Appendices to the Economic
Analysis for the Final Stage 2
Disinfectants and Disinfection
Byproducts Rule
Volume III (I-N)
-------
Office of Water (4606-M) EPA 815-R-05-010 December 2005 www.epa.gov/safewater
-------
Appendix I
Unit Costs for Technologies Considered in the
Stage 2 DBPR
-------
-------
Appendix I
Unit Costs for Technologies Considered in the Stage 2 DBPR
Exhibits 7.8a and 7.8b in Chapter 7 list the treatment technologies (along with their constraints
and design criteria) considered for surface and ground water plants to meet the Stage 2 Disinfectants and
Disinfection Byproducts Rule (DBPR). This Appendix builds on information presented in Chapter 7 by
presenting the following.
Capital unit cost estimates for a wide range of design flows (in tabular and graphical form)
Operations and Maintenance (O&M) unit cost estimates for a wide range of average daily
flows (in tabular and graphical form)
The range of design and average flows is intended to cover all possible system flows. When
flows fall between the design or average daily flows used to estimate unit costs, straight line interpolation
can be used to estimate the capital or O&M cost. Design costs were calculated for points ranging
between 0.007 million gallons per day (MGD) and 520 MGD. For plants with flows less than 0.007
MOD, the value for 0.007 MGD was used. For plants with flows greater than 520 MGD, the costs are
calculated by extrapolating a straight line between the last two calculated cost points. Points are included
in the graphs at 0.0001 MGD and 1500 MGD to show these assumptions. Likewise for average daily
flows, points were calculated between 0.0015 MGD and 350 MGD. Points outside this range show the
assumptions used to extrapolate costs.
The majority of unit costs are derived from the Technologies and Costs Document for Control
ofMicrobial Contaminants and Disinfection By-Products (T&C Document)1 (USEPA 2003o). These
unit costs have been revised to incorporate recommendations from the National Drinking Water Advisory
Council (NDWAC) Arsenic Cost Working Group (NDWAC 2001).
The only costs not in the T&C Document are the ultraviolet (UV) costs for groundwater systems.
The cost contained in that document for groundwater UV systems is for a single reactor providing a 200
mJ/cm2 dose. The UV Disinfection Guidance Manual (USEPA 2003k), however, does not contain a
validation procedure capable of validating a reactor for 4-log virus inactivation. The 200 millijoules per
centimeter square (mJ/cm2) dose is only sufficient to provide 2-log virus inactivation. Because many
groundwater systems will be required to achieve 4-log virus inactivation either because of the Ground
Water Rule or state requirements, 2-200 mJ/cm2 reactors were assumed to be used in series for this EA.
To obtain the costs for 2-200 mJ/cm2 reactors in series, many of the line item costs for a 200
mJ/cm2 reactor, as presented in the T&C Document (Exhibit 4.16), were doubled. However, there are a
number of exceptions. Housing and pumping are multiplied by factors of 1.5 because the reactors can be
mounted in such a way that they do not require twice the additional room, and head loss will not be twice
as large due to the second reactor. Instrumentation and control was multiplied by a factor of 1.8 to
account for some instrumentation, which can be shared by the two reactors. Labor was also multiplied by
1 EPA is aware that DOE has updated its 2003 "average national cost of electricity per kilowatt hour per
year" from $.076 to $.074. However, EPA continues to use this value to maintain consistency with the Technologies
and Cost Document.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR 1-1 December 2005
-------
a factor of 1.5, as the prep time for performing maintenance activities will be the same regardless of the
number of reactors serviced. Training and testing items were not multiplied by two because only a single
reactor needs to be tested.
The Matrix of Appendix I Contents describes the exhibits in this appendix. Each exhibit lists the
constraints and design criteria for the treatment technology, presents a table showing the unit cost
estimates for each design or average flow point, and graphically displays each point to illustrate the way in
which the costs increase with flow. All graphs are in Log-Log scale. Summaries of capital, O&M, and
household costs for mean flow values for each of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
standard nine system size categories are presented in Chapter 7.
Matrix of Appendix I Contents
Source Water
Type
Surface
Ground
Technology
Chloramines
Chlorine Dioxide
UV
Ozone
Microfiltration/Ultrafiltration
GAC10
GAC20
Nanofiltration1
Chloramines
UV
Ozone
GAC20
Nanofiltration
Cost Type
Capital
O&M
Capital
O&M
Capital
O&M
Capital
O&M
Capital
O&M
Capital
O&M
Capital
O&M
Capital
O&M
Capital
O&M
Capital
O&M
Capital
O&M
Capital
O&M
Capital
O&M
Derivation of Household Unit Costs for Small System
Affordability Analysis
Exhibit
Number
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
.10
.11
.12
.13
.14
.15
.16
.17
.18
.19
.20
.21
.22
.23
.24
.25
.26
I.27
'Nanofiltration is combined with microfiltration/ultrafiltration to represent the integrated membrane technology for
surface water plants.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
1-2
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 1.1 Capital Costs for Switching to Chloramines
Surface Water Plants
Constraints: It can be used alone or in conjunction with the other technologies
Design Criteria:
1) Ammonia dose = 0.55 mg/L
Design Flow
(mgd)
0.0001
0.0070
0.0220
0.0370
0.0910
0.1800
0.2700
0.3600
0.6800
1.0000
1 .2000
2.0000
3.5000
7.0000
17.0000
22.0000
76.0000
210.0000
430.0000
520.0000
1500.0000
Capital Cost
($)
$29,104
$29,104
$29,104
$29,104
$29,104
$30,604
$37,939
$38,858
$42,127
$53,396
$83,772
$83,772
$83,772
$83,772
$98,772
$133,907
$397,173
$492,039
$590,780
$736,773
$2,326,467
Capital Costs for Switching to Chloramines
(Ammonia dose = 0.55 mg/L)
$10,000,000
$1,000,000
in
o
O
Ł
Ł $100,000
o
$10,000
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Design Flow (mgd)
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
1-3
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 1.2 O&M Costs for Switching to Chloramines
Surface Water Plants
Constraints: It can be used alone or in conjunction with the other technologies
Design Criteria:
1) Ammonia dose = 0.55 mg/L
Average Flow
(mgd)
0.00005
0.00150
0.00540
0.00950
0.02500
0.05400
0.08400
0.11000
0.23000
0.35000
0.41000
0.77000
1 .40000
3.00000
7.80000
11.00000
38.00000
120.00000
270.00000
350.00000
750.00000
O&M cost
($)
$1 ,362
$1 ,362
$1 ,366
$1,370
$1,483
$1,515
$3,014
$3,041
$3,077
$4,443
$6,000
$6,747
$8,102
$10,536
$15,491
$18,954
$31,538
$80,340
$161,502
$204,728
$420,859
O&M Costs for Switching to Chloramines
(Ammonia dose = 0.55 mg/L)
q>1 , DUD, DUD -
tŁt
o
0
^
ox CIM n nnn
j;' cp i u,uuu
dM nnn
/
z
r^
- - -v**
0.00001 0.001 0.1 10 1000
Average Flow (mgd)
Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 1.3 Capital Costs for Chlorine Dioxide
Surface Water Plants
Constraints: Not applicable for systems serving populations < 100
Design Criteria:
1) No new contact basin would be required
2) CIO2 dose = 1.25 mg/L
Design Flow
(mgd)
0.0001
0.0070
0.0220
0.0370
0.0910
0.1800
0.2700
0.3600
0.6800
1.0000
1 .2000
2.0000
3.5000
7.0000
17.0000
22.0000
76.0000
210.0000
430.0000
520.0000
1500.0000
Capital Cost
($)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
$32,427
$38,370
$39,172
$40,066
$43,005
$40,035
$80,585
$82,054
$191,088
$21 1 ,473
$268,223
$296,568
$603,425
$897,449
$1,245,987
$1,368,982
$2,708,268
Capital Costs for Chlorine Dioxide
(CIO2 dose = 1.25 mg/L)
vp I U, DUD, DUD
V*
'**' ct-i nnn nnn
* <4> I ,UUU,UUU
O
0
"<5
+j
'o^ ct-i nn nnn
>* vp I UU,UUU
(0
O
on n nnn
^
^"
^*+r
q>1U,UUU H 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Design Flow (mgd)
Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
1-5
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 1.4 O&M Costs for Chlorine Dioxide
Surface Water Plants
Constraints: Not applicable for systems serving populations < 100
Design Criteria:
1) No new contact basin would be required
2) CIO2 dose = 1.25 mg/L
Average Flow
(mgd)
0.00005
0.00150
0.00540
0.00950
0.02500
0.05400
0.08400
0.11000
0.23000
0.35000
0.41000
0.77000
1 .40000
3.00000
7.80000
11.00000
38.00000
120.00000
270.00000
350.00000
750.00000
O&M Cost
($)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
$14,093
$15,204
$16,721
$16,999
$17,812
$18,571
$18,984
$21 ,638
$22,001
$25,392
$35,939
$42,336
$87,061
$216,813
$446,533
$561 ,934
$1,138,937
O&M Costs for Chlorine Dioxide
(CIO2 dose =1.25 mg/L)
Cpl U, DDL), DDL)
tit $1 nnn nnn
to
o
O
§
nx
/
j^Ar
^~^~~-^
CplUjUUU H 1 1 1 1 1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Average Flow (mgd)
Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
1-6
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 1.5 Capital Costs for UV
Surface Water Plants
Constraints: None
Design Criteria:
1) UV254 = 0.051 cm"1, Turbidity = 0.1 NTU, Alkalinity = 60 mg/L CaCO3, Hardness = 100 mg/L CaCO3
2) UV dose = 40 mJ/cm2
Design Flow
(mgd)
0.0001
0.0070
0.0220
0.0370
0.0910
0.1800
0.2700
0.3600
0.6800
1.0000
1 .2000
2.0000
3.5000
7.0000
17.0000
22.0000
76.0000
210.0000
430.0000
520.0000
1500.0000
Capital Cost
($)
$10,195
$10,195
$13,034
$15,834
$25,596
$40,597
$54,386
$66,790
$99,661
$310,154
$313,662
$333,331
$362,965
$544,728
$1,342,022
$1,933,041
$3,367,751
$8,074,450
$15,798,603
$18,601,681
$49,124,085
t/>
o
o
'a.
CO
0
Capital Costs for UV
(UV dose = 40 mJ/cm2, UV254 = 0.051 cm'1, Turbidity = 0.1
$100,000,000 -T
$10,000,000 -
$1,000,000 -
$100,000 -
$10,000 -
0.0(
NTU)
/
s^s
++**
I I I I I I I I
D01 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Design Flow (mgd)
Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
1-7
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 1.6 O&M Costs for UV
Surface Water Plants
Constraints: None
Design Criteria:
1) UV254 = 0.051 cm"1, Turbidity = 0.1 NTU, Alkalinity = 60 mg/L CaCO3, Hardness = 100 mg/L CaCO3
2) UV dose = 40 mJ/cm2
Average Flow
(mgd)
0.00005
0.00150
0.00540
0.00950
0.02500
0.05400
0.08400
0.11000
0.23000
0.35000
0.41000
0.77000
1 .40000
3.00000
7.80000
11.00000
38.00000
120.00000
270.00000
350.00000
750.00000
O&M Cost
($)
$3,350
$3,350
$3,380
$3,769
$4,549
$4,736
$6,115
$6,493
$8,152
$9,016
$9,450
$11,512
$13,979
$16,183
$22,908
$27,531
$66,755
$188,219
$422,455
$551,123
$1,194,464
O&M Costs for UV
(UV dose = 40 mJ/cm2, UV254 = 0.051 cm-1, Turbidity = 0.1
NTU)
$10,000,000
$1,000,000
o $100,000
$10,000
$1,000
06
o
0.00001 0.001 0.1 10
Average Flow (mgd)
1000
Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
1-8
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 1.7 Capital Costs for Ozone
Surface Water Plants
Constraints: Not practical for systems serving 100 or fewer
Design Criteria:
1) Contact time = 12 minutes
2) Ozone Maximum dose = 3.19 mg/L
Design Flow
(mgd)
0.0001
0.0070
0.0220
0.0370
0.0910
0.1800
0.2700
0.3600
0.6800
1.0000
1 .2000
2.0000
3.5000
7.0000
17.0000
22.0000
76.0000
210.0000
430.0000
520.0000
1500.0000
Capital Cost
($)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
$322,787
$382,874
$438,785
$493,394
$675,951
$804,614
$902,391
$1,226,541
$1,595,373
$2,357,412
$3,946,957
$4,546,365
$12,628,950
$26,317,852
$44,918,178
$53,248,978
$143,962,124
Capital Costs for Ozone
(Dose = 3.19 mg/L, Contact time = 12 minutes)
q>1 , DUD, DUD, DUD
:T"
o
O ct-in nnn nnn
<4) I U,UUU,UUU
CO
+J
'a.
Oro $1 nnn nnn
<4) I ,UUU,UUU
dM nn nnn
S
S
^^^^
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Design Flow (mgd)
Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
1-9
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 1.8 O&M Costs for Ozone
Surface Water Plants
Constraints: Not practical for systems serving 100 or fewer
Design Criteria:
1) Contact time = 12 minutes
2) Ozone maximum dose = 3.19 mg/L
Average Flow
(mgd)
0.00005
0.00150
0.00540
0.00950
0.02500
0.05400
0.08400
0.11000
0.23000
0.35000
0.41000
0.77000
1 .40000
3.00000
7.80000
11.00000
38.00000
120.00000
270.00000
350.00000
750.00000
O&M Cost
($)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
$55,520
$55,884
$59,391
$59,737
$61,152
$62,566
$63,350
$67,621
$77,719
$95,346
$145,700
$177,752
$464,832
$1,377,320
$2,871,997
$3,662,456
$7,614,752
O&M Costs for Ozone
(Dose = 3.19 mg/L, Contact time = 12 minutes)
q>1U,UUU,UUU
tŁt
-------
Exhibit 1.9 Capital Costs for MF/UF
Surface Water Plants
Constraints: None
Design Criteria:
1) Water temp. = 10 degrees C
2) Sewer disposal
Design Flow
(mgd)
0.0001
0.0070
0.0220
0.0370
0.0910
0.1800
0.2700
0.3600
0.6800
1.0000
1 .2000
2.0000
3.5000
7.0000
17.0000
22.0000
76.0000
210.0000
430.0000
520.0000
1500.0000
Capital Cost
($)
$131,478
$131,478
$214,432
$270,819
$409,983
$628,117
$748,563
$850,970
$1,133,988
$1,594,911
$1,738,505
$2,720,593
$4,142,559
$7,382,351
$15,991,348
$20,058,196
$61,150,358
$153,184,031
$293,759,889
$349,252,221
$953,502,064
5
+j
CO
o
O
"<5
+j
'a.
(0
0
Capital Costs for MF/UF
(Ter
$1,000,000,000 -T
$100,000,000
$10,000,000
$1,000,000
$100,000
$10,000 -
0.0(
np. = 10 degrees C, Sewer disposal)
/
S*
jS
.^**^**
i i i i
301 0.01 1 100 10000
Design Flow (mgd)
Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
I-11
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 1.10 O&M Costs for MF/UF
Surface Water Plants
Constraints: None
Design Criteria:
1) Water temp. = 10 degrees C
2) Sewer disposal
Average Flow
(mgd)
0.00005
0.00150
0.00540
0.00950
0.02500
0.05400
0.08400
0.11000
0.23000
0.35000
0.41000
0.77000
1 .40000
3.00000
7.80000
11.00000
38.00000
120.00000
270.00000
350.00000
750.00000
O&M Cost
($)
$6,230
$6,230
$6,686
$7,156
$9,329
$22,042
$26,348
$29,272
$41 ,522
$69,214
$75,317
$106,798
$164,173
$324,393
$786,427
$1,034,793
$3,301,730
$9,888,387
$21,519,157
$27,300,426
$56,206,770
O&M Costs for MF/UF
(Temp. = 10 degrees C, Sewer disposal)
q>1UU,UUU,UUU
-------
Exhibit 1.11 Capital Costs for GAC10
Surface Water Plants
Constraints: Not practical for systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons
Design Criteria:
1) Reactivation frequency = 360 days
2) Onsite regeneration for large systems, offsite regeneration for small systems
Design Flow
(mgd)
0.0001
0.0070
0.0220
0.0370
0.0910
0.1800
0.2700
0.3600
0.6800
1.0000
1 .2000
2.0000
3.5000
7.0000
17.0000
22.0000
76.0000
210.0000
430.0000
520.0000
1500.0000
Capital Cost
($)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
$63,046
$101,302
$159,645
$215,163
$269,400
$452,926
$783,808
$999,248
$1,385,099
$2,014,217
$3,258,534
$6,140,593
$7,400,352
$18,311,317
$38,194,366
$64,571,358
$74,261,694
$179,778,692
s
+J
t/>
o
0
"<5
+j
'a.
CO
O
Capital Costs for GAC10
(Reactivation frequency = 360 days, onsite regeneration)
vp I , DUD, DUD, DUD
$1 nn nnn nnn
vp I UU, UUU, UUU
iu,uuu -i 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Design Flow (mgd)
Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
1-13
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 1.12 O&M Costs for GAC10
Surface Water Plants
Constraints: Not practical for systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons
Design Criteria:
1) Reactivation frequency = 360 days
2) Onsite regeneration for large systems, offsite regeneration for small systems
Average Flow
(mgd)
0.00005
0.00150
0.00540
0.00950
0.02500
0.05400
0.08400
0.11000
0.23000
0.35000
0.41000
0.77000
1 .40000
3.00000
7.80000
11.00000
38.00000
120.00000
270.00000
350.00000
750.00000
O&M Cost
($)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
$12,360
$19,485
$27,213
$30,798
$34,808
$46,000
$57,078
$51,809
$61,887
$79,158
$120,100
$227,710
$280,625
$709,287
$1,952,120
$4,368,760
$5,584,876
$11,665,453
O&M Costs for GAC10
(Reactivation frequency = 360 days, onsite regeneration)
q>1UU,UUU,UUU
$1 n nnn nnn
_ __ vplU,UUU,UUU
V*
1-1
(/)
*9 $1 nnn nnn
(J <4) I ,UUU,UUU
2
08
$1 nn nnn
vp I UU,UUU
on n nnn
,
/
.y
,^**+^*
^0**^^^
q>1U,UUU H 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Average Flow (mgd)
Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
1-14
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 1.13 Capital Costs for GAC20
Surface Water Plants
Constraints: None
Design Criteria:
1) Reactivation frequency = 90 days
2) Onsite regeneration for system serving more than 10,000 people
3) Media replacement for systems serving 10,000 or fewer people
Design Flow
(mgd)
0.0001
0.0070
0.0220
0.0370
0.0910
0.1800
0.2700
0.3600
0.6800
1.0000
1 .2000
2.0000
3.5000
7.0000
17.0000
22.0000
76.0000
210.0000
430.0000
520.0000
1500.0000
Capital Cost
($)
$36,117
$36,117
$53,091
$70,491
$137,932
$241 ,793
$340,528
$435,155
$739,387
$1,228,620
$1,551,122
$2,203,728
$3,275,153
$5,411,638
$10,411,502
$12,611,714
$31,503,622
$67,096,117
$114,813,572
$132,437,789
$324,345,925
Capital Costs for GAC20
(Reactivation frequency = 90 days)
q>1 , DUD, DUD, DUD -
Ot'in nnn nnn
0
'5.
* ť $1 nn nnn
\j ** ]
en n nnn
^
^^
^^^F
^^^J
^x^
0.0001 0.01 1 100 10000
Design Flow (mgd)
Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
1-15
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 1.14 O&M Costs for GAC20
Surface Water Plants
Constraints: None
Design Criteria:
1) Reactivation frequency = 90 days
2) Onsite regeneration for system serving more than 10,000 people
3) Media replacement for systems serving 10,000 or fewer people
Average Flow
(mgd)
0.00005
0.00150
0.00540
0.00950
0.02500
0.05400
0.08400
0.11000
0.23000
0.35000
0.41000
0.77000
1 .40000
3.00000
7.80000
11.00000
38.00000
120.00000
270.00000
350.00000
750.00000
O&M Cost
($)
$9,222
$9,222
$18,223
$25,644
$47,782
$47,639
$61 ,728
$74,417
$123,691
$171,149
$177,242
$199,489
$237,836
$330,703
$656,235
$863,063
$2,448,311
$6,727,479
$14,362,281
$18,123,898
$36,931,984
*&
+J
to
0
o
^
08
O
O&M Costs for GAC20
$100,000,000 -T
$10,000,000 -
$1,000,000 -
$100,000 -
$10,000 -
$1,000 -
IE-
(Reactivation frequency = 90 days)
/
/
^_
^^
i i i i i i i i
05 1E-04 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Average Flow (mgd)
Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
1-16
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 1.15 Capital Costs for Nanofiltration
Surface Water Plants
Constraints: None
Design Criteria:
1) Water temp. = 10 degrees C
2) Ocean or Sewer discharge
Design Flow
(mgd)
0.0001
0.0070
0.0220
0.0370
0.0910
0.1800
0.2700
0.3600
0.6800
1.0000
1 .2000
2.0000
3.5000
7.0000
17.0000
22.0000
76.0000
210.0000
430.0000
520.0000
1500.0000
Capital Cost
($)
$51,894
$51,894
$69,241
$86,588
$156,079
$222,829
$315,937
$357,087
$663,375
$912,423
$1,080,532
$2,018,579
$3,404,129
$6,745,258
$15,456,118
$19,862,964
$57,558,238
$129,659,099
$265,356,059
$318,914,577
o
O
'5.
CO
O
Ca(
(Ten
$1,000,000,000 -T
^mn nnn nnn
<4) 1 UU, UUU, UUU
cp,-in nnn nnn
CD-I nnn nnn
CM nn nnn
vp 1 UU,UUU
CD-I n nnn
Dital Costs for Nanofiltration
rip. = 10 degrees C, ocean discharge)
/
z
z
vplUjUUU H 1 1 1
0.0001 0.01 1 100
Design Flow (mgd)
10000
Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
1-17
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 1.16 O&M Costs for Nanofiltration
Surface Water Plants
Constraints: None
Design Criteria:
1) Water temp. = 10 degrees C
2) Ocean or sewer discharge
Average Flow
(mgd)
0.00005
0.00150
0.00540
0.00950
0.02500
0.05400
0.08400
0.11000
0.23000
0.35000
0.41000
0.77000
1 .40000
3.00000
7.80000
11.00000
38.00000
120.00000
270.00000
350.00000
750.00000
O&M Cost
($)
$6,909
$6,909
$7,937
$9,025
$13,703
$29,539
$37,904
$43,223
$70,725
$112,309
$126,572
$205,817
$343,298
$710,894
$1,780,761
$2,429,844
$7,914,024
$23,845,168
$52,975,344
$68,097,181
$143,706,367
5
"55
2
o0
O
O&M Costs for Nanofiltration
(Terr
$1,000,000,000 -T
$100,000,000
$10,000,000
$1,000,000
$100 000
$10,000 -
$1,000 -
0.00
ip. = 10 degrees C, ocean discharge)
>^
>^
jS^
^s^
>
I I I
001 0.001 0.1 10 1000
Average Flow (mgd)
Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
1-18
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 1.17 Capital Costs for Switching to Chloramines
Ground Water Plants
Constraints: It can be used alone or in conjunction with the other technologies
Design Criteria:
1) Ammonia dose = 0.15 mg/L
Design Flow
(mgd)
0.0001
0.0070
0.0220
0.0370
0.0910
0.1800
0.2700
0.3600
0.6800
1.0000
1 .2000
2.0000
3.5000
7.0000
17.0000
22.0000
76.0000
210.0000
430.0000
520.0000
1500.0000
Capital Cost
($)
$29,104
$29,104
$29,104
$29,104
$29,104
$30,604
$37,939
$38,858
$42,127
$53,396
$83,772
$83,772
$83,772
$83,772
$98,772
$98,772
$98,772
$158,907
$428,047
$428,047
$428,047
Capital Costs for Switching to Chloramines
(Ammonia Dose = 0.15 mg/L)
Cp I , DDL), DDL)
5
+j
CO
.. ť
-------
Exhibit 1.18 O&M Costs for Switching to Chloramines
Ground Water Plants
Constraints: It can be used alone or in conjunction with the other technologies
Design Criteria:
1) Ammonia dose = 0.15 mg/L
Average Flow
(mgd)
0.00005
0.00150
0.00540
0.00950
0.02500
0.05400
0.08400
0.11000
0.23000
0.35000
0.41000
0.77000
1 .40000
3.00000
7.80000
11.00000
38.00000
120.00000
270.00000
350.00000
750.00000
O&M Cost
($)
$1,361
$1,361
$1 ,362
$1,363
$1 ,463
$1 ,472
$2,949
$2,956
$2,966
$4,274
$5,743
$6,266
$7,231
$8,688
$11,333
$12,887
$23,579
$46,355
$73,620
$87,174
$154,948
O&M Costs for Switching to Chloramines
(Ammonia Dose = 0.15 mg/L)
Cpl , DDL), DDL)
-------
Exhibit 1.19 Capital Costs for UV
Ground Water Plants
Constraints: Not practical for systems serving 10,000 or more
Design Criteria:
1) UV254 = 0.051 cm'1, Turbidity = 0.1 NTU
2) Alkalinity = 60 mg/L CaCO3, Hardness = 100 mg/L CaCO3
3) UV dose = 200 mJ/cm2
4) 2 reactors in series
Design Flow
(mgd)
0.0001
0.0070
0.0220
0.0370
0.0910
0.1800
0.2700
0.3600
0.6800
1.0000
1 .2000
2.0000
3.5000
7.0000
17.0000
22.0000
76.0000
210.0000
430.0000
520.0000
1500.0000
Capital Cost
($)
$39,390
$39,390
$47,873
$56,357
$86,898
$137,234
$188,136
$239,038
$420,021
$878,383
$953,078
$1,354,307
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
$10,000,000
S$1, 000,000
(0
o
o
- $100,000
o
Capital Costs for UV
(UV dose = 200 mJ/cm2, Turbidity = 0.1 NTU,
UV254 = 0.051 cm-1)
$10,000
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1
Design Flow (mgd)
10
Note: EPA updated the 40 mJ/cm2 UV unit costs based on data obtained for recent installations of this technology. Similar data for 200 mJ/cm2 UV
systems were not available within the time frame required to include in this analysis.
Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
1-21
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 1.20 O&M Costs for UV
Ground Water Plants
Constraints: Not practical for systems serving 10,000 or more
Design Criteria:
1) UV254 = 0.051 cm'1, Turbidity = 0.1 NTU
2) Alkalinity = 60 mg/L CaCO3, Hardness = 100 mg/L CaCO3
3) UV dose = 200 mJ/cm2
4) 2 reactors in series
Average Flow
(mgd)
0.00005
0.00150
0.00540
0.00950
0.02500
0.05400
0.08400
0.11000
0.23000
0.35000
0.41000
0.77000
1 .40000
3.00000
7.80000
11.00000
38.00000
120.00000
270.00000
350.00000
750.00000
O&M Cost
($)
$6,919
$6,919
$7,189
$8,324
$10,751
$13,065
$16,203
$16,739
$19,155
$20,522
$22,415
$28,089
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
$100,000
O&M Costs for UV
(UV dose = 200 mJ/cm2, Turbidity = 0.1 NTU,
UV254 = 0.051 cm'1)
-------
Exhibit 1.21 Capital Costs for Ozone
Ground Water Plants
Constraints: Not practical for systems serving 100 or fewer people
Design Criteria:
1) Contact time = 12 minutes
2) Ozone maximum dose = 3.19 mg/L
Design Flow
(mgd)
0.0001
0.0070
0.0220
0.0370
0.0910
0.1800
0.2700
0.3600
0.6800
1.0000
1 .2000
2.0000
3.5000
7.0000
17.0000
22.0000
76.0000
210.0000
430.0000
520.0000
1500.0000
Capital Cost
($)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
$322,787
$382,874
$438,785
$493,394
$675,951
$804,614
$902,391
$1,226,541
$1,595,373
$2,357,412
$3,946,957
$4,546,365
$12,628,950
$26,317,852
$44,918,178
$53,248,978
$143,962,124
t/>
o
o
'a.
CO
O
Capital Costs for Ozone
(Dose =
$1,000,000,000 -T
$100,000,000
$10,000,000
$1,000,000
$100,000
0.(
= 3.19 mg/L, Contact time = 12 minutes)
^x7
^^
^^^
I I I I I I
31 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Design Flow (mgd)
Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
1-23
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 1.22 O&M Costs for Ozone
Ground Water Plants
Constraints: Not practical for systems serving 100 or fewer people
Design Criteria:
1) Contact time = 12 minutes
2) Ozone maximum dose = 3.19 mg/L
Average Flow
(mgd)
0.00005
0.00150
0.00540
0.00950
0.02500
0.05400
0.08400
0.11000
0.23000
0.35000
0.41000
0.77000
1 .40000
3.00000
7.80000
11.00000
38.00000
120.00000
270.00000
350.00000
750.00000
O&M Cost
($)
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
$55,520
$55,884
$59,391
$59,737
$61,152
$62,566
$63,350
$67,621
$77,719
$95,346
$145,700
$177,752
$464,832
$1,377,320
$2,871,997
$3,662,456
O&M Costs for Ozone
(Dose = 3.19 mg/L, Contact time = 12 minutes)
q>1U,UUU,UUU
tŁt
-------
Exhibit 1.23 Capital Costs for GAC20
Ground Water Plants
Constraints: None
Design Criteria:
1) Reactivation frequency = 240 days
2) Onsite regeneration for systems serving more than 10,000 people
3) Media replacement for systems serving 10,000 or fewer people
Design Flow
(mgd)
0.0001
0.0070
0.0220
0.0370
0.0910
0.1800
0.2700
0.3600
0.6800
1.0000
1 .2000
2.0000
3.5000
7.0000
17.0000
22.0000
76.0000
210.0000
430.0000
520.0000
1500.0000
Capital Cost
($)
$36,117
$36,117
$53,091
$70,491
$137,932
$241 ,793
$340,528
$435,155
$739,387
$1,228,620
$1,351,323
$1,931,036
$2,894,585
$4,844,129
$9,491,603
$11,561,478
$29,712,377
$64,708,727
$112,528,561
$130,362,039
$324,548,797
s
+J
t/>
o
0
"<5
+j
'a.
CO
O
Capital Costs for GAC20
(Reactivation frequency = 240 days)
q>1 , DUD, DUD, DUD -
-------
Exhibit 1.24 O&M Costs for GAC20
Ground Water Plants
Constraints: None
Design Criteria:
1) Reactivation frequency = 240 days
2) Onsite regeneration for systems serving more than 10,000 people
3) Media replacement for systems serving 10,000 or fewer people
Average Flow
(mgd)
0.00005
0.00150
0.00540
0.00950
0.02500
0.05400
0.08400
0.11000
0.23000
0.35000
0.41000
0.77000
1 .40000
3.00000
7.80000
11.00000
38.00000
120.00000
270.00000
350.00000
750.00000
O&M Cost
($)
$6,673
$6,673
$1 1 ,206
$14,742
$24,752
$35,068
$42,835
$50,123
$75,023
$98,679
$96,623
$110,575
$134,831
$193,396
$367,103
$469,818
$1,294,938
$3,624,295
$7,945,037
$9,865,622
$19,468,547
O&M Costs for GAC20
(Reactivation frequency = 240 days)
vp I UU, DUD, DUD
$
O
O
s $1 nn nnn
2 vp I UU,UUU
08
O
ct-in nnn
CD -i nnn
>
S
^S
^~***
0.00001 0.001 0.1 10 1000
Average Flow (mgd)
Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
1-26
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 1.25 Capital Costs for Nanofiltration
Ground Water Plants
Constraints: None
Design Criteria:
1) Water temp. = 10 degrees C
2) Ocean or sewer discharge
Design Flow
(mgd)
0.0001
0.0070
0.0220
0.0370
0.0910
0.1800
0.2700
0.3600
0.6800
1.0000
1 .2000
2.0000
3.5000
7.0000
17.0000
22.0000
76.0000
210.0000
430.0000
520.0000
1500.0000
Capital Cost
($)
$51,894
$51,894
$69,241
$86,588
$156,079
$222,829
$315,937
$357,087
$663,375
$912,423
$1,080,532
$2,018,579
$3,404,129
$6,745,258
$15,456,118
$19,862,964
$57,558,238
$129,659,099
$265,356,059
$318,914,577
$902,107,327
s
+J
t/>
o
0
"<5
+j
'a.
CO
O
Capital Costs for Nanofiltration
(Temp. = 10 degrees C, ocean discharge)
q>1 , DUD, DUD, DUD
-------
Exhibit 1.26 O&M Costs for Nanofiltration
Ground Water Plants
Constraints: None
Design Criteria:
1) Water temp. = 10 degrees C
2) Ocean or sewer discharge
Average Flow
(mgd)
0.00005
0.00150
0.00540
0.00950
0.02500
0.05400
0.08400
0.11000
0.23000
0.35000
0.41000
0.77000
1 .40000
3.00000
7.80000
11.00000
38.00000
120.00000
270.00000
350.00000
750.00000
O&M Cost
($)
$6,909
$6,909
$7,937
$9,025
$13,703
$29,539
$37,904
$43,223
$70,725
$112,309
$126,572
$205,817
$343,298
$710,894
$1,780,761
$2,429,844
$7,914,024
$23,845,168
$52,975,344
$68,097,181
$143,706,367
O&M Costs for Nanofiltration
(Temp. = 10 degrees C, ocean discharge)
to
o
O
08
O
$1,000,000,000
$100,000,000
$10,000,000
$1,000,000
$100,000
$10,000
$1,000
0.00001 0.001 0.1
10
1000
Average Flow (mgd)
Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
1-28
December 2005
-------
Exhibit 1.27 Stage 2 DBPR - Small Systems Household Unit Costs for the Stage 2 Affordability Analysis
Ground
Water CWSs
Surface
Water CWSs
Technology
Chlora mines
(0.15mg/L)
UV
(200mJ/cm2)
Ozone
(0.5-log dose)
GAC20
(EBCT=20 min, 240
day regeneration)
NF
Chlora mines
(0.55 mg/L)
Chlorine Dioxide
(1 .25 mg/L)
UV
(40mJ/cm2)
Ozone
(0.5-log dose)
MF/UF
GAC10
(EBCT=10min,360
day regeneration)
GAC20
(EBCT=20 min, 90
day regeneration)
Integrated
Membranes
Population
Served
25 - 500
501 - 3,300
3,301 -10,000
25 - 500
501 - 3,300
3,301 -10,000
25 - 500
501 - 3,300
3,301 - 10,000
25 - 500
501 - 3,300
3,301 - 10,000
25 - 500
501 - 3,300
3,301 - 10,000
25 - 500
501 - 3,300
3,301 -10,000
25 - 500
501 - 3,300
3,301 - 10,000
25 - 500
501 - 3,300
3,301 - 10,000
25 - 500
501 - 3,300
3,301 -10,000
25 - 500
501 - 3,300
3,301 -10,000
25 - 500
501 - 3,300
3,301 - 10,000
25 - 500
501 - 3,300
3,301 - 10,000
25 - 500
501 - 3,300
3,301 - 10,000
Design
Flow
(mgd)
A
0.058
0.5
1.8
0.058
0.5
1.8
0.058
0.5
1.8
0.058
0.5
1.8
0.058
0.5
1.8
0.058
0.5
1.8
0.058
0.5
1.8
0.058
0.5
1.8
0.058
0.5
1.8
0.058
0.5
1.8
0.058
0.5
1.8
0.058
0.5
1.8
0.058
0.5
1.8
Average
Daily Flow
(mgd)
B
0.015
0.17
0.7
0.015
0.17
0.7
0.015
0.17
0.7
0.015
0.17
0.7
0.015
0.17
0.7
0.015
0.17
0.7
0.015
0.17
0.7
0.015
0.17
0.7
0.015
0.17
0.7
0.015
0.17
0.7
0.015
0.17
0.7
0.015
0.17
0.7
0.015
0.17
0.7
Capital Annual O&M
Cost Capital Cost
($) Cost at 7%($] ($)
C D E
$ 29,104 $ 2,747 $ 1,398
$ 40,288 $ 3,803 $ 2,961
$ 83,772 $ 7,908 $ 6,164
$ 68,234 $ 6,441 $ 9,185
$ 318,218 $ 30,038 $ 17,947
$ 1,254,000 $ 118,369 $ 26,986
$ 322,787 $ 30,469 $ 55,520
$ 573,262 $ 54,112 $ 60,445
$ 1,145,503 $ 108,127 $ 66,791
$ 96,718 $ 9,130 $ 18,294
$ 568,257 $ 53,639 $ 62,573
$ 1,786,108 $ 168,596 $ 107,862
$ 113,612 $ 10,724 $ 10,685
$ 491,088 $ 46,355 $ 56,974
$ 1,784,068 $ 168,403 $ 190,408
$ 29,104 $ 2,747 $ 1,410
$ 40,288 $ 3,803 $ 3,059
$ 83,772 $ 7,908 $ 6,602
$ 32,427 $ 3,061 $ 5,001
$ 41,352 $ 3,903 $ 17,406
$ 81,687 $ 7,711 $ 21,122
$ 19,631 $ 1,853 $ 4,046
$ 81,171 $ 7,662 $ 7,323
$ 328,414 $ 31,000 $ 11,111
$ 322,787 $ 30,469 $ 55,520
$ 573,262 $ 54,112 $ 60,445
$ 1,145,503 $ 108,127 $ 66,791
$ 324,938 $ 30,672 $ 7,927
$ 974,790 $ 92,013 $ 35,397
$ 2,475,071 $ 233,629 $ 100,677
$ 77,923 $ 7,355 $ 14,888
$ 349,693 $ 33,009 $ 40,404
$ 1,288,636 $ 121,638 $ 59,927
$ 96,718 $ 9,130 $ 33,499
$ 568,257 $ 53,639 $ 99,054
$ 2,040,576 $ 192,616 $ 195,163
$ 438,551 $ 41,396 $ 18,612
$ 1,465,879 $ 138,369 $ 92,371
$ 4,259,139 $ 402,033 $ 291,086
Total
Annual
Costs ($)
F=D+E
4,146
6,764
14,071
15,626
47,984
145,355
85,989
114,557
174,918
27,424
116,213
276,458
21,409
103,329
358,812
4,158
6,862
14,509
8,061
21,309
28,833
5,899
14,984
42,111
85,989
114,557
174,918
38,599
127,411
334,306
22,244
73,413
181,565
42,629
152,693
387,779
60,008
230,740
693,118
Unit
Costs
($/kgal/yr)
G=F/A
0.76
0.11
0.06
2.85
0.77
0.57
15.71
1.85
0.68
5.01
1.87
1.08
3.91
1.67
1.40
0.76
0.11
0.06
1.47
0.34
0.11
1.08
0.24
0.16
15.71
1.85
0.68
7.05
2.05
1.31
4.06
1.18
0.71
7.79
2.46
1.52
10.96
3.72
2.71
Median Annual Water
Usage per HH
(kgal/yr)
H
83
85
89
83
85
89
83
85
89
83
85
89
83
85
89
83
85
89
83
85
89
83
85
89
83
85
89
83
85
89
83
85
89
83
85
89
83
85
89
Household
Unit Costs
($)
I=G*H
62.70
9.28
4.88
236.32
65.81
50.38
1 ,300.43
157.11
60.62
414.74
159.38
95.81
323.78
141.71
124.36
62.88
9.41
5.03
121.92
29.22
9.99
89.21
20.55
14.59
1 ,300.43
157.11
60.62
583.74
174.74
115.86
336.40
100.68
62.93
644.69
209.42
134.39
907.52
316.45
240.22
Sources: Exhibits 1.1-1.26, flows from Exhibit 8.3.
Note: HH consumption values derived from small system affordability document, values were multiplied by 1.15 to account for water lost due to leaks.
Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
1-29
December 2005
-------
Appendix J
Stage 2 DBPR Cost Projections
-------
-------
Matrix of Appendix J Contents
Applicable Rule Alternative(s)
Preferred Alternative
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Preferred Alternative, ICR Matrix
Method
Preferred Alternative, SWAT
Method
All Alternatives
All Alternatives
Stage 2
Preferred Alternative
Exhibit Description
Total Capital and O&M Costs
Total Capital and O&M Costs
Total Capital and O&M Costs
Total Capital and O&M Costs
Total Capital and O&M Costs
Total Capital and O&M Costs
Total Implementation, IDSE, Additional Routine Monitoring, and
Operational Evaluation Costs
Total Primacy Agency Costs
Annual PWS Cost Projections
Annual Primacy Agency Cost Projections
Present Value of Total Costs at 3% Discount Rate
Present Value of Capital Costs at 3% Discount Rate
Present Value of O&M Costs at 3% Discount Rate
Present Value of Non-treatment Costs at 3% Discount Rate
Present Value of Total Costs at 7% Discount Rate
Present Value of Capital Costs at 7% Discount Rate
Present Value of O&M Costs at 7% Discount Rate
Present Value of Non-treatment Costs at 7% Discount Rate
Applicable
Source Water
Type(s)
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
N/A
Surface Water
Ground Water
All
N/A
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
Applicable System
Classification(s)
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
N/A
CWS
NTNCWS
All
CWS
NTNCWS
All
All
N/A
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
Applicable
System Size
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
N/A
<100
100-499
500-999
1,000-3,299
3,300-9,999
10,000-49,999
50,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
1,000,000+
All
<100
100-499
500-999
1,000-3,299
3,300-9,999
10,000-49,999
50,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
1,000,000+
All
All
<100
100-499
500-999
1,000-3,299
3,300-9,999
10,000-49,999
50,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
1,000,000+
All
<100
100-499
500-999
1,000-3,299
3,300-9,999
10,000-49,999
50,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
1,000,000+
All
All
All
N/A
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
Exhibit
Number
J.1a
J.1b
J.1c
J.1d
J.1e
J.1f
J.1g
J.1h
J.2a
J.2b
J.2c
J.2d
J.2e
J.2f
J.2g
J.2h
J.2i
J.2J
J.2k
J.2I
J.2m
J.2n
J.2o
J.2p
J.2q
J.2r
J.2s
J.2t
J.2u
J.2v
J.2w
J.2x
J.2y
J.2z
J.2aa
J.2ab
J.2ac
J.2ad
J.2ae
J.2af
J.2ag
J.2ah
J.2ai
J.2aj
J.2ak
J.2al
J.2am
J.2an
J.2ao
J.2ap
J.2aq
J.2ar
J.2as
J.2at
J.2au
J.2av
J.2aw
J.2ax
J.2ay
J.2az
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Applicable Rule Alternative(s)
Stage 2
Preferred Alternative (Continued)
Stage 2
Alternative 1
Stage 2
Alternative 2
Exhibit Description
Present Value of Total Costs at 3% Discount Rate
Present Value of Capital Costs at 3% Discount Rate
Present Value of O&M Costs at 3% Discount Rate
Present Value of Non-Treatment Costs at 3% Discount Rate
Present Value of Total Costs at 3% Discount Rate
Present Value of Capital Costs at 3% Discount Rate
Present Value of O&M Costs at 3% Discount Rate
Present Value of Non-Treatment Costs at 3% Discount Rate
Present Value of Total Costs at 3% Discount Rate
Present Value of Capital Costs at 3% Discount Rate
Present Value of O&M Costs at 3% Discount Rate
Present Value of Non-Treatment Costs at 3% Discount Rate
Present Value of Total Costs at 3% Discount Rate
Present Value of Capital Costs at 3% Discount Rate
Present Value of O&M Costs at 3% Discount Rate
Present Value of Non-Treatment Costs at 3% Discount Rate
Present Value of Total Costs at 7% Discount Rate
Present Value of Capital Costs at 7% Discount Rate
Present Value of O&M Costs at 7% Discount Rate
Present Value of Non-Treatment Costs at 7% Discount Rate
Present Value of Total Costs at 7% Discount Rate
Present Value of Capital Costs at 7% Discount Rate
Present Value of O&M Costs at 7% Discount Rate
Present Value of Non-Treatment Costs at 7% Discount Rate
Present Value of Total Costs at 7% Discount Rate
Present Value of Capital Costs at 7% Discount Rate
Present Value of O&M Costs at 7% Discount Rate
Present Value of Non-Treatment Costs at 7% Discount Rate
Present Value of Total Costs at 7% Discount Rate
Present Value of Capital Costs at 7% Discount Rate
Present Value of O&M Costs at 7% Discount Rate
Present Value of Non-Treatment Costs at 7% Discount Rate
Annual PWS Cost Projections
Annual Primacy Agency Cost Projections
Present Value of Total Costs at 3% Discount Rate
Present Value of Capital Costs at 3% Discount Rate
Present Value of O&M Costs at 3% Discount Rate
Present Value of Non-treatment Costs at 3% Discount Rate
Present Value of Total Costs at 7% Discount Rate
Present Value of Capital Costs at 7% Discount Rate
Present Value of O&M Costs at 7% Discount Rate
Present Value of Non-treatment Costs at 7% Discount Rate
Annual PWS Cost Projections
Annual Primacy Agency Cost Projections
Present Value of Total Costs at 3% Discount Rate
Present Value of Capital Costs at 3% Discount Rate
Present Value of O&M Costs at 3% Discount Rate
Present Value of Non-treatment Costs at 3% Discount Rate
Present Value of Total Costs at 7% Discount Rate
Present Value of Capital Costs at 7% Discount Rate
Present Value of O&M Costs at 7% Discount Rate
Present Value of Non-treatment Costs at 7% Discount Rate
Applicable
Source Water
Type(s)
Surface Water
Ground Water
Ground Water
Surface Water
Ground Water
Surface Water
Ground Water
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
Surface Water
Ground Water
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
Applicable System
Classification(s)
cws
NTNCWS
CWS
NTNCWS
CWS
NTNCWS
CWS
NTNCWS
CWSs
NTNCWs
All
CWSs
NTNCWs
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
CWSs
NTNCWs
All
CWSs
NTNCWs
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
Applicable
System Size
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
Exhibit
Number
J.2ba
J.2bb
J.2bc
J.2bd
J.2be
J.2bf
J.2bg
J.2bh
J.2bi
J.2bj
J.2bk
J.2bl
J.2bm
J.2bn
J.2bo
J.2bp
J.2bq
J.2br
J.2bs
J.2bt
J.2bu
J.2bv
J.2bw
J.2bx
J.2by
J.2bz
J.2ca
J.2cb
J.2cc
J.2cd
J.2ce
J.2cf
J.3a
J.3b
J.3c
J.3d
J.3e
J.3f
J.3g
J.3h
J.3i
J.3J
J.3k
J.3I
J.3m
J.3n
J.3o
J.3p
J.4a
J.4b
J.4c
J.4d
J.4e
J.4f
J.4g
J.4h
J.4i
J.4J
J.4k
J.4I
J.4m
J.4n
J.4o
J.4p
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Applicable Rule Alternative(s)
Stage 2
Alternative 3
Stage 2
Preferred Alternative, ICR Matrix
Method
Stage 2
Preferred Alternative, SWAT
Method
Exhibit Description
Annual PWS Cost Projections
Annual Primacy Agency Cost Projections
Present Value of Total Costs at 3% Discount Rate
Present Value of Capital Costs at 3% Discount Rate
Present Value of O&M Costs at 3% Discount Rate
Present Value of Non-treatment Costs at 3% Discount Rate
Present Value of Total Costs at 7% Discount Rate
Present Value of Capital Costs at 7% Discount Rate
Present Value of O&M Costs at 7% Discount Rate
Present Value of Non-treatment Costs at 7% Discount Rate
Annual PWS Cost Projections
Annual Primacy Agency Cost Projections
Present Value of Total Costs at 3% Discount Rate
Annual PWS Cost Projections
Annual Primacy Agency Cost Projections
Present Value of Total Costs at 3% Discount Rate
Applicable
Source Water
Type(s)
Surface Water
Ground Water
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
Surface Water
Ground Water
All
All
All
Surface Water
Ground Water
All
All
All
Applicable System
Classification(s)
CWSs
NTNCWs
All
CWSs
NTNCWs
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
CWSs
NTNCWs
All
CWSs
NTNCWs
All
All
All
All
CWSs
NTNCWs
All
CWSs
NTNCWs
All
All
All
All
Applicable
System Size
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
Exhibit
Number
J.5a
J.5b
J.5c
J.5d
J.5e
J.5f
J.5g
J.5h
J.Si
J.5J
J.5k
J.SI
J.5m
J.5n
J.5o
J.5p
J.6a
J.6b
J.6c
J.6d
J.6e
J.6f
J.6g
J.6h
J.6i
J.7a
J.7b
J.7c
J.7d
J.7e
J.7f
J.7g
J.7h
J.7i
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
-------
Section J.1
Total Costs Summaries and Cost Schedules
-------
-------
Exhibit J.1a Total Stage 2 DBPR Capital and O&M Costs - PWSs
Preferred Alternative
Source
Surface
Water
Ground
Water
System
Classification
CWSs
NTNCWSs
CWSs
NTNCWSs
System
Size
(population
served)
<100
100-499
500-999
1,000-3,300
3,301-9,999
10,000-49,999
50,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
1,000,000+
All Sizes
<100
100-499
500-999
1,000-3,300
3,301-9,999
10,000-49,999
50,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
1,000,000+
All Sizes
Subtotal
<100
100-499
500-999
1,000-3,300
3,301-9,999
10,000-49,999
50,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
1,000,000+
All Sizes
<100
100-499
500-999
1,000-3,300
3,301-9,999
10,000-49,999
50,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
1,000,000+
All Sizes
Subtotal
Total
Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$ 1.09
$ 3.27
$ 3.86
$ 24.39
$ 62.23
$ 113.20
$ 67.40
$ 183.98
$ 86.04
$ 545.44
$ 0.67
$ 1.32
$ 0.85
$ 1.89
$ 1.29
$ 0.55
$
$ 0.41
$
$ 6.99
$ 552.43
$ 8.34
$ 33.19
$ 20.18
$ 39.43
$ 65.91
$ 59.09
$ 14.96
$ 29.70
$ 3.38
$ 274.18
$ 3.17
$ 5.04
$ 2.47
$ 1.61
$ 0.46
$ 0.10
$ 0.02
$ 0.03
$
$ 12.90
$ 287.08
$ 839.51
$ 1.07
$ 3.22
$ 3.78
$ 24.27
$ 61.92
$ 113.98
$ 68.08
$ 186.24
$ 86.46
$ 549.03
$ 0.66
$ 1.31
$ 0.84
$ 1.88
$ 1.28
$ 0.55
$
$ 0.41
$
$ 6.95
$ 555.97
$ 8.34
$ 33.18
$ 20.18
$ 39.42
$ 65.86
$ 59.08
$ 14.96
$ 29.71
$ 3.38
$ 274.11
$ 3.17
$ 5.04
$ 2.47
$ 1.61
$ 0.46
$ 0.10
$ 0.02
$ 0.03
$
$ 12.90
$ 287.01
$ 842.98
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.58
$ 1.77
$ 2.08
$ 13.37
$ 34.42
$ 62.72
$ 37.41
$ 98.21
$ 47.14
$ 297.70
$ 0.36
$ 0.72
$ 0.46
$ 1.04
$ 0.71
$ 0.30
$
$ 0.22
$
$ 3.82
$ 301.52
$ 7.19
$ 28.04
$ 17.00
$ 32.35
$ 53.53
$ 53.39
$ 13.38
$ 26.43
$ 2.97
$ 234.29
$ 2.73
$ 4.25
$ 2.07
$ 1.32
$ 0.38
$ 0.09
$ 0.02
$ 0.03
$
$ 10.87
$ 245.16
$ 546.68
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 1.68
$ 4.94
$ 5.89
$ 36.07
$ 91.81
$ 157.05
$ 93.50
$ 257.75
$ 120.41
$ 769.10
$ 1.03
$ 2.00
$ 1.30
$ 2.80
$ 1.90
$ 0.76
$
$ 0.57
$
$ 10.36
$ 779.46
$ 9.53
$ 38.38
$ 23.34
$ 46.54
$ 78.34
$ 64.79
$ 16.53
$ 32.95
$ 3.79
$ 314.20
$ 3.62
$ 5.81
$ 2.87
$ 1.90
$ 0.55
$ 0.11
$ 0.02
$ 0.03
$
$ 14.91
$ 329.11
$ 1,108.57
O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.20
$ 0.82
$ 0.61
$ 3.36
$ 5.32
$ 6.04
$ 3.41
$ 8.17
$ 4.91
$ 32.84
$ 0.12
$ 0.33
$ 0.13
$ 0.26
$ 0.11
$ 0.03
$
$ 0.02
$
$ 1.00
$ 33.85
$ 0.98
$ 3.68
$ 1.96
$ 3.00
$ 2.55
$ 5.03
$ 1.28
$ 2.83
$ 0.43
$ 21.73
$ 0.37
$ 0.55
$ 0.23
$ 0.10
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$
$ 1.29
$ 23.02
$ 56.86
Median
Value
$ 0.20
$ 0.82
$ 0.61
$ 3.36
$ 5.34
$ 6.00
$ 3.36
$ 7.87
$ 4.65
$ 32.21
$ 0.12
$ 0.33
$ 0.13
$ 0.26
$ 0.11
$ 0.03
$
$ 0.02
$
$ 1.00
$ 33.22
$ 0.98
$ 3.68
$ 1.96
$ 3.00
$ 2.55
$ 5.03
$ 1.28
$ 2.83
$ 0.43
$ 21.73
$ 0.37
$ 0.55
$ 0.23
$ 0.10
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$
$ 1.29
$ 23.02
$ 56.23
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.11
$ 0.46
$ 0.34
$ 1.88
$ 2.97
$ 3.74
$ 2.13
$ 5.21
$ 3.11
$ 19.95
$ 0.07
$ 0.19
$ 0.07
$ 0.15
$ 0.06
$ 0.02
$
$ 0.01
$
$ 0.56
$ 20.52
$ 0.91
$ 3.38
$ 1.80
$ 2.73
$ 2.33
$ 4.76
$ 1.20
$ 2.64
$ 0.40
$ 20.16
$ 0.35
$ 0.51
$ 0.21
$ 0.09
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$
$ 1.18
$ 21.34
$ 41.86
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.29
$ 1.19
$ 0.88
$ 4.86
$ 7.70
$ 8.66
$ 4.95
$ 12.52
$ 7.73
$ 48.78
$ 0.17
$ 0.48
$ 0.20
$ 0.38
$ 0.16
$ 0.04
$
$ 0.03
$
$ 1.46
$ 50.24
$ 1.05
$ 3.98
$ 2.12
$ 3.26
$ 2.76
$ 5.30
$ 1.36
$ 3.02
$ 0.46
$ 23.31
$ 0.40
$ 0.60
$ 0.25
$ 0.11
$ 0.02
$ 0.01
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$
$ 1.39
$ 24.70
$ 74.94
Notes: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Source: Derived by multiplying unit costs in Exhibits 7.10 and 7.11 by Technology Selection Deltas in Exhibits 5.14 and 5.17 for the Preferred Alternative, summed for all technologies.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.1b Total Stage 2 DBPR Capital and O&M Costs - PWSs
Alternative 1
Source
Surface
Water
Ground
Water
System
Classification
CWSs
NTNCWSs
CWSs
NTNCWSs
System
Size
(population
served)
<100
100-499
500-999
1,000-3,300
3,301-9,999
10,000-49,999
50,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
1,000,000+
All Sizes
<100
100-499
500-999
1,000-3,300
3,301-9,999
10,000-49,999
50,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
1,000,000+
All Sizes
Subtotal
<100
100-499
500-999
1,000-3,300
3,301-9,999
10,000-49,999
50,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
1,000,000+
All Sizes
<100
100-499
500-999
1,000-3,300
3,301-9,999
10,000-49,999
50,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
1,000,000+
All Sizes
Subtotal
Total
Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$ 1.51
$ 9.48
$ 10.67
$ 48.39
$ 116.50
$ 345.64
$ 224.40
$ 716.41
$ 437.27
$ 1,910.26
$ 0.92
$ 3.84
$ 2.36
$ 3.75
$ 2.47
$ 1.80
$
$ 1.75
$
$ 16.89
$ 1,927.15
$ 9.49
$ 40.99
$ 25.87
$ 66.12
$ 111.34
$ 141.00
$ 41.16
$ 85.11
$ 10.53
$ 531.62
$ 3.60
$ 6.31
$ 3.20
$ 2.74
$ 0.79
$ 0.28
$ 0.07
$ 0.09
$
$ 17.08
$ 548.70
$ 2,475.84
$ 1.49
$ 9.41
$ 10.61
$ 48.16
$ 115.99
$ 343.96
$ 223.14
$ 710.06
$ 433.37
$ 1,896.21
$ 0.92
$ 3.81
$ 2.35
$ 3.74
$ 2.47
$ 1.78
$
$ 1.74
$
$ 16.80
$ 1,913.02
$ 9.48
$ 41.00
$ 25.89
$ 66.14
$ 111.19
$ 140.97
$ 41.17
$ 85.20
$ 10.52
$ 531.55
$ 3.60
$ 6.31
$ 3.20
$ 2.74
$ 0.79
$ 0.28
$ 0.07
$ 0.09
$
$ 17.08
$ 548.63
$ 2,461.65
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.85
$ 5.44
$ 6.10
$ 27.79
$ 67.05
$ 197.75
$ 128.16
$ 409.82
$ 250.07
$ 1,093.04
$ 0.52
$ 2.20
$ 1.35
$ 2.17
$ 1.42
$ 1.03
$
$ 1.00
$
$ 9.69
$ 1,102.73
$ 8.20
$ 34.79
$ 22.01
$ 55.74
$ 93.05
$ 122.94
$ 35.68
$ 73.73
$ 9.05
$ 455.18
$ 3.10
$ 5.37
$ 2.71
$ 2.31
$ 0.66
$ 0.24
$ 0.06
$ 0.08
$
$ 14.53
$ 469.72
$ 1,572.45
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 2.22
$ 13.77
$ 15.60
$ 69.99
$ 168.69
$ 506.23
$ 327.88
$ 1,050.83
$ 645.25
$ 2,800.45
$ 1.36
$ 5.59
$ 3.44
$ 5.46
$ 3.57
$ 2.64
$
$ 2.57
$
$ 24.62
$ 2,825.08
$ 10.81
$ 47.17
$ 29.72
$ 76.61
$ 129.65
$ 159.17
$ 46.65
$ 96.51
$ 12.01
$ 608.30
$ 4.10
$ 7.25
$ 3.68
$ 3.17
$ 0.92
$ 0.31
$ 0.08
$ 0.11
$
$ 19.62
$ 627.92
$ 3,453.00
O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.29
$ 0.90
$ 0.95
$ 4.27
$ 9.23
$ 25.04
$ 17.09
$ 59.64
$ 47.16
$ 164.56
$ 0.17
$ 0.36
$ 0.21
$ 0.33
$ 0.19
$ 0.13
$
$ 0.15
$
$ 1.55
$ 166.11
$ 1.16
$ 4.68
$ 2.67
$ 5.60
$ 5.45
$ 13.60
$ 3.92
$ 9.08
$ 1.48
$ 47.64
$ 0.44
$ 0.71
$ 0.31
$ 0.20
$ 0.03
$ 0.02
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$
$ 1.73
$ 49.37
$ 215.48
Median
Value
$ 0.29
$ 0.90
$ 0.95
$ 4.27
$ 9.25
$ 25.05
$ 17.13
$ 59.68
$ 47.13
$ 164.64
$ 0.17
$ 0.36
$ 0.21
$ 0.33
$ 0.19
$ 0.13
$
$ 0.15
$
$ 1.55
$ 166.19
$ 1.16
$ 4.68
$ 2.67
$ 5.60
$ 5.45
$ 13.60
$ 3.92
$ 9.08
$ 1.48
$ 47.63
$ 0.44
$ 0.71
$ 0.31
$ 0.20
$ 0.03
$ 0.02
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$
$ 1.73
$ 49.37
$ 215.55
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.17
$ 0.52
$ 0.55
$ 2.47
$ 5.34
$ 14.54
$ 9.89
$ 34.52
$ 27.25
$ 95.26
$ 0.10
$ 0.21
$ 0.12
$ 0.19
$ 0.11
$ 0.08
$
$ 0.09
$
$ 0.90
$ 96.16
$ 1.08
$ 4.32
$ 2.48
$ 5.21
$ 5.09
$ 12.66
$ 3.62
$ 8.36
$ 1.36
$ 44.18
$ 0.41
$ 0.65
$ 0.29
$ 0.19
$ 0.03
$ 0.02
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$
$ 1.60
$ 45.78
$ 141.94
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.41
$ 1.28
$ 1.36
$ 6.09
$ 13.13
$ 35.79
$ 24.37
$ 85.22
$ 67.62
$ 235.28
$ 0.25
$ 0.52
$ 0.30
$ 0.47
$ 0.27
$ 0.19
$
$ 0.21
$
$ 2.20
$ 237.48
$ 1.24
$ 5.05
$ 2.86
$ 6.01
$ 5.79
$ 14.56
$ 4.21
$ 9.80
$ 1.60
$ 51.12
$ 0.47
$ 0.76
$ 0.33
$ 0.21
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$
$ 1.86
$ 52.97
$ 290.45
All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Derived by multiplying unit costs in Exhibits 7.10 and 7.11 by Technology Select
on Deltas in in Appendix C (results for Alternative 1), summed for all technologies.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.1c Total Stage 2 DBPR Capital and O&M Costs - PWSs
Alternative 2
Source
Surface
Water
Ground
Water
System
Classification
CWSs
NTNCWSs
System
Size
(population
served)
<100
100-499
500-999
1,000-3,300
3,301-9,999
10,000-49,999
50,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
1,000,000+
All Sizes
<100
100-499
500-999
1,000-3,300
3,301-9,999
10,000-49,999
50,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
1,000,000+
All Sizes
Subtotal
CWSs
NTNCWSs
<100
100-499
500-999
1,000-3,300
3,301-9,999
10,000-49,999
50,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
1,000,000+
All Sizes
<100
100-499
500-999
1,000-3,300
3,301-9,999
10,000-49,999
50,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
1,000,000+
All Sizes
Subtotal
Total
Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$ 7.83
$ 41.99
$ 51.71
$ 237.23
$ 606.61
$ 790.08
$ 482.88
$ 1,314.71
$ 677.61
$ 4,210.65
$ 4.72
$ 16.95
$ 11.43
$ 18.31
$ 12.75
$ 3.92
$
$ 3.06
$
$ 71.14
$ 4,281.79
$ 12.69
$ 39.42
$ 21.64
$ 45.94
$ 70.20
$ 121.85
$ 30.69
$ 60.59
$ 6.98
$ 410.01
$ 4.87
$ 5.83
$ 2.59
$ 1.82
$ 0.49
$ 0.20
$ 0.05
$ 0.06
$
$ 15.92
$ 425.92
$ 4,707.72
$ 7.80
$ 41.85
$ 51.62
$ 236.74
$ 604.85
$ 787.20
$ 481.43
$ 1,312.42
$ 675.96
$ 4,199.87
$ 4.71
$ 16.90
$ 11.40
$ 18.27
$ 12.71
$ 3.91
$
$ 3.05
$
$ 70.95
$ 4,270.83
$ 12.69
$ 39.48
$ 21.66
$ 45.94
$ 70.18
$ 121.92
$ 30.70
$ 60.61
$ 6.98
$ 410.16
$ 4.87
$ 5.84
$ 2.59
$ 1.82
$ 0.49
$ 0.20
$ 0.05
$ 0.06
$
$ 15.92
$ 426.09
$ 4,696.92
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 6.64
$ 35.92
$ 44.28
$ 202.71
$ 519.09
$ 677.45
$ 413.65
$ 1,128.74
$ 581.34
$ 3,609.82
$ 3.99
$ 14.52
$ 9.77
$ 15.69
$ 10.93
$ 3.36
$
$ 2.62
$
$ 60.88
$ 3,670.70
$ 11.00
$ 33.98
$ 18.68
$ 39.19
$ 58.77
$ 108.20
$ 26.84
$ 52.61
$ 5.95
$ 355.22
$ 4.21
$ 5.05
$ 2.23
$ 1.55
$ 0.41
$ 0.17
$ 0.04
$ 0.05
$
$ 13.71
$ 368.93
$ 4,039.63
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 9.12
$ 48.39
$ 59.51
$ 273.80
$ 699.76
$ 910.45
$ 555.18
$ 1,510.71
$ 778.92
$ 4,845.84
$ 5.51
$ 19.57
$ 13.16
$ 21.16
$ 14.72
$ 4.50
$
$ 3.50
$
$ 82.12
$ 4,927.96
$ 14.42
$ 44.83
$ 24.55
$ 52.72
$ 81.64
$ 135.41
$ 34.51
$ 68.58
$ 8.00
$ 464.65
$ 5.52
$ 6.62
$ 2.95
$ 2.10
$ 0.58
$ 0.22
$ 0.05
$ 0.07
$
$ 18.11
$ 482.77
$ 5,410.73
O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ 1.42
$ 7.35
$ 6.20
$ 30.81
$ 53.87
$ 40.74
$ 24.80
$ 69.45
$ 47.47
$ 282.12
$ 0.84
$ 2.98
$ 1.37
$ 2.38
$ 1.09
$ 0.20
$
$ 0.16
$
$ 9.02
$ 291.13
$ 1.09
$ 3.62
$ 1.86
$ 3.59
$ 3.20
$ 10.74
$ 2.78
$ 6.16
$ 0.94
$ 33.98
$ 0.42
$ 0.54
$ 0.23
$ 0.12
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$
$ 1.35
$ 35.34
$ 326.47
Median
Value
$ 1.42
$ 7.34
$ 6.21
$ 30.80
$ 53.84
$ 40.72
$ 24.81
$ 69.47
$ 47.46
$ 282.06
$ 0.84
$ 2.98
$ 1.37
$ 2.37
$ 1.09
$ 0.20
$
$ 0.16
$
$ 9.01
$ 291.07
$ 1.09
$ 3.62
$ 1.86
$ 3.59
$ 3.20
$ 10.74
$ 2.78
$ 6.16
$ 0.94
$ 33.98
$ 0.42
$ 0.54
$ 0.23
$ 0.12
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$
$ 1.35
$ 35.34
$ 326.41
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 1.24
$ 6.44
$ 5.44
$ 26.94
$ 47.24
$ 35.85
$ 21.81
$ 61.03
$ 41.68
$ 247.68
$ 0.74
$ 2.61
$ 1.20
$ 2.08
$ 0.95
$ 0.17
$
$ 0.14
$
$ 7.90
$ 255.57
$ 1.02
$ 3.36
$ 1.73
$ 3.34
$ 2.99
$ 10.08
$ 2.58
$ 5.67
$ 0.86
$ 31.62
$ 0.39
$ 0.50
$ 0.21
$ 0.11
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$
$ 1.26
$ 32.88
$ 288.45
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 1.59
$ 8.30
$ 6.99
$ 34.82
$ 60.77
$ 45.75
$ 27.82
$ 78.11
$ 53.43
$ 317.58
$ 0.95
$ 3.37
$ 1.54
$ 2.68
$ 1.23
$ 0.22
$
$ 0.18
$
$ 10.18
$ 327.76
$ 1.16
$ 3.88
$ 1.99
$ 3.85
$ 3.41
$ 11.41
$ 2.98
$ 6.65
$ 1.02
$ 36.35
$ 0.44
$ 0.58
$ 0.24
$ 0.13
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$
$ 1.44
$ 37.80
$ 365.55
All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Derived by multiplying unit costs in Exhibits 7.10 and 7.11 by Technology Selection Deltas in in Appendix C (results for Alternative 2), summed for all technologies.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.1d Total Stage 2 DBPR Capital and O&M Costs - PWSs
Alternative 3
Source
Surface
Water
Ground
Water
System
Classification
CWSs
NTNCWSs
System
Size
(population
served)
<100
100-499
500-999
1,000-3,300
3,301-9,999
10,000-49,999
50,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
1,000,000+
All Sizes
<100
100-499
500-999
1,000-3,300
3,301-9,999
10,000-49,999
50,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
1,000,000+
All Sizes
Subtotal
CWSs
NTNCWSs
<100
100-499
500-999
1,000-3,300
3,301-9,999
10,000-49,999
50,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
1,000,000+
All Sizes
<100
100-499
500-999
1,000-3,300
3,301-9,999
10,000-49,999
50,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
1,000,000+
All Sizes
Subtotal
Total
Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$ 11.54
$ 59.56
$ 74.56
$ 335.08
$ 880.88
$ 1,279.64
$ 784.26
$ 2,142.74
$ 1,123.90
$ 6,692.17
$ 6.95
$ 24.03
$ 16.48
$ 25.81
$ 18.51
$ 6.37
$
$ 5.00
$
$ 103.14
$ 6,795.31
$ 9.37
$ 34.89
$ 20.55
$ 47.47
$ 77.34
$ 135.39
$ 35.74
$ 69.97
$ 8.14
$ 438.87
$ 3.58
$ 5.25
$ 2.50
$ 1.93
$ 0.54
$ 0.23
$ 0.05
$ 0.07
$
$ 14.16
$ 453.03
$ 7,248.34
$ 11.50
$ 59.33
$ 74.48
$ 334.20
$ 878.17
$ 1,274.80
$ 781.84
$ 2,141.37
$ 1,119.95
$ 6,675.63
$ 6.93
$ 23.97
$ 16.46
$ 25.73
$ 18.43
$ 6.36
$
$ 4.99
$
$ 102.87
$ 6,778.50
$ 9.36
$ 34.89
$ 20.55
$ 47.48
$ 77.29
$ 135.36
$ 35.76
$ 69.97
$ 8.14
$ 438.80
$ 3.58
$ 5.25
$ 2.50
$ 1.93
$ 0.54
$ 0.23
$ 0.05
$ 0.07
$
$ 14.16
$ 452.96
$ 7,231.46
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 9.55
$ 49.57
$ 62.06
$ 278.08
$ 730.16
$ 1,063.93
$ 651.85
$ 1,786.86
$ 939.10
$ 5,571.17
$ 5.75
$ 20.02
$ 13.73
$ 21.44
$ 15.38
$ 5.30
$
$ 4.16
$
$ 85.77
$ 5,656.95
$ 8.18
$ 29.82
$ 17.48
$ 40.04
$ 64.53
$ 119.21
$ 31.04
$ 60.64
$ 6.98
$ 377.92
$ 3.11
$ 4.49
$ 2.12
$ 1.62
$ 0.45
$ 0.20
$ 0.05
$ 0.06
$
$ 12.10
$ 390.02
$ 6,046.97
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 13.67
$ 70.15
$ 87.70
$ 395.79
$ 1,042.02
$ 1,510.08
$ 923.59
$ 2,517.34
$ 1,320.66
$ 7,881.01
$ 8.24
$ 28.35
$ 19.41
$ 30.54
$ 21.95
$ 7.48
$
$ 5.86
$
$ 121.84
$ 8,002.84
$ 10.61
$ 40.02
$ 23.58
$ 54.95
$ 90.29
$ 151.65
$ 40.38
$ 79.29
$ 9.30
$ 500.06
$ 4.05
$ 6.01
$ 2.88
$ 2.24
$ 0.63
$ 0.26
$ 0.06
$ 0.08
$
$ 16.21
$ 516.27
$ 8,519.11
O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ 2.23
$ 11.38
$ 9.55
$ 47.07
$ 81.70
$ 62.27
$ 37.99
$ 106.23
$ 72.59
$ 431.01
$ 1.32
$ 4.62
$ 2.10
$ 3.62
$ 1.65
$ 0.30
$
$ 0.25
$
$ 13.87
$ 444.89
$ 0.98
$ 3.65
$ 1.93
$ 3.84
$ 3.48
$ 11.77
$ 3.06
$ 6.67
$ 1.03
$ 36.39
$ 0.37
$ 0.55
$ 0.23
$ 0.13
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$
$ 1.33
$ 37.72
$ 482.61
Median
Value
$ 2.23
$ 11.36
$ 9.55
$ 47.05
$ 81.61
$ 62.24
$ 37.99
$ 106.23
$ 72.58
$ 430.85
$ 1.32
$ 4.62
$ 2.10
$ 3.62
$ 1.65
$ 0.30
$
$ 0.25
$
$ 13.87
$ 444.71
$ 0.98
$ 3.65
$ 1.93
$ 3.84
$ 3.48
$ 11.76
$ 3.06
$ 6.67
$ 1.03
$ 36.39
$ 0.37
$ 0.55
$ 0.23
$ 0.13
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$
$ 1.33
$ 37.73
$ 482.44
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 1.89
$ 9.64
$ 8.10
$ 39.80
$ 69.32
$ 52.95
$ 32.31
$ 90.34
$ 61.75
$ 366.11
$ 1.12
$ 3.91
$ 1.78
$ 3.07
$ 1.40
$ 0.26
$
$ 0.21
$
$ 11.75
$ 377.86
$ 0.91
$ 3.37
$ 1.78
$ 3.55
$ 3.24
$ 11.01
$ 2.84
$ 6.14
$ 0.94
$ 33.78
$ 0.35
$ 0.50
$ 0.21
$ 0.12
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$
$ 1.23
$ 35.01
$ 412.87
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 2.57
$ 13.16
$ 11.05
$ 54.59
$ 94.63
$ 71.75
$ 43.72
$ 122.42
$ 83.70
$ 497.60
$ 1.53
$ 5.35
$ 2.44
$ 4.20
$ 1.92
$ 0.35
$
$ 0.29
$
$ 16.06
$ 513.66
$ 1.04
$ 3.94
$ 2.08
$ 4.12
$ 3.72
$ 12.52
$ 3.29
$ 7.20
$ 1.12
$ 39.02
$ 0.40
$ 0.59
$ 0.25
$ 0.14
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$
$ 1.43
$ 40.44
$ 554.11
All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Derived by multiplying unit costs in Exhibits 7.10 and 7.11 by Technology Selection Deltas in in Appendix C (results for Alternative 3), summed for all technologies.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.1e Total Stage 2 DBPR Capital and O&M Costs - PWSs
Preferred Alternative, ICR Matrix Method
Source
Surface
Water
Ground
Water
System
Classification
CWSs
NTNCWSs
CWSs
NTNCWSs
System
Size
(population
served)
<100
100-499
500-999
1,000-3,300
3,301-9,999
10,000-49,999
50,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
1,000,000+
All Sizes
<100
100-499
500-999
1,000-3,300
3,301-9,999
10,000-49,999
50,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
1,000,000+
All Sizes
Subtotal
<100
100-499
500-999
1,000-3,300
3,301-9,999
10,000-49,999
50,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
1,000,000+
All Sizes
<100
100-499
500-999
1,000-3,300
3,301-9,999
10,000-49,999
50,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
1,000,000+
All Sizes
Subtotal
Total
Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$ 1.57
$ 4.70
$ 5.54
$ 35.05
$ 89.47
$ 151.77
$ 90.37
$ 246.15
$ 115.30
$ 845.75
$ 0.97
$ 1.90
$ 1.23
$ 2.72
$ 1.85
$ 0.73
$
$ 0.55
$
$ 11.28
$ 857.03
$ 8.34
$ 33.19
$ 20.18
$ 39.43
$ 65.91
$ 59.09
$ 14.96
$ 29.70
$ 3.38
$ 274.18
$ 3.17
$ 5.04
$ 2.47
$ 1.61
$ 0.46
$ 0.10
$ 0.02
$ 0.03
$
$ 12.90
$ 287.08
$ 1,144.12
$ 1.57
$ 4.69
$ 5.54
$ 35.05
$ 89.46
$ 151.70
$ 90.33
$ 245.41
$ 115.12
$ 843.74
$ 0.97
$ 1.90
$ 1.23
$ 2.72
$ 1.85
$ 0.73
$
$ 0.55
$
$ 11.29
$ 855.03
$ 8.34
$ 33.18
$ 20.18
$ 39.42
$ 65.86
$ 59.08
$ 14.96
$ 29.71
$ 3.38
$ 274.11
$ 3.17
$ 5.04
$ 2.47
$ 1.61
$ 0.46
$ 0.10
$ 0.02
$ 0.03
$
$ 12.90
$ 287.01
$ 1,142.04
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 1.21
$ 3.83
$ 4.41
$ 30.18
$ 78.09
$ 131.34
$ 78.48
$ 211.14
$ 98.03
$ 725.00
$ 0.76
$ 1.55
$ 0.98
$ 2.34
$ 1.61
$ 0.64
$
$ 0.47
$
$ 9.46
$ 734.45
$ 7.19
$ 28.04
$ 17.00
$ 32.35
$ 53.53
$ 53.39
$ 13.38
$ 26.43
$ 2.97
$ 234.29
$ 2.73
$ 4.25
$ 2.07
$ 1.32
$ 0.38
$ 0.09
$ 0.02
$ 0.03
$
$ 10.87
$ 245.16
$ 979.62
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 1.92
$ 5.57
$ 6.69
$ 39.94
$ 100.95
$ 172.61
$ 102.31
$ 283.71
$ 132.64
$ 972.93
$ 1.17
$ 2.26
$ 1.48
$ 3.10
$ 2.09
$ 0.83
$
$ 0.63
$
$ 13.11
$ 986.03
$ 9.53
$ 38.38
$ 23.34
$ 46.54
$ 78.34
$ 64.79
$ 16.53
$ 32.95
$ 3.79
$ 314.20
$ 3.62
$ 5.81
$ 2.87
$ 1.90
$ 0.55
$ 0.11
$ 0.02
$ 0.03
$
$ 14.91
$ 329.11
$ 1,315.15
O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.29
$ 1.18
$ 0.88
$ 4.83
$ 7.65
$ 8.15
$ 4.60
$ 11.07
$ 6.67
$ 51.65
$ 0.17
$ 0.48
$ 0.19
$ 0.38
$ 0.15
$ 0.04
$
$ 0.02
$
$ 1.63
$ 53.28
$ 0.98
$ 3.68
$ 1.96
$ 3.00
$ 2.55
$ 5.03
$ 1.28
$ 2.83
$ 0.43
$ 21.73
$ 0.37
$ 0.55
$ 0.23
$ 0.10
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$
$ 1.29
$ 23.02
$ 76.29
Median
Value
$ 0.29
$ 1.18
$ 0.88
$ 4.82
$ 7.65
$ 8.10
$ 4.51
$ 10.29
$ 6.07
$ 50.23
$ 0.17
$ 0.48
$ 0.19
$ 0.38
$ 0.15
$ 0.04
$
$ 0.02
$
$ 1.63
$ 51.86
$ 0.98
$ 3.68
$ 1.96
$ 3.00
$ 2.55
$ 5.03
$ 1.28
$ 2.83
$ 0.43
$ 21.73
$ 0.37
$ 0.55
$ 0.23
$ 0.10
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$
$ 1.29
$ 23.02
$ 74.88
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.27
$ 1.09
$ 0.82
$ 4.52
$ 7.16
$ 7.00
$ 3.89
$ 8.69
$ 4.97
$ 44.11
$ 0.16
$ 0.44
$ 0.18
$ 0.35
$ 0.14
$ 0.03
$
$ 0.02
$
$ 1.51
$ 45.63
$ 0.91
$ 3.38
$ 1.80
$ 2.73
$ 2.33
$ 4.76
$ 1.20
$ 2.64
$ 0.40
$ 20.16
$ 0.35
$ 0.51
$ 0.21
$ 0.09
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$
$ 1.18
$ 21.34
$ 66.97
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.30
$ 1.26
$ 0.94
$ 5.13
$ 8.13
$ 9.32
$ 5.33
$ 13.53
$ 8.44
$ 59.31
$ 0.18
$ 0.51
$ 0.21
$ 0.40
$ 0.16
$ 0.04
$
$ 0.03
$
$ 1.75
$ 61.06
$ 1.05
$ 3.98
$ 2.12
$ 3.26
$ 2.76
$ 5.30
$ 1.36
$ 3.02
$ 0.46
$ 23.31
$ 0.40
$ 0.60
$ 0.25
$ 0.11
$ 0.02
$ 0.01
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$
$ 1.39
$ 24.70
$ 85.76
Notes: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Source: Derived by multiplying unit costs in Exhibits 7.10 and 7.11 by Technology Selection Deltas in Exhibits 5.14 and 5.17 for the Preferred Alternative, summed for all technologies.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.1f Total Stage 2 DBPR Capital and O&M Costs - PWSs
Preferred Alternative, SWAT Method
Source
Surface
Water
Ground
Water
System
Classification
CWSs
NTNCWSs
CWSs
NTNCWSs
System
Size
(population
served)
<100
100-499
500-999
1,000-3,300
3,301-9,999
10,000-49,999
50,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
1,000,000+
All Sizes
<100
100-499
500-999
1,000-3,300
3,301-9,999
10,000-49,999
50,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
1,000,000+
All Sizes
Subtotal
<100
100-499
500-999
1,000-3,300
3,301-9,999
10,000-49,999
50,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
1,000,000+
All Sizes
<100
100-499
500-999
1,000-3,300
3,301-9,999
10,000-49,999
50,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
1,000,000+
All Sizes
Subtotal
Total
Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.61
$ 1.83
$ 2.16
$ 13.64
$ 34.81
$ 74.08
$ 44.12
$ 120.96
$ 56.41
$ 348.63
$ 0.38
$ 0.74
$ 0.48
$ 1.06
$ 0.72
$ 0.36
$
$ 0.27
$
$ 4.00
$ 352.62
$ 8.34
$ 33.19
$ 20.18
$ 39.43
$ 65.91
$ 59.09
$ 14.96
$ 29.70
$ 3.38
$ 274.18
$ 3.17
$ 5.04
$ 2.47
$ 1.61
$ 0.46
$ 0.10
$ 0.02
$ 0.03
$
$ 12.90
$ 287.08
$ 639.71
$ 0.61
$ 1.83
$ 2.16
$ 13.64
$ 34.81
$ 70.74
$ 42.49
$ 119.74
$ 53.73
$ 339.74
$ 0.38
$ 0.74
$ 0.48
$ 1.06
$ 0.72
$ 0.34
$
$ 0.26
$
$ 3.98
$ 343.71
$ 8.34
$ 33.18
$ 20.18
$ 39.42
$ 65.86
$ 59.08
$ 14.96
$ 29.71
$ 3.38
$ 274.11
$ 3.17
$ 5.04
$ 2.47
$ 1.61
$ 0.46
$ 0.10
$ 0.02
$ 0.03
$
$ 12.90
$ 287.01
$ 630.72
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.47
$ 1.49
$ 1.72
$ 11.74
$ 30.39
$ 52.74
$ 31.40
$ 82.80
$ 39.29
$ 252.04
$ 0.30
$ 0.60
$ 0.38
$ 0.91
$ 0.62
$ 0.26
$
$ 0.19
$
$ 3.26
$ 255.29
$ 7.19
$ 28.04
$ 17.00
$ 32.35
$ 53.53
$ 53.39
$ 13.38
$ 26.43
$ 2.97
$ 234.29
$ 2.73
$ 4.25
$ 2.07
$ 1.32
$ 0.38
$ 0.09
$ 0.02
$ 0.03
$
$ 10.87
$ 245.16
$ 500.46
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.75
$ 2.17
$ 2.60
$ 15.54
$ 39.28
$ 99.17
$ 59.02
$ 165.63
$ 76.97
$ 461.14
$ 0.46
$ 0.88
$ 0.57
$ 1.21
$ 0.81
$ 0.48
$
$ 0.36
$
$ 4.77
$ 465.91
$ 9.53
$ 38.38
$ 23.34
$ 46.54
$ 78.34
$ 64.79
$ 16.53
$ 32.95
$ 3.79
$ 314.20
$ 3.62
$ 5.81
$ 2.87
$ 1.90
$ 0.55
$ 0.11
$ 0.02
$ 0.03
$
$ 14.91
$ 329.11
$ 795.02
O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.11
$ 0.46
$ 0.34
$ 1.88
$ 2.98
$ 3.90
$ 2.19
$ 5.22
$ 3.12
$ 20.19
$ 0.07
$ 0.19
$ 0.08
$ 0.15
$ 0.06
$ 0.02
$
$ 0.01
$
$ 0.57
$ 20.76
$ 0.98
$ 3.68
$ 1.96
$ 3.00
$ 2.55
$ 5.03
$ 1.28
$ 2.83
$ 0.43
$ 21.73
$ 0.37
$ 0.55
$ 0.23
$ 0.10
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$
$ 1.29
$ 23.02
$ 43.78
Median
Value
$ 0.11
$ 0.46
$ 0.34
$ 1.88
$ 2.98
$ 3.90
$ 2.17
$ 5.19
$ 3.12
$ 20.14
$ 0.07
$ 0.19
$ 0.08
$ 0.15
$ 0.06
$ 0.02
$
$ 0.01
$
$ 0.57
$ 20.70
$ 0.98
$ 3.68
$ 1.96
$ 3.00
$ 2.55
$ 5.03
$ 1.28
$ 2.83
$ 0.43
$ 21.73
$ 0.37
$ 0.55
$ 0.23
$ 0.10
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$
$ 1.29
$ 23.02
$ 43.72
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.11
$ 0.43
$ 0.32
$ 1.76
$ 2.79
$ 3.33
$ 1.90
$ 4.79
$ 2.88
$ 18.29
$ 0.06
$ 0.17
$ 0.07
$ 0.14
$ 0.06
$ 0.02
$
$ 0.01
$
$ 0.53
$ 18.82
$ 0.91
$ 3.38
$ 1.80
$ 2.73
$ 2.33
$ 4.76
$ 1.20
$ 2.64
$ 0.40
$ 20.16
$ 0.35
$ 0.51
$ 0.21
$ 0.09
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$
$ 1.18
$ 21.34
$ 40.16
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.12
$ 0.49
$ 0.36
$ 2.00
$ 3.16
$ 4.53
$ 2.52
$ 5.71
$ 3.36
$ 22.27
$ 0.07
$ 0.20
$ 0.08
$ 0.16
$ 0.06
$ 0.02
$
$ 0.01
$
$ 0.61
$ 22.87
$ 1.05
$ 3.98
$ 2.12
$ 3.26
$ 2.76
$ 5.30
$ 1.36
$ 3.02
$ 0.46
$ 23.31
$ 0.40
$ 0.60
$ 0.25
$ 0.11
$ 0.02
$ 0.01
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$
$ 1.39
$ 24.70
$ 47.57
Notes: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Source: Derived by multiplying unit costs in Exhibits 7.10 and 7.11 by Technology Selection Deltas in Exhibits 5.14 and 5.17 for the Preferred Alternative, summed for all technologies.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.1g Total Stage 2 DBPR Implementation, IDSE, Additional Routine Monitoring, and Operational Evaluation Costs
-PWSs
All Alternatives
Source
Surface
Water
Ground
Water
System
Classification
CWSs
NTNCWSs
System
Size
(population
served)
<100
1 00-499
500-999
1,000-3,300
3,301-9,999
10,000-49,999
50,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
1,000,000+
All Sizes
<100
100-499
500-999
1,000-3,300
3,301-9,999
10,000-49,999
50,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
1,000,000+
All Sizes
Subtotal
CWSs
NTNCWSs
<100
1 00-499
500-999
1,000-3,300
3,301-9,999
10,000-49,999
50,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
1,000,000+
All Sizes
<100
100-499
500-999
1,000-3,300
3,301-9,999
10,000-49,999
50,000-99,999
100,000-999,999
1,000,000+
All Sizes
Subtotal
Total
Total
Implementation
Costs
$ 0.24
$ 0.50
$ 0.36
$ 0.64
$ 0.62
$ 1.21
$ 0.24
$ 0.21
$ 0.02
$ 4.05
$ 0.05
$ 0.06
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.01
$ 0.00
$
$ 0.00
$
$ 0.17
$ 4.22
$ 1.60
$ 1.98
$ 0.89
$ 1.09
$ 0.49
$ 0.80
$ 0.09
$ 0.05
$ 0.00
$ 6.98
$ 0.50
$ 0.43
$ 0.13
$ 0.06
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$
$ 1.12
S 8.10
$ 12.31
Total IDSE Costs
$ 0.45
$ 0.91
$ 3.14
$ 5.53
$ 8.38
$ 17.85
$ 6.43
$ 6.11
$ 0.73
$ 49.53
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.05
$
$ 0.02
$
$ 0.07
S 49.60
$ 0.22
$ 0.27
$ 1.93
$ 2.34
$ 1.06
$ 1.64
$ 0.18
$ 0.17
$ 0.01
$ 7.83
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$
$
$ 0.00
S 7.83
S 57.44
Total Stage 2
Monitoring Plan
Costs
$ 0.08
$ 0.16
$ 0.18
$ 0.32
$ 0.26
$ 0.46
$ 0.09
$ 0.09
$ 0.01
$ 1.65
$
$
$ 0.01
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$
$ 0.00
$
$ 0.01
S 1.67
$ 0.08
$ 0.10
$ 0.51
$ 0.62
$ 0.28
$ 0.32
$ 0.04
$ 0.03
$ 0.00
$ 1.96
$ 0.07
$ 0.06
$ 0.05
$ 0.02
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$
$ 0.21
S 2.18
S 3.85
Annual Additional
Routine Monitoring
Costs
$ (0.05)
$ (0.11)
$ (0.33)
$ (0.58)
$ 0.95
$ (2.48)
$ 0.22
$ 0.28
$ 0.04
$ (2.07)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.03
$
$
$ 0.00
$
$ 0.03
$ (2.04)
$ 0.10
$ 0.12
$ 0.55
$ 0.67
$ 0.30
$ 0.12
$ 0.01
$ (0.09)
$ (0.03)
$ 1.76
$ 0.18
$ 0.15
$ 0.25
$ 0.11
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$
$ 0.71
$ 2.47
S 0.43
Annual Operational
Evaluation
Costs
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$ 0.02
$ 0.10
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.01
$ 0.21
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S 0.21
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S 0.21
All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Derived from Exhibits H.12 and H.13.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.1h Total Implementaion, IDSE, and Compliance Monitoring Costs - Primacy Agencies
All Alternatives
Total
Implementation Costs
$ 7.77
Total
IDSE Costs
$ 2.23
Total Stage 2
Monitoring Plan Costs
$ 0.93
Annual Compliance
Monitoring Costs
$ 1.59
Annual Operation
Evaluation Report Costs
$ 0.11
Notes: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Exhibit H.11.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Section J.2
Cost Projections (Preferred Alternative)
-------
-------
Exhibit J.2a Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(Surface Water CWSs Serving <100 People)
Preferred Alternative
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 0.17
$ 0.17
$ 0.17
$ 0.17
$ 0.17
$ 0.17
$ 0.08
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.09
$ 0.09
$ 0.09
$ 0.09
$ 0.09
$ 0.09
$ 0.04
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.26
$ 0.26
$ 0.26
$ 0.26
$ 0.26
$ 0.26
$ 0.13
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.03
$ 0.06
$ 0.09
$ 0.12
$ 0.15
$ 0.18
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.02
$ 0.03
$ 0.05
$ 0.07
$ 0.09
$ 0.10
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.04
$ 0.09
$ 0.13
$ 0.18
$ 0.22
$ 0.26
$ 0.29
$ 0.29
$ 0.29
$ 0.29
$ 0.29
$ 0.29
$ 0.29
$ 0.29
$ 0.29
$ 0.29
$ 0.29
$ 0.29
$ 0.29
$ 0.29
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.03
$ 0.09
$
$ 0.03
$ 0.05
$ 0.04
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ 0.05
$ 0.12
$ 0.28
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 0.01
$ 0.02
$ 0.05
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ (0.03)
$ (0.05)
$ (0.05)
$ (0.05)
$ (0.05)
$ (0.05)
$ (0.05)
$ (0.05)
$ (0.05)
$ (0.05)
$ (0.05)
$ (0.05)
$ (0.05)
$ (0.05)
$ (0.05)
$ (0.05)
$ (0.05)
$ (0.05)
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.03
$ 0.14
$ 0.13
$ 0.33
$ 0.26
$ 0.24
$ 0.23
$ 0.23
$ 0.24
$ 0.27
$ 0.22
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ 0.03
$ 0.14
$ 0.13
$ 0.33
$ 0.19
$ 0.15
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$ 0.11
$ 0.12
$ 0.10
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 0.03
$ 0.14
$ 0.13
$ 0.33
$ 0.35
$ 0.35
$ 0.35
$ 0.36
$ 0.38
$ 0.43
$ 0.34
$ 0.24
$ 0.24
$ 0.24
$ 0.24
$ 0.24
$ 0.24
$ 0.24
$ 0.24
$ 0.24
$ 0.24
$ 0.24
$ 0.24
$ 0.24
$ 0.24
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1a and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2b Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(Surface Water CWSs Serving 100-499 People)
Preferred Alternative
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Trea
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 0.50
$ 0.50
$ 0.50
$ 0.50
$ 0.50
$ 0.50
$ 0.25
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
ment Capital Costs
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.27
$ 0.27
$ 0.27
$ 0.27
$ 0.27
$ 0.27
$ 0.14
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.76
$ 0.76
$ 0.76
$ 0.76
$ 0.76
$ 0.76
$ 0.38
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.13
$ 0.25
$ 0.38
$ 0.50
$ 0.63
$ 0.76
$ 0.82
$ 0.82
$ 0.82
$ 0.82
$ 0.82
$ 0.82
$ 0.82
$ 0.82
$ 0.82
$ 0.82
$ 0.82
$ 0.82
$ 0.82
$ 0.82
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.07
$ 0.14
$ 0.21
$ 0.28
$ 0.35
$ 0.42
$ 0.46
$ 0.46
$ 0.46
$ 0.46
$ 0.46
$ 0.46
$ 0.46
$ 0.46
$ 0.46
$ 0.46
$ 0.46
$ 0.46
$ 0.46
$ 0.46
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.18
$ 0.37
$ 0.55
$ 0.73
$ 0.91
$ 1.10
$ 1.19
$ 1.19
$ 1.19
$ 1.19
$ 1.19
$ 1.19
$ 1.19
$ 1.19
$ 1.19
$ 1.19
$ 1.19
$ 1.19
$ 1.19
$ 1.19
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementa
tion
$ 0.07
$ 0.18
$
$ 0.06
$ 0.10
$ 0.09
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$
$ 0.10
$ 0.24
$ 0.57
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 0.02
$ 0.04
$ 0.10
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ (0.05)
$ (0.11)
$ (0.11)
$ (0.11)
$ (0.11)
$ (0.11)
$ (0.11)
$ (0.11)
$ (0.11)
$ (0.11)
$ (0.11)
$ (0.11)
$ (0.11)
$ (0.11)
$ (0.11)
$ (0.11)
$ (0.11)
$ (0.11)
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.07
$ 0.28
$ 0.26
$ 0.68
$ 0.70
$ 0.72
$ 0.75
$ 0.83
$ 0.90
$ 1.03
$ 0.90
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.07
$ 0.28
$ 0.26
$ 0.68
$ 0.47
$ 0.43
$ 0.41
$ 0.43
$ 0.45
$ 0.52
$ 0.45
$ 0.35
$ 0.35
$ 0.35
$ 0.35
$ 0.35
$ 0.35
$ 0.35
$ 0.35
$ 0.35
$ 0.35
$ 0.35
$ 0.35
$ 0.35
$ 0.35
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.07
$ 0.28
$ 0.26
$ 0.68
$ 0.96
$ 1.03
$ 1.13
$ 1.26
$ 1.39
$ 1.57
$ 1.37
$ 1.08
$ 1.08
$ 1.08
$ 1.08
$ 1.08
$ 1.08
$ 1.08
$ 1.08
$ 1.08
$ 1.08
$ 1.08
$ 1.08
$ 1.08
$ 1.08
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1a and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2c Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(Surface Water CWSs Serving 500-999 People)
Preferred Alternative
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.59
$ 0.59
$ 0.59
$ 0.59
$ 0.59
$ 0.59
$ 0.30
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.32
$ 0.32
$ 0.32
$ 0.32
$ 0.32
$ 0.32
$ 0.16
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.91
$ 0.91
$ 0.91
$ 0.91
$ 0.91
$ 0.91
$ 0.45
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.09
$ 0.19
$ 0.28
$ 0.38
$ 0.47
$ 0.56
$ 0.61
$ 0.61
$ 0.61
$ 0.61
$ 0.61
$ 0.61
$ 0.61
$ 0.61
$ 0.61
$ 0.61
$ 0.61
$ 0.61
$ 0.61
$ 0.61
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.05
$ 0.10
$ 0.16
$ 0.21
$ 0.26
$ 0.31
$ 0.34
$ 0.34
$ 0.34
$ 0.34
$ 0.34
$ 0.34
$ 0.34
$ 0.34
$ 0.34
$ 0.34
$ 0.34
$ 0.34
$ 0.34
$ 0.34
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.14
$ 0.27
$ 0.41
$ 0.54
$ 0.68
$ 0.82
$ 0.88
$ 0.88
$ 0.88
$ 0.88
$ 0.88
$ 0.88
$ 0.88
$ 0.88
$ 0.88
$ 0.88
$ 0.88
$ 0.88
$ 0.88
$ 0.88
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.05
$ 0.13
$
$ 0.05
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ 0.34
$ 0.83
$ 1.97
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 0.02
$ 0.05
$ 0.11
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ (0.17)
$ (0.33)
$ (0.33)
$ (0.33)
$ (0.33)
$ (0.33)
$ (0.33)
$ (0.33)
$ (0.33)
$ (0.33)
$ (0.33)
$ (0.33)
$ (0.33)
$ (0.33)
$ (0.33)
$ (0.33)
$ (0.33)
$ (0.33)
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.05
$ 0.47
$ 0.85
$ 2.06
$ 0.78
$ 0.75
$ 0.78
$ 0.71
$ 0.64
$ 0.73
$ 0.53
$ 0.28
$ 0.28
$ 0.28
$ 0.28
$ 0.28
$ 0.28
$ 0.28
$ 0.28
$ 0.28
$ 0.28
$ 0.28
$ 0.28
$ 0.28
$ 0.28
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.05
$ 0.47
$ 0.85
$ 2.06
$ 0.50
$ 0.44
$ 0.42
$ 0.31
$ 0.20
$ 0.25
$ 0.14
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.05
$ 0.47
$ 0.85
$ 2.06
$ 1.09
$ 1.11
$ 1.18
$ 1.15
$ 1.12
$ 1.26
$ 0.94
$ 0.56
$ 0.56
$ 0.56
$ 0.56
$ 0.56
$ 0.56
$ 0.56
$ 0.56
$ 0.56
$ 0.56
$ 0.56
$ 0.56
$ 0.56
$ 0.56
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1a and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2d Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(Surface Water CWSs Serving 1,000-3,300 People)
Preferred Alternative
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 3.75
$ 3.75
$ 3.75
$ 3.75
$ 3.75
$ 3.75
$ 1.88
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 2.06
$ 2.06
$ 2.06
$ 2.06
$ 2.06
$ 2.06
$ 1.03
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 5.55
$ 5.55
$ 5.55
$ 5.55
$ 5.55
$ 5.55
$ 2.77
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.52
$ 1.03
$ 1.55
$ 2.07
$ 2.58
$ 3.10
$ 3.36
$ 3.36
$ 3.36
$ 3.36
$ 3.36
$ 3.36
$ 3.36
$ 3.36
$ 3.36
$ 3.36
$ 3.36
$ 3.36
$ 3.36
$ 3.36
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.29
$ 0.58
$ 0.87
$ 1.15
$ 1.44
$ 1.73
$ 1.88
$ 1.88
$ 1.88
$ 1.88
$ 1.88
$ 1.88
$ 1.88
$ 1.88
$ 1.88
$ 1.88
$ 1.88
$ 1.88
$ 1.88
$ 1.88
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.75
$ 1.50
$ 2.24
$ 2.99
$ 3.74
$ 4.49
$ 4.86
$ 4.86
$ 4.86
$ 4.86
$ 4.86
$ 4.86
$ 4.86
$ 4.86
$ 4.86
$ 4.86
$ 4.86
$ 4.86
$ 4.86
$ 4.86
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.09
$ 0.23
$
$ 0.08
$ 0.13
$ 0.11
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ 0.60
$ 1.46
$ 3.47
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 0.03
$ 0.08
$ 0.20
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ (0.29)
$ (0.58)
$ (0.58)
$ (0.58)
$ (0.58)
$ (0.58)
$ (0.58)
$ (0.58)
$ (0.58)
$ (0.58)
$ (0.58)
$ (0.58)
$ (0.58)
$ (0.58)
$ (0.58)
$ (0.58)
$ (0.58)
$ (0.58)
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.09
$ 0.83
$ 1.49
$ 3.63
$ 4.08
$ 4.38
$ 4.78
$ 5.01
$ 5.23
$ 5.75
$ 4.39
$ 2.78
$ 2.78
$ 2.78
$ 2.78
$ 2.78
$ 2.78
$ 2.78
$ 2.78
$ 2.78
$ 2.78
$ 2.78
$ 2.78
$ 2.78
$ 2.78
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.09
$ 0.83
$ 1.49
$ 3.63
$ 2.38
$ 2.46
$ 2.63
$ 2.63
$ 2.63
$ 2.92
$ 2.18
$ 1.30
$ 1.30
$ 1.30
$ 1.30
$ 1.30
$ 1.30
$ 1.30
$ 1.30
$ 1.30
$ 1.30
$ 1.30
$ 1.30
$ 1.30
$ 1.30
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.09
$ 0.83
$ 1.49
$ 3.63
$ 5.87
$ 6.41
$ 7.04
$ 7.50
$ 7.96
$ 8.71
$ 6.68
$ 4.28
$ 4.28
$ 4.28
$ 4.28
$ 4.28
$ 4.28
$ 4.28
$ 4.28
$ 4.28
$ 4.28
$ 4.28
$ 4.28
$ 4.28
$ 4.28
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1a and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2e Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(Surface Water CWSs Serving 3,301-9,999 People)
Preferred Alternative
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 9.57
$ 9.57
$ 9.57
$ 9.57
$ 9.57
$ 9.57
$ 4.79
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 5.29
$ 5.29
$ 5.29
$ 5.29
$ 5.29
$ 5.29
$ 2.65
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 14.12
$ 14.12
$ 14.12
$ 14.12
$ 14.12
$ 14.12
$ 7.06
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.82
$ 1.64
$ 2.46
$ 3.27
$ 4.09
$ 4.91
$ 5.32
$ 5.32
$ 5.32
$ 5.32
$ 5.32
$ 5.32
$ 5.32
$ 5.32
$ 5.32
$ 5.32
$ 5.32
$ 5.32
$ 5.32
$ 5.32
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.46
$ 0.92
$ 1.37
$ 1.83
$ 2.29
$ 2.75
$ 2.97
$ 2.97
$ 2.97
$ 2.97
$ 2.97
$ 2.97
$ 2.97
$ 2.97
$ 2.97
$ 2.97
$ 2.97
$ 2.97
$ 2.97
$ 2.97
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 1.18
$ 2.37
$ 3.55
$ 4.74
$ 5.92
$ 7.11
$ 7.70
$ 7.70
$ 7.70
$ 7.70
$ 7.70
$ 7.70
$ 7.70
$ 7.70
$ 7.70
$ 7.70
$ 7.70
$ 7.70
$ 7.70
$ 7.70
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.09
$ 0.22
$
$ 0.08
$ 0.12
$ 0.11
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ 0.91
$ 2.21
$ 5.25
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 0.03
$ 0.07
$ 0.16
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.48
$ 0.95
$ 0.95
$ 0.95
$ 0.95
$ 0.95
$ 0.95
$ 0.95
$ 0.95
$ 0.95
$ 0.95
$ 0.95
$ 0.95
$ 0.95
$ 0.95
$ 0.95
$ 0.95
$ 0.95
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.01
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.09
$ 1.14
$ 2.24
$ 5.40
$ 9.85
$ 10.50
$ 11.21
$ 12.50
$ 13.81
$ 14.64
$ 10.67
$ 6.29
$ 6.29
$ 6.29
$ 6.29
$ 6.29
$ 6.29
$ 6.29
$ 6.29
$ 6.29
$ 6.29
$ 6.29
$ 6.29
$ 6.29
$ 6.29
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.09
$ 1.14
$ 2.24
$ 5.40
$ 5.58
$ 5.86
$ 6.21
$ 7.14
$ 8.09
$ 8.56
$ 6.37
$ 3.95
$ 3.95
$ 3.95
$ 3.95
$ 3.95
$ 3.95
$ 3.95
$ 3.95
$ 3.95
$ 3.95
$ 3.95
$ 3.95
$ 3.95
$ 3.95
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.09
$ 1.14
$ 2.24
$ 5.40
$ 14.40
$ 15.42
$ 16.49
$ 18.15
$ 19.82
$ 21.02
$ 15.14
$ 8.67
$ 8.67
$ 8.67
$ 8.67
$ 8.67
$ 8.67
$ 8.67
$ 8.67
$ 8.67
$ 8.67
$ 8.67
$ 8.67
$ 8.67
$ 8.67
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1a and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2f Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(Surface Water CWSs Serving 10,000-49,999 People)
Preferred Alternative
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 20.58
$ 20.58
$ 20.58
$ 20.58
$ 20.58
$ 10.29
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 11.40
$ 11.40
$ 11.40
$ 11.40
$ 11.40
$ 5.70
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tlle)
$
$
$
$
$ 28.55
$ 28.55
$ 28.55
$ 28.55
$ 28.55
$ 14.28
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 1.10
$ 2.20
$ 3.30
$ 4.39
$ 5.49
$ 6.04
$ 6.04
$ 6.04
$ 6.04
$ 6.04
$ 6.04
$ 6.04
$ 6.04
$ 6.04
$ 6.04
$ 6.04
$ 6.04
$ 6.04
$ 6.04
$ 6.04
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tlle)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.68
$ 1.36
$ 2.04
$ 2.72
$ 3.40
$ 3.74
$ 3.74
$ 3.74
$ 3.74
$ 3.74
$ 3.74
$ 3.74
$ 3.74
$ 3.74
$ 3.74
$ 3.74
$ 3.74
$ 3.74
$ 3.74
$ 3.74
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.58
$ 3.15
$ 4.73
$ 6.30
$ 7.88
$ 8.66
$ 8.66
$ 8.66
$ 8.66
$ 8.66
$ 8.66
$ 8.66
$ 8.66
$ 8.66
$ 8.66
$ 8.66
$ 8.66
$ 8.66
$ 8.66
$ 8.66
Stage 2 DBPR Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.30
$ 0.30
$
$ 0.28
$ 0.17
$ 0.15
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ 3.82
$ 9.59
$ 4.44
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 0.10
$ 0.25
$ 0.11
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ (1.24)
$ (2.48)
$ (2.48)
$ (2.48)
$ (2.48)
$ (2.48)
$ (2.48)
$ (2.48)
$ (2.48)
$ (2.48)
$ (2.48)
$ (2.48)
$ (2.48)
$ (2.48)
$ (2.48)
$ (2.48)
$ (2.48)
$ (2.48)
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.05
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.30
$ 4.12
$ 9.68
$ 4.97
$ 20.87
$ 21.83
$ 22.78
$ 22.64
$ 22.55
$ 13.40
$ 3.66
$ 3.66
$ 3.66
$ 3.66
$ 3.66
$ 3.66
$ 3.66
$ 3.66
$ 3.66
$ 3.66
$ 3.66
$ 3.66
$ 3.66
$ 3.66
$ 3.66
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.30
$ 4.12
$ 9.68
$ 4.97
$ 11.69
$ 12.23
$ 12.76
$ 12.21
$ 11.70
$ 6.73
$ 1.36
$ 1.36
$ 1.36
$ 1.36
$ 1.36
$ 1.36
$ 1.36
$ 1.36
$ 1.36
$ 1.36
$ 1.36
$ 1.36
$ 1.36
$ 1.36
$ 1.36
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.30
$ 4.12
$ 9.68
$ 4.97
$ 28.84
$ 30.28
$ 31.70
$ 32.04
$ 32.42
$ 19.77
$ 6.28
$ 6.28
$ 6.28
$ 6.28
$ 6.28
$ 6.28
$ 6.28
$ 6.28
$ 6.28
$ 6.28
$ 6.28
$ 6.28
$ 6.28
$ 6.28
$ 6.28
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1a and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2g Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(Surface Water CWSs Serving 50,000-99,999 People)
Preferred Alternative
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 14.98
$ 14.98
$ 14.98
$ 14.98
$ 7.49
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 8.31
$ 8.31
$ 8.31
$ 8.31
$ 4.16
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 20.78
$ 20.78
$ 20.78
$ 20.78
$ 10.39
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.76
$ 1.51
$ 2.27
$ 3.03
$ 3.41
$ 3.41
$ 3.41
$ 3.41
$ 3.41
$ 3.41
$ 3.41
$ 3.41
$ 3.41
$ 3.41
$ 3.41
$ 3.41
$ 3.41
$ 3.41
$ 3.41
$ 3.41
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.47
$ 0.95
$ 1.42
$ 1.89
$ 2.13
$ 2.13
$ 2.13
$ 2.13
$ 2.13
$ 2.13
$ 2.13
$ 2.13
$ 2.13
$ 2.13
$ 2.13
$ 2.13
$ 2.13
$ 2.13
$ 2.13
$ 2.13
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.10
$ 2.20
$ 3.30
$ 4.40
$ 4.95
$ 4.95
$ 4.95
$ 4.95
$ 4.95
$ 4.95
$ 4.95
$ 4.95
$ 4.95
$ 4.95
$ 4.95
$ 4.95
$ 4.95
$ 4.95
$ 4.95
$ 4.95
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.12
$
$
$ 0.09
$ 0.03
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ 1.36
$ 5.07
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 0.02
$ 0.07
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.11
$ 0.22
$ 0.22
$ 0.22
$ 0.22
$ 0.22
$ 0.22
$ 0.22
$ 0.22
$ 0.22
$ 0.22
$ 0.22
$ 0.22
$ 0.22
$ 0.22
$ 0.22
$ 0.22
$ 0.22
$ 0.22
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.02
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.12
$ 1.36
$ 5.09
$ 0.16
$ 15.01
$ 15.73
$ 16.60
$ 17.48
$ 10.77
$ 3.66
$ 3.66
$ 3.66
$ 3.66
$ 3.66
$ 3.66
$ 3.66
$ 3.66
$ 3.66
$ 3.66
$ 3.66
$ 3.66
$ 3.66
$ 3.66
$ 3.66
$ 3.66
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.12
$ 1.36
$ 5.09
$ 0.16
$ 8.35
$ 8.79
$ 9.37
$ 9.97
$ 6.31
$ 2.39
$ 2.39
$ 2.39
$ 2.39
$ 2.39
$ 2.39
$ 2.39
$ 2.39
$ 2.39
$ 2.39
$ 2.39
$ 2.39
$ 2.39
$ 2.39
$ 2.39
$ 2.39
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.12
$ 1.36
$ 5.09
$ 0.16
$ 20.81
$ 21.88
$ 23.09
$ 24.31
$ 15.04
$ 5.20
$ 5.20
$ 5.20
$ 5.20
$ 5.20
$ 5.20
$ 5.20
$ 5.20
$ 5.20
$ 5.20
$ 5.20
$ 5.20
$ 5.20
$ 5.20
$ 5.20
$ 5.20
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1a and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2h Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(Surface Water CWSs Serving 100,000-999,999)
Preferred Alternative
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 45.99
$ 45.99
$ 45.99
$ 45.99
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 24.55
$ 24.55
$ 24.55
$ 24.55
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 64.44
$ 64.44
$ 64.44
$ 64.44
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 2.04
$ 4.09
$ 6.13
$ 8.17
$ 8.17
$ 8.17
$ 8.17
$ 8.17
$ 8.17
$ 8.17
$ 8.17
$ 8.17
$ 8.17
$ 8.17
$ 8.17
$ 8.17
$ 8.17
$ 8.17
$ 8.17
$ 8.17
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.30
$ 2.60
$ 3.91
$ 5.21
$ 5.21
$ 5.21
$ 5.21
$ 5.21
$ 5.21
$ 5.21
$ 5.21
$ 5.21
$ 5.21
$ 5.21
$ 5.21
$ 5.21
$ 5.21
$ 5.21
$ 5.21
$ 5.21
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 3.13
$ 6.26
$ 9.39
$ 12.52
$ 12.52
$ 12.52
$ 12.52
$ 12.52
$ 12.52
$ 12.52
$ 12.52
$ 12.52
$ 12.52
$ 12.52
$ 12.52
$ 12.52
$ 12.52
$ 12.52
$ 12.52
$ 12.52
Stage 2 DBPR Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.11
$
$
$ 0.11
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ 3.06
$ 3.06
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 0.05
$ 0.05
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.28
$ 0.28
$ 0.28
$ 0.28
$ 0.28
$ 0.28
$ 0.28
$ 0.28
$ 0.28
$ 0.28
$ 0.28
$ 0.28
$ 0.28
$ 0.28
$ 0.28
$ 0.28
$ 0.28
$ 0.28
$ 0.28
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.11
$ 3.06
$ 3.10
$ 0.15
$ 45.99
$ 48.04
$ 50.36
$ 52.44
$ 8.49
$ 8.49
$ 8.49
$ 8.49
$ 8.49
$ 8.49
$ 8.49
$ 8.49
$ 8.49
$ 8.49
$ 8.49
$ 8.49
$ 8.49
$ 8.49
$ 8.49
$ 8.49
$ 8.49
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.11
$ 3.06
$ 3.10
$ 0.15
$ 24.55
$ 25.86
$ 27.43
$ 28.77
$ 5.52
$ 5.52
$ 5.52
$ 5.52
$ 5.52
$ 5.52
$ 5.52
$ 5.52
$ 5.52
$ 5.52
$ 5.52
$ 5.52
$ 5.52
$ 5.52
$ 5.52
$ 5.52
$ 5.52
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.11
$ 3.06
$ 3.10
$ 0.15
$ 64.44
$ 67.57
$ 70.97
$ 74.14
$ 12.83
$ 12.83
$ 12.83
$ 12.83
$ 12.83
$ 12.83
$ 12.83
$ 12.83
$ 12.83
$ 12.83
$ 12.83
$ 12.83
$ 12.83
$ 12.83
$ 12.83
$ 12.83
$ 12.83
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1 a and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2i Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(Surface Water CWSs Serving 1,000,000+)
Preferred Alternative
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 21.51
$ 21.51
$ 21.51
$ 21.51
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 11.78
$ 11.78
$ 11.78
$ 11.78
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 30.10
$ 30.10
$ 30.10
$ 30.10
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 1.23
$ 2.46
$ 3.69
$ 4.91
$ 4.91
$ 4.91
$ 4.91
$ 4.91
$ 4.91
$ 4.91
$ 4.91
$ 4.91
$ 4.91
$ 4.91
$ 4.91
$ 4.91
$ 4.91
$ 4.91
$ 4.91
$ 4.91
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.78
$ 1.56
$ 2.33
$ 3.11
$ 3.11
$ 3.11
$ 3.11
$ 3.11
$ 3.11
$ 3.11
$ 3.11
$ 3.11
$ 3.11
$ 3.11
$ 3.11
$ 3.11
$ 3.11
$ 3.11
$ 3.11
$ 3.11
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 1.93
$ 3.87
$ 5.80
$ 7.73
$ 7.73
$ 7.73
$ 7.73
$ 7.73
$ 7.73
$ 7.73
$ 7.73
$ 7.73
$ 7.73
$ 7.73
$ 7.73
$ 7.73
$ 7.73
$ 7.73
$ 7.73
$ 7.73
Stage 2 DBPR Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.01
$
$
$ 0.01
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ 0.37
$ 0.37
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.01
$ 0.37
$ 0.37
$ 0.01
$ 21.51
$ 22.74
$ 24.00
$ 25.24
$ 4.96
$ 4.96
$ 4.96
$ 4.96
$ 4.96
$ 4.96
$ 4.96
$ 4.96
$ 4.96
$ 4.96
$ 4.96
$ 4.96
$ 4.96
$ 4.96
$ 4.96
$ 4.96
$ 4.96
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.01
$ 0.37
$ 0.37
$ 0.01
$ 11.78
$ 12.56
$ 13.38
$ 14.16
$ 3.15
$ 3.15
$ 3.15
$ 3.15
$ 3.15
$ 3.15
$ 3.15
$ 3.15
$ 3.15
$ 3.15
$ 3.15
$ 3.15
$ 3.15
$ 3.15
$ 3.15
$ 3.15
$ 3.15
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.01
$ 0.37
$ 0.37
$ 0.01
$ 30.10
$ 32.04
$ 34.00
$ 35.94
$ 7.77
$ 7.77
$ 7.77
$ 7.77
$ 7.77
$ 7.77
$ 7.77
$ 7.77
$ 7.77
$ 7.77
$ 7.77
$ 7.77
$ 7.77
$ 7.77
$ 7.77
$ 7.77
$ 7.77
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1a and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2J Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(All Surface Water CWSs)
Preferred Alternative
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
m#m
mttm
mttm
mwt
$42.65
$24.87
$ 7.29
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Confidence
Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 64.08
$ 64.08
$ 64.08
$ 64.08
$ 23.59
$ 13.73
$ 4.02
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
#m#m
ttmtttttt
ttmtttttt
ttmtttttt
$ 60.53
$ 35.87
$10.80
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$6.71
mttttttt
mttttttt
#m##
#m##
mttm
mttm
mttm
#m##
#m##
#m##
mttm
mttm
#m##
#m##
#m##
mttm
mttm
mttm
#mm
Confidence
Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$4.12
$8.24
mm#
mm#
mm#
mm#
mm#
mm#
mm#
mm#
mm#
mm#
mm#
mm#
mm#
mm#
mm#
mm#
mm#
mwt
upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 10.03
$ 20.06
$ 30.10
$ 40.13
$ 44.55
$ 47.63
$ 48.78
$ 48.78
$ 48.78
$ 48.78
$ 48.78
$ 48.78
$ 48.78
$ 48.78
$ 48.78
$ 48.78
$ 48.78
$ 48.78
$ 48.78
$ 48.78
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.87
$ 1.15
$
$ 0.78
$ 0.67
$ 0.58
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
ttmm
#mm
#mm
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 0.28
$ 0.64
$ 0.74
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitorinq
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.42
$ (0.77)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.06
$ 0.15
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.87
$ 11.76
$ 23.22
$ 17.40
$ 119.05
$124.93
$131.49
$137.08
$ 67.58
$ 52.93
$ 37.48
$ 30.98
$ 30.98
$ 30.98
$ 30.98
$ 30.98
$ 30.98
$ 30.98
$ 30.98
$ 30.98
$ 30.98
$ 30.98
$ 30.98
$ 30.98
$ 30.98
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ 0.87
$ 11.76
$ 23.22
$ 17.40
$ 65.49
$ 68.78
$ 72.75
$ 75.74
$ 38.15
$ 30.16
$ 21.67
$ 18.10
$ 18.10
$ 18.10
$ 18.10
$ 18.10
$ 18.10
$ 18.10
$ 18.10
$ 18.10
$ 18.10
$ 18.10
$ 18.10
$ 18.10
$ 18.10
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 0.87
$ 11.76
$ 23.22
$ 17.40
$ 166.87
$176.07
$185.95
$194.85
$ 98.74
$ 78.56
$ 56.57
$ 46.92
$ 46.92
$ 46.92
$ 46.92
$ 46.92
$ 46.92
$ 46.92
$ 46.92
$ 46.92
$ 46.92
$ 46.92
$ 46.92
$ 46.92
$ 46.92
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1a and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2k Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(Surface Water NTNCWSs Serving <100 People)
Preferred Alternative
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.10
$0.10
$0.10
$0.10
$0.10
$0.10
$0.05
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence
Bound
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.03
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.16
$ 0.16
$ 0.16
$ 0.16
$ 0.16
$ 0.16
$ 0.08
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.02
$0.04
$0.06
$0.07
$0.09
$0.11
$0.12
$0.12
$0.12
$0.12
$0.12
$0.12
$0.12
$0.12
$0.12
$0.12
$0.12
$0.12
$0.12
$0.12
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.01
$ 0.02
$ 0.03
$ 0.04
$ 0.05
$ 0.06
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.03
$ 0.05
$ 0.08
$ 0.11
$ 0.13
$ 0.16
$ 0.17
$ 0.17
$ 0.17
$ 0.17
$ 0.17
$ 0.17
$ 0.17
$ 0.17
$ 0.17
$ 0.17
$ 0.17
$ 0.17
$ 0.17
$ 0.17
Stage 2 DBPR Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.00
$ 0.02
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitorina
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.00
$ 0.02
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.11
$ 0.13
$ 0.14
$ 0.16
$ 0.18
$ 0.20
$ 0.16
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th
%tile)
$ 0.00
$ 0.02
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.07
$ 0.08
$ 0.08
$ 0.09
$ 0.10
$ 0.11
$ 0.09
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
U \J\JCI
(95th
%tile)
$ 0.00
$ 0.02
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.17
$ 0.20
$ 0.21
$ 0.24
$ 0.27
$ 0.29
$ 0.24
$ 0.17
$ 0.17
$ 0.17
$ 0.17
$ 0.17
$ 0.17
$ 0.17
$ 0.17
$ 0.17
$ 0.17
$ 0.17
$ 0.17
$ 0.17
$ 0.17
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1a and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2I Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(Surface Water NTNCWSs Serving 100-499 People)
Preferred Alternative
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
$ 0.10
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.06
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.31
$ 0.31
$ 0.31
$ 0.31
$ 0.31
$ 0.31
$ 0.15
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.05
$ 0.10
$ 0.15
$ 0.21
$ 0.26
$ 0.31
$ 0.33
$ 0.33
$ 0.33
$ 0.33
$ 0.33
$ 0.33
$ 0.33
$ 0.33
$ 0.33
$ 0.33
$ 0.33
$ 0.33
$ 0.33
$ 0.33
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.03
$ 0.06
$ 0.09
$ 0.11
$ 0.14
$ 0.17
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.07
$ 0.15
$ 0.22
$ 0.30
$ 0.37
$ 0.45
$ 0.48
$ 0.48
$ 0.48
$ 0.48
$ 0.48
$ 0.48
$ 0.48
$ 0.48
$ 0.48
$ 0.48
$ 0.48
$ 0.48
$ 0.48
$ 0.48
Stage 2 DBPR Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.00
$ 0.03
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.00
$ 0.03
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.22
$ 0.27
$ 0.31
$ 0.36
$ 0.41
$ 0.46
$ 0.41
$ 0.33
$ 0.33
$ 0.33
$ 0.33
$ 0.33
$ 0.33
$ 0.33
$ 0.33
$ 0.33
$ 0.33
$ 0.33
$ 0.33
$ 0.33
$ 0.33
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.00
$ 0.03
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.12
$ 0.15
$ 0.17
$ 0.20
$ 0.22
$ 0.25
$ 0.23
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.00
$ 0.03
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.32
$ 0.40
$ 0.46
$ 0.53
$ 0.60
$ 0.68
$ 0.60
$ 0.48
$ 0.48
$ 0.48
$ 0.48
$ 0.48
$ 0.48
$ 0.48
$ 0.48
$ 0.48
$ 0.48
$ 0.48
$ 0.48
$ 0.48
$ 0.48
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1a and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2m Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(Surface Water NTNCWSs Serving 500-999 People)
Preferred Alternative
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 0.13
$ 0.13
$ 0.13
$ 0.13
$ 0.13
$ 0.13
$ 0.07
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.04
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
$ 0.10
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.02
$ 0.04
$ 0.06
$ 0.08
$ 0.10
$ 0.12
$ 0.13
$ 0.13
$ 0.13
$ 0.13
$ 0.13
$ 0.13
$ 0.13
$ 0.13
$ 0.13
$ 0.13
$ 0.13
$ 0.13
$ 0.13
$ 0.13
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.01
$ 0.02
$ 0.03
$ 0.05
$ 0.06
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.03
$ 0.06
$ 0.09
$ 0.12
$ 0.15
$ 0.18
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
Stage 2 DBPR Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$
$
$ 0.01
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.14
$ 0.16
$ 0.17
$ 0.19
$ 0.21
$ 0.23
$ 0.19
$ 0.13
$ 0.13
$ 0.13
$ 0.13
$ 0.13
$ 0.13
$ 0.13
$ 0.13
$ 0.13
$ 0.13
$ 0.13
$ 0.13
$ 0.13
$ 0.13
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.08
$ 0.09
$ 0.09
$ 0.10
$ 0.12
$ 0.13
$ 0.10
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.21
$ 0.23
$ 0.26
$ 0.29
$ 0.32
$ 0.35
$ 0.28
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
$ 0.19
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1 a and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2n Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(Surface Water NTNCWSs Serving 1,000-3,300 People)
Preferred Alternative
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 0.29
$ 0.29
$ 0.29
$ 0.29
$ 0.29
$ 0.29
$ 0.15
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.16
$ 0.16
$ 0.16
$ 0.16
$ 0.16
$ 0.16
$ 0.08
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.22
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.04
$ 0.08
$ 0.12
$ 0.16
$ 0.20
$ 0.24
$ 0.26
$ 0.26
$ 0.26
$ 0.26
$ 0.26
$ 0.26
$ 0.26
$ 0.26
$ 0.26
$ 0.26
$ 0.26
$ 0.26
$ 0.26
$ 0.26
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.02
$ 0.05
$ 0.07
$ 0.09
$ 0.11
$ 0.14
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.06
$ 0.12
$ 0.18
$ 0.23
$ 0.29
$ 0.35
$ 0.38
$ 0.38
$ 0.38
$ 0.38
$ 0.38
$ 0.38
$ 0.38
$ 0.38
$ 0.38
$ 0.38
$ 0.38
$ 0.38
$ 0.38
$ 0.38
Stage 2 DBPR Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$
$
$ 0.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.30
$ 0.34
$ 0.37
$ 0.41
$ 0.45
$ 0.49
$ 0.39
$ 0.26
$ 0.26
$ 0.26
$ 0.26
$ 0.26
$ 0.26
$ 0.26
$ 0.26
$ 0.26
$ 0.26
$ 0.26
$ 0.26
$ 0.26
$ 0.26
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.17
$ 0.19
$ 0.21
$ 0.23
$ 0.25
$ 0.27
$ 0.22
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.44
$ 0.49
$ 0.55
$ 0.61
$ 0.66
$ 0.72
$ 0.57
$ 0.38
$ 0.38
$ 0.38
$ 0.38
$ 0.38
$ 0.38
$ 0.38
$ 0.38
$ 0.38
$ 0.38
$ 0.38
$ 0.38
$ 0.38
$ 0.38
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1a and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2o Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(Surface Water NTNCWSs Serving 3,301-9,999 People)
Preferred Alternative
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
$ 0.10
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.05
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.29
$ 0.29
$ 0.29
$ 0.29
$ 0.29
$ 0.29
$ 0.15
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.02
$ 0.03
$ 0.05
$ 0.07
$ 0.08
$ 0.10
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.01
$ 0.02
$ 0.03
$ 0.04
$ 0.05
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.02
$ 0.05
$ 0.07
$ 0.10
$ 0.12
$ 0.14
$ 0.16
$ 0.16
$ 0.16
$ 0.16
$ 0.16
$ 0.16
$ 0.16
$ 0.16
$ 0.16
$ 0.16
$ 0.16
$ 0.16
$ 0.16
$ 0.16
Stage 2 DBPR Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$
$
$ 0.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.01
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.20
$ 0.22
$ 0.23
$ 0.26
$ 0.29
$ 0.31
$ 0.22
$ 0.13
$ 0.13
$ 0.13
$ 0.13
$ 0.13
$ 0.13
$ 0.13
$ 0.13
$ 0.13
$ 0.13
$ 0.13
$ 0.13
$ 0.13
$ 0.13
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.11
$ 0.12
$ 0.13
$ 0.15
$ 0.17
$ 0.18
$ 0.14
$ 0.09
$ 0.09
$ 0.09
$ 0.09
$ 0.09
$ 0.09
$ 0.09
$ 0.09
$ 0.09
$ 0.09
$ 0.09
$ 0.09
$ 0.09
$ 0.09
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.29
$ 0.32
$ 0.34
$ 0.38
$ 0.41
$ 0.44
$ 0.31
$ 0.18
$ 0.18
$ 0.18
$ 0.18
$ 0.18
$ 0.18
$ 0.18
$ 0.18
$ 0.18
$ 0.18
$ 0.18
$ 0.18
$ 0.18
$ 0.18
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1a and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2p Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(Surface Water NTNCWSs Serving 10,000-49,999 People)
Preferred Alternative
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.05
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.03
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.14
$ 0.14
$ 0.14
$ 0.14
$ 0.14
$ 0.07
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.02
$ 0.03
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
Stage 2 DBPR Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$
$ 0.00
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ -
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.10
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.12
$ 0.07
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.07
$ 0.04
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.14
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.16
$ 0.17
$ 0.10
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1 a and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2q Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(Surface Water NTNCWSs Serving 50,000-99,999 People)
Preferred Alternative
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Stage 2 DBPR Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1a and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2r Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(Surface Water NTNCWSs Serving 100,000-999,999 People)
Preferred Alternative
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.14
$ 0.14
$ 0.14
$ 0.14
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.02
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.00
$
$
$ 0.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.00
$ 0.10
$ 0.11
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.00
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.00
$ 0.14
$ 0.15
$ 0.16
$ 0.17
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1a and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2s Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(Surface Water NTNCWSs Serving 1,000,000+ People)
Preferred Alternative
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tlle)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th
%tlle)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1 a and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2t Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(All Surface Water NTNCWSs)
Preferred Alternative
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 1.13
$ 1.13
$ 1.13
$ 1.13
$ 1.03
$ 0.98
$ 0.46
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.62
$ 0.62
$ 0.62
$ 0.62
$ 0.56
$ 0.53
$ 0.25
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 1.67
$ 1.67
$ 1.67
$ 1.67
$ 1.53
$ 1.46
$ 0.69
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.16
$ 0.31
$ 0.47
$ 0.63
$ 0.78
$ 0.93
$ 1.00
$ 1.00
$ 1.00
$ 1.00
$ 1.00
$ 1.00
$ 1.00
$ 1.00
$ 1.00
$ 1.00
$ 1.00
$ 1.00
$ 1.00
$ 1.00
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.09
$ 0.18
$ 0.26
$ 0.35
$ 0.44
$ 0.52
$ 0.56
$ 0.56
$ 0.56
$ 0.56
$ 0.56
$ 0.56
$ 0.56
$ 0.56
$ 0.56
$ 0.56
$ 0.56
$ 0.56
$ 0.56
$ 0.56
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.23
$ 0.46
$ 0.68
$ 0.91
$ 1.13
$ 1.35
$ 1.46
$ 1.46
$ 1.46
$ 1.46
$ 1.46
$ 1.46
$ 1.46
$ 1.46
$ 1.46
$ 1.46
$ 1.46
$ 1.46
$ 1.46
$ 1.46
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.01
$ 0.07
$
$ 0.01
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ 0.01
$ 0.04
$ 0.02
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.02
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.01
$ 0.08
$ 0.04
$ 0.03
$ 1.18
$ 1.32
$ 1.45
$ 1.62
$ 1.68
$ 1.79
$ 1.42
$ 1.03
$ 1.03
$ 1.03
$ 1.03
$ 1.03
$ 1.03
$ 1.03
$ 1.03
$ 1.03
$ 1.03
$ 1.03
$ 1.03
$ 1.03
$ 1.03
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.01
$ 0.08
$ 0.04
$ 0.03
$ 0.67
$ 0.74
$ 0.80
$ 0.90
$ 0.94
$ 1.00
$ 0.80
$ 0.59
$ 0.59
$ 0.59
$ 0.59
$ 0.59
$ 0.59
$ 0.59
$ 0.59
$ 0.59
$ 0.59
$ 0.59
$ 0.59
$ 0.59
$ 0.59
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.01
$ 0.08
$ 0.04
$ 0.03
$ 1.72
$ 1.93
$ 2.13
$ 2.37
$ 2.47
$ 2.62
$ 2.07
$ 1.49
$ 1.49
$ 1.49
$ 1.49
$ 1.49
$ 1.49
$ 1.49
$ 1.49
$ 1.49
$ 1.49
$ 1.49
$ 1.49
$ 1.49
$ 1.49
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1a and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2u Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(All Surface Water Systems)
Preferred Alternative
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$118.78
$118.78
$118.78
$ 118.78
$ 43.68
$ 25.85
$ 7.76
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$64.70
$64.70
$64.70
$64.70
$24.15
$14.27
$ 4.27
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$167.13
$167.13
$167.13
$167.13
$ 62.06
$ 37.33
$ 11.49
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 6.87
$13.74
$20.61
$ 27.48
$ 30.69
$ 32.98
$ 33.84
$ 33.84
$ 33.84
$ 33.84
$ 33.84
$ 33.84
$ 33.84
$ 33.84
$ 33.84
$ 33.84
$ 33.84
$ 33.84
$ 33.84
$ 33.84
9U Percent
Confidence
Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 4.21
$ 8.42
$12.62
$16.83
$18.72
$20.03
$20.51
$20.51
$20.51
$20.51
$20.51
$20.51
$20.51
$20.51
$20.51
$20.51
$20.51
$20.51
$20.51
$20.51
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$10.26
$20.52
$30.78
$41.04
$45.68
$48.98
$50.23
$50.23
$50.23
$50.23
$50.23
$50.23
$50.23
$50.23
$50.23
$50.23
$50.23
$50.23
$50.23
$50.23
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.88
$ 1.22
$
$ 0.79
$ 0.71
$ 0.61
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$10.62
$22.98
$16.01
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 0.28
$ 0.64
$ 0.75
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitorind
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.42
$ (0.75)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.06
$ 0.15
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.88
$ 11.84
$ 23.26
$ 17.44
$120.23
$126.26
$132.94
$138.69
$ 69.26
$ 54.72
$ 38.90
$ 32.02
$ 32.02
$ 32.02
$ 32.02
$ 32.02
$ 32.02
$ 32.02
$ 32.02
$ 32.02
$ 32.02
$ 32.02
$ 32.02
$ 32.02
$ 32.02
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ 0.88
$ 11.84
$ 23.26
$ 17.44
$ 66.16
$ 69.52
$ 73.54
$ 76.64
$ 39.09
$ 31.16
$ 22.47
$ 18.69
$ 18.69
$ 18.69
$ 18.69
$ 18.69
$ 18.69
$ 18.69
$ 18.69
$ 18.69
$ 18.69
$ 18.69
$ 18.69
$ 18.69
$ 18.69
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 0.88
$ 11.84
$ 23.26
$ 17.44
$168.59
$178.00
$188.07
$ 197.22
$ 101.21
$ 81.18
$ 58.64
$ 48.41
$ 48.41
$ 48.41
$ 48.41
$ 48.41
$ 48.41
$ 48.41
$ 48.41
$ 48.41
$ 48.41
$ 48.41
$ 48.41
$ 48.41
$ 48.41
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1a and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2v Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(Ground Water CWSs Serving <100 People)
Preferred Alternative
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 0.64
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tlle)
$
$
$
$
$ 1.11
$ 1.11
$ 1.11
$ 1.11
$ 1.11
$ 1.11
$ 0.55
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 1.47
$ 1.47
$ 1.47
$ 1.47
$ 1.47
$ 0.73
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.15
$ 0.30
$ 0.60
$ 0.75
$ 0.90
$ 0.98
$ 0.98
$ 0.98
$ 0.98
$ 0.98
$ 0.98
$ 0.98
$ 0.98
$ 0.98
$ 0.98
$ 0.98
$ 0.98
$ 0.98
$ 0.98
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.14
$ 0.28
$ 0.56
$ 0.70
$ 0.84
$ 0.91
$ 0.91
$ 0.91
$ 0.91
$ 0.91
$ 0.91
$ 0.91
$ 0.91
$ 0.91
$ 0.91
$ 0.91
$ 0.91
$ 0.91
$ 0.91
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.16
$ 0.32
$ 0.65
$ 0.81
$ 0.97
$ 1.05
$ 1.05
$ 1.05
$ 1.05
$ 1.05
$ 1.05
$ 1.05
$ 1.05
$ 1.05
$ 1.05
$ 1.05
$ 1.05
$ 1.05
$ 1.05
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.02
$ 0.78
$
$ 0.01
$ 0.39
$ 0.39
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.22
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$
$
$ 0.08
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.05
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.02
$ 0.78
$
$ 0.23
$ 1.75
$ 1.83
$ 1.58
$ 1.78
$ 1.98
$ 2.13
$ 1.64
$ 1.08
$ 1.08
$ 1.08
$ 1.08
$ 1.08
$ 1.08
$ 1.08
$ 1.08
$ 1.08
$ 1.08
$ 1.08
$ 1.08
$ 1.08
$ 1.08
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.02
$ 0.78
$
$ 0.23
$ 1.58
$ 1.64
$ 1.39
$ 1.57
$ 1.76
$ 1.90
$ 1.49
$ 1.01
$ 1.01
$ 1.01
$ 1.01
$ 1.01
$ 1.01
$ 1.01
$ 1.01
$ 1.01
$ 1.01
$ 1.01
$ 1.01
$ 1.01
$ 1.01
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.02
$ 0.78
$
$ 0.23
$ 1.94
$ 2.02
$ 1.79
$ 2.00
$ 2.21
$ 2.37
$ 1.80
$ 1.15
$ 1.15
$ 1.15
$ 1.15
$ 1.15
$ 1.15
$ 1.15
$ 1.15
$ 1.15
$ 1.15
$ 1.15
$ 1.15
$ 1.15
$ 1.15
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1a and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2w Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(Ground Water CWSs Serving 100-499 People)
Preferred Alternative
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 5.10
$ 5.10
$ 5.10
$ 5.10
$ 5.10
$ 5.10
$ 2.55
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 4.31
$ 4.31
$ 4.31
$ 4.31
$ 4.31
$ 4.31
$ 2.16
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 5.90
$ 5.90
$ 5.90
$ 5.90
$ 5.90
$ 5.90
$ 2.95
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.57
$ 1.13
$ 1.70
$ 2.26
$ 2.83
$ 3.39
$ 3.68
$ 3.68
$ 3.68
$ 3.68
$ 3.68
$ 3.68
$ 3.68
$ 3.68
$ 3.68
$ 3.68
$ 3.68
$ 3.68
$ 3.68
$ 3.68
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.52
$ 1.04
$ 1.56
$ 2.08
$ 2.60
$ 3.12
$ 3.38
$ 3.38
$ 3.38
$ 3.38
$ 3.38
$ 3.38
$ 3.38
$ 3.38
$ 3.38
$ 3.38
$ 3.38
$ 3.38
$ 3.38
$ 3.38
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.61
$ 1.22
$ 1.83
$ 2.45
$ 3.06
$ 3.67
$ 3.97
$ 3.97
$ 3.97
$ 3.97
$ 3.97
$ 3.97
$ 3.97
$ 3.97
$ 3.97
$ 3.97
$ 3.97
$ 3.97
$ 3.97
$ 3.97
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.02
$ 0.97
$
$ 0.02
$ 0.49
$ 0.48
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.27
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$
$
$ 0.10
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.06
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.02
$ 0.97
$
$ 0.29
$ 5.69
$ 6.16
$ 6.24
$ 6.86
$ 7.49
$ 8.05
$ 6.07
$ 3.80
$ 3.80
$ 3.80
$ 3.80
$ 3.80
$ 3.80
$ 3.80
$ 3.80
$ 3.80
$ 3.80
$ 3.80
$ 3.80
$ 3.80
$ 3.80
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.02
$ 0.97
$
$ 0.29
$ 4.90
$ 5.32
$ 5.35
$ 5.93
$ 6.51
$ 7.03
$ 5.40
$ 3.50
$ 3.50
$ 3.50
$ 3.50
$ 3.50
$ 3.50
$ 3.50
$ 3.50
$ 3.50
$ 3.50
$ 3.50
$ 3.50
$ 3.50
$ 3.50
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.02
$ 0.97
$
$ 0.29
$ 6.49
$ 7.00
$ 7.13
$ 7.80
$ 8.47
$ 9.08
$ 6.74
$ 4.09
$ 4.09
$ 4.09
$ 4.09
$ 4.09
$ 4.09
$ 4.09
$ 4.09
$ 4.09
$ 4.09
$ 4.09
$ 4.09
$ 4.09
$ 4.09
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1a and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2x Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(Ground Water CWSs Serving 500-999 People)
Preferred Alternative
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 3.10
$ 3.10
$ 3.10
$ 3.10
$ 3.10
$ 3.10
$ 1.55
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 2.62
$ 2.62
$ 2.62
$ 2.62
$ 2.62
$ 2.62
$ 1.31
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 3.59
$ 3.59
$ 3.59
$ 3.59
$ 3.59
$ 3.59
$ 1.79
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.30
$ 0.60
$ 0.90
$ 1.21
$ 1.51
$ 1.81
$ 1.96
$ 1.96
$ 1.96
$ 1.96
$ 1.96
$ 1.96
$ 1.96
$ 1.96
$ 1.96
$ 1.96
$ 1.96
$ 1.96
$ 1.96
$ 1.96
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.28
$ 0.55
$ 0.83
$ 1.11
$ 1.39
$ 1.66
$ 1.80
$ 1.80
$ 1.80
$ 1.80
$ 1.80
$ 1.80
$ 1.80
$ 1.80
$ 1.80
$ 1.80
$ 1.80
$ 1.80
$ 1.80
$ 1.80
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.33
$ 0.65
$ 0.98
$ 1.30
$ 1.63
$ 1.95
$ 2.12
$ 2.12
$ 2.12
$ 2.12
$ 2.12
$ 2.12
$ 2.12
$ 2.12
$ 2.12
$ 2.12
$ 2.12
$ 2.12
$ 2.12
$ 2.12
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.01
$ 0.44
$
$ 0.01
$ 0.22
$ 0.22
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 1.93
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$
$
$ 0.51
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.28
$ 0.55
$ 0.55
$ 0.55
$ 0.55
$ 0.55
$ 0.55
$ 0.55
$ 0.55
$ 0.55
$ 0.55
$ 0.55
$ 0.55
$ 0.55
$ 0.55
$ 0.55
$ 0.55
$ 0.55
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.01
$ 0.44
$
$ 1.94
$ 3.83
$ 3.62
$ 3.71
$ 4.29
$ 4.86
$ 5.16
$ 3.91
$ 2.51
$ 2.51
$ 2.51
$ 2.51
$ 2.51
$ 2.51
$ 2.51
$ 2.51
$ 2.51
$ 2.51
$ 2.51
$ 2.51
$ 2.51
$ 2.51
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.01
$ 0.44
$
$ 1.94
$ 3.34
$ 3.11
$ 3.17
$ 3.72
$ 4.28
$ 4.56
$ 3.53
$ 2.36
$ 2.36
$ 2.36
$ 2.36
$ 2.36
$ 2.36
$ 2.36
$ 2.36
$ 2.36
$ 2.36
$ 2.36
$ 2.36
$ 2.36
$ 2.36
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.01
$ 0.44
$
$ 1.94
$ 4.32
$ 4.13
$ 4.24
$ 4.84
$ 5.45
$ 5.77
$ 4.30
$ 2.67
$ 2.67
$ 2.67
$ 2.67
$ 2.67
$ 2.67
$ 2.67
$ 2.67
$ 2.67
$ 2.67
$ 2.67
$ 2.67
$ 2.67
$ 2.67
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1a and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2y Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(Ground Water CWSs Serving 1,000-3,300 People)
Preferred Alternative
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 6.06
$ 6.06
$ 6.06
$ 6.06
$ 6.06
$ 6.06
$ 3.03
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 4.98
$ 4.98
$ 4.98
$ 4.98
$ 4.98
$ 4.98
$ 2.49
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 7.16
$ 7.16
$ 7.16
$ 7.16
$ 7.16
$ 7.16
$ 3.58
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.46
$ 0.92
$ 1.38
$ 1.84
$ 2.30
$ 2.76
$ 2.99
$ 2.99
$ 2.99
$ 2.99
$ 2.99
$ 2.99
$ 2.99
$ 2.99
$ 2.99
$ 2.99
$ 2.99
$ 2.99
$ 2.99
$ 2.99
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.42
$ 0.84
$ 1.26
$ 1.68
$ 2.10
$ 2.52
$ 2.73
$ 2.73
$ 2.73
$ 2.73
$ 2.73
$ 2.73
$ 2.73
$ 2.73
$ 2.73
$ 2.73
$ 2.73
$ 2.73
$ 2.73
$ 2.73
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.50
$ 1.00
$ 1.50
$ 2.00
$ 2.51
$ 3.01
$ 3.26
$ 3.26
$ 3.26
$ 3.26
$ 3.26
$ 3.26
$ 3.26
$ 3.26
$ 3.26
$ 3.26
$ 3.26
$ 3.26
$ 3.26
$ 3.26
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.01
$ 0.53
$
$ 0.01
$ 0.27
$ 0.27
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 2.34
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$
$
$ 0.62
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.34
$ 0.67
$ 0.67
$ 0.67
$ 0.67
$ 0.67
$ 0.67
$ 0.67
$ 0.67
$ 0.67
$ 0.67
$ 0.67
$ 0.67
$ 0.67
$ 0.67
$ 0.67
$ 0.67
$ 0.67
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.01
$ 0.53
$
$ 2.35
$ 6.95
$ 6.79
$ 6.99
$ 7.78
$ 8.58
$ 9.04
$ 6.47
$ 3.67
$ 3.67
$ 3.67
$ 3.67
$ 3.67
$ 3.67
$ 3.67
$ 3.67
$ 3.67
$ 3.67
$ 3.67
$ 3.67
$ 3.67
$ 3.67
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.01
$ 0.53
$
$ 2.35
$ 5.86
$ 5.66
$ 5.82
$ 6.57
$ 7.33
$ 7.75
$ 5.68
$ 3.40
$ 3.40
$ 3.40
$ 3.40
$ 3.40
$ 3.40
$ 3.40
$ 3.40
$ 3.40
$ 3.40
$ 3.40
$ 3.40
$ 3.40
$ 3.40
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.01
$ 0.53
$
$ 2.35
$ 8.04
$ 7.93
$ 8.16
$ 9.00
$ 9.83
$ 10.34
$ 7.26
$ 3.93
$ 3.93
$ 3.93
$ 3.93
$ 3.93
$ 3.93
$ 3.93
$ 3.93
$ 3.93
$ 3.93
$ 3.93
$ 3.93
$ 3.93
$ 3.93
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1a and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2z Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWSCosts
(Ground Water CWSs Serving 3,301-9,999 People)
Preferred Alternative
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 10.14
$ 10.14
$ 10.14
$ 10.14
$ 10.14
$ 10.14
$ 5.07
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 8.23
$ 8.23
$ 8.23
$ 8.23
$ 8.23
$ 8.23
$ 4.12
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 12.05
$ 12.05
$ 12.05
$ 12.05
$ 12.05
$ 12.05
$ 6.02
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.39
$ 0.78
$ 1.17
$ 1.57
$ 1.96
$ 2.35
$ 2.55
$ 2.55
$ 2.55
$ 2.55
$ 2.55
$ 2.55
$ 2.55
$ 2.55
$ 2.55
$ 2.55
$ 2.55
$ 2.55
$ 2.55
$ 2.55
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.36
$ 0.72
$ 1.08
$ 1.44
$ 1.80
$ 2.15
$ 2.33
$ 2.33
$ 2.33
$ 2.33
$ 2.33
$ 2.33
$ 2.33
$ 2.33
$ 2.33
$ 2.33
$ 2.33
$ 2.33
$ 2.33
$ 2.33
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.42
$ 0.85
$ 1.27
$ 1.70
$ 2.12
$ 2.54
$ 2.76
$ 2.76
$ 2.76
$ 2.76
$ 2.76
$ 2.76
$ 2.76
$ 2.76
$ 2.76
$ 2.76
$ 2.76
$ 2.76
$ 2.76
$ 2.76
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.00
$ 0.24
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$
$
$
$ 1.06
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$
$
$ 0.28
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.15
$ 0.30
$ 0.30
$ 0.30
$ 0.30
$ 0.30
$ 0.30
$ 0.30
$ 0.30
$ 0.30
$ 0.30
$ 0.30
$ 0.30
$ 0.30
$ 0.30
$ 0.30
$ 0.30
$ 0.30
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.00
$ 0.24
$
$ 1.07
$ 10.54
$ 10.65
$ 10.92
$ 11.46
$ 12.01
$ 12.40
$ 7.72
$ 2.85
$ 2.85
$ 2.85
$ 2.85
$ 2.85
$ 2.85
$ 2.85
$ 2.85
$ 2.85
$ 2.85
$ 2.85
$ 2.85
$ 2.85
$ 2.85
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.00
$ 0.24
$
$ 1.07
$ 8.63
$ 8.71
$ 8.95
$ 9.46
$ 9.97
$ 10.33
$ 6.58
$ 2.64
$ 2.64
$ 2.64
$ 2.64
$ 2.64
$ 2.64
$ 2.64
$ 2.64
$ 2.64
$ 2.64
$ 2.64
$ 2.64
$ 2.64
$ 2.64
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.00
$ 0.24
$
$ 1.07
$ 12.45
$ 12.59
$ 12.90
$ 13.47
$ 14.05
$ 14.47
$ 8.87
$ 3.06
$ 3.06
$ 3.06
$ 3.06
$ 3.06
$ 3.06
$ 3.06
$ 3.06
$ 3.06
$ 3.06
$ 3.06
$ 3.06
$ 3.06
$ 3.06
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1a and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2aa Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(Ground Water CWSs Serving 10,000-49,999 People)
Preferred Alternative
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 10.74
$ 10.74
$ 10.74
$ 10.74
$ 10.74
$ 5.37
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 9.71
$ 9.71
$ 9.71
$ 9.71
$ 9.71
$ 4.85
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 11.78
$ 11.78
$ 11.78
$ 11.78
$ 11.78
$ 5.89
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.91
$ 1.83
$ 2.74
$ 3.66
$ 4.57
$ 5.03
$ 5.03
$ 5.03
$ 5.03
$ 5.03
$ 5.03
$ 5.03
$ 5.03
$ 5.03
$ 5.03
$ 5.03
$ 5.03
$ 5.03
$ 5.03
$ 5.03
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.87
$ 1.73
$ 2.60
$ 3.46
$ 4.33
$ 4.76
$ 4.76
$ 4.76
$ 4.76
$ 4.76
$ 4.76
$ 4.76
$ 4.76
$ 4.76
$ 4.76
$ 4.76
$ 4.76
$ 4.76
$ 4.76
$ 4.76
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.96
$ 1.93
$ 2.89
$ 3.86
$ 4.82
$ 5.30
$ 5.30
$ 5.30
$ 5.30
$ 5.30
$ 5.30
$ 5.30
$ 5.30
$ 5.30
$ 5.30
$ 5.30
$ 5.30
$ 5.30
$ 5.30
$ 5.30
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.05
$ 0.35
$
$ 0.04
$ 0.18
$ 0.17
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ -
$ 0.82
$ 0.82
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$
$ 0.16
$ 0.16
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.06
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.05
$ 0.35
$ 0.82
$ 1.03
$ 11.08
$ 11.83
$ 12.57
$ 13.54
$ 14.52
$ 10.06
$ 5.15
$ 5.15
$ 5.15
$ 5.15
$ 5.15
$ 5.15
$ 5.15
$ 5.15
$ 5.15
$ 5.15
$ 5.15
$ 5.15
$ 5.15
$ 5.15
$ 5.15
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.05
$ 0.35
$ 0.82
$ 1.03
$ 10.05
$ 10.75
$ 11.44
$ 12.36
$ 13.29
$ 9.30
$ 4.88
$ 4.88
$ 4.88
$ 4.88
$ 4.88
$ 4.88
$ 4.88
$ 4.88
$ 4.88
$ 4.88
$ 4.88
$ 4.88
$ 4.88
$ 4.88
$ 4.88
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.05
$ 0.35
$ 0.82
$ 1.03
$ 12.12
$ 12.92
$ 13.71
$ 14.73
$ 15.75
$ 10.83
$ 5.42
$ 5.42
$ 5.42
$ 5.42
$ 5.42
$ 5.42
$ 5.42
$ 5.42
$ 5.42
$ 5.42
$ 5.42
$ 5.42
$ 5.42
$ 5.42
$ 5.42
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1 a and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2ab Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(Ground Water CWSs Serving 50,000-99,999 People)
Preferred Alternative
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 3.32
$ 3.32
$ 3.32
$ 3.32
$ 1.66
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 2.97
$ 2.97
$ 2.97
$ 2.97
$ 1.49
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 3.67
$ 3.67
$ 3.67
$ 3.67
$ 1.84
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.28
$ 0.57
$ 0.85
$ 1.14
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.27
$ 0.53
$ 0.80
$ 1.07
$ 1.20
$ 1.20
$ 1.20
$ 1.20
$ 1.20
$ 1.20
$ 1.20
$ 1.20
$ 1.20
$ 1.20
$ 1.20
$ 1.20
$ 1.20
$ 1.20
$ 1.20
$ 1.20
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.30
$ 0.60
$ 0.91
$ 1.21
$ 1.36
$ 1.36
$ 1.36
$ 1.36
$ 1.36
$ 1.36
$ 1.36
$ 1.36
$ 1.36
$ 1.36
$ 1.36
$ 1.36
$ 1.36
$ 1.36
$ 1.36
$ 1.36
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.04
$
$
$ 0.03
$ 0.02
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ -
$ 0.18
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$
$ 0.04
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.04
$
$ 0.18
$ 0.06
$ 3.34
$ 3.61
$ 3.90
$ 4.19
$ 2.81
$ 1.29
$ 1.29
$ 1.29
$ 1.29
$ 1.29
$ 1.29
$ 1.29
$ 1.29
$ 1.29
$ 1.29
$ 1.29
$ 1.29
$ 1.29
$ 1.29
$ 1.29
$ 1.29
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.04
$
$ 0.18
$ 0.06
$ 2.99
$ 3.24
$ 3.51
$ 3.79
$ 2.57
$ 1.21
$ 1.21
$ 1.21
$ 1.21
$ 1.21
$ 1.21
$ 1.21
$ 1.21
$ 1.21
$ 1.21
$ 1.21
$ 1.21
$ 1.21
$ 1.21
$ 1.21
$ 1.21
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.04
$
$ 0.18
$ 0.06
$ 3.69
$ 3.98
$ 4.28
$ 4.59
$ 3.06
$ 1.37
$ 1.37
$ 1.37
$ 1.37
$ 1.37
$ 1.37
$ 1.37
$ 1.37
$ 1.37
$ 1.37
$ 1.37
$ 1.37
$ 1.37
$ 1.37
$ 1.37
$ 1.37
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1a and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2ac Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(Ground Water CWSs Serving 100,000-999,999 People)
Preferred Alternative
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 7.42
$ 7.42
$ 7.42
$ 7.42
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 6.61
$ 6.61
$ 6.61
$ 6.61
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 8.24
$ 8.24
$ 8.24
$ 8.24
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.71
$ 1.41
$ 2.12
$ 2.83
$ 2.83
$ 2.83
$ 2.83
$ 2.83
$ 2.83
$ 2.83
$ 2.83
$ 2.83
$ 2.83
$ 2.83
$ 2.83
$ 2.83
$ 2.83
$ 2.83
$ 2.83
$ 2.83
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.66
$ 1.32
$ 1.98
$ 2.64
$ 2.64
$ 2.64
$ 2.64
$ 2.64
$ 2.64
$ 2.64
$ 2.64
$ 2.64
$ 2.64
$ 2.64
$ 2.64
$ 2.64
$ 2.64
$ 2.64
$ 2.64
$ 2.64
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.76
$ 1.51
$ 2.27
$ 3.02
$ 3.02
$ 3.02
$ 3.02
$ 3.02
$ 3.02
$ 3.02
$ 3.02
$ 3.02
$ 3.02
$ 3.02
$ 3.02
$ 3.02
$ 3.02
$ 3.02
$ 3.02
$ 3.02
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.02
$
$
$ 0.02
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ 0.08
$ 0.08
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ (0.09)
$ (0.09)
$ (0.09)
$ (0.09)
$ (0.09)
$ (0.09)
$ (0.09)
$ (0.09)
$ (0.09)
$ (0.09)
$ (0.09)
$ (0.09)
$ (0.09)
$ (0.09)
$ (0.09)
$ (0.09)
$ (0.09)
$ (0.09)
$ (0.09)
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.02
$ 0.08
$ 0.10
$ 0.04
$ 7.42
$ 8.13
$ 8.75
$ 9.45
$ 2.74
$ 2.74
$ 2.74
$ 2.74
$ 2.74
$ 2.74
$ 2.74
$ 2.74
$ 2.74
$ 2.74
$ 2.74
$ 2.74
$ 2.74
$ 2.74
$ 2.74
$ 2.74
$ 2.74
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.02
$ 0.08
$ 0.10
$ 0.04
$ 6.61
$ 7.27
$ 7.83
$ 8.49
$ 2.54
$ 2.54
$ 2.54
$ 2.54
$ 2.54
$ 2.54
$ 2.54
$ 2.54
$ 2.54
$ 2.54
$ 2.54
$ 2.54
$ 2.54
$ 2.54
$ 2.54
$ 2.54
$ 2.54
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.02
$ 0.08
$ 0.10
$ 0.04
$ 8.24
$ 8.99
$ 9.66
$ 10.41
$ 2.93
$ 2.93
$ 2.93
$ 2.93
$ 2.93
$ 2.93
$ 2.93
$ 2.93
$ 2.93
$ 2.93
$ 2.93
$ 2.93
$ 2.93
$ 2.93
$ 2.93
$ 2.93
$ 2.93
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1a and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2ad Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(Ground Water CWSs Serving 1,000,000+ People)
Preferred Alternative
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 0.85
$ 0.85
$ 0.85
$ 0.85
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.74
$ 0.74
$ 0.74
$ 0.74
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.95
$ 0.95
$ 0.95
$ 0.95
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.11
$ 0.22
$ 0.32
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.10
$ 0.20
$ 0.30
$ 0.40
$ 0.40
$ 0.40
$ 0.40
$ 0.40
$ 0.40
$ 0.40
$ 0.40
$ 0.40
$ 0.40
$ 0.40
$ 0.40
$ 0.40
$ 0.40
$ 0.40
$ 0.40
$ 0.40
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.12
$ 0.23
$ 0.35
$ 0.46
$ 0.46
$ 0.46
$ 0.46
$ 0.46
$ 0.46
$ 0.46
$ 0.46
$ 0.46
$ 0.46
$ 0.46
$ 0.46
$ 0.46
$ 0.46
$ 0.46
$ 0.46
$ 0.46
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.00
$
$
$ 0.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ (0.03)
$ (0.03)
$ (0.03)
$ (0.03)
$ (0.03)
$ (0.03)
$ (0.03)
$ (0.03)
$ (0.03)
$ (0.03)
$ (0.03)
$ (0.03)
$ (0.03)
$ (0.03)
$ (0.03)
$ (0.03)
$ (0.03)
$ (0.03)
$ (0.03)
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.85
$ 0.95
$ 1.04
$ 1.14
$ 0.41
$ 0.41
$ 0.41
$ 0.41
$ 0.41
$ 0.41
$ 0.41
$ 0.41
$ 0.41
$ 0.41
$ 0.41
$ 0.41
$ 0.41
$ 0.41
$ 0.41
$ 0.41
$ 0.41
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.74
$ 0.84
$ 0.92
$ 1.02
$ 0.37
$ 0.37
$ 0.37
$ 0.37
$ 0.37
$ 0.37
$ 0.37
$ 0.37
$ 0.37
$ 0.37
$ 0.37
$ 0.37
$ 0.37
$ 0.37
$ 0.37
$ 0.37
$ 0.37
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.95
$ 1.06
$ 1.16
$ 1.27
$ 0.44
$ 0.44
$ 0.44
$ 0.44
$ 0.44
$ 0.44
$ 0.44
$ 0.44
$ 0.44
$ 0.44
$ 0.44
$ 0.44
$ 0.44
$ 0.44
$ 0.44
$ 0.44
$ 0.44
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1a and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2ae Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(All Ground Water CWSs)
Preferred Alternative
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 48.03
$ 48.03
$ 48.03
$ 48.03
$ 38.10
$ 31.06
$ 12.85
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 41.27
$ 41.27
$ 41.27
$ 41.27
$ 32.43
$ 26.09
$ 10.62
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 54.80
$ 54.80
$ 54.80
$ 54.80
$ 43.78
$ 36.05
$ 15.08
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 3.88
$ 7.77
$ 11.65
$ 15.54
$ 18.46
$ 20.79
$ 21.73
$ 21.73
$ 21.73
$ 21.73
$ 21.73
$ 21.73
$ 21.73
$ 21.73
$ 21.73
$ 21.73
$ 21.73
$ 21.73
$ 21.73
$ 21.73
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 3.61
$ 7.21
$ 10.82
$ 14.43
$ 17.14
$ 19.29
$ 20.15
$ 20.15
$ 20.15
$ 20.15
$ 20.15
$ 20.15
$ 20.15
$ 20.15
$ 20.15
$ 20.15
$ 20.15
$ 20.15
$ 20.15
$ 20.15
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 4.16
$ 8.32
$ 12.49
$ 16.65
$ 19.79
$ 22.29
$ 23.31
$ 23.31
$ 23.31
$ 23.31
$ 23.31
$ 23.31
$ 23.31
$ 23.31
$ 23.31
$ 23.31
$ 23.31
$ 23.31
$ 23.31
$ 23.31
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.18
$ 3.31
$
$ 0.14
$ 1.69
$ 1.66
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$
$ 0.09
$ 1.09
$ 6.66
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 0.02
$ 0.21
$ 1.74
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ (0.11)
$ 0.83
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.18
$ 3.40
$ 1.11
$ 7.01
$ 51.46
$ 53.57
$ 55.69
$ 60.51
$ 55.39
$ 51.29
$ 35.40
$ 23.49
$ 23.49
$ 23.49
$ 23.49
$ 23.49
$ 23.49
$ 23.49
$ 23.49
$ 23.49
$ 23.49
$ 23.49
$ 23.49
$ 23.49
$ 23.49
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.18
$ 3.40
$ 1.11
$ 7.01
$ 44.70
$ 46.54
$ 48.38
$ 52.92
$ 48.62
$ 45.00
$ 31.67
$ 21.91
$ 21.91
$ 21.91
$ 21.91
$ 21.91
$ 21.91
$ 21.91
$ 21.91
$ 21.91
$ 21.91
$ 21.91
$ 21.91
$ 21.91
$ 21.91
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.18
$ 3.40
$ 1.11
$ 7.01
$ 58.23
$ 60.62
$ 63.02
$ 68.12
$ 62.19
$ 57.60
$ 39.14
$ 25.07
$ 25.07
$ 25.07
$ 25.07
$ 25.07
$ 25.07
$ 25.07
$ 25.07
$ 25.07
$ 25.07
$ 25.07
$ 25.07
$ 25.07
$ 25.07
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1a and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2af Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(Ground Water NTNCWSs Serving <100 People)
Preferred Alternative
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 0.49
$ 0.49
$ 0.49
$ 0.49
$ 0.49
$ 0.49
$ 0.24
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.42
$ 0.42
$ 0.42
$ 0.42
$ 0.42
$ 0.42
$ 0.21
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.56
$ 0.56
$ 0.56
$ 0.56
$ 0.56
$ 0.56
$ 0.28
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.06
$ 0.11
$ 0.17
$ 0.23
$ 0.29
$ 0.34
$ 0.37
$ 0.37
$ 0.37
$ 0.37
$ 0.37
$ 0.37
$ 0.37
$ 0.37
$ 0.37
$ 0.37
$ 0.37
$ 0.37
$ 0.37
$ 0.37
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.05
$ 0.11
$ 0.16
$ 0.21
$ 0.27
$ 0.32
$ 0.35
$ 0.35
$ 0.35
$ 0.35
$ 0.35
$ 0.35
$ 0.35
$ 0.35
$ 0.35
$ 0.35
$ 0.35
$ 0.35
$ 0.35
$ 0.35
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.06
$ 0.12
$ 0.18
$ 0.25
$ 0.31
$ 0.37
$ 0.40
$ 0.40
$ 0.40
$ 0.40
$ 0.40
$ 0.40
$ 0.40
$ 0.40
$ 0.40
$ 0.40
$ 0.40
$ 0.40
$ 0.40
$ 0.40
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.00
$ 0.25
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.12
$ 0.12
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$
$
$ 0.07
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.09
$ 0.18
$ 0.18
$ 0.18
$ 0.18
$ 0.18
$ 0.18
$ 0.18
$ 0.18
$ 0.18
$ 0.18
$ 0.18
$ 0.18
$ 0.18
$ 0.18
$ 0.18
$ 0.18
$ 0.18
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.00
$ 0.25
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.69
$ 0.67
$ 0.60
$ 0.75
$ 0.89
$ 0.95
$ 0.76
$ 0.55
$ 0.55
$ 0.55
$ 0.55
$ 0.55
$ 0.55
$ 0.55
$ 0.55
$ 0.55
$ 0.55
$ 0.55
$ 0.55
$ 0.55
$ 0.55
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.00
$ 0.25
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.62
$ 0.60
$ 0.53
$ 0.67
$ 0.81
$ 0.86
$ 0.70
$ 0.52
$ 0.52
$ 0.52
$ 0.52
$ 0.52
$ 0.52
$ 0.52
$ 0.52
$ 0.52
$ 0.52
$ 0.52
$ 0.52
$ 0.52
$ 0.52
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.00
$ 0.25
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.76
$ 0.74
$ 0.68
$ 0.83
$ 0.98
$ 1.04
$ 0.82
$ 0.58
$ 0.58
$ 0.58
$ 0.58
$ 0.58
$ 0.58
$ 0.58
$ 0.58
$ 0.58
$ 0.58
$ 0.58
$ 0.58
$ 0.58
$ 0.58
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1a and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2ag Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(Ground Water NTNCWSs Serving 100-499 People)
Preferred Alternative
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 0.77
$ 0.77
$ 0.77
$ 0.77
$ 0.77
$ 0.77
$ 0.39
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.65
$ 0.65
$ 0.65
$ 0.65
$ 0.65
$ 0.65
$ 0.33
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.89
$ 0.89
$ 0.89
$ 0.89
$ 0.89
$ 0.89
$ 0.45
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.09
$ 0.17
$ 0.26
$ 0.34
$ 0.43
$ 0.51
$ 0.55
$ 0.55
$ 0.55
$ 0.55
$ 0.55
$ 0.55
$ 0.55
$ 0.55
$ 0.55
$ 0.55
$ 0.55
$ 0.55
$ 0.55
$ 0.55
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.08
$ 0.16
$ 0.23
$ 0.31
$ 0.39
$ 0.47
$ 0.51
$ 0.51
$ 0.51
$ 0.51
$ 0.51
$ 0.51
$ 0.51
$ 0.51
$ 0.51
$ 0.51
$ 0.51
$ 0.51
$ 0.51
$ 0.51
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.09
$ 0.18
$ 0.28
$ 0.37
$ 0.46
$ 0.55
$ 0.60
$ 0.60
$ 0.60
$ 0.60
$ 0.60
$ 0.60
$ 0.60
$ 0.60
$ 0.60
$ 0.60
$ 0.60
$ 0.60
$ 0.60
$ 0.60
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.00
$ 0.21
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$
$
$ 0.06
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.07
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
$ 0.15
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.00
$ 0.21
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.94
$ 0.97
$ 0.94
$ 1.10
$ 1.26
$ 1.35
$ 1.05
$ 0.70
$ 0.70
$ 0.70
$ 0.70
$ 0.70
$ 0.70
$ 0.70
$ 0.70
$ 0.70
$ 0.70
$ 0.70
$ 0.70
$ 0.70
$ 0.70
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.00
$ 0.21
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.82
$ 0.84
$ 0.81
$ 0.96
$ 1.12
$ 1.19
$ 0.95
$ 0.66
$ 0.66
$ 0.66
$ 0.66
$ 0.66
$ 0.66
$ 0.66
$ 0.66
$ 0.66
$ 0.66
$ 0.66
$ 0.66
$ 0.66
$ 0.66
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.00
$ 0.21
$
$ 0.00
$ 1.06
$ 1.09
$ 1.08
$ 1.24
$ 1.41
$ 1.50
$ 1.15
$ 0.75
$ 0.75
$ 0.75
$ 0.75
$ 0.75
$ 0.75
$ 0.75
$ 0.75
$ 0.75
$ 0.75
$ 0.75
$ 0.75
$ 0.75
$ 0.75
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1a and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2ah Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(Ground Water NTNCWSs Serving 500-999 People)
Preferred Alternative
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 0.38
$ 0.38
$ 0.38
$ 0.38
$ 0.38
$ 0.38
$ 0.19
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.32
$ 0.32
$ 0.32
$ 0.32
$ 0.32
$ 0.32
$ 0.16
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.44
$ 0.44
$ 0.44
$ 0.44
$ 0.44
$ 0.44
$ 0.22
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.04
$ 0.07
$ 0.11
$ 0.14
$ 0.18
$ 0.21
$ 0.23
$ 0.23
$ 0.23
$ 0.23
$ 0.23
$ 0.23
$ 0.23
$ 0.23
$ 0.23
$ 0.23
$ 0.23
$ 0.23
$ 0.23
$ 0.23
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.03
$ 0.07
$ 0.10
$ 0.13
$ 0.16
$ 0.20
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.04
$ 0.08
$ 0.11
$ 0.15
$ 0.19
$ 0.23
$ 0.25
$ 0.25
$ 0.25
$ 0.25
$ 0.25
$ 0.25
$ 0.25
$ 0.25
$ 0.25
$ 0.25
$ 0.25
$ 0.25
$ 0.25
$ 0.25
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.00
$ 0.07
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$
$
$ 0.05
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.13
$ 0.25
$ 0.25
$ 0.25
$ 0.25
$ 0.25
$ 0.25
$ 0.25
$ 0.25
$ 0.25
$ 0.25
$ 0.25
$ 0.25
$ 0.25
$ 0.25
$ 0.25
$ 0.25
$ 0.25
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.00
$ 0.07
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.47
$ 0.45
$ 0.45
$ 0.61
$ 0.78
$ 0.81
$ 0.66
$ 0.48
$ 0.48
$ 0.48
$ 0.48
$ 0.48
$ 0.48
$ 0.48
$ 0.48
$ 0.48
$ 0.48
$ 0.48
$ 0.48
$ 0.48
$ 0.48
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.00
$ 0.07
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.40
$ 0.38
$ 0.38
$ 0.54
$ 0.70
$ 0.74
$ 0.61
$ 0.47
$ 0.47
$ 0.47
$ 0.47
$ 0.47
$ 0.47
$ 0.47
$ 0.47
$ 0.47
$ 0.47
$ 0.47
$ 0.47
$ 0.47
$ 0.47
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.00
$ 0.07
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.53
$ 0.51
$ 0.52
$ 0.68
$ 0.85
$ 0.89
$ 0.70
$ 0.50
$ 0.50
$ 0.50
$ 0.50
$ 0.50
$ 0.50
$ 0.50
$ 0.50
$ 0.50
$ 0.50
$ 0.50
$ 0.50
$ 0.50
$ 0.50
Note:
Source:
All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Derived from Exhibits J.1a and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2ai Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(Ground Water NTNCWSs Serving 1,000-3,300 People)
Preferred Alternative
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 0.25
$ 0.25
$ 0.25
$ 0.25
$ 0.25
$ 0.25
$ 0.12
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
$ 0.10
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.29
$ 0.29
$ 0.29
$ 0.29
$ 0.29
$ 0.29
$ 0.15
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.02
$ 0.03
$ 0.05
$ 0.06
$ 0.08
$ 0.09
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.01
$ 0.03
$ 0.04
$ 0.06
$ 0.07
$ 0.09
$ 0.09
$ 0.09
$ 0.09
$ 0.09
$ 0.09
$ 0.09
$ 0.09
$ 0.09
$ 0.09
$ 0.09
$ 0.09
$ 0.09
$ 0.09
$ 0.09
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.02
$ 0.03
$ 0.05
$ 0.07
$ 0.09
$ 0.10
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.00
$ 0.03
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$
$
$ 0.02
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.05
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.00
$ 0.03
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.28
$ 0.28
$ 0.28
$ 0.35
$ 0.42
$ 0.43
$ 0.32
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.00
$ 0.03
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.24
$ 0.23
$ 0.23
$ 0.30
$ 0.37
$ 0.38
$ 0.29
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
$ 0.20
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.00
$ 0.03
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.33
$ 0.32
$ 0.33
$ 0.40
$ 0.47
$ 0.48
$ 0.36
$ 0.22
$ 0.22
$ 0.22
$ 0.22
$ 0.22
$ 0.22
$ 0.22
$ 0.22
$ 0.22
$ 0.22
$ 0.22
$ 0.22
$ 0.22
$ 0.22
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1a and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2aj Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWSCosts
(Ground Water NTNCWSs Serving 3,301 -9,999 People)
Preferred Alternative
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.04
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence
Bound
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.03
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.08
$0.08
$0.08
$0.08
$0.08
$0.08
$0.04
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$
$
$ 0.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitorina
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.08
$ 0.08
$ 0.09
$ 0.09
$ 0.06
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th
%tile)
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.08
$ 0.05
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.09
$ 0.09
$ 0.09
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
$ 0.11
$ 0.07
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1a and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2ak Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(Ground Water NTNCWSs Serving 10,000-49,999 People)
Preferred Alternative
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.01
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.01
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.01
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$
$ 0.00
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ -
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.03
$ 0.04
$ 0.03
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.03
$ 0.04
$ 0.03
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1a and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2al Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(Ground Water NTNCWSs Serving 50,000-99,999 People)
Preferred Alternative
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tlle)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th
%tlle)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.00
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.00
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ -
$ 0.00
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$
$ 0.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.00
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.00
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.00
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1a and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2am Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(Ground Water NTNCWSs Serving 100,000-999,999 People)
Preferred Alternative
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.00
$
$
$ 0.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.00
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.00
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.00
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
$ 0.01
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1a and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2an Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(Ground Water NTNCWSs Serving 1,000,000+ People)
Preferred Alternative
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1a and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2ao Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(All Ground Water NTNCWSs)
Preferred Alternative
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 1.99
$ 1.99
$ 1.99
$ 1.99
$ 1.98
$ 1.97
$ 0.98
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 1.68
$ 1.68
$ 1.68
$ 1.68
$ 1.67
$ 1.66
$ 0.83
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 2.30
$ 2.30
$ 2.30
$ 2.30
$ 2.29
$ 2.28
$ 1.13
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.20
$ 0.40
$ 0.59
$ 0.79
$ 0.99
$ 1.19
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.18
$ 0.37
$ 0.55
$ 0.73
$ 0.91
$ 1.09
$ 1.18
$ 1.18
$ 1.18
$ 1.18
$ 1.18
$ 1.18
$ 1.18
$ 1.18
$ 1.18
$ 1.18
$ 1.18
$ 1.18
$ 1.18
$ 1.18
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.21
$ 0.43
$ 0.64
$ 0.86
$ 1.07
$ 1.28
$ 1.39
$ 1.39
$ 1.39
$ 1.39
$ 1.39
$ 1.39
$ 1.39
$ 1.39
$ 1.39
$ 1.39
$ 1.39
$ 1.39
$ 1.39
$ 1.39
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.00
$ 0.56
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.28
$ 0.28
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ -
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.21
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.36
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.00
$ 0.56
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 2.48
$ 2.47
$ 2.39
$ 2.94
$ 3.49
$ 3.67
$ 2.88
$ 2.00
$ 2.00
$ 2.00
$ 2.00
$ 2.00
$ 2.00
$ 2.00
$ 2.00
$ 2.00
$ 2.00
$ 2.00
$ 2.00
$ 2.00
$ 2.00
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.00
$ 0.56
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 2.17
$ 2.14
$ 2.05
$ 2.58
$ 3.11
$ 3.28
$ 2.63
$ 1.89
$ 1.89
$ 1.89
$ 1.89
$ 1.89
$ 1.89
$ 1.89
$ 1.89
$ 1.89
$ 1.89
$ 1.89
$ 1.89
$ 1.89
$ 1.89
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.00
$ 0.56
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 2.79
$ 2.79
$ 2.73
$ 3.30
$ 3.86
$ 4.06
$ 3.12
$ 2.10
$ 2.10
$ 2.10
$ 2.10
$ 2.10
$ 2.10
$ 2.10
$ 2.10
$ 2.10
$ 2.10
$ 2.10
$ 2.10
$ 2.10
$ 2.10
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1a and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2ap Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(All Ground Water Systems)
Preferred Alternative
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 50.02
$ 50.02
$ 50.02
$ 50.02
$ 40.08
$ 33.03
$13.83
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence
Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$42.95
$42.95
$42.95
$42.95
$34.10
$27.75
$11.45
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$57.11
$57.11
$57.11
$57.11
$ 46.07
$ 38.33
$16.22
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 4.08
$ 8.17
$12.25
$16.33
$19.45
$21.98
$23.01
$23.01
$23.01
$23.01
$23.01
$23.01
$23.01
$23.01
$23.01
$23.01
$23.01
$23.01
$23.01
$23.01
90 Percent
Confidence
Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 3.79
$ 7.58
$ 11.37
$ 15.16
$18.06
$ 20.39
$21.34
$21.34
$21.34
$21.34
$21.34
$21.34
$21.34
$21.34
$21.34
$21.34
$21.34
$21.34
$21.34
$21.34
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 4.38
$ 8.75
$ 13.13
$ 17.50
$ 20.86
$ 23.57
$ 24.69
$ 24.69
$ 24.69
$ 24.69
$ 24.69
$ 24.69
$ 24.69
$ 24.69
$ 24.69
$ 24.69
$ 24.69
$ 24.69
$ 24.69
$ 24.69
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.18
$ 3.87
$
$ 0.14
$ 1.97
$ 1.94
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ 0.09
$ 1.09
$ 6.66
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 0.02
$ 0.21
$ 1.95
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ (0.11)
$ 1.18
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
Operational
Evaluations
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.18
$ 3.96
$ 1.11
$ 7.01
$ 53.94
$ 56.04
$ 58.08
$ 63.45
$ 58.88
$ 54.96
$ 38.28
$ 25.48
$ 25.48
$ 25.48
$ 25.48
$ 25.48
$ 25.48
$ 25.48
$ 25.48
$ 25.48
$ 25.48
$ 25.48
$ 25.48
$ 25.48
$ 25.48
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ 0.18
$ 3.96
$ 1.11
$ 7.01
$ 46.87
$ 48.68
$ 50.42
$ 55.51
$ 51.73
$ 48.28
$ 34.31
$ 23.81
$ 23.81
$ 23.81
$ 23.81
$ 23.81
$ 23.81
$ 23.81
$ 23.81
$ 23.81
$ 23.81
$ 23.81
$ 23.81
$ 23.81
$ 23.81
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 0.18
$ 3.96
$ 1.11
$ 7.01
$ 61.02
$ 63.42
$ 65.75
$ 71.42
$ 66.04
$ 61.66
$ 42.26
$ 27.16
$ 27.16
$ 27.16
$ 27.16
$ 27.16
$ 27.16
$ 27.16
$ 27.16
$ 27.16
$ 27.16
$ 27.16
$ 27.16
$ 27.16
$ 27.16
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1a and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2aq Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(All Systems)
Preferred Alternative
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$168.80
$168.80
$168.80
$ 168.80
$ 83.76
$ 58.89
$ 21.58
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$107.65
$107.65
$107.65
$ 107.65
$ 58.26
$ 42.02
$ 15.72
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 224.24
$ 224.24
$ 224.24
$ 224.24
$ 108.13
$ 75.66
$ 27.71
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$10.95
$21.90
$ 32.85
$43.81
$50.15
$ 54.95
$ 56.85
$ 56.85
$ 56.85
$ 56.85
$ 56.85
$ 56.85
$ 56.85
$ 56.85
$ 56.85
$ 56.85
$ 56.85
$ 56.85
$ 56.85
$ 56.85
90 Percent
Confidence
Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 8.00
$16.00
$23.99
$31.99
$36.78
$40.42
$41.85
$41.85
$41.85
$41.85
$41.85
$41.85
$41.85
$41.85
$41.85
$41.85
$41.85
$41.85
$41.85
$41.85
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$14.64
$29.27
$43.91
$58.54
$66.54
$72.55
$74.93
$74.93
$74.93
$74.93
$74.93
$74.93
$74.93
$74.93
$74.93
$74.93
$74.93
$74.93
$74.93
$74.93
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 1.06
$ 5.09
$
$ 0.93
$ 2.68
$ 2.55
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$10.70
$24.07
$22.67
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 0.30
$ 0.85
$ 2.70
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitorina
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.32
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
Operationa
I
Evaluation
s
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.06
$ 0.15
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 1.06
$ 15.80
$ 24.36
$ 24.45
$ 174.17
$ 182.29
$ 191.02
$ 202.15
$ 128.14
$ 109.68
$ 77.18
$ 57.50
$ 57.50
$ 57.50
$ 57.50
$ 57.50
$ 57.50
$ 57.50
$ 57.50
$ 57.50
$ 57.50
$ 57.50
$ 57.50
$ 57.50
$ 57.50
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ 1.06
$ 15.80
$ 24.36
$ 24.45
$113.03
$118.20
$123.97
$132.14
$ 90.83
$ 79.44
$ 56.78
$ 42.49
$ 42.49
$ 42.49
$ 42.49
$ 42.49
$ 42.49
$ 42.49
$ 42.49
$ 42.49
$ 42.49
$ 42.49
$ 42.49
$ 42.49
$ 42.49
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 1.06
$ 15.80
$ 24.36
$ 24.45
$ 229.61
$241.42
$ 253.82
$ 268.64
$ 167.25
$ 142.84
$100.90
$ 75.57
$ 75.57
$ 75.57
$ 75.57
$ 75.57
$ 75.57
$ 75.57
$ 75.57
$ 75.57
$ 75.57
$ 75.57
$ 75.57
$ 75.57
$ 75.57
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1a and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2ar Projections of Stage 2 DBPR Primacy Agency Costs
Preferred Alternative
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Implementation Costs
$ 3.88
$ 3.88
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE Costs
$
$ 0.05
$ 0.14
$ 2.03
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring Plan
Costs
$
$
$ 0.02
$ 0.06
$ 0.84
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Compliance
Monitoring Costs
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
Operational
Evaluations
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1h and D.7.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2as Present Value of Annual Cost Projections at 3% Discount Rate
(All Systems and Primacy Agencies)
Preferred Alternative
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Ann.
SurfaceWaterCWS
Mean
Value
$ OS
$ 108
$ 206
$ 150
$ 997
$ 1051
$ 263
$ 21 1
$ 199
$ 193
$ 187
$ 182
$ 177
$ 172
$ 162
$ 157
$ 152
$ 148
$ 144
$ 47.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$ 08
$ 108
$ 206
$ 150
$ 548
$ 559
$ 580
$ 123
$ 11 6
$ 11 3
$ 109
$ 106
$ 103
$ 100
$ 92
$ 89
Ť 86
Upper
(95th%tile)
$ 08
$ 108
$ 206
$ 150
$ 1398
$ 1432
$ 1493
$ 320
$ 301
$ 292
$ 276
$ 260
$ 238
$ 231
SurfaceWaterNTNCWS
Mean
Value
$ 00
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 10
$ 12
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
Operational
Evaluation
Lower
(5th
%tlle)
$ 00
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 06
$ 06
$ 07
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
Upper
(95th%tlle
$ 00
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 14
$ 16
$ 18
$ 10
$ 10
$ 09
$ 08
$ 07
Disinfecting Ground Water CWS
Mean
Value
$ 02
$ 31
$ 10
$ 60
$ 431
$ 436
$ 464
$ 160
$ 151
$ 146
$ 130
$ 116
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$ 02
$ 31
$ 10
$ 60
$ 374
$ 378
$ 406
$ 222
$ 149
$ 141
$ 137
$ 133
$ 121
$ 108
Upper
(95th%tile]
$ 02
$ 31
$ 10
$ 60
$ 488
$ 493
$ 497
$ 522
$ 274
$ 171
$ 161
$ 156
$ 152
$ 139
$ 123
Disinfecting Ground Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$ 00
$ 05
$ 00
$ 00
$ 21
$ 20
$ 19
$ 23
$ 20
$ 14
$ 13
$ 12
$ 12
$ 1 1
$ 11
$ 11
$ 10
$ 10
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$ 00
$ 05
$ 00
$ 00
$ 18
$ 17
$ 16
$ 20
$ 18
$ 13
$ 12
$ 12
$ 11
$ 1 1
$ 1 1
$ 10
$ 10
$ 10
$ 09
Upper
(95th%tile)
$ 00
$ 05
$ 00
$ 00
$ 23
$ 23
$ 22
$ 25
$ 29
$ 29
$ 22
$ 14
$ 13
$ 13
$ 13
$ 12
$ 12
$ 12
$ 11
$ 1 1
$ 10
Primacy Agencies
Point Estimate
$ 36
$ 01
$ 18
$ 07
$ 13
$ 13
$ 13
$ 12
$ 12
$ 12
$ 1 1
$ 1 1
$ 10
$ 10
$ 10
$ 09
$ 09
$ 09
$ 08
$ 08
Total
Mean
Value
$ 181
$ 218
$ 229
$ 1466
$ 1521
$ 1562
$ 966
$ 805
$ 553
$ 403
$ 391
$ 380
$ 369
$ 358
$ 348
$ 338
$ 328
$ 318
$ 309
$ 291
$ 283
$ 1,372.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$ 181
$ 218
$ 229
$ 954
$ 961
$ 992
$ 1026
$ 689
$ 586
$ 41 0
$ 301
$ 292
$ 284
$ 275
$ 267
$ 260
$ 252
$ 245
S 238
$ 231
$ 217
$ 21 1
$ 205
$ 979.4
Upper
(95th%tile)
$ 181
$ 218
$ 229
$ 1930
$ 1963
$ 2017
$ 2072
$ 1257
$ 1044
$ 720
$ 526
$ 51 1
$ 496
$ 482
$ 468
$ 454
$ 441
$ 428
$ 415
$ 403
$ 392
$ 380
$ 369
$ 358
$ 1,780.0
Final EconomK Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
-------
Exhibit J.2at Present Value of Annual Treatment Capital Cost Projections at 3% Discount Rate
(All Systems)
Preferred Alternative
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Total
Ann.
Surface Water CWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 98.5
$ 95.7
$ 92.9
$ 90.2
$ 31.7
$ 18.0
$ 5.1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 432.0
$ 24.8
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 53.7
$ 52.1
$ 50.6
$ 49.1
$ 17.6
$ 9.9
$ 2.8
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 235.8
$ 13.5
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 138.6
$ 134.5
$ 130.6
$ 126.8
$ 45.0
$ 25.9
$ 7.6
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 609.1
$ 35.0
Surface Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.3
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 5.4
$ 0.3
Operational Evaluation
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.2
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 3.0
$ 0.2
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 0.5
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 8.0
$ 0.5
Disinfecting Ground Water CWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 40.2
$ 39.1
$ 37.9
$ 36.8
$ 28.3
$ 22.4
$ 9.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 213.8
$ 12.3
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 34.6
$ 33.6
$ 32.6
$ 31.6
$ 24.1
$ 18.9
$ 7.4
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 182.8
$ 10.5
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 45.9
$ 44.6
$ 43.3
$ 42.0
$ 32.6
$ 26.0
$ 10.6
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 244.9
$ 14.1
Disinfecting Ground Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 0.7
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 10.0
$ 0.6
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 0.6
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 8.4
$ 0.5
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 1.9
$ 1.9
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 0.8
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 11.5
$ 0.7
Total
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 141.4
$ 137.2
$ 133.2
$ 129.4
$ 62.3
$ 42.5
$ 15.1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 661.2
$ 38.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 90.2
$ 87.5
$ 85.0
$ 82.5
$ 43.3
$ 30.4
$ 11.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 429.9
$ 24.7
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 187.8
$ 182.3
$ 177.0
$ 171.9
$ 80.5
$ 54.7
$ 19.4
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 873.5
$ 50.2
Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2005.
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.
: Derived from Exhibits J.2a through rr.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2au Present Value of Annual Treatment O&M Cost Projections at 3% Discount Rate
(All Systems)
Preferred Alternative
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Total
Ann.
Surface Water CWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 5.5
$ 10.6
$ 15.4
$ 20.0
$ 21.6
$ 22.5
$ 22.4
$ 21.7
$ 21.1
$ 20.5
$ 19.9
$ 19.3
$ 18.7
$ 18.2
$ 17.7
$ 17.1
$ 16.6
$ 16.2
$ 15.7
$ 15.2
$ 355.7
$ 20.4
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 3.4
$ 6.5
$ 9.5
$ 12.3
$ 13.2
$ 13.7
$ 13.6
$ 13.2
$ 12.8
$ 12.4
$ 12.1
$ 11.7
$ 11.4
$ 11.0
$ 10.7
$ 10.4
$ 10.1
$ 9.8
$ 9.5
$ 9.3
$ 216.6
$ 12.4
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 8.2
$ 15.8
$ 23.1
$ 29.9
$ 32.2
$ 33.4
$ 33.2
$ 32.2
$ 31.3
$ 30.4
$ 29.5
$ 28.7
$ 27.8
$ 27.0
$ 26.2
$ 25.5
$ 24.7
$ 24.0
$ 23.3
$ 22.6
$ 529.0
$ 30.4
Surface Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 10.4
$ 0.6
Operational Evaluation
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 5.8
$ 0.3
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 0.9
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 15.1
$ 0.9
Disinfecting Ground Water CWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 3.2
$ 6.1
$ 8.9
$ 11.6
$ 13.3
$ 14.6
$ 14.8
$ 14.4
$ 13.9
$ 13.5
$ 13.1
$ 12.8
$ 12.4
$ 12.0
$ 11.7
$ 11.3
$ 11.0
$ 10.7
$ 10.4
$ 10.1
$ 229.8
$ 13.2
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 2.9
$ 5.7
$ 8.3
$ 10.7
$ 12.4
$ 13.5
$ 13.7
$ 13.3
$ 12.9
$ 12.6
$ 12.2
$ 11.8
$ 11.5
$ 11.2
$ 10.8
$ 10.5
$ 10.2
$ 9.9
$ 9.6
$ 9.3
$ 213.2
$ 12.2
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 3.4
$ 6.6
$ 9.6
$ 12.4
$ 14.3
$ 15.6
$ 15.9
$ 15.4
$ 15.0
$ 14.5
$ 14.1
$ 13.7
$ 13.3
$ 12.9
$ 12.5
$ 12.2
$ 11.8
$ 11.5
$ 11.1
$ 10.8
$ 246.5
$ 14.2
Disinfectin
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 13.2
$ 0.8
g Ground Water NTNCWS
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 12.2
$ 0.7
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.8
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 14.3
$ 0.8
Total
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 8.9
$ 17.3
$ 25.2
$ 32.6
$ 36.2
$ 38.5
$ 38.7
$ 37.6
$ 36.5
$ 35.4
$ 34.4
$ 33.4
$ 32.4
$ 31.5
$ 30.6
$ 29.7
$ 28.8
$ 28.0
$ 27.2
$ 26.4
$ 609.2
$ 35.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 6.5
$ 12.6
$ 18.4
$ 23.8
$ 26.6
$ 28.3
$ 28.5
$ 27.7
$ 26.9
$ 26.1
$ 25.3
$ 24.6
$ 23.9
$ 23.2
$ 22.5
$ 21.8
$ 21.2
$ 20.6
$ 20.0
$ 19.4
$ 447.8
$ 25.7
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 11.9
$ 23.1
$ 33.7
$ 43.6
$ 48.1
$ 50.9
$ 51.0
$ 49.5
$ 48.1
$ 46.7
$ 45.3
$ 44.0
$ 42.7
$ 41.5
$ 40.3
$ 39.1
$ 38.0
$ 36.9
$ 35.8
$ 34.7
$ 804.8
$ 46.2
Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.
: Derived from Exhibits J.2a through rr.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2av Present Value of Annual Non-Treatment Cost Projections at 3% Discount Rate
(All Systems)
Preferred Alternative
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Total
Ann.
Surface Water CWS
Implementation
$ 08
$ 1 1
$
$ 07
$ 06
$ 05
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S 3.6
$ 0.2
IDSE
$ -
$ 97
$ 204
$ 138
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
S 43.9
$ 2.5
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 02
$ 05
$ 06
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.4
$ 0.1
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 03
$ (06)
$ (1 5)
$ (1 5)
$ (1 5)
$ (14)
$ (14)
$ (1 3)
$ (1 3)
$ (1 3)
$ (1 2)
$ (1 2)
$ (1 1)
$ (1 1)
$ (1 1)
$ (1 0)
$ (1 0)
$ (1 0)
$ (1 0)
$ (21.1)
$ (1.2)
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 0 1
$ 02
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 2.1
$ 0.1
Surface Water NTNCWS
Implementation
$ 00
$ 0 1
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
S 0.0
IDSE
$ -
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.1
S 0.0
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S 0.0
S 0.0
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 0.3
S 0.0
Operation
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Disinfecting Ground Water CWS
Implementation
$ 02
$ 30
$
$ 0 1
$ 1 4
$ 1 3
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 6.1
$ 0.3
IDSE
$ -
$ 0 1
$ 1 0
$ 57
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
S 6.8
S 0.4
Monitoring
$
$
$ 00
$ 02
$ 1 5
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.7
$ 0.1
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ (01)
$ 06
$ 1 3
$ 1 3
$ 1 2
$ 1 2
$ 1 2
$ 1 1
$ 1 1
$ 1 1
$ 1 0
$ 1 0
$ 1 0
$ 09
$ 09
$ 09
$ 09
$ 08
$ 08
$ 18.3
$ 1.1
Operation
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Disinfecting Ground Water NTNCWS
Implementation
$ 00
$ 05
$
$ 00
$ 02
$ 02
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.0
$ 0.1
IDSE
$ -
$ -
$ 00
$ 00
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
S 0.0
S 0.0
Monitoring
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 02
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.2
S 0.0
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 03
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 7.5
S 0.4
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Total
Implementation
$ 1 0
$ 47
$
$ 08
$ 22
$ 2 1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 10.8
S 0.6
IDSE
$ -
$ 98
$ 21 4
$ 196
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 50.7
$ 2.9
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 03
$ 07
$ 23
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 3.3
$ 0.2
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
S 4.9
$ 0.3
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 0 1
$ 02
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 2.1
$ 0.1
Detail may not add e
Ann = value of total.
) Derived from Exhibit
ons of 2003 dollars
actly to totals due I
inuahzed at discou
Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2aw Present Value of Annual Cost Projections at 7% Discount Rate
(All Systems and Primacy Agencies)
Preferred Alternative
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Total
Ann.
Surface Water CWS
Mean
Value
$ 0.8
$ 9.6
$ 17.7
$ 12.4
$ 79.3
$ 77.8
$ 76.5
$ 74.6
$ 34.4
$ 25.1
$ 16.6
$ 12.9
$ 12.0
$ 11.2
$ 10.5
$ 9.8
$ 9.2
$ 8.6
$ 8.0
$ 7.5
$ 7.0
$ 6.5
$ 6.1
$ 5.7
$ 5.3
$ 545.1
$ 46.8
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tlle)
$ 0.8
$ 9.6
$ 17.7
$ 12.4
$ 43.6
$ 42.8
$ 42.3
$ 41.2
$ 19.4
$ 14.3
$ 9.6
$ 7.5
$ 7.0
$ 6.6
$ 6.1
$ 5.7
$ 5.4
$ 5.0
$ 4.7
$ 4.4
$ 4.1
$ 3.8
$ 3.6
$ 3.3
$ 3.1
$ 324.1
$ 27.8
Upper
(95th %tlle)
$ 0.8
$ 9.6
$ 17.7
$ 12.4
$ 111.2
$ 109.6
$ 108.2
$ 106.0
$ 50.2
$ 37.3
$ 25.1
$ 19.5
$ 18.2
$ 17.0
$ 15.9
$ 14.9
$ 13.9
$ 13.0
$ 12.1
$ 11.3
$ 10.6
$ 9.9
$ 9.3
$ 8.6
$ 8.1
$ 770.4
$ 66.1
Surface Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.6
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 9.8
$ 0.8
Operational
Evaluation
(5th
%tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 5.6
$ 0.5
upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 1.1
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 0.9
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 14.2
$ 1.2
Disinfecting Ground Water CWS
Mean
Value
$ 0.2
$ 2.8
$ 0.8
$ 5.0
$ 34.3
$ 33.4
$ 32.4
$ 32.9
$ 28.2
$ 24.4
$ 15.7
$ 9.7
$ 9.1
$ 8.5
$ 8.0
$ 7.4
$ 6.9
$ 6.5
$ 6.1
$ 5.7
$ 5.3
$ 5.0
$ 4.6
$ 4.3
$ 4.0
$ 301.2
$ 25.8
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.2
$ 2.8
$ 0.8
$ 5.0
$ 29.8
$ 29.0
$ 28.2
$ 28.8
$ 24.7
$ 21.4
$ 14.1
$ 9.1
$ 8.5
$ 7.9
$ 7.4
$ 6.9
$ 6.5
$ 6.1
$ 5.7
$ 5.3
$ 4.9
$ 4.6
$ 4.3
$ 4.0
$ 3.8
$ 269.7
$ 23.1
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.2
$ 2.8
$ 0.8
$ 5.0
$ 38.8
$ 37.8
$ 36.7
$ 37.1
$ 31.6
$ 27.4
$ 17.4
$ 10.4
$ 9.7
$ 9.1
$ 8.5
$ 7.9
$ 7.4
$ 6.9
$ 6.5
$ 6.1
$ 5.7
$ 5.3
$ 4.9
$ 4.6
$ 4.3
$ 332.7
$ 28.6
Disinfecting Ground Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$ 0.0
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 1.7
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.6
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.3
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 19.2
$ 1.6
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.4
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 1.2
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 17.5
$ 1.5
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 1.9
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.8
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 1.4
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 20.9
$ 1.8
Primacy Agencies
Point Estimate
$ 3.4
$ 3.2
$ 0.1
$ 1.5
$ 0.6
$
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 19.8
$ 1.7
Total
Mean
Value
$ 4.3
$ 16.1
$ 18.7
$ 18.9
$ 116.6
$ 113.5
$ 112.2
$ 110.9
$ 66.0
$ 52.9
$ 35.0
$ 24.6
$ 23.0
$ 21.5
$ 20.1
$ 18.7
$ 17.5
$ 16.4
$ 15.3
$ 14.3
$ 13.4
$ 12.5
$ 11.7
$ 10.9
$ 10.2
$ 895.1
$ 76.8
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th
%tile)
$ 4.3
$ 16.1
$ 18.7
$ 18.9
$ 75.9
$ 73.6
$ 73.1
$ 72.8
$ 47.0
$ 38.6
$ 26.0
$ 18.3
$ 17.1
$ 16.0
$ 15.0
$ 14.0
$ 13.1
$ 12.2
$ 11.4
$ 10.7
$ 10.0
$ 9.3
$ 8.7
$ 8.1
$ 7.6
$ 636.7
$ 54.6
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 4.3
$ 16.1
$ 18.7
$ 18.9
$ 153.6
$ 150.3
$ 148.7
$ 147.0
$ 85.9
$ 68.7
$ 45.6
$ 32.1
$ 30.0
$ 28.0
$ 26.2
$ 24.5
$ 22.9
$ 21.4
$ 20.0
$ 18.7
$ 17.4
$ 16.3
$ 15.2
$ 14.2
$ 13.3
$ 1,157.9
$ 99.4
: Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates Ł
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent
Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.
;: Derived from Exhibits J.2a through rr.
ire discounted
rounding.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2ax Present Value of Annual Treatment Capital Cost Projections at 7% Discount Rate
(All Systems)
Preferred Alternative
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Total
Ann.
Surface Water CWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 78.4
$ 73.3
$ 68.5
$ 64.0
$ 21.7
$ 11.8
$ 3.2
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 320.9
$ 27.5
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 42.7
$ 39.9
$ 37.3
$ 34.9
$ 12.0
$ 6.5
$ 1.8
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 175.1
$ 15.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 110.3
$ 103.0
$ 96.3
$ 90.0
$ 30.8
$ 17.0
$ 4.8
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 452.2
$ 38.8
Surface Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.2
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 3.9
$ 0.3
Operational Evaluation
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 2.1
$ 0.2
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.3
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 5.8
$ 0.5
Disinfecting Ground Water CWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 32.0
$ 29.9
$ 28.0
$ 26.1
$ 19.4
$ 14.8
$ 5.7
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 155.8
$ 13.4
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 27.5
$ 25.7
$ 24.0
$ 22.4
$ 16.5
$ 12.4
$ 4.7
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 133.3
$ 11.4
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 36.5
$ 34.1
$ 31.9
$ 29.8
$ 22.3
$ 17.1
$ 6.7
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 178.4
$ 15.3
Disinfecting Ground Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.4
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 7.2
$ 0.6
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.4
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 6.1
$ 0.5
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 0.5
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 8.3
$ 0.7
Total
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 112.5
$ 105.1
$ 98.2
$ 91.8
$ 42.6
$ 28.0
$ 9.6
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 487.8
$ 41.9
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 71.7
$ 67.0
$ 62.7
$ 58.6
$ 29.6
$ 20.0
$ 7.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 316.5
$ 27.2
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 149.4
$ 139.6
$ 130.5
$ 122.0
$ 55.0
$ 35.9
$ 12.3
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 644.8
$ 55.3
Notes: Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2005.
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.2a through rr.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2ay Present Value of Annual Treatment O&M Cost Projections at 7% Discount Rate
(All Systems)
Preferred Alternative
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Total
Ann.
Surface Water CWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 4.2
$ 7.8
$ 11.0
$ 13.6
$ 14.2
$ 14.2
$ 13.6
$ 12.7
$ 11.9
$ 11.1
$ 10.4
$ 9.7
$ 9.1
$ 8.5
$ 7.9
$ 7.4
$ 6.9
$ 6.5
$ 6.1
$ 5.7
$ 192.5
$ 16.5
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 2.6
$ 4.8
$ 6.7
$ 8.4
$ 8.7
$ 8.7
$ 8.3
$ 7.7
$ 7.2
$ 6.8
$ 6.3
$ 5.9
$ 5.5
$ 5.2
$ 4.8
$ 4.5
$ 4.2
$ 3.9
$ 3.7
$ 3.4
$ 117.3
$ 10.1
Upper
(95th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 6.2
$ 11.7
$ 16.4
$ 20.4
$ 21.2
$ 21.1
$ 20.2
$ 18.9
$ 17.7
$ 16.5
$ 15.4
$ 14.4
$ 13.5
$ 12.6
$ 11.8
$ 11.0
$ 10.3
$ 9.6
$ 9.0
$ 8.4
$ 286.4
$ 24.6
Surface Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 5.5
$ 0.5
Operational Evaluation
Lower
(5th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 3.1
$ 0.3
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 8.0
$ 0.7
Disinfecting Ground Water CWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 2.4
$ 4.5
$ 6.3
$ 7.9
$ 8.8
$ 9.2
$ 9.0
$ 8.4
$ 7.9
$ 7.4
$ 6.9
$ 6.4
$ 6.0
$ 5.6
$ 5.2
$ 4.9
$ 4.6
$ 4.3
$ 4.0
$ 3.7
$ 123.6
$ 10.6
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 2.2
$ 4.2
$ 5.9
$ 7.3
$ 8.1
$ 8.6
$ 8.4
$ 7.8
$ 7.3
$ 6.8
$ 6.4
$ 6.0
$ 5.6
$ 5.2
$ 4.9
$ 4.5
$ 4.3
$ 4.0
$ 3.7
$ 3.5
$ 114.6
$ 9.8
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 2.6
$ 4.8
$ 6.8
$ 8.5
$ 9.4
$ 9.9
$ 9.7
$ 9.0
$ 8.4
$ 7.9
$ 7.4
$ 6.9
$ 6.4
$ 6.0
$ 5.6
$ 5.3
$ 4.9
$ 4.6
$ 4.3
$ 4.0
$ 132.5
$ 11.4
Disinfecting Ground Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 7.1
$ 0.6
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 6.5
$ 0.6
Upper
(95th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 7.6
$ 0.7
Total
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 6.8
$ 12.7
$ 17.9
$ 22.3
$ 23.8
$ 24.4
$ 23.6
$ 22.0
$ 20.6
$ 19.3
$ 18.0
$ 16.8
$ 15.7
$ 14.7
$ 13.7
$ 12.8
$ 12.0
$ 11.2
$ 10.5
$ 9.8
$ 328.7
$ 28.2
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 5.0
$ 9.3
$ 13.1
$ 16.3
$ 17.5
$ 17.9
$ 17.4
$ 16.2
$ 15.2
$ 14.2
$ 13.2
$ 12.4
$ 11.6
$ 10.8
$ 10.1
$ 9.4
$ 8.8
$ 8.3
$ 7.7
$ 7.2
$ 241.5
$ 20.7
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 9.1
$ 17.0
$ 23.9
$ 29.8
$ 31.6
$ 32.2
$ 31.1
$ 29.1
$ 27.2
$ 25.4
$ 23.7
$ 22.2
$ 20.7
$ 19.4
$ 18.1
$ 16.9
$ 15.8
$ 14.8
$ 13.8
$ 12.9
$ 434.6
$ 37.3
Notes: Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2005.
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.2a through rr.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Preferred Alternative
Exhibit J.2az Present Value of Annual Cost Projections at 7% Discount Rate
(All Systems)
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Total
Ann.
Surface Water NTNCWS
Im lamentation
$ 09
$
$ D4
$ 04
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 3.1
$ 0.3
IDSE
$ 87
$ 175
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ 37.6
$ 3.2
Monitoring
$
$ 02
$ 05
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.2
$ 0.1
Monitorin
$
$
$
$
$ 02
$ (11)
$ (1 0)
$ (09)
$ (09)
$ (08)
$ (07)
$ (07)
$ (07)
$ (06)
$ (OS)
$ (05)
$ (05)
$ (05)
$ (04)
$ (04)
$ (04)
$ (11.2)
Operational
$
$
$
$
$
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 1.1
$ 0.1
Surface Water NTNCWS
Implementation
$ 0 1
$
$ 00
$ 00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
IDSE
$ 00
$ 00
$
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
Monitoring
$
$ 00
$ 00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
Monitorin
$
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 0.0
Operation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Disinfecting Ground Water CWS
Im lementation
$ 27
$
$ 11
$ 1 0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.4
IDSE
$ 0 1
$ 08
$
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ 0.5
Monitoring
$
$ 00
$ 12
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
Monitorin
$
$
$
$
$ (01)
$ 05
$ 09
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ O.S
Operation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Disinfecting Ground Water NTNCWS
Im lementation
$ 05
$
$ 02
$ 02
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
IDSE
$ -
$ 00
$
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ 0.0
Monitoring
$
$ 00
$ 01
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
Monitorina
$
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 02
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0.3
Operational
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Total
Implementation
$ 09
$ 42
$
$ 07
$ 18
$ 1 6
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ O.S
IDSE
$
$ 87
$ 184
$ 162
$
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$
$ 3.7
Monitoring
$
$
$ 02
$ 06
$ 18
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.2
Monitorin
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0.2
Operational
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 1.1
$ 0.1
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBF/?
December2005
-------
Exhibit J.2ba Present Value of Total Costs at 3% Discount Rate, by System Size
(Surface Water CWSs)
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
<100
Mean
Value
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 0.2
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ Q1
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
100-499
Mean
Value
$01
$03
$02
$06
$06
$06
$07
$05
$04
$04
$04
$04
$04
$04
$04
$03
Operational
Eva uation
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ 01
$ 03
$ 02
$ 04
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 01
$ 03
$ 02
$ 08
$ OS
$ 09
$ 10
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 05
500-999
Mean
Value
$ 00
$ 04
$ 08
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 04
$ 08
$ 04
$ 04
$ 03
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 04
$ 08
$ 09
$ 09
$ 09
$ 08
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
1 ,000-3,300
Mean
Value
$ 01
$ 08
$ 13
$ 34
$ 36
$ 38
$ 39
$ 19
$ 17
$ 16
$ 15
$ 14
$ 13
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th
%tile)
$ 01
$ 08
$ 13
$ 20
$ 20
$ 21
$ 20
$ 09
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 01
$ 08
$ 13
$ 49
$ 52
$ 56
$ 59
$ 29
$ 26
$ 24
$ 23
$ 22
$ 20
3,301-9,999
Mean
Value
$ 01
$ 10
$ 20
$ 83
$ 85
$ 88
$ 103
$ 43
$ 38
$ 36
$ 34
$ 32
$ 29
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ 01
$ 10
$ 20
$ 47
$ 48
$ 49
$ 60
$ 27
$ 24
$ 23
$ 21
$ 20
$ 18
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 01
$ 10
$ 20
$ 121
$ 125
$ 130
$ 147
$ 59
$ 52
$ 49
$ 47
$ 44
$ 40
10,000-49,999
Mean
Value
$ 03
$ 38
$ 86
$ 175
$ 177
$ 180
$ 168
$ 25
$ 22
$ 21
$ 20
$ 19
$ 17
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th%tile)
$ 03
$ 38
$ 86
$ 98
$ 99
$ 101
$ 87
$ 09
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 03
$ 38
$ 86
$ 242
$ 246
$ 250
$ 241
$ 43
$ 38
$ 36
$ 34
$ 32
$ 29
50,000-99,999
Value
$ 01
$ 12
$ 45
$ 126
$ 128
$ 131
$ 80
$ 25
$ 22
$ 21
$ 20
$ 19
$ 17
Operational
Evaluation
Lower
(5th%tile)
$ 01
$ 12
$ 45
$ 70
$ 71
$ 74
$ 47
$ 16
$ 14
$ 14
$ 13
$ 12
$ 11
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 01
$ 12
$ 45
$ 174
$ 178
$ 182
$ 11 2
$ 35
$ 31
$ 30
$ 28
$ 26
$ 24
100,000-999,999
Mean
Value
$ 01
$ 28
$ 28
$ 01
$ 385
$ 391
$ 398
$ 63
$ 58
$ 51
$ 48
$ 46
$ 43
$ 39
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th%tile)
$ 01
$ 28
$ 28
$ 01
$ 206
$ 21 0
$ 217
$ 41
$ 38
$ 33
$ 32
$ 30
$ 28
$ 26
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 01
$ 28
$ 28
$ 01
$ 540
$ 549
$ 560
$ 95
$ 87
$ 80
$ 78
$ 73
$ 69
$ 65
$ 59
1,000,000+
Operatic
nal
Evaluatio
$ 00
$ 03
$ 03
$ 00
$ 180
$ 185
$ 189
$ 37
$ 34
$ 30
$ 28
$ 27
$ 25
$ 23
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th%tile)
$ 00
$ 03
$ 03
$ 00
$ 99
$ 102
$ 106
$ 23
$ 22
$ 21
$ 19
$ 18
$ 17
$ 16
$ 16
$ 15
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 03
$ 03
$ 00
$ 252
$ 260
$ 268
$ 58
$ 56
$ 55
$ 53
$ 50
$ 47
$ 46
$ 44
$ 43
$ 42
$ 39
$ 38
$ 37
$ 36
$ 10.6
5 Present values in millions of 2003 dollar
Detail may not add exactly to totals due
Ann = value of total annualized at discoi
e DenvedfromExhibitsJ 2athrough rr
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
-------
Exhibit J.2bb Present Value of Capital Costs at 3% Discount Rate, by System Size
(Surface Water CWSs)
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
Total
Ann.
<100
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
100-499
Value
$ -
$ -
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 02
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Operationa Evaluation
(5th %tile)
$
$
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
(95th%tile)
$
$
$ 06
$ 06
$ 06
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 03
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
500-999
Value
$
$
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 04
$ 04
$ 02
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.2
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 07
$ 07
$ 03
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,000-3,300
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ 31
$ 30
$ 29
$ 28
$ 27
$ 1 3
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$ 1 7
$ 1 7
$ 1 6
$ 1 6
$ 1 5
$ 1 5
$ 07
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$ 46
$ 44
$ 43
$ 41
$ 40
$ 1 9
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
3,301-9,999
Value
$
$
$ 80
$ 76
$ 73
$ 71
$ 69
$ 34
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$
$
$ 44
$ 42
$ 41
$ 39
$ 38
$ 1 9
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
(95th %tile)
$
$
$ 118
$ 115
$ 11 1
$ 108
$ 105
$ 102
$ 50
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
10,000-49,999
Value
$
$
$ 172
$ 167
$ 162
$ 158
$ 153
$ 74
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th %tile)
$
$
$ 95
$ 90
$ 87
$ 85
$ 41
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
(95th%tile)
$
$
$ 232
$ 225
$ 21 9
$ 21 2
$ 103
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
50,000-99,999
Value
$
$
$ 122
$ 118
$ 115
$ 56
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Operationa Evaluation
(5th %tile)
$
$
$ 68
$ 66
$ 64
$ 31
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.7
(95th %tile)
$
$
$ 169
$ 164
$ 159
$ 77
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 4.3
100,000-999,999
Value
$
$
$ 363
$ 353
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 8.5
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$
$
$ 200
$ 194
$ 188
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 4.5
(95th%tile)
$
$
$ 524
$ 509
$ 494
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 11.9
1,000,000+
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$ 175
$ 170
$ 165
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th %tile)
$
$
$ 96
$ 93
$ 90
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 37.8
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$ 252
$ 238
$ 231
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 96.5
Ann = vaL
3 Derived frar
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2bc Present Value of O&M Costs at 3% Discount Rate, by System Size
(Surface Water CWSs)
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2016
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Total
Ann.
<100
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 00
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
100-499
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 01
$ 02
$ 03
$ 04
$ 05
$ 05
$ 06
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
Operational Evaluation
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 01
$ 01
$ 02
$ 02
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 01
$ 03
$ 04
$ 05
$ 07
$ 08
$ 08
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 07
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 06
$ 06
$ 06
500-999
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 01
$ 01
$ 02
$ 03
$ 03
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 01
$ 02
$ 03
$ 04
$ 05
$ 06
$ 06
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
1,000-3,300
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 04
$ 08
$ 1 2
$ 1 5
$ 1 9
$ 22
$ 23
$ 22
$ 21
$ 20
$ 20
$ 1 9
$ 1 9
$ 1 8
$ 1 8
$ 1 7
$ 1 7
$ 1 6
$ 1 6
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 02
$ 05
$ 07
$ 09
$ 1 0
$ 1 2
$ 1 3
$ 1 2
$ 1 2
$ 1 1
$ 1 1
$ 1 1
$ 1 0
$ 1 0
$ 1 0
$ 10
$ 09
$ 09
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 06
$ 1 2
$ 1 7
$ 22
$ 27
$ 31
$ 33
$ 31
$ 30
$ 29
$ 29
$ 28
$ 27
$ 26
$ 25
$ 24
$ 23
$ 23
3,301-9,999
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 07
$ 13
$ 1 9
$ 24
$ 30
$ 34
$ 36
$ 35
$ 34
$ 33
$ 32
$ 31
$ 30
$ 29
$ 29
$ 28
$ 27
$ 25
$ 25
$ 54.8
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 04
$ 07
$ 1 1
$ 14
$ 1 7
$ 1 9
$ 20
$ 1 9
$ 1 9
$ 1 8
$ 1 7
$ 1 7
$ 1 6
$ 1 6
$ 1 6
$ 15
$ 14
$ 14
$ 30.6
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1 0
$ 1 9
$ 27
$ 35
$ 43
$ 50
$ 52
$ 49
$ 48
$ 47
$ 45
$ 44
$ 43
$ 41
$ 40
$ 39
$ 38
$ 37
$ 36
10,000-49,999
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 09
$ 25
$ 33
$ 40
$ 42
$ 41
$ 39
$ 38
$ 37
$ 35
$ 34
$ 33
$ 32
$ 32
$ 31
$ 30
$ 29
$ 28
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 06
$ 11
$ 1 6
$ 20
$ 25
$ 26
$ 25
$ 24
$ 23
$ 23
$ 22
$ 21
$ 21
$ 20
$ 20
$ 19
$ 1 8
$ 1 8
$ 1 7
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 1 3
$ 25
$ 36
$ 47
$ 57
$ 61
$ 59
$ 56
$ 54
$ 52
$ 51
$ 49
$ 48
$ 47
$ 45
$ 44
$ 41
$ 40
50,000-99,999
Value
$
$
$
$ 06
$ 12
$ 1 7
$ 23
$ 25
$ 24
$ 23
$ 22
$ 21
$ 21
$ 20
$ 1 9
$ 1 9
$ 1 8
$ 1 8
$ 1 7
$ 1 7
$ 1 6
$ 1 6
Operational Evaluation
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 04
$ 07
$ 1 1
$ 14
$ 1 5
$ 1 5
$ 1 5
$ 14
$ 1 3
$ 1 3
$ 1 3
$ 1 2
$ 1 2
$ 1 1
$ 1 1
$ 1 1
$ 1 0
$ 1 0
$ 1 0
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 09
$ 25
$ 33
$ 36
$ 35
$ 34
$ 32
$ 31
$ 30
$ 29
$ 28
$ 27
$ 27
$ 26
$ 25
$ 24
$ 24
$ 23
100,000-999,999
Value
$
$
$
$ 1 7
$ 32
$ 47
$ 61
$ 59
$ 57
$ 56
$ 52
$ 51
$ 49
$ 48
$ 45
$ 44
$ 43
$ 41
$ 40
$ 39
$ 38
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 1 1
$ 21
$ 30
$ 39
$ 38
$ 37
$ 35
$ 33
$ 32
$ 32
$ 31
$ 30
$ 29
$ 28
$ 27
$ 26
$ 26
$ 25
$ 24
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 25
$ 49
$ 72
$ 93
$ 90
$ 88
$ 85
$ 80
$ 78
$ 76
$ 74
$ 71
$ 69
$ 67
$ 65
$ 63
$ 62
$ 60
$ 58
1,000,000+
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$ 1 0
$ 1 9
$ 28
$ 37
$ 36
$ 34
$ 33
$ 32
$ 31
$ 30
$ 29
$ 27
$ 26
$ 26
$ 23
$ 23
$ 3.2
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 06
$ 1 2
$ 1 8
$ 23
$ 22
$ 22
$ 21
$ 20
$ 1 9
$ 1 9
$ 1 8
$ 1 7
$ 1 7
$ 1 6
$ 16
$ 1 5
$ 14
$ 2.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1 6
$ 31
$ 44
$ 58
$ 56
$ 54
$ 53
$ 50
$ 48
$ 47
$ 45
$ 44
$ 43
$ 42
$ 40
$ 39
$ 38
$ 37
$ 36
$ 87.1
$ 5.0
; Estimates are
o independent re
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2bd Present Value of Non-Treatment Costs at 3% Discount Rate, by System
(Surface Water CWSs)
-------
Exhibit J.2be Present Value of Total Costs at 3% Discount Rate, by System Size
(Surface Water NTNCWSs)
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
<100
Value
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
(95th%tile)
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 01
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
100-499
Value
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
Operational Evaluation
(5th%tile)
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
(95th %tile)
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 03
$ 03
$ 04
$ 04
$ 05
$ 05
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01 $ 02
$ 01 $ 02
500-999
Value
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
(95th%tile)
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 03
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
S 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
1,000-3,300
Value
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 04
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 01
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
(95th%tile)
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 6.1
3,301-9,999
Value
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
Upper
%tile)
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 02
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
10,000-49,999
Value
$ -
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
50,000-99,999
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Operational
Evaluation
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
100,000-999,999
Mean
Value
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 01
S 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
S 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
S 0.0
1 ,000,000+
Evaluat
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
-------
Exhibit J.2bf Present Value of Capital Costs at 3% Discount Rate, by System Size
(Surface Water NTNCWSs|
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Total
Ann.
<100
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
100-499
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Operational Evaluation
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
500-999
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.0
1,000-3,300
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
3,301-9,999
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
10,000-49,999
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
50,000-99,999
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ .
$ .
Operational Evaluation
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
100,000-999,999
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
1,000,000+
Operatic
nal
Evaluati
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ .
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Notes: Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2005.
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.2a through rr.
F/na/ Economic Analysis lor the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2bg Present Value of O&M Costs at 3% Discount Rate, by System Size
(Surface Water NTNCWSs)
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Total
Ann.
<100
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 1.2
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.7
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
100-499
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
Operational Evaluation
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.1 $ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
500-999
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
1,000-3,300
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
3,301-9,999
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 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
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
10,000-49,999
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
50,000-99,999
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Operational Evaluation
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
100,000-999,999
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
1,000,000+
Operatic
nal
Evaluatio
n
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ .
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Notes: Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2005.
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.2a through rr.
Final Economic Analysis lor the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2bh Present Value of Non-Treatment Costs at 3% Discount Rate, by System
(Surface Water NTNCWSs)
-------
Exhibit J.2bi Present Value of Total Costs at 3% Discount Rate, by System Size
(Ground Water CWSs)
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2016
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2028
2029
Total
Ann.
<100
Mean
Value
$ 07
$ 02
$ 15
$ 13
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 19.2
90 Percent
Lower
(5th%tile)
$ 07
$ 02
$ 1 1
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 17.6
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 07
$ 02
$ 14
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 20.9
100-499
Mean
Value
$ 09
$ 02
$ 49
$ 58
$ 23
$ 22
$ 20
$ 18
S 66.8
Operational
Evaluation
(5th%tile)
$ 09
$ 02
$ 42
$ 21
$ 21
$ 19
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 09
$ 02
$ 56
$ 66
$ 25
$ 24
$ 22
$ 20
S 59.8
$ 73.9
500-999
Mean
Value
$ 04
$ 17
$ 29
$ 15
$ 15
$ 14
S 44.5
90 Percent
Lower
(5th%tile)
$ 04
$ 17
$ 25
$ 14
$ 14
$ 13
S 40.4
Upper
(95th%tlle)
$ 04
$ 17
$ 33
$ 30
$ 18
$ 16
$ 16
$ 14
S 485
1,000-3,300
Mean
Value
$ 05
$ 20
$ 55
$ 65
$ 22
$ 22
$ 20
$ 18
$ 71.8
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$ 05
$ 20
$ 46
$ 21
$ 20
$ 18
$ 63.7
Upper
(95th%tlle)
$ 05
$ 20
$ 64
$ 24
$ 23
$ 21
$ 18
S 80.0
3,301-9,999
Mean
Value
$ 02
$ 09
$ 86
$ 17
$ 17
$ 15
S 81.9
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$ 02
$ 09
$ 71
$ 16
$ 15
$ 14
$ 70.2
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 02
$ 09
$ 102
$ 105
$ 20
$ 20
$ 19
$ 18
$ 16
$ 93.7
10,000-49,999
Mean
Value
$ 03
$ 07
$ 09
$ 99
$ 31
$ 30
$ 28
$ 103.7
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$ 03
$ 07
$ 09
$ 90
$ 30
$ 29
$ 26
S 96.3
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 03
$ 07
$ 09
$ 108
$ 78
$ 38
$ 33
$ 32
$ 29
$ 111.0
50,000-99,999
Mean
Value
$ -
$ 02
$ 01
$ 31
$ 08
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
S 264
Operational
Evaluation
(5th%tile)
$ -
$ 02
$ 01
$ 28
$ 08
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 07
$ 24.3
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$ 02
$ 01
$ 34
$ 10
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 28.6
100,000-999,999
Mean
Value
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$ 69
$ 17
$ 16
$ 15
S 54.8
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th
%tile)
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$ 62
$ 18
$ 18
$ 15
$ 15
$ 14
S 50.0
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$ 76
$ 18
$ 17
$ 16
$ 59.6
1,000,XO+
onal
Evaluati
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 08
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 7.3
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 07
$ 07
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
S 6.6
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 09
$ 09
$ 10
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
S 8.0
Present values in millions of 2003 dollars Estimates are discounted to 2005
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding
Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate
e Derived from Exhibits J 2ath rough rr
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
-------
Exhibit J.2bj Present Value of Capital Costs at 3% Discount Rate, by System Size
(Ground Water CWSs)
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
Total
<100
Mean
Value
$
$
$ 1 1
$ 1 0
$ 1 0
$ 1 0
$ 05
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th %tile)
$
$
$ 09
$ 09
$ 08
$ 08
$ 04
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$ 1 2
$ 1 2
$ 1 1
$ 1 1
$ 05
$
$
$
$
$
$
100-499
Mean
Value
$
$
$ 43
$ 40
$ 39
$ 38
$ 1 8
$
$
$
$
$
$
Operationa Evaluation
(5th%tile)
$
$
$ 36
$ 34
$ 33
$ 32
$ 1 5
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$ 49
$ 47
$ 45
$ 44
$ 21
$
$
$
$
$
$
$-$-$ _$_$_$
$ 6.4
$ 5.6
$ 7.4
$ 25.6
$ 21.7
$ 29.7
500-999
Mean
Value
$
$
$ 26
$ 25
$ 24
$ 23
$ 1 1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th %tile)
$
$
$ 22
$ 21
$ 21
$ 20
$ 1 9
$ 09
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$ 30
$ 29
$ 28
$ 28
$ 27
$ 1 3
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,000-3,300
Mean
Value
$
$
$ 51
$ 49
$ 48
$ 46
$ 45
$ 21
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 30.5
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$
$
$ 42
$ 40
$ 39
$ 38
$ 37
$ 1 7
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 25.0
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$ 60
$ 58
$ 57
$ 55
$ 53
$ 25
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 36.0
3,301-9,999
Mean
Value
$
$
$ 85
$ 82
$ 80
$ 78
$ 75
$ 36
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 50.9
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$ 69
$ 67
$ 65
$ 63
$ 61
$ 29
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$ 101
$ 98
$ 95
$ 92
$ 90
$ 42
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
10,000-49,999
Mean
Value
$
$
$ 90
$ 87
$ 85
$ 82
$ 80
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$
$
$ 8 1
$ 79
$ 77
$ 74
$ 72
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$ 99
$ 96
$ 93
$ 90
$ 88
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
50,000-99,999
Mean
Value
$
$
$ 28
$ 27
$ 26
$ 25
$ 1 2
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Operational Evaluation
(5th%tile)
$
$
$ 25
$ 24
$ 23
$ 23
$ 1 1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$ 31
$ 30
$ 29
$ 28
$ 1 4
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
100,000-999,999
Mean
Value
$
$
$ 62
$ 60
$ 59
$ 57
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$
$
$ 55
$ 54
$ 52
$ 5 1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$ 69
$ 67
$ 65
$ 63
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,000,000 +
Evaluati
$ -
$ -
$ 07
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$
$
$ 06
$ 06
$ 06
$ 06
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Present values in millions of 2003 dollars Estimates are discount
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding
Ann = value of total annuahzed at discount rate
Derived from Exhibits J 2a through rr
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2bk Present Value of O&M Costs at 3% Discount Rate, by System Size
(Ground Water CWSs)
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2027
2028
2029
Mean
Value
$
$
$ 01
$ 02
$ 03
$ 04
$ 06
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 06
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
<100
90 P
Confide
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$ 01
$ 02
$ 03
$ 06
$ 06
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
ercent
ce Bound
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$ 01
$ 03
$ 04
$ 07
$ 07
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
Mean
Value
$
$
$ 05
$ 09
$ 1 3
$ 24
$ 25
$ 24
$ 24
$ 23
$ 22
$ 22
$ 21
$ 20
$ 20
$ 1 9
$ 1 8
$ 1 8
$ 1 7
$ 2.2
100-499
Operations
(5th %tile)
$
$
$ 04
$ OS
$ 1 2
$ 22
$ 23
$ 22
$ 22
$ 21
$ 20
$ 20
$ 1 9
$ 1 9
$ 1 S
$ 1 8
$ 1 7
$ 1 6
$ 1 6
Evaluation
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$ 05
$ 1 0
$ 1 4
$ 26
$ 27
$ 26
$ 25
$ 24
$ 23
$ 22
$ 2 1
$ 2 1
$ 20
$ 1 9
$ 1 8
Mean
Value
$
$
$ 02
$ 05
$ 07
$ 1 3
$ 1 3
$ 13
$ 1 2
$ 1 2
$ 1 2
$ 1 1
$ 1 1
$ 1 0
$ 1 0
$ 09
$ 09
500-999
90 P
Confider
(5th%tile)
$
$
$ 02
$ 04
$ 06
$ 1 2
$ 1 2
$ 1 2
$ 1 2
$ 1 1
$ 1 1
$ 1 1
$ 1 0
$ 1 0
$ 1 0
$ 09
$ 09
$ 09
$ 08
$ 1.1
rcent
ce Bound
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$ 03
$ 05
$ 07
$ 1 0
$ 14
$ 14
$ 14
$ 14
$ 1 3
$ 1 3
$ 1 2
$ 1 2
$ 1 2
$ 1 1
$ 1 1
$ 1 0
$ 1 0
$ 1 0
$ 1.3
Mean
Value
$
$
$ 04
$ 07
$ 1 1
$ 1 4
$ 1 9
$ 20
$ 20
$ 1 9
$ 1 8
$ 1 8
$ 1 7
$ 1 6
$ 1 6
$ 1 5
$ 1 4
$ 1 4
$ 1.8
1,000-3,30
90 P
Confide
(5th %tile)
$
$
$ 03
$ 07
$ 1 0
$ 1 3
$ 1 8
$ 1 9
$ 18
$ 1 8
$ 1 7
$ 1 7
$ 1 6
$ 1 6
$ 1 5
$ 1 5
$ 14
$ 1 3
$ 1 3
$ 1 3
$ 1.6
ercent
ce Bound
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$ 04
$ 08
$ 1 2
$ 1 5
$ 2 1
$ 22
$ 22
$ 2 1
$ 20
$ 20
$ 1 9
$ 1 8
$ 1 8
$ 1 7
$ 1 6
$ 1 6
$ 1 5
$ 1.9
Mean
Value
$
$
$ 03
$ 06
$ 09
$ 1 2
$ 1 6
$ 1 7
$ 1 7
$ 1 6
$ 1 6
$ 1 5
$ 1 5
$ 1 5
$ 14
$ 14
$ 1 3
$ 1 3
$ 1 2
$ 1 2
$ 1.5
3,301-9,99
90 P
Confide
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$ 03
$ 06
$ 08
$ 1 1
$ 1 5
$ 1 6
$ 1 5
$ 1 5
$ 1 5
$ 14
$ 1 3
$ 1 3
$ 1 2
$ 1 1
$ 1 1
$ 1 1
$ 1.4
ercent
ce Bound
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$ 03
$ 07
$ 1 0
$ 1 3
$ 1 8
$ 1 9
$ 1 7
$ 1 7
$ 1 6
$ 1 5
$ 1 5
$ 1 4
$ 1 4
$ 1 3
$ 1 3
$ 1.6
Mean
Value
$
$
$ 07
$ 14
$ 21
$ 27
$ 35
$ 34
$ 3 1
$ 30
$ 29
$ 28
$ 27
$ 26
$ 25
$ 24
$ 23
10,000-49,99
90 P
Confide
(5th%tile)
$
$
$ 07
$ 14
$ 20
$ 26
$ 33
$ 32
$ 30
$ 29
$ 27
$ 26
$ 26
$ 25
$ 23
$ 23
$ 22
3
ercent
ce Bound
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$ 08
$ 1 5
$ 22
$ 29
$ 37
$ 36
$ 33
$ 32
$ 30
$ 29
$ 28
$ 28
$ 26
$ 25
$ 25
Mean
Value
$
$
$ 02
$ 04
$ 07
$ 08
$ 09
$ 09
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 06
50,000-99 ,9Ł
Operations
(5th%tile)
$
$
$ 02
$ 04
$ 06
$ 08
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 06
$ 06
$ 06
9
Evaluation
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$ 02
$ 05
$ 07
$ 09
$ 1 0
$ 09
$ 08
$ 08
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 0.9
Mean
Value
$
$
$ 06
$ 1 1
$ 1 6
$ 21
$ 20
$ 1 9
$ 1 8
$ 1 7
$ 1 6
$ 1 5
$ 15
$ 14
$ 14
$ 1 3
100,000-999,
90 P
Confide
(5th %tile)
$
$
$ 05
$ 1 0
$ 1 5
$ 20
$ 1 8
$ 1 8
$ 1 6
$ 1 6
$ 1 5
$ 14
$ 14
$ 1 3
$ 1 3
$ 1 2
99
ercent
ce Bound
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$ 06
$ 1 2
$ 1 7
$ 23
$ 21
$ 21
$ 1 9
$ 1 8
$ 1 7
$ 1 7
$ 1 6
$ 1 6
$ 1 5
$ 14
$ 14
Operatic
nal
Evaluatio
$ -
$ -
$ 01
$ 02
$ 02
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
1,000,000
90 P
Confider
(5th%tile)
$
$
$ 01
$ 02
$ 02
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
rcent
ce Bound
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$ 01
$ 02
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 0.3
Present values in millit
Detail may not add ex?
Ann = value of total an
Derived from Exhibits J
independent roundini
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2bl Present Value of Non-Treatment Costs at 3% Discount Rate, by System
(Ground Water CWSs)
-------
Exhibit J.2bm Present Value of Total Costs at 3% Discount Rate, by System Size
(Ground Water NTNCWSs)
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
<100
Mean
Value
$ 00
$ 02
$ -
$ 00
$ 06
$ 05
$ 05
$ 06
$ 07
$ 07
$ 05
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
S 05
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$ 00
$ 02
$ -
$ 00
$ 05
$ 05
$ 04
$ 05
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
S 05
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 02
$
$ 00
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 06
$ 07
$ 08
$ 06
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
S 05
100-499
Mean
Value
$ 00
$ 02
$ -
$ 00
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 08
$ 09
$ 10
$ 07
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 0.7
Operational
Evaluation
Lower
(5th%tile)
$ 00
$ 02
$ -
$ 00
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 07
$ 08
$ 09
$ 07
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
S 0.6
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 02
$
$ 00
$ 09
$ 09
$ 09
$ 10
$ 1 1
$ 11
$ 08
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 03
$ 0.7
500-999
Mean
Value
$ 00
$ 01
$ -
$ 00
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 05
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
S 0.4
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th%tile)
$ 00
$ 01
$ -
$ 00
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 04
$ 05
$ 05
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
S 04
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 01
$
$ 00
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 05
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
S 0.4
1,000-3,300
Mean
Value
$ 00
$ 00
$ -
$ 00
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 0.2
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th%tile)
$ 00
$ 00
$ -
$ 00
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 02
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 00
$
$ 00
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 0.2
3,301-9,999
Mean
Value
$00
$00
$-
$00
$01
$01
$01
$01
$01
$01
$00
$00
$00
$00
$00
$00
$00
$00
$00
$00
$00
$00
$00
$00
$00
$0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$ 00
$ 00
$ -
$ 00
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
S 00
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 00
$
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
S 0.0
10,000-49,999
Mean
$ -
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
S 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
S 0.0
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
S 00
50,000-99,999
Mean
$ 00
$ -
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
S 00
Operational
Evaluation
(5th
%tile)
$ 00
$ -
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
S 00
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 00
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
S 00
100,000-999,999
Mean
$ 00
$ -
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
S 00
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th
%tile)
$ 00
$ -
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
S 00
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 00
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
S 00
1,000,000+
Evaluati
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
; Present values in millions of 2003 dollars Estimates are discounted to 2005
Ann = value of total annuahzed at discount rate
e Derived from Exhibits J 2athroughrr
Final EconomK Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
-------
Exhibit J.2bn Present Value of Capital Costs at 3% Discount Rate, by System Size
(Ground Water NTNCWSs)
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Ann.
<100
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.2
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.2
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.2
100-499
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.3
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.2
Operational Evaluation
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.2
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.2
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.3
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.3
500-999
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.1
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
1,000-3,300
Mean
Value
$ -
$
$
$ -
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ -
$ -
$
$
$ -
$ -
$
$
$ -
$ -
$
$
$ -
$ -
$ 0.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
3,301-9,999
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
10,000-49,999
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
50,000-99,999
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.0
Operational Evaluation
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
100,000-999,999
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
1,000,000+
Operatic
nal
Evaluati
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ .
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Notes: Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2005.
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.2a through rr.
Final Economic Analysis lor the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2bo Present Value of O&M Costs at 3% Discount Rate, by System Size
(Ground Water NTNCWSs)
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Total
Ann
<100
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 3.8
$ 0.2
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 3.6
$ 0.2
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 4.1
$ 0.2
100-499
Mean
Value
$ -
$
$ -
$
$ -
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
Operational Evaluation
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
500-999
Mean
Value
$ -
$
$ -
$
$ -
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tJle)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
1,000-3,300
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 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
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tJle)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
3,301-9,999
Mean
Value
$ -
$
$ -
$
$ -
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
Upper
(95th %tJle)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
10,000-49,999
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tJle)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
50,000-99,999
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
Operational Evaluation
Lower
(5th %tJle)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
100,000-999,999
Mean
Value
$ -
$
$ -
$
$ -
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tJle)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
1,000,000+
Operatic
nal
Evaluati
on
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ .
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tJle)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Notes: Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted tc
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.2a through rr.
Final Economic Analysis lor the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2bp Present Value of Non-Treatment Costs at 3% Discount Rate, by System Size
(Ground Water NTNCWSs)
-------
Exhibit J.2bq Present Value of Total Costs at 7% Discount Rate, by System Size
(Surface Water CWSs)
Year
2005
2006
2007
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Total
Ann.
<100
Mean
Value
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 20
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$ 00
$ 01
$
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 1.2
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 28
100-499
Mean
Value
$ 01
$ 05
$ 04
$ 04
$ 05
$ 04
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
S 69
Operational
Evaluation
(5th%tile)
$ 01
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 01
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 04
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
S 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
500-999
Mean
Value
$ 00
$ 05
$ 03
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$ 00
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
Upper
(95th%tile)
$ 00
$ 07
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 04
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
1,000-3,300
Mean
Value
$ 01
$ 26
$ 27
$ 27
$ 28
$ 27
$ 20
$ 10
$ 09
$ 09
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$ 01
$ 16
$ 15
$ 15
$ 14
$ 10
$ 05
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
Upper
(95th%tile)
$ 01
$ 39
$ 41
$ 41
$ 30
$ 16
$ 14
$ 13
$ 12
$ 11
$ 10
$ 10
$ 09
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
3,301-9,999
Mean
Value
$ 01
$ 66
$ 65
$ 65
$ 70
$ 47
$ 23
$ 21
$ 20
$ 19
$ 17
$ 16
$ 15
$ 14
$ 13
$ 12
$ 12
$ 1 1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$ 01
$ 36
$ 41
$ 28
$ 14
$ 13
$ 12
$ 11
S 10
$ 10
$ 09
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 01
$ 96
$ 100
$ 67
$ 31
$ 29
$ 27
$ 26
$ 24
$ 22
$ 21
$ 20
$ 18
$ 17
$ 16
$ 15
10,000-49,999
Mean
Value
$ 03
$ 139
$ 136
$ 133
$ 64
$ 16
$ 13
$ 12
$ 12
$ 1 1
$ 10
$ 09
$ 09
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th%tile)
$ 03
$ 76
$ 74
$ 32
$ 06
$ 05
$ 05
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 03
$ 185
$ 94
$ 28
$ 23
$ 21
$ 20
$ 19
$ 17
$ 16
$ 15
$ 14
$ 13
$ 12
$ 12
$ 1 1
50,000-99,999
Mean
Value
$ 01
$ 01
$ 100
$ 97
$ 17
$ 16
$ 13
$ 12
$ 12
$ 1 1
$ 10
$ 09
$ 09
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
Operational
Evaluation
(5th%tile)
$ 01
$ 01
$ 56
$ 55
$ 1 1
$ 1 1
$ 09
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 04
$ 04
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 01
$ 01
$ 139
$ 136
$ 134
$ 25
$ 23
$ 19
$ 18
$ 16
$ 15
$ 14
$ 13
$ 13
$ 12
$ 11
$ 10
$ 10
$ 09
100,000-999,999
Mean
Value
$ 01
$ 01
$ 306
$ 299
$ 293
$ 40
$ 38
$ 31
$ 29
$ 27
$ 25
$ 23
$ 22
$ 20
$ 19
$ 18
$ 17
$ 16
$ 15
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th
%tile)
$ 01
$ 01
$
$ 160
$ 26
$ 25
$ 20
$ 19
$ 17
$ 16
$ 15
$ 14
$ 13
$ 12
$ 12
$ 1 1
$ 10
$ 10
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 01
$ 01
$ 429
$ 421
$ 41 3
$ 61
$ 57
$ 53
$ 47
$ 41
$ 38
$ 35
$ 33
$ 31
$ 29
$ 27
$ 25
$ 24
$ 22
1,000,000+
nal
Evaluati
$ 00
$
$ 142
$ 140
$ 24
$ 22
$ 21
$ 18
$ 16
$ 15
$ 14
$ 13
$ 12
$ 11
$ 10
$ 10
$ 09
$ 09
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 03
$ 03
$ 78
$ 15
$ 14
$ 13
$ 1 1
$ 11
$ 10
$ 09
$ 09
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 03
$ 03
$ 201
$ 199
$ 198
$ 40
$ 37
$ 35
$ 32
$ 26
$ 25
$ 23
$ 21
$ 20
$ 19
$ 18
$ 16
$ 15
$ 14
$ 13
Present values in millions of 2003 dollars Estimates are discounte
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding
3 Derived from Exhibits J 2athroughrr
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
-------
Exhibit J.2br Present Value of Capital Costs at 7% Discount Rate, by System Size
(Surface Water CWSs)
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Total
<100
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.6
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.3
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.9
100-499
Mean
Value
$
$
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 01
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.8
Operationa Evaluation
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$ 05
$ 05
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 02
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 2.8
500-999
Mean
Value
$
$
$ 04
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 01
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 2.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th%tile)
$
$
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 0 1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.2
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 04
$ 02
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 3.3
1,000-3,300
Mean
Value
$
$
$ 25
$ 23
$ 22
$ 20
$ 1 9
$ 1 8
$ 08
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 13.6
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$ 14
$ 1 3
$ 1 2
$ 1 1
$ 1 0
$ 1 0
$ 05
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 7.4
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$ 37
$ 35
$ 32
$ 30
$ 28
$ 26
$ 1 2
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 20.1
3,301-9,999
Mean
Value
$
$
$ 64
$ 60
$ 56
$ 52
$ 49
$ 45
$ 21
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 34.6
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$ 35
$ 33
$ 31
$ 29
$ 27
$ 25
$ 1 2
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 19.2
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$ 94
$ 88
$ 82
$ 77
$ 72
$ 67
$ 3 1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 51.1
10,000-49,999
Mean
Value
$
$
$ 137
$ 128
$ 120
$ 112
$ 105
$ 49
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 65.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th%tile)
$
$
$ 76
$ 7 1
$ 66
$ 62
$ 58
$ 27
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 36.0
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$ 190
$ 178
$ 166
$ 155
$ 145
$ 68
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 90.2
50,000-99,999
Mean
Value
$
$
$ 100
$ 93
$ 87
$ 81
$ 38
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 40.0
Operationa
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$ 55
$ 52
$ 48
$ 45
$ 21
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 22.2
Evaluation
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$ 138
$ 129
$ 121
$ 113
$ 53
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 55.5
100,000-999,999
Mean
Value
$
$
$ 306
$ 286
$ 250
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 111.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$ 164
$ 153
$ 134
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 59.3
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$ 429
$ 40 1
$ 375
$ 350
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 155.6
1,000,000 +
Operation
al
Evaluation
$
$
$ 143
$ 134
$ 125
$ 117
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 51.9
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th%tile)
$
$
$ 79
$ 73
$ 69
$ 64
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 28.5
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$ 201
$ 187
$ 175
$ 164
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 72.7
$ 6.2
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent re
Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate
3 Derived from Exhibits J 2a through rr
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2bs Present Value of O&M Costs at 7% Discount Rate, by System Size
(Surface Water CWSs)
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Total
Ann.
<100
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 1.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 0.6
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$ 00
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
100-499
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ 01
$ 01
$ 02
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
Operational Evaluation
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$ 0 1
$ 02
$ 03
$ 04
$ 04
$ 05
$ 05
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
500-999
Mean
Value
$
$
$ 01
$ 01
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$ 01
$ 02
$ 02
$ 03
$ 03
$ 04
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 4.9
$ 0.4
1,000-3,300
Mean
Value
$
$
$ 03
$ 06
$ 08
$ 1 0
$ 1 2
$ 14
$ 14
$ 1 3
$ 1 2
$ 1 1
$ 1 1
$ 1 0
$ 09
$ 09
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 1.6
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$
$
$ 02
$ 03
$ 05
$ 06
$ 07
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 05
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
$ 0.9
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$ 05
$ 09
$ 1 2
$ 1 5
$ 1 8
$ 20
$ 20
$ 1 8
$ 1 6
$ 1 5
$ 14
$ 1 3
$ 1 3
$ 1 1
$ 1 0
$ 1 0
$ 09
$ 08
$ 2.3
3,301-9,999
Mean
Value
$
$
$ 05
$ 1 0
$ 1 3
$ 1 7
$ 1 9
$ 22
$ 22
$ 21
$ 1 9
$ 1 8
$ 1 7
$ 1 6
$ 1 5
$ 14
$ 1 2
$ 1 1
$ 1 0
$ 1 0
$ 09
$ 2.5
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$ 03
$ 05
$ 07
$ 09
$ 1 1
$ 1 2
$ 1 2
$ 1 2
$ 1 1
$ 1 0
$ 09
$ 09
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 05
$ 16.3
$ 1.4
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$ 07
$ 14
$ 1 9
$ 24
$ 28
$ 32
$ 32
$ 30
$ 28
$ 26
$ 24
$ 23
$ 21
$ 20
$ 1 7
$ 1 6
$ 1 5
$ 14
$ 1 3
$ 42.3
$ 3.6
10,000-49,999
Mean
Value
$
$
$ 07
$ 1 3
$ 1 8
$ 22
$ 26
$ 27
$ 25
$ 23
$ 22
$ 20
$ 1 9
$ 1 8
$ 1 7
$ 1 6
$ 14
$ 1 3
$ 1 2
$ 1 1
$ 1 0
$ 34.7
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$ 04
$ 08
$ 1 1
$ 14
$ 1 6
$ 1 7
$ 1 6
$ 14
$ 1 3
$ 1 2
$ 1 1
$ 1 0
$ 1 0
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 21.5
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$ 1 0
$ 1 8
$ 26
$ 32
$ 37
$ 38
$ 36
$ 31
$ 29
$ 27
$ 26
$ 24
$ 22
$ 20
$ 1 8
$ 1 7
$ 1 6
$ 1 5
$ 49.8
50,000-99,999
Mean
Value
$
$
$ 05
$ 09
$ 1 2
$ 1 5
$ 1 6
$ 1 5
$ 14
$ 1 2
$ 1 2
$ 1 1
$ 1 0
$ 09
$ 09
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 20.5
Operational Evaluation
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$ 03
$ 06
$ 08
$ 1 0
$ 1 0
$ 09
$ 09
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 12.8
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$ 07
$ 1 3
$ 1 8
$ 22
$ 24
$ 22
$ 21
$ 1 8
$ 1 7
$ 16
$ 1 5
$ 14
$ 1 3
$ 1 1
$ 1 0
$ 1 0
$ 09
$ 09
$ 29.8
100,000-999,999
Mean
Value
$
$
$ 1 3
$ 24
$ 33
$ 42
$ 39
$ 36
$ 34
$ 30
$ 28
$ 26
$ 24
$ 23
$ 21
$ 1 8
$ 1 7
$ 1 6
$ 15
$ 14
$ 50.4
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$
$
$ 08
$ 1 5
$ 21
$ 26
$ 25
$ 23
$ 22
$ 1 9
$ 1 8
$ 16
$ 1 5
$ 14
$ 1 3
$ 1 2
$ 1 1
$ 1 0
$ 10
$ 09
$ 32.1
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$ 1 9
$ 36
$ 51
$ 64
$ 59
$ 56
$ 52
$ 49
$ 45
$ 42
$ 40
$ 37
$ 35
$ 28
$ 26
$ 25
$ 23
$ 22
$ 77.2
1,000,000 +
Operation
al
Evaluation
$
$
$ 08
$ 14
$ 20
$ 25
$ 23
$ 22
$ 20
$ 1 9
$ 1 8
$ 1 7
$ 1 6
$ 1 5
$ 14
$ 1 1
$ 1 0
$ 1 0
$ 09
$ 08
$ 30.3
$ 2.6
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$
$
$ 05
$ 09
$ 1 3
$ 1 6
$ 1 5
$ 14
$ 1 3
$ 1 2
$ 1 1
$ 1 1
$ 10
$ 09
$ 09
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 05
$ 19.2
$ 1.6
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$ 1 2
$ 22
$ 32
$ 39
$ 37
$ 34
$ 32
$ 30
$ 28
$ 26
$ 24
$ 23
$ 21
$ 20
$ 1 7
$ 1 6
$ 1 5
$ 14
$ 1 3
$ 47.7
$ 4.1
Ann=vak
3 Derived fror
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2bt Present Value of N on-Treat merit Costs at 7% Discount Rate, by System
(Surface Water CWSs)
-------
Exhibit J.2bu Present Value of Total Costs at 7% Discount Rate, by System Size
(Surface Water NTNCWSs)
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Total
Ann.
<100
Mean
Value
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 1.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
S 0.6
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 00
$
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 1.6
100-499
Mean
Value
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 01
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 2.6
Operational
Evaluation
(5th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 02
$ 02
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00 $ 01
$ 00 $ 01
500-999
Mean
Value
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 00
$
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
1,000-3,300
Mean
Value
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 00
$
$ 00
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
3,301-9,999
Mean
Value
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th%tile)
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 00
$
$ 00
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
10,000-49,999
Mean
Value
$ -
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
50,000-99,999
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Operational
Evaluation
(5th%tile)
$
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$
$
$ -
$
$
$ -
$
$
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
100,000-999,999
Mean
Value
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
1 ,000,000+
onal
Evaluat
ion
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
'alues in millions of 2003 dollars Estimates are discounted to 2005
rom Exhibits J 2a through rr
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
-------
Exhibit J.2bv Present Value of Capital Costs at 7% Discount Rate, by System Size
(Surface Water NTNCWSs)
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Ann.
<100
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
100-499
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.1
Operational Evaluation
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
500-999
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
1,000-3,300
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
3,301-9,999
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
10,000-49,999
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
50,000-99,999
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Operational Evaluation
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
100,000-999,999
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,000,000+
OperatJ
onal
Evaluati
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Notes: Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.2a through rr.
Final Economic Analysis lor the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2bw Present Value of O&M Costs at 7% Discount Rate, by System Size
(Surface Water NTNCWSs)
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Ann.
<100
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
100-499
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
Operational Evaluation
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
500-999
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
1,000-3,300
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
3,301-9,999
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
10,000-49,999
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
50,000-99,999
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Operational Evaluation
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
100,000-999,999
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
1,000,000+
Operatic
nal
Evaluati
on
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discount6
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.
;: Derived from Exhibits J.2a through rr.
Final Economic Analysis lor the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2bx Present Value of N on-Treat merit Costs at 7% Discount Rate, by System
(Surface Water MTNCWSs)
-------
Exhibit J.2by Present Value of Total Costs at 7% Discount Rate, by System Size
(Ground Water CWSs)
Year
2005
2006
2007
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2015
2016
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Total
Ann.
<100
Mean
Value
$ 00
$ 06
$ 12
$ 09
$ 10
$ 07
$ 04
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 12.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 06
$ 11
$ 08
$ 07
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 10.9
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 06
$ 13
$ 10
$ 08
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 13.0
100-499
Mean
Value
$ 00
$ 08
$ 36
$ 27
$ 14
$ 13
$ 12
$ 1 1
$ 10
$ 10
$ 09
$ 09
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 07
$ 41.1
Operational
Evaluation
(5th%tile)
$ 00
$ 08
$ 31
$ 24
$ 13
$ 12
$ 1 1
$ 10
$ 10
$ 09
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
S 36.6
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 08
$ 41
$ 30
$ 15
$ 14
$ 13
$ 12
$ 11
$ 11
$ 10
$ 09
$ 09
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
S 45.6
500-999
Mean
Value
$ 00
$ 04
$ 22
$ 17
$ 09
$ 09
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 04
$ 27.5
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$ 00
$ 04
$ 18
$ 16
$ 09
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 04
$ 04
$ 24.8
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 04
$ 25
$ 19
$ 10
$ 09
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
S 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 30.1
1,000-3,300
Mean
Value
$ 00
$ 04
$ 41
$ 29
$ 13
$ 12
$ 12
$ 1 1
$ 10
$ 09
$ 09
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
S 45.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$ 00
$ 04
$ 39
$ 34
$ 25
$ 12
$ 12
$ 1 1
$ 10
$ 09
$ 09
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 39.7
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 04
$ 47
$ 32
$ 14
$ 13
$ 12
$ 12
$ 11
$ 10
$ 09
$ 09
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
S 50.4
3,301-9,999
Mean
Value
$ 00
$ 02
$ 64
$ 34
$ 10
$ 10
$ 09
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 05
$ 53.7
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$ 00
$ 02
$ 52
$ 29
$ 10
$ 09
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
S 45.6
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 02
$ 75
$ 39
$ 1 1
$ 10
$ 10
$ 09
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 61.8
10,000-49,999
Mean
Value
$ 00
$ 03
$ 06
$ 73
$ 23
$ 19
$ 17
$ 16
$ 15
$ 14
$ 13
$ 12
$ 12
$ 11
$ 10
$ 09
$ 09
S 65.6
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$ 00
$ 03
$ 06
$ 67
$ 22
$ 18
$ 17
$ 15
$ 14
$ 13
$ 13
$ 12
$ 11
$ 10
$ 10
$ 09
$ 08
$ 60.7
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 03
$ 06
$ 80
$ 24
$ 20
$ 18
$ 17
$ 16
$ 15
$ 14
$ 13
$ 12
$ 11
$ 1 1
$ 10
$ 09
$ 70.4
50,000-99,999
Mean
Value
$ 00
$ -
$ 01
$ 23
$ 06
$ 05
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
S 16.9
Operational
Evaluation
(5th
%tile)
$ 00
$ -
$ 01
$ 20
$ 06
$ 05
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 155
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 00
$
$ 01
$ 25
$ 06
$ 05
$ 05
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 18.3
100,000-999,999
Mean
Value
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 51
$ 12
$ 10
$ 09
$ 09
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
S 35.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 46
$ 1 1
$ 09
$ 09
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 04
$ 31.8
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 56
$ 13
$ 1 1
$ 10
$ 09
$ 09
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 05
$ 38.1
1,000,000+
onal
Evaluati
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 06
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
S 45
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 05
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 4.1
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 06
$ 07
$ 07
$ 07
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
S 5.0
Pre
t values
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to in dependent rounding
3 DenvedfromExhibitsJ 2athrough rr
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
-------
Exhibit J.2bz Present Value of Capital Costs at 7% Discount Rate, by System Size
(Ground Water CWSs)
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Total
Ann.
<100
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ 09
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 03
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.4
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 02
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.3
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$ 1 0
$ 09
$ 09
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 03
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.5
100-499
Mean
Value
$
$
$ 34
$ 32
$ 30
$ 28
$ 26
$ 24
$ 1 1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.6
Operational Evaluation
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$ 27
$ 25
$ 23
$ 22
$ 20
$ 1 0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.3
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$ 37
$ 34
$ 32
$ 30
$ 1 3
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.8
500-999
Mean
Value
$
$
$ 1 9
$ 1 8
$ 1 6
$ 1 5
$ 07
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$ 1 6
$ 1 5
$ 1 4
$ 1 3
$ 1 2
$ 06
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.8
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$ 22
$ 2 1
$ 20
$ 1 8
$ 1 7
$ 08
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.1
1,000-3,300
Mean
Value
$
$
$ 38
$ 35
$ 33
$ 29
$ 1 3
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 22.0
$ 1.9
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th%tile)
$
$
$ 31
$ 29
$ 27
$ 25
$ 24
$ 1 1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 18.0
$ 1.5
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$ 45
$ 42
$ 39
$ 36
$ 34
$ 1 6
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 25.9
$ 2.2
3,301-9,999
Mean
Value
$
$
$ 63
$ 59
$ 52
$ 48
$ 23
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 3.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$
$
$ 51
$ 48
$ 45
$ 42
$ 39
$ 1 8
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 2.6
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$ 75
$ 70
$ 66
$ 61
$ 57
$ 27
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 3.7
10,000-49,999
Mean
Value
$
$
$ 67
$ 63
$ 58
$ 55
$ 26
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 2.9
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th%tile)
$
$
$ 60
$ 56
$ 53
$ 49
$ 23
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 2.6
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$ 73
$ 69
$ 64
$ 60
$ 28
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 3.2
50,000-99,999
Mean
Value
$
$
$ 21
$ 1 9
$ 1 8
$ 08
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.8
Operationa
(5th%tile)
$
$
$ 1 9
$ 1 7
$ 1 6
$ 08
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.7
Evaluation
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$ 23
$ 21
$ 20
$ 09
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.8
100,000-999,999
Mean
Value
$
$
$ 46
$ 43
$ 40
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.5
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$ 41
$ 38
$ 36
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.4
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$ 51
$ 48
$ 45
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.7
1,000,000 +
Evaluati
$ -
$ -
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.2
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$ 05
$ 04
$ 04
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.8
$ 0.2
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$ 06
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 2.3
$ 0.2
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent roundo
Ann = value of total annuahzed at discount rate
3 Derived from Exhibits J 2a through IT
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2ca Present Value of O&M Costs at 7% Discount Rate, by System Size
(Ground Water CWSs)
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Ann.
<100
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 01
$ 02
$ 02
$ 03
$ 04
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 01
$ 02
$ 02
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 01
$ 02
$ 03
$ 03
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
100-499
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 04
$ 07
$ 09
$ 1 2
$ 1 3
$ 1 4
$ 1 3
$ 1 2
$ 1 2
$ 1 1
$ 1 0
$ 1 0
$ 09
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
Operationa Evaluation
Lower
(5th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 03
$ 06
$ 08
$ 1 1
$ 1 2
$ 1 3
$ 1 2
$ 1 1
$ 1 1
$ 1 0
$ 09
$ 09
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 04
$ 07
$ 1 0
$ 1 2
$ 1 5
$ 1 6
$ 1 5
$ 14
$ 1 3
$ 1 3
$ 1 2
$ 1 1
$ 1 0
$ 1 0
$ 09
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
500-999
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 02
$ 04
$ 05
$ 06
$ 07
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 03
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 02
$ 05
$ 06
$ 07
$ 07
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 02
$ 05
$ 07
$ 08
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
1,000-3,300
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 03
$ 08
$ 09
$ 1 1
$ 1 2
$ 1 2
$ 1 1
$ 1 0
$ 09
$ 09
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 16.5
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 03
$ 07
$ 09
$ 1 0
$ 1 1
$ 1 0
$ 09
$ 09
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 05
$ 15.0
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 03
$ 08
$ 1 0
$ 1 2
$ 1 3
$ 1 2
$ 1 1
$ 1 0
$ 1 0
$ 09
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 17.9
3,301-9,999
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 02
$ 06
$ 08
$ 09
$ 1 0
$ 09
$ 09
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 05
$ 04
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 02
$ 06
$ 07
$ 09
$ 1 0
$ 09
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 05
$ 04
$ 04
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 03
$ 07
$ 09
$ 1 0
$ 1 1
$ 1 1
$ 1 1
$ 1 0
$ 09
$ 09
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 05
10,000-49,999
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 06
$ 1 5
$ 1 9
$ 22
$ 22
$ 21
$ 20
$ 1 8
$ 1 7
$ 1 6
$ 1 5
$ 14
$ 1 3
$ 1 2
$ 1 1
$ 1 1
$ 09
$ 09
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 05
$ 14
$ 1 8
$ 21
$ 21
$ 20
$ 1 8
$ 1 7
$ 1 6
$ 1 5
$ 14
$ 1 3
$ 1 2
$ 1 1
$ 1 1
$ 1 0
$ 09
$ 08
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 06
$ 1 1
$ 1 6
$ 20
$ 23
$ 24
$ 22
$ 21
$ 1 9
$ 1 7
$ 1 6
$ 1 5
$ 1 4
$ 1 3
$ 1 2
$ 1 1
$ 1 0
$ 09
50,000-99,999
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 02
$ 03
$ 05
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
Operationa
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 02
$ 03
$ 04
$ 05
$ 06
$ 05
$ 05
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
Evaluation
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 02
$ 04
$ 05
$ 06
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 05
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
100,000-999,999
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 04
$ 08
$ 1 2
$ 14
$ 1 3
$ 1 2
$ 1 1
$ 1 0
$ 09
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 05
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 04
$ 08
$ 1 1
$ 1 3
$ 1 3
$ 1 1
$ 1 0
$ 1 0
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 05
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 05
$ 1 2
$ 1 5
$ 14
$ 1 3
$ 1 2
$ 1 1
$ 1 0
$ 09
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
1,000,000+
Operatic
Evaluati
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 01
$ 01
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 01
$ 01
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 01
$ 01
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
independent rounding
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2cb Present Value of Non-Treatment Costs at 7% Discount Rate, by System Size
(Ground Water CWSs)
-------
Exhibit J.2cc Present Value of Total Costs at 7% Discount Rate, by System Size
(Ground Water NTNCWSs)
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Ann.
<100
Mean
Value
$ 00
$ 02
$ -
$ 00
$ 05
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 05
$ 05
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
S 04
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 02
$ -
$ 00
$ 04
$ 04
$ 03
$ 04
$ 04
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
S 0.4
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 02
$
$ 00
$ 05
$ 05
$ 04
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 04
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
S 05
100-499
Mean
Value
$ 00
$ 02
$ -
$ 00
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
S 0.6
Operational
Evaluation
(5th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 02
$ -
$ 00
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 06
$ 06
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
S 0.5
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 02
$
$ 00
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 07
$ 07
$ 07
$ 05
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 0.7
500-999
Mean
Value
$ 00
$ 01
$ -
$ 00
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 04
$ 04
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
S 0.4
90 Percent
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 01
$ -
$ 00
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 03
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 01
$
$ 00
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
$ 04
$ 04
S 04
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
S 01
$ 01
$ 01
S 0.4
1,000-3,300
Value
$ 00
$ 00
$ -
$ 00
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 02
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 00
$ -
$ 00
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 0.2
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 00
$
$ 00
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 02
3,301 -9,999
Mean
Value
$ 00
$ 00
$ -
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
S 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$ 00
$ 00
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
S 00
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 00
$ 00
$
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
S 0.0
10,000-49,999
Mean
Value
$ -
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
S 00
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th%tile)
$ -
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
S 0.0
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
S 00
50,000-99,999
Mean
Value
$ 00
$ -
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
S 00
Operational
Evaluation
Lower
(5th%tile)
$ 00
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
S 00
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 00
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
S 00
100,000-999,999
Mean
Value
$ 00
$ -
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
S 0.0
90 Percent
Lower
(5th%tile)
$ 00
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
S 00
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 00
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
S 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
S 00
$ 00
$ 00
S 0.0
1 ,000,000+
Ope rat
onal
Evaluat
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$ -
$
$
$ -
$
$
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$
$
$ -
$
$
$ -
$
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
Present values in millions of 2003 dollars Estimates <
Detail may not add exactly to totals duetomdepender
Final EconomK Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
-------
Exhibit J.2cd Present Value of Capital Costs at 7% Discount Rate, by System Size
(Ground Water NTNCWSs)
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
Total
<100
Mean
Value
$ -
$
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 01
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.8
$ 0.2
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.5
$ 0.1
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 0 1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 2.0
$ 0.2
100-499
Mean
Value
$
$ -
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 04
$ 04
$ 02
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 2.8
Operationa Evaluation
Lower
(5th%tile)
$
$
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 03
$ 0 1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 2.4
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 05
$ 04
$ 02
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 3.2
500-999
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.4
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th%tile)
$
$
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 0 1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.2
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.6
1,000-3,300
Mean
Value
$
$
$ 02
$ 02
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.9
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.7
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.1
3,301-9,999
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th%tile)
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$
$
$
$
$
$
10,000-49,999
Mean
Value
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
50,000-99,999
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Operationa
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Evaluation
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
100,000-999,999
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,000,000+
Evaluati
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
to independent rounding
-ivedfrom Exhibits J2(
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2ce Present Value of O&M Costs at 7% Discount Rate, by System Size
(Ground Water NTNCWSs|
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Ann.
<100
Value
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0.2
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0.2
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0.2
100-499
Value
$
$
$
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0.3
Operationa Evaluation
(5th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0.2
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0.3
500-999
Value
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 0.1
90 Percent
(5th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 0.1
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 0.1
1,000-3,300
Value
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 0.0
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 0.1
3,301-9,999
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 0.0
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 0.0
10,000-49,999
Value
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 0.0
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 0.0
50,000-99,999
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 0.0
Operationa
(5th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 0.0
Evaluation
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 0.0
100,000-999,999
Value
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 0.0
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 0.0
1,000,000+
LJpudUu
on
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Present values in millions of 2003 dollars Estimates are
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent re
Ann = value of total annuahzed at discount rate
Derived from Exhibits J 2a through IT
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.2cf Present Value of Non-Treatment Costs at 7% Discount Rate, by System
(Ground Water NTNCWSs)
-------
Section J.3
Cost Projections (Alternative 1)
-------
-------
Exhibit J.3a Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(All Surface Water CWSs)
Alternative 1
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 429.81
$ 429.81
$ 429.81
$ 429.81
$ 116.46
$ 60.11
$ 14.34
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$245.90
$245.90
$245.90
$245.90
$ 66.68
$ 34.47
$ 8.25
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 630.48
$ 630.48
$ 630.48
$ 630.48
$ 170.03
$ 87.58
$ 20.78
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 37.45
$ 74.91
$112.36
$149.82
$158.67
$163.35
$164.56
$164.56
$164.56
$164.56
$164.56
$164.56
$164.56
$164.56
$164.56
$164.56
$164.56
$164.56
$164.56
$164.56
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 21.68
$ 43.36
$ 65.03
$ 86.71
$ 91.85
$ 94.56
$ 95.26
$ 95.26
$ 95.26
$ 95.26
$ 95.26
$ 95.26
$ 95.26
$ 95.26
$ 95.26
$ 95.26
$ 95.26
$ 95.26
$ 95.26
$ 95.26
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 53.56
$ 107.12
$ 160.68
$ 214.23
$ 226.87
$ 233.55
$ 235.27
$ 235.27
$ 235.27
$ 235.27
$ 235.27
$ 235.27
$ 235.27
$ 235.27
$ 235.27
$ 235.27
$ 235.27
$ 235.27
$ 235.27
$ 235.27
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.87
$ 1.15
$
$ 0.78
$ 0.67
$ 0.58
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$10.60
$22.94
$15.99
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 0.28
$ 0.64
$ 0.74
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.42
$ (0.77)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.06
$ 0.15
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.87
$ 11.76
$ 23.22
$ 17.40
$ 431.22
$ 467.84
$ 505.14
$ 541.47
$ 264.35
$ 216.92
$ 175.84
$ 162.70
$ 162.70
$ 162.70
$ 162.70
$ 162.70
$ 162.70
$ 162.70
$ 162.70
$ 162.70
$ 162.70
$ 162.70
$ 162.70
$ 162.70
$ 162.70
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tlle)
$ 0.87
$ 11.76
$ 23.22
$ 17.40
$ 247.31
$ 268.15
$ 289.67
$ 310.22
$ 151.48
$ 124.46
$ 100.95
$ 93.40
$ 93.40
$ 93.40
$ 93.40
$ 93.40
$ 93.40
$ 93.40
$ 93.40
$ 93.40
$ 93.40
$ 93.40
$ 93.40
$ 93.40
$ 93.40
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 0.87
$ 11.76
$ 23.22
$ 17.40
$ 631.89
$ 684.62
$ 738.02
$ 790.45
$ 382.34
$ 312.60
$ 252.48
$ 233.41
$ 233.41
$ 233.41
$ 233.41
$ 233.41
$ 233.41
$ 233.41
$ 233.41
$ 233.41
$ 233.41
$ 233.41
$ 233.41
$ 233.41
$ 233.41
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1b and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.3b Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(All Surface Water NTNCWSs)
Alternative 1
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 2.82
$ 2.82
$ 2.82
$ 2.82
$ 2.38
$ 2.22
$ 1.03
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 1.61
$ 1.61
$ 1.61
$ 1.61
$ 1.37
$ 1.27
$ 0.59
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 4.11
$ 4.11
$ 4.11
$ 4.11
$ 3.47
$ 3.23
$ 1.49
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.26
$ 0.51
$ 0.77
$ 1.02
$ 1.24
$ 1.45
$ 1.55
$ 1.55
$ 1.55
$ 1.55
$ 1.55
$ 1.55
$ 1.55
$ 1.55
$ 1.55
$ 1.55
$ 1.55
$ 1.55
$ 1.55
$ 1.55
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.15
$ 0.30
$ 0.44
$ 0.59
$ 0.72
$ 0.84
$ 0.90
$ 0.90
$ 0.90
$ 0.90
$ 0.90
$ 0.90
$ 0.90
$ 0.90
$ 0.90
$ 0.90
$ 0.90
$ 0.90
$ 0.90
$ 0.90
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.36
$ 0.73
$ 1.09
$ 1.46
$ 1.77
$ 2.06
$ 2.20
$ 2.20
$ 2.20
$ 2.20
$ 2.20
$ 2.20
$ 2.20
$ 2.20
$ 2.20
$ 2.20
$ 2.20
$ 2.20
$ 2.20
$ 2.20
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.01
$ 0.07
$
$ 0.01
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ 0.01
$ 0.04
$ 0.02
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring Plans
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.02
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.01
$ 0.08
$ 0.04
$ 0.03
$ 2.86
$ 3.11
$ 3.33
$ 3.60
$ 3.43
$ 3.49
$ 2.50
$ 1.58
$ 1.58
$ 1.58
$ 1.58
$ 1.58
$ 1.58
$ 1.58
$ 1.58
$ 1.58
$ 1.58
$ 1.58
$ 1.58
$ 1.58
$ 1.58
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.01
$ 0.08
$ 0.04
$ 0.03
$ 1.66
$ 1.80
$ 1.91
$ 2.08
$ 1.99
$ 2.02
$ 1.46
$ 0.93
$ 0.93
$ 0.93
$ 0.93
$ 0.93
$ 0.93
$ 0.93
$ 0.93
$ 0.93
$ 0.93
$ 0.93
$ 0.93
$ 0.93
$ 0.93
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.01
$ 0.08
$ 0.04
$ 0.03
$ 4.16
$ 4.51
$ 4.84
$ 5.22
$ 4.95
$ 5.03
$ 3.59
$ 2.23
$ 2.23
$ 2.23
$ 2.23
$ 2.23
$ 2.23
$ 2.23
$ 2.23
$ 2.23
$ 2.23
$ 2.23
$ 2.23
$ 2.23
$ 2.23
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1 b and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.3c Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(All Surface Water Systems)
Alternative 1
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 432.63
$ 432.63
$ 432.63
$ 432.63
$ 118.84
$ 62.32
$ 15.37
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 247.51
$ 247.51
$ 247.51
$ 247.51
$ 68.05
$ 35.74
$ 8.84
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 634.59
$ 634.59
$ 634.59
$ 634.59
$ 173.50
$ 90.81
$ 22.28
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 37.71
$ 75.42
$113.13
$150.84
$159.91
$164.80
$166.10
$166.10
$166.10
$166.10
$166.10
$166.10
$166.10
$166.10
$166.10
$166.10
$166.10
$166.10
$166.10
$166.10
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 21.83
$ 43.65
$ 65.48
$ 87.30
$ 92.57
$ 95.40
$ 96.15
$ 96.15
$ 96.15
$ 96.15
$ 96.15
$ 96.15
$ 96.15
$ 96.15
$ 96.15
$ 96.15
$ 96.15
$ 96.15
$ 96.15
$ 96.15
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 53.92
$ 107.85
$161.77
$215.69
$ 228.64
$ 235.62
$ 237.47
$ 237.47
$ 237.47
$ 237.47
$ 237.47
$ 237.47
$ 237.47
$ 237.47
$ 237.47
$ 237.47
$ 237.47
$ 237.47
$ 237.47
$ 237.47
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.88
$ 1.22
$
$ 0.79
$ 0.71
$ 0.61
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ 10.62
$ 22.98
$ 16.01
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 0.28
$ 0.64
$ 0.75
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.42
$ (0.75)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.06
$ 0.15
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.88
$ 11.84
$ 23.26
$ 17.44
$ 434.09
$ 470.95
$ 508.47
$ 545.07
$ 267.78
$ 220.41
$ 178.35
$ 164.27
$ 164.27
$ 164.27
$ 164.27
$ 164.27
$ 164.27
$ 164.27
$ 164.27
$ 164.27
$ 164.27
$ 164.27
$ 164.27
$ 164.27
$ 164.27
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.88
$ 11.84
$ 23.26
$ 17.44
$ 248.97
$ 269.95
$ 291.59
$ 312.30
$ 153.46
$ 126.48
$ 102.41
$ 94.33
$ 94.33
$ 94.33
$ 94.33
$ 94.33
$ 94.33
$ 94.33
$ 94.33
$ 94.33
$ 94.33
$ 94.33
$ 94.33
$ 94.33
$ 94.33
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 0.88
$ 11.84
$ 23.26
$ 17.44
$ 636.05
$ 689.12
$ 742.86
$ 795.67
$ 387.30
$ 317.63
$ 256.07
$ 235.64
$ 235.64
$ 235.64
$ 235.64
$ 235.64
$ 235.64
$ 235.64
$ 235.64
$ 235.64
$ 235.64
$ 235.64
$ 235.64
$ 235.64
$ 235.64
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1b and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.3d Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(All Ground Water CWSs)
Alternative 1
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 97.73
$ 97.73
$ 97.73
$ 97.73
$ 69.24
$ 51.85
$ 19.52
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 83.85
$ 83.85
$ 83.85
$ 83.85
$ 59.20
$ 44.06
$ 16.44
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 111.64
$ 111.64
$ 111.64
$ 111.64
$ 79.33
$ 59.68
$ 22.61
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 8.99
$ 17.98
$ 26.98
$ 35.97
$ 41.89
$ 46.13
$ 47.64
$ 47.64
$ 47.64
$ 47.64
$ 47.64
$ 47.64
$ 47.64
$ 47.64
$ 47.64
$ 47.64
$ 47.64
$ 47.64
$ 47.64
$ 47.64
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 8.33
$ 16.66
$ 25.00
$ 33.33
$ 38.83
$ 42.77
$ 44.17
$ 44.17
$ 44.17
$ 44.17
$ 44.17
$ 44.17
$ 44.17
$ 44.17
$ 44.17
$ 44.17
$ 44.17
$ 44.17
$ 44.17
$ 44.17
Upper
(95th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 9.65
$ 19.31
$ 28.96
$ 38.61
$ 44.95
$ 49.50
$ 51.11
$ 51.11
$ 51.11
$ 51.11
$ 51.11
$ 51.11
$ 51.11
$ 51.11
$ 51.11
$ 51.11
$ 51.11
$ 51.11
$ 51.11
$ 51.11
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.18
$ 3.31
$
$ 0.14
$ 1.69
$ 1.66
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$
$ 0.09
$ 1.09
$ 6.66
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring Plans
$
$
$ 0.02
$ 0.21
$ 1.74
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ (0.11)
$ 0.83
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.18
$ 3.40
$ 1.11
$ 7.01
$ 101.15
$ 108.38
$ 115.60
$ 125.53
$ 106.97
$ 95.50
$ 67.41
$ 49.40
$ 49.40
$ 49.40
$ 49.40
$ 49.40
$ 49.40
$ 49.40
$ 49.40
$ 49.40
$ 49.40
$ 49.40
$ 49.40
$ 49.40
$ 49.40
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th % tile)
$ 0.18
$ 3.40
$ 1.11
$ 7.01
$ 87.28
$ 93.84
$ 100.41
$ 109.68
$ 94.28
$ 84.64
$ 60.97
$ 45.93
$ 45.93
$ 45.93
$ 45.93
$ 45.93
$ 45.93
$ 45.93
$ 45.93
$ 45.93
$ 45.93
$ 45.93
$ 45.93
$ 45.93
$ 45.93
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.18
$ 3.40
$ 1.11
$ 7.01
$ 115.07
$ 122.95
$ 130.84
$ 141.43
$ 119.71
$ 106.39
$ 73.86
$ 52.87
$ 52.87
$ 52.87
$ 52.87
$ 52.87
$ 52.87
$ 52.87
$ 52.87
$ 52.87
$ 52.87
$ 52.87
$ 52.87
$ 52.87
$ 52.87
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1b and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.3e Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(All Ground Water NTNCWSs)
Alternative 1
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 2.65
$ 2.65
$ 2.65
$ 2.65
$ 2.62
$ 2.58
$ 1.28
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 2.25
$ 2.25
$ 2.25
$ 2.25
$ 2.23
$ 2.20
$ ice
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 3.04
$ 3.04
$ 3.04
$ 3.04
$ 3.01
$ 2.97
$ 1.47
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.27
$ 0.54
$ 0.80
$ 1.07
$ 1.34
$ 1.60
$ 1.73
$ 1.73
$ 1.73
$ 1.73
$ 1.73
$ 1.73
$ 1.73
$ 1.73
$ 1.73
$ 1.73
$ 1.73
$ 1.73
$ 1.73
$ 1.73
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.25
$ 0.50
$ 0.75
$ 0.99
$ 1.24
$ 1.48
$ 1.60
$ 1.60
$ 1.60
$ 1.60
$ 1.60
$ 1.60
$ 1.60
$ 1.60
$ 1.60
$ 1.60
$ 1.60
$ 1.60
$ 1.60
$ 1.60
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.29
$ 0.58
$ 0.86
$ 1.15
$ 1.44
$ 1.72
$ 1.86
$ 1.86
$ 1.86
$ 1.86
$ 1.86
$ 1.86
$ 1.86
$ 1.86
$ 1.86
$ 1.86
$ 1.86
$ 1.86
$ 1.86
$ 1.86
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.00
$ 0.56
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.28
$ 0.28
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ -
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring Plans
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.21
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.36
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.00
$ 0.56
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 3.14
$ 3.19
$ 3.19
$ 3.81
$ 4.40
$ 4.63
$ 3.59
$ 2.44
$ 2.44
$ 2.44
$ 2.44
$ 2.44
$ 2.44
$ 2.44
$ 2.44
$ 2.44
$ 2.44
$ 2.44
$ 2.44
$ 2.44
$ 2.44
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.00
$ 0.56
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 2.75
$ 2.78
$ 2.75
$ 3.36
$ 3.93
$ 4.15
$ 3.28
$ 2.31
$ 2.31
$ 2.31
$ 2.31
$ 2.31
$ 2.31
$ 2.31
$ 2.31
$ 2.31
$ 2.31
$ 2.31
$ 2.31
$ 2.31
$ 2.31
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.00
$ 0.56
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 3.53
$ 3.61
$ 3.62
$ 4.26
$ 4.87
$ 5.12
$ 3.90
$ 2.57
$ 2.57
$ 2.57
$ 2.57
$ 2.57
$ 2.57
$ 2.57
$ 2.57
$ 2.57
$ 2.57
$ 2.57
$ 2.57
$ 2.57
$ 2.57
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1 b and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.3f Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(All Ground Water Systems)
Alternative 1
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 100.38
$ 100.38
$ 100.38
$ 100.38
$ 71.86
$ 54.44
$ 20.80
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 86.11
$ 86.11
$ 86.11
$ 86.11
$ 61.42
$ 46.25
$ 17.53
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 114.69
$ 114.69
$ 114.69
$ 114.69
$ 82.34
$ 62.65
$ 24.08
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 9.26
$ 18.52
$ 27.78
$ 37.04
$ 43.22
$ 47.73
$ 49.37
$ 49.37
$ 49.37
$ 49.37
$ 49.37
$ 49.37
$ 49.37
$ 49.37
$ 49.37
$ 49.37
$ 49.37
$ 49.37
$ 49.37
$ 49.37
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 8.58
$ 17.16
$ 25.74
$ 34.32
$ 40.07
$ 44.26
$ 45.78
$ 45.78
$ 45.78
$ 45.78
$ 45.78
$ 45.78
$ 45.78
$ 45.78
$ 45.78
$ 45.78
$ 45.78
$ 45.78
$ 45.78
$ 45.78
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 9.94
$ 19.88
$ 29.82
$ 39.77
$ 46.39
$ 51.21
$ 52.96
$ 52.96
$ 52.96
$ 52.96
$ 52.96
$ 52.96
$ 52.96
$ 52.96
$ 52.96
$ 52.96
$ 52.96
$ 52.96
$ 52.96
$ 52.96
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.18
$ 3.87
$
$ 0.14
$ 1.97
$ 1.94
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ 0.09
$ 1.09
$ 6.66
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 0.02
$ 0.21
$ 1.95
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ (0.11)
$ 1.18
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
rational Evalua
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.18
$ 3.96
$ 1.11
$ 7.01
$ 104.29
$ 111.57
$ 118.79
$ 129.34
$ 111.37
$ 100.13
$ 71.00
$ 51.84
$ 51.84
$ 51.84
$ 51.84
$ 51.84
$ 51.84
$ 51.84
$ 51.84
$ 51.84
$ 51.84
$ 51.84
$ 51.84
$ 51.84
$ 51.84
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.18
$ 3.96
$ 1.11
$ 7.01
$ 90.03
$ 96.62
$ 103.16
$ 113.03
$ 98.21
$ 88.79
$ 64.26
$ 48.25
$ 48.25
$ 48.25
$ 48.25
$ 48.25
$ 48.25
$ 48.25
$ 48.25
$ 48.25
$ 48.25
$ 48.25
$ 48.25
$ 48.25
$ 48.25
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 0.18
$ 3.96
$ 1.11
$ 7.01
$ 118.61
$ 126.56
$ 134.46
$ 145.70
$ 124.58
$ 111.51
$ 77.76
$ 55.43
$ 55.43
$ 55.43
$ 55.43
$ 55.43
$ 55.43
$ 55.43
$ 55.43
$ 55.43
$ 55.43
$ 55.43
$ 55.43
$ 55.43
$ 55.43
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1 band Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.3g Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(All Systems)
Alternative 1
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 533.00
$ 533.00
$ 533.00
$ 533.00
$ 190.70
$ 116.76
$ 36.17
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 333.62
$ 333.62
$ 333.62
$ 333.62
$ 129.47
$ 82.00
$ 26.36
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 749.27
$ 749.27
$ 749.27
$ 749.27
$ 255.84
$ 153.46
$ 46.35
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 46.97
$ 93.94
$ 140.91
$ 187.88
$ 203.14
$ 212.53
$ 215.47
$ 215.47
$ 215.47
$ 215.47
$ 215.47
$ 215.47
$ 215.47
$ 215.47
$ 215.47
$ 215.47
$ 215.47
$ 215.47
$ 215.47
$ 215.47
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 30.41
$ 60.81
$ 91.22
$ 121.63
$ 132.63
$ 139.66
$ 141.93
$ 141.93
$ 141.93
$ 141.93
$ 141.93
$ 141.93
$ 141.93
$ 141.93
$ 141.93
$ 141.93
$ 141.93
$ 141.93
$ 141.93
$ 141.93
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 63.86
$ 127.73
$ 191.59
$ 255.46
$ 275.03
$ 286.83
$ 290.43
$ 290.43
$ 290.43
$ 290.43
$ 290.43
$ 290.43
$ 290.43
$ 290.43
$ 290.43
$ 290.43
$ 290.43
$ 290.43
$ 290.43
$ 290.43
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 1.06
$ 5.09
$
$ 0.93
$ 2.68
$ 2.55
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ 10.70
$ 24.07
$ 22.67
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 0.30
$ 0.85
$ 2.70
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.32
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
rational Evalu;
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.06
$ 0.15
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 1.06
$ 15.80
$ 24.36
$ 24.45
$ 538.38
$ 582.52
$ 627.26
$ 674.41
$ 379.16
$ 320.54
$ 249.35
$ 216.11
$ 216.11
$ 216.11
$ 216.11
$ 216.11
$ 216.11
$ 216.11
$ 216.11
$ 216.11
$ 216.11
$ 216.11
$ 216.11
$ 216.11
$ 216.11
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 1.06
$ 15.80
$ 24.36
$ 24.45
$ 339.00
$ 366.57
$ 394.75
$ 425.33
$ 251.68
$ 215.27
$ 166.67
$ 142.57
$ 142.57
$ 142.57
$ 142.57
$ 142.57
$ 142.57
$ 142.57
$ 142.57
$ 142.57
$ 142.57
$ 142.57
$ 142.57
$ 142.57
$ 142.57
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 1.06
$ 15.80
$ 24.36
$ 24.45
$ 754.65
$ 815.69
$ 877.32
$ 941.36
$ 511.87
$ 429.14
$ 333.83
$ 291.08
$ 291.08
$ 291.08
$ 291.08
$ 291.08
$ 291.08
$ 291.08
$ 291.08
$ 291.08
$ 291.08
$ 291.08
$ 291.08
$ 291.08
$ 291.08
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1 b and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.3h Projections of Stage 2 DBPR Primacy Agency Costs
Alternative 1
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Implementation Costs
$ 3.88
$ 3.88
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE Costs
$
$ 0.05
$ 0.14
$ 2.03
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring Plan
Costs
$
$
$ 0.02
$ 0.06
$ 0.84
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Compliance
Monitoring
Costs
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1 h and D.7.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.3i Present Value of Annual Capital Cost Projections at 3% Discount Rate
(All Systems and Primacy Agencies)
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Total
Ann.
Surface Water CWS
Mean
Value
$ 0.8
$ 10.8
$ 20.6
$ 15.0
$ 361.1
$ 380.4
$ 398.8
$ 415.0
$ 196.7
$ 156.7
$ 123.3
$ 110.8
$ 107.6
$ 104.4
$ 101.4
$ 98.4
$ 95.6
$ 92.8
$ 90.1
$ 87.5
$ 84.9
$ 82.4
$ 80.0
$ 77.7
$ 75.4
$ 3,368.3
$ 193.4
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.8
$ 10.8
$ 20.6
$ 15.0
$ 207.1
$ 218.0
$ 228.7
$ 237.8
$ 112.7
$ 89.9
$ 70.8
$ 63.6
$ 61.7
$ 60.0
$ 58.2
$ 56.5
$ 54.9
$ 53.3
$ 51.7
$ 50.2
$ 48.7
$ 47.3
$ 45.9
$ 44.6
$ 43.3
$ 1,952.2
$ 112.1
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.8
$ 10.8
$ 20.6
$ 15.0
$ 529.2
$ 556.7
$ 582.6
$ 605.8
$ 284.5
$ 225.8
$ 177.1
$ 158.9
$ 154.3
$ 149.8
$ 145.5
$ 141.2
$ 137.1
$ 133.1
$ 129.2
$ 125.5
$ 121.8
$ 118.3
$ 114.8
$ 111.5
$ 108.2
$ 4,858.2
$ 279.0
Surface Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 2.4
$ 2.5
$ 2.6
$ 2.8
$ 2.6
$ 2.5
$ 1.8
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 29.8
$ 1.7
Operational
Evaluation
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 1.4
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.0
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 17.4
$ 1.0
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 3.5
$ 3.7
$ 3.8
$ 4.0
$ 3.7
$ 3.6
$ 2.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 42.6
$ 2.4
Disinfecting Ground Water CWS
Mean
Value
$ 0.2
$ 3.1
$ 1.0
$ 6.0
$ 84.7
$ 88.1
$ 91.3
$ 96.2
$ 79.6
$ 69.0
$ 47.3
$ 33.6
$ 32.7
$ 31.7
$ 30.8
$ 29.9
$ 29.0
$ 28.2
$ 27.3
$ 26.6
$ 25.8
$ 25.0
$ 24.3
$ 23.6
$ 22.9
$ 957.8
$ 55.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ 0.2
$ 3.1
$ 1.0
$ 6.0
$ 73.1
$ 76.3
$ 79.3
$ 84.1
$ 70.2
$ 61.1
$ 42.8
$ 31.3
$ 30.4
$ 29.5
$ 28.6
$ 27.8
$ 27.0
$ 26.2
$ 25.4
$ 24.7
$ 24.0
$ 23.3
$ 22.6
$ 21.9
$ 21.3
$ 861.0
$ 49.4
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 0.2
$ 3.1
$ 1.0
$ 6.0
$ 96.4
$ 100.0
$ 103.3
$ 108.4
$ 89.1
$ 76.9
$ 51.8
$ 36.0
$ 35.0
$ 33.9
$ 32.9
$ 32.0
$ 31.1
$ 30.1
$ 29.3
$ 28.4
$ 27.6
$ 26.8
$ 26.0
$ 25.2
$ 24.5
$ 1,054.9
$ 60.6
Disinfecting Ground Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$ 0.0
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 2.6
$ 2.6
$ 2.5
$ 2.9
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
$ 2.5
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 39.7
$ 2.3
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 2.3
$ 2.3
$ 2.2
$ 2.6
$ 2.9
$ 3.0
$ 2.3
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 36.4
$ 2.1
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 3.0
$ 2.9
$ 2.9
$ 3.3
$ 3.6
$ 3.7
$ 2.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 42.9
$ 2.5
Primacy Agencies
Point Estimate
$ 3.7
$ 3.6
$ 0.1
$ 1.8
$ 0.7
$
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 29.8
$ 1.7
Total
Mean
Value
$ 4.7
$ 18.1
$ 21.8
$ 22.9
$ 451.6
$ 473.6
$ 496.5
$ 518.2
$ 283.4
$ 232.8
$ 176.1
$ 148.3
$ 144.0
$ 139.8
$ 135.7
$ 131.8
$ 127.9
$ 124.2
$ 120.6
$ 117.1
$ 113.7
$ 110.4
$ 107.2
$ 104.0
$ 101.0
$ 4,425.4
$ 254.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 4.7
$ 18.1
$ 21.8
$ 22.9
$ 284.6
$ 298.1
$ 313.0
$ 327.3
$ 188.5
$ 156.8
$ 118.1
$ 98.2
$ 95.4
$ 92.6
$ 89.9
$ 87.3
$ 84.7
$ 82.3
$ 79.9
$ 77.6
$ 75.3
$ 73.1
$ 71.0
$ 68.9
$ 66.9
$ 2,896.8
$ 166.4
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 4.7
$ 18.1
$ 21 .8
$ 22.9
$ 632.7
$ 663.2
$ 693.9
$ 722.8
$ 382.2
$ 311.3
$ 235.3
$ 199.4
$ 193.6
$ 187.9
$ 182.5
$ 177.1
$ 172.0
$ 167.0
$ 162.1
$ 157.4
$ 152.8
$ 148.4
$ 144.0
$ 139.8
$ 135.8
$ 6,028.5
$ 346.2
Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.
:: Derived from Exhibits J.3a through h.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.3j Present Value of Annual O&M Treatment Cost Projections at 3% Discount Rate
(All Systems)
Alternative 1
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Total
Ann.
Surface Water CWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 360.0
$ 349.5
$ 339.3
$ 329.4
$ 86.7
$ 43.4
$ 10.1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1,518.3
$ 87.2
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 205.9
$ 199.9
$ 194.1
$ 188.5
$ 49.6
$ 24.9
$ 5.8
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 868.8
$ 49.9
Upper
(95th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 528.0
$ 512.6
$ 497.7
$ 483.2
$ 126.5
$ 63.3
$ 14.6
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 2,225.9
$ 127.8
Surface Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 2.4
$ 2.3
$ 2.2
$ 2.2
$ 1.8
$ 1.6
$ 0.7
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 13.1
$ 0.8
Operational Evaluation
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.4
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 7.5
$ 0.4
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 3.4
$ 3.3
$ 3.2
$ 3.1
$ 2.6
$ 2.3
$ 1.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 19.1
$ 1.1
Disinfecting Ground Water CWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 81.8
$ 79.5
$ 77.1
$ 74.9
$ 51.5
$ 37.5
$ 13.7
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 416.0
$ 23.9
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 70.2
$ 68.2
$ 66.2
$ 64.3
$ 44.0
$ 31.8
$ 11.5
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 356.3
$ 20.5
Upper
(95th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 93.5
$ 90.8
$ 88.1
$ 85.6
$ 59.0
$ 43.1
$ 15.9
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 476.0
$ 27.3
Disinfecting Ground Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 2.2
$ 2.2
$ 2.1
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 1.9
$ 0.9
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 13.2
$ 0.8
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 1.9
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 0.8
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 11.2
$ 0.6
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 2.5
$ 2.5
$ 2.4
$ 2.3
$ 2.2
$ 2.1
$ 1.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 15.2
$ 0.9
Total
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 446.4
$ 433.4
$ 420.8
$ 408.5
$ 141.9
$ 84.4
$ 25.4
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1,960.6
$ 112.6
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 279.4
$ 271.3
$ 263.4
$ 255.7
$ 96.3
$ 59.2
$ 18.5
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1 ,243.8
$ 71.4
Upper
(95th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 627.5
$ 609.2
$ 591.5
$ 574.3
$ 190.4
$ 110.9
$ 32.5
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 2,736.2
$ 157.1
Notes: Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2005.
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.3a through h.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.3k Present Value of Annual Treatment Cost Projections at 3% Discount Rate
(All Systems)
Alternative 1
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Total
Ann.
Surface Water CWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 30.5
$ 59.1
$ 86.1
$ 111.5
$ 114.6
$ 114.6
$ 112.1
$ 108.8
$ 105.6
$ 102.5
$ 99.6
$ 96.7
$ 93.8
$ 91.1
$ 88.5
$ 85.9
$ 83.4
$ 81.0
$ 78.6
$ 76.3
$ 1,820.1
$ 104.5
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 17.6
$ 34.2
$ 49.8
$ 64.5
$ 66.4
$ 66.3
$ 64.9
$ 63.0
$ 61.1
$ 59.4
$ 57.6
$ 56.0
$ 54.3
$ 52.7
$ 51.2
$ 49.7
$ 48.3
$ 46.9
$ 45.5
$ 44.2
$ 1 ,053.6
$ 60.5
Upper
(95th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 43.5
$ 84.6
$ 123.1
$ 159.4
$ 163.9
$ 163.8
$ 160.2
$ 155.5
$ 151.0
$ 146.6
$ 142.3
$ 138.2
$ 134.2
$ 130.3
$ 126.5
$ 122.8
$ 119.2
$ 115.7
$ 112.4
$ 109.1
$ 2,602.3
$ 149.4
Surface Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.4
$ 0.6
$ 0.8
$ 0.9
$ 1.0
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 16.1
$ 0.9
Operational Evaluation
Lower
(5th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 9.3
$ 0.5
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.3
$ 0.6
$ 0.8
$ 1.1
$ 1.3
$ 1.4
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 23.0
$ 1.3
Disinfecting Ground Water CWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 7.3
$ 14.2
$ 20.7
$ 26.8
$ 30.3
$ 32.4
$ 32.4
$ 31.5
$ 30.6
$ 29.7
$ 28.8
$ 28.0
$ 27.2
$ 26.4
$ 25.6
$ 24.9
$ 24.1
$ 23.4
$ 22.8
$ 22.1
$ 509.0
$ 29.2
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 6.8
$ 13.2
$ 19.2
$ 24.8
$ 28.0
$ 30.0
$ 30.1
$ 29.2
$ 28.4
$ 27.5
$ 26.7
$ 25.9
$ 25.2
$ 24.5
$ 23.7
$ 23.1
$ 22.4
$ 21.7
$ 21.1
$ 20.5
$ 471.9
$ 27.1
Upper
(95th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 7.8
$ 15.2
$ 22.2
$ 28.7
$ 32.5
$ 34.7
$ 34.8
$ 33.8
$ 32.8
$ 31.8
$ 30.9
$ 30.0
$ 29.1
$ 28.3
$ 27.5
$ 26.7
$ 25.9
$ 25.1
$ 24.4
$ 23.7
$ 546.1
$ 31.4
Disinfecting Ground Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.4
$ 0.6
$ 0.8
$ 1.0
$ 1.1
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 17.9
$ 1.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.4
$ 0.6
$ 0.7
$ 0.9
$ 1.0
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 16.5
$ 1.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.5
$ 0.7
$ 0.9
$ 1.0
$ 1.2
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 19.1
$ 1.1
Total
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 38.2
$ 74.2
$ 108.0
$ 139.8
$ 146.8
$ 149.1
$ 146.7
$ 142.4
$ 138.3
$ 134.3
$ 130.4
$ 126.6
$ 122.9
$ 119.3
$ 115.8
$ 112.5
$ 109.2
$ 106.0
$ 102.9
$ 99.9
$ 2,363.1
$ 135.7
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 24.7
$ 48.0
$ 69.9
$ 90.5
$ 95.8
$ 98.0
$ 96.6
$ 93.8
$ 91.1
$ 88.4
$ 85.9
$ 83.4
$ 80.9
$ 78.6
$ 76.3
$ 74.1
$ 71.9
$ 69.8
$ 67.8
$ 65.8
$ 1,551.4
$ 89.1
Upper
(95th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 51.9
$ 100.8
$ 146.8
$ 190.1
$ 198.7
$ 201.2
$ 197.8
$ 192.0
$ 186.4
$ 181.0
$ 175.7
$ 170.6
$ 165.6
$ 160.8
$ 156.1
$ 151.6
$ 147.2
$ 142.9
$ 138.7
$ 134.7
$ 3,190.6
$ 183.2
Notes: Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2005.
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.3a through h.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.3I Present Value of Annual N on -Treatment Capital Cost Projections at 3% Discount Rate
(All Systems)
Alternative 1
2005
2006
2007
200S
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
201 e
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
202S
2029
Total
Surface Water CWS
Implementation
$ OS
$ 1 1
$
$ 07
$ 06
$ 05
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$
$ 97
$ 204
$ 13 8
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 02
$ 05
$ 06
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 03
$ (06)
$ (1 5)
$ (1 5)
$ (15)
$ (1 4)
$ (1 4)
$ (1 3)
$ (1 3)
$ (1 3)
$ (1 2)
$ (1 2)
$ (11)
$ (1 1)
$ (1 1)
$ (1 0)
$ (10)
$ (1 0)
$ (1 0)
$ (21.1)
Operational
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 0 1
$ 02
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 01
Surface Water NTNCWS
Implementation
$ 00
$ 01
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$
$ DO
$ 00
$ 00
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$ -
Plans
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Disinfecting Ground Water CWS
Implementation
$ 02
$ 30
$
$ 0 1
$ 1 4
$ 1 3
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ 01
$ 10
$ 57
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 6.S
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 00
$ 02
$ 1 5
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.7
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ (01)
$ 06
$ 1 3
$ 1 3
$ 12
$ 1 2
$ 1 2
$ 1 1
$ 11
$ 1 1
$ 1 0
$ 1 0
$ 10
$ 09
$ 09
$ 09
$ 09
$ oa
$ 03
$ 1S.3
Operational
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Disinfecting Ground Water NTNCWS
Implementation
$ 00
$ 05
$
$ 00
$ 02
$ 02
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
IDSE
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$ -
$ 0.0
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 02
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 03
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 0.4
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Total
Implementation
$ 1 0
$ 47
$
$ 08
$ 22
$ 2 1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.6
IDSE
$
$ 98
$ 214
$ 196
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$ 2.9
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 03
$ 07
$ 23
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.2
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 0.3
n*
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 0 1
$ 02
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 0.1
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBF/?
December2005
-------
Exhibit J.3m Present Value of Annual O&M Cost Projections at 7% Discount Rate
(All Systems and Primacy Agencies)
Alternative 1
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Total
Ann.
Surface Water CWS
Mean
Value
$ 0.8
$ 9.6
$ 17.7
$ 12.4
$ 287.3
$ 291.3
$ 294.0
$ 294.5
$ 134.4
$ 103.1
$ 78.1
$ 67.5
$ 63.1
$ 59.0
$ 55.1
$ 51.5
$ 48.1
$ 45.0
$ 42.0
$ 39.3
$ 36.7
$ 34.3
$ 32.1
$ 30.0
$ 28.0
$2,155.0
$ 184.9
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.8
$ 9.6
$ 17.7
$ 12.4
$ 164.8
$ 167.0
$ 168.6
$ 168.7
$ 77.0
$ 59.1
$ 44.8
$ 38.8
$ 36.2
$ 33.9
$ 31.6
$ 29.6
$ 27.6
$ 25.8
$ 24.1
$ 22.6
$ 21.1
$ 19.7
$ 18.4
$ 17.2
$ 16.1
$ 1,253.2
$ 107.5
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.8
$ 9.6
$ 17.7
$ 12.4
$ 421.1
$ 426.3
$ 429.5
$ 430.0
$ 194.4
$ 148.5
$ 112.1
$ 96.9
$ 90.5
$ 84.6
$ 79.1
$ 73.9
$ 69.1
$ 64.5
$ 60.3
$ 56.4
$ 52.7
$ 49.2
$ 46.0
$ 43.0
$ 40.2
$ 3,108.7
$ 266.8
Surface Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 1.9
$ 1.9
$ 1.9
$ 2.0
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.1
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 18.5
$ 1.6
Operational
Evaluation
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 0.6
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 10.8
$ 0.9
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 2.8
$ 2.8
$ 2.8
$ 2.8
$ 2.5
$ 2.4
$ 1.6
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 26.5
$ 2.3
Disinfecting Ground Water CWS
Mean
Value
$ 0.2
$ 2.8
$ 0.8
$ 5.0
$ 67.4
$ 67.5
$ 67.3
$ 68.3
$ 54.4
$ 45.4
$ 29.9
$ 20.5
$ 19.2
$ 17.9
$ 16.7
$ 15.6
$ 14.6
$ 13.7
$ 12.8
$ 11.9
$ 11.1
$ 10.4
$ 9.7
$ 9.1
$ 8.5
$ 600.7
$ 51.5
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.2
$ 2.8
$ 0.8
$ 5.0
$ 58.2
$ 58.4
$ 58.4
$ 59.7
$ 47.9
$ 40.2
$ 27.1
$ 19.1
$ 17.8
$ 16.6
$ 15.6
$ 14.5
$ 13.6
$ 12.7
$ 11.9
$ 11.1
$ 10.4
$ 9.7
$ 9.1
$ 8.5
$ 7.9
$ 537.0
$ 46.1
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.2
$ 2.8
$ 0.8
$ 5.0
$ 76.7
$ 76.6
$ 76.2
$ 76.9
$ 60.9
$ 50.5
$ 32.8
$ 21.9
$ 20.5
$ 19.2
$ 17.9
$ 16.7
$ 15.6
$ 14.6
$ 13.7
$ 12.8
$ 11.9
$ 11.2
$ 10.4
$ 9.7
$ 9.1
$ 664.6
$ 57.0
Disinfectin
Mean
Value
$ 0.0
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 2.1
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 2.1
$ 2.2
$ 2.2
$ 1.6
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 24.0
$ 2.1
3 Ground Water NTNCWS
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.8
$ 2.0
$ 2.0
$ 1.5
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 21.9
$ 1.9
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 2.4
$ 2.2
$ 2.1
$ 2.3
$ 2.5
$ 2.4
$ 1.7
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 26.1
$ 2.2
Primacy Agencies
Point Estimate
$ 3.4
$ 3.2
$ 0.1
$ 1.5
$ 0.6
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 8.8
$ 0.8
Total
Mean
Value
$ 4.3
$ 16.1
$ 18.7
$ 18.9
$ 359.3
$ 362.8
$ 366.1
$ 367.8
$ 193.6
$ 153.1
$ 111.5
$ 90.4
$ 84.5
$ 78.9
$ 73.8
$ 69.0
$ 64.4
$ 60.2
$ 56.3
$ 52.6
$ 49.2
$ 45.9
$ 42.9
$ 40.1
$ 37.5
$ 2,818.0
$ 241.8
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 4.3
$ 16.1
$ 18.7
$ 18.9
$ 226.4
$ 228.3
$ 230.7
$ 232.3
$ 128.8
$ 103.1
$ 74.8
$ 59.9
$ 56.0
$ 52.3
$ 48.9
$ 45.7
$ 42.7
$ 39.9
$ 37.3
$ 34.8
$ 32.6
$ 30.4
$ 28.4
$ 26.6
$ 24.8
$ 1,842.7
$ 158.1
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 4.3
$ 16.1
$ 18.7
$ 18.9
$ 503.4
$ 508.0
$ 511.6
$ 513.0
$ 261.1
$ 204.7
$ 149.0
$ 121.5
$ 113.5
$ 106.1
$ 99.2
$ 92.7
$ 86.6
$ 81.0
$ 75.7
$ 70.7
$ 66.1
$ 61.8
$ 57.7
$ 53.9
$ 50.4
$ 3,845.7
$ 330.0
Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.
;: Derived from Exhibits J.3a through h.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.3n Present Value of Annual Treatment Cost Projections at 7% Discount Rate
(All Systems)
Alternative 1
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Total
Ann.
Surface Water CWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 286.4
$ 267.7
$ 250.2
$ 233.8
$ 59.2
$ 28.6
$ 6.4
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1,132.1
$ 97.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 163.9
$ 153.1
$ 143.1
$ 133.8
$ 33.9
$ 16.4
$ 3.7
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 647.8
$ 55.6
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 420.1
$ 392.6
$ 366.9
$ 342.9
$ 86.4
$ 41.6
$ 9.2
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1,659.9
$ 142.4
Surface Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 1.9
$ 1.8
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 0.5
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 9.5
$ 0.8
Operational Evaluation
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.3
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 5.5
$ 0.5
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 2.7
$ 2.6
$ 2.4
$ 2.2
$ 1.8
$ 1.5
$ 0.7
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 13.9
$ 1.2
Disinfecting Ground Water CWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 65.1
$ 60.9
$ 56.9
$ 53.2
$ 35.2
$ 24.6
$ 8.7
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 304.5
$ 26.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 55.9
$ 52.2
$ 48.8
$ 45.6
$ 30.1
$ 20.9
$ 7.3
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 260.8
$ 22.4
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 74.4
$ 69.5
$ 65.0
$ 60.7
$ 40.3
$ 28.4
$ 10.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 348.3
$ 29.9
Disinfecting Ground Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 1.8
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 0.6
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 9.5
$ 0.8
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 0.5
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 8.1
$ 0.7
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 0.7
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 10.9
$ 0.9
Total
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 355.2
$ 331.9
$ 310.2
$ 289.9
$ 96.9
$ 55.5
$ 16.1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1,455.7
$ 124.9
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 222.3
$ 207.8
$ 194.2
$ 181.5
$ 65.8
$ 39.0
$ 11.7
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 922.2
$ 79.1
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 499.3
$ 466.6
$ 436.1
$ 407.6
$ 130.1
$ 72.9
$ 20.6
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 2,033.1
$ 174.5
Notes: Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2005.
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.3a through h.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.3o Present Value of Annual Treatment Cost Projections at 7% Discount Rate
(All Systems)
Alternative 1
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Total
Ann.
Surface Water CWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 23.3
$ 43.6
$ 61.1
$ 76.2
$ 75.4
$ 72.5
$ 68.3
$ 63.8
$ 59.6
$ 55.7
$ 52.1
$ 48.7
$ 45.5
$ 42.5
$ 39.7
$ 37.1
$ 34.7
$ 32.4
$ 30.3
$ 28.3
$ 991.1
$ 85.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 13.5
$ 25.2
$ 35.4
$ 44.1
$ 43.6
$ 42.0
$ 39.5
$ 36.9
$ 34.5
$ 32.3
$ 30.2
$ 28.2
$ 26.3
$ 24.6
$ 23.0
$ 21.5
$ 20.1
$ 18.8
$ 17.6
$ 16.4
$ 573.7
$ 49.2
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 33.4
$ 62.3
$ 87.4
$ 108.9
$ 107.8
$ 103.7
$ 97.6
$ 91.2
$ 85.3
$ 79.7
$ 74.5
$ 69.6
$ 65.1
$ 60.8
$ 56.8
$ 53.1
$ 49.6
$ 46.4
$ 43.3
$ 40.5
$ 1,417.0
$ 121.6
Surface Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 8.6
$ 0.7
Operational Evaluation
Lower
(5th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 5.0
$ 0.4
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.4
$ 0.6
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 12.3
$ 1.1
Disinfecting Ground Water CWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 5.6
$ 10.5
$ 14.7
$ 18.3
$ 19.9
$ 20.5
$ 19.8
$ 18.5
$ 17.3
$ 16.1
$ 15.1
$ 14.1
$ 13.2
$ 12.3
$ 11.5
$ 10.8
$ 10.0
$ 9.4
$ 8.8
$ 8.2
$ 274.4
$ 23.5
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 5.2
$ 9.7
$ 13.6
$ 16.9
$ 18.4
$ 19.0
$ 18.3
$ 17.1
$ 16.0
$ 15.0
$ 14.0
$ 13.1
$ 12.2
$ 11.4
$ 10.7
$ 10.0
$ 9.3
$ 8.7
$ 8.1
$ 7.6
$ 254.4
$ 21.8
Upper
(95th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 6.0
$ 11.2
$ 15.8
$ 19.6
$ 21.4
$ 22.0
$ 21.2
$ 19.8
$ 18.5
$ 17.3
$ 16.2
$ 15.1
$ 14.1
$ 13.2
$ 12.3
$ 11.5
$ 10.8
$ 10.1
$ 9.4
$ 8.8
$ 294.4
$ 25.3
Disinfecting Ground Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 9.5
$ 0.8
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 8.8
$ 0.8
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 10.2
$ 0.9
Total
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 29.3
$ 54.7
$ 76.6
$ 95.5
$ 96.5
$ 94.4
$ 89.4
$ 83.6
$ 78.1
$ 73.0
$ 68.2
$ 63.7
$ 59.6
$ 55.7
$ 52.0
$ 48.6
$ 45.5
$ 42.5
$ 39.7
$ 37.1
$ 1,283.6
$ 110.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 18.9
$ 35.4
$ 49.6
$ 61.8
$ 63.0
$ 62.0
$ 58.9
$ 55.0
$ 51.4
$ 48.1
$ 44.9
$ 42.0
$ 39.2
$ 36.7
$ 34.3
$ 32.0
$ 29.9
$ 28.0
$ 26.2
$ 24.4
$ 841.9
$ 72.2
Upper
(95th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 39.8
$ 74.3
$ 104.2
$ 129.9
$ 130.7
$ 127.4
$ 120.5
$ 112.6
$ 105.3
$ 98.4
$ 91.9
$ 85.9
$ 80.3
$ 75.1
$ 70.1
$ 65.6
$ 61.3
$ 57.3
$ 53.5
$ 50.0
$ 1,734.0
$ 148.8
Notes: Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2005.
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.3a through h.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.3p Present Value of Annual Cost Projections at 7% Discount Rate
(All Systems)
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
202S
2029
Total
Ann.
Surface Water CWS
Im lamentation
$ 08
$ 09
$
$ 06
$ 04
$ 04
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 3.1
$ 0.3
IDSE
$ 87
$ 175
$
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$
$ 37.6
$ 3.2
Monitoring
$
$ 02
$ 05
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.2
$ 0.1
Monitorina
$
$
$
$
$ 02
$ (04)
$ (11)
$ (1 0)
$ (09)
$ (09)
$ (08)
$ (07)
$ (07)
$ (07)
$ (06)
$ (06)
$ (05)
$ (05)
$ (05)
$ (04)
$ (04)
$ (04)
$ (04)
$ (11.2)
$ (1.0)
Operational
$
$
$
$
$
$ DO
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 1.1
$ 0.1
Surface Water NTNCWS
Implementation
$ 00
$ 0 1
$
$ 00
$ 00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
IDSE
$ 00
$ 00
$
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
Monitoring
$
$ 00
$ 00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
Monitorin
$
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
Operational
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Disinfecting Ground Water CWS
Implementation
$ 27
$
$ 11
$ 1 0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 5.1
$ 0.4
IDSE
$
$ 0 1
$ 08
$
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ 5.6
$ 0.5
Monitoring
$
$ 00
$ 12
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.3
$ 0.1
Monitorin
$
$
$
$
$ (0 1)
$ 05
$ 09
$ 08
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 9.7
$ O.S
Operational
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Disinfect ng Ground Water NTNCWS
Implementation
$ 00
$ 05
$
$ 02
$ 02
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ O.S
$ 0.1
IDSE
$
$ -
$ 00
$
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
Monitoring
$
$
$ 00
$ 01
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
Monitorin
$
$
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 02
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 4.0
$ 0.3
Operational
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Total
Im lementation
$ 09
$ 42
$
$ 18
$ 1 6
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 9.1
$ O.S
IDSE
$
$ 87
$ 184
$
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$
$ 43.3
$ 3.7
Monitoring
$
$
$ 02
$ 18
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 2.6
$ 0.2
Monitorin
$
$
$
$
$
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 2.7
$ 0.2
Operational
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ DO
$ 00
$ 1.1
$ 0.1
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBF/?
December2005
-------
Section J.4
Cost Projections (Alternative 2)
-------
-------
Exhibit J.4a Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(All Surface Water CWSs)
Alternative 2
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 894.42
$ 894.42
$ 894.42
$ 894.42
$ 342.69
$ 217.22
$ 72.70
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tlle)
$
$
$
$
$ 766.97
$ 766.97
$ 766.97
$ 766.97
$ 293.49
$ 185.95
$ 62.18
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tlle)
$
$
$
$
$ 1,029.03
$ 1,029.03
$ 1,029.03
$ 1,029.03
$ 394.94
$ 250.49
$ 83.87
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 57.48
$ 114.95
$ 172.43
$ 229.90
$ 255.39
$ 274.42
$ 282.08
$ 282.08
$ 282.08
$ 282.08
$ 282.08
$ 282.08
$ 282.08
$ 282.08
$ 282.08
$ 282.08
$ 282.08
$ 282.08
$ 282.08
$ 282.08
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 50.47
$ 100.94
$ 151.41
$201.88
$ 224.25
$ 240.93
$ 247.65
$ 247.65
$ 247.65
$ 247.65
$ 247.65
$ 247.65
$ 247.65
$ 247.65
$ 247.65
$ 247.65
$ 247.65
$ 247.65
$ 247.65
$ 247.65
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 64.68
$ 129.36
$ 194.05
$ 258.73
$ 287.44
$ 308.89
$ 317.54
$ 317.54
$ 317.54
$ 317.54
$ 317.54
$ 317.54
$ 317.54
$ 317.54
$ 317.54
$ 317.54
$ 317.54
$ 317.54
$ 317.54
$ 317.54
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.87
$ 1.15
$
$ 0.78
$ 0.67
$ 0.58
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$10.60
$22.94
$15.99
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 0.28
$ 0.64
$ 0.74
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.42
$ (0.77)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.06
$ 0.15
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.87
$ 11.76
$ 23.22
$ 17.40
$ 895.83
$ 952.47
$1,009.79
$1,066.14
$ 570.67
$ 470.75
$ 345.26
$ 280.23
$ 280.23
$ 280.23
$ 280.23
$ 280.23
$ 280.23
$ 280.23
$ 280.23
$ 280.23
$ 280.23
$ 280.23
$ 280.23
$ 280.23
$ 280.23
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tlle)
$ 0.87
$ 11.76
$ 23.22
$ 17.40
$ 768.38
$ 818.02
$ 868.33
$ 917.67
$ 493.45
$ 408.34
$ 301.26
$ 245.79
$ 245.79
$ 245.79
$ 245.79
$ 245.79
$ 245.79
$ 245.79
$ 245.79
$ 245.79
$ 245.79
$ 245.79
$ 245.79
$ 245.79
$ 245.79
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 0.87
$ 11.76
$ 23.22
$ 17.40
$1,030.44
$1,094.29
$1,158.82
$1,222.37
$ 651.74
$ 536.07
$ 390.90
$ 315.69
$ 315.69
$ 315.69
$ 315.69
$ 315.69
$ 315.69
$ 315.69
$ 315.69
$ 315.69
$ 315.69
$ 315.69
$ 315.69
$ 315.69
$ 315.69
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1c and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.4b Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(All Surface Water NTNCWSs)
Alternative 2
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 11.34
$ 11.34
$ 11.34
$ 11.34
$ 10.58
$ 10.22
$ 4.93
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence
Bound
Lower
(5th
%tlle)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 9.71
$ 9.71
$ 9.71
$ 9.71
$ 9.06
$ 8.75
$ 4.22
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Upper
(95th
%tlle)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 13.09
$ 13.09
$ 13.09
$ 13.09
$ 12.22
$ 11.81
$ 5.70
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 1.41
$ 2.82
$ 4.22
$ 5.63
$ 7.00
$ 8.35
$ 9.02
$ 9.02
$ 9.02
$ 9.02
$ 9.02
$ 9.02
$ 9.02
$ 9.02
$ 9.02
$ 9.02
$ 9.02
$ 9.02
$ 9.02
$ 9.02
90 Percent
Confidence
Bound
Lower
(5th
%tlle)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 1.23
$ 2.47
$ 3.70
$ 4.93
$ 6.13
$ 7.31
$ 7.89
$ 7.89
$ 7.89
$ 7.89
$ 7.89
$ 7.89
$ 7.89
$ 7.89
$ 7.89
$ 7.89
$ 7.89
$ 7.89
$ 7.89
$ 7.89
Upper
(95th
%tlle)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 1.59
$ 3.18
$ 4.77
$ 6.36
$ 7.90
$ 9.42
$ 10.17
$ 10.17
$ 10.17
$ 10.17
$ 10.17
$ 10.17
$ 10.17
$ 10.17
$ 10.17
$ 10.17
$ 10.17
$ 10.17
$ 10.17
$ 10.17
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.01
$ 0.07
$
$ 0.01
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ 0.01
$ 0.04
$ 0.02
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.02
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.01
$ 0.08
$ 0.04
$ 0.03
$ 11.39
$ 12.79
$ 14.17
$ 15.59
$ 16.24
$ 17.25
$ 13.31
$ 9.05
$ 9.05
$ 9.05
$ 9.05
$ 9.05
$ 9.05
$ 9.05
$ 9.05
$ 9.05
$ 9.05
$ 9.05
$ 9.05
$ 9.05
$ 9.05
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tlle)
$ 0.01
$ 0.08
$ 0.04
$ 0.03
$ 9.76
$ 10.98
$ 12.18
$ 13.43
$ 14.02
$ 14.91
$ 11.56
$ 7.92
$ 7.92
$ 7.92
$ 7.92
$ 7.92
$ 7.92
$ 7.92
$ 7.92
$ 7.92
$ 7.92
$ 7.92
$ 7.92
$ 7.92
$ 7.92
Upper
(95th
%tlle)
$ 0.01
$ 0.08
$ 0.04
$ 0.03
$ 13.14
$ 14.72
$ 16.28
$ 17.88
$ 18.60
$ 19.74
$ 15.15
$ 10.20
$ 10.20
$ 10.20
$ 10.20
$ 10.20
$ 10.20
$ 10.20
$ 10.20
$ 10.20
$ 10.20
$ 10.20
$ 10.20
$ 10.20
$ 10.20
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1c and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.4c Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(All Surface Water Systems)
Alternative 2
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 905.77
$ 905.77
$ 905.77
$ 905.77
$ 353.27
$ 227.44
$ 77.63
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 776.68
$ 776.68
$ 776.68
$ 776.68
$ 302.55
$ 194.70
$ 66.41
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 1,042.12
$ 1,042.12
$ 1,042.12
$ 1,042.12
$ 407.15
$ 262.30
$ 89.57
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 58.88
$ 117.77
$ 176.65
$ 235.53
$ 262.39
$ 282.77
$ 291.10
$ 291.10
$ 291.10
$ 291.10
$ 291.10
$ 291.10
$ 291.10
$ 291.10
$ 291.10
$ 291.10
$ 291.10
$ 291.10
$ 291.10
$ 291.10
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 51.70
$ 103.41
$ 155.11
$ 206.81
$ 230.38
$ 248.24
$ 255.54
$ 255.54
$ 255.54
$ 255.54
$ 255.54
$ 255.54
$ 255.54
$ 255.54
$ 255.54
$ 255.54
$ 255.54
$ 255.54
$ 255.54
$ 255.54
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 66.27
$ 132.54
$ 198.81
$ 265.09
$ 295.34
$ 318.32
$ 327.72
$ 327.72
$ 327.72
$ 327.72
$ 327.72
$ 327.72
$ 327.72
$ 327.72
$ 327.72
$ 327.72
$ 327.72
$ 327.72
$ 327.72
$ 327.72
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.88
$ 1.22
$
$ 0.79
$ 0.71
$ 0.61
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$
$ 10.62
$ 22.98
$ 16.01
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring Plans
$
$
$ 0.28
$ 0.64
$ 0.75
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.42
$ (0.75)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.06
$ 0.15
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.88
$ 11.84
$ 23.26
$ 17.44
$ 907.22
$ 965.26
$ 1,023.96
$ 1,081.73
$ 586.91
$ 488.00
$ 358.57
$ 289.27
$ 289.27
$ 289.27
$ 289.27
$ 289.27
$ 289.27
$ 289.27
$ 289.27
$ 289.27
$ 289.27
$ 289.27
$ 289.27
$ 289.27
$ 289.27
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.88
$ 11.84
$ 23.26
$ 17.44
$ 778.14
$ 829.00
$ 880.51
$ 931.10
$ 507.47
$ 423.25
$ 312.82
$ 253.71
$ 253.71
$ 253.71
$ 253.71
$ 253.71
$ 253.71
$ 253.71
$ 253.71
$ 253.71
$ 253.71
$ 253.71
$ 253.71
$ 253.71
$ 253.71
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.88
$ 11.84
$ 23.26
$ 17.44
$ 1,043.58
$ 1,109.01
$ 1,175.09
$ 1,240.25
$ 670.35
$ 555.81
$ 406.05
$ 325.89
$ 325.89
$ 325.89
$ 325.89
$ 325.89
$ 325.89
$ 325.89
$ 325.89
$ 325.89
$ 325.89
$ 325.89
$ 325.89
$ 325.89
$ 325.89
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1c and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.4d Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(All Ground Water CWSs)
Alternative 2
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 75.07
$ 75.07
$ 75.07
$ 75.07
$ 54.77
$ 40.28
$ 14.60
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence
Bound
Lower
(5th
%tlle)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 65.13
$65.13
$ 65.13
$65.13
$ 47.51
$ 34.69
$ 12.43
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Upper
(95th
%tlle)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 84.98
$ 84.98
$ 84.98
$ 84.98
$ 62.00
$ 45.86
$ 16.78
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 6.40
$ 12.80
$ 19.20
$ 25.60
$ 29.92
$ 32.95
$ 33.98
$ 33.98
$ 33.98
$ 33.98
$ 33.98
$ 33.98
$ 33.98
$ 33.98
$ 33.98
$ 33.98
$ 33.98
$ 33.98
$ 33.98
$ 33.98
90 Percent
Confidence
Bound
Lower
(5th
%tlle)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 5.95
$ 11.90
$ 17.85
$ 23.80
$ 27.83
$ 30.66
$31.61
$31.61
$ 31.61
$31.61
$ 31.61
$31.61
$ 31.61
$31.61
$ 31.61
$ 31.61
$31.61
$ 31.61
$31.61
$ 31.61
Upper
(95th
%tlle)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 6.85
$ 13.71
$ 20.56
$ 27.41
$ 32.01
$ 35.25
$ 36.35
$ 36.35
$ 36.35
$ 36.35
$ 36.35
$ 36.35
$ 36.35
$ 36.35
$ 36.35
$ 36.35
$ 36.35
$ 36.35
$ 36.35
$ 36.35
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.18
$ 3.31
$
$ 0.14
$ 1.69
$ 1.66
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ 0.09
$ 1.09
$ 6.66
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 0.02
$ 0.21
$ 1.74
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ (0.11)
$ 0.83
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.18
$ 3.40
$ 1.11
$ 7.01
$ 78.50
$ 83.13
$ 87.76
$ 95.10
$ 82.13
$ 71.96
$ 49.31
$ 35.74
$ 35.74
$ 35.74
$ 35.74
$ 35.74
$ 35.74
$ 35.74
$ 35.74
$ 35.74
$ 35.74
$ 35.74
$ 35.74
$ 35.74
$ 35.74
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tlle)
$ 0.18
$ 3.40
$ 1.11
$ 7.01
$ 68.56
$ 72.74
$ 76.92
$ 83.81
$ 73.07
$ 64.28
$ 44.85
$ 33.37
$ 33.37
$ 33.37
$ 33.37
$ 33.37
$ 33.37
$ 33.37
$ 33.37
$ 33.37
$ 33.37
$ 33.37
$ 33.37
$ 33.37
$ 33.37
Upper
(95th
%tlle)
$ 0.18
$ 3.40
$ 1.11
$ 7.01
$ 88.41
$ 93.49
$ 98.58
$ 106.37
$ 91.17
$ 79.63
$ 53.78
$ 38.11
$ 38.11
$ 38.11
$ 38.11
$ 38.11
$ 38.11
$ 38.11
$ 38.11
$ 38.11
$ 38.11
$ 38.11
$ 38.11
$ 38.11
$ 38.11
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1c and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.4e Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(All Ground Water NTNCWSs)
Alternative 2
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 2.46
$ 2.46
$ 2.46
$ 2.46
$ 2.44
$ 2.42
$ 1.20
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence
Bound
Lower
(5th
%tlle)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 2.12
$ 2.12
$ 2.12
$ 2.12
$ 2.10
$ 2.08
$ 1.03
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Upper
(95th
%tlle)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 2.80
$ 2.80
$ 2.80
$ 2.80
$ 2.78
$ 2.75
$ 1.37
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.21
$ 0.42
$ 0.63
$ 0.84
$ 1.04
$ 1.25
$ 1.35
$ 1.35
$ 1.35
$ 1.35
$ 1.35
$ 1.35
$ 1.35
$ 1.35
$ 1.35
$ 1.35
$ 1.35
$ 1.35
$ 1.35
$ 1.35
90 Percent
Confidence
Bound
Lower
(5th
%tlle)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.20
$ 0.39
$ 0.59
$ 0.78
$ 0.97
$ 1.16
$ 1.26
$ 1.26
$ 1.26
$ 1.26
$ 1.26
$ 1.26
$ 1.26
$ 1.26
$ 1.26
$ 1.26
$ 1.26
$ 1.26
$ 1.26
$ 1.26
Upper
(95th
%tlle)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.22
$ 0.45
$ 0.67
$ 0.89
$ 1.12
$ 1.33
$ 1.44
$ 1.44
$ 1.44
$ 1.44
$ 1.44
$ 1.44
$ 1.44
$ 1.44
$ 1.44
$ 1.44
$ 1.44
$ 1.44
$ 1.44
$ 1.44
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.00
$ 0.56
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.28
$ 0.28
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ -
$0.00
$ 0.00
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.21
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.36
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.00
$ 0.56
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 2.96
$ 2.95
$ 2.88
$ 3.45
$ 3.99
$ 4.18
$ 3.16
$ 2.06
$ 2.06
$ 2.06
$ 2.06
$ 2.06
$ 2.06
$ 2.06
$ 2.06
$ 2.06
$ 2.06
$ 2.06
$ 2.06
$ 2.06
$ 2.06
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tlle)
$ 0.00
$ 0.56
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 2.61
$ 2.59
$ 2.51
$ 3.06
$ 3.59
$ 3.77
$ 2.91
$ 1.97
$ 1.97
$ 1.97
$ 1.97
$ 1.97
$ 1.97
$ 1.97
$ 1.97
$ 1.97
$ 1.97
$ 1.97
$ 1.97
$ 1.97
$ 1.97
Upper
(95th
%tlle)
$ 0.00
$ 0.56
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 3.29
$ 3.30
$ 3.25
$ 3.83
$ 4.38
$ 4.58
$ 3.41
$ 2.15
$ 2.15
$ 2.15
$ 2.15
$ 2.15
$ 2.15
$ 2.15
$ 2.15
$ 2.15
$ 2.15
$ 2.15
$ 2.15
$ 2.15
$ 2.15
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1c and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.4f Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(All Ground Water Systems)
Alternative 2
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 77.53
$ 77.53
$ 77.53
$ 77.53
$ 57.21
$ 42.70
$ 15.80
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tlle)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 67.25
$ 67.25
$ 67.25
$ 67.25
$ 49.61
$ 36.78
$ 13.46
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Upper
(95th
%tlle)
$
$
$
$
$ 87.79
$ 87.79
$ 87.79
$ 87.79
$ 64.78
$ 48.61
$ 18.14
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 6.61
$ 13.22
$ 19.83
$ 26.44
$ 30.96
$ 34.20
$ 35.33
$ 35.33
$ 35.33
$ 35.33
$ 35.33
$ 35.33
$ 35.33
$ 35.33
$ 35.33
$ 35.33
$ 35.33
$ 35.33
$ 35.33
$ 35.33
90 Percent
Confidence
Bound
Lower
(5th
%tlle)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 6.14
$ 12.29
$ 18.43
$ 24.58
$ 28.80
$ 31.82
$ 32.87
$ 32.87
$ 32.87
$ 32.87
$ 32.87
$ 32.87
$ 32.87
$ 32.87
$ 32.87
$ 32.87
$ 32.87
$ 32.87
$ 32.87
$ 32.87
Upper
(95th
%tlle)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 7.08
$ 14.15
$ 21.23
$ 28.30
$ 33.13
$ 36.58
$ 37.79
$ 37.79
$ 37.79
$ 37.79
$ 37.79
$ 37.79
$ 37.79
$ 37.79
$ 37.79
$ 37.79
$ 37.79
$ 37.79
$ 37.79
$ 37.79
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.18
$ 3.87
$
$ 0.14
$ 1.97
$ 1.94
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$
$ 0.09
$ 1.09
$ 6.66
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 0.02
$ 0.21
$ 1.95
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ (0.11)
$ 1.18
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
Operation
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.18
$ 3.96
$ 1.11
$ 7.01
$ 81.45
$ 86.08
$ 90.65
$ 98.55
$ 86.12
$ 76.14
$ 52.48
$ 37.80
$ 37.80
$ 37.80
$ 37.80
$ 37.80
$ 37.80
$ 37.80
$ 37.80
$ 37.80
$ 37.80
$ 37.80
$ 37.80
$ 37.80
$ 37.80
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tlle)
$ 0.18
$ 3.96
$ 1.11
$ 7.01
$ 71.17
$ 75.33
$ 79.43
$ 86.87
$ 76.66
$ 68.05
$ 47.75
$ 35.34
$ 35.34
$ 35.34
$ 35.34
$ 35.34
$ 35.34
$ 35.34
$ 35.34
$ 35.34
$ 35.34
$ 35.34
$ 35.34
$ 35.34
$ 35.34
Upper
(95th
%tlle)
$ 0.18
$ 3.96
$ 1.11
$ 7.01
$ 91.71
$ 96.80
$ 101.83
$ 110.20
$ 95.56
$ 84.21
$ 57.20
$ 40.26
$ 40.26
$ 40.26
$ 40.26
$ 40.26
$ 40.26
$ 40.26
$ 40.26
$ 40.26
$ 40.26
$ 40.26
$ 40.26
$ 40.26
$ 40.26
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1c and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.4g Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(All Systems)
Alternative 2
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 983.30
$ 983.30
$ 983.30
$ 983.30
$ 410.48
$ 270.14
$ 93.44
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 843.93
$ 843.93
$ 843.93
$ 843.93
$ 352.16
$ 231.47
$ 79.87
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 1,129.91
$ 1,129.91
$ 1,129.91
$ 1,129.91
$ 471.94
$ 310.91
$ 107.71
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 65.49
$ 130.99
$ 196.48
$ 261.97
$ 293.35
$ 316.97
$ 326.43
$ 326.43
$ 326.43
$ 326.43
$ 326.43
$ 326.43
$ 326.43
$ 326.43
$ 326.43
$ 326.43
$ 326.43
$ 326.43
$ 326.43
$ 326.43
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 57.85
$ 115.69
$ 173.54
$ 231.39
$ 259.18
$ 280.07
$ 288.41
$ 288.41
$ 288.41
$ 288.41
$ 288.41
$ 288.41
$ 288.41
$ 288.41
$ 288.41
$ 288.41
$ 288.41
$ 288.41
$ 288.41
$ 288.41
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 73.35
$ 146.70
$ 220.04
$ 293.39
$ 328.46
$ 354.90
$ 365.51
$ 365.51
$ 365.51
$ 365.51
$ 365.51
$ 365.51
$ 365.51
$ 365.51
$ 365.51
$ 365.51
$ 365.51
$ 365.51
$ 365.51
$ 365.51
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 1.06
$ 5.09
$
$ 0.93
$ 2.68
$ 2.55
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$
$ 10.70
$ 24.07
$ 22.67
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring Plans
$
$
$ 0.30
$ 0.85
$ 2.70
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.32
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
Operation
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.06
$ 0.15
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 1.06
$ 15.80
$ 24.36
$ 24.45
$ 988.68
$ 1,051.34
$ 1,114.60
$ 1,180.27
$ 673.03
$ 564.14
$ 411.05
$ 327.07
$ 327.07
$ 327.07
$ 327.07
$ 327.07
$ 327.07
$ 327.07
$ 327.07
$ 327.07
$ 327.07
$ 327.07
$ 327.07
$ 327.07
$ 327.07
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 1.06
$ 15.80
$ 24.36
$ 24.45
$ 849.31
$ 904.33
$ 959.94
$ 1,017.97
$ 584.13
$ 491.30
$ 360.58
$ 289.06
$ 289.06
$ 289.06
$ 289.06
$ 289.06
$ 289.06
$ 289.06
$ 289.06
$ 289.06
$ 289.06
$ 289.06
$ 289.06
$ 289.06
$ 289.06
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 1.06
$ 15.80
$ 24.36
$ 24.45
$ 1,135.29
$ 1,205.80
$ 1,276.92
$ 1,350.45
$ 765.90
$ 640.02
$ 463.25
$ 366.15
$ 366.15
$ 366.15
$ 366.15
$ 366.15
$ 366.15
$ 366.15
$ 366.15
$ 366.15
$ 366.15
$ 366.15
$ 366.15
$ 366.15
$ 366.15
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1c and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.4h Projections of Stage 2 DBPR Primacy Agency Costs
Alternative 2
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Implementation Costs
$ 3.88
$ 3.88
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE Costs
$
$ 0.05
$ 0.14
$ 2.03
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring Plan
Costs
$
$
$ 0.02
$ 0.06
$ 0.84
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Compliance
Monitoring
Costs
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1h and D.7.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.4i Present Value of Annual Capital Cost Projections at 3% Discount Rate
(All Systems and Primacy Agencies)
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Total
Ann.
Surface Water CWS
Mean
Value
$ 0.8
$ 10.8
$ 20.6
$ 15.0
$ 750.2
$ 774.4
$ 797.1
$ 817.1
$ 424.6
$ 340.1
$ 242.2
$ 190.8
$ 185.3
$ 179.9
$ 174.6
$ 169.5
$ 164.6
$ 159.8
$ 155.2
$ 150.6
$ 146.2
$ 142.0
$ 137.9
$ 133.8
$ 129.9
$ 6,413.2
$ 368.3
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.8
$ 10.8
$ 20.6
$ 15.0
$ 643.5
$ 665.1
$ 685.5
$ 703.3
$ 367.2
$ 295.0
$ 211.3
$ 167.4
$ 162.5
$ 157.8
$ 153.2
$ 148.7
$ 144.4
$ 140.2
$ 136.1
$ 132.1
$ 128.3
$ 124.5
$ 120.9
$ 117.4
$ 114.0
$ 5,565.5
$ 319.6
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.8
$ 10.8
$ 20.6
$ 15.0
$ 863.0
$ 889.8
$ 914.8
$ 936.8
$ 485.0
$ 387.3
$ 274.2
$ 215.0
$ 208.7
$ 202.6
$ 196.7
$ 191.0
$ 185.4
$ 180.0
$ 174.8
$ 169.7
$ 164.8
$ 160.0
$ 155.3
$ 150.8
$ 146.4
$ 7,299.1
$ 419.2
Surface Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 9.5
$ 10.4
$ 11.2
$ 11.9
$ 12.1
$ 12.5
$ 9.3
$ 6.2
$ 6.0
$ 5.8
$ 5.6
$ 5.5
$ 5.3
$ 5.2
$ 5.0
$ 4.9
$ 4.7
$ 4.6
$ 4.4
$ 4.3
$ 4.2
$ 148.8
$ 8.5
Operational
Evaluation
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 8.2
$ 8.9
$ 9.6
$ 10.3
$ 10.4
$ 10.8
$ 8.1
$ 5.4
$ 5.2
$ 5.1
$ 4.9
$ 4.8
$ 4.7
$ 4.5
$ 4.4
$ 4.3
$ 4.1
$ 4.0
$ 3.9
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 11.0
$ 12.0
$ 12.8
$ 13.7
$ 13.8
$ 14.3
$ 10.6
$ 6.9
$ 6.7
$ 6.5
$ 6.4
$ 6.2
$ 6.0
$ 5.8
$ 5.6
$ 5.5
$ 5.3
$ 5.2
$ 5.0
$ 3.8 $ 4.9
$ 3.7 $ 4.7
$ 129.2
$ 7.4
$ 169.2
$ 9.7
Disinfecting Ground Water CWS
Mean
Value
$ 0.2
$ 3.1
$ 1.0
$ 6.0
$ 65.7
$ 67.6
$ 69.3
$ 72.9
$ 61.1
$ 52.0
$ 34.6
$ 24.3
$ 23.6
$ 22.9
$ 22.3
$ 21.6
$ 21.0
$ 20.4
$ 19.8
$ 19.2
$ 18.7
$ 18.1
$ 17.6
$ 17.1
$ 16.6
$ 716.6
$ 41.2
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.2
$ 3.1
$ 1.0
$ 6.0
$ 57.4
$ 59.1
$ 60.7
$ 64.2
$ 54.4
$ 46.4
$ 31.5
$ 22.7
$ 22.1
$ 21.4
$ 20.8
$ 20.2
$ 19.6
$ 19.0
$ 18.5
$ 17.9
$ 17.4
$ 16.9
$ 16.4
$ 15.9
$ 15.5
$ 648.5
$ 37.2
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 0.2
$ 3.1
$ 1.0
$ 6.0
$ 74.0
$ 76.0
$ 77.8
$ 81.5
$ 67.8
$ 57.5
$ 37.7
$ 25.9
$ 25.2
$ 24.5
$ 23.7
$ 23.1
$ 22.4
$ 21.7
$ 21.1
$ 20.5
$ 19.9
$ 19.3
$ 18.7
$ 18.2
$ 17.7
$ 784.7
$ 45.1
Disinfecting Ground Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$ 0.0
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 2.5
$ 2.4
$ 2.3
$ 2.6
$ 3.0
$ 3.0
$ 2.2
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 34.9
$ 2.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 2.2
$ 2.1
$ 2.0
$ 2.3
$ 2.7
$ 2.7
$ 2.0
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 32.2
$ 1.8
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 2.8
$ 2.7
$ 2.6
$ 2.9
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
$ 2.4
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 37.5
$ 2.2
Primacy Agencies
Point Estimate
$ 3.7
$ 3.6
$ 0.1
$ 1.8
$ 0.7
$
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 29.8
$ 1.7
Total
Mean
Value
$ 4.7
$ 18.1
$ 21.8
$ 22.9
$ 828.7
$ 854.8
$ 881.2
$ 905.9
$ 502.1
$ 408.8
$ 289.5
$ 223.9
$ 217.4
$ 211.0
$ 204.9
$ 198.9
$ 193.1
$ 187.5
$ 182.0
$ 176.7
$ 171.6
$ 166.6
$ 161.7
$ 157.0
$ 152.5
$ 7,343.3
$ 421.7
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 4.7
$ 18.1
$ 21 .8
$ 22.9
$ 712.0
$ 735.3
$ 759.1
$ 781.5
$ 435.9
$ 356.2
$ 254.1
$ 198.0
$ 192.2
$ 186.6
$ 181.2
$ 175.9
$ 170.8
$ 165.8
$ 161.0
$ 156.3
$ 151.7
$ 147.3
$ 143.0
$ 138.9
$ 134.8
$ 6,405.2
$ 367.8
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 4.7
$ 18.1
$ 21.8
$ 22.9
$ 951.5
$ 980.4
$ 1,009.4
$ 1,036.3
$ 571.2
$ 463.6
$ 326.1
$ 250.5
$ 243.2
$ 236.1
$ 229.2
$ 222.6
$ 216.1
$ 209.8
$ 203.7
$ 197.7
$ 192.0
$ 186.4
$ 181.0
$ 175.7
$ 170.6
$ 8,320.4
$ 477.8
Present values in millions of 2003 dollars.
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to i
Ann = value of total annualized at discount
;: Derived from Exhibits J.4a through h.
Estimates are discounted to 2005.
ndependent rounding.
rate.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.4j Present Value of Annual O&M Treatment Cost Projections at 3% Discount Rate
(All Systems)
Alternative 2
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Total
Ann.
Surface Water CWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 749.1
$ 727.2
$ 706.1
$ 685.5
$ 255.0
$ 156.9
$ 51.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 3,330.8
$ 191.3
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 642.3
$ 623.6
$ 605.5
$ 587.8
$ 218.4
$ 134.3
$ 43.6
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 2,855.5
$ 164.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 861.8
$ 836.7
$ 812.3
$ 788.7
$ 293.9
$ 181.0
$ 58.8
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 3,833.1
$ 220.1
Surface Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 9.5
$ 9.2
$ 9.0
$ 8.7
$ 7.9
$ 7.4
$ 3.5
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 55.1
$ 3.2
Operational Evaluation
Lower
(5th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 8.1
$ 7.9
$ 7.7
$ 7.4
$ 6.7
$ 6.3
$ 3.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 47.2
$ 2.7
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 11.0
$ 10.6
$ 10.3
$ 10.0
$ 9.1
$ 8.5
$ 4.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 63.6
$ 3.7
Disinfecting Ground Water CWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 62.9
$ 61.0
$ 59.3
$ 57.5
$ 40.8
$ 29.1
$ 10.2
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 320.8
$ 18.4
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 54.5
$ 53.0
$ 51.4
$ 49.9
$ 35.4
$ 25.1
$ 8.7
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 278.0
$ 16.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 71.2
$ 69.1
$ 67.1
$ 65.1
$ 46.1
$ 33.1
$ 11.8
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 363.5
$ 20.9
Disinfecting Ground Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 2.1
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 1.9
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 0.8
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 12.3
$ 0.7
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 0.7
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 10.6
$ 0.6
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 2.3
$ 2.3
$ 2.2
$ 2.1
$ 2.1
$ 2.0
$ 1.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 14.0
$ 0.8
Total
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 823.5
$ 799.5
$ 776.2
$ 753.6
$ 305.4
$ 195.2
$ 65.5
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 3,719.0
$ 213.6
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 706.8
$ 686.2
$ 666.2
$ 646.8
$ 262.0
$ 167.2
$ 56.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 3,191.3
$ 183.3
Upper
(95th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 946.3
$ 918.7
$ 892.0
$ 866.0
$ 351.2
$ 224.6
$ 75.5
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 4,274.3
$ 245.5
Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2005.
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.
Derived from Exhibits J.4a through h.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.4k Present Value of Annual Treatment Cost Projections at 3% Discount Rate
(All Systems)
Alternative 2
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Total
Ann.
Surface Water CWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 46.7
$ 90.7
$ 132.1
$ 171.1
$ 184.5
$ 192.5
$ 192.1
$ 186.5
$ 181.1
$ 175.8
$ 170.7
$ 165.7
$ 160.9
$ 156.2
$ 151.6
$ 147.2
$ 142.9
$ 138.8
$ 134.7
$ 130.8
$ 3,052.5
$ 175.3
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 41.0
$ 79.7
$ 116.0
$ 150.2
$ 162.0
$ 169.0
$ 168.6
$ 163.7
$ 159.0
$ 154.3
$ 149.8
$ 145.5
$ 141.2
$ 137.1
$ 133.1
$ 129.2
$ 125.5
$ 121.8
$ 118.3
$ 114.8
$ 2,680.0
$ 153.9
Upper
(95th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 52.6
$ 102.1
$ 148.7
$ 192.5
$ 207.7
$ 216.7
$ 216.2
$ 209.9
$ 203.8
$ 197.9
$ 192.1
$ 186.5
$ 181.1
$ 175.8
$ 170.7
$ 165.7
$ 160.9
$ 156.2
$ 151.7
$ 147.2
$ 3,436.1
$ 197.3
Surface Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.1
$ 2.2
$ 3.2
$ 4.2
$ 5.1
$ 5.9
$ 6.1
$ 6.0
$ 5.8
$ 5.6
$ 5.5
$ 5.3
$ 5.1
$ 5.0
$ 4.8
$ 4.7
$ 4.6
$ 4.4
$ 4.3
$ 4.2
$ 93.1
$ 5.3
Operational Evaluation
Lower
(5th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.0
$ 1.9
$ 2.8
$ 3.7
$ 4.4
$ 5.1
$ 5.4
$ 5.2
$ 5.1
$ 4.9
$ 4.8
$ 4.6
$ 4.5
$ 4.4
$ 4.2
$ 4.1
$ 4.0
$ 3.9
$ 3.8
$ 3.7
$ 81.6
$ 4.7
Upper
(95th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.3
$ 2.5
$ 3.7
$ 4.7
$ 5.7
$ 6.6
$ 6.9
$ 6.7
$ 6.5
$ 6.3
$ 6.2
$ 6.0
$ 5.8
$ 5.6
$ 5.5
$ 5.3
$ 5.2
$ 5.0
$ 4.9
$ 4.7
$ 105.1
$ 6.0
Disinfecting Ground Water CWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 5.2
$ 10.1
$ 14.7
$ 19.1
$ 21.6
$ 23.1
$ 23.1
$ 22.5
$ 21.8
$ 21.2
$ 20.6
$ 20.0
$ 19.4
$ 18.8
$ 18.3
$ 17.7
$ 17.2
$ 16.7
$ 16.2
$ 15.8
$ 363.0
$ 20.8
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 4.8
$ 9.4
$ 13.7
$ 17.7
$ 20.1
$ 21.5
$ 21.5
$ 20.9
$ 20.3
$ 19.7
$ 19.1
$ 18.6
$ 18.0
$ 17.5
$ 17.0
$ 16.5
$ 16.0
$ 15.6
$ 15.1
$ 14.7
$ 337.7
$ 19.4
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 5.6
$ 10.8
$ 15.8
$ 20.4
$ 23.1
$ 24.7
$ 24.8
$ 24.0
$ 23.3
$ 22.7
$ 22.0
$ 21.3
$ 20.7
$ 20.1
$ 19.5
$ 19.0
$ 18.4
$ 17.9
$ 17.4
$ 16.9
$ 388.4
$ 22.3
Disinfecting Ground Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.8
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 13.9
$ 0.8
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.6
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 13.0
$ 0.7
Upper
(95th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 0.9
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 14.9
$ 0.9
Total
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 53.3
$ 103.4
$ 150.6
$ 194.9
$ 211.9
$ 222.3
$ 222.3
$ 215.8
$ 209.5
$ 203.4
$ 197.5
$ 191.7
$ 186.2
$ 180.7
$ 175.5
$ 170.4
$ 165.4
$ 160.6
$ 155.9
$ 151.4
$ 3,522.6
$ 202.3
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 47.0
$ 91.3
$ 133.0
$ 172.2
$ 187.2
$ 196.4
$ 196.4
$ 190.7
$ 185.1
$ 179.7
$ 174.5
$ 169.4
$ 164.5
$ 159.7
$ 155.0
$ 150.5
$ 146.1
$ 141.9
$ 137.7
$ 133.7
$ 3,112.3
$ 178.7
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 59.6
$ 115.8
$ 168.6
$ 218.3
$ 237.3
$ 248.9
$ 248.9
$ 241.6
$ 234.6
$ 227.8
$ 221.1
$ 214.7
$ 208.4
$ 202.4
$ 196.5
$ 190.8
$ 185.2
$ 179.8
$ 174.6
$ 169.5
$ 3,944.5
$ 226.5
Notes: Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2005.
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.4a through h.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.4I Present Value of Annual N on-Treatment Capital Cost Projections at 3% Discount Rate
(All Systems)
2005
2006
2007
200S
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
201 e
2017
201S
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
202S
2029
Total
Ann.
Implementation
$ OS
$ 1 1
$
$ D7
$ 06
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 3.6
$ 0.2
IDSE
$
$ 97
$ 204
$ 138
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$ 43.9
$ 2.5
urface Water C
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 02
$ 05
$ OS
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.4
$ 0.1
WS
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$ 03
$ (OS)
$ (1 5)
$ (1 5)
$ (1 5)
$ (1 4)
$ (1 4)
$ (13)
$ (1 3)
$ (1 2)
$ (1 2)
$ (1 1)
$ (1 1)
$ (1 1)
$ (1 0)
$ (10)
$ (1 0)
$ (1 0)
$ (21.1)
$ (1.2)
Operational
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 0 1
$ 02
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0,
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 2.1
$ 0.1
Implementation
$ 00
$ 01
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
sun
IDSE
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$ -
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
ace Water NTNC
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
ws
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 0.3
$ 0.0
Operational
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Implementation
$ 02
$ 30
$
$ 0 1
$ 1 4
$ 1 3
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 6.1
$ 0.3
IDSE
$ -
$ 01
$ 10
$ 57
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 6.S
$ 0.4
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 00
$ 02
$ 1 5
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.7
$ 0.1
aterCWS
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ (01)
$ 06
$ 1 3
$ 1 3
$ 12
$ 1 2
$ 1 2
$ 1,
$ 1 1
$ 1 0
$ 1 0
$ 10
$ 09
$ 09
$ 09
$ 09
$ OB
$ OB
$ 1S.3
$ 1.1
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Implementation
$ 00
$ 05
$
$ 00
$ 02
$ 02
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.0
$ 0.1
Disinfect
IDSE
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$ -
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
Plans
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 02
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
rNTNCWS
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 03
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 7.5
$ 0.4
Operational
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Implementation
$ 1 0
$ 47
$
$ 08
$ 22
$ 2 1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 10.S
$ 0.6
IDSE
$
$ 98
$ 214
$ 196
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$ 50.7
$ 2.9
Total
Plans
$
$
$ 03
$ 07
$ 23
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 3.3
$ 0.2
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 4.9
$ 0.3
Operational
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 0 1
$ 02
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0,
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 2.1
$ 0.1
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBF/?
December2005
-------
Present Value of Annual O&M Cost Projections at 7% Discount Rate
(All Systems and Primacy Agencies)
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Total
Ann.
Surface Water CWS
Mean
Value
$ 0.8
$ 9.6
$ 17.7
$ 12.4
$ 596.9
$ 593.2
$ 587.7
$ 579.9
$ 290.1
$ 223.6
$ 153.3
$ 116.3
$ 108.7
$ 101.6
$ 94.9
$ 88.7
$ 82.9
$ 77.5
$ 72.4
$ 67.7
$ 63.3
$ 59.1
$ 55.2
$ 51.6
$ 48.3
$ 4,153.4
$ 356.4
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.8
$ 9.6
$ 17.7
$ 12.4
$ 512.0
$ 509.4
$ 505.4
$ 499.2
$ 250.8
$ 194.0
$ 133.8
$ 102.0
$ 95.3
$ 89.1
$ 83.3
$ 77.8
$ 72.7
$ 68.0
$ 63.5
$ 59.4
$ 55.5
$ 51.8
$ 48.5
$ 45.3
$ 42.3
$ 3,599.5
$ 308.9
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.8
$ 9.6
$ 17.7
$ 12.4
$ 686.6
$ 681.5
$ 674.4
$ 664.9
$ 331.3
$ 254.7
$ 173.6
$ 131.0
$ 122.4
$ 114.4
$ 106.9
$ 99.9
$ 93.4
$ 87.3
$ 81.6
$ 76.2
$ 71.3
$ 66.6
$ 62.2
$ 58.2
$ 54.4
$ 4,733.3
$ 406.2
Surface Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 7.6
$ 8.0
$ 8.2
$ 8.5
$ 8.3
$ 8.2
$ 5.9
$ 3.8
$ 3.5
$ 3.3
$ 3.1
$ 2.9
$ 2.7
$ 2.5
$ 2.3
$ 2.2
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 89.9
$ 7.7
Operational
Evaluation
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 6.5
$ 6.8
$ 7.1
$ 7.3
$ 7.1
$ 7.1
$ 5.1
$ 3.3
$ 3.1
$ 2.9
$ 2.7
$ 2.5
$ 2.3
$ 2.2
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 78.0
$ 6.7
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 8.8
$ 9.2
$ 9.5
$ 9.7
$ 9.5
$ 9.4
$ 6.7
$ 4.2
$ 4.0
$ 3.7
$ 3.5
$ 3.2
$ 3.0
$ 2.8
$ 2.6
$ 2.5
$ 2.3
$ 2.2
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 1.8
$ 102.4
$ 8.8
Disinfecting Ground Water CWS
Mean
Value
$ 0.2
$ 2.8
$ 0.8
$ 5.0
$ 52.3
$ 51.8
$ 51.1
$ 51.7
$ 41.8
$ 34.2
$ 21.9
$ 14.8
$ 13.9
$ 13.0
$ 12.1
$ 11.3
$ 10.6
$ 9.9
$ 9.2
$ 8.6
$ 8.1
$ 7.5
$ 7.0
$ 6.6
$ 6.2
$ 452.3
$ 38.8
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.2
$ 2.8
$ 0.8
$ 5.0
$ 45.7
$ 45.3
$ 44.8
$ 45.6
$ 37.1
$ 30.5
$ 19.9
$ 13.8
$ 12.9
$ 12.1
$ 11.3
$ 10.6
$ 9.9
$ 9.2
$ 8.6
$ 8.1
$ 7.5
$ 7.0
$ 6.6
$ 6.1
$ 5.7
$ 407.3
$ 34.9
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.2
$ 2.8
$ 0.8
$ 5.0
$ 58.9
$ 58.2
$ 57.4
$ 57.9
$ 46.3
$ 37.8
$ 23.9
$ 15.8
$ 14.8
$ 13.8
$ 12.9
$ 12.1
$ 11.3
$ 10.5
$ 9.8
$ 9.2
$ 8.6
$ 8.0
$ 7.5
$ 7.0
$ 6.6
$ 497.2
$ 42.7
Disinfecting Ground Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$ 0.0
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 2.0
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.9
$ 2.0
$ 2.0
$ 1.4
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 21.2
$ 1.8
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.7
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.3
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 19.5
$ 1.7
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 2.2
$ 2.1
$ 1.9
$ 2.1
$ 2.2
$ 2.2
$ 1.5
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 23.0
$ 2.0
Primacy Agencies
Point Estimate
$ 3.4
$ 3.2
$ 0.1
$ 1.5
$ 0.6
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 8.8
$ 0.8
Total
Mean
Value
$ 4.3
$ 16.1
$ 18.7
$ 18.9
$ 659.4
$ 654.7
$ 649.7
$ 642.9
$ 343.0
$ 268.8
$ 183.3
$ 136.4
$ 127.5
$ 119.2
$ 111.4
$ 104.1
$ 97.3
$ 90.9
$ 85.0
$ 79.4
$ 74.2
$ 69.4
$ 64.8
$ 60.6
$ 56.6
$ 4,736.5
$ 406.4
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 4.3
$ 16.1
$ 18.7
$ 18.9
$ 566.5
$ 563.2
$ 559.7
$ 554.6
$ 297.8
$ 234.2
$ 160.9
$ 120.7
$ 112.8
$ 105.4
$ 98.5
$ 92.0
$ 86.0
$ 80.4
$ 75.1
$ 70.2
$ 65.6
$ 61.3
$ 57.3
$ 53.6
$ 50.1
$ 4,124.0
$ 353.9
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 4.3
$ 16.1
$ 18.7
$ 18.9
$ 757.1
$ 750.9
$ 744.2
$ 735.5
$ 390.2
$ 304.9
$ 206.4
$ 152.6
$ 142.7
$ 133.3
$ 124.6
$ 116.5
$ 108.8
$ 101.7
$ 95.1
$ 88.8
$ 83.0
$ 77.6
$ 72.5
$ 67.8
$ 63.3
$ 5,375.7
$ 461.3
: Present values in millions of 2003 dollars.
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to i
Ann = value of total annualized at discount
;: Derived from Exhibits J.4a through h.
Estimates are discounted to 2
independent rounding.
rate.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December2005
-------
Exhibit J.4n Present Value of Annual Treatment Cost Projections at 7% Discount Rate
(All Systems)
Alternative 2
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Total
Ann.
Surface Water CWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 596.0
$ 557.0
$ 520.6
$ 486.5
$ 174.2
$ 103.2
$ 32.3
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 2,469.7
$ 211.9
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 511.1
$ 477.6
$ 446.4
$ 417.2
$ 149.2
$ 88.3
$ 27.6
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 2,1174
$ 181.7
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 685.7
$ 640.8
$ 598.9
$ 559.7
$ 200.8
$ 119.0
$ 37.2
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 2,842.2
$ 243.9
Surface Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 7.6
$ 7.1
$ 6.6
$ 6.2
$ 5.4
$ 4.9
$ 2.2
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 39.8
$ 3.4
Operational Evaluation
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 6.5
$ 6.0
$ 5.7
$ 5.3
$ 4.6
$ 4.2
$ 1.9
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 34.1
$ 2.9
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 8.7
$ 8.2
$ 7.6
$ 7.1
$ 6.2
$ 5.6
$ 2.5
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 46.0
$ 3.9
Disinfecting Ground Water CWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 50.0
$ 46.8
$ 43.7
$ 40.8
$ 27.8
$ 19.1
$ 6.5
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 234.8
$ 20.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 43.4
$ 40.6
$ 37.9
$ 35.4
$ 24.2
$ 16.5
$ 5.5
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 203.4
$ 17.5
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 56.6
$ 52.9
$ 49.5
$ 46.2
$ 31.5
$ 21.8
$ 7.4
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 266.0
$ 22.8
Disinfecting Ground Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 0.5
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 8.9
$ 0.8
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 0.5
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 7.6
$ 0.7
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 1.9
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 0.6
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 10.1
$ 0.9
Total
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 655.2
$ 612.3
$ 572.3
$ 534.8
$ 208.7
$ 128.3
$ 41.5
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 2,753.2
$ 236.3
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 562.3
$ 525.6
$ 491.2
$ 459.0
$ 179.0
$ 110.0
$ 35.5
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 2,362.6
$ 202.7
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 752.9
$ 703.7
$ 657.6
$ 614.6
$ 239.9
$ 147.7
$ 47.8
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 3,164.2
$ 271.5
Notes: Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2005.
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.4a through h.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.4o Present Value of Annual Treatment Cost Projections at 7% Discount Rate
(All Systems)
Alternative 2
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Total
Ann.
Surface Water CWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 35.8
$ 66.9
$ 93.8
$ 116.9
$ 121.3
$ 121.8
$ 117.1
$ 109.4
$ 102.2
$ 95.6
$ 89.3
$ 83.5
$ 78.0
$ 72.9
$ 68.1
$ 63.7
$ 59.5
$ 55.6
$ 52.0
$ 48.6
$ 1,651.9
$ 141.7
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 31.4
$ 58.7
$ 82.4
$ 102.6
$ 106.5
$ 107.0
$ 102.8
$ 96.0
$ 89.8
$ 83.9
$ 78.4
$ 73.3
$ 68.5
$ 64.0
$ 59.8
$ 55.9
$ 52.2
$ 48.8
$ 45.6
$ 42.6
$ 1,450.3
$ 124.5
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 40.3
$ 75.3
$ 105.5
$ 131.5
$ 136.6
$ 137.2
$ 131.8
$ 123.1
$ 115.1
$ 107.6
$ 100.5
$ 93.9
$ 87.8
$ 82.1
$ 76.7
$ 71.7
$ 67.0
$ 62.6
$ 58.5
$ 54.7
$ 1,859.4
$ 159.6
Surface Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.9
$ 1.6
$ 2.3
$ 2.9
$ 3.3
$ 3.7
$ 3.7
$ 3.5
$ 3.3
$ 3.1
$ 2.9
$ 2.7
$ 2.5
$ 2.3
$ 2.2
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 49.7
$ 4.3
Operational Evaluation
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.8
$ 1.4
$ 2.0
$ 2.5
$ 2.9
$ 3.2
$ 3.3
$ 3.1
$ 2.9
$ 2.7
$ 2.5
$ 2.3
$ 2.2
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 43.5
$ 3.7
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.0
$ 1.8
$ 2.6
$ 3.2
$ 3.8
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 3.9
$ 3.7
$ 3.4
$ 3.2
$ 3.0
$ 2.8
$ 2.6
$ 2.5
$ 2.3
$ 2.1
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 1.8
$ 56.1
$ 4.8
Disinfecting Ground Water CWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 4.0
$ 7.5
$ 10.4
$ 13.0
$ 14.2
$ 14.6
$ 14.1
$ 13.2
$ 12.3
$ 11.5
$ 10.8
$ 10.1
$ 9.4
$ 8.8
$ 8.2
$ 7.7
$ 7.2
$ 6.7
$ 6.3
$ 5.9
$ 195.7
$ 16.8
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 3.7
$ 6.9
$ 9.7
$ 12.1
$ 13.2
$ 13.6
$ 13.1
$ 12.3
$ 11.5
$ 10.7
$ 10.0
$ 9.4
$ 8.7
$ 8.2
$ 7.6
$ 7.1
$ 6.7
$ 6.2
$ 5.8
$ 5.4
$ 182.0
$ 15.6
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 4.3
$ 8.0
$ 11.2
$ 13.9
$ 15.2
$ 15.7
$ 15.1
$ 14.1
$ 13.2
$ 12.3
$ 11.5
$ 10.8
$ 10.1
$ 9.4
$ 8.8
$ 8.2
$ 7.7
$ 7.2
$ 6.7
$ 6.3
$ 209.4
$ 18.0
Disinfecting Ground Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 7.4
$ 0.6
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 6.9
$ 0.6
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 7.9
$ 0.7
Total
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 40.8
$ 76.2
$ 106.9
$ 133.2
$ 139.4
$ 140.7
$ 135.5
$ 126.6
$ 118.3
$ 110.6
$ 103.3
$ 96.6
$ 90.3
$ 84.4
$ 78.8
$ 73.7
$ 68.9
$ 64.4
$ 60.1
$ 56.2
$ 1,904.7
$ 163.4
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 36.0
$ 67.3
$ 94.4
$ 117.6
$ 123.1
$ 124.4
$ 119.7
$ 111.9
$ 104.5
$ 97.7
$ 91.3
$ 85.3
$ 79.7
$ 74.5
$ 69.7
$ 65.1
$ 60.8
$ 56.9
$ 53.1
$ 49.7
$ 1,682.8
$ 144.4
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 45.7
$ 85.4
$ 119.7
$ 149.1
$ 156.1
$ 157.6
$ 151.7
$ 141.7
$ 132.5
$ 123.8
$ 115.7
$ 108.1
$ 101.1
$ 94.5
$ 88.3
$ 82.5
$ 77.1
$ 72.1
$ 67.3
$ 62.9
$ 2,132.8
$ 183.0
Notes: Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2005.
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.4a through h.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.4p Present Value of Ann
(All
ual Cost Projections at 7% Discount Rate
Systems)
2005
2006
2007
200S
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
201 S
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
202S
2029
Total
Implementation
$ 08
$ 09
$
$ 06
$ 04
$ 04
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.3
IDSE
$
$ 87
$ 175
$ 114
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$ 3.2
rface Water CM
Motoring
$
$
$ 02
$ 05
$ 05
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 02
$ (04)
$ (1 1)
$ (1 0)
$ (09)
$ (09)
$ (08)
$ (07)
$ (07)
$ (07)
$ (06)
$ (06)
$ (05)
$ (05)
$ (05)
$ (04)
$ (04)
$ (04)
$ (04)
Operational
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
Implementation
$ 00
$ 01
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
face Water NTN
Motoring
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
CWS
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
n*
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Implementation
$ 02
$ 27
$
$ 0 1
$ 1 1
$ 1 0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Disinfe
IDSE
$ -
$ 01
$ 08
$ 47
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
cBng Ground W
°p""8
$
$
$ 00
$ 02
$ 1 2
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
aterCWS
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ (01)
$ 05
$ 09
$ 08
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Implementation
$ 00
$ 05
$
$ 00
$ 02
$ 02
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Disinfect
IDSE
$ -
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
ng Ground Wat
Morjitoring
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 0 1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
5TNTNCWS
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 02
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 01
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Implementation
$ 09
$ 42
$
$ 07
$ 1 8
$ 1 6
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$
$ 87
$ 184
$ 162
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
Total
Plans
$
$
$ 02
$ 06
$ 1 8
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 01
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBF/?
December2005
-------
Section J.5
Cost Projections (Alternative 3)
-------
-------
Exhibit J.Sa Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(All Surface Water CWSs)
Alternative 3
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$1,433.00
$1,433.00
$1,433.00
$1,433.00
$ 529.20
$ 325.74
$ 104.71
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 1,193.47
$ 1,193.47
$ 1,193.47
$ 1,193.47
$ 439.56
$ 270.42
$ 86.85
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 1,686.79
$ 1,686.79
$ 1,686.79
$ 1,686.79
$ 624.67
$ 384.78
$ 123.76
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 87.84
$ 175.67
$ 263.51
$ 351.34
$ 390.25
$ 419.28
$ 430.96
$ 430.96
$ 430.96
$ 430.96
$ 430.96
$ 430.96
$ 430.96
$ 430.96
$ 430.96
$ 430.96
$ 430.96
$ 430.96
$ 430.96
$ 430.96
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 74.63
$ 149.26
$ 223.90
$ 298.53
$ 331.55
$ 356.16
$ 366.06
$ 366.06
$ 366.06
$ 366.06
$ 366.06
$ 366.06
$ 366.06
$ 366.06
$ 366.06
$ 366.06
$ 366.06
$ 366.06
$ 366.06
$ 366.06
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 101.36
$ 202.72
$ 304.08
$ 405.44
$ 450.41
$ 484.00
$ 497.54
$ 497.54
$ 497.54
$ 497.54
$ 497.54
$ 497.54
$ 497.54
$ 497.54
$ 497.54
$ 497.54
$ 497.54
$ 497.54
$ 497.54
$ 497.54
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.87
$ 1.15
$
$ 0.78
$ 0.67
$ 0.58
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$10.60
$ 22.94
$15.99
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 0.28
$ 0.64
$ 0.74
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.42
$ (0.77)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.06
$ 0.15
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.87
$ 11.76
$ 23.22
$ 17.40
$ 1,434.40
$ 1,521.41
$ 1,609.09
$ 1,695.80
$ 878.62
$ 714.13
$ 522.13
$ 429.11
$ 429.11
$ 429.11
$ 429.11
$ 429.11
$ 429.11
$ 429.11
$ 429.11
$ 429.11
$ 429.11
$ 429.11
$ 429.11
$ 429.11
$ 429.11
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th % tile)
$ 0.87
$ 11.76
$ 23.22
$ 17.40
$1,194.88
$1,268.68
$1,343.16
$1,416.66
$ 736.16
$ 600.11
$ 441.16
$ 364.21
$ 364.21
$ 364.21
$ 364.21
$ 364.21
$ 364.21
$ 364.21
$ 364.21
$ 364.21
$ 364.21
$ 364.21
$ 364.21
$ 364.21
$ 364.21
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 0.87
$ 11.76
$ 23.22
$ 17.40
$1,688.20
$1,788.73
$1,889.93
$1,990.16
$1,028.19
$ 833.34
$ 605.91
$ 495.68
$ 495.68
$ 495.68
$ 495.68
$ 495.68
$ 495.68
$ 495.68
$ 495.68
$ 495.68
$ 495.68
$ 495.68
$ 495.68
$ 495.68
$ 495.68
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derwed from Exhibits J.1d and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.5b Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(All Surface Water NTNCWSs)
Alternative 3
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 16.52
$ 16.52
$ 16.52
$ 16.52
$ 15.27
$ 14.69
$ 7.06
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 13.74
$ 13.74
$ 13.74
$ 13.74
$ 12.70
$ 12.22
$ 5.87
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 19.51
$ 19.51
$ 19.51
$ 19.51
$ 18.05
$ 17.37
$ 8.34
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 2.17
$ 4.33
$ 6.50
$ 8.66
$ 10.77
$ 12.84
$ 13.87
$ 13.87
$ 13.87
$ 13.87
$ 13.87
$ 13.87
$ 13.87
$ 13.87
$ 13.87
$ 13.87
$ 13.87
$ 13.87
$ 13.87
$ 13.87
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.84
$ 3.67
$ 5.51
$ 7.34
$ 9.12
$ 10.88
$ 11.75
$ 11.75
$ 11.75
$ 11.75
$ 11.75
$ 11.75
$ 11.75
$ 11.75
$ 11.75
$ 11.75
$ 11.75
$ 11.75
$ 11.75
$ 11.75
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 2.51
$ 5.02
$ 7.52
$ 10.03
$ 12.47
$ 14.87
$ 16.06
$ 16.06
$ 16.06
$ 16.06
$ 16.06
$ 16.06
$ 16.06
$ 16.06
$ 16.06
$ 16.06
$ 16.06
$ 16.06
$ 16.06
$ 16.06
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.01
$ 0.07
$
$ 0.01
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ 0.01
$ 0.04
$ 0.02
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring Plans
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.02
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.01
$ 0.08
$ 0.04
$ 0.03
$ 16.57
$ 18.72
$ 20.86
$ 23.04
$ 23.97
$ 25.49
$ 19.93
$ 13.90
$ 13.90
$ 13.90
$ 13.90
$ 13.90
$ 13.90
$ 13.90
$ 13.90
$ 13.90
$ 13.90
$ 13.90
$ 13.90
$ 13.90
$ 13.90
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th % tile)
$ 0.01
$ 0.08
$ 0.04
$ 0.03
$ 13.79
$ 15.61
$ 17.42
$ 19.26
$ 20.07
$ 21.37
$ 16.78
$ 11.78
$ 11.78
$ 11.78
$ 11.78
$ 11.78
$ 11.78
$ 11.78
$ 11.78
$ 11.78
$ 11.78
$ 11.78
$ 11.78
$ 11.78
$ 11.78
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.01
$ 0.08
$ 0.04
$ 0.03
$ 19.56
$ 22.06
$ 24.53
$ 27.05
$ 28.11
$ 29.86
$ 23.25
$ 16.09
$ 16.09
$ 16.09
$ 16.09
$ 16.09
$ 16.09
$ 16.09
$ 16.09
$ 16.09
$ 16.09
$ 16.09
$ 16.09
$ 16.09
$ 16.09
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1d and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.Sc Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(All Surface Water Systems)
Alternative 3
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 1,449.52
$ 1,449.52
$ 1,449.52
$ 1,449.52
$ 544.47
$ 340.43
$ 111.77
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tlle)
$
$
$
$
$ 1,207.21
$ 1,207.21
$ 1,207.21
$ 1,207.21
$ 452.26
$ 282.64
$ 92.72
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tlle)
$
$
$
$
$ 1,706.30
$ 1,706.30
$ 1,706.30
$ 1,706.30
$ 642.71
$ 402.15
$ 132.10
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 90.00
$ 180.00
$ 270.00
$ 360.01
$ 401.02
$ 432.12
$ 444.83
$ 444.83
$ 444.83
$ 444.83
$ 444.83
$ 444.83
$ 444.83
$ 444.83
$ 444.83
$ 444.83
$ 444.83
$ 444.83
$ 444.83
$ 444.83
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 76.47
$ 152.93
$ 229.40
$ 305.87
$ 340.67
$ 367.04
$ 377.81
$ 377.81
$ 377.81
$ 377.81
$ 377.81
$ 377.81
$ 377.81
$ 377.81
$ 377.81
$ 377.81
$ 377.81
$ 377.81
$ 377.81
$ 377.81
Upper
(95th %tlle)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 103.87
$ 207.74
$ 311.60
$ 415.47
$ 462.88
$ 498.88
$ 513.60
$ 513.60
$ 513.60
$ 513.60
$ 513.60
$ 513.60
$ 513.60
$ 513.60
$ 513.60
$ 513.60
$ 513.60
$ 513.60
$ 513.60
$ 513.60
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.88
$ 1.22
$
$ 0.79
$ 0.71
$ 0.61
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$
$ 10.62
$ 22.98
$ 16.01
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 0.28
$ 0.64
$ 0.75
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.42
$ (0.75)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.06
$ 0.15
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.88
$ 11.84
$ 23.26
$ 17.44
$ 1,450.97
$ 1,540.13
$ 1,629.95
$ 1,718.83
$ 902.58
$ 739.62
$ 542.06
$ 443.00
$ 443.00
$ 443.00
$ 443.00
$ 443.00
$ 443.00
$ 443.00
$ 443.00
$ 443.00
$ 443.00
$ 443.00
$ 443.00
$ 443.00
$ 443.00
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.88
$ 11.84
$ 23.26
$ 17.44
$ 1,208.67
$ 1,284.29
$ 1,360.57
$ 1,435.93
$ 756.23
$ 621.48
$ 457.94
$ 375.99
$ 375.99
$ 375.99
$ 375.99
$ 375.99
$ 375.99
$ 375.99
$ 375.99
$ 375.99
$ 375.99
$ 375.99
$ 375.99
$ 375.99
$ 375.99
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.88
$ 11.84
$ 23.26
$ 17.44
$ 1,707.76
$ 1,810.78
$ 1,914.46
$ 2,017.22
$ 1,056.30
$ 863.20
$ 629.15
$ 511.77
$ 511.77
$ 511.77
$ 511.77
$ 511.77
$ 511.77
$ 511.77
$ 511.77
$ 511.77
$ 511.77
$ 511.77
$ 511.77
$ 511.77
$ 511.77
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1d and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.5d Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(All Ground Water CWSs)
Alternative 3
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 81.25
$ 81.25
$ 81.25
$ 81.25
$ 57.75
$ 41.47
$ 14.58
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 70.09
$ 70.09
$ 70.09
$ 70.09
$ 49.74
$ 35.45
$ 12.31
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 92.44
$ 92.44
$ 92.44
$ 92.44
$ 65.81
$ 47.54
$ 16.88
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 6.88
$ 13.75
$ 20.63
$ 27.51
$ 32.12
$ 35.32
$ 36.39
$ 36.39
$ 36.39
$ 36.39
$ 36.39
$ 36.39
$ 36.39
$ 36.39
$ 36.39
$ 36.39
$ 36.39
$ 36.39
$ 36.39
$ 36.39
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 6.38
$ 12.76
$ 19.14
$ 25.52
$ 29.81
$ 32.79
$ 33.77
$ 33.77
$ 33.77
$ 33.77
$ 33.77
$ 33.77
$ 33.77
$ 33.77
$ 33.77
$ 33.77
$ 33.77
$ 33.77
$ 33.77
$ 33.77
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 7.38
$ 14.75
$ 22.13
$ 29.50
$ 34.43
$ 37.86
$ 39.01
$ 39.01
$ 39.01
$ 39.01
$ 39.01
$ 39.01
$ 39.01
$ 39.01
$ 39.01
$ 39.01
$ 39.01
$ 39.01
$ 39.01
$ 39.01
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.18
$ 3.31
$
$ 0.14
$ 1.69
$ 1.66
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$
$ 0.09
$ 1.09
$ 6.66
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring Plans
$
$
$ 0.02
$ 0.21
$ 1.74
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ (0.11)
$ 0.83
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.18
$ 3.40
$ 1.11
$ 7.01
$ 84.67
$ 89.78
$ 94.89
$ 102.71
$ 87.02
$ 75.35
$ 51.66
$ 38.15
$ 38.15
$ 38.15
$ 38.15
$ 38.15
$ 38.15
$ 38.15
$ 38.15
$ 38.15
$ 38.15
$ 38.15
$ 38.15
$ 38.15
$ 38.15
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th % tile)
$ 0.18
$ 3.40
$ 1.11
$ 7.01
$ 73.52
$ 78.13
$ 82.74
$ 90.06
$ 77.01
$ 67.02
$ 46.85
$ 35.53
$ 35.53
$ 35.53
$ 35.53
$ 35.53
$ 35.53
$ 35.53
$ 35.53
$ 35.53
$ 35.53
$ 35.53
$ 35.53
$ 35.53
$ 35.53
Upper
(95th % tile)
$ 0.18
$ 3.40
$ 1.11
$ 7.01
$ 95.87
$ 101.47
$ 107.08
$ 115.39
$ 97.07
$ 83.73
$ 56.50
$ 40.77
$ 40.77
$ 40.77
$ 40.77
$ 40.77
$ 40.77
$ 40.77
$ 40.77
$ 40.77
$ 40.77
$ 40.77
$ 40.77
$ 40.77
$ 40.77
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1d and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.5e Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(All Ground Water NTNCWSs)
Alternative 3
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 2.20
$ 2.20
$ 2.20
$ 2.20
$ 2.17
$ 2.14
$ 1.06
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 1.88
$ 1.88
$ 1.88
$ 1.88
$ 1.85
$ 1.83
$ 0.91
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 2.51
$ 2.51
$ 2.51
$ 2.51
$ 2.49
$ 2.45
$ 1.22
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.21
$ 0.41
$ 0.62
$ 0.82
$ 1.03
$ 1.23
$ 1.33
$ 1.33
$ 1.33
$ 1.33
$ 1.33
$ 1.33
$ 1.33
$ 1.33
$ 1.33
$ 1.33
$ 1.33
$ 1.33
$ 1.33
$ 1.33
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.19
$ 0.38
$ 0.57
$ 0.76
$ 0.95
$ 1.14
$ 1.23
$ 1.23
$ 1.23
$ 1.23
$ 1.23
$ 1.23
$ 1.23
$ 1.23
$ 1.23
$ 1.23
$ 1.23
$ 1.23
$ 1.23
$ 1.23
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.22
$ 0.44
$ 0.66
$ 0.88
$ 1.10
$ 1.32
$ 1.43
$ 1.43
$ 1.43
$ 1.43
$ 1.43
$ 1.43
$ 1.43
$ 1.43
$ 1.43
$ 1.43
$ 1.43
$ 1.43
$ 1.43
$ 1.43
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.00
$ 0.56
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.28
$ 0.28
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ -
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.21
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.36
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.00
$ 0.56
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 2.69
$ 2.68
$ 2.61
$ 3.17
$ 3.71
$ 3.88
$ 3.00
$ 2.04
$ 2.04
$ 2.04
$ 2.04
$ 2.04
$ 2.04
$ 2.04
$ 2.04
$ 2.04
$ 2.04
$ 2.04
$ 2.04
$ 2.04
$ 2.04
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.00
$ 0.56
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 2.37
$ 2.34
$ 2.26
$ 2.80
$ 3.33
$ 3.49
$ 2.76
$ 1.94
$ 1.94
$ 1.94
$ 1.94
$ 1.94
$ 1.94
$ 1.94
$ 1.94
$ 1.94
$ 1.94
$ 1.94
$ 1.94
$ 1.94
$ 1.94
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.00
$ 0.56
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 3.01
$ 3.01
$ 2.96
$ 3.53
$ 4.08
$ 4.27
$ 3.25
$ 2.14
$ 2.14
$ 2.14
$ 2.14
$ 2.14
$ 2.14
$ 2.14
$ 2.14
$ 2.14
$ 2.14
$ 2.14
$ 2.14
$ 2.14
$ 2.14
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1d and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.Sf Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(All Ground Water Systems)
Alternative 3
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 83.44
$ 83.44
$ 83.44
$ 83.44
$ 59.92
$ 43.62
$ 15.64
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 71.97
$ 71.97
$ 71.97
$ 71.97
$ 51.59
$ 37.28
$ 13.21
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 94.95
$ 94.95
$ 94.95
$ 94.95
$ 68.29
$ 49.99
$ 18.C8
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 7.08
$ 14.17
$ 21.25
$ 28.33
$ 33.15
$ 36.55
$ 37.72
$ 37.72
$ 37.72
$ 37.72
$ 37.72
$ 37.72
$ 37.72
$ 37.72
$ 37.72
$ 37.72
$ 37.72
$ 37.72
$ 37.72
$ 37.72
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 6.57
$ 13.14
$ 19.71
$ 26.28
$ 30.76
$ 33.92
$ 35.00
$ 35.00
$ 35.00
$ 35.00
$ 35.00
$ 35.00
$ 35.00
$ 35.00
$ 35.00
$ 35.00
$ 35.00
$ 35.00
$ 35.00
$ 35.00
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 7.60
$ 15.19
$ 22.79
$ 30.39
$ 35.54
$ 39.18
$ 40.44
$ 40.44
$ 40.44
$ 40.44
$ 40.44
$ 40.44
$ 40.44
$ 40.44
$ 40.44
$ 40.44
$ 40.44
$ 40.44
$ 40.44
$ 40.44
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.18
$ 3.87
$
$ 0.14
$ 1.97
$ 1.94
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ 0.09
$ 1.09
$ 6.66
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 0.02
$ 0.21
$ 1.95
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ (0.11)
$ 1.18
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.18
$ 3.96
$ 1.11
$ 7.01
$ 87.36
$ 92.46
$ 97.50
$ 105.88
$ 90.72
$ 79.23
$ 54.67
$ 40.19
$ 40.19
$ 40.19
$ 40.19
$ 40.19
$ 40.19
$ 40.19
$ 40.19
$ 40.19
$ 40.19
$ 40.19
$ 40.19
$ 40.19
$ 40.19
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.18
$ 3.96
$ 1.11
$ 7.01
$ 75.89
$ 80.47
$ 85.00
$ 92.86
$ 80.34
$ 70.52
$ 49.61
$ 37.47
$ 37.47
$ 37.47
$ 37.47
$ 37.47
$ 37.47
$ 37.47
$ 37.47
$ 37.47
$ 37.47
$ 37.47
$ 37.47
$ 37.47
$ 37.47
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 0.18
$ 3.96
$ 1.11
$ 7.01
$ 98.87
$ 104.48
$ 110.04
$ 118.93
$ 101.15
$ 88.00
$ 59.75
$ 42.91
$ 42.91
$ 42.91
$ 42.91
$ 42.91
$ 42.91
$ 42.91
$ 42.91
$ 42.91
$ 42.91
$ 42.91
$ 42.91
$ 42.91
$ 42.91
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1d and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.Sg Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(All Systems)
Alternative 3
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$1,532.96
$1,532.96
$1,532.96
$1,532.96
$ 604.39
$ 384.05
$ 127.41
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 1,279.18
$ 1,279.18
$ 1,279.18
$ 1,279.18
$ 503.85
$ 319.92
$ 105.94
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 1,801.25
$ 1,801.25
$ 1,801.25
$ 1,801.25
$ 711.01
$ 452.14
$ 150.19
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 97.08
$ 194.17
$ 291.25
$ 388.34
$ 434.17
$ 468.67
$ 482.55
$ 482.55
$ 482.55
$ 482.55
$ 482.55
$ 482.55
$ 482.55
$ 482.55
$ 482.55
$ 482.55
$ 482.55
$ 482.55
$ 482.55
$ 482.55
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 83.04
$ 166.07
$ 249.11
$ 332.15
$ 371.43
$ 400.97
$ 412.82
$ 412.82
$ 412.82
$ 412.82
$ 412.82
$ 412.82
$ 412.82
$ 412.82
$ 412.82
$ 412.82
$ 412.82
$ 412.82
$ 412.82
$ 412.82
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 111.46
$ 222.93
$ 334.39
$ 445.86
$ 498.42
$ 538.06
$ 554.04
$ 554.04
$ 554.04
$ 554.04
$ 554.04
$ 554.04
$ 554.04
$ 554.04
$ 554.04
$ 554.04
$ 554.04
$ 554.04
$ 554.04
$ 554.04
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 1.06
$ 5.09
$
$ 0.93
$ 2.68
$ 2.55
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$10.70
$ 24.07
$ 22.67
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 0.30
$ 0.85
$ 2.70
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.32
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.06
$ 0.15
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 1.06
$ 15.80
$ 24.36
$ 24.45
$ 1,538.34
$ 1,632.59
$ 1,727.45
$ 1,824.71
$ 993.31
$ 818.86
$ 596.73
$ 483.19
$ 483.19
$ 483.19
$ 483.19
$ 483.19
$ 483.19
$ 483.19
$ 483.19
$ 483.19
$ 483.19
$ 483.19
$ 483.19
$ 483.19
$ 483.19
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 1.06
$ 15.80
$ 24.36
$ 24.45
$1,284.56
$1,364.77
$1,445.57
$1,528.79
$ 836.57
$ 691.99
$ 507.55
$ 413.46
$ 413.46
$ 413.46
$ 413.46
$ 413.46
$ 413.46
$ 413.46
$ 413.46
$ 413.46
$ 413.46
$ 413.46
$ 413.46
$ 413.46
$ 413.46
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 1.06
$ 15.80
$ 24.36
$ 24.45
$1,806.63
$1,915.27
$ 2,024.50
$2,136.14
$1,157.45
$ 951.20
$ 688.90
$ 554.68
$ 554.68
$ 554.68
$ 554.68
$ 554.68
$ 554.68
$ 554.68
$ 554.68
$ 554.68
$ 554.68
$ 554.68
$ 554.68
$ 554.68
$ 554.68
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1d and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.5h Projections of Stage 2 DBPR Primacy Agency Costs
Alternative 3
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Implementation Costs
$ 3.88
$ 3.88
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE Costs
$
$ 0.05
$ 0.14
$ 2.03
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring Plan
Costs
$
$
$ 0.02
$ 0.06
$ 0.84
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Compliance
Monitoring
Costs
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1h and D.7.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.5i Present Value of Annual Capital Cost Projections at 3% Discount Rate
(All Systems and Primacy Agencies)
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Total
Ann.
Surface Water CWS
Mean
Value
$ 0.8
$ 10.8
$ 20.6
$ 15.0
$ 1,201.3
$ 1,237.0
$ 1,270.2
$ 1,299.7
$ 653.8
$ 515.9
$ 366.2
$ 292.2
$ 283.7
$ 275.4
$ 267.4
$ 259.6
$ 252.1
$ 244.7
$ 237.6
$ 230.7
$ 223.9
$ 217.4
$ 211.1
$ 204.9
$ 199.0
$ 9,991.1
$ 573.8
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.8
$ 10.8
$ 20.6
$ 15.0
$ 1,000.7
$ 1,031.6
$ 1,060.3
$ 1,085.8
$ 547.8
$ 433.5
$ 309.4
$ 248.0
$ 240.8
$ 233.8
$ 227.0
$ 220.4
$ 213.9
$ 207.7
$ 201.7
$ 195.8
$ 190.1
$ 184.5
$ 179.2
$ 173.9
$ 168.9
$ 8,401.8
$ 482.5
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.8
$ 10.8
$ 20.6
$ 15.0
$ 1,413.8
$ 1,454.4
$ 1,491.9
$ 1,525.3
$ 765.1
$ 602.0
$ 425.0
$ 337.5
$ 327.7
$ 318.2
$ 308.9
$ 299.9
$ 291.2
$ 282.7
$ 274.4
$ 266.5
$ 258.7
$ 251.2
$ 243.8
$ 236.7
$ 229.8
$ 11,652.0
$ 669.1
Surface Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 13.9
$ 15.2
$ 16.5
$ 17.7
$ 17.8
$ 18.4
$ 14.0
$ 9.5
$ 9.2
$ 8.9
$ 8.7
$ 8.4
$ 8.2
$ 7.9
$ 7.7
$ 7.5
$ 7.3
$ 7.0
$ 6.8
$ 6.6
$ 6.4
$ 223.7
$ 12.8
Operational
Evaluation
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 11.5
$ 12.7
$ 13.7
$ 14.8
$ 14.9
$ 15.4
$ 11.8
$ 8.0
$ 7.8
$ 7.6
$ 7.3
$ 7.1
$ 6.9
$ 6.7
$ 6.5
$ 6.3
$ 6.1
$ 6.0
$ 5.8
$ 5.6
$ 5.5
$ 188.4
$ 10.8
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 16.4
$ 17.9
$ 19.4
$ 20.7
$ 20.9
$ 21.6
$ 16.3
$ 11.0
$ 10.6
$ 10.3
$ 10.0
$ 9.7
$ 9.5
$ 9.2
$ 8.9
$ 8.6
$ 8.4
$ 8.2
$ 7.9
$ 7.7
$ 7.5
$ 260.8
$ 15.0
Disinfecting Ground Water CWS
Mean
Value
$ 0.2
$ 3.1
$ 1.0
$ 6.0
$ 70.9
$ 73.0
$ 74.9
$ 78.7
$ 64.7
$ 54.4
$ 36.2
$ 26.0
$ 25.2
$ 24.5
$ 23.8
$ 23.1
$ 22.4
$ 21.8
$ 21.1
$ 20.5
$ 19.9
$ 19.3
$ 18.8
$ 18.2
$ 17.7
$ 765.5
$ 44.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.2
$ 3.1
$ 1.0
$ 6.0
$ 61.6
$ 63.5
$ 65.3
$ 69.0
$ 57.3
$ 48.4
$ 32.9
$ 24.2
$ 23.5
$ 22.8
$ 22.1
$ 21.5
$ 20.9
$ 20.3
$ 19.7
$ 19.1
$ 18.5
$ 18.0
$ 17.5
$ 17.0
$ 16.5
$ 689.8
$ 39.6
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.2
$ 3.1
$ 1.0
$ 6.0
$ 80.3
$ 82.5
$ 84.5
$ 88.4
$ 72.2
$ 60.5
$ 39.6
$ 27.8
$ 27.0
$ 26.2
$ 25.4
$ 24.7
$ 23.9
$ 23.2
$ 22.6
$ 21.9
$ 21.3
$ 20.7
$ 20.1
$ 19.5
$ 18.9
$ 841.4
$ 48.3
Disinfecting
Mean
Value
$ 0.0
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 2.3
$ 2.2
$ 2.1
$ 2.4
$ 2.8
$ 2.8
$ 2.1
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 33.3
$ 1.9
Ground Water NTNCWS
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 1.8
$ 2.1
$ 2.5
$ 2.5
$ 1.9
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 30.7
$ 1.8
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 2.5
$ 2.4
$ 2.3
$ 2.7
$ 3.0
$ 3.1
$ 2.3
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 35.9
$ 2.1
Primacy Agencies
Point Estimate
$ 3.7
$ 3.6
$ 0.1
$ 1.8
$ 0.7
$
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 29.8
$ 1.7
Total
Mean
Value
$ 4.7
$ 18.1
$ 21 .8
$ 22.9
$ 1,289.0
$ 1,327.4
$ 1,365.0
$ 1,399.8
$ 740.4
$ 592.8
$ 419.7
$ 330.2
$ 320.6
$ 311.2
$ 302.2
$ 293.4
$ 284.8
$ 276.5
$ 268.5
$ 260.7
$ 253.1
$ 245.7
$ 238.5
$ 231.6
$ 224.8
$ 11,043.4
$ 634.2
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 4.7
$ 18.1
$ 21.8
$ 22.9
$ 1,076.5
$ 1,109.7
$ 1,142.5
$ 1,173.0
$ 623.8
$ 501.1
$ 357.2
$ 282.7
$ 274.5
$ 266.5
$ 258.7
$ 251.2
$ 243.9
$ 236.8
$ 229.9
$ 223.2
$ 216.7
$ 210.4
$ 204.2
$ 198.3
$ 192.5
$ 9,340.5
$ 536.4
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 4.7
$ 18.1
$ 21.8
$ 22.9
$ 1,513.7
$ 1,557.3
$ 1,599.5
$ 1,638.5
$ 862.5
$ 688.4
$ 484.4
$ 378.9
$ 367.8
$ 357.1
$ 346.7
$ 336.6
$ 326.8
$ 317.3
$ 308.1
$ 299.1
$ 290.4
$ 281.9
$ 273.7
$ 265.7
$ 258.0
$ 12,819.9
$ 736.2
Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates Ł
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent
Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.
;: Derived from Exhibits J.5a through h.
ire discounted to 2005.
rounding.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.5j Present Value of Annual O&M Treatment Cost Projections at 3% Discount Rate
(All Systems)
Alternative 3
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Total
Ann.
Surface Water CWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 1,200.1
$ 1,165.2
$ 1,131.2
$ 1,098.3
$ 393.8
$ 235.3
$ 73.4
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 5,297.3
$ 304.2
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 999.5
$ 970.4
$ 942.1
$ 914.7
$ 327.1
$ 195.4
$ 60.9
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 4,410.1
$ 253.3
Upper
(95th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 1,412.7
$ 1,371.5
$ 1,331.6
$ 1,292.8
$ 464.8
$ 278.0
$ 86.8
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 6,238.1
$ 358.2
Surface Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 13.8
$ 13.4
$ 13.0
$ 12.7
$ 11.4
$ 10.6
$ 4.9
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 79.9
$ 4.6
Operationa Evaluation
Lower
(5th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 11.5
$ 11.2
$ 10.8
$ 10.5
$ 9.5
$ 8.8
$ 4.1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 66.5
$ 3.8
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 16.3
$ 15.9
$ 15.4
$ 15.0
$ 13.4
$ 12.5
$ 5.9
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 94.4
$ 5.4
Disinfecting Ground Water CWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 68.0
$ 66.1
$ 64.1
$ 62.3
$ 43.0
$ 30.0
$ 10.2
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 343.7
$ 19.7
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 58.7
$ 57.0
$ 55.3
$ 53.7
$ 37.0
$ 25.6
$ 8.6
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 296.0
$ 17.0
Upper
(95th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 77.4
$ 75.2
$ 73.0
$ 70.8
$ 49.0
$ 34.3
$ 11.8
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 391 .5
$ 22.5
Disinfectin Ground Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 0.7
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 10.9
$ 0.6
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 0.6
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 9.4
$ 0.5
Upper
(95th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 2.1
$ 2.0
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 0.9
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 12.5
$ 0.7
Total
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 1,283.8
$ 1,246.4
$ 1,210.1
$ 1,174.9
$ 449.7
$ 277.4
$ 89.4
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 5,731.8
$ 329.2
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 1,071.3
$ 1,040.1
$ 1,009.8
$ 980.4
$ 374.9
$ 231.1
$ 74.3
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 4,781.9
$ 274.6
Upper
(95th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 1,508.5
$ 1,464.6
$ 1,421.9
$ 1,380.5
$ 529.1
$ 326.6
$ 105.3
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 6,736.6
$ 386.9
Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2005.
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.
Derived from Exhibits J.5a through h.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.5k Present Value of Annual Treatment Cost Projections at 3% Discount Rate
(All Systems)
Alternative 3
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Total
Ann.
Surface Water CWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 71.4
$ 138.7
$ 202.0
$ 261.4
$ 281.9
$ 294.1
$ 293.5
$ 284.9
$ 276.6
$ 268.6
$ 260.7
$ 253.1
$ 245.8
$ 238.6
$ 231.7
$ 224.9
$ 218.4
$ 212.0
$ 205.8
$ 199.8
$ 4,663.9
$ 267.8
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 60.7
$ 117.8
$ 171.6
$ 222.1
$ 239.5
$ 249.8
$ 249.3
$ 242.0
$ 235.0
$ 228.1
$ 221.5
$ 215.0
$ 208.8
$ 202.7
$ 196.8
$ 191.0
$ 185.5
$ 180.1
$ 174.8
$ 169.7
$ 3,961.8
$ 227.5
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 82.4
$ 160.0
$ 233.1
$ 301.7
$ 325.4
$ 339.5
$ 338.8
$ 328.9
$ 319.4
$ 310.1
$ 301.0
$ 292.3
$ 283.7
$ 275.5
$ 267.5
$ 259.7
$ 252.1
$ 244.8
$ 237.6
$ 230.7
$ 5,384.0
$ 309.2
Surface Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.8
$ 3.4
$ 5.0
$ 6.4
$ 7.8
$ 9.0
$ 9.4
$ 9.2
$ 8.9
$ 8.6
$ 8.4
$ 8.1
$ 7.9
$ 7.7
$ 7.5
$ 7.2
$ 7.0
$ 6.8
$ 6.6
$ 6.4
$ 143.3
$ 8.2
Operationa Evaluation
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.5
$ 2.9
$ 4.2
$ 5.5
$ 6.6
$ 7.6
$ 8.0
$ 7.8
$ 7.5
$ 7.3
$ 7.1
$ 6.9
$ 6.7
$ 6.5
$ 6.3
$ 6.1
$ 6.0
$ 5.8
$ 5.6
$ 5.4
$ 121.4
$ 7.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 2.0
$ 4.0
$ 5.8
$ 7.5
$ 9.0
$ 10.4
$ 10.9
$ 10.6
$ 10.3
$ 10.0
$ 9.7
$ 9.4
$ 9.2
$ 8.9
$ 8.6
$ 8.4
$ 8.1
$ 7.9
$ 7.7
$ 7.4
$ 165.9
$ 9.5
Disinfecting Ground Water CWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 5.6
$ 10.9
$ 15.8
$ 20.5
$ 23.2
$ 24.8
$ 24.8
$ 24.1
$ 23.4
$ 22.7
$ 22.0
$ 21.4
$ 20.8
$ 20.1
$ 19.6
$ 19.0
$ 18.4
$ 17.9
$ 17.4
$ 16.9
$ 389.0
$ 22.3
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 5.2
$ 10.1
$ 14.7
$ 19.0
$ 21.5
$ 23.0
$ 23.0
$ 22.3
$ 21.7
$ 21.0
$ 20.4
$ 19.8
$ 19.3
$ 18.7
$ 18.2
$ 17.6
$ 17.1
$ 16.6
$ 16.1
$ 15.7
$ 361.0
$ 20.7
Upper
(95th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 6.0
$ 11.6
$ 17.0
$ 22.0
$ 24.9
$ 26.6
$ 26.6
$ 25.8
$ 25.0
$ 24.3
$ 23.6
$ 22.9
$ 22.2
$ 21.6
$ 21.0
$ 20.4
$ 19.8
$ 19.2
$ 18.6
$ 18.1
$ 417.0
$ 24.0
Disinfecting Ground Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.7
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 13.7
$ 0.8
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.6
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 12.7
$ 0.7
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.5
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 0.9
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 14.7
$ 0.8
Total
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 78.9
$ 153.3
$ 223.2
$ 289.0
$ 313.7
$ 328.7
$ 328.6
$ 319.0
$ 309.7
$ 300.7
$ 291.9
$ 283.4
$ 275.2
$ 267.2
$ 259.4
$ 251.8
$ 244.5
$ 237.4
$ 230.5
$ 223.8
$ 5,209.9
$ 299.2
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 67.5
$ 131.1
$ 190.9
$ 247.1
$ 268.3
$ 281.2
$ 281.1
$ 272.9
$ 265.0
$ 257.3
$ 249.8
$ 242.5
$ 235.4
$ 228.6
$ 221.9
$ 215.4
$ 209.2
$ 203.1
$ 197.2
$ 191.4
$ 4,456.9
$ 256.0
Upper
(95th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 90.6
$ 176.0
$ 256.3
$ 331.8
$ 360.1
$ 377.4
$ 377.3
$ 366.3
$ 355.6
$ 345.3
$ 335.2
$ 325.4
$ 316.0
$ 306.8
$ 297.8
$ 289.1
$ 280.7
$ 272.5
$ 264.6
$ 256.9
$ 5,981.6
$ 343.5
Notes: Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2005.
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.5a through h.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.SI Present Value of Annual Non-Treatment Capital Cost Projections at 3% Disc
(All Systems)
2005
2006
2007
200S
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
201 e
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
202S
2029
Total
$ 08
$ 1 1
$
$ 07
$ 06
$ 05
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 97
$ 204
$ 13 8
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
urface Water C
Monitoring
$
$
$ 02
$ 05
$ 06
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.4
WS
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 03
$ (06)
$ (1 5)
$ (1 5)
$ (15)
$ (1 4)
$ (1 4)
$ (1 3)
$ (1 3)
$ (1 3)
$ (1 2)
$ (1 2)
$ (11)
$ (1 1)
$ (1 1)
$ (1 0)
$ (10)
$ (1 0)
$ (1 0)
$ (21.1)
Operational
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 0 1
$ 02
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 00
$ 0 1
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Surf
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$ -
ace Water NTN
Monitoring
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
WS
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
Operational
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 02
$ 30
$
$ 0 1
$ 1 4
$ 1 3
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Disinf
$ -
$ 0 1
$ 10
$ 57
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
$ -
acting Ground W
Monitoring
$
$
$ 00
$ 02
$ 1 5
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.7
aterCWS
$
$
$
$
$
$ (01)
$ 06
$ 1 3
$ 1 3
$ 12
$ 1 2
$ 1 2
$ 1 1
$ 11
$ 1 1
$ 1 0
$ 1 0
$ 10
$ 09
$ 09
$ 09
$ 09
$ 08
$ 08
$ 1S.3
Operational
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 05
$
$ 00
$ 02
$ 02
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Disinfect
$
$ 00
$ 00
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$ -
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 02
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
rNTNCWS
$
$
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 03
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
Operational
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1 0
$ 47
$
$ 08
$ 22
$ 21
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.6
$
$ 98
$ 214
$ 196
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$
$ -
$
$
$ 2.9
Total
Monitoring
$
$ 03
$ 07
$ 23
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$
$
$
$
$
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 0.3
Operational
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 0 1
$ 02
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 01
$ 0 1
$ 01
$ 0.1
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBF/?
December2005
-------
Exhibit J.5m Present Value of Annual O&M Cost Projections at 7% Discount Rate
(All Systems and Primacy Agencies)
Alternative 3
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Total
Ann.
Surface Water CWS
Mean
Value
$ 0.8
$ 9.6
$ 17.7
$ 12.4
$ 955.8
$ 947.5
$ 936.5
$ 922.4
$ 446.6
$ 339.3
$ 231.8
$ 178.1
$ 166.4
$ 155.5
$ 145.4
$ 135.8
$ 127.0
$ 118.7
$ 110.9
$ 103.6
$ 96.9
$ 90.5
$ 84.6
$ 79.1
$ 73.9
$ 6,486.7
$ 556.6
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.8
$ 9.6
$ 17.7
$ 12.4
$ 796.2
$ 790.1
$ 781.7
$ 770.6
$ 374.2
$ 285.1
$ 195.9
$ 151.1
$ 141.2
$ 132.0
$ 123.4
$ 115.3
$ 107.8
$ 100.7
$ 94.1
$ 88.0
$ 82.2
$ 76.8
$ 71.8
$ 67.1
$ 62.7
$ 5,448.5
$ 467.5
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.8
$ 9.6
$ 17.7
$ 12.4
$ 1,124.9
$ 1,113.9
$ 1,100.0
$ 1,082.5
$ 522.7
$ 395.9
$ 269.0
$ 205.7
$ 192.2
$ 179.7
$ 167.9
$ 156.9
$ 146.7
$ 137.1
$ 128.1
$ 119.7
$ 111.9
$ 104.6
$ 97.7
$ 91.3
$ 85.4
$ 7,574.2
$ 649.9
Surface Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 11.0
$ 11.7
$ 12.1
$ 12.5
$ 12.2
$ 12.1
$ 8.8
$ 5.8
$ 5.4
$ 5.0
$ 4.7
$ 4.4
$ 4.1
$ 3.8
$ 3.6
$ 3.4
$ 3.1
$ 2.9
$ 2.7
$ 2.6
$ 2.4
$ 134.6
$ 11.6
Operational
Evaluation
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 9.2
$ 9.7
$ 10.1
$ 10.5
$ 10.2
$ 10.2
$ 7.5
$ 4.9
$ 4.6
$ 4.3
$ 4.0
$ 3.7
$ 3.5
$ 3.3
$ 3.0
$ 2.8
$ 2.7
$ 2.5
$ 2.3
$ 2.2
$ 2.0
$ 113.2
$ 9.7
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 13.0
$ 13.7
$ 14.3
$ 14.7
$ 14.3
$ 14.2
$ 10.3
$ 6.7
$ 6.2
$ 5.8
$ 5.4
$ 5.1
$ 4.8
$ 4.4
$ 4.2
$ 3.9
$ 3.6
$ 3.4
$ 3.2
$ 3.0
$ 2.8
$ 157.2
$ 13.5
Disinfecting Ground Water CWS
Mean
Value
$ 0.2
$ 2.8
$ 0.8
$ 5.0
$ 56.4
$ 55.9
$ 55.2
$ 55.9
$ 44.2
$ 35.8
$ 22.9
$ 15.8
$ 14.8
$ 13.8
$ 12.9
$ 12.1
$ 11.3
$ 10.5
$ 9.9
$ 9.2
$ 8.6
$ 8.0
$ 7.5
$ 7.0
$ 6.6
$ 483.3
$ 41.5
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.2
$ 2.8
$ 0.8
$ 5.0
$ 49.0
$ 48.7
$ 48.2
$ 49.0
$ 39.1
$ 31.8
$ 20.8
$ 14.7
$ 13.8
$ 12.9
$ 12.0
$ 11.2
$ 10.5
$ 9.8
$ 9.2
$ 8.6
$ 8.0
$ 7.5
$ 7.0
$ 6.5
$ 6.1
$ 433.3
$ 37.2
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.2
$ 2.8
$ 0.8
$ 5.0
$ 63.9
$ 63.2
$ 62.3
$ 62.8
$ 49.3
$ 39.8
$ 25.1
$ 16.9
$ 15.8
$ 14.8
$ 13.8
$ 12.9
$ 12.1
$ 11.3
$ 10.5
$ 9.8
$ 9.2
$ 8.6
$ 8.0
$ 7.5
$ 7.0
$ 533.5
$ 45.8
Disinfectin
Mean
Value
$ 0.0
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.5
$ 1.7
$ 1.9
$ 1.8
$ 1.3
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 20.1
$ 1.7
g Ground Water NTNCWS
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.3
$ 1.5
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.2
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 18.5
$ 1.6
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 1.7
$ 1.9
$ 2.1
$ 2.0
$ 1.4
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 21.8
$ 1.9
3rimacy Agencies
Point Estimate
$ 3.4
$ 3.2
$ 0.1
$ 1.5
$ 0.6
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 8.8
$ 0.8
Total
Mean
Value
$ 4.3
$ 16.1
$ 18.7
$ 18.9
$1,025.6
$ 1,016.7
$ 1,006.4
$ 993.5
$ 505.8
$ 389.8
$ 265.7
$ 201.2
$ 188.1
$ 175.8
$ 164.3
$ 153.5
$ 143.5
$ 134.1
$ 125.3
$ 117.1
$ 109.4
$ 102.3
$ 95.6
$ 89.3
$ 83.5
$ 7,144.5
$ 613.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 4.3
$ 16.1
$ 18.7
$ 18.9
$ 856.5
$ 849.9
$ 842.3
$ 832.5
$ 426.1
$ 329.6
$ 226.1
$ 172.3
$ 161.0
$ 150.5
$ 140.6
$ 131.4
$ 122.8
$ 114.8
$ 107.3
$ 100.3
$ 93.7
$ 87.6
$ 81.8
$ 76.5
$ 71.5
$ 6,033.3
$ 517.7
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 4.3
$ 16.1
$ 18.7
$ 18.9
$ 1,204.4
$ 1,192.7
$ 1,179.3
$ 1,162.8
$ 589.3
$ 452.7
$ 306.6
$ 230.9
$ 215.8
$ 201.7
$ 188.5
$ 176.1
$ 164.6
$ 153.8
$ 143.8
$ 134.4
$ 125.6
$ 117.4
$ 109.7
$ 102.5
$ 95.8
$ 8,306.4
$ 712.8
: Present values in millions of 2003 dollars.
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to
Ann = value of total annualized at discount
3: Derived from Exhibits J.5a through h.
Estimates are discounted to 2
independent rounding.
rate.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December2005
-------
Exhibit J.5n Present Value of Annual Treatment Cost Projections at 7% Discount Rate
(All Systems)
Alternative 3
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Total
Ann.
Surface Water CWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 954.9
$ 892.4
$ 834.0
$ 779.5
$ 269.0
$ 154.8
$ 46.5
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 3,931.0
$ 337.3
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 795.3
$ 743.2
$ 694.6
$ 649.2
$ 223.4
$ 128.5
$ 38.6
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 3,272.8
$ 280.8
Upper
(95th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 1,124.0
$ 1,050.4
$ 981.7
$ 917.5
$ 317.5
$ 182.8
$ 54.9
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 4,629.0
$ 397.2
Surface Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 11.0
$ 10.3
$ 9.6
$ 9.0
$ 7.8
$ 7.0
$ 3.1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 57.8
$ 5.0
Operational Evaluation
Lower
(5th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 9.2
$ 8.6
$ 8.0
$ 7.5
$ 6.5
$ 5.8
$ 2.6
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 48.1
$ 4.1
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 13.0
$ 12.2
$ 11.4
$ 10.6
$ 9.2
$ 8.3
$ 3.7
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 68.3
$ 5.9
Disinfecting Ground Water CWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 54.1
$ 50.6
$ 47.3
$ 44.2
$ 29.4
$ 19.7
$ 6.5
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 251.8
$ 21.6
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 46.7
$ 43.6
$ 40.8
$ 38.1
$ 25.3
$ 16.8
$ 5.5
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 216.9
$ 18.6
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 61.6
$ 57.6
$ 53.8
$ 50.3
$ 33.5
$ 22.6
$ 7.5
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 286.8
$ 24.6
Disinfecting Ground Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 0.5
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 7.9
$ 0.7
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.4
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 6.7
$ 0.6
Upper
(95th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 0.5
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 9.0
$ 0.8
Total
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 1,021.5
$ 954.7
$ 892.2
$ 833.8
$ 307.2
$ 182.5
$ 56.6
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 4,248.4
$ 364.6
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 852.4
$ 796.6
$ 744.5
$ 695.8
$ 256.1
$ 152.0
$ 47.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 3,544.4
$ 304.1
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 1,200.3
$ 1,121.7
$ 1,048.3
$ 979.8
$ 361.4
$ 214.8
$ 66.7
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 4,993.0
$ 428.5
Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2005.
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.
Derived from Exhibits J.5a through h.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.5o Present Value of Annual Treatment Cost Projections at 7% Discount Rate
(All Systems)
Alternative 3
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Total
Ann.
Surface Water CWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 54.7
$ 102.2
$ 143.3
$ 178.6
$ 185.4
$ 186.2
$ 178.8
$ 167.1
$ 156.2
$ 146.0
$ 136.4
$ 127.5
$ 119.2
$ 111.4
$ 104.1
$ 97.3
$ 90.9
$ 85.0
$ 79.4
$ 74.2
$ 2,523.9
$ 216.6
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 46.5
$ 86.9
$ 121.8
$ 151.8
$ 157.5
$ 158.1
$ 151.9
$ 142.0
$ 132.7
$ 124.0
$ 115.9
$ 108.3
$ 101.2
$ 94.6
$ 88.4
$ 82.6
$ 77.2
$ 72.2
$ 67.4
$ 63.0
$ 2,144.0
$ 184.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 63.1
$ 118.0
$ 165.4
$ 206.1
$ 214.0
$ 214.9
$ 206.5
$ 193.0
$ 180.3
$ 168.5
$ 157.5
$ 147.2
$ 137.6
$ 128.6
$ 120.2
$ 112.3
$ 105.0
$ 98.1
$ 91.7
$ 85.7
$ 2,913.5
$ 250.0
Surface Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.3
$ 2.5
$ 3.5
$ 4.4
$ 5.1
$ 5.7
$ 5.8
$ 5.4
$ 5.0
$ 4.7
$ 4.4
$ 4.1
$ 3.8
$ 3.6
$ 3.3
$ 3.1
$ 2.9
$ 2.7
$ 2.6
$ 2.4
$ 76.5
$ 6.6
Operational Evaluation
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.1
$ 2.1
$ 3.0
$ 3.7
$ 4.3
$ 4.8
$ 4.9
$ 4.6
$ 4.3
$ 4.0
$ 3.7
$ 3.5
$ 3.2
$ 3.0
$ 2.8
$ 2.7
$ 2.5
$ 2.3
$ 2.2
$ 2.0
$ 64.8
$ 5.6
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.6
$ 2.9
$ 4.1
$ 5.1
$ 5.9
$ 6.6
$ 6.7
$ 6.2
$ 5.8
$ 5.4
$ 5.1
$ 4.8
$ 4.4
$ 4.2
$ 3.9
$ 3.6
$ 3.4
$ 3.2
$ 3.0
$ 2.8
$ 88.6
$ 7.6
Disinfecting Ground Water CWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 4.3
$ 8.0
$ 11.2
$ 14.0
$ 15.3
$ 15.7
$ 15.1
$ 14.1
$ 13.2
$ 12.3
$ 11.5
$ 10.8
$ 10.1
$ 9.4
$ 8.8
$ 8.2
$ 7.7
$ 7.2
$ 6.7
$ 6.3
$ 209.7
$ 18.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 4.0
$ 7.4
$ 10.4
$ 13.0
$ 14.2
$ 14.6
$ 14.0
$ 13.1
$ 12.2
$ 11.4
$ 10.7
$ 10.0
$ 9.3
$ 8.7
$ 8.2
$ 7.6
$ 7.1
$ 6.7
$ 6.2
$ 5.8
$ 194.6
$ 16.7
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 4.6
$ 8.6
$ 12.0
$ 15.0
$ 16.4
$ 16.8
$ 16.2
$ 15.1
$ 14.1
$ 13.2
$ 12.3
$ 11.5
$ 10.8
$ 10.1
$ 9.4
$ 8.8
$ 8.2
$ 7.7
$ 7.2
$ 6.7
$ 224.9
$ 19.3
Disinfecting Ground Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 7.3
$ 0.6
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 6.8
$ 0.6
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 7.9
$ 0.7
Total
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 60.5
$ 113.0
$ 158.4
$ 197.4
$ 206.3
$ 208.1
$ 200.2
$ 187.1
$ 174.9
$ 163.5
$ 152.8
$ 142.8
$ 133.4
$ 124.7
$ 116.5
$ 108.9
$ 101.8
$ 95.1
$ 88.9
$ 83.1
$ 2,817.4
$ 241.8
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 51.7
$ 96.7
$ 135.5
$ 168.8
$ 176.5
$ 178.0
$ 171.3
$ 160.1
$ 149.6
$ 139.8
$ 130.7
$ 122.1
$ 114.1
$ 106.7
$ 99.7
$ 93.2
$ 87.1
$ 81.4
$ 76.1
$ 71.1
$ 2,410.2
$ 206.8
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 69.4
$ 129.7
$ 181.9
$ 226.7
$ 236.8
$ 238.9
$ 229.9
$ 214.9
$ 200.8
$ 187.7
$ 175.4
$ 163.9
$ 153.2
$ 143.2
$ 133.8
$ 125.1
$ 116.9
$ 109.2
$ 102.1
$ 95.4
$ 3,234.8
$ 277.6
Notes: Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2005.
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.5a through h.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.Sp Present Value of Annual Cost Projections at 7% Discount Rate
(All Systems)
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Surface Water CWS
Implementation
$ OB
$ D9
$
$ 06
$ 04
$ 04
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S 0.3
IDSE
$
$ 87
$ 175
$ 114
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 3.2
Plans
$
$
$ 02
$ 05
$ 05
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
Monitoring
S
$
$
$
S
$
$ 02
$ (04)
S (1 1)
$ (1 0)
$ (09)
$ (09)
S (00)
$ (07)
$ (07)
$ (07)
S (06)
$ (06)
$ (05)
$ (05)
S (05)
$ (04)
$ (04)
$ (04)
$ (1.0)
Operational
Evaluation
S
$
$
$
S
$
$
$ 00
S 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
S 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
S 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
S 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 0.1
Surface Water NTN CWS
Implementation
$ 00
$ 01
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$
$
S
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
S 0.0
IDSE
$
$ 00
S 00
$ 00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S 0.0
Plans
$
$
S 00
$ 00
$ 00
$
S
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
S
$
$
S 0.0
Monitoring
$
$
S
$
$
$
S 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
S 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
S 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
S 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
S 00
$ 00
S 00
S 0.0
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Disinfecting Ground Water CWS
Implementation
$ 02
$ 27
$
$ 01
$ 1 1
$ 1 0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S 04
IDSE
$
$ 01
$ 00
$ 47
$
$
S
$
$
$
S
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
S
$
$
S 0.5
Plans
S
$
S 00
$ 02
$ 1 2
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ (0 1)
$ 05
$ 09
$ OB
$ OB
$ 07
$ 07
$ 06
$ 06
$ 06
$ 05
$ 05
$ 05
$ 04
$ 04
$ 04
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
S 0.8
s:"
s
$
$
$
s
$
$
$
s
$
$
$
s
$
$
$
s
$
$
$
s
$
$
$
$
$
Disinfect
Implementation
S 00
$ 05
$
$ 00
S 02
$ 02
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
IDSE
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S 0.0
ng Ground Water NTNCWS
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 0 1
$
s
$
$
$
s
$
$
$
s
$
$
$
s
$
$
$
s
$
s
S 0.0
Monitoring
S
$
$
$
S
$
S 00
$ 02
$ 04
$ 03
S 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 03
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
S 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 0 1
S 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
S 0.3
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Total
Implementation
$ 09
$ 42
$
$ 07
$ 1 B
$ 1 6
$
$
S
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
S 0.8
IDSE
$
$ B7
$ 1B4
$ 162
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 3.7
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 02
$ 06
$ 1B
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 02
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 02
$ 02
S 02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 02
S 02
$ 02
$ 01
$ 01
S 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
S 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 02
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 00
S 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
S 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
S 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
S 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 0.1
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Section J.6
Cost Projections
Preferred Alternative, ICR Matrix Method
-------
-------
Exhibit J.Sa Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(All Surface Water CWSs)
Preferred Alternative, ICR Matrix Method
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 159.00
$ 159.00
$ 159.00
$ 159.00
$ 58.60
$ 34.76
$ 10.48
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 136.72
$ 136.72
$ 136.72
$ 136.72
$ 50.70
$ 30.05
$ 9.05
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 182.05
$ 182.05
$ 182.05
$ 182.05
$ 66.60
$ 39.54
$ 11.93
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 9.22
$ 18.44
$ 27.66
$ 36.88
$ 41.15
$ 44.17
$ 45.31
$ 45.31
$ 45.31
$ 45.31
$ 45.31
$ 45.31
$ 45.31
$ 45.31
$ 45.31
$ 45.31
$ 45.31
$ 45.31
$ 45.31
$ 45.31
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 7.68
$ 15.36
$ 23.05
$ 30.73
$ 34.56
$ 37.33
$ 38.40
$ 38.40
$ 38.40
$ 38.40
$ 38.40
$ 38.40
$ 38.40
$ 38.40
$ 38.40
$ 38.40
$ 38.40
$ 38.40
$ 38.40
$ 38.40
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 10.80
$ 21.59
$ 32.39
$ 43.18
$ 47.89
$ 51.16
$ 52.38
$ 52.38
$ 52.38
$ 52.38
$ 52.38
$ 52.38
$ 52.38
$ 52.38
$ 52.38
$ 52.38
$ 52.38
$ 52.38
$ 52.38
$ 52.38
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.87
$ 1.15
$
$ 0.78
$ 0.67
$ 0.58
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$10.60
$ 22.94
$15.99
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 0.28
$ 0.64
$ 0.74
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.42
$ (0.77)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.06
$ 0.15
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.87
$ 11.76
$ 23.22
$ 17.40
$ 160.41
$ 168.80
$ 177.86
$ 185.96
$ 93.56
$ 74.06
$ 52.80
$ 43.45
$ 43.45
$ 43.45
$ 43.45
$ 43.45
$ 43.45
$ 43.45
$ 43.45
$ 43.45
$ 43.45
$ 43.45
$ 43.45
$ 43.45
$ 43.45
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th % tile)
$ 0.87
$ 11.76
$ 23.22
$ 17.40
$ 138.13
$ 144.98
$ 152.50
$ 159.06
$ 79.51
$ 62.76
$ 44.53
$ 36.54
$ 36.54
$ 36.54
$ 36.54
$ 36.54
$ 36.54
$ 36.54
$ 36.54
$ 36.54
$ 36.54
$ 36.54
$ 36.54
$ 36.54
$ 36.54
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 0.87
$ 11.76
$ 23.22
$ 17.40
$ 183.46
$ 193.43
$ 204.07
$ 213.74
$ 107.86
$ 85.58
$ 61.23
$ 50.52
$ 50.52
$ 50.52
$ 50.52
$ 50.52
$ 50.52
$ 50.52
$ 50.52
$ 50.52
$ 50.52
$ 50.52
$ 50.52
$ 50.52
$ 50.52
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1e and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.6b Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(All Surface Water NTNCWSs)
Preferred Alternative, ICR Matrix Method
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 1.60
$ 1.60
$ 1.60
$ 1.60
$ 1.47
$ 1.40
$ 0.67
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 1.35
$ 1.35
$ 1.35
$ 1.35
$ 1.23
$ 1.17
$ 0.56
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 1.86
$ 1.86
$ 1.86
$ 1.86
$ 1.70
$ 1.63
$ 0.78
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.22
$ 0.45
$ 0.67
$ 0.90
$ 1.12
$ 1.33
$ 1.44
$ 1.44
$ 1.44
$ 1.44
$ 1.44
$ 1.44
$ 1.44
$ 1.44
$ 1.44
$ 1.44
$ 1.44
$ 1.44
$ 1.44
$ 1.44
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.21
$ 0.42
$ 0.62
$ 0.83
$ 1.04
$ 1.24
$ 1.34
$ 1.34
$ 1.34
$ 1.34
$ 1.34
$ 1.34
$ 1.34
$ 1.34
$ 1.34
$ 1.34
$ 1.34
$ 1.34
$ 1.34
$ 1.34
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.24
$ 0.48
$ 0.72
$ 0.97
$ 1.20
$ 1.43
$ 1.54
$ 1.54
$ 1.54
$ 1.54
$ 1.54
$ 1.54
$ 1.54
$ 1.54
$ 1.54
$ 1.54
$ 1.54
$ 1.54
$ 1.54
$ 1.54
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.01
$ 0.07
$
$ 0.01
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ 0.01
$ 0.04
$ 0.02
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring Plans
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.02
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.01
$ 0.08
$ 0.04
$ 0.03
$ 1.65
$ 1.86
$ 2.06
$ 2.30
$ 2.40
$ 2.55
$ 2.03
$ 1.47
$ 1.47
$ 1.47
$ 1.47
$ 1.47
$ 1.47
$ 1.47
$ 1.47
$ 1.47
$ 1.47
$ 1.47
$ 1.47
$ 1.47
$ 1.47
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th % tile)
$ 0.01
$ 0.08
$ 0.04
$ 0.03
$ 1.40
$ 1.59
$ 1.77
$ 1.99
$ 2.09
$ 2.24
$ 1.82
$ 1.36
$ 1.36
$ 1.36
$ 1.36
$ 1.36
$ 1.36
$ 1.36
$ 1.36
$ 1.36
$ 1.36
$ 1.36
$ 1.36
$ 1.36
$ 1.36
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.01
$ 0.08
$ 0.04
$ 0.03
$ 1.91
$ 2.14
$ 2.35
$ 2.60
$ 2.70
$ 2.86
$ 2.24
$ 1.57
$ 1.57
$ 1.57
$ 1.57
$ 1.57
$ 1.57
$ 1.57
$ 1.57
$ 1.57
$ 1.57
$ 1.57
$ 1.57
$ 1.57
$ 1.57
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1e and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.Sc Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(All Surface Water Systems)
Preferred Alternative, ICR Matrix Method
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 160.61
$ 160.61
$ 160.61
$ 160.61
$ 60.07
$ 36.16
$ 11.15
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tlle)
$
$
$
$
$ 138.06
$ 138.06
$ 138.06
$ 138.06
$ 51.93
$ 31.22
$ 9.61
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tlle)
$
$
$
$
$ 183.92
$ 183.92
$ 183.92
$ 183.92
$ 68.30
$ 41.17
$ 12.70
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 9.44
$ 18.89
$ 28.33
$ 37.78
$ 42.27
$ 45.50
$ 46.75
$ 46.75
$ 46.75
$ 46.75
$ 46.75
$ 46.75
$ 46.75
$ 46.75
$ 46.75
$ 46.75
$ 46.75
$ 46.75
$ 46.75
$ 46.75
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 7.89
$ 15.78
$ 23.67
$ 31.56
$ 35.60
$ 38.57
$ 39.73
$ 39.73
$ 39.73
$ 39.73
$ 39.73
$ 39.73
$ 39.73
$ 39.73
$ 39.73
$ 39.73
$ 39.73
$ 39.73
$ 39.73
$ 39.73
Upper
(95th %tlle)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 11.04
$ 22.08
$ 33.11
$ 44.15
$ 49.09
$ 52.60
$ 53.92
$ 53.92
$ 53.92
$ 53.92
$ 53.92
$ 53.92
$ 53.92
$ 53.92
$ 53.92
$ 53.92
$ 53.92
$ 53.92
$ 53.92
$ 53.92
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.88
$ 1.22
$
$ 0.79
$ 0.71
$ 0.61
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$
$ 10.62
$ 22.98
$ 16.01
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 0.28
$ 0.64
$ 0.75
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.42
$ (0.75)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.06
$ 0.15
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.88
$ 11.84
$ 23.26
$ 17.44
$ 162.06
$ 170.66
$ 179.92
$ 188.25
$ 95.95
$ 76.61
$ 54.83
$ 44.92
$ 44.92
$ 44.92
$ 44.92
$ 44.92
$ 44.92
$ 44.92
$ 44.92
$ 44.92
$ 44.92
$ 44.92
$ 44.92
$ 44.92
$ 44.92
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.88
$ 11.84
$ 23.26
$ 17.44
$ 139.52
$ 146.57
$ 154.27
$ 161.04
$ 81.60
$ 64.99
$ 46.35
$ 37.91
$ 37.91
$ 37.91
$ 37.91
$ 37.91
$ 37.91
$ 37.91
$ 37.91
$ 37.91
$ 37.91
$ 37.91
$ 37.91
$ 37.91
$ 37.91
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.88
$ 11.84
$ 23.26
$ 17.44
$ 185.37
$ 195.56
$ 206.42
$ 216.34
$ 110.56
$ 88.44
$ 63.47
$ 52.09
$ 52.09
$ 52.09
$ 52.09
$ 52.09
$ 52.09
$ 52.09
$ 52.09
$ 52.09
$ 52.09
$ 52.09
$ 52.09
$ 52.09
$ 52.09
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1e and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.6d Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(All Ground Water CWSs)
Preferred Alternative, ICR Matrix Method
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 48.C8
$ 48.C8
$ 48.C6
$ 48.C6
$ 38.10
$ 31.06
$ 12.85
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 41.27
$ 41.27
$ 41.27
$ 41.27
$ 32.43
$ 26.09
$ 10.62
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 54.80
$ 54.80
$ 54.80
$ 54.80
$ 43.78
$ 36.05
$ 15.08
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 3.88
$ 7.77
$ 11.65
$ 15.54
$ 18.46
$ 20.79
$ 21.73
$ 21.73
$ 21.73
$ 21.73
$ 21.73
$ 21.73
$ 21.73
$ 21.73
$ 21.73
$ 21.73
$ 21.73
$ 21.73
$ 21.73
$ 21.73
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 3.61
$ 7.21
$ 10.82
$ 14.43
$ 17.14
$ 19.29
$ 20.15
$ 20.15
$ 20.15
$ 20.15
$ 20.15
$ 20.15
$ 20.15
$ 20.15
$ 20.15
$ 20.15
$ 20.15
$ 20.15
$ 20.15
$ 20.15
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 4.16
$ 8.32
$ 12.49
$ 16.65
$ 19.79
$ 22.29
$ 23.31
$ 23.31
$ 23.31
$ 23.31
$ 23.31
$ 23.31
$ 23.31
$ 23.31
$ 23.31
$ 23.31
$ 23.31
$ 23.31
$ 23.31
$ 23.31
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.18
$ 3.31
$
$ 0.14
$ 1.69
$ 1.66
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$
$ 0.09
$ 1.09
$ 6.66
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring Plans
$
$
$ 0.02
$ 0.21
$ 1.74
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ (0.11)
$ 0.83
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.18
$ 3.40
$ 1.11
$ 7.01
$ 51.46
$ 53.57
$ 55.69
$ 60.51
$ 55.39
$ 51.29
$ 35.40
$ 23.49
$ 23.49
$ 23.49
$ 23.49
$ 23.49
$ 23.49
$ 23.49
$ 23.49
$ 23.49
$ 23.49
$ 23.49
$ 23.49
$ 23.49
$ 23.49
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th % tile)
$ 0.18
$ 3.40
$ 1.11
$ 7.01
$ 44.70
$ 46.54
$ 48.38
$ 52.92
$ 48.62
$ 45.00
$ 31.67
$ 21.91
$ 21.91
$ 21.91
$ 21.91
$ 21.91
$ 21.91
$ 21.91
$ 21.91
$ 21.91
$ 21.91
$ 21.91
$ 21.91
$ 21.91
$ 21.91
Upper
(95th % tile)
$ 0.18
$ 3.40
$ 1.11
$ 7.01
$ 58.23
$ 60.62
$ 63.02
$ 68.12
$ 62.19
$ 57.60
$ 39.14
$ 25.07
$ 25.07
$ 25.07
$ 25.07
$ 25.07
$ 25.07
$ 25.07
$ 25.07
$ 25.07
$ 25.07
$ 25.07
$ 25.07
$ 25.07
$ 25.07
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1e and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.6e Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(All Ground Water NTNCWSs)
Preferred Alternative, ICR Matrix Method
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 1.99
$ 1.99
$ 1.99
$ 1.99
$ 1.98
$ 1.97
$ 0.98
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 1.68
$ 1.68
$ 1.68
$ 1.68
$ 1.67
$ 1.66
$ 0.83
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 2.30
$ 2.30
$ 2.30
$ 2.30
$ 2.29
$ 2.28
$ 1.13
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.20
$ 0.40
$ 0.59
$ 0.79
$ 0.99
$ 1.19
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.18
$ 0.37
$ 0.55
$ 0.73
$ 0.91
$ 1.09
$ 1.18
$ 1.18
$ 1.18
$ 1.18
$ 1.18
$ 1.18
$ 1.18
$ 1.18
$ 1.18
$ 1.18
$ 1.18
$ 1.18
$ 1.18
$ 1.18
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.21
$ 0.43
$ 0.64
$ 0.86
$ 1.07
$ 1.28
$ 1.39
$ 1.39
$ 1.39
$ 1.39
$ 1.39
$ 1.39
$ 1.39
$ 1.39
$ 1.39
$ 1.39
$ 1.39
$ 1.39
$ 1.39
$ 1.39
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.00
$ 0.56
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.28
$ 0.28
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ -
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.21
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.36
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.00
$ 0.56
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 2.48
$ 2.47
$ 2.39
$ 2.94
$ 3.49
$ 3.67
$ 2.88
$ 2.00
$ 2.00
$ 2.00
$ 2.00
$ 2.00
$ 2.00
$ 2.00
$ 2.00
$ 2.00
$ 2.00
$ 2.00
$ 2.00
$ 2.00
$ 2.00
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.00
$ 0.56
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 2.17
$ 2.14
$ 2.05
$ 2.58
$ 3.11
$ 3.28
$ 2.63
$ 1.89
$ 1.89
$ 1.89
$ 1.89
$ 1.89
$ 1.89
$ 1.89
$ 1.89
$ 1.89
$ 1.89
$ 1.89
$ 1.89
$ 1.89
$ 1.89
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.00
$ 0.56
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 2.79
$ 2.79
$ 2.73
$ 3.30
$ 3.86
$ 4.06
$ 3.12
$ 2.10
$ 2.10
$ 2.10
$ 2.10
$ 2.10
$ 2.10
$ 2.10
$ 2.10
$ 2.10
$ 2.10
$ 2.10
$ 2.10
$ 2.10
$ 2.10
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1e and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.Sf Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(All Ground Water Systems)
Preferred Alternative, ICR Matrix Method
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 50.02
$ 50.02
$ 50.02
$ 50.02
$ 40.08
$ 33.03
$ 13.83
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 42.95
$ 42.95
$ 42.95
$ 42.95
$ 34.10
$ 27.75
$ 11.45
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 57.11
$ 57.11
$ 57.11
$ 57.11
$ 46.07
$ 38.33
$ 16.22
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 4.08
$ 8.17
$ 12.25
$ 16.33
$ 19.45
$ 21.98
$ 23.01
$ 23.01
$ 23.01
$ 23.01
$ 23.01
$ 23.01
$ 23.01
$ 23.01
$ 23.01
$ 23.01
$ 23.01
$ 23.01
$ 23.01
$ 23.01
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 3.79
$ 7.58
$ 11.37
$ 15.16
$ 18.06
$ 20.39
$ 21.34
$ 21.34
$ 21.34
$ 21.34
$ 21.34
$ 21.34
$ 21.34
$ 21.34
$ 21.34
$ 21.34
$ 21.34
$ 21.34
$ 21.34
$ 21.34
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 4.38
$ 8.75
$ 13.13
$ 17.50
$ 20.86
$ 23.57
$ 24.69
$ 24.69
$ 24.69
$ 24.69
$ 24.69
$ 24.69
$ 24.69
$ 24.69
$ 24.69
$ 24.69
$ 24.69
$ 24.69
$ 24.69
$ 24.69
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.18
$ 3.87
$
$ 0.14
$ 1.97
$ 1.94
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ 0.09
$ 1.09
$ 6.66
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 0.02
$ 0.21
$ 1.95
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ (0.11)
$ 1.18
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.18
$ 3.96
$ 1.11
$ 7.01
$ 53.94
$ 56.04
$ 58.08
$ 63.45
$ 58.88
$ 54.96
$ 38.28
$ 25.48
$ 25.48
$ 25.48
$ 25.48
$ 25.48
$ 25.48
$ 25.48
$ 25.48
$ 25.48
$ 25.48
$ 25.48
$ 25.48
$ 25.48
$ 25.48
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.18
$ 3.96
$ 1.11
$ 7.01
$ 46.87
$ 48.68
$ 50.42
$ 55.51
$ 51.73
$ 48.28
$ 34.31
$ 23.81
$ 23.81
$ 23.81
$ 23.81
$ 23.81
$ 23.81
$ 23.81
$ 23.81
$ 23.81
$ 23.81
$ 23.81
$ 23.81
$ 23.81
$ 23.81
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 0.18
$ 3.96
$ 1.11
$ 7.01
$ 61.02
$ 63.42
$ 65.75
$ 71.42
$ 66.04
$ 61.66
$ 42.26
$ 27.16
$ 27.16
$ 27.16
$ 27.16
$ 27.16
$ 27.16
$ 27.16
$ 27.16
$ 27.16
$ 27.16
$ 27.16
$ 27.16
$ 27.16
$ 27.16
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1e and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.6g Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(All Systems)
Preferred Alternative, ICR Matrix Method
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Trea
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 210.63
$ 210.63
$ 210.63
$ 210.63
$ 100.15
$ 69.20
$ 24.98
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
ment Capital Costs
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 181.02
$ 181.02
$ 181.02
$ 181.02
$ 86.04
$ 58.97
$ 21.06
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 241.02
$ 241.02
$ 241.02
$ 241.02
$ 114.37
$ 79.50
$ 28.92
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 13.53
$ 27.05
$ 40.58
$ 54.11
$ 61.72
$ 67.48
$ 69.76
$ 69.76
$ 69.76
$ 69.76
$ 69.76
$ 69.76
$ 69.76
$ 69.76
$ 69.76
$ 69.76
$ 69.76
$ 69.76
$ 69.76
$ 69.76
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 11.68
$ 23.36
$ 35.04
$ 46.72
$ 53.66
$ 58.96
$ 61.07
$ 61.07
$ 61.07
$ 61.07
$ 61.07
$ 61.07
$ 61.07
$ 61.07
$ 61.07
$ 61.07
$ 61.07
$ 61.07
$ 61.07
$ 61.07
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 15.41
$ 30.83
$ 46.24
$ 61.65
$ 69.95
$ 76.17
$ 78.61
$ 78.61
$ 78.61
$ 78.61
$ 78.61
$ 78.61
$ 78.61
$ 78.61
$ 78.61
$ 78.61
$ 78.61
$ 78.61
$ 78.61
$ 78.61
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 1.06
$ 5.09
$
$ 0.93
$ 2.68
$ 2.55
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ 10.70
$ 24.07
$ 22.67
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 0.30
$ 0.85
$ 2.70
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.32
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.06
$ 0.15
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 1.06
$ 15.80
$ 24.36
$ 24.45
$ 216.00
$ 226.70
$ 238.00
$ 251.70
$ 154.83
$ 131.57
$ 93.11
$ 70.41
$ 70.41
$ 70.41
$ 70.41
$ 70.41
$ 70.41
$ 70.41
$ 70.41
$ 70.41
$ 70.41
$ 70.41
$ 70.41
$ 70.41
$ 70.41
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 1.06
$ 15.80
$ 24.36
$ 24.45
$ 186.39
$ 195.24
$ 204.69
$ 216.55
$ 133.34
$ 113.27
$ 80.66
$ 61.71
$ 61.71
$ 61.71
$ 61.71
$ 61.71
$ 61.71
$ 61.71
$ 61.71
$ 61.71
$ 61.71
$ 61.71
$ 61.71
$ 61.71
$ 61.71
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 1.06
$ 15.80
$ 24.36
$ 24.45
$ 246.40
$ 258.98
$ 272.16
$ 287.76
$ 176.61
$ 150.10
$ 105.73
$ 79.26
$ 79.26
$ 79.26
$ 79.26
$ 79.26
$ 79.26
$ 79.26
$ 79.26
$ 79.26
$ 79.26
$ 79.26
$ 79.26
$ 79.26
$ 79.26
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1 e and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.6h Projections of Stage 2 DBPR Primacy Agency Costs
Preferred Alternative, ICR Matrix Method
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Implementation Costs
$ 3.88
$ 3.88
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE Costs
$
$ 0.05
$ 0.14
$ 2.03
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring Plan
Costs
$
$
$ 0.02
$ 0.06
$ 0.84
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Compliance
Monitoring
Costs
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1h and D.7.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.6i Present Value of Annual Capital Cost Projections at 3% Discount Rate
(All Systems and Primacy Agencies)
Preferred Alternative, ICR Matrix Method
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Total
Ann.
Surface Water CWS
Mean
Value
$ 0.8
$ 10.8
$ 20.6
$ 15.0
$ 134.3
$ 137.2
$ 140.4
$ 142.5
$ 69.6
$ 53.5
$ 37.0
$ 29.6
$ 28.7
$ 27.9
$ 27.1
$ 26.3
$ 25.5
$ 24.8
$ 24.1
$ 23.4
$ 22.7
$ 22.0
$ 21.4
$ 20.8
$ 20.1
$ 1,106.2
$ 63.5
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.8
$ 10.8
$ 20.6
$ 15.0
$ 115.7
$ 117.9
$ 120.4
$ 121.9
$ 59.2
$ 45.3
$ 31.2
$ 24.9
$ 24.2
$ 23.5
$ 22.8
$ 22.1
$ 21.5
$ 20.8
$ 20.2
$ 19.6
$ 19.1
$ 18.5
$ 18.0
$ 17.5
$ 16.9
$ 948.3
$ 54.5
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.8
$ 10.8
$ 20.6
$ 15.0
$ 153.6
$ 157.3
$ 161.1
$ 163.8
$ 80.3
$ 61.8
$ 42.9
$ 34.4
$ 33.4
$ 32.4
$ 31.5
$ 30.6
$ 29.7
$ 28.8
$ 28.0
$ 27.2
$ 26.4
$ 25.6
$ 24.9
$ 24.1
$ 23.4
$ 1,268.3
$ 72.8
Surface Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 1.4
$ 1.5
$ 1.6
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.4
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 23.1
$ 1.3
Operational
Evaluation
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 1.2
$ 1.3
$ 1.4
$ 1.5
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 1.3
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 20.8
$ 1.2
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 1.6
$ 1.7
$ 1.9
$ 2.0
$ 2.0
$ 2.1
$ 1.6
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 25.4
$ 1.5
Disinfecting Ground Water CWS
Mean
Value
$ 0.2
$ 3.1
$ 1.0
$ 6.0
$ 43.1
$ 43.6
$ 44.0
$ 46.4
$ 41.2
$ 37.1
$ 24.8
$ 16.0
$ 15.5
$ 15.1
$ 14.6
$ 14.2
$ 13.8
$ 13.4
$ 13.0
$ 12.6
$ 12.3
$ 11.9
$ 11.6
$ 11.2
$ 10.9
$ 476.5
$ 27.4
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.2
$ 3.1
$ 1.0
$ 6.0
$ 37.4
$ 37.8
$ 38.2
$ 40.6
$ 36.2
$ 32.5
$ 22.2
$ 14.9
$ 14.5
$ 14.1
$ 13.7
$ 13.3
$ 12.9
$ 12.5
$ 12.1
$ 11.8
$ 11.4
$ 11.1
$ 10.8
$ 10.5
$ 10.2
$ 428.8
$ 24.6
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 0.2
$ 3.1
$ 1.0
$ 6.0
$ 48.8
$ 49.3
$ 49.7
$ 52.2
$ 46.3
$ 41.6
$ 27.4
$ 17.1
$ 16.6
$ 16.1
$ 15.6
$ 15.2
$ 14.7
$ 14.3
$ 13.9
$ 13.5
$ 13.1
$ 12.7
$ 12.3
$ 12.0
$ 11.6
$ 524.2
$ 30.1
Disinfecting Ground Wa er NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$ 0.0
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 2.1
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 2.3
$ 2.6
$ 2.7
$ 2.0
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 31.8
$ 1.8
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 2.0
$ 2.3
$ 2.4
$ 1.8
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 29.2
$ 1.7
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 2.3
$ 2.3
$ 2.2
$ 2.5
$ 2.9
$ 2.9
$ 2.2
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 34.4
$ 2.0
Primacy Agencie*
Point Estimate
$ 3.7
$ 3.6
$ 0.1
$ 1.8
$ 0.7
$
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 29.8
$ 1.7
Total
Mean
Value
$ 4.7
$ 18.1
$ 21.8
$ 22.9
$ 181.6
$ 184.3
$ 189.2
$ 194.2
$ 116.5
$ 96.3
$ 66.5
$ 49.1
$ 47.7
$ 46.3
$ 44.9
$ 43.6
$ 42.4
$ 41.1
$ 39.9
$ 38.8
$ 37.6
$ 36.5
$ 35.5
$ 34.4
$ 33.4
$ 1,667.4
$ 95.8
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 4.7
$ 18.1
$ 21.8
$ 22.9
$ 156.8
$ 158.8
$ 162.9
$ 167.3
$ 100.5
$ 83.1
$ 57.8
$ 43.2
$ 41.9
$ 40.7
$ 39.5
$ 38.4
$ 37.3
$ 36.2
$ 35.1
$ 34.1
$ 33.1
$ 32.1
$ 31.2
$ 30.3
$ 29.4
$ 1,457.0
$ 83.7
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 4.7
$ 18.1
$ 21.8
$ 22.9
$ 207.1
$ 210.6
$ 216.2
$ 221.8
$ 132.7
$ 109.7
$ 75.4
$ 55.1
$ 53.5
$ 52.0
$ 50.5
$ 49.0
$ 47.6
$ 46.2
$ 44.8
$ 43.5
$ 42.3
$ 41.0
$ 39.8
$ 38.7
$ 37.5
$ 1,882.3
$ 108.1
Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates Ł
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent
Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.
>,: Derived from Exhibits J.6a through h.
ire discounted to 2
rounding.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December2005
-------
Section J.7
Cost Projections
Preferred Alternative, SWAT Method
-------
-------
Exhibit J.7a Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(All Surface Water CWSs)
Preferred Alternative, SWAT Method
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 75.77
$ 75.77
$ 75.77
$ 75.77
$ 26.53
$ 14.89
$ 4.08
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 54.13
$ 54.13
$ 54.13
$ 54.13
$ 20.12
$ 11.84
$ 3.52
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 101.08
$ 101.08
$ 101.08
$ 101.08
$ 33.87
$ 18.30
$ 4.64
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 4.17
$ 8.33
$ 12.50
$ 16.67
$ 18.51
$ 19.75
$ 20.19
$ 20.19
$ 20.19
$ 20.19
$ 20.19
$ 20.19
$ 20.19
$ 20.19
$ 20.19
$ 20.19
$ 20.19
$ 20.19
$ 20.19
$ 20.19
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 3.77
$ 7.55
$ 11.32
$ 15.10
$ 16.74
$ 17.88
$ 18.29
$ 18.29
$ 18.29
$ 18.29
$ 18.29
$ 18.29
$ 18.29
$ 18.29
$ 18.29
$ 18.29
$ 18.29
$ 18.29
$ 18.29
$ 18.29
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 4.60
$ 9.19
$ 13.79
$ 18.39
$ 20.44
$ 21.79
$ 22.26
$ 22.26
$ 22.26
$ 22.26
$ 22.26
$ 22.26
$ 22.26
$ 22.26
$ 22.26
$ 22.26
$ 22.26
$ 22.26
$ 22.26
$ 22.26
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.87
$ 1.15
$
$ 0.78
$ 0.67
$ 0.58
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$10.60
$ 22.94
$15.99
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 0.28
$ 0.64
$ 0.74
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.42
$ (0.77)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
$ (2.07)
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.06
$ 0.15
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.87
$ 11.76
$ 23.22
$ 17.40
$ 77.18
$ 80.52
$ 84.53
$ 87.57
$ 41.28
$ 31.54
$ 21.97
$ 18.34
$ 18.34
$ 18.34
$ 18.34
$ 18.34
$ 18.34
$ 18.34
$ 18.34
$ 18.34
$ 18.34
$ 18.34
$ 18.34
$ 18.34
$ 18.34
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th % tile)
$ 0.87
$ 11.76
$ 23.22
$ 17.40
$ 55.54
$ 58.48
$ 62.10
$ 64.75
$ 33.30
$ 26.73
$ 19.54
$ 16.43
$ 16.43
$ 16.43
$ 16.43
$ 16.43
$ 16.43
$ 16.43
$ 16.43
$ 16.43
$ 16.43
$ 16.43
$ 16.43
$ 16.43
$ 16.43
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 0.87
$ 11.76
$ 23.22
$ 17.40
$ 102.49
$ 106.25
$ 110.69
$ 114.16
$ 50.34
$ 36.88
$ 24.58
$ 20.41
$ 20.41
$ 20.41
$ 20.41
$ 20.41
$ 20.41
$ 20.41
$ 20.41
$ 20.41
$ 20.41
$ 20.41
$ 20.41
$ 20.41
$ 20.41
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derwed from Exhibits J.1f and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.7b Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(All Surface Water NTNCWSs)
Preferred Alternative, SWAT Method
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 0.65
$ 0.65
$ 0.65
$ 0.65
$ 0.58
$ 0.55
$ 0.26
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th % tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.53
$ 0.53
$ 0.53
$ 0.53
$ 0.48
$ 0.46
$ 0.22
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.78
$ 0.78
$ 0.78
$ 0.78
$ 0.69
$ 0.65
$ 0.30
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.09
$ 0.18
$ 0.27
$ 0.35
$ 0.44
$ 0.52
$ 0.57
$ 0.57
$ 0.57
$ 0.57
$ 0.57
$ 0.57
$ 0.57
$ 0.57
$ 0.57
$ 0.57
$ 0.57
$ 0.57
$ 0.57
$ 0.57
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.08
$ 0.16
$ 0.25
$ 0.33
$ 0.41
$ 0.49
$ 0.53
$ 0.53
$ 0.53
$ 0.53
$ 0.53
$ 0.53
$ 0.53
$ 0.53
$ 0.53
$ 0.53
$ 0.53
$ 0.53
$ 0.53
$ 0.53
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.09
$ 0.19
$ 0.28
$ 0.38
$ 0.47
$ 0.56
$ 0.61
$ 0.61
$ 0.61
$ 0.61
$ 0.61
$ 0.61
$ 0.61
$ 0.61
$ 0.61
$ 0.61
$ 0.61
$ 0.61
$ 0.61
$ 0.61
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.01
$ 0.07
$
$ 0.01
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ 0.01
$ 0.04
$ 0.02
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring Plans
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.01
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.02
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.01
$ 0.08
$ 0.04
$ 0.03
$ 0.70
$ 0.78
$ 0.83
$ 0.93
$ 0.97
$ 1.02
$ 0.81
$ 0.59
$ 0.59
$ 0.59
$ 0.59
$ 0.59
$ 0.59
$ 0.59
$ 0.59
$ 0.59
$ 0.59
$ 0.59
$ 0.59
$ 0.59
$ 0.59
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th % tile)
$ 0.01
$ 0.08
$ 0.04
$ 0.03
$ 0.57
$ 0.64
$ 0.69
$ 0.79
$ 0.84
$ 0.89
$ 0.73
$ 0.56
$ 0.56
$ 0.56
$ 0.56
$ 0.56
$ 0.56
$ 0.56
$ 0.56
$ 0.56
$ 0.56
$ 0.56
$ 0.56
$ 0.56
$ 0.56
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.01
$ 0.08
$ 0.04
$ 0.03
$ 0.83
$ 0.91
$ 0.98
$ 1.08
$ 1.10
$ 1.15
$ 0.89
$ 0.63
$ 0.63
$ 0.63
$ 0.63
$ 0.63
$ 0.63
$ 0.63
$ 0.63
$ 0.63
$ 0.63
$ 0.63
$ 0.63
$ 0.63
$ 0.63
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1f and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.7c Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(All Surface Water Systems)
Preferred Alternative, SWAT Method
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 76.43
$ 76.43
$ 76.43
$ 76.43
$ 27.11
$ 15.44
$ 4.34
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tlle)
$
$
$
$
$ 54.66
$ 54.66
$ 54.66
$ 54.66
$ 20.60
$ 12.30
$ 3.74
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tlle)
$
$
$
$
$ 101.86
$ 101.86
$ 101.86
$ 101.86
$ 34.56
$ 18.94
$ 4.94
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 4.26
$ 8.51
$ 12.77
$ 17.02
$ 18.95
$ 20.27
$ 20.76
$ 20.76
$ 20.76
$ 20.76
$ 20.76
$ 20.76
$ 20.76
$ 20.76
$ 20.76
$ 20.76
$ 20.76
$ 20.76
$ 20.76
$ 20.76
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 3.86
$ 7.71
$ 11.57
$ 15.43
$ 17.15
$ 18.36
$ 18.82
$ 18.82
$ 18.82
$ 18.82
$ 18.82
$ 18.82
$ 18.82
$ 18.82
$ 18.82
$ 18.82
$ 18.82
$ 18.82
$ 18.82
$ 18.82
Upper
(95th %tlle)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 4.69
$ 9.38
$ 14.08
$ 18.77
$ 20.91
$ 22.35
$ 22.87
$ 22.87
$ 22.87
$ 22.87
$ 22.87
$ 22.87
$ 22.87
$ 22.87
$ 22.87
$ 22.87
$ 22.87
$ 22.87
$ 22.87
$ 22.87
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.88
$ 1.22
$
$ 0.79
$ 0.71
$ 0.61
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$
$ 10.62
$ 22.98
$ 16.01
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 0.28
$ 0.64
$ 0.75
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.42
$ (0.75)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
$ (2.04)
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.06
$ 0.15
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.88
$ 11.84
$ 23.26
$ 17.44
$ 77.88
$ 81.29
$ 85.36
$ 88.50
$ 42.24
$ 32.56
$ 22.78
$ 18.93
$ 18.93
$ 18.93
$ 18.93
$ 18.93
$ 18.93
$ 18.93
$ 18.93
$ 18.93
$ 18.93
$ 18.93
$ 18.93
$ 18.93
$ 18.93
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.88
$ 11.84
$ 23.26
$ 17.44
$ 56.12
$ 59.13
$ 62.80
$ 65.54
$ 34.14
$ 27.62
$ 20.28
$ 16.99
$ 16.99
$ 16.99
$ 16.99
$ 16.99
$ 16.99
$ 16.99
$ 16.99
$ 16.99
$ 16.99
$ 16.99
$ 16.99
$ 16.99
$ 16.99
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.88
$ 11.84
$ 23.26
$ 17.44
$ 103.32
$ 107.16
$ 111.67
$ 115.24
$ 51.44
$ 38.02
$ 25.47
$ 21.04
$ 21.04
$ 21.04
$ 21.04
$ 21.04
$ 21.04
$ 21.04
$ 21.04
$ 21.04
$ 21.04
$ 21.04
$ 21.04
$ 21.04
$ 21.04
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1f and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.7d Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(All Ground Water CWSs)
Preferred Alternative, SWAT Method
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 48.C8
$ 48.C8
$ 48.C6
$ 48.C6
$ 38.10
$ 31.06
$ 12.85
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 41.27
$ 41.27
$ 41.27
$ 41.27
$ 32.43
$ 26.09
$ 10.62
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 54.80
$ 54.80
$ 54.80
$ 54.80
$ 43.78
$ 36.05
$ 15.08
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 3.88
$ 7.77
$ 11.65
$ 15.54
$ 18.46
$ 20.79
$ 21.73
$ 21.73
$ 21.73
$ 21.73
$ 21.73
$ 21.73
$ 21.73
$ 21.73
$ 21.73
$ 21.73
$ 21.73
$ 21.73
$ 21.73
$ 21.73
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 3.61
$ 7.21
$ 10.82
$ 14.43
$ 17.14
$ 19.29
$ 20.15
$ 20.15
$ 20.15
$ 20.15
$ 20.15
$ 20.15
$ 20.15
$ 20.15
$ 20.15
$ 20.15
$ 20.15
$ 20.15
$ 20.15
$ 20.15
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 4.16
$ 8.32
$ 12.49
$ 16.65
$ 19.79
$ 22.29
$ 23.31
$ 23.31
$ 23.31
$ 23.31
$ 23.31
$ 23.31
$ 23.31
$ 23.31
$ 23.31
$ 23.31
$ 23.31
$ 23.31
$ 23.31
$ 23.31
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.18
$ 3.31
$
$ 0.14
$ 1.69
$ 1.66
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$
$ 0.09
$ 1.09
$ 6.66
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring Plans
$
$
$ 0.02
$ 0.21
$ 1.74
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ (0.11)
$ 0.83
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
$ 1.76
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.18
$ 3.40
$ 1.11
$ 7.01
$ 51.46
$ 53.57
$ 55.69
$ 60.51
$ 55.39
$ 51.29
$ 35.40
$ 23.49
$ 23.49
$ 23.49
$ 23.49
$ 23.49
$ 23.49
$ 23.49
$ 23.49
$ 23.49
$ 23.49
$ 23.49
$ 23.49
$ 23.49
$ 23.49
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th % tile)
$ 0.18
$ 3.40
$ 1.11
$ 7.01
$ 44.70
$ 46.54
$ 48.38
$ 52.92
$ 48.62
$ 45.00
$ 31.67
$ 21.91
$ 21.91
$ 21.91
$ 21.91
$ 21.91
$ 21.91
$ 21.91
$ 21.91
$ 21.91
$ 21.91
$ 21.91
$ 21.91
$ 21.91
$ 21.91
Upper
(95th % tile)
$ 0.18
$ 3.40
$ 1.11
$ 7.01
$ 58.23
$ 60.62
$ 63.02
$ 68.12
$ 62.19
$ 57.60
$ 39.14
$ 25.07
$ 25.07
$ 25.07
$ 25.07
$ 25.07
$ 25.07
$ 25.07
$ 25.07
$ 25.07
$ 25.07
$ 25.07
$ 25.07
$ 25.07
$ 25.07
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1f and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.7e Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(All Ground Water NTNCWSs)
Preferred Alternative, SWAT Method
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 1.99
$ 1.99
$ 1.99
$ 1.99
$ 1.98
$ 1.97
$ 0.98
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 1.68
$ 1.68
$ 1.68
$ 1.68
$ 1.67
$ 1.66
$ 0.83
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 2.30
$ 2.30
$ 2.30
$ 2.30
$ 2.29
$ 2.28
$ 1.13
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.20
$ 0.40
$ 0.59
$ 0.79
$ 0.99
$ 1.19
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
$ 1.28
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.18
$ 0.37
$ 0.55
$ 0.73
$ 0.91
$ 1.09
$ 1.18
$ 1.18
$ 1.18
$ 1.18
$ 1.18
$ 1.18
$ 1.18
$ 1.18
$ 1.18
$ 1.18
$ 1.18
$ 1.18
$ 1.18
$ 1.18
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.21
$ 0.43
$ 0.64
$ 0.86
$ 1.07
$ 1.28
$ 1.39
$ 1.39
$ 1.39
$ 1.39
$ 1.39
$ 1.39
$ 1.39
$ 1.39
$ 1.39
$ 1.39
$ 1.39
$ 1.39
$ 1.39
$ 1.39
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.00
$ 0.56
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.28
$ 0.28
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ -
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 0.21
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.00
$ 0.36
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
$ 0.71
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.00
$ 0.56
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 2.48
$ 2.47
$ 2.39
$ 2.94
$ 3.49
$ 3.67
$ 2.88
$ 2.00
$ 2.00
$ 2.00
$ 2.00
$ 2.00
$ 2.00
$ 2.00
$ 2.00
$ 2.00
$ 2.00
$ 2.00
$ 2.00
$ 2.00
$ 2.00
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.00
$ 0.56
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 2.17
$ 2.14
$ 2.05
$ 2.58
$ 3.11
$ 3.28
$ 2.63
$ 1.89
$ 1.89
$ 1.89
$ 1.89
$ 1.89
$ 1.89
$ 1.89
$ 1.89
$ 1.89
$ 1.89
$ 1.89
$ 1.89
$ 1.89
$ 1.89
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.00
$ 0.56
$ 0.00
$ 0.00
$ 2.79
$ 2.79
$ 2.73
$ 3.30
$ 3.86
$ 4.06
$ 3.12
$ 2.10
$ 2.10
$ 2.10
$ 2.10
$ 2.10
$ 2.10
$ 2.10
$ 2.10
$ 2.10
$ 2.10
$ 2.10
$ 2.10
$ 2.10
$ 2.10
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1f and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.7f Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(All Ground Water Systems)
Preferred Alternative, SWAT Method
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Treatment Capital Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 50.02
$ 50.02
$ 50.02
$ 50.02
$ 40.08
$ 33.03
$ 13.83
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 42.95
$ 42.95
$ 42.95
$ 42.95
$ 34.10
$ 27.75
$ 11.45
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 57.11
$ 57.11
$ 57.11
$ 57.11
$ 46.07
$ 38.33
$ 16.22
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 4.08
$ 8.17
$ 12.25
$ 16.33
$ 19.45
$ 21.98
$ 23.01
$ 23.01
$ 23.01
$ 23.01
$ 23.01
$ 23.01
$ 23.01
$ 23.01
$ 23.01
$ 23.01
$ 23.01
$ 23.01
$ 23.01
$ 23.01
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 3.79
$ 7.58
$ 11.37
$ 15.16
$ 18.06
$ 20.39
$ 21.34
$ 21.34
$ 21.34
$ 21.34
$ 21.34
$ 21.34
$ 21.34
$ 21.34
$ 21.34
$ 21.34
$ 21.34
$ 21.34
$ 21.34
$ 21.34
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 4.38
$ 8.75
$ 13.13
$ 17.50
$ 20.86
$ 23.57
$ 24.69
$ 24.69
$ 24.69
$ 24.69
$ 24.69
$ 24.69
$ 24.69
$ 24.69
$ 24.69
$ 24.69
$ 24.69
$ 24.69
$ 24.69
$ 24.69
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 0.18
$ 3.87
$
$ 0.14
$ 1.97
$ 1.94
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ 0.09
$ 1.09
$ 6.66
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 0.02
$ 0.21
$ 1.95
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ (0.11)
$ 1.18
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
$ 2.47
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 0.18
$ 3.96
$ 1.11
$ 7.01
$ 53.94
$ 56.04
$ 58.08
$ 63.45
$ 58.88
$ 54.96
$ 38.28
$ 25.48
$ 25.48
$ 25.48
$ 25.48
$ 25.48
$ 25.48
$ 25.48
$ 25.48
$ 25.48
$ 25.48
$ 25.48
$ 25.48
$ 25.48
$ 25.48
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.18
$ 3.96
$ 1.11
$ 7.01
$ 46.87
$ 48.68
$ 50.42
$ 55.51
$ 51.73
$ 48.28
$ 34.31
$ 23.81
$ 23.81
$ 23.81
$ 23.81
$ 23.81
$ 23.81
$ 23.81
$ 23.81
$ 23.81
$ 23.81
$ 23.81
$ 23.81
$ 23.81
$ 23.81
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 0.18
$ 3.96
$ 1.11
$ 7.01
$ 61.02
$ 63.42
$ 65.75
$ 71.42
$ 66.04
$ 61.66
$ 42.26
$ 27.16
$ 27.16
$ 27.16
$ 27.16
$ 27.16
$ 27.16
$ 27.16
$ 27.16
$ 27.16
$ 27.16
$ 27.16
$ 27.16
$ 27.16
$ 27.16
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1f and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.7g Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs
(All Systems)
Preferred Alternative, SWAT Method
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Trea
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 126.45
$ 126.45
$ 126.45
$ 126.45
$ 67.19
$ 48.48
$ 18.17
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
ment Capital Costs
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 97.61
$ 97.61
$ 97.61
$ 97.61
$ 54.71
$ 40.05
$ 15.19
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 158.96
$ 158.96
$ 158.96
$ 158.96
$ 80.63
$ 57.28
$ 21.16
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Treatment O&M Costs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 8.34
$ 16.68
$ 25.02
$ 33.35
$ 38.40
$ 42.25
$ 43.77
$ 43.77
$ 43.77
$ 43.77
$ 43.77
$ 43.77
$ 43.77
$ 43.77
$ 43.77
$ 43.77
$ 43.77
$ 43.77
$ 43.77
$ 43.77
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 7.65
$ 15.29
$ 22.94
$ 30.59
$ 35.21
$ 38.75
$ 40.15
$ 40.15
$ 40.15
$ 40.15
$ 40.15
$ 40.15
$ 40.15
$ 40.15
$ 40.15
$ 40.15
$ 40.15
$ 40.15
$ 40.15
$ 40.15
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 9.07
$ 18.14
$ 27.20
$ 36.27
$ 41.76
$ 45.93
$ 47.56
$ 47.56
$ 47.56
$ 47.56
$ 47.56
$ 47.56
$ 47.56
$ 47.56
$ 47.56
$ 47.56
$ 47.56
$ 47.56
$ 47.56
$ 47.56
Non-Treatment Costs
Implementation
$ 1.06
$ 5.09
$
$ 0.93
$ 2.68
$ 2.55
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE
$ -
$ 10.70
$ 24.07
$ 22.67
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Monitoring
Plans
$
$
$ 0.30
$ 0.85
$ 2.70
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.32
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
$ 0.43
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.06
$ 0.15
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
$ 0.21
All Stage 2 DBPR Costs
Mean
Value
$ 1.06
$ 15.80
$ 24.36
$ 24.45
$ 131.82
$ 137.33
$ 143.44
$ 151.96
$ 101.12
$ 87.53
$ 61.06
$ 44.41
$ 44.41
$ 44.41
$ 44.41
$ 44.41
$ 44.41
$ 44.41
$ 44.41
$ 44.41
$ 44.41
$ 44.41
$ 44.41
$ 44.41
$ 44.41
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 1.06
$ 15.80
$ 24.36
$ 24.45
$ 102.99
$ 107.81
$ 113.22
$ 121.05
$ 85.87
$ 75.90
$ 54.58
$ 40.80
$ 40.80
$ 40.80
$ 40.80
$ 40.80
$ 40.80
$ 40.80
$ 40.80
$ 40.80
$ 40.80
$ 40.80
$ 40.80
$ 40.80
$ 40.80
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 1.06
$ 15.80
$ 24.36
$ 24.45
$ 164.34
$ 170.58
$ 177.42
$ 186.66
$ 117.48
$ 99.68
$ 67.73
$ 48.20
$ 48.20
$ 48.20
$ 48.20
$ 48.20
$ 48.20
$ 48.20
$ 48.20
$ 48.20
$ 48.20
$ 48.20
$ 48.20
$ 48.20
$ 48.20
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1f and Exhibits D.1 through D.6.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.7h Projections of Stage 2 DBPR Primacy Agency Costs
Preferred Alternative, SWAT Method
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Implementation Costs
$ 3.88
$ 3.88
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
IDSE Costs
$
$ 0.05
$ 0.14
$ 2.03
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Monitoring Plan
Costs
$
$
$ 0.02
$ 0.06
$ 0.84
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Compliance
Monitoring
Costs
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
$ 1.59
Operational
Evaluation
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
$ 0.11
Note: All values in millions of year 2003 dollars.
Source: Derived from Exhibits J.1h and D.7.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit J.7i Present Value of Annual Capital Cost Projections at 3% Discount Rate
(All Systems and Primacy Agencies)
Preferred Alternative, SWAT Method
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Total
Ann.
Surface Water CWS
Mean
Value
$ 0.8
$ 10.8
$ 20.6
$ 15.0
$ 64.6
$ 65.5
$ 66.7
$ 67.1
$ 30.7
$ 22.8
$ 15.4
$ 12.5
$ 12.1
$ 11.8
$ 11.4
$ 11.1
$ 10.8
$ 10.5
$ 10.2
$ 9.9
$ 9.6
$ 9.3
$ 9.0
$ 8.8
$ 8.5
$ 525.4
$ 30.2
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.8
$ 10.8
$ 20.6
$ 15.0
$ 46.5
$ 47.6
$ 49.0
$ 49.6
$ 24.8
$ 19.3
$ 13.7
$ 11.2
$ 10.9
$ 10.5
$ 10.2
$ 9.9
$ 9.7
$ 9.4
$ 9.1
$ 8.8
$ 8.6
$ 8.3
$ 8.1
$ 7.8
$ 7.6
$ 427.9
$ 24.6
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.8
$ 10.8
$ 20.6
$ 15.0
$ 85.8
$ 86.4
$ 87.4
$ 87.5
$ 37.5
$ 26.6
$ 17.2
$ 13.9
$ 13.5
$ 13.1
$ 12.7
$ 12.3
$ 12.0
$ 11.6
$ 11.3
$ 11.0
$ 10.7
$ 10.3
$ 10.0
$ 9.7
$ 9.5
$ 637.3
$ 36.6
Surface Water NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 9.5
$ 0.5
Operational
Evaluation
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 8.5
$ 0.5
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.6
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 10.5
$ 0.6
Disinfecting Ground Water CWS
Mean
Value
$ 0.2
$ 3.1
$ 1.0
$ 6.0
$ 43.1
$ 43.6
$ 44.0
$ 46.4
$ 41.2
$ 37.1
$ 24.8
$ 16.0
$ 15.5
$ 15.1
$ 14.6
$ 14.2
$ 13.8
$ 13.4
$ 13.0
$ 12.6
$ 12.3
$ 11.9
$ 11.6
$ 11.2
$ 10.9
$ 476.5
$ 27.4
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.2
$ 3.1
$ 1.0
$ 6.0
$ 37.4
$ 37.8
$ 38.2
$ 40.6
$ 36.2
$ 32.5
$ 22.2
$ 14.9
$ 14.5
$ 14.1
$ 13.7
$ 13.3
$ 12.9
$ 12.5
$ 12.1
$ 11.8
$ 11.4
$ 11.1
$ 10.8
$ 10.5
$ 10.2
$ 428.8
$ 24.6
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ 0.2
$ 3.1
$ 1.0
$ 6.0
$ 48.8
$ 49.3
$ 49.7
$ 52.2
$ 46.3
$ 41.6
$ 27.4
$ 17.1
$ 16.6
$ 16.1
$ 15.6
$ 15.2
$ 14.7
$ 14.3
$ 13.9
$ 13.5
$ 13.1
$ 12.7
$ 12.3
$ 12.0
$ 11.6
$ 524.2
$ 30.1
Disinfecting Ground Wa er NTNCWS
Mean
Value
$ 0.0
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 2.1
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 2.3
$ 2.6
$ 2.7
$ 2.0
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 31.8
$ 1.8
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 2.0
$ 2.3
$ 2.4
$ 1.8
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 29.2
$ 1.7
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 2.3
$ 2.3
$ 2.2
$ 2.5
$ 2.9
$ 2.9
$ 2.2
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 34.4
$ 2.0
Primacy Agencie*
Point Estimate
$ 3.7
$ 3.6
$ 0.1
$ 1.8
$ 0.7
$
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 29.8
$ 1.7
Total
Mean
Value
$ 4.7
$ 18.1
$ 21.8
$ 22.9
$ 111.1
$ 111.7
$ 114.6
$ 117.8
$ 76.5
$ 64.5
$ 44.0
$ 31.4
$ 30.5
$ 29.6
$ 28.7
$ 27.9
$ 27.1
$ 26.3
$ 25.5
$ 24.8
$ 24.1
$ 23.4
$ 22.7
$ 22.0
$ 21.4
$ 1,072.9
$ 61.6
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 4.7
$ 18.1
$ 21.8
$ 22.9
$ 87.0
$ 87.7
$ 90.7
$ 94.1
$ 65.2
$ 56.1
$ 39.5
$ 28.9
$ 28.1
$ 27.3
$ 26.5
$ 25.7
$ 25.0
$ 24.2
$ 23.5
$ 22.8
$ 22.2
$ 21.5
$ 20.9
$ 20.3
$ 19.7
$ 924.3
$ 53.1
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 4.7
$ 18.1
$ 21.8
$ 22.9
$ 138.3
$ 138.7
$ 141.4
$ 144.4
$ 88.7
$ 73.2
$ 48.7
$ 34.0
$ 33.0
$ 32.0
$ 31.1
$ 30.2
$ 29.3
$ 28.5
$ 27.6
$ 26.8
$ 26.0
$ 25.3
$ 24.6
$ 23.8
$ 23.1
$ 1,236.3
$ 71.0
Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates Ł
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent
Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.
>,: Derived from Exhibits J.7a through h.
ire discounted to 2
rounding.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December2005
-------
Appendix K
Description of Stage 2 Cost
and Benefits Models
-------
-------
Appendix K
Description of Stage 2 Cost and Benefits Models
K.1 Summary
This appendix describes the SAS cost and benefits models used for the Stage 2 DBPR. A detailed
description of the non-treatment cost model is provided in Appendix H of this document, and is therefore not
included in this Appendix.
An overview flowchart is provided for each of the components of the cost and benefits models,
followed by a detailed description of the input and output files used in each component. [Note to EPA:
descriptions of the input and output files for Createlnput2.sas, TreatmentCostModelEndingTechnology.sas, and
SmallPlantsAffordability.sas will be provided in the next draft.] This appendix is organized as follows:
Exhibit K. 1 Flowchart of Stage 2 Cost Model
Exhibit K.2a Flowchart of progl .sas
Exhibit K.2b Input/Output Files for progl .sas
Exhibit K.2c Description of Inputs to progl .sas
Exhibit K.3a Flowchart of Createlnputl.sas
Exhibit K.3b Input/Output Files for Createlnputl .sas
Exhibit K. 3c Description of Inputs to Createlnput 1. sas
Exhibit K.4a Flowchart of Treatment Cost Model.sas
Exhibit K.4b Input/Output Files for Treatment Cost Model, sas
Exhibit K.5a Flowchart of Createlnput2.sas
Exhibit K.5b Input/Output Files for Createlnput2.sas
Exhibit K.6a Flowchart of HH.sas (Household Model)
Exhibit K.6b Input/Output Files for HH.sas (Household Model)
Exhibit K.7a Flowchart of SmallPlants. sas
Exhibit K.7b Input/Output Files for SmallPlants. sas
Exhibit K.8a Flowchart of Discounting, sas
Exhibit K.8b Input/Output Files for Discounting, sas
Exhibit K.9a Flowchart of TreatmentCostModelEndingTechnology.sas
Exhibit K. 9b Input/Output Files for TreatmentCostModelEndingTechnology. sas
Exhibit K. 1 Oa Flowchart of Createlnput 1 Afford, sas
Exhibit K. lOb Input/Output Files for Createlnputl Afford.sas
Exhibit K. 11 a Input/Output Files for Stage2Benefits_CasesAvoided.sas
Exhibit K. 1 Ib Flowchart of Stage2Benefits_CasesAvoided.sas
Exhibit K. 11 c Description of Inputs to Stage2Benefits_CasesAvoided, sas
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit K.1 Flowchart of Stage 2 Cost Model
Unit costs
raw data
^^
Progl.sas
Read raw unit cost data.
Calculate Capital and O&M costs for selected
average flow and design flow values for each technology.
r
Capital and O&M unit cost data
Stage! input data
Createlnputl.sas
Read Stage2 input data files and produce intermediate data
files used for Treatment Cost, HH, Small Plant, Discounting,
Treatment Cost Model-Ending Technologies, and Small
Plant Affordability Exercise.
Stage 2 intermediate data (1)
TreatmentCostModel.sas
Treatment Cost Model
Stage 2 intermediate data (2)
Treatment Cost Model Output
C reatelnput2. s as
Stage 2 intermediate data (3)
HH.sas
Household (HH) Model
SmallPlant.sas
Small Plant Model
HH Model Output
Discounting, sas
Treatment Cost Model
Small Plants Model
Output
TreatmentCost
Model
Ending
Technology.sas
Treatment Cost Model
Treatment Cost Model
Summary Outputs
Treatment Cost Model
Ending
Technology
Summary Outputs
Cr
atelnputlAfford.
Treatment Cost Model
ias
Createlnputl
Affordability Model
Summary Outputs
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit K.2a Flowchart of progl.sas
Unit costs
raw data
^^
Progl.sas
Read raw unit cost data.
Calculate Capital and O&M costs for selected
avg. flow and design flow values for each technology.
r
Capital and O&M unit cost data
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit K.2b Input/Output Files for progl.sas
Labor Rates.xls
Stage 2 Cost Summary,
Stage 2 Cost Summary,
Stage 2 Cost Summary,
Stage 2 Cost Summary,
Stage 2 Cost Summary,
Stage 2 Cost Summary,
Stage 2 Cost Summary,
Stage 2 Cost Summary,
Stage 2 Cost Summary,
Stage 2 Cost Summary,
Stage 2 Cost Summary,
Stage 2 Cost Summary,
Stage 2 Cost Summary,
Stage 2 Cost Summary,
Stage 2 Cost Summary,
Stage 2 Cost Summary,
Stage 2 Cost Summary,
Stage 2 Cost Summary,
INPUT
bag Filter.xls
cartridge Filter.xls
bci_history.xls
cci_history.xls
capital_cost_indices.xls
technology_cost_base_year.xls
convert_to_chloramines_0.xls.55NH3_dose.xls
convert_to_chloramines_0.xls.15NH3_dose.xls
GAC_EBCT_20_d240.xls
GAC_EBCT_20_d90.xls
GAC_EBCT_10_d360.xls
nanofiltration.xls
microfiltration.xls
chlorinedioxide.xls
Ozone_0.xls_5log .xls
Ozone_1log.xls
Ozone_2log.xls
UV40MJ CM2.xls
(see Exhibit K-1cfora description of input files to progl.sas)
progl .sas
This program uses data from various excel inputs and
recalculates and re-creates outputs originally provided in the
various input sheets. The program recreates the Stage 2 Cost
Summary spreadsheets using SAS, and produces input files
used by Createlnputl .sas
OUTPUT
Capital and O&M costs based on average and design flows are calc ulated and saved as the following files:
Unit Cost_BAG_FILTER.xls
Unit Cost_CARTRIDGE_FILTER.xls
UnitCost_TECHNOLOGY_COST_BASE_YEAR.xls
Unit Cost_convert_to_chloramine_0.xls55NH3.xls
Unit Cost_convert_to_chloramine_0.xls15NH3.xls
Unit Cost_GAC_EBCT_20_240d.xls
Unit Cost_GAC_EBCT_20_90d.xls
Unit Cost GAC EBCT 10 360d.xls
UnitCost_NANOFILTRATION.xls
Unit Cost_MICROFILTRATION.xls
Unit Cost_CHLORINEDIOXIDE.xls
Unit Cost_OZONE_0.xls_5LOG.xls
Unit Cost_OZONE_1LOG.xls
Unit Cost_OZONE_2LOG.xls
Unit Cost_.UV40mJ_CM2.xls
Unit Cost UV2X200MJ CM2.xls
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit K.2c
Description of Inputs to progl.sas
Name of Input File
Labor Rates.xls
Stage 2 Cost Summary bag Filter.xls
Stage 2 Cost Summary cartridge Filter.xls
Stage 2 Cost Summary bci history.xls
Stage 2 Cost Summary cci history.xls
Stage 2 Cost Summary capital cost indices.xls
Stage 2 Cost Summary technology cost base year.xls
Stage 2 Cost Summary convert to chloramines 0.xls.55NH3 dose.xls
Stage 2 Cost Summary convert to chloramines 0.xls.l5NH3 dose.xls
Stage 2 Cost Summary_GAC_EBCT_20_d240.xls
Stage 2 Cost Summary_GAC_EBCT_20_d90.xls
Stage 2 Cost Summary_GAC_EBCT_10_d360.xls
Stage 2 Cost Summary nanofiltration.xls
Stage 2 Cost Summary microfiltration.xls
Stage 2 Cost Summary chlorinedioxide.xls
Stage 2 Cost Summary Ozone O.xls 51og.xls
Stage 2 Cost Summary Ozone llog.xls
Stage 2 Cost Summary Ozone 21og.xls
Stage 2 Cost Summary_UV40MJ_CM2.xls
Description of Input File
Provides technical and managerial labor rates
corresponding to average and design flow for the nine
size categories.
Provides useful life and costs associated with bag filters
corresponding to design and average flows.
Provides useful life and costs associated with cartridge
filters corresponding to design and average flows.
Provides monthly and annual BCI from 1915-2003.
Provides monthly and annual CCI from 1915-2002. Only
January CCI provided for 2003.
Provides capital cost indices - month (annual), year
(2003)
Provides month and year that costs were developed in for
nine technologies
Provides useful life and equations to figure out system
chemical feed and various costs based on parameter
values and average and design flow provided in
spreadsheet.
Provides useful life and equations to figure out system
chemical feed and various costs based on parameter
values and average and design flow provided in
spreadsheet.
Provides useful life, operator training, and number of
GAC contactors in use corresponding to average and
design flow.
Provides useful life, operator training, and number of
GAC contactors in use corresponding to average and
design flow.
Provides useful life, operator training, and number of
GAC contactors in use corresponding to average and
design flow.
Provides useful life and various parameter values
corresponding to average and design flow.
Provides useful life and various parameter values
corresponding to average and design flow.
Provides useful life and various parameter values
corresponding to average and design flow.
Provides average and maximum dose transferred, useful
life, and various parameter values corresponding to
average and design flow.
Provides average and maximum dose transferred, useful
life, and various parameter values corresponding to
average and design flow.
Provides average and maximum dose transferred, useful
life, and various parameter values corresponding to
average and design flow.
Provides number and size of reactors, and equations to
figure outnumber of reactors, footprint, electrical costs,
and various other costs based on parameter values and
average and design flow provided in spreadsheet.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit K.3a Flowchart of Createlnputl.sas
Stage 2 input data
^
Createlnputl.sas
Read Stage2 input data files and produce intermediate data
files used for Treatment Cost, HH, Small Plant model, Discountin g,
SmallPlantsAffordabilityExcercizeand
Treatment Cost Model Ending Technology.
Stage 2 intermediate data (1)
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit K.3b Input/Output Files for Createlnputl.sas
INPUT
SDWIS lnventory.mdb
Common cost inputs_Percent Mixed Systems.xls
Common cost inputs_Other cost inputs.xls
Common cost inputs_Plants per System Treatment.xls
Common cost inputs_Percent Disinfecting.xls
Common cost inputs_Common Household Numbers.xls
(see Exhibit K-3c for a description of input files to Createlnputl .sas)
Createlnputl.sas
This program used the Stage2 input data files to produce
intermediate data files used for the following models-
Treatment Cost Model
Household Cost Model
Small Plant Model
Discounting Model
Treatment Cost Model- Ending Technologies
CreatelnputlAffordability Model
OUTPUT [Description of files to be provided]
Stage 2 Treatment Cost Model_Numbers of Plants.xls
Stage 2 Drivers Plantbaseline.xls
Stage 2 Drivers_Percentage_PublicPrivate.xls
Stage 2 Drivers_Households.xls
Stage 2 Flows.xls
CLM_GW_CWS_convert_to_chloramine_0.xls15nh3.xls
CLM_GW_CWS_flows.xls
CLM_GW_NTNCWS_convert_to_chloramine_0.xls15nh3.xls
CLM_GW_NTNCWS_flows.xls
CLM_SW_CWS_convert_to_chloramine_0.xls55nh3.xls
CLM_SW_CWS_flows.xls
CLM_SW_NTNCWS_convert_to_chloramine_0.xls55nh3.xls
CLM_SW_NTNCWS_flows.xls
CLX_SW_CWS_chlorinedioxide.xls
C LX_SW_CWS_flows.xls
CLX_SW_NTNCWS_chlorinedioxide.xls
CLX_SW_NTNCWS_flows.xls
GAC10_SW_CWS_GAC_EBCT_10_360d.xls
GAC10_SW_NTNCWS_flows.xls
GAC10_SW_NTNCWS_GAC_EBCT_10_360d.xls
GAC20_GW_CWS_flows.xls
GAC20_GW_CWS_GAC_EBCT_20_240d.xls
GAC20_GW_NTNCWS_flows.xls
GAC20_GW_NTN CWS_GAC_E BCT_20_240d .xls
GAC20_SW_CWS_flows.xls
GAC20_SW_CWS_GAC_EBCT_20_90d.xls
GAC20_SW_NTNCWS_flows.xls
GAC20_SW_NTNCWS_GAC_EBCT_20_90d.xls
Membranes_GW_CWS_flows.xls
Membranes_GW_CWS_nanofiltration.xls
Membranes_GW_NTNCWS_flows.xls
Membranes_GW_NTNCWS_nanofiltration.xls
Membranes_SW_CWS_flows.xls
Membranes_SW_CWS_nanofiltration.xls
Membranes_SW_NTNCWS_flows.xls
Membranes_SW_NTNCWS_nanofiltration.xls
MF_UF_SW_CWS_flows.xls
MF_UF_SW_CWS_microfiltration.xls
MF_UF_SW_NTNCWS_flows.xls
MF UF SW NTNCWS microfiltration.xls
O3_GW_CWS_flows.xls
O3_GW_CWS_Ozone_0.xls_5log.xls
O3_GW_NTNCWS_flows.xls
O3_GW_NTNCWS_Ozone_0.xls_5log.xls
O3_SW_CWS_flows.xls
O3_SW_CWS_Ozone_0.xls_5log.xls
O3_SW_NTNCWS_flows.xls
O3_SW_NTNCWS_Ozone_0.xls_5log.xls
Unit Cost_BAG_FILTER.xls
Unit Cost_BCI_HISTORY.xls
UnitCost_CAPITAL_COST_INDICES.xls
Unit Cost_CARTRIDGE_FILTER.xls
Unit Cost_CCI_HISTORY.xls
Unit Cost_CFP_COSTS.xls
Unit Cost_CHLORINEDIOXIDE.xls
Unit Cost_convert_to_chloramine_0.xls15NH3.xls
Unit Cost_convert_to_chloramine_0.xls55NH3.xls
UnitCost_COST_FACTOR_SUMMARY.xls
Unit Cost_GAC_EBCT_10_360d.xls
Unit Cost_GAC_EBCT_20_90d.xls
Unit Cost_GAC_EBCT_20_240d.xls
Unit Cost_MICROFILTRATION.xls
Unit Cost_NANOFILTRATION.xls
Unit Cost_OZONE_0.xls_5LOG.xls
Unit Cost_OZONE_1LOG.xls
Unit Cost_OZONE_2LOG.xls
UnitCost_TECHNOLOGY_COST_BASE_YEAR.xls
Unit Cost_TWG_COSTS.xls
Unit Cost_UV2X200MJ_CM2.xls
Unit Cost_UV40MJ_CM2.xls
UV_GW_CWS_flows.xls
UV_GW_CWS_UV2X200MJ_CM2.xls
UV_GW_NTNCWS_flows.xls
UV_GW_NTNCWS_UV2X200MJ_CM2.xls
UV_SW_CWS_flows.xls
UV_SW_CWS_UV40MJ_CM2.xls
UV_SW_NTNCWS_flows.xls
UV_SW_NTNCWS_UV40MJ_CM2.xls
Stage 2 Treatment Cost Model_Unit Costs Forecast.xls
Stage 2 Treatment Cost ModelJHH Annual.xls
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit K.3c
Description of Inputs to Creatlnputl.sas
Name of Input File
SDWIS Inventory.mdb
Common cost inputs Percent Mixed Systems.xls
Common cost inputs Other cost inputs.xls
Common cost inputs Plantsper System Treatment.xls
Common cost inputs Percent Disinfecting.xls
Common cost inputs Common Household Numbers.xls
Description of Input File
Access DB providing system and population inventory,
size categories, sellers with linked populations,
purchasers with largest end seller, and purchasers to link
to sellers.
Provides percent of surface water systems that are
primarily groundwater for the nine size categories, split
out by CWS and NTNCWS.
Provides value, source, and spreadsheet source for labor
rates, projection period, bounds on capital and O&M
costs, people per household, and discount rates.
Provides LT2 and Stage 2 plants per system for filtered
and unfiltered CWS, TNCWS, and NTNCWS for the
nine system categories.
Provides percent of groundwater and surface water CWS
and NTNCWSs that disinfect, split out by the nine size
categories.
Provides public and private discount rates, and household
usage rates for CWSs in the nine size size categories.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit K.4a Flowchart of TreatmentCostModel.sas
Stage2TreamentNumberOfPlants
Stage2TrtCostModel_UnitForecast
DATA STEP
1. Read numbers of plants (by system, source, system size)
2. Read unit costs (by system, source, system size and cost type) for each technology
PlantNums
Unit Cost
Stage 2 Treament Cost Model_SW Compliance.xls
Stage 2 Treatment Cost_GW Compliance.xls
DATA STEP
1. Read compliance numbers (by size and SWAT run) and output by
system size and SWAT run.
V.
/"
SW costs 2 to SW costs 7
GW costs 2 toGW costs 7
SW net plants 2 -SW net plants 7
GW net plants 2 -GW net jlants 7
MACRO AlternativeRun
1. Run for each of 6 alternatives compared to baseline. Alternative 2 (20% Safety
margin) and 7 (25% Safety margin) will be used for the preferred option
baseline, 3,4,and 5 are for Alternatives 1,2 and 3. Alternative 2 (renamed as 6)
will be used for Sensitivity analysis (20% safety margin) and Alternative 7 will be
used for 25% Safety margin sensitivity runs.
2. Combine unit cost and plant number data
3. Calculate derived technology costs
4. Calculate and output difference in number of plants between alternative
and baseline
SW compl
GW_compl
DATA STEP
1. Incorporate results for alternatives 6 into alternative 2 (for later use when
alternative is randomly selected among 2, and 6)
2. Pre-process data for Sensitivity Runs - 20% Safety run (alternative 2
renamed as Alternative 6) and 25% Safety run (alternative 7)
SW costs 2 to SW costs 7
GW costs 2 toGW costs 7
SW net plants 2 -SW net plants 7
GW net plants 2 -GW net jlants 7
SW costs 2 to SW costs 7
GW costs 2 toGW costs 7
SW net plants 2 -SW net jlants 7
GW net jlants 2 -GW net plants 7
MACRO Shell
1. Run for each alternative 2-7
2. For preferred option, for each iteration, randomly select alternative 2,or 7 for large SW systems,
Alternative 2 for small SW and all GW systems
3. For sensitivity runs with 20% safety, choose alternative 6 for all systems, for 25% runs choose Alternative 7
for large SW and Alternative 6 for other systems
4. SWAT ratio of 1 is used for all GW systems, SWAT ratios diffe- for 20% (Alternatives 2,6) and 25%
(alternative 7) for SW systems
3. Calculate numbers of plants and costs for each iteration and output summary stats
4. For alternative 2 plant numbers, include Factor for Uncertainty in Plants Adding Treatment (random uniform)
5. Calculate unit cost variation factors in each iteration (triangular distribution)
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit K.4b Input/Output Files for TreatmentCostModel.sas
INPUT
Stage 2 Treatment Cost Model_SW Compliance.xls
Stage 2 Treatment Cost Model_GW Compliance.xls
Stage 2 Treatment Cost Model_Unit Cost Forecast.xls
Stage 2 Treatment_Numbers of Plants.xls
(see Exhibit K-4c for a description of input files to TreatmentCostModel.sas)
TreatmentCostModel.sas
This program uses various inputs, including those created by Createlnputl .sas to
generate the following for each alternative:
unit costs for technologies used for Stage 2 compliance, and
net number of plants using each technology.
OUTPUT [Description of files to be provided]
Cost Uncertainty Results_(##MONYR)_Totals-Alternative 1 .xls
Cost Uncertainty Results_(##MONYR)_Totals-Alternative 2.xls
Cost Uncertainty Results_(##MONYR)_Totals-Alternative 3.xls
Cost Uncertainty Results_(##MONYR)_Totals-Preferred Option.xls
Cost Uncertainty Results_(##MONYR)_Sensitivity Run- 20-Alternative 4.xls
Cost Uncertainty Results_(##MONYR)_Sensitivity Run- 25-Alternative 5.xls
Number Uncertainty Results_(##MONYR)_Totals-Alternative 1
Number Uncertainty Results_(##MONYR)_Totals-Alternative 2
Number Uncertainty Results_(##MONYR)_Totals-Alternative 3
Number Uncertainty Results_(##MONYR)_Totals-Preferred Option
Number Uncertainty Results_(##MONYR)_Sensitivity Run- 20 Alternative 4.xls
Number Uncertainty Results_(##MONYR)_Sensitivity Run- 25 Alternative S.xks
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit K.5a Flowchart of Createlnput2.sas
Stage2 Drivers_Households
Stage2TrtCostModel_L)nitForecast
Stage 2 Drivers_Percentage_PublicPrivate
Stage 2 Treatment Cost Model Number of Plants
GW_net_Plants
SW_net_plants
Stage 2 Treatment Cost Model_HHCosts_SW.xls
Stage 2 Treatment Cost Model_HHCosts_GW.xls
DATA STEP
1 . Read, pre-process and sort data
(by system, source, system size)
i
DATA STEP
1. Merge Houshold (Stage 2 Drivers_Households) data and baseline (Stage 2 Treatment Cost Model Number of Plants)
data to create the HOUSEHOLDCOST dataset.
2. Create variable hh_PerPlant as total Households/Total_plants
MACRO Cost
For all GW CWS systems,:
1. Create householdcost_GW dataset by merging householdcostand gw_net_plants
2. For each treatment technology, calculate number of households served by private or public plants by multiplying the
percentage of public / private plants and the number of households per plant
3. If a CL2 household number is negative, subtract its negative value from the corresponding CLM number,
adding its absolute value (of CL2) to conventional CLM number, and then set the CL2 number to Zero.
4. Add total number of households in public and private sector and subtract it from total households to get the number
of Unaffected households.
For all SW CWS systems, follow the same logic as GW CWS systems
Create noPlants sheets to be used bysmallplants.sas
Plantbaseline (Stage 2 Treatment Cost Model Number of Plants)
GW_net Plants
SW_net_plants
Stage 2 Treatment Cost Model NoPlants GW.xls
Stage 2 Treatment Cost Model NoPlants SW.xls
Data Step
For all GW CWS systems,:
1. Create noPlants_GW by merging GW_net_plants and plantbaseline
2. For each treatment technology, get number of plants
3. If a CL2 number is negative, subtract its negative value from the corresponding CLM number,
adding its absolute value (of CL2) to conventional CLM number, and then set the CL2 number to Zero.
4. Calculate total number of plants by summing the plants for each technology
For all SW CWS systems, follow the same logic as GW CWS systems
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit K.5a Flowchart of Createlnput2.sas (conf d)
Stage 2 Treatment Cost Model_NoPlants_GW.xls
Stage 2 Treatment Cost Model_NoPlants_SW.xls
Stage2TrtCostModel_UnitForecast
Create Stage 2 Total Cost sheets
DATA STEP
1. Read, pre-process and sort data (by system, source, system size)
DATA STEP
For All GW systems:
1. Create Stage2TrtCosts_GW dataset by merging Stage2 TRTCostModel_UnitForecast and
Stage 2 Treatment Cost Model_NoPlants_GW data
2. Calculate cost of each technology by multiplying unit costs w ith number of plants
3. Add costs for individual technologies to calculate total cost
For all SW systems, follow similar logic
Stage 2 TrtCosts SW
Stage 2 TrtCosts GW
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit K.5b Input/Output Files for Createlnput2.sas
INPUT
Stage 2 Drivers_Households.xls
Stage 2 Drivers_Percentage_PublicPrivate.xls
Stage 2 Treatment Cost Model_Numbers of Plants.xls
Stage 2 Treatment Cost Model_Unit Cost Forecast.xls
(see Exhibit K-5c for a description of input files to Createlnput2.sas)
Createlnput2.sas
This program uses various inputs, including those created by the Treatment Cost Model
to generate the number of households and the number plants making treatment
changes. Results of provided for SWand GW systems, sorted by system type.
OUTPUT [Description of files to be provided]
Stage 2 Treatment Cost Model_HHCosts_SW.xls
Stage 2 Treatment Cost Model_HHCosts_GW.xls
Stage 2 Treatment Cost Model_NOPIants_GW.xls
Stage 2 Treatment Cost Model_NOPIants_SW.xls
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit K.6a Flowchart of HH.sas
(Household Model)
Stage 2 Treatment Cost Model_
Non-Treatment HH Costs.xls
HouseholdCosts_GW (SAS Data)
HouseholdCosts_SW (SAS Data)
Stage 2 Treatment Cost ModeHHH Annual Cost.xls
DATA STEP
1. Read non-treatment costs for CWS
2. Reformat data sheet for SW and GW
NonTreatmentCost GW
NonTreatmentCost SW
DATA STEP
1. Read CWS HH treatment costs for technologies used
2. Read numbers of HHs by category
3. Combine numbers of HH with Cost per HH
All GW
All SW
MACRO TEST_SW and TEST_GW
1. Calculate number of HHs, unit cost/HH and Total cost
for each combination of treatment technology, owership,
system size (unlinked and linked) and non-treatment cost
Category (present vs non-present)
2. Repeat for all households, all GW households,
all SW households, etc.
All GW
All SW
DATA STEP
1. Add non-treatment cost to HH numbers and cost
HH AllHouseholds
HH GW All
HH GW 110k
HH GW^lOk
HH SW All
HH SW 110k
HH SW glOk
HH AllHouseholds Affected
HHGW All Affected
HHGW 110k Affected
HHGWglOk Affected
HH SW_A11 Affected
HHSW 110k Affected
HHSW^lOk Affected
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit K.6b Input/Output Files for HH.sas (Household Model)
INPUT
Stage 2 Treatment Cost Model_HH Costs_GW_CWS.xls
Stage 2 Treatment Cost ModelJHH Annual Cost.xls
Stage 2 Treatment Cost Model_HHCosts_SW.xls
Stage 2 Treatment Cost Model_Non-Treatment HH Costs.xls
(see Exhibit K-6c for a description of input files to HH.sas)
I
HH.sas
This program uses various input files, including those created by Createlnput2.sas and
TreatmentCostModel.sas to generate unit costs and total costs for small and large
systems sorted by ownership (public/private), source water (SW/GW), system type
(CWS/NTNCWS), and size category (small/large). Costs are separately reported for
households that are part of systems making treatment changes (affected households).
OUTPUT [Description of files to be provided]
HH Results
HH Results,
HH Results.
HH Results,
HH Results
HH Results.
HH Results
HH Results.
HH Results.
HH Results.
HH Results
HH Results.
HH Results
HH Results
(##MONYR)HH
(##MONYR)HH
(##MONYR)HH
(##MONYR)HH_
(##MONYR)HH
(##MONYR)HH
(##MONYR)HH
(##MONYR)HH
(##MONYR)HH
(##MONYR)HH
(##MONYR)HH
(##MONYR)HH
(##MONYR)HH
(##MONYR)HH
_AIIHouseholds_Affectedxls
AIIHouseholdsxIs
"GW_AII_Affectedxls
GW_Allxls
GW_g10K_Affectedxls
GW_g10Kxls
GW_l10K_Affectedxls
GWJIOKxIs
SW_AII_Affectedxls
SW_Allxls
SW_g10K_Affectedxls
SW_g10Kxls
SW_l10K_Affectedxls
SW MOKxIs
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit K.7a Flowchart of SmallPlants.sas
Stage 2 Treatment Cost Model -
Non-Treatment HH Costs.xls
DATA STEP
Read non-treatment costs for GW/SW , CWS/NTNCWS systems
Non Treatmentcost_GW_CWS
Non Treatmentcost_GW_NTNCWS
Non Treatmentcost_SW_CWS
Non Treatmentcost SW NTNCWS
Stage 2 Treatment Cost Model_Costs_SW_CWS.xls
Stage 2 Treatment Cost Model_Costs_SW_NTNCWS.xls
Stage 2 Treatment Cost Model_Costs_GW_CWS.xls
Stage 2 Treatment Cost Model_Costs_GW_NTNCWS.xls
DATA STEP
Read in Annual and Total cost for US1, US2, S1, S2, S3 size
categories for GW/SW, CWS/NTNCWS systems
SAS data
Noplants_GW
Noplants_SW
DATA STEP
Read numbers at plants for GW/SW, CWS/NTNCWS systems
for US1, US2, S1, S2, S3 size categories for each technology.
Add nontreatment costs
Macro Test for GW and SW
MACRO TEST
For GW and SW systems, calculate number of systems, net
Total annual cost for system for each treatment technology.
SAS DATA
ALL GW Smallplants
ALL SW Smallplants
w
SmallPlants GW ALL.xls
SmallPlants_SW_ALL.xls
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit K.7b Input/Output Files for SmallPlants.sas
INPUT
Stage 2 Treatment Cost Model_Non-Treatment HH Costs.xls
Stage 2 Treatment Cost Model_Costs_&srce._sys..xls
Stage 2 Treatment Cost Model_NOPIants&srce._sys..xls
(see Exhibit K-6c for a description of input files to SmallPlants.sas)
SmallPlants.sas
This program uses data from various inputs, including those created by
Createlnputs2.sas and the non-treatment cost model to calculate the total annual costs
for small plants by technology and source water.
OUTPUT [Description of files to be provided]
SmallPlants_GW_AII_(##MONYR).xls
SmallPlants_SW_AII_(##MONYR).xls
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit K.8a Flowchart of Discounting.sas
Primary AgencyCosts.xls
Stage 2 Rule Activity Schedule -
Primary Agency Schedule.xls
Stage 2 Non Treatment Cost Model_cost.xls
CALCULATE
1. Implementation Costs
2. IDSE Costs
3. Compliance Monitoring Costs
4. Significant Excursion Report Costs
5. Monitoring Plan Costs
Total Cost = sum of the above
Export
J- 2ap AgencyPrqj actions .xl s
MACRO READ
1. For each alternative, 0 (Preferred option), 1, 2, 3, 4 (Sensitivity Run 20%), and 5 (Sensitivity run 5%)
Create cost_alt&alt where alt can be 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5
Stage 2 Rule Activity Schedule_Cap SW.xls
Stage 2 Rule Activity Schedule_Cap GW.xls
Stage 2 Rule Activity ScheduleJDM SW.xls
Stage 2 Rule Activity ScheduleJDM GW.xls
Stage 2 Rule Activity Schedule_PWS SW Schedule Imp.xls
Stage 2 Rule Activity Schedule_PWS GW Schedule Imp.xls
Stage 2 Rule Activity Schedule_PWS SW Schedule IDSE.xls
Stage 2 Rule Activity Schedule_PWS GW Schedule IDSE.xls
Stage 2 Rule Activity Schedule_PWS SW Schedule Monitoring.xls
Stage 2 Rule Activity Schedule_PWS GW Schedule Monitoring.xls
Stage 2 Rule Activity Schedule_PWS SW Schedule MonPlan.xls
Stage 2 Rule Activity Schedule_PWS GW Schedule MonPlan.xls
Stage 2 Rule Activity Schedule_PWS SW Schedule SigExcursion.xls
Stage 2 Rule Activity Schedule_PWS GW Schedule SigExcursion.xls
macro Cap
macro OM
macro IMP
macro IDSE
macro Monitoring
macro Mon plan
macro SigExcursion
DATA STEP
1. Produce cap_schedulefor SW + GW (A)
DATA STEP
1. Produce OM_schedule for SW + GW (B)
DATA STEP
1. Produce IMP_schedule for SW + GW (C)
DATA STEP
1. Produce IDSE_schedule for SW + GW (D)
DATA STEP
1. Produce Monitoring Schedule for SW + GW (E)
DATA STEP
1. Produce MonPlan Schedule for SW + GW (F)
DATA STEP
1. Produce SigExcursion Schedule for SW + GW (G)
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit K.8a Flowchart of Discounting.sas (conf d)
MACRO RESULT
1. Run for each alternative 0 (Preferred), 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5
MACRO RESULT
2. Produces the following spreadsheets by merging
(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), and (G)
Generate Present value spreadsheets for ALL systems for
Total/Capital/O&M/Non-treatment costs, using discounted
rates of 3% and 7%. Spreadsheets are:
Alt&alt.J.41_AII_PV_bysize_3.xls
Alt&alt.J.42_AII_PV_bysize_7.xls
Alt&alt.J.4k_AII_PV_bysize_capital_3.xls
Alt&alt.J.4k_AII_PV_bysize_capital_7.xls
Alt&alt.J4k_AII_PV_bysize_OM_3.xls
Alt&alt.J4k_AII_PV_bysize_OM_7.xls
Alt&alt.J4k_AII_PV_bysize_Non-Trt_3.xls
Alt&alt.J4k_AII_PV_bysize_Non-Trt_7.xls
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs, for SW CWS, SW NTNCWS, GW CWS, GW NTNCWS
Systems for each of the 9 population categories
Projections of the Stage 2 DBPR PWS costs for ALL SW CWS, ALL SW NTNCWS, ALL GW CWS, ALL
GW NTNCWS
->| Projections of Stage 2 DBPR PWS Costs for ALL SW, ALL GW
Produces GRAND TOTAL Present Value Spreadsheets for 3% and 7% discount rates for GW and SW
systems as
Alt&alt.J.2as_Grandtotal_PV_3.xls
and Alt&alt.J.2aw_Grandtotal_PV_7.xls
where &alt can be 0, 1, 2, or 3
Produces Present Value Spreadsheets for CAPITAL and O&M costs us ing discount rates of 3% and 7%
for GW and SW systems as
Alt&alt.J.2at_Grandtotal_Capital_PV_3.xls
Alt&alt.J.2ax_Grandtotal_Capital_PV_7.xls
Alt&alt.J.2aw_Grandtotal_OM_PV_3.xls
Alt&alt.J.2ay_Grandtotal_OM_PV_7.xls
Produces, using discount rates of 3% and 7% present value spreadsheets for non-treatment costs as
Alt&alt.J.2av_Grandtotal_Non-Treat_3.xls
Alt&alt.J.2az Grandtotal Non-Treat 7.xls
Produces Present Value Spreadsheets using discount rates of 3% and 7% for SW CWS, SW NTNCWS,
GW CWS, and GW NTNCWS options as
Alt&alt.J.2ba_SW_CWS_PV_bysize_3.xls
Alt&alt.J.2be_SW_NTNCWS_PV_bysize_3.xls
Alt&alt.J.2bi_GW_CWS_PV_bysize_3.xls
Alt&alt.J.2bmGW_NTNCWS_PV_bysize_3.xls
Alt&alt.J.2bqSW_CWS_PV_bysize_7.xls
Alt&alt.J.2buSW_NTNCWS_PV_bysize_7.xls
Alt&alt.J.2by_GW_CWS_PV_bysize_7.xls
Alt&alt.J.2cc_GW_NTNCWS_PV_bysize_7.xls
Create SW/GW CWS/NTNCWS Capital/O&M cost present value spreadsheets using 3% and 7% discount
rates as
Alt&alt.J.2ca.GW CWS PV OM 7.xls
Alt&alt.J.2bb_SW_CWS_PV_Cap_3.xls
Alt&alt.J.2bf_SW_NTNCWS_PV_Cap_3.xls
Alt&alt.J.2bj_GW_CWS_PV_Cap_3.xls
Alt&alt.J.2bn_GW_NTNCWS_PV_Cap_3.xls
Alt&alt.J.2bp_SW_CWS_PV_Cap_7.xls
Alt&alt.J.2bv_SW_NTNCWS_PV_Cap_7.xls
Alt&alt.J.2bz_GW_CWS_PV_Cap_7.xls
Alt&alt.J.2cd_GW_NTNCWS_PV_Cap_7.xls
Alt&alt.J.2bc_SW_CWS_PV_OM_3.xls
Alt&alt.J.2bg_SW_NTNCWS_PV_OM_3.xls
Alt&alt.J.2bk_GW_CWS_PV_OM_3.xls
Alt&alt.J.2bo_GW_NTNCWS_PV_OM_3.xls
Alt&alt.J.2bs_SW_CWS_PV_OM_7.xls
Alt&alt.J.2bw SW NTNCWS PV OM 7.xls
Alt&alt.J.2.ce.GW NTNCWS PV OM 7.xls
December 20C 5
-------
Exhibit K.8b Input/Output Files for Discounting.sas
INPUT
Primary Agency Costs.xls Stage 2
Stage 2 Rule Activity Schedule_Primary Agency Schedule.xls Stage 2
Stage2 Non-Treatment Cost Model_cost.xls Stage 2
Cost Uncertainty Results_(##MONYR)_totals-Preferred Option.xls Stage 2
Cost Uncertainty Results_(##MONYR)_Totals-Alternative 1 .xls Stage 2
Cost Uncertainty Results_(##MONYR)_Totals-Alternative 2.xls Stage 2
Cost Uncertainty Results_(##MONYR)_Totals-Alternative 3.xls Stage 2
Stage 2 Rule Activity Schedule_Cap SW Schedule.xls Stage 2
Stage 2 Rule Activity Schedule_Cap GW Schedule.xls Stage 2
Stage 2 Rule Activity ScheduleJDM SW Schedule.xls Stage 2
Stage 2 Rule Activity ScheduleJDM GW Schedule.xls
(see Exhibit K-8c for a description of input files to Discounting.sas)
Rule Activity Schedule,
Rule Activity Schedule,
Rule Activity Schedule,
Rule Activity Schedule,
Rule Activity Schedule,
Rule Activity Schedule,
Rule Activity Schedule,
Rule Activity Schedule,
Rule Activity Schedule,
Rule Activity Schedule,
PWS SW Schedule.xls
PWS GW Schedule.xls
PWS SW Schedule IDSE.xls
PWS GW Schedule IDSE.xls
PWS SW Schedule Monitoring.xls
PWS GW Schedule Monitoring.xls
PWS SW Schedule Mon Plan.xls
PWS GW Schedule Mon Plan.xls
PWS SW Schedule Sig Excursion.xls
PWS GW Schedule Sig Excursion.xls
Discounting.sas
This program uses results from the non-treatment cost model, the rule activity schedule,
and the treatment cost model to generate system and primacy agency costs. Cost
summaries and projections are sorted by source water (SW/GW), system type
(CWS/NTNCWS), size category, and discount rate (3% and 7%).
OUTPUT [Description of files to be provided]
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit K.9a Flowchart of TreatmentCostModelEndingTechnology.sas
Stage2TreamentNumberOfPlants
Stage2TrtCostModel_UnitForecast
DATA STEP
1. Read numbers of plants (by system, source, system size)
2. Read unit costs (by system, source, system size and cost type) for each technology
PlantNums
Unit Cost
Stage 2 Treatment Cost Model_SW Ending Tech.xls
DATA STEP
1. Read compliance numbers for SW systems only
SW costs 2 to SW costs 7
MACRO AlternativeRun
1. Run for each of 6 alternatives and baseline. Alternative 2 (20% Safety
margin) and 7 (25% Safety margin) will be used for the preferred option
baseline, 3,4,and 5 are for Alternatives 1,2 and 3. Alternative 2 (renamed as 6)
will be used for Sensitivity analysis (20% safety margin) and Alternative 7 will be
used for 25% Safety margin sensitivity runs.
2. Combine unit cost and plant number data
3. Calculate derived technology costs
4. Calculate number of plants in each alternative and baseline
SW compl
DATA STEP
1. Incorporate results for alternatives 6 into alternative 2 (for later use when
alternative is randomly selected among 2, and 6)
2. Pre-process data for Sensitivity Runs - 20% Safety run (alternative 2
renamed as Alternative 6) and 25% Safety run (alternative 7)
SW costs 1 to SW costs 7
Num SW 1 to Num SW 7
(Ending technology Number Uncertainty Results )
MACRO Shell
1. Run for each alternative 1-7 (1 being baseline)
2. For preferred option, for each iteration, randomly select alternative 2,or 7 for large SW systems,
Alternative 2 for small SW and all GW systems
3. For sensitivity runs with 20% safety, choose alternative 6 for all systems, for 25% runs choose Alternative 7
for large SW and Alternative 6 for other systems
4. SWAT ratio of 1 is used for all systemsS. Calculate numbers of plants and costs for each iteration
and output summary stats
5. For alternative 2 plant numbers, include Factor for Uncertainty in Plants Adding Treatment (random uniform)
6. Calculate mean number of plants across all iterations for eac h alternative 1-7
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit K.9b Input/Output Files for TreatmentCostModelEndingTechnology.sas
INPUT
Stage 2 Treatment Cost Model_Unit Cost Forecast.xls
Stage 2 Treatment_Numbers of Plants.xls
Stage 2 Treatment Cost Model_SW Ending Tech.xls
(see Exhibit K-9c for a description of input files to TreatmentCostModelEndingTechology.sas)
TreatmentCostModelEndingTechology.sas
This program uses results from SWAT to show which technologieswill be in place for
large systems once Stage 2 is implemented.
OUTPUT [Description of files to be provided]
Ending Technology Number Uncertainty Results_(##MONYR)_Totals-Alternative 1 .xls
Ending Technology Number Uncertainty Results_(##MONYR)_Totals-Alternative 2.xls
Ending Technology Number Uncertainty Results_(##MONYR)_Totals-Alternative 3.xls
Ending Technology Number Uncertainty Results_(##MONYR)_Totals-Preferred Option.xls
Ending Technology Number Uncertainty Results_(##MONYR)_Sensitivity Run- 20-Alternative 4.xls
Ending Technology Number Uncertainty Results_(##MONYR)_Sensitivity Run- 25-Alternative 5.xls
Ending Technology Number Uncertainty Results_(##MONYR)_Baseline.xls
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit K.10a Flowchart of Create!nputl Afford.sas
DATA STEP
Create dataset FLOWS using flow values for the three size categories of SW and GW plants
DATA STEP
Create dataset HOUSEHOLDS from dataset FLOWS by adding in the usage rates and discount rates
LT2 Cost summary files
Convert tochloramine 015NH3
Convert_to_chloramine_055NH3
UV40MJ CM2
ChlorineDioxide
Ozone_0_51og
Microffltration
GAC EBCT 20 240d
GAC EBCT 20 90d
GAC EBCT 10 360d
nanoflltratlon
Create Annual Households Costs
MACRO UnitCost
1. Pre-process LT2 cost summary files
2. Calculate costs for specified flows by linear interpolation from cost summary files
3. For Capital costs, use design flows, for O&M costs, use average daily flow
4. Calculate costs for each technology for GW/SW, CWS/NTNCWS systems
I
Data Step
1. Create dataset ALL by merging all treatment cost files by system, source, size, and cost type (O&M/ Capital)
2. Calculate costs for adjunct technologies (GAC20_ADVOX)
Data Step
1. Calculate amortized annual payments for the capital cost using percentages for the public and
private sectors.
2. Calculate the annual household costs for private and public by multiplying the usage rate and the annual cost
(i.e. O&M + amortized capital) divided by annual average fbw per plant
3. Annual Household costs are calculated for all systems (SW/GW, CWS/NTNCWS)
Stage 2 Treatment Cost Model_HH Annual Cost Affordability.xls
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit K.10b Input/Output Files for Createlnputl Afford.sas
INPUT
Stage 2 Treatment Cost Model_Non-Treatment HH Costs.xls
Stage 2 Treatment Cost Model_Costs_&srce._sys..xls
Stage 2 Treatment Cost Model_NOPIants&srce._sys..xls
(see Exhibit K-10c for a description of input files to CreatelnputlAfford.sas)
Createlnputl Afford.sas
This program uses inputs from progl .sas and generates annual and total treatment
costs for each technology used for small SW and GW plants, by system type.
OUTPUT [Description of files to be provided]
SmallPlants_GW_AII_Afford_(##MONYR).xls
SmallPlants_SW_AII_Afford_(##MONYR).xls
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Exhibit K.11a Input/Output Files for Stage 2 Benefits
Model for Bladder Cancer Cases Avoided
Input
Bladder Cancer Cases Avoided lnputs.txt
DBP Occurrence lnputs.xls
Populations data by 101 Ages.xls
params_pareto_bladder.xls
params_pareto_lung.xls
params_weibul_bladder.xls
params_weibul_lung.xls
Stage 2 Benefits_CasesAvoided.sas
The benefits SAS model calculates bladder cancer cases avoided due to the Stage 2 DBPR in the 100-year
time period following rule promulgation. The SAS program calculates illnesses and deaths avoided for
each rule alternative -with a 20% and 25% safety factor applied to the preferred alternative. A data set of
PAR values is generated and multiplied by the baseline bladder cancer incidence data, which results in
bladder cancer cases attributable to DBPs in drinking water. The SAS model then calculates the bladder
cancer cases avoided in the years following rule promulgation using three cessation lag modelsSmoking
Lung, Smoking Bladder, and Arsenic Bladder. Each cessation lag model uses two distributions- Pareto
and Weibull. Bladder cancer cases avoided are then presented for surface and groundwater systems, and
for each size category.
CasesAvoided_
CasesAvoided_
CasesAvoided_
CasesAvoided_
CasesAvoided_
CasesAvoided
.Smoking Bladder_GW_1_0.xls CasesAvoided.
Smoking Bladder_GW_1_1.xls CasesAvoided.
.Smoking Bladder_GW_1_2.xls CasesAvoided.
.Smoking Bladder_GW_1_3.xls CasesAvoided.
Smoking Bladder_GW_1_4.xls CasesAvoided.
Smoking Bladder_GW_1_5.xls CasesAvoided.
Output*
.Smoking Lung_GW_1_0.xls
Smoking Lung_GW_1_1 .xls
.Smoking Lung_GW_1_2.xls
.Smoking Lung_GW_1_3.xls
Smoking Lung_GW_1_4.xls
Smoking Lung_GW_1_5.xls
CasesAvoided.
CasesAvoided.
CasesAvoided.
CasesAvoided.
CasesAvoided.
CasesAvoided
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Arsenic
Bladder,
Bladder,
Bladder,
Bladder,
Bladder,
Bladder
GW_1_0.xls
GW_1_1.xls
GW_1_2.xls
GW_1_3.xls
GW_1_4.xls
GW 1 5.xls
'Shown above are sample outputs for one size category and source water type.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Appendix K.11b. Flow Chart of Stage2Benefits_CasesAvoided.SAS
Bladder Cancer Cass Avoided lnputs.txt
Data Step
Create 1,000 factors from a
triangular distribution of parameters
(1.0725, 1.2, 1.4359) .
Populations data by 101 Ages.xls
Data Step
Read cancer incidence and
population by age group data
and preprocess it.
params_pareto_bladder.xls
params_weibul_bladder.xls
params_pareto_lung.xls
^ params_weibul_lung.xls
SQL Step
1. Create dataset Paramsl for bladder.
SQL Step
1. Import lung parameters into Paramsl.
2. Create dataset Params2.
DBP Occurrence lnputs.xls -i
Macro beginprocess(alt)
1. Separate runs for the baseline (alt 0), Alternatives 1, 2, & 3 (alt 1, alt 2, & alt 3) and the Preferred Alternative's 20% and 25% sensitivity runs (alt 4
& alt 5, respectively).
2. Reads DBP reduction data for the appropriate alternative and preprocesses it. Merges DBP reduction data with parameters for the triangular
distribution (Params2).
3. Reads proportions of cancer cases attributable to DBPs by source (GW/SW) and system size (<10,000 served or.> 10,000 served) for TTHM and
HAAS, based on the alternative and model (1 = 20% safety run, 2 = 25% safety run).
a. If alt = 0, randomly selects model 1 or model 2, and reads percentage of cases attributable to DBPs from the preferred alternative's
sensitivity runs, (i.e., if model = 1, reads the proportion of c ancer cases attributable to DBPs for the Preferred Alternative, 20% safety
factor).
b. If alt = 4, model = 1 (20% safety factor).
c. If alt = 5, model = 2 (25% safety factor).
d. If alt = 1, 2, or 3, model = 1 (20% and 25% safety factors are the same.)
4. Creates a permanent dataset for each option (alt), merging DBP reduction data and population data by 101 age groups.
a. Param_set_runs_0 c. Param_set_runs_2 e. Param_set_runs_4
b. Param_set_runs_1 d. Param_set_runs_3 f. Param_set_runs_5
5. Modifies the permanent data set to calculate the following:
a. Background cases (background_cases) = population by age groups x cancer incidence rates.
b. Odds ratio (OR) = exp(par_slope * age)
c. PAR = (ePE*(OR-1))/(1+(ePE*(OR-1))) where PE = population exposed.
d. Cases attributed to DPBs by age (CAtt_Age) = background_cases * PAR
e. Maximum Cases Avoided for Stage 1:
i. CAVS1 Max_Age_tthm = CAtt_age*s1_tthm (Stage 1 reduction for TTHM)
ii. CAVS1 Max_Age_haa5= CAtt_age*s1_haa5 (Stage 1 reduction, HAAS)
f. Calculates Stage 2 DBP reductions (s2reduc_tthm and s2reduc_haa5) by selecting from a uniform distribution based on the minimum
and maximum reduction in TTHM and HAAS with a 20% or 25% safetyfactor (s2min20_tthm[haa5], s2max20_tthm[haa5],
s2min25_tthm[haa5], s2max25_tthm[haa5])
g. Calculate maximum cases avoided by age group (as a percentage) due to Stage 2:
i. CAVS2Max_Age_tthm= (Catt_Age - CAVS1 Max_Age_tthm)*s2reduc_tthm
ii. CAVS2Max_Age_haa5= (Catt_Age - CAVS1 Max_Age_haa5)*s2reduc_haa5
h. Macro cesslag(run) 'Detailed description on following page.
i. Macro (genBenefits(run_des_source_cat) 'Detailed description on following page.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Appendix K.11b. Flow Chart of Stage2Benefits_CasesAvoided.SAS (confd)
h. Macro cesslag(run)
1. Separate runs for each cessation-lag option:
a. Run = 1 for Smoking Lung
b. Run = 2 for Smoking Bladder
c. Run = 3 for Arsenic Bladder
2. Separates cases avoided (CAVS2) into two groups, a and b, for TTHM and HAAS, depending on age years after rule. Calculates cases
avoided for each age group for years 1 to 100 following rule promulgation
a. Age groups younger than the rule only exposed to post-rule DBP levels.
CAVS2_grpa_tthm[haa5] = CAVS2Max_Age_tthm[haa5]
b. For age groups older than the rule, exposed to both pre- and post-rule DBP levelsapply cessation lag by multiplying maximum
cases avoided by a calculated factor (If). This factor is a function of years after rule and of parameters from a triangular
distribution (Weibul or Pareto, depending on the safety factor used).
CAVS2_grpb_tthm[haa5] = CAVS2Max_Age_tthm[haa5] * If
i. Run = 1 (Smoking Lung): if model = 1 (20% safety run), read paretojung parameters
if model = 2 (25% safety run), readweibuljung parameters
ii. Run = 2 (Smoking Bladder): if model = 1, read pareto_bladder parameters
if model = 2, read weibul_bladder parameters
iii. Run = 3 (Arsenic Lung): for model = 1 and model = 2, use fixed inputs for pareto and weibul parameters.
3. Processes outputs and transposes them by source (GW/SW) and system size (<10,000 served or > 10,000 served).
4. Further transposes cases avoided by source and system size, apportioning benefits into nine system size categories (cat. 1-9).
i. Macro genBenefits(run_des_source_cat)
1. Separates and processes cases avoided by run, source and system size category.
2. Generates benefits and cases avoided, including the 5th and 95th percentile and mean cases avoided for both TTHM and HAAS.
3. Outputs cases avoided for the given option, run, source, and siz e category as a spreadsheet.
1. Sheet TTHM Mean = Mean values for cases avoided for TTHM by age category and years after rule.
2. Sheet HAAS Mean = Mean values for cases avoided for HAAS by age category and years after rule
3. Sheet TTHM_p5 = 5th Percentile values for cases avoided for TTHM by age category and years after rule.
4. Sheet HAA5_p5 = 5th Percentile values for cases avoided for HAAS by age category and years after rule
5. Sheet TTHM_p95 = 95th Percentile values for cases avoided for TTHM by age category and years after rule.
6. Sheet HAA5_p95 = 95th Percentile values for cases avoided for HA A5 by age category and years after rule
T
CasesAvoided_Smoking Lung_1_1 .xls
CasesAvoided_Smoking Lung_2 _1 .xls
CasesAvoided_Smoking Lung_3 _1 .xls
CasesAvoided_Smoking Lung_4 _1 .xls
CasesAvoided_Smoking Lung_5 _1 .xls
CasesAvoided_Smoking Lung_6 _1 .xls
CasesAvoided_Smoking Lung_7 _1 .xls
CasesAvoided_Smoking Lung_8 _1 .xls
CasesAvoided_Smoking Lung_9 _1 .xls
Output
CasesAvoided_Smoking Bladder_1_1 .xls
CasesAvoided_Smoking Bladder_2 _1 .xls
CasesAvoided_Smoking Bladder_3 _1 .xls
CasesAvoided_Smoking Bladder_4 _1 .xls
CasesAvoided_Smoking Bladder_5 _1 .xls
CasesAvoided_Smoking Bladder_6 _1 .xls
CasesAvoided_Smoking Bladder_7 _1 .xls
CasesAvoided_Smoking Bladder_8 _1 .xls
CasesAvoided_Smoking Bladder_9 _1 .xls
*Note: Above is a sample output for benefits for Alternative 1. This is repeated 5 times to attain
CasesAvoided_Arsenic
CasesAvoided_Arsenic
CasesAvoided_Arsenic
CasesAvoided_Arsenic
CasesAvoided_Arsenic
CasesAvoided_Arsenic
CasesAvoided_Arsenic
CasesAvoided_Arsenic
CasesAvoided_Arsenic
benefits for all alternatives.
Bladder 1 1
Bladder_2 _1
Bladder 3 1
Bladder_4 _1
Bladder_5 _1
Bladder 6 1
Bladder_7 _1
Bladder_8 _1
Bladder_9 _1
.xls
.xls
.xls
.xls
.xls
.xls
.xls
.xls
.xls
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Appendix K.11c. Description of Inputs for the Benefits Model
Input
Bladder Cancer Cass Avoided lnputs.txt
Populations data by 101 Ages.xls
DBP Occurrence lnputs.xls
params_pareto_bladder.xls
params_weibul_bladder.xls
params_pareto_lung.xls
params_weibul_lung.xls
Used By (Macro)
Beginprocess(alt)
Beginprocess(alt)
Beginprocess(alt)
Cesslag(run)
Cesslag(run)
Cesslag(run)
Cesslag(run)
Description
Inputs model parameters for the generation of OR values
used to calculate PAR.
U.S. population by 101 age groups (1 - 100, 101+) and
bladder cancer incidence rates for each group from SEER
cancer incidence data.
Sheets Uncertainty Inputs, Uncertainty lnputs_1, Uncertainty
lnputs_2, and Uncertainty lnputs_3 provide DBP reduction
data as a percentage for Stage 1 and Stage 2. Inputs for
proportion of cases attributed to DBPs by source (SW/GW)
and system size (<1 0,000 served, >. 10,000 served).
Parameters for bladder for the Pareto triangular distribution
(1 ,000 values) to calculate cancer cases avoided with a 20%
safety factor.
Parameters for bladder for the Weibul triangular distribution
(1 ,000 values) to calculate cancer cases avoided with a 25%
safety factor.
Parameters for lung for the Pareto triangular distribution
(1 ,000 values) to calculate cancer cases avoided with a 20%
safety factor.
Parameters for lung for the Weibul triangular distribution
(1 ,000 values) to calculate cancer cases avoided with a 25%
safety factor.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
December 2005
-------
Appendix L
Quality Assurance Supplemental Information
-------
-------
Appendix L
Quality Assurance Supplemental Information
Existing Data Source
1 . Information
Collection Rule
(ICR)
2. ICR Supplemental
Survey
3 . National Rural
Water Association
(NRWA) Survey
4. Water Utility Survey
(WATERASTATS
database)
5 . Ground Water
Supply Survey
6. State Data
Use for the Stage 2 DBPR Regulatory Development Effort
Used to characterize occurrence of disinfectants, disinfection
byproducts (DBFs), and DBF precursors (e.g., total organic carbon
[TOC]) in large surface water (SW) and ground water (GW) systems.
Used as input to SWAT and the ICR Ground Water Delphi process.
Used to compare TOC occurrence in small, medium and large SW
systems.
Used to characterize operational characteristics, disinfection
practices, DBF occurrence and occurrence of DBF precursors (e.g.,
TOC) for small SW systems. DBF and DBF precursor data were
compared to that of large systems. Used to assess variability in
TTHM and HAAS occurrence in distribution systems of small SW
systems.
Used to compare operational characteristics, disinfection practices,
DBF occurrence, and DBF precursor occurrence of medium and
large SW systems and medium and large ground water GW systems
Used to compare TOC occurrence between small, medium, and large
GW systems
Used to compare TTHM occurrence on small GW systems to
occurrence in large GW systems.
Level 1
2
1
1
1
1
1
QA Plan? 2
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Peer
Reviewed? 2
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Notes:
1 .Level 1 data are those data that provide background information or context for a particular assessment or discussion, but are not deemed to be influential in
EPA's decision-making process. Level 2 data are those data that are deemed to be highly important or influential in EPA's decision-making process.
2. See Sections 1.4 and 1.5 in the Stage 2 DBPR Occurrence Document (USEPA 2005k) for a description of QA plans and/or peer review processes for each
existing data source shown.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
L-l
December 2005
-------
Appendix M
Ground Water Systems Adding Disinfection
Under the Ground Water Rule
-------
-------
Appendix M
Ground Water Systems Adding Disinfection Under the Ground Water Rule
M.I Introduction
This appendix presents an analysis of the potential increased risks caused by ground water
systems that are adding disinfection under the Ground Water Rule (GWR). When a system moves from
no disinfection to performing disinfection including chlorination or chloramination, there will be an increase
in chlorination disinfection byproducts (DBFs). Based on analyses in this EA, this increase in DBFs may
lead to a small increase in bladder cancer incidence.
The GWR was proposed in May 2000 but has not yet been finalized. Consequently, estimates of
the impacts of the ground water rule, including estimates of the number of people expected to become
exposed to chlorination disinfection byproducts as a result of the GWR, are not currently available.
However, based on available data, EPA anticipates that the number of people served by community
ground water systems expected to begin disinfecting as a result of the rule may be in the range of 1.0 to
1.5 million. Only community ground water systems are considered in this analysis since most people
served by non-community systems would not have long term exposure.
M.2 Current Risk per Lifetime per |ig DBFs
In order to quantify the potential increase in bladder cancer incidence from the addition of
disinfection from the GWR, it is necessary to make a simplifying assumption that bladder cancer risk per
unit DBF exposure is the same across all subpopulations. Based on the primary analysis in this EA, the
estimated annual Pre-Stage 1 bladder cancer cases from all sources is 56,506 (see section E.2 of
Appendix E). Using the Pre-Stage 1 PAR of 15.75% derived from the Villanueava et al. (2003) study as
described in Appendix E , the cases attributable to DBFs are 8,900, and the cases attributable to other
sources are 47,606 (by subtraction).
Two annual bladder cancer risk factors are computed using the Pre-Stage 1 bladder cancer cases
information and the total population served by disinfecting systems. The annual risk from DBFs is:
8,900 / 263,024,518 = 3.38 x 105 annual cases per person.
The annual risk from all other sources is:
47,6067 263,024,518 = 1.81 x 104 annual cases per person.
The DBP risk factor can be expressed in terms of DBP concentration (represented by TTHMs) by
dividing by the Pre-Stage 1 average TTHM concentration (38.0 |ig/L) to arrive at a value expressed in
the units of annual cases per person per |ig/L.
3.38 x 10'5 / 38.0 = 8.90 x 107 annual cases per person per |ig/L.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR M-l December 2005
-------
This value can be interpreted as the Pre-Stage 1 unit risk from exposure to DBFs. Since there is no
specific factor to relate to the unit risk from all other causes, for this group, the risk is expressed in only
annual cases per person (1.81 x 10"4).
M.3 Additional Risk for GW Populations Adding Disinfection
To estimate the potential added risk, the unit risk calculated in Section M.2 can applied to the
population newly exposed from the addition of disinfection from the GWR. As noted in Section M.I, the
number of people potentially newly exposed is 1.0 to 1.5 million . The estimated Post Stage 2 DBF
concentration in ground water systems (as represented by TTHM) is 13.75 |ig/L. Using a mid-point of
1.25 million people new exposed, the annual cases of bladder cancer from DBFs can therefore be
calculated as follows:
8.90 x 10-7 x 13.75 x 1,250,000 = 15.3 cases.
The annual cases of bladder cancer in this population from other causes can be calculated as follows:
1.81 x I0-4x 1,304,927 = 226.2 cases.
The total number of estimated cases in the newly exposed group at a steady-state is the sum of these two
(241.5 cases). This total sum of cases from DBFs and from other causes is necessary in order to
calculate a PAR for this newly exposed group. PAR is calculated as the number of cases attributable to
DBFs divided by the total number of cases:
15.3/241.5 = 6.34%
It is not expected, however, that the 15.3 new annual cases attributable to DBFs will begin to
occur immediately each year after these systems begin disinfecting as a result of the GWR. Rather,
these would be the "steady-state"annual cases attributable, achieved once those individuals served by
these systems have spent all or at least a substantial portion of their lives consuming water with these
DBF levels present. The next section considers information on latency available from the Villanueva et
al. (2003) study used to estimate the annual new cases each year following implementation of disinfection
prior to reaching this steady state value.
M.4 Accounting for Latency
To account for latency, and the lower number of attributable cases per year in the period after
disinfection begins, it is necessary to use exposure duration information from Villanueva et al. (2003)
together with the PAR calculated in Section M.3. EPA assumes that the PAR for this group is the value
attained at steady state, which in this analysis is assumed to be 100 years after rule promulgation. In
order to calculate the rate at which risk increases with exposure duration, the following equation was
used:
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR M-2 December 2005
-------
PAR. =t T-^ tr (Equation M.I)
[P. (Ť?'*** *>-l)]+l
Villanueva et al. (2003) modeled log odds ratio as a linear function of years exposure: ln(OR) =
slope * years of exposure (Kogevinas et al, 2005). In Equation M.I. above, erl°pe">' is, therefore, the OR
for y years exposure.
Pe, the fraction of the population exposed, is set to 1 since this equation is being applied to a
subpopulation assumed to all be drinking the newly disinfected drinking water. Using the PAR of 6.34 %
at 100 years (assuming steady state is reached at that point) from Section M.3 and Pe = 1, the slope is
calculated as 6.55 x 10~4, by rearranging Equation M.I as:
Slope = Va-0.0634/= 6 55xl0-4 (Equation M.2)
100
Using this slope, the cases attributable to DBFs can be calculated from the year-based PARs
using Equation M.I. As shown in Exhibit M.I, after consideration of latency, for the first 25 years
following rule promulgation, the cases per year range from 0.15 to 3.73, for an average of less than 2
cases per year.
M.5 Conclusions
EPA believes that although there is a potential for increased risk from these systems, this risk is
not significant. The addition of 2 cases per year will not have a significant effect on the benefits analysis
performed in this economic analysis. This is approximately 0.02 percent of the pre-Stage 1 baseline of
approximately 8,900 cases attributable to DBFs. For these reasons, EPA does not quantify this additional
risk as part of the Stage 2 economic analysis.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR M-3 December 2005
-------
Exhibit M.1 Total Annual Bladder Cancer Cases
Years after
Rule
Promulgation
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Total
Cases
226.24
226.39
226.54
226.69
226.84
226.98
227.13
227.28
227.43
227.58
227.73
227.88
228.03
228.18
228.33
228.48
228.62
228.77
228.92
229.07
229.22
229.37
229.52
229.67
229.83
229.98
230.13
230.28
230.43
230.58
230.73
230.88
231.03
231.18
231.33
231.49
231.64
231.79
231.94
232.09
232.24
232.40
232.55
232.70
232.85
233.01
233.16
233.31
233.46
233.62
233.77
Cases
from
DBFs
0.00
0.15
0.30
0.44
0.59
0.74
0.89
1.04
1.19
1.34
1.49
1.63
1.78
1.93
2.08
2.23
2.38
2.53
2.68
2.83
2.98
3.13
3.28
3.43
3.58
3.73
3.88
4.03
4.18
4.34
4.49
4.64
4.79
4.94
5.09
5.24
5.39
5.55
5.70
5.85
6.00
6.15
6.31
6.46
6.61
6.76
6.92
7.07
7.22
7.37
7.53
PAR
0.00%
0.07%
0.13%
0.20%
0.26%
0.33%
0.39%
0.46%
0.52%
0.59%
0.65%
0.72%
0.78%
0.85%
0.91%
0.98%
1 .04%
1.11%
1.17%
1 .24%
1 .30%
1 .37%
1 .43%
1 .49%
1 .56%
1 .62%
1 .69%
1 .75%
1 .82%
1 .88%
1 .94%
2.01%
2.07%
2.14%
2.20%
2.26%
2.33%
2.39%
2.46%
2.52%
2.58%
2.65%
2.71%
2.78%
2.84%
2.90%
2.97%
3.03%
3.09%
3.16%
3.22%
Years after
Rule
Promulgation
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
Steady State
Total
Cases
233.92
234.08
234.23
234.38
234.54
234.69
234.84
235.00
235.15
235.31
235.46
235.61
235.77
235.92
236.08
236.23
236.39
236.54
236.70
236.85
237.01
237.16
237.32
237.47
237.63
237.78
237.94
238.09
238.25
238.41
238.56
238.72
238.87
239.03
239.19
239.34
239.50
239.66
239.81
239.97
240.13
240.29
240.44
240.60
240.76
240.92
241 .07
241 .23
241 .39
241 .55
241.55
Cases
from
DBPs
7.68
7.83
7.99
8.14
8.29
8.45
8.60
8.75
8.91
9.06
9.22
9.37
9.52
9.68
9.83
9.99
10.14
10.30
10.45
10.61
10.76
10.92
11.07
11.23
11.38
11.54
11.70
11.85
12.01
12.16
12.32
12.48
12.63
12.79
12.94
13.10
13.26
13.41
13.57
13.73
13.89
14.04
14.20
14.36
14.52
14.67
14.83
14.99
15.15
15.30
15.30
PAR
3.28%
3.35%
3.41%
3.47%
3.54%
3.60%
3.66%
3.73%
3.79%
3.85%
3.91%
3.98%
4.04%
4.10%
4.17%
4.23%
4.29%
4.35%
4.42%
4.48%
4.54%
4.60%
4.67%
4.73%
4.79%
4.85%
4.92%
4.98%
5.04%
5.10%
5.16%
5.23%
5.29%
5.35%
5.41%
5.47%
5.54%
5.60%
5.66%
5.72%
5.78%
5.84%
5.91%
5.97%
6.03%
6.09%
6.15%
6.21%
6.27%
6.34%
6.34°/c
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
M-4
December 2005
-------
Appendix N
Cost Effectiveness Analysis Using a
Quality-Adjusted Life Years Approach
-------
-------
Appendix N
Cost Effectiveness Analysis Using a Quality-Adjusted Life Years Approach
N.l.O Introduction
This appendix provides a description and results of an experimental approach to developing a
cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) for the Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (DBPR)
using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). A previous regulatory impact analysis for the Final Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR, Appendix G, 2005) also explored using QALYs. Significant language from that
EPA report is used in this memorandum, even though the report is not always directly cited.
N.I.I Cost-effectiveness analysis
Health-based CEA has been used to analyze numerous health interventions but has not been
widely adopted as a tool to analyze environmental policies. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has issued Circular A-4 guidance on regulatory analyses, requiring federal agencies to
... prepare a CEA for all major rulemakings for which the primary benefits are improved
public health and safety to the extent that a valid effectiveness measure can be developed
to represent expected health and safety outcomes.1
Environmental quality improvements may have multiple health and ecological benefits, making
application of CEA more difficult. For the Stage 2 DBPR, CEA can provide a framework for analysis:
nonhealth benefits are few, and all of the quantified benefits come from health effects. Therefore, EPA is
including in the Stage 2 DBPR Economic Analysis (EA) a preliminary and experimental application of
one type of CEA-a quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) approach.
Analyses of environmental regulations have typically used benefit-cost analysis (BCA) to
characterize impacts on social welfare. BCA allows for aggregation of the benefits of reducing mortality
and morbidity risks with other monetized benefits of increasing water quality. One of the great
advantages of the benefit-cost paradigm is that a wide range of quantifiable benefits can be compared to
costs to evaluate the economic efficiency of particular actions. However, an alternative paradigm such as
CEA has also been used. CEA involves estimation of the costs per unit of benefit (e.g., lives or life years
saved) and may incorporate preference-based measures of effectiveness, such as QALYs.
CEA has been used for comparing programs that have similar goals, for example, alternative
medical interventions or treatments that can save a life or cure a disease. Specifically, QALY-based CEA
has been widely adopted within the health economics literature (Neumann, 2003; Gold et al., 1996) and in
the analysis of public health interventions (US FDA, 2004). In addition, the World Health Organization
has adopted the use of disability-adjusted life years, a variant on QALYs, to assess the global burden of
disease due to different causes, including environmental pollution (Murray et al., 2002; de Hollander et
al., 1999). The U.S. Public Health Service Panel on Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine
recommended using QALYs when evaluating medical and public health programs that primarily reduce
both mortality and morbidity (Gold et al., 1996).
1 Office of Management and Budget Circular A-4, September 17, 2003, page 9.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR N-l December 2005
-------
N.I.2 QALY methodology
When using a QALY rating system, health quality ranges from 0 to 1, where 1 may represent full
health, 0 death, and numbers in between (e.g., 0.8) represent an impaired condition. QALYs assume that
duration and quality of life are interchangeable, or "equivalent", so that 1 year spent in perfect health is
equivalent to 2 years spent with quality of life half that of perfect health. QALYs can be used to evaluate
environmental rules under certain circumstances, although some very strong assumptions (detailed below)
apply.
The application of QALYs is predicated on the assumptions embedded in the QALY analytical
framework. As noted in the QALY literature, QALYs are consistent with the utility theory that underlies
most of economics only if one imposes several restrictive assumptions, including independence between
longevity and quality of life in the utility function, risk neutrality with respect to years of life (which
implies that the utility function is linear), and constant proportionality in trade-offs between quality and
quantity of life (Pliskin, Shepard, and Weinstein, 1980; Bleichrodt, Wakker, and Johannesson, 1996). To
the extent that these assumptions do not represent actual preferences, the QALY approach will not
provide results that are consistent with a benefit-cost analysis based on the Kaldor-Hicks criterion.2
Even if the assumptions are reasonably consistent with reality, there are no guarantees that the
option with the largest QALYs saved per dollar cost will satisfy the Kaldor-Hicks criterion (i.e., generate
a potential Pareto improvement [Garber and Phelps, 1997]) because QALYs represent an average
valuation of health states rather than the sum of societal willingness to pay (WTP).
However, benefit-cost analysis based on WTP is not without potentially troubling underlying
structures as well because it incorporates ability to pay (and thus the potential for equity concerns) and the
notion of consumer sovereignty (which emphasizes wealth effects). Exhibit N.I compares the two
approaches across a number of parameters. For the most part, WTP allows parameters to be determined
empirically, while the QALY approach imposes some conditions a priori.
2 The Kaldor-Hicks efficiency criterion requires that the "winners" in a particular case be potentially able to
compensate the "losers" such that total societal welfare improves. In this case, it is sufficient that total
benefits exceed total costs of the regulation. This is also known as a potential Pareto improvement, because
gains could be allocated such that at least one person in society would be better off while no one would be
worse off.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR N-2 December 2005
-------
Exhibit N.1 Comparison of QALY and WTP Approaches
Parameter
Risk aversion
Relation of duration and quality
Proportionality of duration/ quality trade-off
Treatment of time/age in utility function
Preferences
Source of preference data
Treatment of income and prices
QALY
Risk neutral
Independent
Constant
Unit linear in time
Community/Individual
Stated
Not explicitly
considered
WTP
Empirically determined
Empirically determined
Variable
Empirically determined
Individual
Revealed and stated
Constrains choices
This analysis accounts for the loss in quality of life without consideration of the initial health state
and summarizes life years gained for the entire population. In some CEAs (Cohen, Hammitt, and Levy,
2003; Coyle et al., 2003), analysts have adjusted the number of life years gained to reflect the fact that 1)
the general public is not in perfect health and thus "healthy" life years are less than total life years gained
and 2) those affected by pollution may be in a worse health state than the general population and therefore
will not gain as many "healthy" life years adjusted for quality, from a pollution reduction.
Such adjustments would raise a number of serious ethical issues. Proponents of QALYs have
promoted the nondiscriminatory nature of QALYs in evaluating improvements in quality of life (e.g., an
improvement from a score of 0.2 to 0.4 is equivalent to an improvement from 0.8 to 1.0), so the starting
health status does not affect the evaluation of interventions that improve quality of life. However, for
life-extending interventions, the gains in QALYs will be directly proportional to the baseline health state
(e.g., an individual with a 30-year life expectancy and a starting health status of 0.5 will gain exactly half
the QALYs of an individual with the same life expectancy and a starting health status of 1.0 for a similar
life-extending intervention). This is troubling because it imposes an additional penalty for those already
suffering from disabling conditions.
OMB (2003) has recognized this issue in its Circular A-4 guidance, which includes the following
statement.
When CEA is performed in specific rulemaking contexts, you should be prepared to make
appropriate adjustments to ensure fair treatment of all segments of the population.
Fairness is important in the choice and execution of effectiveness measures. For example,
if QALYs are used to evaluate a lifesaving rule aimed at a population that happens to
experience a high rate of disability (i.e., where the rule is not designed to affect the
disability), the number of life years saved should not necessarily be diminished simply
because the rule saves the lives of people with life-shortening disabilities. Both analytic
simplicity and fairness suggest that the estimated number of life years saved for the
disabled population should be based on average life expectancy information for the
relevant age cohorts. More generally, when numeric adjustments are made for life
expectancy or quality of life, analysts should prefer use of population averages rather
than information derived from subgroups dominated by a particular demographic or
income group, (p. 13)
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR
N-3
December 2005
-------
Because of the fairness concerns discussed above, this analysis does not reduce the number of life years
gained to reflect any differences in underlying health status; rather, it assumes that all direct gains in life
years resulting from mortality risk reductions will be assigned a weight of 1.0. This estimate has been
combined with the QALYs saved from avoided cases of morbidity to yield a total life years saved from
avoided cases. The resulting effectiveness measure has been called "MILYs" (Morbidity Inclusive Life
Years) in the regulatory impact analysis for the Final CAIR Rule (2005) and this analysis of the cost
effectiveness of the Stage 2 DBPRuses the same terminology.
N.1.3 Concerns about the use of QALYs to evaluate environmental regulation
EPA is still evaluating the appropriate methods for application of CEA to environmental
regulations. To summarize, benefit-cost analysis has been the preferred method of choosing among
regulatory alternatives in terms of economic efficiency for environmental regulations. Most
environmental regulations have multiple categories of benefits, and environmental economists have
preferred to aggregate results in terms of monetary net benefits. QALY-based analyses also have not been
as accepted in the environmental economics literature because of concerns about the theoretical
consistency of QALYs with individual preferences (Hammitt, 2002), treatment of benefits other than
human health, and a number of other factors (Freeman, Hammitt, and De Civita, 2002). Concerns with
the standard QALY methodology include consistency of CEA indices across multiple contexts; the
treatment of people with fewer years to live (the elderly); fairness to people with preexisting conditions
that may lead to reduced life expectancy and reduced quality of life; and how the analysis should best
account for nonhealth benefits.
As an illustration of one of the major issues in ensuring consistency across CEAs conducted in
multiple contexts, it is useful to examine the degree of variability across QALY calibration
methodologies. A study by Erik Nord examined differences in the health-state scores that would result by
application of a wide range of multi-attribute utility instruments. As will be discussed later, one of these
instruments, the Rosser Kind Health Status Index (RKI), served as the basis for the QALY scores used in
this analysis. The results of the Nord study are summarized in Exhibit N.2 below (see Nord 1999 for
further details).
One interpretation of the data in Exhibit N.2 is that the variability in QALY estimates across
methods suggests that great care must be taken when comparing the results of CEAs that utilize different
QALY scoring systems. An alternative view is that the scoring systems may themselves be ideally suited
to specific types of effects, and therefore comparisons across scales are meaningless (e.g., some argue the
Quality of Well Being Scale is best for acute effects because it specifically addresses symptoms, while
other techniques may be better suited for injuries, life-threatening chronic conditions, and chronic
conditions where severity may vary over time). There are likely other interpretations of these results as
well. The main point is that comparisons to other CEAs must make explicit consideration of
standardization issues such as the use of QALY estimation methods.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR N-4 December 2005
-------
Exhibit N.2 Health-State Scores According to Rules of Thumb and Different
Multi-Attribute Utility Instruments
Instrument
Rules of Thumb
QWB
HUM
1
HUM
2
EuroQol
York EuroQol (TTO)
IHQL( D)
3
I HQL (complex)
15D
Rosser-Kind
Problem Level
Severe
.65 - .85
.45 - .55
.10 -.20
0.4
0.2
.20 - .25
.50 - .70
.70 - .75
0.77
0.68
Considerable
.90 - .94
.65 - .70
.30 - .40
0.7
0.6
.40 - .50
.75 - .85
.80 - .90
0.86
0.94
Moderate
.98 - .995
<.80
<.85
.90 - .94
0.7
0.8
.89 - .93
.90 - .94
.91 - .93
.97 - .98
Source: Nord (1999). Note that the estimates in this table represent health-state scores,
rather than QALY decrements from a baseline health state.
Some concerns with QALY applications may be addressed by The Institute of Medicine (IOM) (a
member institution of the National Academies of Science (NAS)), which has established the Committee
to Evaluate Measures of Health Benefits for Environmental, Health, and Safety Regulation to assess the
scientific validity, ethical implications, and practical utility of a wide range of effectiveness measures
used or proposed in CEA .3 This committee is expected to produce a report by the end of 2005; however,
it is not clear that members will necessarily reach a consensus on how to contend with the problems
associated with applying the QALY methodology to environmental regulations. In the interim, however,
agencies are expected to provide CEAs for rules covered by Circular A-4 requirements.
Therefore, the Stage 2 DBPR EA includes the following MILY-based analysis to illustrate one
potential approach for conducting a CEA. This is an experimental application, and EPA is still evaluating
the appropriate methods for applying CEA to environmental regulations with multiple outcomes. The
methodology presented in this section is not intended to stand as precedent for either future water quality
regulations or other EPA regulations: the appropriateness of MILY- or QALY-based CEA should be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
This analysis is based upon the estimated number of bladder cancer cases potentially avoided by
implementation of the Stage 2 DBPR. As a sensitivity analysis, the Stage 2 DBPR EA calculates
potentially avoided colon and rectal cancers for the Preferred Alternative only. Consistent with this
approach, this Appendix presents the MILYs saved for avoided bladder cancer cases in section 2.0, and a
sensitivity analysis based on potentially avoided colon and rectal cancers in section 3.0. Although a third
health endpoint, fetal losses, was identified as a potential area of benefit in the EA, this benefit was not
used as a sensitivity analysis in the EA and is not presented in this Appendix.
3 National Academies of Science, Institute of Medicine website for the CEA project is found at
http://www.iom.edu/proiect.asp?id=19739.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR
N-5
December 2005
-------
The remainder of this memorandum provides the step-by-step development of a MILY-based
measure of the cost-effectiveness of the Stage 2 DBPR, including the following steps:
Development of the MILY denominator. This includes determination of an
appropriate QALY decrement and its application to cases of morbidity,
calculation of life years saved from avoided cases of mortality, and integration of
morbidity and mortality cases into a total life years saved denominator (MILY).
Development of the cost numerator. Costs are composed of the regulatory costs
minus the costs for medical treatment and time losses that are avoided by
prevention of cases.
Finally, integration of the numerator and denominator to yield a cost-per-MILY
gained ratio.
N.2.0 Methods
The first step in the development of a cost-per-MILY ratio in this CEA is to determine the QALY
decrement per case of bladder cancer avoided to be used in the MILYs denominator. A QALY decrement
is the time-equivalent by which a person's years of life are reduced by the loss of quality of life due to
illness. EPA reviewed the health literature to determine an appropriate QALY decrement, as described
further in Section 2.1.1.1 of this appendix.
The QALY decrement is then used to derive the total quality-adjusted life years saved across the
population from a reduction in morbidity related to bladder cancers caused by drinking water
contaminated with disinfection byproducts4 (Section 2.1.1.2). The QALYs saved are added to the life
years saved from reductions in premature mortality from avoided fatal cases of such bladder cancers and
are then termed MILYs. The MILYs are the effectiveness measure (denominator) in the cost-per-MILY
ratio of this CEA.
The numerator of the cost-per-MILY gained measure is the cost of the regulation minus certain
costs associated with the illness that will be avoided after implementation of the regulation. The process
of determining these avoided costs and the resulting net cost numerator is described in Section 2.2 of this
memorandum.
Sections 2.1 - 2.3 below describe how the denominator (MILY units) and the numerator (dollar
units) are derived and used to calculate the cost effectiveness of the regulatory alternatives (net cost per
MILY gained). The following discussion will focus on MILYs saved from avoided cases of bladder
cancer, but will additionally present results based upon colon and rectal cancers that also may be avoided.
N.2.1 The CEA Denominator: Deriving MILYs
Promulgation of the Stage 2 DBPR is expected to achieve reductions in DBP concentration in
drinking water and in the incidence of bladder cancers, thereby avoiding cases of illness and death and
4 The derivation of cases to be avoided through promulgation of the Stage 2 DBPR is explained in detail in the EA
(Chapter 6 and Appendix E). Briefly, the EA estimates DBP reductions to occur in response to the rule, and assumes
that a 1 percent decrease in DBP concentration will result in a 1 percent decrease in the incidence of DBF-induced
bladder cancers.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR N-6 December 2005
-------
associated decrements to patients' quality of life. To capture these important benefits in the measure of
cost effectiveness, illnesses must first be converted into a life year equivalent (QALYs) so that they can
be combined with the direct gains in life expectancy from avoided premature mortality (Section 2.1.2 of
this Appendix).
The QALY calculation for morbidity requires three elements:5
the estimated change in incidence of the health condition
the duration of the health condition (estimated time-in-state)
the quality of life decrement due to the condition
The first element is derived using the health impact function approach, which requires computing
an estimate of the number of bladder cancer cases avoided by reduction in DBF concentration through
promulgation of the Stage 2 DBPR. The second element is based on the medical literature for each health
condition. The third element is derived by one of three methods, as described in Section 2.1.1.1 below.
N.2.1.1 Equivalent life years saved from avoided cases of morbidity
Calculating life years saved from avoided cases of morbidity involves developing a QALY
decrement and applying this to cases of morbidity. The QALY decrement converts a decrease in quality
of life due to illness to a time-equivalent. In this CEA, cases of morbidity include bladder cancers that are
ultimately fatal, but are preceded by a period of illness, and those that are non-fatal. Estimates of the
number of life years lost among patients who contract an ultimately fatal case are calculated separately.
N. 2.1.1.1 Developing the QALY decrement
There are multiple steps to developing the QALY decrement per case avoided in this CEA. First,
the appropriate quality of life decrements for the health conditions associated with a case of bladder
cancer are determined by the methods described in the next paragraph. Second, the Relative Survival
Rate (RSR) data from the EPA Cost of Illness Handbook (1999) is used to determine the probability of an
average case of bladder cancer resulting in one of three outcomes in each year over a 20-year period of
illness: survival; death from bladder cancer; or death from other causes. Twenty years is an estimate
provided by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) of the average duration of bladder cancer illness, and
NCI estimates that 26 percent of patients will ultimately die from the disease. Third, the cumulative
probabilities for each outcome over the 20-year period are multiplied by the time-in-state for each stage of
the illness, and by the QALY decrement identified for the health conditions at each stage. The resulting
QALY decrements for "survivors" and "non-survivors" represent a weighted average across all outcomes,
durations of each stage of illness, and severity of each stage of illness, for fatal and non-fatal cases,
respectively. The quality-of-life impacts are also discounted over the period of illness, back to the time of
initial diagnosis, so the estimates can be applied on a per case basis at the point of diagnosis. The two
final QALY decrements for survivors and nonsurvivors are then applied to the estimate of non-fatal and
fatal cases avoided, respectively (calculated as 74 percent and 26 percent of total cases avoided).
5 In some QALY calculations, two other elements are required: the quality of life weight with the health condition
and the quality of life weight without the health condition (i.e., the baseline health state). These elements would be
derived from the medical cost-effectiveness and cost-utility literature. In this CEA, however, these are immaterial
because there is no adjustment of benefits for differing baselines of health in the population: the health gain is
assumed the same for all individuals.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR N-7 December 2005
-------
Determining the appropriate health endpoints and associated QALY decrements
There are three methods by which a decrease in quality of life due to illness is quantified in the
form of a QALY decrement: "direct elicitation," "standardized questionnaire," and "database research."
The first involves primary research, where subjects in a survey setting are asked to express preferences
for specific health states expressed on the 0 to 1 interval, where 0 represents death and 1 represents
perfect health. Most of these studies apply a time-tradeoff, standard gamble, or rating scale elicitation
technique; sometimes multiple methods are applied. The more rigorous time-tradeoff and standard
gamble techniques are typically considered to yield more reliable estimates than the rating scale technique
(Gold, Stevenson, and Fryback, 2002). The direct elicitation method can be administered to samples of
patients with a given condition, to the general population (known as "community" samples), or to expert
panels.
The second method, "standardized questionnaire," also involves some primary survey work, but
is simpler to implement than the direct elicitation approaches. This method involves administering a
standardized set of questions that evaluate multiple aspects of an individual's health, including mobility,
degree of pain, and ability to provide care to oneself, and then using the answers to generate a QALY
score on the 0 to 1 scale. The QALY score is estimated using a formula, generated through prior
calibration work, for translating specific combinations of questionnaire answers. The formula is
questionnaire specific. This method can also be administered to different types of samples. Because of
its ease of use, many applications of this technique are conducted as an integral part of clinical trials for
specific treatment regimens. This facilitates calculating cost-effectiveness of various treatments of the
patient populations that are the subjects of the clinical trial. Occasionally, the standardized questionnaire
method is applied by study authors themselves, relying on their own expert judgment.
EPA adopted the third and simplest method, "database research," for use in this CEA, using
values from existing literature and requiring no new primary research. Several databases have been
developed to facilitate these literature searches; the most extensive is the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
database developed by researchers at Harvard University School of Public Health.6 As noted below,
EPA used this database, supplemented by broader literature searches, to identify studies that include
QALY scores for the health effects of bladder cancer.
Using existing literature requires some care in documenting the technique used to conduct the
study, the nature of the sample, and the match between the severity and duration of the health effect
studied and the health effect linked to drinking water contamination. The preferred sources of quality of
life weights are those based on community preferences, rather than patient or clinician ratings (Gold et al.,
1996). Several methods are used to estimate quality of life weights. These include the rating scale,
standard gamble, time trade-off, and person trade-off approaches (Gold, Stevenson, and Fryback, 2002).
Only the standard gamble approach is completely consistent with utility theory. However, the time
trade-off method has also been widely applied in eliciting community preferences (Gold, Stevenson, and
Fryback, 2002).
EPA has not yet developed formal guidance for the development of cost-effectiveness analyses to
support and evaluate regulatory actions. As noted elsewhere, EPA and other agencies are awaiting the
completion of the deliberations of an NAS Institute of Medicine panel that is reviewing application of
6 The Harvard CEA database is available online at the following URL:
http://www.hcra.harvard.edu/pdf/preferencescores.pdf. Two versions of the database are available, containing
citations with publication dates through 1997.
(www.hsph.Harvard.edu/cearegistry/data/phaselpreferenceweights.pdf), and containing citations with publication
dates from 1998 through 2001 (www.hsph.Harvard.edu/cearegistry/data/phase2preferenceweights.pdf).
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR N-8 December 2005
-------
cost-effectiveness analysis to regulatory actions before developing its own specific guidance. As a result,
for this economic analysis, EPA sought to rely on available literature for general guidance in selecting the
most appropriate studies to apply. In general, the recommendations adopted for this analysis are
consistent with recommendations made by the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, a
group of 13 nongovernment scientists and scholars with expertise in cost-effectiveness analysis that was
convened by the U.S. Public Health Service in 1993 (Gold et al, 1996). That panel developed
recommendations for methods to use in "Reference Case" CEAs in an effort to improve consistency
across applications of CEA in the public health and medicine fields.
Relying heavily on the recommendations in Gold et al. (1996), the criteria used to select the
highest-quality studies are the following:
1. Where available, reliance on studies administered to community-based samples. These
samples best match the attributes of the general population that is exposed to and potentially
at risk of health consequences from drinking water contaminants. Where community-based
studies are not available, preference is for patient samples, followed by expert panels and
author judgment (Gold etal., 1996).
2. Where available, reliance on directly administered time-trade-off or standard gamble studies
over studies that administer a standardized questionnaire (Gold, Stevenson, and Fryback,
2002). In some cases, however, direct method studies have very small sample sizes or other
major methodological shortcomings. In these cases, usage of judgment to select a study that
provides the most reliable estimate, or looking for consistency of results across several
studies.
3. Selection of studies with the best match of health effect to the health endpoint of interest. In
cases where the match is not good because of differences in severity or duration of effect, for
example, preference is for use of studies providing sufficient documentation to adjust the
estimates to better match the severity and duration of interest. Note that Gold et al. (1996)
discuss the need for clarifying the health effect of interest, and implicitly recommend that
analysts seek a good match in health effect definition. This criterion is derived from the
health benefits guidance for benefit valuation in EPA Guidelines for Preparing Economic
Analyses (USEPA 2000, p. 64).
The development of the QALY decrement as described above is shown in diagram form in
Exhibit N.3.
The QALY decrements applied in this CEA are based on pre-existing results from a standardized
questionnaire known as the Rosser Kind Health Status Index (Exhibit N.4), which was administered to 70
participants (doctors, nurses, and patients). The survey is general in that it focuses on the level of
disability and distress rather than symptoms specific to any one disease, and the patients who participated
were not necessarily cancer patients. The values were derived in Mauskopf and French (1991), and were
based on two conditions: 1)2 years of curative treatment for nonfatal bladder cancer; and 2) 2 years of
treatment for fatal bladder cancer. Using this method, each health status stage is assigned two values to
quantify the degree of distress and the degree of disability associated with each illness stage. There are
eight possible levels of disability and four levels of distress (Exhibit N.3). Every distress and disability
combination corresponds to a scaled utility index score determined by a panel of doctors, nurses, and
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR N-9 December 2005
-------
patients.7 Mauskopf and French multiply the QALY score (which is 1 minus the decrement) for each
health state by an estimate of the number of days spent in that state in the first 2 years of treatment.
For example, Mauskopf and French estimate that patients who are eventually cured of bladder
cancer will receive 1 day of radiation (a distress-disability score of 0.90* 1 day), while those who die will
receive 21 days of radiation (a distress-disability score of 0.90*21 days). They perform the same type of
calculation for other types of treatment experienced by bladder cancer patients, such as chemotherapy and
time spent in the hospital. Mauskopf and French calculate that, over the course of 2 years, bladder cancer
patients with an ultimately non-fatal case spend 548 days in some form of distress and disability; these
days receive a lower utility score relative to days without distress or disability. As a result of these
calculations, cured patients receive an average QALY score of 0.967 for each of the 2 years of treatment.
In contrast, Mauskopf and French assume that patients with fatal bladder cancer spend every day of the
2-year period in some form of distress or disability. The authors also assume that at the end of 2 years of
treatment, the 51 percent of patients with incurable cancer die (utility score 0.0), while the remaining 49
percent of patients go into complete remission (utility score 1.0).
This CEA utilizes the decrements developed by Mauskopf and French (1991) for specific distress
and disability states, but not the time-in-state or fatal risk assumptions (Exhibit N.4). The QALY
decrements derived from the study, however, have some clear limitations. First, the authors derive QALY
scores based on a combination of patient responses and clinical surveys, rather than generating the scores
directly from patient or community responses. Second, the study makes a number of simplifying
assumptions that may not accurately match the modeled scenario, such as assuming that after 2 years all
bladder cancer patients move to the extremes of either death or perfect health. Other simplifying
assumptions that do not match the modeled scenario for the Stage 2 analysis include the 51 percent
mortality rate; the lack of any maintenance period beyond two years from diagnosis; and the implicit
assumption that treatment from diagnosis differs for fatal versus non-fatal cases. Fortunately, these
assumptions in the Mauskopf and French analysis are very well documented, facilitating adjustments to
match our modeled scenario. These limitations are addressed in greater detail in a discussion of
time-in-state in subsequent paragraphs and in Section 2.2, in a discussion of time loss calculations. An
extensive search has not located other studies that assess bladder cancer with which to corroborate their
QALY decrement findings.
Bladder cancer is an unusual illness, as reported in the EPA Cost of Illness Handbook, for the
tendency of patients to experience elevated mortality (beyond background rates for non-patient cohorts)
beyond the 20-year period of illness that usually includes most fatalities. This analysis does not address
illness beyond the 20 years, but does address co-morbidities occurring within the 20 year period as a
result of treatment. This analysis adopts the direct medical costs from the Handbook, which are sourced
from Baker et al. (1979 and 1981) and which include all medical costs for cancer patients, minus usual
background medical costs. The Handbook states that "this incremental approach allows for the inclusion
of medical costs that are associated with treatment and side effects" (p. II.8-4).
7 For more information on the Rosser and Kind methodology, see Ian McDowell and Claire Newell, Measuring
Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires (Oxford University Press: New York, 1996), pp. 476-479.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR N-10 December 2005
-------
Exhibit N.3 QALY Decrement Development
Community Based
Samples
Available?
No
Patient Samples
Available
No
Expert Panels /
Author Judgment
Available
Yes
Time-
Trade Off
/ Standard
Gamble
Studies
Available?
No
Standardized
Questionnaire
Yes
Adequate
Sample
and Sound
Method
Available?
No
Use Best Available Studies and
Attempt Corroboration with
Multiple Studies
Yes
Endpoints
Match In
Severity
and
Duration
No
Yes
Decrement
Use Studies with
Documentation Sufficient to
Allow Duration and Severity
Differences to be Adjusted
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
N-ll
December 2005
-------
Exhibit N.4 The Rosser and Kind Disability Index
Disability
Level
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Disability Description
Unconscious
Not in 8 but confined to bed
Not in 7 but confined to chair or wheelchair or able to move around in the home
only with support from an assistant
Not in 6 but unable to undertake any paid employment. Unable to continue any
education. Elderly people confined to home except for escorted outings and short
walks and unable to do shopping. Housewives only able to perform a few simple
tasks.
Not in 5 but choice of work or performance at work very severely limited.
Housewives and the elderly able to do light housework only, but able to go out
shopping.
Not in 4 but severe social disability and/or slight impairment of performance at
work. Able to do all housework except very heavy tasks.
Not in 3 but slight social disability.
No disability.
"Adapted from Rosser RM. A health index and output measure. In: Walker SK, Rosser RM, eds. Quality of life
assessment and application. Lancaster MTP Press. 1987: Table 7.1."
Estimating Time-in-State
Most risk assessments provide only limited information on the time frame over which a nonfatal
effect is experienced or, in the case of a fatal effect, the period between diagnosis and mortality. In
addition, virtually no information is provided on the typical treatment course. This and other information
on the natural history of the disease is typically not critical to the completion of a benefit-cost analysis,
although there are exceptions, such as when a carefully constructed cost-of-illness estimate is developed
from a detailed natural history of typical disease progression.
Assessing the time-in-state for a "typical" case is also complicated by the wide range of courses a
disease can take. For consistency, estimates of QALY-based effectiveness in this analysis adopt a
year-by-year natural history that is consistent with that used to develop the medical cost-of-illness
estimates that are subtracted from the regulatory cost estimates in section 2.2 of this Appendix. The EPA
Cost of Illness Handbook (1999) provides these estimates. The estimate of the probability of death from
bladder cancer used by Mauskopf and French (1991) is inconsistent with that estimated in the Handbook
for bladder cancer. Mauskopf and French assume that 51 percent of patients with bladder cancer die after
2 years of treatment, while 49 percent go into complete remission after 2 years of treatment. The
Handbook cites data from NCI that 26 percent of individuals diagnosed with bladder cancer will
eventually die from the illness at some point over a period of 20 years, while the remaining 74 percent
will survive or die of other causes during the 20 years following diagnosis.
As noted above, the Agency has chosen to use the QALY decrement estimates derived from
Mauskopf and French, but to adjust them to reflect a path of progression for the disease that is consistent
with that developed in the Handbook. The Handbook discusses three stages of treatment: an initial
treatment period of three months duration following initial diagnosis that applies for both fatal and
non-fatal cases; a "maintenance" level of treatment that applies for the period following the initial period
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR
N-12
December 2005
-------
and continues until remission (20 years after diagnosis) or up to the terminal phase in a fatal case of
bladder cancer; and a six-month intense treatment period that immediately precedes death from bladder
cancer (or, in the case of deaths from other causes, a maintenance period up to the time of death).
To characterize the first year after diagnosis, a QALY decrement of 0.065 was derived. For the
purpose of this analysis, the first 3 months of treatment are assumed to be similar in level of distress and
disability to that described by Mauskopf and French; all of the first year treatment days outlined by
Mauskopf and French are included in the initial 3-month treatment period of this analysis. The QALY
score for the first 3 months, 0.819, is the result of a weighted average of the Mauskopf and French QALY
score for non-fatal cancer and for fatal cancer, assuming that 26 percent of cases will be fatal. This
weighting reflects our assumption, derived from the Handbook, that during the initial treatment period
there is no ability to distinguish between ultimately fatal and non-fatal cases, but also recognizes that the
Mauskopf and French analysis is likely attempting to reflect different levels of treatment for different
severity levels of the disease. The second assumption is that the next 9 months of treatment will be
similar to Mauskopf and French's second year of treatment for non-fatal cases (with a QALY score of
0.973 for all days, which translates to an implied QALY decrement of 0.027 from a perfect health
baseline).
For subsequent years, QALY estimates are provided for the last 6 months of treatment before
death as well as for maintenance treatment for cases that do not end in death in any year. The QALY
score for this period is based on Mauskopf and French's estimate of the quality of life in the second year
of treatment in incurable patients (0.565), which the Agency believes is a good characterization of the
level of intense treatment and palliative care that occurs in the six-month period just prior to death. The
most severe treatment days outlined by Mauskopf and French are included in the 6-month period prior to
death from bladder cancer, and the analysis yields a QALY decrement of 0.435 that applies to all days in
that 6-month period. For all years of treatment not ending in death, Mauskopf and French's second year of
treatment for curable patients, which translates into a QALY decrement of 0.027, is used. As described in
the introduction to Section 2.1.1.1, the RSR (relative survival rate) is used to determine the probability
that a patient will follow either of the three outcomes in a given year (survival, death from bladder cancer,
or death from other causes), and a calculation is performed separately for both survivors and
non-survivors (who have different RSRs and conditional probabilities of experiencing each outcome).
The time in state, associated QALY scores, and adaptation of both to the Handbook's 20 year
disease progression are presented in Exhibit N.5a-d.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR N-13 December 2005
-------
Exhibit N.5a Derivation of Time in State and QALDs Lost1 for Bladder Cancer Cases
Health State/
Treatment
Hospital days
Days hospital recovery
Chemo days
Days chemo recovery
Radiation days
Days radiation recovery
Mild distress days4
Nursing home days
Partial disability days5
Total disability days
Total3
Non-Fatal
Time in State over 2
years of disease
progression as
defined by M&F
Yearl
A
10
8
0
0
1
1
71.5
0
0
0
91.5
Year 2
B
7
6
0
0
0
0
170
183
Disability
Index
C
7
6
5
4
5
4
1
QALY
Score1
for
Health
State
D
0.000
0.680
0.900
0.956
0.900
0.956
0.995
QALY
Decrement2
E = 1 -D
1.000
0.320
0.100
0.044
0.100
0.044
0.005
QALDs Lost in 2
years of disease
progression as
defined by M&F
Year 1 Year 2
F = A*E
10.00
2.56
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.04
0.36
0.00
0.00
0.00
13.06
G = B* E
7.00
1.92
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.85
0.00
0.00
0.00
9.77
Fatal
Time in State over
2 years of disease
progression as
defined by M&F
Yearl
H
18
14
3
3
7
3
43.5
0
0
0
91.5
Year 2
I
35
28
24
24
14
7
0
7
2.5
41
182.5
Disability
Index
J
7
6
6
5
6
5
1
7
4
6
QALY
Score1
for
Health
State
K
0.000
0.680
0.680
0.900
0.680
0.900
0.995
0.000
0.956
0.680
QALY
Decrement2
L= 1-K
1.000
0.320
0.320
0.100
0.320
0.100
0.005
1.000
0.044
0.320
QALDs Lost in 2
years of disease
progression as
defined by M&F
Year 1 Year 2
M = H*L
18.00
4.48
0.96
0.30
2.24
0.30
0.22
0.00
0.00
0.00
26.50
N = I*L
35.00
8.96
7.68
2.40
4.48
0.70
0.00
7.00
0.11
13.12
79.45
Footnotes: 1) Mauskopf & French (1991) (M&F) present QALY scores from previous work by Rosser and Kind. The QALY score represents the degree of wellness experienced while in a
given health state, i.e., M&F show that for days in the hospital a person has zero wellness on a scale of 0 to 1.0, with 1.0 being perfect health. 2) The QALY decrement is equal to the
decrease in wellness from the patients' initial state prior to illness to health state caused by the illness. In Mauskopf & French, Table IV (p. 624) rates the initial state at 1.0, or perfect health,
when the person is not experiencing the effects of the illness. Therefore, the decrement is 1.0 minus the QALY score that M&F present. 3) QALDs are "Quality Adjusted Life Days." 4) Year 1
Mild Distress Days - reduced from 345 to 90 (non-fatal case) and from 317 to 43.5 (fatal case) to reflect the length of time spent in a given state to which this score was applied (1st yr M&F
became first 3 months of Handbook disease progression) and to subtract from that time period the number of days spent in greater distress during that period so as not to double count the
lack of wellness in a given period.
5) For "Partial Disability Days" for a fatal case in the 2nd yr as defined by M&F (Column I), the exhibit shows 2.5 days; this was 41 days in M&F, but was minimized here so as not to exceed
the number of days in the period (total 182.5). Similarly, M&F presents 144 Mild distress days in the 2nd year of fatal illness, which are shown as "0" in this exhibit so as not to exceed the
total number of days in the terminal period of 6 months (182.5 days, all at some level of distress as shown above).
Source: Mauskopf & French (1991)
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
N-14
December 2005
-------
Exhibit N.5b QUALY Decrement Derivation for Bladder Cancer Cases Based on 10 Year Disease Progression1
1)1-3 Months Post Diagnosis
QALY decrement = QALDs lost/days in period = 1 3.06 / 91 .5 days (non-fatal) and 26.50 / 91 .5 days (fatal) =
Wtd. Avg. QALY decrement2 = ((non-fatal QALDs * .74) + (fatal QALDs * .26)) =
2) Maintenance Year (based on M&F 2nd yr of non-fatal):
Annual maintenance decrement = QALDs / days in period = (8.92 QALDs / 365 days) =
3) First Year (wtd avg of first 3 months' QALY decrement and 9 months of Maintenance Year QALY decrement)
QALY decrement Months 1 - 3 = (0.181 * .25 yr) =
QALY decrement Months 4 - 12 = (.027 * .75 yr) =
Total QALY decrement Year 1 = .045 + .020 =
4) Terminal 6 mos.
QALY decrement for terminal yr = QALDs lost / days in period = (79.45 days / 1 82.5 days) =
Terminal 6 mos. decrement = (decrement for terminal year) * 0.5 = (.435 * 0.5) =
Non-
Fatal
0.14
Fatal
0.29
0.181
Non-Fatal and
Fatal
0.027
Non-Fatal and
Fatal
0.045
0.020
0.065
Fatal
0.435
0.218
Footnotes: 1) 20 year disease progression is from the EPA CO/ Handbook (1998), and is considered a more reasonable approximation of bladder cancer disease progress
than the 2 years described in Mauskopf & French (1991) (M&F). In this exhibit, M&F'stime in state and estimates of QALD's lost (Exhibit N.5a) are compressed or expanded
to fit the 20 year disease progression, as described in the 4 steps detailed above. 2) Based on 74% survival rate, from EPA CO/ Handbook (1998)
Source: Exhibit N.5a, Mauskopf & French (1991)
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
N-15
December 2005
-------
Exhibit N.5c QUALY Decrement Derivation for Bladder Cancer Cases Based on 10 Year Disease Progression1
Yr1, Months 1-3 '' ' "'"""I" \'~"' """ Yr 1 Total
Yr 1, Months 4-12, and
Yrs. 2-20
0.5 Yrs. Prior to
Death
C ^\f
Nnn-Fatal
Presenteeism 1 day * .5 = .5 day rj days
^ (
.50 days
.5 days*. 25
\r ^
N/A
Days Lost °a' days from M&F, Yr. 1
(19 + 0.5 days)* 0.74
Fatal
Presenteeism
Days Lost
13 total days from M&F, Yr. 2
39.91 total lost days
13.23 total lost days if die of other
causes ((39.91 days * .25) +
(13 days*.25)= 13.23)
0 days
48 days in M&F, Yr. 1
48*0.26
Same as Non-Fatal up until the
last 6 months of life; (see ".5 Yrs.
Prior to Death" column at far
right).
Wtd Avg
Presenteeism
Days Lost
.50 days
.13 days if die of other causes
(.5 days*.25 = .13 days)
39.91 days
13.23 days if die of other causes
((39.91 days * .25)+(13 days*.25)
= 13.23)
2.5 days*.5 = 1.25 days
180 days in M&F, Yr. 2
180+ 1.25= 181.25
N/A
N/A
N/A
(19.5*.74)+ (48*.26) = 26.91
Notes: Days lost and Presenteeism days are derived from Mauskopf & French (year) and the Rosser Kind Disability Index scale on which M&F based
their QALY decrements for bladder cancer (Exhibit N.5a). Days indexed at 5 - 10 are considered lost days to the patient, and days indexed at 3 or 4
are considered days of presenteeism. For the first 3 months after diagnosis, a weighted avg of days lost is used to reflect that the status of the case
(non-fatal or fatal) is not known at that time. The 20 year total per average case is calculated using the probability matrix based on relative survival
rates from the EPA COI Handbook (Exhibits N.5d).
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
N-16
December 2005
-------
Exhibit N.5d Application of Probabilities of Outcomes! to QALY Decrements
Years post-
diagnosis (n )
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Non-Fatal
Bladder Cancer,
Conditional
Probability of
Surviving
through the n th
year
0.966
0.934
0.900
0.865
0.828
0.791
0.752
0.713
0.672
0.631
0.589
0.546
0.503
0.459
0.415
0.376
0.341
0.309
0.281
0.255
Non-Fatal Bladder
Cancer, Condi tiona
1 Probability of
Dying of some
other cause in the
n th year
0.034
0.033
0.034
0.035
0.036
0.037
0.039
0.040
0.041
0.041
0.042
0.043
0.043
0.044
0.044
0.039
0.035
0.032
0.028
0.025
QALY
decrement
associated with
survival,
undiscounted
0.065 2
0.027 3
0.027
0.027
0.027
0.027
0.027
0.027
0.027
0.027
0.027
0.027
0.027
0.027
0.027
0.027
0.027
0.027
0.027
0.027
QALY
decrement
associated
with
survival,
discount 3%
0.065
0.026
0.025
0.025
0.024
0.023
0.023
0.022
0.021
0.021
0.020
0.020
0.019
0.018
0.018
0.017
0.017
0.016
0.016
0.015
QALY
decrement
associated
with
survival,
discount 7%
0.065
0.025
0.024
0.022
0.021
0.019
0.018
0.017
0.016
0.015
0.014
0.013
0.012
0.011
0.010
0.010
0.009
0.009
0.008
0.007
Total QALY loss for Non-Fatal cases of bladder cancer
Annual QALY
loss,
undiscounted
0.06455
0.02566
0.02476
0.02383
0.02284
0.02186
0.02083
0.01979
0.01870
0.01759
0.01647
0.01532
0.01416
0.01299
0.01180
0.01068
0.00968
0.00878
0.00797
0.00722
0.375
Annual
QALY loss,
discount 3%
0.065
0.025
0.023
0.022
0.020
0.019
0.017
0.016
0.015
0.013
0.012
0.011
0.010
0.009
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.312
Annual
QALY loss,
discount 7%
0.065
0.024
0.022
0.019
0.017
0.016
0.014
0.012
0.011
0.010
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.255
Footnotes: 1) Each diagnosed case has a probability in a given year in the 20 year illness horizon to experience 1 of 3 potential
outcomes: survival, death from bladder cancer, and death from other causes, based on the relative survival rates. 2) Non-Fatal cases
1st year = (wtd avg of fatal / nonfatal for months 1 - 3) + (9 months of a Maintenance Year for months 4 -12) =
(.181 QALYs/yr * .025 yr) + (.027 QALYs/yr * .075 yr) = .065 QALYs. 3) Non-Fatal cases Yrs 2 -19 (inclusive) will be Maintenance Yrs.,
equal to decrement for 2nd year of Non-Fatal in M&F = .027.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
N-17
December 2005
-------
Exhibit N.5d continued Application of Probabilities of Outcomes! to QALY Decrements
Years post-
diagnosis (ť )
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Fatal Bladder
Cancer,
Conditional
Probability of
Surviving
through the
n th year
0.494
0.451
0.410
0.371
0.334
0.299
0.266
0.234
0.205
0.177
0.151
0.127
0.105
0.085
0.067
0.051
0.036
0.023
0.011
0.000
Fatal Bladder
Cancer,
Conditional
Probability of
Dying of
bladder cancer
in the n th year
0.506
0.043
0.041
0.039
0.037
0.035
0.033
0.031
0.030
0.028
0.026
0.024
0.022
0.020
0.018
0.016
0.015
0.013
0.012
0.011
Total
QALY
decrement
associated
with death in
year n,
undiscounted
0.154
0.218
0.218
0.218
0.218
0.218
0.218
0.218
0.218
0.218
0.218
0.218
0.218
0.218
0.218
0.218
0.218
0.218
0.218
0.218
QALY loss for
QALY
decrement
associated
with death
in year n ,
discount 3%
4 0.154
5 0.212
0.205
0.200
0.194
0.188
0.183
0.177
0.172
0.167
0.162
0.157
0.153
0.148
0.144
0.140
0.136
0.132
0.128
0.124
QALY
decrement
associated
with death
in year n ,
discount
7%
0.154
0.204
0.190
0.178
0.166
0.155
0.145
0.136
0.127
0.119
0.111
0.104
0.097
0.090
0.085
0.079
0.074
0.069
0.064
0.060
Fatal cases of bladder cancer
QALY loss for
fatal cases,
undiscounted
0.11
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.310
QALY loss
for fatal
cases,
discount
3%
0.11
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.274
QALY loss
for fatal
cases,
discount
7%
0.11
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.241
4) Fatal cases Yr. 1 = First 3 mos. Spent in diagnositics (same as Survivors, because at that point don't know case is fatal).
Months 4-6 spent in terminal phase. (.181/yr * .25 yr) + (.435/yr * .25 yr) = 0.154. 5) Assume fatality occurs halfway through
year: 0.435/yr * 0.5 yr = .218.
Sources: Probabilities are from the EPA CO/ Handbook (1998). The Handbook develops these estimates based on a
cohort diagnosed at age 70, which is the mean age of diagnosis. Decrements are adapted from Mauskopf & French (1991).
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
N-18
December 2005
-------
Using the information and methods described above, this analysis calculates the weighted average
QALY loss per case of morbidity associated with fatal and non-fatal bladder cancer (Exhibit N.6).
Exhibit N.6 QALY Loss Due to Morbidity for an Average Case (Fatal and
Non-Fatal) of Bladder Cancer at 3 Percent and 7 Percent Discount Rates
Non-Fatal
Fatal
Undiscounted
0.375
0.310
3 Percent
0.312
0.274
7 Percent
0.255
0.241
Sources: QALY estimates used to generate this table were developed
based on Mauskopf and French (1991). Decrements shown are fora
weighted average case, calculated using probabilities of survival that are
taken from The EPA Cost of Illness Handbook (p. II.8-27, downloaded at
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/coi/ in January 2005). The Handbook presents
20 years as a reasonable approximation of the period over which most
fatalities in a given cohort will occur.
Note: The QALY loss associated with morbidity is greater for survivors
than nonsurvivors because they live longer, and endure the illness longer,
on average.
The next section of this appendix applies the bladder cancer QALY decrement to all estimated
cases of bladder cancer morbidity that the Stage 2 DBPR is expected to prevent.
N.2.1.1.2
Applying the QALY decrement to cases of morbidity
An estimate of the number of bladder cancer cases that are predicted to be avoided by
promulgation of the Stage 2 DBPR is developed in the EA of this rule. This estimate is based upon the
smoking/lung cancer cessation lag model which accounts for the lapse in time following the reduction in
DBFs exposure prior to realization of the full benefit of the rule. The full benefit is realized in the
population when enough time has lapsed so that the reduced concentration of DBFs in drinking water has
achieved its maximal potential reductive effect on the number of bladder cancer cases being diagnosed in
the population. This improved state is called the new "steady state" of the level of bladder cancer cases
diagnosed that are caused by accumulated exposure to public drinking water. This model uses Total
Trihalomethanes (TTHMs) as an indicator for DBFs in drinking water.
The number of cases to be avoided as shown in this Appendix is less than the numbers shown in
the main EA of the Stage 2 DBPR. This is because the EA performs a discounting of the results in the
valuation step, whereas this Appendix discounts the cases prior to valuation (from the diagnosis back to
rule implementation) to make presentation of the methods for this analysis clearer. The QALY decrement
and avoided medical costs are both discounted only over the period of illness, so the discounting can be
thought of as occurring in two separate and subsequent phases for a given case avoided.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR
N-19
December 2005
-------
The sequence of events that are modeled and the discounting procedure used in this analysis is as
follows:
1. The rule is promulgated, leading to reductions in exposures in all years following
promulgation. For example, after rule promulgation in 2005, exposures to disinfection
by-products in some systems are reduced in the year 2010.
2. As a result of the exposure reduction in 2010, some bladder cancer cases are avoided right
away, in 2010. Others take time to manifest as benefits of the reduced exposure - that is, the
benefit is realized after a cessation time lag. For example, some benefits won't be realized
until 2015.
3. A case that would have been diagnosed in 2015, but is prevented by the rule, would have
resulted in treatment for up to the next 20 years - that is, the 20 year follow-up period that we
use to model the effects on quality of life.
The procedure used in this analysis is designed to recognize time delays associated with steps 2
and 3 above. Discounting is performed at the same rates (3 and 7 percent), but in separate procedures, for
these two sequential time delays.
Standard economic theory suggests that benefits occurring in future years should be discounted
relative to benefits occurring in the present. In Circular A-4, OMB presents the following discussion:
When future benefits or costs are health-related, some have questioned
whether discounting is appropriate, since the rationale for discounting
money may not appear to apply to health. It is true that lives saved today
cannot be invested in a bank to save more lives in the future. But the
resources that would have been used to save those lives can be invested
to earn a higher payoff in future lives saved. People have been observed
to prefer health gains that occur immediately to identical health gains
that occur in the future. Also, if future health gains are not discounted
while future costs are, then the following perverse result occurs: an
attractive investment today in future health improvement can always be
made more attractive by delaying the investment. For such reasons, there
is a professional consensus that future health effects, including both
benefits and costs, should be discounted at the same rate. This consensus
applies to both BCA and CEA. (p. 34)
In applying QALY decrements, discounting of the decrement is necessary only if participants in
the QALY elicitation process considered years gained in the future to be of equal value to those gained in
the present. This analysis assumes that respondents to the Rosser Kind Health Status Index survey did
not incorporate any discounting in their responses (note that the Mauskopf and French analysis assumes
only two year follow-up period, for example), although the factors that respondents took into account
cannot now be determined. Whether a QALY decrement has embedded discounting is unclear in the
literature, and may vary with the method of elicitation used. For example, QALY decrements based upon
the time-trade off method of elicitation "...implicitly assume that additional years of life are valued
equally, that is, there is no discounting of health years" (Boardman et al, 1996). Similarly, OMB states
that the QALY survey process "implicitly assumes that the fraction of remaining lifespan an individual
would give up for an improvement in health-related quality of life does not depend on the remaining
lifespan" (OMB, 2003). The NAS/IOM panel on CEA is currently considering this and other issues, on
which it may (or may not) reach consensus by publication of its report, expected in late 2005.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR N-20 December 2005
-------
Because implementation and monitoring costs occur before any health benefits begin and the
costs to install technology are assumed in the analysis to be incurred the year before benefits accrue, the
overall CEA results are sensitive to the discount rate used. EPA and OMB guidance documents suggest
discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. A 3 percent discount rate reflects the accepted "social rate of time
preference" and is consistent with recommendations of both the U.S. Public Health Service Panel on Cost
Effectiveness in Health and Medicine and the NAS panel on CEA (Gold et al., 1996). To examine the
impact of the choice of discount rate, EPA also calculates all values of this CEA using a 7 percent rate,
consistent with an "opportunity cost of capital" concept to reflect the time value of resources directed to
meet regulatory requirements, as recommended by OMB guidance. Further discussion of this topic
appears in Chapter 7 of Gold et al. (1996) and in Chapter 6 of the EPA Guidelines for Economic
Analysis.
As described previously in the third paragraph of this section, the discount rates (3 percent and 7
percent) are applied to the period between rule promulgation and diagnosis by discounting the cases; and
to the period after diagnosis by discounting the QALY decrement throughout the 20 years of illness.
Finally, using the equations below, which illustrate the calculation for a 7 percent discount rate,
the annualized estimate of bladder cancer cases to be avoided is multiplied by the QALY decrement per
case of bladder cancer to yield a total estimated number of QALYs saved (Exhibit N.7).
(0.255 QALYs per case) X (annualized non-fatal bladder cancer cases)
(0.241 QALYs per case) X (annualized fatal bladder cancer).
The morbidity (QALY decrement) per case is higher for survivors because morbidity is, on
average, experienced for a longer time by that group. As mentioned earlier in this Appendix,
approximately 26 percent of patients will not survive the estimated 20-year period of illness.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR N-21 December 2005
-------
Exhibit N.7 QALYs Saved for Morbidity Related to Fatal and Non-Fatal Cases of
Bladder Cancer Avoided, by Rule Alternative, 3 and 7 Percent Discount Rates
Rule
Alternative
Cases
Avoided
A
Non-Fatal
Cases1
B = A*0.74
Fatal Cases1
C = A * 0.26
Morbidity-Related QALYs2
Non-Fatal Cases
D = B * .312 QALYs/case (3%)
D = B * .255 QALYs/case (7%)
Fatal Cases
E = C * .274 (3%)
E = C * .241 (7%)
Morbidity-Related
QALYs, Fatal and
Non -Fatal Cases
F = D + E
3 Percent
Preferred
Alternative 13
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
238
215
806
1,112
176
159
596
823
62
56
210
289
55
50
186
257
17
15
57
79
72
65
243
336
7 Percent
Preferred
Alternative 13
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
189
171
640
883
140
126
474
654
49
44
166
230
36
32
121
167
12
11
40
55
47
43
161
222
Sources: Column A: Exhibits E 17, 19-21(d) in Appendix E
Notes: Estimates are discounted and annualized. Based on TTHM as an indicator, Villanueva et al. (2003) for baseline risk, and
smoking/lung cancer cessation lag model. Some numbers may not add correctly due to rounding. Assumes 26 percent of cases are
fatal, 74 percent are non-fatal (USEPA 1999a). EPA recognizes that benefits may be as low as zero since causality has not yet been
established between exposure to chlorinated water and bladder cancer.
Footnotes: 1) Per the EPA CO/ Handbook, 20 years captures most deaths that result from bladder cancer, and the mortality rate
over that period is 26%. As modeled in the relative survival rate analysis used in the Handbook, the age of the individual does not
affect the mortality rate for bladder cancer, but does affect the mortality rate for death from all other causes, consistent with standard
life tables. 2) QALY decrements derived using QALY scores from Mauskopf and French and duration, stages of illness, and relative
survival rates from the Handbook. 3) Alternative 1 appears to have fewer benefits than the Preferred Alternative because it does not
incorporate the IDSE, as explained in Chapter 4. Furthermore, this EA does not quantify the benefits of reducing the MCL for
bromate (and potentially associated cancer cases), a requirement that is included only in Alternative 1.
N.2.1.2 Life years saved from avoided cases of premature mortality from bladder cancer
As shown in the previous section, the denominator of the CEA ratio includes QALYs saved (in
the form of life year equivalents) from avoided morbidity in non-fatal cases of bladder cancer.
Additionally, it includes life years saved that are associated with the pre-death morbidity for avoided fatal
cases. A different method applies for calculating life years saved from avoided premature mortality, as
this section will show. This computation, which does not involve a QALY decrement, is simply the
aggregate number of projected life years saved for individuals in the population who would die
prematurely from bladder cancer without the regulation.
According to the Handbook (1999), the average age of onset is 70. This analysis uses the relative
survival rates that are developed in the Handbook which are based on a cohort diagnosed at the mean age
of 70. A more detailed analysis would consider the distribution of age of onset, and model RSR for each
cohort, but that would require significantly more resources and is not likely to add significantly to the
precision of our CEA results.
This analysis computes the number of years of life expectancy preserved for cases avoided
through implementation of the Stage 2 DBPRthat would have ultimately been fatal. For each single-year
cohort aged 70 to 90, Exhibit N.8 shows the life expectancy for the general population (National Vital
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR
N-22
December 2005
-------
Statistics Reports8). Each cohort aged 70 to 90 is associated with an estimated probability of survival
through the end of that year, based on the condition that one has survived until that year. The conditional
probability of dying of bladder cancer in the nth year (n = 1 to 20, or age 70 to 90) for bladder cancer
nonsurvivors is then multiplied by the number of remaining years of life expectancy for each given
cohort. The resulting product is the life expectancy for each cohort that is proportional to the probability
that a case will be fatal in that cohort. These proportions are summed across the 20 cohorts, yielding a
weighted average life expectancy per fatal case avoided. The annualized number of fatal cases avoided is
then multiplied by this average weighted life expectancy to produce an annualized number of life years
saved for avoided mortality (Exhibit N.9). Because this analysis assumes that all cases are diagnosed at
the age of 70, it will likely underestimate the number of years of life expectancy preserved across the
population by promulgation of the rule.
8 National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 51, No. 3, December 29, 2002, "Life table for the total population: United
States, 2000."
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR N-23 December 2005
-------
Exhibit N.8 Life Years Saved Per Fatal Case of Bladder Cancer Avoided
Age
X
A
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
Percent of patients who
die of bladder cancer in
period X
B
50.6%
4.3%
4.1%
3.9%
3.7%
3.5%
3.3%
3.1%
3.0%
2.8%
2.6%
2.4%
2.2%
2.0%
1.8%
1.6%
1.5%
1.3%
1.2%
1.1%
1.0
Life Expectancy
at age X
C
13.8
13.1
12.5
11.9
11.3
10.7
10.2
9.6
9.1
8.6
8.1
7.6
7.2
6.7
6.3
6.0
5.6
5.3
5.0
4.7
Undiscounted
life years saved,
per fatal case
D=B*C
6.98
0.56
0.51
0.46
0.42
0.37
0.34
0.30
0.27
0.24
0.21
0.18
0.16
0.13
0.11
0.10
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
11.62
Life years saved, per
fatal case (3%)
E = D/(1.03A(X-70))
6.78
0.53
0.47
0.41
0.36
0.31
0.27
0.23
0.21
0.18
0.15
0.13
0.11
0.09
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.03
10.53
Life years saved, per
fatal case (7%)
F = D/(1.07A(X-70))
6.53
0.49
0.42
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.21
0.17
0.15
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.07
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
9.44
Notes: Based on Table II.8-6, EPA Cosf of Illness Handbook. Estimates are discounted and annualized. EPA recognizes that
benefits may be as low as zero since causality has not yet been established between exposure to chlorinated water and bladder
cancer.
Footnote 1: 70 years of age is the mean age of diagnosis, and is used in the Handbook as the age of diagnosis for a cohort for
whom mortality was tracked. In the absence of information on mortality for cohorts diagnosed at other ages, the Handbook
estimates of Relative Survival Rates are the basis of calculations of the mortality rate applied to all cases (and all age cohorts)
considered in this analysis . According to the Handbook, 43.4% of all bladder cancers are diagnosed before the age of 70 (p. 11.8-
4).
Source: Column C: National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 51, No. 3, December 29, 2002, "Life table for the total
population: United States, 2000
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR
N-24
December 2005
-------
Exhibit N.9 Total Life Years Saved for Fatal Cases of Fatal Bladder Cancer
Avoided, by Rule Alternative
Regulatory Alternative
Fatal Cases
A
Life Years Saved
B = A * 10.53
3% Discount Rate
Preferred Alternative
Alternative I1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
62
56
210
289
653
588
2,205
3,043
7% Discount Rate
Preferred Alternative
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
A
49
44
166
230
B = A * 9.44
463
419
1,572
2,168
Notes: Estimates are discounted and annualized over the 25 year period
of analysis. Notes: Based on TTHM as an indicator, Villanueva et al.
(2003) for baseline risk, and smoking/lung cancer cessation lag model.
Some numbers may not add correctly due to rounding. Assumes 26
percent of cases are fatal, 74 percent are non-fatal (USEPA 1999a). EPA
recognizes that benefits may be as low as zero since causality has not yet
been established between exposure to chlorinated water and bladder
cancer.
Footnote 1: Alternative 1 appears to have fewer benefits than the
Preferred Alternative because it does not incorporate the IDSE, as
explained in Chapter 4. Furthermore, this EA does not quantify the
benefits of reducing the MCL for bromate (and potentially associated
cancer cases), a requirement that is included only in Alternative 1.
Sources: Column A: Exhibits E.38a, E40.a - E.41a
Column B: Exhibit N.8
N.2.1.3 MILYs saved from reduced morbidity and premature mortality for avoided cases of bladder
cancer
The use of QALYs allows for integration of life year equivalents gained from avoided morbidity
(QALYs) with life years gained by avoidance of premature mortality (life years). As mentioned in the
Introduction to this Appendix, this measure is referred to in this CEA and in the RIA for the Final Clean
Air Interstate Rule (CAIR, 2005) as "Morbidity Inclusive Life Years" (MILYs). As in the CAIR analysis,
this analysis assumes that all individuals start with a baseline quality of life equal to 1.0: there is no
deduction from life years gained to account for individual differences in baseline health or functionality in
the population.
In this CEA, MILYs (Exhibit N. 10 below, Column C) are calculated as follows (all values are
annualized):
MILYs = (QALYs saved from avoided morbidity) + (life years saved from avoided mortality)
for each regulatory alternative.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR
N-25
December 2005
-------
Based on a 3 percent discount rate, the MILYs saved are highest in the most stringent alternative
and would normally be lowest in the least stringent alternative. However, the Preferred Rule captures
more benefits than Alternative 1 in spite of the greater stringency of Alternative 1, which is the result of
incorporating the IDSE9. This comparison using a 7 percent discount rate exhibits the same pattern
(Exhibit N. 10).
Exhibit N.10 MILYs for Fatal and Non-Fatal Cases of Bladder Cancer, by Rule
Alternative, 3 and 7 Percent Discount Rate
Rule
Alternative
Morbidity-Related
QALYs, Fatal and
Non-Fatal Cases
A
-
Life-Years
Saved from
Avoided
Premature
Mortality
B
-
MILYs
C
A+B
3% Discount Rate
Preferred
Alternative 11
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
72
65
243
336
653
588
2,205
3,043
725
652
2,449
3,379
7% Discount Rate
Preferred
Alternative 11
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
47
43
161
222
463
419
1,572
2,168
510
462
1,733
2,390
Notes: All numbers are discounted and annualized. Based on TTHM as
an indicator, Villanueva et al. (2003) for baseline risk, and smoking/lung
cancer cessation lag model. Some numbers may not add correctly due to
rounding. EPA recognizes that benefits may be as low as zero since
causality has not yet been established between exposure to chlorinated
water and bladder cancer.
Footnote 1: Alternative 1 appears to have fewer benefits than the
Preferred Alternative because it does not incorporate the IDSE, as
explained in Chapter 4. Furthermore, this EA does not quantify the
benefits of reducing the MCL for bromate (and potentially associated
cancer cases), a requirement that is included only in Alternative 1.
Sources: Column A: Exhibit N.7, Column F
Column B: Exhibit N.9, Column B
9 Alternative 1 appears to have fewer benefits than the Preferred Alternative because it does not incorporate the
IDSE, as explained in Chapter 4 of the Stage 2 DBPR EA. Furthermore, the EA does not quantify the benefits of
reducing the MCL for bromate (and potentially associated cancer cases), a requirement that is included only in
Alternative 1.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR
N-26
December 2005
-------
N.2.2 The CEA Numerator: Deriving Net Cost
N.2.2.1 Identifying costs to be subtracted from the numerator
The numerator in any cost-effectiveness calculation is an estimate of the relevant costs to achieve
the change in health state characterized by the effectiveness measure. For environmental
decision-making, regulatory costs of particular options are the appropriate starting point for defining the
numerator in a cost-effectiveness assessment of environmental improvement options.
In medical CEAs, net costs of disease treatment are included in the numerator for those
interventions involving treatment. In the environmental protection context, the handling of disease
treatment costs depends on the scope of the effectiveness measure. If the QALY score reflects a health
state after treatment is administered, then the costs of treatment necessary to achieve that health state must
be subtracted from the regulatory costs to yield the net cost of avoiding a QALY decrement.10 In the
context of the Stage 2 DBPR, the appropriate measure of costs in the numerator includes the regulatory
costs to prevent bladder cancer, net of any costs incurred as a consequence of contracting bladder cancer
that are reasonably expected not to be reflected in the QALY denominator. This analysis assumes that
lost time and medical costs ought to be subtracted from the cost numerator, as done in the analysis
performed for the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR) and in the CAIR
RIA.
As will be explained further in the section on Valuing time losses, costs in this analysis are
calculated based on two approaches: Enhanced Cost of Illness (ECOI) and Traditional Cost of Illness
(TCOI). As defined in the LT2ESWTR, ECOI places a value on lost leisure time and non-market work
time, a calculation which produces a value that is about 60% of the rate at which it values market work
time. In comparison, TCOI does not value lost leisure time and values non-market work time at half of
the rate under the Enhanced approach. The remaining exhibits will present computations for both
approaches.
Estimating medical costs over the disease progression
Medical costs are taken from Chapter II. 8 of the EPA Cost of Illness Handbook (1999) and
follow the natural history of disease progression presented in the Handbook over the estimated 20 year
period of illness (initial period costs in the first year, maintenance costs for subsequent years, and terminal
costs in the final year of fatal cases). Medical costs are discounted over this progression, and this stream
is computed as a net present value that is assigned to the first year of the avoided illness (the year of
diagnosis). This is applied to cases avoided in each of the 25 years of analysis. For each subsequent year
after the first year, the net present value (NPV) of the medical cost stream is discounted by 3 percent and
7 percent to account for time preferences for normal goods. Medical costs, shown in Exhibits N. 14a-b,
are the same for the ECOI and TCOI approaches.
10 Subtracting costs from the numerator is not appropriate when the same costs are considered by participants
(elicitees) in the QALY elicitation process. If the costs are already reflected as a component of the QALY
decrement, the denominator of the dollars-per-MILY measure will also account for them, and subtracting them from
regulatory costs in the numerator would in effect be double-counting the cost avoidance. Therefore, selection of
appropriate costs to subtract from the numerator requires careful consideration of the QALY decrement used in the
analysis.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR N-27 December 2005
-------
Estimating patient time losses over the disease progression
Time losses associated with cases of bladder cancer 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 market and non-market work. Time losses due to reduced productivity while on
the job are discussed later in this Appendix.
To be consistent with the estimation of medical costs used in this analysis, the number of days
lost (as presented in Mauskopf and French (1991) in their development of QALY decrements for bladder
cancer) are adapted to be consistent with the same disease progression. This method was explained
further in section 2.1.1.1 of this Appendix (Exhibit N.5a). For time losses, this analysis compresses the
authors' first year's time loss for fatal and non-fatal cases each into 3 months and takes the weighted
average of time losses for fatal and non-fatal cases; the result is applied to the first 3 months of intense
diagnosis and treatment in this CEA. The time losses for the second year of a non-fatal case are applied
to the last 9 months of the first year and to all maintenance years in this CEA, and the authors' report of
losses in the second year for a fatal case are used to characterize the last 6 months of a fatal case in this
analysis (Exhibit N.5c). This analysis uses the definitions of disability (presented in the Rosser and Kind
index in Exhibit N.4 of this Appendix and in Exhibit N. 12 below) for determining which treatment days
presented by the authors qualified as lost work days. Those days indexed at a level of 5 or 6 (on a scale
of 8, with 8 meaning the patient is unconscious) are by definition non-work days. Those days indexed at
4 are defined as days of reduced productivity (presenteeism).
The resulting number of days lost per year of illness is modified using the same probability
matrix that is used to calculate the QALY decrements per average case avoided, as described in Section
2.1.1.1 of this Appendix. This matrix incorporates the relative probabilities for the various outcomes
(survival, death from bladder cancer, and death from other causes) and discounts the decrement over the
progression of the disease. As with medical costs, this stream of time loss over the disease progression is
computed as a NPV and assigned to the first year in the period of analysis (to apply to all cases diagnosed
in that year). For each subsequent year after the first year of the 25-year analysis period, the NPV of the
time loss streams are discounted by 3 percent and 7 percent to account for time preferences for normal
goods or benefits. Exhibits N. 1 la-c show the assumptions used in this analysis based on the Rosser Kind
Index (Exhibit N. 1 la), the application of time losses from Mauskopf & French (Exhibit N.5a) to the 20
year disease progression described in the EPA COI Handbook (Exhibit N.I Ib), and the use of the
Handbook-derived probabilities of outcomes to these time losses (N. 1 Ic) for patient time losses. The
calculations for caregiver and presenteeism time losses, described in subsequent paragraphs, are not
shown below but were derived by the same method.
Estimation of productivity lost as presenteeism
Additional losses occur when the individual continues to engage in normal activities, but is less
productive or finds them less enjoyable due to illness. In the work setting, reduced productivity is termed
"presenteeism." After calculating the mean duration of illness, data on the days with lost productivity
(i.e., work is done but with reduced productivity) can be derived by subtracting the mean number of days
lost (where no work is done) from the mean duration of illness. In the absence of information specific to
bladder cancer, this analysis assumes a 9% productivity loss11 for an average case of "any cancer," as
shown in Goetzel et al. (2004). Consistent with the method of application in the LT2ESWTR EA, this
analysis assumes that the dollar value (i.e., the utility loss, estimated based on opportunity costs) of this
1' Goetzel et al. estimate that for presenteeism in the average case of "any cancer," 0.7 hrs. are lost per day for a
240-day year: 0.7/8.0 = .0875, or approximately 9%.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR N-28 December 2005
-------
reduction is equal to the reduction in productivity multiplied by the relevant dollar-per-hour value (from
Exhibit N. 11). As in the QALY analysis of Appendix U of the LT2ESWTR, presenteeism is accounted
for only in the Enhanced COI, not in the Traditional COI approach.
Estimation ofcaregiver time losses
In calculating caregiver time losses, as with patient time losses, the Rosser Kind disability index
provides a basis for determining when a patient will require a caregiver's assistance. This CEA assumes
that for hospital time no caregiver is needed (professional help is provided). For a Disability Index of 6, a
caregiver is, by definition, needed (Exhibit N. 1 la). For an index of 5, a caregiver is needed an estimated
50% of the time, consistent with the assumption that half of the days spent at home for a post hospital
recuperation will be assisted by a caregiver. For an index of 4, this CEA estimates that a patient will be
off work and at home 50% of the time, as the definition states that "choice of work or performance at
work severely limited" (interpreted here to mean the choice of whether to work was limited). This
analysis also assumes that less caregiving is needed at an index of 4 than at 5: instead of having
assistance 1/2 of the time an assumption of 1/4 is used, which combined with the assumption that half of
the time is spent at home yields a net caregiver time allocation of 1/8 (1/4 * 1/2 = 1/8 = 12.5%).
Exhibit N.11a Rosser Kind Index and Determination of Time Losses
Disability
Level
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Disability Description
Unconscious
Not in 8 but confined to bed
Not in 7 but confined to chair or
wheelchair or able to move around in
the home only with support from an
assistant
Not in 6 but unable to undertake any
paid employment. Unable to continue
any education. Elderly people
confined to home except for escorted
outings and short walks and unable to
do shopping. Housewives only able to
perform a few simple tasks.
Not in 5 but choice of work or
performance at work very severely
limited. Housewives and the elderly
able to do light housework only, but
able to go out shopping.
Not in 4 but severe social disability
and/or slight impairment of
performance at work. Able to do all
housework except very heavy tasks.
Not in 3 but slight social disability.
No disability.
Patient
Time Loss
(% of
patient day)
100%
100%
100%
100%
50%
n/a
n/a
none
Caregiver Time
Loss
(% ofcaregiver
day)
none (assumed to
be in hospital
receiving
professional care)
100%
100%
50% (Assume half
of days spent at
home for post-
hospital
recuperation will
be assisted by
caregiver)
12.5% (Assume 1/4
of days spent at
home will be
assisted by
caregiver; and
assume half of the
patients' days are
spent at home.
n/a
n/a
none
Presenteeism
(% of patient
day)
none
none
none
none
9% of 50% of
days (patient is
assumed to work
half the time,
and 9% of that
time is assumed
lost to
presenteeism)
n/a
n/a
none
"Adapted from Rosser RM. A health index and output measure. In: Walker SK, Rosser RM, eds. Quality of
life assessment and application. Lancaster MTP Press. 1987: Table 7.1."
Note: "n/a" indicates that this distress/disability level is not applied by Mauskopf & French to their QALY
derivation for bladder cancer patients.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR
N-29
December 2005
-------
Exhibit N.11b Patient Time Losses Adapted from Mauskopf & French (1991)
Time Loss Category
Calculation | No. Days Lost
YeaM, First 3 Months
(weighted average between fatal and nonfatal cases, includes all missed days for Year 1)
Patient Days
Presenteeism
19 days at Dl=5,6,7 and 1 day at Dl = 4 Non-fatal cases 48
days at Dl=5,6,7 and 0 days at Dl = 4 Fatal cases
((19+.5)*0.74)+(48*0))
0.50 is half of the missed days at Dl = 4
26.91
0.50
Maintenance Year (second year of non-fatal)
Patient Days
Presenteeism
13daysatDI=5,6,7
0 days at Dl=4
13.00
0.00
Year 1 Total: Diagnostic Period + 3/4 Maintenance Year
Lost Days
Lost Days When Die of Other Causes
Presenteeism
Presenteeism When Die of Other Causes
26.91 +(.75*13)
Yr 1 First 3 Months + .25 * Maintenance Period = 26.91 +
(.75*13)
= 0.5 + 0
.50 + (.25*0)
36.66
30.16
0.50
0.50
Terminal 6 Months (second year of fatal)
Lost Days
Presenteeism
180 days (Dl=5,6,7) + (0.50 * 3 days at Dl=4)
1 80 of 1 83 days in the last 6 months are lost days; only 3 of
the 41 days at Dl = 4 experienced in the last year are then
counted, and only 50% are presenteeism days (0.5 * 3 =
1.5).
181.50
1.50
Source for days lost: Mauskopf and French (1991) (see Exhibit N.5a)
Notes: 1. Using the Disability Scale from Rosser, disability of 5 and above will mean day of absense; Disability of 4 will
mean absence 50% of the time, and presenteeism the other 50% of the time. For days of presenteeism, assume a 9%
loss of productivity based on Goetzel's estimates (average hours lost per 8 hour day = 0.7). 2. This analysis assumes
fatalities occur halfway through the year and that the first 6 months of the fatal year includes the entire 2nd year of lost
days presented by Mauskopf and French for a fatal case.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR
N-30
December 2005
-------
Exhibit N.11c Total Patient Time Loss for a Non-Fatal Case of Bladder Cancer
Years post-
diagnosis (ť )
A
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Non-fatal cases,
Conditional
Probability of
Surviving through
the n th year
B
0.966
0.934
0.900
0.865
0.828
0.791
0.752
0.713
0.672
0.631
0.589
0.546
0.503
0.459
0.415
0.376
0.341
0.309
0.281
0.255
Non-fatal cases,
Conditional
Probability of
Dying of some
other cause in the
n th year
C
0.034
0.033
0.034
0.035
0.036
0.037
0.039
0.040
0.041
0.041
0.042
0.043
0.043
0.044
0.044
0.039
0.035
0.032
0.028
0.025
Time loss
associated
with survival
D
36.66
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
Time loss
associated with
survival, discount
3%
E = D/1.03A(n-l)
36.66
12.62
12.25
11.90
11.55
11.21
10.89
10.57
10.26
9.96
9.67
9.39
9.12
8.85
8.59
8.34
8.10
7.87
7.64
7.41
Time loss
associated with
survival, discount
7%
F = D/1.07A(n-l)
36.66
12.15
11.35
10.61
9.92
9.27
8.66
8.10
7.57
7.07
6.61
6.18
5.77
5.39
5.04
4.71
4.40
4.12
3.85
3.59
Annual time loss,
un discounted
G=(B*D)+(C*D*.5)
36.44
12.36
11.92
11.47
11.00
10.52
10.03
9.53
9.00
8.47
7.93
7.38
6.82
6.25
5.68
5.14
4.66
4.23
3.84
3.48
Annual time loss,
3 percent
discount
H=G/1.03A(n-l)
36.04
12.00
11.24
10.50
9.77
9.08
8.40
7.75
7.11
6.49
5.90
5.33
4.78
4.26
3.76
3.30
2.90
2.56
2.25
1.98
Annual time
loss, 7 percent
discount
I=G/1.07/Xn-l)
36.04
11.55
10.41
9.36
8.39
7.50
6.68
5.93
5.24
4.61
4.03
3.50
3.03
2.59
2.20
1.86
1.58
1.34
1.13
0.96
Total time loss for non-fatal cases of bladder cancer 186.14 155.39 127.96
Notes: 1) The Annual time loss includes time loss associated with both survival of the bladder cancer and death from other causes. For the percentage of cases that result in
death from other causes, just 1/2 of a year is lived. The first year losses include the time loss associated with the initial diagnostic period.
Sources: Columns B,C - Based on Relative Survival Rates from the EPA COI Handbook (1998); Column D - Exhibit N. 1 Ib.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
N-31
December 2005
-------
Exhibit N.11c (continued) Total Patient Time Loss for a Fatal Case of Bladder Cancer
Years post
diagnosis
(Ť>
j
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Fatal Cases,
Conditional
Probability of
Surviving
through the n th
year
K
0.494
0.451
0.410
0.371
0.334
0.299
0.266
0.234
0.205
0.177
0.151
0.127
0.105
0.085
0.067
0.051
0.036
0.023
0.011
0.000
Fatal Cases,
Conditional
Probability of
Dying of bladder
cancer in the n the
n th year
L
0.506
0.043
0.041
0.039
0.037
0.035
0.033
0.031
0.030
0.028
0.026
0.024
0.022
0.020
0.018
0.016
0.015
0.013
0.012
0.011
Time loss
associated
with survival
in year n
M = D
36.66
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
13.00
Time loss
associated with
survival in year
n , 3 percent
N=M/1.03A(n-l)
36.66
12.62
12.25
11.90
11.55
11.21
10.89
10.57
10.26
9.96
9.67
9.39
9.12
8.85
8.59
8.34
8.10
7.87
7.64
7.41
Time loss
associated with
survival in year
n , 7 percent
O=M/1.07A(n-l)
36.66
12.15
11.35
10.61
9.92
9.27
8.66
8.10
7.57
7.07
6.61
6.18
5.77
5.39
5.04
4.71
4.40
4.12
3.85
3.59
Time loss
associated
with death
in year n
P
117.66
181.50
181.50
181.50
181.50
181.50
181.50
181.50
181.50
181.50
181.50
181.50
181.50
181.50
181.50
181.50
181.50
181.50
181.50
181.50
Time loss
associated with
death in year n ,
3 percent
Q=P/1.03A(n-l)
117.66
176.21
171.08
166.10
161.26
156.56
152.00
147.58
143.28
139.10
135.05
131.12
127.30
123.59
119.99
116.50
113.10
109.81
106.61
103.51
Time loss
associated with
death in year n ,
7 percent
R=P/1.07A(n-l)
117.66
169.63
158.53
148.16
138.47
129.41
120.94
113.03
105.63
98.72
92.27
86.23
80.59
75.32
70.39
65.78
61.48
57.46
53.70
50.19
Time loss for
fatal cases,
undiscounted
S=N+P
77.65
13.67
12.77
11.90
11.06
10.24
9.45
8.67
8.11
7.38
6.68
6.01
5.36
4.74
4.14
3.57
3.19
2.66
2.32
2.00
Time loss for
fatal cases, 3
percent
T=S/1.03A(n-l)
77.65
13.27
12.04
10.89
9.82
8.83
7.91
7.05
6.40
5.66
4.97
4.34
3.76
3.22
2.74
2.29
1.99
1.61
1.36
1.14
Time loss for
fatal cases, 7
percent
U=S/1.07A(n-l)
77.65
12.77
11.16
9.72
8.44
7.30
6.30
5.40
4.72
4.02
3.40
2.85
2.38
1.96
1.60
1.29
1.08
0.84
0.69
0.55
Total time loss for fatal cases of bladder cancer 211.55 186.94 164.11
Notes (continued): 2) The diagnostic period is included in the first year for a fatal case, so only 1/2 of the 6 month terminal period time loss is included in the first year.
Sources: Columns K, L - Based on Relative Survival Rates from the EPA COI Handbook (1998); Column P - Exhibit N.llb.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
N-32
December 2005
-------
Valuing time losses
Conceptual discussion
Time losses are assigned a value so that they can be combined with medical costs. As in the
LT2ESWTR, this analysis employs two approaches to value time losses. 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). 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.
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 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.
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 costs.12 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, in part, is 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 society.13 Some of this value is reflected in the employee's take home pay, and the remainder accrues
12 Embedded in this approach are a number of assumptions 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.
13 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).
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR N-33 December 2005
-------
in terms of taxes paid and reflects the value of product created above and beyond what is reflected in
pre-tax wages.14
The value of productivity losses associated with the health effectiveness measure (i.e., avoided
cases) is one of the additional issues related to the estimation of "net costs" for a given rule alternative. In
1997, the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine published, in the journal Health
Economics,15 a paper supporting that lost paid work time that is a loss to the individual (e.g., lost market
compensation, lost ability to complete uncompensated work, and lost leisure time) might best be assumed
to be reflected in a full and complete QALY score. In other words, elicitees, or experts assessing quality
of life for patients, are likely to have considered these effects in the quality of life score they report.
However, there is still some debate about whether the costs borne by society that are related to
lost paid work time are fully considered in the elicitation process, and whether these costs should be
subtracted from the CEA numerator. The literature is unclear as to whether respondents were asked to
consider the cost of lost paid work time (including losses to the patient and society at large) when
determining patients' QALY losses, so in this CEA, lost paid work time is subtracted in the numerator
from regulatory costs as described above. This is consistent with the level of disability described in the
Rosser Kind index on which Mauskopf & French based their QALY loss estimates. It does seem
reasonable to assume that respondents would have considered QALY loss due to non-market work time
and leisure time losses. This decision is also consistent with the analysis for the CAIR RIA and with the
approach used in the CEA of the LT2ESWTR. Whether lost paid work time is fully accounted for in
QALY decrements is another issue that may be addressed by the NAS/IOM panel on CEA. This issue
may be difficult to resolve, however, in light of the variety of QALY losses computed by various
instruments (see Nord et al. in Exhibit N.2 of this Appendix).
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 2002, that figure was 39.2 hours per week for the civilian
noninstitutional population 16 years old or older who are working full or part-time.16 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 includes
14 For a recent discussion that indicates that illness-related losses of work time can substantially exceed the wage
rate, see: Pauley et al. (2002).
15 See Milton C. Weinstein, Joanna E. Siegel, Alan M. Garber, Joseph Lipscomb, Bryan R. Luce, Willard G.
Manning, Jr., and George W. Torrance, Productivity Costs, Time Costs and Health-related Quality of Life: A
Response to the Erasmus Group, Health Economics, 6:505-510, 1997.
16 Based on annual average of monthly figures, U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2003,
Table No. 602, sourced to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, monthly, January 2003 issue,
and based on the Current Population Survey.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR N-34 December 2005
-------
about 60.3 percent of the population in this age range.17 Over the whole population, the average lost work
hours per day of illness is, therefore, about 3.4 hours.18
Developing hourly values for lost work time (lost patient days, caregiver days and presenteeism)
In this analysis, lost market work time is valued at the pre-tax wage rate plus benefits. 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
2002 for full-time workers ($609 per week), as reported by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics
(United States Census Bureau, November 2003, Table 642). 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.19 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.
The next step is to convert median weekly earnings to earnings per hour. According to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, individuals usually working at paid, full-time jobs averaged 42.9 hours per
week20 at work in 2002 (United States Census Bureau, November 2003, Table 602). This means that
median earnings per hour averaged about $14.20 ($609/42.9).
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 2002 (United States Census Bureau, December 2003, Table
646). These data show that total compensation per hour averages about 1.41 times wages and salaries for
full time workers. Using these data to adjust median hourly earnings (as reported above) leads to an
17 Derived from the estimate of 131,019 thousand people at work (year 2002, based on annual average of monthly
figures, U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2003, Table No. 602, sourced to U.S. Bureau
of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, monthly, January 2003 issue, and based on the Current Population
Survey) of the 217,570 thousand people in this age range (year 2002, based on annual average of monthly figures,
U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2003, Table No. 587, sourced to U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Bulletin 2307 and Employment and Earnings, monthly, January issues; Monthly Labor Review, November
2001; and based on the Current Population Survey). 131,091 thousand/ 217,570 thousand = 60.3 percent.
18 39.2 hours/week + 1 days/week x (131,091 thousand persons working/217,570 thousand persons of working
age)=3.4 hours/day.
19 See, for example, Final Heavy Duty Engine/Fuel Rule: Air Quality Planning and Standards.
20 The number of average hours per week (42.9) differs from the previous estimate cited (39.2 value) because the
weekly earnings estimate is derived from a different source (specified in text).
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR N-35 December 2005
-------
estimate of about $20.02 per hour for total compensation. The value is then updated to 2003 dollars
($20.82) using the Employment Cost Index (ECI) (United States Bureau, 2004).
These values and the type of time losses included in costs to be subtracted from the CEA
numerator are shown in Exhibit N. 12. These losses include: lost paid work time, lost caregiver time, and
reduced productivity while on the job (presenteeism; applicable to the ECOI approach only). The
qualified costs do not include: unpaid lost market work time, lost leisure time, or lost non-market
productivity.
Exhibit N.12 Weighted Average1 Value of Time
Time Loss Category
A
Hours spent on
avg. in each
time category
B
Per-Hour
Value
C
Per-Day
Value for
Patient2
Per-Day
Value for
Caregiver3
D = B*C
ECOI
Market Work Time
Nonmarket Work Time
Nonmarket Leisure Time
Total
3.4
2.3
10.3
16
$ 20.82
$ 12.46
$ 12.46
$ 70.79
(incl. in QALY
decrement)
$ 70.79
$ 70.79
$ 28.66
$ 128.34
$ 227.78
TCOI
Market Work Time
Nonmarket Work Time
Nonmarket Leisure Time
Total
3.4
2.3
10.3
16
$ 20.82
$ 6.23
$
$ 70.79
(incl. in QALY
decrement)
$ 70.79
$ 70.79
$ 14.33
$
$ 85.12
Note: Values are in 2003$.
Footnotes: 1) The weighted average value of time accounts for the average hours spent by
all persons (formal and nonformal sector employment) over the course of a year. It
excludes those who are unemployed, those of non-employment age, and those employed
but not working because of vacation, illness, strike, etc. 2) In this CEA, the QALY
decrement should account for lost nonmarket work time and nonmarket leisure time for the
patient, therefore, it is not valued as an additional cost here. 3) Caregiver time losses using
the Enhanced approach are the sum of values for lost market work, nonmarket work, and
leisure days; using the Traditional approach, they are the sum of values for lost market and
nonmarket work days.
Source: Values per hour were originally derived in the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface
Water Treatment Rule Economic Analysis (See Ch. 5 and Appendix K). EPA recognizes
that benefits may be as low as zero since causality has not yet been established between
exposure to chlorinated water and bladder cancer.
Summary of estimation and valuation of lost time
The costs that would normally be incurred and which rule implementation is expected to avoid
should be subtracted from the regulatory costs which compose the numerator. This includes medical
costs associated with bladder cancer and certain time losses for patients and caregivers. The QALY
decrement used in this analysis did not include consideration of caregiver time or presenteeism, so
subtraction of these time losses in the numerator is consistent with the denominator. Additionally,
Weinstein et al. support the inclusion of presenteeism in the costs subtracted from regulatory costs in the
numerator (Weinstein, 1997). As in the CEA of the LT2ESWTR, presenteeism is estimated only in the
approach based upon the Enhanced Cost of Illness approach (ECOI), and is omitted from the Traditional
Cost of Illness approach (TCOI). Caregiver time losses in the Traditional approach exclude leisure time
losses and value non-market work time at 1A that of the Enhanced approach.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR
N-36
December 2005
-------
The costs to be used in the numerator therefore reflect the following calculation:
Net Cost = Cn-(IHnxCOIbc)
Where Cn = Total compliance cost of rule alternative n
Ibc,n = Number of cases of bladder cancer avoided by rule alternative n
COIbc = The sum of the medical cost of illness for bladder cancer and lost time costs per case
avoided as defined in the prior paragraphs.
Exhibit N.I3 below multiplies these dollar-per-hour values by the time allocations to determine the
average value of time per day. The application of these medical costs and time loss values to the analysis
is described further in Section 2.2.2 of this Appendix.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR N-37 December 2005
-------
Exhibit N.13 Time Loss Value1 Per Case of Avoided Bladder Cancer, Year 2003$
Loss Category
Lost Paid Work Days
Lost Caregiver Days
Lost Work Productivity (Presenteeism)
Total ECOI
Lost Paid Work Days
Lost Caregiver Days
Lost Work Productivity (Presenteeism)
Total TCOI
Lost Paid Work Days
Lost Caregiver Days
Lost Work Productivity (Presenteeism)
Total ECOI
Lost Paid Work Days
Lost Caregiver Days
Lost Work Productivity (Presenteeism)
Total TCOI
Per Day
$Value
A
$ 70.79
$ 227.78
$ 70.79
$ 70.79
$ 85.12
$ 70.79
$ 70.79
$ 227.78
$ 70.79
$ 70.79
$ 85.12
$ 70.79
Time Loss Value Per Fatal
Case
Number of
Days Lost
B
Total
$Value Per
Case
C = A*B
Time Loss Value Per Non-
Fatal Case
Number of
Days Lost
D
Total $Value
Per Case
E = A*D
3% Discount Rate, ECOI
186.94
80.58
2.95
$ 13,233
$ 18,355
$ 209
$ 31,797
155.39
37.58
0.48
$ 10,999
$ 8,560
$ 34
$ 19,594
3% Discount Rate, TCOI
186.94
80.58
2.95
$ 13,233
$ 6,859
$ 209
$ 20,301
155.39
37.58
0.48
$ 10,999
$ 3,199
$ 34
$ 14,232
7% Discount Rate, ECOI
164.11
72.43
2.68
$ 11,617
$ 16,499
$ 190
$ 28,306
127.96
31.25
0.48
$ 9,058
$ 7,118
$ 34
$ 16,210
7% Discount Rate, TCOI
164.11
72.43
2.68
$ 11,617
$ 6,165
$ 190
$ 17,972
127.96
31.25
0.48
$ 9,058
$ 2,660
$ 34
$ 11,752
Abbreviations: ECOI = Enhanced Cost of Illness; TCOI = Traditional Cost of Illness
Footnote 1: Time loss in this exhibit is unadjusted for income growth
Notes: Values are in 2003$. EPA recognizes that benefits may be as low as zero since causality has not yet been established
between exposure to chlorinated water and bladder cancer.
Sources:
Column A: Values per hour were originally derived in the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule Economic
Analysis (See Ch. 5 and Appendix K).
Column B: Hours lost per day are estimated to be 8 in the absence of information supporting an alternative.
Lost Work Productivity (Presenteeism) valued at 0.7 hours per day of presenteeism, as proposed in Goetzel at al (2004)
for "any cancer".
N.2.2.2 Calculating costs by year to be subtracted from regulatory costs
The value of lost time can increase or decrease over time, depending on the change in real
income. Using data on income growth from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the income lost over the
25-year period of analysis is increased to reflect that real income growth. Benefits derived from medical
costs are not adjusted for changes in real income over time, because medical costs do not necessarily have
a direct or indirect link with income.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR
N-38
December 2005
-------
The cost adjustment per case is calculated for each year using the following equation.
Yearly Cost Adjustment Per Case =
[(B + 1),. x (Lost Time Costs)^] + $203,973
Where B is the real income increase factor,
/' = year 1 to 25,
Lost Time Costs = Lost time portion of Cost Adjustment and
$203,973 = Medical portion of the Cost Adjustment21.
Medical costs are then discounted by 3 and 7 percent, and each year's discounted lost time costs, adjusted
for increases in real income, are then added to the medical costs estimate to yield a total Cost Adjustment
per case that is specific to each year. Exhibits N.14a-b show the results of these calculations.
N.2.2.3 Deriving total cost adjustment to regulatory costs based upon cases of bladder cancer avoided
Having developed a Cost Adjustment to the numerator (Exhibits N. 14a-b) on a per-case per year
basis, Exhibits N.15a-d apply this value to the cases avoided for the 25-year period of analysis to yield a
Total Cost Adjustment for the numerator.
First, the annualized number of cases for fatal and non-fatal cases (derived in Appendix E) are
calculated using the fatality rate of 0.26 published in the EPA Cost of Illness Handbook. Next, fatal and
non-fatal cases are multiplied by the Cost Adjustment per case:
Total Cost Adjustment = (Cases, x Cost Adjustment^ + (CasesiH x Cost
Adjustment,)^
for /' = year 1 to 25,
n = regulatory alternative,
F = fatal, and
NF = non-fatal.
Last, the Cost Adjustment for fatal and non-fatal cases is summed to produce a Total Cost
Adjustment for each rule alternative, at 3 and 7 percent discount rates. Alternative 3 is the most stringent
alternative and reduces risk to the largest extent; therefore, it has the highest cost adjustment, which
reflects its potential for avoided lost time and medical costs.
21 The cost of illness (COI) is taken from the EPA COI Handbook (p. II.8-33) for a weighted average between fatal
and non-fatal cases of bladder cancer ($156,670 in 1996$) and increased using the U.S. Dept. of Labor Consumer
Price Index for All Urban Consumers to 2003$ (271.1 / 228.2 * $156,670 = $203,973). This differs from the Stage 2
DBPR EA in that the EA used a COI estimated for only fatal cases, which was $93,927 in 1996$. The COI in fatal
cases is less on average than in non-fatal cases because survivors tend to incur medical costs for a longer period of
time.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR N-39 December 2005
-------
Exhibit N.14a Cost Adjustment Per Case of Bladder Cancer Avoided, Real Dollars Adjusted Annually for
Income Growth1, 3 Percent Discount Rate
Year
A
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
%Change in Income
(Real GDP per Capita)
B
Base Year
2.4%
2.4%
2.4%
2.4%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
Lost Time w/Growth Factor
(Fatal)
ECOI
TCOI
Lost Time w/Growth Factor
(Non-Fatal)
ECOI
TCOI
C,D,E,F = (B+1) * Previous Year Cost Adjustment per Case
$ 31 ,797.42
$ 32,562.56
$ 33,350.69
$ 34,161.90
$ 34,996.16
$ 35,784.33
$ 36,592.60
$ 37,421.74
$ 38,270.66
$ 39,138.04
$ 40,024.84
$ 40,932.15
$ 41,861.16
$ 42,812.68
$ 43,787.67
$ 44,787.30
$ 45,812.62
$ 46,864.75
$ 47,942.64
$ 49,045.44
$ 50,173.77
$ 51,328.69
$ 52,510.54
$ 53,720.77
$ 54,960.40
$ 20,301.03
$ 20,789.53
$ 21,292.72
$ 21,810.64
$ 22,343.26
$ 22,846.47
$ 23,362.51
$ 23,891.88
$ 24,433.87
$ 24,987.65
$ 25,553.82
$ 26,133.10
$ 26,726.22
$ 27,333.71
$ 27,956.20
$ 28,594.41
$ 29,249.03
$ 29,920.76
$ 30,608.93
$ 31,313.02
$ 32,033.40
$ 32,770.75
$ 33,525.31
$ 34,297.98
$ 35,089.42
$ 19,593.62
$ 20,065.10
$ 20,550.75
$ 21,050.62
$ 21,564.69
$ 22,050.36
$ 22,548.42
$ 23,059.34
$ 23,582.44
$ 24,116.92
$ 24,663.37
$ 25,222.46
$ 25,794.91
$ 26,381.24
$ 26,982.03
$ 27,598.00
$ 28,229.81
$ 28,878.13
$ 29,542.33
$ 30,221.88
$ 30,917.15
$ 31,628.82
$ 32,357.08
$ 33,102.82
$ 33,866.68
$ 14,232.39
$ 14,574.87
$ 14,927.63
$ 15,290.73
$ 15,664.14
$ 16,016.92
$ 16,378.70
$ 16,749.82
$ 17,129.79
$ 17,518.03
$ 17,914.95
$ 18,321.06
$ 18,736.88
$ 19,162.78
$ 19,599.18
$ 20,046.61
$ 20,505.54
$ 20,976.47
$ 21,458.93
$ 21,952.54
$ 22,457.57
$ 22,974.51
$ 23,503.50
$ 24,045.20
$ 24,600.05
Direct Medical
Costs2
G
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
NPV3%
Annualized 3%
Cost Adjustment
(Undiscounted) (Fatal)
ECOI
I=C+G
$ 235,770
$ 236,536
$ 237,324
$ 238,135
$ 238,969
$ 239,757
$ 240,566
$ 241 ,395
$ 242,244
$ 243,111
$ 243,998
$ 244,905
$ 245,834
$ 246,786
$ 247,761
$ 248,760
$ 249,786
$ 250,838
$ 251,916
$ 253,018
$ 254,147
$ 255,302
$ 256,484
$ 257,694
$ 258,933
$ 4,265,387
$ 244,952
TCOI
J=D+G
$ 224,274
$ 224,763
$ 225,266
$ 225,784
$ 226,316
$ 226,819
$ 227,336
$ 227,865
$ 228,407
$ 228,961
$ 229,527
$ 230,106
$ 230,699
$ 231 ,307
$ 231,929
$ 232,567
$ 233,222
$ 233,894
$ 234,582
$ 235,286
$ 236,006
$ 236,744
$ 237,498
$ 238,271
$ 239,062
$ 4,007,393
$ 230,136
Cost Adjustment
(Undiscounted) (Non-Fatal)
ECOI
K=E+G
$ 223,567
$ 224,038
$ 224,524
$ 225,024
$ 225,538
$ 226,023
$ 226,521
$ 227,032
$ 227,555
$ 228,090
$ 228,636
$ 229,195
$ 229,768
$ 230,354
$ 230,955
$ 231,571
$ 232,203
$ 232,851
$ 233,515
$ 234,195
$ 234,890
$ 235,602
$ 236,330
$ 237,076
$ 237,840
$ 3,991,518
$ 229,224
TCOI
L=F+G
$ 218,205
$ 218,548
$ 218,901
$ 219,264
$ 219,637
$ 219,990
$ 220,352
$ 220,723
$ 221,103
$ 221,491
$ 221,888
$ 222,294
$ 222,710
$ 223,136
$ 223,572
$ 224,020
$ 224,479
$ 224,949
$ 225,432
$ 225,926
$ 226,431
$ 226,948
$ 227,477
$ 228,018
$ 228,573
$ 3,871,205
$ 222,315
Abbreviations: ECOI = Enhanced Cost of Illness; TCOI = Traditional Cost of Illness
Notes: Values are in 2003$. Based on TTHM as an indicator, Villanueva et al. (2003) for baseline risk, and smoking/lung cancer cessation lag model. Some numbers may not add correctly due to rounding.
recognizes that benefits may be as low as zero since causality has not yet been established between exposure to chlorinated water and bladder cancer.
EPA
Footnotes: 1) Lost Time costs include an annual income growth factor which is not applied to medical costs. 2) Direct medical costs are taken from the COI Handbook (p.
using the U.S. Dept. of Labor Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (297.1 7228.2 * $156,670).
Sources: "Base Year" of Columns C-F: Exhibit N.14a, Columns E, G
1.8-33) and increased from 1996$ to 2003$
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
N-40
December 2005
-------
Exhibit N.14b Cost Adjustment Per Case of Bladder Cancer Avoided, Real Dollars Adjusted Annually for
Income Growth1, 7 Percent Discount Rate
Year
A
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
%Change in Income
(Real GDP per Capita)
B
Base Year
2.4%
2.4%
2.4%
2.4%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
Lost Time w/Growth Factor
(Fatal)
ECOI
TCOI
Lost Time w/Growth Factor
(Non-Fatal)
ECOI
TCOI
C,D,E,F = (B+1) * Previous Year Cost Adjustment per Case
$ 28,306.06
$ 28,987.19
$ 29,688.78
$ 30,410.93
$ 31,153.58
$ 31,855.21
$ 32,574.73
$ 33,312.84
$ 34,068.54
$ 34,840.69
$ 35,630.11
$ 36,437.80
$ 37,264.81
$ 38,111.84
$ 38,979.78
$ 39,869.65
$ 40,782.39
$ 41,719.00
$ 42,678.53
$ 43,660.25
$ 44,664.69
$ 45,692.80
$ 46,744.88
$ 47,822.23
$ 48,925.75
$ 17,972.22
$ 18,404.68
$ 18,850.14
$ 19,308.65
$ 19,780.18
$ 20,225.66
$ 20,682.50
$ 21,151.14
$ 21,630.96
$ 22,121.21
$ 22,622.44
$ 23,135.26
$ 23,660.35
$ 24,198.15
$ 24,749.23
$ 25,314.23
$ 25,893.75
$ 26,488.42
$ 27,097.66
$ 27,720.97
$ 28,358.71
$ 29,011.49
$ 29,679.48
$ 30,363.52
$ 31,064.17
$ 16,210.07
$ 16,600.13
$ 17,001.91
$ 17,415.46
$ 17,840.76
$ 18,242.56
$ 18,654.61
$ 19,077.30
$ 19,510.07
$ 19,952.26
$ 20,404.34
$ 20,866.88
$ 21,340.48
$ 21,825.56
$ 22,322.60
$ 22,832.20
$ 23,354.91
$ 23,891.27
$ 24,440.77
$ 25,002.97
$ 25,578.18
$ 26,166.95
$ 26,769.45
$ 27,386.42
$ 28,018.37
$ 11,751.91
$ 12,034.70
$ 12,325.98
$ 12,625.80
$ 12,934.13
$ 13,225.42
$ 13,524.15
$ 13,830.59
$ 14,144.34
$ 14,464.91
$ 14,792.66
$ 15,127.99
$ 15,471.34
$ 15,823.01
$ 16,183.36
$ 16,552.81
$ 16,931.75
$ 17,320.61
$ 17,718.98
$ 18,126.56
$ 18,543.58
$ 18,970.42
$ 19,407.22
$ 19,854.50
$ 20,312.65
Direct Medical
Costs
G
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
$ 203,973
NPV 7%
Annualized 7%
Cost Adjustment
(Undiscounted) (Fatal)
ECOI
I=C+G
$ 232,279
$ 232,960
$ 233,662
$ 234,384
$ 235,127
$ 235,828
$ 236,548
$ 237,286
$ 238,042
$ 238,814
$ 239,603
$ 240,411
$ 241 ,238
$ 242,085
$ 242,953
$ 243,843
$ 244,755
$ 245,692
$ 246,652
$ 247,633
$ 248,638
$ 249,666
$ 250,718
$ 251 ,795
$ 252,899
$ 2,784,304
$ 238,923
TCOI
J=D+G
$ 221,945
$ 222,378
$ 222,823
$ 223,282
$ 223,753
$ 224,199
$ 224,656
$ 225,124
$ 225,604
$ 226,094
$ 226,595
$ 227,108
$ 227,633
$ 228,171
$ 228,722
$ 229,287
$ 229,867
$ 230,461
$ 231,071
$ 231 ,694
$ 232,332
$ 232,984
$ 233,652
$ 234,337
$ 235,037
$ 2,635,614
$ 226,163
Cost Adjustment
(Undiscounted) (Non-Fatal)
ECOI
K=E+G
$ 220,183
$ 220,573
$ 220,975
$ 221,388
$ 221,814
$ 222,216
$ 222,628
$ 223,050
$ 223,483
$ 223,925
$ 224,377
$ 224,840
$ 225,313
$ 225,799
$ 226,296
$ 226,805
$ 227,328
$ 227,864
$ 228,414
$ 228,976
$ 229,551
$ 230,140
$ 230,742
$ 231 ,359
$ 231,991
$ 2,610,258
$ 223,988
TCOI
L=F+G
$ 215,725
$ 216,008
$ 216,299
$ 216,599
$ 216,907
$ 217,198
$ 217,497
$ 217,804
$ 218,117
$ 218,438
$ 218,766
$ 219,101
$ 219,444
$ 219,796
$ 220,156
$ 220,526
$ 220,905
$ 221,294
$ 221,692
$ 222,100
$ 222,517
$ 222,943
$ 223,380
$ 223,828
$ 224,286
$ 2,546,111
$ 218,483
Abbreviations: ECOI = Enhanced Cost of Illness; TCOI = Traditional Cost of Illness
Notes: Values are in 2003$. Based on TTHM as an indicator, Villanueva et al. (2003) for baseline risk, and smoking/lung cancer cessation lag model. Some numbers may not add correctly due to rounding. EPA
recognizes that benefits may be as low as zero since causality has not yet been established between exposure to chlorinated water and bladder cancer.
Footnotes: 1) Lost Time costs include an annual income growth factor which is not applied to medical costs. 2) Direct medical costs are taken from the COI Handbook (p. II.8-33) and increased from 1996$ to 2003$
using the U.S. Dept. of Labor Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (297.1 7228.2 * $156,670).
Sources: "Base Year" of Columns C - F: Exhibit N.14a, Columns E, G
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR
N-41
December 2005
-------
Exhibit N.15a Cost Adjustment for Fatal and Non-Fatal Cases of Bladder Cancer,
Preferred Alternative and Alternative 1, 3 Percent Discount Rate
s>
1
oj
<
Preferred
<
Yearn
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Fatal and
Non-Fatal
Cases
Avoided
A
24
62
111
170
220
265
305
341
371
396
416
433
448
460
471
481
489
496
503
509
0
0
0
0
0
23
60
108
166
212
251
283
309
332
351
368
382
395
406
416
425
433
440
446
452
Discounted Cases
Avoided
B= A/1 .03Ť(n -2005)
21
52
90
134
168
197
221
239
253
262
267
270
271
270
269
266
263
259
255
250
20
50
88
131
163
187
204
217
226
232
236
238
239
238
237
235
233
229
226
222
Fatal
C=B*.26
-
-
5
13
23
35
44
51
57
62
66
68
69
70
70
70
70
69
68
67
66
65
-
-
-
5
13
23
34
42
49
53
56
59
60
61
62
62
62
62
61
60
60
59
58
Non-Fatal
D=B*.74
-
-
15
38
67
99
125
146
163
177
187
194
198
200
201
200
199
197
195
192
189
185
-
-
-
14
37
65
97
120
138
151
160
167
172
175
176
177
176
176
174
172
170
167
164
Cost Adjustment per
Fatal Case
ECO I
TCOI
Cost Adjustment per Non
Fatal Case
ECO I
TCOI
($)
E
$ 235,770
$ 236,536
$ 237,324
$ 238,135
$ 238,969
$ 239,757
$ 240,566
$ 241,395
$ 242,244
$ 243,111
$ 243,998
$ 244,905
$ 245,834
$ 246,786
$ 247,761
$ 248,760
$ 249,786
$ 250,838
$251,916
$ 253,018
$ 254,147
$ 255,302
$ 256,484
$ 257,694
$ 258,933
$ 235,770
$ 236,536
$ 237,324
$ 238,135
$ 238,969
$ 239,757
$ 240,566
$241,395
$ 242,244
$ 243,111
$ 243,998
$ 244,905
$ 245,834
$ 246,786
$ 247,761
$ 248,760
$ 249,786
$ 250,838
$ 251,916
$ 253,018
$ 254,147
$ 255,302
$ 256,484
$ 257,694
$ 258,933
F
$ 224,274
$ 224,763
$ 225,266
$ 225,784
$ 226,316
$ 226,819
$ 227,336
$ 227,865
$ 228,407
$ 228,961
$ 229,527
$230,106
$ 230,699
$231,307
$ 231,929
$ 232,567
$ 233,222
$ 233,894
$ 234,582
$ 235,286
$ 236,006
$ 236,744
$ 237,498
$ 238,271
$ 239,062
$ 224,274
$ 224,763
$ 225,266
$ 225,784
$226,316
$ 226,819
$ 227,336
$ 227,865
$ 228,407
$ 228,961
$ 229,527
$ 230,106
$ 230,699
$ 231,307
$231,929
$ 232,567
$ 233,222
$ 233,894
$ 234,582
$ 235,286
$ 236,006
$ 236,744
$ 237,498
$ 238,271
$ 239,062
G
$ 223,567
$ 224,038
$ 224,524
$ 225,024
$ 225,538
$ 226,023
$ 226,521
$ 227,032
$ 227,555
$ 228,090
$ 228,636
$ 229,195
$ 229,768
$ 230,354
$ 230,955
$ 231,571
$ 232,203
$ 232,851
$ 233,515
$ 234,195
$ 234,890
$ 235,602
$ 236,330
$ 237,076
$ 237,840
$ 223,567
$ 224,038
$ 224,524
$ 225,024
$ 225,538
$ 226,023
$ 226,521
$ 227,032
$ 227,555
$ 228,090
$ 228,636
$ 229,195
$ 229,768
$ 230,354
$ 230,955
$ 231,571
$ 232,203
$ 232,851
$ 233,515
$ 234,195
$ 234,890
$ 235,602
$ 236,330
$ 237,076
$ 237,840
H
$ 218,205
$ 218,548
$ 218,901
$ 219,264
$ 219,637
$ 219,990
$ 220,352
$ 220,723
$ 221,103
$ 221,491
$ 221,888
$ 222,294
$ 222,710
$ 223,136
$ 223,572
$ 224,020
$ 224,479
$ 224,949
$ 225,432
$ 225,926
$ 226,431
$ 226,948
$ 227,477
$ 228,018
$ 228,573
NPV 3%
Annlzd 3%
$ 218,205
$ 218,548
$ 218,901
$ 219,264
$ 219,637
$ 219,990
$ 220,352
$ 220,723
$ 221,103
$ 221,491
$ 221,888
$ 222,294
$ 222,710
$ 223,136
$ 223,572
$ 224,020
$ 224,479
$ 224,949
$ 225,432
$ 225,926
$ 226,431
$ 226,948
$ 227,477
$ 228,018
$ 228,573
NPV 3%
Annlzd 3%
Cost Adjustment per
Fatal and Non-Fatal Case
ECOI
TCOI
(Million $)
I=((C*E)+(D*G))/10°
$
$
$
$
$
$ 4.78
$ 11.93
$ 20.80
$ 31.06
$ 39.07
$ 45.93
$ 51.48
$ 55.93
$ 59.26
$ 61.54
$ 63.04
$ 63.93
$ 64.36
$ 64.44
$ 64.25
$ 63.84
$ 63.27
$ 62.57
$ 61.76
$ 60.88
$615.64
$ 35
$
$
$
$
$
$ 4.50
$ 11.55
$ 20.31
$ 30.24
$ 37.72
$ 43.46
$ 47.64
$ 50.72
$ 52.97
$ 54.58
$ 55.68
$ 56.37
$ 56.73
$ 56.83
$ 56.71
$ 56.42
$ 55.98
$ 55.42
$ 54.77
$ 54.05
$556.17
$ 32
J=((C*F)+(D*H))/10°
$
$
$
$
$
$ 4.62
$ 11.52
$ 20.06
$ 29.93
$ 37.63
$ 44.20
$ 49.50
$ 53.74
$ 56.89
$ 59.04
$ 60.42
$ 61.22
$ 61.58
$ 61.61
$ 61.37
$ 60.92
$ 60.32
$ 59.59
$ 58.77
$ 57.87
$589.71
$ 34
$
$
$
$
$
$ 4.35
$ 11.15
$ 19.59
$ 29.15
$ 36.33
$ 41.82
$ 45.81
$ 48.74
$ 50.86
$ 52.36
$ 53.37
$ 53.99
$ 54.29
$ 54.33
$ 54.17
$ 53.84
$ 53.37
$ 52.79
$ 52.12
$ 51.38
$532.81
$ 31
Abbreviations: ECOI = Enhanced Cost of Illness; TCOI = Traditional Cost of Illness
Notes: Values are in 2003$. Based on TTHM as an indicator, Villanueva et al. (2003) for baseline risk, and smoking/lung cancer cessation lag model. Some numbers may not add correctly
due to rounding. Assumes 26 percent of cases are fatal, 74 percent are non-fatal (USEPA 1999a). EPA recognizes that benefits may be as low as zero since causality has not yet been
established between exposure to chlorinated water and bladder cancer.
Sources: Colums A: Exhibits E.17,19,20,21(a)
Columns E-H: Exhibit N.15a, Columns I- L
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR
N-42
December 2005
-------
Exhibit N.15b Cost Adjustment for Fatal and Non-Fatal Cases of Bladder Cancer,
Alternatives 2 and 3, 3 Percent Discount Rate
0)
Alternati
CM
<
<
Yearn
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Fatal and
Non-Fatal
Cases
Avoided
A
0
0
0
0
0
85
224
405
619
794
941
1060
1160
1245
1317
1380
1435
1483
1525
1563
1596
1625
1652
1675
1697
0
0
0
0
0
117
309
558
854
1096
1299
1463
1601
1718
1818
1904
1980
2046
2104
2156
2202
2242
2279
2311
2341
Discounted Cases
Avoided
B= A/1 .03Ť(n -2005)
73
188
329
488
609
700
766
814
848
871
886
894
897
896
891
883
874
862
849
835
101
259
454
674
840
966
1,057
1,123
1,170
1,202
1,222
1,234
1,238
1,236
1,229
1,219
1,205
1,189
1,171
1,152
Fatal
C=B*.26
-
-
-
19
49
86
127
158
182
199
212
220
226
230
232
233
233
232
230
227
224
221
217
-
-
26
67
118
175
218
251
275
292
304
312
318
321
322
321
320
317
313
309
305
299
Non-Fatal
D=B*.74
-
-
-
54
139
243
361
450
518
567
602
627
644
656
662
664
663
659
654
647
638
628
618
-
-
75
192
336
499
621
715
782
831
865
889
905
913
916
915
910
902
892
880
867
852
Cost Adjustment per
Fatal Case
ECO I
TCOI
V
E
$ 235,770
$ 236,536
$ 237,324
$238,135
$ 238,969
$ 239,757
$ 240,566
$ 241,395
$ 242,244
$ 243,111
$ 243,998
$ 244,905
$ 245,834
$ 246,786
$ 247,761
$ 248,760
$ 249,786
$ 250,838
$ 251,916
$ 253,018
$ 254,147
$ 255,302
$ 256,484
$ 257,694
$ 258,933
$ 235,770
$ 236,536
$ 237,324
$ 238,135
$ 238,969
$ 239,757
$ 240,566
$ 241,395
$ 242,244
$ 243,111
$ 243,998
$ 244,905
$ 245,834
$ 246,786
$ 247,761
$ 248,760
$ 249,786
$ 250,838
$ 251,916
$ 253,018
$254,147
$ 255,302
$ 256,484
$ 257,694
$ 258,933
F
$ 224,274
$ 224,763
$ 225,266
$ 225,784
$ 226,316
$ 226,819
$ 227,336
$ 227,865
$ 228,407
$ 228,961
$ 229,527
$ 230,106
$ 230,699
$231,307
$ 231,929
$ 232,567
$ 233,222
$ 233,894
$ 234,582
$ 235,286
$ 236,006
$ 236,744
$ 237,498
$ 238,271
$ 239,062
$ 224,274
$ 224,763
$ 225,266
$ 225,784
$ 226,316
$ 226,819
$ 227,336
$ 227,865
$ 228,407
$ 228,961
$ 229,527
$230,106
$ 230,699
$231,307
$ 231,929
$ 232,567
$ 233,222
$ 233,894
$ 234,582
$ 235,286
$ 236,006
$ 236,744
$ 237,498
$ 238,271
$ 239,062
Cost Adjustment per Non
Fatal Case
ECO I
TCOI
)
G
$ 223,567
$ 224,038
$ 224,524
$ 225,024
$ 225,538
$ 226,023
$ 226,521
$ 227,032
$ 227,555
$ 228,090
$ 228,636
$ 229,195
$ 229,768
$ 230,354
$ 230,955
$ 231,571
$ 232,203
$ 232,851
$ 233,515
$ 234,195
$ 234,890
$ 235,602
$ 236,330
$ 237,076
$ 237,840
$ 223,567
$ 224,038
$ 224,524
$ 225,024
$ 225,538
$ 226,023
$ 226,521
$ 227,032
$ 227,555
$ 228,090
$ 228,636
$ 229,195
$ 229,768
$ 230,354
$ 230,955
$ 231,571
$ 232,203
$ 232,851
$ 233,515
$ 234,195
$ 234,890
$ 235,602
$ 236,330
$ 237,076
$ 237,840
H
$ 218,205
$ 218,548
$ 218,901
$ 219,264
$ 219,637
$ 219,990
$ 220,352
$ 220,723
$ 221,103
$ 221,491
$ 221,888
$ 222,294
$ 222,710
$ 223,136
$ 223,572
$ 224,020
$ 224,479
$ 224,949
$ 225,432
$ 225,926
$ 226,431
$ 226,948
$ 227,477
$ 228,018
$ 228,573
NPV 3%
Annlzd 3%
$ 218,205
$ 218,548
$ 218,901
$ 219,264
$ 219,637
$ 219,990
$ 220,352
$ 220,723
$ 221,103
$ 221,491
$ 221,888
$ 222,294
$ 222,710
$ 223,136
$ 223,572
$ 224,020
$ 224,479
$ 224,949
$ 225,432
$ 225,926
$ 226,431
$ 226,948
$ 227,477
$ 228,018
$ 228,573
NPV 3%
Annlzd 3%
Cost Adjustment per
Fatal and Non-Fatal Case
ECOI
TCOI
(Million$)
I=((C*E)+(D*G))/10°
$
$
$
$
$
$ 16.82
$ 43.18
$ 75.93
$ 113.02
$ 141.21
$ 162.93
$ 178.72
$ 190.36
$ 198.87
$ 204.95
$ 209.11
$ 211.73
$ 213.11
$ 213.49
$ 213.05
$ 211.95
$ 210.31
$ 208.23
$ 205.80
$ 203.08
$2,087.27
$ 120
$
$
$
$
$
$ 23.22
$ 59.59
$ 104.75
$ 155.89
$ 194.80
$ 224.80
$ 246.60
$ 262.67
$ 274.41
$ 282.80
$ 288.53
$ 292.14
$ 294.04
$ 294.56
$ 293.95
$ 292.43
$ 290.17
$ 287.30
$ 283.94
$ 280.19
$2,879.87
$ 165
J=((C*F)+(D*H))/10°
$
$
$
$
$
$ 16.25
$ 41.68
$ 73.23
$ 108.93
$ 136.00
$ 156.79
$ 171.86
$ 182.91
$ 190.94
$ 196.61
$ 200.43
$ 202.77
$ 203.91
$ 204.09
$ 203.49
$ 202.25
$ 200.50
$ 198.33
$ 195.82
$ 193.05
$1,999.57
$ 115
$
$
$
$
$
$ 22.43
$ 57.51
$ 101.03
$ 150.25
$ 187.61
$ 216.34
$ 237.13
$ 252.38
$ 263.46
$ 271.29
$ 276.55
$ 279.77
$ 281.35
$ 281.59
$ 280.76
$ 279.05
$ 276.63
$ 273.63
$ 270.18
$ 266.35
$2,758.87
$ 158
Abbreviations: ECOI = Enhanced Cost of Illness; TCOI = Traditional Cost of Illness
Notes: Values are in 2003$. Based on TTHM as an indicator, Villanueva et al. (2003) for baseline risk, and smoking/lung cancer cessation lag model. Some numbers may not add correctly
due to rounding. Assumes 26 percent of cases are fatal, 74 percent are non-fatal (USEPA 1999a). EPA recognizes that benefits may be as low as zero since causality has not yet been
established between exposure to chlorinated water and bladder cancer.
Sources: Colums A: Exhibits E.17,19,20,21(3)
Columns E-H: Exhibit N.15a, Columns I- L
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR
N-43
December 2005
-------
Exhibit N.15c Cost Adjustment for Fatal and Non-Fatal Cases of Bladder Cancer,
Preferred Rule and Alternative 1, 7 Percent Discount Rate
ternative
<
I
Ł
<
Year n
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Fatal and
Non-Fatal
Cases
Avoided
A
-
-
-
-
24
62
111
170
220
265
305
341
371
396
416
433
448
460
471
481
489
496
503
509
0
0
0
0
0
23
60
108
166
212
251
283
309
332
351
368
382
395
406
416
425
433
440
446
452
Discounted Cases
Avoided
B=A/1.07A(n-2005)
17
41
69
99
120
135
145
151
154
153
151
147
142
136
130
124
118
112
106
100
16
40
67
96
115
128
134
137
138
136
133
129
125
120
115
110
104
99
94
89
Fatal
C=B*.26
-
-
-
-
4
11
18
26
31
35
38
39
40
40
39
38
37
35
34
32
31
29
28
26
-
-
-
4
10
18
25
30
33
35
36
36
35
35
34
32
31
30
29
27
26
24
23
Non-Fatal
D=B*.74
13
31
51
73
88
100
107
112
114
114
112
109
105
101
96
92
87
83
78
74
12
30
50
71
85
94
99
102
102
101
99
96
92
89
85
81
77
73
70
66
Cost Adjustment per
Fatal Case
ECOI
TCOI
V
E
$ 232,279
$ 232,960
$ 233,662
$ 234,384
$235,127
$ 235,828
$ 236,548
$ 237,286
$ 238,042
$238,814
$ 239,603
$ 240,411
$ 241,238
$ 242,085
$ 242,953
$ 243,843
$ 244,755
$ 245,692
$ 246,652
$ 247,633
$ 248,638
$ 249,666
$250,718
$ 251,795
$ 252,899
$ 232,279
$ 232,960
$ 233,662
$ 234,384
$235,127
$ 235,828
$ 236,548
$ 237,286
$ 238,042
$238,814
$ 239,603
$240,411
$ 241,238
$ 242,085
$ 242,953
$ 243,843
$ 244,755
$ 245,692
$ 246,652
$ 247,633
$ 248,638
$ 249,666
$250,718
$251,795
$ 252,899
F
$221,945
$ 222,378
$ 222,823
$ 223,282
$ 223,753
$ 224,199
$ 224,656
$ 225,124
$ 225,604
$ 226,094
$ 226,595
$ 227,108
$ 227,633
$ 228,171
$ 228,722
$ 229,287
$ 229,867
$ 230,461
$231,071
$ 231,694
$ 232,332
$ 232,984
$ 233,652
$ 234,337
$ 235,037
$221,945
$ 222,378
$ 222,823
$ 223,282
$ 223,753
$ 224,199
$ 224,656
$ 225,124
$ 225,604
$ 226,094
$ 226,595
$ 227,108
$ 227,633
$ 228,171
$ 228,722
$ 229,287
$ 229,867
$ 230,461
$231,071
$ 231,694
$ 232,332
$ 232,984
$ 233,652
$ 234,337
$ 235,037
Cost Adjustment per Non
Fatal Case
ECOI
TCOI
)
G
$ 220,183
$ 220,573
$ 220,975
$ 221,388
$ 221,814
$ 222,216
$ 222,628
$ 223,050
$ 223,483
$ 223,925
$ 224,377
$ 224,840
$ 225,313
$ 225,799
$ 226,296
$ 226,805
$ 227,328
$ 227,864
$ 228,414
$ 228,976
$ 229,551
$ 230,140
$ 230,742
$ 231,359
$ 231,991
$ 220,183
$ 220,573
$ 220,975
$ 221,388
$ 221,814
$ 222,216
$ 222,628
$ 223,050
$ 223,483
$ 223,925
$ 224,377
$ 224,840
$ 225,313
$ 225,799
$ 226,296
$ 226,805
$ 227,328
$ 227,864
$ 228,414
$ 228,976
$ 229,551
$ 230,140
$ 230,742
$ 231,359
$ 231,991
H
$ 215,725
$ 216,008
$ 216,299
$ 216,599
$ 216,907
$ 217,198
$ 217,497
$ 217,804
$ 218,117
$ 218,438
$ 218,766
$ 219,101
$ 219,444
$ 219,796
$ 220,156
$ 220,526
$ 220,905
$ 221,294
$ 221,692
$ 222,100
$ 222,517
$ 222,943
$ 223,380
$ 223,828
$ 224,286
NPV 7%
Annlzd 7%
$ 215,725
$ 216,008
$ 216,299
$ 216,599
$ 216,907
$ 217,198
$ 217,497
$ 217,804
$ 218,117
$ 218,438
$ 218,766
$ 219,101
$ 219,444
$ 219,796
$ 220,156
$ 220,526
$ 220,905
$ 221,294
$ 221,692
$ 222,100
$ 222,517
$ 222,943
$ 223,380
$ 223,828
$ 224,286
NPV 7%
Annlzd 7%
Cost Adjustment per
Fatal and Non-Fatal Case
ECOI
TCOI
(Million$)
I=((C*E)+(D*G))/10°
$
$
$
$
$
$ 3.89
$ 9.33
$ 15.66
$ 22.49
$ 27.23
$ 30.80
$ 33.22
$ 34.73
$ 35.40
$ 35.38
$ 34.87
$ 34.03
$ 32.96
$ 31.76
$ 30.47
$ 29.13
$ 27.78
$ 26.43
$ 25.10
$ 23.81
$191.14
$ 16
$
$
$
$
$
$ 3.66
$ 9.03
$ 15.29
$ 21.90
$ 26.29
$ 29.14
$ 30.74
$ 31.49
$ 31.65
$ 31.38
$ 30.80
$ 30.01
$ 29.06
$ 28.01
$ 26.89
$ 25.74
$ 24.57
$ 23.41
$ 22.26
$ 21.14
$174.66
$ 15
J=((C*F)+(D*H))/10°
$
$
$
$
$
$ 3.77
$ 9.05
$ 15.17
$ 21.78
$ 26.35
$ 29.78
$ 32.10
$ 33.53
$ 34.16
$ 34.12
$ 33.60
$ 32.76
$ 31.71
$ 30.53
$ 29.26
$ 27.96
$ 26.64
$ 25.32
$ 24.03
$ 22.77
$184.32
$ 16
$
$
$
$
$
$ 3.55
$ 8.76
$ 14.81
$ 21.21
$ 25.44
$ 28.18
$ 29.70
$ 30.41
$ 30.54
$ 30.26
$ 29.68
$ 28.89
$ 27.96
$ 26.92
$ 25.83
$ 24.70
$ 23.57
$ 22.43
$ 21.31
$ 20.22
$168.45
$ 14
Abbreviations: ECOI = Enhanced Cost of Illness; TCOI = Traditional Cost of Illness
Notes: Values in 2003$. Based on TTHM as an indicator, Villanueva et al. (2003) for baseline risk, and smoking/lung cancer cessation lag model. Some numbers may not add correctly due to
rounding. Assumes 26 percent of cases are fatal, 74 percent are non-fatal (USEPA 1999a). EPA recognizes that benefits may be as low as zero since causality has not yet been established
between exposure to chlorinated water and bladder cancer.
Sources:
Colums A: Exhibits E.17,19,20,21(3)
Columns E-H: Exhibit N.15b, Columns I - L
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR
N-44
December 2005
-------
Exhibit N.15d Cost Adjustment for Fatal and Non-Fatal Cases of Bladder Cancer,
Alternatives 2 and 3, 7 Percent Discount Rate
Alternative
CM
<
3
Yearn
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Fatal and
Non-Fatal
Cases
Avoided
A
0
0
0
0
0
85
224
405
619
794
941
1060
1160
1245
1317
1380
1435
1483
1525
1563
1596
1625
1652
1675
1697
0
0
0
0
0
117
309
558
854
1096
1299
1463
1601
1718
1818
1904
1980
2046
2104
2156
2202
2242
2279
2311
2341
Discounted Cases
Avoided
B=A/1.07A(n-2005)
-
-
61
149
252
360
432
478
504
515
517
511
500
486
469
451
432
412
393
373
353
334
-
84
206
348
497
596
660
695
711
713
705
690
671
648
623
596
569
542
514
488
461
Fatal
C=B*.26
-
-
-
16
39
66
94
112
124
131
134
134
133
130
126
122
117
112
107
102
97
92
87
-
-
-
22
54
90
129
155
172
181
185
185
183
179
174
168
162
155
148
141
134
127
120
Non-Fatal
D=B*.74
45
110
186
267
320
354
373
381
382
378
370
360
347
334
320
305
290
276
262
248
62
152
257
368
441
489
514
526
527
522
511
496
479
461
441
421
401
381
361
341
Cost Adjustment per
Fatal Case
ECOI
TCOI
(!
E
$ 232,279
$ 232,960
$ 233,662
$ 234,384
$235,127
$ 235,828
$ 236,548
$ 237,286
$ 238,042
$ 238,814
$ 239,603
$ 240,411
$241,238
$ 242,085
$ 242,953
$ 243,843
$ 244,755
$ 245,692
$ 246,652
$ 247,633
$ 248,638
$ 249,666
$250,718
$251,795
$ 252,899
$ 232,279
$ 232,960
$ 233,662
$ 234,384
$235,127
$ 235,828
$ 236,548
$ 237,286
$ 238,042
$238,814
$ 239,603
$240,411
$241,238
$ 242,085
$ 242,953
$ 243,843
$ 244,755
$ 245,692
$ 246,652
$ 247,633
$ 248,638
$ 249,666
$250,718
$251,795
$ 252,899
F
$221,945
$ 222,378
$ 222,823
$ 223,282
$ 223,753
$224,199
$ 224,656
$225,124
$ 225,604
$ 226,094
$ 226,595
$227,108
$ 227,633
$228,171
$ 228,722
$ 229,287
$ 229,867
$ 230,461
$231,071
$231,694
$ 232,332
$ 232,984
$ 233,652
$ 234,337
$ 235,037
$221,945
$ 222,378
$ 222,823
$ 223,282
$ 223,753
$224,199
$ 224,656
$225,124
$ 225,604
$ 226,094
$ 226,595
$227,108
$ 227,633
$228,171
$ 228,722
$ 229,287
$ 229,867
$ 230,461
$231,071
$231,694
$ 232,332
$ 232,984
$ 233,652
$ 234,337
$ 235,037
Cost Adjustment per Non
Fatal Case
ECOI
TCOI
)
G
$ 220,183
$ 220,573
$ 220,975
$ 221,388
$ 221,814
$ 222,216
$ 222,628
$ 223,050
$ 223,483
$ 223,925
$ 224,377
$ 224,840
$ 225,313
$ 225,799
$ 226,296
$ 226,805
$ 227,328
$ 227,864
$ 228,414
$ 228,976
$ 229,551
$ 230,140
$ 230,742
$ 231,359
$ 231,991
$ 220,183
$ 220,573
$ 220,975
$ 221,388
$ 221,814
$ 222,216
$ 222,628
$ 223,050
$ 223,483
$ 223,925
$ 224,377
$ 224,840
$ 225,313
$ 225,799
$ 226,296
$ 226,805
$ 227,328
$ 227,864
$ 228,414
$ 228,976
$ 229,551
$ 230,140
$ 230,742
$ 231,359
$ 231,991
H
$ 215,725
$ 216,008
$ 216,299
$ 216,599
$ 216,907
$ 217,198
$ 217,497
$ 217,804
$ 218,117
$ 218,438
$ 218,766
$ 219,101
$ 219,444
$ 219,796
$ 220,156
$ 220,526
$ 220,905
$ 221,294
$ 221,692
$ 222,100
$ 222,517
$ 222,943
$ 223,380
$ 223,828
$ 224,286
NPV 7%
Annlzd 7%
$ 215,725
$ 216,008
$ 216,299
$ 216,599
$ 216,907
$ 217,198
$ 217,497
$ 217,804
$ 218,117
$ 218,438
$ 218,766
$ 219,101
$ 219,444
$ 219,796
$ 220,156
$ 220,526
$ 220,905
$ 221 ,294
$ 221,692
$ 222,100
$ 222,517
$ 222,943
$ 223,380
$ 223,828
$ 224,286
NPV 7%
Annlzd 7%
Cost Adjustment per
Fatal and Non-Fatal Case
ECOI
TCOI
(Million $)
I=((C*E)+(D*G))/10°
$
$
$
$
$
$ 13.67
$ 33.77
$ 57.14
$ 81.85
$ 98.40
$ 109.25
$ 115.32
$ 118.20
$ 118.82
$ 117.83
$ 115.68
$ 112.70
$ 109.15
$ 105.21
$ 101.03
$ 96.70
$ 92.33
$ 87.96
$ 83.64
$ 79.42
$655.11
$ 56
$
$
$
$
$
$ 18.87
$ 46.60
$ 78.83
$ 112.89
$ 135.75
$ 150.74
$ 159.12
$ 163.09
$ 163.95
$ 162.58
$ 159.61
$ 155.50
$ 150.60
$ 145.16
$ 139.39
$ 133.42
$ 127.38
$ 121.36
$ 115.40
$ 109.57
$903.87
$ 78
J=((C*F)+(D*H))/10°
$
$
$
$
$
$ 13.26
$ 32.74
$ 55.37
$ 79.26
$ 95.22
$ 105.65
$ 111.44
$ 114.14
$ 114.66
$ 113.62
$ 111.46
$ 108.51
$ 105.01
$ 101.14
$ 97.04
$ 92.81
$ 88.53
$ 84.27
$ 80.07
$ 75.95
$631.82
$ 54
$
$
$
$
$
$ 18.31
$ 45.18
$ 76.38
$ 109.32
$ 131.36
$ 145.77
$ 153.76
$ 157.49
$ 158.21
$ 156.77
$ 153.79
$ 149.72
$ 144.89
$ 139.54
$ 133.88
$ 128.05
$ 122.15
$ 116.27
$ 110.47
$ 104.79
$871.73
$ 75
Abbreviations: ECOI = Enhanced Cost of Illness; TCOI = Traditional Cost of Illness
Notes: Values in 2003$. Based on TTHM as an indicator, Villanueva et al. (2003) for baseline risk, and smoking/lung cancer cessation lag model. Some numbers may not add correctly due to
rounding. Assumes 26 percent of cases are fatal, 74 percent are non-fatal (USEPA 1999a). EPA recognizes that benefits maybe as low as zero since causality has not yet been established
between exposure to chlorinated water and bladder cancer.
Sources:
ColumsA: Exhibits E.17,19,20,21(a)
Columns E-H, Exhibit N.15b: Columns I - L
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR
N-45
December 2005
-------
N.2.2.4 Calculating the net cost numerator
The Total Cost Adjustment for each regulatory alternative is determined in Section 2.2 of this
appendix. All values are annualized. Exhibit N. 16 subtracts the Total Cost Adjustments from the
regulatory costs for each alternative, at 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates, respectively, reflecting the
following calculation.
Net Annualized Cost = Annualized Cn - Total Annualized Cost Adjustmentn
where C = total regulatory compliance cost,
n = regulatory alternative, and
Using a 3 percent discount rate and the ECOI approach, the lowest Net Cost is associated with the
least stringent alternative and the highest with the most stringent. Exhibit N. 16 also presents results using
the TCOI approach and a discount rate of 7 percent; all combinations of approach and discount rate show
the same pattern.
Exhibit N.16 Net Regulatory Cost Using Avoided Cases of Bladder Cancer, by
Rule Alternative, 3 and 7 Percent Discount Rates
Rule
Alternative
Regulatory
Cost
Total Cost
Adjustment
(ECOI)
Total Cost
Adjustment
(TCOI)
Net
Regulatory
Cost
(ECOI)
Net
Regulatory
Cost
(TCOI)
(Million $)
A
B
C
D = A-B
E = A-C
3 Percent
Preferred
Alternative 1 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
$ 79
$ 254
$ 422
$ 634
$ 35
$ 32
$ 120
$ 165
$ 34
$ 31
$ 115
$ 158
$ 43
$ 222
$ 302
$ 469
$ 45
$ 224
$ 307
$ 476
7 Percent
Preferred
Alternative 1 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
$ 77
$ 242
$ 406
$ 613
$ 16
$ 15
$ 56
$ 78
$ 16
$ 14
$ 54
$ 75
$ 60
$ 227
$ 350
$ 536
$ 61
$ 227
$ 352
$ 538
Abbreviations: ECOI = Enhanced Cost of Illness; TCOI = Traditional Cost of Illness
Notes: All values are discounted and annualized in 2003$. Based on TTHM as an indicator,
Villanueva et al. (2003) for baseline risk, and smoking/lung cancer cessation lag model. Some
numbers may not add correctly due to rounding. EPA recognizes that benefits may be as low as
zero since causality has not yet been established between exposure to chlorinated water and
bladder cancer.
Footnote 1: Alternative 1 appears to have fewer benefits than the Preferred Alternative (a lower
cost adjustment) because it does not incorporate the IDSE, as explained in Chapter 4.
Furthermore, this EA does not quantify the benefits of reducing the MCL for bromate (and
potentially associated cancer cases), a requirement that is included only in Alternative 1.
Sources: Column A: Exhibit 9.11, Mean Annualized Value, 25 years.
Columns B and C: Exhibits N.15 a - d, Columns I, J.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR
N-46
December 2005
-------
N.2.3 The CEA Ratio for Avoided Cases of Bladder Cancer
The CEA ratio describes the average cost per MILY saved, by each regulatory alternative. In
Exhibit N. 17, the Net Cost estimates developed in Section 2.2 are divided by the MILYs saved for each
alternative to yield the CEA ratio.
The lowest cost per MILY is associated with the least stringent alternative-the Preferred
Alternative. The most stringent rule-Alternative 3-is not the most costly per MILY, because Alternative 1
actually has a higher cost per MILY. This is explained by that all benefits are not captured for the
bromate reduction featured in Alternative 1 at this time.
Efficiency can be reviewed further with an incremental CEA, which describes how much
additional benefit is gained per additional unit cost expended from one alternative to the next. Although
the U.S. Public Health Service Panel on Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine did not recommend a
cost-effectiveness threshold for generalized use, it may be useful to identify cost thresholds that some
have used in comparing life saving or quality-of-life-improving interventions. The Harvard Cost Utility
Analysis database presents a median cost-utility ratio of $31,000 per QALY (or MILY) (2002$) for
respiratory and cardiovascular interventions, while Tengs et al. (1995) report a median cost per life-year
saved for life-saving interventions of $48,000 (1993$). The health economics literature sometimes uses
either $50,000 or $100,000 per QALY (or MILY) as athreshold, with ratios less than these values
considered de facto cost effective. However, it is important to recognize that these thresholds are
arbitrary values, often derived by reference to the cost per QALY for interventions that public health
specialists agree are justified. In general, EPA recommends that decisions as to whether a specific control
strategy is justified should be based on a complete comparison of benefits and costs.
The incremental gain (in MILYs) of a first alternative (in a series of increasingly stringent
alternatives) is equivalent to the CEA ratio of that alternative and captures the large amount of benefits
achieved by having a rule (compared to the status quo). The differences between subsequent rule
alternatives are quite narrow by comparison. Alternative 1 is excluded from the comparison in Exhibit
N. 17 because its incremental ratio would be negative. This is because 1) the additional benefit due to a
more stringent MCL for bromate is not quantified, and 2) the benefit of performing the Initial Distribution
System Evaluation is only considered for the Preferred Alternative. Alternatives 2 and 3 show a pattern
of increasing incremental cost with increasing stringency. When comparing the average cost and
incremental cost per MILY (Exhibits N. 17 - N. 18) to the default thresholds described previously, the
Preferred Rule, using a discount rate of 3%, is the only alternative lower than the $100,000 per MILY
threshold.
An additional analysis that can be performed is a breakeven analysis. This analysis uses the
arbitrary threshold estimates discussed above and calculates a maximum rule cost that would break even
with the costs allowed by these thresholds. This analysis uses two of the default thresholds described
above ($50,000 and $100,000 per MILY), and uses the MILYs calculated in Section 2.1.3 of this
Appendix using 3 and 7 percent discount rates and both the ECOI and TCOI approach. For example, at a
threshold of $100,000 per MILY expenditure and using a 3 percent discount rate, a regulatory cost of $75
million would break even for the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative is less (better) than this
threshold using the ECOI and TCOI approach, having a net cost of $48 and $50 million, respectively.
The other alternatives are significantly more costly than their respective thresholds (Exhibits N.19a-d).
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR N-47 December 2005
-------
Exhibit N.17 Cost Effectiveness Analysis Using Cases of Bladder Cancer
Avoided, by Rule Alternative, 3 and 7 Percent Discount Rates
Rule
Alternative
Net Cost
(ECOI)
Net Cost
(TCOI)
(Million$)
A
B
MILYs
(Years)
C
Cost per
MILY
(ECOI)
(3
D = A*106/C
Cost per
MILY
(TCOI)
)
E = B*106/C
3 Percent
Preferred
Alternative 11
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
$ 43
$ 222
$ 302
$ 469
$ 45
$ 224
$ 307
$ 476
725
652
2,449
3,379
$ 59,946
$ 340,584
$ 123,259
$ 138,754
$ 62,001
$ 342,641
$ 125,315
$ 140,810
7 Percent
Preferred
Alternative 11
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
$ 60
$ 227
$ 350
$ 536
$ 61
$ 227
$ 352
$ 538
510
462
1,733
2,390
$ 118,394
$ 491,295
$ 202,150
$ 224,024
$ 119,540
$ 492,449
$ 203,303
$ 225,178
Abbreviations: ECOI = Enhanced Cost of Illness; TCOI = Traditional Cost of Illness
Notes: All values are discounted and annualized in 2003$. Based on TTHM as an indicator,
Villanueva et al. (2003) for baseline risk, and smoking/lung cancer cessation lag model. Some
numbers may not add correctly due to rounding. EPA recognizes that benefits may be as low as
zero since causality has not yet been established between exposure to chlorinated water and
bladder cancer.
Footnote 1: Alternative 1 appears to have fewer benefits than the Preferred Alternative (fewer
MILYs saved) because it does not incorporate the IDSE, as explained in Chapter 4.
Furthermore, this EA does not quantify the benefits of reducing the MCL for bromate (and
potentially associated cancer cases), a requirement that is included only in Alternative 1.
Sources: Columns A,B - Exhibits N.16, Columns D-E
Column C - Exhibit N.10, Column C
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR
N-48
December 2005
-------
Exhibit N.18 Incremental Cost Effectiveness Analysis, by Rule Alternative,
3 and 7 Percent Discount Rates
Rule
Alternative
(")
Net Cost
(ECOI)
Net Cost
(TCOI)
(Million $)
A
B
MILYs
(Years)
C
Incremental
Net Cost1
(ECOI)
Incremental
Net Cost1
(TCOI)
(Million $)
D = An-A(n.1|
E = Bn-B(n.1|
Incremental
MILYs
(Years)
F = Cn -C(rvl)
Incremental
Cost per
MILY
(ECOI)
Incremental
Cost per
MILY
(TCOI)
($)
G = D/F
H = E/F
3 Percent
Preferred
Alternative 22
Alternative 3
$ 43
$ 302
$ 469
$ 45
$ 307
$ 476
$ 725
$ 2,449
$ 3,379
$ 43
$ 258
$ 167
$ 45
$ 262
$ 169
$ 725
$ 1 ,724
$ 930
$ 59,946
$ 149,868
$ 179,559
$ 62,001
$ 151,925
$ 181,615
7 Percent
Preferred
Alternative 22
Alternative 3
$ 60
$ 350
$ 536
$ 61
$ 352
$ 538
$ 510
$ 1 ,733
$ 2,390
$ 60
$ 290
$ 185
$ 61
$ 291
$ 186
$ 510
$ 1 ,222
$ 658
$ 118,394
$ 237,113
$ 281 ,629
$ 119,540
$ 238,270
$ 282,782
Abbreviations: ECOI = Enhanced Cost of Illness; TCOI = Traditional Cost of Illness
Notes: All values are discounted and annualized in 2003$. Based on TTHM as an indicator, Villanueva et al. (2003) for baseline risk, and
smoking/lung cancer cessation lag model. Some numbers may not add correctly due to rounding. EPA recognizes that benefits may be as low as
zero since causality has not yet been established between exposure to chlorinated water and bladder cancer.
Footnotes: 1) The incremental cost for the first in a series of increasingly stringent rules is just the cost itself (the difference between status quo
and implementing the first alternative). For example, the incremental cost of the Preferred Alternative (using a discount rate of 3 percent) is $52
million, the same value as the cost.
2) Alternative 2 is compared directly to the Preferred Alternative (skipping Alternative 1) in this analysis. In reference to conducting incremental
CEA, OMB states that "When constructing and comparing incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, [analysts] ... should make sure that inferior
alternatives identified by the principles of strong and weak dominance are eliminated from consideration." (OMB Circular A-4, p. 10) Alternative 1
is dominated by the Preferred Alternative and is therefore not included in the incremental analysis. The reason for this domination is mainly that
the Preferred Alternative includes IDSE and Alternative 1 does not; and to a lesser degree because the bromate control included in Alternative 1
increases the costs but the benefits of this control are not quantified at this time.
Sources: Columns A,B - Exhibits N.16, Columns D-E
Column C - Exhibit N.10, Column C
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR
N-49
December 2005
-------
Exhibit N.19a Breakeven Analysis for Fatal and Non-Fatal Cases,
by Rule Alternative, 3% Discount Rate, $50,000 Per MILY Threshold
Rule
Alternative
Preferred
Alternative 1 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
MILYs
(years)
A
725
652
2449
3379
Breakeven Net Cost
Assuming
$50,000/MILY
Threshold
Net Cost
(ECOI)
Net Cost
(TCOI)
(Million $)
B = $50,000* A /106
$ 36
$ 33
$ 122
$ 169
C
$ 43
$ 222
$ 302
$ 469
D
$ 45
$ 224
$ 307
$ 476
Abbreviations:
ECOI = Enhanced Cost of Illness
TCOI = Traditional Cost of Illness
Notes: All values are discounted and annualized in 2003$. Based on TTHM as an
indicator, Villanueva et al. (2003) for baseline risk, and smoking/lung cancer cessation lag
model. Some numbers may not add correctly due to rounding. EPA recognizes that
benefits may be as low as zero since causality has not yet been established between
exposure to chlorinated water and bladder cancer.
Footnote 1: Alternative 1 appears to have fewer benefits than the Preferred Alternative
(fewer MILYs saved) because it does not incorporate the IDSE, as explained in Chapter 4.
Furthermore, this EA does not quantify the benefits of reducing the MCL for bromate (and
potentially associated cancer cases), a requirement that is included only in Alternative 1.
Sources: Column A: Exhibit N.10, Column C
Columns C,D: Exhibit N.16: Columns D, E
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR
N-50
December 2005
-------
Exhibit N.19b Breakeven Analysis for Fatal and Non-Fatal Cases,
by Rule Alternative, 3% Discount Rate, $100,000 Per MILY Threshold
Rule
Alternative
Preferred
Alternative 1 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
MILYs
(years)
A
725
652
2449
3379
Breakeven Net Cost
Assuming
$100,000/MILY
Threshold
Net Cost
(ECOI)
Net Cost
(TCOI)
(Millions)
B = $100,000* A /10s
$ 72
$ 65
$ 245
$ 338
C
$ 43
$ 222
$ 302
$ 469
D
$ 45
$ 224
$ 307
$ 476
Abbreviations: ECOI = Enhanced Cost of Illness; TCOI = Traditional Cost of Illness
Notes: All values are discounted and annualized in 2003$. Based on TTHM as an
indicator, Villanueva et al. (2003) for baseline risk, and smoking/lung cancer cessation lag
model. Some numbers may not add correctly due to rounding. EPA recognizes that
benefits may be as low as zero since causality has not yet been established between
exposure to chlorinated water and bladder cancer.
Footnote 1: Alternative 1 appears to have fewer benefits than the Preferred Alternative
(fewer MILYs saved) because it does not incorporate the IDSE, as explained in Chapter 4.
Furthermore, this EA does not quantify the benefits of reducing the MCL for bromate (and
potentially associated cancer cases), a requirement that is included only in Alternative 1.
Sources: Column A: Exhibit N. 10, Column C
Columns C,D: Exhibit N.16: Columns D, E
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR
N-51
December 2005
-------
Exhibit N.19c Breakeven Analysis for Fatal and Non-Fatal Cases,
by Rule Alternative, 7% Discount Rate, $50,000 Per MILY Threshold
Rule
Alternative
Preferred
Alternative 11
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
MILYs
(years)
A
510
462
1,733
2,390
Breakeven Net Cost
Assuming
$50,000/MILY
Threshold
Net Cost
(ECOI)
Net Cost
(TCOI)
(Million$)
B = $50,000* A /106
$ 26
$ 23
$ 87
$ 120
C
$ 60
$ 227
$ 350
$ 536
D
$ 61
$ 227
$ 352
$ 538
Abbreviations:
ECOI = Enhanced Cost of Illness
TCOI = Traditional Cost of Illness
Notes: All values are discounted and annualized in 2003$. Based on TTHM as an
indicator, Villanueva et al. (2003) for baseline risk, and smoking/lung cancer cessation lag
model. Some numbers may not add correctly due to rounding. EPA recognizes that
benefits may be as low as zero since causality has not yet been established between
exposure to chlorinated water and bladder cancer.
Footnote 1: Alternative 1 appears to have fewer benefits than the Preferred Alternative
(fewer MILYs saved) because it does not incorporate the IDSE, as explained in Chapter 4.
Furthermore, this EA does not quantify the benefits of reducing the MCL for bromate (and
potentially associated cancer cases), a requirement that is included only in Alternative 1.
Sources: Column A: Exhibit N.10, Column C
Columns C,D: Exhibit N.16: Columns D, E
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR
N-52
December 2005
-------
Exhibit N.19d Breakeven Analysis for Fatal and Non-Fatal Cases,
by Rule Alternative, 7% Discount Rate, $100,000 Per MILY Threshold
Rule
Alternative
Preferred
Alternative 1 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
MILYs
(years)
A
510
462
1,733
2,390
Breakeven Net Cost
Assuming
$100,000/MILY
Threshold
Net Cost
(ECOI)
Net Cost
(TCOI)
(Million $)
B = $100,000* A /106
$ 51
$ 46
$ 173
$ 239
C
$ 60
$ 227
$ 350
$ 536
D
$ 61
$ 227
$ 352
$ 538
Abbreviations: ECOI = Enhanced Cost of Illness; TCOI = Traditional Cost of Illness
Notes: All values are discounted and annualized in 2003$. Based on TTHM as an
indicator, Villanueva et al. (2003) for baseline risk, and smoking/lung cancer cessation lag
model. Some numbers may not add correctly due to rounding. EPA recognizes that
benefits may be as low as zero since causality has not yet been established between
exposure to chlorinated water and bladder cancer.
Footnote 1: Alternative 1 appears to have fewer benefits than the Preferred Alternative
(fewer MILYs saved) because it does not incorporate the IDSE, as explained in Chapter 4.
Furthermore, this EA does not quantify the benefits of reducing the MCL for bromate (and
potentially associated cancer cases), a requirement that is included only in Alternative 1.
Sources: Column A: Exhibit N.10, Column C
Columns C,D: Exhibit N.16: Columns D, E
N.3.0 Sensitivity Analysis
Human epidemiology studies on chlorinated surface water have reported associations with colon and
rectal cancers, which are together the third most common type of new cancer cases and deaths in both
men and women in the U.S., excluding skin cancers. Therefore, any benefit from reducing the incidence
of colon and rectal cancers could be significant. EPA is including a quantitative sensitivity analysis for
benefits accrued from the Stage 2 DBPR from avoiding colon and rectal cancers.
Potential benefits from avoided cases of colon and rectal cancers achieved through reduction in DBP
concentration also represent one of the largest uncertainties affecting the benefits of the Stage 2 DBPR.
Although this benefit is not calculated as part of the main Economic Analysis of the Stage 2 DBPR, it is
used in a sensitivity analysis in Section 6.7 of the EA to inform the reader of the potential magnitude of
this benefit. Similarly, this Appendix presents summary tables that show how sensitive the CEA results
are to inclusion of potential benefits from avoided colon and rectal cancers.
The methods for calculating QALYs, or MILYs saved by the Stage 2 DBPR for potentially avoided
colon and rectal cancers are basically the same as those described previously in this Appendix. Where the
data sources or methods are different, the text below describes and explains this difference.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR
N-53
December 2005
-------
N.3.1 QALY Decrements and Time in State for Colon and Rectal Cancer Cases
The Agency's literature review discovered seven studies that include estimates of QALY scores
for various stages, durations, and treatments of colorectal cancer.22 Of these studies, EPA believes that
Dominitz and Provenzale (1997) provides the best estimate of the QALY loss due to colorectal cancer,
because it is a patient- and community-based time-tradeoff study. The results presented by Dominitz and
Provenzale (1997) support a decrement of 0.15 for twenty years of colorectal cancer and between 0.15
and 0.21 fortwenty years with a colostomy. Assuming that 10 percent of colorectal cancer patients need
a colostomy, this implies an annual QALY decrement of 0.1536.23 This decrement is also within the
range suggested by the other studies EPA reviewed.
The definition of time in state used in Dominitz and Provenzale (1997) to generate QALY
scores is 20 years and is approximately consistent with that used in EPA's Cost of Illness Handbook. The
Handbook estimates that the average age of diagnosis for colorectal cancer is 70.4 years, and the average
follow-up period is 13.8 years; the difference between this estimate and the 20 years in Dominitz and
Provenzale is likely attributable to the EPA analysts accounting for the high average age of diagnosis for
colon and rectal cancer patients, and the high baseline mortality rate among individuals at that age. In
other words, many colon and rectal cancer patients, even if they survive the cancer, die of other causes
prior to reaching the end of a 20 year follow-up period. Therefore this CEA adopts a 13.8 year
time-in-state estimate for colon and rectal cancer patients.
In the case of colon and rectal cancers, no RSR analysis is applied in the EPA COI handbook, as was
done for bladder cancer cases. Instead, the COI estimates are constructed based on several key facts in
the Handbook about the survival rate for colorectal cancer, including the following:
1. 47 percent of colon and rectal cancer patients ultimately die of the disease.
2. 70 to 80 percent of all patients survive through the first three years.
3. The average life expectancy of survivors, before they die of other causes, is 13.8
years from diagnosis.
Using these three facts, a table is constructed similar to that in the bladder cancer sections shown
previously that allocates all colorectal patients into three outcome categories: survive the full 13.8 years
before dying of other causes; survive for some portion of this period but die of other causes; and survive
for some portion of the 13.8 year period but die from colon and rectal cancer. The last category includes a
total of 47 percent of all colorectal cancer incidence. The result of these calculations of the relevant
QALY score and time-in-state, weighted by the likelihood of an "average" patient realizing one of the
three outcomes outlined above, is a set of QALY loss estimates for cancer patients in two categories:
patients that ultimately survive the cancer, and patients that ultimately die from the cancer. The estimates
of QALY loss were generated so they could be applied as a type of "unit value" to each incidence of fatal
and nonfatal cancer, and then aggregated (See Exhibit N.20).
22 In addition to Dominitz and Provenzale (1997), these studies include: Hristova and Hakama (1997), Ness et al.
(1999), Norum et al. (1997), Ramsey et al. (2000), Stiggelbout et al. (1995), and Whynes and Neilson (1993).
23 This is calculated as: 0.1536 = (10 percent colostomy)*(0.186, which is the average of the three QALY
decrements for this condition) + (remaining 90 percent)*(0.15)
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR N-54 December 2005
-------
Exhibit N.20 QALY Loss Due to Morbidity for an Average Case (Fatal and
Non-Fatal) of Colorectal Cancer at 3 Percent and 7 Percent Discount Rates
Non-Fatal
Fatal
Undiscounted
2.12
0.51
3 Percent
1.77
0.48
7 Percent
1.42
0.44
Sources: QALY estimates used to generate this table were developed
based on Dominitz and Provenzale (1997). Decrements shown are for
a weighted average case, calculated using probabilities of survival that
are taken from The EPA Cosf of Illness Handbook.
Note: The QALY loss associated with morbidity is greater for survivors
than nonsurvivors because they live longer, and endure the illness
longer, on average.
The estimates of QALY loss due to morbidity are then applied to fatal and non-fatal cases
generated in the EA to produce estimates of morbidity related QALYs (Exhibit N.21). The annual
mortality rate estimates are developed using the facts stated in the EPA COI Handbook and described
previously in this section. The resulting life years saved for potentially avoided fatal cases of colon and
rectal cancers is shown combined with life years saved for bladder cancer cases avoided by the Stage 2
DBPR (Exhibit N.22).
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR
N-55
December 2005
-------
Exhibit N.21 QALYs Saved in the Sensitivity Analysis: Morbidity Related to
Fatal and Non-Fatal Cases of Cancers Avoided by the Preferred Alternative
Using 3 and 7 Percent Discount Rates
Cancer Avoided
Cases
Avoided
A
Non -Fatal
Cases1
B
Fatal Cases1
C
Morbidity-Related QALYs
Non -Fatal Cases
D
Fatal Cases
E
Morbidity-Related
QALYs, Fatal and
Non -Fatal Cases
F = D+E
3 Percent
Bladder
Sensitivity Analysis
238
613
176
375
62
238
55
407
17
102
72
508
7 Percent
Bladder Cancers
Sensitivity Analysis
189
491
140
300
49
191
36
263
12
74
47
338
Notes: This sensitivity analysis combines results for bladder cancer cases with those for potentially avoidable colon and rectal
cancers. All estimates are discounted and annualized. Based on TTHM as an indicator, Villanueva et al. (2003) for baseline risk, and
smoking/lung cancer cessation lag model. Some numbers may not add correctly due to rounding. Assumes 24 percent of bladder
cancer cases are fatal, 76 percent are non-fatal (USEPA 1999a); 47 percent of colon rectal cancer cases are fatal, and 53 percent are
non-fatal (EPA COI Handbook). EPA recognizes that benefits may be as low as zero since causality has not yet been established
between exposure to chlorinated water and bladder cancer or colon rectal cancers.
Footnote: 1) Per the EPA COI Handbook, 20 y ears and 13.8 years capture most deaths that result from bladder cancers and from
colon rectal cancers, respectively, and the mortality rates over these periods are 26% and 47%.
Sources: Bladder cancer data: Exhibit N.7; QALY decrements based on Mauskopf & French (1991). Colon and Rectal Cancers data:
Exhibits E 22a. QALY decrements based on Dominitz and Provenzale (1997). Disease duration, medical cost of illness, and relative
survival rates that were used to modify QALY decrements are from the EPA Cost of Illness Handbook (Sections II.7 and II.8). Time
losses (indirect cost of illness) are adopted from time losses computed for bladder cancer cases in this Appendix (Section 2.2) because
such data specific to colon rectal cancers was not available and, based on the relatively more severe treatment regimen for colon and
rectal cancers, bladder cancer time losses will underestimate those for colon rectal cancers, so they represent a conservative estimate.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR
N-56
December 2005
-------
Exhibit N.22 Life Years Saved in the Sensitivity Analysis, Fatal Cases
of Cancers Avoided by the Preferred Alternative
Using 3 and 7 Percent Discount Rates
1 Fatal Cases
| Life Years Saved
A | B
3% Discount Rate
Bladder! 62
Sensitivity Analysis) 238
7% Discount Rate
Bladder! 49
Sensitivity Analysis) 191
I 653
2655
I 463
1928
Notes: This sensitivity analysis combines results for bladder cancer cases
with those for potentially avoidable colon and rectal cancers. All estimates
are discounted and annualized. Based on TTHM as an indicator, Villanueva
et al. (2003) for baseline risk, and smoking/lung cancer cessation lag model.
Some numbers may not add correctly due to rounding. Assumes 24 percent
of bladder cancer cases are fatal, 76 percent are non-fatal (USEPA 1999a);
47 percent of colon rectal cancer cases are fatal, and 53 percent are non-
fatal (EPA CO/ Handbook). EPA recognizes that benefits may be as low as
zero since causality has not yet been established between exposure to
chlorinated water and bladder cancer or colon rectal cancers.
Sources:
Bladder cancers data, Columns A, B - Exhibits N.9
Colon and Rectal Cancers data: Exhibits E 22a. QALY decrements based
on Dominitz and Provenzale (1997). Disease duration, medical cost of
illness, and relative survival rates that were used to modify QALY decrements
are from the EPA Cost of Illness Handbook (Sections II.7 and II.8). Time
losses (indirect cost of illness) are adopted from time losses computed for
bladder cancer cases in this Appendix (Section 2.2) because such data
specific to colon rectal cancers was not available and, based on the relatively
more severe treatment regimen for colon and rectal cancers, bladder cancer
time losses will underestimate those for colon rectal cancers, so they
represent a conservative estimate.
MILYs, as described in previous sections detailing the same analysis for bladder cancer cases
avoided, integrate the QALYs saved from avoided morbidity associated with cases of fatal and non-fatal
cancers with life years saved from avoided premature mortality. MILYs saved for the colon and rectal
cancer cases that potentially could be avoided by the rule are combined with the bladder cancer results in
Exhibit N.23.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR
N-57
December 2005
-------
Exhibit N.23 MILYs Saved in the Sensitivity Analysis for Non-Fatal and Fatal
Cancers Cases Avoided by the Preferred Alternative, Using 3 and 7 Percent
Discount Rates
Cancer Avoided
Morbidity-Related
QALYs, Fatal and
Non-Fatal Cases
A
Life-Years
Saved from
Avoided
Premature
Mortality
B
MILYs
C = A+B
3% Discount Rate
Bladder
Colon and Rectal
Sensitivity Analysis
72
436
508
653
2,003
2,655
725
2,439
3,163
7% Discount Rate
Bladder
Colon and Rectal
Sensitivity Analysis
47
291
338
463
1,466
1,928
510
1,756
2,266
Notes: This sensitivity analysis combines results for bladder cancer cases with
those for potentially avoidable colon and rectal cancers. All estimates are
discounted and annualized. Based on TTHM as an indicator, Villanueva et al.
(2003) for baseline risk, and smoking/lung cancer cessation lag model. Some
numbers may not add correctly due to rounding. Assumes 24 percent of bladder
cancer cases are fatal, 76 percent are non-fatal (USEPA 1999a); 47 percent of
colon rectal cancer cases are fatal, and 53 percent are non-fatal (EPA COI
Handbook). EPA recognizes that benefits may be as low as zero since causality
has not yet been established between exposure to chlorinated water and bladder
cancer or colon rectal cancers.
Sources: Column A: Exhibit N.21
Column B: Exhibit N.22
N.3.2 Costs subtracted from the numerator for avoided colon and rectal cancer cases
Costs for medical treatment and time losses for potentially avoided colon and rectal cancers are
calculated using a method equivalent to that described above for bladder cancer cases. Additionally, the
annual caregiver time losses estimated for avoided bladder cancer cases are transferred directly to the
analysis for colon and rectal cancers because an alternative source of information specific to colon and
rectal cancers is not known at this time. Based on the following facts presented in the EPA Cost of Illness
Handbook, caregiver time losses for bladder cancer will likely underestimate those for colon and rectal
cancers:
Colon and rectal cancers have a higher fatality rate than bladder cancer
(47% vs. 26%), and often require a more invasive surgery (resectioning
of the colon). Most bladder tumors are confined to the transitional cell
layer and these are generally treated only with surgery. The tumors often
recur, which requires frequent cystoscopy with subsequent removal of
recurrent tumors as necessary. In the case of colon and rectal cancers,
surgery is usually performed, as well as radiation and/or chemotherapy.
Most surgery involves en bloc resection, which entails removing large
sections of the intestinal tract. Treatment for this type of cancer often
requires permanent lifestyle changes due to the nature of the surgical
intervention required. (EPA Cost of Illness Handbook, 1999)
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR
N-58
December 2005
-------
As presented in a previous section (2.2.1), costs are identified that, in the case of avoided colon
and rectal cancer cases, could reasonably be assumed to be avoided. These costs consist of direct costs
from avoided medical expenses, and indirect costs from losses of time by patients and caregivers.
Additionally, these costs should not be accounted for by the QALY decrement. As discussed in the
bladder cancer section 2.2.1, there is a lack of consensus on the issue of whether QALY decrements
include consideration of the full costs of lost work time. This analysis, consistent with the CAIR RIA,
makes the assumption that lost work time costs to society are not included in the QALY decrements;
therefore, the value of these time losses is included in the costs subtracted from regulation costs in the
numerator.
In Dominitz and Provenzale, the questionnaire includes reference to some limitations, but does
not specify lost work. The section describing life after a colostomy states that 'Y'ou should be able to
carry out all of your usual activities. Occasionally you may experience an unexpected odor, gas or
discharge, " while the section on "living with colon cancer" states that 'Y'ou are able to perform your
usual activities with some limitation" and that'Y"ou can climb one flight of stairs but must rest after you
reach the top step." These descriptions seem to support that respondents were thinking about limits on
their non-market work and leisure time. It is less clear whether they were considering lost time from paid
work. For example, these scenarios would suggest that a person whose job involved physical work would
be severely limited at work, but these scenarios do not differentiate between limitations for those whose
jobs are physically demanding vs. those who have desk jobs. The uncertainty in the composition of the
QALY decrements is underscored more generally when considering the information presented in Nord et
al. (Exhibit N.2 in the introduction to this Appendix), where a variety of elicitation instruments has
produced inconsistent QALY estimates.
Costs are calculated by year and applied to then number of cases that may potentially be avoided.
The number of cases and the avoidable costs are discounted using both 3 and 7 percent discount rates, and
this cost adjustment is subtracted from the regulatory costs, as is the cost adjustment associated with
avoided cases of bladder cancer, to produce a net numerator (sections 2.2.2 - 2.2.4). The sensitivity
analysis for net cost is shown in Exhibit N.24.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR N-59 December 2005
-------
Exhibit N.24 Sensitivity Analysis for Net Regulatory Cost1 of Preferred Alternative
Using Cases of Avoided Cancers, 3 and 7 Percent Discount Rates
llness Avoided
Cost
Total Cost
Adjustment
(ECOI)
Total Cost
Adjustment
(TCOI)
Net Cost
(ECOI)
Net Cost
(TCOI)
(Million$)
A
B
C
D=A-B
E = A-C
3 Percent
Bladder
Sensitivity Analysis
$ 79
$ 79
$ 35
$ 93
$ 34
$ 87
$ 43
Cost Saving
$ 45
Cost Saving
7 Percent
Bladder
Sensitivity Analysis
$ 77
$ 77
$ 16
$ 33
$ 16
$ 31
$ 60
$ 44
$ 61
$ 46
Abbreviations: ECOI = Enhanced Cost of Illness, TCOI = Traditional Cost of Illness
Notes: This sensitivity analysis combines results for bladder cancer cases with those for potentially
avoidable colon and rectal cancers. All estimates are discounted and annualized in 2003$. Based on
TTHM as an indicator, Villanueva et al. (2003) for baseline risk, and smoking/lung cancer cessation lag
model. Some numbers may not add correctly due to rounding. Assumes 24 percent of bladder cancer
cases are fatal, 76 percent are non-fatal (USEPA 1999a); 47 percent of colon rectal cancer cases are
fatal, and 53 percent are non-fatal (EPA COI Handbook). EPA recognizes that benefits may be as low as
zero since causality has not yet been established between exposure to chlorinated water and bladder
cancer or colon rectal cancers.
Footnote 1: Net Regulatory costs are regulatory costs less those costs expected to be avoided through
rule promulgation.
Sources:
Bladder Cancer data: Exhibit N.16
Colon and Rectal Cancers data: Exhibits E 22a. QALY decrements based on Dominitz and Provenzale
(1997). Disease duration, medical cost of illness, and relative survival rates that were used to modify
QALY decrements are from the EPA Cost of Illness Handbook (Sections II.7 and II.8). Time losses
(indirect cost of illness) are adopted from time losses computed for bladder cancer cases in this Appendix
(Section 2.2) because such data specific to colon rectal cancers was not available and, based on the
relatively more severe treatment regimen for colon and rectal cancers, bladder cancer time losses will
underestimate those for colon rectal cancers, so they represent a conservative estimate.
N.3.3 The CEA Ratio for Potentially Avoided Cases of Colon and Rectal Cancer
The CEA ratio for cases of colon and rectal cancers that potentially may be avoided by the
Preferred Alternative is constructed as described previously for cases of bladder cancer avoided (section
2.3). The combined results for avoided bladder cancer and colon and rectal cancer cases are shown in
Exhibit N.25. The combined results of a breakeven analysis (for 3 and 7 percent discount rates) are also
shown in Exhibit N.26. These sensitivity analyses show that the addition of benefits from potentially
avoided colon and rectal cancer cases improves the cost effectiveness of the Stage 2 DBPR significantly.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR
N-60
December 2005
-------
Exhibit N.25 Combined Cost Effectiveness Analysis for the Preferred Alternative
Using Cases of Cancers Avoided, 3 and 7 Percent Discount Rates
llness Avoided
Net Cost
(ECOI)
Net Cost
(TCOI)
(Million $)
A
B
MILYs
(Years)
C
Cost per
MILY
(ECOI)
Cost per
MILY (TCOI)
($)
D = A*106/C
E = B*106/C
3 Percent
Bladder
Colon and Rectal
Sensitivity Analysis
$ 43
$ 21
Cost Saving
$ 45
$ 26
Cost Saving
725
2,439
3,163
$ 59,946
$ 8,753
$ 20,480
$ 62,001
$ 10,506
$ 22,302
7 Percent
Bladder
Colon and Rectal
Sensitivity Analysis
$ 60
$ 60
$ 44
$ 61
$ 62
$ 46
510
1,756
2,266
$ 118,394
$ 34,239
$ 19,294
$ 119,540
$ 35,067
$ 20,194
Abbreviations:
ECOI = Enhanced Cost of Illness, TCOI = Traditional Cost of Illness
Note: This sensitivity analysis combines results for bladder cancer cases with those for potentially
avoidable colon and rectal cancers. All estimates are discounted and annualized in 2003$. Based on
TTHM as an indicator, Villanueva et al. (2003) for baseline risk, and smoking/lung cancer cessation lag
model. Some numbers may not add correctly due to rounding. Assumes 24 percent of bladder cancer
cases are fatal, 76 percent are non-fatal (USEPA 1999a); 47 percent of colon rectal cancer cases are
fatal, and 53 percent are non-fatal (EPA COI Handbook). EPA recognizes that benefits may be as low as
zero since causality has not yet been established between exposure to chlorinated water and bladder
cancer or colon rectal cancers.
Sources: Columns A,B - Exhibits N.24, Columns D - E
Column C - Exhibit N.23, Column C
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR
N-61
December 2005
-------
Exhibit N.26 Sensitivity Analysis for Breakeven Net Cost of the
Preferred Alternative, Using Fatal and Non-Fatal Cases of Cancers Avoided,
3 and 7 Percent Discount Rates
$PerMILY
Threshold
Combined
MILYs
(years)
A
Breakeven Net Cost
Net Cost
(ECOI)
Net Cost
(TCOI)
(Million $)
B = $50,000* A /106
B = $100,000* A /106
C
D
3 Percent
$ 50,000
$ 100,000
3,163
3,163
$ 158
$ 316
Cost Saving | Cost Saving
Cost Saving | Cost Saving
7 Percent
$ 50,000
$ 100,000
2,266
2,266
$ 113
$ 227
$ 44 1 $ 46
$ 44 | $ 46
Note: This sensitivity analysis combines results for bladder cancer cases with those for
potentially avoidable colon and rectal cancers. All estimates are discounted and
annualized in 2003$. Based on TTHM as an indicator, Villanueva et al. (2003) for baseline
risk, and smoking/lung cancer cessation lag model. Some numbers may not add correctly
due to rounding. Assumes 24 percent of bladder cancer cases are fatal, 76 percent are
non-fatal (USEPA 1999a); 47 percent of colon rectal cancer cases are fatal, and 53 percent
are non-fatal (EPA COI Handbook). EPA recognizes that benefits may be as low as zero
since causality has not yet been established between exposure to chlorinated water and
bladder cancer or colon rectal cancers.
Sources: Column A,B - Exhibit N.23, Column C
Columns C and D - Exhibit N.24, Columns D and E
N.4.0 Conclusions
In this analysis, CEA ratios for the most protective alternatives have the highest cost per MILY.
The cost per MILY ratio and the breakeven analysis (at a 3 percent discount rate) both show that the
Preferred Alternative is the only alternative that is less than a $100,000 per MILY threshold (Exhibits
N.17andN.19a-d).
The incremental analysis shows that the Preferred Alternative is the only one (of all alternatives
excluding Alternative 1, as described in Section 2.3) with a marginal cost relative to the next less
stringent alternative that is less than the highest threshold presented in this Appendix, $100,000 per
MILY (Exhibit N. 18). As a result, we conclude that the results of our CEA further support the choice of
the Preferred Alternative.
The sensitivity analysis (Exhibits N.21 - N.26) shows that if potentially avoidable cases of colon
and rectal cancers are quantified, they significantly improve the cost effectiveness of the Stage 2 DBPR.
With quality of life effects of these cancers added to the measure of the total MILY improvement, all
options are cost effective, with results consistently less than $50,000 per MILY.
In the health field, where QALYs were originally developed, a common usage for CEA measures
is as an entry in a "league table" that ranks the relative cost-effectiveness of multiple interventions. The
main difficulty in constructing such a table is ensuring consistency of methodology in all the values being
compared. The variation in QALY decrements renders comparisons across rulemakings difficult to the
extent that disparate QALY scales and decrements are used, as discussed in Section 1.0 of this appendix.
The NAS/IOM panel, as described in Section 1.0, will attempt to provide recommendations on the
conduct of CEA for regulatory health interventions across the Federal government in its report, expected
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR
N-62
December 2005
-------
in late 2005. Presently it would be difficult to provide entirely consistent comparisons to other health and
medical interventions as part of the EA for this rule.
In addition, while QALYs are used extensively in the economic evaluation of medical
interventions (Gold et al, 1996), they have not been widely used in evaluating environmental health
regulations. A number of specific issues arise with the use of QALYs in evaluating environmental
programs that affect a broad and heterogeneous population and that provide both health and nonhealth
benefits. The U.S. Public Health Service report on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine notes the
following:
For decisions that involve greater diversity in interventions and the
people to whom they apply, cost-effectiveness ratios continue to provide
essential information, but that information must, to a greater degree, be
evaluated in light of circumstances and values that cannot be included in
the analysis. Individuals in the population will differ widely in their
health and disability before the intervention, or in age, wealth, or other
characteristics, raising questions about how society values gains for the
more and less healthy, for young and old, for rich and poor, and so on.
The assumption that all QALYs are of equal value is less likely to be
reasonable in this context. (Gold et al., 1996, p. 11)
Use of QALYs (and MILYs) as a measure of effectiveness for environmental regulations is still
developing, and while this analysis provides one framework for using QALYs to evaluate environmental
regulations, there are clearly many issues, both scientific and ethical, that need to be addressed with
additional research. The IOM panel evaluating QALYs and other effectiveness measures will attempt to
develop criteria for choosing among the measures that will potentially be useful in regulatory impact
analysis; make recommendations regarding measures appropriate for assessing the health benefits of
regulatory interventions; and propose criteria for identifying regulations for which CEA is appropriate
and informative. However, it remains uncertain when consensus on the applicability of the QALY
approach to environmental regulations, and the appropriate methodology for doing so, will be reached.
Final Economic Analysis for the Stage2 DBPR N-63 December 2005
------- |