Appendices to the Economic
Analysis for Final Ground
Water Rule

Volume I (A - L)

-------
Office of Water (4606-M)   EPA 815-R-06-014   October 2006  www.epa.gov/safewater

-------
                 Appendix A

Calculations Supporting the Cost of Illness (COI)
                  Analysis

-------
                                           Appendix A
                  Calculations Supporting the Cost of Illness (COI) Analysis
A.I    Introduction

        This appendix presents data and calculations that this Economic Analysis (EA) uses to estimate
the monetized morbidity benefits of the Ground Water Rule (GWR).  Chapter 5 presents the general
methodology for using a cost of illness (COI) approach.  This appendix, Appendix A, provides additional
detail on the data from other sources that are used to support the analyses and the methodology applied to
adapt that data for use in the GWR EA.  The approach used to value reductions in nonfatal cases of Type
A and Type B viruses combines estimates of the medical costs of illness with estimates of the value of
related time losses.  Many of the values in the following analysis rely on data collected from a broad and
thorough review of the literature concerning the valuation of illnesses.1
A.2    Type A and Type B Viruses Cost-Related Data

        EPA chose rotavirus to represent Type A viruses and enterovirus (including echovirus and
coxsackievirus) to represent Type B viruses. The Agency conducted a literature search focusing on the
most recent studies that quantified the direct and/or indirect costs associated with rotavirus and
enterovirus. Data for mean values and ranges from more than one study have been combined in some
cases to include more information about the range of uncertainty. Where no range data were available,
only mean estimates are used.

        Type A and Type B viruses can result in a range of illnesses with varying degrees of impacts.
Because the effects differ by age, separate age groups were  specified.  Type A viral illnesses were
additionally examined by the health sensitivity of the patient (immunocompromised or healthy). Because
of differences in costs and time lost due to an enterovirus (Type B) infection, EPA chose to model these
effects with three levels of severity of illness defined by the following requirements: no medical care,
doctor's visit, and hospitalization. Data was unavailable to further define Type B viral illnesses with
regard to the health sensitivity of the patient as was done with Type A.

A.2.1   Data for Type A Viruses: Rotavirus

        Deriving the cost of illness for a case of rotavirus requires both the quantity of various medical
services consumed (e.g., number of doctor visits) as well as the cost per unit. Exhibit A. 1  presents the
former, including the percentages of the ill population that seek outpatient and inpatient care, the duration
        'The studies consulted include Anderson et al. (2004), Banyai et al. (2002), Bartlett et al. (1988), Carabin et
al. (1999), Cherry (1995), Dormitzer et al. (2005), Person (1996), Fletcher et al. (2000), Fruhwirth et al. (2001),
Garthright et al. (1988), Glass et al (1996), Grimwood et al. (1988), Grimwood (1983), Haffejee (1991), Hamilton et
al. (1999), Heiselman (1997), Jin et al. (1996); Kafetzis et al. (2001), Kapikian (2001), Kapikian and Chanock
(1996), Khuffash et al. (1988), Kovacs et al. (1987), Liddle et al. (1997); Lynch et al. (2001), Matson and Estes
(1990), Mesa et al. (1996), Miller (1997), Modlin (1995), Nigrovic (2001), Nigrovic and Chiang (2000), O'Ryan et
al. (2001), Parashar et al. (1998), Parashar et al.  (1999), Parasuraman et al. (2001), Pichichero et al. (1998),
Rodriguez et al. (1977), Sawyer (2001), Schumacher et al. (1999), Szucs et al. (1999), Tallett et al. (1977), Ward
(2001), Wenman (1979).

Economic Analysis for the                         A-l                                    October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
           of the illness's symptoms, days lost due to the illness, the number of follow-up visits, and the duration of
           hospital stays. The exhibit also provides data used later for estimating the indirect costs associated with
           rotavirus.
                   Valuing illnesses from rotavirus begins by determining what percentage of patients seek
           outpatient and what percentage of patients seek inpatient medical care.  EPA used these percentages, in
           conjunction with the data associated with outpatient and inpatient care, to create weighted COI estimates.
           For outpatient care, EPA assumed one initial physician visit and, based  on data from recent literature
           (cited in exhibit A. 1 below), the average number of follow-up visits (see row G). For inpatient care, the
           literature that the Agency examined reported the durations of a hospital stay associated with a case of
           rotavirus, by age. The data for hospital  stays associated with rotavirus come from studies of children
           under the age of five. Data were not available with regard to hospital stays for older patients, thus no
           hospital stays were assigned for these age groups.  EPA also assumed an initial physician visit once
           admitted for each person seeking inpatient care and daily follow-up doctor visits thereafter while in the
           hospital.

                    Exhibit A.I  Nonmonetary  Cost Data, by Age, for Type A Viruses: Rotavirus
Category
Percent seeking outpatient (A)
Percent seeking inpatient (B)
Duration of symptoms - No Medical Care/
Outpatient (days) (C)
Duration of symptoms - Inpatient (days) (C)
Patient days lost to illness: No Medical Care/
Outpatient - (D)
Patient days lost to illness: Inpatient - (D)
Caregiverdays lost: No Medical Care/
Outpatient - (E)
Caregiverdays lost: Inpatient - (E)
Lost productivity days (F)
Healthy Population
<2
14%
1 .4%
3
5
3
5
3
5
0
2 to 4
14%
1 .4%
3
5
3
5
3
5
0
5 to 15
0.0%
0.0%
3
N/A
1.5
N/A
1.5
1.5
0
>16
(G2 & G9)
0.0%
0.0%
2.5
N/A
1
N/A
0
N/A
1
>16
(All Others)
0.0%
0.0%
2.5
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
1
Immunocompromised Population
<2
100%
100%
N/A
5
N/A
5
N/A
5
0
2 to 4
1 00%
100%
N/A
3
N/A
3
N/A
3
0
5 to 15
100%
100%
N/A
3
N/A
3
N/A
3
0
>16
1 00%
100%
N/A
2.5
N/A
2.5
N/A
0
0
Outpatient data
Follow-up doctor visits (G)|0.5 (0-9)0.5 (0-9)
Inpatient data
Duration of hospital stay (days) (H)
Follow-up doctor visits (1)
5
4

5
4
N/A

NA
NA
N/A

NA
NA
N/A
0.5 (0-9)

N/A
N/A
5
4
0.5 (0-9)

3
2
0

3
2
0

2.5
2
               Note: For the healthy population v!6 years, the severity of symptom manifestation is dependent on the Rotavirus strain and can be divided into two
                    groups. The G2 & G9 strains represent 15.3% of illnesses, while all other strains comprise the remaining 84.7% (Griffin, 2000).
Sources and Derivations: (A) Healthy population: Kapikian (2001) and CDC (1999) for patients <5 years; Glass et al. (1996) for patients 5 years and older; Wenman et
                    al. (1979) for patients 16 and over. Immunocompromised population: Assumed to be 100% for all age categories.
                    (B) Healthy population: Ward (2001) for patients <5 years; Glass et al. (1996) for patients 5 years and older. Immunocompromised
                    population: Assumed to be 100% for all age categories.
                    (C) Healthy Immunocompromised populations: Kovacs (1987) and Grimwood (1988) for patients <2 years; (Dormitzer (2005), Rodriguez
                    (1977) Tallett (1977), Haffejee  (1991) for patients <16 years; Grimwood (1983) for children >12 years and adults. Immunocompromised
                    population: All cases are assumed to be inpatient.
                    (D) Healthy population: Assumes lost patient days are equal to illness duration for patients <5 years; assumed equal to the number of bed
                    days per acute intestinal virus infection for patients 5 to 15 years and older (bed days from National Center for Health Statistics (1999).
                    Additional information for adult cases from Grimwood (1983). Immunocompromised population: Assumes lost patient days are equal to
                    illness duration for all patients.
                    (E) Assumes caregiver days are equal to the number of lost patient days for patients under 16 years of age.
                    (F) Banyai (2002) and Anderson (2004) for healthy adults and composite review of all ages, respectively. Lost productivity assumed 1/2 of
                    the 2-3 days (0.5 * 2 = 1) of fever/vomiting/diarrhea symptoms. Assumed zero days for all other categories.
                    (G) Liddle et al. (1997) for patients <4 years. Assumes no follow-up visits for patients 5 years and older.
                    (H) Hospitalized children data from Khuffash (1988), Mesa (1996), Haffejee (1991), Grimwood (1988), low estimate ranging from 3 to 5.5
                    (I) Assumes daily follow-up doctor visit after day of admission.
           Economic Analysis for the
           Final Ground Water Rule
October 2006

-------
                   Exhibit A.2 provides unit costs for the medical services listed in Exhibit A. 1.  These include the
           costs for an initial physician visit, follow-up visits, and the per-day cost of a hospital stay. All costs are
           presented in both base year and 2003 dollars. For costing purposes, EPA assumed hospital charges
           associated with "esophagitis, gastroenteritis, and miscellaneous digestive disorders" for patients under the
           age of 18 adequately represented the hospital costs of patients of all age groups. Dividing that value by
           four yielded the per-day cost of a hospital stay.
                      Exhibit A.2  Unit Cost Data, by Age, for Type A Viruses: Rotavirus
Cost Category
Average Cost per Patient
Base Year $
<2 | 2 to 4 | 5 to 15
Outpatient costs
Initial physician visit (A)
Cost per follow-up (B)
$ 99.58 $ 99.58 $ 99.58
$ 57.53 $ 57.53 $ 57.53
>16
CPI
Base
CPI
2003
2003$
<2 | 2 to 4 | 5 to 15 | >16

$ 99.58
$ 57.53
266.0
266.0
306.0
306.0
$114.55 $114.55 $114.55 $114.55
$ 66.18 $ 66.18 $ 66.18 $ 66.18
Inpatient costs
Hospital costs (C)
Hospital costs per day (C)
Initial physician visit (D)
Cost per follow-up (E)
$ 3,512 $ 3,512 $ 3,512
$ 702 $ 702 $ 702
$132.89 $132.89 $132.89
$ 45.42 $ 45.42 $ 45.42
$ 3,512
$ 702
$132.89
$ 45.42
N/A
213.4
266.0
266.0
N/A
306.0
306.0
306.0
N/A N./A N/A N/A
$ 1,007 $ 1,007 $ 1,007 $ 1,007
$152.87 $152.87 $152.87 $152.87
$ 52.25 $ 52.25 $ 52.25 $ 52.25
Notes:                 (A, B, D, & E) Updated using CPI-U Medical care services, not seasonally adjusted (Base year: 2000 annual).
                      (C) Updated using CPI-U Medical care services, not seasonally adjusted (Base year: 1994 annual).
Sources and Derivations: (A) CRT-4 Code 99204: Evaluation and Management: Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of
                      a new patient, which requires these three key components: a comprehensive history, a comprehensive examination, and
                      medical decision-making of moderate complexity.
                      (B) CRT-4 Code 99214: Evaluation and Management: Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of
                      an established patient, which requires at least two of these three key components: a detailed history, a detailed examination,
                      medical decision-making of moderate complexity.
                      (C) Hospital charges associated with "esophagitis, gastroenteritis and miscellaneous digestive disorders" for patients 0-17
                      years old; from the HCUP-3 Nationwide Inpatient Sample for 1994: Diagnosis=Related Groups (DRG #184). Cost per day
                      based on a 5-day hospital stay (e.g., $702 = $3,512/5).
                      (D) CRT-4 Code 99254: Evaluation and Management: Initial inpatient consultation for a new or established patient, which
                      requires three key components: a comprehensive history,  a comprehensive examination, and medical decision-making of
                      moderate complexity.
                      (E) CRT-4 Code 99262: Evaluation and Management: Follow-up inpatient consultation for an established patient, which
                      requires at least two of these three key components: an expanded problem-focused interval history, an expanded problem-
                      focused examination, and medical decision-making of moderate complexity.
           A.2.2  Data for Type B Viruses: Enteroviruses

                   The methodology described above matches the general process used to model the COI of
           enteroviruses, although EPA used different illnesses to model the costs of cases defined by the following
           requirements: no medical care, doctor's visit, and hospitalization. For example, EPA bases most of its
           estimates for a case of enterovirus that requires no medical care or outpatient care on data for an acute
           case of intestinal virus infection. However, EPA based its estimate for enterovirus cases requiring
           hospitalization on "other circulatory system diagnoses without complications or comorbidities." Exhibits
           A.3 and A.4 display these data.
           Economic Analysis for the
           Final Ground Water Rule
A-3
October 2006

-------
                             Exhibit A.3   Non-monetary Cost Data,  by Age, for Type B Viruses: Enteroviruses
Category
Percent seeking outpatient (A)
Percent seeking inpatient (B)
Duration of symptoms (days) (C)
Patient days lost to illness (D)
Caregiver days lost (E)
Lost productivity days (F)
No Care
<1 year
0%
0%
3(1-6)
3(1-6)
3(1-6)
0
1
to 4
0%
0%
3(1-6)
3(1-6)
3(1-6)
0
5
to 15
0%
0%
3(1-6)
1.5
1.5
0
>16
0%
0%
3(1-6)
1.15
0
1.09
Outpatient
<1 year
100%
0%
5(2-12)
5(2-12)
5(2-12)
0
1
to 4
100%
0%
5(2-10)
5(2-10)
5(2-10)
0
5
to 15
100%
0%
5 (2-7)
5 (2-7)
5 (2-7)
0
>16
100%
0%
5 (2-9)
5 (2-9)
0
0
Inpatient
<1 year
100%
100%
7(2-14)
7(2-14)
7(2-14)
0
1
to 4
100%
100%
7 (2-14)
7 (2-14)
7 (2-14)
0
5
to 15
100%
1 00%
7(2-14)
7(2-14)
7(2-14)
0
>16
100%
100%
7(2-14)
7(2-14)
0
0
uutpanent data
Follow-up doctor visits (G) N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Inpatient data
Duration of hospital stay (days) (H)| N/A
Follow-up doctor visits (1) N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4.7
4
4.7
4
2.5
2
2.5
2
Sources:
             (A & B) No care, Outpatient, and Inpatient categorizations established to represent relative severity differences in disease manifestation.
             (C) No Care: Cherry (2004) and Modlin and Rotbart (1997) for patients <1 year; Cherry (2004) and Chin (2001) for patients 1 to 4 years; Cherry (2004) for patients 5 to 15 years; for
             mean for all patients; Cherry (2004) and Modlin and Rotbart (1997) for patients >15 years. Outpatient: Cherry (2004) for patients <1 year; Cherry (2004) and Chin 2001 for patients 1 to
             4 years; Cherry (2004) for patients 5 to 15 years; Cherry (2004) and Modlin and Rotbart (1997) for patients >15 years. Inpatient: Modlin and Rotbart (1997), Modlin (2005), Cherry
             (2004), and Morens et al. (1990) for patients <1 year; Modlin and Rotbart (1997), Modlin (2005), and Cherry (2004) for patients 1 to 4 years; Modlin and Rotbart (1997), Modlin (2005),
             Cherry (2004), and Chin (2001) for patients >4 years.
             (D) No Care: Assumes lost days are equal to illness duration for patients 4 years old and younger. Assumes lost days are equal to number of bed days for acute case of intestinal virus
             for patients 5-15 years of age (intestinal virus data from National Center for Health Statistics, 1999).  Assumed equal to number of bed days per acute case of intestinal virus for
             patients >15 years (National Center for Health  Statistics, 1999). Inpatient & Outpatient: Assumes lost days equal to duration of illness.
             (E) No Care, Inpatient, and Outpatient: Assumes caregiver days equal to number of patient days lost for patients under 16 years of age.
             (F) No Care: Assumes lost productivity days are equal to the number of restricted activity days (minus bed days) per acute case of intestinal virus infection (intestinal virus data from
             National Center for Health Statistics (1999)) for healthy patients >15 years.  Inpatient & Outpatient: Assumes lost productivity days are equal to zero.
             (G) No Care: NA. Outpatient: Miller (1997).  Inpatient: Assumes one follow-up visit for all patients.
             (H) No Care and Outpatient: NA. Inpatient: Khetsuriani et al.  (2003) for patients <5 years;  Rice et  al. (1995) for patients 5 years and older.
             (I) No Care & Outpatient: NA.  Inpatient: Assumes daily follow-up doctor visit after day of admission.
     Economic Analysis for the
     Final Ground Water Rule
A-4
October 2006

-------
                               Exhibit A.4  Unit Cost Data, by Age, for Type B Viruses: Enteroviruses
Cost Category
Average Cost per Patient
Base Year $
<1 Year
Outpatient costs
Initial physician visit (A)
Cost per follow-up (B)
$ 99.58
$ 57.53
1
to 4

$ 99.58
$ 57.53
5
to 15

$ 99.58
$ 57.53
>16

$ 99.58
$ 57.53
CPI
Base

266.0
266.0
CPI-U
2003

306.0
306.0
2003$
<1 Year

$114.55
$ 66.18
1
to 4

$114.55
$ 66.18
5
to 15

$114.55
$ 66.18
>16

$114.55
$ 66.18
In patient costs
Hospital costs:(C)
Hospital costs per day: (D)
Initial physician visit (E)
Cost per follow-up (F)
$16,981
$ 3,396
$132.89
$ 45.42
$ 6,413
$ 1,283
$132.89
$ 45.42
$ 6,413
$ 1,283
$132.89
$ 45.42
$ 6,413
$ 1,283
$132.89
$ 45.42
N/A
213.4
266.0
266.0
N/A
306.0
306.0
306.0
N/A
$ 4,870
$152.87
$ 52.25
N/A
$ 1,839
$152.87
$ 52.25
N/A
$ 1,839
$152.87
$ 52.25
N/A
$ 1,839
$152.87
$ 52.25
            Notes:        (A, B, E, & F) Updated using CPI-U Medical care services, not seasonally adjusted (Base year: 2000 annual).
                         (C & D) Updated using CPI-U Medical care services, not seasonally adjusted (Base year: 1994 annual).
            Sources:      (A) CPT-4 Code 99204: Evaluation and Management: Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of a new patient, which
                         requires these three key components: a comprehensive history, a comprehensive examination, and medical decision-making of moderate
                         complexity.
                         (B) CPT-4 Code 99214: Evaluation and Management: Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established
                         patient, which requires at least two of these three key components: a detailed history, a detailed examination, medical decision-making of
                         moderate complexity.
                         (C & D) Hospital charges associated with "other circulatory system diagnoses without complications or comorbidities" from the HCUP-3
                         Nationwide Inpatient Sample for 1994: Diagnosis=Related Groups (DRG #145). Cost per day based on a 5-day hospital stay.
                         (E) CPT-4 Code 99254: Evaluation and Management: Initial inpatient consultation for a new or established patient, which requires three key
                         components: a comprehensive history, a comprehensive examination, and medical decision-making of moderate complexity.
                         (F) CPT-4 Code 99262: Evaluation and Management: Follow-up inpatient consultation for an established patient which requires at least two of
                         these three key components: an expanded problem-focused interval history, an expanded problem-focused examination, medical decision-
                         making of moderate complexity.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
A-5
October 2006

-------
A.3    Normal Time Allocation

        The U.S. Census Bureau compiles data on weekly hours worked, and loss of work hours is a key
loss category used in this analysis. For the year 2002, that figure was 39.2 hours per week for the  civilian
noninstitutional population 16 years old and over who are working full or part-time.2 This figure
excludes those employed but not working because of vacations, illness, strikes, etc.; noncivilians;
institutionalized persons; and those in the labor pool but unemployed. This group of workers is about 60.3
percent of the population in this age range.3  For an average day for the whole population, the average lost
market work hours per day of illness is, therefore, about 3.4 hours.4

        Another important component of people's lost time that is valued in the calculation of benefits is
the time spent performing nonpaid work (e.g., errands, housework, child care). For these estimates,
studies of how people allocate their time is helpful.  In recent years, a number of research teams have
explored the allocation of time across different activities. For example, a recent National Research
Council (2000) study lists more than 50 major time-use surveys that have been completed internationally.
However, the majority of the studies completed in recent years address countries other than the United
States, including Australia, the European Community, Japan, New Zealand, and Canada. The most recent
U.S. studies were completed by the University of Michigan in 1981-1982 and by the University of
Maryland in 1985; the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics is in the process of developing a new
time-use study and expects the results to be available in 2004 (United States Bureau of Labor Statistics,
undated).

        These studies generally address the allocation of time across  a large number of different activities.
For example, the proposed U.S. survey may include nine groups (personal care, employment activities,
education activities, domestic activities, care for dependent household members, purchasing activities,
voluntary work and care, social and community interaction, and recreation and leisure) that are
subdivided into 99 subgroups, each of which is further subdivided into a number of discrete categories
(National Research Council 2000).5 For the purpose of analyzing time losses associated with nonfatal
        2Based 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.

        3Derived from the estimate of 131,091 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.

        439.2 hours/week ^ 7 days/week x (131,091 thousand/ 217,570 thousand)=3.4 hours/day.

        5 EPA's National Human Activity Pattern Survey, conducted in 1992-1993, also provides data on time use.
However, the easily accessible data from this survey focus on time spent in selected activities and micro-
environments for the purpose of exposure assessment, and do not provide the comprehensive summary data
necessary for this analysis. See USEPA 1997d for more information on this and related exposure studies.

Economic Analysis for the                         A-6                                    October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
cases of Type A and Type B viruses, the dollar value applied (as discussed below) varies across three
larger categories: market work, nonmarket work, and leisure activities, so more aggregate data can be
used.

       In lieu of a recent United States-based study, assumptions were made about time usage, which
were then compared to existing data for reasonableness.  Specifically, this economic analysis computes
unpaid work time using 40 hours per week and applying it to the 39.7 percent of the  population not
otherwise employed. While applied to the population of unpaid individuals, this estimate is not an
assumption that this entire population is performing full time (although nonmarket) work, because this
group includes infants, retired persons, and others.  Nor is it an assumption that market workers do not
also perform nonmarket work.  For an average day  for the whole population, the average lost nonmarket
work hours per day of illness is about 2.3 hours.6

       This analysis also assumes that, for the population as a whole, leisure time is the time left after
sleep time (which is assumed to be 8 hours) and the time spent in market and nonmarket work. That
estimate for leisure time is then about 10.3 hours per day.7

       These estimates compare reasonably with other studies. For example, a recent Canadian study
addresses a different population but has similar results.  Exhibit A.5 summarizes the  results of the
Canadian study, which provides national estimates  for individuals ages 15 and older in 1998. The hours
per day estimates are based on a 7-day week for all time categories. It seems reasonable to expect that
Canadian time-use patterns will be similar to U.S. patterns due to the proximity of the two countries and
the extent of interaction between their populations.
                         Exhibit A.5 Time Allocation Estimates
                       Compared to 1998 Canadian Study (hours)
Time Category
Market Work
Nonmarket Work and Leisure
Nonmarket Work
Leisure
Sleep
Estimates Used
inEA
3.4
12.6
2.3
10.3
8.0
Canadian
Estimates
3.3
12.6


8.1
            Note: Market work includes paid work time only. The nonmarket and leisure
            category includes all other activities except sleep, including unpaid work-related
            activities such as commuting time. Sleep includes night sleep only.

            Source: Canadian  data from Statistics Canada 1999 and see text and footnotes.
       640 hours/week - 7 days/week x (1-131,091 thousand/ 217,570 thousand)= 2.3 hours/day.

       724 hours - 8 hours sleep - 3.4 market work hours - 2.3 nonmarket work hours = 10.3 hours/day.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
A-7
October 2006

-------
       The time allocation estimates also appear not to be inconsistent with data from other sources. In
particular, the estimates of time devoted to night sleep are similar across studies.  For the United States,
1985 data indicate that individuals aged 18-64 averaged 7.8 hours of night sleep (USEPA 1997d). A
1998-1999 New Zealand study found that individuals aged 12 years and older devoted 8.6 hours to sleep,
but did not distinguish between night sleep and naps (Statistics New Zealand 1999).
A.4   Dollar Value of Time Losses

       This analysis uses compensation data to estimate the opportunity costs of lost market work,
nonmarket work, and leisure time. There are numerous sources of U.S. compensation data, each of which
focuses on somewhat different data elements and uses different approaches to data collection. The
estimates developed for this analysis are based on well-established and frequently cited sources of
national data, relying largely on year 2002 data included in the Statistical Abstract of the United States:
2003.

       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 Bureau of the Census, 2003, Table 641).  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.8  The distribution of income in the United States is highly skewed due to the small number
of people who are extremely highly compensated, hence mean 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 of the income distribution than by the
mean value, which is closer to the upper tail of the distribution.

       The next step is conversion of this value to earnings per hour. According to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics,  individuals usually working full time averaged 42.9 hours per week at work in 2002 (United
States Bureau of the Census, 2003, Table 602).  This means that the median earnings per hour averaged
$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 Bureau of the Census, 2003, Table 646).
These data show that total compensation per hour averages 1.41 times wages and salaries for full time
workers ($25.37/$18.02 per hour). Using this factor to adjust median hourly earnings (as reported above)
leads to an estimate of $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 of Labor Statistics, 2004).
       8 See, for example, Final Heavy Duty Engine/Fuel Rule: Air Quality Planning and Standards.

Economic Analysis for the                         A-8                                    October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
       For nonmarket work and leisure time (excluding sleep), the measure of opportunity costs used is
post-tax earnings, i.e., the "take home" pay of the median individual. This analysis relies on Current
Population Survey data on household income before and after taxes (United States Census Bureau, 2003)
to determine the percent of earnings paid as taxes. In 2002, the median before-tax income was $42,409,
and median after-tax income was $35,812.9 After-tax income was 84.4 percent of the pre-tax amount.
Applying this factor to median hourly earnings leads to estimated after tax earnings of $ 11.98 per hour.
The value is then updated to 2003 dollars ($12.46) using the ECI.  The Traditional COI uses half that
amount, or $6.23 per hour.  For children under the age of 16 years, The results of these calculations are
reported in Exhibit A.6 below.

       Exhibit A.7 multiplies these dollar per hour values by the time allocations presented in Exhibit
A.5 to determine the weighted average  value of time per hour and per day. The exhibit also shows the
value of a caregiver day, which is the sum of a weighted market work day, nonmarket work day, and
nonmarket leisure day.
                            Exhibit A.6  Dollar per Hour Values
Time Loss Category
Market Work Time
Nonmarket Work Time (Enhanced
COI)
Nonmarket Leisure Time
(Enhanced COI)
Nonmarket Work Time (Traditional
COI)
Basis for Estimate of Value
Median gross (pre-tax) wage plus benefits
Median post-tax wage
Median post-tax wage
Half the median post-tax wage
Dollar Value
$20.82 per hour
$12.46 per hour
$12.46 per hour
$6.23 per hour
Sources: Derived from U.S. Census Bureau 2002 and 2003.
       9 This median income estimate differs from the earnings estimates cited earlier because it reflects household
income, rather than individual earnings, and relies on a different data source.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
A-9
October 2006

-------
                      Exhibit A.7 Weighted Average Value of Time
Time Loss Category
Hours per Day of
Illness
Per Hour Value
Per Day Value
(weighted by time)
Enhanced COI
Market Work Time
Non market Work Time
Nonmarket Leisure Time
Caregiver Day
3.4
2.3
10.3
$20.82
$12.46
$12.46
Sum of weighted lost market work,
nonmarket work, and nonmarket leisure
days
$70.79
$28.66
$128.34
$227.791
Traditional COI
Market Work Time
Nonmarket Work Time
Caregiver Day
3.4
2.3
$20.82
$6.23
Sum of weighted lost market work and
nonmarket work days
$70.79
$14.33
$85. 122
1For children under 16 years, the value of a lost day under the Enhanced approach is $199.36 instead of $227.79 (16
hoursx$12.46/hour) because it excludes any value for market work time and allocates all lost time to the Nonmarket
Work and Nonmarket Leisure categories.
2For children under 16 years, the value of a lost day under the Traditional approach is $0.
Sources: Exhibits A.5 and A.6
A.5   Lost Productivity (Enhanced COI Only)

       Productivity losses are only included in the Enhanced COI. Time losses associated with nonfatal
cases of Type A and Type B viruses 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's visits, bed rest, or in the hospital rather than
engaging in normal market work and nonmarket work activities. Additional losses in productivity occur
when the individual continues to engage in normal activities, but is less productive or finds them less
enjoyable due to illness.

       A reasonable estimate for lost productivity assumes that time spent in normal activities is 30
percent less productive than it would be normally, i.e., an individual produces 30 percent less per unit of
time engaged in market or nonmarket work, and  is 30 percent less  effective at leisure activities.
Furthermore, a reasonable estimate assumes that the dollar value (i.e., the utility loss, estimated based on
opportunity costs) of this reduction is equal to the reduction in productivity multiplied by the relevant
dollar per hour value (from Exhibit A.7 above).  In other words, the 30 percent productivity loss is
multiplied by $20.82 per hour to estimate the value of reduced productivity while at work, and by $12.46
per hour to estimate the value of reduced productivity while engaged in nonmarket work and leisure
activities. As noted earlier, the value of sleep time is conservatively estimated as "zero" as the effect of
illness on sleep time is not quantified in this analysis.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
A-10
October 2006

-------
        The 30 percent reduction is based on Harrington et al. (1991), which reports the results of a
survey of individuals affected by a 1983 giardiasis outbreak in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. In
addition to asking questions about missed work time, the Harrington et al. survey asks:

        "Ifyou went to work during this illness, did your illness affect your ability to work as hard as you
        usually do at your job?" (Harrington et al. 1991, p. 126)

        This discussion was followed by a bounded multiple choice questions regarding the percent
decrease in normal capacity while working with the illness.  The researchers found that respondents
identified as workers reported a 30.4 percent loss, while those identified as homemakers reported a 34
percent loss (Harrington et al. 1991, p 103). For the analysis of Type A and Type B viruses contained in
this report, these values are rounded to 30 percent.  These losses are to the employer for market work
time, and to the individual for nonmarket work and leisure time

        In addition to applying this 30 percent rate to market and nonmarket work time, the analysis
applies this rate to leisure time.  The Harrington et al. survey asked respondents whether their leisure
activities changed as a result of the illness, as well as whether the illness required them to change their
normal routines. While percentage losses were not requested for time engaged in leisure activities while
ill, the survey results make it clear that these activities were altered as a result of the illness. While these
changes in leisure activities are partially captured in the analysis of time losses (i.e., decreased hours
spent in market work, nonmarket work, and leisure  activities), it appears reasonable to assume that the
utility or pleasure associated with those leisure activities that are pursued while ill is also reduced as a
result of the illness.

        The effects of giardiasis are very similar to the effects of Type A and Type B viruses, and a
review of the literature failed to identify any other recent U.S. studies that report productivity losses for
similar illnesses. The estimate of an approximately 30 percent reduction (based on Harrington et al.
1991) appears reasonable based on review of studies estimating productivity losses due to  other illnesses.
A.6    Best Estimates for Cost of Illness

        The data discussed throughout this appendix relate to Type A and Type B viruses. The costs,
time allocation, weighted average value of time, and loss of productivity estimates have been presented in
Exhibits A. 1 through A.7. These cost of illness values are later adjusted for income growth in Appendix B
and yearly values are used in the model. These yearly values are the basis for the calculations of the COI
estimates, as discussed in Chapter 5, section 5.3.1.
Economic Analysis for the                         A-11                                   October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
          Appendix B




Detail of Benefits Valuation Inputs

-------
                         GWR Benefits Valuation Inputs Model Introduction Sheet
Worksheet
Benefits Schedule
VSL Valuation Inputs
CPI Proj
Pop & GDP Proj
Inc Elasticity Factors
VSL Values by Year
Type A Base COI
Type A COI by Year: Healthy
Type A COI by Year: Sensitive
Type B Base COI
Type B COI by Year: Mild
Type B COI by Year: Moderate
Type B COI by Year: Severe
Type A Healthy Illnesses
Avoided by GWR
Type A Immunocompromised
Illnesses Avoided by GWR
Mild Type B Illnesses Avoided
by GWR
Moderate Type B Illnesses
Avoided by GWR
Severe Type B Illnesses
Avoided by GWR
Type A Deaths Avoided by
GWR
Type B Deaths Avoided by
GWR
Water System Violations
Exhibit No.
B.1
B.2
B.3
B.4
B.5
B.6
B.7
B.8
B.9
B.10
B.11
B.12
B.13
B.14a
B.14b
B.15a
B.15b
B.15c
B.16
B.17
B.18
Description
Schedule used to estimate the accumulation of benefits by year.
Distribution functions for VSL for fatalities.
CPI values for all goods (1 990 - 2003).
Population projections, real GDP projections, and real per capita income projections
from 1 990 to 2029 (values from 1 990 - 2003 are actual values).
Factors for incorporation of income elasticity into yearly benefits estimates.
Projected cost of dying from viral infection years 2005 to 2029.
Mean direct and indirect cost of illness (COI) for Type A illnesses.
COI values by year for Type A illnesses in healthy populations.
COI values by year for Type A illnesses in immunocompromised populations.
Mean direct and indirect cost of illness (COI) for Type B illnessess.
COI values by year for mild cases of Type B illness.
COI values by year for moderate cases of Type B illness.
COI values by year for severe cases of Type B illness.
Estimated Type A illnesses avoided in the healthy population as a result of the GWR.
Estimated Type A illnesses avoided in the immunocompromised population as a
the GWR.
result o
Estimated Type B illnesses requiring no medical care avoided as a result of the GWR.
Estimated Type B illnesses requiring doctor visit avoided as a result of the GWR.
Estimated Type B illnesses requiring no hospitalization avoided as a result of the
GWR.
Estimated Type A deaths avoided as a result of the GWR.
Estimated Type B deaths avoided as a result of the GWR.
TCR violation data.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
B-1
October 2006

-------
                      Exhibit B.1  Benefits Accumulation Schedule
Year
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
CWS
0%
0%
17%
33%
50%
67%
83%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
NTNCWS
0%
0%
11%
22%
33%
44%
56%
67%
78%
89%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
TNCWS
0%
0%
11%
22%
33%
44%
56%
67%
78%
89%
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%
1 00%
                      Source: Derived from rule implementation schedule.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
B-1
October 2006

-------
                    Exhibit B.2  Description of VSL Valuation Parameters
      VSL

      Dist. Type            Weibull
      Parameters             Loc:  0
                           Scale:  5.32
                           Shape:  1.509588
      Simulation Mean  $     4.80  Million (1990$)
      Source: Distribution adapted from The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1970-1990 (USEPA, 1997b)


      VSL Income Elasticity

      Central Estimate        0.40
      Low End                0.08
      High End               1.00
      Dist. Type         Triangular
      Simulation Mean        0.49
      Source: Kleckner and Neumann (2000)
Economic Analysis for the                         8-3                                     October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                  Exhibit B.3 CPI Projections



Year
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
CPI -All Items
CPI
(Annual
Average)
130.7
136.2
140.3
144.5
148.2
152.4
156.9
160.5
163.0
166.6
172.2
177.1
179.9
184.0

Percent
Change
-
4.2%
3.0%
3.0%
2.6%
2.8%
3.0%
2.3%
1 .6%
2.2%
3.4%
2.8%
1 .6%
2.3%
Adjustment
Factor
(1990 base)
1.00
1.04
1.07
1.11
1.13
1.17
1.20
1.23
1.25
1.27
1.32
1.36
1.38
1.41
                          Notes:   1990 base factors (all items) used to update VSL values.
                         Source:   1990-2003 CPI values from Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
B-4
October 2006

-------
                  Exhibit B.4  Population, GDP, and Per Capita Income Projections
Year
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
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
Population
Estimates/
Projections
(Thousands)
249,439
252,127
254,995
257,746
260,289
262,765
265,190
267,744
270,299
272,820
275,306
277,803
280,306
282,798
285,266
287,716
290,153
292,583
295,009
297,436
299,862
302,300
304,764
307,250
309,753
312,268
314,793
317,325
319,860
322,395
324,927
327,468
330,028
332,607
335,202
337,815
340,441
343,078
345,735
348,391
Percent
Change
-
1.1%
1.1%
1.1%
1 .0%
1 .0%
0.9%
1 .0%
1 .0%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.9%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
0.8%
Real GDP
Projection
(Billions Chained
2000$)
7,112.5
7,100.5
7,336.6
7,532.7
7,835.5
8,031.7
8,328.9
8,703.5
9,066.9
9,470.3
9,817.0
9,866.6
10,083.0
10,398.0
10,730.7
11,245.8
11,718.1
12,093.1
12,419.6
12,767.4
13,124.9
13,466.1
13,802.8
14,147.8
14,501.5
14,864.1
15,235.7
15,616.6
16,007.0
16,407.2
16,817.3
17,237.8
17,668.7
18,110.4
18,563.2
19,027.3
19,502.9
19,990.5
20,490.3
21,002.5
Percent
Change
-
-0.2%
3.3%
2.7%
4.0%
2.5%
3.7%
4.5%
4.2%
4.4%
3.7%
0.5%
2.2%
3.1%
3.2%
4.8%
4.2%
3.2%
2.7%
2.8%
2.8%
2.6%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
2.5%
Income
(Real GDP per Capita)
Projection
(Thousands
2000$)
28,514
28,162
28,772
29,225
30,103
30,566
31,407
32,507
33,544
34,713
35,659
35,517
35,971
36,768
37,617
39,086
40,386
41,332
42,099
42,925
43,770
44,546
45,290
46,047
46,816
47,600
48,399
49,213
50,044
50,891
51,757
52,640
53,537
54,450
55,379
56,325
57,287
58,268
59,266
60,284
Percent
Change
-
-1 .2%
2.2%
1 .6%
3.0%
1 .5%
2.8%
3.5%
3.2%
3.5%
2.7%
-0.4%
1 .3%
2.2%
2.3%
3.9%
3.3%
2.3%
1 .9%
2.0%
2.0%
1 .8%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
    Source:    Population projections from US Census Bureau (NP-T1: Middle Series).
              1990-2003 real GDP from Bureau of Economic Analysis, all other years calculated based on percent change projections from
              Congressional Budget Office (January 26, 2004). Projections for years beyond 2014 based on percent change reported for 2014
              due to lack of other data.
              Income (Real GDP per Capita)=Real GDP/Population
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
B-5
October 2006

-------
                Exhibit B.5  Factors for Incorporation of Income Elasticity into
                                     Yearly Benefits Estimates
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
Factors for Fatal Illnesses
Mean
Value
1.169
1.188
1.202
1.213
1.224
1.236
1.247
1.257
1.268
1.278
1.288
1.299
1.310
1.320
1.331
1.342
1.353
1.364
1.376
1.387
1.398
1.410
1.421
1.433
1.445
Median
Value
1.163
1.181
1.194
1.204
1.215
1.227
1.237
1.246
1.256
1.265
1.275
1.285
1.295
1.304
1.314
1.324
1.335
1.345
1.355
1.365
1.375
1.386
1.396
1.406
1.417
90 Percent
Lower
(5th %tile)
1.066
1.073
1.078
1.082
1.086
1.090
1.094
1.097
1.101
1.104
1.108
1.111
1.115
1.118
1.122
1.126
1.129
1.133
1.136
1.140
1.143
1.147
1.150
1.154
1.157
Upper
(95th %tile)
1.295
1.330
1.356
1.376
1.398
1.420
1.441
1.460
1.480
1.500
1.520
1.540
1.561
1.582
1.604
1.625
1.648
1.670
1.692
1.715
1.739
1.762
1.786
1.810
1.834
Real Income
Adjustment Factors
for Indirect
Costs of Illness
(Point Estimates)
1.063
1.098
1.124
1.145
1.167
1.190
1.212
1.232
1.252
1.273
1.295
1.316
1.338
1.361
1.384
1.408
1.432
1.456
1.481
1.506
1.532
1.558
1.585
1.612
1.640
          Note: Income elasticity factors calculated as [(el-|-el2-I2- Ii)/(el2- el-i -12- l-i)]; where e=income elasticity of
          WTP estimate, and Nncome.
          Source: Derived using elasticity distributions and per capita GDP projections from Exhibits B.2 and B.4.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
B-6
October 2006

-------
                           Exhibit B.6  Value of VSL Estimates
                                by Year ($Millions) ($2003)
Year
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
VSL
Mean
Value
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.9
8.0
8.1
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.8
8.9
9.0
9.1
9.1
9.2
9.3
Median
Value
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.7
6.8
6.8
6.9
7.0
7.0
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.8
7.9
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
Upper
(95th %tile)
16.8
17.1
17.5
17.7
17.9
18.0
18.1
18.3
18.5
18.7
19.0
19.1
19.3
19.5
19.7
19.9
20.0
20.2
20.4
20.6
20.8
21.1
21.4
21.6
21.9
                      Source:  Derived using data from Exhibits B.2 and B.5.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
B-7
October 2006

-------
                Exhibit B.7  Description of Rotavirus Valuation Parameters
       Cost of Illness for Healthy Populations
       Dist. Type
Triangular
Age Distribution
<2yrs
2 to 4 yrs
5 to 15 yrs
> 15 yrs
Direct Costs
Mode
Low End
High End
Mean
$ 97
$ 16
$ 101
$ 71
$ 82
$ 16
$ 99
$ 66
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Indirect Costs
Mode
Low End
High End
Mean
$ 1,293
n/a
n/a
n/a
$ 1 ,293
n/a
n/a
n/a
$ 641
n/a
n/a
n/a
$ 103
n/a
n/a
n/a
       Cost of Illness for Immunocompromised Populations
       Dist. Type
Triangular
Age Distribution
< 2 yrs
2 to 4 yrs
5 to 15 yrs
> 15 yrs
Direct Costs
Mode
Low End
High End
Mean
$ 4,486
$ 4,453
$ 5,049
$ 4,663
$ 4,486
$ 4,453
$ 5,049
$ 4,663
$ 4,453
n/a
n/a
n/a
$ 4,453
n/a
n/a
n/a
Indirect Costs
Mode
Low End
High End
Mean
$ 2,136
n/a
n/a
n/a
$ 1,281
n/a
n/a
n/a
$ 1,281
n/a
n/a
n/a
$ 569
n/a
n/a
n/a
       Note: N/A Designates Point Estimate.
       Source: Appendix A, Exhibits A.land A.2.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
               B-8
October 2006

-------
                                      Exhibit B.8  Value of COI Increment by Year (Rotavirus, Healthy Populations)
Year
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2028
2029
< 2 Years Old
Mean
Value
$ 1,410
$ 1,441
$ 1,494
$ 1,542
$ 1,576
$ 1,604
$ 1,634
$ 1,665
$ 1,693
$ 1,720
$ 1,748
$ 1,776
$ 1,804
$ 1,833
$ 1,863
$ 1,893
$ 1,924
$ 1,956
$ 1,988
$ 2,020
$ 2,054
$ 2,087
$ 2,122
$ 2,157
$ 2,193
Median
Value
$ 1,413
$ 1,444
$ 1,498
$ 1,545
$ 1,579
$ 1,607
$ 1,637
$ 1,668
$ 1,696
$ 1,723
$ 1,751
$ 1,779
$ 1,808
$ 1,837
$ 1,866
$ 1,896
$ 1,927
$ 1,959
$ 1,991
$ 2,024
$ 2,057
$ 2,091
$ 2,125
$ 2,160
$ 2,196
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 1 ,373
$ 1 ,404
$ 1 ,457
$ 1 ,505
$ 1 ,539
$ 1 ,567
$ 1 ,597
$ 1 ,628
$ 1 ,656
$ 1 ,683
$ 1,711
$ 1 ,739
$ 1 ,767
$ 1 ,796
$ 1 ,826
$ 1 ,856
$ 1 ,887
$ 1,919
$ 1,951
$ 1 ,983
$ 2,017
$ 2,051
$ 2,085
$ 2,120
$ 2,156
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 1 ,435
$ 1 ,466
$ 1 ,520
$ 1 ,567
$ 1 ,602
$ 1 ,629
$ 1 ,660
$ 1 ,690
$ 1,719
$ 1 ,746
$ 1 ,773
$ 1,801
$ 1 ,830
$ 1 ,859
$ 1 ,888
$ 1,919
$ 1 ,950
$ 1,981
$ 2,013
$ 2,046
$ 2,079
$ 2,113
$ 2,147
$ 2,182
$ 2,218
2 to 4 Years Old
Mean
Value
$ 1,404
$ 1,435
$ 1,489
$ 1,536
$ 1,570
$ 1,598
$ 1,628
$ 1,659
$ 1,687
$ 1,714
$ 1,742
$ 1,770
$ 1,799
$ 1,828
$ 1,857
$ 1,888
$ 1,918
$ 1,950
$ 1,982
$ 2,015
$ 2,048
$ 2,082
$ 2,116
$ 2,151
$ 2,187
Median
Value
$ 1,407
$ 1,438
$ 1,491
$ 1,539
$ 1,573
$ 1,601
$ 1,631
$ 1,662
$ 1,690
$ 1,717
$ 1,745
$ 1,773
$ 1,801
$ 1,830
$ 1,860
$ 1,890
$ 1,921
$ 1,953
$ 1,985
$ 2,017
$ 2,051
$ 2,084
$ 2,119
$ 2,154
$ 2,190
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 1,371
$ 1 ,402
$ 1 ,455
$ 1 ,503
$ 1 ,537
$ 1 ,565
$ 1 ,595
$ 1 ,626
$ 1 ,654
$ 1,681
$ 1 ,709
$ 1 ,737
$ 1 ,765
$ 1 ,794
$ 1 ,824
$ 1 ,854
$ 1 ,885
$ 1,917
$ 1 ,949
$ 1,981
$ 2,015
$ 2,048
$ 2,083
$ 2,118
$ 2,154
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 1 ,429
$ 1 ,460
$ 1,513
$ 1,561
$ 1 ,595
$ 1 ,623
$ 1 ,653
$ 1 ,684
$ 1,712
$ 1 ,739
$ 1 ,767
$ 1 ,795
$ 1 ,823
$ 1 ,853
$ 1 ,882
$ 1,912
$ 1 ,943
$ 1 ,975
$ 2,007
$ 2,040
$ 2,073
$ 2,107
$ 2,141
$ 2,176
$ 2,212
5 to 15 Years Old
Mean
Value
$ 663
$ 679
$ 705
$ 729
$ 746
$ 759
$ 774
$ 790
$ 804
$ 817
$ 831
$ 845
$ 859
$ 873
$ 888
$ 903
$ 918
$ 934
$ 950
$ 966
$ 982
$ 999
$ 1,016
$ 1,033
$ 1,051
Median
Value
$ 663
$ 679
$ 705
$ 729
$ 746
$ 759
$ 774
$ 790
$ 804
$ 817
$ 831
$ 845
$ 859
$ 873
$ 888
$ 903
$ 918
$ 934
$ 950
$ 966
$ 982
$ 999
$ 1,016
$ 1,033
$ 1,051
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 663
$ 679
$ 705
$ 729
$ 746
$ 759
$ 774
$ 790
$ 804
$ 817
$ 831
$ 845
$ 859
$ 873
$ 888
$ 903
$ 918
$ 934
$ 950
$ 966
$ 982
$ 999
$ 1,016
$ 1 ,033
$ 1,051
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 663
$ 679
$ 705
$ 729
$ 746
$ 759
$ 774
$ 790
$ 804
$ 817
$ 831
$ 845
$ 859
$ 873
$ 888
$ 903
$ 918
$ 934
$ 950
$ 966
$ 982
$ 999
$ 1,016
$ 1 ,033
$ 1,051
> 15 Years Old
Mean
Value
$ 107
$ 109
$ 114
$ 117
$ 120
$ 122
$ 125
$ 127
$ 129
$ 132
$ 134
$ 136
$ 138
$ 141
$ 143
$ 145
$ 148
$ 150
$ 153
$ 156
$ 158
$ 161
$ 164
$ 166
$ 169
Median
Value
$ 107
$ 109
$ 114
$ 117
$ 120
$ 122
$ 125
$ 127
$ 129
$ 132
$ 134
$ 136
$ 138
$ 141
$ 143
$ 145
$ 148
$ 150
$ 153
$ 156
$ 158
$ 161
$ 164
$ 166
$ 169
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 107
$ 109
$ 114
$ 117
$ 120
$ 122
$ 125
$ 127
$ 129
$ 132
$ 134
$ 136
$ 138
$ 141
$ 143
$ 145
$ 148
$ 150
$ 153
$ 156
$ 158
$ 161
$ 164
$ 166
$ 169
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 107
$ 109
$ 114
$ 117
$ 120
$ 122
$ 125
$ 127
$ 129
$ 132
$ 134
$ 136
$ 138
$ 141
$ 143
$ 145
$ 148
$ 150
$ 153
$ 156
$ 158
$ 161
$ 164
$ 166
$ 169
Source: Derived from Exhibits B.5 and B.7
   Economic Analysis for the
   Final Ground Water Rule
B-9
October 2006

-------
                             Exhibit B.9 Value of COI Increment by Year (Rotavirus, Immunocompromised Populations)
Year
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2028
2029
< 2 Years Old
Mean
Value
$ 6,874
$ 6,925
$ 7,013
$ 7,092
$ 7,148
$ 7,195
$ 7,244
$ 7,295
$ 7,342
$ 7,386
$ 7,432
$ 7,478
$ 7,525
$ 7,573
$ 7,622
$ 7,672
$ 7,723
$ 7,775
$ 7,828
$ 7,882
$ 7,937
$ 7,993
$ 8,050
$ 8,108
$ 8,167
Median
Value
$ 6,851
$ 6,902
$ 6,990
$ 7,068
$ 7,125
$ 7,171
$ 7,221
$ 7,272
$ 7,318
$ 7,363
$ 7,409
$ 7,455
$ 7,502
$ 7,550
$ 7,599
$ 7,649
$ 7,700
$ 7,752
$ 7,805
$ 7,859
$ 7,914
$ 7,970
$ 8,027
$ 8,085
$ 8,144
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 6,695
$ 6,746
$ 6,835
$ 6,913
$ 6,970
$ 7,016
$ 7,066
$ 7,116
$ 7,163
$ 7,208
$ 7,253
$ 7,300
$ 7,347
$ 7,395
$ 7,444
$ 7,494
$ 7,545
$ 7,597
$ 7,650
$ 7,704
$ 7,759
$ 7,815
$ 7,871
$ 7,929
$ 7,988
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 7,131
$ 7,182
$ 7,270
$ 7,348
$ 7,405
$ 7,451
$ 7,501
$ 7,552
$ 7,598
$ 7,643
$ 7,689
$ 7,735
$ 7,782
$ 7,830
$ 7,879
$ 7,929
$ 7,980
$ 8,032
$ 8,085
$ 8,139
$ 8,194
$ 8,250
$ 8,307
$ 8,365
$ 8,424
2 to 4 Years Old
Mean
Value
$ 5,989
$ 6,019
$ 6,072
$ 6,119
$ 6,153
$ 6,181
$ 6,211
$ 6,241
$ 6,269
$ 6,296
$ 6,323
$ 6,351
$ 6,380
$ 6,408
$ 6,438
$ 6,468
$ 6,498
$ 6,529
$ 6,561
$ 6,594
$ 6,627
$ 6,660
$ 6,694
$ 6,729
$ 6,764
Median
Value
$ 5,965
$ 5,996
$ 6,049
$ 6,096
$ 6,130
$ 6,158
$ 6,187
$ 6,218
$ 6,246
$ 6,273
$ 6,300
$ 6,328
$ 6,356
$ 6,385
$ 6,414
$ 6,444
$ 6,475
$ 6,506
$ 6,538
$ 6,570
$ 6,603
$ 6,637
$ 6,671
$ 6,705
$ 6,741
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 5,810
$ 5,841
$ 5,894
$ 5,940
$ 5,975
$ 6,002
$ 6,032
$ 6,063
$ 6,091
$ 6,117
$ 6,145
$ 6,172
$ 6,201
$ 6,229
$ 6,259
$ 6,289
$ 6,319
$ 6,351
$ 6,382
$ 6,415
$ 6,448
$ 6,481
$ 6,515
$ 6,550
$ 6,585
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 6,245
$ 6,276
$ 6,329
$ 6,376
$ 6,410
$ 6,437
$ 6,467
$ 6,498
$ 6,526
$ 6,552
$ 6,580
$ 6,608
$ 6,636
$ 6,665
$ 6,694
$ 6,724
$ 6,755
$ 6,786
$ 6,818
$ 6,850
$ 6,883
$ 6,916
$ 6,950
$ 6,985
$ 7,021
5 to 15 Years Old
Mean
Value
$ 5,779
$ 5,810
$ 5,863
$ 5,910
$ 5,944
$ 5,971
$ 6,001
$ 6,032
$ 6,060
$ 6,086
$ 6,114
$ 6,142
$ 6,170
$ 6,199
$ 6,228
$ 6,258
$ 6,288
$ 6,320
$ 6,352
$ 6,384
$ 6,417
$ 6,450
$ 6,484
$ 6,519
$ 6,555
Median
Value
$ 5,779
$ 5,810
$ 5,863
$ 5,910
$ 5,944
$ 5,971
$ 6,001
$ 6,032
$ 6,060
$ 6,086
$ 6,114
$ 6,142
$ 6,170
$ 6,199
$ 6,228
$ 6,258
$ 6,288
$ 6,320
$ 6,352
$ 6,384
$ 6,417
$ 6,450
$ 6,484
$ 6,519
$ 6,555
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 5,779
$ 5,810
$ 5,863
$ 5,910
$ 5,944
$ 5,971
$ 6,001
$ 6,032
$ 6,060
$ 6,086
$ 6,114
$ 6,142
$ 6,170
$ 6,199
$ 6,228
$ 6,258
$ 6,288
$ 6,320
$ 6,352
$ 6,384
$ 6,417
$ 6,450
$ 6,484
$ 6,519
$ 6,555
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 5,779
$ 5,810
$ 5,863
$ 5,910
$ 5,944
$ 5,971
$ 6,001
$ 6,032
$ 6,060
$ 6,086
$ 6,114
$ 6,142
$ 6,170
$ 6,199
$ 6,228
$ 6,258
$ 6,288
$ 6,320
$ 6,352
$ 6,384
$ 6,417
$ 6,450
$ 6,484
$ 6,519
$ 6,555
> 15 Years Old
Mean
Value
$ 5,042
$ 5,056
$ 5,079
$ 5,100
$ 5,115
$ 5,127
$ 5,141
$ 5,154
$ 5,167
$ 5,179
$ 5,191
$ 5,203
$ 5,216
$ 5,228
$ 5,241
$ 5,255
$ 5,268
$ 5,282
$ 5,296
$ 5,311
$ 5,325
$ 5,340
$ 5,355
$ 5,371
$ 5,386
Median
Value
$ 5,042
$ 5,056
$ 5,079
$ 5,100
$ 5,115
$ 5,127
$ 5,141
$ 5,154
$ 5,167
$ 5,179
$ 5,191
$ 5,203
$ 5,216
$ 5,228
$ 5,241
$ 5,255
$ 5,268
$ 5,282
$ 5,296
$ 5,311
$ 5,325
$ 5,340
$ 5,355
$ 5,371
$ 5,386
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 5,042
$ 5,056
$ 5,079
$ 5,100
$ 5,115
$ 5,127
$ 5,141
$ 5,154
$ 5,167
$ 5,179
$ 5,191
$ 5,203
$ 5,216
$ 5,228
$ 5,241
$ 5,255
$ 5,268
$ 5,282
$ 5,296
$ 5,311
$ 5,325
$ 5,340
$ 5,355
$ 5,371
$ 5,386
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 5,042
$ 5,056
$ 5,079
$ 5,100
$ 5,115
$ 5,127
$ 5,141
$ 5,154
$ 5,167
$ 5,179
$ 5,191
$ 5,203
$ 5,216
$ 5,228
$ 5,241
$ 5,255
$ 5,268
$ 5,282
$ 5,296
$ 5,311
$ 5,325
$ 5,340
$ 5,355
$ 5,371
$ 5,386
Source:  Derived from Exhibits B.5 and B.7
   Economic Analysis for the
   Final Ground Water Rule
B-10
October 2006

-------
                        Exhibit B.10  Description of Enterovirus Valuation Parameters
      Cost of Illness for (illnesses Not Requiring Medical Treatment
       Dist. Type
Triangular
Age Distribution
< 1 mo
1 mo - < 1 yr
1 to < 5 yrs
5 to < 1 6 yrs
> 16 yrs
Direct Costs
Mode
Low End
High End
Mean
$
n/a
n/a
n/a
$
n/a
n/a
n/a
$
n/a
n/a
n/a
$
n/a
n/a
n/a
$
n/a
n/a
n/a
Direct Costs
Mode
Low End
High End
Mean
$ 1,281
$ 427
$ 2,563
$ 1 ,424
$ 1 ,281
$ 427
$ 2,563
$ 1 ,424
$ 1,281
$ 427
$ 2,563
$ 1 ,424
$ 641
n/a
n/a
n/a
$ 336
n/a
n/a
n/a
      Cost of Illness for Illnesses Requiring Doctor Visit
       Dist. Type
Triangular
Age Distribution
< 1 mo
1 mo - < 1 yr
1 to < 5 yrs
5 to < 1 6 yrs
> 16 yrs
Direct Costs
Mode
Low End
High End
Mean
$ 181
n/a
n/a
n/a
$ 181
n/a
n/a
n/a
$ 181
n/a
n/a
n/a
$ 181
n/a
n/a
n/a
$ 181
n/a
n/a
n/a
Direct Costs
Mode
Low End
High End
Mean
$ 2,136
$ 854
$ 5,126
$ 2,705
$ 2,136
$ 854
$ 5,126
$ 2,705
$ 2,136
$ 854
$ 4,272
$ 2,421
$ 2,136
$ 854
$ 2,990
$ 1 ,993
$ 1,139
$ 456
$ 2,050
$ 1,215
      Cost of Illness for Illnesses Requiring Hospitalization
       Dist. Type
Triangular
Age Distribution
< 1 mo
1 mo - < 1 yr
1 to < 5 yrs
5 to < 1 6 yrs
> 16 yrs
Direct Costs
Central Estimate
Low End
High End
Simulation Mean
$ 23,431
n/a
n/a
n/a
$ 23,431
n/a
n/a
n/a
$ 9,187
n/a
n/a
n/a
$ 5,036
n/a
n/a
n/a
$ 5,036
n/a
n/a
n/a
Direct Costs
Central Estimate
Low End
High End
Simulation Mean
$ 2,990
$ 854
$ 5,980
$ 2,990
$ 2,990
$ 854
$ 5,980
$ 2,990
$ 2,990
$ 854
$ 5,980
$ 2,990
$ 2,990
$ 854
$ 5,980
$ 2,990
$ 1 ,595
$ 456
$ 3,189
$ 1 ,595
      Note: N/A Designates Point Estimate.
      Source: Appendix A, Exhibits A.3 and A.4.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                       B-11
October 2006

-------
                                                 Exhibit B.11 Value of COI Increment by Year (Enterovirus, Cases Not Requiring Medical Care)
Year
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2028
2029
< 1 Month Old
Mean
Value
$ 1,474
$ 1,508
$ 1,567
$ 1,619
$ 1,657
$ 1,688
$ 1,721
$ 1,755
$ 1,786
$ 1,816
$ 1,846
$ 1,877
$ 1,908
$ 1,940
$ 1,973
$ 2,006
$ 2,040
$ 2,075
$ 2,110
$ 2,146
$ 2,183
$ 2,220
$ 2,258
$ 2,296
$ 2,336
Median
Value
$ 1,441
$ 1,474
$ 1,531
$ 1,582
$ 1,619
$ 1,649
$ 1,682
$ 1,715
$ 1,745
$ 1,774
$ 1,804
$ 1,834
$ 1,865
$ 1,896
$ 1,928
$ 1,961
$ 1,994
$ 2,028
$ 2,062
$ 2,098
$ 2,133
$ 2,170
$ 2,207
$ 2,245
$ 2,283
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 754
$ 772
$ 802
$ 829
$ 848
$ 864
$ 881
$ 898
$ 914
$ 929
$ 945
$ 961
$ 977
$ 993
$ 1,010
$ 1,027
$ 1,044
$ 1,062
$ 1,080
$ 1,098
$ 1,117
$ 1,136
$ 1,156
$ 1,175
$ 1,196
Upper
(95th %tlle)
$ 2,268
$ 2,320
$ 2,411
$ 2,491
$ 2,550
$ 2,597
$ 2,648
$ 2,700
$ 2,748
$ 2,794
$ 2,840
$ 2,888
$ 2,936
$ 2,985
$ 3,036
$ 3,087
$ 3,139
$ 3,193
$ 3,247
$ 3,302
$ 3,359
$ 3,416
$ 3,474
$ 3,534
$ 3,594
1 Month to < 1 Year Old
Mean
Value
$ 1,474
$ 1,508
$ 1,567
$ 1,619
$ 1,657
$ 1,688
$ 1,721
$ 1,755
$ 1,786
$ 1,816
$ 1,846
$ 1,877
$ 1,908
$ 1,940
$ 1,973
$ 2,006
$ 2,040
$ 2,075
$ 2,110
$ 2,146
$ 2,183
$ 2,220
$ 2,258
$ 2,297
$ 2,336
Median
Value
$ 1,441
$ 1,474
$ 1,532
$ 1,582
$ 1,620
$ 1,650
$ 1,682
$ 1,715
$ 1,745
$ 1,775
$ 1,804
$ 1,834
$ 1,865
$ 1,896
$ 1,928
$ 1,961
$ 1,994
$ 2,028
$ 2,063
$ 2,098
$ 2,134
$ 2,170
$ 2,207
$ 2,245
$ 2,283
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 751
$ 768
$ 798
$ 825
$ 844
$ 860
$ 877
$ 894
$ 910
$ 925
$ 941
$ 956
$ 972
$ 989
$ 1,005
$ 1,022
$ 1,039
$ 1 ,057
$ 1,075
$ 1,094
$ 1,112
$ 1,131
$ 1,150
$ 1,170
$ 1,190
Upper
(95th %tlle)
$ 2,267
$ 2,319
$ 2,410
$ 2,490
$ 2,548
$ 2,595
$ 2,646
$ 2,698
$ 2,746
$ 2,792
$ 2,839
$ 2,886
$ 2,934
$ 2,984
$ 3,034
$ 3,085
$ 3,137
$ 3,191
$ 3,245
$ 3,300
$ 3,357
$ 3,414
$ 3,472
$ 3,532
$ 3,592
1 to < 5 Years Old
Mean
Value
$ 1,474
$ 1,508
$ 1,567
$ 1,619
$ 1,657
$ 1,688
$ 1,721
$ 1,755
$ 1,786
$ 1,816
$ 1,846
$ 1,877
$ 1,908
$ 1,940
$ 1,973
$ 2,006
$ 2,040
$ 2,075
$ 2,110
$ 2,146
$ 2,183
$ 2,220
$ 2,258
$ 2,296
$ 2,336
Median
Value
$ 1,441
$ 1,474
$ 1,531
$ 1,582
$ 1,619
$ 1,649
$ 1,682
$ 1,715
$ 1,745
$ 1,774
$ 1,804
$ 1,834
$ 1,865
$ 1,896
$ 1,928
$ 1,961
$ 1,994
$ 2,028
$ 2,062
$ 2,098
$ 2,133
$ 2,170
$ 2,207
$ 2,245
$ 2,283
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 754
$ 771
$ 801
$ 828
$ 848
$ 863
$ 880
$ 898
$ 913
$ 929
$ 944
$ 960
$ 976
$ 992
$ 1,009
$ 1,026
$ 1,044
$ 1,061
$ 1,079
$ 1,098
$ 1,117
$ 1,136
$ 1,155
$ 1,175
$ 1,195
Upper
(95th %tlle)
$ 2,270
$ 2,322
$ 2,413
$ 2,493
$ 2,551
$ 2,599
$ 2,650
$ 2,702
$ 2,750
$ 2,796
$ 2,842
$ 2,890
$ 2,938
$ 2,987
$ 3,038
$ 3,089
$ 3,141
$ 3,195
$ 3,249
$ 3,305
$ 3,361
$ 3,418
$ 3,477
$ 3,536
$ 3,597
5 to < 16 Years Old
Mean
Value
$ 663
$ 679
$ 705
$ 729
$ 746
$ 759
$ 774
$ 790
$ 804
$ 817
$ 831
$ 845
$ 859
$ 873
$ 888
$ 903
$ 918
$ 934
$ 950
$ 966
$ 982
$ 999
$ 1,016
$ 1,033
$ 1,051
Median
Value
$ 663
$ 679
$ 705
$ 729
$ 746
$ 759
$ 774
$ 790
$ 804
$ 817
$ 831
$ 845
$ 859
$ 873
$ 888
$ 903
$ 918
$ 934
$ 950
$ 966
$ 982
$ 999
$ 1,016
$ 1,033
$ 1,051
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 663
$ 679
$ 705
$ 729
$ 746
$ 759
$ 774
$ 790
$ 804
$ 817
$ 831
$ 845
$ 859
$ 873
$ 888
$ 903
$ 918
$ 934
$ 950
$ 966
$ 982
$ 999
$ 1,016
$ 1,033
$ 1,051
Upper
(95th %tlle)
$ 663
$ 679
$ 705
$ 729
$ 746
$ 759
$ 774
$ 790
$ 804
$ 817
$ 831
$ 845
$ 859
$ 873
$ 888
$ 903
$ 918
$ 934
$ 950
$ 966
$ 982
$ 999
$ 1,016
$ 1,033
$ 1,051
> 16 Years Old
Mean
Value
$ 348
$ 356
$ 370
$ 383
$ 392
$ 399
$ 407
$ 415
$ 422
$ 429
$ 436
$ 443
$ 451
$ 458
$ 466
$ 474
$ 482
$ 490
$ 499
$ 507
$ 516
$ 525
$ 534
$ 543
$ 552
Median
Value
$ 348
$ 356
$ 370
$ 383
$ 392
$ 399
$ 407
$ 415
$ 422
$ 429
$ 436
$ 443
$ 451
$ 458
$ 466
$ 474
$ 482
$ 490
$ 499
$ 507
$ 516
$ 525
$ 534
$ 543
$ 552
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 348
$ 356
$ 370
$ 383
$ 392
$ 399
$ 407
$ 415
$ 422
$ 429
$ 436
$ 443
$ 451
$ 458
$ 466
$ 474
$ 482
$ 490
$ 499
$ 507
$ 516
$ 525
$ 534
$ 543
$ 552
Upper
(95th %tlle)
$ 348
$ 356
$ 370
$ 383
$ 392
$ 399
$ 407
$ 415
$ 422
$ 429
$ 436
$ 443
$ 451
$ 458
$ 466
$ 474
$ 482
$ 490
$ 499
$ 507
$ 516
$ 525
$ 534
$ 543
$ 552
Source: Derived from Exhibits B.5 and B.10.
  Economic Analysis for the
  Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                              B-12
                                                                                                                                                                                  October 2006

-------
                                                    Exhibit B.12 Value of COI Increment by Year (Enterovirus, Cases Requiring Doctor Visit)
Year
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2028
2029
< 1 Month Old
Mean
Value
$ 2,981
$ 3,046
$ 3,158
$ 3,257
$ 3,329
$ 3,387
$ 3,450
$ 3,515
$ 3,574
$ 3,631
$ 3,688
$ 3,747
$ 3,807
$ 3,867
$ 3,929
$ 3,993
$ 4,057
$ 4,123
$ 4,190
$ 4,259
$ 4,328
$ 4,399
$ 4,471
$ 4,544
$ 4,619
Median
Value
$ 2,866
$ 2,928
$ 3,036
$ 3,131
$ 3,200
$ 3,256
$ 3,316
$ 3,378
$ 3,434
$ 3,489
$ 3,544
$ 3,600
$ 3,658
$ 3,716
$ 3,775
$ 3,836
$ 3,898
$ 3,961
$ 4,026
$ 4,091
$ 4,158
$ 4,226
$ 4,295
$ 4,365
$ 4,437
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 1,602
$ 1,635
$ 1,691
$ 1,742
$ 1,778
$ 1,808
$ 1,840
$ 1,872
$ 1,902
$ 1,931
$ 1,960
$ 1,990
$ 2,020
$ 2,051
$ 2,083
$ 2,115
$ 2,148
$ 2,181
$ 2,215
$ 2,250
$ 2,285
$ 2,321
$ 2,358
$ 2,395
$ 2,433
Upper
(95th %tlle)
$ 4,651
$ 4,755
$ 4,933
$ 5,091
$ 5,206
$ 5,300
$ 5,400
$ 5,503
$ 5,597
$ 5,688
$ 5,780
$ 5,873
$ 5,968
$ 6,066
$ 6,165
$ 6,266
$ 6,369
$ 6,474
$ 6,581
$ 6,690
$ 6,801
$ 6,914
$ 7,029
$ 7,146
$ 7,266
1 Month to < 1 Year Old
Mean
Value
$ 2,981
$ 3,046
$ 3,158
$ 3,257
$ 3,329
$ 3,387
$ 3,450
$ 3,515
$ 3,574
$ 3,631
$ 3,688
$ 3,747
$ 3,807
$ 3,867
$ 3,929
$ 3,993
$ 4,057
$ 4,123
$ 4,190
$ 4,259
$ 4,328
$ 4,399
$ 4,471
$ 4,544
$ 4,619
Median
Value
$ 2,866
$ 2,928
$ 3,036
$ 3,131
$ 3,200
$ 3,256
$ 3,316
$ 3,378
$ 3,435
$ 3,489
$ 3,544
$ 3,600
$ 3,658
$ 3,716
$ 3,775
$ 3,836
$ 3,898
$ 3,961
$ 4,026
$ 4,091
$ 4,158
$ 4,226
$ 4,295
$ 4,365
$ 4,437
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 1,604
$ 1,637
$ 1,694
$ 1,745
$ 1,781
$ 1,811
$ 1,843
$ 1,876
$ 1,906
$ 1,934
$ 1,964
$ 1,994
$ 2,024
$ 2,055
$ 2,086
$ 2,118
$ 2,151
$ 2,185
$ 2,219
$ 2,254
$ 2,289
$ 2,325
$ 2,362
$ 2,399
$ 2,437
Upper
(95th %tlle)
$ 4,657
$ 4,760
$ 4,939
$ 5,098
$ 5,213
$ 5,306
$ 5,407
$ 5,510
$ 5,604
$ 5,695
$ 5,787
$ 5,880
$ 5,976
$ 6,073
$ 6,172
$ 6,273
$ 6,377
$ 6,482
$ 6,589
$ 6,699
$ 6,810
$ 6,923
$ 7,038
$ 7,155
$ 7,275
1 to < 5 Years Old
Mean
Value
$ 2,687
$ 2,744
$ 2,845
$ 2,933
$ 2,998
$ 3,050
$ 3,106
$ 3,164
$ 3,217
$ 3,267
$ 3,319
$ 3,371
$ 3,425
$ 3,479
$ 3,535
$ 3,591
$ 3,649
$ 3,708
$ 3,768
$ 3,829
$ 3,892
$ 3,955
$ 4,019
$ 4,085
$ 4,152
Median
Value
$ 2,625
$ 2,682
$ 2,779
$ 2,866
$ 2,929
$ 2,980
$ 3,035
$ 3,091
$ 3,142
$ 3,192
$ 3,242
$ 3,293
$ 3,346
$ 3,399
$ 3,453
$ 3,508
$ 3,564
$ 3,622
$ 3,681
$ 3,740
$ 3,801
$ 3,863
$ 3,926
$ 3,990
$ 4,055
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 1,547
$ 1,578
$ 1,633
$ 1,681
$ 1,716
$ 1,745
$ 1,775
$ 1,807
$ 1,836
$ 1,863
$ 1,891
$ 1,920
$ 1 ,949
$ 1,979
$ 2,009
$ 2,040
$ 2,071
$ 2,103
$ 2,136
$ 2,170
$ 2,203
$ 2,238
$ 2,273
$ 2,309
$ 2,345
Upper
(95th %tlle)
$ 3,977
$ 4,064
$ 4,216
$ 4,350
$ 4,448
$ 4,527
$ 4,612
$ 4,700
$ 4,780
$ 4,856
$ 4,935
$ 5,014
$ 5,095
$ 5,177
$ 5,262
$ 5,347
$ 5,435
$ 5,524
$ 5,615
$ 5,708
$ 5,802
$ 5,898
$ 5,996
$ 6,095
$ 6,196
5 to < 16 Years Old
Mean
Value
$ 2,244
$ 2,292
$ 2,375
$ 2,447
$ 2,501
$ 2,544
$ 2,590
$ 2,637
$ 2,681
$ 2,723
$ 2,765
$ 2,808
$ 2,852
$ 2,897
$ 2,943
$ 2,990
$ 3,037
$ 3,086
$ 3,135
$ 3,186
$ 3,237
$ 3,289
$ 3,342
$ 3,396
$ 3,451
Median
Value
$ 2,276
$ 2,324
$ 2,408
$ 2,482
$ 2,536
$ 2,579
$ 2,626
$ 2,675
$ 2,719
$ 2,761
$ 2,804
$ 2,848
$ 2,893
$ 2,938
$ 2,985
$ 3,032
$ 3,080
$ 3,130
$ 3,180
$ 3,231
$ 3,283
$ 3,336
$ 3,390
$ 3,445
$ 3,501
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 1,447
$ 1,476
$ 1,527
$ 1,572
$ 1,604
$ 1,631
$ 1,659
$ 1,688
$ 1,715
$ 1,741
$ 1,767
$ 1,793
$ 1,820
$ 1,848
$ 1,876
$ 1,904
$ 1,934
$ 1,963
$ 1,994
$ 2,025
$ 2,056
$ 2,088
$ 2,121
$ 2,154
$ 2,188
Upper
(95th %tlle)
$ 2,959
$ 3,023
$ 3,134
$ 3,233
$ 3,304
$ 3,362
$ 3,424
$ 3,488
$ 3,547
$ 3,603
$ 3,660
$ 3,719
$ 3,778
$ 3,838
$ 3,900
$ 3,962
$ 4,026
$ 4,092
$ 4,159
$ 4,226
$ 4,295
$ 4,366
$ 4,437
$ 4,510
$ 4,584
> 16 Years Old
Mean
Value
$ 1,439
$ 1,468
$ 1,518
$ 1,562
$ 1,595
$ 1,621
$ 1,649
$ 1,678
$ 1,705
$ 1,730
$ 1,756
$ 1,782
$ 1,809
$ 1,836
$ 1,864
$ 1,893
$ 1,922
$ 1,951
$ 1,981
$ 2,012
$ 2,043
$ 2,075
$ 2,107
$ 2,140
$ 2,174
Median
Value
$ 1,420
$ 1,448
$ 1,498
$ 1,542
$ 1,573
$ 1,599
$ 1,627
$ 1,656
$ 1,682
$ 1,707
$ 1,732
$ 1,758
$ 1,785
$ 1,812
$ 1,839
$ 1,867
$ 1,896
$ 1,925
$ 1,954
$ 1,985
$ 2,016
$ 2,047
$ 2,079
$ 2,111
$ 2,144
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 894
$ 910
$ 939
$ 964
$ 982
$ 997
$ 1,013
$ 1,030
$ 1,045
$ 1,059
$ 1,074
$ 1,089
$ 1,104
$ 1,119
$ 1,135
$ 1,151
$ 1,168
$ 1,185
$ 1,202
$ 1,219
$ 1,237
$ 1,255
$ 1,273
$ 1,292
$ 1,311
Upper
(95th %tlle)
$ 2,021
$ 2,063
$ 2,137
$ 2,202
$ 2,249
$ 2,287
$ 2,329
$ 2,371
$ 2,410
$ 2,447
$ 2,485
$ 2,524
$ 2,563
$ 2,603
$ 2,643
$ 2,685
$ 2,727
$ 2,771
$ 2,815
$ 2,860
$ 2,905
$ 2,952
$ 2,999
$ 3,047
$ 3,097
Source: Derived from Exhibits B.5 and B.10.
   Economic Analysis for the
   Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                               B-13
                                                                                                                                                                                    October 2006

-------
                                                   Exhibit B.13 Value of COI Increment by Year (Enterovirus, Cases Requiring Hospitalization)
Year
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2028
2029
< 1 Month Old
Mean
Value
$26,821
$26,900
$27,035
$27,155
$27,242
$27,313
$27,389
$27,467
$27,538
$27,607
$27,677
$27,748
$27,820
$27,894
$27,969
$28,045
$28,124
$28,203
$28,285
$28,368
$28,452
$28,537
$28,625
$28,713
$28,804
Median
Value
$ 26,753
$ 26,830
$ 26,963
$ 27,080
$ 27,166
$ 27,235
$ 27,310
$ 27,386
$ 27,456
$ 27,523
$ 27,592
$ 27,661
$ 27,732
$ 27,804
$ 27,878
$ 27,953
$ 28,029
$ 28,108
$ 28,187
$ 28,269
$ 28,351
$ 28,435
$ 28,520
$ 28,607
$ 28,696
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 25,081
$ 25,119
$ 25,185
$ 25,243
$ 25,286
$ 25,320
$ 25,357
$ 25,395
$ 25,430
$ 25,463
$ 25,497
$ 25,532
$ 25,567
$ 25,603
$ 25,639
$ 25,676
$ 25,714
$ 25,753
$ 25,793
$ 25,833
$ 25,874
$ 25,916
$ 25,958
$ 26,001
$ 26,045
Upper
(95th %tlle)
$ 28,713
$ 28,835
$ 29,046
$ 29,233
$ 29,369
$ 29,479
$ 29,598
$ 29,719
$ 29,831
$ 29,938
$ 30,046
$ 30,157
$ 30,270
$ 30,384
$ 30,501
$ 30,621
$ 30,742
$ 30,867
$ 30,994
$ 31,122
$ 31,254
$ 31,387
$ 31,523
$ 31,661
$ 31,802
1 Month to < 1 Year Old
Mean
Value
$ 26,821
$ 26,899
$ 27,035
$ 27,155
$ 27,242
$ 27,313
$ 27,389
$ 27,467
$ 27,538
$ 27,607
$ 27,677
$ 27,748
$ 27,820
$ 27,894
$ 27,969
$ 28,045
$ 28,123
$ 28,203
$ 28,285
$ 28,367
$ 28,452
$ 28,537
$ 28,624
$ 28,713
$ 28,804
Median
Value
$26,755
$26,832
$26,965
$27,082
$27,168
$27,237
$27,312
$27,388
$27,458
$27,525
$27,594
$27,663
$27,734
$27,806
$27,880
$27,955
$28,032
$28,110
$28,190
$28,271
$28,353
$28,437
$28,523
$28,610
$28,699
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 25,077
$ 25,115
$ 25,181
$ 25,239
$ 25,282
$ 25,316
$ 25,353
$ 25,391
$ 25,426
$ 25,459
$ 25,493
$ 25,527
$ 25,562
$ 25,598
$ 25,635
$ 25,672
$ 25,710
$ 25,748
$ 25,788
$ 25,828
$ 25,869
$ 25,911
$ 25,953
$ 25,996
$ 26,040
Upper
(95th %tlle)
$ 28,713
$ 28,835
$ 29,046
$ 29,233
$ 29,369
$ 29,479
$ 29,597
$ 29,719
$ 29,830
$ 29,937
$ 30,046
$ 30,157
$ 30,269
$ 30,384
$ 30,501
$ 30,620
$ 30,742
$ 30,866
$ 30,993
$ 31,122
$ 31,253
$ 31,387
$ 31,522
$ 31,661
$ 31,802
1 to < 5 Years Old
Mean
Value
$12,577
$12,655
$12,791
$12,911
$12,998
$13,068
$13,145
$13,223
$13,294
$13,363
$13,432
$13,503
$13,576
$13,649
$13,724
$13,801
$13,879
$13,959
$14,040
$14,123
$14,207
$14,293
$14,380
$14,469
$14,559
Median
Value
$12,511
$12,587
$12,720
$12,838
$12,923
$12,993
$13,067
$13,144
$13,214
$13,281
$13,350
$13,419
$13,490
$13,562
$13,636
$13,711
$13,788
$13,866
$13,946
$14,027
$14,109
$14,193
$14,279
$14,366
$14,455
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 10,835
$ 10,873
$ 10,939
$ 10,997
$ 11,039
$ 11,074
$ 11,111
$ 11,148
$ 11,183
$ 11,217
$ 11,251
$ 11,285
$ 11,320
$ 11,356
$ 11,392
$ 11,430
$ 11,468
$ 11,506
$ 11,546
$ 11,586
$ 11,627
$ 11,669
$ 11,711
$ 11,754
$ 11,798
Upper
(95th %tlle)
$ 14,459
$ 14,581
$ 14,792
$ 14,978
$ 15,114
$ 15,224
$ 15,342
$ 15,463
$ 15,575
$ 15,681
$ 15,790
$ 15,900
$ 16,013
$ 16,127
$ 16,244
$ 16,363
$ 16,485
$ 16,609
$ 16,735
$ 16,864
$ 16,995
$ 17,128
$ 17,264
$ 17,402
$ 17,542
5 to < 16 Years Old
Mean
Value
$ 8,426
$ 8,504
$ 8,640
$ 8,760
$ 8,847
$ 8,918
$ 8,994
$ 9,072
$ 9,143
$ 9,212
$ 9,281
$ 9,352
$ 9,425
$ 9,498
$ 9,573
$ 9,650
$ 9,728
$ 9,808
$ 9,889
$ 9,972
$10,056
$10,142
$10,229
$10,318
$10,408
Median
Value
$ 8,358
$ 8,435
$ 8,568
$ 8,685
$ 8,771
$ 8,840
$ 8,914
$ 8,991
$ 9,061
$ 9,128
$ 9,197
$ 9,266
$ 9,337
$ 9,409
$ 9,483
$ 9,558
$ 9,634
$ 9,712
$ 9,792
$ 9,873
$ 9,956
$10,040
$10,125
$10,212
$10,301
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 6,679
$ 6,717
$ 6,782
$ 6,840
$ 6,883
$ 6,917
$ 6,954
$ 6,992
$ 7,026
$ 7,060
$ 7,093
$ 7,128
$ 7,163
$ 7,198
$ 7,235
$ 7,272
$ 7,310
$ 7,348
$ 7,388
$ 7,428
$ 7,469
$ 7,510
$ 7,553
$ 7,596
$ 7,639
Upper
(95th %tlle)
$ 10,319
$ 10,441
$ 10,652
$ 10,839
$ 10,975
$ 11,085
$ 11,203
$ 11,325
$ 11,436
$ 11,543
$ 11,652
$ 11,763
$ 11,875
$ 11,990
$ 12,107
$ 12,226
$ 12,348
$ 12,472
$ 12,599
$ 12,728
$ 12,859
$ 12,993
$ 13,129
$ 13,267
$ 13,408
> 16 Years Old
Mean
Value
$ 6,844
$ 6,886
$ 6,958
$ 7,022
$ 7,069
$ 7,106
$ 7,147
$ 7,188
$ 7,227
$ 7,263
$ 7,300
$ 7,338
$ 7,377
$ 7,416
$ 7,456
$ 7,497
$ 7,539
$ 7,581
$ 7,625
$ 7,669
$ 7,714
$ 7,759
$ 7,806
$ 7,853
$ 7,901
Median
Value
$ 6,808
$ 6,849
$ 6,919
$ 6,982
$ 7,028
$ 7,065
$ 7,104
$ 7,145
$ 7,183
$ 7,218
$ 7,255
$ 7,292
$ 7,330
$ 7,368
$ 7,407
$ 7,447
$ 7,488
$ 7,530
$ 7,573
$ 7,616
$ 7,660
$ 7,705
$ 7,750
$ 7,797
$ 7,844
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 5,914
$ 5,935
$ 5,970
$ 6,001
$ 6,024
$ 6,042
$ 6,062
$ 6,082
$ 6,100
$ 6,118
$ 6,136
$ 6,155
$ 6,173
$ 6,192
$ 6,212
$ 6,232
$ 6,252
$ 6,273
$ 6,294
$ 6,315
$ 6,337
$ 6,359
$ 6,382
$ 6,405
$ 6,428
Upper
(95th %tlle)
$ 7,850
$ 7,915
$ 8,027
$ 8,127
$ 8,199
$ 8,258
$ 8,321
$ 8,386
$ 8,445
$ 8,502
$ 8,560
$ 8,619
$ 8,679
$ 8,740
$ 8,802
$ 8,866
$ 8,931
$ 8,997
$ 9,065
$ 9,133
$ 9,203
$ 9,274
$ 9,347
$ 9,420
$ 9,495
Source: Derived from Exhibits B.5 and B.10.
   Economic Analysis for the
   Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                B-14
                                                                                                                                                                                     October 2006

-------
                                  Exhibit B.14a Type A Virus Illnesses Avoided for Healthy Population by the GWR
Size Category
<100
100 -500
501-1,000
1,001 -3,300
3,301 -10,000
10,001 -50,000
50,001-100,000
100,001-1,000,000
> 1,000,000
Total
Ac
mean
value
75
133
84
138
247
223
396
388
0
1,684
es <2 years
90 Percent
Confidence
Bound
5th
14
32
24
33
74
73
139
141
0
531
95th
116
189
131
264
447
386
637
660
0
2,829
Ages 2-4 years
mean
value
41
71
45
74
130
118
217
208
0
904
90 Percent
Confidence
Bound
5th
6
13
10
15
33
31
60
55
0
224
95th
71
142
89
150
269
251
438
482
0
1,893
Ages 5-15 years
mean
value
224
383
237
366
628
582
1,061
1,013
0
4,494
90 Percent
Confidence
Bound
5th
33
68
48
79
160
157
315
292
0
1,151
95th
376
778
466
714
1,357
1,344
2,090
2,317
0
9,442
Ages 16-64 years
mean
value
1,615
2,650
1,552
2,226
3,607
3,429
6,077
5,832
0
26,989
90 Percent
Confidence
Bound
5th
230
472
320
485
880
895
1,886
1,661
0
6,828
95th
2,612
5,271
3,080
4,355
7,278
8,094
11,317
12,850
0
54,858
Ages > 65 years
mean
value
316
518
303
434
701
668
1,180
1,133
0
5,252
90 Percent
Confidence
Bound
5th
45
92
62
95
172
174
368
322
0
1,329
95th
510
1,030
599
844
1,416
1,575
2,196
2,493
0
10,664
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
B-15
October 2006

-------
                           Exhibit B.14b  Type A Virus Illnesses Avoided for Immunocompromised Population by the GWR
Size Category
<100
100 -500
501-1,000
1,001 -3,300
3,301 -10,000
10,001 -50,000
50,001-100,000
100,001-1,000,000
> 1,000,000
Total
Ages <2 years
mean
value
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.7
1.2
1.2
0.0
5.1
90 Percent
Confidence
Bound
5th
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.0
1.6
95th
0.3
0.6
0.4
0.8
1.3
1.2
1.9
2.0
0.0
8.5
Ages 2-4 years
mean
value
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.0
2.7
90 Percent
Confidence
Bound
5th
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.7
95th
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.8
0.8
1.3
1.5
0.0
5.7
Ages 5-15 years
mean
value
0.7
1.2
0.7
1.1
1.9
1.8
3.2
3.0
0.0
13.5
90 Percent
Confidence
Bound
5th
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.9
0.9
0.0
3.5
95th
1.1
2.3
1.4
2.1
4.1
4.0
6.3
7.0
0.0
28.4
Ages 16-64 years
mean
value
4.9
8.0
4.7
6.7
10.9
10.3
18.3
17.5
0.0
81.2
90 Percent
Confidence
Bound
5th
0.7
1.4
1.0
1.5
2.6
2.7
5.7
5.0
0.0
20.5
95th
7.9
15.9
9.3
13.1
21.9
24.4
34.1
38.7
0.0
165.1
Ages > 65 years
mean
value
0.9
1.6
0.9
1.3
2.1
2.0
3.6
3.4
0.0
15.8
90 Percent
Confidence
Bound
5th
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.5
1.1
1.0
0.0
4.0
95th
1.5
3.1
1.8
2.5
4.3
4.7
6.6
7.5
0.0
32.1
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
B-16
October 2006

-------
                                          Exhibit B.15a Type B Virus Illnesses - No Medical Care -Avoided by the GWR
Size Category
<100
100 -500
501-1,000
1,001 -3,300
3,301 -10,000
10,001 -50,000
50,001-100,000
100,001-1,000,000
> 1,000,000
Total
Ages < 1 month
mean
value
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.8
0.0
3.1
90 Percent
Confidence
Bound
5th
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
95th
0.3
0.6
0.5
0.8
1.3
1.6
2.5
2.7
0.0
10.3
Ages 1 month - < 1 year
mean
value
1.0
1.8
1.5
2.5
5.3
5.2
8.5
8.7
0.0
34.5
90 Percent
Confidence
Bound
5th
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.7
0.8
0.0
2.4
95th
3.1
6.1
5.2
9.3
14.3
17.2
28.0
30.1
0.0
113.2
Ages 1 - 4 years
mean
value
4.0
7.5
6.0
10.4
21.7
21.2
34.7
35.7
0.0
141.2
90 Percent
Confidence
Bound
5th
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.5
1.2
1.2
2.7
3.1
0.0
9.8
95th
12.6
24.8
21.0
37.8
58.7
70.8
114.8
123.2
0.0
463.8
Ages 5-15 years
mean
value
9.2
17.7
13.7
24.4
48.0
47.8
79.3
83.9
0.0
324.1
90 Percent
Confidence
Bound
5th
0.5
1.0
0.8
1.3
2.3
2.9
5.6
5.8
0.0
20.3
95th
30.2
61.3
50.2
79.0
124.1
165.0
247.3
285.7
0.0
1,042.8
Ages 16 - 64 years
mean
value
44.1
84.8
65.2
117.0
211.6
215.0
352.9
376.2
0.0
1 ,466.7
90 Percent
Confidence
Bound
5th
2.8
6.1
3.6
7.3
16.5
15.3
28.2
33.4
0.0
113.1
95th
149.1
282.7
213.2
405.4
643.5
678.2
1,159.4
1,418.0
0.0
4,949.5
Ages > 65 years
mean
value
8.6
16.6
12.7
22.9
41.3
42.0
68.9
73.5
0.0
286.5
90 Percent
Confidence
Bound
5th
0.5
1.2
0.7
1.4
3.2
3.0
5.5
6.5
0.0
22.2
95th
29.1
55.3
41.6
79.2
125.5
132.4
225.9
277.0
0.0
966.0
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
B-17
October 2006

-------
                                 Exhibit B.15b Type B Virus Illnesses - Doctor Care Required - Avoided by the GWR
Size Category
<100
100 -500
501-1,000
1,001 -3,300
3,301 -10,000
10,001 -50,000
50,001-100,000
100,001-1,000,000
> 1,000,000
Total
Ages < 1 month
mean
value
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.2
Percent
Confiden
ce Bound
5th
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
95th
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.7
Ages 1 month - < 1
year
mean
value
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.0
2.2
Percent
Confiden
ce Bound
5th
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
95th
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.1
1.8
1.9
0.0
7.3
Ages 1-4 years
mean
value
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.7
1.4
1.4
2.2
2.3
0.0
9.1
90 Percent
Confidence
Bound
5th
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.6
95th
0.8
1.6
1.4
2.4
3.8
4.6
7.4
8.0
0.0
29.9
Ages 5-15 years
mean
value
0.6
1.1
0.9
1.6
3.1
3.1
5.1
5.4
0.0
20.9
90 Percent
Confidence
Bound
5th
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.0
1.3
95th
1.9
4.0
3.2
5.1
8.0
10.6
16.0
18.4
0.0
67.3
Ages 16-64 years
mean
value
2.8
5.5
4.2
7.5
13.7
13.9
22.8
24.3
0.0
94.6
90 Percent
Confidence
Bound
5th
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.5
1.1
1.0
1.8
2.2
0.0
7.3
95th
9.6
18.2
13.8
26.2
41.5
43.8
74.8
91.5
0.0
319.3
Ages > 65 years
mean
value
0.6
1.1
0.8
1.5
2.7
2.7
4.4
4.7
0.0
18.5
90 Percent
Confidence
Bound
5th
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.0
1.4
95th
1.9
3.6
2.7
5.1
8.1
8.5
14.6
17.9
0.0
62.3
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
B-18
October 2006

-------
                                Exhibit B.15c Type B Virus Illnesses - Hospitalization Required -Avoided by the GWR
Size Category
<100
100 -500
501-1,000
1,001 -3,300
3,301 -10,000
10,001 -50,000
50,001-100,000
100,001-1,000,000
> 1,000,000
Total
Ages < 1 month
mean
value
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
90 Percent
Confidenc
e Bound
5th
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
95th
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
Ages 1 month - <
1 year
mean
value
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.4
90 Percent
Confidenc
e Bound
5th
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
95th
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.0
1.2
Ages 1-4 years
mean
value
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.0
1.5
90 Percent
Confidenc
e Bound
5th
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
95th
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.3
0.0
5.0
Ages 5-15 years
mean
value
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.9
0.9
0.0
3.5
90 Percent
Confidence
Bound
5th
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
95th
0.3
0.7
0.5
0.8
1.3
1.8
2.7
3.1
0.0
11.2
Ages 16-64 years
mean
value
0.5
0.9
0.7
1.3
2.3
2.3
3.8
4.0
0.0
15.8
90 Percent
Confidence
Bound
5th
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.0
1.2
95th
1.6
3.0
2.3
4.4
6.9
7.3
12.5
15.2
0.0
53.2
Ages > 65 years
mean
value
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.0
3.1
90 Percent
Confidence
Bound
5th
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
95th
0.3
0.6
0.4
0.9
1.3
1.4
2.4
3.0
0.0
10.4
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
B-19
October 2006

-------
                                             Exhibit B.16 Type A Virus Deaths Avoided by the GWR
Size Category
<100
100 -500
501-1,000
1,001 -3,300
3,301 -10,000
10,001 -50,000
50,001-100,000
100,001-1,000,000
> 1,000,000
Total
Ages <2 years
mean
value
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
90 Percent
Confidenc
e Bound
5th
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
95th
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
Ages 2-4 years
mean
value
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
90 Percent
Confidenc
e Bound
5th
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
95th
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
Ages 5-15 years
mean
value
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.03
90 Percent
Confidenc
e Bound
5th
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
95th
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.06
Ages 16-64
mean
value
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.00
0.18
90 Percent
Confidenc
e Bound
5th
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.04
95th
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.05
0.05
0.08
0.08
0.00
0.38
Ages > 65 years
mean
value
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.04
90 Percent
Confidenc
e Bound
5th
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
95th
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.07
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
B-20
October 2006

-------
                                             Exhibit B.17 Type B Virus Deaths Avoided by the GWR
Size Category
<100
100 -500
501-1,000
1,001 -3,300
3,301 -10,000
10,001 -50,000
50,001-100,000
100,001-1,000,000
> 1,000,000
Total
Ages < 1 month
mean
value
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
90 Percent
Confidence
Bound
5th
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
95th
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Ages 1 month to
< 1 year
mean
value
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
90 Percent
Confidence
Bound
5th
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
95th
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.04
Ages 1-4 years
mean
value
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.07
90 Percent
Confidence
Bound
5th
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
95th
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.00
0.16
Ages 5-15 years
mean
value
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.16
90 Percent
Confidence
Bound
5th
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
95th
0.02
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.08
0.07
0.10
0.10
0.00
0.46
Ages 16-64 years
mean
value
0.03
0.06
0.04
0.09
0.13
0.10
0.16
0.16
0.00
0.77
90 Percent
Confidence
Bound
5th
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.04
95th
0.06
0.14
0.09
0.12
0.32
0.25
0.43
0.48
0.00
1.89
Ages > 65 years
mean
value
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.15
90 Percent
Confidence
Bound
5th
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
95th
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.06
0.05
0.08
0.09
0.00
0.37
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
B-21
October 2006

-------
 B18. Number and Percent of Systems with Acute or Monthly TCR MCL Violations by System Type
                                          and System Size

OT
O
NTNCWS
O
~z.

System Size
(Population
Served)

<100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3,301-10,000
10,001-50,000
50.001-100K
100,001-1 Million
> 1 Million
<100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3,301-10,000
10,001-50,000
50.001-100K
100,001-1 Million
> 1 Million
<100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3,301-10,000
10,001-50,000
50.001-100K
100,001-1 Million
> 1 Million
Number of Systems
Total
Systems
A
12,506
13,306
4,233
5,359
2,513
1,233
137
64
3
9,432
6,726
1,884
706
68
7
1
1
0
63,856
18,915
1,913
571
71
17
0
1
0
Systems
with Acute
TCR MCL
Violations
B
46
56
13
10
10
6
0
1
0
47
28
6
3
0
0
0
0
0
292
106
8
2
0
0
0
0
0
Additional
Systems with
Monthly TCR
MCL
Violations
C
625
596
131
219
155
72
5
2
0
442
246
58
27
3
0
0
0
0
2390
696
72
37
4
1
0
0
0
Total
Systems
with TCR
MCL
Violations
D
671
652
144
229
165
78
5
3
0
489
274
64
30
3
0
0
0
0
2682
802
80
39
4
1
0
0
0
Percentage
of Systems
with Acute
TCR MCL
Violations as
a Percent of
Total
Systems
E = B/A
0.37%
0.42%
0.31%
0.19%
0.40%
0.49%
0.00%
1.56%
0.00%
0.50%
0.42%
0.32%
0.42%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.46%
0.56%
0.42%
0.35%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Percentage
of Systems
with Any TCR
MCL
Violations as
a Percent of
Total
Systems
F = (B+C)/A
5.37%
4.90%
3.40%
4.27%
6.57%
6.33%
3.65%
4.69%
0.00%
5.18%
4.07%
3.40%
4.25%
4.41%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
4.20%
4.24%
4.18%
6.83%
5.63%
5.88%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Mean
Percentage
of Systems
with TCR
MCL
Violations as
a Percent of
Total
Systems
G = (E+F)/2
2.87%
2.66%
1.85%
2.23%
3.48%
3.41%
1.82%
3.13%
0.00%
2.84%
2.25%
1.86%
2.34%
2.21%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.33%
2.40%
2.30%
3.59%
2.82%
2.94%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
 Source: SDWIS (2003a)
 Note: System totals may not match totals presented in Exhibit 4.1. Systems without adequate TCR violation data are not
 included in this exhibit.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
B-22
October 2006

-------
 Appendix C




Benefits Detail

-------
                                               Matrix of Appendix C Contents
Applicable
Rule
Option(s)
Final Rule
Final Rule
Applicable
System
Type(s)
CWSs
NTNCWSs
TNCWSs
All
All
All
Exhibit Description
Value of Avoided Illnesses and Deaths
Total Value of Avoided Illnesses and Deaths
Present Value of Total at 3 Percent
Present Value of Total at 7 Percent
Value of Avoided Illnesses and Deaths
Total Value of Avoided Illnesses and Deaths
Present Value of Total at 3 Percent
Present Value of Total at 7 Percent
Value of Avoided Illnesses and Deaths
Total Value of Avoided Illnesses and Deaths
Present Value of Total at 3 Percent
Present Value of Total at 7 Percent
Total Value of Avoided Illnesses and Deaths
Present Value of Total at 3 Percent
Present Value of Total at 7 Percent
Virus
Type
Type A
Type B
Type A
Type B
Type A
Type B
Type A
Type B
Type A
Type B
Type A
Type B
Type A
Type B
Type A
Type B
Type A
Type B
Both
Both
Both
Type A
Type B
Type A
Type B
Type A
Type B
Type A
Type B
Type A
Type B
Type A
Type B
Type A
Type B
Type A
Type B
Type A
Type B
Both
Both
Both
Type A
Type B
Type A
Type B
Type A
Type B
Type A
Type B
Type A
Type B
Type A
Type B
Type A
Type B
Type A
Type B
Type A
Type B
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
Both
Applicable
System
Size
<100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3.301-10K
1 0,001 -50K
50,001 -100K
1 00,001 -1M
>1 Million
All
All
All
<100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3.301-10K
1 0,001 -50K
50,001 -100K
1 00,001 -1M
>1 Million
All
All
All
<100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3.301-10K
1 0,001 -50K
50,001 -100K
1 00,001 -1M
>1 Million
All
All
All
All
All
All
Exhibit
Number
C.1a
C.1b
C.1c
C.1d
C.1e
C.1f
C.1g
C.1h
C.1i
C.1J
C.1k
C.1I
C.1m
C.1n
C.1o
C.1p
C.1q
C.1r
C.2a
C.2b
C.2c
C.3a
C.3b
C.3c
C.3d
C.3e
C.3f
C.3g
C.3h
C.3i
C.3J
C.3k
C.3I
C.3m
C.3n
C.3o
C.3p
C.3q
C.3r
C.4a
C.4b
C.4c
C.5a
C.5b
C.5c
C.5d
C.5e
C.5f
C.5g
C.5h
C.5i
C.5J
C.5k
C.5I
C.5m
C.5n
C.5o
C.5p
C.5q
C.5r
C.6a
C.6b
C.6c
C.7a
C.7b
C.7c
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                              C-l
October 2006

-------
                                          Exhibit C.1a Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for CWSs Serving <100 (Rotavirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0297
$ 0.0392
$ 0.0690
$ 0.0718
$ 0.0746
$ 0.0908
$ 0.0935
$ 0.0967
$ 0.1112
$ 0.1144
$ 0.1229
$ 0.1269
$ 0.1303
$ 0.1441
$ 0.1480
$ 0.1531
$ 0.1656
$ 0.1698
$ 0.1810
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0266
$ 0.0352
$ 0.0609
$ 0.0636
$ 0.0671
$ 0.0822
$ 0.0843
$ 0.0876
$ 0.1000
$ 0.1032
$ 0.1125
$ 0.1167
$ 0.1203
$ 0.1307
$ 0.1344
$ 0.1391
$ 0.1514
$ 0.1551
$ 0.1642
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0128
$ 0.0171
$ 0.0280
$ 0.0296
$ 0.0309
$ 0.0425
$ 0.0437
$ 0.0460
$ 0.0522
$ 0.0541
$ 0.0601
$ 0.0623
$ 0.0640
$ 0.0686
$ 0.0704
$ 0.0729
$ 0.0797
$ 0.0816
$ 0.0862
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0070
$ 0.0538
$ 0.0699
$ 0.1256
$ 0.1296
$ 0.1346
$ 0.1587
$ 0.1640
$ 0.1698
$ 0.1950
$ 0.2013
$ 0.2129
$ 0.2184
$ 0.2248
$ 0.2569
$ 0.2632
$ 0.2721
$ 0.2916
$ 0.2992
$ 0.3127
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0148
$ 0.0197
$ 0.0356
$ 0.0372
$ 0.0387
$ 0.0472
$ 0.0486
$ 0.0502
$ 0.0572
$ 0.0589
$ 0.0642
$ 0.0661
$ 0.0680
$ 0.0755
$ 0.0775
$ 0.0801
$ 0.0871
$ 0.0894
$ 0.0956
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0137
$ 0.0183
$ 0.0320
$ 0.0336
$ 0.0351
$ 0.0433
$ 0.0448
$ 0.0462
$ 0.0521
$ 0.0538
$ 0.0603
$ 0.0620
$ 0.0637
$ 0.0700
$ 0.0716
$ 0.0742
$ 0.0793
$ 0.0811
$ 0.0868
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0056
$ 0.0078
$ 0.0127
$ 0.0134
$ 0.0142
$ 0.0208
$ 0.0213
$ 0.0220
$ 0.0251
$ 0.0260
$ 0.0290
$ 0.0299
$ 0.0311
$ 0.0341
$ 0.0352
$ 0.0364
$ 0.0401
$ 0.0411
$ 0.0439
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0036
$ 0.0257
$ 0.0338
$ 0.0672
$ 0.0690
$ 0.0709
$ 0.0793
$ 0.0821
$ 0.0838
$ 0.0986
$ 0.1011
$ 0.1068
$ 0.1096
$ 0.1123
$ 0.1297
$ 0.1325
$ 0.1355
$ 0.1538
$ 0.1574
$ 0.1642
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0001
$0.0002
$0.0015
$0.0019
$0.0034
$0.0035
$0.0036
$0.0044
$0.0045
$0.0046
$0.0052
$0.0053
$0.0057
$0.0058
$0.0059
$0.0064
$0.0066
$0.0067
$0.0072
$0.0073
$0.0078
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0001
$0.0001
$0.0011
$0.0014
$0.0023
$0.0024
$0.0025
$0.0032
$0.0032
$0.0033
$0.0038
$0.0039
$0.0042
$0.0043
$0.0044
$0.0047
$0.0048
$0.0049
$0.0053
$0.0054
$0.0057
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0009
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0043
$ 0.0056
$ 0.0096
$ 0.0099
$ 0.0101
$ 0.0120
$ 0.0121
$ 0.0125
$ 0.0141
$ 0.0145
$ 0.0153
$ 0.0157
$ 0.0160
$ 0.0174
$ 0.0176
$ 0.0180
$ 0.0193
$ 0.0195
$ 0.0205
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0003
$0.0006
$0.0059
$0.0078
$0.0141
$0.0146
$0.0150
$0.0182
$0.0186
$0.0191
$0.0216
$0.0220
$0.0238
$0.0243
$0.0248
$0.0272
$0.0277
$0.0284
$0.0306
$0.0311
$0.0332
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0002
$0.0004
$0.0042
$0.0055
$0.0097
$0.0103
$0.0105
$0.0130
$0.0133
$0.0137
$0.0156
$0.0159
$0.0172
$0.0176
$0.0179
$0.0195
$0.0198
$0.0203
$0.0224
$0.0227
$0.0239
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0036
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0164
$ 0.0224
$ 0.0389
$ 0.0403
$ 0.0416
$ 0.0496
$ 0.0512
$ 0.0535
$ 0.0618
$ 0.0628
$ 0.0672
$ 0.0683
$ 0.0692
$ 0.0771
$ 0.0781
$ 0.0793
$ 0.0846
$ 0.0857
$ 0.0933
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0057
$ 0.0519
$ 0.0687
$ 0.1221
$ 0.1271
$ 0.1319
$ 0.1606
$ 0.1652
$ 0.1707
$ 0.1951
$ 0.2006
$ 0.2165
$ 0.2231
$ 0.2290
$ 0.2532
$ 0.2597
$ 0.2683
$ 0.2905
$ 0.2976
$ 0.3176
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0047
$ 0.0455
$ 0.0604
$ 0.1048
$ 0.1098
$ 0.1152
$ 0.1417
$ 0.1456
$ 0.1508
$ 0.1716
$ 0.1767
$ 0.1943
$ 0.2006
$ 0.2063
$ 0.2249
$ 0.2306
$ 0.2385
$ 0.2584
$ 0.2644
$ 0.2805
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0191
$ 0.0259
$ 0.0426
$ 0.0449
$ 0.0471
$ 0.0657
$ 0.0675
$ 0.0706
$ 0.0802
$ 0.0831
$ 0.0923
$ 0.0956
$ 0.0986
$ 0.1065
$ 0.1094
$ 0.1133
$ 0.1240
$ 0.1270
$ 0.1346
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0060
$ 0.0127
$ 0.1003
$ 0.1317
$ 0.2413
$ 0.2487
$ 0.2573
$ 0.2996
$ 0.3094
$ 0.3196
$ 0.3695
$ 0.3797
$ 0.4021
$ 0.4120
$ 0.4223
$ 0.4811
$ 0.4914
$ 0.5050
$ 0.5492
$ 0.5617
$ 0.5908
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                                 October 2006

-------
                                            Exhibit C.1b Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, forCWSs Serving <100 (Echovirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0057
$ 0.0059
$ 0.0063
$ 0.0076
$ 0.0085
$ 0.0087
$ 0.0139
$ 0.0142
$ 0.0151
$ 0.0155
$ 0.0158
$ 0.0165
$ 0.0168
$ 0.0174
$ 0.0188
$ 0.0193
$ 0.0198
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0040
$ 0.0042
$ 0.0045
$ 0.0056
$ 0.0057
$ 0.0059
$ 0.0068
$ 0.0070
$ 0.0075
$ 0.0077
$ 0.0079
$ 0.0085
$ 0.0087
$ 0.0092
$ 0.0097
$ 0.0099
$ 0.0104
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0025
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0035
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0072
$ 0.0093
$ 0.0164
$ 0.0170
$ 0.0179
$ 0.0212
$ 0.0254
$ 0.0259
$ 0.0471
$ 0.0478
$ 0.0506
$ 0.0515
$ 0.0524
$ 0.0537
$ 0.0546
$ 0.0559
$ 0.0650
$ 0.0666
$ 0.0679
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0036
$ 0.0047
$ 0.0079
$ 0.0083
$ 0.0089
$ 0.0113
$ 0.0121
$ 0.0125
$ 0.0186
$ 0.0190
$ 0.0203
$ 0.0208
$ 0.0213
$ 0.0222
$ 0.0226
$ 0.0234
$ 0.0249
$ 0.0256
$ 0.0264
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0058
$ 0.0061
$ 0.0067
$ 0.0086
$ 0.0087
$ 0.0090
$ 0.0106
$ 0.0108
$ 0.0114
$ 0.0118
$ 0.0121
$ 0.0127
$ 0.0130
$ 0.0138
$ 0.0148
$ 0.0151
$ 0.0158
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0040
$ 0.0042
$ 0.0044
$ 0.0047
$ 0.0048
$ 0.0051
$ 0.0052
$ 0.0054
$ 0.0059
$ 0.0060
$ 0.0063
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0088
$ 0.0115
$ 0.0215
$ 0.0224
$ 0.0238
$ 0.0283
$ 0.0304
$ 0.0310
$ 0.0756
$ 0.0769
$ 0.0823
$ 0.0836
$ 0.0851
$ 0.0872
$ 0.0886
$ 0.0911
$ 0.0974
$ 0.0999
$ 0.1020
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-16 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0002
$0.0005
$0.0035
$0.0045
$0.0075
$0.0077
$0.0081
$0.0098
$0.0107
$0.0109
$0.0168
$0.0171
$0.0181
$0.0184
$0.0186
$0.0192
$0.0195
$0.0200
$0.0213
$0.0216
$0.0221
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0001
$0.0001
$0.0018
$0.0024
$0.0038
$0.0040
$0.0042
$0.0054
$0.0056
$0.0058
$0.0069
$0.0070
$0.0074
$0.0075
$0.0076
$0.0079
$0.0080
$0.0084
$0.0090
$0.0092
$0.0095
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0123
$ 0.0157
$ 0.0263
$ 0.0271
$ 0.0284
$ 0.0315
$ 0.0387
$ 0.0397
$ 0.0730
$ 0.0736
$ 0.0782
$ 0.0790
$ 0.0796
$ 0.0809
$ 0.0815
$ 0.0834
$ 0.0908
$ 0.0922
$ 0.0930
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0008
$0.0017
$0.0116
$0.0150
$0.0249
$0.0258
$0.0274
$0.0342
$0.0364
$0.0372
$0.0536
$0.0543
$0.0576
$0.0587
$0.0594
$0.0615
$0.0623
$0.0641
$0.0678
$0.0690
$0.0707
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0002
$0.0005
$0.0061
$0.0079
$0.0133
$0.0138
$0.0145
$0.0194
$0.0198
$0.0201
$0.0235
$0.0238
$0.0257
$0.0261
$0.0265
$0.0281
$0.0289
$0.0296
$0.0322
$0.0329
$0.0340
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0025
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0035
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0025
$ 0.0075
$ 0.0409
$ 0.0531
$ 0.0929
$ 0.0979
$ 0.1013
$ 0.1182
$ 0.1267
$ 0.1282
$ 0.2233
$ 0.2261
$ 0.2439
$ 0.2499
$ 0.2527
$ 0.2632
$ 0.2659
$ 0.2716
$ 0.2798
$ 0.2848
$ 0.2868
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0213
$ 0.0276
$ 0.0460
$ 0.0477
$ 0.0507
$ 0.0629
$ 0.0676
$ 0.0694
$ 0.1030
$ 0.1046
$ 0.1111
$ 0.1134
$ 0.1151
$ 0.1194
$ 0.1213
$ 0.1249
$ 0.1328
$ 0.1355
$ 0.1390
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0127
$ 0.0165
$ 0.0269
$ 0.0280
$ 0.0298
$ 0.0390
$ 0.0398
$ 0.0409
$ 0.0478
$ 0.0486
$ 0.0519
$ 0.0531
$ 0.0542
$ 0.0573
$ 0.0587
$ 0.0609
$ 0.0657
$ 0.0672
$ 0.0698
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0052
$ 0.0056
$ 0.0059
$ 0.0078
$ 0.0080
$ 0.0083
$ 0.0096
$ 0.0099
$ 0.0105
$ 0.0110
$ 0.0112
$ 0.0119
$ 0.0121
$ 0.0125
$ 0.0135
$ 0.0138
$ 0.0143
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0047
$ 0.0145
$ 0.0692
$ 0.0895
$ 0.1572
$ 0.1645
$ 0.1715
$ 0.1992
$ 0.2211
$ 0.2248
$ 0.4190
$ 0.4245
$ 0.4550
$ 0.4641
$ 0.4697
$ 0.4851
$ 0.4906
$ 0.5020
$ 0.5329
$ 0.5436
$ 0.5497
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                        Exhibit C.1c  Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, forCWSs Serving 101-500 (Rotavirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0453
$ 0.0640
$ 0.0851
$ 0.1484
$ 0.1545
$ 0.1923
$ 0.1978
$ 0.2043
$ 0.2346
$ 0.2431
$ 0.2611
$ 0.2704
$ 0.2790
$ 0.3066
$ 0.3189
$ 0.3432
$ 0.3565
$ 0.3679
$ 0.3936
$ 0.4045
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0394
$ 0.0559
$ 0.0756
$ 0.1243
$ 0.1303
$ 0.1678
$ 0.1730
$ 0.1785
$ 0.2079
$ 0.2165
$ 0.2357
$ 0.2430
$ 0.2509
$ 0.2759
$ 0.2866
$ 0.3093
$ 0.3208
$ 0.3313
$ 0.3510
$ 0.3613
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0206
$ 0.0302
$ 0.0400
$ 0.0669
$ 0.0702
$ 0.0975
$ 0.1005
$ 0.1041
$ 0.1215
$ 0.1277
$ 0.1402
$ 0.1451
$ 0.1504
$ 0.1604
$ 0.1663
$ 0.1815
$ 0.1880
$ 0.1936
$ 0.2047
$ 0.2112
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0078
$ 0.0853
$ 0.1183
$ 0.1545
$ 0.2772
$ 0.2842
$ 0.3464
$ 0.3545
$ 0.3692
$ 0.4164
$ 0.4275
$ 0.4499
$ 0.4742
$ 0.4861
$ 0.5588
$ 0.5763
$ 0.6176
$ 0.6511
$ 0.6664
$ 0.7115
$ 0.7314
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0234
$ 0.0331
$ 0.0442
$ 0.0775
$ 0.0808
$ 0.1022
$ 0.1051
$ 0.1085
$ 0.1230
$ 0.1275
$ 0.1375
$ 0.1425
$ 0.1468
$ 0.1616
$ 0.1673
$ 0.1804
$ 0.1862
$ 0.1922
$ 0.2066
$ 0.2120
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0212
$ 0.0297
$ 0.0405
$ 0.0673
$ 0.0710
$ 0.0904
$ 0.0931
$ 0.0959
$ 0.1080
$ 0.1132
$ 0.1236
$ 0.1280
$ 0.1325
$ 0.1437
$ 0.1504
$ 0.1622
$ 0.1674
$ 0.1740
$ 0.1828
$ 0.1894
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0094
$ 0.0145
$ 0.0198
$ 0.0350
$ 0.0367
$ 0.0492
$ 0.0507
$ 0.0525
$ 0.0610
$ 0.0651
$ 0.0702
$ 0.0726
$ 0.0744
$ 0.0847
$ 0.0877
$ 0.0965
$ 0.1002
$ 0.1028
$ 0.1075
$ 0.1104
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0043
$ 0.0421
$ 0.0598
$ 0.0789
$ 0.1497
$ 0.1553
$ 0.1904
$ 0.1952
$ 0.2058
$ 0.2323
$ 0.2373
$ 0.2508
$ 0.2594
$ 0.2657
$ 0.3058
$ 0.3150
$ 0.3367
$ 0.3579
$ 0.3666
$ 0.3853
$ 0.3945
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0002
$0.0023
$0.0032
$0.0042
$0.0073
$0.0076
$0.0094
$0.0096
$0.0098
$0.0111
$0.0114
$0.0121
$0.0124
$0.0127
$0.0139
$0.0143
$0.0153
$0.0157
$0.0161
$0.0171
$0.0174
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0001
$0.0017
$0.0023
$0.0031
$0.0054
$0.0055
$0.0068
$0.0070
$0.0072
$0.0083
$0.0085
$0.0092
$0.0094
$0.0096
$0.0104
$0.0109
$0.0115
$0.0118
$0.0121
$0.0127
$0.0130
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0018
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0068
$ 0.0094
$ 0.0124
$ 0.0210
$ 0.0217
$ 0.0266
$ 0.0269
$ 0.0274
$ 0.0315
$ 0.0323
$ 0.0336
$ 0.0342
$ 0.0349
$ 0.0379
$ 0.0394
$ 0.0431
$ 0.0444
$ 0.0453
$ 0.0497
$ 0.0508
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0002
$0.0007
$0.0093
$0.0130
$0.0173
$0.0305
$0.0316
$0.0395
$0.0403
$0.0413
$0.0463
$0.0476
$0.0508
$0.0522
$0.0534
$0.0585
$0.0601
$0.0644
$0.0659
$0.0675
$0.0720
$0.0733
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0005
$0.0068
$0.0095
$0.0127
$0.0222
$0.0231
$0.0297
$0.0304
$0.0310
$0.0341
$0.0358
$0.0390
$0.0400
$0.0411
$0.0443
$0.0461
$0.0491
$0.0503
$0.0512
$0.0538
$0.0546
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0039
$ 0.0040
$ 0.0041
$ 0.0049
$ 0.0050
$ 0.0055
$ 0.0056
$ 0.0057
$ 0.0061
$ 0.0062
$ 0.0068
$ 0.0069
$ 0.0071
$ 0.0075
$ 0.0076
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0284
$ 0.0389
$ 0.0500
$ 0.0865
$ 0.0905
$ 0.1091
$ 0.1115
$ 0.1134
$ 0.1313
$ 0.1340
$ 0.1410
$ 0.1457
$ 0.1503
$ 0.1596
$ 0.1637
$ 0.1723
$ 0.1784
$ 0.1838
$ 0.1977
$ 0.2021
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0063
$ 0.0803
$ 0.1134
$ 0.1508
$ 0.2638
$ 0.2744
$ 0.3433
$ 0.3528
$ 0.3639
$ 0.4150
$ 0.4296
$ 0.4615
$ 0.4775
$ 0.4919
$ 0.5406
$ 0.5605
$ 0.6033
$ 0.6243
$ 0.6437
$ 0.6893
$ 0.7072
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0051
$ 0.0690
$ 0.0974
$ 0.1320
$ 0.2192
$ 0.2299
$ 0.2947
$ 0.3035
$ 0.3126
$ 0.3582
$ 0.3740
$ 0.4074
$ 0.4204
$ 0.4342
$ 0.4743
$ 0.4940
$ 0.5321
$ 0.5503
$ 0.5686
$ 0.6002
$ 0.6182
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0312
$ 0.0464
$ 0.0620
$ 0.1054
$ 0.1106
$ 0.1516
$ 0.1562
$ 0.1617
$ 0.1886
$ 0.1991
$ 0.2171
$ 0.2246
$ 0.2320
$ 0.2526
$ 0.2617
$ 0.2863
$ 0.2967
$ 0.3052
$ 0.3215
$ 0.3311
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0148
$ 0.1626
$ 0.2264
$ 0.2959
$ 0.5345
$ 0.5517
$ 0.6724
$ 0.6881
$ 0.7158
$ 0.8115
$ 0.8311
$ 0.8754
$ 0.9135
$ 0.9370
$ 1.0621
$ 1 .0943
$ 1.1698
$ 1.2318
$ 1.2621
$ 1 .3443
$ 1 .3788
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                                 October 2006

-------
                                          Exhibit C.1d  Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, forCWSs Serving 101-500 (Echovirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0051
$ 0.0066
$ 0.0118
$ 0.0125
$ 0.0163
$ 0.0168
$ 0.0195
$ 0.0268
$ 0.0276
$ 0.0287
$ 0.0299
$ 0.0307
$ 0.0318
$ 0.0328
$ 0.0362
$ 0.0373
$ 0.0381
$ 0.0395
$ 0.0404
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0041
$ 0.0054
$ 0.0093
$ 0.0097
$ 0.0130
$ 0.0133
$ 0.0136
$ 0.0150
$ 0.0155
$ 0.0164
$ 0.0170
$ 0.0175
$ 0.0188
$ 0.0195
$ 0.0207
$ 0.0216
$ 0.0222
$ 0.0232
$ 0.0237
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0039
$ 0.0040
$ 0.0046
$ 0.0048
$ 0.0052
$ 0.0054
$ 0.0055
$ 0.0059
$ 0.0061
$ 0.0065
$ 0.0067
$ 0.0070
$ 0.0074
$ 0.0076
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0088
$ 0.0120
$ 0.0154
$ 0.0294
$ 0.0309
$ 0.0415
$ 0.0432
$ 0.0586
$ 0.1078
$ 0.1104
$ 0.1141
$ 0.1183
$ 0.1208
$ 0.1233
$ 0.1258
$ 0.1412
$ 0.1439
$ 0.1465
$ 0.1509
$ 0.1539
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0057
$ 0.0080
$ 0.0104
$ 0.0177
$ 0.0186
$ 0.0246
$ 0.0254
$ 0.0283
$ 0.0373
$ 0.0384
$ 0.0400
$ 0.0416
$ 0.0428
$ 0.0445
$ 0.0459
$ 0.0493
$ 0.0509
$ 0.0521
$ 0.0542
$ 0.0554
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0047
$ 0.0065
$ 0.0086
$ 0.0140
$ 0.0146
$ 0.0198
$ 0.0203
$ 0.0207
$ 0.0231
$ 0.0239
$ 0.0251
$ 0.0259
$ 0.0267
$ 0.0281
$ 0.0295
$ 0.0314
$ 0.0328
$ 0.0337
$ 0.0350
$ 0.0359
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0048
$ 0.0051
$ 0.0070
$ 0.0071
$ 0.0073
$ 0.0086
$ 0.0090
$ 0.0097
$ 0.0100
$ 0.0105
$ 0.0113
$ 0.0117
$ 0.0124
$ 0.0128
$ 0.0131
$ 0.0137
$ 0.0141
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0151
$ 0.0207
$ 0.0264
$ 0.0494
$ 0.0520
$ 0.0659
$ 0.0683
$ 0.0799
$ 0.1510
$ 0.1548
$ 0.1582
$ 0.1629
$ 0.1656
$ 0.1691
$ 0.1719
$ 0.1893
$ 0.1926
$ 0.1959
$ 0.2003
$ 0.2037
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-16 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0006
$0.0047
$0.0065
$0.0083
$0.0140
$0.0146
$0.0189
$0.0193
$0.0221
$0.0292
$0.0298
$0.0307
$0.0316
$0.0323
$0.0333
$0.0340
$0.0371
$0.0381
$0.0386
$0.0397
$0.0402
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0001
$0.0027
$0.0037
$0.0048
$0.0081
$0.0085
$0.0111
$0.0113
$0.0116
$0.0134
$0.0136
$0.0141
$0.0143
$0.0152
$0.0158
$0.0160
$0.0172
$0.0176
$0.0179
$0.0187
$0.0191
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0023
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0145
$ 0.0202
$ 0.0258
$ 0.0456
$ 0.0486
$ 0.0629
$ 0.0641
$ 0.0738
$ 0.0984
$ 0.0994
$ 0.1023
$ 0.1057
$ 0.1066
$ 0.1118
$ 0.1129
$ 0.1301
$ 0.1314
$ 0.1324
$ 0.1337
$ 0.1346
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0003
$0.0020
$0.0174
$0.0241
$0.0312
$0.0509
$0.0527
$0.0691
$0.0706
$0.0773
$0.0974
$0.0995
$0.1030
$0.1061
$0.1085
$0.1124
$0.1152
$0.1234
$0.1270
$0.1289
$0.1330
$0.1349
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0005
$0.0100
$0.0143
$0.0185
$0.0314
$0.0324
$0.0420
$0.0425
$0.0439
$0.0516
$0.0528
$0.0552
$0.0576
$0.0599
$0.0625
$0.0638
$0.0680
$0.0688
$0.0695
$0.0718
$0.0740
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0047
$ 0.0048
$ 0.0049
$ 0.0057
$ 0.0059
$ 0.0064
$ 0.0065
$ 0.0069
$ 0.0073
$ 0.0075
$ 0.0079
$ 0.0082
$ 0.0083
$ 0.0085
$ 0.0088
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0077
$ 0.0611
$ 0.0859
$ 0.1125
$ 0.1626
$ 0.1658
$ 0.2086
$ 0.2115
$ 0.2371
$ 0.3618
$ 0.3713
$ 0.3826
$ 0.4017
$ 0.4045
$ 0.4076
$ 0.4104
$ 0.4597
$ 0.4636
$ 0.4670
$ 0.4737
$ 0.4774
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0315
$ 0.0437
$ 0.0565
$ 0.0944
$ 0.0984
$ 0.1289
$ 0.1321
$ 0.1471
$ 0.1907
$ 0.1953
$ 0.2024
$ 0.2092
$ 0.2144
$ 0.2220
$ 0.2278
$ 0.2460
$ 0.2533
$ 0.2577
$ 0.2664
$ 0.2709
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0203
$ 0.0286
$ 0.0373
$ 0.0629
$ 0.0652
$ 0.0858
$ 0.0875
$ 0.0897
$ 0.1032
$ 0.1058
$ 0.1109
$ 0.1148
$ 0.1193
$ 0.1251
$ 0.1288
$ 0.1373
$ 0.1409
$ 0.1434
$ 0.1488
$ 0.1527
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0049
$ 0.0066
$ 0.0115
$ 0.0120
$ 0.0168
$ 0.0172
$ 0.0175
$ 0.0205
$ 0.0214
$ 0.0231
$ 0.0237
$ 0.0248
$ 0.0264
$ 0.0274
$ 0.0290
$ 0.0299
$ 0.0306
$ 0.0319
$ 0.0328
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0154
$ 0.0995
$ 0.1389
$ 0.1801
$ 0.2869
$ 0.2973
$ 0.3789
$ 0.3871
$ 0.4494
$ 0.7189
$ 0.7360
$ 0.7573
$ 0.7886
$ 0.7975
$ 0.8117
$ 0.8209
$ 0.9203
$ 0.9315
$ 0.9418
$ 0.9585
$ 0.9696
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                       Exhibit C.1e  Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, forCWSs Serving 501-1,000 (Rotavirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0393
$ 0.0557
$ 0.1047
$ 0.1308
$ 0.1633
$ 0.1693
$ 0.1928
$ 0.1985
$ 0.2143
$ 0.2219
$ 0.2468
$ 0.2549
$ 0.2781
$ 0.2854
$ 0.3110
$ 0.3187
$ 0.3381
$ 0.3478
$ 0.3581
$ 0.3676
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0337
$ 0.0484
$ 0.0870
$ 0.1087
$ 0.1382
$ 0.1450
$ 0.1669
$ 0.1715
$ 0.1862
$ 0.1940
$ 0.2140
$ 0.2198
$ 0.2408
$ 0.2468
$ 0.2702
$ 0.2777
$ 0.2945
$ 0.3036
$ 0.3117
$ 0.3199
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0164
$ 0.0239
$ 0.0438
$ 0.0569
$ 0.0816
$ 0.0854
$ 0.0955
$ 0.0985
$ 0.1104
$ 0.1145
$ 0.1227
$ 0.1256
$ 0.1400
$ 0.1431
$ 0.1545
$ 0.1581
$ 0.1677
$ 0.1715
$ 0.1758
$ 0.1816
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0069
$ 0.0765
$ 0.1061
$ 0.2138
$ 0.2648
$ 0.3132
$ 0.3219
$ 0.3685
$ 0.3779
$ 0.3954
$ 0.4052
$ 0.4628
$ 0.4884
$ 0.5287
$ 0.5419
$ 0.5923
$ 0.6068
$ 0.6416
$ 0.6564
$ 0.6792
$ 0.6929
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0203
$ 0.0286
$ 0.0547
$ 0.0684
$ 0.0880
$ 0.0912
$ 0.1044
$ 0.1072
$ 0.1166
$ 0.1205
$ 0.1324
$ 0.1366
$ 0.1492
$ 0.1531
$ 0.1666
$ 0.1709
$ 0.1808
$ 0.1863
$ 0.1924
$ 0.1975
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0176
$ 0.0248
$ 0.0463
$ 0.0583
$ 0.0746
$ 0.0771
$ 0.0879
$ 0.0897
$ 0.0996
$ 0.1039
$ 0.1148
$ 0.1188
$ 0.1299
$ 0.1326
$ 0.1418
$ 0.1449
$ 0.1569
$ 0.1617
$ 0.1661
$ 0.1708
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0079
$ 0.0112
$ 0.0205
$ 0.0258
$ 0.0397
$ 0.0416
$ 0.0486
$ 0.0499
$ 0.0555
$ 0.0572
$ 0.0620
$ 0.0640
$ 0.0707
$ 0.0720
$ 0.0783
$ 0.0806
$ 0.0839
$ 0.0871
$ 0.0905
$ 0.0942
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0041
$ 0.0427
$ 0.0585
$ 0.1208
$ 0.1516
$ 0.1784
$ 0.1831
$ 0.2121
$ 0.2168
$ 0.2326
$ 0.2401
$ 0.2643
$ 0.2720
$ 0.2961
$ 0.3020
$ 0.3392
$ 0.3487
$ 0.3697
$ 0.3813
$ 0.3969
$ 0.4073
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0001
$0.0019
$0.0027
$0.0050
$0.0062
$0.0077
$0.0079
$0.0089
$0.0091
$0.0098
$0.0101
$0.0111
$0.0113
$0.0123
$0.0125
$0.0135
$0.0137
$0.0144
$0.0147
$0.0150
$0.0153
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0001
$0.0013
$0.0019
$0.0034
$0.0042
$0.0056
$0.0058
$0.0065
$0.0066
$0.0072
$0.0075
$0.0082
$0.0084
$0.0090
$0.0091
$0.0098
$0.0100
$0.0105
$0.0108
$0.0111
$0.0113
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0017
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0056
$ 0.0078
$ 0.0149
$ 0.0185
$ 0.0218
$ 0.0222
$ 0.0254
$ 0.0259
$ 0.0280
$ 0.0285
$ 0.0311
$ 0.0322
$ 0.0345
$ 0.0349
$ 0.0372
$ 0.0379
$ 0.0398
$ 0.0407
$ 0.0417
$ 0.0423
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0006
$0.0077
$0.0109
$0.0206
$0.0255
$0.0327
$0.0336
$0.0382
$0.0390
$0.0420
$0.0431
$0.0469
$0.0480
$0.0521
$0.0531
$0.0572
$0.0582
$0.0611
$0.0625
$0.0641
$0.0653
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0004
$0.0054
$0.0078
$0.0142
$0.0180
$0.0240
$0.0249
$0.0278
$0.0282
$0.0308
$0.0317
$0.0351
$0.0359
$0.0386
$0.0393
$0.0420
$0.0427
$0.0444
$0.0464
$0.0476
$0.0485
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0036
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0042
$ 0.0043
$ 0.0047
$ 0.0048
$ 0.0053
$ 0.0053
$ 0.0058
$ 0.0058
$ 0.0062
$ 0.0063
$ 0.0065
$ 0.0066
$ 0.0068
$ 0.0069
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0241
$ 0.0330
$ 0.0620
$ 0.0765
$ 0.0950
$ 0.0972
$ 0.1147
$ 0.1170
$ 0.1238
$ 0.1252
$ 0.1372
$ 0.1385
$ 0.1499
$ 0.1524
$ 0.1731
$ 0.1754
$ 0.1812
$ 0.1829
$ 0.1864
$ 0.1889
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0051
$ 0.0692
$ 0.0979
$ 0.1849
$ 0.2310
$ 0.2918
$ 0.3020
$ 0.3444
$ 0.3538
$ 0.3827
$ 0.3956
$ 0.4372
$ 0.4509
$ 0.4917
$ 0.5041
$ 0.5483
$ 0.5615
$ 0.5945
$ 0.6112
$ 0.6297
$ 0.6456
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0040
$ 0.0581
$ 0.0828
$ 0.1509
$ 0.1892
$ 0.2424
$ 0.2527
$ 0.2891
$ 0.2960
$ 0.3237
$ 0.3371
$ 0.3721
$ 0.3828
$ 0.4183
$ 0.4280
$ 0.4639
$ 0.4753
$ 0.5064
$ 0.5225
$ 0.5364
$ 0.5505
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0253
$ 0.0365
$ 0.0669
$ 0.0859
$ 0.1258
$ 0.1316
$ 0.1494
$ 0.1536
$ 0.1717
$ 0.1776
$ 0.1912
$ 0.1963
$ 0.2178
$ 0.2223
$ 0.2404
$ 0.2465
$ 0.2598
$ 0.2668
$ 0.2747
$ 0.2844
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0134
$ 0.1489
$ 0.2055
$ 0.4115
$ 0.5114
$ 0.6083
$ 0.6244
$ 0.7207
$ 0.7377
$ 0.7798
$ 0.7991
$ 0.8955
$ 0.9311
$ 1.0091
$ 1.0313
$ 1.1419
$ 1.1687
$ 1 .2324
$ 1.2614
$ 1 .3042
$ 1.3315
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                                 October 2006

-------
                                          Exhibit C.1f Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for CWSs Serving 501-1,000 (Echovirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0048
$ 0.0078
$ 0.0102
$ 0.0125
$ 0.0134
$ 0.0231
$ 0.0244
$ 0.0254
$ 0.0261
$ 0.0270
$ 0.0282
$ 0.0311
$ 0.0317
$ 0.0335
$ 0.0342
$ 0.0356
$ 0.0363
$ 0.0372
$ 0.0380
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0036
$ 0.0057
$ 0.0073
$ 0.0095
$ 0.0100
$ 0.0111
$ 0.0113
$ 0.0121
$ 0.0126
$ 0.0131
$ 0.0135
$ 0.0146
$ 0.0149
$ 0.0170
$ 0.0173
$ 0.0184
$ 0.0188
$ 0.0192
$ 0.0196
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0041
$ 0.0043
$ 0.0046
$ 0.0047
$ 0.0050
$ 0.0051
$ 0.0055
$ 0.0057
$ 0.0059
$ 0.0060
$ 0.0062
$ 0.0064
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0088
$ 0.0121
$ 0.0222
$ 0.0287
$ 0.0338
$ 0.0371
$ 0.0866
$ 0.1052
$ 0.1078
$ 0.1100
$ 0.1121
$ 0.1183
$ 0.1398
$ 0.1430
$ 0.1463
$ 0.1489
$ 0.1517
$ 0.1542
$ 0.1583
$ 0.1611
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0052
$ 0.0072
$ 0.0118
$ 0.0153
$ 0.0194
$ 0.0209
$ 0.0319
$ 0.0335
$ 0.0349
$ 0.0359
$ 0.0374
$ 0.0390
$ 0.0417
$ 0.0426
$ 0.0454
$ 0.0464
$ 0.0486
$ 0.0497
$ 0.0510
$ 0.0521
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0041
$ 0.0059
$ 0.0095
$ 0.0119
$ 0.0162
$ 0.0171
$ 0.0190
$ 0.0193
$ 0.0203
$ 0.0208
$ 0.0223
$ 0.0228
$ 0.0245
$ 0.0249
$ 0.0287
$ 0.0294
$ 0.0305
$ 0.0314
$ 0.0321
$ 0.0327
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0051
$ 0.0055
$ 0.0063
$ 0.0065
$ 0.0072
$ 0.0076
$ 0.0082
$ 0.0084
$ 0.0091
$ 0.0093
$ 0.0100
$ 0.0103
$ 0.0106
$ 0.0109
$ 0.0113
$ 0.0116
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0128
$ 0.0175
$ 0.0314
$ 0.0419
$ 0.0495
$ 0.0557
$ 0.1030
$ 0.1275
$ 0.1306
$ 0.1333
$ 0.1361
$ 0.1440
$ 0.1574
$ 0.1614
$ 0.1657
$ 0.1704
$ 0.1755
$ 0.1783
$ 0.1828
$ 0.1860
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-16 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0004
$0.0041
$0.0056
$0.0091
$0.0117
$0.0144
$0.0153
$0.0258
$0.0268
$0.0276
$0.0282
$0.0290
$0.0301
$0.0325
$0.0329
$0.0345
$0.0349
$0.0361
$0.0366
$0.0371
$0.0376
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0001
$0.0021
$0.0030
$0.0048
$0.0061
$0.0079
$0.0082
$0.0098
$0.0100
$0.0105
$0.0106
$0.0113
$0.0115
$0.0124
$0.0126
$0.0135
$0.0138
$0.0144
$0.0147
$0.0150
$0.0153
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0020
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0159
$ 0.0216
$ 0.0335
$ 0.0417
$ 0.0543
$ 0.0570
$ 0.0874
$ 0.0931
$ 0.0975
$ 0.0987
$ 0.1003
$ 0.1042
$ 0.1129
$ 0.1143
$ 0.1185
$ 0.1198
$ 0.1249
$ 0.1263
$ 0.1284
$ 0.1297
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0003
$0.0015
$0.0141
$0.0196
$0.0315
$0.0405
$0.0518
$0.0551
$0.0815
$0.0843
$0.0874
$0.0893
$0.0925
$0.0959
$0.1017
$0.1030
$0.1090
$0.1104
$0.1150
$0.1166
$0.1189
$0.1206
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0004
$0.0077
$0.0112
$0.0185
$0.0235
$0.0312
$0.0330
$0.0368
$0.0372
$0.0399
$0.0413
$0.0441
$0.0451
$0.0483
$0.0491
$0.0525
$0.0536
$0.0562
$0.0572
$0.0583
$0.0610
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0042
$ 0.0045
$ 0.0052
$ 0.0052
$ 0.0057
$ 0.0061
$ 0.0064
$ 0.0064
$ 0.0068
$ 0.0069
$ 0.0074
$ 0.0076
$ 0.0079
$ 0.0080
$ 0.0082
$ 0.0082
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0064
$ 0.0504
$ 0.0682
$ 0.1143
$ 0.1424
$ 0.1744
$ 0.1801
$ 0.2643
$ 0.2782
$ 0.2849
$ 0.2888
$ 0.2930
$ 0.3243
$ 0.3340
$ 0.3366
$ 0.3681
$ 0.3708
$ 0.3806
$ 0.3844
$ 0.4006
$ 0.4106
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0269
$ 0.0373
$ 0.0603
$ 0.0777
$ 0.0981
$ 0.1047
$ 0.1623
$ 0.1690
$ 0.1754
$ 0.1795
$ 0.1859
$ 0.1932
$ 0.2070
$ 0.2101
$ 0.2225
$ 0.2258
$ 0.2352
$ 0.2391
$ 0.2441
$ 0.2482
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0166
$ 0.0236
$ 0.0385
$ 0.0489
$ 0.0647
$ 0.0683
$ 0.0767
$ 0.0779
$ 0.0828
$ 0.0852
$ 0.0908
$ 0.0928
$ 0.0998
$ 0.1015
$ 0.1118
$ 0.1141
$ 0.1195
$ 0.1222
$ 0.1246
$ 0.1286
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0042
$ 0.0073
$ 0.0094
$ 0.0133
$ 0.0143
$ 0.0165
$ 0.0168
$ 0.0184
$ 0.0194
$ 0.0206
$ 0.0211
$ 0.0225
$ 0.0230
$ 0.0247
$ 0.0254
$ 0.0263
$ 0.0269
$ 0.0276
$ 0.0282
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0130
$ 0.0879
$ 0.1194
$ 0.2013
$ 0.2547
$ 0.3121
$ 0.3299
$ 0.5413
$ 0.6041
$ 0.6208
$ 0.6308
$ 0.6416
$ 0.6908
$ 0.7440
$ 0.7553
$ 0.7986
$ 0.8099
$ 0.8327
$ 0.8431
$ 0.8702
$ 0.8874
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                      Exhibit C.1g  Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, forCWSs Serving 1,001-3,300 (Rotavirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0025
$ 0.0120
$ 0.0270
$ 0.0469
$ 0.0711
$ 0.3371
$ 0.3544
$ 0.3772
$ 0.3951
$ 0.5437
$ 0.5642
$ 0.5894
$ 0.6103
$ 0.6356
$ 0.7750
$ 0.8018
$ 0.8403
$ 0.8673
$ 0.9704
$ 1.0067
$ 1.0414
$ 1.0750
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0107
$ 0.0226
$ 0.0403
$ 0.0655
$ 0.3127
$ 0.3324
$ 0.3545
$ 0.3715
$ 0.4924
$ 0.5115
$ 0.5385
$ 0.5604
$ 0.5827
$ 0.7106
$ 0.7357
$ 0.7740
$ 0.8010
$ 0.8974
$ 0.9281
$ 0.9541
$ 0.9837
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0065
$ 0.0128
$ 0.0199
$ 0.1437
$ 0.1543
$ 0.1646
$ 0.1740
$ 0.2207
$ 0.2314
$ 0.2462
$ 0.2542
$ 0.2668
$ 0.3798
$ 0.3904
$ 0.4114
$ 0.4247
$ 0.4853
$ 0.5013
$ 0.5141
$ 0.5363
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0065
$ 0.0278
$ 0.0642
$ 0.1073
$ 0.1471
$ 0.5928
$ 0.6118
$ 0.6523
$ 0.6783
$ 1.0581
$ 1.0803
$ 1.1128
$ 1.1578
$ 1 .2252
$ 1.4193
$ 1.5042
$ 1 .5467
$ 1 .5920
$ 1.8170
$ 1.8623
$ 1 .9640
$ 2.0131
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0064
$ 0.0144
$ 0.0249
$ 0.0387
$ 0.1709
$ 0.1797
$ 0.1904
$ 0.2006
$ 0.2796
$ 0.2897
$ 0.3032
$ 0.3159
$ 0.3296
$ 0.4062
$ 0.4210
$ 0.4393
$ 0.4531
$ 0.4965
$ 0.5151
$ 0.5316
$ 0.5500
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0052
$ 0.0107
$ 0.0210
$ 0.0335
$ 0.1591
$ 0.1671
$ 0.1788
$ 0.1867
$ 0.2552
$ 0.2670
$ 0.2816
$ 0.2939
$ 0.3046
$ 0.3748
$ 0.3881
$ 0.4054
$ 0.4171
$ 0.4549
$ 0.4745
$ 0.4871
$ 0.5022
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0068
$ 0.0107
$ 0.0689
$ 0.0737
$ 0.0787
$ 0.0848
$ 0.1091
$ 0.1147
$ 0.1257
$ 0.1304
$ 0.1368
$ 0.1901
$ 0.1958
$ 0.2043
$ 0.2099
$ 0.2407
$ 0.2482
$ 0.2554
$ 0.2656
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0042
$ 0.0160
$ 0.0355
$ 0.0595
$ 0.0907
$ 0.3221
$ 0.3343
$ 0.3521
$ 0.3711
$ 0.5580
$ 0.5812
$ 0.5947
$ 0.6214
$ 0.6647
$ 0.7817
$ 0.8296
$ 0.8505
$ 0.8725
$ 0.9479
$ 0.9818
$ 1 .0470
$ 1 .0832
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0006
$0.0013
$0.0023
$0.0035
$0.0158
$0.0166
$0.0175
$0.0181
$0.0245
$0.0252
$0.0262
$0.0269
$0.0277
$0.0338
$0.0346
$0.0361
$0.0369
$0.0408
$0.0420
$0.0429
$0.0440
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0004
$0.0009
$0.0016
$0.0025
$0.0122
$0.0127
$0.0134
$0.0140
$0.0184
$0.0191
$0.0197
$0.0202
$0.0207
$0.0269
$0.0277
$0.0290
$0.0295
$0.0331
$0.0340
$0.0348
$0.0356
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0039
$ 0.0039
$ 0.0041
$ 0.0042
$ 0.0048
$ 0.0050
$ 0.0051
$ 0.0051
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0043
$ 0.0069
$ 0.0105
$ 0.0439
$ 0.0462
$ 0.0483
$ 0.0496
$ 0.0696
$ 0.0715
$ 0.0733
$ 0.0758
$ 0.0776
$ 0.0899
$ 0.0926
$ 0.0958
$ 0.0986
$ 0.1076
$ 0.1112
$ 0.1138
$ 0.1164
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0006
$0.0024
$0.0054
$0.0094
$0.0146
$0.0628
$0.0658
$0.0695
$0.0725
$0.0995
$0.1025
$0.1067
$0.1103
$0.1141
$0.1397
$0.1436
$0.1490
$0.1526
$0.1655
$0.1706
$0.1744
$0.1790
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0003
$0.0017
$0.0034
$0.0061
$0.0100
$0.0475
$0.0493
$0.0521
$0.0542
$0.0699
$0.0727
$0.0788
$0.0811
$0.0846
$0.1060
$0.1080
$0.1117
$0.1144
$0.1280
$0.1312
$0.1344
$0.1389
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0070
$ 0.0074
$ 0.0078
$ 0.0081
$ 0.0108
$ 0.0110
$ 0.0115
$ 0.0120
$ 0.0125
$ 0.0165
$ 0.0168
$ 0.0176
$ 0.0180
$ 0.0198
$ 0.0202
$ 0.0204
$ 0.0208
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0075
$ 0.0163
$ 0.0301
$ 0.0464
$ 0.1760
$ 0.1879
$ 0.1965
$ 0.2034
$ 0.2882
$ 0.2992
$ 0.3164
$ 0.3251
$ 0.3333
$ 0.3921
$ 0.4051
$ 0.4238
$ 0.4350
$ 0.4626
$ 0.4753
$ 0.4842
$ 0.4986
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0048
$ 0.0215
$ 0.0480
$ 0.0834
$ 0.1279
$ 0.5866
$ 0.6166
$ 0.6545
$ 0.6864
$ 0.9473
$ 0.9816
$ 1.0255
$ 1.0634
$ 1.1069
$ 1.3547
$ 1.4011
$ 1.4646
$ 1.5100
$ 1.6732
$ 1.7344
$ 1.7903
$ 1.8480
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0179
$ 0.0376
$ 0.0690
$ 0.1115
$ 0.5316
$ 0.5615
$ 0.5988
$ 0.6263
$ 0.8358
$ 0.8703
$ 0.9186
$ 0.9556
$ 0.9926
$ 1.2184
$ 1.2595
$ 1.3201
$ 1.3621
$ 1.5134
$ 1.5678
$ 1.6105
$ 1.6604
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0044
$ 0.0107
$ 0.0206
$ 0.0320
$ 0.2214
$ 0.2372
$ 0.2531
$ 0.2689
$ 0.3432
$ 0.3598
$ 0.3861
$ 0.3994
$ 0.4190
$ 0.5903
$ 0.6070
$ 0.6374
$ 0.6567
$ 0.7506
$ 0.7746
$ 0.7949
$ 0.8278
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0134
$ 0.0534
$ 0.1204
$ 0.2038
$ 0.2948
$ 1.1348
$ 1.1802
$ 1.2491
$ 1 .3023
$ 1.9740
$ 2.0322
$ 2.0972
$ 2.1801
$ 2.3009
$ 2.6830
$ 2.8315
$ 2.9168
$ 2.9982
$ 3.3351
$ 3.4307
$ 3.6091
$ 3.7113
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                                 October 2006

-------
                                         Exhibit C.1h Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for CWSs Serving 1,001-3,300 (Echovirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0046
$ 0.0065
$ 0.0284
$ 0.0300
$ 0.0335
$ 0.0350
$ 0.0517
$ 0.0540
$ 0.0566
$ 0.0581
$ 0.0612
$ 0.0755
$ 0.0772
$ 0.0804
$ 0.0823
$ 0.0895
$ 0.0920
$ 0.0946
$ 0.1017
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0206
$ 0.0217
$ 0.0243
$ 0.0252
$ 0.0333
$ 0.0350
$ 0.0371
$ 0.0383
$ 0.0404
$ 0.0520
$ 0.0535
$ 0.0555
$ 0.0570
$ 0.0634
$ 0.0652
$ 0.0667
$ 0.0692
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0058
$ 0.0062
$ 0.0066
$ 0.0069
$ 0.0093
$ 0.0100
$ 0.0104
$ 0.0108
$ 0.0111
$ 0.0155
$ 0.0160
$ 0.0167
$ 0.0173
$ 0.0201
$ 0.0206
$ 0.0211
$ 0.0219
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0076
$ 0.0164
$ 0.0226
$ 0.0288
$ 0.0751
$ 0.0795
$ 0.0889
$ 0.0934
$ 0.1643
$ 0.1677
$ 0.1710
$ 0.1741
$ 0.1930
$ 0.2214
$ 0.2253
$ 0.2339
$ 0.2381
$ 0.2552
$ 0.2609
$ 0.2696
$ 0.3106
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0025
$ 0.0047
$ 0.0072
$ 0.0103
$ 0.0444
$ 0.0469
$ 0.0523
$ 0.0546
$ 0.0749
$ 0.0783
$ 0.0821
$ 0.0842
$ 0.0893
$ 0.1129
$ 0.1155
$ 0.1198
$ 0.1226
$ 0.1344
$ 0.1381
$ 0.1419
$ 0.1498
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0051
$ 0.0351
$ 0.0373
$ 0.0410
$ 0.0426
$ 0.0526
$ 0.0553
$ 0.0595
$ 0.0622
$ 0.0639
$ 0.0826
$ 0.0848
$ 0.0881
$ 0.0907
$ 0.1014
$ 0.1055
$ 0.1080
$ 0.1124
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0106
$ 0.0112
$ 0.0118
$ 0.0122
$ 0.0160
$ 0.0173
$ 0.0183
$ 0.0191
$ 0.0199
$ 0.0273
$ 0.0280
$ 0.0288
$ 0.0293
$ 0.0357
$ 0.0365
$ 0.0374
$ 0.0386
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0118
$ 0.0239
$ 0.0337
$ 0.0432
$ 0.1098
$ 0.1183
$ 0.1339
$ 0.1424
$ 0.2446
$ 0.2532
$ 0.2590
$ 0.2631
$ 0.2786
$ 0.3287
$ 0.3347
$ 0.3466
$ 0.3531
$ 0.3812
$ 0.3897
$ 0.4036
$ 0.4451
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-16 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0002
$0.0022
$0.0041
$0.0060
$0.0084
$0.0384
$0.0402
$0.0443
$0.0459
$0.0657
$0.0680
$0.0708
$0.0720
$0.0753
$0.0922
$0.0934
$0.0963
$0.0978
$0.1052
$0.1072
$0.1092
$0.1160
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0004
$0.0009
$0.0016
$0.0025
$0.0196
$0.0205
$0.0229
$0.0237
$0.0293
$0.0307
$0.0325
$0.0337
$0.0347
$0.0452
$0.0462
$0.0484
$0.0494
$0.0546
$0.0564
$0.0570
$0.0584
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0025
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0036
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0049
$ 0.0050
$ 0.0052
$ 0.0053
$ 0.0060
$ 0.0061
$ 0.0062
$ 0.0063
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0071
$ 0.0148
$ 0.0211
$ 0.0312
$ 0.1313
$ 0.1358
$ 0.1466
$ 0.1498
$ 0.2302
$ 0.2389
$ 0.2494
$ 0.2525
$ 0.2622
$ 0.3148
$ 0.3177
$ 0.3266
$ 0.3294
$ 0.3466
$ 0.3514
$ 0.3621
$ 0.3979
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0012
$0.0088
$0.0162
$0.0240
$0.0336
$0.1416
$0.1486
$0.1647
$0.1704
$0.2317
$0.2396
$0.2495
$0.2539
$0.2679
$0.3337
$0.3383
$0.3480
$0.3530
$0.3829
$0.3905
$0.3982
$0.4172
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0003
$0.0016
$0.0032
$0.0063
$0.0097
$0.0759
$0.0814
$0.0925
$0.0950
$0.1198
$0.1226
$0.1275
$0.1324
$0.1354
$0.1808
$0.1834
$0.1899
$0.1932
$0.2119
$0.2188
$0.2214
$0.2271
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0087
$ 0.0092
$ 0.0096
$ 0.0101
$ 0.0130
$ 0.0139
$ 0.0147
$ 0.0151
$ 0.0154
$ 0.0203
$ 0.0206
$ 0.0213
$ 0.0215
$ 0.0241
$ 0.0247
$ 0.0251
$ 0.0253
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0044
$ 0.0357
$ 0.0591
$ 0.0798
$ 0.1058
$ 0.4890
$ 0.5039
$ 0.5396
$ 0.5549
$ 0.8178
$ 0.8400
$ 0.8554
$ 0.8634
$ 0.8727
$ 1.0703
$ 1.0870
$ 1.0993
$ 1.1165
$ 1.1941
$ 1.2201
$ 1.2594
$ 1.2766
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0151
$ 0.0280
$ 0.0419
$ 0.0588
$ 0.2528
$ 0.2657
$ 0.2948
$ 0.3058
$ 0.4241
$ 0.4399
$ 0.4591
$ 0.4682
$ 0.4937
$ 0.6143
$ 0.6244
$ 0.6445
$ 0.6557
$ 0.7120
$ 0.7278
$ 0.7439
$ 0.7847
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0068
$ 0.0130
$ 0.0206
$ 0.1512
$ 0.1610
$ 0.1808
$ 0.1865
$ 0.2351
$ 0.2435
$ 0.2566
$ 0.2667
$ 0.2745
$ 0.3607
$ 0.3679
$ 0.3818
$ 0.3904
$ 0.4313
$ 0.4459
$ 0.4531
$ 0.4670
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0275
$ 0.0291
$ 0.0306
$ 0.0319
$ 0.0415
$ 0.0447
$ 0.0470
$ 0.0487
$ 0.0503
$ 0.0680
$ 0.0695
$ 0.0720
$ 0.0734
$ 0.0859
$ 0.0879
$ 0.0897
$ 0.0921
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0073
$ 0.0622
$ 0.1142
$ 0.1573
$ 0.2090
$ 0.8052
$ 0.8375
$ 0.9091
$ 0.9405
$ 1 .4570
$ 1 .4997
$ 1 .5348
$ 1 .5531
$ 1 .6065
$ 1 .9352
$ 1 .9647
$ 2.0064
$ 2.0371
$ 2.1771
$ 2.2221
$ 2.2947
$ 2.4302
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                      Exhibit C.1i  Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for CWSs Serving 3,301-10,000 (Rotavirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0045
$ 0.0182
$ 0.2414
$ 0.4879
$ 0.6374
$ 0.9526
$ 0.9858
$ 1.1401
$ 1.1715
$ 1.2592
$ 1.3948
$ 1.4420
$ 1.5656
$ 1.6152
$ 1.7530
$ 1.7966
$ 1.9078
$ 1.9881
$ 2.0474
$ 2.1342
$ 2.1855
$ 2.2593
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0164
$ 0.2181
$ 0.4329
$ 0.5731
$ 0.8667
$ 0.8980
$ 1.0451
$ 1.0789
$ 1.1652
$ 1.2902
$ 1.3332
$ 1.4493
$ 1.4897
$ 1.6182
$ 1.6558
$ 1.7689
$ 1.8526
$ 1.9072
$ 1.9850
$ 2.0330
$ 2.1195
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0050
$ 0.1116
$ 0.2235
$ 0.2958
$ 0.4845
$ 0.5076
$ 0.5916
$ 0.6077
$ 0.6732
$ 0.7321
$ 0.7631
$ 0.8172
$ 0.8426
$ 0.9183
$ 0.9396
$ 0.9910
$ 1.0479
$ 1.0814
$ 1.1381
$ 1.1665
$ 1.2104
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0124
$ 0.0383
$ 0.4383
$ 0.8597
$ 1.1120
$ 1.6415
$ 1 .6856
$ 1 .9354
$ 2.0004
$ 2.1052
$ 2.3590
$ 2.4196
$ 2.6398
$ 2.7276
$ 2.9527
$ 3.0212
$ 3.1853
$ 3.3129
$ 3.4046
$ 3.5239
$ 3.6184
$ 3.7237
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0091
$ 0.1174
$ 0.2423
$ 0.3185
$ 0.4895
$ 0.5065
$ 0.5831
$ 0.5998
$ 0.6550
$ 0.7280
$ 0.7511
$ 0.8174
$ 0.8427
$ 0.9161
$ 0.9396
$ 0.9927
$ 1.0303
$ 1.0596
$ 1.1027
$ 1.1296
$ 1.1772
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0078
$ 0.1063
$ 0.2177
$ 0.2934
$ 0.4456
$ 0.4639
$ 0.5397
$ 0.5559
$ 0.6067
$ 0.6721
$ 0.6940
$ 0.7683
$ 0.7897
$ 0.8476
$ 0.8698
$ 0.9175
$ 0.9527
$ 0.9763
$ 1.0118
$ 1.0420
$ 1.0892
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0514
$ 0.1095
$ 0.1445
$ 0.2287
$ 0.2380
$ 0.2850
$ 0.2933
$ 0.3227
$ 0.3599
$ 0.3747
$ 0.4064
$ 0.4181
$ 0.4593
$ 0.4698
$ 0.4960
$ 0.5286
$ 0.5460
$ 0.5707
$ 0.5841
$ 0.6022
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0051
$ 0.0186
$ 0.2178
$ 0.4362
$ 0.5638
$ 0.8245
$ 0.8457
$ 0.9834
$ 1.0021
$ 1.0891
$ 1.2051
$ 1 .2322
$ 1.3341
$ 1 .3737
$ 1.5158
$ 1.5558
$ 1 .6289
$ 1.6918
$ 1 .7440
$ 1.8094
$ 1 .8772
$ 1 .9630
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0002
$0.0010
$0.0118
$0.0239
$0.0310
$0.0459
$0.0471
$0.0540
$0.0550
$0.0587
$0.0643
$0.0661
$0.0710
$0.0727
$0.0785
$0.0798
$0.0841
$0.0869
$0.0887
$0.0917
$0.0931
$0.0956
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0006
$0.0084
$0.0162
$0.0213
$0.0328
$0.0336
$0.0389
$0.0399
$0.0439
$0.0467
$0.0480
$0.0520
$0.0534
$0.0571
$0.0583
$0.0609
$0.0630
$0.0643
$0.0674
$0.0681
$0.0700
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0048
$ 0.0050
$ 0.0056
$ 0.0057
$ 0.0061
$ 0.0067
$ 0.0068
$ 0.0074
$ 0.0076
$ 0.0082
$ 0.0084
$ 0.0087
$ 0.0090
$ 0.0092
$ 0.0096
$ 0.0097
$ 0.0099
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0331
$ 0.0677
$ 0.0875
$ 0.1273
$ 0.1298
$ 0.1470
$ 0.1503
$ 0.1612
$ 0.1741
$ 0.1798
$ 0.1926
$ 0.1975
$ 0.2120
$ 0.2161
$ 0.2307
$ 0.2338
$ 0.2380
$ 0.2478
$ 0.2508
$ 0.2555
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0008
$0.0036
$0.0451
$0.0929
$0.1215
$0.1868
$0.1919
$0.2184
$0.2232
$0.2417
$0.2663
$0.2731
$0.2943
$0.3014
$0.3259
$0.3319
$0.3481
$0.3582
$0.3656
$0.3777
$0.3841
$0.3973
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0005
$0.0024
$0.0325
$0.0639
$0.0841
$0.1314
$0.1376
$0.1597
$0.1640
$0.1812
$0.1991
$0.2022
$0.2166
$0.2188
$0.2385
$0.2405
$0.2534
$0.2598
$0.2660
$0.2775
$0.2807
$0.2914
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0056
$ 0.0112
$ 0.0144
$ 0.0213
$ 0.0223
$ 0.0273
$ 0.0279
$ 0.0294
$ 0.0324
$ 0.0330
$ 0.0358
$ 0.0365
$ 0.0386
$ 0.0392
$ 0.0407
$ 0.0422
$ 0.0428
$ 0.0439
$ 0.0444
$ 0.0452
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0116
$ 0.1271
$ 0.2548
$ 0.3365
$ 0.5069
$ 0.5207
$ 0.5964
$ 0.6099
$ 0.6413
$ 0.7200
$ 0.7329
$ 0.7916
$ 0.8056
$ 0.8523
$ 0.8662
$ 0.9102
$ 0.9258
$ 0.9376
$ 0.9792
$ 0.9898
$ 1 .0255
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0077
$ 0.0318
$ 0.4156
$ 0.8470
$ 1.1084
$ 1.6747
$ 1.7314
$ 1.9956
$ 2.0494
$ 2.2146
$ 2.4534
$ 2.5323
$ 2.7483
$ 2.8319
$ 3.0735
$ 3.1478
$ 3.3327
$ 3.4635
$ 3.5613
$ 3.7063
$ 3.7923
$ 3.9294
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0062
$ 0.0272
$ 0.3653
$ 0.7308
$ 0.9718
$ 1.4765
$ 1.5332
$ 1.7834
$ 1.8388
$ 1.9970
$ 2.2080
$ 2.2774
$ 2.4863
$ 2.5516
$ 2.7615
$ 2.8244
$ 3.0007
$ 3.1281
$ 3.2138
$ 3.3416
$ 3.4238
$ 3.5701
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0084
$ 0.1698
$ 0.3466
$ 0.4579
$ 0.7393
$ 0.7729
$ 0.9095
$ 0.9346
$ 1.0314
$ 1.1311
$ 1.1777
$ 1.2669
$ 1.3048
$ 1.4243
$ 1.4570
$ 1.5364
$ 1.6277
$ 1.6794
$ 1.7623
$ 1.8046
$ 1.8676
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0212
$ 0.0715
$ 0.8164
$ 1.6184
$ 2.0997
$ 3.1001
$ 3.1819
$ 3.6622
$ 3.7628
$ 3.9968
$ 4.4582
$ 4.5646
$ 4.9581
$ 5.1044
$ 5.5329
$ 5.6593
$ 5.9551
$ 6.1643
$ 6.3241
$ 6.5604
$ 6.7362
$ 6.9677
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                                 October 2006

-------
                                         Exhibit C.1J  Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for CWSs Serving 3,301-10,000 (Echovirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0209
$ 0.0377
$ 0.0487
$ 0.0766
$ 0.0787
$ 0.1241
$ 0.1272
$ 0.1377
$ 0.1437
$ 0.1486
$ 0.1612
$ 0.1665
$ 0.1769
$ 0.1807
$ 0.1880
$ 0.2013
$ 0.2065
$ 0.2130
$ 0.2172
$ 0.2230
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0159
$ 0.0283
$ 0.0365
$ 0.0570
$ 0.0587
$ 0.0685
$ 0.0704
$ 0.0733
$ 0.0780
$ 0.0808
$ 0.0877
$ 0.0900
$ 0.1010
$ 0.1035
$ 0.1092
$ 0.1238
$ 0.1267
$ 0.1311
$ 0.1336
$ 0.1375
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0077
$ 0.0102
$ 0.0168
$ 0.0177
$ 0.0199
$ 0.0207
$ 0.0227
$ 0.0253
$ 0.0262
$ 0.0278
$ 0.0290
$ 0.0313
$ 0.0320
$ 0.0337
$ 0.0360
$ 0.0371
$ 0.0384
$ 0.0393
$ 0.0410
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0051
$ 0.0562
$ 0.1090
$ 0.1414
$ 0.2225
$ 0.2268
$ 0.3909
$ 0.3997
$ 0.4665
$ 0.4772
$ 0.4889
$ 0.5478
$ 0.5672
$ 0.5779
$ 0.5889
$ 0.6018
$ 0.6233
$ 0.6380
$ 0.6511
$ 0.6652
$ 0.6810
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0294
$ 0.0534
$ 0.0693
$ 0.1131
$ 0.1161
$ 0.1674
$ 0.1715
$ 0.1852
$ 0.1947
$ 0.2010
$ 0.2161
$ 0.2232
$ 0.2394
$ 0.2445
$ 0.2558
$ 0.2767
$ 0.2837
$ 0.2931
$ 0.2995
$ 0.3075
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0258
$ 0.0448
$ 0.0582
$ 0.0936
$ 0.0963
$ 0.1090
$ 0.1120
$ 0.1188
$ 0.1283
$ 0.1320
$ 0.1413
$ 0.1461
$ 0.1614
$ 0.1651
$ 0.1727
$ 0.1981
$ 0.2028
$ 0.2108
$ 0.2148
$ 0.2203
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0066
$ 0.0139
$ 0.0180
$ 0.0298
$ 0.0312
$ 0.0370
$ 0.0381
$ 0.0411
$ 0.0443
$ 0.0459
$ 0.0512
$ 0.0527
$ 0.0575
$ 0.0587
$ 0.0607
$ 0.0650
$ 0.0668
$ 0.0689
$ 0.0703
$ 0.0729
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0092
$ 0.0726
$ 0.1363
$ 0.1779
$ 0.2949
$ 0.2994
$ 0.5119
$ 0.5228
$ 0.5678
$ 0.5842
$ 0.5939
$ 0.6517
$ 0.6683
$ 0.6899
$ 0.7024
$ 0.7254
$ 0.7675
$ 0.7811
$ 0.8052
$ 0.8212
$ 0.8454
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-16 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0003
$0.0033
$0.0248
$0.0447
$0.0571
$0.0905
$0.0924
$0.1557
$0.1584
$0.1720
$0.1778
$0.1818
$0.1962
$0.2013
$0.2111
$0.2140
$0.2205
$0.2335
$0.2371
$0.2423
$0.2452
$0.2493
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0007
$0.0130
$0.0240
$0.0308
$0.0476
$0.0484
$0.0559
$0.0570
$0.0595
$0.0639
$0.0667
$0.0718
$0.0736
$0.0783
$0.0795
$0.0821
$0.0906
$0.0922
$0.0952
$0.0963
$0.0989
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0025
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0058
$ 0.0060
$ 0.0064
$ 0.0067
$ 0.0071
$ 0.0081
$ 0.0083
$ 0.0090
$ 0.0091
$ 0.0101
$ 0.0102
$ 0.0105
$ 0.0116
$ 0.0118
$ 0.0121
$ 0.0122
$ 0.0125
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0067
$ 0.0871
$ 0.1434
$ 0.1839
$ 0.3003
$ 0.3054
$ 0.5505
$ 0.5577
$ 0.6454
$ 0.6644
$ 0.6803
$ 0.7333
$ 0.7540
$ 0.7616
$ 0.7707
$ 0.7825
$ 0.7971
$ 0.8043
$ 0.8320
$ 0.8381
$ 0.8451
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0013
$0.0107
$0.0846
$0.1542
$0.1980
$0.3241
$0.3303
$0.4916
$0.5001
$0.5404
$0.5637
$0.5771
$0.6161
$0.6322
$0.6705
$0.6801
$0.7048
$0.7540
$0.7668
$0.7852
$0.7964
$0.8107
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0005
$0.0024
$0.0465
$0.0877
$0.1137
$0.1807
$0.1853
$0.2199
$0.2266
$0.2371
$0.2559
$0.2629
$0.2785
$0.2859
$0.3129
$0.3157
$0.3273
$0.3740
$0.3843
$0.3972
$0.4018
$0.4117
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0054
$ 0.0101
$ 0.0131
$ 0.0218
$ 0.0222
$ 0.0254
$ 0.0262
$ 0.0278
$ 0.0300
$ 0.0303
$ 0.0330
$ 0.0348
$ 0.0400
$ 0.0404
$ 0.0419
$ 0.0453
$ 0.0473
$ 0.0485
$ 0.0492
$ 0.0501
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0043
$ 0.0227
$ 0.2733
$ 0.5185
$ 0.6624
$ 1.0453
$ 1.0622
$ 1.6400
$ 1.6633
$ 1.7159
$ 1.9013
$ 1.9370
$ 2.2317
$ 2.3448
$ 2.4090
$ 2.4324
$ 2.4858
$ 2.6076
$ 2.6687
$ 2.7159
$ 2.7878
$ 2.8726
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0194
$ 0.1597
$ 0.2901
$ 0.3730
$ 0.6044
$ 0.6175
$ 0.9388
$ 0.9572
$ 1 .0353
$ 1 .0798
$ 1.1086
$ 1.1896
$ 1 .2232
$ 1 .2978
$ 1.3193
$ 1 .3690
$ 1 .4655
$ 1 .4940
$ 1 .5336
$ 1 .5584
$ 1 .5906
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0054
$ 0.1013
$ 0.1848
$ 0.2392
$ 0.3789
$ 0.3887
$ 0.4533
$ 0.4659
$ 0.4887
$ 0.5260
$ 0.5424
$ 0.5792
$ 0.5956
$ 0.6536
$ 0.6639
$ 0.6913
$ 0.7864
$ 0.8061
$ 0.8342
$ 0.8464
$ 0.8683
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0172
$ 0.0342
$ 0.0446
$ 0.0742
$ 0.0771
$ 0.0888
$ 0.0916
$ 0.0986
$ 0.1077
$ 0.1108
$ 0.1209
$ 0.1256
$ 0.1389
$ 0.1412
$ 0.1468
$ 0.1579
$ 0.1630
$ 0.1679
$ 0.1710
$ 0.1766
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0079
$ 0.0437
$ 0.4892
$ 0.9073
$ 1.1656
$ 1 .8629
$ 1 .8938
$ 3.0933
$ 3.1434
$ 3.3957
$ 3.6272
$ 3.7001
$ 4.1645
$ 4.3343
$ 4.4384
$ 4.4943
$ 4.5955
$ 4.7956
$ 4.8922
$ 5.0043
$ 5.1123
$ 5.2441
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                     Exhibit C.1k Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for CWSs Serving 10,001-50,000 (Rotavirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0417
$ 0.1678
$ 0.3135
$ 0.5031
$ 0.7163
$ 0.9674
$ 1.0209
$ 1.0950
$ 1.1551
$ 1.2092
$ 1.2893
$ 1.3411
$ 1.3832
$ 1.4218
$ 1.4653
$ 1.5105
$ 1.5608
$ 1.5986
$ 1.6436
$ 1.6944
$ 1.7333
$ 1.7727
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0374
$ 0.1540
$ 0.2911
$ 0.4641
$ 0.6612
$ 0.9012
$ 0.9346
$ 1.0012
$ 1.0718
$ 1.1240
$ 1.2013
$ 1.2504
$ 1.2896
$ 1.3305
$ 1.3773
$ 1.4188
$ 1.4676
$ 1.5013
$ 1.5398
$ 1.5884
$ 1.6230
$ 1.6620
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0166
$ 0.0771
$ 0.1528
$ 0.2572
$ 0.3599
$ 0.5076
$ 0.5320
$ 0.5588
$ 0.5899
$ 0.6114
$ 0.6480
$ 0.6877
$ 0.7134
$ 0.7316
$ 0.7518
$ 0.7884
$ 0.8201
$ 0.8403
$ 0.8660
$ 0.8939
$ 0.9121
$ 0.9317
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0799
$ 0.3006
$ 0.5331
$ 0.8692
$ 1.2517
$ 1 .6326
$ 1.7128
$ 1.8134
$ 1 .9026
$ 1 .9744
$ 2.1364
$ 2.1956
$ 2.2783
$ 2.3255
$ 2.3808
$ 2.4375
$ 2.5073
$ 2.5677
$ 2.6208
$ 2.6996
$ 2.7529
$ 2.8123
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0220
$ 0.0895
$ 0.1690
$ 0.2744
$ 0.3911
$ 0.5246
$ 0.5562
$ 0.5943
$ 0.6278
$ 0.6562
$ 0.6892
$ 0.7169
$ 0.7418
$ 0.7643
$ 0.7851
$ 0.8116
$ 0.8397
$ 0.8601
$ 0.8844
$ 0.9129
$ 0.9344
$ 0.9547
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0203
$ 0.0831
$ 0.1544
$ 0.2516
$ 0.3557
$ 0.4883
$ 0.5076
$ 0.5402
$ 0.5779
$ 0.5985
$ 0.6305
$ 0.6584
$ 0.6840
$ 0.7125
$ 0.7325
$ 0.7620
$ 0.7865
$ 0.8098
$ 0.8316
$ 0.8559
$ 0.8750
$ 0.8948
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0093
$ 0.0397
$ 0.0783
$ 0.1346
$ 0.1855
$ 0.2567
$ 0.2701
$ 0.2828
$ 0.2930
$ 0.3068
$ 0.3188
$ 0.3335
$ 0.3438
$ 0.3531
$ 0.3642
$ 0.3899
$ 0.4048
$ 0.4144
$ 0.4248
$ 0.4339
$ 0.4424
$ 0.4502
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0398
$ 0.1570
$ 0.2905
$ 0.4682
$ 0.6800
$ 0.9067
$ 0.9758
$ 1 .0246
$ 1 .0569
$ 1 .0902
$ 1.1527
$ 1.1809
$ 1.2135
$ 1.2521
$ 1 .2933
$ 1.3250
$ 1 .3749
$ 1 .4070
$ 1 .4420
$ 1.4874
$ 1 .5244
$ 1 .5537
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0021
$0.0085
$0.0156
$0.0248
$0.0352
$0.0469
$0.0496
$0.0528
$0.0553
$0.0576
$0.0609
$0.0628
$0.0642
$0.0654
$0.0669
$0.0683
$0.0700
$0.0711
$0.0724
$0.0740
$0.0751
$0.0762
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0015
$0.0060
$0.0113
$0.0184
$0.0258
$0.0356
$0.0370
$0.0392
$0.0406
$0.0422
$0.0448
$0.0465
$0.0478
$0.0489
$0.0498
$0.0513
$0.0526
$0.0535
$0.0544
$0.0556
$0.0564
$0.0574
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0045
$ 0.0061
$ 0.0063
$ 0.0068
$ 0.0070
$ 0.0073
$ 0.0076
$ 0.0078
$ 0.0081
$ 0.0082
$ 0.0084
$ 0.0086
$ 0.0088
$ 0.0089
$ 0.0092
$ 0.0093
$ 0.0094
$ 0.0095
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0061
$ 0.0229
$ 0.0429
$ 0.0701
$ 0.0997
$ 0.1318
$ 0.1420
$ 0.1494
$ 0.1565
$ 0.1604
$ 0.1727
$ 0.1776
$ 0.1833
$ 0.1867
$ 0.1899
$ 0.1946
$ 0.1986
$ 0.2015
$ 0.2077
$ 0.2136
$ 0.2165
$ 0.2206
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0089
$0.0356
$0.0666
$0.1070
$0.1518
$0.2014
$0.2136
$0.2268
$0.2383
$0.2476
$0.2583
$0.2665
$0.2737
$0.2797
$0.2853
$0.2925
$0.3002
$0.3054
$0.3114
$0.3187
$0.3236
$0.3281
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0063
$0.0252
$0.0489
$0.0789
$0.1129
$0.1493
$0.1568
$0.1661
$0.1731
$0.1806
$0.1883
$0.1958
$0.2035
$0.2111
$0.2154
$0.2230
$0.2288
$0.2314
$0.2356
$0.2432
$0.2491
$0.2510
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0047
$ 0.0085
$ 0.0134
$ 0.0190
$ 0.0259
$ 0.0273
$ 0.0296
$ 0.0301
$ 0.0313
$ 0.0321
$ 0.0331
$ 0.0340
$ 0.0347
$ 0.0355
$ 0.0367
$ 0.0377
$ 0.0384
$ 0.0397
$ 0.0406
$ 0.0412
$ 0.0418
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0270
$ 0.0944
$ 0.1773
$ 0.2922
$ 0.4447
$ 0.5745
$ 0.6128
$ 0.6610
$ 0.6717
$ 0.6900
$ 0.7297
$ 0.7595
$ 0.7873
$ 0.8057
$ 0.8205
$ 0.8400
$ 0.8553
$ 0.8684
$ 0.8810
$ 0.9014
$ 0.9180
$ 0.9351
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0746
$ 0.3014
$ 0.5646
$ 0.9092
$ 1.2944
$ 1.7402
$ 1.8403
$ 1.9689
$ 2.0765
$ 2.1705
$ 2.2977
$ 2.3872
$ 2.4628
$ 2.5313
$ 2.6026
$ 2.6829
$ 2.7707
$ 2.8352
$ 2.9118
$ 3.0000
$ 3.0664
$ 3.1316
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0654
$ 0.2683
$ 0.5056
$ 0.8130
$ 1.1556
$ 1.5744
$ 1.6360
$ 1.7466
$ 1.8634
$ 1.9453
$ 2.0650
$ 2.1510
$ 2.2249
$ 2.3029
$ 2.3750
$ 2.4551
$ 2.5355
$ 2.5960
$ 2.6614
$ 2.7431
$ 2.8033
$ 2.8653
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0272
$ 0.1227
$ 0.2417
$ 0.4084
$ 0.5689
$ 0.7962
$ 0.8356
$ 0.8780
$ 0.9201
$ 0.9568
$ 1.0065
$ 1.0621
$ 1.0992
$ 1.1275
$ 1.1599
$ 1.2235
$ 1.2713
$ 1.3020
$ 1.3397
$ 1.3778
$ 1.4051
$ 1.4333
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.1528
$ 0.5749
$ 1 .0438
$ 1 .6997
$ 2.4761
$ 3.2456
$ 3.4434
$ 3.6483
$ 3.7877
$ 3.9151
$ 4.1915
$ 4.3136
$ 4.4624
$ 4.5701
$ 4.6846
$ 4.7970
$ 4.9361
$ 5.0445
$ 5.1514
$ 5.3019
$ 5.4118
$ 5.5217
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                                October 2006

-------
                                        Exhibit C.1I Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for CWSs Serving 10,001-50,000 (Echovirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0045
$ 0.0159
$ 0.0326
$ 0.0574
$ 0.0822
$ 0.1119
$ 0.1174
$ 0.1252
$ 0.1302
$ 0.1385
$ 0.1464
$ 0.1510
$ 0.1546
$ 0.1574
$ 0.1606
$ 0.1670
$ 0.1711
$ 0.1743
$ 0.1780
$ 0.1823
$ 0.1858
$ 0.1895
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0109
$ 0.0195
$ 0.0307
$ 0.0446
$ 0.0675
$ 0.0706
$ 0.0764
$ 0.0811
$ 0.0836
$ 0.0877
$ 0.0914
$ 0.0936
$ 0.0957
$ 0.0978
$ 0.1005
$ 0.1040
$ 0.1061
$ 0.1090
$ 0.1120
$ 0.1146
$ 0.1169
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0060
$ 0.0096
$ 0.0137
$ 0.0205
$ 0.0211
$ 0.0228
$ 0.0245
$ 0.0253
$ 0.0267
$ 0.0281
$ 0.0290
$ 0.0296
$ 0.0303
$ 0.0322
$ 0.0336
$ 0.0342
$ 0.0350
$ 0.0362
$ 0.0370
$ 0.0377
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0116
$ 0.0424
$ 0.0954
$ 0.1802
$ 0.2508
$ 0.3218
$ 0.3489
$ 0.3730
$ 0.3828
$ 0.4588
$ 0.4940
$ 0.5032
$ 0.5146
$ 0.5233
$ 0.5324
$ 0.5466
$ 0.5585
$ 0.5682
$ 0.5793
$ 0.5893
$ 0.6013
$ 0.6116
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0064
$ 0.0231
$ 0.0479
$ 0.0785
$ 0.1125
$ 0.1567
$ 0.1640
$ 0.1760
$ 0.1837
$ 0.1919
$ 0.2033
$ 0.2103
$ 0.2152
$ 0.2193
$ 0.2238
$ 0.2327
$ 0.2386
$ 0.2430
$ 0.2484
$ 0.2548
$ 0.2595
$ 0.2649
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0041
$ 0.0160
$ 0.0287
$ 0.0456
$ 0.0710
$ 0.1061
$ 0.1104
$ 0.1222
$ 0.1277
$ 0.1316
$ 0.1394
$ 0.1455
$ 0.1490
$ 0.1523
$ 0.1559
$ 0.1594
$ 0.1629
$ 0.1665
$ 0.1712
$ 0.1766
$ 0.1808
$ 0.1847
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0062
$ 0.0120
$ 0.0193
$ 0.0266
$ 0.0399
$ 0.0411
$ 0.0434
$ 0.0470
$ 0.0483
$ 0.0520
$ 0.0547
$ 0.0569
$ 0.0584
$ 0.0599
$ 0.0626
$ 0.0647
$ 0.0663
$ 0.0678
$ 0.0695
$ 0.0708
$ 0.0730
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0161
$ 0.0634
$ 0.1295
$ 0.2216
$ 0.3134
$ 0.4034
$ 0.4293
$ 0.4732
$ 0.4847
$ 0.5196
$ 0.5570
$ 0.5704
$ 0.5827
$ 0.5925
$ 0.6032
$ 0.6186
$ 0.6293
$ 0.6397
$ 0.6555
$ 0.6659
$ 0.6797
$ 0.6919
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-16 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0059
$0.0205
$0.0417
$0.0725
$0.1019
$0.1376
$0.1433
$0.1520
$0.1568
$0.1667
$0.1753
$0.1795
$0.1822
$0.1840
$0.1862
$0.1916
$0.1949
$0.1968
$0.1992
$0.2021
$0.2043
$0.2065
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0024
$0.0096
$0.0188
$0.0293
$0.0420
$0.0611
$0.0650
$0.0681
$0.0716
$0.0738
$0.0768
$0.0795
$0.0813
$0.0820
$0.0832
$0.0852
$0.0881
$0.0889
$0.0900
$0.0916
$0.0924
$0.0945
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0039
$ 0.0061
$ 0.0090
$ 0.0093
$ 0.0098
$ 0.0104
$ 0.0108
$ 0.0112
$ 0.0117
$ 0.0120
$ 0.0122
$ 0.0124
$ 0.0126
$ 0.0130
$ 0.0131
$ 0.0133
$ 0.0139
$ 0.0140
$ 0.0143
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0159
$ 0.0638
$ 0.1244
$ 0.2001
$ 0.2837
$ 0.3975
$ 0.4369
$ 0.4656
$ 0.4830
$ 0.5188
$ 0.5637
$ 0.5725
$ 0.5799
$ 0.5848
$ 0.5902
$ 0.6183
$ 0.6290
$ 0.6373
$ 0.6465
$ 0.6560
$ 0.6648
$ 0.6731
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0189
$0.0681
$0.1392
$0.2251
$0.3200
$0.4438
$0.4614
$0.4934
$0.5120
$0.5343
$0.5641
$0.5800
$0.5892
$0.5963
$0.6041
$0.6224
$0.6335
$0.6402
$0.6497
$0.6605
$0.6674
$0.6759
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0079
$0.0356
$0.0702
$0.1046
$0.1567
$0.2290
$0.2326
$0.2519
$0.2649
$0.2747
$0.2965
$0.3027
$0.3058
$0.3075
$0.3093
$0.3152
$0.3197
$0.3249
$0.3290
$0.3403
$0.3447
$0.3525
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0050
$ 0.0097
$ 0.0156
$ 0.0226
$ 0.0370
$ 0.0378
$ 0.0390
$ 0.0410
$ 0.0418
$ 0.0438
$ 0.0456
$ 0.0463
$ 0.0467
$ 0.0471
$ 0.0475
$ 0.0483
$ 0.0488
$ 0.0491
$ 0.0496
$ 0.0500
$ 0.0504
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0592
$ 0.2262
$ 0.4674
$ 0.7295
$ 0.9775
$ 1.3828
$ 1.4398
$ 1.6036
$ 1.6387
$ 1.6886
$ 1.8129
$ 1.8292
$ 1.8658
$ 1.8866
$ 1.9076
$ 1.9616
$ 1.9908
$ 2.0123
$ 2.0275
$ 2.0530
$ 2.0932
$ 2.1180
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0356
$ 0.1276
$ 0.2614
$ 0.4334
$ 0.6166
$ 0.8500
$ 0.8861
$ 0.9466
$ 0.9827
$ 1.0313
$ 1 .0891
$ 1.1208
$ 1.1411
$ 1.1570
$ 1.1747
$ 1.2137
$ 1 .2382
$ 1 .2543
$ 1 .2754
$ 1 .2997
$ 1.3169
$ 1 .3368
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0170
$ 0.0721
$ 0.1372
$ 0.2102
$ 0.3142
$ 0.4636
$ 0.4786
$ 0.5185
$ 0.5453
$ 0.5637
$ 0.6003
$ 0.6190
$ 0.6296
$ 0.6374
$ 0.6463
$ 0.6604
$ 0.6747
$ 0.6864
$ 0.6991
$ 0.7205
$ 0.7326
$ 0.7486
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0036
$ 0.0158
$ 0.0301
$ 0.0483
$ 0.0689
$ 0.1064
$ 0.1093
$ 0.1149
$ 0.1228
$ 0.1261
$ 0.1337
$ 0.1401
$ 0.1442
$ 0.1469
$ 0.1497
$ 0.1549
$ 0.1595
$ 0.1624
$ 0.1652
$ 0.1692
$ 0.1718
$ 0.1754
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.1028
$ 0.3958
$ 0.8166
$ 1.3314
$ 1 .8255
$ 2.5055
$ 2.6549
$ 2.9154
$ 2.9892
$ 3.1859
$ 3.4276
$ 3.4754
$ 3.5431
$ 3.5873
$ 3.6334
$ 3.7450
$ 3.8076
$ 3.8575
$ 3.9088
$ 3.9642
$ 4.0391
$ 4.0945
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                    Exhibit C.1m Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, forCWSs Serving 50,001-100,000 (Rotavirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.1320
$ 0.4427
$ 0.8168
$ 1.2275
$ 1.6557
$ 2.0799
$ 2.1554
$ 2.2263
$ 2.3085
$ 2.3911
$ 2.4499
$ 2.5369
$ 2.6055
$ 2.6643
$ 2.7264
$ 2.8128
$ 2.9032
$ 2.9613
$ 3.0286
$ 3.1008
$ 3.1813
$ 3.2730
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.1135
$ 0.4023
$ 0.7237
$ 1.0929
$ 1.4809
$ 1.8599
$ 1.9321
$ 1.9978
$ 2.0825
$ 2.1688
$ 2.2229
$ 2.2770
$ 2.3322
$ 2.3833
$ 2.4400
$ 2.5173
$ 2.6112
$ 2.6612
$ 2.7273
$ 2.7866
$ 2.8660
$ 2.9332
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0584
$ 0.2052
$ 0.3813
$ 0.5599
$ 0.7614
$ 0.9682
$ 1.0076
$ 1.0443
$ 1.0800
$ 1.1197
$ 1.1529
$ 1.1839
$ 1.2256
$ 1.2558
$ 1.2977
$ 1.3301
$ 1.3694
$ 1.3968
$ 1.4308
$ 1.4704
$ 1.4988
$ 1.5308
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.2439
$ 0.8087
$ 1 .4409
$ 2.1405
$ 2.9229
$ 3.6550
$ 3.7760
$ 3.8798
$ 3.9885
$ 4.0856
$ 4.1784
$ 4.2865
$ 4.3924
$ 4.5030
$ 4.5897
$ 4.8091
$ 4.9544
$ 5.0469
$ 5.1485
$ 5.2777
$ 5.4061
$ 5.6608
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0710
$ 0.2449
$ 0.4511
$ 0.6757
$ 0.9062
$ 1.1383
$ 1.1802
$ 1.2187
$ 1.2613
$ 1.3078
$ 1.3391
$ 1.3874
$ 1.4241
$ 1.4577
$ 1.4893
$ 1.5310
$ 1.5748
$ 1.6051
$ 1.6406
$ 1.6764
$ 1.7140
$ 1.7588
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0612
$ 0.2138
$ 0.3855
$ 0.5770
$ 0.7809
$ 0.9825
$ 1.0257
$ 1.0633
$ 1.1073
$ 1.1486
$ 1.1735
$ 1.2019
$ 1.2365
$ 1.2644
$ 1.2988
$ 1.3213
$ 1.3619
$ 1.3899
$ 1.4187
$ 1.4476
$ 1.4778
$ 1.5174
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0277
$ 0.1004
$ 0.1815
$ 0.2717
$ 0.3772
$ 0.4806
$ 0.4995
$ 0.5162
$ 0.5327
$ 0.5520
$ 0.5655
$ 0.5804
$ 0.5949
$ 0.6078
$ 0.6242
$ 0.6403
$ 0.6667
$ 0.6819
$ 0.6990
$ 0.7140
$ 0.7256
$ 0.7409
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.1366
$ 0.4929
$ 0.8845
$ 1.3331
$ 1.7617
$ 2.1882
$ 2.2592
$ 2.3137
$ 2.3847
$ 2.4828
$ 2.5302
$ 2.5905
$ 2.6563
$ 2.7098
$ 2.7597
$ 2.9080
$ 2.9719
$ 3.0216
$ 3.0805
$ 3.1419
$ 3.2108
$ 3.3441
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0068
$0.0226
$0.0413
$0.0614
$0.0822
$0.1024
$0.1053
$0.1079
$0.1109
$0.1138
$0.1157
$0.1190
$0.1212
$0.1230
$0.1247
$0.1274
$0.1303
$0.1318
$0.1336
$0.1356
$0.1379
$0.1405
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0047
$0.0167
$0.0297
$0.0440
$0.0594
$0.0741
$0.0765
$0.0781
$0.0796
$0.0820
$0.0838
$0.0859
$0.0878
$0.0890
$0.0903
$0.0922
$0.0941
$0.0952
$0.0965
$0.0977
$0.0989
$0.1003
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0041
$ 0.0060
$ 0.0081
$ 0.0101
$ 0.0105
$ 0.0108
$ 0.0110
$ 0.0113
$ 0.0114
$ 0.0116
$ 0.0118
$ 0.0121
$ 0.0123
$ 0.0125
$ 0.0129
$ 0.0131
$ 0.0132
$ 0.0135
$ 0.0138
$ 0.0140
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0189
$ 0.0652
$ 0.1175
$ 0.1760
$ 0.2365
$ 0.2973
$ 0.3078
$ 0.3174
$ 0.3242
$ 0.3359
$ 0.3451
$ 0.3542
$ 0.3601
$ 0.3670
$ 0.3714
$ 0.3858
$ 0.3934
$ 0.3992
$ 0.4057
$ 0.4147
$ 0.4212
$ 0.4278
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0288
$0.0979
$0.1792
$0.2662
$0.3547
$0.4426
$0.4558
$0.4670
$0.4801
$0.4943
$0.5022
$0.5169
$0.5266
$0.5350
$0.5425
$0.5531
$0.5645
$0.5709
$0.5791
$0.5870
$0.5957
$0.6063
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0200
$0.0687
$0.1265
$0.1898
$0.2569
$0.3179
$0.3259
$0.3335
$0.3428
$0.3513
$0.3560
$0.3679
$0.3726
$0.3772
$0.3838
$0.3876
$0.3964
$0.4000
$0.4052
$0.4093
$0.4164
$0.4235
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0096
$ 0.0170
$ 0.0249
$ 0.0329
$ 0.0416
$ 0.0431
$ 0.0444
$ 0.0459
$ 0.0472
$ 0.0483
$ 0.0489
$ 0.0497
$ 0.0506
$ 0.0516
$ 0.0528
$ 0.0540
$ 0.0545
$ 0.0555
$ 0.0572
$ 0.0587
$ 0.0595
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0844
$ 0.3000
$ 0.5409
$ 0.7965
$ 1 .0492
$ 1.3347
$ 1.3641
$ 1.4147
$ 1 .4566
$ 1.5021
$ 1.5365
$ 1 .5643
$ 1 .5994
$ 1 .6385
$ 1.6704
$ 1.7061
$ 1 .7562
$ 1 .7878
$ 1.8150
$ 1.8484
$ 1 .8727
$ 1 .9044
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.2385
$ 0.8081
$ 1.4884
$ 2.2308
$ 2.9988
$ 3.7631
$ 3.8967
$ 4.0200
$ 4.1609
$ 4.3070
$ 4.4068
$ 4.5602
$ 4.6773
$ 4.7800
$ 4.8829
$ 5.0243
$ 5.1728
$ 5.2691
$ 5.3818
$ 5.4998
$ 5.6289
$ 5.7786
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.1994
$ 0.7015
$ 1.2654
$ 1.9036
$ 2.5782
$ 3.2344
$ 3.3602
$ 3.4726
$ 3.6121
$ 3.7506
$ 3.8363
$ 3.9326
$ 4.0291
$ 4.1138
$ 4.2129
$ 4.3185
$ 4.4637
$ 4.5464
$ 4.6477
$ 4.7412
$ 4.8591
$ 4.9745
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0896
$ 0.3176
$ 0.5839
$ 0.8625
$ 1.1797
$ 1.5004
$ 1.5607
$ 1.6156
$ 1.6696
$ 1.7303
$ 1.7781
$ 1.8249
$ 1.8820
$ 1.9263
$ 1.9857
$ 2.0357
$ 2.1030
$ 2.1463
$ 2.1985
$ 2.2552
$ 2.2970
$ 2.3452
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.4839
$ 1.6668
$ 2.9838
$ 4.4461
$ 5.9703
$ 7.4752
$ 7.7070
$ 7.9255
$ 8.1540
$ 8.4065
$ 8.5902
$ 8.7956
$ 9.0081
$ 9.2183
$ 9.3912
$ 9.8090
$ 10.0760
$ 10.2556
$ 10.4497
$ 10.6826
$ 10.9108
$ 11.3371
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                                October 2006

-------
                                       Exhibit C.1n Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for CWSs Serving 50,001-100,000 (Echovirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0123
$ 0.0435
$ 0.0823
$ 0.1177
$ 0.1559
$ 0.1948
$ 0.2004
$ 0.2068
$ 0.2142
$ 0.2245
$ 0.2287
$ 0.2347
$ 0.2393
$ 0.2438
$ 0.2484
$ 0.2612
$ 0.2674
$ 0.2729
$ 0.2787
$ 0.2840
$ 0.2954
$ 0.3018
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0078
$ 0.0244
$ 0.0489
$ 0.0718
$ 0.0952
$ 0.1183
$ 0.1218
$ 0.1256
$ 0.1303
$ 0.1344
$ 0.1369
$ 0.1416
$ 0.1447
$ 0.1476
$ 0.1505
$ 0.1571
$ 0.1630
$ 0.1662
$ 0.1699
$ 0.1741
$ 0.1800
$ 0.1838
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0025
$ 0.0080
$ 0.0151
$ 0.0230
$ 0.0313
$ 0.0399
$ 0.0413
$ 0.0429
$ 0.0441
$ 0.0450
$ 0.0458
$ 0.0474
$ 0.0485
$ 0.0493
$ 0.0509
$ 0.0524
$ 0.0538
$ 0.0553
$ 0.0570
$ 0.0585
$ 0.0598
$ 0.0618
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0354
$ 0.1156
$ 0.2238
$ 0.3217
$ 0.4258
$ 0.5305
$ 0.5427
$ 0.5678
$ 0.5828
$ 0.6996
$ 0.7120
$ 0.7348
$ 0.7478
$ 0.7638
$ 0.7773
$ 0.8273
$ 0.8414
$ 0.8556
$ 0.8797
$ 0.8945
$ 0.9491
$ 0.9677
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0177
$ 0.0593
$ 0.1156
$ 0.1673
$ 0.2233
$ 0.2793
$ 0.2875
$ 0.2971
$ 0.3078
$ 0.3196
$ 0.3254
$ 0.3334
$ 0.3401
$ 0.3464
$ 0.3532
$ 0.3735
$ 0.3821
$ 0.3898
$ 0.3977
$ 0.4052
$ 0.4193
$ 0.4281
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0122
$ 0.0395
$ 0.0825
$ 0.1210
$ 0.1627
$ 0.2016
$ 0.2089
$ 0.2163
$ 0.2233
$ 0.2297
$ 0.2344
$ 0.2406
$ 0.2449
$ 0.2502
$ 0.2552
$ 0.2641
$ 0.2701
$ 0.2772
$ 0.2831
$ 0.2913
$ 0.2987
$ 0.3052
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0041
$ 0.0139
$ 0.0245
$ 0.0361
$ 0.0490
$ 0.0626
$ 0.0649
$ 0.0677
$ 0.0695
$ 0.0710
$ 0.0730
$ 0.0766
$ 0.0787
$ 0.0802
$ 0.0827
$ 0.0845
$ 0.0880
$ 0.0909
$ 0.0928
$ 0.0944
$ 0.0960
$ 0.0978
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0456
$ 0.1375
$ 0.2923
$ 0.4143
$ 0.5657
$ 0.7123
$ 0.7243
$ 0.7806
$ 0.8021
$ 0.8470
$ 0.8620
$ 0.8814
$ 0.8984
$ 0.9155
$ 0.9316
$ 1.0396
$ 1.0572
$ 1.0739
$ 1.0912
$ 1.1086
$ 1.1640
$ 1.1848
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-16 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0180
$0.0637
$0.1193
$0.1689
$0.2227
$0.2758
$0.2812
$0.2879
$0.2957
$0.3078
$0.3110
$0.3161
$0.3196
$0.3228
$0.3263
$0.3458
$0.3508
$0.3550
$0.3592
$0.3630
$0.3733
$0.3780
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0066
$0.0211
$0.0424
$0.0624
$0.0823
$0.1017
$0.1043
$0.1056
$0.1078
$0.1095
$0.1110
$0.1139
$0.1152
$0.1167
$0.1181
$0.1226
$0.1245
$0.1268
$0.1286
$0.1300
$0.1368
$0.1391
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0051
$ 0.0075
$ 0.0101
$ 0.0126
$ 0.0128
$ 0.0132
$ 0.0135
$ 0.0137
$ 0.0138
$ 0.0142
$ 0.0144
$ 0.0147
$ 0.0150
$ 0.0152
$ 0.0155
$ 0.0159
$ 0.0161
$ 0.0163
$ 0.0166
$ 0.0168
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0691
$ 0.2086
$ 0.4388
$ 0.6281
$ 0.8284
$ 1 .0274
$ 1 .0490
$ 1.0615
$ 1 .0724
$ 1.1417
$ 1.1502
$ 1.1634
$ 1.1739
$ 1.1844
$ 1.1961
$ 1 .2803
$ 1 .2940
$ 1.3110
$ 1 .3285
$ 1 .3424
$ 1 .3958
$ 1.4169
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0626
$0.2119
$0.4045
$0.5776
$0.7679
$0.9536
$0.9734
$0.9974
$1.0265
$1.0573
$1.0684
$1.0859
$1.0986
$1.1103
$1.1232
$1.1973
$1.2146
$1.2296
$1.2441
$1.2579
$1.2886
$1.3052
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0256
$0.0789
$0.1584
$0.2336
$0.3098
$0.3837
$0.3935
$0.4005
$0.4088
$0.4146
$0.4174
$0.4314
$0.4364
$0.4425
$0.4451
$0.4631
$0.4678
$0.4822
$0.4882
$0.4939
$0.5278
$0.5342
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0097
$ 0.0193
$ 0.0280
$ 0.0379
$ 0.0488
$ 0.0496
$ 0.0522
$ 0.0539
$ 0.0550
$ 0.0562
$ 0.0586
$ 0.0604
$ 0.0608
$ 0.0616
$ 0.0622
$ 0.0631
$ 0.0666
$ 0.0678
$ 0.0684
$ 0.0688
$ 0.0694
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.2246
$ 0.6359
$ 1.3088
$ 1.8737
$ 2.5939
$ 3.1752
$ 3.2124
$ 3.2929
$ 3.3545
$ 3.4760
$ 3.5062
$ 3.5467
$ 3.5848
$ 3.6487
$ 3.7020
$ 4.1269
$ 4.1955
$ 4.2395
$ 4.3067
$ 4.3390
$ 4.4088
$ 4.4555
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.1105
$ 0.3785
$ 0.7218
$ 1.0314
$ 1 .3698
$ 1 .7034
$ 1 .7425
$ 1 .7891
$ 1 .8442
$ 1 .9093
$ 1 .9334
$ 1 .9702
$ 1 .9975
$ 2.0233
$ 2.0511
$ 2.1778
$ 2.2149
$ 2.2474
$ 2.2797
$ 2.3101
$ 2.3765
$ 2.4130
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0522
$ 0.1638
$ 0.3323
$ 0.4888
$ 0.6500
$ 0.8053
$ 0.8284
$ 0.8481
$ 0.8701
$ 0.8883
$ 0.8998
$ 0.9275
$ 0.9413
$ 0.9570
$ 0.9689
$ 1.0069
$ 1.0254
$ 1.0524
$ 1.0697
$ 1.0893
$ 1.1433
$ 1.1623
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0106
$ 0.0342
$ 0.0640
$ 0.0946
$ 0.1283
$ 0.1639
$ 0.1686
$ 0.1760
$ 0.1811
$ 0.1847
$ 0.1889
$ 0.1967
$ 0.2020
$ 0.2051
$ 0.2101
$ 0.2142
$ 0.2205
$ 0.2287
$ 0.2337
$ 0.2376
$ 0.2412
$ 0.2458
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.3748
$ 1 .0976
$ 2.2637
$ 3.2378
$ 4.4138
$ 5.4454
$ 5.5284
$ 5.7027
$ 5.8119
$ 6.1644
$ 6.2304
$ 6.3262
$ 6.4049
$ 6.5123
$ 6.6070
$ 7.2742
$ 7.3881
$ 7.4800
$ 7.6061
$ 7.6846
$ 7.9177
$ 8.0249
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                   Exhibit C.1o Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for CWSs Serving 100,001-1,000,000 (Rotavirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.1422
$ 0.4636
$ 0.8366
$ 1.1911
$ 1.5568
$ 1.9485
$ 2.0386
$ 2.1128
$ 2.1655
$ 2.2304
$ 2.3094
$ 2.3673
$ 2.4202
$ 2.5030
$ 2.5803
$ 2.6351
$ 2.7210
$ 2.8082
$ 2.8753
$ 2.9482
$ 3.0063
$ 3.0698
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.1291
$ 0.4246
$ 0.7779
$ 1.1002
$ 1.4466
$ 1.8117
$ 1.8923
$ 1.9592
$ 2.0151
$ 2.0902
$ 2.1758
$ 2.2352
$ 2.2839
$ 2.3636
$ 2.4289
$ 2.4810
$ 2.5694
$ 2.6490
$ 2.7244
$ 2.7983
$ 2.8546
$ 2.9165
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0754
$ 0.2331
$ 0.4131
$ 0.6062
$ 0.7939
$ 0.9931
$ 1.0309
$ 1.0662
$ 1.0994
$ 1.1350
$ 1.1688
$ 1.2039
$ 1.2359
$ 1.2679
$ 1.3430
$ 1.3729
$ 1.4189
$ 1.4588
$ 1.4921
$ 1.5239
$ 1.5558
$ 1.5903
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.2399
$ 0.7892
$ 1 .4036
$ 2.0118
$ 2.5936
$ 3.2024
$ 3.3630
$ 3.4689
$ 3.5515
$ 3.6737
$ 3.8398
$ 3.9195
$ 4.0045
$ 4.2159
$ 4.3078
$ 4.3864
$ 4.4824
$ 4.5901
$ 4.7376
$ 4.8360
$ 4.9304
$ 5.0220
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0784
$ 0.2519
$ 0.4518
$ 0.6503
$ 0.8512
$ 1.0614
$ 1.1098
$ 1.1499
$ 1.1807
$ 1.2120
$ 1.2539
$ 1.2838
$ 1.3126
$ 1.3543
$ 1.3944
$ 1.4218
$ 1.4596
$ 1.5005
$ 1.5358
$ 1.5757
$ 1.6064
$ 1.6402
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0717
$ 0.2325
$ 0.4119
$ 0.5943
$ 0.7827
$ 0.9779
$ 1.0238
$ 1.0600
$ 1.0853
$ 1.1099
$ 1.1550
$ 1.1842
$ 1.2094
$ 1.2439
$ 1.2731
$ 1.2996
$ 1.3364
$ 1.3758
$ 1.4123
$ 1.4591
$ 1.4891
$ 1.5261
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0379
$ 0.1244
$ 0.2169
$ 0.3137
$ 0.4084
$ 0.5093
$ 0.5268
$ 0.5474
$ 0.5608
$ 0.5757
$ 0.5901
$ 0.6046
$ 0.6295
$ 0.6477
$ 0.6674
$ 0.6811
$ 0.6992
$ 0.7135
$ 0.7295
$ 0.7512
$ 0.7694
$ 0.7955
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.1334
$ 0.4332
$ 0.8104
$ 1.1407
$ 1 .4760
$ 1.8093
$ 1 .9336
$ 1 .9967
$ 2.0704
$ 2.1121
$ 2.2018
$ 2.2406
$ 2.2970
$ 2.3928
$ 2.4831
$ 2.5255
$ 2.5829
$ 2.6322
$ 2.7080
$ 2.7861
$ 2.8411
$ 2.8898
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0072
$0.0231
$0.0414
$0.0585
$0.0759
$0.0941
$0.0980
$0.1007
$0.1024
$0.1048
$0.1076
$0.1094
$0.1109
$0.1138
$0.1163
$0.1177
$0.1204
$0.1232
$0.1251
$0.1272
$0.1286
$0.1301
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0053
$0.0175
$0.0318
$0.0451
$0.0579
$0.0726
$0.0749
$0.0771
$0.0779
$0.0800
$0.0816
$0.0831
$0.0847
$0.0868
$0.0891
$0.0903
$0.0928
$0.0949
$0.0964
$0.0983
$0.0995
$0.1006
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0053
$ 0.0075
$ 0.0098
$ 0.0122
$ 0.0125
$ 0.0128
$ 0.0130
$ 0.0132
$ 0.0134
$ 0.0137
$ 0.0138
$ 0.0141
$ 0.0144
$ 0.0146
$ 0.0151
$ 0.0154
$ 0.0156
$ 0.0158
$ 0.0159
$ 0.0161
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0182
$ 0.0599
$ 0.1098
$ 0.1545
$ 0.1971
$ 0.2438
$ 0.2607
$ 0.2704
$ 0.2757
$ 0.2824
$ 0.2926
$ 0.2967
$ 0.3005
$ 0.3126
$ 0.3188
$ 0.3227
$ 0.3286
$ 0.3346
$ 0.3395
$ 0.3447
$ 0.3488
$ 0.3532
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0306
$0.0983
$0.1751
$0.2504
$0.3251
$0.4020
$0.4176
$0.4298
$0.4382
$0.4467
$0.4594
$0.4669
$0.4738
$0.4855
$0.4964
$0.5023
$0.5116
$0.5219
$0.5301
$0.5400
$0.5464
$0.5535
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0236
$0.0765
$0.1365
$0.1964
$0.2566
$0.3187
$0.3279
$0.3333
$0.3393
$0.3465
$0.3547
$0.3607
$0.3671
$0.3771
$0.3874
$0.3929
$0.4016
$0.4087
$0.4146
$0.4198
$0.4248
$0.4305
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0042
$ 0.0125
$ 0.0227
$ 0.0326
$ 0.0427
$ 0.0529
$ 0.0544
$ 0.0554
$ 0.0563
$ 0.0575
$ 0.0585
$ 0.0594
$ 0.0601
$ 0.0614
$ 0.0625
$ 0.0634
$ 0.0647
$ 0.0658
$ 0.0669
$ 0.0679
$ 0.0685
$ 0.0692
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0736
$ 0.2484
$ 0.4557
$ 0.6507
$ 0.8349
$ 1.0269
$ 1 .0968
$ 1.1470
$ 1.1726
$ 1.1975
$ 1.2496
$ 1 .2707
$ 1 .2839
$ 1 .3040
$ 1.3225
$ 1.3346
$ 1 .3574
$ 1.3915
$ 1.4192
$ 1.4518
$ 1 .4660
$ 1.4831
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.2583
$ 0.8370
$ 1.5049
$ 2.1503
$ 2.8091
$ 3.5061
$ 3.6640
$ 3.7932
$ 3.8868
$ 3.9939
$ 4.1304
$ 4.2274
$ 4.3174
$ 4.4567
$ 4.5873
$ 4.6770
$ 4.8126
$ 4.9537
$ 5.0663
$ 5.1912
$ 5.2877
$ 5.3935
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.2298
$ 0.7510
$ 1.3581
$ 1.9359
$ 2.5439
$ 3.1808
$ 3.3189
$ 3.4295
$ 3.5176
$ 3.6265
$ 3.7671
$ 3.8632
$ 3.9450
$ 4.0713
$ 4.1786
$ 4.2638
$ 4.4000
$ 4.5284
$ 4.6477
$ 4.7756
$ 4.8680
$ 4.9738
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.1184
$ 0.3731
$ 0.6580
$ 0.9599
$ 1.2548
$ 1.5676
$ 1.6245
$ 1.6817
$ 1.7295
$ 1.7814
$ 1.8308
$ 1.8815
$ 1.9393
$ 1.9913
$ 2.0874
$ 2.1320
$ 2.1979
$ 2.2535
$ 2.3041
$ 2.3588
$ 2.4096
$ 2.4711
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.4651
$ 1.5306
$ 2.7795
$ 3.9577
$ 5.1017
$ 6.2823
$ 6.6541
$ 6.8830
$ 7.0702
$ 7.2657
$ 7.5838
$ 7.7275
$ 7.8858
$ 8.2253
$ 8.4322
$ 8.5693
$ 8.7514
$ 8.9485
$ 9.2043
$ 9.4186
$ 9.5863
$ 9.7481
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                                 October 2006

-------
                                     Exhibit C.1p Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, forCWSs Serving 100,001-1,000,000 (Echovirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0166
$ 0.0526
$ 0.0871
$ 0.1239
$ 0.1607
$ 0.2018
$ 0.2067
$ 0.2133
$ 0.2176
$ 0.2276
$ 0.2404
$ 0.2461
$ 0.2506
$ 0.2612
$ 0.2679
$ 0.2727
$ 0.2794
$ 0.2849
$ 0.2913
$ 0.2971
$ 0.3033
$ 0.3089
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0085
$ 0.0288
$ 0.0517
$ 0.0730
$ 0.0955
$ 0.1215
$ 0.1248
$ 0.1304
$ 0.1333
$ 0.1371
$ 0.1421
$ 0.1462
$ 0.1493
$ 0.1537
$ 0.1596
$ 0.1628
$ 0.1689
$ 0.1726
$ 0.1756
$ 0.1792
$ 0.1830
$ 0.1863
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0086
$ 0.0153
$ 0.0221
$ 0.0289
$ 0.0365
$ 0.0375
$ 0.0387
$ 0.0398
$ 0.0407
$ 0.0419
$ 0.0430
$ 0.0440
$ 0.0451
$ 0.0468
$ 0.0477
$ 0.0496
$ 0.0507
$ 0.0519
$ 0.0530
$ 0.0540
$ 0.0551
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0559
$ 0.1734
$ 0.2745
$ 0.4014
$ 0.5148
$ 0.6402
$ 0.6514
$ 0.6668
$ 0.6799
$ 0.7780
$ 0.8400
$ 0.8543
$ 0.8688
$ 0.8873
$ 0.9025
$ 0.9177
$ 0.9338
$ 0.9496
$ 0.9660
$ 0.9826
$ 1 .0004
$ 1.0175
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0238
$ 0.0739
$ 0.1246
$ 0.1788
$ 0.2325
$ 0.2928
$ 0.2995
$ 0.3091
$ 0.3154
$ 0.3263
$ 0.3478
$ 0.3551
$ 0.3615
$ 0.3746
$ 0.3844
$ 0.3910
$ 0.4009
$ 0.4088
$ 0.4175
$ 0.4256
$ 0.4341
$ 0.4421
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0134
$ 0.0470
$ 0.0841
$ 0.1194
$ 0.1550
$ 0.1967
$ 0.2028
$ 0.2104
$ 0.2151
$ 0.2203
$ 0.2307
$ 0.2368
$ 0.2410
$ 0.2509
$ 0.2575
$ 0.2618
$ 0.2693
$ 0.2753
$ 0.2824
$ 0.2896
$ 0.2968
$ 0.3032
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0045
$ 0.0153
$ 0.0273
$ 0.0395
$ 0.0509
$ 0.0639
$ 0.0661
$ 0.0682
$ 0.0707
$ 0.0719
$ 0.0736
$ 0.0751
$ 0.0770
$ 0.0797
$ 0.0839
$ 0.0857
$ 0.0906
$ 0.0924
$ 0.0948
$ 0.0978
$ 0.1000
$ 0.1020
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0840
$ 0.2356
$ 0.3883
$ 0.5687
$ 0.7268
$ 0.9093
$ 0.9251
$ 0.9889
$ 1.0108
$ 1.0807
$ 1.2485
$ 1.2710
$ 1.2922
$ 1.3131
$ 1.3366
$ 1.3575
$ 1.3816
$ 1.4035
$ 1.4263
$ 1.4498
$ 1.4727
$ 1.4982
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-16 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0194
$0.0613
$0.1013
$0.1433
$0.1850
$0.2312
$0.2351
$0.2409
$0.2440
$0.2520
$0.2637
$0.2678
$0.2706
$0.2809
$0.2861
$0.2891
$0.2940
$0.2975
$0.3018
$0.3055
$0.3094
$0.3127
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0079
$0.0264
$0.0455
$0.0643
$0.0841
$0.1059
$0.1080
$0.1132
$0.1150
$0.1171
$0.1204
$0.1223
$0.1238
$0.1286
$0.1319
$0.1330
$0.1374
$0.1391
$0.1419
$0.1447
$0.1468
$0.1483
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0025
$ 0.0046
$ 0.0065
$ 0.0083
$ 0.0104
$ 0.0107
$ 0.0111
$ 0.0112
$ 0.0113
$ 0.0116
$ 0.0120
$ 0.0122
$ 0.0125
$ 0.0128
$ 0.0130
$ 0.0132
$ 0.0133
$ 0.0135
$ 0.0137
$ 0.0140
$ 0.0142
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0782
$ 0.2513
$ 0.3970
$ 0.5474
$ 0.7176
$ 0.8860
$ 0.9057
$ 0.9241
$ 0.9373
$ 0.9764
$ 0.9997
$ 1.0135
$ 1 .0234
$ 1 .0984
$ 1.1167
$ 1.1249
$ 1.1527
$ 1.1653
$ 1.1792
$ 1.1976
$ 1.2104
$ 1 .2241
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0656
$0.2045
$0.3443
$0.4915
$0.6369
$0.7984
$0.8110
$0.8315
$0.8430
$0.8639
$0.9108
$0.9232
$0.9334
$0.9638
$0.9825
$0.9924
$1.0106
$1.0234
$1.0376
$1.0506
$1.0640
$1.0757
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0313
$0.0975
$0.1681
$0.2370
$0.3087
$0.3875
$0.3980
$0.4192
$0.4240
$0.4294
$0.4539
$0.4575
$0.4668
$0.4744
$0.4839
$0.4879
$0.5031
$0.5125
$0.5208
$0.5299
$0.5376
$0.5508
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0105
$ 0.0184
$ 0.0262
$ 0.0342
$ 0.0421
$ 0.0435
$ 0.0443
$ 0.0453
$ 0.0464
$ 0.0471
$ 0.0484
$ 0.0492
$ 0.0505
$ 0.0529
$ 0.0534
$ 0.0551
$ 0.0560
$ 0.0567
$ 0.0576
$ 0.0582
$ 0.0587
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.2412
$ 0.7372
$ 1.1895
$ 1.6903
$ 2.1819
$ 2.7161
$ 2.7699
$ 2.8309
$ 2.8738
$ 2.9344
$ 2.9801
$ 3.0359
$ 3.0882
$ 3.5293
$ 3.5828
$ 3.6203
$ 3.6796
$ 3.7160
$ 3.8145
$ 3.8739
$ 3.9393
$ 3.9994
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.1254
$ 0.3924
$ 0.6572
$ 0.9375
$ 1.2151
$ 1 .5242
$ 1 .5523
$ 1 .5948
$ 1 .6200
$ 1 .6698
$ 1 .7627
$ 1 .7922
$ 1.8162
$ 1 .8805
$ 1 .9208
$ 1 .9452
$ 1 .9849
$ 2.0146
$ 2.0482
$ 2.0787
$ 2.1108
$ 2.1395
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0611
$ 0.1996
$ 0.3494
$ 0.4936
$ 0.6433
$ 0.8117
$ 0.8335
$ 0.8732
$ 0.8874
$ 0.9041
$ 0.9471
$ 0.9627
$ 0.9809
$ 1.0076
$ 1.0329
$ 1.0456
$ 1.0787
$ 1.0995
$ 1.1207
$ 1.1435
$ 1.1642
$ 1.1886
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0110
$ 0.0369
$ 0.0657
$ 0.0942
$ 0.1224
$ 0.1528
$ 0.1578
$ 0.1623
$ 0.1670
$ 0.1703
$ 0.1742
$ 0.1785
$ 0.1824
$ 0.1878
$ 0.1964
$ 0.1998
$ 0.2085
$ 0.2124
$ 0.2169
$ 0.2221
$ 0.2262
$ 0.2299
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.4592
$ 1 .3975
$ 2.2492
$ 3.2077
$ 4.1410
$ 5.1516
$ 5.2520
$ 5.4107
$ 5.5018
$ 5.7694
$ 6.0683
$ 6.1748
$ 6.2727
$ 6.8281
$ 6.9386
$ 7.0203
$ 7.1477
$ 7.2345
$ 7.3860
$ 7.5039
$ 7.6228
$ 7.7392
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                                   Exhibit C.1q  Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for CWSs Serving >1,000,000 (Rotavirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0- 15 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$0.000001
$0.000002
$0.000005
$0.000008
$0.000012
$0.000019
$0.000021
$0.000029
$0.000032
$0.000033
$0.000035
$0.000037
$0.000038
$0.000040
$0.000042
$0.000043
$0.000051
$0.000053
$0.000055
$0.000062
$0.000064
$0.000068
Median
Value
$
$
$
$0.000001
$0.000002
$0.000004
$0.000008
$0.00001 1
$0.000016
$0.000019
$0.000027
$0.000028
$0.000030
$0.000031
$0.000032
$0.000033
$0.000034
$0.000036
$0.000037
$0.000043
$0.000046
$0.000048
$0.000052
$0.000053
$0.000057
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000002
$0.000002
$0.000002
$0.000006
$0.000006
$0.000007
$0.000007
$0.000007
$0.000007
$0.000008
$0.000008
$0.000008
$0.000008
$0.000009
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$0.000003
$0.000006
$0.00001 1
$0.000017
$0.000026
$0.000046
$0.000052
$0.000068
$0.000080
$0.000081
$0.000087
$0.000091
$0.000092
$0.000096
$0.000100
$0.000103
$0.000128
$0.000131
$0.000136
$0.000149
$0.000153
$0.000159
>15yrs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$0.000001
$0.000002
$0.000004
$0.000007
$0.000010
$0.000015
$0.000018
$0.000024
$0.000026
$0.000027
$0.000029
$0.000031
$0.000032
$0.000033
$0.000035
$0.000036
$0.000042
$0.000044
$0.000045
$0.000051
$0.000052
$0.000056
Median
Value
$
$
$
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000003
$0.000006
$0.000009
$0.000013
$0.000015
$0.000020
$0.000021
$0.000023
$0.000024
$0.000025
$0.000026
$0.000027
$0.000029
$0.000030
$0.000034
$0.000036
$0.000037
$0.000041
$0.000042
$0.000045
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000002
$0.000002
$0.000005
$0.000005
$0.000005
$0.000005
$0.000005
$0.000005
$0.000006
$0.000006
$0.000006
$0.000006
$0.000007
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$0.000002
$0.000006
$0.000010
$0.000015
$0.000023
$0.000039
$0.000044
$0.000060
$0.000073
$0.000074
$0.000077
$0.000080
$0.000081
$0.000085
$0.000087
$0.000090
$0.000112
$0.000114
$0.000119
$0.000132
$0.000136
$0.000142
Value of Deaths Avoided
0 - 15 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000002
$0.000002
$0.000002
$0.000002
$0.000002
$0.000002
$0.000002
$0.000002
$0.000002
$0.000002
$0.000002
$0.000003
$0.000003
$0.000003
Median
Value
$
$
$
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000002
$0.000002
$0.000002
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000002
$0.000003
$0.000003
$0.000005
$0.000005
$0.000005
$0.000006
$0.000006
$0.000006
$0.000006
$0.000006
$0.000007
$0.000008
$0.000008
$0.000008
$0.000010
$0.000010
$0.000010
>15yrs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$0.000000
$0.000001
$0.000002
$0.000003
$0.000004
$0.000006
$0.000007
$0.000009
$0.000010
$0.000010
$0.00001 1
$0.00001 1
$0.000012
$0.000012
$0.000012
$0.000013
$0.000015
$0.000015
$0.000016
$0.000018
$0.000018
$0.000019
Median
Value
$
$
$
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000001
$0.000002
$0.000003
$0.000004
$0.000004
$0.000005
$0.000006
$0.000006
$0.000006
$0.000007
$0.000007
$0.000007
$0.000007
$0.000008
$0.000008
$0.000009
$0.000009
$0.000010
$0.000010
$0.00001 1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$0.000001
$0.000003
$0.000005
$0.000009
$0.000012
$0.000019
$0.000022
$0.000032
$0.000034
$0.000035
$0.000037
$0.000038
$0.000039
$0.000040
$0.000042
$0.000043
$0.000051
$0.000052
$0.000054
$0.000066
$0.000067
$0.000068
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$0.000002
$0.000005
$0.00001 1
$0.000018
$0.000026
$0.000041
$0.000047
$0.000063
$0.000069
$0.000072
$0.000077
$0.000081
$0.000083
$0.000087
$0.000091
$0.000094
$0.000109
$0.000115
$0.000118
$0.000133
$0.000137
$0.000146
Median
Value
$
$
$
$0.000001
$0.000004
$0.000009
$0.000016
$0.000022
$0.000033
$0.000038
$0.000054
$0.000056
$0.000059
$0.000062
$0.000064
$0.000067
$0.000070
$0.000073
$0.000076
$0.000087
$0.000093
$0.000095
$0.000104
$0.000107
$0.000114
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000003
$0.000004
$0.000004
$0.000012
$0.000012
$0.000012
$0.000013
$0.000013
$0.000014
$0.000014
$0.000015
$0.000015
$0.000016
$0.000016
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$0.000006
$0.000015
$0.000027
$0.000042
$0.000063
$0.000107
$0.000123
$0.000165
$0.000192
$0.000195
$0.000207
$0.000215
$0.000218
$0.000227
$0.000235
$0.000243
$0.000299
$0.000306
$0.000317
$0.000357
$0.000367
$0.000381
    Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
    Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Fined Ground Water Rule

-------
                                                   Exhibit C.1 r Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for CWSs Serving >1,000,000 (Echovirus)
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
Value of I llnesses Avoided
0 -1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000002
$0.000002
$0.000002
$0.000003
$0.000003
$0.000003
$0.000003
$0.000003
$0.000003
$0.000003
$0.000003
$0.000003
$0.000004
Median
Value
$
$
$
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.000000
$ 0.000000
$ 0.000000
$ 0.000001
$ 0.000001
$ 0.000002
$ 0.000002
$ 0.000004
$ 0.000004
$ 0.000005
$ 0.000005
$ 0.000006
$ 0.000006
$ 0.000006
$ 0.000006
$ 0.000006
$ 0.000006
$ 0.000006
$ 0.000007
$ 0.000007
$ 0.000008
$ 0.000008
>16 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.000000
$ 0.000000
$ 0.000000
$ 0.000000
$ 0.000001
$ 0.000001
$ 0.000001
$ 0.000002
$ 0.000002
$ 0.000003
$ 0.000004
$ 0.000004
$ 0.000004
$ 0.000004
$ 0.000004
$ 0.000004
$ 0.000005
$ 0.000005
$ 0.000005
$ 0.000005
$ 0.000005
$ 0.000005
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.000000
$ 0.000000
$ 0.000000
$ 0.000000
$ 0.000000
$ 0.000000
$ 0.000001
$ 0.000001
$ 0.000001
$ 0.000001
$ 0.000001
$ 0.000001
$ 0.000001
$ 0.000001
$ 0.000001
$ 0.000001
$ 0.000001
$ 0.000002
$ 0.000002
$ 0.000002
$ 0.000002
$ 0.000002
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.000000
$ 0.000000
$ 0.000001
$ 0.000001
$ 0.000002
$ 0.000003
$ 0.000003
$ 0.000007
$ 0.000007
$ 0.000009
$ 0.000009
$ 0.000010
$ 0.000010
$ 0.000010
$ 0.000010
$0.000011
$0.000011
$0.000011
$0.000011
$ 0.000012
$ 0.000014
$ 0.000014
Value of Deaths Avoided
0 -16 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000003
$0.000003
$0.000003
$0.000003
$0.000003
$0.000003
$0.000003
$0.000003
$0.000003
$0.000003
$0.000004
$0.000004
$0.000004
Median
Value
$
$
$
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000002
$0.000002
$0.000004
$0.000004
$0.000008
$0.000008
$0.000008
$0.000009
$0.000009
$0.000009
$0.000010
$0.000010
$0.000010
$0.000010
$0.000011
$0.000012
$0.000012
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000002
$0.000003
$0.000004
$0.000004
$0.000009
$0.000009
$0.000009
$0.000010
$0.000010
$0.000011
$0.000011
$0.000012
$0.000012
$0.000012
$0.000012
$0.000013
$0.000013
Median
Value
$
$
$
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000002
$0.000002
$0.000002
$0.000002
$0.000002
$0.000002
$0.000002
$0.000003
$0.000003
$0.000003
$0.000003
$0.000003
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$0.000000
$0.000001
$0.000002
$0.000003
$0.000005
$0.000008
$0.000009
$0.000015
$0.000017
$0.000033
$0.000034
$0.000035
$0.000035
$0.000036
$0.000037
$0.000038
$0.000039
$0.000039
$0.000039
$0.000041
$0.000042
$0.000045
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.000000
$ 0.000001
$ 0.000001
$ 0.000002
$ 0.000003
$ 0.000005
$ 0.000005
$ 0.000007
$ 0.000008
$ 0.000018
$ 0.000018
$ 0.000018
$ 0.000019
$ 0.000020
$ 0.000021
$ 0.000021
$ 0.000023
$ 0.000023
$ 0.000023
$ 0.000024
$ 0.000025
$ 0.000026
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.000000
$ 0.000000
$ 0.000000
$ 0.000001
$ 0.000001
$ 0.000002
$ 0.000002
$ 0.000003
$ 0.000003
$ 0.000003
$ 0.000003
$ 0.000003
$ 0.000004
$ 0.000004
$ 0.000004
$ 0.000004
$ 0.000005
$ 0.000005
$ 0.000006
$ 0.000006
$ 0.000006
$ 0.000007
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000000
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
$0.000001
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.000001
$ 0.000002
$ 0.000004
$ 0.000006
$ 0.000009
$ 0.000016
$ 0.000016
$ 0.000030
$ 0.000032
$ 0.000056
$ 0.000057
$ 0.000058
$ 0.000059
$ 0.000061
$ 0.000063
$ 0.000065
$ 0.000066
$ 0.000067
$ 0.000067
$ 0.000071
$ 0.000076
$ 0.000079
  Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
  Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Fined Ground Water Rule

-------
                      Exhibit C.2a Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for All CWSs
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 - Illness
Mean
Value
$
-
$
$ 0.6
$ 2.0
$ 4.1
$ 6.4
$ 8.6
$ 11.8
$ 12.3
$ 13.2
$ 13.7
$ 14.5
$ 15.3
$ 15.8
$ 16.4
$ 16.9
$ 17.8
$ 18.3
$ 19.0
$ 19.6
$ 20.2
$ 20.8
$ 21.4
$ 21.9
Median
Value
$
-
$
$ 0.5
$ 1.7
$ 3.6
$ 5.6
$ 7.5
$ 10.3
$ 10.8
$ 11.5
$ 12.0
$ 12.7
$ 13.4
$ 13.8
$ 14.4
$ 14.8
$ 15.6
$ 16.1
$ 16.7
$ 17.3
$ 17.9
$ 18.4
$ 18.9
$ 19.4
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
-
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.9
$ 1.8
$ 2.8
$ 3.7
$ 5.2
$ 5.5
$ 5.8
$ 6.1
$ 6.4
$ 6.7
$ 7.0
$ 7.3
$ 7.5
$ 8.0
$ 8.3
$ 8.6
$ 8.9
$ 9.2
$ 9.5
$ 9.8
$ 10.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
-
$
$ 1.2
$ 3.9
$ 8.0
$ 12.3
$ 16.6
$ 22.2
$ 23.2
$ 24.9
$ 25.8
$ 27.9
$ 29.5
$ 30.3
$ 31.5
$ 32.6
$ 34.0
$ 35.2
$ 36.4
$ 37.3
$ 38.5
$ 39.6
$ 40.7
$ 41.9
Total - Death
Mean
Value
$
-
$
$ 0.3
$ 1.0
$ 1.9
$ 2.9
$ 3.9
$ 5.3
$ 5.4
$ 5.9
$ 6.1
$ 6.5
$ 6.7
$ 6.9
$ 7.1
$ 7.2
$ 7.5
$ 7.7
$ 7.9
$ 8.1
$ 8.3
$ 8.4
$ 8.6
$ 8.7
Median
Value
$
-
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.5
$ 1.0
$ 1.6
$ 2.1
$ 2.9
$ 3.0
$ 3.2
$ 3.3
$ 3.5
$ 3.6
$ 3.7
$ 3.8
$ 3.9
$ 4.1
$ 4.2
$ 4.3
$ 4.5
$ 4.6
$ 4.7
$ 4.8
$ 4.9
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
-
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.7
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
-
$
$ 0.9
$ 3.0
$ 6.2
$ 9.3
$ 12.4
$ 16.8
$ 17.3
$ 18.9
$ 19.5
$ 20.7
$ 21.6
$ 22.2
$ 22.9
$ 23.9
$ 24.6
$ 25.5
$ 26.0
$ 26.6
$ 27.1
$ 27.6
$ 28.1
$ 28.6
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$ -
-
$ -
$ 0.9
$ 3.0
$ 6.1
$ 9.3
$ 12.5
$ 17.0
$ 17.8
$ 19.1
$ 19.8
$ 21.0
$ 22.0
$ 22.7
$ 23.5
$ 24.1
$ 25.3
$ 26.0
$ 26.9
$ 27.7
$ 28.5
$ 29.3
$ 29.9
$ 30.7
Median
Value
$ -
-
$ -
$ 0.6
$ 2.2
$ 4.6
$ 7.1
$ 9.7
$ 13.3
$ 13.8
$ 14.8
$ 15.4
$ 16.2
$ 17.0
$ 17.6
$ 18.2
$ 18.8
$ 19.7
$ 20.3
$ 21.1
$ 21.7
$ 22.4
$ 23.1
$ 23.6
$ 24.3
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
-
$
$ 0.3
$ 0.9
$ 1.9
$ 3.0
$ 4.0
$ 5.6
$ 5.9
$ 6.3
$ 6.5
$ 6.9
$ 7.2
$ 7.5
$ 7.8
$ 8.1
$ 8.6
$ 8.9
$ 9.2
$ 9.5
$ 9.9
$ 10.2
$ 10.4
$ 10.7
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
-
$
$ 2.1
$ 7.0
$ 14.2
$ 21.6
$ 29.0
$ 39.0
$ 40.5
$ 43.8
$ 45.3
$ 48.6
$ 51.2
$ 52.5
$ 54.4
$ 56.5
$ 58.6
$ 60.7
$ 62.4
$ 63.9
$ 65.7
$ 67.2
$ 68.8
$ 70.5
       Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
C-20
October 2006

-------
                 Exhibit C.2b  Present Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year at 3 Percent, for CWSs
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
Total - Illness
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.5
$ 1.8
$ 3.6
$ 5.4
$ 7.0
$ 9.3
$ 9.4
$ 9.8
$ 9.9
$ 10.2
$ 10.4
$ 10.4
$ 10.5
$ 10.5
$ 10.7
$ 10.7
$ 10.8
$ 10.8
$ 10.9
$ 10.9
$ 10.8
$ 10.8
$ 195.2
$ 11.2
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.5
$ 1.5
$ 3.1
$ 4.7
$ 6.1
$ 8.2
$ 8.3
$ 8.6
$ 8.7
$ 8.9
$ 9.1
$ 9.1
$ 9.2
$ 9.2
$ 9.4
$ 9.4
$ 9.5
$ 9.6
$ 9.6
$ 9.6
$ 9.6
$ 9.5
$ 171.5
$ 9.8
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.8
$ 1.5
$ 2.3
$ 3.0
$ 4.1
$ 4.2
$ 4.3
$ 4.4
$ 4.5
$ 4.6
$ 4.6
$ 4.7
$ 4.7
$ 4.9
$ 4.9
$ 4.9
$ 4.9
$ 5.0
$ 5.0
$ 4.9
$ 4.9
$ 87.4
$ 5.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.1
$ 3.5
$ 6.9
$ 10.3
$ 13.5
$ 17.5
$ 17.8
$ 18.5
$ 18.7
$ 19.6
$ 20.1
$ 20.1
$ 20.2
$ 20.3
$ 20.6
$ 20.7
$ 20.7
$ 20.7
$ 20.7
$ 20.6
$ 20.6
$ 20.6
$ 373.3
$ 21.4
Total - Deaths
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.3
$ 0.8
$ 1.7
$ 2.4
$ 3.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.4
$ 4.4
$ 4.5
$ 4.6
$ 4.6
$ 4.5
$ 4.5
$ 4.6
$ 4.5
$ 4.5
$ 4.5
$ 4.5
$ 4.4
$ 4.3
$ 4.3
$ 83.9
$ 4.8
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.4
$ 0.9
$ 1.3
$ 1.7
$ 2.3
$ 2.3
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 2.5
$ 2.5
$ 2.5
$ 2.4
$ 2.5
$ 2.5
$ 2.5
$ 2.5
$ 2.5
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 45.9
$ 2.6
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 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
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 6.3
$ 0.4
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.9
$ 2.7
$ 5.4
$ 7.8
$ 10.1
$ 13.2
$ 13.3
$ 14.1
$ 14.1
$ 14.5
$ 14.7
$ 14.7
$ 14.7
$ 14.9
$ 14.9
$ 15.0
$ 14.9
$ 14.7
$ 14.6
$ 14.4
$ 14.3
$ 14.1
$ 271.7
$ 15.6
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.8
$ 2.6
$ 5.2
$ 7.8
$ 10.2
$ 13.5
$ 13.6
$ 14.2
$ 14.3
$ 14.7
$ 15.0
$ 15.0
$ 15.1
$ 15.0
$ 15.3
$ 15.3
$ 15.4
$ 15.3
$ 15.3
$ 15.3
$ 15.2
$ 15.1
$ 279.1
$ 16.0
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.6
$ 2.0
$ 4.0
$ 6.0
$ 7.9
$ 10.5
$ 10.6
$ 11.0
$ 11.1
$ 11.4
$ 11.6
$ 11.6
$ 11.7
$ 11.7
$ 11.9
$ 11.9
$ 12.0
$ 12.0
$ 12.1
$ 12.0
$ 12.0
$ 11.9
$ 217.4
$ 12.5
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.8
$ 1.6
$ 2.5
$ 3.3
$ 4.4
$ 4.5
$ 4.7
$ 4.7
$ 4.8
$ 4.9
$ 5.0
$ 5.0
$ 5.0
$ 5.2
$ 5.2
$ 5.3
$ 5.3
$ 5.3
$ 5.3
$ 5.3
$ 5.3
$ 93.7
$ 5.4
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.9
$ 6.2
$ 12.3
$ 18.1
$ 23.6
$ 30.8
$ 31.1
$ 32.6
$ 32.7
$ 34.1
$ 34.9
$ 34.7
$ 34.9
$ 35.2
$ 35.5
$ 35.7
$ 35.6
$ 35.4
$ 35.3
$ 35.1
$ 34.9
$ 34.7
$ 645.0
$ 37.0
            Notes:
            Source:
Details may not sum due to rounding and individual statistical analyses.
GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                          C-21
October 2006

-------
                  Exhibit C.2c  Present Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year at 7 Percent, for CWSs
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
Total - Illness
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.5
$ 1.5
$ 3.0
$ 4.3
$ 5.4
$ 6.8
$ 6.7
$ 6.7
$ 6.5
$ 6.4
$ 6.3
$ 6.1
$ 5.9
$ 5.7
$ 5.6
$ 5.4
$ 5.3
$ 5.1
$ 4.9
$ 4.7
$ 4.5
$ 4.3
$ 111.6
$ 9.6
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.4
$ 1.3
$ 2.6
$ 3.7
$ 4.7
$ 6.0
$ 5.9
$ 5.9
$ 5.7
$ 5.6
$ 5.6
$ 5.4
$ 5.2
$ 5.0
$ 4.9
$ 4.7
$ 4.6
$ 4.5
$ 4.3
$ 4.2
$ 4.0
$ 3.8
$ 98.0
$ 8.4
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.6
$ 1.3
$ 1.8
$ 2.3
$ 3.0
$ 3.0
$ 3.0
$ 2.9
$ 2.8
$ 2.8
$ 2.7
$ 2.6
$ 2.5
$ 2.5
$ 2.5
$ 2.4
$ 2.3
$ 2.2
$ 2.2
$ 2.1
$ 2.0
$ 49.8
$ 4.3
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.9
$ 3.0
$ 5.7
$ 8.2
$ 10.3
$ 12.9
$ 12.6
$ 12.7
$ 12.3
$ 12.4
$ 12.3
$ 11.8
$ 11.4
$ 11.0
$ 10.8
$ 10.4
$ 10.1
$ 9.6
$ 9.3
$ 8.9
$ 8.6
$ 8.3
$ 213.5
$ 18.3
Total - Deaths
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.7
$ 1.4
$ 1.9
$ 2.4
$ 3.1
$ 3.0
$ 3.0
$ 2.9
$ 2.9
$ 2.8
$ 2.7
$ 2.6
$ 2.5
$ 2.4
$ 2.3
$ 2.2
$ 2.1
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 48.4
$ 4.2
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.4
$ 0.7
$ 1.1
$ 1.3
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$1 O
I .z
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 26.5
$ 2.3
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 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
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 3.6
$ 0.3
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.8
$ 2.3
$ 4.4
$ 6.2
$ 7.7
$ 9.8
$ 9.4
$ 9.6
$ 9.3
$ 9.2
$ 9.0
$ 8.6
$ 8.3
$ 8.1
$ 7.8
$ 7.5
$ 7.2
$ 6.9
$ 6.6
$ 6.2
$ 5.9
$ 5.6
$ 156.4
$ 13.4
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.7
$ 2.3
$ 4.3
$ 6.2
$ 7.8
$ 9.9
$ 9.7
$ 9.7
$ 9.4
$ 9.3
$ 9.1
$ 8.8
$ 8.5
$ 8.2
$ 8.0
$ 7.7
$ 7.4
$ 7.2
$ 6.9
$ 6.6
$ 6.3
$ 6.0
$ 160.0
$ 13.7
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.5
$ 1.7
$ 3.3
$ 4.8
$ 6.0
$ 7.7
$ 7.5
$ 7.5
$ 7.3
$ 7.2
$ 7.1
$ 6.8
$ 6.6
$ 6.4
$ 6.2
$ 6.0
$ 5.8
$ 5.6
$ 5.4
$ 5.2
$ 5.0
$ 4.8
$ 124.4
$ 10.7
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.7
$ 1.4
$ 2.0
$ 2.5
$ 3.3
$ 3.2
$ 3.2
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.0
$ 2.9
$ 2.8
$ 2.7
$ 2.7
$ 2.6
$ 2.6
$ 2.5
$ 2.4
$ 2.3
$ 2.2
$ 2.1
$ 53.4
$ 4.6
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.7
$ 5.3
$ 10.1
$ 14.4
$ 18.1
$ 22.7
$ 22.0
$ 22.3
$ 21.5
$ 21.6
$ 21.2
$ 20.4
$ 19.7
$ 19.1
$ 18.6
$ 18.0
$ 17.3
$ 16.5
$ 15.9
$ 15.2
$ 14.5
$ 13.9
$ 369.9
$ 31.7
            Notes:
            Source:
Details may not sum due to rounding and individual statistical analyses.
GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                                                 October 2006

-------
                                       Exhibit C.3a Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving <100 (Rotavirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0171
$ 0.0208
$ 0.0249
$ 0.0291
$ 0.0393
$ 0.0407
$ 0.0423
$ 0.0436
$ 0.0452
$ 0.0532
$ 0.0548
$ 0.0573
$ 0.0589
$ 0.0656
$ 0.0676
$ 0.0697
$ 0.0716
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0154
$ 0.0188
$ 0.0230
$ 0.0269
$ 0.0357
$ 0.0372
$ 0.0389
$ 0.0402
$ 0.0417
$ 0.0494
$ 0.0507
$ 0.0533
$ 0.0548
$ 0.0618
$ 0.0641
$ 0.0664
$ 0.0684
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0069
$ 0.0086
$ 0.0102
$ 0.0120
$ 0.0148
$ 0.0154
$ 0.0163
$ 0.0167
$ 0.0173
$ 0.0240
$ 0.0247
$ 0.0260
$ 0.0268
$ 0.0297
$ 0.0307
$ 0.0315
$ 0.0326
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0039
$ 0.0053
$ 0.0336
$ 0.0404
$ 0.0477
$ 0.0556
$ 0.0714
$ 0.0732
$ 0.0757
$ 0.0777
$ 0.0807
$ 0.0887
$ 0.0931
$ 0.0965
$ 0.0994
$ 0.1100
$ 0.1132
$ 0.1171
$ 0.1200
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0090
$ 0.0110
$ 0.0132
$ 0.0155
$ 0.0212
$ 0.0219
$ 0.0229
$ 0.0235
$ 0.0244
$ 0.0296
$ 0.0305
$ 0.0318
$ 0.0327
$ 0.0363
$ 0.0375
$ 0.0386
$ 0.0397
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0081
$ 0.0099
$ 0.0121
$ 0.0141
$ 0.0189
$ 0.0198
$ 0.0206
$ 0.0211
$ 0.0217
$ 0.0262
$ 0.0268
$ 0.0280
$ 0.0290
$ 0.0322
$ 0.0332
$ 0.0341
$ 0.0353
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0047
$ 0.0056
$ 0.0067
$ 0.0081
$ 0.0084
$ 0.0090
$ 0.0093
$ 0.0098
$ 0.0124
$ 0.0128
$ 0.0134
$ 0.0138
$ 0.0154
$ 0.0159
$ 0.0163
$ 0.0171
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0164
$ 0.0201
$ 0.0238
$ 0.0276
$ 0.0400
$ 0.0412
$ 0.0423
$ 0.0436
$ 0.0458
$ 0.0531
$ 0.0545
$ 0.0564
$ 0.0585
$ 0.0635
$ 0.0663
$ 0.0699
$ 0.0717
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0000
$0.0000
$0.0001
$0.0001
$0.0008
$0.0010
$0.0012
$0.0014
$0.0019
$0.0019
$0.0020
$0.0020
$0.0021
$0.0024
$0.0025
$0.0026
$0.0026
$0.0029
$0.0030
$0.0030
$0.0031
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0000
$0.0000
$0.0001
$0.0001
$0.0006
$0.0007
$0.0008
$0.0010
$0.0013
$0.0013
$0.0013
$0.0014
$0.0014
$0.0017
$0.0017
$0.0018
$0.0018
$0.0020
$0.0020
$0.0021
$0.0021
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0043
$ 0.0055
$ 0.0057
$ 0.0059
$ 0.0061
$ 0.0062
$ 0.0068
$ 0.0069
$ 0.0071
$ 0.0073
$ 0.0082
$ 0.0084
$ 0.0086
$ 0.0088
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0001
$0.0002
$0.0004
$0.0006
$0.0036
$0.0043
$0.0051
$0.0060
$0.0081
$0.0083
$0.0086
$0.0088
$0.0090
$0.0109
$0.0111
$0.0115
$0.0118
$0.0129
$0.0133
$0.0135
$0.0138
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0001
$0.0001
$0.0003
$0.0004
$0.0024
$0.0029
$0.0035
$0.0040
$0.0053
$0.0055
$0.0057
$0.0058
$0.0059
$0.0072
$0.0074
$0.0077
$0.0078
$0.0088
$0.0089
$0.0090
$0.0092
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0015
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0114
$ 0.0137
$ 0.0160
$ 0.0184
$ 0.0259
$ 0.0266
$ 0.0274
$ 0.0279
$ 0.0284
$ 0.0325
$ 0.0337
$ 0.0348
$ 0.0352
$ 0.0383
$ 0.0394
$ 0.0402
$ 0.0412
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0048
$ 0.0306
$ 0.0372
$ 0.0445
$ 0.0519
$ 0.0705
$ 0.0728
$ 0.0757
$ 0.0779
$ 0.0807
$ 0.0961
$ 0.0989
$ 0.1032
$ 0.1060
$ 0.1177
$ 0.1214
$ 0.1248
$ 0.1283
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0042
$ 0.0265
$ 0.0323
$ 0.0394
$ 0.0460
$ 0.0612
$ 0.0639
$ 0.0666
$ 0.0685
$ 0.0707
$ 0.0845
$ 0.0866
$ 0.0907
$ 0.0934
$ 0.1047
$ 0.1083
$ 0.1117
$ 0.1150
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0112
$ 0.0138
$ 0.0165
$ 0.0194
$ 0.0238
$ 0.0249
$ 0.0264
$ 0.0271
$ 0.0282
$ 0.0378
$ 0.0390
$ 0.0409
$ 0.0422
$ 0.0468
$ 0.0484
$ 0.0496
$ 0.0516
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0046
$ 0.0076
$ 0.0106
$ 0.0640
$ 0.0773
$ 0.0912
$ 0.1059
$ 0.1429
$ 0.1467
$ 0.1512
$ 0.1553
$ 0.1612
$ 0.1810
$ 0.1882
$ 0.1948
$ 0.2004
$ 0.2200
$ 0.2273
$ 0.2359
$ 0.2417
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                               October 2006

-------
                                          Exhibit C.3b Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving <100 (Echovirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-16 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0025
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0036
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0040
$ 0.0041
$ 0.0042
$ 0.0045
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0030
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0043
$ 0.0075
$ 0.0076
$ 0.0079
$ 0.0081
$ 0.0088
$ 0.0096
$ 0.0098
$ 0.0101
$ 0.0103
$ 0.0112
$ 0.0114
$ 0.0117
$ 0.0122
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0039
$ 0.0041
$ 0.0042
$ 0.0045
$ 0.0053
$ 0.0054
$ 0.0057
$ 0.0058
$ 0.0063
$ 0.0065
$ 0.0067
$ 0.0071
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0040
$ 0.0041
$ 0.0045
$ 0.0046
$ 0.0047
$ 0.0049
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0016
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0046
$ 0.0056
$ 0.0065
$ 0.0102
$ 0.0106
$ 0.0109
$ 0.0111
$ 0.0117
$ 0.0133
$ 0.0136
$ 0.0139
$ 0.0141
$ 0.0154
$ 0.0158
$ 0.0162
$ 0.0171
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-16 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0000
$0.0001
$0.0001
$0.0002
$0.0013
$0.0015
$0.0018
$0.0021
$0.0031
$0.0031
$0.0032
$0.0033
$0.0034
$0.0040
$0.0040
$0.0042
$0.0042
$0.0046
$0.0047
$0.0047
$0.0049
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0000
$0.0000
$0.0001
$0.0001
$0.0006
$0.0007
$0.0009
$0.0010
$0.0014
$0.0014
$0.0015
$0.0015
$0.0016
$0.0019
$0.0019
$0.0020
$0.0020
$0.0022
$0.0023
$0.0023
$0.0024
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0050
$ 0.0060
$ 0.0070
$ 0.0080
$ 0.0121
$ 0.0124
$ 0.0130
$ 0.0135
$ 0.0140
$ 0.0156
$ 0.0157
$ 0.0160
$ 0.0162
$ 0.0170
$ 0.0172
$ 0.0173
$ 0.0178
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0002
$0.0003
$0.0005
$0.0008
$0.0048
$0.0058
$0.0069
$0.0080
$0.0113
$0.0117
$0.0120
$0.0123
$0.0128
$0.0149
$0.0151
$0.0156
$0.0159
$0.0172
$0.0175
$0.0178
$0.0185
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0001
$0.0001
$0.0002
$0.0003
$0.0025
$0.0031
$0.0039
$0.0045
$0.0056
$0.0059
$0.0061
$0.0062
$0.0063
$0.0079
$0.0080
$0.0082
$0.0084
$0.0090
$0.0092
$0.0093
$0.0095
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0170
$ 0.0201
$ 0.0234
$ 0.0270
$ 0.0453
$ 0.0461
$ 0.0469
$ 0.0473
$ 0.0497
$ 0.0578
$ 0.0589
$ 0.0599
$ 0.0605
$ 0.0657
$ 0.0665
$ 0.0673
$ 0.0679
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0085
$ 0.0102
$ 0.0124
$ 0.0144
$ 0.0206
$ 0.0213
$ 0.0220
$ 0.0225
$ 0.0236
$ 0.0275
$ 0.0280
$ 0.0290
$ 0.0296
$ 0.0321
$ 0.0328
$ 0.0334
$ 0.0350
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0049
$ 0.0060
$ 0.0075
$ 0.0088
$ 0.0111
$ 0.0117
$ 0.0121
$ 0.0124
$ 0.0127
$ 0.0157
$ 0.0161
$ 0.0166
$ 0.0170
$ 0.0185
$ 0.0189
$ 0.0192
$ 0.0198
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0036
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0038
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0040
$ 0.0057
$ 0.0281
$ 0.0338
$ 0.0397
$ 0.0458
$ 0.0751
$ 0.0767
$ 0.0787
$ 0.0800
$ 0.0841
$ 0.0962
$ 0.0979
$ 0.0999
$ 0.1011
$ 0.1093
$ 0.1108
$ 0.1124
$ 0.1150
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                      Exhibit C.3c Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving 101-500 (Rotavirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0056
$ 0.0411
$ 0.0517
$ 0.0631
$ 0.0760
$ 0.0887
$ 0.1205
$ 0.1249
$ 0.1298
$ 0.1339
$ 0.1588
$ 0.1643
$ 0.1693
$ 0.1774
$ 0.1823
$ 0.2023
$ 0.2091
$ 0.2149
$ 0.2212
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0049
$ 0.0368
$ 0.0465
$ 0.0571
$ 0.0695
$ 0.0814
$ 0.1098
$ 0.1139
$ 0.1187
$ 0.1221
$ 0.1475
$ 0.1547
$ 0.1584
$ 0.1667
$ 0.1706
$ 0.1896
$ 0.1956
$ 0.2001
$ 0.2066
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0179
$ 0.0224
$ 0.0276
$ 0.0332
$ 0.0389
$ 0.0509
$ 0.0530
$ 0.0561
$ 0.0575
$ 0.0783
$ 0.0813
$ 0.0831
$ 0.0870
$ 0.0897
$ 0.1007
$ 0.1039
$ 0.1062
$ 0.1096
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0036
$ 0.0084
$ 0.0128
$ 0.0777
$ 0.0959
$ 0.1156
$ 0.1373
$ 0.1594
$ 0.2229
$ 0.2291
$ 0.2373
$ 0.2439
$ 0.2732
$ 0.2796
$ 0.2899
$ 0.3010
$ 0.3075
$ 0.3401
$ 0.3502
$ 0.3622
$ 0.3708
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0217
$ 0.0273
$ 0.0335
$ 0.0404
$ 0.0473
$ 0.0648
$ 0.0669
$ 0.0698
$ 0.0720
$ 0.0883
$ 0.0913
$ 0.0942
$ 0.0983
$ 0.1011
$ 0.1122
$ 0.1161
$ 0.1192
$ 0.1230
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0192
$ 0.0243
$ 0.0302
$ 0.0366
$ 0.0426
$ 0.0576
$ 0.0592
$ 0.0617
$ 0.0636
$ 0.0780
$ 0.0811
$ 0.0837
$ 0.0879
$ 0.0904
$ 0.1013
$ 0.1048
$ 0.1072
$ 0.1107
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0087
$ 0.0111
$ 0.0137
$ 0.0168
$ 0.0193
$ 0.0256
$ 0.0264
$ 0.0277
$ 0.0285
$ 0.0358
$ 0.0373
$ 0.0382
$ 0.0402
$ 0.0416
$ 0.0472
$ 0.0485
$ 0.0498
$ 0.0517
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0042
$ 0.0073
$ 0.0416
$ 0.0513
$ 0.0624
$ 0.0736
$ 0.0880
$ 0.1207
$ 0.1243
$ 0.1282
$ 0.1343
$ 0.1639
$ 0.1685
$ 0.1739
$ 0.1800
$ 0.1847
$ 0.2081
$ 0.2143
$ 0.2197
$ 0.2261
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0001
$0.0002
$0.0003
$0.0020
$0.0024
$0.0030
$0.0035
$0.0041
$0.0056
$0.0057
$0.0059
$0.0061
$0.0072
$0.0074
$0.0076
$0.0079
$0.0080
$0.0088
$0.0090
$0.0092
$0.0094
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0000
$0.0001
$0.0002
$0.0015
$0.0019
$0.0022
$0.0027
$0.0031
$0.0041
$0.0042
$0.0043
$0.0044
$0.0054
$0.0055
$0.0056
$0.0059
$0.0060
$0.0066
$0.0067
$0.0068
$0.0070
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0012
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0055
$ 0.0069
$ 0.0083
$ 0.0098
$ 0.0113
$ 0.0158
$ 0.0163
$ 0.0166
$ 0.0170
$ 0.0198
$ 0.0204
$ 0.0213
$ 0.0222
$ 0.0227
$ 0.0253
$ 0.0260
$ 0.0272
$ 0.0277
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0003
$0.0007
$0.0013
$0.0082
$0.0103
$0.0125
$0.0150
$0.0174
$0.0238
$0.0244
$0.0253
$0.0260
$0.0315
$0.0323
$0.0331
$0.0343
$0.0351
$0.0387
$0.0397
$0.0405
$0.0414
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0002
$0.0004
$0.0008
$0.0062
$0.0079
$0.0095
$0.0115
$0.0134
$0.0167
$0.0172
$0.0183
$0.0186
$0.0231
$0.0235
$0.0238
$0.0251
$0.0259
$0.0279
$0.0287
$0.0292
$0.0299
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0039
$ 0.0040
$ 0.0041
$ 0.0042
$ 0.0049
$ 0.0049
$ 0.0051
$ 0.0052
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0041
$ 0.0230
$ 0.0284
$ 0.0343
$ 0.0406
$ 0.0493
$ 0.0651
$ 0.0667
$ 0.0694
$ 0.0710
$ 0.0884
$ 0.0908
$ 0.0929
$ 0.0955
$ 0.0991
$ 0.1096
$ 0.1113
$ 0.1144
$ 0.1156
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0058
$ 0.0103
$ 0.0729
$ 0.0918
$ 0.1121
$ 0.1349
$ 0.1575
$ 0.2146
$ 0.2219
$ 0.2308
$ 0.2379
$ 0.2858
$ 0.2954
$ 0.3042
$ 0.3179
$ 0.3265
$ 0.3620
$ 0.3739
$ 0.3838
$ 0.3950
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0046
$ 0.0087
$ 0.0637
$ 0.0806
$ 0.0990
$ 0.1202
$ 0.1405
$ 0.1882
$ 0.1945
$ 0.2029
$ 0.2087
$ 0.2540
$ 0.2649
$ 0.2716
$ 0.2856
$ 0.2928
$ 0.3254
$ 0.3359
$ 0.3433
$ 0.3542
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0278
$ 0.0350
$ 0.0432
$ 0.0522
$ 0.0608
$ 0.0798
$ 0.0830
$ 0.0875
$ 0.0898
$ 0.1188
$ 0.1234
$ 0.1262
$ 0.1323
$ 0.1365
$ 0.1539
$ 0.1585
$ 0.1623
$ 0.1676
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0072
$ 0.0157
$ 0.0252
$ 0.1478
$ 0.1825
$ 0.2206
$ 0.2612
$ 0.3081
$ 0.4245
$ 0.4363
$ 0.4514
$ 0.4662
$ 0.5453
$ 0.5594
$ 0.5781
$ 0.5986
$ 0.6139
$ 0.6831
$ 0.7018
$ 0.7235
$ 0.7402
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                                October 2006

-------
                                        Exhibit C.3d Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving 101-500 (Echovirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-16 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0043
$ 0.0050
$ 0.0073
$ 0.0076
$ 0.0079
$ 0.0081
$ 0.0098
$ 0.0103
$ 0.0105
$ 0.0109
$ 0.0112
$ 0.0122
$ 0.0125
$ 0.0129
$ 0.0138
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0045
$ 0.0047
$ 0.0050
$ 0.0051
$ 0.0064
$ 0.0067
$ 0.0069
$ 0.0071
$ 0.0073
$ 0.0081
$ 0.0084
$ 0.0086
$ 0.0088
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0029
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0061
$ 0.0082
$ 0.0099
$ 0.0121
$ 0.0144
$ 0.0211
$ 0.0216
$ 0.0222
$ 0.0227
$ 0.0270
$ 0.0279
$ 0.0284
$ 0.0290
$ 0.0296
$ 0.0328
$ 0.0334
$ 0.0344
$ 0.0355
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0044
$ 0.0053
$ 0.0066
$ 0.0078
$ 0.0111
$ 0.0115
$ 0.0120
$ 0.0123
$ 0.0151
$ 0.0158
$ 0.0162
$ 0.0168
$ 0.0172
$ 0.0189
$ 0.0194
$ 0.0198
$ 0.0211
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0042
$ 0.0050
$ 0.0059
$ 0.0070
$ 0.0074
$ 0.0082
$ 0.0084
$ 0.0105
$ 0.0110
$ 0.0113
$ 0.0117
$ 0.0121
$ 0.0133
$ 0.0137
$ 0.0141
$ 0.0145
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0041
$ 0.0043
$ 0.0044
$ 0.0046
$ 0.0047
$ 0.0053
$ 0.0054
$ 0.0056
$ 0.0057
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0086
$ 0.0109
$ 0.0132
$ 0.0159
$ 0.0187
$ 0.0287
$ 0.0294
$ 0.0300
$ 0.0306
$ 0.0382
$ 0.0390
$ 0.0396
$ 0.0404
$ 0.0411
$ 0.0450
$ 0.0459
$ 0.0473
$ 0.0490
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-16 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0001
$0.0002
$0.0003
$0.0027
$0.0034
$0.0041
$0.0050
$0.0058
$0.0076
$0.0078
$0.0081
$0.0083
$0.0102
$0.0105
$0.0106
$0.0109
$0.0111
$0.0120
$0.0122
$0.0124
$0.0129
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0000
$0.0001
$0.0001
$0.0015
$0.0019
$0.0023
$0.0028
$0.0033
$0.0042
$0.0043
$0.0045
$0.0046
$0.0058
$0.0061
$0.0061
$0.0062
$0.0064
$0.0072
$0.0073
$0.0074
$0.0076
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0012
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0093
$ 0.0125
$ 0.0152
$ 0.0190
$ 0.0219
$ 0.0285
$ 0.0293
$ 0.0297
$ 0.0300
$ 0.0373
$ 0.0386
$ 0.0391
$ 0.0398
$ 0.0403
$ 0.0427
$ 0.0432
$ 0.0438
$ 0.0453
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0004
$0.0008
$0.0013
$0.0105
$0.0135
$0.0163
$0.0197
$0.0229
$0.0297
$0.0307
$0.0318
$0.0323
$0.0398
$0.0411
$0.0417
$0.0428
$0.0435
$0.0472
$0.0482
$0.0490
$0.0508
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0001
$0.0003
$0.0006
$0.0056
$0.0072
$0.0088
$0.0108
$0.0129
$0.0170
$0.0175
$0.0185
$0.0190
$0.0238
$0.0243
$0.0247
$0.0259
$0.0263
$0.0295
$0.0300
$0.0303
$0.0306
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0025
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0036
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0041
$ 0.0042
$ 0.0043
$ 0.0044
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0047
$ 0.0380
$ 0.0541
$ 0.0657
$ 0.0789
$ 0.0907
$ 0.1241
$ 0.1284
$ 0.1360
$ 0.1372
$ 0.1687
$ 0.1801
$ 0.1819
$ 0.1849
$ 0.1913
$ 0.2060
$ 0.2095
$ 0.2139
$ 0.2192
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0187
$ 0.0241
$ 0.0292
$ 0.0356
$ 0.0414
$ 0.0558
$ 0.0576
$ 0.0598
$ 0.0610
$ 0.0749
$ 0.0777
$ 0.0790
$ 0.0815
$ 0.0830
$ 0.0903
$ 0.0923
$ 0.0941
$ 0.0985
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0112
$ 0.0145
$ 0.0177
$ 0.0217
$ 0.0256
$ 0.0327
$ 0.0340
$ 0.0361
$ 0.0371
$ 0.0465
$ 0.0481
$ 0.0490
$ 0.0510
$ 0.0521
$ 0.0580
$ 0.0594
$ 0.0604
$ 0.0615
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0036
$ 0.0043
$ 0.0050
$ 0.0070
$ 0.0074
$ 0.0078
$ 0.0080
$ 0.0103
$ 0.0107
$ 0.0110
$ 0.0115
$ 0.0118
$ 0.0132
$ 0.0136
$ 0.0139
$ 0.0143
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0025
$ 0.0062
$ 0.0091
$ 0.0620
$ 0.0856
$ 0.1040
$ 0.1260
$ 0.1456
$ 0.2025
$ 0.2086
$ 0.2179
$ 0.2204
$ 0.2713
$ 0.2855
$ 0.2891
$ 0.2940
$ 0.3023
$ 0.3266
$ 0.3321
$ 0.3393
$ 0.3490
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                     Exhibit C.3e Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving 501-1,000 (Rotavirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0047
$ 0.0341
$ 0.0428
$ 0.0520
$ 0.0840
$ 0.0977
$ 0.1007
$ 0.1044
$ 0.1243
$ 0.1278
$ 0.1323
$ 0.1480
$ 0.1521
$ 0.1588
$ 0.1631
$ 0.1735
$ 0.1795
$ 0.1852
$ 0.1982
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0040
$ 0.0306
$ 0.0384
$ 0.0466
$ 0.0759
$ 0.0882
$ 0.0906
$ 0.0942
$ 0.1146
$ 0.1174
$ 0.1218
$ 0.1369
$ 0.1408
$ 0.1473
$ 0.1511
$ 0.1606
$ 0.1662
$ 0.1700
$ 0.1826
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0147
$ 0.0185
$ 0.0229
$ 0.0344
$ 0.0400
$ 0.0412
$ 0.0427
$ 0.0607
$ 0.0619
$ 0.0636
$ 0.0706
$ 0.0723
$ 0.0747
$ 0.0764
$ 0.0835
$ 0.0857
$ 0.0875
$ 0.0942
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0070
$ 0.0109
$ 0.0674
$ 0.0838
$ 0.1005
$ 0.1543
$ 0.1785
$ 0.1846
$ 0.1901
$ 0.2097
$ 0.2152
$ 0.2236
$ 0.2593
$ 0.2657
$ 0.2768
$ 0.2827
$ 0.2946
$ 0.3048
$ 0.3137
$ 0.3319
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0190
$ 0.0240
$ 0.0292
$ 0.0477
$ 0.0553
$ 0.0573
$ 0.0591
$ 0.0712
$ 0.0733
$ 0.0758
$ 0.0848
$ 0.0871
$ 0.0905
$ 0.0931
$ 0.0994
$ 0.1027
$ 0.1057
$ 0.1125
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0164
$ 0.0211
$ 0.0255
$ 0.0410
$ 0.0475
$ 0.0492
$ 0.0507
$ 0.0608
$ 0.0629
$ 0.0649
$ 0.0727
$ 0.0753
$ 0.0795
$ 0.0823
$ 0.0867
$ 0.0910
$ 0.0930
$ 0.0979
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0073
$ 0.0093
$ 0.0118
$ 0.0177
$ 0.0205
$ 0.0211
$ 0.0218
$ 0.0310
$ 0.0317
$ 0.0328
$ 0.0371
$ 0.0380
$ 0.0394
$ 0.0404
$ 0.0441
$ 0.0455
$ 0.0465
$ 0.0489
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0064
$ 0.0379
$ 0.0474
$ 0.0566
$ 0.0951
$ 0.1092
$ 0.1142
$ 0.1173
$ 0.1321
$ 0.1378
$ 0.1411
$ 0.1564
$ 0.1603
$ 0.1668
$ 0.1722
$ 0.1832
$ 0.1919
$ 0.1965
$ 0.2108
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0001
$0.0001
$0.0002
$0.0017
$0.0022
$0.0026
$0.0042
$0.0048
$0.0049
$0.0051
$0.0060
$0.0061
$0.0063
$0.0069
$0.0071
$0.0073
$0.0074
$0.0079
$0.0081
$0.0082
$0.0087
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0000
$0.0001
$0.0002
$0.0012
$0.0015
$0.0018
$0.0028
$0.0033
$0.0034
$0.0034
$0.0042
$0.0043
$0.0044
$0.0049
$0.0050
$0.0052
$0.0053
$0.0057
$0.0058
$0.0059
$0.0063
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0050
$ 0.0062
$ 0.0073
$ 0.0122
$ 0.0141
$ 0.0148
$ 0.0152
$ 0.0171
$ 0.0173
$ 0.0176
$ 0.0192
$ 0.0195
$ 0.0202
$ 0.0206
$ 0.0215
$ 0.0225
$ 0.0230
$ 0.0243
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0003
$0.0006
$0.0011
$0.0077
$0.0096
$0.0116
$0.0190
$0.0218
$0.0225
$0.0230
$0.0274
$0.0280
$0.0287
$0.0319
$0.0326
$0.0335
$0.0342
$0.0362
$0.0371
$0.0379
$0.0400
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0002
$0.0004
$0.0007
$0.0051
$0.0064
$0.0078
$0.0118
$0.0137
$0.0140
$0.0143
$0.0175
$0.0178
$0.0184
$0.0212
$0.0216
$0.0221
$0.0227
$0.0245
$0.0250
$0.0256
$0.0265
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0037
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0231
$ 0.0286
$ 0.0341
$ 0.0574
$ 0.0660
$ 0.0682
$ 0.0705
$ 0.0773
$ 0.0798
$ 0.0809
$ 0.0920
$ 0.0937
$ 0.0989
$ 0.1003
$ 0.1040
$ 0.1071
$ 0.1094
$ 0.1161
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0049
$ 0.0089
$ 0.0625
$ 0.0785
$ 0.0954
$ 0.1549
$ 0.1797
$ 0.1854
$ 0.1916
$ 0.2289
$ 0.2352
$ 0.2430
$ 0.2717
$ 0.2788
$ 0.2902
$ 0.2979
$ 0.3170
$ 0.3274
$ 0.3371
$ 0.3594
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0073
$ 0.0533
$ 0.0674
$ 0.0816
$ 0.1315
$ 0.1526
$ 0.1571
$ 0.1627
$ 0.1972
$ 0.2024
$ 0.2095
$ 0.2357
$ 0.2428
$ 0.2541
$ 0.2615
$ 0.2775
$ 0.2881
$ 0.2945
$ 0.3132
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0229
$ 0.0290
$ 0.0360
$ 0.0542
$ 0.0629
$ 0.0648
$ 0.0670
$ 0.0950
$ 0.0970
$ 0.0999
$ 0.1115
$ 0.1141
$ 0.1181
$ 0.1210
$ 0.1319
$ 0.1355
$ 0.1385
$ 0.1478
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0062
$ 0.0134
$ 0.0215
$ 0.1335
$ 0.1660
$ 0.1986
$ 0.3190
$ 0.3678
$ 0.3817
$ 0.3930
$ 0.4362
$ 0.4500
$ 0.4632
$ 0.5269
$ 0.5392
$ 0.5627
$ 0.5758
$ 0.6034
$ 0.6263
$ 0.6426
$ 0.6831
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                                October 2006

-------
                                        Exhibit C.3f Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving 501-1,000 (Echovirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0044
$ 0.0051
$ 0.0064
$ 0.0066
$ 0.0080
$ 0.0082
$ 0.0086
$ 0.0136
$ 0.0139
$ 0.0142
$ 0.0145
$ 0.0151
$ 0.0155
$ 0.0158
$ 0.0169
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0039
$ 0.0052
$ 0.0053
$ 0.0054
$ 0.0060
$ 0.0062
$ 0.0064
$ 0.0065
$ 0.0069
$ 0.0071
$ 0.0073
$ 0.0076
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0023
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0045
$ 0.0064
$ 0.0080
$ 0.0126
$ 0.0149
$ 0.0219
$ 0.0224
$ 0.0245
$ 0.0249
$ 0.0292
$ 0.0701
$ 0.0713
$ 0.0725
$ 0.0737
$ 0.0761
$ 0.0774
$ 0.0790
$ 0.0857
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0045
$ 0.0070
$ 0.0081
$ 0.0099
$ 0.0102
$ 0.0125
$ 0.0127
$ 0.0134
$ 0.0212
$ 0.0216
$ 0.0221
$ 0.0226
$ 0.0236
$ 0.0241
$ 0.0246
$ 0.0262
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0052
$ 0.0060
$ 0.0061
$ 0.0064
$ 0.0083
$ 0.0085
$ 0.0088
$ 0.0099
$ 0.0101
$ 0.0104
$ 0.0107
$ 0.0114
$ 0.0117
$ 0.0120
$ 0.0126
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0036
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0039
$ 0.0040
$ 0.0041
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0065
$ 0.0092
$ 0.0117
$ 0.0187
$ 0.0220
$ 0.0286
$ 0.0292
$ 0.0325
$ 0.0330
$ 0.0396
$ 0.1021
$ 0.1037
$ 0.1054
$ 0.1071
$ 0.1104
$ 0.1123
$ 0.1147
$ 0.1292
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-16 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0001
$0.0003
$0.0004
$0.0021
$0.0028
$0.0033
$0.0051
$0.0059
$0.0073
$0.0075
$0.0089
$0.0090
$0.0094
$0.0134
$0.0135
$0.0137
$0.0139
$0.0144
$0.0146
$0.0148
$0.0158
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0000
$0.0001
$0.0001
$0.0011
$0.0014
$0.0018
$0.0028
$0.0032
$0.0033
$0.0034
$0.0044
$0.0044
$0.0045
$0.0051
$0.0052
$0.0055
$0.0056
$0.0058
$0.0059
$0.0060
$0.0061
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0073
$ 0.0095
$ 0.0113
$ 0.0165
$ 0.0192
$ 0.0244
$ 0.0248
$ 0.0277
$ 0.0282
$ 0.0293
$ 0.0627
$ 0.0632
$ 0.0638
$ 0.0643
$ 0.0659
$ 0.0665
$ 0.0675
$ 0.0695
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0006
$0.0011
$0.0017
$0.0081
$0.0107
$0.0130
$0.0196
$0.0226
$0.0270
$0.0277
$0.0336
$0.0341
$0.0357
$0.0523
$0.0529
$0.0538
$0.0545
$0.0566
$0.0575
$0.0584
$0.0618
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0001
$0.0002
$0.0004
$0.0044
$0.0056
$0.0069
$0.0108
$0.0124
$0.0126
$0.0131
$0.0170
$0.0173
$0.0176
$0.0209
$0.0212
$0.0217
$0.0222
$0.0232
$0.0235
$0.0238
$0.0247
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0025
$ 0.0025
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0030
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0045
$ 0.0066
$ 0.0263
$ 0.0356
$ 0.0444
$ 0.0591
$ 0.0678
$ 0.0867
$ 0.0882
$ 0.1082
$ 0.1091
$ 0.1228
$ 0.2042
$ 0.2068
$ 0.2092
$ 0.2139
$ 0.2294
$ 0.2321
$ 0.2352
$ 0.2472
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0148
$ 0.0195
$ 0.0236
$ 0.0360
$ 0.0417
$ 0.0506
$ 0.0520
$ 0.0630
$ 0.0640
$ 0.0671
$ 0.1005
$ 0.1020
$ 0.1039
$ 0.1055
$ 0.1098
$ 0.1117
$ 0.1136
$ 0.1209
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0092
$ 0.0116
$ 0.0142
$ 0.0219
$ 0.0253
$ 0.0257
$ 0.0268
$ 0.0349
$ 0.0355
$ 0.0363
$ 0.0419
$ 0.0427
$ 0.0439
$ 0.0450
$ 0.0474
$ 0.0483
$ 0.0491
$ 0.0510
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0039
$ 0.0045
$ 0.0046
$ 0.0048
$ 0.0068
$ 0.0069
$ 0.0071
$ 0.0082
$ 0.0084
$ 0.0086
$ 0.0088
$ 0.0091
$ 0.0094
$ 0.0096
$ 0.0100
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0041
$ 0.0088
$ 0.0126
$ 0.0446
$ 0.0607
$ 0.0755
$ 0.1069
$ 0.1240
$ 0.1617
$ 0.1645
$ 0.1929
$ 0.1952
$ 0.2208
$ 0.4392
$ 0.4450
$ 0.4509
$ 0.4590
$ 0.4818
$ 0.4883
$ 0.4963
$ 0.5316
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                    Exhibit C.3g Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving 1,001-3,300 (Rotavirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0101
$ 0.0161
$ 0.0313
$ 0.0476
$ 0.0593
$ 0.0794
$ 0.0977
$ 0.1129
$ 0.1267
$ 0.1369
$ 0.1494
$ 0.1531
$ 0.1644
$ 0.1759
$ 0.1799
$ 0.1884
$ 0.1949
$ 0.2003
$ 0.2076
$ 0.2129
$ 0.2186
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0090
$ 0.0143
$ 0.0291
$ 0.0449
$ 0.0561
$ 0.0761
$ 0.0933
$ 0.1084
$ 0.1214
$ 0.1321
$ 0.1441
$ 0.1483
$ 0.1593
$ 0.1715
$ 0.1753
$ 0.1840
$ 0.1904
$ 0.1958
$ 0.2024
$ 0.2076
$ 0.2130
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0061
$ 0.0125
$ 0.0215
$ 0.0272
$ 0.0379
$ 0.0475
$ 0.0551
$ 0.0595
$ 0.0660
$ 0.0710
$ 0.0727
$ 0.0766
$ 0.0861
$ 0.0878
$ 0.0930
$ 0.0964
$ 0.0988
$ 0.1019
$ 0.1044
$ 0.1076
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0206
$ 0.0322
$ 0.0572
$ 0.0807
$ 0.1001
$ 0.1359
$ 0.1646
$ 0.1895
$ 0.2167
$ 0.2304
$ 0.2462
$ 0.2510
$ 0.2724
$ 0.2842
$ 0.2898
$ 0.3001
$ 0.3120
$ 0.3196
$ 0.3317
$ 0.3402
$ 0.3485
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0052
$ 0.0083
$ 0.0164
$ 0.0264
$ 0.0330
$ 0.0441
$ 0.0548
$ 0.0632
$ 0.0698
$ 0.0750
$ 0.0822
$ 0.0842
$ 0.0908
$ 0.0962
$ 0.0984
$ 0.1030
$ 0.1073
$ 0.1104
$ 0.1149
$ 0.1183
$ 0.1210
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0046
$ 0.0075
$ 0.0146
$ 0.0234
$ 0.0291
$ 0.0398
$ 0.0501
$ 0.0582
$ 0.0628
$ 0.0688
$ 0.0758
$ 0.0775
$ 0.0833
$ 0.0884
$ 0.0907
$ 0.0958
$ 0.0999
$ 0.1025
$ 0.1060
$ 0.1083
$ 0.1112
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0063
$ 0.0115
$ 0.0145
$ 0.0198
$ 0.0250
$ 0.0293
$ 0.0326
$ 0.0366
$ 0.0398
$ 0.0407
$ 0.0434
$ 0.0471
$ 0.0479
$ 0.0515
$ 0.0534
$ 0.0547
$ 0.0564
$ 0.0577
$ 0.0593
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0109
$ 0.0173
$ 0.0330
$ 0.0516
$ 0.0634
$ 0.0819
$ 0.1000
$ 0.1155
$ 0.1267
$ 0.1364
$ 0.1458
$ 0.1486
$ 0.1582
$ 0.1640
$ 0.1693
$ 0.1756
$ 0.1828
$ 0.1890
$ 0.1956
$ 0.2022
$ 0.2063
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0005
$0.0008
$0.0015
$0.0023
$0.0028
$0.0037
$0.0045
$0.0052
$0.0058
$0.0062
$0.0067
$0.0068
$0.0073
$0.0077
$0.0078
$0.0081
$0.0083
$0.0085
$0.0087
$0.0089
$0.0090
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0004
$0.0006
$0.0012
$0.0018
$0.0023
$0.0030
$0.0037
$0.0042
$0.0047
$0.0050
$0.0055
$0.0056
$0.0059
$0.0063
$0.0064
$0.0067
$0.0069
$0.0070
$0.0072
$0.0073
$0.0074
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0041
$ 0.0062
$ 0.0077
$ 0.0101
$ 0.0123
$ 0.0140
$ 0.0157
$ 0.0167
$ 0.0185
$ 0.0187
$ 0.0196
$ 0.0209
$ 0.0212
$ 0.0218
$ 0.0222
$ 0.0225
$ 0.0230
$ 0.0233
$ 0.0237
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0020
$0.0032
$0.0061
$0.0099
$0.0122
$0.0162
$0.0201
$0.0230
$0.0251
$0.0268
$0.0291
$0.0296
$0.0316
$0.0333
$0.0339
$0.0352
$0.0364
$0.0372
$0.0383
$0.0390
$0.0396
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0016
$0.0025
$0.0049
$0.0078
$0.0095
$0.0128
$0.0156
$0.0178
$0.0200
$0.0217
$0.0242
$0.0246
$0.0260
$0.0279
$0.0282
$0.0290
$0.0301
$0.0306
$0.0318
$0.0324
$0.0330
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0025
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0036
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0039
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0056
$ 0.0086
$ 0.0163
$ 0.0263
$ 0.0322
$ 0.0433
$ 0.0537
$ 0.0614
$ 0.0682
$ 0.0734
$ 0.0806
$ 0.0816
$ 0.0861
$ 0.0903
$ 0.0912
$ 0.0939
$ 0.0970
$ 0.0985
$ 0.1008
$ 0.1023
$ 0.1037
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0178
$ 0.0284
$ 0.0553
$ 0.0862
$ 0.1072
$ 0.1434
$ 0.1771
$ 0.2043
$ 0.2274
$ 0.2449
$ 0.2675
$ 0.2738
$ 0.2941
$ 0.3131
$ 0.3200
$ 0.3347
$ 0.3469
$ 0.3564
$ 0.3696
$ 0.3791
$ 0.3883
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0155
$ 0.0250
$ 0.0498
$ 0.0779
$ 0.0971
$ 0.1317
$ 0.1627
$ 0.1886
$ 0.2088
$ 0.2276
$ 0.2496
$ 0.2559
$ 0.2745
$ 0.2941
$ 0.3006
$ 0.3156
$ 0.3273
$ 0.3359
$ 0.3474
$ 0.3557
$ 0.3646
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0061
$ 0.0097
$ 0.0195
$ 0.0342
$ 0.0432
$ 0.0597
$ 0.0750
$ 0.0873
$ 0.0952
$ 0.1059
$ 0.1144
$ 0.1171
$ 0.1239
$ 0.1374
$ 0.1400
$ 0.1490
$ 0.1544
$ 0.1583
$ 0.1630
$ 0.1670
$ 0.1717
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0385
$ 0.0602
$ 0.1106
$ 0.1649
$ 0.2034
$ 0.2711
$ 0.3307
$ 0.3804
$ 0.4273
$ 0.4570
$ 0.4911
$ 0.4999
$ 0.5363
$ 0.5594
$ 0.5715
$ 0.5914
$ 0.6140
$ 0.6296
$ 0.6512
$ 0.6680
$ 0.6821
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                                October 2006

-------
                                      Exhibit C.3h  Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving 1,001-3,300 (Echovirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0047
$ 0.0075
$ 0.0091
$ 0.0105
$ 0.0112
$ 0.0148
$ 0.0156
$ 0.0159
$ 0.0166
$ 0.0179
$ 0.0182
$ 0.0187
$ 0.0191
$ 0.0195
$ 0.0200
$ 0.0203
$ 0.0208
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0041
$ 0.0047
$ 0.0049
$ 0.0055
$ 0.0062
$ 0.0064
$ 0.0067
$ 0.0081
$ 0.0082
$ 0.0086
$ 0.0089
$ 0.0091
$ 0.0094
$ 0.0095
$ 0.0098
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0025
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0026
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0053
$ 0.0099
$ 0.0146
$ 0.0181
$ 0.0321
$ 0.0381
$ 0.0438
$ 0.0506
$ 0.0660
$ 0.0676
$ 0.0687
$ 0.0724
$ 0.0746
$ 0.0758
$ 0.0772
$ 0.0786
$ 0.0799
$ 0.0813
$ 0.0827
$ 0.0842
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0058
$ 0.0073
$ 0.0119
$ 0.0144
$ 0.0166
$ 0.0176
$ 0.0220
$ 0.0233
$ 0.0238
$ 0.0249
$ 0.0269
$ 0.0274
$ 0.0281
$ 0.0288
$ 0.0295
$ 0.0301
$ 0.0307
$ 0.0313
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0043
$ 0.0055
$ 0.0068
$ 0.0079
$ 0.0082
$ 0.0092
$ 0.0105
$ 0.0107
$ 0.0113
$ 0.0137
$ 0.0140
$ 0.0146
$ 0.0151
$ 0.0156
$ 0.0160
$ 0.0163
$ 0.0168
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0039
$ 0.0040
$ 0.0043
$ 0.0044
$ 0.0045
$ 0.0047
$ 0.0048
$ 0.0049
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0050
$ 0.0078
$ 0.0136
$ 0.0224
$ 0.0274
$ 0.0509
$ 0.0613
$ 0.0703
$ 0.0785
$ 0.0954
$ 0.0976
$ 0.0992
$ 0.1078
$ 0.1128
$ 0.1146
$ 0.1167
$ 0.1188
$ 0.1207
$ 0.1227
$ 0.1252
$ 0.1273
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-16 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0012
$0.0018
$0.0031
$0.0048
$0.0059
$0.0095
$0.0114
$0.0131
$0.0139
$0.0180
$0.0188
$0.0190
$0.0197
$0.0210
$0.0212
$0.0216
$0.0220
$0.0222
$0.0225
$0.0228
$0.0230
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0004
$0.0006
$0.0010
$0.0016
$0.0021
$0.0028
$0.0035
$0.0041
$0.0042
$0.0047
$0.0051
$0.0052
$0.0055
$0.0065
$0.0065
$0.0066
$0.0068
$0.0069
$0.0071
$0.0072
$0.0073
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0060
$ 0.0102
$ 0.0166
$ 0.0207
$ 0.0354
$ 0.0416
$ 0.0472
$ 0.0494
$ 0.0631
$ 0.0650
$ 0.0655
$ 0.0676
$ 0.0711
$ 0.0716
$ 0.0722
$ 0.0732
$ 0.0740
$ 0.0746
$ 0.0753
$ 0.0759
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0044
$0.0069
$0.0115
$0.0178
$0.0222
$0.0362
$0.0436
$0.0499
$0.0526
$0.0653
$0.0686
$0.0695
$0.0721
$0.0771
$0.0779
$0.0794
$0.0808
$0.0820
$0.0831
$0.0841
$0.0852
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0014
$0.0023
$0.0038
$0.0065
$0.0082
$0.0111
$0.0134
$0.0155
$0.0165
$0.0181
$0.0203
$0.0209
$0.0217
$0.0246
$0.0252
$0.0263
$0.0272
$0.0280
$0.0286
$0.0290
$0.0291
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0025
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0036
$ 0.0036
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0135
$ 0.0219
$ 0.0377
$ 0.0594
$ 0.0756
$ 0.1334
$ 0.1571
$ 0.1802
$ 0.1843
$ 0.2067
$ 0.2190
$ 0.2217
$ 0.2328
$ 0.2408
$ 0.2437
$ 0.2484
$ 0.2534
$ 0.2636
$ 0.2671
$ 0.2703
$ 0.2744
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0079
$ 0.0124
$ 0.0207
$ 0.0321
$ 0.0402
$ 0.0651
$ 0.0786
$ 0.0901
$ 0.0954
$ 0.1201
$ 0.1264
$ 0.1282
$ 0.1333
$ 0.1430
$ 0.1448
$ 0.1478
$ 0.1507
$ 0.1532
$ 0.1557
$ 0.1579
$ 0.1603
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0049
$ 0.0081
$ 0.0135
$ 0.0171
$ 0.0228
$ 0.0278
$ 0.0321
$ 0.0338
$ 0.0374
$ 0.0421
$ 0.0432
$ 0.0452
$ 0.0530
$ 0.0540
$ 0.0560
$ 0.0580
$ 0.0597
$ 0.0611
$ 0.0620
$ 0.0630
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0046
$ 0.0058
$ 0.0068
$ 0.0072
$ 0.0079
$ 0.0087
$ 0.0089
$ 0.0092
$ 0.0099
$ 0.0101
$ 0.0107
$ 0.0111
$ 0.0113
$ 0.0116
$ 0.0118
$ 0.0121
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0254
$ 0.0410
$ 0.0714
$ 0.1130
$ 0.1419
$ 0.2519
$ 0.2981
$ 0.3416
$ 0.3629
$ 0.4313
$ 0.4492
$ 0.4551
$ 0.4806
$ 0.4993
$ 0.5057
$ 0.5144
$ 0.5239
$ 0.5382
$ 0.5456
$ 0.5536
$ 0.5618
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                    Exhibit C.3i Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving 3,301-10,000 (Rotavirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0052
$ 0.0110
$ 0.0172
$ 0.0250
$ 0.0340
$ 0.0411
$ 0.0509
$ 0.0612
$ 0.0645
$ 0.0670
$ 0.0696
$ 0.0725
$ 0.0747
$ 0.0785
$ 0.0805
$ 0.0832
$ 0.0855
$ 0.0878
$ 0.0904
$ 0.0925
$ 0.0950
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0045
$ 0.0098
$ 0.0157
$ 0.0229
$ 0.0319
$ 0.0388
$ 0.0473
$ 0.0563
$ 0.0595
$ 0.0616
$ 0.0638
$ 0.0665
$ 0.0682
$ 0.0724
$ 0.0745
$ 0.0768
$ 0.0786
$ 0.0810
$ 0.0837
$ 0.0857
$ 0.0879
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0049
$ 0.0079
$ 0.0121
$ 0.0169
$ 0.0209
$ 0.0251
$ 0.0295
$ 0.0307
$ 0.0317
$ 0.0328
$ 0.0347
$ 0.0357
$ 0.0382
$ 0.0392
$ 0.0406
$ 0.0418
$ 0.0432
$ 0.0448
$ 0.0458
$ 0.0473
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0104
$ 0.0197
$ 0.0304
$ 0.0435
$ 0.0576
$ 0.0689
$ 0.0866
$ 0.1033
$ 0.1088
$ 0.1128
$ 0.1166
$ 0.1247
$ 0.1278
$ 0.1335
$ 0.1362
$ 0.1397
$ 0.1432
$ 0.1464
$ 0.1497
$ 0.1540
$ 0.1588
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0062
$ 0.0098
$ 0.0144
$ 0.0194
$ 0.0234
$ 0.0288
$ 0.0347
$ 0.0368
$ 0.0388
$ 0.0402
$ 0.0418
$ 0.0431
$ 0.0448
$ 0.0461
$ 0.0475
$ 0.0490
$ 0.0502
$ 0.0516
$ 0.0527
$ 0.0542
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0053
$ 0.0086
$ 0.0126
$ 0.0171
$ 0.0208
$ 0.0255
$ 0.0300
$ 0.0323
$ 0.0336
$ 0.0345
$ 0.0358
$ 0.0367
$ 0.0384
$ 0.0399
$ 0.0415
$ 0.0429
$ 0.0443
$ 0.0455
$ 0.0465
$ 0.0482
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0042
$ 0.0067
$ 0.0091
$ 0.0113
$ 0.0137
$ 0.0162
$ 0.0170
$ 0.0176
$ 0.0181
$ 0.0190
$ 0.0195
$ 0.0209
$ 0.0217
$ 0.0223
$ 0.0229
$ 0.0236
$ 0.0247
$ 0.0252
$ 0.0259
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0059
$ 0.0124
$ 0.0195
$ 0.0273
$ 0.0371
$ 0.0442
$ 0.0533
$ 0.0642
$ 0.0679
$ 0.0732
$ 0.0747
$ 0.0782
$ 0.0811
$ 0.0836
$ 0.0856
$ 0.0881
$ 0.0903
$ 0.0921
$ 0.0938
$ 0.0956
$ 0.0985
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0003
$0.0006
$0.0009
$0.0013
$0.0017
$0.0020
$0.0025
$0.0030
$0.0031
$0.0032
$0.0033
$0.0034
$0.0035
$0.0036
$0.0037
$0.0038
$0.0039
$0.0039
$0.0040
$0.0041
$0.0041
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0002
$0.0004
$0.0007
$0.0010
$0.0013
$0.0016
$0.0020
$0.0023
$0.0024
$0.0025
$0.0025
$0.0026
$0.0027
$0.0028
$0.0029
$0.0029
$0.0030
$0.0030
$0.0031
$0.0031
$0.0032
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0045
$ 0.0053
$ 0.0067
$ 0.0082
$ 0.0085
$ 0.0087
$ 0.0090
$ 0.0093
$ 0.0094
$ 0.0099
$ 0.0101
$ 0.0103
$ 0.0105
$ 0.0106
$ 0.0109
$ 0.0111
$ 0.0112
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0011
$0.0025
$0.0039
$0.0057
$0.0076
$0.0091
$0.0111
$0.0134
$0.0141
$0.0147
$0.0151
$0.0156
$0.0160
$0.0165
$0.0168
$0.0172
$0.0176
$0.0179
$0.0182
$0.0185
$0.0188
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0009
$0.0019
$0.0031
$0.0045
$0.0059
$0.0071
$0.0085
$0.0102
$0.0107
$0.0109
$0.0112
$0.0116
$0.0118
$0.0121
$0.0126
$0.0129
$0.0133
$0.0135
$0.0138
$0.0141
$0.0143
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0018
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0069
$ 0.0105
$ 0.0156
$ 0.0211
$ 0.0250
$ 0.0312
$ 0.0379
$ 0.0401
$ 0.0426
$ 0.0434
$ 0.0443
$ 0.0457
$ 0.0474
$ 0.0483
$ 0.0490
$ 0.0495
$ 0.0500
$ 0.0507
$ 0.0516
$ 0.0531
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0094
$ 0.0202
$ 0.0318
$ 0.0463
$ 0.0627
$ 0.0757
$ 0.0934
$ 0.1123
$ 0.1185
$ 0.1237
$ 0.1282
$ 0.1334
$ 0.1373
$ 0.1434
$ 0.1472
$ 0.1517
$ 0.1560
$ 0.1598
$ 0.1643
$ 0.1677
$ 0.1722
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0079
$ 0.0175
$ 0.0281
$ 0.0410
$ 0.0563
$ 0.0682
$ 0.0833
$ 0.0988
$ 0.1049
$ 0.1086
$ 0.1121
$ 0.1165
$ 0.1194
$ 0.1257
$ 0.1298
$ 0.1342
$ 0.1379
$ 0.1420
$ 0.1461
$ 0.1494
$ 0.1536
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0077
$ 0.0126
$ 0.0195
$ 0.0269
$ 0.0333
$ 0.0402
$ 0.0472
$ 0.0494
$ 0.0510
$ 0.0527
$ 0.0556
$ 0.0571
$ 0.0611
$ 0.0629
$ 0.0649
$ 0.0668
$ 0.0690
$ 0.0717
$ 0.0732
$ 0.0755
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0204
$ 0.0405
$ 0.0628
$ 0.0898
$ 0.1204
$ 0.1435
$ 0.1778
$ 0.2137
$ 0.2254
$ 0.2374
$ 0.2437
$ 0.2566
$ 0.2640
$ 0.2744
$ 0.2801
$ 0.2871
$ 0.2935
$ 0.2991
$ 0.3050
$ 0.3122
$ 0.3216
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                                October 2006

-------
                                      Exhibit C.3j Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving 3,301-10,000 (Echovirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0036
$ 0.0044
$ 0.0052
$ 0.0055
$ 0.0056
$ 0.0058
$ 0.0060
$ 0.0061
$ 0.0063
$ 0.0064
$ 0.0065
$ 0.0067
$ 0.0068
$ 0.0070
$ 0.0072
$ 0.0073
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0036
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0039
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0012
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0049
$ 0.0085
$ 0.0110
$ 0.0130
$ 0.0164
$ 0.0188
$ 0.0216
$ 0.0220
$ 0.0226
$ 0.0237
$ 0.0241
$ 0.0246
$ 0.0251
$ 0.0255
$ 0.0259
$ 0.0266
$ 0.0271
$ 0.0277
$ 0.0282
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0046
$ 0.0055
$ 0.0069
$ 0.0080
$ 0.0085
$ 0.0087
$ 0.0090
$ 0.0093
$ 0.0095
$ 0.0097
$ 0.0099
$ 0.0101
$ 0.0103
$ 0.0106
$ 0.0109
$ 0.0111
$ 0.0114
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0039
$ 0.0046
$ 0.0048
$ 0.0049
$ 0.0051
$ 0.0054
$ 0.0055
$ 0.0057
$ 0.0058
$ 0.0059
$ 0.0061
$ 0.0062
$ 0.0064
$ 0.0065
$ 0.0067
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0024
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0057
$ 0.0088
$ 0.0137
$ 0.0176
$ 0.0208
$ 0.0272
$ 0.0311
$ 0.0351
$ 0.0357
$ 0.0368
$ 0.0383
$ 0.0389
$ 0.0395
$ 0.0403
$ 0.0410
$ 0.0417
$ 0.0429
$ 0.0437
$ 0.0445
$ 0.0453
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-16 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0004
$0.0009
$0.0014
$0.0022
$0.0031
$0.0036
$0.0044
$0.0052
$0.0055
$0.0056
$0.0057
$0.0059
$0.0060
$0.0061
$0.0061
$0.0062
$0.0063
$0.0064
$0.0065
$0.0066
$0.0067
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0002
$0.0004
$0.0006
$0.0010
$0.0014
$0.0017
$0.0021
$0.0024
$0.0025
$0.0026
$0.0026
$0.0027
$0.0028
$0.0029
$0.0029
$0.0029
$0.0030
$0.0030
$0.0031
$0.0031
$0.0032
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0055
$ 0.0080
$ 0.0101
$ 0.0120
$ 0.0149
$ 0.0176
$ 0.0182
$ 0.0186
$ 0.0191
$ 0.0194
$ 0.0198
$ 0.0201
$ 0.0204
$ 0.0207
$ 0.0210
$ 0.0214
$ 0.0217
$ 0.0221
$ 0.0224
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0015
$0.0038
$0.0056
$0.0089
$0.0121
$0.0144
$0.0177
$0.0206
$0.0218
$0.0221
$0.0226
$0.0233
$0.0236
$0.0241
$0.0244
$0.0248
$0.0251
$0.0257
$0.0261
$0.0265
$0.0269
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0007
$0.0016
$0.0025
$0.0037
$0.0054
$0.0065
$0.0081
$0.0097
$0.0102
$0.0103
$0.0106
$0.0108
$0.0111
$0.0114
$0.0116
$0.0118
$0.0120
$0.0124
$0.0126
$0.0127
$0.0130
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0012
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0060
$ 0.0122
$ 0.0189
$ 0.0280
$ 0.0380
$ 0.0449
$ 0.0550
$ 0.0625
$ 0.0633
$ 0.0644
$ 0.0652
$ 0.0672
$ 0.0676
$ 0.0693
$ 0.0701
$ 0.0725
$ 0.0739
$ 0.0754
$ 0.0762
$ 0.0767
$ 0.0780
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0071
$ 0.0105
$ 0.0168
$ 0.0229
$ 0.0272
$ 0.0335
$ 0.0390
$ 0.0413
$ 0.0421
$ 0.0431
$ 0.0444
$ 0.0451
$ 0.0462
$ 0.0468
$ 0.0477
$ 0.0484
$ 0.0496
$ 0.0506
$ 0.0513
$ 0.0523
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0049
$ 0.0075
$ 0.0110
$ 0.0132
$ 0.0163
$ 0.0192
$ 0.0202
$ 0.0207
$ 0.0212
$ 0.0219
$ 0.0224
$ 0.0231
$ 0.0236
$ 0.0241
$ 0.0246
$ 0.0252
$ 0.0258
$ 0.0262
$ 0.0268
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0036
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0041
$ 0.0041
$ 0.0043
$ 0.0044
$ 0.0046
$ 0.0047
$ 0.0048
$ 0.0050
$ 0.0051
$ 0.0052
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0103
$ 0.0247
$ 0.0382
$ 0.0581
$ 0.0766
$ 0.0907
$ 0.1135
$ 0.1300
$ 0.1382
$ 0.1407
$ 0.1437
$ 0.1485
$ 0.1504
$ 0.1536
$ 0.1558
$ 0.1598
$ 0.1625
$ 0.1664
$ 0.1687
$ 0.1710
$ 0.1738
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                  Exhibit C.3k Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving 10,001-50,000 (Rotavirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0051
$ 0.0092
$ 0.0135
$ 0.0183
$ 0.0229
$ 0.0276
$ 0.0325
$ 0.0382
$ 0.0393
$ 0.0404
$ 0.0413
$ 0.0422
$ 0.0432
$ 0.0451
$ 0.0467
$ 0.0479
$ 0.0489
$ 0.0499
$ 0.0515
$ 0.0526
$ 0.0537
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0048
$ 0.0085
$ 0.0126
$ 0.0170
$ 0.0211
$ 0.0258
$ 0.0305
$ 0.0356
$ 0.0365
$ 0.0376
$ 0.0383
$ 0.0391
$ 0.0402
$ 0.0416
$ 0.0434
$ 0.0446
$ 0.0455
$ 0.0465
$ 0.0478
$ 0.0490
$ 0.0502
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0053
$ 0.0072
$ 0.0092
$ 0.0112
$ 0.0134
$ 0.0157
$ 0.0161
$ 0.0164
$ 0.0168
$ 0.0172
$ 0.0177
$ 0.0182
$ 0.0189
$ 0.0194
$ 0.0198
$ 0.0202
$ 0.0206
$ 0.0211
$ 0.0216
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0088
$ 0.0160
$ 0.0238
$ 0.0322
$ 0.0399
$ 0.0477
$ 0.0558
$ 0.0659
$ 0.0679
$ 0.0698
$ 0.0711
$ 0.0728
$ 0.0744
$ 0.0796
$ 0.0813
$ 0.0834
$ 0.0851
$ 0.0870
$ 0.0901
$ 0.0920
$ 0.0936
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0052
$ 0.0076
$ 0.0104
$ 0.0130
$ 0.0157
$ 0.0185
$ 0.0217
$ 0.0224
$ 0.0231
$ 0.0237
$ 0.0242
$ 0.0247
$ 0.0256
$ 0.0263
$ 0.0270
$ 0.0276
$ 0.0281
$ 0.0290
$ 0.0298
$ 0.0304
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0025
$ 0.0045
$ 0.0065
$ 0.0089
$ 0.0111
$ 0.0136
$ 0.0167
$ 0.0194
$ 0.0202
$ 0.0206
$ 0.0212
$ 0.0217
$ 0.0221
$ 0.0227
$ 0.0234
$ 0.0242
$ 0.0246
$ 0.0251
$ 0.0258
$ 0.0263
$ 0.0269
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0039
$ 0.0049
$ 0.0059
$ 0.0070
$ 0.0082
$ 0.0084
$ 0.0085
$ 0.0088
$ 0.0090
$ 0.0093
$ 0.0095
$ 0.0099
$ 0.0102
$ 0.0104
$ 0.0106
$ 0.0107
$ 0.0110
$ 0.0112
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0056
$ 0.0098
$ 0.0146
$ 0.0203
$ 0.0251
$ 0.0300
$ 0.0351
$ 0.0411
$ 0.0427
$ 0.0438
$ 0.0452
$ 0.0461
$ 0.0469
$ 0.0496
$ 0.0509
$ 0.0520
$ 0.0528
$ 0.0538
$ 0.0550
$ 0.0579
$ 0.0589
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0003
$0.0005
$0.0007
$0.0009
$0.0011
$0.0013
$0.0016
$0.0018
$0.0019
$0.0019
$0.0019
$0.0020
$0.0020
$0.0020
$0.0021
$0.0021
$0.0022
$0.0022
$0.0022
$0.0023
$0.0023
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0002
$0.0003
$0.0005
$0.0006
$0.0008
$0.0009
$0.0011
$0.0013
$0.0013
$0.0013
$0.0014
$0.0014
$0.0014
$0.0014
$0.0015
$0.0015
$0.0015
$0.0016
$0.0016
$0.0016
$0.0016
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0039
$ 0.0046
$ 0.0054
$ 0.0055
$ 0.0056
$ 0.0057
$ 0.0058
$ 0.0059
$ 0.0061
$ 0.0062
$ 0.0063
$ 0.0064
$ 0.0065
$ 0.0066
$ 0.0067
$ 0.0068
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0003
$0.0012
$0.0021
$0.0030
$0.0041
$0.0051
$0.0061
$0.0071
$0.0083
$0.0085
$0.0087
$0.0088
$0.0089
$0.0091
$0.0093
$0.0095
$0.0097
$0.0098
$0.0099
$0.0101
$0.0103
$0.0104
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0002
$0.0008
$0.0014
$0.0020
$0.0028
$0.0035
$0.0041
$0.0050
$0.0058
$0.0059
$0.0060
$0.0062
$0.0063
$0.0064
$0.0066
$0.0067
$0.0069
$0.0070
$0.0070
$0.0072
$0.0073
$0.0074
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0059
$ 0.0086
$ 0.0120
$ 0.0146
$ 0.0176
$ 0.0204
$ 0.0241
$ 0.0247
$ 0.0249
$ 0.0254
$ 0.0257
$ 0.0261
$ 0.0269
$ 0.0281
$ 0.0285
$ 0.0289
$ 0.0291
$ 0.0304
$ 0.0306
$ 0.0309
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0094
$ 0.0169
$ 0.0249
$ 0.0337
$ 0.0420
$ 0.0507
$ 0.0598
$ 0.0699
$ 0.0721
$ 0.0741
$ 0.0757
$ 0.0773
$ 0.0790
$ 0.0821
$ 0.0846
$ 0.0867
$ 0.0884
$ 0.0901
$ 0.0929
$ 0.0950
$ 0.0968
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0082
$ 0.0147
$ 0.0216
$ 0.0293
$ 0.0365
$ 0.0445
$ 0.0532
$ 0.0621
$ 0.0639
$ 0.0656
$ 0.0671
$ 0.0685
$ 0.0701
$ 0.0724
$ 0.0750
$ 0.0772
$ 0.0786
$ 0.0802
$ 0.0825
$ 0.0842
$ 0.0861
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0058
$ 0.0085
$ 0.0115
$ 0.0147
$ 0.0179
$ 0.0213
$ 0.0249
$ 0.0255
$ 0.0260
$ 0.0267
$ 0.0274
$ 0.0281
$ 0.0289
$ 0.0300
$ 0.0308
$ 0.0314
$ 0.0320
$ 0.0326
$ 0.0333
$ 0.0340
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0058
$ 0.0186
$ 0.0331
$ 0.0489
$ 0.0671
$ 0.0829
$ 0.0992
$ 0.1158
$ 0.1365
$ 0.1408
$ 0.1442
$ 0.1474
$ 0.1503
$ 0.1532
$ 0.1622
$ 0.1665
$ 0.1702
$ 0.1733
$ 0.1764
$ 0.1821
$ 0.1872
$ 0.1902
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                               October 2006

-------
                                      Exhibit C.3I Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving 10,001 -50,000 (Echovirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0036
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0037
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0019
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0041
$ 0.0051
$ 0.0061
$ 0.0074
$ 0.0085
$ 0.0115
$ 0.0117
$ 0.0119
$ 0.0121
$ 0.0124
$ 0.0129
$ 0.0131
$ 0.0133
$ 0.0136
$ 0.0138
$ 0.0142
$ 0.0145
$ 0.0148
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0043
$ 0.0046
$ 0.0047
$ 0.0047
$ 0.0048
$ 0.0049
$ 0.0052
$ 0.0053
$ 0.0054
$ 0.0055
$ 0.0056
$ 0.0058
$ 0.0060
$ 0.0061
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0025
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0034
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0051
$ 0.0069
$ 0.0085
$ 0.0101
$ 0.0123
$ 0.0141
$ 0.0175
$ 0.0177
$ 0.0180
$ 0.0183
$ 0.0186
$ 0.0201
$ 0.0205
$ 0.0208
$ 0.0211
$ 0.0214
$ 0.0218
$ 0.0222
$ 0.0226
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-16 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0005
$0.0009
$0.0012
$0.0016
$0.0020
$0.0023
$0.0028
$0.0032
$0.0034
$0.0034
$0.0035
$0.0035
$0.0035
$0.0037
$0.0037
$0.0037
$0.0038
$0.0038
$0.0039
$0.0040
$0.0040
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0002
$0.0003
$0.0004
$0.0006
$0.0007
$0.0008
$0.0010
$0.0011
$0.0011
$0.0012
$0.0012
$0.0012
$0.0012
$0.0012
$0.0012
$0.0013
$0.0013
$0.0013
$0.0013
$0.0013
$0.0013
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0040
$ 0.0054
$ 0.0067
$ 0.0080
$ 0.0093
$ 0.0107
$ 0.0110
$ 0.0111
$ 0.0113
$ 0.0115
$ 0.0117
$ 0.0120
$ 0.0122
$ 0.0123
$ 0.0124
$ 0.0126
$ 0.0136
$ 0.0137
$ 0.0138
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0005
$0.0020
$0.0034
$0.0047
$0.0062
$0.0077
$0.0091
$0.0108
$0.0124
$0.0130
$0.0132
$0.0133
$0.0134
$0.0136
$0.0142
$0.0144
$0.0145
$0.0146
$0.0148
$0.0152
$0.0154
$0.0155
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0002
$0.0007
$0.0012
$0.0017
$0.0023
$0.0029
$0.0034
$0.0040
$0.0046
$0.0048
$0.0048
$0.0049
$0.0049
$0.0050
$0.0051
$0.0052
$0.0053
$0.0054
$0.0055
$0.0056
$0.0057
$0.0057
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0056
$ 0.0112
$ 0.0169
$ 0.0227
$ 0.0288
$ 0.0340
$ 0.0412
$ 0.0470
$ 0.0475
$ 0.0480
$ 0.0484
$ 0.0487
$ 0.0491
$ 0.0558
$ 0.0565
$ 0.0572
$ 0.0580
$ 0.0588
$ 0.0602
$ 0.0624
$ 0.0632
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0036
$ 0.0061
$ 0.0085
$ 0.0112
$ 0.0139
$ 0.0165
$ 0.0196
$ 0.0225
$ 0.0238
$ 0.0241
$ 0.0244
$ 0.0247
$ 0.0250
$ 0.0262
$ 0.0266
$ 0.0269
$ 0.0272
$ 0.0276
$ 0.0285
$ 0.0290
$ 0.0293
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0025
$ 0.0036
$ 0.0048
$ 0.0059
$ 0.0070
$ 0.0082
$ 0.0095
$ 0.0098
$ 0.0100
$ 0.0102
$ 0.0103
$ 0.0104
$ 0.0108
$ 0.0111
$ 0.0113
$ 0.0114
$ 0.0116
$ 0.0120
$ 0.0122
$ 0.0123
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0015
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0106
$ 0.0199
$ 0.0291
$ 0.0390
$ 0.0491
$ 0.0581
$ 0.0702
$ 0.0803
$ 0.0876
$ 0.0886
$ 0.0896
$ 0.0906
$ 0.0917
$ 0.1008
$ 0.1023
$ 0.1037
$ 0.1051
$ 0.1066
$ 0.1098
$ 0.1129
$ 0.1144
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                 Exhibit C.3m Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving 50,001-100,000 (Rotavirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0047
$ 0.0060
$ 0.0077
$ 0.0092
$ 0.0109
$ 0.0126
$ 0.0133
$ 0.0136
$ 0.0138
$ 0.0143
$ 0.0148
$ 0.0151
$ 0.0154
$ 0.0161
$ 0.0165
$ 0.0168
$ 0.0172
$ 0.0175
$ 0.0179
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0043
$ 0.0055
$ 0.0071
$ 0.0086
$ 0.0101
$ 0.0116
$ 0.0123
$ 0.0126
$ 0.0129
$ 0.0132
$ 0.0137
$ 0.0140
$ 0.0142
$ 0.0150
$ 0.0154
$ 0.0157
$ 0.0161
$ 0.0164
$ 0.0168
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0039
$ 0.0044
$ 0.0046
$ 0.0046
$ 0.0048
$ 0.0049
$ 0.0051
$ 0.0052
$ 0.0054
$ 0.0055
$ 0.0056
$ 0.0057
$ 0.0059
$ 0.0060
$ 0.0062
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0063
$ 0.0088
$ 0.0113
$ 0.0143
$ 0.0173
$ 0.0203
$ 0.0233
$ 0.0247
$ 0.0252
$ 0.0256
$ 0.0266
$ 0.0274
$ 0.0282
$ 0.0287
$ 0.0294
$ 0.0300
$ 0.0306
$ 0.0312
$ 0.0318
$ 0.0323
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0045
$ 0.0055
$ 0.0064
$ 0.0074
$ 0.0078
$ 0.0079
$ 0.0081
$ 0.0083
$ 0.0086
$ 0.0088
$ 0.0089
$ 0.0093
$ 0.0096
$ 0.0097
$ 0.0100
$ 0.0101
$ 0.0103
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0039
$ 0.0047
$ 0.0055
$ 0.0063
$ 0.0067
$ 0.0068
$ 0.0070
$ 0.0072
$ 0.0074
$ 0.0076
$ 0.0078
$ 0.0080
$ 0.0083
$ 0.0085
$ 0.0087
$ 0.0088
$ 0.0090
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0036
$ 0.0037
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0039
$ 0.0056
$ 0.0071
$ 0.0089
$ 0.0106
$ 0.0123
$ 0.0141
$ 0.0157
$ 0.0160
$ 0.0163
$ 0.0171
$ 0.0176
$ 0.0179
$ 0.0182
$ 0.0186
$ 0.0198
$ 0.0202
$ 0.0206
$ 0.0209
$ 0.0213
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0001
$0.0002
$0.0002
$0.0003
$0.0004
$0.0005
$0.0005
$0.0006
$0.0007
$0.0007
$0.0007
$0.0007
$0.0007
$0.0007
$0.0007
$0.0007
$0.0008
$0.0008
$0.0008
$0.0008
$0.0008
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0001
$0.0001
$0.0002
$0.0002
$0.0003
$0.0003
$0.0004
$0.0004
$0.0005
$0.0005
$0.0005
$0.0005
$0.0005
$0.0005
$0.0005
$0.0005
$0.0005
$0.0005
$0.0006
$0.0006
$0.0006
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0022
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0005
$0.0008
$0.0011
$0.0014
$0.0018
$0.0022
$0.0026
$0.0029
$0.0030
$0.0031
$0.0031
$0.0032
$0.0033
$0.0033
$0.0033
$0.0035
$0.0035
$0.0036
$0.0036
$0.0036
$0.0037
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0003
$0.0005
$0.0007
$0.0009
$0.0012
$0.0015
$0.0017
$0.0020
$0.0020
$0.0020
$0.0021
$0.0021
$0.0021
$0.0022
$0.0022
$0.0023
$0.0023
$0.0023
$0.0024
$0.0024
$0.0024
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0043
$ 0.0052
$ 0.0065
$ 0.0076
$ 0.0087
$ 0.0088
$ 0.0089
$ 0.0090
$ 0.0092
$ 0.0094
$ 0.0094
$ 0.0095
$ 0.0098
$ 0.0099
$ 0.0101
$ 0.0102
$ 0.0102
$ 0.0104
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0062
$ 0.0087
$ 0.0113
$ 0.0144
$ 0.0173
$ 0.0204
$ 0.0235
$ 0.0247
$ 0.0252
$ 0.0257
$ 0.0264
$ 0.0274
$ 0.0279
$ 0.0284
$ 0.0296
$ 0.0303
$ 0.0309
$ 0.0315
$ 0.0321
$ 0.0327
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0053
$ 0.0075
$ 0.0098
$ 0.0125
$ 0.0151
$ 0.0177
$ 0.0203
$ 0.0215
$ 0.0219
$ 0.0224
$ 0.0230
$ 0.0238
$ 0.0242
$ 0.0247
$ 0.0258
$ 0.0266
$ 0.0270
$ 0.0277
$ 0.0282
$ 0.0288
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0044
$ 0.0053
$ 0.0064
$ 0.0074
$ 0.0076
$ 0.0077
$ 0.0080
$ 0.0081
$ 0.0085
$ 0.0087
$ 0.0089
$ 0.0092
$ 0.0094
$ 0.0096
$ 0.0098
$ 0.0100
$ 0.0102
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0073
$ 0.0130
$ 0.0183
$ 0.0235
$ 0.0294
$ 0.0357
$ 0.0416
$ 0.0478
$ 0.0510
$ 0.0518
$ 0.0527
$ 0.0548
$ 0.0563
$ 0.0575
$ 0.0583
$ 0.0597
$ 0.0619
$ 0.0629
$ 0.0640
$ 0.0650
$ 0.0661
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                              October 2006

-------
                                    Exhibit C.3n  Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving 50,001 -100,000 (Echovirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0013
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0007
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0050
$ 0.0051
$ 0.0052
$ 0.0053
$ 0.0054
$ 0.0055
$ 0.0055
$ 0.0056
$ 0.0057
$ 0.0058
$ 0.0059
$ 0.0060
$ 0.0061
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0021
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0011
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0044
$ 0.0053
$ 0.0061
$ 0.0079
$ 0.0080
$ 0.0081
$ 0.0082
$ 0.0084
$ 0.0085
$ 0.0087
$ 0.0088
$ 0.0089
$ 0.0091
$ 0.0092
$ 0.0094
$ 0.0095
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-16 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0002
$0.0003
$0.0004
$0.0005
$0.0006
$0.0007
$0.0008
$0.0009
$0.0010
$0.0010
$0.0010
$0.0010
$0.0011
$0.0011
$0.0011
$0.0011
$0.0011
$0.0011
$0.0011
$0.0011
$0.0011
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0001
$0.0001
$0.0001
$0.0002
$0.0002
$0.0002
$0.0003
$0.0003
$0.0003
$0.0003
$0.0003
$0.0004
$0.0004
$0.0004
$0.0004
$0.0004
$0.0004
$0.0004
$0.0004
$0.0004
$0.0004
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0042
$ 0.0043
$ 0.0043
$ 0.0045
$ 0.0045
$ 0.0046
$ 0.0046
$ 0.0047
$ 0.0047
$ 0.0048
$ 0.0048
$ 0.0048
$ 0.0049
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0002
$0.0007
$0.0012
$0.0016
$0.0021
$0.0026
$0.0031
$0.0036
$0.0041
$0.0045
$0.0045
$0.0046
$0.0047
$0.0048
$0.0048
$0.0048
$0.0049
$0.0050
$0.0050
$0.0051
$0.0051
$0.0052
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0002
$0.0004
$0.0006
$0.0007
$0.0009
$0.0011
$0.0012
$0.0014
$0.0015
$0.0015
$0.0015
$0.0016
$0.0016
$0.0016
$0.0017
$0.0017
$0.0017
$0.0017
$0.0018
$0.0018
$0.0018
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0047
$ 0.0064
$ 0.0083
$ 0.0105
$ 0.0124
$ 0.0143
$ 0.0163
$ 0.0167
$ 0.0169
$ 0.0170
$ 0.0180
$ 0.0182
$ 0.0185
$ 0.0187
$ 0.0189
$ 0.0191
$ 0.0192
$ 0.0194
$ 0.0196
$ 0.0200
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0047
$ 0.0056
$ 0.0065
$ 0.0074
$ 0.0082
$ 0.0082
$ 0.0083
$ 0.0086
$ 0.0088
$ 0.0089
$ 0.0090
$ 0.0091
$ 0.0092
$ 0.0094
$ 0.0095
$ 0.0096
$ 0.0097
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0036
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0039
$ 0.0039
$ 0.0040
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0052
$ 0.0084
$ 0.0116
$ 0.0149
$ 0.0188
$ 0.0222
$ 0.0261
$ 0.0297
$ 0.0338
$ 0.0342
$ 0.0346
$ 0.0360
$ 0.0365
$ 0.0371
$ 0.0375
$ 0.0380
$ 0.0384
$ 0.0388
$ 0.0394
$ 0.0399
$ 0.0406
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                Exhibit C.3o  Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving 100,001-1,000,000 (Rotavirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0058
$ 0.0083
$ 0.0107
$ 0.0135
$ 0.0163
$ 0.0192
$ 0.0221
$ 0.0234
$ 0.0239
$ 0.0243
$ 0.0251
$ 0.0260
$ 0.0266
$ 0.0270
$ 0.0282
$ 0.0289
$ 0.0295
$ 0.0302
$ 0.0307
$ 0.0314
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0054
$ 0.0075
$ 0.0098
$ 0.0126
$ 0.0151
$ 0.0179
$ 0.0206
$ 0.0217
$ 0.0222
$ 0.0228
$ 0.0232
$ 0.0244
$ 0.0249
$ 0.0253
$ 0.0266
$ 0.0273
$ 0.0278
$ 0.0287
$ 0.0292
$ 0.0299
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0049
$ 0.0059
$ 0.0070
$ 0.0080
$ 0.0083
$ 0.0085
$ 0.0087
$ 0.0089
$ 0.0093
$ 0.0096
$ 0.0098
$ 0.0101
$ 0.0103
$ 0.0105
$ 0.0108
$ 0.0110
$ 0.0112
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0061
$ 0.0111
$ 0.0156
$ 0.0199
$ 0.0249
$ 0.0302
$ 0.0352
$ 0.0405
$ 0.0429
$ 0.0436
$ 0.0444
$ 0.0459
$ 0.0473
$ 0.0486
$ 0.0494
$ 0.0507
$ 0.0517
$ 0.0527
$ 0.0537
$ 0.0546
$ 0.0560
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0049
$ 0.0063
$ 0.0080
$ 0.0098
$ 0.0115
$ 0.0133
$ 0.0139
$ 0.0141
$ 0.0144
$ 0.0149
$ 0.0154
$ 0.0157
$ 0.0160
$ 0.0166
$ 0.0171
$ 0.0174
$ 0.0178
$ 0.0181
$ 0.0185
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0041
$ 0.0053
$ 0.0069
$ 0.0084
$ 0.0099
$ 0.0114
$ 0.0119
$ 0.0121
$ 0.0124
$ 0.0129
$ 0.0132
$ 0.0135
$ 0.0138
$ 0.0143
$ 0.0146
$ 0.0150
$ 0.0153
$ 0.0156
$ 0.0160
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0042
$ 0.0049
$ 0.0050
$ 0.0051
$ 0.0052
$ 0.0053
$ 0.0057
$ 0.0058
$ 0.0059
$ 0.0061
$ 0.0062
$ 0.0063
$ 0.0065
$ 0.0066
$ 0.0068
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0040
$ 0.0072
$ 0.0103
$ 0.0131
$ 0.0164
$ 0.0198
$ 0.0231
$ 0.0265
$ 0.0287
$ 0.0292
$ 0.0297
$ 0.0310
$ 0.0319
$ 0.0325
$ 0.0330
$ 0.0336
$ 0.0348
$ 0.0354
$ 0.0359
$ 0.0365
$ 0.0371
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0002
$0.0003
$0.0004
$0.0005
$0.0007
$0.0008
$0.0009
$0.0011
$0.0011
$0.0011
$0.0011
$0.0012
$0.0012
$0.0012
$0.0012
$0.0013
$0.0013
$0.0013
$0.0013
$0.0013
$0.0014
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0001
$0.0002
$0.0003
$0.0004
$0.0005
$0.0005
$0.0006
$0.0007
$0.0008
$0.0008
$0.0008
$0.0008
$0.0008
$0.0008
$0.0009
$0.0009
$0.0009
$0.0009
$0.0009
$0.0009
$0.0009
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0036
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0039
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0002
$0.0008
$0.0014
$0.0019
$0.0025
$0.0031
$0.0038
$0.0044
$0.0051
$0.0052
$0.0053
$0.0054
$0.0055
$0.0057
$0.0057
$0.0058
$0.0060
$0.0061
$0.0062
$0.0063
$0.0063
$0.0064
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0002
$0.0005
$0.0009
$0.0013
$0.0016
$0.0021
$0.0025
$0.0029
$0.0033
$0.0033
$0.0034
$0.0035
$0.0036
$0.0037
$0.0037
$0.0038
$0.0039
$0.0040
$0.0041
$0.0042
$0.0042
$0.0043
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0036
$ 0.0051
$ 0.0065
$ 0.0088
$ 0.0105
$ 0.0122
$ 0.0140
$ 0.0150
$ 0.0152
$ 0.0154
$ 0.0159
$ 0.0161
$ 0.0163
$ 0.0165
$ 0.0168
$ 0.0170
$ 0.0174
$ 0.0178
$ 0.0182
$ 0.0185
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0062
$ 0.0110
$ 0.0155
$ 0.0200
$ 0.0253
$ 0.0307
$ 0.0361
$ 0.0415
$ 0.0436
$ 0.0445
$ 0.0453
$ 0.0467
$ 0.0483
$ 0.0492
$ 0.0501
$ 0.0521
$ 0.0534
$ 0.0544
$ 0.0556
$ 0.0565
$ 0.0577
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0052
$ 0.0093
$ 0.0131
$ 0.0172
$ 0.0220
$ 0.0265
$ 0.0312
$ 0.0360
$ 0.0378
$ 0.0386
$ 0.0395
$ 0.0405
$ 0.0422
$ 0.0430
$ 0.0438
$ 0.0457
$ 0.0469
$ 0.0478
$ 0.0491
$ 0.0500
$ 0.0511
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0049
$ 0.0065
$ 0.0082
$ 0.0098
$ 0.0117
$ 0.0135
$ 0.0139
$ 0.0142
$ 0.0146
$ 0.0149
$ 0.0156
$ 0.0160
$ 0.0163
$ 0.0169
$ 0.0172
$ 0.0176
$ 0.0180
$ 0.0184
$ 0.0187
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0126
$ 0.0227
$ 0.0322
$ 0.0411
$ 0.0520
$ 0.0628
$ 0.0732
$ 0.0839
$ 0.0898
$ 0.0912
$ 0.0927
$ 0.0962
$ 0.0988
$ 0.1009
$ 0.1024
$ 0.1046
$ 0.1072
$ 0.1091
$ 0.1112
$ 0.1131
$ 0.1156
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                               October 2006

-------
                                   Exhibit C.3p Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving 100,001 -1,000,000 (Echovirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0021
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0036
$ 0.0043
$ 0.0052
$ 0.0060
$ 0.0078
$ 0.0079
$ 0.0081
$ 0.0083
$ 0.0085
$ 0.0086
$ 0.0087
$ 0.0089
$ 0.0090
$ 0.0092
$ 0.0093
$ 0.0095
$ 0.0097
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0033
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0019
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0042
$ 0.0052
$ 0.0062
$ 0.0075
$ 0.0086
$ 0.0114
$ 0.0115
$ 0.0117
$ 0.0123
$ 0.0125
$ 0.0127
$ 0.0129
$ 0.0131
$ 0.0133
$ 0.0135
$ 0.0137
$ 0.0139
$ 0.0142
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-16 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0003
$0.0005
$0.0008
$0.0010
$0.0012
$0.0014
$0.0017
$0.0019
$0.0021
$0.0021
$0.0021
$0.0022
$0.0022
$0.0023
$0.0023
$0.0023
$0.0023
$0.0024
$0.0024
$0.0024
$0.0024
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0001
$0.0002
$0.0002
$0.0003
$0.0004
$0.0004
$0.0005
$0.0006
$0.0006
$0.0006
$0.0006
$0.0007
$0.0007
$0.0007
$0.0007
$0.0007
$0.0007
$0.0007
$0.0007
$0.0007
$0.0008
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0043
$ 0.0051
$ 0.0059
$ 0.0067
$ 0.0075
$ 0.0075
$ 0.0076
$ 0.0081
$ 0.0082
$ 0.0083
$ 0.0083
$ 0.0084
$ 0.0085
$ 0.0086
$ 0.0086
$ 0.0087
$ 0.0088
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0004
$0.0014
$0.0023
$0.0032
$0.0041
$0.0052
$0.0061
$0.0071
$0.0081
$0.0088
$0.0089
$0.0089
$0.0092
$0.0094
$0.0095
$0.0096
$0.0097
$0.0098
$0.0099
$0.0100
$0.0101
$0.0102
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0004
$0.0007
$0.0009
$0.0012
$0.0015
$0.0018
$0.0021
$0.0024
$0.0026
$0.0026
$0.0027
$0.0027
$0.0028
$0.0028
$0.0028
$0.0029
$0.0029
$0.0030
$0.0030
$0.0030
$0.0031
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0040
$ 0.0066
$ 0.0096
$ 0.0121
$ 0.0151
$ 0.0178
$ 0.0206
$ 0.0234
$ 0.0270
$ 0.0274
$ 0.0277
$ 0.0292
$ 0.0294
$ 0.0297
$ 0.0299
$ 0.0301
$ 0.0305
$ 0.0307
$ 0.0309
$ 0.0312
$ 0.0314
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0039
$ 0.0054
$ 0.0069
$ 0.0087
$ 0.0103
$ 0.0120
$ 0.0137
$ 0.0150
$ 0.0152
$ 0.0154
$ 0.0159
$ 0.0162
$ 0.0164
$ 0.0166
$ 0.0169
$ 0.0171
$ 0.0173
$ 0.0175
$ 0.0177
$ 0.0180
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0025
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0044
$ 0.0051
$ 0.0054
$ 0.0055
$ 0.0056
$ 0.0057
$ 0.0059
$ 0.0060
$ 0.0060
$ 0.0062
$ 0.0063
$ 0.0064
$ 0.0065
$ 0.0066
$ 0.0068
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0076
$ 0.0123
$ 0.0178
$ 0.0226
$ 0.0282
$ 0.0333
$ 0.0392
$ 0.0447
$ 0.0537
$ 0.0544
$ 0.0551
$ 0.0579
$ 0.0586
$ 0.0592
$ 0.0598
$ 0.0605
$ 0.0613
$ 0.0619
$ 0.0626
$ 0.0633
$ 0.0640
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                    Exhibit C.3q Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving >1,000,000 (Rotavirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Median
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Median
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Median
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                               October 2006

-------
                                       Exhibit C.3r Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving >1,000,000 (Echovirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Median
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Median
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-16 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Median
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
 Note: Vali
 Source:
lues in millions of 2003 dollars.
 GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                     Exhibit C.4a Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for All 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 - Illness
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.1
$ 1.2
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.4
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.6
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 1.0
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.2
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.4
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.7
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.6
$ 0.8
$ 1.1
$ 1.3
$ 1.6
$ 1.8
$ 1.9
$ 2.0
$ 2.1
$ 2.2
$ 2.5
$ 2.5
$ 2.6
$ 2.7
$ 2.8
$ 2.9
$ 3.0
$ 3.1
Total - Deaths
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
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
$ 0.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.7
$ 0.9
$ 1.0
$ 1.1
$ 1.2
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.4
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 1.7
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.9
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.4
$ 0.6
$ 0.7
$ 0.9
$ 1.1
$ 1.2
$ 1.3
$ 1.4
$ 1.5
$ 1.6
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.9
$ 2.0
$ 2.0
$ 2.1
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.7
$ 0.9
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.2
$ 1.3
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 1.7
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.5
$ 1.0
$ 1.4
$ 1.8
$ 2.2
$ 2.5
$ 3.0
$ 3.1
$ 3.3
$ 3.4
$ 3.6
$ 4.0
$ 4.1
$ 4.2
$ 4.3
$ 4.6
$ 4.7
$ 4.8
$ 4.9
         Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
C-41
October 2006

-------
             Exhibit C.4b Present Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year at 3 Percent, for All 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
Total - Illness
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 11.6
$ 0.7
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 10.2
$ 0.6
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 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
$ 4.8
$ 0.3
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.5
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 1.0
$ 1.1
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.4
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 23.2
$ 1.3
Total - Death
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 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
$ 4.4
$ 0.3
Median
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
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 2.4
$ 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
$ 0.0
$ 0.3
$ 0.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.9
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 14.6
$ 0.8
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 16.1
$ 0.9
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 12.6
$ 0.7
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 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
$ 5.1
$ 0.3
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.8
$ 1.1
$ 1.3
$ 1.6
$ 1.8
$ 2.1
$ 2.1
$ 2.2
$ 2.2
$ 2.3
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 2.5
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 37.8
$ 2.2
            Notes:
            Source:
Details may not sum due to rounding and individual statistical analyses.
GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                         C-42
October 2006

-------
              Exhibit C.4c Present Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year at 7 Percent, for All 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
Total - Illness
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 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
$ 6.3
$ 0.5
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 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
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 5.6
$ 0.5
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
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 2.6
$ 0.2
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 12.7
$ 1.1
Total - Deaths
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 2.4
$ 0.2
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 1.3
$ 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
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 8.0
$ 0.7
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 8.8
$ 0.8
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 6.9
$ 0.6
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 2.8
$ 0.2
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.6
$ 0.8
$ 1.0
$ 1.1
$ 1.2
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$1 O
I .z
$ 1.2
$ 1.3
$1 O
I .z
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 20.7
$ 1.8
            Notes:
            Source:
Details may not sum due to rounding and individual statistical analyses.
GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                          C-43
                                                                                                                               October 2006

-------
                                       Exhibit C.Sa Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, forTNCWSs Serving <100 (Rotavirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0537
$ 0.0757
$ 0.1259
$ 0.1560
$ 0.2182
$ 0.2643
$ 0.3054
$ 0.3503
$ 0.3674
$ 0.3874
$ 0.3982
$ 0.4446
$ 0.4581
$ 0.4828
$ 0.5020
$ 0.5310
$ 0.5496
$ 0.5814
$ 0.5939
$ 0.6115
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0472
$ 0.0676
$ 0.1190
$ 0.1479
$ 0.2071
$ 0.2535
$ 0.2929
$ 0.3332
$ 0.3456
$ 0.3634
$ 0.3754
$ 0.4204
$ 0.4359
$ 0.4637
$ 0.4821
$ 0.5178
$ 0.5357
$ 0.5647
$ 0.5769
$ 0.5946
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0163
$ 0.0234
$ 0.0418
$ 0.0537
$ 0.0776
$ 0.0979
$ 0.1139
$ 0.1271
$ 0.1353
$ 0.1441
$ 0.1479
$ 0.1551
$ 0.1598
$ 0.1742
$ 0.1803
$ 0.1963
$ 0.2023
$ 0.2124
$ 0.2171
$ 0.2256
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0081
$ 0.1211
$ 0.1676
$ 0.2359
$ 0.2899
$ 0.4153
$ 0.4935
$ 0.5681
$ 0.6367
$ 0.6583
$ 0.6966
$ 0.7108
$ 0.7942
$ 0.8108
$ 0.8415
$ 0.8737
$ 0.9076
$ 0.9348
$ 0.9924
$ 1.0157
$ 1 .0404
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0436
$ 0.0611
$ 0.1045
$ 0.1294
$ 0.1787
$ 0.2162
$ 0.2499
$ 0.2834
$ 0.2959
$ 0.3131
$ 0.3218
$ 0.3566
$ 0.3670
$ 0.3865
$ 0.4011
$ 0.4236
$ 0.4385
$ 0.4631
$ 0.4726
$ 0.4861
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0385
$ 0.0544
$ 0.0985
$ 0.1220
$ 0.1687
$ 0.2045
$ 0.2368
$ 0.2633
$ 0.2779
$ 0.2974
$ 0.3071
$ 0.3371
$ 0.3487
$ 0.3710
$ 0.3837
$ 0.4138
$ 0.4266
$ 0.4503
$ 0.4599
$ 0.4755
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0132
$ 0.0191
$ 0.0336
$ 0.0420
$ 0.0588
$ 0.0729
$ 0.0853
$ 0.0959
$ 0.1022
$ 0.1081
$ 0.1115
$ 0.1218
$ 0.1257
$ 0.1346
$ 0.1391
$ 0.1463
$ 0.1503
$ 0.1565
$ 0.1596
$ 0.1685
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0074
$ 0.0980
$ 0.1349
$ 0.2065
$ 0.2530
$ 0.3374
$ 0.3991
$ 0.4652
$ 0.5314
$ 0.5516
$ 0.5774
$ 0.5888
$ 0.6491
$ 0.6638
$ 0.6884
$ 0.7087
$ 0.7415
$ 0.7738
$ 0.8160
$ 0.8356
$ 0.8630
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0002
$0.0028
$0.0039
$0.0063
$0.0077
$0.0107
$0.0129
$0.0148
$0.0168
$0.0175
$0.0183
$0.0186
$0.0206
$0.0210
$0.0219
$0.0226
$0.0238
$0.0244
$0.0256
$0.0259
$0.0264
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0001
$0.0019
$0.0027
$0.0047
$0.0057
$0.0080
$0.0095
$0.0109
$0.0123
$0.0129
$0.0139
$0.0142
$0.0157
$0.0161
$0.0168
$0.0173
$0.0183
$0.0186
$0.0196
$0.0199
$0.0201
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0025
$ 0.0025
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0027
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0075
$ 0.0103
$ 0.0163
$ 0.0199
$ 0.0271
$ 0.0331
$ 0.0378
$ 0.0444
$ 0.0453
$ 0.0471
$ 0.0479
$ 0.0525
$ 0.0535
$ 0.0558
$ 0.0580
$ 0.0624
$ 0.0637
$ 0.0660
$ 0.0667
$ 0.0689
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0002
$0.0012
$0.0170
$0.0237
$0.0397
$0.0488
$0.0669
$0.0806
$0.0925
$0.1040
$0.1079
$0.1134
$0.1158
$0.1272
$0.1299
$0.1358
$0.1399
$0.1468
$0.1508
$0.1580
$0.1600
$0.1633
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0007
$0.0120
$0.0167
$0.0288
$0.0351
$0.0485
$0.0581
$0.0668
$0.0754
$0.0784
$0.0850
$0.0874
$0.0949
$0.0970
$0.1017
$0.1042
$0.1116
$0.1163
$0.1219
$0.1232
$0.1257
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0042
$ 0.0053
$ 0.0072
$ 0.0085
$ 0.0097
$ 0.0106
$ 0.0109
$ 0.0121
$ 0.0122
$ 0.0132
$ 0.0134
$ 0.0142
$ 0.0145
$ 0.0150
$ 0.0153
$ 0.0156
$ 0.0158
$ 0.0161
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0036
$ 0.0455
$ 0.0617
$ 0.1017
$ 0.1241
$ 0.1668
$ 0.2038
$ 0.2325
$ 0.2532
$ 0.2597
$ 0.2797
$ 0.2843
$ 0.3350
$ 0.3426
$ 0.3559
$ 0.3659
$ 0.3853
$ 0.3961
$ 0.4081
$ 0.4130
$ 0.4225
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0078
$ 0.1170
$ 0.1644
$ 0.2764
$ 0.3419
$ 0.4745
$ 0.5740
$ 0.6626
$ 0.7545
$ 0.7886
$ 0.8322
$ 0.8544
$ 0.9490
$ 0.9761
$ 1.0270
$ 1.0656
$ 1.1251
$ 1.1633
$ 1.2281
$ 1.2524
$ 1.2873
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0061
$ 0.0995
$ 0.1413
$ 0.2509
$ 0.3108
$ 0.4321
$ 0.5256
$ 0.6073
$ 0.6842
$ 0.7149
$ 0.7597
$ 0.7841
$ 0.8681
$ 0.8977
$ 0.9533
$ 0.9873
$ 1.0615
$ 1.0973
$ 1.1564
$ 1.1798
$ 1.2160
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0314
$ 0.0451
$ 0.0802
$ 0.1019
$ 0.1448
$ 0.1807
$ 0.2105
$ 0.2354
$ 0.2502
$ 0.2662
$ 0.2735
$ 0.2922
$ 0.3012
$ 0.3253
$ 0.3363
$ 0.3600
$ 0.3704
$ 0.3871
$ 0.3951
$ 0.4129
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0048
$ 0.0197
$ 0.2721
$ 0.3743
$ 0.5605
$ 0.6869
$ 0.9466
$ 1.1296
$ 1 .3036
$ 1.4657
$ 1.5149
$ 1 .6009
$ 1.6318
$ 1 .8309
$ 1.8707
$ 1.9416
$ 2.0064
$ 2.0968
$ 2.1684
$ 2.2825
$ 2.3310
$ 2.3947
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                              October 2006

-------
                                           Exhibit C.Sb Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for TNCWSs Serving <100 (Echovirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0040
$ 0.0049
$ 0.0065
$ 0.0078
$ 0.0090
$ 0.0156
$ 0.0160
$ 0.0169
$ 0.0172
$ 0.0182
$ 0.0187
$ 0.0209
$ 0.0214
$ 0.0222
$ 0.0229
$ 0.0236
$ 0.0240
$ 0.0246
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0042
$ 0.0050
$ 0.0058
$ 0.0065
$ 0.0067
$ 0.0071
$ 0.0073
$ 0.0079
$ 0.0083
$ 0.0088
$ 0.0091
$ 0.0097
$ 0.0101
$ 0.0106
$ 0.0108
$ 0.0112
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0025
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0033
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0056
$ 0.0078
$ 0.0145
$ 0.0184
$ 0.0231
$ 0.0279
$ 0.0320
$ 0.0826
$ 0.0840
$ 0.0872
$ 0.0887
$ 0.0911
$ 0.0927
$ 0.1060
$ 0.1078
$ 0.1105
$ 0.1132
$ 0.1156
$ 0.1179
$ 0.1199
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0067
$ 0.0083
$ 0.0110
$ 0.0132
$ 0.0152
$ 0.0254
$ 0.0259
$ 0.0274
$ 0.0280
$ 0.0295
$ 0.0303
$ 0.0334
$ 0.0342
$ 0.0356
$ 0.0367
$ 0.0378
$ 0.0385
$ 0.0394
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0045
$ 0.0055
$ 0.0077
$ 0.0092
$ 0.0106
$ 0.0123
$ 0.0127
$ 0.0133
$ 0.0137
$ 0.0150
$ 0.0155
$ 0.0164
$ 0.0168
$ 0.0182
$ 0.0188
$ 0.0198
$ 0.0202
$ 0.0207
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0040
$ 0.0043
$ 0.0044
$ 0.0048
$ 0.0050
$ 0.0052
$ 0.0055
$ 0.0059
$ 0.0061
$ 0.0063
$ 0.0065
$ 0.0068
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0085
$ 0.0125
$ 0.0226
$ 0.0286
$ 0.0361
$ 0.0432
$ 0.0495
$ 0.1146
$ 0.1164
$ 0.1197
$ 0.1216
$ 0.1256
$ 0.1280
$ 0.1579
$ 0.1603
$ 0.1632
$ 0.1661
$ 0.1694
$ 0.1722
$ 0.1751
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-16 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0001
$0.0019
$0.0027
$0.0049
$0.0060
$0.0079
$0.0095
$0.0108
$0.0183
$0.0186
$0.0195
$0.0197
$0.0207
$0.0211
$0.0234
$0.0238
$0.0244
$0.0251
$0.0255
$0.0258
$0.0262
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0000
$0.0009
$0.0012
$0.0022
$0.0027
$0.0038
$0.0045
$0.0052
$0.0062
$0.0064
$0.0067
$0.0068
$0.0074
$0.0077
$0.0080
$0.0082
$0.0088
$0.0090
$0.0093
$0.0095
$0.0097
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0062
$ 0.0086
$ 0.0160
$ 0.0199
$ 0.0265
$ 0.0309
$ 0.0350
$ 0.0654
$ 0.0661
$ 0.0695
$ 0.0700
$ 0.0713
$ 0.0719
$ 0.0786
$ 0.0791
$ 0.0804
$ 0.0818
$ 0.0826
$ 0.0835
$ 0.0842
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0006
$0.0082
$0.0113
$0.0204
$0.0252
$0.0334
$0.0400
$0.0456
$0.0786
$0.0797
$0.0834
$0.0844
$0.0887
$0.0905
$0.1003
$0.1017
$0.1047
$0.1073
$0.1093
$0.1107
$0.1122
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0002
$0.0035
$0.0051
$0.0097
$0.0120
$0.0170
$0.0203
$0.0230
$0.0272
$0.0277
$0.0288
$0.0294
$0.0319
$0.0333
$0.0357
$0.0366
$0.0394
$0.0402
$0.0416
$0.0421
$0.0429
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0036
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0038
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0255
$ 0.0358
$ 0.0642
$ 0.0816
$ 0.1012
$ 0.1202
$ 0.1373
$ 0.2253
$ 0.2277
$ 0.2463
$ 0.2494
$ 0.2699
$ 0.2799
$ 0.2927
$ 0.2946
$ 0.2991
$ 0.3027
$ 0.3057
$ 0.3106
$ 0.3126
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0143
$ 0.0198
$ 0.0359
$ 0.0444
$ 0.0588
$ 0.0705
$ 0.0806
$ 0.1379
$ 0.1401
$ 0.1471
$ 0.1493
$ 0.1570
$ 0.1606
$ 0.1781
$ 0.1811
$ 0.1869
$ 0.1920
$ 0.1962
$ 0.1991
$ 0.2024
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0071
$ 0.0100
$ 0.0187
$ 0.0232
$ 0.0326
$ 0.0390
$ 0.0446
$ 0.0521
$ 0.0535
$ 0.0558
$ 0.0571
$ 0.0622
$ 0.0647
$ 0.0690
$ 0.0707
$ 0.0761
$ 0.0781
$ 0.0814
$ 0.0827
$ 0.0845
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0036
$ 0.0053
$ 0.0063
$ 0.0073
$ 0.0086
$ 0.0090
$ 0.0097
$ 0.0100
$ 0.0109
$ 0.0114
$ 0.0119
$ 0.0124
$ 0.0132
$ 0.0136
$ 0.0140
$ 0.0143
$ 0.0148
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0458
$ 0.0647
$ 0.1173
$ 0.1486
$ 0.1868
$ 0.2221
$ 0.2538
$ 0.4879
$ 0.4943
$ 0.5227
$ 0.5296
$ 0.5580
$ 0.5724
$ 0.6352
$ 0.6418
$ 0.6532
$ 0.6637
$ 0.6733
$ 0.6842
$ 0.6918
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source:  GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                       Exhibit C.5c Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for TNCWSs Serving 101-500 (Rotavirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0057
$ 0.0787
$ 0.1107
$ 0.1843
$ 0.2281
$ 0.3218
$ 0.3851
$ 0.4905
$ 0.5011
$ 0.5335
$ 0.5505
$ 0.6048
$ 0.6231
$ 0.6439
$ 0.6817
$ 0.7072
$ 0.7434
$ 0.7715
$ 0.8138
$ 0.8317
$ 0.8528
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0049
$ 0.0637
$ 0.0903
$ 0.1700
$ 0.2112
$ 0.2989
$ 0.3627
$ 0.4606
$ 0.4698
$ 0.5055
$ 0.5208
$ 0.5724
$ 0.5919
$ 0.6085
$ 0.6506
$ 0.6748
$ 0.7206
$ 0.7496
$ 0.7911
$ 0.8080
$ 0.8289
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0255
$ 0.0360
$ 0.0697
$ 0.0880
$ 0.1217
$ 0.1477
$ 0.1878
$ 0.1948
$ 0.2089
$ 0.2170
$ 0.2341
$ 0.2392
$ 0.2472
$ 0.2673
$ 0.2755
$ 0.2947
$ 0.3024
$ 0.3168
$ 0.3242
$ 0.3350
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0132
$ 0.1821
$ 0.2524
$ 0.3449
$ 0.4241
$ 0.6171
$ 0.7254
$ 0.8960
$ 0.9137
$ 0.9497
$ 0.9799
$ 1 .0739
$ 1 .0966
$ 1.1281
$ 1.1821
$ 1.2193
$ 1 .2674
$ 1.3153
$ 1.3996
$ 1.4310
$ 1 .4683
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0044
$ 0.0630
$ 0.0882
$ 0.1495
$ 0.1852
$ 0.2570
$ 0.3075
$ 0.3851
$ 0.3934
$ 0.4192
$ 0.4327
$ 0.4794
$ 0.4939
$ 0.5091
$ 0.5403
$ 0.5596
$ 0.5877
$ 0.6100
$ 0.6452
$ 0.6591
$ 0.6756
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0036
$ 0.0521
$ 0.0734
$ 0.1298
$ 0.1621
$ 0.2262
$ 0.2750
$ 0.3533
$ 0.3621
$ 0.3856
$ 0.3982
$ 0.4325
$ 0.4477
$ 0.4627
$ 0.4939
$ 0.5108
$ 0.5495
$ 0.5815
$ 0.6051
$ 0.6199
$ 0.6349
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0204
$ 0.0300
$ 0.0522
$ 0.0659
$ 0.0921
$ 0.1087
$ 0.1361
$ 0.1389
$ 0.1520
$ 0.1608
$ 0.1738
$ 0.1790
$ 0.1854
$ 0.1994
$ 0.2049
$ 0.2216
$ 0.2271
$ 0.2356
$ 0.2406
$ 0.2455
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0111
$ 0.1488
$ 0.2075
$ 0.3059
$ 0.3759
$ 0.5072
$ 0.5984
$ 0.7464
$ 0.7602
$ 0.8009
$ 0.8276
$ 0.8765
$ 0.8978
$ 0.9157
$ 0.9767
$ 1 .0009
$ 1 .0386
$ 1 .0738
$ 1.1389
$ 1.1642
$ 1.1866
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0003
$0.0040
$0.0056
$0.0092
$0.0113
$0.0159
$0.0189
$0.0239
$0.0242
$0.0256
$0.0261
$0.0284
$0.0290
$0.0297
$0.0313
$0.0321
$0.0336
$0.0346
$0.0362
$0.0367
$0.0373
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0002
$0.0027
$0.0039
$0.0067
$0.0082
$0.0112
$0.0133
$0.0166
$0.0167
$0.0177
$0.0181
$0.0198
$0.0206
$0.0213
$0.0223
$0.0228
$0.0244
$0.0253
$0.0262
$0.0265
$0.0270
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0025
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0036
$ 0.0036
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0108
$ 0.0155
$ 0.0255
$ 0.0312
$ 0.0459
$ 0.0537
$ 0.0659
$ 0.0669
$ 0.0707
$ 0.0718
$ 0.0775
$ 0.0791
$ 0.0813
$ 0.0839
$ 0.0864
$ 0.0892
$ 0.0919
$ 0.0979
$ 0.0993
$ 0.1012
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0004
$0.0017
$0.0245
$0.0341
$0.0573
$0.0704
$0.0978
$0.1162
$0.1444
$0.1465
$0.1550
$0.1587
$0.1737
$0.1777
$0.1818
$0.1915
$0.1970
$0.2059
$0.2122
$0.2230
$0.2261
$0.2299
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0002
$0.0010
$0.0175
$0.0248
$0.0417
$0.0512
$0.0693
$0.0821
$0.1010
$0.1036
$0.1077
$0.1110
$0.1216
$0.1255
$0.1291
$0.1361
$0.1397
$0.1489
$0.1546
$0.1657
$0.1674
$0.1700
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0053
$ 0.0064
$ 0.0087
$ 0.0103
$ 0.0127
$ 0.0128
$ 0.0138
$ 0.0141
$ 0.0157
$ 0.0159
$ 0.0163
$ 0.0176
$ 0.0178
$ 0.0196
$ 0.0199
$ 0.0206
$ 0.0209
$ 0.0214
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0060
$ 0.0655
$ 0.0932
$ 0.1531
$ 0.1875
$ 0.2789
$ 0.3238
$ 0.3968
$ 0.3984
$ 0.4166
$ 0.4258
$ 0.4757
$ 0.4925
$ 0.5027
$ 0.5354
$ 0.5507
$ 0.5795
$ 0.5915
$ 0.6081
$ 0.6147
$ 0.6269
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0025
$ 0.0120
$ 0.1702
$ 0.2385
$ 0.4003
$ 0.4950
$ 0.6925
$ 0.8277
$ 1.0439
$ 1.0652
$ 1.1332
$ 1.1680
$ 1.2863
$ 1.3238
$ 1.3645
$ 1.4448
$ 1.4959
$ 1.5706
$ 1.6283
$ 1.7182
$ 1.7536
$ 1.7956
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0096
$ 0.1360
$ 0.1924
$ 0.3483
$ 0.4327
$ 0.6056
$ 0.7331
$ 0.9316
$ 0.9522
$ 1.0166
$ 1.0481
$ 1.1463
$ 1.1857
$ 1.2216
$ 1.3029
$ 1.3481
$ 1.4435
$ 1.5110
$ 1.5881
$ 1.6219
$ 1.6609
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0484
$ 0.0695
$ 0.1281
$ 0.1615
$ 0.2241
$ 0.2685
$ 0.3389
$ 0.3490
$ 0.3773
$ 0.3945
$ 0.4264
$ 0.4370
$ 0.4517
$ 0.4874
$ 0.5013
$ 0.5393
$ 0.5528
$ 0.5766
$ 0.5892
$ 0.6055
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0076
$ 0.0312
$ 0.4073
$ 0.5685
$ 0.8294
$ 1.0188
$ 1.4491
$ 1.7013
$ 2.1050
$ 2.1392
$ 2.2378
$ 2.3051
$ 2.5036
$ 2.5661
$ 2.6278
$ 2.7781
$ 2.8573
$ 2.9747
$ 3.0725
$ 3.2445
$ 3.3093
$ 3.3829
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                                October 2006

-------
                                         Exhibit C.Sd Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for TNCWSs Serving 101-500 (Echovirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0052
$ 0.0065
$ 0.0088
$ 0.0107
$ 0.0212
$ 0.0227
$ 0.0236
$ 0.0244
$ 0.0257
$ 0.0267
$ 0.0274
$ 0.0315
$ 0.0322
$ 0.0334
$ 0.0344
$ 0.0354
$ 0.0361
$ 0.0369
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0044
$ 0.0063
$ 0.0074
$ 0.0098
$ 0.0100
$ 0.0104
$ 0.0109
$ 0.0122
$ 0.0126
$ 0.0131
$ 0.0139
$ 0.0143
$ 0.0154
$ 0.0160
$ 0.0169
$ 0.0172
$ 0.0177
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0039
$ 0.0041
$ 0.0043
$ 0.0044
$ 0.0047
$ 0.0048
$ 0.0049
$ 0.0050
$ 0.0052
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0068
$ 0.0093
$ 0.0150
$ 0.0191
$ 0.0241
$ 0.0309
$ 0.0881
$ 0.0983
$ 0.1012
$ 0.1030
$ 0.1070
$ 0.1100
$ 0.1120
$ 0.1337
$ 0.1360
$ 0.1391
$ 0.1419
$ 0.1447
$ 0.1473
$ 0.1499
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0052
$ 0.0092
$ 0.0114
$ 0.0154
$ 0.0187
$ 0.0367
$ 0.0391
$ 0.0407
$ 0.0421
$ 0.0443
$ 0.0459
$ 0.0471
$ 0.0534
$ 0.0547
$ 0.0566
$ 0.0584
$ 0.0600
$ 0.0612
$ 0.0625
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0036
$ 0.0065
$ 0.0080
$ 0.0114
$ 0.0138
$ 0.0175
$ 0.0179
$ 0.0187
$ 0.0195
$ 0.0217
$ 0.0225
$ 0.0233
$ 0.0246
$ 0.0253
$ 0.0268
$ 0.0278
$ 0.0288
$ 0.0293
$ 0.0302
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0036
$ 0.0045
$ 0.0057
$ 0.0059
$ 0.0066
$ 0.0068
$ 0.0073
$ 0.0075
$ 0.0078
$ 0.0083
$ 0.0087
$ 0.0092
$ 0.0094
$ 0.0097
$ 0.0099
$ 0.0103
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0117
$ 0.0166
$ 0.0278
$ 0.0356
$ 0.0450
$ 0.0541
$ 0.1650
$ 0.1904
$ 0.1955
$ 0.1988
$ 0.2023
$ 0.2098
$ 0.2134
$ 0.2578
$ 0.2624
$ 0.2669
$ 0.2720
$ 0.2777
$ 0.2821
$ 0.2868
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-16 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0003
$0.0027
$0.0037
$0.0064
$0.0080
$0.0106
$0.0129
$0.0269
$0.0287
$0.0295
$0.0304
$0.0315
$0.0326
$0.0332
$0.0384
$0.0390
$0.0400
$0.0409
$0.0417
$0.0422
$0.0427
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0001
$0.0012
$0.0017
$0.0032
$0.0040
$0.0057
$0.0068
$0.0093
$0.0094
$0.0100
$0.0103
$0.0113
$0.0116
$0.0120
$0.0125
$0.0130
$0.0136
$0.0140
$0.0145
$0.0147
$0.0150
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0019
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0098
$ 0.0135
$ 0.0206
$ 0.0255
$ 0.0334
$ 0.0396
$ 0.1134
$ 0.1194
$ 0.1225
$ 0.1236
$ 0.1247
$ 0.1255
$ 0.1270
$ 0.1557
$ 0.1572
$ 0.1584
$ 0.1607
$ 0.1630
$ 0.1641
$ 0.1654
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0013
$0.0115
$0.0159
$0.0272
$0.0339
$0.0451
$0.0550
$0.1121
$0.1201
$0.1237
$0.1271
$0.1323
$0.1366
$0.1391
$0.1588
$0.1611
$0.1653
$0.1693
$0.1726
$0.1746
$0.1768
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0003
$0.0050
$0.0070
$0.0132
$0.0165
$0.0243
$0.0291
$0.0389
$0.0393
$0.0415
$0.0424
$0.0469
$0.0497
$0.0510
$0.0536
$0.0551
$0.0603
$0.0625
$0.0641
$0.0648
$0.0661
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0040
$ 0.0050
$ 0.0050
$ 0.0054
$ 0.0055
$ 0.0059
$ 0.0060
$ 0.0064
$ 0.0067
$ 0.0068
$ 0.0073
$ 0.0075
$ 0.0077
$ 0.0077
$ 0.0079
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0436
$ 0.0591
$ 0.0954
$ 0.1165
$ 0.1550
$ 0.1924
$ 0.4849
$ 0.5227
$ 0.5429
$ 0.5785
$ 0.5851
$ 0.5994
$ 0.6085
$ 0.6802
$ 0.6873
$ 0.6929
$ 0.7331
$ 0.7421
$ 0.7577
$ 0.7645
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0201
$ 0.0279
$ 0.0481
$ 0.0598
$ 0.0799
$ 0.0973
$ 0.1969
$ 0.2106
$ 0.2175
$ 0.2240
$ 0.2339
$ 0.2418
$ 0.2467
$ 0.2822
$ 0.2870
$ 0.2953
$ 0.3030
$ 0.3098
$ 0.3141
$ 0.3190
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0102
$ 0.0143
$ 0.0265
$ 0.0328
$ 0.0477
$ 0.0572
$ 0.0756
$ 0.0766
$ 0.0806
$ 0.0831
$ 0.0921
$ 0.0964
$ 0.0994
$ 0.1046
$ 0.1077
$ 0.1161
$ 0.1202
$ 0.1242
$ 0.1261
$ 0.1289
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0051
$ 0.0065
$ 0.0094
$ 0.0114
$ 0.0146
$ 0.0150
$ 0.0163
$ 0.0170
$ 0.0183
$ 0.0188
$ 0.0197
$ 0.0208
$ 0.0215
$ 0.0228
$ 0.0233
$ 0.0241
$ 0.0245
$ 0.0254
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0065
$ 0.0720
$ 0.0984
$ 0.1588
$ 0.1967
$ 0.2575
$ 0.3169
$ 0.8513
$ 0.9309
$ 0.9621
$ 1 .0039
$ 1.0191
$ 1 .0448
$ 1 .0609
$ 1 .2273
$ 1 .2429
$ 1 .2573
$ 1 .3077
$ 1 .3275
$ 1.3511
$ 1 .3666
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source:  GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                     Exhibit C.Se Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, forTNCWSs Serving 501-1,000 (Rotavirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0317
$ 0.0572
$ 0.0735
$ 0.1072
$ 0.1286
$ 0.1719
$ 0.2016
$ 0.2058
$ 0.2333
$ 0.2403
$ 0.2544
$ 0.2686
$ 0.2766
$ 0.2890
$ 0.2998
$ 0.3178
$ 0.3301
$ 0.3403
$ 0.3492
$ 0.3567
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0279
$ 0.0546
$ 0.0701
$ 0.0988
$ 0.1185
$ 0.1598
$ 0.1873
$ 0.1912
$ 0.2186
$ 0.2259
$ 0.2410
$ 0.2529
$ 0.2594
$ 0.2694
$ 0.2802
$ 0.2997
$ 0.3128
$ 0.3237
$ 0.3316
$ 0.3396
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0117
$ 0.0220
$ 0.0288
$ 0.0447
$ 0.0536
$ 0.0719
$ 0.0861
$ 0.0879
$ 0.0972
$ 0.0999
$ 0.1102
$ 0.1196
$ 0.1228
$ 0.1282
$ 0.1329
$ 0.1435
$ 0.1494
$ 0.1531
$ 0.1568
$ 0.1603
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0047
$ 0.0690
$ 0.1046
$ 0.1334
$ 0.2019
$ 0.2406
$ 0.3197
$ 0.3706
$ 0.3777
$ 0.4147
$ 0.4256
$ 0.4421
$ 0.4585
$ 0.4701
$ 0.4891
$ 0.5056
$ 0.5387
$ 0.5542
$ 0.5720
$ 0.5852
$ 0.5961
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0245
$ 0.0451
$ 0.0579
$ 0.0850
$ 0.1018
$ 0.1364
$ 0.1598
$ 0.1630
$ 0.1834
$ 0.1888
$ 0.2004
$ 0.2113
$ 0.2170
$ 0.2268
$ 0.2350
$ 0.2489
$ 0.2584
$ 0.2656
$ 0.2730
$ 0.2787
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0216
$ 0.0412
$ 0.0525
$ 0.0779
$ 0.0932
$ 0.1238
$ 0.1467
$ 0.1496
$ 0.1662
$ 0.1727
$ 0.1849
$ 0.1957
$ 0.1998
$ 0.2094
$ 0.2166
$ 0.2316
$ 0.2421
$ 0.2508
$ 0.2570
$ 0.2634
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0081
$ 0.0168
$ 0.0216
$ 0.0331
$ 0.0399
$ 0.0528
$ 0.0636
$ 0.0648
$ 0.0708
$ 0.0728
$ 0.0802
$ 0.0868
$ 0.0888
$ 0.0923
$ 0.0948
$ 0.1022
$ 0.1065
$ 0.1107
$ 0.1131
$ 0.1152
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0554
$ 0.0894
$ 0.1148
$ 0.1685
$ 0.2004
$ 0.2670
$ 0.3097
$ 0.3146
$ 0.3428
$ 0.3492
$ 0.3608
$ 0.3778
$ 0.3919
$ 0.4071
$ 0.4189
$ 0.4440
$ 0.4602
$ 0.4713
$ 0.4875
$ 0.4986
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0001
$0.0016
$0.0029
$0.0038
$0.0054
$0.0064
$0.0085
$0.0099
$0.0100
$0.0112
$0.0115
$0.0120
$0.0126
$0.0129
$0.0133
$0.0137
$0.0144
$0.0148
$0.0151
$0.0154
$0.0156
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0001
$0.0011
$0.0021
$0.0027
$0.0037
$0.0044
$0.0058
$0.0069
$0.0070
$0.0080
$0.0082
$0.0087
$0.0091
$0.0093
$0.0096
$0.0098
$0.0103
$0.0106
$0.0108
$0.0110
$0.0111
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0018
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0050
$ 0.0087
$ 0.0110
$ 0.0161
$ 0.0192
$ 0.0246
$ 0.0289
$ 0.0293
$ 0.0321
$ 0.0337
$ 0.0347
$ 0.0356
$ 0.0365
$ 0.0378
$ 0.0387
$ 0.0401
$ 0.0413
$ 0.0426
$ 0.0437
$ 0.0443
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0006
$0.0097
$0.0178
$0.0226
$0.0327
$0.0389
$0.0516
$0.0600
$0.0607
$0.0681
$0.0696
$0.0731
$0.0765
$0.0779
$0.0808
$0.0830
$0.0872
$0.0898
$0.0916
$0.0934
$0.0946
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0003
$0.0065
$0.0123
$0.0158
$0.0220
$0.0261
$0.0347
$0.0408
$0.0414
$0.0474
$0.0488
$0.0505
$0.0541
$0.0549
$0.0565
$0.0579
$0.0608
$0.0623
$0.0634
$0.0652
$0.0658
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0036
$ 0.0042
$ 0.0057
$ 0.0066
$ 0.0067
$ 0.0073
$ 0.0075
$ 0.0080
$ 0.0088
$ 0.0091
$ 0.0095
$ 0.0097
$ 0.0103
$ 0.0106
$ 0.0109
$ 0.0111
$ 0.0112
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0292
$ 0.0526
$ 0.0671
$ 0.1004
$ 0.1210
$ 0.1565
$ 0.1821
$ 0.1849
$ 0.1956
$ 0.2107
$ 0.2178
$ 0.2236
$ 0.2285
$ 0.2387
$ 0.2442
$ 0.2574
$ 0.2654
$ 0.2708
$ 0.2778
$ 0.2797
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0042
$ 0.0676
$ 0.1230
$ 0.1578
$ 0.2304
$ 0.2758
$ 0.3684
$ 0.4312
$ 0.4394
$ 0.4961
$ 0.5102
$ 0.5399
$ 0.5689
$ 0.5844
$ 0.6099
$ 0.6315
$ 0.6682
$ 0.6931
$ 0.7126
$ 0.7309
$ 0.7456
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0571
$ 0.1102
$ 0.1411
$ 0.2025
$ 0.2422
$ 0.3242
$ 0.3817
$ 0.3891
$ 0.4403
$ 0.4557
$ 0.4851
$ 0.5118
$ 0.5233
$ 0.5449
$ 0.5645
$ 0.6025
$ 0.6277
$ 0.6486
$ 0.6647
$ 0.6799
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0210
$ 0.0412
$ 0.0533
$ 0.0820
$ 0.0985
$ 0.1314
$ 0.1574
$ 0.1606
$ 0.1766
$ 0.1814
$ 0.1997
$ 0.2166
$ 0.2222
$ 0.2315
$ 0.2390
$ 0.2577
$ 0.2682
$ 0.2765
$ 0.2828
$ 0.2884
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0109
$ 0.1586
$ 0.2553
$ 0.3262
$ 0.4869
$ 0.5812
$ 0.7679
$ 0.8913
$ 0.9064
$ 0.9852
$ 1.0193
$ 1 .0554
$ 1 .0955
$ 1.1270
$ 1.1728
$ 1 .2073
$ 1 .2802
$ 1.3210
$ 1.3567
$ 1 .3943
$ 1.4186
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                              October 2006

-------
                                        Exhibit C.Sf Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, forTNCWSs Serving 501-1,000 (Echovirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0086
$ 0.0100
$ 0.0106
$ 0.0110
$ 0.0114
$ 0.0133
$ 0.0140
$ 0.0143
$ 0.0147
$ 0.0150
$ 0.0159
$ 0.0163
$ 0.0166
$ 0.0169
$ 0.0173
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0039
$ 0.0042
$ 0.0046
$ 0.0047
$ 0.0050
$ 0.0051
$ 0.0059
$ 0.0062
$ 0.0063
$ 0.0065
$ 0.0067
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0017
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0065
$ 0.0083
$ 0.0113
$ 0.0134
$ 0.0469
$ 0.0544
$ 0.0592
$ 0.0603
$ 0.0619
$ 0.0698
$ 0.0723
$ 0.0735
$ 0.0752
$ 0.0764
$ 0.0787
$ 0.0804
$ 0.0817
$ 0.0833
$ 0.0848
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0052
$ 0.0062
$ 0.0148
$ 0.0173
$ 0.0184
$ 0.0191
$ 0.0196
$ 0.0226
$ 0.0238
$ 0.0243
$ 0.0249
$ 0.0254
$ 0.0270
$ 0.0277
$ 0.0282
$ 0.0288
$ 0.0293
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0053
$ 0.0063
$ 0.0064
$ 0.0068
$ 0.0070
$ 0.0077
$ 0.0082
$ 0.0085
$ 0.0089
$ 0.0092
$ 0.0103
$ 0.0108
$ 0.0110
$ 0.0113
$ 0.0115
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0036
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0049
$ 0.0094
$ 0.0122
$ 0.0164
$ 0.0195
$ 0.0873
$ 0.1013
$ 0.1077
$ 0.1095
$ 0.1128
$ 0.1267
$ 0.1291
$ 0.1312
$ 0.1345
$ 0.1366
$ 0.1412
$ 0.1436
$ 0.1459
$ 0.1484
$ 0.1508
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-16 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0001
$0.0011
$0.0022
$0.0028
$0.0038
$0.0046
$0.0113
$0.0131
$0.0138
$0.0142
$0.0145
$0.0168
$0.0175
$0.0177
$0.0180
$0.0182
$0.0192
$0.0195
$0.0197
$0.0199
$0.0201
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0000
$0.0005
$0.0009
$0.0012
$0.0017
$0.0020
$0.0027
$0.0032
$0.0032
$0.0035
$0.0036
$0.0040
$0.0042
$0.0043
$0.0044
$0.0045
$0.0050
$0.0052
$0.0053
$0.0053
$0.0055
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0071
$ 0.0091
$ 0.0119
$ 0.0140
$ 0.0469
$ 0.0540
$ 0.0552
$ 0.0563
$ 0.0593
$ 0.0678
$ 0.0690
$ 0.0694
$ 0.0704
$ 0.0709
$ 0.0722
$ 0.0734
$ 0.0738
$ 0.0743
$ 0.0749
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0004
$0.0045
$0.0088
$0.0113
$0.0154
$0.0182
$0.0474
$0.0548
$0.0578
$0.0594
$0.0606
$0.0697
$0.0724
$0.0733
$0.0747
$0.0756
$0.0792
$0.0807
$0.0815
$0.0824
$0.0833
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0001
$0.0017
$0.0036
$0.0046
$0.0066
$0.0079
$0.0110
$0.0131
$0.0132
$0.0147
$0.0149
$0.0156
$0.0170
$0.0175
$0.0179
$0.0182
$0.0200
$0.0204
$0.0207
$0.0210
$0.0213
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0031
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0149
$ 0.0294
$ 0.0377
$ 0.0495
$ 0.0583
$ 0.2023
$ 0.2327
$ 0.2543
$ 0.2563
$ 0.2591
$ 0.3152
$ 0.3187
$ 0.3207
$ 0.3264
$ 0.3282
$ 0.3323
$ 0.3340
$ 0.3357
$ 0.3379
$ 0.3396
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0081
$ 0.0157
$ 0.0201
$ 0.0275
$ 0.0326
$ 0.0821
$ 0.0952
$ 0.1006
$ 0.1037
$ 0.1062
$ 0.1225
$ 0.1276
$ 0.1296
$ 0.1323
$ 0.1342
$ 0.1413
$ 0.1442
$ 0.1460
$ 0.1481
$ 0.1500
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0036
$ 0.0070
$ 0.0091
$ 0.0131
$ 0.0157
$ 0.0218
$ 0.0259
$ 0.0263
$ 0.0288
$ 0.0295
$ 0.0315
$ 0.0340
$ 0.0350
$ 0.0361
$ 0.0370
$ 0.0413
$ 0.0425
$ 0.0432
$ 0.0441
$ 0.0449
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0043
$ 0.0051
$ 0.0052
$ 0.0057
$ 0.0059
$ 0.0063
$ 0.0067
$ 0.0069
$ 0.0071
$ 0.0074
$ 0.0080
$ 0.0083
$ 0.0085
$ 0.0087
$ 0.0089
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0268
$ 0.0524
$ 0.0673
$ 0.0890
$ 0.1051
$ 0.3833
$ 0.4424
$ 0.4764
$ 0.4824
$ 0.4931
$ 0.5795
$ 0.5891
$ 0.5948
$ 0.6066
$ 0.6122
$ 0.6244
$ 0.6313
$ 0.6370
$ 0.6439
$ 0.6500
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source:  GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                    Exhibit C.5g Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, forTNCWSs Serving 1,001-3,300 (Rotavirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0136
$ 0.0286
$ 0.0452
$ 0.0663
$ 0.0930
$ 0.1152
$ 0.1424
$ 0.1684
$ 0.1859
$ 0.1944
$ 0.2030
$ 0.2154
$ 0.2209
$ 0.2310
$ 0.2363
$ 0.2445
$ 0.2521
$ 0.2596
$ 0.2688
$ 0.2778
$ 0.2846
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0115
$ 0.0272
$ 0.0421
$ 0.0619
$ 0.0888
$ 0.1100
$ 0.1352
$ 0.1609
$ 0.1762
$ 0.1836
$ 0.1916
$ 0.2116
$ 0.2169
$ 0.2262
$ 0.2310
$ 0.2392
$ 0.2453
$ 0.2525
$ 0.2609
$ 0.2713
$ 0.2773
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0091
$ 0.0163
$ 0.0238
$ 0.0329
$ 0.0429
$ 0.0550
$ 0.0645
$ 0.0716
$ 0.0755
$ 0.0803
$ 0.0842
$ 0.0860
$ 0.0886
$ 0.0906
$ 0.0940
$ 0.0963
$ 0.0988
$ 0.1010
$ 0.1063
$ 0.1088
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0310
$ 0.0563
$ 0.0871
$ 0.1241
$ 0.1743
$ 0.2124
$ 0.2620
$ 0.3060
$ 0.3404
$ 0.3528
$ 0.3647
$ 0.3777
$ 0.3859
$ 0.3955
$ 0.4040
$ 0.4176
$ 0.4326
$ 0.4443
$ 0.4631
$ 0.4778
$ 0.4873
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0107
$ 0.0232
$ 0.0366
$ 0.0529
$ 0.0734
$ 0.0912
$ 0.1123
$ 0.1331
$ 0.1471
$ 0.1541
$ 0.1609
$ 0.1698
$ 0.1741
$ 0.1824
$ 0.1866
$ 0.1931
$ 0.1981
$ 0.2038
$ 0.2102
$ 0.2169
$ 0.2221
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0087
$ 0.0214
$ 0.0333
$ 0.0486
$ 0.0671
$ 0.0842
$ 0.1052
$ 0.1240
$ 0.1392
$ 0.1441
$ 0.1508
$ 0.1605
$ 0.1662
$ 0.1770
$ 0.1806
$ 0.1874
$ 0.1917
$ 0.1984
$ 0.2026
$ 0.2105
$ 0.2159
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0074
$ 0.0128
$ 0.0184
$ 0.0256
$ 0.0336
$ 0.0439
$ 0.0509
$ 0.0559
$ 0.0590
$ 0.0620
$ 0.0650
$ 0.0670
$ 0.0695
$ 0.0712
$ 0.0756
$ 0.0776
$ 0.0796
$ 0.0813
$ 0.0846
$ 0.0870
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0249
$ 0.0487
$ 0.0753
$ 0.1061
$ 0.1452
$ 0.1762
$ 0.2125
$ 0.2527
$ 0.2798
$ 0.2937
$ 0.3061
$ 0.3138
$ 0.3201
$ 0.3324
$ 0.3394
$ 0.3485
$ 0.3560
$ 0.3673
$ 0.3791
$ 0.3870
$ 0.3946
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0007
$0.0015
$0.0023
$0.0034
$0.0047
$0.0058
$0.0071
$0.0083
$0.0092
$0.0095
$0.0099
$0.0103
$0.0105
$0.0109
$0.0111
$0.0113
$0.0116
$0.0118
$0.0122
$0.0124
$0.0126
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0005
$0.0010
$0.0016
$0.0023
$0.0032
$0.0040
$0.0049
$0.0057
$0.0063
$0.0066
$0.0068
$0.0073
$0.0074
$0.0076
$0.0077
$0.0080
$0.0080
$0.0082
$0.0084
$0.0086
$0.0088
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0011
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0044
$ 0.0068
$ 0.0099
$ 0.0135
$ 0.0162
$ 0.0196
$ 0.0227
$ 0.0257
$ 0.0263
$ 0.0275
$ 0.0284
$ 0.0287
$ 0.0295
$ 0.0299
$ 0.0303
$ 0.0306
$ 0.0310
$ 0.0324
$ 0.0329
$ 0.0333
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0043
$0.0091
$0.0142
$0.0206
$0.0283
$0.0350
$0.0427
$0.0503
$0.0554
$0.0578
$0.0599
$0.0626
$0.0637
$0.0663
$0.0673
$0.0691
$0.0704
$0.0719
$0.0737
$0.0753
$0.0765
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0029
$0.0061
$0.0102
$0.0146
$0.0204
$0.0251
$0.0309
$0.0362
$0.0392
$0.0405
$0.0421
$0.0446
$0.0452
$0.0463
$0.0470
$0.0492
$0.0497
$0.0506
$0.0517
$0.0531
$0.0539
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0044
$ 0.0046
$ 0.0047
$ 0.0050
$ 0.0053
$ 0.0054
$ 0.0057
$ 0.0058
$ 0.0060
$ 0.0061
$ 0.0062
$ 0.0063
$ 0.0064
$ 0.0066
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0140
$ 0.0269
$ 0.0426
$ 0.0591
$ 0.0849
$ 0.1025
$ 0.1228
$ 0.1409
$ 0.1562
$ 0.1602
$ 0.1684
$ 0.1725
$ 0.1744
$ 0.1783
$ 0.1805
$ 0.1862
$ 0.1886
$ 0.1918
$ 0.1971
$ 0.2035
$ 0.2057
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0293
$ 0.0623
$ 0.0982
$ 0.1432
$ 0.1995
$ 0.2473
$ 0.3044
$ 0.3602
$ 0.3976
$ 0.4158
$ 0.4336
$ 0.4582
$ 0.4692
$ 0.4906
$ 0.5013
$ 0.5181
$ 0.5323
$ 0.5471
$ 0.5649
$ 0.5825
$ 0.5958
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0236
$ 0.0558
$ 0.0873
$ 0.1275
$ 0.1795
$ 0.2232
$ 0.2763
$ 0.3267
$ 0.3608
$ 0.3747
$ 0.3914
$ 0.4239
$ 0.4356
$ 0.4571
$ 0.4663
$ 0.4837
$ 0.4949
$ 0.5096
$ 0.5236
$ 0.5436
$ 0.5559
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0073
$ 0.0174
$ 0.0305
$ 0.0443
$ 0.0613
$ 0.0800
$ 0.1034
$ 0.1205
$ 0.1329
$ 0.1400
$ 0.1482
$ 0.1554
$ 0.1594
$ 0.1648
$ 0.1686
$ 0.1766
$ 0.1811
$ 0.1856
$ 0.1896
$ 0.1984
$ 0.2034
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0722
$ 0.1363
$ 0.2119
$ 0.2992
$ 0.4179
$ 0.5073
$ 0.6168
$ 0.7223
$ 0.8021
$ 0.8331
$ 0.8668
$ 0.8924
$ 0.9091
$ 0.9357
$ 0.9538
$ 0.9826
$ 1 .0079
$ 1 .0344
$ 1.0716
$ 1.1013
$ 1.1209
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                               October 2006

-------
                                       ExhibitC.Sh Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, forTNCWSs Serving 1,001-3,300 (Echovirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0053
$ 0.0064
$ 0.0076
$ 0.0085
$ 0.0088
$ 0.0091
$ 0.0097
$ 0.0099
$ 0.0101
$ 0.0103
$ 0.0106
$ 0.0108
$ 0.0111
$ 0.0113
$ 0.0116
$ 0.0119
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0040
$ 0.0042
$ 0.0044
$ 0.0045
$ 0.0046
$ 0.0047
$ 0.0049
$ 0.0051
$ 0.0052
$ 0.0054
$ 0.0056
$ 0.0057
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0018
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0044
$ 0.0061
$ 0.0109
$ 0.0135
$ 0.0226
$ 0.0269
$ 0.0325
$ 0.0353
$ 0.0359
$ 0.0367
$ 0.0393
$ 0.0400
$ 0.0407
$ 0.0417
$ 0.0425
$ 0.0432
$ 0.0440
$ 0.0447
$ 0.0456
$ 0.0464
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0046
$ 0.0059
$ 0.0096
$ 0.0116
$ 0.0136
$ 0.0152
$ 0.0158
$ 0.0163
$ 0.0174
$ 0.0177
$ 0.0181
$ 0.0185
$ 0.0189
$ 0.0193
$ 0.0197
$ 0.0201
$ 0.0206
$ 0.0211
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0039
$ 0.0049
$ 0.0058
$ 0.0070
$ 0.0073
$ 0.0077
$ 0.0083
$ 0.0084
$ 0.0086
$ 0.0088
$ 0.0091
$ 0.0093
$ 0.0096
$ 0.0098
$ 0.0101
$ 0.0104
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0025
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0033
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0075
$ 0.0104
$ 0.0174
$ 0.0218
$ 0.0319
$ 0.0397
$ 0.0488
$ 0.0539
$ 0.0548
$ 0.0558
$ 0.0614
$ 0.0625
$ 0.0635
$ 0.0648
$ 0.0659
$ 0.0671
$ 0.0684
$ 0.0695
$ 0.0708
$ 0.0721
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-16 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0008
$0.0016
$0.0022
$0.0037
$0.0047
$0.0081
$0.0097
$0.0112
$0.0123
$0.0126
$0.0129
$0.0135
$0.0136
$0.0138
$0.0139
$0.0142
$0.0143
$0.0145
$0.0147
$0.0149
$0.0151
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0002
$0.0005
$0.0008
$0.0012
$0.0016
$0.0020
$0.0025
$0.0029
$0.0034
$0.0035
$0.0037
$0.0040
$0.0040
$0.0041
$0.0042
$0.0043
$0.0045
$0.0046
$0.0047
$0.0048
$0.0049
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0054
$ 0.0080
$ 0.0140
$ 0.0175
$ 0.0261
$ 0.0337
$ 0.0388
$ 0.0458
$ 0.0465
$ 0.0471
$ 0.0525
$ 0.0530
$ 0.0534
$ 0.0537
$ 0.0541
$ 0.0543
$ 0.0547
$ 0.0549
$ 0.0554
$ 0.0557
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0035
$0.0071
$0.0102
$0.0174
$0.0222
$0.0390
$0.0462
$0.0536
$0.0579
$0.0594
$0.0607
$0.0637
$0.0644
$0.0651
$0.0658
$0.0668
$0.0676
$0.0684
$0.0693
$0.0703
$0.0711
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0010
$0.0022
$0.0034
$0.0052
$0.0069
$0.0088
$0.0114
$0.0132
$0.0162
$0.0165
$0.0169
$0.0179
$0.0182
$0.0186
$0.0189
$0.0198
$0.0205
$0.0208
$0.0213
$0.0218
$0.0224
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0022
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0101
$ 0.0221
$ 0.0304
$ 0.0528
$ 0.0666
$ 0.1284
$ 0.1503
$ 0.1781
$ 0.1904
$ 0.2077
$ 0.2118
$ 0.2252
$ 0.2263
$ 0.2284
$ 0.2302
$ 0.2321
$ 0.2332
$ 0.2342
$ 0.2352
$ 0.2369
$ 0.2388
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0057
$ 0.0116
$ 0.0167
$ 0.0283
$ 0.0361
$ 0.0620
$ 0.0739
$ 0.0861
$ 0.0938
$ 0.0966
$ 0.0990
$ 0.1043
$ 0.1057
$ 0.1071
$ 0.1086
$ 0.1105
$ 0.1121
$ 0.1138
$ 0.1154
$ 0.1174
$ 0.1192
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0043
$ 0.0066
$ 0.0099
$ 0.0132
$ 0.0168
$ 0.0214
$ 0.0251
$ 0.0304
$ 0.0313
$ 0.0324
$ 0.0345
$ 0.0351
$ 0.0360
$ 0.0366
$ 0.0382
$ 0.0393
$ 0.0403
$ 0.0412
$ 0.0423
$ 0.0433
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0041
$ 0.0049
$ 0.0055
$ 0.0058
$ 0.0061
$ 0.0063
$ 0.0065
$ 0.0066
$ 0.0068
$ 0.0070
$ 0.0071
$ 0.0073
$ 0.0075
$ 0.0077
$ 0.0079
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0182
$ 0.0394
$ 0.0549
$ 0.0951
$ 0.1194
$ 0.2090
$ 0.2506
$ 0.2982
$ 0.3255
$ 0.3450
$ 0.3514
$ 0.3784
$ 0.3817
$ 0.3859
$ 0.3904
$ 0.3946
$ 0.3978
$ 0.4013
$ 0.4044
$ 0.4086
$ 0.4130
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source:  GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                    Exhibit C.5i Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for TNCWSs Serving 3,301-10,000 (Rotavirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0095
$ 0.0178
$ 0.0287
$ 0.0385
$ 0.0510
$ 0.0643
$ 0.0770
$ 0.0914
$ 0.0972
$ 0.0998
$ 0.1032
$ 0.1063
$ 0.1085
$ 0.1110
$ 0.1132
$ 0.1165
$ 0.1189
$ 0.1223
$ 0.1259
$ 0.1286
$ 0.1313
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0090
$ 0.0169
$ 0.0276
$ 0.0368
$ 0.0484
$ 0.0612
$ 0.0733
$ 0.0881
$ 0.0929
$ 0.0954
$ 0.0985
$ 0.1011
$ 0.1030
$ 0.1055
$ 0.1075
$ 0.1107
$ 0.1132
$ 0.1167
$ 0.1201
$ 0.1227
$ 0.1252
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0036
$ 0.0073
$ 0.0121
$ 0.0163
$ 0.0205
$ 0.0251
$ 0.0304
$ 0.0359
$ 0.0378
$ 0.0391
$ 0.0405
$ 0.0419
$ 0.0429
$ 0.0450
$ 0.0460
$ 0.0477
$ 0.0487
$ 0.0500
$ 0.0512
$ 0.0523
$ 0.0538
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0059
$ 0.0176
$ 0.0318
$ 0.0496
$ 0.0665
$ 0.0875
$ 0.1108
$ 0.1316
$ 0.1562
$ 0.1662
$ 0.1696
$ 0.1736
$ 0.1791
$ 0.1827
$ 0.1864
$ 0.1901
$ 0.1958
$ 0.1996
$ 0.2043
$ 0.2104
$ 0.2143
$ 0.2189
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0076
$ 0.0142
$ 0.0230
$ 0.0306
$ 0.0405
$ 0.0507
$ 0.0609
$ 0.0723
$ 0.0767
$ 0.0786
$ 0.0813
$ 0.0836
$ 0.0852
$ 0.0871
$ 0.0887
$ 0.0912
$ 0.0930
$ 0.0956
$ 0.0980
$ 0.1000
$ 0.1020
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0070
$ 0.0131
$ 0.0215
$ 0.0286
$ 0.0379
$ 0.0470
$ 0.0566
$ 0.0673
$ 0.0705
$ 0.0726
$ 0.0755
$ 0.0774
$ 0.0787
$ 0.0806
$ 0.0821
$ 0.0843
$ 0.0860
$ 0.0887
$ 0.0914
$ 0.0937
$ 0.0956
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0054
$ 0.0093
$ 0.0123
$ 0.0159
$ 0.0195
$ 0.0236
$ 0.0279
$ 0.0296
$ 0.0307
$ 0.0317
$ 0.0328
$ 0.0335
$ 0.0349
$ 0.0356
$ 0.0367
$ 0.0376
$ 0.0389
$ 0.0398
$ 0.0407
$ 0.0415
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0046
$ 0.0151
$ 0.0263
$ 0.0405
$ 0.0534
$ 0.0722
$ 0.0904
$ 0.1076
$ 0.1295
$ 0.1369
$ 0.1397
$ 0.1436
$ 0.1463
$ 0.1488
$ 0.1517
$ 0.1546
$ 0.1580
$ 0.1609
$ 0.1642
$ 0.1684
$ 0.1727
$ 0.1762
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0005
$0.0009
$0.0015
$0.0020
$0.0026
$0.0032
$0.0038
$0.0045
$0.0047
$0.0048
$0.0050
$0.0051
$0.0051
$0.0052
$0.0053
$0.0054
$0.0054
$0.0055
$0.0056
$0.0057
$0.0058
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0004
$0.0007
$0.0011
$0.0015
$0.0019
$0.0024
$0.0029
$0.0034
$0.0036
$0.0036
$0.0037
$0.0038
$0.0039
$0.0039
$0.0040
$0.0041
$0.0041
$0.0042
$0.0043
$0.0043
$0.0044
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0042
$ 0.0056
$ 0.0071
$ 0.0090
$ 0.0106
$ 0.0122
$ 0.0129
$ 0.0131
$ 0.0133
$ 0.0134
$ 0.0136
$ 0.0139
$ 0.0141
$ 0.0143
$ 0.0145
$ 0.0147
$ 0.0149
$ 0.0151
$ 0.0153
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0008
$0.0031
$0.0057
$0.0091
$0.0120
$0.0157
$0.0196
$0.0233
$0.0274
$0.0289
$0.0295
$0.0302
$0.0309
$0.0312
$0.0317
$0.0320
$0.0326
$0.0330
$0.0337
$0.0342
$0.0347
$0.0351
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0006
$0.0023
$0.0042
$0.0067
$0.0089
$0.0118
$0.0148
$0.0176
$0.0210
$0.0220
$0.0224
$0.0229
$0.0233
$0.0237
$0.0240
$0.0242
$0.0247
$0.0251
$0.0256
$0.0258
$0.0261
$0.0265
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0036
$ 0.0036
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0039
$ 0.0040
$ 0.0040
$ 0.0041
$ 0.0041
$ 0.0041
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0087
$ 0.0160
$ 0.0252
$ 0.0339
$ 0.0426
$ 0.0566
$ 0.0665
$ 0.0768
$ 0.0805
$ 0.0814
$ 0.0822
$ 0.0830
$ 0.0839
$ 0.0852
$ 0.0857
$ 0.0870
$ 0.0874
$ 0.0886
$ 0.0897
$ 0.0912
$ 0.0920
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0056
$ 0.0208
$ 0.0386
$ 0.0623
$ 0.0831
$ 0.1099
$ 0.1379
$ 0.1650
$ 0.1956
$ 0.2076
$ 0.2128
$ 0.2196
$ 0.2258
$ 0.2300
$ 0.2350
$ 0.2391
$ 0.2457
$ 0.2504
$ 0.2571
$ 0.2637
$ 0.2690
$ 0.2742
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0045
$ 0.0186
$ 0.0350
$ 0.0569
$ 0.0759
$ 0.0999
$ 0.1255
$ 0.1503
$ 0.1798
$ 0.1889
$ 0.1939
$ 0.2006
$ 0.2056
$ 0.2092
$ 0.2141
$ 0.2178
$ 0.2237
$ 0.2284
$ 0.2352
$ 0.2416
$ 0.2468
$ 0.2517
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0067
$ 0.0134
$ 0.0225
$ 0.0302
$ 0.0384
$ 0.0471
$ 0.0570
$ 0.0675
$ 0.0713
$ 0.0738
$ 0.0764
$ 0.0790
$ 0.0807
$ 0.0843
$ 0.0861
$ 0.0890
$ 0.0909
$ 0.0936
$ 0.0958
$ 0.0977
$ 0.1001
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0133
$ 0.0428
$ 0.0766
$ 0.1196
$ 0.1594
$ 0.2094
$ 0.2669
$ 0.3163
$ 0.3748
$ 0.3965
$ 0.4038
$ 0.4126
$ 0.4219
$ 0.4291
$ 0.4372
$ 0.4444
$ 0.4550
$ 0.4624
$ 0.4718
$ 0.4835
$ 0.4933
$ 0.5024
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                                 October 2006

-------
                                       Exhibit C.Sj  Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, forTNCWSs Serving 3,301-10,000 (Echovirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0041
$ 0.0042
$ 0.0044
$ 0.0045
$ 0.0046
$ 0.0047
$ 0.0048
$ 0.0049
$ 0.0050
$ 0.0051
$ 0.0052
$ 0.0053
$ 0.0054
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0025
$ 0.0025
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0027
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0050
$ 0.0065
$ 0.0082
$ 0.0097
$ 0.0117
$ 0.0134
$ 0.0174
$ 0.0177
$ 0.0181
$ 0.0185
$ 0.0188
$ 0.0191
$ 0.0194
$ 0.0197
$ 0.0201
$ 0.0205
$ 0.0208
$ 0.0212
$ 0.0215
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0040
$ 0.0048
$ 0.0057
$ 0.0067
$ 0.0072
$ 0.0074
$ 0.0077
$ 0.0079
$ 0.0080
$ 0.0082
$ 0.0083
$ 0.0085
$ 0.0088
$ 0.0089
$ 0.0091
$ 0.0093
$ 0.0094
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0036
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0039
$ 0.0040
$ 0.0041
$ 0.0042
$ 0.0043
$ 0.0044
$ 0.0045
$ 0.0046
$ 0.0047
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0015
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0049
$ 0.0078
$ 0.0102
$ 0.0127
$ 0.0152
$ 0.0179
$ 0.0208
$ 0.0232
$ 0.0237
$ 0.0245
$ 0.0249
$ 0.0253
$ 0.0258
$ 0.0262
$ 0.0267
$ 0.0276
$ 0.0281
$ 0.0285
$ 0.0290
$ 0.0295
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-16 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0004
$0.0009
$0.0016
$0.0021
$0.0027
$0.0032
$0.0038
$0.0044
$0.0047
$0.0048
$0.0050
$0.0050
$0.0051
$0.0052
$0.0052
$0.0053
$0.0054
$0.0054
$0.0055
$0.0056
$0.0056
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0002
$0.0003
$0.0005
$0.0007
$0.0009
$0.0011
$0.0014
$0.0016
$0.0017
$0.0017
$0.0018
$0.0018
$0.0019
$0.0019
$0.0019
$0.0020
$0.0020
$0.0020
$0.0020
$0.0021
$0.0021
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0060
$ 0.0078
$ 0.0098
$ 0.0117
$ 0.0136
$ 0.0158
$ 0.0194
$ 0.0196
$ 0.0202
$ 0.0205
$ 0.0206
$ 0.0209
$ 0.0210
$ 0.0213
$ 0.0216
$ 0.0219
$ 0.0222
$ 0.0224
$ 0.0226
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0004
$0.0016
$0.0037
$0.0065
$0.0085
$0.0110
$0.0132
$0.0157
$0.0181
$0.0197
$0.0201
$0.0207
$0.0210
$0.0212
$0.0215
$0.0217
$0.0220
$0.0224
$0.0226
$0.0229
$0.0231
$0.0233
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0002
$0.0007
$0.0013
$0.0023
$0.0031
$0.0040
$0.0051
$0.0060
$0.0070
$0.0074
$0.0077
$0.0078
$0.0081
$0.0081
$0.0083
$0.0084
$0.0086
$0.0086
$0.0087
$0.0089
$0.0090
$0.0092
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0060
$ 0.0147
$ 0.0249
$ 0.0323
$ 0.0442
$ 0.0531
$ 0.0616
$ 0.0708
$ 0.0760
$ 0.0766
$ 0.0781
$ 0.0800
$ 0.0807
$ 0.0818
$ 0.0826
$ 0.0836
$ 0.0844
$ 0.0858
$ 0.0867
$ 0.0873
$ 0.0879
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0067
$ 0.0117
$ 0.0153
$ 0.0198
$ 0.0239
$ 0.0285
$ 0.0330
$ 0.0357
$ 0.0366
$ 0.0377
$ 0.0384
$ 0.0389
$ 0.0396
$ 0.0400
$ 0.0407
$ 0.0415
$ 0.0421
$ 0.0427
$ 0.0432
$ 0.0438
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0025
$ 0.0046
$ 0.0061
$ 0.0079
$ 0.0100
$ 0.0119
$ 0.0139
$ 0.0146
$ 0.0151
$ 0.0154
$ 0.0160
$ 0.0162
$ 0.0166
$ 0.0168
$ 0.0172
$ 0.0174
$ 0.0177
$ 0.0181
$ 0.0184
$ 0.0187
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0025
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0036
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0102
$ 0.0262
$ 0.0437
$ 0.0568
$ 0.0749
$ 0.0898
$ 0.1048
$ 0.1208
$ 0.1360
$ 0.1376
$ 0.1409
$ 0.1438
$ 0.1455
$ 0.1475
$ 0.1492
$ 0.1513
$ 0.1537
$ 0.1562
$ 0.1582
$ 0.1598
$ 0.1615
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source:  GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                   Exhibit C.5k Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, forTNCWSs Serving 10,001-50,000 (Rotavirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0042
$ 0.0133
$ 0.0244
$ 0.0341
$ 0.0439
$ 0.0556
$ 0.0669
$ 0.0788
$ 0.0908
$ 0.0948
$ 0.0971
$ 0.0997
$ 0.1028
$ 0.1071
$ 0.1094
$ 0.1114
$ 0.1174
$ 0.1200
$ 0.1224
$ 0.1256
$ 0.1280
$ 0.1307
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0040
$ 0.0130
$ 0.0236
$ 0.0331
$ 0.0425
$ 0.0540
$ 0.0649
$ 0.0763
$ 0.0875
$ 0.0914
$ 0.0935
$ 0.0958
$ 0.0985
$ 0.1026
$ 0.1047
$ 0.1067
$ 0.1121
$ 0.1143
$ 0.1168
$ 0.1196
$ 0.1217
$ 0.1240
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0050
$ 0.0085
$ 0.0122
$ 0.0158
$ 0.0204
$ 0.0246
$ 0.0298
$ 0.0344
$ 0.0357
$ 0.0370
$ 0.0383
$ 0.0397
$ 0.0405
$ 0.0417
$ 0.0424
$ 0.0438
$ 0.0453
$ 0.0462
$ 0.0480
$ 0.0489
$ 0.0500
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0078
$ 0.0229
$ 0.0425
$ 0.0596
$ 0.0764
$ 0.0964
$ 0.1152
$ 0.1350
$ 0.1553
$ 0.1647
$ 0.1683
$ 0.1722
$ 0.1781
$ 0.1884
$ 0.1919
$ 0.1952
$ 0.2088
$ 0.2127
$ 0.2167
$ 0.2209
$ 0.2253
$ 0.2296
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0108
$ 0.0194
$ 0.0271
$ 0.0349
$ 0.0441
$ 0.0530
$ 0.0625
$ 0.0718
$ 0.0756
$ 0.0772
$ 0.0791
$ 0.0813
$ 0.0845
$ 0.0863
$ 0.0878
$ 0.0926
$ 0.0946
$ 0.0964
$ 0.0988
$ 0.1006
$ 0.1026
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0104
$ 0.0189
$ 0.0261
$ 0.0335
$ 0.0423
$ 0.0508
$ 0.0598
$ 0.0686
$ 0.0717
$ 0.0731
$ 0.0749
$ 0.0768
$ 0.0796
$ 0.0813
$ 0.0826
$ 0.0870
$ 0.0892
$ 0.0907
$ 0.0926
$ 0.0942
$ 0.0959
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0065
$ 0.0092
$ 0.0121
$ 0.0155
$ 0.0186
$ 0.0223
$ 0.0259
$ 0.0270
$ 0.0275
$ 0.0283
$ 0.0290
$ 0.0296
$ 0.0306
$ 0.0311
$ 0.0322
$ 0.0331
$ 0.0341
$ 0.0349
$ 0.0355
$ 0.0363
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0066
$ 0.0191
$ 0.0352
$ 0.0489
$ 0.0626
$ 0.0803
$ 0.0960
$ 0.1120
$ 0.1286
$ 0.1355
$ 0.1381
$ 0.1407
$ 0.1456
$ 0.1542
$ 0.1573
$ 0.1599
$ 0.1728
$ 0.1766
$ 0.1795
$ 0.1825
$ 0.1855
$ 0.1892
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0002
$0.0007
$0.0013
$0.0018
$0.0023
$0.0029
$0.0034
$0.0040
$0.0046
$0.0047
$0.0048
$0.0049
$0.0050
$0.0052
$0.0052
$0.0053
$0.0055
$0.0056
$0.0057
$0.0058
$0.0058
$0.0059
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0002
$0.0005
$0.0009
$0.0013
$0.0016
$0.0021
$0.0024
$0.0029
$0.0033
$0.0035
$0.0035
$0.0036
$0.0036
$0.0037
$0.0037
$0.0038
$0.0038
$0.0039
$0.0039
$0.0040
$0.0041
$0.0041
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0040
$ 0.0055
$ 0.0070
$ 0.0086
$ 0.0103
$ 0.0122
$ 0.0139
$ 0.0142
$ 0.0145
$ 0.0147
$ 0.0150
$ 0.0155
$ 0.0157
$ 0.0159
$ 0.0168
$ 0.0171
$ 0.0172
$ 0.0176
$ 0.0178
$ 0.0181
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0014
$0.0044
$0.0079
$0.0109
$0.0139
$0.0175
$0.0208
$0.0244
$0.0278
$0.0290
$0.0294
$0.0299
$0.0305
$0.0315
$0.0319
$0.0322
$0.0338
$0.0343
$0.0346
$0.0352
$0.0356
$0.0360
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0010
$0.0031
$0.0056
$0.0077
$0.0098
$0.0122
$0.0144
$0.0171
$0.0194
$0.0207
$0.0212
$0.0215
$0.0219
$0.0220
$0.0222
$0.0223
$0.0227
$0.0236
$0.0238
$0.0242
$0.0245
$0.0248
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0036
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0038
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0044
$ 0.0143
$ 0.0250
$ 0.0343
$ 0.0434
$ 0.0543
$ 0.0647
$ 0.0771
$ 0.0876
$ 0.0908
$ 0.0923
$ 0.0933
$ 0.0950
$ 0.0972
$ 0.0985
$ 0.0993
$ 0.1047
$ 0.1072
$ 0.1082
$ 0.1104
$ 0.1123
$ 0.1140
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0093
$ 0.0293
$ 0.0529
$ 0.0740
$ 0.0950
$ 0.1201
$ 0.1442
$ 0.1697
$ 0.1950
$ 0.2041
$ 0.2085
$ 0.2136
$ 0.2197
$ 0.2283
$ 0.2328
$ 0.2367
$ 0.2492
$ 0.2545
$ 0.2591
$ 0.2654
$ 0.2700
$ 0.2752
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0082
$ 0.0270
$ 0.0491
$ 0.0682
$ 0.0875
$ 0.1106
$ 0.1325
$ 0.1561
$ 0.1789
$ 0.1873
$ 0.1913
$ 0.1957
$ 0.2008
$ 0.2080
$ 0.2119
$ 0.2154
$ 0.2256
$ 0.2309
$ 0.2352
$ 0.2404
$ 0.2445
$ 0.2488
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0093
$ 0.0160
$ 0.0228
$ 0.0297
$ 0.0382
$ 0.0459
$ 0.0554
$ 0.0640
$ 0.0665
$ 0.0683
$ 0.0704
$ 0.0726
$ 0.0741
$ 0.0763
$ 0.0776
$ 0.0803
$ 0.0827
$ 0.0847
$ 0.0873
$ 0.0889
$ 0.0908
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0195
$ 0.0585
$ 0.1067
$ 0.1482
$ 0.1894
$ 0.2397
$ 0.2862
$ 0.3363
$ 0.3854
$ 0.4052
$ 0.4133
$ 0.4208
$ 0.4337
$ 0.4552
$ 0.4634
$ 0.4702
$ 0.5030
$ 0.5136
$ 0.5217
$ 0.5314
$ 0.5409
$ 0.5508
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                             October 2006

-------
                                      Exhibit C.5I  Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, forTNCWSs Serving 10,001-50,000 (Echovirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0036
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0039
$ 0.0040
$ 0.0040
$ 0.0042
$ 0.0043
$ 0.0043
$ 0.0044
$ 0.0045
$ 0.0046
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0025
$ 0.0025
$ 0.0026
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0025
$ 0.0036
$ 0.0047
$ 0.0059
$ 0.0070
$ 0.0083
$ 0.0095
$ 0.0119
$ 0.0122
$ 0.0124
$ 0.0127
$ 0.0129
$ 0.0131
$ 0.0133
$ 0.0137
$ 0.0140
$ 0.0142
$ 0.0145
$ 0.0147
$ 0.0150
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0042
$ 0.0049
$ 0.0057
$ 0.0062
$ 0.0064
$ 0.0065
$ 0.0067
$ 0.0068
$ 0.0070
$ 0.0071
$ 0.0073
$ 0.0074
$ 0.0076
$ 0.0077
$ 0.0079
$ 0.0080
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0036
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0039
$ 0.0041
$ 0.0042
$ 0.0043
$ 0.0044
$ 0.0044
$ 0.0045
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0015
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0042
$ 0.0061
$ 0.0078
$ 0.0098
$ 0.0116
$ 0.0137
$ 0.0157
$ 0.0220
$ 0.0224
$ 0.0228
$ 0.0235
$ 0.0239
$ 0.0243
$ 0.0247
$ 0.0252
$ 0.0256
$ 0.0261
$ 0.0265
$ 0.0270
$ 0.0275
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-16 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0002
$0.0007
$0.0011
$0.0016
$0.0020
$0.0025
$0.0030
$0.0035
$0.0040
$0.0042
$0.0043
$0.0043
$0.0044
$0.0045
$0.0045
$0.0046
$0.0047
$0.0047
$0.0048
$0.0048
$0.0049
$0.0049
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0003
$0.0005
$0.0006
$0.0008
$0.0011
$0.0013
$0.0015
$0.0017
$0.0017
$0.0018
$0.0018
$0.0019
$0.0019
$0.0020
$0.0020
$0.0021
$0.0021
$0.0021
$0.0022
$0.0022
$0.0022
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0050
$ 0.0064
$ 0.0081
$ 0.0095
$ 0.0112
$ 0.0127
$ 0.0142
$ 0.0143
$ 0.0144
$ 0.0148
$ 0.0150
$ 0.0151
$ 0.0152
$ 0.0155
$ 0.0157
$ 0.0158
$ 0.0159
$ 0.0160
$ 0.0162
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0007
$0.0029
$0.0047
$0.0066
$0.0084
$0.0105
$0.0125
$0.0146
$0.0166
$0.0177
$0.0180
$0.0182
$0.0186
$0.0189
$0.0191
$0.0193
$0.0197
$0.0199
$0.0202
$0.0204
$0.0206
$0.0208
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0003
$0.0012
$0.0020
$0.0028
$0.0036
$0.0046
$0.0054
$0.0065
$0.0074
$0.0078
$0.0080
$0.0082
$0.0085
$0.0087
$0.0088
$0.0089
$0.0093
$0.0094
$0.0094
$0.0095
$0.0096
$0.0097
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0103
$ 0.0161
$ 0.0232
$ 0.0292
$ 0.0372
$ 0.0438
$ 0.0505
$ 0.0572
$ 0.0655
$ 0.0661
$ 0.0669
$ 0.0709
$ 0.0717
$ 0.0721
$ 0.0726
$ 0.0730
$ 0.0734
$ 0.0740
$ 0.0744
$ 0.0750
$ 0.0754
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0051
$ 0.0082
$ 0.0115
$ 0.0148
$ 0.0186
$ 0.0220
$ 0.0258
$ 0.0295
$ 0.0315
$ 0.0322
$ 0.0327
$ 0.0335
$ 0.0341
$ 0.0345
$ 0.0349
$ 0.0358
$ 0.0364
$ 0.0368
$ 0.0373
$ 0.0378
$ 0.0383
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0053
$ 0.0068
$ 0.0088
$ 0.0104
$ 0.0123
$ 0.0141
$ 0.0147
$ 0.0151
$ 0.0155
$ 0.0160
$ 0.0164
$ 0.0167
$ 0.0169
$ 0.0177
$ 0.0180
$ 0.0183
$ 0.0185
$ 0.0187
$ 0.0190
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0025
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0034
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0169
$ 0.0264
$ 0.0379
$ 0.0481
$ 0.0609
$ 0.0719
$ 0.0836
$ 0.0951
$ 0.1136
$ 0.1150
$ 0.1165
$ 0.1219
$ 0.1234
$ 0.1246
$ 0.1257
$ 0.1275
$ 0.1287
$ 0.1301
$ 0.1313
$ 0.1327
$ 0.1341
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source:  GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                  Exhibit C.5m Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for TNCWSs Serving 50,001-100,000 (Rotavirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0036
$ 0.0051
$ 0.0065
$ 0.0083
$ 0.0099
$ 0.0117
$ 0.0135
$ 0.0142
$ 0.0145
$ 0.0148
$ 0.0152
$ 0.0160
$ 0.0163
$ 0.0166
$ 0.0175
$ 0.0179
$ 0.0182
$ 0.0187
$ 0.0191
$ 0.0194
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0048
$ 0.0062
$ 0.0079
$ 0.0095
$ 0.0113
$ 0.0129
$ 0.0135
$ 0.0140
$ 0.0142
$ 0.0146
$ 0.0151
$ 0.0154
$ 0.0157
$ 0.0167
$ 0.0171
$ 0.0174
$ 0.0178
$ 0.0182
$ 0.0185
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0025
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0041
$ 0.0042
$ 0.0042
$ 0.0044
$ 0.0045
$ 0.0046
$ 0.0047
$ 0.0049
$ 0.0050
$ 0.0053
$ 0.0054
$ 0.0055
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0068
$ 0.0095
$ 0.0122
$ 0.0154
$ 0.0184
$ 0.0216
$ 0.0249
$ 0.0267
$ 0.0272
$ 0.0277
$ 0.0286
$ 0.0302
$ 0.0307
$ 0.0313
$ 0.0331
$ 0.0340
$ 0.0346
$ 0.0354
$ 0.0361
$ 0.0369
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0041
$ 0.0053
$ 0.0067
$ 0.0081
$ 0.0095
$ 0.0109
$ 0.0116
$ 0.0119
$ 0.0121
$ 0.0124
$ 0.0130
$ 0.0132
$ 0.0134
$ 0.0142
$ 0.0146
$ 0.0148
$ 0.0152
$ 0.0154
$ 0.0157
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0049
$ 0.0063
$ 0.0076
$ 0.0091
$ 0.0104
$ 0.0108
$ 0.0110
$ 0.0112
$ 0.0114
$ 0.0120
$ 0.0122
$ 0.0124
$ 0.0131
$ 0.0133
$ 0.0135
$ 0.0141
$ 0.0144
$ 0.0146
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0036
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0040
$ 0.0040
$ 0.0042
$ 0.0043
$ 0.0044
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0059
$ 0.0082
$ 0.0105
$ 0.0132
$ 0.0160
$ 0.0188
$ 0.0216
$ 0.0228
$ 0.0232
$ 0.0236
$ 0.0243
$ 0.0259
$ 0.0263
$ 0.0267
$ 0.0284
$ 0.0290
$ 0.0295
$ 0.0302
$ 0.0307
$ 0.0312
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0001
$0.0002
$0.0003
$0.0003
$0.0004
$0.0005
$0.0006
$0.0006
$0.0007
$0.0007
$0.0007
$0.0007
$0.0007
$0.0007
$0.0007
$0.0008
$0.0008
$0.0008
$0.0008
$0.0008
$0.0008
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0001
$0.0001
$0.0002
$0.0002
$0.0003
$0.0004
$0.0004
$0.0005
$0.0005
$0.0005
$0.0005
$0.0005
$0.0005
$0.0005
$0.0005
$0.0006
$0.0006
$0.0006
$0.0006
$0.0006
$0.0006
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0024
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0002
$0.0006
$0.0011
$0.0016
$0.0020
$0.0025
$0.0030
$0.0035
$0.0040
$0.0042
$0.0043
$0.0043
$0.0044
$0.0045
$0.0046
$0.0046
$0.0049
$0.0049
$0.0050
$0.0051
$0.0051
$0.0052
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0005
$0.0009
$0.0012
$0.0015
$0.0019
$0.0022
$0.0026
$0.0030
$0.0031
$0.0031
$0.0032
$0.0032
$0.0033
$0.0034
$0.0034
$0.0035
$0.0035
$0.0036
$0.0036
$0.0036
$0.0037
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0046
$ 0.0059
$ 0.0073
$ 0.0087
$ 0.0102
$ 0.0116
$ 0.0119
$ 0.0120
$ 0.0122
$ 0.0124
$ 0.0128
$ 0.0130
$ 0.0132
$ 0.0142
$ 0.0146
$ 0.0147
$ 0.0150
$ 0.0152
$ 0.0153
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0044
$ 0.0079
$ 0.0110
$ 0.0141
$ 0.0179
$ 0.0215
$ 0.0253
$ 0.0291
$ 0.0308
$ 0.0314
$ 0.0319
$ 0.0327
$ 0.0342
$ 0.0348
$ 0.0354
$ 0.0374
$ 0.0382
$ 0.0388
$ 0.0397
$ 0.0404
$ 0.0411
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0040
$ 0.0073
$ 0.0100
$ 0.0128
$ 0.0164
$ 0.0197
$ 0.0234
$ 0.0267
$ 0.0279
$ 0.0286
$ 0.0291
$ 0.0298
$ 0.0310
$ 0.0315
$ 0.0320
$ 0.0339
$ 0.0345
$ 0.0350
$ 0.0361
$ 0.0367
$ 0.0374
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0025
$ 0.0033
$ 0.0041
$ 0.0049
$ 0.0062
$ 0.0071
$ 0.0073
$ 0.0077
$ 0.0079
$ 0.0081
$ 0.0085
$ 0.0087
$ 0.0088
$ 0.0091
$ 0.0094
$ 0.0096
$ 0.0100
$ 0.0102
$ 0.0104
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0090
$ 0.0166
$ 0.0231
$ 0.0296
$ 0.0371
$ 0.0444
$ 0.0522
$ 0.0599
$ 0.0634
$ 0.0644
$ 0.0654
$ 0.0673
$ 0.0709
$ 0.0722
$ 0.0733
$ 0.0780
$ 0.0799
$ 0.0811
$ 0.0829
$ 0.0843
$ 0.0857
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                               October 2006

-------
                                     Exhibit C.Sn  Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for TNCWSs Serving 50,001 -100,000 (Echovirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0018
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0006
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0025
$ 0.0025
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0030
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-16 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0001
$0.0002
$0.0002
$0.0003
$0.0004
$0.0004
$0.0005
$0.0006
$0.0006
$0.0006
$0.0006
$0.0006
$0.0006
$0.0006
$0.0006
$0.0007
$0.0007
$0.0007
$0.0007
$0.0007
$0.0007
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0000
$0.0001
$0.0001
$0.0001
$0.0001
$0.0001
$0.0002
$0.0002
$0.0002
$0.0002
$0.0002
$0.0002
$0.0002
$0.0002
$0.0002
$0.0002
$0.0002
$0.0002
$0.0002
$0.0002
$0.0002
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0021
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0004
$0.0007
$0.0010
$0.0013
$0.0016
$0.0019
$0.0022
$0.0025
$0.0026
$0.0026
$0.0027
$0.0027
$0.0027
$0.0028
$0.0028
$0.0029
$0.0029
$0.0029
$0.0030
$0.0030
$0.0030
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0001
$0.0002
$0.0003
$0.0004
$0.0005
$0.0006
$0.0007
$0.0008
$0.0008
$0.0008
$0.0008
$0.0009
$0.0009
$0.0009
$0.0009
$0.0009
$0.0010
$0.0010
$0.0010
$0.0010
$0.0010
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0026
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0044
$ 0.0052
$ 0.0062
$ 0.0071
$ 0.0076
$ 0.0076
$ 0.0077
$ 0.0078
$ 0.0079
$ 0.0081
$ 0.0081
$ 0.0082
$ 0.0083
$ 0.0084
$ 0.0084
$ 0.0085
$ 0.0086
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0042
$ 0.0045
$ 0.0045
$ 0.0046
$ 0.0047
$ 0.0047
$ 0.0048
$ 0.0048
$ 0.0050
$ 0.0051
$ 0.0051
$ 0.0052
$ 0.0052
$ 0.0053
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0017
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0021
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0019
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0043
$ 0.0056
$ 0.0072
$ 0.0085
$ 0.0103
$ 0.0117
$ 0.0133
$ 0.0134
$ 0.0136
$ 0.0138
$ 0.0140
$ 0.0143
$ 0.0144
$ 0.0147
$ 0.0148
$ 0.0150
$ 0.0152
$ 0.0153
$ 0.0155
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source:  GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                 Exhibit C.5o Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, forTNCWSs Serving 100,001-1,000,000 (Rotavirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0045
$ 0.0085
$ 0.0118
$ 0.0151
$ 0.0192
$ 0.0230
$ 0.0271
$ 0.0311
$ 0.0329
$ 0.0337
$ 0.0344
$ 0.0353
$ 0.0370
$ 0.0377
$ 0.0383
$ 0.0406
$ 0.0415
$ 0.0423
$ 0.0434
$ 0.0442
$ 0.0451
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0044
$ 0.0082
$ 0.0113
$ 0.0145
$ 0.0184
$ 0.0221
$ 0.0260
$ 0.0298
$ 0.0313
$ 0.0320
$ 0.0327
$ 0.0333
$ 0.0349
$ 0.0356
$ 0.0362
$ 0.0386
$ 0.0394
$ 0.0401
$ 0.0411
$ 0.0419
$ 0.0427
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0046
$ 0.0056
$ 0.0066
$ 0.0076
$ 0.0078
$ 0.0081
$ 0.0083
$ 0.0086
$ 0.0090
$ 0.0092
$ 0.0094
$ 0.0096
$ 0.0098
$ 0.0100
$ 0.0101
$ 0.0103
$ 0.0105
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0087
$ 0.0170
$ 0.0233
$ 0.0297
$ 0.0376
$ 0.0454
$ 0.0536
$ 0.0615
$ 0.0661
$ 0.0675
$ 0.0688
$ 0.0705
$ 0.0735
$ 0.0747
$ 0.0760
$ 0.0799
$ 0.0824
$ 0.0838
$ 0.0861
$ 0.0877
$ 0.0893
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0067
$ 0.0094
$ 0.0120
$ 0.0153
$ 0.0183
$ 0.0216
$ 0.0248
$ 0.0263
$ 0.0269
$ 0.0274
$ 0.0281
$ 0.0293
$ 0.0299
$ 0.0304
$ 0.0322
$ 0.0330
$ 0.0336
$ 0.0344
$ 0.0350
$ 0.0357
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0062
$ 0.0087
$ 0.0111
$ 0.0140
$ 0.0169
$ 0.0198
$ 0.0228
$ 0.0240
$ 0.0244
$ 0.0248
$ 0.0254
$ 0.0264
$ 0.0269
$ 0.0274
$ 0.0290
$ 0.0296
$ 0.0301
$ 0.0311
$ 0.0316
$ 0.0323
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0041
$ 0.0050
$ 0.0058
$ 0.0059
$ 0.0060
$ 0.0062
$ 0.0064
$ 0.0066
$ 0.0068
$ 0.0069
$ 0.0071
$ 0.0072
$ 0.0073
$ 0.0075
$ 0.0076
$ 0.0078
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0075
$ 0.0143
$ 0.0197
$ 0.0251
$ 0.0315
$ 0.0385
$ 0.0458
$ 0.0524
$ 0.0564
$ 0.0574
$ 0.0584
$ 0.0602
$ 0.0639
$ 0.0650
$ 0.0660
$ 0.0694
$ 0.0709
$ 0.0721
$ 0.0733
$ 0.0744
$ 0.0758
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0002
$0.0004
$0.0006
$0.0007
$0.0009
$0.0011
$0.0013
$0.0015
$0.0016
$0.0016
$0.0016
$0.0016
$0.0017
$0.0017
$0.0017
$0.0018
$0.0018
$0.0019
$0.0019
$0.0019
$0.0019
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0002
$0.0003
$0.0004
$0.0005
$0.0006
$0.0007
$0.0008
$0.0010
$0.0010
$0.0010
$0.0010
$0.0011
$0.0011
$0.0011
$0.0011
$0.0012
$0.0012
$0.0012
$0.0012
$0.0012
$0.0012
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0040
$ 0.0046
$ 0.0048
$ 0.0049
$ 0.0050
$ 0.0050
$ 0.0052
$ 0.0052
$ 0.0053
$ 0.0056
$ 0.0057
$ 0.0057
$ 0.0057
$ 0.0058
$ 0.0058
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0004
$0.0014
$0.0026
$0.0036
$0.0045
$0.0057
$0.0068
$0.0080
$0.0091
$0.0096
$0.0097
$0.0098
$0.0100
$0.0104
$0.0105
$0.0106
$0.0111
$0.0113
$0.0114
$0.0116
$0.0117
$0.0119
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0003
$0.0009
$0.0017
$0.0023
$0.0030
$0.0037
$0.0044
$0.0051
$0.0059
$0.0060
$0.0061
$0.0062
$0.0063
$0.0066
$0.0067
$0.0067
$0.0070
$0.0071
$0.0072
$0.0073
$0.0074
$0.0074
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0011
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0041
$ 0.0076
$ 0.0106
$ 0.0133
$ 0.0168
$ 0.0205
$ 0.0241
$ 0.0276
$ 0.0293
$ 0.0296
$ 0.0299
$ 0.0302
$ 0.0317
$ 0.0320
$ 0.0322
$ 0.0339
$ 0.0347
$ 0.0349
$ 0.0351
$ 0.0352
$ 0.0354
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0031
$ 0.0099
$ 0.0182
$ 0.0253
$ 0.0324
$ 0.0411
$ 0.0493
$ 0.0580
$ 0.0665
$ 0.0704
$ 0.0719
$ 0.0732
$ 0.0749
$ 0.0784
$ 0.0797
$ 0.0810
$ 0.0857
$ 0.0877
$ 0.0891
$ 0.0913
$ 0.0929
$ 0.0946
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0088
$ 0.0163
$ 0.0228
$ 0.0291
$ 0.0367
$ 0.0441
$ 0.0518
$ 0.0595
$ 0.0623
$ 0.0635
$ 0.0648
$ 0.0661
$ 0.0690
$ 0.0703
$ 0.0714
$ 0.0758
$ 0.0773
$ 0.0786
$ 0.0807
$ 0.0821
$ 0.0836
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0054
$ 0.0070
$ 0.0087
$ 0.0105
$ 0.0126
$ 0.0144
$ 0.0148
$ 0.0152
$ 0.0156
$ 0.0161
$ 0.0168
$ 0.0171
$ 0.0175
$ 0.0179
$ 0.0182
$ 0.0186
$ 0.0189
$ 0.0193
$ 0.0196
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0068
$ 0.0209
$ 0.0401
$ 0.0553
$ 0.0703
$ 0.0888
$ 0.1078
$ 0.1274
$ 0.1460
$ 0.1566
$ 0.1594
$ 0.1620
$ 0.1659
$ 0.1743
$ 0.1770
$ 0.1794
$ 0.1887
$ 0.1936
$ 0.1964
$ 0.2002
$ 0.2031
$ 0.2063
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                              October 2006

-------
                                    Exhibit C.Sp Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for TNCWSs Serving 100,001-1,000,000 (Echovirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0014
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0007
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0043
$ 0.0044
$ 0.0045
$ 0.0046
$ 0.0047
$ 0.0048
$ 0.0048
$ 0.0049
$ 0.0050
$ 0.0051
$ 0.0052
$ 0.0053
$ 0.0054
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0016
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0020
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0021
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0024
$ 0.0025
$ 0.0025
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0011
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0013
$ 0.0013
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0009
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0022
$ 0.0028
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0042
$ 0.0051
$ 0.0058
$ 0.0070
$ 0.0071
$ 0.0073
$ 0.0074
$ 0.0075
$ 0.0076
$ 0.0078
$ 0.0079
$ 0.0081
$ 0.0082
$ 0.0083
$ 0.0085
$ 0.0086
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-16 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0002
$0.0003
$0.0005
$0.0006
$0.0008
$0.0009
$0.0011
$0.0012
$0.0013
$0.0013
$0.0013
$0.0014
$0.0014
$0.0014
$0.0014
$0.0015
$0.0015
$0.0015
$0.0015
$0.0015
$0.0015
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0000
$0.0001
$0.0001
$0.0002
$0.0002
$0.0003
$0.0003
$0.0004
$0.0004
$0.0004
$0.0004
$0.0005
$0.0005
$0.0005
$0.0005
$0.0005
$0.0005
$0.0005
$0.0005
$0.0005
$0.0005
$0.0005
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0008
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0029
$ 0.0034
$ 0.0041
$ 0.0047
$ 0.0058
$ 0.0059
$ 0.0059
$ 0.0060
$ 0.0061
$ 0.0061
$ 0.0062
$ 0.0066
$ 0.0066
$ 0.0067
$ 0.0067
$ 0.0068
$ 0.0068
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0002
$0.0009
$0.0014
$0.0019
$0.0025
$0.0031
$0.0037
$0.0043
$0.0049
$0.0053
$0.0054
$0.0054
$0.0055
$0.0056
$0.0057
$0.0057
$0.0059
$0.0060
$0.0061
$0.0061
$0.0062
$0.0062
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$0.0001
$0.0003
$0.0005
$0.0007
$0.0009
$0.0011
$0.0013
$0.0016
$0.0018
$0.0018
$0.0019
$0.0019
$0.0019
$0.0020
$0.0020
$0.0020
$0.0021
$0.0021
$0.0022
$0.0022
$0.0022
$0.0023
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0007
$ 0.0030
$ 0.0049
$ 0.0067
$ 0.0087
$ 0.0109
$ 0.0128
$ 0.0148
$ 0.0170
$ 0.0222
$ 0.0223
$ 0.0225
$ 0.0226
$ 0.0230
$ 0.0231
$ 0.0232
$ 0.0246
$ 0.0248
$ 0.0251
$ 0.0252
$ 0.0255
$ 0.0257
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0015
$ 0.0025
$ 0.0035
$ 0.0045
$ 0.0056
$ 0.0067
$ 0.0079
$ 0.0090
$ 0.0097
$ 0.0099
$ 0.0100
$ 0.0102
$ 0.0104
$ 0.0105
$ 0.0106
$ 0.0110
$ 0.0112
$ 0.0113
$ 0.0114
$ 0.0116
$ 0.0117
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0010
$ 0.0014
$ 0.0018
$ 0.0023
$ 0.0027
$ 0.0032
$ 0.0037
$ 0.0038
$ 0.0039
$ 0.0039
$ 0.0040
$ 0.0042
$ 0.0042
$ 0.0043
$ 0.0045
$ 0.0046
$ 0.0046
$ 0.0047
$ 0.0048
$ 0.0049
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0000
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0001
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0002
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0003
$ 0.0004
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0005
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
$ 0.0006
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0012
$ 0.0053
$ 0.0085
$ 0.0119
$ 0.0155
$ 0.0194
$ 0.0229
$ 0.0270
$ 0.0309
$ 0.0395
$ 0.0398
$ 0.0402
$ 0.0406
$ 0.0413
$ 0.0417
$ 0.0420
$ 0.0441
$ 0.0445
$ 0.0451
$ 0.0455
$ 0.0460
$ 0.0465
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source:  GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                     Exhibit C.Sq Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for TNCWSs Serving >1,000,000 (Rotavirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Median
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Median
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-15 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
> 15 yrs
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Median
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
 Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
 Source: GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                                October 2006

-------
                                        Exhibit C.Sr Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for TNCWSs Serving >1,000,000 (Echovirus)
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
Value of Illnesses Avoided
0-1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Median
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Median
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Value of Deaths Avoided
0-16 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
>1 6 years
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Median
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
 Note: Vali
 Source:
lues in millions of 2003 dollars.
 GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                   Exhibit C.6a Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for All TNCWSs
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 -Illness
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.5
$ 0.7
$ 1.1
$ 1.4
$ 1.8
$ 2.2
$ 2.7
$ 2.8
$ 3.0
$ 3.1
$ 3.3
$ 3.5
$ 3.6
$ 3.8
$ 3.9
$ 4.1
$ 4.2
$ 4.4
$ 4.5
$ 4.6
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.4
$ 0.6
$ 1.0
$ 1.2
$ 1.6
$ 2.0
$ 2.4
$ 2.6
$ 2.7
$ 2.8
$ 3.0
$ 3.2
$ 3.3
$ 3.4
$ 3.6
$ 3.8
$ 3.9
$ 4.1
$ 4.2
$ 4.3
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.8
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.2
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 1.7
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 1.0
$ 1.5
$ 2.1
$ 2.7
$ 3.5
$ 4.3
$ 5.3
$ 5.8
$ 6.0
$ 6.2
$ 6.5
$ 6.8
$ 6.9
$ 7.3
$ 7.5
$ 7.8
$ 8.0
$ 8.4
$ 8.6
$ 8.8
Total - Deaths
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.7
$ 0.9
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.4
$ 0.6
$ 1.0
$ 1.2
$ 1.6
$ 2.1
$ 2.8
$ 3.1
$ 3.2
$ 3.3
$ 3.5
$ 3.6
$ 3.7
$ 3.9
$ 4.0
$ 4.1
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.3
$ 4.4
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.6
$ 0.9
$ 1.4
$ 1.8
$ 2.3
$ 2.9
$ 3.5
$ 3.8
$ 4.0
$ 4.1
$ 4.4
$ 4.6
$ 4.7
$ 5.0
$ 5.1
$ 5.4
$ 5.5
$ 5.7
$ 5.9
$ 6.0
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.5
$ 0.7
$ 1.2
$ 1.5
$ 2.0
$ 2.4
$ 2.9
$ 3.1
$ 3.3
$ 3.4
$ 3.6
$ 3.8
$ 3.9
$ 4.1
$ 4.2
$ 4.5
$ 4.7
$ 4.8
$ 5.0
$ 5.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 1.0
$ 1.1
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.4
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.8
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.3
$ 1.5
$ 2.1
$ 3.0
$ 3.9
$ 5.1
$ 6.4
$ 8.1
$ 8.9
$ 9.2
$ 9.5
$ 10.0
$ 10.4
$ 10.7
$ 11.2
$ 11.5
$ 11.9
$ 12.2
$ 12.6
$ 12.9
$ 13.1
      Source:  GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
C-62
October 2006

-------
              Exhibit C.6b Present Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year at 3 Percent, for All TNCWSs
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
Total - Illness
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.4
$ 0.6
$ 0.9
$ 1.1
$ 1.4
$ 1.6
$ 1.9
$ 2.0
$ 2.0
$ 2.1
$ 2.1
$ 2.2
$ 2.2
$ 2.2
$ 2.2
$ 2.3
$ 2.3
$ 2.3
$ 2.3
$ 2.3
$ 36.4
$ 2.1
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.3
$ 0.5
$ 0.8
$ 1.0
$ 1.3
$ 1.5
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.9
$ 1.9
$ 1.9
$ 2.0
$ 2.0
$ 2.0
$ 2.0
$ 2.1
$ 2.1
$ 2.1
$ 2.1
$ 2.1
$ 33.3
$ 1.9
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 13.1
$ 0.8
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.9
$ 1.2
$ 1.7
$ 2.1
$ 2.7
$ 3.2
$ 3.8
$ 4.0
$ 4.1
$ 4.1
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.3
$ 4.3
$ 4.3
$ 4.3
$ 4.4
$ 4.4
$ 4.3
$ 71.0
$ 4.1
Total -Deaths
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 11.4
$ 0.7
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 6.3
$ 0.4
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
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.8
$ 0.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.8
$ 1.0
$ 1.3
$ 1.6
$ 2.0
$ 2.2
$ 2.2
$ 2.2
$ 2.3
$ 2.3
$ 2.2
$ 2.3
$ 2.3
$ 2.3
$ 2.2
$ 2.2
$ 2.2
$ 2.1
$ 36.6
$ 2.1
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.5
$ 0.8
$ 1.1
$ 1.4
$ 1.8
$ 2.1
$ 2.5
$ 2.7
$ 2.7
$ 2.7
$ 2.8
$ 2.9
$ 2.9
$ 2.9
$ 2.9
$ 3.0
$ 3.0
$ 3.0
$ 3.0
$ 3.0
$ 47.8
$ 2.7
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.4
$ 0.6
$ 0.9
$ 1.2
$ 1.5
$ 1.8
$ 2.1
$ 2.2
$ 2.2
$ 2.2
$ 2.3
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 2.5
$ 2.5
$ 2.5
$ 2.5
$ 2.5
$ 39.6
$ 2.3
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 13.9
$ 0.8
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.8
$ 2.5
$ 3.1
$ 3.9
$ 4.8
$ 5.8
$ 6.2
$ 6.3
$ 6.3
$ 6.4
$ 6.5
$ 6.4
$ 6.6
$ 6.6
$ 6.6
$ 6.6
$ 6.6
$ 6.5
$ 6.5
$ 107.6
$ 6.2
            Notes:
            Source:
Details may not sum due to rounding and individual statistical analyses.
GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                         C-63
October 2006

-------
               Exhibit C.6c  Present Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year at 7 Percent, for All TNCWSs
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
Total - Illness
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.3
$ 0.5
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 1.0
$ 1.1
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$1 O
I .z
$1 O
I .z
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 20.1
$ 1.7
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.6
$ 0.7
$ 0.9
$ 1.0
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 18.3
$ 1.6
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 7.2
$ 0.6
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.7
$ 1.0
$ 1.3
$ 1.6
$ 1.9
$ 2.2
$ 2.5
$ 2.6
$ 2.5
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 2.3
$ 2.2
$ 2.2
$ 2.1
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 1.9
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 39.3
$ 3.4
Total - Deaths
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 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
$ 6.3
$ 0.5
Median
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 3.5
$ 0.3
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
$ 0.0
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.6
$ 0.7
$ 0.9
$ 1.1
$ 1.3
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$1 O
I .z
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 20.2
$ 1.7
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.4
$ 0.6
$ 0.9
$ 1.0
$ 1.3
$ 1.5
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 26.4
$ 2.3
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.3
$ 0.5
$ 0.7
$ 0.9
$ 1.1
$ 1.2
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$1 O
I .z
$1 O
I .z
$1 O
I .z
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 21.8
$ 1.9
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 7.7
$ 0.7
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.3
$ 1.0
$ 1.4
$ 1.9
$ 2.3
$ 2.8
$ 3.3
$ 3.8
$ 3.9
$ 3.8
$ 3.7
$ 3.6
$ 3.5
$ 3.4
$ 3.3
$ 3.2
$ 3.1
$ 3.0
$ 2.9
$ 2.7
$ 2.6
$ 59.5
$ 5.1
            Notes:
            Source:
Details may not sum due to rounding and individual statistical analyses.
GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                          C-64
                                                                                                                               October 2006

-------
             Exhibit C.7a Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, All Systems
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 - Illness
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.6
$ 2.1
$ 4.7
$ 7.2
$ 10.0
$ 13.5
$ 14.6
$ 16.0
$ 17.1
$ 18.2
$ 19.2
$ 19.9
$ 20.8
$ 21.5
$ 22.6
$ 23.3
$ 24.2
$ 25.0
$ 25.9
$ 26.7
$ 27.4
$ 28.1
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.5
$ 1.9
$ 4.1
$ 6.3
$ 8.8
$ 11.9
$ 12.9
$ 14.1
$ 15.1
$ 16.1
$ 16.9
$ 17.6
$ 18.3
$ 19.0
$ 20.0
$ 20.6
$ 21.5
$ 22.2
$ 23.0
$ 23.8
$ 24.4
$ 25.1
90 Percent
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.2
$ 0.9
$ 1.9
$ 3.1
$ 4.2
$ 5.9
$ 6.3
$ 6.9
$ 7.3
$ 7.8
$ 8.2
$ 8.6
$ 8.9
$ 9.2
$ 9.9
$ 10.2
$ 10.6
$ 11.0
$ 11.4
$ 11.8
$ 12.1
$ 12.4
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 1.2
$ 4.3
$ 9.2
$ 14.1
$ 19.3
$ 25.7
$ 27.7
$ 30.5
$ 32.7
$ 35.5
$ 37.5
$ 38.6
$ 40.1
$ 41.6
$ 43.4
$ 45.1
$ 46.5
$ 47.8
$ 49.4
$ 50.8
$ 52.2
$ 53.8
Total - Death
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.3
$ 1.0
$ 2.1
$ 3.2
$ 4.3
$ 5.8
$ 6.2
$ 6.9
$ 7.3
$ 7.8
$ 8.1
$ 8.3
$ 8.6
$ 8.8
$ 9.2
$ 9.4
$ 9.7
$ 9.9
$ 10.1
$ 10.3
$ 10.5
$ 10.7
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.2
$ 0.5
$ 1.1
$ 1.7
$ 2.4
$ 3.3
$ 3.5
$ 3.8
$ 4.0
$ 4.2
$ 4.4
$ 4.5
$ 4.6
$ 4.8
$ 5.0
$ 5.1
$ 5.3
$ 5.4
$ 5.6
$ 5.7
$ 5.8
$ 6.0
90 Percent
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 1.0
$ 3.2
$ 6.8
$ 10.1
$ 13.8
$ 18.5
$ 19.7
$ 21.9
$ 23.3
$ 24.9
$ 26.0
$ 26.8
$ 27.7
$ 28.9
$ 29.9
$ 31.0
$ 31.7
$ 32.3
$ 33.1
$ 33.6
$ 34.3
$ 34.8
Total Benefits
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.9
$ 3.2
$ 6.8
$ 10.4
$ 14.3
$ 19.4
$ 20.8
$ 22.9
$ 24.4
$ 26.0
$ 27.3
$ 28.2
$ 29.3
$ 30.3
$ 31.7
$ 32.7
$ 33.9
$ 34.9
$ 36.0
$ 37.0
$ 37.9
$ 38.8
Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.7
$ 2.4
$ 5.2
$ 8.0
$ 11.2
$ 15.2
$ 16.4
$ 17.9
$ 19.1
$ 20.2
$ 21.3
$ 22.1
$ 23.0
$ 23.8
$ 25.0
$ 25.7
$ 26.7
$ 27.7
$ 28.6
$ 29.5
$ 30.2
$ 31.0
90 Percent
Lower
(5th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.3
$ 1.0
$ 2.1
$ 3.3
$ 4.6
$ 6.3
$ 6.8
$ 7.4
$ 7.9
$ 8.3
$ 8.8
$ 9.2
$ 9.6
$ 9.9
$ 10.5
$ 10.9
$ 11.3
$ 11.7
$ 12.2
$ 12.6
$ 12.8
$ 13.2
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 2.2
$ 7.5
$ 16.0
$ 24.3
$ 33.1
$ 44.3
$ 47.4
$ 52.5
$ 55.9
$ 60.4
$ 63.5
$ 65.3
$ 67.8
$ 70.5
$ 73.3
$ 76.0
$ 78.1
$ 80.1
$ 82.4
$ 84.5
$ 86.5
$ 88.6
   Source:
GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                   October 2006

-------
            Exhibit C.7b  Present Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year at 3 Percent,
                                                             All Systems




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
Total - Illness


Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.6
$ 1.9
$ 4.0
$ 6.1
$ 8.1
$ 10.7
$ 11.2
$ 11.9
$ 12.4
$ 12.8
$ 13.1
$ 13.2
$ 13.3
$ 13.4
$ 13.7
$ 13.7
$ 13.8
$ 13.8
$ 13.9
$ 13.9
$ 13.9
$ 13.8
$ 243.2
$ 14.0


Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.5
$ 1.7
$ 3.5
$ 5.3
$ 7.1
$ 9.4
$ 9.9
$ 10.5
$ 10.9
$ 11.3
$ 11.5
$ 11.6
$ 11.8
$ 11.8
$ 12.1
$ 12.1
$ 12.2
$ 12.3
$ 12.4
$ 12.4
$ 12.4
$ 12.3
$ 215.0
$ 12.3
90 Percent

Lower
(5th %tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.2
$ 0.8
$ 1.7
$ 2.6
$ 3.4
$ 4.6
$ 4.8
$ 5.1
$ 5.3
$ 5.5
$ 5.6
$ 5.7
$ 5.7
$ 5.8
$ 6.0
$ 6.0
$ 6.0
$ 6.1
$ 6.1
$ 6.1
$ 6.1
$ 6.1
$ 105.4
$ 6.1
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 1.1
$ 3.8
$ 8.0
$ 11.8
$ 15.7
$ 20.3
$ 21.3
$ 22.7
$ 23.6
$ 24.9
$ 25.5
$ 25.5
$ 25.7
$ 25.9
$ 26.3
$ 26.5
$ 26.5
$ 26.5
$ 26.6
$ 26.5
$ 26.5
$ 26.4
$ 467.5
$ 26.8
Total - Deaths


Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.3
$ 0.9
$ 1.8
$ 2.7
$ 3.5
$ 4.6
$ 4.7
$ 5.1
$ 5.3
$ 5.4
$ 5.5
$ 5.5
$ 5.5
$ 5.5
$ 5.5
$ 5.5
$ 5.5
$ 5.5
$ 5.4
$ 5.4
$ 5.3
$ 5.2
$ 99.7
$ 5.7


Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.1
$ 0.5
$ 1.0
$ 1.5
$ 1.9
$ 2.6
$ 2.7
$ 2.8
$ 2.9
$ 2.9
$ 3.0
$ 3.0
$ 3.0
$ 3.0
$ 3.0
$ 3.0
$ 3.0
$ 3.0
$ 3.0
$ 3.0
$ 3.0
$ 2.9
$ 54.6
$ 3.1
90 Percent

Lower
(5th %tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 7.4
$ 0.4
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.9
$ 2.9
$ 5.8
$ 8.5
$ 11.2
$ 14.6
$ 15.1
$ 16.3
$ 16.8
$ 17.5
$ 17.7
$ 17.7
$ 17.8
$ 18.0
$ 18.1
$ 18.2
$ 18.1
$ 17.9
$ 17.8
$ 17.6
$ 17.4
$ 17.1
$ 322.9
$ 18.5
Total Benefits


Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.8
$ 2.8
$ 5.9
$ 8.7
$ 11.6
$ 15.3
$ 16.0
$ 17.0
$ 17.6
$ 18.2
$ 18.6
$ 18.7
$ 18.8
$ 18.9
$ 19.2
$ 19.2
$ 19.3
$ 19.3
$ 19.3
$ 19.3
$ 19.2
$ 19.1
$ 343.0
$ 19.7


Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.6
$ 2.1
$ 4.5
$ 6.7
$ 9.1
$ 12.0
$ 12.5
$ 13.3
$ 13.8
$ 14.2
$ 14.5
$ 14.6
$ 14.7
$ 14.8
$ 15.1
$ 15.1
$ 15.2
$ 15.3
$ 15.4
$ 15.4
$ 15.3
$ 15.3
$ 269.6
$ 15.5
90 Percent

Lower
(5th %tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.2
$ 0.9
$ 1.8
$ 2.8
$ 3.7
$ 5.0
$ 5.2
$ 5.5
$ 5.7
$ 5.9
$ 6.0
$ 6.1
$ 6.1
$ 6.2
$ 6.4
$ 6.4
$ 6.5
$ 6.5
$ 6.5
$ 6.6
$ 6.5
$ 6.5
$ 112.8
$ 6.5

Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 2.0
$ 6.6
$ 13.8
$ 20.3
$ 26.9
$ 34.9
$ 36.3
$ 39.0
$ 40.4
$ 42.4
$ 43.2
$ 43.2
$ 43.5
$ 44.0
$ 44.4
$ 44.7
$ 44.6
$ 44.3
$ 44.3
$ 44.1
$ 43.8
$ 43.6
$ 790.4
$ 45.4
     Notes:     Details may not sum due to rounding and individual statistical analyses.
     Source:    GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
C-66
October 2006

-------
            Exhibit C.7c  Present Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year at 7 Percent,
                                                             All Systems




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.
Total - Illness


Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.5
$ 1.6
$ 3.3
$ 4.8
$ 6.2
$ 7.9
$ 8.0
$ 8.1
$ 8.1
$ 8.1
$ 8.0
$ 7.7
$ 7.5
$ 7.3
$ 7.1
$ 6.9
$ 6.7
$ 6.5
$ 6.2
$ 6.0
$ 5.8
$ 5.5
$ 138.0
$ 11.8


Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.4
$ 1.4
$ 2.9
$ 4.2
$ 5.5
$ 6.9
$ 7.0
$ 7.2
$ 7.2
$ 7.1
$ 7.0
$ 6.8
$ 6.6
$ 6.4
$ 6.3
$ 6.1
$ 5.9
$ 5.7
$ 5.6
$ 5.4
$ 5.1
$ 4.9
$ 121.9
$ 10.5
90 Percent

Lower
(5th %tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.2
$ 0.7
$ 1.4
$ 2.0
$ 2.6
$ 3.4
$ 3.4
$ 3.5
$ 3.5
$ 3.5
$ 3.4
$ 3.3
$ 3.2
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.0
$ 2.9
$ 2.8
$ 2.8
$ 2.7
$ 2.5
$ 2.4
$ 59.6
$ 5.1
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 1.0
$ 3.2
$ 6.6
$ 9.4
$ 12.0
$ 15.0
$ 15.1
$ 15.5
$ 15.5
$ 15.8
$ 15.5
$ 15.0
$ 14.5
$ 14.1
$ 13.7
$ 13.3
$ 12.9
$ 12.3
$ 11.9
$ 11.5
$ 11.0
$ 10.6
$ 265.5
$ 22.8
Total - Deaths


Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.2
$ 0.8
$ 1.5
$ 2.1
$ 2.7
$ 3.4
$ 3.4
$ 3.5
$ 3.5
$ 3.4
$ 3.4
$ 3.2
$ 3.1
$ 3.0
$ 2.9
$ 2.8
$ 2.7
$ 2.6
$ 2.4
$ 2.3
$ 2.2
$ 2.1
$ 57.1
$ 4.9


Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.1
$ 0.4
$ 0.8
$ 1.2
$ 1.5
$ 1.9
$ 1.9
$ 1.9
$ 1.9
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 31.3
$ 2.7
90 Percent

Lower
(5th %tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 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
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 4.2
$ 0.4
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.8
$ 2.5
$ 4.8
$ 6.7
$ 8.6
$ 10.8
$ 10.7
$ 11.1
$ 11.1
$ 11.1
$ 10.8
$ 10.4
$ 10.0
$ 9.8
$ 9.5
$ 9.2
$ 8.8
$ 8.3
$ 8.0
$ 7.6
$ 7.2
$ 6.9
$ 184.6
$ 15.8
Total Benefits


Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.7
$ 2.4
$ 4.8
$ 7.0
$ 8.9
$ 11.3
$ 11.3
$ 11.6
$ 11.6
$ 11.5
$ 11.3
$ 11.0
$ 10.6
$ 10.3
$ 10.0
$ 9.7
$ 9.4
$ 9.0
$ 8.7
$ 8.4
$ 8.0
$ 7.6
$ 195.2
$ 16.7


Median
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.5
$ 1.8
$ 3.7
$ 5.3
$ 6.9
$ 8.9
$ 8.9
$ 9.1
$ 9.1
$ 9.0
$ 8.8
$ 8.6
$ 8.3
$ 8.1
$ 7.9
$ 7.6
$ 7.4
$ 7.1
$ 6.9
$ 6.7
$ 6.4
$ 6.1
$ 153.1
$ 13.1
90 Percent

Lower
(5th %tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.2
$ 0.7
$ 1.5
$ 2.2
$ 2.8
$ 3.7
$ 3.7
$ 3.8
$ 3.7
$ 3.7
$ 3.6
$ 3.6
$ 3.5
$ 3.4
$ 3.3
$ 3.2
$ 3.1
$ 3.0
$ 2.9
$ 2.8
$ 2.7
$ 2.6
$ 63.9
$ 5.5
Upper
(95th
%tile)
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 1.8
$ 5.7
$ 11.4
$ 16.2
$ 20.6
$ 25.8
$ 25.8
$ 26.7
$ 26.6
$ 26.8
$ 26.4
$ 25.3
$ 24.6
$ 23.9
$ 23.2
$ 22.5
$ 21.6
$ 20.7
$ 19.9
$ 19.1
$ 18.2
$ 17.5
$ 450.1
$ 38.6
      Notes:     Details may not sum due to rounding and individual statistical analyses.
      Source:    GWR Benefits Model.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
C-67
October 2006

-------
Appendix D




Cost Details

-------
                                                             Matrix of Appendix D Contents
Applicable
Rule
Option(s)
Final Rule
Alternative 1
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Exhibit Description
Rule Activity Costs
Present Value of Costs at 3 Percent
Present Value of Costs at 7 Percent
Total State Costs
Present Value of State Costs at 3 Percent
Present Value of State Costs at 7 Percent
Rule Activity Costs
Present Value of Costs at 3 Percent
Present Value of Costs at 7 Percent
Total State Costs
Present Value of State Costs at 3 Percent
Present Value of State Costs at 7 Percent
Rule Activity Costs
Present Value of Costs at 3 Percent
Present Value of Costs at 7 Percent
Total State Costs
Present Value of State Costs at 3 Percent
Present Value of State Costs at 7 Percent
Rule Activity Costs
Present Value of Costs at 3 Percent
Present Value of Costs at 7 Percent
Total State Costs
Present Value of State Costs at 3 Percent
Present Value of State Costs at 7 Percent
Applicable
System
Type(s)
CWSs
NTNCWSs
TNCWSs
All
All (By Component)
CWSs
NTNCWSs
TNCWSs
All
All (By Component)
CWSs
NTNCWSs
TNCWSs
All
All (By Component)
N/A
N/A
N/A
All
All
All
N/A
N/A
N/A
All
All
All
N/A
N/A
N/A
All
All
All
N/A
N/A
N/A
Applicable
System
Size
<100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3,301-1 OK
1 0,001 -50K
50.001-100K
>100,001
All
<100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3,301-1 OK
1 0,001 -50K
50.001-100K
>100,001
All
<100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3,301-1 OK
1 0,001 -50K
50.001-100K
>100,001
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
N/A
N/A
N/A
All
All
All
N/A
N/A
N/A
All
All
All
N/A
N/A
N/A
All
All
All
N/A
N/A
N/A
Exhibit
Number
D.1a
D.1b
D.1c
D.1d
D.1e
D.1f
D.1g
D.1h
D.1i
D.2a
D.2b
D.2c
D.2d
D.2e
D.2f
D.2g
D.2h
D.2i
D.3a
D.3b
D.3c
D.3d
D.3e
D.3f
D.3g
D.3h
D.3i
D.4a
D.4b
D.4c
D.4d
D.4e
D.4f
D.4g
D.4h
D.4i
D.4J
D.4k
D.4I
D.5a
D.5b
D.5c
D.6a
D.6b
D.6c
D.6d
D.6e
D.6f
D.7a
D.7b
D.7c
D.7d
D.7e
D.7f
D.8a
D.8b
D.8c
D.8d
D.8e
D.8f
                          Note:
                          Appendix D presents step by step results for the projection and discounting of costs to show how yearly costs for each rule
                          component are accounted for by the cost model for CWSs, NTNCWSs, TNCWSs, and Primacy Agencies. Exhibits D.1
                          through D.5 show the nominal costs projected over the rule schedule and the present value of each cost calculated to the
                          expected year of rule implementation for the preferred regulatory alternative. Exhibits D.6 through D.8 show the results for
                          Alternatives 1, 3, and 4.  The detailed cost breakouts presented in this appendix are based on an independent analysis of the
                          cost model outputs, and as a result the ninety percent confidence bounds presented in this appendix may not exactly match
                          those presented in Chapter 6 and elsewhere in the GWR EA.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                              D-1
                                                                                                                                                  October 2006

-------
                                                                                                       Exhibit D.1a  Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for CWSs Serving <100
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
Mean
Value
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th %tile)
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Sanitary Surveys
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
HSAs
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Triggered Monitoring
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 1.1
$ -
$ -
$ 1.0
$ -
$ -
$ 1.0
$ -
$ -
$ 0.9
$ -
$ -
$ 0.9
$ -
$ -
$ 0.9
$ -
$ -
$ 0.9
$ -
$ -
$ 0.9
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.0
$
$
$ 1.0
$
$
$ 0.9
$
$
$ 0.9
$
$
$ 0.9
$
$
$ 0.9
$
$
$ 0.9
$
$
$ 0.9
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.1
$
$
$ 1.0
$
$
$ 1.0
$
$
$ 1.0
$
$
$ 1.0
$
$
$ 0.9
$
$
$ 0.9
$
$
$ 0.9
Assessment Monitoring
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Corrective Action - Plans
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$
$
$ 0.1
$
$
$ 0.0
$
$
$ 0.0
$
$
$ 0.0
$
$
$ 0.0
$
$
$ 0.0
$
$
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$
$
$ 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
$
$
$ 0.0
$
$
$ 0.0
$
$
$ 0.0
$
$
$ 0.0
Corrective Action - Capital
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 5.6
$
$
$ 3.5
$
$
$ 2.6
$
$
$ 2.0
$
$
$ 1.7
$
$
$ 1.3
$
$
$ 1.1
$
$
$ 1.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 2.6
$
$
$ 1.6
$
$
$ 1.1
$
$
$ 0.7
$
$
$ 0.5
$
$
$ 0.4
$
$
$ 0.3
$
$
$ 0.2
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 9.8
$
$
$ 6.2
$
$
$ 4.9
$
$
$ 4.1
$
$
$ 3.5
$
$
$ 2.8
$
$
$ 2.7
$
$
$ 2.4
Corrective Action - OSM
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.6
$ 0.3
$ 0.1
$ 0.5
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.4
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.3
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.3
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.9
$ 0.5
$ 0.3
$ 0.8
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.8
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 1.0
Compliance Monitoring
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 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
$ 0.4
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.8
Notes:  Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
       Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Source: Ground Water Rule model output.
       Economic Analysis lor the
       Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                                                                              Exhibit D.1b Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for CWSs Serving 101-50C

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
Implementation

Value

$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)

$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Sanitary Surveys

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
HSAs

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Triggered Monitoring

Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 1.3
$ -
$ 1.2
$ -
$ 1.1
$ -
$ 1.1
$ -
$ 1.1
$ -
$ 1.1
$ -
$ 1.0
$ -
$ 1.0
$ -
$ 1.0
$ -
$ 1.0
$ -
$ 1.0
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.2
$
$ 1.1
$
$ 1.1
$
$ 1.1
$
$ 1.0
$
$ 1.0
$
$ 1.0
$
$ 1.0
$
$ 1.0
$
$ 1.0
$
$ 1.0
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.3
$
$ 1.2
$
$ 1.2
$
$ 1.1
$
$ 1.1
$
$ 1.1
$
$ 1.1
$
$ 1.1
$
$ 1.1
$
$ 1.1
$
$ 1.1
$
Assessment Monitoring

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Corrective Action - Plans

Value
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.0
$
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
Corrective Action - Capital

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 4.9
$
$ 3.2
$
$ 2.3
$
$ 1.8
$
$
$ 1.2
$
$ 1.0
$
$ 0.8
$
$
$ 0.7
$
$ 0.6
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 2.0
$
$ 1.2
$
$ 0.7
$
$ 0.4
$
$
$ 0.2
$
$ 0.2
$
$ 0.1
$
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 9.7
$
$ 6.7
$
$ 5.0
$
$ 4.1
$
$
$ 2.9
$
$ 2.5
$
$ 2.2
$
$
$ 2.1
$
$ 1.9
$
Corrective Action - OSM

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.5
$ 0.3
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.3
$ 0.1
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.8
$ 0.6
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.2
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.5
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
Compliance Monitoring

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.9
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 1.8
$ 2.0
$ 2.0
$ 2.1
$ 2.1
$ 2.3
$ 2.3
$ 2.3
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 2.5
$ 2.5
Notes:   Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
       Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Source:  Ground Water Rule model output.
    Economic Analysis lor the
    Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                                                                             Exhibit D.1c  Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for CWSs Serving 501-1,000

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

Value
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Sanitary Surveys

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
HSAs

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Triggered Monitoring

Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.5
$ -
$ 0.4
$ -
$ -
$ 0.4
$ -
$ 0.4
$ -
$ 0.4
$ -
$ 0.4
$ -
$ 0.4
$ -
$ 0.4
$ -
$ 0.4
$ -
$ 0.4
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.5
$
$ 0.4
$
$
$ 0.4
$
$ 0.4
$
$ 0.4
$
$ 0.4
$
$ 0.4
$
$ 0.4
$
$ 0.4
$
$ 0.4
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.5
$
$ 0.5
$
$
$ 0.4
$
$ 0.4
$
$ 0.4
$
$ 0.4
$
$ 0.4
$
$ 0.4
$
$ 0.4
$
$ 0.4
$
Assessment Monitoring

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Corrective Action - Plans

Value
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 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)
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.0
$
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
Corrective Action - Capital

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 2.1
$
$ 1.4
$
$
$ 0.8
$
$ 0.6
$
$ 0.5
$
$ 0.4
$
$ 0.4
$
$ 0.3
$
$ 0.3
$
$ 0.3
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.9
$
$ 0.6
$
$
$ 0.2
$
$ 0.2
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 3.8
$
$ 2.7
$
$
$ 1.7
$
$ 1.3
$
$ 1.2
$
$ 1.1
$
$ 0.9
$
$ 0.9
$
$ 0.8
$
$ 0.7
$
Corrective Action - OSM

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
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
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
Compliance Monitoring

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
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
$ 0.1
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
Notes:   Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
       Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Source:  Ground Water Rule model output.
    Economic Analysis lor the
    Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                                                                            Exhibit D.1d Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for CWSs Serving 1,001-3,30C

Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Implementation

Value
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Sanitary Surveys

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
HSAs

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Triggered Monitoring

Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.8
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.7
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.7
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.7
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.7
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.7
$
$
$
$
$ 0.6
$
$
$
$
$ 0.6
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.8
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.7
$
$
$
$
$ 0.7
$
$
$
$
$ 0.7
$
Assessment Monitoring

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Corrective Action - Plans

Value
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.3
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$
Corrective Action - Capital

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 4.8
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 2.3
$
$
$
$
$ 1.8
$
$
$
$
$ 1.4
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 2.3
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.9
$
$
$
$
$ 0.7
$
$
$
$
$ 0.5
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 7.9
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 4.4
$
$
$
$
$ 3.5
$
$
$
$
$ 3.1
$
Corrective Action - OSM

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 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
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
Compliance Monitoring

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
Notes:   Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
       Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Source:  Ground Water Rule model output.
    Economic Analysis lor the
    Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                                                                           Exhibit D.1e Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for CWSs Serving 3,301-10,000

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

Value
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Sanitary Surveys

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
HSAs

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Triggered Monitoring

Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.5
$ -
$ 0.5
$ -
$ 0.4
$ -
$ -
$ 0.4
$ -
$ -
$ 0.4
$ -
$ 0.4
$ -
$ 0.4
$ -
$ 0.4
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.5
$
$ 0.4
$
$ 0.4
$
$
$ 0.4
$
$
$ 0.4
$
$ 0.4
$
$ 0.4
$
$ 0.4
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.5
$
$ 0.5
$
$ 0.5
$
$
$ 0.4
$
$
$ 0.4
$
$ 0.4
$
$ 0.4
$
$ 0.4
$
Assessment Monitoring

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Corrective Action - Plans

Value
$
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
$
$ 0.1
$
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
$
$ 0.0
$
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 0.3
$
$ 0.2
$
$ 0.2
$
$
$ 0.1
$
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
Corrective Action - Capital

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 3.4
$
$ 2.5
$
$ 1.9
$
$
$ 1.3
$
$
$ 0.9
$
$ 0.8
$
$ 0.7
$
$ 0.6
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 1.6
$
$ 1.1
$
$ 0.8
$
$
$ 0.4
$
$
$ 0.2
$
$ 0.2
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 5.8
$
$ 4.2
$
$ 3.5
$
$
$ 2.6
$
$
$ 1.9
$
$ 1.8
$
$ 1.7
$
$ 1.6
$
Corrective Action - OSM

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.3
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.6
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.5
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 1.7
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.9
$ 1.9
$ 2.0
$ 2.0
$ 2.0
$ 2.0
Compliance Monitoring

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
Notes:   Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
       Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Source:  Ground Water Rule model output.
    Economic Analysis lor the
    Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                                                                            Exhibit D.1f  Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for CWSs Serving 10,001-50,000

Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027

Implementation

Value
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -

90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Sanitary Surveys

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.1

90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.1

Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.2
$ 0.2

HSAs

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Triggered Monitoring

Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4

90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4

Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4

Assessment Monitoring

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Corrective Action - Plans

Value
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 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
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0

90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$

Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 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
$ 0.0
$ 0.0

Corrective Action - Capital

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 4.8
$ 3.0
$ 2.1
$ 1.6
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 0.9
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.2

90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 2.3
$ 1.3
$ 0.8
$ 0.5
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 7.7
$ 5.3
$ 3.8
$ 3.0
$ 2.6
$ 2.3
$ 1.9
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.8

Corrective Action - OSM

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.5
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1

90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5

Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.9
$ 1.1
$ 1.2
$ 1.3
$ 1.4
$ 1.5
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.9
$ 1.9
$ 1.9
$ 2.0
Compliance Monitoring

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 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

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

Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3

Notes:   Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
       Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Source:  Ground Water Rule model output.
    Economic Analysis lor the
    Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                                                                          Exhibit D.1g  Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for CWSs Serving 50,001-100,000

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

Value
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Sanitary Surveys

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 %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
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
HSAs

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Triggered Monitoring

Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
Assessment Monitoring

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Corrective Action - Plans

Value
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.0
$ 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
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
Corrective Action - Capital

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 1.8
$ 0.9
$ 0.6
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.7
$ 0.3
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 3.1
$ 1.8
$ 1.2
$ 0.9
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 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
Corrective Action - OSM

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.6
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.1
$ 1.2
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
Compliance Monitoring

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
Notes:   Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
       Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Source:  Ground Water Rule model output.
    Economic Analysis lor the
    Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                                                                             Exhibit D.1h Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for CWSs Serving >100,001

Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
Implementation

Value
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Sanitary Surveys

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
HSAs

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Triggered Monitoring

Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.6
$ 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
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.5
$ 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
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.6
$ 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
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
Assessment Monitoring

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Corrective Action - Plans

Value
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 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)
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.3
$ 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
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
Corrective Action - Capital

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 11.9
$ 2.5
$ 1.2
$ 0.8
$ 0.6
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 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)
$
$
$
$ 6.9
$ 0.6
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 17.9
$ 4.5
$ 2.5
$ 1.8
$ 1.4
$ 1.1
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
Corrective Action - OSM

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 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
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 0.9
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
Compliance Monitoring

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.1
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
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.1
Notes:   Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
       Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Source:  Ground Water Rule model output.
    Economic Analysis lor the
    Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                                                                                     Exhibit D.1 i Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for All CWSs

Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011

2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Implementation

Value
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Sanitary Surveys

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.1

$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 2.0
$ 2.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2

$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
HSAs

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Triggered Monitoring

Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 5.8
$ 1.3
$ 3.3
$ 2.2

$ 4.0
$ 1.1
$ 3.0
$ 2.0
$ 3.7
$ 1.1
$ 3.9
$ 1.1
$ 2.9
$ 2.7
$ 1.1
$ 3.8
$ 1.1
$ 2.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 5.5
$ 1.2
$ 3.2
$ 2.1

$ 3.9
$ 1.1
$ 2.9
$ 2.0
$ 3.5
$ 1.0
$ 3.7
$ 1.0
$ 2.8
$ 2.5
$ 1.0
$ 3.6
$ 1.0
$ 1.9
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 6.2
$ 1.4
$ 3.5
$ 2.3

$ 4.2
$ 1.2
$ 3.1
$ 2.1
$ 3.8
$ 1.1
$ 4.0
$ 1.1
$ 3.0
$ 2.8
$ 1.1
$ 4.0
$ 1.1
$ 2.1
Assessment Monitoring

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Corrective Action -Plans

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 1.6
$ 0.3
$ 0.5
$ 0.2

$ 0.3
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1

$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.1

$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0

$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 2.2
$ 0.5
$ 0.7
$ 0.3

$ 0.5
$ 0.1
$ 0.3
$ 0.1
$ 0.4
$ 0.1
$ 0.3
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2

$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
Corrective Action -Capital

Value
$
$
$
$ 50.7
$ 9.0
$ 13.2
$ 7.0

$ 8.8
$ 1.4
$ 4.8
$ 3.1
$ 6.2
$ 0.8
$ 4.8
$ 0.6
$ 2.7
$ 3.7

$ 3.2
$ 0.4
$ 1.3
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 26.7
$ 3.7
$ 5.0
$ 2.5

$ 2.8
$ 0.1
$ 1.1
$ 0.8
$ 1.6
$ 0.0
$ 1.0
$
$ 0.4
$ 1.1

$ 0.5
$
$ 0.2
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 82.2
$ 15.3
$ 24.8
$ 12.9

$ 18.0
$ 3.2
$ 10.6
$ 6.9
$ 13.4
$ 2.2
$ 11.4
$ 1.9
$ 6.8
$ 8.0

$ 8.7
$ 1.3
$ 3.6
Corrective Action -OSM

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 3.0
$ 2.9
$ 3.5
$ 3.9

$ 4.9
$ 4.8
$ 5.0
$ 5.2
$ 5.5
$ 5.4
$ 5.8
$ 5.7
$ 5.8
$ 6.0

$ 6.3
$ 6.2
$ 6.5
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.4
$ 1.2
$ 1.4
$ 1.6

$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 1.9
$ 2.0
$ 2.1
$ 2.1
$ 2.3
$ 2.2
$ 2.2
$ 2.3

$ 2.4
$ 2.3
$ 2.4
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 5.1
$ 5.2
$ 6.2
$ 6.9

$ 8.7
$ 8.6
$ 9.0
$ 9.3
$ 9.7
$ 9.7
$ 10.2
$ 10.1
$ 10.4
$ 10.8

$ 11.3
$ 11.2
$ 11.7
Compliance Monitoring

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.7
$ 1.8

$ 2.6
$ 2.6
$ 2.8
$ 2.9
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
$ 3.4
$ 3.6

$ 3.8
$ 3.8
$ 4.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.5
$ 0.5

$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.2
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 2.9
$ 2.6
$ 3.3
$ 3.5

$ 5.0
$ 4.9
$ 5.3
$ 5.4
$ 5.9
$ 5.8
$ 6.2
$ 6.2
$ 6.5
$ 6.7
$ 6.9
$ 6.9
$ 7.2
$ 7.2
$ 7.5
Notes:  Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
Source: Ground Water Rule model output.
     Economic Analysis lor the
     Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                                                                             Exhibit D.2a  Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving <10C

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

Value
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Sanitary Surveys

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
HSAs

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Triggered Monitoring

Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.7
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.6
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.6
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.6
$
$
$
$
$ 0.6
$
$
$
$
$ 0.6
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.7
$
$
$
$
$ 0.7
$
$
$
$
$ 0.6
$
Assessment Monitoring

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Corrective Action -Plans

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$
Corrective Action -Capital

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.9
$
$
$
$
$ 1.5
$
$
$
$
$ 1.2
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.8
$
$
$
$
$ 0.5
$
$
$
$
$ 0.4
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 3.5
$
$
$
$
$ 3.1
$
$
$
$
$ 2.5
$
Corrective Action -OSM

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.6
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
Compliance Monitoring

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 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
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
Notes:   Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
       Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Source:  Ground Water Rule model output.
    Economic Analysis lor the
    Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                                                                          Exhibit D.2b  Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving 101-500

Year
2005
2006
2007
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Implementation

Value
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Sanitary Surveys

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
HSAs

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Triggered Monitoring

Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.5
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.5
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.5
$
$
$
$ 0.5
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.5
$
$
$
$ 0.5
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Assessment Monitoring

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Corrective Action - Plans

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Corrective Action - Capital

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 2.4
$
$
$
$ 1.8
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.0
$
$
$
$ 0.6
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 4.5
$
$
$
$ 3.5
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Corrective Action - OSM

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.2
Compliance Monitoring

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.4
Notes:  Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
      Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Source: Ground Water Rule model output.
    Economic Analysis lor the
    Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                                                                         Exhibit D.2c  Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving 501-1 ,OOC

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

Value
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Sanitary Surveys

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 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)
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 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
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
HSAs

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Triggered Monitoring

Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.1
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.1
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 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
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$
Assessment Monitoring

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Corrective Action - Plans

Value
$
$
$
$ 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
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$
Corrective Action - Capital

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 1.4
$
$
$
$ 0.9
$
$
$
$ 0.7
$
$
$
$ 0.5
$
$
$
$ 0.4
$
$
$
$ 0.3
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.6
$
$
$
$ 0.4
$
$
$
$ 0.3
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 2.3
$
$
$
$ 1.6
$
$
$
$ 1.3
$
$
$
$ 1.0
$
$
$
$ 0.9
$
$
$
$ 0.7
$
Corrective Action - OSM

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 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)
$
$
$
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
Compliance Monitoring

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 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
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
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
$ 0.1
$ 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
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
Notes:  Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
      Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Source: Ground Water Rule model output.
    Economic Analysis lor the
    Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                                                                        Exhibit D.2d Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving 1,001-3,300

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

Value
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Sanitary Surveys

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
$ 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
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
HSAs

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Triggered Monitoring

Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 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
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.0
$ 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
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
Assessment Monitoring

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Corrective Action - Plans

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
$ 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
$
$
$
$
$
$
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
$ 0.0
Corrective Action - Capital

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.7
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.2
$ 0.8
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 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
Corrective Action - OSM

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 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
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
Compliance Monitoring

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
$ 0.1
$ 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
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 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)
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 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
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
Notes:   Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
       Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Source:  Ground Water Rule model output.
    Economic Analysis lor the
    Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                                                                        Exhibit D.2e Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving 3,301-10,000

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

Mean
Value
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Sanitary Surveys

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
$ 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
$ 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
$ 0.0
HSAs

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Triggered Monitoring

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
$ 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
$ 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
$ 0.0
Assessment Monitoring

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Corrective Action -Plans

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
$ 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)
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
Corrective Action -Capital

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.3
$ 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
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.5
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 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
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
Corrective Action -OSM

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
$ 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
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
Compliance Monitoring

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
$ 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
$ 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
$ 0.0
Notes:  Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
      Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Source: Ground Water Rule model output.
    Economic Analysis lor the
    Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                                                                       Exhibit D.2f Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving 10,001-50,000

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

Value
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Sanitary Surveys

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
$ 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
$ 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
$ 0.0
HSAs

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Triggered Monitoring

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
$ 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
$ 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
$ 0.0
Assessment Monitoring

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Corrective Action - Plans

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
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.0
Corrective Action - Capital

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 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)
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.3
$ 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
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
Corrective Action - OSM

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
$ 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
$ 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
$ 0.0
Compliance Monitoring

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
$ 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
$ 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
$ 0.0
Notes:  Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
      Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Source: Ground Water Rule model output.
    Economic Analysis lor the
    Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                                                                      Exhibit D.2g Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving 50,001-100,000

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

Value
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Sanitary Surveys

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
$ 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
$ 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
$ 0.0
HSAs

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Triggered Monitoring

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
$ 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
$ 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
$ 0.0
Assessment Monitoring

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Corrective Action - Plans

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
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.0
Corrective Action - Capital

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
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
Corrective Action - OSM

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
$ 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
$ 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
$ 0.0
Compliance Monitoring

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
$ 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
$ 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
$ 0.0
Notes:  Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
      Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Source: Ground Water Rule model output.
    Economic Analysis lor the
    Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                                                                          Exhibit D.2h Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving >100,001

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

Value
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Sanitary Surveys

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
$ 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
$ 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
$ 0.0
HSAs

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Triggered Monitoring

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
$ 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
$ 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
$ 0.0
Assessment Monitoring

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Corrective Action - Plans

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
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.0
Corrective Action - Capital

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.0
$ 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
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
Corrective Action - OSM

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
$ 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
$ 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
$ 0.0
Compliance Monitoring

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
$ 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
$ 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
$ 0.0
Notes:  Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
      Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Source: Ground Water Rule model output.
    Economic Analysis lor the
    Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                                                                                    Exhibit D.2i  Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for All 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
Implementation

Value
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Sanitary Surveys

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9

$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7

$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
HSAs

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Triggered Monitoring

Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1

$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.7
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.7
$ 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
$ 0.7
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.7
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1

$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.7
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.7
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
Assessment Monitoring

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Corrective Action - Plans

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
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
$
$
$
$
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
Corrective Action - Capital

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.7
$ 0.4
$ 0.3

$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 2.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 1.6
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1

$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.8
$ 0.0
$
$
$ 0.5
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.2
$ 0.9
$ 0.7

$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 3.8
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 3.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
Corrective Action - OSM

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.8
$ 0.6
$ 0.6

$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 1.1
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.6
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.4
$ 0.2
$ 0.2

$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.3
$ 1.1
$ 1.2

$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 2.1
$ 2.3
$ 2.2
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 2.6
$ 2.6
$ 2.7
$ 2.7
$ 2.9
Compliance Monitoring

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6

$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.1
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.5
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 1.7
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2

$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.2
$
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 2.1
$ 2.3
$ 2.3
$ 2.5
$ 2.5
$ 2.7
$ 2.9
$ 2.9
$ 2.9
$ 3.1
Notes:   Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
       Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Source:  Ground Water Rule model output.
    Economic Analysis lor the
    Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                                                                              Exhibit D.3a Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for TNCWSs Serving <10C

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

Value
$ 2.3
$ 2.3
$ 2.3
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 2.3
$ 2.3
$ 2.3
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 2.3
$ 2.3
$ 2.3
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Sanitary Surveys

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 4.3
$ 4.3
$ 4.3
$ 4.3
$ 4.3
$ 4.3
$ 4.3
$ 4.3
$ 4.3
$ 4.3
$ 4.3
$ 4.3
$ 4.3
$ 4.3
$ 4.3
$ 4.3
$ 4.3
$ 4.3
$ 4.3
$ 4.3
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 2.9
$ 2.9
$ 2.9
$ 2.9
$ 2.9
$ 2.9
$ 2.9
$ 2.9
$ 2.9
$ 2.9
$ 2.9
$ 2.9
$ 2.9
$ 2.9
$ 2.9
$ 2.9
$ 2.9
$ 2.9
$ 2.9
$ 2.9
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 5.9
$ 5.9
$ 5.9
$ 5.9
$ 5.9
$ 5.9
$ 5.9
$ 5.9
$ 5.9
$ 5.9
$ 5.9
$ 5.9
$ 5.9
$ 5.9
$ 5.9
$ 5.9
$ 5.9
$ 5.9
$ 5.9
$ 5.9
HSAs

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Triggered Monitoring

Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 5.3
$ -
$ 5.0
$ -
$ 4.8
$ -
$ 4.7
$ -
$ 4.6
$ -
$ 4.6
$ -
$ -
$ 4.5
$ -
$ 4.5
$ -
$ 4.5
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 5.0
$
$ 4.8
$
$ 4.7
$
$ 4.6
$
$ 4.5
$
$ 4.5
$
$
$ 4.4
$
$ 4.4
$
$ 4.3
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 5.6
$
$ 5.2
$
$ 5.0
$
$ 4.9
$
$ 4.8
$
$ 4.7
$
$
$ 4.6
$
$ 4.6
$
$ 4.6
$
$
Assessment Monitoring

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Corrective Action - Plans

Value
$
$
$
$ 0.5
$
$ 0.3
$
$ 0.2
$
$ 0.2
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.3
$
$ 0.2
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.6
$
$ 0.4
$
$ 0.3
$
$ 0.3
$
$ 0.2
$
$ 0.2
$
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
$
Corrective Action - Capital

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 30.7
$
$ 21.0
$
$ 14.8
$
$ 11.6
$
$ 9.3
$
$ 7.2
$
$
$ 5.5
$
$ 4.7
$
$ 4.1
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 14.6
$
$ 9.3
$
$ 5.8
$
$ 4.2
$
$ 3.1
$
$ 2.4
$
$
$ 1.5
$
$ 1.2
$
$ 0.8
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 51.3
$
$ 37.6
$
$ 27.3
$
$ 21.6
$
$ 18.9
$
$ 15.7
$
$
$ 12.6
$
$ 11.5
$
$ 10.3
$
$
Corrective Action - OSM

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 3.3
$ 1.5
$ 3.0
$ 1.8
$ 2.8
$ 2.0
$ 2.8
$ 2.2
$ 2.9
$ 2.3
$ 2.9
$ 2.5
$ 2.6
$ 3.0
$ 2.7
$ 3.1
$ 2.8
$ 3.1
$ 2.9
$ 3.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 2.0
$ 0.8
$ 1.8
$ 0.8
$ 1.6
$ 0.8
$ 1.4
$ 0.8
$ 1.4
$ 0.9
$ 1.3
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.2
$ 1.0
$ 1.3
$ 1.0
$ 1.3
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 4.8
$ 2.4
$ 4.2
$ 2.9
$ 4.4
$ 3.4
$ 4.7
$ 3.8
$ 4.7
$ 4.1
$ 5.0
$ 4.3
$ 4.6
$ 5.2
$ 4.8
$ 5.5
$ 5.2
$ 5.5
$ 5.2
$ 5.3
Compliance Monitoring

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 2.8
$ 2.8
$ 3.6
$ 3.6
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.7
$ 4.7
$ 5.2
$ 5.2
$ 5.5
$ 5.8
$ 5.8
$ 6.1
$ 6.1
$ 6.3
$ 6.3
$ 6.5
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 2.0
$ 2.0
$ 2.0
$ 2.1
$ 2.1
$ 2.2
$ 2.2
$ 2.2
$ 2.2
$ 2.4
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 3.2
$ 3.2
$ 5.0
$ 5.0
$ 6.4
$ 6.4
$ 7.4
$ 7.4
$ 8.6
$ 8.6
$ 9.2
$ 9.2
$ 9.9
$ 10.6
$ 10.6
$ 10.9
$ 10.9
$ 11.3
$ 11.3
$ 11.5
Notes:  Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
      Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Source: Ground Water Rule model output.
    Economic Analysis lor the
    Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                                                                           Exhibit D.3b Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for TNCWSs Serving 101-50C

Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2013
2014
2015
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Implementation

Value
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Sanitary Surveys

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
HSAs

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Triggered Monitoring

Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 1.6
$ -
$ 1.5
$ -
$ -
$ 1.4
$ -
$ -
$ 1.4
$ -
$ 1.3
$ -
$ 1.3
$ -
$ 1.3
$ -
$ 1.3
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.5
$
$ 1.4
$
$
$ 1.4
$
$
$ 1.3
$
$ 1.3
$
$ 1.3
$
$ 1.3
$
$ 1.3
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.7
$
$ 1.5
$
$
$ 1.4
$
$
$ 1.4
$
$ 1.4
$
$ 1.4
$
$ 1.4
$
$ 1.4
$
$
Assessment Monitoring

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Corrective Action - Plans

Value
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$
$ 0.1
$
$
$ 0.1
$
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
$
$ 0.0
$
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$
$ 0.2
$
$
$ 0.1
$
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
$
Corrective Action - Capital

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 11.4
$
$ 7.5
$
$
$ 4.1
$
$
$ 2.7
$
$ 2.3
$
$ 1.9
$
$ 1.7
$
$ 1.6
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 5.1
$
$ 3.2
$
$
$ 1.4
$
$
$ 0.8
$
$ 0.6
$
$ 0.4
$
$ 0.3
$
$ 0.3
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 21.5
$
$ 14.1
$
$
$ 8.4
$
$
$ 6.3
$
$ 5.5
$
$ 4.5
$
$ 4.5
$
$ 3.8
$
$
Corrective Action - OSM

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 1.3
$ 0.9
$ 1.4
$ 1.1
$ 1.3
$ 1.7
$ 1.5
$ 1.7
$ 1.9
$ 1.8
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 2.0
$ 2.0
$ 2.1
$ 2.0
$ 2.2
$ 2.1
$ 2.2
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.8
$ 0.4
$ 0.8
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.8
$ 0.6
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 0.6
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.8
$ 1.4
$ 2.2
$ 2.0
$ 2.4
$ 2.9
$ 2.7
$ 3.0
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
$ 3.5
$ 3.5
$ 3.7
$ 3.6
$ 3.9
$ 3.8
$ 3.9
$ 4.0
$ 4.1
Compliance Monitoring

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.7
$ 2.0
$ 2.0
$ 2.2
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 2.6
$ 2.6
$ 2.7
$ 2.7
$ 2.8
$ 2.8
$ 2.9
$ 2.9
$ 3.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 3.4
$ 3.8
$ 3.8
$ 4.2
$ 4.5
$ 4.5
$ 4.8
$ 4.8
$ 4.9
$ 4.9
$ 5.3
$ 5.3
$ 5.5
$ 5.5
$ 5.7
Notes:   Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
       Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Source:  Ground Water Rule model output.
    Economic Analysis lor the
    Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                                                                           Exhibit D.3c  Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for TNCWSs Serving 501-1,000

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

Value
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Sanitary Surveys

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 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)
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 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
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
HSAs

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Triggered Monitoring

Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.2
$ -
$ 0.2
$ -
$ 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)
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$
$ 0.2
$
$ 0.2
$
$ 0.2
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
Assessment Monitoring

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Corrective Action - Plans

Value
$
$
$
$ 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
$
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
$
Corrective Action - Capital

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 1.6
$
$ 1.0
$
$ 0.8
$
$ 0.6
$
$ 0.5
$
$ 0.4
$
$ 0.3
$
$ 0.3
$
$ 0.2
$
$ 0.2
$
$ 0.2
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.8
$
$ 0.5
$
$ 0.3
$
$ 0.2
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 2.6
$
$ 1.7
$
$ 1.4
$
$ 1.1
$
$ 0.9
$
$ 0.8
$
$ 0.7
$
$ 0.6
$
$ 0.6
$
$ 0.5
$
$ 0.5
$
Corrective Action - OSM

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
Compliance Monitoring

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 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
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
$ 0.1
$ 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)
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
Notes:   Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
       Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Source:  Ground Water Rule model output.
    Economic Analysis lor the
    Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                                                                         Exhibit D.3d  Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for TNCWSs Serving 1,001-3,30C

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

Value
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Sanitary Surveys

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
$ 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
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
HSAs

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Triggered Monitoring

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
$ 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
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
Assessment Monitoring

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Corrective Action - Plans

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
$ 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
$
$
$
$
$
$
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
$ 0.0
Corrective Action - Capital

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.6
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 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
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 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
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.1
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 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
Corrective Action - OSM

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 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
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 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)
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 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
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
Compliance Monitoring

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
$ 0.1
$ 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
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 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
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 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
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
Notes:  Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
      Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Source: Ground Water Rule model output.
    Economic Analysis lor the
    Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                                                                         Exhibit D.3e  Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for TNCWSs Serving 3,301-10,000

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

Value
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Sanitary Surveys

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
$ 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
$ 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
$ 0.0
HSAs

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Triggered Monitoring

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
$ 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
$ 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
$ 0.0
Assessment Monitoring

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Corrective Action - Plans

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
$ 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
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
Corrective Action - Capital

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.4
$ 0.2
$ 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
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.8
$ 0.4
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 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
$ 0.0
Corrective Action - OSM

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 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
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 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)
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 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
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
Compliance Monitoring

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
$ 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
$ 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
$ 0.0
Notes:   Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
       Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Source:  Ground Water Rule model output.
    Economic Analysis lor the
    Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                                                                        Exhibit D.3f  Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for TNCWSs Serving 10,001-50,000

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

Value
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Sanitary Surveys

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
$ 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
$ 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
$ 0.0
HSAs

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Triggered Monitoring

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
$ 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
$ 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
$ 0.0
Assessment Monitoring

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Corrective Action - Plans

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
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.0
Corrective Action - Capital

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.4
$ 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
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.8
$ 0.2
$ 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
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
Corrective Action - OSM

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
$ 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
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
Compliance Monitoring

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
$ 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
$ 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
$ 0.0
Notes:   Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
       Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Source:  Ground Water Rule model output.
    Economic Analysis lor the
    Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                                                                       Exhibit D.3g  Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for TNCWSs Serving 50,001-100,000

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

Value
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Sanitary Surveys

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
$ 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
$ 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
$ 0.0
HSAs

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Triggered Monitoring

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
$ 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
$ 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
$ 0.0
Assessment Monitoring

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Corrective Action - Plans

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
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.0
Corrective Action - Capital

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
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
Corrective Action - OSM

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
$ 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
$ 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
$ 0.0
Compliance Monitoring

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
$ 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
$ 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
$ 0.0
Notes:  Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
      Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Source: Ground Water Rule model output.
    Economic Analysis lor the
    Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                                                                           Exhibit D.3h  Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for TNCWSs Serving >100,001

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

Value
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Sanitary Surveys

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
$ 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
$ 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
$ 0.0
HSAs

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Triggered Monitoring

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
$ 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
$ 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
$ 0.0
Assessment Monitoring

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Corrective Action - Plans

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
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.0
Corrective Action - Capital

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.0
$ 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
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
Corrective Action - OSM

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
$ 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
$ 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
$ 0.0
Compliance Monitoring

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
$ 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
$ 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
$ 0.0
Notes:   Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
       Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Source:  Ground Water Rule model output.
    Economic Analysis lor the
    Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                                                                                 Exhibit D.3i  Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for All TNCWSs

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

Value
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Sanitary Surveys

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 5.7
$ 5.7
$ 5.7
$ 5.7
$ 5.7
$ 5.7
$ 5.7
$ 5.7
$ 5.7
$ 5.7
$ 5.7
$ 5.7
$ 5.7
$ 5.7
$ 5.7
$ 5.7
$ 5.7
$ 5.7
$ 5.7
$ 5.7
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 7.9
$ 7.9
$ 7.9
$ 7.9
$ 7.9
$ 7.9
$ 7.9
$ 7.9
$ 7.9
$ 7.9
$ 7.9
$ 7.9
$ 7.9
$ 7.9
$ 7.9
$ 7.9
$ 7.9
$ 7.9
$ 7.9
$ 7.9
HSAs

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Triggered Monitoring

Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 7.1
$ 0.1
$ 6.7
$ 0.1
$ 6.5
$ 0.1
$ 6.3
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 6.1
$ 0.1
$ 6.1
$ 0.1
$ 6.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 6.0
$ 0.1
$ 6.0
$ 0.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 6.8
$ 0.1
$ 6.4
$ 0.1
$ 6.2
$ 0.1
$ 6.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 6.0
$ 0.1
$ 5.9
$ 0.1
$ 5.9
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 5.8
$ 0.1
$ 5.8
$ 0.1
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 7.5
$ 0.1
$ 6.9
$ 0.1
$ 6.7
$ 0.1
$ 6.5
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 6.3
$ 0.1
$ 6.3
$ 0.1
$ 6.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 6.1
$ 0.1
$ 6.1
$ 0.1
Assessment Monitoring

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Corrective Action - Plans

Value
$
$
$
$ 0.7
$ 0.0
$ 0.4
$ 0.0
$ 0.3
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$ 0.3
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.9
$ 0.0
$ 0.6
$ 0.0
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$ 0.4
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.3
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
Corrective Action - Capital

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 45.3
$ 0.7
$ 30.0
$ 0.3
$ 21.2
$ 0.2
$ 16.5
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 10.5
$ 0.1
$ 9.3
$ 0.1
$ 7.8
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 6.0
$ 0.0
$ 5.4
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 21.2
$ 0.3
$ 13.2
$ 0.1
$ 8.1
$ 0.0
$ 5.9
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 3.3
$ 0.0
$ 2.6
$ 0.0
$ 2.0
$ 0.0
$
$ 1.1
$
$ 0.8
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 78.1
$ 1.3
$ 54.4
$ 0.7
$ 39.5
$ 0.5
$ 31.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 23.1
$ 0.3
$ 19.7
$ 0.2
$ 17.9
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 14.9
$ 0.2
$ 13.5
$ 0.2
Corrective Action - OSM

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 5.0
$ 2.7
$ 4.8
$ 3.3
$ 4.9
$ 3.8
$ 5.1
$ 4.3
$ 4.6
$ 5.5
$ 4.9
$ 5.7
$ 5.2
$ 5.8
$ 5.4
$ 5.6
$ 6.1
$ 5.8
$ 6.2
$ 6.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 3.0
$ 1.3
$ 2.8
$ 1.5
$ 2.5
$ 1.5
$ 2.4
$ 1.6
$ 1.7
$ 2.3
$ 1.8
$ 2.3
$ 1.8
$ 2.2
$ 1.9
$ 1.8
$ 2.3
$ 2.0
$ 2.3
$ 2.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 7.2
$ 4.3
$ 7.2
$ 5.7
$ 7.9
$ 6.7
$ 8.7
$ 7.5
$ 8.2
$ 9.5
$ 8.8
$ 9.9
$ 9.4
$ 10.3
$ 9.8
$ 10.4
$ 10.9
$ 10.7
$ 11.4
$ 11.0
Compliance Monitoring

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 2.6
$ 2.6
$ 4.3
$ 4.4
$ 5.6
$ 5.6
$ 6.5
$ 6.5
$ 7.3
$ 7.9
$ 7.9
$ 8.5
$ 8.5
$ 8.9
$ 8.9
$ 9.4
$ 9.7
$ 9.7
$ 10.0
$ 10.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 2.2
$ 2.2
$ 2.5
$ 2.8
$ 2.8
$ 2.9
$ 2.9
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.3
$ 3.2
$ 3.2
$ 3.5
$ 3.5
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 5.0
$ 5.0
$ 7.9
$ 7.9
$ 10.3
$ 10.3
$ 11.8
$ 11.8
$ 13.4
$ 14.4
$ 14.4
$ 15.4
$ 15.4
$ 16.4
$ 16.4
$ 17.0
$ 17.7
$ 17.7
$ 18.0
$ 18.0
   Values in millions of 2003 dollars.
   Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent re
 :  Ground Water Rule model output.
Economic Analysis lor the
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                            Exhibit D.4a  Total Rule Activity Costs,  by Year, for All PWSs

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
CWSs

Mean
Value
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 65.7
$ 17.9
$ 25.3
$ 18.2
$ 21.3
$ 16.8
$ 23.8
$ 13.0
$ 18.8
$ 16.3
$ 21.8
$ 13.5
$ 21.1
$ 13.8
$ 18.0
$ 19.2
$ 18.2
$ 14.4
$ 20.3
$ 14.6
$ 20.3
$ 16.9
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 37.0
$ 8.6
$ 12.4
$ 8.9
$ 10.3
$ 8.0
$ 11.6
$ 5.8
$ 8.8
$ 7.7
$ 10.3
$ 6.1
$ 10.1
$ 6.2
$ 8.4
$ 9.1
$ 8.5
$ 6.4
$ 9.7
$ 6.5
$ 9.6
$ 7.8
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 102.8
$ 29.1
$ 42.7
$ 30.1
$ 36.0
$ 28.8
$ 40.5
$ 22.2
$ 32.5
$ 28.0
$ 37.4
$ 23.2
$ 36.3
$ 23.6
$ 31.1
$ 32.7
$ 31.7
$ 24.8
$ 35.5
$ 25.1
$ 35.7
$ 29.1
NTNCWSs

Mean
Value
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 14.9
$ 3.4
$ 3.0
$ 2.9
$ 7.4
$ 7.1
$ 3.5
$ 3.4
$ 6.9
$ 3.7
$ 6.6
$ 3.9
$ 6.7
$ 4.1
$ 4.0
$ 6.4
$ 6.6
$ 4.4
$ 4.3
$ 4.3
$ 8.5
$ 4.7
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tlle)
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 7.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 3.7
$ 3.6
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 3.3
$ 1.6
$ 3.2
$ 1.7
$ 3.1
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 3.0
$ 3.0
$ 1.9
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 4.0
$ 2.0
Upper
(95th %tlle)
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 24.8
$ 5.5
$ 4.9
$ 4.8
$ 12.5
$ 11.6
$ 5.8
$ 5.8
$ 11.8
$ 6.3
$ 10.9
$ 6.6
$ 11.5
$ 7.0
$ 6.9
$ 11.0
$ 11.4
$ 7.5
$ 7.5
$ 7.5
$ 14.7
$ 7.9
TNCWSs

Mean
Value
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 66.4
$ 11.9
$ 52.0
$ 13.8
$ 44.2
$ 15.4
$ 40.4
$ 16.8
$ 37.9
$ 17.8
$ 35.9
$ 18.7
$ 35.3
$ 19.5
$ 34.4
$ 20.2
$ 33.8
$ 20.8
$ 33.6
$ 21.3
$ 33.4
$ 21.8
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tlle)
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 36.1
$ 6.3
$ 28.0
$ 7.0
$ 22.7
$ 7.3
$ 20.6
$ 7.7
$ 19.1
$ 8.2
$ 18.3
$ 8.5
$ 17.6
$ 8.6
$ 17.0
$ 8.9
$ 16.8
$ 9.0
$ 16.3
$ 9.2
$ 16.3
$ 9.5
Upper
(95th %tlle)
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 106.7
$ 18.7
$ 84.9
$ 22.3
$ 72.8
$ 25.5
$ 66.8
$ 27.7
$ 63.9
$ 29.9
$ 61.5
$ 31.5
$ 59.3
$ 33.0
$ 58.8
$ 34.3
$ 58.7
$ 35.5
$ 57.6
$ 36.5
$ 57.1
$ 37.1
Grand Total

Mean
Value
$ 5.5
$ 5.5
$ 5.5
$ 147.0
$ 33.2
$ 80.3
$ 34.9
$ 72.9
$ 39.4
$ 67.7
$ 33.1
$ 63.6
$ 37.9
$ 64.2
$ 36.1
$ 63.1
$ 37.4
$ 56.5
$ 45.8
$ 58.7
$ 39.5
$ 58.2
$ 40.2
$ 62.1
$ 43.3
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tlle)
$ 5.5
$ 5.5
$ 5.5
$ 80.9
$ 16.6
$ 41.8
$ 17.2
$ 36.7
$ 18.9
$ 33.8
$ 15.0
$ 31.1
$ 17.5
$ 31.9
$ 16.3
$ 30.7
$ 16.6
$ 27.2
$ 21.0
$ 28.3
$ 17.2
$ 27.9
$ 17.5
$ 29.9
$ 19.3
Upper
(95th %tlle)
$ 5.5
$ 5.5
$ 5.5
$ 234.2
$ 53.3
$ 132.6
$ 57.2
$ 121.2
$ 65.9
$ 113.2
$ 55.7
$ 108.2
$ 64.3
$ 109.8
$ 61.2
$ 107.2
$ 63.6
$ 96.8
$ 78.0
$ 101.8
$ 67.7
$ 100.5
$ 69.0
$ 107.5
$ 74.2
 Notes:  Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2003.
        Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
        Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.
 Source: Ground Water Rule model output.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
D-29
October 2006

-------
                                                                          Exhibit D.4b  Rule Activity Costs, by Year and Component, for All PWS's
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
mplamantation
Mean
Value
$ 55
$ 55
$ 55
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$ 55
$ 55
$ 55
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th%tile)


$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Sanitary Surveys
Mean
Value


$ 100
$ 100
$ 100
$ 100
$ 100
$ 100
$ 100

$ 100
$ 100
$ 100
$ 100
$ 100
$ 100
$ 100
$ 100

$ 100
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)


$ 68
$ 68
$ 68
$ 68
$ 68
$ 68
$ 68

$ 68
$ 68
$ 68
$ 68
$ 68
$ 68
$ 68
$ 68

$ 68
Upper
(95th%tile)


$ 138
$ 138
$ 138
$ 138
$ 138
$ 138
$ 138

$ 138
$ 138
$ 138
$ 138
$ 138
$ 138
$ 138
$ 138

$ 138
HSAs
Mean
Value


$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)


$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
Upper
(95th%tile)


$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
Triggered Monitoring
Mean
Value


$ 144
$ 1 5
$ 10 1
$ 23
$103
$ 27
$ 104

$ 22
$105
$ 1 2
$ 1 2
$ 90
$ 34
$ 96
$ 98

$ 21
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)


$ 136
$ 14
$ 97
$ 22
$ 99
$ 25
$ 10 1

$ 21
$ 102
$ 1 1
$ 1 1
$ 87
$ 33
$ 92
$ 95

$ 20
Upper
(95th%tile)


$ 153
$ 1 5
$ 105
$ 24
$ 107
$ 28
$ 108

$ 23
$ 109
$ 1 3
$ 1 3
$ 93
$ 36
$ 99
$ 101

$ 22
Assessment Monitoring
Mean
Value


$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)


$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
Upper
(95th%tile)


$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
Corrective Action - Plans
Mean
Value


$ 25
$ 03
$ 09
$ 02
$ 07
$ 02
$ 05

$ 01
$ 04
$ 00
$ 00
$ 02
$ 01
$ 02
$ 02

$ 00
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)


$ 1 7
$ 02
$ 06
$ 01
$ 04
$ 01
$ 03

$ 00
$ 02
$ 00
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01
$ 01

$ 00
Upper
(95th%tile)


$ 33
$ 05
$ 14
$ 03
$ 1 1
$ 04
$ 08

$ 01
$ 07
$ 01
$ 01
$ 04
$ 02
$ 04
$ 04

$ 01
Corrective Action - Capital
Mean
Value


$ 1063
$ 104
$ 437
$ 77
$ 332
$ 83
$ 255

$ 33
$ 187
$ 1 0
$ 08
$ 105
$ 53
$ 107
$ 93

$ 14
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)


$ 524
$ 42
$ 183
$ 27
$ 123
$ 30
$ 87

$ 08
$ 58
$ 00
$ 00
$ 24
$ 1 6
$ 23
$ 1 5


Upper
(95th%tile)


$ 1788
$ 179
$ 800
$ 144
$ 628
$ 161
$ 499

$ 75
$ 402
$ 27
$ 23
$ 249
$ 115
$ 266
$ 237

$ 39
Corrective Action -OSM
Mean
Value


$ 92
$ 64
$ 89
$ 79
$ 101
$ 93
$ 110

$ 110
$ 122
$ 115
$ 122
$ 129
$ 129
$ 136
$ 138

$ 140
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)


$ 51
$ 28
$ 44
$ 33
$ 47
$ 37
$ 47

$ 41
$ 49
$ 42
$ 44
$ 48
$ 47
$ 51
$ 51

$ 50
Upper
(95th%tile)


$ 141
$ 109
$ 146
$ 137
$ 170
$ 164
$ 192

$ 196
$ 21 6
$ 208
$ 220
$ 230
$ 232
$ 245
$ 248

$ 256
Compliance Monitoring
Mean
Value


$ 46
$ 45
$ 66
$ 68
$ 86
$ 88
$ 102

$ 11 4
$ 123
$ 123
$ 132
$ 138
$ 140
$ 146
$ 15 1

$ 157
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)


$ 1 3
$ 1 2
$ 21
$ 22
$ 26
$ 27
$ 32

$ 37
$ 41
$ 41
$ 43
$ 45
$ 46
$ 48
$ 49

$ 53
Upper
(95th%tile)


$ 89
$ 87
$ 123
$ 126
$ 159
$ 164
$ 186

$ 21 0
$ 226
$ 226
$ 241
$ 253
$ 258
$ 267
$ 277

$ 286
Grand Total
Mean
Value
$ 55

$ 1470
$ 332
$ 803
$ 349
$ 729
$ 394
$ 677

$ 379
$ 642
$ 361
$ 374
$ 565
$ 458
$ 587
$ 582

$ 433
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th%tile)
$ 55

$ 809
$ 166
$ 41 8
$ 172
$ 367
$ 189
$ 338

$ 175
$ 31 9
$ 163
$ 166
$ 272
$ 21 0
$ 283
$ 279

$ 193
Upper
(95th%tile)
$ 55

$ 2342
$ 533
$ 1326
$ 572
$ 121 2
$ 659
$ 1132

$ 643
$ 1098
$ 61 2
$ 636
$ 968
$ 780
$ 101 8
$ 1005


Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                                                             Exhibit D.4c Present Value of Rule Activity Costs at 3 Percent, by Year, for All CWSs



Year
2005
2006

2009
2010

2013
2014
2016
2017
2018
2019
2021
2022

2025
2026

2029
Total
Ann.



Value
$ 1 7
$ 1 6

$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$

$
$ 4.9


90 P
Confide

(5th%tile)
$ 1 7
$ 1 6

$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$

$
$ 4.9

n
ercent
ce Bound

(95th%tile)
$ 1 7
$ 1 6

$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$

$
$ 4.9

S


Value
$
$

$ 27
$ 26

$ 24
$ 23
$ 22
$ 2 1
$ 2 1
$ 20
$ 1 9
$ 1 9
18
$ 1 7
$ 1 6

$ 1 5

anitary Surv
90 P
Confide

(5th%tile)
$
$

$ 1 8
$ 1 8

$ 1 6
$ 1 6
$ 1 5
$ 1 4
$ 1 4
$ 1 4
$ 1 3
$ 1 2
12
$ 1 1
$ 1 1

$ 1 0

ys
ercent
ce Bound

(95th%tile)
$
$

$ 37
$ 36

$ 33
$ 32
$ 30
$ 30
$ 29
$ 28
$ 26
$ 25
25
$ 23
$ 23

$ 21




Value
$
$

$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$

$

HSAs
90 P
Confide

(5th%tile)
$
$

$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$

$


ercent
ce Bound

(95th%tile)
$
$

$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$

$

Tn


Value
$
$

$ 1 2
$ 29

$ 1 5
$ 3 1
$ 22
$ 1 4
$ 25
$ 07
$ 07
$ 1 8
16
$ 06
$ 20

$ 1 0

ggeredMoni
90 P
Confide

(5th%tile)
$
$

$ 1 1
$ 27

$ 1 4
$ 30
$ 2 1
$ 1 4
$ 24
$ 07
$ 06
$ 1 7
15
$ 06
$ 20

$ 09

oring
ercent
ce Bound

(95th%tile)
$
$

$ 1 2
$ 30

$ 1 5
$ 32
$ 23
$ 1 5
$ 26
$ 08
$ 07
$ 1 8
16
$ 06
$ 21

$ 1 0

Asse


Value
$
$

$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$

$
$

ssmentMon
90 P
Confide

(5th%tile)
$
$

$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$

$
$

oring
ercent
ce Bound

(95th%tile)
$
$

$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$

$
$

Co,re


Value
$
$

$ 03
$ 04
02
$ 02
$ 02
$ 0 1
$ 00
$ 02
$ 00
$ 00
$ 0 1
01
$ 00
$ 0 1

$ 00
$ 3.8

ctive Action
90 P
Confide

(5th%tile)
$
$

$ 02
$ 03

$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 00
$ 0 1
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
00
$
$ 00

$ 00
$ 2.2

Plans
ercent
ce Bound

(95th%tile)
$
$

$ 04
$ 06

$ 02
$ 03
$ 02
$ 01
$ 03
$ 00
$ 00
$ 01
01
$ 00
$ 01

$ 00
$ 5.8

Corre


Value
$
$

$ 80
$ 114

$ 41
$ 68
$ 34
$ 21
$ 42
$ 05
$ 04
$ 1 6
22
$ 03
$ 1 7
02
$ 07

tive Action -
90 P
Confide

(5th%tile)
$
$

$ 33
$ 43

$ 1 4
$ 2 1
$ 08
$ 05
$ 1 1
$ 00
$
$ 02

$
$ 02

$ 0 1

Capital
ercent
ce Bound

(95th%tile)
$
$

$ 136
$ 214

$ 82
$ 138
$ 76
$ 48
$ 91
$ 1 5
$ 1 2
$ 41

$ 09
$ 47
07
$ 1 8

Con-


Value
$
$

$ 26
$ 30

$ 34
$ 38
$ 36
$ 37
$ 37
$ 36
$ 35
$ 35

$ 34
$ 34

$ 32

ective Action
90 P
Confider

(5th%tile)
$
$

$ 1 0
$ 1 2

$ 1 3
$ 1 6
$ 1 4
$ 1 4
$ 1 4
$ 1 4
$ 1 3
$ 1 3

$ 1 2
$ 1 3

$ 1 2

-OSM
rcent
ce Bound

(95th%tile)
$
$

$ 46
$ 54

$ 61
$ 67
$ 65
$ 65
$ 66
$ 64
$ 63
$ 63

$ 61
$ 61

$ 57
$ 133.1

Com


Value
$
$

$ 1 1
$ 1 5

$ 1 8
$ 20
$ 20
$ 20
$ 21
$ 21
$ 21
$ 21

$ 20
$ 20

$ 20

pliance Mon
90 P
Confider

(5th%tile)
$
$

$ 03
$ 04

$ 05
$ 06
$ 06
$ 06
$ 06
$ 06
$ 06
$ 06

$ 06
$ 06

$ 06

oring
ce Bound

(95th%tile)
$
$

$ 23
$ 29
29
$ 34
$ 38
$ 38
$ 38
$ 40
$ 39
$ 39
$ 39

$ 38
$ 39

$ 37
$ 4.5
                         due to independent r
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   October 2006

-------
                                                                                Exhibit D.4d Present Value of Rule Activity Costs at 3 Percent, by Year, for All 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

Implementation

Mean
Value
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
Sanitary Surveys

Value
$
$
$
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 1.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.7
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.4

$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 1.5
HSAs

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Triggered Monitoring

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 1.3
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.4
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.3
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.3
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.4
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.3
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.4
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.4
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.3
Assessment Monitoring

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Corrective Action - Plans

Value
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 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
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
Corrective Action - Capital

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 9.4
$ 0.6
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 1.4
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 1.4
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 4.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1

$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$
$
$ 0.3
$
$
$
$
$ 0.5
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 16.9
$ 1.1
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 2.6
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 1.9
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 2.6
Corrective Action - OSM

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 1.1
$ 0.7
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 1.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.6
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.6
$ 1.2
$ 1.0
$ 1.0

$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.5
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.8
Compliance Monitoring

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 1.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.5
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.8
  Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discountec
  Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
  Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.
 : Ground Water Rule model output.
Economic Analysis lor the
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                                                          Exhibit D.4e  Present Value of Rule Activity Costs at 3 Percent, by Year, for All TNCWSs




Year
2005
2006
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2014

2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022

2025
2026

2029





Value
$ 3 1
$ 3 1
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$

$
$ 0.5
Implement*
90 P
Confide

(5th%tile)
$ 3 1
$ 3 1
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$

$
$ 0.5
on
ercent
ce Bound

(95th%tile)
$ 31
$ 31
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$

$
$ 0.5
S



Value
$
$
$ 52
$ 5 1
$ 49
$ 48
$ 47
$ 44
43
$ 40
$ 39
$ 38
$ 37
$ 36
$ 35
34
$ 32
$ 3 1

$ 28
$ 4.9
anitary Surv
90 P
Confide

(5th%tile)
$
$
$ 35
$ 34
$ 33
$ 32
$ 3 1
$ 30
29
$ 27
$ 26
$ 26
$ 25
$ 24
$ 23
23
$ 2 1
$ 2 1

$ 1 9
$ 3.3
ys
ercent
ce Bound

(95th%tile)
$
$
$ 72
$ 70
$ 68
$ 66
$ 64
$ 60
59
$ 55
$ 54
$ 52
$ 51
$ 49
$ 48
46
$ 44
$ 42

$ 39
$ 6.8




Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$

$
$
HSAs
90 P
Confide

(5th%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$

$
$

ercent
ce Bound

(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$

$
$
Tri



Value
$
$
$ 65
$ 0 1
$ 58
$ 0 1
$ 53
$ 48
01
$ 00
$ 42
$ 00
$ 39
$ 00
$ 37
00
$ 00
$ 32

$ 00
$ 2.8
ggeredMonit
90 P
Confide

(5th%tile)
$
$
$ 62
$ 0 1
$ 56
$ 0 1
$ 5 1
$ 47
00
$ 00
$ 4 1
$ 00
$ 38
$ 00
$ 36
00
$ 00
$ 3 1

$ 00
$ 2.7
oring
ercent
ce Bound

(95th%tile)
$
$
$ 69
$ 01
$ 60
$ 01
$ 54
$ 50
01
$ 00
$ 43
$ 00
$ 40
$ 00
$ 37
00
$ 00
$ 33

$ 00
$ 2.9
Ass



Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$

$
$
ssmentMon
90 P
Confide

(5th%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$

$
$
:oring
ercent
ce Bound

(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$

$
$
Correc



Value
$
$
$ 06
$ 00
$ 04
$ 00
$ 03
$ 02
00
$ 00
$ 0 1
$ 00
$ 0 1
$ 00
$ 0 1
00
$ 00
$ 00

$ 00
$ 0.1
ive Action -
90 P
Confide

(5th%tile)
$
$
$ 04
$ 00
$ 02
$ 00
$ 0 1
$ 0 1

$ 00
$ 0 1
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
00
$
$ 00

$
$ 0.1
5lans
ercent
ce Bound

(95th%tile)
$
$
$ 09
$ 00
$ 05
$ 00
$ 04
$ 03

$ 00
$ 02
$ 00
$ 02
$ 00
$ 01
00
$ 00
$ 01

$ 00
$ 0.2
Corre



Value
$
$
$ 414
$ 06
$ 259
$ 03
$ 173
$ 126

$ 01
$ 71
$ 01
$ 59
$ 00
$ 47
00
$ 00
$ 32

$ 00
$ 7.8
ctive Action -
90 P
Confider

(5th%tile)
$
$
$ 194
$ 02
$ 114
$ 01
$ 66
$ 45

$ 00
$ 23
$ 00
$ 1 7
$ 00
$ 1 2
00
$
$ 06

$
$ 3.0
Capital
rcent
ce Bound

(95th%tile)
$
$
$ 71 5
$ 1 2
$ 46 9
$ 06
$ 322
$ 242

$ 02
$ 157
$ 02
$ 126
$ 0 1
$ 108
01
$ 0 1
$ 80

$ 0 1
$ 15.0
Com



Value
$
$
$ 45
$ 24
$ 42
$ 28
$ 40
$ 39

$ 32
$ 37
$ 32
$ 36
$ 32
$ 35

$ 3 1
$ 33

$ 29
$ 4.3
ctive Action
90 P
Confider

(5th%tile)
$
$
$ 28
$ 1 2
$ 24
$ 1 3
$ 21
$ 1 8

$ 1 2
$ 1 6
$ 1 2
$ 1 5
$ 1 1
$ 1 3

$ 1 0
$ 1 2

$ 1 0
$ 1.8
-O&M
rcent
ce Bound

(95th%tile)
$
$
$ 66
$ 39
$ 62
$ 48
$ 64
$ 66

$ 58
$ 65
$ 58
$ 63
$ 59
$ 62

$ 57
$ 58

$ 54
$ 7.4
Com



Value
$
$
$ 24
$ 23
$ 37
$ 36
$ 45
$ 50

$ 5 1
$ 54
$ 53
$ 54
$ 53
$ 54

$ 52
$ 52

$ 49
$ 6.0
pliance Mon
90 P
Confide

(5th%tile)
$
$
$ 07
$ 07
$ 1 3
$ 1 3
$ 1 4
$ 1 7

$ 1 8
$ 1 9
$ 1 9
$ 1 9
$ 1 8
$ 1 9

$ 1 8
$ 1 7

$ 1 7
$ 2.0
oring
ercent
ce Bound

(95th%tile)
$
$
$ 46
$ 44
$ 68
$ 66
$ 84
$ 91

$ 94
$ 98
$ 95
$ 99
$ 96
$ 99
96
$ 94
$ 95

$ 89
$ 10.9
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             October 2006

-------
                          Exhibit D.4f Present Value of Total Rule Activity Costs at 3 Percent, by Year, for All PWSs
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.
CWSs
Mean
Value
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 60.2
$ 15.9
$ 21.8
$ 15.2
$ 17.3
$ 13.3
$ 18.2
$ 9.7
$ 13.6
$ 11.5
$ 14.8
$ 8.9
$ 13.5
$ 8.6
$ 10.9
$ 11.2
$ 10.4
$ 7.9
$ 10.9
$ 7.6
$ 10.3
$ 8.3
$ 325.2
$ 18.7
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 33.9
$ 7.7
$ 10.7
$ 7.4
$ 8.3
$ 6.3
$ 8.9
$ 4.3
$ 6.4
$ 5.4
$ 7.0
$ 4.0
$ 6.5
$ 3.8
$ 5.1
$ 5.3
$ 4.9
$ 3.5
$ 5.2
$ 3.4
$ 4.9
$ 3.8
$ 161.7
$ 9.3
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 94.1
$ 25.9
$ 36.8
$ 25.2
$ 29.2
$ 22.7
$ 31.1
$ 16.5
$ 23.5
$ 19.6
$ 25.5
$ 15.3
$ 23.3
$ 14.7
$ 18.8
$ 19.2
$ 18.1
$ 13.7
$ 19.1
$ 13.1
$ 18.1
$ 14.3
$ 542.9
$ 31.2
NTNCWSs
Mean
Value
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 13.7
$ 3.0
$ 2.6
$ 2.4
$ 6.1
$ 5.6
$ 2.7
$ 2.5
$ 5.0
$ 2.6
$ 4.5
$ 2.6
$ 4.3
$ 2.5
$ 2.4
$ 3.8
$ 3.8
$ 2.4
$ 2.3
$ 2.3
$ 4.3
$ 2.3
$ 85.5
$ 4.9
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile|
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 7.2
$ 1.5
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 3.0
$ 2.9
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 2.4
$ 1.2
$ 2.2
$ 1.1
$ 2.0
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 2.0
$ 1.0
$ 41.8
$ 2.4
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 22.7
$ 4.9
$ 4.3
$ 4.1
$ 10.2
$ 9.2
$ 4.5
$ 4.3
$ 8.6
$ 4.4
$ 7.4
$ 4.3
$ 7.4
$ 4.3
$ 4.2
$ 6.5
$ 6.5
$ 4.1
$ 4.0
$ 3.9
$ 7.4
$ 3.9
$ 143.1
$ 8.2
TNCWSs
Mean
Value
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.0
$ 60.7
$ 10.5
$ 44.9
$ 11.6
$ 35.9
$ 12.2
$ 31.0
$ 12.5
$ 27.4
$ 12.5
$ 24.4
$ 12.4
$ 22.7
$ 12.2
$ 20.8
$ 11.9
$ 19.3
$ 11.5
$ 18.0
$ 11.1
$ 16.9
$ 10.7
$ 460.4
$ 26.4
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.0
$ 33.0
$ 5.6
$ 24.1
$ 5.9
$ 18.5
$ 5.8
$ 15.8
$ 5.7
$ 13.8
$ 5.7
$ 12.5
$ 5.6
$ 11.3
$ 5.4
$ 10.3
$ 5.2
$ 9.6
$ 5.0
$ 8.8
$ 4.8
$ 8.2
$ 4.7
$ 234.4
$ 13.5
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.0
$ 97.6
$ 16.6
$ 73.3
$ 18.7
$ 59.2
$ 20.1
$ 51.2
$ 20.6
$ 46.2
$ 21.0
$ 41.9
$ 20.8
$ 38.1
$ 20.6
$ 35.6
$ 20.2
$ 33.5
$ 19.7
$ 30.9
$ 19.0
$ 28.9
$ 18.3
$ 760.8
$ 43.7
Grand Total
Mean
Value
$ 5.5
$ 5.4
$ 5.2
$ 134.6
$ 29.5
$ 69.3
$ 29.2
$ 59.3
$ 31.1
$ 51.9
$ 24.6
$ 45.9
$ 26.6
$ 43.7
$ 23.9
$ 40.5
$ 23.3
$ 34.2
$ 26.9
$ 33.5
$ 21.9
$ 31.3
$ 21.0
$ 31.5
$ 21.3
$ 871.1
$ 50.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 5.5
$ 5.4
$ 5.2
$ 74.1
$ 14.7
$ 36.1
$ 14.4
$ 29.8
$ 14.9
$ 25.9
$ 11.2
$ 22.5
$ 12.3
$ 21.7
$ 10.8
$ 19.7
$ 10.4
$ 16.5
$ 12.3
$ 16.1
$ 9.5
$ 15.0
$ 9.1
$ 15.1
$ 9.5
$ 437.8
$ 25.1
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 5.5
$ 5.4
$ 5.2
$ 214.4
$ 47.4
$ 114.3
$ 47.9
$ 98.6
$ 52.0
$ 86.7
$ 41.5
$ 78.2
$ 45.1
$ 74.8
$ 40.5
$ 68.8
$ 39.6
$ 58.6
$ 45.8
$ 58.1
$ 37.5
$ 54.1
$ 36.0
$ 54.5
$ 36.5
$ 1,446.8
$ 83.1
        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.
        Ground Water Rule model output.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                           D-34
                                                                                                                                               October 2006

-------
                                                                    Exhibit D.4g  Present Value of Rule Activity Costs at 3 Percent, by Year and Component, for All PWSs

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.
Implementation
Mean
Value
$ 55
$ 52
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 16.1

90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th %tile)
$ 55
$ 52
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
$
$
$ 16.1

Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 55
$ 52
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 16.1

Sanitary Surveys
Mean
Value
$
$
$ eg
$ B7
$ 79
$ 77
$ 75
$ 73
$ 70
$ BB
$ B4
$ 63
$ B 1
$ 59
$ 57
$ 56
$ 52
S 150.9

90 Percent
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
S
$ 62
$ 60
$ 5B
S 57
$ 55
$ 53
$ 52
S 50
$ 4B
S 45
$ 43
$ 42
$ 4 1
S 40
$ 39
$ 30
S 35
$ 33
$ 101.8

Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$ 126
$ 123
$ 119
$ 116
$ 112
$ 109
$ 106
$ 103
$ 100
$ 97
$ 94
$ 9 1
$ 89
$ BB
$ 84
$ 79
$ 76
$ 72
$ 68
$ 207.3

HSAs
Mean
Value
S
$
$
S
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
S
$
$
$

90 Percent
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
S
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
S
$
$
S
$
$

Triggered Monitoring
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 132
$ 1 3
$ 87
$ 1 9
S 2 1
$ SB
$ 09
$ 72
$ 1 5
$ 72
$ 08
$ BB
$ B8
$ 55
$ 20
$ 54
$ 07
$ 06
$ 54
$ 1 B
$ 94.7

90 Percent
Lower
(5th %tile)
S
$
$
S 1 2
$ 83
$ 1 9
S 2B
$ 77
$ 09
S 1 5
$ 69
$ 08
S 07
$ 53
$ 1 9
S 06
$ 06
$ 1 0
S 91.0

Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1 4
$ 90
$ 20
$ 22
$ 83
$ 1 0
$ 1 6
$ 74
$ 08
$ 08
$ 56
$ 2 1
$ 07
$ 07
$ 1 1
S 98.4

Assessment Monitoring
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

90 Percent
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$

Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
S
$
$
S
$
S
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
S
$
S
$

Correc
Mean
Value
$
$
S
$ 22
$ 03
$ 08
$ 02
$ 06
$ 02
$ 04
$ 00
$ 03
$ 0 1
$ 03
$ 00
$ 02
$ 00
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 00
$ 00
$ 0 1
$ 00

veAction-Plans
90 Percent
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
S
$ 1 5
$ 02
$ 05
$ 0 1
$ 03
$ 0 1
$ 02
$ 00
$ 0 1
$ 00
$ 0 1
$ 00
$ 0 1
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$
S
$ 00
$ 00

Upper
(95th %tile)
S
$
$
$ 3 1
$ 04
$ 1 2
S 03
$ 09
$ 03
$ 06
$ 0 1
$ 05
$ 0 1
$ 05
$ 00
$ 03
$ 00
$ 02
S 0 1
$ 00
S 00
$ 02
$ 00

Corrective Action -Capital
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 973
$ 93
$ 377
$ 270
$ 65
S 196
$ 1 2
$ 23
$ 127
S 06
$ 103
$ 05
$ 64
S 3 1
$ 03
S 03
$ 56
$ 07

90 Percent
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 480
$ 37
$ 158
S 22
$ 1BB
$ 24
$ B7
S B 1
$ 45
$ BB
$ 39
S BB
$ 27
$ BB
$ 1 4
S B9
$
$
$ 1 1
$ B 1

Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
S
$ 1636
$ 159
$ 69 B
S 12B
$ 51 B
$ 127
$ 383
S SB
$ 3B8
$ 53
$ 274
$ 226
$ 1 5
$ 15 1
$ 68
$ 1 1
S B9
$ 14 B
$ 1 9

Corrective Action -O8.M
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 57
$ 77
S 74
$ 84
$ 74
$ 83
S 77
$ 83
« »
$ 7B
$ 78
$ 73
$ 74
$ 7B
$ 73
$ B9

90 Percent
Lower
(5th %tile)
S
$
$
$ 47
S 25
$ 38
$ 28
$ 38
S 29
$ 36
$ 27
$ 34
S 29
$ 33
$ 28
$ 33
S 27
$ 29
$ 28
S 25
$ 25
$ 27

Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 129
$ 97
$ 126
$ 115
$ 138
$ 130
$ 147
$ 133
$ 145
$ 137
$ 147
$ 137
$ 145
$ 137
$ 139
$ 136

$ 133


Compliance Monitoring
Mean
Value
$
$
S
$ 42
$ 4B
$ 57
$ 57
$ 7B
$ 7B
$ 78
$ BB
$ 84
$ 82
$ 85
$ 82
$ 83
$ 82

$ 79


90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th %tile)
S
$
$
$ 1 2
S 1 1
$ 18
$ 2 1
$ 2 1
$ 25
$ 24
$ 26
$ 26
$ 28
$ 27
$ 27
$ 27
$ 27

$ 26
$ 25


Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 77
$ 1B7
$ 1B5
$ 13B
$ 129
S 143
$ 138
$ 15 1
$ 147
$ 154
S 149
$ 155
$ 15B
$ 153
S 15 1

$ 145


Grand Total
Mean
Value
$ 55
$ 54
$ 52
$ 1346
$ 295
$ 693
$ 292
$ 593
$ 31 1
$ 51 9
$ 246
$ 459
$ 266
$ 437
$ 239
$ 4B5
$ 233
$ 342
$ 269

$ 31 3
$ 21 B


90 Percent
Lower
(5th %tile)
S 55
$ 54
$ 52
$ 74 1
S 147
$ 36 1
$ 144
$ 298
S 149
$ 259
$ 112
$ 225
S 123
$ 21 7
$ 1B8
$ 197
S 1B4
$ 165
$ 123
S 95
$ 15B
$ 9 1
$ 437.8

Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 55
$ 54
$ 52
$ 2144
S 474
$ 1143
$ 479
$ 52 B
$ 867
$ 41 5
$ 45 1
$ 748
$ 4B5
S 396
$ 586
$ 458
$ 58 1
$ 375
$ 54 1
$ 36 B
$ 545
$ 3B5
S 1,446.8
$ 83.1
      ic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                                                                    Exhibit D.4h Present Value of Rule Activity Costs at 7 Percent, by Year, for All CWSs

Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
Total

Implementation

Mean
Value
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -

90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Sanitary Surveys

Value
$
$
$
$ 2.5
$ 2.3
$ 2.2
$ 2.0
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.6

90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4

Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 3.4
$ 3.2
$ 3.0
$ 2.8
$ 2.4
$ 2.3
$ 2.1
$ 1.9
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9

HSAs

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Triggered Monitoring

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 4.8
$ 1.0
$ 2.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.1
$ 2.2
$ 0.6
$ 0.9
$ 1.5
$ 0.4
$ 1.4
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.9
$ 0.2
$ 0.7

90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 4.5
$ 0.9
$ 2.3
$ 1.4
$ 1.0
$ 2.1
$ 0.5
$ 0.9
$ 1.5
$ 0.4
$ 1.3
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.9
$ 0.2
$ 0.7

Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 5.1
$ 1.1
$ 2.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.1
$ 2.3
$ 0.6
$ 0.9
$ 1.6
$ 0.4
$ 1.5
$ 1.0
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 1.0
$ 0.3
$ 0.8

Assessment Monitoring

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Corrective Action - Plans

Value
$
$
$
$ 1.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0

90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.9
$ 0.2
$ 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

Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.8
$ 0.5
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0

Corrective Action - Capital

Mean
Value
$
$
$

$ 9.4
$ 4.7
$ 3.0
$ 4.8
$ 0.7
$ 1.4
$ 2.6
$ 0.3
$ 1.8
$ 0.8
$ 1.1
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 0.1
$ 0.7

90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$

$ 3.6
$ 1.6
$ 1.0
$ 1.5
$ 0.1
$ 0.3
$ 0.7
$ 0.0
$ 0.4
$ 0.1
$ 0.3
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1

Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 17.7
$ 8.6
$ 6.0
$ 9.8
$ 1.6
$ 3.1
$ 5.6
$ 0.9
$ 4.1
$ 2.1
$ 2.4
$ 1.8
$ 2.1
$ 0.3
$ 1.8

Corrective Action - OSM

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 2.5
$ 2.5
$ 2.6
$ 2.5
$ 2.7
$ 2.4
$ 2.3
$ 2.3
$ 2.1
$ 2.1
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.4

90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.1
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.5

Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 4.2
$ 4.4
$ 4.6
$ 4.5
$ 4.7
$ 4.4
$ 4.1
$ 4.0
$ 3.8
$ 3.7
$ 3.3
$ 3.2
$ 3.0
$ 2.7
$ 2.5
$ 2.4

Compliance Monitoring

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.3
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8

90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.2

Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 2.3
$ 2.4
$ 2.3
$ 2.5
$ 2.7
$ 2.5
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 2.3
$ 2.3
$ 2.0
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 47.3

  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.
 : Ground Water Rule model output.
Economic Analysis lor the
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                                                                Exhibit D.4i  Present Value of Rule Activity Costs at 7 Percent, by Year, for All 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.
Implementation

Value
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -

90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Sanitary Surveys

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.2

90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 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
$ 0.2

Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3

HSAs

Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Triggered Monitoring

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 1.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.4
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.3
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0

90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.4
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.3
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.3
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.3
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.4
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.3
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0

Assessment Monitoring

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Corrective Action -Plans

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0

90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 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
$
$
$
$
$ 0.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0

Corrective Action -Capital

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 8.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 2.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.8
$ 0.0
$ 0.7
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0

90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 3.8
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.9
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.3
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$
$
$ 0.2
$
$
$
$

Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 15.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 4.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 1.6
$ 0.1
$ 1.5
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 1.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0

Corrective Action -OSM

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 1.0
$ 0.6
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3

90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.6
$ 0.3
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1

Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.4
$ 1.0
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6

Compliance Monitoring

Value
$
$
$
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3

90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1

Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.7
$ 0.6

  Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates an
  Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent i
  Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.
 : Ground Water Rule model output.
discounte
Dunding.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                                                          Exhibit D.4J  Present Value of Rule Activity Costs at 7 Percent, by Year, for All TNCWSs

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

Mean
Value
$ 3 1
$ 29
$ 27
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$ 0.8
90 Percent
Confidence Bound

(5th%tile)
$ 3 1
$ 29
$ 27
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$ 0.8

(95th%tile)
$ 31
$ 29
$ 27
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$ 0.8
Sanitary Surveys


Value
$
$
$
$ 47
$ 44
$ 4 1
$ 38
$ 36
$ 33
$ 3 1
$ 29
$ 25
$ 24
$ 2 1
$ 1 9
$ 1 8
$ 1 7
$ 1 5
$ 1 4

$ 1 1
$ 4.7
90 Percent
Confidence Bound

(5th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 32
$ 29
$ 28
$ 26
$ 24
$ 22
$ 2 1
$ 20
$ 1 7
$ 1 6
$ 1 4
$ 1 3
$ 1 2
$ 1 1
$ 1 0
$ 09

$ 08
$ 3.2

(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 64
$ 60
$ 56
$ 53
$ 49
$ 46
$ 43
$ 40
$ 35
$ 33
$ 29
$ 27
$ 25
$ 23
$ 20
$ 1 9
$ 1 7
$ 1 6
$ 6.5
HSAs


Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound

(5th%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Triggered Monitoring


Value
$
$
$
$ 58
$ 0 1
$ 48
$ 00
$ 40
$ 00
$ 34
$ 00
$ 00
$ 25
$ 22
$ 00
$ 1 9
$ 00
$ 00
$ 1 4
$ 1 3
$ 00
$ 2.8
90 Percent
Confidence Bound

(5th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 55
$ 0 1
$ 46
$ 00
$ 39
$ 00
$ 33
$ 00
$ 00
$ 25
$ 2 1
$ 00
$ 1 9
$ 00
$ 00
$ 1 4
$ 1 2
$ 00
$ 2.7

(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 61
$ 01
$ 49
$ 00
$ 42
$ 00
$ 35
$ 00
$ 00
$ 26
$ 00
$ 23
$ 00
$ 20
$ 00
$ 1 7
$ 00
$ 1 5
$ 00
$ 00
$ 2.9
Assessment Monitoring


Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound

(5th%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$

(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
Corrective Action -Plans


Value
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 03
$ 00
$ 02
$ 00
$ 0 1
$ 00
$ 00
$ 0 1
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00

$ 00
$ 0.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound

(5th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 02
$ 00
$ 0 1
$ 00
$ 0 1
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$
$ 00

$
$ 0.1

(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 04
$ 00
$ 03
$ 00
$ 02
$ 00
$ 01
$ 00
$ 01
$ 00
$ 01
$ 00
$ 01
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00

$ 00
$ 0.2
Corrective Action - Capital


Value
$
$
$
$ 05
$ 214
$ 02
$ 132
$ 01
$ 90
$ 01
$ 62
$ 01
$ 43
$ 00
$ 34
$ 00
$ 25
$ 00
$ 00
$ 14

$ 00
$ 8.8
90 Percent
Confidence Bound

(5th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 02
$ 94
$ 0 1
$ 5 1
$ 00
$ 32
$ 00
$ 20
$ 00
$ 1 4
$ 00
$ 09
$ 00
$ 06
$ 00
$
$ 03

$
$ 3.5
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 1 0
$ 388
$ 246
$ 03
$ 171
$ 02
$ 128
$ 01
$ 96
$ 71
$ 01
$ 57
$ 01
$ 00
$ 36

$ 00
$ 16.6
Corrective Action - OSM

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 21
$ 34
$ 31
$ 22
$ 28
$ 22
$ 25
$ 21
$ 23
$ 21
$ 1 8
$ 1 8
$ 1 6
$ 1 5
$ 1 5

$ 1 2
$ 4.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 1 0
$ 20
$ 1 6
$ 09
$ 1 3
$ 08
$ 1 1
$ 08
$ 1 0

$ 06
$ 07
$ 06
$ 05
$ 06

$ 04
$ 1.7
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 33
$ 51
$ 49
$ 39
$ 47
$ 38
$ 42
$ 37
$ 39

$ 32
$ 32
$ 29
$ 27
$ 26

$ 22
$ 6.8
Compliance Monitoring

Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 20
$ 31
$ 35
$ 33
$ 36
$ 33
$ 35
$ 32
$ 33

$ 29
$ 28
$ 26
$ 24
$ 23

$ 20
$ 5.3
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 06
$ 1 1
$ 1 1
$ 1 0
$ 1 2
$ 1 1
$ 1 2
$ 1 1
$ 1 2

$ 1 0
$ 1 0
$ 09
$ 08
$ 08

$ 07
$ 1.8
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$
$
$ 38
$ 56
$ 64
$ 60
$ 64
$ 60
$ 64
$ 60
$ 60

$ 52
$ 52
$ 48
$ 44
$ 43

$ 36
$ 9.7
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              October 2006

-------
                   Exhibit D.4k  Present Value of Total Rule Activity Costs at 7 Percent, by Year, for All PWSs
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.
CWSs
Mean
Value
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 53.7
$ 13.7
$ 18.0
$ 12.1
$ 13.3
$ 9.8
$ 12.9
$ 6.6
$ 8.9
$ 7.2
$ 9.0
$ 5.2
$ 7.6
$ 4.7
$ 5.7
$ 5.7
$ 5.0
$ 3.7
$ 4.9
$ 3.3
$ 4.3
$ 3.3
$ 223.6
$ 19.2
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 30.2
$ 6.6
$ 8.9
$ 5.9
$ 6.4
$ 4.6
$ 6.3
$ 3.0
$ 4.2
$ 3.4
$ 4.3
$ 2.4
$ 3.6
$ 2.1
$ 2.7
$ 2.7
$ 2.4
$ 1.6
$ 2.3
$ 1.5
$ 2.0
$ 1.5
$ 113.3
$ 9.7
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 83.9
$ 22.2
$ 30.4
$ 20.0
$ 22.4
$ 16.8
$ 22.1
$ 11.3
$ 15.4
$ 12.4
$ 15.5
$ 9.0
$ 13.2
$ 8.0
$ 9.8
$ 9.7
$ 8.8
$ 6.4
$ 8.6
$ 5.7
$ 7.5
$ 5.7
$ 369.6
$ 31.7
NTNCWSs
Mean
Value
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 12.2
$ 2.6
$ 2.1
$ 1.9
$ 4.6
$ 4.1
$ 1.9
$ 1.7
$ 3.3
$ 1.7
$ 2.7
$ 1.5
$ 2.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.9
$ 1.8
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 1.8
$ 0.9
$ 57.0
$ 4.9
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th % tile)
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 6.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 2.3
$ 2.1
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 1.5
$ 0.7
$ 1.3
$ 0.7
$ 1.1
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.8
$ 0.4
$ 28.5
$ 2.4
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 20.2
$ 4.2
$ 3.5
$ 3.2
$ 7.8
$ 6.8
$ 3.2
$ 2.9
$ 5.6
$ 2.8
$ 4.5
$ 2.5
$ 4.2
$ 2.4
$ 2.2
$ 3.3
$ 3.2
$ 1.9
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 3.1
$ 1.6
$ 94.6
$ 8.1
TNCWSs
Mean
Value
$ 3.1
$ 2.9
$ 2.7
$ 54.2
$ 9.0
$ 37.1
$ 9.2
$ 27.5
$ 9.0
$ 22.0
$ 8.5
$ 18.0
$ 7.9
$ 14.9
$ 7.3
$ 12.8
$ 6.6
$ 10.9
$ 6.0
$ 9.4
$ 5.4
$ 8.1
$ 4.8
$ 7.0
$ 4.3
$ 308.8
$ 26.5
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 3.1
$ 2.9
$ 2.7
$ 29.4
$ 4.8
$ 20.0
$ 4.7
$ 14.1
$ 4.2
$ 11.2
$ 3.9
$ 9.1
$ 3.6
$ 7.6
$ 3.3
$ 6.4
$ 2.9
$ 5.4
$ 2.6
$ 4.6
$ 2.3
$ 3.9
$ 2.1
$ 3.4
$ 1.9
$ 160.4
$ 13.8
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 3.1
$ 2.9
$ 2.7
$ 87.1
$ 14.3
$ 60.6
$ 14.8
$ 45.3
$ 14.8
$ 36.3
$ 14.1
$ 30.4
$ 13.3
$ 25.5
$ 12.2
$ 21.5
$ 11.2
$ 18.6
$ 10.2
$ 16.2
$ 9.2
$ 13.9
$ 8.2
$ 12.0
$ 7.3
$ 505.8
$ 43.4
Grand Total
Mean
Value
$ 5.5
$ 5.2
$ 4.8
$ 120.0
$ 25.3
$ 57.3
$ 23.2
$ 45.4
$ 22.9
$ 36.8
$ 16.8
$ 30.2
$ 16.8
$ 26.7
$ 14.0
$ 22.9
$ 12.7
$ 17.9
$ 13.6
$ 16.2
$ 10.2
$ 14.1
$ 9.1
$ 13.1
$ 8.5
$ 589.3
$ 50.6
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th%tile)
$ 5.5
$ 5.2
$ 4.8
$ 66.1
$ 12.7
$ 29.8
$ 11.5
$ 22.9
$ 11.0
$ 18.4
$ 7.6
$ 14.8
$ 7.8
$ 13.2
$ 6.3
$ 11.1
$ 5.6
$ 8.6
$ 6.2
$ 7.8
$ 4.5
$ 6.7
$ 3.9
$ 6.3
$ 3.8
$ 302.2
$ 25.9
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 5.5
$ 5.2
$ 4.8
$ 191.2
$ 40.7
$ 94.5
$ 38.1
$ 75.5
$ 38.4
$ 61.6
$ 28.3
$ 51.4
$ 28.5
$ 45.6
$ 23.7
$ 38.9
$ 21.5
$ 30.6
$ 23.1
$ 28.2
$ 17.5
$ 24.3
$ 15.6
$ 22.7
$ 14.6
$ 970.0
$ 83.2
         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.
         Ground Water Rule model output.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
D-39
                                                             October 2006

-------
                                                                 Exhibit D.4I  Present Value of Rule Activity Costs at 7 Percent, by Year and Component, for All PWSs


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.


Mean
Value
$ 55
$ 52


$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 15.5
m pie mentation
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th%tile)
$ 55
$ 52


$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 15.5
Upper
(95th%tile)
$ 55
$ 52
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 15.5
Sanitary Surveys

Mean
Value
$
$

$
$ 72
$ 67
$ 63
$ 58
$ 55
$ 5 1
$ 48
$ 45
$ 42
$ 39
$ 36
$ 34
$

$ 26
$ 24
$ 23
$ 2 1
$ 97.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th%tile)
$
$

$
$ 48
$ 45
$ 42
$ 39
$ 37
$ 34
$ 32
$ 30
$ 28
$ 26
$ 25
$ 23
$

$ 1 8
$ 1 6
$ 1 5
$ 1 4
S 65.5
Upper
(95th%tile)
$
$

$
$ 98
$ 92
$ 86
$ 80
$ 75
$ 70
$ 66
$ 6 1
$ 57
$ 54
$ 50
$ 47
$

$ 36
$ 33
$ 3 1
$ 29
$ 27
$ 133.4
HSAs

Mean
Value
$
$


$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$


$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Triggered Monitoring

Mean
Value
$
$

$
$ 72
$ 1 5
$ 64
$ 1 5
$ 57
$ 06
$ 47
$ 1 0
$ 44
$ 05
$ 38
$ 04
$ 1 0
$ 03
$ 24
$ 23
$ 04
$ 62.8
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th %tile)
$
$

$
$ 69
$ 1 5
$ 62
$ 1 5
$ 55
$ 06
$ 45
$ 09
$ 42
$ 04
$ 37
$ 04
$ 1 0
$ 03
$ 23
$ 22
$ 04
S 60.3
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$

$
$ 75
$ 1 6
$ 67
$ 1 6
$ 59
$ 07
$ 49
$ 1 0
$ 45
$ 05
$ 40
$ 04
$ 1 1
$ 03
$ 24
$ 23
S 65.3
Assessment Monitoring

Mean
Value
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th %tile)
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Correct veActi on -Plans

Mean
Value
$
$

$
$ 07
$ 0 1
$ 04
$ 0 1
$ 03
$ 00
$ 02
$ 00
$ 02
$ 00
$ 0 1
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 0 1
$ 00
S 4.8
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th%tile)
$
$

$
$ 04
$ 0 1
$ 02
$ 0 1
$ 0 1
$ 00
$ 0 1
$ 00
$ 0 1
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$
$
$
$ 00
$ 00
$ 00
$ 2.8
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$

$
$ 1 0
$ 02
$ 07
$ 02
$ 05
$ 01
$ 03
$ 01
$ 03
$ 00
$ 02
$ 00
$
$
$ 00
$ 01
$ 01
$ 00
$ 7.1
Corrective Action - Capital

Mean
Value
$
$

$
$ 31 1
$ 51
$ 207
$ 48
$ 139
$ 08
$ 97
$ 1 5
$ 78
$ 04
$ 58
$ 03
$
$
$ 01
$ 22
$ 23
$ 03
S 209.5
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$

$
$ 13 1
$ 1 8
$ 76
$ 1 8
$ 47
$ 0 1
$ 30
$ 04
$ 24
$ 00
$ 1 5
$ 00

$
$
$ 04
$ 04
$ 00
S 85.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$

$
$ 57 1
$ 96
$ 39 1
$ 94
$ 27 1
$ 20
$ 202
$ 33
$ 167
$ 1 1
$ 127
$ 08

$
$ 05
$ 57
$ 58
$ 08
S 390.6
CorrectiveAction-OSM

Mean
Value
$
$


$ 64
$ 52
$ 63
$ 54
$ 60
$ 51
$ 55
$ 49
$ 51
$ 45
$ 46
$ 41
$
$
$ 34
$ 33
$ 30
$ 28
$ 102.6
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
(5th %tile)
$
$

$
$ 3 1
$ 22
$ 29
$ 22
$ 26
$ 1 9
$ 22
$ 1 8
$ 20
$ 1 6
$ 1 8
$ 1 5
$
$
$ 1 2
$ 1 2
$ 1 1
$ 1 0
$ 42.1
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$

$
$ 104
$ 91
$ 106
$ 96
$ 104
$ 91
$ 95
$ 87
$ 90
$ 81
$ 82
$ 74

$
$ 62
$ 60
$ 55
$ 50
$ 179.0
Com pi i anc e M on itori ng

Mean
Value
$
$

$
$ 47
$ 45
$ 53
$ 51
$ 55
$ 52
$ 53
$ 50
$ 51
$ 48
$ 48
$ 45
$
$
$ 38
$ 36
$ 33
$ 31
$ 97.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$

$
$ 1 5
$ 1 5
$ 1 6
$ 1 6
$ 1 8
$ 1 6
$ 1 7
$ 1 6
$ 1 7
$ 1 6
$ 1 6
$ 1 5
$
$
$ 1 3
$ 1 2
$ 1 1
$ 1 0
$ 31.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$

$
$ 88
$ 84
$ 99
$ 95
$ 10 1
$ 95
$ 99
$ 93
$ 94
$ 88
$ 88
$ 82
$
$
$ 69
« 67
$ 60
$ 56
$ 179.0
Grand Tola

Mean
Value
$ 55
$ 52
$
$ 253
$ 573
$ 232
$ 454
$ 229
$ 368
$ 168
$ 302
$ 168
$ 267
$ 140
$ 229
$ 127
$
$
$ 102
$ 14 1
$ 13 1
$ 85

90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 55
$ 52
$
$ 127
$ 298
$ 115
$ 229
$ 110
$ 184
$ 76
$ 148
$ 78
$ 132
$ 63
$ 11 1
$ 56
$
$ 45
$ 67
$ 63
$ 38
$ 302.2
S 25.9
Upper
(95th%tile)
$ 55
$ 52
$
$ 407
$ 945
$ 38 1
$ 755
$ 384
$ 61 6
$ 283
$ 51 4
$ 285
$ 456
$ 237
$ 389
$ 21 5
$ 306
$ 23 1
$ 282
$ 175
$ 243
$ 156
$ 146
$ 970.0
$ 83.2
                         ; EEtimatesar
                         o independent
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                                                                        Exhibit D.5a  Primacy Agency Rule Activity Costs,  by Year
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
Rule Implementation & Annual
Administration
Mean
Value
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
Sanitary Surveys
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 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
$ 2.3
$ 2.3
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
HSAs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Triggered Monitoring
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$ 0.3
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.4
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.8
$ 0.0
$ 0.4
$ 0.1
$ 0.3
$ 0.1
$ 0.3
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
Assessment Monitoring
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Corrective Action Plans
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 3.0
$ 0.2
$ 1.3
$ 0.2
$ 1.0
$ 0.3
$ 0.8
$ 0.0
$ 0.6
$ 0.1
$ 0.6
$ 0.0
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.0
$ 0.3
$ 0.0
$ 0.4
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 2.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.8
$ 0.1
$ 0.6
$ 0.2
$ 0.4
$ 0.0
$ 0.3
$ 0.0
$ 0.3
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 4.1
$ 0.3
$ 1.8
$ 0.3
$ 1.5
$ 0.5
$ 1.2
$ 0.1
$ 1.0
$ 0.1
$ 1.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.8
$ 0.0
$ 0.6
$ 0.3
$ 0.6
$ 0.0
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$ 0.7
$ 0.1
Compliance Monitoring
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
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
Total
Mean
Value
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 15.8
$ 12.4
$ 13.7
$ 12.4
$ 13.4
$ 12.5
$ 13.1
$ 12.2
$ 12.9
$ 12.3
$ 12.9
$ 12.2
$ 12.8
$ 12.2
$ 12.6
$ 12.4
$ 12.6
$ 12.2
$ 12.5
$ 12.2
$ 12.6
$ 12.2
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 13.6
$ 11.3
$ 12.2
$ 11.3
$ 11.9
$ 11.4
$ 11.7
$ 11.2
$ 11.6
$ 11.3
$ 11.6
$ 11.2
$ 11.5
$ 11.2
$ 11.4
$ 11.3
$ 11.3
$ 11.2
$ 11.3
$ 11.2
$ 11.4
$ 11.2
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 18.1
$ 13.5
$ 15.4
$ 13.5
$ 15.0
$ 13.7
$ 14.6
$ 13.2
$ 14.4
$ 13.3
$ 14.4
$ 13.2
$ 14.1
$ 13.2
$ 13.8
$ 13.5
$ 13.8
$ 13.2
$ 13.8
$ 13.2
$ 13.9
$ 13.2
     Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted t(
     Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
     Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.
     Ground Water Rule model output.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        October 2006

-------
                                                                   Exhibit D.5b  Present Value of Primacy Agency Rule Activity Costs at 3 Percent, by Year
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.
Rule Implementation & Annual
Administration
Mean
Value
$ 4.2
$ 4.1
$ 4.0
$ 9.0
$ 8.8
$ 8.5
$ 8.3
$ 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
$ 5.3
$ 5.1
$ 5.0
$ 4.8
$ 160.2
$ 9.2
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 4.2
$ 4.1
$ 4.0
$ 9.0
$ 8.8
$ 8.5
$ 8.3
$ 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
$ 5.3
$ 5.1
$ 5.0
$ 4.8
$ 160.2
$ 9.2
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 4.2
$ 4.1
$ 4.0
$ 9.0
$ 8.8
$ 8.5
$ 8.3
$ 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
$ 5.3
$ 5.1
$ 5.0
$ 4.8
$ 160.2
$ 9.2
Sanitary Surveys
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 2.1
$ 2.1
$ 2.0
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 35.0
$ 2.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 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
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 20.4
$ 1.2
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 3.0
$ 2.9
$ 2.8
$ 2.8
$ 2.7
$ 2.6
$ 2.5
$ 2.5
$ 2.4
$ 2.3
$ 2.2
$ 2.2
$ 2.1
$ 2.1
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 1.9
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 49.5
$ 2.8
HSAs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Triggered Monitoring
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 1.5
$ 0.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.3
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 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
$ 0.9
$ 0.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.7
$ 0.0
$ 0.3
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 2.3
$ 0.1
Assessment Monitoring
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Corrective Action Plans
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 2.7
$ 0.2
$ 1.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.8
$ 0.2
$ 0.6
$ 0.0
$ 0.4
$ 0.1
$ 0.4
$ 0.0
$ 0.3
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 8.0
$ 0.5
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.9
$ 0.1
$ 0.7
$ 0.1
$ 0.5
$ 0.1
$ 0.3
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 4.6
$ 0.3
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 3.8
$ 0.3
$ 1.6
$ 0.2
$ 1.2
$ 0.4
$ 0.9
$ 0.1
$ 0.7
$ 0.1
$ 0.7
$ 0.0
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.0
$ 0.3
$ 0.0
$ 0.3
$ 0.0
$ 12.1
$ 0.7
Compliance Monitoring
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
$ 0.0
$ 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
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
Total
Mean
Value
$ 4.2
$ 4.1
$ 4.0
$ 14.4
$ 11.0
$ 11.9
$ 10.4
$ 10.9
$ 9.9
$ 10.1
$ 9.1
$ 9.3
$ 8.6
$ 8.8
$ 8.1
$ 8.2
$ 7.6
$ 7.6
$ 7.3
$ 7.2
$ 6.8
$ 6.7
$ 6.4
$ 6.4
$ 6.0
$ 204.9
$ 11.8
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 4.2
$ 4.1
$ 4.0
$ 12.5
$ 10.1
$ 10.5
$ 9.5
$ 9.7
$ 9.0
$ 9.0
$ 8.4
$ 8.4
$ 7.9
$ 7.9
$ 7.4
$ 7.4
$ 7.0
$ 6.9
$ 6.7
$ 6.5
$ 6.2
$ 6.1
$ 5.9
$ 5.8
$ 5.5
$ 186.1
$ 10.7
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 4.2
$ 4.1
$ 4.0
$ 16.6
$ 12.0
$ 13.3
$ 11.3
$ 12.2
$ 10.8
$ 11.2
$ 9.8
$ 10.4
$ 9.3
$ 9.8
$ 8.7
$ 9.1
$ 8.2
$ 8.4
$ 7.9
$ 7.9
$ 7.3
$ 7.4
$ 6.9
$ 7.1
$ 6.5
$ 224.3
$ 12.9
  Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted
  Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
  Ann =value of total annualized at discount rate.
  Ground Water Rule model output.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               October 2006

-------
                                                                    Exhibit D.5c  Present Value of Primacy Agency Rule Activity Costs at 7 Percent,  by Year
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.
Rule Implementation & Annual
Administration
Mean
Value
$ 4.2
$ 3.9
$ 3.7
$ 8.0
$ 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
$ 2.9
$ 2.7
$ 2.5
$ 2.4
$ 2.2
$ 2.1
$ 1.9
$ 107.0
$ 9.2
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 4.2
$ 3.9
$ 3.7
$ 8.0
$ 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
$ 2.9
$ 2.7
$ 2.5
$ 2.4
$ 2.2
$ 2.1
$ 1.9
$ 107.0
$ 9.2
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 4.2
$ 3.9
$ 3.7
$ 8.0
$ 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
$ 2.9
$ 2.7
$ 2.5
$ 2.4
$ 2.2
$ 2.1
$ 1.9
$ 107.0
$ 9.2
Sanitary Surveys
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 1.9
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 22.5
$ 1.9
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 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
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 13.1
$ 1.1
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 2.7
$ 2.5
$ 2.3
$ 2.2
$ 2.1
$ 1.9
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 31.8
$ 2.7
HSAs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Triggered Monitoring
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.4
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 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
$ 1.1

90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.3
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 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
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.7

Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.6
$ 0.0
$ 0.3
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 1.7
$ 0.1
Assessment Monitoring
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Corrective Action Plans
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 2.4
$ 0.2
$ 0.9
$ 0.1
$ 0.6
$ 0.2
$ 0.4
$ 0.0
$ 0.3
$ 0.0
$ 0.3
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 6.1
$ 0.5
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.7
$ 0.1
$ 0.6
$ 0.1
$ 0.3
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 3.6
$ 0.3
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 3.4
$ 0.2
$ 1.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.9
$ 0.3
$ 0.7
$ 0.0
$ 0.5
$ 0.1
$ 0.4
$ 0.0
$ 0.3
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 9.0
$ 0.8
Compliance Monitoring
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
$ 0.0
$ 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)
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
Total
Mean
Value
$ 4.2
$ 3.9
$ 3.7
$ 12.9
$ 9.5
$ 9.8
$ 8.3
$ 8.3
$ 7.3
$ 7.1
$ 6.2
$ 6.1
$ 5.5
$ 5.4
$ 4.7
$ 4.6
$ 4.1
$ 4.0
$ 3.7
$ 3.5
$ 3.2
$ 3.0
$ 2.8
$ 2.7
$ 2.4
$ 136.8
$ 11.7
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 4.2
$ 3.9
$ 3.7
$ 11.1
$ 8.7
$ 8.7
$ 7.6
$ 7.4
$ 6.6
$ 6.4
$ 5.7
$ 5.5
$ 5.0
$ 4.8
$ 4.3
$ 4.2
$ 3.8
$ 3.6
$ 3.4
$ 3.1
$ 2.9
$ 2.7
$ 2.5
$ 2.4
$ 2.2
$ 124.4
$ 10.7
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 4.2
$ 3.9
$ 3.7
$ 14.8
$ 10.3
$ 11.0
$ 9.0
$ 9.3
$ 8.0
$ 8.0
$ 6.7
$ 6.8
$ 5.9
$ 6.0
$ 5.1
$ 5.1
$ 4.5
$ 4.4
$ 4.0
$ 3.8
$ 3.4
$ 3.3
$ 3.0
$ 2.9
$ 2.6
$ 149.7
$ 12.8
 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.
 Ground Water Rule model output.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               October 2006

-------
                       Exhibit D.6a Total Activity Costs for Option 1, by Year, for All PWSs

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
CWSs

Mean
Value
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 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
$ 3.0
$ 3.0
$ 3.0
$ 3.0
$ 3.0
$ 3.0
$ 3.0
$ 3.0
$ 3.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 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
$ 2.0
$ 2.0
$ 2.0
$ 2.0
$ 2.0
$ 2.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
NTNCWSs

Mean
Value
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tlle)
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
Upper
(95th %tlle)
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
TNCWSs

Mean
Value
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 5.7
$ 5.7
$ 5.7
$ 5.7
$ 5.7
$ 5.7
$ 5.7
$ 5.7
$ 5.7
$ 5.7
$ 5.7
$ 5.7
$ 5.7
$ 5.7
$ 5.7
$ 5.7
$ 5.7
$ 5.7
$ 5.7
$ 5.7
$ 5.7
$ 5.7
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tlle)
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
Upper
(95th %tlle)
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 7.7
$ 7.7
$ 7.7
$ 7.7
$ 7.7
$ 7.7
$ 7.7
$ 7.7
$ 7.7
$ 7.7
$ 7.7
$ 7.7
$ 7.7
$ 7.7
$ 7.7
$ 7.7
$ 7.7
$ 7.7
$ 7.7
$ 7.7
$ 7.7
$ 7.7
Grand Total

Mean
Value
$ 5.5
$ 5.5
$ 5.5
$ 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
$ 10.0
$ 10.0
$ 10.0
$ 10.0
$ 10.0
$ 10.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tlle)
$ 5.5
$ 5.5
$ 5.5
$ 6.8
$ 6.8
$ 6.8
$ 6.8
$ 6.8
$ 6.8
$ 6.8
$ 6.8
$ 6.8
$ 6.8
$ 6.8
$ 6.8
$ 6.8
$ 6.8
$ 6.8
$ 6.8
$ 6.8
$ 6.8
$ 6.8
$ 6.8
$ 6.8
$ 6.8
Upper
(95th %tlle)
$ 5.5
$ 5.5
$ 5.5
$ 13.6
$ 13.6
$ 13.6
$ 13.6
$ 13.6
$ 13.6
$ 13.6
$ 13.6
$ 13.6
$ 13.6
$ 13.6
$ 13.6
$ 13.6
$ 13.6
$ 13.6
$ 13.6
$ 13.6
$ 13.6
$ 13.6
$ 13.6
$ 13.6
$ 13.6
 Notes:  Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2004.
        Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
        Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.
 Source: Ground Water Rule model output.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
D-44
October 2006

-------
         Exhibit D.6b  Present Value of Total Activity Costs at 3 Percent for Option 1, by Year, for All PWSs
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.
CWSs
Mean
Value
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 2.8
$ 2.7
$ 2.6
$ 2.6
$ 2.5
$ 2.4
$ 2.3
$ 2.3
$ 2.2
$ 2.1
$ 2.1
$ 2.0
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 50.7
$ 2.9
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 1.9
$ 1.8
$ 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
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 35.3
$ 2.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 3.8
$ 3.7
$ 3.6
$ 3.5
$ 3.4
$ 3.3
$ 3.2
$ 3.1
$ 3.0
$ 2.9
$ 2.8
$ 2.8
$ 2.7
$ 2.6
$ 2.5
$ 2.5
$ 2.4
$ 2.3
$ 2.2
$ 2.2
$ 2.1
$ 2.1
$ 67.6
$ 3.9
NTNCWSs
Mean
Value
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 1.1
$ 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
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 20.9
$ 1.2
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 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
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 14.9
$ 0.9
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 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
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 27.7
$ 1.6
TNCWSs
Mean
Value
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.0
$ 5.2
$ 5.1
$ 4.9
$ 4.8
$ 4.6
$ 4.5
$ 4.4
$ 4.2
$ 4.1
$ 4.0
$ 3.9
$ 3.8
$ 3.6
$ 3.5
$ 3.4
$ 3.3
$ 3.2
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.0
$ 2.9
$ 2.8
$ 94.6
$ 5.4
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.0
$ 3.6
$ 3.5
$ 3.4
$ 3.3
$ 3.2
$ 3.1
$ 3.0
$ 2.9
$ 2.8
$ 2.7
$ 2.7
$ 2.6
$ 2.5
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 2.3
$ 2.2
$ 2.2
$ 2.1
$ 2.0
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 67.7
$ 3.9
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.0
$ 7.1
$ 6.9
$ 6.7
$ 6.5
$ 6.3
$ 6.1
$ 5.9
$ 5.7
$ 5.6
$ 5.4
$ 5.3
$ 5.1
$ 5.0
$ 4.8
$ 4.7
$ 4.5
$ 4.4
$ 4.3
$ 4.1
$ 4.0
$ 3.9
$ 3.8
$ 125.1
$ 7.2
Grand Total
Mean
Value
$ 5.5
$ 5.4
$ 5.2
$ 9.1
$ 8.9
$ 8.6
$ 8.4
$ 8.1
$ 7.9
$ 7.7
$ 7.4
$ 7.2
$ 7.0
$ 6.8
$ 6.6
$ 6.4
$ 6.2
$ 6.0
$ 5.9
$ 5.7
$ 5.5
$ 5.4
$ 5.2
$ 5.1
$ 4.9
$ 166.1
$ 9.5
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 5.5
$ 5.4
$ 5.2
$ 6.2
$ 6.0
$ 5.8
$ 5.7
$ 5.5
$ 5.3
$ 5.2
$ 5.0
$ 4.9
$ 4.8
$ 4.6
$ 4.5
$ 4.3
$ 4.2
$ 4.1
$ 4.0
$ 3.9
$ 3.8
$ 3.6
$ 3.5
$ 3.4
$ 3.3
$ 117.9
$ 6.8
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 5.5
$ 5.4
$ 5.2
$ 12.4
$ 12.1
$ 11.7
$ 11.4
$ 11.1
$ 10.7
$ 10.4
$ 10.1
$ 9.8
$ 9.5
$ 9.3
$ 9.0
$ 8.7
$ 8.5
$ 8.2
$ 8.0
$ 7.8
$ 7.5
$ 7.3
$ 7.1
$ 6.9
$ 6.7
$ 220.4
$ 12.7
  Notes:   Present values in millions of 2003 dollars.
         Detail may not add exactly to totals due to
         Ann = value of total annualized at discount
  Source:  Ground Water Rule model output.
 Estimates are discounted to
 independent rounding.
it rate.
                                                             2004.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                         D-45
                                                                                 October 2006

-------
               Exhibit D.6c  Present Value of Total Rule Costs at 7 Percent for Option 1, by Year, for All PWSs
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.
CWSs
Mean
Value
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 2.5
$ 2.3
$ 2.2
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 34.2
$ 2.9
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.7
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 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
$ 24.3
$ 2.1
Upper
(95th%tile)
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 3.4
$ 3.2
$ 3.0
$ 2.8
$ 2.6
$ 2.4
$ 2.3
$ 2.1
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 45.0
$ 3.9
NTNCWSs
Mean
Value
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 1.0
$ 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
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 14.1
$ 1.2
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 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
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 10.2
$ 0.9
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 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
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 18.4
$ 1.6
TNCWSs
Mean
Value
$ 3.1
$ 2.9
$ 2.7
$ 4.6
$ 4.3
$ 4.1
$ 3.8
$ 3.5
$ 3.3
$ 3.1
$ 2.9
$ 2.7
$ 2.5
$ 2.4
$ 2.2
$ 2.1
$ 1.9
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 63.7
$ 5.5
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 3.1
$ 2.9
$ 2.7
$ 3.2
$ 3.0
$ 2.8
$ 2.6
$ 2.4
$ 2.3
$ 2.1
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 46.5
$ 4.0
Upper
(95th%tile)
$ 3.1
$ 2.9
$ 2.7
$ 6.3
$ 5.9
$ 5.5
$ 5.1
$ 4.8
$ 4.5
$ 4.2
$ 3.9
$ 3.7
$ 3.4
$ 3.2
$ 3.0
$ 2.8
$ 2.6
$ 2.4
$ 2.3
$ 2.1
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 83.4
$ 7.2
Grand Total
Mean
Value
$ 5.5
$ 5.2
$ 4.8
$ 8.2
$ 7.6
$ 7.1
$ 6.7
$ 6.2
$ 5.8
$ 5.4
$ 5.1
$ 4.7
$ 4.4
$ 4.1
$ 3.9
$ 3.6
$ 3.4
$ 3.2
$ 3.0
$ 2.8
$ 2.6
$ 2.4
$ 2.3
$ 2.1
$ 2.0
$ 112.0
$ 9.6
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 5.5
$ 5.2
$ 4.8
$ 5.5
$ 5.2
$ 4.8
$ 4.5
$ 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
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 81.0
$ 7.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 5.5
$ 5.2
$ 4.8
$ 11.1
$ 10.4
$ 9.7
$ 9.1
$ 8.5
$ 7.9
$ 7.4
$ 6.9
$ 6.5
$ 6.0
$ 5.6
$ 5.3
$ 4.9
$ 4.6
$ 4.3
$ 4.0
$ 3.8
$ 3.5
$ 3.3
$ 3.1
$ 2.9
$ 2.7
$ 146.9
$ 12.6
         Present values in millions of 2003 dollars.  Estimates are discounted to 2004.
         Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
         Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.
         Ground Water Rule model output.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
D-46
                                                           October 2006

-------
                                                                                  Exhibit D.6d Primacy Agency Activity Costs for Option 1, by Year
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
Rule Implementation & Annual
Administration
Mean
Value
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
Sanitary Surveys
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 3.4
$ 3.4
$ 3.4
$ 3.4
$ 3.4
$ 3.4
$ 3.4
$ 3.4
$ 3.4
$ 3.4
$ 3.4
$ 3.4
$ 3.4
$ 3.4
$ 3.4
$ 3.4
$ 3.4
$ 3.4
$ 3.4
$ 3.4
$ 3.4
$ 3.4
HSAs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Triggered Monitoring
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Assessment Monitoring
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Corrective Action Plans
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Compliance Monitoring
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Total
Mean
Value
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 6.4
$ 6.4
$ 6.4
$ 6.4
$ 6.4
$ 6.4
$ 6.4
$ 6.4
$ 6.4
$ 6.4
$ 6.4
$ 6.4
$ 6.4
$ 6.4
$ 6.4
$ 6.4
$ 6.4
$ 6.4
$ 6.4
$ 6.4
$ 6.4
$ 6.4
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 5.3
$ 5.3
$ 5.3
$ 5.3
$ 5.3
$ 5.3
$ 5.3
$ 5.3
$ 5.3
$ 5.3
$ 5.3
$ 5.3
$ 5.3
$ 5.3
$ 5.3
$ 5.3
$ 5.3
$ 5.3
$ 5.3
$ 5.3
$ 5.3
$ 5.3
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 7.4
$ 7.4
$ 7.4
$ 7.4
$ 7.4
$ 7.4
$ 7.4
$ 7.4
$ 7.4
$ 7.4
$ 7.4
$ 7.4
$ 7.4
$ 7.4
$ 7.4
$ 7.4
$ 7.4
$ 7.4
$ 7.4
$ 7.4
$ 7.4
$ 7.4
    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.
    Ground Water Rule model output.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      October 2006

-------
                                                            Exhibit D.6e  Present Value of Primacy Agency Rule Activity Costs for Option 1 at 3 Percent, by Year
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.
Rule Implementation & Annual
Administration
Mean
Value
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 3.6
$ 3.5
$ 3.4
$ 3.3
$ 3.2
$ 3.1
$ 3.0
$ 2.9
$ 2.8
$ 2.8
$ 2.7
$ 2.6
$ 2.5
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 2.3
$ 2.2
$ 2.2
$ 2.1
$ 2.1
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 64.4
$ 3.7
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 3.6
$ 3.5
$ 3.4
$ 3.3
$ 3.2
$ 3.1
$ 3.0
$ 2.9
$ 2.8
$ 2.8
$ 2.7
$ 2.6
$ 2.5
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 2.3
$ 2.2
$ 2.2
$ 2.1
$ 2.1
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 64.4
$ 3.7
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 3.6
$ 3.5
$ 3.4
$ 3.3
$ 3.2
$ 3.1
$ 3.0
$ 2.9
$ 2.8
$ 2.8
$ 2.7
$ 2.6
$ 2.5
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 2.3
$ 2.2
$ 2.2
$ 2.1
$ 2.1
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 64.4
$ 3.7
Sanitary Surveys
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 2.2
$ 2.2
$ 2.1
$ 2.0
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 1.9
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 36.4
$ 2.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 21.1
$ 1.2
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 3.1
$ 3.0
$ 3.0
$ 2.9
$ 2.8
$ 2.7
$ 2.6
$ 2.5
$ 2.5
$ 2.4
$ 2.3
$ 2.3
$ 2.2
$ 2.1
$ 2.1
$ 2.0
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 51.4
$ 3.0
HSAs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Triggered Monitoring
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Assessment Monitoring
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Corrective Action Plans
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Compliance Monitoring
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Total
Mean
Value
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 5.8
$ 5.6
$ 5.5
$ 5.3
$ 5.2
$ 5.0
$ 4.9
$ 4.7
$ 4.6
$ 4.5
$ 4.3
$ 4.2
$ 4.1
$ 4.0
$ 3.8
$ 3.7
$ 3.6
$ 3.5
$ 3.4
$ 3.3
$ 3.2
$ 3.1
$ 100.9
$ 5.8
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 4.9
$ 4.7
$ 4.6
$ 4.5
$ 4.3
$ 4.2
$ 4.1
$ 4.0
$ 3.9
$ 3.7
$ 3.6
$ 3.5
$ 3.4
$ 3.3
$ 3.2
$ 3.1
$ 3.0
$ 3.0
$ 2.9
$ 2.8
$ 2.7
$ 2.6
$ 85.6
$ 4.9
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 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
$ 4.6
$ 4.4
$ 4.3
$ 4.2
$ 4.1
$ 4.0
$ 3.8
$ 3.7
$ 3.6
$ 115.8
$ 6.7
  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.
  Ground Water Rule model output.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              October 2006

-------
                                                            Exhibit D.6f  Present Value of Primacy Agency Rule Activity Costs for Option 1 at 7 Percent, by Year
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.
Rule Implementation & Annual
Administration
Mean
Value
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 3.2
$ 3.0
$ 2.8
$ 2.6
$ 2.4
$ 2.3
$ 2.1
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 43.2
$ 3.7
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 3.2
$ 3.0
$ 2.8
$ 2.6
$ 2.4
$ 2.3
$ 2.1
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 43.2
$ 3.7
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 3.2
$ 3.0
$ 2.8
$ 2.6
$ 2.4
$ 2.3
$ 2.1
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 43.2
$ 3.7
Sanitary Surveys
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 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
$ 23.4
$ 2.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.1
$ 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
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 13.6
$ 1.2
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 2.8
$ 2.6
$ 2.4
$ 2.3
$ 2.1
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 33.1
$ 2.8
HSAs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Triggered Monitoring
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Assessment Monitoring
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Corrective Action Plans
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Compliance Monitoring
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Total
Mean
Value
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 5.2
$ 4.8
$ 4.5
$ 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
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 66.6
$ 5.7
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 4.4
$ 4.1
$ 3.8
$ 3.6
$ 3.3
$ 3.1
$ 2.9
$ 2.7
$ 2.5
$ 2.4
$ 2.2
$ 2.1
$ 1.9
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 56.7
$ 4.9
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 6.0
$ 5.6
$ 5.2
$ 4.9
$ 4.6
$ 4.3
$ 4.0
$ 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
$ 1.4
$ 76.2
$ 6.5
  Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted
  Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
  Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.
  Ground Water Rule model output.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              October 2006

-------
                        Exhibit D.7a  Total Activity Costs for Option 3, by Year, for All PWSs

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
CWSs

Mean
Value
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 64.2
$ 17.6
$ 66.7
$ 18.5
$ 20.9
$ 17.0
$ 22.8
$ 14.0
$ 19.0
$ 16.7
$ 21.2
$ 14.4
$ 20.8
$ 14.6
$ 18.5
$ 19.0
$ 18.5
$ 15.1
$ 20.4
$ 15.3
$ 20.3
$ 17.2
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 36.1
$ 8.5
$ 35.9
$ 8.6
$ 9.7
$ 7.7
$ 10.8
$ 6.1
$ 8.8
$ 7.7
$ 10.0
$ 6.3
$ 10.0
$ 6.5
$ 8.6
$ 8.9
$ 8.6
$ 6.7
$ 9.7
$ 6.8
$ 9.6
$ 8.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 100.3
$ 29.0
$ 106.6
$ 31.4
$ 36.0
$ 28.9
$ 39.1
$ 24.3
$ 33.1
$ 28.7
$ 36.5
$ 24.7
$ 36.1
$ 25.2
$ 32.0
$ 32.6
$ 32.2
$ 25.8
$ 35.2
$ 26.3
$ 35.2
$ 29.7
NTNCWSs

Mean
Value
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 15.0
$ 3.4
$ 3.0
$ 2.9
$ 22.7
$ 7.1
$ 4.1
$ 4.0
$ 6.8
$ 4.3
$ 6.5
$ 4.4
$ 6.7
$ 4.6
$ 4.5
$ 6.5
$ 6.6
$ 4.8
$ 4.8
$ 4.8
$ 8.2
$ 5.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tlle)
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 8.1
$ 1.7
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 12.4
$ 3.5
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 3.1
$ 1.8
$ 3.1
$ 1.9
$ 3.0
$ 1.9
$ 1.9
$ 3.0
$ 2.9
$ 2.0
$ 2.0
$ 2.0
$ 3.8
$ 2.1
Upper
(95th %tlle)
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 24.8
$ 5.5
$ 5.0
$ 4.9
$ 35.7
$ 11.9
$ 7.1
$ 7.0
$ 11.9
$ 7.5
$ 11.3
$ 7.6
$ 11.6
$ 7.9
$ 7.9
$ 11.2
$ 11.7
$ 8.4
$ 8.4
$ 8.4
$ 14.4
$ 8.7
TNCWSs

Mean
Value
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 66.1
$ 11.8
$ 50.9
$ 43.7
$ 54.6
$ 30.8
$ 38.1
$ 18.6
$ 36.6
$ 19.5
$ 35.1
$ 20.2
$ 34.6
$ 20.8
$ 33.9
$ 21.4
$ 33.6
$ 21.9
$ 33.2
$ 22.3
$ 33.0
$ 22.7
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tlle)
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 36.5
$ 6.2
$ 27.3
$ 21.0
$ 29.4
$ 14.6
$ 19.3
$ 8.3
$ 18.1
$ 8.7
$ 17.7
$ 8.8
$ 16.8
$ 9.0
$ 16.6
$ 9.2
$ 16.2
$ 9.3
$ 16.1
$ 9.5
$ 16.1
$ 9.6
Upper
(95th %tlle)
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 106.9
$ 18.9
$ 83.0
$ 73.1
$ 88.6
$ 53.3
$ 63.4
$ 31.2
$ 62.6
$ 33.1
$ 59.2
$ 34.0
$ 59.2
$ 35.4
$ 57.6
$ 36.4
$ 57.7
$ 37.2
$ 56.7
$ 37.9
$ 56.6
$ 38.5
Grand Total

Mean
Value
$ 5.5
$ 5.5
$ 5.5
$ 145.2
$ 32.8
$ 120.6
$ 65.1
$ 98.2
$ 54.9
$ 65.0
$ 36.7
$ 62.4
$ 40.5
$ 62.9
$ 39.0
$ 62.1
$ 40.1
$ 56.9
$ 46.9
$ 58.7
$ 41.7
$ 58.4
$ 42.3
$ 61.5
$ 44.9
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tlle)
$ 5.5
$ 5.5
$ 5.5
$ 80.6
$ 16.4
$ 64.6
$ 31.0
$ 51.5
$ 25.8
$ 31.9
$ 16.1
$ 30.0
$ 18.2
$ 30.8
$ 17.0
$ 29.7
$ 17.4
$ 27.1
$ 21.1
$ 27.7
$ 18.0
$ 27.9
$ 18.3
$ 29.5
$ 19.6
Upper
(95th %tlle)
$ 5.5
$ 5.5
$ 5.5
$ 232.0
$ 53.4
$ 194.6
$ 109.4
$ 160.2
$ 94.1
$ 109.7
$ 62.4
$ 107.6
$ 69.2
$ 106.9
$ 66.3
$ 106.9
$ 68.6
$ 97.5
$ 80.2
$ 101.7
$ 71.4
$ 100.3
$ 72.6
$ 106.2
$ 76.9
 Notes:  Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2004.
        Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
        Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.
 Source: Ground Water Rule model output.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
D-50
October 2006

-------
            Exhibit D.7b Present Value of Total Activity Costs at 3 Percent for Option 3, by Year, for All PWSs

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.
CWSs

Mean
Value
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 58.7
$ 15.7
$ 57.6
$ 15.5
$ 17.0
$ 13.4
$ 17.5
$ 10.4
$ 13.7
$ 11.7
$ 14.5
$ 9.5
$ 13.4
$ 9.1
$ 11.2
$ 11.2
$ 10.6
$ 8.3
$ 10.9
$ 8.0
$ 10.3
$ 8.5
$ 361.6
$ 20.8
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 33.0
$ 7.6
$ 31.0
$ 7.2
$ 7.9
$ 6.1
$ 8.3
$ 4.6
$ 6.3
$ 5.4
$ 6.8
$ 4.2
$ 6.4
$ 4.0
$ 5.2
$ 5.2
$ 4.9
$ 3.7
$ 5.2
$ 3.5
$ 4.9
$ 3.9
$ 180.2
$ 10.4
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 91.8
$ 25.8
$ 92.0
$ 26.3
$ 29.3
$ 22.8
$ 30.0
$ 18.1
$ 23.9
$ 20.1
$ 24.9
$ 16.3
$ 23.2
$ 15.7
$ 19.4
$ 19.2
$ 18.4
$ 14.3
$ 18.9
$ 13.7
$ 17.8
$ 14.6
$ 601.3
$ 34.5
NTNCWSs

Mean
Value
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 13.7
$ 3.0
$ 2.6
$ 2.4
$ 18.4
$ 5.6
$ 3.1
$ 3.0
$ 4.9
$ 3.0
$ 4.5
$ 2.9
$ 4.3
$ 2.8
$ 2.7
$ 3.8
$ 3.8
$ 2.7
$ 2.6
$ 2.5
$ 4.2
$ 2.5
$ 101.0
$ 5.8
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th % tile)
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 7.4
$ 1.5
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 10.1
$ 2.8
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 2.2
$ 1.3
$ 2.1
$ 1.2
$ 1.9
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.9
$ 1.0
$ 49.4
$ 2.8
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 22.7
$ 4.9
$ 4.3
$ 4.1
$ 29.0
$ 9.4
$ 5.4
$ 5.2
$ 8.6
$ 5.2
$ 7.7
$ 5.1
$ 7.5
$ 4.9
$ 4.8
$ 6.6
$ 6.7
$ 4.6
$ 4.5
$ 4.4
$ 7.3
$ 4.3
$ 169.1
$ 9.7
TNCWSs

Mean
Value
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.0
$ 60.5
$ 10.5
$ 43.9
$ 36.6
$ 44.4
$ 24.3
$ 29.2
$ 13.8
$ 26.4
$ 13.7
$ 23.9
$ 13.4
$ 22.2
$ 13.0
$ 20.5
$ 12.6
$ 19.2
$ 12.1
$ 17.9
$ 11.6
$ 16.7
$ 11.2
$ 506.8
$ 29.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.0
$ 33.4
$ 5.5
$ 23.5
$ 17.6
$ 23.9
$ 11.5
$ 14.8
$ 6.2
$ 13.1
$ 6.1
$ 12.0
$ 5.8
$ 10.8
$ 5.6
$ 10.0
$ 5.4
$ 9.2
$ 5.1
$ 8.7
$ 5.0
$ 8.2
$ 4.7
$ 255.4
$ 14.7
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.0
$ 97.8
$ 16.8
$ 71.6
$ 61.2
$ 72.0
$ 42.1
$ 48.6
$ 23.2
$ 45.3
$ 23.2
$ 40.3
$ 22.5
$ 38.0
$ 22.1
$ 34.8
$ 21.4
$ 32.9
$ 20.6
$ 30.5
$ 19.8
$ 28.7
$ 18.9
$ 841 .4
$ 48.3
Grand Total

Mean
Value
$ 5.5
$ 5.4
$ 5.2
$ 132.9
$ 29.2
$ 104.0
$ 54.6
$ 79.9
$ 43.4
$ 49.8
$ 27.3
$ 45.1
$ 28.4
$ 42.8
$ 25.8
$ 39.8
$ 25.0
$ 34.4
$ 27.5
$ 33.5
$ 23.1
$ 31.4
$ 22.1
$ 31.2
$ 22.1
$ 969.3
$ 55.7
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th % tile)
$ 5.5
$ 5.4
$ 5.2
$ 73.8
$ 14.6
$ 55.7
$ 25.9
$ 41.9
$ 20.4
$ 24.4
$ 12.0
$ 21.7
$ 12.7
$ 20.9
$ 11.2
$ 19.1
$ 10.9
$ 16.4
$ 12.4
$ 15.8
$ 10.0
$ 15.0
$ 9.5
$ 15.0
$ 9.7
$ 485.0
$ 27.9
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 5.5
$ 5.4
$ 5.2
$ 212.3
$ 47.4
$ 167.9
$ 91.6
$ 130.3
$ 74.3
$ 84.0
$ 46.5
$ 77.7
$ 48.6
$ 72.8
$ 43.8
$ 68.6
$ 42.8
$ 59.0
$ 47.1
$ 58.0
$ 39.5
$ 53.9
$ 37.9
$ 53.8
$ 37.8
$ 1,611.8
$ 92.6
 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:  Ground Water Rule model output.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
D-51
                                                          October 2006

-------
             Exhibit D.7c  Present Value of Total Rule Costs at 7 Percent for Option 3, by Year, for All PWSs
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.
CWSs
Mean
Value
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 52.4
$ 13.4
$ 47.6
$ 12.3
$ 13.0
$ 9.9
$ 12.4
$ 7.1
$ 9.0
$ 7.4
$ 8.8
$ 5.6
$ 7.6
$ 5.0
$ 5.9
$ 5.6
$ 5.1
$ 3.9
$ 4.9
$ 3.4
$ 4.3
$ 3.4
$ 252.8
$ 21.7
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 29.4
$ 6.5
$ 25.6
$ 5.7
$ 6.0
$ 4.5
$ 5.9
$ 3.1
$ 4.2
$ 3.4
$ 4.2
$ 2.4
$ 3.6
$ 2.2
$ 2.7
$ 2.6
$ 2.4
$ 1.7
$ 2.4
$ 1.5
$ 2.0
$ 1.6
$ 128.5
$ 11.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 81.9
$ 22.1
$ 76.0
$ 20.9
$ 22.4
$ 16.8
$ 21.3
$ 12.3
$ 15.7
$ 12.7
$ 15.2
$ 9.6
$ 13.1
$ 8.5
$ 10.1
$ 9.7
$ 8.9
$ 6.7
$ 8.5
$ 5.9
$ 7.4
$ 5.9
$ 416.5
$ 35.7
NTNCWSs
Mean
Value
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 12.2
$ 2.6
$ 2.1
$ 1.9
$ 14.1
$ 4.1
$ 2.2
$ 2.1
$ 3.2
$ 1.9
$ 2.7
$ 1.7
$ 2.4
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.9
$ 1.8
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.7
$ 1.0
$ 68.2
$ 5.9
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 6.6
$ 1.3
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 7.7
$ 2.1
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 1.5
$ 0.8
$ 1.3
$ 0.7
$ 1.1
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.4
$ 0.8
$ 0.4
$ 34.3
$ 2.9
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 20.2
$ 4.2
$ 3.5
$ 3.2
$ 22.2
$ 6.9
$ 3.8
$ 3.6
$ 5.7
$ 3.3
$ 4.7
$ 3.0
$ 4.2
$ 2.7
$ 2.5
$ 3.3
$ 3.2
$ 2.2
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 3.0
$ 1.7
$ 113.1
$ 9.7
TNCWSs
Mean
Value
$ 3.1
$ 2.9
$ 2.7
$ 53.9
$ 9.0
$ 36.3
$ 29.1
$ 34.0
$ 17.9
$ 20.7
$ 9.5
$ 17.4
$ 8.7
$ 14.6
$ 7.8
$ 12.5
$ 7.1
$ 10.7
$ 6.3
$ 9.3
$ 5.6
$ 8.0
$ 5.0
$ 7.0
$ 4.5
$ 343.9
$ 29.5
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 3.1
$ 2.9
$ 2.7
$ 29.8
$ 4.7
$ 19.4
$ 14.0
$ 18.3
$ 8.5
$ 10.5
$ 4.2
$ 8.6
$ 3.8
$ 7.3
$ 3.4
$ 6.1
$ 3.1
$ 5.3
$ 2.7
$ 4.5
$ 2.4
$ 3.9
$ 2.2
$ 3.4
$ 1.9
$ 176.8
$ 15.2
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 3.1
$ 2.9
$ 2.7
$ 87.2
$ 14.4
$ 59.2
$ 48.7
$ 55.1
$ 31.0
$ 34.5
$ 15.8
$ 29.8
$ 14.7
$ 24.5
$ 13.2
$ 21.5
$ 12.0
$ 18.2
$ 10.8
$ 16.0
$ 9.6
$ 13.7
$ 8.6
$ 11.9
$ 7.6
$ 566.9
$ 48.6
Grand Total
Mean
Value
$ 5.5
$ 5.2
$ 4.8
$ 118.5
$ 25.0
$ 86.0
$ 43.4
$ 61.2
$ 32.0
$ 35.4
$ 18.6
$ 29.6
$ 18.0
$ 26.1
$ 15.1
$ 22.5
$ 13.6
$ 18.0
$ 13.9
$ 16.2
$ 10.8
$ 14.1
$ 9.5
$ 13.0
$ 8.9
$ 665.0
$ 57.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 5.5
$ 5.2
$ 4.8
$ 65.8
$ 12.5
$ 46.1
$ 20.6
$ 32.1
$ 15.0
$ 17.3
$ 8.2
$ 14.2
$ 8.1
$ 12.8
$ 6.6
$ 10.8
$ 5.9
$ 8.6
$ 6.2
$ 7.7
$ 4.6
$ 6.7
$ 4.1
$ 6.2
$ 3.9
$ 339.6
$ 29.1
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 5.5
$ 5.2
$ 4.8
$ 189.4
$ 40.7
$ 138.7
$ 72.9
$ 99.8
$ 54.8
$ 59.6
$ 31.7
$ 51.1
$ 30.7
$ 44.4
$ 25.7
$ 38.8
$ 23.2
$ 30.9
$ 23.7
$ 28.1
$ 18.4
$ 24.2
$ 16.4
$ 22.4
$ 15.2
$ 1,096.5
$ 94.1
 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:  Ground Water Rule model output.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
D-52
                                                          October 2006

-------
                                                                                  Exhibit D.7d Primacy Agency Activity Costs for Option 3, by Year
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
Rule Implementation & Annual
Administration
Mean
Value
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
Sanitary Surveys
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 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
$ 2.3
$ 2.3
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
$ 3.3
HSAs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 1.9
$
$ 5.6
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 1.7
$
$ 4.9
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 2.1
$
$ 6.2
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Triggered Monitoring
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.4
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 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)
$
$
$
$ 0.8
$ 0.0
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
Assessment Monitoring
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.7
$
$ 0.4
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$
$ 0.1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.4
$
$ 0.7
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Corrective Action Plans
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 3.0
$ 0.2
$ 2.2
$ 0.6
$ 1.2
$ 0.4
$ 0.6
$ 0.0
$ 0.5
$ 0.1
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$ 0.4
$ 0.0
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.3
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 2.0
$ 0.1
$ 1.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.6
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 4.1
$ 0.3
$ 3.2
$ 1.0
$ 1.8
$ 0.6
$ 1.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.8
$ 0.1
$ 0.8
$ 0.0
$ 0.7
$ 0.0
$ 0.5
$ 0.3
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$ 0.4
$ 0.0
$ 0.5
$ 0.1
Compliance Monitoring
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
$ 0.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
Total
Mean
Value
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 15.8
$ 14.3
$ 15.3
$ 18.5
$ 13.9
$ 12.6
$ 12.9
$ 12.2
$ 12.8
$ 12.3
$ 12.8
$ 12.2
$ 12.6
$ 12.2
$ 12.5
$ 12.4
$ 12.5
$ 12.2
$ 12.5
$ 12.2
$ 12.5
$ 12.2
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 13.5
$ 13.0
$ 12.8
$ 16.6
$ 12.0
$ 11.4
$ 11.6
$ 11.2
$ 11.5
$ 11.3
$ 11.5
$ 11.2
$ 11.4
$ 11.2
$ 11.3
$ 11.3
$ 11.3
$ 11.2
$ 11.3
$ 11.2
$ 11.3
$ 11.2
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 4.2
$ 18.1
$ 15.6
$ 18.1
$ 20.6
$ 15.8
$ 13.9
$ 14.3
$ 13.2
$ 14.1
$ 13.3
$ 14.1
$ 13.2
$ 14.0
$ 13.2
$ 13.7
$ 13.4
$ 13.7
$ 13.2
$ 13.7
$ 13.2
$ 13.8
$ 13.2
    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.
    Ground Water Rule model output.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     October 2006

-------
                                                           Exhibit D.7e  Present Value of Primacy Agency Rule Activity Costs for Option 3 at 3 Percent, by Year
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.
Rule Implementation & Annual
Administration
Mean
Value
$ 4.2
$ 4.1
$ 4.0
$ 9.0
$ 8.8
$ 8.5
$ 8.3
$ 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
$ 5.3
$ 5.1
$ 5.0
$ 4.8
$ 160.2
$ 9.2
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 4.2
$ 4.1
$ 4.0
$ 9.0
$ 8.8
$ 8.5
$ 8.3
$ 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
$ 5.3
$ 5.1
$ 5.0
$ 4.8
$ 160.2
$ 9.2
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 4.2
$ 4.1
$ 4.0
$ 9.0
$ 8.8
$ 8.5
$ 8.3
$ 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
$ 5.3
$ 5.1
$ 5.0
$ 4.8
$ 160.2
$ 9.2
Sanitary Surveys
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 2.1
$ 2.1
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 1.9
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 34.9
$ 2.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 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
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 20.5
$ 1.2
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 3.0
$ 2.9
$ 2.8
$ 2.7
$ 2.7
$ 2.6
$ 2.5
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 2.3
$ 2.2
$ 2.2
$ 2.1
$ 2.0
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 1.9
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 49.3
$ 2.8
HSAs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 1.7
$
$ 4.7
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 6.4
$ 0.4
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 1.5
$
$ 4.1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 5.6
$ 0.3
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 1.9
$
$ 5.2
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 7.1
$ 0.4
Triggered Monitoring
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 1.4
$ 0.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.3
$ 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
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.8
$ 0.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.7
$ 0.0
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 2.2
$ 0.1
Assessment Monitoring
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.6
$
$ 0.3
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.9
$ 0.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$
$ 0.1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.2
$
$ 0.6
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.7
$ 0.1
Corrective Action Plans
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 2.7
$ 0.2
$ 1.9
$ 0.5
$ 0.9
$ 0.3
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$ 0.3
$ 0.0
$ 0.3
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 8.8
$ 0.5
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.8
$ 0.1
$ 1.1
$ 0.3
$ 0.5
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 4.8
$ 0.3
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 3.8
$ 0.3
$ 2.7
$ 0.8
$ 1.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.7
$ 0.0
$ 0.6
$ 0.1
$ 0.6
$ 0.0
$ 0.4
$ 0.0
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.3
$ 0.0
$ 13.4
$ 0.8
Compliance Monitoring
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
$ 0.0
$ 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
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
Total
Mean
Value
$ 4.2
$ 4.1
$ 4.0
$ 14.4
$ 12.7
$ 13.2
$ 15.5
$ 11.3
$ 10.0
$ 9.9
$ 9.1
$ 9.2
$ 8.6
$ 8.7
$ 8.1
$ 8.1
$ 7.6
$ 7.6
$ 7.3
$ 7.1
$ 6.7
$ 6.7
$ 6.4
$ 6.4
$ 6.0
$ 212.7
$ 12.2
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 4.2
$ 4.1
$ 4.0
$ 12.4
$ 11.6
$ 11.1
$ 13.9
$ 9.8
$ 9.0
$ 8.9
$ 8.4
$ 8.3
$ 7.9
$ 7.8
$ 7.4
$ 7.3
$ 7.0
$ 6.9
$ 6.6
$ 6.5
$ 6.2
$ 6.1
$ 5.9
$ 5.7
$ 5.5
$ 192.2
$ 11.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 4.2
$ 4.1
$ 4.0
$ 16.5
$ 13.8
$ 15.6
$ 17.3
$ 12.9
$ 11.0
$ 11.0
$ 9.8
$ 10.2
$ 9.3
$ 9.6
$ 8.7
$ 9.0
$ 8.2
$ 8.3
$ 7.9
$ 7.8
$ 7.3
$ 7.3
$ 6.9
$ 7.0
$ 6.5
$ 234.1
$ 13.4
  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.
:  Ground Water Rule model output.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             October 2006

-------
                                                            Exhibit D.7f Present Value of Primacy Agency Rule Activity Costs for Option 3 at 7 Percent, by Year
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.
Rule Implementation & Annual
Administration
Mean
Value
$ 4.2
$ 3.9
$ 3.7
$ 8.0
$ 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
$ 2.9
$ 2.7
$ 2.5
$ 2.4
$ 2.2
$ 2.1
$ 1.9
$ 107.0
$ 9.2
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 4.2
$ 3.9
$ 3.7
$ 8.0
$ 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
$ 2.9
$ 2.7
$ 2.5
$ 2.4
$ 2.2
$ 2.1
$ 1.9
$ 107.0
$ 9.2
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 4.2
$ 3.9
$ 3.7
$ 8.0
$ 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
$ 2.9
$ 2.7
$ 2.5
$ 2.4
$ 2.2
$ 2.1
$ 1.9
$ 107.0
$ 9.2
Sanitary Surveys
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 1.9
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 22.5
$ 1.9
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 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
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 13.2
$ 1.1
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 2.7
$ 2.5
$ 2.3
$ 2.2
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 31.7
$ 2.7
HSAs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$ 1.4
$
$ 3.7
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 5.2
$ 0.4
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 1.3
$
$ 3.3
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 4.6
$ 0.4
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$ 1.6
$
$ 4.2
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 5.8
$ 0.5
Triggered Monitoring
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 0.4
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 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
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 1.1
$ 0.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.3
$ 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
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.6
$ 0.1
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 0.6
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 1.7
$ 0.1
Assessment Monitoring
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.5
$
$ 0.2
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.7
$ 0.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$
$ 0.1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.0
$
$ 0.4
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.4
$ 0.1
Corrective Action Plans
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 2.4
$ 0.2
$ 1.6
$ 0.4
$ 0.7
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 6.8
$ 0.6
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.6
$ 0.1
$ 0.9
$ 0.2
$ 0.4
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 3.9
$ 0.3
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 3.4
$ 0.2
$ 2.3
$ 0.7
$ 1.1
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.0
$ 0.4
$ 0.1
$ 0.3
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.0
$ 10.2
$ 0.9
Compliance Monitoring
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
$ 0.0
$ 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
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
$ 0.0
$ 0.2
$ 0.0
Total
Mean
Value
$ 4.2
$ 3.9
$ 3.7
$ 12.9
$ 10.9
$ 10.9
$ 12.3
$ 8.6
$ 7.3
$ 7.0
$ 6.2
$ 6.1
$ 5.4
$ 5.3
$ 4.7
$ 4.6
$ 4.1
$ 4.0
$ 3.7
$ 3.5
$ 3.2
$ 3.0
$ 2.8
$ 2.6
$ 2.4
$ 143.3
$ 12.3
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 4.2
$ 3.9
$ 3.7
$ 11.1
$ 9.9
$ 9.2
$ 11.0
$ 7.5
$ 6.6
$ 6.3
$ 5.7
$ 5.5
$ 5.0
$ 4.8
$ 4.4
$ 4.1
$ 3.8
$ 3.6
$ 3.3
$ 3.1
$ 2.9
$ 2.7
$ 2.5
$ 2.4
$ 2.2
$ 129.4
$ 11.1
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 4.2
$ 3.9
$ 3.7
$ 14.8
$ 11.9
$ 12.9
$ 13.7
$ 9.9
$ 8.1
$ 7.8
$ 6.7
$ 6.7
$ 5.9
$ 5.9
$ 5.1
$ 5.1
$ 4.5
$ 4.4
$ 4.0
$ 3.8
$ 3.4
$ 3.3
$ 3.0
$ 2.9
$ 2.6
$ 157.9
$ 13.5
  Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted
  Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
  Ann =value of total annualized at discount rate.
  Ground Water Rule model output.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             October 2006

-------
                          Exhibit D.8a Total Activity Costs for Option 4, by Year, for All PWSs
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
CWSs
Mean
Value
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 2.9
$ 2.9
$ 1,396.8
$ 229.8
$ 229.8
$ 229.8
$ 229.8
$ 229.8
$ 229.8
$ 229.8
$ 229.8
$ 229.8
$ 229.8
$ 229.8
$ 229.8
$ 229.8
$ 229.8
$ 229.8
$ 229.8
$ 229.8
$ 229.8
$ 229.8
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 2.0
$ 2.0
$ 1,066.0
$ 207.5
$ 207.5
$ 207.5
$ 207.5
$ 207.5
$ 207.5
$ 207.5
$ 207.5
$ 207.5
$ 207.5
$ 207.5
$ 207.5
$ 207.5
$ 207.5
$ 207.5
$ 207.5
$ 207.5
$ 207.5
$ 207.5
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 1,723.7
$ 252.3
$ 252.3
$ 252.3
$ 252.3
$ 252.3
$ 252.3
$ 252.3
$ 252.3
$ 252.3
$ 252.3
$ 252.3
$ 252.3
$ 252.3
$ 252.3
$ 252.3
$ 252.3
$ 252.3
$ 252.3
$ 252.3
NTNCWSs
Mean
Value
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 384.3
$ 113.9
$ 113.9
$ 113.9
$ 113.9
$ 113.9
$ 113.9
$ 113.9
$ 113.9
$ 113.9
$ 113.9
$ 113.9
$ 113.9
$ 113.9
$ 113.9
$ 113.9
$ 113.9
$ 113.9
$ 113.9
$ 113.9
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 304.5
$ 105.9
$ 105.9
$ 105.9
$ 105.9
$ 105.9
$ 105.9
$ 105.9
$ 105.9
$ 105.9
$ 105.9
$ 105.9
$ 105.9
$ 105.9
$ 105.9
$ 105.9
$ 105.9
$ 105.9
$ 105.9
$ 105.9
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 1.7
$ 1.7
$ 463.8
$ 121.7
$ 121.7
$ 121.7
$ 121.7
$ 121.7
$ 121.7
$ 121.7
$ 121.7
$ 121.7
$ 121.7
$ 121.7
$ 121.7
$ 121.7
$ 121.7
$ 121.7
$ 121.7
$ 121.7
$ 121.7
$ 121.7
TNCWSs
Mean
Value
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 5.7
$ 5.7
$ 1,189.4
$ 398.8
$ 398.8
$ 398.8
$ 398.8
$ 398.8
$ 398.8
$ 398.8
$ 398.8
$ 398.8
$ 398.8
$ 398.8
$ 398.8
$ 398.8
$ 398.8
$ 398.8
$ 398.8
$ 398.8
$ 398.8
$ 398.8
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 952.9
$ 371.1
$ 371.1
$ 371.1
$ 371.1
$ 371.1
$ 371.1
$ 371.1
$ 371.1
$ 371.1
$ 371.1
$ 371.1
$ 371.1
$ 371.1
$ 371.1
$ 371.1
$ 371.1
$ 371.1
$ 371.1
$ 371.1
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 7.6
$ 7.6
$ 1,424.6
$ 426. 1
$ 426. 1
$ 426.1
$ 426.1
$ 426.1
$ 426. 1
$ 426. 1
$ 426.1
$ 426. 1
$ 426. 1
$ 426. 1
$ 426.1
$ 426.1
$ 426. 1
$ 426.1
$ 426.1
$ 426.1
$ 426. 1
$ 426.1
Grand Total
Mean
Value
$ 5.5
$ 5.5
$ 5.5
$ 9.9
$ 9.9
$ 2,970.4
$ 742.6
$ 742.6
$ 742.6
$ 742.6
$ 742.6
$ 742.6
$ 742.6
$ 742.6
$ 742.6
$ 742.6
$ 742.6
$ 742.6
$ 742.6
$ 742.6
$ 742.6
$ 742.6
$ 742.6
$ 742.6
$ 742.6
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 5.5
$ 5.5
$ 5.5
$ 6.8
$ 6.8
$ 2,323.4
$ 684.5
$ 684.5
$ 684.5
$ 684.5
$ 684.5
$ 684.5
$ 684.5
$ 684.5
$ 684.5
$ 684.5
$ 684.5
$ 684.5
$ 684.5
$ 684.5
$ 684.5
$ 684.5
$ 684.5
$ 684.5
$ 684.5
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 5.5
$ 5.5
$ 5.5
$ 13.1
$ 13.1
$ 3,612.1
$ 800.1
$ 800.1
$ 800.1
$ 800.1
$ 800.1
$ 800.1
$ 800.1
$ 800.1
$ 800.1
$ 800.1
$ 800.1
$ 800.1
$ 800.1
$ 800.1
$ 800.1
$ 800.1
$ 800.1
$ 800.1
$ 800.1
 Notes:   Present values in millions of 2003 dollars.  Estimates are discounted to 2004.
         Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
         Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.
 Source:  Ground Water Rule model output.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
D-56
October 2006

-------
                        Exhibit D.8b  Present Value of Total Activity Costs at 3 Percent for Option 4, by Year, for All PWSs
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.
CWSs
Mean
Value
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 2.7
$ 2.6
$ 1,204.9
$ 192.5
$ 186.9
$ 181.4
$ 176.1
$ 171.0
$ 166.0
$ 161.2
$ 156.5
$ 151.9
$ 147.5
$ 143.2
$ 139.0
$ 135.0
$ 131.1
$ 127.2
$ 123.5
$ 119.9
$ 116.5
$ 113.1
$ 4,054.8
$ 232.9
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tlle)
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 1.9
$ 1.8
$ 919.5
$ 173.8
$ 168.7
$ 163.8
$ 159.0
$ 154.4
$ 149.9
$ 145.5
$ 141.3
$ 137.2
$ 133.2
$ 129.3
$ 125.5
$ 121.9
$ 118.3
$ 114.9
$ 111.5
$ 108.3
$ 105.1
$ 102.1
$ 3,491.7
$ 200.5
Upper
(95th %tlle)
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.6
$ 3.6
$ 3.5
$ 1,486.9
$ 211.3
$ 205.1
$ 199.2
$ 193.4
$ 187.7
$ 182.3
$ 177.0
$ 171.8
$ 166.8
$ 161.9
$ 157.2
$ 152.6
$ 148.2
$ 143.9
$ 139.7
$ 135.6
$ 131.7
$ 127.8
$ 124.1
$ 4,616.0
$ 265.1
NTNCWSs
Mean
Value
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 331.5
$ 95.4
$ 92.6
$ 89.9
$ 87.3
$ 84.8
$ 82.3
$ 79.9
$ 77.6
$ 75.3
$ 73.1
$ 71.0
$ 68.9
$ 66.9
$ 65.0
$ 63.1
$ 61.2
$ 59.5
$ 57.7
$ 56.0
$ 1,743.6
$ 100.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 262.7
$ 88.7
$ 86.1
$ 83.6
$ 81.2
$ 78.8
$ 76.5
$ 74.3
$ 72.1
$ 70.0
$ 68.0
$ 66.0
$ 64.1
$ 62.2
$ 60.4
$ 58.6
$ 56.9
$ 55.3
$ 53.7
$ 52.1
$ 1,575.0
$ 90.5
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 400.1
$ 102.0
$ 99.0
$ 96.1
$ 93.3
$ 90.6
$ 87.9
$ 85.4
$ 82.9
$ 80.5
$ 78.1
$ 75.9
$ 73.7
$ 71.5
$ 69.4
$ 67.4
$ 65.4
$ 63.5
$ 61.7
$ 59.9
$ 1,909.3
$ 109.6
TNCWSs
Mean
Value
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.0
$ 5.2
$ 5.0
$ 1,025.9
$ 334.0
$ 324.3
$ 314.8
$ 305.7
$ 296.8
$ 288.1
$ 279.7
$ 271.6
$ 263.7
$ 256.0
$ 248.5
$ 241.3
$ 234.3
$ 227.5
$ 220.8
$ 214.4
$ 208.2
$ 202.1
$ 196.2
$ 5,973.3
$ 343.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.0
$ 3.6
$ 3.5
$ 822.0
$ 310.8
$ 301.7
$ 292.9
$ 284.4
$ 276.1
$ 268.1
$ 260.3
$ 252.7
$ 245.3
$ 238.2
$ 231.3
$ 224.5
$ 218.0
$ 211.6
$ 205.5
$ 199.5
$ 193.7
$ 188.0
$ 182.6
$ 5,423.3
$ 311.4
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 3.1
$ 3.1
$ 3.0
$ 6.9
$ 6.7
$ 1,228.9
$ 356.8
$ 346.4
$ 336.3
$ 326.5
$ 317.0
$ 307.8
$ 298.8
$ 290.1
$ 281.7
$ 273.5
$ 265.5
$ 257.8
$ 250.3
$ 243.0
$ 235.9
$ 229.0
$ 222.4
$ 215.9
$ 209.6
$ 6,516.0
$ 374.2
Grand Total
Mean
Value
$ 5.5
$ 5.4
$ 5.2
$ 9.0
$ 8.8
$ 2,562.3
$ 621.9
$ 603.8
$ 586.2
$ 569.1
$ 552.6
$ 536.5
$ 520.8
$ 505.7
$ 490.9
$ 476.6
$ 462.8
$ 449.3
$ 436.2
$ 423.5
$ 411.2
$ 399.2
$ 387.6
$ 376.3
$ 365.3
$ 11,771.6
$ 676.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 5.5
$ 5.4
$ 5.2
$ 6.2
$ 6.1
$ 2,004.2
$ 573.2
$ 556.6
$ 540.3
$ 524.6
$ 509.3
$ 494.5
$ 480.1
$ 466.1
$ 452.5
$ 439.3
$ 426.6
$ 414.1
$ 402.1
$ 390.4
$ 379.0
$ 367.9
$ 357.2
$ 346.8
$ 336.7
$ 10,490.0
$ 602.4
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 5.5
$ 5.4
$ 5.2
$ 12.0
$ 11.7
$ 3,115.8
$ 670.1
$ 650.5
$ 631.6
$ 613.2
$ 595.3
$ 578.0
$ 561.2
$ 544.8
$ 529.0
$ 513.5
$ 498.6
$ 484.1
$ 470.0
$ 456.3
$ 443.0
$ 430.1
$ 417.6
$ 405.4
$ 393.6
$ 13,041.4
$ 748.9
         Present values in millions of 2003 dollars.  Estimate
         Detail may not add exactly to totals due to indepeni
         Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.
         Ground Water Rule model output.
:es are discounted to 2005.
ident rounding.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                              D-57
                                                                                                                                                    October 2006

-------
                        Exhibit D.8c Present Value of Total Rule Costs at 7 Percent for Option 4, by Year, for All PWSs
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.
CWSs
Mean
Value
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 2.4
$ 2.2
$ 995.9
$ 153.1
$ 143.1
$ 133.8
$ 125.0
$ 116.8
$ 109.2
$ 102.0
$ 95.4
$ 89.1
$ 83.3
$ 77.8
$ 72.8
$ 68.0
$ 63.5
$ 59.4
$ 55.5
$ 51.9
$ 48.5
$ 45.3
$ 2,698.9
$ 231.6
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 760.0
$ 138.3
$ 129.2
$ 120.8
$ 112.9
$ 105.5
$ 98.6
$ 92.1
$ 86.1
$ 80.5
$ 75.2
$ 70.3
$ 65.7
$ 61.4
$ 57.4
$ 53.6
$ 50.1
$ 46.8
$ 43.8
$ 40.9
$ 2,296.9
$ 197.1
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 3.2
$ 3.0
$ 1,229.0
$ 168.1
$ 157.1
$ 146.8
$ 137.2
$ 128.3
$ 119.9
$ 112.0
$ 104.7
$ 97.8
$ 91.4
$ 85.5
$ 79.9
$ 74.6
$ 69.8
$ 65.2
$ 60.9
$ 56.9
$ 53.2
$ 49.7
$ 3,099.0
$ 265.9
NTNCWSs
Mean
Value
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 1.0
$ 1.0
$ 274.0
$ 75.9
$ 71.0
$ 66.3
$ 62.0
$ 57.9
$ 54.1
$ 50.6
$ 47.3
$ 44.2
$ 41.3
$ 38.6
$ 36.1
$ 33.7
$ 31.5
$ 29.4
$ 27.5
$ 25.7
$ 24.0
$ 22.5
$ 1,117.6
$ 95.9
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 217.1
$ 70.6
$ 66.0
$ 61.6
$ 57.6
$ 53.8
$ 50.3
$ 47.0
$ 44.0
$ 41.1
$ 38.4
$ 35.9
$ 33.5
$ 31.3
$ 29.3
$ 27.4
$ 25.6
$ 23.9
$ 22.3
$ 20.9
$ 1,001.0
$ 85.9
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 330.7
$ 81.1
$ 75.8
$ 70.9
$ 66.2
$ 61.9
$ 57.8
$ 54.1
$ 50.5
$ 47.2
$ 44.1
$ 41.2
$ 38.5
$ 36.0
$ 33.7
$ 31.5
$ 29.4
$ 27.5
$ 25.7
$ 24.0
$ 1,232.4
$ 105.8
TNCWSs
Mean
Value
$ 3.1
$ 2.9
$ 2.7
$ 4.6
$ 4.3
$ 848.0
$ 265.8
$ 248.4
$ 232.1
$ 216.9
$ 202.7
$ 189.5
$ 177.1
$ 165.5
$ 154.7
$ 144.6
$ 135.1
$ 126.3
$ 118.0
$ 110.3
$ 103.1
$ 96.3
$ 90.0
$ 84.1
$ 78.6
$ 3,804.9
$ 326.5
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 3.1
$ 2.9
$ 2.7
$ 3.2
$ 3.0
$ 679.4
$ 247.3
$ 231.1
$ 216.0
$ 201.8
$ 188.6
$ 176.3
$ 164.8
$ 154.0
$ 143.9
$ 134.5
$ 125.7
$ 117.5
$ 109.8
$ 102.6
$ 95.9
$ 89.6
$ 83.8
$ 78.3
$ 73.2
$ 3,429.0
$ 294.2
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 3.1
$ 2.9
$ 2.7
$ 6.2
$ 5.8
$ 1,015.7
$ 283.9
$ 265.3
$ 248.0
$ 231.7
$ 216.6
$ 202.4
$ 189.2
$ 176.8
$ 165.2
$ 154.4
$ 144.3
$ 134.9
$ 126.1
$ 117.8
$ 110.1
$ 102.9
$ 96.2
$ 89.9
$ 84.0
$ 4,176.2
$ 358.4
Grand Total
Mean
Value
$ 5.5
$ 5.2
$ 4.8
$ 8.1
$ 7.5
$ 2,117.9
$ 494.8
$ 462.5
$ 432.2
$ 403.9
$ 377.5
$ 352.8
$ 329.7
$ 308.2
$ 288.0
$ 269.2
$ 251.5
$ 235.1
$ 219.7
$ 205.3
$ 191.9
$ 179.3
$ 167.6
$ 156.6
$ 146.4
$ 7,621.3
$ 654.0
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 5.5
$ 5.2
$ 4.8
$ 5.6
$ 5.2
$ 1,656.5
$ 456.1
$ 426.3
$ 398.4
$ 372.3
$ 348.0
$ 325.2
$ 303.9
$ 284.0
$ 265.5
$ 248.1
$ 231.9
$ 216.7
$ 202.5
$ 189.3
$ 176.9
$ 165.3
$ 154.5
$ 144.4
$ 134.9
$ 6,727.0
$ 577.2
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 5.5
$ 5.2
$ 4.8
$ 10.7
$ 10.0
$ 2,575.4
$ 533.1
$ 498.3
$ 465.7
$ 435.2
$ 406.7
$ 380.1
$ 355.2
$ 332.0
$ 310.3
$ 290.0
$ 271.0
$ 253.3
$ 236.7
$ 221.2
$ 206.8
$ 193.2
$ 180.6
$ 168.8
$ 157.7
$ 8,507.6
$ 730.0
        Present values in millions of 2003 dollars.
        Detail may not add exactly to totals due to i
        Ann = value of total annualized at discount
        Ground Water Rule model output.
Estimates are discounted to
independent rounding.
rate.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                            D-58
                                                                                                                                                 October 2006

-------
                                                                                  Exhibit D.8d Primacy Agency Activity Costs for Option 4, by Year
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
Rule Implementation & Annual
Administration
Mean
Value
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
$ 3.9
Sanitary Surveys
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
$ 1.4
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
$ 1.5
HSAs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Triggered Monitoring
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Assessment Monitoring
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Corrective Action Plans
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 92.6
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 91.3
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 93.9
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Compliance Monitoring
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 1.0
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
$ 1.3
Total
Mean
Value
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 5.3
$ 5.3
$ 99.1
$ 6.5
$ 6.5
$ 6.5
$ 6.5
$ 6.5
$ 6.5
$ 6.5
$ 6.5
$ 6.5
$ 6.5
$ 6.5
$ 6.5
$ 6.5
$ 6.5
$ 6.5
$ 6.5
$ 6.5
$ 6.5
$ 6.5
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 5.3
$ 5.3
$ 97.6
$ 6.2
$ 6.2
$ 6.2
$ 6.2
$ 6.2
$ 6.2
$ 6.2
$ 6.2
$ 6.2
$ 6.2
$ 6.2
$ 6.2
$ 6.2
$ 6.2
$ 6.2
$ 6.2
$ 6.2
$ 6.2
$ 6.2
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 5.4
$ 5.4
$ 100.6
$ 6.7
$ 6.7
$ 6.7
$ 6.7
$ 6.7
$ 6.7
$ 6.7
$ 6.7
$ 6.7
$ 6.7
$ 6.7
$ 6.7
$ 6.7
$ 6.7
$ 6.7
$ 6.7
$ 6.7
$ 6.7
$ 6.7
    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.
    Ground Water Rule model output.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     October 2006

-------
                                                            Exhibit D.8e  Present Value of Primacy Agency Rule Activity Costs for Option 4 at 3 Percent, by Year
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.
Rule Implementation & Annual
Administration
Mean
Value
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 3.6
$ 3.5
$ 3.4
$ 3.3
$ 3.2
$ 3.1
$ 3.0
$ 2.9
$ 2.8
$ 2.8
$ 2.7
$ 2.6
$ 2.5
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 2.3
$ 2.2
$ 2.2
$ 2.1
$ 2.1
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 64.4
$ 3.7
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 3.6
$ 3.5
$ 3.4
$ 3.3
$ 3.2
$ 3.1
$ 3.0
$ 2.9
$ 2.8
$ 2.8
$ 2.7
$ 2.6
$ 2.5
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 2.3
$ 2.2
$ 2.2
$ 2.1
$ 2.1
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 64.4
$ 3.7
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 3.6
$ 3.5
$ 3.4
$ 3.3
$ 3.2
$ 3.1
$ 3.0
$ 2.9
$ 2.8
$ 2.8
$ 2.7
$ 2.6
$ 2.5
$ 2.4
$ 2.4
$ 2.3
$ 2.2
$ 2.2
$ 2.1
$ 2.1
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 64.4
$ 3.7
Sanitary Surveys
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 21.2
$ 1.2
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.1
$ 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
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 20.4
$ 1.2
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.8
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 21.9
$ 1.3
HSAs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Triggered Monitoring
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Assessment Monitoring
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Corrective Action Plans
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 79.9
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 79.9
$ 4.6
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 78.8
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 78.8
$ 4.5
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 81.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 81.0
$ 4.7
Compliance Monitoring
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.5
$ 14.8
$ 0.8
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 12.7
$ 0.7
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.7
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 16.8
$ 1.0
Total
Mean
Value
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 4.9
$ 4.7
$ 85.5
$ 5.4
$ 5.2
$ 5.1
$ 4.9
$ 4.8
$ 4.7
$ 4.5
$ 4.4
$ 4.3
$ 4.1
$ 4.0
$ 3.9
$ 3.8
$ 3.7
$ 3.6
$ 3.5
$ 3.4
$ 3.3
$ 3.2
$ 180.2
$ 10.4
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 4.8
$ 4.7
$ 84.2
$ 5.2
$ 5.1
$ 4.9
$ 4.8
$ 4.6
$ 4.5
$ 4.4
$ 4.3
$ 4.1
$ 4.0
$ 3.9
$ 3.8
$ 3.7
$ 3.6
$ 3.5
$ 3.4
$ 3.3
$ 3.2
$ 3.1
$ 176.3
$ 10.1
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 1.8
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 4.9
$ 4.8
$ 86.7
$ 5.6
$ 5.4
$ 5.3
$ 5.1
$ 5.0
$ 4.8
$ 4.7
$ 4.5
$ 4.4
$ 4.3
$ 4.2
$ 4.0
$ 3.9
$ 3.8
$ 3.7
$ 3.6
$ 3.5
$ 3.4
$ 3.3
$ 184.1
$ 10.6
  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.
  Ground Water Rule model output.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              October 2006

-------
                                                            Exhibit D.8f  Present Value of Primacy Agency Rule Activity Costs for Option 4 at 7 Percent, by Year
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.
Rule Implementation & Annual
Administration
Mean
Value
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 3.2
$ 3.0
$ 2.8
$ 2.6
$ 2.4
$ 2.3
$ 2.1
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 43.2
$ 3.7
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 3.2
$ 3.0
$ 2.8
$ 2.6
$ 2.4
$ 2.3
$ 2.1
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 43.2
$ 3.7
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 3.2
$ 3.0
$ 2.8
$ 2.6
$ 2.4
$ 2.3
$ 2.1
$ 2.0
$ 1.9
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 0.9
$ 0.9
$ 0.8
$ 0.8
$ 43.2
$ 3.7
Sanitary Surveys
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$ 1.2
$ 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
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 13.6
$ 1.2
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 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
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 13.1
$ 1.1
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$ 1.2
$ 1.1
$ 1.0
$ 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
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 14.1
$ 1.2
HSAs
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Triggered Monitoring
Mean
Value
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Assessment Monitoring
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Corrective Action Plans
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 66.0
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 66.0
$ 5.7
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 65.1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 65.1
$ 5.6
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 66.9
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$ 66.9
$ 5.7
Compliance Monitoring
Mean
Value
$
$
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 9.0
$ 0.8
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 0.7
$ 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
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 7.8
$ 0.7
Upper
(95th %tile)
$
$
$
$
$
$ 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
$ 0.4
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 10.3
$ 0.9
Total
Mean
Value
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 4.4
$ 4.1
$ 70.6
$ 4.3
$ 4.0
$ 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
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 131.8
$ 11.3
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %tile)
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 4.3
$ 4.0
$ 69.6
$ 4.2
$ 3.9
$ 3.6
$ 3.4
$ 3.2
$ 3.0
$ 2.8
$ 2.6
$ 2.4
$ 2.3
$ 2.1
$ 2.0
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 1.2
$ 129.1
$ 11.1
Upper
(95th %tile)
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 4.4
$ 4.1
$ 71.7
$ 4.4
$ 4.1
$ 3.9
$ 3.6
$ 3.4
$ 3.2
$ 3.0
$ 2.8
$ 2.6
$ 2.4
$ 2.3
$ 2.1
$ 2.0
$ 1.8
$ 1.7
$ 1.6
$ 1.5
$ 1.4
$ 1.3
$ 134.5
$ 11.5
  Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted
  Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
  Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.
  Ground Water Rule model output.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              October 2006

-------
                   Appendix E

  Potential Implications of Population Dynamics and
Secondary Transmission of Infection on the Benefits of
              the Ground Water Rule

-------
                                        Appendix E
          Potential Implications of Population Dynamics and Secondary
      Transmission of Infection on the Benefits of the Ground Water Rule


E.I    Introduction

       In this appendix the Agency provides a summary of its investigation into the potential
uncertainties associated with secondary transmission of infection and subsequent illness within the
context of the Ground Water Rule (GWR). Secondary transmission of an infectious disease occurs when
an individual becomes infected due to person-to-person contact with an infected individual.

Microbiological Contaminants and Health Effects

       Pathogenic enteric viral and bacterial microorganisms are excreted in the feces of infected
humans and animals. The word enteric indicates that the natural habitat of these microorganisms is the
intestinal tract of animals and humans.  Enteric microorganisms sometimes referred to as intestinal
microflora, can survive in wastewater and leachate (effluent) derived from septic tanks.  When
wastewater and leachate are released into the environment, they are sources of intestinal microflora and
potential sources of viral and bacterial pathogens. Once in the environment, fecal matter from infected
humans or animals may make its way into groundwater sources. If enteric pathogens are ingested, the
likelihood of infection varies depending on the pathogenicity of the organism. The likelihood and
severity of symptomatic illness also vary with the type of pathogen, the level of acquired immunity, and
the general resistance of the person.

       Examples of common fecal viral pathogens include enteroviruses (e.g., echoviruses and
coxsackieviruses), rotavirus, and hepatitis A virus (HAV). Viruses cannot reproduce outside a host,
although they can survive and remain infectious. With a few exceptions, viruses that can infect human
cells typically cannot infect the cells of other animals, and vice versa.  Viruses become capable of
reproducing once they infect humans. Once infected, humans shed viruses in their feces. Regardless of
whether individuals infected by the waterborne pathogen have symptoms of illness, such as diarrhea, they
still shed the pathogen, and thus may infect other individuals.  Infection via this process is called
secondary spread or person-to-person transmission.

       Examples of common bacterial pathogens include E. coll, Salmonella, Shigella, and
Campylobacter jejuni. Some waterborne bacterial pathogens cause disease by rapid growth and
dissemination (e.g., Salmonella) while others primarily cause disease via toxin production (e.g., Shigella,
E.coli O157, Campylobacter jejuni).  Campylobacter jejuni, E. coll, and Salmonella have a host range
that includes both animals and humans; Shigella seems to be associated primarily but not exclusively with
humans.  Unlike pathogenic viruses, bacteria are able to reproduce outside the host.

       Most of the waterborne bacterial pathogens cause gastrointestinal illness, but some  can cause
more severe illnesses as well.  For example, Legionella causes Legionnaires  Disease, a form of
pneumonia that has a fatality rate of about 15 percent, and Pontiac Fever, which is a milder respiratory
infection form of Legionnaires Disease. Several strains of E. coll can cause severe disease, including
kidney failure.

       Some bacterial pathogens are opportunistic (i.e., are only infectious in the presence of another,
preexisting condition or weakness).  Opportunistic pathogens usually cause illness only in
immunocompromised persons or in other sensitive subpopulations, such as the very young or the elderly.

Economic Analysis for the                         E-l                                  October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
Other pathogens, such as Salmonella, Shigella, Campylobacterjejuni, are not entirely opportunistic but
result in certain diseases with greater frequency and severity in immunocompromised persons (Framm
and Soave 1997).

       Data on the types of pathogens that have caused waterborne disease outbreaks can be obtained
from EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).  Of the 68 outbreaks in
groundwater systems reported to the CDC from 1991 through 2000, 14 (21%) were associated with
specific bacterial pathogens.  The fecal bacterial pathogen Shigella caused more reported outbreaks (7%)
than any other single agent.  Identified viral pathogens were associated with four (6%) reported outbreaks.
Etiologic agents were not identified in 39 (57%) outbreaks; however, EPA suspects that many of these
were caused by viruses, given that it is generally more difficult to analyze for viral pathogens than
bacterial pathogens.

Microbial Risk Assessment

       Microbial risk assessment (MRA) is a process that is used to evaluate the likelihood of adverse
human health effects that can occur following exposure to pathogenic microorganisms or to a medium in
which pathogens are present (ILSI 1996). Quantitative risk  assessment has been used since the 1970s to
assess human health effects associated with exposure to chemicals (Hammond and Coppick  1990). The
principles, processes and methods for carrying out risk assessments for chemical agents were formalized
in 1983 by the National Research Council (NRC) resulting in a four step framework (National Research
Council 1983). The steps outlined by the NRC include hazard identification, dose-response assessment,
exposure assessment, and risk characterization. Many of the early MRAs employed the NRC conceptual
framework to provide a structure from which the assessments could be conducted (Haas 1983; Regli et al.
1991; Rose etal. 1987).

       As the field of microbial risk assessment developed, it became clear that there were some
complexities associated with the modeling of infectious diseases that are unique to pathogens such as
person-to-person transmission of infection and immunity. Therefore, the conceptual framework for
chemicals may not always be appropriate for the assessment of risk of human infection following
exposure to pathogens (ILSI 1996).  To address this concern, the EPA Office of Water sponsored a series
of workshops to develop a conceptual framework to assess the risks of human infection associated with
pathogenic microorganisms.  Those workshops resulted in a published framework (ILSI 1996) that was
then tested through the conduct of two case studies (Seller et al. 1999; Teunis et al. 1999) and
subsequently revised (ILSI 2000; Schaub 2004). The EPA/ILSI framework for assessing the risk of
human infection following exposure to water- and food-borne pathogens is comprised of three principal
components: hazard identification, exposure assessment, dose response assessment, and risk
characterization. At this time, both the NRC and EPA/ILSI frameworks are currently employed for the
conduct of MRAs.  Assessments conducted by EPA under either the NRC framework or the more  recent
EPA/ILSI framework are organized in accordance with the EPA Policy for Risk Characterization,  EPA's
Guidance for Risk Characterization, and EPA's Policy for Use of Probabilistic Analysis in Risk
Assessment (U.S. EPA 1995a; U.S. EPA 1995b; U.S. EPA 1997)

       A literature review was conducted recently to document the status, advantages, and limitations of
different types of microbial risk assessment risk characterization techniques (Seller et al. 2004). That
literature review of approximately 1,100 citations indicated that at the broadest level there was a
distinction between direct estimates of risk or illness using epidemiological data and indirect estimates
using models.  Direct estimates entail collecting infection or disease outcome data, for example,
prospective studies or outbreak investigations. Indirect estimates employ exposure data as input to
numerical models to compute estimates of illnesses.
Economic Analysis for the                         E-2                                  October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
       Based on the available literature, direct methods are used most commonly to assess the public
health impact associated with a specific and known (or identifiable) exposure pathway. Those methods
may not, however, provide the regulatory and management information needed for making decisions
regarding changes in environmental conditions.  For this purpose indirect methods of analysis can play a
useful role. From the literature review it was found that MRA methodologies vary primarily in the
manner in which they address the population dynamics of infectious disease transmission.  The
fundamental difference between the most common risk assessment techniques is that one class of models
does not incorporate population level impacts of secondary transmission via person to person interaction
nor the immune status of the infected population into the risk estimations for a given exposure scenario or
range of exposures (static models), whereas the other class of models (dynamic models) does.

       The risk characterization method employed by the base analysis in the GWR is based on a static
model. A schematic of the GWR risk characterization method is presented in Exhibit E.I.  As shown in
Exhibit E. 1, the predicted intensity of secondary (person-to-person) transmission is a multiplicative  factor
comprised of the number of illnesses and a secondary morbidity factor.
         Exhibit E.1  MRA Conceptual Approach for the GWR Base Analysis
                                                           SECONDARY
                                                             IORBIDITY
                                                 DITYX    SMORBIC
                                                 ,)  /       \(MS)
                                                     ILLNESS
                                               ILL | INF
               P-P
               FACTOR
                                                              MOVEMENT OF INDIVIDUALS
                                                              MOVEMENT OF PATHOGENS
E.2    Motivation for Investigation

       The limitations of treating infectious disease transmission as a static disease process with no
interaction between those infected or diseased and those at risk has been illustrated for various infectious
diseases including Giardia (Eisenberg et al. 1996), dengue (Koopman et al. 1991b), and sexually
transmitted diseases (Koopman et al. 1991a).  Further, a variety of model forms can be employed to
characterize infectious disease transmission and to evaluate the potential for effective interventions. In
this context, a model form is a mathematical representation of the epidemiological status of the population
together with rules that define the movement of individuals and pathogens among sub-populations with
defined characteristics (e.g. infected individuals, ill individuals, immune individuals).

       Particular characteristics of each model form capture different aspects of the disease transmission
system. However, it is unrealistic to presume that one model form is most appropriate for all waterborne
microbial risk assessments (Seller et al. 2004).
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
E-3
October 2006

-------
        In this investigation, a dynamic infectious disease model is used to explore the potential
implications of population dynamics and secondary transmission of infection and subsequent illness
relative to the static method employed by the base analysis in the GWR as described in the Economic
Analysis for the GWR. For the purposes of this investigation, secondary transmission includes infections
due to both person-to-person contacts and person-to-environment-to-person contacts where the
environmental time frame is short.  For example, inter-household disease transmission due to contact with
contaminated household surfaces (fomites) would be included in this analysis.
E.3     Methods of Investigation

        The potential implications of uncertainties associated with secondary transmission of infection
and subsequent illness in the Ground Water Rule are evaluated via a hypothetical case study.  In this case
study it is assumed that a large tour group from a total population of 100,000 visit an outlying area that is
served by a NCWS with untreated or inadequately treated groundwater that is contaminated with a type A
virus.  It is assumed that all of the individuals are exposed to the type A virus, 100 become infected, and
then return home to the larger community1. The population is then assumed to mix homogeneously (that
is inter-household transmission is not considered separately from intra-household transmission).

        In the GWR base analysis, rotavirus is employed as the prototype type A virus to quantify the
benefits of the rule.  Noroviruses are also described as epidemiologically important type A viruses,
however, illnesses from norovirus infection are not quantified in the GWR EA. Two types of analyses
were conducted in this investigation, a median value analysis and a sensitivity/uncertainty analysis. In the
median value analysis, the model type A virus employed is assumed to have the clinical properties and
infectivity of rotavirus. However, it is assumed that age is not an important factor relative to infection
and that individuals of all ages are equally likely to become infected and subsequently propagate infection
via person-to-person transmission.  The sensitivity/uncertainty analysis (referred to as uncertainty analysis
hereafter) explores how uncertainty in model parameters and the  model form selection influence the
potential insights provided by the analysis and to consider how those insights may change for other type
A viruses, such as noroviruses, with somewhat different clinical or environmental properties than the
model virus  investigated.

        A literature review was conducted to identify appropriate values for model parameters.
Numerical simulations are used to estimate the number of additional infections and illnesses (due to
person-to-person transmission) within the large community after the group of infected individuals returns
home. Cumulatively, the results  of the median value analysis and uncertainty analysis simulations are
used to identify combinations of model parameters under which the predicted magnitude of person-to-
person transmission of illness in the community is substantially higher or lower than would have been
predicted under the GWR base analysis method and assumptions.

        The analysis presented herein is intended to complement the base analysis in the GWR. Although
the GWR base analysis and that presented herein both focus on characterizing the risk associated with
illness from  groundwater sources, each analysis is  built on a different set of assumptions.  To the extent
feasible, similar assumptions were applied in this analysis compared to those used in the base analysis.
However, because the two analyses were intended to address slightly different questions, the results are
not necessarily directly comparable. Further elaboration on this point is provided in Section 5.1.
' The larger community is assumed to be served by a CWS.
Economic Analysis for the                         E-4                                    October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
E.3.1  Overview of Scenario Evaluated

The case study scenario may be characterized as follows:

    •  A hypothetical community with population of 100,000 individuals is considered;
    •  From that population,  a large tour group is assumed to visit a NCWS that is contaminated with a
       type A virus;
    •   100 individuals are assumed to become infected and then return home;
    •  The type A virus has the infectivity of rotavirus among adults in the US population;
    •  The type A virus has the background incidence levels of rotavirus in the US population;
    •  The type A virus has the morbidity of rotavirus among adults and children  in the US population,
       based on weighted population averages;
    •  Secondary transmission is homogeneous among all individuals of all ages within the larger
       population, and the median value is based on community level data describing the proportion of
       household level infections in the community;
    •  Incubation and clinical severity are based on unweighted data on rotavirus  from children and
       adults;
    •  Immunity data are based primarily on rotavirus data from children but informed by qualitative
       assessment of adults;
    •  None of the infected individuals would be considered "super-spreaders"; and
    •  Immunocompromised individuals are not considered separately from the rest of the population.


E.3.2  Risk Assessment Methodology

       In the base analysis  for the GWR, the magnitude of secondary transmission is estimated by
multiplying the number of children less than 3 who  are ill by a constant factor. In this investigation a
population perspective is taken, and secondary transmission is estimated in a more  mathematically
rigorous manner using a dynamic infectious disease methodology. The basis for the numerical modeling
approach employed herein is well supported in the technical literature and is consistent with a large base
of literature describing the use of dynamic population models in the study of epidemics (Anderson and
May 1991; Hethcote 1976; Hethcote 2000) and environmental processes and disease (Koopman et al.
2002.; Koopman et al. 2001; Koopman et al. 1991a).

       The microbial risk assessment approach employed herein builds on previous studies addressing
human health risks from exposure to waterborne pathogens (Eisenberg et al. 1996;  Eisenberg et al. 1998;
Seller et al. 2006; Seller et al.  1999; Seller et al. 2003; Seller et al. 2004), and is consistent with the
EPA/ILSI framework for microbial risk assessment (ILSI 1996).

       Two routes of transmission are accounted for in this investigation: primary transmission by
background or environmental exposure and secondary transmission via person-to-person transmission.
The conceptual model investigated herein for health effects associated with exposure to the model type A
virus is presented in Exhibit E.2.
Economic Analysis for the                         E-5                                   October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                        Exhibit E.2  Conceptual Health Effects Model
^

s
ft

Pathogen Sources
(3_env
P_PP

E

^ (1-Psym)



Psym


c
:
i
D

CT
8




P


	 ^- Movement of lndi\
                                                                          	^-Movement of Pathogens
         State   Description
         S     Susceptible to infection
         E     Infected, pre-symptoms, pre-infectious
         C     Infectious, asymptomatic
         D     Infectious, symptomatic
         P     Protected from infection
    The model is composed of 5 state variables that are used to track the number of individuals in each
epidemiological state overtime:

    •   S-Individuals susceptible to infection (Susceptible);
    •   E-Individuals who have been exposed but have yet to become infectious (Exposed);
    •   C-Infectious but asymptomatic individuals (Carrier);
    •   D-Infectious and symptomatic individuals (Diseased); and
    •   P-Post-symptomatic and non-infectious individuals (with limited term protection from infection)
        (Protected).

    Eleven (11) model  parameters are used to define the model (Exhibits E.3 and E.4). The parameters
include the background incidence of infection in the community, parameters describing the dose-response
relation, the rate of movement of individuals between epidemiological states, the probability of
symptomatic response, the background level of pathogens that result in a disease incidence consistent
with the primary endemic incidence, the probability of infection from environmental contact, and the
probability of an infective contact.
      Exhibit E.3  Model Parameters Derived Directly From Scientific Literature
 Model Parameter
                    Description
                                                                  Comments
Background incidence
a
Pdr

psym
o
5
I	
                    Disease incidence in US
                    Beta poisson dose response parameter
                    Beta poisson dose response parameter
                    Inverse of duration of incubation (days)
                    Probability of symptomatic response
                    Inverse of duration of asymptomatic infection (days)
                    Inverse of duration of symptomatic infection (days)
                    Inverse of duration of protection from infection (days)
                Maximum Liklihood Estimate fit to beta-Poisson
                Maximum Liklihood Estimate fit to beta-Poisson
                Inverse represents rate of movement out of state E

                Inverse represents rate of movement out of state C
                Inverse represents rate of movement out of state D
                Inverse represents rate of movement out of state P
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
E-6
                                                                                           October 2006

-------
  Exhibit E.4  Model Parameters That Are Computed Based On Other Parameters
      Model Parameter
                        Dependant Variables Description
                                                                  Comments
      End_dose            All other model     Background level of pathogen that    End_dose is derived for each simulation.
                        parameters       results in a disease prevalence       It is the dose results in an average
                                       consistent with estimated levels in US  prevalence consistent with a specified
                                                                  level of endemic disease
                        End_dose, a, pdr
               Probability of infecton from
               environmental exosure
                                                                   1 — exp —end dose--
      P-PP
All other model
parameters
Probability of infective contact due to
person-to-person exposure
p_pp is derived for each simulation. It is a
rate that results in a specified level of
endemic disease due to secondary
                                                                  jransmksion
        Assuming that the primary and secondary transmission processes are independent (Anderson and
May 1991; Hethcote 1976), the change in the fraction of the population in any state from one time period
to the next may be modeled as a series of first order differential equations. A summary of the
mathematical details describing the movement of the population from one time step to the next is
provided in Exhibit E.5. The model is implemented via numerical simulation and integration using
MathCad version 13 (Mathsoft, Inc.).  The model parameter values used in the analyses are discussed in
the following section and a description of the numerical simulation methodology follows in Section E.3.4.
        Exhibit E.5 First Order Differential  Equations Used for MR A Modeling
                              S(t) = -p.S(t) - p_pp.S(t).(C(t) + D(t)) + yP(t)
                            dt
                            -E(t) = p-S(t) + p_pp.S(t)-(C(t) + D(t)) -
                            dt
                            -C(t)=C-(l-psym).E(t)-a.C(t)
                            dt
                            —D(t) = £psym-E(t) - S-D(t)
                            dt
                            —P(t) = S-D(t) + a-C(t) - y-P(t)
                            dt
E.3.3   Parameter Values Used in Model

        A comprehensive literature review was conducted for the purpose of parameter value selection.
Detailed results of the literature review are presented in a separate report (Seller, 2004).  From the
literature review, median values were determined for each of the model parameters shown in Exhibit E.3.
Minimum and maximum reasonable values were also identified for use in the uncertainty analysis (Refer
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                        E-7
                                                 October 2006

-------
to Section E.3.5).  The parameter values derived from the literature review used in the median value
analysis and the uncertainty analyses are summarized in Exhibit E.6; a brief description of the basis for
selection of these values follows.
                   Exhibit E.6 Parameter Values Used in Simulations
Primary Variable
Background incidence
a
pdr
?
psym
a
S
Y
Description
Disease incidence in US
Beta poisson dose response parameter
Beta poisson dose response parameter
inverse of duration of incubation (I/days)
Probability of symptomatic response
Inverse of duration of asymptomatic infection (I/days)
Inverse of duration of symptomatic infection (I/days)
Inverse of duration of protection from infection (I/days)
Median Value
or Duration
3,900,000
0.26
0.42
2.5
0.45
5
6
548
Minimum and Maximum
Reasonable Range
500,000-23,000,000
0.126-0.52
0.21-0.84
1-5 days
0.1-0.6
2-8 days
2-8 days
7-30 months
Median Rate1



0.4

0.2
0.17
0.0018
1 The rates shown are the inverse of the median values and correspond to the mean amount of time spent in the
corresponding states.
Background Incidence

       The median estimate of background incidence of rotavirus illness in the US is 3,900,000 cases per
year (Mead et al. 1999; Tucker et al. 1998) based on available primary data (Gurwith et al. 1981;
Rodriquez et al. 1987). For the purposes of the uncertainty analysis, the minimum and maximum
reasonable values are 50,000 and 23,000,000 cases per year, respectively (Mead et al. 1999).  The
minimum and maximum values are selected with the understanding that noroviruses are also type A
viruses (highly infectious with low severity). This wide parameter range was investigated to account for
the estimated incidence of norovirus illness in the US, their genetic diversity, and the uncertainty
associated with norovirus cross-genotype immunity.

Dose-Response Parameters

       The best fitting beta-Poisson dose response model has point estimates of a=0.265 and pdr=0.42
(Haas et al. 1999; Regli et al. 1991; Ward et al. 1986). The corresponding 95% confidence intervals
range from 0.126 to 0.52 for a and from 0.21 to 0.84 for pdr. The best fitting point estimates are
employed in the median value analyses and the lower and upper 95% confidence values are used as the
minimum and maximum reasonable values, respectively in the uncertainty analysis.  Unfortunately, the
shape of the 95% confidence region of the rotavirus dose-response maximum likelihood estimate (MLE)
is not defined by a simple formula (Regli et al.  1991).  The minimum and maximum values employed
herein represent a reasonable approximation to  the 95% confidence region.  Preliminary numerical
analyses indicated that refinement of the simple surface defined by the upper and lower 95% confidence
values to more closely match the MLE 95% confidence region was not warranted for this investigation
given the necessary complexity associated with the refinement.

Duration of Incubation

       Based on the  data presented in Appendix 1 of the investigator's full report (in Seller 2006 see
Flewett et al. 1975; Flewett and Woode 1978; Rodriguez et al. 1979; Shepherd et al. 1975; Ward et al.
1986), a duration of incubation of 2.5 days is used in the median value analyses, and 1 and 5 days are
used as the minimum and maximum reasonable values, respectively.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
E-8
October 2006

-------
Probability of Symptomatic Response

       Based on the data presented in Appendix 1 of the investigator's full report (in Seller 2006 see
Kim et al. 1977; Tufvesson et al. 1977; Ward et al. 1986; Wenman et al. 1979), the median probability of
symptomatic response for adults is 0.43. The minimum and maximum reasonable values for adults is 0.1
and 0.57, respectively.

       For children, the median probability of symptomatic response is 0.67. The minimum and
maximum reasonable values are 0.17 and 0.82, respectively (Barron-Romero et al. 1985; Bernstein et al.
1991; Champsaur et al. 1984; Person et al. 1997; Gurwith et al. 1981; Velazquez et al. 1993; Wenman et
al. 1979).

       Values used in the analysis are weighted averages for children and adults, based on census data
from 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000), assuming that children are represented by those under age 5 yrs.
Thus, a probability of symptomatic response of 0.45 is used in the median value analyses, and 0.1 and 0.6
are used as the minimum and maximum reasonable values,  respectively.

Duration of Symptomatic Infection

       Based on the data presented in Appendix 1 of the investigator's full report (in Seller 2006 see
Flewett et al. 1975; Flewett and Woode 1978; Gomez-Barreto et al. 1976; Gurwith et al. 1981; Lycke et
al. 1978; Shepherd et al. 1975; Ward et al. 1986), a duration of symptomatic infection of 6 days is used in
the median value analyses, and 2 and 8 days are used as the minimum and maximum reasonable values,
respectively.

Duration of Asymptomatic Infection

       The average duration of asymptomatic infections is 5 days with durations of asymptomatic
infections ranging from 1 to 12 days (Ward et al.  1986). Based on these data, a duration of asymptomatic
infection of 5 days is used in the median value analyses. Given the sparse data available for this
parameter, the minimum and maximum reasonable values are the same as those used for the duration of
symptomatic infections (2 and 8 days, respectively).

Duration of Protection from Infection

       Based on the data presented in Appendix 1 of the investigator's full report (in Seller 2006 see
Bernstein et al. 1991; Chiba et al. 1993; Koopman and Monto 1989; Ward and Bernstein 1994), it is
inferred that the duration of protection from infection is highly uncertain and not well understood.  From
studies on children it has been found that infection confers immunity (typically from disease but not
necessarily from infection) for a duration of not less than 1 year.  Based on data from a lifetime analysis it
appears that the duration of protection may be longer for adults than for children.  Thus, a duration of 18
months is used in the median value analyses, and durations  of 12 and 60 months are used as the minimum
and maximum reasonable values, respectively.

Person-to-Person Transmission

       Based on data from the Tecumseh study,  Koopman et al. estimated the proportion of rotavirus
infections acquired in the household (17-20%) compared to those acquired outside the household
(Koopman et al. 1989). For the purposes of this investigation, it is assumed that infections acquired in the
household are through a person-to-person route of transmission, and infections acquired in the community
are acquired either through person-to-person transmission or from environmental sources. Based on  data

Economic Analysis for the                         E-9                                   October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
from the Tecumseh study, 20% is used in the median value analyses as the proportion of rotavirus
infections acquired via person-to-person transmission, and a range of 10 and 60% is used to encapsulate
the minimum and maximum reasonable values, respectively. This relatively wide range employed in the
uncertainty analysis is based on professional judgment and is intended to be representative of the
uncertainty associated with 1) extrapolating the results from Tecumseh to the US population and 2) the
assumption that infections acquired in the community are due to a combination of environmental sources
and person-to-person contacts outside of the household.

E.3.4   Numerical Simulation Methodology

        Numerical simulation, as described above, was used to determine the number of individuals in
each epidemiological state over time. To examine the impact of illness  propagation through the
community, several steps are required.

        The first step is a calibration step that is used to identify the proportion of individuals in each
state for the endemic conditions and to find appropriate values for the model parameters shown in Exhibit
E.4.  At the inception of each calibration simulation, it is assumed that  95% of the population is in State
S (Susceptible) and 5% is in State E (Exposed), in a manner consistent with previous work (Seller et al.
2006; Seller et al. 1999).  Note that the calibration procedure described  below is also reasonably robust to
other initial  conditions. The parameter values shown in Exhibit E.6 are  used to conduct the median value
analysis calibration, and subsequently the median value analysis. Using those values with Ppp set to zero,
an "endemic dose" (and resulting value  for P) is found that results in a proportion of the population in
State D (Diseased) that is consistent with the background level of illness incidence in the United States
and the assumption that 20% of cases are due to person-to-person transmission (or equivalently, 80% of
cases due to primary transmission). Using those values for P and "endemic dose",  a value of Ppp is then
identified so that the incidence of illness in the population was consistent with the background level
shown in Exhibit E.6.

        After the calibration is complete the median value analysis is conducted. The median value
analysis is used to assess the magnitude of illness attributable to the 100 individuals returning  with  type
A virus illnesses after visiting a contaminated NCWS, assuming that all parameter values are set equal to
the median values of those reported in the literature.  Mathematically, the  simulation is conducted in a
similar manner to that described above for the median value calibration  except that 1) the initial
conditions are set equal to the steady state conditions identified in the calibration including values for P
and Ppp, and then 2) 100 people are removed from State S (Susceptible) and moved into State E
(Exposed).  (Details are provided in Appendix II of the investigator's full  report (Seller 2006)).

        Similar simulations are employed to conduct the uncertainty analysis, except different parameter
values or model forms are used as specified in Section E.3.5. For each simulation conducted for the
uncertainty analysis, a calibration simulation is performed as described  above, followed by a simulation
representing the case study.

E.3.5   Uncertainty Analysis

        The goal of the uncertainty analysis is to consider how uncertainty in the model and model
parameters could impact the model output and the subsequent interpretation of the  results. Specifically,
the goal of this portion of the analysis is to identify parameter values and/or combinations of parameters
that could have substantial impact on the interpretation of the results once uncertainty is considered.
Economic Analysis for the                        E-10                                   October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
    The methodology for the sensitivity/uncertainty analysis is described in this section. The uncertainty
analysis plan encompasses four broad categories:

    •  Model parameter uncertainty issues;
    •  Transmission parameter uncertainty issues;
    •  Model form uncertainty issues; and
    •  Population uncertainty issues.

    The approach used to address each type of issue is discussed below.  In all cases, the results from the
analyses described below are interpreted relative to the results of the median value analysis.
E.3.5.1  Model parameter uncertainty issues

Background Incidence of Illness

    The background level of illness, as noted in Sections E.3.3 and E.3.4, is an important factor in
determining the status of the population under endemic conditions. Specifically, the calibration step is
used to determine an "endemic dose" (and resulting value for P).resulting in a proportion of the
population in State D (Diseased) that is consistent with the background level of illness incidence and the
assumption that 20% of cases are due to person-to-person transmission (or equivalently, 80% of cases due
to primary transmission). Using these values, Ppp is then determined. The background level of illness
may be substantially different than the value estimated using the median value for a number of reasons,
including, but not limited to, the following:

    •   The background level of rotavirus illness in the US is uncertain.  The values presented herein are
       the best available estimates, however, from a review of the primary literature, it is possible that
       the true incidence could be higher or lower than that estimated;

    •   The background level of illness varies between communities;

    •   Other type A viruses may have substantially different illness incidence levels than the one
        investigated in the median value analysis; and

    •   The general classification of type A viruses includes noroviruses. Noroviruses are estimated to
        cause 23,000,000 illnesses annually in the United States (Mead et al. 1999).  However,
       noroviruses as a class are a genetically and antigenically diverse group of viruses (Ando et al.
        2000). Of approximately  300 outbreaks in the United States between 1993 and 1999, 68 different
        outbreak strains have been identified and classified (Ando et al. 2000). The potential for cross-
        strain immunity is not well understood at this time.

    To explore how the background level of illness could impact the insights provided by this analysis, a
series of simulations was conducted in which the endemic level of illness in the US population was
allowed to vary between 50,000 and 23,000,000 (as compared to an estimated 3,900,000 based on the
incidence  of rotavirus illness in the US).  In each of these simulations, it  is assumed that Ppp (the
probability of an infective contact due to person-to-person exposure) is not impacted by changing the
background level of disease in the community.
Economic Analysis for the                        E-ll                                    October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
Literature Derived Model Parameter Uncertainty

       There are 7 model parameters (see Exhibit E.3) that impact the rate at which individuals move
between epidemiological states. Those parameters include: £, o, 5, y, a, P dr, and Psym.  Based on the peer-
reviewed literature, there is substantial uncertainty in each of these values (data for £, o, 5, and y are
reported in clinical literature as durations rather than rates, those durations are then converted to rates as
the inverse of the durations for this analysis).  For example, the duration of incubation is reported in the
literature to range from 1 to 5 days (Flewett et al. 1975; Flewett and Woode 1978;  Rodriguez et al.  1979;
Shepherd et al. 1975; Ward et al. 1986). In the median value analysis a duration of incubation of 2.5 days
was used to derive a median rate of 0.4 day"1.

       To determine how the uncertainty in these parameter values impacts the potential propagation of
secondary transmission of illness, the minimum and maximum reasonable values are explored for each
variable.  Each unique combination of these minimum and maximum values was simulated.  Given that
there are  7 parameters to explore, each with two values (minimum and maximum reasonable values), this
portion of the uncertainty analysis results in 128 simulations (27).

       As described previously, minimum and maximum reasonable values for a and P dr are the lower
and upper 95% confidence values of the maximum likelihood fits  for the beta-Poisson dose response
function. Minimum and maximum reasonable values for Psym, £, o, 5, and y were based on data from the
literature review.

       In these analyses, the background incidence of illnesses is assumed to be the same as in the
median value analysis. Thus, an "endemic dose" (and resulting value for P) and Ppp were computed in
each calibration simulation based on the background incidence of illnesses and the assumption that 20%
of cases are due to person-to-person transmission.

E.3.5.2 Transmission parameter uncertainty issues

       The two transmission parameters in the analysis are P (also referred to as penv)  (probability of
movement out of State S (Susceptible) due to  environmental exposure) and PPP (probability of movement
out of State S due to person-to-person exposure). The purpose of this component of the uncertainty
analysis is to evaluate the impact of the assumptions about the transmission parameters on the model
output and the subsequent interpretation of that output.

Environmental Exposure

       To be consistent with the base analysis in the GWR, penv was computed using the following
formula:
Penv := 1 - cxp|(-1)dosc	
            I        a + [:
                                                                         Equation E.I
Economic Analysis for the                         E-12                                  October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
        This is an approximation to the beta-Poisson model. Approximations to the beta-Poisson model
are commonly employed in microbial risk assessment investigations because the exact form is complex
and computationally intensive (Teunis et al. 1996). There are however, other approximations to the beta-
Poisson function that are also reported and used in the literature, the most common of which are the
following:
                                                                          Equation E.2
 Penv := dose-|
              l« + Pclr) I
                                                                          Equation E. 3

        To determine if the functional form of the dose response model substantially impacts the
interpretation of this analysis, additional analyses are conducted using the dose response model forms
described above.

Person-to-Person Exposure

        The approach employed for estimating the proportion of person-to-person transmission in a
community is to solve the system of differential equations given in Exhibit E.5 for PPP so that the results
are consistent with those reported in the Tecumseh study (Koopman et al. 1989). In that study, the effect
of rotavirus transmission within households and on the risk of infection from outside of the household
was investigated through analyses of serum pairs (Koopman et al. 1989). Based on an analysis of
serologic observations from 1,508 individuals from 1977 through 1981, it was found that 17 to 20% of
rotavirus infections were acquired in the household, and the remainder were acquired in the community
(Koopman et al. 1989). For this analysis it is assumed that rotavirus infections acquired in the household
are due to person-to-person transmission  and those acquired in the community are from other
(environmental) exposures and from person-to-person transmission outside of the household. Thus, using
the data from Koopman et al., it is inferred that person-to-person transmission was responsible for at least
approximately 20% of the total infections in the community.

        To determine how the uncertainty in PPP impacts the propagation of secondary transmission of
illness for the case study scenario, person-to-person transmission intensity within the minimum (10%)
and maximum (60%) reasonable values for PPP are explored.

E.3.5.3 Model form uncertainty issues

        The conceptual model used in the median value analysis was presented previously in Exhibit E.2.
This model form is similar to conceptual  models that have been used in other  peer-reviewed studies used
to investigate health effects associated with waterborne pathogens (Eisenberg  et al. 1996; Eisenberg et al.
1998; Eisenberg et al. 2004; Seller et al. 2006; Seller et al. 2003; Seller et al.  2004). It should however
be clear that a variety of model forms can be employed to characterize infectious disease transmission and
to evaluate the potential for effective interventions.

        The particular characteristics of a model form capture different aspects of the disease
transmission system. However, it is unrealistic to presume that one model form is most appropriate for all
waterborne microbial risk assessments. The selection of a model involves tradeoffs. Biological or
demographic "realism" can come with the cost of analytical complexity that distances the model from
available data (U.S. EPA 2004). With the perspective that different model forms and accompanying

Economic Analysis for the                        E-13                                   October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
analytical approaches may be necessary for different applications, Koopman et al. (Koopman et al. 2001)
suggested an analysis strategy involving a hierarchy of models from simple to increasingly complex
models, which could be traversed to make microbial risk assessment analyses more realistic while
remaining mathematically tractable.

        To determine how the particular model form impacts the magnitude of secondary transmission of
illness in this investigation, two alternative model forms were evaluated through simulation using a
median value analysis.  The two alternative models are presented in Exhibits E.7 and E.8.
                         Exhibit E.7  Alternative Conceptual Model 1







.
I
I
L.

s

AA

1

9


(3_env
	 »
P_PP







E








C (








1-Psym)



Psym




C1

•

i





CT




8






1

L/Z








a

'








!

P















            Description
      S     Susceptible to infection
      E     Infected, pre-symptoms, pre-infectious
      C     Infectious, asymptomatic
      D     Infectious, symptomatic
      P     Protected from infection
                          ^ Movement of Indiuduals
                          ^-Movement of Pathogens
                         Exhibit E.8  Alternative Conceptual Model 2
L

s

P_env
	 ^
P_PP

[HHUHElME]

C, (1-Psym)

— f

[cTftHHcsftCi]

CT


y


        [ Pathogen Sources
              Description
        S     Susceptible to infection
        E     Infected, pre-symptoms, pre-infectious
        C     Infectious, asymptomatic
        D     Infectious, symptomatic
        P     Protected from infection
              Movement of Indiyduals
              Mowment of Pathogens
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
E-14
October 2006

-------
       Relative to the model shown in Exhibit E.2, the model shown in Exhibit E.7 adds a carrier
(infectious and asymptomatic) state after the diseased (infectious and symptomatic) state and prior to the
state, which provides protection from infection. This modification accounts for the shedding of pathogens
after symptoms subside. This characteristic has been reported in outbreak literature (refer to Appendix 1
of the investigator's full report (Seller 2006)) and has the potential to impact the predicted propagation of
person-to-person transmission of illness in a community.

       In the model presented in Exhibit E.8, movement within states E, C, D, and P is characterized by
a distributed delay process (Eisenberg et al. 2004). The time that individuals spend in each these states is
described by a gamma distribution. In the model presented in Exhibit E.2, the time that individuals spend
in each of these states is characterized by an exponential distribution. The two parameters describing the
gamma distribution are the number of sub-states per state (4) and the rate constant governing the
movement between sub-states. The mean transit time in each state is 4 divided by the transition rate
parameter used in the median value analysis.  This model form was selected for evaluation based on
models in peer reviewed literature (Eisenberg et al. 1996) and the fact that the incubation period is
reasonably well characterized by a gamma distribution (Brookhart et al. 2002; Eisenberg et al. 2005).

E.3.5.4 Population uncertainty issues

       One important assumption employed in this analysis is that the type A virus under investigation
does not attack any particular portion of the population differently than any other (for example the model
does not differentiate between children and adults).  The purpose of this component of the uncertainty
analysis is to determine how sensitive the predicted magnitude of secondary transmission in the
community is to this assumption.

       The type A virus described in the GWR is meant to represent highly infectious  viruses with
relatively low severity of illness. In considering rotavirus and noroviruses, both of which are considered
type A viruses and account for a large percentage  of illnesses from known pathogens (Mead et al. 1999),
some portion of the population is likely either semi-permanently immune or genetically immune
(Anderson and Weber 2004; Lindesmith  et al. 2003).

       To evaluate the uncertainty associated with portions of the population never moving into a
"susceptible" state, a series of simulations are conducted in which  10, 25, 50 and 75% of the population
never move out of State P (Protected).

E.3.5.5 Interaction of uncertainties

       The final component of the uncertainty analysis is to determine if the  results of the analysis are
synergistically affected by uncertainty in multiple model parameters.  To conduct this component of the
analysis,  the results from the four previously described components of the uncertainty analysis are
considered jointly and several simulations are conducted. This component is important because it is
possible that the results are sensitive to multiple parameters and/or categories of assumptions and the
uncertainty analysis described above is limited in  scope.

       The methodology for this component of the analysis  is to 1) identify several parameters which,
based on the results of the analyses described in Sections E.3.5.1 through E.3.5.4 appear to have the
strongest influence on the results, and 2)  run simulations to investigate how the  resultant disease
propagation is influenced.
Economic Analysis for the                        E-15                                   October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
E.4    Results

       The results of the median value analysis and the corresponding uncertainty analyses are presented
and discussed in this section. These results summarize the output from over 300 individual simulations
including the required calibration simulations.  Representative programming code for the simulations that
is used to generate the results presented in this  section is found in Appendix II of the investigator's full
report (Seller, 2006)

E.4.1  Median Value Analysis

       The results of the median value analysis calibration and the median value analysis simulations are
presented and discussed in following two subsections.

E.4.1.1 Median value analysis calibration

       Calibration of the median value analysis was conducted as described in Section E.3.4. The results
of the median value analysis calibration are shown in Exhibit E.9 and presented in Exhibit E. 10.  A
detailed description of the calibration and the computer programming code used for the simulation of the
median value analysis calibration are found in Appendix II of the investigator's full report (Seller 2006).
                     Exhibit E.9  Median Value Analysis Calibration
               10


                1

               0.1

                                                                    	susceptibles
                                                                    	Infected
                                                                     - • Carrier
                                                                    	• Diseased
                                                                       Protected
                                                 80

                                            Time (days)
                                                                          140
          Exhibit E.10  Median Value Analysis Endemic Calibration Results
Endemic Level of Disease in US
Incidence per 100,000 / year
Proportion il
Proportion il
Proportion il
P_PP
II
II -Primary transmission
II - Secondary transmission

Endemic dose
State S
State E
State C
State D
State P

3,900,000
1418
2.331 E-04
1 .87E-04
4.66E-05
3.99E-07
1 .88E-04
0.95204
0.00022
0.00024
0.00023
0.04728
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
E-16
October 2006

-------
        From a review of Exhibit E.9 and Exhibit E. 10 it can be seen that a steady-state condition is
reached relatively quickly in the simulation (about 60 days) and that the vast majority of the population is
in State S (Susceptible) (95.2%) under these endemic conditions. For a population size of 100,000
individuals, the calibration indicates that under endemic conditions, approximately 95,200 individuals
would be in State S, 22-24 individuals would be in States E, C, and D, and 4,728 individuals would be in
State P (Protected).  Equivalently, the proportion of individuals in State D (those individuals who are ill,
defined as both infectious and symptomatic) under endemic conditions would be expected to be
approximately 2.3xlO"4 {23/100,000 or approximately (3.9 million/275 million)/ (365 days/year) x 6 days
duration of disease}. (Kleinbaum et al. 1982; Seller et al. 2006).

E.4.1.2 Median value analysis results

        The results of the median value analysis are presented in Exhibit E.I 1.  A detailed description of
the median value analysis and the computer code used for the simulation of the median value analysis are
found in Appendix II on the investigator's full report (Seller 2006).
                       Exhibit E.11  Median Value Analysis Results
              1-10"

              MO5

              MO4

              MO3

                100

                 10

                  1
                   0
                              20
                   	susceptibles
                   	Infected
                        Carrier
                      • • Diseased
                      — Protected
                                         40
                                                     60
                                                                            100
                                           Time (days)
        The dynamic nature of the model under the case study scenario (for median parameter values) is
illustrated in Exhibit E.12 and compared to endemic conditions. As illustrated in Exhibit E.12, endemic
steady state conditions are reestablished approximately 50 days after the infected individuals return home.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
E-17
October 2006

-------
       Exhibit E.12 Median Value Analysis Compared to Endemic Conditions
                                                        	Endemic State D
                                                        	GW contam. State D
                                                        	Endemic State C
                                                        	GW contam. State C
                                            40       60

                                              Time (days)
                                                                      100
       The number of illnesses attributable to the case study is obtained as the difference of the areas
under the curves shown in Exhibit E.12 for State D (Diseased) (one for endemic conditions and one for
the case study) divided by the average duration of symptomatic illness.  Mathematically, the number of
attributable illnesses is computed as follows:
Avg_Attrib_Inc :=


where:
                   T
                     (D_gwc(t) -D_end(t))dt
      delt_avg
Equation E. 4
    •  D_gwc represents the number of individuals in state D under the groundwater contamination case
       study scenario;
    •  D_end represents the number of individuals in state D under the endemic conditions; and
    •  delt_avg represents the average duration of symptomatic illness.

       Further, the number of illness per incident illnesses and the number of illnesses per incident
infection may be computed as follows:
Illness_per_inc_illness :=


Illness_per_infaction  :=


where:
 Avg_Attrib_Inc
 0.001-Pop-psym
Avg_Attrib_Inc
   0.001-Pop
Equation E.5

Equation E. 6
       Pop equals 100,000 and
       Psym is the probability of symptomatic response (in the median value analysis = 0.45).
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                         E-18
           October 2006

-------
    The results of the median value analysis are summarized in Exhibit E.13.  The principal findings
reported in Exhibit E. 13 are as follows:

    •   The number of illnesses attributable to the case study was approximately 53 illnesses:  45 of those
        illnesses were from primary exposure (the NCWS) and 8 from subsequent person-to-person
        transmission; and

    •   There were, on average, an additional 0.18 illnesses attributable to person-to-person transmission
        for each ill individual returning to the community. Alternatively, the number of additional
        illnesses can be computed based on the number of infected individual returning to the
        community, in which case were, there were on average, an additional 0.08 illnesses attributable to
        person-to-person transmission (for each infected individual returning to the community).
                      Exhibit E.13  Median Value Analysis Results
                       Endemic Level of Disease in US	3,900,000
                       Incidence per 100,000 / year	1418
                       Proportion ill                          2.331E-04
                       Proportion ill - Primary transmission      1.87E-04
                       Proportion ill - Secondary transmission   4.66E-05
p_pp
Endemic dose
State S
State E
State C
State D
State P
Attributable Number of Illnesses
# Illnesses per incident illness
# Illnesses per incident infection
3.99E-07
1 .88E-04
0.95204
0.00022
0.00024
0.00023
0.04728
53.2
1.18
0.53
E.4.2  Uncertainty Analysis

       The results of the uncertainty analyses described in Section E.3.5 are presented in this section.

E.4.2.1 Model parameter uncertainty

Background Incidence

       The results of the uncertainty analysis for background level of illness are presented in Exhibit
E. 14. Referring to Exhibit E. 14, the magnitude of person-to-person transmission attributable to the case
study is inversely related to the background level of disease in the community.

       For example, at an average background incidence level of 50,000 illnesses annually in a
population the size of the  United States (as compared to the median value analysis which uses a
background level of 3,900,000 illnesses), the number of illnesses attributable to the case study was about
Economic Analysis for the                        E-19                                   October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
57 illnesses, 12 of which were due to person-to-person transmission.  These results indicate an average
additional 0.27 illnesses attributable to person-to-person transmission for each ill individual returning to
the community.  Similarly, it can be seen that as the background incidence level increases, the number of
illnesses attributable to the case study decreases.

        From the data presented in Exhibit E.14, it appears that the number of individuals in State S
(Susceptible) decreases as the endemic level of disease increases.  Thus, it is likely that the inverse
relation between attributable illness levels and background levels of disease is due to decreasing numbers
of successful contacts with individuals in State S as the endemic level of disease increases.
          Exhibit E.14  Uncertainty Analysis for Background  Level of Illness

Incidence per 100, 000 /year
Proportion ill
Proportion ill Env
Proportion ill P-P
P_PP
Endemic dose
Steady State Conditions
State S
State E
State C
State D
State P
Average Point Prevalence
Results of Perturbed Steady State
Attributable Number of Illnesses
# Illness per Incident Illness
# Illness per incident infection
50,000
18
2.989E-06
2.337E-06
6.518E-07
4.005E-07
2.265E-06
0.99930
0.0000028
0.0000030
0.0000030
0.0006875
0.3
57.3
1.27
0.57
Endemic Level of Disease in US
500,000 1,500,000 3,900,000
182
2.989E-05
2.344E-05
6.448E-06
4.005E-07
2.282E-05
0.99378
0.000028
0.000030
0.000030
0.00613
3.0
56.79
1.26
0.57
545
8.966E-05
7.073E-05
1.893E-05
4.005E-07
6.953E-05
0.9815
0.000083
0.000091
0.000090
0.01823
9.0
55.74
1.24
0.56
1418
2.331 E-04
1 .865E-04
4.663E-05
4.005E-07
1 .879E-04
0.95203
0.00022
0.00024
0.00023
0.04728
23.3
53.2
1.18
0.53
10,000,000
3636
5.978E-04
4.950E-04
1.196E-04
4.005E-07
5.339E-04
0.8771
0.00056
0.00061
0.00060
0.12119
59.81
47.4
1.05
0.47
23,000,000
8364
1 .375E-03
1.214E-03
2.750E-04
4.005E-07
1 .567E-03
0.7172
0.00127
0.0014
0.00138
0.27880
137.58
36.27
0.81
0.36
      Notes:
      Proportion ill based on duration of symptoms of 6 days (average symptomatic duration)
      In these results the probability of symptomatic response is 0.45
Other Literature Derived Model Parameters

        The results of the uncertainty analysis for other literature derived model parameters are presented
in histogram format Exhibits E.15 and E.16. The attributable number of illnesses forthese 128
simulations is presented in Exhibit E. 15 and the number of illnesses per incident illness is presented in
Exhibit E.16.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
E-20
October 2006

-------
  Exhibit E.15  Attributable Number of Illnesses for Model Parameter Uncertainty

                                       Analysis
                    30 -,
                    25 -
                    20 -
                 o


                 I  15 H
                 cr
                 0)
                    10 -
                    5 -
                                                         n mr
                           10     20    30    40     50    60


                                  Attributable Number of Illnesses
                                                             70
                                                                   80
    Exhibit E.16  Illnesses per Incident Illness for Model Parameter Uncertainty

                                       Analysis
                    35 n
                    30 -
                    25 -
                    20 -
                 cr

                 V  15 H
                    10 -
                    5 -
                                                n
                      0.0    0.2   0.4   0.6   0.8    1.0    1.2   1.4


                                   # Illnesses per Incident Illness
                                                             1.6   1..
Economic Analysis for the

Final Ground Water Rule
E-21
October 2006

-------
       From a review of Exhibits E. 15 and E. 16, it is found that the attributable number of illnesses
varied between approximately 7 and 75 and the number of illnesses per incident illness varied between
approximately 0.7 and 1.25 for these simulations. Note that the results of the median value analysis were
an attributable number of illnesses of 53 and a corresponding 1.18 illnesses per incident illness.

       Also of note is the fact that the results of these simulations appear to fall into two separate groups.
For the attributable number of illnesses, the disparity is explained by the value of the probability of
symptomatic response (the probability of symptomatic response was 0.1 in 50 % of simulations and 0.6 in
the remaining 50 %). That is, in the simulations in which the probability of symptomatic response was
low (0.1), the attributable number of illnesses was also low, and vice versa.  The observation regarding
the number of illnesses per incident illness is more complex.  However, what can be said is that the
combination of the probability of symptomatic response and the duration of immunity seem to interact to
yield the lowest and highest values observed. Specifically, when the probability of symptomatic response
was high and the duration of immunity was short, the highest values of illnesses per incident illness were
observed. Similarly, when the probability of symptomatic response  was low and the duration of
immunity was long, the lowest values of illnesses per incident illness were observed.

E.4.2.2 Transmission parameter uncertainty

Environmental Exposure

       The results of the uncertainty analysis for the dose response model form are presented in Exhibit
E.17.  As shown, two "variants" were run for each dose response model from investigated.  In Variant 1,
PPp was kept constant relative to the median value analysis and the "endemic dose" was varied to ensure
that the incidence was consistent with the specified level (same as median value analysis).  In Variant 2,
PPP and "endemic dose" were kept constant relative to the median value analysis, and the incidence was
allowed to vary.  Results for variant 2 for the second alternative form are not shown because they are
exactly the same as variant 1.
       As shown in Exhibit E. 17, the magnitude of person-to-person illness propagation in the case
study is not related in a substantial way to the form of the dose response function, for the functional forms
evaluated.  It is however noteworthy that under the first alternative investigated, either the  effective
environmental dose was lower than in the other simulations (variant 1) or the incidence is higher (variant
2).  Nevertheless, the number of illnesses attributable to the case study does not substantially change
under any of the dose response model forms or variants investigated.

         Exhibit E.17 Uncertainty Analysis for Dose Response Model Form
   Dose Response Model form
 Median value analysis
penv= 1-exp(dose*a/(a+p))
                                                                 dose/p)~°
penv= dose*[o/(a+p)]
Incidence per 100, 000 /year
Proportion ill
Proportion ill Env
Proportion ill P-P
P_PP
Endemic dose
Steady State Conditions
State S
State E
State C
State D
State P
Average Point Prevalence
Results of Perturbed Steady State
Average Attributable Incidence
# Illness per incident illness
1418
2.331E-04
1.865E-04
4.663E-05
4.005E-07
1.879E-04
0.95203
0.00022
0.00024
0.00023
0.04728
23.3
53.27
1.18
Variant 1
2.331E-04
1.87E-04
4.66E-05
4.005E-07
1.161E-04
0.95204
0.00022
0.00024
0.00023
0.04728
23.3
53.27
1.18
Variant 2
3.640E-04
2.948E-04
6.916E-05
4.005E-07
1.879E-04
0.92513
0.00034
0.00037
0.00036
0.07380
36.4
51.09
1.14
1418
2.331E-04
1.87E-04
4.66E-05
4.005E-07
1.879E-04
0.95203
0.00022
0.00024
0.00023
0.04729
23.3
53.27
1.18
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
            E-22
     October 2006

-------
Person-to-Person Exposure

        The results of the uncertainty analysis for the proportion of person-to-person transmission in a
community are presented in Exhibit E.18. As shown in Exhibit E.I 8, the proportion of person-to-person
transmission does impact the magnitude of the incidence attributable to the case study and consequently
also impacts the number of illnesses per incident illness. For example, if person-to-person transmission
accounted for 10% of the illness rather than the 20% reported in the Tecumseh study (Koopman et al.
1989), the estimated number of illnesses due to person-to-person transmission deceases from 8 to 2, and
thus, the number of illnesses per incident illness decreases from 1.18 to 1.05.  Similarly, if person-to-
person transmission accounts for 60% of the illness in the community, the estimated number of illnesses
from person-to-person transmission increases from 8 to 57 and, thus the number of illnesses per incident
illness increases to 2.27.  In interpreting the results presented in this section it should be noted that a
static model would also predict increased attributable illnesses  as the proportion of infections due to
person-to-person transmission increases.  Thus, the results observed in this portion of the uncertainty
analysis are not necessarily due to the fact that a dynamic model was employed, but rather may be due to
the particular scenario investigated.
  Exhibit E.18 Uncertainty Analysis for Person-to-Person Transmission Intensity
P-P transmission %
Incidence per 100, 000 /year
Proportion ill
Proportion ill Env
Proportion ill P-P
P_PP
Endemic dose
Steady State Conditions
State S
State E
State C
State D
State P
Average Point Prevalence
Results of Perturbed Steady State
Attributable Number of Illnesses
# Illness per Incident Illness
10%
1418
2.331 E-04
2.098E-04
2.331 E-05
2.010E-07
2.124E-04
0.95205
0.00022
0.00024
0.00023
0.04727
Median value analysis
20%
1418
2. 331 E-04
1.865E-04
4.663E-05
4.005E-07
1.879E-04
0.95203
0.00022
0.00024
0.00023
0.04728
40%
1418
2. 331 E-04
1.399E-04
9.325E-05
7.940E-07
1.395E-04
0.95201
0.00022
0.00024
0.00023
0.04731
23.3 23.3 23.3
47.4 53.2 70.4
1.05 1.18 1.56
60%
1418
2.331 E-04
9.325E-05
1.399E-04
1.179E-06
9.210E-05
0.95200
0.00022
0.00024
0.00023
0.04732
23.3
102.4
2.27
E.4.2.3 Model form uncertainty

        The results of the uncertainty analysis for health effects model form are presented in Exhibit
E.19. The results of the simulations with the distributed delay model, as reported in Exhibit E.19 are
similar to those for the median value analysis, and the attributable number of illnesses for the model
employing a post-disease carrier state is slightly higher than those for the median value analysis for both
variants investigated. Note that, in variant 1, PPP and the endemic illness level were held constant, and in
variant 2, PPP and endemic dose were held constant.  The observed increased attributable number of
illnesses for the model with a post-disease carrier state is likely due to the fact that there are individuals
that are shedding pathogens for a longer period of time, and thus the potential for person-to-person
transmission is increased.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
E-23
October 2006

-------
                   Exhibit E.19  Uncertainty Analysis for Model Form
Model description
Incidence per 100,000 /year
Proportion ill
Proportion ill Env
Proportion ill P-P
P_PP
Endemic dose
Steady State Conditions
State S
State E
State C1
State C2
State D
State P
Average Point Prevalence
Results of Perturbed Steady State
Attributable Number of Illnesses
# Illness per incident illness
Median value analysis
Standard model
1418
2.331E-04
1 .865E-04
4.663E-05
4.005E-07
1.879E-04
0.95203
0.00022
0.00024
0.00023
0.04728
23.3
53.3
1.18
Model has post disease carrrier state
variant 1
2.331E-04
1.670E-04
6.613E-05
4.005E-07
1.676E-04
0.95183
0.00022
0.00024
0.00019
0.00023
0.04729
23.3
59.3
1.32
variant 2
2.593E-04
1.865E-04
7.280E-05
4.005E-07
1.879E-04
0.94644
0.00024
0.00026
0.00022
0.00026
0.05258
25.9
58.7
1.30
Distributed delay
model
1418
2.331E-04
1.865E-04
4.663E-05
4.005E-07
1.879E-04
0.95204
0.00022
0.00024
0.00023
0.04727
23.3
53.8
1.20
E.4.2.4 Population issues uncertainty

       The results of the uncertainty analysis for population uncertainty issues are presented in Exhibit
E.20. As shown, two "variants" were run for each proportion of the population that was permanently
removed from State S (Susceptible). In Variant 1, the "endemic dose" was kept constant relative to the
median value analysis and PPP was varied to ensure that the incidence was consistent with the specified
level (same as median value analysis). In Variant 2, PPP was kept constant relative to the median value
analysis, and the "endemic dose" and was varied to ensure that the incidence was consistent with the
specified level.  In both variants, the total incidence rate is the same as in the median value analysis,
therefore, the endemic incidence in the genetically susceptible part of the population needs to be
progressively greater as this portion of the population becomes smaller.

       Variant 1 effectively keeps constant the number of pathogens that individuals are exposed to from
the environment. Thus, as the number of individuals in State S decreases,  the intensity of person-to-
person transmission must increase for a given level of incidence.  Similarly for Variant 2, with a constant
probability of infective contact (PPP), the endemic dose must increase as the number of individuals in State
S decreases for a given level of incidence.  It is not known which of these two processes are more likely
to represent a real world situation (or whether it is a combination thereof).

             Exhibit E.20 Uncertainty Analysis for Population Uncertainty
Percent of Population Always in
State P
Incidence per 100,000 / year
Proportion ill
Proportion ill Env
Proportion ill P-P
P_PP
Endemic dose
Steady State Conditions
State S
State E
State C
State D
State P
Average Point Prevalence
Results of Perturbed Steady State
Attributable Number of Illnesses
# Illness per Incident Illness
# Illness per incident infection
Median value analysis
0%
1418
2.331 E-04
1.865E-04
4.663E-05
4.005E-07
1.879E-04
0.95203
0.00022
0.00024
0.00023
0.04728
23.3
53.2
1.18
0.53
10%
Variant 1
1418
2.331 E-04
1.679E-04
6.523E-05
6.270E-07
1.879E-04
0.85202
0.00022
0.00024
0.00023
0.14730
23.3
58.7
1.30
0.59
10% 25%
Variant 2 Variant 1
1418
2.331 E-04
1.916E-04
4.153E-05
4.005E-07
2.157E-04
0.85204
0.00022
0.00024
0.00023
0.14727
23.3
51.6
1.15
0.52
1418
2.331 E-04
1.399E-04
9.323E-05
1.087E-06
1.879E-04
0.70202
0.00022
0.00024
0.00023
0.29730
23.3
68.9
1.53
0.69
25% 50%
Variant 2 Variant 1
1418
2.331 E-04
1.993E-04
3.383E-05
4.005E-07
2.723E-04
0.70205
0.00022
0.00024
0.00023
0.29727
23.3
49.1
1.09
0.49
1418
2.331 E-04
9.326E-05
1.399E-04
2.532E-06
1.879E-04
0.45204
0.00022
0.00024
0.00023
0.54728
23.3
92.9
2.06
0.93
50% 75%
Variant 2 Variant 1
1418
2.331 E-04
2. 121 E-04
2.103E-05
4.005E-07
4.503E-04
0.45204
0.00022
0.00024
0.00023
0.54728
23.3
44.6
0.99
0.45
1418
2.331 E-04
4.662E-05
1.865E-04
7.554E-06
1.879E-04
0.20205
0.00022
0.00024
0.00023
0.79726
23.3
106.7
2.37
1.07
75%
Variant 2
1418
2.331 E-04
2.329E-04
2.258E-07
4.005E-07
1.069E-03
0.20204
0.00022
0.00024
0.00023
0.79727
23.3
37.6
0.84
0.38
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
E-24
October 2006

-------
       Based on the results presented in Exhibit E.20, the number of illnesses attributable to the case
study increases under Variant 1 assumptions rather dramatically. For example, if 25% of the population
is permanently removed from State S (Susceptible), the estimated number of illnesses due to person-to
person transmission increases from 8 to 24, and the number of illnesses per incident illness increases from
1.18 to 1.53.  This type of analysis is intended to simulate the population dynamics that may be occurring
in the general population for noroviruses (Lindesmith et al. 2003) or in the adult population for rotavirus
(Anderson and Weber 2004).  Similarly, if 50% of the population were permanently removed from State
S, the estimated number of illnesses due to person-to person transmission increases from 8 to 48, and the
number of illnesses per incident illness increases from 1.18 to 2.06 relative to the median value analysis.

       One subtle but important point associated with this analysis is that these simulations involved a
constant number of infected individuals regardless of the proportion of susceptible individuals in the
population. As noted previously, it is assumed in this case study that a small subset of a population (100
people out of a population of 100,000) is exposed to untreated or inadequately treated groundwater from a
NCWS contaminated with type A virus, and that all of those individuals become infected with the type A
virus, and then return home. As the genetically susceptible portion of the population becomes smaller,
this scenario becomes more unrealistic (for example, in the case where 75% of the population is never
susceptible, -20% of the population is in a susceptible state under endemic conditions, thus, it would be
expected that 500 individuals would have to be exposed to result in 100 infections). Thus, caution is
needed in interpreting these results.

E.4.2.5 Potential importance of uncertainty interaction

    Based on the results presented in Sections E.4.2.1 through E.4.2.4 a combination of the following
parameter values was investigated:

    •  Model parameter uncertainty: the probability of symptomatic response and the duration of
       immunity were shown to be parameters that influence disease propagation for the case study.
       Therefore, these two parameters were selected for further investigation.

    •  Transmission parameter uncertainty:  from section E.4.2.2 the person-to-person transmission
       intensity influences the magnitude of the incidence attributable to the case study and
       consequently also impacts the number of illnesses per incident illness. For this portion of the
       uncertainty analysis, it is  assumed that person-to-person transmission accounts for 40% of the
       illness rather than the 20% used in the median value analysis.

    •  Population issues uncertainty: from section E.4.2.4 the number of illnesses per incident illness
       increases if some of the population is permanently removed from State S (Susceptible).  For this
       component of the uncertainty analysis, it is assumed that 25% of the population is either semi-
       permanently immune or genetically immune.

    The results of the uncertainty analysis that consider the interaction of different types of uncertainties
are presented in Exhibit E.21.
Economic Analysis for the                        E-25                                   October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
          Exhibit E.21  Uncertainty Analysis for Interaction of Uncertainties
P-P transmission %
Percent of population always in
State P
Psym
gamma
Incidence per 100,000 /year
Proportion ill
Proportion ill Env
Proportion ill P-P
P_PP
Endemic dose
Steady State Conditions
State S
State E
State C
State D
State P
Average Point Prevalence
Results of Perturbed Steady State
Attributable Number of Illnesses
# Illness per Incident Illness
Median value analysis
20%
0%
0.45
0.0018
1418
2.331 E-04
1.865E-04
4.663E-05
4.005E-07
1.879E-04
0.95203
0.00022
0.00024
0.00023
0.04728
23.3
53.2
1.18
40%
0%
0.60
0.0048
1418
2.331 E-04
1.399E-04
9.325E-05
7.303E-07
1.025E-04
0.98599
0.00016
0.00013
0.00023
0.01349
23.3
97.8
1.63
40%
25%
0.60
0.0048
1418
2.331 E-04
1.399E-04
9.325E-05
9.805E-07
1.371 E-04
0.73599
0.00016
0.00013
0.00023
0.26349
23.3
97.2
1.62
       Based on the results presented in Exhibit E.21, there does seem to be some synergistic effects
when the interactions of different types of uncertainties are considered. For example, in the second
simulation shown in Exhibit E.21, the number of illnesses per incident illness is 1.63. This level may be
compared to that shown in Exhibit E.18 (1.56), which uses median values for the probability of
symptomatic response and duration of incubation along with a person-to-person transmission intensity
based on 40% of illnesses due to person-to-person transmission.

       In the third simulation presented in Exhibit E.21, the same parameter values are used as in the
second simulation, except 25% of the population is assumed to be either semi-permanently immune or
genetically immune. This modification did not impact the disease propagation through the community
compared to the second simulation in Exhibit E.21. However, when compared to the analogous
simulation in Exhibit E.20 (25% removed from State S, Variant 1), the reported number of illnesses per
incident illness are slightly elevated (1.53 compared to 1.62).  From a careful comparison of the data in
Exhibits E.20 and E.21, the noted difference are likely due to changes in the parameter values for the
probability of symptomatic response  and the duration of immunity.

       Finally, it should be noted that other simulations similar to those presented in Exhibit E.21 could
be conducted. Those selected here are not intended to be exhaustive nor extreme values.  Rather they
were selected to determine the potential for interaction between important factors identified during the
uncertainty analysis.
E.5    Discussion of results

E.5.1  Interpretation and Insights Gained from Analysis

       In the analysis presented above, an infectious disease paradigm was employed to evaluate the
potential implications of secondary transmission of infection and illness relative to the intensity of
secondary transmission estimated using the approach in the GWR base analysis.  The evaluation was
conducted using a hypothetical case study scenario of a type A virus in a community with a population
size of 100,000.
Economic Analysis for the                         E-26                                  October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
        The predicted magnitude of person-to-person transmission of illness in the community was
reported and discussed herein in terms of the number of illnesses per incident illness based on a number
of individuals from that community visiting a NCWS contaminated with a type A virus. The number of
illnesses per incident illness is a normalized metric to characterize person-to-person transmission
intensity.  It is robust to other formulations of the case study provided that the ratio of infected individuals
(those that visit the NCWS and return home infected) to the total population is small. A series of
sensitivity analyses were conducted to verify that the normalized results are robust within the range of
0.001% to 0.1% of the population assumed to be infected.  Representative results of those sensitivity
analyses are summarized in Exhibit E.22.
             Exhibit E.22  Sensitivity Analysis for Case Study Formulation
Model description
Number of Individuals Assumed Infected
Incidence per 100, 000 /year
Proportion ill
Proportion ill Env
Proportion ill P-P
P_PP
Endemic dose
Steady State Conditions
State S
State E
State C
State D
State P
Average Point Prevalence
Results of Perturbed Steady State
Attributable Number of Illnesses
# Illness per incident illness
Median value analysis
100 1
1418
2.331E-04
1.865E-04
4.663E-05
4.005E-07
1.879E-04
0.95203
0.00022
0.00024
0.00023
0.04728
23.3
53.3
1.18
1418
2.331E-04
1.865E-04
4.663E-05
4.005E-07
1.879E-04
0.95203
0.00022
0.00024
0.00023
0.04728
23.3
0.53
1.18
Person-to-person transmission
accounts for 60% of infections in
community
100 1
1418
2.331E-04
9.325E-05
1 .399E-04
1.179E-06
9.210E-05
0.95200
0.00022
0.00024
0.00023
0.04732
23.3
102.4
2.27
1418
2.331E-04
9.325E-05
1.399E-04
1.179E-06
9.210E-05
0.95200
0.00022
0.00024
0.00023
0.04732
23.3
1.03
2.28
25% of population not
available to move to State S
variant 1
100 1
1418 1418
2.331E-04 2.331E-04
1.399E-04 1.399E-04
9.323E-05 9.323E-05
1.087E-06 1.087E-06
1.879E-04 1.879E-04
0.70202 0.70202
0.00022 0.00022
0.00024 0.00024
0.00023 0.00023
0.29730 0.29730
23.3 23.3
68.9 0.69
1.53 1.53
        Because the number of illnesses per incident illness is robust to other case study scenarios and is
thus, scalable, it is a useful metric for providing insight toward the expected implications for other
situations in which either more or less individuals are exposed to or infected with Type A viruses from
untreated or inadequately treated groundwater. For example, another scenario relevant to the GWR may
be one in which low numbers of individuals return to a large community infected with a Type A virus
after visiting an area served by a NCWS with untreated or inadequately treated groundwater. Based on
the results summarized in Exhibit E.22, the average number of illnesses per incident illness can be used to
predict the expected magnitude of person-to-person transmission from one or more event of this type.

        Based on the results presented in Section E.4, it is clear that person-to-person transmission of
infection is an important population level characteristic that could have significant implications on the
predicted benefits of the GWR. The median value analysis predicted, on average, an additional 0.18
illnesses attributable to person-to-person transmission for each ill individual returning to the  community.

        From the results of the uncertainty analysis it was found that several parameters and  assumptions
have the potential to substantially influence the magnitude of disease propagation predicted by the median
value analysis for the case study investigated.  For example, the probability of symptomatic response and
duration of immunity were both found to be important factors in predicting the propagation of illness via
person-to-person transmission. Similarly, transmission parameter and  population issue uncertainties were
found to strongly affect the predicted magnitude  of disease propagation. Finally, synergistic effects were
observed when  the interactions of different types of uncertainties were considered simultaneously.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
E-27
October 2006

-------
        One of the most important differences between the assumptions employed in this investigation
and those employed in the GWR base analysis was the relaxation of the assumption that only children are
sources of secondary infections.  In the GWR base analysis, primary waterborne illnesses in young
children are multiplied by a secondary transmission factor to estimate the number of secondary cases in
individuals of all ages.   In the analysis described herein, it is assumed that individuals of all ages are
equally likely to become infected and subsequently propagate infection via person-to-person transmission.
By relaxing the GWR assumption and deriving a different multiplicative factor for secondary spread
based on the epidemiological data reported by Koopman et al. (1989), it is possible to illustrate the
importance of this assumption for the analysis described herein. Those calculations (not shown) produce
similar, albeit slightly higher estimates of person-to-person transmission than those derived with the
dynamic model. The assumption that individuals of all ages are equally likely to become infected and
subsequently propagate infection via person-to-person transmission, coupled with a simple
epidemiologically based multiplicative factor tends to systematically overestimate the total number of
illnesses attributable to TNCWS outbreak relative to the dynamic model.  In this case, the dynamic
model accounts for temporary removal of the primary infections (and all secondary infection cases that
they generated) from the pool of susceptible individuals.  By way of contrast, both the dynamic model
and the simple epidemiologically based multiplicative factor model with the relaxed assumption about
sources of secondary infection, both predict substantially higher person-to-person transmission than the
GWR base analysis, with specific results depending on the parameter values employed.

        The analysis presented herein is intended to complement the base analysis in the GWR. In that
context, this analysis provides a perspective on the relative magnitude of uncertainty that may be
associated with the benefits of the GWR due to secondary transmission of infection. Although the GWR
base analysis and that presented herein both focus on characterizing the risk associated with illness from
groundwater sources, each analysis is built on a different set of assumptions.  To the extent  feasible,
similar parameter values and assumptions were applied in this analysis compared to those used in the base
analysis. However, because the two analyses were intended to address slightly different questions, the
results are not necessarily directly comparable. For example, in this analysis 6 days was used in the
median value analyses for the duration of symptomatic infection, and 2 and 8 days are used as the
minimum and maximum reasonable values, respectively. These durations represent the mean time
periods for which individuals with symptomatic  infections could realistically infect other individuals. In
the base analysis, the duration of symptoms represents the time period in which individuals  are
sufficiently ill that they are likely to miss work or otherwise suspend their normal activities. Thus, the
results of the two analyses address slightly  different outcomes, and caution is warranted  in directly
comparing the results.

        The analysis presented herein employed a model virus that was intended to be representative of
highly infectious viruses that have low severity of clinical illness (type A viruses). The model virus in the
median value analysis was assumed to have the clinical properties and endemic level of illness of
rotavirus. As discussed  above, it was further assumed that no specific portion of the population was any
more  or less likely to be infected upon exposure  to the model virus.

        Uncertainty analysis was used to explore the potential implications of type A virus characteristics
different than those of the model virus employed. Of particular note and concern are noroviruses which
are estimated to cause approximately 23,000,000 illnesses in the United States annually (Mead et al.
1999), are associated with up to 90% of the epidemic nonbacterial gastroenteritis worldwide (Lindesmith
et al. 2003), and are also the major cause of acute nonbacterial gastroenteritis outbreaks worldwide (Ando
et al. 2000). Although noroviruses  are highly infectious, volunteer studies have shown that some subjects
remain uninfected even after challenges with high doses (Johnson et al. 1990; Matsui and Greenberg
2000). Recent research indicates that resistance  to norovirus infection is multifactorial and that a
substantial  portion of the population (approximately 20%) may not be susceptible to infection at any point

Economic Analysis for the                         E-28                                   October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
in time (Lindesmith et al. 2003).  Further, for the population that could be susceptible (at some point in
time), it was found that a portion of the population (35%) was resistant to infection, suggesting that a
memory immune response or some other unidentified factor also affords protection from norovirus
infection (Lindesmith et al. 2003).

        Rigorous modeling of norovirus transmission is extremely difficult at the present time for a
number of reasons.  Several important issues include: 1) the dose response relation has yet to be
published, 2) little is known about the potential for cross strain immunity, and 3) the person-to-person
transmission potential appears to be substantial based on outbreak data. It was noted previously that
about 300 norovirus outbreaks were documented in the US between 1993 and 1999 and that the genetic
diversity of the noroviruses responsible for those outbreaks encompassed approximately  68 strains (Ando
et al. 2000).  Clearly, the transmission of norovirus infection in a community is much more complicated
than that presented herein. Nevertheless, several salient properties of noroviruses were explored in the
uncertainty analysis in an attempt to provide some perspective on the potential importance of population
dynamics for noroviruses with respect to the GWR. Specifically, 1) all infected individuals (children and
adults) can spread infection , 2) portions of the population never move into the susceptible state
(population uncertainty) and 3) person-to-person transmission intensity (transmission parameter
uncertainty) different than that of rotavirus,  were investigated herein.

        Based on the results of this investigation, it is clear that secondary transmission could
substantially impact the potential benefits of the GWR depending on the suite of population dynamic
elements considered and the assumptions employed.

E.5.2   Limitations

        Given the complexity of characterizing disease propagation from a case study such as that
presented herein, a number of methodological assumptions were required for this investigation. The
limitations of the analyses presented herein generally stem from those assumptions.

        One fundamental limitation of any analysis such as this one is that the results are applicable only
for parameter values within the range of those investigated.  Although a detailed literature review was
conducted and the data from the literature were evaluated carefully to identify appropriate parameter
values for the investigation, it is possible that parameter values could be refined or changed based on
future research.

        A related assumption was that the epidemiological status of the population could be approximated
reasonably with the relatively simple structure of the disease transmission model (Exhibit E.2).  Although
several alternative model forms were also investigated, it is possible that other types of models could
yield additional and/or alternative insights.  For example, 1) "super-spread events" may be important
determinants  in characterizing disease transmission magnitude (Riley et al. 2003), 2) There may be
different transmission rates of viruses within and outside of households (but within the same community),
and 3) virus infection rates may vary by season. Any or all of these factors are worthy of consideration
for future extensions of this or related work.

        Other simplifying assumptions were made to streamline both the analysis and the interpretation  of
the results presented herein.  The most important of those assumptions were that insights could be drawn
from the one hypothetical case study scenario that was investigated, and that the model type A virus, as
constructed in the median value analysis and the uncertainty analyses is representative of the type A
viruses of concern for groundwater contamination scenarios.  Given these simplifying assumptions, the
results presented herein should not be interpreted as absolute estimates of risk for any particular situation.
Economic Analysis for the                         E-29                                   October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
E.6     Conclusions

        The major conclusion of this investigation is that population dynamics could substantially impact
the potential benefits of the GWR depending on the suite of population dynamic elements considered and
the assumptions employed. Potentially important elements include clinical disease character, etiologic
agent infectivity, population immunity, and person-to-person transmission characteristics of each
etiologic agent of interest.  Specifically, based on the results described herein 1) the uncertainty bounding
the magnitude of person-to-person transmission for type A virus illnesses is substantial; and 2) depending
on the assumptions employed, the predicted number of additional illnesses due to secondary transmission
could be greater than that predicted by the GWR base analysis by approximately an order of magnitude or
could be as low as  effectively zero.  Given the uncertainties associated with estimating the potential
benefits of regulating groundwater to prevent waterborne disease, the results of this investigation could
have profound implications when  extrapolated to the GWR.
Economic Analysis for the                         E-30                                   October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                  Appendix F

Infectivity Dose Response Relationships: Description
 of Analyses Conducted to Select Model Forms and
           Estimate Model Parameters

-------
                                    Appendix F
                   Infectivity Dose Response Relationships:
         Description of Analyses  Conducted to Select Model Forms
                        and Estimate Model Parameters
F.I    Introduction

       This appendix provides an expanded discussion of the information presented in EA
Section 5.2.4 (Probability of Infection, Illness, and Mortality).

       The following are the key information sources related to the development of these
models.

    1.  Schiff et al. (1984). Studies of Echovirus-12 in Volunteers: Determination of Minimal
       Infectious Dose and the Effect of Previous Infection on Infective Dose.

       This study provides data on the rate of infection of 144 volunteers ingesting 0 to 333,000
       plaque-forming units of echovirus-12 (a Type B virus).

    2.  Ward etal. (1986).  Human Rotavirus Studies in Volunteers: Determination of Infectious
       Dose and Serological Response to Infection.

       This study provides data on the rate of infection of 62 volunteers ingesting 0 to  90,000
       focus-forming units of rotavirus (a Type A virus).

    3.  Regli et al. (1991).  Modeling the Risk from Giardia and Viruses from Drinking Water.

       This paper presents a detailed discussion of the use of the exponential and beta-Poisson
       dose-response models for characterizing risk of infectivity from ingestion of certain
       waterborne microorganisms. Included in this paper are model-fitting efforts for Type A
       and Type B viruses using the data from the two studies identified above. It should be
       noted that the model form described as the beta-Poisson in this paper is an approximation
       to the exact beta-Poisson, an important distinction that is discussed further in this section.

    4.  Haas et al. (1999). Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment.

       This book, and specifically Chapter 7 "Conducting the Dose-Response Assessment,"
       provides a detailed discussion of the use of various model forms - including the beta-
       Poisson and exponential models - to characterize the risk of infection from exposure to
       waterborne microbes.

    5.  Teunis and Havelaar (2000). The Beta Poisson Dose-Response Model Is Not a Single-
       Hit Model.

       This paper provides a detailed discussion of the application of the beta-Poisson  dose-
       response model and, in particular, highlights limitations in using the approximation to the
       exact beta-Poisson model (as done in  Regli et al. noted above).
Economic Analysis for the                     F-l                               October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
F.2    Dose-Response Data

       Dose-response data for rotavirus, shown below in Exhibit F.I, were taken from the paper
by Ward et al. Data for echovirus, shown in Exhibit F.2, were taken from the paper by Schiff et
al. These full data sets are used in EPA's primary dose-response analysis.
                   Exhibit F.1  Rotavirus Dose-Response Data
Dose (Poisson),
focus-forming units
(ffu)
0.009
0.09
0.9
9
90
900
9,000
90,000
Subjects
receiving Dose
7
7
7
11
7
8
7
3
Subjects Infected
0
0
1
8
6
7
5
3
                  Exhibit F.2 Echovirus Dose-Response Data
Dose (Poisson),
plaque-forming
units (pfu)
330
1,000
3,300
10,000
33,000
330,000
Subjects
receiving Dose
50
20
26
12
4
3
Subjects Infected
15
9
19
12
2
2
       As discussed in EA section 5.2.4, EPA selected subsets of the data to inform the
sensitivity analyses. These data are shaded in Exhibits F. 1 and F.2, above. For rotavirus, the
sensitivity analysis utilized only the data for dose 0.9. For echovirus, only data at doses less than
33,000 and 330,000 were used.

F.3    Dose-Response Models

The subsections that follow describe the exponential and beta-Poisson dose-response models and
identify how they were used in the primary and sensitivity analysis.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
F-2
October 2006

-------
F.3.1  Exponential Model
       Haas et al. (1999) provide a detailed discussion of the derivation of the beta-Poisson
model and its applicability to microbial risk assessment. Haas first describes a simpler dose-
response model, the exponential model, which has the following form:
                                    P(d) = l-
                                                -rd
where P(d) is the probability of infection, given Poisson dose d and r is the probability that an
organism, once ingested, will survive to initiate an infection. In the dose-response studies, dose is
expected number of infectious units (either plaque-forming or focus-forming units) in a carefully
measured volume of diluted viral suspension. Similarly, the dose ingested by someone
consuming contaminated drinking water is the expected number of infectious units in the volume
of water ingested (the product of virus concentration in water and the volume ingested).  In
theory, the exact numbers ingested vary as Poisson random variables, about their expected values.
For example, 1 ml volumes taken from a dilution that contains 9 infectious units per ml will have
9 infectious units, on average, but about 90% of the exact numbers will fall between 4 and 14,
inclusive. This Poisson distribution (mean 9) is shown in Exhibit F.3, below.
             Exhibit F.3  Poisson Probability Mass Function (k = 9)
            O
            £
                  0.1
                 0.05
                                               10

                                          Exact Dose
                  15
20
       Under the exponential model, each viral infectious unit has an independent and identical
probability, r, of initiating infection, if ingested by a human host. If these successful units could
be identified and counted in advance, they would constitute r* 100% of the total population of
infectious units and the number of these in a volume taken from a well-mixed suspension will, in
theory, be a Poisson random variable with parameter r*d, where d is the product of concentration
and volume. The probability of having exactly zero of these successful units in the volume
equals the Poisson probability of zero: e"d*r. The probability of infection is 1 minus that quantity,
which is precisely the formula for P(d) shown above.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
F-3
  October 2006

-------
F.3.2  Beta-Poisson Model

       The beta-Poisson model is an extension of the exponential model and has the following
form:
                                     = \-\(e-rd}f(r)dr
       In this model form, the underlying assumption that each infectious unit has an
independent and identical survival probability, r, is changed to reflect that for some host-unit
combinations there may be variation in the survivability rate, perhaps reflecting different degrees
of susceptibility in the exposed individuals. This variation is captured by the/frj term, which is
the beta probability density function. This function has two parameters (a and P) and the
function form (where F is the gamma function):


                            f(r)=  r
Thus, the full dose-response function of the exact beta-Poisson model is:


                                          (a + ^  r-'l-r-1 dr
This expression does not have a simple algebraic solution and must be evaluated numerically.
The numerical integration is difficult. Large parameter values can lead to numerical overflow
(F(171) > 21023, which is a common computational limit). This difficulty led to the development
of simpler forms that approximate the exact function. One of these, which is also discussed in the
three modeling papers referenced above, is attributed to Furumoto and Mickey (1967) and has the
form:
This form is often referred to as the beta-Poisson, with the full dose response form referred to as
the exact beta-Poisson. In other cases, this approximation is referred to as the Pareto or Pareto II
approximation to the exact beta-Poisson. For clarity and simplicity, this model from will be
referred to in the remainder of this discussion as the Pareto approximation.

       Another approximation to the exact beta-Poisson model for the infectivity dose-response
equation was developed by EPA,  and it has the form:
Economic Analysis for the                      F-4                               October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
In this case, the a and p parameters are the same as those estimated for the beta distribution of the
exact form of the model. This equation is only valid when the expected dose is at most one
infectious unit. For reasons discussed later, this is referred to as the expected value
approximation of the exact beta-Poisson model. These approximation forms are discussed further
in the sections that follow.

F.3.3  Models Selected for the Primary and Secondary Analyses

       The remainder of this appendix provides specific information on EPA's primary and
sensitivity analyses, detailing the data and mathematical models that were selected to characterize
the infectivity of Type A and Type B viruses. Results are reported for both the primary and
sensitivity analyses.  The primary analysis results are directly used to predict baseline risk and
benefits in the economic analysis. The sensitivity analysis reveals the magnitude of model
uncertainty for both types of viruses. Model uncertainty appears to be relatively small for Type A
(rotavirus), but large for Type B (echovirus), where predictions require extrapolation far below
the range of the dose-response data.  The Exhibit below summarizes the data and models used in
the primary and sensitivity analyses.
 Exhibit F.4  Data and Models Used in the Primary and Secondary Analysis
                          for Type A and Type B Viruses
                            Type A = Rotavirus
                                  Type B = Echovirus
  Primary Analysis
All Data from Ward et al.
   Beta-Poisson Model
   (exact beta-Poisson)
   All Data from Schiff et al.
      Beta-Poisson Model
    (Pareto approximation)
 Sensitivity Analysis
Data from Dose 0.9 Only
   Exponential Model
 Data from Doses < 33,000 pfu
	Exponential Model	
F.4    Primary Analyses

       For its primary analysis of both Type A and Type B viruses, EPA attempted to use the
exact beta-Poisson model form. This required undertaking  analytical steps to estimate the
necessary parameters for the model, namely the a and p parameters for the beta distribution as
included in the exact beta-Poisson model.

       Further, it was recognized that because the parameter estimates were being derived from
one study for each of the two virus types, there would be uncertainty inherent in the estimates
obtained. Therefore, the procedures undertaken were designed not to produce just a single "best
estimate" of those parameter values, but rather a set of plausible parameter pairs that capture the
uncertainty in the estimates.

       In the following sections, the attempts to estimate these parameter pairs for each of the
two virus types are described.  In the case of Type A virus,  these parameters were estimable for
the exact model.  However, difficulties encountered with the numerical integration  in the
implementation of the model led to the development by EPA of expected value approximation
model form noted earlier.  In the case of Type B virus, EPA was unable to successfully estimate
parameters for the exact beta-Poisson model. Therefore, it  was necessary to use the Pareto

Economic Analysis for the                    F-5                               October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
approximation form for Type B viruses. The parameters were estimated for this dose response
function using a bootstrap procedure as described below.

F.4.1   Type A Viruses

Description of procedure for estimating the parameters for Type A viruses.

        BUGS software (WinBUGSIS) was used to produce a Markov Chain Monte Carlo
(MCMC) sample of parameter pairs (alpha, beta) for rotavirus. The software (described by Gilks,
Thomas, and Spiegelhalter, 1994) provides graphical and textual descriptions of the analysis
model.  The code below describes subject-specific parameters, r[subj], as beta distributed with
parameters alpha and beta.  Disperse, uniform priors were assigned to alpha and beta to convey a
lack of prior knowledge about these two parameters.  Given parameter r[subj], the subject's
probability of infection is an exponential function of dose, 1 - e-dose[subJl*r[subJ]

model;
{
  alpha  ~ dunif(0,5)
  beta ~ dunif(0,200)
  for( subj in  1 : 59 ) {
    r[subj] ~ dbeta(alpha,beta)
    inffsubj] ~ dbern(p[subj])
    p[subj] <- 1 - exp(-dose[subj] *  r[subj])
Characterization of Resulting Parameter Pairs for Type A

        Parameters alpha and beta were strongly correlated in the posterior sample.  The
correlation is evident in Exhibit F.5. The figure shows that the ranges for these parameters are
well within the much broader ranges defined by the uniform priors. The narrower ranges are due
to the information content of the dose-response data and demonstrate that the priors were
relatively non-informative, which was desired.
Economic Analysis for the                     F-6                                October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
          Exhibit F.5  Posterior Sample of Parameter Pairs for Type A Virus
                                              Alpha
       The graph in Exhibit F.6 displays the distribution of average probability of infection for
Type A viruses. As defined here, the average probability of infection is the mean exponential
dose-response parameter (r), based on a distribution defined by parameters alpha and beta.  The
mean for a given parameter pair is alpha / (alpha + beta).  This mean is the fraction of the
population that would be infected if each person were to ingest exactly one infectious unit.  The
graph reveals the uncertainty in this mean value. Variability, though considerable, is not
displayed in this figure. The overall mean is 0.224 and the 90% confidence bounds (from the 5th
and 95th percentiles) are 0.088 and 0.414.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
F-7
October 2006

-------
      Exhibit F.6 Distribution of Probability of Infection for Type A Virus

                    Risk from Exposure to 1 Virus Reflecting Uncertainty in Parameters- Type A
    0.9


    0.8


    0.7
  | 0.4
  d
    0.3
                              z
                                             0.3
                                             Risk
       It is important to note that EPA/ORD estimated model parameters using a different
procedure and produced estimates that appear to differ from those produced by this MCMC
procedure.  At low doses, ORD's estimates suggest risks that are about twice as great as those
estimated by the MCMC procedure.  To be conservative in our estimate, the lower MCMC values
will be used to calculate the risk of infection from Type A viruses.

Goodness of Fit for Type A Virus

       Exhibit F.7 shows the quality of fit for maximum likelihood parameter values (a = 0.265,
P = 0.442).  The likelihood, given this parameter pair, is 3.48* 10"4. A classical or frequentist
approach was used to further assess goodness-of-fit. Artificial dose-response data sets were
generated using the same  distribution of subjects across doses, but simulating the outcomes as
binomial random variables with infection probabilities as predicted by the maximum likelihood
parameters.  This was repeated 10,000 times and the likelihood was determined for each of the
10,000 artificial data sets. Among the 10,000 likelihoods, the actual data likelihood ranked at the
40th percentile.  An extremely small value (below  1st percentile) would have been evidence of
poor model fit or spurious data and an extremely large value (above 99th percentile) would have
been evidence of over-fitting. The moderate value encountered (40th percentile) is evidence  of
good model fit.
Economic Analysis for the                     F-8                               October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
    Exhibit F.7  Data (Number Infected / Number Subjects) and Maximum
       Likelihood Number Dose-Response Function for Type A Viruses
         o
        •-P
         o
        ,
        <+H
        I	1
        <+H
         O
               0.5
1-10      0.01     0.1      1      10      100

                Rotavirus Dose, Infectious Units
MO3   MO4
                                                                         1-10
F.4.2  Type B Viruses

Description of procedure for estimating the parameters for Type B viruses

       As noted above, the same MCMC procedure was attempted for Type B viruses, but with
limited success. Ideally, the MCMC algorithm would produce a sample of parameter pairs
(alpha, beta) that are independent draws from the joint posterior distribution.  The sequence of
parameter pairs actually obtained showed a lack of independence, with strong autocorrelation
(poor mixing).

       Rather than run the MCMC algorithm with great thinning (e.g., accepting every 10,000th
parameter pair), EPA used a bootstrap procedure to estimate the parameters for the Pareto
approximation  for Type B viruses.  The algorithm described below is taken directly from
Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment, by Haas, Rose and Gerba, in Chapter 7 on page 291.

    1.  Fit the  dose-response model to the data to get the maximum likelihood  estimate (MLE) of
       (a, P).

    2.  Plug dose levels, from the study, into the MLE dose-response curve to get the modeled
       probability of infection for each data point.

    3.  Compute the standardized residuals ~ the difference between the observed proportion of
       infections and the modeled probability of infection at each data point. These residuals are
       re-scaled to be approximately standard normal (jo, = 0, a2 = 1).

    4.  Randomly sample, with replacement, from the standardized residuals, choosing one
       residual to pair with each data point.

    5.  Using the randomly sampled residuals, compute a bootstrapped probability of infection
       from each data point.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                           F-9
                October 2006

-------
    6.  Using each bootstrapped probability of infection (^!(m)) and the number of subjects (nt)
       at the given dose level, randomly generate a number of infections by simulating a
       binomial (ni, n(^>) draw.

    7.  Generate a new (a, P) pair by fitting the dose-response  model to the bootstrapped
       infection counts.

    8.  Repeat steps 4 through 7 one thousand times to generate one thousand plausible sets of
       (a, P) estimates given the observed variability in the original data set.
F.4.3  Step-by-Step Details for Type B Virus

    1.  Fit the dose-response model to the data to get the maximum likelihood estimate
       (MLE)of(a,p).

       Maximizing the likelihood function is equivalent to finding the (ot,p) pair that minimizes
       the overall deviance between the  observed infection rates and the rates predicted by the
       possible Beta-Poisson models. This deviance is given by equation 7-35 in Haas:
       where:

        7 = -2 times the log likelihood ratio (deviance)
        /' = dose level
        k = number of dose levels in the study
        pt = observed number of infections at dose level i
        nt = number of subjects at dose level i


             P
        ni = —- = observed rate of infection at dose level i

        ni = modeled probability of infection from Beta-Poisson fit

       In computing the deviance, there are two recurring problems:

       First, when the number of infections at a given dose level is zero, the first term in the
       likelihood sum above results in division by zero (;rf =0). Second, when the number of
       infections was equal to the number of subjects at a given dose level (everybody got
       infected), the second term results in division by zero (1 - 7T°  =1-1 = 0).
Economic Analysis for the                     F-10                               October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
       When either of these problems occurred, in fitting the model, the entire term was set to
       zero. This appears to be the most sensible workaround since, in both cases, the term also
       includes a zero multiplier (pt = 0 in the first case and nt — pt = 0 in the second).

       The following MLE estimates were obtained (published values from Regli paper in
       parenthesis):

       Rotavirus:
               a = 0.265  (0.26)
               P = 0.442  (0.42)

       Echo virus:
               a = 0.374  (0.374)
               P= 186.690  (186.69)

       The model fitting was done with the S-Plus function nlminb — TVonZinearM/Mmization
       subject to Box constraints. This general purpose S-Plus function takes, as input, an
       objective function to minimize over a vector of parameters. In this case, the objective
       function was the model deviance function given above.

       The nlminb function also takes a starting value and constraints for possible parameter
       values to search. Starting alpha/beta values were set to 0.0 1 . Minimum values were set to
       0.001. This was necessary to prevent beta distribution parameters less than or equal to
       zero. While, theoretically, there is no upper limit on possible beta distribution parameters,
       a limit of one million was set in model fitting. Beyond this value, further changes in
       either a or p have negligible impact on the resulting modeled distribution  of infectivity.

    2.  Plug dose levels, from the study, into the MLE dose-response curve to get the
       modeled probability of infection for each data point.

       With MLE estimates for a and p, a fitted probability of infection can be computed for
       each study dose using the approximate Beta-Poisson dose-response equation (Equation 7-
        19 in Haas):
       Where:
        d = the dose level
        Pj (d) = modeled probability of infection at that dose

       The result is a vector of modeled probabilities of infection, one per study dose.
Economic Analysis for the                     F-ll                               October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
    3.   Compute the standardized residuals ~ the difference between the observed
        proportion of infections and the modeled probability of infection at each data point,
        scaled to be approximately standard normal (\JL = 0, o2 = 1).

        For each dose level in the study, the difference is computed between the observed

        proportion of infections  ;r°  = —L   and the modeled probability of infection
                              I      ni)
        ni =Pj(d} (Equation 7-39 in Haas):
                                      e  = •
                                               ;r,0-;r
       The result is a set of residuals that is as large as the number of dose levels in the study.

       Since the variability of a proportion is a function of its magnitude, the un-scaled residuals
       are not directly comparable and standardizing them is an important step. In scaled form,
       each residual can be thought of as a random number of standard deviations from a mean
       and, as a collection, these differences reflect the variability seen in the data.

       For the echovirus data, the first data point caused division by zero at this step since
        7ti = 0 when d =  0 (see the equation in Step 2). Since fitting the Beta-Poisson model
       with and without this zero dose point resulted in the same  MLE estimates for (a, P), and
       since it was not possible to complete the bootstrap procedure with this point included, it
       was dropped from the dataset.

    4.  Randomly sample, with replacement, from the residuals, choosing one residual to
       pair with each data point.

       The idea is to create a set of plausible true infection probabilities based  on the observed
       variability in the original data. This is done by drawing random values,  with replacement,
       from the standardized residuals.

       For example, the rotavirus study has eight dose levels resulting in a total of 88 equally
       likely vectors of 8  residuals (the first sampled residual can be any on of the eight, the
       second can be any of eight, and so on through the eighth dose level). While this is a very
       large number of possible residual sets, the number of possible bootstrapped  infection
       vectors is more limited due to the discrete nature of the data (see Step 6).
Economic Analysis for the                     F-12                               October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
    5.  Using the randomly sampled residuals, compute a bootstrapped probability of
       infection from each data point.

       The bootstrapped infection probabilities are computed as the MLE modeled probabilities
       plus a random standardized residual times the appropriate standard error (Equation 7-40)
       in Haas:
       Where:

        ;rf m) =the bootstrapped infection probability at dose level i

        .Trf"1 =the MLE modeled infection probability at dose level i
        5i = a randomly selected standardized residual (number of standard errors)

                        = standard error of the MLE modeled infection probability
       If the bootstrapped probability is greater than one, it is set to one, and if it is less than
       zero, it is set to zero.

       Note that while the standard error changes along with the dose level, since the mean and
       variance are related for proportions, the randomly selected residuals are standardized so
       they can be usefully paired with any of these standard errors.

    6.  Using each bootstrapped probability of infection (n^) and the number of subjects
       («.) at the given dose level, randomly generate a number of infections by simulating

       a binomial (ni, 7r(;m)) draw.

       This is the second random element in the procedure. To re-fit the Beta-Poisson model,
       and generate a new (a, P) pair, a simulated dose response dataset is required, and this
       means infection counts, not modeled probabilities of infection, so the infection counts are
       simulated from the bootstrapped infection probabilities.

       The result of this  step is a set of simulated infection counts, one for each dose level. The
       counts are  all greater than or equal to zero, and less than or equal to the number of
       subjects  at the given dose level.

       Since these counts can only be integers, and some of them are very unlikely (for example
       simulating 0 infections out of 10 subjects when the bootstrapped probability of infection
       is well above Yi),  the number of possible simulated datasets, from this step is much
       smaller than the number of possible random residual sets in Step 4. In other words,
       drawing  a different random sample of eight residuals does not guarantee that the
Economic Analysis for the                    F-13                               October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
        simulated infection counts that result will be different. Because of this, some data sets are
        repeated over one thousand iterations resulting in some duplicate (a, P) pairs in the final
        uncertainty collection.

    7.   Generate a new (a, P) pair by fitting the dose-response model to the bootstrapped
        infection counts.

        The model fitting procedure described in Step 1 is repeated, but this time the Beta-
        Poisson model is fit to the infection counts generated by the bootstrap procedure. These
        alternate infection counts represent what might reasonably be seen if the study were
        repeated and the first dataset is representative of the true dose-response relationship. Thus
        each iteration results in another plausible (a, P).

    8.   Repeat steps 4 through 7 one thousand times to generate one thousand plausible sets
        of (a, P) estimates given the observed variability in the original data set.

        Steps 1 through 3, fitting the MLE model and computing its residuals occurs just one
        time. These MLE estimates and residuals, as well as the number of subjects at each dose
        level, remain the same for the remainder of the process.

        Steps 4 through 7 are repeated one thousand times, each time  starting with a random
        selection of residuals and finishing with a simulated (a, P) pair.

        The S-Plus procedure generates a plot of the rotovirus (a, N50) pairs (N50 is computed
        directly from a and P) that matches Figure 7-15 in Haas which shows the  results of Haas
        bootstrap on the same dataset. The shape of the scatter plot is  roughly the  same, and the
        number of outliers (non-plotted points) is similar.
Economic Analysis for the                    F-14                                October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
Characterization of Resulting Parameter Pairs for Type B

        The graph in Exhibit F.8 displays the distribution of average infection probability for
Type B viruses.  As defined here, average infection probability is the mean exponential dose-
response parameter (r), based on a distribution defined by parameters alpha and beta.  The mean
for a given parameter pair is alpha / (alpha + beta). This mean is the fraction of the population
that would be infected if each person were to ingest exactly one infectious unit. The graph
reveals the uncertainty in this mean value. Variability, though considerable, is not displayed in
this figure. The overall mean is 0.0044 and 90% confidence bounds (from the 5th and 95th
percentiles) are 0.0006 and 0.0165.
      Exhibit F.8 Distribution of Probability of Infection for Type B Virus
                     Risk from Exposure to 1 Virus Reflecting Uncertainty in Parameters- Type B
  '£ 0.6
  o
    0.3
                                             0.05
                                             Risk
Goodness of Fit for Type B Virus

        Exhibit F.9 shows the quality of fit for maximum likelihood parameter values (a = 0.374,
P= 186.69). The likelihood, given this parameter pair is 1.73*10"6.  To assess goodness-of-fit,
artificial dose-response data sets were generated using the same distribution of subjects across
doses, but simulating the outcomes as binomial random variables with infection probabilities as
predicted by the maximum likelihood parameters.  This was repeated 10,000 times and the
likelihood was determined for each of the 10,000 artificial data sets. Among the 10,000
likelihoods, the actual data likelihood ranked at the 6th percentile.  An extremely small value
(below 1st percentile) would have been evidence of poor model fit or spurious data and an
extremely large value (above 99th percentile) would have been evidence of over-fitting.  The
value encountered (6th percentile) is satisfactory, but suggests some sensitivity analysis may be in
order to explore the influence of selected observations. In a sensitivity analysis, EPA analyzed
the Echovirus data, but without observations for the two highest doses.
Economic Analysis for the                     F-15                               October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
    Exhibit F.9  Data (Number Infected / Number Subjects) and Maximum
            Likelihood Dose-Response Function for Type B Viruses
   o
  '•§
  eg
         0.5
                                   I
           10
                                              I
                                                          I
100         MO        MO         MO

   Echovirus Dose, Infectious Units
MO
F.5     Sensitivity Analyses

        As described in Section 5.2.4, EPA considered using alternative analyses for both Type A
and Type B viruses to illustrate the potential magnitude of modeling uncertainty. The analyses
discussed above were based on the full dose-response data sets and only one mathematical model
(the beta-Poisson) for each type of virus. Those analyses produced large samples of parameter
pairs to represent parameter uncertainty. This is the uncertainty due to having a limited amount
of data to estimate the two model parameters (a and P). The sensitivity analyses use some of the
same data, but with other mathematical models, so the estimated dose-response relationship will
differ from the primary analysis because (a) less data can lead to greater parameter uncertainty,
and systematically different average estimates at environmentally-relevant dose levels and (b)
alternative models can produce significantly different estimates, particularly when extrapolating
beyond the range of the data.

        It is important to bear in mind that the models used here are only two simple alternatives
to those used in the primary analysis. No measure is provided for these models' relative
likelihoods or goodness-of-fit,  compared to the primary analysis models. The limited amounts of
dose-response data do not support the analysis of other, more complex models.  It is difficult to
judge how well our simple models would hold up, if large amounts of new data were to become
available.  It is unlikely, however, that new dose-response studies will be conducted anytime
soon.  The more likely source of new data will be from outbreaks, supported by high-quality
exposure information.  Until such data become available, EPA believes that the primary and
sensitivity analyses presented here provide reasonable indications of the total uncertainty that
may be due to the limited amount of existing data and the  small number of plausible models that
they can support.

        The sections that follow detail the sensitivity analyses that were performed for Type A
(rotavirus) and Type B (echovirus) viruses.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                   F-16
        October 2006

-------
F.5.1  Type A Viruses

       The data for this model are simply that one subject was infected of the seven who
ingested doses of 0.9. Bearing in mind that the dose is Poisson, rather than exact, 1/7 is the
maximum likelihood infection probability at this dose. In terms of the exponential model, where
infection probability is 1 - e"d*r = 1 - e"°'9*r, the maximum likelihood value of r is that for which 1
- e-°'9*r = 1/7.

Technically, the likelihood of observing one of seven subjects infected is the binomial probability
of one success in seven trials with success probability p: dbinom(l,7,p) =

                                      7*P*(1-P)6

Exhibit F.10 displays the full binomial likelihood function.  Its maximum is marked at p = 1/7 =
0.1433.
     Exhibit F.10  Likelihood of Observing One in Seven Infected at Dose
             o
             O
             O

            "53
                    0         0.2         0.4        0.6        0.8

                     p = P(0.9) = Prjinfection, given Poisson dose = 0.9}
       In the Exhibit above, p is the probability of infection at dose 0.9, P(0.9), which is l-e"09*r
under the exponential model. The likelihood, expressed in terms of r is therefore dbinom (1,7, 1
- e
* r ).
                 p 11 displays this likelihood function and shows that the maximum likelihood
parameter value is about 0.171, somewhat greater than 1/7 = 0.1433.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                    F-17
                                                                            October 2006

-------
         Exhibit F.11  Likelihood Function for Exponential Parameter r
                                0.2
0.4
                        r = Prjinfection, given exactly one unit ingested}


       A large sample was drawn, using this likelihood function for r. This was done using a
Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method with WinBUGS software, and also using the
distribution function associated with the likelihood (scaling the function by dividing by its total
likelihood mass) and a large set of standard uniform deviates (on the interval from 0 to 1). Below
(Exhibit F.12) are summary statistics for the MCMC sample of size 10,000.
          Exhibit F.12 Summary Statistics for Rotavirus (WinBUGS)

                    node    mean    sd      MC error2.5%    median  97.5%
                    P(0.09)  0.239   0.1317  0.0016690.03655  0.221    0.5271
                    r       0.3219   0.208   0.0026960.04137  0.2775  0.8322

       It is clear that this model would predict somewhat greater baseline risk than the primary
analysis,  for which the average probability of infection, given exactly one infectious unit, r, is
about 0.224. The corresponding sensitivity analysis value from Exhibit F. 12 is 0.3219, which is
about 44% greater than the primary analysis' 0.224.

       A second, simplified version of the exponential model was also used for a sensitivity
analysis for Type A viruses.  In this approach, the same observations from the Ward et al. (1986)
study that 1 of 7 subjects receiving a 0.9 dose became infected. In this case, however, the value
obtained  for the parameter r was assumed to be an exact value rather than being generated using
the MCMC method as a set of values to reflect uncertainty in the true value of the parameter.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
F-18
October 2006

-------
       The derivation of the value for r in this case was done as follows:
                                  l-e-"-03  =1/7
                                  1-1/7 = 6/7 = e~
                                  ln(6/?) = -/•-0.9
                                      ln(6/7)
                                  r =
                                      -0.9
                                      r = 0.171
       This value for r, which also corresponds to the maximum likelihood value obtained in the
analysis that includes uncertainty in the r parameter, was used as a fixed input to the baseline risk
and benefits computed in the Type A alternative analysis as described in Chapter 5 (section
5.5.2).
F.5.2  Type B Viruses

       When the high dose (33,000 and 330,000) results are discarded, the remaining data are
reasonably consistent with the exponential model. The likelihood is a product of four binomial
probabilities, one for each of the four remaining dose levels:
                      L(r) = V In dbmom  K.   ., N.   ., 1 - e
                        v '   Z^i   \      \  level'  level'
                                                         - dlevel-r
                            level
Exhibit F. 13 displays the likelihood function, scaled so the total area under the curve is 1
         Exhibit F.13  Likelihood Function for Exponential Parameter r
                  5000
                  4000 -
                                                               9-10
                                                                       0.001
                                 r = Exponential Dose-Response Parameter
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
F-19
October 2006

-------
As with the other analyses, a large MCMC sample was generated using WinBUGS software.
Exhibit F.I4 displays summary statistics for the sample.
     Exhibit F.14  Summary Statistics for Echovirus Sensitivity Analysis


                    node    mean   sd      MC error2.5%    median  97.5%
                     r    4.215E-4  6.391 E-5 6.011 E-7 3.091 E-4 4.177E-4 5.589E-4
                    P[300]   0.1297  0.01829  1.722E-4 0.09697  0.1288   0.1684
                    P[1000]  0.3426  0.04157  3.926E-4 0.2659   0.3414   0.4281
                    P[3000]  0.7457  0.05219  4.961 E-4 0.6394   0.748    0.8419
                    P[10000] 0.9821   0.01115  1.054E-4 0.9545   0.9847   0.9963
        The average probability of infection, given exactly one unit ingested, is only about
0.0004. This is much smaller than the corresponding estimate from the primary analysis, which
was 0.0044. The alternative analysis would be expected to predict a lower baseline risk and
lower benefits from the GWR; this result is observed as described in Section 5.5.3.
Economic Analysis for the                     F-20                               October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
           Appendix G

Summary Flowcharts for Baseline Risk
         and Benefits Model

-------
                  Water Systems and Population Categories Used in Risk and Benefits Model
                                                                                  Water System Types (3)
1
Community


Nontransient
Noncommunity

1
Transient
Noncommunity
                                                                         T
                                                                  Water System Sizes (9)
1 1
£100

101-
500

I
501-
1000

>1k-
3.3k

I I I
>3.3k-
10k

>10k-
50k

>50k-
100k

>100k-
1M


>1M

Water System Size, etc.
Same as Community

                                     Well Conditions (2)
                            Less Vulnerable
                                                                           Well Condition, etc.
                                                                         Same as < 100 category
                                  \
                          Well Construction (2)
I
In Accordance with
State Standards

I
Not in Accordance
with State Standards
       T
 Well Treatment (2)
_n
                                                                   Well Construction, etc.
                                                                  Same as Less Vulnerable
              Disinfecting
          Not Disinfecting
Well Treatment, etc.
   Same as In
 Accordance with
 State Standards
                                                                                                    Water System Categories
                                                                                                      (216 = 3x9x2x2x2)
            Age Groups (11)



<0.5


Age Groups
Same as Disinfecting


0.5-
0.9


1-3 4-6 7-10 11-14




15-19
20-24 25-54 55-64 65+
                                                                                                     Population Categories
                                                                                                        (11 age groups)
                                                Total Categories: 216 x 11 = 2,376
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                                                           October 2006

-------
                                          Part 1 - Determination of Annual Risks of Infection
        Input Data:

        Number of entry points per system and population served per entry point for each of 3 system types (CWS, NTNCWS, TNCWS ) and 9 size categories
        (fixed values)

        Distribution for population factor for TNCWS (uncertainty)

        Distributions for % of wells that are more vulnerable (MV) / less vulnerable (LV) for each of 3 system types (CWS, NTNCWS, TNCWS ) and 9 size
        categories (uncertainty)

        Inputs for %  of wells properly and improperly constructed (fixed values, vary for more and less vulnerable wells)

        Inputs for %  of wells disinfecting to 4 logs and < 4-logs (fixed values, vary by system type and size)

        Data sets with  1,000 values for Pwell, Psample parameters, and probabilities of indicator positive as a function of assay number (uncertainty)

        Data sets  with concentration values for viruses in MV and LV wells (variability)

        Data sets with  1,000 values for Type A and Type B dose response parameters (uncertainty)

        Mean daily water consumption values (fixed values, vary for each of 11 age  groups)
              Step 1: Create Specific Inputs for Each of 250 Uncertainty Iterations

              For the first (or next) of the 250 uncertainty loops, randomly select specific values from uncertainty distributions / data sets for:

                    Pwell value
                    Psample distribution parameters
                    Indicator positive probabilities by assay number
                    % wells MV and LV
                    Dose response parameters for Type A and Type B viruses
                    TNCWS population factor
           Step 2A: Specify Viral Occurrence for each of 1,000 Entry Point Variability Iterations for Baseline

           For the first (or next) of the 216 system types, create 1,000 entry point variability iterations and use Pwell to randomly determine which iterations
           are virus positive and which are virus negative.

           For virus negative wells, assign virus concentration = 0.

           For virus positive wells, assign virus concentration selected randomly from MV or LV data sets.  For disinfecting well categories, reduce virus
           concentration by 4 log or 2 log based on inputs for percent of disinfecting wells achieving those levels.

           For each virus positive well, randomly select a specific Psample value from the Psample beta distribution specified by the Psample parameters
           selected for this uncertainty iteration.
           Step 2B: Specify Viral Occurrence for each of 1,000 Entry Point Variability Iterations for Rule Options

           For Rule Options determine for each virus positive well created in Step 2A if that well is caught, the year in which it is caught and the reduced
           concentration of virus for all years after it is caught.
                    Step 3: Compute Daily and Annual Individual Risk of Infection for Virus Positive Entry Points by Age Category

                    For the first (or next) of the 11 age group categories, calculate the daily and annual individual infection risk for each of the virus
                    positive entry points (risk is zero for virus negative entry points).

                    For each virus positive entry point, daily and annual individual risks are calculated for Type A and Type B viruses using the
                    dose response parameters selected for this uncertainty iteration in Step 1, the viral concentration and Psample values
                    assigned in Step 2, and the daily water consumption rate for the specific age group being evaluated.

                    For baseline, individual risk values are calculated once to apply to all 25 years.

                    For rule options, individual risk values are also calculated for those years subsequent to when the well is caught.

                    For virus negative wells, assign  risk = 0
                                                     Repeat Step 3 for remainder of the 11 age categories.
                                                  Repeat Steps 2 and 3 for remainder of the 216 system types
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                               Repeat Steps 1,2, and 3 for remainder of 250 uncertainty iterations
October 2006

-------
            Interim data files are created from the results of Steps 1 through 3 that capture the estimated annual individual risk values for each of the 2,376
            categories of entry point and age characteristics.  Each of these 2,376 data files can be visualized as a matrix with 250 columns for the 250
            uncertainty iterations and 1,000 rows for the 1,000 entry point variability iterations.

            For the baseline, a single set of files is created that apply to all 25 years.

            For the rule options, multiple sets of files are created to apply separately to each of the 25 years after rule promulgation.

            These data files are processed as described below to serve as input to Parts 2 and 3 of the model.
          Step 4: Process data for input to Part 2 of the model (Illness
          and Death Estimates)

          For each of the 2,376 well type / age group categories,
          calculate the average of the annual individual risks from the
          results of the 1,000 variability iterations for each of the 250
          uncertainty iterations.

          Convert these 250 average annual individual risk values for
          the 2,376 well type / age group categories into cases of
          infection  by multiplying the risk values by the number of entry
          points and the  population per entry point for the well type /
          size, and by the percent of the total population represented
          by each age group.

          The number of entry points for each of the 216 categories of
          wells is dependent on the %MV / %LV values selected from
          the uncertainty distribution for each of the 250 uncertainty
          iterations.

          For TNCWS, also multiply by the TNCWS population factor
          selected from the uncertainty distribution for each of the 250
          uncertainty iterations.

          Sort the 250 values of cases of infection for each of the
          2,376 well type /  age categories from low to high.  Determine
          percentile values for 0, 0.5,0.1, 0.15	0.85, 0.90,0.95, 1.0
          to represent uncertainty distributions of annual cases of
          infection occurring in each of the 2,376 well type / age group
          categories.

          The data for these uncertainty distributions of annual cases
          of infection in each of the 2,376 well type / age categories are
          stored to serve as input to Part 2 of the model.

          (Note: Separate data sets are generated and  stored for Type
          A and Type B viruses)
Step 5.  Process data for input to Part 3 of the model
(Individual Risk Distributions)

For each of the 1,000 inner (variability) loops for each of the
250 outer (uncertainty) loops for each of the 2376 well type /
age groups categories, compute the fraction of the annual
individual infection risk values that meet each of the criteria of:
< 10°, < 10-1, < 10'2,  < 10'3, ...etc. < 10'8.

Convert these fractions at or below these risk levels to cases
of infection by multiplying by the number of entry points, the
population per entry point, and the % of population in the age
group specific to each of the 2,376 well type / age group
categories. This results in 250 estimates at each of these risk
levels for each of the 2,376 well type / age group categories.

Compute the mean number of cases of infection at each risk
level from the 250 estimates for each of the 2,376 well type /
age group categories.

These outputs are generated for the baseline and for Year 25
of the rule options.

These results are stored to serve as input to Part 3 of the
model.

(Note: Separate data sets are generated and stored for Type
A and Type B viruses.)
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                    October 2006

-------
                 Part 2 - Determination of Annual Cases of Illness and Death (Morbidity and Mortality)
       Input Data:

       The distributions of annual cases of infection for each of the 2,376 well type/ age group catergories generated in Step 1 (uncertainty)

       Distributions for morbidity factors for Type A and Type B viruses (uncertainty)

       Secondary spread factors for Type A (fixed value)
       Distribution of secondary spread factors for Type B viruses (uncertainty)

       Distribution for mortality factors for Type A viruses (uncertainty)
       Mortality factors for Type B viruses (fixed values, vary for 2 age groups)
             Step 1: Modify uncertainty distributions of annual cases of infection to correspond to age groups needed for generating
             morbidity estimates.

             The uncertainty distributions of the number of annual infections correspond to the 11 age categories reflecting different
             mean water consumptions values. However, the morbidity and mortality factors involve some age groups that differ
             slightly from some of the 11  water consumption age groups. Therefore, it is necessary to adjust the age groups in the
             distributions of annual infections generated in Part 1 of the model.
                                        Step 2: Create Specific Inputs for 1,000 Uncertainty
                                        Iterations

                                        Randomly select 1,000 values from uncertainty distributions
                                        for:
                                               Annual cases of infection
                                               Morbidity factors for Type A and Type B viruses
                                               Secondary  spread factors for Type B viruses
                                               Mortality factors for Type A viruses
                                                                   I
                               Step 3:  Primary Illnesses

                               For the first (or next) of the [2,376] well type / age group category, compute 1,000
                               estimates of primary illnesses using fixed inputs and uncertain values selected in
                               Step 2.
           Step 4: Secondary Illnesses

           Using results of Step 3, compute secondary illnesses associated with each of the 1,000 estimates of primary illnesses.
                       Step 5: Total Illnesses

                       Combine estimates of primary and secondary illnesses from Steps 3 and 4 for the 1,000 iterations.
                     Step 6:  Mortality

                     Using the results of Step 5, and mortality factor inputs, compute estimates of deaths for 1,000 iterations.
                                 Repeat Steps 3 - 6 for the remaining [2,376] well type / age group categories.
         The outputs of Part 2 are 1,000 estimates of total illnesses and deaths reflecting uncertainty for each of the [2,376] well type/ age group categories.

         These outputs are aggregated variously by system type, size, and other characteristics and the means, 5th, and 95th percentile values determined to
         present as the best estimates of illnesses and deaths.

         For the baseline, a single set of outputs is created that applies to all 25 years.

         For the rule options, multiple sets of files are created to apply to each of the 25 years.

         These outputs are also exported for use as uncertainty inputs to the monetization
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
October 2006

-------
                              Part 3 - Derivation of Individual Risk Distributions
                       Input data:

                       Output files from Part 1 of the model providing the means from the
                       250 outer loops of the counts of infections from the 1,000 inner
                       loops at or below specified risk levels of < 10°, < 10-1, < 1Q-2, < 1Q-3,
                       ...etc. < 10-8 for each of the 2,376 well types.
                               Step 1: Aggregate Results for Each System Type

                               For the first (or next) of the 3 system types (CWS,
                               NTNCWS, TNCWS), sum the mean number of
                               cases of infections at or below each risk level
                               across the 792 well types.
                               Step 2: Convert the Cases of Infection to Percent
                               of Population Generate Graphs.

                               Compute the fraction of the total population  at or
                               below each risk level served by the system type.
                             Step 3: Generate Graphs Comparing Individual Risk
                             Distributions for Baseline and Rule Options

                             Graph results for the baseline and rule options (in
                             year 25) for each of the two virus types.  Graphs
                             show risk levels on the x-axis and fraction of
                             population at or below those risk levels on the y-axis.
1
Repeat Steps 1 , 2, and 3 f
r

Drthe remaining well types
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
October 2006

-------
Description of Methodology for Estimating Risk Reductions (for Parts 1-3)

        The methodology for estimating the reduction in risk for the regulatory alternatives builds upon
the approach and assumptions used to establish the baseline risk as described in detail in Section 5.2.5 of
the EA and summarized in the preceding flowcharts. The primary difference between the modeling for
estimating the baseline risk model and the modeling for estimating the risk reduction from a given
regulatory alternative is that the latter incorporates a change in the concentration of viral pathogens
reaching the finished drinking water of the exposed population.  These changes reflect either a reduction
in pathogen concentration between source water and finished water due to disinfection or the complete
elimination of the pathogen in the  finished water from other non-treatment corrective actions addressing
the source water contamination. In addition to accounting for the magnitude of pathogen exposure
reduction, an important component of the risk reduction modeling is to account for the timing of when
those reductions occur over a 25 year analysis timeframe following promulgation of the rule.

        As discussed in the description of the baseline risk analysis in Section 5.2.5.1, each well in the
simulation process is designated as either having a virus present at some time or never having a virus
present based on the Pwell  probability. Also, for those wells having some viral occurrence, values are
assigned for Psample and for the virus concentration. The risk reduction part of the model uses the exact
same simulated wells as those generated in the baseline risk part of the model.

        For the sake of efficiency  in implementing the simulation modeling process, those wells
designated as never having a virus present are recognized as having zero risk reduction potential and are
counted as such in the model outputs, but are not run through the detailed steps of the risk reduction
model.

        For those wells that do have a virus present, the risk reduction model answers the following three
questions:

        1) Is a corrective action performed on this well as a result of the regulatory alternative being
        considered?

        2) What is the finished water virus concentration following corrective action?

        3) In what year following  rule implementation is the corrective action performed?

        The risk reduction model then processes the reduced virus concentrations through the dose
response functions for infectivity,  morbidity and mortality as in the baseline risk assessment.

        In the baseline risk analysis, the primary outputs are estimates of annual cases of illness and
deaths due to endemic infection from Type A and Type B viruses, and these are assumed to be the same
for each of the 25 years following  rule promulgation. The outputs from the risk reduction model are the
same - the cases of illness and death that remain in each of the 25 years following rule promulgation.
These are the remaining cases each year resulting from the virus concentrations that remain after the
corrective actions are performed. The risk reductions, in terms of cases of illness and deaths avoided, are
then obtained by subtracting the cases remaining after the rule from the baseline cases.
Economic Analysis for the                                                               October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
        Estimates of cases avoided calculated for all of the individual wells are aggregated across all
wells to arrive at the total national estimates of risk reduction. In addition, some of the assumptions and
data used in the risk reduction model are uncertain and are therefore input as uncertainty distributions. As
a result of the uncertainty reflected in those inputs, together with the uncertainty reflected in other inputs
to the baseline risk model that are also carried into the risk reduction model, the output of the model is a
range of values of cases avoided.  The range is used by EPA to determine the expected value and the 90
percent confidence bounds on that expected value.

        The following sections describe in more detail the specific assumptions and inputs-including
considerations of uncertainty-that are used to model risk reduction for each of the four rule alternatives at
the individual well level and the aggregation of those we 11-level estimates to obtain the overall national
estimates of risk reduction.

Alternative 1: Sanitary Survey Only

        Regulatory Alternative 1 includes only sanitary surveys. The Sanitary Survey rule alternative
applies to all ground water wells, including those wells that are currently disinfecting and meeting 4-log
reductions.  As described in the baseline information in Chapter 4 and in the estimation of the baseline
risk, all wells are stratified into 8 major categories that reflect the 2x2x2 (=8) combinations of the well
characteristics of: Disinfecting or Nondisinfecting; More Vulnerable or Less Vulnerable; and Proper or
Improper well construction.

       As discussed in Chapter 4 (Section 4.3.3), the fraction of wells considered More Vulnerable
varies from 0% to approximately 7% as a function of systems system size and type.  The average
(weighted by number of systems) is that about 2.5% are in the More Vulnerable stratum (the remaining
97.5% are, therefore, in the Less Vulnerable stratum). To estimate the benefits from correcting significant
deficiencies, each of these strata must be further defined in regards to well construction.

        Construction status of a well (i.e., whether a well is properly or improperly constructed) is
estimated based on ASDWA survey data (ASDWA, 1997). Those wells identified as improperly
constructed are likely to be identified by states during a sanitary survey. Different percentages of
improper construction are estimated based on historical  total or fecal coliform detections. EPA believes
that a history of detection of these contaminants is indicative  of wells that fall into the More Vulnerable
classification within the benefits model.  The percentages of properly and improperly constructed wells
are estimated as follows.

        Less vulnerable wells - The ASDWA survey of States found that of community GWSs with no
TC or fecal coliform detections, 83.6 percent of the systems had wells that were constructed according to
State standards.  Thus, 16.4 percent of systems had wells identified by State officials as not being
constructed to State standards and are considered to be improperly constructed.

        More vulnerable wells - The  same survey found that of community GWSs with TC detections,
but no fecal coliform detections, 217 of 211 systems had wells constructed according to State  standards.
A third group consisted of systems with positive fecal coliform detections, of which 164 of 231 systems
had wells constructed according to State standards.  Thus, for systems with TC or fecal coliform
detections, 381 of 508 systems (75.0  percent) had wells that were constructed according to State
standards.  Therefore, 25.0 percent of systems had wells identified by State officials as not being
constructed to State standards and are considered to be improperly constructed.

Economic Analysis for the                                                                October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
        The combination of the vulnerability and well construction estimates described above can be used
to approximate the percent of all wells having virus present that are expected to be identified and
corrected by sanitary surveys.  To arrive at this estimate, the percent of all wells that are improperly
constructed is first calculated as the weighted average for the More and Less Vulnerable strata as:
               More vulnerable (2.5%), Improperly constructed (25.0%):
               2.5%* 25.0% = 0.6%

        •       Less vulnerable (97.5%), Improperly constructed (16.4%):
               97.5%*  16.4%= 16.0%

        The total fraction of all wells that are improperly constructed is the sum of these, which is 16.6%.

        It is assumed that the sanitary survey provisions of the ground water rule will result in identifying
some (but not all) wells that are improperly constructed. It is assumed that corrective actions will be
performed on those improperly constructed wells. Specifically, EPA has estimated that for those wells
that are improperly constructed and also have a virus present, 50% will be identified and the
contamination eliminated by a corrective action.  To recognize the uncertainty in this estimate of the
effectiveness of sanitary surveys, EPA has assumed a uniform distribution of 40% to 60% (mean = 50%).
Therefore, as a central value, it is expected that the sanitary survey alternative of the rule will result in
corrective actions being performed and contamination eliminated at approximately half of the  16.6% of
all wells that are improperly constructed, which is 8.3% of all wells.  Therefore, it can be estimated that
this rule alternative will result in the reduction of 8.3% of the baseline cases of illnesses and deaths per
year by the 25th year after rule promulgation.

        For those wells that have virus present in the source water that are caught by a sanitary survey,
the corrective action is assumed to eliminate the virus completely. Therefore, the finished water
concentration as well as the source water concentration for these wells is set to zero for the risk reduction
calculations for those wells. While the fraction of wells corrected by sanitary survey is the same for both
the disinfecting and the nondisinfecting strata, almost all of the risk reduction (i.e., cases avoided) from
sanitary surveys will be from the nondisinfecting wells. This is because for the disinfecting wells that are
currently achieving 4-log removal, most of the virus present in the source water is already being
inactivated so that the incremental risk reduction from eliminating the source entirely is very small and
contributes very little to the total benefits achieved.  Nevertheless, the risk reduction for disinfecting wells
that is achieved through sanitary surveys is  calculated in the risk reduction model for completeness sake.

        With respect to when this reduction in virus concentration and risk occurs, it is assumed that
identifying the  (approximately) 8.3% of wells that are improperly constructed wells and performing a
corrective action on them as a result of sanitary surveys will occur across the entire 25 year analysis
period.  It is assumed that no corrective actions will occur in the first three years, and that all of the
corrective actions performed will be evenly distributed across the remaining years. Therefore, in the
benefits model, each well that undergoes a corrective action from a sanitary survey is assigned a year
between year 4 and year 25 with equal probability of it occurring in any one of the years in the time
period.
Economic Analysis for the                                                                 October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
Alternative 2: Sanitary Survey + Triggered Monitoring

        Regulatory alternative 2 includes both sanitary surveys and triggered monitoring. The sanitary
survey component of the modeling is carried out as described above. For those wells that are captured by
a sanitary survey, the information generated for improperly constructed wells in the sanitary survey
component of the model regarding the year in which any corrective action is performed and the virus
concentration of zero for the years following the corrective action is stored.

        The triggered monitoring component of the model applies only to the nondisinfecting subset of
wells and any wells that are applying disinfectant but not achieving 4-log removal of viruses. For the
wells that are currently achieving 4-log removal, the sanitary survey requirements still apply and the
output developed in that part of the model as described above are retained for those wells For the
triggered monitoring component of the risk reduction analysis, each well goes through a 2-step process.
In the first step of the process, estimates are made of the number of TC positives-and therefore the
number of source water indicator samples-that occur during the 22 years between year 4 and year 25 (it is
assumed that no corrective actions will be taken during the first 3 years after rule implementation).  The
number of TC positives expected per year for each well of a given type and size are obtained from the DV
data as described in chapter 4 (Section 4.2.7).  The total number of TC positives expected through year 25
is then calculated as the number TC positives per year times 22. If, for example, a well is in the CWS
size 10,000-50,000 category, the  DV data indicate that these wells average 2.21 TC positives per year;
over 22 years, then, it is expected that these wells will have 48.6 TC positives and therefore take up to 49
source water indicator samples between years 4 and 25.

        In the  second step of the process, a simulation is performed to determine which, if any, of the
indicator samples taken through year 25 is the  first positive indicator result.  As described in Chapter 4, in
each uncertainty loop of the risk reduction model a set of values for both virus  and indicator hit rates is
selected. Included among this set of values is the probability that the first positive of an indicator will
occur on a given assay number (contingent on  these assays being performed in wells that are known to
have a virus present at some time). Exhibit 4.27 showed the probability of the  first indicator positive
occurring on a given assays for the median and the 5th and 95th percentiles of a sample of 1,000 of these
uncertainty sets of occurrence values. The curve for the median set of values shown in that exhibit
indicates that there is about a 40% probability that the first indicator positive will occur on or before the
49th assay.  The  data for each uncertainty set provides these cumulative probabilities of observing the
first positive on or before each specific assay number. In the risk reduction model, a random value
between 0 and 1  is generated for each well. That value is used as a  look-up value to determine what
assay number would produce the  first positive.

        For example, if the curve shown as the median data set in Exhibit 4.27 were the set of values
being used for a particular uncertainty loop, and the random number between 0 and 1 generated for a well
in the CWS  size  10,000-50,000 category were  0.25, the look-up function would indicate that the first
indicator positive would occur on assay number 8.  Since these wells are expected to take 48.6 indicator
assays over the 22 year period, the 8th assay would occur in the 6th year (48.6  / 8 ~ 6). Since there  are no
samples taken in years  1 through  3, the 6th year of sampling corresponds to year 9 of the 25 year
modeling period. Therefore, this well would be "caught" by triggered monitoring in year 9. This
prediction is then compared to the year in which the well is captured (if it is) by the sanitary survey
provisions.  The corrective action is assigned to the rule provision (SS or TM) that occurs the earliest in
the 25 year period. If both occur in the same year, one of the two is selected randomly.
Economic Analysis for the                                                               October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
        Based on the number of TC positives expected per well across all well types and sizes, together
with the expected values of indicator positives as a function of assay number across all of the uncertainty
sets available to draw from for the simulation model, it can be estimated that approximately one-third
(33%) of nondisinfecting wells with virus present should be caught and corrected by the triggered
monitoring provision of the rule by the 25th year of the modeling timeframe.

        Because there are some nondisinfecting wells that will be caught in the simulation model by both
sanitary survey and triggered monitoring (where the one occurring earliest is selected for corrective
action), the total wells ultimately caught by both components of this rule alternative will be less than the
sum of the two individual components (i.e., -8.3% for SS and 27.5% for TM). The expected fraction of
nondisinfecting wells that are captured by either SS or TM can be estimated from the sum of these minus
the product (to account for the overlap):

                             (8.3% + 27.5%) - (8.3% * 27.5%) = 33.5%

Therefore, the SS + TM alternative should, by the 25th year after rule promulgation, result in corrective
actions  being performed at approximately 33.5% of all non-disinfecting  wells and 8.3% of all (4-log)
disinfecting wells that have virus present in their source water. Because most of the baseline risk is
found in nondisinfecting wells, it is also, therefore, expected that this rule will result in approximately a
33.5% reduction in the baseline cases of illness and death.

Alternative 3: Sanitary Survey + Triggered Monitoring + Assessment Monitoring

        Regulatory alternative 3 builds upon alternative 2 by adding a period of source water assessment
monitoring for those wells that are not currently disinfecting to 4-log virus removal and that are identified
by the States as located in a sensitive aquifer.

        As discussed in Chapter 4 (Section 4.3.6), it is estimated that 15% of the ground water wells are
located  in sensitive aquifers.  Therefore, for the 85% of ground water wells that are not located in
sensitive aquifers, this regulatory alternative is identical to Alternative 2 described above. For the  15%
that are in sensitive aquifers, the requirements are that-in addition to performing sanitary surveys and
taking source water indicator assays from triggered monitoring-they must also perform indicator assays
for 12 source water samples.  It is assumed that these samples will be taken monthly during year 6  for
CWSs,  and monthly during year 8 for NTNCWS. For TNCWS, it is assumed that these 12 assays will be
performed quarterly across years 6, 7, and 8.

        The probability of observing an indicator positive in one of these 12 samples is taken from the
same set of probabilities of indicator positives as a function of the number of assays performed as
described in the preceding section on TM and in Chapter 4. As shown in Exhibit 4.27, the central
tendency value across all uncertainty sets indicates that approximately 30% of wells with virus present
will result in an indicator positive within the first 12 indicator assays. In the benefits modeling, it was
assumed that the capture rate of wells from assessment monitoring would correspond to the probabilities
associated with those first 12 indicator assays.  This is recognized as likely resulting  in an overestimate of
the number of wells caught by assessment monitoring for the reasons discussed below.

        It is important to note that the  12 assays that are conducted for assessment monitoring are not
necessarily the first 12 assays that will be conducted for those wells performing assessment monitoring.
In many cases, and perhaps most, there will have been source water indicator samples taken in response to

Economic Analysis for the                                                                October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
TC positives occurring prior to the beginning of the assessment monitoring period. Because the
probability of getting the first positive indicator result decreases with each additional assay (refer to
Exhibit 4.27) the actual probability that a given well will get caught by one of the 12 assessment
monitoring samples depends upon how many triggered monitoring indicator assays were performed
(which would all have been negative) prior to the beginning of the assessment monitoring assays. The
more triggered monitoring samples taken, the less likely it is that the additional 12 assessment monitoring
assays will produce a positive result. For example, assume a well has taken 3 triggered monitoring
samples (with negative results) prior to the  12 assessment monitoring samples. The expected value of the
probability that a positive result will have been obtained in those first 3 samples is 16.6%, and the
expected value of the probability that a positive result will have been obtained in the first 15 samples is
32.5% (that is, the 3 triggered plus 12 assessment samples).

       Therefore the, incremental probability of observing an indicator positive from those additional 12
samples is only about  16%. Assume, however, that a well has taken 20 triggered monitoring samples
(with negative results) prior to the 12 assessment monitoring samples. The expected value of the
probability that a positive result will have been obtained in those first 20 samples is 34.9%, and the
expected value of the probability that a positive result will have been obtained in the first 32 samples is
38.4% (that is, the 20 triggered plus  12 assessment samples). Therefore the,  incremental probability of
observing an indicator positive from those additional 12 samples in this case is only about 3.5%. Since
most wells  will have some triggered monitoring events prior to the beginning of any assessment
monitoring (and more so for the larger systems having more population exposed) EPA believes that the
simplifying assumption used in the benefits model results in an overestimate of cases avoided from
assessment monitoring.

       The number of the additional wells captured by this rule option is, therefore, a function of the
fraction of wells that do  assessment monitoring in addition to the triggered monitoring and sanitary
surveys plus the fraction of wells that only  do triggered monitoring and sanitary surveys  as described in
the preceding section.

       As shown in Chapter 8, Exhibit 8.8, the final GWR (sanitary survey  + triggered monitoring), the
annual average cases avoided is 41,868 while for Alternative 3 (sanitary survey + triggered monitoring +
assessment monitoring) the annual average cases avoided is 45,419. Therefore, Alternative 3 is estimated
to result in  about 8.5% more cases avoided annual than the final GWR.  However, as indicated above,
EPA believes the benefits model produces overestimate of the cases avoided from assessment monitoring
for the reasons discussed above.

Alternative 4: Across the Board Disinfection

       For this rule alternative, it is assumed that all wells not currently achieving 4-log disinfection will
do so beginning in year 5 after rule promulgation. No other rule components are considered. That is,
viral levels will be reduced by 4 logs for all wells not doing any disinfection, and from 2 logs to 4 logs for
those currently doing less than 4-log disinfection. As a result, it is expected that  all wells not currently
achieving 4 logs disinfection and with virus present will be captured. The risk reduction, accounting for
no changes among those currently achieving 4 logs, an additional 2 log reduction in risk  for those
currently disinfecting to only 2 logs, and 4  log reductions for those not currently  disinfecting will result  in
over 99.9% risk reduction of the baseline illnesses.
Economic Analysis for the                                                               October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
            Appendix H
 Cost Effectiveness Analysis Using a
Quality-Adjusted Life Years Approach

-------
                                       Appendix H
  Cost Effectiveness Analysis Using a Quality-Adjusted Life Years Approach


H.I    Introduction

       This Appendix provides a description and results of an experimental approach to developing a
cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) for the Ground Water Rule (GWR) 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,  and a similar methodology was applied to the Stage 2
DBPR EA and the LT2ESWTR EA, promulgated in Dec. 2005 (Appendices N and U, respectively).
Significant language from the CAIR report is used in this Appendix, even though it is not always directly
cited.
H.I.I  Cost-effectiveness analysis

       Benefit-cost analysis (BCA) and CEA each provide different, but potentially complementary,
information for decision-makers. Health-based CEA has been used to analyze numerous health
interventions but has not been widely adopted as a tool to analyze environmental policies. 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.

       Prior to 2003, CEA has not been required under Executive Order 12866 or EPA guidance. The
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), however, in its September 2003 update to Circular A-4
interpreting the requirements of Executive Order 12866, states that executive agencies should

       ... 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

       Pursuant to this requirement, in 2003  OMB's Office  of Information and Regulatory Affairs
requested that the Institute of Medicine (IOM), a member institution of the National Academies of
Science, investigate the application of CEA to government regulatory analysis. In response, the IOM
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.  The committee issued its report in January 2006. The
groundwater CEA was largely completed prior to the IOM report and, in its current form, does not reflect
all of the lOM's recommendations.
 Office of Management and Budget Circular A-4, September 17, 2003, p. 9.
Economic Analysis for the                        H-l                                   October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
        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).

        The use of health preference indices, such as QALYs, to characterize the effectiveness of health
and safety based rules has a number of useful attributes, particularly in cases where benefits are difficult
to monetize.  For the benefit-cost component of analyses that affect human health, EPA typically relies on
estimates of willingness to pay for health risk reduction to determine the net benefits of different policy
options.  In contrast,  health economists often rely on cost-effectiveness analysis to compare alternative
approaches, using indices to rank preferences for different types of risk reductions.  In these studies,
analysts calculate the ratio of an outcome (or effect)  measure to costs, then rank the options based on
these ratios.

        Environmental quality improvements may have  multiple health and ecological benefits, making
application of CEA more difficult. For the GWR, 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 GWR EA a preliminary and experimental application of the QALYs approach to CEA.
H.1.2   QALY methodology

        When using a QALY rating system, health quality ranges from 0 to 1.0, where 1.0 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 a quality of life that is half that of perfect health.

        QALYs can be used to evaluate environmental rules under certain circumstances, although some
very strong assumptions apply. These assumptions are embedded in the QALY analytical framework on
which a QALYs application  is predicated. As noted in the QALY literature, this analytical tool is
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 are not consistent with
actual preferences, the QALY approach will not provide results that are consistent with a benefit-cost
analysis based on the Kaldor-Hicks criterion.2
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.
Economic Analysis for the                         H-2                                    October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
       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 the ability to pay (and thus the potential for equity concerns) and
the notion of consumer sovereignty (which emphasizes wealth effects). Exhibit H. 1 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.
               Exhibit H.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
Source: Exhibit G-1, p. G-11, CAIR RIA
       The QALYs analysis in this appendix accounts for the loss in quality of life without consideration
of the initial health state and summarizes life years saved for the entire population.  In some CEAs
(Cohen, Hammitt, and Levy, 2003; Coyle et al., 2003), analysts have adjusted the number of life years
saved to reflect that

        1)     the general public is not in perfect health and thus "healthy" life years are less than total
              life years saved; 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
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
H-3
October 2006

-------
(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)

       Because of the fairness concerns discussed above, this analysis does not reduce the number of life
years saved to reflect any differences in  underlying health status; rather, EPA assigns a weight of 1.0 to
all direct gains in life years.  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 termed "Morbidity Inclusive Life Years" (MILYs) in the regulatory impact analysis for the Final
CAIR Rule (2005).  The Stage 2 DBPR  and the LT2ESWTR used the same terminology, and it is applied
to this analysis for the GWR as well.
H.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 (Nord, 1999) examined differences in the health-state scores that
Economic Analysis for the                         H-4                                   October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
would result by application of a wide range of multi-attribute utility instruments. One of these
instruments, the York EuroQoL Time Trade-off Tariff, utilized the Time Trade-off (TTO) valuation
technique that which was also used for deriving the QALY scores applied to this analysis (see Section
H.2.1.1.1). The results of the Nord study are summarized in Exhibit H.2 below.

       One interpretation of the data in Exhibit H.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.
    Exhibit H.2  Health-State Scores According to Rules of Thumb and Different
                            Multi-Attribute Utility Instruments
Instrument
Rules of Thumb
QWB
HUM1
HUM2
EuroQol
York EuroQol (TTO)
IHQL(3D)
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.
       The GWR EA includes the following MILYs-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 MILYs (or QALYs) based CEA should be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis.

       This analysis calculates the MILYs saved using a quality of life decrement for rotavirus illness
and the estimated number of such illnesses to be avoided by implementation of the GWR, as presented in
the GWR EA.  Additionally, the same decrement for a rotavirus illness is applied to the more severe Type
B illnesses avoided, although the Agency uses echovirus to represent Type B illnesses in the main EA .
This is an underestimate of QALYs saved for avoidance of Type B illnesses because Type B illnesses are
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
H-5
October 2006

-------
known to be more severe on average than Type A.3 However, this method is considered the best
approach based on available information, which will be described in Section H.2.1.1.1 below.

       The remainder of this Appendix provides the step-by-step development of a MILY-based
measure of the cost-effectiveness of the GWR in the following order:

       1)      Development of the MILY denominator. This includes determination of an appropriate
               QALY decrement and its application to cases of morbidity; the calculation of life years
               saved from avoided cases of mortality; and integration of morbidity and mortality life
               years saved into a total life years saved denominator (MILY).

       2)      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.

       3)      Finally, integration of the numerator and denominator to yield a cost-per-MILY saved
               ratio.
H.2   Methods

       Promulgation of the GWR is expected to achieve reductions in viral concentrations in drinking
water and in the incidence of Type A illnesses such as rotavirus illness and Type B illnesses, thereby
avoiding the associated decrements to patients' quality of life, and in some cases death.  To capture the
benefits of reduction in Types A and B illnesses in a measure of cost effectiveness, cases of illness to be
avoided are converted into a life years equivalent (QALYs) so that they can be combined with the direct
gains in life expectancy from avoided premature mortality (Section H.2.1.2).  Other nonqualified benefits
from items such as reduction of bacterial contamination and improvements in the consistency of
performance of disinfection and distribution systems (as described in Chapter 5) are expected to be
significant. However, because they are not monetized, these benefits are not included in the quantified
QALY analysis.

       The  first step in the development of a cost-per-MILY ratio in this CEA is to determine the QALY
decrement per case avoided to be used in calculating 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 H.2.1.1.1.

       The  QALY decrement is then used to derive the total QALYs  saved across the population from a
reduction in  morbidity related to drinking water contaminated with Type A viruses such as rotavirus
(Section H.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 illnesses, resulting in an estimate of MILYs. An estimate of
MILYs saved is the effectiveness measure (denominator) in the cost-per-MILY ratio of this CEA.
3 Additionally, the QALYs saved as calculated in this Appendix are an underestimate for both Type A and Type B
illnesses, as they are based solely on the number of rotavirus and echovirus cases avoided, and don't account for the
avoidance of illness due to co-pathogens in the source waters. These and other unqualified benefits to the GWR are
described in Ch. 5, Section 5.1.2, of the EA.
Economic Analysis for the                         H-6                                   October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
        The numerator of the cost-per-MILY saved measure is the cost of the regulation minus certain
costs associated with the illness to be avoided through rule implementation. The process of determining
these avoided costs and the resulting net cost numerator is described in Section H.2.2 below.

        The numerator and denominator are integrated to estimate the cost effectiveness of the regulatory
alternatives in terms of net cost per MILY saved (Section H.2.3).
H.2.1   The CEA Denominator: Deriving MILYs

The QALY calculation for morbidity requires three elements:4

        1)      Estimated change in incidence of the health condition (cases avoided),
        2)      Duration of the health condition (estimated time-in-state), and
        3)      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 rotavirus  illness cases avoided through rule promulgation.  EPA calculates
this estimate in the main EA, and presents the results in Ch. 5, Exhibit 5.16. The second element is based
on the medical literature for each health condition. This estimate is compiled in the main EA and
presented in Appendix A, Exhibits A.I and A.3. The third element is derived in this appendix by the
methods described in the following section (H.2.1.1).


H.2.1.1        Equivalent life years  saved from avoided cases of morbidity

        Calculating equivalent life years saved from avoided cases of morbidity involves developing a
QALY decrement and applying this to cases of illness avoided.  The QALY decrement converts a
decrease in quality of life due to illness to a time-equivalent. In this CEA, a small number of cases of
Type  A and Type B acute illness become fatal; an estimate of the number of life years saved for avoiding
these  cases is calculated separately, in  Section H.2.1.2.


H.2.1.1.1       Developing the QALY decrement

        There are multiple steps to developing a QALY decrement per case avoided in a CEA. First, the
Agency reviews and describes the health effect of interest, i.e., the illness to be avoided; the primary
analysis of this EA uses rotavirus and echovirus to represent the health effects for two classes of illness,
Type  A viruses and Type B viruses, respectively. Second, the Agency conducts a literature review for
QALY-based health preference index scores for the relevant health effects.  Last, the Agency selects and
presents the QALY decrements for each health effect, based on the literature research.  The final QALY
decrements for Type A and Type B illnesses are then applied to the estimate of non-fatal and fatal cases
4 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.
Economic Analysis for the                         H-7                                    October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
avoided in each class of illness. These QALY decrements do not include nonqualified benefits, which
for the GWR are expected to be significant.
H.2.1.1.1.1     Determining the Appropriate Health Endpoints

Rotavirus

        EPA has selected rotavirus to represent Type A waterborne viral pathogens for the Ground Water
Rule risk assessment. Generally, Type A viruses are highly infectious viruses that cause gastroenteritis,
resulting in symptoms that include vomiting, watery diarrhea, fever, and abdominal pain. Although they
are highly infectious, Type A viruses generally lead to mild, non-life-threatening illnesses. In modeling
the Ground Water Rule, EPA has assumed that the duration of illness is approximately 2.5 to 5 days
(Appendix A, Exhibit A. 1) for Type A illnesses.

        The elderly and the immunocompromised are also at greater risk than the general population of
experiencing severe health effects due to rotavirus infection. EPA has calculated specific  cost-of-illness
estimates for the immunocompromised, as the duration of their infection tends to be longer than that of
the non-immunocompromised.  Furthermore, the COI for Type A illnesses are specified by age group.

Echoviruses

        For the Ground Water Rule risk assessment, EPA has selected echoviruses to represent Type B
waterborne viral pathogens, which are not highly infectious but result in more severe illness than Type A
viruses. The echoviruses group includes 28 viruses that belong to the enterovirus classification. Other
enteroviruses include the coxsackie viruses and the polio viruses, although because polio has been
eliminated in the United States,  the remainder of this discussion focuses on non-polio enteroviruses.
Many people infected with an enterovirus are asymptomatic, although enteroviruses do cause
approximately 10 million infections in the United States each year. Children and adolescents tend to be
more susceptible to illness from enterovirus infection, as they are less likely to have antibodies than
adults. Adults without prior immunity to a particular enterovirus may become ill as well.

        According to the Centers for Disease Control, symptomatic enterovirus infection generally
manifests as mild upper respiratory illness, a flu-like illness with fever and muscle aches, or an illness
with a rash (sometimes called Hand, Foot, and Mouth disease).  Occasionally, enterovirus infection can
cause viral meningitis, myocarditis (an inflammation of the heart muscle that sometimes leads to heart
failure), encephalitis, or polio-like paralysis. Viral meningitis is  serious but rarely fatal in the
immunocompetent population; symptoms last from 7 to 10  days and the patient recovers completely.
Individuals with encephalitis or paralysis do not recover fully, and individuals who experience heart
failure but do not die may also have long-term complications. Some experts believe that enterovirus
infections can contribute to juvenile-onset diabetes mellitus, a chronic condition. In addition, enterovirus
infection may be fatal to some infants. EPA estimates for this EA that approximately 1 percent of Type B
illnesses will be severe (see Ch. 5 for discussion).

        In modeling the Ground Water Rule, EPA has classified infection with an echovirus into three
levels of severity based on a requirement for:  no medical care, a doctor visit with no hospitalization, or
hospitalization. For individuals of all ages, EPA has assumed a constant distribution of illness across
these severity levels, equal to 93 percent, 6 percent, and 1 percent of cases, respectively; and a duration of
Economic Analysis for the                         H-8                                    October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
illness that is 3 days, 5 days or 7 days, respectively (ranges for these means are shown in Appendix A,
Exhibit A.3).

       EPA has assumed that a mild case (i.e., no medical care) of echovirus infection is associated with
nonspecific febrile illness, respiratory illness, and gastrointestinal illness.  Moderate and severe cases (i.e.,
requiring a doctor visit and hospitalization, respectively) of echovirus infection are presumed to manifest
as aseptic (viral) meningitis; severe cases may also lead to myopericarditis. This is a term that
encompasses both myocarditis (inflamation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis (inflammation of the
pericardium, which is the membrane that surrounds the heart).  Most people with myocarditis or
pericarditis experience breathing discomfort, chest pain, fever, and malaise.  According to one  estimate,
approximately 10 to 30 percent of cases of myopericarditis lead to long-term heart damage and/or
abnormalities and 5 percent of cases are fatal.

       Among young children, infection with an echovirus is more likely to have serious consequences.
EPA  has assumed that about 1 percent of cases of echovirus infection among infants under 1 month old
are fatal. Meningitis is an inflammation of the tissue surrounding the brain and the spinal cord, while
encephalitis is an inflammation of the brain itself. Although bacterial meningitis can be very dangerous,
individuals with viral meningitis usually recover fully.  In contrast, viral encephalitis is a very severe
condition that can be fatal or can cause permanent nervous system damage. EPA has assumed that such
cases last 5 days, with a range from 2 to a minimum of 7 days (ranging as high as 12 days for patients <1
year old).

       For all age groups, EPA assumes that 93 percent of cases require no medical care, and illness
tends to last for 3 days, with a range of 1 to 6 days. EPA assumes that 6 percent of cases require a doctor
visit  (associated with viral meningitis) but no hospitalization and last for 5 days, with a range of 2 to a
minimum of 7 days.  Finally, 1 percent of cases require hospitalization (associated with viral meningitis
and myopericarditis) and last for 7 days, with a range from 2 to 14 days.

       The elderly and the immunocompromised are also at greater risk than the general population of
experiencing severe health effects due to infection with an echovirus. EPA has calculated specific
cost-of-illness estimates for the immunocompromised, as the duration of their infection tends to be longer
than that of the non-immunocompromised.
H.2.1.1.1.2     How Much Do Rotavirus and Echovirus Illnesses Affect Quality of Life?

        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

Economic Analysis for the                         H-9                                   October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
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.5 As noted below, EPA
used this database, supplemented by broader literature searches, to identify studies that include QALY
scores for the health effects of rotavirus illness.

        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 Agency's criteria for selecting
the highest-quality studies include the following:

    1)   Where available, EPA generally prefers 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, the Agency generally prefers patient samples,
        followed by expert panels and author judgement.

    2)   Where available, EPA generally prefers directly administered time-trade-off (TTO) or  standard
        gamble studies over studies that administer a standardized questionnaire. In some cases, however,
        direct method studies have very  small sample sizes or other major methodological shortcomings.
        In these cases, the Agency uses its judgement to select a study that provides the most reliable
        estimate, or look for consistency of results across several studies to guide the selection process.
        EPA selected QALY decrements for this CEA that were developed using the TTO technique, as
        will be discussed in the next section on literature for rotavirus.

    3)   The Agency attempts to select studies with the best match 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, EPA may favor use of studies that provide sufficient documentation  to adjust the
        estimates to better the match the severity and duration of interest.

        The development of the  QALY decrement (described above) is diagramed in Exhibit H.3 below.
5 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).

Economic Analysis for the                         H-10                                   October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                      Exhibit H.3 QALY Decrement Development
   Community Based
        Samples
       Available?
           No
    Patient Samples
       Available?
           No
     Expert Panels /
    Author Judgment
       Available?
                                Standardized
                               Questionnaire
                                        Use Best Available Studies and
                                          Attempt Corroboration with
                                               Multiple Studies
                        Use Studies with
                  Documentation Sufficient To
                  Allow Duration and Severity
                   Differences to Be Adjusted
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
H-ll
October 2006

-------
H.2.1.1.1.3     Literature Review Methodology

        The literature search was conducted using PubMed and EBSCO Host.  PubMed is a database of
journal abstracts maintained by the National Library of Medicine. The database contains over 15 million
citations for biomedical articles back to the 1950s, including abstracts covered by Medline and
OldMedline. EBSCO Host is a private service that includes three databases: Business Source Corporate,
Regional Business News, and Knight Ridder.  These three databases provide coverage of approximately
3,000 magazines, academic journals, and newspapers, including many economics journals such as Risk
Analysis and PharmacoEconomics, with some publications dating back as far as 1965.  Date constraints
were not applied to any of the database searches.

        Because of the medical specificity of PubMed, searching  on the terms "quality adjusted life
years" or "cost-utility" yielded cost-effectiveness studies with QALY estimates for a broad range of
health end-points. Due to the large number of results, these search terms were coupled with each specific
health end point to focus the  results on the health states of relevance to the rule-making.

        Perhaps because EBSCO focuses on business and economics rather than medicine, a search of
EBSCO using the terms "quality adjusted life year" and "cost-utility" yielded few health-specific QALY
studies, especially for the health end-points of relevance to this rulemaking.  As a result,
"cost-effectiveness" was also used as a search-term for EBSCO Host. This term produced a large number
of results. To narrow the search, "cost-effectiveness" was coupled with each specific health end-point, as
was done in the PubMed searches.

Rotavirus

        EPA found four relevant studies that had developed QALY  scores for rotavirus infection or
related symptoms:

        •       an Institute of Medicine (2000) evaluation of a rotavirus vaccine;
               a Food and Drug Administration (2005) internal evaluation; and
        •       two studies cited in The Harvard CEA Database,  Anderson and Moser (1985) and Cook
               etal. (1994).

        The first study was conducted in 2000, by a panel convened by the Institute of Medicine (IOM).
The IOM panel published a QALY-based analysis of numerous vaccines, including one that prevents
rotavirus illness. The panel assumed that all rotavirus infections occur in children up to 4 years old and
that illness causes 8  days  of acute diarrhea. It assigned a QALY score to rotavirus using the Health
Utilities Index Mark II (HUI-II).  The HUI-II  is a scale that rates morbidity across seven health attributes:
sensation, mobility,  emotion, cognition, self-care, pain, and fertility. The values embedded in the HUI-II
are derived from the responses of a random sample of Canadian parents. The panel developed a
description of the health effects associated with rotavirus by surveying experts, and then used this
description to score  rotavirus on the HUI-II.

        Using this expert judgment process, the panel assigned a QALY score of 0.75 to rotavirus illness.
Presuming that children aged 0-4 are generally close to perfect health, this implies a decrement of 0.25.
However, in its calculations the IOM panel used a Canadian study to determine baseline health scores for
Economic Analysis for the                        H-12                                   October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
individuals age 15 and up. The panel then assumed that individuals from 0 to 4 years old have the same
baseline health as those ages 15 to 24; this produces an age-adjusted QALY score of 0.69 (baseline
health, 0.92, multiplied by the QALY score, 0.75). This would imply a decrement of 0.23, as the IOM
calculates the decrement as the baseline health minus an age-adjusted QALY score (0.23 = 0.92 - 0.69).

       In the second study, the FDA used a system similar to the HUI-II, called the Quality of
We 11-Being Scale (QWB), to assess the quality-of-life impacts of health conditions.  The QWB Scale is
used to generate a quality-of-life score by combining the impact of functional limitations with the impact
of symptoms on quality of life, ultimately weighted by the duration of time with those symptoms.
Because of its focus on specific symptoms in addition to functional limitations, the Quality of We 11-Being
Scale  is considered by some observers to be well-suited for analysis of acute effects.  The calibration
scheme reflected in the Quality of Well-Being Scale was determined by clinical judgement (i.e., a panel
of doctors); the FDA has used its own internal expertise to assign symptoms and description of functional
ability to patients with various illnesses.

       FDA used this system to provide QALY scores for a recent Regulatory Impact Analysis of
bioterrorism rules (2004) involving gastrointestinal illnesses. The FDA bioterror rule analysis  did not
include rotavirus. However, FDA has used the QALY scores from the bioterror analysis to conduct
internal examinations of rotavirus infection, as part of a project called The Annual Health Cost of
Food-Related Illness (2005). FDA applied a QALY score of 0.51 to mild and moderate cases of rotavirus
illness and 0.48 to severe cases of rotavirus illness that require hospitalization. Using a baseline health of
1.0, this implies a decrement of 0.49 for mild and moderate cases and 0.52 for severe cases.

       EPA found that the description of mild/moderate cases of gastrointestinal illness from the
bioterror rule sounds comparable to rotavirus illness. Mild and moderate cases are assumed to include
sick or upset stomach, vomiting or loose bowel movement, with or without chills, or aching all over;
inability to drive or ride in a car or use public transportation without help; limited social activity, though
able to perform self-care activities; and confinement to the bed, chair, or couch most of the day. The
description of a severe case of gastrointestinal illness is similar to that for mild and moderate cases; the
only difference is that severe cases require hospitalization.

       The Harvard CEA database contains two studies that provide QALY scores for symptoms similar
to those experienced by individuals infected with rotavirus. These two studies, Anderson and  Moser
(1985) and Cook et al. (1994), are catalogued under "Nausea, Vomiting, and Bowel" health effects in the
Harvard CEA database.

       Cook et al. (1994) use a TTO study to compare the cost-effectiveness of three gallstone
treatments. The authors surveyed patients to determine the quality-of-life impact of the treatment
protocols' side effects, some of which are similar to rotavirus illness.  Cook et al. propose the following
QALY scores: 0.81 for severe diarrhea, 0.68 for severe diarrhea with moderate pain, and 0.47 for severe
diarrhea with severe pain and nausea. The article provides a more detailed description of only the most
severe health state, which is defined as: "2 or 3 attacks of continuous agonizing pain," lasting from a half
hour to four hours; "uncontrollable diarrhea 2 or 3 times a week," which is very painful once a week; and
"nausea for a few hours once a week".

       The study calculates QALY scores for two reference time periods (12 years and 1 year) and finds
no statistically significant difference between the two sets of values when viewed in comparable terms,
which suggests that the QALY scores are invariant to the length of illness.
Economic Analysis for the                        H-13                                   October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
       The second study from the Harvard CEA database, Anderson and Moser (1985), uses a QWB
scale to develop QALY decrements for parasitic illnesses, such as entamoeba histolytica, ascaris
lumbircoides, and necetor americanus. The description of the health state associated with the first
parasite, entamoeba histolytica, is similar to the description of rotavirus infection: "sick of upset stomach,
vomiting or loose bowel movement, with or without fever, chills, or aching all over." Anderson and
Moser apply a QALY decrement of 0.572 to entamoeba histolytica.  This study's methodology is very
similar to that used by the FDA, which also used the QWB scale to develop a QALY decrement ranging
from 0.49 to 0.52.

       The QALY decrements derived in the four studies described above are shown in Exhibit H.4.
  Exhibit H.4 Summary of QALY Estimates and Decrements for Rotavirus Illness
Health Effect or Symptom Complex
rotavirus illness, children ages 0-4
mild rotavirus illness
moderate rotavirus illness
severe rotavirus illness
sick of upset stomach, vomiting or loose bowel
movement, with or without fever, chills, or
aching all over
severe diarrhea
severe diarrhea w/ moderate pain
severe diarrhea with severe pain and nausea
Baseline
i
0.92
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
QALY
Score
0.75
0.69
0.51
0.51
0.48
0.428
0.81
0.68
0.47
Decrement
0.25
0.23
0.49
0.49
0.52
0.572
0.19
0.32
0.53
Time in
State
8 days
4 to 8 days
4 to 8 days
5 to 9 days
5 days
invariant to
duration
Type
Expert
judgement,
HUI-II

Expert
judgement,
QWB
Expert
judgement,
QWB
Time-
tradeoff,
patient-
based
Source
IOM
(2000)

FDA
(2004,
2005)
Anderson
and Moser
(1985)
Cook et al.
(1994)
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
H-14
October 2006

-------
Echoviruses

        EPA's  literature review did not discover any QALY scores developed specifically for infection
with an echovirus. The Agency expanded the search to include enteroviruses, coxsackievirus, and
poliovirus, to no avail.  In addition, neither the EBSCO and PubMed databases nor the Harvard CEA
database contain QALY scores for most of the sequelae associated with an infection with an echovirus:
aseptic meningitis, exanthum, herpangina, myopericarditis, nonspecific febrile illness, and pleurodynia.
The database does contain a score for fulminant hepatitis, which is similar to the condition used in the
EA, "sepsis-like illness with hepatitis," although by itself this is not enough information for developing a
composite QALY score. The CEA database did contain a value for bacterial meningitis, but bacterial
meningitis is much more severe than aseptic (viral) meningitis.
H.2.1.1.1.4     Literature Review Conclusions

        Lost life years for fatal cases of rotavirus and echoviruses will be calculated based on a mortality
incidence analysis that will attribute to each statistical death an age at death and, from that, calculate a
remaining life expectancy absent the ground water contamination-related death. Each lost life year
should be assigned a QALY equivalent score of 1.0 for incorporation in the effectiveness denominator.

        The remainder of this section explains the Agency's methods for incorporating a total QALY
decrement for each incident of morbidity, including morbidity preceding mortality.

Rotavirus

        EPA considered three possible options for evaluating the quality-of-life impacts of infection with
rotavirus. The first two options would use a single average case severity level, and would require
determining with which of two studies the Agency's assumptions on severity of illness were more closely
aligned- the FDA study  (2005) or Cook et al. (1994). The third option, and the option EPA chose,
involves using the high and low estimated decrements from the Cooke et al. study as a range, forgoing the
need to determine one average-case severity level.

        First, EPA considered applying the values derived by the FDA for use in its Annual Health Cost
of Food-Related Illness (2005) project- 0.49 for mild and moderate cases and 0.52 for severe cases. The
Agency believes that of the three QALY  decrements for rotavirus infection derived from an expert
judgement process, the FDA value is the  most robust. The FDA used the same quality-of-life scale as
Anderson and Moser (1985); the Agency prefers the FDA study because the values have already been
used in the FDA bioterror rule and in EPA's Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule.  The
QALY decrement from the FDA project is preferable to the score from the IOM report, because there is
relatively little documentation available on the derivation of the  QALY score in the IOM report.

        Second, EPA considered using a QALY  decrement derived from  Cook et al (1994).  Of the four
studies identified in its literature review, this is the only direct survey of patient preferences. Cook et al.
provide three different decrements: 0.19 for severe diarrhea; 0.32 for severe diarrhea with moderate pain;
and 0.53 for severe diarrhea with pain and nausea. If all of the cases in the EA are homogenous and
relatively severe, then the Cook et al. study would suggest a QALY decrement, 0.53, that is very similar
to that used by the FDA project (0.49 to 0.52). If most cases do  not involve nausea, then Cook  et al.
Economic Analysis for the                        H-15                                   October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
would suggest that a more appropriate decrement for these cases would be 0.32.  Similarly, if most cases
are not associated with abdominal pain, then the smallest decrement from Cook et al. (0.19) may be
appropriate.

       Third, EPA noted that the Cook et al. decrement is similar to the FDA study for the most severe
cases and smaller than the FDA decrements for mild and moderate cases. Therefore, EPA decided to
apply the range from Cook et al.(0.19 to 0.53 Quality Adjusted Life Days per day of illness) as a
reasonable sensitivity analysis of a decrement based on available literature.

Echovirus

       The literature did not provide a QALY decrement for an echovirus illness. Hence the Agency
considered developing a composite QALY decrement for echovirus illness based on the virus' sequelae,
however, many of the sequelae also did not have decrements presented in the literature.

       Therefore, based on the best available information, EPA chose to apply the rotavirus illness
decrement to Type B cases in addition to Type A cases.  Since Type B illnesses are generally more severe
than those of Type A, this is an underestimate of the quality of life decrement due to an average Type B
illness, and the Agency acknowledges that it results in a low estimate of QALYs saved from avoided
Type B illnesses.

Estimating Time-in-State

       The time in state, or duration, of these acute illnesses is  presented in the GWR EA (see Chapter 5
and Appendix A) and is used in this CEA to determine an average QALY decrement that is weighted by
the percent  occurrence of cases in each category (by age and severity, presented in Exhibits H.5a-b) and
their respective duration estimates (Exhibit H.6).

       The next section of this Appendix applies the rotavirus illness QALY decrement to all estimated
cases of Type A and B illnesses (morbidity) that the GWR is expected to prevent.
Economic Analysis for the                        H-16                                  October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                Exhibit H.5a  Duration Per Average Case of Type A Illness
Age
Du ration
(days)
A
% Cases by
Age
B
Weighted
Duration (days)
C = A*B
Healthy Population
< 2 yrs2
2 - < 5 yrs2
5 to < 1 6 yrs
? 1 6 yrs
Total
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.5

4%
2%
11%
82%
100%
0.13
0.07
0.34
2.05
2.59
Immunocompromised Population
<2yrs
2 to < 5 yrs
5 to < 1 6 yrs
? 16 yrs
Total
5.0
3.0
3.0
2.5

4%
2%
11%
82%
100%
0.21
0.07
0.34
2.05
2.67
% Cases in
Healthy and
Immuno-
compromised
Populations
D





99.7%





0.3%
Total
Final Weighted
Average
Duration1
(days)
E = C*D





2.58





0.01
2.59
      Notes: In the GWR EA, rotavirus is used as a representative illness for calculating cases of Type A
      illnesses to be avoided by rule implementation. Days of illness are the days ill due to a case of rotavirus
      infection.

      1 A weighted average duration for all Type A illness cases to be avoided by the GWR is derived by
      multiplying the duration of symptoms in each age group, for both the Healthy and Immunocompromised
      populations, by the corresponding percentage of cases in each age group; the result is multiplied by the
      percentage of healthy vs. immunocompromised patients, which is estimated in the primary analysis of the
      GWR EA to be 98.4% and 1.6%, respectively. The results for the two populations are  summed to yield the
      duration, in days, for a weighted average case.

      2 Duration of symptoms for ages <5 yrs in the healthy population are a weighted  average (taken from
      Exhibit A. 1) between the inpatient (1.4% of cases) and the group of No Medical Care/Outpatient (100% -
      1.4% = 98.6% of cases) =(.014 * 5 days) + (.986 * 3 days) = 3.03 days.
      Sources:         Column A - Appendix A, Exhibit A.1
                      Column B - GWR model output
                      Column D-  Exhibit 5.4
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
H-17
October 2006

-------
                Exhibit H.5b Duration Per Average Case of Type B Illness
Age
Duration
(days)
A
% Cases by
Age
B
Weighted
Duration
(days)
C = A*B
Cases Not Requiring Medical Care
< 1 yr
1 to < 5 yrs
5 to < 1 6 yrs
? 16 yrs
Total
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0

0.1%
7%
14%
78%
1 00%
0.00
0.22
0.42
2.35
3.00
Cases Requiring Doctor Visit
< 1 yr
1 to < 5 yrs
5 to < 1 6 yrs
? 16 yrs
Total
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0

0.1%
7%
14%
78%
100%
0.01
0.37
0.70
3.91
5.00
Cases Requiring Hospitalization
< 1 yr
1 to < 5 yrs
5 to < 1 6 yrs
? 16 yrs
Total
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0

0.1%
7%
14%
78%
100%
0.01
0.52
0.99
5.48
7.00
% Cases by
Severity Level
D





93%





6%





1%
Total Weighted Duration1
Final
Weighted
Average
Duration1
(days)
E = C*D





2.79





0.3





0.07
3.16
         Notes: In the GWR EA, rotavirus is used as a representative illness for calculating cases of Type A
         illnesses to be avoided by rule implementation.  Days of illness are the days ill due to a case of
         rotavirus infection.
         1A weighted average duration for all Type B illness cases to be avoided by the GWR is derived by
         multiplying the duration of symptoms in each age group, for each severity level (No Medical Care,
         Doctor, and Hospitalization), by the corresponding percentage of cases in each age group; the
         result is  multiplied by the percentage of patients in each severity level, which is estimated to be
         93%, 6%, and 1%, respectively.  The results for the three patient populations are summed to yield
         the duration, in days, for a weighted average case.
         Sources:        Column A - Appendix A, Exhibit A. 1
                         Column B - GWR model output
                         Column D - Exhibit 5.4
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
H-18
October 2006

-------
       Exhibit H.6 Average QALY Loss Per Case of Type A and Type B Illness


Type of
Illness






Type of
Decrement
Estimate1

Low
High
Low
High

QALYs Annual
Decrement2
(per year)
A
0.19
0.53
0.19
0.53
Weighted Avg
Duration of
Illness
(days)
B
2.59
2.59
3.16
3.16

Weighted Avg
QALYs Decrement
(life years)
C = A * B/365
0.0013
0.0038
0.0016
0.0046
H.2.1.1.2
                 1A low and high estimate of QALYs is calculated based on the range of decrements for
                 rotavirus-like symptoms presented in Cook et al. (1994). Cook et al. decrements
                 ranged from 0.19 for the mildest case to 0.53 for the most severe (0.32 for the moderate
                 cases).  Using the range provides a sensitivity analysis that allows for cases that cover
                 a range in severity.

                 2ln the GWR EA, rotavirus is used as a representative illness and indicator for Type A
                 viruses, and echovirus for the Type B viruses. In this CEA, a quality of life decrement
                 for symptoms of rotavirus illness is used to calculate the QALYs saved for avoided
                 illnesses of both Type A and Type B based on best available information. The rotavirus
                 decrement serves as a low estimate for Type B illnesses because illnesses of Type B
                 would generally be more severe and therefore have a larger QALY decrement than
                 those of Type A.
                 Source:    Column A - QALY decrement: Cook et al. (1994)
                           Column B - Exhibit H.5a-b
Applying the QALY decrement to cases of morbidity
        An estimate of the number of Type A and Type B illness cases that promulgation of the GWR is
expected to avoid is developed in the EA of this rule. Rotavirus cases are used as a proxy for Type A
illnesses avoided, and echovirus cases for Type B.  EPA realizes that the benefit of avoiding these cases
represents only a portion of the benefits of implementing the GWR (see Footnote 4 of this Appendix and
Ch. 5, Section 5.4, of the primary analysis).

        The number of cases avoided as presented in this Appendix is less than the number shown in the
primary EA because EPA discounts the cases in this Appendix (which are used to calculate the MILYs
that comprise the denominator in the CEA ratio).

        The current consensus in health economics is that discounting should be done to both the
numerator of a CEA ratio (usually in dollars) and the denominator (usually in terms of an effect such as
number of cases avoided). OMB agrees with this position, and presents the following discussion in
Circular A-4:

               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
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                H-19
October 2006

-------
       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
       BCAandCEA. (p. 34)

       Furthermore, because some of the implementation and monitoring costs occur before any health
benefits are realized, 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.

       Finally, using the equations below, the annualized estimate of rotavirus illness cases avoided is
multiplied by the QALY decrement per case to yield a total estimated number of QALYs saved (Exhibits
H.7a-b).6

            Low estimate: (0.0013 QALYs per case) X (annualized rotavirus illness cases)
            High estimate: (0.0038 QALYs per case) X (annualized rotavirus illness cases)

       The  low and high estimates represent the range of severity of illness documented in the study by
Cook et al., as described previously in Literature Review Methodology (Section H.2.1).
6 Note that EPA assumes that the morbidity effects associated with fatal and non-fatal cases are the same.

Economic Analysis for the                         H-20                                   October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
    Exhibit H.7a  QALYs Saved for Avoided Morbidity Related to Type A Viruses1
                                            (All Ages)
Rule
Alternative
Annualized
Cases Avoided
Non-
Fatal
A
Fatal
B
Morbidity-Related QALYs2 (years)
Non-Fatal Cases
Low
C=A*0.0013
High
D=A*0.0038
Fatal Cases
Low
E=B*0.0013
High
F=B*0.0038
Morbidity-Related
QALYs for Cases
Avoided
Low
G = C + E
High
H = D + F
3% Discount Rate
A1
A2
A3
A4
6,194
36,689
39,931
141,650
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.9
8
49
54
191
23
138
150
533
0.0001
0.0003
0.0004
0.0013
0.0002
0.0009
0.0010
0.0035
8
49
54
191
23
138
150
533
7% Discount Rate
A1
A2
A3
A4
5,151
32,773
35,754
132,709
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.9
7
44
48
179
19
123
135
499
0.0000
0.0003
0.0003
0.0012
0.0001
0.0008
0.0009
0.0033
7
44
48
179
19
123
135
499
11n the GWR EA, rotavirus is used as a representative illness and indicator for the Type A viruses.
2 A low and high estimate of QALYs is calculated based on the range of decrements for rotavirus-like symptoms presented
in Cooket al. (1994). Cooket al. decrements ranged from 0.19 for the mildest case to 0.53 for the most severe (0.32 for
the moderate cases). The decrements shown for low and high estimate here (.0013 and .0038) are multiplied by the
duration of an average Type  B illness.
Sources:     Columns C - F: QALY decrement
            Columns A and B: Ch. 5, Exhibit 5.16
 Economic Analysis for the
 Final Ground Water Rule
H-21
October 2006

-------
            Exhibit H.7b  QALYs Saved for Avoided Morbidity Related to Type B Viruses1
                                                    (All Ages)
Rule
Alternative
Annualized Cases
Avoided
Non-Fatal
A
Fatal
B
Morbidity-Related QALYs2 (years)
Non-Fatal Cases
Low
C = A* 0.0016
High
D = A * 0.0046
Fatal Cases
Low
E = 6*0.0016
High
F = B * 0.0046
Morbidity-Related
QALYs for Cases
Avoided
Low
G = C + E
High
H = D + F
3% Discount Rate
A1
A2
A3
A4
425
2,259
2,410
8,111
0.1
0.4
0.5
1.6
1
4
4
13
2
10
11
37
0.0001
0.0007
0.0008
0.0027
0.0004
0.0021
0.0022
0.0075
1
4
4
13
2
10
11
37
7% Discount Rate
A1
A2
A3
A4
351
2,021
2,160
7,599
0.1
0.4
0.4
1.5
1
3
4
12
2
9
10
35
0.0001
0.0007
0.0007
0.0025
0.0003
0.0018
0.0020
0.0070
1
3
4
13
2
9
10
35
1ln the GWR EA, echovirus is used as a representative illness and indicator for the Type B viruses, and rotavirus for Type A.  In this CEA,
rotavirus is used as a lower bound estimate for Type B illnesses (the range of Low to High QALYs presented here is a lower bound on a
range that would be expected with Type B illnesses) based on best available information.
2 A low and high estimate of QALYs is calculated based on the range of decrements for rotavirus-like symptoms presented in Cook et al.
(1994).  Cooket al. decrements ranged from 0.19 for the mildest case to 0.53 for the most severe (0.32 for the moderate cases).  The
decrements shown for low and high estimate here (.0016 and .0046) are multiplied by the duration of an average Type B illness.
Sources:     Columns C - F:  QALY decrement
            Columns A and B: Ch. 5, Exhibit 5.16
        Economic Analysis for the
        Final Ground Water Rule
H-22
October 2006

-------
H.2.1.2        Life years saved from avoided cases of premature mortality

       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 rotavirus illness.
Additionally, it includes life years saved that are associated with the 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 people who would die prematurely from rotavirus illness without
the regulation.

       Using the quantity of fatal cases avoided by each multi-year age group as estimated by the GWR
model, this analysis allocates those deaths evenly across the years within the age group using the
following calculation.

                            cases avoided,, = (cases avoided)7 + (A2-Al)

       where n = year in age interval
              /  = age interval from A l to A2
              Al = Youngest age in age interval /
              A2 = Oldest age in age interval /
        For example, 0.2 deaths were prevented for the age group 16 to 65 years (using cases annualized
at a 3 percent discount rate); 0.2 deaths/(65 - 16) years = .004 deaths avoided per year in the 16 to 65 age
group.

        Next, the cases avoided for each year y are multiplied by the average life expectancy remaining
for each single-year age group n. Last, total life years saved for each age n are summed to produce a total
life years saved for the population.  EPA presents these results in Exhibits H.8a-h for the Final GWR and
each Alternative, and provides a summary of results in Exhibit H.9.
Economic Analysis for the                        H-23                                    October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
       Exhibit H.8a  Annualized Life-Years Saved for Avoided Premature Mortality,
                    Type A Illness, Alternative 1 (Continued on next page)
Age Group

Under 1 year
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years
6 years
7 years
8 years
9 years
10 years
1 1 years
12 years
13 years
14 years
15 years
16 years
1 7 years
18 years
19 years
20 years
21 years
22 years
23 years
24 years
25 years
26 years
27 years
28 years
29 years
30 years
31 years
32 years
33 years
34 years
35 years
36 years
37 years
38 years
39 years
40 years
41 years
42 years
43 years
44 years
45 years
46 years
47 years
48 years
49 years
50 years
Life Expectancy
(years)
A
76.9
76.4
75.4
74.5
73.5
72.5
71.5
70.5
69.5
68.6
67.6
66.6
65.6
64.6
63.6
62.6
61.7
60.7
59.7
58.8
57.8
56.9
55.9
55.0
54.0
53.1
52.1
51.2
50.2
49.3
48.3
47.4
46.5
45.5
44.6
43.6
42.7
41.7
40.8
39.9
38.9
38.0
37.1
36.2
35.3
34.4
33.5
32.6
31.7
30.8
30.0
3% Discount Rate
Annualized Deaths
Avoided
B
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
Annualized Life-
Years Saved
C = A*B
0.067
0.067
0.024
0.023
0.023
0.031
0.030
0.030
0.030
0.029
0.029
0.028
0.028
0.027
0.027
0.027
0.036
0.035
0.035
0.034
0.033
0.033
0.032
0.032
0.031
0.031
0.030
0.030
0.029
0.029
0.028
0.027
0.027
0.026
0.026
0.025
0.025
0.024
0.024
0.023
0.023
0.022
0.021
0.021
0.020
0.020
0.019
0.019
0.018
0.018
0.017
7% Discount Rate
Annualized
Deaths Avoided
D
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Annualized Life-
Years Saved
E = A* D
0.056
0.000
0.020
0.019
0.019
0.019
0.019
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.018
0.017
0.017
0.017
0.017
0.016
0.030
0.029
0.029
0.028
0.028
0.027
0.027
0.026
0.026
0.026
0.025
0.025
0.024
0.024
0.023
0.023
0.022
0.022
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.020
0.020
0.019
0.019
0.018
0.018
0.017
0.017
0.017
0.016
0.016
0.015
0.015
0.014
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
H-24
October 2006

-------
        Exhibit H.8a Annualized  Life-Years Saved from Avoided Premature Mortality,
                                 Type  A Illness, Alternative 1  (Continued)
Age Group
51 years
52 years
53 years
54 years
55 years
56 years
57 years
58 years
59 years
60 years
61 years
62 years
63 years
64 years
65 years
66 years
67 years
68 years
69 years
70 years
71 years
72 years
73 years
74 years
75 years
76 years
77 years
78 years
79 years
80 years
81 years
82 years
83 years
84 years
85 years
86 years
87 years
88 years
89 years
90 years
91 years
92 years
93 years
94 years
95 years
96 years
97 years
98 years
99 years
>= 100 years
Total
Life Expectancy
(years)
29.1
28.2
27.4
26.5
25.7
24.8
24.0
23.2
22.4
21.6
20.9
20.1
19.3
18.6
17.9
17.2
16.4
15.8
15.1
14.4
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
4.4
4.1
3.9
3.7
3.5
3.3
3.1
2.9
2.7
2.6

3% Discount Rate
Annualized Deaths
Avoided
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.041
Annualized Life-
Years Saved
0.017
0.016
0.016
0.015
0.015
0.014
0.014
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.012
0.012
0.011
0.011
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.7
7% Discount Rate
Annualized
Deaths Avoided
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.033
Annualized Life-
Years Saved
0.014
0.014
0.013
0.013
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.011
0.011
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.009
0.009
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.3
                      Notes: Columns B and D: The GWR model generates the allocation of deaths by age interval: <2 yrs (4%), 2 -
                           4 yrs (2%), 5 -15 (11%), 16 - 64 (69%), and 65-100 (14%). For each age, the following is calculated:
                           (annualized deaths avoided) x (% deaths in age interval) / (no. years in interval).
                    Sources: Column A: National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 51, No. 3, December 29, 2002, "Life table for the total
                           population: United States, 2000".  Columns B and D: GWR model output.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
H-25
October 2006

-------
       Exhibit H.8b Annualized Life-Years Saved for Avoided Premature Mortality,
                    Type A Illness, Alternative 2 (Continued on next page)
Age Group

Under 1 year
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years
6 years
7 years
8 years
9 years
10 years
1 1 years
12 years
13 years
14 years
15 years
16 years
1 7 years
18 years
19 years
20 years
21 years
22 years
23 years
24 years
25 years
26 years
27 years
28 years
29 years
30 years
31 years
32 years
33 years
34 years
35 years
36 years
37 years
38 years
39 years
40 years
41 years
42 years
43 years
44 years
45 years
46 years
47 years
48 years
49 years
50 years
Life Expectancy
(years)
A
76.9
76.4
75.4
74.5
73.5
72.5
71.5
70.5
69.5
68.6
67.6
66.6
65.6
64.6
63.6
62.6
61.7
60.7
59.7
58.8
57.8
56.9
55.9
55.0
54.0
53.1
52.1
51.2
50.2
49.3
48.3
47.4
46.5
45.5
44.6
43.6
42.7
41.7
40.8
39.9
38.9
38.0
37.1
36.2
35.3
34.4
33.5
32.6
31.7
30.8
30.0
3% Discount Rate
Annualized Deaths
Avoided
B
0.005
0.005
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
Annualized Life-
Years Saved
C = A*B
0.402
0.399
0.141
0.139
0.137
0.184
0.181
0.179
0.176
0.174
0.171
0.169
0.166
0.164
0.161
0.159
0.211
0.207
0.204
0.201
0.198
0.194
0.191
0.188
0.185
0.181
0.178
0.175
0.172
0.168
0.165
0.162
0.159
0.155
0.152
0.149
0.146
0.143
0.139
0.136
0.133
0.130
0.127
0.124
0.121
0.118
0.114
0.111
0.108
0.105
0.103
7% Discount Rate
Annualized
Deaths Avoided
D
0.005
0.005
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
Annualized Life-
Years Saved
E = A*D
0.359
0.357
0.126
0.124
0.123
0.164
0.162
0.160
0.157
0.155
0.153
0.151
0.149
0.146
0.144
0.142
0.188
0.185
0.182
0.179
0.176
0.174
0.171
0.168
0.165
0.162
0.159
0.156
0.153
0.150
0.147
0.145
0.142
0.139
0.136
0.133
0.130
0.127
0.125
0.122
0.119
0.116
0.113
0.111
0.108
0.105
0.102
0.100
0.097
0.094
0.092
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
H-26
October 2006

-------
     Exhibit H.8b Annualized Life-Years Saved for Avoided Premature Mortality, Type A
                                      Illness, Alternative 2 (Continued)
Age Group

51 years
52 years
53 years
54 years
55 years
56 years
57 years
58 years
59 years
60 years
61 years
62 years
63 years
64 years
65 years
66 years
67 years
68 years
69 years
70 years
71 years
72 years
73 years
74 years
75 years
76 years
77 years
78 years
79 years
80 years
81 years
82 years
83 years
84 years
85 years
86 years
87 years
88 years
89 years
90 years
91 years
92 years
93 years
94 years
95 years
96 years
97 years
98 years
99 years
>= 100 years
Total
Life Expectancy
(years)
A
29.1
28.2
27.4
26.5
25.7
24.8
24.0
23.2
22.4
21.6
20.9
20.1
19.3
18.6
17.9
17.2
16.4
15.8
15.1
14.4
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
4.4
4.1
3.9
3.7
3.5
3.3
3.1
2.9
2.7
2.6

3% Discount Rate
Annualized Deaths
Avoided
B
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.244
Annualized Life-
Years Saved
C = A*B
0.099
0.096
0.094
0.091
0.088
0.085
0.082
0.079
0.077
0.074
0.071
0.069
0.066
0.064
0.016
0.016
0.015
0.014
0.014
0.013
0.012
0.012
0.011
0.011
0.010
0.010
0.009
0.009
0.008
0.008
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.002
10.0
7% Discount Rate
Annualized
Deaths Avoided
D
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.218
Annualized Life-
Years Saved
E = A*D
0.089
0.086
0.084
0.081
0.078
0.076
0.073
0.071
0.068
0.066
0.064
0.061
0.059
0.057
0.014
0.014
0.013
0.013
0.012
0.012
0.011
0.011
0.010
0.010
0.009
0.009
0.008
0.008
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.002
8.9
                      Notes: Columns B and D: The GWR model generates the allocation of deaths by age interval: <2 yrs (4%), 2 -
                           4yrs(2%), 5-15 (11%), 16-64 (69%), and 65 -100 (14%). For each age, the following is calculated:
                           (annualized deaths avoided) x (% deaths in age interval) / (no. years in interval).
                     Sources: Column A: National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 51, No. 3, December 29, 2002, "Life table for the total
                           population: United States, 2000". Columns B and D: GWR model output.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
H-27
October 2006

-------
   Exhibit H.8c Annualized Life-Years Saved for Avoided Premature Mortality, Type A
                       Illness, Alternative 3 (Continued on next page)
Age Group

Under 1 year
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years
6 years
7 years
8 years
9 years
10 years
11 years
12 years
13 years
14 years
15 years
16 years
17 years
18 years
19 years
20 years
21 years
22 years
23 years
24 years
25 years
26 years
27 years
28 years
29 years
30 years
31 years
32 years
33 years
34 years
35 years
36 years
37 years
38 years
39 years
40 years
41 years
42 years
43 years
44 years
45 years
46 years
47 years
48 years
49 years
50 years
Life Expectancy
(years)
A
76.9
76.4
75.4
74.5
73.5
72.5
71.5
70.5
69.5
68.6
67.6
66.6
65.6
64.6
63.6
62.6
61.7
60.7
59.7
58.8
57.8
56.9
55.9
55.0
54.0
53.1
52.1
51.2
50.2
49.3
48.3
47.4
46.5
45.5
44.6
43.6
42.7
41.7
40.8
39.9
38.9
38.0
37.1
36.2
35.3
34.4
33.5
32.6
31.7
30.8
30.0
3% Discount Rate
Annualized Deaths
Avoided
B
0.006
0.006
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
Annualized Life-
Years Saved
C = A*B
0.437
0.434
0.153
0.151
0.149
0.200
0.197
0.194
0.191
0.189
0.186
0.183
0.181
0.178
0.175
0.172
0.230
0.226
0.222
0.219
0.215
0.212
0.208
0.205
0.201
0.198
0.194
0.191
0.187
0.183
0.180
0.176
0.173
0.169
0.166
0.162
0.159
0.155
0.152
0.148
0.145
0.141
0.138
0.135
0.131
0.128
0.125
0.121
0.118
0.115
0.112
7% Discount Rate
Annualized
Deaths Avoided
D
0.005
0.005
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
Annualized Life-
Years Saved
E = A*D
0.391
0.388
0.137
0.136
0.134
0.179
0.176
0.174
0.171
0.169
0.167
0.164
0.162
0.159
0.157
0.154
0.206
0.202
0.199
0.196
0.193
0.190
0.186
0.183
0.180
0.177
0.174
0.171
0.167
0.164
0.161
0.158
0.155
0.152
0.149
0.145
0.142
0.139
0.136
0.133
0.130
0.127
0.124
0.121
0.118
0.115
0.112
0.109
0.106
0.103
0.100
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
H-28
October 2006

-------
         Exhibit H.8c Annualized Life-Years Saved for Avoided Premature Mortality,
                                 Type A  Illness, Alternative 3 (Continued)
Age Group

51 years
52 years
53 years
54 years
55 years
56 years
57 years
58 years
59 years
60 years
61 years
62 years
63 years
64 years
65 years
66 years
67 years
68 years
69 years
70 years
71 years
72 years
73 years
74 years
75 years
76 years
77 years
78 years
79 years
80 years
81 years
82 years
83 years
84 years
85 years
86 years
87 years
88 years
89 years
90 years
91 years
92 years
93 years
94 years
95 years
96 years
97 years
98 years
99 years
>=100 years
Total
Life Expectancy
(years)
A
29.1
28.2
27.4
26.5
25.7
24.8
24.0
23.2
22.4
21.6
20.9
20.1
19.3
18.6
17.9
17.2
16.4
15.8
15.1
14.4
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
4.4
4.1
3.9
3.7
3.5
3.3
3.1
2.9
2.7
2.6

3% Discount Rate
Annualized Deaths
Avoided
B
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.27
Annualized Life-
Years Saved
C = A*B
0.108
0.105
0.102
0.099
0.096
0.092
0.089
0.086
0.083
0.080
0.078
0.075
0.072
0.069
0.018
0.017
0.016
0.016
0.015
0.014
0.014
0.013
0.012
0.012
0.011
0.011
0.010
0.009
0.009
0.008
0.008
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
10.8
7% Discount Rate
Annualized
Deaths Avoided
D
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.24
Annualized Life-
Years Saved
E = A*D
0.097
0.094
0.091
0.088
0.086
0.083
0.080
0.077
0.075
0.072
0.070
0.067
0.064
0.062
0.016
0.015
0.014
0.014
0.013
0.013
0.012
0.012
0.011
0.011
0.010
0.009
0.009
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.007
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.002
9.7
                      Notes: Columns B and D: The GWR model generates the allocation of deaths by age interval: <2 yrs (4%), 2 - 4
                           yrs (2%), 5 -15 (11 %), 16 - 64 (69%), and 65 -100 (14%).  For each age, the following is calculated:
                           (annualized deaths avoided) x (% deaths in age interval) / (no. years in interval).
                    Sources: Column A:  National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 51, No. 3, December 29, 2002, "Life table for the total
                           population: United States, 2000".  Columns B and D: GWR model output.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
H-29
October 2006

-------
       Exhibit H.8d Annualized Life-Years Saved for Avoided Premature Mortality,
                    Type A Illness, Alternative 4 (Continued on next page)
Age Group

Under 1 year
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years
6 years
7 years
8 years
9 years
10 years
1 1 years
12 years
13 years
14 years
15 years
16 years
1 7 years
18 years
19 years
20 years
21 years
22 years
23 years
24 years
25 years
26 years
27 years
28 years
29 years
30 years
31 years
32 years
33 years
34 years
35 years
36 years
37 years
38 years
39 years
40 years
41 years
42 years
43 years
44 years
45 years
46 years
47 years
48 years
49 years
50 years
Life Expectancy
(years)
A
76.9
76.4
75.4
74.5
73.5
72.5
71.5
70.5
69.5
68.6
67.6
66.6
65.6
64.6
63.6
62.6
61.7
60.7
59.7
58.8
57.8
56.9
55.9
55.0
54.0
53.1
52.1
51.2
50.2
49.3
48.3
47.4
46.5
45.5
44.6
43.6
42.7
41.7
40.8
39.9
38.9
38.0
37.1
36.2
35.3
34.4
33.5
32.6
31.7
30.8
30.0
3% Discount Rate
Annualized
Deaths Avoided
B
0.020
0.020
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
Annualized Life-
Years Saved
C = A*B
1.543
1.533
0.540
0.533
0.526
0.703
0.694
0.684
0.674
0.665
0.656
0.646
0.636
0.627
0.617
0.607
0.816
0.802
0.789
0.777
0.764
0.752
0.739
0.727
0.714
0.702
0.689
0.677
0.664
0.652
0.638
0.627
0.615
0.601
0.590
0.576
0.564
0.551
0.539
0.527
0.514
0.502
0.490
0.478
0.467
0.455
0.443
0.431
0.419
0.407
0.397
7% Discount Rate
Annualized Deaths
Avoided
D
0.019
0.019
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.009
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
Annualized Life-
Years Saved
E = A*D
1.446
1.436
0.506
0.500
0.493
0.659
0.650
0.641
0.632
0.623
0.614
0.605
0.596
0.587
0.578
0.569
0.764
0.752
0.739
0.728
0.716
0.705
0.692
0.681
0.669
0.658
0.645
0.634
0.622
0.611
0.598
0.587
0.576
0.563
0.552
0.540
0.529
0.516
0.505
0.494
0.482
0.471
0.459
0.448
0.437
0.426
0.415
0.404
0.393
0.381
0.372
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
H-30
October 2006

-------
         Exhibit H.8d  Annualized Life-Years Saved for Avoided Premature Mortality,
                                Type A Illness, Alternative 4,  (Continued)
Age Group

51 years
52 years
53 years
54 years
55 years
56 years
57 years
58 years
59 years
60 years
61 years
62 years
63 years
64 years
65 years
66 years
67 years
68 years
69 years
70 years
71 years
72 years
73 years
74 years
75 years
76 years
77 years
78 years
79 years
80 years
81 years
82 years
83 years
84 years
85 years
86 years
87 years
88 years
89 years
90 years
91 years
92 years
93 years
94 years
95 years
96 years
97 years
98 years
99 years
>=100 years
Total
Life Expectancy
(years)
A
29.1
28.2
27.4
26.5
25.7
24.8
24.0
23.2
22.4
21.6
20.9
20.1
19.3
18.6
17.9
17.2
16.4
15.8
15.1
14.4
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
4.4
4.1
3.9
3.7
3.5
3.3
3.1
2.9
2.7
2.6

3% Discount Rate
Annualized
Deaths Avoided
B
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.942
Annualized Life-
Years Saved
C = A*B
0.385
0.373
0.362
0.350
0.340
0.328
0.317
0.307
0.296
0.286
0.276
0.266
0.255
0.246
0.063
0.060
0.057
0.055
0.053
0.050
0.048
0.046
0.044
0.042
0.040
0.037
0.036
0.034
0.032
0.030
0.028
0.027
0.025
0.023
0.022
0.021
0.020
0.019
0.018
0.016
0.015
0.014
0.014
0.013
0.012
0.012
0.011
0.010
0.009
0.009
38.4
7% Discount Rate
Annualized Deaths
Avoided
D
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.883
Annualized Life-
Years Saved
E = A*D
0.360
0.349
0.339
0.328
0.318
0.307
0.297
0.287
0.277
0.267
0.259
0.249
0.239
0.230
0.059
0.056
0.054
0.052
0.050
0.047
0.045
0.043
0.041
0.039
0.037
0.035
0.033
0.031
0.030
0.028
0.027
0.025
0.024
0.022
0.021
0.020
0.018
0.017
0.016
0.015
0.014
0.013
0.013
0.012
0.011
0.011
0.010
0.010
0.009
0.009
36.0
                         : Columns B and D: The GWR model generates the allocation of deaths by age interval: <2 yrs (4%), 2 - 4
                          yrs (2%), 5 - 15 (11%), 16 - 64 (69%), and 65-100 (14%).  For each age, the following is calculated:
                          (annualized deaths avoided) x (% deaths in age interval) / (no. years in interval).
                         : Column A: National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 51, No. 3, December 29, 2002, "Life table for the total
                          population: United States, 2000". Columns B and D: GWR model output.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
H-31
October 2006

-------
       Exhibit H.8e Annualized Life-Years Saved for Avoided Premature Mortality,
                    Type B Illness, Alternative 1 (Continued on next page)
Age Group

Under 1 year
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years
6 years
7 years
8 years
9 years
10 years
1 1 years
12 years
13 years
14 years
15 years
16 years
1 7 years
18 years
19 years
20 years
21 years
22 years
23 years
24 years
25 years
26 years
27 years
28 years
29 years
30 years
31 years
32 years
33 years
34 years
35 years
36 years
37 years
38 years
39 years
40 years
41 years
42 years
43 years
44 years
45 years
46 years
47 years
48 years
49 years
50 years
Life Expectancy
(years)
A
76.9
76.4
75.4
74.5
73.5
72.5
71.5
70.5
69.5
68.6
67.6
66.6
65.6
64.6
63.6
62.6
61.7
60.7
59.7
58.8
57.8
56.9
55.9
55.0
54.0
53.1
52.1
51.2
50.2
49.3
48.3
47.4
46.5
45.5
44.6
43.6
42.7
41.7
40.8
39.9
38.9
38.0
37.1
36.2
35.3
34.4
33.5
32.6
31.7
30.8
30.0
3% Discount Rate
Annualized
Deaths Avoided
B
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
Annualized Life-
Years Saved
C = A*B
0.137
0.136
0.048
0.048
0.047
0.063
0.062
0.061
0.061
0.060
0.059
0.058
0.057
0.056
0.055
0.055
0.073
0.072
0.071
0.070
0.069
0.067
0.066
0.065
0.064
0.063
0.062
0.061
0.060
0.058
0.057
0.056
0.055
0.054
0.053
0.052
0.051
0.049
0.048
0.047
0.046
0.045
0.044
0.043
0.042
0.041
0.040
0.039
0.038
0.037
0.036
7% Discount Rate
Annualized Deaths
Avoided
D
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
Annualized Life-
Years Saved
E = A*D
0.113
0.000
0.040
0.039
0.039
0.038
0.038
0.037
0.037
0.036
0.036
0.035
0.035
0.034
0.034
0.033
0.060
0.059
0.058
0.058
0.057
0.056
0.055
0.054
0.053
0.052
0.051
0.050
0.049
0.048
0.047
0.046
0.046
0.045
0.044
0.043
0.042
0.041
0.040
0.039
0.038
0.037
0.036
0.035
0.035
0.034
0.033
0.032
0.031
0.030
0.029
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
H-32
October 2006

-------
         Exhibit H.8e  Annualized Life-Years Saved for Avoided  Premature Mortality,
                                 Type B Illness, Alternative 1  (Continued)
Age Group

51 years
52 years
53 years
54 years
55 years
56 years
57 years
58 years
59 years
60 years
61 years
62 years
63 years
64 years
65 years
66 years
67 years
68 years
69 years
70 years
71 years
72 years
73 years
74 years
75 years
76 years
77 years
78 years
79 years
80 years
81 years
82 years
83 years
84 years
85 years
86 years
87 years
88 years
89 years
90 years
91 years
92 years
93 years
94 years
95 years
96 years
97 years
98 years
99 years
>=100 years
Total
Life Expectancy
(years)
A
29.1
28.2
27.4
26.5
25.7
24.8
24.0
23.2
22.4
21.6
20.9
20.1
19.3
18.6
17.9
17.2
16.4
15.8
15.1
14.4
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
4.4
4.1
3.9
3.7
3.5
3.3
3.1
2.9
2.7
2.6

3% Discount Rate
Annualized
Deaths Avoided
B
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.084
Annualized Lite-
Years Saved
C = A*B
0.035
0.033
0.032
0.031
0.030
0.029
0.028
0.028
0.027
0.026
0.025
0.024
0.023
0.022
0.006
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
3.4
7% Discount Rate
Annualized Ueatns
Avoided
D
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.066
Annualized Lite-
Years Saved
E = A*D
0.029
0.028
0.027
0.026
0.025
0.024
0.024
0.023
0.022
0.021
0.020
0.020
0.019
0.018
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
2.6
                            : Columns B and D: The GWR model generates the allocation of deaths by age interval: <2 yrs (4%), 2 - 4
                             yrs (2%), 5-15 (11%), 16-64 (69%), and 65-100 (14%).  For each age, the following is calculated:
                             (annualized deaths avoided) x (% deaths in age interval) / (no. years in interval).
                            : Column A:  National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 51, No. 3, December 29, 2002, "Life table for the total
                             population: United States, 2000".  Columns B and D: GWR model output.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
H-33
October 2006

-------
       Exhibit H.8f: Annualized Life-Years Saved for Avoided Premature Mortality,
                    Type B Illness, Alternative 2 (Continued on next page)
Age Group

Under 1 year
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years
6 years
7 years
8 years
9 years
1 0 years
1 1 years
1 2 years
1 3 years
1 4 years
1 5 years
1 6 years
1 7 years
1 8 years
1 9 years
20 years
21 years
22 years
23 years
24 years
25 years
26 years
27 years
28 years
29 years
30 years
31 years
32 years
33 years
34 years
35 years
36 years
37 years
38 years
39 years
40 years
41 years
42 years
43 years
44 years
45 years
46 years
47 years
48 years
49 years
50 years
Life Expectancy
(years)
A
76.9
76.4
75.4
74.5
73.5
72.5
71.5
70.5
69.5
68.6
67.6
66.6
65.6
64.6
63.6
62.6
61.7
60.7
59.7
58.8
57.8
56.9
55.9
55.0
54.0
53.1
52.1
51.2
50.2
49.3
48.3
47.4
46.5
45.5
44.6
43.6
42.7
41.7
40.8
39.9
38.9
38.0
37.1
36.2
35.3
34.4
33.5
32.6
31.7
30.8
30.0
3% Discount Rate
Annualized
Deaths Avoided
B
0.010
0.010
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
Annualized Life-
Years Saved
C = A*B
0.739
0.734
0.259
0.256
0.253
0.338
0.333
0.328
0.324
0.320
0.315
0.310
0.306
0.301
0.296
0.292
0.387
0.381
0.375
0.369
0.363
0.357
0.351
0.345
0.339
0.333
0.327
0.322
0.315
0.310
0.303
0.298
0.292
0.286
0.280
0.274
0.268
0.262
0.256
0.251
0.244
0.239
0.233
0.227
0.222
0.216
0.210
0.205
0.199
0.193
0.188
7% Discount Rate
Annualized
Deaths Avoided
D
0.009
0.009
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
Annualized Life-
Years Saved
E = A*D
0.660
0.656
0.232
0.229
0.226
0.302
0.298
0.294
0.289
0.286
0.282
0.277
0.273
0.269
0.265
0.261
0.346
0.341
0.335
0.330
0.325
0.320
0.314
0.309
0.303
0.298
0.293
0.288
0.282
0.277
0.271
0.266
0.261
0.256
0.250
0.245
0.240
0.234
0.229
0.224
0.218
0.213
0.208
0.203
0.198
0.193
0.188
0.183
0.178
0.173
0.168
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
H-34
October 2006

-------
         Exhibit H.8f Annualized  Life-Years Saved for Avoided  Premature Mortality,
                                 Type B Illness, Alternative 2 (Continued)
Age Group

51 years
52 years
53 years
54 years
55 years
56 years
57 years
58 years
59 years
60 years
61 years
62 years
63 years
64 years
65 years
66 years
67 years
68 years
69 years
70 years
71 years
72 years
73 years
74 years
75 years
76 years
77 years
78 years
79 years
80 years
81 years
82 years
83 years
84 years
85 years
86 years
87 years
88 years
89 years
90 years
91 years
92 years
93 years
94 years
95 years
96 years
97 years
98 years
99 years
>=100 years
Total
Life Expectancy
(years)
A
29.1
28.2
27.4
26.5
25.7
24.8
24.0
23.2
22.4
21.6
20.9
20.1
19.3
18.6
17.9
17.2
16.4
15.8
15.1
14.4
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
4.4
4.1
3.9
3.7
3.5
3.3
3.1
2.9
2.7
2.6

3% Discount Rate
Annualized
Deaths Avoided
B
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.448
Annualized Life-
Years Saved
C = A*B
0.183
0.177
0.172
0.166
0.161
0.156
0.151
0.146
0.141
0.136
0.131
0.126
0.121
0.117
0.030
0.029
0.027
0.026
0.025
0.024
0.023
0.022
0.021
0.020
0.019
0.018
0.017
0.016
0.015
0.014
0.013
0.013
0.012
0.011
0.010
0.010
0.009
0.009
0.008
0.008
0.007
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.004
18.3
7% Discount Rate
Annualized
Deaths Avoided
D
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.401
Annualized Life-
Years Saved
E = A*D
0.163
0.158
0.154
0.149
0.144
0.139
0.135
0.130
0.126
0.121
0.117
0.113
0.108
0.104
0.027
0.026
0.024
0.024
0.022
0.021
0.021
0.019
0.019
0.018
0.017
0.016
0.015
0.014
0.014
0.013
0.012
0.011
0.011
0.010
0.009
0.009
0.008
0.008
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.004
16.4
                       Notes: Columns B and D: The GWR model generates the allocation of deaths by age interval: <2 yrs (4%), 2 - 4
                            yrs (2%), 5- 15 (11%), 16- 64 (69%), and 65-100 (14%). For each age, the following is calculated:
                            (annualized deaths avoided) x (% deaths in age interval) / (no. years in interval).
                           : Column A: National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 51, No. 3, December 29, 2002, "Life table for the total
                            population: United States, 2000". Columns B and D: GWR model output.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
H-35
October 2006

-------
       Exhibit H.8g Annualized Life-Years Saved for Avoided Premature Mortality,
                    Type B Illness, Alternative 3 (Continued on next page)
Age Group

Under 1 year
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years
6 years
7 years
8 years
9 years
1 0 years
1 1 years
1 2 years
1 3 years
1 4 years
1 5 years
1 6 years
1 7 years
1 8 years
1 9 years
20 years
21 years
22 years
23 years
24 years
25 years
26 years
27 years
28 years
29 years
30 years
31 years
32 years
33 years
34 years
35 years
36 years
37 years
38 years
39 years
40 years
41 years
42 years
43 years
44 years
45 years
46 years
47 years
48 years
49 years
50 years
Life Expectancy
(years)
A
76.9
76.4
75.4
74.5
73.5
72.5
71.5
70.5
69.5
68.6
67.6
66.6
65.6
64.6
63.6
62.6
61.7
60.7
59.7
58.8
57.8
56.9
55.9
55.0
54.0
53.1
52.1
51.2
50.2
49.3
48.3
47.4
46.5
45.5
44.6
43.6
42.7
41.7
40.8
39.9
38.9
38.0
37.1
36.2
35.3
34.4
33.5
32.6
31.7
30.8
30.0
3% Discount Rate
Annualized
Deaths Avoided
B
0.010
0.010
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
Annualized Life-
Years Saved
C = A*B
0.788
0.782
0.276
0.273
0.269
0.360
0.355
0.350
0.345
0.341
0.336
0.331
0.326
0.321
0.316
0.311
0.414
0.407
0.401
0.395
0.388
0.382
0.375
0.369
0.362
0.356
0.350
0.344
0.337
0.331
0.324
0.318
0.312
0.305
0.299
0.293
0.287
0.280
0.274
0.268
0.261
0.255
0.249
0.243
0.237
0.231
0.225
0.219
0.213
0.207
0.201
7% Discount Rate
Annualized
Deaths Avoided
D
0.009
0.009
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
Annualized Life-
Years Saved
E = A*D
0.706
0.701
0.248
0.245
0.241
0.323
0.318
0.314
0.309
0.305
0.301
0.296
0.292
0.287
0.283
0.279
0.371
0.365
0.359
0.354
0.348
0.342
0.336
0.331
0.325
0.319
0.313
0.308
0.302
0.297
0.291
0.285
0.280
0.274
0.268
0.262
0.257
0.251
0.245
0.240
0.234
0.229
0.223
0.218
0.212
0.207
0.202
0.196
0.191
0.185
0.180
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
H-36
October 2006

-------
         Exhibit H.8g  Annualized Life-Years Saved for Avoided Premature Mortality,
                                 Type B Illness, Alternative 3 (Continued)
Age Group

51 years
52 years
53 years
54 years
55 years
56 years
57 years
58 years
59 years
60 years
61 years
62 years
63 years
64 years
65 years
66 years
67 years
68 years
69 years
70 years
71 years
72 years
73 years
74 years
75 years
76 years
77 years
78 years
79 years
80 years
81 years
82 years
83 years
84 years
85 years
86 years
87 years
88 years
89 years
90 years
91 years
92 years
93 years
94 years
95 years
96 years
97 years
98 years
99 years
>=100 years
Total
Life Expectancy
(years)
A
29.1
28.2
27.4
26.5
25.7
24.8
24.0
23.2
22.4
21.6
20.9
20.1
19.3
18.6
17.9
17.2
16.4
15.8
15.1
14.4
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
4.4
4.1
3.9
3.7
3.5
3.3
3.1
2.9
2.7
2.6

3% Discount Rate
Annualized
Deaths Avoided
B
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.484
Annualized Life-
Years Saved
C = A*B
0.195
0.189
0.184
0.178
0.172
0.166
0.161
0.156
0.150
0.145
0.140
0.135
0.130
0.125
0.120
0.031
0.029
0.028
0.027
0.026
0.025
0.023
0.022
0.021
0.020
0.019
0.018
0.017
0.016
0.015
0.014
0.014
0.013
0.012
0.011
0.011
0.010
0.009
0.009
0.008
0.008
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.005
0.005
0.005
19.6
7% Discount Rate
Annualized
Deaths Avoided
D
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.429
Annualized Life-
Years Saved
E = A*D
0.175
0.170
0.165
0.159
0.155
0.149
0.144
0.140
0.135
0.130
0.126
0.121
0.116
0.112
0.029
0.027
0.026
0.025
0.024
0.023
0.022
0.021
0.020
0.019
0.018
0.017
0.016
0.015
0.014
0.014
0.013
0.012
0.011
0.011
0.010
0.010
0.009
0.008
0.008
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.004
17.5
                          : Columns B and D: The GWR model generates the allocation of deaths by age interval: <2 yrs (4%), 2 -
                           4yrs (2%), 5-15 (11%), 16-64 (69%), and 65- 100(14%). For each age, the following is calculated:
                           (annualized deaths avoided) x (% deaths in age interval) / (no.  years in interval).
                          : Column A: National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 51, No. 3, December 29, 2002, "Life table for the total
                           population: United States, 2000".  Columns B and D: GWR model output.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
H-37
October 2006

-------
       Exhibit H.8h Annualized Life-Years Saved for Avoided Premature Mortality,
                    Type B Illness, Alternative 4 (Continued on next page)
Age Group

Under 1 year
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years
6 years
7 years
8 years
9 years
10 years
11 years
12 years
13 years
14 years
15 years
16 years
17 years
18 years
19 years
20 years
21 years
22 years
23 years
24 years
25 years
26 years
27 years
28 years
29 years
30 years
31 years
32 years
33 years
34 years
35 years
36 years
37 years
38 years
39 years
40 years
41 years
42 years
43 years
44 years
45 years
46 years
47 years
48 years
49 years
50 years
Life Expectancy
(years)
A
76.9
76.4
75.4
74.5
73.5
72.5
71.5
70.5
69.5
68.6
67.6
66.6
65.6
64.6
63.6
62.6
61.7
60.7
59.7
58.8
57.8
56.9
55.9
55.0
54.0
53.1
52.1
51.2
50.2
49.3
48.3
47.4
46.5
45.5
44.6
43.6
42.7
41.7
40.8
39.9
38.9
38.0
37.1
36.2
35.3
34.4
33.5
32.6
31.7
30.8
30.0
3% Discount Rate
Annualized
Deaths Avoided
B
0.035
0.035
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.017
0.017
0.017
0.017
0.017
0.017
0.017
0.017
0.017
0.017
0.017
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
Annualized Life-
Years Saved
C = A*B
2.670
2.653
0.934
0.923
0.910
1.217
1.200
1.183
1.166
1.151
1.135
1.118
1.101
1.084
1.067
1.051
1.411
1.388
1.365
1.345
1.322
1.301
1.278
1.258
1.235
1.214
1.192
1.171
1.148
1.128
1.105
1.084
1.063
1.041
1.020
0.997
0.977
0.954
0.933
0.913
0.890
0.869
0.848
0.828
0.807
0.787
0.766
0.746
0.725
0.704
0.686
7% Discount Rate
Annualized
Deaths Avoided
D
0.033
0.033
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.016
0.016
0.016
0.016
0.016
0.016
0.016
0.016
0.016
0.016
0.016
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
Annualized Life-
Years Saved
E=A*D
2.501
2.485
0.875
0.864
0.853
1.140
1.124
1.109
1.093
1.079
1.063
1.047
1.031
1.016
1.000
0.984
1.322
1.301
1.279
1.260
1.238
1.219
1.198
1.178
1.157
1.138
1.116
1.097
1.076
1.056
1.035
1.016
0.996
0.975
0.956
0.934
0.915
0.894
0.874
0.855
0.834
0.814
0.795
0.776
0.756
0.737
0.718
0.699
0.679
0.660
0.643
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
H-38
October 2006

-------
         Exhibit H.8h  Annualized Life-Years Saved for Avoided Premature Mortality,
                                 Type B Illness, Alternative 4 (Continued)
Age Group

51 years
52 years
53 years
54 years
55 years
56 years
57 years
58 years
59 years
60 years
61 years
62 years
63 years
64 years
65 years
66 years
67 years
68 years
69 years
70 years
71 years
72 years
73 years
74 years
75 years
76 years
77 years
78 years
79 years
80 years
81 years
82 years
83 years
84 years
85 years
86 years
87 years
88 years
89 years
90 years
91 years
92 years
93 years
94 years
95 years
96 years
97 years
98 years
99 years
>=100 years
Total
Life Expectancy
(years)
A
29.1
28.2
27.4
26.5
25.7
24.8
24.0
23.2
22.4
21.6
20.9
20.1
19.3
18.6
17.9
17.2
16.4
15.8
15.1
14.4
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
4.4
4.1
3.9
3.7
3.5
3.3
3.1
2.9
2.7
2.6

3% Discount Rate
Annualized
Deaths Avoided
B
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
1.630
Annualized Life-
Years Saved
C = A*B
0.666
0.645
0.627
0.606
0.588
0.567
0.549
0.531
0.512
0.494
0.478
0.460
0.441
0.425
0.108
0.104
0.099
0.096
0.091
0.087
0.084
0.079
0.076
0.072
0.068
0.065
0.062
0.058
0.055
0.052
0.049
0.046
0.044
0.041
0.038
0.036
0.034
0.032
0.030
0.028
0.027
0.025
0.024
0.022
0.021
0.020
0.019
0.018
0.016
0.016
66.5
7% Discount Rate
Annualized
Deaths Avoided
D
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.021
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
1.527
Annualized Life-
Years Saved
E = A*D
0.624
0.604
0.587
0.568
0.551
0.531
0.514
0.497
0.480
0.463
0.448
0.431
0.414
0.399
0.102
0.098
0.093
0.090
0.086
0.082
0.078
0.074
0.071
0.068
0.064
0.061
0.058
0.054
0.052
0.049
0.046
0.043
0.041
0.038
0.036
0.034
0.032
0.030
0.028
0.027
0.025
0.023
0.022
0.021
0.020
0.019
0.018
0.016
0.015
0.015
62.3
                           : Columns B and D: The GWR model generates the allocation of deaths by age interval: <2 yrs (4%), 2 -
                            4yrs (2%), 5-15 (11%), 16-64 (69%), and 65-100 (14%). For each age, the following is calculated:
                            (annualized deaths avoided) x (% deaths in age interval) / (no. years in interval).
                     Sources: Column A: National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 51, No. 3, December 29, 2002, "Life table for the total
                            population: United States, 2000".  Columns B and D: GWR model output.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
H-39
October 2006

-------
       Exhibit H.9  Life Years Saved for Avoided Cases of Premature Mortality
                            from Type A and Type B Illnesses
Rule Alternative
Annualized Life-Years Saved
Type A
A
Type B
B
Total
C = A + B
3% Discount Rate
A1
A2
A3
A4
2
10
11
38
3
18
20
66
5
28
30
105
7% Discount Rate
A1
A2
A3
A4
1
9
10
36
3
16
18
62
4
25
27
98
H.2.1.3
                 Notes: Based on cases avoided that are annualized over the 25-year period
                 of analysis. Total may not add due to rounding. In the GWR EA, rotavirus is
                 used as a representative illness and indicator for the Type A Viruses and
                 echovirus for Type B illness.  In this CEA, a rotavirus illness decrement is
                 used to calculate QALYs for Type A cases, and to calculate a lower bound
                 estimate of QALYs for Type B Illness.
                 Sources: Columns A and B from Exhibits H.8a - h
MILYs saved from reduced morbidity and premature mortality for avoided cases of
Types A and B illness
       The use of QALYs allows for integration of life year equivalents saved from avoided morbidity
(quality adjusted life years) with life years saved by avoidance of premature mortality (life years). As
mentioned in the Introduction to this Appendix, this measure is referred to in this CEA as "Morbidity
Inclusive Life Years" (MILYs).  As the Agency describes in Section H.I.2, and as applied in the CAIR
analysis, EPA assumes for this CEA that all individuals start with a baseline quality of life equal to 1.0:
No deduction is made from life years saved to account for individual differences in baseline health or
functionality in the population.

       MILYs are calculated as follows (values are annualized):

MILYs = (QALYs saved from avoided morbidity) + (life years saved from avoided mortality)

for each regulatory alternative.

       Based on a 3 percent discount rate, the MILYs saved are highest in Alternative 4 and lowest in
Alternative 1, and the final GWR saves approximately 6 to 6.5 times more MILYs than Alternative 1 and
approximately  9 to 11 percent more than Alternative 2 (using ECOI and TCOI approaches, respectively).
This comparison using a 7 percent discount rate exhibits a similar pattern (Exhibit H. 10).
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                               H-40
October 2006

-------
     Exhibit H.10  MILYs1 for Morbidity and Mortality of Type A and B Illnesses
                                     by Rule Alternative
Rule
Alternative
MILYs
Type A Illness
Low
A
High
B
MILYs
Type B Illness
Low
C
High
D
Total MILYs
Low
E = A+C
High
F = B + D
3% Discount Rate
A1
A2
A3
A4
10
59
65
230
25
148
161
571
4
22
24
80
5
29
31
104
14
81
88
309
30
177
192
675
7% Discount Rate
A1
A2
A3
A4
8
53
58
215
21
132
144
535
3
20
21
75
4
26
27
97
11
73
79
290
25
158
172
633
    Notes: Numbers are annualized over the 25-year period of analysis. In the GWR EA, rotavirus is used as a
    representative illness and indicator for the Type A Viruses and echovirus for Type B illness. In this CEA, a
    rotavirus illness decrement is used to calculate QALYs for Type A cases, and to calculate a lower bound
    estimate of QALYs for Type B cases.
    1MILYs (morbidity inclusive life years) are the sum of QALYs saved (Exhibits H.7a - b) from avoided morbidity
    and life-years saved from avoided mortality (Exhibit H.9).
    Source: Exhibits H.7a-b and H.9
H.2.2   The CEA Numerator:  Deriving Net Cost

        The avoidance of time losses and medical costs associated with the illnesses to be avoided by
implementation of the GWR comprise the cost of illness (COI) to be subtracted from the rule's cost.
These values are developed based on information about these losses and consideration of the elicitation
process used by Cook et al. to develop the QALY decrements on which the MILYs denominator is based.
The COI per case is multiplied by the number of cases avoided and this amount is subtracted from the
regulation costs to calculate a net cost numerator for the cost-per-MILYs saved ratio.
H.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
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                               H-41
October 2006

-------
be subtracted from the regulatory costs to yield the net cost of avoiding a QALY decrement.7
In 1997, the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine published, in the journal Health
Economics,* 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, Cook et al. performed a separate COI analysis from the TTO study that generated the QALY
decrements that are used in this analysis, indicating that participants did not consider these costs  in the
elicitation process.

        The Cook et al.  COI analysis accounted for costs associated with gallstone treatments in addition
to the rotavirus symptoms that apply to this analysis. The authors include in their cost analysis the
medical costs, patient transport costs, professional and informal care (caregiver) costs, and a patient's
paid work and home duties losses/costs. Therefore, this analysis uses the Cook et al. decrements, but
adopts the COI estimates directly from the GWR EA (Exhibits 5.18 and 5.19), which account for
symptoms of rotavirus and echovirus illnesses.

        After identifying the appropriate costs to subtract from the numerator, the Agency discounts the
medical costs and time losses over the 25-year period of analysis. For each subsequent year after Year 1,
the present value (PV) of the medical cost stream is discounted by 3 percent and 7 percent to account for
the time preference for normal goods. In contrast, time losses are first increased in value to account for
income increases and then discounted. Additionally, time losses are valued using two different
approaches, Enhanced and Traditional (explained in the following section), while medical costs are the
same for both approaches.

        Valuing Time Losses

        Time losses to the patient that are associated with cases of Type A or B  illness 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
("presenteeism ").  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. Additionally, a portion of time may be spent by a family member or friend in caring for a patient at
home.
7 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 cost-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.

8 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.
Economic Analysis for the                         H-42                                    October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
        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). After calculating
the mean duration of illness, data on the days 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. Consistent with the
method of application in the LT2ESWTR EA and the Stage 2 DBPR, this analysis assumes that the dollar
value (i.e., the utility loss, estimated based on opportunity costs) of this reduction is equal to the reduction
in productivity multiplied by the relevant dollar-per-hour value (see Appendix A of the GWR EA for COI
detail).  Also consistent with those analyses, presenteeism is accounted for only in the Enhanced COI, not
in the Traditional COI approach. Using the Enhanced approach, the Agency values lost leisure time and
non-market work time at 60 percent of the rate  at which it values market work time. 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.9  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
9 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.
Economic Analysis for the                         H-43                                   October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
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.10  Some of this value is reflected in the employee's take home pay, and the remainder
accrues in terms of taxes paid and reflects the value of product created above and beyond what is reflected
in pre-tax wages.11

        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.12 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
about 60.3 percent of the population in this age range.13 Over the whole population, the average lost work
hours per day of illness is, therefore, about 3.4 hours.14

        Summary of 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 comprise the numerator. The QALY decrement
used in this analysis does not appear to include patients' consideration of treatment costs. As the Agency
interprets Cook et al., their QALY score does not reflect the impact of these  expenses, as information on
costs was gathered in a separate  section of their QALY questionnaire. As a result, subtraction of direct
and indirect treatment costs from the numerator is consistent with the information reflected in the QALY
denominator.  This includes medical costs associated with Type A and B illness and certain time losses
for patients and caregivers.15  Time losses include: lost paid work time, lost caregiver time, and reduced
productivity while on the job (presenteeism). The  qualified  costs do not include: unpaid lost market work
10 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).

1' For a recent discussion that indicates that illness-related losses of work time can substantially exceed the wage
rate, see: Pauley et al. (2002).

12 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.

13 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.

14 39.2 hours/week^- 7 days/week x (131,091 thousand persons working/217,570 thousand persons of working
age)=3.4 hours/day.

15 Note that the Agency  values time loss for patients at the same rate regardless of the patient's age and whether the
lost time is for remunerative work or school-related activities.
Economic Analysis for the                         H-44                                    October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
time, lost leisure time, or lost non-market productivity. In addition, caregiver time losses in the
Traditional approach exclude leisure time losses and value non-market work time at one half that of the
Enhanced approach. The remaining exhibits of this Appendix present results using both the Enhanced
and the Traditional approach.  The details of the derivation of the COI estimates are described in Chapter
5 and Appendix A of the GWR EA.

       In summary, the subtraction from the numerator (of the cost effectiveness ratio) of appropriate
costs results in the following calculation:

Net Cost = CtB - (AvoidedtB x COIta)
       Where C =   Total compliance cost of rule
               t =   Type of Illness (Type A or B)
              n =   Rule Alternative (1,2,4, or the final GWR)
       Avoided =   Number of cases of Type A or B illness avoided by rule alternative n
            COI =   The sum of the medical cost of Type A or B illness and lost time costs per
                    case avoided and
              a =   age group.

       Weighted Cost of Illness

       The costs of illness associated with the Type A and Type B illnesses to be avoided by GWR
implementation are based on COI estimates for rotavirus (Type A) and echovirus (Type B) illnesses.
These costs, both in terms of time losses and medical care required, vary across age groups, individual
health status for Type A (cases in immunocompromised individuals tend to be  more severe and require
more care), and severity of cases for Type B  (requires no medical  care, doctor visit required, or
hospitalization).  To simplify the calculations across these COI subgroups, a weighted COI is calculated
using the percentage of cases in each subgroup, as shown in Exhibits H.I la-b.  As described in the
previous section, the derivation of the COI estimates is presented in Ch. 5 and Appendix A of the GWR
EA.

H.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. The cost adjustment per case is calculated for each year using the
following equation.

       Annual Cost Adjustment Per Case =

                      Type A cases:   [(B + 1),. x (Lost Time Costs);.!] + $19

                      Type B cases:   [(B + 1), x (Lost Time Costs)^] + $65
Economic Analysis for the                        H-45                                  October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
       Where B is the real income increase factor,
               / = year 1 to 25,
               Lost Time Costs = Indirect Weighted COI, and
               $19 (or $65) = Direct Weighted COI (Medical costs), for Type A
               illnesses (and Type B illnesses).

       The Annual Cost Adjustment Per Case is calculated in Exhibits H. 12a-b, where it is then
multiplied by discounted cases, as shown in the following section.
H.2.2.3        Calculating total cost adjustment to regulatory costs based upon cases of rotavirus
               illness avoided

       To calculate a total cost adjustment (i.e., subtraction) to the regulatory costs that comprise the
numerator of the CE ratio, the Annual Cost Adjustment Per Case developed in the preceding section is
applied to cases avoided annually over the 25-year period of analysis (Exhibits H. 12a - p).  As described
in Ch. 5 of the EA, the primary analysis quantifies a limited portion of the total anticipated benefits  of the
Rule. Section 5.4.3.2 presents a discussion of nonqualified benefits and estimates a portion of their
value,  based on bacterial illnesses avoided, at four times the primary analysis benefits (for a benefits total
that is  five times the primary benefits).  Having benefits valued at five times the primary analysis
estimates would significantly increase the Cost Adjustment to the rule cost.

       First, the number of cases avoided for each year (years 1 through 25) is discounted back to Year 1
of the analysis to account for the time preference for normal goods (such as avoiding illness). Next, these
cases are multiplied by the Cost Adjustment per case for each year (years 1 through 25):

Total Cost Adjustment = (Discounted Cases, „ x Cost Adjustment,)

       for / = year 1 to 25, and
       n = regulatory alternative.

       This calculation is made using a 3 percent and a 7 percent discount rate.  The final  GWR  is the
second most stringent alternative and reduces risk proportionally; therefore, it has the second highest cost
adjustment, which reflects its potential for avoiding lost time and medical costs due to illness.
Economic Analysis for the                        H-46                                   October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
          Exhibit H.11a  Weighted1 Cost of Illness Per Case Avoided, Type A Illness
Age
% Cases by
Age
A
Indirect
ECOI
B
TCOI
C
Direct COI
D
Weighted COI
Indirect
ECOI
E = A*B
TCOI
F = A*C
Direct COI
G = A*D
Total
ECOI
H = E + G
TCOI
I = F + G
Healthy Population (99.7%)
< 2 years
2 to < 5 yrs
5 to < 1 6 yrs
? 1 6 yrs
Total
4%
2%
11%
82%
100%
$ 1,293
$ 1,293
$ 641
$ 103

$ 258
$ 258
$ 128
$ 39

$ 97
$ 82
$
$

$ 55
$ 29
$ 73
$ 85
$ 242
$ 11
$ 6
$ 14
$ 32
$ 63
$ 4
$ 2
$
$
$ 6
$ 59
$ 31
$ 73
$ 85
$ 248
$ 15
$ 8
$ 14
$ 32
$ 69
Immunocompromised Population (0.3%)
< 2 years
2 to < 5 yrs
5 to < 1 6 yrs
? 16 yrs
Total
4%
2%
11%
82%
100%
$ 2,136
$ 1,281
$ 1,281
$ 569

$ 426
$ 255
$ 255
$ 213

$ 4,486
$ 4,486
$ 4,453
$ 4,453

Total Weighted Average COI1
$ 91
$ 29
$ 145
$ 468
$ 733
$ 243
$ 18
$ 6
$ 29
$ 175
$ 228
$ 63
$ 191
$ 102
$ 504
$ 3,658
$ 4,455
$ 19
$ 282
$ 131
$ 649
$ 4,125
$ 5,188
$ 263
$ 209
$ 108
$ 533
$ 3,833
$ 4,683
$ 83
Notes: In the GWR EA, rotavirus is used as a representative illness for calculating cases of Type A illnesses to be avoided by rule
implementation.  Indirect COI includes costs of time losses related to illness. Direct COI includes medical costs.

1 A weighted average COI for all Type A illness cases to be avoided  by the GWR is derived by multiplying the duration of symptoms
in each age group, for both the Healthy and Immunocompromised populations, by the corresponding percentage of cases in each
age group; the result is multiplied by the percentage of healthy vs. immunocompromised patients, which is estimated in the  primary
analysis of the GWR EAto be 99.7% and 0.3%, respectively. The results for the two populations are summed to yield the COI, in
days, for a weighted average case.
Sources:  Column A-GWR model output
          Columns B,C,D- Exhbits 5.18 and 5.19

-------
                 Exhibit H.11b  Weighted1 Cost of Illness Per Case Avoided, Type B Illness
Age
% Cases by
Age
A
Indirect
ECOI
B
TCOI
C
Direct COI
D
Weighted COI
Indirect
ECOI
E = A*B
TCOI
F = A*C
Direct COI
G=A*D
Total
ECOI
H = E + G
TCOI
I = F + G
Cases Not Requiring Medical Care (93%)
< 1 yr
1 to < 5 yrs
5 to < 1 6 yrs
? 16 yrs
Total
0.1%
7%
14%
78%
100%
$ 1,281
$ 1,281
$ 641
$ 336

$ 255
$ 255
$ 128
$ 126

$
$
$
$

$ 2
$ 96
$ 90
$ 263
$ 451
$ 0
$ 19
$ 18
$ 98
$ 136
$
$
$
$
$
$ 2
$ 96
$ 90
$ 263
$ 451
$ 0
$ 19
$ 18
$ 98
$ 136
Cases Requiring Doctor Visit (6%)
< 1 yr
1 to < 5 yrs
5 to < 1 6 yrs
? 16 yrs
Total
0.1%
7%
14%
78%
100%
$ 2,136
$ 2,136
$ 2,136
$ 1,139

$ 426
$ 426
$ 426
$ 426

$ 181
$ 181
$ 181
$ 181

$ 3
$ 160
$ 301
$ 892
$ 1,355
$ 1
$ 32
$ 60
$ 333
$ 426
$ 0
$ 14
$ 25
$ 142
$ 181
$ 3
$ 173
$ 326
$ 1,033
$ 1,536
$ 1
$ 45
$ 85
$ 475
$ 606
Cases Requiring Hospitalization (1%)
< 1 yr
1 to < 5 yrs
5 to < 1 6 yrs
? 16 yrs
Total
0.1%
7%
14%
78%
100%
$ 2,990
$ 2,990
$ 2,990
$ 1,595

$ 596
$ 596
$ 596
$ 596

$ 23,431
$ 9,187
$ 5,036
$ 5,036

Total Weighted Average COI1
$ 4
$ 224
$ 421
$ 1,249
$ 1,897
$ 520
$ 1
$ 45
$ 84
$ 467
$ 596
$ 158
$ 31
$ 688
$ 709
$ 3,943
$ 5,371
$ 65
$ 35
$ 911
$ 1,130
$ 5,192
$ 7,269
$ 585
$ 32
$ 732
$ 793
$ 4,410
$ 7,865
$ 241
Notes: In the Ground Water Rule EA, rotavirus is used as a representative illness for calculating cases of Type A illnesses to be avoided by rule
implementation.  Indirect COI includes costs of time losses related to illness. Direct COI includes medical costs.
1 A weighted average COI for all Type B illness cases to be avoided by the GWR is derived by multiplying the duration of symptoms in each age
group, for each severity level (No Medical Care, Doctor, and Hospitalization), by the corresponding percentage of cases in each age group; the
result is multiplied by the percentage of patients in each severity level, which is estimated to be 93%, 6%, and 1 %, respectively. The results for the
three patient populations are summed to yield the COI, in days, for a weighted average case.
Sources:  Column A - GWR model output
           Columns B,C,D - Exhbits 5.18 and 5.19
           Economic Analysis for the
           Final Ground Water Rule
H-48
October 2006

-------
                           Exhibit H.12a Cost Adjustment for Type A Illness, Alternative 1,
                                                       3 Percent  Discount Rate
Yearn
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
Undiscounted
Cases Avoided
A

-
-
-
-
768
1,667
2,371
3,064
3,715
4,397
5,001
5,836
6,330
6,825
7,484
8,147
8,719
9,514
10,209
10,829
1 1 ,739
12,191
13,037
13,799
14,431
15,279
Discounted Cases
Avoided
B

B = A/1. 03"(n -2006)
-
-
-
703
1,481
2,045
2,566
3,021
3,471
3,833
4,343
4,573
4,787
5,096
5,386
5,596
5,929
6,176
6,361
6,694
6,750
7,008
7,201
7,312
7,516
%Change in
Income (Real GDP
per Capita)
c

-
Base Year
2.3%
3.9%
3.3%
2.3%
1.9%
2.0%
2.0%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
Lost Time
w/Growth
Factor (ECOI)
D
Lost Time
w/Growth
Factor (TCOI)
E
Direct
Medical Costs
F
($)
(1+C) * Prior Year's Lost Time
$ 243
$ 249
$ 259
$ 267
$ 274
$ 279
$ 284
$ 290
$ 295
$ 300
$ 305
$ 310
$ 315
$ 320
$ 326
$ 331
$ 337
$ 342
$ 348
$ 354
$ 360
$ 366
$ 373
$ 379
$ 386
$ 63
$ 65
$ 67
$ 70
$ 71
$ 73
$ 74
$ 76
$ 77
$ 78
$ 79
$ 81
$ 82
$ 84
$ 85
$ 86
$ 88
$ 89
$ 91
$ 92
$ 94
$ 96
$ 97
$ 99
$ 101
-
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
25 Year PV
25 Year Annualized Value
Cost Adjustment
ECOI
G
TCOI
H
(Million $)
G = (B*(D+ F))/10°
$
$
$
$ 0
$ 0
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$1
I
$o
^
$0
^
$0
^
$o
^
$0
^
$0
^
$o
^
$ 2
$ 3
$ 3
$ 3
$ 3
$ 3
$ 3
$ 23
$ 1
G = (B*(E+ F))/10°
$
$
$
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$4
I
$ 1
$ 1
$4
I
$ 1
$ 1
$ 7
$ 0
Notes: Values are in 2003$. In the Ground Water Rule EA, rotavirus is used as a representative illness for the Type A Viruses. Detail may not sum to totals due to independent
rounding.

1A cost adjustment is the value of direct (medical) and indirect (time losses) costs that are saved when an illness of Type A or B is avoided. These estimates represent only the
quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unquantified benefits are expected to compose a significant portion of the overall benefits of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and
would cause the Cost Adjustment to increase .
Sources:   Column A:  Ch. 5, Exhibit 5.16.
          Column C:  2003 real GDP from Bureau of Economic Analysis, subsequent years calculated based on percent change projections from Congressional Budget Office
          (January 26, 2004). Projections for years beyond 2014 based on percent change reported for 2014 based on available information. Population projections used in
          assessing GDP on a per capital basis are from US Census Bureau (NP-T1: Middle Series).
          Columns D, E: Base Year value from Exhibit 5.a; 2007 - 2030 values calculated as shown above.
          Column F:  Exhibit H.S.a
               Economic Analysis for the
               Final Ground Water Rule
H-49
October 2006

-------
                           Exhibit H.12b  Cost Adjustment for Type B Illness, Alternative 1,
                                                       3 Percent Discount Rate
Yearn
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
Undiscounted
Cases Avoided
A
_
-
-
-
36
121
159
185
210
267
300
374
397
530
566
608
627
679
752
767
819
835
901
929
954
1,056
Discounted Cases
Avoided
B
B = A/1. 03"(n -2006)
-
-
-
33
107
137
155
171
211
230
279
287
372
385
402
402
423
455
451
467
462
484
485
483
520
%Change in
Income (Real GDP
per Capita)
c
_
Base Year
2.3%
3.9%
3.3%
2.3%
1 .9%
2.0%
2.0%
1 .8%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
Lost Time
w/Growth
Factor (ECOI)
D
Lost Time
w/Growth
Factor (TCOI)
E
Direct
Medical Costs
F
($)
(1+C) * Prior Year's Lost Time
$ 520
$ 532
$ 553
$ 571
$ 585
$ 595
$ 607
$ 619
$ 630
$ 641
$ 651
$ 662
$ 673
$ 684
$ 696
$ 708
$ 720
$ 732
$ 744
$ 757
$ 770
$ 783
$ 797
$ 810
$ 824
$ 158
$ 162
$ 168
$ 173
$ 177
$ 181
$ 184
$ 188
$ 191
$ 194
$ 198
$ 201
$ 204
$ 208
$ 211
$ 215
$ 218
$ 222
$ 226
$ 230
$ 234
$ 238
$ 242
$ 246
$ 250
-
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
25 Year PV
25 Year Annualized Value
Cost Adjustment
ECOI
G
TCOI
H
(Millions)
G = (B*(D+ F))/10°
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 4
$ 0.2
G = (B*(E+ F))/10°
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 1
$ 0.1
Note: Values are in 2003$. A decrement for rotavirus illness was the best available data for Type A illnesses as well as Type B, and is used as a low estimate for Type B
Illnesses, which are known to be generally more severe than those of Type A. Detail may not sum to totals due to independent rounding.

1A cost adjustment is the value of direct (medical) and indirect (time losses) costs that are saved when an illness  of Type A or B is avoided. These estimates represent only the
quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unquantified benefits are expected to compose a significant portion of the overall benefits of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and
would cause the Cost Adjustment to increase .
Sources:   Column A:  Ch. 5,  Exhibit 5.16.
          Column C:  2003 real GDP from Bureau of Economic Analysis, subsequent years calculated based on percent change projections from Congressional Budget Office
          (January 26, 2004). Projections for years beyond 2014 based on percent change reported for 2014 based on available information. Population projections used in
          assessing GDP on a per capital basis are from US Census Bureau (NP-T1: Middle Series).
          Columns D, E: Base Year value from Exhibit 5.a; 2007 - 2030 values calculated as shown above.
          Column F:  Exhibit H.S.a
              Economic Analysis for the
              Final Ground Water Rule
H-50
October 2006

-------
                           Exhibit  H.12c  Cost Adjustment for Type A  Illness, Alternative 2,
                                                       3 Percent Discount Rate
Yearn
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
Undiscounted
Cases Avoided
A
_
-
-
-
10,626
18,737
27,973
31 ,950
35,297
39,013
40,828
42,864
44,080
46,196
47,826
48,872
50,247
51 ,328
52,978
53,835
55,032
55,931
56,936
57,935
58,442
59,126
Discounted Cases
Avoided
B
B = A/1. 03A(n -2006)
-
-
-
9,724
16,647
24,130
26,758
28,699
30,797
31,291
31 ,895
31 ,845
32,401
32,567
32,310
32,252
31 ,986
32,052
31 ,623
31 ,384
30,968
30,606
30,236
29,612
29,086
%Change in
Income (Real GDP
per Capita)
c
_
Base Year
2.3%
3.9%
3.3%
2.3%
1 .9%
2.0%
2.0%
1 .8%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
Lost Time
w/Growth
Factor (ECOI)
D
Lost Time
w/Growth
Factor (TCOI)
E
Direct
Medical Costs
F
($)
(1+C) * Prior Year's Lost Time
$ 243
$ 249
$ 259
$ 267
$ 274
$ 279
$ 284
$ 290
$ 295
$ 300
$ 305
$ 310
$ 315
$ 320
$ 326
$ 331
$ 337
$ 342
$ 348
$ 354
$ 360
$ 366
$ 373
$ 379
$ 386
$ 63
$ 65
$ 66
$ 68
$ 70
$ 71
$ 73
$ 74
$ 76
$ 78
$ 80
$ 82
$ 83
$ 85
$ 87
$ 89
$ 91
$ 94
$ 96
$ 98
$ 100
$ 102
$ 105
$ 107
$ 110
-
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
25 Year PV
25 Year Annualized Value
Cost Adjustment
ECOI
G
TCOI
H
(Million $)
G = (B*(D + F))/10"
$
$
$
$ 3
$ 5
$ 7
$ 8
$ 9
$ 10
$ 10
$ 10
$ 10
$ 11
$ 11
$ 11
$ 11
$ 11
$ 12
$ 12
$ 12
$ 12
$ 12
$ 12
$ 12
$ 12
$ 142
$ 8
G = (B*(E + F))/10"
$
$
$
$ 1
$ 1
$o
^
$ 2
$ 3
$ 3
$ 3
$ 3
$ 3
$ 3
$ 3
$ 3
$ 4
$ 4
$ 4
$ 4
$ 4
$ 4
$ 4
$ 4
$ 4
$ 4
$ 44
$ 3
Notes: Values are in 2003$. In the Ground Water Rule EA, rotavirus is used as a representative illness for the Type A Viruses. Detail may not sum to totals due to independent
rounding.

1A cost adjustment is the value of direct (medical) and indirect (time losses) costs that are saved when an illness of Type A or B is avoided. These estimates represent only the
quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unquantified benefits are expected to compose a significant portion of the overall benefits of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and
would cause the Cost Adjustment to increase .
Sources:   Column A:  Ch. 5,  Exhibit 5.16.
          Column C:  2003 real GDP from Bureau of Economic Analysis, subsequent years calculated based on percent change projections from Congressional Budget
          Office (January 26, 2004). Projections for years beyond 2014 based on percent change reported for 2014 based on available information. Population projections
          used in assessing  GDP on a per capital basis are from US Census Bureau (NP-T1: Middle Series).
          Columns D, E: Base Year value from Exhibit 5.a; 2007 - 2030 values calculated as shown above.
          Column F:  Exhibit H.S.a
              Economic Analysis for the
              Final Ground Water Rule
H-51
October 2006

-------
                           Exhibit H.12d  Cost Adjustment for Type B Illness,  Alternative 2,
                                                       3 Percent Discount  Rate
Yearn
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
Undiscounted
Cases Avoided
A
_
-
-
-
746
1,277
1,735
1,935
2,082
2,332
2,401
2,619
2,720
2,892
2,999
3,058
3,110
3,165
3,275
3,340
3,387
3,441
3,489
3,518
3,549
3,583
Discounted Cases
Avoided
B
B = A/1. 03A(n -2006)
-
-
-
683
1,134
1,497
1,620
1,693
1,841
1,840
1,949
1,965
2,028
2,042
2,022
1,996
1,972
1,982
1,962
1,931
1,905
1,875
1,836
1,798
1,763
%Change in
Income (Real GDP
per Capita)
c
_
Base Year
2.3%
3.9%
3.3%
2.3%
1 .9%
2.0%
2.0%
1 .8%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
Lost Time
w/Growth
Factor (ECOI)
D
Lost Time
w/Growth
Factor (TCOI)
E
Direct
Medical Costs
F
($)
(1+C) * Prior Year's Lost Time
$ 520
$ 532
$ 553
$ 571
$ 585
$ 595
$ 607
$ 619
$ 630
$ 641
$ 651
$ 662
$ 673
$ 684
$ 696
$ 708
$ 720
$ 732
$ 744
$ 757
$ 770
$ 783
$ 797
$ 810
$ 824
$ 158
$ 162
$ 168
$ 173
$ 177
$ 181
$ 184
$ 188
$ 191
$ 194
$ 198
$ 201
$ 204
$ 208
$ 211
$ 215
$ 218
$ 222
$ 226
$ 230
$ 234
$ 238
$ 242
$ 246
$ 250
-
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
25 Year PV
25 Year Annualized Value
Cost Adjustment
ECOI
G
TCOI
H
(Million $)
G = (B*(D + F))/10"
$
$
$
$ 0
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$4
I
$<-)
£
$0
^
$<-)
£
$<-)
£
$0
^
$<-)
£
$0
^
$<-)
£
$0
^
$<-)
£
$0
^
$ 2
$ 19
$ 1
G = (B*(E + F))/10"
$
$
$
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.4
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.5
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 0.6
$ 7
$ 0.4
Note: Values are in 2003$. A decrement for rotavirus illness was the best available data for Type A illnesses as well as Type B, and is used as a low estimate for Type B
Illnesses, which are known to be generally more severe than those of Type A. Detail may not sum to totals due to independent rounding.

1A cost adjustment is the value of direct (medical) and indirect (time losses) costs that are saved when an illness of Type A or B is avoided. These estimates represent only the
quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unquantified benefits are expected to compose a significant portion of the overall benefits of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and
would cause the Cost Adjustment to increase .
Sources:   Column A:  Ch. 5,  Exhibit 5.16.
          Column C:  2003 real GDP from Bureau of Economic Analysis, subsequent years calculated based on percent change projections from Congressional Budget
          Office (January 26, 2004). Projections for years beyond 2014 based on percent change reported for 2014 based on available information. Population projections
          used in assessing  GDP on a per capital basis are from US Census Bureau (NP-T1: Middle Series).
          Columns D, E: Base Year value from Exhibit 5.a; 2007 - 2030 values calculated as shown above.
          Column F: Exhibit H.S.a
              Economic Analysis for the
              Final Ground Water Rule
H-52
October 2006

-------
                           Exhibit  H.12e  Cost Adjustment for Type A Illness, Alternative 3,
                                                      3 Percent Discount Rate
Yearn
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
Undiscounted
Cases Avoided
A

-
-
-
10,626
18,737
31 ,833
35,930
40,114
43,765
45,483
47,364
48,651
50,657
52,189
53,203
54,534
55,553
57,115
57,957
59,060
59,979
60,921
61 ,908
62,351
62,971
Discounted Cases
Avoided
B
B = A/1 .03A(n -2006)
-
-
-
9,724
16,647
27,459
30,090
32,616
34,549
34,859
35,243
35,147
35,530
35,538
35,173
35,003
34,619
34,556
34,044
33,681
33,209
32,748
32,309
31 ,593
30,978
% Change in
Income
(Real GDP per
Capita)
c

Base Year
2.3%
3.9%
3.3%
2.3%
1.9%
2.0%
2.0%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
Lost Time
w/Growth
Factor (ECOI)
D
Lost Time
w/Growth
Factor (TCOI)
E
Direct
Medical Costs
F
($)
(1+C) "Prior Year's Lost Time
$ 243
$ 249
$ 259
$ 267
$ 274
$ 279
$ 284
$ 290
$ 295
$ 300
$ 305
$ 310
$ 315
$ 320
$ 326
$ 331
$ 337
$ 342
$ 348
$ 354
$ 360
$ 366
$ 373
$ 379
$ 386
$ 63
$ 65
$ 67
$ 70
$ 71
$ 73
$ 74
$ 76
$ 77
$ 78
$ 79
$ 81
$ 82
$ 84
$ 85
$ 86
$ 88
$ 89
$ 91
$ 92
$ 94
$ 96
$ 97
$ 99
$ 101
-
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
25 Year PV
25 Year Annualized Value
Cost Adjustment1
ECOI
G
TCOI
H
(Million $)
G = (B*(D+ F))/10B
$
$
$
$ 3
$ 5
$ 8
$ 9
$ 10
$ 11
$ 11
$ 11
$ 12
$ 12
$ 12
$ 12
$ 12
$ 12
$ 13
$ 13
$ 13
$ 13
$ 13
$ 13
$ 13
$ 13
$ 154
$ 9
G = (B*(E+ F))/10°
$
$
$
$ 1
$0
^
$0
O
$0
O
$ 3
$ 3
$ 3
$ 3
$ 4
$ 4
$ 4
$ 4
$ 4
$ 4
$ 4
$ 4
$ 4
$ 4
$ 4
$ 4
$ 4
$ 4
$ 47
$ 3
Notes: Values are in 2003$. In the Ground Water Rule EA, rotavirus is used as a representative illness for the Type A Viruses. Detail may not sum to totals due to independent
rounding.

1A cost adjustment is the value of direct (medical) and indirect (time losses) costs that are saved when an illness of Type A or B is avoided. These estimates represent only the
quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unquantified benefits are expected to compose a significant portion of the overall benefits of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and
would cause the Cost Adjustment to increase .
Sources:   Column A:  Ch. 5, Exhibit 5.16.
          Column C:  2003 real GDP from Bureau of Economic Analysis, subsequent years calculated based on percent change projections from Congressional Budget Office
          (January 26, 2004). Projections for years beyond 2014 based on percent change reported for 2014 based on available information. Population projections used in
          assessing GDP on a per capital basis are from US Census Bureau (NP-T1: Middle Series).
          Columns D, E: Base Year value from Exhibit 5.a; 2007 - 2030 values calculated as shown above.
          Column F: Exhibit H.S.a
              Economic Analysis for the
              Final Ground Water Rule
H-53
October 2006

-------
                           Exhibit H.12f  Cost Adjustment for Type B Illness, Alternative 3,
                                                       3  Percent Discount Rate
Yearn
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
Undiscounted
Cases Avoided
A
_
-
-
-
746
1,277
1,949
2,147
2,301
2,545
2,616
2,819
2,925
3,099
3,204
3,261
3,313
3,355
3,458
3,521
3,567
3,619
3,673
3,701
3,723
3,753
Discounted Cases
Avoided
B
B = A/1 .03A(n -2006)
-
-
-
683
1,134
1,681
1,798
1,871
2,009
2,005
2,098
2,113
2,173
2,182
2,156
2,127
2,091
2,092
2,068
2,034
2,004
1,975
1,931
1,887
1,846
% Change in
Income
(Real GDP per
Capita)
c
_
Base Year
2.3%
3.9%
3.3%
2.3%
1.9%
2.0%
2.0%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
Lost Time
w/Growth
Factor (ECOI)
D
Lost Time
w/Growth
Factor (TCOI)
E
Direct
Medical Costs
F
($)
(1+C) "Prior Year's Lost Time
$ 520
$ 532
$ 553
$ 571
$ 585
$ 595
$ 607
$ 619
$ 630
$ 641
$ 651
$ 662
$ 673
$ 684
$ 696
$ 708
$ 720
$ 732
$ 744
$ 757
$ 770
$ 783
$ 797
$ 810
$ 824
$ 158
$ 162
$ 168
$ 173
$ 177
$ 181
$ 184
$ 188
$ 191
$ 194
$ 198
$ 201
$ 204
$ 208
$ 211
$ 215
$ 218
$ 222
$ 226
$ 230
$ 234
$ 238
$ 242
$ 246
$ 250
-
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
25 Year PV
25 Year Annualized Value
Cost Adjustment
ECOI
G
TCOI
H
(Million $)
G = (B*(D+ F))/10°
$
$
$
$ 0
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$o
^
$o
^
$0
£-
$>-)
£
$>-)
£
$0
£-
$0
£-
$>-)
£
$>-)
£
$0
£-
$0
£-
$>-)
£
$0
£-
$0
£-
$ 2
$ 21
$ 1
G = (B*(E+ F))/10°
$
$
$
$ 0
$ 0
$n
u
$ 0
$ 0
$ 1
$ 1
$4
I
$ 1
$ 1
$4
I
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$4
I
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 7
$ 0
Note: Values are in 2003$. A decrement for rotavirus illness was the best available data for Type A illnesses as well as Type B, and is used as a low estimate for Type B Illnesses,
which are known to be generally more severe than those of Type A. Detail may not sum to totals due to independent rounding.

1A cost adjustment is the value of direct (medical) and indirect (time losses) costs that are saved when an illness of Type A or B is avoided. These estimates represent only the
quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unquantified benefits are expected to compose a significant portion of the overall benefits of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and
would cause the Cost Adjustment to increase .
Sources:   Column A: Ch. 5, Exhibit 5.16.
          Column C: 2003 real GDP from Bureau of Economic Analysis, subsequent years calculated based on percent change projections from Congressional Budget Office
          (January 26, 2004). Projections for years beyond 2014 based on percent change reported for 2014 based on available information. Population projections used in
          assessing GDP on a per capital basis are from US Census Bureau (NP-T1: Middle Series).
          Columns D, E: Base Year value from Exhibit 5.a; 2007 - 2030 values calculated as shown above.
          Column F: Exhibit H.S.a
              Economic Analysis for the
              Final Ground Water Rule
H-54
October 2006

-------
                           Exhibit H.12g  Cost Adjustment for Type A Illness, Alternative 4,
                                                       3 Percent Discount Rate
Yearn
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
Undiscounted
Cases Avoided
A

-
-
-
-
-
174,849
174,849
174,849
174,849
174,849
174,849
174,849
174,849
174,849
174,849
174,849
174,849
174,849
174,849
174,849
174,849
174,849
174,849
174,849
174,849
174,849
Discounted Cases
Avoided
B

B = A/1. 03A(n -2006)
-
-
-
-
155,351
150,826
146,433
142,168
138,027
134,007
130,104
126,314
122,635
119,063
115,596
112,229
108,960
105,786
102,705
99,714
96,810
93,990
91 ,252
88,594
86,014
%Change in
Income (Real GDP
per Capita)
c

-
Base Year
2.3%
3.9%
3.3%
2.3%
1 .9%
2.0%
2.0%
1 .8%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
Lost Time
w/Growth
Factor (ECOI)
D
Lost Time
w/Growth
Factor (TCOI)
E
Direct
Medical Costs
F
($)
(1+C) * Prior Year's Lost Time
$ 243
$ 249
$ 259
$ 267
$ 274
$ 279
$ 284
$ 290
$ 295
$ 300
$ 305
$ 310
$ 315
$ 320
$ 326
$ 331
$ 337
$ 342
$ 348
$ 354
$ 360
$ 366
$ 373
$ 379
$ 386
$ 63
$ 65
$ 67
$ 70
$ 71
$ 73
$ 74
$ 76
$ 77
$ 78
$ 79
$ 81
$ 82
$ 84
$ 85
$ 86
$ 88
$ 89
$ 91
$ 92
$ 94
$ 96
$ 97
$ 99
$ 101
-
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
25 Year PV
25 Year Annualized Value
Cost Adjustment
ECOI
G
TCOI
H
(Million $)
G = (B*(D + F))/10"
$
$
$
$
$ 45
$ 45
$ 44
$ 44
$ 43
$ 43
$ 42
$ 42
$ 41
$ 40
$ 40
$ 39
$ 39
$ 38
$ 38
$ 37
$ 37
$ 36
$ 36
$ 35
$ 35
$ 556
$ 32
G = (B*(E + F))/10"
$
$
$
$
$ 14
$ 14
$ 14
$ 13
$ 13
$ 13
$ 13
$ 13
$ 12
$ 12
$ 12
$ 12
$ 12
$ 11
$ 11
$ 11
$ 11
$ 11
$ 11
$ 10
$ 10
$ 169
$ 10
Notes: Values are in 2003$. In the Ground Water Rule EA, rotavirus is used as a representative illness for the Type A Viruses. Detail may not sum to totals due to independent
rounding.

1A cost adjustment is the value of direct (medical) and indirect (time losses) costs that are saved when an illness of Type A or B is avoided. These estimates represent only the
quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unquantified benefits are expected to compose a significant portion of the overall benefits of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and
would cause the Cost Adjustment to increase .
Sources:   Column A:  Ch. 5,  Exhibit 5.16.
          Column C:  2003 real GDP from Bureau of Economic Analysis, subsequent years calculated based on percent change projections from Congressional Budget
          Office (January 26, 2004). Projections for years beyond 2014 based on percent change reported for 2014 based on available information. Population projections
          used in assessing  GDP on a per capital basis are from US Census Bureau (NP-T1: Middle Series).
          Columns D, E: Base Year value from Exhibit 5.a; 2007 - 2030 values calculated as shown above.
          Column F:  Exhibit H.S.a
              Economic Analysis for the
              Final Ground Water Rule
H-55
October 2006

-------
                            Exhibit H.12h  Cost Adjustment for Type B Illness, Alternative 4,
                                                        3 Percent Discount Rate
Yearn
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
Undiscounted
Cases Avoided
A
_
-
-
-
0
10,011
10,011
10,011
10,011
10,011
10,011
10,011
10,011
10,011
10,011
10,011
10,011
10,011
10,011
10,011
10,011
10,011
10,011
10,011
10,011
10,011
Discounted Cases
Avoided
B
B = A/1. 03A(n -2006)
-
-
-
0
8,895
8,636
8,384
8,140
7,903
7,673
7,449
7,232
7,022
6,817
6,619
6,426
6,239
6,057
5,881
5,709
5,543
5,382
5,225
5,073
4,925
%Change in
Income (Real GDP
per Capita)
c
_
Base Year
2.3%
3.9%
3.3%
2.3%
1 .9%
2.0%
2.0%
1 .8%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
Lost Time
w/Growth
Factor (ECOI)
D
Lost Time
w/Growth
Factor (TCOI)
E
Direct
Medical Costs
F
($)
(1+C) * Prior Year's Lost Time
$ 520
$ 532
$ 553
$ 571
$ 585
$ 595
$ 607
$ 619
$ 630
$ 641
$ 651
$ 662
$ 673
$ 684
$ 696
$ 708
$ 720
$ 732
$ 744
$ 757
$ 770
$ 783
$ 797
$ 810
$ 824
$ 158
$ 162
$ 168
$ 173
$ 177
$ 181
$ 184
$ 188
$ 191
$ 194
$ 198
$ 201
$ 204
$ 208
$ 211
$ 215
$ 218
$ 222
$ 226
$ 230
$ 234
$ 238
$ 242
$ 246
$ 250
-
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
25 Year PV
25 Year Annualized Value
Cost Adjustment
ECOI
G
TCOI
H
(Million $)
G = (B*(D + F))/10"
$
$
$
$
$ 6
$ 6
$ 6
$ 6
$ 5
$ 5
$ 5
$ 5
$ 5
$ 5
$ 5
$C
O
$ 5
$ 5
$ 5
$ 5
$ 5
$ 5
$ 4
$ 4
$ 4
$ 70
$ 4
G = (B*(E + F))/10"
$
$
$
$
$ 2
$0
£-
$>-)
£
$0
£-
$>-)
£
$0
£-
$>-)
£
$0
£-
$>-)
£
$0
£-
$>-)
£
$0
£-
$0
£-
$>-)
£
$>-)
£
$0
£-
$>-)
£
$0
£-
$>-)
£
$0
£-
$ 2
$ 26
$ 1
Note: Values are in 2003$. A decrement for rotavirus illness was the best available data for Type A illnesses as well as Type B, and is used as a low estimate for Type B
Illnesses, which are known to be generally more severe than those of Type A. Detail may not sum to totals due to independent rounding.

1A cost adjustment is the value of direct (medical) and indirect (time losses) costs that are saved when an illness of Type A or B is avoided. These estimates represent only the
quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unquantified benefits are expected to compose a significant portion of the overall benefits of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and
would cause the Cost Adjustment to increase .
Sources:   Column A:  Ch.  5,  Exhibit 5.16.
          Column C:  2003 real GDP from Bureau of Economic Analysis, subsequent years calculated based on percent change projections from Congressional Budget
          Office (January  26, 2004). Projections for years beyond 2014 based on percent change reported for 2014 based on available information. Population projections
          used in assessing  GDP on a per capital basis are from US Census Bureau (NP-T1: Middle Series).
          Columns D, E:  Base Year value from Exhibit 5.a; 2007 - 2030 values calculated as shown above.
          Column F: Exhibit H.S.a
               Economic Analysis for the
               Final Ground Water Rule
H-56
October 2006

-------
                           Exhibit H.12i  Cost Adjustment for Type A Illness, Alternative 1,
                                                       7 Percent Discount Rate
Yearn
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
Undiscounted
Cases Avoided
A

-
-
-
-
768
1,667
2,371
3,064
3,715
4,397
5,001
5,836
6,330
6,825
7,484
8,147
8,719
9,514
10,209
10,829
1 1 ,739
12,191
13,037
13,799
14,431
15,279
Discounted Cases
Avoided
B

B = A/1. 07A(n -2006)
-
-
-
627
1,271
1,690
2,042
2,314
2,559
2,720
2,967
3,007
3,031
3,106
3,160
3,160
3,223
3,232
3,204
3,246
3,151
3,149
3,115
3,044
3,012
%Change in
Income (Real GDP
per Capita)
c

-
Base Year
2.3%
3.9%
3.3%
2.3%
1 .9%
2.0%
2.0%
1 .8%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
Lost Time
w/Growth
Factor (ECOI)
D
Lost Time
w/Growth
Factor (TCOI)
E
Direct
Medical Costs
F
($)
(1+C) * Prior Year's Lost Time
$ 243
$ 249
$ 259
$ 267
$ 274
$ 279
$ 284
$ 290
$ 295
$ 300
$ 305
$ 310
$ 315
$ 320
$ 326
$ 331
$ 337
$ 342
$ 348
$ 354
$ 360
$ 366
$ 373
$ 379
$ 386
$ 63
$ 65
$ 67
$ 70
$ 71
$ 73
$ 74
$ 76
$ 77
$ 78
$ 79
$ 81
$ 82
$ 84
$ 85
$ 86
$ 88
$ 89
$ 91
$ 92
$ 94
$ 96
$ 97
$ 99
$ 101
-
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
25 Year PV
25 Year Annualized Value
Cost Adjustment
ECOI
G
TCOI
H
(Million $)
G = (B*(D + F))/10°
$
$
$
$ 0
$ 0
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 13
$ 1
G = (B*(E + F))/10°
$
$
$
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 4
$ 0
Notes: Values are in 2003$. In the Ground Water Rule EA, rotavirus is used as a representative illness for the Type A Viruses. Detail may not sum to totals due to independent
rounding.

1A cost adjustment is the value of direct (medical) and indirect (time losses) costs that are saved when an illness of Type A or B is avoided. These estimates represent only the
quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unquantified benefits are expected to compose a significant portion of the overall benefits of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and
would cause the Cost Adjustment to increase .
Sources:   Column A:  Ch. 5,  Exhibit 5.16.
          Column C:  2003 real GDP from Bureau of Economic Analysis, subsequent years calculated based on percent change projections from Congressional Budget
          Office (January 26, 2004). Projections for years beyond 2014 based on percent change reported for 2014 based on available information. Population projections
          used in assessing  GDP on a per capital basis are from US Census Bureau (NP-T1: Middle Series).
          Columns D, E: Base Year value from Exhibit 5.a; 2007 - 2030 values calculated as shown above.
          Column F:  Exhibit H.S.a
              Economic Analysis for the
              Final Ground Water Rule
H-57
October 2006

-------
                            Exhibit H.12J  Cost Adjustment for Type B Illness, Alternative  1,
                                                       7 Percent Discount Rate
Yearn
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
Undiscounted
Cases Avoided
A
_
-
-
-
36
121
159
185
210
267
300
374
397
530
566
608
627
679
752
767
819
835
901
929
954
1,056
Discounted Cases
Avoided
B
B = A/1. 07A(n -2006)
-
-
-
30
92
113
123
131
156
163
190
188
235
235
236
227
230
238
227
227
216
217
210
201
208
%Change in
Income (Real GDP
per Capita)
c
_
Base Year
2.3%
3.9%
3.3%
2.3%
1 .9%
2.0%
2.0%
1 .8%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
Lost Time
w/Growth
Factor (ECOI)
D
Lost Time
w/Growth
Factor (TCOI)
E
Direct
Medical Costs
F
($)
(1+C) * Prior Year's Lost Time
$ 520
$ 532
$ 553
$ 571
$ 585
$ 595
$ 607
$ 619
$ 630
$ 641
$ 651
$ 662
$ 673
$ 684
$ 696
$ 708
$ 720
$ 732
$ 744
$ 757
$ 770
$ 783
$ 797
$ 810
$ 824
$ 158
$ 162
$ 168
$ 173
$ 177
$ 181
$ 184
$ 188
$ 191
$ 194
$ 198
$ 201
$ 204
$ 208
$ 211
$ 215
$ 218
$ 222
$ 226
$ 230
$ 234
$ 238
$ 242
$ 246
$ 250
-
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
25 Year PV
25 Year Annualized Value
Cost Adjustment
ECOI
G
TCOI
H
(Million $)
G = (B*(D + F))/10°
$
$
$
$ 0.0
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 0.1
$ 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
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 2
$ 0.11
G = (B*(E + F))/10"
$
$
$
$ 0.01
$ 0.02
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.03
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.05
$ 0.05
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.07
$ 0.06
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.07
$ 0.06
$ 0.07
$ 0.06
$ 0.06
$ 0.07
$ 1
$ 0.04
Note: Values are in 2003$. A decrement for rotavirus illness was the best available data for Type A illnesses as well as Type B, and is used as a low estimate for Type B
Illnesses, which are known to be generally more severe than those of Type A. Detail may not sum to totals due to independent rounding.

1A cost adjustment is the value of direct (medical) and indirect (time losses) costs that are saved when an illness of Type A or B is avoided. These estimates represent only the
quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unquantified benefits are expected to compose a significant portion of the overall benefits of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and
would cause the Cost Adjustment to increase .
Sources:   Column A:  Ch.  5,  Exhibit 5.16.
          Column C:  2003 real GDP from Bureau of Economic Analysis, subsequent years calculated based on percent change projections from Congressional Budget
          Office (January  26, 2004). Projections for years beyond 2014 based on percent change reported for 2014 based on available information. Population projections
          used in assessing  GDP on a per capital basis are from US Census Bureau (NP-T1: Middle Series).
          Columns D, E:  Base Year value from Exhibit 5.a; 2007 - 2030 values calculated as shown above.
          Column F: Exhibit H.S.a
              Economic Analysis for the
              Final Ground Water Rule
H-58
October 2006

-------
                           Exhibit H.12k  Cost Adjustment for Type A Illness, Alternative 2,
                                                       7  Percent Discount Rate
Yearn
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
Undiscounted
Cases Avoided
A
_
-
-
-
10,626
18,737
27,973
31 ,950
35,297
39,013
40,828
42,864
44,080
46,196
47,826
48,872
50,247
51 ,328
52,978
53,835
55,032
55,931
56,936
57,935
58,442
59,126
Discounted Cases
Avoided
B
B = A/1. 07"(n -2006)
-
-
-
8,674
14,294
19,945
21 ,290
21 ,981
22,706
22,207
21 ,790
20,942
20,512
19,846
18,953
18,212
17,387
16,771
15,928
15,217
14,454
13,751
13,077
12,328
1 1 ,656
%Change in
Income (Real GDP
per Capita)
c
_
Base Year
2.3%
3.9%
3.3%
2.3%
1.9%
2.0%
2.0%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
Lost Time
w/Growth
Factor (ECOI)
D
Lost Time
w/Growth
Factor (TCOI)
E
Direct
Medical Costs
F
($)
(1+C) * Prior Year's Lost Time
$ 243
$ 249
$ 259
$ 267
$ 274
$ 279
$ 284
$ 290
$ 295
$ 300
$ 305
$ 310
$ 315
$ 320
$ 326
$ 331
$ 337
$ 342
$ 348
$ 354
$ 360
$ 366
$ 373
$ 379
$ 386
$ 63
$ 65
$ 67
$ 70
$ 71
$ 73
$ 74
$ 76
$ 77
$ 78
$ 79
$ 81
$ 82
$ 84
$ 85
$ 86
$ 88
$ 89
$ 91
$ 92
$ 94
$ 96
$ 97
$ 99
$ 101
-
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
25 Year PV
25 Year Annualized Value
Cost Adjustment
ECOI
G
TCOI
H
(Million $)
G = (B*(D+ F))/10°
$
$
$
$ 2
$ 4
$ 6
$ 6
$ 7
$ 7
$7
'
$7
'
$7
'
$ 7
$ 7
$ 7
$ 6
$ 6
$ 6
$ 6
$ 6
$C
O
$ 5
$ 5
$ 5
$ 5
$ 86
$ 5
G = (B*(E+ F))/10°
$
$
$
$ 1
$4
I
$<-)
£
$<-)
£
$<-)
£
$<-)
£
$0
^
$0
^
$0
^
$0
^
$<-)
£
$<-)
£
$<-)
£
$<-)
£
$0
^
$0
^
$0
^
$0
^
$0
^
$ 2
$ 1
$ 1
$ 26
$ 2
Notes: Values are in 2003$. In the Ground Water Rule EA, rotavirus is used as a representative illness for the Type A Viruses. Detail may not sum to totals due to independent
rounding.

1A cost adjustment is the value of direct (medical) and indirect (time losses) costs that are saved when an illness of Type A or B is avoided. These estimates represent only the
quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unquantified benefits are expected to compose a significant portion of the overall benefits of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and
would cause the Cost Adjustment to increase .
Sources:   Column A:  Ch. 5, Exhibit 5.16.
          Column C:  2003 real GDP from Bureau of Economic Analysis, subsequent years calculated based on percent change projections from Congressional Budget Office
          (January 26, 2004). Projections for years beyond 2014 based on percent change reported for 2014 based on available information. Population projections used in
          assessing GDP on a per capital basis are from US Census Bureau (NP-T1: Middle Series).
          Columns D, E: Base Year value from Exhibit 5.a; 2007 - 2030 values calculated as shown above.
          Column F: Exhibit H.S.a
              Economic Analysis for the
              Final Ground Water Rule
H-59
October 2006

-------
                            Exhibit H.12I  Cost Adjustment for Type B Illness, Alternative 2,
                                                       7 Percent Discount Rate
Yearn
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
Undiscounted
Cases Avoided
A
_
-
-
-
746
1,277
1,735
1,935
2,082
2,332
2,401
2,619
2,720
2,892
2,999
3,058
3,110
3,165
3,275
3,340
3,387
3,441
3,489
3,518
3,549
3,583
Discounted Cases
Avoided
B
B = A/1. 07"(n -2006)
-
-
-
609
974
1,237
1,289
1,297
1,357
1,306
1,331
1,292
1,284
1,244
1,186
1,127
1,072
1,037
988
936
889
843
794
749
706
%Change in
Income (Real GDP
per Capita)
c
_
Base Year
2.3%
3.9%
3.3%
2.3%
1 .9%
2.0%
2.0%
1 .8%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1 .7%
Lost Time
w/Growth
Factor (ECOI)
D
Lost Time
w/Growth
Factor (TCOI)
E
Direct
Medical Costs
F
($)
(1+C) * Prior Year's Lost Time
$ 520
$ 532
$ 553
$ 571
$ 585
$ 595
$ 607
$ 619
$ 630
$ 641
$ 651
$ 662
$ 673
$ 684
$ 696
$ 708
$ 720
$ 732
$ 744
$ 757
$ 770
$ 783
$ 797
$ 810
$ 824
$ 158
$ 162
$ 168
$ 173
$ 177
$ 181
$ 184
$ 188
$ 191
$ 194
$ 198
$ 201
$ 204
$ 208
$ 211
$ 215
$ 218
$ 222
$ 226
$ 230
$ 234
$ 238
$ 242
$ 246
$ 250
-
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
25 Year PV
25 Year Annualized Value
Cost Adjustment
ECOI
G
TCOI
H
(Million $)
G = (B*(D+ F))/10B
$
$
$
$ 0
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$4
I
$4
I
$4
I
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$4
I
$4
I
$4
I
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 12
$ 1
G = (B*(E+ F))/10°
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 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
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 4
$ 0.2
Note: Values are in 2003$. A decrement for rotavirus illness was the best available data for Type A illnesses as well as Type B, and is used as a low estimate for Type B Illnesses,
which are known to be generally more severe than those of Type A.  Detail may not sum to totals due to independent rounding.

1A cost adjustment is the value of direct (medical) and indirect (time losses) costs that are saved when an illness of Type A or B is avoided. These estimates represent only the
quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unquantified benefits are expected to compose a significant portion of the overall benefits of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and
would cause the Cost Adjustment to increase .
Sources:   Column A: Ch. 5, Exhibit 5.16.
          Column C: 2003 real GDP from Bureau of Economic Analysis, subsequent years calculated based on percent change projections from Congressional Budget Office
          (January 26, 2004). Projections for years beyond 2014 based on percent change reported for 2014 based on available information. Population projections used in
          assessing GDP on a per capital basis are from US Census Bureau (NP-T1: Middle Series).
          Columns D, E: Base Year value from Exhibit 5.a; 2007 - 2030 values calculated as shown above.
          Column F:  Exhibit H.S.a
              Economic Analysis for the
              Final Ground Water Rule
H-60
October 2006

-------
                          Exhibit H.12m  Cost Adjustment for Type A Illness, Alternative 3,
                                                      7 Percent Discount Rate
Yearn
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
Undiscounted
Cases Avoided
A

-
-
-
10,626
18,737
31 ,833
35,930
40,114
43,765
45,483
47,364
48,651
50,657
52,189
53,203
54,534
55,553
57,115
57,957
59,060
59,979
60,921
61 ,908
62,351
62,971
Discounted Cases
Avoided
B
B = A/1. 07A(n -2006)
-
-
-
8,674
14,294
22,696
23,941
24,981
25,472
24,740
24,077
23,114
22,492
21 ,657
20,633
19,766
18,818
18,081
17,147
16,331
15,500
14,713
13,973
13,153
12,415
%Change in
Income (Real GDP
per Capita)
c

Base Year
2.3%
3.9%
3.3%
2.3%
1 .9%
2.0%
2.0%
1 .8%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
Lost Time
w/Growth
Factor (ECOI)
D
Lost Time
w/Growth
Factor (TCOI)
E
Direct
Medical Costs
F
($)
(1+C) * Prior Year's Lost Time
$ 243
$ 249
$ 259
$ 267
$ 274
$ 279
$ 284
$ 290
$ 295
$ 300
$ 305
$ 310
$ 315
$ 320
$ 326
$ 331
$ 337
$ 342
$ 348
$ 354
$ 360
$ 366
$ 373
$ 379
$ 386
$ 63
$ 65
$ 67
$ 70
$ 71
$ 73
$ 74
$ 76
$ 77
$ 78
$ 79
$ 81
$ 82
$ 84
$ 85
$ 86
$ 88
$ 89
$ 91
$ 92
$ 94
$ 96
$ 97
$ 99
$ 101
-
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
25 Year PV
25 Year Annualized Value
Cost Adjustment
ECOI
G
TCOI
H
(Million $)
G = (B*(D + F))/10°
$
$
$
$ 2
$ 4
$ 7
$ 7
$ 8
$ 8
$ 8
$ 8
$ 8
$ 8
$ 7
$7
/
$ 7
$ 7
$ 7
$ 6
$ 6
$ 6
$ 6
$ 5
$ 5
$ 5
$ 94
$ 5
G = (B*(E + F))/10"
$
$
$
$ 1
$ 1
$<-)
£
$0
^
$0
^
$<-)
£
$<-)
£
$0
^
$0
^
$<-)
£
$<-)
£
$0
^
$0
^
$<-)
£
$<-)
£
$0
^
$0
^
$<-)
£
$0
^
$0
^
$<-)
£
$ 1
$ 29
$ 2
Notes: Values are in 2003$. In the Ground Water Rule EA, rotavirus is used as a representative illness for the Type A Viruses. Detail may not sum to totals due to independent
rounding.

1A cost adjustment is the value of direct (medical) and indirect (time losses) costs that are saved when an illness of Type A or B is avoided. These estimates represent only the
quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unquantified benefits are expected to compose a significant portion of the overall benefits of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and
would cause the Cost Adjustment to increase .
Sources:   Column A:  Ch. 5, Exhibit 5.16.
          Column C:  2003 real GDP from Bureau of Economic Analysis, subsequent years calculated based on percent change projections from Congressional Budget
          Office (January 26, 2004). Projections for years beyond 2014 based on percent change reported for 2014 based on available information. Population projections
          used in assessing GDP on a per capital basis are from US Census Bureau (NP-T1: Middle Series).
          Columns D, E: Base Year value from Exhibit 5.a; 2007 - 2030 values calculated as shown above.
          Column F:  Exhibit H.S.a
              Economic Analysis for the
              Final Ground Water Rule
H-61
October 2006

-------
                           Exhibit H.12n  Cost Adjustment for Type B Illness, Alternative 3,
                                                       7 Percent Discount Rate
Yearn
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
Undiscounted
Cases Avoided
A
_
-
-
-
746
1,277
1,949
2,147
2,301
2,545
2,616
2,819
2,925
3,099
3,204
3,261
3,313
3,355
3,458
3,521
3,567
3,619
3,673
3,701
3,723
3,753
Discounted Cases
Avoided
B
B = A/1. 07A(n -2006)
-
-
-
609
974
1,390
1,430
1,433
1,482
1,423
1,433
1,390
1,376
1,329
1,265
1,201
1,137
1,095
1,042
986
935
887
835
785
740
%Change in
Income (Real GDP
per Capita)
c
_
Base Year
2.3%
3.9%
3.3%
2.3%
1 .9%
2.0%
2.0%
1 .8%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
Lost Time
w/Growth
Factor (ECOI)
D
Lost Time
w/Growth
Factor (TCOI)
E
Direct
Medical Costs
F
($)
(1+C) * Prior Year's Lost Time
$ 520
$ 532
$ 553
$ 571
$ 585
$ 595
$ 607
$ 619
$ 630
$ 641
$ 651
$ 662
$ 673
$ 684
$ 696
$ 708
$ 720
$ 732
$ 744
$ 757
$ 770
$ 783
$ 797
$ 810
$ 824
$ 158
$ 162
$ 168
$ 173
$ 177
$ 181
$ 184
$ 188
$ 191
$ 194
$ 198
$ 201
$ 204
$ 208
$ 211
$ 215
$ 218
$ 222
$ 226
$ 230
$ 234
$ 238
$ 242
$ 246
$ 250
-
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
25 Year PV
25 Year Annualized Value
Cost Adjustment
ECOI
G
TCOI
H
(Million $)
G = (B*(D + F))/10"
$
$
$
$ 0
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$4
I
$4
I
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 13
$ 1
G = (B*(E + F))/10"
$
$
$
$ 0.1
$ 0.2
$ 0.3
$ 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
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.3
$ 0.2
$ 0.2
$ 5
$ 0.3
Note: Values are in 2003$. A decrement for rotavirus illness was the best available data for Type A illnesses as well as Type B, and is used as a low estimate for Type B
Illnesses, which are known to be generally more severe than those of Type A. Detail may not sum to totals due to independent rounding.

1A cost adjustment is the value of direct (medical) and indirect (time losses) costs that are saved when an illness of Type A or B is avoided. These estimates represent only the
quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unquantified benefits are expected to compose a significant portion of the overall benefits of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and
would cause the Cost Adjustment to increase .
Sources:   Column A:  Ch. 5,  Exhibit 5.16.
          Column C:  2003 real GDP from Bureau of Economic Analysis, subsequent years calculated based on percent change projections from Congressional Budget
          Office (January 26, 2004). Projections for years beyond 2014 based on percent change reported for 2014 based on available information. Population projections
          used in assessing  GDP on a per capital basis are from US Census Bureau (NP-T1: Middle Series).
          Columns D, E: Base Year value from Exhibit 5.a; 2007 - 2030 values calculated as shown above.
          Column F: Exhibit H.S.a
              Economic Analysis for the
              Final Ground Water Rule
H-62
October 2006

-------
                           Exhibit H.12o  Cost Adjustment for Type A Illness, Alternative 4,
                                                       7 Percent Discount  Rate
Yearn
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
Undiscounted
Cases Avoided
A

-
-
-
-
-
174,849
174,849
174,849
174,849
174,849
174,849
174,849
174,849
174,849
174,849
174,849
174,849
174,849
174,849
174,849
174,849
174,849
174,849
174,849
174,849
174,849
Discounted Cases
Avoided
B

B = A/1. 07"(n -2006)
-
-
-
-
133,391
124,665
116,509
108,887
101,764
95,106
88,884
83,069
77,635
72,556
67,809
63,373
59,227
55,353
51,731
48,347
45,184
42,228
39,466
36,884
34,471
%Change in
Income (Real GDP
per Capita)
c

-
Base Year
2.3%
3.9%
3.3%
2.3%
1 .9%
2.0%
2.0%
1 .8%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
Lost Time
w/Growth
Factor (ECOI)
D
Lost Time
w/Growth
Factor (TCOI)
E
Direct
Medical Costs
F
($)
(1+C) * Prior Year's Lost Time
$ 243
$ 249
$ 259
$ 267
$ 274
$ 279
$ 284
$ 290
$ 295
$ 300
$ 305
$ 310
$ 315
$ 320
$ 326
$ 331
$ 337
$ 342
$ 348
$ 354
$ 360
$ 366
$ 373
$ 379
$ 386
$ 63
$ 65
$ 67
$ 70
$ 71
$ 73
$ 74
$ 76
$ 77
$ 78
$ 79
$ 81
$ 82
$ 84
$ 85
$ 86
$ 88
$ 89
$ 91
$ 92
$ 94
$ 96
$ 97
$ 99
$ 101
-
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
$ 19
25 Year PV
25 Year Annualized Value
Cost Adjustment
ECOI
G
TCOI
H
(Million $)
G = (B*(D+ F))/10°
$
$
$
$
$ 39
$ 37
$ 35
$ 34
$ 32
$ 30
$ 29
$ 27
$ 26
$ 25
$ 23
$ 22
$ 21
$ 20
$ 19
$ 18
$ 17
$ 16
$ 15
$ 15
$ 14
$ 355
$ 20
G = (B*(E+ F))/10°
$
$
$
$
$ 12
$ 11
$ 11
$ 10
$ 10
$ 9
$ 9
$ 8
$ 8
$ 7
$ 7
$ 7
$ 6
$ 6
$ 6
$ 5
$ 5
$ 5
$ 5
$ 4
$ 4
$ 108
$ 6
Notes: Values are in 2003$. In the Ground Water Rule EA, rotavirus is used as a representative illness for the Type A Viruses.  Detail may not sum to totals due to independent
rounding.

1A cost adjustment is the value of direct (medical) and indirect (time losses) costs that are saved when an illness of Type A or B is avoided. These estimates represent only the
quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unquantified benefits are expected to compose a significant portion of the overall benefits of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and
would cause the Cost Adjustment to increase .
Sources:   Column A:  Ch. 5, Exhibit 5.16.
          Column C:  2003 real GDP from Bureau of Economic Analysis, subsequent years calculated based on percent change projections from Congressional Budget Office
          (January 26, 2004). Projections for years beyond 2014 based on percent change reported for 2014 based on available information. Population projections used in
          assessing GDP on a per capital basis are from US Census Bureau (NP-T1: Middle Series).
          Columns D, E: Base Year value from Exhibit 5.a; 2007 - 2030 values calculated as shown above.
          Column F:  Exhibit H.S.a
              Economic Analysis for the
              Final Ground Water Rule
H-63
October 2006

-------
                           Exhibit H.12p  Cost Adjustment for Type B Illness, Alternative 4,
                                                       7 Percent Discount Rate
Yearn
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
Undiscounted
Cases Avoided
A
_
-
-
-
-
10,011
10,011
10,011
10,011
10,011
10,011
10,011
10,011
10,011
10,011
10,011
10,011
10,011
10,011
10,011
10,011
10,011
10,011
10,011
10,011
10,011
Discounted Cases
Avoided
B
B = A/1. 07"(n -2006)
-
-
-
-
7,638
7,138
6,671
6,235
5,827
5,446
5,089
4,756
4,445
4,154
3,883
3,629
3,391
3,169
2,962
2,768
2,587
2,418
2,260
2,112
1,974
%Change in
Income (Real GDP
per Capita)
c
_
Base Year
2.3%
3.9%
3.3%
2.3%
1 .9%
2.0%
2.0%
1.8%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1 .7%
1.7%
1.7%
Lost Time
w/Growth
Factor (ECOI)
D
Lost Time
w/Growth
Factor (TCOI)
E
Direct
Medical Costs
F
($)
(1+C) * Prior Year's Lost Time
$ 520
$ 532
$ 553
$ 571
$ 585
$ 595
$ 607
$ 619
$ 630
$ 641
$ 651
$ 662
$ 673
$ 684
$ 696
$ 708
$ 720
$ 732
$ 744
$ 757
$ 770
$ 783
$ 797
$ 810
$ 824
$ 158
$ 162
$ 168
$ 173
$ 177
$ 181
$ 184
$ 188
$ 191
$ 194
$ 198
$ 201
$ 204
$ 208
$ 211
$ 215
$ 218
$ 222
$ 226
$ 230
$ 234
$ 238
$ 242
$ 246
$ 250
-
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
$ 65
25 Year PV
25 Year Annualized Value
Cost Adjustment
ECOI
G
TCOI
H
(Million $)
G = (B*(D+ F))/10°
$
$
$
$
$ 5
$ 5
$ 4
$ 4
$ 4
$ 4
$ 4
$ 3
$ 3
$ 3
$ 3
$0
O
$ 3
$ 3
$o
^
$0
z
$o
^
$o
^
$0
z
$o
^
$ 2
$ 45
$ 3
G = (B*(E + F))/10°
$
$
$
$
$ 2
$<-)
£
$0
^
$ 2
$ 1
$4
I
$ 1
$ 1
$4
I
$ 1
$ 1
$4
I
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 1
$ 16
$ 1
Note: Values are in 2003$. A decrement for rotavirus illness was the best available data for Type A illnesses as well as Type B, and is used as a low estimate for Type B
Illnesses, which are known to be generally more severe than those of Type A. Detail may not sum to totals due to independent rounding.

1A cost adjustment is the value of direct (medical) and indirect (time losses) costs that are saved when an illness of Type A or B is avoided. These estimates represent only the
quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unquantified benefits are expected to compose a significant portion of the overall benefits of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and
would cause the Cost Adjustment to increase .
Sources:   Column A:  Ch. 5,  Exhibit 5.16.
          Column C:  2003 real GDP from Bureau of Economic Analysis, subsequent years calculated based on percent change projections from Congressional Budget Office
          (January 26, 2004). Projections foryears beyond 2014 based on percent change reported for 2014 based on available information. Population projections used in
          assessing GDP on a per capital basis are from US Census Bureau (NP-T1: Middle Series).
          Columns D, E: Base Year value from Exhibit 5.a; 2007 - 2030 values calculated as shown above.
          Column F: Exhibit H.S.a
              Economic Analysis for the
              Final Ground Water Rule
H-64
October 2006

-------
    H.2.2.4
Calculating the net cost numerator
           The Total Cost Adjustment in annualized terms was calculated for each regulatory alternative in
    Section H.2.2.3 (all values were annualized). Exhibit H. 13 subtracts the Total Cost Adjustment specific
    to each alternative from the regulatory costs for that alternative, at 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates.

           Using a 3 percent discount rate and the ECOI approach, the lowest Net Cost is associated with the
    least stringent alternative (Alternative 1) and the  highest with the most stringent (Alternative 4).  Results
    based upon TCOI approach exhibit a similar pattern.
      Exhibit H.13 Net Cost for All Rule Alternatives, 3 and 7 Percent Discount Rates
Rule
Alternative

A1
A2
A3
A4

A1
A2
A3
A4
Rule Cost
Cost Adjustment1
Type A Illness
ECOI
TCOI
Type B Illness
ECOI
TCOI
Net Cost

ECOI

TCOI
(Million $)
A
B
C
D
E
F = A - (B+D)
G = A - (C+E)
3 Percent
$ 15
$ 62
$ 68
$ 686
$ 1
$ 8
$ 9
$ 32
$ 0
$ 3
$ 3
$ 10
$ 0
$ 1
$ 1
$ 4
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 1
$ 14
$ 53
$ 58
$ 650
$ 15
$ 59
$ 65
$ 675
7 Percent
$ 15
$ 62
$ 69
$ 665
$ 1
$ 5
$ 5
$ 20
$ 0
$ 2
$ 2
$ 6
$ 0
$ 1
$ 1
$ 3
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
$ 1
$ 14
$ 57
$ 63
$ 642
$ 15
$ 61
$ 67
$ 658
Notes:  Numbers are annualized.  Detail may not sum to total due to independent rounding.
1 A cost adjustment is the value of direct (medical) and indirect (time losses) costs that are saved when an illness of Type A or B is
avoided. These estimates represent only the quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unquantified benefits are expected to
compose a significant portion of the overall benefits of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and would cause the Cost
Adjustment to increase and the net rule cost to decrease .
Sources:       Column A: Ch. 6, Exhibit 6.30
              Columns B-E: Exhibits H.12a-o
    H.2.3  Cost Effectiveness Based on Avoided Cases of Type A and Type B Illness

           The CEA ratio is the average cost per MILY saved by each regulatory alternative. In Exhibit
    H. 14, the Net Cost estimates  developed in Section H.2.2 are divided by the MILYs saved for each
    alternative to yield this ratio. The cost per MILY ratios for the Final GWR and Alternative 3 are similar
    ($297,396 and $301,571 using the high decrement estimate, and $644,893 and $654,928 using the low
    decrement estimate, respectively; a 3 percent discount rate; and the ECOI approach). The cost per MILY
    Economic Analysis for the
    Final Ground Water Rule
                               H-65
October 2006

-------
of the Final GWR is approximately $4,000 to $11,000 (using high and low decrement estimates and the
ECOI and TCOI approaches) less than that of Alternative 3, which is the next most cost effective option.
Using a 7 percent discount rate and the ECOI or TCOI approach, the cost per MILY of the Final GWR is
approximately $9,000 to $22,000 less than that of the next most cost effective option, Alternative 3. The
cost per MILY of the Final GWR is approximately $157,000 to $328,000 less than the third most cost
effective option, Alternative 1 (using high and low decrement estimates and the ECOI and TCOI
approaches).  The highest cost per MILY is associated with Alternative 4: approximately $963,000 to
$2,200,000 per MILY using the high and low decrement estimates, a 3 percent discount rate, and the
ECOI approach.

       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 a threshold, 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
cost per MILY ratios presented in this analysis are greater than these thresholds; however, these estimates
do not consider nonqualified benefits.

       In the primary analysis of this EA, the benefits are expected to extend beyond those quantified for
Types A and B viral illnesses. Equivalently, if this analysis were  to incorporate QALY decrements and
account for additional viral or bacterial illnesses, the MILYs saved would increase. A discussion of
nonqualified benefits is presented in Chapters 5 and 8 of this EA (sections 8.41 and 5.4.3). The
estimated benefits from avoiding bacterial illnesses based on waterborne bacterial outbreak cases and
associated hospitalization rates are estimated to be five times the benefits estimated in the primary
analysis.

       Cost effectiveness can be considered further with an incremental CEA, which describes how
much additional benefit is saved per additional unit cost expended from one alternative to the next. 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
narrower by comparison. Alternatives 2 (the Final GWR), 3, and  4 show a pattern of increasing
incremental cost with increasing stringency when using either the  ECOI or TCOI approach and 3 and 7
percent discount rates. When comparing the incremental cost per MILY (Exhibit H. 15)  to the thresholds
(i.e., $50,000 and $100,000) described above, each alternative is greater than these thresholds.

       An additional analysis that can be performed is a breakeven analysis. This analysis uses the
arbitrary threshold estimates discussed above ($50,000 and $100,000 per MILY) and the MILYs
calculated in Section H.2.1.3 to calculate a maximum rule cost that would break even with the costs
allowed by these thresholds.  Exhibits H. 16a-d present two estimates of the break even cost of the rule
alternatives based on the lower and higher estimates  of rotavirus illness decrements as discussed in
section H.2.1; the lower, more stringent break even cost estimate reflects the lower (for less severe illness)
Economic Analysis for the                         H-66                                   October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
rotavirus decrement estimate. For example, using a threshold of $100,000 per MILY expenditure and a 3
percent discount rate, a Final Rule cost lower than $8 million to $18 million (based on the lower and
higher estimates, respectively, of a rotavirus illness decrement) would break even. At approximately $53
million and $59 million (using the ECOI and TCOI approaches, respectively), the net cost of the Final
GWR is higher than this range.  Similarly, the net costs for the other alternatives are higher than their
break even costs.

       For each of the cost effectiveness measures described above, the costs of the Final GWR and its
alternatives Al, A3, and A4 are higher than the cost effective thresholds of $50,000 and $100,000 cost
per MILY. However, the inclusion of benefits beyond the Type A and B viral illnesses could
significantly increase the cost effectiveness of each alternative. In Chapters 5 and 8 of the EA, an
estimate based only on avoided deaths and hospitalization costs for outbreaks of waterborne bacterial
illness suggests an increase by a multiple 5 of the primary analysis benefits. The increase in cost
effectiveness based on a fuller accounting of MILYs saved from additional illnesses avoided by the Final
GWR and alternatives would not necessarily be directly equivalent to the increase in the primary benefits.
However, the estimate of a portion of costs potentially avoided for bacterial illnesses indicates that the
additional MILYs saved (and the increase in cost effectiveness) could be significant when other
waterborne illnesses are considered.
Economic Analysis for the                        H-67                                   October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                      Exhibit H.14a  Cost Effectiveness Analysis By Rule Alternative,
                                              3 Percent Discount Rate
Rule Alternative
A1
A2
A3
A4
Net Rule Cost
ECOI
TCOI
(Million$)
A
$ 14
$ 53
$ 58
$ 650
B
$ 15
$ 59
$ 65
$ 675
MILYs 1
Low
High
(Years)
C
14
81
88
309
D
30
177
192
675
Cost per MILY1
ECOI
Low
High
TCOI
Low
High
($)
E = A*106/D
$ 453,911
$ 297,396
$ 301,571
$ 963,307
F = A*106/C
$ 972,530
$ 644,893
$ 654,928
$ 2,102,460
E = B*106/D
$ 488,941
$ 333,153
$ 337,688
$ 1 ,000,044
E = B*106/C
$ 1 ,047,583
$ 722,430
$ 733,364
$ 2,182,638
Note: Values are annualized.  Results shown are combined for Types A and B illnesses avoided.
1 Results are based on a low and high QALY decrement for rotavirus-like symptoms presented in Cook et al. (1994).  Cook et al. decrements
ranged from 0.19 for the mildest case to 0.53 for the most severe (0.32 for the moderate cases). At the high end, they are consistent with FDA
estimates based on expert judgement; having the low and high estimates provides a sensitivity analysis that allows for cases that cover a range
in severity.

These estimates represent only the quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unqualified benefits are expected to compose a significant portion of
the overall benefits of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and would cause the Cost Adjustment (Ex. 12a-p) to increase. This would cause
a decrease in net rule cost and the Cost per MILY (increasing the cost effectiveness of the Rule).
Sources:   Columns A,B: Exhibit H.13
           Columns C,D: Exhibit H.10
                      Exhibit H.14b  Cost Effectiveness Analysis By Rule Alternative,
                                              7 Percent Discount Rate
Rule Alternative
A1
A2
A3
A4
Net Rule Cost
ECOI
TCOI
(Million$)
A
$ 14
$ 57
$ 63
$ 642
B
$ 15
$ 61
$ 67
$ 658
MILYs 1
Low
High
(Years)
C
11
73
79
290
D
25
158
172
633
Cost per MILY 1
ECOI
Low
High
i
E = A*106/C
$ 581,410
$ 359,042
$ 368,296
$ 1,015,469
F = A*106/D
$ 1,268,781
$ 778,482
$ 800,181
$ 2,216,305
TCOI
Low
High
$)
E = B*106/C
$ 605,595
$ 383,582
$ 392,878
$ 1,040,460
E = B*106/D
$ 1,321,558
$ 831 ,691
$ 853,588
$ 2,270,848
     Note: Values are annualized. Results shown are combined for Types A and B illnesses avoided.

     1Results are based on a low and high QALY decrement for rotavirus-like symptoms presented in Cooket al. (1994). Cook et al.
     decrements ranged from 0.19 for the mildest case to 0.53 for the most severe (0.32 for the moderate cases). At the high end, they
     are consistent with FDA estimates based on expert judgement; having the low and high estimates provides a sensitivity analysis that
     allows for cases that cover a  range in severity.

     These estimates represent only the quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unquantified benefits are expected to compose a
     significant portion of the overall benefits of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and would cause the Cost Adjustment (Ex. 12a-p)
     to increase. This would cause a decrease in net rule cost and the Cost per MILY (increasing the cost effectiveness of the Rule).

     Sources:  Columns A,B: Exhibit H. 13
                Columns C,D: Exhibit H.10
          Economic Analysis for the
          Final Ground Water Rule
H-68
October 2006

-------
                  Exhibit  H.15a  Incremental  Cost Effectiveness Analysis  By Rule Alternative,
                                                     3 Percent Discount Rate
Rule Alternative
A1
A2
A3
A4
Net Cost
ECOI
TCOI
(Million $)
A
$ 14
$ 53
$ 58
$ 650
B
$ 15
$ 59
$ 65
$ 675
MILYs 1
Low
High
(Year A?)
C
14
81
88
309
D
30
177
192
675
Incremental Net Cost
ECOI
TCOI
(Million $)
E = An-Afn.r;
$ 14
$ 39
$ 5
$ 593
F - Bn - Bfnj)
$ 15
$ 44
$ 6
$ 610
Incremental MILYs 1
Low
High
(Years)
G = Cn - C(n.,j
14
67
7
221
H = Dn-D(n.1)
30
146
15
483
Incremental Cost per MILY 1
ECOI
Low
High
($
I=E*106/H
$ 453,911
$ 264,896
$ 350,422
$ 1,225,892
J=E*106/G
$ 972,530
$ 575,864
$ 774,647
$ 2,680,863
TCOI
Low
High

M = F/H
$ 488,941
$ 300,804
$ 390,760
$ 1,262,874
N = F/G
$ 1,047,583
$ 653,924
$ 863,819
$ 2,761,738
Note: Values are annualized. Results shown are combined for Types A and B illnesses avoided.
1 Results are based on a low and high QALY decrement for rotavirus-like symptoms presented in Cooket al. (1994). Cooket al. decrements ranged from 0.19 for the mildest
case to 0.53 for the most severe (0.32 for the moderate cases). At the  high end, they are consistent with FDA estimates based on expert judgement; having the low and high
estimates provides a sensitivity analysis that allows for cases that cover a range in severity.

These estimates represent only the quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unqualified benefits are expected to compose a significant portion of the overall benefits of the Rule
(Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and would cause the Cost Adjustment (Ex. 12a-p) to increase. This would cause a decrease in net rule cost and the Incremental Net Cost per
MILY (increasing the cost effectiveness of the Rule).
Sources: Columns A- D, Exhibit H.14a
                   Exhibit H.15b Incremental Cost Effectiveness Analysis By  Rule Alternative,
                                                     7  Percent Discount Rate
Rule Alternative
A1
A2
A3
A4
Net Cost
ECOI
TCOI
(Million $)
A
$ 14
$ 57
$ 63
$ 642
B
$ 15
$ 61
$ 67
$ 658
MILYs 1
Low
High
(Year A?)
C
11
73
79
290
D
25
158
172
633
Incremental Net Cost
ECOI
TCOI
(Million $)
E = An-Afn.r;
$ 14
$ 42
$ 7
$ 579
F - Bn - B(n_i)
$ 15
$ 46
$ 7
$ 591
Incremental MILYs 1
Low
High
(Years)
G = Cn - C(n-1)
11
61
6
211
H = Dn-D(n.i)
25
133
14
461
Incremental Cost per MILY 1
ECOI
Low
High
($
I = E/H
$ 581,410
$ 317,480
$ 473,999
$ 1,256,582
J = E/G
$ 1,268,781
$ 687,541
$ 1,054,463
$ 2,747,203
TCOI
Low
High

M = F/H
$ 605,595
$ 342,087
$ 499,043
$ 1,281,726
N = F/G
$ 1,321,558
$ 740,831
$ 1,110,177
$ 2,802,173
Note: Values are annualized. Results shown are combined for Types A and B illnesses avoided.

1 Results are based on a low and high QALY decrement for rotavirus-like symptoms presented in Cooket al. (1994).  Cooket al. decrements ranged from 0.19 for the mildest
case to 0.53 for the most severe (0.32 for the moderate cases). At the  high end, they are consistent with FDA estimates based on expert judgement; having the low and high
estimates provides a sensitivity analysis that allows for cases that cover a range in severity.

These estimates represent only the quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unqualified benefits are expected to compose a significant portion of the overall benefits of the Rule
(Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and would cause the Cost Adjustment (Ex. 12a-p) to increase. This would cause a decrease in net rule cost and the Incremental Net Cost per
MILY (increasing the cost effectiveness of the Rule).

Sources: Columns A- D, Exhibit H.14b
              Economic Analysis for the
              Final Ground Water Rule
H-69
October 2006

-------
 Exhibit H.16a  Breakeven Analysis By Rule Alternative, 3 Percent Discount Rate,
                                 $50,000 Per MILY Threshold
Rule
Alternative
A1
A2
A3
A4
MILYs 1
Low
High
(Years)
A
14
81
88
309
B
30
177
192
675
Breakeven Cost Assuming
$50,000/MILY Threshold 1
Low
High
Net Cost
ECOI
TCOI
(Million $)
C = $50,000*A/106
$ 1
$ 4
$ 4
$ 15
D = $50,000*6/1 06
$ 2
$ 9
$ 10
$ 34
E
$ 14
$ 53
$ 58
$ 650
F
$ 15
$ 59
$ 65
$ 675
      Note: Values are annualized. Results shown are combined for Types A and B illnesses avoided.
        1 Results are based on a low and high QALY decrement for rotavirus-like symptoms presented in Cook
      et al. (1994).  Cooket al. decrements ranged from 0.19 for the mildest case to 0.53 for the most severe
      (0.32 for the moderate cases). At the high end, they are consistent with FDA estimates based on expert
      judgement; having the low and high estimates provides a sensitivity analysis that allows for cases that
      cover a range in severity.
         These estimates represent only the quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unqualified benefits are
      expected to compose a significant portion of the overall benefits of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the
      EA) and would cause the Cost Adjustment (Ex. 12a-p) to increase. This would cause an increase in
      MILYs, a decrease in net rule cost, and an increase in the breakeven cost (increasing the cost
      effectiveness of the Rule).
      Sources: Columns A,B - Exhibit H.10; Columns E,F - Exhibit H.13
  Exhibit H.16b Breakeven Analysis By Rule Alternative, 3 Percent Discount Rate,
                                $100,000 Per MILY Threshold
Rule
Alternative
A1
A2
A3
A4
MILYs 1
Low
High
(Years)
A
14
81
88
309
B
30
177
192
675
Breakeven Cost Assuming
$100,000/MILY Threshold 1
Low
High
Net Cost
ECOI
TCOI
(Million $)
C = $100,000* A/106
$ 1
$ 8
$ 9
$ 31
D = $1 00,000*6/1 06
$ 3
$ 18
$ 19
$ 68
E
$ 14
$ 53
$ 58
$ 650
F
$ 15
$ 59
$ 65
$ 675
      Note: Values are annualized. Results shown are combined for Types A and B illnesses avoided.
        1 Results are based on a low and high QALY decrement for rotavirus-like symptoms presented in Cook
      et al. (1994).  Cooket al. decrements ranged from 0.19 for the mildest case to 0.53 for the most severe
      (0.32 for the moderate cases). At the high end, they are consistent with FDA estimates based on expert
      judgement; having the low and high estimates provides a sensitivity analysis that allows for cases that
      cover a range in severity.
         These estimates represent only the quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unqualified benefits are
      expected to compose a significant portion of the overall benefits of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the
      EA) and would cause the Cost Adjustment (Ex. 12a-p) to increase. This would cause an increase in
      MILYs,  a decrease in net rule cost, and an increase in the breakeven cost (increasing the cost
      effectiveness of the Rule).
      Sources: Columns A,B - Exhibit H.10; Columns E,F - Exhibit H.13
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
H-70
October 2006

-------
 Exhibit H.16c  Breakeven Analysis By Rule Alternative, 7 Percent Discount Rate,
                                 $50,000 Per MILY Threshold
Rule
Alternative
A1
A2
A3
A4
MILYs 1
Low
High
(Years)
A
11
73
79
290
B
25
158
172
633
Breakeven Cost Assuming
$50,000/MILY Threshold 1
Low
High
Net Cost
ECOI
TCOI
(Million $)
C=$50,000*A/106
$ 1
$ 4
$ 4
$ 14
D=$50,000*B/106
$ 1
$ 8
$ 9
$ 32
E
$ 14
$ 57
$ 63
$ 642
G
$ 15
$ 61
$ 67
$ 658
   Note: Values are annualized.  Results shown are combined for Types A and B illnesses avoided.


     1 Results are based on a low and high QALY decrement for rotavirus-like symptoms presented in Cook et al.
   (1994). Cooket al. decrements ranged from 0.19 for the mildest case to 0.53 for the most severe (0.32 for the
   moderate cases).  At the high end, they are consistent with FDA estimates based on expert judgement; having
   the low and high estimates provides a sensitivity analysis that allows for cases that cover a range in severity.
      These estimates represent only the quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unqualified benefits are expected
   to compose a significant portion of the overall benefits of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and would
   cause the Cost Adjustment (Ex. 12a-p) to increase.  This would cause an increase in MILYs,  a decrease in net
   rule cost, and an increase in the breakeven cost (increasing the cost effectiveness of the Rule).

   Sources:  Columns A,B - Exhibit H.10; Columns E,F - Exhibit H.13
 Exhibit H.16d  Breakeven Analysis By Rule Alternative, 7 Percent Discount Rate,
                                 $100,000 Per MILY Threshold
Rule
Alternative
A1
A2
A3
A4
MILYs 1
Low
High
(Years)
A
11
73
79
290
B
25
158
172
633
Note: Values are annualized. Results s
Breakeven Cost Assuming
$100,000/MILY Threshold 1
Low
High
Net Cost
ECOI
TCOI
(Million $)
C = $100,000* A/106
$ 1
$ 7
$ 8
$ 29
nown are combined for
D = $1 00,000*6/1 06
$ 2
$ 16
$ 17
$ 63
E
$ 14
$ 57
$ 63
$ 642
F
$ 15
$ 61
$ 67
$ 658
Types A and B illnesses avoided.
     1 Results are based on a low and high QALY decrement for rotavirus-like symptoms presented in Cook et al.
   (1994). Cooket al. decrements ranged from 0.19 for the mildest case to 0.53 for the most severe (0.32 for the
   moderate cases).  At the high end, they are consistent with FDA estimates based on expert judgement; having
   the low and high estimates provides a sensitivity analysis that allows for cases that cover a range in severity.
      These estimates represent only the quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unqualified benefits are expected
   to compose a significant portion of the overall benefits of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and would
   cause the Cost Adjustment (Ex. 12a-p) to increase.  This would cause an increase in MILYs,  a decrease in net
   rule cost, and an increase in the breakeven cost (increasing the cost effectiveness of the Rule).
   Sources:  Columns A,B- Exhibit H.10; Columns E,F- Exhibit H.13
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
H-71
October 2006

-------
H.3    Conclusions

        In this CEA, the most protective alternative has the highest cost per MILY (Alternative 4).  The
Final Rule and Alternative 3 perform similarly by the measures of cost effectiveness presented in section
H.2.3, although the Final Rule is slightly more cost effective than the Alternative 3.

        Important considerations in reviewing the cost effectiveness of the rule include:

        1) This CEA uses a quality of life decrement (for rotavirus illness) that underestimates the value
          of avoiding Type B illnesses (explained in Section H.2);

        2) The  nonqualified benefits, described in Ch. 5 of this EA, are also not included in this CEA
          (e.g., illness due to co-occurring pathogens which the GWR will avoid are not counted); and

        3) The nonqualified benefits are  estimated to be significant (See  sections 8.41 and 5.4.3).

        In the health field, where QALYs analysis was 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 H. 1.0.

        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)

        The use of QALYs  (and MILYs) as a measure of effectiveness for environmental regulations is
still developing, and while this analysis provides one such framework, the Agency notes that there are
clearly many issues, both scientific and ethical, that need to be addressed with additional research.
Economic Analysis for the                        H-72                                   October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                 Appendix I

Analysis of Total Coliform Hit Rates in Drinking
  Water Systems with Ground Water Sources

-------
                                         Appendix I
              Analysis of Total Coliform Hit Rates in Drinking Water Systems
                                With Ground Water Sources
LI    Introduction

       The frequency of samples that test positive for total coliform (TC+) in ground water, in the
United States is an important driver in the analysis of the economic costs and benefits associated with the
new Ground Water Rule (GWR).  This Appendix is intended to expand upon the methodologies used to
assess this frequency. The analyses described below use data collected as part of the Data Verification
(DV) project, which verifies PWSs' data reported to the Federal Safe Drinking Water Information System
(SDWIS/Fed).  The state files collected during field visits to state offices report the number of total
coliform samples taken to comply with the Total Coliform Rule (TCR) and the number that tested
positive for total coliform. This project therefore provides an ideal source of data to estimate the
frequency of TC+ test results in ground water used for drinking water, by system type and population
served.

1.2    DV System Sampling and Data Collection Procedure

1.2.1   DV Study Purpose  and Scope

       Every public water system is  required to submit data collection information to the Federal Safe
Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS/Fed). To ensure accurate reporting of data, the DV Project
verifies the information  submitted to SDWIS/Fed by comparing it to the actual state files and databases.
The SDWIS/Fed does capture the number of TC+ samples, but it does not capture the number of total
samples taken. This information is collected, however, as part of the Data Verification field visits.
Contractor staff conduct DV site visits to a portion of states each year, averaging about 15 states over
each of the past few years, and have conducted DVs on United States territories and some direct
implementation1 (DI) programs, such as Region 8's DI program for Wyoming and Region 9's tribal DI
program. The records of a stratified random sample of public water systems are reviewed during each
visit.

1.2.2   Data Capture Forms and Data Collection

       The development of a standardized "data capture" form for collecting TCR compliance data (a
sample of a completed form  is shown in Exhibit I.I) allows for collection of data from on-site files and
databases for comparison with the SDWIS/Fed files. Each  DV site visit reviews a specific compliance
period, rather than a system's entire history. The data capture forms cover one year of TCR sampling
data: the year preceding the most recent quarter of data uploaded to SDWIS/Fed.  This information
includes the number of totaled samples of total coliform, E.coli, and fecal coliform-positive samples,
additional sampling resulting from positive samples, as well as monitoring, reporting, and maximum
contaminant level (MCL) violations.  Other data regarding the system  are downloaded from SDWIS/Fed
for the DV site visits and are available from other DV sheets (not shown). These data include the system
name, SDWIS identification number,  source water type, disinfection used, and the population served.
1 Direct Implementation (DI) refers to oversight of drinking water programs by EPA for those States that do not
have primacy.

Economic Analysis for the                         1-1                                   October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                      Exhibit 1.1 TCR Data Capture Table Example
D. TOTAL COLIFORM RULE
1. Routine Samples Required
2. Routine Samples Taken
3. M/R Vio - State (code)
4. M/R Vio - SDWIS (code)
5. M/R Vio - DV (code)
6. No. of Routine Samples TC+/FC+
7. Repeat Samples Required
8. Repeat Samples Taken
9. M/R Vio - State (code)
10. M/R Vio - SDWIS (code)
11. M/R Vio - DV (code)
12. Repeat Samples TC+/FC+(Y/N)
13. MCL Vio - State (code)
14. MCL Vio - SDWIS (code)
15. MCL Vio -DV (code)
JAN
2
2













FEE
2
2













MAR
2
2













APR
2
2













MAY
2
2













JUN
2
2













JUL
2
2













AUG
2
2



1TC+
4
3
26
26
26
2TC+
22
22
22
SEP
2- 5
5













OCT
2
2













NOV
2
1
NF
NF
24










DEC
2
2













1.2.3    Sampling Actions

        Designers of the DV project worked to create a dataset of sampling "actions"2 taken by water
systems on a state level, by system type3, and within certain bounds of accuracy.  These actions are
sampled via clustered sampling. The protocol used to choose systems to get a representative sample was
modified in the summer of 2004 to also sample by system size. In both protocols, the most recent version
of the SDWIS/Fed universe was the source of the sample universe.  The sample frame is representative of
all systems, not just ground water systems; ground water systems are not a separate sub sample

1.2.4    DV System Selection

        The DV project protocol uses a standardized table to determine sample sizes based on typical
confidence and error tolerance levels (USEPA, 2003c). In the pre-2004 protocol, the desired level of
confidence and tolerable level of error and the optimum sample size are established.  For each system
type, the protocol then calls for calculating the size of the entire population, equal to the total number of
actions in the state.  This number is generated by multiplying the number of systems in the state by the
average number of actions per system. If the state files are decentralized and the DV team cannot visit all
offices, the protocol is to use the total number of systems in the offices the team will visit rather than the
total number of systems in the state.  The sample size is then adjusted based on total number of actions in
the state. A random sample of systems is pulled from SDWIS/Fed for each type of system (CWS,
NTNCWS, and TNCWS).

        The pre-2004 protocol did not take into account the population that the system served,  and thus
sampled mostly very small water systems since most systems are in this size category. The new protocol
  "Actions" are violations the State detected and reported to SDWIS/Fed, violations the State detected but did not
report to SDWIS/Fed, violations the State did not detect, and all inventory information required to be submitted to
SDWIS/Fed.
3 Public water systems are divided into three types: community water systems (CWS), nontransient noncommunity
water systems (NTNCWS), and transient noncommunity water systems (TNCWS). Enough public water systems
are sampled in each state to create a dataset representative of each system type within that state. Samples sets are
stratified by system type because different system types have to adhere to different regulations.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
1-2
October 2006

-------
balances two objectives; it samples systems to create a data set that can be manipulated to represent both
the prevalence of different action occurrences and the correlation between actions and different system
size categories.

        The post-2004 protocol includes at least one very large system and creates a randomly selected
sample from the other systems weighted by the size of the population served. Large systems are four
times more likely than small systems to be chosen, while medium systems are twice as likely to be chosen
(Exhibit 1.2). A protocol that randomly sampled systems based purely on system size would be likely to
include very few actions taken by small systems, while under the pre-2004 protocol it is unlikely that
actions taken by very large systems will be represented in the sample.  Therefore, the weighting method
favors choosing larger systems, but not nearly to the extent of a weighting based purely on system size.
As with the original protocol, samples for each water system type within each state are drawn separately.
The desired level of confidence and acceptable error are also the same as in the pre-2004 protocol.
                               Exhibit 1.2 Weighting System
Systems Size
£1,000,000
10,000-999,999
3,301-9,999
<3,300
Weight
At least
4
2
1
one
       Under both protocols, the desired confidence level and acceptable level of error varied from state
to state. In states sampled using the pre-2004 protocol, the acceptable level of error was ±5 percent and
the confidence level was 90 or 95 percent, with a 90 percent confidence level generally being selected.
States sampled using the post-2004 protocol tended to have a confidence level of 95 percent and ±7
percent as the acceptable level of error. Texas, while sampling using the pre-2004 protocol, was only
sampled to the 90 percent confidence level.

1.3     Total Coliform Sampling Database

       For use in the GWR analysis, data capture forms for only ground water systems (no mixed
systems or GWUDI systems) from the 53 most recent DVs for 47 State programs, one territorial program,
and two EPA Regional DI programs were reviewed.  Two states, New York and North Dakota, are not
included in this  review since forms for those  states could not be located, and Wyoming was reviewed as a
DI program. The Virgin Islands had no ground water systems included in their samples. Arkansas has no
systems represented because only disinfecting systems or systems where it is not reported whether they
disinfected were included in the DV sample.  Four states, (Alaska, Colorado,  Connecticut, and Illinois),
Puerto Rico and Regional DI programs are also not included in this part of the analysis because necessary
data regarding the percent of systems that do not disinfect are not available for these locations.

       Three DVs of Florida are included in this review because Florida's files are decentralized, and
biannual DVs over 6 years  focused on different regions of Florida.  These combined data give a more
complete picture of TCR in Florida (although not all of Florida's regions have been reviewed).
Economic Analysis for the                         1-3                                   October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
       All three PWS types—community, nontransient noncommunity, and transient noncommunity—
are represented, except for the State of Michigan4. Disinfecting systems, systems with unknown
disinfection methods, and those reporting zero samples taken in the compliance period were not included.
Some groundwater systems treating to less than 4-logs by removal, inactivation, or State-approved
combination of these technologies would be subject to triggered monitoring; however, these systems
could not be distinguished from other disinfecting systems in the DV data. Therefore, only
nondisinfecting systems were used in this part of the analysis.  Systems that purchased and sold ground
water, but had no disinfection responsibilities, are included only if they tested their water for
contaminants.

       The state programs reviewed are from different compliance periods (Exhibit 1.3) and from one of
the two sampling protocols described above (Exhibit 1.4).  An access database was created to store the
information collected from the state files (Exhibit 1.5).
                       Exhibit 1.3  First Month of One Year of Data
Program
Alabama
Arizona
California
Delaware


Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
1 Year of Data
October, 2001
April, 2003
October, 2000
July, 2000
January, 1996
January, 1999
January, 2001
April, 2000
October, 2003
July, 2002
July, 1999
January, 2004 (draft)
April, 2000
April, 2002
January, 2004 (draft)
January, 2004 (draft)
January, 2002
July, 2003
July, 2001 (CWSs only)
April, 2001
October, 2002
October, 2002
July, 2000
January, 1999
Program
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico


North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

1 Year of Data
April, 1999
October, 1999
January, 2002
July, 2002


January, 2003
January, 2003
July, 2003
January, 1999
January, 2004 (draft)
April, 2002
April, 2003
October, 2001
January, 2002
July, 2003
July, 2003
January, 2001
July, 2003
January, 2003
April, 2004 (draft)
April, 2004 (draft)
January, 2004 (draft)

4 Michigan delegates all noncommunity supervision to local health departments, which have not yet been
subject to a data verification site visit when the database was compiled.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
1-4
October 2006

-------
          Exhibit 1.4  States Using Original or Second Sampling Protocols
                    Using Original (Pre-2004)
                            Protocol
  Using Second (Post-2004)
          Protocol
                    AL   IN   MS  NM   SD
                    AZ   KS  MO  NC   TN
                    CA   KY  MT  OH   UT
                    DE  MD  NE  OK   VT
                    FL  MA  NV  OR   WA
                    GA   Ml   NH   Rl
                    ID  MN  NJ  SC
       HI
       IA
       LA
      ME
      PA
TX
VA
Wl
WV
WY
                     Exhibit 1.5  TCR Access Database Data Fields
                               Data Fields in the TCR Database
      Responsible US EPA Region
      State, Territory, or Regional Tribe Acronym
      SDWIS ID
      System Name
      Primary System Business
      System Type
      Activity Status
      Population
      Disinfection
      First Month of Data Review Period
      Routine Samples  Required Federally
      Routine Samples  Required by the State
      Routine Samples  Taken
      Repeat Samples Taken	
  Routine Samples Total Coliform Positive
  Routine Samples Fecal Coliform Positive
  Routine Samples Positive for E. Coli
  Repeat Samples Total Coliform Positive
  Repeat Samples Fecal Coliform Positive
  Repeat Samples Positive for E. Coli
  Number of Routine Major M/R Violations
  Number of Routine Minor M/R Violations
  Number of Repeat Major M/R Violations
  Number of Repeat Minor M/R Violations
  Number of Acute MCL Violations
  Number of Monthly MCL Violations
  Data Entry Initials
  QA Reviewer Initials
       There are several anomalies in the data.  Some states, such as Texas, require all systems to
disinfect, but one nondisinfecting wholesale distributor is included because it took TCR samples.  In Iowa
and Ohio, several systems are labeled as employing "innovative" disinfection. Compilers of this database
believe this term is actually chlorine disinfection and an error in the original SDWIS database populated
this field with the term "innovative" erroneously. The disinfection methods employed by less than 1
percent of the systems in the survey were not available (Exhibit 1.6). Of these systems, one is in Arkansas
and 18 are in Ohio.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
1-5
                 October 2006

-------
        Exhibit 1.6 Number of Systems with Unreported Disinfection Methods
Population
Served
=100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3,301-IOK
10,001-50K
50,001-100K
100,001-1 Million
> 1 Million
Systems with
disinfection
11
5
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
unreported
methods









1.4    TC-Positive Hit Rate Analysis for the EA

1.4.1   Weighting Scheme

       For this analysis, the data are broken down into categories: state, type of PWS (community,
nontransient noncommunity, and transient noncommunity), and system size (initially in 8 size categories,
but eventually combined into two categories). Since the DV study has only been conducted on a portion
of the total groundwater systems in the United States, the analysis utilized a weighting system to make the
data more nationally representative.

       One of the pieces of information needed for the weighting factors is the total number of systems
in each category.  Data on the number of systems by type, size, and state are pulled from the SDWIS/Fed
inventory 2004, 4th Quarter. The inventory does not offer easy access to or complete information on the
number of systems that did not disinfect5, and so these values are estimated using a 1996 EPA study6.
Multiplying the percent nondisinfecting from the EPA study by the SDWIS/Fed number of systems
yielded the total number of nondisinfecting systems for each state.  Occasionally, this calculation resulted
in fewer systems than have been sampled in the DV study, especially in the larger size categories where
so few systems exist. In cases where the DV data contained more systems than the calculation yielded,
the number of systems in the DV study was used as the total number of systems since this was considered
the more accurate estimate.

       For each weighting category, the number of DV systems, the number of TC samples taken, and
the number of TC+ samples were tallied from the DV database. The raw hit rates are derived by dividing
the total TC+ samples by the total number of DV samples. These raw hit rates are  then weighted based
on the estimated number of total samples taken in each weighting category, calculated by multiplying the
5 The type of disinfection used by the systems in the DV project is drawn from SDWIS/Fed (and checked against
state files), but such an effort for all systems has not been performed. States are now required to submit this
information in SDWIS/fed and so more complete information will be available in the future, although the compiling
of these data is not straightforward because disinfection practices are not listed as part of the overall system
information, but are linked to entry points.
6Merkle JC. and Macler B A. 1996. Ground Water Disinfection and Protective Practices in the United States.
Washington (DC): US EPA.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
1-6
October 2006

-------
average number of samples taken per system7 by the total number of systems.  These weights give an
estimate of the current sampling patterns in place and reflect differences in the number of systems in
different size categories and differences in state requirements for sampling. The weighted national hit
rate for each weighting category (size and type of system) is derived by multiplying each raw hit rate by
its weight (the total number of samples), summing the weighted hit rates, and dividing by the sum of the
weights:
        Raw Sample
          Hit Rate
       Weight
          #TC +
         Samples

          #of
         Samples
 Average
 samples
per system
            DV Study Data
.   #of
' Systems
             SDWIS
            Inventory
Weighted Sample
Hit Rate (by State)
                             L
                         Sum of the Weighted
                      Sample Hit Rates (by State)
                          Sum of the Weights
                                      Weighted
                                       National
                                      Sample Hit
                                        Rates
1.4.2   Size Categories

       The above calculations were done for each of the nine size categories typically used in Federal
regulations. However, the results of this analysis revealed some anomalies in the data that led to the
decision to group systems into two size categories—those serving above and below 1,000 people.

       First, the DV data revealed no total coliform positive samples in the two noncommunity DV
systems serving over 3,300 people (one NTNCWS and one TNCWS). Thus, any grouping that used
3,300 or 10,000 persons served as a lower boundary would have produced the anomaly of no TC
contamination in those systems, based on data from only one system. Further, since these data are from
the DV study, only 1 year of data are examined for each of these two systems.  Assuming that
contamination was never possible, therefore, seemed imprudent.  This analysis sets the boundary at 1,000
people served, still results in small samples (only eight NTNCWSs and eight TNCWSs), but has the
benefit of providing some nonzero estimates of hit rates for these larger systems.

       Second, there are obvious breakpoints in terms of population size. For CWSs, that breakpoint is
at 1,000 people served; the three smallest categories have hit rates over 2 percent and larger systems have
hit rates less than 1 percent.  A similar break occurs in the data for noncommunity systems serving 3,300
people, but including the category of 3,300  served would introduce a sample size of one and a zero hit
rate for the remaining categories for both NTNCWSs and TNCWSs.

       Third, at this boundary (above and below  1,000 people served), the confidence intervals
(discussed in  further detail in the next section) are acceptable given the uncertainties in the data. The
confidence intervals show a narrow range for small systems (± 4 percent). For the  bigger systems, the
confidence intervals are larger, (± 11 to 29 percent) given the small sample size.  There is no way to
improve the confidence intervals without combining them with categories of smaller systems, which
would introduce summary data that would be inconsistent with the patterns seen  in the data by individual
size category. There are few nondisinfecting ground water systems serving over 1,000 people— only
7 The average number of samples taken per system is the sum of all samples taken by systems in the DV sample
divided by the total number of systems in the sample.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                          1-7
                                                    October 2006

-------
about 13 percent of CWSs, and less than 2 percent of both NTNCWSs and TNCWSs. For all these
reasons, a size boundary of 1,000 people served is appropriate and used throughout the analysis.

1.4.3   Confidence Intervals

       The result is that data pulled and summarized from the DV database for this analysis represent 43
states and span 1,252 water systems with 18,467 total coliform samples (Exhibit 1.7).
                                         Exhibit 1.7
     Number of Data Verification Systems and Samples Used in This Analysis,
                           by Type of System and System Size
Type of
System
cws
NTNCWS
TNCWS
System Size
(Population
Served)
<1,000
>1,000
<1,000
>1,000
<1,000
>1,000
Number
of DV
Systems
325
50
419
8
441
9
Number of
DV
Samples
4,553
7,902
3,317
170
2,396
129
       The confidence intervals for these hit rates are also approximated. They cannot be easily known
with precision for several reasons. One reason is because the sources of data used are from different time
periods. Another reason is that the percentage of systems in each state that do not disinfect are based on a
1996 study, and some discrepancies are noted with more current data (the DV data). As a result, this
analysis uses an approximation of the confidence intervals at a 90 percent confidence level and assumes a
percentage of 50 (the most conservative assumption possible when determining confidence intervals).
The estimated intervals are approximate and the more realistic intervals are probably broader given that
the TC samples are drawn from clustered, non-random samples.

       The confidence intervals are estimated by comparing the number of DV systems sampled to the
total number of systems.  The number of total systems used for this estimate is the number of
nondisinfecting systems used throughout the Economic Analysis (Exhibit 4.2). This includes systems in
states that are not used in the derivation of the hit rates, but represents the total universe of systems that
the hit rates are representing.  Confidence intervals were calculated for a number of possible size
categories; however, all calculations support the system point breakpoint of above/below 1,000 people
served, discussed below.  Exhibit 1.8 shows the final calculated hit rates along with their approximate
confidence intervals.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
1-8
October 2006

-------
        Exhibit 1.8 Total Coliform Positive Hit Rates and Confidence Intervals
Type of
System
CWS
NTNCWS
TNCWS
Size of System
(Population Served)
<1,000
>1,000
<1,000
>1,000
<1,000
>1,000
TC+ Hit Rate
(per sample)
2.72%
0.71%
2.98%
2.25%
6.36%
3.53%
Approximate
Confidence Interval
(at 90 Confidence,
Percentage 50)
± 4%
±11%
± 4%
± 29%
± 4%
± 27%
1.5    TC+ Samples

1.5.1   Estimate of Number of TC Samples

       While the above analysis does calculate the total number of samples taken per year by type of
system and size category, it does so for only a subset of the total groundwater systems in the United
States. Therefore, the dataset for this step was expanded to include disinfecting systems and systems in
states that had previously been excluded. The new dataset represents 2,774 system-years of data and
94,307 total coliform samples from 48 states, two Regional DI programs, and Puerto Rico8.

       However, even with the expanded data set, the data include relatively few noncommunity systems
serving more than 1,000 people, and none at all for NTNCWS serving more than  50,000 people and
TNCWS  serving more than 10,000 people. In order to have data in all categories and to minimize the
effect of sampling only a few large noncommunity systems, EPA grouped systems according to their
baseline monitoring requirements under the TCR and weighed the number of samples by the number of
systems subject to triggered monitoring.  The average number of samples per system was then calculated
by dividing the sum of the weighted number of samples by the sum of the number of systems subject to
triggered monitoring. The  estimated number of routine samples taken per system range from 7 to 1,496
per month (Exhibit 1.9).
8 Alaska (DV data started 10/1/2001, pre-2004), Arkansas (DV data started 1/1/2002, pre-2004), Colorado (DV data
started 4/1/2001, pre-2004), Connecticut (DV data started 4/1/2004, post-2004), Illinois (DV data started 7/1/2003,
post-2004), Puerto Rico (DV data started 1/1/1999, pre-2004), R8 Tribal DI (DV data started 1/1/2004 draft, post-
2004) and R9 Tribal DI (DV data started 1/1/2002, pre-2004).
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
1-9
October 2006

-------
    Exhibit 1.9  Estimated Number of Routine Total Coliform Samples Taken per
                  System per Year, by Type and Size of System
System Type
cws
NTNCWS + TNCWS
CWS + NTNCWS + TNCWS
Population
Served
<100
101-500
500-1 K
<100
101-500
500-1 K
1011-3300
3301-10K
10,001-50K
50,001-100K
>100,001
TCR Baseline # of
Routine Samples
per System
12
12
12
4
4
4
24
84
360
960
2,520
Estimated Number of
Routine Samples per
System
14
15
18
7
8
9
31
82
311
924
1,496
      Source: TCR baseline number of routine samples per system calculated in Chapter 4.
1.5.2  Estimate of Number of TC+ Samples

      Finally, EPA was able to estimate the frequency of TC+ samples per year per system by
multiplying the number of TC samples per year (from Exhibit 1.9) by the probability of a TC+ sample
(from Exhibit 1.8). Exhibit 1.10 shows these estimated frequencies.
      Exhibit 1.10  Estimated Number of TC+ Samples per System, per Year,
                         by System Size and System Type
System Type

CWS
NTNCWS
TNCWS
System Size (Population Served)
<100
0.38
0.22
0.47
101-500
0.41
0.23
0.48
501 -1K
0.49
0.28
0.60
1,001-3,300
0.22
0.70
1.1
3.301-10K
0.58
1.8
2.9
1 0,001 -50K
2.2
7.0
11.0
50,001 -100K
6.6
20.8
32.6
>100K
10.6
33.7
52.8
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
I-10
October 2006

-------
                                    Appendix J
       Changes in GWR Economic Analysis from Proposal to Final


J. 1    Introduction

       In preparing the final Ground Water Rule Economic Analysis (EA), EPA made changes
to the calculations of benefits and costs based on updated information that became available since
development of the economic analysis for the proposed GWR. The Regulatory Impact Analysis
(RIA) for the Proposed Ground Water Rule Document (USEPA, 2000h.) contains the proposed
GWR economic analysis.
J. 2   Benefits

       EPA conducted an updated literature search and refined the method for risk
characterization and for calculating and valuing the reduction in illnesses and deaths due to the
rule, as described in the following sections.
J.2.1   Hazard Identification

Key aspects that have remained the same

       Both the proposed GWR RIA and the final EA identify acute and chronic illnesses
(morbidity) and death (mortality) caused by viruses and bacteria as the primary adverse health
effects (hazards) that are addressed by the GWR. (See Section 5.2.2 of the GWR EA.)

       Both the proposed GWR RIA and the final EA focus on acute gastrointestinal illness and
associated mortality caused by viruses resulting from endemic exposures as the health hazard
endpoints that are quantified in the baseline risk assessment and in the risk reduction (benefits)
analyses of the GWR.

       Both the proposed GWR RIA and the final EA use two types of viruses to represent the
hazard from a variety of viruses that may occur in drinking water from ground water sources.
These are identified as Type A (relatively high infectivity, but generally lead to mild, non-life
threatening illnesses) and Type B (less infectious than Type A, but result in more severe illnesses
than Type A).

       Both the proposed GWR RIA and the final EA identify the very young, the elderly, and
the immunocompromised as sensitive subgroups with respect to the adverse  health effects
addressed by the GWR.

Key aspects that have changed

       Although, as noted above, both the proposed GWR RIA and final EA use Type A and
Type B viruses as categories to represent a variety of viruses that may occur in drinking water
from ground water sources, the final EA is more restrictive with respect to the range of viruses
represented.

Economic Analysis for the                     J-l                                October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
        In the hazard identification presented in the proposed GWR RIA, Type A viruses were
intended to explicitly include Norwalk virus, the Norwalk-like or small round structured viruses
(SRSV), calicivirus, adenovirus, astrovirus and other enteric viruses.  In the final EA, Type A
viruses are recognized as representing only a few strains of rotavirus.

        Similarly, in the hazard identification presented in the proposed GWR RIA, Type B
viruses were intended to include a range of enteroviruses including echovirus, coxsackie virus
and hepatitis A virus (HAV). In the final EA, Type B viruses are recognized as representing only
echoviruses.
J.2.2    Exposure Assessment

Key aspects that have remained the same

        Both the proposed GWR RIA and the final EA do the following:

        •   Focus on the occurrence of Type A and Type B viruses in source water for ground
           water systems.
        •   Address source water occurrence of Type A and Type B viruses in terms of a "hit
           rate" (probability that a given well ever has a virus) and a concentration (for those
           source waters that have virus present).

        Additionally, both the proposed GWR RIA and the final EA consider the following:

        •   Two strata with respect to virus concentrations:  a small fraction of wells that tend to
           have high virus concentrations in source water when virus is present; and the larger
           fraction of wells that tend to have relatively lower concentrations in source water
           when virus is present.
        •   Three levels of inactivation (disinfection) among ground water systems for reduction
           in virus concentrations between source water and finished water: none, 2-log
           inactivation, and 4-log inactivation.
        •   Finished water virus occurrence under normal operating conditions only (i.e.,
           occurrence of viruses is not explicitly considered in relation to treatment failures or to
           distribution system deficiencies).
        •   Populations consuming ground water from CWS, NTNCWS, and TNCWS, with
           different days of water consumption per year for those exposed at these three types of
           systems.
        •   Individual daily water consumption as a function of age based on the CSFII water
           consumption data.

        (See Section 5.2.3 of the GWREA.)
Economic Analysis for the                     J-2                                October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
Key aspects that have changed

       Both the methodology for characterizing virus hit rates and the data sources used to
derive them changed substantially between the proposed GWR RIA and the final EA.

       •   In the proposed GWR RIA, viral hit rates were based on data from two studies; in the
           final EA hit rates are based on data from 12 studies
       •   In the proposed GWR RIA, viral hit rates were derived primarily from cell culture
           data but were informed in the case of Type A viruses by PCR data; in the final EA hit
           rates were derived only from cell culture data
       •   The methodology used in the proposed GWR RIA to obtain hit rates was a
           frequentist approach and did not consider uncertainty; the methodology used in the
           final EA to obtain hit rates was a Bayesian approach and did include consideration of
           uncertainty.
       •   In the proposed GWR RIA, a well with a "hit" (virus positive) was assumed to have
           virus present at all times; in the final EA, a well with a "hit" is assumed to have virus
           present only a fraction of the time. The fraction of time present varies from one well
           to another.

       The methodology for characterizing virus concentrations and the data sources used to
changed between the proposed GWR RIA and the final EA

       •   In the proposed GWR RIA, virus concentrations were a function of whether a well
           was considered a "properly constructed well" (-83%) or "improperly  constructed
           well"  (-17%) based on data from the ASDWA (1998) Survey.  Virus  concentrations
           for the "properly constructed wells" were derived from the Abbaszadegan data; virus
           concentrations for "improperly constructed wells" (-17%) were derived from the
           Lieberman data.  In both cases, those data were used to estimate parameters of
           lognormal distributions of virus concentrations (one for properly and one for
           improperly constructed wells) from which values  were selected in the simulation
           analysis for entry points determined in the simulation to have a virus present.  In the
           final EA, virus concentrations were a function of whether wells were "less
           vulnerable" (-97%) or "more vulnerable (-3%) to fecal contamination (based on
           TCR MCL violation data. Virus concentrations for the "less vulnerable wells" were
           derived from the Abbaszadegan and Lindsey data; virus concentrations for the "more
           vulnerable wells" were derived from the Lieberman data. In the final  EA, the actual
           values from these studies were used in the simulation and selected randomly for those
           wells  determined to have virus present at some time.

       The approach to characterizing individual daily drinking water consumption changed
between the proposed GWR RIA and final EA.

       •   In the proposed GWR RIA, two sets of water consumption data from the USDA
           Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals  (CSFII) were used:  one set was
           based on "all sources, consumers only" with an overall mean of 1.24 L/day, used as
           the main analysis; the other set was based on "community water supply, all
           respondents" with an overall mean of 0.93 L/day and was used as a lower bound
           estimate. In the final EA, water consumption was based on a single set of water
           consumption data from CSFII for "all sources, all respondents" with an overall mean
           of 1.23 L/day.

Economic Analysis for the                     J-3                                October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
       •   Both the proposed GWR RIA and the final EA included consideration of age-group
           specific daily water intake as provided by CSFII. The proposed GWR RIA collapsed
           age groups prior to calculating infectivity risk to correspond with the morbidity data
           age bins; the final EA used all CSFII age groups to calculate infectivity risk and
           applied these, as appropriate, to the morbidity age bins.
       •   In the proposed GWR RIA, no adjustment was made for bottled water consumption.
           In the final EA, the mean water consumption for each age group was multiplied by
           0.87 to account for bottled water consumption (based on data for bottled water
           consumption from the same CSFII data).
       •   In the proposed GWR RIA, no adjustment was made for water consumption from
           noncommunity sources to account for these sources likely being only contributing to
           a portion of an  individual's daily water intake. In the final EA, the daily water
           consumption values (after the bottled water adjustment) were further multiplied by
           0.5 for NTNCWSs and by 0.4 for TNCWSs.

       The approach for characterizing the days of water consumption per year and the number
of individuals consuming water at TNCWSs changed between the proposed GWR RIA and the
final EA.

       •   In the proposed GWR RIA, it was assumed that individuals consuming water at
           TNCWSs did so for 15 days per year. In the final EA, it was assumed that
           individuals consuming water at TNCWSs did so for 10 days per year.
       •   In the proposed GWR RIA, the population consuming water from TNCWSs was
           taken as the population reported in SDWIS as being served by  TNCWSs (that is, the
           average per system in the various size categories). In the final  EA, it was recognized
           that SDWIS reported number reflected the average population  served during peak
           operating periods and that the total number of individuals consuming water over the
           course of a year (each for 10 days) is greater than the population served numbers
           reported in SDWIS. An adjustment was made to first recognize that during each
           month of operation there are 3 cohorts of individuals consuming water for 10 days
           each, and that TNCWSs typically operate 6 months per year (specifically, a range of
           3 to 9 months and incorporated into the model as a uniform uncertainty distribution).
           Therefore, the population exposed at TNCWSs was determined by multiplying the
           SDWIS values  by a factor in the range of 9 to 27 (i.e., 3 cohorts per month x 3
           months to 3 cohorts per month x 9 months), averaging 18 (3 cohorts per month x 6
           months).
J.2.3  Dose Response Relationships for Viruses (probability of infection, illness, secondary
      spread of illness, and mortality)

Key aspects that have remained the same

       Both the proposed GWR RIA and the final EA use two "types" of viruses to represent the
variety of viruses that may be present in fecally contaminated ground water. Type A viruses are
those that are highly infectious, but with effects that are typically not severe. Type B viruses are
less infectious than Type A, but produce illnesses that can be more severe than Type A.
Economic Analysis for the                     J-4                               October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
       Both the proposed GWR RIA and the final EA use dose response data from studies
involving rotavirus to inform the analysis for Type A viruses, and from studies involving
echo virus to inform the analysis for Type B viruses.

       Both the proposed GWR RIA and the final EA use the same elements for the dose-
response relationships of (1) probability of infection given ingestion; (2) probability of illnesses
given infection from ingestion; (3) secondary spread of additional illnesses relative to illnesses
due to direct ingestion; and (4) probability of death given illness. Generally, the same data
sources were used in the proposed GWR RIA and final EA to estimate these relationships.
However, with the exception of the secondary spread uncertainty distribution used for Type B
viruses and the mortality factor for ages < 1 month for Type B viruses, both of which remained
the same in the final EA as in the proposed GWR RIA, the specific values for these various
factors and / or the ages to which they are applied have changed, and most values that were used
as single "best estimates" in the proposed GWR RIA were incorporated as uncertainty
distributions in the final EA. (See Section 5.2.4 of the GWR EA.)

Key aspects that have changed

       Probability of infection:

       •  In the proposed GWR RIA, the form of the dose response function used for both
           Type A and Type B viruses was the Pareto approximation of the Beta Poisson dose
           response model. The two parameters of this model were estimated from the human
           challenge studies on rotavirus by Ward et al.  1986 for Type A viruses and on
           echovirus by Schiff et al 1984 for Type B viruses, and the parameter estimates used
           were Maximum Likelihood Estimates taken from Regli et al 1991.  There was no
           uncertainty included in the parameter estimates for the proposed GWR RIA.
       •  In the final EA, the same two human challenge studies were used as the source of
           infectivity data.  For Type A viruses, the dose response model used was an expected
           value form of the exact Beta Poisson model; for Type B viruses the Pareto
           approximation of the Beta Poisson was used (as in the proposal). In the final EA, the
           parameter estimates included consideration of uncertainty. A Markov Chain Monte
           Carlo (MCMC) procedure was used to obtain a large number (1,000) of parameter
           pairs for the expected value form of the exact Beta Poisson model for Type A viruses
           consistent with the underlying data.  A bootstrap procedure was used to obtain 1,000
           parameter pairs for the Pareto approximation of the Beta Poisson model for Type B
           viruses.
       •  The  final EA also includes analyses using alternative infectivity dose response
           functions and subsets of the human challenge data focusing on those dose levels most
           closely approximating the exposure levels from drinking water.

       Probability of Illness Given Infection (Morbidity):

       •  In the proposed GWR RIA, the probability of illness given infection for Type A
           viruses was 0.88 for ages < 2 years and 0.1 for all other ages.  In the final EA, the
           probability of illness given infection for Type A viruses is a uniform uncertainty
           distribution of 0.10 - 0.88 for ages < 3 and a uniform uncertainty distribution of 0.10
           - 0.50 for all other ages.
Economic Analysis for the                     J-5                                October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
        •   In the proposed GWR RIA, the probability of illness given infection for Type B
           viruses was 0.5 for ages < 5 years, 0.57 for ages 5 to 16 years, and 0.33 for all other
           ages. In the final EA, the probability of illness given infection for Type B viruses is a
           uniform uncertainty distribution of 0.5 - 0.78 for ages < 5, a uniform uncertainty
           distribution of 0.12 - 0.57 for ages 5-19, and a uniform uncertainty distribution of
           0.12 - 0.33 for all other ages.

        Secondary Spread of Illness:

        •   In the proposed GWR RIA, the secondary spread rate for Type A viruses was an
           additional 0.55 illnesses for all primary illnesses of ages < 2.   In the final EA this
           value was applied to primary illness of ages < 3.

        Probability of Death Given Illness (Mortality):

        •   In the proposed GWR RIA, for Type A viruses the probability of death given an
           illness was 7.3* 10"6. In the final EA, the probability of death given an illness for
           Type A viruses is a uniform uncertainty distribution of 5.7*10"6 to 7.3*10"6.
        •   In the proposed GWR RIA, for Type B viruses the probability of death given an
           illness was 4.1* 10"4 for all ages > 1 month.  In the final EA, the probability of death
           is 2* 10"2 for ages >  1 month, applied to the illnesses requiring hospitalization (which
           are 1% of all illnesses).  (As noted above, the mortality factor for Type B viruses for
           ages < Imonth, 9.2* 10"3, did not change between the proposal and final EA.
J.2.4   Risk Characterization

Key aspects that have remained the same

        Both the proposed GWR RIA and the final EA provide estimates of the baseline risk (that
is, in the absence of the GWR) focusing primarily on the number of cases of endemic
gastrointestinal illnesses per year due to source water viral contamination of public ground water
systems.

        Similarly, both the proposed GWR RIA and final EA provide estimates of the benefits of
the GWR options in terms of the cases of endemic illnesses avoided per year resulting from
corrective actions performed as a result of the rule.

        Both the proposed GWR RIA and the final EA estimates of the baseline risk and benefits
use a Monte Carlo simulation model to account for both variability and uncertainty.

        Both the proposed GWR RIA and the final EA also provide information on the
distribution of annual individual risk for baseline conditions.

        In both the proposed GWR RIA and final EA, the assumptions and approach for
estimating risk reduction (benefits) for Regulatory Alternative 1 - Sanitary Survey Only - have
largely remained the  same.  In both the proposal and the EA, an estimate is made of the fraction
of wells that are improperly constructed.  In both cases, that estimate is approximately 17%,
although the approach to arriving at that value is slightly different in the final EA.  In both the
proposal and the final EA, it is assumed that 50% (uniform uncertainty range of 40% to 60%) of
Economic Analysis for the                     J-6                                October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
improperly constructed wells that have virus present will have a significant deficiency identified.
Correction of these deficiencies is assumed to eliminate virus exposure.

       In both the proposed GWR RIA and the final EA, the assumptions and approach for
estimating risk reduction (benefits) for Regulatory Alternative 4 - Across the Board Disinfection
- have remained the same.

Key aspects that have changed

       In the proposed GWR RIA, the estimate of the baseline risk includes estimates of
illnesses due to treatment failures and distribution system contamination as part of the primary
analysis.  The proposed GWR RIA included reductions of illnesses due to these factors as part of
the Sanitary Survey benefits. In the final EA, baseline illnesses due to treatment failures and
distribution system contamination are not quantified nor are benefits from their reductions but,
rather, are considered among the nonqualified benefits of the rule.  (See Section 5.2.5 of the
GWR EA.)

       Relative to the proposed GWR RIA, the simulation modeling performed to estimate the
baseline risk and benefits in the final EA is considerably more complex,  includes many more
values input as distributions, and provides outputs that can be disaggregated to a substantially
higher level of detail.

       In the proposed GWR RIA, the benefits (annual cases avoided) were estimated in terms
of the expected benefits following full implementation of the rule options without explicit
consideration of expected differences from year to year as the rules are implemented.  In the final
EA, the benefits are modeled to explicitly account for the timing  when corrective actions occur
reflecting both rule implementation schedules and the probability of identifying contaminated
wells as a function of the number of indicator samples that a system may take for its wells over
time and the probability of observing an indicator positive as a function of the number of assays
performed.

       The key changes with respect to estimating risk reduction (benefits) for the Triggered
Monitoring provision of Regulatory Alternative 2 and the assessment monitoring provision of
Regulatory Alternative 3 are summarized below:

       •   In the proposed GWR RIA, the effectiveness of triggered monitoring was based upon
           estimates derived from the Lieberman data on the co-occurrence of viruses and fecal
           indicators; this was done without specific consideration of the number of TC+ assays
           occurring per year to trigger source water monitoring.  This  approach led to an
           estimates that triggered monitoring would capture between 30% and 54% of viral
           illnesses due to  source water contamination. In the final EA, the effectiveness of
           triggered monitoring is modeled more rigorously, using available Data Verification
           data to estimate the expected number of TC+ samples occurring per year by system
           type and size. Using the Pwell and Psample data for indicators derived from the
           occurrence analysis which considers  co-occurrence of virus  and E coli indicators, a
           simulation is carried out to determine which indicator sample following a TC+ will
           also be positive to determine whether and in what year each  corrective action due to
           triggered monitoring occurs and the risk from exposure to viruses will be reduced or
           eliminated.
Economic Analysis for the                      J-7                                October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
           In the proposed GWR RIA, the effectiveness of assessment monitoring (then referred
           to as routine monitoring) was based on assumptions that 15% of wells were in
           sensitive areas, between 20 and 50% of wells with pathogens present are in sensitive
           areas that will be subject to assessment monitoring, and that based upon data from
           Lieberman, between 71 and 100% of the wells with pathogens that are subject to
           assessment monitoring will be identified and corrective actions performed. In the
           final EA, it was also assumed that 15% of wells are in sensitive areas. There is no
           specific assumption, however, in the final EA on the presence of wells with
           pathogens in these sensitive areas. The effectiveness of assessment monitoring is
           modeled more rigorously in the final EA using the Pwell and Psample data for
           indicators derived from the occurrence analysis which considers co-occurrence of
           virus and E coli indicators  in a simulation to determine whether and in what year an
           indicator positive will occur on one of the 12 samples assessment  monitoring samples
           for a particular well resulting in corrective action being performed and the risk from
           exposure to viruses in those wells reduced or eliminated.
J.2.5   Monetization of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided

Key aspects that have remained the same

       As in the proposed GWR RIA, the final EA assigns value to the illnesses and deaths
avoided as a result of the rule based on measures of the direct (i.e., medical) and indirect (i.e.,
productivity and leisure time loss) cost of illness (COI) and the Value of a Statistical Life (VSL),
respectively.  The VSL is calculated as a triangular distribution in both analyses based on the
same studies and resulting base year estimate. Both analyses quantify the value of only the acute,
endemic illnesses and include only a qualitative discussion of the value of avoided chronic
illnesses and outbreaks.

Key aspects that have changed

       In the final EA, valuation was changed from the proposed GWR RIA in the
following aspects:


       •   Discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent were applied to benefits to represent the
           social discount rate and the opportunity cost of capital, respectively, consistent with
           OMB Circular A-4. (See  Section 5.3.1.5 of the GWREA.)
       •   The VSL was updated from 1999 to 2003 dollars.  (See Section 5.3.1.2 of the GWR
           EA.)
       •   Benefits were shown in present value  (2003 dollars) and were calculated separately
           for each of the 25 years; in the proposed GWR RIA, benefits were calculated as one
           annualized value for the 25 year analysis period.  (See Section 5.3.1.3 and Appendix
           B of the GWREA.)
Economic Analysis for the                      J-8                                October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
        •   Based on an updated literature search, COI mean estimates were refined and ranges
           were developed for many of the estimates for indirect and direct costs for Type A and
           Type  B illnesses, resulting in a triangular distribution rather than a point estimate.  In
           particular, the new literature presented estimates that increased duration of illness
           from those used in the proposed GWR RIA, resulting in increased COI values for
           most categories of age for Type A and Type B illnesses.  (See Section 5.3.1.1 of the
           GWR EA.)

        •   For Type A COI, the age groups were changed to reflect that neonates were no longer
           assigned a unique COI value for Type A valuation. For Type B  COI, the designation
           of mild, moderate, and severe changed to one based on medical needs:  no doctor
           required, doctor visit required, and hospitalization required. (See Section 5.3.1.1 of
           the GWR EA.)

        •   COI estimates were developed to represent a Traditional and Enhanced method of
           assessment.  The proposed GWR RIA was closest to the Traditional method and was
           a smaller value than the Enhanced.  (See Section 5.3.1.1 of the GWR EA.)

        •   A quantified estimate of the value of avoided bacterial illnesses was included only as
           an illustrative analysis in the "nonqualified benefits" section (Section 5.4 of the
           GWR EA); the proposed GWR RIA included this in the total quantified benefits.

        •   Discussion of the estimated value of avoided outbreaks was further developed in the
           final EA from the proposed GWR RIA, although it was maintained as an illustrative
           analysis in the "nonqualified benefits" section (Section 5.4 of the GWR EA) as in
           the proposed GWR RIA.
J.3     Costs

Key aspects that have remained the same

        Costs were discounted in both the proposed GWR RIA and the final EA using both 3
percent (social) and 7 percent (opportunity cost of capital) discount rates.

Key aspects that have changed

        Costs are calculated over a 25 year period of analysis to be consistent with the other
SDWA rules; the proposed GWR RIA used a 20 year period based on the estimated time of
depreciation.  Also, costs in the final EA are calculated as annualized costs based on net present
values; in the proposal, values were annualized without first calculating the present value. (See
Section 6.3 of the GWR EA.)


J.3.1    Baseline Estimate of Fecal Indicator Occurrence

Key aspects that have remained the same

        Both the proposed GWR RIA and the final EA draw upon fecal indicator occurrence data
to derive estimates of the number of ground water wells that will be required to perform
corrective actions as a result of triggered or assessment (routine) monitoring of source water.

Economic Analysis for the                      J-9                                October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
Key aspects that have changed

       In the proposed GWR RIA, the fecal indicator occurrence data used for triggered
monitoring were from the Abbaszadegan study, and those used for assessment monitoring were
from the Lieberman study. In the final EA, the fecal indicator occurrence data used for both
triggered and assessment monitoring were from 15  studies combined in a Bayesian analysis that
generated Pwell and Psample estimates for E. Coll.  (See Section 4.3.2 of the GWR EA.)
J.3.2   Sanitary survey provisions

J.3.2.1 Basis for percentage of corrective actions

Key aspects that have remained the same

       Under all of the regulatory options considered, all PWSs were required to perform the
minimum requirement of conducting sanitary surveys and to correct any significant deficiencies
found.

Key aspects that have changed

       For the proposed GWR RIA, EPA based the estimate of percentages of systems (11-13%,
depending on system sizes) having any uncorrected significant deficiencies on data from a survey
conducted by the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA, 1998b).  EPA
applied these percentages to every survey cycle to estimate corrective action costs resulting from
the GWR provision, resulting in a cumulative 60% of systems having significant deficiencies.
This percentage included distribution system significant deficiencies.

       In the final EA, the number of PWSs  identifying a significant deficiency during a
sanitary survey is determined based on survey data from the Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators (ASDWA)  (1997). Based on responses to the ASDWA survey, it was determined
that 17% of systems had wells that were not constructed according to applicable State regulations.
This estimate of significant deficiencies (17%)  was applied equally in years 4-25 of the analysis,
resulting in approximately  0.77% of systems annually (17% / 22 years) having been assigned a
corrective action in each of those years. Due to high uncertainty, costs of corrective actions for
deficiencies identified in distribution systems and treatment plants are not included  in the final
EA. (See Section 6.4.4 of the final GWR EA.)


J.3.2.2 Basis for types of corrective actions

Key aspects that have remained the same

       The two corrective actions used in the final EA for costing are the  same two that
comprised a majority of actions under the proposal (i.e., replacing a sanitary well seal or
rehabilitating an existing well).
Economic Analysis for the                     J-10                               October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
Key aspects that have changed

       For the proposal, EPA included several potential types of corrective actions, ranging from
lower cost (e.g., fencing off or providing other limited access to infrastructure to protect wells,
installation of pump block seals, pump block/well pad repair, or correcting runoff and drainage
problems) to higher cost (e.g., drilling a new well or purchasing water from another supplier).
The Agency selected two corrective actions for the final EA cost model - one lower in cost than
the other - that focus on problems at the wellhead:  (1) Replacing a sanitary well seal; and (2)
Rehabilitating an existing well. To account for the uncertainty in the national estimate, a low and
high cost estimate based on the estimated percent of systems using each of the two corrective
actions (ratio of action 1 to action 2) was used: 60% / 40% and 40% / 60%, respectively (final
EA Section 6.4.4).
J.3.2.3  Costs for sanitary surveys

Key aspects that have remained the same

        Both the proposed GWR RIA and the final EA assumed that States and systems would
incur additional costs for program maintenance and corrective action development if a significant
deficiency was identified, and that those costs would increase with system size.

Key aspects that have changed

        For the proposed GWR RIA, EPA used the same unit costs as the ones used in a previous
economic analysis (Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR)) for estimating
costs of full sanitary surveys.  Fifty percent of full survey costs was applied to all systems as the
incremental costs  resulting from the GWR sanitary survey provision.  This percentage was used
to account for the  more comprehensive survey coverage (i.e., evaluation of eight elements) under
the  GWR than under existing requirements of the TCR.

        For the final EA, EPA revised its cost analysis for conducting sanitary surveys based on
new information from States. First, EPA revised its estimates for conducting full sanitary surveys
specifically for GWS with and without treatment.  Second, EPA estimated the number of
additional full sanitary costs (including travel time  costs) that would result from the higher
frequency of sanitary surveys  required under the GWR than the number currently being
implemented. This number of additional sanitary surveys was multiplied by the sanitary survey
unit costs to estimate national  costs for this effect.

        Third, for those sanitary surveys already being conducted, EPA estimated the percent of
systems for which sanitary surveys would need to be increased in scope to ensure that all 8
elements were being implemented. Because all States currently have sanitary surveys in place
under the IESWTR, TCR, or other State programs, most States are now conducting sanitary
surveys at the frequencies and scope required by the GWR.  (See  Section 6.4.2 of the GWR EA.)
Economic Analysis for the                    J-ll                               October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
J.3.2.3.1 Systems

Key aspects that have remained the same

        The proposed GWR RIA and final EA both assumed that systems would incur
incremental costs for the increase in frequency and scope of surveys, as well as for the
development of corrective action plans in the case of a significant deficiency.

Key aspects that have changed

        The average hourly rates for technical and managerial staff were updated to 2003 dollars
using the Employment Cost Index.

J.3.2.3.2 States

Key aspects that have remained the same

        EPA assumed for both analyses that additional time would be spent by States in
developing and maintaining a program to ensure system compliance with the GWR, and in
reviewing  and approving corrective action plans.  Costs in both analyses were estimated using the
full-time equivalent hourly rate for an average state employee times the number of labor hours
estimated, which increased with system size.

Key aspects that have changed

        State labor costs were increased to reflect updated labor rates from the 2001 State
Drinking Water Needs Analysis and were converted to present day (2003) dollars using the
Employment Cost Index.


J.3.3    Triggered Monitoring Provisions

J.3.3.1  Estimate of percent wells with corrective actions and implementation timing

Key aspects that have remained the same

        For triggered monitoring provisions, EPA assumed no differences in the percent of wells
implicated for sensitive vs. nonsensitive wells.  Estimated TC occurrence in the  Data Verification
data was used to inform frequency of source water monitoring for triggered monitoring
provisions.

Key aspects that have changed

        For triggered monitoring, the proposed  GWR RIA used enterococci data from the
Abbaszadegan study as a basis for estimating the number of wells that would test positive for an
indicator and perform corrective actions. It was assumed that all triggered monitoring positives
would occur in the  first year of triggered monitoring.

        In the final EA, a two-step simulation modeling process was used. In the first step, an
estimate of the probability that a well is TC+ based upon Data Verification data was used to
determine  if and when a triggered monitoring event occurs for a given well. For TC+ wells,  a
Economic Analysis for the                    J-12                               October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
second step determines whether an indicator positive occurs based upon the modeling of Pwell
and Psample for indicators from 13 of the occurrence studies. This procedure determines not
only the percent of wells that do corrective actions as a result of triggered monitoring but also
determines what year after rule implementation those corrective actions take place.  (See Section
6.4.3 of the GWREA.)
J.3.3.2  Compliance forecast of corrective actions

Key aspects that have remained the same

        In the proposed GWR RIA and the final EA, the representative corrective actions
remained the  same.  EPA used the same method for deriving the high estimate of percentage of
systems that would choose a disinfection action. For entry points requiring corrective action,
EPA assumed that the ratio of currently disinfecting to nondisinfecting was equivalent to the ratio
of entry points disinfecting to less than 4-log to nondisinfecting. For those entry points already
disinfecting (but to less than 4-log protection), the Agency assigned a corrective action based on
probabilities adopted from an AWWA survey. For entry points that were currently not
disinfecting, estimates were made as follows:

        EPA  derived a range estimate of the percent which would choose to disinfect (versus
choosing a nontreatment action): the high end, Xpercent, was based on the percent of CWS
currently disinfecting according to CWSS data.

        Those estimated to choose not to disinfect were the balance of the percent (X) derived
above (=100%-Jf%).

        The percent choosing a disinfecting corrective action were then assigned a treatment
option from a range of 10 treatment options (including 5 treatments applied prior to filtration,  1
filtration method, and 4 treatments applied after filtration) based on the current distribution across
treatment options in CWSS results (See Exhibit 4.7.).

Key aspects that have changed

        For the proposed GWR RIA, EPA used point estimates for forecasting percentages of
systems taking treatment (mainly installing disinfection) vs. nontreatment corrective actions that
resulted from the source water monitoring provision. For instance, it was forecasted that 54.4%
of systems serving fewer than 100 people and  11.8% of systems serving more than 100,000
people that need to take corrective actions would select nontreatment options, respectively, for
the  rule  compliance.

        For the final EA, EPA revised the compliance forecasts and estimated the uncertainty
around compliance forecasts. EPA added an upper bound (90%) to nontreatment options and a
lower bound (10%) to treatment options for the final rule. For instance, EPA forecasted that 54.4
- 90% of systems serving fewer than 100 people and 11.8- 90% of systems serving more than
100,000 people will take nontreatment options. With such ranges, EPA estimated the corrective
action costs with quantified uncertainties.   (See Section  6.4.4 of the GWR EA.)

        EPA  also developed separate compliance monitoring estimates for all systems installing
disinfection.  EPA included the cost of adding interim disinfection for the systems taking
nontreatment corrective actions due to a fecal indicator-positive ground water source sample.
Economic Analysis for the                      J-13                                October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
J.3.3.3 Baseline disinfection rates

       For the proposed GWR RIA, EPA based the estimate of community GWSs achieving 4-
log inactivation of viruses (77 percent) on the data from the AWWA disinfection survey for
community GWSs (AWWA, 1998a). Such an estimate is likely to bias the system disinfection
rates upward. Also, the relatively small sample size for the survey contributed to the uncertainty
for this estimate.

       For the final EA, the existing 4-log disinfection rate was revised downward to 52 percent,
by excluding those systems with insufficient information for making the log inactivation
calculation.  (See Section 6.4.5 of the GWREA.)
J.3.4   Impacts of 5 repeat samples

Key aspects that have remained the same

No similar provision was included in the proposed GWR RIA

Key aspects that have changed

       The final GWR requires five repeat samples to be taken, and one of the repeat samples
must be fecal indicator-positive before corrective action is required, unless the State determines
that corrective action should be taken following an initial fecal indicator-positive.

       The Agency did not include the costs for taking five repeat samples following a positive
source water sample. However, EPA overestimated the cost of triggered monitoring because it
assumed all systems would take an additional sample beyond the current TCR requirements.
However, many small systems (and most ground water systems are small) will be able to use one
of their TCR samples to also comply with the GWR.  Overall, the impact of not including the five
repeat sample cost (approximately $200,000 per year) is much smaller than the overestimate of a
few million dollars associated with the initial fecal indicator sampling cost already conducted for
TCR monitoring. (See Sections 6.4.3 and 6.6 of the GWREA.)


J.4    Hydrogeologic Sensitivity Assessments and Routine Monitoring

Key Aspects that Have Remained the Same

       The rule provisions related to hydrogeologic sensitivity assessments and routine
monitoring have changed and are discussed below.
Economic Analysis for the                     J-14                               October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
Key Aspects that Have Changed

       The term routine monitoring used in the proposed GWR RIA has been changed to
assessment monitoring in the final GWR EA.

       The preferred regulatory option in the proposed GWR RIA included provisions for states
to conduct hydrogeologic sensitivity assessments (HSAs) to identify sensitive aquifers where
wells would be required to conduct monthly source water sampling for fecal indicators; sampling
could be reduced to quarterly (or waived) if no fecal indicators were identified after 12 months of
sampling.

       In the final EA, the final regulatory option does not include the requirements for HSAs or
assessment monitoring. Regulatory Alternative 3, however, does include these provisions, with
some modifications (e.g., after 12 months of source water monitoring with no fecal indicator
positives, assessment monitoring ends without going to quarterly monitoring as in the proposal).

       In the final GWR EA, assessment monitoring is presented as an optional provision of the
rule for states to consider at wells determined to be most susceptible to fecal contamination. This
optional provision also suggests that HSAs be used as a tool to identify high risk wells for
assessment monitoring.
Economic Analysis for the                     J-15                               October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule

-------
                                         Appendix K
                      Costing Details for Alternatives 1, 3, and 4

       This appendix provides costing details for alternatives not presented in the main text.  Chapter 6
of this EA provides a discussion of the rule components and a detailed analysis of the corresponding costs
for Alternative 2, the final rule alternative.  Appendix D contains detailed cost breakouts for the final rule,
and summary cost results for Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 in Exhibits D.6 through D.8. Details of the four
main regulatory alternatives considered are provided in Chapter 3 of this EA, and a comparison of the
quantified benefits and costs of each of the  four regulatory alternatives for the GWR is found in Chapter 8
of this EA.

K.1    Costing Details for Alternative 1 and Alternative 4

       Costing details for Alternative 1, the sanitary survey and corrective action alternative,  are the
same as the sanitary survey and corrective action details discussed in Chapter 6 of this EA and further
detail is not provided in this appendix.

       Under Alternative 4, the across-the-board disinfection alternative, which requires all public
ground water systems to provide treatment to 4-log inactivation and/or removal of viruses, all  systems
must conduct compliance monitoring and States shall perform sanitary surveys.  Under this alternative, all
of the GWSs not providing 4-log treatment (including systems with less than 4-log virus treatment and
without virus treatment)  are required to employ treatment as a corrective action.

       Costing details for sanitary surveys under Alternative 4 are the same as those discussed in
Chapter 6 and further detail is not provided in this appendix. Also, compliance forecasts of treatment
corrective actions for this alternative remain the same as ones presented  Chapter 6 (Exhibit 6.21b, Steps 4
and 5) of this EA for systems with less than 4-log virus treatment.  Furthermore, the assumptions and the
procedures used for compliance monitoring cost estimates are the same as ones described in Chapter 6 of
this EA.

K.2    Costing Details for Alternative 3 (Multi-Barrier Approach)

       This section presents the methodology and unit costs used to derive national costs for  systems and
States to  perform GWR related activities under the multi-barrier approach.  Only costing details for the
hydrogeological  sensitivity assessment (HSA) and assessment source water monitoring components of
Alternative 3, which are  not provided in Chapter 6 of this EA, are discussed in this appendix.  The costs
associated with State oversight and administration varies among the different regulatory alternatives.
However, these costs are estimated to be  similar for Alternatives 2 and 3 because State oversight for
monitoring activities is not expected to vary between Alternatives 2 and 3.  Costing details for rule
implementation and annual administration,  sanitary surveys, triggered monitoring, corrective  action
(compliance forecast), and compliance monitoring provided in Chapter 6 of this EA are the same as those
for Alternative 3, and therefore are not discussed in this appendix.

       This appendix uses information from the baseline analysis in Chapter 4 of this EA as a starting
point for analysis of PWSs subject to each rule requirement.  Exhibits K.I and K.2 present key baseline
information and intermediate model outputs that are referenced throughout this section.  Because many of
the assumptions apply not to systems but to entry points, Exhibit K. 1 uses both system and entry point

Economic Analysis for the                                                                October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule                          K-l

-------
estimates where appropriate.  The numbers shown in these two exhibits are cost model outputs. The
number of entry points implicated by triggered monitoring and corrective action requirements shown in
Exhibit K.I are slightly lower than those in Exhibit 6.5b in Chapter 6 of this EA since assessment
monitoring captures some of the fecal contamination that would otherwise be captured by triggered
monitoring.
Economic Analysis for the                                                              October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule                         K-2

-------
                       Exhibit K.1   Summary of Rule Implications under the Multi-Barrier Approach
System Size

Systems
Receiving
Sanitary
Survey
A
Systems with
Corrective
Actions for
Significant
Deficiencies
B
Community Water Systems (CWSs)
<100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3.301-10K
10,001-SOK
50.001-100K
100,001-1 Million
> 1 Million
12,843
14,358
4,649
5,910
2,884
1,444
167
103
3
2,187
2,439
789
1,005
491
246
28
17
-
Entry
Points
Receiving
HSAs
c

10,233
11,848
4,468
7,125
4,505
3,484
1,036
599
-
Nontransient Noncommunity Water Systems (NTNCWSs)
<100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3.301-10K
10,001-SOK
50.001-100K
100,001-1 Million
> 1 Million
9,456
6,758
1,894
715
73
10
1
1

1,607
1,150
321
121
12
2
0
0

Transient Noncommunity Water Systems (TNCWSs)
<100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3.301-10K
10,001-SOK
50.001-100K
100,001-1 Million
> 1 Million
64,448
18,993
1,940
585
74
19
1
1
-
10,972
3,231
331
99
13
3
0
0
-
6,879
4,920
1,379
521
53
7
1
1


50,645
14,916
1,524
460
58
15
1
1
-
Entry Points
with
Assessment
Monitoring
D

3,706
4,305
1,621
2,592
1,639
1,264
374
218
-

2,494
1,787
499
188
19
3
0
0


18,338
5,413
553
167
21
5
0
0
-
Entry Points
with Corrective
Actions for
Assessment
Monitoring
E

319
370
141
222
141
64
7
3
-

216
155
43
9
1
0
0
0


1,290
380
39
10
1
0
0
0
-
Entry Points
with
Triggered
Monitoring
F

12,791
14,809
5,585
8,906
5,631
4,355
1,295
749
-

8,601
6,152
1,723
651
66
9
1
1


63,298
18,650
1,905
574
73
19
1
1
-
Entry Points
with
Corrective
Actions for
Triggered
Monitoring
G

1,045
1,344
509
598
511
596
220
134
-

580
445
125
78
9
2
0
0


6,035
1,779
182
67
11
3
0
0
-
Entry Points with
Viral Disinfection
Increased from
less than 4 logs
to 4 logs
H

390
969
384
454
373
551
93
94
-

174
132
37
19
2
0
0
0


1,210
358
37
13
2
1
0
0
-
Previously Non-
disinfecting Entry Points
Taking Corrective Action
i

973
745
265
366
279
108
133
42
-

622
468
131
68
8
1
0
0


6,092
1,796
184
64
10
3
0
0
-
Entry Points
with
Incremental
Compliance
Monitoring
j

270
307
113
150
116
55
46
21
-

173
193
56
28
3
1
0
0


1,702
746
78
26
4
1
0
0
-
Source: Cost Model Outputs
(J) Indicates number of entry points with treatment corrective actions.
(I) - (J) Indicates non treatment corrective actions.
 Economic Analysis for the
 Final Ground Water Rule
K-3
                                                          October 2006

-------
   Exhibit K.2 Annualized Costs to Systems and States for Meeting the GWR Provisions under the Multi-Barrier
                                         Approach ($Millions, 2003$)



Rule
Implementation &
Annual
Administration
A
Sanitary
Surveys
B
Corrective
Actions for
Significant
Deficiencies
c
HSAs
D
Assessment
Monitoring
E
Corrective
Actions for
Assessment
Monitoring
F
Triggered
Monitoring
G
Corrective Actions
for Triggered
Monitoring
H
Compliance
Monitoring
I
Total Costs
j
3%
Systems
States
Total
Mean
Lower Bound
(5th %ile)
Upper Bound
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower Bound
(5th %ile)
Upper Bound
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower Bound
(5th %ile)
Upper Bound
(95th %ile)
$0.93
$0.93
$0.93
$9.20
$9.20
$9.20
$10.13
$10.13
$10.13
$0.21
$0.11
$0.31
$1.44
$0.66
$2.22
$1.65
$0.77
$2.53
$8.39
$5.83
$1 1 .52
$0.56
$0.52
$0.61
$8.95
$6.34
$12.13
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.37
$0.32
$0.41
$0.37
$0.32
$0.41
$2.29
$1.59
$3.04
$0.05
$0.01
$0.10
$2.34
$1.61
$3.13
$5.31
$1.99
$9.76
$0.07
$0.04
$0.12
$5.38
$2.02
$9.88
$5.40
$5.29
$5.52
$0.08
$0.06
$0.11
$5.49
$5.34
$5.63
$22.47
$12.94
$33.73
$0.43
$0.30
$0.58
$22.90
$13.23
$34.30
$10.69
$3.39
$19.35
$0.00
$0.00
$0.01
$10.70
$3.39
$19.35
$55.66
$38.07
$76.34
$12.22
$11.30
$13.11
$67.88
$49.37
$89.45
7%
Systems
States
Total
Mean
Lower Bound
(5th %ile)
Upper Bound
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower Bound
(5th %ile)
Upper Bound
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower Bound
(5th %ile)
Upper Bound
(95th %ile)
$1.33
$1.33
$1.33
$9.18
$9.18
$9.18
$10.51
$10.51
$10.51
$0.20
$0.11
$0.30
$1.39
$0.63
$2.13
$1.59
$0.74
$2.43
$8.06
$5.60
$11.07
$0.54
$0.50
$0.59
$8.60
$6.10
$11.65
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.44
$0.39
$0.49
$0.44
$0.39
$0.49
$2.71
$1.88
$3.60
$0.06
$0.02
$0.12
$2.78
$1.90
$3.72
$5.75
$2.17
$10.43
$0.09
$0.04
$0.14
$5.84
$2.22
$10.57
$5.36
$5.24
$5.47
$0.10
$0.07
$0.13
$5.45
$5.31
$5.60
$24.11
$14.23
$36.00
$0.50
$0.34
$0.66
$24.60
$14.57
$36.66
$9.58
$3.03
$17.50
$0.01
$0.00
$0.01
$9.59
$3.04
$17.51
$57.06
$39.56
$77.38
$12.30
$11.40
$13.20
$69.36
$50.96
$90.58
Notes: Detail may not add to totals due to independent rounding and ndependent cost model runs.
Source: Cost Model Outputs
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
K-4
                                               October 2006

-------
K.2.1  Hydrogeologic Sensitivity Assessment

PWSs

       Under the multi-barrier approach, the GWR requires systems to provide the State with any
pertinent information that allows the State to complete the HSA upon request. However, it is expected
that such requests will be minimal and have a negligible cost impact on PWSs. Exhibit K.3 provides a
schematic of the HSA process and assessment monitoring (AM) determination.
Economic Analysis for the                                                              October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule                         K-5

-------
                           Exhibit K.3  Schematic of HSA Process
                   (Numbers based on 3,301 -10,000 population category for CWSs)
Note: A total of 1,639 entry points from CWSs serving 3,301 to 10,000 people would be subject to assessment source water
monitoring (see Section K.2.2 on assessment monitoring). Sum based on this schematic differs slightly from that shown in other
exhibits due to rounding.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                        October 2006
K-6

-------
States

        Under the multi-barrier approach, HSAs may be performed by States on each ground water
source that does not rely on treatment to meet rule requirements.  States can perform HSAs to determine if
a system's source is sensitive to microbial contamination and requires assessment monitoring to ensure
that there is no fecal contamination.  As illustrated in Exhibit K.3, EPA assumes that a uniform
distribution of 70 to 90 percent1 of entry points (80% as mean) that do not provide 4-log treatment of
viruses (using inactivation, removal, or State-approved combination of these technologies) before or at
the first customer will undergo HSAs.  EPA assumes that States will determine the remaining 20 percent
(as mean) of entry points to do assessment source water monitoring.  Of these assessed entry points, EPA
estimates that States will determine that 15 percent are sensitive.  The Agency based this assumption upon
data collected for the Abbaszadegan et al. (2003) study. This study reported aquifer characterization
information from well operators based on a checklist of aquifer types provided by the study investigators.
EPA determined aquifer sensitivity based on the available information.  EPA determined that 68 of the
wells with aquifer characterization information would likely be determined by States to be wells in
sensitive aquifers. All other wells, including those for which no aquifer characterization data were
available were assumed to be wells in non-sensitive aquifers. States may choose not to conduct an HSA
because it has determined that the setting from which ground water systems draw their water is known to
be sensitive or the State has determined that the HSA is not an appropriate screening mechanism. The
States must document the rationale for the decision in its primacy application. In this case, the aquifer is
considered to be sensitive and the ground water source  assumed to be "sensitive" to fecal contamination.
Systems with aquifers located in hydrogeologically sensitive settings and lacking a hydrogeologic barrier
are required, therefore, to conduct assessment source water monitoring. Exhibits K.4a and K.4b
summarize the assumptions regarding systems undergoing HSAs and their sensitivity.

        EPA  estimated the time for States to locate existing hydrogeologic data, such as well construction
records, and for a State assessor to inspect and review these data. The CWS burden per HSA is
developed using an estimate of 2  hours per well. The 2 hour per well estimate is a national average.
Some systems may require additional resources to perform an HSA (e.g., systems with  wells distributed
across a large distance and different aquifer types) while others may require less resources (e.g., systems
with relatively compact well fields and drawing water from uniform aquifers). Further, it is expected that
HSAs will be performed by hydrogeologists with an existing familiarity with the regional hydrogeology
and relatively easy access to records that will aid in making assessments, minimizing the time required to
make sensitivity determinations.  Multiplying the estimated labor burden by the average number of wells
per system (by system size) yields the burden per system.  Finally, dividing the system  burden by the
number of entry points per system yields the assessment burden per entry point.  The Agency assumes
that per entry point costs for CWSs and NCWSs are equal.  The average HSA costs generally increase as
system size increases, ranging from under $70 per assessment for systems serving less than 1000 people
to $238 per assessment for the  entry points in systems serving more than 1,000,000  people. Exhibit K.4a
also develops these costs.

        As part of the process of determining the sensitivity of a ground water source, a State may look
for the presence of a hydrogeologic barrier for initially  sensitive entry points (see Exhibit K.3).  Entry
        1 Distribution parameters given in the text of this appendix describe those used in the Monte-Carlo
simulation model. Where point estimates of results are presented in exhibits, the numbers presented are calculated
based on the mean of the distribution described.

Economic Analysis for the                                                                 October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule                          K-7

-------
points drawing from aquifers that the State determines to have hydrogeologic barriers are not sensitive,
and therefore not subject to assessment monitoring.  EPA estimates that in 40 to 60 percent (uniform
distribution) of the cases where States determine that an entry point is otherwise sensitive, States will also
look for the presence of a hydrogeologic barrier, as shown in Exhibit K.4b.  The Agency also estimates
that 40 to 60 percent (uniform distribution) of the systems assessed for a barrier will find one.  Because
determining and documenting the presence of a hydrogeologic barrier is generally a difficult activity,
EPA estimates the cost and burden for barrier determinations to be equal to the total cost and burden of
performing an HSA. Exhibit K.4b shows the cost of barrier determinations.
             Exhibit K.4a  State Burden and Cost Estimates for Performing
                          Hydrogeologic Sensitivity Assessments
System Size
(Population Served)
Entry
Points
Subject
to HSAs
A
HSA
Performed by
State
B=0.8*A
HSAs
Labor
Cost
(per
hour)
C
HSA
Labor
per Well
D
Wells
per
System
E
Conduct
HSA
(hours/
system)
F=D*E
Entry
Points
per
System
G
Conduct
HSA
(hours/
entry point)
H=F/G
Unit
Cost
I=C*H
Total
HSA
Burden
(hours)
J=B*H
Total
HSA
Cost
K=B*I
Community Water Systems (CWSs)
<100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3.301-10K
10,001-50K
50,001-100K
100,001-1 Million
> 1 Million
Total
12,791
14,809
5,585
8,906
5,631
4,355
1,295
749

54,121
Nontransient Noncommunity Water S
<100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3.301-10K
10,001-50K
50,001-100K
100,001-1 Million
> 1 Million
Total
8,601
6,152
1,723
651
66
9
1
1

17,204
10,233
11,848
4,468
7,125
4,505
3,484
1,036
599
-
43,297
$ 27.10
$ 27.10
$ 27.10
$ 27.10
$ 27.10
$ 27.10
$ 27.10
$ 27.10
$ 27.10
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1.5
2.0
2.3
3.1
4.6
9.8
16.1
49.9
49.9
3.0
4.0
4.6
6.2
9.2
19.6
32.2
99.8
99.8
1.3
1.6
2.0
2.4
3.2
5.6
11.3
12.4
11.4
2.3
2.5
2.4
2.6
2.9
3.5
2.9
8.1
8.8
$ 62
$ 66
$ 64
$ 69
$ 77
$ 95
$ 77
$ 218
$ 238

23,394
29,068
10,519
18,202
12,879
12,155
2,953
4,827
-
113,998
$ 634,059
$ 787,840
$ 285,102
$ 493,324
$ 349,072
$ 329,440
$ 80,033
$ 130,816
$
$ 3,089,687
/stems (NTNCWSs)
6,881
4,922
1,379
521
53
7
1
1
-
13,763
$ 27.10
$ 27.10
$ 27.10
$ 27.10
$ 27.10
$ 27.10
$ 27.10
$ 27.10
NA

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
NA
2.3
2.5
2.4
2.6
2.9
3.5
2.9
8.1
NA
$ 62
$ 66
$ 64
$ 69
$ 77
$ 95
$ 77
$ 218
NA

15,731
12,075
3,246
1,330
152
25
2
6
NA
32,567
$ 426,354
$ 327,282
$ 87,964
$ 36,040
$ 4,119
$ 688
$ 56
$ 159
NA
$ 882,661
Transient Noncommunity Water Systems (TNCWSs)
<100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3,301-10K
10,001-50K
50,001-100K
100,001-1 Million
> 1 Million
Total
All Total
63,298
18,650
1,905
574
73
19
1
1

84,521
155,846
50,638
14,920
1,524
460
58
15
1
1
-
67,617
124,676
$ 27.10
$ 27.10
$ 27.10
$ 27.10
$ 27.10
$ 27.10
$ 27.10
$ 27.10
NA

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
NA
2.3
2.5
2.4
2.6
2.9
3.5
2.9
8.1
NA
$ 62
$ 66
$ 64
$ 69
$ 77
$ 95
$ 77
$ 218
NA


115,771
36,607
3,589
1,174
166
52
2
6
NA
157,367
303,932
$ 3,137,734
$ 992,161
$ 97,263
$ 31,819
$ 4,505
$ 1,412
$ 61
$ 172
NA
$ 4,265,127
$ 8,237,475
Notes:   Detail may not add to totals due to independent rounding.
        Calculations use means of distributions described in Section K.2.1.
        NA Not applicable (no NCWSs of this size category).
Sources: (A) Number of entry points from Exhibit K.1
        (C) Labor rates for staff hydrogeologist from Chapter 6, Exhibit 6.2 of GWR EA
        (D,E,F) Well information not available for NCWSs.  CWSs well data applied to NCWSs.
        (D) Labor for conducing HSA includes time for travel, records review, wellhead inspection, and report preparation.
        (E) Wells per system from US EPA Drinking Water Baseline Handbook (2001)
        (G) Entry points per system from Chapter 4, Exhibit 4.3 of GWR EA
        (H) Labor hours per entry point for NTNCWSs and TNCWSs based on EPA estimate of hours per entry point for CWSs.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                        October 2006
K-8

-------
             Exhibit K.4b  State Burden and Cost Estimates for Performing
                             Hydrogeologic Barrier Determination
System Size
(Population Served)
Sensitive
Entry
Points
L=0.15*B
Sensitive Entry
Points for
which State
Seeks for
Barrier
M=0.5*L
Sensitive Entry
Points with
Detected
Barrier by
State
N=0.5*M
Sensitive
Entry
Points without
Detected Barrier
by State
O=L-N
Barrier Determination
Barrier
Determination
(hours/entry point)
P=H
Unit
Cost
Q=C*P
Total Barrier
Determination
Burden
R=M*P
Total Barrier
Determination
Cost
S=M*Q
Community Water Systems (CWSs)
<100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3.301-10K
1 0,001 -50K
50,001 -100K
100,001-1 Million
> 1 Million
Total
1,535
1,777
670
1,069
676
523
155
90
-
6,494
767
889
335
534
338
261
78
45
-
3,247
384
444
168
267
169
131
39
22
-
1,624
1,151
1,333
503
802
507
392
117
67
-
4,871
2.3
2.5
2.4
2.6
2.9
3.5
2.9
8.1
8.8
$ 62
$ 66
$ 64
$ 69
$ 77
$ 95
$ 77
$ 218
$ 238

1,755
2,180
789
1,365
966
912
221
362
-
8,550
$ 47,554
$ 59,088
$ 21,383
$ 36,999
$ 26,180
$ 24,708
$ 6,003
$ 9,811
$
$ 231,727
Nontransient Noncommunity Water Systems (NTNCWSs)
<100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3.301-10K
1 0,001 -50K
50,001 -100K
100,001-1 Million
> 1 Million
Total
1,032
738
207
78
8
1
0
0
-
2,064
516
369
103
39
4
1
0
0
-
1,032
258
185
52
20
2
0
0
0
-
516
774
554
155
59
6
1
0
0
-
1,548
2.3
2.5
2.4
2.6
2.9
3.5
2.9
8.1
NA
$ 62
$ 66
$ 64
$ 69
$ 77
$ 95
$ 77
$ 218
NA

1,180
906
243
100
11
2
0
0
NA
2,443
$ 31,977
$ 24,546
$ 6,597
$ 2,703
$ 309
$ 52
$ 4
$ 12
NA
$ 66,200
Transient Noncommunity Water Systems (TNCWSs)
<100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3.301-10K
1 0,001 -50K
50,001 -100K
100,001-1 Million
> 1 Million
Total
All Total
7,596
2,238
229
69
9
2
0
0
-
10,142
18,701
3,798
1,119
114
34
4
1
0
0
-
5,071
9,351
1,899
560
57
17
2
1
0
0
-
2,536
4,675
5,697
1,679
171
52
7
2
0
0
-
7,607
14,026
2.3
2.5
2.4
2.6
2.9
3.5
2.9
8.1
NA
$ 62
$ 66
$ 64
$ 69
$ 77
$ 95
$ 77
$ 218
NA


8,683
2,746
269
88
12
4
0
0
NA
11,803
22,795
$ 235,330
$ 74,412
$ 7,295
$ 2,386
$ 338
$ 106
$ 5
$ 13
NA
$ 319,885
$ 617,811
Notes:   Detail may not add to totals due to independent rounding.
        Calculations use means of distributions described in Section K.2.1.
        NA Not applicable (no NCWSs of this size category).
Sources: (L) 15% is based on data from Abbaszadegan et al., 1999, 2003 and Abbaszadegan 2002.
        (M) Mean number of sensitive entry points for which State seeks for barrier, from Section K.2.1 (50 percent is the
         arithmetic mean of 40 percent and 60 percent).
        (N) Mean number of sensitive entry points with detected barrier by State, from Section K.2.1 (50 percent is the
         arithmetic mean of 40 percent and 60 percent).
        (P) EPA estimates that the labor hours for determining the presence of a hydrogeologic barrier equal those to perform an
        HSA.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                          October 2006
K-9

-------
       Annualized costs estimates for systems and States to perform HSAs are presented in Exhibit K.5.
          Exhibit K.5 PWS and State Cost Estimates for HSA Performance
Annualized Costs for HSA Performance


3%
7%
Systems
Mean
$0.00
$0.00
Lower
Bound
(5th %ile)
$0.00
$0.00
Upper
Bound
(95th
%ile)
$0.00
$0.00
States
Mean
$0.37
$0.44
Lower
Bound
(5th %ile)
$0.32
$0.39
Upper
Bound
(95th
%ile)
$0.41
$0.49
Total
Mean
$0.37
$0.44
Lower
Bound
(5th %ile)
$0.32
$0.39
Upper
Bound
(95th
%ile)
$0.41
$0.49
Notes: Detail may not add to totals due to independent rounding and independent cost model runs.
Source: Cost Model Outputs
K.2.2  Assessment Source Water Monitoring

PWSs

       The assessment source water monitoring provision requires sampling of those entry points that
are determined to be sensitive based on the performance of HSAs, as well as those for which the State has
not performed an HSA.  Exhibit K.6 presents a schematic of the assessment monitoring process as
applied in the cost model. Similar to triggered monitoring (described in Section 6.4.3 of Chapter 6 of this
EA), several compliance assumptions were needed to model the cost of assessment monitoring. These
assumptions are described below and summarized in Exhibit K.7 (entry points incurring costs) and
Exhibit K.8 (unit costs).
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                     October 2006
K-10

-------
               Exhibit K.6 Schematic of Assessment Monitoring Process
                    (Numbers based on 3,301 -10,000 population category for CWSs)
                                                           EPs not achieving 4-log virus
                                                                   treatment
                                                                   5,631 Eps
                                                        (cost model output, see Exhibit K.1)
                                                             Is the system sensitive?
                                                             1,639 EPs (see Exhibit
                                                                K.3 for derivation)
                                                                     Yes
                                                                      I
                                                              AM
                                                              -Collect 12 source
                                                              water samples
                                     223 EPs
                                 (see Exhibit K.7 for
                                    derivation)
    141 EPs
(see Exhibit K.7 for
   derivation)
               Fecal-indicator
              positive from AM?
                           -No—,
                                 Apply for treatment
                                     waiver?
—Yes-*
 82 EPs receiving
 corrective action
waivers (see Exhibit
 K.7 for derivation)
    1,416 EPs
(see Exhibit K.7 for
   derivation)
      See Chapter 6,
      Section 6.4.4 on
      Corrective Action
                                                                                     Continue AM at
                                                                                    specified intervals
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                          October 2006
K-ll

-------
       Frequency of Performing Assessment Monitoring: Entry points subject to assessment monitoring
must collect and analyze at least 12 source water samples for the presence of fecal contamination using
one of three possible indicators as selected by the State. One sample must be tested each month that the
system is in operation. For costing purposes, EPA assumes that States will select E. coll as the indicator
of contamination for analysis. EPA assumes for modeling purposes, that all CWSs and NTNCWSs
conduct assessment monitoring on a monthly schedule in years 6 and 8 after rule implementation,
respectively.  Because of the seasonal nature of many TNCWSs, EPA assumes that the  12 assessment
monitoring samples will be taken over 3 years (years 7-9 after rule implementation).  Sampling costs for
assessment monitoring are calculated by multiplying the annual number of assessment monitoring
samples taken by the sampling unit costs presented Chapter 6, Exhibit 6.3 of this EA.

       Percent of EPs Testing Positive: As discussed in Section K.2.1, it is estimated that 9.0 percent2 of
ground water entry points among those without 4-log virus treatment are determined to be
hydrogeologically susceptible to fecal contamination. The cost model assumes that these entry points (in
addition to being subject to sanitary surveys and taking source water indicator assays from triggered
monitoring) must also  perform indicator assays for 12 source water samples. It is assumed that these
samples will be taken monthly during year 6 for CWSs, and monthly during year 8 for NTNCWS.  For
TNCWS, it is assumed that these 12 assays will be performed across years 6, 7, and 8.

       The probability of observing an indicator positive in one of these  12 assessment monitoring
samples is taken from the same set of probabilities of indicator positives as a function of the number of
assays performed as described in Chapter 6, Section 6.4.3 on triggered monitoring and in Chapter 4 of
this EA. As shown in  Chapter 4, Exhibit 4.26, the central tendency value across all uncertainty sets
indicates that approximately  11.2% of wells will result in an indicator positive within the first 12 indicator
assays (95% confidence bounds of 8.1%to 15.(
       It is important to note that the 12 assays that are conducted for assessment monitoring are not
necessarily the first 12 assays that will be conducted for those wells performing assessment monitoring.
In many cases, and perhaps most, there will have been source water indicator samples taken in response to
TC positives occurring prior to the beginning of the assessment monitoring period. Because the
probability of getting the first positive indicator result decreases with each additional assay (refer to
Exhibit 4.26) the actual probability that a given well will get caught by one of the 12 assessment
monitoring samples depends upon how many triggered monitoring indicator assays were performed
(which would all have been negative) prior to the beginning of the assessment monitoring assays. The
more triggered monitoring samples taken, the less likely it is that the additional 12 assessment monitoring
assays will produce a positive result. For example, assume a well has taken 3 triggered monitoring
samples (with negative results) prior to the 12 assessment monitoring samples.  The expected value of the
probability that a positive result will have been obtained in those first 3 samples is 6.0%, and the expected
value of the probability that a positive result will have been obtained in the first 15 samples is  12.0% (that
is, the 3 triggered plus 12 assessment samples). Therefore the, incremental probability of observing an
indicator positive from those  additional 12 samples is only about 6.0%.  Assume, however, that a well
has taken 20 triggered monitoring samples (with negative results) prior to the 12 assessment monitoring
samples.  The expected value of the probability that a positive result will have been obtained in those first
20 samples is 12.9%, and the expected value of the probability that a positive result will have been
obtained  in the first 32 samples is 14.1% (that is, the 20 triggered plus 12 assessment samples). Therefore
       2 (0.8*0.15*0.5) + (0.8*0.15*0.5*0.5) = 0.09
Economic Analysis for the                                                               October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule                         K-12

-------
the, incremental probability of observing an indicator positive from those additional 12 samples in this
case is only about 1.2%. Since most wells will have some triggered monitoring events prior to the
beginning of any assessment monitoring, the probability of observing an indicator positive in the one of
the 12 assessment monitoring samples is less than would be expected if those samples were the first 12
taken at that well (that is, if no triggered monitoring occurred).  In the cost model, the simulation process
took this into account by assigning to each simulated well a number of triggered monitoring samples
(based on the expected number of TC positive results occurring per year for wells of different types and
sizes as discussed in Chapter 4).

        Systems where an entry point tests positive for fecal contamination and does not receive a
treatment waiver must perform a corrective action.

        Systems must report all positive source water samples to the State. As with triggered monitoring,
EPA estimates that this report will require, on average, 2.5 hours to complete and submit. EPA has
developed and systems will have access to automated forms that will minimize the burden to systems in
complying with this reporting requirement. Exhibit K.8  presents system unit costs for assessment
monitoring reporting requirements.

        Waiver from Corrective Action: A one-time treatment waiver exists for assessment source water
monitoring.  Once a PWS finds a single positive source  water sample, it may take 5 repeat samples within
24 hours. If all five repeat samples are negative, and the system has no fecal indicator-positives among its
required source water samples for that entry point since the last sanitary survey inspection, the system
does not have to perform a corrective action at that time. To prepare and submit the waiver application,
EPA estimates that systems will require 2.5 hours. As with other reporting requirements, EPA has
developed and systems will have access to automated forms that will minimize the burden to systems in
complying with this application process. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that all PWSs
that have a positive source  water sample will apply for this one-time treatment waiver. It is assumed that
every year in which assessment source  water monitoring occurs, 0 to 10 percent of entry points will test
positive in addition to those estimated above, but five repeat samples will test negative, and the systems
will apply for and receive a treatment waiver for those samples.

        Invalidation of Samples: The GWR allows a State to  invalidate a positive source water sample if
it believes that the positive is due to improper analysis.  States may also invalidate positive source water
samples that are due to circumstances not reflecting source water quality. Systems must resample after a
sample is invalidated.  For  costing purposes, EPA estimates that States will invalidate a minimal number
of samples, resulting in a negligible cost and burden.

States

        State costs for assessment monitoring are assumed to be solely administrative. States incur costs
to review several paperwork requirements: reports of positive samples; corrective action waiver
applications; and sample invalidation documentation. With the exception of corrective action waivers,
these  reviews apply to both triggered and assessment monitoring requirements. Because of similarities in
costing assumptions, the discussion provided in Chapter 6, Section 6.4.3 of this EA applies to both
triggered and assessment monitoring. Under the multi-barrier approach, the GWR requires  systems that
find fecal contamination through triggered monitoring or assessment monitoring to perform corrective
action. However, a one-time treatment waiver exists for assessment source water monitoring. To make
this determination, States must review all waiver applications. For costing purposes, EPA estimates that

Economic Analysis for the                                                               October 2006
Final Ground Water Rule                         K-13

-------
each waiver application will take 3.5 hours to review, and using a labor cost of $33.61 per hour, EPA
estimates a unit cost of $117.61 to review the report.
          Exhibit K.7  Entry Points Incurring Assessment Monitoring Costs
System Size
(Population
Served)
Entry
Points
Monitoring;
Initial Sampling
A
Entry Points
Performing
Corrective
Actions
B
Community Water Systems (CWSs)
<100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3,301-1 OK
1 0,001 -50K
50,001 -100K
100,001-1 Million
> 1 Million
Totals
3,706
4,305
1,621
2,592
1,639
1,264
374
218
-
15,721
319
370
141
222
141
64
7
3
-
1,267
Corrective
Action
Waivers
C=0.05*A
Entry Points
with Positive
Assessment
Monitoring
Samples
D=B+C
Prepare
Assessment
Monitoring
Report and
Perform Repeat
Sampling
E=D
Apply for
Treatment
Waiver
F=C

185
215
81
130
82
63
19
11
-
786
504
586
222
352
223
127
26
14
-
2,053
504
586
222
352
223
127
26
14
-
2,053
185
215
81
130
82
63
19
11
-
786
Nontransient Noncommunity Water Systems (NTNCWSs)
<100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3,301-1 OK
1 0,001 -50K
50,001 -100K
100,001-1 Million
> 1 Million
Totals
2,494
1,787
499
188
19
3
0
0
-
4,992
216
155
43
9
1
0
0
0
-
425
Transient Noncommunity Water Systems (TNCWSs)
<100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3,301-1 OK
1 0,001 -50K
50,001 -100K
100,001-1 Million
> 1 Million
Totals
Grand Total
18,338
5,413
553
167
21
5
0
0
-
24,498
45,210
1,290
380
39
10
1
0
0
0
-
1,720
3,412
125
89
25
9
1
0
0
0
-
250
341
244
68
19
2
0
0
0
-
674
341
244
68
19
2
0
0
0
-
674
125
89
25
9
1
0
0
0
-
250

917
271
28
8
1
0
0
0
-
1,225
2,261
2,207
651
67
18
2
0
0
0
-
2,945
5,672
2,207
651
67
18
2
0
0
0
-
2,945
5,672
917
271
28
8
1
0
0
0
-
1,225
2,261
Notes:  Detail may not add to totals due to independent rounding.
Source:  (A) Exhibit K.1, Column D
       (B) Exhibit K.1, Column E
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
K-14
                                      October 2006

-------
                Exhibit K.8 PWS Unit Costs for Assessment Monitoring
System Size
(Population Served)
Reporting
Report
Prep
(hours)
A
Labor
Cost
(per
hour)
B
Unit
Cost
C=A*B
Waiver Application
Application
Prep
(hours)
D
Labor
Cost
(per
hour)
E
Unit
Cost
F=D*E
Community Water Systems (CWSs)
<100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3.301-10K
1 0,001 -50K
50,001 -100K
100,001-1 Million
> 1 Million
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
$ 21.44
$ 23.09
$ 24.74
$ 24.74
$ 30.51
$ 31.08
$ 31.08
$ 35.25
$ 35.25
$ 53.60
$ 57.73
$ 61.85
$ 61.85
$ 76.28
$ 77.70
$ 77.70
$ 88.12
$ 88.12
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
$ 21.44
$ 23.09
$ 24.74
$ 24.74
$ 30.51
$ 31.08
$ 31.08
$ 35.25
$ 35.25
$ 53.60
$ 57.73
$ 61.85
$ 61.85
$ 76.28
$ 77.70
$ 77.70
$ 88.12
$ 88.12
Nontransient Noncommunity Water Systems (NTNCWSs)
<100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3,301-1 OK
1 0,001 -50K
50,001 -100K
100,001-1 Million
> 1 Million
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
NA
$ 21.44
$ 23.09
$ 24.74
$ 24.74
$ 30.51
$ 31.08
$ 31.08
$ 35.25
$ 35.25
$ 53.60
$ 57.73
$ 61.85
$ 61.85
$ 76.28
$ 77.70
$ 77.70
$ 88.12
NA
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
NA
$ 21.44
$ 23.09
$ 24.74
$ 24.74
$ 30.51
$ 31.08
$ 31.08
$ 35.25
$ 35.25
$ 53.60
$ 57.73
$ 61.85
$ 61.85
$ 76.28
$ 77.70
$ 77.70
$ 88.12
NA
Transient Noncommunity Water Systems (TNCWSs)
<100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3,301-1 OK
1 0,001 -50K
50,001 -100K
100,001-1 Million
> 1 Million
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
NA
$ 21.44
$ 23.09
$ 24.74
$ 24.74
$ 30.51
$ 31.08
$ 31.08
$ 35.25
$ 35.25
$ 53.60
$ 57.73
$ 61.85
$ 61.85
$ 76.28
$ 77.70
$ 77.70
$ 88.12
NA
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
NA
$ 21.44
$ 23.09
$ 24.74
$ 24.74
$ 30.51
$ 31.08
$ 31.08
$ 35.25
$ 35.25
$ 53.60
$ 57.73
$ 61.85
$ 61.85
$ 76.28
$ 77.70
$ 77.70
$ 88.12
NA
Notes:   Detail may not add to totals due to independent rounding.
        NA = Not applicable (no NCWSs of this size category).
Source:  (A,D) Labor hours for report preparation and waiver application preparation based on EPA experience with similar rule
        requirements.
        (B,E,F) Labor rates from Chapter 6, Exhibit 6.1.
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                         October 2006
K-15

-------
       Annualized cost estimates for systems and States to perform assessment monitoring are presented
in Exhibit K.9.
       Exhibit K.9 PWS and State Cost Estimates for Performing Assessment
                              Monitoring ($Millions, 2003$)
Annualized Costs for Assessment Monitoring Performance


3%
7%
Systems
Mean
$2.29
$2.71
Lower
Bound
(5th %ile)
$1.59
$1.88
Upper
Bound
(95th
%ile)
$3.04
$3.60
States
Mean
$0.05
$0.06
Lower
Bound
(5th %ile)
$0.01
$0.02
Upper
Bound
(95th
%ile)
$0.10
$0.12
Total
Mean
$2.34
$2.78
Lower
Bound
(5th %ile)
$1.61
$1.90
Upper
Bound
(95th
%ile)
$3.13
$3.72
 Notes:     Detail may not add to totals due to independent rounding and independent cost model runs.
 Source:     Cost Model Outputs
K.2.2.1
Assessment Monitoring Corrective Actions
       All systems that detect fecal contamination in their source water must perform a corrective action.
For costing purposes, EPA assumes that each indicator positive sample will correspond to either one entry
point predicted to have corrective treatment or one well per entry point to have a nontreatment corrective
action. Compliance forecasts of treatment corrective actions for this alternative remain the same as ones
presented Chapter 6 (Exhibit 6.21b, Steps  1 thru 5) of this EA for systems without 4-log virus treatment
and with less than 4-log virus treatment.

       Annualized cost estimates for systems and States to perform assessment monitoring corrective
actions are presented in Exhibit K.10.
      Exhibit K.10  PWS and State Cost Estimates for Assessment Monitoring
                    Corrective Actions Activities ($Millions, 2003$)
Annualized Costs for Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action Activities


3%
7%
Systems
Mean
$5.31
$5.75
Lower
Bound
(5th %ile)
$1.99
$2.17
Upper
Bound
(95th
%ile)
$9.76
$10.43
States
Mean
$0.07
$0.09
Lower
Bound
(5th %ile)
$0.04
$0.04
Upper
Bound
(95th
%ile)
$0.12
$0.14
Total
Mean
$5.38
$5.84
Lower
Bound
(5th %ile)
$2.02
$2.22
Upper
Bound
(95th
%ile)
$9.88
$10.57
 Notes:     Detail may not add to totals due to independent rounding and independent cost model runs.
 Source:    Cost Model Outputs
Economic Analysis for the
Final Ground Water Rule
                                                                    October 2006
                              K-16

-------
             Appendix L




Summary Flowcharts for GWR Cost Model

-------
                                     Appendix L
                      Summary Flowcharts for GWR Cost Model
                            STEP 1:  PRE-PROCESS PWS SAMPLE
                       STEP 2: PREPARE FOR UNCERTAINTY ITERATION
                        STEP 3: DETERMINE PWS AND STATE SANITARY
                       SURVEY AND SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCY ACTIVITY
    REPEAT OVER ALL
     UNCERTAINTY
      ITERATIONS
                        STEP 4: DETERMINE PWS AND STATE SOURCE
                                  WATER MONITORING
                                      ACTIVITIES
                      STEP 5: DETERMINE PWS AND STATE CORRECTIVE
                                    ACTION ACTIVITY
                      STEP 6: CALCULATE ANNUAL AND PRESENT VALUE
                                OF PWS AND STATE COSTS
                         STEP 7: CALCULATE PWS AND STATE COST
                        SUMMARY STATISTICS BY PWS TYPE AND SIZE
                         STEP 8: CALCULATE MEAN AND CONFIDENCE
                        INTERVAL OF PWS AND STATE COST SUMMARY
                                      STATISTICS
Economic Analysis for the Final Ground Water Rule
L-l
October 2006

-------
                                    STEP1:  PRE-PROCESS PWS SAMPLE
     INPUTS:

     SDWIS Inventory
     Flow Equations
     Entry Point Probability Distributions
     Compliance Decision Matrices
     Unit Technology Cost Equations (function of
             Flow)
     Entry Point Probability Matrix for Parameters
             that are Certain
     Unit Cost Values (not a function of flow)
     OUTPUTS

     Sample of PWSs including:
             PWS Type
             PWS Size
             PWS Population Served
             Number of Entry Points
             PWS Design and Average Daily
                 Flow
             Entry Point Design and Average
                 Daily Flow
             Compliance Choices
             Compliance Unit Cost Parameters
             Significant Deficiency Assigned
             Significant Deficiency Unit Cost
                     Parameters
             Entry Point Probabilities for
                 Parameters that are Certain
             Unit Costs for Values that are Not a
                 function of Flow
                   Select a Sample of
                     PWSs from the
                    SDWIS Inventory
                     Calculate PWS
                      Design and
                     Average Daily
                         Flow
                                                                      Assign each PWS
                                                                      a Number of Entry
                                                                           Points




Calculate Entry
Point Design and
Average Daily
Flow

fr
ach PWS
3ost and
Cost
:ment
\/e Action
tion






Assign each PWS
a High Cost and
Low Cost Non-
Treatment
Corrective Action
Option






^
Assign ez
a High C
Low
Disinfe
Modificati
Opt
                                                                                                            Assign each PWS
                                                                                                             a High Cost and
                                                                                                               Low Cost
                                                                                                               Significant
                                                                                                               Deficiency
                                                                                                            Corrective Action
PWS's
t and Low
satment
te Action
Cost
neters


Read in PWS's
High Cost and Low
Cost Non-
Treatment
Corrective Action
Unit Cost
Parameters
^

Read in PWS's
High Cost and Low
Cost Treatment
Modification Action
Unit Cost
Parameters


Read in PWS's High
Cost and Low Cost
Significant Deficiency
Corrective Action
Unit Cost Parameters

                   Read in Entry
                  Point Probabilities
                   for Parameters
                   that are Certain
                  Read in Unit Cost
                 Values that are not
                  a function of Flow
Economic Analysis for the Final Ground Water Rule
L-2
October 2006

-------
                             STEP 2:   PREPARE FOR UNCERTAINTY ITERATION
     INPUTS:
          Sample of PWSs including:
              PWS Type
              PWS Size
              PWS Population Served
              Number of Entry Points
              PWS Design and Average Daily
                  Flow
              Entry Point Design and Average
                  Daily Flow
              Compliance Choices
              Compliance Unit Cost Parameters
              Significant Defect Assigned
              Significant Defect Unit Cost
                  Parameters
          Uncertain Parameter Probability
                  Distributions
          Occurrence Distributions
          Matrix of Annual TC Positive Hits
     OUTPUTS
          Uncertainty Iteration Specific Values for:
              EP Corrective Action Capital Costs
              EP Corrective Action O&M Costs
              PWS Significant Defect Capital Cost
              PWS Significant Defect O&M Cost
              Likelihood of a Positive Assay
                  During the Period of Analysis
              Year in which Positive  Assay occurs
                  if one occurs
              Number of TC Positives Each Year
              All Uncertain EP Probability
                  Parameters
            Choose a Value
           for Each Uncertain
            Parameter form
             Distribution of
                Values
 Pre-Calculate EP
Costs for High and
  Low Treatment
    and Non-
   Treatment
 Corrective Action
 Given Uncertainty
     Factor
 Pre-Calculate EP
    Costs for
 Corrective Action
 Given Probability
 of High/Low and
  Probability of
 Treatment versus
 Non-Treatment
  Pre-Calculate
  PWS Costs for
  High and Low
   Significant
 Deficiency Given
Uncertainty Factor
  Pre-Calculate
  PWS Costs for
   Significant
 Deficiency Given
Probability of High/
  Low Significant
   Deficiency
                              Choose an
                              Occurrence
                            Distribution from
                             1,000 potential
                              Occurrence
                              Distributions
                                                                                                             Determine the
                                                                                                             likelihood of a
                                                                                                             single positive
                                                                                                             assay based on
                                                                                                             the number of
                                                                                                             assays taken
                                                                                                            during the period
                                                                                                               of analysis
  Determine the
 Year in which a
positive assay will
occur if one does
     occur.
Economic Analysis for the Final Ground Water Rule
       L-3
                                      October 2006

-------
              STEP 3:  DETERMINE PWS AND STATE SANITARY SURVEY
                           AND SIGNIFICANT  DEFICIENCY ACTIVITY
    INPUTS:

    Sample of PWSs including:
           PWS Type
           PWS Size
           PWS Population Served
           Unit Cost Estimates (not a function
               of flow) including Sanitary
               Surveys

    Uncertainty Iteration Specific Values for:
           EP Significant Deficiency Capital
               Costs
           EP Significant Deficiency O&M
               Costs
           Number of EPs Disinfecting
           Probability that PWS has no History
               of TC Violation
    OUTPUTS

    Uncertainty Iteration Specific Values for:
        PWS and State Sanitary Survey Costs
        PWS and State Significant Deficiency
           Costs
       Determine
      Frequency of
     Sanitary Survey
     based on: PWS
    Type, PWS History
     of TC Violations,
       and PWS
    Disinfection Status
Determine if PWS
has a Significant
   Deficiency
    Calculate Number
       of Sanitary
     Surveys over the
    Period of Analysis
                              Estimate PWS and
                               State Significant
                               Deficiency Costs
    Estimate PWS and
      State Sanitary
      Survey Costs
Economic Analysis for the Final Ground Water Rule
L-4
                 October 2006

-------
    STEP 4:  DETERMINE PWS AND STATE SOURCE WATER  MONITORING ACTIVITIES
             INPUTS:

             Sample of PWSs including:
                    PWS Type
                    PWS Size
                    PWS Population Served
                    Number of Entry Points
                    Entry Point Probabilities for
                        Parameters that are Certain

             Uncertainty Iteration Specific Values for:
                    Number of TC Positives Each Year
                    Likelihood of a Positive Assay
                        During the Period of Analysis
             OUTPUTS

             Uncertainty Iteration Specific Values for:
                 PWS and State Annual Monitoring Costs
                    Estimate Number
                    of Entry Points in a
                    PWS that Do Not
                     Achieve 4-log in
                        Baseline
                     Number of Entry
                     Points in a PWS
                    that Must Monitor
                                                                              Estimate Number
                                                                             of Entry Points in a
                                                                              PWS that must
                                                                              Take Corrective
                                                                               Action During
                                                                              Period of Analysis
Estimate
Number
of EPs that must
Monitor Until They
Take Corrective
Action






Estimate
Number
of EPs that must
Monitor Until the
End of the Period
of Analysis


                    Calculate Number
                     of Assays PWS
                     Must Take Each
                         Year
                                                                              Estimate Annual
                                                                              PWS and State
                                                                              Monitoring Cost
Economic Analysis for the Final Ground Water Rule
L-5
October 2006

-------
                                    STEP 5:  DETERMINE PWS AND STATE
                                         CORRECTIVE ACTION ACTIVITY
             INPUTS:

             Sample of PWSs including:
                     PWS Type
                     PWS Size
                     PWS Population Served
                     Number of Entry Points
                     Entry Point Probabilities for
                        Parameters that are Certain

             Uncertainty Iteration Specific Values for:
                     EP Corrective Action Capital Costs
                     EP Corrective Action O&M Costs
                     Likelihood of a Positive Assay
                        During the Period of Analysis
             OUTPUTS

             Uncertainty Iteration Specific Values for:
                 Number of EPs Take New Corrective
                        Action
                 Number of EPs Modify Disinfection
                 PWS and State Corrective Action Costs
                 PWS and State Compliance Monitoring
                        Costs
Estimate Number
of Entry Points in a
PWS that Do Not
Disinfect in
Baseline
i
r
Estimate Number
of Entry Points in a
PWS that Do Not
Disinfect in
Baseline that Have
Positive Assay
i
r
Estimate Number
of Entry Points in a
PWS that must
take New
Corrective Action



Estimate Number
of Entry Points in a
PWS that Disinfect
But Do Not
Achieve 4-log
Inactivation in the
Baseline
+
Estimate Number
of Entry Points in a
PWS that Disinfect
But Do Not
Achieve 4-log
Inactivation in the
Baseline that have
Positive Assay
i
r
Estimate Number
of Entry Points in a
PWS that must
Modify Disinfection


                     Estimate PWS and
                      State Corrective
                       Action Costs
                                                                              Estimate PWS and
                                                                              State Compliance
                                                                               Monitoring Costs
Economic Analysis for the Final Ground Water Rule
L-6
October 2006

-------