Plants
meeting
Combined
Filter
Performance
Requirements
(
0.15
NTU
95%
of
the
time)

Size
(
Population
Served)
Pre
IESWTR
Conditions
Additional
Plants
Meeting
Combined
Filter
Performance
Following
IESWTR
Total
Percent
Meeting
Combined
Filter
Performance,
Pre­
LT2SWTR
Medium
(
>
10k
and
<
=
100k)
20%
26%
46%

Large
(>
100k)
23%
23%
46%

Source:
Derived
from
Exhibits
A.
1
&
A.
2
and
IESWTR
(
USEPA
1998b)
and
proposed
LT1ESWTR
(
USEPA
2000l)
RIAs.

A.
5.4
Small
Systems
Small
systems,
those
serving
10,000
people
or
less,
are
evaluated
separately
from
medium
and
large
systems
for
several
reasons.
Small
systems
often
have
better
source
water
quality
and,
therefore,
require
less
rigorous
treatment
technologies.
They
also
tend
to
have
less
advanced
control
systems,
less
sophisticated
monitoring
equipment,
and
less
operator
training.
Small
plants
tend
to
use
conventional
treatment
trains
less
often
than
medium
and
large
plants.
Small
systems
typically
prefer
package
plants1
including
such
technologies
as
membranes,
direct
filtration,
and
cartridge
filtration.
Although
such
plants
may
be
able
to
obtain
credit
for
those
alternative
technologies,
they
would
not
obtain
credit
for
combined
filter
performance.

A
review
of
available
data
showed
only
two
available
data
sources
for
small
plants:
NRWA
data
and
turbidity
data
collected
for
the
proposed
LT1ESWTR
RIA.
The
NRWA
survey
included
data
from
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
A­
9
June
2003
129
surface
water
plants.
There
are
several
issues
to
take
into
account
when
considering
the
NRWA
data.
The
first
is
the
small
sample
size.
There
are
only
129
plants
in
the
survey
of
which
only
51
are
conventional
plants;
only
conventional
plants
would
be
eligible
for
combined
filter
performance
credit.
The
plants
were
also
not
selected
to
represent
a
statistically
valid
nationwide
sampling.
The
second
issue
is
that
the
NRWA
data
consist
of
only
two
grab
samples
taken
during
the
year
in
contrast
to
the
Partnership
data,
which
consists
of
the
95th
percentile
values
of
samples
taken
every
15
minutes.
Such
grab
samples
would
likely
miss
seasonal
peaks,
as
well
as
system
spikes.
Therefore,
the
samples
are
more
likely
to
be
representative
of
an
average
or
50th
percentile
value
than
a
95th
percentile
value.
For
this
reason,
the
data
collected
for
the
LT1ESWTR
were
used
as
the
primary
data
source.

The
RIA
for
the
proposed
LT1ESWTR
examined
turbidity
data
for
187
small
surface
water
plants
from
13
states.
Two
of
these
states
reported
95th
percentile
turbidity
data,
six
of
these
states
reported
multiple
daily
turbidity
values,
and
five
states
reported
maximum
daily
values.
These
regular
values
give
a
much
better
representation
of
the
performance
of
small
plants
than
the
two
annual
points
of
the
NRWA
data.
The
data
showed
that
27
percent
of
small
plants
never
exceeded
a
95th
percentile
turbidity
value
of
0.15
NTU
and
48
percent
of
small
plants
never
exceeded
0.3
NTU.
Therefore,
27
percent
of
plants
were
assumed
to
be
able
to
perform
well
enough
to
obtain
the
combined
filter
performance
Cryptosporidium
removal
credit.

The
NRWA
data
were
also
examined
to
check
the
reasonableness
of
the
results
based
on
the
proposed
LT1ESWTR
RIA.
Exhibit
A.
4
shows
the
maximum
turbidity
values
of
small
conventional
plants
in
the
NRWA
survey.
Sixty
percent
of
the
plants
had
both
samples
below
0.15
NTU.
As
mentioned
earlier,
this
is
probably
closer
to
the
50th
percentile
than
the
95th
percentile.
The
RIAs
for
the
IESWTR
and
the
proposed
LT1ESWTR
assumed
that
plants
would
target
0.1
NTU
under
regular
operation
to
meet
0.2
NTU
limits
95
percent
of
the
time.
To
be
consistent
with
these
analyses,
plants
were
estimated
to
target
an
average
of
0.075
NTU
in
order
to
achieve
0.15
NTU
95
percent
of
the
time.
Examining
Exhibit
A.
4
shows
that
approximately
30
percent
of
small
conventional
plants
never
exceeded
0.075
NTU
in
the
NRWA
survey.
This
value
is
less
than
the
value
for
medium
and
large
plants
and
close
to
the
value
derived
from
the
proposed
LT1ESWTR
data.
Therefore,
the
numbers
derived
from
the
proposed
LT1ESWTR
data
were
considered
supported
by
the
NRWA
data.
As
mentioned
above,
the
smaller
plants
would
not
be
expected
to
perform
as
well
because
of
less
operator
training,
less
sophisticated
monitoring
and
control
equipment,
and
less
redundancy
in
systems.
As
a
result,
problems
in
a
single
piece
of
equipment
are
more
likely
to
affect
the
process.

In
addition
to
evaluating
performance
of
conventional
filtration
in
small
plants,
this
analysis
recognizes
that
there
is
a
much
smaller
percentage
of
small
conventional
plants
than
in
large
and
medium
systems.
Approximately
40
percent
of
the
NRWA
plants
were
conventional.
If
only
27
percent
of
these
can
meet
the
0.15
NTU
performance
criteria
in
the
CFE
95
percent
of
the
time,
then
only
11
percent
(
0.4*
0.27
=
0.11)
of
small
plants
nationwide
would
qualify
for
the
0.5
log
Cryptosporidium
removal
credit.
The
estimate
(
11
percent)
was
used
to
represent
Pre­
LT1ESWTR
removal
credit
for
small
plants.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
A­
10
June
2003
Exhibit
A.
4
NRWA
Percent
of
Conventional
Plants
With
All
Samples
Below
Turbidity
Level
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
Turbidity
Percent
n
=
50
plants
Source:
National
Rural
Water
Association
(
NRWA)
Survey
User
Database
(
USEPA
2001b)

Additional
plants
may
be
able
to
meet
the
lower
turbidity
requirements
after
implementation
of
the
LT1ESWTR.
The
RIA
for
the
proposed
LT1ESWTR
estimated
that
41
percent
of
small
surface
water
plants
would
make
filtration
improvements
to
comply
with
the
rule.
Therefore,
41
percent
of
small
systems
would
achieve
0.3
NTU.
To
calculate
the
percent
that
will
achieve
0.15
NTU,
the
ratio
of
small
plants
achieving
0.15
NTU
to
those
achieving
0.3
NTU
from
the
LT1ESWTR
RIA
data
(
0.56)
is
used,
assuming
the
ratio
is
constant
as
in
the
large
and
medium
plant
analysis.
Using
this
ratio
gives
23
percent
(
0.41
x
0.56)
of
small
plants
that
would
meet
the
0.15
NTU
limit
95
percent
of
the
time.
Added
to
the
Pre­
LT1ESWTR
percentage
of
11
percent
gives
a
total
of
34
percent
of
small
surface
water
plants
that
could
obtain
the
0.5
log
Cryptosporidium
removal
credit
for
combined
filter
performance.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
A­
11
June
2003
A.
6
Plants
with
Multiple
Sedimentation
Basins
in
Series
Plants
with
multiple
sedimentation
basins
in
series
will
generally
receive
a
0.5
log
removal
credit
for
the
LT2ESWTR.
These
plants
could
be
softening
or
conventional
plants.
Examining
the
ICR
database
for
softening
plants,
all
plants
listed
as
"
two
stage
softening
plants"
or
as
"
coagulation/
sedimentation
softening
plants"
meet
this
requirement.
There
were
16
and
18
percent
of
all
softening
plants
in
these
categories,
respectively.
Therefore,
this
analysis
estimates
that
34
percent
(
16
+
18%)
of
softening
plants
could
qualify
for
the
credit.
As
there
was
no
such
data
in
CWSS
or
Water:\
Stats,
the
ICR
value
was
used
for
all
medium
and
large
plants.
NRWA
indicated
1.5
percent
of
small
systems
had
multiple
basins.
This
percentage
was
used
for
small
softening
systems.
To
estimate
the
total
percent
of
softening
plants
with
multiple
sedimentation
basins,
the
percentage
of
softening
plants
assumed
to
have
multiple
basins
(
34
percent)
was
then
multiplied
by
the
total
percent
of
all
plants
that
are
softening
based
on
CWSS
data.

ICR
data
show
that
approximately
3
percent
of
large
conventional
plants
have
multiple
sedimentation
basins
in
series.
Water:\
Stats
and
CWSS
do
not
distinguish
the
number
of
basins,
only
whether
they
are
present
or
not.
The
NRWA
survey,
however,
did
provide
data
on
multiple
basins,
showing
that
1.5
percent
of
small
systems
had
multiple
basins.
This
number
was
used
for
small
systems.
The
ICR
number
was
used
for
medium
and
large
plants.
The
total
number
of
plants
with
multiple
sedimentation
basins
in
series
would
be
a
sum
of
the
conventional
and
softening
plants
with
multiple
basins
in
series.
Exhibit
A.
5
shows
the
resulting
data.

Exhibit
A.
5
Percentage
of
Plants
with
Multiple
Sedimentation
Basins
Size
(
Population
Served)
Softening
Conventional
Total
Small
(
#
10k)
1.5%
1.5%
3%

Medium
(
10k
­
100k)
2%
3%
5%

Large
(
>
100k)
2%
3%
5%

Source:
ICR
Aux1
Database
(
USEPA
2000j)
and
NRWA
Survey
User
Database
(
USEPA
2001b)

A.
7
Multiple
Filters
in
Series
EPA
intends
to
grant
a
0.5
log
credit
for
plants
having
multiple
filters
in
series.

ICR
and
CWSS
did
not
differentiate
between
GAC
alone
and
GAC
as
a
polishing
filter.
The
Water:\
Stats
database,
however,
does
contain
more
detailed
information
on
GAC
filters.
Exhibit
A.
6
shows
the
percent
of
medium
and
large
plants
that
have
a
GAC
filter
in
addition
to
conventional
filters
as
listed
in
Water:\
Stats.
The
NRWA
survey
showed
no
plants
that
had
a
GAC
filter
following
a
conventional
filter.
As
with
adsorption
clarifiers,
it
was
assumed
that
no
plants
had
such
technologies
in
addition
to
a
conventional
treatment
train,
but
are
used
in
addition
to
other
processes
such
as
direct
filtration.
Therefore,
no
small
plants
were
assumed
to
have
this
technology.
Exhibit
A.
6
summarizes
the
percent
of
plants
with
multiple
filters
in
series.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
A­
12
June
2003
Exhibit
A.
6
Percentage
of
Plants
with
Multiple
Filters
in
Series
Size
(
Population
Served)
GAC
Small
(
#
10k)
0%

Medium
(
10k
­
100k)
4%

Large
(>
100k)
7%

Source:
AWWA
Water:\
Stats
Database
for
GAC.

A.
8
Summary
Treatment
configurations
in
place
at
the
time
of
rule
promulgation
are
considered
"
credits."
In
other
words,
neither
the
costs
nor
the
benefits
of
those
configurations
can
be
ascribed
to
the
LT2ESWTR.
Plants
with
these
configurations
are
placed
into
a
bin
which
is
lowered
by
either
0.5
log
or
1.0
log
than
what
their
occurrence
would
require
of
them.
For
example,
a
system
in
a
2.0
log
treatment
bin
that
had
a
1.0
log
treatment
credit
would
need
only
install
a
technology
that
obtained
1.0
log
credit.
In
this
way,
neither
the
costs
nor
the
benefits
from
existing
technologies
are
ascribed
to
this
rule.

Exhibit
A.
7
summarizes
the
percent
of
plants
with
treatments
in­
place
that
can
achieve
Cryptosporidium
reduction
credit
for
LT2ESWTR
beyond
conventional
treatment.
It
is
possible
that
some
plants
could
have
multiple
technologies
for
which
they
could
receive
credit.
To
determine
the
percent
of
plants
that
might
achieve
multiple
credits,
the
chance
of
a
plant
having
each
of
the
three
technologies,
combined
filter
performance,
multiple
sedimentation
basins,
and
multiple
filters
was
considered
to
be
independent
of
each
other.
Therefore,
the
chance
of
a
small
plant
having
lower
finished
water
turbidity
to
meet
the
combined
filtration
performance
requirement
and
multiple
sedimentation
basins
is:

(
0.34)*(
0.03)
=
1.0%.

Exhibit
A.
7
present
the
estimates
of
the
percentages
of
plants
that
would
receive
0.5
or
1.0
log
of
Cryptosporidium
removal
credit
for
existing
technologies.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
A­
13
June
2003
Exhibit
A.
7
Total
Percentage
of
Plants
with
0.5
and
1.0
Log
Reduction
Credits
Size
(
Population
Served)
Combined
filter
performance
Multiple
Settling
Basins
(
Conventional
and
Softening)
Multiple
Filters
0.5
log
total
credit
1.0
log
total
credit
(
a)
(
b)
(
c)
(
d)
=
a
+
b
+
c
­
e
(
e)
=
(
a*
b)+(
a*
c)+
(
b*
c)

Small
(
#
10k)
34%
3%
0%
36%
1%

Medium
(
10k
­
100k)
46%
5%
4%
51%
4%

Large
(>
100k)
46%
5%
7%
52%
6%

Source:
Derived
from
Exhibits
A.
1­
A.
6.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
B­
1
June
2003
Appendix
B
Characterizing
Cryptosporidium
Concentration
and
Methods
for
Predicting
Plant
Binning
B.
1
Introduction
This
appendix
describes
the
statistics
used
to
characterize
Cryptosporidium
occurrence
distributions.
It
then
explains
how
the
monitoring
frequency
and
calculation
of
the
average
concentration
for
bin
determination
were
chosen.
Lastly,
it
presents
the
data
used
to
determine
Cryptosporidium
occurrence
and
the
likelihood
of
a
plant
being
categorized
into
a
given
bin
for
each
regulatory
alternative.

B.
2
Appropriate
Statistical
Measure
to
Characterize
Source
Waters
EPA
considered
a
variety
of
statistical
measures
by
which
Cryptosporidium
concentrations
in
systems
could
be
characterized
for
the
purpose
of
determining
whether
additional
treatment
should
be
prescribed.
These
measures
included
the
arithmetic
mean,
median,
90th
percentile,
and
maximum.
Consistent
with
Microbial­
Disinfection
Byproduct
Advisory
Committee
(
Advisory
Committee)
recommendations,
EPA
is
proposing
that
Cryptosporidium
levels
be
characterized
by
the
arithmetic
mean.
Use
of
the
mean
is
advantageous
for
several
reasons.
The
mean
can
be
estimated
more
reliably
than
other
statistical
measures.
For
example,
with
a
limited
number
of
samples,
the
confidence
interval
around
the
mean
is
substantially
narrower
(
i.
e.,
less
uncertain)
than
for
a
90th
percentile
estimate.
Defining
a
treatment
trigger
based
upon
a
maximum
value
would
be
much
less
reliable
than
basing
it
on
a
computation
involving
multiple
values,
due
to
the
uncertainty
associated
with
any
single
sample
measurement.

The
mean
concentration
also
directly
relates
to
the
average
risk
of
the
exposed
population
and,
therefore,
provides
a
good
measure
for
indicating
relative
risks
from
one
site
versus
another
(
e.
g.,
doubling
the
source
water
average
concentration
corresponds
to
about
a
doubling
of
the
risk,
assuming
the
same
level
of
treatment
at
both
sites).
In
contrast,
the
median
would
not
be
an
informative
or
appropriate
characterization
because
of
the
large
numbers
of
non­
detection
measurements
expected
to
occur,
resulting
in
a
large
number
of
sites
with
median
values
equal
to
zero.
The
median
would
fail
to
distinguish
differences
between
sites
that
had
half
or
more
of
their
measurements
as
zero
with
the
rest
being
positive
values
and
sites
which
truly
had
measurements
of
zero.

B.
3
Rates
of
System
Misclassification
Having
identified
an
expected
level
of
laboratory
analytical
method
performance
based
on
results
with
EPA
Methods
1622/
23
in
the
Information
Collection
Rule
Supplemental
Surveys
(
ICRSS),
and
having
established
the
mean
as
the
appropriate
statistical
measure
to
classify
source
water
Cryptosporidium
levels,
a
critical
issue
for
the
Advisory
Committee
was
how
accurately
systems
could
be
classified
within
a
bin
structure
by
a
monitoring
program.
This
analysis
illustrates
the
impact
of
the
number
of
samples
analyzed
and
the
averaging
technique
(
e.
g.,
maximum
running
average
vs.
simple
mean)
on
system
misclassification
rates.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
B­
2
June
2003
With
perfect
information
on
mean
source
water
Cryptosporidium
levels,
it
would
be
possible
to
assign
systems
to
bins
without
error.
No
such
perfect
information
exists,
so
the
Advisory
Committee
recommended
a
sampling
and
testing
strategy
relying
on
Method
1622
or
1623.
Each
source
water
would
require
a
number
of
samples
to
ensure
a
reasonably
accurate
estimate
of
its
mean
Cryptosporidium
concentration.

The
calculated
mean
that
systems
derive
from
monitoring
results
will
differ
from
the
true
mean
because
of
sampling
and
measurement
error.
Sampling
error
occurs
because
only
a
finite
volume
of
water
is
assayed
on
each
occasion.
Since
oocysts
are
very
disperse
in
the
water,
many
10­
L
samples
will
contain
zero
oocysts
when
the
concentration
is
low,
but
greater
than
zero.
For
example,
EPA
would
expect
most
10­
L
samples
to
contain
zero
oocysts
when
the
true
concentration
in
the
water
body
being
sampled
is
0.05
oocysts/
L.

Sampling
error
also
occurs
because
samples
are
collected
at
relatively
low
frequency.
Since
Cryptosporidium
concentrations
may
experience
significant
temporal
variation,
infrequent
sampling
is
likely
to
miss
rare
peaks
in
concentration
and,
therefore,
underestimate
the
true
mean
occurrence
level.
Conversely,
if
a
sample
event
happens
to
coincide
with
a
rare
occurrence
peak,
the
calculated
mean
will
overestimate
the
true
mean
occurrence
level.
By
prescribing
a
larger
number
of
samples
at
equal
intervals
over
a
long
period
of
time,
this
type
of
sampling
error
can
be
reduced
to
a
relatively
low
level.

Measurement
error
occurs
because
the
total
oocyst
count
from
a
volume
assayed
does
not
usually
equal
the
total
number
of
oocysts
that
were
present.
Studies
of
recovery
indicate
that
the
percentage
of
oocysts
lost
during
the
measurement
process
is
variable,
most
often
falling
between
15
percent
and
65
percent
(
based
on
ICRSS
data).
Because
the
Advisory
Committee
recommended
that
systems
be
assigned
to
bins
based
on
total
oocyst
counts
uncorrected
for
recovery,
EPA
does
not
treat
average
recovery
as
a
source
of
error.
However,
the
variability
of
recovery
around
the
mean
contributes
to
error.

To
estimate
how
these
errors
would
affect
the
assignment
of
systems
to
bins,
EPA
constructed
a
Monte
Carlo
model
that
dealt
with
the
error
components
in
the
following
manner:

°
Finite
volume
assayed
 
The
model
defines
the
number
of
oocysts
present
in
a
10­
L
volume
as
a
Poisson
random
variable,
whose
mean
is
the
product
of
measurement
recovery,
volume
assayed,
and
concentration
at
the
time
of
sampling.

°
Finite
number
of
samples
 
True
concentration
varies
over
time
as
a
random
variable.
Concentration
is
modeled
to
vary
in
such
a
way
that
its
natural
logarithm
is
normally
distributed
with
standard
deviation
1.762.
This
value
was
selected
based
on
Bayesian
analysis
of
survey
data
(
see
Chapter
4)
and
on
expert
opinion
that
at
any
given
site
the
Cryptosporidium
concentration
would
vary
within
a
three
order
of
magnitude
concentration
range
95
percent
of
the
time;
i.
e.,
2.5
percent
of
the
time
the
concentration
would
be
less
than
X,
and
2.5
percent
of
the
time
the
concentration
would
exceed
1000X.

°
Variable
recovery
 
Based
on
laboratory
performance
in
ICRSS,
EPA
assumed
for
the
model
an
average
recovery
among
all
laboratories
of
40
percent
with
a
relative
standard
deviation
of
50
percent.
Recovery
is
modeled
as
a
Beta
random
variable
with
parameters
(
a,
b)
=
(
2,3).
Mean
recovery
is
therefore
a/(
a
+
b)
=
2/(
2
+
3)
=
0.4.
The
standard
deviation
of
recovery
is
0.2,
which
is
half
the
mean
recovery.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
B­
3
June
2003
With
this
Monte
Carlo
model,
source
water
monitoring
using
Methods
1622
and
1623
was
simulated
to
predict
error
rates
in
assigning
systems
to
the
bins
under
Rule
Option
A3,
the
Preferred
Alternative.
Estimates
were
made
for
different
monitoring
frequencies
and
decision
rules.
Monitoring
frequencies
included
6,
12,
18,
24,
36,
and
48
samples
collected
over
a
2­
year
period.
System
bin
assignments
were
based
on
comparing
a
sample
statistic
with
the
selected
bin
boundaries.
Sample
statistics
included
the
mean,
maximum,
2nd
highest,
3rd
highest,
and
maximum
running
annual
average
(
Max­
RAA).
(
Results
are
shown
only
for
the
48­
sample
mean
and
the
24­
sample
Max­
RAA,
the
sampling
frequencies
allowed
in
the
proposed
Long
Term
2
Enhanced
Surface
Water
Treatment
Rule
(
LT2ESWTR).)

Exhibits
B.
1
and
B.
2
show
how
the
probabilities
of
assignment
to
Bins
1
through
4
vary
with
the
true
source
water
mean
concentration
when
the
Max­
RAA
is
used
with
24
samples
assayed
over
a
2­
year
period
(
producing
13
annual
averages).
Table
results
are
based
on
1,000
simulated
monitoring
data
sets.
Note
that
because
monitoring
results
will
not
be
corrected
for
recovery,
the
parameter
to
be
considered
when
assessing
error
in
bin
assignment
is
the
true
mean
source
water
concentration
multiplied
by
40
percent
(
the
estimated
average
method
recovery).
For
example,
Exhibit
B.
1
indicates
that
if
the
true
mean
is
0.316
oocysts/
L,
and
the
true
mean
multiplied
by
40
percent
recovery
is
0.126
(
0.316
×
0.4),
there
is
a
12.9
percent
probability
of
this
water
being
classified
in
the
no
action
bin,
an
85.9
percent
probability
of
being
classified
in
Bin
2
(
the
correct
bin
for
this
water),
and
about
a
1
percent
probability
of
being
classified
in
Bin
3.

Assignment
errors
are
most
likely
when
the
true
mean
is
close
to
a
bin
boundary.
For
example,
Exhibit
B.
1
indicates
that
a
water
with
a
true
mean
(
multiplied
by
40
percent
recovery)
of
0.075
oocysts/
L
has
about
a
60
percent
probability
of
being
classified
in
Bin
2
and
a
40
percent
probability
for
Bin
1.
Notice
that
classification
high
is
more
likely
than
classification
low
for
these
cases.
This
is
because
the
Max­
RAA
tends
to
slightly
overestimate
the
true
mean.
In
contrast,
if
the
true
mean
concentration
is
in
the
middle
of
Bin
2,
then
there
is
about
a
90
percent
probability
of
being
classified
in
Bin
2.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
B­
4
June
2003
No
Action
1­
Log
2­
Log
2.5­
Log
C
<
0.075
0.075
<
C
<
1
1
<
C
<
3
3
<
C
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.0010
0.0004
1.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0018
0.0007
1.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0032
0.0013
0.9990
0.0010
0.0000
0.0000
0.0056
0.0022
1.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0100
0.0040
0.9960
0.0040
0.0000
0.0000
0.0178
0.0071
0.9900
0.0100
0.0000
0.0000
0.0316
0.0126
0.9530
0.0470
0.0000
0.0000
0.0562
0.0225
0.8970
0.1020
0.0010
0.0000
0.1000
0.0400
0.7170
0.2810
0.0020
0.0000
0.1778
0.0711
0.4110
0.5830
0.0060
0.0000
0.3162
0.1265
0.1290
0.8590
0.0090
0.0030
0.5623
0.2249
0.0310
0.9280
0.0380
0.0030
1.0000
0.4000
0.0010
0.8680
0.1150
0.0160
1.7783
0.7113
0.0010
0.6580
0.2980
0.0430
3.1623
1.2649
0.0000
0.2840
0.5500
0.1660
5.6234
2.2494
0.0000
0.0720
0.5640
0.3640
10.0000
4.0000
0.0000
0.0070
0.2480
0.7450
17.7828
7.1131
0.0000
0.0000
0.0580
0.9420
31.6228
12.6491
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
1.0000
56.2341
22.4936
0.0000
0.0000
0.0010
0.9990
100.0000
40.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
1.0000
Action
Bins
Measured
Mean
at
40%
Recovery
(
Oocysts/
L)
True
System
Mean
(
Total
Oocysts/
L)
Exhibit
B.
1
Estimated
Probability
of
System
Being
Assigned
to
Each
of
the
Four
LT2ESWTR
Bins
as
a
Function
of
True
Mean
Source
Water
Cryptosporidium
Concentration
Based
on
Max­
RAA
Exhibit
B.
3
shows
equivalent
information
for
a
simple
mean
based
on
48
samples
over
a
2­
year
period.
Again,
assignment
errors
are
most
likely
when
the
true
mean
is
close
to
a
bin
boundary.
Notice
that
the
likelihood
of
a
source
water
being
misclassified
high
is
lower
than
for
the
Max­
RAA
based
on
24
samples.
For
example,
Exhibit
B.
3
indicates
that
if
the
true
mean
is
0.075
oocysts/
L
then
there
is
about
a
65
percent
probability
of
being
classified
in
Bin
1
and
about
a
35
percent
probability
of
being
classified
in
Bin
2.
If,
however,
the
true
mean
is
in
the
middle
of
Bin
2,
then
there
is
a
greater
than
95
percent
probability
of
being
classified
in
Bin
2.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
B­
5
June
2003
Performance
of
24­
Month
Maximum
RAA
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
Source
Water
Mean
Concentration
(
multiplied
by
40%
recovery)
Probability
of
Bin
Classification
Bin
1
=
No
Action
Bin
2
=
1­
log
Bin
3
=
2­
logs
Bin
4
=
2.5­
logs
Bin
Boundaries
Exhibit
B.
2
Likelihood
of
Classification
in
Bins
1­
4
as
a
Function
of
Source
Water
Mean
Concentration
Based
on
a
Max­
RAA
with
24
Samples
Bin
assignment
error
based
on
the
Max­
RAA
or
a
simple
mean
increased
substantially
when
sampling
frequency
dropped
below
24
samples
(
results
not
shown).
Therefore,
the
Advisory
Committee
recommended
that
at
least
24
samples
be
used
for
estimating
mean
source
water
concentrations
and
bin
determination.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
B­
6
June
2003
Performance
of
48­
Month
Simple
Mean
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
Source
Water
Mean
Concentration
(
multiplied
by
40%
recovery)
Probability
of
Bin
Classification
Bin
1
=
No
Action
Bin
2
=
1­
log
Bin
3
=
2­
logs
Bin
4
=
2.5­
logs
Bin
Boundaries
Exhibit
B.
3
Likelihood
of
Classification
in
Bins
1­
4
as
a
Function
of
Source
Water
Mean
Concentration
Based
on
a
Simple
Mean
with
48
Samples
One
way
the
Advisory
Committee
members
evaluated
the
significance
of
system
misclassification
in
bin
assignments
was
to
consider
a
water
where
the
true
mean
is
0.5
log
(
i.
e.,
factor
of
3.16)
from
a
bin
boundary.
This
case
was
assessed
both
when
the
true
mean
is
a
half
log
below
a
bin
boundary
and
when
the
true
mean
is
a
half
log
above
a
bin
boundary.
Misclassifying
such
a
water
in
a
lower
bin
would
suggest
that
the
monitoring
was
not
protective
of
public
health,
since
the
relatively
high
occurrence
level
would
go
unaddressed.
Both
the
Max­
RAA
based
on
24
samples
and
the
simple
mean
based
on
48
samples,
each
over
a
2­
year
monitoring
period,
provided
approximately
the
same
level
of
protection
against
this
kind
of
error.
For
example,
for
a
water
with
a
true
mean
at
0.5
log
above
the
boundary
between
Bin
1
and
Bin
2
(
0.075
oocysts/
L),
the
rates
of
misclassification
into
the
lowest
bin
for
the
24­
sample
Max­
RAA
and
the
48­
sample
simple
mean
are
1.7
percent
(
0.017)
and
1.4
percent
(
0.014),
respectively.

Two
graphs
are
provided
that
clearly
show
the
tendency
for
misclassification
under
the
Preferred
Alternative.
Exhibit
B.
4
shows
the
distribution
of
source
waters
according
to
actual
concentration
and
bin
classification.
Exhibit
B.
5
shows
the
measured
concentration
(
on
the
vertical
axis)
versus
estimated
"
true"
concentration
(
on
the
horizontal
axis)
and
the
resulting
misclassified
areas.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
B­
7
June
2003
Exhibit
B.
4
Distribution
of
Cryptosporidium
Occurrence
for
Plants
and
Classification
to
Regulatory
Bins
Note:
Plot
of
distribution
of
source
waters
by
"
true"
concentration.
The
three
lines
are
the
bin
boundaries
for
the
Preferred
Alternative.
Empty
circles
are
assigned
to
the
no­
action
bin.
Circles
with
a
dark
+
in
the
center
are
assigned
to
the
1.0
log
removal
bin.
Circles
with
an
"
x"
in
the
center
are
assigned
to
the
2.0
log
removal
bin.
Circles
with
a
light
+
in
the
center
are
assigned
to
the
2.5
log
removal
bin.
Circles
with
symbols
that
lie
outside
their
given
bin
boundary
are
systems
that
are
misclassified.
For
example,
any
circle
with
a
+
in
it
to
the
left
of
the
leftmost
line
is
one
assigned
to
the
1.0
log
removal
bin
despite
having
"
true"
Cryptosporidium
concentrations
below
the
bin
level.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
B­
8
June
2003
Exhibit
B.
5
Measured
Cryptosporidium
Concentration
versus
"
True"
Concentration
and
Bin
Misclassification
Note:
Measured
concentration
versus
"
true"
concentration.
Dark
lines
represent
the
bin
boundaries
for
the
Preferred
Alternative.
Light
grey
shading
shows
areas
that
have
samples
that
were
classified
in
a
bin
higher
than
their
"
true"
concentration.
Darker
grey
shaded
areas
show
areas
with
samples
that
were
classified
in
a
bin
lower
than
their
"
true"
concentration.
Based
on
24­
month
mean
for
ICR
95th
percentile
occurrence
distribution.

Misclassifying
waters
too
high
relative
to
the
true
mean
would
potentially
result
in
systems
taking
costly
and
unnecessary
steps
to
reduce
exposure.
As
shown
by
Exhibits
B.
2
and
B.
3,
the
48­
sample
simple
mean
provides
greater
protection
against
this
type
of
error
than
does
the
Max­
RAA,
although
monitoring
costs
will
be
twice
as
high.
Given
the
concerns
for
bias
(
high
or
low)
in
assigning
systems
to
bins,
the
Advisory
Committee
recommended
that
either
the
Max­
RAA
or
the
48­
sample
simple
mean
be
used
to
provide
sufficiently
reliable
estimates
for
bin
determination
under
LT2ESWTR.

B.
4
Predicted
Binning
for
Each
Regulatory
Alternative
This
section
presents
the
probability
distributions
generated
from
the
same
model
described
above.
The
distributions
show
the
likelihood
of
a
plant
with
a
source
water
of
a
given
true
value
being
classified
in
a
given
bin
for
each
regulatory
alternative.
The
following
exhibits
present
the
results:

B.
6
Binning
Probability
for
Alternative
A2
(
0.5
log/
1.5
log/
2.5
log)
B.
7
Graph
of
Binning
Probability
for
Alternative
A2
(
0.5
log/
1.5
log/
2.5
log)
B.
8
Binning
Probability
for
Alternative
A3
(
1.0
log/
2.0
log/
2.5
log)
B.
9
Graph
of
Binning
Probability
for
Alternative
A3
(
1.0
log/
2.0
log/
2.5
log)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
B­
9
June
2003
B.
10
Binning
Probability
for
Alternative
A4
(
0.5
log/
1.0
log)
B.
11
Graph
of
Binning
Probability
for
Alternative
A4
(
0.5
log/
1.0
log)

The
measured
amount
of
Cryptosporidium
may
be
different
than
the
actual
or
"
true"
concentration
because
of
sampling
errors
and
method
limitations.
Exhibits
B.
6,
B.
8,
and
B.
10
show
for
a
given
"
true"
concentration
the
percentage
of
time
that
a
sample
would
be
classified
in
each
bin.
(
This
section
differs
from
section
B.
3,
which
factors
in
recovery
in
determining
probability
of
misclassification).
The
binning
central
tendency
is
presented
for
all
three
occurrence
data
sets
(
the
Information
Collection
Rule
(
ICR),
ICR
Supplemental
Survey
Large
Systems
(
ICRSSL),
and
ICR
Supplemental
Survey
Medium
Systems
(
ICRSSM)).
The
percentage
of
plants
classified
in
each
bin
depends
on
method
errors
such
as
recovery,
false
positives,
and
analyst
error,
as
well
as
accounting
for
sample
size
and
the
fact
that
the
concentration
in
a
given
sample
may
under­
or
over­
represent
the
concentration
in
the
larger
water
body.
Exhibits
B.
7,
B.
9,
and
B.
11
show
the
probability
of
classification
in
a
bin
given
a
"
true"
source
water
concentration
in
graphical
form.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
B­
10
June
2003
Bin
1
Bin
2
Bin
3
Bin
4
No
Action
0.5­
log
1.5­
logs
2.5­
logs
C
<
0.03
0.03
<
C
<
0.1
0.1
<
C
<
1.0
1.0
<
C
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.0025
0.0010
0.9980
0.0020
0.0000
0.0000
0.0040
0.0016
0.9930
0.0070
0.0000
0.0000
0.0045
0.0018
0.9910
0.0090
0.0000
0.0000
0.0050
0.0020
0.9900
0.0100
0.0000
0.0000
0.0056
0.0022
0.9900
0.0100
0.0000
0.0000
0.0100
0.0040
0.9620
0.0370
0.0010
0.0000
0.0180
0.0072
0.8980
0.0930
0.0090
0.0000
0.0320
0.0128
0.7590
0.2210
0.0200
0.0000
0.0560
0.0224
0.5140
0.4270
0.0590
0.0000
0.1000
0.0400
0.2510
0.5730
0.1760
0.0000
0.1780
0.0712
0.0630
0.5190
0.4140
0.0040
0.3160
0.1264
0.0080
0.2590
0.7160
0.0170
0.5620
0.2248
0.0000
0.0640
0.8900
0.0460
1.0000
0.4000
0.0000
0.0040
0.8590
0.1370
1.7780
0.7112
0.0000
0.0000
0.6320
0.3680
3.1620
1.2648
0.0000
0.0000
0.2850
0.7150
5.6230
2.2492
0.0000
0.0000
0.0640
0.9360
10.0000
4.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0020
0.9980
17.7830
7.1132
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
1.0000
31.6230
12.6492
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
1.0000
56.2340
22.4936
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
1.0000
100.0000
40.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
1.0000
177.8280
71.1312
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
1.0000
Binning
Central
Tendency
[
3]
All
Plants
ICR
Occurrence
Distribution
52.20%
17.80%
22.67%
7.35%
All
Plants,
ICRSSL
55.30%
28.40%
15.90%
0.50%
All
Plants,
ICRSSM
53.20%
25.20%
19.99%
1.63%
[
1]
True
source
water
Cryptosporidium
concentration
(
oocysts/
liter).
[
2]
Probability
that
a
plant
will
fall
into
a
given
treatment
bin
given
true
and
measured
concentration
taking
into
account
measurement
errors
and
the
Cryptosporidium
occurrence.
[
3]
Result
of
1,000
Monte
Carlo
Simulations
06/
05/
01.
System
Concentration
Binning
Probability
[
2]

True
Mean
Concentration
[
1]
Measured
Mean
Concentration
(
40%
Recovery)
Exhibit
B.
6
Binning
Probability
Given
True
and
Measured
Maximum
Alternative
A2
(
0.5
log/
1.5
log/
2.5
log)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
B­
11
June
2003
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
Source
Water
Mean
Concentration,
oocysts/
liter
Probability
of
Bin
Classification
Bin
1
=
No
Action
Bin
2
=
0.5­
log
Bin
3
=
1.5­
logs
Bin
4
=
2.5­
logs
Exhibit
B.
7
Binning
Probability
for
Alternative
A2
­
(
Maximum
Reduction)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
B­
12
June
2003
Bin
1
Bin
2
Bin
3
Bin
4
No
Action
1­
log
2­
logs
2.5­
logs
C
<
0.075
0.075
<
C<
0.1
1
<
C
<
3
3
<
C
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.0032
0.0013
1.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0056
0.0022
0.9990
0.0010
0.0000
0.0000
0.0100
0.0040
0.9990
0.0010
0.0000
0.0000
0.0180
0.0072
0.9950
0.0050
0.0000
0.0000
0.0320
0.0128
0.9720
0.0280
0.0000
0.0000
0.0560
0.0224
0.9140
0.0860
0.0000
0.0000
0.1000
0.0400
0.7470
0.2530
0.0000
0.0000
0.1780
0.0712
0.4490
0.5510
0.0000
0.0000
0.3160
0.1264
0.1590
0.8270
0.0130
0.0010
0.5620
0.2248
0.0230
0.9470
0.0280
0.0020
1.0000
0.4000
0.0020
0.8530
0.1310
0.0140
1.7780
0.7112
0.0000
0.6290
0.3200
0.0510
3.1620
1.2648
0.0000
0.2780
0.5780
0.1440
5.6230
2.2492
0.0000
0.0660
0.5570
0.3770
10.0000
4.0000
0.0000
0.0030
0.2560
0.7410
17.7830
7.1132
0.0000
0.0000
0.0520
0.9480
31.6230
12.6492
0.0000
0.0000
0.0030
0.9970
56.2340
22.4936
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
1.0000
100.0000
40.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
1.0000
Binning
Central
Tendency
[
3]
All
Plants
ICR
Occurrence
Distribution
65.40%
27.20%
4.37%
3.19%
All
Plants,
ICRSSL
77.70%
21.80%
0.50%
0.06%
All
Plants,
ICRSSM
72.90%
25.40%
1.39%
0.36%
[
1]
True
source
water
Cryptosporidium
concentration
(
oocysts/
liter).
[
2]
Probability
that
a
plant
will
fall
into
a
given
treatment
bin
given
true
and
measured
concentration
taking
into
account
measurement
errors
and
the
Cryptosporidium
occurrence.
[
3]
Result
of
1,000
Monte
Carlo
Simulations
06/
05/
01.
System
Concentration
Binning
Probability
[
2]

True
Mean
Concentration
[
1]
Measured
Mean
Concentration
(
40%
Recovery)
Exhibit
B.
8
Binning
Probability
Given
True
and
Measured
Maximum
Alternative
A3
(
Preferred
Alternative)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
B­
13
June
2003
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
Source
Water
Mean
Concentration,
oocysts/
liter
Probability
of
Bin
Classification
Bin
1
=
No
Action
Bin
2
=
1­
log
Bin
3
=
2­
logs
Bin
4
=
2.5­
logs
Exhibit
B.
9
Alternative
A3
­
(
Preferred
Alternative)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
B­
14
June
2003
Bin
1
Bin
2
Bin
3
(
No
Bin
4)
No
Action
0.5­
log
1­
log
C
<
0.1
0.1
<
C
<
1
1
<
C
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00178
0.0007
1.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.00316
0.0013
1.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.00562
0.0022
1.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.01000
0.0040
1.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.01800
0.0072
0.9990
0.0010
0.0000
0.03200
0.0128
0.9930
0.0070
0.0000
0.05600
0.0224
0.9550
0.0450
0.0000
0.10000
0.0400
0.8410
0.1580
0.0010
0.17800
0.0712
0.6070
0.3900
0.0030
0.31600
0.1264
0.2830
0.7030
0.0140
0.56200
0.2248
0.0870
0.8740
0.0390
1.00000
0.4000
0.0050
0.8700
0.1250
1.77800
0.7112
0.0000
0.6540
0.3460
3.16200
1.2648
0.0000
0.2940
0.7060
5.62300
2.2492
0.0000
0.0690
0.9300
10.00000
4.0000
0.0000
0.0030
0.9970
17.78300
7.1132
0.0000
0.0000
1.0000
31.62300
12.6492
0.0000
0.0000
1.0000
56.23400
22.4936
0.0000
0.0000
1.0000
Binning
Central
Tendency
[
3]
All
Plants
ICR
Occurrence
Distribution
69.60%
22.80%
7.50%
N/
A
All
Plants,
ICRSSL
84.00%
15.60%
0.40%
N/
A
All
Plants,
ICRSSM
78.50%
19.70%
1.80%
N/
A
System
Concentration
Binning
Probability
[
2]

True
Mean
Concentration
[
1]
Measured
Mean
Concentration
(
40%
Recovery)

[
1]
True
source
water
Cryptosporidium
concentration
(
oocysts/
liter).
[
2]
Probability
that
a
plant
will
fall
into
a
given
treatment
bin
given
true
and
measured
concentration
taking
into
account
measurement
errors
and
the
Cryptosporidium
occurrence.
[
3]
Result
of
1,000
Monte
Carlo
Simulations
06/
05/
01.
Exhibit
B.
10
Binning
Probability
Given
True
and
Measured
Maximum
Alternative
A4
(
0.5
log/
1.0
log)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
B­
15
June
2003
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
Source
Water
Mean
Concentration,
oocysts/
liter
Probability
of
Bin
Classification
Bin
1
=
No
Action
Bin
2
=
0.5­
log
Bin
3
=
1­
log
Exhibit
B.
11
Binning
Probability
for
Alternative
A4
­
(
Least
Reduction)

In
order
to
bound
the
range
of
Cryptosporidium
occurrence,
confidence
limits
were
developed
for
Cryptosporidium
occurrence.
The
95th
percentile
of
the
ICR
distribution
and
the
5th
percentile
of
the
ICRSSL
distribution
were
calculated
as
the
high
and
low
occurrence
distributions.
Together
the
two
distributions
represent
the
90­
percent
confidence
bounds
of
Cryptosporidium
occurrence.
It
is
at
least
90
percent
certain
that
the
actual
Cryptosporidium
occurrence
lies
between
the
two
distributions.
Exhibit
B.
12
shows
the
binning
for
high
(
ICR
95th
percentile)
and
low
(
ICRSSL
5th
percentile)
occurrence
distributions
for
the
Preferred
Regulatory
Alternative.

Exhibit
B.
12
Binning
for
the
Cryptosporidium
Occurrence
Distribution,
Preferred
Alternative
Distribution
No
Action
Bin
1.0
Log
Removal
Bin
2.0
Log
Removal
Bin
2.5
Log
Removal
Bin
High
61.5%
30.7%
4.6%
3.2%

Low
86.5%
13.4%
1.0%
0.0%
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
B­
16
June
2003
B.
5
Binning
for
Unfiltered
Plants
Binning
for
unfiltered
plants
was
calculated
the
same
way
for
filtered
plants
as
described
above.
The
only
difference
is
that
the
unfiltered
plants
have
only
two
treatment
bins,
one
requiring
2.0
log
inactivation
and
another
requiring
3.0
log
inactivation.
Analysis
was
conducted
for
all
unfiltered
systems
serving
using
the
ICR
unfiltered
data
set.
The
results
of
the
binning
analysis
are
included
in
Exhibit
B.
13
for
small,
medium,
and
large
systems.

Exhibit
B.
13
Binning
for
the
Cryptosporidium
Occurrence
Distribution
for
Unfiltered
Plants
Size
Category
(
Population
Served)
2.0
Log
Inactivation
Bin
3.0
Log
Inactivation
Bin
Small
(
#
10,000)
79.2%
20.8%

Medium
(
10,001
­
100,000)
79.2%
20.8%

Large
(
>
100,000)
81.2%
18.8%
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
C­
1
June
2003
Appendix
C
Benefits
C.
1
Summary
This
appendix
presents
additional
data
on
the
risk
and
benefit
estimates
for
the
LT2ESWTR,
supplementing
or
providing
background
for
the
calculations
in
Chapter
5.
The
Appendix
is
organized
as
follows:

C.
1
Summary
C.
2
AIDS/
Population
Ratio
for
Milwaukee
Outbreak
C.
3
Derivation
of
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
Population
Numbers
for
Mortality
C.
4
Model­
Estimated
National
Cases
of
Illness
and
Death
Avoided
With
Associated
Economic
Values
C.
5
Individual
Risk
Functions
C.
6
Real
Gross
Domestic
Product
(
GDP)
per
Capita
C.
7
Income
Elasticity
Factors
The
Appendix
C
exhibit
list
is
below.
For
Exhibits
C.
4
through
C.
9,
each
exhibit
has
two
parts
 
the
first
based
on
the
enhanced
cost
of
illness
and
the
second
based
on
the
traditional
cost
of
illness.

Exhibit
C.
1
Unfiltered
System
Population
Served
and
AIDS
Population
Exhibit
C.
2
Derivation
of
Filtered
Systems'
Populations
Exhibit
C.
3
Population
at
Risk
and
Baseline
Pre­
LT2
Cases
of
Illness
and
Death
by
System
Size,
Filtration,
and
Data
Set
Exhibit
C.
4
Cases
Avoided
and
Benefits
Annualized
at
3
Percent
Exhibit
C.
5
Cases
Avoided
and
Benefits
Annualized
at
7
Percent
Exhibit
C.
6
Cases
Avoided
and
Benefits
Annualized
at
3
Percent,
Filtered
Systems
Only
Exhibit
C.
7
Cases
Avoided
and
Benefits
Annualized
at
3
Percent,
Unfiltered
Systems
Only
Exhibit
C.
8
Cases
Avoided
and
Benefits
Annualized
at
7
Percent,
Filtered
Systems
Only
Exhibit
C.
9
Cases
Avoided
and
Benefits
Annualized
at
7
Percent,
Unfiltered
Systems
Only
Exhibit
C.
10
Annual
Individual
Risk
Distributions
Based
on
ICRSSM
Occurrence
Data,
Filtered
Community
Water
Systems
(
CWSs)
Only
Exhibit
C.
11
Annual
Individual
Risk
Distributions
Based
on
ICRSSL
Occurrence
Data,
Filtered
Community
Water
Systems
(
CWSs)
Only
Exhibit
C.
12
Real
GDP
per
Capita
Projections
Exhibit
C.
13
CPI
Projections
Exhibit
C.
14
Factors
for
Incorporation
of
Income
Elasticity
into
Yearly
Benefits
Estimates
C.
2
AIDS/
Population
Ratio
for
Milwaukee
Outbreak
The
national
mortality
rate
for
Acquired
Immune
Deficiency
Syndrome
(
AIDS)
patients
due
to
cryptosporidiosis
cannot
be
directly
derived
from
the
data
collected
during
the
Milwaukee
outbreak,
but
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
C­
2
June
2003
these
data
can
be
adjusted
to
more
accurately
estimate
mortality
rates
in
2000.
One
adjustment
is
needed
because
there
are
considerably
fewer
AIDS
patients
in
Milwaukee
and
the
State
of
Wisconsin
as
compared
to
the
rest
of
the
country.
As
an
illustration,
in
1993
there
were
about
three
times
the
number
of
persons
living
with
AIDS
per
capita
in
the
United
States
compared
to
Wisconsin.
United
States
population
living
with
AIDS
in
1993
was
132,686
(
CDC
1993)
in
a
total
population
of
257,783,000
(
U.
S.
Census
Bureau,
2001c)
compared
to
Wisconsin's
862
persons
living
with
AIDS
(
CDC
1993)
in
a
total
population
of
5,044,318
(
U.
S.
Census
Bureau,
2001c).
A
second
adjustment
is
necessary
to
reflect
the
increased
incidence
of
AIDS
in
the
United
States
between
1993
and
1999
(
which
is
the
data
used
in
this
EA).
A
further
adjustment
was
needed
to
reflect
the
different
incident
rates
in
areas
served
by
filtered
and
unfiltered
systems.
For
all
these
adjustments,
the
analysis
uses
data
on
the
incidence
of
AIDS
from
the
CDC
and
the
U.
S.
Census
Bureau.
Using
these
two
sources
allows
the
most
consistent
comparisons
across
geographic
areas
and
time.

There
are
various
other
sources
that
were
not
used
that
provide
related
data.
For
example,
Frisby
et
al.
(
1997)
mention
that
approximately
1,300
people
were
living
HIV
in
Milwaukee
in
1993,
but
not
all
HIV
patients
are
immunocompromised
to
the
same
degree
as
AIDS
patients
and,
therefore,
do
not
have
the
same
risk
of
illness
and
death.
Dr.
Neil
Hoxie,
of
the
Bureau
of
Public
Health
in
Wisconsin,
in
personal
communications
estimated
that
1,203
people
were
probably
living
with
AIDS
in
the
metropolitan
statistical
area
of
Milwaukee
in
1993,
an
estimate
higher
than
the
CDC
estimate
for
States.
Unfortunately
no
source
reported
a
count
of
AIDS
patients
within
the
area
served
by
the
Milwaukee
public
water
system,
or
the
area
corresponding
to
the
1993
Cryptosporidium
outbreak.
Using
statewide
numbers
for
the
number
of
people
living
with
AIDS
would
be
certain
to
capture
the
area
of
the
1993
outbreak,
but
would
be
a
likely
underestimate
due
to
rural
populations
with
few
AIDS
patients
being
added
to
the
total
population.
However,
an
estimate
without
all
AIDS
patients
in
the
original
outbreak
area
would
also
be
an
overestimate.
In
the
face
of
this
lack
of
data
related
specifically
to
the
population
affected
by
the
outbreak,
and
a
preference
for
comparable
data
for
multiple
years
in
several
geographic
locations,
the
analysis
uses
data
from
the
CDC
and
the
U.
S.
Census.

C.
3
Derivation
of
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
Population
Numbers
for
Mortality
The
greater
presence
of
sensitive
subpopulations
in
some
areas
might
indicate
a
higher
rate
of
mortality
due
to
cryptosporidiosis.
A
number
of
large
metropolitan
areas
are
served
by
water
systems
that
are
unfiltered
and
the
populations
of
immunocompromised
served
by
unfiltered
systems
differs
from
those
served
by
filtered
systems.
The
analysis
in
Chapter
5,
therefore,
calculates
mortality
rates
for
filtered
and
unfiltered
systems
separately
to
highlight
possible
differences
in
mortality
rates
due
to
cryptosporidiosis.

The
analysis
seeks
to
compare
the
percentage
of
the
total
U.
S.
population
living
with
AIDS
that
live
in
areas
served
by
unfiltered
systems
versus
filtered
systems.
The
CDC,
in
their
semiannual
"
HIV/
AIDS
Surveillance
Report,"
give
the
number
of
individuals
living
with
AIDS
by
metropolitan
statistical
area.
Population
data
from
the
metropolitan
statistical
areas
served
by
the
unfiltered
systems
was
used
instead
of
the
population
served
by
unfiltered
systems.
The
population
count
data
from
the
2000
Census
were
used
because
they
were
more
accurate
than
1999
estimates
of
population.
These
data
are
used
to
develop
adjustment
factors,
and
so
it
was
judged
more
accurate
to
use
inputs
from
consistent
sources,
rather
than
mix
in
service
population
data
that
were
self­
reported
by
utilities.
Data
for
the
relevant
metropolitan
areas
are
shown
in
Exhibit
C.
1.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
C­
3
June
2003
Exhibit
C.
1
Unfiltered
System
Population
Served
and
AIDS
Population
Unfiltered
Systems
2000
Census
Population
Number
of
People
Living
with
AIDS
(
1999)

Portland,
ME[
1]
243,537
155
Portland,
OR
2,265,223
1,613
Tacoma,
WA
700,820
353
San
Francisco,
CA
7,039,362
9,151
New
York,
NY
21,199,865
44,994
Total
31,448,807
56,266
Sources:
AIDS
population
information
from
CDC
except
Portland,
Maine
[
1]
Portland,
Maine
AIDS
information
from
City
of
Portland,
Maine.

For
the
purposes
of
developing
an
adjustment
factor,
the
population
remaining
in
the
U.
S.
is
considered
to
be
served
by
filtered
systems.
The
total
population
within
the
metropolitan
statistical
areas
of
the
unfiltered
systems
was
subtracted
from
the
total
U.
S.
population
in
2000
to
give
an
"
adjusted"
population
for
filtered
systems,
and
the
AIDS
population
of
unfiltered
systems
was
also
subtracted
from
the
national
estimates
of
people
living
with
AIDS.
From
these
numbers,
the
percentage
of
AIDS
patients
in
unfiltered
and
filtered
systems
can
be
determined
(
Exhibit
C.
2).
The
use
of
overall
U.
S.
Census
data
is
appropriate
because
the
incidence
rate
is
therefore
derived
from
the
number
of
persons
living
with
AIDS
and
the
population
of
which
they
are
a
part.
It
would
be
inappropriate
to
derive
a
factor
based
on
the
population
served
by
public
water
systems
because
there
are
no
comparable
estimates
for
the
number
of
people
living
with
AIDS
in
that
population.

Exhibit
C.
2
Derivation
of
Filtered
Systems'
Populations
Filtered
Systems
2000
Census
Population
Number
of
People
Living
with
AIDS
(
1999)

US
Population
281,421,906
317,652
Unfiltered
Population
31,448,807
56,266
Adjusted
Filtered
Population
249,973,099
261,386
In
order
to
get
a
factor
to
adjust
the
1993
Milwaukee
AIDS
mortality
rate
for
changes
in
time
and
population
for
filtered
systems,
the
total
adjusted
number
of
people
living
with
AIDS
at
the
end
of
1999
in
the
entire
country
is
divided
by
the
adjusted
2000
national
population.
This
percentage
is
divided
by
the
AIDS/
Population
ratio
of
Wisconsin
in
1993,
yielding
a
population
and
time
adjustment
factor.
The
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
C­
4
June
2003
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Filtered
160,531,102
503,429
49,493
1,418,729
53
5
150
Unfiltered
11,739,777
548,440
118,006
1,031,806
91
20
172
Filtered
155,866
16,366
451,166
16
2
48
Unfiltered
168,765
36,308
317,527
28
6
53
Filtered
271,411
25,576
836,388
29
3
88
Unfiltered
293,846
63,216
552,868
49
11
92
Filtered
9,368,257
56,528
6,041
154,483
6
1
16
Unfiltered
179,117
7,601
1,631
15,042
1
0
3
Filtered
18,484
1,768
53,127
2
0
6
Unfiltered
2,494
535
4,936
0
0
1
Filtered
31,841
2,631
99,079
3
0
10
Unfiltered
4,294
921
8,498
1
0
1
Filtered
151,162,846
446,900
42,880
1,261,972
47
5
133
Unfiltered
11,560,660
540,839
115,970
1,017,520
90
19
169
Filtered
137,382
14,397
399,681
15
2
42
Unfiltered
166,271
35,653
312,818
28
6
52
Filtered
239,570
22,887
744,887
25
2
79
Unfiltered
289,552
62,087
544,744
48
10
91
ICRSSL
ICR
ICRSSM
Large
Systems
(
>
10,000)
ICR
ICRSSM
ICRSSL
Data
Set
All
System
Sizes
Small
Systems
(
<
10,000)
ICRSSL
ICR
ICRSSM
Filtration
Mean
90%
Confidence
Bound
Pre­
LT2
Annual
Deaths
Population
at
Risk
Pre­
LT2
Annual
Illnesses
Mean
90%
Confidence
Bound
adjustment
factor
for
unfiltered
systems
uses
only
the
populations
served
by
unfiltered
systems
in
1999
(
AIDS
and
non­
AIDS),
divided
by
the
1993
Wisconsin
AIDS/
Population
ratio.

C.
4
Model­
Estimated
National
Cases
of
Illness
and
Death
Avoided
With
Associated
Economic
Values
Exhibits
C.
3
through
C.
9
summarize
the
risk
assessment
modeling.
Exhibit
C.
3
presents
the
baseline
populations
at
risk
and
pre­
LT2ESWTR
cases
of
illness
and
death.
Exhibit
C.
4
through
C.
9
present
expected
results
under
the
proposed
regulations.

Exhibit
C.
3
Population
at
Risk
and
Baseline
Pre­
LT2
Cases
of
Illness
and
Death
by
System
Size,
Filtration,
and
Data
Set
Source:
Benefits
and
Risk
Model
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
A1
1,048,583
172,409
2,410,265
144
25
316
704
$
116
$
1,616
$
778
$
52
$
2,403
$
1,482
$
201
$
3,791
$
A2
1,031,716
170,643
2,367,993
142
25
311
693
$
115
$
1,588
$
768
$
51
$
2,366
$
1,461
$
199
$
3,718
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
1,018,915
169,358
2,331,467
141
25
308
684
$
114
$
1,564
$
761
$
51
$
2,340
$
1,445
$
198
$
3,666
$
A4
940,570
161,366
2,084,877
133
24
282
632
$
108
$
1,399
$
717
$
49
$
2,181
$
1,349
$
189
$
3,357
$
A1
323,915
53,589
757,802
44
8
99
217
$
36
$
508
$
239
$
15
$
749
$
457
$
59
$
1,214
$
A2
275,616
47,681
619,109
39
7
84
185
$
32
$
415
$
212
$
14
$
653
$
397
$
54
$
1,032
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
256,173
45,292
560,648
37
7
78
172
$
30
$
376
$
202
$
14
$
613
$
374
$
52
$
959
$
A4
218,820
41,215
457,470
33
7
67
147
$
28
$
307
$
180
$
13
$
539
$
328
$
48
$
810
$
A1
563,930
92,474
1,367,370
77
14
177
378
$
62
$
917
$
418
$
27
$
1,305
$
796
$
103
$
2,092
$
A2
520,501
87,782
1,244,961
73
13
164
349
$
59
$
834
$
393
$
26
$
1,226
$
742
$
98
$
1,931
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
498,363
84,724
1,177,415
70
13
157
335
$
57
$
789
$
381
$
25
$
1,179
$
715
$
96
$
1,849
$
A4
433,520
78,386
984,238
64
12
136
291
$
53
$
660
$
344
$
24
$
1,045
$
635
$
89
$
1,601
$

A1
63,866
7,860
167,453
7
1
19
38
$
5
$
100
$
34
$
2
$
112
$
72
$
8
$
203
$
A2
62,168
7,671
163,369
7
1
18
37
$
5
$
97
$
33
$
2
$
108
$
70
$
8
$
197
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
59,994
7,439
157,807
7
1
18
36
$
4
$
94
$
32
$
2
$
105
$
68
$
7
$
190
$
A4
51,723
6,787
133,232
6
1
15
31
$
4
$
79
$
28
$
2
$
91
$
59
$
7
$
161
$
A1
20,919
2,538
56,615
2
0
6
12
$
2
$
34
$
11
$
1
$
39
$
24
$
2
$
72
$
A2
16,027
1,989
43,805
2
0
5
10
$
1
$
26
$
9
$
0
$
30
$
18
$
2
$
55
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
12,601
1,571
34,606
1
0
4
7
$
1
$
21
$
7
$
0
$
24
$
14
$
2
$
43
$
A4
9,786
1,233
26,424
1
0
3
6
$
1
$
16
$
6
$
0
$
19
$
11
$
1
$
33
$
A1
36,026
3,855
105,997
4
0
12
21
$
2
$
63
$
19
$
1
$
67
$
41
$
4
$
122
$
A2
31,647
3,465
93,543
4
0
10
19
$
2
$
56
$
17
$
1
$
59
$
36
$
4
$
107
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
27,791
3,130
82,951
3
0
9
17
$
2
$
49
$
15
$
1
$
52
$
32
$
3
$
94
$
A4
23,006
2,730
68,162
3
0
8
14
$
2
$
41
$
13
$
1
$
43
$
26
$
3
$
78
$

A1
984,717
164,259
2,245,273
137
25
298
666
$
111
$
1,518
$
744
$
50
$
2,295
$
1,410
$
192
$
3,580
$
A2
969,548
162,521
2,204,422
135
24
293
656
$
110
$
1,491
$
735
$
50
$
2,264
$
1,391
$
191
$
3,515
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
958,921
161,506
2,174,244
134
24
290
648
$
109
$
1,470
$
729
$
49
$
2,243
$
1,378
$
189
$
3,474
$
A4
888,847
154,125
1,955,210
127
23
267
601
$
104
$
1,322
$
689
$
48
$
2,090
$
1,290
$
181
$
3,206
$
A1
302,996
50,884
702,049
42
8
93
205
$
34
$
475
$
228
$
15
$
710
$
433
$
56
$
1,147
$
A2
259,589
45,633
576,406
37
7
79
176
$
31
$
390
$
204
$
14
$
622
$
379
$
52
$
979
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
243,572
43,801
526,649
36
7
74
165
$
30
$
356
$
195
$
14
$
590
$
359
$
50
$
913
$
A4
209,034
39,913
431,173
32
6
64
141
$
27
$
292
$
175
$
13
$
521
$
316
$
46
$
779
$
A1
527,904
88,212
1,266,480
73
13
166
357
$
60
$
856
$
398
$
26
$
1,241
$
755
$
99
$
1,980
$
A2
488,854
83,790
1,152,243
69
13
154
331
$
57
$
779
$
376
$
25
$
1,167
$
707
$
94
$
1,831
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
470,572
81,410
1,096,721
67
12
148
318
$
55
$
742
$
366
$
24
$
1,131
$
684
$
92
$
1,759
$
A4
410,514
75,314
915,940
61
12
129
278
$
51
$
619
$
331
$
23
$
1,007
$
609
$
86
$
1,525
$

Source:
Risk
and
Benefits
Model
Exhibit
C.
4a
Cases
Avoided
and
Benefits
Annualized
at
3
Percent
(
Based
on
Enhanced
Cost
of
Illness)

Small
Systems
Large
Systems
ICR
ICRSS
Medium
System
Annual
Deaths
Avoided
Value
of
Benefits
for
Annual
Illnesses
Avoided
($
Millions)

ICRSS
Large
System
90
%
Confidence
Bound
ICR
Mean
ICRSS
Medium
System
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Data
Set
Rule
Alternative
Total
Annual
Value
of
Benefits
($
Millions)

Mean
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Annual
Illnesses
Avoided
Mean
Value
of
Benefits
for
Annual
Deaths
Avoided
($
Millions)

Mean
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Mean
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Note:
Illnesses
and
deaths
avoided
are
for
each
year
after
the
rule
is
fully
implemented
in
2014.
Actual
illnesses
and
deaths
avoided
in
earlier
years
depends
on
the
implementation
schedule.
The
values
for
annualized
benefits
already
account
for
the
phased
implementation
of
the
alternatives.
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
All
System
Sizes
ICRSS
Large
System
ICR
ICRSS
Medium
System
ICRSS
Large
System
C­
5
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
May
2003
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
A1
1,048,583
172,409
2,410,265
144
25
316
212
$
35
$
486
$
778
$
52
$
2,403
$
989
$
106
$
2,784
$
A2
1,031,716
170,643
2,367,993
142
25
311
208
$
34
$
477
$
768
$
51
$
2,366
$
977
$
105
$
2,744
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
1,018,915
169,358
2,331,467
141
25
308
206
$
34
$
470
$
761
$
51
$
2,340
$
967
$
105
$
2,713
$
A4
940,570
161,366
2,084,877
133
24
282
190
$
33
$
421
$
717
$
49
$
2,181
$
907
$
101
$
2,523
$
A1
323,915
53,589
757,802
44
8
99
65
$
11
$
153
$
239
$
15
$
749
$
305
$
31
$
886
$
A2
275,616
47,681
619,109
39
7
84
56
$
10
$
125
$
212
$
14
$
653
$
268
$
28
$
764
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
256,173
45,292
560,648
37
7
78
52
$
9
$
113
$
202
$
14
$
613
$
253
$
27
$
713
$
A4
218,820
41,215
457,470
33
7
67
44
$
8
$
92
$
180
$
13
$
539
$
225
$
25
$
616
$
A1
563,930
92,474
1,367,370
77
14
177
114
$
19
$
276
$
418
$
27
$
1,305
$
531
$
53
$
1,542
$
A2
520,501
87,782
1,244,961
73
13
164
105
$
18
$
251
$
393
$
26
$
1,226
$
498
$
51
$
1,434
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
498,363
84,724
1,177,415
70
13
157
101
$
17
$
237
$
381
$
25
$
1,179
$
481
$
50
$
1,372
$
A4
433,520
78,386
984,238
64
12
136
88
$
16
$
198
$
344
$
24
$
1,045
$
432
$
46
$
1,204
$

A1
63,866
7,860
167,453
7
1
19
11
$
1
$
30
$
34
$
2
$
112
$
45
$
4
$
137
$
A2
62,168
7,671
163,369
7
1
18
11
$
1
$
29
$
33
$
2
$
108
$
44
$
4
$
133
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
59,994
7,439
157,807
7
1
18
11
$
1
$
28
$
32
$
2
$
105
$
43
$
4
$
128
$
A4
51,723
6,787
133,232
6
1
15
9
$
1
$
24
$
28
$
2
$
91
$
37
$
4
$
110
$
A1
20,919
2,538
56,615
2
0
6
4
$
0
$
10
$
11
$
1
$
39
$
15
$
1
$
48
$
A2
16,027
1,989
43,805
2
0
5
3
$
0
$
8
$
9
$
0
$
30
$
12
$
1
$
37
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
12,601
1,571
34,606
1
0
4
2
$
0
$
6
$
7
$
0
$
24
$
9
$
1
$
30
$
A4
9,786
1,233
26,424
1
0
3
2
$
0
$
5
$
6
$
0
$
19
$
7
$
1
$
23
$
A1
36,026
3,855
105,997
4
0
12
6
$
1
$
19
$
19
$
1
$
67
$
26
$
2
$
82
$
A2
31,647
3,465
93,543
4
0
10
6
$
1
$
17
$
17
$
1
$
59
$
23
$
2
$
73
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
27,791
3,130
82,951
3
0
9
5
$
1
$
15
$
15
$
1
$
52
$
20
$
2
$
64
$
A4
23,006
2,730
68,162
3
0
8
4
$
0
$
12
$
13
$
1
$
43
$
17
$
1
$
53
$

A1
984,717
164,259
2,245,273
137
25
298
200
$
33
$
457
$
744
$
50
$
2,295
$
944
$
102
$
2,652
$
A2
969,548
162,521
2,204,422
135
24
293
197
$
33
$
448
$
735
$
50
$
2,264
$
932
$
102
$
2,613
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
958,921
161,506
2,174,244
134
24
290
195
$
33
$
442
$
729
$
49
$
2,243
$
924
$
101
$
2,580
$
A4
888,847
154,125
1,955,210
127
23
267
181
$
31
$
398
$
689
$
48
$
2,090
$
870
$
97
$
2,420
$
A1
302,996
50,884
702,049
42
8
93
62
$
10
$
143
$
228
$
15
$
710
$
290
$
29
$
841
$
A2
259,589
45,633
576,406
37
7
79
53
$
9
$
117
$
204
$
14
$
622
$
256
$
27
$
726
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
243,572
43,801
526,649
36
7
74
50
$
9
$
107
$
195
$
14
$
590
$
244
$
26
$
686
$
A4
209,034
39,913
431,173
32
6
64
43
$
8
$
88
$
175
$
13
$
521
$
217
$
25
$
594
$
A1
527,904
88,212
1,266,480
73
13
166
107
$
18
$
258
$
398
$
26
$
1,241
$
506
$
51
$
1,460
$
A2
488,854
83,790
1,152,243
69
13
154
99
$
17
$
234
$
376
$
25
$
1,167
$
475
$
49
$
1,361
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
470,572
81,410
1,096,721
67
12
148
96
$
17
$
223
$
366
$
24
$
1,131
$
461
$
48
$
1,306
$
A4
410,514
75,314
915,940
61
12
129
83
$
15
$
186
$
331
$
23
$
1,007
$
415
$
45
$
1,157
$

Source:
Risk
and
Benefits
Model
ICRSS
Large
System
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
ICR
ICRSS
Medium
System
ICRSS
Large
System
Total
Annual
Value
of
Benefits
($
Millions)

Mean
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
ICR
ICRSS
Medium
System
ICRSS
Large
System
All
System
Sizes
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
ICR
ICRSS
Medium
System
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Value
of
Benefits
for
Annual
Illnesses
Avoided
($
Millions)

Large
Systems
Small
Systems
Data
Set
Rule
Alternative
Annual
Illnesses
Avoided
Annual
Deaths
Avoided
Value
of
Benefits
for
Annual
Deaths
Avoided
($
Millions)

Note:
Illnesses
and
deaths
avoided
are
for
each
year
after
the
rule
is
fully
implemented
in
2014.
Actual
illnesses
and
deaths
avoided
in
earlier
years
depends
on
the
implementation
schedule.
The
values
for
annualized
benefits
already
account
for
the
phased
implementation
of
the
alternatives.
Mean
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Exhibit
C.
4b
Cases
Avoided
and
Benefits
Annualized
at
3
Percent
(
Based
on
Traditional
Cost
of
Illness)

Mean
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Mean
90
%
Confidence
Bound
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Mean
C­
6
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
May
2003
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
A1
1,048,583
172,409
2,410,265
144
25
316
596
$
98
$
1,368
$
665
$
44
$
2,054
$
1,260
$
171
$
3,229
$
A2
1,031,716
170,643
2,367,993
142
25
311
586
$
97
$
1,343
$
657
$
44
$
2,022
$
1,243
$
170
$
3,165
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
1,018,915
169,358
2,331,467
141
25
308
579
$
96
$
1,323
$
651
$
44
$
2,001
$
1,230
$
168
$
3,120
$
A4
940,570
161,366
2,084,877
133
24
282
535
$
92
$
1,184
$
613
$
42
$
1,864
$
1,148
$
161
$
2,859
$
A1
323,915
53,589
757,802
44
8
99
184
$
30
$
430
$
205
$
13
$
639
$
389
$
50
$
1,035
$
A2
275,616
47,681
619,109
39
7
84
157
$
27
$
351
$
182
$
12
$
558
$
338
$
46
$
879
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
256,173
45,292
560,648
37
7
78
146
$
26
$
319
$
172
$
12
$
524
$
318
$
44
$
816
$
A4
218,820
41,215
457,470
33
7
67
125
$
24
$
260
$
154
$
11
$
461
$
279
$
41
$
690
$
A1
563,930
92,474
1,367,370
77
14
177
320
$
53
$
775
$
357
$
23
$
1,116
$
677
$
87
$
1,783
$
A2
520,501
87,782
1,244,961
73
13
164
296
$
50
$
705
$
336
$
22
$
1,048
$
632
$
83
$
1,646
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
498,363
84,724
1,177,415
70
13
157
283
$
48
$
668
$
325
$
22
$
1,010
$
609
$
81
$
1,577
$
A4
433,520
78,386
984,238
64
12
136
247
$
45
$
558
$
294
$
20
$
895
$
541
$
75
$
1,363
$

A1
63,866
7,860
167,453
7
1
19
31
$
4
$
81
$
28
$
2
$
91
$
59
$
6
$
166
$
A2
62,168
7,671
163,369
7
1
18
30
$
4
$
79
$
27
$
1
$
89
$
57
$
6
$
160
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
59,994
7,439
157,807
7
1
18
29
$
4
$
76
$
26
$
1
$
86
$
55
$
6
$
155
$
A4
51,723
6,787
133,232
6
1
15
25
$
3
$
64
$
23
$
1
$
74
$
48
$
6
$
131
$
A1
20,919
2,538
56,615
2
0
6
10
$
1
$
27
$
9
$
0
$
32
$
19
$
2
$
59
$
A2
16,027
1,989
43,805
2
0
5
8
$
1
$
21
$
7
$
0
$
25
$
15
$
2
$
45
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
12,601
1,571
34,606
1
0
4
6
$
1
$
17
$
6
$
0
$
20
$
12
$
1
$
35
$
A4
9,786
1,233
26,424
1
0
3
5
$
1
$
13
$
5
$
0
$
16
$
9
$
1
$
27
$
A1
36,026
3,855
105,997
4
0
12
17
$
2
$
51
$
16
$
1
$
55
$
33
$
3
$
99
$
A2
31,647
3,465
93,543
4
0
10
15
$
2
$
45
$
14
$
1
$
48
$
29
$
3
$
88
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
27,791
3,130
82,951
3
0
9
13
$
2
$
40
$
12
$
1
$
42
$
26
$
3
$
77
$
A4
23,006
2,730
68,162
3
0
8
11
$
1
$
33
$
10
$
1
$
35
$
21
$
2
$
63
$

A1
984,717
164,259
2,245,273
137
25
298
565
$
94
$
1,288
$
637
$
43
$
1,961
$
1,202
$
163
$
3,054
$
A2
969,548
162,521
2,204,422
135
24
293
556
$
93
$
1,264
$
630
$
42
$
1,933
$
1,186
$
162
$
3,003
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
958,921
161,506
2,174,244
134
24
290
550
$
93
$
1,247
$
624
$
42
$
1,916
$
1,174
$
161
$
2,965
$
A4
888,847
154,125
1,955,210
127
23
267
510
$
88
$
1,121
$
590
$
41
$
1,791
$
1,100
$
154
$
2,739
$
A1
302,996
50,884
702,049
42
8
93
174
$
29
$
403
$
196
$
13
$
608
$
369
$
48
$
979
$
A2
259,589
45,633
576,406
37
7
79
149
$
26
$
331
$
174
$
12
$
533
$
323
$
44
$
836
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
243,572
43,801
526,649
36
7
74
140
$
25
$
302
$
167
$
12
$
505
$
306
$
43
$
779
$
A4
209,034
39,913
431,173
32
6
64
120
$
23
$
247
$
150
$
11
$
447
$
270
$
40
$
665
$
A1
527,904
88,212
1,266,480
73
13
166
303
$
51
$
726
$
341
$
22
$
1,064
$
644
$
84
$
1,688
$
A2
488,854
83,790
1,152,243
69
13
154
280
$
48
$
661
$
322
$
21
$
1,000
$
602
$
80
$
1,564
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
470,572
81,410
1,096,721
67
12
148
270
$
47
$
629
$
313
$
21
$
970
$
583
$
78
$
1,501
$
A4
410,514
75,314
915,940
61
12
129
235
$
43
$
525
$
284
$
20
$
862
$
519
$
73
$
1,300
$

Source:
Risk
and
Benefits
Model
Large
Systems
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
ICR
ICRSS
Medium
System
ICRSS
Large
System
Small
Systems
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
ICR
ICRSS
Medium
System
ICRSS
Large
System
All
System
Sizes
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
ICR
ICRSS
Medium
System
ICRSS
Large
System
Value
of
Benefits
for
Annual
Deaths
Avoided
($
Millions)
Total
Annual
Value
of
Benefits
($
Millions)

Mean
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Mean
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Mean
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Mean
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Note:
Illnesses
and
deaths
avoided
are
for
each
year
after
the
rule
is
fully
implemented
in
2014.
Actual
illnesses
and
deaths
avoided
in
earlier
years
depends
on
the
implementation
schedule.
The
values
for
annualized
benefits
already
account
for
the
phased
implementation
of
the
alternatives.
Exhibit
C.
5a
Cases
Avoided
and
Benefits
Annualized
at
7
Percent
(
Based
on
Enhanced
Cost
of
Illness)

Data
Set
Rule
Alternative
Annual
Illnesses
Avoided
Mean
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Annual
Deaths
Avoided
Value
of
Benefits
for
Annual
Illnesses
Avoided
($
Millions)

C­
7
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
May
2003
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
A1
1,048,583
172,409
2,410,265
144
25
316
180
$
30
$
413
$
665
$
44
$
2,054
$
845
$
91
$
2,374
$
A2
1,031,716
170,643
2,367,993
142
25
311
177
$
29
$
406
$
657
$
44
$
2,022
$
834
$
90
$
2,339
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
1,018,915
169,358
2,331,467
141
25
308
175
$
29
$
400
$
651
$
44
$
2,001
$
826
$
89
$
2,315
$
A4
940,570
161,366
2,084,877
133
24
282
162
$
28
$
358
$
613
$
42
$
1,864
$
775
$
86
$
2,155
$
A1
323,915
53,589
757,802
44
8
99
56
$
9
$
130
$
205
$
13
$
639
$
260
$
26
$
757
$
A2
275,616
47,681
619,109
39
7
84
47
$
8
$
106
$
182
$
12
$
558
$
229
$
24
$
652
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
256,173
45,292
560,648
37
7
78
44
$
8
$
96
$
172
$
12
$
524
$
216
$
23
$
610
$
A4
218,820
41,215
457,470
33
7
67
38
$
7
$
79
$
154
$
11
$
461
$
192
$
22
$
527
$
A1
563,930
92,474
1,367,370
77
14
177
97
$
16
$
234
$
357
$
23
$
1,116
$
454
$
45
$
1,317
$
A2
520,501
87,782
1,244,961
73
13
164
89
$
15
$
213
$
336
$
22
$
1,048
$
425
$
44
$
1,225
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
498,363
84,724
1,177,415
70
13
157
86
$
15
$
202
$
325
$
22
$
1,010
$
411
$
43
$
1,172
$
A4
433,520
78,386
984,238
64
12
136
74
$
13
$
169
$
294
$
20
$
895
$
369
$
40
$
1,029
$

A1
63,866
7,860
167,453
7
1
19
9
$
1
$
24
$
28
$
2
$
91
$
37
$
3
$
112
$
A2
62,168
7,671
163,369
7
1
18
9
$
1
$
24
$
27
$
1
$
89
$
36
$
3
$
109
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
59,994
7,439
157,807
7
1
18
9
$
1
$
23
$
26
$
1
$
86
$
35
$
3
$
105
$
A4
51,723
6,787
133,232
6
1
15
7
$
1
$
19
$
23
$
1
$
74
$
30
$
3
$
90
$
A1
20,919
2,538
56,615
2
0
6
3
$
0
$
8
$
9
$
0
$
32
$
12
$
1
$
39
$
A2
16,027
1,989
43,805
2
0
5
2
$
0
$
6
$
7
$
0
$
25
$
9
$
1
$
30
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
12,601
1,571
34,606
1
0
4
2
$
0
$
5
$
6
$
0
$
20
$
8
$
1
$
24
$
A4
9,786
1,233
26,424
1
0
3
1
$
0
$
4
$
5
$
0
$
16
$
6
$
1
$
19
$
A1
36,026
3,855
105,997
4
0
12
5
$
1
$
15
$
16
$
1
$
55
$
21
$
2
$
67
$
A2
31,647
3,465
93,543
4
0
10
5
$
1
$
14
$
14
$
1
$
48
$
18
$
1
$
59
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
27,791
3,130
82,951
3
0
9
4
$
0
$
12
$
12
$
1
$
42
$
16
$
1
$
52
$
A4
23,006
2,730
68,162
3
0
8
3
$
0
$
10
$
10
$
1
$
35
$
14
$
1
$
44
$

A1
984,717
164,259
2,245,273
137
25
298
171
$
28
$
389
$
637
$
43
$
1,961
$
808
$
88
$
2,267
$
A2
969,548
162,521
2,204,422
135
24
293
168
$
28
$
382
$
630
$
42
$
1,933
$
798
$
87
$
2,237
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
958,921
161,506
2,174,244
134
24
290
166
$
28
$
377
$
624
$
42
$
1,916
$
791
$
86
$
2,212
$
A4
888,847
154,125
1,955,210
127
23
267
154
$
27
$
339
$
590
$
41
$
1,791
$
744
$
83
$
2,071
$
A1
302,996
50,884
702,049
42
8
93
53
$
9
$
122
$
196
$
13
$
608
$
248
$
25
$
720
$
A2
259,589
45,633
576,406
37
7
79
45
$
8
$
100
$
174
$
12
$
533
$
219
$
23
$
621
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
243,572
43,801
526,649
36
7
74
42
$
8
$
91
$
167
$
12
$
505
$
209
$
23
$
587
$
A4
209,034
39,913
431,173
32
6
64
36
$
7
$
75
$
150
$
11
$
447
$
186
$
21
$
509
$
A1
527,904
88,212
1,266,480
73
13
166
91
$
15
$
220
$
341
$
22
$
1,064
$
433
$
44
$
1,250
$
A2
488,854
83,790
1,152,243
69
13
154
85
$
15
$
200
$
322
$
21
$
1,000
$
407
$
42
$
1,163
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
470,572
81,410
1,096,721
67
12
148
82
$
14
$
190
$
313
$
21
$
970
$
395
$
41
$
1,119
$
A4
410,514
75,314
915,940
61
12
129
71
$
13
$
159
$
284
$
20
$
862
$
355
$
39
$
991
$

Source:
Risk
and
Benefits
Model
Data
Set
Rule
Alternative
Annual
Illnesses
Avoided
Mean
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Annual
Deaths
Avoided
Value
of
Benefits
for
Annual
Illnesses
Avoided
($
Millions)
Value
of
Benefits
for
Annual
Deaths
Avoided
($
Millions)
Total
Annual
Value
of
Benefits
($
Millions)

Mean
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Mean
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Mean
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Mean
90
%
Confidence
Bound
ICRSS
Medium
System
ICRSS
Large
System
All
System
Sizes
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
ICR
ICRSS
Medium
System
ICRSS
Large
System
Note:
Illnesses
and
deaths
avoided
are
for
each
year
after
the
rule
is
fully
implemented
in
2014.
Actual
illnesses
and
deaths
avoided
in
earlier
years
depends
on
the
implementation
schedule.
The
values
for
annualized
benefits
already
account
for
the
phased
implementation
of
the
alternatives.
Exhibit
C.
5b
Cases
Avoided
and
Benefits
Annualized
at
7
Percent
(
Based
on
Traditional
Cost
of
Illness)

Large
Systems
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
ICR
ICRSS
Medium
System
ICRSS
Large
System
Small
Systems
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
ICR
C­
8
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
May
2003
Exhibit
C.
6a
Cases
Avoided
and
Benefits
Annualized
at
3
Percent
(
Based
on
Enhanced
Cost
of
Illness)
Filtered
Systems
Only
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
A1
501,841
49,378
1,414,989
53
5
149
101
$
10
$
284
$
283
$
13
$
976
$
384
$
29
$
1,235
$
A2
484,974
47,418
1,365,967
51
5
144
97
$
9
$
274
$
274
$
12
$
946
$
371
$
28
$
1,189
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
472,173
46,061
1,329,429
50
5
140
95
$
9
$
267
$
267
$
12
$
923
$
362
$
27
$
1,160
$
A4
393,828
38,895
1,078,615
42
4
114
79
$
8
$
216
$
223
$
10
$
764
$
302
$
23
$
958
$
A1
155,522
16,328
450,241
16
2
48
31
$
3
$
90
$
87
$
3
$
321
$
118
$
8
$
404
$
A2
107,224
10,682
317,383
11
1
34
21
$
2
$
64
$
60
$
2
$
223
$
82
$
5
$
281
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
87,780
8,065
263,496
9
1
28
18
$
2
$
53
$
49
$
2
$
183
$
67
$
4
$
233
$
A4
50,427
4,277
162,677
5
0
17
10
$
1
$
32
$
28
$
1
$
106
$
38
$
2
$
132
$
A1
270,773
25,508
833,472
29
3
88
54
$
5
$
167
$
152
$
6
$
561
$
207
$
13
$
701
$
A2
227,344
21,047
710,687
24
2
75
46
$
4
$
142
$
128
$
5
$
472
$
174
$
11
$
592
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
205,206
18,565
647,598
22
2
68
41
$
4
$
130
$
116
$
4
$
427
$
157
$
10
$
535
$
A4
140,363
12,065
466,456
15
1
49
28
$
2
$
93
$
79
$
3
$
291
$
107
$
7
$
366
$

A1
56,307
6,025
153,825
6
1
16
10
$
1
$
27
$
28
$
1
$
96
$
38
$
3
$
121
$
A2
54,609
5,813
149,439
6
1
16
10
$
1
$
27
$
27
$
1
$
93
$
37
$
3
$
116
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
52,434
5,569
143,724
6
1
15
9
$
1
$
26
$
26
$
1
$
89
$
35
$
3
$
111
$
A4
44,163
4,843
119,399
5
1
13
8
$
1
$
21
$
22
$
1
$
74
$
30
$
2
$
92
$
A1
18,435
1,763
52,992
2
0
6
3
$
0
$
9
$
9
$
0
$
34
$
12
$
1
$
43
$
A2
13,544
1,231
39,815
1
0
4
2
$
0
$
7
$
7
$
0
$
25
$
9
$
1
$
32
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
10,117
806
30,616
1
0
3
2
$
0
$
5
$
5
$
0
$
19
$
7
$
0
$
24
$
A4
7,302
530
22,471
1
0
2
1
$
0
$
4
$
4
$
0
$
14
$
5
$
0
$
17
$
A1
31,751
2,623
98,834
3
0
10
6
$
0
$
18
$
16
$
1
$
58
$
21
$
1
$
72
$
A2
27,371
2,278
85,939
3
0
9
5
$
0
$
15
$
14
$
1
$
50
$
18
$
1
$
63
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
23,516
1,957
75,748
2
0
8
4
$
0
$
13
$
12
$
0
$
43
$
16
$
1
$
54
$
A4
18,731
1,586
60,257
2
0
6
3
$
0
$
11
$
9
$
0
$
34
$
13
$
1
$
43
$

A1
445,535
42,764
1,258,301
47
5
133
91
$
9
$
256
$
255
$
11
$
881
$
346
$
26
$
1,119
$
A2
430,365
41,219
1,213,406
45
4
128
88
$
8
$
247
$
247
$
11
$
855
$
334
$
25
$
1,079
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
419,739
40,334
1,179,745
44
4
125
85
$
8
$
240
$
241
$
11
$
835
$
326
$
24
$
1,051
$
A4
349,664
34,557
958,615
37
4
101
71
$
7
$
195
$
201
$
9
$
693
$
272
$
21
$
865
$
A1
137,087
14,363
398,904
14
2
42
28
$
3
$
81
$
78
$
3
$
288
$
106
$
7
$
363
$
A2
93,680
9,246
279,141
10
1
29
19
$
2
$
57
$
53
$
2
$
199
$
72
$
5
$
249
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
77,663
7,256
234,041
8
1
25
16
$
1
$
48
$
44
$
2
$
165
$
60
$
4
$
209
$
A4
43,125
3,743
140,489
5
0
15
9
$
1
$
29
$
25
$
1
$
92
$
33
$
2
$
115
$
A1
239,023
22,835
742,325
25
2
78
49
$
5
$
151
$
137
$
5
$
503
$
185
$
12
$
629
$
A2
199,973
18,720
626,235
21
2
66
41
$
4
$
127
$
114
$
4
$
422
$
155
$
10
$
530
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
181,691
16,573
576,654
19
2
61
37
$
3
$
117
$
104
$
4
$
386
$
141
$
9
$
480
$
A4
121,633
10,385
404,874
13
1
43
25
$
2
$
82
$
70
$
3
$
257
$
94
$
6
$
323
$

Source:
Risk
and
Benefits
Model
Annual
Illnesses
Avoided
Mean
Small
Systems
Large
Systems
ICR
ICRSS
Large
System
Annual
Deaths
Avoided
Value
of
Benefits
for
Annual
Illnesses
Avoided
($
Millions)
Total
Annual
Value
of
Benefits
($
Millions)
90
%
Confidence
Bound
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Mean
ICRSS
Medium
System
ICR
ICRSS
Large
System
ICRSS
Medium
System
Mean
90
%
Confidence
Bound
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Mean
Note:
Illnesses
and
deaths
avoided
are
for
each
year
after
the
rule
is
fully
implemented
in
2014.
Actual
illnesses
and
deaths
avoided
in
earlier
years
depends
on
the
implementation
schedule.
The
values
for
annualized
benefits
already
account
for
the
phased
implementation
of
the
alternatives.
Value
of
Benefits
for
Annual
Deaths
Avoided
($
Millions)

Rule
Alternative
Data
Set
ICRSS
Medium
System
ICR
ICRSS
Large
System
All
System
Sizes
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Mean
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
C­
9
May
2003
Exhibit
C.
6b
Cases
Avoided
and
Benefits
Annualized
at
3
Percent
(
Based
on
Traditional
Cost
of
Illness)
Filtered
Systems
Only
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
A1
501,841
49,378
1,414,989
53
5
149
335
$
33
$
943
$
283
$
13
$
976
$
618
$
57
$
1,835
$
A2
484,974
47,418
1,365,967
51
5
144
323
$
32
$
912
$
274
$
12
$
946
$
597
$
55
$
1,774
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
472,173
46,061
1,329,429
50
5
140
315
$
31
$
887
$
267
$
12
$
923
$
582
$
54
$
1,722
$
A4
393,828
38,895
1,078,615
42
4
114
263
$
26
$
720
$
223
$
10
$
764
$
485
$
46
$
1,427
$
A1
155,522
16,328
450,241
16
2
48
104
$
11
$
300
$
87
$
3
$
321
$
191
$
16
$
610
$
A2
107,224
10,682
317,383
11
1
34
71
$
7
$
211
$
60
$
2
$
223
$
131
$
10
$
432
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
87,780
8,065
263,496
9
1
28
59
$
5
$
176
$
49
$
2
$
183
$
108
$
8
$
353
$
A4
50,427
4,277
162,677
5
0
17
34
$
3
$
108
$
28
$
1
$
106
$
62
$
5
$
203
$
A1
270,773
25,508
833,472
29
3
88
181
$
17
$
557
$
152
$
6
$
561
$
333
$
27
$
1,060
$
A2
227,344
21,047
710,687
24
2
75
151
$
14
$
474
$
128
$
5
$
472
$
279
$
23
$
890
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
205,206
18,565
647,598
22
2
68
137
$
12
$
432
$
116
$
4
$
427
$
253
$
20
$
803
$
A4
140,363
12,065
466,456
15
1
49
93
$
8
$
310
$
79
$
3
$
291
$
172
$
13
$
553
$

A1
56,307
6,025
153,825
6
1
16
33
$
4
$
91
$
28
$
1
$
96
$
62
$
6
$
180
$
A2
54,609
5,813
149,439
6
1
16
32
$
3
$
89
$
27
$
1
$
93
$
60
$
6
$
175
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
52,434
5,569
143,724
6
1
15
31
$
3
$
85
$
26
$
1
$
89
$
57
$
5
$
167
$
A4
44,163
4,843
119,399
5
1
13
26
$
3
$
71
$
22
$
1
$
74
$
48
$
5
$
139
$
A1
18,435
1,763
52,992
2
0
6
11
$
1
$
31
$
9
$
0
$
34
$
20
$
2
$
65
$
A2
13,544
1,231
39,815
1
0
4
8
$
1
$
24
$
7
$
0
$
25
$
15
$
1
$
48
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
10,117
806
30,616
1
0
3
6
$
0
$
18
$
5
$
0
$
19
$
11
$
1
$
36
$
A4
7,302
530
22,471
1
0
2
4
$
0
$
13
$
4
$
0
$
14
$
8
$
1
$
26
$
A1
31,751
2,623
98,834
3
0
10
19
$
2
$
59
$
16
$
1
$
58
$
35
$
3
$
109
$
A2
27,371
2,278
85,939
3
0
9
16
$
1
$
51
$
14
$
1
$
50
$
30
$
2
$
95
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
23,516
1,957
75,748
2
0
8
14
$
1
$
45
$
12
$
0
$
43
$
26
$
2
$
82
$
A4
18,731
1,586
60,257
2
0
6
11
$
1
$
36
$
9
$
0
$
34
$
20
$
1
$
66
$

A1
445,535
42,764
1,258,301
47
5
133
301
$
29
$
851
$
255
$
11
$
881
$
557
$
51
$
1,663
$
A2
430,365
41,219
1,213,406
45
4
128
291
$
28
$
821
$
247
$
11
$
855
$
538
$
50
$
1,605
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
419,739
40,334
1,179,745
44
4
125
284
$
27
$
798
$
241
$
11
$
835
$
525
$
48
$
1,563
$
A4
349,664
34,557
958,615
37
4
101
236
$
23
$
648
$
201
$
9
$
693
$
437
$
41
$
1,288
$
A1
137,087
14,363
398,904
14
2
42
93
$
10
$
270
$
78
$
3
$
288
$
171
$
14
$
545
$
A2
93,680
9,246
279,141
10
1
29
63
$
6
$
189
$
53
$
2
$
199
$
117
$
9
$
385
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
77,663
7,256
234,041
8
1
25
53
$
5
$
158
$
44
$
2
$
165
$
97
$
8
$
317
$
A4
43,125
3,743
140,489
5
0
15
29
$
3
$
95
$
25
$
1
$
92
$
54
$
4
$
177
$
A1
239,023
22,835
742,325
25
2
78
162
$
15
$
502
$
137
$
5
$
503
$
298
$
25
$
951
$
A2
199,973
18,720
626,235
21
2
66
135
$
13
$
423
$
114
$
4
$
422
$
250
$
20
$
796
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
181,691
16,573
576,654
19
2
61
123
$
11
$
390
$
104
$
4
$
386
$
227
$
18
$
724
$
A4
121,633
10,385
404,874
13
1
43
82
$
7
$
274
$
70
$
3
$
257
$
152
$
12
$
489
$

Source:
Risk
and
Benefits
Model
ICR
ICRSS
Large
System
ICRSS
Medium
System
ICR
ICRSS
Large
System
ICRSS
Medium
System
Large
Systems
ICR
ICRSS
Large
System
ICRSS
Medium
System
Small
Systems
All
System
Sizes
Data
Set
Rule
Alternative
Annual
Illnesses
Avoided
Annual
Deaths
Avoided
Value
of
Benefits
for
Annual
Illnesses
Avoided
($
Millions)
Value
of
Benefits
for
Annual
Deaths
Avoided
($
Millions)
Total
Annual
Value
of
Benefits
($
Millions)

Mean
Note:
Illnesses
and
deaths
avoided
are
for
each
year
after
the
rule
is
fully
implemented
in
2014.
Actual
illnesses
and
deaths
avoided
in
earlier
years
depends
on
the
implementation
schedule.
The
values
for
annualized
benefits
already
account
for
the
phased
implementation
of
the
alternatives.
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Mean
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Mean
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Mean
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Mean
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
C­
10
May
2003
Exhibit
C.
7a
Cases
Avoided
and
Benefits
Annualized
at
3
Percent
(
Based
on
Enhanced
Cost
of
Illness)
Unfiltered
Systems
Only
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
ICR
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
546,742
117,826
1,027,377
91
20
171
369
$
80
$
694
$
494
$
38
$
1,451
$
863
$
138
$
2,037
$
ICR
SSL
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
168,393
36,286
316,421
28
6
53
114
$
24
$
214
$
152
$
12
$
447
$
266
$
42
$
627
$
ICR
SSM
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
293,157
63,169
550,857
49
11
92
198
$
43
$
372
$
265
$
20
$
778
$
463
$
74
$
1,092
$

ICR
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
7,560
1,628
14,951
1
0
2
4
$
1
$
9
$
6
$
1
$
17
$
10
$
2
$
25
$
ICR
SSL
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
2,483
535
4,912
0
0
1
1
$
0
$
3
$
2
$
0
$
6
$
3
$
1
$
8
$
ICR
SSM
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
4,275
921
8,455
1
0
1
3
$
1
$
5
$
3
$
0
$
10
$
6
$
1
$
14
$

ICR
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
539,182
115,799
1,012,526
90
19
168
365
$
78
$
685
$
488
$
38
$
1,433
$
853
$
135
$
2,012
$
ICR
SSL
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
165,909
35,632
311,559
28
6
52
112
$
24
$
211
$
150
$
12
$
441
$
262
$
42
$
619
$
ICR
SSM
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
288,882
62,042
542,493
48
10
90
195
$
42
$
367
$
262
$
20
$
768
$
457
$
73
$
1,078
$

Source:
Risk
and
Benefits
Model
Large
Systems
Small
Systems
All
System
Sizes
Mean
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Mean
90
%
Confidence
Bound
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Value
of
Benefits
for
Annual
Deaths
Avoided
($
Millions)

Mean
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Value
of
Benefits
for
Annual
Illnesses
Avoided
($
Millions)
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Note:
Illnesses
and
deaths
avoided
are
for
each
year
after
the
rule
is
fully
implemented
in
2014.
Actual
illnesses
and
deaths
avoided
in
earlier
years
depends
on
the
implementation
schedule.
The
values
for
annualized
benefits
already
account
for
the
phased
implementation
of
the
alternatives.
Data
Set
Mean
Annual
Illnesses
Avoided
Rule
Alternative
Annual
Deaths
Avoided
Total
Annual
Value
of
Benefits
($
Millions)

Mean
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
C­
11
May
2003
Exhibit
C.
7b
Cases
Avoided
and
Benefits
Annualized
at
3
Percent
(
Based
on
Traditional
Cost
of
Illness)
Unfiltered
Systems
Only
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
ICR
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
546,742
117,826
1,027,377
91
20
171
111
$
24
$
209
$
494
$
38
$
1,451
$
605
$
73
$
1,622
$
ICR
SSL
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
168,393
36,286
316,421
28
6
53
34
$
7
$
64
$
152
$
12
$
447
$
186
$
22
$
500
$
ICR
SSM
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
293,157
63,169
550,857
49
11
92
60
$
13
$
112
$
265
$
20
$
778
$
325
$
39
$
870
$

ICR
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
7,560
1,628
14,951
1
0
2
1
$
0
$
3
$
6
$
1
$
17
$
7
$
1
$
19
$
ICR
SSL
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
2,483
535
4,912
0
0
1
0
$
0
$
1
$
2
$
0
$
6
$
2
$
0
$
6
$
ICR
SSM
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
4,275
921
8,455
1
0
1
1
$
0
$
2
$
3
$
0
$
10
$
4
$
1
$
11
$

ICR
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
539,182
115,799
1,012,526
90
19
168
110
$
24
$
206
$
488
$
38
$
1,433
$
598
$
72
$
1,601
$
ICR
SSL
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
165,909
35,632
311,559
28
6
52
34
$
7
$
63
$
150
$
12
$
441
$
184
$
22
$
493
$
ICR
SSM
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
288,882
62,042
542,493
48
10
90
59
$
13
$
110
$
262
$
20
$
768
$
320
$
38
$
858
$

Source:
Risk
and
Benefits
Model
Mean
Note:
Illnesses
and
deaths
avoided
are
for
each
year
after
the
rule
is
fully
implemented
in
2014.
Actual
illnesses
and
deaths
avoided
in
earlier
years
depends
on
the
implementation
schedule.
The
values
for
annualized
benefits
already
account
for
the
phased
implementation
of
the
alternatives.
Value
of
Benefits
for
Annual
Illnesses
Avoided
($
Millions)
Value
of
Benefits
for
Annual
Deaths
Avoided
($
Millions)
Total
Annual
Value
of
Benefits
($
Millions)

Mean
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Mean
Large
Systems
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Mean
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Small
Systems
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Annual
Illnesses
Avoided
90
%
Confidence
Bound
All
System
Sizes
Data
Set
Rule
Alternative
Mean
Annual
Deaths
Avoided
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
C­
12
May
2003
Exhibit
C.
8a
Cases
Avoided
and
Benefits
Annualized
at
7
Percent
(
Based
on
Enhanced
Cost
of
Illness)
Filtered
Systems
Only
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
A1
501,841
49,378
1,414,989
53
5
149
85
$
8
$
241
$
242
$
11
$
831
$
327
$
25
$
1,054
$
A2
484,974
47,418
1,365,967
51
5
144
83
$
8
$
233
$
234
$
10
$
806
$
316
$
24
$
1,013
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
472,173
46,061
1,329,429
50
5
140
80
$
8
$
226
$
228
$
10
$
788
$
308
$
23
$
986
$
A4
393,828
38,895
1,078,615
42
4
114
67
$
7
$
184
$
190
$
9
$
652
$
257
$
20
$
818
$
A1
155,522
16,328
450,241
16
2
48
26
$
3
$
77
$
74
$
3
$
275
$
101
$
7
$
344
$
A2
107,224
10,682
317,383
11
1
34
18
$
2
$
54
$
51
$
2
$
191
$
69
$
4
$
239
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
87,780
8,065
263,496
9
1
28
15
$
1
$
45
$
42
$
2
$
156
$
57
$
4
$
198
$
A4
50,427
4,277
162,677
5
0
17
9
$
1
$
28
$
24
$
1
$
90
$
33
$
2
$
112
$
A1
270,773
25,508
833,472
29
3
88
46
$
4
$
142
$
130
$
5
$
477
$
176
$
11
$
598
$
A2
227,344
21,047
710,687
24
2
75
39
$
4
$
121
$
109
$
4
$
403
$
148
$
9
$
503
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
205,206
18,565
647,598
22
2
68
35
$
3
$
110
$
99
$
4
$
365
$
134
$
8
$
455
$
A4
140,363
12,065
466,456
15
1
49
24
$
2
$
79
$
67
$
3
$
248
$
91
$
6
$
312
$

A1
56,307
6,025
153,825
6
1
16
8
$
1
$
22
$
23
$
1
$
78
$
31
$
2
$
99
$
A2
54,609
5,813
149,439
6
1
16
8
$
1
$
22
$
22
$
1
$
76
$
30
$
2
$
95
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
52,434
5,569
143,724
6
1
15
8
$
1
$
21
$
21
$
1
$
73
$
29
$
2
$
91
$
A4
44,163
4,843
119,399
5
1
13
6
$
1
$
17
$
18
$
1
$
61
$
24
$
2
$
75
$
A1
18,435
1,763
52,992
2
0
6
3
$
0
$
8
$
7
$
0
$
28
$
10
$
1
$
35
$
A2
13,544
1,231
39,815
1
0
4
2
$
0
$
6
$
5
$
0
$
20
$
7
$
0
$
26
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
10,117
806
30,616
1
0
3
1
$
0
$
4
$
4
$
0
$
15
$
6
$
0
$
19
$
A4
7,302
530
22,471
1
0
2
1
$
0
$
3
$
3
$
0
$
11
$
4
$
0
$
14
$
A1
31,751
2,623
98,834
3
0
10
5
$
0
$
14
$
13
$
0
$
47
$
18
$
1
$
59
$
A2
27,371
2,278
85,939
3
0
9
4
$
0
$
12
$
11
$
0
$
41
$
15
$
1
$
51
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
23,516
1,957
75,748
2
0
8
3
$
0
$
11
$
10
$
0
$
35
$
13
$
1
$
44
$
A4
18,731
1,586
60,257
2
0
6
3
$
0
$
9
$
8
$
0
$
28
$
10
$
1
$
35
$

A1
445,535
42,764
1,258,301
47
5
133
77
$
7
$
218
$
219
$
10
$
756
$
296
$
22
$
959
$
A2
430,365
41,219
1,213,406
45
4
128
75
$
7
$
210
$
211
$
9
$
733
$
286
$
21
$
923
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
419,739
40,334
1,179,745
44
4
125
73
$
7
$
204
$
206
$
9
$
717
$
279
$
21
$
899
$
A4
349,664
34,557
958,615
37
4
101
61
$
6
$
166
$
172
$
8
$
593
$
232
$
18
$
741
$
A1
137,087
14,363
398,904
14
2
42
24
$
2
$
69
$
67
$
3
$
247
$
91
$
6
$
310
$
A2
93,680
9,246
279,141
10
1
29
16
$
2
$
48
$
46
$
2
$
170
$
62
$
4
$
213
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
77,663
7,256
234,041
8
1
25
13
$
1
$
41
$
38
$
1
$
141
$
51
$
3
$
178
$
A4
43,125
3,743
140,489
5
0
15
7
$
1
$
24
$
21
$
1
$
78
$
29
$
2
$
98
$
A1
239,023
22,835
742,325
25
2
78
41
$
4
$
129
$
117
$
5
$
430
$
158
$
10
$
539
$
A2
199,973
18,720
626,235
21
2
66
35
$
3
$
109
$
98
$
4
$
362
$
133
$
8
$
454
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
181,691
16,573
576,654
19
2
61
31
$
3
$
100
$
89
$
3
$
330
$
121
$
7
$
411
$
A4
121,633
10,385
404,874
13
1
43
21
$
2
$
70
$
60
$
2
$
220
$
81
$
5
$
276
$

Source:
Risk
and
Benefits
Model
ICRSS
Medium
System
90
%
Confidence
Bound
ICR
Data
Set
Rule
Alternative
ICRSS
Large
System
90
%
Confidence
Bound
All
System
Sizes
Value
of
Benefits
for
Annual
Deaths
Avoided
($
Millions)

Mean
Small
Systems
Large
Systems
ICR
ICRSS
Large
System
Note:
Illnesses
and
deaths
avoided
are
for
each
year
after
the
rule
is
fully
implemented
in
2014.
Actual
illnesses
and
deaths
avoided
in
earlier
years
depends
on
the
implementation
schedule.
The
values
for
annualized
benefits
already
account
for
the
phased
implementation
of
the
alternatives.
Total
Annual
Value
of
Benefits
($
Millions)

ICRSS
Medium
System
ICR
ICRSS
Large
System
ICRSS
Medium
System
Mean
90
%
Confidence
Bound
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Mean
Annual
Illnesses
Avoided
Mean
Annual
Deaths
Avoided
Value
of
Benefits
for
Annual
Illnesses
Avoided
($
Millions)
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Mean
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
C­
13
May
2003
Exhibit
C.
8b
Cases
Avoided
and
Benefits
Annualized
at
7
Percent
(
Based
on
Traditional
Cost
of
Illness)
Filtered
Systems
Only
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
A1
501,841
49,378
1,414,989
53
5
149
283
$
28
$
797
$
242
$
11
$
831
$
524
$
48
$
1,559
$
A2
484,974
47,418
1,365,967
51
5
144
273
$
27
$
770
$
234
$
10
$
806
$
507
$
47
$
1,507
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
472,173
46,061
1,329,429
50
5
140
266
$
26
$
749
$
228
$
10
$
788
$
494
$
46
$
1,460
$
A4
393,828
38,895
1,078,615
42
4
114
222
$
22
$
608
$
190
$
9
$
652
$
412
$
39
$
1,210
$
A1
155,522
16,328
450,241
16
2
48
88
$
9
$
254
$
74
$
3
$
275
$
162
$
13
$
516
$
A2
107,224
10,682
317,383
11
1
34
60
$
6
$
178
$
51
$
2
$
191
$
111
$
9
$
366
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
87,780
8,065
263,496
9
1
28
49
$
5
$
148
$
42
$
2
$
156
$
91
$
7
$
300
$
A4
50,427
4,277
162,677
5
0
17
28
$
2
$
91
$
24
$
1
$
90
$
52
$
4
$
172
$
A1
270,773
25,508
833,472
29
3
88
152
$
14
$
470
$
130
$
5
$
477
$
282
$
23
$
899
$
A2
227,344
21,047
710,687
24
2
75
128
$
12
$
400
$
109
$
4
$
403
$
237
$
19
$
755
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
205,206
18,565
647,598
22
2
68
116
$
10
$
365
$
99
$
4
$
365
$
214
$
17
$
682
$
A4
140,363
12,065
466,456
15
1
49
79
$
7
$
262
$
67
$
3
$
248
$
146
$
11
$
469
$

A1
56,307
6,025
153,825
6
1
16
27
$
3
$
74
$
23
$
1
$
78
$
50
$
5
$
147
$
A2
54,609
5,813
149,439
6
1
16
26
$
3
$
72
$
22
$
1
$
76
$
49
$
4
$
142
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
52,434
5,569
143,724
6
1
15
25
$
3
$
69
$
21
$
1
$
73
$
47
$
4
$
136
$
A4
44,163
4,843
119,399
5
1
13
21
$
2
$
58
$
18
$
1
$
61
$
39
$
4
$
113
$
A1
18,435
1,763
52,992
2
0
6
9
$
1
$
26
$
7
$
0
$
28
$
16
$
1
$
53
$
A2
13,544
1,231
39,815
1
0
4
7
$
1
$
19
$
5
$
0
$
20
$
12
$
1
$
39
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
10,117
806
30,616
1
0
3
5
$
0
$
15
$
4
$
0
$
15
$
9
$
1
$
29
$
A4
7,302
530
22,471
1
0
2
4
$
0
$
11
$
3
$
0
$
11
$
6
$
0
$
21
$
A1
31,751
2,623
98,834
3
0
10
15
$
1
$
48
$
13
$
0
$
47
$
28
$
2
$
89
$
A2
27,371
2,278
85,939
3
0
9
13
$
1
$
41
$
11
$
0
$
41
$
24
$
2
$
77
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
23,516
1,957
75,748
2
0
8
11
$
1
$
37
$
10
$
0
$
35
$
21
$
2
$
67
$
A4
18,731
1,586
60,257
2
0
6
9
$
1
$
29
$
8
$
0
$
28
$
17
$
1
$
54
$

A1
445,535
42,764
1,258,301
47
5
133
256
$
25
$
722
$
219
$
10
$
756
$
474
$
44
$
1,417
$
A2
430,365
41,219
1,213,406
45
4
128
247
$
24
$
696
$
211
$
9
$
733
$
458
$
42
$
1,366
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
419,739
40,334
1,179,745
44
4
125
241
$
23
$
677
$
206
$
9
$
717
$
447
$
41
$
1,329
$
A4
349,664
34,557
958,615
37
4
101
201
$
20
$
550
$
172
$
8
$
593
$
372
$
35
$
1,097
$
A1
137,087
14,363
398,904
14
2
42
79
$
8
$
229
$
67
$
3
$
247
$
146
$
12
$
465
$
A2
93,680
9,246
279,141
10
1
29
54
$
5
$
160
$
46
$
2
$
170
$
99
$
8
$
328
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
77,663
7,256
234,041
8
1
25
45
$
4
$
134
$
38
$
1
$
141
$
82
$
6
$
270
$
A4
43,125
3,743
140,489
5
0
15
25
$
2
$
81
$
21
$
1
$
78
$
46
$
3
$
151
$
A1
239,023
22,835
742,325
25
2
78
137
$
13
$
426
$
117
$
5
$
430
$
254
$
21
$
809
$
A2
199,973
18,720
626,235
21
2
66
115
$
11
$
359
$
98
$
4
$
362
$
213
$
17
$
679
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
181,691
16,573
576,654
19
2
61
104
$
10
$
331
$
89
$
3
$
330
$
193
$
15
$
618
$
A4
121,633
10,385
404,874
13
1
43
70
$
6
$
232
$
60
$
2
$
220
$
129
$
10
$
417
$

Source:
Risk
and
Benefits
Model
ICR
ICRSS
Large
System
ICRSS
Medium
System
ICR
ICRSS
Large
System
ICRSS
Medium
System
Large
Systems
ICR
ICRSS
Large
System
ICRSS
Medium
System
Small
Systems
All
System
Sizes
Data
Set
Rule
Alternative
Annual
Illnesses
Avoided
Annual
Deaths
Avoided
Value
of
Benefits
for
Annual
Illnesses
Avoided
($
Millions)
Value
of
Benefits
for
Annual
Deaths
Avoided
($
Millions)
Total
Annual
Value
of
Benefits
($
Millions)

Mean
Note:
Illnesses
and
deaths
avoided
are
for
each
year
after
the
rule
is
fully
implemented
in
2014.
Actual
illnesses
and
deaths
avoided
in
earlier
years
depends
on
the
implementation
schedule.
The
values
for
annualized
benefits
already
account
for
the
phased
implementation
of
the
alternatives.
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Mean
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Mean
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Mean
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Mean
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
C­
14
May
2003
Exhibit
C.
9a
Cases
Avoided
and
Benefits
Annualized
at
7
Percent
(
Based
on
Enhanced
Cost
of
Illness)
Unfiltered
Systems
Only
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
ICR
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
546,742
117,826
1,027,377
91
20
171
313
$
67
$
588
$
423
$
33
$
1,240
$
736
$
117
$
1,739
$
ICR
SSL
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
168,393
36,286
316,421
28
6
53
96
$
21
$
181
$
130
$
10
$
382
$
227
$
36
$
535
$
ICR
SSM
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
293,157
63,169
550,857
49
11
92
168
$
36
$
315
$
227
$
18
$
665
$
395
$
63
$
932
$

ICR
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
7,560
1,628
14,951
1
0
2
4
$
1
$
7
$
5
$
0
$
14
$
9
$
2
$
20
$
ICR
SSL
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
2,483
535
4,912
0
0
1
1
$
0
$
2
$
2
$
0
$
5
$
3
$
1
$
7
$
ICR
SSM
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
4,275
921
8,455
1
0
1
2
$
0
$
4
$
3
$
0
$
8
$
5
$
1
$
11
$

ICR
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
539,182
115,799
1,012,526
90
19
168
309
$
66
$
581
$
418
$
32
$
1,227
$
728
$
115
$
1,718
$
ICR
SSL
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
165,909
35,632
311,559
28
6
52
95
$
20
$
179
$
129
$
10
$
378
$
224
$
35
$
529
$
ICR
SSM
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
288,882
62,042
542,493
48
10
90
166
$
36
$
311
$
224
$
17
$
657
$
390
$
62
$
921
$

Source:
Risk
and
Benefits
Model
Annual
Deaths
Avoided
Total
Annual
Value
of
Benefits
($
Millions)

Mean
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Value
of
Benefits
for
Annual
Illnesses
Avoided
($
Millions)

Large
Systems
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Small
Systems
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Mean
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Annual
Illnesses
Avoided
Note:
Illnesses
and
deaths
avoided
are
for
each
year
after
the
rule
is
fully
implemented
in
2014.
Actual
illnesses
and
deaths
avoided
in
earlier
years
depends
on
the
implementation
schedule.
The
values
for
annualized
benefits
already
account
for
the
phased
implementation
of
the
alternatives.
All
System
Sizes
Mean
Mean
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Data
Set
Rule
Alternative
Value
of
Benefits
for
Annual
Deaths
Avoided
($
Millions)

Mean
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
C­
15
May
2003
Exhibit
C.
9b
Cases
Avoided
and
Benefits
Annualized
at
7
Percent
(
Based
on
Traditional
Cost
of
Illness)
Unfiltered
Systems
Only
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
ICR
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
546,742
117,826
1,027,377
91
20
171
95
$
20
$
178
$
423
$
33
$
1,240
$
518
$
62
$
1,386
$
ICR
SSL
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
168,393
36,286
316,421
28
6
53
29
$
6
$
55
$
130
$
10
$
382
$
159
$
19
$
427
$
ICR
SSM
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
293,157
63,169
550,857
49
11
92
51
$
11
$
95
$
227
$
18
$
665
$
278
$
33
$
743
$

ICR
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
7,560
1,628
14,951
1
0
2
1
$
0
$
2
$
5
$
0
$
14
$
6
$
1
$
16
$
ICR
SSL
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
2,483
535
4,912
0
0
1
0
$
0
$
1
$
2
$
0
$
5
$
2
$
0
$
5
$
ICR
SSM
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
4,275
921
8,455
1
0
1
1
$
0
$
1
$
3
$
0
$
8
$
3
$
0
$
9
$

ICR
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
539,182
115,799
1,012,526
90
19
168
93
$
20
$
175
$
418
$
32
$
1,227
$
512
$
61
$
1,370
$
ICR
SSL
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
165,909
35,632
311,559
28
6
52
29
$
6
$
54
$
129
$
10
$
378
$
157
$
19
$
422
$
ICR
SSM
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
288,882
62,042
542,493
48
10
90
50
$
11
$
94
$
224
$
17
$
657
$
274
$
33
$
734
$

Source:
Risk
and
Benefits
Model
Mean
Note:
Illnesses
and
deaths
avoided
are
for
each
year
after
the
rule
is
fully
implemented
in
2014.
Actual
illnesses
and
deaths
avoided
in
earlier
years
depends
on
the
implementation
schedule.
The
values
for
annualized
benefits
already
account
for
the
phased
implementation
of
the
alternatives.
Value
of
Benefits
for
Annual
Illnesses
Avoided
($
Millions)
Value
of
Benefits
for
Annual
Deaths
Avoided
($
Millions)
Total
Annual
Value
of
Benefits
($
Millions)

Mean
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Mean
Large
Systems
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Mean
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Small
Systems
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Annual
Illnesses
Avoided
90
%
Confidence
Bound
All
System
Sizes
Data
Set
Rule
Alternative
Mean
Annual
Deaths
Avoided
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
C­
16
May
2003
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
C­
18
June
2003
C.
5
Individual
Risk
Functions
Exhibits
C.
10
and
C.
11
display
individual
risk
functions
for
filtered
systems
based
on
the
ICR
Supplemental
Survey
occurrence
distribution
(
ICR­
based
charts
for
filtered
and
unfiltered
systems
are
included
in
Chapter
5).
The
individual
risk
functions
show
the
percent
of
a
population
exceeding
specific
risk
levels
given
the
predicted
outcome
of
a
particular
regulatory
alternative.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
C­
18
May
2003
Exhibit
C.
10
Annual
Individual
Risk
Distributions
Based
on
ICRSSM
Occurrence
Data,
Filtered
Community
Water
Systems
(
CWSs)
Only
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

1.00E­
06
1.00E­
05
1.00E­
04
1.00E­
03
1.00E­
02
1.00E­
01
1.00E+
00
Individual
Risk
Level
(
Illness
Rate)
Percent
of
Population
Exceeding
Risk
Level
Pre­
LT2
Opt
A1
Opt
A2
Opt
A3
Opt
A4
Example:
Under
Pre­
LT2
conditions,
about
55%
of
the
population
served
by
Filtered
CWSs
have
annual
individual
risk
greater
than
0.0001
(
one
in
ten
thousand),
based
upon
ICRSSM
occurrence
data.

Example:
Under
the
preferred
regulatory
alternative
(
A3),
an
estimated
38%
of
the
population
served
by
Filtered
CWSs
have
annual
individual
risk
greater
than
0.0001
(
one
in
ten
thousand),
based
upon
ICRSSM
occurrence
data.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
C­
19
May
2003
Exhibit
C.
11
Annual
Individual
Risk
Distributions
Based
on
ICRSSL
Occurrence
Data,
Filtered
Community
Water
Systems
(
CWSs)
Only
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

1.00E­
06
1.00E­
05
1.00E­
04
1.00E­
03
1.00E­
02
1.00E­
01
1.00E+
00
Individual
Risk
Level
(
Illness
Rate)
Percent
of
Population
Exceeding
Risk
Level
Pre­
LT2
Opt
A1
Opt
A2
Opt
A3
Opt
A4
Example:
Under
Pre­
LT2
conditions,
about
55%
of
the
population
served
by
Filtered
CWSs
have
annual
individual
risk
greater
than
0.0001
(
one
in
ten
thousand),
based
upon
ICRSSL
occurrence
data.

Example:
Under
the
preferred
regulatory
alternative
(
A3),
an
estimated
41%
of
the
population
served
by
Filtered
CWSs
have
annual
individual
risk
greater
than
0.0001
(
one
in
ten
thousand),
based
upon
ICRSSL
occurrence
data.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
C­
21
June
2003
C.
6
Real
Gross
Domestic
Product
(
GDP)
per
Capita
The
real
GDP
per
capita
projections,
as
shown
in
Exhibit
C.
12,
are
applied
to
the
Economic
Analysis
in
two
places.
First,
these
values
are
a
key
input
to
the
equation
that
determines
the
income
elasticity
factors
applied
to
potentially
fatal
health
effects.
The
results
of
these
calculations
are
presented
in
section
C.
7
and
in
Exhibit
5.22.
Second,
the
data
in
Exhibit
C.
12
are
used
to
compute
the
income
growth
in
the
value
of
lost
time
benefits,
and
those
results
are
shown
in
section
L.
9
and
Exhibit
L.
11.
See
Section
5.3.1.4
for
a
more
detailed
description
of
both
types
of
adjustment
factors.

C.
7
Income
Elasticity
Factors
Exhibit
C.
13
shows
the
Consumer
Price
Index
(
CPI)
adjustment
factors
used
to
estimate
data
to
2000.
Exhibit
C.
14
uses
the
data
from
Exhibits
C.
12
and
C.
13
to
derive
the
income
elasticity
factors
used
in
computing
the
value
of
statistical
life.
The
individual
values
by
year
are
shown
in
Exhibit
5.22.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
C­
22
June
2003
Estimates/
Projections
(
Thousands)
Percent
Change
Projection
(
Billions
Chained
1996$)
Percent
Change
Projection
(
1996$)
Percent
Change
1990
249,439
­
6,707.9
­
26,892
­
1991
252,127
1.1%
6,676.4
­
0.5%
26,480
­
1.5%
1992
254,995
1.1%
6,880.0
3.0%
26,981
1.9%
1993
257,746
1.1%
7,062.6
2.7%
27,401
1.6%
1994
260,289
1.0%
7,347.7
4.0%
28,229
3.0%
1995
262,765
1.0%
7,543.8
2.7%
28,709
1.7%
1996
265,190
0.9%
7,813.2
3.6%
29,463
2.6%
1997
267,744
1.0%
8,159.5
4.4%
30,475
3.4%
1998
270,299
1.0%
8,508.9
4.3%
31,480
3.3%
1999
272,820
0.9%
8,856.5
4.1%
32,463
3.1%
2000
275,306
0.9%
9,224.0
4.1%
33,505
3.2%
2001
277,803
0.9%
9,316.2
1.0%
33,535
0.1%
2002
280,306
0.9%
9,390.8
0.8%
33,502
­
0.1%
2003
282,798
0.9%
9,775.8
4.1%
34,568
3.2%
2004
285,266
0.9%
10,098.4
3.3%
35,400
2.4%
2005
287,716
0.9%
10,431.6
3.3%
36,257
2.4%
2006
290,153
0.8%
10,775.9
3.3%
37,139
2.4%
2007
292,583
0.8%
11,131.5
3.3%
38,046
2.4%
2008
295,009
0.8%
11,476.6
3.1%
38,902
2.3%
2009
297,436
0.8%
11,832.3
3.1%
39,781
2.3%
2010
299,862
0.8%
12,199.1
3.1%
40,683
2.3%
2011
302,300
0.8%
12,577.3
3.1%
41,605
2.3%
2012
304,764
0.8%
12,967.2
3.1%
42,548
2.3%
2013
307,250
0.8%
13,369.2
3.1%
43,512
2.3%
2014
309,753
0.8%
13,783.6
3.1%
44,499
2.3%
2015
312,268
0.8%
14,210.9
3.1%
45,509
2.3%
2016
314,793
0.8%
14,651.5
3.1%
46,543
2.3%
2017
317,325
0.8%
15,105.7
3.1%
47,603
2.3%
2018
319,860
0.8%
15,573.9
3.1%
48,690
2.3%
2019
322,395
0.8%
16,056.7
3.1%
49,805
2.3%
2020
324,927
0.8%
16,554.5
3.1%
50,948
2.3%
2021
327,468
0.8%
17,067.7
3.1%
52,120
2.3%
2022
330,028
0.8%
17,596.8
3.1%
53,319
2.3%
2023
332,607
0.8%
18,142.3
3.1%
54,546
2.3%
2024
335,202
0.8%
18,704.7
3.1%
55,801
2.3%
2025
337,815
0.8%
19,284.5
3.1%
57,086
2.3%
2026
340,441
0.8%
19,882.4
3.1%
58,402
2.3%
2027
343,078
0.8%
20,498.7
3.1%
59,749
2.3%
Year
Population
Real
GDP
Income
(
Real
GDP
per
Capita)
Exhibit
C.
12
Real
GDP
per
Capita
Projections
Note:
1990­
2000
real
GDP
from
Bureau
of
Economic
Analysis,
all
other
years
calculated
based
on
percent
change
projections
from
Congressional
Budget
Office
(
January
23,
2002).
Projections
for
years
beyond
2012
based
on
percent
change
reported
for
2012
due
to
lack
of
other
data.
Income
(
Real
GDP
per
Capita)=
Real
GDP/
Population
Source:
Population
projections
from
US
Census
Bureau
(
NP­
T1:
Middle
Series).
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
C­
23
June
2003
CPI
(
Annual
Average)
Percent
Change
Adjustment
Factor
(
1990
base)

1990
130.7
­
1.00
1991
136.2
4.2%
1.04
1992
140.3
3.0%
1.07
1993
144.5
3.0%
1.11
1994
148.2
2.6%
1.13
1995
152.4
2.8%
1.17
1996
156.9
3.0%
1.20
1997
160.5
2.3%
1.23
1998
163.0
1.6%
1.25
1999
166.6
2.2%
1.27
2000
172.2
3.4%
1.32
2001
177.1
2.9%
1.36
Year
CPI
­
All
Items
Exhibit
C.
13
CPI
Projections
Note:
1990
base
factors
(
all
items)
used
to
update
VSL
values.
Source:
1990­
2001
CPI
values
from
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
C­
24
June
2003
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)
2004
1.131
1.131
1.131
1.131
1.031
2005
1.144
1.144
1.144
1.144
1.056
2006
1.158
1.158
1.158
1.158
1.081
2007
1.171
1.171
1.171
1.171
1.107
2008
1.185
1.185
1.185
1.185
1.134
2009
1.198
1.198
1.198
1.198
1.160
2010
1.211
1.211
1.211
1.211
1.186
2011
1.224
1.224
1.224
1.224
1.213
2012
1.237
1.237
1.237
1.237
1.241
2013
1.250
1.250
1.250
1.250
1.269
2014
1.264
1.264
1.264
1.264
1.298
2015
1.277
1.277
1.277
1.277
1.327
2016
1.291
1.291
1.291
1.291
1.357
2017
1.304
1.304
1.304
1.304
1.388
2018
1.318
1.318
1.318
1.318
1.419
2019
1.332
1.332
1.332
1.332
1.452
2020
1.346
1.346
1.346
1.346
1.485
2021
1.360
1.360
1.360
1.360
1.519
2022
1.374
1.374
1.374
1.374
1.554
2023
1.388
1.388
1.388
1.388
1.590
2024
1.402
1.402
1.402
1.402
1.627
2025
1.417
1.417
1.417
1.417
1.664
2026
1.431
1.431
1.431
1.431
1.702
2027
1.446
1.446
1.446
1.446
1.741
2028
1.460
1.460
1.460
1.460
1.782
Real
Income
Adjustment
Factors
for
Indirect
Medical
Costs
(
Point
Estimates)
Year
Factors
for
Fatal
Illnesses
Mean
Value
Median
Value
90
%
Confidence
Bound
Exhibit
C.
14
Factors
for
Incorporation
of
Income
Elasticity
into
Yearly
Benefits
Estimates
Note:
Income
elasticity
factors
calculated
as
[(
eI1
­
eI2
­
I2
­
I1)
/
(
eI2
­
eI1
­
I2
­
I1)];
where
e=
income
elasticity
of
WTP
estimate,
and
I=
income.
Source:
Derived
using
elasticity
distributions
and
per
capita
GDP
projections
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
D­
1
Appendix
D
National
Costs
for
Rule
Implementation
and
Monitoring
D.
1
Introduction
This
appendix
presents
detailed
calculations
and
cost
tables
for
activities
associated
with
LT2ESWTR
implementation
and
monitoring
for
bin
classification
for
three
of
the
four
regulatory
alternatives
(
Alternative
A1
is
not
discussed
because
it
requires
all
plants
to
implement
2
additional
log
of
Cryptosporidium
treatment
and
thus
has
no
bin
classification
monitoring
requirements).
Costs
for
all
activities
are
estimated
as
one­
time
costs.
This
appendix
supports
the
discussion
of
the
rule
activities
in
Chapter
6.
Each
set
of
activities
is
detailed
separately
in
subsequent
sections.

EPA
evaluated
the
ICR,
ICRSSM,
and
the
ICRSSL
modeled
Cryptosporidium
occurrence
distributions
to
estimate
the
percentage
of
plants
that
would
fall
into
any
treatment
bin
and
assumed
that
this
percentage
of
small
plants
would
be
triggered
to
conduct
Cryptosporidium
monitoring.
The
three
modeled
occurrence
distributions
are
used
in
this
appendix
to
establish
a
range
of
possible
costs
for
Cryptosporidium
monitoring.

D.
2
Baseline
Number
of
Systems
and
Plants
Implementation
Implementation
costs
are
based
on
the
number
of
PWSs
that
have
to
read
and
understand
the
rule
and
include
all
nonpurchased
systems,
including
filtered
and
unfiltered
systems.
Purchased
systems,
because
they
are
assumed
to
not
directly
treat
any
source
water,
are
not
expected
to
have
any
implementation
costs,
although
these
and
other
costs
will
be
passed
on
to
them
in
the
form
of
higher
water
rates.

Source
Water
Monitoring
for
Bin
Classification
Source
water
monitoring
costs
are
structured
on
a
per
plant
basis.
Also,
as
with
implementation
activities,
purchased
plants
are
assumed
not
to
treat
source
water
and
will
not
have
any
monitoring
costs.
There
are
three
types
of
monitoring
that
plants
may
be
required
to
conduct
 
turbidity,
E.
coli,
and
Cryptosporidium.
Source
water
turbidity
is
a
common
water
quality
parameter
used
for
plant
operational
control.
Also,
to
meet
SWTR,
LT1ESWTR,
and
IESWTR
requirements,
most
water
systems
have
turbidity
analytical
equipment
in­
house
and
operators
experienced
with
turbidity
measurement.
Thus,
EPA
assumes
that
the
incremental
turbidity
monitoring
burden
associated
with
the
LT2ESWTR
is
negligible
(
turbidity
is
not
evaluated
in
this
appendix).
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
D­
2
All
nonpurchased
plants
in
large
and
medium
systems
are
required
to
conduct
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
for
bin
classification
with
two
exceptions:

°
Plants
that
achieve
5.5
log
of
Cryptosporidium
reduction
are
exempt
from
all
monitoring
requirements
(
estimates
of
plants
that
meet
this
criteria
are
presented
in
the
baseline
for
filtered
and
unfiltered
plants
in
Chapter
4).

°
Plants
that
have
2
years
of
historical
Cryptosporidium
data
that
are
equivalent
in
sample
number,
frequency,
and
data
quality
(
e.
g.,
volume
analyzed,
percent
recovery)
to
data
that
would
be
collected
under
the
LT2ESWTR
with
EPA
Method
1622/
23
are
exempt
from
all
monitoring
requirements
(
for
costing
purposes,
EPA
assumes
that
the
number
of
plants
able
to
provide
historical
data
to
meet
the
requirements
above
is
negligible).

Plants
in
small
systems
will
be
required
to
conduct
1
year
of
semi­
monthly
E.
coli
source
water
monitoring
for
bin
classification,
with
the
exception
of
plants
achieving
5.5
log
of
Cryptosporidium
reduction
(
as
presented
in
Chapter
4).
These
small
plants
will
have
to
monitor
for
Cryptosporidium
only
if
E.
coli
monitoring
results
exceed
the
following
levels:

°
annual
mean
>
10
E.
coli/
100
ml
for
lakes
and
reservoirs
°
annual
mean
>
50
E.
coli/
100
ml
for
flowing
streams
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
may
be
comprised
of
1
year
of
semi­
monthly
samples
or
2
years
of
monthly
samples.

Exhibits
D.
1
through
D.
3
present
the
baseline
number
of
systems
that
must
conduct
implementation
and
monitoring
for
Alternative
A2
for
CWSs,
NTNCWSs,
and
TNCWSs,
based
on
the
ICR,
ICRSSM,
and
ICRSSL
occurrence
distributions,
respectively.

Exhibits
D.
4
through
D.
6
present
the
baseline
number
of
systems
that
must
conduct
implementation
and
monitoring
for
Alternative
A3
for
CWSs,
NTNCWSs,
and
TNCWSs,
based
on
the
ICR,
ICRSSM,
and
ICRSSL
occurrence
distributions,
respectively.

Exhibits
D.
7
through
D.
9
present
the
baseline
number
of
systems
that
must
conduct
implementation
and
monitoring
for
Alternative
A4
for
CWSs,
NTNCWSs,
and
TNCWSs,
based
on
the
ICR,
ICRSSM,
and
ICRSSL
occurrence
distributions,
respectively.
Exhibit
D.
1
Baseline
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities
for
All
System
Types,
Based
on
ICR
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A2
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Implementation
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
Future
Monitoring
for
Re­
Binning
Baseline
#
PWSs
Percent
of
Plants
with
>
5.5
Log
Treatment
Prior
to
Rule
Promulgation
Plants
Per
System
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
E.
coli
Monitoring
Percent
of
Plants
Triggered
to
Monitor
for
Cryptosporidium
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
Percent
of
Plants
with
>
5.5
Log
Treatment
for
LT2
Compliance
Percent
of
Plants
with
>
5.5
Log
Treatment
for
Stage
2
Compliance
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
E.
coli
Monitoring
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
A
B
C
D
=
A*
C*(
1­
B)
E
F
=
D*
E
G
H
I
=
D*(
1­
G­
H)
J
=
E*
I
CWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
530
757
456
1,087
1,017
959
193
205
13
3.6%
3.6%
3.6%
3.6%
3.6%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.8
1.6
2.8
511
803
440
1,048
1,176
1,051
346
327
36
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
­
­
­
­
511
803
440
1,048
1,176
1,051
346
327
36
8.3%
8.3%
21.4%
21.4%
21.4%
29.8%
29.8%
29.3%
29.3%
15.0%
6.3%
6.3%
1.8%
1.8%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
392
685
318
804
903
723
238
226
25
392
685
318
804
903
723
238
226
25
National
Totals
5,217
5,738
5,738
4,313
4,313
NTNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
202
236
84
55
13
3
­
­
­
3.6%
3.6%
3.6%
3.6%
3.6%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
195
228
81
53
13
3
­
­
­
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
­
­
­
­
195
228
81
53
13
3
0
0
0
8.3%
8.3%
21.4%
21.4%
21.4%
30.8%
30.8%
30.4%
0.0%
15.0%
6.3%
6.3%
1.8%
1.8%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
1.5%
149
194
59
41
10
2
­
­
­
149
194
59
41
10
2
­
­
­
National
Totals
593
572
572
454
454
TNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
731
380
57
53
25
8
3
­
­
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
731
380
57
53
25
8
3
­
­
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
­
­
­
­
731
380
57
53
25
8
3
0
0
8.3%
8.3%
21.4%
21.4%
21.4%
30.8%
30.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
670
348
45
41
19
5
2
­
­
670
348
45
41
19
5
2
­
­
National
Totals
1,256
1,256
1,256
1,131
1,131
Grand
Totals
7,066
7,565
7,565
5,899
5,899
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:
(
A)
Number
of
unlinked,
non­
purchased
SW
&
GWUDI
systems
from
the
Third
Edition
Baseline
Handbook,
which
is
based
on
data
from
EPA's
Safe
Drinking
Water
Information
System
(
USEPA
2000h).
(
B)
EPA
assumes
only
membrane
plants
will
have
>
5.5
log
Cryptosporidium
treatment
prior
to
rule
promulgation.
Percentage
estimates
are
from
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR.
(
C)
Estimate
of
the
number
of
plants
or
entry
points
per
system.
Derived
from
1995
Community
Water
System
Survey
data.

(
E)
Percent
of
plants
triggered
into
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
is
estimated
from
the
modeled
Occurrence
Distributions.
(
G)
Derived
from
Appendix
F.
This
number
is
calculated
by
dividing
the
number
of
plants
estimated
to
be
achieving
5.5
log
treatment
by
the
total
number
of
plants
for
the
size
category.
(
H)
EPA
assumes
only
membrane
plants
will
have
>
5.5
log
Cryptosporidium
treatment
as
a
result
of
the
Stage
2
DBPR.
Percent
estimates
are
from
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
3
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
2
Baseline
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities
for
All
System
Types,
Based
on
ICRSSM
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A2
Implementation
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
Future
Monitoring
for
Re­
Binning
Baseline
#
PWSs
Percent
of
Plants
with
>
5.5
Log
Treatment
Prior
to
Rule
Promulgation
Plants
Per
System
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
E.
coli
Monitoring
Percent
of
Plants
Triggered
to
Monitor
for
Cryptosporidium
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
Percent
of
Plants
with
>
5.5
Log
Treatment
for
LT2
Compliance
Percent
of
Plants
with
>
5.5
Log
Treatment
for
Stage
2
Compliance
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
E.
coli
Monitoring
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
A
B
C
D
=
A*
C*(
1­
B)
E
F
=
D*
E
G
H
I
=
D*(
1­
G­
H)
J
=
E*
I
CWSs
£
100
530
3.6%
1.0
511
100%
511
4.7%
15.0%
410
410
101­
500
757
3.6%
1.1
803
100%
803
4.7%
6.3%
715
715
501­
1000
456
3.6%
1.0
440
100%
440
14.9%
6.3%
346
346
1001­
3,300
1,087
3.6%
1.0
1,048
100%
1,048
14.9%
1.8%
872
872
3,301­
10,000
1,017
3.6%
1.2
1,176
100%
1,176
14.9%
1.8%
979
979
10,001­
50,000
959
0.4%
1.1
1,051
­
1,051
24.1%
1.5%
783
783
50,001­
100,000
193
0.4%
1.8
346
­
346
24.1%
1.5%
258
258
100,001­
1
Million
205
0.4%
1.6
327
­
327
23.7%
1.5%
245
245
>
1
Million
13
0.4%
2.8
36
­
36
23.7%
1.5%
27
27
National
Totals
5,217
5,738
5,738
4,634
4,634
System
Size
(
Population
Served)

NTNCWSs
£
100
202
3.6%
1.0
195
100%
195
4.7%
15.0%
156
156
101­
500
236
3.6%
1.0
228
100%
228
4.7%
6.3%
203
203
501­
1000
84
3.6%
1.0
81
100%
81
14.9%
6.3%
64
64
1001­
3,300
55
3.6%
1.0
53
100%
53
14.9%
1.8%
44
44
3,301­
10,000
13
3.6%
1.0
13
100%
13
14.9%
1.8%
10
10
10,001­
50,000
3
0.4%
1.0
3
­
3
24.3%
1.5%
2
2
50,001­
100,000
­
0.4%
1.0
­
­
0
24.3%
1.5%
­
­
100,001­
1
Million
­
0.4%
1.0
­
­
0
23.9%
1.5%
­
­
>
1
Million
­
0.4%
1.0
­
­
0
0.0%
1.5%
­
­
National
Totals
593
572
572
479
479
TNCWSs
£
100
731
0.0%
1.0
731
100%
731
4.7%
0.0%
697
697
101­
500
380
0.0%
1.0
380
100%
380
4.7%
0.0%
362
362
501­
1000
57
0.0%
1.0
57
100%
57
14.9%
0.0%
48
48
1001­
3,300
53
0.0%
1.0
53
100%
53
14.9%
0.0%
45
45
3,301­
10,000
25
0.0%
1.0
25
100%
25
14.9%
0.0%
21
21
10,001­
50,000
8
0.0%
1.0
8
­
8
24.3%
0.0%
6
6
50,001­
100,000
3
0.0%
1.0
3
­
3
24.3%
0.0%
2
2
100,001­
1
Million
­
0.0%
1.0
­
­
0
0.0%
0.0%
­
­
>
1
Million
­
0.0%
1.0
­
­
0
0.0%
0.0%
­
­
National
Totals
1,256
1,256
1,256
1,182
1,182
Grand
Totals
7,066
7,565
7,565
6,295
6,295
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:
(
A)
Number
of
unlinked,
non­
purchased
SW
&
GWUDI
systems
from
the
Third
Edition
Baseline
Handbook,
which
is
based
on
data
from
EPA's
Safe
Drinking
Water
Information
System
(
USEPA
2000h).
(
B)
EPA
assumes
only
membrane
plants
will
have
>
5.5
log
Cryptosporidium
treatment
prior
to
rule
promulgation.
Percentage
estimates
are
from
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR.
(
C)
Estimate
of
the
number
of
plants
or
entry
points
per
system.
Derived
from
1995
Community
Water
System
Survey
data.
(
E)
Percent
of
plants
triggered
into
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
is
estimated
from
the
modeled
Occurrence
Distributions.
(
G)
Derived
from
Appendix
F.
This
number
is
calculated
by
dividing
the
number
of
plants
estimated
to
be
achieving
5.5
log
treatment
by
the
total
number
of
plants
for
the
size
(
H)
EPA
assumes
only
membrane
plants
will
have
>
5.5
log
Cryptosporidium
treatment
as
a
result
of
the
Stage
2
DBPR.
Percent
estimates
are
from
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
4
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
3
Baseline
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities
for
All
System
Types,
Based
on
ICRSSL
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A2
Implementation
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
Future
Monitoring
for
Re­
Binning
Baseline
#
PWSs
Percent
of
Plants
with
>
5.5
Log
Treatment
Prior
to
Rule
Promulgation
Plants
Per
System
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
E.
coli
Monitoring
Percent
of
Plants
Triggered
to
Monitor
for
Cryptosporidium
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
Percent
of
Plants
with
>
5.5
Log
Treatment
for
LT2
Compliance
Percent
of
Plants
with
>
5.5
Log
Treatment
for
Stage
2
Compliance
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
E.
coli
Monitoring
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
A
B
C
D
=
A*
C*(
1­
B)
E
F
=
D*
E
G
H
I
=
D*(
1­
G­
H)
J
=
E*
I
CWSs
£
100
530
3.6%
1.0
511
100%
511
3.7%
15.0%
415
415
101­
500
757
3.6%
1.1
803
100%
803
3.7%
6.3%
722
722
501­
1000
456
3.6%
1.0
440
100%
440
11.7%
6.3%
361
361
1001­
3,300
1,087
3.6%
1.0
1,048
100%
1,048
11.7%
1.8%
906
906
3,301­
10,000
1,017
3.6%
1.2
1,176
100%
1,176
11.7%
1.8%
1,018
1018
10,001­
50,000
959
0.4%
1.1
1,051
­
1,051
20.1%
1.5%
824
824
50,001­
100,000
193
0.4%
1.8
346
­
346
20.1%
1.5%
271
271
100,001­
1
Million
205
0.4%
1.6
327
­
327
19.7%
1.5%
257
257
>
1
Million
13
0.4%
2.8
36
­
36
19.7%
1.5%
29
29
National
Totals
5,217
5,738
5,738
4,804
4,804
System
Size
(
Population
Served)

NTNCWSs
£
100
202
3.6%
1.0
195
100%
195
3.7%
15.0%
158
158
101­
500
236
3.6%
1.0
228
100%
228
3.7%
6.3%
205
205
501­
1000
84
3.6%
1.0
81
100%
81
11.7%
6.3%
66
66
1001­
3,300
55
3.6%
1.0
53
100%
53
11.7%
1.8%
46
46
3,301­
10,000
13
3.6%
1.0
13
100%
13
11.7%
1.8%
11
11
10,001­
50,000
3
0.4%
1.0
3
­
3
20.2%
1.5%
2
2
50,001­
100,000
­
0.4%
1.0
­
­
0
20.2%
1.5%
­
­
100,001­
1
Million
­
0.4%
1.0
­
­
0
19.8%
1.5%
­
­
>
1
Million
­
0.4%
1.0
­
­
0
0.0%
1.5%
­
­
National
Totals
593
572
572
488
488
TNCWSs
£
100
731
0.0%
1.0
731
100%
731
3.7%
0.0%
704
704
101­
500
380
0.0%
1.0
380
100%
380
3.7%
0.0%
366
366
501­
1000
57
0.0%
1.0
57
100%
57
11.7%
0.0%
50
50
1001­
3,300
53
0.0%
1.0
53
100%
53
11.7%
0.0%
46
46
3,301­
10,000
25
0.0%
1.0
25
100%
25
11.7%
0.0%
22
22
10,001­
50,000
8
0.0%
1.0
8
­
8
20.2%
0.0%
6
6
50,001­
100,000
3
0.0%
1.0
3
­
3
20.2%
0.0%
2
2
100,001­
1
Million
­
0.0%
1.0
­
­
0
0.0%
0.0%
­
­
>
1
Million
­
0.0%
1.0
­
­
0
0.0%
0.0%
­
­
National
Totals
1,256
1,256
1,256
1,197
1,197
Grand
Totals
7,066
7,565
7,565
6,489
6,489
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:
(
A)
Number
of
unlinked,
non­
purchased
SW
&
GWUDI
systems
from
the
Third
Edition
Baseline
Handbook,
which
is
based
on
data
from
EPA's
Safe
Drinking
Water
Information
System
(
USEPA
2000h).
(
B)
EPA
assumes
only
membrane
plants
will
have
>
5.5
log
Cryptosporidium
treatment
prior
to
rule
promulgation.
Percentage
estimates
are
from
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR.
(
C)
Estimate
of
the
number
of
plants
or
entry
points
per
system.
Derived
from
1995
Community
Water
System
Survey
data.
(
E)
Percent
of
plants
triggered
into
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
is
estimated
from
the
modeled
Occurrence
Distributions.
(
G)
Derived
from
Appendix
F.
This
number
is
calculated
by
dividing
the
number
of
plants
estimated
to
be
achieving
5.5
log
treatment
by
the
total
number
of
plants
for
the
size
(
H)
EPA
assumes
only
membrane
plants
will
have
>
5.5
log
Cryptosporidium
treatment
as
a
result
of
the
Stage
2
DBPR.
Percent
estimates
are
from
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
5
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
4
Baseline
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities
for
All
System
Types,
by
System
Size
Based
on
ICR
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A3
Implementation
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
Future
Monitoring
for
Re­
Binning
Baseline
#
PWSs
Percent
of
Plants
with
>
5.5
Log
Treatment
Prior
to
Rule
Promulgation
Plants
Per
System
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
E.
coli
Monitoring
Percent
of
Plants
Triggered
to
Monitor
for
Cryptosporidium
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
Percent
of
Plants
with
>
5.5
Log
Treatment
for
LT2
Compliance
Percent
of
Plants
with
>
5.5
Log
Treatment
for
Stage
2
Compliance
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
E.
coli
Monitoring
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
A
B
C
D
=
A*
C*(
1­
B)
E
F
=
D*
E
G
H
I
=
D*(
1­
G­
H)
J
=
E*
I
CWSs
£
100
530
3.6%
1.0
511
35%
178
5.3%
15.0%
407
142
101­
500
757
3.6%
1.1
803
35%
279
5.3%
6.3%
710
247
501­
1000
456
3.6%
1.0
440
35%
153
9.3%
6.3%
371
129
1001­
3,300
1,087
3.6%
1.0
1,048
35%
365
9.3%
1.8%
931
324
3,301­
10,000
1,017
3.6%
1.2
1,176
35%
409
9.3%
1.8%
1,045
364
10,001­
50,000
959
0.4%
1.1
1,051
­
1,051
27.1%
1.5%
751
751
50,001­
100,000
193
0.4%
1.8
346
­
346
27.1%
1.5%
247
247
100,001­
1
Million
205
0.4%
1.6
327
­
327
25.5%
1.5%
239
239
>
1
Million
13
0.4%
2.8
36
­
36
25.5%
1.5%
26
26
National
Totals
5,217
5,738
3,144
4,728
2,469
System
Size
(
Population
Served)

NTNCWSs
£
100
202
3.6%
1.0
195
35%
68
5.3%
15.0%
155
54
101­
500
236
3.6%
1.0
228
35%
79
5.3%
6.3%
201
70
501­
1000
84
3.6%
1.0
81
35%
28
9.3%
6.3%
68
24
1001­
3,300
55
3.6%
1.0
53
35%
18
9.3%
1.8%
47
16
3,301­
10,000
13
3.6%
1.0
13
35%
4
9.3%
1.8%
11
4
10,001­
50,000
3
0.4%
1.0
3
­
3
27.5%
1.5%
2
2
50,001­
100,000
­
0.4%
1.0
­
­
0
27.5%
1.5%
­
­
100,001­
1
Million
­
0.4%
1.0
­
­
0
26.0%
1.5%
­
­
>
1
Million
­
0.4%
1.0
­
­
0
0.0%
1.5%
­
­
National
Totals
593
572
201
485
170
TNCWSs
£
100
731
0.0%
1.0
731
35%
254
5.3%
0.0%
693
241
101­
500
380
0.0%
1.0
380
35%
132
5.3%
0.0%
360
125
501­
1000
57
0.0%
1.0
57
35%
20
9.3%
0.0%
51
18
1001­
3,300
53
0.0%
1.0
53
35%
18
9.3%
0.0%
48
17
3,301­
10,000
25
0.0%
1.0
25
35%
9
9.3%
0.0%
22
8
10,001­
50,000
8
0.0%
1.0
8
­
8
27.5%
0.0%
5
5
50,001­
100,000
3
0.0%
1.0
3
­
3
27.5%
0.0%
2
2
100,001­
1
Million
­
0.0%
1.0
­
­
0
0.0%
0.0%
­
­
>
1
Million
­
0.0%
1.0
­
­
0
0.0%
0.0%
­
­
National
Totals
1,256
1,256
444
1,182
416
Grand
Totals
7,066
7,565
3,789
6,395
3,056
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:
(
A)
Number
of
unlinked,
non­
purchased
SW
&
GWUDI
systems
from
the
Third
Edition
Baseline
Handbook,
which
is
based
on
data
from
EPA's
Safe
Drinking
Water
Information
System
(
USEPA
2000h).
(
B)
EPA
assumes
only
membrane
plants
will
have
>
5.5
log
Cryptosporidium
treatment
prior
to
rule
promulgation.
Percentage
estimates
are
from
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR.
(
C)
Estimate
of
the
number
of
plants
or
entry
points
per
system.
Derived
from
1995
Community
Water
System
Survey
data.
(
E)
Percent
of
plants
triggered
into
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
is
estimated
from
the
modeled
Occurrence
Distributions.
(
G)
Derived
from
Appendix
F.
This
number
is
calculated
by
dividing
the
number
of
plants
estimated
to
be
achieving
5.5
log
treatment
by
the
total
number
of
plants
for
the
size
(
H)
EPA
assumes
only
membrane
plants
will
have
>
5.5
log
Cryptosporidium
treatment
as
a
result
of
the
Stage
2
DBPR.
Percent
estimates
are
from
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
6
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
5
Baseline
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities
for
All
System
Types,
Based
on
ICRSSM
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A3
Implementation
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
Future
Monitoring
for
Re­
Binning
Baseline
#
PWSs
Percent
of
Plants
with
>
5.5
Log
Treatment
Prior
to
Rule
Promulgation
Plants
Per
System
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
E.
coli
Monitoring
Percent
of
Plants
Triggered
to
Monitor
for
Cryptosporidium
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
Percent
of
Plants
with
>
5.5
Log
Treatment
for
LT2
Compliance
Percent
of
Plants
with
>
5.5
Log
Treatment
for
Stage
2
Compliance
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
E.
coli
Monitoring
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
A
B
C
D
=
A*
C*(
1­
B)
E
F
=
D*
E
G
H
I
=
D*(
1­
G­
H)
J
=
E*
I
CWSs
£
100
530
3.6%
1.0
511
27%
139
2.9%
15.0%
419
114
101­
500
757
3.6%
1.1
803
27%
218
2.9%
6.3%
728
198
501­
1000
456
3.6%
1.0
440
27%
120
3.9%
6.3%
395
107
1001­
3,300
1,087
3.6%
1.0
1,048
27%
285
3.9%
1.8%
988
269
3,301­
10,000
1,017
3.6%
1.2
1,176
27%
320
3.9%
1.8%
1,109
302
10,001­
50,000
959
0.4%
1.1
1,051
­
1,051
20.7%
1.5%
818
818
50,001­
100,000
193
0.4%
1.8
346
­
346
20.7%
1.5%
269
269
100,001­
1
Million
205
0.4%
1.6
327
­
327
19.3%
1.5%
259
259
>
1
Million
13
0.4%
2.8
36
­
36
19.3%
1.5%
29
29
National
Totals
5,217
5,738
2,842
5,014
2,365
System
Size
(
Population
Served)

NTNCWSs
£
100
202
3.6%
1.0
195
27%
53
2.9%
15.0%
160
43
101­
500
236
3.6%
1.0
228
27%
62
2.9%
6.3%
206
56
501­
1000
84
3.6%
1.0
81
27%
22
3.9%
6.3%
73
20
1001­
3,300
55
3.6%
1.0
53
27%
14
3.9%
1.8%
50
14
3,301­
10,000
13
3.6%
1.0
13
27%
3
3.9%
1.8%
12
3
10,001­
50,000
3
0.4%
1.0
3
­
3
20.7%
1.5%
2
2
50,001­
100,000
­
0.4%
1.0
­
­
0
20.7%
1.5%
­
­
100,001­
1
Million
­
0.4%
1.0
­
­
0
19.4%
1.5%
­
­
>
1
Million
­
0.4%
1.0
­
­
0
0.0%
1.5%
­
­
National
Totals
593
572
158
503
139
TNCWSs
£
100
731
0.0%
1.0
731
27%
199
2.9%
0.0%
710
193
101­
500
380
0.0%
1.0
380
27%
103
2.9%
0.0%
369
100
501­
1000
57
0.0%
1.0
57
27%
15
3.9%
0.0%
55
15
1001­
3,300
53
0.0%
1.0
53
27%
14
3.9%
0.0%
51
14
3,301­
10,000
25
0.0%
1.0
25
27%
7
3.9%
0.0%
24
6
10,001­
50,000
8
0.0%
1.0
8
­
8
20.7%
0.0%
6
6
50,001­
100,000
3
0.0%
1.0
3
­
3
20.7%
0.0%
2
2
100,001­
1
Million
­
0.0%
1.0
­
­
0
0.0%
0.0%
­
­
>
1
Million
­
0.0%
1.0
­
­
0
0.0%
0.0%
­
­
National
Totals
1,256
1,256
349
1,216
337
Grand
Totals
7,066
7,565
3,349
6,733
2,840
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:
(
A)
Number
of
unlinked,
non­
purchased
SW
&
GWUDI
systems
from
the
Third
Edition
Baseline
Handbook,
which
is
based
on
data
from
EPA's
Safe
Drinking
Water
Information
System
(
USEPA
2000h).
(
B)
EPA
assumes
only
membrane
plants
will
have
>
5.5
log
Cryptosporidium
treatment
prior
to
rule
promulgation.
Percentage
estimates
are
from
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR.
(
C)
Estimate
of
the
number
of
plants
or
entry
points
per
system.
Derived
from
1995
Community
Water
System
Survey
data.
(
E)
Percent
of
plants
triggered
into
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
is
estimated
from
the
modeled
Occurrence
Distributions.
(
G)
Derived
from
Appendix
F.
This
number
is
calculated
by
dividing
the
number
of
plants
estimated
to
be
achieving
5.5
log
treatment
by
the
total
number
of
plants
for
the
size
(
H)
EPA
assumes
only
membrane
plants
will
have
>
5.5
log
Cryptosporidium
treatment
as
a
result
of
the
Stage
2
DBPR.
Percent
estimates
are
from
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
7
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
6
Baseline
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities
for
All
System
Types,
Based
on
ICRSSL
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A3
Implementation
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
Future
Monitoring
for
Re­
Binning
Baseline
#
PWSs
Percent
of
Plants
with
>
5.5
Log
Treatment
Prior
to
Rule
Promulgation
Plants
Per
System
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
E.
coli
Monitoring
Percent
of
Plants
Triggered
to
Monitor
for
Cryptosporidium
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
Percent
of
Plants
with
>
5.5
Log
Treatment
for
LT2
Compliance
Percent
of
Plants
with
>
5.5
Log
Treatment
for
Stage
2
Compliance
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
E.
coli
Monitoring
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
A
B
C
D
=
A*
C*(
1­
B)
E
F
=
D*
E
G
H
I
=
D*(
1­
G­
H)
J
=
E*
I
CWSs
£
100
530
3.6%
1.0
511
22%
114
2.2%
15.0%
423
94
101­
500
757
3.6%
1.1
803
22%
179
2.2%
6.3%
734
164
501­
1000
456
3.6%
1.0
440
22%
98
2.5%
6.3%
401
90
1001­
3,300
1,087
3.6%
1.0
1,048
22%
234
2.5%
1.8%
1,003
224
3,301­
10,000
1,017
3.6%
1.2
1,176
22%
263
2.5%
1.8%
1,126
252
10,001­
50,000
959
0.4%
1.1
1,051
­
1,051
16.9%
1.5%
858
858
50,001­
100,000
193
0.4%
1.8
346
­
346
16.9%
1.5%
283
283
100,001­
1
Million
205
0.4%
1.6
327
­
327
15.7%
1.5%
271
271
>
1
Million
13
0.4%
2.8
36
­
36
15.7%
1.5%
30
30
National
Totals
5,217
5,738
2,650
5,128
2,266
System
Size
(
Population
Served)

NTNCWSs
£
100
202
3.6%
1.0
195
22%
44
2.2%
15.0%
161
36
101­
500
236
3.6%
1.0
228
22%
51
2.2%
6.3%
208
47
501­
1000
84
3.6%
1.0
81
22%
18
2.5%
6.3%
74
17
1001­
3,300
55
3.6%
1.0
53
22%
12
2.5%
1.8%
51
11
3,301­
10,000
13
3.6%
1.0
13
22%
3
2.5%
1.8%
12
3
10,001­
50,000
3
0.4%
1.0
3
­
3
16.9%
1.5%
2
2
50,001­
100,000
­
0.4%
1.0
­
­
0
16.9%
1.5%
­
­
100,001­
1
Million
­
0.4%
1.0
­
­
0
15.7%
1.5%
­
­
>
1
Million
­
0.4%
1.0
­
­
0
0.0%
1.5%
­
­
National
Totals
593
572
130
508
116
TNCWSs
£
100
731
0.0%
1.0
731
22%
163
2.2%
0.0%
715
160
101­
500
380
0.0%
1.0
380
22%
85
2.2%
0.0%
372
83
501­
1000
57
0.0%
1.0
57
22%
13
2.5%
0.0%
55
12
1001­
3,300
53
0.0%
1.0
53
22%
12
2.5%
0.0%
51
11
3,301­
10,000
25
0.0%
1.0
25
22%
6
2.5%
0.0%
24
5
10,001­
50,000
8
0.0%
1.0
8
­
8
16.9%
0.0%
6
6
50,001­
100,000
3
0.0%
1.0
3
­
3
16.9%
0.0%
2
2
100,001­
1
Million
­
0.0%
1.0
­
­
0
0.0%
0.0%
­
­
>
1
Million
­
0.0%
1.0
­
­
0
0.0%
0.0%
­
­
National
Totals
1,256
1,256
289
1,226
281
Grand
Totals
7,066
7,565
3,069
6,862
2,662
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:
(
A)
Number
of
unlinked,
non­
purchased
SW
&
GWUDI
systems
from
the
Third
Edition
Baseline
Handbook,
which
is
based
on
data
from
EPA's
Safe
Drinking
Water
Information
System
(
USEPA
2000h).
(
B)
EPA
assumes
only
membrane
plants
will
have
>
5.5
log
Cryptosporidium
treatment
prior
to
rule
promulgation.
Percentage
estimates
are
from
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR.
(
C)
Estimate
of
the
number
of
plants
or
entry
points
per
system.
Derived
from
1995
Community
Water
System
Survey
data.
(
E)
Percent
of
plants
triggered
into
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
is
estimated
from
the
modeled
Occurrence
Distributions.
(
G)
Derived
from
Appendix
F.
This
number
is
calculated
by
dividing
the
number
of
plants
estimated
to
be
achieving
5.5
log
treatment
by
the
total
number
of
plants
for
the
size
(
H)
EPA
assumes
only
membrane
plants
will
have
>
5.5
log
Cryptosporidium
treatment
as
a
result
of
the
Stage
2
DBPR.
Percent
estimates
are
from
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
8
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
7
Baseline
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities
for
All
System
Types,
Based
on
ICR
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A4
Implementation
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
Future
Monitoring
for
Re­
Binning
Baseline
#
PWSs
Percent
of
Plants
with
>
5.5
Log
Treatment
Prior
to
Rule
Promulgation
Plants
Per
System
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
E.
coli
Monitoring
Percent
of
Plants
Triggered
to
Monitor
for
Cryptosporidium
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
Percent
of
Plants
with
>
5.5
Log
Treatment
for
LT2
Compliance
Percent
of
Plants
with
>
5.5
Log
Treatment
for
Stage
2
Compliance
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
E.
coli
Monitoring
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
A
B
C
D
=
A*
C*(
1­
B)
E
F
=
D*
E
G
H
I
=
D*(
1­
G­
H)
J
=
E*
I
CWSs
£
100
530
3.6%
1.0
511
30%
155
2.2%
15.0%
423
128
101­
500
757
3.6%
1.1
803
30%
243
2.2%
6.3%
734
223
501­
1000
456
3.6%
1.0
440
30%
133
2.0%
6.3%
403
122
1001­
3,300
1,087
3.6%
1.0
1,048
30%
318
2.0%
1.8%
1,008
305
3,301­
10,000
1,017
3.6%
1.2
1,176
30%
356
2.0%
1.8%
1,131
343
10,001­
50,000
959
0.4%
1.1
1,051
­
1,051
9.9%
1.5%
931
931
50,001­
100,000
193
0.4%
1.8
346
­
346
9.9%
1.5%
307
307
100,001­
1
Million
205
0.4%
1.6
327
­
327
9.4%
1.5%
291
291
>
1
Million
13
0.4%
2.8
36
­
36
9.4%
1.5%
32
32
National
Totals
5,217
5,738
2,965
5,261
2,683
System
Size
(
Population
Served)

NTNCWSs
£
100
202
3.6%
1.0
195
30%
59
2.2%
15.0%
161
49
101­
500
236
3.6%
1.0
228
30%
69
2.2%
6.3%
208
63
501­
1000
84
3.6%
1.0
81
30%
25
2.0%
6.3%
74
22
1001­
3,300
55
3.6%
1.0
53
30%
16
2.0%
1.8%
51
15
3,301­
10,000
13
3.6%
1.0
13
30%
4
2.0%
1.8%
12
4
10,001­
50,000
3
0.4%
1.0
3
­
3
9.9%
1.5%
3
3
50,001­
100,000
­
0.4%
1.0
­
­
0
9.9%
1.5%
­
­
100,001­
1
Million
­
0.4%
1.0
­
­
0
9.4%
1.5%
­
­
>
1
Million
­
0.4%
1.0
­
­
0
0.0%
1.5%
­
­
National
Totals
593
572
175
509
156
TNCWSs
£
100
731
0.0%
1.0
731
30%
222
2.2%
0.0%
715
217
101­
500
380
0.0%
1.0
380
30%
115
2.2%
0.0%
372
113
501­
1000
57
0.0%
1.0
57
30%
17
2.0%
0.0%
56
17
1001­
3,300
53
0.0%
1.0
53
30%
16
2.0%
0.0%
52
16
3,301­
10,000
25
0.0%
1.0
25
30%
8
2.0%
0.0%
24
7
10,001­
50,000
8
0.0%
1.0
8
­
8
9.9%
0.0%
7
7
50,001­
100,000
3
0.0%
1.0
3
­
3
9.9%
0.0%
3
3
100,001­
1
Million
­
0.0%
1.0
­
­
0
0.0%
0.0%
­
­
>
1
Million
­
0.0%
1.0
­
­
0
0.0%
0.0%
­
­
National
Totals
1,256
1,256
388
1,228
379
Grand
Totals
7,066
7,565
3,529
6,999
3,217
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:
(
A)
Number
of
unlinked,
non­
purchased
SW
&
GWUDI
systems
from
the
Third
Edition
Baseline
Handbook,
which
is
based
on
data
from
EPA's
Safe
Drinking
Water
Information
System
(
USEPA
2000h).
(
B)
EPA
assumes
only
membrane
plants
will
have
>
5.5
log
Cryptosporidium
treatment
prior
to
rule
promulgation.
Percentage
estimates
are
from
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR.
(
C)
Estimate
of
the
number
of
plants
or
entry
points
per
system.
Derived
from
1995
Community
Water
System
Survey
data.
(
E)
Percent
of
plants
triggered
into
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
is
estimated
from
the
modeled
Occurrence
Distributions.
(
G)
Derived
from
Appendix
F.
This
number
is
calculated
by
dividing
the
number
of
plants
estimated
to
be
achieving
5.5
log
treatment
by
the
total
number
of
plants
for
the
size
(
H)
EPA
assumes
only
membrane
plants
will
have
>
5.5
log
Cryptosporidium
treatment
as
a
result
of
the
Stage
2
DBPR.
Percent
estimates
are
from
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
9
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
8
Baseline
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities
for
All
System
Types,
Based
on
ICRSSM
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A4
Implementation
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
Future
Monitoring
for
Re­
Binning
Baseline
#
PWSs
Percent
of
Plants
with
>
5.5
Log
Treatment
Prior
to
Rule
Promulgation
Plants
Per
System
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
E.
coli
Monitoring
Percent
of
Plants
Triggered
to
Monitor
for
Cryptosporidium
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
Percent
of
Plants
with
>
5.5
Log
Treatment
for
LT2
Compliance
Percent
of
Plants
with
>
5.5
Log
Treatment
for
Stage
2
Compliance
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
E.
coli
Monitoring
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
A
B
C
D
=
A*
C*(
1­
B)
E
F
=
D*
E
G
H
I
=
D*(
1­
G­
H)
J
=
E*
I
CWSs
£
100
530
3.6%
1.0
511
22%
110
1.4%
15.0%
427
92
101­
500
757
3.6%
1.1
803
22%
173
1.4%
6.3%
741
159
501­
1000
456
3.6%
1.0
440
22%
95
1.3%
6.3%
406
87
1001­
3,300
1,087
3.6%
1.0
1,048
22%
225
1.3%
1.8%
1,015
218
3,301­
10,000
1,017
3.6%
1.2
1,176
22%
253
1.3%
1.8%
1,140
245
10,001­
50,000
959
0.4%
1.1
1,051
­
1,051
5.1%
1.5%
982
982
50,001­
100,000
193
0.4%
1.8
346
­
346
5.1%
1.5%
323
323
100,001­
1
Million
205
0.4%
1.6
327
­
327
4.8%
1.5%
306
306
>
1
Million
13
0.4%
2.8
36
­
36
4.8%
1.5%
34
34
National
Totals
5,217
5,738
2,615
5,374
2,447
System
Size
(
Population
Served)

NTNCWSs
£
100
202
3.6%
1.0
195
22%
42
1.4%
15.0%
163
35
101­
500
236
3.6%
1.0
228
22%
49
1.4%
6.3%
210
45
501­
1000
84
3.6%
1.0
81
22%
17
1.3%
6.3%
75
16
1001­
3,300
55
3.6%
1.0
53
22%
11
1.3%
1.8%
51
11
3,301­
10,000
13
3.6%
1.0
13
22%
3
1.3%
1.8%
12
3
10,001­
50,000
3
0.4%
1.0
3
­
3
5.1%
1.5%
3
3
50,001­
100,000
­
0.4%
1.0
­
­
0
5.1%
1.5%
­
­
100,001­
1
Million
­
0.4%
1.0
­
­
0
4.8%
1.5%
­
­
>
1
Million
­
0.4%
1.0
­
­
0
0.0%
1.5%
­
­
National
Totals
593
572
125
­
­
514
113
TNCWSs
£
100
731
0.0%
1.0
731
22%
157
1.4%
0.0%
721
155
101­
500
380
0.0%
1.0
380
22%
82
1.4%
0.0%
375
81
501­
1000
57
0.0%
1.0
57
22%
12
1.3%
0.0%
56
12
1001­
3,300
53
0.0%
1.0
53
22%
11
1.3%
0.0%
52
11
3,301­
10,000
25
0.0%
1.0
25
22%
5
1.3%
0.0%
24
5
10,001­
50,000
8
0.0%
1.0
8
­
8
5.1%
0.0%
7
7
50,001­
100,000
3
0.0%
1.0
3
­
3
5.1%
0.0%
3
3
100,001­
1
Million
­
0.0%
1.0
­
­
0
0.0%
0.0%
­
­
>
1
Million
­
0.0%
1.0
­
­
0
0.0%
0.0%
­
­
National
Totals
1,256
1,256
278
1,238
274
Grand
Totals
7,066
7,565
3,019
7,126
2,834
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:
(
A)
Number
of
unlinked,
non­
purchased
SW
&
GWUDI
systems
from
the
Third
Edition
Baseline
Handbook,
which
is
based
on
data
from
EPA's
Safe
Drinking
Water
Information
System
(
USEPA
2000h).
(
B)
EPA
assumes
only
membrane
plants
will
have
>
5.5
log
Cryptosporidium
treatment
prior
to
rule
promulgation.
Percentage
estimates
are
from
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR.
(
C)
Estimate
of
the
number
of
plants
or
entry
points
per
system.
Derived
from
1995
Community
Water
System
Survey
data.
(
E)
Percent
of
plants
triggered
into
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
is
estimated
from
the
modeled
Occurrence
Distributions.
(
G)
Derived
from
Appendix
F.
This
number
is
calculated
by
dividing
the
number
of
plants
estimated
to
be
achieving
5.5
log
treatment
by
the
total
number
of
plants
for
the
size
(
H)
EPA
assumes
only
membrane
plants
will
have
>
5.5
log
Cryptosporidium
treatment
as
a
result
of
the
Stage
2
DBPR.
Percent
estimates
are
from
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
10
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
9
Baseline
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities
for
All
System
Types,
Based
on
ICRSSL
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A4
Implementation
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
Future
Monitoring
for
Re­
Binning
Baseline
#
PWSs
Percent
of
Plants
with
>
5.5
Log
Treatment
Prior
to
Rule
Promulgation
Plants
Per
System
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
E.
coli
Monitoring
Percent
of
Plants
Triggered
to
Monitor
for
Cryptosporidium
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
Percent
of
Plants
with
>
5.5
Log
Treatment
for
LT2
Compliance
Percent
of
Plants
with
>
5.5
Log
Treatment
for
Stage
2
Compliance
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
E.
coli
Monitoring
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
A
B
C
D
=
A*
C*(
1­
B)
E
F
=
D*
E
G
H
I
=
D*(
1­
G­
H)
J
=
E*
I
CWSs
£
100
530
3.6%
1.0
511
16%
82
1.0%
15.0%
429
69
101­
500
757
3.6%
1.1
803
16%
128
1.0%
6.3%
744
119
501­
1000
456
3.6%
1.0
440
16%
70
0.9%
6.3%
408
65
1001­
3,300
1,087
3.6%
1.0
1,048
16%
168
0.9%
1.8%
1,019
163
3,301­
10,000
1,017
3.6%
1.2
1,176
16%
188
0.9%
1.8%
1,144
183
10,001­
50,000
959
0.4%
1.1
1,051
­
1,051
3.2%
1.5%
1,001
1001
50,001­
100,000
193
0.4%
1.8
346
­
346
3.2%
1.5%
330
330
100,001­
1
Million
205
0.4%
1.6
327
­
327
3.1%
1.5%
312
312
>
1
Million
13
0.4%
2.8
36
­
36
3.1%
1.5%
35
35
National
Totals
5,217
5,738
2,397
5,421
2,277
System
Size
(
Population
Served)

NTNCWSs
£
100
202
3.6%
1.0
195
16%
31
1.0%
15.0%
163
26
101­
500
236
3.6%
1.0
228
16%
36
1.0%
6.3%
211
34
501­
1000
84
3.6%
1.0
81
16%
13
0.9%
6.3%
75
12
1001­
3,300
55
3.6%
1.0
53
16%
8
0.9%
1.8%
52
8
3,301­
10,000
13
3.6%
1.0
13
16%
2
0.9%
1.8%
12
2
10,001­
50,000
3
0.4%
1.0
3
­
3
3.2%
1.5%
3
3
50,001­
100,000
­
0.4%
1.0
­
­
0
3.2%
1.5%
­
­
100,001­
1
Million
­
0.4%
1.0
­
­
0
3.1%
1.5%
­
­
>
1
Million
­
0.4%
1.0
­
­
0
0.0%
1.5%
­
­
National
Totals
593
572
94
516
85
TNCWSs
£
100
731
0.0%
1.0
731
16%
117
1.0%
0.0%
724
116
101­
500
380
0.0%
1.0
380
16%
61
1.0%
0.0%
376
60
501­
1000
57
0.0%
1.0
57
16%
9
0.9%
0.0%
56
9
1001­
3,300
53
0.0%
1.0
53
16%
8
0.9%
0.0%
52
8
3,301­
10,000
25
0.0%
1.0
25
16%
4
0.9%
0.0%
25
4
10,001­
50,000
8
0.0%
1.0
8
­
8
3.2%
0.0%
7
7
50,001­
100,000
3
0.0%
1.0
3
­
3
3.2%
0.0%
3
3
100,001­
1
Million
­
0.0%
1.0
­
­
0
0.0%
0.0%
­
­
>
1
Million
­
0.0%
1.0
­
­
0
0.0%
0.0%
­
­
National
Totals
1,256
1,256
210
1,243
207
Grand
Totals
7,066
7,565
2,700
7,180
2,569
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:
(
A)
Number
of
unlinked,
non­
purchased
SW
&
GWUDI
systems
from
the
Third
Edition
Baseline
Handbook,
which
is
based
on
data
from
EPA's
Safe
Drinking
Water
Information
System
(
USEPA
2000h).
(
B)
EPA
assumes
only
membrane
plants
will
have
>
5.5
log
Cryptosporidium
treatment
prior
to
rule
promulgation.
Percentage
estimates
are
from
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR.
(
C)
Estimate
of
the
number
of
plants
or
entry
points
per
system.
Derived
from
1995
Community
Water
System
Survey
data.
(
E)
Percent
of
plants
triggered
into
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
is
estimated
from
the
modeled
Occurrence
Distributions.
(
G)
Derived
from
Appendix
F.
This
number
is
calculated
by
dividing
the
number
of
plants
estimated
to
be
achieving
5.5
log
treatment
by
the
total
number
of
plants
for
the
size
(
H)
EPA
assumes
only
membrane
plants
will
have
>
5.5
log
Cryptosporidium
treatment
as
a
result
of
the
Stage
2
DBPR.
Percent
estimates
are
from
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
11
June
2003
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
D­
12
D.
3
Rule
Implementation
Activities
This
section
presents
the
costs
for
systems
and
States/
Primacy
Agencies
to
perform
implementation
activities
associated
with
the
LT2ESWTR.
Activities
performed
by
PWSs
include
reading
and
understanding
the
rule
and
training
employees
on
rule
requirements.
The
number
of
systems
that
must
conduct
implementation
activities
is
the
same
for
all
occurrence
distributions.
State
implementation
activities
include
regulation
adoption
and
program
development,
training
State/
Primacy
Agency
staff,
training
PWS
staff
and
providing
technical
assistance,
and
updating
the
data
management
systems.
The
cost
and
burden
incurred
as
part
of
rule
implementation
are
not
expected
to
vary
for
the
different
regulatory
alternatives.

Assumptions
and
cost
estimates
for
rule
implementation
activities
are
presented
in
the
following
tables:

°
Exhibit
D.
10
Cost
and
Burden
Estimates
for
Rule
Implementation
Activities
°
Exhibit
D.
11
State
Cost
and
Burden
Estimates
for
Rule
Implementation
Activities
Exhibit
D.
10
Cost
and
Burden
Estimates
for
Rule
Implementation
Activities
for
All
Regulatory
Alternatives
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Read
Hours
per
PWS
Train
Hours
per
PWS
Total
Hours
per
PWS
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Baseline
#
of
Systems
Conducting
Implementation
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)
A
B
C
=
A
+
B
D
E
F
=
C*
D*
E
G
=
C*
E
H
=
G/
2080
CWSs
£
100
4
4
8
24.96
$
530
105,830
$
4,240
2.0
101­
500
4
4
8
24.96
757
151,158
6,056
2.9
501­
1000
4
4
8
28.95
456
105,610
3,648
1.8
1001­
3,300
4
4
8
28.95
1,087
251,749
8,696
4.2
3,301­
10,000
4
4
8
28.95
1,017
235,537
8,136
3.9
10,001­
50,000
4
4
8
28.95
959
222,104
7,672
3.7
50,001­
100,000
4
5
9
28.95
193
50,286
1,737
0.8
100,001­
1
Million
4
5
9
28.95
205
53,413
1,845
0.9
>
1
Million
4
5
9
28.95
13
3,387
117
0.1
National
Totals
5,217
1,179,075
$
42,147
20.3
NTNCWSs
£
100
4
4
8
24.96
$
202
40,335
$
1,616
0.8
101­
500
4
4
8
24.96
236
47,124
1,888
0.9
501­
1000
4
4
8
28.95
84
19,454
672
0.3
1001­
3,300
4
4
8
28.95
55
12,738
440
0.2
3,301­
10,000
4
4
8
28.95
13
3,011
104
0.1
10,001­
50,000
4
4
8
28.95
3
695
24
0.0
50,001­
100,000
4
5
9
28.95
­
­
­
­
100,001­
1
Million
4
5
9
28.95
­
­
­
­
>
1
Million
4
5
9
28.95
­
­
­
­
National
Totals
593
123,358
$
4,744
2.3
TNCWSs
£
100
4
4
8
24.96
$
731
145,995
$
5,849
2.8
101­
500
4
4
8
24.96
380
75,904
3,041
1.5
501­
1000
4
4
8
28.95
57
13,137
454
0.2
1001­
3,300
4
4
8
28.95
53
12,189
421
0.2
3,301­
10,000
4
4
8
28.95
25
5,744
198
0.1
10,001­
50,000
4
4
8
28.95
8
1,737
60
0.0
50,001­
100,000
4
5
9
28.95
3
782
27
0.0
100,001­
1
Million
4
5
9
28.95
­
­
­
­
>
1
Million
4
5
9
28.95
­
­
­
­
National
Totals
1,256
255,487
$
10,050
4.8
Grand
Totals
7,066
1,557,919
$
56,941
27.4
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:
(
A
&
B)
Burden
estimates
for
each
activity
are
based
on
EPA
experience
with
similar
rules.
(
D)
For
plants
serving
up
to
500
people,
the
full
technical
rate
($
24.96/
hour)
was
applied.
For
plants
serving
more
than
500
people,
costs
are
based
on
an
80%/
20%
split
between
technical
and
managerial
($
44.91/
hour)
rates.
Rates
are
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
(
BLS)
data.
(
E)
Taken
from
"
Baseline
for
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities."

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
13
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
11
State
Primacy
Agency
Cost
and
Burden
Estimates
for
Rule
Implementation
Activities
Implementation
Activities
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
FTEs
per
State
Hours
per
State
Cost
Per
State
A
B
C
=
B*
2080
D
=
A*
C
Regulation
Adoption
and
Program
Development
28.89
$
0.50
1,040
30,046
$
Training
State
Staff
28.89
0.25
520
15,023
Training
PWS
Staff
and
Technical
Assistants
28.89
1.00
2,080
60,091
Updating
Data
Management
System
28.89
0.10
208
6,009
Public
Notification
28.89
0.10
208
6,009
Totals
per
State
1.95
4,056
117,178
$
National
Totals
(
57
States/
Primacy
Agencies)
111.15
231,192
6,679,137
$

Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
All
States/
Primacy
Agencies
are
assumed
to
incur
some
costs
for
each
activity.
1
FTE
=
2,080
hours
(
40
hours/
week;
52
weeks/
year
Sources:
(
A)
State
labor
rates
based
on
the
State
Workload
Model,
updated
to
current
dollar
values.
(
B)
FTEs
per
State/
Primacy
Agency
based
on
EPA
experience
with
previous
regulations.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
14
June
2003
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
D­
15
D.
4
Monitoring
Activities
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
The
purpose
of
bin
classification
is
to
determine
what
level
of
Cryptosporidium
reduction
will
be
required.
Bin
classification
is
determined
by
source
water
Cryptosporidium
monitoring.

Monitoring
costs
for
plants
include
the
labor
costs
associated
with
collecting
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
samples,
the
laboratory
costs
of
shipping
and
analyzing
the
samples,
and
costs
for
reporting
results
to
the
State/
Primacy
Agency
(
as
noted
in
section
D.
2,
costs
associated
with
turbidity
monitoring
are
assumed
to
be
negligible).
State
costs
for
analyzing
PWS
reports,
responding
to
PWSs,
and
recordkeeping
are
also
included
in
the
bin
classification
monitoring
costs.
Cost
estimates
for
each
type
of
monitoring
are
described
in
detail
in
this
section.

D.
4.1
E.
coli
Monitoring
Number
of
Samples
Under
Alternatives
A2
through
A4,
small
plants
are
required
to
sample
source
water
biweekly
for
one
year
for
E.
coli
(
26
total
samples).
Under
the
same
regulatory
alternatives,
large
and
medium
plants
will
carry
out
monitoring
on
a
predetermined
schedule
for
24
months.
The
number
of
samples
is
based
on
one
of
two
monitoring
scenarios:

°
Highest
12­
month
running
annual
average
(
RAA)
if
monthly
samples
are
taken
(
24
samples
total)

°
Two­
year
mean
if
plant
conducts
twice
per
month
monitoring
for
24
months
(
48
samples
total)

EPA
estimates
that
most
large
and
medium
plants
will
use
the
maximum
RAA
for
bin
classification
because
it
requires
fewer
samples.
Therefore,
this
analysis
assumes
no
monitoring
costs
for
the
two­
year
mean
option.

Laboratory
Costs
Systems
may
analyze
their
samples
in­
house
if
they
have
the
equipment
to
do
so,
or
they
may
send
the
samples
to
a
commercial
laboratory.
EPA
estimates
the
cost
per
sample
in­
house
is
$
21.00
(
DynCorp
2000)),
and
to
ship
the
sample
to
a
commercial
laboratory
costs
$
70
(
includes
shipping
and
commercial
analysis)
(
DynCorp
2002).
The
average
cost
per
sample
for
various
system
sizes
reflects
the
estimate
of
the
percentage
of
plants
that
will
do
in­
house
versus
commercial
analysis.
The
total
laboratory
cost
of
an
E.
coli
sample
($
57.75
for
small
plants,
$
33.25
for
medium
plants,
and
$
21.00
for
large
plants)
takes
into
account
the
percentage
of
systems
with
E.
coli
analysis
capabilities.
For
those
that
do
not
have
in­
house
capabilities,
overnight
shipping
costs
(
based
on
FedEx
rates)
have
been
added
to
the
laboratory
fee.
The
estimate
of
plants
with
in­
house
analytical
capabilities
for
E.
coli
was
generated
using
the
Baseline
Handbook.
Total
laboratory
costs
for
E.
coli
monitoring
are
summarized
in
Exhibit
D.
12
for
each
population
size
category
of
CWSs,
NTNCWSs,
and
TNCWSs,
respectively.
The
ICR,
ICRSSM,
and
ICRSSL
occurrence
distributions
do
not
affect
the
number
of
plants
monitoring
for
E.
coli.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
D­
16
Labor
Costs
In
addition
to
the
laboratory
costs
for
E.
coli
monitoring,
labor
will
be
required
for
plant
employees
to
take
the
samples.

Sampling
points
are
at
the
source
water
intake;
therefore,
each
sample
was
estimated
to
take
15
minutes.
A
technical
labor
rate
($
24.96
per
hour
for
all
systems)
is
assumed
for
E.
coli
monitoring
(
BLS
2001).
Total
labor
costs
per
plant
were
estimated
by
multiplying
the
minutes
required
per
sample
(
converted
into
hours),
the
number
of
samples
per
plant
per
year,
and
the
labor
rate
per
hour.
Total
labor
costs
for
E.
coli
monitoring
are
summarized
in
Exhibit
D.
12
for
CWSs,
NTNCWSs,
and
TNCWSs,
respectively.
Once
again,
ICR,
ICRSSM,
and
ICRSSL
occurrence
distributions
do
not
affect
the
number
of
plants
that
have
to
monitor
for
E.
coli.
Exhibit
D.
12
Labor
Hours
and
Cost
Estimates
to
Plants
Associated
with
E.
coli
Monitoring
for
All
Regulatory
Alternatives
Sampling
Sample
Analysis
#
of
E.
coli
Samples
Hours
per
Sample
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Total
Sampling
Labor
Cost
Commercial
Analysis
Cost
per
Sample
(
Includes
Shipping)
Utility
Analysis
Hours
per
Sample
(
Labor)
Utility
Analysis
Cost
per
Sample
(
O&
M)
Utility
Analysis
Cost
per
Sample
Percent
Utilities
with
E.
coli
Analysis
Capabilities
Total
Laboratory
Analysis
Cost
(
Labor)
Total
Laboratory
Analysis
Cost
(
O&
M)

A
B
C
D
E
=
A*
B*
C*
D
F
G
H
I
=
H+
G*
D
J
K
=
D*
G*
J*
A*
B
L
=
F*
A*
B*(
1­
J)+
H*
A*
B*
J
M
=
E+
K+
L
N
=
A*
B*
C+
A*
B*
G*
J
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Cost
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
E.
coli
Monitoring
CWSs
£
100
511
26
0.25
24.96
$
82,892
$
70.00
$
0.5
8.52
$
21.00
$
25%
41,446
$
725,701
$
850,038
$
4,981
101­
500
803
26
0.25
24.96
130,234
70.00
0.5
8.52
21.00
25%
65,117
1,140,171
1,335,522
7,827
501­
1000
440
26
0.25
24.96
71,318
70.00
0.5
8.52
21.00
25%
35,659
624,376
731,353
4,286
1001­
3,300
1,048
26
0.25
24.96
170,006
70.00
0.5
8.52
21.00
25%
85,003
1,488,371
1,743,380
10,217
3,301­
10,000
1,176
26
0.25
24.96
190,870
70.00
0.5
8.52
21.00
25%
95,435
1,671,028
1,957,333
11,471
10,001­
50,000
1,051
24
0.25
24.96
157,403
70.00
0.5
8.52
21.00
75%
236,105
602,622
996,130
15,766
50,001­
100,000
346
24
0.25
24.96
51,836
70.00
0.5
8.52
21.00
75%
77,754
198,456
328,046
5,192
100,001­
1
Million
327
24
0.25
24.96
48,941
70.00
0.5
8.52
21.00
100%
97,883
66,824
213,648
5,882
>
1
Million
36
24
0.25
24.96
5,431
70.00
0.5
8.52
21.00
100%
10,863
7,416
23,710
653
National
Totals
5,738
908,931
$
0
745,264
$
6,524,964
$
8,179,159
$
66,274
NTNCWSs
£
100
195
26
0.25
24.96
$
31,593
$
70.00
$
0.5
8.52
$
21.00
$
25%
15,796
$
276,588
$
323,977
$
1,899
101­
500
228
26
0.25
24.96
$
36,910
70.00
0.5
8.52
21.00
25%
18,455
323,142
378,508
2,218
501­
1000
81
26
0.25
24.96
$
13,138
70.00
0.5
8.52
21.00
25%
6,569
115,017
134,723
790
1001­
3,300
53
26
0.25
24.96
$
8,602
70.00
0.5
8.52
21.00
25%
4,301
75,309
88,211
517
3,301­
10,000
13
26
0.25
24.96
$
2,033
70.00
0.5
8.52
21.00
25%
1,017
17,800
20,850
122
10,001­
50,000
3
24
0.25
24.96
$
448
70.00
0.5
8.52
21.00
75%
671
1,714
2,833
45
50,001­
100,000
­
24
0.25
24.96
$
­
70.00
0.5
8.52
21.00
75%
­
­
­
­
100,001­
1
Million
­
24
0.25
24.96
$
­
70.00
0.5
8.52
21.00
100%
­
­
­
­
>
1
Million
­
24
0.25
24.96
$
­
70.00
0.5
8.52
21.00
100%
­
­
­
­
National
Totals
572
92,723
$
46,809
$
809,569
$
949,102
$
5,590
TNCWSs
£
100
731
26
0.25
24.96
$
118,621
$
70.00
$
0.5
8.52
$
21.00
$
25%
59,310
$
1,038,500
$
1,216,431
$
7,129
101­
500
380
26
0.25
24.96
61,672
70.00
0.5
8.52
21.00
25%
30,836
539,925
632,432
3,706
501­
1000
57
26
0.25
24.96
9,203
70.00
0.5
8.52
21.00
25%
4,601
80,567
94,371
553
1001­
3,300
53
26
0.25
24.96
8,539
70.00
0.5
8.52
21.00
25%
4,269
74,757
87,565
513
3,301­
10,000
25
26
0.25
24.96
4,024
70.00
0.5
8.52
21.00
25%
2,012
35,225
41,261
242
10,001­
50,000
8
24
0.25
24.96
1,123
70.00
0.5
8.52
21.00
75%
1,685
4,300
7,108
113
50,001­
100,000
3
24
0.25
24.96
449
70.00
0.5
8.52
21.00
75%
674
1,720
2,843
45
100,001­
1
Million
­
24
0.25
24.96
­
70.00
0.5
8.52
21.00
100%
­
­
­
­
>
1
Million
­
24
0.25
24.96
­
70.00
0.5
8.52
21.00
100%
­
­
­
­
National
Totals
1,256
203,630
$
103,387
$
1,774,994
$
2,082,012
$
12,300
Grand
Totals
7,565
1,205,284
$
895,460
$
9,109,528
$
11,210,273
$
84,164
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:
(
A)
Taken
from
"
Baseline
for
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities."
(
B)
Bi­
weekly
source
water
monitoring
for
one
year
for
small
systems
and
monthly
samples
for
24
months
for
medium
and
large
systems.
(
C)
Estimate
of
labor
for
collecting
sample
and
shipping,
based
on
expert
opinion.
(
D)
All
size
categories
were
assumed
to
use
a
technical
rate
of
$
24.96/
hour,
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
rates.
(
F)
DynCorp
study,
Kevin
Connell,
June
2002.
(
G)
Based
on
expert
opinion.
(
H)
The
amount
left
over
after
the
cost
of
half
an
hour
of
labor
is
subtracted
from
the
cost
of
utility
analysis
provided
in
Column
I.
(
I)
DynCorp
study,
Kevin
Connell,
December
2000.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
17
June
2003
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
D­
18
D.
4.2
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
Number
of
Samples
Small
plants
that
are
triggered
into
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
based
on
E.
coli
monitoring
results
(
see
section
D.
2)
will
be
required
to
collect
and
analyze
24
source
water
Cryptosporidium
samples
over
1
year.
For
costing
purposes,
EPA
assumes
that
small
plants
will
collect
24
samples
and
bin
assignment
will
be
based
on
the
average
concentration
of
all
samples.
Large
and
medium
plants
will
carry
out
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
similar
to
E.
coli
monitoring
on
a
predetermined
schedule
for
24
months.

For
all
plant
sizes,
EPA
assumes
two
additional
matrix
spike
samples
will
be
collected
during
the
monitoring
period.

Although
the
sampling
requirements
for
plants
required
to
monitor
Cryptosporidium
are
the
same
for
Alternatives
A2
through
A4,
the
number
of
plants
triggered
to
monitor
will
vary
for
each
regulatory
alternative.

Laboratory
Costs
The
total
cost
of
laboratory
analysis
of
a
Cryptosporidium
sample
($
529.50)
is
the
sum
of
the
laboratory
costs,
the
shipping
costs,
and
analysis
of
multiple
subsamples.

The
laboratory
cost
for
Cryptosporidium
analysis
($
403.00)
was
estimated
in
an
analysis
by
Dyncorp
(
2000).
This
estimate
assumes
that
the
laboratory
filters
the
sample,
so
the
PWS
ships
the
entire
10­
liter
sample.
A
shipping
cost
($
88.70,
based
on
FedEx
rates)
is
added,
assuming
that
all
plants
must
ship
samples
overnight
to
private
laboratories
for
analysis.
Samples
must
be
divided
into
subsamples
for
analysis
if
they
have
a
pellet
size
greater
than
0.5
ml.
The
proportion
of
samples
being
subdivided
is
based
on
results
of
the
Supplemental
Surveys.
Laboratory
and
shipping
costs
per
plant
are
summarized
in
Exhibits
D.
13
through
D15.

Total
laboratory
costs
for
Alternative
A2
are
shown
in
Exhibits
D.
13a
to
D.
13c.
The
costs
for
Alternative
A2
for
each
system
type
are
identical
for
the
ICR,
ICRSSM,
and
ICRSSL
occurrence
distributions
because
under
Alternative
A2,
all
small
plants
are
assumed
to
be
triggered
into
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
based
on
E.
coli
monitoring
results.
Because
the
cutoff
level
for
the
first
bin
under
Alternative
A2
is
less
than
half
the
Cryptosporidium
concentration
cutoff
for
Bin
1
under
Alternative
A3,
the
E.
coli
trigger
level
would
presumably
also
be
much
lower
under
Alternative
A2.
EPA
estimated
that
these
levels
would
be
so
low
that
all
small
plants
would
be
triggered
into
Cryptosporidium
monitoring.

Total
laboratory
costs
for
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
are
summarized
in
Exhibits
D.
14a
through
D.
14c
for
each
population
size
category
of
CWSs,
NTNCWSs,
and
TNCWSs,
based
on
the
ICR,
ICRSSM,
and
ICRSSL
occurrence
distributions,
respectively,
for
Alternative
A3.
Total
laboratory
Cryptosporidium
analysis
costs
range
from
approximately
$
42.8
million
(
based
on
the
ICRSSL)
to
$
51.6
million
(
based
on
the
ICR).
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
D­
19
Total
laboratory
costs
for
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
are
summarized
in
Exhibits
D.
15a
through
D.
15c
for
each
population
size
category
of
CWSs,
NTNCWSs,
and
TNCWSs,
based
on
the
ICR,
ICRSSM,
and
ICRSSL
occurrence
distributions,
respectively,
for
Alternative
A4.
Total
laboratory
Cryptosporidium
analysis
costs
range
from
approximately
$
58.7
million
(
based
on
the
ICRSSL)
to
$
61.1
million
(
based
on
the
ICR).

Labor
Costs
In
addition
to
the
laboratory
costs
for
Cryptosporidium
monitoring,
labor
will
be
required
for
plant
employees
to
take
samples.
Samples
are
required
at
the
source
water
intake.
Collecting
a
sample
was
estimated
to
take
30
minutes,
slightly
higher
than
the
time
assumed
for
E.
coli
samples,
because
of
the
larger
volume
required.
A
technical
labor
rate
($
24.96
per
hour
for
all
system
sizes)
was
assumed
for
Cryptosporidium
monitoring.
Labor
costs
per
plant
were
estimated
by
multiplying
the
number
of
hours
per
sample,
the
number
of
samples
per
plant
per
year,
and
the
labor
rate
per
hour.
These
costs
and
total
costs
are
shown
in
Exhibit
D.
13
through
D.
15,
based
on
the
ICR,
ICRSSM,
and
ICRSSL
occurrence
distributions
for
Alternatives
A2
through
A4,
respectively.
The
labor
costs
for
each
system
type
are
identical
for
the
ICR,
ICRSSM,
and
ICRSSL
occurrence
distributions
for
Alternative
A2
because
under
that
regulatory
alternative,
all
plants
are
required
to
monitor
Cryptosporidium.
Exhibit
D.
13a
Total
Cost
Estimates
for
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
for
All
System
Types,
by
System
Size
Based
on
ICR
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A2
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Monitoring
Cryptosporidium
Sampling
Sample
Analysis
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)
Responses
#
of
Cryptosporidium
Samples
Hours
per
Sample
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Total
Sampling
Labor
Cost
Cost
per
Sample
Total
Laboratory
Analysis
Cost
(
O&
M)
A
B
C
D
E
=
A*
B*
C*
D
F
G
=
A*
B*
F
H
=
E+
G
I
=
A*
B*
C
J
=
I/
2080
K
=
A*
B
CWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
511
803
440
1,048
1,176
1,051
346
327
36
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
165,783
$
260,467
142,636
340,012
381,740
341,040
112,311
106,040
11,768
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
7,033,836
$
11,051,085
6,051,753
14,425,999
16,196,402
14,469,611
4,765,137
4,499,035
499,283
7,199,619
$
11,311,552
6,194,389
14,766,011
16,578,141
14,810,651
4,877,448
4,605,075
511,051
6,642
10,435
5,715
13,622
15,294
13,663
4,500
4,248
471
3.2
5.0
2.7
6.5
7.4
6.6
2.2
2.0
0.2
13,284
20,871
11,429
27,245
30,588
27,327
8,999
8,497
943
National
Totals
5,738
1,861,798
$
78,992,141
$
80,853,939
$
74,591
35.9
149,183
NTNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
195
228
81
53
13
3
­
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
63,185
$
73,820
26,275
17,204
4,066
970
­
­
­
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
2,680,820
$
3,132,048
1,114,797
729,926
172,528
41,150
­
­
­
2,744,006
$
3,205,868
1,141,072
747,130
176,594
42,120
­
­
­
2,531
2,958
1,053
689
163
39
­
­
­
1.2
1.4
0.5
0.3
0.1
0.0
­
­
­
5,063
5,915
2,105
1,379
326
78
­
­
­
National
Totals
572
185,521
$
7,871,269
$
8,056,790
$
7,433
3.6
14,865
TNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
731
380
57
53
25
8
3
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
237,241
$
123,344
18,405
17,078
8,047
2,434
973
­
­
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
10,065,637
$
5,233,208
780,895
724,579
341,422
103,253
41,301
­
­
10,302,878
$
5,356,552
799,300
741,657
349,469
105,686
42,274
­
­
9,505
4,942
737
684
322
98
39
­
­
4.6
2.4
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.0
­
­
19,010
9,883
1,475
1,368
645
195
78
­
­
National
Totals
1,256
407,522
$
17,290,294
$
17,697,816
$
16,327
7.8
32,654
Grand
Totals
7,565
2,454,841
$
104,153,704
$
106,608,545
$
98,351
47.3
196,702
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:
(
A)
Taken
from
"
Baseline
for
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities."
(
B)
Semimonthly
source
water
monitoring
for
one
year
for
small
systems
and
monthly
samples
for
24
months
for
medium
and
large
systems,
plus
two
matrix
spike
samples.
(
C)
Estimate
of
labor
for
collecting
sample
and
shipping,
based
on
expert
opinion.
(
D)
All
size
categories
were
assumed
to
use
a
technical
rate
of
$
24.96/
hour,
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
rates.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
20
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
13b
Total
Cost
Estimates
for
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
for
All
System
Types,
by
System
Size
Based
on
ICRSSM
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A2
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Monitoring
Cryptosporidium
Sampling
Sample
Analysis
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)
Responses
#
of
Cryptosporidium
Samples
Hours
per
Sample
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Total
Sampling
Labor
Cost
Cost
per
Sample
Total
Laboratory
Analysis
Cost
(
O&
M)
A
B
C
D
E
=
A*
B*
C*
D
F
G
=
A*
B*
F
H
=
E+
G
I
=
A*
B*
C
J
=
I/
2080
K
=
A*
B
CWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
511
803
440
1,048
1,176
1,051
346
327
36
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
165,783
$
260,467
142,636
340,012
381,740
341,040
112,311
106,040
11,768
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
7,033,836
$
11,051,085
6,051,753
14,425,999
16,196,402
14,469,611
4,765,137
4,499,035
499,283
7,199,619
$
11,311,552
6,194,389
14,766,011
16,578,141
14,810,651
4,877,448
4,605,075
511,051
6,642
10,435
5,715
13,622
15,294
13,663
4,500
4,248
471
3.2
5.0
2.7
6.5
7.4
6.6
2.2
2.0
0.2
13,284
20,871
11,429
27,245
30,588
27,327
8,999
8,497
943
National
Totals
5,738
1,861,798
$
78,992,141
$
80,853,939
$
74,591
35.9
149,183
NTNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
195
228
81
53
13
3
­
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
63,185
$
73,820
26,275
17,204
4,066
970
­
­
­
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
2,680,820
$
3,132,048
1,114,797
729,926
172,528
41,150
­
­
­
2,744,006
$
3,205,868
1,141,072
747,130
176,594
42,120
­
­
­
2,531
2,958
1,053
689
163
39
­
­
­
1.2
1.4
0.5
0.3
0.1
0.0
­
­
­
5,063
5,915
2,105
1,379
326
78
­
­
­
National
Totals
572
185,521
$
7,871,269
$
8,056,790
$
7,433
3.6
14,865
TNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
731
380
57
53
25
8
3
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
237,241
$
123,344
18,405
17,078
8,047
2,434
973
­
­
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
10,065,637
$
5,233,208
780,895
724,579
341,422
103,253
41,301
­
­
10,302,878
$
5,356,552
799,300
741,657
349,469
105,686
42,274
­
­
9,505
4,942
737
684
322
98
39
­
­
4.6
2.4
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.0
­
­
19,010
9,883
1,475
1,368
645
195
78
­
­
National
Totals
1,256
407,522
$
17,290,294
$
17,697,816
$
16,327
7.8
32,654
Grand
Totals
7,565
2,454,841
$
104,153,704
$
106,608,545
$
98,351
47.3
196,702
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:

(
A)
Taken
from
"
Baseline
for
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities."
(
B)
Semimonthly
source
water
monitoring
for
one
year
for
small
systems
and
monthly
samples
for
24
months
for
medium
and
large
systems,
plus
two
matrix
spike
samples.
(
C)
Estimate
of
labor
for
collecting
sample
and
shipping,
based
on
expert
opinion.
(
D)
All
size
categories
were
assumed
to
use
a
technical
rate
of
$
24.96/
hour,
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
rates.
(
F)
Cost
per
sample
includes
$
403
in
lab
costs,
$
88.70
for
shipping,
and
$
37.80
in
additional
costs.
Assume
all
plants
must
ship
samples
to
private
lab
for
Cryptosporidium
analysis.
Samples
must
be
shipped
overnight
to
meet
24­
hour
holding
time
requirements.
Costs
based
on
FedEx
priority
overnight
rates
for
10
L
sample
(
22
LB)
shipped
in
a
34­
quart
polyethylene
cooler
packed
with
wet
ice,
median
cost
for
all
zones.
Samples
generating
a
pellet
volume
of
>
0.5
ml
require
multiple
subsample
processing
at
a
cost
of
$
140
each.
During
the
ICR
Supplemental
Survey,
approximately
27
percent
of
field
samples
required
analysis
of
multiple
subsamples,
resulting
in
an
additional
per­
plant
charge
of
$
38
($
140
x
0.27).

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
21
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
13c
Total
Cost
Estimates
for
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
for
All
System
Types,
by
System
Size
Based
on
ICRSSL
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A2
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Monitoring
Cryptosporidium
Sampling
Sample
Analysis
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)
Responses
#
of
Cryptosporidium
Samples
Hours
per
Sample
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Total
Sampling
Labor
Cost
Cost
per
Sample
Total
Laboratory
Analysis
Cost
(
O&
M)
A
B
C
D
E
=
A*
B*
C*
D
F
G
=
A*
B*
F
H
=
E+
G
I
=
A*
B*
C
J
=
I/
2080
K
=
A*
B
CWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
511
803
440
1,048
1,176
1,051
346
327
36
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
165,783
$
260,467
142,636
340,012
381,740
341,040
112,311
106,040
11,768
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
7,033,836
$
11,051,085
6,051,753
14,425,999
16,196,402
14,469,611
4,765,137
4,499,035
499,283
7,199,619
$
11,311,552
6,194,389
14,766,011
16,578,141
14,810,651
4,877,448
4,605,075
511,051
6,642
10,435
5,715
13,622
15,294
13,663
4,500
4,248
471
3.2
5.0
2.7
6.5
7.4
6.6
2.2
2.0
0.2
13,284
20,871
11,429
27,245
30,588
27,327
8,999
8,497
943
National
Totals
5,738
1,861,798
$
78,992,141
$
80,853,939
$
74,591
35.9
149,183
NTNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
195
228
81
53
13
3
­
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
63,185
$
73,820
26,275
17,204
4,066
970
­
­
­
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
2,680,820
$
3,132,048
1,114,797
729,926
172,528
41,150
­
­
­
2,744,006
$
3,205,868
1,141,072
747,130
176,594
42,120
­
­
­
2,531
2,958
1,053
689
163
39
­
­
­
1.2
1.4
0.5
0.3
0.1
0.0
­
­
­
5,063
5,915
2,105
1,379
326
78
­
­
­
National
Totals
572
185,521
$
7,871,269
$
8,056,790
$
7,433
3.6
14,865
TNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
731
380
57
53
25
8
3
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
237,241
$
123,344
18,405
17,078
8,047
2,434
973
­
­
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
10,065,637
$
5,233,208
780,895
724,579
341,422
103,253
41,301
­
­
10,302,878
$
5,356,552
799,300
741,657
349,469
105,686
42,274
­
­
9,505
4,942
737
684
322
98
39
­
­
4.6
2.4
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.0
­
­
19,010
9,883
1,475
1,368
645
195
78
­
­
National
Totals
1,256
407,522
$
17,290,294
$
17,697,816
$
16,327
7.8
32,654
Grand
Totals
7,565
2,454,841
$
104,153,704
$
106,608,545
$
98,351
47.3
196,702
­
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:
(
A)
Taken
from
"
Baseline
for
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities."
(
B)
Semimonthly
source
water
monitoring
for
one
year
for
small
systems
and
monthly
samples
for
24
months
for
medium
and
large
systems,
plus
two
matrix
spike
samples.
(
C)
Estimate
of
labor
for
collecting
sample
and
shipping,
based
on
expert
opinion.
(
D)
All
size
categories
were
assumed
to
use
a
technical
rate
of
$
24.96/
hour,
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
rates.
(
F)
Cost
per
sample
includes
$
403
in
lab
costs,
$
88.70
for
shipping,
and
$
37.80
in
additional
costs.
Assume
all
plants
must
ship
samples
to
private
lab
for
Cryptosporidium
analysis.
Samples
must
be
shipped
overnight
to
meet
24­
hour
holding
time
requirements.
Costs
based
on
FedEx
priority
overnight
rates
for
10
L
sample
(
22
LB)
shipped
in
a
34­
quart
polyethylene
cooler
packed
with
wet
ice,
median
cost
for
all
zones.
Samples
generating
a
pellet
volume
of
>
0.5
ml
require
multiple
subsample
processing
at
a
cost
of
$
140
each.
During
the
ICR
Supplemental
Survey,
approximately
27
percent
of
field
samples
required
analysis
of
multiple
subsamples,
resulting
in
an
additional
per­
plant
charge
of
$
38
($
140
x
0.27).

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
22
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
14a
Total
Cost
Estimates
for
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
for
All
System
Types,
by
System
Size
Based
on
ICR
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A3
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Monitoring
Cryptosporidium
Sampling
Sample
Analysis
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)
Responses
#
of
Cryptosporidium
Samples
Hours
per
Sample
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Total
Sampling
Labor
Cost
Cost
per
Sample
Total
Laboratory
Analysis
Cost
(
O&
M)
A
B
C
D
E
=
A*
B*
C*
D
F
G
=
A*
B*
F
H
=
E+
G
I
=
A*
B*
C
J
=
I/
2080
K
=
A*
B
CWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
178
279
153
365
409
1,051
346
327
36
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
57,693
$
90,643
49,637
118,324
132,845
341,040
112,311
106,040
11,768
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
2,447,775
$
3,845,778
2,106,010
5,020,248
5,636,348
14,469,611
4,765,137
4,499,035
499,283
2,505,467
$
3,936,420
2,155,647
5,138,572
5,769,193
14,810,651
4,877,448
4,605,075
511,051
2,311
3,632
1,989
4,741
5,322
13,663
4,500
4,248
471
1.1
1.7
1.0
2.3
2.6
6.6
2.2
2.0
0.2
4,623
7,263
3,977
9,481
10,645
27,327
8,999
8,497
943
National
Totals
3,144
1,020,301
$
43,289,225
$
44,309,526
$
40,877
19.7
81,755
NTNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
68
79
28
18
4
3
­
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
21,988
$
25,690
9,144
5,987
1,415
970
­
­
­
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
932,925
$
1,089,953
387,949
254,014
60,040
41,150
­
­
­
954,914
$
1,115,642
397,093
260,001
61,455
42,120
­
­
­
881
1,029
366
240
57
39
­
­
­
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
­
­
­
1,762
2,058
733
480
113
78
­
­
­
National
Totals
201
65,194
$
2,766,031
$
2,831,225
$
2,612
1.3
5,224
TNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
254
132
20
18
9
8
3
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
82,560
$
42,924
6,405
5,943
2,800
2,434
973
­
­
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
3,502,842
$
1,821,156
271,751
252,153
118,815
103,253
41,301
­
­
3,585,402
$
1,864,080
278,156
258,097
121,615
105,686
42,274
­
­
3,308
1,720
257
238
112
98
39
­
­
1.6
0.8
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
­
­
6,615
3,439
513
476
224
195
78
­
­
National
Totals
444
144,039
$
6,111,271
$
6,255,310
$
5,771
2.8
11,542
Grand
Totals
3,789
1,229,534
$
52,166,527
$
53,396,061
$
49,260
23.7
98,520
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:
(
A)
Taken
from
"
Baseline
for
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities."
(
B)
Semimonthly
source
water
monitoring
for
one
year
for
small
systems
and
monthly
samples
for
24
months
for
medium
and
large
systems,
plus
two
matrix
spike
samples.
(
C)
Estimate
of
labor
for
collecting
sample
and
shipping,
based
on
expert
opinion.
(
D)
All
size
categories
were
assumed
to
use
a
technical
rate
of
$
24.96/
hour,
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
rates.
(
F)
Cost
per
sample
includes
$
403
in
lab
costs,
$
88.70
for
shipping,
and
$
37.80
in
additional
costs.
Assume
all
plants
must
ship
samples
to
private
lab
for
Cryptosporidium
analysis.
Samples
must
be
shipped
overnight
to
meet
24­
hour
holding
time
requirements.
Costs
based
on
FedEx
priority
overnight
rates
for
10
L
sample
(
22
LB)
shipped
in
a
34­
quart
polyethylene
cooler
packed
with
wet
ice,
median
cost
for
all
zones.
Samples
generating
a
pellet
volume
of
>
0.5
ml
require
multiple
subsample
processing
at
a
cost
of
$
140
each.
During
the
ICR
Supplemental
Survey,
approximately
27
percent
of
field
samples
required
analysis
of
multiple
subsamples,
resulting
in
an
additional
per­
plant
charge
of
$
38
($
140
x
0.27).

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
23
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
14b
Total
Cost
Estimates
for
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
for
All
System
Types,
by
System
Size
Based
on
ICRSSM
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A3
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Monitoring
Cryptosporidium
Sampling
Sample
Analysis
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)
Responses
#
of
Cryptosporidium
Samples
Hours
per
Sample
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Total
Sampling
Labor
Cost
Cost
per
Sample
Total
Laboratory
Analysis
Cost
(
O&
M)
A
B
C
D
E
=
A*
B*
C*
D
F
G
=
A*
B*
F
H
=
E+
G
I
=
A*
B*
C
J
=
I/
2080
K
=
A*
B
CWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
139
218
120
285
320
1,051
346
327
36
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
45,093
$
70,847
38,797
92,483
103,833
341,040
112,311
106,040
11,768
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
1,913,203
$
3,005,895
1,646,077
3,923,872
4,405,421
14,469,611
4,765,137
4,499,035
499,283
1,958,296
$
3,076,742
1,684,874
4,016,355
4,509,254
14,810,651
4,877,448
4,605,075
511,051
1,807
2,838
1,554
3,705
4,160
13,663
4,500
4,248
471
0.9
1.4
0.7
1.8
2.0
6.6
2.2
2.0
0.2
3,613
5,677
3,109
7,411
8,320
27,327
8,999
8,497
943
National
Totals
2,842
922,213
$
39,127,535
$
40,049,748
$
36,948
17.8
73,895
NTNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
53
62
22
14
3
3
­
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
17,186
$
20,079
7,147
4,679
1,106
970
­
­
­
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
729,183
$
851,917
303,225
198,540
46,928
41,150
­
­
­
746,370
$
871,996
310,371
203,219
48,034
42,120
­
­
­
689
804
286
187
44
39
­
­
­
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
­
­
­
1,377
1,609
573
375
89
78
­
­
­
National
Totals
158
51,168
$
2,170,942
$
2,222,110
$
2,050
1.0
4,100
TNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
199
103
15
14
7
8
3
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
64,530
$
33,549
5,006
4,645
2,189
2,434
973
­
­
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
2,737,853
$
1,423,433
212,403
197,085
92,867
103,253
41,301
­
­
2,802,383
$
1,456,982
217,410
201,731
95,055
105,686
42,274
­
­
2,585
1,344
201
186
88
98
39
­
­
1.2
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
­
­
5,171
2,688
401
372
175
195
78
­
­
National
Totals
349
113,326
$
4,808,195
$
4,921,521
$
4,540
2.2
9,081
Grand
Totals
3,349
1,086,707
$
46,106,672
$
47,193,379
$
43,538
20.9
87,076
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:
(
A)
Taken
from
"
Baseline
for
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities."
(
B)
Semimonthly
source
water
monitoring
for
one
year
for
small
systems
and
monthly
samples
for
24
months
for
medium
and
large
systems,
plus
two
matrix
spike
samples.
(
C)
Estimate
of
labor
for
collecting
sample
and
shipping,
based
on
expert
opinion.
(
D)
All
size
categories
were
assumed
to
use
a
technical
rate
of
$
24.96/
hour,
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
rates.
(
F)
Cost
per
sample
includes
$
403
in
lab
costs,
$
88.70
for
shipping,
and
$
37.80
in
additional
costs.
Assume
all
plants
must
ship
samples
to
private
lab
for
Cryptosporidium
analysis.
Samples
must
be
shipped
overnight
to
meet
24­
hour
holding
time
requirements.
Costs
based
on
FedEx
priority
overnight
rates
for
10
L
sample
(
22
LB)
shipped
in
a
34­
quart
polyethylene
cooler
packed
with
wet
ice,
median
cost
for
all
zones.
Samples
generating
a
pellet
volume
of
>
0.5
ml
require
multiple
subsample
processing
at
a
cost
of
$
140
each.
During
the
ICR
Supplemental
Survey,
approximately
27
percent
of
field
samples
required
analysis
of
multiple
subsamples,
resulting
in
an
additional
per­
plant
charge
of
$
38
($
140
x
0.27).

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
24
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
14c
Total
Cost
Estimates
for
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
for
All
System
Types,
by
System
Size
Based
on
ICRSSL
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A3
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Monitoring
Cryptosporidium
Sampling
Sample
Analysis
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)
Responses
#
of
Cryptosporidium
Samples
Hours
per
Sample
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Total
Sampling
Labor
Cost
Cost
per
Sample
Total
Laboratory
Analysis
Cost
(
O&
M)
A
B
C
D
E
=
A*
B*
C*
D
F
G
=
A*
B*
F
H
=
E+
G
I
=
A*
B*
C
J
=
I/
2080
K
=
A*
B
CWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
114
179
98
234
263
1,051
346
327
36
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
37,069
$
58,241
31,893
76,027
85,357
341,040
112,311
106,040
11,768
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
1,572,766
$
2,471,023
1,353,172
3,225,653
3,621,515
14,469,611
4,765,137
4,499,035
499,283
1,609,835
$
2,529,263
1,385,065
3,301,680
3,706,872
14,810,651
4,877,448
4,605,075
511,051
1,485
2,333
1,278
3,046
3,420
13,663
4,500
4,248
471
0.7
1.1
0.6
1.5
1.6
6.6
2.2
2.0
0.2
2,970
4,667
2,556
6,092
6,840
27,327
8,999
8,497
943
National
Totals
2,650
859,746
$
36,477,196
$
37,336,941
$
34,445
16.6
68,890
NTNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
44
51
18
12
3
3
­
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
14,128
$
16,506
5,875
3,847
909
970
­
­
­
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
599,431
$
700,326
249,269
163,212
38,577
41,150
­
­
­
613,560
$
716,832
255,144
167,058
39,487
42,120
­
­
­
566
661
235
154
36
39
­
­
­
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
­
­
­
1,132
1,323
471
308
73
78
­
­
­
National
Totals
130
42,236
$
1,791,964
$
1,834,200
$
1,692
0.8
3,384
TNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
163
85
13
12
6
8
3
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
53,047
$
27,580
4,115
3,819
1,799
2,434
973
­
­
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
2,250,677
$
1,170,145
174,608
162,016
76,342
103,253
41,301
­
­
2,303,724
$
1,197,725
178,723
165,834
78,141
105,686
42,274
­
­
2,125
1,105
165
153
72
98
39
­
­
1.0
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
­
­
4,251
2,210
330
306
144
195
78
­
­
National
Totals
289
93,767
$
3,978,341
$
4,072,108
$
3,757
1.8
7,513
Grand
Totals
3,069
995,748
$
42,247,501
$
43,243,250
$
39,894
19.2
79,788
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:
(
A)
Taken
from
"
Baseline
for
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities."
(
B)
Semimonthly
source
water
monitoring
for
one
year
for
small
systems
and
monthly
samples
for
24
months
for
medium
and
large
systems,
plus
two
matrix
spike
samples.
(
C)
Estimate
of
labor
for
collecting
sample
and
shipping,
based
on
expert
opinion.
(
D)
All
size
categories
were
assumed
to
use
a
technical
rate
of
$
24.96/
hour,
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
rates.
(
F)
Cost
per
sample
includes
$
403
in
lab
costs,
$
88.70
for
shipping,
and
$
37.80
in
additional
costs.
Assume
all
plants
must
ship
samples
to
private
lab
for
Cryptosporidium
analysis.
Samples
must
be
shipped
overnight
to
meet
24­
hour
holding
time
requirements.
Costs
based
on
FedEx
priority
overnight
rates
for
10
L
sample
(
22
LB)
shipped
in
a
34­
quart
polyethylene
cooler
packed
with
wet
ice,
median
cost
for
all
zones.
Samples
generating
a
pellet
volume
of
>
0.5
ml
require
multiple
subsample
processing
at
a
cost
of
$
140
each.
During
the
ICR
Supplemental
Survey,
approximately
27
percent
of
field
samples
required
analysis
of
multiple
subsamples,
resulting
in
an
additional
per­
plant
charge
of
$
38
($
140
x
0.27).

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
25
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
15a
Total
Cost
Estimates
for
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
for
All
System
Types,
by
System
Size
Based
on
ICR
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A4
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Monitoring
Cryptosporidium
Sampling
Sample
Analysis
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)
Responses
#
of
Cryptosporidium
Samples
Hours
per
Sample
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Total
Sampling
Labor
Cost
Cost
per
Sample
Total
Laboratory
Analysis
Cost
(
O&
M)
A
B
C
D
E
=
A*
B*
C*
D
F
G
=
A*
B*
F
H
=
E+
G
I
=
A*
B*
C
J
=
I/
2080
K
=
A*
B
CWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
155
243
133
318
356
1,051
346
327
36
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
50,232
$
78,922
43,219
103,024
115,667
341,040
112,311
106,040
11,768
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
2,131,252
$
3,348,479
1,833,681
4,371,078
4,907,510
14,469,611
4,765,137
4,499,035
499,283
2,181,485
$
3,427,400
1,876,900
4,474,101
5,023,177
14,810,651
4,877,448
4,605,075
511,051
2,013
3,162
1,732
4,128
4,634
13,663
4,500
4,248
471
1.0
1.5
0.8
2.0
2.2
6.6
2.2
2.0
0.2
4,025
6,324
3,463
8,255
9,268
27,327
8,999
8,497
943
National
Totals
2,965
962,223
$
40,825,066
$
41,787,289
$
38,551
18.5
77,101
NTNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
59
69
25
16
4
3
­
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
19,145
$
22,368
7,961
5,213
1,232
970
­
­
­
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
812,289
$
949,010
337,783
221,168
52,276
41,150
­
­
­
831,434
$
971,378
345,745
226,380
53,508
42,120
­
­
­
767
896
319
209
49
39
­
­
­
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
­
­
­
1,534
1,792
638
418
99
78
­
­
­
National
Totals
175
56,889
$
2,413,676
$
2,470,565
$
2,279
1.1
4,558
TNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
222
115
17
16
8
8
3
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
71,884
$
37,373
5,577
5,175
2,438
2,434
973
­
­
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
3,049,888
$
1,585,662
236,611
219,547
103,451
103,253
41,301
­
­
3,121,772
$
1,623,035
242,188
224,722
105,889
105,686
42,274
­
­
2,880
1,497
223
207
98
98
39
­
­
1.4
0.7
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
­
­
5,760
2,995
447
415
195
195
78
­
­
National
Totals
388
125,854
$
5,339,713
$
5,465,567
$
5,042
2.4
10,084
Grand
Totals
3,529
1,144,965
$
48,578,455
$
49,723,420
$
45,872
22.1
91,744
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:
(
A)
Taken
from
"
Baseline
for
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities."
(
B)
Semimonthly
source
water
monitoring
for
one
year
for
small
systems
and
monthly
samples
for
24
months
for
medium
and
large
systems,
plus
two
matrix
spike
samples.
(
C)
Estimate
of
labor
for
collecting
sample
and
shipping,
based
on
expert
opinion.
(
D)
All
size
categories
were
assumed
to
use
a
technical
rate
of
$
24.96/
hour,
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
rates.
(
F)
Cost
per
sample
includes
$
403
in
lab
costs,
$
88.70
for
shipping,
and
$
37.80
in
additional
costs.
Assume
all
plants
must
ship
samples
to
private
lab
for
Cryptosporidium
analysis.
Samples
must
be
shipped
overnight
to
meet
24­
hour
holding
time
requirements.
Costs
based
on
FedEx
priority
overnight
rates
for
10
L
sample
(
22
LB)
shipped
in
a
34­
quart
polyethylene
cooler
packed
with
wet
ice,
median
cost
for
all
zones.
Samples
generating
a
pellet
volume
of
>
0.5
ml
require
multiple
subsample
processing
at
a
cost
of
$
140
each.
During
the
ICR
Supplemental
Survey,
approximately
27
percent
of
field
samples
required
analysis
of
multiple
subsamples,
resulting
in
an
additional
per­
plant
charge
of
$
38
($
140
x
0.27).

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
26
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
15b
Total
Cost
Estimates
for
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
for
All
System
Types,
by
System
Size
Based
on
ICRSSM
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A4
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Monitoring
Cryptosporidium
Sampling
Sample
Analysis
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)
Responses
#
of
Cryptosporidium
Samples
Hours
per
Sample
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Total
Sampling
Labor
Cost
Cost
per
Sample
Total
Laboratory
Analysis
Cost
(
O&
M)
A
B
C
D
E
=
A*
B*
C*
D
F
G
=
A*
B*
F
H
=
E+
G
I
=
A*
B*
C
J
=
I/
2080
K
=
A*
B
CWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
110
173
95
225
253
1,051
346
327
36
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
35,643
$
56,001
30,667
73,103
82,074
341,040
112,311
106,040
11,768
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
1,512,275
$
2,375,983
1,301,127
3,101,590
3,482,226
14,469,611
4,765,137
4,499,035
499,283
1,547,918
$
2,431,984
1,331,794
3,174,692
3,564,300
14,810,651
4,877,448
4,605,075
511,051
1,428
2,244
1,229
2,929
3,288
13,663
4,500
4,248
471
0.7
1.1
0.6
1.4
1.6
6.6
2.2
2.0
0.2
2,856
4,487
2,457
5,858
6,576
27,327
8,999
8,497
943
National
Totals
2,615
848,646
$
36,006,268
$
36,854,914
$
34,000
16.3
68,001
NTNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
42
49
17
11
3
3
­
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
13,585
$
15,871
5,649
3,699
874
970
­
­
­
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
576,376
$
673,390
239,681
156,934
37,094
41,150
­
­
­
589,961
$
689,262
245,330
160,633
37,968
42,120
­
­
­
544
636
226
148
35
39
­
­
­
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
­
­
­
1,089
1,272
453
296
70
78
­
­
­
National
Totals
125
40,648
$
1,724,625
$
1,765,274
$
1,629
0.8
3,257
TNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
157
82
12
11
5
8
3
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
51,007
$
26,519
3,957
3,672
1,730
2,434
973
­
­
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
2,164,112
$
1,125,140
167,892
155,784
73,406
103,253
41,301
­
­
2,215,119
$
1,151,659
171,850
159,456
75,136
105,686
42,274
­
­
2,044
1,062
159
147
69
98
39
­
­
1.0
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
­
­
4,087
2,125
317
294
139
195
78
­
­
National
Totals
278
90,292
$
3,830,888
$
3,921,180
$
3,617
1.7
7,235
Grand
Totals
3,019
979,586
$
41,561,781
$
42,541,367
$
39,246
18.9
78,493
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:
(
A)
Taken
from
"
Baseline
for
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities."
(
B)
Semimonthly
source
water
monitoring
for
one
year
for
small
systems
and
monthly
samples
for
24
months
for
medium
and
large
systems,
plus
two
matrix
spike
samples.
(
C)
Estimate
of
labor
for
collecting
sample
and
shipping,
based
on
expert
opinion.
(
D)
All
size
categories
were
assumed
to
use
a
technical
rate
of
$
24.96/
hour,
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
rates.
(
F)
Cost
per
sample
includes
$
403
in
lab
costs,
$
88.70
for
shipping,
and
$
37.80
in
additional
costs.
Assume
all
plants
must
ship
samples
to
private
lab
for
Cryptosporidium
analysis.
Samples
must
be
shipped
overnight
to
meet
24­
hour
holding
time
requirements.
Costs
based
on
FedEx
priority
overnight
rates
for
10
L
sample
(
22
LB)
shipped
in
a
34­
quart
polyethylene
cooler
packed
with
wet
ice,
median
cost
for
all
zones.
Samples
generating
a
pellet
volume
of
>
0.5
ml
require
multiple
subsample
processing
at
a
cost
of
$
140
each.
During
the
ICR
Supplemental
Survey,
approximately
27
percent
of
field
samples
required
analysis
of
multiple
subsamples,
resulting
in
an
additional
per­
plant
charge
of
$
38
($
140
x
0.27).

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
27
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
15c
Total
Cost
Estimates
for
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
for
All
System
Types,
by
System
Size
Based
on
ICRSSL
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A4
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Monitoring
Cryptosporidium
Sampling
Sample
Analysis
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)
Responses
#
of
Cryptosporidium
Samples
Hours
per
Sample
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Total
Sampling
Labor
Cost
Cost
per
Sample
Total
Laboratory
Analysis
Cost
(
O&
M)
A
B
C
D
E
=
A*
B*
C*
D
F
G
=
A*
B*
F
H
=
E+
G
I
=
A*
B*
C
J
=
I/
2080
K
=
A*
B
CWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
82
128
70
168
188
1,051
346
327
36
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
26,525
$
41,675
22,822
54,402
61,078
341,040
112,311
106,040
11,768
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
529.50
$
1,125,414
$
1,768,174
968,280
2,308,160
2,591,424
14,469,611
4,765,137
4,499,035
499,283
1,151,939
$
1,809,848
991,102
2,362,562
2,652,503
14,810,651
4,877,448
4,605,075
511,051
1,063
1,670
914
2,180
2,447
13,663
4,500
4,248
471
0.5
0.8
0.4
1.0
1.2
6.6
2.2
2.0
0.2
2,125
3,339
1,829
4,359
4,894
27,327
8,999
8,497
943
National
Totals
2,397
777,661
$
32,994,519
$
33,772,180
$
31,156
15.0
62,313
NTNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
31
36
13
8
2
3
­
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
10,110
$
11,811
4,204
2,753
651
970
­
­
­
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
428,931
$
501,128
178,367
116,788
27,604
41,150
­
­
­
439,041
$
512,939
182,571
119,541
28,255
42,120
­
­
­
405
473
168
110
26
39
­
­
­
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
­
­
­
810
946
337
221
52
78
­
­
­
National
Totals
94
30,498
$
1,293,969
$
1,324,467
$
1,222
0.6
2,444
TNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
117
61
9
8
4
8
3
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
37,959
$
19,735
2,945
2,732
1,288
2,434
973
­
­
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
1,610,502
$
837,313
124,943
115,933
54,627
103,253
41,301
­
­
1,648,461
$
857,048
127,888
118,665
55,915
105,686
42,274
­
­
1,521
791
118
109
52
98
39
­
­
0.7
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
­
­
3,042
1,581
236
219
103
195
78
­
­
National
Totals
210
68,065
$
2,887,872
$
2,955,937
$
2,727
1.3
5,454
Grand
Totals
2,700
876,225
$
37,176,359
$
38,052,584
$
35,105
16.9
70,210
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:
(
A)
Taken
from
"
Baseline
for
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities."
(
B)
Semimonthly
source
water
monitoring
for
one
year
for
small
systems
and
monthly
samples
for
24
months
for
medium
and
large
systems,
plus
two
matrix
spike
samples.
(
C)
Estimate
of
labor
for
collecting
sample
and
shipping,
based
on
expert
opinion.
(
D)
All
size
categories
were
assumed
to
use
a
technical
rate
of
$
24.96/
hour,
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
rates.
(
F)
Cost
per
sample
includes
$
403
in
lab
costs,
$
88.70
for
shipping,
and
$
37.80
in
additional
costs.
Assume
all
plants
must
ship
samples
to
private
lab
for
Cryptosporidium
analysis.
Samples
must
be
shipped
overnight
to
meet
24­
hour
holding
time
requirements.
Costs
based
on
FedEx
priority
overnight
rates
for
10
L
sample
(
22
LB)
shipped
in
a
34­
quart
polyethylene
cooler
packed
with
wet
ice,
median
cost
for
all
zones.
Samples
generating
a
pellet
volume
of
>
0.5
ml
require
multiple
subsample
processing
at
a
cost
of
$
140
each.
During
the
ICR
Supplemental
Survey,
approximately
27
percent
of
field
samples
required
analysis
of
multiple
subsamples,
resulting
in
an
additional
per­
plant
charge
of
$
38
($
140
x
0.27).

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
28
June
2003
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
D­
29
D.
4.3
PWS
Reporting
Costs
For
medium
and
large
systems,
EPA
will
collect
data
directly
from
the
approved
laboratories
on
an
ongoing
basis
(
i.
e.,
as
data
are
generated
they
will
be
entered
by
laboratories
into
an
EPA
database).
However,
medium
and
large
systems
will
still
review
the
data.
At
the
end
of
the
2­
year
monitoring
period,
EPA
will
give
the
results
of
the
monitoring
to
the
States/
Primacy
Agencies,
which
will
work
with
their
systems
to
determine
appropriate
compliance
steps.

Because
small
system
monitoring
is
expected
to
occur
after
States
achieve
primacy,
EPA
assumes
that
small
plants
will
report
monitoring
results
to
their
State/
Primacy
Agency.
Costs
associated
with
reporting
would
include
the
amount
of
time
it
takes
for
a
plant
to
gather
monitoring
information
and
submit
it
to
their
State/
Primacy
Agency
for
review.
Since
the
exact
schedule
of
reporting
to
States
is
not
set
in
the
rule,
there
may
be
some
variation
in
reporting
effort
from
State
to
State.

For
this
analysis,
0.25
hours
per
sample
(
6.5
hours
for
small
plants
and
6
hours
for
medium
and
large
plants)
is
used
to
estimate
costs.

Reporting
costs
for
small
plants
serving
up
to
500
people
are
based
on
the
full
technical
rate
($
24.96
per
hour).
For
those
plants
serving
more
than
500
people,
costs
are
based
on
an
80/
20
percent
split
between
technical
and
managerial
labor
rates
(
the
split
was
between
$
24.96
per
hour
and
$
44.91
per
hour)
(
BLS
2001).
The
costs
of
reporting
are
presented
in
Exhibit
D.
16
for
CWSs,
NTNCWSs,
and
TNCWSs,
respectively.
The
number
of
plants
reporting
is
the
same
for
the
ICR,
ICRSSM,
and
ICRSSL
occurrence
distributions.
Exhibit
D.
16
Reporting
Cost
and
Labor
Estimates
for
Bin
Classification
Monitoring
for
All
Regulatory
Alternatives
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Hours
per
Plant
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Reporting
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)
A
B
C
D
=
A*
B*
C
E
=
A*
C
F
=
E/
2080
CWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6
6
6
6
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
511
803
440
1,048
1,176
1,051
346
327
36
82,892
$
130,234
82,719
197,183
221,381
182,565
60,122
56,765
6,300
3,321
5,218
2,857
6,811
7,647
6,306
2,077
1,961
218
1.6
2.5
1.4
3.3
3.7
3.0
1.0
0.9
0.1
National
Totals
5,738
1,020,160
$
36,416
17.5
NTNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6
6
6
6
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
195
228
81
53
13
3
0
0
0
31,593
$
36,910
15,238
9,977
2,358
519
­
­
­
1,266
1,479
526
345
81
18
­
­
­
0.6
0.7
0.3
0.2
0.0
0.0
­
­
­
National
Totals
572
96,595
$
3,715
1.8
TNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6
6
6
6
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
731
380
57
53
25
8
3
0
0
118,621
$
61,672
10,674
9,904
4,667
1,303
521
­
­
4,752
2,471
369
342
161
45
18
­
­
2.3
1.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
­
­
National
Totals
1,256
207,361
$
8,158
3.9
Grand
Totals
7,565
1,324,115
$
48,289
23.2
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:
(
A)
Hours
per
plant
reporting
to
the
State/
Primacy
Agency
for
bin
classification
exemption
and
to
report
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
data
and
bin
classification.
Assumes
15
minutes
per
sample.
Based
on
24
monthly
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
samples
for
medium
and
large
systems
and
26
biweekly
E.
coli
and
24
semimonthly
Cryptosporidium
samples
for
small
systems.
Although
small
systems
will
not
report
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
results
at
the
same
time,
the
additional
reporting
burden
is
assumed
to
be
negligible.
The
decrease
in
burden
for
small
plants
that
report
E.
coli
but
are
exempt
from
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
is
also
assumed
to
be
negligible.
(
B)
For
plants
serving
up
to
500
people,
the
full
technical
rate
($
24.96/
hour)
was
applied.
For
plants
serving
more
than
500
people,
costs
are
based
on
an
80%/
20%
split
between
technical
and
managerial
($
44.91/
hour)
rates.
Rates
are
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
data.

(
C)
Taken
from
"
Baseline
for
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities,"
column
D.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
30
June
2003
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
D­
31
D.
4.4
Initial
and
Future
Monitoring
Costs
for
States/
Primacy
Agencies
States/
Primacy
Agencies
will
incur
costs
as
a
result
of
the
small
system
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
monitoring.
To
estimate
State/
Primacy
Agency
costs,
the
number
of
FTEs
required
per
activity
is
multiplied
by
the
number
of
labor
hours
per
FTE,
the
State/
Primacy
Agency
labor
hour
cost,
and
the
number
of
States
and
Territories.

The
number
of
FTEs
required
per
activity
was
estimated
by
EPA
based
on
similar
rules.
States/
Primacy
Agencies
are
expected
to
work
with
the
small
systems
conducting
monitoring
to
review
data
and
make
bin
classification
determinations.
State/
Primacy
Agency
activities
include:

°
Analyzing
monitoring
reports
and
determining
bin
classification
 
0.3
FTEs
for
initial
E.
coli
monitoring,
0.2
FTEs
for
initial
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
and
future
E.
coli
monitoring,
and
0.1
FTEs
for
future
Cryptosporidium
monitoring.

°
Consultation
with
PWSs
 
same
number
of
FTEs
as
for
analyzing
monitoring
reports
and
determining
bin
classification.

°
Conducting
recordkeeping
 
0.25
FTEs.

State/
Primacy
Agency
labor
rates,
as
stated
in
Chapter
6,
section
6.1.1,
are
$
28.89.
The
number
of
States
and
Territories
is
estimated
as
the
sum
of
the
50
States
in
the
United
States,
6
Territories,
and
1
Indian
Tribe.
EPA
estimates
the
national
total
monitoring
cost
for
States/
Primacy
Agencies
to
be
$
10.4
million
for
initial
and
future
monitoring
combined.
State
costs
are
expected
to
be
minimal
during
the
initial
phase
of
monitoring
for
large
and
medium
systems
because
EPA
will
be
analyzing
the
data.

The
initial
monitoring
costs
for
States/
Primacy
Agencies
are
presented
in
Exhibit
D.
17a.
The
future
(
rebinning)
monitoring
costs
for
States/
Primacy
Agencies
are
presented
in
Exhibits
D.
17b.
Exhibit
D.
17a
State
Reporting
Costs
and
Labor
Estimate
for
Initial
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
for
Small
Systems
State
Activity
FTEs
per
State
for
E.
coli
Monitoring
Total
Hours
for
E.
coli
FTEs
Per
State
for
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
Total
Hours
for
Cryptosporidium
Total
FTEs
Per
State
Total
Hours
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Total
Cost
A
B
=
A*
2080
C
D
=
C*
2080
E
=
A+
C
F
=
B+
D
G
H
=
F*
G
Analyze
PWS
Report
and
Make
Bin
Classifications
0.3
624
0.2
416
0.5
1040
28.89
$
30,046
$
Respond
to
PWS
0.3
624
0.2
416
0.5
1040
28.89
30,046
Recordkeeping
0.25
520
0.25
520
0.5
1040
28.89
30,046
Totals
per
State
0.9
1,768
0.7
1,352
2
3,120
90,137
$
National
Totals
(
57
States/
Primacy
Agencies)
48.5
100,776
37.1
77,064
86
177,840
5,137,798
$
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
All
States/
Primacy
Agencies
are
assumed
to
incur
some
costs
for
each
activitiy.
1
FTE
=
2,080
hours
(
40
hours/
week;
52
weeks/
year)
Sources:
(
A),
(
C)
EPA
estimated
FTEs
based
on
experience
with
similar
regulations.
(
G)
Based
on
information
gathered
during
the
development
of
the
State
Workload
Model.

Exhibit
D.
17b
State
Reporting
Costs
and
Labor
Estimate
for
Future
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
State
Activity
FTEs
per
State
for
E.
coli
Monitoring
in
Small
Systems
Total
Hours
for
E.
coli
in
Small
Systems
FTEs
Per
State
for
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
in
Small
Systems
Total
Hours
for
Cryptosporidium
in
Small
Systems
FTEs
Per
State
for
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
in
Medium
&
Large
Systems
Total
Hours
for
Cryptosporidium
in
Medium
&
Large
Systems
Total
FTEs
Per
State
Total
Hours
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Total
Cost
A
B
=
A*
2080
C
D
=
C*
2080
E
F
=
E*
2080
G
=
A+
C+
E
H
=
B+
D+
F
I
J
=
H*
I
Analyze
PWS
Report
and
Make
Bin
Classifications
0.2
416
0.1
208
0.1
208
0.4
832
28.89
$
24,036
$
Respond
to
PWS
0.2
416
0.1
208
0.1
208
0.4
832
28.89
24,036
$
Recordkeeping
0.25
520
0.25
520
0.25
520
0.75
1560
28.89
45,068
$
Totals
per
State
0.7
1,352
0.5
936
0.5
936
1.6
3,224
93,141
$
National
Totals
(
57
States/
Primacy
Agencies)
37.1
77,064
25.7
53,352
25.7
53,352
88.4
183,768
5,309,058
$
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
All
States/
Primacy
Agencies
are
assumed
to
incur
some
costs
for
each
activity.
1
FTE
=
2,080
hours
(
40
hours/
week;
52
weeks/
year)
Sources:
(
A),
(
C),
(
E)
EPA
estimated
FTEs
based
on
experience
with
similar
regulations.
(
I)
Based
on
information
gathered
during
the
development
of
the
State
Workload
Model.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
32
June
2003
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
D­
33
D.
5
Technology
Compliance
Reporting
D.
5.1
State
Burden
for
Reviewing
Technology
Compliance
Reports
PWSs
of
all
sizes
that
install
new
technology
as
a
result
of
their
bin
classifications
will
be
required
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
certain
criteria
for
each
technology.
States
and
Primacy
Agencies
are
expected
to
review
the
data
PWSs
submit
for
this
purpose.
This
burden
is
estimated
to
be
0.5
hours
per
plant
reviewed
per
month,
or
6
hours
per
year
per
plant.
The
number
of
plants
reporting
is
expected
to
vary
with
the
occurrence
distribution
used
and
the
regulatory
alternative
chosen.
The
labor
rate
for
States
and
Primacy
Agencies
is
the
same
as
for
other
exhibits
calculating
State
costs
 
$
28.89.
The
State
burden
and
cost
for
reviewing
reports
on
compliance
with
each
technology
are
shown
in
Exhibits
D.
18
to
D.
20.
Exhibit
D.
18a
Burden
and
Cost
to
States
Associated
with
Reviewing
Plants'
Reports
on
Technology
Compliance
Based
on
ICR
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A2
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Number
of
Plants
Installing
UV
Number
of
Plants
Installing
MF/
UF
Number
of
Unfiltered
Plants
Installing
Ozone
Number
of
Plants
Installing
Bank
Filtration
Total
Plants
Annual
Labor
Hours
per
Plant
Labor
Rate
Total
Annual
Labor
Hours
Total
Annual
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
=
A+
B+
C+
D
F
G
H
=
E*
F
I
=
G*
H
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
157
134
131
253
286
364
132
120
23
118
69
36
22
21
23
6
6
1
­
­
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
­
­
­
­
­
3
1
1
0
275
204
168
276
309
391
139
128
24
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
28.89
$
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
1,649
1,222
1,007
1,658
1,857
2,346
836
766
145
47,632
$
35,305
29,088
47,914
53,644
67,784
24,146
22,124
4,185
Totals
1,600
302
7
6
1,914
11,486
331,821
$

Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
UV
stands
for
ultraviolet
disinfection
and
MF/
UF
stands
for
microfiltration/
ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(
A),
(
B),
(
C)
Taken
from
Appendix
G
of
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR.
(
F)
Based
on
an
estimate
of
0.5
hours
per
month
needed
to
review
each
plant's
reports.
(
G)
Based
on
information
gathered
during
the
development
of
the
State
Workload
Model.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
34
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
18b
Burden
and
Cost
to
States
Associated
with
Reviewing
Plants'
Reports
on
Technology
Compliance
Based
on
ICRSSM
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A2
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Number
of
Plants
Installing
UV
Number
of
Plants
Installing
MF/
UF
Number
of
Unfiltered
Plants
Installing
Ozone
Number
of
Plants
Installing
Bank
Filtration
Total
Plants
Annual
Labor
Hours
per
Plant
Labor
Rate
Total
Annual
Labor
Hours
Total
Annual
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
=
A+
B+
C+
D
F
G
H
=
E*
F
I
=
G*
H
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
88
77
94
181
207
299
108
99
20
118
69
36
21
20
20
5
5
0
­
­
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
­
­
­
­
­
3
1
1
0
206
147
130
203
230
323
114
105
21
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
28.89
$
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
1,236
881
780
1,220
1,379
1,937
687
631
127
35,716
$
25,464
22,523
35,254
39,831
55,966
19,840
18,222
3,672
Totals
1,172
295
7
5
1,480
8,878
256,487
$

Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
UV
stands
for
ultraviolet
disinfection
and
MF/
UF
stands
for
microfiltration/
ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(
A),
(
B),
(
C)
Taken
from
Appendix
G
of
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR.
(
F)
Based
on
an
estimate
of
0.5
hours
per
month
needed
to
review
each
plant's
reports.
(
G)
Based
on
information
gathered
during
the
development
of
the
State
Workload
Model.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
35
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
18c
Burden
and
Cost
to
States
Associated
with
Reviewing
Plants'
Reports
on
Technology
Compliance
Based
on
ICRSSL
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A2
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Number
of
Plants
Installing
UV
Number
of
Plants
Installing
MF/
UF
Number
of
Unfiltered
Plants
Installing
Ozone
Number
of
Plants
Installing
Bank
Filtration
Total
Plants
Annual
Labor
Hours
per
Plant
Labor
Rate
Total
Annual
Labor
Hours
Total
Annual
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
=
A+
B+
C+
D
F
G
H
=
E*
F
I
=
G*
H
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
70
63
74
144
167
252
91
83
18
118
69
36
21
20
19
5
5
0
­
­
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
­
­
­
­
­
3
1
1
0
188
132
111
166
189
275
97
89
19
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
28.89
$
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
1,130
794
664
998
1,136
1,651
582
536
115
32,659
$
22,939
19,190
28,825
32,817
47,696
16,825
15,485
3,312
Totals
963
293
7
5
1,268
7,606
219,747
$

Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
UV
stands
for
ultraviolet
disinfection
and
MF/
UF
stands
for
microfiltration/
ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(
A),
(
B),
(
C)
Taken
from
Appendix
G
of
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR.
(
F)
Based
on
an
estimate
of
0.5
hours
per
month
needed
to
review
each
plant's
reports.
(
G)
Based
on
information
gathered
during
the
development
of
the
State
Workload
Model.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
36
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
19a
Burden
and
Cost
to
States
Associated
with
Reviewing
Plants'
Reports
on
Technology
Compliance
Based
on
ICR
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A3
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Number
of
Plants
Installing
UV
Number
of
Plants
Installing
MF/
UF
Number
of
Unfiltered
Plants
Installing
Ozone
Number
of
Plants
Installing
Bank
Filtration
Total
Plants
Annual
Labor
Hours
per
Plant
Labor
Rate
Total
Annual
Labor
Hours
Total
Annual
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
=
A+
B+
C+
D
F
G
H
=
E*
F
I
=
G*
H
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
100
87
60
117
138
333
121
106
21
118
69
36
21
20
20
5
5
0
­
­
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
­
­
­
­
­
3
1
1
0
218
156
97
140
160
358
127
112
22
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
28.89
$
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
1,305
938
581
837
961
2,149
764
674
133
37,703
$
27,105
16,788
24,195
27,764
62,076
22,067
19,486
3,838
Totals
1,083
296
7
5
1,390
8,343
241,022
$

Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
UV
stands
for
ultraviolet
disinfection
and
MF/
UF
stands
for
microfiltration/
ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(
A),
(
B),
(
C)
Taken
from
Appendix
G
of
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR.
(
F)
Based
on
an
estimate
of
0.5
hours
per
month
needed
to
review
each
plant's
reports.
(
G)
Based
on
information
gathered
during
the
development
of
the
State
Workload
Model.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
37
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
19b
Burden
and
Cost
to
States
Associated
with
Reviewing
Plants'
Reports
on
Technology
Compliance
Based
on
ICRSSM
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A3
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Number
of
Plants
Installing
UV
Number
of
Plants
Installing
MF/
UF
Number
of
Unfiltered
Plants
Installing
Ozone
Number
of
Plants
Installing
Bank
Filtration
Total
Plants
Annual
Labor
Hours
per
Plant
Labor
Rate
Total
Annual
Labor
Hours
Total
Annual
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
=
A+
B+
C+
D
F
G
H
=
E*
F
I
=
G*
H
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
56
51
29
57
72
260
94
82
18
118
69
36
21
20
18
4
4
0
­
­
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
­
­
­
­
­
2
1
1
0
174
120
65
79
94
282
99
88
19
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
28.89
$
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
1,042
721
392
472
563
1,691
597
525
113
30,092
$
20,819
11,320
13,649
16,258
48,843
17,243
15,168
3,270
Totals
717
291
7
4
1,019
6,115
176,660
$

Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
UV
stands
for
ultraviolet
disinfection
and
MF/
UF
stands
for
microfiltration/
ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(
A),
(
B),
(
C)
Taken
from
Appendix
G
of
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR.
(
F)
Based
on
an
estimate
of
0.5
hours
per
month
needed
to
review
each
plant's
reports.
(
G)
Based
on
information
gathered
during
the
development
of
the
State
Workload
Model.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
38
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
19c
Burden
and
Cost
to
States
Associated
with
Reviewing
Plants'
Reports
on
Technology
Compliance
Based
on
ICRSSL
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A3
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Number
of
Plants
Installing
UV
Number
of
Plants
Installing
MF/
UF
Number
of
Unfiltered
Plants
Installing
Ozone
Number
of
Plants
Installing
Bank
Filtration
Total
Plants
Annual
Labor
Hours
per
Plant
Labor
Rate
Total
Annual
Labor
Hours
Total
Annual
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
=
A+
B+
C+
D
F
G
H
=
E*
F
I
=
G*
H
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
43
40
21
40
54
215
78
68
16
118
69
36
21
20
17
4
4
0
­
­
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
­
­
­
­
­
2
1
1
0
161
110
57
63
76
236
83
73
17
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
28.89
$
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
966
658
341
375
456
1,417
497
438
102
27,907
$
19,015
9,860
10,834
13,187
40,928
14,357
12,663
2,940
Totals
575
290
7
3
875
5,251
151,691
$

Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
UV
stands
for
ultraviolet
disinfection
and
MF/
UF
stands
for
microfiltration/
ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(
A),
(
B),
(
C)
Taken
from
Appendix
G
of
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR.
(
F)
Based
on
an
estimate
of
0.5
hours
per
month
needed
to
review
each
plant's
reports.
(
G)
Based
on
information
gathered
during
the
development
of
the
State
Workload
Model.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
39
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
20a
Burden
and
Cost
to
States
Associated
with
Reviewing
Plants'
Reports
on
Technology
Compliance
Based
on
ICR
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A4
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Number
of
Plants
Installing
UV
Number
of
Plants
Installing
MF/
UF
Number
of
Unfiltered
Plants
Installing
Ozone
Number
of
Plants
Installing
Bank
Filtration
Total
Plants
Annual
Labor
Hours
per
Plant
Labor
Rate
Total
Annual
Labor
Hours
Total
Annual
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
=
A+
B+
C+
D
F
G
H
=
E*
F
I
=
G*
H
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
42
39
18
35
48
133
48
43
13
118
69
36
21
20
17
4
4
0
­
­
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
­
­
­
­
­
1
0
0
0
160
109
54
57
70
153
53
48
14
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
28.89
$
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
958
652
324
342
421
918
315
286
82
27,682
$
18,829
9,370
9,889
12,155
26,519
9,103
8,276
2,363
Totals
419
289
7
2
716
4,299
124,186
$

Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
UV
stands
for
ultraviolet
disinfection
and
MF/
UF
stands
for
microfiltration/
ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(
A),
(
B),
(
C)
Taken
from
Appendix
G
of
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR.
(
F)
Based
on
an
estimate
of
0.5
hours
per
month
needed
to
review
each
plant's
reports.
(
G)
Based
on
information
gathered
during
the
development
of
the
State
Workload
Model.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
40
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
20b
Burden
and
Cost
to
States
Associated
with
Reviewing
Plants'
Reports
on
Technology
Compliance
Based
on
ICRSSM
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A4
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Number
of
Plants
Installing
UV
Number
of
Plants
Installing
MF/
UF
Number
of
Unfiltered
Plants
Installing
Ozone
Number
of
Plants
Installing
Bank
Filtration
Total
Plants
Annual
Labor
Hours
per
Plant
Labor
Rate
Total
Annual
Labor
Hours
Total
Annual
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
=
A+
B+
C+
D
F
G
H
=
E*
F
I
=
G*
H
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
28
27
14
27
40
76
27
25
10
118
69
36
21
20
17
4
4
0
­
­
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
­
­
­
­
­
1
0
0
0
145
97
50
49
62
95
31
30
11
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
28.89
$
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
873
581
300
295
370
568
187
177
67
25,218
$
16,793
8,669
8,536
10,679
16,397
5,411
5,122
1,948
Totals
274
288
7
1
570
3,419
98,773
$

Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
UV
stands
for
ultraviolet
disinfection
and
MF/
UF
stands
for
microfiltration/
ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(
A),
(
B),
(
C)
Taken
from
Appendix
G
of
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR.
(
F)
Based
on
an
estimate
of
0.5
hours
per
month
needed
to
review
each
plant's
reports.
(
G)
Based
on
information
gathered
during
the
development
of
the
State
Workload
Model.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
41
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
20c
Burden
and
Cost
to
States
Associated
with
Reviewing
Plants'
Reports
on
Technology
Compliance
Based
on
ICRSSL
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A4
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Number
of
Plants
Installing
UV
Number
of
Plants
Installing
MF/
UF
Number
of
Unfiltered
Plants
Installing
Ozone
Number
of
Plants
Installing
Bank
Filtration
Total
Plants
Annual
Labor
Hours
per
Plant
Labor
Rate
Total
Annual
Labor
Hours
Total
Annual
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
=
A+
B+
C+
D
F
G
H
=
E*
F
I
=
G*
H
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
20
21
12
23
35
54
19
18
9
118
69
36
21
20
16
4
4
0
­
­
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
­
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
138
91
48
45
57
73
23
23
10
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
28.89
$
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
828
544
287
271
343
436
139
136
62
23,930
$
15,730
8,302
7,829
9,908
12,595
4,025
3,924
1,790
Totals
213
287
7
1
508
3,047
88,033
$

Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
UV
stands
for
ultraviolet
disinfection
and
MF/
UF
stands
for
microfiltration/
ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(
A),
(
B),
(
C)
Taken
from
Appendix
G
of
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR.
(
F)
Based
on
an
estimate
of
0.5
hours
per
month
needed
to
review
each
plant's
reports.
(
G)
Based
on
information
gathered
during
the
development
of
the
State
Workload
Model.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
42
June
2003
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
D­
43
D.
5.2
Technology
Compliance
Reporting
for
Plants
In
order
to
get
log
removal
credit
for
Cryptosporidium,
PWSs
will
be
required
to
demonstrate
that
they
are
complying
with
design
and
operational
criteria
for
any
new
toolbox
technologies
they
install.
For
some
technologies
the
demonstration
of
compliance
will
be
similar
to
that
required
for
existing
technologies,
and
no
additional
burden
will
be
incurred.
For
instance,
the
combined
filter
performance
toolbox
option
requires
monitoring
of
turbidity
of
the
effluent
from
each
filter;
systems
are
already
required
to
do
the
same
monitoring
under
the
IESWTR
and
the
LT1ESWTR.
No
new
burden
is
assumed
for
these
systems.
Other
technologies
are
assumed
to
be
implemented
by
few
systems
(
based
on
technology
distributions
modeled
for
the
LT2ESWTR
EA),
so
burden
for
demonstrating
compliance
for
them
is
negligible.
Few
systems,
for
example,
are
expected
to
implement
watershed
control
programs
for
log
removal
credit.

The
labor
for
filtered
plants
for
each
regulatory
alternative
and
occurrence
distribution
is
shown
in
Exhibits
D.
21
through
D.
23.
For
filtered
plants,
new
burden
is
predicted
to
be
incurred
only
by
systems
switching
to
UV,
microfiltration/
ultrafiltration,
and
bank
filtration.

For
unfiltered
plants,
reporting
costs
are
predicted
to
be
incurred
only
by
systems
(
CWSs
only)
installing
UV
or
ozone
for
disinfection
(
on
top
of
their
existing
disinfectants).
No
unfiltered
plants
are
predicted
to
add
chlorine
dioxide
disinfection.
The
reporting
costs
for
unfiltered
plants
are
shown
in
D.
24.
There
is
only
one
exhibit
for
unfiltered
plants
because
they
have
only
one
regulatory
alternative
and
one
occurrence
distribution
(
for
the
ICR).

Reporting
costs
for
small
plants
serving
up
to
500
people
are
based
on
the
full
technical
rate
($
24.96
per
hour).
For
those
plants
serving
more
than
500
people,
costs
are
based
on
an
80/
20
percent
split
between
technical
and
managerial
labor
rates
(
the
split
was
between
$
24.96
per
hour
and
$
44.91
per
hour)
(
BLS
2001).

The
reporting
and
recordkeeping
burden
for
each
plant
is
assumed
to
be
3
hours
per
month,
or
36
hours
per
year.
Exhibit
D.
21a
Filtered
Plant
Burden
and
Cost
for
Preparing
Reports
Demonstrating
Technology
Compliance
Based
on
ICR
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A2
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Number
of
Plants
Installing
UV
Number
of
Plants
Installing
MF/
UF
Number
of
Plants
Installing
Bank
Filtration
Total
Plants
Annual
Labor
Hours
per
Plant
Labor
Rate
Total
Annual
Labor
Hours
Total
Annual
Costs
A
B
C
D=
A+
B+
C
E
F
G=
D*
E
H=
F*
G
CWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
33
66
87
212
251
342
125
114
15
73
51
29
21
21
23
6
6
1
­
­
­
­
­
3
1
1
0
106
116
116
232
272
368
133
121
16
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
3,825
4,189
4,169
8,366
9,777
13,240
4,775
4,353
567
95,462
$
104,548
120,681
242,192
283,054
383,297
138,241
126,021
16,410
National
Totals
1,245
229
6
1,479
53,260
1,509,905
$
NTNCWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
20
22
21
14
5
2
0
0
­
45
19
7
1
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
­
65
41
28
16
5
3
0
0
­
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
2,332
1,489
996
565
183
92
12
11
­
58,218
$
37,158
28,835
16,346
5,295
2,668
333
330
­
National
Totals
85
73
0
158
5,680
149,183
$
TNCWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
103
40
17
14
7
3
1
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
0
0
­
­
103
40
17
14
7
3
1
­
­
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
3,699
1,457
624
517
239
112
34
­
­
92,334
$
36,365
18,078
14,953
6,919
3,241
972
­
­
National
Totals
185
0
0
186
6,682
172,862
$
Grand
Totals
1,515
302
6
1,823
65,622
1,831,950
$

Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
UV
stands
for
ultraviolet
disinfection
and
MF/
UF
stands
for
microfiltration/
ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(
A),
(
B),
(
C)
Taken
from
Appendix
G
of
the
LT2ESWTR.
(
E)
Based
on
an
estimate
of
3
hours
per
month
to
prepare
each
report.
(
F)
For
plants
serving
up
to
500
people,
the
full
technical
rate
($
24.96/
hour)
was
applied.
For
plants
serving
more
than
500
people,
costs
are
based
on
an
80%/
20%
split
between
technical
and
managerial
($
44.91/
hour)
rates.
Rates
are
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
data.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
44
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
21b
Filtered
Plant
Burden
and
Cost
for
Preparing
Reports
Demonstrating
Technology
Compliance
Based
on
ICRSSM
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A2
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Number
of
Plants
Installing
UV
Number
of
Plants
Installing
MF/
UF
Number
of
Plants
Installing
Bank
Filtration
Total
Plants
Annual
Labor
Hours
per
Plant
Labor
Rate
Total
Annual
Labor
Hours
Total
Annual
Costs
A
B
C
D=
A+
B+
C
E
F
G=
D*
E
H=
F*
G
CWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
18
37
61
148
175
278
102
93
12
73
51
29
20
20
20
5
5
0
­
­
­
­
­
3
1
1
0
92
87
89
168
195
301
108
98
13
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
3,301
3,143
3,220
6,049
7,031
10,828
3,890
3,545
460
82,387
$
78,459
93,231
175,118
203,560
313,457
112,622
102,625
13,323
National
Totals
924
222
5
1,152
41,468
1,174,783
$
NTNCWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
11
13
14
10
3
2
0
0
­
45
19
7
1
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
­
56
31
21
11
4
2
0
0
­
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
2,013
1,133
769
408
132
74
9
9
­
50,244
$
28,271
22,276
11,819
3,829
2,132
267
263
­
National
Totals
54
72
0
126
4,548
119,101
$
TNCWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
57
23
12
10
5
2
1
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
0
0
­
­
57
23
12
10
5
2
1
­
­
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
2,068
814
436
360
167
88
27
­
­
51,613
$
20,328
12,616
10,436
4,829
2,560
768
­
­
National
Totals
110
0
0
110
3,960
103,150
$
Grand
Totals
1,088
295
5
1,388
49,976
1,397,033
$

Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
UV
stands
for
ultraviolet
disinfection
and
MF/
UF
stands
for
microfiltration/
ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(
A),
(
B),
(
C)
Taken
from
Appendix
G
of
the
LT2ESWTR.

(
E)
Based
on
an
estimate
of
3
hours
per
month
to
prepare
each
report.
(
F)
For
plants
serving
up
to
500
people,
the
full
technical
rate
($
24.96/
hour)
was
applied.
For
plants
serving
more
than
500
people,
costs
are
based
on
an
80%/
20%
split
between
technical
and
managerial
($
44.91/
hour)
rates.
Rates
are
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
data.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
45
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
21c
Filtered
Plant
Burden
and
Cost
for
Preparing
Reports
Demonstrating
Technology
Compliance
Based
on
ICRSSL
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A2
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Number
of
Plants
Installing
UV
Number
of
Plants
Installing
MF/
UF
Number
of
Plants
Installing
Bank
Filtration
Total
Plants
Annual
Labor
Hours
per
Plant
Labor
Rate
Total
Annual
Labor
Hours
Total
Annual
Costs
A
B
C
D=
A+
B+
C
E
F
G=
D*
E
H=
F*
G
CWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
15
29
47
115
137
232
85
77
10
73
51
29
20
20
19
5
5
0
­
­
­
­
­
3
1
1
0
88
80
76
135
157
254
91
83
11
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
3,166
2,875
2,739
4,872
5,637
9,137
3,270
2,978
385
79,033
$
71,766
79,292
141,058
163,193
264,513
94,668
86,212
11,158
National
Totals
749
220
5
974
35,060
990,893
$
NTNCWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
9
10
11
8
3
2
0
0
­
45
19
7
1
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
­
54
29
18
9
3
2
0
0
­
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
1,931
1,041
654
329
107
62
8
8
­
48,199
$
25,991
18,946
9,520
3,084
1,791
224
220
­
National
Totals
43
72
0
115
4,139
107,976
$
TNCWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
46
18
9
8
4
2
1
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
0
0
­
­
46
18
9
8
4
2
1
­
­
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
1,649
650
340
281
130
73
22
­
­
41,167
$
16,213
9,843
8,142
3,767
2,126
638
­
­
National
Totals
87
0
0
87
3,146
81,896
$
Grand
Totals
879
293
5
1,176
42,346
1,180,764
$

Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
UV
stands
for
ultraviolet
disinfection
and
MF/
UF
stands
for
microfiltration/
ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(
A),
(
B),
(
C)
Taken
from
Appendix
G
of
the
LT2ESWTR.
(
E)
Based
on
an
estimate
of
3
hours
per
month
to
prepare
each
report.
(
F)
For
plants
serving
up
to
500
people,
the
full
technical
rate
($
24.96/
hour)
was
applied.
For
plants
serving
more
than
500
people,
costs
are
based
on
an
80%/
20%
split
between
technical
and
managerial
($
44.91/
hour)
rates.
Rates
are
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
data.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
46
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
22a
Filtered
Plant
Burden
and
Cost
for
Preparing
Reports
Demonstrating
Technology
Compliance
Based
on
ICR
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A3
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Number
of
Plants
Installing
UV
Number
of
Plants
Installing
MF/
UF
Number
of
Plants
Installing
Bank
Filtration
Total
Plants
Annual
Labor
Hours
per
Plant
Labor
Rate
Total
Annual
Labor
Hours
Total
Annual
Costs
A
B
C
D=
A+
B+
C
E
F
G=
D*
E
H=
F*
G
CWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
21
42
38
92
109
312
115
100
13
73
51
29
20
20
20
5
5
0
­
­
­
­
­
3
1
1
0
94
92
66
112
129
335
121
106
14
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
3,388
3,318
2,392
4,025
4,633
12,076
4,348
3,807
495
84,568
$
82,809
69,251
116,525
134,117
349,599
125,880
110,206
14,323
National
Totals
841
223
5
1,069
38,481
1,087,279
$
NTNCWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
13
14
9
6
2
2
0
0
­
45
19
7
1
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
­
57
33
16
8
2
2
0
0
­
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
2,066
1,192
572
272
88
83
10
10
­
51,574
$
29,753
16,547
7,864
2,548
2,393
299
284
­
National
Totals
47
72
0
119
4,292
111,262
$
TNCWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
65
26
7
6
3
3
1
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
0
0
­
­
65
26
8
6
3
3
1
­
­
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
2,340
922
271
224
104
100
30
­
­
58,404
$
23,002
7,845
6,489
3,003
2,892
868
­
­
National
Totals
111
0
0
111
3,990
102,503
$
Grand
Totals
998
296
5
1,299
46,764
1,301,044
$

Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
UV
stands
for
ultraviolet
disinfection
and
MF/
UF
stands
for
microfiltration/
ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(
A),
(
B),
(
C)
Taken
from
Appendix
G
of
the
LT2ESWTR.
(
E)
Based
on
an
estimate
of
3
hours
per
month
to
prepare
each
report.
(
F)
For
plants
serving
up
to
500
people,
the
full
technical
rate
($
24.96/
hour)
was
applied.
For
plants
serving
more
than
500
people,
costs
are
based
on
an
80%/
20%
split
between
technical
and
managerial
($
44.91/
hour)
rates.
Rates
are
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
data.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
47
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
22b
Filtered
Plant
Burden
and
Cost
for
Preparing
Reports
Demonstrating
Technology
Compliance
Based
on
ICRSSM
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A3
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Number
of
Plants
Installing
UV
Number
of
Plants
Installing
MF/
UF
Number
of
Plants
Installing
Bank
Filtration
Total
Plants
Annual
Labor
Hours
per
Plant
Labor
Rate
Total
Annual
Labor
Hours
Total
Annual
Costs
A
B
C
D=
A+
B+
C
E
F
G=
D*
E
H=
F*
G
CWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
12
23
16
39
46
240
88
76
10
73
51
29
20
20
18
4
4
0
­
­
­
­
­
2
1
1
0
85
74
45
58
65
260
93
81
10
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
3,054
2,650
1,602
2,095
2,345
9,372
3,356
2,912
377
76,216
$
66,144
46,385
60,651
67,897
271,308
97,161
84,311
10,907
National
Totals
548
219
4
771
27,763
780,979
$
NTNCWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
7
8
4
3
1
2
0
0
­
45
19
7
1
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
­
52
27
11
4
1
2
0
0
­
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
1,862
965
383
141
46
63
8
7
­
46,481
$
24,076
11,083
4,093
1,326
1,836
229
215
­
National
Totals
24
72
0
97
3,476
89,340
$
TNCWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
36
14
3
3
1
2
1
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
0
0
­
­
36
14
3
3
1
2
1
­
­
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
1,298
511
114
94
44
75
23
­
­
32,393
$
12,758
3,296
2,726
1,261
2,182
655
­
­
National
Totals
60
0
0
60
2,159
55,271
$
Grand
Totals
632
291
4
928
33,397
925,590
$

Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
UV
stands
for
ultraviolet
disinfection
and
MF/
UF
stands
for
microfiltration/
ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(
A),
(
B),
(
C)
Taken
from
Appendix
G
of
the
LT2ESWTR.
(
E)
Based
on
an
estimate
of
3
hours
per
month
to
prepare
each
report.
(
F)
For
plants
serving
up
to
500
people,
the
full
technical
rate
($
24.96/
hour)
was
applied.
For
plants
serving
more
than
500
people,
costs
are
based
on
an
80%/
20%
split
between
technical
and
managerial
($
44.91/
hour)
rates.
Rates
are
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
data.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
48
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
22c
Filtered
Plant
Burden
and
Cost
for
Preparing
Reports
Demonstrating
Technology
Compliance
Based
on
ICRSSL
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A3
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Number
of
Plants
Installing
UV
Number
of
Plants
Installing
MF/
UF
Number
of
Plants
Installing
Bank
Filtration
Total
Plants
Annual
Labor
Hours
per
Plant
Labor
Rate
Total
Annual
Labor
Hours
Total
Annual
Costs
A
B
C
D=
A+
B+
C
E
F
G=
D*
E
H=
F*
G
CWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
9
18
10
24
29
196
72
62
8
73
51
29
20
19
17
4
4
0
­
­
­
­
­
2
1
1
0
82
68
39
44
48
215
77
66
9
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
2,957
2,458
1,391
1,580
1,735
7,753
2,762
2,393
308
73,819
$
61,361
40,281
45,738
50,223
224,442
79,969
69,289
8,925
National
Totals
428
217
3
648
23,339
654,048
$
NTNCWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
5
6
2
2
1
1
0
0
­
45
19
7
1
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
­
50
25
9
3
1
1
0
0
­
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
1,804
899
332
107
35
52
7
6
­
45,019
$
22,447
9,625
3,087
1,000
1,518
190
178
­
National
Totals
18
72
0
90
3,242
83,063
$
TNCWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
28
11
2
2
1
2
1
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
0
0
­
­
28
11
2
2
1
2
1
­
­
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
999
393
72
59
28
61
18
­
­
24,929
$
9,818
2,082
1,722
797
1,777
533
­
­
National
Totals
45
0
0
45
1,631
41,657
$
Grand
Totals
490
290
3
784
28,211
778,768
$

Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
UV
stands
for
ultraviolet
disinfection
and
MF/
UF
stands
for
microfiltration/
ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(
A),
(
B),
(
C)
Taken
from
Appendix
G
of
the
LT2ESWTR.
(
E)
Based
on
an
estimate
of
3
hours
per
month
to
prepare
each
report.
(
F)
For
plants
serving
up
to
500
people,
the
full
technical
rate
($
24.96/
hour)
was
applied.
For
plants
serving
more
than
500
people,
costs
are
based
on
an
80%/
20%
split
between
technical
and
managerial
($
44.91/
hour)
rates.
Rates
are
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
data.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
49
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
23a
Filtered
Plant
Burden
and
Cost
for
Preparing
Reports
Demonstrating
Technology
Compliance
Based
on
ICR
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A4
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Number
of
Plants
Installing
UV
Number
of
Plants
Installing
MF/
UF
Number
of
Plants
Installing
Bank
Filtration
Total
Plants
Annual
Labor
Hours
per
Plant
Labor
Rate
Total
Annual
Labor
Hours
Total
Annual
Costs
A
B
C
D=
A+
B+
C
E
F
G=
D*
E
H=
F*
G
CWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
9
17
8
20
23
115
42
37
5
73
51
29
20
19
17
4
4
0
­
­
­
­
­
1
0
0
0
82
68
37
39
42
133
47
41
5
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
2,948
2,439
1,321
1,407
1,530
4,805
1,681
1,485
188
73,572
$
60,869
38,232
40,730
44,288
139,113
48,669
42,977
5,453
National
Totals
276
216
2
495
17,803
493,903
$
NTNCWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
5
6
2
1
0
1
0
0
­
45
19
7
1
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
­
50
25
9
3
1
1
0
0
­
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
1,798
893
316
95
31
33
4
4
­
44,869
$
22,280
9,135
2,749
890
944
118
112
­
National
Totals
16
72
0
88
3,172
81,097
$
TNCWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
27
11
2
1
1
1
0
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
0
0
­
­
27
11
2
1
1
1
0
­
­
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
968
381
58
48
22
36
11
­
­
24,160
$
9,515
1,674
1,385
641
1,047
314
­
­
National
Totals
42
0
0
42
1,524
38,736
$
Grand
Totals
334
289
2
625
22,499
613,736
$

Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
UV
stands
for
ultraviolet
disinfection
and
MF/
UF
stands
for
microfiltration/
ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(
A),
(
B),
(
C)
Taken
from
Appendix
G
of
the
LT2ESWTR.
(
E)
Based
on
an
estimate
of
3
hours
per
month
to
prepare
each
report.
(
F)
For
plants
serving
up
to
500
people,
the
full
technical
rate
($
24.96/
hour)
was
applied.
For
plants
serving
more
than
500
people,
costs
are
based
on
an
80%/
20%
split
between
technical
and
managerial
($
44.91/
hour)
rates.
Rates
are
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
data.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
50
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
23b
Filtered
Plant
Burden
and
Cost
for
Preparing
Reports
Demonstrating
Technology
Compliance
Based
on
ICRSSM
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A4
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Number
of
Plants
Installing
UV
Number
of
Plants
Installing
MF/
UF
Number
of
Plants
Installing
Bank
Filtration
Total
Plants
Annual
Labor
Hours
per
Plant
Labor
Rate
Total
Annual
Labor
Hours
Total
Annual
Costs
A
B
C
D=
A+
B+
C
E
F
G=
D*
E
H=
F*
G
CWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
6
11
5
13
15
59
22
19
3
73
51
29
19
19
16
4
4
0
­
­
­
­
­
1
0
0
0
79
62
34
32
34
76
26
23
3
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
2,839
2,222
1,219
1,159
1,236
2,735
922
831
102
70,868
$
55,472
35,299
33,564
35,794
79,164
26,678
24,061
2,957
National
Totals
152
216
1
369
13,266
363,857
$
NTNCWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
3
4
1
1
0
0
0
0
­
45
19
7
1
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
­
48
23
8
2
1
1
0
0
­
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
1,732
819
291
78
25
19
2
2
­
43,219
$
20,441
8,434
2,265
734
542
68
65
­
National
Totals
10
72
0
82
2,969
75,769
$
TNCWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
18
7
1
1
0
1
0
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
0
0
­
­
18
7
1
1
0
1
0
­
­
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
631
248
38
31
14
18
6
­
­
15,738
$
6,198
1,090
902
417
535
160
­
­
National
Totals
27
0
0
27
986
25,040
$
Grand
Totals
189
288
1
478
17,221
464,667
$

Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
UV
stands
for
ultraviolet
disinfection
and
MF/
UF
stands
for
microfiltration/
ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(
A),
(
B),
(
C)
Taken
from
Appendix
G
of
the
LT2ESWTR.
(
E)
Based
on
an
estimate
of
3
hours
per
month
to
prepare
each
report.
(
F)
For
plants
serving
up
to
500
people,
the
full
technical
rate
($
24.96/
hour)
was
applied.
For
plants
serving
more
than
500
people,
costs
are
based
on
an
80%/
20%
split
between
technical
and
managerial
($
44.91/
hour)
rates.
Rates
are
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
data.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
51
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
23c
Filtered
Plant
Burden
and
Cost
for
Preparing
Reports
Demonstrating
Technology
Compliance
Based
on
ICRSSL
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A4
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Number
of
Plants
Installing
UV
Number
of
Plants
Installing
MF/
UF
Number
of
Plants
Installing
Bank
Filtration
Total
Plants
Annual
Labor
Hours
per
Plant
Labor
Rate
Total
Annual
Labor
Hours
Total
Annual
Costs
A
B
C
D=
A+
B+
C
E
F
G=
D*
E
H=
F*
G
CWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
4
8
4
9
11
38
14
12
2
73
51
29
19
19
16
4
4
0
­
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
77
59
32
29
30
54
18
16
2
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
2,783
2,109
1,166
1,030
1,083
1,957
636
583
69
69,455
$
52,653
33,767
29,819
31,356
56,650
18,419
16,875
2,009
National
Totals
101
215
1
317
11,417
311,004
$
NTNCWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
2
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
­
45
19
7
1
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
­
47
22
8
2
1
0
0
0
­
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
1,697
780
279
70
23
14
2
2
­
42,358
$
19,481
8,068
2,013
652
391
49
48
­
National
Totals
7
72
0
80
2,865
73,059
$
TNCWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
13
5
1
1
0
0
0
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
0
0
­
­
13
5
1
1
0
0
0
­
­
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
454
179
27
22
10
12
4
­
­
11,337
$
4,465
785
650
301
343
103
­
­
National
Totals
20
0
0
20
708
17,982
$
Grand
Totals
128
287
1
416
14,991
402,045
$

Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
UV
stands
for
ultraviolet
disinfection
and
MF/
UF
stands
for
microfiltration/
ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(
A),
(
B),
(
C)
Taken
from
Appendix
G
of
the
LT2ESWTR.
(
E)
Based
on
an
estimate
of
3
hours
per
month
to
prepare
each
report.
(
F)
For
plants
serving
up
to
500
people,
the
full
technical
rate
($
24.96/
hour)
was
applied.
For
plants
serving
more
than
500
people,
costs
are
based
on
an
80%/
20%
split
between
technical
and
managerial
($
44.91/
hour)
rates.
Rates
are
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
data.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
52
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
24
Unfiltered
Plant
Burden
and
Cost
for
Reports
Demonstrating
Technology
Compliance
CWS
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Number
of
Plants
Installing
UV
Number
of
Plants
Installing
Ozone
Annual
Labor
Hours
per
Plant
Labor
Rate
Total
Annual
Labor
Hours
Total
Annual
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
=
(
A+
B)*
C
F
=
(
A+
B)
C*
D
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
1
6
6
13
24
16
5
6
8
­
­
1
1
2
1
0
1
1
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
36
198
252
504
942
634
194
230
302
899
$
4,942
7,295
14,591
27,264
18,343
5,628
6,670
8,754
National
Totals
85
7
3,293
94,386
$

Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
UV
stands
for
ultraviolet
disinfection.
Sources:
(
A),
(
B)
From
Chapter
6
of
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR.
There
is
only
one
(
C)
Based
on
an
estimate
of
3
hours
per
month
to
prepare
each
report.
(
D)
For
plants
serving
up
to
500
people,
the
full
technical
rate
($
24.96/
hour)
was
applied.
For
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
53
June
2003
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
D­
54
D.
6
Disinfection
Benchmarking
D.
6.1
Disinfection
Benchmarking
for
PWSs
PWSs
of
all
sizes
that
conduct
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
will
be
required
to
apply
for
approval
of
existing
inactivation
benchmarks,
to
calculate
a
benchmark
based
on
existing
profiling
data,
or
to
conduct
inactivation
profiling.
Some
small
PWSs
that
do
not
have
to
monitor
Cryptosporidium
may
also
have
to
conduct
inactivation
profiling
if
their
trihalomethane
or
haloacetic
acid
levels
exceed
certain
limits.
Most
plants
will
already
have
existing
benchmarks
due
to
similar
requirements
under
the
IESWTR
and
LT1ESWTR.
If
they
do
not,
they
should
be
able
to
calculate
benchmarks
based
on
existing
operational
data
collected
as
part
of
the
Surface
Water
Treatment
Rule
requirements.
Most
of
these
plants
need
to
maintain
these
data
onsite,
but
do
not
need
to
report
them.
The
burden
for
this
is
assumed
to
be
negligible.

Plants
that
wish
to
make
a
major
change
to
their
disinfection
process
need
to
compile
and
submit
their
disinfection
profile
and
benchmark
to
their
States
and
consult
with
their
States
about
the
change.
Only
plants
that
are
predicted
to
change
technologies
as
a
result
of
bin
classification
are
assumed
to
submit
their
disinfection
profile.
The
burden
for
this
is
estimated
to
be
4
hours
per
plant
and
is
shown
in
Exhibits
D.
25
through
D.
27.

Reporting
costs
for
small
plants
serving
up
to
500
people
are
based
on
the
full
technical
rate
($
24.96
per
hour).
For
those
plants
serving
more
than
500
people,
costs
are
based
on
an
80/
20
percent
split
between
technical
and
managerial
labor
rates
(
the
split
was
between
$
24.96
per
hour
and
$
44.91
per
hour)
(
BLS
2001).
Exhibit
D.
25a
Plant
Burden
and
Cost
for
Preparing
Disinfection
Benchmark
Reports
Based
on
ICR
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A2
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Number
of
Plants
Installing
UV
Number
of
Plants
Installing
MF/
UF
Number
of
Plants
Installing
Ozone
Number
of
Plants
Installing
ClO2
Total
Number
of
Plants
Changing
Disinfection
Labor
Hours
per
Plant
Labor
Rate
Total
Labor
Hours
Total
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
=
A+
B+
C+
D
F
G
H
=
E*
F
I
=
G*
H
CWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
34
71
93
225
275
358
130
120
23
­
­
0
1
1
7
2
2
0
­
­
3
7
9
30
11
10
2
­
­
1
1
2
28
10
10
1
34
71
97
234
287
422
154
143
26
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
136
285
388
937
1,149
1,690
616
571
106
3,394
$
7,122
11,247
27,122
33,252
48,918
17,822
16,518
3,054
National
Totals
1,330
14
72
53
1,469
5,877
168,449
$
NTNCWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
20
22
21
14
5
2
0
0
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
1
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
0
­
20
22
22
15
5
3
0
0
­
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
80
90
86
59
19
11
1
1
­
2,009
$
2,239
2,494
1,721
558
325
41
40
­
National
Totals
85
0
1
0
87
349
9,426
$
TNCWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
103
40
17
14
7
3
1
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
103
40
18
15
7
4
1
­
­
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
411
162
72
59
27
14
4
­
­
10,259
$
4,041
2,076
1,718
795
413
124
­
­
National
Totals
185
0
1
1
187
750
19,426
$
Grand
Totals
1,600
15
75
54
1,744
6,976
197,301
$

Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
UV
stands
for
ultraviolet
disinfection
and
MF/
UF
stands
for
microfiltration/
ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(
A)
­
(
D)
From
Appendix
G
of
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR.
(
F)
Based
on
expert
opinion.
(
G)
For
plants
serving
up
to
500
people,
the
full
technical
rate
($
24.96/
hour)
was
applied.
For
plants
serving
more
than
500
people,
costs
are
based
on
an
80%/
20%
split
between
technical
and
managerial
($
44.91/
hour)
rates.
Rates
are
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
data.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
55
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
25b
Plant
Burden
and
Cost
for
Preparing
Disinfection
Benchmark
Reports
Based
on
ICRSSM
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A2
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Number
of
Plants
Installing
UV
Number
of
Plants
Installing
MF/
UF
Number
of
Plants
Installing
Ozone
Number
of
Plants
Installing
ClO2
Total
Number
of
Plants
Changing
Disinfection
Labor
Hours
per
Plant
Labor
Rate
Total
Labor
Hours
Total
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
=
A+
B+
C+
D
F
G
H
=
E*
F
I
=
G*
H
CWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
19
42
67
161
199
294
107
98
20
­
­
0
1
1
4
1
1
0
­
­
2
4
6
26
9
9
2
­
­
0
1
1
35
13
13
2
19
42
69
167
207
359
131
121
24
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
78
169
278
666
828
1,438
523
484
94
1,941
$
4,223
8,040
19,287
23,966
41,617
15,144
14,019
2,725
National
Totals
1,009
8
58
64
1,139
4,558
130,962
$
NTNCWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
11
13
14
10
3
2
0
0
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
0
­
11
13
15
10
3
2
0
0
­
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
45
50
60
41
13
9
1
1
­
1,123
$
1,252
1,727
1,192
386
268
33
33
­
National
Totals
54
0
1
0
55
221
6,015
$
TNCWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
57
23
12
10
5
2
1
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
57
23
12
10
5
3
1
­
­
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
230
90
50
41
19
12
4
­
­
5,735
$
2,259
1,438
1,190
551
341
102
­
­
National
Totals
110
0
1
1
111
445
11,615
$
Grand
Totals
1,172
9
60
65
1,306
5,224
148,592
$

Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
UV
stands
for
ultraviolet
disinfection
and
MF/
UF
stands
for
microfiltration/
ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(
A)
­
(
D)
From
Appendix
G
of
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR.
(
F)
Based
on
expert
opinion.
(
G)
For
plants
serving
up
to
500
people,
the
full
technical
rate
($
24.96/
hour)
was
applied.
For
plants
serving
more
than
500
people,
costs
are
based
on
an
80%/
20%
split
between
technical
and
managerial
($
44.91/
hour)
rates.
Rates
are
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
data.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
56
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
25c
Plant
Burden
and
Cost
for
Preparing
Disinfection
Benchmark
Reports
Based
on
ICRSSL
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A2
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Number
of
Plants
Installing
UV
Number
of
Plants
Installing
MF/
UF
Number
of
Plants
Installing
Ozone
Number
of
Plants
Installing
ClO2
Total
Number
of
Plants
Changing
Disinfection
Labor
Hours
per
Plant
Labor
Rate
Total
Labor
Hours
Total
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
=
A+
B+
C+
D
F
G
H
=
E*
F
I
=
G*
H
CWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
16
35
54
128
161
249
90
83
18
­
­
0
1
1
3
1
1
0
­
­
2
4
5
22
8
8
2
­
­
0
1
1
38
14
13
2
16
35
56
133
167
312
113
105
21
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
63
139
223
532
669
1,248
453
419
86
1,569
$
3,480
6,452
15,405
19,366
36,117
13,126
12,129
2,475
National
Totals
834
6
50
69
958
3,832
110,119
$
NTNCWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
9
10
11
8
3
2
0
0
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
0
­
9
10
12
8
3
2
0
0
­
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
36
40
47
32
10
8
1
1
­
896
$
998
1,348
930
301
229
29
28
­
National
Totals
43
0
1
0
44
175
4,760
$
TNCWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
46
18
9
8
4
2
1
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
46
18
10
8
4
3
1
­
­
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
183
72
39
32
15
10
3
­
­
4,574
$
1,801
1,122
928
430
292
88
­
­
National
Totals
87
0
1
1
89
354
9,236
$
Grand
Totals
963
6
51
69
1,090
4,361
124,115
$

Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
UV
stands
for
ultraviolet
disinfection
and
MF/
UF
stands
for
microfiltration/
ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(
A)
­
(
D)
From
Appendix
G
of
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR.
(
F)
Based
on
expert
opinion.
(
G)
For
plants
serving
up
to
500
people,
the
full
technical
rate
($
24.96/
hour)
was
applied.
For
plants
serving
more
than
500
people,
costs
are
based
on
an
80%/
20%
split
between
technical
and
managerial
($
44.91/
hour)
rates.
Rates
are
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
data.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
57
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
26a
Plant
Burden
and
Cost
for
Preparing
Disinfection
Benchmark
Reports
Based
on
ICR
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A3
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Number
of
Plants
Installing
UV
Number
of
Plants
Installing
MF/
UF
Number
of
Plants
Installing
Ozone
Number
of
Plants
Installing
ClO2
Total
Number
of
Plants
Changing
Disinfection
Labor
Hours
per
Plant
Labor
Rate
Total
Labor
Hours
Total
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
=
A+
B+
C+
D
F
G
H
=
E*
F
I
=
G*
H
CWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
22
47
44
105
133
329
120
106
21
­
­
0
1
1
4
2
1
0
­
­
2
5
7
28
10
9
2
­
­
0
1
1
40
15
18
2
22
47
47
111
141
401
146
134
25
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
87
189
187
444
565
1,602
583
537
101
2,183
$
4,707
5,412
12,864
16,355
46,383
16,892
15,544
2,926
National
Totals
925
9
63
76
1,074
4,296
123,266
$
NTNCWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
13
14
9
6
2
2
0
0
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
0
­
13
14
9
7
2
3
0
0
­
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
51
57
38
26
8
10
1
1
­
1,271
$
1,416
1,099
759
246
302
38
37
­
National
Totals
47
0
1
0
48
193
5,168
$
TNCWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
65
26
7
6
3
3
1
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
65
26
8
7
3
3
1
­
­
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
260
102
32
26
12
13
4
­
­
6,489
$
2,556
915
757
350
384
115
­
­
National
Totals
111
0
1
1
112
450
11,568
$
Grand
Totals
1,083
10
65
77
1,235
4,939
140,002
$

Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
UV
stands
for
ultraviolet
disinfection
and
MF/
UF
stands
for
microfiltration/
ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(
A)
­
(
D)
From
Appendix
G
of
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR.
(
F)
Based
on
expert
opinion.
(
G)
For
plants
serving
up
to
500
people,
the
full
technical
rate
($
24.96/
hour)
was
applied.
For
plants
serving
more
than
500
people,
costs
are
based
on
an
80%/
20%
split
between
technical
and
managerial
($
44.91/
hour)
rates.
Rates
are
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
data.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
58
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
26b
Plant
Burden
and
Cost
for
Preparing
Disinfection
Benchmark
Reports
Based
on
ICRSSM
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A3
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Number
of
Plants
Installing
UV
Number
of
Plants
Installing
MF/
UF
Number
of
Plants
Installing
Ozone
Number
of
Plants
Installing
ClO2
Total
Number
of
Plants
Changing
Disinfection
Labor
Hours
per
Plant
Labor
Rate
Total
Labor
Hours
Total
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
=
A+
B+
C+
D
F
G
H
=
E*
F
I
=
G*
H
CWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
13
29
22
51
70
256
93
82
18
­
­
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
­
­
2
3
5
22
8
7
2
­
­
0
0
0
37
13
17
2
13
29
24
55
75
317
115
106
22
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
50
114
96
222
301
1,269
461
425
86
1,256
$
2,855
2,774
6,419
8,716
36,732
13,352
12,304
2,498
National
Totals
633
4
49
69
756
3,025
86,905
$
NTNCWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
7
8
4
3
1
2
0
0
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
0
­
7
8
4
3
1
2
0
0
­
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28
31
16
11
4
8
1
1
­
705
$
786
469
324
105
233
29
29
­
National
Totals
24
0
1
0
25
101
2,679
$
TNCWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
36
14
3
3
1
2
1
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
36
14
3
3
1
3
1
­
­
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
144
57
13
11
5
10
3
­
­
3,599
$
1,418
391
323
150
297
89
­
­
National
Totals
60
0
1
0
61
244
6,266
$
Grand
Totals
717
5
51
70
842
3,370
95,851
$

Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
UV
stands
for
ultraviolet
disinfection
and
MF/
UF
stands
for
microfiltration/
ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(
A)
­
(
D)
From
Appendix
G
of
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR.
(
F)
Based
on
expert
opinion.
(
G)
For
plants
serving
up
to
500
people,
the
full
technical
rate
($
24.96/
hour)
was
applied.
For
plants
serving
more
than
500
people,
costs
are
based
on
an
80%/
20%
split
between
technical
and
managerial
($
44.91/
hour)
rates.
Rates
are
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
data.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
59
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
26c
Plant
Burden
and
Cost
for
Preparing
Disinfection
Benchmark
Reports
Based
on
ICRSSL
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A3
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Number
of
Plants
Installing
UV
Number
of
Plants
Installing
MF/
UF
Number
of
Plants
Installing
Ozone
Number
of
Plants
Installing
ClO2
Total
Number
of
Plants
Changing
Disinfection
Labor
Hours
per
Plant
Labor
Rate
Total
Labor
Hours
Total
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
=
A+
B+
C+
D
F
G
H
=
E*
F
I
=
G*
H
CWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
10
23
16
37
53
212
77
68
16
­
­
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
­
­
1
3
4
19
7
6
1
­
­
0
0
0
31
11
14
2
10
23
18
41
58
264
96
88
19
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
40
93
71
162
230
1,054
383
353
77
989
$
2,324
2,068
4,694
6,671
30,525
11,075
10,230
2,225
National
Totals
512
3
42
59
616
2,464
70,800
$
NTNCWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
5
6
2
2
1
1
0
0
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
0
­
5
6
3
2
1
2
0
0
­
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
22
24
10
7
2
7
1
1
­
542
$
604
300
207
67
191
24
24
­
National
Totals
18
0
0
0
19
74
1,961
$
TNCWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
28
11
2
2
1
2
1
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
28
11
2
2
1
2
1
­
­
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
111
44
9
7
3
8
3
­
­
2,770
$
1,091
250
207
96
243
73
­
­
National
Totals
45
0
1
0
46
185
4,730
$
Grand
Totals
575
3
43
60
681
2,723
77,491
$

Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
UV
stands
for
ultraviolet
disinfection
and
MF/
UF
stands
for
microfiltration/
ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(
A)
­
(
D)
From
Appendix
G
of
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR.
(
F)
Based
on
expert
opinion.
(
G)
For
plants
serving
up
to
500
people,
the
full
technical
rate
($
24.96/
hour)
was
applied.
For
plants
serving
more
than
500
people,
costs
are
based
on
an
80%/
20%
split
between
technical
and
managerial
($
44.91/
hour)
rates.
Rates
are
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
data.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
60
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
27a
Plant
Burden
and
Cost
for
Preparing
Disinfection
Benchmark
Reports
Based
on
ICR
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A4
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Number
of
Plants
Installing
UV
Number
of
Plants
Installing
MF/
UF
Number
of
Plants
Installing
Ozone
Number
of
Plants
Installing
ClO2
Total
Number
of
Plants
Changing
Disinfection
Labor
Hours
per
Plant
Labor
Rate
Total
Labor
Hours
Total
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
=
A+
B+
C+
D
F
G
H
=
E*
F
I
=
G*
H
CWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
10
23
14
32
47
132
47
43
13
­
­
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
­
­
1
3
4
12
4
4
1
­
­
0
0
0
38
14
14
2
10
23
16
36
52
183
66
60
16
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
39
91
63
142
207
730
264
242
62
962
$
2,269
1,831
4,115
5,984
21,147
7,635
7,004
1,799
National
Totals
361
2
29
69
460
1,840
52,746
$
NTNCWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
5
6
2
1
0
1
0
0
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
0
­
5
6
2
1
0
1
0
0
­
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
21
23
8
6
2
4
1
1
­
526
$
586
244
168
55
128
16
16
­
National
Totals
16
0
0
0
17
66
1,738
$
TNCWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
27
11
2
1
1
1
0
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
27
11
2
1
1
1
0
­
­
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
108
42
7
6
3
6
2
­
­
2,684
$
1,057
203
168
78
163
49
­
­
National
Totals
42
0
0
0
43
173
4,403
$
Grand
Totals
419
2
29
70
520
2,079
58,887
$

Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
UV
stands
for
ultraviolet
disinfection
and
MF/
UF
stands
for
microfiltration/
ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(
A)
­
(
D)
From
Appendix
G
of
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR.
(
F)
Based
on
expert
opinion.
(
G)
For
plants
serving
up
to
500
people,
the
full
technical
rate
($
24.96/
hour)
was
applied.
For
plants
serving
more
than
500
people,
costs
are
based
on
an
80%/
20%
split
between
technical
and
managerial
($
44.91/
hour)
rates.
Rates
are
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
data.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
61
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
27b
Plant
Burden
and
Cost
for
Preparing
Disinfection
Benchmark
Reports
Based
on
ICRSSM
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A4
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Number
of
Plants
Installing
UV
Number
of
Plants
Installing
MF/
UF
Number
of
Plants
Installing
Ozone
Number
of
Plants
Installing
ClO2
Total
Number
of
Plants
Changing
Disinfection
Labor
Hours
per
Plant
Labor
Rate
Total
Labor
Hours
Total
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
=
A+
B+
C+
D
F
G
H
=
E*
F
I
=
G*
H
CWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
7
17
12
26
39
75
27
25
10
­
­
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
­
­
1
2
3
7
2
2
1
­
­
0
0
0
26
10
9
1
7
17
13
28
43
109
39
36
12
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
26
67
51
112
171
435
155
144
49
661
$
1,669
1,474
3,242
4,950
12,595
4,498
4,170
1,425
National
Totals
237
1
18
47
303
1,211
34,685
$
NTNCWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
3
4
1
1
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
0
­
3
4
1
1
0
1
0
0
­
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
14
15
5
4
1
2
0
0
­
342
$
382
158
109
35
71
9
9
­
National
Totals
10
0
0
0
11
43
1,116
$
TNCWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
18
7
1
1
0
1
0
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
18
7
1
1
0
1
0
­
­
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
70
28
5
4
2
3
1
­
­
1,749
$
689
132
109
51
90
27
­
­
National
Totals
27
0
0
0
28
112
2,846
$
Grand
Totals
274
1
19
47
341
1,365
38,646
$

Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
UV
stands
for
ultraviolet
disinfection
and
MF/
UF
stands
for
microfiltration/
ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(
A)
­
(
D)
From
Appendix
G
of
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR.
(
F)
Based
on
expert
opinion.
(
G)
For
plants
serving
up
to
500
people,
the
full
technical
rate
($
24.96/
hour)
was
applied.
For
plants
serving
more
than
500
people,
costs
are
based
on
an
80%/
20%
split
between
technical
and
managerial
($
44.91/
hour)
rates.
Rates
are
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
data.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
62
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
27c
Plant
Burden
and
Cost
for
Preparing
Disinfection
Benchmark
Reports
Based
on
ICRSSL
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A4
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Number
of
Plants
Installing
UV
Number
of
Plants
Installing
MF/
UF
Number
of
Plants
Installing
Ozone
Number
of
Plants
Installing
ClO2
Total
Number
of
Plants
Changing
Disinfection
Labor
Hours
per
Plant
Labor
Rate
Total
Labor
Hours
Total
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
=
A+
B+
C+
D
F
G
H
=
E*
F
I
=
G*
H
CWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
5
14
10
22
35
54
19
18
9
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
1
2
3
5
2
2
1
­
­
0
0
0
19
7
6
1
5
14
11
24
38
79
28
26
11
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
20
54
44
96
152
314
111
104
44
504
$
1,356
1,288
2,788
4,412
9,094
3,213
3,022
1,274
National
Totals
186
1
14
34
235
941
26,950
$
NTNCWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
2
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
0
­
2
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
­
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
10
11
4
3
1
2
0
0
­
247
$
275
114
79
26
47
6
6
­
National
Totals
7
0
0
0
8
30
799
$
TNCWS
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
13
5
1
1
0
0
0
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
13
5
1
1
0
1
0
­
­
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
50
20
3
3
1
2
1
­
­
1,260
$
496
95
79
36
60
18
­
­
National
Totals
20
0
0
0
20
80
2,044
$
Grand
Totals
213
1
15
35
263
1,052
29,793
$

Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
UV
stands
for
ultraviolet
disinfection
and
MF/
UF
stands
for
microfiltration/
ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(
A)
­
(
D)
From
Appendix
G
of
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR.
(
F)
Based
on
expert
opinion.
(
G)
For
plants
serving
up
to
500
people,
the
full
technical
rate
($
24.96/
hour)
was
applied.
For
plants
serving
more
than
500
people,
costs
are
based
on
an
80%/
20%
split
between
technical
and
managerial
($
44.91/
hour)
rates.
Rates
are
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
data.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
63
June
2003
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
D­
64
D.
6.2
State
Burden
for
Disinfection
Benchmarking
The
burden
for
reviewing
disinfection
benchmarks
and
plants'
requests
to
change
disinfection
processes
(
2
hours
per
plant)
is
shown
in
Exhibits
D.
28
through
D.
30.
Exhibit
D.
28a
State
Burden
and
Cost
for
Reviewing
Disinfection
Benchmark
Reports
Based
on
ICR
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A2
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Number
of
Plants
Installing
UV
Number
of
Plants
Installing
MF/
UF
Number
of
Plants
Installing
Ozone
Number
of
Plants
Installing
ClO2
Total
Number
of
Plants
Changing
Disinfection
Labor
Hours
per
Plant
Labor
Rate
Total
Labor
Hours
Total
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
=
A
+
B
+
C
+
D
F
G
H
=
E*
F
I
=
G*
H
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
157
134
131
253
286
364
132
120
23
­
­
1
1
1
7
2
2
0
­
­
4
8
9
30
11
10
2
­
­
1
2
2
28
10
10
1
157
134
137
264
299
429
155
143
26
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
28.89
$
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
314
268
273
528
598
858
311
286
53
9,064
$
7,756
7,892
15,249
17,266
24,776
8,975
8,262
1,524
National
Totals
1,600
15
75
54
1,744
3,488
100,764
$

Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
UV
stands
for
ultraviolet
disinfection
and
MF/
UF
stands
for
microfiltration/
ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(
A)
­
(
D)
From
Appendix
G
of
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR.
(
F)
Based
on
expert
opinion.
(
G)
Based
on
information
gathered
during
the
development
of
the
State
Workload
Model.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
65
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
28b
State
Burden
and
Cost
for
Reviewing
Disinfection
Benchmark
Reports
Based
on
ICRSSM
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A2
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Number
of
Plants
Installing
UV
Number
of
Plants
Installing
MF/
UF
Number
of
Plants
Installing
Ozone
Number
of
Plants
Installing
ClO2
Total
Number
of
Plants
Changing
Disinfection
Labor
Hours
per
Plant
Labor
Rate
Total
Labor
Hours
Total
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
=
A
+
B
+
C
+
D
F
G
H
=
E*
F
I
=
G*
H
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
88
77
94
181
207
299
108
99
20
­
­
0
1
1
4
1
1
0
­
­
2
5
6
26
10
9
2
­
­
0
1
1
36
13
13
2
88
77
97
187
215
365
132
121
24
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
28.89
$
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
176
155
194
374
430
729
264
243
47
5,092
$
4,476
5,591
10,812
12,425
21,069
7,624
7,011
1,359
National
Totals
1,172
9
60
65
1,306
2,612
75,461
$

Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
UV
stands
for
ultraviolet
disinfection
and
MF/
UF
stands
for
microfiltration/
ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(
A)
­
(
D)
From
Appendix
G
of
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR.
(
F)
Based
on
expert
opinion.
(
G)
Based
on
information
gathered
during
the
development
of
the
State
Workload
Model.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
66
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
28c
State
Burden
and
Cost
for
Reviewing
Disinfection
Benchmark
Reports
Based
on
ICRSSL
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A2
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Number
of
Plants
Installing
UV
Number
of
Plants
Installing
MF/
UF
Number
of
Plants
Installing
Ozone
Number
of
Plants
Installing
ClO2
Total
Number
of
Plants
Changing
Disinfection
Labor
Hours
per
Plant
Labor
Rate
Total
Labor
Hours
Total
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
=
A
+
B
+
C
+
D
F
G
H
=
E*
F
I
=
G*
H
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
70
63
74
144
167
252
91
83
18
­
­
0
1
1
3
1
1
0
­
­
2
4
5
23
8
8
2
­
­
0
1
1
39
14
13
2
70
63
77
149
174
316
114
105
21
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
28.89
$
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
141
126
154
298
347
633
229
210
43
4,073
$
3,634
4,452
8,614
10,028
18,281
6,608
6,066
1,235
National
Totals
963
6
51
69
1,090
2,180
62,991
$

Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
UV
stands
for
ultraviolet
disinfection
and
MF/
UF
stands
for
microfiltration/
ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(
A)
­
(
D)
From
Appendix
G
of
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR.
(
F)
Based
on
expert
opinion.
(
G)
Based
on
information
gathered
during
the
development
of
the
State
Workload
Model.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
67
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
29a
State
Burden
and
Cost
for
Reviewing
Disinfection
Benchmark
Reports
Based
on
ICR
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A3
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Number
of
Plants
Installing
UV
Number
of
Plants
Installing
MF/
UF
Number
of
Plants
Installing
Ozone
Number
of
Plants
Installing
ClO2
Total
Number
of
Plants
Changing
Disinfection
Labor
Hours
per
Plant
Labor
Rate
Total
Labor
Hours
Total
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
=
A
+
B
+
C
+
D
F
G
H
=
E*
F
I
=
G*
H
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
100
87
60
117
138
333
121
106
21
­
­
0
1
1
4
2
1
0
­
­
3
6
7
28
10
9
2
­
­
0
1
1
40
15
18
2
100
87
64
124
146
406
147
135
25
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
28.89
$
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
199
174
128
248
293
813
294
269
51
5,755
$
5,023
3,706
7,175
8,458
23,486
8,505
7,775
1,460
National
Totals
1,083
10
65
77
1,235
2,469
71,341
$

Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
UV
stands
for
ultraviolet
disinfection
and
MF/
UF
stands
for
microfiltration/
ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(
A)
­
(
D)
From
Appendix
G
of
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR.
(
F)
Based
on
expert
opinion.
(
G)
Based
on
information
gathered
during
the
development
of
the
State
Workload
Model.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
68
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
29b
State
Burden
and
Cost
for
Reviewing
Disinfection
Benchmark
Reports
Based
on
ICRSSM
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A3
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Number
of
Plants
Installing
UV
Number
of
Plants
Installing
MF/
UF
Number
of
Plants
Installing
Ozone
Number
of
Plants
Installing
ClO2
Total
Number
of
Plants
Changing
Disinfection
Labor
Hours
per
Plant
Labor
Rate
Total
Labor
Hours
Total
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
=
A
+
B
+
C
+
D
F
G
H
=
E*
F
I
=
G*
H
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
56
51
29
57
72
260
94
82
18
­
­
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
­
­
2
4
5
23
8
7
2
­
­
0
0
0
37
14
17
2
56
51
31
61
77
322
116
107
22
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
28.89
$
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
111
101
63
122
155
644
233
213
43
3,217
$
2,927
1,813
3,526
4,476
18,592
6,721
6,154
1,247
National
Totals
717
5
51
70
842
1,685
48,673
$

Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
UV
stands
for
ultraviolet
disinfection
and
MF/
UF
stands
for
microfiltration/
ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(
A)
­
(
D)
From
Appendix
G
of
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR.
(
F)
Based
on
expert
opinion.
(
G)
Based
on
information
gathered
during
the
development
of
the
State
Workload
Model.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
69
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
29c
State
Burden
and
Cost
for
Reviewing
Disinfection
Benchmark
Reports
Based
on
ICRSSL
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A3
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Number
of
Plants
Installing
UV
Number
of
Plants
Installing
MF/
UF
Number
of
Plants
Installing
Ozone
Number
of
Plants
Installing
ClO2
Total
Number
of
Plants
Changing
Disinfection
Labor
Hours
per
Plant
Labor
Rate
Total
Labor
Hours
Total
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
=
A
+
B
+
C
+
D
F
G
H
=
E*
F
I
=
G*
H
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
43
40
21
40
54
215
78
68
16
­
­
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
­
­
2
3
4
19
7
6
1
­
­
0
0
0
32
12
14
2
43
40
23
44
59
267
96
89
19
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
28.89
$
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
86
81
45
88
118
535
193
177
38
2,489
$
2,326
1,307
2,549
3,410
15,448
5,574
5,116
1,110
National
Totals
575
3
43
60
681
1,361
39,329
$

Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
UV
stands
for
ultraviolet
disinfection
and
MF/
UF
stands
for
microfiltration/
ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(
A)
­
(
D)
From
Appendix
G
of
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR.
(
F)
Based
on
expert
opinion.
(
G)
Based
on
information
gathered
during
the
development
of
the
State
Workload
Model.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
70
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
30a
State
Burden
and
Cost
for
Reviewing
Disinfection
Benchmark
Reports
Based
on
ICR
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A4
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Number
of
Plants
Installing
UV
Number
of
Plants
Installing
MF/
UF
Number
of
Plants
Installing
Ozone
Number
of
Plants
Installing
ClO2
Total
Number
of
Plants
Changing
Disinfection
Labor
Hours
per
Plant
Labor
Rate
Total
Labor
Hours
Total
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
=
A
+
B
+
C
+
D
F
G
H
=
E*
F
I
=
G*
H
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
42
39
18
35
48
133
48
43
13
­
­
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
­
­
1
3
4
12
4
4
1
­
­
0
0
0
39
14
14
2
42
39
20
38
53
185
66
61
16
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
28.89
$
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
84
78
39
77
106
370
133
121
31
2,414
$
2,264
1,137
2,221
3,052
10,697
3,842
3,502
898
National
Totals
419
2
29
70
520
1,039
30,027
$

Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
UV
stands
for
ultraviolet
disinfection
and
MF/
UF
stands
for
microfiltration/
ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(
A)
­
(
D)
From
Appendix
G
of
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR.
(
F)
Based
on
expert
opinion.
(
G)
Based
on
information
gathered
during
the
development
of
the
State
Workload
Model.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
71
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
30b
State
Burden
and
Cost
for
Reviewing
Disinfection
Benchmark
Reports
Based
on
ICRSSM
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A4
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Number
of
Plants
Installing
UV
Number
of
Plants
Installing
MF/
UF
Number
of
Plants
Installing
Ozone
Number
of
Plants
Installing
ClO2
Total
Number
of
Plants
Changing
Disinfection
Labor
Hours
per
Plant
Labor
Rate
Total
Labor
Hours
Total
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
=
A
+
B
+
C
+
D
F
G
H
=
E*
F
I
=
G*
H
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
28
27
14
27
40
76
27
25
10
­
­
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
­
­
1
2
3
7
2
2
1
­
­
0
0
0
27
10
9
1
28
27
15
30
43
110
39
36
12
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
28.89
$
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
55
55
30
60
87
220
78
72
25
1,593
$
1,586
880
1,727
2,513
6,365
2,262
2,085
711
National
Totals
274
1
19
47
341
683
19,721
$

Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
UV
stands
for
ultraviolet
disinfection
and
MF/
UF
stands
for
microfiltration/
ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(
A)
­
(
D)
From
Appendix
G
of
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR.
(
F)
Based
on
expert
opinion.
(
G)
Based
on
information
gathered
during
the
development
of
the
State
Workload
Model.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
72
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
30c
State
Burden
and
Cost
for
Reviewing
Disinfection
Benchmark
Reports
Based
on
ICRSSL
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A4
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Number
of
Plants
Installing
UV
Number
of
Plants
Installing
MF/
UF
Number
of
Plants
Installing
Ozone
Number
of
Plants
Installing
ClO2
Total
Number
of
Plants
Changing
Disinfection
Labor
Hours
per
Plant
Labor
Rate
Total
Labor
Hours
Total
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
=
A
+
B
+
C
+
D
F
G
H
=
E*
F
I
=
G*
H
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
20
21
12
23
35
54
19
18
9
­
­
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
­
­
1
2
3
5
2
2
1
­
­
0
0
0
20
7
6
1
20
21
13
25
39
79
28
26
11
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
28.89
$
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
28.89
40
43
26
51
77
159
56
52
22
1,164
$
1,231
747
1,469
2,232
4,591
1,615
1,511
635
National
Totals
213
1
15
35
263
526
15,196
$

Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
UV
stands
for
ultraviolet
disinfection
and
MF/
UF
stands
for
microfiltration/
ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(
A)
­
(
D)
From
Appendix
G
of
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR.
(
F)
Based
on
expert
opinion.
(
G)
Based
on
information
gathered
during
the
development
of
the
State
Workload
Model.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
73
June
2003
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
D­
74
D.
7
Future
Monitoring
for
Bin
Reclassification
Six
years
after
initial
binning,
systems
will
be
required
to
undergo
another
round
of
monitoring
to
determine
if
their
source
water
quality
has
changed,
thus
changing
the
required
treatment.
Lacking
better
information,
EPA
assumed
that
costs
are
the
same
as
the
costs
for
the
initial
monitoring
round.
The
number
of
plants
did
change,
however,
as
plants
which
achieved
5.5
log
treatment
to
comply
with
the
LT2ESWTR
were
omitted
from
the
second
round
of
monitoring.

D.
7.1
Future
E.
coli
Monitoring
Exhibits
D.
31
through
D.
33
show
the
future
laboratory
costs
and
labor
for
E.
coli
monitoring.
The
only
changes
from
the
original
round
are
the
number
of
plants
sampling.
The
tables
display
costs
for
the
three
Cryptosporidium
occurrence
distributions
for
Alternatives
A2
through
A4.
Exhibit
D.
31a
Burden
and
Cost
to
Plants
Associated
with
E.
coli
Monitoring
for
Bin
Reclassification
for
All
Systems,
by
System
Size
Based
on
ICR
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A2
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
E.
coli
Monitoring
Sampling
Sample
Analysis
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
#
of
E.
coli
Samples
Hours
per
Sample
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Total
Sampling
Labor
Cost
Commercial
Analysis
Cost
per
Sample
(
Includes
Shipping)
Utility
Analysis
Hours
per
Sample
(
Labor)
Utility
Analysis
Cost
per
Sample
(
O&
M)
Utility
Analysis
Cost
per
Sample
Percent
Utilities
with
E.
coli
Analysis
Capabilities
Total
Laboratory
Analysis
Cost
(
Labor)
Total
Laboratory
Analysis
Cost
(
O&
M)

A
B
C
D
E
=
A*
B*
C*
D
F
G
H
I
=
H+
G*
D
J
K
=
D*
G*
J*
A*
B
L
=
F*
A*
B*(
1­
J)+
H*
A*
B*
J
M
=
E+
K+
L
N
=
A*
B*
C+
A*
B*
G*
J
CWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
392
685
318
804
903
723
238
226
25
26
26
26
26
26
24
24
24
24
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
63,522
$
111,145
51,531
130,472
146,483
108,222
35,640
33,868
3,758
70.00
$
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
8.52
$
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
21.00
$
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
75%
75%
100%
100%
31,761
$
55,573
25,766
65,236
73,242
162,334
53,460
67,735
7,517
556,125
$
973,054
451,144
1,142,253
1,282,434
414,333
136,448
46,242
5,132
651,408
$
1,139,772
528,441
1,337,961
1,502,159
684,889
225,548
147,845
16,407
3,817
6,679
3,097
7,841
8,803
10,840
3,570
4,071
452
National
Totals
4,313
684,642
$
542,622
$
5,007,166
$
6,234,430
$
49,169
NTNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
149
194
59
41
10
2
­
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
24
24
24
24
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24,210
$
31,500
9,493
6,602
1,560
303
­
­
­
70.00
$
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
8.52
$
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
21.00
$
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
75%
75%
100%
100%
12,105
$
15,750
4,746
3,301
780
455
­
­
­
211,957
$
275,779
83,106
57,796
13,661
1,161
­
­
­
248,272
$
323,029
97,344
67,698
16,001
1,918
­
­
­
1,455
1,893
570
397
94
30
­
­
­
National
Totals
454
73,668
$
37,137
$
643,458
$
754,264
$
4,439
TNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
670
348
45
41
19
5
2
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
24
24
24
24
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
108,743
$
56,536
7,232
6,710
3,162
777
311
­
­
70.00
$
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
8.52
$
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
21.00
$
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
75%
75%
100%
100%
54,371
$
28,268
3,616
3,355
1,581
1,166
466
­
­
952,022
$
494,964
63,314
58,748
27,682
2,975
1,190
­
­
1,115,136
$
579,769
74,162
68,813
32,425
4,918
1,967
­
­
6,535
3,398
435
403
190
78
31
­
­
National
Totals
1,131
183,471
$
92,824
$
1,600,895
$
1,877,190
$
11,069
Grand
Totals
5,899
941,781
$
672,583
$
7,251,519
$
8,865,883
$
64,678
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:
(
A)
Taken
from
"
Baseline
for
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities,"
column
I.
(
B)
Bi­
weekly
source
water
monitoring
for
one
year
for
small
systems
and
monthly
samples
for
24
months
for
medium
and
large
systems.
(
C)
Estimate
of
labor
for
collecting
sample
and
shipping,
based
on
expert
opinion.
(
D)
All
size
categories
were
assumed
to
use
a
technical
rate
of
$
24.96/
hour,
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
rates.
(
F)
DynCorp
study,
Kevin
Connell,
June
2002.
(
G)
Based
on
expert
opinion.
(
H)
The
amount
left
over
after
the
cost
of
half
an
hour
of
labor
is
subtracted
from
the
cost
of
utility
analysis
provided
in
Column
I.
(
I)
DynCorp
study,
Kevin
Connell,
December
2000.
(
J)
Estimate
based
on
Third
Edition
Baseline
Handbook
data.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
75
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
31b
Burden
and
Cost
to
Plants
Associated
with
E.
coli
Monitoring
for
Bin
Reclassification
for
All
Systems,
by
System
Size
Based
on
ICRSSM
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A2
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
E.
coli
Monitoring
Sampling
Sample
Analysis
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
#
of
E.
coli
Samples
Hours
per
Sample
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Total
Sampling
Labor
Cost
Commercial
Analysis
Cost
per
Sample
(
Includes
Shipping)
Utility
Analysis
Hours
per
Sample
(
Labor)
Utility
Analysis
Cost
per
Sample
(
O&
M)
Utility
Analysis
Cost
per
Sample
Percent
Utilities
with
E.
coli
Analysis
Capabilities
Total
Laboratory
Analysis
Cost
(
Labor)
Total
Laboratory
Analysis
Cost
(
O&
M)

A
B
C
D
E
=
A*
B*
C*
D
F
G
H
I
=
H+
G*
D
J
K
=
D*
G*
J*
A*
B
L
=
F*
A*
B*(
1­
J)+
H*
A*
B*
J
M
=
E+
K+
L
N
=
A*
B*
C+
A*
B*
G*
J
CWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
410
715
346
872
979
783
258
245
27
26
26
26
26
26
24
24
24
24
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
66,566
$
115,928
56,145
141,470
158,832
117,203
38,597
36,633
4,065
70.00
$
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
8.52
$
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
21.00
$
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
75%
75%
100%
100%
33,283
$
57,964
28,073
70,735
79,416
175,805
57,896
73,265
8,131
582,775
$
1,014,926
491,539
1,238,545
1,390,543
448,715
147,771
50,018
5,551
682,625
$
1,188,818
575,756
1,450,750
1,628,790
741,723
244,265
159,916
17,747
4,000
6,967
3,374
8,502
9,545
11,739
3,866
4,403
489
National
Totals
4,634
735,440
$
584,568
$
5,370,382
$
6,690,389
$
52,885
NTNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
156
203
64
44
10
2
­
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
24
24
24
24
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
25,371
$
32,856
10,343
7,158
1,692
332
­
­
­
70.00
$
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
8.52
$
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
21.00
$
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
75%
75%
100%
100%
12,685
$
16,428
5,171
3,579
846
498
­
­
­
222,114
$
287,646
90,547
62,668
14,812
1,272
­
­
­
260,170
$
336,929
106,060
73,405
17,350
2,103
­
­
­
1,525
1,975
622
430
102
33
­
­
­
National
Totals
479
77,751
$
39,208
$
679,059
$
796,018
$
4,686
TNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
697
362
48
45
21
6
2
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
24
24
24
24
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
113,099
$
58,801
7,827
7,263
3,422
850
340
­
­
70.00
$
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
8.52
$
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
21.00
$
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
75%
75%
100%
100%
56,549
$
29,401
3,914
3,631
1,711
1,275
510
­
­
990,160
$
514,792
68,526
63,584
29,961
3,255
1,302
­
­
1,159,808
$
602,994
80,267
74,478
35,094
5,381
2,152
­
­
6,797
3,534
470
436
206
85
34
­
­
National
Totals
1,182
191,603
$
96,992
$
1,671,581
$
1,960,176
$
11,562
Grand
Totals
6,295
1,004,794
$
720,767
$
7,721,022
$
9,446,583
$
69,133
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:
(
A)
Taken
from
"
Baseline
for
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities,"
column
I.
(
B)
Bi­
weekly
source
water
monitoring
for
one
year
for
small
systems
and
monthly
samples
for
24
months
for
medium
and
large
systems.
(
C)
Estimate
of
labor
for
collecting
sample
and
shipping,
based
on
expert
opinion.
(
D)
All
size
categories
were
assumed
to
use
a
technical
rate
of
$
24.96/
hour,
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
rates.
(
F)
DynCorp
study,
Kevin
Connell,
June
2002.
(
G)
Based
on
expert
opinion.
(
H)
The
amount
left
over
after
the
cost
of
half
an
hour
of
labor
is
subtracted
from
the
cost
of
utility
analysis
provided
in
Column
I.
(
I)
DynCorp
study,
Kevin
Connell,
December
2000.
(
J)
Estimate
based
on
Third
Edition
Baseline
Handbook
data.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
76
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
31c
Burden
and
Cost
to
Plants
Associated
with
E.
coli
Monitoring
for
Bin
Reclassification
for
All
Systems,
by
System
Size
Based
on
ICRSSL
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A2
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
E.
coli
Monitoring
Sampling
Sample
Analysis
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
#
of
E.
coli
Samples
Hours
per
Sample
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Total
Sampling
Labor
Cost
Commercial
Analysis
Cost
per
Sample
(
Includes
Shipping)
Utility
Analysis
Hours
per
Sample
(
Labor)
Utility
Analysis
Cost
per
Sample
(
O&
M)
Utility
Analysis
Cost
per
Sample
Percent
Utilities
with
E.
coli
Analysis
Capabilities
Total
Laboratory
Analysis
Cost
(
Labor)
Total
Laboratory
Analysis
Cost
(
O&
M)

A
B
C
D
E
=
A*
B*
C*
D
F
G
H
I
=
H+
G*
D
J
K
=
D*
G*
J*
A*
B
L
=
F*
A*
B*(
1­
J)+
H*
A*
B*
J
M
=
E+
K+
L
N
=
A*
B*
C+
A*
B*
G*
J
CWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
415
722
361
906
1,018
824
271
257
29
26
26
26
26
26
24
24
24
24
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
67,347
$
117,155
58,488
147,055
165,102
123,461
40,658
38,562
4,279
70.00
$
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
8.52
$
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
21.00
$
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
75%
75%
100%
100%
33,674
$
58,577
29,244
73,528
82,551
185,192
60,987
77,124
8,559
589,612
$
1,025,667
512,051
1,287,441
1,445,440
472,674
155,661
52,652
5,843
690,633
$
1,201,400
599,783
1,508,024
1,693,094
781,327
257,307
168,337
18,681
4,047
7,041
3,515
8,837
9,922
12,366
4,072
4,635
514
National
Totals
4,804
762,109
$
609,436
$
5,547,043
$
6,918,587
$
54,950
NTNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
158
205
66
46
11
2
­
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
24
24
24
24
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
25,668
$
33,203
10,774
7,441
1,759
351
­
­
­
70.00
$
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
8.52
$
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
21.00
$
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
75%
75%
100%
100%
12,834
$
16,602
5,387
3,720
879
526
­
­
­
224,720
$
290,690
94,325
65,142
15,397
1,343
­
­
­
263,222
$
340,495
110,486
76,303
18,035
2,220
­
­
­
1,543
1,995
647
447
106
35
­
­
­
National
Totals
488
79,196
$
39,949
$
691,617
$
810,762
$
4,773
TNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
704
366
50
46
22
6
2
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
24
24
24
24
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
114,217
$
59,382
8,130
7,543
3,554
897
359
­
­
70.00
$
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
8.52
$
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
21.00
$
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
75%
75%
100%
100%
57,108
$
29,691
4,065
3,772
1,777
1,345
538
­
­
999,944
$
519,879
71,173
66,040
31,118
3,433
1,373
­
­
1,171,268
$
608,952
83,367
77,355
36,450
5,675
2,270
­
­
6,864
3,569
489
453
214
90
36
­
­
National
Totals
1,197
194,081
$
98,296
$
1,692,960
$
1,985,337
$
11,714
Grand
Totals
6,489
1,035,386
$
747,680
$
7,931,620
$
9,714,686
$
71,437
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:
(
A)
Taken
from
"
Baseline
for
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities,"
column
I.
(
B)
Bi­
weekly
source
water
monitoring
for
one
year
for
small
systems
and
monthly
samples
for
24
months
for
medium
and
large
systems.
(
C)
Estimate
of
labor
for
collecting
sample
and
shipping,
based
on
expert
opinion.
(
D)
All
size
categories
were
assumed
to
use
a
technical
rate
of
$
24.96/
hour,
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
rates.
(
F)
DynCorp
study,
Kevin
Connell,
June
2002.
(
G)
Based
on
expert
opinion.
(
H)
The
amount
left
over
after
the
cost
of
half
an
hour
of
labor
is
subtracted
from
the
cost
of
utility
analysis
provided
in
Column
I.
(
I)
DynCorp
study,
Kevin
Connell,
December
2000.
(
J)
Estimate
based
on
Third
Edition
Baseline
Handbook
data.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
77
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
32a
Burden
and
Cost
to
Plants
Associated
with
E.
coli
Monitoring
for
Bin
Reclassification
for
All
Systems,
by
System
Size
Based
on
ICR
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A3
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
E.
coli
Monitoring
Sampling
Sample
Analysis
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
#
of
E.
coli
Samples
Hours
per
Sample
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Total
Sampling
Labor
Cost
Commercial
Analysis
Cost
per
Sample
(
Includes
Shipping)
Utility
Analysis
Hours
per
Sample
(
Labor)
Utility
Analysis
Cost
per
Sample
(
O&
M)
Utility
Analysis
Cost
per
Sample
Percent
Utilities
with
E.
coli
Analysis
Capabilities
Total
Laboratory
Analysis
Cost
(
Labor)
Total
Laboratory
Analysis
Cost
(
O&
M)

A
B
C
D
E
=
A*
B*
C*
D
F
G
H
I
=
H+
G*
D
J
K
=
D*
G*
J*
A*
B
L
=
F*
A*
B*(
1­
J)+
H*
A*
B*
J
M
=
E+
K+
L
N
=
A*
B*
C+
A*
B*
G*
J
CWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
407
710
371
931
1,045
751
247
239
26
26
26
26
26
26
24
24
24
24
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
66,059
$
115,130
60,176
151,078
169,619
112,504
37,050
35,721
3,964
70.00
$
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
8.52
$
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
21.00
$
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
75%
75%
100%
100%
33,029
$
57,565
30,088
75,539
84,810
168,755
55,575
71,443
7,928
578,331
$
1,007,943
526,826
1,322,661
1,484,983
430,723
141,846
48,773
5,413
677,419
$
1,180,639
617,090
1,549,279
1,739,411
711,981
234,470
155,937
17,305
3,970
6,919
3,616
9,079
10,193
11,268
3,711
4,293
476
National
Totals
4,728
751,301
$
584,732
$
5,547,499
$
6,883,532
$
53,527
NTNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
155
201
68
47
11
2
­
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
24
24
24
24
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
25,177
$
32,630
11,085
7,644
1,807
318
­
­
­
70.00
$
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
8.52
$
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
21.00
$
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
75%
75%
100%
100%
12,589
$
16,315
5,542
3,822
903
477
­
­
­
220,421
$
285,667
97,047
66,924
15,818
1,217
­
­
­
258,186
$
334,611
113,674
78,390
18,529
2,012
­
­
­
1,513
1,961
666
459
109
32
­
­
­
National
Totals
485
78,661
$
39,648
$
687,094
$
805,403
$
4,740
TNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
693
360
51
48
22
5
2
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
24
24
24
24
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
112,373
$
58,423
8,347
7,745
3,650
814
326
­
­
70.00
$
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
8.52
$
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
21.00
$
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
75%
75%
100%
100%
56,186
$
29,212
4,174
3,873
1,825
1,221
489
­
­
983,800
$
511,486
73,080
67,809
31,952
3,117
1,247
­
­
1,152,359
$
599,121
85,601
79,427
37,426
5,153
2,061
­
­
6,753
3,511
502
465
219
82
33
­
­
National
Totals
1,182
191,678
$
96,979
$
1,672,491
$
1,961,148
$
11,565
Grand
Totals
6,395
1,021,640
$
721,359
$
7,907,084
$
9,650,083
$
69,832
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:
(
A)
Taken
from
"
Baseline
for
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities,"
column
I.
(
B)
Bi­
weekly
source
water
monitoring
for
one
year
for
small
systems
and
monthly
samples
for
24
months
for
medium
and
large
systems.
(
C)
Estimate
of
labor
for
collecting
sample
and
shipping,
based
on
expert
opinion.
(
D)
All
size
categories
were
assumed
to
use
a
technical
rate
of
$
24.96/
hour,
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
rates.
(
F)
DynCorp
study,
Kevin
Connell,
June
2002.
(
G)
Based
on
expert
opinion.
(
H)
The
amount
left
over
after
the
cost
of
half
an
hour
of
labor
is
subtracted
from
the
cost
of
utility
analysis
provided
in
Column
I.
(
I)
DynCorp
study,
Kevin
Connell,
December
2000.
(
J)
Estimate
based
on
Third
Edition
Baseline
Handbook
data.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
78
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
32b
Burden
and
Cost
to
Plants
Associated
with
E.
coli
Monitoring
for
Bin
Reclassification
for
All
Systems,
by
System
Size
Based
on
ICRSSM
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A3
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
E.
coli
Monitoring
Sampling
Sample
Analysis
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
#
of
E.
coli
Samples
Hours
per
Sample
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Total
Sampling
Labor
Cost
Commercial
Analysis
Cost
per
Sample
(
Includes
Shipping)
Utility
Analysis
Hours
per
Sample
(
Labor)
Utility
Analysis
Cost
per
Sample
(
O&
M)
Utility
Analysis
Cost
per
Sample
Percent
Utilities
with
E.
coli
Analysis
Capabilities
Total
Laboratory
Analysis
Cost
(
Labor)
Total
Laboratory
Analysis
Cost
(
O&
M)

A
B
C
D
E
=
A*
B*
C*
D
F
G
H
I
=
H+
G*
D
J
K
=
D*
G*
J*
A*
B
L
=
F*
A*
B*(
1­
J)+
H*
A*
B*
J
M
=
E+
K+
L
N
=
A*
B*
C+
A*
B*
G*
J
CWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
419
728
395
988
1,109
818
269
259
29
26
26
26
26
26
24
24
24
24
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
68,003
$
118,185
64,019
160,241
179,906
122,547
40,357
38,775
4,303
70.00
$
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
8.52
$
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
21.00
$
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
75%
75%
100%
100%
34,002
$
59,093
32,010
80,120
89,953
183,821
60,536
77,550
8,606
595,355
$
1,034,690
560,476
1,402,875
1,575,040
469,174
154,509
52,943
5,875
697,359
$
1,211,968
656,505
1,643,236
1,844,899
775,542
255,402
169,269
18,785
4,087
7,102
3,847
9,630
10,812
12,274
4,042
4,660
517
National
Totals
5,014
796,337
$
625,690
$
5,850,937
$
7,272,964
$
56,972
NTNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
160
206
73
50
12
2
­
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
24
24
24
24
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
25,918
$
33,496
11,793
8,108
1,916
348
­
­
­
70.00
$
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
8.52
$
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
21.00
$
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
75%
75%
100%
100%
12,959
$
16,748
5,897
4,054
958
522
­
­
­
226,909
$
293,247
103,246
70,983
16,778
1,333
­
­
­
265,786
$
343,490
120,935
83,144
19,652
2,204
­
­
­
1,558
2,013
709
487
115
35
­
­
­
National
Totals
503
81,579
$
41,138
$
712,495
$
835,212
$
4,917
TNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
710
369
55
51
24
6
2
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
24
24
24
24
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
115,155
$
59,870
8,843
8,206
3,866
890
356
­
­
70.00
$
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
8.52
$
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
21.00
$
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
75%
75%
100%
100%
57,578
$
29,935
4,422
4,103
1,933
1,335
534
­
­
1,008,161
$
524,151
77,422
71,838
33,850
3,409
1,363
­
­
1,180,894
$
613,957
90,687
84,147
39,650
5,634
2,254
­
­
6,920
3,598
531
493
232
89
36
­
­
National
Totals
1,216
197,187
$
99,840
$
1,720,195
$
2,017,222
$
11,900
Grand
Totals
6,733
1,075,103
$
766,668
$
8,283,627
$
10,125,398
$
73,789
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:
(
A)
Taken
from
"
Baseline
for
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities,"
column
I.
(
B)
Bi­
weekly
source
water
monitoring
for
one
year
for
small
systems
and
monthly
samples
for
24
months
for
medium
and
large
systems.
(
C)
Estimate
of
labor
for
collecting
sample
and
shipping,
based
on
expert
opinion.
(
D)
All
size
categories
were
assumed
to
use
a
technical
rate
of
$
24.96/
hour,
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
rates.
(
F)
DynCorp
study,
Kevin
Connell,
June
2002.
(
G)
Based
on
expert
opinion.
(
H)
The
amount
left
over
after
the
cost
of
half
an
hour
of
labor
is
subtracted
from
the
cost
of
utility
analysis
provided
in
Column
I.
(
I)
DynCorp
study,
Kevin
Connell,
December
2000.
(
J)
Estimate
based
on
Third
Edition
Baseline
Handbook
data.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
79
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
32c
Burden
and
Cost
to
Plants
Associated
with
E.
coli
Monitoring
for
Bin
Reclassification
for
All
Systems,
by
System
Size
Based
on
ICRSSL
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A3
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
E.
coli
Monitoring
Sampling
Sample
Analysis
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
#
of
E.
coli
Samples
Hours
per
Sample
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Total
Sampling
Labor
Cost
Commercial
Analysis
Cost
per
Sample
(
Includes
Shipping)
Utility
Analysis
Hours
per
Sample
(
Labor)
Utility
Analysis
Cost
per
Sample
(
O&
M)
Utility
Analysis
Cost
per
Sample
Percent
Utilities
with
E.
coli
Analysis
Capabilities
Total
Laboratory
Analysis
Cost
(
Labor)
Total
Laboratory
Analysis
Cost
(
O&
M)

A
B
C
D
E
=
A*
B*
C*
D
F
G
H
I
=
H+
G*
D
J
K
=
D*
G*
J*
A*
B
L
=
F*
A*
B*(
1­
J)+
H*
A*
B*
J
M
=
E+
K+
L
N
=
A*
B*
C+
A*
B*
G*
J
CWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
423
734
401
1,003
1,126
858
283
271
30
26
26
26
26
26
24
24
24
24
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
68,561
$
119,062
65,045
162,686
182,651
128,541
42,331
40,541
4,499
70.00
$
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
8.52
$
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
21.00
$
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
75%
75%
100%
100%
34,281
$
59,531
32,523
81,343
91,326
192,811
63,497
81,082
8,998
600,240
$
1,042,365
569,457
1,424,284
1,599,076
492,122
162,066
55,354
6,143
703,082
$
1,220,958
667,025
1,668,313
1,873,053
813,475
267,894
176,977
19,640
4,120
7,155
3,909
9,777
10,977
12,875
4,240
4,873
541
National
Totals
5,128
813,918
$
0
645,391
$
5,951,108
$
7,410,417
$
58,466
NTNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
161
208
74
51
12
2
­
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
24
24
24
24
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
26,131
$
33,744
11,982
8,232
1,946
366
­
­
­
70.00
$
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
8.52
$
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
21.00
$
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
75%
75%
100%
100%
13,065
$
16,872
5,991
4,116
973
548
­
­
­
228,771
$
295,422
104,900
72,066
17,034
1,399
­
­
­
267,967
$
346,038
122,873
84,413
19,952
2,313
­
­
­
1,570
2,028
720
495
117
37
­
­
­
National
Totals
508
82,400
$
41,565
$
719,592
$
843,557
$
4,967
TNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
715
372
55
51
24
6
2
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
24
24
24
24
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
115,954
$
60,285
8,976
8,328
3,924
934
373
­
­
70.00
$
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
8.52
$
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
21.00
$
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
75%
75%
100%
100%
57,977
$
30,143
4,488
4,164
1,962
1,400
560
­
­
1,015,152
$
527,786
78,580
72,913
34,357
3,574
1,430
­
­
1,189,083
$
618,214
92,044
85,406
40,243
5,908
2,363
­
­
6,968
3,623
539
501
236
94
37
­
­
National
Totals
1,226
198,774
$
100,694
$
1,733,793
$
2,033,262
$
11,998
Grand
Totals
6,862
1,095,092
$
787,651
$
8,404,493
$
10,287,235
$
75,430
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:
(
A)
Taken
from
"
Baseline
for
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities,"
column
I.
(
B)
Bi­
weekly
source
water
monitoring
for
one
year
for
small
systems
and
monthly
samples
for
24
months
for
medium
and
large
systems.
(
C)
Estimate
of
labor
for
collecting
sample
and
shipping,
based
on
expert
opinion.
(
D)
All
size
categories
were
assumed
to
use
a
technical
rate
of
$
24.96/
hour,
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
rates.
(
F)
DynCorp
study,
Kevin
Connell,
June
2002.
(
G)
Based
on
expert
opinion.
(
H)
The
amount
left
over
after
the
cost
of
half
an
hour
of
labor
is
subtracted
from
the
cost
of
utility
analysis
provided
in
Column
I.
(
I)
DynCorp
study,
Kevin
Connell,
December
2000.
(
J)
Estimate
based
on
Third
Edition
Baseline
Handbook
data.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
80
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
33a
Burden
and
Cost
to
Plants
Associated
with
E.
coli
Monitoring
for
Bin
Reclassification
for
All
Systems,
by
System
Size
Based
on
ICR
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A4
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
E.
coli
Monitoring
Sampling
Sample
Analysis
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
#
of
E.
coli
Samples
Hours
per
Sample
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Total
Sampling
Labor
Cost
Commercial
Analysis
Cost
per
Sample
(
Includes
Shipping)
Utility
Analysis
Hours
per
Sample
(
Labor)
Utility
Analysis
Cost
per
Sample
(
O&
M)
Utility
Analysis
Cost
per
Sample
Percent
Utilities
with
E.
coli
Analysis
Capabilities
Total
Laboratory
Analysis
Cost
(
Labor)
Total
Laboratory
Analysis
Cost
(
O&
M)

A
B
C
D
E
=
A*
B*
C*
D
F
G
H
I
=
H+
G*
D
J
K
=
D*
G*
J*
A*
B
L
=
F*
A*
B*(
1­
J)+
H*
A*
B*
J
M
=
E+
K+
L
N
=
A*
B*
C+
A*
B*
G*
J
CWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
423
734
403
1,008
1,131
931
307
291
32
26
26
26
26
26
24
24
24
24
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
68,619
$
119,152
65,390
163,507
183,573
139,454
45,925
43,633
4,842
70.00
$
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
8.52
$
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
21.00
$
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
75%
75%
100%
100%
34,309
$
59,576
32,695
81,754
91,787
209,182
68,888
87,265
9,684
600,743
$
1,043,155
572,473
1,431,473
1,607,148
533,905
175,826
59,575
6,611
703,671
$
1,221,884
670,558
1,676,734
1,882,508
882,541
290,639
190,473
21,138
4,124
7,161
3,930
9,826
11,032
13,968
4,600
5,244
582
National
Totals
5,261
834,095
$
675,140
$
6,030,910
$
7,540,145
$
60,466
NTNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
161
208
74
51
12
3
­
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
24
24
24
24
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
26,153
$
33,770
12,045
8,273
1,955
397
­
­
­
70.00
$
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
8.52
$
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
21.00
$
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
75%
75%
100%
100%
13,076
$
16,885
6,023
4,137
978
595
­
­
­
228,962
$
295,646
105,456
72,430
17,120
1,518
­
­
­
268,192
$
346,301
123,524
84,839
20,053
2,510
­
­
­
1,572
2,029
724
497
118
40
­
­
­
National
Totals
509
82,593
$
41,693
$
721,132
$
845,418
$
4,979
TNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
715
372
56
52
24
7
3
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
24
24
24
24
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
116,036
$
60,328
9,020
8,370
3,944
1,012
405
­
­
70.00
$
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
8.52
$
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
21.00
$
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
75%
75%
100%
100%
58,018
$
30,164
4,510
4,185
1,972
1,517
607
­
­
1,015,872
$
528,160
78,970
73,275
34,527
3,873
1,549
­
­
1,189,926
$
618,652
92,500
85,829
40,443
6,402
2,561
­
­
6,973
3,625
542
503
237
101
41
­
­
National
Totals
1,228
199,114
$
100,973
$
1,736,226
$
2,036,312
$
12,023
Grand
Totals
6,999
1,115,802
$
817,806
$
8,488,268
$
10,421,876
$
77,468
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:
(
A)
Taken
from
"
Baseline
for
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities,"
column
I.
(
B)
Bi­
weekly
source
water
monitoring
for
one
year
for
small
systems
and
monthly
samples
for
24
months
for
medium
and
large
systems.
(
C)
Estimate
of
labor
for
collecting
sample
and
shipping,
based
on
expert
opinion.
(
D)
All
size
categories
were
assumed
to
use
a
technical
rate
of
$
24.96/
hour,
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
rates.
(
F)
DynCorp
study,
Kevin
Connell,
June
2002.
(
G)
Based
on
expert
opinion.
(
H)
The
amount
left
over
after
the
cost
of
half
an
hour
of
labor
is
subtracted
from
the
cost
of
utility
analysis
provided
in
Column
I.
(
I)
DynCorp
study,
Kevin
Connell,
December
2000.
(
J)
Estimate
based
on
Third
Edition
Baseline
Handbook
data.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
81
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
33b
Burden
and
Cost
to
Plants
Associated
with
E.
coli
Monitoring
for
Bin
Reclassification
for
All
Systems,
by
System
Size
Based
on
ICRSSM
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A4
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
E.
coli
Monitoring
Sampling
Sample
Analysis
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
#
of
E.
coli
Samples
Hours
per
Sample
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Total
Sampling
Labor
Cost
Commercial
Analysis
Cost
per
Sample
(
Includes
Shipping)
Utility
Analysis
Hours
per
Sample
(
Labor)
Utility
Analysis
Cost
per
Sample
(
O&
M)
Utility
Analysis
Cost
per
Sample
Percent
Utilities
with
E.
coli
Analysis
Capabilities
Total
Laboratory
Analysis
Cost
(
Labor)
Total
Laboratory
Analysis
Cost
(
O&
M)

A
B
C
D
E
=
A*
B*
C*
D
F
G
H
I
=
H+
G*
D
J
K
=
D*
G*
J*
A*
B
L
=
F*
A*
B*(
1­
J)+
H*
A*
B*
J
M
=
E+
K+
L
N
=
A*
B*
C+
A*
B*
G*
J
CWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
427
741
406
1,015
1,140
982
323
306
34
26
26
26
26
26
24
24
24
24
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
69,248
$
120,142
65,883
164,682
184,893
147,110
48,446
45,853
5,089
70.00
$
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
8.52
$
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
21.00
$
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
75%
75%
100%
100%
34,624
$
60,071
32,941
82,341
92,446
220,665
72,669
91,706
10,177
606,255
$
1,051,816
576,789
1,441,761
1,618,699
563,214
185,478
62,607
6,948
710,128
$
1,232,028
675,613
1,688,785
1,896,038
930,989
306,594
200,166
22,214
4,162
7,220
3,959
9,897
11,111
14,735
4,852
5,511
612
National
Totals
5,374
851,345
$
0
697,641
$
6,113,568
$
7,662,554
$
62,059
NTNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
163
210
75
51
12
3
­
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
24
24
24
24
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
26,393
$
34,050
12,136
8,333
1,970
418
­
­
­
70.00
$
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
8.52
$
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
21.00
$
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
75%
75%
100%
100%
13,196
$
17,025
6,068
4,166
985
628
­
­
­
231,063
$
298,101
106,251
72,950
17,243
1,602
­
­
­
270,652
$
349,176
124,455
85,449
20,197
2,648
­
­
­
1,586
2,046
729
501
118
42
­
­
­
National
Totals
514
83,299
$
0
42,068
$
727,210
$
852,577
$
5,023
TNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
721
375
56
52
24
7
3
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
24
24
24
24
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
116,937
$
60,796
9,084
8,429
3,972
1,066
426
­
­
70.00
$
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
8.52
$
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
21.00
$
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
75%
75%
100%
100%
58,468
$
30,398
4,542
4,214
1,986
1,599
640
­
­
1,023,761
$
532,262
79,527
73,791
34,770
4,082
1,633
­
­
1,199,166
$
623,456
93,152
86,434
40,728
6,748
2,699
­
­
7,027
3,654
546
507
239
107
43
­
­
National
Totals
1,238
200,710
$
0
101,848
$
1,749,825
$
2,052,383
$
12,122
Grand
Totals
7,126
1,135,355
$
0
841,557
$
8,590,603
$
10,567,514
$
79,203
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:
(
A)
Taken
from
"
Baseline
for
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities,"
column
I.
(
B)
Bi­
weekly
source
water
monitoring
for
one
year
for
small
systems
and
monthly
samples
for
24
months
for
medium
and
large
systems.
(
C)
Estimate
of
labor
for
collecting
sample
and
shipping,
based
on
expert
opinion.
(
D)
All
size
categories
were
assumed
to
use
a
technical
rate
of
$
24.96/
hour,
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
rates.
(
F)
DynCorp
study,
Kevin
Connell,
June
2002.
(
G)
Based
on
expert
opinion.
(
H)
The
amount
left
over
after
the
cost
of
half
an
hour
of
labor
is
subtracted
from
the
cost
of
utility
analysis
provided
in
Column
I.
(
I)
DynCorp
study,
Kevin
Connell,
December
2000.
(
J)
Estimate
based
on
Third
Edition
Baseline
Handbook
data.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
82
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
33c
Burden
and
Cost
to
Plants
Associated
with
E.
coli
Monitoring
for
Bin
Reclassification
for
All
Systems,
by
System
Size
Based
on
ICRSSL
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A4
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
E.
coli
Monitoring
Sampling
Sample
Analysis
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
#
of
E.
coli
Samples
Hours
per
Sample
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Total
Sampling
Labor
Cost
Commercial
Analysis
Cost
per
Sample
(
Includes
Shipping)
Utility
Analysis
Hours
per
Sample
(
Labor)
Utility
Analysis
Cost
per
Sample
(
O&
M)
Utility
Analysis
Cost
per
Sample
Percent
Utilities
with
E.
coli
Analysis
Capabilities
Total
Laboratory
Analysis
Cost
(
Labor)
Total
Laboratory
Analysis
Cost
(
O&
M)

A
B
C
D
E
=
A*
B*
C*
D
F
G
H
I
=
H+
G*
D
J
K
=
D*
G*
J*
A*
B
L
=
F*
A*
B*(
1­
J)+
H*
A*
B*
J
M
=
E+
K+
L
N
=
A*
B*
C+
A*
B*
G*
J
CWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
429
744
408
1,019
1,144
1,001
330
312
35
26
26
26
26
26
24
24
24
24
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
69,577
$
120,658
66,140
165,296
185,582
149,983
49,393
46,696
5,182
70.00
$
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
8.52
$
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
21.00
$
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
75%
75%
100%
100%
34,789
$
60,329
33,070
82,648
92,791
224,975
74,089
93,392
10,364
609,136
$
1,056,341
579,044
1,447,137
1,624,734
574,216
189,101
63,758
7,076
713,502
$
1,237,329
678,254
1,695,082
1,903,107
949,174
312,582
203,847
22,622
4,181
7,251
3,975
9,934
11,153
15,022
4,947
5,613
623
National
Totals
5,421
858,508
$
706,448
$
6,150,543
$
7,715,499
$
62,699
NTNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
163
211
75
52
12
3
­
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
24
24
24
24
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
26,518
$
34,196
12,184
8,364
1,977
427
­
­
­
70.00
$
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
8.52
$
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
21.00
$
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
75%
75%
100%
100%
13,259
$
17,098
6,092
4,182
988
640
­
­
­
232,161
$
299,383
106,666
73,222
17,307
1,633
­
­
­
271,938
$
350,678
124,942
85,768
20,272
2,699
­
­
­
1,594
2,055
732
503
119
43
­
­
­
National
Totals
516
83,665
$
42,259
$
730,373
$
856,297
$
5,045
TNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
724
376
56
52
25
7
3
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
24
24
24
24
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
117,408
$
61,041
9,117
8,460
3,986
1,087
435
­
­
70.00
$
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
70.00
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
8.52
$
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
8.52
21.00
$
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
21.00
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
75%
75%
100%
100%
58,704
$
30,521
4,558
4,230
1,993
1,630
652
­
­
1,027,882
$
534,405
79,818
74,061
34,898
4,161
1,664
­
­
1,203,994
$
625,966
93,493
86,751
40,877
6,877
2,751
­
­
7,056
3,668
548
508
240
109
44
­
­
National
Totals
1,243
201,533
$
102,288
$
1,756,888
$
2,060,709
$
12,172
Grand
Totals
7,180
1,143,707
$
850,995
$
8,637,804
$
10,632,506
$
79,916
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:
(
A)
Taken
from
"
Baseline
for
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities,"
column
I.
(
B)
Bi­
weekly
source
water
monitoring
for
one
year
for
small
systems
and
monthly
samples
for
24
months
for
medium
and
large
systems.
(
C)
Estimate
of
labor
for
collecting
sample
and
shipping,
based
on
expert
opinion.
(
D)
All
size
categories
were
assumed
to
use
a
technical
rate
of
$
24.96/
hour,
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
rates.
(
F)
DynCorp
study,
Kevin
Connell,
June
2002.
(
G)
Based
on
expert
opinion.
(
H)
The
amount
left
over
after
the
cost
of
half
an
hour
of
labor
is
subtracted
from
the
cost
of
utility
analysis
provided
in
Column
I.
(
I)
DynCorp
study,
Kevin
Connell,
December
2000.
(
J)
Estimate
based
on
Third
Edition
Baseline
Handbook
data.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
83
June
2003
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
D­
84
D.
7.2
Future
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
Exhibits
D.
34
through
D.
36
show
costs
and
labor
for
future
Cryptosporidium
monitoring.
Only
small
plants
assigned
to
a
treatment
bin
after
the
first
round
of
monitoring
are
assumed
to
monitor
for
Cryptosporidium.
Also,
plants
that
install
5.5
log
removal
treatment
are
omitted
from
the
future
monitoring
requirements.
Exhibit
D.
34a
Burden
and
Cost
to
Plants
Associated
with
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
for
Bin
Reclassification
for
All
System
Types,
by
System
Size
Based
on
ICR
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A2
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
Sampling
Sample
Analysis
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)
Responses
#
of
Cryptosporidium
Samples
Hours
per
Sample
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Total
Sampling
Labor
Cost
Cost
per
Sample
Total
Laboratory
Analysis
Cost
(
O&
M)

A
B
C
D
E
=
A*
B*
C*
D
F
G
=
A*
B*
F
H
=
E+
G
I
=
A*
B*
C
J
=
I/
2080
K
=
A*
B
CWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1,000
1,001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
392
685
318
804
903
723
238
226
25
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
127,044
$
222,290
103,062
260,943
292,967
234,482
77,220
73,380
8,143
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
5,390,225
$
9,431,305
4,372,707
11,071,264
12,429,964
9,948,577
3,276,269
3,113,347
345,506
5,517,270
$
9,653,595
4,475,769
11,332,207
12,722,931
10,183,059
3,353,488
3,186,727
353,649
5,090
8,906
4,129
10,454
11,737
9,394
3,094
2,940
326
2.4
4.3
2.0
5.0
5.6
4.5
1.5
1.4
0.2
10,180
17,812
8,258
20,909
23,475
18,789
6,187
5,880
653
National
Totals
4,313
1,399,532
$
59,379,164
$
60,778,695
$
56,071
27.0
112,142
NTNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
149
194
59
41
10
2
­
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
48,421
$
63,000
18,985
13,203
3,121
657
­
­
­
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
2,054,388
$
2,672,977
805,499
560,184
132,407
27,867
­
­
­
2,102,808
$
2,735,978
824,484
573,387
135,528
28,524
­
­
­
1,940
2,524
761
529
125
26
­
­
­
0.9
1.2
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.0
­
­
­
3,880
5,048
1,521
1,058
250
53
­
­
­
National
Totals
454
147,387
$
6,253,321
$
6,400,708
$
5,905
2.8
11,810
TNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
670
348
45
41
19
5
2
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
217,486
$
113,073
14,464
13,421
6,324
1,684
673
­
­
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
9,227,452
$
4,797,428
613,668
569,412
268,307
71,437
28,575
­
­
9,444,937
$
4,910,501
628,132
582,833
274,631
73,121
29,248
­
­
8,713
4,530
579
538
253
67
27
­
­
4.2
2.2
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.0
­
­
17,427
9,060
1,159
1,075
507
135
54
­
­
National
Totals
1,131
367,124
$
15,576,279
$
15,943,402
$
14,708
7.1
29,417
Grand
Totals
5,899
1,914,042
$
81,208,764
$
83,122,806
$
76,684
36.9
153,369
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:
(
A)
Taken
from
"
Baseline
for
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities,"
column
J.

(
B)
Semimonthly
source
water
monitoring
for
one
year
for
small
systems
and
monthly
samples
for
24
months
for
medium
and
large
systems,

plus
two
matrix
spike
samples.

(
C)
Estimate
of
labor
for
collecting
sample
and
shipping,
based
on
expert
opinion.
(
D)
All
size
categories
were
assumed
to
use
a
technical
rate
of
$
24.96/
hour,
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
rates.
(
F)
Cost
per
sample
includes
$
403
in
lab
costs,
$
88.70
for
shipping,
and
$
37.80
in
additional
costs.
Assumes
all
plants
ship
samples
to
private
lab
for
Cryptosporidium
analysis.
Samples
must
be
shipped
overnight
to
meet
24­
hour
holding
time
requirements.
Costs
based
on
FedEx
priority
overnight
rates
for
10
L
sample
(
22
LB)
shipped
in
a
34­
quart
polyethylene
cooler
packed
with
wet
ice,
median
cost
for
all
zones.
Samples
generating
a
pellet
volume
of
>
0.5
ml
require
multiple
subsample
processing
at
a
cost
of
$
140
each.
During
the
ICR
Supplemental
Survey,
approximately
27
percent
of
field
samples
required
analysis
of
multiple
subsamples,
resulting
in
an
additional
per­
plant
charge
of
$
38
($
140
x
0.27).

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
85
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
34b
Burden
and
Cost
to
Plants
Associated
with
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
for
Bin
Reclassification
for
All
System
Types,
by
System
Size
Based
on
ICRSSM
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A2
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
Sampling
Sample
Analysis
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)
Responses
#
of
Cryptosporidium
Samples
Hours
per
Sample
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Total
Sampling
Labor
Cost
Cost
per
Sample
Total
Laboratory
Analysis
Cost
(
O&
M)

A
B
C
D
E
=
A*
B*
C*
D
F
G
=
A*
B*
F
H
=
E+
G
I
=
A*
B*
C
J
=
I/
2080
K
=
A*
B
CWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1,000
1,001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
410
715
346
872
979
783
258
245
27
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
133,133
$
231,856
112,290
282,940
317,664
253,940
83,628
79,371
8,808
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
5,648,536
$
9,837,145
4,764,230
12,004,564
13,477,801
10,774,145
3,548,145
3,367,540
373,715
5,781,668
$
10,069,001
4,876,520
12,287,504
13,795,465
11,028,085
3,631,772
3,446,911
382,523
5,334
9,289
4,499
11,336
12,727
10,174
3,350
3,180
353
2.6
4.5
2.2
5.4
6.1
4.9
1.6
1.5
0.2
10,668
18,578
8,998
22,672
25,454
20,348
6,701
6,360
706
National
Totals
4,634
1,503,630
$
63,795,820
$
65,299,449
$
60,242
29.0
120,483
NTNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
156
203
64
44
10
2
­
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
50,741
$
65,711
20,685
14,316
3,384
720
­
­
­
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
2,152,838
$
2,787,998
877,621
607,407
143,569
30,548
­
­
­
2,203,579
$
2,853,710
898,306
621,723
146,953
31,268
­
­
­
2,033
2,633
829
574
136
29
­
­
­
1.0
1.3
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.0
­
­
­
4,066
5,265
1,657
1,147
271
58
­
­
­
National
Totals
479
155,558
$
6,599,982
$
6,755,539
$
6,232
3.0
12,465
TNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
697
362
48
45
21
6
2
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
226,198
$
117,602
15,655
14,526
6,844
1,842
737
­
­
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
9,597,102
$
4,989,613
664,188
616,289
290,395
78,164
31,266
­
­
9,823,300
$
5,107,215
679,843
630,815
297,240
80,007
32,003
­
­
9,062
4,712
627
582
274
74
30
­
­
4.4
2.3
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.0
­
­
18,125
9,423
1,254
1,164
548
148
59
­
­
National
Totals
1,182
383,404
$
16,267,018
$
16,650,422
$
15,361
7.4
30,721
Grand
Totals
6,295
2,042,591
$
86,662,820
$
88,705,411
$
81,835
39.3
163,669
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:
(
A)
Taken
from
"
Baseline
for
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities,"
column
J.
(
B)
Semimonthly
source
water
monitoring
for
one
year
for
small
systems
and
monthly
samples
for
24
months
for
medium
and
large
systems,
plus
two
matrix
spike
samples.

(
C)
Estimate
of
labor
for
collecting
sample
and
shipping,
based
on
expert
opinion.
(
D)
All
size
categories
were
assumed
to
use
a
technical
rate
of
$
24.96/
hour,
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
rates.

(
F)
Cost
per
sample
includes
$
403
in
lab
costs,
$
88.70
for
shipping,
and
$
37.80
in
additional
costs.
Assumes
all
plants
ship
samples
to
private
lab
for
Cryptosporidium
analysis.
Samples
must
be
shipped
overnight
to
meet
24­
hour
holding
time
requirements.
Costs
based
on
FedEx
priority
overnight
rates
for
10
L
sample
(
22
LB)
shipped
in
a
34­
quart
polyethylene
cooler
packed
with
wet
ice,
median
cost
for
all
zones.
Samples
generating
a
pellet
volume
of
>
0.5
ml
require
multiple
subsample
processing
at
a
cost
of
$
140
each.
During
the
ICR
Supplemental
Survey,
approximately
27
percent
of
field
samples
required
analysis
of
multiple
subsamples,
resulting
in
an
additional
per­
plant
charge
of
$
38
($
140
x
0.27).

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
86
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
34c
Burden
and
Cost
to
Plants
Associated
with
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
for
Bin
Reclassification
for
All
System
Types,
by
System
Size
Based
on
ICRSSL
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A2
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
Sampling
Sample
Analysis
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)
Responses
#
of
Cryptosporidium
Samples
Hours
per
Sample
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Total
Sampling
Labor
Cost
Cost
per
Sample
Total
Laboratory
Analysis
Cost
(
O&
M)

A
B
C
D
E
=
A*
B*
C*
D
F
G
=
A*
B*
F
H
=
E+
G
I
=
A*
B*
C
J
=
I/
2080
K
=
A*
B
CWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1,000
1,001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
415
722
361
906
1,018
824
271
257
29
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
134,694
$
234,310
116,976
294,111
330,205
267,499
88,093
83,551
9,272
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
5,714,802
$
9,941,257
4,963,045
12,478,495
14,009,894
11,349,426
3,737,596
3,544,877
393,395
5,849,496
$
10,175,567
5,080,021
12,772,606
14,340,099
11,616,925
3,825,689
3,628,427
402,667
5,396
9,387
4,687
11,783
13,229
10,717
3,529
3,347
371
2.6
4.5
2.3
5.7
6.4
5.2
1.7
1.6
0.2
10,793
18,775
9,373
23,567
26,459
21,434
7,059
6,695
743
National
Totals
4,804
1,558,710
$
66,132,787
$
67,691,498
$
62,448
30.0
124,897
NTNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
158
205
66
46
11
2
­
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
51,336
$
66,407
21,548
14,881
3,517
760
­
­
­
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
2,178,094
$
2,817,505
914,245
631,387
149,237
32,248
­
­
­
2,229,431
$
2,883,912
935,793
646,268
152,754
33,008
­
­
­
2,057
2,661
863
596
141
30
­
­
­
1.0
1.3
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.0
­
­
­
4,113
5,321
1,727
1,192
282
61
­
­
­
National
Totals
488
158,450
$
6,722,716
$
6,881,166
$
6,348
3.1
12,696
TNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
704
366
50
46
22
6
2
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
228,433
$
118,764
16,259
15,087
7,109
1,943
777
­
­
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
9,691,930
$
5,038,915
689,843
640,093
301,612
82,428
32,971
­
­
9,920,363
$
5,157,679
706,102
655,180
308,721
84,371
33,748
­
­
9,152
4,758
651
604
285
78
31
­
­
4.4
2.3
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.0
­
­
18,304
9,516
1,303
1,209
570
156
62
­
­
National
Totals
1,197
388,372
$
16,477,793
$
16,866,165
$
15,560
7.5
31,120
Grand
Totals
6,489
2,105,533
$
89,333,296
$
91,438,829
$
84,356
40.6
168,713
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:
(
A)
Taken
from
"
Baseline
for
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities,"
column
J.
(
B)
Semimonthly
source
water
monitoring
for
one
year
for
small
systems
and
monthly
samples
for
24
months
for
medium
and
large
systems,
plus
two
matrix
spike
samples.
(
C)
Estimate
of
labor
for
collecting
sample
and
shipping,
based
on
expert
opinion.
(
D)
All
size
categories
were
assumed
to
use
a
technical
rate
of
$
24.96/
hour,
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
rates.

(
F)
Cost
per
sample
includes
$
403
in
lab
costs,
$
88.70
for
shipping,
and
$
37.80
in
additional
costs.
Assumes
all
plants
ship
samples
to
private
lab
for
Cryptosporidium
analysis.
Samples
must
be
shipped
overnight
to
meet
24­
hour
holding
time
requirements.
Costs
based
on
FedEx
priority
overnight
rates
for
10
L
sample
(
22
LB)
shipped
in
a
34­
quart
polyethylene
cooler
packed
with
wet
ice,
median
cost
for
all
zones.
Samples
generating
a
pellet
volume
of
>
0.5
ml
require
multiple
subsample
processing
at
a
cost
of
$
140
each.
During
the
ICR
Supplemental
Survey,
approximately
27
percent
of
field
samples
required
analysis
of
multiple
subsamples,
resulting
in
an
additional
per­
plant
charge
of
$
38
($
140
x
0.27).

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
87
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
35a
Burden
and
Cost
to
Plants
Associated
with
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
for
Bin
Reclassification
for
All
System
Types,
by
System
Size
Based
on
ICR
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A3
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
Sampling
Sample
Analysis
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)
Responses
#
of
Cryptosporidium
Samples
Hours
per
Sample
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Total
Sampling
Labor
Cost
Cost
per
Sample
Total
Laboratory
Analysis
Cost
(
O&
M)

A
B
C
D
E
=
A*
B*
C*
D
F
G
=
A*
B*
F
H
=
E+
G
I
=
A*
B*
C
J
=
I/
2080
K
=
A*
B
CWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1,000
1,001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
142
247
129
324
364
751
247
239
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
45,977
$
80,131
41,882
105,150
118,055
243,758
80,274
77,396
8,589
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
1,950,700
$
3,399,775
1,776,975
4,461,313
5,008,819
10,342,120
3,405,870
3,283,760
364,417
1,996,677
$
3,479,906
1,818,858
4,566,464
5,126,874
10,585,878
3,486,145
3,361,156
373,006
1,842
3,210
1,678
4,213
4,730
9,766
3,216
3,101
344
0.9
1.5
0.8
2.0
2.3
4.7
1.5
1.5
0.2
3,684
6,421
3,356
8,426
9,460
19,532
6,432
6,202
688
National
Totals
2,469
801,212
$
33,993,751
$
34,794,964
$
32,100
15.4
64,200
NTNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
54
70
24
16
4
2
­
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
17,523
$
22,710
7,715
5,320
1,258
689
­
­
­
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
743,474
$
963,549
327,338
225,733
53,355
29,228
­
­
­
760,998
$
986,259
335,053
231,054
54,613
29,917
­
­
­
702
910
309
213
50
28
­
­
­
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
­
­
­
1,404
1,820
618
426
101
55
­
­
­
National
Totals
170
55,216
$
2,342,677
$
2,397,892
$
2,212
1.1
4,424
TNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
241
125
18
17
8
5
2
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
78,211
$
40,663
5,810
5,391
2,540
1,764
706
­
­
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
3,318,340
$
1,725,232
246,496
228,719
107,773
74,851
29,940
­
­
3,396,551
$
1,765,895
252,306
234,110
110,313
76,615
30,646
­
­
3,133
1,629
233
216
102
71
28
­
­
1.5
0.8
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
­
­
6,267
3,258
466
432
204
141
57
­
­
National
Totals
416
135,085
$
5,731,352
$
5,866,436
$
5,412
2.6
10,824
Grand
Totals
3,056
991,513
$
42,067,780
$
43,059,292
$
39,724
19.1
79,448
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:
(
A)
Taken
from
"
Baseline
for
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities,"
column
J.
(
B)
Semimonthly
source
water
monitoring
for
one
year
for
small
systems
and
monthly
samples
for
24
months
for
medium
and
large
systems,
plus
two
matrix
spike
samples.
(
C)
Estimate
of
labor
for
collecting
sample
and
shipping,
based
on
expert
opinion.

(
D)
All
size
categories
were
assumed
to
use
a
technical
rate
of
$
24.96/
hour,
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
rates.
(
F)
Cost
per
sample
includes
$
403
in
lab
costs,
$
88.70
for
shipping,
and
$
37.80
in
additional
costs.
Assumes
all
plants
ship
samples
to
private
lab
for
Cryptosporidium
analysis.
Samples
must
be
shipped
overnight
to
meet
24­
hour
holding
time
requirements.
Costs
based
on
FedEx
priority
overnight
rates
for
10
L
sample
(
22
LB)
shipped
in
a
34­
quart
polyethylene
cooler
packed
with
wet
ice,
median
cost
for
all
zones.
Samples
generating
a
pellet
volume
of
>
0.5
ml
require
multiple
subsample
processing
at
a
cost
of
$
140
each.
During
the
ICR
Supplemental
Survey,
approximately
27
percent
of
field
samples
required
analysis
of
multiple
subsamples,
resulting
in
an
additional
per­
plant
charge
of
$
38
($
140
x
0.27).

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
88
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
35b
Burden
and
Cost
to
Plants
Associated
with
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
for
Bin
Reclassification
for
All
System
Types,
by
System
Size
Based
on
ICRSSM
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A3
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
Sampling
Sample
Analysis
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)
Responses
#
of
Cryptosporidium
Samples
Hours
per
Sample
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Total
Sampling
Labor
Cost
Cost
per
Sample
Total
Laboratory
Analysis
Cost
(
O&
M)

A
B
C
D
E
=
A*
B*
C*
D
F
G
=
A*
B*
F
H
=
E+
G
I
=
A*
B*
C
J
=
I/
2080
K
=
A*
B
CWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1,000
1,001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
114
198
107
269
302
818
269
259
29
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
36,994
$
64,293
34,826
87,171
97,869
265,519
87,441
84,013
9,323
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
1,569,565
$
2,727,808
1,477,613
3,698,475
4,152,364
11,265,390
3,709,922
3,564,491
395,572
1,606,559
$
2,792,100
1,512,440
3,785,646
4,250,232
11,530,908
3,797,362
3,648,504
404,895
1,482
2,576
1,395
3,492
3,921
10,638
3,503
3,366
374
0.7
1.2
0.7
1.7
1.9
5.1
1.7
1.6
0.2
2,964
5,152
2,791
6,985
7,842
21,276
7,006
6,732
747
National
Totals
2,365
767,448
$
32,561,199
$
33,328,647
$
30,747
14.8
61,494
NTNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
43
56
20
14
3
2
­
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
14,099
$
18,222
6,415
4,411
1,043
755
­
­
­
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
598,212
$
773,103
272,192
187,135
44,232
32,014
­
­
­
612,311
$
791,324
278,607
191,546
45,275
32,769
­
­
­
565
730
257
177
42
30
­
­
­
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
­
­
­
1,130
1,460
514
353
84
60
­
­
­
National
Totals
139
44,944
$
1,906,888
$
1,951,832
$
1,801
0.9
3,601
TNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
193
100
15
14
6
6
2
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
62,644
$
32,569
4,811
4,464
2,103
1,929
772
­
­
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
2,657,870
$
1,381,848
204,111
189,391
89,241
81,843
32,737
­
­
2,720,514
$
1,414,418
208,921
193,855
91,344
83,772
33,509
­
­
2,510
1,305
193
179
84
77
31
­
­
1.2
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
­
­
5,020
2,610
385
358
169
155
62
­
­
National
Totals
337
109,292
$
4,637,041
$
4,746,333
$
4,379
2.1
8,757
Grand
Totals
2,840
921,685
$
39,105,128
$
40,026,812
$
36,926
17.8
73,853
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:
(
A)
Taken
from
"
Baseline
for
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities,"
column
J.
(
B)
Semimonthly
source
water
monitoring
for
one
year
for
small
systems
and
monthly
samples
for
24
months
for
medium
and
large
systems,
plus
two
matrix
spike
samples.
(
C)
Estimate
of
labor
for
collecting
sample
and
shipping,
based
on
expert
opinion.

(
D)
All
size
categories
were
assumed
to
use
a
technical
rate
of
$
24.96/
hour,
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
rates.

(
F)
Cost
per
sample
includes
$
403
in
lab
costs,
$
88.70
for
shipping,
and
$
37.80
in
additional
costs.
Assumes
all
plants
ship
samples
to
private
lab
for
Cryptosporidium
analysis.
Samples
must
be
shipped
overnight
to
meet
24­
hour
holding
time
requirements.
Costs
based
on
FedEx
priority
overnight
rates
for
10
L
sample
(
22
LB)
shipped
in
a
34­
quart
polyethylene
cooler
packed
with
wet
ice,
median
cost
for
all
zones.
Samples
generating
a
pellet
volume
of
>
0.5
ml
require
multiple
subsample
processing
at
a
cost
of
$
140
each.
During
the
ICR
Supplemental
Survey,
approximately
27
percent
of
field
samples
required
analysis
of
multiple
subsamples,
resulting
in
an
additional
per­
plant
charge
of
$
38
($
140
x
0.27).

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
89
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
35c
Burden
and
Cost
to
Plants
Associated
with
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
for
Bin
Reclassification
for
All
System
Types
by
System
Size,
Based
on
ICRSSL
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A3
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
Sampling
Sample
Analysis
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)
Responses
#
of
Cryptosporidium
Samples
Hours
per
Sample
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Total
Sampling
Labor
Cost
Cost
per
Sample
Total
Laboratory
Analysis
Cost
(
O&
M)

A
B
C
D
E
=
A*
B*
C*
D
F
G
=
A*
B*
F
H
=
E+
G
I
=
A*
B*
C
J
=
I/
2080
K
=
A*
B
CWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1,000
1,001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
94
164
90
224
252
858
283
271
30
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
30,661
$
53,245
29,088
72,753
81,682
278,505
91,717
87,839
9,748
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
1,300,862
$
2,259,053
1,234,149
3,086,762
3,465,579
11,816,395
3,891,379
3,726,824
413,587
1,331,523
$
2,312,297
1,263,237
3,159,515
3,547,260
12,094,901
3,983,096
3,814,663
423,335
1,228
2,133
1,165
2,915
3,273
11,158
3,675
3,519
391
0.6
1.0
0.6
1.4
1.6
5.4
1.8
1.7
0.2
2,457
4,266
2,331
5,830
6,545
22,316
7,349
7,038
781
National
Totals
2,266
735,238
$
31,194,590
$
31,929,828
$
29,457
14.2
58,913
NTNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
36
47
17
11
3
2
­
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
11,686
$
15,090
5,358
3,681
870
792
­
­
­
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
495,800
$
640,250
227,343
156,184
36,916
33,601
­
­
­
507,486
$
655,341
232,702
159,865
37,786
34,393
­
­
­
468
605
215
147
35
32
­
­
­
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
­
­
­
936
1,209
429
295
70
63
­
­
­
National
Totals
116
37,478
$
1,590,095
$
1,627,573
$
1,502
0.7
3,003
TNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
160
83
12
11
5
6
2
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
51,854
$
26,960
4,014
3,724
1,755
2,023
809
­
­
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
2,200,076
$
1,143,838
170,303
158,021
74,459
85,824
34,330
­
­
2,251,931
$
1,170,797
174,316
161,745
76,214
87,847
35,139
­
­
2,078
1,080
161
149
70
81
32
­
­
1.0
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
­
­
4,155
2,160
322
298
141
162
65
­
­
National
Totals
281
91,139
$
3,866,850
$
3,957,990
$
3,651
1.8
7,303
Grand
Totals
2,662
863,855
$
36,651,535
$
37,515,390
$
34,610
16.6
69,219
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:
(
A)
Taken
from
"
Baseline
for
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities,"
column
J.
(
B)
Semimonthly
source
water
monitoring
for
one
year
for
small
systems
and
monthly
samples
for
24
months
for
medium
and
large
systems,
plus
two
matrix
spike
samples.
(
C)
Estimate
of
labor
for
collecting
sample
and
shipping,
based
on
expert
opinion.

(
D)
All
size
categories
were
assumed
to
use
a
technical
rate
of
$
24.96/
hour,
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
rates.

(
F)
Cost
per
sample
includes
$
403
in
lab
costs,
$
88.70
for
shipping,
and
$
37.80
in
additional
costs.
Assumes
all
plants
ship
samples
to
private
lab
for
Cryptosporidium
analysis.
Samples
must
be
shipped
overnight
to
meet
24­
hour
holding
time
requirements.
Costs
based
on
FedEx
priority
overnight
rates
for
10
L
sample
(
22
LB)
shipped
in
a
34­
quart
polyethylene
cooler
packed
with
wet
ice,
median
cost
for
all
zones.
Samples
generating
a
pellet
volume
of
>
0.5
ml
require
multiple
subsample
processing
at
a
cost
of
$
140
each.
During
the
ICR
Supplemental
Survey,
approximately
27
percent
of
field
samples
required
analysis
of
multiple
subsamples,
resulting
in
an
additional
per­
plant
charge
of
$
38
($
140
x
0.27).

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
90
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
36a
Burden
and
Cost
to
Plants
Associated
with
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
for
Bin
Reclassification
for
All
System
Types,
by
System
Size
Based
on
ICR
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A4
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
Sampling
Sample
Analysis
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)
Responses
#
of
Cryptosporidium
Samples
Hours
per
Sample
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Total
Sampling
Labor
Cost
Cost
per
Sample
Total
Laboratory
Analysis
Cost
(
O&
M)

A
B
C
D
E
=
A*
B*
C*
D
F
G
=
A*
B*
F
H
=
E+
G
I
=
A*
B*
C
J
=
I/
2080
K
=
A*
B
CWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1,000
1,001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
128
223
122
305
343
931
307
291
32
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
41,583
$
72,206
39,626
99,085
111,245
302,151
99,505
94,537
10,491
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
1,764,274
$
3,063,560
1,681,251
4,203,980
4,719,906
12,819,641
4,221,768
4,011,023
445,126
1,805,857
$
3,135,766
1,720,877
4,303,065
4,831,151
13,121,793
4,321,273
4,105,561
455,617
1,666
2,893
1,588
3,970
4,457
12,105
3,987
3,788
420
0.8
1.4
0.8
1.9
2.1
5.8
1.9
1.8
0.2
3,332
5,786
3,175
7,940
8,914
24,211
7,973
7,575
841
National
Totals
2,683
870,431
$
36,930,529
$
37,800,960
$
34,873
16.8
69,746
NTNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
49
63
22
15
4
3
­
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
15,849
$
20,464
7,300
5,014
1,185
859
­
­
­
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
672,421
$
868,260
309,704
212,713
50,278
36,457
­
­
­
688,270
$
888,724
317,004
217,726
51,463
37,317
­
­
­
635
820
292
201
47
34
­
­
­
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
­
­
­
1,270
1,640
585
402
95
69
­
­
­
National
Totals
156
50,670
$
2,149,833
$
2,200,504
$
2,030
1.0
4,060
TNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
217
113
17
16
7
7
3
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
70,318
$
36,559
5,466
5,072
2,390
2,192
877
­
­
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
2,983,434
$
1,551,112
231,920
215,194
101,400
92,991
37,197
­
­
3,053,752
$
1,587,671
237,386
220,266
103,789
95,183
38,073
­
­
2,817
1,465
219
203
96
88
35
­
­
1.4
0.7
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
­
­
5,634
2,929
438
406
192
176
70
­
­
National
Totals
379
122,873
$
5,213,248
$
5,336,121
$
4,923
2.4
9,846
Grand
Totals
3,217
1,043,974
$
44,293,610
$
45,337,584
$
41,826
20.1
83,652
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:
(
A)
Taken
from
"
Baseline
for
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities,"
column
J.
(
B)
Semimonthly
source
water
monitoring
for
one
year
for
small
systems
and
monthly
samples
for
24
months
for
medium
and
large
systems,
plus
two
matrix
spike
samples.
(
C)
Estimate
of
labor
for
collecting
sample
and
shipping,
based
on
expert
opinion.
(
D)
All
size
categories
were
assumed
to
use
a
technical
rate
of
$
24.96/
hour,
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
rates.
(
F)
Cost
per
sample
includes
$
403
in
lab
costs,
$
88.70
for
shipping,
and
$
37.80
in
additional
costs.
Assumes
all
plants
ship
samples
to
private
lab
for
Cryptosporidium
analysis.
Samples
must
be
shipped
overnight
to
meet
24­
hour
holding
time
requirements.
Costs
based
on
FedEx
priority
overnight
rates
for
10
L
sample
(
22
LB)
shipped
in
a
34­
quart
polyethylene
cooler
packed
with
wet
ice,
median
cost
for
all
zones.
Samples
generating
a
pellet
volume
of
>
0.5
ml
require
multiple
subsample
processing
at
a
cost
of
$
140
each.
During
the
ICR
Supplemental
Survey,
approximately
27
percent
of
field
samples
required
analysis
of
multiple
subsamples,
resulting
in
an
additional
per­
plant
charge
of
$
38
($
140
x
0.27).

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
91
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
36b
Burden
and
Cost
to
Plants
Associated
with
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
for
Bin
Reclassification
for
All
System
Types,
by
System
Size
Based
on
ICRSSM
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A4
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
Sampling
Sample
Analysis
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)
Responses
#
of
Cryptosporidium
Samples
Hours
per
Sample
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Total
Sampling
Labor
Cost
Cost
per
Sample
Total
Laboratory
Analysis
Cost
(
O&
M)

A
B
C
D
E
=
A*
B*
C*
D
F
G
=
A*
B*
F
H
=
E+
G
I
=
A*
B*
C
J
=
I/
2080
K
=
A*
B
CWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1,000
1,001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
92
159
87
218
245
982
323
306
34
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
29,777
$
51,661
28,329
70,813
79,504
318,738
104,967
99,348
11,025
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
1,263,365
$
2,191,861
1,201,961
3,004,461
3,373,178
13,523,390
4,453,527
4,215,132
467,777
1,293,142
$
2,243,522
1,230,290
3,075,275
3,452,682
13,842,129
4,558,494
4,314,480
478,802
1,193
2,070
1,135
2,837
3,185
12,770
4,205
3,980
442
0.6
1.0
0.5
1.4
1.5
6.1
2.0
1.9
0.2
2,386
4,139
2,270
5,674
6,370
25,540
8,411
7,961
883
National
Totals
2,447
794,163
$
33,694,653
$
34,488,816
$
31,817
15.3
63,635
NTNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
35
45
16
11
3
3
­
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
11,349
$
14,641
5,219
3,583
847
906
­
­
­
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
481,509
$
621,207
221,414
152,020
35,932
38,459
­
­
­
492,858
$
635,849
226,632
155,603
36,779
39,365
­
­
­
455
587
209
144
34
36
­
­
­
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
­
­
­
909
1,173
418
287
68
73
­
­
­
National
Totals
113
36,545
$
1,550,540
$
1,587,086
$
1,464
0.7
2,928
TNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
155
81
12
11
5
7
3
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
50,283
$
26,142
3,906
3,624
1,708
2,310
924
­
­
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
2,133,397
$
1,109,171
165,724
153,772
72,458
98,013
39,205
­
­
2,183,680
$
1,135,313
169,630
157,397
74,165
100,323
40,129
­
­
2,015
1,047
156
145
68
93
37
­
­
1.0
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
­
­
4,029
2,095
313
290
137
185
74
­
­
National
Totals
274
88,898
$
3,771,740
$
3,860,638
$
3,562
1.7
7,123
Grand
Totals
2,834
919,606
$
39,016,933
$
39,936,539
$
36,843
17.7
73,686
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:
(
A)
Taken
from
"
Baseline
for
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities,"
column
J.
(
B)
Semimonthly
source
water
monitoring
for
one
year
for
small
systems
and
monthly
samples
for
24
months
for
medium
and
large
systems,
plus
two
matrix
spike
samples.
(
C)
Estimate
of
labor
for
collecting
sample
and
shipping,
based
on
expert
opinion.
(
D)
All
size
categories
were
assumed
to
use
a
technical
rate
of
$
24.96/
hour,
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
rates.

(
F)
Cost
per
sample
includes
$
403
in
lab
costs,
$
88.70
for
shipping,
and
$
37.80
in
additional
costs.
Assumes
all
plants
ship
samples
to
private
lab
for
Cryptosporidium
analysis.
Samples
must
be
shipped
overnight
to
meet
24­
hour
holding
time
requirements.
Costs
based
on
FedEx
priority
overnight
rates
for
10
L
sample
(
22
LB)
shipped
in
a
34­
quart
polyethylene
cooler
packed
with
wet
ice,
median
cost
for
all
zones.
Samples
generating
a
pellet
volume
of
>
0.5
ml
require
multiple
subsample
processing
at
a
cost
of
$
140
each.
During
the
ICR
Supplemental
Survey,
approximately
27
percent
of
field
samples
required
analysis
of
multiple
subsamples,
resulting
in
an
additional
per­
plant
charge
of
$
38
($
140
x
0.27).

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
92
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
36c
Burden
and
Cost
to
Plants
Associated
with
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
for
Bin
Reclassification
for
All
System
Types,
by
System
Size
Based
on
ICRSSL
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A4
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
Sampling
Sample
Analysis
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)
Responses
#
of
Cryptosporidium
Samples
Hours
per
Sample
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Total
Sampling
Labor
Cost
Cost
per
Sample
Total
Laboratory
Analysis
Cost
(
O&
M)

A
B
C
D
E
=
A*
B*
C*
D
F
G
=
A*
B*
F
H
=
E+
G
I
=
A*
B*
C
J
=
I/
2080
K
=
A*
B
CWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1,000
1,001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
69
119
65
163
183
1,001
330
312
35
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
22,265
$
38,611
21,165
52,895
59,386
324,964
107,017
101,175
11,228
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
944,645
$
1,638,170
897,980
2,244,215
2,519,632
13,787,544
4,540,518
4,292,643
476,379
966,910
$
1,676,781
919,144
2,297,110
2,579,018
14,112,508
4,647,536
4,393,818
487,607
892
1,547
848
2,119
2,379
13,019
4,288
4,053
450
0.4
0.7
0.4
1.0
1.1
6.3
2.1
1.9
0.2
1,784
3,094
1,696
4,238
4,759
26,039
8,575
8,107
900
National
Totals
2,277
738,706
$
31,341,726
$
32,080,431
$
29,596
14.2
59,191
NTNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
26
34
12
8
2
3
­
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
8,486
$
10,943
3,899
2,676
633
924
­
­
­
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
360,035
$
464,283
165,417
113,553
26,840
39,210
­
­
­
368,520
$
475,226
169,316
116,229
27,472
40,134
­
­
­
340
438
156
107
25
37
­
­
­
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
­
­
­
680
877
312
214
51
74
­
­
­
National
Totals
85
27,561
$
1,169,337
$
1,196,898
$
1,104
0.5
2,208
TNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
116
60
9
8
4
7
3
­
­
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
24.96
$
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
24.96
37,570
$
19,533
2,917
2,707
1,276
2,355
942
­
­
529.50
$
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
529.50
1,594,036
$
828,753
123,781
114,854
54,119
99,898
39,959
­
­
1,631,607
$
848,286
126,698
117,561
55,395
102,253
40,901
­
­
1,505
783
117
108
51
94
38
­
­
0.7
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
­
­
3,010
1,565
234
217
102
189
75
­
­
National
Totals
207
67,300
$
2,855,400
$
2,922,700
$
2,696
1.3
5,393
Grand
Totals
2,569
833,566
$
35,366,463
$
36,200,029
$
33,396
16.1
66,792
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:
(
A)
Taken
from
"
Baseline
for
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities,"
column
J.
(
B)
Semimonthly
source
water
monitoring
for
one
year
for
small
systems
and
monthly
samples
for
24
months
for
medium
and
large
systems,
plus
two
matrix
spike
samples.
(
C)
Estimate
of
labor
for
collecting
sample
and
shipping,
based
on
expert
opinion.
(
D)
All
size
categories
were
assumed
to
use
a
technical
rate
of
$
24.96/
hour,
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
rates.

(
F)
Cost
per
sample
includes
$
403
in
lab
costs,
$
88.70
for
shipping,
and
$
37.80
in
additional
costs.
Assumes
all
plants
ship
samples
to
private
lab
for
Cryptosporidium
analysis.
Samples
must
be
shipped
overnight
to
meet
24­
hour
holding
time
requirements.
Costs
based
on
FedEx
priority
overnight
rates
for
10
L
sample
(
22
LB)
shipped
in
a
34­
quart
polyethylene
cooler
packed
with
wet
ice,
median
cost
for
all
zones.
Samples
generating
a
pellet
volume
of
>
0.5
ml
require
multiple
subsample
processing
at
a
cost
of
$
140
each.
During
the
ICR
Supplemental
Survey,
approximately
27
percent
of
field
samples
required
analysis
of
multiple
subsamples,
resulting
in
an
additional
per­
plant
charge
of
$
38
($
140
x
0.27).

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
93
June
2003
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
D­
94
D.
7.3
Future
Monitoring
Reporting
Labor
and
cost
of
labor
for
future
monitoring
are
assumed
to
be
the
same
as
for
initial
monitoring,
although
for
future
monitoring,
all
systems
are
expected
to
report
their
results
to
their
Primacy
Agencies
rather
than
to
EPA.
The
number
of
systems
monitoring,
however,
will
be
lower
than
for
initial
monitoring,
since
some
plants
are
expected
to
have
implemented
treatment
that
exempts
them
from
future
monitoring.

Costs
associated
with
reporting
would
include
the
amount
of
time
it
takes
for
a
plant
to
gather
monitoring
information
and
submit
it
to
its
State/
Primacy
Agency
for
review.
Since
the
exact
schedule
of
reporting
to
States
is
not
set
in
the
rule,
there
may
be
some
variation
in
reporting
effort
from
State
to
State.
For
this
analysis,
0.25
hours
per
sample
(
6.5
hours
for
small
plants
and
6
hours
for
medium
and
large
systems)
is
used
to
estimate
costs.

Reporting
costs
for
small
plants
serving
up
to
500
people
are
based
on
the
full
technical
rate
($
24.96
per
hour).
For
those
plants
serving
more
than
500
people,
costs
are
based
on
an
80/
20
percent
split
between
technical
and
managerial
labor
rates
(
the
split
was
between
$
24.96
per
hour
and
$
44.91
per
hour)
(
BLS
2001).
The
costs
of
reporting
are
presented
in
Exhibit
D.
37
to
D.
39
for
Alternatives
A2
to
A4,
respectively.
The
number
of
systems
reporting
also
varies
with
the
use
of
the
ICR,
ICRSSM,
and
ICRSSL
occurrence
distributions.
This
is
because
future
monitoring
and
reporting
depends
on
the
number
of
systems
placed
in
different
treatment
bins,
and
this
is
a
function
of
the
occurrence
distribution.
Exhibit
D.
37a
Reporting
Cost
and
Labor
Estimates
for
Bin
Reclassification
Monitoring
for
All
System
Types,
by
System
Size,
Based
on
ICR
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A2
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Hours
per
Plant
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Reporting
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)
A
B
C
D
=
A*
B*
C
E
=
A*
C
F
=
E/
2080
CWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6
6
6
6
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
392
685
318
804
903
723
238
226
25
63,522
$
111,145
59,769
151,328
169,900
125,522
41,337
39,281
4,359
2,545
4,453
2,065
5,227
5,869
4,336
1,428
1,357
151
1.2
2.1
1.0
2.5
2.8
2.1
0.7
0.7
0.1
National
Totals
4,313
766,164
$
27,430
13.2
NTNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6
6
6
6
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
149
194
59
41
10
2
­
­
­
24,210
$
31,500
11,010
7,657
1,810
352
­
­
­
970
1,262
380
264
63
12
­
­
­
0.5
0.6
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
­
­
­
National
Totals
454
76,539
$
2,951
1.4
TNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6
6
6
6
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
670
348
45
41
19
5
2
­
­
108,743
$
56,536
8,388
7,783
3,667
901
361
­
­
4,357
2,265
290
269
127
31
12
­
­
2.1
1.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
­
­
National
Totals
1,131
186,379
$
7,351
3.5
Grand
Totals
5,899
1,029,082
$
37,732
18.1
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:
(
A)
Hours
per
plant
reporting
to
the
State/
Primacy
Agency
for
bin
classification
exemption
and
to
report
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
data
and
bin
classification.
Assumes
15
minutes
per
sample.
Based
on
24
monthly
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
samples
for
medium
and
large
systems
and
26
biweekly
E.
coli
and
24
semimonthly
Cryptosporidium
samples
for
small
systems.
Although
small
systems
will
not
report
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
results
at
the
same
time,
the
additional
reporting
burden
is
assumed
to
be
negligible.
The
decrease
in
burden
for
small
plants
that
report
E.
coli
but
are
exempt
from
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
is
also
assumed
to
be
negligible.

(
B)
For
plants
serving
up
to
500
people,
the
full
technical
rate
($
24.96/
hour)
was
applied.
For
plants
serving
more
than
500
people,
costs
are
based
on
an
80%/
20%
split
between
technical
and
managerial
($
44.91/
hour)
rates.
Rates
are
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
data.

(
C)
Taken
from
"
Baseline
for
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities,"
column
I.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
95
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
37b
Reporting
Cost
and
Labor
Estimates
for
Bin
Reclassification
Monitoring
for
All
System
Types,
by
System
Size,
Based
on
ICRSSM
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A2
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Hours
per
Plant
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Reporting
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)
A
B
C
D
=
A*
B*
C
E
=
A*
C
F
=
E/
2080
CWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6
6
6
6
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
410
715
346
872
979
783
258
245
27
66,566
$
115,928
65,120
164,085
184,222
135,939
44,767
42,489
4,715
2,667
4,645
2,249
5,668
6,363
4,696
1,546
1,468
163
1.3
2.2
1.1
2.7
3.1
2.3
0.7
0.7
0.1
National
Totals
4,634
823,831
$
29,465
14.2
NTNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6
6
6
6
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
156
203
64
44
10
2
­
­
­
25,371
$
32,856
11,996
8,302
1,962
385
­
­
­
1,016
1,316
414
287
68
13
­
­
­
0.5
0.6
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
­
­
­
National
Totals
479
80,872
$
3,115
1.5
TNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6
6
6
6
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
697
362
48
45
21
6
2
­
­
113,099
$
58,801
9,078
8,424
3,969
986
394
­
­
4,531
2,356
314
291
137
34
14
­
­
2.2
1.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
­
­
National
Totals
1,182
194,752
$
7,676
3.7
Grand
Totals
6,295
1,099,456
$
40,256
19.4
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:
(
A)
Hours
per
plant
reporting
to
the
State/
Primacy
Agency
for
bin
classification
exemption
and
to
report
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
data
and
bin
classification.
Assumes
15
minutes
per
sample.
Based
on
24
monthly
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
samples
for
medium
and
large
systems
and
26
biweekly
E.
coli
and
24
semimonthly
Cryptosporidium
samples
for
small
systems.
Although
small
systems
will
not
report
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
results
at
the
same
time,
the
additional
reporting
burden
is
assumed
to
be
negligible.
The
decrease
in
burden
for
small
plants
that
report
E.
coli
but
are
exempt
from
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
is
also
assumed
to
be
negligible.

(
B)
For
plants
serving
up
to
500
people,
the
full
technical
rate
($
24.96/
hour)
was
applied.
For
plants
serving
more
than
500
people,
costs
are
based
on
an
80%/
20%
split
between
technical
and
managerial
($
44.91/
hour)
rates.
Rates
are
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
data.

(
C)
Taken
from
"
Baseline
for
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities,"
column
I.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
96
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
37c
Reporting
Cost
and
Labor
Estimates
for
Bin
Reclassification
Monitoring
for
All
System
Types,
by
System
Size,
Based
on
ICRSSL
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A2
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Hours
per
Plant
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Reporting
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)
A
B
C
D
=
A*
B*
C
E
=
A*
C
F
=
E/
2080
CWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6
6
6
6
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
415
722
361
906
1,018
824
271
257
29
67,347
$
117,155
67,838
170,563
191,495
143,197
47,158
44,726
4,964
2,698
4,694
2,343
5,892
6,615
4,946
1,629
1,545
171
1.3
2.3
1.1
2.8
3.2
2.4
0.8
0.7
0.1
National
Totals
4,804
854,442
$
30,533
14.7
NTNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6
6
6
6
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
158
205
66
46
11
2
­
­
­
25,668
$
33,203
12,496
8,630
2,040
407
­
­
­
1,028
1,330
432
298
70
14
­
­
­
0.5
0.6
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
­
­
­
National
Totals
488
82,445
$
3,173
1.5
TNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6
6
6
6
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
704
366
50
46
22
6
2
­
­
114,217
$
59,382
9,429
8,749
4,123
1,040
416
­
­
4,576
2,379
326
302
142
36
14
­
­
2.2
1.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
­
­
National
Totals
1,197
197,356
$
7,776
3.7
Grand
Totals
6,489
1,134,243
$
41,482
19.9
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:

(
A)
Hours
per
plant
reporting
to
the
State/
Primacy
Agency
for
bin
classification
exemption
and
to
report
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
data
and
bin
classification.
Assumes
15
minutes
per
sample.
Based
on
24
monthly
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
samples
for
medium
and
large
systems
and
26
biweekly
E.
coli
and
24
semimonthly
Cryptosporidium
samples
for
small
systems.
Although
small
systems
will
not
report
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
results
at
the
same
time,
the
additional
reporting
burden
is
assumed
to
be
negligible.
The
decrease
in
burden
for
small
plants
that
report
E.
coli
but
are
exempt
from
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
is
also
assumed
to
be
negligible.

(
B)
For
plants
serving
up
to
500
people,
the
full
technical
rate
($
24.96/
hour)
was
applied.
For
plants
serving
more
than
500
people,
costs
are
based
on
an
80%/
20%
split
between
technical
and
managerial
($
44.91/
hour)
rates.
Rates
are
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
data.
(
C)
Taken
from
"
Baseline
for
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities,"
column
I.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
97
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
38a
Reporting
Cost
and
Labor
Estimates
for
Bin
Reclassification
Monitoring
for
All
System
Types,
by
System
Size,
Based
on
ICR
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A3
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Hours
per
Plant
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Reporting
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)
A
B
C
D
=
A*
B*
C
E
=
A*
C
F
=
E/
2080
CWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6
6
6
6
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
407
710
371
931
1,045
751
247
239
26
66,059
$
115,130
69,795
175,229
196,734
130,488
42,972
41,432
4,598
2,647
4,613
2,411
6,053
6,796
4,507
1,484
1,431
159
1.3
2.2
1.2
2.9
3.3
2.2
0.7
0.7
0.1
National
Totals
4,728
842,436
$
30,100
14.5
NTNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6
6
6
6
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
155
201
68
47
11
2
­
­
­
25,177
$
32,630
12,857
8,866
2,096
369
­
­
­
1,009
1,307
444
306
72
13
­
­
­
0.5
0.6
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
­
­
­
National
Totals
485
81,994
$
3,151
1.5
TNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6
6
6
6
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
693
360
51
48
22
5
2
­
­
112,373
$
58,423
9,682
8,984
4,233
944
378
­
­
4,502
2,341
334
310
146
33
13
­
­
2.2
1.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
­
­
National
Totals
1,182
195,016
$
7,679
3.7
Grand
Totals
6,395
1,119,447
$
40,931
19.7
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:

(
A)
Hours
per
plant
reporting
to
the
State/
Primacy
Agency
for
bin
classification
exemption
and
to
report
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
data
and
bin
classification.
Assumes
15
minutes
per
sample.
Based
on
24
monthly
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
samples
for
medium
and
large
systems
and
26
biweekly
E.
coli
and
24
semimonthly
Cryptosporidium
samples
for
small
systems.
Although
small
systems
will
not
report
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
results
at
the
same
time,
the
additional
reporting
burden
is
assumed
to
be
negligible.
The
decrease
in
burden
for
small
plants
that
report
E.
coli
but
are
exempt
from
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
is
also
assumed
to
be
negligible.
(
B)
For
plants
serving
up
to
500
people,
the
full
technical
rate
($
24.96/
hour)
was
applied.
For
plants
serving
more
than
500
people,
costs
are
based
on
an
80%/
20%
split
between
technical
and
managerial
($
44.91/
hour)
rates.
Rates
are
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
data.

(
C)
Taken
from
"
Baseline
for
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities,"
column
I.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
98
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
38b
Reporting
Cost
and
Labor
Estimates
for
Bin
Reclassification
Monitoring
for
All
System
Types,
by
System
Size,
Based
on
ICRSSM
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A3
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Hours
per
Plant
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Reporting
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)
A
B
C
D
=
A*
B*
C
E
=
A*
C
F
=
E/
2080
CWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6
6
6
6
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
419
728
395
988
1,109
818
269
259
29
68,003
$
118,185
74,253
185,856
208,665
142,137
46,809
44,974
4,991
2,724
4,735
2,565
6,420
7,208
4,910
1,617
1,553
172
1.3
2.3
1.2
3.1
3.5
2.4
0.8
0.7
0.1
National
Totals
5,014
893,872
$
31,905
15.3
NTNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6
6
6
6
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
160
206
73
50
12
2
­
­
­
25,918
$
33,496
13,678
9,404
2,223
404
­
­
­
1,038
1,342
472
325
77
14
­
­
­
0.5
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
­
­
­
National
Totals
503
85,123
$
3,268
1.6
TNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6
6
6
6
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
710
369
55
51
24
6
2
­
­
115,155
$
59,870
10,257
9,517
4,485
1,033
413
­
­
4,614
2,399
354
329
155
36
14
­
­
2.2
1.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
­
­
National
Totals
1,216
200,730
$
7,900
3.8
Grand
Totals
6,733
1,179,725
$
43,073
20.7
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:
(
A)
Hours
per
plant
reporting
to
the
State/
Primacy
Agency
for
bin
classification
exemption
and
to
report
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
data
and
bin
classification.
Assumes
15
minutes
per
sample.
Based
on
24
monthly
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
samples
for
medium
and
large
systems
and
26
biweekly
E.
coli
and
24
semimonthly
Cryptosporidium
samples
for
small
systems.
Although
small
systems
will
not
report
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
results
at
the
same
time,
the
additional
reporting
burden
is
assumed
to
be
negligible.
The
decrease
in
burden
for
small
plants
that
report
E.
coli
but
are
exempt
from
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
is
also
assumed
to
be
negligible.

(
B)
For
plants
serving
up
to
500
people,
the
full
technical
rate
($
24.96/
hour)
was
applied.
For
plants
serving
more
than
500
people,
costs
are
based
on
an
80%/
20%
split
between
technical
and
managerial
($
44.91/
hour)
rates.
Rates
are
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
data.

(
C)
Taken
from
"
Baseline
for
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities,"
column
I.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
99
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
38c
Reporting
Cost
and
Labor
Estimates
for
Bin
Reclassification
Monitoring
for
All
System
Types,
by
Sytem
Size,
Based
on
ICRSSL
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A3
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Hours
per
Plant
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Reporting
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)
A
B
C
D
=
A*
B*
C
E
=
A*
C
F
=
E/
2080
CWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6
6
6
6
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
423
734
401
1,003
1,126
858
283
271
30
68,561
$
119,062
75,443
188,692
211,849
149,089
49,098
47,022
5,218
2,747
4,770
2,606
6,518
7,318
5,150
1,696
1,624
180
1.3
2.3
1.3
3.1
3.5
2.5
0.8
0.8
0.1
National
Totals
5,128
914,034
$
32,609
15.7
NTNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6
6
6
6
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
161
208
74
51
12
2
­
­
­
26,131
$
33,744
13,897
9,547
2,257
424
­
­
­
1,047
1,352
480
330
78
15
­
­
­
0.5
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
­
­
­
National
Totals
508
86,000
$
3,301
1.6
TNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6
6
6
6
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
715
372
55
51
24
6
2
­
­
115,954
$
60,285
10,411
9,660
4,552
1,083
433
­
­
4,646
2,415
360
334
157
37
15
­
­
2.2
1.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
­
­
National
Totals
1,226
202,377
$
7,964
3.8
Grand
Totals
6,862
1,202,412
$
43,874
21.1
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:
(
A)
Hours
per
plant
reporting
to
the
State/
Primacy
Agency
for
bin
classification
exemption
and
to
report
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
data
and
bin
classification.
Assumes
15
minutes
per
sample.
Based
on
24
monthly
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
samples
for
medium
and
large
systems
and
26
biweekly
E.
coli
and
24
semimonthly
Cryptosporidium
samples
for
small
systems.
Although
small
systems
will
not
report
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
results
at
the
same
time,
the
additional
reporting
burden
is
assumed
to
be
negligible.
The
decrease
in
burden
for
small
plants
that
report
E.
coli
but
are
exempt
from
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
is
also
assumed
to
be
negligible.
(
B)
For
plants
serving
up
to
500
people,
the
full
technical
rate
($
24.96/
hour)
was
applied.
For
plants
serving
more
than
500
people,
costs
are
based
on
an
80%/
20%
split
between
technical
and
managerial
($
44.91/
hour)
rates.
Rates
are
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
data.
(
C)
Taken
from
"
Baseline
for
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities,"
column
I.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
100
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
39a
Reporting
Cost
and
Labor
Estimates
for
Bin
Reclassification
Monitoring
All
System
Types,
by
System
Size,
Based
on
ICR
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A4
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Hours
per
Plant
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Reporting
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)
A
B
C
D
=
A*
B*
C
E
=
A*
C
F
=
E/
2080
CWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6
6
6
6
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
423
734
403
1,008
1,131
931
307
291
32
68,619
$
119,152
75,842
189,645
212,918
161,747
53,267
50,608
5,616
2,749
4,774
2,620
6,551
7,355
5,587
1,840
1,748
194
1.3
2.3
1.3
3.1
3.5
2.7
0.9
0.8
0.1
National
Totals
5,261
937,414
$
33,417
16.1
NTNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6
6
6
6
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
161
208
74
51
12
3
­
­
­
26,153
$
33,770
13,971
9,596
2,268
460
­
­
­
1,048
1,353
483
331
78
16
­
­
­
0.5
0.7
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
­
­
­
National
Totals
509
86,217
$
3,309
1.6
TNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6
6
6
6
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
715
372
56
52
24
7
3
­
­
116,036
$
60,328
10,462
9,708
4,574
1,173
469
­
­
4,649
2,417
361
335
158
41
16
­
­
2.2
1.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
­
­
National
Totals
1,228
202,750
$
7,977
3.8
Grand
Totals
6,999
1,226,381
$
44,704
21.5
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:
(
A)
Hours
per
plant
reporting
to
the
State/
Primacy
Agency
for
bin
classification
exemption
and
to
report
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
data
and
bin
classification.
Assumes
15
minutes
per
sample.
Based
on
24
monthly
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
samples
for
medium
and
large
systems
and
26
biweekly
E.
coli
and
24
semimonthly
Cryptosporidium
samples
for
small
systems.
Although
small
systems
will
not
report
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
results
at
the
same
time,
the
additional
reporting
burden
is
assumed
to
be
negligible.
The
decrease
in
burden
for
small
plants
that
report
E.
coli
but
are
exempt
from
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
is
also
assumed
to
be
negligible.
(
B)
For
plants
serving
up
to
500
people,
the
full
technical
rate
($
24.96/
hour)
was
applied.
For
plants
serving
more
than
500
people,
costs
are
based
on
an
80%/
20%
split
between
technical
and
managerial
($
44.91/
hour)
rates.
Rates
are
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
data.

(
C)
Taken
from
"
Baseline
for
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities,"
column
I.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
101
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
39b
Reporting
Cost
and
Labor
Estimates
for
Bin
Reclassification
Monitoring
All
System
Types,
by
System
Size,
Based
on
ICRSSM
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A4
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Hours
per
Plant
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Reporting
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)
A
B
C
D
=
A*
B*
C
E
=
A*
C
F
=
E/
2080
CWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6
6
6
6
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
427
741
406
1,015
1,140
982
323
306
34
69,248
$
120,142
76,414
191,008
214,449
170,626
56,191
53,183
5,902
2,774
4,813
2,640
6,598
7,408
5,894
1,941
1,837
204
1.3
2.3
1.3
3.2
3.6
2.8
0.9
0.9
0.1
National
Totals
5,374
957,162
$
34,108
16.4
NTNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6
6
6
6
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
163
210
75
51
12
3
­
­
­
26,393
$
34,050
14,076
9,665
2,284
485
­
­
­
1,057
1,364
486
334
79
17
­
­
­
0.5
0.7
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
­
­
­
National
Totals
514
86,953
$
3,337
1.6
TNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6
6
6
6
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
721
375
56
52
24
7
3
­
­
116,937
$
60,796
10,536
9,776
4,606
1,237
495
­
­
4,685
2,436
364
338
159
43
17
­
­
2.3
1.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
­
­
National
Totals
1,238
204,383
$
8,041
3.9
Grand
Totals
7,126
1,248,499
$
45,487
21.9
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:

(
A)
Hours
per
plant
reporting
to
the
State/
Primacy
Agency
for
bin
classification
exemption
and
to
report
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
data
and
bin
classification.
Assumes
15
minutes
per
sample.
Based
on
24
monthly
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
samples
for
medium
and
large
systems
and
26
biweekly
E.
coli
and
24
semimonthly
Cryptosporidium
samples
for
small
systems.
Although
small
systems
will
not
report
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
results
at
the
same
time,
the
additional
reporting
burden
is
assumed
to
be
negligible.
The
decrease
in
burden
for
small
plants
that
report
E.
coli
but
are
exempt
from
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
is
also
assumed
to
be
negligible.

(
B)
For
plants
serving
up
to
500
people,
the
full
technical
rate
($
24.96/
hour)
was
applied.
For
plants
serving
more
than
500
people,
costs
are
based
on
an
80%/
20%
split
between
technical
and
managerial
($
44.91/
hour)
rates.
Rates
are
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
data.
(
C)
Taken
from
"
Baseline
for
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities,"
column
I.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
102
June
2003
Exhibit
D.
39c
Reporting
Cost
and
Labor
Estimates
for
Bin
Reclassification
Monitoring
for
All
System
Types,
by
System
Size,
Based
on
ICRSSL
Occurrence
Distribution,
Alternative
A4
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Hours
per
Plant
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Reporting
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)
A
B
C
D
=
A*
B*
C
E
=
A*
C
F
=
E/
2080
CWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6
6
6
6
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
429
744
408
1,019
1,144
1,001
330
312
35
69,577
$
120,658
76,713
191,720
215,248
173,959
57,288
54,161
6,011
2,788
4,834
2,650
6,622
7,435
6,009
1,979
1,871
208
1.3
2.3
1.3
3.2
3.6
2.9
1.0
0.9
0.1
National
Totals
5,421
965,336
$
34,395
16.5
NTNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6
6
6
6
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
163
211
75
52
12
3
­
­
­
26,518
$
34,196
14,131
9,701
2,293
495
­
­
­
1,062
1,370
488
335
79
17
­
­
­
0.5
0.7
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
­
­
­
National
Totals
516
87,334
$
3,352
1.6
TNCWSs
£
100
101­
500
501­
1000
1001­
3,300
3,301­
10,000
10,001­
50,000
50,001­
100,000
100,001­
1
Million
>
1
Million
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
6
6
6
6
24.96
$
24.96
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
28.95
724
376
56
52
25
7
3
­
­
117,408
$
61,041
10,574
9,812
4,623
1,260
504
­
­
4,704
2,446
365
339
160
44
17
­
­
2.3
1.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
­
­
National
Totals
1,243
205,223
$
8,074
3.9
Grand
Totals
7,180
1,257,893
$
45,822
22.0
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Sources:
(
A)
Hours
per
plant
reporting
to
the
State/
Primacy
Agency
for
bin
classification
exemption
and
to
report
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
data
and
bin
classification.
Assumes
15
minutes
per
sample.
Based
on
24
monthly
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
samples
for
medium
and
large
systems
and
26
biweekly
E.
coli
and
24
semimonthly
Cryptosporidium
samples
for
small
systems.
Although
small
systems
will
not
report
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
results
at
the
same
time,
the
additional
reporting
burden
is
assumed
to
be
negligible.
The
decrease
in
burden
for
small
plants
that
report
E.
coli
but
are
exempt
from
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
is
also
assumed
to
be
negligible.
(
B)
For
plants
serving
up
to
500
people,
the
full
technical
rate
($
24.96/
hour)
was
applied.
For
plants
serving
more
than
500
people,
costs
are
based
on
an
80%/
20%
split
between
technical
and
managerial
($
44.91/
hour)
rates.
Rates
are
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
data.
(
C)
Taken
from
"
Baseline
for
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Activities,"
column
I.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
D­
103
June
2003
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
E­
1
June
2003
Appendix
E
Unit
Costs
for
Technologies
Considered
in
the
Long
Term
2
Enhanced
Surface
Water
Treatment
Rule
Exhibit
6.8
in
Chapter
6
lists
the
treatment
technologies
(
along
with
their
constraints
and
design
criteria)
considered
for
surface
and
ground
water
under
the
direct
influence
plants
to
meet
the
LT2ESWTR.
This
appendix
builds
on
information
presented
in
Chapter
6
by
presenting:

°
Capital
unit
cost
estimates
for
a
wide
range
of
design
flows
(
in
tabular
and
graphical
forms)

°
Operations
and
maintenance
(
O&
M)
unit
cost
estimates
for
a
wide
range
of
average
daily
flows
(
in
tabular
and
graphical
forms)

The
costs
are
from
the
"
Technologies
and
Costs
Document
for
Control
of
Microbial
Contaminants
and
Disinfection
By­
Products"
(
T&
C
document)
(
USEPA
2003a).
These
unit
costs
have
been
revised
to
incorporate
recommendations
from
the
National
Drinking
Water
Advisory
Council
(
NDWAC)
Arsenic
Cost
Working
Group
(
National
Drinking
Water
Advisory
Council
2001).
The
costs
are
given
over
a
wide
range
of
design
flows
from
7,000
gallons
per
day
to
520
million
gallons
per
day
(
MGD),
representative
of
the
flow
range
experienced
by
water
systems.

The
T&
C
provides
costs
at
16
flows
covering
the
above
range
for
each
technology.
However,
the
EA
cost
model
initially
uses
nine
size
categories
that
do
not
match
any
of
the
16
flows.
Linear
interpolation
between
each
of
the
16
points
is
used
to
generate
unit
costs
for
the
nine
size
categories.
If
an
EA
size
category
correlated
to
a
flow
lower
than
the
minimum
flow
in
the
T&
C
document,
the
cost
at
the
minimum
flow
was
used.
If
an
EA
size
category
exceeded
the
maximum
flow,
the
costs
were
extrapolated
linearly
with
the
same
slope
as
given
between
the
highest
two
points.

The
following
table
lists
the
exhibits
in
this
appendix.
Each
exhibit
lists
the
constraints
and
design
criteria
for
the
technology
and
presents
a
table
showing
the
unit
cost
estimates
for
each
design
or
average
flow
point.
The
graph
displays
each
point
connected
by
a
line;
the
unit
costs
calculated
for
the
EA
cost
model
fall
on
these
lines.
All
graphs
are
in
log­
log
scale.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
E­
2
June
2003
Appendix
E
Contents
Technology
Cost
Type
Exhibit
Number
Bag
Filtration
Capital
E.
1
O&
M
E.
2
Cartridge
Filtration
Capital
E.
3
O&
M
E.
4
Chlorine
Dioxide
Capital
E.
5
O&
M
E.
6
Combined
Filter
Performance
Capital
E.
7
O&
M
E.
8
In­
Bank
Filtration
Capital
E.
9
Membrane
Filtration
(
MF/
UF)
Capital
E.
10
O&
M
E.
11
Ozone,
0.5
Log
Inactivation
of
Cryptosporidium
Capital
E.
12
O&
M
E.
13
Ozone,
1.0
Log
Inactivation
of
Cryptosporidium
Capital
E.
14
O&
M
E.
15
Ozone,
2.0
Log
Inactivation
of
Cryptosporidium
Capital
E.
16
O&
M
E.
17
Secondary
Filters
Capital
E.
18
O&
M
E.
19
UV
Capital
E.
20
O&
M
E.
21
Exhibit
E.
1
Capital
Costs
for
Bag
Filtration
Design
Flow
Capital
Cost
(
mgd)
($)
0.0001
$
10,280
0.0070
$
10,280
0.0220
$
10,421
0.0370
$
12,828
0.0910
$
13,320
0.1800
$
19,487
0.2700
$
23,423
0.3600
$
28,771
0.6800
$
42,479
1.0000
$
65,654
1.2000
$
75,011
2.0000
$
136,788
3.5000
Data
Not
Used
7.0000
Data
Not
Used
17.0000
Data
Not
Used
22.0000
Data
Not
Used
76.0000
Data
Not
Used
210.0000
Data
Not
Used
430.0000
Data
Not
Used
520.0000
Data
Not
Used
1,500.00
Data
Not
Used
$
1,000
$
10,000
$
100,000
$
1,000,000
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
Design
Flow
(
mgd)
Capital
Cost
($)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
E­
3
June
2003
Exhibit
E.
2
O&
M
Costs
for
Bag
Filtration
Average
Flow
O&
M
Cost
(
mgd)
($)
0.00005
$
527
0.00150
$
527
0.00540
$
529
0.00950
$
750
0.02500
$
758
0.05400
$
992
0.08400
$
1,226
0.11000
$
1,676
0.23000
$
2,605
0.35000
$
3,963
0.41000
$
4,858
0.77000
$
8,119
1.40000
Data
Not
Used
3.00000
Data
Not
Used
7.80000
Data
Not
Used
11.00000
Data
Not
Used
38.00000
Data
Not
Used
120.00000
Data
Not
Used
270.00000
Data
Not
Used
350.00000
Data
Not
Used
750.00000
Data
Not
Used
$
1
$
10
$
100
$
1,000
$
10,000
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
Average
Flow
(
mgd)
O&
M
Cost
($)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
E­
4
June
2003
Exhibit
E.
3
Capital
Costs
for
Cartridge
Filtration
Design
Flow
Capital
Cost
(
mgd)
($)
0.0001
$
10,465
0.0070
$
10,465
0.0220
$
10,606
0.0370
$
13,197
0.0910
$
17,256
0.1800
$
24,024
0.2700
$
31,480
0.3600
$
43,699
0.6800
$
73,535
1.0000
$
111,151
1.2000
$
136,393
2.0000
$
265,091
3.5000
Data
Not
Used
7.0000
Data
Not
Used
17.0000
Data
Not
Used
22.0000
Data
Not
Used
76.0000
Data
Not
Used
210.0000
Data
Not
Used
430.0000
Data
Not
Used
520.0000
Data
Not
Used
1,500.00
Data
Not
Used
$
1,000
$
10,000
$
100,000
$
1,000,000
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
Design
Flow
(
mgd)
Capital
Cost
($)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
E­
5
June
2003
Exhibit
E.
4
O&
M
Costs
for
Cartrige
Filtration
Average
Flow
O&
M
Cost
(
mgd)
($)
0.00005
$
725
0.00150
$
725
0.00540
$
727
0.00950
$
1,146
0.02500
$
1,490
0.05400
$
2,836
0.08400
$
4,600
0.11000
$
5,625
0.23000
$
9,826
0.35000
$
14,321
0.41000
$
18,082
0.77000
$
28,157
1.40000
Data
Not
Used
3.00000
Data
Not
Used
7.80000
Data
Not
Used
11.00000
Data
Not
Used
38.00000
Data
Not
Used
120.00000
Data
Not
Used
270.00000
Data
Not
Used
350.00000
Data
Not
Used
750.00000
Data
Not
Used
$
100
$
1,000
$
10,000
$
100,000
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
Average
Flow
(
mgd)
O&
M
Cost
($)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
E­
6
June
2003
Exhibit
E.
5
Capital
Costs
for
Chlorine
Dioxide
Design
Flow
Capital
Cost
(
mgd)
($)
0.0001
Data
Not
Used
0.0070
Data
Not
Used
0.0220
Data
Not
Used
0.0370
Data
Not
Used
0.0910
$
31,610
0.1800
$
37,514
0.2700
$
38,282
0.3600
$
39,139
0.6800
$
41,955
1.0000
$
39,109
1.2000
$
79,647
2.0000
$
81,086
3.5000
$
185,629
7.0000
$
205,304
17.0000
$
259,851
22.0000
$
287,126
76.0000
$
582,407
210.0000
$
866,583
430.0000
$
1,204,376
520.0000
$
1,323,707
1,500.00
$
2,623,085
ClO2
Dose
=
1.25
mg/
L
$
10,000
$
100,000
$
1,000,000
$
10,000,000
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
Design
Flow
(
mgd)
Capital
Cost
($)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
E­
7
June
2003
Exhibit
E.
6
O&
M
Costs
for
Chlorine
Dioxide
Average
Flow
O&
M
Cost
(
mgd)
($)
0.00005
Not
Applicable
0.00150
Not
Applicable
0.00540
Not
Applicable
0.00950
Not
Applicable
0.02500
$
14,880
0.05400
$
16,053
0.08400
$
16,826
0.11000
$
17,105
0.23000
$
17,922
0.35000
$
18,685
0.41000
$
19,100
0.77000
$
21,419
1.40000
$
21,327
3.00000
$
24,665
7.80000
$
35,050
11.00000
$
41,359
38.00000
$
85,583
120.00000
$
214,036
270.00000
$
422,373
350.00000
$
533,451
750.00000
$
1,088,846
ClO2
Dose
=
1.25
mg/
L
$
10,000
$
100,000
$
1,000,000
$
10,000,000
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
Average
Flow
(
mgd)
O&
M
Cost
($)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
E­
8
June
2003
Exhibit
E.
7
Capital
Costs
for
Combined
Filter
Performance
Design
Flow
Capital
Cost
(
mgd)
($)
0.0001
Not
Applicable
0.0070
Not
Applicable
0.0220
Not
Applicable
0.0370
Not
Applicable
0.0910
Not
Applicable
0.1800
$
9,986
0.2700
$
17,840
0.3600
$
19,764
0.6800
$
24,486
1.0000
$
30,133
1.2000
$
33,186
2.0000
$
42,497
3.5000
$
58,321
7.0000
$
90,156
17.0000
$
136,850
22.0000
$
150,119
76.0000
$
653,715
210.0000
$
1,069,457
430.0000
$
1,759,746
520.0000
$
2,215,996
1,500.00
$
7,184,046
$
1,000
$
10,000
$
100,000
$
1,000,000
$
10,000,000
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
Design
Flow
(
mgd)
Capital
Cost
($)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
E­
9
June
2003
Exhibit
E.
8
O&
M
Costs
for
Combined
Filter
Performance
Average
Flow
O&
M
Cost
(
mgd)
($)
0.00005
Not
Applicable
0.00150
Not
Applicable
0.00540
Not
Applicable
0.00950
Not
Applicable
0.02500
Not
Applicable
0.05400
$
7,090
0.08400
$
16,626
0.11000
$
16,698
0.23000
$
17,295
0.35000
$
20,227
0.41000
$
21,986
0.77000
$
31,954
1.40000
$
33,036
3.00000
$
35,702
7.80000
$
58,854
11.00000
$
65,124
38.00000
$
133,775
120.00000
$
161,628
270.00000
$
212,517
350.00000
$
225,069
750.00000
$
287,831
$
1,000
$
10,000
$
100,000
$
1,000,000
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
Average
Flow
(
mgd)
O&
M
Cost
($)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
E­
10
June
2003
Exhibit
E.
9
Capital
Costs
for
In­
Bank
Filtration
Design
Flow
Capital
Cost
(
mgd)
($)
0.0001
$
150,000
0.0070
$
150,000
0.0220
$
150,000
0.0370
$
150,000
0.0910
$
150,000
0.1800
$
150,000
0.2700
$
150,000
0.3600
$
150,000
0.6800
$
150,000
1.0000
$
224,684
1.2000
$
271,361
2.0000
$
458,070
3.5000
$
808,149
7.0000
$
1,625,000
17.0000
$
3,382,246
22.0000
$
4,260,870
76.0000
$
13,750,000
210.0000
$
37,297,101
430.0000
$
75,956,522
520.0000
$
91,771,739
1,500.00
$
263,981,884
$
10,000
$
100,000
$
1,000,000
$
10,000,000
$
100,000,000
$
1,000,000,000
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
Design
Flow
(
mgd)
Capital
Cost
($)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
E­
11
June
2003
Exhibit
E.
10
Capital
Costs
for
Membrane
Filtration
(
MF/
UF)

Design
Flow
Capital
Cost
(
mgd)
($)
0.0001
$
126,730
0.0070
$
126,730
0.0220
$
206,121
0.0370
$
260,157
0.0910
$
393,517
0.1800
$
605,175
0.2700
$
720,600
0.3600
$
818,777
0.6800
$
1,089,993
1.0000
$
1,533,916
1.2000
$
1,672,053
2.0000
$
2,615,310
3.5000
$
3,981,989
7.0000
$
7,095,991
17.0000
$
15,365,946
22.0000
$
19,274,465
76.0000
$
58,795,535
210.0000
$
147,293,783
430.0000
$
282,503,048
520.0000
$
335,884,024
1,500.00
$
917,143,536
$
100,000
$
1,000,000
$
10,000,000
$
100,000,000
$
1,000,000,000
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
Design
Flow
(
mgd)
Capital
Cost
($)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
E­
12
June
2003
Exhibit
E.
11
O&
M
Costs
for
Membrane
Filtration
(
MF/
UF)

Average
Flow
O&
M
Cost
(
mgd)
($)
0.00005
$
7,145
0.0015
$
7,145
0.0054
$
7,601
0.0095
$
8,071
0.0250
$
9,815
0.0540
$
23,306
0.0840
$
26,497
0.1100
$
29,421
0.2300
$
41,671
0.3500
$
69,500
0.4100
$
75,603
0.7700
$
106,304
1.4000
$
162,699
3.0000
$
321,899
7.8000
$
781,382
11.0000
$
1,029,635
38.0000
$
3,295,042
120.0000
$
9,873,367
270.0000
$
21,396,307
350.0000
$
27,162,834
750.0000
$
55,995,468
$
1,000
$
10,000
$
100,000
$
1,000,000
$
10,000,000
$
100,000,000
1E­
05
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
Average
Flow
(
mgd)
O&
M
Cost
($)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
E­
13
June
2003
Exhibit
E.
12
Capital
Costs
for
Ozone
0.5
Log
Inactivation
of
Cryptosporidium
Design
Flow
Capital
Cost
(
mgd)
($)
0.0001
Data
Not
Used
0.0070
Data
Not
Used
0.0220
Data
Not
Used
0.0370
Data
Not
Used
0.0910
$
306,733
0.1800
$
331,732
0.2700
$
410,701
0.3600
$
429,873
0.6800
$
574,835
1.0000
$
655,369
1.2000
$
748,729
2.0000
$
1,108,348
3.5000
$
1,400,987
7.0000
$
2,039,310
17.0000
$
3,569,008
22.0000
$
4,057,564
76.0000
$
11,437,951
210.0000
$
23,271,892
430.0000
$
39,346,816
520.0000
$
46,476,447
1,500.00
$
124,110,202
Maximum
Dose
=
3.19
mg/
L,
Contact
Time
=
12
minutes
$
100,000
$
1,000,000
$
10,000,000
$
100,000,000
$
1,000,000,000
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
Design
Flow
(
mgd)
Capital
Cost
($)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
E­
14
June
2003
Exhibit
E.
13
O&
M
Costs
for
Ozone
0.5
Log
Inactivation
of
Cryptosporidium
Average
Flow
O&
M
Cost
(
mgd)
($)
0.00005
Data
Not
Used
0.00150
Data
Not
Used
0.00540
Data
Not
Used
0.00950
Data
Not
Used
0.02500
$
56,531
0.05400
$
56,686
0.08400
$
57,147
0.11000
$
57,286
0.23000
$
58,379
0.35000
$
59,246
0.41000
$
59,942
0.77000
$
63,369
1.40000
$
70,679
3.00000
$
84,708
7.80000
$
126,345
11.00000
$
151,853
38.00000
$
386,197
120.00000
$
1,131,923
270.00000
$
2,326,749
350.00000
$
2,965,095
750.00000
$
6,156,829
Average
Dose
=
1.78
mg/
L,
Contact
Time
=
12
minutes
$
10,000
$
100,000
$
1,000,000
$
10,000,000
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
Average
Flow
(
mgd)
O&
M
Cost
($)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
E­
15
June
2003
Exhibit
E.
14
Capital
Costs
for
Ozone
1.0
Log
Inactivation
of
Cryptosporidium
Design
Flow
Capital
Cost
(
mgd)
($)
0.0001
Data
Not
Used
0.0070
Data
Not
Used
0.0220
Data
Not
Used
0.0370
Data
Not
Used
0.0910
$
306,733
0.1800
$
390,345
0.2700
$
410,701
0.3600
$
517,793
0.6800
$
618,795
1.0000
$
832,071
1.2000
$
984,875
2.0000
$
1,207,059
3.5000
$
1,560,888
7.0000
$
2,527,627
17.0000
$
3,760,584
22.0000
$
4,474,581
76.0000
$
12,835,717
210.0000
$
25,122,969
430.0000
$
45,090,556
520.0000
$
52,943,646
1,500.00
$
138,455,070
Maximum
Dose
=
5.00
mg/
L,
Contact
Time
=
12
minutes
$
100,000
$
1,000,000
$
10,000,000
$
100,000,000
$
1,000,000,000
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
Design
Flow
(
mgd)
Capital
Cost
($)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
E­
16
June
2003
Exhibit
E.
15
O&
M
Costs
for
Ozone
1.0
Log
Inactivation
of
Cryptosporidium
Average
Flow
O&
M
Cost
(
mgd)
($)
0.00005
Data
Not
Used
0.00150
Data
Not
Used
0.00540
Data
Not
Used
0.00950
Data
Not
Used
0.02500
$
56,652
0.05400
$
57,163
0.08400
$
57,382
0.11000
$
58,021
0.23000
$
59,121
0.35000
$
61,121
0.41000
$
62,308
0.77000
$
65,533
1.40000
$
76,182
3.00000
$
97,490
7.80000
$
152,412
11.00000
$
189,778
38.00000
$
516,761
120.00000
$
1,529,391
270.00000
$
3,232,212
350.00000
$
4,130,989
750.00000
$
8,624,877
Average
Dose
=
2.75
mg/
L,
Contact
Time
=
12
minutes
$
10,000
$
100,000
$
1,000,000
$
10,000,000
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
Average
Flow
(
mgd)
O&
M
Cost
($)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
E­
17
June
2003
Exhibit
E.
16
Capital
Costs
for
Ozone
2.0
Log
Inactivation
of
Cryptosporidium
Design
Flow
Capital
Cost
(
mgd)
($)
0.0001
Data
Not
Used
0.0070
Data
Not
Used
0.0220
Data
Not
Used
0.0370
Data
Not
Used
0.0910
$
365,347
0.1800
$
390,345
0.2700
$
498,621
0.3600
$
561,753
0.6800
$
838,596
1.0000
$
951,897
1.2000
$
1,082,080
2.0000
$
1,344,897
3.5000
$
1,784,747
7.0000
$
2,786,864
17.0000
$
4,299,684
22.0000
$
5,176,071
76.0000
$
14,058,615
210.0000
$
27,778,067
430.0000
$
51,856,072
520.0000
$
60,994,144
1,500.00
$
160,497,588
Maximum
Dose
=
7.50
mg/
L,
Contact
Time
=
12
minutes
$
100,000
$
1,000,000
$
10,000,000
$
100,000,000
$
1,000,000,000
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
Design
Flow
(
mgd)
Capital
Cost
($)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
E­
18
June
2003
Exhibit
E.
17
O&
M
Costs
for
Ozone
2.0
Log
Inactivation
of
Cryptosporidium
Average
Flow
O&
M
Cost
(
mgd)
($)
0.00005
Data
Not
Used
0.00150
Data
Not
Used
0.00540
Data
Not
Used
0.00950
Data
Not
Used
0.02500
$
57,095
0.05400
$
57,373
0.08400
$
58,111
0.11000
$
58,586
0.23000
$
60,864
0.35000
$
62,767
0.41000
$
63,943
0.77000
$
68,152
1.40000
$
75,704
3.00000
$
165,293
7.80000
$
315,611
11.00000
$
399,581
38.00000
$
1,234,372
120.00000
$
3,485,535
270.00000
$
7,215,870
350.00000
$
8,915,410
750.00000
$
17,413,112
Average
Dose
=
3.91
mg/
L,
Contact
Time
=
12
minutes
$
10,000
$
100,000
$
1,000,000
$
10,000,000
$
100,000,000
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
Average
Flow
(
mgd)
O&
M
Cost
($)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
E­
19
June
2003
Exhibit
E.
18
Capital
Costs
for
Secondary
Filters
Design
Flow
Capital
Cost
(
mgd)
($)
0.0001
$
1,106,000
0.0070
$
1,106,000
0.0220
$
1,106,000
0.0370
$
1,106,000
0.0910
$
1,106,000
0.1800
$
1,106,000
0.2700
$
1,106,000
0.3600
$
1,106,000
0.6800
$
1,106,000
1.0000
$
1,331,013
1.2000
$
1,471,646
2.0000
$
2,034,177
3.5000
$
3,088,924
7.0000
$
5,550,000
17.0000
$
7,731,159
22.0000
$
8,821,739
76.0000
$
20,600,000
210.0000
$
49,827,536
430.0000
$
97,813,043
520.0000
$
117,443,478
1,500.00
$
331,197,101
$
1,000,000
$
10,000,000
$
100,000,000
$
1,000,000,000
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
Design
Flow
(
mgd)
Capital
Cost
($)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
E­
20
June
2003
Exhibit
E.
19
O&
M
Costs
for
Secondary
Filters
Average
Flow
O&
M
Cost
(
mgd)
($)
0.00005
$
62,300
0.00150
$
62,300
0.00540
$
62,300
0.00950
$
62,300
0.02500
$
62,300
0.05400
$
62,300
0.08400
$
62,300
0.11000
$
62,300
0.23000
$
62,300
0.35000
$
66,034
0.41000
$
67,901
0.77000
$
79,104
1.40000
$
98,709
3.00000
$
148,500
7.80000
$
182,031
11.00000
$
204,386
38.00000
$
393,000
120.00000
$
965,829
270.00000
$
2,013,686
350.00000
$
2,572,543
750.00000
$
5,366,829
$
10,000
$
100,000
$
1,000,000
$
10,000,000
1E­
05
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
Average
Flow
(
mgd)
O&
M
Cost
($)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
E­
21
June
2003
Exhibit
E.
20
Capital
Costs
for
UV
Design
Flow
Capital
Cost
(
mgd)
($)
0.0001
$
9,924
0.0070
$
9,924
0.0220
$
12,645
0.0370
$
15,329
0.0910
$
24,687
0.1800
$
39,068
0.2700
$
52,290
0.3600
$
64,184
0.6800
$
95,721
1.0000
$
222,584
1.2000
$
233,919
2.0000
$
307,127
3.5000
$
408,427
7.0000
$
660,687
17.0000
$
1,300,376
22.0000
$
1,594,181
76.0000
$
4,642,358
210.0000
$
12,159,564
430.0000
$
25,171,112
520.0000
$
30,742,815
1,500.00
$
91,412,472
UV
dose
=
40
mJ/
cm2,
UV
254
=
0.051
cm­
1,
Turbidity
=
0.1
NTU,
Alkalinity
=
60
mg/
L
CaCO3,
Hardness
=
100
mg/
L
CaCO3
$
10,000
$
100,000
$
1,000,000
$
10,000,000
$
100,000,000
1E­
04
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
Design
Flow
(
mgd)
Capital
Cost
($)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
E­
22
June
2003
Exhibit
E.
21
O&
M
Costs
for
UV
Average
Flow
O&
M
Cost
(
mgd)
($)
0.00005
$
3,399
0.00150
$
3,399
0.00540
$
3,429
0.00950
$
3,818
0.02500
$
4,579
0.05400
$
4,769
0.08400
$
6,119
0.11000
$
6,498
0.23000
$
8,159
0.35000
$
9,024
0.41000
$
9,457
0.77000
$
11,499
1.40000
$
13,938
3.00000
$
16,140
7.80000
$
22,853
11.00000
$
27,468
38.00000
$
66,624
120.00000
$
187,881
270.00000
$
418,801
350.00000
$
546,773
750.00000
$
1,186,635
UV
Dose
=
40
mJ/
cm2,
UV
254
=
0.051
cm­
1,
Turbidity
=
0.1
NTU,
Alkalinity
=
60
mg/
L
CaCO3,
Hardness
=
100
mg/
L
CaCO3
$
1,000
$
10,000
$
100,000
$
1,000,000
$
10,000,000
0.00001
0.001
0.1
10
1000
Average
Flow
(
mgd)
O&
M
Cost
($)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
E­
23
June
2003
Exhibit
E.
22
Capital
Costs
for
Watershed
Control
Design
Flow
Capital
Cost
(
mgd)
($)
0.0001
$
250,000
0.0070
$
250,000
0.0220
$
250,000
0.0370
$
250,000
0.0910
$
250,000
0.1800
$
250,000
0.2700
$
250,000
0.3600
$
250,000
0.6800
$
250,000
1.0000
$
262,658
1.2000
$
270,570
2.0000
$
302,215
3.5000
$
361,551
7.0000
$
500,000
17.0000
$
572,464
22.0000
$
608,696
76.0000
$
1,000,000
210.0000
$
1,971,014
430.0000
$
3,565,217
520.0000
$
4,217,391
1,500.00
$
11,318,841
$
100,000
$
1,000,000
$
10,000,000
$
100,000,000
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
Design
Flow
(
mgd)
Capital
Cost
($)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
E­
24
June
2003
Exhibit
E.
23
O&
M
Costs
for
Watershed
Control
Average
Flow
O&
M
Cost
(
mgd)
($)
0.00005
$
350,000
0.00150
$
350,000
0.00540
$
350,000
0.00950
$
350,000
0.02500
$
350,000
0.05400
$
350,000
0.08400
$
350,000
0.11000
$
350,000
0.23000
$
350,000
0.35000
$
378,159
0.41000
$
392,238
0.77000
$
476,715
1.40000
$
624,549
3.00000
$
1,000,000
7.80000
$
1,205,714
11.00000
$
1,342,857
38.00000
$
2,500,000
120.00000
$
6,014,286
270.00000
$
12,442,857
350.00000
$
15,871,429
750.00000
$
33,014,286
$
100,000
$
1,000,000
$
10,000,000
$
100,000,000
1E­
05
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
Average
Flow
(
mgd)
O&
M
Cost
($)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
E­
25
June
2003
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
F­
1
June
2003
Appendix
F
Technology
Selection
Forecast
Methodology
F.
1
Introduction
This
appendix
describes
the
methodology
used
in
estimating
the
technologies
that
plants
are
most
likely
to
select
to
meet
the
requirements
of
the
LT2ESWTR.
This
estimate
is
known
as
the
technology
selection
forecast.
Separate
technology
selection
forecasts
are
developed
for
filtered
plants,
unfiltered
plants,
and
uncovered
finished
water
reservoirs.
This
appendix
specifically
deals
with
the
technology
selection
forecasts
for
filtered
plants.
Technology
selections
for
unfiltered
plants
and
uncovered
finished
water
reservoirs
are
more
straightforward
and
are
summarized
in
Chapter
6.
The
remainder
of
this
appendix
is
organized
as
follows:

F.
2
Binning
Categories
Used
for
Technology
Selection
F.
3
Technologies
Available
to
Meet
Bin
Requirements
F.
4
Technology
Selection
Forecast
Methodology
F.
5
Scenarios
Evaluated
for
this
EA
F.
6
Results
F.
6.1
Standard
Conditions
F.
6.2
Sensitivity
Analysis
F.
2
Binning
Categories
Used
for
Technology
Selection
The
technology
selection
forecast
for
filtered
surface
water
and
GWUDI
plants
depends
on
Cryptosporidium
reduction
requirements.
The
reduction
required
under
the
LT2ESWTR
is
a
function
of
each
plant's
source
water
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
results
and
consequent
bin
classification.
Treatment
requirements
for
each
bin
are
summarized
in
Chapter
2
of
this
EA.
In
addition
to
the
three
action
bins
laid
out
by
the
regulation,
two
other
bins
are
created
for
purposes
of
the
technology
selection
analysis.
These
bins
take
into
account
the
0.5
log
credit
plants
will
get
for
existing
enhanced
filtration
performance
(
0.15
NTU
filtered
water
turbidity
95
percent
of
the
time).
A
more
detailed
discussion
of
this
binning
is
included
in
Chapter
4
and
Appendix
B.

F.
3
Technologies
Available
to
Meet
Bin
Requirements
The
LT2ESWTR
employs
a
toolbox
approach
for
meeting
action
bin
requirements.
The
"
microbial
toolbox"
contains
various
Cryptosporidium
reduction
strategies
for
which
plants
can
receive
"
credit"
(
or
a
range
of
credit)
to
meet
treatment
requirements
for
a
given
bin.
Components
of
the
microbial
toolbox
cover
a
wide
array
of
management
strategies
including
watershed
control,
selecting
an
alternative
source,
pretreatment,
improved
treatment,
improved
disinfection,
peer
review,
and
other
plant
demonstration
strategies.
Exhibit
2.2
in
Chapter
2
lists
each
toolbox
component
and
its
corresponding
log
credit
or
range
of
log
credits.

Many
toolbox
components,
such
as
peer
review
and
selecting
an
alternative
source,
are
not
included
in
this
technology
selection
forecast
because
of
the
lack
of
data
on
appropriate
cost
and
percent
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
F­
2
June
2003
usage
by
plants.
Also,
some
technologies
are
not
considered
feasible
for
small
and
very
small
systems
because
of
operational
constraints.
Technologies
may
be
selected
alone
or
in
combination
to
achieve
the
required
log
credit.
The
log
credits
are
based
on
the
minimum
removal
that
the
technology
is
expected
to
achieve
with
proper
design
and
implementation.
Systems
could
potentially
receive
higher
log
credits
through
performance
demonstration
studies.

Exhibits
F.
3
through
F.
18
summarize
the
percent
of
filtered
plants
selecting
each
technology
according
to
system
size
and
whether
the
plant
has
Pre­
LT2
credit
(
described
in
Appendix
A).

F.
4
Technology
Selection
Forecast
Methodology
The
overall
methodology
used
to
develop
the
technology
selection
forecast
for
each
action
bin
and
size
category
relies
on
a
"
least­
cost
decision
tree."
In
other
words,
for
estimating
the
economic
cost
of
the
rule
requirements,
it
assumes
that
drinking
water
plants
will
select
the
least
expensive
technology
or
combination
of
technologies
available
to
meet
the
log
removal
requirements
of
a
given
action
bin.
Technology
selection
forecasts
are
estimated
separately
for
the
following
size
classifications:
very
small,
small,
medium,
and
large
systems.

The
least­
cost
decision
tree
uses
relative
cost
ratios
to
rank
the
technologies
by
cost.
The
relative
cost
ratios
shown
in
column
two
of
Exhibits
F.
3
 
F.
18
are
equal
to
the
total
annual
cost
of
a
given
technology
divided
by
the
total
annual
cost
of
the
cheapest
technology.
Assumptions
used
to
calculate
total
annual
costs
are
summarized
in
Chapter
6.

The
relative
cost
ratios
for
various
technologies
change
with
size
because
technologies
have
different
economies
of
scale
associated
with
them
and
different
applicability
to
different
flow
ranges.
Therefore,
the
relative
cost
ratios
must
be
evaluated
separately
for
each
of
the
four
size
classifications.
Because
total
annual
costs
are
calculated
for
nine
individual
system
size
categories,
but
forecasts
are
made
according
to
four
aggregated
categories,
relative
costs
are
calculated
using
the
weighted
average
costs.
Within
a
given
size
category
the
relative
costs
are
determined
by
multiplying
the
costs
for
that
category
by
the
number
of
plants
in
that
category
divided
by
all
the
plants
in
that
classification.
For
example,
costs
for
the
medium­
sized
systems
are
calculated
by
multiplying
the
unit
costs
for
the
M1
category
by
the
number
of
plants
in
the
M1
category
plus
the
unit
costs
for
the
M2
category
times
the
number
of
plants
in
the
M2
category
and
dividing
the
sum
by
the
total
number
of
medium­
sized
plants.

Technology
selections
within
the
least­
cost
decision
tree
are
limited
by
predicted
"
maximum
use
percentages."
These
are
limits
on
the
percent
of
plants
that
may
select
a
particular
technology
to
meet
the
bin
requirements.
Maximum
use
percentages
recognize
the
following:
not
all
treatment
plants
may
be
able
to
implement
certain
technologies
due
to
site­
specific
constraints
such
as
system
hydraulics,
lack
of
space,
and
source
water
quality;
for
some
technologies,
industry
may
not
have
the
capacity
to
meet
rapid
increases
in
demand;
applicability
of
some
technologies
is
dependent
on
existing
treatment
train
(
e.
g.,
direct
filtration
plants
cannot
receive
credit
for
pre­
sedimentation
and
are
estimated
not
to
be
able
to
achieve
compliance
with
combined
filter
performance).
Finally,
maximum
use
percentages
recognize
special
operational
constraints
for
very
small
and
small
systems,
as
identified
through
an
expert
opinion
process
for
the
Stage
2
Disinfectants
and
Disinfection
Byproducts
Rule
(
Stage
2
DBPR)
compliance
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
F­
3
June
2003
forecast.
For
example,
chlorine
dioxide
and
ozone
are
not
considered
viable
technologies
for
systems
serving
fewer
than
500
people.
Very
small
systems
are
assumed
to
select
only
bag/
cartridge
filters,
ultraviolet
(
UV),
and
microfiltration/
ultrafiltration
(
MF/
UF).

The
maximum
use
percentages
for
combination
technologies
are
the
product
of
the
maximum
use
percentages
for
the
individual
technologies.
The
product
is
used
because
the
set
of
conditions
that
limit
use
of
one
technology
are
assumed
to
be
independent
of
the
conditions
that
limit
another.
For
instance,
a
plant
that
could
use
chlorine
dioxide
might
not
be
near
a
source
that
would
allow
use
of
in­
bank
filtration.
As
an
example
calculation,
the
maximum
use
percentage
for
combined
filter
performance
(
15
percent)
combined
with
chlorine
dioxide
(
23
percent)
for
large
systems
is
equal
to
3.45
percent
 
15
percent
times
23
percent.

The
maximum
use
percentages
for
chlorine
dioxide
and
ozone
are
determined
using
the
Surface
Water
Analytical
Tool
(
SWAT).
The
SWAT
model
is
used
by
inputting
water
quality
parameters
such
as
pH,
TOC,
and
bromide
along
with
a
given
disinfectant
dose.
SWAT
is
used
to
determine
the
maximum
percentage
of
plants
that
could
use
this
technology
without
violating
Stage
2
requirements
for
chlorite
or
bromate.

In
order
to
evaluate
chlorine
dioxide
using
SWAT,
information
regarding
the
inactivation
of
Cryptosporidium
by
chlorine
dioxide
is
needed.
Since,
final
CT
numbers
are
not
available,
the
recommendation
of
the
Microbial
Subcommittee
of
the
TWG
to
multiply
the
CT
needed
for
the
same
log
inactivation
of
Giardia
by
7.5
was
followed.
Very
little
information
is
available
on
the
ability
of
chlorine
dioxide
to
inactivate
Cryptosporidium.
This
means
that
the
dose
required
for
inactivation
of
Cryptosporidium
is
7.5
times
higher
than
the
dose
needed
to
inactivate
the
same
amount
of
Giardia.
The
microbial
subcommittee
considered
this
value
to
be
optimistic,
but
recommended
its
use
in
order
to
maximize
the
feasibility
of
chlorine
dioxide
applications.
This
recommendation
could
lead
to
an
underestimate
of
national
costs
and
benefits
because,
less
use
of
chlorine
dioxide
would
lead
to
less
production
of
chlorite,
and
more
systems
employing
UV.

Plants
predicted
to
have
toolbox
technologies
installed
prior
to
the
promulgation
of
LT2ESWTR
use
a
separate
set
of
maximum
use
percentages
than
those
plants
without
pre­
LT2
credit.
These
plants
must
be
tracked
separately
because
those
with
existing
toolbox
technologies
cannot
be
allowed
to
select
those
same
technologies.
For
example,
consider
the
maximum
use
percentage
for
combined
filter
performance
for
large
systems.
It
is
assumed
that
overall
80
percent
of
conventional
filtration
plants
can
use
combined
filter
performance
to
achieve
a
reduction
credit.
75
percent
of
all
large
systems
are
conventional
filtration
plants.
58
percent
of
large
plants
receive
a
pre­
LT2
credit,
52
percent
of
them
receive
that
credit
for
combined
filter
performance.
Therefore,
90
percent
(
52/
58)
of
large
plants
with
pre­
LT2
credit
already
achieve
compliance
for
combined
filter
performance
and
would
not
be
able
to
select
that
technology
to
obtain
the
remainder
of
their
required
log
treatment.
Also
because
a
large
percentage
of
conventional
plants
(
52
out
of
75
percent)
receive
the
combined
filter
performance
pre­
LT2ESWTR
credit,
the
remaining
plants
will
disproportionately
use
treatment
processes
other
than
conventional
filtration.
Of
the
remaining
plants
only
48
percent
((
0.75­
0.52)/
0.48)
are
conventional.
These
48
percent
are
assumed
to
be
evenly
distributed
among
the
6
percent
of
plants
that
received
a
pre­
LT2ESWTR
credit
and
the
42
percent
that
did
not.
The
maximum
use
percentage
of
80
percent
of
all
conventional
systems
is
still
assumed.
Therefore
for
plants
receiving
the
pre­
LT2
credit,
the
maximum
use
percentage
is
4%
(
0.1*
0.8*
0.48).
For
plants
not
receiving
the
credit,
the
maximum
use
percentage
is
38
percent
(
0.42*
0.8*
48).
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
F­
4
June
2003
Exhibits
F.
3
through
F.
18
present
the
relative
cost
ratios
and
maximum
use
percentages
used
for
the
very
small,
small,
medium,
and
large
plant
technology
selection
forecasts.
The
percentages
listed
are
limitations
on
the
percent
of
plants
that
may
use
individual
technologies.

A
technology
or
combination
of
technologies
may
only
be
used
if
its
log
credit
is
equal
to
or
greater
than
the
log
action
bin.
The
least
expensive
technology
is
chosen
first
and
the
maximum
use
percentage
is
used
without
any
adjustment.
The
maximum
use
percentage
of
the
second
least
expensive
technology
is
then
multiplied
by
the
difference
of
100
percent
and
the
maximum
use
percentage
of
the
first
technology.
This
process
continues
through
all
the
technologies
until
the
sum
of
the
calculated
percentages
equals
100
percent.
MF/
UF
does
not
have
a
limit
on
its
maximum
use
percentage,
so
any
plants
not
selecting
a
cheaper
technology
are
included
in
this
technology.
If
the
percent
of
plants
selecting
a
particular
technology
or
technology
combination
is
less
than
0.1
percent,
it
is
assumed
to
be
negligible,
and
the
next
technology
is
evaluated.

Exhibit
F.
1
shows
a
step­
by­
step
example
calculation
of
the
technology
selection
forecast
for
small
systems
in
the
2.0
log
action
bin.
Note
that
combinations
with
technologies
that
have
been
previously
used
in
the
decision
tree
may
not
be
selected.
For
example,
the
first
step
assumes
that
all
plants
that
could
use
cartridge
filters
do
so.
Therefore,
the
option
of
cartridge
filters
plus
chlorine
dioxide
cannot
be
selected,
as
no
plants
remain
that
have
the
capability
of
using
cartridge
filters.
On
the
other
hand,
if
the
technology
selected
first
is
not
a
single
technology
but
a
combination
of
technologies,
other
combinations
that
utilize
that
technology
may
be
possible.
For
example,
in
the
2.5
log
bin,
cartridge
filters
plus
chlorine
dioxide
is
the
cheapest
technology;
12
percent
of
the
plants
would
use
it.
Because
the
maximum
use
percentage
for
cartridge
filters
is
50
percent
and
only
12
percent
have
selected
cartridge
filters,
38
percent
of
the
plants
could
still
select
cartridge
filters.
Therefore,
the
option
of
cartridge
filters
plus
ozone
is
not
ruled
out.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
F­
5
June
2003
Choose
least
expensive
technology
that
has
log
credit
equal
to
2.0
or
more:

Technology
Log
Credit
Relative
Cost
Max
%
Usage
CF
2.0
1.7
90%
including
BF
%
plants
selecting
CF
=
Max
%
Usage*%
Plants
Available
=
(
0.9)*(
1.0)
=
90%(
A)

Choose
2nd
least
expensive
technology
that
has
log
credit
equal
to
2.0
or
more:

Technology
Log
Credit
Relative
Cost
Max
%
Usage
UV
3.0
2.6
90%

%
plants
selecting
UV
=
Max
%
Usage*
%
Plants
Available
=
(
0.9)*(
1.0­
A)
=
9%(
B)

Choose
4th
least
expensive
technology
that
has
log
credit
equal
to
2.0
or
more:

Technology
Log
Credit
Relative
Cost
Max
%
Usage
O3(
2)
2.0
17.6
66%

%
plants
selecting
O3
=
Max
%
Usage*%
Plants
Avail.
=
(
0.66)*(
1
­
A
­
B)
=
0.66%
(
C)
Choose
3rd
least
expensive
technology
that
has
log
credit
equal
to
2.0
or
more:

Technology
Log
Credit
Relative
Cost
Max
%
Usage
CF
+
ClO2
2.5
4.8
20.7%

%
plants
selecting
CF
+
ClO2
=
0%
because
all
the
plants
remaining
after
selection
of
UV
that
could
use
cartridge
filters
(
15%)
have
already
done
so.
For
this
reason,
omit
CF
+
O3(.
5)
and
CF
+
EF
as
well.
Exhibit
F.
1
Example
Technology
Selection
for
Small
Systems,
2.0
Log
Action
Bin
(
Standard
Condition:
Max.
usage
for
UV
disinfection
=
90%;
Bromate
MCL
=
10ppb;
no
additional
bromide)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
F­
6
June
2003
Check:
A
+
B
+
C
+
D
=
90
+
9
+
.66
+
.34
=
100%
Choose
5th
least
expensive
technology
that
has
log
credit
equal
to
2.0
or
more:

Technology
Log
Credit
Relative
Cost
Max
%
Usage
MF/
UF
2.5
21.2
100%

%
plants
selecting
MF
=
Max
%
Usage*%
Plants
Avail.
=
(
1.0)*(
1­
A­
B­
C)
=
0.34%
(
D)
Exhibit
F.
1
(
Continued)

F.
5
Scenarios
Evaluated
for
this
EA
This
appendix
provides
technology
selection
for
the
standard
analysis
and
the
high
bromide
sensitivity
analysis
(
summarized
in
section
6.11).
Bromide
is
a
concern
for
ozone
because
it
reacts
with
ozone
to
form
bromate,
a
regulated
contaminant.
Exhibit
F.
2
summarizes
the
standard
conditions
and
sensitivity
analysis
evaluated
in
this
appendix.

Exhibit
F.
2
Scenarios
Evaluated
for
this
EA
Analysis
UV
Maximum
Use
Percentage
Bromate
MCL
Influent
Bromide
UV90­
10
(
standard)
90%
10
ppb
ICR
average
concentration
UV90­
10B
90%
10
ppb
ICR
average
concentration
+
50
ppb
F.
6
Results
F.
6.1
Standard
Conditions
The
compliance
forecast
is
the
percent
of
plants
selecting
each
technology
for
the
five
action
bins.
The
compliance
forecasts
for
very
small,
small,
medium,
and
large
plants
are
provided
in
Exhibits
F.
3
to
F.
10.
Technologies
not
selected
by
any
plants
are
not
included
in
the
exhibits.
The
exhibits
show
the
percentage
of
plants
selecting
the
technology
or
combination
of
technologies
in
each
of
the
bins.
The
exhibits
also
show
the
relative
cost,
the
minimum
log
removal,
and
the
maximum
use
percentage
of
each
technology
or
combination
of
technologies.
The
selection
percentages
remain
constant,
regardless
of
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
F­
7
June
2003
Percent
of
Plants
Selecting
Technology
by
Bin
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
0.5
Log
Bin
1.0
Log
Bin
1.5
Log
Bin
2.0
Log
Bin
2.5
Log
Bin
Total
­
­
­
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Bag
Filter
(
BF)
1.0
LOG
1.0
1.0
90.00%
90.0%
90.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Cartridge
Filter
(
CF)
2.0
LOG
1.7
2.0
90.00%
0.0%
0.0%
90.0%
90.0%
0.0%
UV
3.0
LOG
4.9
3.0
90.00%
10.0%
10.0%
10.0%
10.0%
100.0%
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
23.2
2.5
100.00%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
regulatory
option
or
the
occurrence
distribution
used.
Although
the
number
of
plants
selecting
a
technology
depends
on
these
options,
the
percentages
remain
constant.
The
only
variables
that
affect
the
selection
percentages
are
size
of
the
plant,
the
bin
in
which
the
plant
is
placed,
and
the
limits
on
technology
selection
covered
in
the
scenarios
in
Exhibit
F.
2.
Although
costs
are
computed
for
all
three
Cryptosporidium
distributions,
the
distributions
do
not
affect
the
technology
selection.
Exhibits
F.
3
to
F.
10
show
the
technology
selection
forecasts
for
the
UV90­
10
scenario.

Exhibit
F.
3
Technology
Selection
for
Very
Small
Plants
(<
500)
UV90­
10,
no
pre­
LT2
credits
Note:
Total
may
not
add
to
100.0%
because
of
rounding.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
F­
8
June
2003
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
0.5
Log
Bin
1.0
Log
Bin
1.5
Log
Bin
2.0
Log
Bin
2.5
Log
Bin
Total
­
­
­
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

Bag
Filter
(
BF)
1.0
LOG
1.0
1.0
90%
including
CF
90.0%
90.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

UV
3.0
LOG
2.4
3.0
90.0%
9.0%
9.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%

CLO2
0.5
LOG
2.8
0.5
23.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Cartridge
Filter
(
CF)
2.0
LOG
2.8
2.0
90%
including
BF
0.0%
0.0%
9.0%
9.0%
0.0%
Combined
Filter
Performance
(
CFP)
0.5
LOG
3.2
0.5
15.9%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

ClO2
+
CFP
6.0
1.0
3.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

CF
+
ClO2
2.5
LOG
6.0
2.5
20.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.1%

O3
0.5
LOG
12.4
0.5
91.0%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

O3
1.0
LOG
13.4
1.0
88.0%
0.0%
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3
2.0
LOG
14.6
2.0
66.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.7%
0.7%
0.0%

ClO2
+
O3(
0.5)
1.0
LOG
15.2
1.0
20.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
CF
+
O3
(
0.5
LOG)
2.5
LOG
15.2
2.5
81.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
6.5%

O3(
0.5
log)
+
CFP
15.6
1.0
14.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
ClO2
+
O3
(
1.0)
1.5
LOG
16.2
1.5
20.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%

O3(
1.0
log)
+
CFP
16.6
1.5
14.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
ClO2
+
O3
(
2.0)
2.5
LOG
17.4
2.5
15.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%

O3(
2.0
log)
+
CFP
17.8
2.5
10.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%

SF
18.4
0.5
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
18.7
2.5
100.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.3%
0.3%
1.1%
Percent
of
Plants
Selecting
Technology
by
Bin
Exhibit
F.
4
Technology
Selection
for
Small
Plants
(
501­
10,000)
UV90­
10,
no
pre­
LT2
credits
Note:
Total
may
not
add
to
100.0%
because
of
rounding.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
F­
9
June
2003
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
0.5
Log
Bin
1.0
Log
Bin
1.5
Log
Bin
2.0
Log
Bin
2.5
Log
Bin
Total
­
­
­
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
CLO2
0.5
LOG
1.0
0.5
23.0%
23.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Combined
Filter
Performance
(
CFP)
0.5
LOG
1.1
0.5
40.0%
30.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
UV
3.0
LOG
1.5
3.0
90.0%
41.6%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%

ClO2
+
CFP
1.0
LOG
2.1
1.0
9.2%
0.0%
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

In­
bank
1.0
LOG
2.4
1.0
10.0%
0.5%
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
In­
bank
+
ClO2
1.5
LOG
3.4
1.5
2.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
In­
bank
+
CFP
1.5
LOG
3.5
1.5
4.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
O3
0.5
LOG
5.4
0.5
91.0%
3.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

O3
1.0
LOG
6.4
1.0
88.0%
0.0%
7.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

O3(
0.5)
+
ClO2
1.0
LOG
6.4
1.0
20.9%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
CFP
+
O3
(
0.5
LOG)
1.0
LOG
6.5
1.0
36.4%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3(
1.0)
+
ClO2
1.5
LOG
7.4
1.5
20.2%
0.0%
0.0%
1.9%
0.0%
0.0%
O3(
1.0)
+
CFP
1.5
LOG
7.5
1.5
35.2%
0.0%
0.0%
2.6%
0.0%
0.0%
In­
bank
+
O3
(
0.5
LOG)
1.5
LOG
7.8
1.5
9.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%

O3
2.0
LOG
8.4
2.0
66.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.9%
6.6%
0.0%
IBF+
O3(
1.0)
2.0
LOG
8.8
2.0
8.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
O3(
2.0)
+
ClO2
2.5
LOG
9.4
2.5
15.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.5%

O3
(
2.0
LOG)
+
CFP
2.5
LOG
9.5
2.5
26.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.2%

Secondary
Filter
(
SF)
0.5
LOG
12.1
0.5
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

SF
+
CFP
13.2
1.0
4.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3
(
0.5
LOG)
+
SF
1.0
LOG
17.5
1.0
9.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3
(
1.0
LOG)
+
SF
1.5
LOG
18.5
1.5
8.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
18.7
2.5
100.0%
0.4%
0.5%
1.4%
3.1%
6.2%
Percent
of
Plants
Selecting
Technology
by
Bin
Exhibit
F.
5
Technology
Selection
for
Medium
Plants
(
10,001­
100,000)
UV90­
10,
no
pre­
LT2
credits
Note:
Total
may
not
add
to
100.0%
because
of
rounding.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
F­
10
June
2003
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
0.5
Log
Bin
1.0
Log
Bin
1.5
Log
Bin
2.0
Log
Bin
2.5
Log
Bin
Total
­
­
­
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
CLO2
0.5
LOG
1.0
0.5
23.0%
23.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Combined
Filter
Performance
(
CFP)
0.5
LOG
1.8
0.5
38.0%
29.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
CFP
+
ClO2
1.0
LOG
2.8
1.0
8.7%
0.0%
8.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
UV
3.0
LOG
2.8
3.0
90.0%
43.0%
82.2%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%

In­
bank
1.0
LOG
6.6
1.0
10.0%
0.5%
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

In­
bank
+
ClO2
1.5
LOG
7.6
1.5
2.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%

In­
bank
+
CFP
1.5
LOG
8.4
1.5
3.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
O3
0.5
LOG
8.5
0.5
91.0%
3.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

O3(
0.5)
+
ClO2
1.0
LOG
9.5
1.0
20.9%
0.0%
1.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

O3
1.0
LOG
10.1
1.0
88.0%
0.0%
5.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
CFP
+
O3
(
0.5
LOG)
1.0
LOG
10.3
1.0
34.5%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

O3(
1.0)
+
ClO2
1.5
LOG
11.1
1.5
20.2%
0.0%
0.0%
1.9%
0.0%
0.0%

O3(
1.0
log)
+
CFP
1.5
LOG
11.9
1.5
33.4%
0.0%
0.0%
2.5%
0.0%
0.0%

Secondary
Filter
(
SF)
1.0
LOG
13.5
0.5
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

In­
bank
+
O
3
(
0.5
LOG)
1.5
LOG
15.1
1.5
9.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
SF
+
CFP
1.0
LOG
15.3
1.0
3.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

O3
2.0
LOG
16.5
2.0
66.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.0%
6.6%
0.0%

IBF+
O
3(
1.0)
2.0
LOG
16.7
2.0
8.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%

O3(
2.0)
+
ClO2
2.5
LOG
17.5
2.5
15.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.5%

O3
(
2.0
LOG)
+
CFP
2.5
LOG
18.3
2.5
25.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.1%
O3
(
0.5
LOG)
+
SF
1.5
LOG
22.0
1.0
9.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3
(
1.0
LOG)
+
SF
2.0
LOG
23.6
1.5
8.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
O3
(
2.0
LOG)
+
SF
3.0
LOG
30.0
2.5
6.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
O3
(
0.5
LOG)
+
WC
1.0
LOG
30.9
1.0
9.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3
(
1.0
LOG)
+
WC
1.5
LOG
32.5
1.5
8.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
O3
(
2.0
LOG)
+
WC
2.5
LOG
38.9
2.5
6.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%

MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
55.2
2.5
100.0%
0.4%
0.5%
1.3%
3.1%
5.5%
Percent
of
Plants
Selecting
Technology
by
Bin
F.
6
Technology
Selection
for
Large
Plants
(>
100,000)
UV90­
10,
no
pre­
LT2
credits
Note:
Total
may
not
add
to
100.0%
because
of
rounding.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
F­
11
June
2003
Percent
of
Plants
Selecting
Technology
by
Bin
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
0.5
Log
Bin
1.0
Log
Bin
1.5
Log
Bin
2.0
Log
Bin
2.5
Log
Bin
Total
­
­
­
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

Bag
Filter
(
BF)
1.0
LOG
1.0
1.0
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Cartridge
Filter
(
CF)
2.0
LOG
1.7
2.0
90.0%
0.0%
0.0%
90.0%
90.0%
0.0%
UV
3.0
LOG
4.9
3.0
90.0%
10.0%
10.0%
10.0%
10.0%
100.0%
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
23.2
2.5
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Exhibit
F.
7
Technology
Selection
for
Very
Small
Plants
(<
500)
UV90­
10,
with
pre­
LT2
credits
Note:
Total
may
not
add
to
100.0%
because
of
rounding.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
F­
12
June
2003
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
0.5
Log
Bin
1.0
Log
Bin
1.5
Log
Bin
2.0
Log
Bin
2.5
Log
Bin
Total
­
­
­
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

Bag
Filter
(
BF)
1.0
LOG
1.0
1.0
90%
including
90.0%
90.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

UV
3.0
LOG
2.4
3.0
90.0%
9.0%
9.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%

CLO2
0.5
LOG
2.8
0.5
23.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Cartridge
Filter
(
CF)
2.0
LOG
2.8
2.0
90%
including
BF
0.0%
0.0%
9.0%
9.0%
0.0%
Combined
Filter
Performance
(
CFP)
0.5
LOG
3.2
0.5
1.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

CF
+
ClO2
2.5
LOG
5.4
2.5
20.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.1%
ClO2
+
CFP
5.8
1.0
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3
0.5
LOG
12.4
0.5
91.0%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

O3
1.0
LOG
13.4
1.0
88.0%
0.0%
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

O3
2.0
LOG
14.6
2.0
66.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.7%
0.7%
0.0%

CF
+
O3
(
0.5
LOG)
2.5
LOG
15.2
2.5
81.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
6.5%
O3(
0.5
log)
+
CFP
15.6
1.0
1.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
ClO2
+
O3
(
1.0)
1.5
LOG
16.2
1.5
20.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%

O3(
1.0
log)
+
CFP
16.6
1.5
1.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
ClO2
+
O3
(
2.0)
2.5
LOG
17.4
2.5
15.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%

O3(
2.0
log)
+
CFP
17.8
2.5
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

SF
18.4
0.5
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
18.7
2.5
100.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.3%
0.3%
1.2%
Percent
of
Plants
Selecting
Technology
by
Bin
Exhibit
F.
8
Technology
Selection
for
Small
Plants
(
501­
10,000)
UV90­
10,
with
pre­
LT2
credits
Note:
Total
may
not
add
to
100.0%
because
of
rounding.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
F­
13
June
2003
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
0.5
Log
Bin
1.0
Log
Bin
1.5
Log
Bin
2.0
Log
Bin
2.5
Log
Bin
Total
­
­
­
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
CLO2
0.5
LOG
1.0
0.5
23.0%
23.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Combined
Filter
Performance
(
CFP)
0.5
LOG
1.1
0.5
3.6%
2.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
UV
3.0
LOG
1.5
3.0
90.0%
66.8%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%

ClO2
+
CFP
1.0
LOG
2.1
1.0
0.8%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
In­
bank
1.0
LOG
2.4
1.0
10.0%
0.7%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
In­
bank
+
ClO2
1.5
LOG
3.4
1.5
2.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
In­
bank
+
CFP
1.5
LOG
3.5
1.5
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3
0.5
LOG
5.4
0.5
91.0%
6.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

O3
1.0
LOG
6.4
1.0
88.0%
0.0%
7.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

O3(
0.5)
+
ClO2
1.0
LOG
6.4
1.0
20.9%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
CFP
+
O3
(
0.5
LOG)
1.0
LOG
6.5
1.0
3.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

O3(
1.0)
+
ClO2
1.5
LOG
7.4
1.5
20.2%
0.0%
0.0%
2.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3(
1.0)
+
CFP
1.5
LOG
7.5
1.5
3.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
In­
bank
+
O3
(
0.5
LOG)
1.5
LOG
7.8
1.5
9.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%

O3
2.0
LOG
8.4
2.0
66.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4.5%
6.6%
0.0%

IBF+
O3(
1.0)
2.0
LOG
8.8
2.0
8.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
O3(
2.0)
+
ClO2
2.5
LOG
9.4
2.5
15.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.5%
O3
(
2.0
LOG)
+
CFP
2.5
LOG
9.5
2.5
2.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%

Secondary
Filter
(
SF)
0.5
LOG
12.1
0.5
10.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

SF
+
CFP
13.2
1.0
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

O3
(
0.5
LOG)
+
SF
1.0
LOG
17.5
1.0
9.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3
(
1.0
LOG)
+
SF
1.5
LOG
18.5
1.5
8.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
18.7
2.5
100.0%
0.5%
0.8%
2.1%
3.1%
8.3%
Percent
of
Plants
Selecting
Technology
by
Bin
Exhibit
F.
9
Technology
Selection
for
Medium
Plants
(
10,001­
100,000)
UV90­
10,
with
pre­
LT2
credits
Note:
Total
may
not
add
to
100.0%
because
of
rounding.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
F­
14
June
2003
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
0.5
Log
Bin
1.0
Log
Bin
1.5
Log
Bin
2.0
Log
Bin
2.5
Log
Bin
Total
­
­
­
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
CLO2
0.5
LOG
1.0
0.5
23.0%
23.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Combined
Filter
Performance
(
CFP)
0.5
LOG
1.8
0.5
3.9%
3.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
CFP
+
ClO2
1.0
LOG
2.8
1.0
0.9%
0.0%
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
UV
3.0
LOG
2.8
3.0
90.0%
66.6%
89.2%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%

In­
bank
1.0
LOG
6.6
1.0
10.0%
0.7%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

In­
bank
+
ClO2
1.5
LOG
7.6
1.5
2.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%

In­
bank
+
CFP
1.5
LOG
8.4
1.5
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3
0.5
LOG
8.5
0.5
91.0%
6.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3(
0.5)
+
ClO2
1.0
LOG
9.5
1.0
20.9%
0.0%
1.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

O3
1.0
LOG
10.1
1.0
88.0%
0.0%
6.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
CFP
+
O3
(
0.5
LOG)
1.0
LOG
10.3
1.0
3.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

O3(
1.0)
+
ClO2
1.5
LOG
11.1
1.5
20.2%
0.0%
0.0%
2.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3(
1.0
log)
+
CFP
1.5
LOG
11.9
1.5
3.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%

Secondary
Filter
(
SF)
1.0
LOG
13.5
0.5
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

In­
bank
+
O3
(
0.5
LOG)
1.5
LOG
15.1
1.5
9.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
SF
+
CFP
1.0
LOG
15.3
1.0
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

O3
2.0
LOG
16.5
2.0
66.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4.5%
6.6%
0.0%

IBF+
O
3(
1.0)
2.0
LOG
16.7
2.0
8.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%

O3(
2.0)
+
ClO2
2.5
LOG
17.5
2.5
15.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.5%

O3
(
2.0
LOG)
+
CFP
2.5
LOG
18.3
2.5
2.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
O3
(
0.5
LOG)
+
SF
1.5
LOG
22.0
1.0
9.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3
(
1.0
LOG)
+
SF
2.0
LOG
23.7
1.5
8.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
O3
(
2.0
LOG)
+
SF
3.0
LOG
30.0
2.5
6.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
O3
(
0.5
LOG)
+
WC
1.0
LOG
30.9
1.0
9.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3
(
1.0
LOG)
+
WC
1.5
LOG
32.5
1.5
8.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
O3
(
2.0
LOG)
+
WC
2.5
LOG
38.9
2.5
6.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%

MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
55.2
2.5
100.0%
0.6%
0.7%
1.9%
3.1%
7.2%
Percent
of
Plants
Selecting
Technology
by
Bin
F.
10
Technology
Selection
for
Large
Plants
(>
100,000)
UV90­
10,
with
pre­
LT2
credits
Note:
Total
may
not
add
to
100.0%
because
of
rounding.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
F­
15
June
2003
Percent
of
Plants
Selecting
Technology
by
Bin
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
0.5
Log
Bin
1.0
Log
Bin
1.5
Log
Bin
2.0
Log
Bin
2.5
Log
Bin
Total
­
­
­
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Bag
Filter
(
BF)
1.0
LOG
1.0
1.0
90.00%
90.0%
90.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Cartridge
Filter
(
CF)
2.0
LOG
1.7
2.0
90.00%
0.0%
0.0%
90.0%
90.0%
0.0%
UV
3.0
LOG
4.9
3.0
90.00%
10.0%
10.0%
10.0%
10.0%
100.0%
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
23.2
2.5
100.00%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
F.
6.2
Sensitivity
Analysis
Technology
selection
forecasts
for
the
high
bromide
sensitivity
analysis
are
given
in
this
section.

Exhibits
F.
11
through
F.
18
show
the
technology
selection
forecasts
for
the
UV90­
10B
sensitivity
analysis.
Displayed
for
each
technology
or
combination
of
technologies
are
relative
cost,
minimum
log
removal
credit,
maximum
use
percentage,
and
percent
of
plants
selecting
the
technologies
for
each
bin.

Exhibit
F.
11
Technology
Selection
for
Very
Small
Plants
(<
500)
UV90­
10B,
no
pre­
LT2
credits
Note:
Total
may
not
add
to
100.0%
because
of
rounding.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
F­
16
June
2003
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
0.5
Log
Bin
1.0
Log
Bin
1.5
Log
Bin
2.0
Log
Bin
2.5
Log
Bin
Total
­
­
­
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

Bag
Filter
(
BF)
1.0
LOG
1.0
1.0
90%
including
CF
90.0%
90.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

UV
3.0
LOG
2.4
3.0
90.0%
9.0%
9.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%

CLO2
0.5
LOG
2.8
0.5
23.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Cartridge
Filter
(
CF)
2.0
LOG
2.8
2.0
90%
including
BF
0.0%
0.0%
9.0%
9.0%
0.0%
Combined
Filter
Performance
(
CFP)
0.5
LOG
3.2
0.5
15.9%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

CF
+
ClO2
2.5
LOG
5.6
2.5
20.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.1%

ClO2
+
CFP
6.0
1.0
3.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

O3
0.5
LOG
12.4
0.5
88.0%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

O3
1.0
LOG
13.4
1.0
59.0%
0.0%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3
2.0
LOG
14.6
2.0
4.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

CF
+
O3
(
0.5
LOG)
2.5
LOG
15.2
2.5
3.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%

O3(
0.5
log)
+
CFP
15.6
1.0
14.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
ClO2
+
O3
(
1.0)
1.5
LOG
16.2
1.5
13.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

O3(
1.0
log)
+
CFP
16.6
1.5
9.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
ClO2
+
O3
(
2.0)
2.5
LOG
17.4
2.5
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%

O3(
2.0
log)
+
CFP
17.8
2.5
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

SF
18.4
0.5
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
18.7
2.5
100.0%
0.1%
0.4%
0.8%
1.0%
7.6%
Percent
of
Plants
Selecting
Technology
by
Bin
F.
12
Technology
Selection
for
Small
Plants
(
501­
10,000)
UV90­
10B,
no
pre­
LT2
credits
Note:
Total
may
not
add
to
100.0%
because
of
rounding.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
F­
17
June
2003
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
0.5
Log
Bin
1.0
Log
Bin
1.5
Log
Bin
2.0
Log
Bin
2.5
Log
Bin
Total
­
­
­
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
CLO2
0.5
LOG
1.0
0.5
23.0%
23.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Combined
Filter
Performance
(
CFP)
0.5
LOG
1.1
0.5
40.0%
30.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
UV
3.0
LOG
1.5
3.0
90.0%
41.6%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%

In­
bank
1.0
LOG
2.4
1.0
10.0%
0.5%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

ClO2
+
CFP
1.0
LOG
2.1
1.0
9.2%
0.0%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
In­
bank
+
ClO2
1.5
LOG
3.4
1.5
2.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
In­
bank
+
CFP
1.5
LOG
3.5
1.5
4.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
O3
0.5
LOG
5.4
0.5
88.0%
3.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

O3
1.0
LOG
6.4
1.0
59.0%
0.0%
4.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

O3(
0.5)
+
ClO2
1.0
LOG
6.4
1.0
20.2%
0.0%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
CFP
+
O3
(
0.5
LOG)
1.0
LOG
6.5
1.0
35.2%
0.0%
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3(
1.0)
+
ClO2
1.5
LOG
7.4
1.5
13.6%
0.0%
0.0%
1.3%
0.0%
0.0%
O3(
1.0)
+
CFP
1.5
LOG
7.5
1.5
23.6%
0.0%
0.0%
1.9%
0.0%
0.0%
In­
bank
+
O3
(
0.5
LOG)
1.5
LOG
7.8
1.5
8.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%

O3
2.0
LOG
8.4
2.0
4.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.4%
0.0%
IBF+
O3(
1.0)
2.0
LOG
8.8
2.0
5.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
0.0%
O3(
2.0)
+
ClO2
2.5
LOG
9.4
2.5
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%

O3
(
2.0
LOG)
+
CFP
2.5
LOG
9.5
2.5
1.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%

Secondary
Filter
(
SF)
0.5
LOG
12.1
0.5
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

SF
+
CFP
13.2
1.0
4.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3
(
0.5
LOG)
+
SF
1.0
LOG
17.5
1.0
8.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3
(
1.0
LOG)
+
SF
1.5
LOG
18.5
1.5
5.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
18.7
2.5
100.0%
0.5%
1.7%
5.1%
9.0%
9.8%
Percent
of
Plants
Selecting
Technology
by
Bin
Exhibit
F.
13
Technology
Selection
for
Medium
Plants
(
10,001­
99,999)
UV90­
10B,
no
pre­
LT2
credits
Note:
Total
may
not
add
to
100.0%
because
of
rounding.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
F­
18
June
2003
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
0.5
Log
Bin
1.0
Log
Bin
1.5
Log
Bin
2.0
Log
Bin
2.5
Log
Bin
Total
­
­
­
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
CLO2
0.5
LOG
1.0
0.5
23.0%
23.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Combined
Filter
Performance
(
CFP)
0.5
LOG
1.8
0.5
38.0%
29.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
CFP
+
ClO2
1.0
LOG
2.8
1.0
8.7%
0.0%
8.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
UV
3.0
LOG
2.8
3.0
90.0%
43.0%
82.2%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%

In­
bank
1.0
LOG
6.6
1.0
10.0%
0.5%
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

In­
bank
+
ClO2
1.5
LOG
7.6
1.5
2.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%

In­
bank
+
CFP
1.5
LOG
8.4
1.5
3.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
O3
0.5
LOG
8.5
0.5
88.0%
3.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

O3(
0.5)
+
ClO2
1.0
LOG
9.5
1.0
20.2%
0.0%
1.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

O3
1.0
LOG
10.1
1.0
59.0%
0.0%
3.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
CFP
+
O3
(
0.5
LOG)
1.0
LOG
10.3
1.0
33.4%
0.0%
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

O3(
1.0)
+
ClO2
1.5
LOG
11.1
1.5
13.6%
0.0%
0.0%
1.3%
0.0%
0.0%

O3(
1.0
log)
+
CFP
1.5
LOG
11.9
1.5
33.4%
0.0%
0.0%
2.7%
0.0%
0.0%

Secondary
Filter
(
SF)
1.0
LOG
13.5
0.5
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

In­
bank
+
O
3
(
0.5
LOG)
1.5
LOG
15.1
1.5
8.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
SF
+
CFP
1.0
LOG
15.3
1.0
3.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

O3
2.0
LOG
16.5
2.0
4.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.4%
0.0%

IBF+
O
3(
1.0)
2.0
LOG
16.7
2.0
5.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
0.0%

O3(
2.0)
+
ClO2
2.5
LOG
17.5
2.5
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%

O3
(
2.0
LOG)
+
CFP
2.5
LOG
18.3
2.5
1.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
O3
(
0.5
LOG)
+
SF
1.5
LOG
22.0
1.0
8.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3
(
1.0
LOG)
+
SF
2.0
LOG
23.6
1.5
5.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
O3
(
2.0
LOG)
+
SF
3.0
LOG
30.0
2.5
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3
(
0.5
LOG)
+
WC
1.0
LOG
30.9
1.0
8.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3
(
1.0
LOG)
+
WC
1.5
LOG
32.5
1.5
5.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
O3
(
2.0
LOG)
+
WC
2.5
LOG
38.9
2.5
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
55.2
2.5
100.0%
0.5%
1.8%
4.2%
9.0%
9.8%
Percent
of
Plants
Selecting
Technology
by
Bin
Exhibit
F.
14
Technology
Selection
for
Large
Plants
(>
100,000)
UV90­
10B,
no
pre­
LT2
credits
Note:
Total
may
not
add
to
100.0%
because
of
rounding.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
F­
19
June
2003
Percent
of
Plants
Selecting
Technology
by
Bin
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
0.5
Log
Bin
1.0
Log
Bin
1.5
Log
Bin
2.0
Log
Bin
2.5
Log
Bin
Total
­
­
­
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

Bag
Filter
(
BF)
1.0
LOG
1.0
1.0
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Cartridge
Filter
(
CF)
2.0
LOG
1.7
2.0
90.0%
0.0%
0.0%
90.0%
90.0%
0.0%
UV
3.0
LOG
4.9
3.0
100.0%
10.0%
10.0%
10.0%
10.0%
100.0%
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
23.2
2.5
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Exhibit
F.
15
Technology
Selection
for
Very
Small
Plants
(<
500)
UV90­
10B,
with
pre­
LT2
credits
Note:
Total
may
not
add
to
100.0%
because
of
rounding.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
F­
20
June
2003
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
0.5
Log
Bin
1.0
Log
Bin
1.5
Log
Bin
2.0
Log
Bin
2.5
Log
Bin
Total
­
­
­
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

Bag
Filter
(
BF)
1.0
LOG
1.0
1.0
90%
including
CF
90.0%
90.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

UV
3.0
LOG
2.4
3.0
90.0%
9.0%
9.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%

CLO2
0.5
LOG
2.8
0.5
23.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Cartridge
Filter
(
CF)
2.0
LOG
2.8
2.0
90%
including
BF
0.0%
0.0%
9.0%
9.0%
0.0%
Combined
Filter
Performance
(
CFP)
0.5
LOG
3.2
0.5
2.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

CF
+
ClO2
2.5
LOG
5.6
2.5
20.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.1%
ClO2
+
CFP
6.0
1.0
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

O3
0.5
LOG
12.4
0.5
88.0%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

O3
1.0
LOG
13.4
1.0
59.0%
0.0%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

O3
2.0
LOG
14.6
2.0
4.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

CF
+
O3
(
0.5
LOG)
2.5
LOG
15.2
2.5
79.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
6.3%

O3(
0.5
log)
+
CFP
15.6
1.0
1.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
ClO2
+
O3
(
1.0)
1.5
LOG
16.2
1.5
13.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%

O3(
1.0
log)
+
CFP
16.6
1.5
1.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
ClO2
+
O3
(
2.0)
2.5
LOG
17.4
2.5
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

O3(
2.0
log)
+
CFP
17.8
2.5
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

SF
18.4
0.5
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
18.7
2.5
100.0%
0.1%
0.4%
0.9%
1.0%
1.6%
Percent
of
Plants
Selecting
Technology
by
Bin
F.
16
Technology
Selection
for
Small
Plants
(
501­
10,000)
UV90­
10B,
with
pre­
LT2
credits
Note:
Total
may
not
add
to
100.0%
because
of
rounding.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
F­
21
June
2003
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
0.5
Log
Bin
1.0
Log
Bin
1.5
Log
Bin
2.0
Log
Bin
2.5
Log
Bin
Total
­
­
­
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
CLO2
0.5
LOG
1.0
0.5
23.0%
23.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Combined
Filter
Performance
(
CFP)
0.5
LOG
1.1
0.5
3.6%
2.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
UV
3.0
LOG
1.5
3.0
90.0%
66.8%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%

ClO2
+
CFP
1.0
LOG
2.1
1.0
0.8%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

In­
bank
1.0
LOG
2.4
1.0
10.0%
0.7%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
In­
bank
+
ClO2
1.5
LOG
3.4
1.5
2.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%

In­
bank
+
CFP
1.5
LOG
3.5
1.5
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3
0.5
LOG
5.4
0.5
88.0%
5.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

O3
1.0
LOG
6.4
1.0
59.0%
0.0%
5.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

O3(
0.5)
+
ClO2
1.0
LOG
6.4
1.0
20.2%
0.0%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
CFP
+
O3
(
0.5
LOG)
1.0
LOG
6.5
1.0
3.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

O3(
1.0)
+
ClO2
1.5
LOG
7.4
1.5
13.6%
0.0%
0.0%
1.3%
0.0%
0.0%

O3(
1.0)
+
CFP
1.5
LOG
7.5
1.5
2.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
In­
bank
+
O3
(
0.5
LOG)
1.5
LOG
7.8
1.5
8.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%

O3
2.0
LOG
8.4
2.0
4.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.4%
0.0%

IBF+
O3(
1.0)
2.0
LOG
8.8
2.0
5.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
0.0%

O3(
2.0)
+
ClO2
2.5
LOG
9.4
2.5
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
O3
(
2.0
LOG)
+
CFP
2.5
LOG
9.5
2.5
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Secondary
Filter
(
SF)
0.5
LOG
12.1
0.5
10.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

SF
+
CFP
13.2
1.0
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

O3
(
0.5
LOG)
+
SF
1.0
LOG
17.5
1.0
8.8%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3
(
1.0
LOG)
+
SF
1.5
LOG
18.5
1.5
5.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
18.7
2.5
100.0%
0.7%
2.7%
6.8%
9.0%
9.9%
Percent
of
Plants
Selecting
Technology
by
Bin
Exhibit
F.
17
Technology
Selection
for
Medium
Plants
(
10,001­
99,999)
UV90­
10B,
with
pre­
LT2
credits
Note:
Total
may
not
add
to
100.0%
because
of
rounding.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
F­
22
June
2003
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
0.5
Log
Bin
1.0
Log
Bin
1.5
Log
Bin
2.0
Log
Bin
2.5
Log
Bin
Total
­
­
­
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
CLO2
0.5
LOG
1.0
0.5
23.0%
23.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Combined
Filter
Performance
(
CFP)
0.5
LOG
1.8
0.5
3.9%
3.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
CFP
+
ClO2
1.0
LOG
2.8
1.0
0.9%
0.0%
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
UV
3.0
LOG
2.8
3.0
90.0%
66.6%
89.2%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%

In­
bank
1.0
LOG
6.6
1.0
10.0%
0.7%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

In­
bank
+
ClO2
1.5
LOG
7.6
1.5
2.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%

In­
bank
+
CFP
1.5
LOG
8.4
1.5
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3
0.5
LOG
8.5
0.5
88.0%
5.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3(
0.5)
+
ClO2
1.0
LOG
9.5
1.0
20.2%
0.0%
1.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

O3
1.0
LOG
10.1
1.0
59.0%
0.0%
4.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

CFP
+
O3
(
0.5
LOG)
1.0
LOG
10.3
1.0
3.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

O3(
1.0)
+
ClO2
1.5
LOG
11.1
1.5
13.6%
0.0%
0.0%
1.3%
0.0%
0.0%
O3(
1.0
log)
+
CFP
1.5
LOG
11.9
1.5
2.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%

Secondary
Filter
(
SF)
1.0
LOG
13.5
0.5
10.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

In­
bank
+
O3
(
0.5
LOG)
1.5
LOG
15.1
1.5
8.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
SF
+
CFP
1.0
LOG
15.3
1.0
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

O3
2.0
LOG
16.5
2.0
4.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.4%
0.0%

IBF+
O3(
1.0)
2.0
LOG
16.7
2.0
5.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
0.0%

O3(
2.0)
+
ClO2
2.5
LOG
17.5
2.5
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%

O3
(
2.0
LOG)
+
CFP
2.5
LOG
18.3
2.5
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3
(
0.5
LOG)
+
SF
1.5
LOG
22.0
1.0
8.8%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3
(
1.0
LOG)
+
SF
2.0
LOG
23.6
1.5
5.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
O3
(
2.0
LOG)
+
SF
3.0
LOG
30.0
2.5
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3
(
0.5
LOG)
+
WC
1.0
LOG
30.9
1.0
8.8%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3
(
1.0
LOG)
+
WC
1.5
LOG
32.4
1.5
5.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
O3
(
2.0
LOG)
+
WC
2.5
LOG
38.9
2.5
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
55.2
2.5
100.0%
0.7%
2.4%
6.4%
9.0%
9.9%
Percent
of
Plants
Selecting
Technology
by
Bin
Exhibit
F.
18
Technology
Selection
for
Large
Plants
(>
100,000)
UV90­
10B,
with
pre­
LT2
credits
Note:
Total
may
not
add
to
100.0%
because
of
rounding.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
1
June
2003
Appendix
G
Technology
Selection
Results
Appendix
G
presents
technology
selection
results
for
filtered
plants.
To
estimate
technology
selections
for
filtered
plants,
a
number
of
conditions
were
used
(
see
Appendix
F
for
a
description
of
the
methodology
for
technology
selection).
Below
is
an
explanation
of
the
abbreviations
used
in
this
appendix,
and
a
brief
explanation
of
each
condition.

Regulatory
Alternatives
A1
A1
is
across­
the­
board
inactivation.
All
systems
are
required
to
achieve
a
2.0
log
inactivation
for
Cryptosporidium.

A2
A2
is
the
alternative
that
requires
the
most
reduction
of
Cryptosporidium.
Systems
with
0.03­
0.1
oocysts/
L
must
achieve
a
0.5
log
treatment
credit
for
Cryptosporidium.
Systems
with
0.1­
1.0
oocysts/
L
must
meet
a
1.5
log,
and
systems
with
greater
than
1.0
oocysts/
L
must
meet
a
2.5
log.

A3
A3
is
the
Preferred
Alternative.
Under
this
option,
systems
that
have
0.075­
1.0
oocysts/
L
must
achieve
a
1.0
log
treatment
credit
for
Cryptosporidium.
Systems
with
1.0­
3.0
oocysts/
L
must
achieve
a
2.0
log,
and
systems
with
greater
than
3.0
oocysts/
L
must
meet
a
2.5
log.

A4
A4
is
the
alternative
that
requires
the
least
reduction
of
Cryptosporidium.
Systems
that
have
0.1­
1.0
oocysts/
L
must
achieve
a
0.5
log
treatment
credit
for
Cryptosporidium
and
systems
that
have
greater
than
1.0
oocysts/
L
must
achieve
1.0
log.

Occurrence
Distribution
ICR
Modeling
results
based
on
the
Information
Collection
Rule
(
ICR)
were
used
to
predict
plant
binning
ICRSSL
Modeling
results
based
on
the
Information
Collection
Rule
Supplemental
Survey
for
large
systems
(
ICRSSL)
were
used
to
predict
plant
binning
ICRSSM
Modeling
results
based
on
the
Information
Collection
Rule
Supplemental
Survey
for
medium
systems
(
ICRSSM)
were
used
to
predict
plant
binning
High
Modeling
results
based
on
the
ICR­
upper,
95th
percentile,
limit
were
used
to
predict
binning
for
the
high­
case
scenario
for
the
preferred
alternative
Low
Modeling
results
based
on
the
ICRSSL­
lower,
5th
percentile,
limit
were
used
to
predict
binning
for
the
low­
case
scenario
for
the
preferred
alternative
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
2
June
2003
Population
Size
Categories
S1
0
­
100
S2
101
­
500
S3
501
­
1,000
S4
1,001
­
3,300
S5
3,301
­
10,000
M1
10,001­
50,000
M2
50,001­
100,000
L1
100,001
­
1,000,000
L2
>
1,000,00
Sensitivity
Analysis
The
technology
selection
forecasts
include
sensitivity
analyses
that
assume
a
high
source
water
bromide
level
(
summarized
in
section
6.10).

UV90­
10
UV
maximum
usage
=
90
percent,
Bromate
maximum
contaminant
level
(
MCL)
=
10
parts
per
billion
(
ppb),
No
additional
influent
bromide
UV90­
10B
UV
maximum
usage
=
90
percent,
Bromate
MCL
=
10
ppb,
Additional
influent
Bromide
=
50
ppb
Exhibit
G.
1:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A1
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICR
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10
CWS
Technology
Selection
Forecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
396
4
353
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
0
S2
791
7
704
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
79
0
S3
407
4
36
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
363
0
S4
995
9
89
0
0
0
3
0
0
7
0
887
0
S5
1,179
11
105
0
0
0
3
0
1
8
0
1,052
0
M1
1,171
0
0
13
2
7
29
4
20
62
1
1,054
2
M2
429
0
0
5
1
3
11
2
7
23
0
386
1
L1
396
0
0
5
1
3
9
2
8
20
0
356
1
L2
52
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
3
0
47
0
Total
Plants
5,816
34
1,287
25
3
13
58
8
37
124
2
4,264
4
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
3
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
2:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A1
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICR
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10
NTNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
242
2
215
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
0
S2
269
2
240
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
0
S3
97
1
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
87
0
S4
67
1
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
0
S5
22
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
0
M1
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
M2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
L1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
707
6
472
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
226
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
4
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
3:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A1
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICR
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10
TNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
1,234
11
1,099
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
123
0
S2
486
4
433
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
49
0
S3
81
1
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
72
0
S4
67
1
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
0
S5
31
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
0
M1
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
9
0
M2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
1,912
17
1,548
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
343
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
5
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
4:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A1
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICR
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10B
CWS
Technology
Selection
Forecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
396
4
353
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
0
S2
791
7
704
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
79
0
S3
407
4
36
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
363
0
S4
995
9
89
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
887
0
S5
1,179
11
105
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
1,052
0
M1
1,171
0
0
9
1
9
90
5
17
4
3
1,054
1
M2
429
0
0
3
0
3
33
2
6
1
1
386
0
L1
396
0
0
4
1
3
29
2
7
1
1
356
1
L2
52
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
1
0
0
47
0
Total
Plants
5,816
34
1,287
18
3
16
180
9
32
7
4
4,264
3
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
6
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
5:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A1
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICR
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10B
NTNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
242
2
215
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
0
S2
269
2
240
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
0
S3
97
1
9
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
87
0
S4
67
1
6
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
60
0
S5
22
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
0
M1
8
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
7
0
M2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
L1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
707
6
472
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
226
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
7
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
6:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A1
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICR
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10B
TNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
1,234
11
1,099
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
123
0
S2
486
4
433
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
49
0
S3
81
1
7
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
72
0
S4
67
1
6
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
60
0
S5
31
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
0
M1
10
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
9
0
M2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
1,912
17
1,548
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
343
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
8
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
7:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A1
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSL
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10
CWS
Technology
Selection
Forecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
396
4
353
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
0
S2
791
7
704
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
79
0
S3
407
4
36
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
363
0
S4
995
9
89
0
0
0
3
0
0
7
0
887
0
S5
1,179
11
105
0
0
0
3
0
1
8
0
1,052
0
M1
1,171
0
0
13
2
7
29
4
20
62
1
1,054
2
M2
429
0
0
5
1
3
11
2
7
23
0
386
1
L1
396
0
0
5
1
3
9
2
8
20
0
356
1
L2
52
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
3
0
47
0
Total
Plants
5,816
34
1,287
25
3
13
58
8
37
124
2
4,264
4
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
9
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
8:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A1
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSL
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10
NTNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
242
2
215
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
0
S2
269
2
240
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
0
S3
97
1
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
87
0
S4
67
1
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
0
S5
22
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
0
M1
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
M2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
L1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
707
6
472
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
226
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
10
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
9:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A1
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSL
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10
TNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
1,234
11
1,099
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
123
0
S2
486
4
433
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
49
0
S3
81
1
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
72
0
S4
67
1
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
0
S5
31
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
0
M1
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
9
0
M2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
1,912
17
1,548
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
343
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
11
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
10:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A1
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSL
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10B
CWS
Technology
Selection
Forecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
396
4
353
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
0
S2
791
7
704
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
79
0
S3
407
4
36
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
363
0
S4
995
9
89
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
887
0
S5
1,179
11
105
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
1,052
0
M1
1,171
0
0
9
1
9
90
5
17
4
3
1,054
1
M2
429
0
0
3
0
3
33
2
6
1
1
386
0
L1
396
0
0
4
1
3
29
2
7
1
1
356
1
L2
52
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
1
0
0
47
0
Total
Plants
5,816
34
1,287
18
3
16
180
9
32
7
4
4,264
3
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
12
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
11:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A1
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSL
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10B
NTNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
242
2
215
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
0
S2
269
2
240
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
0
S3
97
1
9
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
87
0
S4
67
1
6
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
60
0
S5
22
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
0
M1
8
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
7
0
M2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
L1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
707
6
472
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
226
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
13
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
12:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A1
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSL
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10B
TNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
1,234
11
1,099
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
123
0
S2
486
4
433
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
49
0
S3
81
1
7
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
72
0
S4
67
1
6
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
60
0
S5
31
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
0
M1
10
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
9
0
M2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
1,912
17
1,548
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
343
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
14
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
13:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A1
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSM
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10
CWS
Technology
Selection
Forecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
396
4
353
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
0
S2
791
7
704
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
79
0
S3
407
4
36
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
363
0
S4
995
9
89
0
0
0
3
0
0
7
0
887
0
S5
1,179
11
105
0
0
0
3
0
1
8
0
1,052
0
M1
1,171
0
0
13
2
7
29
4
20
62
1
1,054
2
M2
429
0
0
5
1
3
11
2
7
23
0
386
1
L1
396
0
0
5
1
3
9
2
8
20
0
356
1
L2
52
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
3
0
47
0
Total
Plants
5,816
34
1,287
25
3
13
58
8
37
124
2
4,264
4
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
15
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
14:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A1
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSM
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10
NTNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
242
2
215
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
0
S2
269
2
240
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
0
S3
97
1
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
87
0
S4
67
1
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
0
S5
22
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
0
M1
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
M2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
L1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
707
6
472
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
226
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
16
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
15:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A1
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSM
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10
TNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
1,234
11
1,099
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
123
0
S2
486
4
433
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
49
0
S3
81
1
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
72
0
S4
67
1
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
0
S5
31
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
0
M1
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
9
0
M2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
1,912
17
1,548
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
343
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
17
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
16:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A1
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSM
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10B
CWS
Technology
Selection
Forecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
396
4
353
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
0
S2
791
7
704
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
79
0
S3
407
4
36
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
363
0
S4
995
9
89
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
887
0
S5
1,179
11
105
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
1,052
0
M1
1,171
0
0
9
1
9
90
5
17
4
3
1,054
1
M2
429
0
0
3
0
3
33
2
6
1
1
386
0
L1
396
0
0
4
1
3
29
2
7
1
1
356
1
L2
52
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
1
0
0
47
0
Total
Plants
5,816
34
1,287
18
3
16
180
9
32
7
4
4,264
3
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
18
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
17:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A1
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSM
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10B
NTNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
242
2
215
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
0
S2
269
2
240
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
0
S3
97
1
9
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
87
0
S4
67
1
6
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
60
0
S5
22
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
0
M1
8
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
7
0
M2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
L1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
707
6
472
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
226
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
19
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
18:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A1
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSM
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10B
TNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
1,234
11
1,099
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
123
0
S2
486
4
433
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
49
0
S3
81
1
7
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
72
0
S4
67
1
6
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
60
0
S5
31
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
0
M1
10
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
9
0
M2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
1,912
17
1,548
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
343
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
20
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
19:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A2
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICR
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10
CWS
Technology
Selection
Forecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
164
70
61
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
0
S2
327
140
121
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
66
0
S3
168
72
8
1
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
87
0
S4
411
176
19
1
0
0
1
4
1
1
0
212
0
S5
487
208
23
2
0
0
1
4
1
1
0
251
0
M1
446
0
0
28
34
3
7
5
16
7
0
342
3
M2
164
0
0
10
12
1
2
2
6
3
0
125
1
L1
149
0
0
10
11
1
2
3
5
2
0
114
1
L2
20
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
15
0
Total
Plants
2,335
665
232
53
59
6
14
20
30
16
1
1,245
5
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
21
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
20:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A2
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICR
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10
NTNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
100
43
37
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
0
S2
111
48
41
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
0
S3
40
17
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
0
S4
28
12
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
S5
9
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
M1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
292
123
82
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
85
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
22
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
21:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A2
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICR
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10
TNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
510
218
189
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
103
0
S2
201
86
75
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
0
S3
33
14
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
S4
28
12
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
S5
13
5
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
M1
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
M2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
790
335
267
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
185
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
23
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
22:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A2
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICR
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10B
CWS
Technology
Selection
Forecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
164
70
61
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33
0
S2
327
140
121
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
66
0
S3
168
72
7
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
87
0
S4
411
176
16
1
0
0
5
1
0
0
0
212
0
S5
487
208
19
2
0
0
6
1
1
0
0
251
0
M1
446
0
0
27
32
4
17
6
12
0
1
342
2
M2
164
0
0
10
12
1
6
2
4
0
0
125
1
L1
149
0
0
10
10
1
5
3
4
0
0
114
1
L2
20
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
15
0
Total
Plants
2,335
665
224
51
56
6
43
14
21
1
1
1,245
4
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
24
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
23:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A2
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICR
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10B
NTNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
100
43
37
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
0
S2
111
48
41
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
0
S3
40
17
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
21
0
S4
28
12
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
S5
9
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
M1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
292
123
81
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
85
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
25
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
24:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A2
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICR
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10B
TNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
510
218
189
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
103
0
S2
201
86
75
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
0
S3
33
14
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
S4
28
12
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
S5
13
5
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
M1
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
M2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
790
335
267
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
185
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
26
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
25:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A2
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSL
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10
CWS
Technology
Selection
Forecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
136
85
36
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
S2
271
169
73
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
0
S3
140
87
4
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
47
0
S4
341
213
9
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
115
0
S5
404
252
11
1
0
0
1
2
1
1
0
137
0
M1
342
0
0
38
49
3
3
7
11
3
0
232
2
M2
125
0
0
14
18
1
1
2
4
1
0
85
1
L1
112
0
0
13
15
1
1
3
3
1
0
77
1
L2
15
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
Total
Plants
1,886
806
133
69
84
5
6
16
21
6
0
749
4
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
27
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
26:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A2
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSL
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10
NTNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
83
52
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
S2
92
58
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
S3
33
21
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
S4
23
14
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
S5
7
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
M1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
242
149
49
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
28
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
27:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A2
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSL
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10
TNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
423
264
113
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46
0
S2
167
104
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
0
S3
28
17
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
S4
23
14
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
S5
11
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
M1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
655
406
160
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
87
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
29
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
28:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A2
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSL
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10B
CWS
Technology
Selection
Forecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
136
85
36
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
S2
271
169
73
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
0
S3
140
87
4
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
47
0
S4
341
213
9
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
115
0
S5
404
252
11
1
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
137
0
M1
342
0
0
38
48
3
8
7
8
0
1
232
2
M2
125
0
0
14
18
1
3
3
3
0
0
85
1
L1
112
0
0
13
15
1
2
3
3
0
0
77
1
L2
15
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
Total
Plants
1,886
806
133
68
84
5
18
16
15
0
1
749
3
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
30
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
29:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A2
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSL
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10B
NTNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
83
52
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
S2
92
58
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
S3
33
21
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
S4
23
14
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
S5
7
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
M1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
242
149
49
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
31
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
30:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A2
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSL
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10B
TNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
423
264
113
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46
0
S2
167
104
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
0
S3
28
17
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
S4
23
14
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
S5
11
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
M1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
655
406
160
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
87
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
32
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
31:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A2
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSM
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10
CWS
Technology
Selection
Forecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
148
83
47
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
0
S2
296
166
94
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
37
0
S3
153
85
5
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
61
0
S4
373
208
13
1
0
0
1
2
1
1
0
148
0
S5
442
247
15
1
0
0
1
2
1
1
0
175
0
M1
386
0
0
35
45
3
4
6
14
4
0
278
3
M2
141
0
0
13
16
1
1
2
5
1
0
102
1
L1
127
0
0
13
14
1
1
3
4
1
0
93
1
L2
17
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
12
0
Total
Plants
2,083
789
174
64
77
5
8
16
26
9
0
924
5
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
33
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
32:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A2
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSM
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10
NTNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
91
51
29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
S2
101
56
32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
S3
36
20
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
S4
25
14
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
S5
8
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
M1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
264
146
63
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
54
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
34
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
33:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A2
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSM
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10
TNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
462
259
147
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57
0
S2
182
102
58
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
0
S3
30
17
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
S4
25
14
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
S5
12
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
M1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
716
398
206
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
110
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
35
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
34:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A2
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSM
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10B
CWS
Technology
Selection
Forecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
148
83
47
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
0
S2
296
166
94
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
37
0
S3
153
85
5
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
61
0
S4
373
208
12
1
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
148
0
S5
442
247
14
1
0
0
3
1
1
0
0
175
0
M1
386
0
0
35
44
3
11
7
10
0
1
278
2
M2
141
0
0
13
16
1
4
3
4
0
0
102
1
L1
127
0
0
12
14
1
3
3
3
0
0
93
1
L2
17
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
Total
Plants
2,083
789
172
64
76
6
24
16
19
1
1
924
4
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
36
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
35:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A2
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSM
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10B
NTNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
91
51
29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
S2
101
56
32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
S3
36
20
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
S4
25
14
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
S5
8
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
M1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
264
146
63
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
54
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
37
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
36:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A2
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSM
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10B
TNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
462
259
147
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57
0
S2
182
102
58
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
0
S3
30
17
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
S4
25
14
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
S5
12
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
M1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
716
398
206
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
110
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
38
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
37:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A3
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICR
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10
CWS
Technology
Selection
Forecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
137
96
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
0
S2
273
192
39
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
42
0
S3
141
99
3
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
38
0
S4
343
241
7
1
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
92
0
S5
407
286
8
1
0
0
1
2
2
1
0
109
0
M1
395
0
0
40
7
3
4
11
11
4
0
312
0
M2
145
0
0
15
2
1
2
4
4
2
0
115
0
L1
131
0
0
18
6
1
1
4
3
1
0
100
0
L2
17
0
0
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
13
0
Total
Plants
1,989
915
77
76
16
5
9
25
23
9
0
841
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
39
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
38:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A3
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICR
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10
NTNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
83
59
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
S2
93
65
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
S3
34
24
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
S4
23
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
S5
8
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
244
169
27
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
40
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
39:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A3
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICR
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10
TNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
426
300
62
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
65
0
S2
168
118
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
0
S3
28
20
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
S4
23
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
S5
11
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
M1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
M2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
660
461
87
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
111
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
41
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
40:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A3
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICR
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10B
CWS
Technology
Selection
Forecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
137
96
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
0
S2
273
192
39
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
42
0
S3
141
99
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
38
0
S4
343
241
5
1
0
0
3
1
1
0
0
92
0
S5
407
286
6
1
0
0
3
1
1
0
0
109
0
M1
395
0
0
40
7
3
11
12
8
0
0
312
0
M2
145
0
0
15
3
1
4
4
3
0
0
115
0
L1
131
0
0
18
6
1
3
5
2
0
0
100
0
L2
17
0
0
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
13
0
Total
Plants
1,989
915
73
77
17
5
26
24
16
1
0
841
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
42
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
41:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A3
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICR
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10B
NTNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
83
59
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
S2
93
65
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
S3
34
24
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
S4
23
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
S5
8
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
244
169
26
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
47
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
43
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
42:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A3
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICR
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10B
TNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
426
300
62
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
65
0
S2
168
118
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
0
S3
28
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
S4
23
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
S5
11
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
M1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
M2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
660
461
87
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
111
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
44
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
43:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A3
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSL
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10
CWS
Technology
Selection
Forecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
88
77
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
S2
175
154
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
0
S3
90
79
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
10
0
S4
220
193
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
24
0
S5
261
229
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
29
0
M1
252
0
0
31
5
2
1
9
8
0
0
196
0
M2
92
0
0
11
2
1
1
3
3
0
0
72
0
L1
83
0
0
14
5
1
1
3
2
0
0
62
0
L2
11
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
Total
Plants
1,272
732
7
59
12
3
3
17
17
1
0
428
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
45
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
44:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A3
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSL
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10
NTNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
54
47
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
S2
60
52
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
S3
22
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S4
15
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S5
5
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
156
135
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
46
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
45:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A3
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSL
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10
TNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
273
240
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
0
S2
108
94
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
S3
18
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S4
15
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S5
7
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
423
369
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
47
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
46:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A3
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSL
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10B
CWS
Technology
Selection
Forecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
88
77
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
S2
175
154
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
0
S3
90
79
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
S4
220
193
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
24
0
S5
261
229
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
29
0
M1
252
0
0
32
6
2
3
10
6
0
0
196
0
M2
92
0
0
12
2
1
1
4
2
0
0
72
0
L1
83
0
0
14
5
1
1
4
1
0
0
62
0
L2
11
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
Total
Plants
1,272
732
7
60
14
4
8
19
11
0
0
428
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
48
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
47:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A3
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSL
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10B
NTNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
54
47
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
S2
60
52
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
S3
22
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S4
15
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S5
5
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
156
135
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
49
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
48:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A3
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSL
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10B
TNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
273
240
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
0
S2
108
94
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
S3
18
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S4
15
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S5
7
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
423
369
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
50
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
49:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A3
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSM
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10
CWS
Technology
Selection
Forecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
107
90
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
S2
213
179
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
0
S3
110
92
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
16
0
S4
268
225
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
39
0
S5
318
267
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
46
0
M1
306
0
0
37
6
2
2
10
10
1
0
240
0
M2
112
0
0
13
2
1
1
4
4
0
0
88
0
L1
102
0
0
17
5
1
1
4
3
0
0
76
0
L2
13
0
0
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
10
0
Total
Plants
1,549
853
21
69
14
4
4
20
20
2
0
548
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
51
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
50:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A3
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSM
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10
NTNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
65
55
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
S2
73
61
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
S3
26
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
S4
18
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S5
6
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
190
158
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
52
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
51:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A3
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSM
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10
TNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
333
279
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36
0
S2
131
110
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
S3
22
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S4
18
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S5
8
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
515
430
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
53
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
52:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A3
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSM
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10B
CWS
Technology
Selection
Forecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
107
90
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
S2
213
179
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
0
S3
110
92
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
S4
268
225
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
39
0
S5
318
267
2
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
46
0
M1
306
0
0
37
7
3
5
11
7
0
0
240
0
M2
112
0
0
14
2
1
2
4
2
0
0
88
0
L1
102
0
0
16
6
1
2
4
2
0
0
76
0
L2
13
0
0
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
10
0
Total
Plants
1,549
853
20
70
16
4
11
22
14
0
0
548
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
54
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
53:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A3
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSM
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10B
NTNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
65
55
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
S2
73
61
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
S3
26
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
S4
18
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S5
6
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
190
158
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
55
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
54:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A3
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSM
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10B
TNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
333
279
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36
0
S2
131
110
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
S3
22
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S4
18
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S5
8
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
515
430
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
56
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
55:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A3
Occurrence
Distribution:
High
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10
CWS
Technology
Selection
Forecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
151
109
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
0
S2
302
217
41
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
0
S3
155
112
3
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
40
0
S4
380
273
7
1
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
97
0
S5
450
323
8
1
0
0
1
2
2
1
0
115
0
M1
436
0
0
45
8
3
5
12
13
4
0
345
0
M2
160
0
0
16
3
1
2
4
5
2
0
127
0
L1
145
0
0
20
7
1
2
5
3
1
0
110
0
L2
19
0
0
3
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
15
0
Total
Plants
2,200
1,032
79
86
18
5
10
28
26
9
0
914
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
57
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
56:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A3
Occurrence
Distribution:
High
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10
NTNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
92
66
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
S2
103
74
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
S3
37
27
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
S4
26
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
S5
8
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
270
191
28
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
50
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
58
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
57:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A3
Occurrence
Distribution:
High
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10
TNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
471
338
64
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
70
0
S2
186
133
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
0
S3
31
22
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
S4
26
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
S5
12
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
M1
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
M2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
730
520
90
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
118
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
59
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
58:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A3
Occurrence
Distribution:
High
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10B
CWS
Technology
Selection
Forecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
151
109
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
0
S2
302
217
41
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
0
S3
155
112
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
40
0
S4
380
273
6
1
0
0
3
1
1
0
0
97
0
S5
450
323
7
1
0
0
3
1
1
0
0
115
0
M1
436
0
0
45
8
3
11
14
9
0
0
345
0
M2
160
0
0
17
3
1
4
5
3
0
0
127
0
L1
145
0
0
20
7
1
4
5
2
0
0
110
0
L2
19
0
0
3
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
15
0
Total
Plants
2,200
1,032
76
86
19
6
27
27
18
1
1
914
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
60
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
59:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A3
Occurrence
Distribution:
High
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10B
NTNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
92
66
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
S2
103
74
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
S3
37
27
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
S4
26
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
S5
8
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
270
191
27
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
50
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
61
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
60:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A3
Occurrence
Distribution:
High
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10B
TNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
471
338
64
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
70
0
S2
186
133
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
0
S3
31
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
S4
26
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
S5
12
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
M1
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
M2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
730
520
90
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
118
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
62
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
61:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A3
Occurrence
Distribution:
Low
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10
CWS
Technology
Selection
Forecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
53
47
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
S2
106
94
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
S3
54
49
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
S4
133
119
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
13
0
S5
158
141
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
15
0
M1
152
0
0
19
3
1
1
5
5
0
0
118
0
M2
56
0
0
7
1
0
0
2
2
0
0
43
0
L1
50
0
0
9
3
0
0
2
1
0
0
37
0
L2
7
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
Total
Plants
768
450
1
36
7
2
2
10
10
0
0
252
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
63
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
62:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A3
Occurrence
Distribution:
Low
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10
NTNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
32
29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S2
36
32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
S3
13
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S4
9
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S5
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
94
83
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
64
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
63:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A3
Occurrence
Distribution:
Low
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10
TNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
165
147
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
S2
65
58
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
S3
11
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S4
9
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S5
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
256
227
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
65
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
64:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A3
Occurrence
Distribution:
Low
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10B
CWS
Technology
Selection
Forecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
53
47
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
S2
106
94
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
S3
54
49
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
S4
133
119
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
13
0
S5
158
141
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
15
0
M1
152
0
0
19
3
1
2
6
3
0
0
118
0
M2
56
0
0
7
1
0
1
2
1
0
0
43
0
L1
50
0
0
9
3
0
1
2
1
0
0
37
0
L2
7
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
Total
Plants
768
450
1
37
8
2
4
12
7
0
0
252
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
66
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
65:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A3
Occurrence
Distribution:
Low
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10B
NTNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
32
29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S2
36
32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
S3
13
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S4
9
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S5
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
94
83
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
67
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
66:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A3
Occurrence
Distribution:
Low
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10B
TNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
165
147
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
S2
65
58
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
S3
11
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S4
9
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S5
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
256
227
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
68
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
67:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A4
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICR
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10
CWS
Technology
Selection
Forecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
86
78
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
S2
172
155
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
S3
89
80
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
S4
217
195
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
20
0
S5
257
231
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
23
0
M1
204
0
0
38
39
1
1
7
3
0
0
115
0
M2
75
0
0
14
14
0
0
3
1
0
0
42
0
L1
66
0
0
14
13
0
0
3
1
0
0
37
0
L2
9
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
Total
Plants
1,175
739
0
69
68
2
2
16
6
0
0
276
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
69
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
68:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A4
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICR
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10
NTNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
53
47
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
S2
59
53
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
S3
21
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S4
15
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S5
5
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
154
137
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
70
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
69:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A4
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICR
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10
TNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
269
242
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
0
S2
106
95
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
S3
18
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S4
15
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S5
7
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
416
372
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
42
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
71
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
70:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A4
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICR
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10B
CWS
Technology
Selection
Forecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
86
78
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
S2
172
155
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
S3
89
80
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
S4
217
195
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
20
0
S5
257
231
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
23
0
M1
204
0
0
39
39
1
2
8
2
0
0
115
0
M2
75
0
0
14
14
0
1
3
1
0
0
42
0
L1
66
0
0
14
13
0
1
3
0
0
0
37
0
L2
9
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
Total
Plants
1,175
739
0
69
68
2
4
16
4
0
0
276
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
72
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
71:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A4
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICR
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10B
NTNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
53
47
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
S2
59
53
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
S3
21
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S4
15
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S5
5
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
154
137
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
73
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
72:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A4
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICR
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10B
TNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
269
242
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
0
S2
106
95
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
S3
18
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S4
15
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S5
7
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
416
372
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
42
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
74
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
73:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A4
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSL
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10
CWS
Technology
Selection
Forecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
41
36
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
S2
81
73
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
S3
42
37
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
S4
102
92
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
9
0
S5
121
108
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
11
0
M1
87
0
0
19
25
0
0
3
0
0
0
38
0
M2
32
0
0
7
9
0
0
1
0
0
0
14
0
L1
27
0
0
6
8
0
0
1
0
0
0
12
0
L2
4
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
Total
Plants
535
347
0
34
44
1
1
7
0
0
0
101
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
75
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
74:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A4
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSL
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10
NTNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
25
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S2
28
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S3
10
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S4
7
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S5
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
72
64
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
76
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
75:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A4
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSL
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10
TNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
126
114
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
S2
50
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
S3
8
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S4
7
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S5
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
195
175
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
77
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
76:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A4
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSL
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10B
CWS
Technology
Selection
Forecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
41
36
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
S2
81
73
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
S3
42
37
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
S4
102
92
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
9
0
S5
121
108
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
11
0
M1
87
0
0
19
25
0
0
3
0
0
0
38
0
M2
32
0
0
7
9
0
0
1
0
0
0
14
0
L1
27
0
0
6
8
0
0
1
0
0
0
12
0
L2
4
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
Total
Plants
535
347
0
34
44
1
1
7
0
0
0
101
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
78
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
77:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A4
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSL
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10B
NTNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
25
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S2
28
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S3
10
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S4
7
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S5
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
72
64
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
79
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
78:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A4
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSL
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10B
TNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
126
114
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
S2
50
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
S3
8
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S4
7
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S5
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
195
175
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
80
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
79:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A4
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSM
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10
CWS
Technology
Selection
Forecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
56
51
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
S2
112
101
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
S3
58
52
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
S4
141
127
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
13
0
S5
167
151
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
15
0
M1
124
0
0
26
32
1
1
5
1
0
0
59
0
M2
45
0
0
10
12
0
0
2
0
0
0
22
0
L1
39
0
0
9
10
0
0
2
0
0
0
19
0
L2
5
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
Total
Plants
749
481
0
47
56
1
1
10
1
0
0
152
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
81
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
80:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A4
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSM
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10
NTNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
34
31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S2
38
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
S3
14
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S4
10
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S5
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
100
89
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
82
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
81:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A4
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSM
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10
TNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
175
158
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
0
S2
69
62
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
S3
11
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S4
10
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S5
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
271
243
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
83
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
82:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A4
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSM
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10B
CWS
Technology
Selection
Forecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
56
51
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
S2
112
101
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
S3
58
52
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
S4
141
127
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
13
0
S5
167
151
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
15
0
M1
124
0
0
26
32
1
1
5
0
0
0
59
0
M2
45
0
0
10
12
0
0
2
0
0
0
22
0
L1
39
0
0
9
10
0
0
2
0
0
0
19
0
L2
5
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
Total
Plants
749
481
0
47
56
1
2
10
1
0
0
152
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
84
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
83:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A4
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSM
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10B
NTNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
34
31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S2
38
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
S3
14
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S4
10
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S5
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
100
89
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
85
June
2003
Exhibit
G.
84:
Technology
Selection
for
Filtered
Plants
Conditions
Regulatory
Alternative:
A4
Occurrence
Distribution:
ICRSSM
Technology
Selection
Sensitivity:
UV90­
10B
TNCWS
Technology
SelectionsForecast
(
Number
of
Total
Plants
Selecting
Different
Technologies)
Bag
Filter
1.0
LOG
Cartridge
Filter
2.0
LOG
CLO2
0.5
LOG
Combined
Filter
Performance
0.5
LOG
In­
bank
Filtration
1.0
LOG
MF/
UF
2.5
LOG
O3
0.5
LOG
O3
1.0
LOG
O3
2.0
LOG
Secondary
Filter
1
LOG
UV
2.5
LOG
WS
Control
0.5
LOG
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
S1
175
158
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
0
S2
69
62
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
S3
11
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S4
10
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S5
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Plants
271
243
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
0
Note:
Sum
of
columns
B
through
M
may
not
add
to
column
A.
EPA
Size
Category
Total
Plants
Affected
(
Including
Purchasers)

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
G­
86
June
2003
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
H­
1
June
2003
Appendix
H
Treatment
Costs
for
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
Plants
Appendix
H
presents
total
costs
of
treatment
for
filtered
and
unfiltered
plants.
The
methodology
for
estimating
these
costs
is
provided
in
Chapter
6
and
supplemented
by
Appendix
A,
Appendix
E,
and
Appendix
F.
Cost
estimates
are
presented
as
present
value,
calculated
with
3
and
7
percent
discount
rates.
See
Appendix
O
for
annualized
costs.

Below
is
an
explanation
of
the
abbreviations
used
in
this
appendix,
and
a
brief
explanation
of
each
condition.

Regulatory
Alternatives
A1
A1
is
across­
the­
board
inactivation.
All
systems
are
required
to
achieve
a
2.0
log
reduction
for
Cryptosporidium.

A2
A2
is
the
alternative
that
requires
the
most
reduction
of
Cryptosporidium.
Systems
with
0.03­
0.1
oocysts/
L
must
achieve
a
0.5
log
reduction.
Systems
with
0.1­
1.0
oocysts/
L
must
meet
a
1.5
log
reduction
and
systems
with
greater
than
1.0
oocysts/
L
must
meet
a
2.5
log
reduction
of
Cryptosporidium.

A3
A3
is
the
Preferred
Alternative.
Under
this
option,
systems
that
have
0.075­
1.0
oocysts/
L
must
meet
a
1.0
log
reduction
of
Cryptosporidium.
Systems
with
1.0­
3.0
oocysts/
L
must
achieve
a
2.0
log
reduction,
and
systems
with
greater
than
3.0
oocysts/
L
must
meet
a
2.5
log
reduction.

A4
A4
is
the
alternative
that
requires
the
least
reduction
of
Cryptosporidium.
Systems
that
have
0.1­
1.0
oocysts/
L
must
achieve
a
log
reduction
of
0.5
for
Cryptosporidium.
Systems
that
have
greater
than
1.0
oocysts/
L
must
meet
a
1.0
log
reduction
for
Cryptosporidium
Occurrence
Distribution
ICR
Modeling
results
based
on
the
Information
Collection
Rule
(
ICR)
were
used
to
predict
plant
binning
ICRSSL
Modeling
results
based
on
the
Information
Collection
Rule
Supplemental
Survey
for
large
systems
(
ICRSSL)
were
used
to
predict
plant
binning
ICRSSM
Modeling
results
based
on
the
Information
Collection
Rule
Supplemental
Survey
for
medium
systems
(
ICRSSM)
were
used
to
predict
plant
binning
High
Modeling
results
based
on
the
ICR­
upper
credible
limit
were
used
to
predict
binning
for
the
high­
case
scenario
Low
Modeling
results
based
on
the
ICRSSL­
lower
credible
limit
were
used
to
predict
binning
for
the
low­
case
scenario
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
H­
2
June
2003
Sensitivity
Analysis
UV90­
10
UV
maximum
usage
=
90,
Bromate
maximum
containment
level
(
MCL)=
10,
No
additional
influent
Bromide
UV90­
10B
UV
maximum
usage
=
90,
Bromate
MCL=
10,
Additional
influent
Bromide=
50
parts
per
billion
(
ppb)

Discount
Rate
3%
A
3
percent
discount
rate
is
used
(
see
Chapter
6).

7%
A
7
percent
discount
rate
is
used
(
see
Chapter
6).

System
Size
S
Systems
serving
10,000
or
fewer
people.

L
Systems
serving
greater
than
10,000
people.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
H­
3
June
2003
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)

A
B
C
D
E
F
A1
5,960.96
$
5,301.64
$
6,635.16
$
342.33
$
304.46
$
381.04
$

A2
1,842.51
$
1,645.69
$
2,044.34
$
105.81
$
94.51
$
117.40
$

A3
­
Preferred
alt.
1,508.51
$
1,337.53
$
1,678.76
$
86.63
$
76.81
$
96.41
$

A4
620.88
$
556.09
$
687.12
$
35.66
$
31.94
$
39.46
$

A1
5,960.96
$
5,301.64
$
6,635.16
$
342.33
$
304.46
$
381.04
$

A2
1,466.36
$
1,307.58
$
1,624.82
$
84.21
$
75.09
$
93.31
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
1,090.19
$
963.40
$
1,220.11
$
62.61
$
55.33
$
70.07
$

A4
355.58
$
320.73
$
390.65
$
20.42
$
18.42
$
22.43
$

A1
5,960.96
$
5,301.64
$
6,635.16
$
342.33
$
304.46
$
381.04
$

A2
1,240.50
$
1,107.83
$
1,372.81
$
71.24
$
63.62
$
78.84
$

A3
­
Preferred
alt.
876.73
$
773.42
$
982.51
$
50.35
$
44.42
$
56.42
$

A4
242.04
$
218.99
$
265.13
$
13.90
$
12.58
$
15.23
$
High
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
1,655.24
$
1,470.18
$
1,844.66
$
95.06
$
84.43
$
105.93
$
Low
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
524.69
$
461.83
$
587.70
$
30.13
$
26.52
$
33.75
$
ICR
UV90­
10B
A3
1,694.66
$
1,509.00
$
1,878.50
$
97.32
$
86.66
$
107.88
$
ICRSSM
UV90­
10B
A3
1,182.56
$
1,048.13
$
1,316.32
$
67.91
$
60.19
$
75.59
$
ICRSSL
UV90­
10B
A3
940.03
$
831.93
$
1,048.00
$
53.98
$
47.78
$
60.18
$

A1
690.92
$
615.94
$
767.38
$
39.68
$
35.37
$
44.07
$

A2
233.72
$
215.13
$
252.29
$
13.42
$
12.35
$
14.49
$

A3
­
Preferred
alt.
152.05
$
140.83
$
163.16
$
8.73
$
8.09
$
9.37
$

A4
73.99
$
67.14
$
80.79
$
4.25
$
3.86
$
4.64
$

A1
690.92
$
615.94
$
767.38
$
39.68
$
35.37
$
44.07
$

A2
181.32
$
167.37
$
195.31
$
10.41
$
9.61
$
11.22
$

A3
­
Preferred
alt.
99.72
$
91.34
$
107.96
$
5.73
$
5.25
$
6.20
$
A4
47.99
$
43.60
$
52.42
$
2.76
$
2.50
$
3.01
$

A1
690.92
$
615.94
$
767.38
$
39.68
$
35.37
$
44.07
$

A2
154.88
$
143.07
$
166.69
$
8.89
$
8.22
$
9.57
$

A3
­
Preferred
alt.
78.15
$
71.24
$
85.00
$
4.49
$
4.09
$
4.88
$

A4
34.51
$
31.32
$
37.71
$
1.98
$
1.80
$
2.17
$
High
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
165.41
$
152.98
$
177.56
$
9.50
$
8.79
$
10.20
$
Low
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
46.25
$
42.13
$
50.40
$
2.66
$
2.42
$
2.89
$
ICR
UV90­
10B
A3
154.98
$
143.68
$
166.46
$
8.90
$
8.25
$
9.56
$
ICRSSM
UV90­
10B
A3
101.11
$
92.82
$
109.41
$
5.81
$
5.33
$
6.28
$
ICRSSL
UV90­
10B
A3
79.17
$
72.31
$
86.02
$
4.55
$
4.15
$
4.94
$
ICR
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
All
System
Sizes
Small
Systems
ICR
ICRSS
Medium
System
ICRSS
Large
System
ICRSS
Medium
System
ICRSS
Large
System
Mean
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
Mean
Present
Value
of
Capital
&
O&
M
Costs
Annualized
Value
of
Capital
&
O&
M
Costs
Data
Set
Rule
Alternative
Exhibit
H.
1
Present
Value
Costs
at
3
Percent,
Filtered
Systems
Only
Note:
Detail
may
not
add
to
total
due
to
independent
rounding.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
H­
4
June
2003
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)

A
B
C
D
E
F
A1
5,270.04
$
4,685.70
$
5,867.77
$
302.65
$
269.09
$
336.97
$
A2
1,608.79
$
1,430.56
$
1,792.05
$
92.39
$
82.15
$
102.91
$

A3
­
Preferred
alt.
1,356.46
$
1,196.70
$
1,515.61
$
77.90
$
68.72
$
87.04
$

A4
546.90
$
488.95
$
606.32
$
31.41
$
28.08
$
34.82
$

A1
5,270.04
$
4,685.70
$
5,867.77
$
302.65
$
269.09
$
336.97
$

A2
1,285.04
$
1,140.21
$
1,429.51
$
73.80
$
65.48
$
82.09
$

A3
­
Preferred
alt.
990.47
$
872.06
$
1,112.15
$
56.88
$
50.08
$
63.87
$

A4
307.59
$
277.13
$
338.23
$
17.66
$
15.92
$
19.42
$

A1
5,270.04
$
4,685.70
$
5,867.77
$
302.65
$
269.09
$
336.97
$

A2
1,085.62
$
964.76
$
1,206.12
$
62.35
$
55.40
$
69.27
$

A3
­
Preferred
alt.
798.58
$
702.18
$
897.51
$
45.86
$
40.32
$
51.54
$

A4
207.53
$
187.68
$
227.42
$
11.92
$
10.78
$
13.06
$
High
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
1,489.83
$
1,317.20
$
1,667.10
$
85.56
$
75.64
$
95.74
$
Low
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
478.44
$
419.70
$
537.29
$
27.48
$
24.10
$
30.86
$
ICR
UV90­
10B
A3
1,539.68
$
1,365.32
$
1,712.03
$
88.42
$
78.41
$
98.32
$
ICRSSM
UV90­
10B
A3
1,081.46
$
955.31
$
1,206.91
$
62.11
$
54.86
$
69.31
$
ICRSSL
UV90­
10B
A3
860.85
$
759.62
$
961.98
$
49.44
$
43.62
$
55.24
$
Large
Systems
ICR
ICRSS
Medium
System
ICRSS
Large
System
Data
Set
Rule
Alternative
Present
Value
of
Capital
&
O&
M
Costs
Annualized
Value
of
Capital
&
O&
M
Costs
Mean
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
Mean
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
Exhibit
H.
1
(
Continued)
Present
Value
Costs
at
3
Percent,
Filtered
Systems
Only
Note:
Detail
may
not
add
to
total
due
to
independent
rounding.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
H­
5
June
2003
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)

A
B
C
D
E
F
ICR
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
204.66
$
175.80
$
234.13
$
11.75
$
10.10
$
13.45
$
ICRSSL
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
204.66
$
175.80
$
234.13
$
11.75
$
10.10
$
13.45
$
ICRSSM
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
204.66
$
175.80
$
234.13
$
11.75
$
10.10
$
13.45
$

ICR
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
14.42
$
12.78
$
16.06
$
0.83
$
0.73
$
0.92
$
ICRSSL
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
14.42
$
12.78
$
16.06
$
0.83
$
0.73
$
0.92
$
ICRSSM
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
14.42
$
12.78
$
16.06
$
0.83
$
0.73
$
0.92
$

ICR
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
190.24
$
163.02
$
218.06
$
10.93
$
9.36
$
12.52
$
ICRSSL
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
190.24
$
163.02
$
218.06
$
10.93
$
9.36
$
12.52
$
ICRSSM
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
190.24
$
163.02
$
218.06
$
10.93
$
9.36
$
12.52
$
Data
Set
Rule
Alternative
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
Mean
Annualized
Value
of
Capital
&
O&
M
Costs
Mean
Present
Value
of
Capital
&
O&
M
Costs
Large
Systems
Small
Systems
All
System
Sizes
Exhibit
H.
2
Present
Value
Costs
at
3
Percent,
Unfiltered
Systems
Only
Note:
Detail
may
not
add
to
total
due
to
independent
rounding.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
H­
6
June
2003
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)

A
B
C
D
E
F
A1
4,275.03
$
3,779.02
$
4,783.01
$
366.84
$
324.28
$
410.43
$

A2
1,321.25
$
1,171.86
$
1,474.62
$
113.38
$
100.56
$
126.54
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
1,089.45
$
959.02
$
1,219.33
$
93.49
$
82.29
$
104.63
$

A4
441.28
$
392.21
$
491.54
$
37.87
$
33.66
$
42.18
$

A1
4,275.03
$
3,779.02
$
4,783.01
$
366.84
$
324.28
$
410.43
$
A2
1,051.41
$
930.54
$
1,172.04
$
90.22
$
79.85
$
100.57
$

A3
­
Preferred
alt.
790.12
$
693.39
$
889.39
$
67.80
$
59.50
$
76.32
$

A4
250.03
$
223.74
$
276.49
$
21.46
$
19.20
$
23.73
$
A1
4,275.03
$
3,779.02
$
4,783.01
$
366.84
$
324.28
$
410.43
$

A2
887.48
$
786.49
$
988.20
$
76.16
$
67.49
$
84.80
$

A3
­
Preferred
alt.
635.99
$
557.20
$
716.80
$
54.58
$
47.81
$
61.51
$
A4
169.31
$
151.96
$
186.69
$
14.53
$
13.04
$
16.02
$
High
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
1,195.76
$
1,054.70
$
1,340.35
$
102.61
$
90.50
$
115.02
$
Low
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
380.80
$
332.85
$
428.86
$
32.68
$
28.56
$
36.80
$
ICR
UV90­
10B
A3
1,221.56
$
1,080.89
$
1,360.85
$
104.82
$
92.75
$
116.78
$
ICRSSM
UV90­
10B
A3
855.26
$
752.91
$
957.10
$
73.39
$
64.61
$
82.13
$
ICRSSL
UV90­
10B
A3
680.49
$
598.13
$
762.75
$
58.39
$
51.33
$
65.45
$

A1
442.08
$
391.17
$
494.07
$
37.94
$
33.57
$
42.40
$
A2
148.82
$
136.20
$
161.41
$
12.77
$
11.69
$
13.85
$

A3
­
Preferred
alt.
96.77
$
89.22
$
104.26
$
8.30
$
7.66
$
8.95
$

A4
47.08
$
42.50
$
51.63
$
4.04
$
3.65
$
4.43
$

A1
442.08
$
391.17
$
494.07
$
37.94
$
33.57
$
42.40
$

A2
115.65
$
106.21
$
125.13
$
9.92
$
9.11
$
10.74
$
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
63.49
$
57.87
$
69.01
$
5.45
$
4.97
$
5.92
$

A4
30.54
$
27.59
$
33.50
$
2.62
$
2.37
$
2.87
$

A1
442.08
$
391.17
$
494.07
$
37.94
$
33.57
$
42.40
$
A2
98.79
$
90.81
$
106.78
$
8.48
$
7.79
$
9.16
$

A3
­
Preferred
alt.
49.75
$
45.13
$
54.34
$
4.27
$
3.87
$
4.66
$

A4
21.96
$
19.82
$
24.10
$
1.88
$
1.70
$
2.07
$
High
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
105.28
$
96.90
$
113.45
$
9.03
$
8.32
$
9.74
$
Low
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
29.44
$
26.69
$
32.22
$
2.53
$
2.29
$
2.76
$
ICR
UV90­
10B
A3
98.92
$
91.31
$
106.67
$
8.49
$
7.84
$
9.15
$
ICRSSM
UV90­
10B
A3
64.46
$
58.90
$
70.02
$
5.53
$
5.05
$
6.01
$
ICRSSL
UV90­
10B
A3
50.45
$
45.85
$
55.04
$
4.33
$
3.93
$
4.72
$
All
System
Sizes
Mean
ICRSS
Medium
System
ICRSS
Large
System
ICRSS
Medium
System
ICR
Small
Systems
Annualized
Value
of
Capital
&
O&
M
Costs
ICRSS
Large
System
ICR
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
Mean
Present
Value
of
Capital
&
O&
M
Costs
Rule
Alternative
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
Data
Set
Exhibit
H.
3
Present
Value
Costs
at
7
Percent,
Filtered
Systems
Only
Note:
Detail
may
not
add
to
total
due
to
independent
rounding.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
H­
7
June
2003
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)

A
B
C
D
E
F
A1
3,832.95
$
3,387.85
$
4,288.94
$
328.91
$
290.71
$
368.04
$

A2
1,172.43
$
1,035.66
$
1,313.21
$
100.61
$
88.87
$
112.69
$

A3
­
Preferred
alt.
992.68
$
869.80
$
1,115.06
$
85.18
$
74.64
$
95.68
$
A4
394.21
$
349.71
$
439.90
$
33.83
$
30.01
$
37.75
$

A1
3,832.95
$
3,387.85
$
4,288.94
$
328.91
$
290.71
$
368.04
$

A2
935.76
$
824.33
$
1,046.91
$
80.30
$
70.74
$
89.84
$

A3
­
Preferred
alt.
726.63
$
635.52
$
820.38
$
62.35
$
54.53
$
70.40
$

A4
219.49
$
196.14
$
242.99
$
18.83
$
16.83
$
20.85
$
A1
3,832.95
$
3,387.85
$
4,288.94
$
328.91
$
290.71
$
368.04
$

A2
788.69
$
695.68
$
881.41
$
67.68
$
59.70
$
75.63
$

A3
­
Preferred
alt.
586.24
$
512.07
$
662.46
$
50.31
$
43.94
$
56.85
$

A4
147.35
$
132.15
$
162.59
$
12.64
$
11.34
$
13.95
$
High
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
1,090.49
$
957.80
$
1,226.90
$
93.58
$
82.19
$
105.28
$
Low
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
351.36
$
306.16
$
396.65
$
30.15
$
26.27
$
34.04
$
ICR
UV90­
10B
A3
1,122.63
$
989.58
$
1,254.18
$
96.33
$
84.92
$
107.62
$
ICRSSM
UV90­
10B
A3
790.81
$
694.01
$
887.07
$
67.86
$
59.55
$
76.12
$
ICRSSL
UV90­
10B
A3
630.04
$
552.27
$
707.71
$
54.06
$
47.39
$
60.73
$
Large
Systems
ICR
ICRSS
Medium
System
ICRSS
Large
System
Data
Set
Rule
Alternative
Present
Value
of
Capital
&
O&
M
Costs
Annualized
Value
of
Capital
&
O&
M
Costs
Mean
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
Mean
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
Exhibit
H.
3
(
Continued)
Present
Value
Costs
at
7
Percent,
Filtered
Systems
Only
Note:
Detail
may
not
add
to
total
due
to
independent
rounding.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
H­
8
June
2003
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)
Lower
(
5th
%
ile)
Upper
(
95th
%
ile)

A
B
C
D
E
F
ICR
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
148.60
$
126.71
$
170.97
$
12.75
$
10.87
$
14.67
$
ICRSSL
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
148.60
$
126.71
$
170.97
$
12.75
$
10.87
$
14.67
$
ICRSSM
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
148.60
$
126.71
$
170.97
$
12.75
$
10.87
$
14.67
$

ICR
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
9.33
$
8.21
$
10.45
$
0.80
$
0.70
$
0.90
$
ICRSSL
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
9.33
$
8.21
$
10.45
$
0.80
$
0.70
$
0.90
$
ICRSSM
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
9.33
$
8.21
$
10.45
$
0.80
$
0.70
$
0.90
$

ICR
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
139.27
$
118.49
$
160.52
$
11.95
$
10.17
$
13.77
$
ICRSSL
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
139.27
$
118.49
$
160.52
$
11.95
$
10.17
$
13.77
$
ICRSSM
A3
­
Preferred
alt.
139.27
$
118.49
$
160.52
$
11.95
$
10.17
$
13.77
$
Large
Systems
Data
Set
Rule
Alternative
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
Small
Systems
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
Mean
Annualized
Value
of
Capital
&
O&
M
Costs
All
System
Sizes
Present
Value
of
Capital
&
O&
M
Costs
Mean
Exhibit
H.
4
Present
Value
Costs
at
7
Percent,
Unfiltered
Systems
Only
Note:
Detail
may
not
add
to
total
due
to
independent
rounding.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
I­
1
June
2003
Appendix
I
Unit
Costs
for
Uncovered
Finished
Water
Reservoirs
I.
1
Introduction
This
appendix
presents
unit
cost
tables
for
covering
or
treating
uncovered
finished
water
reservoirs.
This
appendix
supports
the
discussion
of
these
rule
activities
in
Chapter
6.
General
assumptions
are
provided
first,
followed
by
a
discussion
of
each
treatment
option.

I.
2
Assumptions
and
Conditions
Data
on
the
country's
138
on­
line
uncovered
finished
water
reservoirs
were
used
to
develop
national
costs
for
each
of
the
three
technology
options
for
the
Long
Term
2
Enhanced
Surface
Water
Treatment
Rule
(
LT2ESWTR):
fixed
covers,
floating
covers,
and
booster
disinfection.
For
fixed
and
floating
cover
estimates,
reservoir
surface
area
data
are
used
to
assign
costs.
Where
surface
area
information
is
unavailable
for
a
reservoir,
a
depth
is
assumed
to
determine
surface
area
for
a
given
reservoir
volume.

The
data
are
then
divided
into
14
size
categories
for
assessing
technology
costs
according
to
mean
values
per
size
category.
For
each
size
category,
an
assumed
average
hydraulic
residence
time
is
used
to
calculate
average
daily
and
design
flows.
The
average
daily
flow
is
then
used
to
calculate
mean
surface
area
per
size
category.
Exhibit
I.
1
presents
the
data
used
in
the
costing
efforts.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
I­
2
June
2003
Exhibit
I.
1
Baseline
Conditions
for
Uncovered
Reservoirs
by
Size
Category
Reservoir
Size
Category
(
MG)
Number
of
Uncovered
Reservoirs
Estimated
Average
Hydraulic
Residence
Time
(
day)
Design
Flow
(
mgd)
Average
Flow
(
mgd)
Mean
Volume
(
MG)
Mean
Surface
Area
(
ft2)

0
­
0.1
25
1
0.04
0.01
0.01
176
>
0.1
­
1
7
1
1.30
0.43
0.43
2,952
>
1
­
5
44
1
7.78
2.59
2.59
14,127
>
5
­
10
12
2
12.82
4.27
8.55
45,703
>
10
­
20
10
3
15.32
5.11
15.32
84,165
>
20
­
40
9
3
28.68
9.56
28.68
213,890
>
40
­
60
4
3
52.99
17.66
52.99
283,353
>
60
­
80
4
3
71.44
23.81
71.44
365,472
>
80
­
100
6
3
93.57
31.19
93.57
517,699
>
100
­
150
6
4
94.01
31.34
125.34
670,246
>
150
­
200
2
4
140.25
46.75
187.00
999,934
>
200
­
250
4
4
158.06
52.69
210.75
1,126,931
>
250
­
1000
4
14
167.46
55.82
781.50
3,482,390
>
1000
1
21
473.40
157.80
3,313.80
7,666,876
TOTAL
138
Note:
Average
daily
flow
is
assumed
to
be
one­
third
of
design
flow.
Source:
EPA
Regions
I.
3
Covers
Uncovered
finished
water
reservoirs
are
susceptible
to
contamination
from
bird
and
animal
waste
and
airborne
deposition.
Covering
the
reservoirs
can
provide
protection
from
water
quality
deterioration.
In
addition
to
providing
public
health
protection,
covers
prevent
algal
growth
and
reduce
the
amount
of
chlorine
lost
during
storage
by
excluding
sunlight
(
Griffith
1988).

A
number
of
factors
are
involved
in
determining
a
suitable
cover,
including
reservoir
size
and
shape,
geological
stability
of
the
area,
estimated
snow,
wind
and
seismic
loads
put
on
the
reservoir,
length
of
time
the
reservoir
would
be
taken
off­
line
for
construction,
existing
reservoir
rehabilitation,
and
construction
and
operations
and
maintenance
(
O&
M)
costs.
The
rest
of
this
section
explains
the
estimated
capital
and
O&
M
costs
associated
with
fixed
and
floating
covers.
Fixed
and
floating
cover
costs
do
not
include
any
costs
associated
with
the
design,
re­
design,
or
rehabilitation
of
a
reservoir.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
I­
3
June
2003
Exhibit
I.
2
Floating
Cover
Costs
for
Uncovered
Reservoirs
Size
Category
(
MG)
Costs
per
Reservoir
Capital
Cost
($)
Annual
O&
M
($)

0
­
0.1
$
476
$
14
>
0.1
­
1
$
7,970
$
239
>
1
­
5
$
38,143
$
1,144
>
5
­
10
$
123,397
$
3,702
>
10
­
20
$
227,245
$
6,817
>
20
­
40
$
577,502
$
17,325
>
40
­
60
$
765,053
$
22,952
>
60
­
80
$
986,776
$
29,603
>
80
­
100
$
1,397,787
$
41,934
>
100
­
150
$
1,809,663
$
54,290
>
150
­
200
$
2,699,821
$
80,995
>
200­
250
$
3,042,713
$
91,281
>
250
­
1,000
$
9,402,453
$
282,074
>
1,000
$
20,700,565
$
621,017
I.
3.1
Floating
Covers
Floating
covers
are
flexible
membrane
structures,
either
air­
supported
fabric
or
polypropylene
material,
that
rest
on
the
surface
of
open
reservoirs.
For
drainage
purposes,
floating
covers
should
be
flexible
as
they
tend
to
collect
rainwater
and
washwater.
Routine
monitoring
for
damage
and
proper
maintenance
and
cleaning
of
the
cover
will
extend
its
useful
life.
For
this
Economic
Analysis
(
EA),
floating
cover
material
is
assumed
to
be
polypropylene.
Material
costs
are
estimated
at
$
2.00/
sq.
ft.,
and
O&
M
cost
estimates
are
3
percent
of
total
capital
costs
(
USEPA
1999c).
For
each
size
category,
material
costs
are
estimated
for
the
mean
surface
area.

Based
on
best
professional
judgment,
engineering
contingencies
(
construction,
standby
power,
contractor
overhead
and
profit
(
O&
P),
legal,
fiscal
and
administrative
costs)
are
estimated
to
be
35
percent
of
material
costs.
Exhibit
I.
2
presents
capital
and
O&
M
costs
associated
with
floating
covers.

I.
3.2
Fixed
Covers
Fixed
covers
are
permanent
structures
constructed
to
direct
drainage
away
from
the
reservoir
and
prevent
other
contamination
of
the
stored
water
(
USEPA
1999c).
These
permanent
structures
can
be
made
from
wood,
steel,
reinforced
concrete,
or
aluminum.
1
As
shown
in
the
Report
on
Water
Quality
Issues
at
Sheffield
Reservoir
for
the
City
of
Santa
Barbara
(
Carollo
1999).

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
I­
4
June
2003
Exhibit
I.
3
Fixed
Cover
Costs
for
Uncovered
Reservoirs
Size
Category
(
MG)
Costs
per
Reservoir
Capital
Cost
($)
Annual
O&
M
($)

0
­
0.1
$
5,232
$
5
>
0.1
­
1
$
87,665
$
88
>
1
­
5
$
419,578
$
420
>
5
­
10
$
1,357,368
$
1,357
>
10
­
20
$
2,499,690
$
2,500
>
20
­
40
$
6,352,521
$
6,353
>
40
­
60
$
8,415,587
$
8,416
>
60
­
80
$
10,854,533
$
10,855
>
80
­
100
$
15,375,659
$
15,376
>
100
­
150
$
19,906,296
$
19,906
>
150
­
200
$
29,698,036
$
29,698
>
200­
250
$
33,469,846
$
33,470
>
250
­
1,000
$
103,426,984
$
103,427
>
1,000
$
227,706,218
$
227,706
Due
to
high
capital
costs,
fixed
covers
are
typically
limited
to
smaller
sized
reservoirs,
up
to
20
million
gallons.
However,
fixed
covers
require
little
or
no
O&
M
expenses.

For
this
EA,
fixed
cover
material
is
assumed
to
be
common
concrete
material.
In
the
same
manner
as
the
floating
cover
cost
model,
costs
are
estimated
for
the
mean
surface
area
for
each
size
category.
Material
costs
are
$
22.00/
sq.
ft.
(
USEPA
1999c).
O&
M
costs
are
assumed
to
be
0.1
percent
of
total
capital
cost.
1
As
with
floating
cover
cost
estimates,
engineering
contingencies
are
included
at
35
percent
of
capital
costs.
Exhibit
I.
3
presents
capital
and
O&
M
costs
associated
with
fixed
covers.

I.
4
Disinfection
As
stated
previously,
uncovered
finished
water
reservoirs
are
susceptible
to
human
and
animal
contamination.
In
order
to
maintain
a
potable
water
supply,
systems
may
add
a
disinfectant
to
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
I­
5
June
2003
reservoir
if
they
do
not
cover
the
reservoir.
For
this
EA,
chlorination
of
finished
water
is
estimated
to
achieve
4
log
inactivation
of
viruses,
and
to
be
the
least
costly
disinfection
alternative.

To
develop
costs
associated
with
disinfection,
the
analysis
uses
the
Water
Model
(
USEPA
1984)
and
the
Water
and
Wastewater
(
W/
W)
Costs
and
Design
Criteria
Guidelines
Model
(
CWC
1994).
These
cost
models
cover
45
different
unit
treatment
processes.
Since
these
reservoirs
contain
finished
or
already
treated
water,
low­
dose
gas
chlorination
is
assumed
to
maintain
sufficient
disinfectant
residual
in
the
distribution
system;
hereafter,
this
is
referred
to
as
"
booster
chlorination."
The
Water
Model
is
used
to
estimate
capital
and
O&
M
costs
for
systems
with
average
daily
flow
capacity
less
than
or
equal
to
1
mgd;
the
W/
W
Model
is
used
for
all
average
daily
flow
capacities
greater
than
1
mgd.

EPA
evaluated
CT
requirements
from
the
1996
SWTR
Guidance
Manual
and
determined
that
a
chlorine
dose
of
1.0
mg/
l
would
provide
adequate
virus
inactivation
in
most
cases.
Other
assumptions
for
booster
chlorination
are
given
in
Exhibit
I.
4.

Exhibit
I.
4
Assumptions
for
Booster
Chlorination
Size
Category
(
MG)
Number
of
Uncovered
Reservoirs
Design
Flow
(
mgd)
Design
Flow
(
lb/
day)
Avg.
Daily
Flow
(
mgd)
Avg.
Daily
Flow
(
lb/
day)
Booster
Cl2
Dose
(
mg/
L)
Booster
Cl2
Dose
(
ton/
year)

0
­
0.1
25
0.04
0.33
0.01
0.11
1.00
0.02
>
0.1
­
1
7
1.30
10.87
0.43
3.62
1.00
0.66
>
1
­
5
44
7.78
64.90
2.59
21.63
1.00
3.95
>
5
­
10
12
12.82
106.92
4.27
35.64
1.00
6.50
>
10
­
20
10
15.32
127.74
5.11
42.58
1.00
7.77
>
20
­
40
9
28.68
239.20
9.56
79.73
1.00
14.55
>
40
­
60
4
52.99
441.94
17.66
147.31
1.00
26.88
>
60
­
80
4
71.44
595.77
23.81
198.59
1.00
36.24
>
80
­
100
6
93.57
780.34
31.19
260.11
1.00
47.47
>
100
­
150
6
94.01
784.03
31.34
261.34
1.00
47.70
>
150
­
200
2
140.25
1,169.69
46.75
389.90
1.00
71.16
>
200
­
250
4
158.06
1,318.24
52.69
439.41
1.00
80.19
>
250
­
1,000
4
167.46
1,396.65
55.82
465.55
1.00
84.96
>
1,000
1
473.40
3,948.16
157.80
1,316.05
1.00
240.18
Source:
USEPA
1984,
CWC
1994
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
I­
6
June
2003
Both
cost
models
require
standard
indices
and
unit
costs
from
the
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
(
BLS)
and
the
Engineering
News
Record
(
ENR)
to
generate
capital
and
O&
M
costs.
For
booster
chlorination,
these
cost
models
take
into
account
typical
process
equipment
and
chemical
building
costs
and,
therefore,
do
not
require
additional
adjustments.
As
adapted
from
the
Technology
and
Cost
Document
(
USEPA
2003a),
values
used
in
estimating
booster
chlorination
costs
are
reported
in
Exhibit
I.
5.

Exhibit
I.
5
Cost
Indices
Used
in
the
Cost
Models
Parameter
Cost
Index
ENR
Building
Cost
3,505
ENR
Skilled
Labor
5,596
ENR
Material
Prices
2,228
Electricity
$
0.08/
k
Wh
Natural
Gas
$
0.006/
ft3
Diesel
Fuel
$
1.25/
ft2
Housing
Costs
$
125/
ft2
Labor:
0­
5
MG
$
14.5/
hr
Labor:
>
5
MG
$
28.0/
hr
Engineering
15%
of
total
equipment
costs
Sitework,
Interface
Piping
15%
of
total
equipment
costs
Subsurface
Considerations
10%
of
total
equipment
costs
Standby
Power
5%
of
total
equipment
costs
Land
Cost
$
0/
acre
Interest
Rate
During
Construction
7%

Number
of
Years
20
Chlorine,
1­
ton
cylinder
(>
1MG,
<
250
MG)
$
350/
ton
Chlorine,
bulk
(>
250
MG)
$
280/
ton
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
I­
7
June
2003
Exhibit
I.
6
Booster
Chlorination
Costs
for
Uncovered
Finished
Water
Reservoirs
Size
Category
(
MG)
Costs
per
Reservoir
Capital
Cost
($)
Annual
O&
M
($)

0.0
­
1
$
48,522
$
3,838
>
0.1
­
1
$
48,522
$
3,838
>
1
­
5
$
63,472
$
11,039
>
5
­
10
$
76,363
$
18,210
>
10
­
20
$
82,272
$
18,767
>
20
­
40
$
116,156
$
21,896
>
40
­
60
$
176,786
$
27,539
>
60
­
80
$
222,202
$
31,801
>
80
­
100
$
277,279
$
36,939
>
100
­
150
$
278,002
$
37,025
>
150
­
200
$
377,564
$
47,792
>
200­
250
$
409,216
$
51,907
>
250
­
1,000
$
424,992
$
54,068
>
1,000
$
749,311
$
99,960
Exhibit
I.
6
presents
cost
model
outputs
for
capital
and
O&
M
costs
associated
with
booster
chlorination
for
uncovered
reservoirs.

I.
5
National
Cost
Estimate
To
determine
national
costs
for
covering
or
treating
uncovered
finished
water
reservoirs,
the
number
of
reservoirs
selecting
each
technology
uses
a
least
cost
approach,
but
assumes
only
50
percent
of
reservoirs
install
booster
chlorination.
The
technology
selection
for
uncovered
finished
water
reservoirs
is
presented
in
Exhibit
I.
7.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
I­
8
June
2003
Exhibit
I.
7
Technology
Selection
for
Uncovered
Finished
Water
Reservoirs
Size
Category
(
MG)
Number
of
Uncovered
Reservoirs
Floating
Cover
(%)
Booster
Chlorination
(%)

0­
0.1
25
100
­

>
0.1­
1
7
100
­

>
1­
5
44
100
­

>
5­
10
12
100
­

>
10­
20
10
100
­

>
20­
40
9
50
50
>
40­
60
4
50
50
>
60­
80
4
50
50
>
80­
100
6
50
50
>
100­
150
6
50
50
>
150­
200
2
50
50
>
200­
250
4
50
50
>
250­
1,000
4
50
50
>
1,000
1
50
50
To
determine
national
costs
to
comply
with
the
uncovered
reservoir
requirement
of
the
LT2ESWTR,
the
number
of
reservoirs
selecting
each
technology
is
multiplied
by
the
capital
and
O&
M
costs
for
that
technology.
To
account
for
uncertainty
when
the
total
costs
are
modeled,
a
triangular
distribution
of
+
15
percent
around
the
mean
estimate
is
assumed
for
O&
M
costs;
also
a
triangular
distribution
of
+
30
percent
around
the
mean
estimate
for
capital
costs
is
assumed.
For
each
value
10,000
values
are
drawn
to
generate
a
distribution.
Present
value
is
calculated
for
the
mean,
5th,
and
95th
percentile
at
both
3
and
7
percent
discount
rates,
then
annualized
at
those
rates.
Exhibit
I.
8
shows
the
annual
cost
estimates
for
complying
with
the
uncovered
reservoir
requirement
of
the
LT2ESWTR.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
I­
9
June
2003
Capital
O&
M
Total
Capital
O&
M
Total
 
£
10,000
$
3,520
$
1,649
$
5,169
$
4,713
$
1,552
$
6,264
>
10,000
$
3,349,320
$
2,046,425
$
5,395,745
$
4,483,927
$
1,925,203
$
6,409,129
Total
$
3,352,840
$
2,048,074
$
5,400,915
$
4,488,639
$
1,926,754
$
6,415,393
Annualized
Cost
at
3%
Annualized
Cost
at
7%
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Exhibit
I.
8
Annual
National
Cost
Estimate
for
Uncovered
Finished
Water
Reservoirs
1.6
Number
of
Households
Expected
To
Incur
Costs
To
determine
the
number
of
households
incurring
costs
attributed
to
covering
or
treating
the
uncovered
finished
water
reservoirs,
the
14
reservoir
volume
categories
are
assigned
to
the
nine
population
size
categories.
A
CWS
regression
equation
from
the
Model
Systems
Report
(
USEPA
2000b)
is
used
for
this
purpose.
Using
the
average
daily
flow,
calculated
from
the
volume
and
assumed
detention
time,
a
population
is
calculated.
Reservoirs
are
then
assigned
to
size
categories
using
this
population.
For
these
purposes,
the
flow
through
the
reservoir
is
estimated
to
be
the
entire
system
flow.
Although
this
may
not
be
an
accurate
assumption
in
all
cases,
there
is
no
basis
on
which
to
make
another
assumption.
Exhibit
I.
9
presents
the
categorization
of
the
138
reservoirs
by
population
served.

Exhibit
I.
9
Number
of
Uncovered
Finished
Water
Reservoirs
by
Population
Size
Category
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Number
of
Reservoirs
<
100
25
101
­
500
0
501
­
1,000
0
1,001
­
3,300
0
3,301
­
10,000
7
10,001
­
50,000
66
50,001
­
100,000
9
100,001
­
1
M
30
>
1
M
1
Total
138
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
I­
10
June
2003
To
determine
the
number
of
households
incurring
costs,
the
number
of
systems
is
then
multiplied
by
the
average
number
of
households
per
system.
The
average
number
of
households
per
system
is
the
ratio
of
the
average
number
of
people
per
system
from
the
Baseline
Handbook
(
USEPA
2001c)
to
the
average
number
of
people
per
household
(
2.59).
Exhibit
I.
10
presents
the
total
number
of
households
incurring
the
cost
of
covering
or
treating
the
nation's
uncovered
finished
water
reservoirs.

Exhibit
I.
10
Number
of
Households
Incurring
Costs
for
Uncovered
Finished
Water
Reservoirs
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Number
of
Households
<
100
574
101
­
500
0
501
­
1,000
0
1,001
­
3,300
0
3,301
­
10,000
13,469
10,001
­
50,000
541,715
50,001
­
100,000
133,227
100,001
­
1
M
2,002,187
>
1
M
320,762
Total
3,011,934
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
J­
1
June
2003
Average
Number
of
People
per
Plant
1
Average
Number
of
People
per
Household
2
Average
Number
of
Households
per
Plant
Number
of
Plants
Subject
to
Rule
Activity
3
Total
Number
of
Households
Incurring
Costs
Appendix
J
Estimation
of
Household
Costs
J.
1
Introduction
The
complexities
involved
in
calculating
the
costs
for
the
Long
Term
2
Enhanced
Surface
Water
Treatment
Rule
(
LT2ESWTR)
make
the
derivation
of
household
costs
particularly
difficult.
Household
costs
are
presented
as
average,
or
mean,
household
costs
incurred
for
all
systems
and
for
those
systems
adding
treatment.
Distributions
of
household
costs
are
also
developed,
graphically
showing
the
variability
in
costs
for
households
impacted
by
the
rule.
This
appendix
is
intended
to
take
the
reader
through
the
household
cost
calculation
process.

J.
2
Calculation
of
Household
Costs
Step
1:
Calculating
the
Number
of
Households
Incurring
Costs
The
first
step
in
arriving
at
annual
household
cost
estimates
is
calculating
the
total
number
of
households
subject
to
LT2ESWTR
provisions
for
each
system
size
category.
The
number
of
households
per
plant
is
calculated
by
dividing
the
average
number
of
people
served
per
plant
by
the
average
number
of
people
per
household
(
2.59
people
per
household)
for
each
system
size
category
(
U.
S.
Census
Bureau
2001a).
SDWIS
data
provides
system
populations
for
all
community
water
systems
(
CWSs)
according
to
the
established
system
population
size
categories
(
this
analysis
is
limited
to
CWSs
because
only
those
systems
serve
residential
customers)
(
USEPA
2000f).
The
average
number
of
people
served
per
plant
(
presented
in
Chapter
4)
is
derived
from
the
SDWIS
data,
while
the
number
of
people
per
household
is
the
2000
Census
Bureau
data
estimate.
This
calculation
results
in
the
number
of
households
per
plant
for
a
given
size
category.
The
following
flowchart
illustrates
this
calculation.

1
Average
number
of
people
per
plant
is
derived
from
the
2000
SDWIS
database
and
the
Model
Systems
Report.
2
Average
number
of
people
per
household
is
taken
from
2000
U.
S.
Census
data
3
Evaluated
separately
for
filtered
plants,
unfiltered
plants,
and
uncovered
finished
water
reservoirs
The
number
of
households
incurring
costs
is
estimated
separately
for
filtered
plants,
unfiltered
plants
and
uncovered
finished
water
reservoirs
and
for
each
rule
activity
(
implementation,
monitoring,
and
treatment).
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
J­
2
June
2003
Filtered
Plants
The
total
number
of
households
subject
to
each
rule
activity
is
estimated
by
multiplying
the
average
number
of
households
per
plant
by
the
number
of
plants
subject
to
the
activity.
The
number
of
plants
implementing
the
rule
is
the
same
for
all
regulatory
alternatives
but
the
number
monitoring
or
adding
treatment
varies
depending
on
the
regulatory
alternative
and
the
modeled
Cryptosporidium
occurrence
distribution.
The
percentage
of
plants
conducting
each
activity
is
shown
below
and
is
derived
from
Chapter
6:

°
Implementation
­
100
percent
of
plants
(
Implementation
is
based
on
a
system
level,
but
100
percent
of
systems
perform
implementation
activities;
therefore,
100
percent
of
plants
would
also
incur
implementation
costs.)

°
E.
coli
Monitoring
­
96
to
99.6
percent
of
plants
°
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
­
34
to
99.6
percent
of
plants
°
Future
Monitoring
for
E.
coli
­
70
to
90
percent
of
plants
°
Future
Monitoring
for
Cryptosporidium
­
27
to
71
percent
of
plants
The
baseline
number
of
plants
performing
implementation
and
conducting
E.
coli
monitoring
is
the
number
of
nonpurchased
plants
(
EPA
assumes
that
purchased
plants
do
not
have
untreated
source
waters
and
that
they
buy
all
their
water
from
another
system).
EPA
expects
that
the
nonpurchased
plants
will
pass
their
costs
onto
all
customers,
including
other
systems
that
purchase
water
from
them.
Because
purchased
systems
will
experience
wholesale
cost
increases
that
reflect
implementation
and
monitoring,
households
in
purchased
systems
are
included
in
the
household
calculation
as
well.
Below
is
an
illustration
that
represents
how
monitoring
and
implementation
costs
are
applied
to
households
in
purchased
and
nonpurchased
systems.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
J­
3
June
2003
R
i
v
e
r
T
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
t
S
y
s
t
e
m
A
N
o
n
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
d
S
y
s
t
e
m
B
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
d
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
R
e
t
a
i
l
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
S
y
s
t
e
m
A
R
e
t
a
i
l
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
S
y
s
t
e
m
B
(
E
q
u
a
l
s
W
h
o
l
e
s
a
l
e
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
S
y
s
t
e
m
A
)

D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
R
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
/
L
a
k
e
T
o
t
a
l
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
C
o
s
t
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
C
o
s
t
s
f
r
o
m
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Exhibit
J.
1
Distribution
of
Costs
Between
Purchased
and
Nonpurchased
Systems
Treatment
costs
are
estimated
for
both
purchased
and
nonpurchased
systems
(
see
Chapter
4
for
explanation
of
why
this
is
appropriate
considering
the
system
classification
scheme).

To
properly
determine
the
impact
of
costs
on
households
belonging
to
small
purchased
systems,
the
actual
costs
passed
onto
the
purchased
system
from
the
nonpurchased
system
are
taken
into
account.
The
costs
incurred
by
the
customers
of
these
small
purchased
systems
are
included
in
the
size
category
to
which
the
purchaser
belongs
and
not
to
the
larger
size
category
of
the
seller.
To
accomplish
this,
the
number
of
households
in
each
linked
size
category
as
described
in
Chapter
4
is
determined.
Then
the
percentage
of
households
in
a
linked
size
category
deriving
from
each
of
the
unlinked
size
categories
is
determined.
This
percentage
is
multiplied
by
the
total
number
of
households
in
the
linked
size
category.
The
resulting
cost
is
then
multiplied
by
the
household
water
usage
number
for
the
unlinked
size
category
to
determine
the
household
costs
for
households
served
by
that
purchased
system.

For
example,
in
the
size
category
serving
between
501
and
1,000
people
(
S3),
there
are
120,915
people
served
by
surface
water
or
ground
water
under
the
direct
influence
of
surface
water
(
GWUDI)
systems.
Of
these,
1,690
come
from
purchased
systems
in
the
101
to
500
people
served
category
(
S2)
and
132
people
come
from
the
systems
in
the
<
100
people
served
size
category
(
S1).
Therefore,
1
Detailed
descriptions
of
the
assumptions
and
processes
used
in
the
development
of
treatment
capital
and
O&
M
costs
can
be
found
in
"
Technologies
and
costs
for
control
of
microbial
contaminants
and
disinfection
byproducts
(
USEPA
2003a)
as
well
as
preceding
sections
of
this
document.

2
The
Baseline
Handbook
breaks
systems
down
into
five
categories
 
public,
private,
purchased­
public,
purchased­
private,
and
other.
These
categories
are
combined
to
form
two
groups
 
public,
which
include
public
and
purchased­
public
water
systems,
and
private,
which
include
private
and
purchased­
private.
Systems
in
the
"
other"

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
J­
4
June
2003
1.4
percent
of
the
total
population
in
the
S3
category
is
associated
with
purchased
systems
in
the
S2
category
and
0.1
percent
with
purchased
systems
in
the
S1
category.
These
percentages
would
then
be
multiplied
by
the
total
number
of
households
in
the
size
category
to
obtain
the
number
of
households
incurring
the
cost
for
the
S3
category.
Therefore,
for
each
technology
cost
in
the
S3
category,
98.5
percent
would
be
allocated
to
the
S3
category,
1.4
percent
would
be
placed
in
the
S2
category,
and
0.1
percent
would
be
placed
in
the
S1
category.
This
step
has
no
effect
on
the
national
household
cost
distributions
but
only
affects
analyses
which
are
broken
down
by
size
category.

Unfiltered
Plants
The
total
number
of
households
affected
by
the
rule
is
estimated
by
multiplying
the
average
number
of
households
per
plant
by
the
number
of
unfiltered
plants
subject
to
the
rule.
The
percentage
of
plants
subject
to
each
rule
activity
is
the
same
for
all
regulatory
alternatives
and
is
derived
from
Chapter
6:

°
Implementation
­
100
percent
of
plants
(
Implementation
is
based
on
systems,
but
100
percent
of
systems
perform
implementation
activities,
therefore,
100
percent
of
plants
will
also
incur
implementation
costs.)

°
Adding
Treatment
for
Cryptosporidium
Control
­
100
percent
of
plants
°
Monitoring
­
100
percent
of
plants
Implementation
costs
are
applied
to
households
in
both
purchased
and
nonpurchased
systems
in
a
manner
similar
to
that
for
filtered
plants.

Uncovered
Finished
Water
Reservoirs
The
total
number
of
households
affected
by
the
rule
is
estimated
by
determining
the
average
daily
flow
for
each
reservoir
size
category
and
using
flow
per
population
regression
equations
from
the
Model
Systems
Report.
The
number
of
households
affected
by
the
rule
is
the
same
for
all
regulatory
alternatives.

Step
2:
Household
Unit
Costs
for
Each
Treatment
Technology
The
capital
and
operations
and
maintenance
(
O&
M)
costs
for
applicable
technologies
and
the
average
daily
flow
for
each
system
size
are
used
to
calculate
a
household
unit
cost
(
Appendix
I)
1.
Flows
for
CWSs
are
presented
in
Chapter
4.
Costs
are
annualized
according
to
system
size
and
ownership
at
discount
rates
of
about
5
to
6
percent
(
see
Exhibit
J.
2
for
specific
rates).
The
percentage
of
plants
publicly
and
privately
owned
is
derived
from
SDWIS.
2
category
are
distributed
among
the
remaining
ownership
categories
based
on
the
numbers
of
public
and
private
systems
in
each
category.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
J­
5
June
2003
Household
unit
costs
for
each
technology
can
be
represented
by
the
following
equation
 
HHUC
=(
ACC+
O&
M)/(
ADF*
1,000*
365)

where:
HHUC
=
Household
Unit
Cost
($/
1000
gal)
ACC
=
Annualized
Capital
Cost
($)
(
as
described
in
Chapter
6
and
Appendix
C)
ADF
=
Average
Daily
Flow
(
MGD)
(
as
presented
in
Chapter
4)
O&
M
=
Annual
Operations
and
Maintenance
Costs
(
as
described
in
Chapter
6
and
Appendix
C)
($/
1000
gal)

Once
average
household
unit
costs
for
each
treatment
technology
are
determined,
they
are
multiplied
by
the
annual
water
usage
per
household
to
arrive
at
average
annual
household
treatment
costs.
Annual
water
usage
rates
used
in
this
calculation
are
derived
from
residential
usage
from
the
Baseline
Handbook
and
are
shown
in
Exhibit
J.
2.

Exhibit
J.
2
Data
Used
to
Estimate
Household
Costs
System
Size
(
population
served)
Average
HH/
Plant
Discount
Rate
Annual
Water
Usage
per
Household
(
kgal/
yr)
Public
Private
#
100
22
5.31%
6.22%
83
101­
500
109
5.31%
6.22%
83
501­
1,000
289
5.58%
6.22%
104
1,001­
3,300
760
5.58%
6.22%
87
3,301­
10,000
2,285
5.58%
6.22%
97
10,001­
50,000
8,779
5.20%
5.66%
109
50,001­
100,000
26,182
5.24%
6.27%
119
100,001­
1
Million
95,969
5.24%
6.27%
125
>
1
Million
844,639
5.24%
6.27%
125
Source:
Baseline
Handbook
(
USEPA,
2001c)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
J­
6
June
2003
Step
3:
Distribution
of
Annual
Household
Treatment
Costs
(
cost
per
household)

Once
the
annual
household
costs
for
each
technology
are
derived,
they
are
paired
with
the
number
of
households
incurring
costs
for
that
specific
treatment
technology.
For
example,
in
the
101­
500
population
served
size
category,
the
number
of
households
served
by
a
plant
installing
microfiltration
will
be
paired
with
the
annual
household
cost
for
microfiltration
as
calculated
above.
This
process
is
repeated
for
each
treatment
technology
that
is
forecast
to
be
employed
within
a
given
system
size
category.
The
end
result
of
this
process
is
a
distribution
of
treatment
costs
across
a
given
system
size
category.

Step
4:
Distribution
of
Annual
Household
Implementation
and
Annual
Household
Monitoring
Costs
(
cost
per
household)

Annual
household
implementation
and
monitoring
costs
are
estimated
in
the
same
manner
as
annual
household
treatment
costs.
Implementation
costs
as
well
as
E.
coli
monitoring
costs
are
assigned
to
all
households.
Costs
for
Cryptosporidium
monitoring,
future
E.
coli
monitoring,
future
Cryptosporidium
monitoring,
and
uncovered
finished
water
reservoirs
apply
to
just
a
percentage
of
the
total
plants
and
therefore
to
a
percentage
of
the
total
households.
The
household
unit
cost
for
each
size
category
and
the
percentage
of
plants
in
each
size
category
that
must
pay
that
cost
are
used
to
generate
the
total
national
household
cost
distribution.

Step
5:
Summation
and
Presentation
of
Results
Implementation
and
E.
coli
monitoring
household
costs
are
applied
to
all
households.
Each
technology
unit
cost
is
then
added
to
the
proportion
of
households
using
that
technology
as
the
proportion
of
overall
households
incurring
that
type
of
cost.
The
costs
for
Cryptosporidium
monitoring,
future
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
monitoring,
and
uncovered
finished
water
reservoirs
are
added
to
a
portion
of
households
for
each
technology.
For
example,
for
the
ICR
occurrence
distribution,
51
percent
of
plants
are
required
to
monitor
Cryptosporidium.
Therefore,
in
the
household
costs
distribution,
the
unit
cost
for
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
is
added
to
51
percent
of
the
plants
in
each
technology.
Other
types
of
costs
are
similarly
apportioned.
This
procedure
results
in
the
non­
treatment
costs
being
spread
out
randomly
over
all
systems.
EPA
recognizes
that
this
may
not
accurately
reflect
the
true
distribution
of
monitoring
and
reservoir
costs,
but
the
errors
introduced
are
small
and
it
is
difficult
to
predict
whether
for
example
systems
with
uncovered
reservoirs
would
have
to
install
treatment
on
their
plant
as
well.

J.
3
Household
Costs
EPA
assumes
that
increases
in
system
costs
stemming
from
implementation
of
the
LT2ESWTR
will
be
passed
onto
customers.
Exhibit
J.
3
presents
mean
expected
increases
in
yearly
household
costs
by
system
size
and
source
water
category.
These
cost
increases
incorporate
costs
for
rule
implementation,
monitoring
for
bin
classification,
uncovered
filtered
water
reservoirs,
future
monitoring
for
bin
changes,
and
treatment
changes.
Household
costs
are
estimated
separately
for
each
of
the
three
modeled
Cryptosporidium
occurrence
distributions.

Households
served
by
systems
required
to
make
treatment
changes
under
the
LT2ESWTR
will
face
much
larger
increases
in
household
water
costs
than
other
systems.
Costs
for
only
this
subset
of
households
are
also
presented
in
Exhibit
J.
4
to
enable
separate
evaluation.
Cost
increases
to
households
served
by
systems
making
treatment
changes
are
important
for
evaluating
how
the
rule
will
affect
annual
household
expenditures
nationwide.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
J­
7
June
2003
System
Type/
Size
Households
Mean
Median
90th
Percentile
95th
Percentile
Percent
of
Systems
with
Household
Cost
Increase
<
$
12
Percent
of
Systems
with
Household
Cost
Increase
<
$
120
All
CWS
65,816,979
$
1.68
$
0.13
$
4.06
$
7.57
98.37%
99.99%
All
CWS
£
10,000
3,318,012
$
4.61
$
1.34
$
13.04
$
14.92
87.88%
99.88%

All
CWS
65,816,979
$
1.07
$
0.03
$
3.24
$
5.43
99.31%
100.00%
All
CWS
£
10,000
3,318,012
$
2.68
$
0.80
$
6.10
$
9.39
95.71%
99.95%

All
CWS
65,816,979
$
1.28
$
0.03
$
3.48
$
6.47
99.07%
100.00%
All
CWS
£
10,000
3,318,012
$
3.27
$
0.80
$
6.62
$
13.04
93.90%
99.93%

All
CWS
65,816,978
$
1.83
$
0.14
$
4.51
$
7.58
98.25%
99.99%
All
CWS
£
10,000
3,318,012
$
4.98
$
1.43
$
13.50
$
15.78
87.15%
99.87%

All
CWS
65,816,979
$
0.73
$
0.03
$
2.81
$
3.84
99.60%
100.00%
All
CWS
£
10,000
3,318,012
$
1.76
$
0.46
$
5.37
$
6.10
97.51%
99.98%
All
Systems
­
Low
All
Systems
­
ICR
All
Systems
­
ICRSSL
All
Systems
­
ICRSSM
All
Systems
­
High
EPA
estimates
that
100
percent
of
the
households
served
by
surface
and
GWUDI
sources
will
face
some
increase
in
household
costs
due
to
the
LT2ESWTR
(
except
for
those
very
few
served
by
systems
that
have
already
installed
5.5
logs
of
treatment
for
Cryptosporidium
(
see
Chapter
4
for
a
summary
of
households
served
by
systems
affected
by
various
LT2ESWTR
provisions).
Approximately
95
percent
of
the
households
potentially
affected
by
the
rule
are
served
by
systems
serving
at
least
10,000
people;
these
systems
experience
the
lowest
increases
in
costs
due
to
economies
of
scale.
Households
served
by
small
systems
that
install
advanced
technologies
will
face
the
greatest
increases
in
annual
costs
because
they
are
not
able
to
achieve
the
economies
of
scale
of
larger
systems.

All
households
will
face
costs
less
than
$
389
per
year.
Ninety
percent
of
all
households
are
predicted
to
incur
costs
less
than
$
4.51
per
year.
Exhibits
J.
5
and
J.
6
provide
cumulative
distributions
of
household
costs
for
all
systems
and
for
those
households
in
systems
adding
treatment.
Cumulative
distributions
for
households
in
small
systems
and
for
small
systems
adding
treatment
are
shown
in
Exhibits
J.
7
and
J.
8.

Exhibit
J.
3
Summary
of
Annual
Household
Cost
Increases
($/
Year)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
J­
8
June
2003
System
Type/
Size
Households
Mean
Median
90th
Percentile
95th
Percentile
Percent
of
Systems
with
Household
Cost
Increase
<
$
12
Percent
of
Systems
with
Household
Cost
Increase
<
$
120
All
CWS
24,698,531
$
4.07
$
3.23
$
7.58
$
9.52
95.79%
99.99%
All
CWS
£
10,000
1,190,922
$
10.47
$
6.10
$
18.01
$
19.83
68.94%
99.72%

All
CWS
17,533,865
$
3.36
$
3.22
$
7.58
$
8.10
97.59%
99.99%
All
CWS
£
10,000
788,519
$
8.02
$
6.00
$
13.48
$
17.79
85.55%
99.83%

All
CWS
20,353,968
$
3.59
$
3.22
$
7.58
$
8.57
97.16%
99.99%
All
CWS
£
10,000
944,594
$
8.63
$
6.00
$
13.67
$
19.83
81.83%
99.80%

All
CWS
26,854,217
$
4.11
$
3.23
$
7.58
$
9.52
95.83%
99.99%
All
CWS
£
10,000
1,309,992
$
10.45
$
6.10
$
17.79
$
20.05
69.95%
99.72%

All
CWS
12,377,952
$
2.86
$
1.55
$
7.58
$
7.78
98.06%
99.99%
All
CWS
£
10,000
503,399
$
7.30
$
5.37
$
13.04
$
14.92
88.00%
99.87%
All
Affected
Systems
­
ICR
All
Systems
­
ICRSSL
All
Systems
­
ICRSSM
All
Systems
­
High
All
Systems
­
Low
Exhibit
J.
4
Summary
of
Annual
Household
Cost
Increases
for
Plants
Adding
Treatment
($/
Year)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
J­
9
June
2003
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
J­
10
June
2003
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
J­
11
June
2003
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
J­
12
June
2003
1
The
effect
of
illness
on
the
use
of
time
is
referred
to
as
time
losses
in
this
report
to
separate
these
effects
from
the
other
social
welfare
impacts
of
illness
that
are
evaluated
separately.
In
reality,
these
losses
are
shifts
in
the
use
of
time
from
its
preferred
use
to
illness­
related
activities,
and
hence
in
economic
terms
can
be
more
accurately
described
as
one
of
the
components
of
utility
losses
associated
with
illness.

2
This
section
provides
a
brief
overview
of
several
topics
that
are
covered
in
more
detail
in
EPA's
Guidelines
for
Preparing
Economic
Analyses
(
USEPA
2000e).

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
K­
1
Appendix
K
Additional
Information
on
the
Approach
For
Valuing
Time
Losses
K.
1
Introduction
As
discussed
in
the
main
text
of
this
report,
the
value
of
averting
cryptosporidiosis­
related
morbidity
is
estimated
based
on
information
on
(
1)
the
medical
costs
associated
with
the
illness
and
(
2)
the
value
of
time
lost
due
to
illness1.
This
appendix
provides
a
more
in­
depth
discussion
of
this
approach,
describing
both
the
overall
selection
of
the
cost
of
illness
(
COI)
method
and
the
details
of
the
approach
used
to
value
time
losses.
The
appendix
focuses
on
the
rationale
for
the
methodological
choices
made
for
this
analysis;
information
on
the
specific
numerical
values
used
to
apply
this
approach
are
described
in
Appendix
L.

Appendix
K
begins
by
discussing
the
rationale
for
relying
on
COI
methods
rather
than
other
measures
of
social
welfare
(
i.
e.,
willingness
to
pay
(
WTP)
estimates)
for
valuing
the
reductions
in
risk
from
cryptosporidiosis
morbidity.
This
discussion
provides
a
brief
introduction
to
the
concept
of
WTP,
then
describes
its
relationship
to
COI
methods.
It
next
describes
the
potential
applicability
of
the
available
WTP
literature
to
the
types
of
morbidity
risks
considered
in
this
analysis
and
the
problems
with
relying
on
this
literature.
EPA's
Science
Policy
Council
has
also
considered
these
issues
and
the
reader
can
find
more
detail
in
its
Handbook
for
Non­
Cancer
Health
Effects
Valuation.

The
appendix
then
introduces
the
two
approaches
used
to
value
time
losses
in
this
Economic
Analysis.
One
approach,
the
Traditional
Cost
of
Illness
(
COI),
is
based
on
the
human
capital
approach
typically
applied
in
COI
studies,
focusing
on
the
effect
of
illness
on
labor
productivity
(
as
measured
by
work
time
lost,
whether
paid
or
unpaid).
Another
approach,
the
Enhanced
COI,
attempts
to
provide
a
more
complete
estimate
of
the
social
welfare
impacts
of
time
losses
due
to
illness
based
on
the
existing
data
and
literature.
The
subsequent
sections
of
the
appendix
then
discuss
these
approaches
for
valuing
each
type
of
time
loss
in
more
detail.

K.
2
WTP
and
COI
Approaches
In
the
context
of
benefit­
cost
analysis,
the
valuation
of
human
health
risk
reductions
is
based
on
the
principles
of
neoclassical
welfare
economics2.
These
principles
assume
that
each
individual
is
the
best
judge
of
his
or
her
own
well­
being
(
referred
to
as
"
utility"
by
economists),
and
that
individual
preferences
should
form
the
basis
of
valuing
any
changes
that
affect
societal
welfare.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
K­
2
In
theory,
the
dollar
value
of
the
benefits
associated
with
a
risk
reduction
is
most
appropriately
measured
by
determining
the
change
in
income
that
has
the
same
effect
on
utility
(
or
the
level
of
individual
well­
being)
as
the
change
in
risk.
Because
utility
is
impossible
to
measure
directly,
economists
typically
rely
instead
on
estimates
of
WTP
or
willingness
to
accept
(
WTA)
compensation.
WTP
is
the
maximum
amount
of
money
an
individual
would
voluntarily
exchange
to
obtain
an
improvement
(
such
as
a
risk
reduction)
given
his
or
her
budget
constraints.
WTA
is
the
least
amount
of
money
an
individual
would
accept
to
forego
the
improvement.
These
two
measures
are
not
necessarily
equal.
However,
in
practice,
economists
usually
rely
on
measures
of
WTP
because
of
concerns
about
the
accuracy
and
reliability
of
the
methods
available
for
estimating
WTA
compensation.

WTP
is
a
different
concept
than
cost
or
price.
"
Cost"
refers
to
the
resources
needed
to
produce
a
good
or
service;
it
does
not
measure
the
value
of
the
good
or
service
to
members
of
society.
"
Price"
is
determined
by
the
interactions
of
producers
and
consumers
in
the
marketplace.
For
some
individuals,
the
market
price
may
exceed
WTP,
in
which
case
they
will
not
purchase
the
good.
For
other
individuals,
WTP
may
exceed
the
current
price,
in
which
case
these
individuals
will
benefit
from
the
fact
that
the
market
price
is
less
than
they
are
willing
to
pay.

Estimates
of
WTP
can
be
derived,
however,
from
price
and
quantity
data
for
goods
that
are
bought
and
sold
in
the
marketplace
(
i.
e.,
"
market
goods").
For
other,
"
nonmarket,"
goods
 
such
as
health
risk
reductions,
economists
generally
group
methods
for
estimating
WTP
into
two
categories.
The
first
category,
"
stated
preference"
methods,
involves
asking
individuals
what
they
would
be
willing
to
pay
for
a
change
in
health
risk
or
another
nonmarket
good.
The
most
commonly
used
stated
preference
approach
is
the
contingent
valuation
method,
which
involves
surveying
individuals
and
asking
them
how
much
they
would
be
willing
to
pay
for
a
hypothetical
nonmarket
good
given
their
existing
household
budget.

The
second
category
of
valuation
approaches
for
nonmarket
goods
includes
"
revealed
preference"
methods,
and
involves
looking
at
behavior
for
related
goods.
One
example
of
these
methods
is
wage­
risk
studies,
which
estimate
the
change
in
wages
required
for
riskier
jobs,
using
statistical
methods
to
control
for
the
many
factors
other
than
risk
that
affect
wage
levels.
Another
example
of
revealed
preference
methods
is
averting
behavior
models,
which
consider
market
goods
that
are
purchased
at
least
in
part
to
achieve
risk
reductions
 
such
as
bottled
water
or
home
filters.
These
latter
methods
are
rarely
used
in
practice
however,
due
to
difficulties
in
sorting
out
the
value
of
risk
reductions
from
the
values
associated
with
other
characteristics
of
the
product
(
e.
g.,
improved
taste
or
convenience).

COI
studies
differ
from
these
stated
and
revealed
preference
methods
in
that
they
are
a
measure
of
cost
rather
than
WTP.
These
studies
examine
the
actual
direct
costs
(
e.
g.,
medical
expenses
such
as
doctor
visits,
medication,
and
hospital
stays)
incurred
by
individuals
affected
by
the
illness.
The
COI
method
is
relatively
easy
to
apply
because:
(
1)
it
is
well
developed,
widely
used,
and
easily
explained;
(
2)
many
of
the
types
of
costs
it
includes
are
easily
measured;
and
(
3)
existing
studies
provide
estimates
for
a
large
number
of
illnesses.
For
these
reasons,
this
method
is
often
used
in
economic
analyses
despite
its
shortcomings
as
a
proxy
for
WTP.

In
general,
the
logic
for
using
COI
methods
is
that,
if
illness
imposes
the
costs
of
medical
expenditures
and
foregone
earnings,
then
a
policy
that
reduces
illness
yields
benefits
equal,
at
a
minimum,
to
the
costs
saved
(
Tolley
et
al.
1994).
However,
COI
estimates
may
underestimate
individual
WTP
because
they
do
not
explicitly
address
the
value
of
avoiding
the
pain
and
suffering
associated
with
the
illness
(
especially
the
Traditional
COI),
nor
the
costs
that
individuals
incur
to
avoid
the
illness
(
often
3
COI
estimates
may,
in
some
limited
cases,
overstate
WTP
 
for
example,
because
the
availability
of
insurance
may
lead
people
to
agree
to
treatments
that
they
would
not
willingly
finance
themselves.

4
See,
for
example,
EPA's
Handbook
for
Non­
Cancer
Health
Effects
Valuation
(
USEPA
2000h).
The
literature
review
in
the
Handbook
was
updated
and
extended
to
include
cancers
in:
Industrial
Economics,
Incorporated,
(
unpublished).

5
Assuming
that
the
estimate
is
for
the
year
1985,
the
year
2000
equivalent
is
$
77
per
additional
day,
inflated
using
the
Consumer
Price
Index
for
all
Urban
Consumers
(
CPI­
U).

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
K­
3
referred
to
as
defensive
or
averting
expenditures)
3.
In
addition,
COI
estimates
do
not
reflect
aversion
to
risk,
i.
e.,
the
effect
of
fear
of
illness
on
WTP.
In
contrast
to
welfare
measures
based
on
ex
ante
WTP
to
avert
health
risks,
COI
measures
examine
the
actual
ex
post
costs
to
society
associated
with
treating
the
health
effects.
Finally,
in
cases
where
treatment
does
not
return
people
to
their
original
health
state,
these
methods
will
underestimate
the
benefit
of
avoiding
the
illness
entirely.

COI
studies
sometimes
include
indirect
as
well
as
direct
costs.
These
indirect
costs
usually
include
lost
earnings
due
to
missed
market
work
time,
and
occasionally
include
costs
associated
with
lost
nonmarket
work
(
e.
g.,
housekeeping),
(
both
are
included
in
the
Traditional
COI
and
Enhanced
COI
estimates),
and
reduced
productivity
while
at
work
(
which
is
included
in
the
Enhanced
COI).
Typically,
these
costs
are
estimated
using
the
human
capital
approach,
which
(
as
discussed
in
more
detail
later
in
this
appendix)
focuses
on
the
effect
of
time
use
on
the
production
of
goods
and
services
and
ignores
other
aspects
of
time
use
that
affect
individual
well­
being.

Given
these
concerns,
the
COI
method
is
an
imperfect
substitute
that
is
applied
in
cases
where
suitable
WTP
studies
are
not
available.
The
following
section
discusses
the
available
WTP
literature
and
its
relevance
to
the
health
risks
assessed
in
this
report.
It
also
summarizes
studies
that
have
explored
the
relationship
between
WTP
and
COI
for
specific
health
effects.

K.
3
Review
of
the
Literature
on
WTP
for
Morbidity
Risk
Reductions
This
analysis
uses
a
variant
of
the
COI
approach
to
value
reductions
in
cryptosporidiosis
morbidity
risks
because
of
the
lack
of
suitable
WTP
studies
of
reasonable
quality.
EPA
conducted
several
reviews
of
the
valuation
literature
and
found
relatively
few
studies
that
address
morbidity
risks4.
Many
of
these
studies
focus
on
relatively
serious
and
often
chronic
conditions
such
as
asthma,
chronic
bronchitis,
or
angina;
a
few
consider
very
minor
acute
affects
such
as
drowsiness,
headache,
or
eye
irritation.
In
general,
these
conditions
appear
significantly
dissimilar
to
the
effects
of
cryptosporidiosis
and,
hence,
do
not
provide
suitable
valuation
estimates
for
the
purposes
of
this
analysis.

Of
particular
interest
are
two
inter­
related
studies
of
nausea
(
as
well
as
other
minor
health
symptoms)
that
were
completed
by
overlapping
groups
of
researchers
in
1984­
1985
in
Chicago
and
Denver.

°
Based
on
a
contingent
valuation
survey,
Berger
et
al.
(
1987)
explored
individual
WTP
to
avoid
one
additional
day
of
nausea.
The
authors
report
results
only
for
the
17
individuals
sampled
who
had
experienced
the
symptom,
and
found
a
mean
value
of
$
48
per
day
(
dollar
year
not
reported).
5
6
Assuming
that
the
estimate
is
for
the
year
1985,
the
year
2000
equivalent
is
$
80
per
additional
day,
inflated
using
the
CPI­
U.

7
See,
for
example,
Chapter
7
of
EPA's
Guidelines
for
Preparing
Economic
Analyses
(
USEPA
2000e)
and
Chapter
4
of
EPA's
Assessing
the
Benefits
of
Drinking
Water
Regulations
(
USEPA
2001a).

8
EPA
has
used
Tolley
et
al.
(
1986)
to
value
respiratory
effects
associated
with
minor
restricted
activity
days
associated
with
air
pollution;
for
these
effects,
other
studies
are
available
that
appear
to
support
the
Tolley
et
al.
findings.
See,
for
example,
the
approach
applied
in
EPA's
Final
Heavy
Duty
Engine/
Diesel
Fuel
Rule:
Air
Quality
Estimation,
Selected
Health
and
Welfare
Effects
Methods,
and
Benefits
Results
(
USEPA
2000i),
pp.
4­
32.

9
See
Appendix
B
of
EPA's
Handbook
for
Non­
Cancer
Health
Effects
Valuation
(
USEPA
2000h)
for
a
review
of
these
studies.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
K­
4
°
Another
contingent
valuation
study
by
Tolley
et
al.
(
1986)
also
considered
nausea,
described
as
a
"
lingering
urge
to
vomit"
with
strong
distress,
but
no
pain.
The
mean
value
for
avoiding
one
additional
day
of
nausea
was
$
50
(
dollar
year
not
reported)
among
the
176
respondents6.
Both
estimates
appear
unsuitable
for
the
analysis
of
cryptosporidiosis
morbidity
risks
in
terms
of
both
applicability
and
quality,
based
on
EPA
guidelines
for
determining
whether
benefits
estimates
are
suitable
for
transfer
to
other
contexts7.
First,
they
describe
a
symptom
that
is
substantially
less
severe
than
the
suite
of
symptoms
typically
associated
with
cryptosporidiosis,
which
often
involves
several
days
of
diarrhea,
abdominal
cramping,
fever,
and
vomiting,
as
well
as
nausea.
Second,
Berger
in
particular
relies
on
a
small
sample
that
may
not
be
representative
of
the
U.
S.
population
(
or
of
the
subset
of
this
population
affected
by
this
rulemaking),
and
may
be
best
described
as
a
pilot
or
illustrative
study8.
Given
the
more
severe
symptoms
associated
with
cryptosporidiosis,
WTP
to
avoid
cryptosporidiosis
is
likely
to
exceed
the
WTP
values
for
nausea
found
in
these
studies.

Due
to
the
lack
of
suitable
WTP
estimates,
this
report
instead
relies
largely
on
COI
estimates
from
the
studies
cited
in
the
main
text.
These
studies
have
the
advantage
of
directly
addressing
cryptosporidiosis
or
illnesses
that
have
very
similar
health
effects
(
i.
e.,
giardiasis).
However,
they
are
likely
to
underestimate
individual
WTP
for
risk
reductions.
Research
on
the
ratio
of
WTP
to
COI
estimates
suggests
that
the
ratio
of
these
values
varies
greatly
depending
on
the
nature
of
the
health
effect,
the
characteristics
of
the
affected
individuals,
and
the
factors
included
in
constructing
each
estimate.
The
resulting
WTP
to
COI
ratios
for
the
illnesses
studied
range
from
about
a
factor
of
2
to
as
much
as
a
factor
of
79
(
in
one
case);
many
of
the
ratios
are
between
3
and
69.
In
other
words,
the
COI
estimates
are
typically
one­
third
to
one­
sixth
of
the
WTP
estimates.
Much
of
this
literature
focuses
on
individual
(
out­
of­
pocket)
costs
of
illness
rather
than
the
full
costs
(
including
costs
paid
by
insurers),
and
considers
relatively
minor
health
effects
(
where
the
costs
borne
by
insurers
may
be
minimal).
Few
of
these
studies
include
lost
earnings
or
other
indirect
costs
in
the
COI
estimates,
and
instead
focus
largely
on
medical
expenditures.

The
approach
used
to
estimate
medical
costs
in
constructing
the
COI
estimates
used
in
this
report
is
discussed
in
detail
in
Chapter
5
and
Appendix
L.
The
remainder
of
this
appendix
focuses
on
the
approaches
used
in
this
Economic
Analysis
to
value
lost
time.
As
discussed
below,
this
approach
uses
both
a
traditional
approach
(
that
is,
similar
to
other
studies)
and
an
"
enhanced"
approach,
which
is
a
significant
departure
from
the
approach
typically
used
to
value
time
losses
in
the
COI
literature
because
it
attempts
to
provide
a
more
complete
measure
of
the
effects
of
lost
time
on
social
welfare.
10
Paid
care
is
included
in
the
medical
cost
component
of
the
analysis
and,
hence,
is
not
discussed
in
the
section
on
time
losses.

11
This
approach
implicitly
assumes
that
labor
markets
are
in
equilibrium
and
that
there
is
little
or
no
unemployment
(
i.
e.,
workers
cannot
be
replaced).

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
K­
5
K.
4
Welfare
Effects
of
Time
Losses
Due
to
Illness
Much
of
the
research
on
the
value
of
time
losses
due
to
illness
focuses
on
the
effects
of
such
losses
on
the
production
of
goods
and
services
by
the
affected
individuals.
In
the
context
of
benefit­
cost
analysis,
analysts
are
interested
in
a
more
complete
measure
of
the
welfare
effects
of
these
time
losses.
As
discussed
by
A.
Myrick
Freeman
III
(
1993)
in
his
seminal
work
on
benefits
valuation:

The
economic
concept
of
value
employed
here
has
its
foundation
in
neoclassical
welfare
economics.
The
basic
premises
of
welfare
economics
are
that
the
purpose
of
economic
activity
is
to
increase
the
well­
being
of
individuals
who
make
up
society,
and
that
each
individual
is
the
best
judge
of
how
well
off
he
or
she
is
in
a
given
situation.
Each
individual's
welfare
depends
not
only
on
that
individual's
consumption
of
private
goods
and
of
goods
and
services
produced
by
the
government,
but
also
on
the
quantities
and
qualities
each
receives
of
nonmarket
goods
and
service
flows....

In
this
context,
analysts
are
concerned
with
the
effect
of
illness
on
foregone
market
production
(
paid
work),
foregone
nonmarket
production
(
e.
g.,
volunteer
or
household
activities),
and
any
additional
diminished
utility
(
or
sense
of
well­
being)
associated
with
work
and
nonwork
activities.
Analysts
are
also
concerned
with
the
impacts
on
other
individuals
such
as
dependent
children
or
unpaid
caregivers.
10
In
contrast,
most
of
the
work
on
valuing
time
losses
has
been
completed
in
the
context
of
estimating
the
market
impacts
of
illness,
focusing
on
the
ill
individual.
In
this
context,
lost
time
generally
has
been
measured
using
the
human
capital
approach,
which
views
individuals
as
mechanisms
of
production;
i.
e.,
as
capital.
Under
this
approach,
an
individual
is
valuable
to
the
extent
that
he
or
she
produces
goods
or
services,
and
the
value
of
his
or
her
marginal
product
is
equal
to
the
compensation
provided11.
The
analyst
is
generally
not
concerned
with
other
(
nonmarket)
factors
affecting
individuals'
sense
of
well­
being
(
except,
of
course,
if
they
affect
market
productivity).
To
again
cite
Freeman
(
1993):

The
human
capital
approach
is
fundamentally
at
odds
with
the
individualistic
perspective
of
welfare
economics
and
the
theory
of
value.
By
in
effect
asking
what
the
individual
is
worth
to
society,
the
human
capital
approach
ignores
the
individual's
own
well
being,
preferences,
and
willingness
to
pay.

One
approach
to
developing
a
more
complete
measure
of
the
value
of
lost
time
would
be
to
rely
on
estimates
of
individual
WTP
to
avoid
the
time
losses.
While
the
WTP
literature
includes
some
studies
that
address
time
losses
directly
or
indirectly,
these
studies
are
of
limited
relevance
to
the
types
of
time
losses
discussed
in
this
report,
as
discussed
below.

Some
WTP
studies
include
explicit
information
on
time
losses
when
eliciting
the
value
of
averting
particular
health
effects.
For
example,
Rowe
and
Chestnut
(
1986)
surveyed
90
asthmatic
individuals
in
1983
to
estimate
their
WTP
for
a
program
that
would
reduce
their
bad
asthma
days.
The
survey
elicited
12
Travel
cost
studies
are
focused
on
the
costs
(
or
negative
impacts)
associated
with
traveling
longer
distances.
They
assume
that
travel
time
has
some
positive
effects
(
or
utility),
otherwise
time
costs
would
be
valued
at
the
full
wage
rate
(
i.
e.,
as
a
complete
loss).

13
See,
for
example,
the
approach
ap
plied
in
EPA's
Final
Heavy
Duty
Engine/
Diesel
Fuel
Rule:
Air
Quality
Estimation,
Selected
Health
and
Welfare
Effects
Methods,
and
Benefits
Results
(
USEPA
2000i).

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
K­
6
information
on
the
effects
of
asthma
on
work,
school,
chores,
and
leisure
activities.
However,
the
authors
ask
the
respondents
to
report
their
WTP
for
a
program
to
decrease
bad
asthma
days;
an
estimate
of
WTP
to
avoid
time
losses
is
not
reported
separately.

Researchers
interested
in
valuing
the
availability
of
recreational
activities
also
consider
time
costs
in
the
context
of
recreational
demand,
or
travel
cost,
studies.
These
studies
typically
value
time
spent
traveling
to
a
recreation
site
at
a
fixed
fraction
of
the
individual's
wage
rate,
which
represents
the
disutility
associated
with
travel12.
The
precise
fraction
of
the
wage
rate
used
to
value
travel
time
costs
has
ranged
from
zero
to
one
in
published
empirical
studies.
Unfortunately,
these
studies
are
focused
on
a
particular
use
of
leisure
time,
i.
e.,
for
travel.
The
resulting
estimates
are,
therefore,
not
necessarily
applicable
to
other
types
of
leisure
activities.

Another
potentially
relevant
approach
is
assessing
the
value
of
restricted
activity
days.
These
days
are
generally
defined
as
time
periods
when
individuals
find
that
their
activities
are
more
limited
than
normal
due
to
illness
or
other
factors.
This
concept
is
frequently
applied
in
the
context
of
assessing
health
effects
associated
with
air
pollution.
For
example,
researchers
have
linked
self­
reported
data
on
activity
restrictions
to
data
on
air
pollution
levels
to
estimate
the
effects
of
this
pollution
on
normal
activities.
Information
on
WTP
for
avoiding
these
restrictions
(
derived
from
studies
of
minor
respiratory
symptoms)
is
then
applied
to
the
estimates
of
activity­
restricted
days
to
determine
their
value13.
However,
this
value
will
vary
depending
on
the
type
and
severity
of
the
activity
limitations,
as
well
as
the
nature
of
the
health
effects
experienced.
As
noted
earlier,
sparse
information
is
available
on
WTP
to
avoid
the
types
of
health
effects
or
activity
restrictions
associated
with
cryptosporidiosis.
In
the
absence
of
this
information,
it
is
not
possible
to
apply
this
approach
to
the
health
effects
considered
in
this
report.

This
analysis
instead
relies
on
wage
and
compensation
data
to
estimate
opportunity
costs
to
the
individual
and
society,
due
to
the
lack
of
applicable
studies
that
estimate
WTP
for
time
losses
due
to
illness.
The
opportunity
cost
approach
recognizes
that,
because
resources
are
limited,
any
decision
to
use
resources
for
one
purpose
means
that
they
cannot
be
used
for
other
purposes.
Hence,
the
value
of
the
resource
can
be
determined
based
on
the
value
of
its
next
best
use.
This
approach
is
likely
to
understate
the
full
value
of
time
losses,
since
individuals
may
hold
values
that
exceed
the
opportunity
costs
represented
by
measures
of
compensation.

The
use
of
wage
and
compensation
data
to
estimate
opportunity
costs
is
consistent
with
the
basic
principles
of
welfare
economics
and
is
explored
in
detail
in
the
labor
economics
literature.
For
example,
as
summarized
in
the
Gold
et
al.
(
1996)
study
of
"
best
practices"
for
cost­
effectiveness
analysis:

The
fundamental
assumption
of
this
literature
is
that
people
will
take
their
opportunity
cost
into
account
when
allocating
their
time,
choosing
to
devote
it
to
the
activities
that
produce
the
greatest
utility.
They
will
work
an
extra
hour,
for
example,
if
the
compensation
they
receive
exceeds
the
value
they
place
on
their
time
in
other
activities.
14
For
a
more
detailed
and
technical
discussion
of
the
use
of
opportunity
costs,
see
Posnett
et
al.
(
1996).

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
K­
7
The
application
of
the
opportunity
cost
approach
to
estimate
the
value
of
lost
market
(
paid)
work
time
is
relatively
clear,
since
compensation
can
be
used
to
estimate
these
costs.
For
other
(
unpaid)
time
spent
in
nonmarket
work
or
leisure
activities,
wage
data
are
also
used
based
on
the
assumption
that
(
at
the
margin)
the
wage
represents
the
opportunity
cost
of
engaging
in
such
activities14.
To
again
cite
Gold
et
al.
(
1996):

The
labor­
leisure
trade­
off,
which
is
at
the
heart
of
the
theory
of
labor
supply,
illustrates
the
method
used
to
value
time
which
is
not
spent
at
work:
if
there
is
perfect
competition;
if
workers
and
employers
are
perfectly
well
informed;
if
the
worker
has
declining
marginal
utility
of
leisure
time
(
i.
e.,
the
more
time
spent
away
from
work,
the
lower
the
value
of
each
incremental
increase
in
leisure
time)
and
diminishing
marginal
utility
of
income;
and
if
the
quantity
of
labor
supplied
in
the
market
is
continuously
variable,
then
the
worker
"
consumes"
leisure
time
up
to
the
point
at
which
the
value
of
an
additional
hour
of
leisure
equals
the
(
hourly)
wage
that
he
or
she
can
receive
by
working.

As
indicated
by
this
quote,
the
use
of
wage
data
to
estimate
opportunity
costs
is
based
on
a
number
of
simplifying
assumptions
regarding
the
operations
of
labor
markets
and
the
process
by
which
individuals
choose
among
different
activities.
In
addition
to
the
limitations
cited
above,
this
approach
assumes
that
an
individual
has
complete
flexibility
in
choosing
the
number
of
hours
he
or
she
spends
in
paid
work,
whereas
in
reality
employers
may
be
willing
to
provide
jobs
only
for
set
increments
of
time
(
e.
g.,
40
hours
per
week).
In
its
simplest
form,
it
also
does
not
take
into
account
a
number
of
complexities
related
to
how
individuals
are
actually
compensated,
such
as
the
difference
between
hourly
and
salaried
employees
and
variation
in
how
benefits
are
determined.

In
addition,
relying
on
wage
data
for
valuing
lost
time
presents
difficulties
in
the
case
of
individuals
for
whom
these
data
are
not
available,
such
as
children,
the
unemployed
who
are
seeking
employment,
and
those
out
of
the
labor
market.
It
also
can
be
difficult
to
define
a
value
when
there
are
trade­
offs
between
two
uncompensated
activities.
Perhaps
most
important,
the
use
of
wage
rates
may
understate
the
total
utility
associated
with
the
activity
even
in
the
case
of
paid
work,
because
individuals
may
derive
intrinsic
pleasure
from
the
activity
above
and
beyond
the
income
they
receive.

The
use
of
compensation
data
to
value
time
losses
and
its
limitations
are
explored
in
detail
in
the
following
sections
of
this
appendix.
The
following
section
describes
the
compensation
measures
used
for
each
time
use
category
(
market
work,
nonmarket
work,
leisure,
and
sleep),
the
next
section
then
considers
issues
related
to
those
populations
for
whom
wage
data
are
not
available.

K.
5
Approach
for
Each
Time
Loss
Category
This
appendix
discusses
four
types
of
normal
time
use:

°
Market
(
paid)
work
time
°
Nonmarket
(
unpaid)
work
time
15
Paid
care
is
covered
in
the
medical
cost
estimates
rather
than
in
the
time
loss
estimates.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
K­
8
°
Leisure
time
°
Sleep
time
These
time
loss
categories
are
briefly
defined
in
Exhibit
K.
1
below.

Exhibit
K.
1
Definitions
of
Time
Loss
Categories
Category
Definition
Market
Work
Time
Time
that
an
individual
spends
engaged
in
productive
activity
in
exchange
for
a
salary
or
wage
at
a
price
set
in
the
labor
market.

Nonmarket
Work
Time
Time
spent
on
productive
work
without
monetary
compensation
in
the
home
(
e.
g.,
housework)
or
outside
the
home
(
e.
g.,
volunteer
work).

Leisure
Time
Time
spent
engaged
in
activities
other
than
market
work,
nonmarket
work,
or
sleep.

Sleep
Time
Time
spent
sleeping.

As
discussed
in
detail
in
the
main
text
of
this
report,
cryptosporidiosis
often
involves
several
days
of
diarrhea,
abdominal
cramping,
fever,
and
vomiting,
as
well
as
nausea.
Many
characteristics
of
this
illness
are
of
particular
importance
when
considering
the
approach
to
valuing
time
losses
in
each
of
these
four
categories.
Specifically,
the
valuation
approach
needs
to
accomplish
the
following:

°
Consider
time
losses
associated
with
morbidity,
not
mortality
because
other,
well­
established
valuation
methods
are
applied
to
mortality
risks.

°
Apply
to
acute,
not
chronic,
illnesses,
that
generally
result
in
a
temporary
rather
than
permanent
change
in
activities.

°
Address
illnesses
that
may
lead
individuals
to
both
spend
fewer
hours
engaged
in
normal
activities,
and
have
a
lower
level
of
productivity
or
utility
when
they
continue
normal
activities.

°
Consider
effects
that
may
occur
throughout
the
day,
potentially
affecting
all
types
of
time
usage.

°
Apply
to
individuals
of
all
ages
that
may
be
affected
by
this
illness,
including
the
very
old
and
the
very
young.

°
Reflect
the
need
of
some
ill
individuals
for
the
attention
of
a
caretaker
(
i.
e.,
a
friend
or
family
member,
not
a
paid
health
care
provider)
for
a
portion
of
the
time
while
they
are
ill.
15
16
There
are
a
number
of
simplifying
assumptions
inherent
in
the
application
of
this
approach
that
may
lead
it
to
further
under­
or
over­
state
the
value
of
time
in
its
preferred
use,
related
to
factors
such
as
the
functioning
of
the
labor
market,
the
treatment
of
individuals
who
are
not
labor
force
participants,
and
the
use
of
average
or
median,
rather
than
marginal,
earnings
data.
It
is
unclear
whether,
in
total,
these
practical
limitations
serve
to
increase
or
decrease
the
bias
that
results
from
the
sources
discussed
in
this
paragraph.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
K­
9
Because
empirical
research
on
the
value
of
time
is
limited,
this
analysis
relies
primarily
on
data
on
compensation
as
a
proxy
for
the
value
of
lost
time.
The
specific
approach
for
each
of
the
four
time
loss
categories
is
summarized
in
Exhibit
K.
2.

Exhibit
K.
2
Overview
of
Valuation
Approach
Time
Loss
Category
Approach
for
Estimate
of
Value
Enhanced
COI
Traditional
COI
Market
work
time
Gross
(
pre­
tax)
wage
plus
benefits,
reflecting
both
the
wages
received
by
the
individual
and
the
value
of
his
or
her
product
to
the
employer
and
society
Nonmarket
work
time
Net
(
post­
tax)
wage,
based
on
the
opportunity
costs
to
the
individual
Half
the
net
(
post­
tax)
wage,
based
on
the
replacement
cost
of
labor
Leisure
time
Net
(
post­
tax)
wage,
based
on
the
opportunity
costs
to
the
individual
Not
included
Sleep
time
Zero,
due
to
lack
of
information
on
the
dollar
value
In
this
analysis,
lost
market
work
time
is
valued
at
the
pre­
tax
wage
rate
plus
benefits.
Using
the
Enhanced
COI
estimate,
lost
nonmarket
work
and
leisure
time
are
valued
at
the
post­
tax
wage
rate.
The
Traditional
COI
estimate
values
nonmarket
work
time
at
half
the
net
post­
tax
wage
rate,
and
does
not
include
a
value
for
leisure
time.
Lost
sleep
time
is
conservatively
valued
at
"
zero."
Losses
are
assessed
for
unpaid
caretakers
whose
normal
activities
are
affected
by
illness
as
well
as
for
the
ill
individual.

In
the
Enhanced
COI
estimate,
these
values
are
applied
to
both
complete
losses
of
time
(
time
spent
in
illness­
related
activities
rather
than
normal
activities),
as
well
as
to
partial
losses
(
time
spent
in
normal
activities
that
are
less
productive
or
pleasurable
than
in
the
absence
of
illness).
In
the
latter
case,
however,
the
dollar
value
of
the
loss
is
prorated
to
reflect
the
fact
that
the
individual
does
not
completely
lose
the
productivity
or
utility
associated
with
the
activity.
In
the
Traditional
COI
estimate,
these
values
are
applied
only
to
complete
losses
of
time
(
time
spent
in
illness­
related
activities
rather
than
normal
activities),
because
less
productive
time
is
not
included.

Both
of
these
approaches
are
likely
to
understate
the
utility
of
time
spent
in
its
preferred
use
(
i.
e.,
of
normal
activities
in
the
absence
of
illness)
for
variety
of
reasons16.
Individuals
may
place
a
value
on
market
work
that
exceeds
total
compensation
because
of
the
effect
of
working
on
their
sense
of
wellbeing
For
nonmarket
work
and
leisure,
the
value
of
the
activity
to
the
individual
may
exceed
the
opportunity
cost
for
similar
reasons.
In
addition,
nonmarket
work
and
other
activities
can
provide
benefits
to
other
members
of
society
that
are
not
reflected
in
the
individual
wage
rate.
Finally,
neither
approach
includes
the
value
of
sleep.
17
Embedded
in
this
approach
are
a
number
of
assumptions
(
discussed
earlier)
regarding
the
operations
of
the
labor
market
and
the
factors
that
influence
individual
choice.
In
addition,
the
actual
effect
of
missed
work
time
will
vary
depending
on
how
individuals
are
compensated;
e.
g.,
on
whether
they
are
salaried
or
hourly
employees
and
on
whether
they
receive
sick
leave
or
disability
payments.
For
example,
if
the
individual
has
access
to
paid
sick
leave,
a
marginal
loss
of
work
time
(
within
certain
limits)
will
not
result
in
an
immediate
loss
of
income.
However,
a
loss
will
accrue
to
the
employer,
who
must
pay
wages
without
the
benefit
of
the
worker's
productivity.
The
individual
also
has
the
ability
to
save
this
sick
leave
for
another
time.

18
A
number
of
COI
studies
use
lost
earnings
to
estimate
indirect
costs.
For
example,
the
total
compensation
approach
is
used
in
Buzby
et
al.
(
1996),
Rice
et
al.
(
1992),
and
Waitzman
et
al.
(
1996).

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
K­
10
However,
it
is
unclear
whether
the
use
of
these
estimates
over­
or
under­
state
the
disutility,
or
loss,
associated
with
illness;
i.
e.,
the
loss
associated
with
spending
time
in
illness­
related,
rather
than
normal,
activities.
In
some
cases,
it
seems
reasonable
to
assume
that
the
illness­
related
activity
represents
a
complete
loss
of
utility
(
e.
g.,
time
spent
coping
with
a
bout
of
diarrhea
rather
than
working).
For
these
losses,
the
approaches
used
in
this
report
will
understate
the
value
of
the
loss,
as
discussed
in
the
prior
paragraph.
In
other
cases,
the
illness­
related
activity
may
have
some
utility
(
e.
g.,
time
spent
watching
TV
or
reading
instead
of
working)
that
is
less
than
the
utility
of
the
preferred
activity,
but
greater
than
"
zero."
Even
in
this
case,
there
would
likely
be
some
offsetting
utility
losses
from
the
discomfort
and
stress
of
being
sick.
In
these
cases,
the
actual
amount
of
the
loss
could
conceivably
be
less
than
the
estimates
used
in
this
analysis.
The
basis
for
these
approaches
is
described
in
more
detail
below.

K.
5.1
Lost
Market
Work
Time
In
a
social
welfare
context,
the
value
of
marginal
changes
in
market
work
time
has
two
components:
(
1)
the
value
of
the
time
loss
to
that
individual,
and
(
2)
any
additional
value
to
the
rest
of
society.
In
this
analysis,
lost
market
work
is
valued
at
the
median
gross
(
pre­
tax)
wage
rate
plus
benefits,
also
referred
to
as
total
compensation
or
employer's
costs17.
This
approach
is
most
representative
of
the
full
social
impact
of
lost
work
time
because
it
incorporates
both
the
loss
to
the
individual
in
terms
of
lost
income
and
the
loss
to
society
in
terms
of
reduced
tax
revenue
or
decreased
production
of
goods
and
services.

This
approach
recognizes
that,
when
an
individual
misses
work
or
is
less
productive
due
to
illness,
he
or
she
loses
the
associated
utility.
This
loss
is,
in
part,
measured
by
income,
which
the
individual
can
trade
for
goods
and
services.
However,
income
is
an
incomplete
measure
of
value,
because
the
individual
may
derive
utility
from
working
that
exceeds
post­
tax
wages
or
take
home
pay.
Hence
the
post­
tax
wage
rates
provide
a
lower
bound
estimate
of
the
value
of
paid
work
time
from
the
individual
perspective.

This
approach
also
recognizes
that
the
employer
(
and
society)
loses
the
value
of
the
individual's
productivity,
and
that
this
value
exceeds
the
value
of
the
post­
tax
wages
received
by
the
employee.
From
the
employer's
perspective,
the
value
of
the
individual's
productivity
is
equal
at
minimum
to
his
or
her
total
compensation
(
pre­
tax
wages
plus
benefits).
This
perspective
is
similar
to
that
of
the
human
capital
approach,
which
assumes
that
an
employer
would
not
pay
more
to
an
employee,
in
salary
plus
benefits,
than
that
employee
is
worth
to
the
company
(
i.
e.,
the
value
of
the
employee's
marginal
product)
and
hence
to
society18.
Some
of
this
value
is
reflected
in
the
employee's
take
home
pay,
the
remainder
19
For
a
recent
discussion
that
indicates
that
illness­
related
losses
of
work
time
can
substantially
exceed
the
wage
rate,
see:
Pauley
et
al.
(
2002).

20
Hartunian
et
al.
(
1981)
and
others
argue
that
average
wages
are
a
reasonable
approximation
of
the
value
of
lost
production
in
most
industrialized
countries.

21
A
number
of
groups
have
been
working
on
approaches
for
measuring
and
categorizing
different
types
of
time
usage,
as
summarized
in
National
Research
Council
(
2000).

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
K­
11
accrues
in
terms
of
taxes
paid
and
reflects
the
value
of
product
created
above
and
beyond
what
is
reflected
in
pre­
tax
wages.
19
Ideally,
the
estimates
used
in
this
analysis
would
reflect
the
value
of
marginal
changes
in
work
time,
since
the
impacts
of
cryptosporidiosis­
related
morbidity
are
likely
to
be
acute
and
temporary.
In
other
words,
affected
individuals
may
work
fewer
hours
or
be
less
productive
while
working
for
a
limited
period
of
time,
but
are
not
likely
to
change
employment
or
become
unemployed
as
a
result
of
the
illness.
Empirically,
analysts
generally
use
estimates
of
average
or
median
compensation
as
a
proxy
for
marginal
rates
due
to
difficulties
inherent
in
determining
the
marginal
rates
relevant
to
the
particular
impact
under
consideration20.
Data
on
average
and
median
U.
S.
compensation
rates
are
easily
accessible
and
frequently
updated
in
a
number
of
publications.

K.
5.2
Lost
Nonmarket
Work,
Leisure
Time,
and
Sleep
Time
In
this
analysis,
two
alternative
measures
are
used
to
value
nonmarket
work
time
and
leisure
time.
In
the
Enhanced
COI
estimate,
net
(
post­
tax)
wages
are
used
to
estimate
the
value
of
both
lost
nonmarket
work
and
leisure
time.
In
the
Traditional
COI
estimate,
the
value
of
lost
nonmarket
work
time
is
half
the
post­
tax
wage,
and
no
value
is
assigned
to
leisure
time.

While
the
distinctions
between
market
work
and
sleep
are
relatively
easy
to
distinguish,
the
line
between
nonmarket
work
and
leisure
is
often
difficult
to
draw21.
In
general
parlance,
nonmarket
work
refers
to
activities
that
are
undertaken
primarily
because
they
are
productive,
whereas
leisure
refers
to
activities
that
are
undertaken
primarily
for
the
pleasure
of
the
individual.
However,
this
distinction
is
hard
to
apply
in
practice.
Some
nonmarket
tasks
seem
clearly
productive,
such
as
doing
the
laundry
or
vacuuming,
but
individuals
may
also
derive
pleasure
from
these
tasks.
Other
activities,
such
as
childcare
or
gardening,
encompass
aspects
of
both
productive
work
and
of
leisure.

Nonmarket
Work
One
of
the
two
alternative
measures
used
in
this
analysis
to
value
nonmarket
work
time
is
the
net
(
post­
tax)
wages,
which
are
used
to
estimate
the
value
of
lost
nonmarket
work
in
the
Enhanced
COI
estimate.
If
illness
affects
an
individual's
ability
to
engage
in
nonmarket
work,
he
or
she
loses
the
value
of
his
or
her
own
productivity.
Presumably,
that
individual
chooses
to
engage
in
nonmarket
rather
than
market
work
because,
at
the
margin,
the
utility
(
productivity
plus
any
additional
enjoyment)
from
performing
nonmarket
work
was
greater
than
the
utility
(
as
represented
by
income)
that
he
or
she
would
22
For
more
detailed
surveys
of
different
approaches
for
valuing
nonmarket
work
time,
see
Goldschmidt­
Clermont
(
1982)
and
Gronau
(
1986).

23
Benefits
are
conservatively
left
out
of
this
calculation,
under
that
assumption
that
marginal
changes
in
the
number
of
hours
worked
would
not
affect
the
total
amount
of
benefits
received.

24
For
example,
a
series
of
studies
funded
by
the
Australian
Bureau
of
Statistics
focus
on
adding
the
value
of
nonmarket
work
to
national
accounts
and
use
the
replacement
cost
method
for
this
purpose.
See,
for
example,
Trewin
(
October
2000).

25
As
cited
in
Goldschmidt­
Clermont
(
1982),
p.
4.

26
Time
use
researchers
have
been
attempting
to
develop
classification
schemes
that
can
be
used
internationally
for
these
types
of
studies.
Many
refer
to
four
general
categories:
contracted
time
(
paid
work
plus
education
and
training),
committed
time
(
unpaid
work,
including
housework,
shopping,
and
volunteer
work),
necessary
time
(
personal
care,
including
sleep),
and
free
time
(
religious,
cultural
and
civic
participation,
social
time,
sports,
hobbies,
and
mass
media).
(
See,
for
example,
Ministry
of
Women's
Affairs,
Statistics
New
Zealand
(
1999).)
These
classification
schemes
differ
somewhat
from
the
categories
used
in
the
report,
and
require
more
detailed
data
on
the
types
of
time
uses
affected
than
are
available
for
this
analysis.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
K­
12
have
gained
from
market
work22.
Therefore,
that
individual
must
value
a
marginal
hour
of
his
or
her
nonmarket
work
time
at
a
rate
at
least
equal
to
the
marginal
net
wage
per
hour
he
or
she
could
have
earned
in
the
job
market23.
It
is
not
unreasonable
to
assume
that
on
average
(
across
all
these
individuals),
the
opportunity
costs
for
these
individuals
would
be
similar
to
the
opportunity
costs
for
employed
individuals.
To
a
large
extent,
these
individuals
may
choose
to
be
out
of
the
labor
market
because
they
value
their
time
at
a
rate
that
exceeds
the
compensation
they
would
receive
by
working.
More
research
would
be
needed
to
confirm
the
extent
to
which
this
assumption
is
supported
by
detailed
studies
of
the
factors
that
affect
decision­
making
by
these
groups.
As
before,
this
approach
involves
a
number
of
simplifying
assumptions
regarding
the
functioning
of
labor
markets
and
the
choices
faced
by
individuals,
but
provides
one
reasonable
proxy
for
how
this
time
is
valued.
This
is
the
basis
used
in
the
Enhanced
COI
estimate.

The
Traditional
COI
estimate
has
a
different
basis.
The
approach
advocated
most
frequently
in
the
literature
to
distinguish
between
market
and
nonmarket
work,
particularly
in
the
context
of
adjusting
national
accounts
to
include
unpaid
work,
relies
on
estimates
of
replacement
costs
rather
than
estimates
of
opportunity
costs
and
is
known
as
the
"
third
person"
or
"
market
replacement"
criterion.
This
approach
is
used
largely
because
of
the
emphasis
of
these
studies
on
measuring
productivity
rather
than
utility24.
Under
the
human
capital
approach,
time
spent
engaged
in
nonmarket
labor
activities
is
considered
productive,
due
to
the
fact
that
activities
such
as
childcare,
cooking,
and
general
home
maintenance
 
if
not
performed
by
a
member
of
the
household
 
could
be
performed
by
a
professional
in
return
for
compensation
(
i.
e.,
as
market
labor).
As
defined
by
Reid
(
1934),
"
If
an
activity
is
of
such
a
character
that
it
might
be
delegated
to
a
paid
worker,
then
that
activity
shall
be
deemed
productive."
25
Tasks
that
can
only
be
performed
by
the
individual
himself
(
or
herself)
are
included
in
the
leisure
category.
Therefore,
gardening
and
childcare
would
be
viewed
as
nonmarket
work,
whereas
watching
television
would
be
considered
a
leisure
activity.
26
27
A
pioneering
example
of
this
approach
is
presented
in
Rice
(
1966).
A
more
recent
example,
which
uses
data
on
the
value
of
housekeeping
services
based
on
Current
Population
Survey
data
from
the
Bureau
of
Labor
statistics,
is
Ray
et
al.
(
1998).

28
A
pioneering
example
of
this
approach
is
Rice
1966;
a
more
recent
example
is
Thamer
et
al.
(
1998).

29
One
early
demonstration
of
this
market
value
approach
is
Cooper
et
al.
(
1976).
A
more
recent
approach
is
provided
in
Hoffman
et
al.
(
1976),
which
uses
values
based
on
research
reported
in
Douglas
et
al.
(
1990).
Another
recent
example
is
Ray
et
al.
(
1998).

30
Trewin
(
2000,
p.
24)
notes
that
the
replacement
cost
approach
"...
is
based
on
the
key
assumption
that
household
members
and
market
replacements
are
equally
productive
in
their
work
activities....
In
practice
it
is
difficult
to
identify
exact
matches
between
household
work
activities
and
occupations...."

31
See,
for
example,
Trewin
(
2000).

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
K­
13
In
some
studies,
housekeeper
wage
rates
are
used
to
value
the
productivity
of
nonmarket
labor27.
This
is
the
measure
used
to
value
lost
unpaid
work
time
for
the
Traditional
COI.
The
value
used
is
half
of
the
after­
tax
wage.
The
use
of
50
percent
of
the
wage
rate
is
consistent
with
a
practice
common
in
the
human
capital
literature
of
valuing
nonmarket
work
time
at
the
market
rate
for
domestic
workers28.
Because
this
approach
may
undervalue
the
true
productivity
of
this
labor
due
to
the
wide
range
of
activities
undertaken
in
addition
to
housekeeping
(
e.
g.,
cooking,
childcare,
and
home
repairs),
other
studies
use
market
value
composite
rates.
This
alternative
approach
would
involve
developing
a
composite
of
the
wage
rates
paid
to
individuals
employed
in
the
labor
market
to
perform
the
various
activities
typically
associated
with
nonmarket
labor
(
e.
g.,
cooks,
daycare
providers,
maids,
nannies,
and
handymen).
29,30
In
some
applications,
this
approach
has
been
expanded
to
also
include
volunteer
work31.

Leisure
For
the
Enhanced
COI
estimate,
the
approach
used
to
value
lost
leisure
time
is
the
same
as
that
applied
to
nonmarket
work.
This
approach
reflects
two
considerations:
(
1)
the
difficulties
inherent
in
developing
a
clear­
cut
distinction
between
hours
spent
in
nonmarket
work
and
leisure
as
noted
above,
and
(
2)
the
assumption
that,
at
the
margin,
an
individual
will
choose
to
engage
in
nonmarket
work
or
leisure
activities
only
if
the
value
of
these
activities
exceeds
the
wage
rate
that
the
individual
would
otherwise
earn.
The
individual
presumably
chooses
to
engage
in
activities
other
than
market
work
because,
at
the
margin,
the
utility
gained
from
these
other
activities
is
greater
than
the
utility
gained
from
market
work.
This
approach
is
a
simplification
of
how
individuals
are
likely
to
view
leisure
time.
Leisure
activities
are
undertaken
for
a
number
of
different
purposes
 
e.
g.,
to
relax,
for
exercise,
or
to
maintain
emotional
connections
with
loved
ones.
Some
leisure
activities
involve
extensive
planning
and
travel
time,
like
major
vacations,
while
others,
like
watching
television,
require
almost
no
planning,
travel,
or
even
thought.
Hence,
in
reality
the
utility
of
leisure
is
likely
to
vary
depending
on
the
activity
affected.
Even
with
these
uncertainties,
the
opportunity
cost
approach
provides
a
more
complete
measure
of
the
value
of
time
losses
from
the
perspective
of
the
individual
as
well
as
society.
This
approach
is
supported
by
the
travel
cost
studies
noted
earlier,
which
suggest
that
even
relatively
mundane
forms
of
leisure
(
such
as
travel
time)
may
have
utility
that
approaches
the
wage
rate.
The
fact
that
workers
often
demand
a
higher
hourly
wage
for
"
overtime"
work
further
supports
the
notion
that
the
marginal
value
of
nonwork
time
exceeds
the
usual
wage
rate.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
K­
14
Leisure
time
is
generally
not
valued
in
COI
studies
due
to
the
emphasis
of
these
studies
on
measuring
productivity
rather
than
utility.
While
leisure
time
may
have
some
impact
on
an
individual's
productivity,
this
impact
is
believed
to
be
largely
captured
in
the
valuation
of
market
and
nonmarket
work.
From
the
human
capital
perspective,
including
a
separate
value
for
leisure
runs
the
risk
of
doublecounting
The
loss
of
leisure
time
is
not
included
in
the
Traditional
COI
estimate.

Lost
Sleep
Time
Sleep
time
presents
special
problems
in
this
analysis,
in
part
because
data
on
the
effect
of
cryptosporidiosis­
related
morbidity
on
the
amount
or
quality
of
sleep
time
are
not
available.
In
addition,
sleep
is
rarely
valued
in
the
literature
due
to
problems
related
to
determining
its
dollar
value.
Sleep
time
is
not
addressed
in
most
COI
studies
because
(
like
leisure)
its
effect
on
productivity
is
believed
to
be
largely
captured
in
the
value
of
market
and
nonmarket
work
time.

However,
from
an
opportunity
cost
perspective,
it
is
possible
to
argue
that
lost
sleep
should
be
valued
at
the
wage
rate.
For
example,
assuming
that
some
minimal
level
of
sleep
is
necessary,
sleep
time
missed
at
night
may
be
made
up
through
daytime
naps.
These
naps
in
turn
may
displace
some
of
the
time
the
individual
would
otherwise
spend
engaged
in
leisure,
nonmarket
work,
or
market
work
activities.

This
analysis
conservatively
assumes
that
lost
sleep
time
has
zero
value.
Given
that
individuals
derive
utility
from
sleep
and,
thus,
are
likely
to
value
it
at
a
rate
greater
than
zero,
this
approach
will
understate
the
value
of
related
time
losses.

K.
6
Special
Considerations
Several
sub­
groups
of
the
population
present
specific
valuation
challenges,
because
they
often
do
not
engage
in
paid
work
and
hence
wage
rate
data
may
not
be
an
appropriate
measure
of
the
value
of
their
time
losses
due
to
illness.
These
groups
include
the
following.

°
Children:
Children
do
not
generally
engage
in
paid
work,
and
wage
rate
data
are
not
generally
collected
for
those
who
do.
The
definition
of
"
child"
can
vary,
but
the
age
cut­
off
is
usually
at
16
or
18
years
of
age.
The
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
does
not
collect
employment
data
on
individuals
under
the
age
of
16.

°
Elderly
Individuals:
As
individuals
age,
they
generally
leave
the
work
force.
However,
retired
persons
may
value
their
time
differently
than
younger
workers
who
are
out
of
the
labor
force
due
to
the
availability
of
pensions
and
Social
Security.
These
individuals
may
lose
benefits
if
they
increase
their
job­
related
income.

°
Unemployed
Individuals:
Individuals
not
currently
engaged
in
market
work,
but
actively
seeking
employment,
would
prefer
to
earn
a
wage,
but
are
not
currently
doing
so.

°
Individuals
Not
in
the
Labor
Force:
Individuals
not
currently
engaged
in
market
work,
and
not
seeking
employment,
presumably
value
their
time
at
a
rate
higher
than
the
earnings
they
could
gain
from
paid
employment.
However,
at
times
they
may
be
engaged
in
nonmarket
32
Although
an
argument
can
be
made
for
including
the
discounted
present
value
of
any
decrease
in
future
earnings,
the
types
of
acute
illnesses
considered
in
this
analysis
are
not
likely
to
have
a
measurable
impact
on
future
earnings.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
K­
15
work
(
such
as
child
care)
where
the
cost
of
hiring
a
replacement
worker
exceeds
the
amount
they
could
earn
as
a
member
of
the
labor
force.

The
approach
taken
in
this
analysis
is
to
value
all
time
losses
at
rates
applicable
to
adult
wage
earners
(
or
their
theoretical
adult
replacements
in
the
case
of
the
Traditional
COI's
estimate
for
the
value
of
nonmarket
work
time).

Valuation
of
the
effects
on
children
present
a
number
of
difficult
challenges
related
to
the
fact
that
children
are
not
?
economic
actors"
who
can
answer
valuation
questions
or
engage
in
market
activities
that
reflect
their
own
preferences.
Under
the
human
capital
approach,
the
primary
issue
concerning
the
valuation
of
children's
time
losses
is
that
of
double
counting.
Analysts
assume
that
time
spent
in
school
or
other
productive
activities
will
be
reflected
in
future
earnings,
and
generally
assign
a
value
of
"
zero"
to
childhood
time
losses.
32
However,
from
a
social
welfare
perspective,
children
can
be
profoundly
affected
by
illness.
These
effects
may
be
direct
 
i.
e.,
children
may
be
unable
to
engage
in
normal
activities
because
they
are
ill;
or
they
may
be
indirect
 
i.
e.,
children
may
receive
a
lesser
quantity
or
quality
of
care
due
to
the
illness
of
their
caretakers.
The
dollar
values
of
these
impacts
are
highly
uncertain.

For
the
other
groups
listed
above,
the
challenge
is
largely
the
absence
of
compensation
data
as
a
proxy
for
opportunity
costs.
Whether
the
approaches
taken
in
this
analysis
under­
state
or
over­
state
the
value
of
time
for
these
individuals
is
uncertain.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
L­
1
Appendix
L
Calculations
Supporting
the
Cost
of
Illness
(
COI)
Analysis
L.
1
Introduction
This
appendix
presents
data
and
calculations
that
this
Economic
Analysis
(
EA)
uses
to
estimate
the
monetized
morbidity
benefits
of
the
Long
Term
2
Enhanced
Surface
Water
Treatment
Rule
(
LT2ESWTR)
rule.
These
data
are
used
in
Chapters
5
and
8.
The
general
methodology
for
using
a
cost
of
illness
(
COI)
approach
is
presented
in
Appendix
K.
This
appendix,
Appendix
L,
applies
that
methodology,
identifies
the
data
from
other
sources
that
are
used,
and
describes
the
methodology
used
to
estimate
the
duration
of
illness
for
moderate
and
severe
cases
of
cryptosporidiosis.
The
approach
used
to
value
reductions
in
nonfatal
cases
of
cryptosporidiosis
combines
estimates
of
the
medical
costs
of
illness
with
estimates
of
the
value
of
related
time
losses
under
two
sets
of
assumptions:
the
Enhanced
and
Traditional
COI
.
Many
of
the
values
in
the
analysis
rely
on
data
collected
by
Corso
et
al.
(
2003)
and
MacKenzie
et
al.
(
1994).

L.
2
Cryptosporidiosis
Cost­
Related
Data
Some
of
the
most
directly
relevant
data
for
this
COI
estimate
derives
from
the
outbreak
of
cryptosporidiosis
in
Milwaukee
in
1993.
The
study
by
Corso
et
al.
(
2003)
of
this
outbreak
reports
cost
of
illness
data
using
three
categories
of
severity
of
illnesses:
mild,
moderate,
and
severe.
Definitions
of
the
categories
are
as
follows.

°
mild:
the
person
did
not
seek
medical
care
for
the
illness,
but
may
have
taken
over­
thecounter
medication
°
moderate:
the
person
had
one
or
more
outpatient
visits
to
a
physician
or
emergency
room,
but
the
person
was
not
hospitalized
°
severe:
the
person
was
hospitalized
one
or
more
times.

The
percentage
of
patients
with
each
severity
of
illness
is
reported
in
Corso
et
al.
(
2003)
(
and
derived
from
MacKenzie
et
al.,
1995)
as
87.99
percent
with
mild
cases,
10.92
percent
with
moderate
cases,
and
1.09
percent
with
severe
cases.
For
the
purposes
of
this
Economic
Analysis,
these
figures
were
rounded
to
88,
11,
and
1
percent.
Costs
used
from
the
Corso
et
al.
(
2003)
study
are
presented
in
Exhibit
L.
1
and
are
averages
per
illness
(
in
1993
dollars).
1Number
of
days
lost
does
not
include
number
of
days
lost
due
to
reoccurrence
of
cryptosporidiosis.
Respondents
provided
estimates
of
days
of
normal
activities
lost
due
to
illness.

2Number
of
days
lost
does
not
include
any
days
lost
due
to
the
reoccurrence
of
cryptosporidiosis.
Estimates
of
days
lost
for
mild
and
moderate
cases
are
averages
from
survey
respondents.
The
days
lost
for
caregivers
assisting
severe
cases
was
an
estimate
based
on
half
the
duration
of
the
hospital
stay.

3Average
total
cost
of
medication
is
the
cost
of
medication
used
before
receiving
medical
attention
for
those
who
took
medication
and
does
not
include
the
cost
of
medication
for
reoccurrence.
Data
drawn
from
review
of
medical
files
for
moderate
and
severe
cases,
but
for
mild
cases,
the
percent
of
moderate
cases
self
medicating
before
health
care
was
used,
and
other
sources
and
author
assumptions
were
used
regarding,
dosage,
frequency,
and
duration
of
illness.

4Of
the
moderately
ill
persons,
95
percent
first
saw
a
physician
rather
than
visiting
an
Emergency
Room
(
ER)
and
of
severely
ill
persons,
29
percent
saw
a
physician
before
being
hospitalized.

5Corso
et
al.
(
2003)
cites
MacKenzie
et
al.
(
1995).

6Corso
et
al.
(
2003)
cites
Osewe
et
al.,
1996.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
L­
2
Exhibit
L.
1
Cryptosporidiosis
Cost­
Related
Data
From
Corso
et
al.
(
2003)

Cost
Category
Mild
Moderate
Severe
Number
of
Days
Lost
1
(
Mean
days)
1.3
days
3.8
days
13.5
days
Duration
of
Illness
4.7
days
see
L.
4
see
L.
4
Number
of
Days
Lost
for
Caregivers
2
0.1
day
1.3
days
3.9
days
Percent
Taking
Medication
Before
Health
Care
30%
30%
29%

Average
Total
Cost
of
Medication
for
Those
Taking
Medication
Before
Health
Care
3
$
5.73
$
5.92
$
6.74
Percent
That
Visited
a
Physician4
NA
95%
29%

Cost
of
a
Physician
Visit
NA
$
45
$
45
Percent
Taking
Medication
after
Health
Care
NA
54%
48%

Average
Total
Cost
of
Medication
Taken
after
Health
Care
for
Those
Taking
Medication
NA
$
8.91
$
70.52
Percent
with
Reoccurrence
of
Illness5
21%
21%
21%

Length
of
Reoccurrence
of
Illness
6
2
days
2
days
2
days
Average
Medication
Cost
for
a
Reoccurrence
$
2.44
$
2.44
$
2.44
Exhibit
L.
1
Cryptosporidiosis
Cost­
Related
Data
From
Corso
et
al.
(
2003)

Cost
Category
Mild
Moderate
Severe
7Of
the
moderately
ill,
5
percent
went
first
to
the
emergency
room
(
ER),
and
of
severely
ill
persons,
71
percent
visited
the
ER.

8The
cost
of
hospitalization
reported
by
Corso
et
al.(
2003)
is
$
6,312,
which
includes
the
cost
of
71
percent
of
patients
that
visited
the
ER
[$
6,312­(
71%*$
224)=$
6,152.96].

9For
moderately
ill
persons,
of
those
admitted
to
the
ER,
4.9
percent
used
an
ambulance.
For
severely
ill
persons,
16.3
percent
took
an
ambulance
to
the
ER
or
hospital.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
L­
3
Percent
That
Visited
an
ER
7
NA
5%
71%

Cost
of
the
ER
NA
$
224
$
224
Percent
Hospitalized
NA
NA
100%

Cost
of
Hospitalization
8
NA
NA
$
6,152.96
Percent
Taking
an
Ambulance,
of
Those
Who
Went
to
the
ER
or
Hospital
9
NA
4.9%
16.3%

Cost
of
an
Ambulance
NA
$
228
$
228
Note:
NA=
not
applicable.

L.
3
Calculation
of
Direct
Medical
Costs
In
Corso
et
al.
(
2003),
the
total
cost
of
illness
is
reported
as
$
79
(
in
1993$)
derived
from
the
above
data.
This
Economic
Analysis
uses
different
rounding
conventions,
notably,
the
rounding
of
the
percent
of
the
population
with
each
severity
of
illness.
For
comparison,
these
changes
generate
an
estimate
of
about
$
73
(
in
1993$)(
not
shown).
Further,
this
Economic
Analysis
inflates
the
1993
data
to
2000$,
so
the
final
estimate
used
is
$
93.82.
Using
data
from
Exhibit
L.
1,
Exhibit
L.
2
calculates
this
estimate
of
the
direct
medical
costs
for
a
case
of
cryptosporidiosis
based
on
the
Corso
et
al.
(
2003)
data
and
assumptions.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
L­
4
Mild
Moderate
Severe
Mild
Moderate
Severe
Mild
(
88%)
Moderate
(
11%)
Severe
(
1%)

Doctor
Visits
NA
$
45.00
$
45.00
NA
$
58.05
$
58.05
NA
95%*$
58.05
=$
55.15
29%*$
58.05
=$
16.83
Emergency
Room
Visits
NA
$
224.00
$
224.00
NA
$
288.96
$
288.96
NA
5%*$
288.96
=$
14.45
71%*$
288.96
=$
205.16
Hospital
Stays
NA
NA
$
6,152.96
NA
NA
$
7,937.32
NA
NA
100%*
7,937.32
=$
7,937.32
Ambulance
NA
$
228.00
$
228.00
NA
$
294.12
$
294.12
NA
4.9%*
5%*
$
294.12
=$
0.72
16.3%*$
294.12
=$
47.94
Medication
$
5.73
$
5.92
$
6.74
$
7.39
$
7.64
$
8.69
30%*$
7.39
=$
2.22
30%*$
7.64
=$
2.29
29%*$
8.69
=$
2.52
Medication
after
Health
Care
NA
$
8.91
$
70.52
NA
$
11.49
$
90.97
NA
54%*$
11.49
=$
6.21
48%*$
90.97=
$
43.67
Medication
Taken
upon
Reoccurrence
$
2.44
$
2.44
$
2.44
$
3.15
$
3.15
$
3.15
21%*$
3.15
=$
0.66
21%*$
3.15
=$
0.66
21%*$
3.15
=$
0.66
Totals
$
2.88
$
79.47
$
8,254.10
Weighted
Total
$
93.82
December
2000$
December
2000$
Average
Cost
[
1]

Medical
Cost
1993$
Average
Cost
Per
Patient
Exhibit
L.
2
Direct
Medical
Costs
of
a
Case
of
Cryptosporidiosis
Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding[
1]
All
direct
medical
costs
are
obtained
in
December
1993$
and
updated
by
a
1.29
CPI­
U
update
factor
to
December
2000$.
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics,
264.8
(
Dec2000$)/
205.2
(
Dec1993$)
=
1.29.
Sources:
1993$
average
cost
data
from
Corso
et
al.
(
2003).

L.
4
Calculations
for
Duration
of
Illness
for
Moderate
and
Severe
Cases
Corso
et
al.
(
2003)
does
not
provide
duration
of
illness
estimates
for
moderate
and
severe
cases,
but
does
report
that
medical
care
was
sought
in
approximately
12
percent
of
cases:
11
percent
being
"
moderate"
cases,
and
1
percent
being
"
severe"
cases..

Using
data
from
MacKenzie
et
al.
(
1994),
a
data
set
was
constructed
to
provide
a
hypothetical
population
that
could
be
evaluated
to
estimate
the
duration
of
illness
for
moderate
and
severe
cases.
This
is
because
the
MacKenzie
et
al.
(
1994)
distribution
represents
patients
with
laboratory­
confirmed
cases
of
cryptosporidiosis,
who
fit
the
requirement
that
they
sought
medical
care.
While
the
duration
of
illness
might
differ
between
those
whose
doctors
ordered
laboratory
tests
from
those
that
didn't,
no
evidence
is
available
to
suggest
a
difference
or
to
provide
a
factor
by
which
to
adjust
these
data.
In
the
absence
of
any
better
data,
the
analysis
assumes
that
this
distribution
of
illness
duration
can
be
used
to
reasonably
represent
the
collection
of
moderate
and
severe
cases.
Further,
an
assumption
is
made
that
the
severe
cases
are
best
represented
by
the
upper
tail
of
the
distribution,
and
moderate
cases
are
best
represented
by
the
lower
tail
of
the
distribution.
While
it
is
likely
the
case
that
some
severe
cases
were
of
shorter
duration
that
at
least
some
of
the
moderate
cases,
no
data
are
available
to
estimate
the
potential
overlap.
The
mean
for
moderate
cases
was
therefore
determined
by
calculating
the
average
of
the
lowest
11/
12
of
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
L­
5
the
distribution.
The
mean
for
severe
cases
was
determined
by
calculating
the
average
of
the
highest
1/
12
of
the
distribution.

The
data
set
constructed
is
intended
to
approximate
the
distribution
described
by
MacKenzie
et
al.
(
1994);
one
with
a
reported
duration
of
illness
with
a
"
range
of
1
to
55
days,
mean
of
12,
and
median
of
9."
These
summary
statistics
suggest
a
nearly
lognormal
distribution,
and
we
therefore
assumed
a
lognormal
distribution
with
parameters
mu
and
sigma,

X
=
duration
of
illness
~
lognormal
(
m
,
 
s
)

Or
equivalently,

log
(
X)
~
normal
(
m
,
s
2)

To
generate
a
population
of
data
with
a
lognormal
distribution,
the
analysis
used
a
Monte
Carlo
program
that
required
a
mean
and
standard
deviation
to
define
the
lognormal
distribution.
To
derive
the
standard
deviation
from
the
mean
and
median,
we
used
the
following
relationships
that
hold
for
all
lognormal
distributions.

1.
mean
(
X)
=
exp(
m
 
+
 
s
2
/
2
)

2.
var
(
X)
=
exp(
2
m
+
s
2)
(
exp(
s
2)
­
1)

and
3.
median
(
X)
=
exp(
median
(
log
(
X)))
=
exp(
m
)

Then,

9
=
median
(
X)
=
exp(
m
)
=>
m
=
ln
(
9)

12
=
mean
(
X)
=
exp(
m
+
s
2/
2)
=>
s
2
=
2(
ln(
12)
­
ln(
9))

Now,
using
formula
3
above
and
these
values
for
m
and
s
2
we
can
compute
the
variance
of
X
as
Var
(
X)
=
112,
which
implies
a
standard
deviation
of
10.58.

A
Monte
Carlo
program
was
used
to
generate
a
data
set
based
on
this
mean
and
standard
deviation.
In
this
program,
the
assumed
distribution
was
thus
set
at
a
mean
of
12
and
a
standard
deviation
of
10.58,
with
a
range
of
1
to
55,
and
multiplied
by
"
1
"
for
50,000
iterations.
The
derived
overall
mean
and
median
of
this
50,000
item
data
set
(
which
match
the
MacKenzie
et
al.
(
1994)
statistics
reasonably
well)
are
presented
in
Exhibit
L.
3
along
with
the
decile
distribution.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
L­
6
Exhibit
L.
3
Decile
and
Mean
for
Moderate
and
Severe
Data
Set
Value
Percentile
1.00
0%

3.25
10%

4.62
20%

5.91
30%

7.26
40%

8.79
50%

10.70
60%

13.16
70%

16.73
80%

23.31
90%

54.95
100%

11.46
mean
Source:
Monte
Carlo
simulations
based
on
MacKenzie
et
al.
1994
summary
data.

The
final
step
involves
dividing
this
data
set
into
two
parts
to
represent
moderate
and
severe
cases.
Again,
the
mean
for
moderate
cases
was
determined
by
calculating
the
average
of
the
lowest
11/
12
of
the
distribution.
The
mean
for
severe
cases
was
determined
by
calculating
the
average
of
the
highest
1/
12
of
the
distribution.
The
results
are
shown
in
Exhibit
L.
4.

Exhibit
L.
4
Mean
Duration
of
Illness
for
Moderate
and
Severe
Cases
(
Days)

Moderate
Cases
9.4
Severe
Cases
34.0
Source:
Monte
Carlo
simulations.

L.
5
Calculation
for
Weighted
Average
Days
Lost
After
calculating
the
mean
duration
of
illness
for
moderate
and
severe
cases,
data
on
the
days
with
lost
productivity,
by
severity,
can
be
derived
by
subtracting
the
mean
number
of
days
lost
from
the
mean
duration
of
illness,
for
each
severity.
The
results
are
presented
in
Exhibit
L.
5.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
L­
7
Exhibit
L.
5
Derivation
of
Days
with
Lost
Productivity
by
Severity
Row
Derivation
Time
Category
Mild
Cases
Moderate
Cases
Severe
Cases
a
Mean
Duration
of
Illness
4.7
9.4
34.0
b
Number
of
Days
Lost
1.3
3.8
13.5
c
a­
b
Days
with
Lost
Productivity
3.4
5.6
20.5
Source:
Number
of
days
lost
and
the
mean
duration
of
illness
(
mild
cases)
and
are
from
Corso
et
al.
(
2003).
Duration
of
moderate
and
severe
cases
are
from
Exhibit
L.
4.

The
days
lost
for
work,
caregivers,
and
productivity
can
be
calculated
using
the
data
from
Exhibit
L.
5
and
the
percentages
of
each
severity
of
illness
and
the
extent
of
reoccurrence.
These
data
are
shown
in
Exhibit
L.
6
Exhibit
L.
6
Weighted
Average
Days
Lost
for
Work,
Caregivers,
and
Productivity
Severity
Days
Lost
Weight
Weighted
Average
Days
Work
(
Patients)
Mild
1.3
88%
1.144
Moderate
3.8
11%
0.418
Severe
13.5
1%
0.135
Total
1.697
Caregivers
Mild
0.1
88%
0.088
Moderate
1.3
11%
0.143
Severe
3.9
1%
0.039
Total
0.270
Productivity
Losses
Mild
3.4
88%
2.992
Moderate
5.6
11%
06.616
Severe
20.5
1%
0.205
Reoccurrence
2.0
21%
0.420
Total
4.233
Source:
Exhibit
L.
5
and
Corso
et
al.
(
2003)
10Based
on
annual
average
of
monthly
figures,
U.
S.
Census
Bureau,
Statistical
Abstract
of
the
United
States,
2001,
Table
No.
582,
sourced
to
U.
S.
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics,
Employment
and
Earnings,
monthly,
January
2000
issue,
and
based
on
the
Current
Population
Survey.

11Derived
from
the
estimate
of
129,592
thousand
people
at
work
(
year
2000,
based
on
annual
average
of
monthly
figures,
U.
S.
Census
Bureau,
Statistical
Abstract
of
the
United
States,
2001,
Table
No.
582,
sourced
to
U.
S.
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics,
Employment
and
Earnings,
monthly,
January
2000
issue,
and
based
on
the
Current
Population
Survey)
of
the
209,699
thousand
people
in
this
age
range
(
year
2000,
based
on
annual
average
of
monthly
figures,
U.
S.
Census
Bureau,
Statistical
Abstract
of
the
United
States,
2001,
Table
No.
567,
sourced
to
U.
S.
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics,
Bulletin
2307
and
Employment
and
Earnings,
monthly,
and
based
on
the
Current
Population
Survey).
129,592
thousand/
209,699
thousand
=
61.8
percent.

1239.7
hours/
week
÷
7
days/
week
x
(
129,592
thousand/
209,699
thousand)=
3.5
hours/
day
(
rounded).

13
EPA's
National
Human
Activity
Pattern
Survey,
conducted
in
1992­
1993,
also
provides
data
on
time
use.
However,
the
easily
accessible
data
from
this
survey
focus
on
time
spent
in
selected
activities
and
microenvironments
for
the
purpose
of
exposure
assessment,
and
do
not
provide
the
comprehensive
summary
data
necessary
for
this
analysis.
See
USEPA
1997d
for
more
information
on
this
and
related
exposure
studies.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
L­
8
L.
6
Normal
Time
Allocation
The
U.
S.
Census
Bureau
compiles
data
on
weekly
hours
worked,
and
loss
of
work
hours
is
a
key
loss
category
used
in
this
analysis.
For
the
year
2000,
that
figure
was
39.7
hours
per
week
for
the
civilian
noninstitutional
population
16
years
old
or
older
who
are
working
full
or
part­
time.
10
This
figure
excludes
those
employed
but
not
working
because
of
vacations,
illness,
strikes,
etc.;
noncivilians;
institutionalized
persons;
and
those
in
the
labor
pool
but
unemployed.
This
group
of
workers
is
about
61.8
percent
of
the
population
in
this
age
range.
11
For
an
average
day
for
the
whole
population,
the
average
lost
work
hours
per
day
of
illness
is,
therefore,
about
3.5
hours.
12
Another
important
component
of
people's
lost
time
that
is
valued
in
the
calculation
of
benefits
is
the
time
spent
performing
nonpaid
work.
For
these
estimates,
studies
of
how
people
allocate
their
time
is
helpful.
In
recent
years,
a
number
of
research
teams
have
explored
the
allocation
of
time
across
different
activities.
For
example,
a
recent
National
Research
Council
(
2000)
study
lists
more
than
50
major
timeuse
surveys
that
have
been
completed
internationally.
However,
the
majority
of
the
studies
completed
in
recent
years
address
countries
other
than
the
United
States,
including
Australia,
the
European
Community,
Japan,
New
Zealand,
and
Canada.
The
most
recent
U.
S.
studies
were
completed
by
the
University
of
Michigan
in
1981­
1982
and
by
the
University
of
Maryland
in
1985;
the
United
States
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
is
in
the
process
of
developing
a
new
time­
use
study
and
expects
the
results
to
be
available
in
2004
(
United
States
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics,
undated).

These
studies
generally
address
the
allocation
of
time
across
a
large
number
of
different
activities.
For
example,
the
proposed
U.
S.
survey
may
include
nine
groups
(
personal
care,
employment
activities,
education
activities,
domestic
activities,
care
for
dependent
household
members,
purchasing
activities,
voluntary
work
and
care,
social
and
community
interaction,
and
recreation
and
leisure)
that
are
subdivided
into
99
subgroups,
each
of
which
is
further
subdivided
into
a
number
of
discrete
categories
(
National
Research
Council
2000).
13
For
the
purpose
of
analyzing
time
losses
associated
with
nonfatal
cases
of
cryptosporidiosis,
the
dollar
value
applied
(
as
discussed
below)
varies
across
three
larger
categories:
paid
work,
unpaid
work,
and
leisure
activities,
so
more
aggregate
data
can
be
used.
1440
hours/
week
÷
7
days/
week
x
(
1­
129,592
thousand/
209,699
thousand
)=
2.18
hours/
day
(
rounded).

1524
hours
­
8
hours
sleep
­
3.5
paid
hours(
rounded)
­
2.18
unpaid
hours(
rounded)
=
10.3
hours/
day
(
rounded).

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
L­
9
In
lieu
of
a
recent
United
States­
based
study,
assumptions
were
made
about
time
usage,
which
were
then
compared
to
existing
data
for
reasonableness.
Specifically,
this
economic
analysis
computes
unpaid
work
time
using
40
hours
per
week
and
applying
it
to
the
38.2
percent
of
the
population
not
otherwise
employed.
While
applied
to
the
population
of
unpaid
individuals,
this
estimate
is
not
an
assumption
that
this
entire
population
is
performing
full
time
(
although
unpaid)
work,
because
this
group
includes
infants,
retired
persons,
and
others.
Nor
is
it
an
assumption
that
paid
workers
do
not
also
perform
unpaid
work.
For
an
average
day
for
the
whole
population,
the
average
lost
unpaid
work
hours
per
day
of
illness
is
about
2.18
hours.
14
This
analysis
also
assumes
that,
for
the
population
as
a
whole,
leisure
time
is
the
time
left
after
sleep
time
(
which
is
assumed
to
be
8
hours)
and
the
time
spent
in
paid
and
unpaid
work.
That
estimate
for
leisure
time
is
then
about
10.3
hours
per
day.
15
These
estimates
compare
reasonably
with
other
studies.
For
example,
a
recent
Canadian
study
addresses
a
different
population
but
has
similar
results.
Exhibit
L.
7
summarizes
the
results
of
the
Canadian
study,
which
provides
national
estimates
for
individuals
ages
15
and
older
in
1998.
The
hours
per
day
estimates
are
based
on
a
7­
day
week
for
all
time
categories.
It
seems
reasonable
to
expect
that
Canadian
time­
use
patterns
will
be
similar
to
U.
S.
patterns
due
to
the
proximity
of
the
two
countries
and
the
extent
of
interaction
between
their
populations.

Exhibit
L.
7
Time
Allocation
Estimates
Compared
to
1998
Canadian
Study
(
hours)

Time
Category
Estimates
Used
in
EA
(
rounded
data)
Canadian
Estimates
Market
Work
3.5
3.3
Nonwork
(
nonmarket
work
and
leisure)
12.5
12.6
Nonmarket
(
unpaid)
Work
2.2
Leisure
10.3
Sleep
8.0
8.1
Note:
Market
work
includes
paid
work
time
only.
The
nonmarket
and
leisure
category
includes
all
other
activities
except
sleep,
including
unpaid
work­
related
activities
such
as
commuting
time.
Sleep
includes
night
sleep
only.

Source:
Canadian
data
from
Statistics
Canada
1999
and
see
text
and
footnotes.

The
time
allocation
estimates
also
appear
not
to
be
inconsistent
with
data
from
other
sources.
In
16
See,
for
example,
Final
Heavy
Duty
Engine/
Fuel
Rule:
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards.

17$
576
per
week/
43.4
work
hours
per
week
=
$
13.27
per
hour.
Although
rounded
data
are
shown
here,
full
precision
was
used
in
all
calculations.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
L­
10
particular,
the
estimates
of
time
devoted
to
night
sleep
are
similar
across
studies.
For
the
United
States,
1985
data
indicate
that
individuals
aged
18­
64
averaged
7.8
hours
of
night
sleep
(
USEPA
1997d).
A
1998­
1999
New
Zealand
study
found
that
individuals
aged
12
years
and
older
devoted
8.6
hours
to
sleep,
but
did
not
distinguish
between
night
sleep
and
naps
(
Statistics
New
Zealand
1999).

L.
7
Dollar
Value
of
Time
Losses
This
analysis
uses
compensation
data
to
estimate
the
opportunity
costs
of
lost
work
and
nonwork
time.
There
are
numerous
sources
of
U.
S.
compensation
data,
each
of
which
focuses
on
somewhat
different
data
elements
and
uses
different
approaches
to
data
collection.
The
estimates
developed
for
this
analysis
are
based
on
well­
established
and
frequently
cited
sources
of
national
data,
relying
largely
on
year
2000
data
included
in
the
Statistical
Abstract
of
the
United
States.

The
starting
point
for
the
development
of
these
estimates
is
median
weekly
earnings
for
the
year
2000
for
full
time
workers
($
576
per
week),
as
reported
by
the
United
States
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
(
United
States
Census
Bureau,
November
2001,
Table
621).
This
value
is
derived
from
the
Current
Population
Survey
and
includes
wages
and
salaries,
but
not
other
costs
(
e.
g.,
benefits)
paid
by
the
employer.

This
analysis
uses
median
rather
than
average
earnings
as
the
starting
point,
consistent
with
other
EPA
analyses.
16
The
distribution
of
income
in
the
United
States
is
highly
skewed
due
to
the
small
number
of
people
who
are
extremely
highly
compensated,
hence
average
income
is
significantly
higher
than
the
median.
Use
of
the
median
reflects
the
notion
that
the
small
fraction
of
the
U.
S.
population
affected
by
this
rulemaking
are
likely
to
be
better
represented
by
the
median
than
by
the
mean
value,
which
is
closer
to
the
upper
tail
of
the
distribution.

The
next
step
is
conversion
of
this
value
to
earnings
per
hour.
According
to
the
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics,
individuals
usually
working
full
time
averaged
43.4
hours
per
week
at
work
in
2000
(
United
States
Census
Bureau,
November
2001,
Table
582).
This
means
that
median
earnings
per
hour
averaged
about
$
13.2717.

For
market
work
time,
the
measure
of
opportunity
costs
used
in
this
analysis
is
total
pre­
tax
compensation
from
the
perspective
of
the
employer.
The
earnings
number
reported
above
does
not
reflect
employer
paid
benefits.
To
adjust
this
estimate
upwards
to
reflect
total
compensation,
the
analysis
uses
the
ratio
of
average
wages
and
salaries
to
average
total
compensation,
as
reported
by
the
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
for
private
industry
workers
for
2000
(
United
States
Census
Bureau,
December
2000,
Table
701).
These
data
show
that
total
compensation
per
hour
averages
about
1.4
times
wages
and
18
$
22.62
total
compensation
per
hour
/
$
16.25
salary
and
wages
per
hour
=
1.4.
The
earnings
per
hour
estimates
vary
across
data
sources
depending
on
sample
characteristics,
whether
mean
or
median
values
are
reported,
and
other
factors.

19($
576
per
week/
43.4
work
hours
per
week
)
x
($
22.62
total
compensation
per
hour
/
$
16.25
salary
and
wages
per
hour)
=
$
18.47
per
hour.
Although
rounded
data
are
shown
here
and
in
the
text,
full
precision
was
used
in
all
calculations.

20This
median
income
estimates
differ
from
the
earnings
estimates
cited
earlier
because
it
reflects
household
income,
rather
than
individual
earnings,
and
relies
on
a
different
data
source.
With
additional
precision,
the
estimate
of
after
tax
earning
is
$
10.9154;
but
full
precision
was
used
in
all
calculations.

21
A
pioneering
example
of
this
approach
is
Rice
1966;
a
more
recent
example
is
Thamer
et
al.
1998.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
L­
11
salaries
for
full
time
workers.
18
Using
these
data
to
adjust
median
hourly
earnings
(
as
reported
above)
leads
to
an
estimate
of
about
$
18.47
per
hour
for
total
compensation19.

For
nonwork
time
(
excluding
sleep),
two
measures
were
used
(
see
Appendix
K
for
more
background
on
these
measures).
The
first
measure,
used
in
the
Enhanced
Cost
of
Illness
(
Enhanced
COI),
is
after­
tax
earnings,
i.
e.,
the
"
take
home"
pay
of
the
median
working
individual.
This
analysis
relies
on
Current
Population
Survey
data
on
household
income
before
and
after
taxes
(
United
States
Census
Bureau,
March
2002)
to
determine
the
percent
of
earnings
paid
as
taxes.
In
2000,
the
median
before
tax
income
was
$
42,151
and
median
after
tax
income
was
$
34,667.20
Thus,
after
tax
income
was
about
82.2
percent
of
the
pre­
tax
amount.
Applying
these
data
to
median
hourly
earnings
leads
to
estimated
after
tax
earnings
of
about
$
10.92
per
hour.
This
figure
was
used
to
value
both
lost
unpaid
work
time
and
lost
leisure
time
in
the
Enhanced
COI.
It
was
also
a
component
of
the
value
of
the
lost
caregiver
time.

A
second
measure
was
used
to
value
lost
unpaid
work
time
for
the
Traditional
COI.
The
value
is
half
of
the
after­
tax
wage,
or
about
$
5.46
per
hour.
The
use
of
50
percent
of
the
wage
rate
is
consistent
with
the
common
practice
in
the
human
capital
literature
of
valuing
nonmarket
work
time
at
the
market
rate
for
domestic
workers21.
This
literature
uses
replacement
costs
as
a
measure
of
the
productivity
of
nonmarket
work,
rather
than
focusing
on
the
opportunity
costs
(
or
utility
loss)
for
the
individual
who
chooses
to
engage
in
nonmarket
work.
The
median
weekly
earnings
of
private
household
workers
in
the
service
industry
were
$
261
per
week
in
2000,
about
45
percent
of
the
median
weekly
earnings
of
$
576
for
all
workers
(
U.
S.
Census
Bureau
Table
621).
Private
household
workers
include
childcare
workers,
cleaners,
and
servants.
The
Traditional
COI
does
not
include
values
for
lost
leisure
time
or
lost
productivity.
The
results
of
these
calculations
are
reported
in
Exhibit
L.
8
below.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
L­
12
Exhibit
L.
8
Per
Hour
Dollar
Values
Time
Loss
Category
Basis
for
Estimate
of
Value
Per
Hour
Dollar
Value
(
rounded)

Lost
work
time
Median
gross
(
pre­
tax)
wage
plus
benefits
$
18.47
Lost
unpaid
work
day
and
leisure
time
(
Enhanced
COI)
Median
after­
tax
wage
$
10.92
Lost
unpaid
work
time
(
Traditional
COI)
Half
the
median
after­
tax
wage
$
5.46
Note:
Rounded
data
are
shown
here,
but
full
precision
was
used
in
all
calculations.
Sources:
Derived
from
U.
S.
Census
Bureau
2000,
U.
S.
Census
Bureau
2001,
and
U.
S.
Census
Bureau
March
2002.

Exhibit
L.
9
multiplies
these
dollar­
per­
hour
values
by
the
time
allocations
(
rounded
data
are
presented
in
Exhibit
L.
7)
to
determine
the
weighted
average
value
of
time
per
hour
and
per
day.

Exhibit
L.
9
Value
of
Time
Enhanced
COI
Time
Loss
Category
Hours
Per
Day
of
Illness
Per
Hour
Value
Per
Day
Value
(
weighted
by
time)

Lost
Work
Time
3.505
$
18.474
$
64.75
Lost
Unpaid
Work
Time
2.183
$
10.915
$
23.83
Lost
Leisure
Time
10.312
$
10.915
$
112.56
Subtotal
16.000
Lost
Caregiver
Day
Sum
of
weighted
lost
paid
and
unpaid
work
and
leisure
days
$
201.14
Traditional
COI
Time
Loss
Category
Hours
Per
Day
of
Illness
Per
Hour
Value
Per
Day
Value
(
weighted
by
time)

Lost
Work
Day
3.505
$
18.474
$
64.75
Lost
Unpaid
Work
Day
2.183
$
5.458
$
11.91
Subtotal
5.688
Lost
Caregiver
Day
Sum
of
weighted
lost
paid
and
unpaid
work
days
$
76.66
Note:
Rounded
data
are
shown
here,
but
full
precision
was
used
in
all
calculations.

Source:
Exhibits
L.
7
and
L.
8.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
L­
13
L.
8
Lost
Productivity
(
Enhanced
COI
Only)

Time
losses
associated
with
nonfatal
cases
of
cryptosporidiosis
may
include
(
1)
a
reduction
in
time
(
hours)
engaged
in
normal
activities
and
(
2)
an
additional
loss
of
productivity
(
or
effectiveness)
that
occurs
even
when
the
ill
individual
continues
to
engage
in
normal
activities.
Reductions
in
time
(
or
hours)
would
result,
for
example,
when
an
ill
individual
spends
time
on
doctor
visits,
bed
rest,
or
in
the
hospital
rather
than
engaging
in
normal
work
and
nonwork
activities.
Additional
losses
in
productivity
occur
when
the
individual
continues
to
engage
in
normal
activities,
but
is
less
productive
or
finds
them
less
enjoyable
due
to
illness.
In
this
Economic
Analysis,
the
Enhanced
COI
includes
estimates
for
lost
productivity,
but
the
Traditional
COI
does
not.

The
estimate
used
for
lost
productivity
assumes
that
time
spent
in
normal
activities
is
30
percent
less
productive
than
it
would
be
normally,
i.
e.,
an
individual
produces
30
percent
less
per
unit
of
time
engaged
in
market
or
nonmarket
work,
and
is
30
percent
less
effective
at
leisure
activities.
Furthermore,
the
best
estimate
assumes
that
the
dollar
value
(
i.
e.,
the
utility
loss,
estimated
based
on
opportunity
costs)
of
this
reduction
is
equal
to
the
reduction
in
productivity
multiplied
by
the
relevant
dollar
per
hour
value
(
from
Exhibit
L.
9
above).
In
other
words,
the
30
percent
loss
in
productivity
is
multiplied
by
$
64.75
per
day
to
estimate
the
value
of
reduced
productivity
while
at
work,
and
by
$
23.83
per
day
to
estimate
the
value
of
reduced
productivity
while
engaged
in
unpaid
work,
and
by
$
112.56
per
day
for
leisure
activities.
As
noted
earlier,
the
value
of
sleep
time
is
conservatively
estimated
as
"
zero"
as
the
effect
of
illness
on
sleep
time
is
not
quantified
in
this
analysis.

The
30
percent
productivity
loss
is
based
on
Harrington
et
al.
(
1991),
which
reports
the
results
of
a
survey
of
individuals
affected
by
a
1983
giardiasis
outbreak
in
Luzerne
County,
Pennsylvania.
In
addition
to
asking
questions
about
missed
work
time,
the
Harrington
et
al.
survey
asks:

"
If
you
went
to
work
during
this
illness,
did
your
illness
affect
your
ability
to
work
as
hard
as
you
usually
do
at
your
job?"
(
Harrington
et
al.
(
1991),
p.
126)

This
question
was
followed
by
a
bounded
multiple
choice
question
regarding
the
percent
decrease
in
normal
capacity
while
working
with
the
illness.
The
researchers
found
that
respondents
identified
as
workers
reported
a
30.4
percent
loss,
while
those
identified
as
homemakers
reported
a
34.0
percent
loss
(
Harrington
et
al.
(
1991),
p.
103).
For
the
analysis
of
cryptosporidiosis
contained
in
this
report,
these
values
are
rounded
to
30
percent.
These
losses
are
to
the
employer
for
paid
work
time,
and
to
the
individual
for
nonpaid
work.

In
addition
to
applying
this
30
percent
loss
rate
to
market
and
nonmarket
work
time,
the
Enhanced
COI
analysis
applies
this
rate
to
leisure
time.
The
Harrington
et
al.
survey
asked
respondents
whether
their
leisure
activities
changed
as
a
result
of
the
illness,
as
well
as
whether
the
illness
required
them
to
change
their
normal
routines.
While
percentage
losses
were
not
requested
for
time
engaged
in
leisure
activities
while
ill,
the
survey
results
did
confirm
that
these
activities
were
altered
as
a
result
of
the
illness.
While
these
changes
in
leisure
activities
are
partially
captured
in
the
analysis
of
time
losses
(
i.
e.,
decreased
hours
spent
in
work,
nonwork,
and
leisure
activities),
it
appears
reasonable
to
assume
that
the
utility
or
pleasure
associated
with
those
leisure
activities
that
are
pursued
while
ill
is
also
reduced
as
a
result
of
the
illness.

The
effects
of
giardiasis
are
very
similar
to
the
effects
of
cryptosporidiosis,
and
a
review
of
the
literature
failed
to
identify
any
other
recent
U.
S.
studies
that
report
productivity
losses
for
similar
gastrointestinal
illnesses.
The
Harrington
et
al.
estimate
of
an
approximately
30
percent
reduction
appears
reasonable
based
on
review
of
studies
estimating
productivity
losses
due
to
other
illnesses,
as
discussed
in
more
detail
in
Appendix
P.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
L­
14
L.
9
Estimates
for
Enhanced
and
Traditional
Costs
of
Illness
The
data
discussed
throughout
this
appendix
are
the
basis
for
the
Traditional
and
Enhanced
Cost
of
Illness
and
are
presented
in
Exhibit
L.
10.
These
estimates
are
discussed
in
Chapter
5,
section
5.3.1
and
are
used
to
estimate
morbidity
benefits.

Exhibit
L.
10
Total
Loss
Per
Case,
Enhanced
and
Traditional
COI
Loss
Category
Average
Days
Lost
Per
Illness
Value
Per
Day
(
weighted
by
time)
Total
Loss
Per
Case
Enhanced
COI
Traditional
COI
Enhanced
COI
Traditional
COI
A
x
B
A
x
C
A
B
C
D
E
Total
$
744.89
$
244.62
Direct
Medical
Costs
$
93.82
$
93.82
Lost
Time
Subtotal
$
651.07
$
150.80
Lost
Paid
Work
Days
1.697
$
64.75
$
64.75
$
109.88
$
109.88
Lost
Unpaid
Work
Days
$
23.83
$
11.91
$
40.44
$
20.22
Lost
Leisure
Time
$
112.56
­
$
191.02
­

Lost
Caregiver
Days
0.270
$
201.14
$
76.66
$
54.31
$
20.70
Lost
Leisure
Productivity
4.233
$
112.56
x
30%
­
$
142.94
­

Lost
Productivity
at
Work
($
64.75
+
$
23.83)
x
30%
­
$
112.49
­

Note:
Detail
may
not
calculate
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Source:
Exhibits
L.
6
and
L.
9.

L.
10
Year­
By­
Year
Estimates
for
Enhanced
and
Traditional
Costs
of
Illness
Using
data
presented
in
Appendix
C
and
Exhibit
C.
12,
the
data
presented
in
Exhibit
L.
10
are
adjusted
to
reflect
increases
in
income
growth
and,
therefore,
the
value
of
time,
each
year
to
2027.
This
increase
in
income
growth
means
that
the
cost
of
an
illness
would
increase
over
time
because
lost
time
is
recovered
by
wage
rates
or
their
equivalent.
The
same
per­
capita
GDP
values
used
to
value
mortality
in
the
future
(
and
presented
in
Exhibit
C.
12),
are
employed
to
compute
income
growth
between
the
future
year
and
the
year
2000
(
the
baseline
year
for
cost
of
illness
calculations).
Using
the
data
from
2000
as
the
base
year,
the
lost
time
portion
of
the
cost
of
illness
is
adjusted
to
reflect
the
annual
percent
change
in
income
(
the
real
GDP
per
capita).
In
the
benefits
model,
the
cases
avoided
in
each
year
are
valued
as
shown
in
Exhibit
L.
11
(
using
unrounded
data).
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
L­
15
Exhibit
L.
11
Yearly
Total
Loss
Per
Case,
Enhanced
and
Traditional
COI
Year
Annual
Percent
Change
in
Income
(
Real
GDP
per
Capita)
Lost
Time
Direct
Medical
Costs
Total
Loss
Per
Case
Enhanced
COI
Traditional
COI
Enhanced
COI
Traditional
COI
(
1
+
A)
x
previous
year
(
1
+
A)
x
previous
year
B
+
D
C
+
D
A
B
C
D
E
F
2000
Base
Year
$
651.07
$
150.80
$
93.82
$
744.89
$
244.62
2001
0.1%
$
651.67
$
150.94
$
93.82
$
802.61
$
244.76
2002
­
0.1%
$
651.02
$
150.79
$
93.82
$
801.81
$
244.61
2003
3.2%
$
671.74
$
155.59
$
93.82
$
827.32
$
249.41
2004
2.4%
$
687.90
$
159.33
$
93.82
$
847.23
$
253.15
2005
2.4%
$
704.55
$
163.19
$
93.82
$
867.74
$
257.01
2006
2.4%
$
721.69
$
167.16
$
93.82
$
888.85
$
260.98
2007
2.4%
$
739.31
$
171.24
$
93.82
$
910.55
$
265.06
2008
2.3%
$
755.96
$
175.10
$
93.82
$
931.06
$
268.92
2009
2.3%
$
773.04
$
179.05
$
93.82
$
952.09
$
272.87
2010
2.3%
$
790.55
$
183.11
$
93.82
$
973.66
$
276.93
2011
2.3%
$
808.49
$
187.26
$
93.82
$
995.75
$
281.08
2012
2.3%
$
826.81
$
191.51
$
93.82
$
1,018.32
$
285.33
2013
2.3%
$
845.55
$
195.84
$
93.82
$
1,041.39
$
289.66
2014
2.3%
$
864.71
$
200.28
$
93.82
$
1,065.00
$
294.10
2015
2.3%
$
884.34
$
204.83
$
93.82
$
1,089.17
$
298.65
2016
2.3%
$
904.44
$
209.49
$
93.82
$
1,113.93
$
303.31
2017
2.3%
$
925.04
$
214.26
$
93.82
$
1,139.29
$
308.08
2018
2.3%
$
946.16
$
219.15
$
93.82
$
1,165.30
$
312.97
2019
2.3%
$
967.82
$
224.16
$
93.82
$
1,191.18
$
317.98
2020
2.3%
$
990.04
$
229.31
$
93.82
$
1,219.36
$
323.13
2021
2.3%
$
1,012.81
$
234.59
$
93.82
$
1,247.40
$
328.41
2022
2.3%
$
1,036.11
$
239.98
$
93.82
$
1,276.09
$
333.80
Year
Annual
Percent
Change
in
Income
(
Real
GDP
per
Capita)
Lost
Time
Direct
Medical
Costs
Total
Loss
Per
Case
Enhanced
COI
Traditional
COI
Enhanced
COI
Traditional
COI
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
L­
16
2023
2.3%
$
1,059.95
$
245.50
$
93.82
$
1,305.45
$
339.32
2024
2.3%
$
1,084.35
$
251.15
$
93.82
$
1,335.50
$
344.97
2025
2.3%
$
1,109.31
$
256.94
$
93.82
$
1,366.25
$
350.76
2026
2.3%
$
1,134.88
$
262.86
$
93.82
$
1,397.74
$
356.68
2027
2.3%
$
1,161.07
$
268.93
$
93.82
$
1,429.99
$
362.75
Note:
Full
precision
is
used
in
model
calculations.
Rounded
data
are
shown
here.
The
Traditional
COI
only
includes
valuation
for
medical
costs
and
lost
work
time
(
including
some
portion
of
unpaid
household
production).
The
Enhanced
COI
also
factors
in
valuations
for
lost
personal
time
(
non­
work
time)
such
as
child
care
and
homemaking
(
to
the
extent
not
covered
by
the
traditional
COI),
time
with
family,
and
recreation,
and
lost
productivity
at
work
on
days
when
workers
are
ill
but
go
to
work
anyway.
Source:
Col.
A:
Exhibit
C.
12
Year
2000
and
Col.
D:
Exhibit
L.
10.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
M­
1
Appendix
M
Small
Community
Surface
Water
and
GWUDI
Systems
by
State
This
appendix
presents
the
data
used
to
develop
Exhibits
7.7
and
7.8,
which
depict
the
percent
of
the
population
of
CWSs
served
by
small
surface
and
GWUDI
systems.
The
numbers
are
based
on
the
total
unlinked
population
served
by
CWSs
using
surface
water
or
GWUDI,
derived
directly
from
SDWIS
4th
Quarter
Year
2000
Freeze
data,
adjusted
for
reporting
errors
in
Massachusetts
and
Montana
(
USEPA
2000f).

Exhibit
M.
1
Small
Community
Surface
Water
and
GWUDI
Systems
by
State
State
Number
of
Small
Community
SW
&
GWUDI
Systems
Population
Served
by
Small
Community
SW
&
GWUDI
Systems
Population
Served
by
All
SW
&
GWUDI
Systems
Percent
of
CWS
Population
Served
by
Small
Community
SW
&
GWUDI
Systems
A
B
C
D
=
B/
C
Alabama
178
628,064
3,503,275
17.9%

Alaska
117
107,863
271,337
39.8%

American
Samoa
10
2,840
2,840
100.0%

Arizona
34
37,338
3,135,983
1.2%

Arkansas
241
477,532
1,373,810
34.8%

California
520
1,031,906
25,896,708
4.0%

Colorado
220
385,258
3,470,578
11.1%

Connecticut
39
125,441
2,346,030
5.3%

Delaware
1
425
457,225
0.1%

D.
C.
0
0
595,000
0.0%

Florida
39
127,394
2,229,070
5.7%

Georgia
132
457,114
5,109,405
8.9%

Guam
1
1,635
88,850
1.8%

Hawaii
13
29,516
87,582
33.7%

Idaho
56
51,287
251,339
20.4%

Illinois
414
933,392
8,229,110
11.3%

Indiana
83
236,918
2,262,499
10.5%

Iowa
125
207,153
1,251,348
16.6%
State
Number
of
Small
Community
SW
&
GWUDI
Systems
Population
Served
by
Small
Community
SW
&
GWUDI
Systems
Population
Served
by
All
SW
&
GWUDI
Systems
Percent
of
CWS
Population
Served
by
Small
Community
SW
&
GWUDI
Systems
A
B
C
D
=
B/
C
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
M­
2
Kansas
308
342,461
1,672,967
20.5%

Kentucky
256
948,948
3,993,419
23.8%

Louisiana
46
161,734
2,066,994
7.8%

Maine
45
100,048
412,960
24.2%

Maryland
52
105,213
4,094,391
2.6%

Massachusetts
56
200,376
6,851,895
2.9%

Michigan
191
602,871
5,328,797
11.3%

Minnesota
21
78,032
1,408,686
5.5%

Mississippi
5
6,943
110,609
6.3%

Missouri
210
388,584
3,143,083
12.4%

Montana
85
126,057
850,453
14.8%

N.
Mariana
Is.
0
0
50,769
0.0%

Nebraska
12
24,505
555,814
4.4%

Nevada
33
51,986
1,392,181
3.7%

New
Hampshire
42
99,409
495,395
20.1%

New
Jersey
30
172,144
5,276,474
3.3%

New
Mexico
28
46,568
204,868
22.7%

New
York
683
1,135,884
13,279,347
8.6%

North
Carolina
464
771,762
4,446,374
17.4%

North
Dakota
55
57,478
349,257
16.5%

Ohio
219
542,683
6,809,974
8.0%

Oklahoma
588
775,578
2,775,685
27.9%

Oregon
173
276,869
2,455,009
11.3%

Palau
14
11,660
11,660
100.0%

Pennsylvania
360
830,393
8,980,210
9.2%

Puerto
Rico
172
233,267
4,378,264
5.3%

Rhode
Island
12
56,276
823,380
6.8%
State
Number
of
Small
Community
SW
&
GWUDI
Systems
Population
Served
by
Small
Community
SW
&
GWUDI
Systems
Population
Served
by
All
SW
&
GWUDI
Systems
Percent
of
CWS
Population
Served
by
Small
Community
SW
&
GWUDI
Systems
A
B
C
D
=
B/
C
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
M­
3
South
Carolina
126
413,124
2,636,666
15.7%

South
Dakota
117
106,791
381,709
28.0%

Tennessee
348
957,072
3,754,947
25.5%

Texas
789
1,695,522
14,161,144
12.0%

Utah
53
125,593
1,616,005
7.8%

Vermont
97
163,141
361,954
45.1%

Virginia
266
521,961
6,033,605
8.7%

Virgin
Islands
133
30,473
94,473
32.3%

Washington
159
231,714
2,703,880
8.6%

West
Virginia
322
554,247
1,549,200
35.8%

Wisconsin
17
61,678
1,661,338
3.7%

Wyoming
71
100,020
295,789
33.8%

Note:
Systems
that
are
wholesalers
serving
a
population
of
0
or
1
were
not
included
in
this
analysis.
Unlinked
system
numbers
were
used
for
this
analysis.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
N­
1
June
2003
Appendix
N
Dose­
Response
Infectivity
Analysis
The
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA
or
the
Agency)
revised
its
dose­
response
infectivity
analysis
in
response
to
the
report
produced
from
the
December
12,
2001,
Science
Advisory
Board
(
SAB)
meeting.
The
SAB
report
recommended
removing
the
results
of
the
experiment
using
the
UCP
isolate
of
Cryptosporidium
parvum
from
the
dose­
response
analysis,
based
on
concerns
about
the
age
of
the
isolate
and
its
poor
performance
in
cell
culture
assays.
Based
on
discussions
with
Dr.
Cynthia
Chappell,
author
of
the
study
reporting
the
UCP
results,
EPA
decided
to
run
the
analysis
in
a
way
to
combine
distributions
that
included
and
excluded
the
UCP
data.

With
only
two
(
IOWA
and
TAMU
(
Texas
A&
M
University)
Cryptosporidium
isolates)
or
three
(
IOWA,
TAMU,
and
UCP
isolates)
studies,
model
uncertainty
is
a
concern.
To
address
model
uncertainty,
SAB
statisticians
recommended
using
a
50/
50
mix
of
two
models;
lognormal
and
log­
t
(
3
degrees
of
freedom).
Because
the
exponential
dose­
response
parameter
r
is
a
probability,
lognormal
and
log­
t
distributions
would
have
to
be
constrained
to
less
than
0
(
ln(
1)
=
0).
To
overcome
the
technical
difficulty
posed
by
this
truncation,
EPA
uses
logit
rather
than
natural
logarithms.
The
two
models
are
logit­
normal
and
logit­
t.
For
the
logit­
normal
model,
logit(
r)
is
normally
distributed
with
parameters
mu
and
sigma.
For
the
logit­
t
model,
[
logit(
r)
­
mu]
/
sigma
is
t
distributed
with
3
degrees
of
freedom.

Thus,
the
analysis
combines
the
results
of
four
models
(
Exhibit
N.
1).
The
analysis
samples
results
from
each
of
these
four
models
equally
during
iterations
in
the
Monte
Carlo
benefits
model.

Exhibit
N.
1
The
Four
Models
Studies
Used
Logit(
r)
~
Normal
Logit(
r)
~
t3
IOWA,
TAMU,
and
UCP
MODEL
1
MODEL
2
IOWA
and
TAMU
MODEL
1b
MODEL
2b
This
is
accomplished
by
using
the
program
BUGS
to
estimate
model
parameters
(
mu,
sigma)
for
each
model.
The
program
produced
a
large
sample
(
10,000
mu­
sigma
pairs)
for
each
model.
For
each
mu­
sigma
pair,
the
expectation
of
r
(
E(
r))
was
computed
for
use
in
the
benefits
model.

In
each
outer
loop
(
uncertainty)
of
the
benefits
model,
a
single
value
of
E(
r)
is
selected.
Daily
probability
of
infection
is
then
computed
as
1
­
e­
E(
r)*
vol*
V*
C,
where
vol
is
the
volume
of
water
ingested
during
a
day
(
liters),
V
is
the
infectivity
of
environmental
oocysts
(
compared
to
the
infectivity
of
dosestudy
oocysts),
and
C
is
the
finished
water
concentration
(
oocysts
per
liter).
The
values
of
E(
r)
are
means,
and
thus
the
model
only
includes
uncertainty
in
E(
r),
and
no
variability.

The
sections
that
follow
provide
details
on
the
data,
the
analysis
model
(
including
priors),
Markov
Chain
Monte
Carlo
(
MCMC)
performance,
model
output,
and
output
data
processing.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
N­
2
June
2003
N.
1
Data
Dose­
response
data
come
from
three
studies:
IOWA,
TAMU,
and
UCP.
Exhibits
N.
2,
N.
3,
and
N.
4
display
the
data
for
the
three
studies.
The
IOWA
study
involved
the
greatest
number
of
subjects
and
the
greatest
range
of
dose
levels.
Exhibit
N.
2
shows
that
the
fraction
infected
(
number
infected
divided
by
number
of
subjects)
tends
to
increase
with
dose
and
that
all
those
dosed
at
the
highest
levels
became
infected.

Exhibit
N.
2
IOWA
Study
Data
i
Dose
=
IOWAd(
i)
No.
of
Subjects
=
IOWAs(
i)
No.
of
Infections
=
IOWAi(
i)
Percent
Infected
=
IOWAi(
i)/
IOWAs(
i)
1
30
5
2
40%
2
100
8
4
50%
3
300
3
2
67%
4
500
6
5
83%
5
1,000
2
2
100%
6
10,000
3
3
100%
7
100,000
1
1
100%
8
1,000,000
1
1
100%

Exhibit
N.
3
TAMU
Study
Data
k
Dose
=
TAMUd(
k)
No.
of
Subjects
=
TAMUs(
k)
No.
of
Infections
=
TAMUi(
k)
Percent
Infected
=
TAMUi(
k)/
IOWAs(
k)
1
10
3
2
67%
2
30
3
2
67%
3
100
3
3
100%
4
500
5
5
100%

Exhibit
N.
4
UCP
Study
Data
i
Dose
=
UCPd(
j)
No.
of
Subjects
=
UCPs(
j)
No.
of
Infections
=
UCPi(
j)
Percent
Infected
=
UCPi(
j)/
UCPs(
j)
1
500
5
3
60%
2
1,000
3
2
67%
3
5,000
5
2
40%
4
10,000
4
4
100%
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
N­
3
June
2003
N.
2
Analysis
Models
The
probability
of
infection
depends
on
the
dose
and
the
isolate's
dose­
response
parameter,
r:

Pr{
infection
|
dose}
=
1
­
e
­
r*
dose
Subjects
given
the
same
dose
independently
share
the
same
probability
of
infection.
Given
S
subjects
at
dose
D,
the
number
actually
infected
is
a
binomial
random
variable
with
parameters
S
and
(
1
­
e
­
r*
D).

Different
isolates
have
different
dose­
response
parameters.
Only
two
(
or
three)
isolates
were
studied;
IOWA
and
TAMU
(
and
UCP).
Their
dose­
response
parameters
are
called
IOWA,
TAMU,
and
UCP,
respectively.
These
parameters
are
assumed
to
represent
a
much
larger
population
of
doseresponse
parameters.
Under
the
logit­
normal
model
(
MODEL
1
and
MODEL
1b),
the
distribution
of
logit(
r)
is
normal
with
unknown
parameters
(
mu,
phi),
where
phi
is
precision,
1/
sigma2.
Under
the
logit­
t
model
(
MODEL
2
and
MODEL
2b)
the
distribution
of
[
logit(
r)­
mu]
/
phi1/
2
is
Student's
t
with
3
degrees
of
freedom.

Prior
to
reviewing
the
data,
not
much
could
be
known
about
parameters
mu
and
phi
for
these
models.
It
would
be
very
surprising
if
mu
were
to
lie
outside
the
range
(­
14.2,
2.2)
or
if
phi
were
to
lie
outside
the
range
[
0.04,
100].
If
mu
were
less
than
­
14.2
(
eventually
rounded
to
­
14
in
the
model),
then
the
median
value
of
r
would
be
less
than
10­
6.
If
mu
were
greater
than
2.2,
then
the
median
value
of
r
would
exceed
0.9.
It
would
not
be
credible
for
the
median
value
for
r
(
the
probability
of
infection,
given
exactly
one
oocyst
ingested)
to
be
outside
the
range
(
10­
6,
0.9).

Regarding
phi,
it
would
be
unlikely
that
a
95
percent
interval
for
logit(
r)
could
be
much
wider
than
logit(
10­
5)
to
logit(
0.5).
This
interval
is
11.513
logit
units
wide.
If
a
2­
sigma
interval
(
containing
68.3
percent
of
the
probability
mass)
is
10
logit
units
wide,
the
corresponding
precision,
phi,
would
be
0.04.
At
the
other
extreme,
it
would
not
be
surprising
if
the
precision
were
very
large.
A
precision
of
100
would
correspond
to
a
standard
deviation
of
1/
10,
which
would
require
the
relative
standard
deviation
of
r
to
be
about
10
percent.
Given
the
differences
in
isolate
sources,
history,
and
handling,
it
would
not
be
credible
that
the
standard
deviation
of
r
could
be
smaller
than
this.
Therefore,
the
feasible
range
for
phi
is
(
0.04,
100).

Within
these
ranges,
(­
14,
and
2.2)
for
mu
and
(
0.04,
100)
for
phi,
it
is
assumed
that
mu
and
sigma
could
fall
anywhere.
Rather
than
construct
a
more
complex
prior,
the
model
uses
uniform
priors
on
these
ranges.

The
program
code
for
BUGS
for
one
of
the
models
(
1b)
is
shown
below
as
an
example.
The
code
for
MODEL
2b
is
almost
identical.
The
difference
is
that
MODEL
2b
defines
a
as
dt(
mu,
phi,
df)
and
c
as
dt(
mu,
phi,
df),
with
df
=
3.
The
codes
for
MODEL1
and
MODEL2
include
UCP.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
N­
4
June
2003
BUGS
program
code
for
MODEL
1b
model;
Remarks
{
TAMU
<­
exp(
a)
/
(
1
+
exp(
a))
a
is
the
logit
of
r
for
TAMU
IOWA
<­
exp(
c)
/
(
1
+
exp(
c))
c
is
the
logit
of
r
for
IOWA
for(
i
in
1
:
4
)
{
TAMUr[
i]
<­
1
­
exp((
­
TAMUd[
i])
*
TAMU)
TAMUr[
i]
is
the
probability
of
infection
in
group
i
TAMUi[
i]
~
dbin(
TAMUr[
i],
TAMUs[
i])
TAMUi[
i]
is
the
number
of
infected
subjects
in
group
i
}
for(
k
in
1
:
8
)
{
IOWAr[
k]
<­
1
­
exp((
­
IOWAd[
k])
*
IOWA)
IOWAr[
k]
is
the
probability
of
infection
in
group
k
IOWAi[
k]
~
dbin(
IOWAr[
k],
IOWAs[
k])
IOWAi[
k]
is
the
number
of
infected
subjects
in
group
k
}
mu
~
dunif(­
14,
2.2)
mu
and
phi
define
the
normal
distribution
of
logit[
r]
phi
~
dunif(
0.04,100)
priors
for
mu
and
phi
are
uniform,
with
feasibility
constraints
a
~
dnorm(
mu,
phi)
a
and
c
constitute
a
sample
of
size
2
from
the
population
c
~
dnorm(
mu,
phi)
}

N.
3
MCMC
Performance
The
output
of
the
models
are,
as
expected,
autocorrelated
between
close
runs.
Thinning
the
resulting
data
essentially
removes
this
autocorrelation.
To
help
determine
the
needed
degree
of
thinning,
autocorrelation
plots
for
the
hyperparameters
mu
and
phi
were
prepared,
and
these
plots
are
shown
in
Exhibits
N.
5
and
N.
6
using
MODEL2
as
an
example.
These
plots
based
on
a
sample
size
of
100,000
without
thinning.

Exhibit
N.
5
Autocorrelation
Plot
Exhibit
N.
6
Autocorrelation
Plot
for
mu
for
phi
As
can
be
seen,
autocorrelation
is
not
noticeable
for
phi
after
a
lag
of
about
20.
Thus,
thinning
to
1
in
20
(
discarding
19
of
every
20
mu­
phi
pairs),
the
program
produced
a
sample
of
10,000
mu­
phi
pairs
with
negligible
autocorrelation.
Scatterplots
(
not
shown)
of
(
mu,
phi)
also
confirmed
good
mixing.

The
program
required
200
thinned
runs
for
adapting,
so
the
first
200
(
mu,
phi)
pairs
of
each
analysis
were
discarded
and
not
included
in
the
final
output
set.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
N­
5
June
2003
N.
4
Model
Output
Exhibits
N.
7
through
N.
10
provide
summary
statistics
for
the
model
parameters.

Exhibit
N.
7
Summary
Statistics
for
MODEL
1
node
mean
sd
MC
error
2.5%
median
97.5%
start
sample
IOWA
0.005373
0.001633
1.441E­
5
0.002758
0.005175
0.009113
201
10000
TAMU
0.05492
0.02883
3.23E­
4
0.01651
0.049
0.1267
201
10000
UCP
3.618E­
4
1.249E­
4
1.181E­
6
1.661E­
4
3.443E­
4
6.51E­
4
201
10000
a
­
2.975
0.5487
0.006085
­
4.087
­
2.966
­
1.93
201
10000
b
­
7.983
0.348
0.003238
­
8.703
­
7.974
­
7.336
201
10000
c
­
5.267
0.3065
0.002761
­
5.891
­
5.259
­
4.689
201
10000
deviance
35.99
2.531
0.02395
33.12
35.35
42.63
201
10000
mu
­
5.41
1.693
0.01733
­
8.933
­
5.418
­
1.944
201
10000
phi
0.2049
0.1777
0.001731
0.04423
0.1497
0.6852
201
10000
Exhibit
N.
8
Summary
Statistics
for
MODEL
1b
node
mean
sd
MC
error
2.5%
median
97.5%
start
sample
IOWA
0.005698
0.001723
1.329E­
5
0.002902
0.00549
0.009684
201
10000
TAMU
0.05201
0.02825
3.147E­
4
0.01373
0.04652
0.1231
201
10000
a
­
3.048
0.5854
0.006349
­
4.274
­
3.02
­
1.963
201
10000
c
­
5.207
0.3054
0.002302
­
5.84
­
5.199
­
4.628
201
10000
deviance
17.88
2.464
0.02511
15.61
17.1
24.65
201
10000
mu
­
4.172
1.606
0.01824
­
7.71
­
4.175
­
0.7443
201
10000
phi
1.004
3.649
0.03863
0.04646
0.3436
4.91
201
10000
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
N­
6
June
2003
Exhibit
N.
9
Summary
Statistics
for
MODEL
2
node
mean
sd
MC
error
2.5%
median
97.5%
start
sample
IOWA
0.005356
0.001639
1.801E­
5
0.002744
0.005159
0.009197
201
10000
TAMU
0.05448
0.02828
2.735E­
4
0.01607
0.04894
0.1248
201
10000
UCP
3.628E­
4
1.234E­
4
1.207E­
6
1.694E­
4
3.452E­
4
6.464E­
4
201
10000
a
­
2.983
0.5489
0.00515
­
4.115
­
2.967
­
1.948
201
10000
b
­
7.979
0.3437
0.00338
­
8.683
­
7.971
­
7.343
201
10000
c
­
5.271
0.3093
0.003474
­
5.895
­
5.262
­
4.68
201
10000
deviance
35.99
2.547
0.02361
33.1
35.31
42.62
201
10000
mu
­
5.377
1.761
0.01881
­
8.987
­
5.378
­
1.794
201
10000
phi
0.4139
0.675
0.006507
0.04488
0.2209
2.003
201
10000
Exhibit
N.
10
Summary
Statistics
for
MODEL
2b
node
mean
sd
MC
error
2.5%
median
97.5%
start
sample
IOWA
0.005654
0.001741
1.895E­
5
0.002916
0.00543
0.009703
201
10000
TAMU
0.05286
0.02882
2.991E­
4
0.01462
0.04711
0.1232
201
10000
a
­
3.028
0.5754
0.006116
­
4.21
­
3.007
­
1.962
201
10000
c
­
5.216
0.309
0.003382
­
5.835
­
5.21
­
4.626
201
10000
deviance
17.84
2.34
0.02332
15.6
17.12
24.37
201
10000
mu
­
4.127
1.674
0.01722
­
7.662
­
4.159
­
0.6536
201
10000
phi
2.106
6.273
0.06093
0.04916
0.5134
15.18
201
10000
Ten
thousand
mu­
phi
ordered
pairs
were
generated
for
each
model
(
logit­
normal
and
logit­
t).

Examples
of
posterior
hyperparameter
densities
are
shown
for
MODEL
1b
and
MODEL
2b
in
Exhibits
N.
11
through
N.
14.
The
definite
peaks
of
these
distributions
show
that
the
prior
limits
for
these
parameters
did
not
strongly
influence
the
posteriors.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
N­
7
June
2003
Exhibit
N.
11
MODEL
1b
Exhibit
N.
12
MODEL
1b
Density
Function
for
mu
Density
Function
for
phi
Exhbit
N.
13
MODEL
2b
Exhibit
N.
14
MODEL
2b
Density
Function
for
mu
Density
Function
for
phi
Posteriors
for
isolate­
specific
dose­
response
parameters
were
similar.
For
example,
Exhibits
N.
15
and
N.
16
are
the
densities
for
IOWA
produced
by
MODEL
1b
and
MODEL
2b,
respectively.

Exhibit
N.
15
MODEL
1b
Exhibit
N.
16
MODEL
2b
Density
Function
for
IOWA
Density
Function
for
IOWA
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
N­
8
June
2003
N.
5
Data
Reduction
Expected
values
of
r
were
derived
for
each
mu­
phi
pair
using
numerical
integration.
The
ordered
pairs
from
each
MODEL
provided
10,000
estimates
of
the
expectation,
named
Er1
for
MODEL
1
and
Er2
for
MODEL
2:

Distribution
functions
for
these
10,000
values
of
E(
r)
for
MODEL
1
and
MODEL
2
are
displayed
as
examples
in
Exhibit
N.
17.

Exhibit
N.
17
Distribution
Functions
for
E(
r)

Mean
E(
r)
for
MODEL
1b
and
MODEL
2b
are
0.089
and
0.105,
respectively.
Mean
E(
r)
for
MODEL1
and
MODEL
2
were
0.073
and
0.090,
respectively.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
O­
1
Appendix
O
Assigning
LT2ESWTR
Costs
and
Benefits
This
appendix
presents
data
used
to
calculate
the
costs
and
benefits
associated
with
full
implementation
of
the
LT2ESWTR.
In
order
to
extract
cost
and
benefit
data
from
the
model
and
present
them
in
comparable
terms,
it
is
necessary
to
calculate
the
annualized
value
of
all
costs
and
benefits
over
the
lifetime
of
the
implementation
schedule.
LT2ESWTR
implementation
will
occur
over
several
years
as
States
and
public
water
systems
(
PWSs)
learn
the
requirements
of
the
rule,
train
their
staffs,
perform
initial
monitoring,
and
add
any
treatment
necessary
to
comply
with
the
rule.
A
25­
year
horizon
is
used
for
this
economic
analysis
(
EA)
and
the
EA
for
the
Stage
2
Disinfection
Byproducts
Rule.
This
time
frame
accounts
for
both
the
20­
year
life
for
technologies
considered
in
this
analysis,
and
the
5­
year
period
that
systems
have
to
comply
with
treatment
requirements.

O.
1
Benefit
and
Cost
Distributions
Both
costs
and
benefits
are
presented
as
distributions
of
values.
The
benefits
model
calculates
one
distribution
for
each
of
the
3
occurrence
data
sets
 
Information
Collection
Rule
(
ICR),
Information
Rule
Supplemental
Survey
Large
(
ICRSSL),
and
Information
Rule
Supplemental
Survey
Medium
(
ICRSSM).
The
cost
model
generates
5
distributions
from
the
3
occurrence
data
sets
 
3
representing
the
means
of
each
data
set
and
2
representing
the
bounds.
Exhibit
O.
1
illustrates
the
five
cost
distributions
(
ICR,
ICRSSM,
ICRSSL,
High,
and
Low)
that
were
generated
and
what
they
represent
in
reference
to
occurrence.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
O­
2
Occurrence
Distributions
Cost
Distributions
ICRSSL
ICRSSM
ICR
5th
percentile
95th
percentile
Mean
Low
ICRSSL
ICRSSM
ICR
High
Mean
Mean
Exhibit
O.
1
Derivation
of
Cost
Distributions
The
three
primary
cost
distributions;
ICR,
ICRSSL,
and
ICRSSM,
are
derived
from
the
binning
percentage
associated
with
the
mean
of
each
occurrence
distribution
(
for
binning
percentages
see
section
4.5.6).
To
more
fully
describe
the
uncertainty
surrounding
occurrence,
two
more
distributions
were
considered.
The
Low
cost
distribution
is
generated
from
the
binning
percentage
at
the
5th
percentile
of
the
modeled
ICRSSL
occurrence
distribution.
The
High
cost
distribution
is
generated
from
the
95th
percentile
of
the
modeled
ICR
occurrence
distribution.
This
appendix
presents
the
means,
5th
percentiles,
and
95th
percentiles
of
all
five
cost
distributions
to
characterize
costs
(
Exhibits
3
and
4).
Benefits
are
characterized
by
three
distributions
(
Exhibits
5
and
6).

O.
2
Benefit
and
Cost
Values
Costs
and
benefits
models
output
values
that
are
representative
of
the
value
they
would
have
if
they
were
all
incurred
immediately.
These
values
are
referred
to
as
the
value
at
full
implementation
throughout
this
appendix.
In
order
to
be
able
to
compare
these
values
properly,
the
costs
and
benefits
must
be
distributed
over
the
period
in
which
they
are
expected
to
occur
and
the
costs
must
be
brought
into
comparable
terms.

Exhibits
O.
2a­
c
show
the
schedules
over
which
the
various
components
of
costs
and
benefits
are
distributed
(
for
implementation
and
monitoring,
treatment,
and
State,
respectively).
Most
of
the
cost
numbers
are
one­
time
costs
that
are
incurred
only
once
during
the
25­
year
period
examined.
The
data
given
in
Exhibits
O.
2a­
c
are
the
percentage
of
the
value
at
full
implementation
expected
to
be
incurred
in
the
given
year.
In
general,
it
is
assumed
that
such
expenses
are
evenly
distributed
over
the
time
frame
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
O­
3
Mean
5th
Percentile
95th
Percentile
allowed
by
the
regulation.
For
example,
E.
coli
monitoring
for
large
systems
must
be
completed
in
one
year,
so
100
percent
of
these
costs
is
applied
to
one
year.
Installation
of
covers
or
treatment
for
uncovered
reservoirs,
however,
has
a
five
year
period
in
which
to
comply.
Therefore,
it
is
assumed
that
20
percent
of
the
costs
will
be
incurred
in
each
of
those
five
years.

Operation
and
maintenance
(
O&
M)
and
compliance
monitoring
costs,
as
well
as
benefits,
are
annual
values
expected
to
be
incurred
every
year
once
treatment
is
installed
and
operational.
The
value
at
full
implementation
represents
the
annual
cost
once
all
plants
have
treatment
fully
installed
and
operational.
As
shown
in
Exhibit
O.
2b,
the
schedules
for
O&
M
costs
and
benefits
are
delayed
one
year
from
the
treatment
schedule
to
allow
for
installation
and
implementation
of
the
technology.

Once
the
costs
and
benefits
are
distributed
across
the
25­
year
time
frame,
they
must
be
brought
into
comparable
terms.
This
is
done
in
two
ways.
The
first
is
by
expressing
the
values
as
present
values
using
a
social
discount
rate.
The
second
is
by
taking
the
present
value
and
annualizing
it.

The
present
value
of
a
cost
or
benefit
incurred
in
a
given
year
is
given
by
the
following
formula:

PV
=
V(
t)
/
(
1
+
R)
t
Where:
t
=
The
number
of
years
from
the
reference
period
R
=
Social
discount
rate
V(
t)
=
The
cost
occurring
t
years
from
the
reference
period
The
total
present
value
of
a
given
component
is
then
the
sum
of
the
present
value
calculated
for
each
year
from
1
to
25.

The
formula
for
converting
the
present
value
into
an
annualized
value
is
as
follows:

A
=
PV*
R(
1
+
R)
25/[(
1
+
R)
25
­
1]

Where:
A
=
Annualized
value
PV
=
Present
value
R
=
Social
discount
rate
Exhibits
O.
3
through
O.
6
show
the
nominal
(
value
at
full
implementation,
undiscounted),
present
value
(
Year
2000$),
and
annualized
value
for
each
component
of
costs
and
benefits.
The
present
and
annualized
values
are
calculated
at
both
a
3
and
7
percent
social
discount
rate.

For
all
treatment
and
benefit
values,
the
exhibits
list
the
mean,
5th
percentile,
and
95th
percentile
values
according
to
the
picture
below:

Exhibits
O.
7a­
O.
7d
show
the
costs
and
benefits
according
to
the
estimated
year
incurred
by
the
systems
and
States.
Exhibit
O.
2a
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Schedule
for
Assigning
LT2ESWTR
Cost
and
Benefits
Year
Small
System
Implementation
Small
System
1st
Round
E.

coli
Monitoring
Small
System
1st
Round
Crypto
Monitoring
Small
System
2nd
Round
E.

coli
Monitoring
Small
System
2nd
Round
Crypto
Monitoring
Small
System
Benchmarking
Large
System
Implementation
Large
System
1st
Round
Monitoring
Large
System
2nd
Round
Monitoring
Large
System
Benchmarking
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
2003
100%

2004
50%

2005
100%
50%

2006
100%

2007
50%
20%

2008
50%
20%

2009
20%
20%

2010
20%
20%

2011
20%
20%

2012
20%
25%

2013
20%
50%

2014
25%

2015
100%

2016
50%

2017
50%

2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
Notes:

1.
Assumes
a
July
2003
final
rule.

2.
Assumes
benefits
and
O&
M
costs
lag
1
year
from
the
expenditure
of
capital
costs.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
O­
4
June
2003
Exhibit
O.
2b
Treatment
Schedule
for
Assigning
LT2ESWTR
Cost
and
Benefits
Year
Small
System
Filtered
Treatment
Capital
Small
System
Filtered
Treatment
O&
M
Small
System
Unfiltered
Treatment
Capital
Small
System
Unfiltered
Treatment
O&
M
Small
System
Uncovered
Reservoirs
Capital
Small
Systems
Uncovered
Reservoirs
O&
M
Large
Systems
Filtered
Treatment
Capital
Large
Systems
Filtered
Treatment
O&
M
Large
Systems
Unfiltered
Treatment
Capital
Large
Systems
Treatment
Unfiltered
O&
M
Large
Systems
Uncovered
Reservoirs
Capital
Large
Systems
Uncovered
Reservoirs
O&
M
Illnesses
Avoided
Small
Systems
Illnesses
Avoided
Large
Systems
Deaths
Avoided
Small
Systems
Deaths
Avoided
Large
Systems
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
2003
2004
20%
20%

2005
20%
20%
20%
20%

2006
20%
40%
20%
40%

2007
20%
60%
10%
10%
20%
60%

2008
20%
80%
20%
10%
20%
10%
20%
80%
10%
10%

2009
10%
10%
100%
30%
30%
30%
30%
100%
30%
30%

2010
20%
10%
20%
10%
100%
20%
60%
20%
60%
100%
10%
60%
10%
60%

2011
30%
30%
30%
30%
100%
20%
80%
20%
80%
100%
30%
80%
30%
80%

2012
20%
60%
20%
60%
100%
100%
100%
100%
60%
100%
60%
100%

2013
20%
80%
20%
80%
100%
100%
100%
100%
80%
100%
80%
100%

2014
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

2015
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

2016
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

2017
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

2018
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

2019
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

2020
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

2021
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

2022
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

2023
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

2024
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

2025
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

2026
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

2027
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

Notes:

1.
Assumes
a
July
2003
final
rule.

2.
Assumes
benefits
and
O&
M
costs
lag
1
year
from
the
expenditure
of
capital
costs.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
O­
5
June
2003
Exhibit
O.
2c
State
Schedule
for
Assigning
LT2ESWTR
Costs
and
Benefits
Year
Implementation
Small
E.
coli
Monitoring
Review
1st
Round
Small
Crypto
Monitoring
Review
1st
Round
Medium/

Large
Monitoring
Review
2nd
Round
Small
E.
coli
Monitoring
Review
2nd
Round
Small
Crypto
Monitoring
Review
2nd
Round
Small
System
Benchmarking
Large
System
Benchmarking
Small
System
Technology
Monitoring
Large
System
Technology
Monitoring
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
2003
50%

2004
50%

2005
2006
2007
100%
20%

2008
100%
20%
10%

2009
20%
20%
30%

2010
20%
20%
10%
60%

2011
20%
20%
30%
80%

2012
20%
60%
100%

2013
20%
80%
100%

2014
100%
100%
100%

2015
100%
100%

2016
100%
100%
100%

2017
100%
100%
100%

2018
100%
100%

2019
100%
100%

2020
100%
100%

2021
100%
100%

2022
100%
100%

2023
100%
100%

2024
100%
100%

2025
100%
100%

2026
100%
100%

2027
100%
100%

Notes:

1.
Assumes
a
July
2003
final
rule.

2.
Assumes
benefits
and
O&
M
costs
lag
1
year
from
the
expenditure
of
capital
costs.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
O­
6
June
2003
Exhibit
O.
3a
Nominal
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Costs
of
LT2ESWTR
($
Millions,
2000$)

Occurrence
Distribution
Rule
Alternative
Small
System
Implementation
Small
System
1st
Round
E.

coli
Monitoring
Small
System
1st
Round
Crypto
Monitoring
Small
System
2nd
Round
E.

coli
Monitoring
Small
System
2nd
Round
Crypto
Monitoring
Small
System
Benchmarking
Large
System
Implementation
Large
System
1st
Round
Monitoring
Large
System
2nd
Round
Monitoring
Large
System
Benchmarking
Total
Nontreatment
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
ICR
A1
1.23
$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.35
$
0.33
$
­

$
­

$
0.25
$
2.15
$

A2
1.23
$
10.65
$
81.61
$
8.43
$
65.91
$
0.11
$
0.33
$
26.88
$
18.50
$
0.09
$
213.75
$

A3
1.23
$
10.65
$
28.40
$
9.22
$
25.12
$
0.06
$
0.33
$
26.88
$
19.29
$
0.08
$
121.26
$

A3
UV90­
10B
1.23
$
10.65
$
28.40
$
9.21
$
25.08
$
0.06
$
0.33
$
26.88
$
19.15
$
0.08
$
121.08
$

A4
1.23
$
10.65
$
24.73
$
9.77
$
23.16
$
0.02
$
0.33
$
26.88
$
23.84
$
0.04
$
120.65
$

ICRSSL
A1
1.23
$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.35
$
0.33
$
­

$
­

$
0.25
$
2.15
$

A2
1.23
$
10.65
$
81.61
$
9.37
$
71.81
$
0.06
$
0.33
$
26.88
$
21.10
$
0.06
$
223.11
$

A3
1.23
$
10.65
$
18.25
$
9.95
$
17.04
$
0.02
$
0.33
$
26.88
$
22.01
$
0.05
$
106.42
$

A3
UV90­
10B
1.23
$
10.65
$
18.25
$
9.95
$
17.04
$
0.02
$
0.33
$
26.88
$
21.97
$
0.05
$
106.37
$

A4
1.23
$
10.65
$
13.06
$
10.10
$
12.38
$
0.01
$
0.33
$
26.88
$
25.62
$
0.02
$
100.27
$

ICRSSM
A1
1.23
$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.35
$
0.33
$
­

$
­

$
0.25
$
2.15
$

A2
1.23
$
10.65
$
81.61
$
9.14
$
70.07
$
0.07
$
0.33
$
26.88
$
20.04
$
0.07
$
220.10
$

A3
1.23
$
10.65
$
22.20
$
9.84
$
20.50
$
0.03
$
0.33
$
26.88
$
21.00
$
0.07
$
112.71
$

A3
UV90­
10B
1.23
$
10.65
$
22.20
$
9.83
$
20.49
$
0.03
$
0.33
$
26.88
$
20.93
$
0.07
$
112.63
$

A4
1.23
$
10.65
$
17.55
$
10.06
$
16.56
$
0.02
$
0.33
$
26.88
$
25.13
$
0.02
$
108.43
$

High
A3
1.23
$
10.65
$
31.42
$
9.37
$
27.65
$
0.06
$
0.33
$
26.88
$
18.55
$
0.09
$
126.23
$

Low
A3
1.23
$
10.65
$
11.02
$
10.06
$
10.40
$
0.02
$
0.33
$
26.88
$
23.80
$
0.03
$
94.42
$

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
O­
7
June
2003
Exhibit
O.
3b
Present
Value
of
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Costs
of
LT2ESWTR,
at
3
Percent
($
Millions,
2000$)

Occurrence
Distribution
Rule
Alternative
Small
System
Implementation
Small
System
1st
Round
E.

coli
Monitoring
Small
System
1st
Round
Crypto
Monitoring
Small
System
2nd
Round
E.

coli
Monitoring
Small
System
2nd
Round
Crypto
Monitoring
Small
System
Benchmarking
Large
System
Implementation
Large
System
1st
Round
Monitoring
Large
System
2nd
Round
Monitoring
Large
System
Benchmarking
Total
Nontreatment
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
ICR
A1
1.16
$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.27
$
0.33
$
­

$
­

$
0.21
$
1.97
$

A2
1.16
$
9.75
$
71.46
$
5.91
$
44.23
$
0.09
$
0.33
$
25.71
$
13.77
$
0.07
$
172.48
$

A3
1.16
$
9.75
$
24.87
$
6.47
$
16.85
$
0.05
$
0.33
$
25.71
$
14.36
$
0.07
$
99.61
$

A3
UV90­
10B
1.16
$
9.75
$
24.87
$
6.46
$
16.83
$
0.05
$
0.33
$
25.71
$
14.25
$
0.07
$
99.48
$

A4
1.16
$
9.75
$
21.65
$
6.85
$
15.54
$
0.02
$
0.33
$
25.71
$
17.75
$
0.03
$
98.79
$

ICRSSL
A1
1.16
$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.27
$
0.33
$
­

$
­

$
0.21
$
1.97
$

A2
1.16
$
9.75
$
71.46
$
6.57
$
48.19
$
0.05
$
0.33
$
25.71
$
15.71
$
0.05
$
178.98
$

A3
1.16
$
9.75
$
15.98
$
6.98
$
11.44
$
0.02
$
0.33
$
25.71
$
16.38
$
0.05
$
87.79
$

A3
UV90­
10B
1.16
$
9.75
$
15.98
$
6.98
$
11.43
$
0.02
$
0.33
$
25.71
$
16.35
$
0.05
$
87.75
$

A4
1.16
$
9.75
$
11.43
$
7.08
$
8.30
$
0.01
$
0.33
$
25.71
$
19.07
$
0.01
$
82.86
$

ICRSSM
A1
1.16
$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.27
$
0.33
$
­

$
­

$
0.21
$
1.97
$

A2
1.16
$
9.75
$
71.46
$
6.41
$
47.02
$
0.06
$
0.33
$
25.71
$
14.91
$
0.06
$
176.87
$

A3
1.16
$
9.75
$
19.44
$
6.90
$
13.75
$
0.02
$
0.33
$
25.71
$
15.63
$
0.05
$
92.75
$

A3
UV90­
10B
1.16
$
9.75
$
19.44
$
6.90
$
13.75
$
0.02
$
0.33
$
25.71
$
15.58
$
0.06
$
92.69
$

A4
1.16
$
9.75
$
15.36
$
7.05
$
11.11
$
0.01
$
0.33
$
25.71
$
18.71
$
0.02
$
89.22
$

High
A3
1.16
$
9.75
$
27.51
$
6.57
$
18.55
$
0.05
$
0.33
$
25.71
$
13.80
$
0.08
$
103.52
$

Low
A3
1.16
$
9.75
$
9.65
$
7.06
$
6.98
$
0.01
$
0.33
$
25.71
$
17.71
$
0.03
$
78.39
$

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
O­
8
June
2003
Exhibit
O.
3c
Present
Value
of
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Costs
of
LT2ESWTR,
at
7
Percent
($
Millions,
2000$)

Occurrence
Distribution
Rule
Alternative
Small
System
Implementation
Small
System
1st
Round
E.

coli
Monitoring
Small
System
1st
Round
Crypto
Monitoring
Small
System
2nd
Round
E.
coli
Monitoring
Small
System
2nd
Round
Crypto
Monitoring
Small
System
Benchmarking
Large
System
Implementation
Large
System
1st
Round
Monitoring
Large
System
2nd
Round
Monitoring
Large
System
Benchmarking
Total
Nontreatment
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
ICR
A1
1.07
$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.20
$
0.33
$
­

$
­

$
0.17
$
1.77
$

A2
1.07
$
8.70
$
60.23
$
3.74
$
26.46
$
0.06
$
0.33
$
24.30
$
9.42
$
0.06
$
134.36
$

A3
1.07
$
8.70
$
20.96
$
4.10
$
10.08
$
0.03
$
0.33
$
24.30
$
9.82
$
0.06
$
79.44
$

A3
UV90­
10B
1.07
$
8.70
$
20.96
$
4.09
$
10.07
$
0.03
$
0.33
$
24.30
$
9.75
$
0.06
$
79.35
$

A4
1.07
$
8.70
$
18.25
$
4.34
$
9.30
$
0.01
$
0.33
$
24.30
$
12.14
$
0.03
$
78.45
$

ICRSSL
A1
1.07
$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.20
$
0.33
$
­

$
­

$
0.17
$
1.77
$

A2
1.07
$
8.70
$
60.23
$
4.16
$
28.83
$
0.03
$
0.33
$
24.30
$
10.74
$
0.04
$
138.43
$

A3
1.07
$
8.70
$
13.47
$
4.42
$
6.84
$
0.01
$
0.33
$
24.30
$
11.20
$
0.04
$
70.37
$

A3
UV90­
10B
1.07
$
8.70
$
13.47
$
4.42
$
6.84
$
0.01
$
0.33
$
24.30
$
11.18
$
0.04
$
70.35
$

A4
1.07
$
8.70
$
9.64
$
4.48
$
4.97
$
0.01
$
0.33
$
24.30
$
13.04
$
0.01
$
66.54
$

ICRSSM
A1
1.07
$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.20
$
0.33
$
­

$
­

$
0.17
$
1.77
$

A2
1.07
$
8.70
$
60.23
$
4.06
$
28.13
$
0.04
$
0.33
$
24.30
$
10.20
$
0.05
$
137.10
$

A3
1.07
$
8.70
$
16.38
$
4.37
$
8.23
$
0.02
$
0.33
$
24.30
$
10.69
$
0.04
$
74.12
$

A3
UV90­
10B
1.07
$
8.70
$
16.38
$
4.37
$
8.22
$
0.02
$
0.33
$
24.30
$
10.65
$
0.04
$
74.08
$

A4
1.07
$
8.70
$
12.95
$
4.47
$
6.65
$
0.01
$
0.33
$
24.30
$
12.79
$
0.02
$
71.27
$

High
A3
1.07
$
8.70
$
23.19
$
4.16
$
11.10
$
0.04
$
0.33
$
24.30
$
9.44
$
0.06
$
82.38
$

Low
A3
1.07
$
8.70
$
8.13
$
4.47
$
4.18
$
0.01
$
0.33
$
24.30
$
12.11
$
0.02
$
63.31
$

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
O­
9
June
2003
Exhibit
O.
3d
Annualized
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Costs
of
LT2ESWTR,
at
3
Percent
($
Millions,
2000$)

Occurrence
Distribution
Rule
Alternative
Small
System
Implementation
Small
System
1st
Round
E.

coli
Monitoring
Small
System
1st
Round
Crypto
Monitoring
Small
System
2nd
Round
E.

coli
Monitoring
Small
System
2nd
Round
Crypto
Monitoring
Small
System
Benchmarking
Large
System
Implementation
Large
System
1st
Round
Monitoring
Large
System
2nd
Round
Monitoring
Large
System
Benchmarking
Total
Nontreatment
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
ICR
A1
0.07
$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.02
$
0.02
$
­

$
­

$
0.01
$
0.11
$

A2
0.07
$
0.56
$
4.10
$
0.34
$
2.54
$
0.00
$
0.02
$
1.48
$
0.79
$
0.00
$
9.91
$

A3
0.07
$
0.56
$
1.43
$
0.37
$
0.97
$
0.00
$
0.02
$
1.48
$
0.82
$
0.00
$
5.72
$

A3
UV90­
10B
0.07
$
0.56
$
1.43
$
0.37
$
0.97
$
0.00
$
0.02
$
1.48
$
0.82
$
0.00
$
5.71
$

A4
0.07
$
0.56
$
1.24
$
0.39
$
0.89
$
0.00
$
0.02
$
1.48
$
1.02
$
0.00
$
5.67
$

ICRSSL
A1
0.07
$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.02
$
0.02
$
­

$
­

$
0.01
$
0.11
$

A2
0.07
$
0.56
$
4.10
$
0.38
$
2.77
$
0.00
$
0.02
$
1.48
$
0.90
$
0.00
$
10.28
$

A3
0.07
$
0.56
$
0.92
$
0.40
$
0.66
$
0.00
$
0.02
$
1.48
$
0.94
$
0.00
$
5.04
$

A3
UV90­
10B
0.07
$
0.56
$
0.92
$
0.40
$
0.66
$
0.00
$
0.02
$
1.48
$
0.94
$
0.00
$
5.04
$

A4
0.07
$
0.56
$
0.66
$
0.41
$
0.48
$
0.00
$
0.02
$
1.48
$
1.09
$
0.00
$
4.76
$

ICRSSM
A1
0.07
$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.02
$
0.02
$
­

$
­

$
0.01
$
0.11
$

A2
0.07
$
0.56
$
4.10
$
0.37
$
2.70
$
0.00
$
0.02
$
1.48
$
0.86
$
0.00
$
10.16
$

A3
0.07
$
0.56
$
1.12
$
0.40
$
0.79
$
0.00
$
0.02
$
1.48
$
0.90
$
0.00
$
5.33
$

A3
UV90­
10B
0.07
$
0.56
$
1.12
$
0.40
$
0.79
$
0.00
$
0.02
$
1.48
$
0.89
$
0.00
$
5.32
$

A4
0.07
$
0.56
$
0.88
$
0.41
$
0.64
$
0.00
$
0.02
$
1.48
$
1.07
$
0.00
$
5.12
$

High
A3
0.07
$
0.56
$
1.58
$
0.38
$
1.07
$
0.00
$
0.02
$
1.48
$
0.79
$
0.00
$
5.94
$

Low
A3
0.07
$
0.56
$
0.55
$
0.41
$
0.40
$
0.00
$
0.02
$
1.48
$
1.02
$
0.00
$
4.50
$

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
O­
10
June
2003
Exhibit
O.
3e
Annualized
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Costs
of
LT2ESWTR,
at
7
Percent
($
Millions,
2000$)

Occurrence
Distribution
Rule
Alternative
Small
System
Implementation
Small
System
1st
Round
E.

coli
Monitoring
Small
System
1st
Round
Crypto
Monitoring
Small
System
2nd
Round
E.
coli
Monitoring
Small
System
2nd
Round
Crypto
Monitoring
Small
System
Benchmarking
Large
System
Implementation
Large
System
1st
Round
Monitoring
Large
System
2nd
Round
Monitoring
Large
System
Benchmarking
Total
Nontreatment
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
ICR
A1
0.09
$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.017
$
0.03
$
­

$
­

$
0.01
$
0.15
$

A2
0.09
$
0.75
$
5.17
$
0.32
$
2.27
$
0.006
$
0.03
$
2.08
$
0.81
$
0.01
$
11.53
$

A3
0.09
$
0.75
$
1.80
$
0.35
$
0.87
$
0.003
$
0.03
$
2.08
$
0.84
$
0.00
$
6.82
$

A3
UV90­
10B
0.09
$
0.75
$
1.80
$
0.35
$
0.86
$
0.003
$
0.03
$
2.08
$
0.84
$
0.00
$
6.81
$

A4
0.09
$
0.75
$
1.57
$
0.37
$
0.80
$
0.001
$
0.03
$
2.08
$
1.04
$
0.00
$
6.73
$

ICRSSL
A1
0.09
$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.017
$
0.03
$
­

$
­

$
0.01
$
0.15
$

A2
0.09
$
0.75
$
5.17
$
0.36
$
2.47
$
0.003
$
0.03
$
2.08
$
0.92
$
0.00
$
11.88
$

A3
0.09
$
0.75
$
1.16
$
0.38
$
0.59
$
0.001
$
0.03
$
2.08
$
0.96
$
0.00
$
6.04
$

A3
UV90­
10B
0.09
$
0.75
$
1.16
$
0.38
$
0.59
$
0.001
$
0.03
$
2.08
$
0.96
$
0.00
$
6.04
$

A4
0.09
$
0.75
$
0.83
$
0.38
$
0.43
$
0.001
$
0.03
$
2.08
$
1.12
$
0.00
$
5.71
$

ICRSSM
A1
0.09
$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.017
$
0.03
$
­

$
­

$
0.01
$
0.15
$

A2
0.09
$
0.75
$
5.17
$
0.35
$
2.41
$
0.004
$
0.03
$
2.08
$
0.87
$
0.00
$
11.76
$

A3
0.09
$
0.75
$
1.41
$
0.37
$
0.71
$
0.002
$
0.03
$
2.08
$
0.92
$
0.00
$
6.36
$

A3
UV90­
10B
0.09
$
0.75
$
1.41
$
0.37
$
0.71
$
0.002
$
0.03
$
2.08
$
0.91
$
0.00
$
6.36
$

A4
0.09
$
0.75
$
1.11
$
0.38
$
0.57
$
0.001
$
0.03
$
2.08
$
1.10
$
0.00
$
6.12
$

High
A3
0.09
$
0.75
$
1.99
$
0.36
$
0.95
$
0.003
$
0.03
$
2.08
$
0.81
$
0.01
$
7.07
$

Low
A3
0.09
$
0.75
$
0.70
$
0.38
$
0.36
$
0.001
$
0.03
$
2.08
$
1.04
$
0.00
$
5.43
$

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
O­
11
June
2003
Exhibit
O.
4a
Nominal
Treatment
Costs
of
LT2ESWTR
($
Millions,
2000$)

Occurrence
Distribution
Rule
Alternative
Small
System
Filtered
Treatment
Capital
Small
System
Filtered
Treatment
O&
M
Small
System
Unfiltered
Treatment
Capital
Small
System
Unfiltered
Treatment
O&
M
Small
System
Uncovered
Reservoirs
Capital
Small
Systems
Uncovered
Reservoirs
O&
M
Large
Systems
Filtered
Treatment
Capital
Large
Systems
Filtered
Treatment
O&
M
Large
Systems
Unfiltered
Treatment
Capital
Large
Systems
Treatment
Unfiltered
O&
M
Large
Systems
Uncovered
Reservoirs
Capital
Large
Systems
Uncovered
Reservoirs
O&
M
Total
Treatment
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
ICR
A1
­
Mean
5th,
95th
$
522.72
$
37.40
$
11.82
$
0.72
$
0.07
$
0.002
$
4,856.38
$
145.95
$
181.02
$
4.89
$
64.28
$
2.52
$
5,827.77
440.18
607.52
34.98
39.82
9.98
13.68
0.67
0.77
0.05
0.08
$
0.002
$
0.002
4,191.18
5,541.11
138.05
153.75
149.77
213.05
4.54
5.25
52.09
76.56
2.32
2.72
5,023.83
6,654.32
A2
$
170.44
$
13.06
$
11.82
$
0.72
$
0.07
$
0.002
$
1,497.25
$
43.59
$
181.02
$
4.89
$
64.28
$
2.52
$
1,989.66
150.04
190.72
12.45
13.66
9.98
13.68
0.67
0.77
0.05
0.08
$
0.002
$
0.002
1,287.99
1,713.35
41.60
45.58
149.77
213.05
4.54
5.25
52.09
76.56
2.32
2.72
1,711.53
2,275.43
A3
$
110.48
$
8.52
$
11.82
$
0.72
$
0.07
$
0.002
$
1,288.48
$
35.05
$
181.02
$
4.89
$
64.28
$
2.52
$
1,707.86
98.73
122.30
8.12
8.90
9.98
13.68
0.67
0.77
0.05
0.08
$
0.002
$
0.002
1,099.15
1,476.97
33.38
36.72
149.77
213.05
4.54
5.25
52.09
76.56
2.32
2.72
1,458.82
1,957.01
A3
UV90­
10B
$
115.17
$
8.52
$
11.82
$
0.72
$
0.07
$
0.002
$
1,436.53
$
41.48
$
181.02
$
4.89
$
64.28
$
2.52
$
1,867.03
103.22
127.36
8.13
8.92
9.98
13.68
0.67
0.77
0.05
0.08
$
0.002
$
0.002
1,236.54
1,634.37
39.22
43.70
149.77
213.05
4.54
5.25
52.09
76.56
2.32
2.72
1,606.54
2,126.47
A4
$
53.67
$
4.15
$
11.82
$
0.72
$
0.07
$
0.002
$
481.56
$
16.61
$
181.02
$
4.89
$
64.28
$
2.52
$
821.32
46.75
60.59
3.89
4.41
9.98
13.68
0.67
0.77
0.05
0.08
$
0.002
$
0.002
413.35
551.93
15.97
17.24
149.77
213.05
4.54
5.25
52.09
76.56
2.32
2.72
699.41
946.28
ICRSSL
A1
$
522.72
$
37.40
$
11.82
$
0.72
$
0.07
$
0.002
$
4,856.38
$
145.95
$
181.02
$
4.89
$
64.28
$
2.52
$
5,827.77
440.18
607.52
34.98
39.82
9.98
13.68
0.67
0.77
0.05
0.08
$
0.002
$
0.002
4,191.18
5,541.11
138.05
153.75
149.77
213.05
4.54
5.25
52.09
76.56
2.32
2.72
5,023.83
6,654.32
A2
$
114.48
$
8.55
$
11.82
$
0.72
$
0.07
$
0.002
$
994.76
$
30.43
$
181.02
$
4.89
$
64.28
$
2.52
$
1,413.56
101.84
127.24
8.15
8.95
9.98
13.68
0.67
0.77
0.05
0.08
$
0.002
$
0.002
851.23
1,137.84
29.19
31.68
149.77
213.05
4.54
5.25
52.09
76.56
2.32
2.72
1,209.85
1,617.81
A3
$
56.90
$
4.37
$
11.82
$
0.72
$
0.07
$
0.002
$
770.12
$
19.88
$
181.02
$
4.89
$
64.28
$
2.52
$
1,116.60
49.89
63.87
4.11
4.63
9.98
13.68
0.67
0.77
0.05
0.08
$
0.002
$
0.002
655.69
888.16
18.88
20.86
149.77
213.05
4.54
5.25
52.09
76.56
2.32
2.72
948.01
1,289.64
A3
UV90­
10B
$
58.08
$
4.40
$
11.82
$
0.72
$
0.07
$
0.002
$
818.04
$
22.22
$
181.02
$
4.89
$
64.28
$
2.52
$
1,168.07
51.05
65.07
4.15
4.66
9.98
13.68
0.67
0.77
0.05
0.08
$
0.002
$
0.002
698.68
937.21
21.12
23.32
149.77
213.05
4.54
5.25
52.09
76.56
2.32
2.72
994.45
1,342.37
A4
$
25.02
$
1.94
$
11.82
$
0.72
$
0.07
$
0.002
$
168.63
$
7.22
$
181.02
$
4.89
$
64.28
$
2.52
$
468.14
21.77
28.28
1.82
2.06
9.98
13.68
0.67
0.77
0.05
0.08
$
0.002
$
0.002
145.52
191.80
6.99
7.46
149.77
213.05
4.54
5.25
52.09
76.56
2.32
2.72
395.54
541.71
ICRSSM
A1
$
522.72
$
37.40
$
11.82
$
0.72
$
0.07
$
0.002
$
4,856.38
$
145.95
$
181.02
$
4.89
$
64.28
$
2.52
$
5,827.77
440.18
607.52
34.98
39.82
9.98
13.68
0.67
0.77
0.05
0.08
$
0.002
$
0.002
4,191.18
5,541.11
138.05
153.75
149.77
213.05
4.54
5.25
52.09
76.56
2.32
2.72
5,023.83
6,654.32
A2
$
133.95
$
10.02
$
11.82
$
0.72
$
0.07
$
0.002
$
1,191.34
$
35.12
$
181.02
$
4.89
$
64.28
$
2.52
$
1,635.76
118.86
149.20
9.55
10.48
9.98
13.68
0.67
0.77
0.05
0.08
$
0.002
$
0.002
1,019.47
1,362.72
33.62
36.62
149.77
213.05
4.54
5.25
52.09
76.56
2.32
2.72
1,400.95
1,871.14
A3
$
72.66
$
5.57
$
11.82
$
0.72
$
0.07
$
0.002
$
952.12
$
24.86
$
181.02
$
4.89
$
64.28
$
2.52
$
1,320.53
64.08
81.11
5.26
5.88
9.98
13.68
0.67
0.77
0.05
0.08
$
0.002
$
0.002
811.56
1,097.30
23.63
26.06
149.77
213.05
4.54
5.25
52.09
76.56
2.32
2.72
1,123.97
1,522.47
A3
UV90­
10B
$
74.43
$
5.60
$
11.82
$
0.72
$
0.07
$
0.002
$
1,023.36
$
28.20
$
181.02
$
4.89
$
64.28
$
2.52
$
1,396.92
65.90
82.95
5.30
5.91
9.98
13.68
0.67
0.77
0.05
0.08
$
0.002
$
0.002
875.33
1,170.59
26.78
29.61
149.77
213.05
4.54
5.25
52.09
76.56
2.32
2.72
1,192.75
1,601.17
A4
$
34.81
$
2.69
$
11.82
$
0.72
$
0.07
$
0.002
$
256.85
$
10.26
$
181.02
$
4.89
$
64.28
$
2.52
$
569.94
30.35
39.27
2.53
2.86
9.98
13.68
0.67
0.77
0.05
0.08
$
0.002
$
0.002
221.23
292.72
9.91
10.61
149.77
213.05
4.54
5.25
52.09
76.56
2.32
2.72
483.45
657.57
High
A3
$
120.20
$
9.27
$
11.82
$
0.72
$
0.07
$
0.002
$
1,416.48
$
38.41
$
181.02
$
4.89
$
64.28
$
2.52
$
1,849.69
107.13
132.95
8.83
9.70
9.98
13.68
0.67
0.77
0.05
0.08
$
0.002
$
0.002
1,212.46
1,626.99
36.57
40.24
149.77
213.05
4.54
5.25
52.09
76.56
2.32
2.72
1,584.42
2,122.00
Low
A3
$
33.67
$
2.59
$
11.82
$
0.72
$
0.07
$
0.002
$
462.21
$
11.86
$
181.02
$
4.89
$
64.28
$
2.52
$
775.65
29.50
37.86
2.43
2.75
9.98
13.68
0.67
0.77
0.05
0.08
$
0.002
$
0.002
392.49
532.09
11.25
12.46
149.77
213.05
4.54
5.25
52.09
76.56
2.32
2.72
655.11
897.27
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
O­
12
June
2003
Exhibit
O.
4b
Present
Value
of
Treatment
Costs
of
LT2ESWTR,
at
3
Percent
($
Millions,
2000$)

Occurrence
Distribution
Rule
Alternative
Small
System
Filtered
Treatment
Capital
Small
System
Filtered
Treatment
O&
M
Small
System
Unfiltered
Treatment
Capital
Small
System
Unfiltered
Treatment
O&
M
Small
System
Uncovered
Reservoirs
Capital
Small
Systems
Uncovered
Reservoirs
O&
M
Large
Systems
Filtered
Treatment
Capital
Large
Systems
Filtered
Treatment
O&
M
Large
Systems
Unfiltered
Treatment
Capital
Large
Systems
Treatment
Unfiltered
O&
M
Large
Systems
Uncovered
Reservoirs
Capital
Large
Systems
Uncovered
Reservoirs
O&
M
Total
Treatment
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
ICR
A1
­
Mean
5th,
95th
$
325.23
$
365.69
$
7.35
$
7.06
$
0.06
$
0.029
$
3,610.21
$
1,659.82
$
134.57
$
55.67
$
58.32
$
35.63
$
6,259.66
273.88
378.00
342.07
389.39
6.21
8.51
6.57
7.55
0.05
0.07
$
0.026
$
0.032
3,115.71
4,119.24
1,569.99
1,748.53
111.34
158.38
51.68
59.68
47.26
69.47
32.86
38.44
5,557.64
6,977.30
A2
$
106.05
$
127.68
$
7.35
$
7.06
$
0.06
$
0.029
$
1,113.05
$
495.74
$
134.57
$
55.67
$
58.32
$
35.63
$
2,141.21
93.35
118.67
121.78
133.62
6.21
8.51
6.57
7.55
0.05
0.07
$
0.026
$
0.032
957.49
1,273.69
473.07
518.36
111.34
158.38
51.68
59.68
47.26
69.47
32.86
38.44
1,901.69
2,386.48
A3
$
68.74
$
83.31
$
7.35
$
7.06
$
0.06
$
0.029
$
957.85
$
398.61
$
134.57
$
55.67
$
58.32
$
35.63
$
1,807.22
61.43
76.10
79.40
87.06
6.21
8.51
6.57
7.55
0.05
0.07
$
0.026
$
0.032
817.10
1,097.97
379.59
417.63
111.34
158.38
51.68
59.68
47.26
69.47
32.86
38.44
1,593.53
2,020.90
A3
UV90­
10B
$
71.66
$
83.31
$
7.35
$
7.06
$
0.06
$
0.029
$
1,067.91
$
471.77
$
134.57
$
55.67
$
58.32
$
35.63
$
1,993.36
64.22
79.24
79.46
87.22
6.21
8.51
6.57
7.55
0.05
0.07
$
0.026
$
0.032
919.24
1,214.99
446.08
497.04
111.34
158.38
51.68
59.68
47.26
69.47
32.86
38.44
1,765.00
2,220.64
A4
$
33.39
$
40.60
$
7.35
$
7.06
$
0.06
$
0.029
$
357.99
$
188.91
$
134.57
$
55.67
$
58.32
$
35.63
$
919.59
29.08
37.70
38.06
43.10
6.21
8.51
6.57
7.55
0.05
0.07
$
0.026
$
0.032
307.29
410.30
181.66
196.02
111.34
158.38
51.68
59.68
47.26
69.47
32.86
38.44
812.09
1,029.26
ICRSSL
A1
$
325.23
$
365.69
$
7.35
$
7.06
$
0.06
$
0.029
$
3,610.21
$
1,659.82
$
134.57
$
55.67
$
58.32
$
35.63
$
6,259.66
273.88
378.00
342.07
389.39
6.21
8.51
6.57
7.55
0.05
0.07
$
0.026
$
0.032
3,115.71
4,119.24
1,569.99
1,748.53
111.34
158.38
51.68
59.68
47.26
69.47
32.86
38.44
5,557.64
6,977.30
A2
$
71.23
$
83.65
$
7.35
$
7.06
$
0.06
$
0.029
$
739.50
$
346.13
$
134.57
$
55.67
$
58.32
$
35.63
$
1,539.21
63.36
79.17
79.70
87.53
6.21
8.51
6.57
7.55
0.05
0.07
$
0.026
$
0.032
632.80
845.86
331.96
360.26
111.34
158.38
51.68
59.68
47.26
69.47
32.86
38.44
1,363.83
1,714.95
A3
$
35.40
$
42.75
$
7.35
$
7.06
$
0.06
$
0.029
$
572.50
$
226.07
$
134.57
$
55.67
$
58.32
$
35.63
$
1,175.43
31.04
39.74
40.20
45.26
6.21
8.51
6.57
7.55
0.05
0.07
$
0.026
$
0.032
487.43
660.26
214.74
237.25
111.34
158.38
51.68
59.68
47.26
69.47
32.86
38.44
1,029.42
1,324.65
A3
UV90­
10B
$
36.14
$
43.03
$
7.35
$
7.06
$
0.06
$
0.029
$
608.13
$
252.73
$
134.57
$
55.67
$
58.32
$
35.63
$
1,238.73
31.77
40.48
40.55
45.54
6.21
8.51
6.57
7.55
0.05
0.07
$
0.026
$
0.032
519.40
696.72
240.22
265.26
111.34
158.38
51.68
59.68
47.26
69.47
32.86
38.44
1,087.94
1,390.14
A4
$
15.57
$
18.95
$
7.35
$
7.06
$
0.06
$
0.029
$
125.36
$
82.17
$
134.57
$
55.67
$
58.32
$
35.63
$
540.74
13.54
17.59
17.77
20.12
6.21
8.51
6.57
7.55
0.05
0.07
$
0.026
$
0.032
108.18
142.58
79.50
84.84
111.34
158.38
51.68
59.68
47.26
69.47
32.86
38.44
474.99
607.27
ICRSSM
A1
$
325.23
$
365.69
$
7.35
$
7.06
$
0.06
$
0.029
$
3,610.21
$
1,659.82
$
134.57
$
55.67
$
58.32
$
35.63
$
6,259.66
273.88
378.00
342.07
389.39
6.21
8.51
6.57
7.55
0.05
0.07
$
0.026
$
0.032
3,115.71
4,119.24
1,569.99
1,748.53
111.34
158.38
51.68
59.68
47.26
69.47
32.86
38.44
5,557.64
6,977.30
A2
$
83.34
$
97.98
$
7.35
$
7.06
$
0.06
$
0.029
$
885.64
$
399.40
$
134.57
$
55.67
$
58.32
$
35.63
$
1,765.07
73.95
92.83
93.42
102.48
6.21
8.51
6.57
7.55
0.05
0.07
$
0.026
$
0.032
757.87
1,013.04
382.33
416.47
111.34
158.38
51.68
59.68
47.26
69.47
32.86
38.44
1,563.58
1,966.96
A3
$
45.21
$
54.51
$
7.35
$
7.06
$
0.06
$
0.029
$
707.80
$
282.67
$
134.57
$
55.67
$
58.32
$
35.63
$
1,388.89
39.87
50.47
51.47
57.50
6.21
8.51
6.57
7.55
0.05
0.07
$
0.026
$
0.032
603.31
815.73
268.75
296.42
111.34
158.38
51.68
59.68
47.26
69.47
32.86
38.44
1,219.40
1,562.26
A3
UV90­
10B
$
46.31
$
54.80
$
7.35
$
7.06
$
0.06
$
0.029
$
760.77
$
320.69
$
134.57
$
55.67
$
58.32
$
35.63
$
1,481.27
41.00
51.61
51.82
57.80
6.21
8.51
6.57
7.55
0.05
0.07
$
0.026
$
0.032
650.72
870.21
304.59
336.70
111.34
158.38
51.68
59.68
47.26
69.47
32.86
38.44
1,304.13
1,658.46
A4
$
21.66
$
26.33
$
7.35
$
7.06
$
0.06
$
0.029
$
190.94
$
116.65
$
134.57
$
55.67
$
58.32
$
35.63
$
654.28
18.88
24.43
24.71
27.99
6.21
8.51
6.57
7.55
0.05
0.07
$
0.026
$
0.032
164.46
217.61
112.67
120.62
111.34
158.38
51.68
59.68
47.26
69.47
32.86
38.44
576.73
732.79
High
A3
$
74.79
$
90.63
$
7.35
$
7.06
$
0.06
$
0.029
$
1,053.01
$
436.82
$
134.57
$
55.67
$
58.32
$
35.63
$
1,953.95
66.66
82.72
86.32
94.83
6.21
8.51
6.57
7.55
0.05
0.07
$
0.026
$
0.032
901.34
1,209.50
415.86
457.60
111.34
158.38
51.68
59.68
47.26
69.47
32.86
38.44
1,726.18
2,186.80
Low
A3
$
20.95
$
25.30
$
7.35
$
7.06
$
0.06
$
0.029
$
343.61
$
134.83
$
134.57
$
55.67
$
58.32
$
35.63
$
823.39
18.35
23.55
23.78
26.85
6.21
8.51
6.57
7.55
0.05
0.07
$
0.026
$
0.032
291.78
395.55
127.92
141.74
111.34
158.38
51.68
59.68
47.26
69.47
32.86
38.44
717.83
929.84
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
O­
13
June
2003
Exhibit
O.
4c
Present
Value
of
Treatment
Costs
of
LT2ESWTR,
at
7
Percent
($
Millions,
2000$)

Occurrence
Distribution
Rule
Alternative
Small
System
Filtered
Treatment
Capital
Small
System
Filtered
Treatment
O&
M
Small
System
Unfiltered
Treatment
Capital
Small
System
Unfiltered
Treatment
O&
M
Small
System
Uncovered
Reservoirs
Capital
Small
Systems
Uncovered
Reservoirs
O&
M
Large
Systems
Filtered
Treatment
Capital
Large
Systems
Filtered
Treatment
O&
M
Large
Systems
Unfiltered
Treatment
Capital
Large
Systems
Treatment
Unfiltered
O&
M
Large
Systems
Uncovered
Reservoirs
Capital
Large
Systems
Uncovered
Reservoirs
O&
M
Total
Treatment
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
ICR
A1
­
Mean
5th,
95th
$
239.55
$
202.53
$
5.42
$
3.91
$
0.05
$
0.018
$
2,868.46
$
964.49
$
106.92
$
32.35
$
52.25
$
22.44
$
4,498.40
201.72
278.42
189.45
215.65
4.58
6.27
3.64
4.18
0.04
0.07
$
0.016
$
0.020
2,475.56
3,272.90
912.29
1,016.04
88.46
125.84
30.03
34.68
42.35
62.24
20.69
24.20
3,968.82
5,040.51
A2
$
78.11
$
70.71
$
5.42
$
3.91
$
0.05
$
0.018
$
884.36
$
288.07
$
106.92
$
32.35
$
52.25
$
22.44
$
1,544.61
68.76
87.40
67.44
74.00
4.58
6.27
3.64
4.18
0.04
0.07
$
0.016
$
0.020
760.76
1,012.00
274.89
301.21
88.46
125.84
30.03
34.68
42.35
62.24
20.69
24.20
1,361.66
1,732.12
A3
$
50.63
$
46.14
$
5.42
$
3.91
$
0.05
$
0.018
$
761.05
$
231.63
$
106.92
$
32.35
$
52.25
$
22.44
$
1,312.81
45.24
56.05
43.97
48.22
4.58
6.27
3.64
4.18
0.04
0.07
$
0.016
$
0.020
649.22
872.38
220.58
242.68
88.46
125.84
30.03
34.68
42.35
62.24
20.69
24.20
1,148.82
1,476.83
A3
UV90­
10B
$
52.78
$
46.14
$
5.42
$
3.91
$
0.05
$
0.018
$
848.50
$
274.14
$
106.92
$
32.35
$
52.25
$
22.44
$
1,444.92
47.30
58.36
44.00
48.31
4.58
6.27
3.64
4.18
0.04
0.07
$
0.016
$
0.020
730.37
965.36
259.21
288.82
88.46
125.84
30.03
34.68
42.35
62.24
20.69
24.20
1,270.69
1,618.35
A4
$
24.59
$
22.48
$
5.42
$
3.91
$
0.05
$
0.018
$
284.44
$
109.77
$
106.92
$
32.35
$
52.25
$
22.44
$
664.65
21.42
27.77
21.08
23.87
4.58
6.27
3.64
4.18
0.04
0.07
$
0.016
$
0.020
244.15
326.00
105.56
113.90
88.46
125.84
30.03
34.68
42.35
62.24
20.69
24.20
582.01
749.04
ICRSSL
A1
$
239.55
$
202.53
$
5.42
$
3.91
$
0.05
$
0.018
$
2,868.46
$
964.49
$
106.92
$
32.35
$
52.25
$
22.44
$
4,498.40
201.72
278.42
189.45
215.65
4.58
6.27
3.64
4.18
0.04
0.07
$
0.016
$
0.020
2,475.56
3,272.90
912.29
1,016.04
88.46
125.84
30.03
34.68
42.35
62.24
20.69
24.20
3,968.82
5,040.51
A2
$
52.46
$
46.33
$
5.42
$
3.91
$
0.05
$
0.018
$
587.56
$
201.13
$
106.92
$
32.35
$
52.25
$
22.44
$
1,110.84
46.67
58.31
44.14
48.47
4.58
6.27
3.64
4.18
0.04
0.07
$
0.016
$
0.020
502.79
672.07
192.90
209.34
88.46
125.84
30.03
34.68
42.35
62.24
20.69
24.20
976.30
1,245.70
A3
$
26.08
$
23.67
$
5.42
$
3.91
$
0.05
$
0.018
$
454.88
$
131.37
$
106.92
$
32.35
$
52.25
$
22.44
$
859.36
22.86
29.27
22.27
25.07
4.58
6.27
3.64
4.18
0.04
0.07
$
0.016
$
0.020
387.29
524.60
124.78
137.86
88.46
125.84
30.03
34.68
42.35
62.24
20.69
24.20
747.00
974.30
A3
UV90­
10B
$
26.62
$
23.83
$
5.42
$
3.91
$
0.05
$
0.018
$
483.18
$
146.86
$
106.92
$
32.35
$
52.25
$
22.44
$
903.85
23.40
29.82
22.46
25.22
4.58
6.27
3.64
4.18
0.04
0.07
$
0.016
$
0.020
412.68
553.57
139.59
154.14
88.46
125.84
30.03
34.68
42.35
62.24
20.69
24.20
787.93
1,020.25
A4
$
11.47
$
10.49
$
5.42
$
3.91
$
0.05
$
0.018
$
99.61
$
47.74
$
106.92
$
32.35
$
52.25
$
22.44
$
392.67
9.98
12.96
9.84
11.14
4.58
6.27
3.64
4.18
0.04
0.07
$
0.016
$
0.020
85.95
113.29
46.19
49.30
88.46
125.84
30.03
34.68
42.35
62.24
20.69
24.20
341.77
444.19
ICRSSM
A1
$
239.55
$
202.53
$
5.42
$
3.91
$
0.05
$
0.018
$
2,868.46
$
964.49
$
106.92
$
32.35
$
52.25
$
22.44
$
4,498.40
201.72
278.42
189.45
215.65
4.58
6.27
3.64
4.18
0.04
0.07
$
0.016
$
0.020
2,475.56
3,272.90
912.29
1,016.04
88.46
125.84
30.03
34.68
42.35
62.24
20.69
24.20
3,968.82
5,040.51
A2
$
61.39
$
54.27
$
5.42
$
3.91
$
0.05
$
0.018
$
703.68
$
232.08
$
106.92
$
32.35
$
52.25
$
22.44
$
1,274.77
54.47
68.38
51.74
56.75
4.58
6.27
3.64
4.18
0.04
0.07
$
0.016
$
0.020
602.16
804.90
222.17
242.00
88.46
125.84
30.03
34.68
42.35
62.24
20.69
24.20
1,120.34
1,429.54
A3
$
33.30
$
30.19
$
5.42
$
3.91
$
0.05
$
0.018
$
562.38
$
164.26
$
106.92
$
32.35
$
52.25
$
22.44
$
1,013.48
29.36
37.17
28.50
31.84
4.58
6.27
3.64
4.18
0.04
0.07
$
0.016
$
0.020
479.36
648.13
156.16
172.24
88.46
125.84
30.03
34.68
42.35
62.24
20.69
24.20
883.19
1,146.89
A3
UV90­
10B
$
34.11
$
30.35
$
5.42
$
3.91
$
0.05
$
0.018
$
604.46
$
186.35
$
106.92
$
32.35
$
52.25
$
22.44
$
1,078.62
30.20
38.01
28.70
32.01
4.58
6.27
3.64
4.18
0.04
0.07
$
0.016
$
0.020
517.02
691.42
176.99
195.65
88.46
125.84
30.03
34.68
42.35
62.24
20.69
24.20
942.72
1,214.59
A4
$
15.95
$
14.58
$
5.42
$
3.91
$
0.05
$
0.018
$
151.71
$
67.78
$
106.92
$
32.35
$
52.25
$
22.44
$
473.39
13.91
17.99
13.69
15.50
4.58
6.27
3.64
4.18
0.04
0.07
$
0.016
$
0.020
130.67
172.90
65.47
70.09
88.46
125.84
30.03
34.68
42.35
62.24
20.69
24.20
413.54
533.99
High
A3
$
55.08
$
50.19
$
5.42
$
3.91
$
0.05
$
0.018
$
836.66
$
253.83
$
106.92
$
32.35
$
52.25
$
22.44
$
1,419.12
49.10
60.93
47.81
52.52
4.58
6.27
3.64
4.18
0.04
0.07
$
0.016
$
0.020
716.15
961.00
241.65
265.90
88.46
125.84
30.03
34.68
42.35
62.24
20.69
24.20
1,244.50
1,597.85
Low
A3
$
15.43
$
14.01
$
5.42
$
3.91
$
0.05
$
0.018
$
273.01
$
78.35
$
106.92
$
32.35
$
52.25
$
22.44
$
604.16
13.52
17.35
13.17
14.87
4.58
6.27
3.64
4.18
0.04
0.07
$
0.016
$
0.020
231.83
314.28
74.33
82.36
88.46
125.84
30.03
34.68
42.35
62.24
20.69
24.20
522.65
686.36
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
O­
14
June
2003
Exhibit
O.
4d
Annualized
Treatment
Costs
of
LT2ESWTR,
at
3
Percent
($
Millions,
2000$)

Occurrence
Distribution
Rule
Alternative
Small
System
Filtered
Treatment
Capital
Small
System
Filtered
Treatment
O&
M
Small
System
Unfiltered
Treatment
Capital
Small
System
Unfiltered
Treatment
O&
M
Small
System
Uncovered
Reservoirs
Capital
Small
Systems
Uncovered
Reservoirs
O&
M
Large
Systems
Filtered
Treatment
Capital
Large
Systems
Filtered
Treatment
O&
M
Large
Systems
Unfiltered
Treatment
Capital
Large
Systems
Treatment
Unfiltered
O&
M
Large
Systems
Uncovered
Reservoirs
Capital
Large
Systems
Uncovered
Reservoirs
O&
M
Total
Treatment
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
ICR
A1
­
Mean
5th,
95th
$
18.68
$
21.00
$
0.42
$
0.41
$
0.004
$
0.002
$
207.33
$
95.32
$
7.73
$
3.20
$
3.35
$
2.05
$
359.48
15.73
21.71
19.64
22.36
0.36
0.49
0.38
0.43
$
0.003
$
0.004
$
0.001
$
0.002
178.93
236.56
90.16
100.41
6.39
9.10
2.97
3.43
2.71
3.99
1.89
2.21
319.16
400.69
A2
$
6.09
$
7.33
$
0.42
$
0.41
$
0.004
$
0.002
$
63.92
$
28.47
$
7.73
$
3.20
$
3.35
$
2.05
$
122.97
5.36
6.81
6.99
7.67
0.36
0.49
0.38
0.43
$
0.003
$
0.004
$
0.001
$
0.002
54.99
73.15
27.17
29.77
6.39
9.10
2.97
3.43
2.71
3.99
1.89
2.21
109.21
137.05
A3
$
3.95
$
4.78
$
0.42
$
0.41
$
0.004
$
0.002
$
55.01
$
22.89
$
7.73
$
3.20
$
3.35
$
2.05
$
103.78
3.53
4.37
4.56
5.00
0.36
0.49
0.38
0.43
$
0.003
$
0.004
$
0.001
$
0.002
46.92
63.05
21.80
23.98
6.39
9.10
2.97
3.43
2.71
3.99
1.89
2.21
91.51
116.06
A3
UV90­
10B
$
4.12
$
4.78
$
0.42
$
0.41
$
0.004
$
0.002
$
61.33
$
27.09
$
7.73
$
3.20
$
3.35
$
2.05
$
114.47
3.69
4.55
4.56
5.01
0.36
0.49
0.38
0.43
$
0.003
$
0.004
$
0.001
$
0.002
52.79
69.77
25.62
28.54
6.39
9.10
2.97
3.43
2.71
3.99
1.89
2.21
101.36
127.53
A4
$
1.92
$
2.33
$
0.42
$
0.41
$
0.004
$
0.002
$
20.56
$
10.85
$
7.73
$
3.20
$
3.35
$
2.05
$
52.81
1.67
2.16
2.19
2.47
0.36
0.49
0.38
0.43
$
0.003
$
0.004
$
0.001
$
0.002
17.65
23.56
10.43
11.26
6.39
9.10
2.97
3.43
2.71
3.99
1.89
2.21
46.64
59.11
ICRSSL
A1
$
18.68
$
21.00
$
0.42
$
0.41
$
0.004
$
0.002
$
207.33
$
95.32
$
7.73
$
3.20
$
3.35
$
2.05
$
359.48
15.73
21.71
19.64
22.36
0.36
0.49
0.38
0.43
$
0.003
$
0.004
$
0.001
$
0.002
178.93
236.56
90.16
100.41
6.39
9.10
2.97
3.43
2.71
3.99
1.89
2.21
319.16
400.69
A2
$
4.09
$
4.80
$
0.42
$
0.41
$
0.004
$
0.002
$
42.47
$
19.88
$
7.73
$
3.20
$
3.35
$
2.05
$
88.39
3.64
4.55
4.58
5.03
0.36
0.49
0.38
0.43
$
0.003
$
0.004
$
0.001
$
0.002
36.34
48.58
19.06
20.69
6.39
9.10
2.97
3.43
2.71
3.99
1.89
2.21
78.32
98.49
A3
$
2.03
$
2.45
$
0.42
$
0.41
$
0.004
$
0.002
$
32.88
$
12.98
$
7.73
$
3.20
$
3.35
$
2.05
$
67.50
1.78
2.28
2.31
2.60
0.36
0.49
0.38
0.43
$
0.003
$
0.004
$
0.001
$
0.002
27.99
37.92
12.33
13.62
6.39
9.10
2.97
3.43
2.71
3.99
1.89
2.21
59.12
76.07
A3
UV90­
10B
$
2.08
$
2.47
$
0.42
$
0.41
$
0.004
$
0.002
$
34.92
$
14.51
$
7.73
$
3.20
$
3.35
$
2.05
$
71.14
1.82
2.32
2.33
2.62
0.36
0.49
0.38
0.43
$
0.003
$
0.004
$
0.001
$
0.002
29.83
40.01
13.80
15.23
6.39
9.10
2.97
3.43
2.71
3.99
1.89
2.21
62.48
79.83
A4
$
0.89
$
1.09
$
0.42
$
0.41
$
0.004
$
0.002
$
7.20
$
4.72
$
7.73
$
3.20
$
3.35
$
2.05
$
31.05
0.78
1.01
1.02
1.16
0.36
0.49
0.38
0.43
$
0.003
$
0.004
$
0.001
$
0.002
6.21
8.19
4.57
4.87
6.39
9.10
2.97
3.43
2.71
3.99
1.89
2.21
27.28
34.87
ICRSSM
A1
$
18.68
$
21.00
$
0.42
$
0.41
$
0.004
$
0.002
$
207.33
$
95.32
$
7.73
$
3.20
$
3.35
$
2.05
$
359.48
15.73
21.71
19.64
22.36
0.36
0.49
0.38
0.43
$
0.003
$
0.004
$
0.001
$
0.002
178.93
236.56
90.16
100.41
6.39
9.10
2.97
3.43
2.71
3.99
1.89
2.21
319.16
400.69
A2
$
4.79
$
5.63
$
0.42
$
0.41
$
0.004
$
0.002
$
50.86
$
22.94
$
7.73
$
3.20
$
3.35
$
2.05
$
101.36
4.25
5.33
5.36
5.89
0.36
0.49
0.38
0.43
$
0.003
$
0.004
$
0.001
$
0.002
43.52
58.18
21.96
23.92
6.39
9.10
2.97
3.43
2.71
3.99
1.89
2.21
89.79
112.96
A3
$
2.60
$
3.13
$
0.42
$
0.41
$
0.004
$
0.002
$
40.65
$
16.23
$
7.73
$
3.20
$
3.35
$
2.05
$
79.76
2.29
2.90
2.96
3.30
0.36
0.49
0.38
0.43
$
0.003
$
0.004
$
0.001
$
0.002
34.65
46.85
15.43
17.02
6.39
9.10
2.97
3.43
2.71
3.99
1.89
2.21
70.03
89.72
A3
UV90­
10B
$
2.66
$
3.15
$
0.42
$
0.41
$
0.004
$
0.002
$
43.69
$
18.42
$
7.73
$
3.20
$
3.35
$
2.05
$
85.07
2.35
2.96
2.98
3.32
0.36
0.49
0.38
0.43
$
0.003
$
0.004
$
0.001
$
0.002
37.37
49.97
17.49
19.34
6.39
9.10
2.97
3.43
2.71
3.99
1.89
2.21
74.89
95.24
A4
$
1.24
$
1.51
$
0.42
$
0.41
$
0.004
$
0.002
$
10.97
$
6.70
$
7.73
$
3.20
$
3.35
$
2.05
$
37.57
1.08
1.40
1.42
1.61
0.36
0.49
0.38
0.43
$
0.003
$
0.004
$
0.001
$
0.002
9.44
12.50
6.47
6.93
6.39
9.10
2.97
3.43
2.71
3.99
1.89
2.21
33.12
42.08
High
A3
$
4.29
$
5.20
$
0.42
$
0.41
$
0.004
$
0.002
$
60.47
$
25.09
$
7.73
$
3.20
$
3.35
$
2.05
$
112.21
3.83
4.75
4.96
5.45
0.36
0.49
0.38
0.43
$
0.003
$
0.004
$
0.001
$
0.002
51.76
69.46
23.88
26.28
6.39
9.10
2.97
3.43
2.71
3.99
1.89
2.21
99.13
125.58
Low
A3
$
1.20
$
1.45
$
0.42
$
0.41
$
0.004
$
0.002
$
19.73
$
7.74
$
7.73
$
3.20
$
3.35
$
2.05
$
47.29
1.05
1.35
1.37
1.54
0.36
0.49
0.38
0.43
$
0.003
$
0.004
$
0.001
$
0.002
16.76
22.72
7.35
8.14
6.39
9.10
2.97
3.43
2.71
3.99
1.89
2.21
41.22
53.40
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
O­
15
June
2003
Exhibit
O.
4e
Annualized
Treatment
Costs
of
LT2ESWTR,
at
7
Percent
($
Millions,
2000$)

Occurrence
Distribution
Rule
Alternative
Small
System
Filtered
Treatment
Capital
Small
System
Filtered
Treatment
O&
M
Small
System
Unfiltered
Treatment
Capital
Small
System
Unfiltered
Treatment
O&
M
Small
System
Uncovered
Reservoirs
Capital
Small
Systems
Uncovered
Reservoirs
O&
M
Large
Systems
Filtered
Treatment
Capital
Large
Systems
Filtered
Treatment
O&
M
Large
Systems
Unfiltered
Treatment
Capital
Large
Systems
Treatment
Unfiltered
O&
M
Large
Systems
Uncovered
Reservoirs
Capital
Large
Systems
Uncovered
Reservoirs
O&
M
Total
Treatment
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
ICR
A1
­
Mean
5th,
95th
$
20.56
$
17.38
$
0.46
$
0.34
$
0.005
$
0.002
$
246.14
$
82.76
$
9.18
$
2.78
$
4.48
$
1.93
$
386.01
17.31
23.89
16.26
18.51
0.39
0.54
0.31
0.36
$
0.004
$
0.006
$
0.001
$
0.002
212.43
280.85
78.28
87.19
7.59
10.80
2.58
2.98
3.63
5.34
1.78
2.08
340.57
432.53
A2
$
6.70
$
6.07
$
0.46
$
0.34
$
0.005
$
0.002
$
75.89
$
24.72
$
9.18
$
2.78
$
4.48
$
1.93
$
132.54
5.90
7.50
5.79
6.35
0.39
0.54
0.31
0.36
$
0.004
$
0.006
$
0.001
$
0.002
65.28
86.84
23.59
25.85
7.59
10.80
2.58
2.98
3.63
5.34
1.78
2.08
116.84
148.63
A3
$
4.34
$
3.96
$
0.46
$
0.34
$
0.005
$
0.002
$
65.31
$
19.88
$
9.18
$
2.78
$
4.48
$
1.93
$
112.65
3.88
4.81
3.77
4.14
0.39
0.54
0.31
0.36
$
0.004
$
0.006
$
0.001
$
0.002
55.71
74.86
18.93
20.82
7.59
10.80
2.58
2.98
3.63
5.34
1.78
2.08
98.58
126.73
A3
UV90­
10B
$
4.53
$
3.96
$
0.46
$
0.34
$
0.005
$
0.002
$
72.81
$
23.52
$
9.18
$
2.78
$
4.48
$
1.93
$
123.99
4.06
5.01
3.78
4.15
0.39
0.54
0.31
0.36
$
0.004
$
0.006
$
0.001
$
0.002
62.67
82.84
22.24
24.78
7.59
10.80
2.58
2.98
3.63
5.34
1.78
2.08
109.04
138.87
A4
$
2.11
$
1.93
$
0.46
$
0.34
$
0.005
$
0.002
$
24.41
$
9.42
$
9.18
$
2.78
$
4.48
$
1.93
$
57.03
1.84
2.38
1.81
2.05
0.39
0.54
0.31
0.36
$
0.004
$
0.006
$
0.001
$
0.002
20.95
27.97
9.06
9.77
7.59
10.80
2.58
2.98
3.63
5.34
1.78
2.08
49.94
64.28
ICRSSL
A1
$
20.56
$
17.38
$
0.46
$
0.34
$
0.005
$
0.002
$
246.14
$
82.76
$
9.18
$
2.78
$
4.48
$
1.93
$
386.01
17.31
23.89
16.26
18.51
0.39
0.54
0.31
0.36
$
0.004
$
0.006
$
0.001
$
0.002
212.43
280.85
78.28
87.19
7.59
10.80
2.58
2.98
3.63
5.34
1.78
2.08
340.57
432.53
A2
$
4.50
$
3.98
$
0.46
$
0.34
$
0.005
$
0.002
$
50.42
$
17.26
$
9.18
$
2.78
$
4.48
$
1.93
$
95.32
4.00
5.00
3.79
4.16
0.39
0.54
0.31
0.36
$
0.004
$
0.006
$
0.001
$
0.002
43.14
57.67
16.55
17.96
7.59
10.80
2.58
2.98
3.63
5.34
1.78
2.08
83.78
106.89
A3
$
2.24
$
2.03
$
0.46
$
0.34
$
0.005
$
0.002
$
39.03
$
11.27
$
9.18
$
2.78
$
4.48
$
1.93
$
73.74
1.96
2.51
1.91
2.15
0.39
0.54
0.31
0.36
$
0.004
$
0.006
$
0.001
$
0.002
33.23
45.02
10.71
11.83
7.59
10.80
2.58
2.98
3.63
5.34
1.78
2.08
64.10
83.61
A3
UV90­
10B
$
2.28
$
2.05
$
0.46
$
0.34
$
0.005
$
0.002
$
41.46
$
12.60
$
9.18
$
2.78
$
4.48
$
1.93
$
77.56
2.01
2.56
1.93
2.16
0.39
0.54
0.31
0.36
$
0.004
$
0.006
$
0.001
$
0.002
35.41
47.50
11.98
13.23
7.59
10.80
2.58
2.98
3.63
5.34
1.78
2.08
67.61
87.55
A4
$
0.98
$
0.90
$
0.46
$
0.34
$
0.005
$
0.002
$
8.55
$
4.10
$
9.18
$
2.78
$
4.48
$
1.93
$
33.70
0.86
1.11
0.84
0.96
0.39
0.54
0.31
0.36
$
0.004
$
0.006
$
0.001
$
0.002
7.38
9.72
3.96
4.23
7.59
10.80
2.58
2.98
3.63
5.34
1.78
2.08
29.33
38.12
ICRSSM
A1
$
20.56
$
17.38
$
0.46
$
0.34
$
0.005
$
0.002
$
246.14
$
82.76
$
9.18
$
2.78
$
4.48
$
1.93
$
386.01
17.31
23.89
16.26
18.51
0.39
0.54
0.31
0.36
$
0.004
$
0.006
$
0.001
$
0.002
212.43
280.85
78.28
87.19
7.59
10.80
2.58
2.98
3.63
5.34
1.78
2.08
340.57
432.53
A2
$
5.27
$
4.66
$
0.46
$
0.34
$
0.005
$
0.002
$
60.38
$
19.92
$
9.18
$
2.78
$
4.48
$
1.93
$
109.39
4.67
5.87
4.44
4.87
0.39
0.54
0.31
0.36
$
0.004
$
0.006
$
0.001
$
0.002
51.67
69.07
19.06
20.77
7.59
10.80
2.58
2.98
3.63
5.34
1.78
2.08
96.14
122.67
A3
$
2.86
$
2.59
$
0.46
$
0.34
$
0.005
$
0.002
$
48.26
$
14.09
$
9.18
$
2.78
$
4.48
$
1.93
$
86.97
2.52
3.19
2.45
2.73
0.39
0.54
0.31
0.36
$
0.004
$
0.006
$
0.001
$
0.002
41.13
55.62
13.40
14.78
7.59
10.80
2.58
2.98
3.63
5.34
1.78
2.08
75.79
98.42
A3
UV90­
10B
$
2.93
$
2.60
$
0.46
$
0.34
$
0.005
$
0.002
$
51.87
$
15.99
$
9.18
$
2.78
$
4.48
$
1.93
$
92.56
2.59
3.26
2.46
2.75
0.39
0.54
0.31
0.36
$
0.004
$
0.006
$
0.001
$
0.002
44.37
59.33
15.19
16.79
7.59
10.80
2.58
2.98
3.63
5.34
1.78
2.08
80.89
104.23
A4
$
1.37
$
1.25
$
0.46
$
0.34
$
0.005
$
0.002
$
13.02
$
5.82
$
9.18
$
2.78
$
4.48
$
1.93
$
40.62
1.19
1.54
1.17
1.33
0.39
0.54
0.31
0.36
$
0.004
$
0.006
$
0.001
$
0.002
11.21
14.84
5.62
6.01
7.59
10.80
2.58
2.98
3.63
5.34
1.78
2.08
35.49
45.82
High
A3
$
4.73
$
4.31
$
0.46
$
0.34
$
0.005
$
0.002
$
71.79
$
21.78
$
9.18
$
2.78
$
4.48
$
1.93
$
121.78
4.21
5.23
4.10
4.51
0.39
0.54
0.31
0.36
$
0.004
$
0.006
$
0.001
$
0.002
61.45
82.46
20.74
22.82
7.59
10.80
2.58
2.98
3.63
5.34
1.78
2.08
106.79
137.11
Low
A3
$
1.32
$
1.20
$
0.46
$
0.34
$
0.005
$
0.002
$
23.43
$
6.72
$
9.18
$
2.78
$
4.48
$
1.93
$
51.84
1.16
1.49
1.13
1.28
0.39
0.54
0.31
0.36
$
0.004
$
0.006
$
0.001
$
0.002
19.89
26.97
6.38
7.07
7.59
10.80
2.58
2.98
3.63
5.34
1.78
2.08
44.85
58.90
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
O­
16
June
2003
Exhibit
O.
5a
Nominal
State
Costs
of
LT2ESWTR
($
Millions,
2000$)

Occurrence
Distribution
Rule
Alternative
Implementation
Small
E.
coli
Monitoring
Review
1st
Round
Small
Crypto
Monitoring
Review
1st
Round
Medium/

Large
Monitoring
Review
2nd
Round
Small
E.
coli
Monitoring
Review
2nd
Round
Small
Crypto
Monitoring
Review
2nd
Round
Small
System
Benchmarking
Large
System
Benchmarking
Small
System
Technology
Monitoring
Large
System
Technology
Monitoring
Total
State
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
ICR
A1
6.68
$
2.91
$
2.23
$
1.54
$
2.23
$
1.54
$
0.18
$
0.12
$
0.57
$
0.34
$
18.34
$

A2
6.68
$
2.91
$
2.23
$
1.54
$
2.23
$
1.54
$
0.06
$
0.04
$
0.21
$
0.12
$
17.56
$

A3
6.68
$
2.91
$
2.23
$
1.54
$
2.23
$
1.54
$
0.03
$
0.04
$
0.13
$
0.11
$
17.44
$

A3
UV90­
10B
6.68
$
2.91
$
2.23
$
1.54
$
2.23
$
1.54
$
0.03
$
0.04
$
0.13
$
0.11
$
17.44
$

A4
6.68
$
2.91
$
2.23
$
1.54
$
2.23
$
1.54
$
0.01
$
0.02
$
0.08
$
0.05
$
17.28
$

ICRSSL
A1
6.68
$
2.91
$
2.23
$
1.54
$
2.23
$
1.54
$
0.18
$
0.12
$
0.57
$
0.34
$
18.34
$

A2
6.68
$
2.91
$
2.23
$
1.54
$
2.23
$
1.54
$
0.03
$
0.03
$
0.14
$
0.08
$
17.41
$

A3
6.68
$
2.91
$
2.23
$
1.54
$
2.23
$
1.54
$
0.01
$
0.03
$
0.08
$
0.07
$
17.32
$

A3
UV90­
10B
6.68
$
2.91
$
2.23
$
1.54
$
2.23
$
1.54
$
0.01
$
0.03
$
0.08
$
0.07
$
17.32
$

A4
6.68
$
2.91
$
2.23
$
1.54
$
2.23
$
1.54
$
0.01
$
0.01
$
0.07
$
0.02
$
17.23
$

ICRSSM
A1
6.68
$
2.91
$
2.23
$
1.54
$
2.23
$
1.54
$
0.18
$
0.12
$
0.57
$
0.34
$
18.34
$

A2
6.68
$
2.91
$
2.23
$
1.54
$
2.23
$
1.54
$
0.04
$
0.04
$
0.16
$
0.10
$
17.46
$

A3
6.68
$
2.91
$
2.23
$
1.54
$
2.23
$
1.54
$
0.02
$
0.03
$
0.09
$
0.08
$
17.35
$

A3
UV90­
10B
6.68
$
2.91
$
2.23
$
1.54
$
2.23
$
1.54
$
0.02
$
0.03
$
0.09
$
0.09
$
17.35
$

A4
6.68
$
2.91
$
2.23
$
1.54
$
2.23
$
1.54
$
0.01
$
0.01
$
0.07
$
0.03
$
17.24
$

High
A3
6.68
$
2.91
$
2.23
$
1.54
$
2.23
$
1.54
$
0.03
$
0.05
$
0.14
$
0.12
$
17.46
$

Low
A3
6.68
$
2.91
$
2.23
$
1.54
$
2.23
$
1.54
$
0.01
$
0.02
$
0.07
$
0.05
$
17.27
$

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
O­
17
June
2003
Exhibit
O.
5b
Present
Value
of
State
Costs
of
LT2ESWTR,
at
3
Percent
($
Millions,
2000$)

Occurrence
Distribution
Rule
Alternative
Implementation
Small
E.
coli
Monitoring
Review
1st
Round
Small
Crypto
Monitoring
Review
1st
Round
Medium/

Large
Monitoring
Review
2nd
Round
Small
E.
coli
Monitoring
Review
2nd
Round
Small
Crypto
Monitoring
Review
2nd
Round
Small
System
Benchmarking
Large
System
Benchmarking
Small
System
Technology
Monitoring
Large
System
Technology
Monitoring
Total
State
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
ICR
A1
6.58
$
2.59
$
1.92
$
1.11
$
1.52
$
1.02
$
0.14
$
0.10
$
5.58
$
3.92
$
24.49
$

A2
6.58
$
2.59
$
1.92
$
1.11
$
1.52
$
1.02
$
0.05
$
0.04
$
2.09
$
1.34
$
18.25
$

A3
6.58
$
2.59
$
1.92
$
1.11
$
1.52
$
1.02
$
0.02
$
0.03
$
1.31
$
1.22
$
17.32
$

A3
UV90­
10B
6.58
$
2.59
$
1.92
$
1.11
$
1.52
$
1.02
$
0.02
$
0.03
$
1.32
$
1.24
$
17.36
$

A4
6.58
$
2.59
$
1.92
$
1.11
$
1.52
$
1.02
$
0.01
$
0.02
$
0.76
$
0.53
$
16.05
$

ICRSSL
A1
6.58
$
2.59
$
1.92
$
1.11
$
1.52
$
1.02
$
0.14
$
0.10
$
5.58
$
3.92
$
24.49
$

A2
6.58
$
2.59
$
1.92
$
1.11
$
1.52
$
1.02
$
0.02
$
0.03
$
1.33
$
0.95
$
17.07
$

A3
6.58
$
2.59
$
1.92
$
1.11
$
1.52
$
1.02
$
0.01
$
0.02
$
0.79
$
0.81
$
16.37
$

A3
UV90­
10B
6.58
$
2.59
$
1.92
$
1.11
$
1.52
$
1.02
$
0.01
$
0.02
$
0.79
$
0.81
$
16.38
$

A4
6.58
$
2.59
$
1.92
$
1.11
$
1.52
$
1.02
$
0.01
$
0.01
$
0.64
$
0.25
$
15.65
$

ICRSSM
A1
6.58
$
2.59
$
1.92
$
1.11
$
1.52
$
1.02
$
0.14
$
0.10
$
5.58
$
3.92
$
24.49
$

A2
6.58
$
2.59
$
1.92
$
1.11
$
1.52
$
1.02
$
0.03
$
0.03
$
1.55
$
1.11
$
17.46
$

A3
6.58
$
2.59
$
1.92
$
1.11
$
1.52
$
1.02
$
0.01
$
0.03
$
0.90
$
0.96
$
16.64
$

A3
UV90­
10B
6.58
$
2.59
$
1.92
$
1.11
$
1.52
$
1.02
$
0.01
$
0.03
$
0.90
$
0.97
$
16.65
$

A4
6.58
$
2.59
$
1.92
$
1.11
$
1.52
$
1.02
$
0.01
$
0.01
$
0.68
$
0.33
$
15.77
$

High
A3
6.58
$
2.59
$
1.92
$
1.11
$
1.52
$
1.02
$
0.03
$
0.04
$
1.35
$
1.34
$
17.49
$

Low
A3
6.58
$
2.59
$
1.92
$
1.11
$
1.52
$
1.02
$
0.01
$
0.01
$
0.68
$
0.53
$
15.97
$

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
O­
18
June
2003
Exhibit
O.
5c
Present
Value
of
State
Costs
of
LT2ESWTR,
at
7
Percent
($
Millions,
2000$)

Occurrence
Distribution
Rule
Alternative
Implementation
Small
E.
coli
Monitoring
Review
1st
Round
Small
Crypto
Monitoring
Review
1st
Round
Medium/

Large
Monitoring
Review
2nd
Round
Small
E.
coli
Monitoring
Review
2nd
Round
Small
Crypto
Monitoring
Review
2nd
Round
Small
System
Benchmarking
Large
System
Benchmarking
Small
System
Technology
Monitoring
Large
System
Technology
Monitoring
Total
State
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
ICR
A1
6.46
$
2.22
$
1.59
$
0.73
$
0.92
$
0.60
$
0.10
$
0.08
$
3.09
$
2.28
$
18.08
$

A2
6.46
$
2.22
$
1.59
$
0.73
$
0.92
$
0.60
$
0.03
$
0.03
$
1.16
$
0.78
$
14.52
$

A3
6.46
$
2.22
$
1.59
$
0.73
$
0.92
$
0.60
$
0.02
$
0.03
$
0.72
$
0.71
$
14.00
$

A3
UV90­
10B
6.46
$
2.22
$
1.59
$
0.73
$
0.92
$
0.60
$
0.02
$
0.03
$
0.73
$
0.72
$
14.02
$

A4
6.46
$
2.22
$
1.59
$
0.73
$
0.92
$
0.60
$
0.01
$
0.01
$
0.42
$
0.31
$
13.27
$

ICRSSL
A1
6.46
$
2.22
$
1.59
$
0.73
$
0.92
$
0.60
$
0.10
$
0.08
$
3.09
$
2.28
$
18.08
$

A2
6.46
$
2.22
$
1.59
$
0.73
$
0.92
$
0.60
$
0.02
$
0.02
$
0.74
$
0.55
$
13.85
$

A3
6.46
$
2.22
$
1.59
$
0.73
$
0.92
$
0.60
$
0.01
$
0.02
$
0.44
$
0.47
$
13.45
$

A3
UV90­
10B
6.46
$
2.22
$
1.59
$
0.73
$
0.92
$
0.60
$
0.01
$
0.02
$
0.44
$
0.47
$
13.46
$

A4
6.46
$
2.22
$
1.59
$
0.73
$
0.92
$
0.60
$
0.00
$
0.01
$
0.36
$
0.15
$
13.04
$

ICRSSM
A1
6.46
$
2.22
$
1.59
$
0.73
$
0.92
$
0.60
$
0.10
$
0.08
$
3.09
$
2.28
$
18.08
$

A2
6.46
$
2.22
$
1.59
$
0.73
$
0.92
$
0.60
$
0.02
$
0.02
$
0.86
$
0.65
$
14.08
$

A3
6.46
$
2.22
$
1.59
$
0.73
$
0.92
$
0.60
$
0.01
$
0.02
$
0.50
$
0.56
$
13.61
$

A3
UV90­
10B
6.46
$
2.22
$
1.59
$
0.73
$
0.92
$
0.60
$
0.01
$
0.02
$
0.50
$
0.56
$
13.62
$

A4
6.46
$
2.22
$
1.59
$
0.73
$
0.92
$
0.60
$
0.00
$
0.01
$
0.38
$
0.19
$
13.10
$

High
A3
6.46
$
2.22
$
1.59
$
0.73
$
0.92
$
0.60
$
0.02
$
0.03
$
0.75
$
0.78
$
14.10
$

Low
A3
6.46
$
2.22
$
1.59
$
0.73
$
0.92
$
0.60
$
0.00
$
0.01
$
0.38
$
0.31
$
13.23
$

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
O­
19
June
2003
Exhibit
O.
5d
Annualized
State
Costs
of
LT2ESWTR,
at
3
Percent
($
Millions,
2000$)

Occurrence
Distribution
Rule
Alternative
Implementation
Small
E.
coli
Monitoring
Review
1st
Round
Small
Crypto
Monitoring
Review
1st
Round
Medium/

Large
Monitoring
Review
2nd
Round
Small
E.
coli
Monitoring
Review
2nd
Round
Small
Crypto
Monitoring
Review
2nd
Round
Small
System
Benchmarking
Large
System
Benchmarking
Small
System
Technology
Monitoring
Large
System
Technology
Monitoring
Total
State
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
ICR
A1
0.38
$
0.15
$
0.11
$
0.06
$
0.09
$
0.06
$
0.008
$
0.006
$
0.32
$
0.23
$
1.41
$

A2
0.38
$
0.15
$
0.11
$
0.06
$
0.09
$
0.06
$
0.003
$
0.002
$
0.12
$
0.08
$
1.05
$

A3
0.38
$
0.15
$
0.11
$
0.06
$
0.09
$
0.06
$
0.001
$
0.002
$
0.07
$
0.07
$
0.99
$

A3
UV90­
10B
0.38
$
0.15
$
0.11
$
0.06
$
0.09
$
0.06
$
0.001
$
0.002
$
0.08
$
0.07
$
1.00
$

A4
0.38
$
0.15
$
0.11
$
0.06
$
0.09
$
0.06
$
0.001
$
0.001
$
0.04
$
0.03
$
0.92
$

ICRSSL
A1
0.38
$
0.15
$
0.11
$
0.06
$
0.09
$
0.06
$
0.008
$
0.006
$
0.32
$
0.23
$
1.41
$

A2
0.38
$
0.15
$
0.11
$
0.06
$
0.09
$
0.06
$
0.001
$
0.002
$
0.08
$
0.05
$
0.98
$

A3
0.38
$
0.15
$
0.11
$
0.06
$
0.09
$
0.06
$
0.001
$
0.001
$
0.05
$
0.05
$
0.94
$

A3
UV90­
10B
0.38
$
0.15
$
0.11
$
0.06
$
0.09
$
0.06
$
0.001
$
0.001
$
0.05
$
0.05
$
0.94
$

A4
0.38
$
0.15
$
0.11
$
0.06
$
0.09
$
0.06
$
0.000
$
0.000
$
0.04
$
0.01
$
0.90
$

ICRSSM
A1
0.38
$
0.15
$
0.11
$
0.06
$
0.09
$
0.06
$
0.008
$
0.006
$
0.32
$
0.23
$
1.41
$

A2
0.38
$
0.15
$
0.11
$
0.06
$
0.09
$
0.06
$
0.002
$
0.002
$
0.09
$
0.06
$
1.00
$

A3
0.38
$
0.15
$
0.11
$
0.06
$
0.09
$
0.06
$
0.001
$
0.002
$
0.05
$
0.06
$
0.96
$

A3
UV90­
10B
0.38
$
0.15
$
0.11
$
0.06
$
0.09
$
0.06
$
0.001
$
0.002
$
0.05
$
0.06
$
0.96
$

A4
0.38
$
0.15
$
0.11
$
0.06
$
0.09
$
0.06
$
0.000
$
0.001
$
0.04
$
0.02
$
0.91
$

High
A3
0.38
$
0.15
$
0.11
$
0.06
$
0.09
$
0.06
$
0.001
$
0.002
$
0.08
$
0.08
$
1.00
$

Low
A3
0.38
$
0.15
$
0.11
$
0.06
$
0.09
$
0.06
$
0.000
$
0.001
$
0.04
$
0.03
$
0.92
$

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
O­
20
June
2003
Exhibit
O.
5e
Annualized
State
Costs
of
LT2ESWTR,
at
7
Percent
($
Millions,
2000$)

Occurrence
Distribution
Rule
Alternative
Implementation
Small
E.
coli
Monitoring
Review
1st
Round
Small
Crypto
Monitoring
Review
1st
Round
Medium/

Large
Monitoring
Review
2nd
Round
Small
E.
coli
Monitoring
Review
2nd
Round
Small
Crypto
Monitoring
Review
2nd
Round
Small
System
Benchmarking
Large
System
Benchmarking
Small
System
Technology
Monitoring
Large
System
Technology
Monitoring
Total
State
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
ICR
A1
0.55
$
0.19
$
0.14
$
0.06
$
0.08
$
0.05
$
0.009
$
0.007
$
0.27
$
0.20
$
1.55
$

A2
0.55
$
0.19
$
0.14
$
0.06
$
0.08
$
0.05
$
0.003
$
0.003
$
0.10
$
0.07
$
1.25
$

A3
0.55
$
0.19
$
0.14
$
0.06
$
0.08
$
0.05
$
0.002
$
0.002
$
0.06
$
0.06
$
1.20
$

A3
UV90­
10B
0.55
$
0.19
$
0.14
$
0.06
$
0.08
$
0.05
$
0.002
$
0.002
$
0.06
$
0.06
$
1.20
$

A4
0.55
$
0.19
$
0.14
$
0.06
$
0.08
$
0.05
$
0.001
$
0.001
$
0.04
$
0.03
$
1.14
$

ICRSSL
A1
0.55
$
0.19
$
0.14
$
0.06
$
0.08
$
0.05
$
0.009
$
0.007
$
0.27
$
0.20
$
1.55
$

A2
0.55
$
0.19
$
0.14
$
0.06
$
0.08
$
0.05
$
0.002
$
0.002
$
0.06
$
0.05
$
1.19
$

A3
0.55
$
0.19
$
0.14
$
0.06
$
0.08
$
0.05
$
0.001
$
0.002
$
0.04
$
0.04
$
1.15
$

A3
UV90­
10B
0.55
$
0.19
$
0.14
$
0.06
$
0.08
$
0.05
$
0.001
$
0.002
$
0.04
$
0.04
$
1.16
$

A4
0.55
$
0.19
$
0.14
$
0.06
$
0.08
$
0.05
$
0.000
$
0.000
$
0.03
$
0.01
$
1.12
$

ICRSSM
A1
0.55
$
0.19
$
0.14
$
0.06
$
0.08
$
0.05
$
0.009
$
0.007
$
0.27
$
0.20
$
1.55
$

A2
0.55
$
0.19
$
0.14
$
0.06
$
0.08
$
0.05
$
0.002
$
0.002
$
0.07
$
0.06
$
1.21
$

A3
0.55
$
0.19
$
0.14
$
0.06
$
0.08
$
0.05
$
0.001
$
0.002
$
0.04
$
0.05
$
1.17
$

A3
UV90­
10B
0.55
$
0.19
$
0.14
$
0.06
$
0.08
$
0.05
$
0.001
$
0.002
$
0.04
$
0.05
$
1.17
$

A4
0.55
$
0.19
$
0.14
$
0.06
$
0.08
$
0.05
$
0.000
$
0.001
$
0.03
$
0.02
$
1.12
$

High
A3
0.55
$
0.19
$
0.14
$
0.06
$
0.08
$
0.05
$
0.002
$
0.003
$
0.06
$
0.07
$
1.21
$

Low
A3
0.55
$
0.19
$
0.14
$
0.06
$
0.08
$
0.05
$
0.000
$
0.001
$
0.03
$
0.03
$
1.13
$

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
O­
21
June
2003
Exhibit
O.
6a
Present
Value
of
Benefits
of
LT2ESWTR,
at
3
Percent
($
Millions,
2000$),

Enhanced
Cost
of
Illness
Occurrence
Distribution
Rule
Alternative
Illnesses
Avoided
Small
Systems
Illnesses
Avoided
Large
Systems
Deaths
Avoided
Small
Systems
Deaths
Avoided
Large
Systems
Total
Benefits
A
B
C
D
E
ICR
A1
­
Mean
5th,
95th
$
661
$
11,595
$
592
$
12,952
$
25,801
$
81
$
1,733
$
1,934
$
26,439
$
32
$
1,942
$
871
$
39,966
$
3,503
$
66,007
A2
$
643
$
11,417
$
577
$
12,802
$
25,439
$
79
$
1,691
$
1,914
$
25,958
$
31
$
1,889
$
863
$
39,426
$
3,470
$
64,744
A3
$
621
$
11,292
$
559
$
12,696
$
25,168
$
77
$
1,633
$
1,902
$
25,603
$
31
$
1,828
$
858
$
39,060
$
3,445
$
63,834
A4
$
535
$
10,467
$
487
$
11,999
$
23,487
$
70
$
1,379
$
1,815
$
23,023
$
28
$
1,578
$
832
$
36,395
$
3,300
$
58,461
ICRSSL
A1
$
216
$
3,568
$
193
$
3,977
$
7,954
$
26
$
586
$
599
$
8,267
$
10
$
681
$
260
$
12,364
$
1,027
$
21,148
A2
$
166
$
3,057
$
151
$
3,546
$
6,920
$
21
$
453
$
537
$
6,787
$
8
$
531
$
242
$
10,827
$
938
$
17,970
A3
$
130
$
2,868
$
121
$
3,388
$
6,508
$
16
$
358
$
516
$
6,202
$
7
$
422
$
235
$
10,278
$
903
$
16,699
A4
$
101
$
2,461
$
97
$
3,045
$
5,705
$
13
$
273
$
470
$
5,077
$
6
$
331
$
220
$
9,074
$
838
$
14,106
ICRSSM
A1
$
373
$
6,216
$
333
$
6,937
$
13,859
$
40
$
1,097
$
1,039
$
14,913
$
16
$
1,164
$
447
$
21,610
$
1,794
$
36,424
A2
$
327
$
5,756
$
296
$
6,549
$
12,928
$
36
$
968
$
987
$
13,568
$
15
$
1,025
$
430
$
20,316
$
1,711
$
33,623
A3
$
288
$
5,541
$
262
$
6,367
$
12,458
$
32
$
858
$
959
$
12,914
$
13
$
906
$
422
$
19,693
$
1,667
$
32,193
A4
$
238
$
4,834
$
221
$
5,769
$
11,062
$
28
$
705
$
887
$
10,786
$
12
$
751
$
399
$
17,541
$
1,547
$
27,877
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
O­
22
June
2003
Exhibit
O.
6b
Present
Value
of
Benefits
of
LT2ESWTR,
at
3
Percent
($
Millions,
2000$),

Traditional
Cost
of
Illness
Occurrence
Distribution
Rule
Alternative
Illnesses
Avoided
Small
Systems
Illnesses
Avoided
Large
Systems
Deaths
Avoided
Small
Systems
Deaths
Avoided
Large
Systems
Total
Benefits
A
B
C
D
E
ICR
A1
­
Mean
5th,
95th
$
24
$
518
$
198
$
582
$
7,951
$
3,487
$
32
$
1,942
$
592
$
871
$
39,966
$
12,952
$
1,854
$
48,474
$
17,229
A2
$
24
$
506
$
192
$
576
$
7,806
$
3,433
$
31
$
1,889
$
577
$
863
$
39,426
$
12,802
$
1,835
$
47,778
$
17,005
A3
$
23
$
489
$
186
$
572
$
7,699
$
3,396
$
31
$
1,828
$
559
$
858
$
39,060
$
12,696
$
1,824
$
47,250
$
16,837
A4
$
21
$
412
$
160
$
546
$
6,924
$
3,148
$
28
$
1,578
$
487
$
832
$
36,395
$
11,999
$
1,750
$
43,938
$
15,793
ICRSSL
A1
$
8
$
175
$
65
$
180
$
2,486
$
1,073
$
10
$
681
$
193
$
260
$
12,364
$
3,977
$
532
$
15,421
$
5,308
A2
$
6
$
136
$
50
$
162
$
2,041
$
919
$
8
$
531
$
151
$
242
$
10,827
$
3,546
$
491
$
13,300
$
4,666
A3
$
5
$
107
$
39
$
155
$
1,865
$
863
$
7
$
422
$
121
$
235
$
10,278
$
3,388
$
474
$
12,412
$
4,411
A4
$
4
$
82
$
30
$
141
$
1,527
$
740
$
6
$
331
$
97
$
220
$
9,074
$
3,045
$
442
$
10,732
$
3,913
ICRSSM
A1
$
12
$
328
$
112
$
312
$
4,485
$
1,869
$
16
$
1,164
$
333
$
447
$
21,610
$
6,937
$
925
$
26,853
$
9,251
A2
$
11
$
290
$
98
$
297
$
4,080
$
1,731
$
15
$
1,025
$
296
$
430
$
20,316
$
6,549
$
889
$
24,962
$
8,674
A3
$
10
$
257
$
86
$
288
$
3,884
$
1,666
$
13
$
906
$
262
$
422
$
19,693
$
6,367
$
869
$
23,897
$
8,382
A4
$
8
$
211
$
71
$
267
$
3,244
$
1,454
$
12
$
751
$
221
$
399
$
17,541
$
5,769
$
809
$
20,963
$
7,515
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
O­
23
June
2003
Exhibit
O.
6c
Present
Value
of
Benefits
of
LT2ESWTR,
at
7
Percent
($
Millions,
2000$),

Enhanced
Cost
of
Illness
Occurrence
Distribution
Rule
Alternative
Illnesses
Avoided
Small
Systems
Illnesses
Avoided
Large
Systems
Deaths
Avoided
Small
Systems
Deaths
Avoided
Large
Systems
Total
Benefits
A
B
C
D
E
ICR
A1
­
Mean
5th,
95th
$
44
$
941
$
359
$
1,098
$
15,008
$
6,582
$
18
$
1,063
$
324
$
498
$
22,850
$
7,423
$
1,993
$
37,624
$
14,689
A2
$
43
$
918
$
350
$
1,086
$
14,735
$
6,481
$
17
$
1,034
$
316
$
495
$
22,527
$
7,337
$
1,975
$
36,883
$
14,484
A3
$
42
$
887
$
337
$
1,080
$
14,534
$
6,410
$
17
$
1,000
$
306
$
493
$
22,326
$
7,277
$
1,962
$
36,362
$
14,330
A4
$
38
$
749
$
291
$
1,030
$
13,069
$
5,941
$
15
$
865
$
267
$
475
$
20,871
$
6,877
$
1,875
$
33,321
$
13,376
ICRSSL
A1
$
14
$
318
$
118
$
340
$
4,693
$
2,025
$
5
$
373
$
106
$
149
$
7,090
$
2,279
$
583
$
12,061
$
4,528
A2
$
11
$
246
$
90
$
305
$
3,853
$
1,735
$
4
$
290
$
83
$
139
$
6,206
$
2,033
$
533
$
10,249
$
3,940
A3
$
9
$
195
$
71
$
293
$
3,520
$
1,628
$
4
$
231
$
66
$
135
$
5,888
$
1,942
$
515
$
9,509
$
3,707
A4
$
7
$
149
$
55
$
267
$
2,882
$
1,397
$
3
$
181
$
53
$
127
$
5,207
$
1,745
$
476
$
8,038
$
3,251
ICRSSM
A1
$
22
$
596
$
203
$
590
$
8,466
$
3,529
$
9
$
638
$
183
$
257
$
12,399
$
3,976
$
1,018
$
20,776
$
7,889
A2
$
19
$
526
$
178
$
560
$
7,702
$
3,268
$
8
$
562
$
162
$
247
$
11,653
$
3,753
$
971
$
19,178
$
7,361
A3
$
18
$
466
$
156
$
544
$
7,331
$
3,146
$
7
$
495
$
144
$
243
$
11,301
$
3,649
$
948
$
18,372
$
7,095
A4
$
15
$
383
$
129
$
503
$
6,123
$
2,744
$
6
$
411
$
121
$
229
$
10,050
$
3,307
$
880
$
15,887
$
6,301
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
O­
24
June
2003
Exhibit
O.
6d
Present
Value
of
Benefits
of
LT2ESWTR,
at
7
Percent
($
Millions,
2000$),

Tradional
Cost
of
Illness
Occurrence
Distribution
Rule
Alternative
Illnesses
Avoided
Small
Systems
Illnesses
Avoided
Large
Systems
Deaths
Avoided
Small
Systems
Deaths
Avoided
Large
Systems
Total
Benefits
A
B
C
D
E
ICR
A1
­
Mean
5th,
95th
$
108
$
1,989
$
324
$
7,423
$
9,844
$
13
$
283
$
332
$
4,535
$
18
$
1,063
$
498
$
22,850
$
1,058
$
27,660
A2
$
105
$
1,958
$
316
$
7,337
$
9,716
$
13
$
276
$
328
$
4,453
$
17
$
1,034
$
495
$
22,527
$
1,048
$
27,263
A3
$
101
$
1,937
$
306
$
7,277
$
9,621
$
13
$
266
$
326
$
4,392
$
17
$
1,000
$
493
$
22,326
$
1,041
$
26,982
A4
$
87
$
1,795
$
267
$
6,877
$
9,026
$
11
$
225
$
311
$
3,949
$
15
$
865
$
475
$
20,871
$
999
$
25,118
ICRSSL
A1
$
35
$
612
$
106
$
2,279
$
3,032
$
4
$
96
$
103
$
1,418
$
5
$
373
$
149
$
7,090
$
305
$
8,825
A2
$
27
$
524
$
83
$
2,033
$
2,667
$
3
$
74
$
92
$
1,164
$
4
$
290
$
139
$
6,206
$
281
$
7,597
A3
$
21
$
492
$
66
$
1,942
$
2,521
$
3
$
58
$
88
$
1,064
$
4
$
231
$
135
$
5,888
$
271
$
7,111
A4
$
17
$
422
$
53
$
1,745
$
2,237
$
2
$
45
$
81
$
871
$
3
$
181
$
127
$
5,207
$
252
$
6,139
ICRSSM
A1
$
61
$
1,066
$
183
$
3,976
$
5,285
$
7
$
179
$
178
$
2,558
$
9
$
638
$
257
$
12,399
$
529
$
15,348
A2
$
53
$
987
$
162
$
3,753
$
4,956
$
6
$
158
$
169
$
2,327
$
8
$
562
$
247
$
11,653
$
508
$
14,272
A3
$
47
$
950
$
144
$
3,649
$
4,790
$
5
$
140
$
164
$
2,215
$
7
$
495
$
243
$
11,301
$
497
$
13,656
A4
$
39
$
829
$
121
$
3,307
$
4,296
$
5
$
115
$
152
$
1,850
$
6
$
411
$
229
$
10,050
$
463
$
11,988
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
O­
25
June
2003
Exhibit
O.
6e
Annualized
Benefits
of
LT2ESWTR,
at
3
Percent
($
Millions,
2000$),

Enhanced
Cost
of
Illness
Occurrence
Distribution
Rule
Alternative
A1
­
Mean
5th,
95th
$
5
$
100
$
111
$
1,518
$
2
$
112
$
50
$
2,295
$
201
$
3,791
$
5
$
97
$
110
$
1,491
$
2
$
108
$
50
$
2,264
$
199
$
3,718
$
4
$
94
$
109
$
1,470
$
2
$
105
$
49
$
2,243
$
198
$
3,666
$
4
$
79
$
104
$
1,322
$
2
$
91
$
48
$
2,090
$
189
$
3,357
E
D
A
C
A2
A3
A4
ICR
$
31
$
601
$
28
$
689
$
1,349
$
36
$
648
$
32
$
729
$
1,445
$
37
$
656
$
33
$
735
$
1,461
$
38
$
666
$
34
$
744
$
1,482
Illnesses
Avoided
Small
Systems
Illnesses
Avoided
Large
Systems
Deaths
Avoided
Small
Systems
Deaths
Avoided
Large
Systems
Total
Benefits
B
ICRSSL
$
2
$
34
$
34
$
475
$
1
$
39
$
15
$
710
$
59
$
1,214
$
1
$
26
$
31
$
390
$
0
$
30
$
14
$
622
$
54
$
1,032
$
1
$
21
$
30
$
356
$
0
$
24
$
14
$
590
$
52
$
959
$
1
$
16
$
27
$
292
$
0
$
19
$
13
$
521
$
48
$
810
$
10
$
6
A1
$
141
$
6
$
175
$
328
$
374
$
7
$
165
$
7
$
195
$
176
$
9
$
204
$
397
$
457
$
12
$
205
$
11
$
228
A2
A3
A4
ICRSSM
$
2
$
63
$
60
$
856
$
1
$
67
$
26
$
1,241
$
103
$
2,092
$
2
$
56
$
57
$
779
$
1
$
59
$
25
$
1,167
$
98
$
1,931
$
2
$
49
$
55
$
742
$
1
$
52
$
24
$
1,131
$
96
$
1,849
$
2
$
41
$
51
$
619
$
1
$
43
$
23
$
1,007
$
89
$
1,601
$
19
$
14
$
278
$
17
$
318
$
331
$
13
$
15
$
17
$
331
$
635
$
796
$
366
$
715
$
376
$
742
$
21
$
357
$
19
$
398
A2
A3
A4
A1
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
O­
26
June
2003
Exhibit
O.
6f
Annualized
Benefits
of
LT2ESWTR,
at
3
Percent
($
Millions,
2000$),

Traditional
Cost
of
Illness
Occurrence
Distribution
Rule
Alternative
Illnesses
Avoided
Small
Systems
Illnesses
Avoided
Large
Systems
Deaths
Avoided
Small
Systems
Deaths
Avoided
Large
Systems
Total
Benefits
A
B
C
D
E
ICR
A1
­
Mean
5th,
95th
$
1
$
30
$
11
$
33
$
457
$
200
$
2
$
112
$
34
$
50
$
2,295
$
744
$
106
$
2,784
$
989
A2
$
1
$
29
$
11
$
33
$
448
$
197
$
2
$
108
$
33
$
50
$
2,264
$
735
$
105
$
2,744
$
977
A3
$
1
$
28
$
11
$
33
$
442
$
195
$
2
$
105
$
32
$
49
$
2,243
$
729
$
105
$
2,713
$
967
A4
$
1
$
24
$
9
$
31
$
398
$
181
$
2
$
91
$
28
$
48
$
2,090
$
689
$
101
$
2,523
$
907
ICRSSL
A1
$
0
$
10
$
4
$
10
$
143
$
62
$
1
$
39
$
11
$
15
$
710
$
228
$
31
$
886
$
305
A2
$
0
$
8
$
3
$
9
$
117
$
53
$
0
$
30
$
9
$
14
$
622
$
204
$
28
$
764
$
268
A3
$
0
$
6
$
2
$
9
$
107
$
50
$
0
$
24
$
7
$
14
$
590
$
195
$
27
$
713
$
253
A4
$
0
$
5
$
2
$
8
$
88
$
43
$
0
$
19
$
6
$
13
$
521
$
175
$
25
$
616
$
225
ICRSSM
A1
$
1
$
19
$
6
$
18
$
258
$
107
$
1
$
67
$
19
$
26
$
1,241
$
398
$
53
$
1,542
$
531
A2
$
1
$
17
$
6
$
17
$
234
$
99
$
1
$
59
$
17
$
25
$
1,167
$
376
$
51
$
1,434
$
498
A3
$
1
$
15
$
5
$
17
$
223
$
96
$
1
$
52
$
15
$
24
$
1,131
$
366
$
50
$
1,372
$
481
A4
$
0
$
12
$
4
$
15
$
186
$
83
$
1
$
43
$
13
$
23
$
1,007
$
331
$
46
$
1,204
$
432
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
O­
27
June
2003
Exhibit
O.
6g
Annualized
Benefits
of
LT2ESWTR,
at
7
Percent
($
Millions,
2000$)

Enhanced
Cost
of
Illness
Occurrence
Distribution
Rule
Alternative
Illnesses
Avoided
Small
Systems
Illnesses
Avoided
Large
Systems
Deaths
Avoided
Small
Systems
Deaths
Avoided
Large
Systems
Total
Benefits
A
B
C
D
E
ICR
A1
­
Mean
5th,
95th
$
31
$
565
$
28
$
637
$
1,260
$
4
$
81
$
94
$
1,288
$
2
$
91
$
43
$
1,961
$
171
$
3,229
A2
$
30
$
556
$
27
$
630
$
1,243
$
4
$
79
$
93
$
1,264
$
1
$
89
$
42
$
1,933
$
170
$
3,165
A3
$
29
$
550
$
26
$
624
$
1,230
$
4
$
76
$
93
$
1,247
$
1
$
86
$
42
$
1,916
$
168
$
3,120
A4
$
25
$
510
$
23
$
590
$
1,148
$
3
$
64
$
88
$
1,121
$
1
$
74
$
41
$
1,791
$
161
$
2,859
ICRSSL
A1
$
10
$
174
$
9
$
196
$
389
$
1
$
27
$
29
$
403
$
0
$
32
$
13
$
608
$
50
$
1,035
A2
$
8
$
149
$
7
$
174
$
338
$
1
$
21
$
26
$
331
$
0
$
25
$
12
$
533
$
46
$
879
A3
$
6
$
140
$
6
$
167
$
318
$
1
$
17
$
25
$
302
$
0
$
20
$
12
$
505
$
44
$
816
A4
$
5
$
120
$
5
$
150
$
279
$
1
$
13
$
23
$
247
$
0
$
16
$
11
$
447
$
41
$
690
ICRSSM
A1
$
17
$
303
$
16
$
341
$
677
$
2
$
51
$
51
$
726
$
1
$
55
$
22
$
1,064
$
87
$
1,783
A2
$
15
$
280
$
14
$
322
$
632
$
2
$
45
$
48
$
661
$
1
$
48
$
21
$
1,000
$
83
$
1,646
A3
$
13
$
270
$
12
$
313
$
609
$
2
$
40
$
47
$
629
$
1
$
42
$
21
$
970
$
81
$
1,577
A4
$
11
$
235
$
10
$
284
$
541
$
1
$
33
$
43
$
525
$
1
$
35
$
20
$
862
$
75
$
1,363
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
O­
28
June
2003
Exhibit
O.
6h
Annualized
Benefits
of
LT2ESWTR,
at
7
Percent
($
Millions,
2000$)

Traditional
Cost
of
Illness
Occurrence
Distribution
Rule
Alternative
Illnesses
Avoided
Small
Systems
Illnesses
Avoided
Large
Systems
Deaths
Avoided
Small
Systems
Deaths
Avoided
Large
Systems
Total
Benefits
A
B
C
D
E
ICR
A1
­
Mean
5th,
95th
$
1
$
24
$
9
$
28
$
389
$
171
$
2
$
91
$
28
$
43
$
1,961
$
637
$
91
$
2,374
$
845
A2
$
1
$
24
$
9
$
28
$
382
$
168
$
1
$
89
$
27
$
42
$
1,933
$
630
$
90
$
2,339
$
834
A3
$
1
$
23
$
9
$
28
$
377
$
166
$
1
$
86
$
26
$
42
$
1,916
$
624
$
89
$
2,315
$
826
A4
$
1
$
19
$
7
$
27
$
339
$
154
$
1
$
74
$
23
$
41
$
1,791
$
590
$
86
$
2,155
$
775
ICRSSL
A1
$
0
$
8
$
3
$
9
$
122
$
53
$
0
$
32
$
9
$
13
$
608
$
196
$
26
$
757
$
260
A2
$
0
$
6
$
2
$
8
$
100
$
45
$
0
$
25
$
7
$
12
$
533
$
174
$
24
$
652
$
229
A3
$
0
$
5
$
2
$
8
$
91
$
42
$
0
$
20
$
6
$
12
$
505
$
167
$
23
$
610
$
216
A4
$
0
$
4
$
1
$
7
$
75
$
36
$
0
$
16
$
5
$
11
$
447
$
150
$
22
$
527
$
192
ICRSSM
A1
$
1
$
15
$
5
$
15
$
220
$
91
$
1
$
55
$
16
$
22
$
1,064
$
341
$
45
$
1,317
$
454
A2
$
1
$
14
$
5
$
15
$
200
$
85
$
1
$
48
$
14
$
21
$
1,000
$
322
$
44
$
1,225
$
425
A3
$
0
$
12
$
4
$
14
$
190
$
82
$
1
$
42
$
12
$
21
$
970
$
313
$
43
$
1,172
$
411
A4
$
0
$
10
$
3
$
13
$
159
$
71
$
1
$
35
$
10
$
20
$
862
$
284
$
40
$
1,029
$
369
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
O­
29
June
2003
Exhibit
O.
7a
Nominal
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Costs
of
LT2ESWTR
by
Year,
ICR
Data
Set,
Preferred
Alternative
($
Millions)

Year
Small
System
Implementation
Small
System
1st
Round
E.

coli
Monitoring
Small
System
1st
Round
Crypto
Monitoring
Small
System
2nd
Round
E.

coli
Monitoring
Small
System
2nd
Round
Crypto
Monitoring
Small
System
Benchmarking
Large
System
Implementation
Large
System
1st
Round
Monitoring
Large
System
2nd
Round
Monitoring
Large
System
Benchmarking
Total
Non­

Treatment
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
2003
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.33
$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.33
$

2004
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
13.44
$
­

$
­

$
13.44
$

2005
1.23
$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
13.44
$
­

$
­

$
14.66
$

2006
­

$
10.65
$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
10.65
$

2007
­

$
­

$
14.20
$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.02
$
14.22
$

2008
­

$
­

$
14.20
$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.02
$
14.22
$

2009
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.01
$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.02
$
0.03
$

2010
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.01
$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.02
$
0.03
$

2011
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.01
$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.02
$
0.03
$

2012
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.01
$
­

$
­

$
4.82
$
­

$
4.83
$

2013
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.01
$
­

$
­

$
9.65
$
­

$
9.66
$

2014
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
4.82
$
­

$
4.82
$

2015
­

$
­

$
­

$
9.22
$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
9.22
$

2016
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
12.56
$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
12.56
$

2017
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
12.56
$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
12.56
$

2018
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$

2019
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$

2020
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$

2021
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$

2022
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$

2023
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$

2024
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$

2025
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$

2026
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$

2027
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
O­
30
June
2003
Exhibit
O.
7b
Nominal
Treatment
Costs
of
LT2ESWTR
by
Year,
ICR
Data
Set,
Preferred
Alternative
($
Millions)

Year
Small
System
Filtered
Treatment
Capital
Small
System
Filtered
Treatment
O&
M
Small
System
Unfiltered
Treatment
Capital
Small
System
Unfiltered
Treatment
O&
M
Small
System
Uncovered
Reservoirs
Capital
Small
Systems
Uncovered
Reservoirs
O&
M
Large
Systems
Filtered
Treatment
Capital
Large
Systems
Filtered
Treatment
O&
M
Large
Systems
Unfiltered
Treatment
Capital
Large
Systems
Treatment
Unfiltered
O&
M
Large
Systems
Uncovered
Reservoirs
Capital
Large
Systems
Uncovered
Reservoirs
O&
M
Total
Treatment
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
2003
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$

2004
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.01
$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
12.86
$
­

$
12.87
$

2005
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.01
$
0.0004
$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
12.86
$
0.50
$
13.37
$

2006
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.01
$
0.0008
$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
12.86
$
1.01
$
13.88
$

2007
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.01
$
0.0012
$
128.85
$
­

$
18.10
$
­

$
12.86
$
1.51
$
161.33
$

2008
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.01
$
0.0016
$
257.70
$
3.50
$
36.20
$
0.49
$
12.86
$
2.02
$
312.78
$

2009
11.05
$
­

$
1.18
$
­

$
­

$
0.0020
$
386.54
$
10.51
$
54.31
$
1.47
$
­

$
2.52
$
467.59
$

2010
22.10
$
0.85
$
2.36
$
0.07
$
­

$
0.0020
$
257.70
$
21.03
$
36.20
$
2.94
$
­

$
2.52
$
345.77
$

2011
33.14
$
2.56
$
3.55
$
0.22
$
­

$
0.0020
$
257.70
$
28.04
$
36.20
$
3.92
$
­

$
2.52
$
367.84
$

2012
22.10
$
5.11
$
2.36
$
0.43
$
­

$
0.0020
$
­

$
35.05
$
­

$
4.89
$
­

$
2.52
$
72.47
$

2013
22.10
$
6.82
$
2.36
$
0.58
$
­

$
0.0020
$
­

$
35.05
$
­

$
4.89
$
­

$
2.52
$
74.32
$

2014
­

$
8.52
$
­

$
0.72
$
­

$
0.0020
$
­

$
35.05
$
­

$
4.89
$
­

$
2.52
$
51.71
$

2015
­

$
8.52
$
­

$
0.72
$
­

$
0.0020
$
­

$
35.05
$
­

$
4.89
$
­

$
2.52
$
51.71
$

2016
­

$
8.52
$
­

$
0.72
$
­

$
0.0020
$
­

$
35.05
$
­

$
4.89
$
­

$
2.52
$
51.71
$

2017
­

$
8.52
$
­

$
0.72
$
­

$
0.0020
$
­

$
35.05
$
­

$
4.89
$
­

$
2.52
$
51.71
$

2018
­

$
8.52
$
­

$
0.72
$
­

$
0.0020
$
­

$
35.05
$
­

$
4.89
$
­

$
2.52
$
51.71
$

2019
­

$
8.52
$
­

$
0.72
$
­

$
0.0020
$
­

$
35.05
$
­

$
4.89
$
­

$
2.52
$
51.71
$

2020
­

$
8.52
$
­

$
0.72
$
­

$
0.0020
$
­

$
35.05
$
­

$
4.89
$
­

$
2.52
$
51.71
$

2021
­

$
8.52
$
­

$
0.72
$
­

$
0.0020
$
­

$
35.05
$
­

$
4.89
$
­

$
2.52
$
51.71
$

2022
­

$
8.52
$
­

$
0.72
$
­

$
0.0020
$
­

$
35.05
$
­

$
4.89
$
­

$
2.52
$
51.71
$

2023
­

$
8.52
$
­

$
0.72
$
­

$
0.0020
$
­

$
35.05
$
­

$
4.89
$
­

$
2.52
$
51.71
$

2024
­

$
8.52
$
­

$
0.72
$
­

$
0.0020
$
­

$
35.05
$
­

$
4.89
$
­

$
2.52
$
51.71
$

2025
­

$
8.52
$
­

$
0.72
$
­

$
0.0020
$
­

$
35.05
$
­

$
4.89
$
­

$
2.52
$
51.71
$

2026
­

$
8.52
$
­

$
0.72
$
­

$
0.0020
$
­

$
35.05
$
­

$
4.89
$
­

$
2.52
$
51.71
$

2027
­

$
8.52
$
­

$
0.72
$
­

$
0.0020
$
­

$
35.05
$
­

$
4.89
$
­

$
2.52
$
51.71
$

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
O­
31
June
2003
Exhibit
O.
7c
Nominal
State
Costs
of
LT2ESWTR
by
Year,
ICR
Data
Set,
Preferred
Alternative
($
Millions)

Year
Implementation
Small
E.
coli
Monitoring
Review
1st
Round
Small
Crypto
Monitoring
Review
1st
Round
Medium/

Large
Monitoring
Review
2nd
Round
Small
E.
coli
Monitoring
Review
2nd
Round
Small
Crypto
Monitoring
Review
2nd
Round
Small
System
Benchmarking
Large
System
Benchmarking
Small
System
Technology
Monitoring
Large
System
Technology
Monitoring
Total
State
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
2003
3.34
$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
$
3.34
2004
3.34
$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
$
3.34
2005
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
$
0.00
2006
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
$
0.00
2007
­

$
2.91
$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.01
$
­

$
­

$
$
2.92
2008
­

$
­

$
2.23
$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.01
$
­

$
0.01
$
$
2.25
2009
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.006
$
0.01
$
­

$
0.03
$
$
0.05
2010
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.006
$
0.01
$
0.01
$
0.06
$
$
0.09
2011
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.006
$
0.01
$
0.04
$
0.09
$
$
0.14
2012
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.006
$
­

$
0.08
$
0.11
$
$
0.19
2013
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.006
$
­

$
0.11
$
0.11
$
$
0.22
2014
­

$
­

$
­

$
1.54
$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.13
$
0.11
$
$
1.78
2015
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.13
$
0.11
$
$
0.24
2016
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
2.23
$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.13
$
0.11
$
$
2.47
2017
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
1.54
$
­

$
­

$
0.13
$
0.11
$
$
1.78
2018
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.13
$
0.11
$
$
0.24
2019
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.13
$
0.11
$
$
0.24
2020
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.13
$
0.11
$
$
0.24
2021
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.13
$
0.11
$
$
0.24
2022
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.13
$
0.11
$
$
0.24
2023
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.13
$
0.11
$
$
0.24
2024
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.13
$
0.11
$
$
0.24
2025
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.13
$
0.11
$
$
0.24
2026
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.13
$
0.11
$
$
0.24
2027
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
0.13
$
0.11
$
$
0.24
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
O­
32
June
2003
Exhibit
O.
7d
Nominal
Benefits
of
LT2ESWTR
by
Year,
ICR
Data
Set,
Preferred
Alternative
($
Millions),
Enhanced
Cost
of
Illness
Year
Illnesses
Avoided
Small
Systems
Illnesses
Avoided
Large
Systems
Deaths
Avoided
Small
Systems
Deaths
Avoided
Large
Systems
A
B
C
D
2003
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$

2004
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$

2005
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$

2006
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$

2007
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$

2008
­

$
81.49
$
­

$
100.70
$

2009
­

$
166.25
$
­

$
203.66
$

2010
5.31
$
508.83
$
5.21
$
617.82
$

2011
10.83
$
692.20
$
10.53
$
832.98
$

2012
33.14
$
882.82
$
31.95
$
1,052.86
$

2013
45.09
$
900.78
$
43.07
$
1,064.60
$

2014
57.51
$
919.16
$
54.44
$
1,076.46
$

2015
58.68
$
937.98
$
55.05
$
1,088.44
$

2016
59.89
$
957.26
$
55.66
$
1,100.55
$

2017
61.13
$
977.01
$
56.28
$
1,112.80
$

2018
62.39
$
997.26
$
56.91
$
1,125.18
$

2019
63.69
$
1,018.03
$
57.54
$
1,137.70
$

2020
65.03
$
1,039.34
$
58.18
$
1,150.37
$

2021
66.39
$
1,061.18
$
58.83
$
1,163.17
$

2022
67.79
$
1,083.52
$
59.48
$
1,176.08
$

2023
69.22
$
1,106.38
$
60.14
$
1,189.09
$

2024
70.68
$
1,129.77
$
60.80
$
1,202.21
$

2025
72.18
$
1,153.71
$
61.47
$
1,215.43
$

2026
73.71
$
1,178.23
$
62.15
$
1,228.77
$

2027
75.29
$
1,203.34
$
62.83
$
1,242.22
$

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
O­
33
June
2003
Exhibit
O.
7e
Nominal
Benefits
of
LT2ESWTR
by
Year,
ICR
Data
Set,
Preferred
Alternative
($
Millions),
Traditional
Cost
of
Illness
Year
Illnesses
Avoided
Small
Systems
Illnesses
Avoided
Large
Systems
Deaths
Avoided
Small
Systems
Deaths
Avoided
Large
Systems
A
B
C
D
2003
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$

2004
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$

2005
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$

2006
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$

2007
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$

2008
­

$
25.79
$
­

$
100.70
$

2009
­

$
52.33
$
­

$
203.66
$

2010
1.66
$
159.33
$
5.21
$
617.82
$

2011
3.37
$
215.63
$
10.53
$
832.98
$

2012
10.27
$
273.60
$
31.95
$
1,052.86
$

2013
13.90
$
277.76
$
43.07
$
1,064.60
$

2014
17.64
$
282.02
$
54.44
$
1,076.46
$

2015
17.92
$
286.38
$
55.05
$
1,088.44
$

2016
18.20
$
290.85
$
55.66
$
1,100.55
$

2017
18.48
$
295.42
$
56.28
$
1,112.80
$

2018
18.78
$
300.11
$
56.91
$
1,125.18
$

2019
19.08
$
304.92
$
57.54
$
1,137.70
$

2020
19.39
$
309.86
$
58.18
$
1,150.37
$

2021
19.70
$
314.92
$
58.83
$
1,163.17
$

2022
20.03
$
320.09
$
59.48
$
1,176.08
$

2023
20.36
$
325.38
$
60.14
$
1,189.09
$

2024
20.70
$
330.80
$
60.80
$
1,202.21
$

2025
21.04
$
336.35
$
61.47
$
1,215.43
$

2026
21.40
$
342.03
$
62.15
$
1,228.77
$

2027
21.76
$
347.84
$
62.83
$
1,242.22
$

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
O­
34
June
2003
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
P­
1
Appendix
P
Sensitivity
Analyses
for
Cost
of
Illness
Values
P.
1
Introduction
and
Summary
Chapter
5
and
Appendices
K
and
L
of
this
Economic
Analysis
(
EA)
describe
the
approach
and
calculations
used
to
determine
dollar
values
for
reductions
in
nonfatal
cases
of
cryptosporidiosis.
That
approach
uses
two
point
estimates,
the
Traditional
and
Enhanced,
for
the
cost
of
illness
(
COI)
and
relies
on
single
point
values
for
the
key
inputs.
This
appendix
tests
the
sensitivity
of
the
results
to
alternative
values
for
two
of
the
key
underlying
inputs
to
the
Enhanced
COI.
The
first
input
is
the
value
of
nonmarket
time.
The
second
is
the
percentage
productivity
loss
that
may
accompany
an
illness,
which
is
applied
to
the
time
that
someone
is
ill
but
is
at
least
partly
productive.
These
days
are
assumed
to
be
the
difference
between
the
duration
of
the
entire
illness
less
the
"
days
lost"
due
to
the
illness.
For
each
of
these
two
inputs
to
the
Enhanced
COI,
low
and
high
estimates
are
selected,
and
the
effects
of
using
those
different
values
on
the
net
benefits
and
the
selection
of
the
Preferred
Alternative
are
presented.
It
should
be
noted
that
the
Low
COI
value
used
in
this
sensitivity
analysis
is
very
roughly
about
two­
thirds
the
value
used
for
the
Enhanced
COI,
and
thus
is
also
(
very
roughly)
about
twice
the
value
used
for
the
Traditional
COI.

The
overall
result
of
using
the
Low
Value
for
Cost­
of­
Illness
(
COI)
is
that
Alternative
A4
becomes
somewhat
more
competitive
alternative
relative
to
the
Preferred
Alternative
(
A3),
although
not
as
strongly
so
as
when
using
the
Traditional
COI.
Alternative
A4
does
not
excel
under
every
condition,
and
the
competitiveness
of
Alternative
4
is
undercut
somewhat
given
that
there
exist
unquantified
benefits.
The
Preferred
Alternative
continues
to
meet
all
threshold
criteria,
even
when
the
Low
Value
for
COI
is
used.

The
overall
result
of
using
the
High
Value
for
COI
is
that
Alternative
A3
continues
to
be
the
strongest
alternative
across
all
the
relevant
considerations.
The
consideration
of
these
two
alternative
values
for
the
Enhanced
COI
strengthens
the
basis
for
selecting
A3
as
the
Preferred
Alternative.
The
sensitivity
analysis
shows
Alternative
A3
to
be
robust
in
the
face
of
a
range
of
alternative
values.

P.
2
Alternative
Values
for
the
Dollar
Value
of
Nonwork
Time
Losses
and
the
Percent
Decrease
in
Productivity
As
discussed
previously
in
Appendix
L,
the
estimate
for
the
Enhanced
COI
includes
values
for
both
lost
time
and
lost
productivity.
While
the
determination
of
the
value
of
lost
work
time
appears
relatively
straightforward,
the
valuation
of
nonwork
losses
is
subject
to
two
major
sources
of
uncertainty:
(
1)
individuals
may
value
these
losses
at
a
rate
significantly
higher
or
lower
than
the
post­
tax
median
wage;
and
(
2)
the
reported
amount
of
time
lost
may
include
some
time
spent
on
activities
that
represent
an
incomplete
loss
of
utility;
e.
g.,
some
of
this
time
may
be
spent
reading
rather
than
coping
with
a
bout
of
diarrhea.
There
would
be,
of
course,
some
offsetting
utility
losses
from
the
discomfort
and
stress
of
being
sick.
The
values
used
in
the
sensitivity
analysis
test
the
effect
of
each
of
these
sources
of
uncertainty
on
the
value
of
lost
nonwork
time.
1
Median
wage
data
is
used
instead
of
data
on
marginal
rates
due
to
difficulties
in
determining
the
latter.
It
is
unclear
whether
this
approach
under­
or
overstates
the
actual
value
of
time
trade­
offs
at
the
margin.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
P­
2
The
survey
question
used
to
determine
the
percentage
decrease
in
productivity
refers
to
productivity
while
performing
normal
activities.
While
this
rate
of
decrease
appears
consistent
with
the
findings
from
studies
of
other
illnesses,
it
is
possible
that
the
decrease
in
the
productivity
of
nonwork
time
may
be
greater
or
less
than
this
estimate.
The
values
used
in
these
two
components
of
the
sensitivity
analysis
are
discussed
in
more
detail
below.

P.
2.1
Dollar
Value
of
Nonwork
Time
Losses
The
sensitivity
analysis
of
the
dollar
value
of
nonwork
time
losses
uses
a
high
value
of
150
percent
of
the
Enhanced
COI
for
nonwork
time
loss,
and
a
low
value
of
50
percent
of
the
Enhanced
COI.
These
bounds
represent
the
effect
of
(
1)
assuming
that
all
nonwork
time
lost
is
valued
at
a
rate
higher
than
under
the
Enhanced
COI
and
(
2)
assuming
that
some
of
the
nonwork
time
lost
is
an
incomplete
loss
of
utility.

The
Enhanced
COI
for
the
value
of
nonwork
time
is
based
on
median
post­
tax
wages.
This
estimate
reflects
the
assumption
that
the
opportunity
cost
of
nonwork
time
is,
at
a
minimum,
the
wages
foregone.
In
other
words,
an
individual
who
chooses
to
engage
in
activities
other
than
market
work
does
so
because,
at
the
margin,
the
utility
(
productivity
plus
any
additional
enjoyment)
from
nonmarket
work
or
leisure
is
greater
than
the
utility
gained
from
market
work.
Therefore,
that
individual
must
value
a
marginal
hour
of
his
or
her
nonwork
time
at
a
rate
at
least
equal
to
the
marginal
net
wage
per
hour
he
or
she
could
have
earned
in
the
job
market.
For
many
individuals,
the
median
post­
tax
wage
may
understate
the
value
of
nonwork
time.
1
This
assumption
is
consistent
with
the
fact
that
many
workers
demand
a
rate
higher
than
their
hourly
wage
to
work
additional
hours.
Hence
the
high
value
used
in
the
sensitivity
analysis
is
derived
from
information
on
overtime
pay.
The
Fair
Labor
Standards
Act
states
that
workers
covered
by
its
provisions
must
be
paid
at
a
rate
not
less
than
one
and
one­
half
times
their
regular
pay
for
work
over
40
hours
in
1
work
week
unless
specifically
exempted
(
U.
S.
Department
of
Labor
undated).
Applying
this
"
time­
and­
a­
half"
standard
to
the
recommended
value
of
$
10.91
per
hour
for
nonwork
time
leads
to
a
high
value
of
$
16.37
per
hour.

The
low
value
for
nonwork
time
reflects
the
fact
that
individuals
may
gain
some
utility
from
the
activities
they
pursue
while
ill,
hence
the
loss
is
not
complete.
The
question
used
to
determine
time
losses
refers
to
changes
in
normal
activities;
however,
in
some
cases
the
activities
that
replace
the
normal
activities
may
have
some
positive
value.
For
example,
during
the
period
reported
as
lost
time,
an
individual
may
substitute
reading
a
book
for
playing
golf,
in
a
case
where
golf
would
have
been
the
preferred
activity
if
that
person
were
well.
The
reading
time
presumably
has
some
positive
value
to
that
individual
that
is
less
than
the
value
of
golfing.
Other
portions
of
the
time
reported
as
lost,
e.
g.,
that
spent
coping
with
a
bout
of
diarrhea,
may
have
close
to
zero
value
and
hence
represent
a
relatively
complete
loss
of
utility.
Thus,
while
the
loss
for
time
spent
in
the
latter
condition
(
a
bout
of
diarrhea)
may
be
complete
(
i.
e.,
equal
to
the
post­
tax
wage
rate)
the
loss
in
the
former
case
(
reading
rather
than
golfing)
would
be
partial
(
i.
e.,
equal
to
some
fraction
of
the
post­
tax
wage
rate).
The
total
amount
of
lost
nonwork
2
Travel
cost
studies
are
focused
on
the
costs
(
or
negative
impacts)
associated
with
traveling
longer
distances.
They
assume
that
travel
time
has
some
positive
effects
(
or
utility);
otherwise,
time
costs
would
be
valued
at
the
full
wage
rate
(
i.
e.,
as
a
complete
loss).

3
A
pioneering
example
of
this
approach
is
Rice
1966;
a
more
recent
example
is
Thamer
et
al.
1998.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
P­
3
time
thus
may
include
both
some
time
that
is
a
total
loss
and
some
that
is
a
partial
loss,
so
that
the
average
loss
would
be
less
than
the
Enhanced
COI
(
i.
e.,
than
the
post­
tax
wage
rate).

Only
limited
research
is
available
that
is
applicable
to
determining
this
fractional
value.
Perhaps
the
most
relevant
available
research
is
that
which
focuses
on
the
value
of
travel
time
in
the
context
of
recreational
demand
studies.
These
revealed
preference
studies
use
information
on
the
costs
associated
with
the
recreational
use
of
different
sites
to
estimate
willingness
to
pay
for
various
types
of
recreational
experiences,
and
the
time
spent
traveling
to
alternate
sites
is
one
part
of
these
costs.
These
studies
typically
value
time
spent
traveling
to
a
recreation
site
at
a
fixed
fraction
of
the
individual's
wage
rate;
this
represents
the
disutility
associated
with
travel.
2
The
precise
fraction
of
the
wage
rate
used
to
value
travel
time
costs
has
ranged
from
zero
to
one
in
published
empirical
studies.
Recently,
it
has
become
somewhat
standard
practice
to
use
one­
third
the
individual's
wage
rate
as
a
proxy
for
the
value
of
travel
time,
although
there
is
no
strong
theoretical
basis
for
this
assumption
(
Shaw
and
Feather
1999).
Rather
than
assuming
a
particular
value
for
time
costs,
a
few
researchers
have
estimated
the
value
of
time
empirically.
For
example,
McConnell
and
Strand
(
1981)
find
that
the
value
of
travel
time
is
approximately
60
percent
of
the
wage
rate,
while
some
of
Larson's
work
implies
that
the
value
of
travel
time
is
approximately
16
percent
of
the
wage
rate
(
Larson
1993).

The
use
of
one­
third
the
wage
rate
in
travel
cost
recreation
studies
appears
to
have
its
origin
within
the
transportation
economics
literature,
and
in
particular
from
early
reviews
conducted
by
Beesley
(
1965)
and
Cesario
(
1976).
More
recent
reviews
have
provided
limited
support
for
this
assumption.
Bruzelius
(
1979)
finds
that
individuals
value
in­
vehicle
time
for
work
trips
at
20
to
30
percent
of
the
wage
rate,
while
reviews
by
Small
(
1992)
and
Waters
(
1992)
have
suggested
that
the
consensus
value
is
near
50
percent
of
the
wage
rate.

Unfortunately,
these
studies
are
focused
on
a
particular
type
of
time
use,
i.
e.,
for
travel.
The
resulting
estimates
are
therefore
not
necessarily
applicable
to
the
types
of
time
losses
associated
with
cryptosporidiosis,
which
may
affect
all
types
of
nonwork
time,
including
a
variety
of
leisure
and
nonmarket
work
activities.
However,
they
suggest
that
50
percent
of
the
wage
rate
is
within
the
range
of
reasonable
estimates
for
activities
(
such
as
travel)
that
have
both
enjoyable
and
unenjoyable
aspects.
Applying
this
50­
percent
reduction
standard
to
the
Enhanced
COI
of
$
10.91
per
hour
for
nonwork
time
leads
to
a
low
value
of
$
5.46
per
hour.

The
use
of
50
percent
of
the
wage
rate
is
also
consistent
with
the
common
practice
in
the
human
capital
literature
of
valuing
nonmarket
work
time
at
the
market
rate
for
domestic
workers3.
This
literature
uses
replacement
costs
as
a
measure
of
the
productivity
of
nonmarket
work,
rather
than
focusing
on
the
opportunity
costs
(
or
utility
loss)
for
the
individual
who
chooses
to
engage
in
nonmarket
work.
The
median
weekly
earnings
of
private
household
workers
in
the
service
industry
were
$
261
per
week
in
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
P­
4
2000,
about
45
percent
of
the
median
weekly
earnings
of
$
576
for
all
workers
(
U.
S.
Census
Bureau
Table
621).
Private
household
workers
include
childcare
workers,
cleaners,
and
servants.

Exhibit
P.
1
summarizes
the
estimates
used
for
the
sensitivity
analysis
of
the
value
of
nonwork
time.

Exhibit
P.
1
Sensitivity
Analysis
Values
for
Nonwork
Time
Time
Loss
Category
Low
Estimate
Enhanced
COI
High
Estimate
Nonwork
Time
(
nonmarket
work
and
leisure)
$
5.46
per
hour
$
10.92
per
hour
$
16.37
per
hour
Source:
See
discussion
in
preceding
text.

P.
2.2
Percent
Decrease
in
Productivity
For
the
Enhanced
COI,
the
value
of
time
losses
assumes
that
time
spent
in
normal
activities
while
ill
is
30
percent
less
productive
than
it
would
be
in
the
absence
of
illness.
This
estimate
of
30
percent
appears
reasonable
based
on
review
of
other
studies
valuing
productivity
losses
due
to
illness.
Exhibit
P.
5
reports
the
results
of
several
recent
studies.
The
first
column
describes
the
illness
addressed
and
cites
the
source
of
the
estimate,
the
second
provides
the
estimated
percentage
of
productivity
lost
due
to
the
respective
illness,
and
the
final
column
notes
the
type
of
question
used
to
used
obtain
the
productivity
loss
estimate.

Exhibit
P.
2
Examples
Of
Productivity
Losses
Due
To
Illness
Condition
Percent
Loss
in
Productivity
Source
of
Estimate
Allergic
Rhinitis
(
Crystal­
Peters
et
al.
2000)
25
percent
A
prior
study
estimating
productivity
losses
from
hay
fever
(
McMenamin
1994).

Influenza
(
Keech
et
al.
1998)
35­
73
percent
Survey
participants
were
asked
to
rank
their
effectiveness
on
a
scale
of
1­
10,
from
totally
ineffective
to
fully
effective.

Depression
(
Kessler
et
al.
1999)
40
percent
Survey
participants
were
asked
to
rate
the
amount
of
work
they
did
on
less
productive
days
from
zero
(
no
work)
to
100
(
full
days
work).

Asthma
(
Ungar
et
al.,
2000)
19­
45
percent
Asthma
patients
surveyed
were
asked
for
times
that
breathing
problems
were
enough
to
interfere
with
usual
daytime
activities,
"
At
what
level
did
you
function
on
a
scale
from
1
to
100
percent?"

The
Harrington
et
al.
estimate
of
approximately
30
percent
is
within
the
range
of
the
estimates
reported
in
these
studies,
which
range
from
a
low
of
19
percent
to
a
high
(
in
one
case)
of
73
percent.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
P­
5
Some
of
these
studies
focus
on
lost
work
time,
while
others
look
more
broadly
at
effectiveness
across
a
number
of
daily
activities.
Studies
of
other,
potentially
more
severe
illnesses
(
e.
g.,
cancer
and
heart
disease)
generally
report
greater
productivity
losses
(
for
example,
see
Hartunian
et
al.
1981).

The
close
correlation
between
symptomatic
effects
and
treatment
of
giardiasis
and
cryptosporidiosis
along
with
the
support
for
the
estimated
productivity
decrease
gathered
from
the
literature
review,
suggest
that
it
is
most
appropriate
to
use
a
narrow
range
of
low
to
high
values
for
the
sensitivity
analysis.
Exhibit
P.
6
provides
the
values
used;
the
low
value
is
based
on
the
smallest
loss
from
Exhibit
P.
5
(
rounded),
while
the
high
value
is
set
conservatively
at
10
percent
points
above
the
Enhanced
COI,
since
only
one
estimate
from
the
above
cited
studies
is
significantly
above
this
level.

Exhibit
P.
3
Sensitivity
Analysis
Values
for
Productivity
Losses
Low
Estimate
Enhanced
COI
High
Estimate
Percent
decrease
in
productivity
20
percent
30
percent
40
percent
Sources:
See
text
discussion.

P.
3
Sensitivity
Analysis
P.
3.1
Summary
of
Sensitivity
Bounds
In
summary,
based
on
the
discussion
in
section
P.
2,
the
alternative
values
for
the
sensitivity
analysis
for
nonfatal
COI
derive
from
alternative
estimates
for
two
variables.

Exhibit
P.
4
Summary
of
Values
Varied
in
Sensitivity
Analysis,
2000
Low
Estimate
Enhanced
COI
High
Estimate
Nonwork
Time
(
nonmarket
work
and
leisure)
$
5.46
per
hour
$
10.92
per
hour
$
16.37
per
hour
Percentage
Decrease
in
Productivity
20
percent
30
percent
40
percent
P.
3.2
Cost
of
Illness,
Year
2000
(
Base
Year)

The
different
values
for
nonwork
and
leisure
time
result
in
a
recalculation
of
the
weighted
average
value
of
time,
as
shown
in
Exhibit
P.
5.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
P­
6
Exhibit
P.
5
Weighted
Average
Value
of
Time,
2000
Time
Loss
Category
Hours
Per
Day
Per
Hour
Value
Per
Day
Value
A
B
C
=
A
x
B
Low
COI
Lost
Work
Day
3.505
$
18.474
$
64.75
Lost
Unpaid
Work
Day
2.183
$
5.458
$
11.91
Lost
Leisure
Day
10.312
$
5.458
$
56.28
Lost
Caregiver
Day
Sum
of
weighted
lost
paid
and
unpaid
work
days
$
132.95
Enhanced
COI
Lost
Work
Day
3.505
$
18.474
$
64.75
Lost
Unpaid
Work
Day
2.183
$
10.915
$
23.83
Lost
Leisure
Day
10.312
$
10.915
$
112.56
Lost
Caregiver
Day
Sum
of
weighted
lost
paid
and
unpaid
work
and
leisure
days
$
201.14
High
COI
Lost
Work
Day
3.505
$
18.474
$
64.75
Lost
Unpaid
Work
Day
2.183
$
16.373
$
35.74
Lost
Leisure
Day
10.312
$
16.373
$
168.84
Lost
Caregiver
Day
Sum
of
weighted
lost
paid
and
unpaid
work
days
$
269.34
Note:
Rounded
data
are
shown
here,
but
full
precision
was
used
in
all
calculations.
Source:
Enhanced
COI:
Exhibit
L.
9,
Low
and
High
COI:
Exhibit
P.
4
The
derivation
of
the
total
loss
per
case
in
the
year
2000
(
the
Base
Year)
is
shown
in
Exhibit
P.
6,
where
the
value
of
illnesses
per
day
are
multiplied
by
the
number
of
days
of
illness.
The
overall
impact
on
the
total
COI
for
an
illness
is
shown.
The
Low
COI
value
is
63
percent
of
the
Enhanced
COI,
and
the
High
COI
value
is
145
percent
of
the
Enhanced
COI
estimate.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
P­
7
Exhibit
P.
6
Total
Loss
per
Case
(
Year
2000),
Low,
Enhanced,
and
High
COI
Loss
Category
Days
Lost
Value
Per
Day
Total
Loss
Per
Case
Low
COI
Enhanced
COI
High
COI
Low
COI
Enhanced
COI
High
COI
A
B
C
D
E=
A
x
B
F=
A
x
C
G=
A
x
D
Total
$
467.88
$
744.89
$
1,079.64
Direct
Medical
Costs
NA
NA
NA
NA
$
93.82
$
93.82
$
93.82
Lost
Time
Subtotal
$
374.06
$
651.07
$
985.82
Lost
Paid
Work
Days
1.697
$
64.75
$
64.75
$
64.75
$
109.88
$
109.88
$
109.88
Lost
Unpaid
Work
Days
1.697
$
11.91
$
23.83
$
35.74
$
20.22
$
40.44
$
60.65
Lost
Caregiver
Days
0.270
$
132.95
$
201.14
$
269.34
$
35.90
$
54.31
$
72.72
Lost
Leisure
Time
1.697
$
56.28
$
112.56
$
168.84
$
95.51
$
191.02
$
286.53
Lost
Leisure
Productivity
4.233
$
56.28
x
20%
$
112.56
x
30%
$
168.84
x
40%
$
47.65
$
142.94
$
285.89
Lost
Productivity
at
Work
4.233
($
64.75
+
$
11.91)
x
20%
($
64.75
+
$
23.83)
x
30%
($
64.75
+
$
35.74)
x
40%
$
64.90
$
112.49
$
170.15
Note:
Detail
may
not
calculate
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Source:
Exhibits
L.
10,
P.
4,
and
P.
5.

P.
3.3
Year­
By­
Year
Estimates
for
Low,
Enhanced,
and
High
Costs
of
Illness
Using
data
presented
in
Appendix
C
and
Exhibit
C.
12,
the
data
presented
in
Exhibit
P.
8
are
adjusted
to
reflect
increases
in
the
value
of
time
each
year
to
2027.
Using
the
data
from
2000
as
the
base
year,
the
lost
time
portion
of
the
cost
of
illness
is
adjusted
to
reflect
the
annual
percent
change
in
income
(
the
real
GDP
per
capita).
In
the
benefits
model,
the
cases
avoided
in
each
year
are
valued
as
shown
in
Exhibit
P.
9
(
using
unrounded
data).
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
P­
8
Exhibit
P.
7
Yearly
Total
Loss
Per
Case,
Low,
Enhanced,
and
High
COI
Year
Annual
Percent
Change
in
Income
(
Real
GDP
per
Capita)
Lost
Time
Direct
Medical
Costs
Total
Loss
Per
Case
Low
COI
Enhanced
COI
High
COI
Low
COI
Enhanced
COI
High
COI
(
1
+
A)
x
previous
year
A
B
C
D
E
F
=
B
+
E
G
=
C
+
E
H
=
D
+
E
2000
Base
$
374.06
$
651.07
$
985.82
$
93.82
$
467.88
$
744.89
$
1,079.64
2001
0.1%
$
374.40
$
651.67
$
986.73
$
93.82
$
468.22
745.49
$
1080.55
2002
­
0.1%
$
374.03
$
651.02
$
985.74
$
93.82
$
467.85
744.84
$
1079.56
2003
3.2%
$
385.93
$
671.74
$
1017.12
$
93.82
$
479.75
765.56
$
1110.94
2004
2.4%
$
395.22
$
687.90
$
1042.59
$
93.82
$
489.04
781.72
$
1135.41
2005
2.4%
$
404.78
$
704.55
$
1066.80
$
93.82
$
498.60
798.37
$
1160.62
2006
2.4%
$
414.63
$
721.69
$
1,092.75
$
93.82
$
508.45
$
815.51
$
1,186.57
2007
2.4%
$
424.75
$
739.31
$
1,119.43
$
93.82
$
518.57
$
833.13
$
1,213.25
2008
2.3%
$
434.32
$
755.97
$
1,144.65
$
93.82
$
528.14
$
849.79
$
1,238.47
2009
2.3%
$
444.13
$
773.04
$
1,170.50
$
93.82
$
537.95
$
866.86
$
1,264.32
2010
2.3%
$
454.19
$
790.56
$
1,197.02
$
93.82
$
548.01
$
884.38
$
1,290.84
2011
2.3%
$
464.50
$
808.49
$
1,224.18
$
93.82
$
558.32
$
902.31
$
1,318.00
2012
2.3%
$
475.02
$
826.81
$
1,251.92
$
93.82
$
568.84
$
920.63
$
1,345.74
2013
2.3%
$
485.79
$
845.55
$
1,280.29
$
93.82
$
579.61
$
939.37
$
1,374.11
2014
2.3%
$
496.80
$
864.72
$
1,309.31
$
93.82
$
590.62
$
958.54
$
1,403.13
2015
2.3%
$
508.08
$
884.34
$
1,339.03
$
93.82
$
601.90
$
978.16
$
1,432.85
2016
2.3%
$
519.62
$
904.44
$
1,369.46
$
93.82
$
613.44
$
998.26
$
1,463.28
2017
2.3%
$
531.46
$
925.04
$
1,400.65
$
93.82
$
625.28
$
1,018.86
$
1,494.47
2018
2.3%
$
543.59
$
946.16
$
1,432.63
$
93.82
$
637.41
$
1,039.98
$
1,526.45
2019
2.3%
$
556.04
$
967.82
$
1,465.42
$
93.82
$
649.86
$
1,061.64
$
1,559.24
2020
2.3%
$
568.80
$
990.05
$
1,499.08
$
93.82
$
662.62
$
1,083.87
$
1,592.90
2021
2.3%
$
581.89
$
1,012.82
$
1,533.56
$
93.82
$
675.71
$
1,106.64
$
1,627.38
2022
2.3%
$
595.27
$
1,036.11
$
1,568.83
$
93.82
$
689.09
$
1,129.93
$
1,662.65
2023
2.3%
$
608.97
$
1,059.95
$
1,604.93
$
93.82
$
702.79
$
1,153.77
$
1,698.75
2024
2.3%
$
622.98
$
1,084.35
$
1,641.87
$
93.82
$
716.80
$
1,178.17
$
1,735.69
2025
2.3%
$
637.33
$
1,109.32
$
1,679.67
$
93.82
$
731.15
$
1,203.14
$
1,773.49
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
P­
9
Exhibit
P.
7
(
continued)
Yearly
Total
Loss
Per
Case,
Low,
Enhanced,
and
High
COI
2026
2.3%
$
652.02
$
1,134.88
$
1,718.39
$
93.82
$
745.84
$
1,228.70
$
1,812.21
2027
2.3%
$
667.06
$
1,161.07
$
1,758.04
$
93.82
$
760.88
$
1,254.89
$
1,851.86
Note:
Full
precision
is
used
in
model
calculations.
Rounded
data
are
shown
here.
The
Traditional
COI
only
includes
valuation
for
medical
costs
and
lost
work
time
(
including
some
portion
of
unpaid
household
production).
The
Enhanced
COI
also
factors
in
valuations
for
lost
personal
time
(
non­
work
time)
such
as
child
care
and
homemaking
(
to
the
extent
not
covered
by
the
traditional
COI),
time
with
family,
and
recreation,
and
lost
productivity
at
work
on
days
when
workers
are
ill
but
go
to
work
anyway.
Source:
Exhibits
L.
11
and
P.
8.

P.
3.4
Annualized
Values
Using
these
COI
values
in
the
sensitivity
analysis
requires
several
steps.
First,
the
values
are
applied
to
the
cases
of
illness
avoided
each
year.
Those
year­
to­
year
amounts
are
discounted
to
present
values
(
2000$)
and
then
annualized
over
25
years.
The
results
are
shown
below
in
Exhibit
P.
8.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
P­
10
Low
Enhanced
High
A1
431
$
704
$
1,033
$
A2
424
$
693
$
1,017
$
A3­
Preferred
419
$
684
$
1,004
$
A4
387
$
632
$
927
$

A1
133
$
217
$
319
$
A2
113
$
185
$
272
$
A3­
Preferred
106
$
172
$
253
$
A4
90
$
147
$
216
$

A1
232
$
378
$
555
$
A2
214
$
349
$
513
$
A3­
Preferred
205
$
335
$
491
$
A4
178
$
291
$
428
$

A1
365
$
596
$
874
$
A2
360
$
586
$
860
$
A3­
Preferred
355
$
579
$
849
$
A4
328
$
535
$
785
$

A1
113
$
184
$
270
$
A2
96
$
157
$
230
$
A3­
Preferred
89
$
146
$
214
$
A4
76
$
125
$
183
$

A1
196
$
320
$
470
$
A2
181
$
296
$
434
$
A3­
Preferred
174
$
283
$
416
$
A4
151
$
247
$
362
$
ICRSSM
ICRSSL
ICRSSL
Annualized
Value
(
7
percent,
25
years)

ICR
ICR
Data
Set
Regulatory
Alternative
COI
Value
Annualized
Value
(
3
percent,
25
years)

ICRSSM
Exhibit
P.
8
Annualized
Value
of
Illnesses
Avoided,
by
COI
Value,
Data
Set,
and
Regulatory
Alternative
The
impact
of
these
Low
and
High
values
on
the
level
of
annualized
total
benefits
is
also
proportional,
but
the
overall
spread
of
values
is
narrower.
This
is
because
total
benefits
include
benefits
from
avoided
fatalities,
which
are
unaffected
by
the
High
and
Low
values
for
COI.
The
results
are
shown
in
Exhibit
P.
9.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
P­
11
Low
Enhanced
High
Low
High
A1
1,209
$
1,482
$
1,811
$
82%
122%
A2
1,193
$
1,461
$
1,785
$
82%
122%
A3­
Preferred
1,180
$
1,445
$
1,765
$
82%
122%
A4
1,104
$
1,349
$
1,644
$
82%
122%

A1
373
$
457
$
558
$
82%
122%
A2
326
$
397
$
484
$
82%
122%
A3­
Preferred
307
$
374
$
454
$
82%
122%
A4
271
$
328
$
396
$
83%
121%

A1
649
$
796
$
973
$
82%
122%
A2
607
$
742
$
906
$
82%
122%
A3­
Preferred
586
$
715
$
872
$
82%
122%
A4
522
$
635
$
772
$
82%
121%

A1
1,030
$
1,260
$
1,539
$
82%
122%
A2
1,016
$
1,243
$
1,517
$
82%
122%
A3­
Preferred
1,006
$
1,230
$
1,500
$
82%
122%
A4
941
$
1,148
$
1,398
$
82%
122%

A1
317
$
389
$
474
$
82%
122%
A2
278
$
338
$
411
$
82%
122%
A3­
Preferred
262
$
318
$
386
$
82%
121%
A4
231
$
279
$
337
$
83%
121%

A1
553
$
677
$
827
$
82%
122%
A2
517
$
632
$
770
$
82%
122%
A3­
Preferred
499
$
609
$
741
$
82%
122%
A4
445
$
541
$
656
$
82%
121%
ICRSSM
COI
Value
ICR
Data
Set
Regulatory
Alternative
ICRSSM
ICRSSL
Percent
Difference
from
Enhanced
COI
Annualized
Value
(
3
percent,
25
years)

Annualized
Value
(
7
percent,
25
years)
ICR
ICRSSL
Exhibit
P.
9
Annualized
Value
of
Illnesses
and
Deaths
Avoided,
by
COI
Value,
Data
Set,
and
Regulatory
Alternative
P.
3.5
Sensitivity
of
Results
to
Alternative
COI
Values
Net
Benefits
The
previous
section
reports
the
results
of
using
alternative
values
for
the
COI
on
the
amount,
or
level,
of
total
benefits.
The
results
follow
expected
patterns:
lower
estimates
for
these
key
variables
yield
lower
overall
benefits,
and
higher
estimates
for
those
variables
produce
higher
estimates
of
total
benefits.
The
following
sections
are
more
meaningful
in
that
they
test
whether
the
use
of
alternative
measures
of
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
P­
12
Low
Enhanced
High
A1
848
$
1,121
$
1,450
$
A2
1,059
$
1,327
$
1,651
$
A3­
Preferred
1,070
$
1,335
$
1,655
$
A4
1,046
$
1,290
$
1,586
$

A1
12
$
96
$
197
$
A2
226
$
298
$
384
$
A3­
Preferred
234
$
300
$
381
$
A4
234
$
291
$
360
$

A1
288
$
435
$
612
$
A2
495
$
630
$
793
$
A3­
Preferred
500
$
629
$
786
$
A4
479
$
592
$
728
$

A1
643
$
873
$
1,151
$
A2
871
$
1,098
$
1,371
$
A3­
Preferred
885
$
1,109
$
1,379
$
A4
876
$
1,083
$
1,333
$

A1
­
70
$
1
$
87
$
A2
169
$
230
$
303
$
A3­
Preferred
181
$
237
$
305
$
A4
190
$
238
$
297
$

A1
166
$
289
$
439
$
A2
395
$
509
$
647
$
A3­
Preferred
405
$
514
$
647
$
A4
398
$
493
$
608
$
ICRSSM
Data
Set
Regulatory
Alternative
COI
Value
ICRSSM
Annualized
Value
(
3
percent,
25
years)

ICR
ICRSSL
ICR
ICRSSL
Annualized
Value
(
7
percent,
25
years)
COI
would
produce
different
conclusions.
That
is,
do
the
Regulatory
Alternatives
still
meet
economic
threshold
criteria?
What
do
comparisons
between
alternatives
reveal?
The
following
sections
largely
follow
the
pattern
of
comparisons
and
tests
developed
in
Chapter
8,
Net
Benefits.

The
first
threshold
test
is
whether
the
Regulatory
Alternatives
continue
to
be
likely
to
have
positive
net
benefits.
Exhibit
P.
10
compares
the
mean
net
benefits
computed
using
each
of
the
three
COI
estimates
with
the
maximum
net
benefits
shown
in
bold.
Alternatives
A2,
A3
(
the
Preferred
Alternative),
and
A4
all
have
positive
net
benefits
under
all
circumstances.
Alternative
A1
has
consistently
positive
net
benefits
only
using
a
high
value
for
COI
or
using
occurrence
distributions
derived
from
the
ICR
data
set.

Exhibit
P.
10
Mean
Net
Benefits
for
Low,
Enhanced,
and
High
Values
for
COI
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
P­
13
Maximum
Net
Benefits
Identifying
the
maximum
net
benefits
among
the
regulatory
alternatives
is
a
first
step
in
a
comparative
analysis
of
regulatory
alternatives.
Considering
the
combinations
of
occurrence
data
sets,
low
and
high
COI
values,
and
discount
rates,
the
Preferred
Regulatory
Alternative
(
A3)
had
the
maximum
net
benefits
of
the
alternatives
for
over
half
of
the
combinations.
However,
the
differences
are
often
slight
among
the
three
regulatory
alternatives
(
A2,
A3,
and
A4)
(
Exhibit
P.
10).
The
range
from
the
high
to
the
low
of
A2,
A3,
and
A4
is
never
more
than
11
percent
for
all
of
the
combinations.

Incremental
Net
Benefits
The
patterns
of
incremental
benefits
discussed
in
Chapter
8
are
based
on
the
Enhanced
COI.
Exhibit
P.
11
below,
expands
that
exhibit
to
also
show
the
patterns
derived
from
using
the
Low
and
High
values
for
COI.
Rule
alternatives
can
also
be
compared
on
the
basis
of
their
incremental
net
benefits.
Generally,
the
goal
of
an
incremental
analysis
is
to
identify
the
regulatory
option
where
incremental
benefits
most
closely
equal
incremental
costs.
This
point
most
often
lies
between
two
alternatives
and
given
the
uncertainty
around
the
mean
cost
and
benefit
estimates,
either
is
likely
to
be
closest
to
that
optimum
point.
Under
all
but
two
conditions
using
the
Low
and
High
COI
estimates,
the
Preferred
Alternative
is
one
of
the
bounding
alternatives.
The
sensitivity
of
mean
benefit
estimates
in
this
analysis
is
further
illustrated
by
the
ranking
analysis
presented
in
section
P.
3.5.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
P­
14
Low
COI
Enhanced
COI
High
COI
Low
COI
Enhanced
COI
High
COI
Low
COI
Enhanced
COI
High
COI
A
C
A4
$
58
1,104
$
1,349
$
1,644
$
$
58
1,104
$
1,349
$
1,644
$
1,046
$
1,290
$
1,586
$
A3­
Preferred
$
111
1,180
$
1,445
$
1,765
$
$
52
76
$
96
$
121
$
24
$
44
$
69
$
A2
$
134
1,193
$
1,461
$
1,785
$
$
23
12
$
16
$
20
$
(
11)
$
(
8)
$
(
4)
$
A1
$
361
1,209
$
1,482
$
1,811
$
$
227
16
$
21
$
26
$
(
211)
$
(
206)
$
(
201)
$

A4
$
37
271
$
328
$
396
$
$
37
271
$
328
$
396
$
234
$
291
$
360
$
A3­
Preferred
$
73
307
$
374
$
454
$
$
37
36
$
46
$
58
$
(
0)
$
9
$
21
$
A2
$
100
326
$
397
$
484
$
$
26
19
$
24
$
30
$
(
7)
$
(
2)
$
4
$
A1
$
361
373
$
457
$
558
$
$
261
47
$
59
$
74
$
(
214)
$
(
202)
$
(
187)
$

A4
$
44
522
$
635
$
772
$
$
44
522
$
635
$
772
$
479
$
592
$
728
$
A3­
Preferred
$
86
586
$
715
$
872
$
$
42
63
$
80
$
101
$
21
$
38
$
58
$
A2
$
113
607
$
742
$
906
$
$
26
21
$
27
$
34
$
(
5)
$
1
$
7
$
A1
$
361
649
$
796
$
973
$
$
248
42
$
53
$
67
$
(
206)
$
(
195)
$
(
181)
$

A4
$
65
941
$
1,148
$
1,398
$
$
65
941
$
1,148
$
1,398
$
876
$
1,083
$
1,333
$
A3­
Preferred
$
121
1,006
$
1,230
$
1,500
$
$
56
65
$
82
$
103
$
9
$
26
$
47
$
A2
$
145
1,016
$
1,243
$
1,517
$
$
25
10
$
13
$
17
$
(
14)
$
(
11)
$
(
8)
$
A1
$
388
1,030
$
1,260
$
1,539
$
$
242
14
$
18
$
22
$
(
228)
$
(
225)
$
(
220)
$

A4
$
41
231
$
279
$
337
$
$
41
231
$
279
$
337
$
190
$
238
$
297
$
A3­
Preferred
$
81
262
$
318
$
386
$
$
40
31
$
39
$
49
$
(
9)
$
(
1)
$
9
$
A2
$
108
278
$
338
$
411
$
$
27
16
$
20
$
25
$
(
12)
$
(
7)
$
(
2)
$
A1
$
388
317
$
389
$
474
$
$
279
40
$
50
$
63
$
(
239)
$
(
229)
$
(
216)
$

A4
$
48
445
$
541
$
656
$
$
48
445
$
541
$
656
$
398
$
493
$
608
$
A3­
Preferred
$
94
499
$
609
$
741
$
$
47
54
$
68
$
85
$
7
$
21
$
39
$
A2
$
122
517
$
632
$
770
$
$
28
18
$
23
$
29
$
(
10)
$
(
5)
$
1
$
A1
$
388
553
$
677
$
827
$
$
265
36
$
45
$
57
$
(
229)
$
(
220)
$
(
209)
$
Incremental
Net
Benefits
Based
On:

ICRSSM
Annual
Costs
Incremental
Costs[
1]

B
D
ICRSSL
ICR
ICRSSL
7
Percent
Discount
Rate
ICRSSM
Incremental
Benefits
Based
On:
Annual
Benefits
Based
On:

Data
Set
Regulatory
Alternative
ICR
3
Percent
Discount
Rate
E
=
D
­
C
Exhibit
P.
11
Incremental
Net
Benefits,
by
Alternative
and
Data
Set
­
Enhanced
COI
Ranking
of
Alternative
by
Net
Benefits
In
Chapter
8,
the
sensitivity
of
the
ranking
of
each
of
the
regulatory
alternatives
in
terms
of
net
benefits
is
shown
(
Exhibits
8.15
and
8.16).
Those
exhibits
show
the
sensitivity
of
those
rankings
to
alternative
benefit
estimates,
and
focus
on
how
unquantified
benefits,
if
they
could
be
quantified
and
included,
might
alter
the
conclusions
reached
about
the
relative
preference
of
regulatory
alternatives.
These
exhibits
hold
the
number
of
illness
and
deaths
due
to
cryptosporidiosis
constant.

The
exhibits
are
also
useful
for
testing
the
sensitivity
of
alternative
values
of
the
COI.
The
"
1"
on
the
x­
axis
represents
the
Enhanced
COI.
These
exhibits
are
shown
again
below,
but
with
lines
added
to
indicate
the
multiples
corresponding
to
the
Low
COI
and
High
COI
values
of
estimated
mean
benefits.

Cost
Effectiveness
 
Traditional
Approach
In
Chapter
8,
Exhibit
8.17
compares
the
range
of
costs
for
the
mean
benefit
levels
of
each
alternative.
Below,
Exhibits
P.
12
and
P.
13
repeat
that
exhibit,
but
adds
two
lines
into
each
graph
that
reflect
use
of
the
Low
and
High
COI
values
in
the
calculation
of
benefits.
Note
that
the
curves
only
shift
horizontally
relative
to
the
curves
derived
from
the
Enhanced
COI
(
that
is,
benefits
change,
but
costs
are
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
P­
15
constant
in
this
sensitivity
analysis).
As
a
result,
the
conclusion
for
all
three
values
for
the
COI
is
the
same
as
for
the
Enhanced
COI:
all
alternatives
are
cost­
effective.
No
regulatory
alternative
provides
more
benefits
at
the
same
or
lower
cost
than
another,
and
no
alternative
can
achieve
lower
costs
for
the
same
or
greater
level
of
benefits
than
another.

Cost
Per
Illness
Avoided
and
Cost
Per
Death
Avoided
Exhibit
P.
8
presents
the
COI
avoided
using
three
values
for
COI.
These
are
in
2000$,
are
unadjusted
for
future
real
income
growth,
and
are
not
weighted
by
when
in
time
the
illnesses
are
avoided.
In
Chapter
8,
the
Enhanced
COI
was
compared
against
the
values
in
Exhibit
8.18,
which
are
the
costs
that
each
regulatory
alternative
imposes
to
avoid
each
illness.
Similarly,
we
can
compare
the
values
in
Exhibit
8.18
to
the
Low
and
High
COI
values.

In
summary,
the
results
when
using
the
Low
COI
are
exactly
the
same
as
when
using
the
Enhanced
COI:
all
alternatives
pass
this
test,
except
when
estimates
for
Alternative
A1
are
derived
from
distributions
based
on
the
ICRSSL
data
set.
Comparing
the
values
in
Exhibit
8.17
against
the
High
COI
value
of
$
1,071.81
shows
that
in
only
one
case,
A1
based
on
the
ICRSSL
distribution
at
a
3­
percent
discount
rate,
does
the
cost
of
avoiding
an
illness
exceed
the
High
COI
value.
Remember
that
this
test
is
very
conservative
and
counts
both
the
illnesses
and
deaths
avoided.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
P­
16
Exhibit
P.
12
Comparison
of
Regulatory
Alternatives
Ranked
by
Net
Benefits,
With
Low,
Enhanced,
and
High
COI
Values,
3
Percent
Cost
Rankings
of
Regulatory
Alternatives,
ICR
Data
Set
(
by
Net
Benefits)

­
10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
110%

0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Multiple
of
Calculated
Benefits
Percent
of
Net
Benefits
Between
High
and
Low
Rank
Alt
A1
A2
A3
A4
Low
COI
(
0.82)
High
COI
(
1.22)
Enhanced
COI
(
1.0)

Rankings
of
Regulatory
Alternatives,
ICRSSL
Data
Set
(
by
Net
Benefits)

­
10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
110%

0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Multiple
of
Calculated
Benefits
Percent
of
Net
Benefits
Between
High
and
Low
Rank
Alt
A1
A2
A3
A4
Low
COI
(
0.82)
High
COI
(
1.22)
Enhanced
COI
(
1.0)

Rankings
of
Regulatory
Alternatives,
ICRSSM
Data
Set
(
by
Net
Benefits)

­
10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
110%

0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Multiple
of
Calculated
Benefits
Percent
of
Net
Benefits
Between
High
and
Low
Rank
Alt
A1
A2
A3
A4
Low
COI
(
0.82)
High
COI
(
1.22)
Enhanced
COI
(
1.0)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
P­
17
Exhibit
P.
13
Comparison
of
Regulatory
Alternatives
Ranked
by
Net
Benefits,
With
Low,
Enhanced,
and
High
COI
Values,
7
Percent
Cost
Rankings
of
Regulatory
Alternatives,
ICR
Data
Set
(
by
Net
Benefits)

­
10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
110%

0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Multiple
of
Calculated
Benefits
Percent
of
Net
Benefits
Between
High
and
Low
Rank
Alt
A1
A2
A3
A4
Low
COI
(
0.82)
High
COI
(
1.22)
Enhanced
COI
(
1.0)

Rankings
of
Regulatory
Alternatives,
ICRSSL
Data
Set
(
by
Net
Benefits)

­
10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
110%

0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Multiple
of
Calculated
Benefits
Percent
of
Net
Benefits
Between
High
and
Low
Rank
Alt
A1
A2
A3
A4
Low
COI
(
0.82)
High
COI
(
1.22)
Enhanced
COI
(
1.0)

Rankings
of
Regulatory
Alternatives,
ICRSSM
Data
Set
(
by
Net
Benefits)

­
10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
110%

0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Multiple
of
Calculated
Benefits
Percent
of
Net
Benefits
Between
High
and
Low
Rank
Alt
A1
A2
A3
A4
Low
COI
(
0.82)
High
COI
(
1.22)
Enhanced
COI
(
1.0)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
P­
18
$
0
$
50
$
100
$
150
$
200
$
250
$
300
$
350
$
400
$
450
$
500
$
250
$
300
$
350
$
400
$
450
$
500
$
550
$
600
Alt.
4
Alt.
3
Alt.
2
Alt.
1
Low
COI
Enhanced
COI
High
COI
$
0
$
50
$
100
$
150
$
200
$
250
$
300
$
350
$
400
$
450
$
500
$
1,000
$
1,100
$
1,200
$
1,300
$
1,400
$
1,500
$
1,600
$
1,700
$
1,800
$
1,900
Alt.
4
Alt.
3
Alt.
2
Alt.
1
Low
COI
Enhanced
COI
High
COI
3
Percent
Discount
Rate
ICR
Data
Set
Costs
($
Millions)

ICRSSL
Data
Set
Costs
($
Millions)

Mean
of
Benefits
($
Millions)
$
0
$
50
$
100
$
150
$
200
$
250
$
300
$
350
$
400
$
450
$
500
$
450
$
550
$
650
$
750
$
850
$
950
$
1,050
Alt.
4
Alt.
3
Alt.
2
Alt.
1
Low
COI
Enhanced
COI
High
COI
ICRSSM
Data
Set
Costs
($
Millions)
Exhibit
P.
14a
Range
of
Costs
at
Mean
Benefit
Level,
By
Low,
Enhanced,
and
High
COI
Values,
All
Regulatory
Alternatives
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
P­
19
$
0
$
50
$
100
$
150
$
200
$
250
$
300
$
350
$
400
$
450
$
500
$
200
$
250
$
300
$
350
$
400
$
450
$
500
Alt.
4
Alt.
3
Alt.
2
Alt.
1
Low
COI
Enhanced
COI
High
COI
$
0
$
50
$
100
$
150
$
200
$
250
$
300
$
350
$
400
$
450
$
500
$
900
$
1,000
$
1,100
$
1,200
$
1,300
$
1,400
$
1,500
$
1,600
Alt.
4
Alt.
3
Alt.
2
Alt.
1
Low
COI
Enhanced
COI
High
COI
7
Percent
Discount
Rate
ICR
Data
Set
Costs
($
Millions)

ICRSSL
Data
Set
Costs
($
Millions)

Mean
of
Benefits
($
Millions)
$
0
$
50
$
100
$
150
$
200
$
250
$
300
$
350
$
400
$
450
$
500
$
400
$
450
$
500
$
550
$
600
$
650
$
700
$
750
$
800
$
850
Alt.
4
Alt.
3
Alt.
2
Alt.
1
Low
COI
Enhanced
COI
High
COI
ICRSSM
Data
Set
Costs
($
Millions)
Exhibit
P.
14b
Range
of
Costs
at
Mean
Benefit
Level,
By
Low,
Enhanced,
and
High
COI
Values,
All
Regulatory
Alternatives
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
P­
20
Summary
of
Sensitivity
Analysis
The
Preferred
Alternative
passes
threshold
economic
criteria
whether
using
the
Low,
Enhanced,
or
High
Estimate
for
COI.

°
The
Preferred
Alternative
(
A3)
has
positive
net
benefits
(
Exhibit
P.
10).
(
In
fact,
this
is
also
true
for
Alternatives
A2
and
A4,
and
true
for
Alternative
A1
under
11
of
the
12
possible
combinations
of
COI,
data
set,
and
discount
rate.)
Again,
this
conclusion
is
especially
strong
because
the
quantified
benefit
estimates
are
underestimated
since
they
do
not
include
the
value
of
the
unquantified
benefits.

°
The
Preferred
Alternative
(
A3)
is
cost­
effective:
no
other
alternative
achieves
greater
net
benefits
at
the
same
cost
or
the
same
benefits
(
this
is
true
for
all
the
alternatives)
(
Exhibit
P.
4).

°
The
Preferred
Alternative
(
A3)
is
cost­
effective
based
on
comparing
the
cost
of
the
rule
to
either
the
number
of
illnesses
or
deaths
avoided
(
and
this
is
still
true
for
Alternatives
2
and
4).

The
Preferred
Alternative
is
the
superior
alternative
across
a
wide
variety
of
measures,
including
when
considering
alternative
values
for
the
COI.

°
Under
most
conditions
(
in
7
of
12
combinations),
the
Preferred
Alternative
shows
the
highest
net
benefits
at
the
mean
(
Exhibit
P.
6).

°
The
Preferred
Alternative,
and
perhaps
Alternative
A2,
appear
to
be
especially
good
bargains.
The
other
alternatives
have
either
significantly
fewer
benefits
for
similar
costs
or
greater
benefits,
but
at
dramatically
higher
costs
(
Exhibit
P.
4).

°
In
the
analysis
of
incremental
benefits,
the
Preferred
Alternative
bounds
the
optimal
level
of
zero
incremental
net
benefits
(
Exhibit
P.
11),
in
all
six
of
the
Low
COI
conditions
and
in
three
of
the
six
High
COI
conditions.
No
other
alternative
has
better
performance
across
both
the
Low
and
High
COI
estimates.

The
Preferred
Alternative
is
the
superior
alternative
when
benefits
are
near
the
average
values
estimated,
at
levels
near
the
benefits
based
on
the
Low
COI,
and
at
levels
nearly
as
high
as
the
High
COI.

°
The
net
benefits
of
the
Preferred
Alternative
are
most
often
highest
near
the
mean
value
of
benefits
and
over
much
of
the
range
reflecting
uncertainty
in
benefits
estimates
(
Exhibits
P.
12
and
P.
13).
Near
the
benefits
levels
corresponding
to
the
Low
COI,
Alternative
A4
under
some
conditions
nears
a
break
point
relative
to
A3.
Up
to
levels
nearly
as
high
as
those
corresponding
to
the
High
COI,
A3
remains
the
highest
ranked
alternative.

This
sensitivity
analysis
shows
that
the
selection
of
the
Preferred
Alternative
appears
justified,
even
when
alternative
values
for
the
COI
are
considered.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
Q­
1
June
2003
Appendix
Q
Treatment
Costs
for
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
Plants
Appendix
Q
presents
total
costs
of
treatment
for
filtered
and
unfiltered
plants.
The
methodology
for
estimating
these
costs
is
provided
in
Chapter
6.
The
costs
given
are
the
undiscounted
costs
at
full
implementation.
Capital
and
operations
and
maintenance
costs
are
both
given.
For
each
set
of
costs
the
mean,
median,
5th
percentile,
and
95th
percentile
costs
are
given.

To
estimate
treatment
costs
for
filtered
plants,
a
number
of
conditions
were
used
(
see
Appendix
F
for
a
description
of
the
methodology
for
technology
selection).
Below
is
an
explanation
of
the
abbreviations
used
in
this
appendix,
and
a
brief
explanation
of
each
condition.

Regulatory
Alternatives
Alternative
1
A1
is
across­
the­
board
inactivation.
All
systems
are
required
to
achieve
a
2.0
log
reduction
for
Cryptosporidium.

Alternative
2
A2
is
the
alternative
that
requires
the
most
reduction
of
Cryptosporidium.
Systems
with
0.03­
0.1
oocysts/
L
must
achieve
a
0.5
log
reduction.
Systems
with
0.1­
1.0
oocysts/
L
must
meet
a
1.5
log
reduction
and
systems
with
greater
than
1.0
oocysts/
L
must
meet
a
2.5
log
reduction
of
Cryptosporidium.

Alternative
3
A3
is
the
Preferred
Alternative.
Under
this
option,
systems
that
have
0.075­
1.0
oocysts/
L
must
meet
a
1.0
log
reduction
of
Cryptosporidium.
Systems
with
1.0­
3.0
oocysts/
L
must
achieve
a
2.0
log
reduction,
and
systems
with
greater
than
3.0
oocysts/
L
must
meet
a
2.5
log
reduction.

Alternative
4
A4
is
the
alternative
that
requires
the
least
reduction
of
Cryptosporidium.
Systems
that
have
0.1­
1.0
oocysts/
L
must
achieve
a
log
reduction
of
0.5
for
Cryptosporidium.
Systems
that
have
greater
than
1.0
oocysts/
L
must
meet
a
1.0
log
reduction
for
Cryptosporidium
Occurrence
Distribution
ICR
Modeling
results
based
on
the
Information
Collection
Rule
(
ICR)
were
used
to
predict
plant
binning
ICRSSL
Modeling
results
based
on
the
Information
Collection
Rule
Supplemental
Survey
for
large
systems
(
ICRSSL)
were
used
to
predict
plant
binning
ICRSSM
Modeling
results
based
on
the
Information
Collection
Rule
Supplemental
Survey
for
medium
systems
(
ICRSSM)
were
used
to
predict
plant
binning
High
Modeling
results
based
on
the
ICR­
upper
credible
limit
were
used
to
predict
binning
for
the
high­
case
scenario
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
Q­
2
June
2003
Low
Modeling
results
based
on
the
ICRSSL­
lower
credible
limit
were
used
to
predict
binning
for
the
low­
case
scenario
Population
Size
Categories
S1
0
­
101
S2
101
­
500
S3
501
­
1,000
S4
1,001
­
3,300
S5
3,301
­
10,000
M1
10,001­
50,000
M2
50,001­
100,000
L1
100,001
­
1,000,000
L2
>
1,000,00
Sensitivity
Analysis
The
technology
selection
forecasts
include
sensitivity
analyses
that
assume
a
high
source
water
bromide
level
(
summarized
in
section
6.11).

UV90­
10
UV
maximum
usage
=
90
percent,
Bromate
maximum
contaminant
level
(
MCL)
=
10
parts
per
billion
(
ppb),
No
additional
influent
bromide
UV90­
10B
UV
maximum
usage
=
90
percent,
Bromate
MCL
=
10
ppb,
Additional
influent
Bromide
=
50
ppb
Discount
Rate
3%
A
3
percent
discount
rate
is
used
(
see
Chapter
6).

7%
A
7
percent
discount
rate
is
used
(
see
Chapter
6).

System
Size
S
Systems
serving
fewer
than
10,000
people.

L
Systems
serving
at
least
10,000
people.
Exhibit
Q.
1
Treatment
Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
by
System
Size
for
Alternative
1
­
ICR­
UV90­
10
A1­
ICR­
UV90­
10
Capital
Costs
O&
M
Costs
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
System
Classification
System
Size
(
population
served)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)

CWSs
<
100
$
3,311,604
$
3,312,108
$
2,728,623
$
3,892,547
$
490,933
$
490,748
$
456,184
$
525,852
101­
500
$
11,880,623
$
11,880,140
$
9,798,987
$
13,950,264
$
1,689,609
$
1,689,054
$
1,558,996
$
1,821,070
501­
1,000
$
21,365,271
$
21,325,837
$
17,725,307
$
25,113,048
$
3,116,115
$
3,115,177
$
2,879,873
$
3,352,236
1,001­
3,300
$
97,337,584
$
97,159,452
$
80,753,645
$
114,426,966
$
10,018,466
$
10,015,393
$
9,255,099
$
10,787,840
3,301­
10K
$
333,922,359
$
333,431,025
$
274,404,960
$
395,060,534
$
16,243,241
$
16,240,276
$
15,053,555
$
17,444,117
Small
$
467,817,441
$
466,943,357
$
387,817,399
$
550,560,674
$
31,558,364
$
31,555,732
$
29,299,076
$
33,843,192
10,001­
50K
$
1,172,587,115
$
1,170,721,546
$
1,016,932,707
$
1,332,434,809
$
39,142,569
$
39,154,588
$
36,980,013
$
41,292,195
50,001­
100K
$
654,039,935
$
652,704,293
$
565,142,246
$
745,203,550
$
20,093,322
$
20,103,227
$
18,995,314
$
21,169,707
100,001­
1M
$
2,041,569,999
$
2,037,665,562
$
1,758,062,753
$
2,334,249,453
$
57,157,557
$
57,192,797
$
54,070,646
$
60,214,696
>
1
Million
$
1,135,589,856
$
1,133,349,378
$
967,627,729
$
1,309,041,537
$
33,428,970
$
33,444,029
$
31,537,169
$
35,298,759
Large
$
5,003,786,906
$
4,993,888,261
$
4,309,275,101
$
5,719,109,560
$
149,822,418
$
149,896,145
$
141,607,723
$
157,887,504
CWS
Total
$
5,471,604,347
$
5,460,966,709
$
4,700,806,905
$
6,269,598,207
$
181,380,782
$
181,442,852
$
171,581,141
$
191,089,794
NTNCWSs
<
100
$
1,998,736
$
1,997,651
$
1,646,135
$
2,352,144
$
274,023
$
273,902
$
255,371
$
293,071
101­
500
$
4,241,171
$
4,239,803
$
3,516,428
$
4,970,043
$
587,827
$
587,779
$
542,164
$
633,998
501­
1,000
$
5,174,046
$
5,172,709
$
4,258,375
$
6,084,980
$
714,910
$
714,756
$
659,895
$
769,618
1,001­
3,300
$
11,241,940
$
11,242,606
$
9,044,089
$
13,428,236
$
632,495
$
632,461
$
583,464
$
681,492
3,301­
10K
$
6,048,123
$
6,047,348
$
4,951,790
$
7,133,963
$
299,061
$
299,121
$
277,019
$
321,363
Small
$
28,704,016
$
28,692,113
$
24,187,264
$
33,241,076
$
2,508,316
$
2,507,001
$
2,346,659
$
2,672,052
10,001­
50K
$
9,618,757
$
9,612,491
$
8,292,041
$
10,952,936
$
293,515
$
293,593
$
277,292
$
309,678
50,001­
100K
$
3,024,162
$
3,021,975
$
2,602,193
$
3,449,743
$
83,051
$
83,091
$
78,406
$
87,619
100,001­
1M
$
4,909,802
$
4,906,761
$
4,221,665
$
5,602,395
$
136,290
$
136,358
$
128,746
$
143,612
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
17,552,722
$
17,540,045
$
15,108,611
$
20,001,450
$
512,856
$
513,034
$
484,518
$
540,532
NTNCWS
Total
$
46,256,738
$
46,214,708
$
39,399,407
$
53,171,546
$
3,021,172
$
3,020,189
$
2,840,775
$
3,204,200
TNCWSs
<
100
$
10,109,026
$
10,100,378
$
8,317,524
$
11,897,741
$
1,337,937
$
1,338,294
$
1,246,850
$
1,429,010
101­
500
$
7,057,107
$
7,052,067
$
5,827,047
$
8,283,782
$
985,877
$
986,140
$
910,722
$
1,062,112
501­
1,000
$
4,098,951
$
4,100,896
$
3,383,532
$
4,820,987
$
602,133
$
602,341
$
555,866
$
648,396
1,001­
3,300
$
7,442,389
$
7,446,578
$
6,058,613
$
8,837,366
$
687,958
$
688,072
$
635,008
$
740,846
3,301­
10K
$
9,310,002
$
9,311,686
$
7,633,812
$
11,013,426
$
438,578
$
438,534
$
406,107
$
470,993
Small
$
38,017,474
$
38,030,339
$
32,784,274
$
43,348,439
$
4,052,483
$
4,051,356
$
3,796,235
$
4,308,422
10,001­
50K
$
9,575,023
$
9,577,659
$
8,284,608
$
10,864,226
$
321,309
$
321,345
$
303,643
$
339,295
50,001­
100K
$
6,487,652
$
6,489,431
$
5,577,903
$
7,399,212
$
185,780
$
185,793
$
175,667
$
196,002
100,001­
1M
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
16,062,675
$
16,068,697
$
13,864,017
$
18,264,625
$
507,089
$
507,143
$
479,438
$
535,189
TNCWS
Total
$
54,080,149
$
54,070,855
$
46,996,985
$
61,235,010
$
4,559,572
$
4,558,852
$
4,287,200
$
4,833,329
All
Types
<
100
$
15,419,366
$
15,419,166
$
13,528,647
$
17,328,909
$
2,102,893
$
2,102,887
$
2,004,244
$
2,200,513
101­
500
$
23,178,901
$
23,160,318
$
20,656,377
$
25,698,002
$
3,263,313
$
3,263,291
$
3,109,343
$
3,420,154
501­
1,000
$
30,638,269
$
30,604,853
$
26,818,183
$
34,527,955
$
4,433,158
$
4,433,873
$
4,185,906
$
4,680,580
1,001­
3,300
$
116,021,913
$
115,882,479
$
99,165,151
$
133,236,206
$
11,338,919
$
11,338,851
$
10,565,145
$
12,108,015
3,301­
10K
$
349,280,483
$
348,781,138
$
289,992,841
$
410,410,023
$
16,980,881
$
16,978,600
$
15,788,545
$
18,183,364
Small
$
534,538,932
$
534,011,052
$
453,895,287
$
617,554,435
$
38,119,163
$
38,115,791
$
35,829,731
$
40,433,377
10,001­
50K
$
1,191,780,896
$
1,189,928,996
$
1,035,987,220
$
1,351,527,125
$
39,757,393
$
39,769,432
$
37,588,723
$
41,909,285
50,001­
100K
$
663,551,749
$
662,238,708
$
574,599,446
$
754,526,922
$
20,362,154
$
20,372,521
$
19,261,969
$
21,436,263
100,001­
1M
$
2,046,479,801
$
2,042,645,564
$
1,762,737,516
$
2,339,063,111
$
57,293,847
$
57,329,986
$
54,204,996
$
60,351,418
>
1
Million
$
1,135,589,856
$
1,133,349,378
$
967,627,729
$
1,309,041,537
$
33,428,970
$
33,444,029
$
31,537,169
$
35,298,759
Large
$
5,037,402,302
$
5,027,523,956
$
4,343,195,281
$
5,751,925,630
$
150,842,363
$
150,910,039
$
142,635,550
$
158,905,074
All
Sizes
$
5,571,941,234
$
5,561,589,438
$
4,800,970,491
$
6,370,114,343
$
188,961,527
$
189,018,815
$
179,122,092
$
198,646,544
Notes:
All
values
in
year
2000
dollars.

Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.

Derived
from
LT2ESWTR
Cost
Model.
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
Q­
3
June
2003
Exhibit
Q.
2
Treatment
Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
by
System
Size
for
Alternative
1
­
ICR­
UV90­
10B
A1­
ICR­
UV90­
10B
Capital
Costs
O&
M
Costs
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
System
Classification
System
Size
(
population
served)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)

CWSs
<
100
$
3,312,848
$
3,310,662
$
2,732,362
$
3,892,348
$
490,659
$
490,847
$
456,326
$
525,400
101­
500
$
11,885,248
$
11,876,337
$
9,811,000
$
13,950,896
$
1,688,612
$
1,688,987
$
1,558,474
$
1,820,475
501­
1,000
$
21,966,499
$
21,970,831
$
18,240,230
$
25,733,737
$
3,033,774
$
3,034,288
$
2,795,892
$
3,273,435
1,001­
3,300
$
99,060,326
$
99,099,149
$
82,138,281
$
116,163,891
$
9,922,635
$
9,924,836
$
9,149,446
$
10,695,849
3,301­
10K
$
341,732,541
$
341,814,343
$
280,862,978
$
403,046,741
$
16,462,744
$
16,463,100
$
15,256,999
$
17,664,463
Small
$
477,957,462
$
478,124,555
$
395,905,394
$
560,764,893
$
31,598,424
$
31,600,774
$
29,306,646
$
33,884,127
10,001­
50K
$
1,440,896,129
$
1,440,170,462
$
1,244,039,009
$
1,636,098,440
$
48,281,280
$
48,284,796
$
45,048,098
$
51,550,120
50,001­
100K
$
829,466,353
$
829,002,200
$
715,339,961
$
942,653,681
$
26,711,275
$
26,703,649
$
24,777,566
$
28,644,472
100,001­
1M
$
2,671,985,551
$
2,670,228,033
$
2,303,490,414
$
3,036,713,926
$
83,568,024
$
83,549,041
$
77,089,151
$
89,988,812
>
1
Million
$
1,471,579,592
$
1,470,508,196
$
1,261,648,980
$
1,679,995,019
$
48,879,789
$
48,875,031
$
44,985,905
$
52,752,894
Large
$
6,413,927,625
$
6,409,623,518
$
5,521,666,064
$
7,296,235,850
$
207,440,367
$
207,404,059
$
192,025,992
$
222,828,203
CWS
Total
$
6,891,885,086
$
6,886,103,151
$
5,934,163,955
$
7,844,697,148
$
239,038,791
$
239,044,209
$
222,623,111
$
255,447,480
NTNCWSs
<
100
$
1,996,956
$
1,996,643
$
1,643,396
$
2,353,439
$
274,085
$
273,859
$
255,483
$
293,289
101­
500
$
4,237,686
$
4,236,837
$
3,511,184
$
4,968,199
$
587,901
$
587,299
$
542,720
$
635,113
501­
1,000
$
5,317,125
$
5,323,605
$
4,405,006
$
6,222,329
$
695,624
$
695,407
$
640,416
$
750,649
1,001­
3,300
$
11,688,547
$
11,699,304
$
9,513,618
$
13,869,929
$
624,195
$
624,064
$
574,812
$
673,375
3,301­
10K
$
6,206,459
$
6,213,123
$
5,120,524
$
7,291,636
$
303,881
$
303,896
$
281,519
$
326,144
Small
$
29,446,773
$
29,474,791
$
24,915,015
$
34,001,746
$
2,485,685
$
2,484,802
$
2,322,385
$
2,647,949
10,001­
50K
$
11,885,211
$
11,890,845
$
10,271,701
$
13,486,046
$
372,198
$
372,342
$
346,641
$
397,618
50,001­
100K
$
3,968,514
$
3,970,114
$
3,421,982
$
4,509,181
$
119,589
$
119,624
$
110,354
$
128,774
100,001­
1M
$
6,458,820
$
6,462,291
$
5,574,842
$
7,333,752
$
199,855
$
199,909
$
184,534
$
215,159
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
22,312,545
$
22,325,812
$
19,273,989
$
25,316,471
$
691,642
$
691,951
$
641,755
$
741,204
NTNCWS
Total
$
51,759,318
$
51,812,768
$
44,592,963
$
58,911,893
$
3,177,327
$
3,177,139
$
2,990,440
$
3,365,712
TNCWSs
<
100
$
10,112,475
$
10,116,936
$
8,327,499
$
11,900,299
$
1,338,033
$
1,337,703
$
1,246,224
$
1,430,634
101­
500
$
7,059,701
$
7,062,051
$
5,836,190
$
8,289,499
$
985,973
$
986,066
$
909,129
$
1,063,155
501­
1,000
$
4,220,760
$
4,226,122
$
3,499,506
$
4,933,356
$
585,858
$
585,895
$
539,502
$
631,583
1,001­
3,300
$
7,970,759
$
7,978,839
$
6,575,884
$
9,351,185
$
685,277
$
685,302
$
632,441
$
738,223
3,301­
10K
$
9,564,332
$
9,575,982
$
7,874,286
$
11,237,094
$
445,911
$
445,842
$
413,493
$
478,515
Small
$
38,928,027
$
38,971,534
$
33,559,764
$
44,136,750
$
4,041,052
$
4,038,931
$
3,785,422
$
4,303,776
10,001­
50K
$
11,781,092
$
11,788,883
$
10,175,159
$
13,369,900
$
396,242
$
396,053
$
370,288
$
422,947
50,001­
100K
$
8,420,977
$
8,424,121
$
7,251,643
$
9,573,425
$
260,307
$
260,208
$
241,061
$
279,892
100,001­
1M
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
20,202,070
$
20,217,912
$
17,429,292
$
22,941,142
$
656,549
$
656,378
$
611,801
$
702,916
TNCWS
Total
$
59,130,097
$
59,228,438
$
51,664,361
$
66,446,712
$
4,697,602
$
4,695,016
$
4,424,245
$
4,980,867
All
Types
<
100
$
15,422,279
$
15,430,392
$
13,526,304
$
17,340,555
$
2,102,777
$
2,101,943
$
2,004,220
$
2,203,741
101­
500
$
23,182,635
$
23,186,797
$
20,678,050
$
25,689,388
$
3,262,486
$
3,262,545
$
3,106,028
$
3,421,188
501­
1,000
$
31,504,385
$
31,488,710
$
27,607,668
$
35,419,623
$
4,315,256
$
4,316,062
$
4,067,135
$
4,563,502
1,001­
3,300
$
118,719,632
$
118,684,183
$
101,578,510
$
136,016,272
$
11,232,107
$
11,236,682
$
10,456,508
$
12,008,660
3,301­
10K
$
357,503,331
$
357,731,479
$
296,740,669
$
418,713,333
$
17,212,536
$
17,215,333
$
16,007,491
$
18,415,217
Small
$
546,332,261
$
546,557,412
$
463,890,871
$
629,203,505
$
38,125,161
$
38,129,113
$
35,820,488
$
40,422,341
10,001­
50K
$
1,464,562,432
$
1,463,743,115
$
1,267,583,971
$
1,660,108,580
$
49,049,719
$
49,052,681
$
45,817,781
$
52,324,624
50,001­
100K
$
841,855,844
$
841,484,273
$
727,720,568
$
954,816,165
$
27,091,171
$
27,083,561
$
25,161,176
$
29,023,898
100,001­
1M
$
2,678,444,371
$
2,676,922,153
$
2,309,427,110
$
3,043,512,104
$
83,767,879
$
83,749,333
$
77,287,717
$
90,192,133
>
1
Million
$
1,471,579,592
$
1,470,508,196
$
1,261,648,980
$
1,679,995,019
$
48,879,789
$
48,875,031
$
44,985,905
$
52,752,894
Large
$
6,456,442,239
$
6,452,649,940
$
5,565,349,876
$
7,338,675,262
$
208,788,558
$
208,737,842
$
193,392,522
$
224,181,421
All
Sizes
$
7,002,774,501
$
6,995,820,492
$
6,044,949,015
$
7,956,127,813
$
246,913,719
$
246,912,233
$
230,560,945
$
263,295,454
Notes:
All
values
in
year
2000
dollars.

Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.

Derived
from
LT2ESWTR
Cost
Model.
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
Q­
4
June
2003
Exhibit
Q.
3
Treatment
Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
by
System
Size
for
Alternative
1
­
ICRSSL­
UV90­
10
A1­
ICRSSL­
UV90­
10
Capital
Costs
O&
M
Costs
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
System
Classification
System
Size
(
population
served)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)

CWSs
<
100
$
3,312,848
$
3,310,662
$
2,732,362
$
3,892,348
$
490,659
$
490,847
$
456,326
$
525,400
101­
500
$
11,885,248
$
11,876,337
$
9,811,000
$
13,950,896
$
1,688,612
$
1,688,987
$
1,558,474
$
1,820,475
501­
1,000
$
21,382,518
$
21,393,102
$
17,667,161
$
25,131,910
$
3,115,062
$
3,116,164
$
2,876,567
$
3,353,530
1,001­
3,300
$
97,416,482
$
97,479,448
$
80,472,509
$
114,532,214
$
10,014,734
$
10,016,284
$
9,240,865
$
10,788,287
3,301­
10K
$
334,201,032
$
334,324,285
$
273,768,055
$
395,606,567
$
16,236,743
$
16,237,445
$
15,033,576
$
17,439,535
Small
$
468,198,128
$
468,463,921
$
386,445,299
$
550,886,525
$
31,545,811
$
31,543,133
$
29,256,777
$
33,834,833
10,001­
50K
$
1,173,339,131
$
1,173,676,129
$
1,014,819,201
$
1,331,871,678
$
39,144,358
$
39,149,444
$
36,988,318
$
41,336,345
50,001­
100K
$
654,452,942
$
654,696,127
$
563,980,472
$
744,873,308
$
20,095,787
$
20,097,108
$
19,002,952
$
21,203,766
100,001­
1M
$
2,042,869,748
$
2,043,860,707
$
1,753,376,584
$
2,334,425,325
$
57,170,436
$
57,171,905
$
54,093,742
$
60,323,840
>
1
Million
$
1,136,345,741
$
1,136,856,448
$
964,680,444
$
1,308,149,217
$
33,437,132
$
33,437,885
$
31,543,630
$
35,369,232
Large
$
5,007,007,561
$
5,009,107,957
$
4,297,083,249
$
5,718,766,280
$
149,847,713
$
149,863,239
$
141,735,007
$
158,102,402
CWS
Total
$
5,475,205,689
$
5,477,506,880
$
4,686,709,253
$
6,267,615,894
$
181,393,525
$
181,405,761
$
171,607,050
$
191,308,025
NTNCWSs
<
100
$
1,996,956
$
1,996,643
$
1,643,396
$
2,353,439
$
274,085
$
273,859
$
255,483
$
293,289
101­
500
$
4,237,686
$
4,236,837
$
3,511,184
$
4,968,199
$
587,901
$
587,299
$
542,720
$
635,113
501­
1,000
$
5,178,148
$
5,184,282
$
4,275,094
$
6,086,989
$
715,390
$
715,282
$
660,135
$
770,204
1,001­
3,300
$
11,250,873
$
11,264,324
$
9,081,005
$
13,434,360
$
632,923
$
632,931
$
583,687
$
681,991
3,301­
10K
$
6,052,595
$
6,058,975
$
4,969,771
$
7,139,458
$
299,251
$
299,208
$
277,018
$
321,328
Small
$
28,716,257
$
28,744,249
$
24,198,106
$
33,288,848
$
2,509,549
$
2,508,866
$
2,345,877
$
2,672,268
10,001­
50K
$
9,625,821
$
9,635,720
$
8,301,389
$
10,941,596
$
293,598
$
293,532
$
277,648
$
309,663
50,001­
100K
$
3,026,339
$
3,029,265
$
2,604,589
$
3,446,917
$
83,066
$
83,045
$
78,500
$
87,633
100,001­
1M
$
4,913,264
$
4,918,683
$
4,227,934
$
5,596,759
$
136,312
$
136,299
$
128,906
$
143,753
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
17,565,425
$
17,585,275
$
15,133,184
$
19,985,261
$
512,976
$
512,937
$
485,416
$
540,711
NTNCWS
Total
$
46,281,682
$
46,324,301
$
39,399,640
$
53,135,870
$
3,022,525
$
3,021,633
$
2,840,897
$
3,205,223
TNCWSs
<
100
$
10,112,475
$
10,116,936
$
8,327,499
$
11,900,299
$
1,338,033
$
1,337,703
$
1,246,224
$
1,430,634
101­
500
$
7,059,701
$
7,062,051
$
5,836,190
$
8,289,499
$
985,973
$
986,066
$
909,129
$
1,063,155
501­
1,000
$
4,104,723
$
4,110,873
$
3,387,297
$
4,806,664
$
602,053
$
602,010
$
555,550
$
648,137
1,001­
3,300
$
7,453,313
$
7,463,460
$
6,065,254
$
8,823,511
$
687,885
$
687,777
$
635,012
$
740,736
3,301­
10K
$
9,323,388
$
9,336,316
$
7,638,841
$
10,980,324
$
438,543
$
438,381
$
406,258
$
471,025
Small
$
38,053,600
$
38,093,938
$
32,694,862
$
43,265,351
$
4,052,486
$
4,049,818
$
3,795,448
$
4,314,430
10,001­
50K
$
9,585,870
$
9,589,957
$
8,290,601
$
10,864,324
$
321,156
$
321,132
$
303,583
$
338,907
50,001­
100K
$
6,495,214
$
6,499,493
$
5,580,145
$
7,394,728
$
185,678
$
185,649
$
175,880
$
195,764
100,001­
1M
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
16,081,084
$
16,090,273
$
13,869,024
$
18,255,065
$
506,834
$
506,778
$
479,555
$
534,280
TNCWS
Total
$
54,134,684
$
54,182,680
$
46,895,237
$
61,077,718
$
4,559,320
$
4,556,178
$
4,287,457
$
4,837,491
All
Types
<
100
$
15,422,279
$
15,430,392
$
13,526,304
$
17,340,555
$
2,102,777
$
2,101,943
$
2,004,220
$
2,203,741
101­
500
$
23,182,635
$
23,186,797
$
20,678,050
$
25,689,388
$
3,262,486
$
3,262,545
$
3,106,028
$
3,421,188
501­
1,000
$
30,665,388
$
30,641,083
$
26,788,567
$
34,537,359
$
4,432,505
$
4,433,460
$
4,182,201
$
4,680,356
1,001­
3,300
$
116,120,668
$
116,110,297
$
98,974,696
$
133,429,579
$
11,335,542
$
11,339,473
$
10,556,622
$
12,112,443
3,301­
10K
$
349,577,015
$
349,885,226
$
289,047,862
$
410,713,453
$
16,974,537
$
16,977,668
$
15,772,719
$
18,181,799
Small
$
534,967,985
$
535,138,771
$
452,796,436
$
618,130,578
$
38,107,846
$
38,104,187
$
35,800,112
$
40,421,018
10,001­
50K
$
1,192,550,822
$
1,192,913,081
$
1,033,996,858
$
1,351,022,860
$
39,759,112
$
39,761,187
$
37,608,603
$
41,953,509
50,001­
100K
$
663,974,495
$
664,322,207
$
573,763,945
$
754,607,664
$
20,364,531
$
20,365,177
$
19,275,097
$
21,469,972
100,001­
1M
$
2,047,783,012
$
2,048,830,017
$
1,758,307,466
$
2,339,268,724
$
57,306,748
$
57,310,574
$
54,228,136
$
60,463,775
>
1
Million
$
1,136,345,741
$
1,136,856,448
$
964,680,444
$
1,308,149,217
$
33,437,132
$
33,437,885
$
31,543,630
$
35,369,232
Large
$
5,040,654,070
$
5,043,237,579
$
4,330,613,312
$
5,752,334,918
$
150,867,523
$
150,881,476
$
142,740,991
$
159,115,685
All
Sizes
$
5,575,622,055
$
5,578,305,950
$
4,788,113,234
$
6,368,037,005
$
188,975,370
$
189,007,369
$
179,170,933
$
198,879,922
Notes:
All
values
in
year
2000
dollars.

Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.

Derived
from
LT2ESWTR
Cost
Model.
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
Q­
5
June
2003
Exhibit
Q.
4
Treatment
Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
by
System
Size
for
Alternative
1
­
ICRSSL­
UV90­
10B
A1­
ICRSSL­
UV90­
10B
Capital
Costs
O&
M
Costs
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
System
Classification
System
Size
(
population
served)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)

CWSs
<
100
$
3,307,460
$
3,307,196
$
2,730,393
$
3,886,065
$
490,287
$
490,090
$
456,115
$
525,071
101­
500
$
11,866,643
$
11,865,291
$
9,809,854
$
13,926,539
$
1,687,135
$
1,686,856
$
1,557,066
$
1,818,441
501­
1,000
$
22,005,013
$
22,024,485
$
18,214,911
$
25,754,254
$
3,033,516
$
3,033,004
$
2,795,826
$
3,271,655
1,001­
3,300
$
99,229,440
$
99,266,349
$
81,967,686
$
116,243,065
$
9,921,390
$
9,920,922
$
9,149,498
$
10,692,433
3,301­
10K
$
342,325,828
$
342,467,422
$
280,725,687
$
403,420,633
$
16,459,386
$
16,457,604
$
15,254,313
$
17,669,003
Small
$
478,734,384
$
478,658,505
$
395,327,711
$
561,390,584
$
31,591,713
$
31,590,985
$
29,303,995
$
33,893,949
10,001­
50K
$
1,443,467,897
$
1,444,659,423
$
1,246,504,507
$
1,639,299,120
$
48,272,616
$
48,297,326
$
45,004,590
$
51,511,427
50,001­
100K
$
830,964,077
$
831,557,788
$
716,952,397
$
944,207,473
$
26,705,966
$
26,713,926
$
24,772,801
$
28,622,213
100,001­
1M
$
2,676,819,927
$
2,678,606,245
$
2,308,295,734
$
3,042,272,176
$
83,548,671
$
83,546,324
$
77,123,037
$
89,973,629
>
1
Million
$
1,474,229,980
$
1,475,051,977
$
1,264,527,898
$
1,683,709,428
$
48,866,949
$
48,864,187
$
44,989,509
$
52,738,051
Large
$
6,425,481,880
$
6,430,217,296
$
5,536,298,173
$
7,310,016,697
$
207,394,202
$
207,448,689
$
192,058,202
$
222,658,697
CWS
Total
$
6,904,216,264
$
6,910,015,690
$
5,946,363,686
$
7,856,425,852
$
238,985,915
$
239,042,752
$
222,549,601
$
255,200,454
NTNCWSs
<
100
$
1,995,986
$
1,996,414
$
1,646,355
$
2,349,093
$
274,225
$
274,312
$
255,397
$
293,141
101­
500
$
4,235,959
$
4,236,843
$
3,517,101
$
4,963,123
$
588,358
$
588,548
$
542,521
$
634,598
501­
1,000
$
5,324,354
$
5,317,982
$
4,410,635
$
6,242,215
$
695,191
$
695,336
$
640,461
$
750,349
1,001­
3,300
$
11,704,657
$
11,700,590
$
9,508,733
$
13,906,302
$
623,835
$
623,996
$
574,805
$
673,003
3,301­
10K
$
6,214,566
$
6,208,690
$
5,121,466
$
7,310,083
$
303,756
$
303,751
$
281,512
$
325,923
Small
$
29,475,521
$
29,472,470
$
24,912,253
$
34,062,709
$
2,485,365
$
2,485,481
$
2,323,233
$
2,646,939
10,001­
50K
$
11,902,675
$
11,901,484
$
10,277,207
$
13,502,408
$
372,200
$
372,171
$
346,496
$
398,006
50,001­
100K
$
3,974,411
$
3,974,554
$
3,431,732
$
4,514,255
$
119,608
$
119,596
$
110,296
$
128,862
100,001­
1M
$
6,468,406
$
6,467,562
$
5,588,307
$
7,343,307
$
199,891
$
199,853
$
184,421
$
215,247
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
22,345,491
$
22,343,940
$
19,302,441
$
25,350,539
$
691,699
$
691,603
$
641,564
$
742,039
NTNCWS
Total
$
51,821,013
$
51,846,780
$
44,694,914
$
59,042,259
$
3,177,065
$
3,176,811
$
2,989,183
$
3,364,681
TNCWSs
<
100
$
10,097,579
$
10,113,938
$
8,326,417
$
11,860,759
$
1,337,289
$
1,336,074
$
1,246,991
$
1,430,248
101­
500
$
7,049,399
$
7,059,032
$
5,833,899
$
8,266,902
$
985,149
$
984,115
$
910,646
$
1,062,742
501­
1,000
$
4,217,967
$
4,215,789
$
3,490,132
$
4,939,780
$
586,254
$
586,073
$
539,676
$
632,601
1,001­
3,300
$
7,965,119
$
7,960,132
$
6,553,914
$
9,367,621
$
685,680
$
685,541
$
632,467
$
738,716
3,301­
10K
$
9,557,281
$
9,553,585
$
7,848,622
$
11,254,230
$
446,109
$
446,120
$
413,318
$
478,660
Small
$
38,887,345
$
38,882,541
$
33,546,479
$
44,219,490
$
4,040,481
$
4,039,399
$
3,782,772
$
4,301,391
10,001­
50K
$
11,778,314
$
11,776,027
$
10,179,610
$
13,367,342
$
396,333
$
396,486
$
369,960
$
422,618
50,001­
100K
$
8,419,193
$
8,416,799
$
7,259,831
$
9,568,297
$
260,329
$
260,395
$
240,782
$
279,752
100,001­
1M
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
20,197,506
$
20,193,405
$
17,442,847
$
22,937,345
$
656,663
$
656,954
$
611,143
$
701,936
TNCWS
Total
$
59,084,851
$
59,082,448
$
51,653,216
$
66,492,836
$
4,697,143
$
4,694,863
$
4,420,782
$
4,977,115
All
Types
<
100
$
15,401,025
$
15,403,977
$
13,508,123
$
17,312,278
$
2,101,801
$
2,100,618
$
2,003,975
$
2,203,583
101­
500
$
23,152,001
$
23,139,235
$
20,674,586
$
25,621,859
$
3,260,642
$
3,260,591
$
3,104,869
$
3,420,070
501­
1,000
$
31,547,334
$
31,558,069
$
27,572,812
$
35,487,718
$
4,314,961
$
4,315,238
$
4,067,917
$
4,561,744
1,001­
3,300
$
118,899,216
$
118,968,466
$
101,430,258
$
136,246,165
$
11,230,905
$
11,229,778
$
10,453,484
$
12,010,041
3,301­
10K
$
358,097,675
$
358,249,723
$
296,409,759
$
419,230,674
$
17,209,250
$
17,209,254
$
16,004,815
$
18,420,685
Small
$
547,097,250
$
547,153,588
$
463,637,681
$
630,131,596
$
38,117,559
$
38,114,949
$
35,814,005
$
40,454,063
10,001­
50K
$
1,467,148,886
$
1,468,418,024
$
1,270,593,311
$
1,663,201,474
$
49,041,149
$
49,062,014
$
45,779,888
$
52,286,665
50,001­
100K
$
843,357,680
$
843,960,386
$
729,394,246
$
956,949,792
$
27,085,904
$
27,094,752
$
25,153,781
$
29,005,657
100,001­
1M
$
2,683,288,332
$
2,685,164,271
$
2,314,759,538
$
3,048,539,683
$
83,748,562
$
83,742,550
$
77,330,742
$
90,172,877
>
1
Million
$
1,474,229,980
$
1,475,051,977
$
1,264,527,898
$
1,683,709,428
$
48,866,949
$
48,864,187
$
44,989,509
$
52,738,051
Large
$
6,468,024,878
$
6,472,595,289
$
5,580,077,733
$
7,352,505,883
$
208,742,564
$
208,794,035
$
193,417,116
$
224,022,549
All
Sizes
$
7,015,122,128
$
7,021,755,660
$
6,059,091,809
$
7,970,527,777
$
246,860,123
$
246,911,667
$
230,427,042
$
263,042,749
Notes:
All
values
in
year
2000
dollars.

Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.

Derived
from
LT2ESWTR
Cost
Model.
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
Q­
6
June
2003
Exhibit
Q.
5
Treatment
Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
by
System
Size
for
Alternative
1
­
ICRSSM­
UV90­
10
A1­
ICRSSM­
UV90­
10
Capital
Costs
O&
M
Costs
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
System
Classification
System
Size
(
population
served)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)

CWSs
<
100
$
3,307,460
$
3,307,196
$
2,730,393
$
3,886,065
$
490,287
$
490,090
$
456,115
$
525,071
101­
500
$
11,866,643
$
11,865,291
$
9,809,854
$
13,926,539
$
1,687,135
$
1,686,856
$
1,557,066
$
1,818,441
501­
1,000
$
21,414,670
$
21,418,405
$
17,642,536
$
25,152,769
$
3,114,657
$
3,114,137
$
2,875,747
$
3,352,379
1,001­
3,300
$
97,560,591
$
97,583,408
$
80,396,379
$
114,601,002
$
10,013,142
$
10,014,071
$
9,239,445
$
10,785,434
3,301­
10K
$
334,741,797
$
334,823,853
$
273,309,308
$
395,663,162
$
16,233,025
$
16,236,118
$
15,034,962
$
17,444,221
Small
$
468,891,160
$
468,942,932
$
385,921,380
$
551,213,772
$
31,538,246
$
31,541,711
$
29,262,235
$
33,844,004
10,001­
50K
$
1,174,795,218
$
1,175,078,195
$
1,012,930,245
$
1,334,598,780
$
39,130,734
$
39,147,143
$
36,936,962
$
41,310,615
50,001­
100K
$
655,328,125
$
655,394,279
$
563,391,110
$
746,530,948
$
20,088,140
$
20,094,646
$
18,973,736
$
21,179,115
100,001­
1M
$
2,045,802,744
$
2,046,044,676
$
1,752,555,545
$
2,337,555,170
$
57,145,861
$
57,172,783
$
53,968,952
$
60,227,369
>
1
Million
$
1,138,100,382
$
1,138,566,918
$
963,670,312
$
1,310,606,471
$
33,421,825
$
33,433,939
$
31,475,064
$
35,313,315
Large
$
5,014,026,469
$
5,014,141,190
$
4,294,695,087
$
5,729,327,420
$
149,786,560
$
149,844,035
$
141,462,245
$
157,958,752
CWS
Total
$
5,482,917,630
$
5,482,948,520
$
4,680,029,402
$
6,277,535,027
$
181,324,806
$
181,339,616
$
171,368,076
$
191,180,974
NTNCWSs
<
100
$
1,995,986
$
1,996,414
$
1,646,355
$
2,349,093
$
274,225
$
274,312
$
255,397
$
293,141
101­
500
$
4,235,959
$
4,236,843
$
3,517,101
$
4,963,123
$
588,358
$
588,548
$
542,521
$
634,598
501­
1,000
$
5,184,716
$
5,182,110
$
4,267,826
$
6,104,570
$
714,996
$
715,252
$
660,045
$
769,971
1,001­
3,300
$
11,266,287
$
11,257,995
$
9,070,864
$
13,467,514
$
632,588
$
632,676
$
583,501
$
681,721
3,301­
10K
$
6,060,190
$
6,057,100
$
4,962,139
$
7,156,712
$
299,130
$
299,129
$
276,992
$
321,283
Small
$
28,743,138
$
28,748,340
$
24,198,779
$
33,315,101
$
2,509,298
$
2,509,036
$
2,347,583
$
2,670,119
10,001­
50K
$
9,638,051
$
9,638,934
$
8,314,920
$
10,967,416
$
293,622
$
293,684
$
277,633
$
309,923
50,001­
100K
$
3,030,318
$
3,031,374
$
2,606,138
$
3,453,647
$
83,085
$
83,082
$
78,541
$
87,697
100,001­
1M
$
4,919,741
$
4,920,804
$
4,228,892
$
5,608,049
$
136,348
$
136,353
$
129,045
$
143,827
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
17,588,110
$
17,590,463
$
15,151,728
$
20,023,795
$
513,055
$
513,127
$
485,340
$
541,278
NTNCWS
Total
$
46,331,247
$
46,360,150
$
39,484,198
$
53,218,672
$
3,022,353
$
3,022,390
$
2,840,916
$
3,202,860
TNCWSs
<
100
$
10,097,579
$
10,113,938
$
8,326,417
$
11,860,759
$
1,337,289
$
1,336,074
$
1,246,991
$
1,430,248
101­
500
$
7,049,399
$
7,059,032
$
5,833,899
$
8,266,902
$
985,149
$
984,115
$
910,646
$
1,062,742
501­
1,000
$
4,101,179
$
4,097,442
$
3,374,985
$
4,819,963
$
602,464
$
602,392
$
555,967
$
648,698
1,001­
3,300
$
7,447,422
$
7,445,365
$
6,038,893
$
8,841,168
$
688,304
$
688,305
$
635,249
$
741,341
3,301­
10K
$
9,315,502
$
9,312,754
$
7,610,300
$
11,005,463
$
438,751
$
438,732
$
406,181
$
471,077
Small
$
38,011,081
$
38,010,891
$
32,708,283
$
43,339,612
$
4,051,957
$
4,050,458
$
3,794,345
$
4,313,777
10,001­
50K
$
9,578,324
$
9,569,443
$
8,281,162
$
10,886,713
$
321,303
$
321,246
$
303,533
$
339,096
50,001­
100K
$
6,490,583
$
6,486,272
$
5,577,395
$
7,409,733
$
185,743
$
185,735
$
175,608
$
195,864
100,001­
1M
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
16,068,907
$
16,052,860
$
13,865,038
$
18,301,924
$
507,046
$
506,925
$
479,395
$
534,732
TNCWS
Total
$
54,079,988
$
54,078,190
$
46,965,153
$
61,275,278
$
4,559,003
$
4,557,954
$
4,282,490
$
4,836,322
All
Types
<
100
$
15,401,025
$
15,403,977
$
13,508,123
$
17,312,278
$
2,101,801
$
2,100,618
$
2,003,975
$
2,203,583
101­
500
$
23,152,001
$
23,139,235
$
20,674,586
$
25,621,859
$
3,260,642
$
3,260,591
$
3,104,869
$
3,420,070
501­
1,000
$
30,700,564
$
30,713,330
$
26,762,360
$
34,620,579
$
4,432,118
$
4,431,951
$
4,182,164
$
4,678,238
1,001­
3,300
$
116,274,300
$
116,306,891
$
98,852,279
$
133,615,038
$
11,334,034
$
11,333,221
$
10,562,596
$
12,109,262
3,301­
10K
$
350,117,489
$
350,139,767
$
288,711,297
$
411,282,995
$
16,970,906
$
16,973,472
$
15,776,878
$
18,178,341
Small
$
535,645,379
$
535,726,372
$
452,824,231
$
618,619,101
$
38,099,501
$
38,089,028
$
35,807,810
$
40,425,764
10,001­
50K
$
1,194,011,592
$
1,194,089,220
$
1,032,007,021
$
1,353,892,614
$
39,745,659
$
39,763,651
$
37,549,525
$
41,931,807
50,001­
100K
$
664,849,026
$
664,894,408
$
572,866,591
$
756,167,364
$
20,356,968
$
20,362,708
$
19,242,114
$
21,449,433
100,001­
1M
$
2,050,722,485
$
2,050,995,862
$
1,757,176,309
$
2,342,364,756
$
57,282,209
$
57,310,737
$
54,106,212
$
60,362,395
>
1
Million
$
1,138,100,382
$
1,138,566,918
$
963,670,312
$
1,310,606,471
$
33,421,825
$
33,433,939
$
31,475,064
$
35,313,315
Large
$
5,047,683,486
$
5,047,665,827
$
4,328,157,974
$
5,762,215,074
$
150,806,662
$
150,866,757
$
142,481,954
$
158,989,845
All
Sizes
$
5,583,328,865
$
5,583,708,280
$
4,779,940,123
$
6,377,907,359
$
188,906,162
$
188,961,379
$
178,895,202
$
198,775,390
Notes:
All
values
in
year
2000
dollars.

Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.

Derived
from
LT2ESWTR
Cost
Model.
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
Q­
7
June
2003
Exhibit
Q.
6
Treatment
Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
by
System
Size
for
Alternative
1
­
ICRSSM­
UV90­
10B
A1­
ICRSSM­
UV90­
10B
Capital
Costs
O&
M
Costs
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
System
Classification
System
Size
(
population
served)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)

CWSs
<
100
$
3,311,604
$
3,312,108
$
2,728,623
$
3,892,547
$
490,933
$
490,748
$
456,184
$
525,852
101­
500
$
11,880,623
$
11,880,140
$
9,798,987
$
13,950,264
$
1,689,609
$
1,689,054
$
1,558,996
$
1,821,070
501­
1,000
$
21,951,110
$
21,905,511
$
18,265,448
$
25,749,743
$
3,034,884
$
3,033,794
$
2,797,940
$
3,271,133
1,001­
3,300
$
98,988,690
$
98,778,056
$
82,304,374
$
116,222,379
$
9,926,447
$
9,923,226
$
9,161,509
$
10,696,832
3,301­
10K
$
341,469,327
$
340,863,753
$
281,791,172
$
403,018,466
$
16,469,145
$
16,467,940
$
15,274,244
$
17,679,490
Small
$
477,601,354
$
476,730,832
$
396,893,686
$
560,853,787
$
31,611,019
$
31,608,738
$
29,343,422
$
33,914,720
10,001­
50K
$
1,440,482,260
$
1,438,750,780
$
1,246,278,879
$
1,637,128,367
$
48,274,251
$
48,271,170
$
45,053,026
$
51,488,190
50,001­
100K
$
829,242,650
$
828,188,806
$
716,520,318
$
943,587,295
$
26,705,043
$
26,704,470
$
24,792,785
$
28,613,997
100,001­
1M
$
2,671,261,811
$
2,667,754,953
$
2,307,561,146
$
3,040,762,347
$
83,539,754
$
83,565,635
$
77,200,370
$
89,872,969
>
1
Million
$
1,471,095,841
$
1,468,938,123
$
1,264,256,702
$
1,681,404,696
$
48,862,712
$
48,877,585
$
45,042,556
$
52,683,968
Large
$
6,412,082,562
$
6,404,360,278
$
5,535,355,284
$
7,302,933,959
$
207,381,761
$
207,417,077
$
192,120,782
$
222,594,194
CWS
Total
$
6,889,683,916
$
6,877,336,076
$
5,942,983,407
$
7,846,644,566
$
238,992,779
$
238,970,345
$
222,670,779
$
255,221,377
NTNCWSs
<
100
$
1,998,736
$
1,997,651
$
1,646,135
$
2,352,144
$
274,023
$
273,902
$
255,371
$
293,071
101­
500
$
4,241,171
$
4,239,803
$
3,516,428
$
4,970,043
$
587,827
$
587,779
$
542,164
$
633,998
501­
1,000
$
5,313,372
$
5,311,532
$
4,391,863
$
6,233,144
$
695,140
$
695,054
$
640,417
$
750,036
1,001­
3,300
$
11,679,497
$
11,683,559
$
9,478,986
$
13,870,033
$
623,766
$
623,676
$
574,792
$
672,675
3,301­
10K
$
6,202,179
$
6,201,379
$
5,097,864
$
7,293,890
$
303,693
$
303,682
$
281,503
$
326,038
Small
$
29,434,956
$
29,425,234
$
24,892,706
$
34,004,772
$
2,484,449
$
2,483,175
$
2,322,721
$
2,648,606
10,001­
50K
$
11,879,023
$
11,862,342
$
10,283,147
$
13,505,338
$
372,131
$
372,237
$
346,369
$
397,607
50,001­
100K
$
3,966,465
$
3,960,315
$
3,431,485
$
4,513,186
$
119,582
$
119,580
$
110,305
$
128,816
100,001­
1M
$
6,455,550
$
6,445,609
$
5,589,198
$
7,342,319
$
199,846
$
199,832
$
184,500
$
215,200
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
22,301,038
$
22,264,557
$
19,302,944
$
25,358,423
$
691,559
$
691,700
$
641,562
$
741,428
NTNCWS
Total
$
51,735,993
$
51,656,225
$
44,587,392
$
58,896,921
$
3,176,008
$
3,174,977
$
2,989,318
$
3,366,847
TNCWSs
<
100
$
10,109,026
$
10,100,378
$
8,317,524
$
11,897,741
$
1,337,937
$
1,338,294
$
1,246,850
$
1,429,010
101­
500
$
7,057,107
$
7,052,067
$
5,827,047
$
8,283,782
$
985,877
$
986,140
$
910,722
$
1,062,112
501­
1,000
$
4,214,988
$
4,215,697
$
3,497,750
$
4,940,605
$
585,891
$
585,988
$
539,765
$
632,383
1,001­
3,300
$
7,959,634
$
7,963,750
$
6,568,470
$
9,361,481
$
685,311
$
685,430
$
632,362
$
738,207
3,301­
10K
$
9,550,897
$
9,553,526
$
7,862,587
$
11,254,074
$
445,928
$
445,928
$
413,418
$
478,409
Small
$
38,891,652
$
38,893,011
$
33,608,319
$
44,238,323
$
4,040,945
$
4,040,095
$
3,784,982
$
4,295,973
10,001­
50K
$
11,769,679
$
11,763,970
$
10,164,562
$
13,361,273
$
396,315
$
396,362
$
369,902
$
423,077
50,001­
100K
$
8,412,823
$
8,407,330
$
7,249,644
$
9,562,281
$
260,362
$
260,298
$
240,556
$
280,051
100,001­
1M
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
20,182,502
$
20,170,401
$
17,416,929
$
22,928,901
$
656,677
$
656,629
$
610,895
$
702,604
TNCWS
Total
$
59,074,154
$
59,046,131
$
51,676,416
$
66,562,010
$
4,697,622
$
4,697,512
$
4,421,732
$
4,975,006
All
Types
<
100
$
15,419,366
$
15,419,166
$
13,528,647
$
17,328,909
$
2,102,893
$
2,102,887
$
2,004,244
$
2,200,513
101­
500
$
23,178,901
$
23,160,318
$
20,656,377
$
25,698,002
$
3,263,313
$
3,263,291
$
3,109,343
$
3,420,154
501­
1,000
$
31,479,470
$
31,434,170
$
27,638,837
$
35,396,695
$
4,315,915
$
4,316,037
$
4,069,329
$
4,562,568
1,001­
3,300
$
118,627,822
$
118,430,647
$
101,699,392
$
135,946,770
$
11,235,524
$
11,234,123
$
10,465,566
$
12,006,948
3,301­
10K
$
357,222,404
$
356,602,666
$
297,535,738
$
418,478,497
$
17,218,767
$
17,216,555
$
16,025,195
$
18,428,042
Small
$
545,927,962
$
545,087,136
$
464,975,227
$
629,075,534
$
38,136,412
$
38,130,831
$
35,838,304
$
40,445,410
10,001­
50K
$
1,464,130,961
$
1,462,276,576
$
1,270,036,609
$
1,660,954,332
$
49,042,697
$
49,038,537
$
45,828,811
$
52,259,486
50,001­
100K
$
841,621,939
$
840,570,662
$
728,635,123
$
956,124,536
$
27,084,988
$
27,085,227
$
25,174,672
$
28,993,809
100,001­
1M
$
2,677,717,361
$
2,674,242,503
$
2,314,181,868
$
3,047,418,228
$
83,739,600
$
83,761,005
$
77,397,888
$
90,070,295
>
1
Million
$
1,471,095,841
$
1,468,938,123
$
1,264,256,702
$
1,681,404,696
$
48,862,712
$
48,877,585
$
45,042,556
$
52,683,968
Large
$
6,454,566,102
$
6,446,662,296
$
5,577,691,374
$
7,346,262,044
$
208,729,997
$
208,767,766
$
193,482,032
$
223,935,029
All
Sizes
$
7,000,494,064
$
6,987,279,286
$
6,054,261,027
$
7,957,112,370
$
246,866,409
$
246,836,458
$
230,505,539
$
263,120,431
Notes:
All
values
in
year
2000
dollars.

Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.

Derived
from
LT2ESWTR
Cost
Model.
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
Q­
8
June
2003
Exhibit
Q.
7
Treatment
Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
by
System
Size
for
Alternative
2
­
ICR­
UV90­
10
A2­
ICR­
UV90­
10
Capital
Costs
O&
M
Costs
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
System
Classification
System
Size
(
population
served)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)

CWSs
<
100
$
1,435,698
$
1,435,962
$
1,267,024
$
1,605,130
$
246,898
$
246,888
$
232,961
$
260,916
101­
500
$
4,764,887
$
4,765,995
$
4,201,177
$
5,333,864
$
714,375
$
714,256
$
673,529
$
756,110
501­
1,000
$
7,699,033
$
7,690,389
$
6,702,933
$
8,701,862
$
1,010,531
$
1,010,629
$
949,145
$
1,072,536
1,001­
3,300
$
33,858,485
$
33,804,453
$
29,391,766
$
38,344,969
$
3,297,039
$
3,297,616
$
3,097,199
$
3,496,939
3,301­
10K
$
111,279,825
$
111,100,263
$
95,230,705
$
127,442,838
$
5,941,368
$
5,941,391
$
5,598,437
$
6,281,573
Small
$
159,037,929
$
158,764,706
$
136,978,977
$
181,158,975
$
11,210,210
$
11,210,221
$
10,559,520
$
11,856,149
10,001­
50K
$
376,991,132
$
376,281,915
$
325,935,732
$
429,314,890
$
13,194,087
$
13,198,472
$
12,548,105
$
13,835,200
50,001­
100K
$
208,319,021
$
207,913,165
$
179,477,687
$
237,992,832
$
6,635,250
$
6,635,904
$
6,330,998
$
6,939,073
100,001­
1M
$
643,215,504
$
641,682,105
$
551,269,841
$
738,235,151
$
16,824,101
$
16,827,461
$
16,049,074
$
17,601,885
>
1
Million
$
438,900,180
$
437,963,300
$
370,201,644
$
509,544,834
$
11,499,350
$
11,501,548
$
10,862,018
$
12,139,631
Large
$
1,667,425,837
$
1,663,663,719
$
1,427,479,486
$
1,915,412,908
$
48,152,788
$
48,163,893
$
45,809,477
$
50,494,714
CWS
Total
$
1,826,463,765
$
1,822,283,470
$
1,565,137,563
$
2,094,986,670
$
59,362,998
$
59,376,324
$
56,496,676
$
62,224,251
NTNCWSs
<
100
$
859,007
$
858,619
$
758,363
$
960,803
$
140,428
$
140,348
$
132,521
$
148,510
101­
500
$
1,732,725
$
1,731,835
$
1,532,102
$
1,939,268
$
237,839
$
237,752
$
224,483
$
251,480
501­
1,000
$
1,735,279
$
1,733,969
$
1,505,439
$
1,962,582
$
218,042
$
217,975
$
204,719
$
231,393
1,001­
3,300
$
3,107,607
$
3,105,934
$
2,576,983
$
3,635,842
$
198,155
$
198,075
$
186,148
$
210,205
3,301­
10K
$
1,935,327
$
1,934,063
$
1,662,166
$
2,206,224
$
105,010
$
104,926
$
99,074
$
110,957
Small
$
9,369,945
$
9,359,568
$
8,111,892
$
10,619,457
$
899,473
$
898,897
$
849,183
$
950,916
10,001­
50K
$
3,113,576
$
3,112,002
$
2,675,934
$
3,549,138
$
96,962
$
96,955
$
92,264
$
101,657
50,001­
100K
$
965,714
$
965,139
$
826,843
$
1,104,994
$
25,296
$
25,297
$
24,091
$
26,512
100,001­
1M
$
1,562,716
$
1,561,809
$
1,338,048
$
1,786,982
$
40,888
$
40,902
$
39,018
$
42,759
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
5,642,006
$
5,639,382
$
4,841,871
$
6,442,634
$
163,146
$
163,132
$
155,450
$
170,911
NTNCWS
Total
$
15,011,951
$
14,997,254
$
12,997,190
$
17,030,681
$
1,062,620
$
1,062,342
$
1,006,330
$
1,120,245
TNCWSs
<
100
$
4,319,153
$
4,322,612
$
3,812,204
$
4,828,449
$
696,543
$
696,317
$
657,352
$
736,215
101­
500
$
2,834,935
$
2,834,765
$
2,505,634
$
3,165,921
$
412,934
$
412,908
$
389,643
$
436,365
501­
1,000
$
1,408,137
$
1,406,892
$
1,229,547
$
1,588,357
$
184,368
$
184,402
$
173,132
$
195,509
1,001­
3,300
$
2,304,879
$
2,303,278
$
1,961,560
$
2,648,293
$
220,504
$
220,497
$
207,431
$
233,617
3,301­
10K
$
2,983,287
$
2,981,088
$
2,566,282
$
3,401,438
$
155,068
$
155,092
$
146,371
$
163,692
Small
$
13,850,391
$
13,834,389
$
12,225,772
$
15,494,681
$
1,669,416
$
1,669,219
$
1,576,162
$
1,763,335
10,001­
50K
$
3,112,980
$
3,112,518
$
2,691,060
$
3,535,641
$
110,238
$
110,207
$
104,920
$
115,584
50,001­
100K
$
2,086,478
$
2,086,271
$
1,789,023
$
2,383,640
$
58,934
$
58,924
$
56,214
$
61,659
100,001­
1M
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
5,199,458
$
5,200,171
$
4,478,437
$
5,919,283
$
169,172
$
169,161
$
161,200
$
177,146
TNCWS
Total
$
19,049,850
$
19,034,932
$
16,825,450
$
21,291,698
$
1,838,587
$
1,838,382
$
1,739,007
$
1,939,000
All
Types
<
100
$
6,613,858
$
6,614,430
$
6,068,189
$
7,165,300
$
1,083,869
$
1,083,529
$
1,040,340
$
1,127,590
101­
500
$
9,332,547
$
9,336,467
$
8,635,693
$
10,024,650
$
1,365,147
$
1,365,256
$
1,316,099
$
1,415,444
501­
1,000
$
10,842,449
$
10,838,803
$
9,809,151
$
11,883,134
$
1,412,941
$
1,413,096
$
1,349,115
$
1,477,121
1,001­
3,300
$
39,270,971
$
39,224,906
$
34,760,804
$
43,807,655
$
3,715,698
$
3,715,725
$
3,515,953
$
3,917,507
3,301­
10K
$
116,198,439
$
116,042,864
$
100,119,139
$
132,338,354
$
6,201,445
$
6,201,117
$
5,859,608
$
6,541,462
Small
$
182,258,265
$
181,978,498
$
160,044,218
$
204,380,323
$
13,779,099
$
13,780,098
$
13,126,143
$
14,436,288
10,001­
50K
$
383,217,689
$
382,545,040
$
332,110,567
$
435,542,111
$
13,401,287
$
13,405,821
$
12,755,930
$
14,042,448
50,001­
100K
$
211,371,212
$
210,966,202
$
182,485,789
$
241,012,819
$
6,719,480
$
6,720,306
$
6,415,789
$
7,023,151
100,001­
1M
$
644,778,219
$
643,187,227
$
552,808,481
$
739,825,051
$
16,864,989
$
16,868,196
$
16,089,381
$
17,643,699
>
1
Million
$
438,900,180
$
437,963,300
$
370,201,644
$
509,544,834
$
11,499,350
$
11,501,548
$
10,862,018
$
12,139,631
Large
$
1,678,267,301
$
1,674,343,768
$
1,437,921,277
$
1,926,369,705
$
48,485,106
$
48,495,157
$
46,141,199
$
50,823,440
All
Sizes
$
1,860,525,566
$
1,856,259,795
$
1,599,176,231
$
2,129,723,171
$
62,264,205
$
62,275,566
$
59,395,371
$
65,115,625
Notes:
All
values
in
year
2000
dollars.

Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.

Derived
from
LT2ESWTR
Cost
Model.
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
Q­
9
June
2003
Exhibit
Q.
8
Treatment
Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
by
System
Size
for
Alternative
2
­
ICR­
UV90­
10B
A2­
ICR­
UV90­
10B
Capital
Costs
O&
M
Costs
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
System
Classification
System
Size
(
population
served)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)

CWSs
<
100
$
1,436,662
$
1,437,473
$
1,267,521
$
1,607,479
$
246,706
$
246,656
$
232,894
$
260,712
101­
500
$
4,769,312
$
4,769,563
$
4,204,933
$
5,333,127
$
713,815
$
713,751
$
672,747
$
755,227
501­
1,000
$
8,147,684
$
8,146,688
$
7,131,268
$
9,184,507
$
952,132
$
952,274
$
890,816
$
1,013,812
1,001­
3,300
$
35,498,934
$
35,481,999
$
30,989,243
$
40,098,394
$
3,209,928
$
3,209,466
$
3,009,836
$
3,409,818
3,301­
10K
$
116,711,088
$
116,649,337
$
100,596,456
$
133,022,844
$
6,011,629
$
6,010,493
$
5,669,577
$
6,353,447
Small
$
166,563,679
$
166,504,589
$
144,378,097
$
188,917,913
$
11,134,210
$
11,133,039
$
10,488,338
$
11,781,542
10,001­
50K
$
425,580,344
$
425,609,616
$
369,448,491
$
481,238,569
$
14,917,968
$
14,923,831
$
14,127,223
$
15,716,493
50,001­
100K
$
239,789,024
$
239,860,388
$
207,756,610
$
271,585,762
$
7,871,993
$
7,875,542
$
7,443,926
$
8,302,876
100,001­
1M
$
747,498,175
$
747,923,649
$
645,555,952
$
848,415,355
$
21,413,909
$
21,418,046
$
20,129,322
$
22,689,172
>
1
Million
$
494,677,021
$
494,940,440
$
420,635,084
$
567,853,980
$
14,172,222
$
14,175,136
$
13,225,134
$
15,111,577
Large
$
1,907,544,564
$
1,908,256,003
$
1,643,776,131
$
2,169,374,935
$
58,376,092
$
58,390,038
$
54,954,191
$
61,762,537
CWS
Total
$
2,074,108,243
$
2,074,687,375
$
1,789,711,117
$
2,356,495,091
$
69,510,302
$
69,532,593
$
65,667,391
$
73,364,008
NTNCWSs
<
100
$
859,261
$
858,512
$
756,552
$
959,719
$
140,549
$
140,603
$
132,519
$
148,515
101­
500
$
1,733,496
$
1,732,829
$
1,526,717
$
1,936,006
$
238,045
$
238,077
$
224,542
$
251,485
501­
1,000
$
1,837,273
$
1,838,305
$
1,603,147
$
2,073,939
$
204,277
$
204,330
$
190,946
$
217,657
1,001­
3,300
$
3,394,994
$
3,395,292
$
2,861,954
$
3,930,259
$
191,213
$
191,272
$
179,064
$
203,330
3,301­
10K
$
2,039,220
$
2,039,988
$
1,764,537
$
2,315,019
$
106,726
$
106,789
$
100,630
$
112,701
Small
$
9,864,243
$
9,863,253
$
8,593,750
$
11,132,206
$
880,809
$
881,285
$
829,212
$
932,043
10,001­
50K
$
3,543,685
$
3,542,489
$
3,073,718
$
4,010,667
$
113,043
$
113,058
$
106,923
$
119,160
50,001­
100K
$
1,143,211
$
1,142,781
$
990,592
$
1,296,232
$
32,623
$
32,628
$
30,645
$
34,615
100,001­
1M
$
1,836,944
$
1,835,639
$
1,592,481
$
2,080,259
$
52,856
$
52,865
$
49,732
$
56,000
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
6,523,841
$
6,519,880
$
5,657,308
$
7,386,705
$
198,522
$
198,569
$
187,389
$
209,666
NTNCWS
Total
$
16,388,084
$
16,391,637
$
14,306,207
$
18,470,911
$
1,079,331
$
1,080,001
$
1,020,339
$
1,137,996
TNCWSs
<
100
$
4,314,370
$
4,313,614
$
3,809,285
$
4,825,985
$
696,510
$
696,555
$
656,534
$
736,357
101­
500
$
2,832,529
$
2,832,335
$
2,501,115
$
3,165,172
$
412,911
$
413,038
$
389,462
$
436,366
501­
1,000
$
1,492,820
$
1,493,277
$
1,303,137
$
1,680,500
$
172,830
$
172,833
$
161,653
$
184,019
1,001­
3,300
$
2,638,591
$
2,640,402
$
2,280,776
$
2,993,486
$
216,858
$
216,913
$
203,728
$
230,077
3,301­
10K
$
3,138,715
$
3,139,203
$
2,710,554
$
3,568,561
$
157,744
$
157,732
$
148,909
$
166,638
Small
$
14,417,026
$
14,412,272
$
12,768,289
$
16,097,780
$
1,656,852
$
1,657,020
$
1,561,892
$
1,751,398
10,001­
50K
$
3,530,935
$
3,533,169
$
3,064,047
$
3,989,971
$
125,211
$
125,199
$
118,534
$
131,909
50,001­
100K
$
2,449,836
$
2,450,978
$
2,117,755
$
2,778,186
$
73,801
$
73,822
$
69,463
$
78,130
100,001­
1M
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
5,980,771
$
5,984,164
$
5,180,393
$
6,768,563
$
199,012
$
199,013
$
188,044
$
209,947
TNCWS
Total
$
20,397,797
$
20,390,458
$
18,086,981
$
22,734,895
$
1,855,865
$
1,856,211
$
1,753,320
$
1,957,037
All
Types
<
100
$
6,610,293
$
6,611,487
$
6,064,281
$
7,152,719
$
1,083,764
$
1,083,866
$
1,040,301
$
1,126,529
101­
500
$
9,335,337
$
9,341,166
$
8,638,095
$
10,030,124
$
1,364,771
$
1,364,783
$
1,314,775
$
1,414,564
501­
1,000
$
11,477,777
$
11,475,541
$
10,409,810
$
12,555,965
$
1,329,239
$
1,329,155
$
1,265,322
$
1,393,001
1,001­
3,300
$
41,532,519
$
41,525,667
$
36,958,459
$
46,158,541
$
3,617,999
$
3,617,925
$
3,418,961
$
3,819,897
3,301­
10K
$
121,889,023
$
121,826,804
$
105,801,671
$
138,218,837
$
6,276,099
$
6,274,948
$
5,933,185
$
6,617,167
Small
$
190,844,948
$
190,807,622
$
168,517,011
$
213,469,159
$
13,671,872
$
13,670,788
$
13,012,350
$
14,328,605
10,001­
50K
$
432,654,964
$
432,728,847
$
376,603,663
$
488,268,386
$
15,156,223
$
15,160,865
$
14,366,431
$
15,954,498
50,001­
100K
$
243,382,071
$
243,452,206
$
211,373,082
$
275,170,439
$
7,978,417
$
7,982,124
$
7,551,028
$
8,409,286
100,001­
1M
$
749,335,120
$
749,762,875
$
647,468,332
$
850,298,079
$
21,466,764
$
21,471,961
$
20,181,206
$
22,742,243
>
1
Million
$
494,677,021
$
494,940,440
$
420,635,084
$
567,853,980
$
14,172,222
$
14,175,136
$
13,225,134
$
15,111,577
Large
$
1,920,049,176
$
1,920,743,525
$
1,656,303,761
$
2,181,921,819
$
58,773,626
$
58,788,447
$
55,355,964
$
62,162,303
All
Sizes
$
2,110,894,124
$
2,111,714,287
$
1,826,871,727
$
2,393,502,458
$
72,445,498
$
72,468,005
$
68,599,081
$
76,296,084
Notes:
All
values
in
year
2000
dollars.

Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.

Derived
from
LT2ESWTR
Cost
Model.
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
Q­
10
June
2003
Exhibit
Q.
9
Treatment
Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
by
System
Size
for
Alternative
2
­
ICRSSL­
UV90­
10
A2­
ICRSSL­
UV90­
10
Capital
Costs
O&
M
Costs
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
System
Classification
System
Size
(
population
served)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)

CWSs
<
100
$
1,250,150
$
1,249,912
$
1,092,817
$
1,410,575
$
177,790
$
177,870
$
168,149
$
187,355
101­
500
$
3,970,401
$
3,973,097
$
3,479,430
$
4,460,265
$
527,453
$
527,646
$
497,698
$
556,906
501­
1,000
$
6,068,077
$
6,064,409
$
5,307,275
$
6,839,931
$
754,028
$
754,122
$
708,509
$
799,434
1,001­
3,300
$
26,849,500
$
26,835,963
$
23,443,467
$
30,289,744
$
2,535,047
$
2,535,080
$
2,384,462
$
2,685,495
3,301­
10K
$
88,847,857
$
88,847,339
$
76,631,765
$
101,143,353
$
4,864,971
$
4,866,665
$
4,579,306
$
5,146,903
Small
$
126,985,986
$
126,996,501
$
110,185,623
$
143,940,358
$
8,859,288
$
8,861,859
$
8,348,745
$
9,362,395
10,001­
50K
$
305,496,126
$
305,227,743
$
263,299,665
$
347,636,315
$
11,226,288
$
11,226,944
$
10,702,502
$
11,752,293
50,001­
100K
$
167,754,183
$
167,674,627
$
143,868,425
$
191,673,078
$
5,623,907
$
5,623,722
$
5,386,402
$
5,861,993
100,001­
1M
$
515,926,709
$
515,817,476
$
439,343,892
$
591,876,482
$
13,388,109
$
13,388,716
$
12,806,462
$
13,962,678
>
1
Million
$
375,403,418
$
375,426,929
$
314,296,199
$
436,368,984
$
9,508,123
$
9,506,985
$
8,976,681
$
10,037,377
Large
$
1,364,580,436
$
1,364,011,618
$
1,160,722,968
$
1,567,730,440
$
39,746,427
$
39,747,175
$
37,895,183
$
41,597,376
CWS
Total
$
1,491,566,421
$
1,491,150,817
$
1,272,275,432
$
1,710,665,896
$
48,605,716
$
48,605,343
$
46,331,746
$
50,858,973
NTNCWSs
<
100
$
748,802
$
748,904
$
652,834
$
844,484
$
99,634
$
99,616
$
94,316
$
105,008
101­
500
$
1,413,226
$
1,413,530
$
1,243,227
$
1,581,885
$
173,606
$
173,580
$
164,268
$
183,309
501­
1,000
$
1,329,605
$
1,329,876
$
1,160,433
$
1,498,425
$
157,477
$
157,431
$
148,071
$
166,998
1,001­
3,300
$
2,378,198
$
2,379,314
$
2,003,840
$
2,749,537
$
148,633
$
148,587
$
139,850
$
157,481
3,301­
10K
$
1,517,686
$
1,517,632
$
1,315,616
$
1,718,823
$
85,037
$
85,002
$
80,103
$
89,931
Small
$
7,387,517
$
7,383,587
$
6,459,870
$
8,312,251
$
664,387
$
664,321
$
628,306
$
700,813
10,001­
50K
$
2,423,964
$
2,426,126
$
2,081,205
$
2,764,920
$
78,695
$
78,703
$
75,116
$
82,315
50,001­
100K
$
742,312
$
742,923
$
633,578
$
850,239
$
19,527
$
19,528
$
18,669
$
20,401
100,001­
1M
$
1,201,854
$
1,202,832
$
1,027,124
$
1,376,057
$
31,229
$
31,232
$
29,925
$
32,552
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
4,368,130
$
4,372,425
$
3,741,664
$
4,990,940
$
129,451
$
129,450
$
123,760
$
135,245
NTNCWS
Total
$
11,755,647
$
11,761,184
$
10,268,116
$
13,239,846
$
793,838
$
793,743
$
753,248
$
834,706
TNCWSs
<
100
$
3,774,997
$
3,774,550
$
3,301,277
$
4,262,704
$
491,222
$
491,284
$
464,626
$
517,477
101­
500
$
2,366,872
$
2,366,739
$
2,082,285
$
2,655,990
$
299,664
$
299,661
$
283,256
$
315,957
501­
1,000
$
1,082,235
$
1,082,460
$
945,866
$
1,218,097
$
133,540
$
133,530
$
125,551
$
141,567
1,001­
3,300
$
1,863,738
$
1,864,204
$
1,606,046
$
2,124,449
$
168,194
$
168,226
$
158,396
$
178,076
3,301­
10K
$
2,337,236
$
2,337,629
$
2,023,214
$
2,652,786
$
126,012
$
125,961
$
118,685
$
133,318
Small
$
11,425,078
$
11,423,166
$
10,075,697
$
12,781,202
$
1,218,633
$
1,218,427
$
1,152,159
$
1,284,263
10,001­
50K
$
2,429,233
$
2,429,967
$
2,091,263
$
2,763,921
$
91,141
$
91,135
$
86,934
$
95,355
50,001­
100K
$
1,610,199
$
1,610,921
$
1,372,884
$
1,846,200
$
46,756
$
46,751
$
44,753
$
48,788
100,001­
1M
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
4,039,431
$
4,040,105
$
3,463,155
$
4,609,945
$
137,897
$
137,896
$
131,688
$
144,129
TNCWS
Total
$
15,464,509
$
15,468,469
$
13,715,489
$
17,237,563
$
1,356,530
$
1,356,421
$
1,285,642
$
1,427,089
All
Types
<
100
$
5,761,644
$
5,759,988
$
5,251,390
$
6,272,838
$
764,188
$
764,370
$
736,064
$
792,197
101­
500
$
7,621,712
$
7,619,281
$
7,053,151
$
8,184,883
$
970,437
$
970,250
$
937,484
$
1,003,094
501­
1,000
$
7,905,747
$
7,907,599
$
7,196,012
$
8,627,404
$
965,762
$
965,809
$
923,390
$
1,007,594
1,001­
3,300
$
29,030,080
$
29,025,682
$
25,896,141
$
32,207,426
$
2,663,614
$
2,664,200
$
2,525,446
$
2,801,746
3,301­
10K
$
83,627,629
$
83,619,636
$
72,860,980
$
94,488,403
$
4,656,063
$
4,657,266
$
4,399,224
$
4,909,171
Small
$
133,946,811
$
133,932,059
$
118,857,107
$
149,202,771
$
10,020,064
$
10,024,432
$
9,553,329
$
10,479,664
10,001­
50K
$
295,591,006
$
295,431,309
$
255,848,024
$
335,326,889
$
10,911,689
$
10,911,742
$
10,422,043
$
11,404,536
50,001­
100K
$
163,301,534
$
163,227,038
$
140,502,126
$
186,136,073
$
5,491,743
$
5,491,506
$
5,267,922
$
5,715,855
100,001­
1M
$
490,139,885
$
490,027,676
$
418,071,128
$
561,456,109
$
12,732,474
$
12,733,565
$
12,201,613
$
13,257,703
>
1
Million
$
242,309,367
$
242,292,088
$
204,913,645
$
279,580,230
$
5,983,169
$
5,982,524
$
5,709,077
$
6,255,691
Large
$
1,191,341,792
$
1,190,816,688
$
1,019,474,469
$
1,362,723,943
$
35,119,074
$
35,121,501
$
33,618,538
$
36,619,781
All
Sizes
$
1,325,288,603
$
1,324,698,091
$
1,139,678,297
$
1,510,895,817
$
45,139,138
$
45,138,311
$
43,262,810
$
46,995,073
Notes:
All
values
in
year
2000
dollars.

Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.

Derived
from
LT2ESWTR
Cost
Model.
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
Q­
11
June
2003
Exhibit
Q.
10
Treatment
Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
by
System
Size
for
Alternative
2
­
ICRSSL­
UV90­
10B
A2­
ICRSSL­
UV90­
10B
Capital
Costs
O&
M
Costs
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
System
Classification
System
Size
(
population
served)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)

CWSs
<
100
$
1,250,150
$
1,249,912
$
1,092,817
$
1,410,575
$
177,790
$
177,870
$
168,149
$
187,355
101­
500
$
3,970,401
$
3,973,097
$
3,479,430
$
4,460,265
$
527,453
$
527,646
$
497,698
$
556,906
501­
1,000
$
6,217,187
$
6,212,174
$
5,443,392
$
6,989,525
$
731,723
$
731,707
$
686,388
$
776,999
1,001­
3,300
$
27,346,849
$
27,325,368
$
23,908,130
$
30,803,035
$
2,504,417
$
2,504,356
$
2,353,309
$
2,654,327
3,301­
10K
$
90,705,708
$
90,699,289
$
78,517,965
$
103,060,744
$
4,904,967
$
4,905,187
$
4,617,351
$
5,188,806
Small
$
129,490,295
$
129,438,647
$
112,669,002
$
146,524,995
$
8,846,350
$
8,847,180
$
8,334,248
$
9,352,565
10,001­
50K
$
338,173,874
$
338,198,136
$
293,909,841
$
382,424,820
$
12,463,204
$
12,468,095
$
11,866,190
$
13,065,007
50,001­
100K
$
188,862,284
$
188,915,710
$
163,591,991
$
214,006,086
$
6,503,226
$
6,504,578
$
6,199,255
$
6,812,703
100,001­
1M
$
581,488,425
$
581,614,662
$
501,667,469
$
661,150,244
$
16,514,318
$
16,519,465
$
15,658,176
$
17,365,282
>
1
Million
$
410,077,365
$
410,171,393
$
347,454,535
$
472,441,351
$
11,295,582
$
11,297,437
$
10,595,378
$
11,991,118
Large
$
1,518,601,948
$
1,518,652,503
$
1,306,566,175
$
1,729,673,470
$
46,776,329
$
46,787,603
$
44,366,887
$
49,210,490
CWS
Total
$
1,648,092,243
$
1,648,416,584
$
1,421,427,122
$
1,873,496,905
$
55,622,679
$
55,635,890
$
52,873,178
$
58,374,276
NTNCWSs
<
100
$
748,669
$
748,053
$
653,797
$
843,289
$
99,633
$
99,661
$
94,223
$
104,894
101­
500
$
1,413,225
$
1,412,131
$
1,242,000
$
1,581,874
$
173,623
$
173,631
$
163,991
$
182,990
501­
1,000
$
1,364,447
$
1,364,254
$
1,193,724
$
1,536,389
$
152,087
$
152,092
$
142,564
$
161,611
1,001­
3,300
$
2,490,311
$
2,489,838
$
2,115,643
$
2,867,391
$
145,988
$
146,061
$
137,043
$
154,837
3,301­
10K
$
1,555,270
$
1,554,965
$
1,352,344
$
1,759,055
$
85,861
$
85,894
$
80,821
$
90,757
Small
$
7,571,923
$
7,568,569
$
6,642,822
$
8,510,440
$
657,192
$
657,497
$
620,203
$
693,347
10,001­
50K
$
2,704,408
$
2,703,544
$
2,344,598
$
3,060,703
$
89,675
$
89,696
$
85,370
$
94,001
50,001­
100K
$
857,142
$
856,756
$
740,775
$
971,781
$
24,446
$
24,446
$
23,148
$
25,737
100,001­
1M
$
1,367,634
$
1,367,054
$
1,182,137
$
1,550,191
$
38,973
$
38,973
$
37,004
$
40,941
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
4,929,184
$
4,927,723
$
4,267,898
$
5,582,753
$
153,094
$
153,107
$
145,607
$
160,616
NTNCWS
Total
$
12,501,107
$
12,503,410
$
10,977,364
$
14,028,279
$
810,285
$
810,725
$
768,498
$
851,522
TNCWSs
<
100
$
3,774,997
$
3,774,550
$
3,301,277
$
4,262,704
$
491,222
$
491,284
$
464,626
$
517,477
101­
500
$
2,366,872
$
2,366,739
$
2,082,285
$
2,655,990
$
299,664
$
299,661
$
283,256
$
315,957
501­
1,000
$
1,111,864
$
1,112,119
$
974,102
$
1,250,456
$
129,092
$
129,109
$
121,075
$
137,061
1,001­
3,300
$
1,995,170
$
1,995,959
$
1,734,583
$
2,258,232
$
166,964
$
166,987
$
157,147
$
176,856
3,301­
10K
$
2,395,589
$
2,396,802
$
2,080,716
$
2,715,514
$
127,366
$
127,307
$
120,018
$
134,734
Small
$
11,644,491
$
11,643,109
$
10,294,030
$
13,000,631
$
1,214,309
$
1,213,875
$
1,147,859
$
1,279,698
10,001­
50K
$
2,703,744
$
2,706,201
$
2,349,460
$
3,056,362
$
101,404
$
101,394
$
96,581
$
106,299
50,001­
100K
$
1,846,537
$
1,848,101
$
1,595,987
$
2,095,563
$
56,799
$
56,808
$
53,931
$
59,668
100,001­
1M
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
4,550,281
$
4,554,768
$
3,945,827
$
5,151,226
$
158,203
$
158,183
$
150,592
$
165,886
TNCWS
Total
$
16,194,773
$
16,197,333
$
14,422,276
$
18,010,684
$
1,372,511
$
1,372,328
$
1,301,542
$
1,443,330
All
Types
<
100
$
5,773,816
$
5,774,059
$
5,255,543
$
6,285,198
$
768,646
$
768,673
$
739,787
$
797,355
101­
500
$
7,750,499
$
7,752,026
$
7,151,230
$
8,344,560
$
1,000,740
$
1,000,937
$
965,347
$
1,035,722
501­
1,000
$
8,693,498
$
8,692,643
$
7,887,961
$
9,511,709
$
1,012,902
$
1,012,916
$
965,259
$
1,059,765
1,001­
3,300
$
31,832,330
$
31,825,558
$
28,366,171
$
35,383,548
$
2,817,369
$
2,817,089
$
2,665,705
$
2,967,914
3,301­
10K
$
94,656,567
$
94,654,608
$
82,461,050
$
107,014,962
$
5,118,193
$
5,118,754
$
4,830,892
$
5,401,759
Small
$
148,706,709
$
148,648,989
$
131,735,362
$
165,952,572
$
10,717,850
$
10,719,191
$
10,203,361
$
11,228,755
10,001­
50K
$
343,582,025
$
343,619,463
$
299,414,297
$
387,799,345
$
12,654,283
$
12,658,086
$
12,057,973
$
13,256,611
50,001­
100K
$
191,565,964
$
191,631,107
$
166,317,030
$
216,754,928
$
6,584,470
$
6,586,508
$
6,280,845
$
6,893,348
100,001­
1M
$
582,856,060
$
583,019,035
$
503,057,701
$
662,473,652
$
16,553,290
$
16,558,199
$
15,697,926
$
17,404,393
>
1
Million
$
410,077,365
$
410,171,393
$
347,454,535
$
472,441,351
$
11,295,582
$
11,297,437
$
10,595,378
$
11,991,118
Large
$
1,528,081,413
$
1,528,382,052
$
1,316,754,444
$
1,739,156,776
$
47,087,625
$
47,100,013
$
44,674,880
$
49,523,094
All
Sizes
$
1,676,788,122
$
1,677,028,467
$
1,449,928,386
$
1,902,634,884
$
57,805,475
$
57,814,207
$
55,054,973
$
60,569,916
Notes:
All
values
in
year
2000
dollars.

Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.

Derived
from
LT2ESWTR
Cost
Model.
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
Q­
12
June
2003
Exhibit
Q.
11
Treatment
Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
by
System
Size
for
Alternative
2
­
ICRSSM­
UV90­
10
A2­
ICRSSM­
UV90­
10
Capital
Costs
O&
M
Costs
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
System
Classification
System
Size
(
population
served)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)

CWSs
<
100
$
1,133,864
$
1,134,118
$
982,685
$
1,285,387
$
152,942
$
153,014
$
144,512
$
161,239
101­
500
$
3,534,982
$
3,534,227
$
3,087,004
$
3,986,544
$
452,512
$
452,764
$
426,757
$
477,718
501­
1,000
$
5,255,682
$
5,251,313
$
4,602,316
$
5,917,860
$
633,825
$
633,856
$
596,414
$
671,354
1,001­
3,300
$
23,220,636
$
23,202,803
$
20,301,901
$
26,177,464
$
2,158,234
$
2,158,176
$
2,031,393
$
2,284,113
3,301­
10K
$
76,801,045
$
76,763,428
$
66,493,085
$
87,225,189
$
4,282,941
$
4,283,707
$
4,023,896
$
4,539,782
Small
$
109,946,210
$
109,893,323
$
95,660,332
$
124,442,820
$
7,680,454
$
7,682,592
$
7,231,252
$
8,124,317
10,001­
50K
$
258,557,263
$
258,303,678
$
222,939,008
$
294,148,186
$
9,962,901
$
9,964,197
$
9,517,078
$
10,407,017
50,001­
100K
$
141,531,053
$
141,433,641
$
121,428,002
$
161,715,564
$
5,019,321
$
5,019,090
$
4,818,195
$
5,219,960
100,001­
1M
$
434,595,677
$
434,446,960
$
370,004,304
$
498,839,485
$
11,600,213
$
11,601,854
$
11,114,979
$
12,080,708
>
1
Million
$
334,732,654
$
334,740,700
$
279,720,836
$
389,520,057
$
8,514,209
$
8,514,355
$
8,033,536
$
8,991,392
Large
$
1,169,416,647
$
1,168,882,418
$
994,157,915
$
1,344,510,335
$
35,096,644
$
35,093,727
$
33,498,334
$
36,691,939
CWS
Total
$
1,279,362,857
$
1,278,917,116
$
1,092,046,483
$
1,466,970,263
$
42,777,098
$
42,781,801
$
40,836,075
$
44,693,745
NTNCWSs
<
100
$
678,882
$
678,750
$
587,571
$
769,141
$
85,228
$
85,206
$
80,673
$
89,829
101­
500
$
1,250,046
$
1,250,214
$
1,095,155
$
1,404,046
$
147,373
$
147,391
$
139,424
$
155,556
501­
1,000
$
1,128,629
$
1,128,965
$
988,024
$
1,268,710
$
129,072
$
129,029
$
121,545
$
136,700
1,001­
3,300
$
1,979,650
$
1,979,629
$
1,680,485
$
2,274,931
$
124,229
$
124,178
$
117,013
$
131,517
3,301­
10K
$
1,294,327
$
1,295,080
$
1,127,336
$
1,462,773
$
74,057
$
74,022
$
69,619
$
78,424
Small
$
6,331,534
$
6,334,296
$
5,548,990
$
7,114,113
$
559,959
$
559,771
$
529,559
$
590,515
10,001­
50K
$
2,016,443
$
2,017,641
$
1,731,252
$
2,300,383
$
68,592
$
68,600
$
65,605
$
71,594
50,001­
100K
$
614,241
$
614,837
$
523,678
$
704,023
$
16,720
$
16,721
$
16,022
$
17,433
100,001­
1M
$
995,163
$
995,930
$
849,771
$
1,139,724
$
26,651
$
26,653
$
25,596
$
27,723
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
3,625,847
$
3,628,893
$
3,105,663
$
4,143,302
$
111,963
$
111,983
$
107,264
$
116,742
NTNCWS
Total
$
9,957,381
$
9,956,839
$
8,730,684
$
11,186,554
$
671,922
$
671,825
$
638,140
$
705,908
TNCWSs
<
100
$
3,424,834
$
3,425,267
$
2,969,979
$
3,889,218
$
419,814
$
419,680
$
396,861
$
442,478
101­
500
$
2,107,607
$
2,107,127
$
1,844,661
$
2,376,381
$
254,627
$
254,514
$
240,701
$
268,418
501­
1,000
$
922,135
$
922,489
$
807,685
$
1,037,044
$
109,693
$
109,703
$
103,254
$
116,098
1,001­
3,300
$
1,607,229
$
1,608,081
$
1,393,406
$
1,824,999
$
141,959
$
141,975
$
133,704
$
150,287
3,301­
10K
$
1,993,267
$
1,994,184
$
1,731,708
$
2,257,157
$
109,980
$
109,948
$
103,361
$
116,587
Small
$
10,055,072
$
10,048,300
$
8,835,438
$
11,283,241
$
1,036,074
$
1,035,838
$
979,299
$
1,092,010
10,001­
50K
$
2,025,547
$
2,025,783
$
1,744,045
$
2,304,232
$
80,078
$
80,080
$
76,569
$
83,594
50,001­
100K
$
1,335,995
$
1,336,421
$
1,139,096
$
1,532,211
$
40,643
$
40,643
$
39,004
$
42,286
100,001­
1M
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
3,361,542
$
3,362,532
$
2,882,385
$
3,836,980
$
120,721
$
120,729
$
115,601
$
125,885
TNCWS
Total
$
13,416,615
$
13,415,765
$
11,893,604
$
14,968,187
$
1,156,795
$
1,156,502
$
1,096,645
$
1,216,020
All
Types
<
100
$
5,237,580
$
5,235,633
$
4,746,357
$
5,730,957
$
657,984
$
658,179
$
633,105
$
682,711
101­
500
$
6,892,636
$
6,889,094
$
6,345,792
$
7,437,891
$
854,512
$
854,462
$
824,254
$
884,550
501­
1,000
$
7,306,447
$
7,304,830
$
6,628,318
$
7,990,729
$
872,591
$
872,709
$
833,544
$
911,208
1,001­
3,300
$
26,807,514
$
26,798,472
$
23,877,294
$
29,768,901
$
2,424,422
$
2,424,745
$
2,297,132
$
2,551,263
3,301­
10K
$
80,088,639
$
80,073,229
$
69,770,420
$
90,557,272
$
4,466,978
$
4,468,206
$
4,208,372
$
4,722,699
Small
$
126,332,816
$
126,314,660
$
111,852,533
$
140,933,100
$
9,276,486
$
9,279,267
$
8,822,857
$
9,723,140
10,001­
50K
$
262,599,254
$
262,385,141
$
226,985,038
$
298,260,869
$
10,111,570
$
10,112,572
$
9,666,056
$
10,555,949
50,001­
100K
$
143,481,289
$
143,368,656
$
123,373,486
$
163,618,158
$
5,076,684
$
5,076,691
$
4,875,747
$
5,277,144
100,001­
1M
$
435,590,840
$
435,420,255
$
370,976,671
$
499,856,588
$
11,626,865
$
11,628,546
$
11,141,930
$
12,107,303
>
1
Million
$
334,732,654
$
334,740,700
$
279,720,836
$
389,520,057
$
8,514,209
$
8,514,355
$
8,033,536
$
8,991,392
Large
$
1,176,404,037
$
1,175,824,116
$
1,001,103,336
$
1,351,330,005
$
35,329,328
$
35,327,155
$
33,730,254
$
36,923,292
All
Sizes
$
1,302,736,852
$
1,302,217,734
$
1,115,023,779
$
1,490,309,022
$
44,605,814
$
44,611,187
$
42,660,921
$
46,525,921
Notes:
All
values
in
year
2000
dollars.

Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.

Derived
from
LT2ESWTR
Cost
Model.
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
Q­
13
June
2003
Exhibit
Q.
12
Treatment
Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
by
System
Size
for
Alternative
2
­
ICRSSM­
UV90­
10B
A2­
ICRSSM­
UV90­
10B
Capital
Costs
O&
M
Costs
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
System
Classification
System
Size
(
population
served)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)

CWSs
<
100
$
1,133,864
$
1,134,118
$
982,685
$
1,285,387
$
152,942
$
153,014
$
144,512
$
161,239
101­
500
$
3,534,982
$
3,534,227
$
3,087,004
$
3,986,544
$
452,512
$
452,764
$
426,757
$
477,718
501­
1,000
$
5,333,765
$
5,329,748
$
4,675,104
$
5,998,213
$
620,316
$
620,257
$
582,792
$
657,686
1,001­
3,300
$
23,462,571
$
23,451,016
$
20,504,038
$
26,426,235
$
2,139,992
$
2,139,645
$
2,013,238
$
2,265,980
3,301­
10K
$
77,825,446
$
77,784,195
$
67,450,521
$
88,276,127
$
4,309,327
$
4,309,538
$
4,048,600
$
4,566,679
Small
$
111,290,627
$
111,252,301
$
96,910,622
$
125,712,382
$
7,675,088
$
7,675,745
$
7,226,428
$
8,120,373
10,001­
50K
$
283,263,532
$
283,313,985
$
246,188,961
$
320,247,757
$
10,909,138
$
10,911,055
$
10,414,906
$
11,407,475
50,001­
100K
$
157,463,951
$
157,491,952
$
136,519,748
$
178,397,915
$
5,690,661
$
5,692,255
$
5,442,816
$
5,939,419
100,001­
1M
$
483,223,447
$
483,336,803
$
416,614,880
$
549,541,363
$
13,961,954
$
13,965,231
$
13,290,135
$
14,635,042
>
1
Million
$
360,417,688
$
360,480,257
$
304,630,092
$
416,115,482
$
9,858,016
$
9,859,719
$
9,260,765
$
10,453,030
Large
$
1,284,368,618
$
1,284,531,872
$
1,103,983,756
$
1,464,317,976
$
40,419,769
$
40,431,010
$
38,443,006
$
42,413,422
CWS
Total
$
1,395,659,245
$
1,395,717,761
$
1,202,971,778
$
1,587,225,485
$
48,094,857
$
48,102,377
$
45,833,960
$
50,362,738
NTNCWSs
<
100
$
678,682
$
678,577
$
588,467
$
770,201
$
85,220
$
85,242
$
80,558
$
89,731
101­
500
$
1,249,899
$
1,248,974
$
1,095,406
$
1,404,095
$
147,373
$
147,424
$
139,194
$
155,241
501­
1,000
$
1,146,808
$
1,145,784
$
1,005,267
$
1,289,788
$
125,803
$
125,867
$
118,189
$
133,403
1,001­
3,300
$
2,045,961
$
2,045,500
$
1,748,009
$
2,344,584
$
122,637
$
122,700
$
115,287
$
129,917
3,301­
10K
$
1,315,198
$
1,314,080
$
1,146,759
$
1,486,766
$
74,586
$
74,612
$
70,107
$
78,960
Small
$
6,436,547
$
6,431,584
$
5,651,022
$
7,236,112
$
555,619
$
555,726
$
524,578
$
585,946
10,001­
50K
$
2,225,695
$
2,225,433
$
1,929,228
$
2,517,694
$
76,895
$
76,925
$
73,439
$
80,386
50,001­
100K
$
699,688
$
699,419
$
604,221
$
793,494
$
20,420
$
20,421
$
19,416
$
21,423
100,001­
1M
$
1,116,143
$
1,115,587
$
964,279
$
1,265,785
$
32,421
$
32,422
$
30,914
$
33,930
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
4,041,526
$
4,039,882
$
3,498,696
$
4,576,061
$
129,737
$
129,760
$
123,836
$
135,674
NTNCWS
Total
$
10,478,074
$
10,477,010
$
9,230,147
$
11,731,203
$
685,356
$
685,600
$
650,563
$
719,435
TNCWSs
<
100
$
3,424,834
$
3,425,267
$
2,969,979
$
3,889,218
$
419,814
$
419,680
$
396,861
$
442,478
101­
500
$
2,107,607
$
2,107,127
$
1,844,661
$
2,376,381
$
254,627
$
254,514
$
240,701
$
268,418
501­
1,000
$
937,661
$
937,730
$
822,396
$
1,053,769
$
107,000
$
107,011
$
100,581
$
113,392
1,001­
3,300
$
1,684,890
$
1,685,584
$
1,468,909
$
1,904,228
$
141,233
$
141,239
$
133,001
$
149,569
3,301­
10K
$
2,026,074
$
2,026,531
$
1,763,103
$
2,292,467
$
110,864
$
110,834
$
104,236
$
117,482
Small
$
10,181,067
$
10,175,212
$
8,950,678
$
11,411,925
$
1,033,539
$
1,033,305
$
976,821
$
1,089,423
10,001­
50K
$
2,230,491
$
2,232,133
$
1,939,184
$
2,518,664
$
87,837
$
87,835
$
83,906
$
91,795
50,001­
100K
$
1,511,915
$
1,513,041
$
1,305,555
$
1,716,758
$
48,207
$
48,207
$
45,964
$
50,457
100,001­
1M
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
3,742,406
$
3,746,359
$
3,245,580
$
4,235,042
$
136,043
$
136,038
$
129,959
$
142,206
TNCWS
Total
$
13,923,473
$
13,918,244
$
12,387,998
$
15,488,528
$
1,169,582
$
1,169,489
$
1,109,469
$
1,229,346
All
Types
<
100
$
5,237,380
$
5,238,313
$
4,744,332
$
5,726,835
$
657,976
$
657,896
$
633,187
$
682,744
101­
500
$
6,892,489
$
6,893,816
$
6,340,374
$
7,439,907
$
854,512
$
854,614
$
824,176
$
884,862
501­
1,000
$
7,418,233
$
7,414,827
$
6,729,261
$
8,124,478
$
853,119
$
853,337
$
814,066
$
891,670
1,001­
3,300
$
27,193,421
$
27,189,567
$
24,218,224
$
30,207,061
$
2,403,862
$
2,403,911
$
2,276,324
$
2,530,355
3,301­
10K
$
81,166,718
$
81,125,148
$
70,728,956
$
91,604,923
$
4,494,776
$
4,495,696
$
4,234,453
$
4,753,167
Small
$
127,908,241
$
127,859,721
$
113,441,821
$
142,559,859
$
9,264,246
$
9,266,446
$
8,812,696
$
9,713,420
10,001­
50K
$
287,719,718
$
287,755,782
$
250,646,312
$
324,737,628
$
11,073,870
$
11,075,910
$
10,578,796
$
11,572,717
50,001­
100K
$
159,675,555
$
159,729,939
$
138,770,709
$
180,615,618
$
5,759,288
$
5,761,022
$
5,511,855
$
6,007,613
100,001­
1M
$
484,339,589
$
484,482,494
$
417,756,344
$
550,564,073
$
13,994,375
$
13,997,802
$
13,322,236
$
14,667,532
>
1
Million
$
360,417,688
$
360,480,257
$
304,630,092
$
416,115,482
$
9,858,016
$
9,859,719
$
9,260,765
$
10,453,030
Large
$
1,292,152,550
$
1,292,360,313
$
1,111,856,856
$
1,472,220,162
$
40,685,549
$
40,695,092
$
38,708,883
$
42,678,609
All
Sizes
$
1,420,060,791
$
1,420,179,452
$
1,227,536,236
$
1,611,859,159
$
49,949,795
$
49,957,217
$
47,693,742
$
52,218,763
Notes:
All
values
in
year
2000
dollars.

Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.

Derived
from
LT2ESWTR
Cost
Model.
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
Q­
14
June
2003
Exhibit
Q.
13
Treatment
Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
by
System
Size
for
Alternative
3
­
ICR­
UV90­
10
A3­
ICR­
UV90­
10
Capital
Costs
O&
M
Costs
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
System
Classification
System
Size
(
population
served)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)

CWSs
<
100
$
1,165,147
$
1,164,678
$
999,968
$
1,328,458
$
172,812
$
172,855
$
162,734
$
182,521
101­
500
$
3,584,883
$
3,582,858
$
3,109,894
$
4,063,197
$
481,051
$
481,190
$
452,771
$
508,456
501­
1,000
$
5,231,841
$
5,232,967
$
4,608,366
$
5,860,895
$
608,771
$
608,852
$
575,312
$
641,787
1,001­
3,300
$
22,798,342
$
22,798,557
$
20,017,841
$
25,585,744
$
2,078,797
$
2,079,628
$
1,960,675
$
2,192,718
3,301­
10K
$
73,483,556
$
73,482,488
$
63,889,717
$
83,104,373
$
4,223,888
$
4,225,921
$
3,961,847
$
4,480,487
Small
$
106,263,769
$
106,251,479
$
92,679,234
$
119,819,667
$
7,565,319
$
7,568,416
$
7,125,959
$
7,995,935
10,001­
50K
$
332,260,638
$
332,296,055
$
284,558,027
$
379,524,493
$
10,882,073
$
10,881,712
$
10,306,811
$
11,458,822
50,001­
100K
$
182,924,660
$
182,986,237
$
156,000,614
$
209,766,742
$
5,202,214
$
5,201,177
$
4,939,415
$
5,467,376
100,001­
1M
$
552,084,678
$
552,208,504
$
469,516,952
$
634,257,171
$
13,647,518
$
13,649,140
$
13,006,068
$
14,289,483
>
1
Million
$
393,103,752
$
393,219,846
$
328,953,407
$
457,449,366
$
9,950,393
$
9,951,727
$
9,383,714
$
10,519,579
Large
$
1,460,373,728
$
1,460,975,543
$
1,239,175,460
$
1,680,949,576
$
39,682,197
$
39,677,238
$
37,656,770
$
41,718,475
CWS
Total
$
1,566,637,498
$
1,566,995,497
$
1,336,737,121
$
1,798,126,709
$
47,247,517
$
47,246,151
$
44,931,417
$
49,561,281
NTNCWSs
<
100
$
697,479
$
698,039
$
598,112
$
794,282
$
97,659
$
97,630
$
92,087
$
103,265
101­
500
$
1,288,359
$
1,288,420
$
1,120,778
$
1,454,042
$
156,253
$
156,181
$
147,413
$
165,053
501­
1,000
$
1,116,161
$
1,116,726
$
986,559
$
1,246,637
$
123,020
$
122,999
$
116,520
$
129,538
1,001­
3,300
$
1,734,963
$
1,735,642
$
1,486,853
$
1,980,250
$
118,913
$
118,875
$
112,375
$
125,416
3,301­
10K
$
1,241,504
$
1,242,737
$
1,086,820
$
1,397,078
$
73,042
$
73,027
$
68,558
$
77,409
Small
$
6,078,466
$
6,083,389
$
5,322,680
$
6,844,709
$
568,887
$
568,745
$
537,668
$
600,194
10,001­
50K
$
2,683,384
$
2,685,130
$
2,296,749
$
3,068,037
$
77,778
$
77,792
$
73,754
$
81,821
50,001­
100K
$
827,936
$
828,678
$
705,489
$
950,270
$
19,541
$
19,545
$
18,579
$
20,512
100,001­
1M
$
1,305,627
$
1,306,864
$
1,116,390
$
1,495,173
$
32,176
$
32,183
$
30,709
$
33,673
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
4,816,947
$
4,820,999
$
4,118,027
$
5,514,868
$
129,495
$
129,528
$
123,103
$
135,958
NTNCWS
Total
$
10,895,413
$
10,897,369
$
9,554,844
$
12,242,097
$
698,382
$
698,207
$
662,693
$
734,523
TNCWSs
<
100
$
3,511,379
$
3,507,999
$
3,015,353
$
4,014,280
$
483,882
$
483,672
$
455,977
$
511,645
101­
500
$
2,148,433
$
2,146,945
$
1,864,640
$
2,436,653
$
273,477
$
273,399
$
257,843
$
289,281
501­
1,000
$
919,622
$
919,610
$
812,784
$
1,027,803
$
104,724
$
104,683
$
99,094
$
110,309
1,001­
3,300
$
1,477,713
$
1,477,289
$
1,283,841
$
1,675,537
$
136,862
$
136,834
$
129,154
$
144,494
3,301­
10K
$
1,909,663
$
1,909,082
$
1,670,216
$
2,151,630
$
108,638
$
108,594
$
101,938
$
115,301
Small
$
9,966,809
$
9,961,945
$
8,688,584
$
11,263,984
$
1,107,583
$
1,107,389
$
1,044,872
$
1,170,151
10,001­
50K
$
2,677,193
$
2,678,889
$
2,298,301
$
3,047,324
$
88,863
$
88,845
$
84,188
$
93,523
50,001­
100K
$
1,790,554
$
1,792,027
$
1,524,113
$
2,051,500
$
45,251
$
45,243
$
43,037
$
47,509
100,001­
1M
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
4,467,747
$
4,470,111
$
3,823,015
$
5,097,401
$
134,114
$
134,105
$
127,238
$
140,984
TNCWS
Total
$
14,434,556
$
14,431,643
$
12,724,011
$
16,136,725
$
1,241,697
$
1,241,231
$
1,173,985
$
1,309,239
All
Types
<
100
$
5,374,005
$
5,371,590
$
4,849,066
$
5,919,509
$
754,353
$
754,374
$
723,810
$
784,226
101­
500
$
7,021,676
$
7,022,346
$
6,442,188
$
7,606,302
$
910,781
$
910,841
$
876,624
$
943,515
501­
1,000
$
7,267,623
$
7,266,589
$
6,620,469
$
7,914,959
$
836,515
$
836,700
$
801,650
$
870,111
1,001­
3,300
$
26,011,018
$
26,009,912
$
23,215,437
$
28,835,491
$
2,334,572
$
2,335,425
$
2,215,398
$
2,449,151
3,301­
10K
$
76,634,723
$
76,634,463
$
67,051,996
$
86,257,209
$
4,405,568
$
4,408,035
$
4,143,363
$
4,661,194
Small
$
122,309,044
$
122,307,776
$
108,728,999
$
135,980,443
$
9,241,789
$
9,247,482
$
8,792,086
$
9,675,415
10,001­
50K
$
337,621,215
$
337,665,133
$
289,936,106
$
384,883,541
$
11,048,714
$
11,048,062
$
10,473,490
$
11,624,784
50,001­
100K
$
185,543,150
$
185,593,145
$
158,623,909
$
212,339,206
$
5,267,007
$
5,266,145
$
5,003,846
$
5,532,106
100,001­
1M
$
553,390,305
$
553,537,194
$
470,823,986
$
635,525,553
$
13,679,694
$
13,681,046
$
13,038,827
$
14,321,826
>
1
Million
$
393,103,752
$
393,219,846
$
328,953,407
$
457,449,366
$
9,950,393
$
9,951,727
$
9,383,714
$
10,519,579
Large
$
1,469,658,423
$
1,470,405,570
$
1,248,659,923
$
1,690,125,988
$
39,945,807
$
39,941,122
$
37,917,956
$
41,977,725
All
Sizes
$
1,591,967,467
$
1,592,477,242
$
1,361,952,552
$
1,823,456,445
$
49,187,596
$
49,182,560
$
46,866,112
$
51,497,940
Notes:
All
values
in
year
2000
dollars.

Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.

Derived
from
LT2ESWTR
Cost
Model.
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
Q­
15
June
2003
Exhibit
Q.
14
Treatment
Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
by
System
Size
for
Alternative
3
­
ICR­
UV90­
10B
A3­
ICR­
UV90­
10B
Capital
Costs
O&
M
Costs
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
System
Classification
System
Size
(
population
served)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)

CWSs
<
100
$
1,165,828
$
1,165,752
$
1,000,737
$
1,329,787
$
172,818
$
172,767
$
162,855
$
182,839
101­
500
$
3,587,143
$
3,587,063
$
3,107,571
$
4,068,277
$
481,038
$
480,845
$
452,914
$
509,265
501­
1,000
$
5,490,082
$
5,491,175
$
4,852,389
$
6,139,651
$
585,085
$
584,957
$
551,921
$
618,039
1,001­
3,300
$
23,755,695
$
23,758,484
$
20,943,016
$
26,639,033
$
2,051,245
$
2,050,955
$
1,934,474
$
2,168,328
3,301­
10K
$
76,403,354
$
76,408,063
$
66,738,018
$
86,212,410
$
4,286,058
$
4,286,785
$
4,025,875
$
4,547,476
Small
$
110,402,101
$
110,397,632
$
96,717,196
$
124,270,095
$
7,576,244
$
7,576,111
$
7,134,110
$
8,015,137
10,001­
50K
$
359,971,817
$
360,167,017
$
310,283,911
$
409,099,856
$
11,927,418
$
11,928,400
$
11,282,107
$
12,575,388
50,001­
100K
$
201,179,616
$
201,282,461
$
172,905,146
$
229,091,063
$
5,957,579
$
5,957,462
$
5,633,665
$
6,279,466
100,001­
1M
$
618,123,424
$
618,346,504
$
530,387,363
$
704,882,504
$
16,548,010
$
16,554,351
$
15,612,525
$
17,466,980
>
1
Million
$
428,436,029
$
428,643,237
$
361,486,896
$
494,697,645
$
11,640,052
$
11,644,134
$
10,896,917
$
12,371,585
Large
$
1,607,710,886
$
1,608,184,156
$
1,375,058,137
$
1,837,801,080
$
46,073,059
$
46,088,445
$
43,466,256
$
48,644,297
CWS
Total
$
1,718,112,988
$
1,718,432,428
$
1,475,240,607
$
1,958,528,905
$
53,649,302
$
53,659,509
$
50,805,019
$
56,480,566
NTNCWSs
<
100
$
698,074
$
697,594
$
599,491
$
797,582
$
97,563
$
97,585
$
92,002
$
103,096
101­
500
$
1,289,419
$
1,289,157
$
1,122,910
$
1,460,126
$
156,117
$
156,195
$
147,245
$
164,850
501­
1,000
$
1,175,129
$
1,174,525
$
1,040,001
$
1,310,604
$
117,149
$
117,133
$
110,736
$
123,489
1,001­
3,300
$
1,882,416
$
1,882,016
$
1,627,291
$
2,132,136
$
116,179
$
116,155
$
109,677
$
122,622
3,301­
10K
$
1,298,277
$
1,297,353
$
1,138,788
$
1,457,237
$
74,216
$
74,208
$
69,715
$
78,653
Small
$
6,343,313
$
6,339,222
$
5,565,009
$
7,126,486
$
561,223
$
561,304
$
529,983
$
591,909
10,001­
50K
$
2,925,044
$
2,932,258
$
2,517,316
$
3,321,130
$
87,174
$
87,206
$
82,498
$
91,866
50,001­
100K
$
929,875
$
931,946
$
799,054
$
1,057,815
$
23,823
$
23,834
$
22,464
$
25,193
100,001­
1M
$
1,474,696
$
1,477,928
$
1,271,453
$
1,673,323
$
39,520
$
39,532
$
37,288
$
41,734
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
5,329,614
$
5,340,937
$
4,588,670
$
6,052,713
$
150,517
$
150,573
$
142,390
$
158,714
NTNCWS
Total
$
11,672,928
$
11,679,476
$
10,254,934
$
13,049,966
$
711,740
$
711,676
$
675,411
$
747,580
TNCWSs
<
100
$
3,506,432
$
3,508,973
$
3,006,200
$
4,003,903
$
484,242
$
484,063
$
456,550
$
512,039
101­
500
$
2,145,508
$
2,146,536
$
1,860,508
$
2,430,946
$
273,655
$
273,537
$
258,140
$
289,187
501­
1,000
$
968,600
$
968,547
$
859,044
$
1,079,246
$
100,061
$
100,027
$
94,583
$
105,572
1,001­
3,300
$
1,649,593
$
1,649,939
$
1,449,943
$
1,851,294
$
136,164
$
136,119
$
128,533
$
143,756
3,301­
10K
$
1,994,008
$
1,994,205
$
1,751,548
$
2,239,512
$
110,724
$
110,710
$
103,992
$
117,358
Small
$
10,264,140
$
10,264,853
$
8,970,509
$
11,558,708
$
1,104,845
$
1,104,453
$
1,042,506
$
1,166,696
10,001­
50K
$
2,910,586
$
2,909,729
$
2,516,633
$
3,303,385
$
97,842
$
97,874
$
92,628
$
103,135
50,001­
100K
$
1,998,628
$
1,997,407
$
1,718,467
$
2,276,530
$
54,089
$
54,102
$
51,085
$
57,087
100,001­
1M
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
4,909,214
$
4,905,638
$
4,234,100
$
5,581,299
$
151,931
$
151,968
$
143,846
$
160,167
TNCWS
Total
$
15,173,354
$
15,170,223
$
13,464,218
$
16,896,704
$
1,256,777
$
1,256,510
$
1,189,344
$
1,324,268
All
Types
<
100
$
5,370,334
$
5,375,002
$
4,840,722
$
5,890,324
$
754,622
$
754,293
$
724,469
$
785,042
101­
500
$
7,022,069
$
7,022,159
$
6,438,084
$
7,604,054
$
910,809
$
910,439
$
877,431
$
944,980
501­
1,000
$
7,633,810
$
7,635,000
$
6,965,084
$
8,311,884
$
802,294
$
802,228
$
768,299
$
836,750
1,001­
3,300
$
27,287,703
$
27,282,608
$
24,455,193
$
30,188,898
$
2,303,588
$
2,303,189
$
2,186,817
$
2,420,537
3,301­
10K
$
79,695,639
$
79,709,111
$
70,019,653
$
89,542,947
$
4,470,998
$
4,471,081
$
4,210,261
$
4,732,502
Small
$
127,009,555
$
126,996,280
$
113,192,680
$
141,029,856
$
9,242,312
$
9,241,714
$
8,797,635
$
9,691,740
10,001­
50K
$
365,807,447
$
366,020,777
$
316,104,675
$
414,979,459
$
12,112,434
$
12,112,880
$
11,465,916
$
12,759,530
50,001­
100K
$
204,108,119
$
204,200,022
$
175,844,976
$
232,062,648
$
6,035,491
$
6,035,626
$
5,711,413
$
6,357,405
100,001­
1M
$
619,598,120
$
619,752,017
$
531,879,599
$
706,183,129
$
16,587,530
$
16,594,245
$
15,651,332
$
17,506,424
>
1
Million
$
428,436,029
$
428,643,237
$
361,486,896
$
494,697,645
$
11,640,052
$
11,644,134
$
10,896,917
$
12,371,585
Large
$
1,617,949,714
$
1,618,382,674
$
1,385,663,300
$
1,847,720,957
$
46,375,507
$
46,393,329
$
43,764,578
$
48,948,091
All
Sizes
$
1,744,959,269
$
1,745,111,623
$
1,502,408,880
$
1,985,183,103
$
55,617,819
$
55,622,077
$
52,779,574
$
58,456,301
Notes:
All
values
in
year
2000
dollars.

Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.

Derived
from
LT2ESWTR
Cost
Model.
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
Q­
16
June
2003
Exhibit
Q.
15
Treatment
Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
by
System
Size
for
Alternative
3
­
ICRSSL­
UV90­
10
A3­
ICRSSL­
UV90­
10
Capital
Costs
O&
M
Costs
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
System
Classification
System
Size
(
population
served)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)

CWSs
<
100
$
889,403
$
888,520
$
742,789
$
1,036,547
$
115,160
$
115,183
$
107,916
$
122,336
101­
500
$
2,625,777
$
2,624,852
$
2,216,711
$
3,036,220
$
319,705
$
319,775
$
299,002
$
340,251
501­
1,000
$
3,621,498
$
3,621,113
$
3,139,040
$
4,101,035
$
385,679
$
385,817
$
363,706
$
407,243
1,001­
3,300
$
15,683,695
$
15,680,120
$
13,549,259
$
17,805,510
$
1,363,245
$
1,363,918
$
1,276,844
$
1,448,425
3,301­
10K
$
50,563,496
$
50,557,302
$
43,462,461
$
57,630,875
$
3,041,893
$
3,042,147
$
2,816,714
$
3,263,705
Small
$
73,383,869
$
73,359,729
$
63,120,696
$
83,550,367
$
5,225,682
$
5,226,442
$
4,868,895
$
5,576,915
10,001­
50K
$
251,726,669
$
251,301,417
$
215,579,318
$
288,942,247
$
8,176,978
$
8,178,245
$
7,724,923
$
8,620,991
50,001­
100K
$
137,756,856
$
137,539,061
$
117,331,799
$
158,730,183
$
3,807,439
$
3,808,406
$
3,605,748
$
4,005,892
100,001­
1M
$
413,095,729
$
412,373,879
$
350,954,952
$
477,064,383
$
9,698,950
$
9,703,243
$
9,232,786
$
10,162,621
>
1
Million
$
323,756,756
$
323,217,020
$
270,638,061
$
378,606,767
$
7,879,221
$
7,883,304
$
7,412,586
$
8,345,794
Large
$
1,126,336,011
$
1,124,477,998
$
954,505,469
$
1,303,276,866
$
29,562,589
$
29,574,423
$
27,988,099
$
31,121,610
CWS
Total
$
1,199,719,880
$
1,197,726,085
$
1,022,027,822
$
1,381,852,704
$
34,788,271
$
34,798,399
$
33,041,523
$
36,514,195
NTNCWSs
<
100
$
531,487
$
531,739
$
443,384
$
619,756
$
63,824
$
63,827
$
59,905
$
67,710
101­
500
$
923,978
$
924,507
$
783,891
$
1,064,781
$
99,950
$
99,945
$
93,749
$
106,139
501­
1,000
$
721,998
$
722,419
$
628,650
$
816,790
$
70,331
$
70,358
$
66,500
$
74,099
1,001­
3,300
$
1,019,195
$
1,018,037
$
880,589
$
1,160,297
$
72,683
$
72,683
$
68,307
$
77,023
3,301­
10K
$
811,093
$
811,606
$
698,169
$
925,494
$
50,488
$
50,485
$
46,754
$
54,213
Small
$
4,007,750
$
4,009,141
$
3,442,305
$
4,575,406
$
357,276
$
357,237
$
335,681
$
378,691
10,001­
50K
$
1,974,742
$
1,979,795
$
1,676,337
$
2,263,805
$
55,926
$
55,933
$
52,909
$
58,897
50,001­
100K
$
603,858
$
605,267
$
508,829
$
695,797
$
13,350
$
13,347
$
12,662
$
14,033
100,001­
1M
$
944,726
$
946,907
$
800,088
$
1,085,268
$
21,939
$
21,935
$
20,911
$
22,950
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
3,523,326
$
3,531,542
$
2,984,420
$
4,045,964
$
91,214
$
91,213
$
86,511
$
95,867
NTNCWS
Total
$
7,531,076
$
7,527,344
$
6,603,346
$
8,443,425
$
448,491
$
448,538
$
424,115
$
472,861
TNCWSs
<
100
$
2,682,748
$
2,681,183
$
2,235,450
$
3,125,248
$
315,762
$
315,756
$
296,267
$
335,253
101­
500
$
1,569,750
$
1,569,981
$
1,324,681
$
1,814,953
$
175,592
$
175,608
$
164,581
$
186,617
501­
1,000
$
602,195
$
602,411
$
524,419
$
681,175
$
60,390
$
60,391
$
57,143
$
63,659
1,001­
3,300
$
981,663
$
981,620
$
841,627
$
1,124,996
$
86,428
$
86,404
$
80,940
$
91,955
3,301­
10K
$
1,248,202
$
1,248,100
$
1,075,594
$
1,423,328
$
75,594
$
75,561
$
70,029
$
81,212
Small
$
7,084,559
$
7,086,123
$
6,009,933
$
8,164,217
$
713,766
$
713,638
$
669,695
$
758,066
10,001­
50K
$
1,971,809
$
1,972,766
$
1,683,229
$
2,259,728
$
64,901
$
64,877
$
61,395
$
68,393
50,001­
100K
$
1,309,918
$
1,310,749
$
1,106,068
$
1,511,952
$
31,391
$
31,390
$
29,781
$
32,993
100,001­
1M
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
3,281,727
$
3,283,901
$
2,789,270
$
3,771,784
$
96,292
$
96,287
$
91,162
$
101,356
TNCWS
Total
$
10,366,285
$
10,371,507
$
9,079,437
$
11,680,526
$
810,058
$
810,090
$
763,230
$
856,980
All
Types
<
100
$
4,103,638
$
4,101,663
$
3,628,130
$
4,578,589
$
494,746
$
494,807
$
473,341
$
516,221
101­
500
$
5,119,506
$
5,118,730
$
4,623,864
$
5,618,152
$
595,247
$
595,141
$
570,616
$
620,095
501­
1,000
$
4,945,691
$
4,945,810
$
4,445,467
$
5,441,555
$
516,400
$
516,417
$
493,671
$
538,854
1,001­
3,300
$
17,684,552
$
17,685,148
$
15,523,137
$
19,823,597
$
1,522,356
$
1,522,914
$
1,435,226
$
1,607,354
3,301­
10K
$
52,622,791
$
52,620,260
$
45,496,935
$
59,705,941
$
3,167,976
$
3,168,008
$
2,942,302
$
3,388,734
Small
$
84,476,178
$
84,506,525
$
74,079,551
$
94,767,150
$
6,296,725
$
6,297,600
$
5,935,997
$
6,651,649
10,001­
50K
$
255,673,221
$
255,242,080
$
219,447,014
$
292,905,860
$
8,297,805
$
8,298,995
$
7,844,470
$
8,740,838
50,001­
100K
$
139,670,632
$
139,439,926
$
119,210,080
$
160,648,709
$
3,852,180
$
3,853,145
$
3,650,965
$
4,050,493
100,001­
1M
$
414,040,455
$
413,337,540
$
351,874,060
$
478,013,730
$
9,720,889
$
9,725,152
$
9,254,718
$
10,184,481
>
1
Million
$
323,756,756
$
323,217,020
$
270,638,061
$
378,606,767
$
7,879,221
$
7,883,304
$
7,412,586
$
8,345,794
Large
$
1,133,141,064
$
1,131,256,966
$
961,489,067
$
1,310,329,529
$
29,750,095
$
29,761,589
$
28,175,518
$
31,308,606
All
Sizes
$
1,217,617,242
$
1,215,685,307
$
1,040,049,713
$
1,399,786,498
$
36,046,820
$
36,054,960
$
34,295,490
$
37,769,288
Notes:
All
values
in
year
2000
dollars.

Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.

Derived
from
LT2ESWTR
Cost
Model.
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
Q­
17
June
2003
Exhibit
Q.
16
Treatment
Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
by
System
Size
for
Alternative
3
­
ICRSSL­
UV90­
10B
A3­
ICRSSL­
UV90­
10B
Capital
Costs
O&
M
Costs
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
System
Classification
System
Size
(
population
served)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)

CWSs
<
100
$
889,251
$
888,858
$
741,742
$
1,035,543
$
115,047
$
115,057
$
107,786
$
122,321
101­
500
$
2,626,083
$
2,626,048
$
2,215,750
$
3,036,646
$
319,389
$
319,420
$
298,660
$
340,147
501­
1,000
$
3,725,731
$
3,724,266
$
3,243,954
$
4,210,822
$
380,630
$
380,648
$
358,905
$
402,240
1,001­
3,300
$
16,068,506
$
16,059,970
$
13,937,259
$
18,218,443
$
1,362,196
$
1,362,021
$
1,276,798
$
1,447,676
3,301­
10K
$
51,661,815
$
51,647,396
$
44,572,244
$
58,835,030
$
3,077,017
$
3,076,246
$
2,857,546
$
3,297,786
Small
$
74,971,386
$
74,937,859
$
64,736,615
$
85,308,406
$
5,254,280
$
5,252,674
$
4,904,388
$
5,605,544
10,001­
50K
$
265,444,475
$
265,639,707
$
227,610,258
$
302,961,087
$
8,746,144
$
8,746,213
$
8,276,839
$
9,213,326
50,001­
100K
$
146,808,739
$
146,893,908
$
125,478,325
$
168,085,154
$
4,216,698
$
4,216,590
$
3,997,885
$
4,436,605
100,001­
1M
$
444,564,823
$
444,776,107
$
378,819,577
$
509,785,699
$
11,190,500
$
11,193,230
$
10,624,617
$
11,754,358
>
1
Million
$
340,723,276
$
340,889,357
$
285,204,229
$
395,790,556
$
8,730,231
$
8,733,400
$
8,195,573
$
9,260,754
Large
$
1,197,541,313
$
1,198,134,846
$
1,017,545,589
$
1,376,733,908
$
32,883,573
$
32,886,659
$
31,117,131
$
34,642,084
CWS
Total
$
1,272,512,699
$
1,272,841,610
$
1,087,056,229
$
1,457,948,282
$
38,137,853
$
38,137,351
$
36,203,024
$
40,065,546
NTNCWSs
<
100
$
531,487
$
531,739
$
443,384
$
619,756
$
63,824
$
63,827
$
59,905
$
67,710
101­
500
$
923,978
$
924,507
$
783,891
$
1,064,781
$
99,950
$
99,945
$
93,749
$
106,139
501­
1,000
$
745,320
$
746,062
$
650,798
$
840,221
$
69,167
$
69,173
$
65,427
$
72,892
1,001­
3,300
$
1,072,382
$
1,071,735
$
932,397
$
1,213,062
$
72,431
$
72,415
$
68,044
$
76,754
3,301­
10K
$
832,318
$
832,773
$
719,210
$
946,835
$
51,249
$
51,250
$
47,507
$
54,987
Small
$
4,105,485
$
4,105,461
$
3,542,220
$
4,676,137
$
356,621
$
356,568
$
334,937
$
378,077
10,001­
50K
$
2,087,077
$
2,091,739
$
1,784,918
$
2,380,591
$
60,902
$
60,894
$
57,702
$
64,094
50,001­
100K
$
651,504
$
653,247
$
555,395
$
744,724
$
15,542
$
15,549
$
14,733
$
16,354
100,001­
1M
$
1,020,627
$
1,023,296
$
873,096
$
1,163,590
$
25,587
$
25,594
$
24,334
$
26,851
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
3,759,207
$
3,769,133
$
3,213,840
$
4,289,679
$
102,030
$
102,041
$
96,822
$
107,248
NTNCWS
Total
$
7,864,692
$
7,864,019
$
6,933,547
$
8,794,921
$
458,652
$
458,566
$
434,229
$
483,043
TNCWSs
<
100
$
2,676,058
$
2,676,927
$
2,229,632
$
3,117,570
$
316,113
$
315,923
$
296,577
$
335,390
101­
500
$
1,566,029
$
1,566,835
$
1,319,837
$
1,809,339
$
175,791
$
175,747
$
164,716
$
186,671
501­
1,000
$
621,079
$
621,301
$
542,649
$
700,259
$
59,511
$
59,501
$
56,294
$
62,702
1,001­
3,300
$
1,042,129
$
1,042,311
$
900,365
$
1,183,156
$
86,937
$
86,927
$
81,481
$
92,300
3,301­
10K
$
1,278,314
$
1,279,208
$
1,105,599
$
1,452,592
$
76,862
$
76,919
$
71,321
$
82,401
Small
$
7,183,609
$
7,187,131
$
6,112,715
$
8,255,124
$
715,213
$
715,088
$
670,667
$
758,628
10,001­
50K
$
2,079,519
$
2,078,434
$
1,786,358
$
2,370,785
$
69,656
$
69,691
$
65,962
$
73,388
50,001­
100K
$
1,406,847
$
1,406,689
$
1,201,030
$
1,611,918
$
35,965
$
35,976
$
34,125
$
37,828
100,001­
1M
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
3,486,366
$
3,484,528
$
2,986,945
$
3,982,004
$
105,621
$
105,653
$
100,136
$
111,164
TNCWS
Total
$
10,669,976
$
10,672,679
$
9,375,286
$
11,968,578
$
820,834
$
820,619
$
773,640
$
867,487
All
Types
<
100
$
4,096,796
$
4,101,189
$
3,624,884
$
4,566,672
$
494,985
$
494,806
$
473,842
$
516,112
101­
500
$
5,116,090
$
5,118,246
$
4,617,790
$
5,608,899
$
595,130
$
595,067
$
570,724
$
619,809
501­
1,000
$
5,092,130
$
5,092,673
$
4,587,430
$
5,596,639
$
509,308
$
509,344
$
487,101
$
531,640
1,001­
3,300
$
18,183,017
$
18,186,889
$
16,027,511
$
20,330,381
$
1,521,564
$
1,521,524
$
1,436,390
$
1,607,402
3,301­
10K
$
53,772,447
$
53,754,291
$
46,684,452
$
60,930,157
$
3,205,128
$
3,204,313
$
2,985,555
$
3,426,295
Small
$
86,260,481
$
86,288,382
$
75,875,119
$
96,620,720
$
6,326,114
$
6,326,252
$
5,971,485
$
6,682,779
10,001­
50K
$
269,611,071
$
269,722,302
$
231,796,327
$
307,102,412
$
8,876,703
$
8,876,271
$
8,408,416
$
9,345,472
50,001­
100K
$
148,867,090
$
148,930,402
$
127,527,864
$
170,168,175
$
4,268,205
$
4,267,881
$
4,049,153
$
4,488,237
100,001­
1M
$
445,585,450
$
445,817,320
$
379,846,830
$
510,841,400
$
11,216,087
$
11,218,356
$
10,650,584
$
11,779,892
>
1
Million
$
340,723,276
$
340,889,357
$
285,204,229
$
395,790,556
$
8,730,231
$
8,733,400
$
8,195,573
$
9,260,754
Large
$
1,204,786,886
$
1,205,286,301
$
1,024,459,222
$
1,383,938,431
$
33,091,225
$
33,093,913
$
31,323,176
$
34,849,243
All
Sizes
$
1,291,047,367
$
1,291,304,793
$
1,105,516,667
$
1,476,316,000
$
39,417,338
$
39,411,760
$
37,484,930
$
41,346,544
Notes:
All
values
in
year
2000
dollars.

Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.

Derived
from
LT2ESWTR
Cost
Model.
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
Q­
18
June
2003
Exhibit
Q.
17
Treatment
Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
by
System
Size
for
Alternative
3
­
ICRSSM­
UV90­
10
A3­
ICRSSM­
UV90­
10
Capital
Costs
O&
M
Costs
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
System
Classification
System
Size
(
population
served)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)

CWSs
<
100
$
729,809
$
729,042
$
604,878
$
855,657
$
92,392
$
92,420
$
86,318
$
98,389
101­
500
$
2,144,089
$
2,143,498
$
1,789,976
$
2,496,511
$
257,524
$
257,582
$
239,966
$
274,897
501­
1,000
$
2,962,704
$
2,960,951
$
2,548,627
$
3,376,439
$
309,323
$
309,430
$
290,929
$
327,386
1,001­
3,300
$
12,737,829
$
12,728,715
$
10,913,574
$
14,561,948
$
1,092,074
$
1,092,211
$
1,018,785
$
1,164,395
3,301­
10K
$
41,321,756
$
41,314,852
$
35,238,535
$
47,387,407
$
2,503,892
$
2,504,342
$
2,308,219
$
2,697,727
Small
$
59,896,186
$
59,868,812
$
51,103,407
$
68,662,563
$
4,255,206
$
4,255,420
$
3,947,561
$
4,558,872
10,001­
50K
$
206,955,387
$
206,568,287
$
176,968,842
$
237,725,378
$
6,708,977
$
6,709,253
$
6,334,994
$
7,078,194
50,001­
100K
$
112,918,530
$
112,734,765
$
96,006,628
$
130,225,795
$
3,098,777
$
3,099,287
$
2,932,182
$
3,263,495
100,001­
1M
$
338,833,828
$
338,254,844
$
287,412,010
$
391,804,818
$
7,854,351
$
7,858,822
$
7,468,401
$
8,237,735
>
1
Million
$
286,934,447
$
286,494,250
$
239,424,215
$
335,975,879
$
6,960,770
$
6,964,784
$
6,536,059
$
7,385,978
Large
$
945,642,191
$
944,034,414
$
800,066,210
$
1,095,544,444
$
24,622,875
$
24,628,243
$
23,276,356
$
25,954,188
CWS
Total
$
1,005,538,378
$
1,003,827,534
$
855,099,069
$
1,159,438,238
$
28,878,081
$
28,883,870
$
27,399,979
$
30,337,798
NTNCWSs
<
100
$
434,875
$
435,044
$
359,547
$
510,139
$
50,681
$
50,676
$
47,463
$
53,880
101­
500
$
745,162
$
745,730
$
626,410
$
865,263
$
78,384
$
78,370
$
73,292
$
83,462
501­
1,000
$
563,584
$
563,811
$
486,235
$
641,764
$
52,603
$
52,611
$
49,648
$
55,530
1,001­
3,300
$
763,310
$
763,178
$
658,018
$
871,623
$
55,633
$
55,629
$
52,055
$
59,192
3,301­
10K
$
633,433
$
634,077
$
540,182
$
727,871
$
40,190
$
40,187
$
37,022
$
43,371
Small
$
3,140,364
$
3,142,564
$
2,675,124
$
3,612,830
$
277,490
$
277,387
$
259,737
$
295,095
10,001­
50K
$
1,597,738
$
1,601,640
$
1,354,956
$
1,833,920
$
44,985
$
44,989
$
42,522
$
47,423
50,001­
100K
$
487,484
$
488,566
$
410,162
$
562,380
$
10,586
$
10,585
$
10,030
$
11,136
100,001­
1M
$
760,885
$
762,581
$
643,566
$
874,896
$
17,391
$
17,387
$
16,566
$
18,202
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
2,846,107
$
2,853,071
$
2,408,183
$
3,269,734
$
72,961
$
72,962
$
69,150
$
76,746
NTNCWS
Total
$
5,986,471
$
5,983,013
$
5,248,074
$
6,718,694
$
350,452
$
350,433
$
330,857
$
370,009
TNCWSs
<
100
$
2,196,136
$
2,195,506
$
1,813,511
$
2,577,345
$
250,705
$
250,682
$
234,665
$
266,776
101­
500
$
1,270,829
$
1,271,407
$
1,062,486
$
1,478,826
$
137,990
$
137,984
$
128,929
$
147,119
501­
1,000
$
472,081
$
472,266
$
407,786
$
537,440
$
45,301
$
45,301
$
42,748
$
47,854
1,001­
3,300
$
768,614
$
769,488
$
652,927
$
885,580
$
66,867
$
66,841
$
62,371
$
71,403
3,301­
10K
$
974,819
$
975,043
$
832,670
$
1,118,952
$
60,278
$
60,242
$
55,564
$
65,059
Small
$
5,682,479
$
5,684,693
$
4,768,608
$
6,591,886
$
561,139
$
561,142
$
524,864
$
597,633
10,001­
50K
$
1,595,630
$
1,596,472
$
1,360,454
$
1,830,189
$
52,423
$
52,404
$
49,555
$
55,271
50,001­
100K
$
1,058,253
$
1,058,867
$
892,327
$
1,223,391
$
25,001
$
24,998
$
23,691
$
26,292
100,001­
1M
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
2,653,883
$
2,654,756
$
2,253,357
$
3,053,074
$
77,424
$
77,401
$
73,254
$
81,561
TNCWS
Total
$
8,336,363
$
8,339,311
$
7,273,380
$
9,415,386
$
638,564
$
638,561
$
600,196
$
677,071
All
Types
<
100
$
3,360,820
$
3,357,905
$
2,953,691
$
3,766,042
$
393,779
$
393,842
$
376,180
$
411,452
101­
500
$
4,160,080
$
4,159,269
$
3,731,578
$
4,588,707
$
473,898
$
473,816
$
453,056
$
494,600
501­
1,000
$
3,998,369
$
3,994,808
$
3,570,062
$
4,422,243
$
407,226
$
407,242
$
388,063
$
426,036
1,001­
3,300
$
14,269,753
$
14,262,440
$
12,433,450
$
16,092,929
$
1,214,574
$
1,214,773
$
1,140,896
$
1,287,143
3,301­
10K
$
42,930,008
$
42,914,214
$
36,837,634
$
48,983,793
$
2,604,359
$
2,604,590
$
2,408,872
$
2,797,372
Small
$
68,719,029
$
68,695,151
$
59,890,155
$
77,529,576
$
5,093,835
$
5,093,916
$
4,784,095
$
5,400,193
10,001­
50K
$
210,148,755
$
209,754,274
$
180,179,460
$
240,908,284
$
6,806,385
$
6,807,208
$
6,432,760
$
7,175,628
50,001­
100K
$
114,464,268
$
114,280,895
$
97,558,648
$
131,790,344
$
3,134,364
$
3,134,908
$
2,967,632
$
3,299,039
100,001­
1M
$
339,594,713
$
339,033,489
$
288,124,784
$
392,522,966
$
7,871,742
$
7,876,011
$
7,485,931
$
8,255,154
>
1
Million
$
286,934,447
$
286,494,250
$
239,424,215
$
335,975,879
$
6,960,770
$
6,964,784
$
6,536,059
$
7,385,978
Large
$
951,142,182
$
949,474,439
$
805,612,690
$
1,101,188,629
$
24,773,261
$
24,778,617
$
23,426,866
$
26,105,601
All
Sizes
$
1,019,861,212
$
1,018,066,534
$
869,351,393
$
1,173,895,633
$
29,867,096
$
29,871,890
$
28,391,086
$
31,327,718
Notes:
All
values
in
year
2000
dollars.

Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.

Derived
from
LT2ESWTR
Cost
Model.
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
Q­
19
June
2003
Exhibit
Q.
18
Treatment
Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
by
System
Size
for
Alternative
3
­
ICRSSM­
UV90­
10B
A3­
ICRSSM­
UV90­
10B
Capital
Costs
O&
M
Costs
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
System
Classification
System
Size
(
population
served)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)

CWSs
<
100
$
729,692
$
729,573
$
603,649
$
855,428
$
92,302
$
92,301
$
86,249
$
98,403
101­
500
$
2,144,424
$
2,145,235
$
1,791,793
$
2,497,747
$
257,275
$
257,265
$
239,755
$
274,902
501­
1,000
$
3,034,604
$
3,033,481
$
2,621,940
$
3,447,931
$
307,235
$
307,291
$
289,098
$
325,331
1,001­
3,300
$
13,004,918
$
13,004,565
$
11,184,870
$
14,831,170
$
1,094,454
$
1,094,255
$
1,022,563
$
1,166,542
3,301­
10K
$
42,053,818
$
42,047,393
$
35,965,808
$
48,174,218
$
2,531,114
$
2,529,929
$
2,341,108
$
2,722,083
Small
$
60,967,456
$
60,946,826
$
52,192,494
$
69,784,730
$
4,282,379
$
4,280,930
$
3,981,698
$
4,583,482
10,001­
50K
$
216,277,878
$
216,403,582
$
185,086,320
$
247,219,627
$
7,116,273
$
7,117,007
$
6,731,087
$
7,498,662
50,001­
100K
$
119,082,655
$
119,187,592
$
101,567,989
$
136,555,634
$
3,390,962
$
3,391,070
$
3,214,224
$
3,567,460
100,001­
1M
$
359,926,787
$
360,133,270
$
306,251,650
$
413,398,349
$
8,894,575
$
8,895,711
$
8,451,396
$
9,338,005
>
1
Million
$
298,378,964
$
298,575,012
$
248,732,624
$
347,464,750
$
7,548,891
$
7,550,777
$
7,084,552
$
8,011,524
Large
$
993,666,284
$
994,376,209
$
841,997,310
$
1,144,951,316
$
26,950,701
$
26,953,830
$
25,498,421
$
28,403,322
CWS
Total
$
1,054,633,740
$
1,054,999,754
$
898,775,829
$
1,210,237,142
$
31,233,080
$
31,233,307
$
29,652,311
$
32,815,133
NTNCWSs
<
100
$
434,875
$
435,044
$
359,547
$
510,139
$
50,681
$
50,676
$
47,463
$
53,880
101­
500
$
745,162
$
745,730
$
626,410
$
865,263
$
78,384
$
78,370
$
73,292
$
83,462
501­
1,000
$
579,609
$
580,188
$
502,019
$
658,054
$
52,145
$
52,135
$
49,251
$
55,031
1,001­
3,300
$
798,004
$
797,548
$
691,924
$
906,375
$
55,691
$
55,684
$
52,117
$
59,237
3,301­
10K
$
647,606
$
648,216
$
554,048
$
742,121
$
40,779
$
40,776
$
37,614
$
43,954
Small
$
3,205,255
$
3,207,458
$
2,739,015
$
3,677,452
$
277,680
$
277,579
$
259,930
$
295,315
10,001­
50K
$
1,672,610
$
1,676,529
$
1,427,803
$
1,910,841
$
48,519
$
48,509
$
45,956
$
51,054
50,001­
100K
$
519,362
$
520,602
$
441,432
$
595,138
$
12,121
$
12,124
$
11,495
$
12,746
100,001­
1M
$
810,799
$
812,573
$
691,790
$
926,201
$
19,912
$
19,920
$
18,956
$
20,863
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
3,002,771
$
3,009,111
$
2,560,742
$
3,431,469
$
80,551
$
80,548
$
76,449
$
84,631
NTNCWS
Total
$
6,208,027
$
6,207,252
$
5,465,953
$
6,943,415
$
358,232
$
358,160
$
338,554
$
377,820
TNCWSs
<
100
$
2,190,379
$
2,190,869
$
1,808,236
$
2,568,491
$
250,997
$
250,881
$
234,971
$
266,875
101­
500
$
1,267,629
$
1,268,133
$
1,059,353
$
1,474,610
$
138,156
$
138,114
$
129,024
$
147,111
501­
1,000
$
484,943
$
485,031
$
420,055
$
550,161
$
44,987
$
44,981
$
42,467
$
47,478
1,001­
3,300
$
807,618
$
807,679
$
691,850
$
924,150
$
67,435
$
67,460
$
62,943
$
71,882
3,301­
10K
$
994,527
$
994,767
$
852,630
$
1,137,815
$
61,256
$
61,281
$
56,514
$
65,945
Small
$
5,745,096
$
5,746,463
$
4,837,934
$
6,647,842
$
562,831
$
562,852
$
526,623
$
598,468
10,001­
50K
$
1,667,189
$
1,666,334
$
1,430,320
$
1,903,323
$
55,802
$
55,826
$
52,834
$
58,787
50,001­
100K
$
1,123,049
$
1,122,539
$
955,560
$
1,288,945
$
28,221
$
28,227
$
26,790
$
29,670
100,001­
1M
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
2,790,238
$
2,789,245
$
2,385,502
$
3,192,133
$
84,023
$
84,059
$
79,645
$
88,462
TNCWS
Total
$
8,535,334
$
8,536,787
$
7,460,519
$
9,604,891
$
646,854
$
646,717
$
608,679
$
684,427
All
Types
<
100
$
3,354,946
$
3,357,958
$
2,953,326
$
3,755,972
$
393,980
$
393,834
$
376,512
$
411,367
101­
500
$
4,157,215
$
4,159,059
$
3,730,065
$
4,579,437
$
473,814
$
473,787
$
453,338
$
494,446
501­
1,000
$
4,099,156
$
4,100,465
$
3,668,311
$
4,525,683
$
404,368
$
404,364
$
385,716
$
422,960
1,001­
3,300
$
14,610,539
$
14,614,187
$
12,773,741
$
16,439,985
$
1,217,581
$
1,217,413
$
1,145,356
$
1,290,244
3,301­
10K
$
43,695,951
$
43,706,132
$
37,588,623
$
49,820,215
$
2,633,149
$
2,632,139
$
2,443,218
$
2,825,071
Small
$
69,917,807
$
69,955,352
$
61,030,294
$
78,741,056
$
5,122,891
$
5,122,222
$
4,818,884
$
5,429,060
10,001­
50K
$
219,617,677
$
219,764,833
$
188,454,371
$
250,547,502
$
7,220,594
$
7,221,217
$
6,835,099
$
7,603,996
50,001­
100K
$
120,725,066
$
120,812,247
$
103,212,761
$
138,183,875
$
3,431,304
$
3,431,443
$
3,254,689
$
3,607,943
100,001­
1M
$
360,737,587
$
360,936,911
$
307,082,781
$
414,201,991
$
8,914,487
$
8,915,303
$
8,471,571
$
9,357,626
>
1
Million
$
298,378,964
$
298,575,012
$
248,732,624
$
347,464,750
$
7,548,891
$
7,550,777
$
7,084,552
$
8,011,524
Large
$
999,459,294
$
1,000,157,923
$
847,811,732
$
1,150,553,963
$
27,115,275
$
27,118,329
$
25,663,182
$
28,567,485
All
Sizes
$
1,069,377,101
$
1,069,588,481
$
913,637,163
$
1,225,011,340
$
32,238,166
$
32,240,748
$
30,657,060
$
33,815,180
Notes:
All
values
in
year
2000
dollars.

Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.

Derived
from
LT2ESWTR
Cost
Model.
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
Q­
20
June
2003
Exhibit
Q.
19
Treatment
Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
by
System
Size
for
Alternative
3
­
High­
UV90­
10
A3­
High­
UV90­
10
Capital
Costs
O&
M
Costs
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
System
Classification
System
Size
(
population
served)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)

CWSs
<
100
$
1,284,649
$
1,284,398
$
1,101,166
$
1,469,469
$
187,550
$
187,540
$
176,679
$
198,431
101­
500
$
3,922,629
$
3,920,802
$
3,393,884
$
4,451,589
$
519,643
$
519,700
$
489,079
$
549,926
501­
1,000
$
5,637,223
$
5,637,968
$
4,952,006
$
6,311,514
$
649,394
$
649,536
$
613,992
$
684,156
1,001­
3,300
$
24,615,054
$
24,629,150
$
21,560,450
$
27,631,195
$
2,236,375
$
2,236,649
$
2,108,867
$
2,361,655
3,301­
10K
$
79,013,193
$
79,027,892
$
68,628,425
$
89,307,234
$
4,580,253
$
4,581,769
$
4,292,333
$
4,862,991
Small
$
114,472,748
$
114,517,127
$
99,739,295
$
129,045,277
$
8,173,216
$
8,175,299
$
7,692,948
$
8,647,552
10,001­
50K
$
364,148,307
$
363,490,742
$
313,023,629
$
416,853,363
$
11,927,595
$
11,933,997
$
11,292,492
$
12,552,115
50,001­
100K
$
200,535,409
$
200,163,454
$
171,526,420
$
230,354,754
$
5,691,103
$
5,692,779
$
5,400,758
$
5,977,947
100,001­
1M
$
603,955,330
$
602,693,177
$
515,595,565
$
694,928,924
$
14,862,281
$
14,867,698
$
14,163,599
$
15,557,151
>
1
Million
$
418,660,846
$
417,861,281
$
351,835,994
$
487,351,873
$
10,534,917
$
10,539,580
$
9,944,657
$
11,124,271
Large
$
1,587,299,893
$
1,584,218,156
$
1,352,178,491
$
1,829,517,330
$
43,015,898
$
43,022,761
$
40,823,445
$
45,192,071
CWS
Total
$
1,701,772,641
$
1,698,596,723
$
1,455,616,199
$
1,954,652,509
$
51,189,113
$
51,201,845
$
48,701,256
$
53,679,307
NTNCWSs
<
100
$
770,042
$
769,566
$
659,330
$
881,302
$
105,954
$
105,987
$
99,907
$
111,970
101­
500
$
1,413,523
$
1,413,232
$
1,228,755
$
1,602,502
$
169,294
$
169,377
$
159,655
$
178,816
501­
1,000
$
1,212,615
$
1,212,098
$
1,069,852
$
1,356,470
$
132,116
$
132,113
$
125,184
$
138,972
1,001­
3,300
$
1,870,532
$
1,868,520
$
1,600,068
$
2,136,812
$
128,403
$
128,429
$
121,403
$
135,391
3,301­
10K
$
1,350,333
$
1,349,066
$
1,179,635
$
1,523,127
$
79,732
$
79,722
$
74,761
$
84,633
Small
$
6,617,045
$
6,609,815
$
5,776,123
$
7,471,014
$
615,499
$
615,700
$
581,641
$
649,167
10,001­
50K
$
2,950,479
$
2,957,510
$
2,514,391
$
3,373,142
$
85,285
$
85,280
$
80,859
$
89,683
50,001­
100K
$
909,511
$
911,668
$
770,817
$
1,044,004
$
21,324
$
21,328
$
20,275
$
22,373
100,001­
1M
$
1,433,128
$
1,436,085
$
1,218,185
$
1,640,826
$
35,106
$
35,104
$
33,494
$
36,701
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
5,293,118
$
5,306,588
$
4,504,635
$
6,058,526
$
141,715
$
141,697
$
134,673
$
148,705
NTNCWS
Total
$
11,910,163
$
11,903,638
$
10,407,882
$
13,373,410
$
757,214
$
757,249
$
718,356
$
795,821
TNCWSs
<
100
$
3,877,135
$
3,875,804
$
3,319,810
$
4,433,641
$
525,265
$
525,030
$
495,106
$
555,807
101­
500
$
2,361,129
$
2,361,486
$
2,042,813
$
2,680,367
$
296,537
$
296,417
$
279,609
$
313,507
501­
1,000
$
1,000,278
$
1,000,559
$
882,682
$
1,119,279
$
112,610
$
112,601
$
106,681
$
118,537
1,001­
3,300
$
1,610,495
$
1,610,847
$
1,394,382
$
1,828,475
$
148,298
$
148,290
$
139,993
$
156,576
3,301­
10K
$
2,077,549
$
2,078,271
$
1,813,067
$
2,345,566
$
118,755
$
118,718
$
111,394
$
126,241
Small
$
10,926,586
$
10,924,528
$
9,499,900
$
12,371,558
$
1,201,466
$
1,201,100
$
1,133,788
$
1,269,741
10,001­
50K
$
2,944,414
$
2,945,515
$
2,521,273
$
3,362,353
$
97,620
$
97,642
$
92,450
$
102,751
50,001­
100K
$
1,968,033
$
1,968,986
$
1,669,448
$
2,262,295
$
49,462
$
49,464
$
47,023
$
51,930
100,001­
1M
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
4,912,447
$
4,913,926
$
4,192,562
$
5,623,413
$
147,082
$
147,114
$
139,489
$
154,634
TNCWS
Total
$
15,839,033
$
15,843,493
$
13,944,589
$
17,746,446
$
1,348,548
$
1,347,867
$
1,275,548
$
1,421,750
All
Types
<
100
$
5,931,826
$
5,932,197
$
5,335,905
$
6,526,873
$
818,770
$
818,822
$
785,579
$
852,240
101­
500
$
7,697,281
$
7,698,509
$
7,052,797
$
8,343,287
$
985,474
$
985,344
$
948,744
$
1,022,428
501­
1,000
$
7,850,115
$
7,850,977
$
7,140,347
$
8,550,492
$
894,121
$
893,979
$
857,713
$
930,112
1,001­
3,300
$
28,096,082
$
28,107,302
$
25,013,237
$
31,112,941
$
2,513,076
$
2,513,259
$
2,385,844
$
2,638,860
3,301­
10K
$
82,441,074
$
82,480,274
$
72,001,197
$
92,736,453
$
4,778,740
$
4,780,378
$
4,490,053
$
5,061,395
Small
$
132,016,378
$
132,076,012
$
117,133,837
$
146,612,669
$
9,990,180
$
9,992,413
$
9,500,535
$
10,469,937
10,001­
50K
$
370,043,201
$
369,403,709
$
318,986,312
$
422,662,599
$
12,110,501
$
12,116,246
$
11,474,165
$
12,735,845
50,001­
100K
$
203,412,954
$
203,000,499
$
174,414,725
$
233,238,705
$
5,761,889
$
5,763,961
$
5,471,965
$
6,048,603
100,001­
1M
$
605,388,458
$
604,091,011
$
517,074,776
$
696,371,876
$
14,897,387
$
14,902,558
$
14,199,143
$
15,591,583
>
1
Million
$
418,660,846
$
417,861,281
$
351,835,994
$
487,351,873
$
10,534,917
$
10,539,580
$
9,944,657
$
11,124,271
Large
$
1,597,505,458
$
1,594,323,372
$
1,362,384,082
$
1,840,016,762
$
43,304,695
$
43,313,398
$
41,111,043
$
45,481,342
All
Sizes
$
1,729,521,836
$
1,726,678,008
$
1,483,810,104
$
1,981,791,620
$
53,294,875
$
53,308,745
$
50,793,590
$
55,773,535
Notes:
All
values
in
year
2000
dollars.

Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.

Derived
from
LT2ESWTR
Cost
Model.
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
Q­
21
June
2003
Exhibit
Q.
20
Treatment
Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
by
System
Size
for
Alternative
3
­
High­
UV90­
10B
A3­
High­
UV90­
10B
Capital
Costs
O&
M
Costs
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
System
Classification
System
Size
(
population
served)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)

CWSs
<
100
$
1,285,231
$
1,284,887
$
1,101,930
$
1,468,690
$
187,371
$
187,429
$
176,568
$
198,117
101­
500
$
3,925,703
$
3,923,926
$
3,402,274
$
4,451,429
$
519,147
$
519,387
$
488,655
$
549,257
501­
1,000
$
5,910,052
$
5,905,488
$
5,224,837
$
6,597,321
$
624,864
$
624,818
$
589,863
$
659,492
1,001­
3,300
$
25,627,018
$
25,618,816
$
22,593,254
$
28,699,632
$
2,207,165
$
2,207,173
$
2,080,660
$
2,333,091
3,301­
10K
$
82,101,615
$
82,050,485
$
71,779,427
$
92,414,427
$
4,642,122
$
4,641,390
$
4,354,706
$
4,926,955
Small
$
118,849,620
$
118,782,105
$
104,187,827
$
133,534,603
$
8,180,670
$
8,180,159
$
7,698,379
$
8,659,985
10,001­
50K
$
394,085,013
$
394,114,582
$
340,822,947
$
447,105,356
$
13,043,995
$
13,045,575
$
12,341,284
$
13,747,332
50,001­
100K
$
220,214,457
$
220,205,103
$
189,861,417
$
250,393,797
$
6,499,023
$
6,501,679
$
6,153,125
$
6,849,899
100,001­
1M
$
674,796,532
$
674,855,914
$
580,831,611
$
767,939,201
$
17,956,440
$
17,960,801
$
16,955,065
$
18,955,370
>
1
Million
$
456,778,909
$
456,844,619
$
386,997,992
$
526,172,455
$
12,337,323
$
12,338,510
$
11,558,338
$
13,111,748
Large
$
1,745,874,911
$
1,745,584,051
$
1,498,800,700
$
1,991,264,106
$
49,836,781
$
49,848,140
$
47,066,792
$
52,627,298
CWS
Total
$
1,864,724,531
$
1,864,913,562
$
1,606,103,073
$
2,121,206,347
$
58,017,451
$
58,026,429
$
54,985,336
$
61,057,821
NTNCWSs
<
100
$
770,261
$
768,903
$
658,404
$
880,858
$
105,976
$
105,958
$
99,866
$
112,072
101­
500
$
1,413,973
$
1,411,857
$
1,226,553
$
1,599,176
$
169,330
$
169,317
$
159,679
$
178,918
501­
1,000
$
1,273,905
$
1,272,700
$
1,128,540
$
1,418,961
$
126,286
$
126,304
$
119,471
$
133,209
1,001­
3,300
$
2,023,732
$
2,022,821
$
1,751,029
$
2,295,193
$
125,824
$
125,801
$
118,812
$
132,903
3,301­
10K
$
1,409,164
$
1,407,668
$
1,235,776
$
1,580,107
$
81,127
$
81,124
$
76,119
$
86,064
Small
$
6,891,036
$
6,885,449
$
6,037,010
$
7,726,094
$
608,542
$
608,429
$
574,604
$
642,726
10,001­
50K
$
3,206,866
$
3,210,329
$
2,758,917
$
3,646,980
$
95,357
$
95,372
$
90,197
$
100,557
50,001­
100K
$
1,017,650
$
1,018,751
$
873,632
$
1,159,865
$
25,895
$
25,894
$
24,431
$
27,377
100,001­
1M
$
1,611,978
$
1,613,858
$
1,388,611
$
1,833,039
$
42,928
$
42,933
$
40,562
$
45,307
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
5,836,493
$
5,842,667
$
5,021,698
$
6,640,923
$
164,179
$
164,159
$
155,318
$
173,129
NTNCWS
Total
$
12,727,529
$
12,729,130
$
11,205,492
$
14,244,008
$
772,722
$
772,598
$
733,025
$
812,621
TNCWSs
<
100
$
3,868,979
$
3,871,429
$
3,308,780
$
4,427,748
$
525,769
$
525,589
$
495,561
$
555,977
101­
500
$
2,356,549
$
2,357,424
$
2,038,063
$
2,674,420
$
296,818
$
296,677
$
279,870
$
313,776
501­
1,000
$
1,050,878
$
1,050,578
$
931,910
$
1,171,671
$
107,918
$
107,887
$
102,064
$
113,827
1,001­
3,300
$
1,787,741
$
1,787,602
$
1,570,355
$
2,006,520
$
147,731
$
147,686
$
139,436
$
156,016
3,301­
10K
$
2,163,913
$
2,163,554
$
1,900,406
$
2,431,094
$
121,039
$
121,034
$
113,600
$
128,373
Small
$
11,228,059
$
11,229,650
$
9,792,112
$
12,659,938
$
1,199,275
$
1,198,639
$
1,131,358
$
1,266,729
10,001­
50K
$
3,191,166
$
3,190,103
$
2,758,137
$
3,621,244
$
107,235
$
107,269
$
101,539
$
113,015
50,001­
100K
$
2,188,153
$
2,186,844
$
1,880,226
$
2,494,144
$
58,904
$
58,915
$
55,676
$
62,138
100,001­
1M
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
5,379,319
$
5,376,835
$
4,639,137
$
6,115,887
$
166,139
$
166,195
$
157,366
$
175,075
TNCWS
Total
$
16,607,378
$
16,607,444
$
14,736,882
$
18,506,557
$
1,365,413
$
1,364,743
$
1,291,899
$
1,439,020
All
Types
<
100
$
5,924,471
$
5,926,191
$
5,328,212
$
6,515,846
$
819,116
$
819,025
$
786,241
$
851,961
101­
500
$
7,696,225
$
7,692,621
$
7,058,462
$
8,332,100
$
985,295
$
985,480
$
948,945
$
1,021,430
501­
1,000
$
8,234,835
$
8,229,229
$
7,522,732
$
8,949,137
$
859,068
$
859,153
$
822,823
$
895,000
1,001­
3,300
$
29,438,491
$
29,427,776
$
26,368,445
$
32,502,245
$
2,480,721
$
2,480,956
$
2,353,612
$
2,607,010
3,301­
10K
$
85,674,693
$
85,626,331
$
75,361,273
$
96,015,776
$
4,844,288
$
4,843,118
$
4,556,545
$
5,129,571
Small
$
136,968,714
$
136,877,739
$
122,238,629
$
151,731,849
$
9,988,487
$
9,988,169
$
9,500,524
$
10,472,110
10,001­
50K
$
400,483,045
$
400,528,604
$
347,202,580
$
453,520,944
$
13,246,586
$
13,248,974
$
12,543,179
$
13,951,589
50,001­
100K
$
223,420,259
$
223,449,377
$
193,050,551
$
253,637,675
$
6,583,822
$
6,586,533
$
6,238,371
$
6,933,941
100,001­
1M
$
676,408,510
$
676,507,007
$
582,432,028
$
769,665,114
$
17,999,368
$
18,004,013
$
16,997,102
$
18,997,992
>
1
Million
$
456,778,909
$
456,844,619
$
386,997,992
$
526,172,455
$
12,337,323
$
12,338,510
$
11,558,338
$
13,111,748
Large
$
1,757,090,724
$
1,757,259,447
$
1,509,872,386
$
2,002,792,681
$
50,167,099
$
50,178,394
$
47,400,945
$
52,955,620
All
Sizes
$
1,894,059,438
$
1,893,981,470
$
1,635,034,739
$
2,150,927,239
$
60,155,586
$
60,165,531
$
57,132,027
$
63,200,529
Notes:
All
values
in
year
2000
dollars.

Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.

Derived
from
LT2ESWTR
Cost
Model.
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
Q­
22
June
2003
Exhibit
Q.
21
Treatment
Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
by
System
Size
for
Alternative
3
­
Low­
UV90­
10
A3­
Low­
UV90­
10
Capital
Costs
O&
M
Costs
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
System
Classification
System
Size
(
population
served)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)

CWSs
<
100
$
445,102
$
445,218
$
367,608
$
522,483
$
56,979
$
56,949
$
53,125
$
60,841
101­
500
$
1,337,983
$
1,338,062
$
1,113,520
$
1,563,206
$
165,170
$
165,104
$
153,388
$
176,936
501­
1,000
$
1,989,268
$
1,990,272
$
1,711,208
$
2,267,527
$
212,744
$
212,690
$
199,573
$
225,930
1,001­
3,300
$
8,383,990
$
8,386,562
$
7,180,668
$
9,587,861
$
718,209
$
717,747
$
668,871
$
767,942
3,301­
10K
$
28,094,599
$
28,106,669
$
23,902,320
$
32,294,134
$
1,659,349
$
1,658,121
$
1,530,154
$
1,790,634
Small
$
40,250,943
$
40,267,038
$
34,290,618
$
46,228,691
$
2,812,451
$
2,810,590
$
2,606,831
$
3,019,529
10,001­
50K
$
130,239,277
$
130,168,001
$
111,136,880
$
149,401,362
$
4,214,895
$
4,214,552
$
3,971,310
$
4,460,740
50,001­
100K
$
70,546,145
$
70,508,518
$
59,871,462
$
81,255,689
$
1,931,779
$
1,931,847
$
1,824,487
$
2,040,030
100,001­
1M
$
214,054,067
$
213,936,974
$
180,961,858
$
247,052,953
$
4,951,663
$
4,951,306
$
4,697,695
$
5,207,220
>
1
Million
$
225,431,893
$
225,417,065
$
187,134,780
$
263,745,670
$
5,561,959
$
5,561,963
$
5,197,741
$
5,927,130
Large
$
640,271,382
$
639,999,760
$
539,116,874
$
741,498,221
$
16,660,297
$
16,661,422
$
15,696,591
$
17,625,956
CWS
Total
$
680,522,325
$
680,519,811
$
576,377,521
$
785,212,660
$
19,472,748
$
19,470,687
$
18,410,913
$
20,545,914
NTNCWSs
<
100
$
261,839
$
261,811
$
215,996
$
308,366
$
30,327
$
30,334
$
28,309
$
32,284
101­
500
$
446,324
$
446,220
$
374,294
$
519,582
$
46,574
$
46,585
$
43,354
$
49,695
501­
1,000
$
332,680
$
332,718
$
286,357
$
379,421
$
30,516
$
30,527
$
28,758
$
32,243
1,001­
3,300
$
441,231
$
441,138
$
379,573
$
504,026
$
32,607
$
32,611
$
30,425
$
34,754
3,301­
10K
$
373,693
$
373,669
$
317,775
$
430,196
$
23,963
$
23,959
$
21,999
$
25,902
Small
$
1,855,768
$
1,855,567
$
1,576,546
$
2,139,653
$
163,986
$
163,997
$
153,052
$
174,692
10,001­
50K
$
958,437
$
958,567
$
814,424
$
1,101,095
$
26,947
$
26,949
$
25,478
$
28,442
50,001­
100K
$
292,193
$
292,300
$
246,589
$
337,605
$
6,304
$
6,305
$
5,974
$
6,640
100,001­
1M
$
455,606
$
455,654
$
386,012
$
524,648
$
10,355
$
10,357
$
9,866
$
10,850
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
1,706,236
$
1,706,648
$
1,447,485
$
1,963,061
$
43,606
$
43,620
$
41,330
$
45,935
NTNCWS
Total
$
3,562,003
$
3,558,497
$
3,128,904
$
4,000,398
$
207,592
$
207,706
$
195,612
$
219,391
TNCWSs
<
100
$
1,324,856
$
1,324,175
$
1,092,429
$
1,558,716
$
149,888
$
149,889
$
140,273
$
159,450
101­
500
$
763,344
$
763,005
$
636,004
$
891,247
$
82,010
$
82,001
$
76,559
$
87,434
501­
1,000
$
279,636
$
279,692
$
240,544
$
319,361
$
26,298
$
26,301
$
24,765
$
27,820
1,001­
3,300
$
454,345
$
454,388
$
384,193
$
524,946
$
39,352
$
39,344
$
36,590
$
42,116
3,301­
10K
$
575,996
$
575,894
$
490,281
$
663,138
$
35,942
$
35,945
$
33,019
$
38,876
Small
$
3,398,178
$
3,397,078
$
2,841,931
$
3,955,626
$
333,491
$
333,429
$
311,636
$
355,239
10,001­
50K
$
957,629
$
956,700
$
818,053
$
1,097,025
$
31,421
$
31,425
$
29,670
$
33,141
50,001­
100K
$
634,741
$
634,418
$
536,246
$
732,819
$
14,899
$
14,900
$
14,109
$
15,678
100,001­
1M
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
1,592,370
$
1,590,965
$
1,354,409
$
1,829,072
$
46,320
$
46,326
$
43,785
$
48,832
TNCWS
Total
$
4,990,548
$
4,986,232
$
4,349,471
$
5,637,583
$
379,811
$
379,791
$
356,676
$
402,659
All
Types
<
100
$
2,031,798
$
2,032,457
$
1,782,626
$
2,283,937
$
237,194
$
237,174
$
226,401
$
248,046
101­
500
$
2,547,652
$
2,547,344
$
2,280,086
$
2,818,165
$
293,755
$
293,768
$
280,030
$
307,525
501­
1,000
$
2,601,584
$
2,600,660
$
2,315,550
$
2,889,255
$
269,558
$
269,502
$
256,155
$
283,128
1,001­
3,300
$
9,279,566
$
9,281,027
$
8,075,801
$
10,488,843
$
790,167
$
789,578
$
740,776
$
840,054
3,301­
10K
$
29,044,288
$
29,058,850
$
24,858,621
$
33,236,289
$
1,719,254
$
1,717,813
$
1,589,941
$
1,850,445
Small
$
45,504,888
$
45,500,260
$
39,543,523
$
51,497,160
$
3,309,928
$
3,307,733
$
3,103,196
$
3,518,862
10,001­
50K
$
132,155,343
$
132,094,550
$
113,065,457
$
151,317,422
$
4,273,264
$
4,272,794
$
4,030,071
$
4,519,466
50,001­
100K
$
71,473,079
$
71,450,644
$
60,784,189
$
82,178,003
$
1,952,982
$
1,953,005
$
1,845,644
$
2,061,272
100,001­
1M
$
214,509,673
$
214,374,723
$
181,412,106
$
247,538,298
$
4,962,018
$
4,961,669
$
4,708,126
$
5,217,417
>
1
Million
$
225,431,893
$
225,417,065
$
187,134,780
$
263,745,670
$
5,561,959
$
5,561,963
$
5,197,741
$
5,927,130
Large
$
643,569,988
$
643,378,184
$
542,421,029
$
744,869,583
$
16,750,223
$
16,751,352
$
15,785,186
$
17,716,276
All
Sizes
$
689,074,876
$
689,075,405
$
584,898,755
$
793,750,856
$
20,060,151
$
20,058,509
$
18,998,618
$
21,133,073
Notes:
All
values
in
year
2000
dollars.

Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.

Derived
from
LT2ESWTR
Cost
Model.
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
Q­
23
June
2003
Exhibit
Q.
22
Treatment
Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
by
System
Size
for
Alternative
3
­
Low­
UV90­
10B
A3­
Low­
UV90­
10B
Capital
Costs
O&
M
Costs
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
System
Classification
System
Size
(
population
served)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)

CWSs
<
100
$
444,849
$
444,915
$
366,560
$
523,194
$
56,970
$
56,969
$
53,143
$
60,819
101­
500
$
1,337,464
$
1,337,837
$
1,110,658
$
1,564,891
$
165,140
$
165,127
$
153,459
$
176,878
501­
1,000
$
2,029,535
$
2,029,495
$
1,744,727
$
2,313,884
$
211,973
$
212,008
$
199,086
$
224,831
1,001­
3,300
$
8,533,874
$
8,533,041
$
7,303,641
$
9,758,129
$
720,783
$
720,698
$
672,475
$
769,292
3,301­
10K
$
28,490,304
$
28,484,083
$
24,228,347
$
32,753,982
$
1,676,979
$
1,676,193
$
1,549,541
$
1,805,394
Small
$
40,836,027
$
40,832,928
$
34,773,671
$
46,897,190
$
2,831,845
$
2,831,137
$
2,629,593
$
3,035,128
10,001­
50K
$
135,188,345
$
135,280,743
$
115,474,182
$
154,711,522
$
4,445,669
$
4,445,734
$
4,201,760
$
4,688,635
50,001­
100K
$
73,834,218
$
73,890,450
$
62,830,806
$
84,791,731
$
2,096,694
$
2,096,672
$
1,986,101
$
2,207,434
100,001­
1M
$
225,238,553
$
225,389,828
$
191,239,977
$
259,143,058
$
5,530,666
$
5,531,181
$
5,250,935
$
5,810,510
>
1
Million
$
231,394,425
$
231,539,122
$
192,040,597
$
270,276,857
$
5,887,522
$
5,888,960
$
5,509,629
$
6,264,592
Large
$
665,655,541
$
666,041,712
$
561,648,238
$
768,977,585
$
17,960,551
$
17,964,163
$
16,959,494
$
18,962,131
CWS
Total
$
706,491,568
$
706,691,321
$
599,424,667
$
813,246,786
$
20,792,396
$
20,795,785
$
19,696,581
$
21,886,920
NTNCWSs
<
100
$
262,034
$
262,235
$
216,308
$
307,303
$
30,342
$
30,332
$
28,360
$
32,293
101­
500
$
446,587
$
447,263
$
374,351
$
518,475
$
46,599
$
46,589
$
43,450
$
49,692
501­
1,000
$
342,119
$
342,501
$
296,630
$
388,440
$
30,340
$
30,333
$
28,628
$
32,032
1,001­
3,300
$
460,815
$
461,150
$
399,052
$
522,839
$
32,707
$
32,714
$
30,579
$
34,821
3,301­
10K
$
381,973
$
382,384
$
326,546
$
437,441
$
24,331
$
24,337
$
22,410
$
26,230
Small
$
1,893,528
$
1,895,745
$
1,614,995
$
2,171,542
$
164,318
$
164,300
$
153,643
$
174,808
10,001­
50K
$
998,850
$
999,331
$
854,549
$
1,141,895
$
28,920
$
28,931
$
27,397
$
30,452
50,001­
100K
$
309,449
$
309,710
$
263,773
$
355,067
$
7,156
$
7,158
$
6,791
$
7,525
100,001­
1M
$
482,407
$
482,607
$
412,873
$
551,968
$
11,746
$
11,747
$
11,190
$
12,307
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
1,790,706
$
1,791,751
$
1,531,272
$
2,049,445
$
47,822
$
47,838
$
45,404
$
50,283
NTNCWS
Total
$
3,684,234
$
3,686,162
$
3,253,719
$
4,117,435
$
212,140
$
212,133
$
200,393
$
223,842
TNCWSs
<
100
$
1,323,249
$
1,323,690
$
1,086,972
$
1,554,543
$
149,875
$
149,910
$
140,124
$
159,335
101­
500
$
762,336
$
762,658
$
632,969
$
888,970
$
82,002
$
82,027
$
76,478
$
87,362
501­
1,000
$
287,343
$
287,174
$
247,448
$
326,312
$
26,148
$
26,162
$
24,619
$
27,623
1,001­
3,300
$
476,563
$
476,422
$
405,738
$
546,102
$
39,662
$
39,672
$
36,888
$
42,387
3,301­
10K
$
587,734
$
587,560
$
500,342
$
673,223
$
36,460
$
36,478
$
33,530
$
39,360
Small
$
3,437,225
$
3,438,140
$
2,872,877
$
3,988,378
$
334,146
$
334,271
$
312,108
$
355,686
10,001­
50K
$
995,449
$
995,182
$
853,984
$
1,136,342
$
33,310
$
33,310
$
31,556
$
35,082
50,001­
100K
$
669,260
$
669,129
$
569,593
$
768,497
$
16,696
$
16,696
$
15,847
$
17,539
100,001­
1M
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
1,664,709
$
1,664,352
$
1,423,668
$
1,904,925
$
50,006
$
50,004
$
47,420
$
52,598
TNCWS
Total
$
5,101,935
$
5,104,356
$
4,459,905
$
5,745,658
$
384,152
$
384,265
$
360,833
$
406,697
All
Types
<
100
$
2,030,132
$
2,029,868
$
1,781,305
$
2,274,543
$
237,186
$
237,289
$
226,297
$
247,735
101­
500
$
2,546,387
$
2,547,647
$
2,276,674
$
2,815,340
$
293,741
$
293,756
$
280,200
$
307,148
501­
1,000
$
2,658,997
$
2,659,031
$
2,366,778
$
2,949,997
$
268,460
$
268,500
$
255,297
$
281,538
1,001­
3,300
$
9,471,253
$
9,471,450
$
8,242,530
$
10,708,112
$
793,152
$
793,121
$
744,526
$
841,916
3,301­
10K
$
29,460,011
$
29,455,693
$
25,184,208
$
33,735,598
$
1,737,770
$
1,737,286
$
1,610,566
$
1,865,938
Small
$
46,166,780
$
46,149,523
$
40,098,802
$
52,293,552
$
3,330,309
$
3,330,482
$
3,126,151
$
3,534,994
10,001­
50K
$
137,182,643
$
137,281,497
$
117,467,949
$
156,738,312
$
4,507,899
$
4,508,276
$
4,264,073
$
4,750,139
50,001­
100K
$
74,812,927
$
74,872,379
$
63,803,088
$
85,734,955
$
2,120,546
$
2,120,469
$
2,009,818
$
2,230,978
100,001­
1M
$
225,720,961
$
225,865,951
$
191,720,280
$
259,605,334
$
5,542,411
$
5,542,885
$
5,262,607
$
5,822,204
>
1
Million
$
231,394,425
$
231,539,122
$
192,040,597
$
270,276,857
$
5,887,522
$
5,888,960
$
5,509,629
$
6,264,592
Large
$
669,110,956
$
669,510,847
$
565,167,052
$
772,397,569
$
18,058,379
$
18,062,008
$
17,057,332
$
19,059,979
All
Sizes
$
715,277,737
$
715,531,919
$
608,234,914
$
822,152,232
$
21,388,688
$
21,393,472
$
20,291,253
$
22,483,487
Notes:
All
values
in
year
2000
dollars.

Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.

Derived
from
LT2ESWTR
Cost
Model.
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
Q­
24
June
2003
Exhibit
Q.
23
Treatment
Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
by
System
Size
For
Alternative
4
­
ICR­
UV90­
10
A4­
ICR­
UV90­
10
Capital
Costs
O&
M
Costs
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
System
Classification
System
Size
(
population
served)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)

CWSs
<
100
$
717,443
$
716,787
$
591,719
$
844,439
$
89,996
$
90,023
$
83,968
$
95,992
101­
500
$
2,094,421
$
2,093,672
$
1,738,201
$
2,449,253
$
249,292
$
249,357
$
231,877
$
266,603
501­
1,000
$
2,809,893
$
2,808,409
$
2,397,577
$
3,221,231
$
288,191
$
288,247
$
270,317
$
305,816
1,001­
3,300
$
12,074,688
$
12,069,679
$
10,257,044
$
13,884,344
$
1,029,433
$
1,029,492
$
956,914
$
1,100,649
3,301­
10K
$
39,273,371
$
39,256,493
$
33,217,634
$
45,281,587
$
2,415,894
$
2,416,375
$
2,220,040
$
2,611,037
Small
$
56,969,816
$
56,932,457
$
48,247,749
$
65,638,159
$
4,072,806
$
4,073,685
$
3,765,139
$
4,376,485
10,001­
50K
$
135,759,270
$
135,556,540
$
117,016,702
$
154,949,086
$
5,902,999
$
5,904,182
$
5,650,299
$
6,153,438
50,001­
100K
$
73,345,902
$
73,237,849
$
62,897,848
$
84,077,528
$
2,969,836
$
2,970,423
$
2,857,771
$
3,080,546
100,001­
1M
$
221,764,695
$
221,450,446
$
189,226,608
$
255,324,263
$
6,539,300
$
6,540,789
$
6,276,046
$
6,800,800
>
1
Million
$
228,281,560
$
227,952,417
$
190,466,614
$
267,207,219
$
5,963,515
$
5,965,809
$
5,602,908
$
6,326,000
Large
$
659,151,427
$
658,199,969
$
559,844,033
$
761,469,627
$
21,375,650
$
21,380,918
$
20,388,794
$
22,351,483
CWS
Total
$
716,121,243
$
715,248,055
$
612,736,209
$
822,523,560
$
25,448,456
$
25,452,265
$
24,326,520
$
26,561,283
NTNCWSs
<
100
$
427,397
$
427,586
$
351,244
$
503,455
$
49,319
$
49,313
$
46,118
$
52,510
101­
500
$
727,013
$
727,526
$
607,631
$
847,858
$
75,466
$
75,447
$
70,365
$
80,545
501­
1,000
$
525,496
$
525,772
$
449,214
$
602,087
$
47,600
$
47,600
$
44,813
$
50,366
1,001­
3,300
$
724,782
$
724,699
$
622,993
$
827,319
$
51,544
$
51,550
$
48,045
$
55,050
3,301­
10K
$
595,637
$
596,024
$
503,200
$
688,411
$
38,541
$
38,543
$
35,377
$
41,720
Small
$
3,000,324
$
3,003,330
$
2,538,513
$
3,465,591
$
262,469
$
262,407
$
244,988
$
279,875
10,001­
50K
$
994,479
$
996,820
$
851,915
$
1,133,528
$
38,413
$
38,406
$
36,845
$
39,980
50,001­
100K
$
298,524
$
299,202
$
253,066
$
342,658
$
8,882
$
8,880
$
8,527
$
9,235
100,001­
1M
$
475,362
$
476,413
$
405,274
$
543,526
$
14,265
$
14,261
$
13,743
$
14,783
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
1,768,366
$
1,772,057
$
1,510,861
$
2,019,865
$
61,560
$
61,540
$
59,121
$
64,002
NTNCWS
Total
$
4,768,690
$
4,766,855
$
4,185,697
$
5,364,022
$
324,029
$
323,972
$
305,547
$
342,292
TNCWSs
<
100
$
2,158,649
$
2,158,416
$
1,775,302
$
2,543,575
$
244,025
$
244,023
$
228,096
$
259,963
101­
500
$
1,241,677
$
1,242,086
$
1,031,744
$
1,451,627
$
133,100
$
133,099
$
124,091
$
142,183
501­
1,000
$
441,733
$
441,648
$
377,267
$
506,155
$
41,108
$
41,107
$
38,662
$
43,550
1,001­
3,300
$
754,001
$
754,354
$
638,679
$
869,152
$
62,538
$
62,512
$
58,107
$
67,044
3,301­
10K
$
917,567
$
917,907
$
775,734
$
1,059,098
$
57,885
$
57,855
$
53,163
$
62,663
Small
$
5,513,626
$
5,513,726
$
4,601,093
$
6,425,585
$
538,656
$
538,567
$
502,662
$
574,695
10,001­
50K
$
1,005,949
$
1,006,452
$
866,364
$
1,144,729
$
45,792
$
45,796
$
43,962
$
47,618
50,001­
100K
$
655,348
$
655,739
$
557,663
$
752,777
$
22,437
$
22,438
$
21,604
$
23,264
100,001­
1M
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
1,661,297
$
1,662,307
$
1,424,402
$
1,895,989
$
68,229
$
68,235
$
65,579
$
70,882
TNCWS
Total
$
7,174,923
$
7,178,964
$
6,200,040
$
8,172,543
$
606,885
$
606,791
$
569,854
$
644,028
All
Types
<
100
$
3,303,488
$
3,301,121
$
2,894,381
$
3,710,150
$
383,340
$
383,419
$
365,968
$
400,920
101­
500
$
4,063,111
$
4,061,529
$
3,632,879
$
4,493,959
$
457,857
$
457,778
$
437,050
$
478,552
501­
1,000
$
3,777,121
$
3,774,147
$
3,352,659
$
4,200,123
$
376,900
$
376,968
$
358,449
$
395,056
1,001­
3,300
$
13,553,471
$
13,550,610
$
11,740,536
$
15,377,779
$
1,143,515
$
1,143,803
$
1,070,799
$
1,215,359
3,301­
10K
$
40,786,575
$
40,770,959
$
34,758,896
$
46,814,886
$
2,512,320
$
2,512,864
$
2,316,940
$
2,707,382
Small
$
65,483,766
$
65,459,458
$
56,748,873
$
74,247,466
$
4,873,931
$
4,874,698
$
4,564,391
$
5,178,941
10,001­
50K
$
137,759,698
$
137,565,135
$
119,046,403
$
156,983,219
$
5,987,204
$
5,988,092
$
5,734,116
$
6,237,741
50,001­
100K
$
74,299,774
$
74,184,085
$
63,862,249
$
85,025,431
$
3,001,155
$
3,001,806
$
2,889,225
$
3,112,029
100,001­
1M
$
222,240,058
$
221,929,125
$
189,714,341
$
255,805,535
$
6,553,564
$
6,555,160
$
6,290,383
$
6,814,888
>
1
Million
$
228,281,560
$
227,952,417
$
190,466,614
$
267,207,219
$
5,963,515
$
5,965,809
$
5,602,908
$
6,326,000
Large
$
662,581,090
$
661,605,703
$
563,281,347
$
764,952,520
$
21,505,439
$
21,510,735
$
20,518,316
$
22,480,497
All
Sizes
$
728,064,856
$
727,119,307
$
624,621,556
$
834,466,328
$
26,379,370
$
26,382,620
$
25,251,936
$
27,490,349
Notes:
All
values
in
year
2000
dollars.

Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.

Derived
from
LT2ESWTR
Cost
Model.
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
Q­
25
June
2003
Exhibit
Q.
24
Treatment
Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
by
System
Size
For
Alternative
4
­
ICR­
UV90­
10B
A4­
ICR­
UV90­
10B
Capital
Costs
O&
M
Costs
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
System
Classification
System
Size
(
population
served)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)

CWSs
<
100
$
717,443
$
716,787
$
591,719
$
844,439
$
89,996
$
90,023
$
83,968
$
95,992
101­
500
$
2,094,421
$
2,093,672
$
1,738,201
$
2,449,253
$
249,292
$
249,357
$
231,877
$
266,603
501­
1,000
$
2,818,306
$
2,817,133
$
2,406,183
$
3,231,266
$
286,983
$
287,043
$
269,075
$
304,570
1,001­
3,300
$
12,107,356
$
12,100,200
$
10,292,244
$
13,917,539
$
1,028,396
$
1,028,507
$
955,712
$
1,099,672
3,301­
10K
$
39,382,196
$
39,356,559
$
33,327,992
$
45,387,183
$
2,421,516
$
2,422,180
$
2,225,660
$
2,616,738
Small
$
57,119,722
$
57,075,450
$
48,356,725
$
65,806,641
$
4,076,183
$
4,076,888
$
3,768,110
$
4,379,720
10,001­
50K
$
138,904,499
$
138,767,939
$
120,023,549
$
158,256,924
$
6,053,381
$
6,054,799
$
5,796,205
$
6,305,235
50,001­
100K
$
75,420,455
$
75,332,993
$
64,894,964
$
86,182,913
$
3,077,074
$
3,077,704
$
2,962,530
$
3,190,866
100,001­
1M
$
228,830,458
$
228,523,376
$
195,914,395
$
262,460,370
$
6,918,370
$
6,920,770
$
6,641,180
$
7,195,990
>
1
Million
$
232,010,120
$
231,657,935
$
194,113,425
$
270,955,148
$
6,177,900
$
6,180,560
$
5,807,210
$
6,550,777
Large
$
675,165,533
$
674,318,575
$
575,159,253
$
777,880,762
$
22,226,725
$
22,232,725
$
21,215,980
$
23,234,254
CWS
Total
$
732,285,255
$
731,329,854
$
628,645,862
$
838,617,655
$
26,302,908
$
26,307,940
$
25,159,473
$
27,438,471
NTNCWSs
<
100
$
426,681
$
426,688
$
350,713
$
501,934
$
49,326
$
49,331
$
46,087
$
52,570
101­
500
$
725,836
$
725,115
$
606,913
$
843,200
$
75,477
$
75,465
$
70,334
$
80,656
501­
1,000
$
526,652
$
526,130
$
450,858
$
601,405
$
47,308
$
47,312
$
44,516
$
50,089
1,001­
3,300
$
731,213
$
730,667
$
630,712
$
830,708
$
51,435
$
51,420
$
47,969
$
54,937
3,301­
10K
$
597,010
$
596,308
$
504,844
$
687,687
$
38,655
$
38,635
$
35,527
$
41,812
Small
$
3,007,392
$
3,003,578
$
2,546,813
$
3,460,881
$
262,201
$
262,116
$
244,726
$
279,826
10,001­
50K
$
1,020,348
$
1,019,229
$
878,974
$
1,162,531
$
39,713
$
39,718
$
38,120
$
41,303
50,001­
100K
$
309,487
$
309,306
$
264,557
$
354,571
$
9,442
$
9,443
$
9,070
$
9,819
100,001­
1M
$
492,432
$
492,059
$
422,932
$
561,828
$
15,180
$
15,183
$
14,626
$
15,738
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
1,822,267
$
1,820,745
$
1,565,921
$
2,078,281
$
64,334
$
64,342
$
61,831
$
66,844
NTNCWS
Total
$
4,829,658
$
4,824,839
$
4,246,770
$
5,416,841
$
326,535
$
326,524
$
307,983
$
344,995
TNCWSs
<
100
$
2,156,792
$
2,157,857
$
1,768,081
$
2,536,515
$
243,968
$
244,036
$
227,997
$
259,459
101­
500
$
1,240,522
$
1,241,022
$
1,028,461
$
1,448,328
$
133,066
$
133,113
$
124,003
$
141,824
501­
1,000
$
443,050
$
442,933
$
378,178
$
506,650
$
40,861
$
40,881
$
38,372
$
43,271
1,001­
3,300
$
762,120
$
761,617
$
646,224
$
875,991
$
62,510
$
62,526
$
57,972
$
66,980
3,301­
10K
$
920,316
$
919,842
$
777,648
$
1,059,898
$
58,038
$
58,073
$
53,241
$
62,810
Small
$
5,522,800
$
5,523,269
$
4,598,702
$
6,430,320
$
538,442
$
538,733
$
502,437
$
573,797
10,001­
50K
$
1,030,566
$
1,030,557
$
891,374
$
1,170,110
$
47,016
$
47,012
$
45,170
$
48,885
50,001­
100K
$
677,405
$
677,251
$
579,568
$
775,380
$
23,605
$
23,609
$
22,735
$
24,472
100,001­
1M
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
1,707,971
$
1,707,643
$
1,471,697
$
1,944,578
$
70,621
$
70,622
$
67,900
$
73,340
TNCWS
Total
$
7,230,772
$
7,234,020
$
6,246,724
$
8,210,403
$
609,063
$
609,181
$
571,663
$
645,331
All
Types
<
100
$
3,300,916
$
3,301,396
$
2,891,520
$
3,705,143
$
383,290
$
383,443
$
365,969
$
400,384
101­
500
$
4,060,779
$
4,063,856
$
3,626,354
$
4,483,103
$
457,834
$
457,814
$
436,712
$
478,709
501­
1,000
$
3,788,009
$
3,789,187
$
3,362,482
$
4,213,694
$
375,152
$
375,181
$
356,795
$
393,151
1,001­
3,300
$
13,600,689
$
13,595,465
$
11,776,285
$
15,423,661
$
1,142,341
$
1,142,579
$
1,069,239
$
1,214,165
3,301­
10K
$
40,899,522
$
40,866,280
$
34,844,936
$
46,913,365
$
2,518,209
$
2,518,496
$
2,322,580
$
2,713,254
Small
$
65,649,914
$
65,621,437
$
56,916,111
$
74,461,342
$
4,876,826
$
4,877,389
$
4,569,402
$
5,184,283
10,001­
50K
$
140,955,413
$
140,824,145
$
122,086,379
$
160,292,553
$
6,140,109
$
6,141,529
$
5,882,576
$
6,392,268
50,001­
100K
$
76,407,347
$
76,309,652
$
65,866,999
$
87,165,776
$
3,110,121
$
3,110,745
$
2,995,623
$
3,223,717
100,001­
1M
$
229,322,890
$
229,024,158
$
196,413,802
$
262,954,707
$
6,933,550
$
6,935,812
$
6,656,320
$
7,211,350
>
1
Million
$
232,010,120
$
231,657,935
$
194,113,425
$
270,955,148
$
6,177,900
$
6,180,560
$
5,807,210
$
6,550,777
Large
$
678,695,770
$
677,879,572
$
578,667,911
$
781,460,248
$
22,361,681
$
22,367,913
$
21,351,755
$
23,369,143
All
Sizes
$
744,345,685
$
743,305,259
$
640,890,276
$
850,569,431
$
27,238,507
$
27,240,939
$
26,086,971
$
28,375,036
Notes:
All
values
in
year
2000
dollars.

Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.

Derived
from
LT2ESWTR
Cost
Model.
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
Q­
26
June
2003
Exhibit
Q.
25
Treatment
Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
by
System
Size
For
Alternative
4
­
ICRSSL­
UV90­
10
A4­
ICRSSL­
UV90­
10
Capital
Costs
O&
M
Costs
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
System
Classification
System
Size
(
population
served)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)

CWSs
<
100
$
471,825
$
471,924
$
388,996
$
554,359
$
60,129
$
60,102
$
56,041
$
64,213
101­
500
$
1,409,951
$
1,410,147
$
1,171,448
$
1,648,580
$
172,821
$
172,753
$
160,443
$
185,201
501­
1,000
$
2,019,903
$
2,020,581
$
1,728,320
$
2,310,689
$
214,052
$
213,972
$
200,597
$
227,711
1,001­
3,300
$
8,542,625
$
8,543,466
$
7,275,350
$
9,806,717
$
732,584
$
731,985
$
681,206
$
784,442
3,301­
10K
$
28,656,819
$
28,665,242
$
24,284,879
$
33,024,238
$
1,714,980
$
1,713,391
$
1,579,961
$
1,852,920
Small
$
41,101,124
$
41,111,037
$
34,873,560
$
47,326,322
$
2,894,565
$
2,892,554
$
2,680,554
$
3,112,125
10,001­
50K
$
79,498,228
$
79,509,466
$
68,631,798
$
90,437,395
$
3,874,699
$
3,874,168
$
3,719,588
$
4,031,980
50,001­
100K
$
42,333,658
$
42,332,320
$
36,393,502
$
48,321,896
$
1,993,654
$
1,993,465
$
1,925,410
$
2,062,712
100,001­
1M
$
130,884,141
$
130,881,590
$
111,667,778
$
150,256,726
$
4,271,932
$
4,272,008
$
4,103,851
$
4,440,301
>
1
Million
$
183,668,026
$
183,708,805
$
152,598,494
$
214,824,572
$
4,929,725
$
4,930,107
$
4,610,006
$
5,250,187
Large
$
436,384,053
$
436,388,842
$
369,393,523
$
503,644,551
$
15,070,009
$
15,069,156
$
14,362,070
$
15,778,687
CWS
Total
$
477,485,177
$
477,574,892
$
406,993,215
$
547,778,225
$
17,964,574
$
17,964,524
$
17,148,013
$
18,782,714
NTNCWSs
<
100
$
277,998
$
277,956
$
229,023
$
327,800
$
32,153
$
32,160
$
30,000
$
34,238
101­
500
$
472,976
$
472,957
$
396,107
$
551,084
$
49,199
$
49,208
$
45,764
$
52,541
501­
1,000
$
339,081
$
339,139
$
289,766
$
389,207
$
30,752
$
30,763
$
28,881
$
32,608
1,001­
3,300
$
475,466
$
475,542
$
409,852
$
541,935
$
33,401
$
33,412
$
31,064
$
35,691
3,301­
10K
$
385,588
$
385,644
$
325,991
$
446,040
$
25,057
$
25,057
$
22,944
$
27,130
Small
$
1,951,109
$
1,951,344
$
1,652,600
$
2,254,264
$
170,562
$
170,566
$
158,845
$
181,934
10,001­
50K
$
528,057
$
527,913
$
455,145
$
600,320
$
23,910
$
23,908
$
23,036
$
24,794
50,001­
100K
$
157,004
$
156,934
$
133,961
$
179,896
$
5,509
$
5,509
$
5,314
$
5,707
100,001­
1M
$
253,421
$
253,359
$
217,532
$
289,136
$
8,766
$
8,767
$
8,484
$
9,054
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
938,483
$
938,133
$
806,865
$
1,068,852
$
38,185
$
38,183
$
36,840
$
39,548
NTNCWS
Total
$
2,889,592
$
2,887,951
$
2,528,196
$
3,252,771
$
208,747
$
208,776
$
196,610
$
220,678
TNCWSs
<
100
$
1,406,625
$
1,405,713
$
1,157,662
$
1,656,697
$
158,931
$
158,918
$
148,690
$
169,123
101­
500
$
809,139
$
808,621
$
672,820
$
946,053
$
86,686
$
86,675
$
80,866
$
92,490
501­
1,000
$
285,522
$
285,613
$
244,010
$
327,396
$
26,543
$
26,542
$
24,939
$
28,125
1,001­
3,300
$
495,608
$
495,668
$
421,252
$
570,507
$
40,528
$
40,529
$
37,592
$
43,464
3,301­
10K
$
595,146
$
595,271
$
503,507
$
687,533
$
37,611
$
37,616
$
34,489
$
40,753
Small
$
3,592,041
$
3,591,709
$
2,997,835
$
4,185,977
$
350,298
$
350,214
$
326,975
$
373,508
10,001­
50K
$
538,608
$
538,157
$
468,048
$
609,735
$
28,697
$
28,689
$
27,666
$
29,723
50,001­
100K
$
347,176
$
346,754
$
297,705
$
396,687
$
14,245
$
14,243
$
13,779
$
14,710
100,001­
1M
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
885,784
$
885,026
$
765,828
$
1,006,416
$
42,942
$
42,931
$
41,446
$
44,425
TNCWS
Total
$
4,477,825
$
4,478,309
$
3,850,196
$
5,103,613
$
393,240
$
393,161
$
369,329
$
417,050
All
Types
<
100
$
2,156,448
$
2,156,971
$
1,890,557
$
2,425,786
$
251,212
$
251,180
$
239,719
$
262,760
101­
500
$
2,692,066
$
2,691,957
$
2,408,312
$
2,978,515
$
308,706
$
308,724
$
294,234
$
323,226
501­
1,000
$
2,644,506
$
2,644,472
$
2,345,318
$
2,943,459
$
271,347
$
271,246
$
257,592
$
285,268
1,001­
3,300
$
9,513,699
$
9,512,443
$
8,244,791
$
10,782,954
$
806,513
$
805,809
$
755,259
$
858,838
3,301­
10K
$
29,637,553
$
29,638,734
$
25,267,710
$
34,001,104
$
1,777,648
$
1,776,009
$
1,642,400
$
1,915,351
Small
$
46,644,273
$
46,641,449
$
40,392,111
$
52,905,239
$
3,415,425
$
3,412,882
$
3,199,115
$
3,635,224
10,001­
50K
$
80,564,894
$
80,576,557
$
69,698,901
$
91,507,727
$
3,927,305
$
3,926,675
$
3,772,096
$
4,084,360
50,001­
100K
$
42,837,838
$
42,840,597
$
36,900,012
$
48,814,691
$
2,013,407
$
2,013,120
$
1,945,077
$
2,082,433
100,001­
1M
$
131,137,562
$
131,136,556
$
111,915,132
$
150,514,304
$
4,280,699
$
4,280,848
$
4,112,676
$
4,449,053
>
1
Million
$
183,668,026
$
183,708,805
$
152,598,494
$
214,824,572
$
4,929,725
$
4,930,107
$
4,610,006
$
5,250,187
Large
$
438,208,321
$
438,190,636
$
371,160,971
$
505,506,654
$
15,151,136
$
15,150,415
$
14,443,981
$
15,859,229
All
Sizes
$
484,852,594
$
484,991,206
$
414,425,039
$
555,272,015
$
18,566,561
$
18,565,170
$
17,748,041
$
19,388,565
Notes:
All
values
in
year
2000
dollars.

Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.

Derived
from
LT2ESWTR
Cost
Model.
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
Q­
27
June
2003
Exhibit
Q.
26
Treatment
Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
by
System
Size
For
Alternative
4
­
ICRSSL­
UV90­
10B
A4­
ICRSSL­
UV90­
10B
Capital
Costs
O&
M
Costs
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
System
Classification
System
Size
(
population
served)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)

CWSs
<
100
$
471,550
$
471,524
$
388,119
$
555,251
$
60,119
$
60,117
$
56,063
$
64,199
101­
500
$
1,409,375
$
1,409,965
$
1,169,040
$
1,650,148
$
172,790
$
172,792
$
160,515
$
185,143
501­
1,000
$
2,012,507
$
2,012,306
$
1,714,151
$
2,308,038
$
213,194
$
213,216
$
199,826
$
226,528
1,001­
3,300
$
8,515,454
$
8,515,369
$
7,226,364
$
9,796,197
$
730,603
$
730,418
$
680,017
$
781,691
3,301­
10K
$
28,607,541
$
28,618,936
$
24,161,332
$
33,039,451
$
1,713,457
$
1,713,060
$
1,579,472
$
1,848,630
Small
$
41,016,427
$
41,030,450
$
34,679,468
$
47,323,911
$
2,890,164
$
2,889,548
$
2,678,017
$
3,103,842
10,001­
50K
$
80,675,846
$
80,722,858
$
69,464,016
$
91,754,447
$
3,926,959
$
3,927,288
$
3,772,716
$
4,081,308
50,001­
100K
$
43,093,702
$
43,123,870
$
36,960,458
$
49,127,784
$
2,030,892
$
2,031,165
$
1,962,417
$
2,099,686
100,001­
1M
$
133,473,683
$
133,496,127
$
113,617,802
$
153,046,593
$
4,405,944
$
4,406,569
$
4,235,419
$
4,577,047
>
1
Million
$
185,077,014
$
185,177,004
$
153,234,843
$
216,588,021
$
5,004,988
$
5,006,179
$
4,685,878
$
5,323,109
Large
$
442,320,246
$
442,457,999
$
373,340,614
$
510,369,902
$
15,368,782
$
15,371,412
$
14,660,275
$
16,074,780
CWS
Total
$
483,336,672
$
483,339,126
$
411,303,254
$
554,864,905
$
18,258,946
$
18,259,745
$
17,444,600
$
19,069,564
NTNCWSs
<
100
$
278,208
$
278,440
$
229,242
$
326,604
$
32,169
$
32,160
$
30,053
$
34,254
101­
500
$
473,260
$
474,022
$
396,099
$
550,022
$
49,226
$
49,215
$
45,874
$
52,525
501­
1,000
$
337,756
$
337,902
$
289,312
$
386,744
$
30,571
$
30,577
$
28,759
$
32,360
1,001­
3,300
$
475,460
$
475,824
$
410,666
$
540,472
$
33,294
$
33,311
$
31,012
$
35,527
3,301­
10K
$
385,039
$
385,381
$
326,020
$
443,803
$
25,055
$
25,064
$
22,996
$
27,076
Small
$
1,949,724
$
1,951,667
$
1,653,973
$
2,245,195
$
170,315
$
170,336
$
158,889
$
181,399
10,001­
50K
$
537,368
$
537,405
$
464,278
$
609,520
$
24,352
$
24,355
$
23,462
$
25,235
50,001­
100K
$
160,855
$
160,882
$
137,819
$
183,639
$
5,703
$
5,705
$
5,499
$
5,904
100,001­
1M
$
259,462
$
259,478
$
223,497
$
295,053
$
9,086
$
9,088
$
8,788
$
9,384
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
957,685
$
957,913
$
825,946
$
1,088,152
$
39,142
$
39,151
$
37,759
$
40,518
NTNCWS
Total
$
2,907,409
$
2,910,128
$
2,553,401
$
3,263,878
$
209,456
$
209,422
$
197,524
$
221,062
TNCWSs
<
100
$
1,404,899
$
1,405,593
$
1,151,699
$
1,652,244
$
158,917
$
158,961
$
148,514
$
169,007
101­
500
$
808,056
$
808,382
$
669,922
$
943,417
$
86,677
$
86,707
$
80,773
$
92,382
501­
1,000
$
283,922
$
283,841
$
241,889
$
325,382
$
26,377
$
26,391
$
24,753
$
27,940
1,001­
3,300
$
494,827
$
494,673
$
419,370
$
569,039
$
40,397
$
40,411
$
37,441
$
43,307
3,301­
10K
$
593,242
$
593,021
$
500,223
$
684,205
$
37,568
$
37,588
$
34,446
$
40,684
Small
$
3,584,946
$
3,585,198
$
2,982,978
$
4,175,667
$
349,936
$
350,126
$
326,461
$
372,944
10,001­
50K
$
546,872
$
546,730
$
474,977
$
618,728
$
29,128
$
29,129
$
28,101
$
30,156
50,001­
100K
$
354,486
$
354,424
$
304,454
$
404,470
$
14,655
$
14,659
$
14,183
$
15,128
100,001­
1M
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
901,358
$
901,167
$
779,803
$
1,023,216
$
43,783
$
43,787
$
42,286
$
45,284
TNCWS
Total
$
4,486,304
$
4,488,500
$
3,856,528
$
5,106,877
$
393,719
$
393,824
$
369,465
$
417,243
All
Types
<
100
$
2,154,657
$
2,154,161
$
1,888,272
$
2,416,009
$
251,204
$
251,308
$
239,625
$
262,455
101­
500
$
2,690,691
$
2,692,422
$
2,404,374
$
2,976,552
$
308,693
$
308,706
$
294,432
$
322,758
501­
1,000
$
2,634,185
$
2,634,462
$
2,328,172
$
2,939,749
$
270,142
$
270,219
$
256,450
$
283,700
1,001­
3,300
$
9,485,742
$
9,486,200
$
8,198,403
$
10,778,763
$
804,294
$
804,333
$
753,444
$
855,522
3,301­
10K
$
29,585,821
$
29,593,663
$
25,142,872
$
34,020,015
$
1,776,081
$
1,775,855
$
1,642,164
$
1,911,317
Small
$
46,551,096
$
46,552,537
$
40,178,467
$
52,950,516
$
3,410,414
$
3,410,400
$
3,194,962
$
3,625,917
10,001­
50K
$
81,760,086
$
81,794,018
$
70,560,968
$
92,824,435
$
3,980,439
$
3,980,817
$
3,826,360
$
4,135,007
50,001­
100K
$
43,609,043
$
43,636,283
$
37,458,619
$
49,641,339
$
2,051,249
$
2,051,528
$
1,982,715
$
2,119,981
100,001­
1M
$
133,733,146
$
133,768,132
$
113,881,602
$
153,314,347
$
4,415,030
$
4,415,697
$
4,244,497
$
4,585,984
>
1
Million
$
185,077,014
$
185,177,004
$
153,234,843
$
216,588,021
$
5,004,988
$
5,006,179
$
4,685,878
$
5,323,109
Large
$
444,179,289
$
444,309,432
$
375,243,826
$
512,200,391
$
15,451,707
$
15,454,618
$
14,743,605
$
16,158,193
All
Sizes
$
490,730,385
$
490,752,447
$
418,785,605
$
562,345,472
$
18,862,121
$
18,864,304
$
18,049,740
$
19,671,674
Notes:
All
values
in
year
2000
dollars.

Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.

Derived
from
LT2ESWTR
Cost
Model.
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
Q­
28
June
2003
Exhibit
Q.
27
Treatment
Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
by
System
Size
For
Alternative
4
­
ICRSSM­
UV90­
10
A4­
ICRSSM­
UV90­
10
Capital
Costs
O&
M
Costs
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
System
Classification
System
Size
(
population
served)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)

CWSs
<
100
$
343,258
$
343,092
$
282,673
$
403,963
$
44,547
$
44,543
$
41,550
$
47,537
101­
500
$
1,051,750
$
1,051,221
$
871,340
$
1,231,899
$
132,920
$
132,908
$
123,422
$
142,399
501­
1,000
$
1,612,697
$
1,612,634
$
1,378,537
$
1,848,759
$
175,997
$
175,996
$
164,850
$
187,047
1,001­
3,300
$
6,718,495
$
6,718,427
$
5,722,063
$
7,724,691
$
579,400
$
579,359
$
538,866
$
619,969
3,301­
10K
$
23,159,695
$
23,160,613
$
19,575,563
$
26,752,535
$
1,351,617
$
1,351,548
$
1,245,779
$
1,458,079
Small
$
32,885,895
$
32,885,640
$
27,842,878
$
37,951,061
$
2,284,481
$
2,284,162
$
2,116,105
$
2,453,276
10,001­
50K
$
57,350,642
$
57,309,868
$
49,476,325
$
65,286,832
$
2,886,178
$
2,885,627
$
2,770,105
$
3,002,101
50,001­
100K
$
30,151,437
$
30,120,006
$
25,892,186
$
34,432,077
$
1,488,725
$
1,488,632
$
1,438,038
$
1,539,251
100,001­
1M
$
95,227,669
$
95,131,108
$
81,044,751
$
109,365,114
$
3,203,345
$
3,202,612
$
3,075,498
$
3,330,912
>
1
Million
$
166,356,520
$
166,381,565
$
137,675,524
$
194,991,958
$
4,483,755
$
4,483,112
$
4,187,980
$
4,778,609
Large
$
349,086,267
$
348,878,155
$
294,191,616
$
404,097,533
$
12,062,003
$
12,060,660
$
11,473,752
$
12,648,371
CWS
Total
$
381,972,162
$
381,813,171
$
324,194,232
$
439,860,154
$
14,346,484
$
14,346,269
$
13,666,983
$
15,021,657
NTNCWSs
<
100
$
200,599
$
200,193
$
165,176
$
235,955
$
23,152
$
23,151
$
21,639
$
24,666
101­
500
$
341,234
$
340,846
$
285,328
$
397,642
$
35,429
$
35,427
$
33,007
$
37,823
501­
1,000
$
243,811
$
243,521
$
208,300
$
279,722
$
22,064
$
22,059
$
20,739
$
23,383
1,001­
3,300
$
344,038
$
343,582
$
296,432
$
391,240
$
24,000
$
23,998
$
22,339
$
25,656
3,301­
10K
$
277,627
$
277,304
$
234,525
$
320,876
$
18,035
$
18,033
$
16,538
$
19,518
Small
$
1,407,309
$
1,406,270
$
1,191,438
$
1,624,827
$
122,681
$
122,661
$
114,313
$
130,880
10,001­
50K
$
345,570
$
345,629
$
298,468
$
392,523
$
16,885
$
16,883
$
16,294
$
17,471
50,001­
100K
$
102,203
$
102,235
$
87,378
$
117,033
$
3,884
$
3,884
$
3,752
$
4,016
100,001­
1M
$
166,195
$
166,233
$
142,880
$
189,455
$
6,156
$
6,156
$
5,966
$
6,346
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
613,967
$
614,130
$
528,739
$
699,054
$
26,925
$
26,922
$
26,013
$
27,827
NTNCWS
Total
$
2,021,276
$
2,019,194
$
1,765,157
$
2,273,027
$
149,606
$
149,601
$
141,015
$
158,166
TNCWSs
<
100
$
1,010,160
$
1,010,089
$
829,053
$
1,189,346
$
114,640
$
114,601
$
107,171
$
122,028
101­
500
$
581,107
$
581,205
$
483,004
$
678,536
$
62,532
$
62,522
$
58,292
$
66,704
501­
1,000
$
204,497
$
204,588
$
174,242
$
234,710
$
19,078
$
19,083
$
17,927
$
20,217
1,001­
3,300
$
357,314
$
357,353
$
303,031
$
411,254
$
29,177
$
29,192
$
27,071
$
31,244
3,301­
10K
$
426,741
$
426,676
$
359,978
$
492,767
$
27,108
$
27,115
$
24,868
$
29,311
Small
$
2,579,818
$
2,579,503
$
2,150,402
$
3,004,547
$
252,535
$
252,491
$
235,611
$
268,976
10,001­
50K
$
353,429
$
353,231
$
307,148
$
399,498
$
20,353
$
20,349
$
19,652
$
21,045
50,001­
100K
$
226,496
$
226,368
$
194,523
$
258,572
$
10,158
$
10,158
$
9,841
$
10,472
100,001­
1M
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
579,925
$
579,658
$
501,946
$
658,221
$
30,511
$
30,508
$
29,496
$
31,515
TNCWS
Total
$
3,159,743
$
3,159,593
$
2,713,444
$
3,606,340
$
283,046
$
282,990
$
265,682
$
299,891
All
Types
<
100
$
1,554,016
$
1,555,706
$
1,362,145
$
1,744,195
$
182,340
$
182,336
$
174,045
$
190,553
101­
500
$
1,974,090
$
1,974,368
$
1,760,335
$
2,187,396
$
230,880
$
230,873
$
219,812
$
241,652
501­
1,000
$
2,061,005
$
2,061,441
$
1,820,247
$
2,304,639
$
217,139
$
217,144
$
205,728
$
228,394
1,001­
3,300
$
7,419,847
$
7,418,520
$
6,415,522
$
8,429,677
$
632,577
$
632,537
$
591,985
$
673,035
3,301­
10K
$
23,864,063
$
23,863,799
$
20,281,561
$
27,447,902
$
1,396,760
$
1,396,623
$
1,290,861
$
1,502,912
Small
$
36,873,022
$
36,878,627
$
31,780,251
$
41,974,437
$
2,659,696
$
2,659,511
$
2,489,649
$
2,829,622
10,001­
50K
$
58,049,641
$
58,012,543
$
50,170,138
$
65,996,499
$
2,923,417
$
2,922,895
$
2,807,232
$
3,039,465
50,001­
100K
$
30,480,136
$
30,450,929
$
26,226,048
$
34,765,990
$
1,502,767
$
1,502,696
$
1,452,200
$
1,553,287
100,001­
1M
$
95,393,864
$
95,303,545
$
81,211,332
$
109,546,889
$
3,209,501
$
3,208,772
$
3,081,600
$
3,337,021
>
1
Million
$
166,356,520
$
166,381,565
$
137,675,524
$
194,991,958
$
4,483,755
$
4,483,112
$
4,187,980
$
4,778,609
Large
$
350,280,160
$
350,067,994
$
295,393,316
$
405,290,248
$
12,119,439
$
12,117,835
$
11,531,292
$
12,706,091
All
Sizes
$
387,153,182
$
387,013,138
$
329,339,619
$
445,012,956
$
14,779,135
$
14,778,748
$
14,098,726
$
15,452,556
Notes:
All
values
in
year
2000
dollars.

Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.

Derived
from
LT2ESWTR
Cost
Model.
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
Q­
29
June
2003
Exhibit
Q.
28
Treatment
Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
by
System
Size
For
Alternative
4
­
ICRSSM­
UV90­
10B
A4­
ICRSSM­
UV90­
10B
Capital
Costs
O&
M
Costs
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
90
Percent
Confidence
Bound
System
Classification
System
Size
(
population
served)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)
Lower
(
5th
%
tile)
Upper
(
95th
%
tile)

CWSs
<
100
$
343,258
$
343,092
$
282,673
$
403,963
$
44,547
$
44,543
$
41,550
$
47,537
101­
500
$
1,051,750
$
1,051,221
$
871,340
$
1,231,899
$
132,920
$
132,908
$
123,422
$
142,399
501­
1,000
$
1,604,338
$
1,604,225
$
1,370,341
$
1,840,359
$
175,399
$
175,405
$
164,293
$
186,441
1,001­
3,300
$
6,687,967
$
6,688,560
$
5,690,663
$
7,694,056
$
577,708
$
577,661
$
537,184
$
618,277
3,301­
10K
$
23,096,031
$
23,097,124
$
19,508,089
$
26,690,106
$
1,349,239
$
1,349,176
$
1,243,390
$
1,455,703
Small
$
32,783,344
$
32,782,476
$
27,737,618
$
37,850,682
$
2,279,814
$
2,279,475
$
2,111,255
$
2,448,484
10,001­
50K
$
57,894,660
$
57,847,023
$
50,004,543
$
65,838,544
$
2,910,591
$
2,910,232
$
2,794,569
$
3,026,586
50,001­
100K
$
30,496,860
$
30,471,410
$
26,240,129
$
34,774,319
$
1,506,106
$
1,506,009
$
1,455,075
$
1,557,050
100,001­
1M
$
96,409,787
$
96,318,378
$
82,201,166
$
110,554,200
$
3,267,372
$
3,267,034
$
3,136,812
$
3,397,102
>
1
Million
$
166,974,995
$
166,988,631
$
138,279,941
$
195,605,080
$
4,520,463
$
4,519,880
$
4,222,949
$
4,817,033
Large
$
351,776,303
$
351,607,524
$
296,865,498
$
406,712,368
$
12,204,533
$
12,202,327
$
11,612,970
$
12,793,399
CWS
Total
$
384,559,647
$
384,429,647
$
326,735,635
$
442,494,166
$
14,484,347
$
14,484,928
$
13,800,968
$
15,162,758
NTNCWSs
<
100
$
200,130
$
200,234
$
164,373
$
235,448
$
23,148
$
23,141
$
21,623
$
24,664
101­
500
$
340,539
$
340,551
$
283,955
$
396,037
$
35,422
$
35,414
$
32,995
$
37,833
501­
1,000
$
241,441
$
241,394
$
205,299
$
276,807
$
21,922
$
21,915
$
20,615
$
23,235
1,001­
3,300
$
341,922
$
341,945
$
293,604
$
389,632
$
23,887
$
23,881
$
22,244
$
25,526
3,301­
10K
$
275,848
$
275,778
$
232,228
$
318,772
$
17,982
$
17,983
$
16,479
$
19,467
Small
$
1,399,880
$
1,399,610
$
1,180,451
$
1,615,415
$
122,361
$
122,329
$
114,105
$
130,495
10,001­
50K
$
350,268
$
350,459
$
303,724
$
397,442
$
17,098
$
17,097
$
16,514
$
17,687
50,001­
100K
$
104,106
$
104,183
$
89,400
$
118,965
$
3,977
$
3,977
$
3,845
$
4,110
100,001­
1M
$
169,214
$
169,298
$
146,126
$
192,468
$
6,311
$
6,310
$
6,121
$
6,504
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
623,589
$
623,808
$
539,277
$
709,013
$
27,386
$
27,383
$
26,480
$
28,302
NTNCWS
Total
$
2,023,469
$
2,023,239
$
1,764,174
$
2,277,521
$
149,748
$
149,672
$
141,212
$
158,230
TNCWSs
<
100
$
1,010,160
$
1,010,089
$
829,053
$
1,189,346
$
114,640
$
114,601
$
107,171
$
122,028
101­
500
$
581,107
$
581,205
$
483,004
$
678,536
$
62,532
$
62,522
$
58,292
$
66,704
501­
1,000
$
202,844
$
202,912
$
172,522
$
232,958
$
18,959
$
18,963
$
17,811
$
20,094
1,001­
3,300
$
355,428
$
355,478
$
301,054
$
409,310
$
29,055
$
29,071
$
26,950
$
31,118
3,301­
10K
$
424,859
$
424,835
$
358,107
$
490,779
$
27,042
$
27,050
$
24,800
$
29,243
Small
$
2,574,397
$
2,574,037
$
2,145,186
$
2,998,382
$
252,228
$
252,185
$
235,311
$
268,675
10,001­
50K
$
357,894
$
357,663
$
311,610
$
403,926
$
20,551
$
20,549
$
19,849
$
21,244
50,001­
100K
$
230,229
$
230,096
$
198,195
$
262,288
$
10,349
$
10,350
$
10,024
$
10,668
100,001­
1M
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
>
1
Million
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Large
$
588,123
$
587,652
$
510,017
$
666,134
$
30,900
$
30,900
$
29,876
$
31,912
TNCWS
Total
$
3,162,520
$
3,162,680
$
2,716,422
$
3,609,587
$
283,128
$
283,064
$
265,779
$
299,963
All
Types
<
100
$
1,553,548
$
1,554,655
$
1,358,228
$
1,749,116
$
182,336
$
182,337
$
174,039
$
190,635
101­
500
$
1,973,395
$
1,973,569
$
1,757,434
$
2,187,011
$
230,873
$
230,873
$
219,964
$
241,719
501­
1,000
$
2,048,623
$
2,047,887
$
1,806,717
$
2,292,423
$
216,280
$
216,269
$
204,897
$
227,542
1,001­
3,300
$
7,385,317
$
7,384,349
$
6,379,541
$
8,392,480
$
630,650
$
630,642
$
589,989
$
671,102
3,301­
10K
$
23,796,739
$
23,799,446
$
20,210,092
$
27,384,128
$
1,394,264
$
1,394,175
$
1,288,187
$
1,500,535
Small
$
36,757,622
$
36,758,429
$
31,677,649
$
41,853,064
$
2,654,404
$
2,653,658
$
2,484,201
$
2,823,877
10,001­
50K
$
58,602,823
$
58,558,358
$
50,722,606
$
66,552,641
$
2,948,240
$
2,947,804
$
2,832,167
$
3,064,127
50,001­
100K
$
30,831,195
$
30,809,650
$
26,571,929
$
35,106,847
$
1,520,431
$
1,520,284
$
1,469,517
$
1,571,430
100,001­
1M
$
96,579,001
$
96,490,941
$
82,355,222
$
110,716,418
$
3,273,684
$
3,273,352
$
3,143,093
$
3,403,396
>
1
Million
$
166,974,995
$
166,988,631
$
138,279,941
$
195,605,080
$
4,520,463
$
4,519,880
$
4,222,949
$
4,817,033
Large
$
352,988,014
$
352,814,971
$
298,063,345
$
407,914,359
$
12,262,819
$
12,260,445
$
11,671,348
$
12,851,390
All
Sizes
$
389,745,636
$
389,614,562
$
331,928,139
$
447,656,152
$
14,917,222
$
14,916,871
$
14,232,219
$
15,596,505
Notes:
All
values
in
year
2000
dollars.

Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.

Derived
from
LT2ESWTR
Cost
Model.
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Median
Value
Mean
Value
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
Q­
30
June
2003
1
The
estimate
of
deaths
in
1999
of
persons
with
AIDS
used
in
this
EA
is
from
the
1999
year­
end
HIV/
AIDS
Surveillance
Report
(
Vol
11,
No.
2),
and
the
estimate
of
the
population
of
persons
living
with
AIDS
is
from
the
supplemental
report
on
"
Characteristics
of
Persons
Living
With
AIDS
at
the
End
of
1999."
(
Vol
7,
No.
1).
CDC
recently
released
revised
data
for
1999
and
data
for
2000.
The
potential
impact
of
these
changes
is
discussed
in
sections
R.
2
and
R.
5.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
R­
1
June
2003
Appendix
R
Sensitivity
Analysis
for
AIDS­
Related
Mortality
Rate
R.
1
Introduction
and
Summary
A
key
input
to
the
Long­
Term
2
Enhanced
Surface
Water
Treatment
Rule
(
LT2ESWTR)
risk
assessment
model
is
the
rate
of
mortality
associated
with
cryptosporidiosis.
This
is
discussed
in
section
5.2.3
(
Dose
Response
Assessment).
The
mortality
rate
as
used
in
this
analysis
is,
given
a
case
of
cryptosporidiosis,
the
probability
of
a
fatality
from
that
illness.
As
discussed
in
section
5.2.3,
the
risk
assessment
model
uses
different
mortality
rates
for
those
with
AIDS
and
the
general
populations.

Cryptosporidiosis
is
considered
nonfatal
in
healthy
adults,
so
the
mortality
rate
in
the
general,
non­
AIDS,
population
represents
deaths
for
those
with
other
conditions
or
diseases
that
hinder
recovery
from
cryptosporidiosis.
The
mortality
rate
used
for
the
general
population
is
the
mortality
rate
associated
with
the
1993
Milwaukee
Cryptosporidium
outbreak
for
those
without
AIDS.
This
rate
is
used
as
an
estimate
of
the
mortality
rate
for
future
cryptosporidiosis
cases
because
no
significant
treatments
that
would
likely
lessen
mortality
have
been
developed
since
then.

Data
from
the
1993
Milwaukee
cryptosporidiosis
outbreak
are
also
used
to
develop
the
mortality
rate
for
people
with
AIDS.
However,
for
those
with
AIDS,
new
treatments
have
become
available
since
the
Milwaukee
outbreak
that
greatly
prolong
life.
As
a
result
of
the
advent
of
highly
active
anti­
retroviral
therapy
(
HAART)
in
1995,
the
rate
of
death
for
those
with
AIDS
from
all
causes
has
declined
dramatically.
The
Dose­
Response
Assessment
includes
a
factor
to
reflect
the
apparent
lessened
mortality
among
persons
with
AIDS.
Data
from
the
Centers
for
Disease
Control
and
Prevention
(
CDC)
for
1993
and
19991
suggest
that,
among
those
with
AIDS,
the
death
rate
for
all
reasons
in
1999
was
only
12.3
percent
of
the
rate
in
1993,
the
year
of
the
Milwaukee
outbreak.
To
reflect
the
probable
improved
ability
of
those
with
AIDS
to
survive
cryptosporidiosis,
the
mortality
rate
for
those
with
AIDS
during
the
Milwaukee
outbreak
was
adjusted
by
this
factor
and
applied
to
each
year
of
the
25­
year
analysis
without
change
(
that
is,
without
allowing
for
further
changes
in
mortality
rates).
This
no­
trend
approach
is
considered
a
reasonable
best
estimate,
given
the
difficulty
of
predicting
future
trends
in
AIDS­
related
mortality,
including
the
lack
of
cryptosporidiosis­
specific
information.

This
appendix
presents
the
latest
AIDS­
related
mortality
data
available
from
the
CDC,
summarizes
the
history
of
AIDS­
related
mortality,
provides
information
regarding
the
factors
that
may
affect
future
AIDS­
related
mortality,
and
discusses
the
potential
impact
on
the
LT2ESWTR
benefits
analysis
results
of
using
the
latest
estimates
from
CDC
and
other
mortality
rates
(
arbitrarily
bounded)
to
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
R­
2
June
2003
reflect
at
least
some
of
the
range
of
possible
values
that
may
develop
in
future
years.
This
appendix
does
not
discuss
other
related
assumptions,
such
as
the
constant
ratio
of
persons
living
with
AIDS
to
the
general
population
used
in
the
model
and
the
mortality
rates
for
the
general
population.

The
impact
of
using
the
latest
data
from
CDC
is
that
using
CDC's
revised
data
for
1999
would
raise
the
mortality
rate
for
those
with
AIDS
by
half
(
a
50
percent
increase),
and
raise
the
total
estimate
of
mean
benefits
by
about
a
fifth
(
20
percent).
Using
the
CDC's
estimate
for
2000
would
reduce
the
AIDSrelated
mortality
rate
by
14
percent,
and
the
overall
level
of
mean
benefits
by
8
percent.
Although
CDC
has
tried
to
adjust
this
initial
2000
estimate
for
potential
delays
in
reporting,
the
estimate
is
likely
to
be
revised
in
subsequent
years,
and
may
well
be
higher
than
this
initial
estimate
(
for
example,
data
for
1999
increased
by
50
percent).
Using
either
of
these
new
estimates
from
CDC
would
not
have
changed
the
conclusions
of
the
EA
or
the
selection
of
the
Preferred
Alternative.

The
review
of
the
confounding
factors
that
influence
the
future
mortality
of
those
with
AIDS
gave
no
definite
direction
of
future
change
(
that
the
rate
will
definitely
increase
or
definitely
decrease).
The
bounding
analysis,
presented
below,
assessed
the
impact
on
LT2ESWTR
benefits
due
to
the
AIDSrelated
mortality
rate
either
increasing
or
decreasing.
This
analysis
was
done
by
arbitrarily
doubling
and
halving
the
1999
rate
used
in
the
economic
analysis
(
EA)
and,
as
in
the
EA
analysis,
assuming
a
constant
mortality
rate
over
the
period
of
the
analysis.

The
results
of
the
bounding
analysis
indicate
that
doubling
the
AIDS­
related
mortality
rate
would
result
in
mean
total
benefits
41
percent
higher,
and
no
change
in
the
conclusion
of
the
EA
or
selection
of
the
Preferred
Alternative.
The
result
of
halving
the
AIDS­
related
mortality
rate
would
be
a
mean
total
benefits
estimate
24
percent
lower
than
used
in
the
EA.
This
reduction,
if
considered
alone,
would
significantly
improve
the
relative
standing
of
Alternative
A4,
making
it
essentially
equal
to
the
Preferred
Alternative.
However,
accounting
for
unquantified
benefits,
which
are
described
in
section
5.4,
would
favor
the
Preferred
Alternative.
In
summary,
given
the
likelihood
that
increases
in
the
AIDS
mortality
rate
are
at
least
as
likely
as
decreases,
and
that
unquantified
benefits
exist,
the
conclusions
of
the
EA
and
the
selection
of
the
Preferred
Alternative
are
not
challenged.

R.
2
Latest
CDC
Data
and
Their
Impact
on
the
AIDS
Mortality
Adjustment
Factor
The
adjustment
factor
for
AIDS­
related
mortality
used
in
the
Dose
Response
Assessment
is
computed
from
both
death
and
population
data.
The
EA
uses
1999
data
on
the
number
of
AIDS
deaths
as
cited
in
CDC's
1999
end­
of­
year
HIV/
AIDS
Surveillance
Report.
CDC
has
revised
the
1999
estimate
upward
by
50
percent
in
the
2000
end­
of­
year
report
(
the
latest
available).
This
latter
report
also
provides
initial
data
for
2000,
which
are
slightly
lower
than
the
initial
(
1999)
values
used
in
this
EA
(
both
are
shown
in
Exhibit
R.
1).
The
initial
estimate
for
2000
is
based
on
actual
reported
data
and
is
adjusted
to
account
for
projected
delays
in
reporting.
The
CDC
released
revised
estimates
for
the
number
of
persons
living
with
AIDS
in
1999
in
a
supplement
to
the
1999
end­
of­
year
surveillance
report.
In
CDC's
end­
of­
year
2000
report,
CDC
did
not
provide
a
revised
estimate
for
persons
living
with
AIDS
in
1999.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
R­
3
June
2003
Exhibit
R.
1
Mortality
Rate
Factors
Using
Latest
CDC
Data
1993
Initial
1999
Revised
1999
Initial
2000
AIDS
Deaths
45,271
10,122
15,254
8,911
Persons
Living
with
AIDS
174,369
317,652
317,652
322,865
Mortality
Rate
(
per
100,000)
25,963
3,187
4,802
2,760
Mortality
Rate
as
a
Percent
of
1993
12.3%
18.5%
10.6%

Source:
CDC's
end­
of­
year
HIV/
AIDS
Surveillance
Reports
for
1999
and
2000
(
Vol.
11,
No.
2
and
Vol.
3,
No.
1),
and
the
Supplement
to
the
1999
report.
Note:
A
revised
Persons
Living
with
AIDS
estimate
for
1999
was
not
reported
in
CDC's
end­
of­
year
2000
HIV/
AIDS
Surveillance
Report.
However,
if
the
increase
in
deaths
were
subtracted
from
the
population
of
persons
living
with
AIDS,
a
revised
number
might
be
312,794
(
that
is,
317,652
­
4,802),
and
the
mortality
rate
percentage
would
then
be
18.8
percent.

The
revised
estimate
for
the
AIDS
mortality
rate
in
1999
is
50
percent
higher
than
previously
reported,
and
the
newly
released
estimate
for
2000
would
imply
a
factor
of
10.6
percent
rather
than
the
12.3
percent
used
in
the
analysis.
(
The
impacts
of
these
differences
will
be
discussed
in
section
R.
5.)
The
2000
estimate
will
likely
be
revised
in
subsequent
years
as
more
data
become
available.
The
apparent
43
percent
drop
from
1999
(
revised)
(
18.5
percent)
to
2000
(
10.6
percent)
may
be
less
indicative
of
the
historical
trend
than
the
differences
between
1999
and
1998,
which
are
based
on
more
complete
data
rather
than
estimates.

R.
3
History
of
AIDS­
Related
Mortality
Rates
Over
roughly
the
past
decade,
the
AIDS­
related
mortality
rate
has
been
declining.
This
decline
has
resulted
from
both
a
decrease
in
the
number
of
AIDS­
related
deaths
and
an
increase
in
the
number
of
people
living
with
AIDS.
However,
the
decline
in
AIDS­
related
deaths
has
slowed
somewhat
in
recent
years.

Decline
in
AIDS­
Related
Deaths
Due
to
Use
of
HAART
Data
show
that
AIDS­
related
deaths
declined
as
people
with
AIDS
began
using
HAART,
which
became
available
in
1995
and
appears
to
be
successful
in
significantly
prolonging
the
lives
of
persons
with
AIDS.
Since
the
introduction
of
HAART,
treatment
has
become
available
to
almost
all
people
in
the
United
States
with
known
cases
of
AIDS
(
Boyle
2002).
The
result,
at
least
in
the
short
term,
is
a
reduction
in
the
numbers
of
deaths
of
persons
with
AIDS
(
Exhibit
R.
2).
With
the
availability
of
the
treatment
now
nearly
universal
in
the
United
States,
the
reduction
in
the
number
of
deaths
is
slowing
after
the
steep
declines
seen
in
1996
and
the
first
half
of
1997.
This
observation
derives
from
Karon
et
al.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
R­
4
June
2003
(
2001),
who
adjusted
their
data
for
delayed
reporting
and
characterized
the
quarterly
mortality
rate
during
1998
and
1999
as
"
approximately
constant."
(
Their
study
did
not
include
2000
data.)

Exhibit
R.
2
AIDS
Cases
and
Deaths
Among
Adults
and
Adolescents
in
the
United
States,
by
Quarter
Year,
1990­
1999
1
Source:
http://
www.
cdc.
gov/
hiv/
stats/
hasrsupp81/
fig3.
htm
The
initial
estimate
for
2000
appears
to
show
a
continued
slight
decline.
However,
in
previous
reports
from
the
CDC
(
HIV/
AIDS
Surveillance
Reports),
early
results
have
been
revised
upward
in
later
reports
as
additional
data
became
available.
Whether
the
number
of
deaths
has
continued
its
slight
decline
or
leveled
off
cannot
be
determined
reliably
from
the
available
data.

Declining
New
AIDS
Cases;
Increases
in
Number
of
People
Living
With
AIDS
In
addition
to
the
decline
in
AIDS­
related
deaths,
new
cases
of
AIDS
also
declined
because
of
HIV
treatments;
but
more
people
are
living
with
AIDS.
Exhibit
R.
2
shows
the
trend
in
new
cases
(
incidence)
of
AIDS
being
reported.
The
number
of
new
cases
is
most
directly
affected
by
the
effectiveness
of
treatments,
including
HAART,
that
prevent
the
shift
from
HIV
infection
to
clinical
cases
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
R­
5
June
2003
0%
3%
6%
9%
12%
15%
18%
21%
24%
27%
30%

1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Deaths
as
a
Percent
of
Population
Living
With
AIDS
Based
on
death
data
from
EOY
1999
Report
Based
on
death
data
from
EOY
2000
Report
of
AIDS.
Those
declines
have
also
leveled
off
and
there
appears
to
be
only
a
2­
3
percent
decline
from
1998
to
1999.
CDC
characterizes
the
trend
in
the
number
of
new
AIDS
cases
as
appearing
"
to
be
leveling"
(
http://
www.
cdc.
gov/
nchstp/
od/
news/
At­
a­
Glance.
pdf)
and
Karon
et
al.
(
2001)
described
it
as
"
relatively
constant."

The
population
of
persons
living
with
AIDS
has
continued
to
grow
as
new
cases
are
identified
and
fewer
people
die
from
the
disease
and
its
complications.
The
annual
increase
from
1998
to
2000
was
18
percent
and
the
total
number
of
persons
living
with
AIDS
is
estimated
at
322,865
in
2000
(
CDC,
2000).

Overall
Effect
on
AIDS
Mortality
Rates
Data
show
that
the
overall
AIDS
mortality
rate
continues
to
decline,
but
that
the
decline
is
slowing
(
Exhibit
R.
3).
The
mortality
rates
used
in
the
EA
benefits
model
are
computed
from
both
death
and
population
data.
Because
the
underlying
data
on
deaths
have
been
revised
in
the
end­
of­
year
2000
Surveillance
Report,
the
mortality
rates
based
on
these
data
are
also
shown.
However,
because
the
2000
estimate
will
likely
be
revised
in
subsequent
years,
the
apparent
43
percent
drop
in
AIDS
mortality
from
1999
(
revised)
to
2000
may
be
less
indicative
of
the
historical
trend
than
the
differences
between
1999
and
1998.

Exhibit
R.
3
AIDS­
Related
Death
Rates,
1993
to
2000
Source:
Derived
from
CDC
end­
of­
year
HIV/
AIDS
Surveillance
Reports
for
1999
and
2000
(
data
on
deaths),
and
the
supplement
to
the
1999
report
(
data
on
persons
living
with
AIDS).
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
R­
6
June
2003
R.
4
Factors
Affecting
Mortality
in
the
Future
Statistical
Shift
Over
Time
Several
factors
affect
the
mortality
rate
of
persons
with
AIDS.
One
(
identified
earlier)
is
that
life­
prolonging
treatments
are
widely
available
and
used.
However,
the
rapid
decline
in
mortality
rates
that
accompanied
their
introduction
may
be
temporary.
HAART
is
not
considered
a
cure
for
AIDS.
If
the
only
effect
is
increased
longevity,
but
with
a
similar
pattern
of
eventual
disease,
those
who
are
now
less
susceptible
would
become
susceptible
again
in
the
future.
In
such
a
case,
the
mortality
rate
could
conceivably
climb
to
near
historical
levels.
The
reason
it
would
be
unlikely
to
fully
reach
historical
levels
is
that
the
longer
the
increased
longevity,
the
more
likely
it
is
that
deaths
would
occur
for
reasons
other
than
AIDS.
This
reasoning
suggests
that,
with
all
other
influences
equal
(
which
they
are
not),
the
mortality
rate
would
lessen
for
a
period
roughly
corresponding
to
increased
longevity,
then
increase
to
some
new
level.
Many
other
factors
are
also
important,
however.

Drug
Resistance
History
supports
a
view
that
infectious
disease
mortality
initially
drops
considerably
upon
the
introduction
of
successful
treatment,
but
after
a
lag
the
mortality
rate
stabilizes
or
slightly
increases
as
drug
resistance
and
other
factors
counteract
the
benefit
of
treatment.
The
treatment
of
tuberculosis
(
TB)
after
World
War
II
with
streptomycin
had
immediate
success,
but
within
a
few
months
drug
resistance
began
to
show.
Physicians
were
able
to
develop
additional
antibiotics,
and
TB
was
treated
using
a
multiple
drug
regimen
(
NJMS
1996).
The
mortality
rate
for
tuberculosis
in
industrialized
countries
had
been
declining
slowly
until
the
mid­
1980s,
when
the
mortality
rate
stabilized
and
more
recently
has
increased
slightly
(
NJMS
1996).
Some
similar
patterns
are
beginning
to
be
identified
with
AIDS.

Drug
resistance
to
AIDS
therapies
is,
in
fact,
increasing.
If
a
patient
develops
a
drug­
resistant
strain
of
HIV,
treatment
becomes
difficult.
If
new
regimens
cannot
be
developed
for
this
individual,
the
disease
will
proceed
as
it
did
prior
to
treatment,
and
result
in
AIDS­
related
death.
Forty­
nine
percent
of
individuals
with
HIV
have
drug­
resistant
strains
(
Brown
2001).
Among
those
HIV
individuals
who
have
not
started
treatment,
20
percent
have
a
strain
resistant
to
at
least
one
drug,
an
increase
from
3
to
5
percent
of
new
cases
several
years
ago
(
Brown
2001).
Because
the
therapies
for
HIV
and
AIDS
are
essentially
the
same,
this
suggests
that
those
who
progress
from
HIV
to
AIDS
are
increasingly
likely
to
have
drug­
resistant
strains.
As
the
proportion
of
persons
with
drug­
resistant
strains
increases
within
the
population
of
those
living
with
AIDS,
this
would
be
an
upward
influence
on
the
AIDS
mortality
rate.

Side
Effects
Leading
to
Cessation
of
Treatment
Another
factor
that
may
affect
mortality
is
the
cessation
of
therapy
due
to
intolerable
side
effects.
Over
time,
the
side
effects
from
drug
therapy
(
such
as
diarrhea,
peripheral
neuropathy,
severe
rash,
jaundice,
pancreatitis,
kidney
stones,
and
others)
become
too
painful
or
uncomfortable
for
many
people
to
bear
(
Highleyman
2000,
NYSDHAI
2002,
Griffiths
2002).
The
number
of
patients
that
will
drop
treatment
in
the
coming
years
due
to
side
effects
is
therefore
likely
to
increase
(
NYSDHAI
2002).
Studies
show
that
relapse
is
rapid
after
cessation
of
therapy;
among
those
tested
who
had
no
detectable
virus
in
their
system,
the
time
to
relapse
to
pre­
treatment
levels
of
virus
in
the
blood
ranged
from
4
to
31
days,
with
most
relapsing
within
2
to
3
weeks
after
ceasing
therapy
(
Marble
2000,
Medscape
2002).
Even
for
those
patients
who
had
been
treated
for
over
2
years,
relapse
occurred
promptly
after
cessation
of
therapy
(
Medscape
2002).
If
a
treatment
regimen
cannot
be
developed
that
reduces
side
effects
to
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
R­
7
June
2003
tolerable
levels,
some
patients
will
likely
quit
treatment,
and
their
mortality
rate
from
various
sources,
including
cryptosporidiosis,
would
increase.
Over
time,
as
more
people
with
AIDS
develop
these
intolerable
side
effects
and
cease
treatment,
the
overall
AIDS
mortality
rate
would
also
increase.

Mortality
from
Side
Effects
The
previous
factors
that
may
affect
mortality
would
increase
the
mortality
rate,
and
are
assumed
to
have
a
parallel
effect
on
deaths
from
cryptosporidiosis
in
persons
with
AIDS.
There
is
one
factor,
however,
that
may
increase
mortality
among
persons
with
AIDS,
but
not
the
mortality
from
cryptosporidiosis.
Among
the
side
effects
of
HAART
are
fat
redistribution,
elevated
triglycerides,
and
potential
insulin
resistance
(
Louie
et
al.
2002,
Highleyman
2000).
These
side
effects
may
increase
cardiovascular
morbidity,
and
thus
the
mortality
rate
among
AIDS
patients
may
rise
in
the
future
even
with
successful
therapy.
However,
mortality
from
non­
AIDS
or
immunological
difficulties
would
not
be
considered
relevant
to
a
mortality
rate
due
to
infection
by
Cryptosporidium.

New
Therapies
New
therapies
for
persons
with
AIDS
may
be
developed
sometime
before
2028
(
the
extent
of
the
period
of
analysis
in
this
EA).
Therapies
that
extend
life
would
create
a
new
statistical
time
shift,
as
described
at
the
beginning
of
R.
4.
These
therapies
could
be
more
effective
than
current
ones
against
drug­
resistant
strains,
could
be
more
easily
tolerated,
or
could
provide
benefits
longer
than
current
therapies.
Extensive
research
is
being
conducted
on
HIV
vaccines
and
therapies,
which
include
integrase
inhibitors,
fusion
inhibitors,
gene
therapies,
and
pseudovirion
and
other
vaccines.
The
likelihood
of
new
therapies
being
developed
and
the
possible
time
line
for
their
use
is
difficult
to
foresee.

R.
5
Sensitivity
Analysis
This
section
presents
the
impact
of
using
alternative
estimates
for
the
AIDS
mortality
adjustment
factor.
This
is
done
in
two
ways.
The
first
way
is
to
discuss
the
differences
of
using
the
newer
estimates
now
available
from
the
CDC.
The
second
is
a
more
generic
sensitivity
analysis
that
will
examine
the
impact
on
the
benefits
estimates
of
using
factors
above
and
below
the
estimates
used
in
the
EA
analysis.
The
changes
in
AIDS
mortality
rates
do
not
produce
a
one­
to­
one
change
in
estimates
in
benefits
because
other
factors
(
such
as
the
populations
served
by
filtered
and
unfiltered
systems,
the
mortality
rate
for
the
general
population,
income
growth
and
income
elasticity,
and
the
cost
of
illness)
also
contribute
to
the
estimate
of
benefits.

R.
5.1
Impacts
of
Using
Recent
CDC
Estimates
The
results
of
using
alternative
values
derived
from
more
recent
CDC
estimates
of
deaths
and
persons
living
with
AIDS
to
estimate
total
benefits
are
shown
in
Exhibit
R.
4.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
R­
8
June
2003
Exhibit
R.
4
Percent
Changes
in
Estimated
Total
Benefits
Using
Recent
CDC
Estimates
for
AIDS­
Related
Deaths
and
Persons
Living
With
AIDS
Lower
Confidence
Bound
Mean
Upper
Confidence
Bound
Benefits
Estimated
Using
Revised
1999
Data
Percent
Change
in
AIDS
Mortality
Factor
from
EA
+
50%
+
50%
+
50%

Percent
Change
in
Benefits
from
EA
+
6%
+
19%
+
27%

Benefits
Estimated
Using
Initial
2000
Data
Percent
Change
in
AIDS
Mortality
Factor
from
EA
­
14%
­
14%
­
14%

Percent
Change
in
Benefits
from
EA
­
5%
­
8%
­
11%

Source:
Risk
Assessment
Model.
Note:
Percentages
are
correct
for
both
3
and
7
percent
discount
rates.

These
differences
are
not
significant
enough
to
reverse
the
general
conclusion
of
benefits
exceeding
costs.
Benefits
so
greatly
exceed
costs
 
by
factors
of
3
to
13
fold
(
Exhibits
8.6a
and
8.6b)
 
that
benefit
estimates
8
percent
lower
(
the
mean
percent
change
using
2000
data)
would
not
alter
that
conclusion.

These
differences
also
do
not
significantly
change
the
relative
rankings
of
the
alternatives,
or
the
choice
of
the
Preferred
Alternative.
Appendix
P
addressed
this
question
by
looking
at
alternative
values
for
the
cost
of
illness.
Comparing
the
results
of
Exhibit
R.
4
to
those
in
Exhibits
P.
14
and
P.
15
is
helpful.
Exhibits
P.
14
and
P.
15
display
the
effect
of
using
a
benefit
estimate
that
is
22
percent
higher
and
an
estimate
that
is
18
percent
lower
than
used
in
the
EA.
Using
the
Revised
1999
estimate
would
result
in
a
19
percent
increase
in
the
mean
estimate
of
benefits,
comparable
to
the
22
percent
values
used
in
Exhibits
P.
14
and
P.
15.
Using
the
initial
2000
data
would
result
in
a
decrease
of
8
percent
(
at
the
mean),
about
a
half
of
the
decrease
shown
in
Exhibits
P.
14
and
P.
15.
One
conclusion
is
that
using
the
revised
1999
data
(
the
values
higher
than
in
the
EA),
the
Preferred
Alternative
is
and
remains
the
alternative
with
the
highest
net
benefits
in
three
of
the
four
conditions
of
discount
rates
and
underlying
data
sets,
and
becomes
the
alternative
with
the
highest
net
benefits
in
the
fourth.
Using
the
2000
data
for
AIDS
mortality,
the
Preferred
Alternative
is
and
remains
the
alternative
with
the
highest
net
benefits
in
three
of
the
four
conditions,
and
is
and
remains
a
close
second­
best
in
the
fourth
(
ICRSSL,
7
percent).
In
summary,
the
Preferred
Alternative
would
not
lose
its
relative
advantage
using
these
alternative
estimates
for
AIDSrelated
mortality.

R.
5.2
Impacts
of
Using
Alternative
Estimates
for
AIDS­
Related
Mortality
The
discussion
in
section
R.
4
of
the
factors
that
may
affect
AIDS­
related
mortality
in
the
future
does
not
lead
to
a
single
conclusion.
It
suggests
that
there
exist
factors
that
could
easily
raise
the
mortality
rate
substantially
higher
than
the
rates
seen
in
1999
and
projected
for
2000,
but
new
treatment
breakthroughs
could
substantially
lower
the
rate
in
future
years.
Benefits
from
the
LT2ESWTR
are
projected
to
begin
in
2008
and
the
analysis
makes
projections
through
2028.
Considering
the
length
of
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
R­
9
June
2003
period
of
analysis
and
the
lack
of
projections
available
regarding
mortality
rates,
this
section
uses
both
higher
and
lower
values
to
assess
the
possible
impact
of
alternative
AIDS
mortality
rates.

Whatever
does
happen
to
these
rates
in
the
future,
it
is
unlikely
that
they
will
remain
constant
from
1999
or
2000
through
2028.
For
the
purposes
of
this
analysis,
however,
two
stable
"
no­
trend"
values
are
used.
The
first
is
double
the
rate
used
in
the
EA;
the
second
is
half
of
that
used
in
the
EA.
These
differences
are
larger
than
those
considered
in
section
R.
5.1,
and
have
correspondingly
greater
impact
on
the
estimate
of
total
benefits
(
Exhibit
R.
5).

Exhibit
R.
5.
Percent
Change
in
Estimated
Total
Benefits
Using
Double
and
Half
the
AIDS­
Related
Mortality
Rate
Lower
Confidence
Bound
Mean
Upper
Confidence
Bound
Percent
Change
in
Total
Benefits
Using
Double
the
AIDS­
Related
Mortality
Rate
­
18%
+
41%
+
53%

Percent
Change
in
Total
Benefits
Using
Half
the
AIDS­
Related
Mortality
Rate
­
21%
­
24%
­
25%

Source:
Risk
Assessment
Model.
Note:
Percentages
are
correct
for
both
3
and
7
percent
discount
rates.

These
impacts
on
the
level
of
total
benefits
are,
however,
not
significant
enough
to
reverse
the
general
conclusion
of
benefits
exceeding
costs.
Benefits
so
greatly
exceed
costs
 
by
factors
of
4
to
13
fold
(
Exhibit
8.5)
 
that
benefit
estimates
24
percent
lower
(
the
mean
percent
at
half
the
current
value)
would
not
alter
that
conclusion.

Further,
these
larger
differences
do
not
significantly
change
the
relative
rankings
of
the
alternatives
or
the
choice
of
the
Preferred
Alternative.
Again,
comparing
the
results
of
Exhibit
R.
5
to
those
in
Exhibits
P.
14
and
P.
15
is
helpful.
A
41
percent
increase
in
benefits
holds
steady
the
Preferred
Alternative's
status
as
the
alternative
with
the
highest
net
benefits
using
the
ICR
data
set.
The
Preferred
Alternative
goes
from
being
top
ranked
to
a
close
second
to
Alternative
A2
in
another
(
ICRSSL,
3
percent).
In
the
fourth
set
of
conditions
(
ICRSSL,
7
percent),
the
Preferred
Alternative
goes
from
being
a
close
second
(
to
Alternative
A4)
to
being
the
top­
ranked
alternative.
Thus,
at
such
an
increased
level
of
AIDS­
related
mortality
(
and
therefore
benefits
from
avoided
deaths),
the
choice
of
the
Preferred
Alternative
remains
reasonable
considering
the
range
of
possible
conditions.

In
considering
the
low
value
for
AIDS­
related
mortality,
it
is
near
the
line
shown
for
Low
Costof
Illness
in
Exhibits
P.
14
and
P.
15
(
Low
COI
is
­
18
percent
compared
to
­
24
percent
here).
Using
this
lower
value
for
AIDS
mortality,
the
Preferred
Alternative
and
Alternative
A4
are
nearly
equal.
With
the
ICRSSL
data
set,
Alternative
A4
would
have
higher
net
benefits
(
with
the
Preferred
Alternative
a
close
second).
Using
the
ICR
data
set
(
7
percent),
Alternatives
A4
and
the
Preferred
Alternative
are
essentially
equal,
and
using
the
ICR
data
set
(
3
percent),
the
Preferred
Alternative
has
slightly
higher
net
benefits.
Using
such
a
lower
value
alone
for
AIDS­
related
mortality
could
challenge
the
selection
of
the
Preferred
Alternative.
However,
as
noted
earlier,
the
effect
of
this
lower
value
would
be
offset
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
R­
10
June
2003
somewhat
by
the
consideration
of
greater
unquantified
benefits
associated
with
the
Preferred
Alternative.
In
summary,
given
that
increases
in
the
AIDS
mortality
rate
are
deemed
as
likely
as
decreases,
the
conclusions
of
the
EA
and
the
selection
of
the
Preferred
Alternative
are
not
challenged.

In
conclusion,
the
projection
of
AIDS­
related
mortality
rate
is
uncertain.
If
the
factors
identified
as
exerting
an
upward
influence
on
the
AIDS­
related
mortality
rate
continue,
the
decline
observed
in
this
rate
over
the
past
several
years
will
soon
bottom
out,
and
AIDS­
related
mortality
will
begin
to
increase.
Less
certain
is
the
possibility
or
timing
of
new
therapies
that
could
lessen
the
threat
from
this
disease,
but
substantial
resources
are
devoted
to
this
outcome.
Mortality
rates
ranging
from
above
to
somewhat
below
current
estimates
support
the
selection
of
the
Preferred
Alternative.
Mortality
rates
that
are
substantially
lower
would
support
careful
consideration
of
other
alternatives
and
perhaps
more
careful
enumeration
of
other
benefits
not
now
quantified.

.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
S­
1
Appendix
S
Analysis
of
Individual
Risk
by
Initial
Bin
S.
1
Introduction
Under
each
regulatory
alternative,
systems
are
assigned
an
initial
"
bin"
based
on
source
water
monitoring.
This
appendix
groups
population
based
on
these
bins
and
analyzes
the
distribution
of
individual
risk
for
each
of
these
bins.
The
conclusions
are
presented
in
two
ways:

°
Tabular
information
on
the
percent
of
the
population
that
face
annual
risks
of
illness
within
selected
ranges
(
Exhibit
S.
1).
Additional
tables
show
the
data
in
several
different
forms
(
Exhibits
S.
2
through
S.
4).

°
Cumulative
distribution
graphs
that
show
the
distribution
of
individual
risk
based
on
Pre­
LT2ESWTR
conditions,
the
distribution
based
on
the
minimal
compliance
with
the
LT2ESWTR,
and
based
on
the
projected
actual
compliance
with
the
rule
(
Exhibits
S.
5
through
S.
12).
These
graphs
are
similar
to
Exhibit
5.12,
where
the
full
distributions
of
risks
are
presented.
The
graphs
in
this
appendix
give
additional
insight
as
to
the
distribution
of
risks
within
each
bin
before
and
after
the
rule.

The
remainder
of
the
appendix
includes
the
following
additional
documentation:

°
A
discussion
and
graph
of
the
relationship
among
Modeled
True,
Measured,
and
Binning
concentrations
of
Cryptosporidium
that
is
useful
for
understanding
the
derivation
of
the
tables
and
graphs
in
this
appendix.

°
A
discussion
of
the
steps
involved
in
computing
the
data
for
this
appendix,
with
accompanying
graphs
that
show
the
step­
by­
step
process
for
a
sample
data
set
and
regulatory
alternative.
This
and
the
previous
sections
also
serve
as
a
good
illustrations
of
how
rule
alternatives
reduce
risk.

Key
assumptions
in
the
analysis
are
the
following:

°
Only
community
water
systems
(
CWS)
that
filter
water
are
considered
in
this
analysis.

°
The
"
bins"
used
in
this
analysis
are
those
in
which
systems
are
initially
classified.
An
initial
bin
contains
all
those
systems
whose
source
water
places
them
in
a
bin.
This
includes
those
who
are
able
to
receive
credits
to
reflect
their
current
treatment
in
place
and,
therefore,
lower
requirements
for
additional
treatment.
For
example,
systems
in
the
1­
log
bin
have
to
install
treatment
of
0.0,
0.5,
or
1.0
log.
It
also
includes
systems
who
are
projected
to
install
treatment,
but
who
would
choose
treatments
that
achieve
greater
than
that
required
by
their
bin
requirement.

°
Variability
from
drinking
water
ingestion
is
not
included.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
S­
2
°
Data
are
based
on
means
and
thus
excludes
uncertainty.

S.
2
Percent
of
Population
Within
Selected
Ranges
of
Annual
Individual
Risk
Exhibits
S.
1
through
S.
4
show
the
percent
of
populations
facing
risk
levels
in
different
forms,
all
based
on
initial
bin
classifications
and
are
of
CWS
only.
Although
the
underlying
data
are
the
same,
they
are
presented
in
different
formats
to
help
easily
answer
question
of
different
forms.

°
Exhibit
S.
1
shows
the
percent
of
populations
facing
annual
individual
risk
within
exclusive
selected
ranges.
It
divides
the
total
population
into
five
levels
of
risk
and
shows
the
percent
of
the
population
within
each
level.
This
table
uses
global
percentages
and,
therefore,
data
add
both
across
and
up
to
totals.
This
table
is
useful
to
answer
questions
about
the
proportion
of
the
total
population,
such
as,
"
What
portion
of
the
population
in
"
no
action"
bins
are
estimated
to
have
risks
between
10­
3or
and
10­
4?"
and
"
What
percent
of
the
population
is
in
the
1.0
log
bin
for
alternative
A4?"

°
Exhibit
S.
2
shows
the
percent
of
the
total
population
facing
risks
at
and
above
four
levels
 
from
10­
5or
greater
to
10­
2
or
greater
annual
risk
of
illness.
These
are
cumulative
of
the
numbers
in
Exhibit
S.
1
and
are
still
in
the
form
of
global
percentages.
The
individual
cell
data
can
be
summed
up
to
column
totals,
but
columns
are
to
be
compared,
not
summed.
This
table
is
useful
to
answer
questions
that
focus
on
individual
risk
levels
that
might
be
of
interest,
and
to
identify
what
percent
of
the
population
face
risks
greater
than
that
level,
such
as,
"
What
portion
of
the
total
population
in
"
no
action"
bins
are
estimated
to
have
risks
above
10­
3?"

°
Exhibit
S.
3
uses
the
data
in
Exhibit
S.
2,
but
expresses
individual
cell
data
as
a
percentage
of
the
total
in
its
column.
These
local
percentages
add
vertically.
This
table
is
useful
to
answer
questions
about
the
percent
composition
of
alternatives
,
such
as,
"
What
portion
of
the
population
under
alternative
A3
facing
risks
of
10­
3
or
greater
are
in
the
`
no
action'
bin?"
(
For
example,
Exhibit
S.
2
tells
us
that
2.04
percent
of
the
total
population
are
in
this
group,
and
Exhibit
S.
2
tells
us
that
they
represent
71.84
percent
of
all
those
facing
risks
of
10­
3
or
greater.)

°
Exhibit
S.
4
shows
the
percentage
of
the
population
within
a
bin
that
exceed
a
specified
risk
level.
The
data
derive
from
Exhibit
S.
2
(
the
percent
of
all
those
who
are
in
that
bin
exceeding
a
risk
level)
divided
by
the
percentage
of
the
total
population
in
that
bin
(
the
first
three
columns).
The
first
three
columns
add
to
100
percent,
but
the
other
data
are
to
be
read
individually
and
do
not
sum
in
any
direction.
This
table
is
useful
to
answer
questions
such
as,
"
What
portion
of
the
population
in
"
no
action"
bins
are
estimated
to
have
annual
individual
risks
above
10­
3?"
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
S­
3
A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
Total
93.86%
47.19%
42.10%
26.34%
5.14%
33.06%
32.88%
32.77%
0.91%
18.41%
21.73%
30.19%
0.09%
1.35%
3.26%
10.13%
0.00%
0.00%
0.04%
0.58%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%

0.0
log
18.94%
19.72%
19.82%
21.11%
26.24%
27.36%
9.23%
16.53%
19.07%
0.58%
2.14%
3.05%
0.00%
0.01%
0.03%
49.85%
64.64%
69.32%

0.5
log
4.57%
3.81%
6.68%
3.45%
7.55%
9.98%
0.67%
5.93%
0.00%
0.24%
19.47%
23.41%

1.0
log
18.56%
2.71%
3.94%
1.96%
4.50%
1.14%
1.06%
1.15%
0.03%
0.31%
28.09%
7.27%
1.5
log
19.78%
2.56%
1.00%
0.07%
0.00%
23.41%

2.0
log
93.86%
2.83%
5.14%
1.34%
0.91%
0.19%
0.09%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
4.37%
2.5
log
3.89%
0.99%
2.72%
1.36%
0.62%
0.50%
0.04%
0.05%
0.00%
0.00%
7.27%
2.90%

A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
Total
97.25%
25.34%
21.07%
9.59%
2.61%
33.10%
32.26%
32.64%
0.13%
36.50%
38.66%
44.78%
0.00%
5.05%
7.93%
12.75%
0.00%
0.01%
0.07%
0.23%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%

0.0
log
6.37%
6.82%
6.86%
23.77%
29.42%
30.43%
22.71%
35.08%
38.06%
2.87%
7.25%
8.93%
0.01%
0.06%
0.11%
55.72%
78.63%
84.38%

0.5
log
5.73%
2.48%
7.64%
2.10%
13.15%
6.65%
2.14%
3.78%
0.00%
0.12%
28.67%
15.12%

1.0
log
13.89%
0.25%
2.71%
0.12%
3.57%
0.08%
0.69%
0.05%
0.01%
0.01%
20.87%
0.50%
1.5
log
12.89%
1.56%
0.63%
0.04%
0.00%
15.12%

2.0
log
97.25%
0.33%
2.61%
0.11%
0.13%
0.02%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.46%
2.5
log
0.36%
0.03%
0.13%
0.02%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.50%
0.05%

A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
Total
95.60%
30.98%
26.27%
13.10%
4.01%
32.64%
32.00%
31.55%
0.38%
31.64%
33.87%
40.31%
0.01%
4.72%
7.76%
14.48%
0.00%
0.01%
0.10%
0.56%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%

0.0
log
9.02%
9.39%
9.43%
23.35%
27.91%
28.73%
19.09%
29.51%
32.23%
2.37%
6.46%
8.22%
0.01%
0.07%
0.14%
53.85%
73.34%
78.75%

0.5
log
5.00%
3.00%
6.18%
2.35%
11.48%
7.86%
2.25%
6.01%
0.01%
0.37%
24.90%
19.58%
1.0
log
15.96%
0.67%
3.45%
0.46%
4.26%
0.22%
1.30%
0.26%
0.03%
0.06%
24.99%
1.67%

1.5
log
16.02%
2.47%
0.99%
0.11%
0.00%
19.58%

2.0
log
95.60%
0.80%
4.01%
0.48%
0.38%
0.07%
0.01%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
1.36%
2.5
log
0.94%
0.12%
0.64%
0.15%
0.09%
0.03%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.67%
0.31%
1.00E­
02
or
greater
Total
1.00E­
02
or
greater
Total
1.00E­
05
to
1.00E­
04
1.00E­
04
to
1.00E­
03
1.00E­
03
to
1.00E­
02
1.00E­
02
or
greater
Total
1.00E­
04
to
1.00E­
03
1.00E­
03
to
1.00E­
02
1.00E­
03
to
1.00E­
02
Initial
Bin
Initial
Bin
1.00E­
05
or
Lower
1.00E­
05
to
1.00E­
04
Initial
Bin
1.00E­
05
or
Lower
1.00E­
05
to
1.00E­
04
1.00E­
04
to
1.00E­
03
1.00E­
05
or
Lower
ICR
ICRSSM
ICRSSL
Exhibit
S.
1
Percent
of
Total
Population
Within
Levels
of
Individual
Annual
Risk
of
Illness
for
Filtered
Systems,
by
Data
Set,
by
Risk
Level,
by
Alternative,
by
Initial
Bin
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
S­
4
A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
Total
6.15%
52.82%
57.90%
73.66%
1.00%
19.76%
25.02%
40.90%
0.09%
1.35%
3.30%
10.70%
0.00%
0.00%
0.04%
0.58%

0.0
log
30.92%
44.92%
49.50%
9.81%
18.69%
22.14%
0.58%
2.16%
3.07%
0.00%
0.01%
0.03%

0.5
log
14.90%
19.60%
8.22%
16.16%
0.67%
6.17%
0.00%
0.24%

1.0
log
9.53%
4.56%
5.59%
2.60%
1.09%
1.46%
0.03%
0.31%

1.5
log
3.63%
1.07%
0.07%
0.00%

2.0
log
6.15%
1.54%
1.00%
0.20%
0.09%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%

2.5
log
3.38%
1.91%
0.66%
0.55%
0.04%
0.05%
0.00%
0.00%

A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
Total
2.75%
74.66%
78.93%
90.41%
0.13%
41.56%
46.67%
57.77%
0.00%
5.06%
8.01%
12.99%
0.00%
0.01%
0.07%
0.23%

0.0
log
49.35%
71.80%
77.52%
25.58%
42.39%
47.09%
2.88%
7.31%
9.04%
0.01%
0.06%
0.11%

0.5
log
22.93%
12.63%
15.29%
10.54%
2.14%
3.89%
0.00%
0.12%
1.0
log
6.98%
0.26%
4.27%
0.14%
0.70%
0.06%
0.01%
0.01%

1.5
log
2.23%
0.68%
0.04%
0.00%

2.0
log
2.75%
0.13%
0.13%
0.02%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

2.5
log
0.15%
0.02%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
Total
4.40%
69.02%
73.73%
86.90%
0.39%
36.38%
41.73%
55.36%
0.01%
4.74%
7.86%
15.05%
0.00%
0.01%
0.10%
0.56%

0.0
log
44.82%
63.95%
69.32%
21.47%
36.03%
40.59%
2.38%
6.53%
8.35%
0.01%
0.07%
0.14%

0.5
log
19.90%
16.59%
13.73%
14.24%
2.25%
6.38%
0.01%
0.37%

1.0
log
9.04%
1.00%
5.58%
0.53%
1.33%
0.31%
0.03%
0.06%

1.5
log
3.56%
1.10%
0.11%
0.00%

2.0
log
4.40%
0.56%
0.39%
0.08%
0.01%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%

2.5
log
0.73%
0.19%
0.09%
0.03%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.00E­
04
or
greater
Initial
Bin
Initial
Bin
1.00E­
05
or
greater
1.00E­
04
or
greater
1.00E­
02
or
greater
1.00E­
05
or
greater
Initial
Bin
1.00E­
03
or
greater
1.00E­
03
or
greater
1.00E­
02
or
greater
1.00E­
05
or
greater
1.00E­
04
or
greater
1.00E­
03
or
greater
1.00E­
02
or
greater
ICR
ICRSSM
ICRSSL
Exhibit
S.
2
Percent
of
Total
Population
Exceeding
Levels
of
Individual
Annual
Risk
for
Filtered
Systems,
by
Data
Set,
by
Risk
Level,
by
Alternative,
by
Initial
Bin
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
S­
5
A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
­
100.00%
100.00%

0.0
log
58.53%
77.58%
67.20%
49.65%
74.68%
54.15%
42.77%
65.42%
28.71%
­
33.33%
4.33%

0.5
log
28.20%
26.61%
41.61%
39.50%
49.44%
57.67%
­
42.29%

1.0
log
16.46%
6.19%
22.34%
6.35%
33.00%
13.62%
66.67%
53.38%

1.5
log
6.87%
5.40%
4.89%
­

2.0
log
100.00%
2.66%
100.00%
0.80%
100.00%
0.21%
100.00%
0.00%

2.5
log
6.40%
3.29%
3.34%
2.18%
2.89%
1.36%
­
0.00%

A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
­
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%

0.0
log
66.10%
90.97%
85.74%
61.56%
90.83%
81.53%
56.82%
91.32%
69.57%
62.50%
87.67%
46.98%

0.5
log
30.72%
13.97%
36.79%
18.24%
42.37%
29.96%
25.00%
49.57%

1.0
log
8.84%
0.28%
9.14%
0.24%
8.68%
0.46%
12.33%
3.45%

1.5
log
2.99%
1.62%
0.81%
12.50%

2.0
log
100.00%
0.16%
100.00%
0.03%
100.00%
0.00%
­
0.00%

2.5
log
0.19%
0.03%
0.03%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
­
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%

0.0
log
64.95%
86.73%
79.77%
59.02%
86.35%
73.32%
50.21%
83.03%
55.51%
64.29%
67.35%
24.11%

0.5
log
28.83%
19.09%
37.73%
25.72%
47.51%
42.40%
35.71%
65.78%

1.0
log
12.26%
1.14%
13.38%
0.96%
16.90%
2.09%
32.65%
10.11%

1.5
log
5.16%
3.01%
2.26%
0.00%

2.0
log
100.00%
0.76%
100.00%
0.19%
100.00%
0.08%
­
0.00%

2.5
log
1.06%
0.25%
0.24%
0.08%
0.02%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
ICR
ICRSSM
ICRSSL
1.00E­
02
or
greater
1.00E­
02
or
greater
Initial
Bin
1.00E­
05
or
greater
1.00E­
04
or
greater
Initial
Bin
1.00E­
05
or
greater
1.00E­
04
or
greater
1.00E­
03
or
greater
Initial
Bin
1.00E­
05
or
greater
1.00E­
04
or
greater
1.00E­
03
or
greater
1.00E­
02
or
greater
1.00E­
03
or
greater
Exhibit
S.
3
Initial
Bin
Distribution
of
Population
Within
an
Alternative
for
Filtered
Systems,
by
Data
Set,
by
Risk
Level
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
S­
6
A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%

0.0
log
49.85%
64.64%
69.32%
62.01%
69.50%
71.41%
19.68%
28.91%
31.94%
1.16%
3.34%
4.43%
0.00%
0.02%
0.04%

0.5
log
19.47%
23.41%
76.51%
83.74%
42.22%
69.01%
3.43%
26.37%
0.00%
1.04%
1.0
log
28.09%
7.27%
33.93%
62.68%
19.90%
35.71%
3.87%
20.06%
0.09%
4.24%

1.5
log
23.41%
15.49%
4.55%
0.28%
0.00%

2.0
log
100.00%
4.37%
6.15%
35.28%
1.00%
4.60%
0.09%
0.16%
0.00%
0.00%
2.5
log
7.27%
2.90%
46.47%
65.80%
9.08%
18.81%
0.54%
1.55%
0.00%
0.00%

A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%

0.0
log
55.72%
78.63%
84.38%
88.57%
91.32%
91.87%
45.91%
53.91%
55.81%
5.16%
9.30%
10.71%
0.01%
0.08%
0.13%

0.5
log
28.67%
15.12%
80.00%
83.57%
53.34%
69.70%
7.48%
25.74%
0.01%
0.76%
1.0
log
20.87%
0.50%
33.44%
50.79%
20.44%
26.98%
3.33%
11.90%
0.04%
1.59%

1.5
log
15.12%
14.76%
4.47%
0.27%
0.01%

2.0
log
100.00%
0.46%
2.75%
27.47%
0.13%
3.30%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.5
log
0.50%
0.05%
28.77%
48.98%
2.38%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%

A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%

0.0
log
53.85%
73.34%
78.75%
83.24%
87.19%
88.03%
39.87%
49.13%
51.54%
4.42%
8.90%
10.61%
0.02%
0.09%
0.17%

0.5
log
24.90%
19.58%
79.92%
84.70%
55.12%
72.71%
9.04%
32.58%
0.02%
1.89%
1.0
log
24.99%
1.67%
36.16%
59.62%
22.34%
31.88%
5.31%
18.81%
0.13%
3.42%

1.5
log
19.58%
18.19%
5.60%
0.55%
0.00%

2.0
log
100.00%
1.36%
4.40%
41.25%
0.39%
5.74%
0.01%
0.44%
0.00%
0.00%
2.5
log
1.67%
0.31%
43.68%
60.84%
5.21%
11.00%
0.06%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.00E­
02
or
greater
Initial
Bin
ICRSSM
Bin
Percent
of
Total
Population
Percent
of
Bin
Population
Exceeding
Risk
Level
1.00E­
05
or
greater
1.00E­
04
or
greater
1.00E­
03
or
greater
1.00E­
02
or
greater
1.00E­
05
or
greater
1.00E­
04
or
greater
1.00E­
03
or
greater
1.00E­
02
or
greater
ICRSSL
Bin
Percent
of
Total
Population
Percent
of
Bin
Population
Exceeding
Risk
Level
Initial
Bin
Initial
Bin
ICR
Bin
Percent
of
Total
Population
Percent
of
Bin
Population
Exceeding
Risk
Level
1.00E­
05
or
greater
1.00E­
04
or
greater
1.00E­
03
or
greater
Exhibit
S.
4
Percent
of
Population
Within
a
Bin
Exceeding
Levels
of
Individual
Annual
Risk
for
Filtered
Systems,
by
Data
Set,
by
Risk
Level,
by
Alternative,
by
Initial
Bin
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
S­
7
S.
3
Graphs
of
the
Cumulative
Distribution
of
Annual
Individual
Risk
by
Bin
The
graphs
of
the
distributions
of
individual
risk
for
people
served
by
all
filtered
systems
are
shown
in
the
Economic
Analysis
in
Exhibit
5.12.
The
graphs
below
are
analogous,
but
only
include
CWS
systems.
The
axes
have
been
switched
so
that
the
cumulative
percent
is
shown
on
the
X
axis
and
the
variability
from
drinking
water
ingestion
has
been
removed.
There
are
separate
charts
for
each
rule
alternative
and
each
of
two
data
sets,
the
ICR
and
ICRSSL
(
twelve
graphs
in
all,
Exhibits
S.
5
through
S.
16).
On
each
graph,
vertical
dashed
lines
separate
the
initial
bins.
Within
each
bin,
the
following
three
distributions
are
shown:

 
the
distribution
of
risk
based
on
finished
water
occurrence,
Pre­
LT2
(
after
considering
treatment
in
place
and
the
effects
of
credits)

 
the
distribution
of
risk
based
on
the
treatment
required
by
that
rule
alternative
and
that
bin
(
again
taking
into
account
the
credits
earned
by
some
systems)

 
the
distribution
of
risk
actually
achieved,
reflecting
that
many
systems
are
expected
to
achieve
more
treatment
than
the
minimum
required
Note
that
within
a
bin,
each
distribution
is
sorted
independently,
and
therefore,
a
particular
system
may
appear
at
different
points
in
each
of
the
distributions.
Also
note
that
the
distributions
based
on
finished
water
occurrence
overlap,
that
is,
some
individuals
in
a
lower
bin
have
a
higher
risk
than
some
in
higher
bins.
This
is
due
to
misclassification
of
systems
during
the
sampling
process
and
to
the
differences
in
treatment
in
place
between
systems.

The
differences
between
the
alternatives
can
be
seen
at
particular
risk
levels.
For
example,
from
Exhibit
S.
2,
we
see
that
at
a
risk
of
1x10­
4
risk
level
(
that
is,
a
1
in
1,000
chance
of
becoming
ill
in
a
year),
Alternative
A3
leaves
25.02
percent
of
the
total
population
at
or
above
this
risk
overall
(
ICR
data).
Exhibit
S.
2
also
shows
that
of
those
25.02
percent
exposed
to
the
1x10­
4
risk
level,
18.69
percent
are
in
the
No
Action
bin
and
5.59
percent
are
in
the
1
log
bin.
Exhibit
S.
7
shows
the
distribution
of
that
25.02,
18.69,
and
5.59
percent.
It
is
the
portion
of
the
distributions
above
the
10­­
4
line.
Interestingly,
there
are
not
significantly
higher
spikes
in
higher
bins
because
of
the
additional
treatment
used
under
Alternative
A3.
(
Note
that
adding
in
the
variability
from
drinking
water
ingestion
would
slightly
heighten
any
spikes,
reflecting
those
that
drink
more
than
the
average
amount
of
water.)

For
another
example,
Exhibit
S.
8
and
Exhibit
S.
2
show
that
for
Alternative
A4,
40.9
percent
of
the
population
is
over
a
1x10­
4
risk
level
and
is
mostly
in
the
No
Action
(
22
percent
of
the
population)
and
0.5
log
bins
(
16
percent).
Over
16
percent
of
the
population
faces
risks
of
1x10­
4
or
greater
and
is
in
the
0.5
log
bin.
A
significant
spike
also
exists
in
the
1
log
bin.
At
the
higher
level
of
1x10­
2
risk
level
(
that
is,
a
1
in
100
annual
chance
of
becoming
ill),
Alternative
A3
has
almost
no
population
above
this
level,
but
Alternative
A4
has
about
0.6
percent
facing
these
risks.

Using
the
ICRSSL
rather
than
the
ICR
data
set,
the
percentages
of
population
above
a
selected
risk
level
is
generally
higher
at
individual
risk
levels
of
1x10­
4
and
1x10­
3
(
probably
because
fewer
systems
provide
additional
treatment)
and
about
the
same
at
1x10­
2.
Only
at
very
high
risk
levels
(
such
as
1x10­
1)
do
fewer
people
face
these
risks
(
probably
because
of
the
lower
estimated
occurrence)
than
estimated
under
the
ICR
data
set.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
S­
8
Cumulative
Percent
Annual
Individual
Risk
of
Illness
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
10^­
8
10^­
7
10^­
6
10^­
5
10^­
4
10^­
3
0.01
0.1
1
2
Log
Pre­
LT2
Risk
Post­
LT2
Risk
­
As­
Required
Post­
LT2
Risk
­
As­
Achieved
Annual
Individual
Risk
by
Bin
ICR
CWS
Option
A1
Exhibit
S.
5
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
S­
9
Cumulative
Percent
Annual
Individual
Risk
of
Illness
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
10^­
8
10^­
7
10^­
6
10^­
5
10^­
4
10^­
3
0.01
0.1
1
No
Action
0.5
Log
1.5
Log
2.5
Log
Pre­
LT2
Risk
Post­
LT2
Risk
­
As­
Required
Post­
LT2
Risk
­
As­
Achieved
Annual
Individual
Risk
by
Bin
ICR
CWS
Option
A2
Exhibit
S.
6
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
S­
10
Cumulative
Percent
Annual
Individual
Risk
of
Illness
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
10^­
8
10^­
7
10^­
6
10^­
5
10^­
4
10^­
3
0.01
0.1
1
No
Action
1
Log
2
Log
Pre­
LT2
Risk
Post­
LT2
Risk
­
As­
Required
Post­
LT2
Risk
­
As­
Achieved
Annual
Individual
Risk
by
Bin
ICR
CWS
Option
A3
Exhibit
S.
7
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
S­
11
Cumulative
Percent
Annual
Individual
Risk
of
Illness
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
10^­
8
10^­
7
10^­
6
10^­
5
10^­
4
10^­
3
0.01
0.1
1
No
Action
0.5
Log
1
Log
Pre­
LT2
Risk
Post­
LT2
Risk
­
As­
Required
Post­
LT2
Risk
­
As­
Achieved
Annual
Individual
Risk
by
Bin
ICR
CWS
Option
A4
Exhibit
S.
8
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
S­
12
Cumulative
Percent
Annual
Individual
Risk
of
Illness
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
10^­
8
10^­
7
10^­
6
10^­
5
10^­
4
10^­
3
0.01
0.1
1
2
Log
Pre­
LT2
Risk
Post­
LT2
Risk
­
As­
Required
Post­
LT2
Risk
­
As­
Achieved
Annual
Individual
Risk
by
Bin
SSL
CWS
Option
A1
Exhibit
S.
9
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
S­
13
Cumulative
Percent
Annual
Individual
Risk
of
Illness
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
10^­
8
10^­
7
10^­
6
10^­
5
10^­
4
10^­
3
0.01
0.1
1
No
Action
0.5
Log
1.5
Log
Pre­
LT2
Risk
Post­
LT2
Risk
­
As­
Required
Post­
LT2
Risk
­
As­
Achieved
Annual
Individual
Risk
by
Bin
SSL
CWS
Option
A2
Exhibit
S.
10
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
S­
14
Cumulative
Percent
Annual
Individual
Risk
of
Illness
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
10^­
8
10^­
7
10^­
6
10^­
5
10^­
4
10^­
3
0.01
0.1
1
No
Action
1
Log
Pre­
LT2
Risk
Post­
LT2
Risk
­
As­
Required
Post­
LT2
Risk
­
As­
Achieved
Annual
Individual
Risk
by
Bin
SSL
CWS
Option
A3
Exhibit
S.
11
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
S­
15
Cumulative
Percent
Annual
Individual
Risk
of
Illness
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
10^­
8
10^­
7
10^­
6
10^­
5
10^­
4
10^­
3
0.01
0.1
1
No
Action
0.5
Log
Pre­
LT2
Risk
Post­
LT2
Risk
­
As­
Required
Post­
LT2
Risk
­
As­
Achieved
Annual
Individual
Risk
by
Bin
SSL
CWS
Option
A4
Exhibit
S.
12
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
S­
16
Cumulative
Percent
Annual
Individual
Risk
of
Illness
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
10^­
8
10^­
7
10^­
6
10^­
5
10^­
4
10^­
3
0.01
0.1
1
2
Log
Pre­
LT2
Risk
Post­
LT2
Risk
­
As­
Required
Post­
LT2
Risk
­
As­
Achieved
Annual
Individual
Risk
by
Bin
SSM
CWS
Option
A1
Exhibit
S.
13
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
S­
17
Cumulative
Percent
Annual
Individual
Risk
of
Illness
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
10^­
8
10^­
7
10^­
6
10^­
5
10^­
4
10^­
3
0.01
0.1
1
No
Action
0.5
Log
1.5
Log
Pre­
LT2
Risk
Post­
LT2
Risk
­
As­
Required
Post­
LT2
Risk
­
As­
Achieved
Annual
Individual
Risk
by
Bin
SSM
CWS
Option
A2
Exhibit
S.
14
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
S­
18
Cumulative
Percent
Annual
Individual
Risk
of
Illness
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
10^­
8
10^­
7
10^­
6
10^­
5
10^­
4
10^­
3
0.01
0.1
1
No
Action
1
Log
Pre­
LT2
Risk
Post­
LT2
Risk
­
As­
Required
Post­
LT2
Risk
­
As­
Achieved
Annual
Individual
Risk
by
Bin
SSM
CWS
Option
A3
Exhibit
S.
15
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
S­
19
Cumulative
Percent
Annual
Individual
Risk
of
Illness
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
10^­
8
10^­
7
10^­
6
10^­
5
10^­
4
10^­
3
0.01
0.1
1
No
Action
0.5
Log
Pre­
LT2
Risk
Post­
LT2
Risk
­
As­
Required
Post­
LT2
Risk
­
As­
Achieved
Annual
Individual
Risk
by
Bin
SSM
CWS
Option
A4
Exhibit
S.
16
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
S­
20
S.
4
Relationship
Among
the
Modeled
True,
Measured,
and
Binning
Concentrations
of
Cryptosporidium
The
data
throughout
this
Economic
Analysis
uses
data
on
the
concentration
of
Cryptosporidium,
but
in
three
different
ways.
Exhibit
S.
17
shows
those
differences
graphically
using
the
ICR
data
set
and
alternative
A3.
Data
from
one
of
three
occurrence
data
sets
ICR,
ICRSSL,
or
ICRSSM)
are
used
by
a
model
to
model
a
"
true"
distribution.
This
distribution
of
occurrence
means
would,
when
measured
under
the
analytical
laboratory
protocols
produced
a
distribution
of
means,
labeled
as
"
measured
concentrations"
in
Exhibit
S.
17.
Binning
assignments
are
made
using
a
particular
computation
from
these
concentrations
 
the
highest
annual
running
average
from
2
years
of
monthly
data.
That
computation
actually
produces
the
step
function
shown
in
Exhibit
S.
17
as
MaxRAA.

Part
of
the
point
of
this
distinction
is
that
the
model
and
the
results
in
this
appendix
derive
their
estimates
of
risk
using
the
"
true
concentration"
estimated
distributions,
after
taking
into
account
any
treatment
in
a
system
required
by
being
binned
by
the
MaxRAA.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
S­
21
Cumulative
Percent
Plant
Mean
Cryptosporidium
Concentration
(
oocysts/
liter)

10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
10^­
5
10^­
4
10^­
3
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
True
Concentration
Measured
Concentration
Max
RAA
(
for
binning)

65%
93%
97%
0.075
1.0
3.0
Relationship
Among
True,
Measured
and
Binning
Concentrations
Based
on
Occurence
Model
for
ICR
Data;
Marked
Bin
Limits
are
for
Regulatory
Option
A3
Exhibit
S.
17
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
S­
22
S.
5
Development
of
Estimates
of
Risk
Distributions
by
Regulatory
Alternative
Bin
Developing
estimates
of
risk
distributions
by
regulatory
alternative
bin
requires
several
steps.
The
following
series
of
graphs
(
Exhibits
S.
18
through
S.
24,
and
S.
6)
illustrate
each
of
those
steps,
and
they
are
described
below.
These
graphs
are
for
filtered
CWS
systems
only.
These
graphs
do
not
include
the
variability
related
to
ingestion,
and
therefore
are
not
exactly
comparable
to
the
graphs
used
in
the
Economic
Analysis
(
Exhibits
5.12
and
C.
11).
Those
graphs
show
somewhat
steeper
peaks
due
to
accounting
for
the
above
average
ingestion
levels
by
some
individuals.
The
sequence
of
eight
graphs
is
repeated
for
each
regulatory
alternative.

1.
Modeled
Cryptosporidium
Source
Water
Distribution
by
Bin
In
this
step,
the
graph
(
Exhibit
S.
18)
shows
the
overall
source
water
occurrence
distribution
(
the
dashed
line)
of
system
means.
It
also
shows
how
that
distribution
divides
up
into
distributions
by
bin.
Note
that
the
distributions
for
each
bin
are
not
merely
cut
segments
of
the
overall
distribution,
but
overlap
somewhat,
reflecting
the
misclassification
inherent
in
the
monitoring,
testing,
and
Maximum
Running
Annual
Average
(
Max
RAA)
calculation
that
place
systems
into
bins.

2.
Pre­
LT2
Finished
Water
By
Bin,
Modeled
Points
In
this
step,
the
graph
(
Exhibit
S.
19)
repeats
the
distributions
of
source
water
by
bin,
and
adds
the
pre­
LT2
finished
water
concentration
for
each
of
the
simulation
points.
The
mass
of
data
points
reflects
the
percentages
of
small
and
large
systems,
the
modeled
treatment
effectiveness
based
on
the
appropriate
treatment
distribution
(
including
variability),
and
the
effect
of
treatment
credits.
Each
estimated
data
point
only
corresponds
vertically
to
its
original
placement
in
the
overall
distribution
curve
by
bin
(
the
lines
above).

3.
Pre­
LT2
Finished
Water
by
Bin,
Distribution
Curve
This
graph
(
Exhibit
S.
20)
resorts
all
the
individual
simulation
estimates
from
the
bottom
of
the
graph
for
Step
2
(
Exhibit
S.
19)
into
a
single
distribution
curve
for
each
bin.
(
The
points
on
the
finished
water
curve
now
do
not
correspond
vertically
to
the
source
water
curve
because
they
have
been
resorted
in
order
of
concentration.)

4.
Post­
LT2
Finished
Water,
Required
Reduction,
Modeled
Points
This
graph
(
Exhibit
S.
21)
repeats
the
finished
water
distributions
derived
in
Exhibit
S.
16,
and
adds
for
each
of
those
simulated
points,
the
Post­
LT2
required
log
reduction.
Thus,
in
the
No
Action
bins,
all
points
are
exactly
along
the
finished
water
curve.
For
an
action
bin,
there
may
be
several
lines,
reflecting
that
some
systems
must
meet
the
stated
bin
requirement
(
such
as
1
log),
but
others
may
be
entitled
to
a
half
log
or
1
log
credit.
In
some
cases,
that
may
mean
some
systems
in
action
bins
will
require
no
additional
treatment
and
lie
along
the
original
finished
water
distribution
line.

5.
Post­
LT2
Finished
Water,
Required
Reduction,
Distribution
Curve
This
graph
(
Exhibit
S.
22)
takes
the
individual
points
shown
in
the
graph
for
Step
4
(
Exhibit
S.
21)
and
resorts
them
into
distributions.
It
shows
two
distributions
by
bin:
the
distribution
of
Pre­
LT2
finished
water
and
the
minimum
improvement
required
by
that
rule
alternative.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
S­
23
6.
Post­
LT2
Finished
Water,
Achieved
Reduction,
Modeled
Points
This
graph
(
Exhibit
S.
23)
again
shows
the
Pre­
LT2
finished
water
distribution
derived
in
Exhibit
S.
20
and
shown
in
Exhibits
S.
21
and
S.
22.
Analogous
with
Exhibit
S.
21,
this
graph
shows
the
simulation
points
based
on
the
achieved
log
reductions.
Because
the
Decision
Tree
includes
many
technologies
that
achieve
different
log
reductions,
there
can
be
multiple
lines.
For
example,
for
"
systems"
in
a
1
log
bin,
they
may
achieve
0.0
log
reduction
(
because
they
are
entitled
to
a
1
log
credit
and
need
no
further
treatment),
a
half­
log
reduction
(
because
they
are
entitled
to
a
0.5
log
credit
and
choose
a
technology
that
achieves
only
a
half
log
of
treatment),
or
any
degree
of
treatment
up
to
3.0
logs.

7.
All
Finished
Water
Distributions
by
Bin
This
graph
(
Exhibit
S.
24)
includes
the
distributions
from
the
graph
from
Step
5
(
finished
water
and
"
required",
Exhibit
S.
22),
and
adds
the
resorted
distribution
of
"
as
achieved"
from
the
graph
for
Step
6
(
Exhibit
S.
23).
In
this
one
graph,
each
bin
shows
the
finished
water
occurrence,
the
required
improvement,
and
the
improvement
achieved.

8.
Annual
Individual
Risk
by
Bin
Exhibit
S.
6
takes
the
distributions
from
the
graph
for
Step
7
and
computes
the
distributions
in
terms
of
annual
individual
risk
of
illness.
As
expected,
the
same
general
shapes
of
the
curves
from
Exhibit
S.
24
are
seen.
Again,
these
graphs
do
not
include
the
variability
related
to
ingestion,
and
therefore
are
not
exactly
comparable
to
the
graphs
used
in
the
Economic
Analysis
(
Exhibits
5.12
and
C.
11).
Those
graphs
show
somewhat
steeper
peaks
due
to
accounting
for
the
above
average
ingestion
levels
by
some
individuals.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
S­
24
Cumulative
Percent
Plant
Mean
Cryptosporidium
Concentration(
oocysts/
liter)

10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
10^­
6
10^­
5
10^­
4
10^­
3
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
No
Action
0.5
Log
1.5
Log
2.5
Log
Source
Water
Distribution
(
Mean
Uncertainty
Curve)
Source
Water
Distribution
by
Bin
Modeled
Cryptosporidium
Source
Water
Distribution
by
Bin
ICR
CWS
Option
A2
Exhibit
S.
18
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
S­
25
Cumulative
Percent
Plant
Mean
Cryptosporidium
Concentration(
oocysts/
liter)

10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
10^­
10
10^­
9
10^­
8
10^­
7
10^­
6
10^­
5
10^­
4
10^­
3
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
No
Action
0.5
Log
1.5
Log
2.5
Log
Source
Water
Pre­
LT2
Finished
Water
Pre­
LT2
Finished
Water
by
Bin,
Modeled
Points
ICR
CWS
Option
A2
Exhibit
S.
19
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
S­
26
Cumulative
Percent
Plant
Mean
Cryptosporidium
Concentration(
oocysts/
liter)

10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
10^­
10
10^­
9
10^­
8
10^­
7
10^­
6
10^­
5
10^­
4
10^­
3
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
No
Action
0.5
Log
1.5
Log
2.5
Log
Source
Water
Pre­
LT2
Finished
Water
Pre­
LT2
Finished
Water
by
Bin,
Distribution
Curve
ICR
CWS
Option
A2
Exhibit
S.
20
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
S­
27
Cumulative
Percent
Plant
Mean
Cryptosporidium
Concentration(
oocysts/
liter)

50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
10^­
8
10^­
7
10^­
6
10^­
5
10^­
4
10^­
3
0.01
0.1
1
0.5
Log
1.5
Log
2.5
Log
Pre­
LT2
Finished
Water
Post­
LT2
As­
Required
Post­
LT2
Finished
Water,
Required
Reduction,
Modeled
Points
ICR
CWS
Option
A2
Exhibit
S.
21
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
S­
28
Cumulative
Percent
Plant
Mean
Cryptosporidium
Concentration(
oocysts/
liter)

50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
10^­
8
10^­
7
10^­
6
10^­
5
10^­
4
10^­
3
0.01
0.1
1
0.5
Log
1.5
Log
2.5
Log
Pre­
LT2
Finished
Water
Post­
LT2
As­
Required
Post­
LT2
Finished
Water,
Required
Reduction,
Distribution
Curve
ICR
CWS
Option
A2
Exhibit
S.
22
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
S­
29
Cumulative
Percent
Plant
Mean
Cryptosporidium
Concentration(
oocysts/
liter)

50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
10^­
8
10^­
7
10^­
6
10^­
5
10^­
4
10^­
3
0.01
0.1
1
0.5
Log
1.5
Log
2.5
Log
Pre­
LT2
Finished
Water
Post­
LT2
As­
Achieved
Post­
LT2
Finished
Water,
Achieved
Reduction,
Modeled
Points
ICR
CWS
Option
A2
Exhibit
S.
23
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
S­
30
Cumulative
Percent
Plant
Mean
Cryptosporidium
Concentration(
oocysts/
liter)

50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
10^­
8
10^­
7
10^­
6
10^­
5
10^­
4
10^­
3
0.01
0.1
1
0.5
Log
1.5
Log
2.5
Log
Pre­
LT2
Finished
Water
Post­
LT2
As
Required
Post­
LT2
As
Achieved
All
Finished
Water
Distributions
by
Bin
ICR
CWS
Option
A2
Exhibit
S.
24
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
T­
1
June
2003
Appendix
T
Risk
Assessment
Model
 
Program
and
Data
Files
T.
1
Summary
This
appendix
describes
the
program
and
data
files
used
in
the
LT2ESWTR
risk
assessment
model.
It
is
meant
to
be
used
in
conjunction
with
running
the
SAS
Risk
and
Benefits
model,
provided
on
CD.
It
describes
the
general
progression
of
the
programs,
the
inputs
to
the
model
(
constants
and
distributions),
macros
used
in
the
intermediate
steps,
and
the
Excel
output
files.
The
chapter
and
appendix
exhibits
containing
the
model
outputs
are
also
noted
at
the
relevant
steps.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
T­
2
June
2003
Running
the
SAS
Risk
and
Benefits
Model
Program1.
sas
Generates
national
risk
uncertainty
distributions
for
all
filtered
systems
Program1a.
sas
Generates
national
risk
uncertainty
distributions
for
Very
small
(
VS),
Small
(
SM),
and
Medium
(
MD)
unfiltered
systems
Program2.
sas
Generates
benefits
for
all
filtered/
unfiltered
systems
and
output
for
Appendices
Program1b.
sas
Generates
national
risk
uncertainty
distributions
for
Large
(
LG)
unfiltered
systems
Program3.
sas
Generates
Annual
Individual
Risk
Distributions
(
variability)
from
data
generated
by
Programs
1,
1a
and
1b
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
T­
3
June
2003
Excel
Outputs
CasesAvoid_
BenefitAnn_
3_
enhan.
xls
(
Exhibit
C4a),
CasesAvoid_
BenefitAnn_
3_
trad.
xls
(
Exhibit
C4b),
CasesAvoid_
BenefitAnn_
7_
enhan.
xls
(
Exhibit
C5a),
CasesAvoid_
BenefitAnn_
7_
trad.
xls
(
Exhibit
C5b),

CasesAvoid_
BenefitAnn_
filt_
3_
enhan.
xls
(
Exhibit
C6a),
CasesAvoid_
BenefitAnn_
filt_
3_
trad.
xls
(
Exhibit
C6b),
CasesAvoid_
BenefitAnn_
filt_
7_
enhan.
xls
(
Exhibit
C8a),
CasesAvoid_
BenefitAnn_
filt_
7_
trad.
xls
(
Exhibit
C8b),
CasesAvoid_
BenefitAnn_
unfilt_
3_
enhan.
xls
(
Exhibit
C7a),
CasesAvoid_
BenefitAnn_
unfilt_
3_
trad.
xls
(
Exhibit
C7b),
CasesAvoid_
BenefitAnn_
unfilt_
7_
enhan.
xls
(
Exhibit
C9a),
CasesAvoid_
BenefitAnn_
unfilt_
7_
trad.
xls
(
Exhibit
C9b)

Cases
Avoided­
Benefits
Annualized
tables
for
3%
and
7%
discount
rate,
All/
filtered/
unfiltered
systems
and
enhanced/
traditional
COI
Appendix
C
PV_
Benefits_
3_
enhan.
xls,
PV_
Benefits_
3_
trad,
PV_
Benefits_
7_
enhan.
xls,
PV_
Benefits_
7_
trad.
xls,

Present
Value
summary
statistic
tables
for
3%
and
7%
discount
rates,
all
systems,
and
enhanced/
traditional
COI
Appendix
O
ICR_
NomBenefits_
a3_
enhan.
xls,
ICR_
NomBenefits_
a3_
trad.
xls
Nominal
Benefits
for
ICR,
A3
(
Enhanced
and
Traditional
COI)
Appendix
C
VSL_
Stats.
xls
Mean
of
Yearly
Values
for
a
Statistical
Life
(
simulation
results)
Appendix
C
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
T­
4
June
2003
Program1.
sas
 
Calculating
Risk
Uncertainty
Distributions
for
Filtered
Systems
MACRO
generateLogN(
dataset)
1.
Select
250
mu­
sigma
pairs
at
random
out
of
1000
plausible
pairs
from
occurrence
modeling
2.
From
each
selected
mu­
sigma
pair,
generate
1000
random
lognormal
plant
mean
concentrations
3.
Repeat
for
each
dataset
(
ICR,
SSL,
SSM)

MACRO
calculateMaxRAA(
dataset)
1.
For
each
simulated
plant
mean
concentration,
generate
24
monthly
concentrations
as
random
lognormal
values
x1..
x24
2.
Generate
r1..
r24
recovery
rates
as
random
Beta(
2,3)
3.
Calculate
lambda1..
lambda24
as
Volume(
L)
*
conc(
oocyst/
L)
*
Recovery
(
unitless).
Volume
is
always
10L.
4.
Generate
integer
counts
zi
as
random
Poisson(
lambdai),
i=
1..
24
5.
Calculate
12
months
moving
average
i=
1..
13
(
for
month
12..
24)
and
divide
it
by
10
to
obtain
count/
L.
6.
Return
max
of
13
moving
average
values.
7.
Repeat
for
each
dataset
CONSTANT
All
Benefits
Model
mu­
sig
pairs.
xls
(
mu­
sigma
pairs
from
modeled
Cryptosporidium
occurrence
data)

DATA:
ICR_
musigma
SSL_
musigma
SSM_
musigma
DATA:
ICR_
MaxRAA
SSL_
MaxRAA
SSM_
MaxRAA
DATA:
Credit
MACRO
computeRequiredRemoval(
dataset)
1.
For
each
rule
calculate
rule
removal
(
bins)
based
on
MaxRAA
values
2.
For
a0
(
baseline),
there
is
no
rule
removal
3.
For
a1,
all
rule
removals
are
2
logs
4.
Determine
required
removal
by
subtracting
credit
value
(
0,0.5,1)
from
rule
removal.
If
difference<
0,
input
0.
5.
Repeat
for
each
dataset
by
option,
size
and
credit
DATA:
ICR_
RuleRemoval
SSL_
RuleRemoval
SSM_
RuleRemoval
TO
MACRO
calculateAchievedRemoval
(
NEXT
PAGE)
MACRO
assignCredit
1.
Assign
credit
(
half
or
full)
to
systems
with
some
credit
2.
Probabilities
are
conditional
given
that
system
has
some
credit
3.
Credit
probabilities
vary
by
size
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
T­
5
June
2003
Program1.
sas
 
Calculate
Risk
Uncertainty
Distributions
for
Filtered
Systems
MACRO
calculateAchievedRemoval(
dataset)
1.
Calculate
the
actual
removal
achieved
(
based
on
removal
required)
as
a
random
value
with
probabilities
drawn
from
compliance
matrix
2.
Compliance
forecast
probabilities
are
given
by
credit
and
size
3.
Repeat
for
each
dataset
by
rule,
size
and
credit
MACRO
computeFWCryptoConc(
dataset)
1.
Calculate
the
finished
water
crypto
concentration
2.
Finished
water
crypto
concentration
is
plant
concentration
divided
by
10^(
plt2
+
achieved
removal)
3.
For
baseline
achieved
removal
is
always
zero
4.
Repeat
for
each
dataset
by
rule,
size
and
credit
MACRO
generateComplianceForecastProbs
1.
Create
compliance
forecast
probabilities
as
random
values
with
probabilities
drawn
from
compliance
matrix
2.
Compliance
forecast
probabilities
are
used
to
determine
the
actual
achieved
removal
based
on
required
removal
value
3.
Compliance
matrix
probabilities
are
given
by
credit
and
size
MACRO
performPreLT2Removal
1.
Generate
pre­
LT2
removal
by
credit/
nocredit
and
size
2.
Generate
triangular
distribution
mode
as
random
uniform
uncertainty
parameter
3.
Pre­
LT2
is
based
on
triangular
distribution
with
parameters
for
small
size
(
VS,
SM)
and
large
size
(
MD,
LG)
4.
For
systems
with
some
credit,
0.5
log
is
added
to
the
triangular
distribution
parameters
5.
Values
vary
by
size
and
credit
DATA:
PreLT2
DATA:
Credit
From
MACRO
assignCredit
(
PREV
PAGE)
DATA:
ICR_
RuleRemoval
SSL_
RuleRemoval
SSM_
RuleRemoval
DATA:
ICR_
AchievedRemoval
SSL_
AchievedRemoval
SSM_
AchievedRemoval
CONSTANT
Alternate
Compliance
Matrix.
xls
(
compliance
forecast
probabilities)

DATA:
compliance_
forecast_
probs
DATA:
ICR_
musigma
SSL_
musigma
SSM_
musigma
From
MACRO
generateLogN
(
PREV
PAGE)

DATA:
ICR_
FW_
crypto_
conc
SSL_
FW_
crypto_
conc
SSM_
FW_
crypto_
conc
From
MACRO
computeRequiredRemoval
(
PREV
PAGE)

TO
MACRO
calculateRiskCurves
(
NEXT
PAGE)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
T­
6
June
2003
Program1.
sas
 
Calculate
Risk
Uncertainty
Distributions
for
Filtered
Systems
MACRO
generateRiskParams
1.
Generate
risk
dose­
response
parameters
2.
m
=
morbidity
=
unc
param
from
triangular
distribution
for
each
outer
loop
(
250
values)
3.
v
=
viability
unc
param
from
triangular
distribution
for
each
outer
loop
(
250
values)
4.
I
=
constant
­
avg
drinking
water
ingestion
5.
r
=
unc
param
drawn
from
collection
of
8000
values
for
each
outer
loop
(
250
values)
6.
n
=
constant
­
number
of
days
of
exposure
(
varies
by
CWS,
NTN,
TN)

MACRO
calculateRiskCurves
(
dataset)
1.
Calculate
the
risk
curves
2.
Risk
Curve
=
m
*
[
1
­
exp(­
CvIrn)]
3.
m,
v,
r
are
randomly
generated
risk
parameters
4.
C
=
finished
water
crypto
concentration
5.
I
=
avg.
drinking
water
consumption
(
constant)
6.
n
=
number
of
exposure
days
(
constant)
by
system
type
7.
Repeat
for
each
dataset
by
rule,
size
and
credit
and
system
type
MACRO
calculateRiskCurvesMean(
dataset)
1.
Calculate
250
risk
means
2.
Repeat
for
each
dataset
by
rule,
size
and
credit
and
system
type
CONSTANT
Mean
r
Values.
xls
(
8000
R
values)

DATA:
ICR_
FW_
crypto_
conc
SSL_
FW_
crypto_
conc
SSM_
FW_
crypto_
conc
DATA
Risk_
params
DATA:
ICR_
Risk_
Curves
SSL_
Risk_
Curves
SSM_
Risk_
Curves
DATA:
ICR_
Risk_
Means
SSL_
Risk_
Means
SSM_
Risk_
Means
FROM
MACRO
computeFWCryptoConc
(
PREV
PAGE)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
T­
7
June
2003
Program1a.
sas
 
Calculate
Risk
Uncertainty
Distributions
for
VS
(
very
small),
SM
(
small),
and
MD
medium)
Unfiltered
Systems
(
using
MD
as
an
example)

MACRO
generateLogN(
dataset)
1.
Select
250
random
mu­
sigma
pairs
from
the
list
of
1000
previously
generated
mu
sigma
values
2.
From
each
selected
mu­
sigma
pair,
generate
1000
random
lognormal
plant
mean
concentrations
3.
Implement
cap
(
plant
mean
<
1000
oocysts/
l)
CONSTANT
All
Benefits
Model
mu­
sig
pairs.
xls
(
mu­
sigma
pairs)

DATA:
UMD_
musigma
DATA:
UMD_
PlantAvg
MACRO
computeRequiredRemoval(
dataset)
1.
For
each
rule
calculate
rule
removal
(
bins)
based
on
Plant
Avg.
values
2.
For
baseline
there
is
no
rule
removal
3.
For
rule
options,
all
rule
removals
are
2
or
3
logs
4.
Determine
required
removal
by
comparing
plant
average
to
0.01
5.
Repeat
for
each
size
DATA:
UMD_
RuleRemoval
TO
MACRO
calculateAchievedRemoval
(
NEXT
PAGE)
MACRO
calculatePlantAvg(
dataset)
1.
For
each
simulated
plant
mean
concentration,
generate
24
monthly
concentrations
as
random
lognormal
values
x1..
x24
2.
Generate
r1..
r24
recovery
rates
as
random
Beta(
2,3)
3.
Calculate
lambda1..
lambda24
as
Volume(
L)
*
conc(
oocyst/
L)
*
Recovery
(
unitless).
Volume
is
always
10L.
4.
Generate
integer
counts
zi
as
random
Poisson(
lambdai),
i=
1..
24
5.
Calculate
simple
24­
month
average
and
divide
by
10
to
obtain
count/
l
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
T­
8
June
2003
FROM
Program1.
sas
MACRO
calculateAchievedRemoval(
dataset)
1.
Calculate
the
actual
removal
achieved
(
based
on
removal
required)
as
a
random
value
with
probabilities
drawn
from
compliance
matrix
2.
Compliance
forecast
probabilities
are
given
by
size
3.
Repeat
for
each
dataset
by
size
DATA:
UMD_
AchievedRemoval
MACRO
computeFWCryptoConc
(
dataset)
1.
Calculate
the
finished
water
crypto
concentration
2.
Finished
water
crypto
concentration
is
plant
concentration
divided
by
10^(
plt2
+
achieved
removal)
3.
For
baseline
achieved
removal
is
always
zero
4.
Repeat
for
each
dataset
by
rule,
size
DATA:
UMD_
FW_
crypto_
conc
MACRO
calculateRiskCurves
(
dataset)
1.
Calculate
the
risk
curves
2.
Risk
Curve
=
m
*
[
1
­
exp(­
CvIrn)]
3.
m,
v,
and
r
are
randomly
generated
risk
parameters
4.
C
=
finished
water
crypto
concentration
6.
I
=
avg.
drinking
water
consumption
(
constant)
7.
n
=
number
of
exposure
days
(
constant)
by
system
type
8.
Repeat
for
each
rule
by
size
NOTE:
For
unfiltered
systems
risk
is
capped
at
0.10
and
CWS
is
the
only
system
type
MACRO
calculateRiskCurvesMean
(
dataset)
1.
Calculate
250
risk
means
2.
Repeat
for
each
rule
by
size
DATA:
UMD_
Risk_
Curves
DATA:
UMD_
Risk_
Means
DATA
Risk_
params
Program1a.
sas
 
Calculate
Risk
Uncertainty
Distributions
for
VS
(
very
small),
SM
(
small),
and
MD
(
medium)
Unfiltered
Systems
(
using
MD
as
an
example)

FROM
MACRO
computeRequiredRemoval
(
PREV
PAGE)

DATA:
UMD_
RuleRemoval
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
T­
9
June
2003
Program1b.
sas
 
Calculate
Risk
Uncertainty
Distribution
for
LG
(
large)
Unfiltered
Systems
MACRO
generateLogN(
dataset)
1.
For
2
large
unfiltered
systems,
select
250
mu­
sigma
pairs
at
random
out
of
1000
plausible
pairs
from
occurrence
modeling
2.
From
each
selected
mu­
sigma
pair,
generate
1000
random
lognormal
plant
mean
concentrations
3.
Implement
cap
(
plant
mean
<
1000
oocysts/
l)
CONSTANT
All
Benefits
Model
mu­
sig
pairs.
xls
(
mu­
sigma
pairs)

DATA:
ULG_
musigma
DATA:
ULG_
PlantAvg
MACRO
computeRequiredRemoval(
dataset)
1.
Calculate
rule
removal
(
bins)
based
on
Plant
Avg.
values
2.
For
baseline
there
is
no
rule
removal
3.
For
rule,
all
rule
removals
are
2
or
3
logs
4.
Determine
required
removal
by
comparing
plant
average
to
0.01
5.
Repeat
for
each
LG­
VL
(
large,
very
large)
system
DATA:
ULG_
RuleRemoval
DATA
VL_
Counts
(
mu­
sigma
pairs)
MACRO
generateVLCounts
For
8
very
large
systems,
select
250
random
plant
means,
per
system,
from
1000
simulated
means
for
each
system
based
on
occurrence
models
and
ICR
data
for
each
of
the
8
systems
To
MACRO
calculateAchievedRemoval
(
NEXT
PAGE)
MACRO
calculatePlantAvg(
dataset)
1.
For
each
simulated
plant
mean
concentration,
generate
24
monthly
concentrations
as
random
lognormal
values
x1..
x24
2.
Generate
r1..
r24
recovery
rates
as
random
Beta(
2,3)
3.
Calculate
lambda1..
lambda24
as
Volume(
L)
*
conc(
oocyst/
L)
*
Recovery
(
unitless).
Volume
is
always
10L.
4.
Generate
integer
counts
zi
as
random
Poisson(
lambdai),
i=
1..
24
5.
Calculate
simple
24­
month
average
and
divide
by
10
to
obtain
count/
l
6.
Repeat
for
each
one
of
the
10
LG/
VL
(
large,
very
large)
unfiltered
systems
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
T­
10
June
2003
FROM
Program1.
sas
MACRO
calculateAchievedRemoval(
dataset)
1.
Calculate
the
actual
removal
achieved
(
based
on
removal
required)
as
a
random
value
with
probabilities
drawn
from
compliance
matrix
2.
Compliance
forecast
probabilities
are
given
by
size
3.
Repeat
for
each
LG­
VL
(
large,
very
large)
plant
DATA:
ULG_
AchievedRemoval
MACRO
computeFWCryptoConc
(
dataset)
1.
Calculate
the
finished
water
crypto
concentration
2.
Finished
water
crypto
concentration
is
plant
concentration
divided
by
10^(
plt2
+
achieved
removal)
3.
For
baseline
achieved
removal
is
always
zero
4.
Repeat
for
each
LG­
VL
plant
DATA:
ULG_
FW_
crypto_
conc
MACRO
calculateRiskCurvesMean
(
dataset)
1.
Calculate
250
risk
means
2.
Repeat
for
each
dataset
by
rule
and
1
size
(
LG)
DATA:
ULG_
Risk_
Curves
DATA:
ULG_
Risk_
Means
DATA
Risk_
params
Program1b.
sas
 
Calculate
Risk
Uncertainty
Distributions
for
LG
Unfiltered
Systems
(
cont)

FROM
MACRO
computeRequiredRemoval
(
PREV
PAGE)

DATA:
ULG_
RuleRemoval
MACRO
calculateRiskCurves
(
dataset)
1.
Calculate
the
risk
curves
2.
Risk
Curve
=
m
*
[
1
­
exp(­
CvIrn)]
3.
m,
v,
and
r
are
randomly
generated
risk
parameters
4.
C
=
finished
water
crypto
concentration
6.
I
=
avg.
drinking
water
consumption
(
constant)
7.
n
=
number
of
exposure
days
(
constant)
by
system
type
8.
Repeat
for
each
LG­
VL
system
9.
Calculate
risk
curves
as
weighted
average
of
10
systems
with
weights
based
on
system
population
served
NOTE:
For
unfiltered
systems
risk
is
capped
at
0.10
and
CWS
is
the
only
system
type
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
T­
11
June
2003
Program2.
sas
­
Generates
benefits
for
filtered/
unfiltered
systems
and
output
for
Appendices
DATA:
randomRiskParams
MACRO
generateRndParamsForRiskAvoided
1.
Generate
a
random
vector
(
w/
replacement)
of
10000
to
be
used
for
selection
of
risk
means
2.
Generate
a
random
vector
of
10000
secondary
spread
parameters
from
random
triangular
distribution
3.
Generate
a
random
vector
of
10000
TNC
population
multipliers
from
random
triangular
distribution
MACRO
sampleRiskAvoided(
dataset),
MACRO
sampleRiskAvoidedUNF(
dataset),
1.
Read
Risk
Curve
Means
generated
in
previous
step
2.
Subtract
baseline
from
each
alternative
to
calculate
risk
avoided
3.
Generate
random
sample
(
w/
replacement)
of
10000
from
the
set
of
250
risk
means.
4.
Repeat
for
each
dataset
DATA:
ICR_
Risk_
Means
SSM_
Risk_
Means
SSL_
Risk_
Means
UMD_
Risk_
Means
ULG_
Risk_
Means
MACRO
generatePopulationNumbers
1.
Read
system
type
populations
system
type
2.
Create
population
numbers
by
system
type
broken
down
by
credit/
nocredit
population
3.
TNC
population
will
have
randomness
factors
once
it
is
merged
with
risk
means
DATA:
Population
DATA:
ICR_
Risk_
Avoided
SSM_
Risk_
Avoided
SSL_
Risk_
Avoided
UMD_
Risk_
Avoided
ULG_
Risk_
Avoided
TO
MACROS
calculateIllnessesAvoided
calculateIllnessesAvoidedUNF
(
NEXT
PAGE)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
T­
12
June
2003
Program2.
sas
­
Generates
benefits
for
filtered/
unfiltered
systems
and
output
for
Appendices
MACRO
calculateIllnesesAvoided
(
dataset),
MACRO
calculateIllnesesAvoidedUNF(
dataset),
1.
Calculate
number
of
illnesses
avoided
by
multiplying
the
number
Risk
Avoided
by
population
and
secondary
spread
rates
2.
For
TNC
system
type
population
include
uncertainty
factor
(
random
TNC
multiplier)
3.
Repeat
for
each
dataset
DATA:
ICR_
Illnesses_
Avoided
SSM_
Illnesses_
Avoided
SSL_
Illnesses_
Avoided
UMD_
Illnesses_
Avoided
ULG_
Illnesses_
Avoided
MACRO
calculateUNFcoef(
dataset),
MACRO
calculateUNFcoef2
1.
Calculate
proportion
of
SSL
and
SSM
to
ICR
for
filtered
systems
and
apply
same
ratio
to
estimate
unfiltered
systems
illnesses
for
SSL
and
SSM
2.
Combine
unfiltered
and
filtered
DATA:
UNF_
Coef
MACRO
combineIA
Combine
Illnesses
avoided
for
filtered
and
unfiltered
DATA:
ICR_
IA
SSM_
IA
SSL_
IA
Combine
with
Total
and
Annualized
Benefits
to
produce
output
tables
FROM
MACROS
generatePopulationNumbers
sampleRiskAvoided
sampleRiskAvoidedUNF
(
PREV
PAGE)
DATA:
Population
DATA:
ICR_
Risk_
Avoided
SSM_
Risk_
Avoided
SSL_
Risk_
Avoided
UMD_
Risk_
Avoided
ULG_
Risk_
Avoided
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
T­
13
June
2003
Program2.
sas
­
Generates
benefits
for
filtered/
unfiltered
systems
and
output
for
Appendices
MACRO
calculateCOI(
type)
1.
Calculate
COI
as
the
sum
of
medical
COI
and
lost­
time
COI
multiplied
by
income
growth
2.
Income
growth
is
ratio
of
GDP/
person
for
the
current
year
and
GDP/
person
for
2003
as
the
base
year
3.
Repeat
for
each
year
NOTE:
Type
options
for
COI
are
traditional
and
enhanced
MACRO
calculateVSL
1.
Calculate
VSL
as
product
of
VSL
factor
(
1990$),
inflation
adjustment
(
to
2000$)
and
income
elasticity
2.
VSL
factor
is
uncertainty
parameter
from
Weibull
distribution
3.
Inflation
adjustment
factor
is
a
constant
4.
Income
elasticity
is
(
eI1­
eI2­
I2­
I1)/(
eI2­
eI1­
I1­
I2)
where
e
is
uncertainty
parameter
from
triangular
dist,
I2
is
GDP
for
the
current
year
and
I1
is
GDP
for
1990
as
the
base
year
5.
Repeat
for
each
year
DATA:
COI_
Trad
COI_
Enhan
DATA:
VSL
MACRO
calculateBenefitsperPerson
1.
Calculate
illness
and
death
total
and
annualized
benefits
per
person
2.
Produce
benefit
dataset
for
3%
and
7%
discount
and
original/
traditional/
enhanced
COI
DATA:
Benefit3_
trad
Benefit7_
trad
Benefit3_
enhan
Benefit7_
enhan
Combine
with
Illnesses
Avoided
to
produce
output
tables
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
T­
14
June
2003
Program2.
sas
­
Generates
benefits
for
filtered/
unfiltered
systems
and
output
for
Appendices
(
Produce
Cases
Avoided
Benefits
Annualized
for
Exhibits
C4­
C9)

MACRO
calculateTotalBenefits1
MACRO
calculateTotalBenefits2
MACRO
calculateTotalBenefits3
Calculate
statistical
summary
for
Illnesses
and
Deaths
avoided
by
dataset
(
ICR,
SSM,
SSL),
size(
Small,
Large),
filtration(
filtered/
unfiltered),
discount
rate
(
3%,
7%)
and
COI
(
traditional,
enhanced)
DATA:
Benefit3_
trad
Benefit7_
trad
Benefit3_
enhan
Benefit7_
enhan
DATA:
ICR_
IA
SSM_
IA
SSL_
IA
DATA:
CasesAvoid_
BenefitAnn_
3_
enhan.
xls
CasesAvoid_
BenefitAnn_
Filt_
3_
enhan.
xls
CasesAvoid_
BenefitAnn_
Unfilt_
3_
enhan.
xls
CasesAvoid_
BenefitAnn_
7_
enhan.
xls
CasesAvoid_
BenefitAnn_
Filt_
7_
enhan.
xls
CasesAvoid_
BenefitAnn_
Unfilt_
7_
enhan.
xls
CasesAvoid_
BenefitAnn_
3_
trad.
xls
CasesAvoid_
BenefitAnn_
Filt_
3_
trad.
xls
CasesAvoid_
BenefitAnn_
Unfilt_
3_
trad.
xls
CasesAvoid_
BenefitAnn_
7_
trad.
xls
CasesAvoid_
BenefitAnn_
Filt_
7_
trad.
xls
CasesAvoid_
BenefitAnn_
Unfilt_
7_
trad.
xls
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
T­
15
June
2003
Program2.
sas
­
Generates
benefits
for
filtered/
unfiltered
systems
and
output
for
Appendices
(
Produce
Present
Value
of
Benefits
for
Illnesses
and
Deaths
for
Exhibits
C4­
C9)

MACRO
calculatePVTotBenef
Calculate
statistical
summary
for
Present
Value
Illnesses
and
Deaths
avoided
by
dataset
(
ICR,
SSL,
SSM),
size(
Small,
Large),
discount
rate
(
3%,
7%)
and
COI
(
traditional,
enhanced)
DATA:
Benefit3_
trad
Benefit7_
trad
Benefit3_
enhan
Benefit7_
enhan
DATA:
ICR_
IA
SSL_
IA
SSM_
IA
DATA:
PV_
Benefits_
3_
enhan.
xls
PV_
Benefits_
7_
enhan.
xls
PV_
Benefits_
3_
trad.
xls
PV_
Benefits_
7_
trad.
xls
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
T­
16
June
2003
Program2.
sas
­
Generates
benefits
for
filtered/
unfiltered
systems
and
output
for
Appendices
(
Produce
Nominal
Benefits
for
Exhibits
O.
7.
d,
O.
7e)

MACRO
calculateNominalBenefits
Calculate
Nominal
Benefits
for
Illnesses
and
Deaths
avoided
by
for
ICR,
A3
(
preferred
rule)
by
COI
(
traditional,
enhanced)
DATA:
VSL
COI_
Trad
COI_
Enhan
DATA:
ICR_
IA
SSL_
IA
SSM_
IA
DATA:
ICR_
NomBenefits_
a3_
enhan.
xls
ICR_
NomBenefits_
a3_
trad.
xls
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
T­
17
June
2003
Program2.
sas
­
Generates
benefits
for
filtered/
unfiltered
systems
and
output
for
Appendices
(
Produce
Baseline
Illnesses/
Deaths
for
Exhibit
C3)

MACRO
calculateBaselineIllness(
dataset)
MACRO
calculateBaselineIllnessUNF(
dataset)
1.
Calculate
number
of
illnesses
at
baseline
by
multiplying
the
risk
mean
numbers
by
population
and
secondary
spread
rates
2.
For
TN
system
type
population
include
uncertainty
factor
(
random
TN
multiplier)
3.
Repeat
for
each
dataset
DATA:
ICR_
Baseline
SSL_
Baseline
SSM_
Baseline
UNF_
Baseline
MACRO
calculateBaseUNFcoef
MACRO
calculateBaseUNFcoef2
1.
Calculate
proportion
of
SSL
and
SSM
in
ICR
in
order
to
estimate
unfiltered
values
for
SSL
and
SSM
for
Baseline
numbers
2.
Combine
unfiltered
and
filtered
DATA:
UNF_
BaseCoef
DATA:
ICR_
Risk_
Means
SSM_
Risk_
Means
SSL_
Risk_
Means
UMD_
Risk_
Means
ULG_
Risk_
Means
MACRO
combineBaseline(
dataset)
1.
Combine
Baseline
Illnesses
and
Deaths
for
filtered
and
unfiltered
DATA:
ICR_
Baseline
SSL_
Baseline
SSM_
Baseline
MACRO
calculateBaselineStats(
dataset,
subset)
1.
Calculate
statistical
summary
for
Baseline
Illnesses
and
Deaths
by
dataset,
size
and
filtration
DATA:
Baseline.
xls
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
T­
18
June
2003
Program3.
sas
­
Generates
data
for
Annual
Individual
Risk
Distributions
MACRO
generatePopulation
MACRO
generatePopulationUNF
1.
Sample
population
of
10,000
from
each
of
8
categories
(
4
sizes,
2
credits).
For
unfiltered
systems
there
are
4
population
categories
(
4
sizes)
2.
Probability
of
a
person
falling
into
one
of
the
categories
is
based
on
population
numbers
3.
Extrapolate
0,1,2,...,
100
percentiles
for
water
Consumed,
and
assign
random
percentiles
and
water
consumed
to
each
sampled
person
4.
Divide
water
consumed
by
avg
daily
water
consumed
to
obtain
relative
factor
that
multiplies
risk
DATA:
Samplepopulation
SamplepopulationUNF
MACRO
calculateRiskCurvePcts
MACRO
calculateRiskCurvePctsUNF
1.
Calculate
0,1,2,...,
100
percentiles
of
risk
curves
2.
First
calculate
0,1,2,...,
100
percentiles
for
each
of
250
systems
3.
Average
each
percentile
across
250
systems
4.
Repeat
for
each
dataset
by
size
and
credit
(
for
unfiltered
by
size
only)

DATA:
ICR_
RC
SSL_
RC
SSM_
RC
UNF_
RC
DATA:
ICR_
Risk_
Curves
SSL_
Risk_
Curves
SSM_
Risk_
Curves
UNF_
Risk_
Curves
Collection
of
simulated
risk
curves
from
Programs
1,
1a
and
1b
MACRO
annualIndivRisk
MACRO
annualIndivRiskUNF
1.
Assign
risk
to
each
person
sampled
2.
Multiply
risk
curve
by
relative
water
consumption
factor
(
original
risk
curve
is
calculated
based
on
avg
daily
water
consumption)
3.
Prepare
XLS
tables
to
be
used
for
XLS
plots
of
Annual
Individual
Risk
Distributions
DATA:
ICR_
IndivRiskCurve.
xls
SSL_
IndivRiskCurve.
xls
SSM_
IndivRiskCurve.
xls
UNF_
IndivRiskCurve.
xls
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
U­
1
Appendix
U
Cost
Models
U.
1
Summary
This
appendix
provides
detailed
documentation
of
the
cost
models
used
for
the
LT2ESWTR
along
with
a
CD
containing
all
data
files
and
models.
A
flow
chart
is
shown
and
then
descriptions
of
each
component
of
the
flow
chart
and
the
files
used
in
it
are
provided.
The
appendix
is
organized
as
follows:

U.
1
Summary
U.
2
Flow
Chart
U.
3
Baseline
Inputs
U.
4
Technology
Unit
Costs
U.
5
Technology
Selection
Forecasts
U.
6
Cost
Models
U.
7
Projections
and
Discounting
U.
8
National
Costs
U.
9
Household
Costs
U.
2
Flow
Chart
Exhibit
U.
1
shows
a
flow
chart
of
the
LT2
Cost
Model
process.
Each
box
in
the
flow
chart
represent
one
or
more
spreadsheets.
Sections
U.
3
through
U.
9
detail
the
specific
files
in
each
of
the
boxes
below.
On
an
overall
level,
baseline
data
on
systems,
plants
and
flows
is
combined
with
unit
cost
data
for
each
technology.
These
data
are
then
combined
with
compliance
forecasts
as
inputs
to
the
cost
models
which
calculate
total
costs.
These
costs
are
then
discounted
over
time
and
then
manipulated
to
give
total
national
costs
as
well
as
household
costs.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
U­
2
Baseline
Inputs
Technology
Unit
Costs
Technology
Selection
Forecasts
COST
MODELS
Projections
and
Discounting
National
Costs
Household
Costs
Results
Exhibit
U.
1
LT2ESWTR
Cost
Model
Flow
Chart
U.
3
Baseline
Inputs
The
Baseline
input
files
contain
data
input
into
the
cost
models
to
determine
the
conditions
before
changes
are
made
to
comply
with
the
LT2ESWTR.
They
include
number
and
types
of
systems,
population
served,
flows,
and
technologies
installed.
The
files
included
in
this
section
are
listed
below.

°
System
and
Population
Inventories.
xls
This
workbook
is
used
for
both
the
LT2ESWTR
and
Stage
2
DBPR
cost
models.
It
contains
information
from
SDWIS
and
the
Baseline
Handbook
on
the
number
and
type
of
PWSs
and
the
population
they
serve.

°
LT2
Drivers.
xls
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
U­
3
This
workbook
calculates
the
baseline
number
of
systems
and
plants
performing
each
of
the
LT2
activities
using
the
data
from
System
and
Population
Inventories.
It
also
calculates
plant
daily
flows
and
the
number
of
households
served
by
plants
performing
LT2
activities.

°
Compliance
Forecasts
All.
xls
A
Stage
2
file
showing
the
number
of
plants
predicted
to
use
membranes
before
and
after
Stage
2.

°
HH
linking
exercise.
xls
Apportions
the
households
belonging
to
purchased
systems
from
their
linked
size
category
to
their
unlinked
size
category.

U.
4
Technology
Unit
Costs
These
files
contain
technology
unit
cost
per
plant
(
capital
and
O&
M)
for
all
applicable
technologies
based
on
cost
equations
derived
from
the
T&
C
document
and
average
daily
and
design
flows
in
the
LT2
Drivers
file.
The
files
included
under
this
heading
are
detailed
below.

°
LT2
Cost
Summary
01_
25_
02.
xls
This
workbook
is
used
for
both
the
LT2
and
Stage
2
Cost
models.
It
contains
the
cost
data
from
the
Technology
and
Cost
document.

°
Linear
Regressions.
xls
This
workbook
is
used
for
both
the
LT2
and
Stage
2
cost
models.
It
contains
regressions
to
the
cost
points
presented
in
the
Technology
and
Cost
document
which
are
used
to
calculate
unit
costs.

°
LT2
Unit
Cost
Curves.
xls
Calculates
the
unit
cost
from
the
regression
equations
for
each
of
the
size
categories
and
system
types
for
technologies
used
by
both
LT2
and
Stage2.

°
LT2
regressions.
xls
Performs
regressions
for
technologies
used
only
for
LT2.

U.
5
Technology
Selection
Forecasts
These
files
contain
the
technology
selection
percentages
for
the
plants
required
to
add
treatment
for
LT2.

°
App
F
Tables.
xls
Contains
the
technology
selection
forecasts
for
four
different
size
classes.
There
are
two
sets
of
tables,
one
for
systems
receiving
pre­
LT2
credits
and
one
for
systems
with
no
credits.
Both
the
preferred
alternative
and
the
bromide
sensitivity
analysis
are
included.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
U­
4
U.
6
Cost
Models
These
files
contain
separate
models
for
"
treatment"
and
"
non
treatment"
costs.
The
treatment
cost
model
includes
a
Crystal
Ball
function
to
model
the
effect
of
uncertainty
in
unit
treatment
costs
on
national
treatment
costs.
Non­
treatment
costs
include
State
and
PWS
costs
for
rule
implementation
and
monitoring.
There
is
also
a
cost
model
for
uncovered
finished
water
reservoirs.
The
files
included
in
this
section
are
detailed
below.

°
LT2
Treatment
Cost
Model.
xls
This
work
book
contains
a
"
Crystal
Ball"
function
to
model
uncertainty
surrounding
unit
costs.
Several
macros
are
included
to
produce
costs
as
well.
The
Cost_
results
macro
runs
the
Crystal
Ball
function
for
each
regulatory
and
occurrence
distribution
option
and
creates
the
output
files.
The
generate_
bin_
results
macro
creates
the
output
tables
for
the
number
of
plants
selecting
each
technology.
The
HH_
distribution
macro
generates
the
household
cost
results
and
the
small
systems
distribution
generates
a
distribution
of
small
system
costs
which
are
used
in
the
analyses
in
Chapter
7.
It
calculates
all
treatment
costs
for
filtered
and
unfiltered
systems
and
uncovered
finished
water
reservoirs.

°
LT2
Implementation
and
Monitoring
Model.
xls
This
model
contains
a
macro,
Rule_
results_
file_
generation
to
generate
results
for
each
of
the
possible
regulatory
options,
Cryptosporidium
distributions,
and
sensitivity
analyses.

°
Uncovered
reservoir
cost
model.
xls
Calculates
the
unit
costs
required
for
treating
or
covering
uncovered
finished
water
reservoirs.

°
Uncovered
reservoir
dose
data.
xls
Calculates
the
dose
required
to
treat
uncovered
finished
water
reservoirs
with
booster
chlorination.
Checks
to
make
sure
the
assumed
dose
can
deliver
sufficient
CT
in
a
reasonable
distance.

U.
7
Projections
and
Discounting
These
files
use
results
from
the
treatment
model
(
cost
uncertainty
results),
the
non­
treatment
cost
model,
and
the
rule
activity
schedule
to
project
costs
over
a
25
year
period.
Calculates
present
value
based
on
Yr
2000
dollars,
and
annualizes
using
3
and
7
percent
discount
rates.
The
file
in
this
section
is
detailed
below.

°
LT2
Cost
Results.
xls
This
file
contains
the
schedule
of
tasks
for
the
LT2ESWTR.
Each
cost
is
then
spread
out
over
the
25
year
period
for
which
rule
costs
are
calculated
and
discounted
to
present
value.
The
present
value
costs
are
then
annualized.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
U­
5
U.
8
National
Costs
These
files
contain
the
results
as
output
by
the
cost
models
and
as
presented
in
the
EA.
The
files
are
detailed
below.

°
LT2
Technology
Selection
Results.
xls
Shows
the
number
of
plants
selecting
each
technology
for
each
of
the
possible
options.

°
Cost
Variations
Results
A#.
xls
Consists
of
four
files,
which
contain
the
treatment
costs
results
for
each
of
the
four
regulatory
options.

°
LT2
Benefits
Inputs
Contains
removal
achieved
versus
removal
required
for
each
size
category.
This
is
used
as
an
input
to
the
benefits
calculations.

°
LT2
Implementation_
Monitoring
files
Files
coded
as
LT2
Implementation_
Monitoring
A#
ICR???
UV90­
10?
????.
xls.
The
files
contain
the
cost
results
for
all
non­
treatment
costs.
The
coding
of
the
file
name
is
as
follows.
The
number
following
the
A
designates
the
regulatory
alternative.
The
next
series
of
letters
designates
the
Cryptosporidium
occurrence
distribution
used
(
ICR,
ICRSSL,
ICRSSM).
The
next
designation
indicates
the
technology
sensitivity
option
(
UV
90­
10
or
UV
90­
10B)
and
the
last
designation
indicates
whether
the
high,
low,
or
average
lab
costs
were
used.

°
Appendix
D.
xls
Contains
all
the
non­
treatment
cost
results.

°
Appendix
H.
xls
Contains
the
treatment
cost
results
for
filtered
and
unfiltered
plants
adding
treatment.

°
Cost
Table
for
Appendix
I
v2.
xls
Contains
the
household
costs
for
uncovered
finished
water
reservoirs.

°
Appendix
O
exhibits
 
print
version.
xls
A
version
of
sample
sheets
formatted
for
printing.

°
Cost
Variation
Results
 
Sum
of
Filt
+
Unfilt
v2.
xls
Contains
the
treatment
costs
for
filtered
and
unfiltered
plants
broken
down
by
size
category
and
ownership
type.

°
LT2
EA
Charts
 
4.
xls
Contains
exhibits
for
chapter
6
of
the
EA.

°
Chapter
6
Exhibits
(
9,14,17)
v4.
xls
Contains
exhibits
9,
14,
and
17
for
chapter
6
of
the
EA.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
U­
6
°
Ch
4
exhibits.
xls
Contains
exhibits
for
chapter
4
of
the
EA.

°
Ch
7
exhibits
v3
(
05­
01­
03).
xls
Contains
exhibits
for
chapter
7
of
the
EA.

U.
9
Household
Costs
These
files
contain
the
result
for
household
costs
which
are
generated
by
a
macro
in
the
cost
model.
The
file
is
detailed
below.

°
HH
Distributions.
xls
Contains
the
results
of
the
household
costs
calculations,
including
the
graphs
and
tables
displayed
in
Appendix
J
of
the
EA.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
V­
1
June
2003
Appendix
V
Total
Annualized
Costs
for
Rule
Alternatives
This
appendix
presents
total
annualized
costs
for
each
regulatory
alternative
(
A1,
A2,
A3,
and
A4),
occurrence
data
set
(
ICR,
ICRSSL,
and
ICRSSM),
and
discount
rate
(
3
and
7
percent).

Exhibit
V.
1
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
3
Percent,
Alternative
A3,
ICR
Data
Exhibit
V.
2
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
7
Percent,
Alternative
A3,
ICR
Data
Exhibit
V.
3
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
3
Percent,
Alternative
A3,
ICRSSL
Data
Exhibit
V.
4
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
7
Percent,
Alternative
A3,
ICRSSL
Data
Exhibit
V.
5
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
3
Percent,
Alternative
A3,
ICRSSM
Data
Exhibit
V.
6
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
7
Percent,
Alternative
A3,
ICRSSM
Data
Exhibit
V.
7
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
3
Percent,
Alternative
A1,
ICR
Data
Exhibit
V.
8
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
7
Percent,
Alternative
A1,
ICR
Data
Exhibit
V.
9
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
3
Percent,
Alternative
A1,
ICRSSL
Data
Exhibit
V.
10
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
7
Percent,
Alternative
A1,
ICRSSL
Data
Exhibit
V.
11
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
3
Percent,
Alternative
A1,
ICRSSM
Data
Exhibit
V.
12
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
7
Percent,
Alternative
A1,
ICRSSM
Data
Exhibit
V.
13
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
3
Percent,
Alternative
A4,
ICR
Data
Exhibit
V.
14
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
7
Percent,
Alternative
A4,
ICR
Data
Exhibit
V.
15
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
3
Percent,
Alternative
A4,
ICRSSL
Data
Exhibit
V.
16
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
7
Percent,
Alternative
A4,
ICRSSL
Data
Exhibit
V.
17
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
3
Percent,
Alternative
A4,
ICRSSM
Data
Exhibit
V.
18
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
7
Percent,
Alternative
A4,
ICRSSM
Data
Exhibit
V.
19
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
3
Percent,
Alternative
A2,
ICR
Data
Exhibit
V.
20
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
7
Percent,
Alternative
A2,
ICR
Data
Exhibit
V.
21
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
3
Percent,
Alternative
A2,
ICRSSL
Data
Exhibit
V.
22
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
7
Percent,
Alternative
A2,
ICRSSL
Data
Exhibit
V.
23
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
3
Percent,
Alternative
A2,
ICRSSM
Data
Exhibit
V.
24
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
7
Percent,
Alternative
A2,
ICRSSM
Data
Exhibit
V.
25
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
3
Percent,
High
Option,
ICR
Data
Exhibit
V.
26
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
7
Percent,
High
Option,
ICR
Data
Exhibit
V.
27
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
3
Percent,
Low
Option,
ICR
Data
Exhibit
V.
28
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
7
Percent,
Low
Option,
ICR
Data
Exhibit
V.
29
Initial
Capital
and
One­
Time
Costs,
Annualized
at
3
Percent,
Alternative
A3,
ICR
Data
Set,
UV90­
10B
Exhibit
V.
30
Initial
Capital
and
One­
Time
Costs,
Annualized
at
7
Percent,
Alternative
A3,
ICR
Data
Set,
UV90­
10B
Exhibit
V.
31
National
Costs,
Annualized
at
3
Percent,
Alternative
A3,
ICRSSL
Data
Set,
UV90­
10B
Exhibit
V.
32
National
Costs,
Annualized
at
7
Percent,
Alternative
A3,
ICRSSL
Data
Set,
UV90­
10B
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
V­
2
June
2003
CWS
Serving
£
 
10,000
Serving
>
10,000
Total
($
Millions,
2000$)

Total
National
Annualized
Costs
(
System
Cost
+
State
Costs)
at
3%
Discount
Rate
$
110.51
Annualized
System
Costs
(
3%)
$
12.97
$
96.54
$
109.51
Annualized
Implementation
0.07
0.02
$
0.09
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
1
1.99
1.48
$
3.46
Annualized
Future
Monitoring
for
Re­

Binning
1
1.35
0.82
$
2.17
Total
Annualized
Costs
for
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
Plants
2
$
9.56
$
88.82
$
98.38
Total
Annualized
Costs
for
Uncovered
Finished
Water
Reservoirs
2
$
0.01
$
5.40
$
5.40
System
Costs
for
Benchmarking
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.01
State/
Primacy
Agency
Annualized
Costs
(
3%)
$
0.99
Annualized
Implementation
0.38
$
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
0.47
$
State
Costs
for
Benchmarking
0.00
$
State
Costs
for
Technology
Reporting
0.15
$
Type
of
Cost
Exhibit
V.
1
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
3
Percent,
Alternative
A3,
ICR
Data
Set
($
Millions,
2000$)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
V­
3
June
2003
CWS
Serving
£
 
10,000
Serving
>
10,000
Total
($
Millions,
2000$)

Total
National
Annualized
Costs
(
System
Cost
+
State
Costs)
at
7%
Discount
Rate
$
127.09
Annualized
System
Costs
(
7%)
$
12.97
$
106.50
$
125.89
Annulaized
Implementation
0.09
0.03
$
0.12
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
1
2.54
2.08
$
4.63
Annualized
Future
Monitoring
for
Re­

Binning
1
1.22
0.84
$
2.07
Total
Annual
Costs
for
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
Plants
2
$
9.10
$
97.13
$
106.24
Total
Annual
Costs
for
Uncovered
Finished
Water
Reservoirs
2
$
0.01
$
6.41
$
6.42
System
Costs
for
Benchmarking
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.01
State/
Primacy
Agency
Annualized
Costs
(
7%)
$
1.20
Annualized
Implementation
0.55
$
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
0.52
$
State
Costs
for
Benchmarking
0.00
$
State
Costs
for
Technology
Reporting
0.12
$
Type
of
Cost
Exhibit
V.
2
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
7
Percent,
Alternative
A3,
ICR
Data
Set
($
Millions,
2000$)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
V­
4
June
2003
CWS
Serving
£
 
10,000
Serving
>
10,000
Total
($
Millions,
2000$)

Total
National
Annualized
Costs
(
System
Cost
+
State
Costs)
at
3%
Discount
Rate
$
73.48
Annualized
System
Costs
(
3%)
$
7.92
$
64.62
$
72.54
Annualized
Implementation
0.07
0.02
$
0.09
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
1
1.48
1.48
$
2.95
Annualized
Future
Monitoring
for
Re­

Binning
1
1.06
0.94
$
2.00
Total
Annualized
Costs
for
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
Plants
2
$
5.32
$
56.79
$
62.10
Total
Annualized
Costs
for
Uncovered
Finished
Water
Reservoirs
2
$
0.01
$
5.40
$
5.40
System
Costs
for
Benchmarking
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
State/
Primacy
Agency
Annualized
Costs
(
3%)
$
0.94
Annualized
Implementation
0.38
$
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
0.47
$
State
Costs
for
Benchmarking
0.00
$
State
Costs
for
Technology
Reporting
0.09
$
Type
of
Cost
Exhibit
V.
3
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
3
Percent,
Alternative
A3,
ICRSSL
Data
Set
($
Millions,
2000$)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
V­
5
June
2003
CWS
Serving
£
 
10,000
Serving
>
10,000
Total
($
Millions,
2000$)

Total
National
Annualized
Costs
(
System
Cost
+
State
Costs)
at
7%
Discount
Rate
$
87.35
Annualized
System
Costs
(
7%)
$
8.04
$
71.74
$
86.20
Annulaized
Implementation
0.09
0.03
$
0.12
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
1
1.90
2.08
$
3.99
Annualized
Future
Monitoring
for
Re­

Binning
1
0.97
0.96
$
1.93
Total
Annual
Costs
for
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
Plants
2
$
5.07
$
62.26
$
67.33
Total
Annual
Costs
for
Uncovered
Finished
Water
Reservoirs
2
$
0.01
$
6.41
$
6.42
System
Costs
for
Benchmarking
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
State/
Primacy
Agency
Annualized
Costs
(
7%)
$
1.15
Annualized
Implementation
0.55
$
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
0.52
$
State
Costs
for
Benchmarking
0.00
$
State
Costs
for
Technology
Reporting
0.08
$
Type
of
Cost
Exhibit
V.
4
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
7
Percent,
Alternative
A3,
ICRSSL
Data
Set
($
Millions,
2000$)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
V­
6
June
2003
CWS
Serving
£
 
10,000
Serving
>
10,000
Total
($
Millions,
2000$)
Total
National
Annualized
Costs
(
System
Cost
+
State
Costs)
at
3%
Discount
Rate
$
86.04
Annualized
System
Costs
(
3%)
$
9.49
$
75.60
$
85.09
Annualized
Implementation
0.07
0.02
$
0.09
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
1
1.68
1.48
$
3.15
Annualized
Future
Monitoring
for
Re­

Binning
1
1.19
0.90
$
2.08
Total
Annualized
Costs
for
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
Plants
2
$
6.55
$
67.81
$
74.36
Total
Annualized
Costs
for
Uncovered
Finished
Water
Reservoirs
2
$
0.01
$
5.40
$
5.40
System
Costs
for
Benchmarking
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
State/
Primacy
Agency
Annualized
Costs
(
3%)
$
0.96
Annualized
Implementation
0.38
$
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
0.47
$
State
Costs
for
Benchmarking
0.00
$
State
Costs
for
Technology
Reporting
0.11
$
Type
of
Cost
Exhibit
V.
5
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
3
Percent,
Alternative
A3,
ICRSSM
Data
Set
($
Millions,
2000$)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
V­
7
June
2003
CWS
Serving
£
 
10,000
Serving
>
10,000
Total
($
Millions,
2000$)

Total
National
Annualized
Costs
(
System
Cost
+
State
Costs)
at
7%
Discount
Rate
$
100.91
Annualized
System
Costs
(
7%)
$
9.58
$
83.75
$
99.74
Annulaized
Implementation
0.09
0.03
$
0.12
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
1
2.15
2.08
$
4.24
Annualized
Future
Monitoring
for
Re­

Binning
1
1.08
0.92
$
2.00
Total
Annual
Costs
for
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
Plants
2
$
6.25
$
74.30
$
80.55
Total
Annual
Costs
for
Uncovered
Finished
Water
Reservoirs
2
$
0.01
$
6.41
$
6.42
System
Costs
for
Benchmarking
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.01
State/
Primacy
Agency
Annualized
Costs
(
7%)
$
1.17
Annualized
Implementation
0.55
$
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
0.52
$
State
Costs
for
Benchmarking
0.00
$
State
Costs
for
Technology
Reporting
0.09
$
Type
of
Cost
Exhibit
V.
6
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
7
Percent,
Alternative
A3,
ICRSSM
Data
Set
($
Millions,
2000$)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
V­
8
June
2003
CWS
Serving
£
 
10,000
Serving
>
10,000
Total
($
Millions,
2000$)

Total
National
Annualized
Costs
(
System
Cost
+
State
Costs)
at
3%
Discount
Rate
$
361.00
Annualized
System
Costs
(
3%)
$
40.59
$
319.00
$
359.59
Annualized
Implementation
0.07
0.02
$
0.09
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
1
­
­
$
­
Annualized
Future
Monitoring
for
Re­

Binning
1
­
­
$
­
Total
Annualized
Costs
for
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
Plants
2
$
40.51
$
313.57
$
354.08
Total
Annualized
Costs
for
Uncovered
Finished
Water
Reservoirs
2
$
0.01
$
5.40
$
5.40
System
Costs
for
Benchmarking
$
0.02
$
0.01
$
0.03
State/
Primacy
Agency
Annualized
Costs
(
3%)
$
1.41
Annualized
Implementation
0.38
$
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
0.47
$
State
Costs
for
Benchmarking
0.01
$
State
Costs
for
Technology
Reporting
0.55
$
Type
of
Cost
Exhibit
V.
7
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
3
Percent,
Alternative
A1
ICR
Data
Set
($
Millions,
2000$)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
V­
9
June
2003
CWS
Serving
£
 
10,000
Serving
>
10,000
Total
($
Millions,
2000$)

Total
National
Annualized
Costs
(
System
Cost
+
State
Costs)
at
7%
Discount
Rate
$
394.13
Annualized
System
Costs
(
7%)
$
38.85
$
347.31
$
392.58
Annulaized
Implementation
0.09
0.03
$
0.12
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
1
­
­
$
­
Annualized
Future
Monitoring
for
Re­

Binning
1
­
­
$
­
Total
Annual
Costs
for
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
Plants
2
$
38.74
$
340.86
$
379.59
Total
Annual
Costs
for
Uncovered
Finished
Water
Reservoirs
2
$
0.01
$
6.41
$
6.42
System
Costs
for
Benchmarking
$
0.02
$
0.01
$
0.03
State/
Primacy
Agency
Annualized
Costs
(
7%)
$
1.55
Annualized
Implementation
0.55
$
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
0.52
$
State
Costs
for
Benchmarking
0.02
$
State
Costs
for
Technology
Reporting
0.46
$
Type
of
Cost
Exhibit
V.
8
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
7
Percent,
Alternative
A1,
ICR
Data
Set
($
Millions,
2000$)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
V­
10
June
2003
CWS
Serving
£
 
10,000
Serving
>
10,000
Total
($
Millions,
2000$)

Total
National
Annualized
Costs
(
System
Cost
+
State
Costs)
at
3%
Discount
Rate
$
361.00
Annualized
System
Costs
(
3%)
$
40.59
$
319.00
$
359.59
Annualized
Implementation
0.07
0.02
$
0.09
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
1
­
­
$
­
Annualized
Future
Monitoring
for
Re­

Binning
1
­
­
$
­
Total
Annualized
Costs
for
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
Plants
2
$
40.51
$
313.57
$
354.08
Total
Annualized
Costs
for
Uncovered
Finished
Water
Reservoirs
2
$
0.01
$
5.40
$
5.40
System
Costs
for
Benchmarking
$
0.02
$
0.01
$
0.03
State/
Primacy
Agency
Annualized
Costs
(
3%)
$
1.41
Annualized
Implementation
0.38
$
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
0.47
$
State
Costs
for
Benchmarking
0.01
$
State
Costs
for
Technology
Reporting
0.55
$
Type
of
Cost
Exhibit
V.
9
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
3
Percent,
Alternative
A1,
ICRSSL
Data
Set
($
Millions,
2000$)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
V­
11
June
2003
CWS
Serving
£
 
10,000
Serving
>
10,000
Total
($
Millions,
2000$)

Total
National
Annualized
Costs
(
System
Cost
+
State
Costs)
at
7%
Discount
Rate
$
394.13
Annualized
System
Costs
(
7%)
$
38.85
$
347.31
$
392.58
Annulaized
Implementation
0.09
0.03
$
0.12
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
1
­
­
$
­
Annualized
Future
Monitoring
for
Re­

Binning
1
­
­
$
­
Total
Annual
Costs
for
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
Plants
2
$
38.74
$
340.86
$
379.59
Total
Annual
Costs
for
Uncovered
Finished
Water
Reservoirs
2
$
0.01
$
6.41
$
6.42
System
Costs
for
Benchmarking
$
0.02
$
0.01
$
0.03
State/
Primacy
Agency
Annualized
Costs
(
7%)
$
1.55
Annualized
Implementation
0.55
$
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
0.52
$
State
Costs
for
Benchmarking
0.02
$
State
Costs
for
Technology
Reporting
0.46
$
Type
of
Cost
Exhibit
V.
10
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
7
Percent,
Alternative
A1,
ICRSSL
Data
Set
($
Millions,
2000$)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
V­
12
June
2003
CWS
Serving
£
 
10,000
Serving
>
10,000
Total
($
Millions,
2000$)
Total
National
Annualized
Costs
(
System
Cost
+
State
Costs)
at
3%
Discount
Rate
$
361.00
Annualized
System
Costs
(
3%)
$
40.59
$
319.00
$
359.59
Annualized
Implementation
0.07
0.02
$
0.09
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
1
­
­
$
­
Annualized
Future
Monitoring
for
Re­

Binning
1
­
­
$
­
Total
Annualized
Costs
for
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
Plants
2
$
40.51
$
313.57
$
354.08
Total
Annualized
Costs
for
Uncovered
Finished
Water
Reservoirs
2
$
0.01
$
5.40
$
5.40
System
Costs
for
Benchmarking
$
0.02
$
0.01
$
0.03
State/
Primacy
Agency
Annualized
Costs
(
3%)
$
1.41
Annualized
Implementation
0.38
$
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
0.47
$
State
Costs
for
Benchmarking
0.01
$
State
Costs
for
Technology
Reporting
0.55
$
Type
of
Cost
Exhibit
V.
11
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
3
Percent,
Alternative
A1,
ICRSSM
Data
Set
($
Millions,
2000$)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
V­
13
June
2003
CWS
Serving
£
 
10,000
Serving
>
10,000
Total
($
Millions,
2000$)

Total
National
Annualized
Costs
(
System
Cost
+
State
Costs)
at
7%
Discount
Rate
$
394.13
Annualized
System
Costs
(
7%)
$
38.85
$
347.31
$
392.58
Annulaized
Implementation
0.09
0.03
$
0.12
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
1
­
­
$
­
Annualized
Future
Monitoring
for
Re­

Binning
1
­
­
$
­
Total
Annual
Costs
for
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
Plants
2
$
38.74
$
340.86
$
379.59
Total
Annual
Costs
for
Uncovered
Finished
Water
Reservoirs
2
$
0.01
$
6.41
$
6.42
System
Costs
for
Benchmarking
$
0.02
$
0.01
$
0.03
State/
Primacy
Agency
Annualized
Costs
(
7%)
$
1.55
Annualized
Implementation
0.55
$
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
0.52
$
State
Costs
for
Benchmarking
0.02
$
State
Costs
for
Technology
Reporting
0.46
$
Type
of
Cost
Exhibit
V.
12
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
7
Percent,
Alternative
A1,
ICRSSM
Data
Set
($
Millions,
2000$)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
V­
14
June
2003
CWS
Serving
£
 
10,000
Serving
>
10,000
Total
($
Millions,
2000$)

Total
National
Annualized
Costs
(
System
Cost
+
State
Costs)
at
3%
Discount
Rate
$
59.41
Annualized
System
Costs
(
3%)
$
8.25
$
50.24
$
58.49
Annualized
Implementation
0.07
0.02
$
0.09
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
1
1.80
1.48
$
3.28
Annualized
Future
Monitoring
for
Re­

Binning
1
1.29
1.02
$
2.31
Total
Annualized
Costs
for
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
Plants
2
$
5.08
$
42.33
$
47.41
Total
Annualized
Costs
for
Uncovered
Finished
Water
Reservoirs
2
$
0.01
$
5.40
$
5.40
System
Costs
for
Benchmarking
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
State/
Primacy
Agency
Annualized
Costs
(
3%)
$
0.92
Annualized
Implementation
0.38
$
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
0.47
$
State
Costs
for
Benchmarking
0.00
$
State
Costs
for
Technology
Reporting
0.07
$
Type
of
Cost
Exhibit
V.
13
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
3
Percent,
Alternative
A4,
ICR
Data
Set
($
Millions,
2000$)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
V­
15
June
2003
CWS
Serving
£
 
10,000
Serving
>
10,000
Total
($
Millions,
2000$)

Total
National
Annualized
Costs
(
System
Cost
+
State
Costs)
at
7%
Discount
Rate
$
71.33
Annualized
System
Costs
(
7%)
$
8.43
$
55.34
$
70.19
Annulaized
Implementation
0.09
0.03
$
0.12
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
1
2.31
2.08
$
4.40
Annualized
Future
Monitoring
for
Re­

Binning
1
1.18
1.04
$
2.22
Total
Annual
Costs
for
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
Plants
2
$
4.84
$
45.78
$
50.62
Total
Annual
Costs
for
Uncovered
Finished
Water
Reservoirs
2
$
0.01
$
6.41
$
6.42
System
Costs
for
Benchmarking
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
State/
Primacy
Agency
Annualized
Costs
(
7%)
$
1.14
Annualized
Implementation
0.55
$
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
0.52
$
State
Costs
for
Benchmarking
0.00
$
State
Costs
for
Technology
Reporting
0.06
$
Type
of
Cost
Exhibit
V.
14
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
7
Percent,
Alternative
A4,
ICR
Data
Set
($
Millions,
2000$)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
V­
16
June
2003
CWS
Serving
£
 
10,000
Serving
>
10,000
Total
($
Millions,
2000$)

Total
National
Annualized
Costs
(
System
Cost
+
State
Costs)
at
3%
Discount
Rate
$
36.71
Annualized
System
Costs
(
3%)
$
4.98
$
30.83
$
35.81
Annualized
Implementation
0.07
0.02
$
0.09
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
1
1.22
1.48
$
2.69
Annualized
Future
Monitoring
for
Re­

Binning
1
0.88
1.09
$
1.98
Total
Annualized
Costs
for
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
Plants
2
$
2.81
$
22.84
$
25.65
Total
Annualized
Costs
for
Uncovered
Finished
Water
Reservoirs
2
$
0.01
$
5.40
$
5.40
System
Costs
for
Benchmarking
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
State/
Primacy
Agency
Annualized
Costs
(
3%)
$
0.90
Annualized
Implementation
0.38
$
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
0.47
$
State
Costs
for
Benchmarking
0.00
$
State
Costs
for
Technology
Reporting
0.05
$
Type
of
Cost
Exhibit
V.
15
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
3
Percent,
Alternative
A4,
ICRSSL
Data
Set
($
Millions,
2000$)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
V­
17
June
2003
CWS
Serving
£
 
10,000
Serving
>
10,000
Total
($
Millions,
2000$)

Total
National
Annualized
Costs
(
System
Cost
+
State
Costs)
at
7%
Discount
Rate
$
46.94
Annualized
System
Costs
(
7%)
$
5.17
$
34.24
$
45.82
Annulaized
Implementation
0.09
0.03
$
0.12
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
1
1.57
2.08
$
3.66
Annualized
Future
Monitoring
for
Re­

Binning
1
0.81
1.12
$
1.93
Total
Annual
Costs
for
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
Plants
2
$
2.68
$
24.60
$
27.28
Total
Annual
Costs
for
Uncovered
Finished
Water
Reservoirs
2
$
0.01
$
6.41
$
6.42
System
Costs
for
Benchmarking
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
State/
Primacy
Agency
Annualized
Costs
(
7%)
$
1.12
Annualized
Implementation
0.55
$
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
0.52
$
State
Costs
for
Benchmarking
0.00
$
State
Costs
for
Technology
Reporting
0.04
$
Type
of
Cost
Exhibit
V.
16
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
7
Percent,
Alternative
A4,
ICRSSL
Data
Set
($
Millions,
2000$)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
V­
18
June
2003
CWS
Serving
£
 
10,000
Serving
>
10,000
Total
($
Millions,
2000$)
Total
National
Annualized
Costs
(
System
Cost
+
State
Costs)
at
3%
Discount
Rate
$
43.60
Annualized
System
Costs
(
3%)
$
6.14
$
36.56
$
42.70
Annualized
Implementation
0.07
0.02
$
0.09
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
1
1.44
1.48
$
2.92
Annualized
Future
Monitoring
for
Re­

Binning
1
1.04
1.07
$
2.12
Total
Annualized
Costs
for
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
Plants
2
$
3.58
$
28.59
$
32.17
Total
Annualized
Costs
for
Uncovered
Finished
Water
Reservoirs
2
$
0.01
$
5.40
$
5.40
System
Costs
for
Benchmarking
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
State/
Primacy
Agency
Annualized
Costs
(
3%)
$
0.91
Annualized
Implementation
0.38
$
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
0.47
$
State
Costs
for
Benchmarking
0.00
$
State
Costs
for
Technology
Reporting
0.06
$
Type
of
Cost
Exhibit
V.
17
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
3
Percent,
Alternative
A4,
ICRSSM
Data
Set
($
Millions,
2000$)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
V­
19
June
2003
CWS
Serving
£
 
10,000
Serving
>
10,000
Total
($
Millions,
2000$)

Total
National
Annualized
Costs
(
System
Cost
+
State
Costs)
at
7%
Discount
Rate
$
54.28
Annualized
System
Costs
(
7%)
$
6.33
$
40.41
$
53.15
Annulaized
Implementation
0.09
0.03
$
0.12
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
1
1.86
2.08
$
3.94
Annualized
Future
Monitoring
for
Re­

Binning
1
0.95
1.10
$
2.05
Total
Annual
Costs
for
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
Plants
2
$
3.42
$
30.79
$
34.21
Total
Annual
Costs
for
Uncovered
Finished
Water
Reservoirs
2
$
0.01
$
6.41
$
6.42
System
Costs
for
Benchmarking
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
State/
Primacy
Agency
Annualized
Costs
(
7%)
$
1.12
Annualized
Implementation
0.55
$
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
0.52
$
State
Costs
for
Benchmarking
0.00
$
State
Costs
for
Technology
Reporting
0.05
$
Type
of
Cost
Exhibit
V.
18
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
7
Percent,
Alternative
A4,
ICRSSM
Data
Set
($
Millions,
2000$)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
V­
20
June
2003
CWS
Serving
£
 
10,000
Serving
>
10,000
Total
($
Millions,
2000$)

Total
National
Annualized
Costs
(
System
Cost
+
State
Costs)
at
3%
Discount
Rate
$
133.93
Annualized
System
Costs
(
3%)
$
21.88
$
111.00
$
132.88
Annualized
Implementation
0.07
0.02
$
0.09
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
1
4.66
1.48
$
6.14
Annualized
Future
Monitoring
for
Re­

Binning
1
2.89
0.79
$
3.68
Total
Annualized
Costs
for
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
Plants
2
$
14.25
$
103.31
$
117.56
Total
Annualized
Costs
for
Uncovered
Finished
Water
Reservoirs
2
$
0.01
$
5.40
$
5.40
System
Costs
for
Benchmarking
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.01
State/
Primacy
Agency
Annualized
Costs
(
3%)
$
1.05
Annualized
Implementation
0.38
$
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
0.47
$
State
Costs
for
Benchmarking
0.00
$
State
Costs
for
Technology
Reporting
0.20
$
Type
of
Cost
Exhibit
V.
19
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
3
Percent,
Alternative
A2,
ICR
Data
Set
($
Millions,
2000$)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
V­
21
June
2003
CWS
Serving
£
 
10,000
Serving
>
10,000
Total
($
Millions,
2000$)

Total
National
Annualized
Costs
(
System
Cost
+
State
Costs)
at
7%
Discount
Rate
$
151.74
Annualized
System
Costs
(
7%)
$
22.19
$
121.89
$
150.49
Annulaized
Implementation
0.09
0.03
$
0.12
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
1
5.91
2.08
$
8.00
Annualized
Future
Monitoring
for
Re­

Binning
1
2.60
0.81
$
3.41
Total
Annual
Costs
for
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
Plants
2
$
13.57
$
112.56
$
126.13
Total
Annual
Costs
for
Uncovered
Finished
Water
Reservoirs
2
$
0.01
$
6.41
$
6.42
System
Costs
for
Benchmarking
$
0.01
$
0.01
$
0.01
State/
Primacy
Agency
Annualized
Costs
(
7%)
$
1.25
Annualized
Implementation
0.55
$
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
0.52
$
State
Costs
for
Benchmarking
0.01
$
State
Costs
for
Technology
Reporting
0.17
$
Type
of
Cost
Exhibit
V.
20
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
7
Percent,
Alternative
A2,
ICR
Data
Set
($
Millions,
2000$)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
V­
22
June
2003
CWS
Serving
£
 
10,000
Serving
>
10,000
Total
($
Millions,
2000$)

Total
National
Annualized
Costs
(
System
Cost
+
State
Costs)
at
3%
Discount
Rate
$
99.65
Annualized
System
Costs
(
3%)
$
17.60
$
81.07
$
98.67
Annualized
Implementation
0.07
0.02
$
0.09
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
1
4.66
1.48
$
6.14
Annualized
Future
Monitoring
for
Re­

Binning
1
3.14
0.90
$
4.05
Total
Annualized
Costs
for
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
Plants
2
$
9.72
$
73.27
$
82.99
Total
Annualized
Costs
for
Uncovered
Finished
Water
Reservoirs
2
$
0.01
$
5.40
$
5.40
System
Costs
for
Benchmarking
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.01
State/
Primacy
Agency
Annualized
Costs
(
3%)
$
0.98
Annualized
Implementation
0.38
$
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
0.47
$
State
Costs
for
Benchmarking
0.00
$
State
Costs
for
Technology
Reporting
0.13
$
Type
of
Cost
Exhibit
V.
21
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
3
Percent,
Alternative
A2,
ICRSSL
Data
Set
($
Millions,
2000$)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
V­
23
June
2003
CWS
Serving
£
 
10,000
Serving
>
10,000
Total
($
Millions,
2000$)

Total
National
Annualized
Costs
(
System
Cost
+
State
Costs)
at
7%
Discount
Rate
$
114.80
Annualized
System
Costs
(
7%)
$
18.12
$
89.08
$
113.62
Annulaized
Implementation
0.09
0.03
$
0.12
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
1
5.91
2.08
$
8.00
Annualized
Future
Monitoring
for
Re­

Binning
1
2.83
0.92
$
3.75
Total
Annual
Costs
for
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
Plants
2
$
9.28
$
79.63
$
88.91
Total
Annual
Costs
for
Uncovered
Finished
Water
Reservoirs
2
$
0.01
$
6.41
$
6.42
System
Costs
for
Benchmarking
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.01
State/
Primacy
Agency
Annualized
Costs
(
7%)
$
1.19
Annualized
Implementation
0.55
$
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
0.52
$
State
Costs
for
Benchmarking
0.00
$
State
Costs
for
Technology
Reporting
0.11
$
Type
of
Cost
Exhibit
V.
22
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
7
Percent,
Alternative
A2,
ICRSSL
Data
Set
($
Millions,
2000$)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
V­
24
June
2003
CWS
Serving
£
 
10,000
Serving
>
10,000
Total
($
Millions,
2000$)
Total
National
Annualized
Costs
(
System
Cost
+
State
Costs)
at
3%
Discount
Rate
$
112.52
Annualized
System
Costs
(
3%)
$
19.05
$
92.47
$
111.52
Annualized
Implementation
0.07
0.02
$
0.09
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
1
4.66
1.48
$
6.14
Annualized
Future
Monitoring
for
Re­

Binning
1
3.07
0.86
$
3.92
Total
Annualized
Costs
for
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
Plants
2
$
11.24
$
84.72
$
95.96
Total
Annualized
Costs
for
Uncovered
Finished
Water
Reservoirs
2
$
0.01
$
5.40
$
5.40
System
Costs
for
Benchmarking
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.01
State/
Primacy
Agency
Annualized
Costs
(
3%)
$
1.00
Annualized
Implementation
0.38
$
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
0.47
$
State
Costs
for
Benchmarking
0.00
$
State
Costs
for
Technology
Reporting
0.15
$
Type
of
Cost
Exhibit
V.
23
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
3
Percent,
Alternative
A2,
ICRSSM
Data
Set
($
Millions,
2000$)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
V­
25
June
2003
CWS
Serving
£
 
10,000
Serving
>
10,000
Total
($
Millions,
2000$)

Total
National
Annualized
Costs
(
System
Cost
+
State
Costs)
at
7%
Discount
Rate
$
128.78
Annualized
System
Costs
(
7%)
$
19.50
$
101.65
$
127.57
Annulaized
Implementation
0.09
0.03
$
0.12
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
1
5.91
2.08
$
8.00
Annualized
Future
Monitoring
for
Re­

Binning
1
2.76
0.87
$
3.64
Total
Annual
Costs
for
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
Plants
2
$
10.72
$
92.25
$
102.97
Total
Annual
Costs
for
Uncovered
Finished
Water
Reservoirs
2
$
0.01
$
6.41
$
6.42
System
Costs
for
Benchmarking
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.01
State/
Primacy
Agency
Annualized
Costs
(
7%)
$
1.21
Annualized
Implementation
0.55
$
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
0.52
$
State
Costs
for
Benchmarking
0.00
$
State
Costs
for
Technology
Reporting
0.13
$
Type
of
Cost
Exhibit
V.
24
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
7
Percent,
Alternative
A2,
ICRSSM
Data
Set
($
Millions,
2000$)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
V­
26
June
2003
CWS
Serving
£
 
10,000
Serving
>
10,000
Total
($
Millions,
2000$)

Total
National
Annualized
Costs
(
System
Cost
+
State
Costs)
at
3%
Discount
Rate
$
119.16
Annualized
System
Costs
(
3%)
$
13.98
$
104.17
$
118.16
Annualized
Implementation
0.07
0.02
$
0.09
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
1
2.14
1.48
$
3.62
Annualized
Future
Monitoring
for
Re­

Binning
1
1.44
0.79
$
2.24
Total
Annualized
Costs
for
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
Plants
2
$
10.33
$
96.48
$
106.81
Total
Annualized
Costs
for
Uncovered
Finished
Water
Reservoirs
2
$
0.01
$
5.40
$
5.40
System
Costs
for
Benchmarking
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.01
State/
Primacy
Agency
Annualized
Costs
(
3%)
$
1.00
Annualized
Implementation
0.38
$
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
0.47
$
State
Costs
for
Benchmarking
0.00
$
State
Costs
for
Technology
Reporting
0.15
$
Type
of
Cost
Exhibit
V.
25
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
3
Percent,
High
Option,
ICR
Data
Set
($
Millions,
2000$)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
V­
27
June
2003
CWS
Serving
£
 
10,000
Serving
>
10,000
Total
($
Millions,
2000$)

Total
National
Annualized
Costs
(
System
Cost
+
State
Costs)
at
7%
Discount
Rate
$
136.47
Annualized
System
Costs
(
7%)
$
13.98
$
114.86
$
135.26
Annulaized
Implementation
0.09
0.03
$
0.12
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
1
2.74
2.08
$
4.82
Annualized
Future
Monitoring
for
Re­

Binning
1
1.31
0.81
$
2.12
Total
Annual
Costs
for
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
Plants
2
$
9.83
$
105.53
$
115.36
Total
Annual
Costs
for
Uncovered
Finished
Water
Reservoirs
2
$
0.01
$
6.41
$
6.42
System
Costs
for
Benchmarking
$
0.00
$
0.01
$
0.01
State/
Primacy
Agency
Annualized
Costs
(
7%)
$
1.21
Annualized
Implementation
0.55
$
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
0.52
$
State
Costs
for
Benchmarking
0.00
$
State
Costs
for
Technology
Reporting
0.13
$
Type
of
Cost
Exhibit
V.
26
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
7
Percent,
High
Option,
ICR
Data
Set
($
Millions,
2000$)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
V­
28
June
2003
CWS
Serving
£
 
10,000
Serving
>
10,000
Total
($
Millions,
2000$)

Total
National
Annualized
Costs
(
System
Cost
+
State
Costs)
at
3%
Discount
Rate
$
52.70
Annualized
System
Costs
(
3%)
$
5.48
$
46.31
$
51.79
Annualized
Implementation
0.07
0.02
$
0.09
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
1
1.11
1.48
$
2.59
Annualized
Future
Monitoring
for
Re­

Binning
1
0.81
1.02
$
1.82
Total
Annualized
Costs
for
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
Plants
2
$
3.48
$
38.40
$
41.88
Total
Annualized
Costs
for
Uncovered
Finished
Water
Reservoirs
2
$
0.01
$
5.40
$
5.40
System
Costs
for
Benchmarking
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
State/
Primacy
Agency
Annualized
Costs
(
3%)
$
0.92
Annualized
Implementation
0.38
$
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
0.47
$
State
Costs
for
Benchmarking
0.00
$
State
Costs
for
Technology
Reporting
0.07
$
Type
of
Cost
Exhibit
V.
27
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
3
Percent,
Low
Option,
ICR
Data
Set
($
Millions,
2000$)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
V­
29
June
2003
CWS
Serving
£
 
10,000
Serving
>
10,000
Total
($
Millions,
2000$)

Total
National
Annualized
Costs
(
System
Cost
+
State
Costs)
at
7%
Discount
Rate
$
64.83
Annualized
System
Costs
(
7%)
$
5.61
$
51.66
$
63.69
Annulaized
Implementation
0.09
0.03
$
0.12
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
1
1.44
2.08
$
3.53
Annualized
Future
Monitoring
for
Re­

Binning
1
0.74
1.04
$
1.78
Total
Annual
Costs
for
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
Plants
2
$
3.33
$
42.10
$
45.43
Total
Annual
Costs
for
Uncovered
Finished
Water
Reservoirs
2
$
0.01
$
6.41
$
6.42
System
Costs
for
Benchmarking
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
State/
Primacy
Agency
Annualized
Costs
(
7%)
$
1.13
Annualized
Implementation
0.55
$
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
0.52
$
State
Costs
for
Benchmarking
0.00
$
State
Costs
for
Technology
Reporting
0.06
$
Type
of
Cost
Exhibit
V.
28
Total
Costs,
Annualized
at
7
Percent,
Low
Option,
ICR
Data
Set
($
Millions,
2000$)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
V­
30
June
2003
CWS
Serving
£
 
10,000
Serving
>
10,000
Total
($
Millions,
2000$)

Total
National
Annualized
Costs
(
System
Cost
+
State
Costs)
at
3%
Discount
Rate
$
121.19
Annualized
System
Costs
(
3%)
$
13.14
$
107.06
$
120.20
Annualized
Implementation
0.07
0.02
$
0.09
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
1
1.99
1.48
$
3.46
Annualized
Future
Monitoring
for
Re­

Binning
1
1.35
0.82
$
2.16
Total
Annualized
Costs
for
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
Plants
2
$
9.73
$
99.35
$
109.07
Total
Annualized
Costs
for
Uncovered
Finished
Water
Reservoirs
2
$
0.01
$
5.40
$
5.40
System
Costs
for
Benchmarking
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.01
State/
Primacy
Agency
Annualized
Costs
(
3%)
$
1.00
Annualized
Implementation
0.38
$
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
0.47
$
State
Costs
for
Benchmarking
0.00
$
State
Costs
for
Technology
Reporting
0.15
$
Type
of
Cost
Exhibit
V.
29
Initial
Capital
and
One­
Time
Costs,
Annualized
at
3
Percent,
Alternative
A3,
ICR
Data
Set,
UV90­
10B
($
Millions,
2000$)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
V­
31
June
2003
CWS
Serving
£
 
10,000
Serving
>
10,000
Total
($
Millions,
2000$)

Total
National
Annualized
Costs
(
System
Cost
+
State
Costs)
at
7%
Discount
Rate
$
138.42
Annualized
System
Costs
(
7%)
$
13.16
$
117.65
$
137.22
Annulaized
Implementation
0.09
0.03
$
0.12
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
1
2.54
2.08
$
4.63
Annualized
Future
Monitoring
for
Re­

Binning
1
1.22
0.84
$
2.06
Total
Annual
Costs
for
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
Plants
2
$
9.29
$
108.28
$
117.57
Total
Annual
Costs
for
Uncovered
Finished
Water
Reservoirs
2
$
0.01
$
6.41
$
6.42
System
Costs
for
Benchmarking
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.01
State/
Primacy
Agency
Annualized
Costs
(
7%)
$
1.20
Annualized
Implementation
0.55
$
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
0.52
$
State
Costs
for
Benchmarking
0.00
$
State
Costs
for
Technology
Reporting
0.12
$
Type
of
Cost
Exhibit
V.
30
Initial
Capital
and
One­
Time
Costs,
Annualized
at
7
Percent,
Alternative
A3,
ICR
Data
Set,
UV90­
10B
($
Millions,
2000$)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
V­
32
June
2003
CWS
Serving
£
 
10,000
Serving
>
10,000
Total
($
Millions,
2000$)

Total
National
Annualized
Costs
(
System
Cost
+
State
Costs)
at
3%
Discount
Rate
$
77.12
Annualized
System
Costs
(
3%)
$
7.98
$
68.20
$
76.18
Annualized
Implementation
0.07
0.02
$
0.09
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
1
1.48
1.48
$
2.95
Annualized
Future
Monitoring
for
Re­

Binning
1
1.06
0.94
$
2.00
Total
Annualized
Costs
for
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
Plants
2
$
5.37
$
60.36
$
65.74
Total
Annualized
Costs
for
Uncovered
Finished
Water
Reservoirs
2
$
0.01
$
5.40
$
5.40
System
Costs
for
Benchmarking
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
State/
Primacy
Agency
Annualized
Costs
(
3%)
$
0.94
Annualized
Implementation
0.38
$
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
0.47
$
State
Costs
for
Benchmarking
0.00
$
State
Costs
for
Technology
Reporting
0.09
$
Type
of
Cost
Exhibit
V.
31
National
Costs,
Annualized
at
3
Percent,
Alternative
A3,
ICRSSL
Data
Set,
UV90­
10B
($
Millions,
2000$)
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
V­
33
June
2003
CWS
Serving
£
 
10,000
Serving
>
10,000
Total
($
Millions,
2000$)

Total
National
Annualized
Costs
(
System
Cost
+
State
Costs)
at
7%
Discount
Rate
$
91.17
Annualized
System
Costs
(
7%)
$
8.10
$
75.50
$
90.01
Annulaized
Implementation
0.09
0.03
$
0.12
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
1
1.90
2.08
$
3.99
Annualized
Future
Monitoring
for
Re­

Binning
1
0.97
0.96
$
1.93
Total
Annual
Costs
for
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
Plants
2
$
5.13
$
66.01
$
71.14
Total
Annual
Costs
for
Uncovered
Finished
Water
Reservoirs
2
$
0.01
$
6.41
$
6.42
System
Costs
for
Benchmarking
$
0.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
State/
Primacy
Agency
Annualized
Costs
(
7%)
$
1.16
Annualized
Implementation
0.55
$
Annualized
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
0.52
$
State
Costs
for
Benchmarking
0.00
$
State
Costs
for
Technology
Reporting
0.08
$
Type
of
Cost
Exhibit
V.
32
National
Costs,
Annualized
at
7
Percent,
Alternative
A3,
ICRSSL
Data
Set,
UV90­
10B
($
Millions,
2000$)

Notes:
Detail
may
not
add
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
Regulatory
Alternative
A1
is
independent
of
occurrence,
therefore,
data
sets
will
equal.
[
1]
Includes
E.
coli
monitoring,
Cryptosporidium
monitoring,
and
reporting.
[
2]
Sum
of
capital
costs,
discounted
to
present
value
and
annualized
over
20
years,
and
annual
O&
M
cost.
[
3]
Benchmarking
costs
estimated
for
systems
and
States
are
both
less
than
$
10,000
and
therefore
show
as
$
0.00
million.
Sources:
Appendiix
O.
Implementation
(
system),
monitoring
(
system),
future
monitoring,
and
benchmarking
costs
from
Exhibits
O.
3d
and
O.
3e.
Total
annual
costs
for
filtered
and
unfiltered
plants,
and
uncovered
finished
water
reservoirs
from
Exhibits
O.
4d
and
O.
4e;
mean
values.
State
costs
from
Exhibits
O.
5d
and
O.
5e.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
W­
1
Appendix
W
Regulatory
Flexibility
Screening
Analysis
W.
1
Summary
EPA
is
required
by
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA),
as
amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
(
SBREFA)
(
5
USC
601
et
seq.),
to
prepare
a
Regulatory
Flexibility
Analysis
for
any
rule
subject
to
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
requirements
under
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act
or
other
statutes,
unless
the
Agency
certifies
that
the
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities
(
5
USC
603(
a)).

This
appendix
describes
EPA's
initial
assessment
of
the
impacts
on
small
entities
as
a
result
of
the
LT2ESWTR.
Based
on
the
results
of
this
screening
analysis,
EPA
certifies
that
the
LT2ESWTR
will
not
have
a
significant
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
Therefore,
in
accordance
with
5
USC
605,
EPA
did
not
prepare
a
formal
Initial
Regulatory
Flexibility
Analysis
(
IRFA)
or
a
Final
Regulatory
Flexibility
Analysis
(
FRFA).

W.
2
Methodology
The
screening
analysis
involves
four
major
tasks:
(
1)
defining
"
small
entities"
for
the
rule
being
analyzed,
including
PWSs
run
by
"
small
businesses,"
"
small
governments,"
and
"
small
organizations;"
(
2)
determining
what
number
constitutes
a
"
substantial
number"
of
these
entities;
(
3)
determining
how
"
significant
impacts"
will
be
measured;
and
(
4)
completing
a
screening
analysis.
If
the
screening
analysis
determines
that
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities
may
face
significant
impacts
as
a
result
of
the
rule,
then
a
formal
IRFA
and
FRFA
may
be
required.

W.
2.1
Defining
"
Small
Entities"
Affected
by
the
Rule
The
RFA
defines
small
entities
as
including
"
small
businesses,"
"
small
governments,"
and
"
small
organizations"
(
5
USC
601).
The
RFA
references
the
definition
of
"
small
business"
found
in
the
Small
Business
Act,
which
authorizes
the
Small
Business
Administration
(
SBA)
to
further
define
"
small
business"
by
regulation.
The
SBA
defines
small
businesses
by
category
using
the
North
American
Industry
Classification
System
(
NAICS).
For
example,
in
the
manufacturing
sector,
the
SBA
generally
defines
small
business
in
terms
of
number
of
employees;
in
the
agriculture,
mining,
and
electric,
gas,
and
sanitary
services
sectors,
the
SBA
generally
defines
small
businesses
in
terms
of
annual
receipts
(
ranging
from
$
0.5
million
for
crops
to
$
25
million
for
certain
types
of
pipelines).
The
RFA
also
authorizes
an
agency
to
adopt
alternative
definitions
for
each
category
of
small
entity
"
which
are
appropriate
to
the
activities
of
the
Agency
after
proposing
the
alternative
definition(
s)
in
the
Federal
Register
and
taking
comment"
(
5
U.
S.
C.
secs.
601(
3)
­
(
5)).
In
addition
to
the
above,
agencies
must
consult
with
SBA's
Chief
Council
for
Advocacy
to
establish
an
alternative
small
business
definition.

This
screening
analysis
uses
the
following
definitions
of
small
entities
affected
by
the
LT2ESWTR:
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
W­
2
°
A
"
small
business"
is
any
small
business
concern
that
is
independently
owned
and
operated
and
not
dominant
in
its
field
as
defined
by
the
Small
Business
Act
(
15
USC
632).
Examples
of
public
water
systems
(
PWSs)
within
this
category
include
small,
privately
owned
PWSs
and
for­
profit
businesses
where
provision
of
water
may
be
ancillary,
such
as
mobile
home
parks
or
day­
care
centers.

°
A
"
small
organization"
under
the
LT2ESWTR
is
any
not­
for­
profit
enterprise
that
is
independently
owned
and
operated,
not
dominant
in
its
field,
and
operates
a
PWS.
Examples
of
small
organizations
include
churches,
schools,
and
homeowners
associations.

°
A
"
small
governmental
jurisdiction"
is
a
city,
county,
town,
school
district,
or
special
district
with
a
population
of
less
than
50,000
(
5
USC
601)
that
operates
a
PWS.

The
LT2ESWTR
will
apply
to
all
PWSs
using
surface
water
and
GWUDI
as
a
source.
The
NAICS
code
for
PWSs
is
22131
(
Administration
of
Water
Supply
and
Irrigation
Programs)
and
State
agencies
that
include
drinking
water
programs
are
classified
as
92411
(
Administration
of
Air
and
Water
Resources
and
Solid
Waste
Management
Programs)
or
923312
(
Administration
of
Public
Health
Programs).
Ancillary
systems
(
i.
e.,
those
that
supplement
the
function
of
other
establishments
like
factories,
power
plants,
mobile
home
parks,
etc.)
cannot
be
categorized
in
a
single
NAICS
code.
For
ancillary
systems,
the
NAICS
code
is
that
of
the
primary
establishment
or
industry.

The
LT2ESWTR
contains
provisions
that
apply
to
PWSs
serving
fewer
than
10,000
people.
This
is
the
cut­
off
level
specified
by
Congress
in
the
1996
Amendments
to
the
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act
for
small
system
flexibility
provisions.
In
accordance
with
the
RFA
requirements,
EPA
proposed
using
this
alternative
definition
in
the
Federal
Register
(
63
FR
7620,
February
13,
1998),
requested
public
comment,
consulted
with
the
SBA,
and
expressed
its
intention
to
use
the
alternative
definition
for
all
future
drinking
water
regulations
in
the
Consumer
Confidence
Reports
regulation
(
63
FR
44511,
August
19,
1998).

W.
2.2
Determining
What
Number
Constitutes
a
Substantial
Number
This
initial
assessment
assumes
that
all
small
PWSs
that
use
surface
water
or
GWUDI
are
potentially
affected
by
the
rule,
approximately
11,820
small
entity
PWSs.
EPA
SBREFA
guidance
uses
the
following
criteria
to
determine
what
constitutes
a
substantial
number
of
affected
entities:
no
more
than
20
percent
of
small
systems
affected
by
a
rule
or
no
more
than
1,000
systems
affected
by
a
rule
may
experience
economic
impacts
of
1
percent
of
their
revenues
or
greater.
In
addition,
no
more
than
100
systems
may
experience
economic
impacts
of
3
percent
of
their
revenues
or
greater.
The
LT2ESWTR
falls
under
these
thresholds.

W.
2.3
Measuring
Significant
Impacts
To
evaluate
the
impact
that
a
small
entity
is
expected
to
incur
as
a
result
of
the
rule,
this
analysis
calculates
the
entity's
annualized
compliance
costs
as
a
percentage
of
sales
(
for
privately
owned
systems)
or
the
entity's
annualized
compliance
costs
as
a
percentage
of
annual
governmental
revenue
or
expenditures
(
for
publicly
owned
systems).
EPA
guidance
suggests
using
1
percent
as
a
threshold
for
determining
significance,
although
additional
factors
may
be
considered.
If
compliance
costs
are
less
than
1
percent
of
sales
or
revenues,
the
regulation
may
in
most
cases
be
presumed
to
have
no
significant
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
W­
3
impact
(
U.
S.
House
of
Representatives
1996).
In
addition,
if
no
more
than
100
systems
experience
economic
impacts
of
3
percent
of
their
revenues
or
greater,
than
in
most
cases
there
is
no
significant
impact.

Exhibit
W.
1
presents
the
data
EPA
used
for
the
screening
analysis
to
determine
if
the
LT2ESWTR
will
have
a
substantial
impact
on
a
significant
number
of
small
entities.
Using
this
data,
EPA
calculated
the
annual
compliance
costs
per
system
as
a
percentage
of
revenues
or
expenditures.
These
percentages
are
presented
in
Column
D.
The
numbers
of
systems
expected
to
incur
costs
of
more
than
1
and
3
percent
of
their
revenues
are
presented
in
Columns
E
and
G,
respectively.
The
numbers
of
systems
experiencing
impacts
of
more
than
1
and
3
percent
of
their
revenues
were
compared
to
the
total
number
of
systems
in
each
size
category
to
calculate
percentages,
shown
in
Columns
F
and
H.

The
ratio
of
compliance
cost
to
revenue
was
calculated
using
the
80th
percentile
of
annualized
(
at
3
percent)
compliance
costs
and
the
average
annual
revenue.
The
average
revenue
for
all
was
used
for
all
systems
and
size
categories
because
no
information
on
the
distribution
of
annual
revenues
was
available.
The
resulting
overall
cost­
to­
revenue
ratio
for
all
small
entity
PWSs
was
0.14
percent.
The
use
of
the
80th
percentile
compliance
cost
to
determine
the
ratio
implies
that
80
percent
of
systems
affected
by
the
LT2ESWTR
have
lower
compliance
costs,
and
therefore,
80
percent
of
systems
have
ratios
of
even
less
than
0.14
percent.
Thus,
the
threshold
of
20
percent
of
systems
having
costs
as
percentages
of
revenues
of
1
percent
or
more
is
not
exceeded.

Further,
EPA
determined
that,
based
on
the
80th
percentile
annualized
compliance
costs,
a
total
of
274
small
entity
PWSs,
representing
2.3
percent
of
all
small
entity
PWSs
affected
by
the
LT2ESWTR,
will
experience
an
impact
of
1
percent
or
greater
of
average
annual
revenues.
This
is
less
than
the
criteria
of
1,000
systems
or
20
percent
of
systems
used
to
determine
significant
impact.
Within
each
class
of
small
entity,
the
number
of
PWSs
experiencing
an
impact
of
1
percent
or
greater
of
average
annual
revenues
ranges
from
13
(
small
organization
PWSs)
to
140
(
small
government
PWSs),
which
is
1.2
to
2.4
percent
of
the
systems
in
each
category.

Further,
the
Agency
has
determined
that
31
small
entity
PWSs,
representing
0.3
percent
of
all
small
entity
PWSs
subject
to
the
LT2ESWTR,
will
experience
an
impact
of
3
percent
or
greater
of
average
annual
revenues.
This
is
less
than
the
criterion
of
100
systems
used
to
determine
significant
impact
at
this
cost
level.
Considering
each
class
of
small
entity,
the
number
of
PWSs
experiencing
an
impact
of
3
percent
or
greater
of
average
annual
revenues
ranges
from
1
(
small
organization
PWS)
to
15
(
small
government
PWSs),
which
is
0.1
to
0.3
percent
of
the
systems
in
each
category,
respectively.

With
respect
to
different
size
categories,
no
small
entity
PWSs
serving
500
or
fewer
people
and
fewer
than
0.8
percent
of
systems
serving
501
to
3,300
people
will
experience
an
impact
of
1
percent
or
greater
of
average
annual
revenues.
Approximately
6.0
percent
of
small
organization
PWSs
and
12.2
percent
of
small
government
and
business
PWSs
serving
3,301
to
10,000
people
will
experience
an
impact
of
1
percent
or
greater
of
revenues.

Obtaining
Data
on
the
Number
of
Small
PWSs
and
Their
Revenues
or
Expenditures
EPA
obtained
data
on
the
number
of
PWSs
in
each
small
entity
category,
which
are
presented
in
Column
A
of
Exhibit
W.
1.
The
numbers
of
PWSs
and
their
distribution
among
categories
are
derived
from
EPA's
Baseline
Handbook
(
USEPA
2001c).
1
Methodology
recommended
by
Bruce
E.
Baker,
State
and
Local
Governments,
Government
Division,
U.
S.
Bureau
of
Economic
Analysis.

2
The
"
other"
category
contains
systems
that
do
not
yet
have
a
specific
function
identified.

Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
W­
4
EPA
also
estimated
the
annual
revenues
or
expenditures
of
small
PWSs,
presented
in
Column
B
of
Exhibit
W.
1.
PWS
inventories,
managed
by
EPA
and
other
organizations,
have
traditionally
been
categorized
by
size
and
by
the
characteristics
of
the
population
served
(
i.
e.,
CWSs,
NTNCWSs,
and
TNCWSs)
rather
than
by
NAICS
code.
Revenues
by
NAICS
code
are
not
readily
applicable
to
EPA's
categorization
of
systems.
Therefore,
alternative
methods
for
determining
revenue
were
developed,
as
discussed
below.

The
estimated
revenues
for
small
entities
in
Exhibit
W.
1
are
from
the
Bureau
of
the
Census
(
U.
S.
Department
of
Commerce
1992),
the
Safe
Drinking
Water
Information
System
(
SDWIS),
and
additional
data
on
independent
privately
owned
CWSs,
special
districts,
and
authorities
from
the
1995
Community
Water
System
Survey
(
USEPA
1997c).
Column
A
of
Exhibit
W.
1
shows
the
numbers
of
systems
classified
as
small
businesses,
governments,
and
organizations,
obtained
using
information
from
the
Third
Edition
of
the
Baseline
Handbook
(
USEPA
2001c).
These
numbers
were
used
to
determine
the
weighted
averages
of
estimated
revenue.
Column
B
shows
the
estimated
revenues.

Small
government
systems
include
municipal,
county,
state,
federal,
military,
and
special
district
systems.
Data
on
revenue
for
townships
and
municipalities
were
obtained
from
the
1992
Census
of
Governments
(
U.
S.
Department
of
Commerce
1992),
converted
to
2000
dollars
by
applying
a
conversion
factor
calculated
from
the
national
income
and
product
account
tables
of
the
U.
S.
Bureau
of
Economic
Analysis.
1
Specifically,
the
price
deflators
for
1992
and
2000
were
obtained
from
Chain­
Type
Price
Indexes
for
State
and
Local
Governments
(
U.
S.
Department
of
Commerce
2002).
The
average
revenue
for
all
small
governments
with
PWSs
was
calculated
at
$
2,434,200.

Small
business­
run
PWSs
in
Exhibit
W.
1
include
both
CWSs
and
NTNCWSs,
such
as
privately
owned
CWSs,
mobile
home
parks,
country
clubs,
hotels,
manufacturers,
hospitals,
and
other
establishments.
For
this
analysis,
all
hospitals
and
day
care
centers
are
assumed
to
be
businesses,
as
are
50
percent
of
systems
classified
as
"
other."
2
Estimated
average
revenue
for
the
small
businesses
affected
by
the
LT2ESWTR
is
$
2,391,978.

Small
organizations
include
primarily
nonprofit
NTNCWS
such
as
schools
and
homeowners
associations.
The
revenue
estimates
for
small
nonprofit
organizations
serving
more
than
500
people
are
actually
higher
than
those
for
small
businesses
because
the
total
number
of
such
systems
is
small,
and
a
large
proportion
of
these
organizations
are
schools
and
colleges
with
large
budgets.
This
category
also
includes
50
percent
of
systems
classified
as
"
other."
The
average
estimated
revenue
for
small
organizations
affected
by
the
LT2ESWTR
is
$
4,446,165.

EPA
also
calculated
the
average
estimated
revenue
for
all
small
entity
PWSs.
This
estimate
is
weighted
to
account
for
the
number
of
small
entity
PWSs
in
each
category
(
government,
business,
and
organization)
affected
by
the
LT2ESWTR.
This
overall
average
is
$
2,597,966.
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
W­
5
Cost
per
System
Cost
as
a
Percentage
of
Revenue
Percent
of
Systems
Number
of
Systems
Percent
of
Systems
Number
of
Systems
B
C
D
=
C/
B
E
F
=
A*
E
G
H
=
A*
G
Small
Government
PWSs
5,910
50%
$
2,434,200
$
3,593
0.1%
2.4%
140
0.3%
15
<
100
1,801
$
2,434,200
$
2,124
0.1%
0.0%
­
0.0%
­
101­
500
1,422
$
2,434,200
$
3,160
0.1%
0.0%
­
0.0%
­
501­
1,000
570
$
2,434,200
$
4,571
0.2%
0.6%
3
0.5%
3
1,001­
3,300
1,099
$
2,434,200
$
7,612
0.3%
1.1%
13
0.5%
6
3,301­
10,000
1,018
$
2,434,200
$
19,556
0.8%
12.2%
124
0.7%
7
Small
Business
PWSs
4,846
41%
$
2,391,978
$
3,593
0.2%
2.4%
115
0.3%
13
<
100
1,477
$
2,391,978
$
2,124
0.1%
0.0%
­
0.0%
­
101­
500
1,166
$
2,391,978
$
3,160
0.1%
0.0%
­
0.0%
­
501­
1,000
467
$
2,391,978
$
4,571
0.2%
0.6%
3
0.5%
2
1,001­
3,300
901
$
2,391,978
$
7,612
0.3%
1.1%
10
0.5%
5
3,301­
10,000
834
$
2,391,978
$
19,556
0.8%
12.2%
102
0.7%
5
Small
Organization
PWSs
1,064
9%
$
4,446,165
$
3,593
0.1%
1.2%
13
0.1%
1
<
100
324
$
4,446,165
$
2,124
0.0%
0.0%
­
0.0%
­
101­
500
256
$
4,446,165
$
3,160
0.1%
0.0%
­
0.0%
­
501­
1,000
103
$
4,446,165
$
4,571
0.1%
0.6%
1
0.0%
0
1,001­
3,300
198
$
4,446,165
$
7,612
0.2%
0.6%
1
0.1%
0
3,301­
10,000
183
$
4,446,165
$
19,556
0.4%
6.0%
11
0.6%
1
All
Small
Entity
PWSs
11,820
100%
$
2,597,966
$
3,593
0.1%
2.3%
274
0.3%
31
<
100
3,602
$
2,597,966
$
2,124
0.1%
0.0%
­
0.0%
­
101­
500
2,845
$
2,597,966
$
3,160
0.1%
0.0%
­
0.0%
­
501­
1,000
1,139
$
2,597,966
$
4,571
0.2%
0.6%
7
0.5%
6
1,001­
3,300
2,198
$
2,597,966
$
7,612
0.3%
0.9%
19
0.5%
11
3,301­
10,000
2,035
$
2,597,966
$
19,556
0.8%
12.2%
248
0.7%
13
PWSs
by
Ownership
Type
and
System
Size
Systems
Experiencing
Costs
of
>
1%
of
their
Revenues
Systems
Experiencing
Costs
of
>
3%
of
their
Revenues
A
Annualized
80th
Percentile
Compliance
Cost[
2]
($)
Average
Annual
Estimated
Revenues[
1]
per
System
($)
Number
of
Small
Systems
(
Percent)
Exhibit
W.
1
Annualized
Compliance
Cost
of
the
LT2ESWTR
as
a
Percentage
of
Revenue
and
Number
of
Small
Entity
PWSs
Experiencing
Impacts
($
2000)

Note:
Detail
may
not
add
due
to
independent
rounding.

1
Revenue
information
was
used
whenever
available.
When
it
was
not
available,
different
measures,
such
as
sales
or
annual
operating
expenditures,
were
used.
Data
were
not
available
to
differentiate
revenue
by
system
size.
2
Cost
data
are
based
on
the
means
of
the
highest
modeled
distributions
generated
using
the
Information
Collection
Rule
(
ICR)
occurrence
data
set.
Column
C
shows
costs
annualized
at
3
percent
over
20
years.

Sources:
[
A]
Number
of
small
systems
taken
from
Exhibit
4.3,
multiplied
by
percentages
(
50%,
41%,
and
9%)
to
obtain
numbers
for
small
governments,
businesses,
and
organizations.
[
B]
Small
Governments:
Revenues
from
1992
Census
of
Governments,
GC92(
4)­
4:
Finances
of
Municipal
and
Township
Governments,
U.
S.
Dept.
of
Commerce,
Bureau
of
the
Census;
price
deflators
from
Table
7.11,
Chain­
Type
Quantity
and
Price
Indexes
for
Government.
All
other
price
adjustments
based
on
Consumer
Price
Index.
[
C]
Derived
from
the
LT2ESWTR
Cost
Model
(
Appendix
U).
[
E,
G]
Derived
from
Column
B
and
compliance
costs
from
the
LT2ESWTR
Cost
Model
(
Appendix
U).

W.
2.4
Screening
Analysis
Results
As
part
of
its
screening
analysis,
EPA
evaluated
the
potential
economic
impact
of
the
rule
on
small
entities
by
comparing
compliance
costs
as
a
percentage
of
sales,
revenues,
or
operating
expenditures
for
each
small
entity
classification.
Based
on
the
information
presented
in
Exhibit
W.
1,
EPA
certifies
that
the
LT2ESWTR
will
not
lead
to
significant
economic
impacts
for
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities
and,
therefore,
is
not
required
by
the
RFA,
as
amended
by
SBREFA,
to
conduct
an
IRFA
or
a
FRFA.

As
shown
in
Exhibit
W.
1,
the
costs
associated
with
the
LT2ESWTR
in
the
80th
percentile
(
annualized
at
3
percent)
do
not
approach
1
percent
of
the
small
entity
PWSs'
average
annual
revenues
or
expenditures.
The
annualized
cost
for
all
small
entity
PWSs
for
the
80th
percentile
is
$
3,593.
Since
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Proposal
June
2003
W­
6
fewer
than
20
percent
of
systems
will
experience
economic
impacts
of
1
percent
of
their
revenues,
the
screening
analysis
threshold
of
20
percent
of
systems
experiencing
economic
impacts
is
not
exceeded.
Taking
this
analysis
one
step
further,
EPA
evaluated
the
number
of
systems
that
are
above
the
1
percent
threshold
for
each
small
entity,
based
on
the
80th
percentile
annualized
compliance
costs.
Only
274
small
entity
PWSs
(
2.3
percent)
will
experience
an
impact
of
1
percent
or
greater
of
average
annual
revenues,
which
falls
below
the
criteria
of
1,000
systems
or
20
percent
of
systems.
In
addition,
only
31
small
entity
PWSs
(
0.3
percent)
will
experience
an
impact
of
3
percent
or
greater,
which
falls
below
the
criteria
of
100
systems.
