Appendices to the Economic
Analysis for the Final Long
Term 2 Enhanced Surface
Water Treatment Rule
Volume I (A - G)

-------
Office of Water (4606-M) EPA 815-R-06-001 December 2005 www.epa.gov/safewater

-------
Appendix A
Pre-LT2ESWTR Removal Credit
A.l Introduction
To assess the costs and benefits of the LT2ESWTR appropriately, it is necessary to estimate how
many plants will be required to provide treatment as a result of the rule and the level of treatment they
must provide. One essential factor in performing this assessment is determining the number of plants that
may be able to get Cryptosporidium removal credit for treatment technologies already in place. This
appendix discusses the various technologies that could earn removal credit and will estimate the
percentage of plants by size category that have or will have such technologies in place prior to
promulgation of the LT2ESWTR.
Specifically, this appendix addresses the following toolbox technologies:
Combined filter performance;
Softening plants with multiple settling basins;
Conventional plants with multiple settling basins; and
Multiple filters.
Data sources and the population size categories are discussed first, followed by an analysis of
each treatment configuration. The appendix concludes with a summary of log removal credits for existing
treatment.
A.2 Data Sources
A number of information sources were reviewed to determine the performance and layouts of
surface water treatment plants. A summary of each source, the information it contains, and its advantages
and disadvantages follow.
A.2.1 The Information Collection Rule (ICR), USEPA 1996
The ICR was a survey EPA conducted from 1997 through 1998. It consists of 18 months of data
collected from all large systems serving over 100,000 people. Information in the survey included water
quality parameters, such as turbidity and pH, along with process units in the plant and their sequences.
The ICR survey is the most comprehensive database available for large systems.
A.2.2 Partnership for Safe Drinking Water Data, 1999
Analyses in this appendix draw from the year 2000 annual report for the Partnership for Safe
Drinking Water (the Partnership), as well as additional turbidity data that EPA gathered and analyzed.
The Partnership is a cooperative effort among EPA and several professional water associations. Plants in
the Partnership undergo voluntary audit programs in an effort to improve their plant performance and
achieve better water quality. According to the annual report, about 211 of the total Partnership plants
were large plants serving more than 100,000 people, 81 were medium plants serving between 10,000 and
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
A-l
December 2005

-------
100,000 people, and 33 were small plants serving fewer than 10,000 people. All of these plants were
surface water plants. Because of this representation, the survey is best suited for use with large systems.
It is less appropriate to use for medium systems, although with a sample size of 81 medium plants, it is
probably a fair representation of medium plants. It is probably inadequate to represent small systems as
its small plants are less than half a percent of the small plants nationwide and most of the plants in the
database are larger systems. Because the Partnership is a voluntary association of plants actively seeking
to improve water quality, these plants are likely to perform better than plants nationwide.
A.2.3 American Waterworks Association (A WW A) Water:\Stats Database, 1996
The AWWA Water AStats Database contains the results of a survey of the AWWA's members
conducted in 1996. It contains information on the treatment processes in place at the plants that
responded to the survey along with information on disinfection byproducts and other water quality
parameters. The database includes information on 1,134 treatment plants. Of these, 377 are large plants,
722 are medium plants, and only 35 of the plants are small plants. Of these plants, 540 were surface
water plants. Because of the large number of medium plants, this is probably the best available source of
data for medium plants. It is also a good source of data for large plants. The small number of small
plants probably makes this source less adequate for characterization of small plants.
A.2.4 Community Water Systems Survey (CWSS), 1995
The CWSS was conducted by EPA in 1995. It surveyed 2,000 community water systems across
all size categories. It includes information on the type of treatment processes the plants have in place.
Although the sample size in this survey is adequate to represent plants in all size categories nationwide,
there are some significant problems with using this data source to estimate in-place treatment
technologies. First, there was a large number of non-responses to the survey, especially by small systems.
There was also a great deal of confusion over the wording of many of the questions on the survey, leading
to difficulty in classifying many of the process units. This resulted in a large number of processes being
classified in "other" categories. As a result, this survey is probably the least reliable source used in this
analysis.
A.2.5 National Rural Water Association (NRWA) Survey, 2000
This survey of members of the NRWA was conducted in 1999-2000. It includes data on water
quality parameters, as well as treatment configurations. The survey includes information on 129 small
surface water systems that do not constitute a random sample of all small systems. The water quality data
also include two samples per plant instead of the monthly data included in other surveys.
A.2.6 Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIAs) for the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment
Rule (IESWTR) (1998) and the Proposed Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment
Rule (LT1ESWTR) (2000)
These reports analyzed the impact of these two rules on surface water systems. The reports
include characterization of plants' performance prior to the promulgation of these rules and predictions
concerning what types of treatments plants would need to add to comply with these rules.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
A-2
December 2005

-------
A.2.7 Interview of Industry Experts
To assess the applicability of the various data sources and the assumptions made about them,
industry experts were interviewed on the topics analyzed in this appendix. Experts on the subjects of
small systems, large systems, data surveys, and treatment technologies were interviewed. The experts
were asked questions concerning the validity and applicability of the data sources listed above. They
were also questioned regarding the reasonableness of the assumptions in this appendix.
A.3 Comparison and Use of Data Sources
Using the expert opinion and information from each of the sources, determinations were made on
which data sources to use for each of the size categories and treatment categories.
A.3.1 Large Systems
The ICR is a comprehensive survey that was mandated of all large systems in the country. The
large number of systems makes it the most comprehensive and least biased source of information for large
systems. In addition, although the information on treatment trains was self-reported, EPA performed a
data quality check that should have lessened inconsistencies in reporting. Both Water:\Stats and CWSS
were voluntary surveys with non-response rates much greater than 50 percent. The low response rate
could lead to some bias in the data. There was also little independent review of the data, which means
that there could be inconsistent labeling of process units. This was a noted problem in CWSS. Therefore,
ICR data were used preferentially for large systems to obtain treatment train data. The Partnership data
were used for information on turbidity. For treatment processes that could not be determined from ICR
data, Water:\Stats or the CWSS was used.
A.3.2 Medium Systems
Water:\Stats and CWSS are the two main sources of data about treatment trains for medium water
systems. They contain similar numbers of medium systems and both were voluntary surveys with high
non-response rates. There was some confusion noted with the listing of technologies in the CWSS survey
that may have led to a higher rate of misclassification than with Water AStats. There was not enough
information, however, to favor one data source clearly over the other, so the two were considered
equivalent; data that existed in both databases were averaged.
Medium and large plants have been found to be similar both in terms of water quality and
treatment effectiveness. Examining the medium and large plants in Water:\Stats revealed that source
water quality as measured by source turbidity and finished water quality as measured by disinfection by-
products were nearly identical for medium and large plants (see USEPA 2003d Appendix B). Therefore,
the types and effectiveness of the treatment processes are thought to be fairly similar, and using data from
large plants (ICR data) for medium plants results in an acceptable estimate of medium plants. For this
reason, ICR data were used for medium plants when specific information on medium plants was
unavailable. For turbidity, data from the Partnership were used. The Partnership data are an aggregate of
medium and large plants, but they are acceptable to apply to medium plants.
A.3.3 Small Systems
Water:\Stats database contains information on only 33 small plants. Therefore, this source was
not used for small plants. CWSS contains the largest number of small plants of all the data sources. The
size of the sample may offset the possible misclassification and the low response rate. The NRWA
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
A-3
December 2005

-------
survey has a smaller number of plants that are less representative of the national population. However,
the survey was conducted by making site visits to the plants, so there is probably less miscategorization of
data. For that reason, NRWA was used as the preferential database for small systems with CWSS being
used when data were unavailable from NRWA. For turbidity data, the data collected for the proposed
LT1ESWTR RIA (USEPA 2000j) were used, as they contained the largest number of plants and were of
better quality.
A.4 Population Size Categories Evaluated
Because of the limited number of plants in many of the above sources, it was decided not to split
plants into nine population categories as is traditionally done in such analyses. Such a split would leave
many of the small size categories with too few plants to be statistically significant. Therefore, only the
small (< 10,000), medium (10,001-100,000), and large (> 100,000) population size categories were used
for analysis.
A.5 Combined Filter Performance
The combined filter performance option requires systems to achieve turbidity of 0.15 NTU in the
combined filter effluent (CFE). Conventional plants will need to meet the requirements of 0.3 NTU 95
percent of the time in the CFE per the IESWTR and the LT1ESWTR. Plants that can optimize their
process to achieve 0.15 NTU 95 percent of time in the CFE will be able to receive an additional 0.5 log
Cryptosporidium removal credit for the LT2ESWTR.
A.5.1 Medium and Large Plants-Turbidity
To determine the number of medium and large plants that can achieve the Cryptosporidium
reduction credit for the combined filter performance option prior to implementation of the IESWTR, 1999
data from the Partnership were examined. The data include turbidity results from 220 plants of the 325
that are members of the Partnership. As noted earlier, most plants in the Partnership are in the medium
and large size categories, so this data set is assumed to be representative of medium and large plants.
A.5.2 Pre-IESWTR
Exhibit A.l summarizes these data, showing the percentage of plants that exceed monthly 95th
percentile turbidities of 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 for a given number of months. To interpret the exhibit, consider
the following example: the value for 1 month and 0.3 NTU is 20 percent. This means that 20 percent of
the plants exceeded 0.3 NTU in their CFE for at least 1 month out of the year. Conversely, 80 percent of
the plants never exceeded a 95th percentile turbidity value of 0.3 NTU.
To estimate the percentage of plants in the Partnership below 0.15 for all months, linear
interpolation was used. From Exhibit A. 1, estimates of plants above 0.1 and 0.2 NTU for any given
month are 42 percent and 74 percent, respectively. The value for 0.15 NTU would then be:
(42% + 74%)/2 = 58%.
Therefore, 42 percent (100 percent - 58 percent) of plants did not exceed 0.15 NTU and met the
requirement to obtain the 0.5 log Cryptosporidium removal credit (less than 0.15 NTU 95 percent of the
time).
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
A-4
December 2005

-------
To extrapolate Partnership estimates directly to all medium and large plants nationwide may be
misleading. The plants in the Partnership tend to be the largest, best run plants in the country. Also, by
virtue of their voluntary participation in the program, these plants are likely to be dedicated to improving
plant performance. This may lead to plants in the Partnership performing better than those not in the
Partnership. Therefore, other information was evaluated to determine the percent of medium and large
plants that can obtain these values.
The Technical Work Group (TWG) for the IESWTR estimated the number of conventional
systems that would need to take action to achieve 95th percentile turbidity goals of 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 NTU.
The TWG estimated that there would be no difference in the number of plants that would need to make
changes to achieve 0.1 and 0.2 NTU; there would only be changes in the type of treatment they would
use. Examining Exhibit 5.2 of the IESWTR RIA (USEPA 1998b) shows the TWG determined that 20
percent of medium systems and 23 percent of large systems would not have to make changes to comply
with a 0.1 or 0.2 NTU 95th percentile turbidity limit. These values were used to represent the levels that
all plants could achieve prior to implementation of the LT2ESWTR. The Partnership plants were not
analyzed separately as the IESWTR analysis would have already taken these plants into account.
Exhibit A.1 Percent of Plants that Exceeded 95th Percentile Monthly
Turbidity at least N out of 12 Months
80.0
0.1 NTU
70.0
0.2 NTU
- - 0.3 NTU
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Number of Months (N)
Source: Personal Communication, Eric Bissonnette, EPA 2/28/01.
Exhibit A.2 summarizes the estimated percentage of Partnership plants and all plants estimated to
be meeting the combined filter performance requirement prior to the IESWTR.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
AS
December 2005

-------
Exhibit A.2: Percentage of Medium and Large Plants Estimated to Meet
Combined Filter Performance Requirements (Pre-IESWTR and Pre-LT1ESWTR)
Size Category
(Population
Served)
Total Plants
in Size
Category
No. of Plants in
Partnership 1
Percent of
Partnership
Plants Meeting
< 0.15 NTU 2
Percent of All
Plants
Meeting < 0.15
NTU3

a
b
c
d
Medium
(> 10k and
< 100k)
1,645
81
42%
20%
Large (> 100k)
464
211
42%
23%
Total
2,371
325


1	Number of all plants in the country in the given size category that belong to the Partnership. Estimated
from Partnership for Safe Water Annual Data Summary Report - January 2000.
2	Estimated from EPA evaluation of Partnership data (personal communication from Eric Bissonette,
EPA 2-28-01).
3	Derived from Exhibit 5.2 of the RIAforthe IESWTR (USEPA 1998b).
A.5.3 Post-LTIESWTR/IESWTR
Exhibit A.2 summarizes data from 1999 or before, prior to implementation of the IESWTR. It is
expected that many plants will improve filter performance to comply with the requirements of IESWTR.
The Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the IESWTR (USEPA 1998b) estimates that approximately 51
percent of medium and 46 percent of large systems will modify their treatment processes to comply with
the rule requirements. Plants are expected to make changes such as adding additional polymer,
automating filter monitoring and control, and implementing better filter inspection and maintenance
programs. These are plants that would not have been performing at these turbidity levels in 1999, but are
predicted to achieve lower turbidity limits of at least 0.3 NTU before the promulgation of the
LT2ESWTR. It is reasonable to assume that some plants that make changes to achieve 0.3 NTU will also
be able to achieve 0.15 NTU without additional changes. To estimate the percentage of these plants that
will achieve the additional removal to levels of 0.15 NTU 95 percent of the time after implementation of
the LT1ESWTR and IESWTR, the following assumptions were used:
The ratio of plants that achieve 0.15 NTU to those that achieve 0.3 NTU is the same for the
universe of plants.
Based on Partnership data (Exhibit A. 1), about half the plants that achieve 0.3 NTU (80
percent) also achieve 0.15 NTU (42 percent).
Although the Partnership plants tend to be run better on the whole, many of the elements of the
Partnership program are similar to those required by the IESWTR. For example, both the IESWTR and
the Partnership require filter benchmarking and peer reviews. Therefore, using the ratio of Partnership
plants that achieve 0.3 NTU to those that achieve 0.15 NTU is a reasonable proxy for how all plants
might be expected to perform after the IESWTR and LT1ESWTR are implemented. Applying this
percentage (50 percent) to the percent of medium and large plants expected to implement filter changes to
comply with the IESWTR (51 and 46 percent respectively) gives 26 and 23 percent of medium and large
plants, respectively. For example, for large systems:
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
A-6
December 2005

-------
% achieving 0.15 NTU = ( % achieving 0.3 NTU)*(% achieving 0.3 NTU that can achieve 0.15 NTU)
= (46%) *(50%)
= 23%
It should be noted that these numbers may be slightly optimistic because many plants may also
have to change operations to remove more total organic carbon (TOC) to meet Stage 1 Disinfection By-
products Rule requirements. Increasing TOC removal may interfere with turbidity removal in some
plants. The percent of plants qualifying for the credit above are in addition to the plants that were
calculated as meeting the requirements for the 0.5 log removal credit before promulgation of IESWTR.
Exhibit A.3 summarizes the percentage of plants estimated to achieve the combined filter performance
requirements at the time the LT2ESWTR takes effect.
Exhibit A.3: Percentage of Plants meeting Combined Filter Performance
Requirements (0.15 NTU 95% of the time)
Size
(Population Served)
Pre IESWTR
Conditions
Additional Plants Meeting
Combined Filter
Performance Following
IESWTR
Total Percent Meeting
Combined Filter
Performance,
Pre-LT2SWTR
Medium (> 10k and
< =100k)
20%
26%
46%
Large (> 100k)
23%
23%
46%
Source: Derived from Exhibits A.1 & A.2 and IESWTR (USEPA 1998b) and proposed LT1ESWTR (USEPA2000j)
RIAs.
A.5.4 Small Systems
Small systems—those serving 10,000 people or less—are evaluated separately from medium and
large systems for several reasons. Small systems often have better source water quality and, therefore,
require less rigorous treatment technologies. They also tend to have less advanced control systems, less
sophisticated monitoring equipment, and less operator training. Small plants tend to use conventional
treatment trains less often than medium and large plants. Small systems typically prefer package plants1
including such technologies as membranes, direct filtration, and cartridge filtration. Although such plants
may be able to obtain credit for those alternative technologies, they would not obtain credit for combined
filter performance.
A review of available data showed only two available data sources for small plants: NRWA data
and turbidity data collected for the proposed LT1ESWTR RIA. The NRWA survey included data from
129 surface water plants. There are several issues to take into account when considering the NRWA data.
The first is the small sample size. There are only 129 plants in the survey of which only 51 are
conventional plants; only conventional plants would be eligible for combined filter performance credit.
The plants were also not selected to represent a statistically valid nationwide sampling. The second issue
is that the NRWA data consist of only two grab samples taken during the year in contrast to the
Partnership data, which consist of the 95th percentile values of samples taken every 15 minutes. Such
1 A package plant is a plant that treats small amounts of water and is modular, usually shipped from the
factory whole. The plants need only to be hooked up to an inlet and outlet pipe to be operational.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
A-7
December 2005

-------
grab samples would likely miss seasonal peaks, as well as system spikes. Therefore, the samples are more
likely to be representative of an average or 50th percentile value than a 95th percentile value. For this
reason, the data collected for the LT1ESWTR were used as the primary data source.
The RIA for the proposed LT1ESWTR examined turbidity data for 187 small surface water plants
from 13 states. Two of these states reported 95th percentile turbidity data, six reported multiple daily
turbidity values, and five reported maximum daily values. These regular values give a much better
representation of the performance of small plants than the two annual points of the NRWA data. The data
showed that 27 percent of small plants never exceeded a 95th percentile turbidity value of 0.15 NTU and
48 percent of small plants never exceeded 0.3 NTU. Therefore, 27 percent of plants were assumed to be
able to perform well enough to obtain the combined filter performance Cryptosporidium removal credit.
The NRWA data were also examined to check the reasonableness of the results based on the
proposed LT1ESWTR RIA. Exhibit A.4 shows the maximum turbidity values of small conventional
plants in the NRWA survey. Sixty percent of the plants had both samples below 0.15 NTU. As
mentioned earlier, this is probably closer to the 50th percentile than the 95th percentile. The RIAs for the
IESWTR and the proposed LT1ESWTR assumed that plants would target 0.1 NTU under regular
operation to meet 0.2 NTU limits 95 percent of the time. To be consistent with these analyses, plants
were estimated to target an average of 0.075 NTU in order to achieve 0.15 NTU 95 percent of the time.
Examining Exhibit A.4 shows that approximately 30 percent of small conventional plants never exceeded
0.075 NTU in the NRWA survey. This value is less than the value for medium and large plants and close
to the value derived from the proposed LTIESWTR data. Therefore, the numbers derived from the
proposed LT IESWTR data were considered supported by the NRWA data. As mentioned above, the
smaller plants would not be expected to perform as well because of less operator training, less
sophisticated monitoring and control equipment, and less redundancy in systems. As a result, problems in
a single piece of equipment are more likely to affect the process.
In addition to evaluating performance of conventional filtration in small plants, this analysis
recognizes that there is a much smaller percentage of small conventional plants than in large and medium
systems. Approximately 40 percent of the NRWA plants were conventional. If only 27 percent of these
can meet the 0.15 NTU performance criteria in the CFE 95 percent of the time, then only 11 percent
(0.4*0.27 = 0.11) of small plants nationwide would qualify for the 0.5 log Cryptosporidium removal
credit. The estimate (11 percent) was used to represent Pre-LTIESWTR removal credit for small plants.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
A-8
December 2005

-------
Exhibit A4: NRVW\Percent of Conventional Plants Wth All Samples Below
Turbidity Level
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
+->
C
to
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
n = 50 plants	Turbidity
Source: National Rural Water Association (NRWA) Survey User Database (USEPA 2001b)
Additional plants may be able to meet the lower turbidity requirements after implementation of
the LT1ESWTR. The RIA for the proposed LT1ESWTR estimated that 41 percent of small surface water
plants would make filtration improvements to comply with the rule. Therefore, 41 percent of small
systems would achieve 0.3 NTU. To calculate the percent that will achieve 0.15 NTU, the ratio of small
plants achieving 0.15 NTU to those achieving 0.3 NTU from the LT1ESWTR RIA data (0.56) is used,
assuming the ratio is constant as in the large and medium plant analysis. Using this ratio gives 23 percent
(0.41 x 0.56) of small plants that would meet the 0.15 NTU limit 95 percent of the time. Added to the
Pre-LTIESWTR percentage of 11 percent gives a total of 34 percent of small surface water plants that
could obtain the 0.5 log Cryptosporidium removal credit for combined filter performance.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
A-9
December 2005

-------
A.6 Plants with Multiple Sedimentation Basins in Series
Plants with multiple sedimentation basins in series will generally receive a 0.5 log removal credit
for the LT2ESWTR. These plants could be softening or conventional plants. Examining the ICR
database for softening plants, all plants listed as "two stage softening plants" or as
"coagulation/sedimentation softening plants" meet this requirement. There were 16 and 18 percent of all
softening plants in these categories, respectively. Therefore, this analysis estimates that 34 percent (16 +
18%) of softening plants could qualify for the credit. As there were no such data in CWSS or
Water:\Stats, the ICR value was used for all medium and large plants. NRWA indicated 1.5 percent of
small systems had multiple basins. This percentage was used for small softening systems. To estimate
the total percent of softening plants with multiple sedimentation basins, the percentage of softening plants
assumed to have multiple basins (34 percent) was then multiplied by the total percent of all plants that are
softening based on CWSS data.
ICR data show that approximately 3 percent of large conventional plants have multiple
sedimentation basins in series. Water:\Stats and CWSS do not distinguish the number of basins, only
whether they are present or not. The NRWA survey, however, did provide data on multiple basins,
showing that 1.5 percent of small systems had multiple basins. This number was used for small systems.
The ICR number was used for medium and large plants. The total number of plants with multiple
sedimentation basins in series would be a sum of the conventional and softening plants with multiple
basins in series. Exhibit A.5 shows the resulting data.
Exhibit A.5: Percentage of Plants with Multiple Sedimentation Basins
Size (Population Served)
Softening
Conventional
Total
Small ( < 10k)
1.5%
1.5%
3%
Medium (10k- 100k)
2%
3%
5%
Large (> 100k)
2%
3%
5%
Source: ICR Aux1 Database (USEPA 2000h) and NRWA Survey User Database (USEPA 2001 b)
A.7 Multiple Filters in Series
EPA intends to grant a 0.5 log credit for plants having multiple filters in series.
ICR and CWSS did not differentiate between GAC alone and GAC as a polishing filter. The
Water:\Stats database, however, does contain more detailed information on GAC filters. Exhibit A.6
shows the percent of medium and large plants that have a GAC filter in addition to conventional filters as
listed in Water:\Stats. The NRWA survey showed no plants that had a GAC filter following a
conventional filter. As with adsorption clarifiers, it was assumed that no plants had such technologies in
addition to a conventional treatment train, but are used in addition to other processes such as direct
filtration. Therefore, no small plants were assumed to have this technology. Exhibit A.6 summarizes the
percent of plants with multiple filters in series.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
A-10
December 2005

-------
Exhibit A.6: Percentage of Plants with Multiple Filters in Series
Size (Population Served)
GAC
Small ( < 10k)
0%
Medium (10k- 100k)
4%
Large (> 100k)
7%
Source: AWWA Water:\Stats Database for GAC.
A.8 Summary
Treatment configurations in place at the time of rule promulgation are considered "credits." In
other words, neither the costs nor the benefits of those configurations can be ascribed to the LT2ESWTR.
Plants with these configurations are placed into a bin that is either 0.5 or 1.0 log less than what their
occurrence would require of them. For example, a system in a 2.0 log treatment bin that had a 1.0 log
treatment credit would need only to install a technology that obtained 1.0 log credit. In this way, neither
the costs nor the benefits from existing technologies are ascribed to this rule.
Exhibit A.7 summarizes the percent of plants with treatments in place that can achieve
Cryptosporidium reduction credit for LT2ESWTR beyond conventional treatment. It is possible that
some plants could have multiple technologies for which they could receive credit. To determine the
percent of plants that might achieve multiple credits, the chances of a plant having each of the three
technologies—combined filter performance, multiple sedimentation basins, and multiple filters—were
considered independently. Therefore, the chance of a small plant having lower finished water turbidity to
meet the combined filtration performance requirement and multiple sedimentation basins is:
(0.34)*(0.03) = 1.0%.
Exhibit A.7 present the estimates of the percentages of plants that would receive 0.5 or 1.0 log of
Cryptosporidium removal credit for existing technologies.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
A-ll
December 2005

-------
Exhibit A.7: Total Percentage of Plants with 0.5 and 1.0 Log Reduction Credits
Size
(Population
Served)
Combined
filter
performance
Multiple Settling
Basins
(Conventional and
Softening)
Multiple
Filters
0.5 log
total credit
1.0 log total
credit

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d) = a + b
+ c - e
(e) = (a*b)+(a*c)+
(b*c)
Small
( < 10k)
34%
3%
0%
36%
1%
Medium
(10k-100k)
46%
5%
4%
51%
4%
Large
(> 100k)
46%
5%
7%
52%
6%
Source: Derived from Exhibits A.1-A.6.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
A-12
December 2005

-------
Appendix B
Characterizing Cryptosporidium Concentration and Methods for Predicting
Plant Bin Assignment
B.l Introduction
This appendix describes the statistics used to characterize Cryptosporidium occurrence
distributions. It then explains how the monitoring frequency and calculation of the average concentration
for bin determination were chosen. Lastly, it presents the data used to determine Cryptosporidium
occurrence and the likelihood of a plant being categorized into a given bin for each regulatory alternative.
B.2 Appropriate Statistical Measure to Characterize Source Waters
EPA considered a variety of statistical measures by which Cryptosporidium concentrations in
systems could be characterized for the purpose of determining whether additional treatment should be
prescribed. These measures included the arithmetic mean, median, 90th percentile, and maximum.
Consistent with Microbial-Disinfection Byproduct Advisory Committee (Advisory Committee)
recommendations, EPA is proposing that Cryptosporidium levels be characterized by the arithmetic mean.
Use of the mean is advantageous for several reasons. The mean can be estimated more reliably than other
statistical measures. For example, with a limited number of samples, the confidence interval around the
mean is substantially narrower (i.e., less uncertain) than for a 90th percentile estimate. Defining a
treatment trigger based upon a maximum value would be much less reliable than basing it on a
computation involving multiple values, due to the uncertainty associated with any single sample
measurement.
The mean concentration also directly relates to the average risk of the exposed population and,
therefore, provides a good measure for indicating relative risks from one site versus another (e.g.,
doubling the source water average concentration corresponds to about a doubling of the risk, assuming
the same level of treatment at both sites). In contrast, the median would not be an informative or
appropriate characterization because of the large numbers of non-detection measurements expected to
occur, resulting in a large number of sites with median values equal to zero. The median would fail to
distinguish differences between sites that had half or more of their measurements as zero and positive
values for the remainder, and those that truly had measurements of zero.
B.3 Rates of System Misclassification
Having identified an expected level of laboratory analytical method performance based on results
with EPA Methods 1622/23 in the Information Collection Rule Supplemental Surveys (ICRSS), and
having established the mean as the appropriate statistical measure to classify source water
Cryptosporidium levels, a critical issue for the Advisory Committee was how accurately systems could be
classified within a bin structure by a monitoring program. This analysis illustrates the impact of the
number of samples analyzed and the averaging technique (e.g., maximum running average vs. simple
mean) on system misclassification rates.
With perfect information on mean source water Cryptosporidium levels, it would be possible to
assign systems to bins without error. No such perfect information exists, so the Advisory Committee
recommended a sampling and testing strategy relying on Method 1622 or 1623. Each source water would
require a number of samples to ensure a reasonably accurate estimate of its mean Cryptosporidium
concentration.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
B-l
December 2005

-------
The calculated mean that systems derive from monitoring results will differ from the true mean
because of sampling and measurement error. Sampling error occurs because only a finite volume of water
is assayed on each occasion. Since oocysts are highly dispersed in the water, many 10-L samples will
contain zero oocysts when the concentration is low but greater than zero. For example, EPA would
expect most 10-L samples to contain zero oocysts when the true concentration in the water body being
sampled is 0.05 oocysts/L.
Sampling error also occurs because samples are collected relatively infrequently. Since
Cryptosporidium concentrations may experience significant temporal variation, infrequent sampling is
likely to miss rare peaks in concentration and, therefore, underestimate the true mean occurrence level.
Conversely, if a sample event happens to coincide with a rare occurrence peak, the calculated mean will
overestimate the true mean occurrence level. By prescribing a larger number of samples at equal intervals
over a long period of time, this type of sampling error can be reduced to a relatively low level.
Measurement error occurs because the total oocyst count from a volume assayed does not usually
equal the total number of oocysts that were present. Studies of recovery indicate that the percentage of
oocysts lost during the measurement process is variable, most often falling between 15 percent and 65
percent (based on ICRSS data). Because the Advisory Committee recommended that systems be assigned
to bins based on total oocyst counts uncorrected for recovery, EPA does not treat average recovery as a
source of error. However, the variability of recovery around the mean contributes to error.
To estimate how these errors would affect the assignment of systems to bins, EPA constructed a
Monte Carlo model that dealt with the error components in the following manner:
Finite volume assayed—The model defines the number of oocysts present in a 10-L volume
as a Poisson random variable, whose mean is the product of measurement recovery, volume
assayed, and concentration at the time of sampling.
Finite number of samples—True concentration varies over time as a random variable.
Concentration is modeled to vary in such a way that its natural logarithm is normally
distributed with standard deviation 1.762. This value was selected based on Bayesian
analysis of survey data (see Chapter 4) and on expert opinion that at any given site the
Cryptosporidium concentration would vary within a three order of magnitude concentration
range 95 percent of the time; i.e., 2.5 percent of the time the concentration would be less than
X, and 2.5 percent of the time the concentration would exceed 1000X.
Variable recovery—Based on laboratory performance in ICRSS, EPA assumed for the model
an average recovery among all laboratories of 40 percent with a relative standard deviation of
50 percent. Recovery is modeled as a Beta random variable with parameters (a, P) = (2,3).
Mean recovery is therefore a/(a + P) = 2/(2 + 3) = 0.4. The standard deviation of recovery is
0.2, which is half the mean recovery.
With this Monte Carlo model, source water monitoring using Methods 1622 and 1623 was
simulated to predict error rates in assigning systems to the bins under Rule Option A3, the Preferred
Alternative. Estimates were made for different monitoring frequencies and decision rules. Monitoring
frequencies included 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, and 48 samples collected over a 2-year period. System bin
assignments were based on comparing a sample statistic with the selected bin boundaries. Sample
statistics included the mean, maximum, 2nd highest, 3rd highest, and maximum running annual average
(Max-RAA). (Results are shown only for the 48-sample mean and the 24-sample Max-RAA, the
sampling frequencies allowed in the proposed Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
(LT2ESWTR).)
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
B-2
December 2005

-------
Exhibits B. 1 and B.2 show how the probabilities of assignment to Bins 1 through 4 vary with the
true source water mean concentration when the Max-RAA is used with 24 samples assayed over a 2-year
period (producing 13 annual averages). Table results are based on 1,000 simulated monitoring data sets.
Note that because monitoring results will not be corrected for recovery, the parameter to be considered
when assessing error in bin assignment is the true mean source water concentration multiplied by 40
percent (the estimated average method recovery). For example, Exhibit B. 1 indicates that if the true mean
is 0.316 oocysts/L, and the true mean multiplied by 40 percent recovery is 0.126 (0.316 x 0.4), there is a
12.9 percent probability of this water being classified in the no-action bin, an 85.9 percent probability of
being classified in Bin 2 (the correct bin for this water), and about a 1 percent probability of being
classified in Bin 3.
Assignment errors are most likely when the true mean is close to a bin boundary. For example,
Exhibit B. 1 indicates that a water with a true mean (multiplied by 40 percent recovery) of 0.075 oocysts/L
has about a 60 percent probability of being classified in Bin 2 and a 40 percent probability for Bin 1.
Notice that classification high is more likely than classification low for these cases. This is because the
Max-RAA tends to overestimate the true mean slightly. In contrast, if the true mean concentration is in
the middle of Bin 2, then there is about a 90 percent probability of being classified in Bin 2.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
B-3
December 2005

-------
Exhibit B.1: Estimated Probability of System Being Assigned to Each of the Four
LT2ESWTR Bins as a Function of True Mean Source Water Cryptosporidium
Concentration Based on Max-RAA
True
System
Mean (Total
Oocysts/L)
Measured
Mean at
40%
Recovery
(Oocysts/L)
Action Bins
No Action
C < 0.075
1-Log
0.075 < C < 1
2-Log
1 < C < 3
2.5-Log
3 < C
A
B
C
D
E
F
0.0010
0.0004
1.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0018
0.0007
1.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0032
0.0013
0.9990
0.0010
0.0000
0.0000
0.0056
0.0022
1.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0100
0.0040
0.9960
0.0040
0.0000
0.0000
0.0178
0.0071
0.9900
0.0100
0.0000
0.0000
0.0316
0.0126
0.9530
0.0470
0.0000
0.0000
0.0562
0.0225
0.8970
0.1020
0.0010
0.0000
0.1000
0.0400
0.7170
0.2810
0.0020
0.0000
0.1778
0.0711
0.4110
0.5830
0.0060
0.0000
0.3162
0.1265
0.1290
0.8590
0.0090
0.0030
0.5623
0.2249
0.0310
0.9280
0.0380
0.0030
1.0000
0.4000
0.0010
0.8680
0.1150
0.0160
1.7783
0.7113
0.0010
0.6580
0.2980
0.0430
3.1623
1.2649
0.0000
0.2840
0.5500
0.1660
5.6234
2.2494
0.0000
0.0720
0.5640
0.3640
10.0000
4.0000
0.0000
0.0070
0.2480
0.7450
17.7828
7.1131
0.0000
0.0000
0.0580
0.9420
31.6228
12.6491
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
1.0000
56.2341
22.4936
0.0000
0.0000
0.0010
0.9990
100.0000
40.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
1.0000
Exhibit B.3 shows equivalent information for a simple mean based on 48 samples over a 2-year
period. Again, assignment errors are most likely when the true mean is close to a bin boundary. Notice
that the likelihood of a source water being misclassified high is lower than for the Max-RAA based on 24
samples. For example, Exhibit B.3 indicates that if the true mean is 0.075 oocysts/L then there is about a
65 percent probability of being classified in Bin 1 and about a 35 percent probability of being classified in
Bin 2. If, however, the true mean is in the middle of Bin 2, then there is a greater than 95 percent
probability of being classified in Bin 2.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
B-4
December 2005

-------
Exhibit B.2: Likelihood of Classification in Bins 1-4 as a Function of Source
Water Mean Concentration Based on a Max-RAA with 24 Samples
Performance of 24-Month Maximum RAA
Bin 1 = No Action
Bin 2 = 1 -log
Bin 3 = 2-logs
Bin 4 = 2.5-logs
Bin Boundaries
Source Water Mean Concentration (multiplied by 40% recovery)
Bin assignment error based on the Max-RAA or a simple mean increased substantially when
sampling frequency dropped below 24 samples (results not shown). Therefore, the Advisory Committee
recommended that at least 24 samples be used for estimating mean source water concentrations and bin
determination.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
B-5
December 2005

-------
Exhibit B.3: Likelihood of Classification in Bins 1-4 as a Function of Source
Water Mean Concentration Based on a Simple Mean with 48 Samples
Performance of 48-Month Simple Mean
Bin 1 = No Action
Bin 2 = 1 -log
Bin 3 = 2-logs
Bin 4 = 2.5-logs
Bin Boundaries
Source Water Mean Concentration (multiplied by 40% recovery)
One way the Advisory Committee members evaluated the significance of system
misclassification in bin assignments was to consider a water where the true mean is 0.5 log (i.e., factor of
3.16) from a bin boundary. This case was assessed when the true mean was both a half log below and
above a bin boundary. Misclassifying such a water in a lower bin would suggest that the monitoring was
not protective of public health, since the relatively high occurrence level would go unaddressed. Both the
Max-RAA based on 24 samples and the simple mean based on 48 samples, each over a 2-year monitoring
period, provided approximately the same level of protection against this kind of error. For example, for a
water with a true mean at 0.5 log above the boundary between Bin 1 and Bin 2 (0.075 oocysts/L), the
rates of misclassification into the lowest bin for the 24-sample Max-RAA and the 48-sample simple mean
are 1.7 percent (0.017) and 1.4 percent (0.014), respectively.
Two graphs are provided that clearly show the tendency for misclassification under the Preferred
Alternative. Exhibit B.4 shows the distribution of source waters according to actual concentration and bin
classification. Exhibit B.5 shows the measured concentration (on the vertical axis) versus estimated
"true" concentration (on the horizontal axis) and the resulting misclassified areas.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
B-6
December 2005

-------
Exhibit B.4: Distribution of Cryptosporidium Occurrence for Plants and
Classification to Regulatory Bins
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
~T~
~T
T
~T
T
~T
eoooe
ooooe
oooooooo
ooooooooc
ooeooooeec o
oooooooeose
oooooeoooe* e
oooeoooeoe* e®
oooeoooooooc <
ooooooeooooc <
o oo ooo oo eo ee c <
oooooooooooe* oeee
ooooooeoooeee^ oeoe
oo oo ooo oo oo ee3>$o ee e
oooooooooooeos eeeee
ooooooooooooeos eeoe&e
0000000000000003
ooooooooeoooeoe* eeeeeess
ooooooooooooooe^ oeeeeee
ooooooooooooooes oeeeeee
oooooooooooooooo* eeeeeee®
oo oo oo oo oee oo eo oo <
oo oo oo oo ooo oo oo oe <
ooo oo oo oo ooo oo oo oe <
ooooooooooooooeooo^ eeeeeeeeee
oooooooeoooooooooe* eoeeeeessesg
ooooooooooooooooooe* eeeeeeeeess®
oo ooo oo oo oo ooo oo oo ee * ee ee ee ee ssra
000000000000000000003 eoeeeeee&ee $
o oo ooo oo oo oo ooo oo oo ee 3 ee e® ee ee$|®e
o oo ooo oo oo oo ooo oo ®o oo <
oo oo ooo oo oo oo ooo oo oo oo <
o oo oo ooo oo oo oo ooo oo oo oo <
oo oo oo ooo oo oo oo ooe eo oe oo* oe ee ee
o oo oo oo ooo oo oo oo ooo oo oo ee <
oo oo oo oo ooo oo oo oo ooo oo oe oe <
ooo oo oo oo ooo oo oo oo ooo oo oo oo <
o oo ooo oo oo oo ooo oo oo oo ooo eo oo oe 3 ee ee ee ee eesfee sags i&ee e
oo oo oo ooo oo oo oo ooo oo oo oo ooo eo oo oe oee ee ee ee eestee	ee ee ©
¦¦¦J-..-	J aig	iOMt	V/V •¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦•¦••¦¦¦I-..---..- \/V/

so®®®®®®®®®	©
1 10
1 10
1 -10
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
Note: Plot of distribution of source waters by "true" concentration. The three lines are the bin
boundaries for the Preferred Alternative. Empty circles are assigned to the no-action bin. Circles with a
dark + in the center are assigned to the 1.0 log removal bin. Circles with an "x" in the center are
assigned to the 2.0 log removal bin. Circles with a light + in the center are assigned to the 2.5 log
removal bin. Circles with symbols that lie outside their given bin boundary are systems that are
misclassified. For example, any circle with a + in it to the left of the leftmost line is one assigned to the
1.0 log removal bin despite having "true" Cryptosporidium concentrations below the bin level.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
B-7
December 2005

-------
Exhibit B.5: Measured Cryptosporidium Concentration versus "True"
Concentration and Bin Misclassification























=ft
1 1
























; L























+-i

1-
I


























I- |


1























t+
+

F
-H












Mis
classified High
rT




:+4
H
III a
+
























+


t +



























it-4!


























++
4
!UL





















H
J-j
\- A
,4t-





















Jli
-H J
+ -ut





















f
+


—


























H l~
Al-

}-
























f




JJ-














+

+
\-
Ht
f-¦
r -H-+H

M -j
-II---


Miscla
ssifiec
Low





















M—




















































































































































MO5	110 4	1 10 3	0.01	0.1	1	10	100
Note: Measured concentration versus "true" concentration. Dark lines represent the bin
boundaries for the Preferred Alternative. Light grey shading shows areas that have samples
that were classified in a bin higher than their "true" concentration. Darker grey shaded areas
show areas with samples that were classified in a bin lower than their "true" concentration.
Based on 24-month mean for ICR 95th percentile occurrence distribution.
Misclassifying waters too high relative to the true mean would potentially result in systems taking
costly and unnecessary steps to reduce exposure. As shown by Exhibits B.2 and B.3, the 48-sample
simple mean provides greater protection against this type of error than does the Max-RAA, although
monitoring costs will be twice as high. Given the concerns for bias (high or low) in assigning systems to
bins, the Advisory Committee recommended that either the Max-RAA or the 48-sample simple mean be
used to provide sufficiently reliable estimates for bin determination under LT2ESWTR.
B.4 Predicted Bin Assignment for Each Regulatory Alternative
This section presents the probability distributions generated from the same model described
above. The distributions show the likelihood of a plant with a source water of a given true value being
classified in a given bin for each regulatory alternative. The following exhibits present the results:
B.6	Bin Assignment Probability for Alternative A2 (0.5 log/1.5 log/2.5 log)
B.7	Graph of Bin Assignment Probability for Alternative A2 (0.5 log/1.5 log/2.5 log)
B.8	Bin Assignment Probability for Alternative A3 (1.0 log/2.0 log/2.5 log)
B.9	Graph of Bin Assignment Probability for Alternative A3 (1.0 log/2.0 log/2.5 log)
B.10 Bin Assignment Probability for Alternative A4 (0.5 log/1.0 log)
B .l 1	Graph of Bin Assignment Probability for Alternative A4 (0.5 log/1.0 log)
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
B-8
December 2005

-------
The measured amount of Cryptosporidium may be different than the actual or "true"
concentration because of sampling errors and method limitations. Exhibits B.6, B.8, and B. 10 show for a
given "true" concentration the percentage of time that a sample would be classified in each bin. (This
section differs from section B.3, which factors in recovery in determining probability of
misclassification). The Bin Assignment central tendency is presented for all three occurrence data sets
(the Information Collection Rule (ICR), ICR Supplemental Survey Large Systems (ICRSSL), and ICR
Supplemental Survey Medium Systems (ICRSSM)). The percentage of plants classified in each bin
depends on method errors such as recovery, false positives, and analyst error, as well as accounting for
sample size and the fact that the concentration in a given sample may under- or over-represent the
concentration in the larger water body. Exhibits B.7, B.9, and B. 11 show the probability of classification
in a bin given a "true" source water concentration in graphical form.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
B-9
December 2005

-------
Exhibit B.6: Bin Assignment Probability Given True and Measured Maximum
Alternative A2 (0.5 log/1.5 log/2.5 log)
System Concentration
Binning Probability [2]


Bin 1
Bin 2
Bin 3
Bin 4
True Mean
Measured Mean
No Action
0.5-log
1.5-logs
2.5-logs
Concentration
Concentration




[1]
(40% Recovery)
C < 0.03
0.03 < C < 0.1
0.1 
-------
Exhibit B.7: Bin Assignment Probability for Alternative A2 - (Maximum
Reduction)
Bin 1 = No Action
Bin 2 = 0.5-log
Bin 3 = 1.5-logs
Bin 4 = 2.5-logs
Source Water Mean Concentration, oocysts/liter
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
B-ll
December 2005
-------
Exhibit B.8: Bin Assignment Probability Given True and Measured Maximum
Alternative A3 (Preferred Alternative)
System Concentration
Binning Probability [2]


Bin 1
Bin 2
Bin 3
Bin 4
True Mean
Measured Mean
No Action
1 -log
2-logs
2.5-logs
Concentration
Concentration




[1]
(40% Recovery)
C< 0.075
0.075 
-------
Exhibit B.9: Alternative A3 - (Preferred Alternative)
—^Bin 1 = No Action
-OBin 2 = 1 -log
~^Bin 3 = 2-logs
-C^Bin 4 = 2.5-logs
Source Water Mean Concentration, oocysts/liter
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
B-13
December 2005
-------
Exhibit B.10: Bin Assignment Probability Given True and Measured Maximum
Alternative A4 (0.5 log/1.0 log)
System Concentration
Binning Probability [2]


Bin 1
Bin 2
Bin 3
(No Bin 4)
True Mean
Measured Mean
No Action
0.5-log
1 -log

Concentration
Concentration




[1]
(40% Recovery)
C<0.1
0.1 <_C< 1
1 < C

A
B
C
D
E
F
0.00178
0.0007
1.0000
0.0000
0.0000

0.00316
0.0013
1.0000
0.0000
0.0000

0.00562
0.0022
1.0000
0.0000
0.0000

0.01000
0.0040
1.0000
0.0000
0.0000

0.01800
0.0072
0.9990
0.0010
0.0000

0.03200
0.0128
0.9930
0.0070
0.0000

0.05600
0.0224
0.9550
0.0450
0.0000

0.10000
0.0400
0.8410
0.1580
0.0010

0.17800
0.0712
0.6070
0.3900
0.0030

0.31600
0.1264
0.2830
0.7030
0.0140

0.56200
0.2248
0.0870
0.8740
0.0390

1.00000
0.4000
0.0050
0.8700
0.1250

1.77800
0.7112
0.0000
0.6540
0.3460

3.16200
1.2648
0.0000
0.2940
0.7060

5.62300
2.2492
0.0000
0.0690
0.9300

10.00000
4.0000
0.0000
0.0030
0.9970

17.78300
7.1132
0.0000
0.0000
1.0000

31.62300
12.6492
0.0000
0.0000
1.0000

56.23400
22.4936
0.0000
0.0000
1.0000


Binning Central Tendency [3]

All Plants ICR





Occurrence





Distribution
69.60%
22.80%
7.50%
N/A

All Plants,





ICRSSL
84.00%
15.60%
0.40%
N/A

All Plants,





ICRSSM
78.50%
19.70%
1.80%
N/A
[1]	True source water Cryptosporidium concentration (oocysts/liter).
[2]	Probability that a plant will fall into a given treatment bin given true and
measured concentration taking into account measurement errors and the
Cryptosporidium occurrence.
[3]	Result of 1,000 Monte Carlo Simulations 06/05/01.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
B-14
December 2005
-------
Exhibit B.11: Bin Assignment Probability for Alternative A4 - (Least Reduction)
-AAA
'Bin 1 = No Action
•Bin 2 = 0.5-log
'Bin 3 = 1 -log
0.001
¦tMl"
0.01	0.1	1	10
Source Water Mean Concentration, oocysts/liter
100
In order to bound the range of Cryptosporidium occurrence, 90 percent confidence limits were
developed for Cryptosporidium occurrence. From the 1,000 mu-sigma pairs of occurrence, the analysis
used the 5th and 95th percentile concentrations (i.e., 1,000 5th percentile plant-means and 1,000 95th
percentile plant-means) and ran a Monte Carlo simulation to generate 24 RAAs for each plant. The bin
assignment percentage was calculated from the number of plants within the occurrence bins based on the
highest RAA. Exhibit B. 12 shows the bin assignment for high (95th percentile) and low (5th percentile)
occurrence distributions by regulatory alternative (except Al, which has no bin assignment).
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
B-15
December 2005
-------
Exhibit B.12: Bin Assignment for the Cryptosporidium Occurrence Confidence
Bound Distributions (5th and 95th Percentiles)
Rule






Option
Source Water
Log 0.5 Removal
Log 1.0 Removal
Log 1.5 Removal
Log 2.0 Removal
Log 2.5 Removal

ICR Low
18.2%

22.2%

5.8%

ICRJHigh
20.7%

25.3%

8.6%
A2
ICRSSL Low
26.4%

12.2%

0.2%
ICRSSLJHigh
31.0%

18.3%

0.9%

ICRSSM Low
23.3%

17.8%

1.1%

ICRSSMJHigh
27.1%

21.5%

2.4%

ICR Low

26.5%

3.7%
2.1%

ICRJHigh

30.4%

4.8%
3.8%
A3
ICRSSL Low

17.5%

0.2%
0.0%
ICRSSLJHigh

24.7%

0.8%
0.1%

ICRSSM Low

22.9%

0.9%
0.2%

ICRSSMJHigh

27.5%

1.9%
0.6%

ICR Low
22.2%
5.8%




ICRJHigh
25.3%
8.6%



A4
ICRSSL Low
12.2%
0.2%



ICRSSLJHigh
18.3%
0.9%




ICRSSM Low
17.8%
1.1%




ICRSSMJHigh
21.5%
2.4%



B.5 Bin Assignment for Unfiltered Plants
Bin assignment for unfiltered plants was calculated the same way as for filtered plants, described
above. The only difference is that the unfiltered plants have only two treatment bins, one requiring 2.0 log
inactivation and another requiring 3.0 log inactivation. Analysis was conducted for all unfiltered systems
using the ICR unfiltered data set. The results of the bin assignment analysis are included in Exhibit B. 13
for small, medium, and large systems.
Exhibit B.13: Bin Assignment for the Cryptosporidium Occurrence Distribution
for Unfiltered Plants
Size Category
(Population Served)
2.0 Log Inactivation Bin
3.0 Log Inactivation Bin
Small (< 10,000)
79.2%
20.8%
Medium (10,001 - 100,000)
79.2%
20.8%
Large (> 100,000)
81.2%
18.8%
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
B-16
December 2005
-------
Appendix C
Benefits
C.l Summary
This appendix presents additional data on the risk and benefit estimates for the LT2ESWTR,
supplementing or providing background for the calculations in Chapter 5. The Appendix is organized as
follows:
C.l Summary
C.2 AIDS/Population Ratio for Milwaukee Outbreak
C.3 Derivation of Filtered and Unfiltered Population Numbers for Mortality
C.4 Model-Estimated National Cases of Illness and Death Avoided With Associated
Economic Values
C.5 Individual Risk Functions
C.6 Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per Capita
C.l Income Elasticity Factors
The Appendix C exhibit list is below. For Exhibits C.4 through C.9, each exhibit has two
parts—the first based on the enhanced cost of illness and the second based on the traditional cost of
illness.
Exhibit
C.l
Exhibit
C.2
Exhibit
C.3
Exhibit
C.4a-f
Exhibit
C.5a-f
Exhibit
C.6
Exhibit
C.l
Exhibit
C.8
Exhibit
C.9
Exhibit
C.10
Exhibit
C.ll
Exhibit
C.12
Exhibit
C.13
Exhibit
C.14
Exhibit
C.15
Exhibit
C.16
Exhibit
C.17
Population Served for Selected Unfiltered Systems and AIDS Population
Derivation of Filtered Systems' Populations
Population at Risk and Baseline Pre-LT2 Cases of Illness and Death by System
Size, Filtration, and Data Set
Cases Avoided and Benefits Annualized at 3 Percent
Cases Avoided and Benefits Annualized at 7 Percent
Cases Avoided and Benefits Annualized at 3 Percent, Filtered Systems Only
Cases Avoided and Benefits Annualized at 3 Percent, Unfiltered Systems Only
Cases Avoided and Benefits Annualized at 7 Percent, Filtered Systems Only
Cases Avoided and Benefits Annualized at 7 Percent, Unfiltered Systems Only
Number of Illnesses Avoided by Year Following Rule Promulgation
Number of Deaths Avoided by Year Following Rule Promulgation
Annual Individual Risk Distributions Based on ICRSSM Occurrence Data,
Filtered Community Water Systems (CWSs) Only
Annual Individual Risk Distributions Based on ICRSSL Occurrence Data,
Filtered Community Water Systems (CWSs) Only
Factors for Incorporation of Income Elasticity into Yearly Benefits Estimates
CPI Estimates
Undiscounted Benefits by Year
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
C-l
December 2005
-------
C.2 AIDS/Population Ratio for Milwaukee Outbreak
The national mortality rate for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) patients due to
cryptosporidiosis cannot be directly derived from the data collected during the Milwaukee outbreak, but
these data can be adjusted to more accurately estimate mortality rates in 2001. One adjustment is needed
because there are considerably fewer AIDS patients per capita in Milwaukee and the State of Wisconsin
than in the rest of the country. As an illustration, in 1993 there were about three times the number of
persons living with AIDS per capita in the United States compared to Wisconsin. The population living
with AIDS in 1993 was 132,686 (CDC 1993) in a total population of 257,783,000 (U.S. Census Bureau,
2001c) compared to Wisconsin's 862 persons living with AIDS (CDC 1993) in a total population of
5,044,318 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001c). A second adjustment is necessary to reflect the increased
incidence of AIDS in the United States between 1993 and 2001. A further adjustment was needed to
reflect the different incident rates in areas served by filtered and unfiltered systems. For all these
adjustments, the analysis uses data on the incidence of AIDS from the CDC and the U.S. Census Bureau.
Using these two sources allows more consistent comparisons across geographic areas and time than do the
available alternatives..
Other sources were not used that provide related data. For example, Frisby et al. (1997) mention
that approximately 1,300 people were living HIV in Milwaukee in 1993, but not all HIV patients are
immunocompromised to the same degree as AIDS patients and, therefore, do not have the same risk of
illness and death. Dr. Neil Hoxie, of the Bureau of Public Health in Wisconsin, in personal
communications estimated that 1,203 people were probably living with AIDS in the metropolitan
statistical area of Milwaukee in 1993, an estimate higher than the CDC estimate for States.
Unfortunately, no source reported a count of AIDS patients within the area served by the Milwaukee
public water system, or the area corresponding to the 1993 Cryptosporidium outbreak. Using statewide
numbers for the number of people living with AIDS would be certain to capture the area of the 1993
outbreak, but would be a likely underestimate of the number of AIDS patients per capita due to rural
populations with few AIDS patients being added to the total population. However, an estimate without
all AIDS patients in the original outbreak area would also be an overestimate. In the face of this lack of
data related specifically to the population affected by the outbreak, and a preference for comparable data
for multiple years in several geographic locations, the analysis uses only data from the CDC and the U.S.
Census.
C.3Derivation of Filtered and Unfiltered Population Numbers for Mortality
The greater presence of sensitive subpopulations in some areas might indicate a higher rate of
mortality due to cryptosporidiosis. A number of large metropolitan areas are served by water systems that
are unfiltered and the populations of immunocompromised served by unfiltered systems differs from
those served by filtered systems. The analysis in Chapter 5, therefore, calculates mortality rates for
filtered and unfiltered systems separately to highlight possible differences in mortality rates due to
cryptosporidiosis.
The analysis seeks to compare the percentage of the total U.S. population living with AIDS that
live in areas served by unfiltered systems versus filtered systems. The CDC, in its semiannual
"HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report," gives the number of individuals living with AIDS by metropolitan
statistical area. Population data from the metropolitan statistical areas served by unfiltered systems was
used instead of the population actually served by the unfiltered systems. The population counts from the
2000 Census were used because they were more accurate than 2001 estimates of population. The former
data are used to develop adjustment factors, and so it was judged more accurate to use inputs from
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
C-2
December 2005
-------
consistent sources, rather than mix in service population data that were self-reported by utilities. Data for
the relevant metropolitan areas are shown in Exhibit C.l.
Exhibit C.1: Population Served for Selected Unfiltered Systems
and AIDS Population
Unfiltered Systems
2000 Census
Population
2001 Number of
People Living
with AIDS
Portland, ME[1]
243,537
156
Portland, OR
2,265,223
1,868
Tacoma, WA
700,820
457
San Francisco, CA
7,039,362
9,488
New York, NY
21,199,865
50,380
Total
31,448,807
62,349
Sources: AIDS population information from CDC except Portland, Maine
[1IPortland, Maine AIDS information from City of Portland, Maine.
For the purposes of developing an adjustment factor, the population remaining in the U.S. is
considered to be served by filtered systems. The total population within the metropolitan statistical areas
of the unfiltered systems was subtracted from the total U.S. population in 2000 to give an "adjusted"
population for filtered systems, and the AIDS population of unfiltered systems was also subtracted from
the national estimates of people living with AIDS. From these numbers, the percentage of AIDS patients
in unfiltered and filtered systems can be determined (Exhibit C.2). The use of overall U.S. Census data is
appropriate because the incidence rate is therefore derived from the number of persons living with AIDS
and the population of which they are a part. It would be inappropriate to derive a factor based on the
population served by public water systems because there are no comparable estimates for the number of
people living with AIDS in that population.
Exhibit C.2: Derivation of Filtered Systems' Populations
Filtered Systems
2000 Census
Population
2001 Number of
People Living
with AIDS
US Population
281,421,906
362,261
Unfiltered Population
31,448,807
62,349
Adjusted Filtered Population
249,973,099
299,912
In order to derive a factor to adjust the 1993 Milwaukee AIDS mortality rate for changes in time
and population for filtered systems, the total adjusted number of people living with AIDS at the end of
2001 in the entire country is divided by the adjusted 2000 national population. This percentage is divided
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
C-3
December 2005
-------
by the AIDS/Population ratio of Wisconsin in 1993, yielding a population and time adjustment factor.
The adjustment factor for unfiltered systems uses only the populations served by unfiltered systems in
2000 (AIDS and non-AIDS), divided by the 1993 Wisconsin AIDS/Population ratio.
C.4 Model-Estimated National Cases of Illness and Death Avoided With Associated
Economic Values
Exhibits C.3 through C.l 1 summarize the risk assessment modeling. Exhibit C.3 presents the
baseline populations at risk and pre-LT2ESWTR cases of illness and death. Exhibit C.4 through C.9
present expected cases avoided and monetized benefits for all regulatory alternatives. Exhibits C. 10 and
C.l 1 present graphs of illnesses and deaths avoided per year, respectively.
Exhibit C.3: Population at Risk and Baseline Pre-LT2 Cases of Illness and Death
by System Size, Filtration, and Data Set
Data
Set
Filtration
Population at
Risk
Pre-LT2 Annual Illnesses
Pre-LT2 Annual Deaths
Mean
90% Confidence
Bound
Mean
90% Confidence
Bound
Lower
(5th %ile)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Lower
(5th %ile)
Upper
(95th %ile)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
All System Sizes
ICR
Filtered
181,456,672
491,091
46,523
1,404,589
81
8
232
Unfiltered
10,384,145
501,706
101,303
986,331
131
26
257
ICRSSL
Filtered

147,185
15,445
426,739
24
3
71
Unfiltered
146,449
29,583
287,769
38
8
75
ICRSSM
Filtered
257,985
24,193
802,927
43
4
133
Unfiltered
257,342
51,984
505,670
67
14
132
Small Systems ( < 10,000)
ICR
Filtered
9,546,424
51,350
5,354
141,101
8
1
23
Unfiltered
138,740
5,492
1,117
11,102
1
0
3
ICRSSL
Filtered

16,432
1,566
47,187
3
0
8
Unfiltered
1,766
359
3,570
0
0
1
ICRSSM
Filtered
28,481
2,337
88,865
5
0
15
Unfiltered
3,059
622
6,183
1
0
2
Large Systems ( > 10,000)
ICR
Filtered
171,910,248
439,740
40,538
1,262,398
73
7
209
Unfiltered
10,245,405
496,214
100,081
976,213
129
26
254
ICRSSL
Filtered

130,753
13,653
380,642
22
2
63
Unfiltered
144,683
29,178
284,606
38
8
74
ICRSSM
Filtered
229,504
21,654
719,042
38
4
119
Unfiltered
254,284
51,281
500,198
66
13
130
Source: Benefits and Risk Model
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
C-4
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C.4a
Cases Avoided and Benefits Annualized at 3 Percent (Based on Enhanced Cost of Illness), ICR Data Set


Annual Illnesses
Annual Deaths
Value of Benefits for Annual
Value of Benefits for Annual
Total Annual Value of Benefits



Avoided


Avoided
Illnesses Avoided (^Millions)
Deaths Avoided (^Millions)

(^Millions)



90 Percent Confidence

90 Percent

90 Percent

90 Percent

90 Percent



Bound

Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound


Mean
Lower
(5th %ile)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %ile)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %ile)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %ile)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %ile)
Upper
(95th %ile)

Size Category
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
Alternative A1
"D
0)
<100
325.12
27.86
1031.82
0.05
0.00
0.17
0.20
0.02
0.64
0.24
0.01
0.86
0.44
0.03
1.43
100-499
1767.96
176.02
5156.90
0.30
0.03
0.86
1.11
0.11
3.22
1.31
0.06
4.57
2.41
0.20
7.37

500-999
2196.90
237.03
6094.05
0.37
0.04
1.03
1.37
0.15
3.81
1.64
0.08
5.60
3.02
0.27
9.07
c
1,000-3,299
13189.76
1514.30
35442.15
2.28
0.27
6.04
8.24
0.95
22.15
10.03
0.50
33.48
18.28
1.76
54.02

3,300-9,999
39029.09
4675.44
103357.81
6.87
0.86
17.92
24.39
2.92
64.60
30.30
1.59
99.99
54.69
5.60
159.35
c
10,000-49,999
79199.15
9458.58
214320.22
14.18
1.79
37.55
55.59
6.64
150.42
70.68
3.84
235.03
126.27
13.21
368.70
"D
50,000-99,999
57812.83
7165.92
154332.93
10.57
1.41
27.48
43.24
5.36
115.44
56.42
3.24
186.11
99.66
10.91
286.90
0)
100,000-999,999
261817.81
32900.33
677892.83
50.15
6.90
125.37
201.91
25.37
522.79
276.67
15.32
903.36
478.58
50.09
1370.71

1,000,000+
534615.61
94112.54
1159827.15
126.60
23.19
266.17
412.30
72.58
894.46
699.05
46.54
2141.35
1111.34
141.40
2888.28

All
989954.23
151965.26
2347055.39
211.38
34.84
480.39
748.36
115.32
1770.67
1146.33
71.74
3598.65
1894.69
227.15
5079.45
Alternative A2

<100
319.39
27.10
1014.73
0.05
0.00
0.17
0.20
0.02
0.63
0.23
0.01
0.85
0.43
0.03
1.40
0)
100-499
1733.29
171.10
5095.94
0.29
0.03
0.85
1.08
0.11
3.19
1.28
0.06
4.48
2.37
0.20
7.21

500-999
2140.11
230.21
5933.73
0.36
0.04
1.00
1.34
0.14
3.71
1.60
0.07
5.46
2.94
0.26
8.83
c
1,000-3,299
12847.44
1473.04
34566.55
2.22
0.26
5.90
8.03
0.92
21.61
9.79
0.49
32.69
17.82
1.72
52.57
"D
C
3,300-9,999
38044.97
4557.49
100971.74
6.71
0.84
17.52
23.78
2.85
63.11
29.59
1.56
97.75
53.37
5.46
154.87
10,000-49,999
77177.93
9254.65
208185.56
13.84
1.76
36.57
54.17
6.50
146.12
69.02
3.76
229.93
123.19
12.95
360.05
"D
50,000-99,999
56405.61
7026.79
149991.86
10.34
1.38
26.73
42.19
5.26
112.19
55.18
3.18
181.38
97.37
10.70
279.74
0)
100,000-999,999
255978.43
32308.03
661218.02
49.19
6.80
122.49
197.41
24.92
509.93
271.37
15.13
885.02
468.78
49.24
1337.23

1,000,000+
530678.56
93635.29
1150006.60
125.95
23.12
264.43
409.26
72.21
886.89
695.48
46.42
2129.56
1104.74
140.89
2869.26

All
975325.72
150295.25
2307247.28
208.95
34.59
473.76
737.46
114.09
1740.81
1133.54
71.20
3547.42
1871.00
225.30
4991.54
!¦
Alternative A3 - Preferred

<100
309.47
26.06
981.00
0.05
0.00
0.16
0.19
0.02
0.61
0.23
0.01
0.82
0.42
0.03
1.36

100-499
1673.63
164.23
4927.86
0.28
0.03
0.82
1.05
0.10
3.08
1.24
0.05
4.35
2.29
0.19
6.96

500-999
2064.02
222.06
5723.13
0.35
0.04
0.96
1.29
0.14
3.58
1.55
0.07
5.27
2.84
0.26
8.52
c
1,000-3,299
12389.02
1425.38
33296.63
2.14
0.26
5.70
7.74
0.89
20.81
9.45
0.47
31.55
17.20
1.67
50.48
"D
C
3,300-9,999
36727.33
4420.72
97338.89
6.49
0.82
16.90
22.96
2.76
60.84
28.63
1.52
94.61
51.59
5.30
149.09
10,000-49,999
75872.19
9141.26
204711.07
13.63
1.73
35.94
53.25
6.42
143.68
67.95
3.71
226.08
121.21
12.72
354.45
"D
50,000-99,999
55496.55
6925.94
147408.91
10.19
1.37
26.30
41.51
5.18
110.26
54.39
3.15
178.22
95.90
10.57
275.92
0)
100,000-999,999
251900.25
31918.97
649104.43
48.51
6.73
120.62
194.27
24.62
500.59
267.68
14.95
872.08
461.94
48.69
1314.28

1,000,000+
527927.57
93327.35
1141902.96
125.49
23.07
263.18
407.14
71.97
880.64
692.99
46.29
2119.95
1100.12
140.49
2856.23

All
964360.04
149240.82
2277366.81
207.14
34.41
468.44
729.39
113.32
1717.87
1124.10
70.79
3511.27
1853.49
223.83
4940.84
Alternative A4

<100
270.15
22.93
850.18
0.05
0.00
0.14
0.17
0.01
0.53
0.20
0.01
0.72
0.37
0.03
1.18
0)
100-499
1445.35
145.37
4187.44
0.24
0.03
0.70
0.90
0.09
2.62
1.07
0.05
3.74
1.98
0.17
5.99

500-999
1770.08
197.09
4832.42
0.30
0.03
0.82
1.11
0.12
3.02
1.33
0.06
4.49
2.44
0.23
7.21
c
1,000-3,299
10634.22
1285.03
28183.78
1.85
0.23
4.84
6.65
0.80
17.62
8.18
0.43
27.07
14.82
1.50
42.73
"D
C
3,300-9,999
31698.05
4002.05
82425.38
5.66
0.75
14.42
19.81
2.50
51.52
24.97
1.38
81.67
44.78
4.82
126.78
10,000-49,999
68037.66
8293.10
181324.07
12.33
1.61
32.00
47.75
5.82
127.26
61.49
3.47
203.52
109.24
11.79
317.41
"D
50,000-99,999
50043.66
6380.31
130899.24
9.29
1.29
23.55
37.43
4.77
97.91
49.57
2.97
161.86
87.01
9.77
248.10
0)
100,000-999,999
227342.62
29206.04
573203.86
44.45
6.28
108.03
175.33
22.52
442.06
245.36
14.04
793.50
420.68
45.55
1180.85

1,000,000+
511258.27
91578.02
1092712.44
122.73
22.79
254.52
394.28
70.63
842.70
677.84
45.60
2060.02
1072.12
138.69
2773.82

All
902500.06
143230.98
2088992.85
196.90
33.32
437.40
683.43
108.96
1577.67
1070.01
68.83
3323.94
1753.44
215.67
4642.40
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
C-5
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C.4b
Cases Avoided and Benefits Annualized at 3 Percent (Based on Enhanced Cost of Illness), ICRSSM Data Set














Total Annual Value of


Annual Illnesses
Annual Deaths
Value of Benefits for Annual
Value of Benefits for Annual

Benefits




Avoided


Avoided
Illnesses Avoided ($Millions)
Deaths Avoided ($Millions)

($Millions)



90 Percent

90 Percent

90 Percent

90 Percent

90 Percent



Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound


Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)

Size Cateqorv
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
Alternative A1
"D
O
<100
153.72
12.68
494.33
0.03
0.00
0.08
0.10
0.01
0.31
0.11
0.00
0.41
0.21
0.01
0.69
100-499
917.76
80.98
2870.49
0.15
0.01
0.48
0.57
0.05
1.79
0.68
0.03
2.45
1.25
0.09
4.02

500-999
1184.12
108.55
3641.33
0.20
0.02
0.61
0.74
0.07
2.28
0.88
0.04
3.19
1.62
0.13
5.18
c
1,000-3,299
7313.58
720.97
22096.30
1.26
0.13
3.75
4.57
0.45
13.81
5.55
0.25
19.75
10.13
0.86
31.73

3,300-9,999
21835.44
2267.08
64761.19
3.84
0.43
11.11
13.65
1.42
40.48
16.92
0.80
59.62
30.57
2.77
94.22
c
10,000-49,999
41943.16
4787.94
125594.73
7.51
0.92
21.76
29.44
3.36
88.15
37.38
1.88
130.45
66.82
6.38
207.37
"D
O
50,000-99,999
30664.65
3668.48
89801.84
5.61
0.73
15.83
22.94
2.74
67.17
29.88
1.58
102.57
52.82
5.29
160.55
100,000-999,999
137877.11
17338.15
382255.41
26.41
3.60
70.07
106.33
13.37
294.80
145.45
7.49
495.29
251.78
24.67
745.80

1,000,000+
272260.35
48252.73
600830.54
64.47
11.92
137.44
209.97
37.21
463.36
355.83
23.35
1092.82
565.80
70.46
1497.89

All
514149.89
78383.19
1285283.18
109.49
18.08
259.27
388.30
59.55
966.34
592.69
35.57
1900.89
980.99
110.33
2713.37
Alternative A2
"D
O
<100
134.29
10.94
442.10
0.02
0.00
0.07
0.08
0.01
0.28
0.10
0.00
0.36
0.18
0.01
0.61
100-499
800.81
70.88
2537.17
0.13
0.01
0.42
0.50
0.04
1.59
0.59
0.02
2.13
1.09
0.08
3.55

500-999
1031.39
95.73
3190.84
0.18
0.02
0.54
0.64
0.06
1.99
0.77
0.03
2.81
1.42
0.11
4.52
c
1,000-3,299
6393.25
641.76
19469.25
1.11
0.12
3.31
4.00
0.40
12.17
4.89
0.22
17.38
8.88
0.77
27.86

3,300-9,999
19189.96
2035.63
57212.10
3.41
0.39
9.87
11.99
1.27
35.76
15.00
0.72
52.53
27.00
2.47
83.12
c
10,000-49,999
36675.29
4245.01
111033.52
6.64
0.83
19.38
25.74
2.98
77.93
33.05
1.69
114.61
58.79
5.70
180.55
"D
O
50,000-99,999
26997.07
3294.88
79731.25
5.00
0.67
14.10
20.19
2.46
59.64
26.66
1.47
91.10
46.85
4.79
141.77
100,000-999,999
122735.17
15832.87
339171.04
23.90
3.34
62.90
94.65
12.21
261.57
131.70
6.91
442.27
226.36
22.59
664.41

1,000,000+
262050.44
47122.98
571441.58
62.78
11.73
132.19
202.09
36.34
440.70
346.56
22.93
1057.84
548.65
68.88
1437.49

All
476007.68
74499.02
1173586.21
103.18
17.34
240.78
359.90
56.64
884.85
559.33
34.12
1776.44
919.23
105.82
2532.79
Alternative A3 - Preferred
"D
O
<100
116.85
9.29
394.57
0.02
0.00
0.07
0.07
0.01
0.25
0.09
0.00
0.32
0.16
0.01
0.53
100-499
695.94
61.19
2257.33
0.12
0.01
0.38
0.43
0.04
1.41
0.52
0.02
1.86
0.95
0.07
3.09
O
500-999
896.50
84.52
2824.75
0.15
0.02
0.48
0.56
0.05
1.77
0.68
0.03
2.44
1.24
0.10
3.96
c
1,000-3,299
5580.90
573.42
17254.70
0.98
0.11
2.94
3.49
0.36
10.78
4.30
0.20
15.23
7.78
0.67
24.35
"D
C
3,300-9,999
16855.24
1826.54
50907.39
3.02
0.35
8.85
10.54
1.14
31.82
13.31
0.65
46.24
23.84
2.22
73.25
10,000-49,999
34034.00
3966.43
102346.12
6.20
0.79
17.93
23.89
2.78
71.83
30.88
1.60
106.59
54.77
5.36
167.86
"D
50,000-99,999
25158.23
3109.94
73758.06
4.70
0.64
13.20
18.82
2.33
55.17
25.05
1.39
85.59
43.86
4.54
131.99

100,000-999,999
115001.21
14853.46
315512.31
22.62
3.19
58.97
88.69
11.46
243.32
124.70
6.61
416.26
213.39
21.43
621.30

1,000,000+
256830.89
46512.91
555816.25
61.92
11.63
129.67
198.07
35.87
428.65
341.83
22.74
1040.99
539.90
68.07
1409.10

All
455169.76
72128.02
1112374.31
99.73
16.93
230.35
344.55
54.75
838.45
541.34
33.28
1716.09
885.89
103.31
2419.77
Alternative A4

<100
95.00
7.51
324.69
0.02
0.00
0.05
0.06
0.00
0.20
0.07
0.00
0.26
0.13
0.01
0.43
o
100-499
565.09
51.89
1838.03
0.10
0.01
0.31
0.35
0.03
1.15
0.42
0.02
1.53
0.77
0.06
2.50

500-999
728.08
71.21
2293.34
0.13
0.01
0.39
0.46
0.04
1.43
0.55
0.02
1.98
1.01
0.08
3.20
c
1,000-3,299
4567.79
492.30
14106.59
0.81
0.09
2.43
2.86
0.31
8.82
3.56
0.17
12.48
6.41
0.58
19.95

3,300-9,999
13944.68
1590.45
41861.42
2.54
0.31
7.36
8.72
0.99
26.16
11.19
0.57
38.38
19.91
1.95
60.18
c
10,000-49,999
26176.83
3171.20
78276.97
4.90
0.65
13.86
18.37
2.23
54.94
24.42
1.35
83.49
42.79
4.40
129.41
"D
O
50,000-99,999
19688.31
2542.68
56789.31
3.79
0.54
10.32
14.73
1.90
42.48
20.23
1.19
68.02
34.96
3.85
102.66
100,000-999,999
92438.57
12564.19
251576.16
18.89
2.83
48.03
71.29
9.69
194.02
104.17
5.76
341.04
175.46
18.42
499.93
j=
1,000,000+
241595.12
44959.77
510817.51
59.40
11.35
122.35
186.32
34.67
393.94
327.98
22.20
987.90
514.30
65.91
1328.31

All
399799.46
66646.20
949132.24
90.56
16.01
203.71
303.14
50.78
716.30
492.60
31.32
1538.23
795.74
96.28
2133.89
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
C-6
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C.4c
Cases Avoided and Benefits Annualized at 3 Percent (Based on Enhanced Cost of Illness), ICRSSL Data Set














Total Annual Value of


Annual Illnesses
Annual Deaths
Value of Benefits for Annual
Value of Benefits for Annual

Benefits




Avoided


Avoided
Illnesses Avoided ($Millions)
Deaths Avoided ($Millions)

($Millions)



90 Percent

90 Percent

90 Percent

90 Percent

90 Percent



Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound


Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)

Size Cateqorv
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
Alternative A1
"D
O
<100
86.00
7.75
259.15
0.01
0.00
0.04
0.05
0.00
0.16
0.06
0.00
0.23
0.12
0.01
0.38
100-499
523.66
50.90
1529.30
0.09
0.01
0.26
0.33
0.03
0.96
0.38
0.02
1.41
0.71
0.05
2.33

500-999
679.13
71.34
1911.71
0.12
0.01
0.32
0.42
0.04
1.19
0.50
0.02
1.83
0.93
0.07
3.01
c
1,000-3,299
4218.60
470.81
11658.34
0.73
0.09
1.98
2.64
0.29
7.29
3.19
0.14
11.50
5.83
0.50
18.60

3,300-9,999
12618.01
1493.70
34320.17
2.22
0.28
5.91
7.89
0.93
21.45
9.75
0.47
34.65
17.63
1.59
55.37
c
10,000-49,999
23822.04
2942.95
65487.42
4.26
0.56
11.40
16.72
2.07
45.96
21.17
1.11
74.63
37.89
3.72
117.98
"D
O
50,000-99,999
17421.22
2232.76
47050.11
3.19
0.43
8.32
13.03
1.67
35.19
16.94
0.93
58.99
29.97
3.07
91.56
100,000-999,999
78814.79
10437.25
208694.02
15.10
2.15
38.45
60.78
8.05
160.95
82.94
4.31
282.18
143.72
14.10
428.45

1,000,000+
154808.39
27705.49
337935.19
36.66
6.80
77.61
119.39
21.37
260.62
202.19
13.38
616.25
321.57
39.92
853.41

All
292991.84
45926.15
702368.65
62.37
10.45
143.22
221.25
34.80
528.84
337.12
20.51
1081.39
558.37
63.41
1553.42
Alternative A2

<100
63.97
5.58
194.58
0.01
0.00
0.03
0.04
0.00
0.12
0.05
0.00
0.17
0.09
0.01
0.29
o
100-499
391.00
37.66
1167.01
0.07
0.01
0.20
0.24
0.02
0.73
0.29
0.01
1.05
0.53
0.04
1.74
o
500-999
508.04
53.52
1459.18
0.09
0.01
0.25
0.32
0.03
0.91
0.38
0.02
1.39
0.70
0.06
2.27
c
1,000-3,299
3187.64
356.45
8967.36
0.56
0.07
1.53
1.99
0.22
5.60
2.45
0.11
8.79
4.44
0.38
14.12
3
"D
C
3,300-9,999
9654.49
1162.84
26536.18
1.73
0.22
4.59
6.03
0.73
16.59
7.60
0.38
26.93
13.63
1.27
42.57
10,000-49,999
17884.34
2273.40
50631.27
3.28
0.44
8.90
12.55
1.60
35.54
16.30
0.89
56.79
28.85
2.93
88.44
"D
50,000-99,999
13287.31
1755.93
36565.86
2.50
0.35
6.56
9.94
1.31
27.35
13.31
0.77
45.56
23.25
2.49
69.46

100,000-999,999
61824.24
8366.57
159730.63
12.29
1.81
30.21
47.68
6.45
123.18
67.54
3.68
223.80
115.22
11.66
338.09

1,000,000+
143352.04
26275.36
303198.54
34.76
6.57
72.02
110.55
20.26
233.83
191.81
12.92
582.29
302.36
38.39
787.83

All
250153.08
40611.88
578528.26
55.28
9.55
122.64
189.35
30.86
436.75
299.72
19.02
940.02
489.07
57.53
1340.89
Alternative A3 - Preferred
"D
O
<100
48.41
3.93
150.55
0.01
0.00
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.09
0.04
0.00
0.13
0.07
0.00
0.22
100-499
297.47
26.66
892.46
0.05
0.00
0.15
0.19
0.02
0.56
0.22
0.01
0.81
0.41
0.03
1.34

500-999
388.02
38.99
1135.70
0.07
0.01
0.19
0.24
0.02
0.71
0.29
0.01
1.07
0.54
0.04
1.73
c
1,000-3,299
2464.79
276.20
7038.66
0.44
0.05
1.21
1.54
0.17
4.40
1.92
0.09
6.86
3.46
0.30
10.94

3,300-9,999
7576.97
921.64
20947.38
1.39
0.18
3.67
4.74
0.58
13.09
6.09
0.32
21.30
10.83
1.04
33.50
c
10,000-49,999
15369.53
1962.28
43357.99
2.87
0.39
7.73
10.79
1.38
30.43
14.24
0.81
49.17
25.03
2.59
76.39
"D
O
50,000-99,999
11536.49
1527.72
31619.61
2.21
0.31
5.75
8.63
1.14
23.65
11.77
0.71
39.76
20.40
2.22
60.83
100,000-999,999
54582.53
7545.69
138635.78
11.09
1.67
26.77
42.09
5.82
106.92
60.99
3.43
201.97
103.09
10.78
298.86

1,000,000+
138465.93
25761.80
288235.70
33.95
6.47
69.48
106.79
19.87
222.29
187.39
12.79
567.38
294.17
37.69
761.40

All
230730.13
38281.04
521924.61
52.07
9.16
112.80
175.03
29.19
394.53
282.95
18.23
881.17
457.99
54.94
1242.24
Alternative A4
"D
O
<100
35.61
2.77
114.19
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.07
0.03
0.00
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.16
100-499
220.59
20.02
677.31
0.04
0.00
0.11
0.14
0.01
0.42
0.17
0.01
0.61
0.30
0.02
1.01
O
500-999
288.91
29.31
848.72
0.05
0.01
0.15
0.18
0.02
0.53
0.22
0.01
0.80
0.40
0.03
1.29
c
1,000-3,299
1868.08
211.34
5285.57
0.34
0.04
0.92
1.17
0.13
3.30
1.49
0.08
5.26
2.66
0.24
8.27
"D
C
3,300-9,999
5862.18
712.23
15981.82
1.10
0.15
2.87
3.66
0.45
9.99
4.85
0.27
16.69
8.51
0.86
25.69
10,000-49,999
10655.08
1379.18
30256.13
2.09
0.29
5.52
7.48
0.97
21.24
10.38
0.64
34.64
17.85
2.00
52.68
"D
50,000-99,999
8254.34
1133.26
22392.13
1.67
0.25
4.20
6.17
0.85
16.75
8.89
0.58
29.16
15.07
1.79
43.14

100,000-999,999
41242.63
6196.97
100485.59
8.88
1.44
20.42
31.81
4.78
77.49
48.90
2.95
156.27
80.71
9.03
226.22

1,000,000+
129464.78
24702.01
263960.78
32.47
6.30
65.41
99.84
19.05
203.57
179.23
12.40
539.14
279.08
36.30
714.77

All
197892.20
34571.95
431262.95
46.64
8.56
97.54
150.47
26.39
326.55
254.15
17.08
773.95
404.63
50.90
1069.94
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
C-7
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C.4d
Cases Avoided and Benefits Annualized at 3 Percent (Based on Traditional Cost of Illness), ICR Data Set














Total Annual Value of


Annual Illnesses
Annual Deaths
Value of Benefits for Annual
Value of Benefits for Annual

Benefits




Avoided


Avoided
Illnesses Avoided ($Millions)
Deaths Avoided ($Millions)

($Millions)



90 Percent Confidence

90 Percent

90 Percent

90 Percent

90 Percent



Bound

Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound


Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)

Size Cateqorv
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
Alternative A1

<100
325.12
27.86
1031.82
0.05
0.00
0.17
0.06
0.01
0.19
0.24
0.01
0.86
0.30
0.02
1.01
o
100-499
1767.96
176.02
5156.90
0.30
0.03
0.86
0.33
0.03
0.95
1.31
0.06
4.57
1.63
0.11
5.35

500-999
2196.90
237.03
6094.05
0.37
0.04
1.03
0.41
0.04
1.13
1.64
0.08
5.60
2.05
0.15
6.58
c
1,000-3,299
13189.76
1514.30
35442.15
2.28
0.27
6.04
2.44
0.28
6.56
10.03
0.50
33.48
12.47
0.97
39.02

3,300-9,999
39029.09
4675.44
103357.81
6.87
0.86
17.92
7.22
0.86
19.12
30.30
1.59
99.99
37.52
3.07
115.01
c
10,000-49,999
79199.15
9458.58
214320.22
14.18
1.79
37.55
16.51
1.97
44.67
70.68
3.84
235.03
87.19
7.28
274.62
"D
O
50,000-99,999
57812.83
7165.92
154332.93
10.57
1.41
27.48
12.87
1.60
34.35
56.42
3.24
186.11
69.29
6.07
214.96
100,000-999,999
261817.81
32900.33
677892.83
50.15
6.90
125.37
60.14
7.56
155.72
276.67
15.32
903.36
336.81
28.38
1028.39
j=
1,000,000+
534615.61
94112.54
1159827.15
126.60
23.19
266.17
122.81
21.62
266.43
699.05
46.54
2141.35
821.86
80.93
2347.08

All
989954.23
151965.26
2347055.39
211.38
34.84
480.39
222.79
34.34
527.10
1146.33
71.74
3598.65
1369.12
129.65
4017.08
Alternative A2
"D
O
<100
319.39
27.10
1014.73
0.05
0.00
0.17
0.06
0.01
0.19
0.23
0.01
0.85
0.29
0.02
1.00
100-499
1733.29
171.10
5095.94
0.29
0.03
0.85
0.32
0.03
0.94
1.28
0.06
4.48
1.60
0.11
5.25
O
500-999
2140.11
230.21
5933.73
0.36
0.04
1.00
0.40
0.04
1.10
1.60
0.07
5.46
2.00
0.15
6.39
c
1,000-3,299
12847.44
1473.04
34566.55
2.22
0.26
5.90
2.38
0.27
6.39
9.79
0.49
32.69
12.16
0.95
37.95
"D
C
3,300-9,999
38044.97
4557.49
100971.74
6.71
0.84
17.52
7.04
0.84
18.68
29.59
1.56
97.75
36.62
3.02
112.21
10,000-49,999
77177.93
9254.65
208185.56
13.84
1.76
36.57
16.09
1.93
43.39
69.02
3.76
229.93
85.11
7.14
267.32
"D
50,000-99,999
56405.61
7026.79
149991.86
10.34
1.38
26.73
12.55
1.56
33.39
55.18
3.18
181.38
67.74
5.93
209.73

100,000-999,999
255978.43
32308.03
661218.02
49.19
6.80
122.49
58.80
7.42
151.89
271.37
15.13
885.02
330.17
27.94
1006.89

1,000,000+
530678.56
93635.29
1150006.60
125.95
23.12
264.43
121.91
21.51
264.18
695.48
46.42
2129.56
817.38
80.65
2334.41

All
975325.72
150295.25
2307247.28
208.95
34.59
473.76
219.54
33.97
518.21
1133.54
71.20
3547.42
1353.08
128.59
3969.02
Alternative A3 - Preferred
"D
O
<100
309.47
26.06
981.00
0.05
0.00
0.16
0.06
0.00
0.18
0.23
0.01
0.82
0.28
0.02
0.97
100-499
1673.63
164.23
4927.86
0.28
0.03
0.82
0.31
0.03
0.91
1.24
0.05
4.35
1.55
0.11
5.06

500-999
2064.02
222.06
5723.13
0.35
0.04
0.96
0.38
0.04
1.06
1.55
0.07
5.27
1.93
0.14
6.16
c
1,000-3,299
12389.02
1425.38
33296.63
2.14
0.26
5.70
2.29
0.26
6.16
9.45
0.47
31.55
11.75
0.93
36.76

3,300-9,999
36727.33
4420.72
97338.89
6.49
0.82
16.90
6.79
0.82
18.01
28.63
1.52
94.61
35.42
2.93
108.83
c
10,000-49,999
75872.19
9141.26
204711.07
13.63
1.73
35.94
15.81
1.91
42.67
67.95
3.71
226.08
83.77
7.02
263.43
"D
O
50,000-99,999
55496.55
6925.94
147408.91
10.19
1.37
26.30
12.35
1.54
32.81
54.39
3.15
178.22
66.74
5.86
205.51
100,000-999,999
251900.25
31918.97
649104.43
48.51
6.73
120.62
57.87
7.33
149.11
267.68
14.95
872.08
325.54
27.71
991.93

1,000,000+
527927.57
93327.35
1141902.96
125.49
23.07
263.18
121.27
21.44
262.32
692.99
46.29
2119.95
814.26
80.48
2324.94

All
964360.04
149240.82
2277366.81
207.14
34.41
468.44
217.14
33.74
511.38
1124.10
70.79
3511.27
1341.24
127.85
3929.17
Alternative A4
"D
O
<100
270.15
22.93
850.18
0.05
0.00
0.14
0.05
0.00
0.16
0.20
0.01
0.72
0.25
0.01
0.85
100-499
1445.35
145.37
4187.44
0.24
0.03
0.70
0.27
0.03
0.77
1.07
0.05
3.74
1.34
0.09
4.36
O
500-999
1770.08
197.09
4832.42
0.30
0.03
0.82
0.33
0.04
0.89
1.33
0.06
4.49
1.66
0.13
5.24
c
1,000-3,299
10634.22
1285.03
28183.78
1.85
0.23
4.84
1.97
0.24
5.21
8.18
0.43
27.07
10.14
0.83
31.23
"D
C
3,300-9,999
31698.05
4002.05
82425.38
5.66
0.75
14.42
5.86
0.74
15.25
24.97
1.38
81.67
30.83
2.68
93.67
10,000-49,999
68037.66
8293.10
181324.07
12.33
1.61
32.00
14.18
1.73
37.79
61.49
3.47
203.52
75.67
6.51
235.12
"D
50,000-99,999
50043.66
6380.31
130899.24
9.29
1.29
23.55
11.14
1.42
29.14
49.57
2.97
161.86
60.71
5.44
184.95

100,000-999,999
227342.62
29206.04
573203.86
44.45
6.28
108.03
52.22
6.71
131.68
245.36
14.04
793.50
297.58
26.24
904.40

1,000,000+
511258.27
91578.02
1092712.44
122.73
22.79
254.52
117.45
21.04
251.02
677.84
45.60
2060.02
795.28
79.09
2267.64

All
902500.06
143230.98
2088992.85
196.90
33.32
437.40
203.47
32.44
469.66
1070.01
68.83
3323.94
1273.48
123.62
3692.17
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
C-8
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C.4e
Cases Avoided and Benefits Annualized at 3 Percent (Based on Traditional Cost of Illness), ICRSSM Data Set














Total Annual Value of


Annual Illnesses
Annual Deaths
Value of Benefits for Annual
Value of Benefits for Annual

Benefits




Avoided


Avoided
Illnesses Avoided ($Millions)
Deaths Avoided ($Millions)

($Millions)



90 Percent

90 Percent

90 Percent

90 Percent

90 Percent



Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound


Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)

Size Cateqorv
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
Alternative A1
"D
O
<100
153.72
12.68
494.33
0.03
0.00
0.08
0.03
0.00
0.09
0.11
0.00
0.41
0.14
0.01
0.49
100-499
917.76
80.98
2870.49
0.15
0.01
0.48
0.17
0.01
0.53
0.68
0.03
2.45
0.85
0.05
2.90

500-999
1184.12
108.55
3641.33
0.20
0.02
0.61
0.22
0.02
0.67
0.88
0.04
3.19
1.10
0.07
3.74
c
1,000-3,299
7313.58
720.97
22096.30
1.26
0.13
3.75
1.35
0.13
4.09
5.55
0.25
19.75
6.91
0.46
23.10

3,300-9,999
21835.44
2267.08
64761.19
3.84
0.43
11.11
4.04
0.42
11.98
16.92
0.80
59.62
20.96
1.50
69.00
c
10,000-49,999
41943.16
4787.94
125594.73
7.51
0.92
21.76
8.74
1.00
26.18
37.38
1.88
130.45
46.12
3.47
152.20
"D
O
50,000-99,999
30664.65
3668.48
89801.84
5.61
0.73
15.83
6.83
0.82
19.99
29.88
1.58
102.57
36.71
2.90
118.81
100,000-999,999
137877.11
17338.15
382255.41
26.41
3.60
70.07
31.67
3.98
87.81
145.45
7.49
495.29
177.12
13.52
565.80

1,000,000+
272260.35
48252.73
600830.54
64.47
11.92
137.44
62.54
11.08
138.02
355.83
23.35
1092.82
418.37
39.04
1210.31

All
514149.89
78383.19
1285283.18
109.49
18.08
259.27
115.59
17.73
287.65
592.69
35.57
1900.89
708.28
62.00
2140.09
Alternative A2
"D
O
<100
134.29
10.94
442.10
0.02
0.00
0.07
0.02
0.00
0.08
0.10
0.00
0.36
0.12
0.01
0.43
100-499
800.81
70.88
2537.17
0.13
0.01
0.42
0.15
0.01
0.47
0.59
0.02
2.13
0.74
0.04
2.56

500-999
1031.39
95.73
3190.84
0.18
0.02
0.54
0.19
0.02
0.59
0.77
0.03
2.81
0.96
0.06
3.29
c
1,000-3,299
6393.25
641.76
19469.25
1.11
0.12
3.31
1.18
0.12
3.60
4.89
0.22
17.38
6.07
0.41
20.38

3,300-9,999
19189.96
2035.63
57212.10
3.41
0.39
9.87
3.55
0.38
10.58
15.00
0.72
52.53
18.55
1.35
61.20
c
10,000-49,999
36675.29
4245.01
111033.52
6.64
0.83
19.38
7.64
0.88
23.14
33.05
1.69
114.61
40.70
3.13
133.62
"D
O
50,000-99,999
26997.07
3294.88
79731.25
5.00
0.67
14.10
6.01
0.73
17.75
26.66
1.47
91.10
32.67
2.66
105.31
100,000-999,999
122735.17
15832.87
339171.04
23.90
3.34
62.90
28.19
3.64
77.91
131.70
6.91
442.27
159.90
12.43
505.67

1,000,000+
262050.44
47122.98
571441.58
62.78
11.73
132.19
60.20
10.83
131.27
346.56
22.93
1057.84
406.76
38.30
1171.69

All
476007.68
74499.02
1173586.21
103.18
17.34
240.78
107.14
16.87
263.39
559.33
34.12
1776.44
666.47
59.26
1995.18
Alternative A3 - Preferred
"D
O
<100
116.85
9.29
394.57
0.02
0.00
0.07
0.02
0.00
0.07
0.09
0.00
0.32
0.11
0.01
0.38
100-499
695.94
61.19
2257.33
0.12
0.01
0.38
0.13
0.01
0.42
0.52
0.02
1.86
0.65
0.04
2.24
O
500-999
896.50
84.52
2824.75
0.15
0.02
0.48
0.17
0.02
0.52
0.68
0.03
2.44
0.84
0.05
2.87
c
1,000-3,299
5580.90
573.42
17254.70
0.98
0.11
2.94
1.03
0.11
3.19
4.30
0.20
15.23
5.33
0.36
17.90
"D
C
3,300-9,999
16855.24
1826.54
50907.39
3.02
0.35
8.85
3.12
0.34
9.42
13.31
0.65
46.24
16.42
1.22
54.15
10,000-49,999
34034.00
3966.43
102346.12
6.20
0.79
17.93
7.09
0.83
21.33
30.88
1.60
106.59
37.98
2.95
124.22
"D
50,000-99,999
25158.23
3109.94
73758.06
4.70
0.64
13.20
5.60
0.69
16.42
25.05
1.39
85.59
30.65
2.54
98.64

100,000-999,999
115001.21
14853.46
315512.31
22.62
3.19
58.97
26.42
3.41
72.48
124.70
6.61
416.26
151.11
11.90
476.01

1,000,000+
256830.89
46512.91
555816.25
61.92
11.63
129.67
59.00
10.68
127.68
341.83
22.74
1040.99
400.83
37.94
1150.53

All
455169.76
72128.02
1112374.31
99.73
16.93
230.35
102.58
16.30
249.59
541.34
33.28
1716.09
643.92
57.80
1919.36
Alternative A4

<100
95.00
7.51
324.69
0.02
0.00
0.05
0.02
0.00
0.06
0.07
0.00
0.26
0.09
0.00
0.31
o
100-499
565.09
51.89
1838.03
0.10
0.01
0.31
0.10
0.01
0.34
0.42
0.02
1.53
0.53
0.03
1.81

500-999
728.08
71.21
2293.34
0.13
0.01
0.39
0.13
0.01
0.42
0.55
0.02
1.98
0.69
0.04
2.33
c
1,000-3,299
4567.79
492.30
14106.59
0.81
0.09
2.43
0.85
0.09
2.61
3.56
0.17
12.48
4.40
0.31
14.66

3,300-9,999
13944.68
1590.45
41861.42
2.54
0.31
7.36
2.58
0.29
7.74
11.19
0.57
38.38
13.77
1.07
44.74
c
10,000-49,999
26176.83
3171.20
78276.97
4.90
0.65
13.86
5.46
0.66
16.32
24.42
1.35
83.49
29.88
2.45
96.16
"D
O
50,000-99,999
19688.31
2542.68
56789.31
3.79
0.54
10.32
4.38
0.57
12.64
20.23
1.19
68.02
24.61
2.17
77.91
100,000-999,999
92438.57
12564.19
251576.16
18.89
2.83
48.03
21.23
2.89
57.79
104.17
5.76
341.04
125.41
10.35
386.34
j=
1,000,000+
241595.12
44959.77
510817.51
59.40
11.35
122.35
55.50
10.33
117.34
327.98
22.20
987.90
383.48
36.90
1089.04

All
399799.46
66646.20
949132.24
90.56
16.01
203.71
90.25
15.12
213.23
492.60
31.32
1538.23
582.85
54.09
1706.40
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
C-9
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C.4f
Cases Avoided and Benefits Annualized at 3 Percent (Based on Traditional Cost of Illness), ICRSSL Data Set














Total Annual Value of


Annual Illnesses
Annual Deaths
Value of Benefits for Annual
Value of Benefits for Annual

Benefits




Avoided


Avoided
Illnesses Avoided ($Millions)
Deaths Avoided ($Millions)

($Millions)



90 Percent

90 Percent

90 Percent

90 Percent

90 Percent



Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound


Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)

Size Cateqorv
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
Alternative A1
"D
O
<100
86.00
7.75
259.15
0.01
0.00
0.04
0.02
0.00
0.05
0.06
0.00
0.23
0.08
0.00
0.27
100-499
523.66
50.90
1529.30
0.09
0.01
0.26
0.10
0.01
0.28
0.38
0.02
1.41
0.48
0.03
1.66

500-999
679.13
71.34
1911.71
0.12
0.01
0.32
0.13
0.01
0.35
0.50
0.02
1.83
0.63
0.04
2.16
c
1,000-3,299
4218.60
470.81
11658.34
0.73
0.09
1.98
0.78
0.09
2.16
3.19
0.14
11.50
3.97
0.27
13.45

3,300-9,999
12618.01
1493.70
34320.17
2.22
0.28
5.91
2.33
0.28
6.35
9.75
0.47
34.65
12.08
0.86
40.41
c
10,000-49,999
23822.04
2942.95
65487.42
4.26
0.56
11.40
4.97
0.61
13.65
21.17
1.11
74.63
26.14
1.98
86.99
"D
O
50,000-99,999
17421.22
2232.76
47050.11
3.19
0.43
8.32
3.88
0.50
10.47
16.94
0.93
58.99
20.81
1.66
68.34
100,000-999,999
78814.79
10437.25
208694.02
15.10
2.15
38.45
18.11
2.40
47.94
82.94
4.31
282.18
101.04
7.67
323.50

1,000,000+
154808.39
27705.49
337935.19
36.66
6.80
77.61
35.56
6.36
77.63
202.19
13.38
616.25
237.75
22.54
684.00

All
292991.84
45926.15
702368.65
62.37
10.45
143.22
65.86
10.36
157.42
337.12
20.51
1081.39
402.99
35.20
1218.72
Alternative A2

<100
63.97
5.58
194.58
0.01
0.00
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.04
0.05
0.00
0.17
0.06
0.00
0.21
o
100-499
391.00
37.66
1167.01
0.07
0.01
0.20
0.07
0.01
0.22
0.29
0.01
1.05
0.36
0.02
1.25
o
500-999
508.04
53.52
1459.18
0.09
0.01
0.25
0.09
0.01
0.27
0.38
0.02
1.39
0.48
0.03
1.63
c
1,000-3,299
3187.64
356.45
8967.36
0.56
0.07
1.53
0.59
0.07
1.66
2.45
0.11
8.79
3.03
0.21
10.25
3
"D
C
3,300-9,999
9654.49
1162.84
26536.18
1.73
0.22
4.59
1.79
0.22
4.91
7.60
0.38
26.93
9.38
0.69
31.25
10,000-49,999
17884.34
2273.40
50631.27
3.28
0.44
8.90
3.73
0.47
10.55
16.30
0.89
56.79
20.03
1.61
65.66
"D
50,000-99,999
13287.31
1755.93
36565.86
2.50
0.35
6.56
2.96
0.39
8.14
13.31
0.77
45.56
16.27
1.38
52.37

100,000-999,999
61824.24
8366.57
159730.63
12.29
1.81
30.21
14.20
1.92
36.69
67.54
3.68
223.80
81.74
6.47
256.78

1,000,000+
143352.04
26275.36
303198.54
34.76
6.57
72.02
32.93
6.04
69.65
191.81
12.92
582.29
224.74
21.66
640.09

All
250153.08
40611.88
578528.26
55.28
9.55
122.64
56.37
9.19
130.01
299.72
19.02
940.02
356.09
32.31
1065.43
Alternative A3 - Preferred
"D
O
<100
48.41
3.93
150.55
0.01
0.00
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.03
0.04
0.00
0.13
0.04
0.00
0.16
100-499
297.47
26.66
892.46
0.05
0.00
0.15
0.06
0.00
0.17
0.22
0.01
0.81
0.28
0.02
0.96

500-999
388.02
38.99
1135.70
0.07
0.01
0.19
0.07
0.01
0.21
0.29
0.01
1.07
0.37
0.02
1.26
c
1,000-3,299
2464.79
276.20
7038.66
0.44
0.05
1.21
0.46
0.05
1.30
1.92
0.09
6.86
2.38
0.17
8.04

3,300-9,999
7576.97
921.64
20947.38
1.39
0.18
3.67
1.40
0.17
3.88
6.09
0.32
21.30
7.50
0.58
24.70
c
10,000-49,999
15369.53
1962.28
43357.99
2.87
0.39
7.73
3.20
0.41
9.04
14.24
0.81
49.17
17.44
1.44
56.46
"D
O
50,000-99,999
11536.49
1527.72
31619.61
2.21
0.31
5.75
2.57
0.34
7.04
11.77
0.71
39.76
14.34
1.25
45.68
100,000-999,999
54582.53
7545.69
138635.78
11.09
1.67
26.77
12.54
1.73
31.85
60.99
3.43
201.97
73.53
5.99
229.04

1,000,000+
138465.93
25761.80
288235.70
33.95
6.47
69.48
31.81
5.92
66.21
187.39
12.79
567.38
219.20
21.35
622.33

All
230730.13
38281.04
521924.61
52.07
9.16
112.80
52.11
8.69
117.45
282.95
18.23
881.17
335.07
31.03
989.12
Alternative A4
"D
O
<100
35.61
2.77
114.19
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.03
0.00
0.10
0.03
0.00
0.12
100-499
220.59
20.02
677.31
0.04
0.00
0.11
0.04
0.00
0.13
0.17
0.01
0.61
0.21
0.01
0.72
O
500-999
288.91
29.31
848.72
0.05
0.01
0.15
0.05
0.01
0.16
0.22
0.01
0.80
0.28
0.02
0.94
c
1,000-3,299
1868.08
211.34
5285.57
0.34
0.04
0.92
0.35
0.04
0.98
1.49
0.08
5.26
1.83
0.14
6.11
"D
C
3,300-9,999
5862.18
712.23
15981.82
1.10
0.15
2.87
1.08
0.13
2.96
4.85
0.27
16.69
5.93
0.48
19.21
10,000-49,999
10655.08
1379.18
30256.13
2.09
0.29
5.52
2.22
0.29
6.31
10.38
0.64
34.64
12.60
1.13
39.57
"D
50,000-99,999
8254.34
1133.26
22392.13
1.67
0.25
4.20
1.84
0.25
4.98
8.89
0.58
29.16
10.73
1.01
33.15

100,000-999,999
41242.63
6196.97
100485.59
8.88
1.44
20.42
9.47
1.42
23.08
48.90
2.95
156.27
58.37
5.08
176.48

1,000,000+
129464.78
24702.01
263960.78
32.47
6.30
65.41
29.74
5.67
60.64
179.23
12.40
539.14
208.97
20.70
589.92

All
197892.20
34571.95
431262.95
46.64
8.56
97.54
44.80
7.86
97.22
254.15
17.08
773.95
298.96
28.87
860.89
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
C-10
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C.5a
Cases Avoided and Benefits Annualized at 7 Percent (Based on Enhanced Cost of Illness), ICR Data Set














Total Annual Value of


Annual Illnesses
Annual Deaths
Value of Benefits for Annual
Value of Benefits for Annual

Benefits




Avoided


Avoided
Illnesses Avoided ($Millions)
Deaths Avoided ($Millions)

($Millions)



90 Percent

90 Percent

90 Percent

90 Percent

90 Percent



Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound


Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)

Size Cateqorv
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
Alternative A1

<100
325.12
27.86
1031.82
0.05
0.00
0.17
0.15
0.01
0.49
0.18
0.01
0.65
0.33
0.02
1.08
o
100-499
1767.96
176.02
5156.90
0.30
0.03
0.86
0.83
0.08
2.43
0.99
0.04
3.47
1.83
0.15
5.58

500-999
2196.90
237.03
6094.05
0.37
0.04
1.03
1.04
0.11
2.87
1.25
0.06
4.25
2.28
0.21
6.86
c
1,000-3,299
13189.76
1514.30
35442.15
2.28
0.27
6.04
6.22
0.71
16.72
7.62
0.38
25.44
13.84
1.33
40.92

3,300-9,999
39029.09
4675.44
103357.81
6.87
0.86
17.92
18.41
2.21
48.75
23.00
1.21
75.97
41.41
4.23
120.47
c
10,000-49,999
79199.15
9458.58
214320.22
14.18
1.79
37.55
43.56
5.20
117.87
55.77
3.04
185.47
99.33
10.38
290.23
"D
O
50,000-99,999
57812.83
7165.92
154332.93
10.57
1.41
27.48
34.66
4.30
92.53
45.57
2.62
150.28
80.23
8.76
231.15
100,000-999,999
261817.81
32900.33
677892.83
50.15
6.90
125.37
163.64
20.56
423.69
226.02
12.53
739.00
389.66
40.72
1117.99
j=
1,000,000+
534615.61
94112.54
1159827.15
126.60
23.19
266.17
334.14
58.82
724.91
571.06
37.97
1748.43
905.21
115.33
2353.18

All
989954.23
151965.26
2347055.39
211.38
34.84
480.39
602.66
93.04
1424.68
931.45
58.15
2922.68
1534.11
183.85
4115.29
Alternative A2
"D
O
<100
319.39
27.10
1014.73
0.05
0.00
0.17
0.15
0.01
0.48
0.18
0.01
0.64
0.33
0.02
1.06
100-499
1733.29
171.10
5095.94
0.29
0.03
0.85
0.82
0.08
2.40
0.97
0.04
3.41
1.79
0.15
5.46
O
500-999
2140.11
230.21
5933.73
0.36
0.04
1.00
1.01
0.11
2.80
1.22
0.06
4.15
2.23
0.20
6.68
c
1,000-3,299
12847.44
1473.04
34566.55
2.22
0.26
5.90
6.06
0.69
16.31
7.43
0.37
24.81
13.49
1.30
39.78
"D
C
3,300-9,999
38044.97
4557.49
100971.74
6.71
0.84
17.52
17.95
2.15
47.63
22.46
1.18
74.17
40.40
4.13
117.03
10,000-49,999
77177.93
9254.65
208185.56
13.84
1.76
36.57
42.45
5.09
114.50
54.46
2.97
181.05
96.91
10.17
283.32
"D
50,000-99,999
56405.61
7026.79
149991.86
10.34
1.38
26.73
33.82
4.21
89.93
44.57
2.58
146.73
78.39
8.60
225.48

100,000-999,999
255978.43
32308.03
661218.02
49.19
6.80
122.49
159.99
20.19
413.27
221.69
12.36
722.81
381.68
40.07
1089.57

1,000,000+
530678.56
93635.29
1150006.60
125.95
23.12
264.43
331.68
58.52
718.77
568.15
37.86
1739.65
899.83
114.91
2335.31

All
975325.72
150295.25
2307247.28
208.95
34.59
473.76
593.92
91.98
1401.08
921.12
57.72
2884.49
1515.04
182.44
4041.89
Alternative A3 - Preferred
"D
O
<100
309.47
26.06
981.00
0.05
0.00
0.16
0.15
0.01
0.46
0.17
0.01
0.62
0.32
0.02
1.03
100-499
1673.63
164.23
4927.86
0.28
0.03
0.82
0.79
0.08
2.32
0.94
0.04
3.30
1.73
0.15
5.27

500-999
2064.02
222.06
5723.13
0.35
0.04
0.96
0.97
0.10
2.70
1.17
0.05
4.00
2.15
0.19
6.44
c
1,000-3,299
12389.02
1425.38
33296.63
2.14
0.26
5.70
5.84
0.67
15.71
7.18
0.36
23.92
13.02
1.26
38.25

3,300-9,999
36727.33
4420.72
97338.89
6.49
0.82
16.90
17.32
2.09
45.91
21.73
1.15
71.74
39.05
4.01
112.78
c
10,000-49,999
75872.19
9141.26
204711.07
13.63
1.73
35.94
41.73
5.03
112.59
53.62
2.93
178.22
95.35
10.01
278.75
"D
O
50,000-99,999
55496.55
6925.94
147408.91
10.19
1.37
26.30
33.27
4.15
88.38
43.93
2.56
144.45
77.20
8.48
222.32
100,000-999,999
251900.25
31918.97
649104.43
48.51
6.73
120.62
157.44
19.95
405.70
218.67
12.22
712.81
376.11
39.61
1069.81

1,000,000+
527927.57
93327.35
1141902.96
125.49
23.07
263.18
329.96
58.33
713.70
566.11
37.76
1729.85
896.07
114.51
2328.34

All
964360.04
149240.82
2277366.81
207.14
34.41
468.44
587.48
91.37
1382.50
913.52
57.41
2856.42
1501.01
181.38
3997.81
Alternative A4
"D
O
<100
270.15
22.93
850.18
0.05
0.00
0.14
0.13
0.01
0.40
0.15
0.01
0.55
0.28
0.02
0.90
100-499
1445.35
145.37
4187.44
0.24
0.03
0.70
0.68
0.07
1.98
0.81
0.04
2.84
1.50
0.13
4.53
O
500-999
1770.08
197.09
4832.42
0.30
0.03
0.82
0.83
0.09
2.28
1.01
0.05
3.40
1.85
0.17
5.46
c
1,000-3,299
10634.22
1285.03
28183.78
1.85
0.23
4.84
5.02
0.61
13.29
6.21
0.33
20.54
11.22
1.14
32.32
"D
C
3,300-9,999
31698.05
4002.05
82425.38
5.66
0.75
14.42
14.95
1.89
38.88
18.95
1.05
61.97
33.90
3.65
96.04
10,000-49,999
68037.66
8293.10
181324.07
12.33
1.61
32.00
37.42
4.56
99.73
48.52
2.74
159.95
85.94
9.28
249.90
"D
50,000-99,999
50043.66
6380.31
130899.24
9.29
1.29
23.55
30.00
3.83
78.48
40.04
2.40
130.41
70.05
7.87
199.96

100,000-999,999
227342.62
29206.04
573203.86
44.45
6.28
108.03
142.09
18.25
358.26
200.44
11.51
647.54
342.53
36.99
961.42

1,000,000+
511258.27
91578.02
1092712.44
122.73
22.79
254.52
319.54
57.24
682.96
553.74
37.25
1679.27
873.28
112.80
2259.81

All
902500.06
143230.98
2088992.85
196.90
33.32
437.40
550.67
87.94
1269.69
869.87
55.85
2702.74
1420.54
174.79
3766.45
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
C-11
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C.5b
Cases Avoided and Benefits Annualized at 7 Percent (Based on Enhanced Cost of Illness), ICRSSM Data Set














Total Annual Value of


Annual Illnesses
Annual Deaths
Value of Benefits for Annual
Value of Benefits for Annual

Benefits




Avoided


Avoided
Illnesses Avoided ($Millions)
Deaths Avoided ($Millions)

($Millions)



90 Percent

90 Percent

90 Percent

90 Percent

90 Percent



Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound


Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)

Size Cateqorv
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
Alternative A1
"D
O
<100
153.72
12.68
494.33
0.03
0.00
0.08
0.07
0.01
0.23
0.09
0.00
0.31
0.16
0.01
0.52
100-499
917.76
80.98
2870.49
0.15
0.01
0.48
0.43
0.04
1.35
0.51
0.02
1.85
0.95
0.07
3.05

500-999
1184.12
108.55
3641.33
0.20
0.02
0.61
0.56
0.05
1.72
0.67
0.03
2.42
1.23
0.10
3.92
c
1,000-3,299
7313.58
720.97
22096.30
1.26
0.13
3.75
3.45
0.34
10.42
4.22
0.19
14.98
7.67
0.65
24.03

3,300-9,999
21835.44
2267.08
64761.19
3.84
0.43
11.11
10.30
1.07
30.55
12.84
0.60
45.24
23.14
2.09
71.29
c
10,000-49,999
41943.16
4787.94
125594.73
7.51
0.92
21.76
23.07
2.63
69.08
29.49
1.48
102.81
52.56
5.01
163.16
"D
O
50,000-99,999
30664.65
3668.48
89801.84
5.61
0.73
15.83
18.39
2.20
53.84
24.14
1.27
82.90
42.52
4.26
129.55
100,000-999,999
137877.11
17338.15
382255.41
26.41
3.60
70.07
86.18
10.84
238.91
118.82
6.13
404.68
205.00
20.09
607.28

1,000,000+
272260.35
48252.73
600830.54
64.47
11.92
137.44
170.17
30.16
375.53
290.68
19.05
893.38
460.85
57.28
1220.20

All
514149.89
78383.19
1285283.18
109.49
18.08
259.27
312.61
48.01
777.18
481.47
28.93
1541.36
794.08
89.46
2198.70
Alternative A2
"D
O
<100
134.29
10.94
442.10
0.02
0.00
0.07
0.06
0.01
0.21
0.07
0.00
0.28
0.14
0.01
0.46
100-499
800.81
70.88
2537.17
0.13
0.01
0.42
0.38
0.03
1.20
0.45
0.02
1.62
0.83
0.06
2.69

500-999
1031.39
95.73
3190.84
0.18
0.02
0.54
0.49
0.05
1.51
0.59
0.02
2.13
1.07
0.09
3.43
c
1,000-3,299
6393.25
641.76
19469.25
1.11
0.12
3.31
3.02
0.30
9.18
3.71
0.17
13.17
6.72
0.58
21.10

3,300-9,999
19189.96
2035.63
57212.10
3.41
0.39
9.87
9.05
0.96
26.99
11.39
0.55
39.90
20.44
1.87
62.99
c
10,000-49,999
36675.29
4245.01
111033.52
6.64
0.83
19.38
20.17
2.33
61.07
26.08
1.33
90.34
46.25
4.48
142.09
"D
O
50,000-99,999
26997.07
3294.88
79731.25
5.00
0.67
14.10
16.19
1.98
47.80
21.53
1.18
73.67
37.72
3.85
114.28
100,000-999,999
122735.17
15832.87
339171.04
23.90
3.34
62.90
76.71
9.90
211.99
107.59
5.66
361.67
184.30
18.38
541.87

1,000,000+
262050.44
47122.98
571441.58
62.78
11.73
132.19
163.79
29.45
357.16
283.11
18.74
864.91
446.90
55.93
1173.01

All
476007.68
74499.02
1173586.21
103.18
17.34
240.78
289.85
45.69
711.77
454.53
27.74
1442.97
744.37
85.60
2050.61
Alternative A3 - Preferred
"D
O
<100
116.85
9.29
394.57
0.02
0.00
0.07
0.06
0.00
0.19
0.06
0.00
0.24
0.12
0.01
0.40
100-499
695.94
61.19
2257.33
0.12
0.01
0.38
0.33
0.03
1.06
0.39
0.02
1.42
0.72
0.05
2.34
O
500-999
896.50
84.52
2824.75
0.15
0.02
0.48
0.42
0.04
1.33
0.51
0.02
1.85
0.94
0.07
3.00
c
1,000-3,299
5580.90
573.42
17254.70
0.98
0.11
2.94
2.63
0.27
8.14
3.26
0.15
11.56
5.89
0.51
18.44
"D
C
3,300-9,999
16855.24
1826.54
50907.39
3.02
0.35
8.85
7.95
0.86
24.01
10.10
0.49
35.08
18.05
1.68
55.50
10,000-49,999
34034.00
3966.43
102346.12
6.20
0.79
17.93
18.72
2.18
56.29
24.37
1.27
84.10
43.09
4.22
132.04
"D
50,000-99,999
25158.23
3109.94
73758.06
4.70
0.64
13.20
15.08
1.86
44.22
20.23
1.13
69.06
35.31
3.65
106.41

100,000-999,999
115001.21
14853.46
315512.31
22.62
3.19
58.97
71.88
9.28
197.20
101.87
5.40
340.35
173.75
17.44
506.40

1,000,000+
256830.89
46512.91
555816.25
61.92
11.63
129.67
160.52
29.07
347.39
279.25
18.59
850.97
439.77
55.36
1149.33

All
455169.76
72128.02
1112374.31
99.73
16.93
230.35
277.59
44.15
674.86
440.05
27.13
1391.45
717.64
83.58
1961.08
Alternative A4

<100
95.00
7.51
324.69
0.02
0.00
0.05
0.04
0.00
0.15
0.05
0.00
0.20
0.10
0.01
0.33
o
100-499
565.09
51.89
1838.03
0.10
0.01
0.31
0.27
0.02
0.87
0.32
0.01
1.16
0.59
0.04
1.89

500-999
728.08
71.21
2293.34
0.13
0.01
0.39
0.34
0.03
1.08
0.42
0.02
1.50
0.76
0.06
2.43
c
1,000-3,299
4567.79
492.30
14106.59
0.81
0.09
2.43
2.15
0.23
6.65
2.70
0.13
9.48
4.86
0.44
15.12

3,300-9,999
13944.68
1590.45
41861.42
2.54
0.31
7.36
6.58
0.75
19.75
8.49
0.43
29.11
15.07
1.47
45.58
c
10,000-49,999
26176.83
3171.20
78276.97
4.90
0.65
13.86
14.40
1.74
43.05
19.27
1.07
65.92
33.66
3.46
101.78
"D
O
50,000-99,999
19688.31
2542.68
56789.31
3.79
0.54
10.32
11.80
1.52
34.05
16.34
0.97
54.96
28.15
3.10
82.77
100,000-999,999
92438.57
12564.19
251576.16
18.89
2.83
48.03
57.78
7.85
157.24
85.10
4.71
279.34
142.88
14.96
407.40
j=
1,000,000+
241595.12
44959.77
510817.51
59.40
11.35
122.35
151.00
28.10
319.27
267.93
18.17
807.61
418.93
53.55
1083.31

All
399799.46
66646.20
949132.24
90.56
16.01
203.71
244.36
40.99
576.53
400.63
25.54
1248.55
645.00
78.00
1729.76
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
C-12
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C.5c
Cases Avoided and Benefits Annualized at 7 Percent (Based on Enhanced Cost of Illness), ICRSSL Data Set














Total Annual Value of


Annual Illnesses
Annual Deaths
Value of Benefits for Annual
Value of Benefits for Annual

Benefits




Avoided


Avoided
Illnesses Avoided ($Millions)
Deaths Avoided ($Millions)

($Millions)



90 Percent

90 Percent

90 Percent

90 Percent

90 Percent



Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound


Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)

Size Cateqorv
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
Alternative A1
"D
O
<100
86.00
7.75
259.15
0.01
0.00
0.04
0.04
0.00
0.12
0.05
0.00
0.17
0.09
0.01
0.29
100-499
523.66
50.90
1529.30
0.09
0.01
0.26
0.25
0.02
0.72
0.29
0.01
1.07
0.54
0.04
1.77

500-999
679.13
71.34
1911.71
0.12
0.01
0.32
0.32
0.03
0.90
0.38
0.02
1.39
0.70
0.06
2.28
c
1,000-3,299
4218.60
470.81
11658.34
0.73
0.09
1.98
1.99
0.22
5.50
2.42
0.11
8.75
4.41
0.38
14.09

3,300-9,999
12618.01
1493.70
34320.17
2.22
0.28
5.91
5.95
0.70
16.19
7.40
0.36
26.31
13.35
1.20
41.91
c
10,000-49,999
23822.04
2942.95
65487.42
4.26
0.56
11.40
13.10
1.62
36.02
16.71
0.88
58.92
29.81
2.92
92.78
"D
O
50,000-99,999
17421.22
2232.76
47050.11
3.19
0.43
8.32
10.45
1.34
28.21
13.68
0.75
47.58
24.12
2.47
73.73
100,000-999,999
78814.79
10437.25
208694.02
15.10
2.15
38.45
49.26
6.52
130.44
67.76
3.52
230.39
117.02
11.46
349.62

1,000,000+
154808.39
27705.49
337935.19
36.66
6.80
77.61
96.76
17.32
211.21
165.17
10.92
504.39
261.93
32.40
695.66

All
292991.84
45926.15
702368.65
62.37
10.45
143.22
178.11
28.05
425.43
273.85
16.68
877.27
451.97
51.36
1257.69
Alternative A2

<100
63.97
5.58
194.58
0.01
0.00
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.09
0.04
0.00
0.13
0.07
0.00
0.22
o
100-499
391.00
37.66
1167.01
0.07
0.01
0.20
0.18
0.02
0.55
0.22
0.01
0.80
0.40
0.03
1.32
o
500-999
508.04
53.52
1459.18
0.09
0.01
0.25
0.24
0.03
0.69
0.29
0.01
1.05
0.53
0.04
1.72
c
1,000-3,299
3187.64
356.45
8967.36
0.56
0.07
1.53
1.50
0.17
4.23
1.86
0.09
6.67
3.36
0.29
10.70
3
"D
C
3,300-9,999
9654.49
1162.84
26536.18
1.73
0.22
4.59
4.55
0.55
12.52
5.77
0.29
20.45
10.32
0.96
32.26
10,000-49,999
17884.34
2273.40
50631.27
3.28
0.44
8.90
9.84
1.25
27.85
12.86
0.71
44.86
22.70
2.30
69.60
"D
50,000-99,999
13287.31
1755.93
36565.86
2.50
0.35
6.56
7.97
1.05
21.92
10.75
0.62
36.82
18.72
2.00
55.96

100,000-999,999
61824.24
8366.57
159730.63
12.29
1.81
30.21
38.64
5.23
99.83
55.18
3.01
182.94
93.82
9.48
274.94

1,000,000+
143352.04
26275.36
303198.54
34.76
6.57
72.02
89.60
16.42
189.50
156.69
10.58
475.43
246.29
31.18
642.09

All
250153.08
40611.88
578528.26
55.28
9.55
122.64
152.55
24.91
351.43
243.65
15.49
764.49
396.20
46.53
1086.42
Alternative A3 - Preferred
"D
O
<100
48.41
3.93
150.55
0.01
0.00
0.03
0.02
0.00
0.07
0.03
0.00
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.17
100-499
297.47
26.66
892.46
0.05
0.00
0.15
0.14
0.01
0.42
0.17
0.01
0.61
0.31
0.02
1.02

500-999
388.02
38.99
1135.70
0.07
0.01
0.19
0.18
0.02
0.54
0.22
0.01
0.81
0.41
0.03
1.31
c
1,000-3,299
2464.79
276.20
7038.66
0.44
0.05
1.21
1.16
0.13
3.32
1.46
0.07
5.20
2.62
0.23
8.28

3,300-9,999
7576.97
921.64
20947.38
1.39
0.18
3.67
3.57
0.43
9.88
4.63
0.24
16.19
8.20
0.78
25.37
c
10,000-49,999
15369.53
1962.28
43357.99
2.87
0.39
7.73
8.45
1.08
23.85
11.23
0.64
38.77
19.69
2.03
60.13
"D
O
50,000-99,999
11536.49
1527.72
31619.61
2.21
0.31
5.75
6.92
0.92
18.96
9.51
0.57
32.18
16.42
1.79
49.09
100,000-999,999
54582.53
7545.69
138635.78
11.09
1.67
26.77
34.11
4.72
86.65
49.83
2.80
164.37
83.94
8.76
243.19

1,000,000+
138465.93
25761.80
288235.70
33.95
6.47
69.48
86.54
16.10
180.15
153.08
10.43
464.09
239.62
30.65
619.74

All
230730.13
38281.04
521924.61
52.07
9.16
112.80
141.11
23.57
317.81
230.15
14.88
716.14
371.26
44.56
1005.17
Alternative A4
"D
O
<100
35.61
2.77
114.19
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.05
0.02
0.00
0.07
0.04
0.00
0.12
100-499
220.59
20.02
677.31
0.04
0.00
0.11
0.10
0.01
0.32
0.13
0.01
0.46
0.23
0.02
0.76
O
500-999
288.91
29.31
848.72
0.05
0.01
0.15
0.14
0.01
0.40
0.17
0.01
0.61
0.30
0.03
0.97
c
1,000-3,299
1868.08
211.34
5285.57
0.34
0.04
0.92
0.88
0.10
2.49
1.13
0.06
3.99
2.01
0.19
6.27
"D
C
3,300-9,999
5862.18
712.23
15981.82
1.10
0.15
2.87
2.77
0.34
7.54
3.68
0.21
12.67
6.45
0.65
19.48
10,000-49,999
10655.08
1379.18
30256.13
2.09
0.29
5.52
5.86
0.76
16.64
8.19
0.51
27.37
14.05
1.57
41.48
"D
50,000-99,999
8254.34
1133.26
22392.13
1.67
0.25
4.20
4.95
0.68
13.43
7.18
0.47
23.55
12.13
1.44
34.72

100,000-999,999
41242.63
6196.97
100485.59
8.88
1.44
20.42
25.78
3.87
62.80
39.95
2.41
127.71
65.72
7.34
184.29

1,000,000+
129464.78
24702.01
263960.78
32.47
6.30
65.41
80.92
15.44
164.98
146.42
10.12
439.78
227.34
29.61
582.52

All
197892.20
34571.95
431262.95
46.64
8.56
97.54
121.41
21.32
263.08
206.86
13.94
630.23
328.27
41.28
867.05
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
C-13
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C.5d
Cases Avoided and Benefits Annualized at 7 Percent (Based on Traditional Cost of Illness), ICR Data Set














Total Annual Value of


Annual Illnesses
Annual Deaths
Value of Benefits for Annual
Value of Benefits for Annual

Benefits




Avoided


Avoided
Illnesses Avoided ($Millions)
Deaths Avoided ($Millions)

($Millions)



90 Percent Confidence

90 Percent

90 Percent

90 Percent

90 Percent



Bound

Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound


Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)

Size Cateqorv
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
Alternative A1

<100
325.12
27.86
1031.82
0.05
0.00
0.17
0.05
0.00
0.14
0.18
0.01
0.65
0.23
0.01
0.77
o
100-499
1767.96
176.02
5156.90
0.30
0.03
0.86
0.25
0.02
0.72
0.99
0.04
3.47
1.24
0.08
4.05

500-999
2196.90
237.03
6094.05
0.37
0.04
1.03
0.31
0.03
0.85
1.25
0.06
4.25
1.55
0.11
4.99
c
1,000-3,299
13189.76
1514.30
35442.15
2.28
0.27
6.04
1.85
0.21
4.96
7.62
0.38
25.44
9.46
0.74
29.65

3,300-9,999
39029.09
4675.44
103357.81
6.87
0.86
17.92
5.46
0.65
14.47
23.00
1.21
75.97
28.46
2.33
87.39
c
10,000-49,999
79199.15
9458.58
214320.22
14.18
1.79
37.55
12.98
1.55
35.13
55.77
3.04
185.47
68.75
5.73
216.26
"D
O
50,000-99,999
57812.83
7165.92
154332.93
10.57
1.41
27.48
10.36
1.28
27.64
45.57
2.62
150.28
55.93
4.89
173.60
100,000-999,999
261817.81
32900.33
677892.83
50.15
6.90
125.37
48.94
6.15
126.73
226.02
12.53
739.00
274.96
23.16
839.86
j=
1,000,000+
534615.61
94112.54
1159827.15
126.60
23.19
266.17
99.94
17.59
216.82
571.06
37.97
1748.43
671.00
66.10
1917.54

All
989954.23
151965.26
2347055.39
211.38
34.84
480.39
180.14
27.81
425.80
931.45
58.15
2922.68
1111.59
105.03
3257.31
Alternative A2
"D
O
<100
319.39
27.10
1014.73
0.05
0.00
0.17
0.04
0.00
0.14
0.18
0.01
0.64
0.22
0.01
0.76
100-499
1733.29
171.10
5095.94
0.29
0.03
0.85
0.24
0.02
0.71
0.97
0.04
3.41
1.22
0.08
3.97
O
500-999
2140.11
230.21
5933.73
0.36
0.04
1.00
0.30
0.03
0.83
1.22
0.06
4.15
1.52
0.11
4.85
c
1,000-3,299
12847.44
1473.04
34566.55
2.22
0.26
5.90
1.80
0.21
4.84
7.43
0.37
24.81
9.23
0.72
28.78
"D
C
3,300-9,999
38044.97
4557.49
100971.74
6.71
0.84
17.52
5.33
0.64
14.14
22.46
1.18
74.17
27.78
2.29
85.25
10,000-49,999
77177.93
9254.65
208185.56
13.84
1.76
36.57
12.65
1.52
34.12
54.46
2.97
181.05
67.11
5.62
210.85
"D
50,000-99,999
56405.61
7026.79
149991.86
10.34
1.38
26.73
10.10
1.26
26.87
44.57
2.58
146.73
54.68
4.78
168.88

100,000-999,999
255978.43
32308.03
661218.02
49.19
6.80
122.49
47.85
6.04
123.61
221.69
12.36
722.81
269.54
22.81
820.89

1,000,000+
530678.56
93635.29
1150006.60
125.95
23.12
264.43
99.21
17.50
214.98
568.15
37.86
1739.65
667.35
65.90
1903.31

All
975325.72
150295.25
2307247.28
208.95
34.59
473.76
177.52
27.50
418.76
921.12
57.72
2884.49
1098.64
104.28
3220.14
Alternative A3 - Preferred
"D
O
<100
309.47
26.06
981.00
0.05
0.00
0.16
0.04
0.00
0.14
0.17
0.01
0.62
0.22
0.01
0.73
100-499
1673.63
164.23
4927.86
0.28
0.03
0.82
0.23
0.02
0.69
0.94
0.04
3.30
1.17
0.08
3.84

500-999
2064.02
222.06
5723.13
0.35
0.04
0.96
0.29
0.03
0.80
1.17
0.05
4.00
1.46
0.11
4.68
c
1,000-3,299
12389.02
1425.38
33296.63
2.14
0.26
5.70
1.73
0.20
4.66
7.18
0.36
23.92
8.91
0.70
27.86

3,300-9,999
36727.33
4420.72
97338.89
6.49
0.82
16.90
5.14
0.62
13.63
21.73
1.15
71.74
26.87
2.22
82.55
c
10,000-49,999
75872.19
9141.26
204711.07
13.63
1.73
35.94
12.44
1.50
33.55
53.62
2.93
178.22
66.05
5.53
207.48
"D
O
50,000-99,999
55496.55
6925.94
147408.91
10.19
1.37
26.30
9.94
1.24
26.40
43.93
2.56
144.45
53.87
4.74
166.08
100,000-999,999
251900.25
31918.97
649104.43
48.51
6.73
120.62
47.09
5.97
121.34
218.67
12.22
712.81
265.76
22.59
809.67

1,000,000+
527927.57
93327.35
1141902.96
125.49
23.07
263.18
98.69
17.45
213.47
566.11
37.76
1729.85
664.80
65.75
1897.94

All
964360.04
149240.82
2277366.81
207.14
34.41
468.44
175.60
27.31
413.19
913.52
57.41
2856.42
1089.13
103.74
3194.64
Alternative A4
"D
O
<100
270.15
22.93
850.18
0.05
0.00
0.14
0.04
0.00
0.12
0.15
0.01
0.55
0.19
0.01
0.64
100-499
1445.35
145.37
4187.44
0.24
0.03
0.70
0.20
0.02
0.59
0.81
0.04
2.84
1.02
0.07
3.31
O
500-999
1770.08
197.09
4832.42
0.30
0.03
0.82
0.25
0.03
0.68
1.01
0.05
3.40
1.26
0.10
3.98
c
1,000-3,299
10634.22
1285.03
28183.78
1.85
0.23
4.84
1.49
0.18
3.95
6.21
0.33
20.54
7.70
0.63
23.68
"D
C
3,300-9,999
31698.05
4002.05
82425.38
5.66
0.75
14.42
4.44
0.56
11.54
18.95
1.05
61.97
23.39
2.04
71.18
10,000-49,999
68037.66
8293.10
181324.07
12.33
1.61
32.00
11.15
1.36
29.72
48.52
2.74
159.95
59.67
5.13
185.29
"D
50,000-99,999
50043.66
6380.31
130899.24
9.29
1.29
23.55
8.96
1.14
23.45
40.04
2.40
130.41
49.01
4.39
149.52

100,000-999,999
227342.62
29206.04
573203.86
44.45
6.28
108.03
42.50
5.46
107.16
200.44
11.51
647.54
242.94
21.41
738.03

1,000,000+
511258.27
91578.02
1092712.44
122.73
22.79
254.52
95.57
17.12
204.27
553.74
37.25
1679.27
649.31
64.66
1853.30

All
902500.06
143230.98
2088992.85
196.90
33.32
437.40
164.61
26.29
379.48
869.87
55.85
2702.74
1034.47
100.46
3000.97
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
C-14
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C.5e
Cases Avoided and Benefits Annualized at 7 Percent (Based on Traditional Cost of Illness), ICRSSM Data Set














Total Annual Value of


Annual Illnesses
Annual Deaths
Value of Benefits for Annual
Value of Benefits for Annual

Benefits




Avoided


Avoided
Illnesses Avoided ($Millions)
Deaths Avoided ($Millions)

($Millions)



90 Percent

90 Percent

90 Percent

90 Percent

90 Percent



Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound


Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)

Size Cateqorv
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
Alternative A1
"D
O
<100
153.72
12.68
494.33
0.03
0.00
0.08
0.02
0.00
0.07
0.09
0.00
0.31
0.11
0.01
0.37
100-499
917.76
80.98
2870.49
0.15
0.01
0.48
0.13
0.01
0.40
0.51
0.02
1.85
0.64
0.04
2.20

500-999
1184.12
108.55
3641.33
0.20
0.02
0.61
0.17
0.02
0.51
0.67
0.03
2.42
0.84
0.05
2.84
c
1,000-3,299
7313.58
720.97
22096.30
1.26
0.13
3.75
1.02
0.10
3.09
4.22
0.19
14.98
5.24
0.35
17.53

3,300-9,999
21835.44
2267.08
64761.19
3.84
0.43
11.11
3.06
0.32
9.07
12.84
0.60
45.24
15.90
1.13
52.40
c
10,000-49,999
41943.16
4787.94
125594.73
7.51
0.92
21.76
6.87
0.78
20.59
29.49
1.48
102.81
36.37
2.74
119.94
"D
O
50,000-99,999
30664.65
3668.48
89801.84
5.61
0.73
15.83
5.49
0.66
16.09
24.14
1.27
82.90
29.63
2.34
96.15
100,000-999,999
137877.11
17338.15
382255.41
26.41
3.60
70.07
25.77
3.24
71.46
118.82
6.13
404.68
144.60
11.05
462.06

1,000,000+
272260.35
48252.73
600830.54
64.47
11.92
137.44
50.90
9.02
112.32
290.68
19.05
893.38
341.58
31.87
989.46

All
514149.89
78383.19
1285283.18
109.49
18.08
259.27
93.44
14.35
232.27
481.47
28.93
1541.36
574.90
50.38
1739.30
Alternative A2
"D
O
<100
134.29
10.94
442.10
0.02
0.00
0.07
0.02
0.00
0.06
0.07
0.00
0.28
0.09
0.01
0.33
100-499
800.81
70.88
2537.17
0.13
0.01
0.42
0.11
0.01
0.36
0.45
0.02
1.62
0.56
0.03
1.94

500-999
1031.39
95.73
3190.84
0.18
0.02
0.54
0.14
0.01
0.45
0.59
0.02
2.13
0.73
0.05
2.50
c
1,000-3,299
6393.25
641.76
19469.25
1.11
0.12
3.31
0.90
0.09
2.73
3.71
0.17
13.17
4.60
0.31
15.46

3,300-9,999
19189.96
2035.63
57212.10
3.41
0.39
9.87
2.69
0.29
8.01
11.39
0.55
39.90
14.08
1.03
46.40
c
10,000-49,999
36675.29
4245.01
111033.52
6.64
0.83
19.38
6.01
0.70
18.20
26.08
1.33
90.34
32.09
2.47
105.48
"D
O
50,000-99,999
26997.07
3294.88
79731.25
5.00
0.67
14.10
4.84
0.59
14.28
21.53
1.18
73.67
26.37
2.15
85.01
100,000-999,999
122735.17
15832.87
339171.04
23.90
3.34
62.90
22.94
2.96
63.40
107.59
5.66
361.67
130.54
10.18
412.28

1,000,000+
262050.44
47122.98
571441.58
62.78
11.73
132.19
48.99
8.81
106.83
283.11
18.74
864.91
332.10
31.30
958.15

All
476007.68
74499.02
1173586.21
103.18
17.34
240.78
86.64
13.66
212.73
454.53
27.74
1442.97
541.16
48.29
1622.73
Alternative A3 - Preferred
"D
O
<100
116.85
9.29
394.57
0.02
0.00
0.07
0.02
0.00
0.06
0.06
0.00
0.24
0.08
0.00
0.29
100-499
695.94
61.19
2257.33
0.12
0.01
0.38
0.10
0.01
0.32
0.39
0.02
1.42
0.49
0.03
1.70
O
500-999
896.50
84.52
2824.75
0.15
0.02
0.48
0.13
0.01
0.40
0.51
0.02
1.85
0.64
0.04
2.18
c
1,000-3,299
5580.90
573.42
17254.70
0.98
0.11
2.94
0.78
0.08
2.42
3.26
0.15
11.56
4.04
0.27
13.58
"D
C
3,300-9,999
16855.24
1826.54
50907.39
3.02
0.35
8.85
2.36
0.26
7.13
10.10
0.49
35.08
12.46
0.92
41.06
10,000-49,999
34034.00
3966.43
102346.12
6.20
0.79
17.93
5.58
0.65
16.78
24.37
1.27
84.10
29.95
2.33
98.09
"D
50,000-99,999
25158.23
3109.94
73758.06
4.70
0.64
13.20
4.51
0.56
13.21
20.23
1.13
69.06
24.74
2.05
79.50

100,000-999,999
115001.21
14853.46
315512.31
22.62
3.19
58.97
21.50
2.78
58.98
101.87
5.40
340.35
123.37
9.71
387.92

1,000,000+
256830.89
46512.91
555816.25
61.92
11.63
129.67
48.01
8.70
103.90
279.25
18.59
850.97
327.26
30.98
941.56

All
455169.76
72128.02
1112374.31
99.73
16.93
230.35
82.98
13.20
201.70
440.05
27.13
1391.45
523.02
46.98
1559.02
Alternative A4

<100
95.00
7.51
324.69
0.02
0.00
0.05
0.01
0.00
0.05
0.05
0.00
0.20
0.07
0.00
0.23
o
100-499
565.09
51.89
1838.03
0.10
0.01
0.31
0.08
0.01
0.26
0.32
0.01
1.16
0.40
0.02
1.37

500-999
728.08
71.21
2293.34
0.13
0.01
0.39
0.10
0.01
0.32
0.42
0.02
1.50
0.52
0.03
1.77
c
1,000-3,299
4567.79
492.30
14106.59
0.81
0.09
2.43
0.64
0.07
1.98
2.70
0.13
9.48
3.34
0.24
11.13

3,300-9,999
13944.68
1590.45
41861.42
2.54
0.31
7.36
1.95
0.22
5.86
8.49
0.43
29.11
10.45
0.81
33.98
c
10,000-49,999
26176.83
3171.20
78276.97
4.90
0.65
13.86
4.29
0.52
12.83
19.27
1.07
65.92
23.56
1.93
75.78
"D
O
50,000-99,999
19688.31
2542.68
56789.31
3.79
0.54
10.32
3.53
0.46
10.17
16.34
0.97
54.96
19.87
1.75
62.83
100,000-999,999
92438.57
12564.19
251576.16
18.89
2.83
48.03
17.28
2.35
47.03
85.10
4.71
279.34
102.38
8.46
315.71
j=
1,000,000+
241595.12
44959.77
510817.51
59.40
11.35
122.35
45.16
8.40
95.49
267.93
18.17
807.61
313.10
30.07
888.53

All
399799.46
66646.20
949132.24
90.56
16.01
203.71
73.05
12.26
172.33
400.63
25.54
1248.55
473.68
43.97
1386.37
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
C-15
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C.5f
Cases Avoided and Benefits Annualized at 7 Percent (Based on Traditional Cost of Illness), ICRSSL Data Set














Total Annual Value of


Annual Illnesses
Annual Deaths
Value of Benefits for Annual
Value of Benefits for Annual

Benefits




Avoided


Avoided
Illnesses Avoided ($Millions)
Deaths Avoided ($Millions)

($Millions)



90 Percent

90 Percent

90 Percent

90 Percent

90 Percent



Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound

Confidence Bound


Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)

Size Cateqorv
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
Alternative A1
"D
O
<100
86.00
7.75
259.15
0.01
0.00
0.04
0.01
0.00
0.04
0.05
0.00
0.17
0.06
0.00
0.21
100-499
523.66
50.90
1529.30
0.09
0.01
0.26
0.07
0.01
0.21
0.29
0.01
1.07
0.37
0.02
1.26

500-999
679.13
71.34
1911.71
0.12
0.01
0.32
0.10
0.01
0.27
0.38
0.02
1.39
0.48
0.03
1.64
c
1,000-3,299
4218.60
470.81
11658.34
0.73
0.09
1.98
0.59
0.07
1.63
2.42
0.11
8.75
3.01
0.20
10.19

3,300-9,999
12618.01
1493.70
34320.17
2.22
0.28
5.91
1.77
0.21
4.81
7.40
0.36
26.31
9.16
0.66
30.64
c
10,000-49,999
23822.04
2942.95
65487.42
4.26
0.56
11.40
3.90
0.48
10.73
16.71
0.88
58.92
20.61
1.56
68.58
"D
O
50,000-99,999
17421.22
2232.76
47050.11
3.19
0.43
8.32
3.12
0.40
8.43
13.68
0.75
47.58
16.80
1.34
55.17
100,000-999,999
78814.79
10437.25
208694.02
15.10
2.15
38.45
14.73
1.95
39.01
67.76
3.52
230.39
82.49
6.26
264.35

1,000,000+
154808.39
27705.49
337935.19
36.66
6.80
77.61
28.94
5.18
63.17
165.17
10.92
504.39
194.11
18.41
558.59

All
292991.84
45926.15
702368.65
62.37
10.45
143.22
53.24
8.38
127.15
273.85
16.68
877.27
327.09
28.52
989.65
Alternative A2

<100
63.97
5.58
194.58
0.01
0.00
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.03
0.04
0.00
0.13
0.04
0.00
0.16
o
100-499
391.00
37.66
1167.01
0.07
0.01
0.20
0.05
0.01
0.16
0.22
0.01
0.80
0.27
0.02
0.95
o
500-999
508.04
53.52
1459.18
0.09
0.01
0.25
0.07
0.01
0.20
0.29
0.01
1.05
0.36
0.02
1.23
c
1,000-3,299
3187.64
356.45
8967.36
0.56
0.07
1.53
0.45
0.05
1.26
1.86
0.09
6.67
2.30
0.16
7.77
3
"D
C
3,300-9,999
9654.49
1162.84
26536.18
1.73
0.22
4.59
1.35
0.16
3.72
5.77
0.29
20.45
7.12
0.53
23.70
10,000-49,999
17884.34
2273.40
50631.27
3.28
0.44
8.90
2.93
0.37
8.30
12.86
0.71
44.86
15.79
1.27
51.81
"D
50,000-99,999
13287.31
1755.93
36565.86
2.50
0.35
6.56
2.38
0.31
6.55
10.75
0.62
36.82
13.13
1.12
42.33

100,000-999,999
61824.24
8366.57
159730.63
12.29
1.81
30.21
11.56
1.56
29.86
55.18
3.01
182.94
66.74
5.29
209.52

1,000,000+
143352.04
26275.36
303198.54
34.76
6.57
72.02
26.80
4.91
56.68
156.69
10.58
475.43
183.49
17.69
523.27

All
250153.08
40611.88
578528.26
55.28
9.55
122.64
45.60
7.45
105.04
243.65
15.49
764.49
289.25
26.22
864.28
Alternative A3 - Preferred
"D
O
<100
48.41
3.93
150.55
0.01
0.00
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.03
0.00
0.10
0.03
0.00
0.12
100-499
297.47
26.66
892.46
0.05
0.00
0.15
0.04
0.00
0.12
0.17
0.01
0.61
0.21
0.01
0.73

500-999
388.02
38.99
1135.70
0.07
0.01
0.19
0.05
0.01
0.16
0.22
0.01
0.81
0.28
0.02
0.96
c
1,000-3,299
2464.79
276.20
7038.66
0.44
0.05
1.21
0.35
0.04
0.99
1.46
0.07
5.20
1.80
0.13
6.09

3,300-9,999
7576.97
921.64
20947.38
1.39
0.18
3.67
1.06
0.13
2.93
4.63
0.24
16.19
5.69
0.44
18.74
c
10,000-49,999
15369.53
1962.28
43357.99
2.87
0.39
7.73
2.52
0.32
7.11
11.23
0.64
38.77
13.75
1.13
44.43
"D
O
50,000-99,999
11536.49
1527.72
31619.61
2.21
0.31
5.75
2.07
0.27
5.66
9.51
0.57
32.18
11.57
1.01
36.90
100,000-999,999
54582.53
7545.69
138635.78
11.09
1.67
26.77
10.20
1.41
25.92
49.83
2.80
164.37
60.03
4.89
186.41

1,000,000+
138465.93
25761.80
288235.70
33.95
6.47
69.48
25.88
4.82
53.88
153.08
10.43
464.09
178.97
17.39
508.00

All
230730.13
38281.04
521924.61
52.07
9.16
112.80
42.18
7.05
95.00
230.15
14.88
716.14
272.33
25.28
802.43
Alternative A4
"D
O
<100
35.61
2.77
114.19
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.07
0.02
0.00
0.09
100-499
220.59
20.02
677.31
0.04
0.00
0.11
0.03
0.00
0.09
0.13
0.01
0.46
0.16
0.01
0.55
O
500-999
288.91
29.31
848.72
0.05
0.01
0.15
0.04
0.00
0.12
0.17
0.01
0.61
0.21
0.01
0.71
c
1,000-3,299
1868.08
211.34
5285.57
0.34
0.04
0.92
0.26
0.03
0.74
1.13
0.06
3.99
1.39
0.10
4.64
"D
C
3,300-9,999
5862.18
712.23
15981.82
1.10
0.15
2.87
0.82
0.10
2.24
3.68
0.21
12.67
4.50
0.37
14.57
10,000-49,999
10655.08
1379.18
30256.13
2.09
0.29
5.52
1.75
0.23
4.96
8.19
0.51
27.37
9.93
0.89
31.20
"D
50,000-99,999
8254.34
1133.26
22392.13
1.67
0.25
4.20
1.48
0.20
4.01
7.18
0.47
23.55
8.66
0.82
26.78

100,000-999,999
41242.63
6196.97
100485.59
8.88
1.44
20.42
7.71
1.16
18.78
39.95
2.41
127.71
47.66
4.15
144.01

1,000,000+
129464.78
24702.01
263960.78
32.47
6.30
65.41
24.20
4.62
49.34
146.42
10.12
439.78
170.62
16.86
481.76

All
197892.20
34571.95
431262.95
46.64
8.56
97.54
36.30
6.37
78.64
206.86
13.94
630.23
243.16
23.46
699.64
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
C-16
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C.6a
Cases Avoided and Benefits Annualized at 3 Percent (Based on Enhanced Cost of Illness)
	Filtered Systems Only	
Data
Set
Rule
Alternative
Annual Illnesses
Avoided
Annual Deaths
Avoided
Value of Benefits for Annual
Illnesses Avoided (^Millions)
Value of Benefits for Annual
Deaths Avoided (^Millions)
Total Annual Value of Benefits
(^Millions)
Mean
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Mean
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Mean
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Mean
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Mean
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %ile)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Lower
(5th %ile)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Lower
(5th %ile)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Lower
(5th %ile)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Lower
(5th %ile)
Upper
(95th %ile)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
All System Sizes
ICR
A1
489,663
46,414
1,399,153
81
8
232
$ 364
$ 34
$ 1,041
$ 430
$ 19
$ 1,495
$ 794
$ 69
$ 2,452
A2
475,035
44,933
1,355,090
79
7
224
$ 353
$ 33
$ 1,011
$ 417
$ 18
$ 1,451
$ 771
$ 66
$ 2,368
A3 - Preferred alt.
464,069
43,741
1,324,897
77
7
219
$ 345
$ 32
$ 986
$ 408
$ 18
$ 1,420
$ 753
$ 65
$ 2,312
A4
402,209
38,061
1,131,268
67
6
187
$ 299
$ 28
$ 842
$ 354
$ 16
$ 1,230
$ 653
$ 57
$ 1,993
ICRSSL
A1
146,871
15,412
425,900
24
3
70
$ 109
$ 11
$ 317
$ 128
$ 5
$ 471
$ 237
$ 18
$ 771
A2
104,032
10,355
308,218
17
2
51
$ 77
$ 8
$ 229
$ 91
$ 3
$ 336
$ 168
$ 12
$ 554
A3 - Preferred alt.
84,609
7,778
254,515
14
1
42
$ 63
$ 6
$ 189
$ 74
$ 3
$ 274
$ 137
$ 10
$ 460
A4
51,772
4,343
165,126
9
1
27
$ 38
$ 3
$ 122
$ 45
$ 2
$ 169
$ 83
$ 6
$ 279
ICRSSM
A1
257,406
24,126
800,634
43
4
133
$ 191
$ 18
$ 596
$ 225
$ 9
$ 830
$ 416
$ 32
$ 1,354
A2
219,264
20,214
690,946
36
3
114
$ 163
$ 15
$ 513
$ 192
$ 7
$ 709
$ 355
$ 27
$ 1,157
A3 - Preferred alt.
198,426
17,823
631,762
33
3
105
$ 148
$ 13
$ 471
$ 174
$ 7
$ 645
$ 321
$ 24
$ 1,058
A4
143,056
12,192
472,527
24
2
78
$ 106
$ 9
$ 350
$ 125
$ 5
$ 465
$ 231
$ 17
$ 756
Small Systems
ICR
A1
51,045
5,331
140,126
8
1
23
$ 32
$ 3
$ 88
$ 37
$ 2
$ 128
$ 69
$ 6
$ 209
A2
49,622
5,148
136,514
8
1
23
$ 31
$ 3
$ 85
$ 36
$ 2
$ 125
$ 67
$ 6
$ 202
A3 - Preferred alt.
47,700
4,936
131,541
8
1
22
$ 30
$ 3
$ 82
$ 35
$ 2
$ 119
$ 65
$ 6
$ 194
A4
40,354
4,296
110,156
7
1
18
$ 25
$ 3
$ 69
$ 29
$ 1
$ 100
$ 55
$ 5
$ 161
ICRSSL
A1
16,365
1,559
46,987
3
0
8
$ 10
$ 1
$ 29
$ 12
$ 0
$ 44
$ 22
$ 2
$ 73
A2
12,045
1,092
35,440
2
0
6
$ 8
$ 1
$ 22
$ 9
$ 0
$ 33
$ 16
$ 1
$ 54
A3 - Preferred alt.
9,016
716
27,348
1
0
5
$ 6
$ 0
$ 17
$ 7
$ 0
$ 25
$ 12
$ 1
$ 41
A4
6,515
469
20,091
1
0
3
$ 4
$ 0
$ 13
$ 5
$ 0
$ 18
$ 9
$ 1
$ 29
ICRSSM
A1
28,357
2,328
88,448
5
0
15
$ 18
$ 1
$ 55
$ 21
$ 1
$ 75
$ 38
$ 3
$ 124
A2
24,502
2,013
77,374
4
0
13
$ 15
$ 1
$ 48
$ 18
$ 1
$ 66
$ 33
$ 2
$ 108
A3 - Preferred alt.
21,098
1,732
68,281
3
0
11
$ 13
$ 1
$ 43
$ 15
$ 1
$ 57
$ 29
$ 2
$ 93
A4
16,853
1,406
54,624
3
0
9
$ 11
$ 1
$ 34
$ 12
$ 0
$ 45
$ 23
$ 2
$ 75
Large Systems
ICR
A1
438,618
40,437
1,258,180
73
7
208
$ 332
$ 31
$ 954
$ 393
$ 17
$ 1,375
$ 725
$ 62
$ 2,241
A2
425,413
39,214
1,219,629
70
6
202
$ 322
$ 30
$ 925
$ 381
$ 17
$ 1,330
$ 703
$ 60
$ 2,172
A3 - Preferred alt.
416,369
38,541
1,190,973
69
6
197
$ 316
$ 29
$ 903
$ 373
$ 16
$ 1,305
$ 688
$ 59
$ 2,125
A4
361,855
34,164
1,021,604
60
6
169
$ 274
$ 26
$ 775
$ 324
$ 14
$ 1,130
$ 598
$ 51
$ 1,830
ICRSSL
A1
130,506
13,626
379,940
22
2
63
$ 99
$ 10
$ 288
$ 116
$ 5
$ 429
$ 215
$ 17
$ 700
A2
91,987
9,056
273,672
15
1
45
$ 70
$ 7
$ 207
$ 82
$ 3
$ 304
$ 152
$ 11
$ 504
A3 - Preferred alt.
75,594
7,074
228,200
13
1
38
$ 57
$ 5
$ 173
$ 67
$ 3
$ 250
$ 125
$ 9
$ 419
A4
45,256
3,869
144,918
7
1
24
$ 34
$ 3
$ 110
$ 40
$ 1
$ 151
$ 75
$ 5
$ 250
ICRSSM
A1
229,049
21,608
717,696
38
4
119
$ 174
$ 16
$ 544
$ 205
$ 8
$ 754
$ 378
$ 29
$ 1,232
A2
194,762
18,061
615,892
32
3
102
$ 148
$ 14
$ 466
$ 174
$ 7
$ 645
$ 322
$ 24
$ 1,053
A3 - Preferred alt.
177,328
16,067
570,363
29
3
94
$ 134
$ 12
$ 432
$ 158
$ 6
$ 587
$ 293
$ 22
$ 959
A4
126,203
10,585
417,133
21
2
69
$ 96
$ 8
$ 316
$ 113
$ 4
$ 419
$ 208
$ 15
$ 683
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
C-17
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C.6b
Cases Avoided and Benefits Annualized at 3 Percent (Based on Best Estimate of Traditional Cost of Illness)
	Filtered Systems Only	



Annual Illnesses
Avoided
Annual Deaths
Avoided
Value of Benefits for Annual
Illnesses Avoided ($Millions)
Value of Benefits for Annual
Deaths Avoided ($Millions)
Total Annual Value of Benefits
($Millions)




90 Percent
Confidence Bound

90 Percent
Confidence Bound


90 Percent
Confidence Bound


90 Percent
Confidence Bound


90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Data

Rule
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Set

Alternative
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
0
All System Sizes

A1
489,663
46,414
1,399,153
81
8
232
$
108
$
10
$
310
$
430
$
19
$
1,495
$
538
$
37
$
1,772
ICR
A2
475,035
44,933
1,355,090
79
7
224
$
105
$
10
$
301
$
417
$
18
$
1,451
$
522
$
36
$
1,720
A3
- Preferred alt.
464,069
43,741
1,324,897
77
7
219
$
103
$
10
$
294
$
408
$
18
$
1,420
$
510
$
35
$
1,683

A4
402,209
38,061
1,131,268
67
6
187
$ 89
$ 8
$
251
$
354
$
16
$
1,230
$
443
$
31
$
1,445

A1
146,871
15,412
425,900
24
3
70
$
32
$
3
$
94
$
128
$
5
$
471
$
160
$
10
$
555
ICRSSL
A2
104,032
10,355
308,218
17
2
51
$
23
$
2
$
68
$
91
$
3
$
336
$
114
$
7
$
399
A3
- Preferred alt.
84,609
7,778
254,515
14
1
42
$
19
$
2
$
56
$
74
$
3
$
274
$
92
$
5
$
328

A4
51,772
4,343
165,126
9
1
27
$
11
$ 1
$
36
$
45
$
2
$
169
$
56
$
3
$
200

A1
257,406
24,126
800,634
43
4
133
$
57
$
5
$
177
$
225
$
9
$
830
$
282
$
17
$
973
ICRSSM
A2
219,264
20,214
690,946
36
3
114
$
48
$
4
$
153
$
192
$
7
$
709
$
240
$
14
$
834
A3
- Preferred alt.
198,426
17,823
631,762
33
3
105
$
44
$
4
$
140
$
174
$
7
$
645
$
218
$
13
$
759

A4
143,056
12,192
472,527
24
2
78
$
32
$
3
$
104
$
125
$
5
$
465
$
157
$
9
$
548
Small Systems

A1
51,045
5,331
140,126
8
1
23
$
9
$ 1
$
26
$
37
$
2
$
128
$
47
$
3
$
151
ICR
A2
49,622
5,148
136,514
8
1
23
$
9
$ 1
$
25
$
36
$
2
$
125
$
45
$
3
$
146
A3
- Preferred alt.
47,700
4,936
131,541
8
1
22
$
9
$ 1
$
24
$
35
$
2
$
119
$
44
$
3
$
140

A4
40,354
4,296
110,156
7
1
18
$
7
$ 1
$
20
$
29
$ 1
$
100
$
37
$
3
$
117

A1
16,365
1,559
46,987
3
0
8
$
3
$
0
$
9
$
12
$
0
$
44
$
15
$ 1
$
52
ICRSSL
A2
12,045
1,092
35,440
2
0
6
$
2
$
0
$
7
$
9
$
0
$
33
$
11
$ 1
$
39
A3
- Preferred alt.
9,016
716
27,348
1
0
5
$
2
$
0
$
5
$
7
$
0
$
25
$ 8
$
0
$
29

A4
6,515
469
20,091
1
0
3
$ 1
$
0
$
4
$
5
$
0
$
18
$
6
$
0
$
21

A1
28,357
2,328
88,448
5
0
15
$
5
$
0
$
16
$
21
$ 1
$
75
$
26
$ 1
$
89
ICRSSM
A2
24,502
2,013
77,374
4
0
13
$
5
$
0
$
14
$
18
$ 1
$
66
$
22
$ 1
$
78
A3
- Preferred alt.
21,098
1,732
68,281
3
0
11
$
4
$
0
$
13
$
15
$ 1
$
57
$
19
$ 1
$
67

A4
16,853
1,406
54,624
3
0
9
$
3
$
0
$
10
$
12
$
0
$
45
$
15
$ 1
$
54
Large Systems

A1
438,618
40,437
1,258,180
73
7
208
$ 99
$
9
$
284
$
393
$
17
$
1,375
$
492
$
34
$
1,621
ICR
A2
425,413
39,214
1,219,629
70
6
202
$ 96
$
9
$
275
$
381
$
17
$
1,330
$
477
$
33
$
1,577
A3
- Preferred alt.
416,369
38,541
1,190,973
69
6
197
$
94
$
9
$
269
$
373
$
16
$
1,305
$
467
$
32
$
1,544

A4
361,855
34,164
1,021,604
60
6
169
$
82
$ 8
$
231
$
324
$
14
$
1,130
$
406
$
28
$
1,332

A1
130,506
13,626
379,940
22
2
63
$
29
$
3
$
86
$
116
$
5
$
429
$
146
$
9
$
504
ICRSSL
A2
91,987
9,056
273,672
15
1
45
$
21
$
2
$
62
$
82
$
3
$
304
$
103
$
6
$
361
A3
- Preferred alt.
75,594
7,074
228,200
13
1
38
$
17
$
2
$
51
$
67
$
3
$
250
$
84
$
5
$
298

A4
45,256
3,869
144,918
7
1
24
$
10
$ 1
$
33
$
40
$ 1
$
151
$
50
$
3
$
180

A1
229,049
21,608
717,696
38
4
119
$
52
$
5
$
162
$
205
$ 8
$
754
$
256
$
15
$
886
ICRSSM
A2
194,762
18,061
615,892
32
3
102
$
44
$
4
$
139
$
174
$
7
$
645
$
218
$
13
$
757
A3
- Preferred alt.
177,328
16,067
570,363
29
3
94
$
40
$
4
$
129
$
158
$
6
$
587
$ 198
$
11
$
692

A4
126,203
10,585
417,133
21
2
69
$
28
$
2
$
94
$
113
$
4
$
419
$
141
$ 8
$
497
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
C-18
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C.7a
Cases Avoided and Benefits Annualized at 3 Percent (Based on Enhanced Cost of Illness)
	Unfiltered Systems Only	
Data
Set
Rule
Alternative
Annual Illnesses
Avoided
Annual Deaths
Avoided
Value of Benefits for Annual
Illnesses Avoided (^Millions)
Value of Benefits for Annual
Deaths Avoided (^Millions)
Total Annual Value of Benefits
(^Millions)
Mean
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Mean
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Mean
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Mean
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Mean
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %ile)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Lower
(5th %ile)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Lower
(5th %ile)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Lower
(5th %ile)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Lower
(5th %ile)
Upper
(95th %ile)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
All System Sizes
ICR
A3 - Preferred alt.
500,291
101,149
982,116
130
26
256
$384
$78
$754
$716
$52
$2,137
$1,100
$151
$2,762
ICR SSL
A3 - Preferred alt.
146,121
29,556
286,785
38
8
75
$112
$23
$220
$209
$15
$624
$321
$44
$806
ICR SSM
A3 - Preferred alt.
256,744
51,932
503,915
67
14
131
$197
$40
$387
$368
$26
$1,096
$565
$77
$1,417
Small Systems
ICR
A3 - Preferred alt.
5,464
1,115
11,030
1
0
3
$3
$1
$7
$6
$1
$18
$10
$2
$24
ICR SSL
ICR SSM
A3 - Preferred alt.
1,760
359
3,553
0
0
1
$1
$0
$2
$2
$0
$6
$3
$1
$8
A3 - Preferred alt.
3,048
622
6,153
1
0
2
$2
$0
$4
$4
$0
$10
$5
$1
$13
Large Systems
ICR
A3 - Preferred alt.
494,828
99,931
971,931
129
26
253
$381
$77
$748
$710
$51
$2,118
$1,091
$149
$2,741
ICR SSL
ICR SSM
A3 - Preferred alt.
144,361
29,151
283,486
38
8
74
$111
$22
$218
$207
$15
$618
$318
$43
$799
A3 - Preferred alt.
253,696
51,229
498,186
66
13
130
$195
$39
$383
$364
$26
$1,086
$559
$76
$1,405
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
C-19
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C.7b
Cases Avoided and Benefits Annualized at 3 Percent (Based on Best Estimate of Traditional Cost of Illness)
	Unfiltered Systems Only	
Data
Set
Rule
Alternative
Annual Illnesses
Avoided
Annual Deaths
Avoided
Value of Benefits for Annual
Illnesses Avoided ($Millions)
Value of Benefits for Annual
Deaths Avoided ($Millions)
Total Annual Value of Benefits
($Millions)
Mean
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Mean
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Mean
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Mean
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Mean
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
0
All System Sizes
ICR
A3 - Preferred alt.
500,291
101,149
982,116
130
26
256
$114
$23
$225
$716
$52
$2,137
$831
$87
$2,319
ICR SSL
A3 - Preferred alt.
146,121
29,556
286,785
38
8
75
$33
$7
$66
$209
$15
$624
$243
$25
$677
ICR SSM
A3 - Preferred alt.
256,744
51,932
503,915
67
14
131
$59
$12
$115
$368
$26
$1,096
$426
$45
$1,190
Small Systems
ICR
A3 - Preferred alt.
5,464
1,115
11,030
1
0
3
$1
$0
$2
$6
$1
$18
$7
$1
$20
ICR SSL
ICR SSM
A3 - Preferred alt.
1,760
359
3,553
0
0
1
$0
$0
$1
$2
$0
$6
$2
$0
$6
A3 - Preferred alt.
3,048
622
6,153
1
0
2
$1
$0
$1
$4
$0
$10
$4
$1
$11
Large Systems
ICR
A3 - Preferred alt.
494,828
99,931
971,931
129
26
253
$113
$23
$223
$710
$51
$2,118
$823
$86
$2,297
ICR SSL
ICR SSM
A3 - Preferred alt.
144,361
29,151
283,486
38
8
74
$33
$7
$65
$207
$15
$618
$240
$25
$670
A3 - Preferred alt.
253,696
51,229
498,186
66
13
130
$58
$12
$114
$364
$26
$1,086
$422
$44
$1,178
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
C-20
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C.8a
Cases Avoided and Benefits Annualized at 7 Percent (Based on Best Estimate of Enhanced Cost of Illness)
	Filtered Systems Only	
Data
Set
Rule
Alternative
Annual Illnesses
Avoided
Annual Deaths
Avoided
Value of Benefits for Annual
Illnesses Avoided (^Millions)
Value of Benefits for Annual
Deaths Avoided (^Millions)
Total Annual Value of Benefits
(^Millions)
Mean
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Mean
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Mean
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Mean
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Mean
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %ile)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Lower
(5th %ile)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Lower
(5th %ile)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Lower
(5th %ile)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Lower
(5th %ile)
Upper
(95th %ile)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
All System Sizes
ICR
A1
489,663
46,414
1,399,153
81
8
232
$ 292
$ 28
$ 835
$ 347
$ 15
$ 1,206
$ 639
$ 55
$ 1,970
A2
475,035
44,933
1,355,090
79
7
224
$ 283
$ 27
$ 810
$ 337
$ 15
$ 1,170
$ 620
$ 53
$ 1,904
A3 - Preferred alt.
464,069
43,741
1,324,897
77
7
219
$ 277
$ 26
$ 790
$ 329
$ 14
$ 1,146
$ 606
$ 52
$ 1,862
A4
402,209
38,061
1,131,268
67
6
187
$ 240
$ 23
$ 675
$ 286
$ 13
$ 994
$ 525
$ 45
$ 1,601
ICRSSL
A1
146,871
15,412
425,900
24
3
70
$ 87
$ 9
$ 254
$ 103
$ 4
$ 380
$ 191
$ 15
$ 620
A2
104,032
10,355
308,218
17
2
51
$ 62
$ 6
$ 183
$ 73
$ 3
$ 271
$ 135
$ 10
$ 447
A3 - Preferred alt.
84,609
7,778
254,515
14
1
42
$ 50
$ 5
$ 152
$ 60
$ 2
$ 222
$ 110
$ 8
$ 370
A4
51,772
4,343
165,126
9
1
27
$ 31
$ 3
$ 98
$ 36
$ 1
$ 136
$ 67
$ 5
$ 225
ICRSSM
A1
257,406
24,126
800,634
43
4
133
$ 153
$ 14
$ 477
$ 182
$ 7
$ 669
$ 335
$ 26
$ 1,090
A2
219,264
20,214
690,946
36
3
114
$ 130
$ 12
$ 411
$ 155
$ 6
$ 573
$ 285
$ 22
$ 930
A3 - Preferred alt.
198,426
17,823
631,762
33
3
105
$ 118
$ 11
$ 377
$ 140
$ 5
$ 520
$ 258
$ 19
$ 851
A4
143,056
12,192
472,527
24
2
78
$ 85
$ 7
$ 280
$ 101
$ 4
$ 376
$ 186
$ 13
$ 608
Small Systems
ICR
A1
51,045
5,331
140,126
8
1
23
$ 24
$ 3
$ 66
$ 28
$ 1
$ 97
$ 52
$ 4
$ 158
A2
49,622
5,148
136,514
8
1
23
$ 23
$ 2
$ 64
$ 27
$ 1
$ 94
$ 51
$ 4
$ 153
A3 - Preferred alt.
47,700
4,936
131,541
8
1
22
$ 23
$ 2
$ 62
$ 26
$ 1
$ 91
$ 49
$ 4
$ 147
A4
40,354
4,296
110,156
7
1
18
$ 19
$ 2
$ 52
$ 22
$ 1
$ 76
$ 41
$ 4
$ 122
ICRSSL
A1
16,365
1,559
46,987
3
0
8
$ 8
$ 1
$ 22
$ 9
$ 0
$ 33
$ 17
$ 1
$ 55
A2
12,045
1,092
35,440
2
0
6
$ 6
$ 1
$ 17
$ 7
$ 0
$ 25
$ 12
$ 1
$ 41
A3 - Preferred alt.
9,016
716
27,348
1
0
5
$ 4
$ 0
$ 13
$ 5
$ 0
$ 19
$ 9
$ 1
$ 31
A4
6,515
469
20,091
1
0
3
$ 3
$ 0
$ 9
$ 4
$ 0
$ 14
$ 7
$ 0
$ 22
ICRSSM
A1
28,357
2,328
88,448
5
0
15
$ 13
$ 1
$ 42
$ 16
$ 1
$ 57
$ 29
$ 2
$ 94
A2
24,502
2,013
77,374
4
0
13
$ 12
$ 1
$ 36
$ 14
$ 1
$ 50
$ 25
$ 2
$ 82
A3 - Preferred alt.
21,098
1,732
68,281
3
0
11
$ 10
$ 1
$ 32
$ 12
$ 0
$ 43
$ 22
$ 1
$ 71
A4
16,853
1,406
54,624
3
0
9
$ 8
$ 1
$ 26
$ 9
$ 0
$ 34
$ 17
$ 1
$ 56
Large Systems
ICR
A1
438,618
40,437
1,258,180
73
7
208
$ 268
$ 25
$ 769
$ 319
$ 14
$ 1,112
$ 587
$ 50
$ 1,812
A2
425,413
39,214
1,219,629
70
6
202
$ 260
$ 24
$ 745
$ 309
$ 13
$ 1,080
$ 569
$ 49
$ 1,758
A3 - Preferred alt.
416,369
38,541
1,190,973
69
6
197
$ 254
$ 23
$ 727
$ 303
$ 13
$ 1,060
$ 557
$ 47
$ 1,719
A4
361,855
34,164
1,021,604
60
6
169
$ 221
$ 21
$ 624
$ 263
$ 11
$ 916
$ 484
$ 41
$ 1,482
ICRSSL
A1
130,506
13,626
379,940
22
2
63
$ 80
$ 8
$ 232
$ 94
$ 4
$ 348
$ 174
$ 14
$ 567
A2
91,987
9,056
273,672
15
1
45
$ 56
$ 6
$ 167
$ 66
$ 3
$ 247
$ 123
$ 9
$ 408
A3 - Preferred alt.
75,594
7,074
228,200
13
1
38
$ 46
$ 4
$ 139
$ 55
$ 2
$ 203
$ 101
$ 7
$ 339
A4
45,256
3,869
144,918
7
1
24
$ 28
$ 2
$ 88
$ 33
$ 1
$ 123
$ 60
$ 4
$ 203
ICRSSM
A1
229,049
21,608
717,696
38
4
119
$ 140
$ 13
$ 438
$ 166
$ 6
$ 612
$ 306
$ 24
$ 997
A2
194,762
18,061
615,892
32
3
102
$ 119
$ 11
$ 376
$ 141
$ 5
$ 525
$ 260
$ 20
$ 851
A3 - Preferred alt.
177,328
16,067
570,363
29
3
94
$ 108
$ 10
$ 348
$ 129
$ 5
$ 476
$ 237
$ 18
$ 776
A4
126,203
10,585
417,133
21
2
69
$ 77
$ 6
$ 254
$ 92
$ 3
$ 340
$ 169
$ 12
$ 553
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
C-21
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C.8b
Cases Avoided and Benefits Annualized at 7 Percent (Based on Best Estimate of Traditional Cost of Illness)
	Filtered Systems Only	



Annual Illnesses
Avoided
Annual Deaths
Avoided
Value of Benefits for Annual
Illnesses Avoided ($Millions)
Value of Benefits for Annual
Deaths Avoided ($Millions)
Total Annual Value of Benefits
($Millions)




90 Percent
Confidence Bound

90 Percent
Confidence Bound


90 Percent
Confidence Bound


90 Percent
Confidence Bound


90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Data

Rule
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Mean
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Set
Alternative
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
0
All System Sizes

A1
489,663
46,414
1,399,153
81
8
232
$
87
$ 8
$
249
$
347
$
15
$
1,206
$
434
$
30
$
1,432
ICR
A2
475,035
44,933
1,355,090
79
7
224
$
85
$ 8
$
242
$
337
$
15
$
1,170
$
421
$
29
$
1,390
A3
Preferred alt
464,069
43,741
1,324,897
77
7
219
$
83
$ 8
$
236
$
329
$
14
$
1,146
$
412
$
28
$
1,359

A4
402,209
38,061
1,131,268
67
6
187
$
72
$
7
$
202
$
286
$
13
$
994
$
357
$
25
$
1,167

A1
146,871
15,412
425,900
24
3
70
$
26
$
3
$
76
$
103
$
4
$
380
$
129
$ 8
$
448
ICRSSL
A2
104,032
10,355
308,218
17
2
51
$ 18
$
2
$
55
$
73
$
3
$
271
$
92
$
5
$
322
A3
Preferred alt
84,609
7,778
254,515
14
1
42
$
15
$ 1
$
45
$
60
$
2
$
222
$
75
$
4
$
264

A4
51,772
4,343
165,126
9
1
27
$
9
$ 1
$
29
$
36
$ 1
$
136
$
45
$
3
$
162

A1
257,406
24,126
800,634
43
4
133
$
46
$
4
$
143
$
182
$
7
$
669
$
227
$
14
$
784
ICRSSM
A2
219,264
20,214
690,946
36
3
114
$
39
$
4
$
123
$
155
$
6
$
573
$
194
$
11
$
673
A3
Preferred alt
198,426
17,823
631,762
33
3
105
$
35
$
3
$
113
$
140
$
5
$
520
$
176
$
10
$
612

A4
143,056
12,192
472,527
24
2
78
$
25
$
2
$
84
$
101
$
4
$
376
$
126
$
7
$
441
Small Systems

A1
51,045
5,331
140,126
8
1
23
$
7
$ 1
$
20
$
28
$ 1
$
97
$
35
$
2
$
114
ICR
A2
49,622
5,148
136,514
8
1
23
$
7
$ 1
$
19
$
27
$ 1
$
94
$
34
$
2
$
111
A3
Preferred alt
47,700
4,936
131,541
8
1
22
$
7
$ 1
$
18
$
26
$ 1
$
91
$
33
$
2
$
106

A4
40,354
4,296
110,156
7
1
18
$
6
$ 1
$
15
$
22
$ 1
$
76
$
28
$
2
$
89

A1
16,365
1,559
46,987
3
0
8
$
2
$
0
$
7
$
9
$
0
$
33
$
11
$ 1
$
40
ICRSSL
A2
12,045
1,092
35,440
2
0
6
$
2
$
0
$
5
$
7
$
0
$
25
$ 8
$
0
$
29
A3
Preferred alt
9,016
716
27,348
1
0
5
$ 1
$
0
$
4
$
5
$
0
$
19
$
6
$
0
$
22

A4
6,515
469
20,091
1
0
3
$ 1
$
0
$
3
$
4
$
0
$
14
$
4
$
0
$
16

A1
28,357
2,328
88,448
5
0
15
$
4
$
0
$
12
$
16
$ 1
$
57
$
20
$ 1
$
68
ICRSSM
A2
24,502
2,013
77,374
4
0
13
$
3
$
0
$
11
$
14
$ 1
$
50
$
17
$ 1
$
59
A3
Preferred alt
21,098
1,732
68,281
3
0
11
$
3
$
0
$
10
$
12
$
0
$
43
$
15
$ 1
$
51

A4
16,853
1,406
54,624
3
0
9
$
2
$
0
$ 8
$
9
$
0
$
34
$
12
$ 1
$
41
Large Systems

A1
438,618
40,437
1,258,180
73
7
208
$ 80
$
7
$
230
$
319
$
14
$
1,112
$
399
$
27
$
1,318
ICR
A2
425,413
39,214
1,219,629
70
6
202
$
78
$
7
$
223
$
309
$
13
$
1,080
$
387
$
26
$
1,281
A3
Preferred alt
416,369
38,541
1,190,973
69
6
197
$
76
$
7
$
217
$
303
$
13
$
1,060
$
379
$
26
$
1,252

A4
361,855
34,164
1,021,604
60
6
169
$
66
$
6
$
187
$
263
$
11
$
916
$
329
$
23
$
1,082

A1
130,506
13,626
379,940
22
2
63
$
24
$
2
$
69
$
94
$
4
$
348
$
118
$
7
$
410
ICRSSL
A2
91,987
9,056
273,672
15
1
45
$
17
$
2
$
50
$
66
$
3
$
247
$
83
$
5
$
293
A3
Preferred alt
75,594
7,074
228,200
13
1
38
$
14
$ 1
$
42
$
55
$
2
$
203
$
68
$
4
$
241

A4
45,256
3,869
144,918
7
1
24
$ 8
$ 1
$
26
$
33
$ 1
$
123
$
41
$
2
$
146

A1
229,049
21,608
717,696
38
4
119
$
42
$
4
$
131
$
166
$
6
$
612
$
208
$
12
$
718
ICRSSM
A2
194,762
18,061
615,892
32
3
102
$
36
$
3
$
112
$
141
$
5
$
525
$
177
$
10
$
615
A3
Preferred alt
177,328
16,067
570,363
29
3
94
$
32
$
3
$
104
$
129
$
5
$
476
$
161
$
9
$
562

A4
126,203
10,585
417,133
21
2
69
$
23
$
2
$
76
$
92
$
3
$
340
$
115
$
6
$
403
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
C-22
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C.9a
Cases Avoided and Benefits Annualized at 7 Percent (Based on Best Estimate of Enhanced Cost of Illness)
	Unfiltered Systems Only	
Data
Set
Rule
Alternative
Annual Illnesses
Avoided
Annual Deaths
Avoided
Value of Benefits for Annual
Illnesses Avoided (^Millions)
Value of Benefits for Annual
Deaths Avoided ($Millions)
Total Annual Value of Benefits
(^Millions)
Mean
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Mean
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Mean
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Mean
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Mean
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %ile)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Lower
(5th %ile)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Lower
(5th %ile)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Lower
(5th %ile)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Lower
(5th %ile)
Upper
(95th %ile)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
All System Sizes
ICR
A3 - Preferred alt.
500,291
101,149
982,116
130
26
256
$311
$63
$610
$584
$42
$1,742
$895
$122
$2,252
ICR SSL
A3 - Preferred alt.
146,121
29,556
286,785
38
8
75
$91
$18
$178
$171
$12
$509
$261
$36
$658
ICR SSM
A3 - Preferred alt.
256,744
51,932
503,915
67
14
131
$159
$32
$313
$300
$22
$894
$459
$63
$1,155
Small Systems
ICR
A3 - Preferred alt.
5,464
1,115
11,030
1
0
3
$3
$1
$5
$5
$0
$14
$7
$1
$18
ICR SSL
ICR SSM
A3 - Preferred alt.
1,760
359
3,553
0
0
1
$1
$0
$2
$2
$0
$5
$2
$0
$6
A3 - Preferred alt.
3,048
622
6,153
1
0
2
$1
$0
$3
$3
$0
$8
$4
$1
$10
Large Systems
ICR
A3 - Preferred alt.
494,828
99,931
971,931
129
26
253
$308
$62
$605
$580
$42
$1,728
$888
$121
$2,233
ICR SSL
ICR SSM
A3 - Preferred alt.
144,361
29,151
283,486
38
8
74
$90
$18
$177
$169
$12
$504
$259
$35
$652
A3 - Preferred alt.
253,696
51,229
498,186
66
13
130
$158
$32
$310
$297
$21
$886
$455
$62
$1,145
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
C-23
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C.9b
Cases Avoided and Benefits Annualized at 7 Percent (Based on Best Estimate of Traditional Cost of Illness)
	Unfiltered Systems Only	
Data
Set
Rule
Alternative
Annual Illnesses
Avoided
Annual Deaths
Avoided
Value of Benefits for Annual
Illnesses Avoided ($Millions)
Value of Benefits for Annual
Deaths Avoided ($Millions)
Total Annual Value of Benefits
(^Millions)
Mean
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Mean
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Mean
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Mean
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Mean
90 Percent
Confidence Bound
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
Lower
(5th %iie)
Upper
(95th %ile)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
0
All System Sizes
ICR
A3 - Preferred alt.
500,291
101,149
982,116
130
26
256
$93
$19
$182
$584
$42
$1,742
$677
$71
$1,890
ICR SSL
A3 - Preferred alt.
146,121
29,556
286,785
38
8
75
$27
$5
$53
$171
$12
$509
$198
$21
$552
ICR SSM
A3 - Preferred alt.
256,744
51,932
503,915
67
14
131
$48
$10
$94
$300
$22
$894
$347
$36
$970
Small Systems
ICR
A3 - Preferred alt.
5,464
1,115
11,030
1
0
3
$1
$0
$2
$5
$0
$14
$6
$1
$15
ICR SSL
ICR SSM
A3 - Preferred alt.
1,760
359
3,553
0
0
1
$0
$0
$0
$2
$0
$5
$2
$0
$5
A3 - Preferred alt.
3,048
622
6,153
1
0
2
$0
$0
$1
$3
$0
$8
$3
$0
$9
Large Systems
ICR
A3 - Preferred alt.
494,828
99,931
971,931
129
26
253
$92
$19
$181
$580
$42
$1,728
$672
$70
$1,873
ICR SSL
ICR SSM
A3 - Preferred alt.
144,361
29,151
283,486
38
8
74
$27
$5
$53
$169
$12
$504
$196
$20
$546
A3 - Preferred alt.
253,696
51,229
498,186
66
13
130
$47
$10
$93
$297
$21
$886
$344
$36
$960
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
C-24
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C.10: Number of Illnesses Avoided by Year Following Rule Promulgation
¦c
01
TD
O
>
<

at


at
C
1200000
1000000
800000
600000
400000
200000
CRSSL
CRSSM
x—x—x—x—x—x—x—x—x—x—x—x—x—x—x—x
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Year Following Rule Promulgation
Exhibit C.11: Number of Deaths Avoided by Year Following Rule Promulgation
250 -
200 -
-a
at
2 150 -
o
>
<
V)
£ 100 -
<1)
o
50 -
0 -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Year Following Rule Promulgation
ICR
ICRSSL
ICRSSM
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
C-25
December 2005
-------
C.5 Individual Risk Functions
Exhibits C. 11 and C. 12 display individual risk functions for filtered systems based on the ICR
Supplemental Survey occurrence distribution (ICR-based charts for filtered and unfiltered systems are
included in Chapter 5). The individual risk functions show the percent of a population exceeding specific
risk levels given the predicted outcome of a particular regulatory alternative.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
C-26
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C.12: Annual Individual Risk Distributions Based on ICRSSM Occurrence
Data, Filtered Community Water Systems (CWSs) Only
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
¦m 30%
20%
10%
Example: Under Pre-LT2 conditions, about
52% of the population served by Filtered
CWSs have annual individual risk greater
than 0.0001 (one in ten thousand), based
upon ICRSSM occurrence data.	
Example: Under the preferred regulatory
alternative (A3), an estimated 32% of the
population served by Filtered CWSs have
annual individual risk greater than 0.0001
(one in ten thousand), based upon ICRSSM
occurrence data.
1.00E-02
1.00E-01
1.00E+00
1.00E-05
0% H	
1.00E-06
1.00E-04
1.00E-03
Individual Risk Level (Illness Rate)
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
C-27
December 2005
-------
Exhibit
C.13: Annual Individual Risk Distributions Based on ICRSSL Occurrence
Data, Filtered Community Water Systems (CWSs) Only
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Example: Under Pre-LT2 conditions, about
52% of the population served by Filtered
CWSs have annual individual risk greater
than 0.0001 (one in ten thousand), based
upon ICRSSL occurrence data.	
Example: Under the preferred regulatory
alternative (A3), an estimated 38% of the
population served by Filtered CWSs have
annual individual risk greater than 0.0001
(one in ten thousand), based upon ICRSSL
occurrence data.
1.00E-05
1.00E-04
1.00E-03
1.00E-02
1.00E-01
1.00E+00
0%
1.00E-06
Individual Risk Level (Illness Rate)
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
C-28
December 2005
-------
C.6 Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per Capita
The real GDP per capita projections, as shown in Exhibit C. 14, are applied to the Economic
Analysis in two places. First, these values are a key input to the equation that determines the income
elasticity factors applied to potentially fatal health effects. The results of these calculations are presented
in section C.7 and in Exhibit 5.22. Second, the data in Exhibit C. 14 are used to compute the growth over
time of the value of lost time benefits, and those results are shown in section L.9 and Exhibit L. 11. See
Section 5.3.1.4 for a more detailed description of both types of adjustment factors.
C.7 Income Elasticity Factors
Exhibit C.15 shows the Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustment factors used to estimate data to
2000. Exhibit C. 16 uses the data from Exhibits C. 14 and C. 15 to derive the income elasticity factors used
in computing the value of a statistical life. The individual values by year are shown in Exhibit 5.22.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
C - 29
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C.14: Projections of Real GDP per Capita





Income

Population
Real GDP
(Real GDP per Capita)

Estimates/

Projection

Projection


P rojections
Percent
(Billions
Percent
(Thousands
Percent
Year
(Thousands)
Change
Chained 2000$)
Change
1996$)
Change
1990
249,439
-
7,1 12.5
-
28,514
-
1991
252,127
1.1%
7,100.5
-0.2%
28,162
-1.2%
1992
254,995
1.1%
7,336.6
3.3%
28,772
2.2%
1993
257,746
1.1%
7,532.7
2.7%
29,225
1.6%
1994
260,289
1.0%
7,835.5
4.0%
30,1 03
3.0%
1995
262,765
1.0%
8,031 .7
2.5%
30,566
1.5%
1996
265,1 90
0.9%
8,328.9
3.7%
31,407
2.8%
1997
267,744
1.0%
8,703.5
4.5%
32,507
3.5%
1998
270,299
1.0%
9,066.9
4.2%
33,544
3.2%
1999
272,820
0.9%
9,470.3
4.4%
34,713
3.5%
2000
275,306
0.9%
9,817.0
3.7%
35,659
2.7%
2001
277,803
0.9%
9,866.6
0.5%
35,517
-0.4%
2002
280,306
0.9%
1 0,083.0
2.2%
35,971
1 .3%
2003
282,798
0.9%
1 0,398.0
3.1%
36,768
2.2%
2004
285,266
0.9%
1 0,730.7
3.2%
37,617
2.3%
2005
287,716
0.9%
1 1 ,245.8
4.8%
39,086
3.9%
2006
290,1 53
0.8%
1 1 ,718.1
4.2%
40,386
3.3%
2007
292,583
0.8%
12,093.1
3.2%
41,332
2.3%
2008
295,009
0.8%
12,419.6
2.7%
42,099
1.9%
2009
297,436
0.8%
12,767.4
2.8%
42,925
2.0%
2010
299,862
0.8%
13,124.9
2.8%
43,770
2.0%
2011
302,300
0.8%
13,466.1
2.6%
44,546
1.8%
2012
304,764
0.8%
1 3,802.8
2.5%
45,290
1.7%
2013
307,250
0.8%
14,147.8
2.5%
46,047
1.7%
2014
309,753
0.8%
14,501 .5
2.5%
46,816
1.7%
2015
312,268
0.8%
14,864.1
2.5%
47,600
1.7%
2016
314,793
0.8%
1 5,235.7
2.5%
48,399
1.7%
2017
317,325
0.8%
15,616.6
2.5%
49,213
1.7%
2018
31 9,860
0.8%
16,007.0
2.5%
50,044
1.7%
2019
322,395
0.8%
16,407.2
2.5%
50,891
1.7%
2020
324,927
0.8%
16,817.3
2.5%
51,757
1.7%
2021
327,468
0.8%
17,237.8
2.5%
52,640
1 .7%
2022
330,028
0.8%
17,668.7
2.5%
53,537
1.7%
2023
332,607
0.8%
18,1 10.4
2.5%
54,450
1.7%
2024
335,202
0.8%
1 8,563.2
2.5%
55,379
1.7%
2025
337,81 5
0.8%
19,027.3
2.5%
56,325
1.7%
2026
340,441
0.8%
1 9,502.9
2.5%
57,287
1.7%
2027
343,078
0.8%
1 9,990.5
2.5%
58,268
1 .7%
2028
345,735
0.8%
20,490.3
2.5%
59,266
1 .7%
2029
348,391
0.8%
21 ,002.5
2.5%
60,284
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
progressions from Congressional Budget Office (January 26, 2004). Projections for years beyond 2014
based on percent change reported for 2014.
Income (Real GPD per Capita)=Real GDP/Population
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
C - 30
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C.15: CPI Estimates

CPI - All Items

CPI

Adjustment

(Annual
Percent
Factor
Year
Average)
Change
(1990 base)
1990
130.7
-
1.00
1991
136.2
4.2%
1.04
1992
140.3
3.0%
1.07
1993
144.5
3.0%
1.11
1994
148.2
2.6%
1.13
1995
152.4
2.8%
1.17
1996
156.9
3.0%
1.20
1997
160.5
2.3%
1.23
1998
163.0
1.6%
1.25
1999
166.6
2.2%
1.27
2000
172.2
3.4%
1.32
2001
177.1
2.8%
1.36
2002
179.9
1.6%
1.38
2003
184.0
2.3%
1.41
Note: 1990 base factors (all items) used to update value of a statistical life values.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
C - 31
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C.16: Factors for Incorporation of Income Elasticity into
Yearly Benefit Estimates

Factors for Fatal Illnesses




90 % Confidence Bound
Real Income





Adjustment Factors





for Indirect

Mean
Median
Lower
Upper
Medical Costs
Year
Value
Value
(5th %tile)
(95th %tile)
(Point Estimates)
2004
1.131
1.131
1.131
1.131
1.031
2005
1.144
1.144
1.144
1.144
1.056
2006
1.158
1.158
1.158
1.158
1.081
2007
1.171
1.171
1.171
1.171
1.107
2008
1.185
1.185
1.185
1.185
1.134
2009
1.198
1.198
1.198
1.198
1.160
2010
1.211
1.211
1.211
1.211
1.186
2011
1.224
1.224
1.224
1.224
1.213
2012
1.237
1.237
1.237
1.237
1.241
2013
1.250
1.250
1.250
1.250
1.269
2014
1.264
1.264
1.264
1.264
1.298
2015
1.277
1.277
1.277
1.277
1.327
2016
1.291
1.291
1.291
1.291
1.357
2017
1.304
1.304
1.304
1.304
1.388
2018
1.318
1.318
1.318
1.318
1.419
2019
1.332
1.332
1.332
1.332
1.452
2020
1.346
1.346
1.346
1.346
1.485
2021
1.360
1.360
1.360
1.360
1.519
2022
1.374
1.374
1.374
1.374
1.554
2023
1.388
1.388
1.388
1.388
1.590
2024
1.402
1.402
1.402
1.402
1.627
2025
1.417
1.417
1.417
1.417
1.664
2026
1.431
1.431
1.431
1.431
1.702
2027
1.446
1.446
1.446
1.446
1.741
2028
1.460
1.460
1.460
1.460
1.782
Note: Income elasticity factors calculated as [(ell - el2 -12 -11) / (el2 - el 1 -12 -11)]; where e=income
elasticity of WTP estimate, and l=income.
Source: Derived using elasticity distributions and per capita GDP projections
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
C - 32
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C.17a: Undiscounted Benefits by Year-Enhanced COI
Year
Systems <10,000
Systems > 10,000
All systems
A
B
c
2005
$0
$0
$0
2006
$0
$0
$0
2007
$0
$0
$0
2008
$0
$0
$0
2009
$0
$218
$218
2010
$0
$677
$677
2011
$0
$1,394
$1,394
2012
$13
$1,927
$1,940
2013
$39
$2,464
$2,503
2014
$66
$2,543
$2,609
2015
$106
$2,590
$2,696
2016
$121
$2,618
$2,739
2017
$136
$2,646
$2,782
2018
$138
$2,675
$2,813
2019
$139
$2,705
$2,844
2020
$141
$2,735
$2,876
2021
$142
$2,765
$2,908
2022
$144
$2,796
$2,940
2023
$146
$2,827
$2,973
2024
$147
$2,859
$3,006
2025
$149
$2,891
$3,040
2026
$151
$2,923
$3,074
2027
$153
$2,956
$3,109
2028
$154
$2,989
$3,144
2029
$156
$3,023
$3,179
Source: Benefits Model
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
C - 33
December 2005
-------
Exhibit C.17b: Undiscounted Benefits by Year-Traditional COI
Year
Systems <10,000
Systems > 10,000
All systems
A
B
c
2005
$0
$0
$0
2006
$0
$0
$0
2007
$0
$0
$0
2008
$0
$0
$0
2009
$0
$162
$162
2010
$0
$503
$503
2011
$0
$1,032
$1,032
2012
$9
$1,422
$1,431
2013
$27
$1,814
$1,841
2014
$46
$1,867
$1,913
2015
$74
$1,896
$1,970
2016
$84
$1,913
$1,997
2017
$94
$1,930
$2,024
2018
$95
$1,947
$2,042
2019
$96
$1,964
$2,060
2020
$97
$1,981
$2,078
2021
$98
$1,999
$2,096
2022
$98
$2,016
$2,115
2023
$99
$2,034
$2,134
2024
$100
$2,052
$2,153
2025
$101
$2,071
$2,172
2026
$102
$2,089
$2,191
2027
$103
$2,108
$2,211
2028
$104
$2,126
$2,230
2029
$105
$2,145
$2,250
Source: Benefits Model
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
C - 34
December 2005
-------
Appendix D
National Costs for Rule Implementation and Monitoring
D.l Introduction
This appendix presents detailed calculations and cost tables for activities associated with:
LT2ESWTR implementation; and
Monitoring for bin classification for three of the four regulatory alternatives.
(Alternative A1 is not discussed because it requires all plants to implement 2 additional log of
Cryptosporidium treatment, and thus has no bin classification monitoring requirements.) Costs for all
activities are estimated as one-time costs. This appendix supports the discussion of the rule activities in
Chapter 6. Each set of activities is detailed separately in subsequent sections.
EPA evaluated the ICR, ICRSSM, and the ICRSSL modeled Cryptosporidium occurrence
distributions to estimate the percentage of plants that would fall into any treatment bin, and assumed that
this percentage of small plants would be triggered to conduct Cryptosporidium monitoring. The three
modeled occurrence distributions are used in this appendix to establish a range of possible costs for
Cryptosporidium monitoring.
D.2 Baseline Number of Systems and Plants
Implementation
Implementation costs are based on the number of PWSs that must read and understand the rule,
and apply to all nonpurchased systems, including filtered and unfiltered systems. Purchased systems,
because they are assumed not to directly treat any source water, are not expected to have any
implementation costs, although these and other costs will be passed on to them in the form of higher
water rates.
Source Water Monitoring for Bin Classification
Source water monitoring costs are structured on a per-plant basis. Also, as with implementation
activities, purchased plants are assumed not to treat source water and will not have any monitoring costs.
Monitoring requirements for wholesale systems are determined by the largest system in the combined
distribution system. The Stage 2 DBPR defines wholesale and combined distribution systems as follows:
Wholesale Systems: PWSs that treat and then sell or otherwise deliver finished water to
another PWS at least 60 days per year.
Combined Distribution Systems: PWSs that buy or otherwise receive some or all of their
finished water from one or more wholesale systems for at least 60 days per year.
As described in Chapter 4, EPA evaluated SDWIS data to link the purchasing systems with their sellers.
In this exercise, they also determined the largest system in the combined distribution system. All
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D-l
December 2005
-------
monitoring-related costs are derived using this baseline (i.e., a system inventory that categorizes by
population served by the largest system in the combined distribution system).
There are three types of monitoring that plants may be required to conduct—turbidity, E. coli,
and Cryptosporidium. Source water turbidity is a common water quality parameter used for plant
operational control. Also, to meet SWTR, LT1ESWTR, and IESWTR requirements, most water systems
have in-house turbidity analytical equipment and operators experienced with turbidity measurement.
Thus, EPA assumes that the incremental burden associated with the LT2ESWTR of monitoring for
turbidity is negligible. (Turbidity is not evaluated in this appendix.)
All nonpurchased plants in large and medium systems are required to conduct E. coli and
Cryptosporidium monitoring for bin classification with two exceptions.
•	Plants that achieve 5.5 log of Cryptosporidium reduction are exempt from all monitoring
requirements. (Estimates of plants that meet this criterion are presented in the baseline for
filtered and unfiltered plants in Chapter 4.)
Plants that have 2 years of historical Cryptosporidium data that are equivalent in sample
number, frequency, and data quality (e.g., volume analyzed, percent recovery) to data that
would be collected under the LT2ESWTR with EPA Method 1622/23 may use that data to
meet the monitoring requirements. (Thus, they do not have to conduct turbidity or E. coli
monitoring.) For costing purposes, however, EPA assumes that no plants will provide
historical data to meet the requirements above.
Plants in small systems will be required to conduct 1 year of semi-monthly E. coli source water
monitoring for bin classification, with the exception of plants achieving 5.5 log of Cryptosporidium
reduction (as presented in Chapter 4). These small plants will have to monitor for Cryptosporidium only
if E. coli monitoring results exceed the following levels:
•	annual mean >10 E. colil 100 ml for lakes and reservoirs;
•	annual mean > 50 E. coli! 100 ml for flowing streams.
Plants may fulfill Cryptosporidium monitoring requirements with either 1 year of semi-monthly
samples or 2 years of monthly samples.
Exhibits D. 1 through D.3 present the baseline number of systems that must conduct
implementation and monitoring for Alternative A2 for CWSs, NTNCWSs, and TNCWSs, based on the
ICR, ICRSSM, and ICRSSL occurrence distributions, respectively.
Exhibits D.4 through D.6 present the baseline number of systems that must conduct
implementation and monitoring for Alternative A3 for CWSs, NTNCWSs, and TNCWSs, based on the
ICR, ICRSSM, and ICRSSL occurrence distributions, respectively.
Exhibits D.7 through D.9 present the baseline number of systems that must conduct
implementation and monitoring for Alternative A4 for CWSs, NTNCWSs, and TNCWSs, based on the
ICR, ICRSSM, and ICRSSL occurrence distributions, respectively.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D-2
December 2005
-------
D.3 Rule Implementation Activities
This section presents the costs for systems and States/Primacy Agencies to perform
implementation activities associated with the LT2ESWTR. Activities performed by PWSs include
reading and understanding the rule and training employees on rule requirements. PWSs of all sizes that
use UCFWRs will report their use, along with a schedule to cover the reservoir or disinfect the reservoir
effluent. The number of systems that must conduct implementation activities is the same for all
occurrence distributions. State implementation activities include regulation adoption and program
development, training State/Primacy Agency staff, training PWS staff, providing technical assistance, and
updating data management systems. States must record systems using UCFWRs and review and approve
schedules for systems to disinfect the reservoir. The cost and burden incurred as part of rule
implementation are not expected to vary for the different regulatory alternatives.
Assumptions and cost estimates for rule implementation activities are presented in the following
tables:
Exhibit D. 10	Cost and Burden Estimates for Rule Implementation Activities
Exhibit D. 11	State Cost and Burden Estimates for Rule Implementation
Activities
D.4 Monitoring Activities for Initial Bin Classification
The purpose of bin classification is to determine what level of Cryptosporidium reduction will be
required. Bin classification is determined by source water Cryptosporidium monitoring.
Monitoring costs for PWSs include the labor associated with preparing and submitting a sample
schedule, identifying a location, and collecting E. coli and Cryptosporidium samples; shipping and
analyzing the samples; and reporting results to the State/Primacy Agency. State costs for analyzing,
tracking, and responding to PWS reports are also included in the bin classification monitoring costs. Cost
estimates for each type of monitoring are described in detail in this section.
D.4.1 E. coli Monitoring
Number of Samples
Under Alternatives A2 through A4, small plants are required for 1 year to sample source water
biweekly for E. coli (26 total samples). Under the same regulatory alternatives, large and medium plants
will carry out monitoring on a predetermined schedule for 24 months. The number of samples is based on
one of two monitoring scenarios:
Highest 12-month running annual average (RAA) if monthly samples are taken (24 samples
total); or
• Two-year mean if the plant conducts a minimum of twice per month monitoring for 24
months (at least 48 samples total).
EPA estimates that most large and medium plants will use the maximum RAA for bin
classification because it requires fewer samples. Therefore, costs are estimated based on 24 monthly
samples.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D-3
December 2005
-------
Laboratory Costs
Systems may analyze their samples in house if they have the equipment, or they may send the
samples to a commercial laboratory. EPA estimates cost per sample of in-house analysis at $21.00
(DynCorp 2000)), and shipping to a commercial laboratory at $70 (includes shipping and commercial
analysis) (DynCorp 2002). The average cost per sample for various system sizes reflects the estimate of
the percentage of plants that will do in-house versus commercial analysis. The total laboratory cost of an
E. coli sample ($57.75 for small plants, $33.25 for medium plants, and $21.00 for large plants) takes into
account the percentage of systems with E. coli analysis capabilities. For those that do not have in-house
capabilities, overnight shipping costs (based on FedEx rates) have been added to the laboratory fee. The
estimate of plants with in-house analytical capabilities for E. coli was generated using the Baseline
Handbook. Total laboratory costs for E. coli monitoring are summarized in Exhibit D. 12 for each
population size category of CWSs, NTNCWSs, and TNCWSs. The ICR, ICRSSM, and ICRSSL
occurrence distributions do not affect the number of plants monitoring for E. coli.
Labor Costs
In addition to the laboratory costs for E. coli monitoring, labor will be required for plant
employees to take the samples.
Sampling points are at the source water intake; therefore, each sample was estimated to take 15
minutes. A technical labor rate is assumed fori?, coli monitoring. Technical labor rates range from
$21.44 to $31.26 per hour depending on system size (see Chapter 6, Section 6.1, for details). Total labor
costs per plant were estimated by multiplying the minutes required per sample (converted into hours), the
number of samples per plant per year, and the labor rate per hour. Total labor costs for E. coli monitoring
are summarized in Exhibit D.12 for CWSs, NTNCWSs, and TNCWSs, respectively. Once again, ICR,
ICRSSM, and ICRSSL occurrence distributions do not affect the number of plants that must monitor for
E. coli.
D.4.2 Cryptosporidium Monitoring
Number of Samples
Small plants whose E. coli monitoring results (see section D.2) trigger the Cryptosporidium
monitoring requirement will be obligated to collect and analyze atleast 24 source water Cryptosporidium
samples over 1 or 2 years. For costing purposes, EPA assumes that small plants will collect 24 samples
and bin assignment will be based on the average concentration of all samples. Large and medium plants
will carry out Cryptosporidium monitoring on a predetermined schedule similar to the E.coli requirements
for 24 months.
For all plant sizes, EPA assumes two additional matrix spike samples will be collected during the
monitoring period for compliance with the analytical method (Method 1623).
Although the sampling requirements for plants required to monitor Cryptosporidium are the same
for Alternatives A2 through A4, the number of plants triggered to monitor will vary for each regulatory
alternative.
Laboratory Costs
The total cost of laboratory analysis of a Cryptosporidium sample ($529.50) is the sum of the
laboratory and shipping costs and the cost of analyzing multiple subsamples.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D-4
December 2005
-------
DynCorp (2000) estimated the laboratory cost for Cryptosporidium analysis ($403.00). This
estimate assumes that the laboratory filters the sample, so the PWS ships the entire 10-liter sample. A
shipping cost ($88.70, based on FedEx rates) is added, assuming that all plants must ship samples
overnight to private laboratories for analysis. Samples must be divided into subsamples for analysis if
they have a pellet size greater than 0.5 ml. The proportion of samples being subdivided is based on
results of the Supplemental Surveys. Laboratory and shipping costs per plant are summarized in Exhibits
D.13 through D15.
Total laboratory costs for Alternative A2 are shown in Exhibits D. 13a to D. 13c. The costs for
Alternative A2 for each system type are identical for the ICR, ICRSSM, and ICRSSL occurrence
distributions because under Alternative A2, all small plants are assumed to be triggered into
Cryptosporidium monitoring based on E. coli monitoring results. Because the cutoff level for the first bin
under Alternative A2 is less than half the Cryptosporidium concentration cutoff for Bin 1 under
Alternative A3, the E. coli trigger level would presumably also be much lower under Alternative A2.
EPA estimated that these levels would be so low that all small plants would be triggered into
Cryptosporidium monitoring.
Total laboratory costs for Cryptosporidium monitoring are summarized in Exhibits D. 14a through
D. 14c for each population size category of CWSs, NTNCWSs, and TNCWSs, based on the ICR,
ICRSSM, and ICRSSL occurrence distributions, respectively, for Alternative A3. Total laboratory
Cryptosporidium analysis costs range from approximately $42.8 million (based on the ICRSSL) to $51.6
million (based on the ICR).
Total laboratory costs for Cryptosporidium monitoring are summarized in Exhibits D. 15a through
D. 15c for each population size category of CWSs, NTNCWSs, and TNCWSs, based on the ICR,
ICRSSM, and ICRSSL occurrence distributions, respectively, for Alternative A4. Total laboratory
Cryptosporidium analysis costs range from approximately $58.7 million (based on the ICRSSL) to $61.1
million (based on the ICR).
Labor Costs
In addition to the laboratory costs for Cryptosporidium monitoring, labor will be required for
plant employees to take samples. Samples are required at the source water intake. Collecting a sample
was estimated to take 30 minutes, slightly higher than the time assumed for E. coli samples, because of
the larger volume required. A technical labor rate was assumed for Cryptosporidium monitoring. Labor
costs per plant were estimated by multiplying the number of hours per sample, the number of samples per
plant per year, and the labor rate per hour. These costs and total costs are shown in Exhibit D.13 through
D. 15, based on the ICR, ICRSSM, and ICRSSL occurrence distributions for Alternatives A2 through A4,
respectively. The labor costs for each system type are identical for the ICR, ICRSSM, and ICRSSL
occurrence distributions for Alternative A2 because under that regulatory alternative, all plants are
required to monitor for Cryptosporidium.
D.4.3 PWS Reporting Costs
PWSs must report to the State their sampling schedule and location(s) 3 months before starting
source water monitoring. EPA is not requiring a detailed monitoring plan, in the hopes that this will
minimize the burden.
Because source water monitoring starts 6 months to 2 years after rule promulgation for medium
and large systems, EPA assumes States will not have primacy when these systems begin monitoring.
Therefore, EPA will collect sample analysis data directly from the approved laboratories on an ongoing
basis. (As data are generated, laboratories will enter them into an EPA database.) However, these
systems will still review the data. At the end of the 2-year monitoring period, EPA will give the
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D-5
December 2005
-------
monitoring results to the States/Primacy Agencies, which will work with their systems to determine
appropriate compliance steps. Small system monitoring is expected to occur after States achieve primacy
and therefore, small plants will report monitoring results to their State/Primacy Agency.
Following source water monitoring, PWSs must calculate a mean source water Cryptosporidium
concentration to determine their bin assignment. Bin reporting must be submitted to the State/Primacy
Agency.
PWS costs associated with reporting activities (i.e., preparing and submitting a sampling schedule
and location, reporting monitoring data, and calculating and reporting bin classification) are derived from
the time spent to gather, analyze, and submit the information to their State/Primacy Agency. EPA
estimates 6 hours per plant for large and medium systems, and 6.5 hours for small systems to account for
the indicator (E.coli) data analysis and reporting.
Reporting costs for small plants serving up to 500 people are based on the full technical rate
(range from $21.44 to $31.26 per hour). Forthose plants serving more than 500 people, costs are based
on an 80/20 percent split between technical and managerial labor rates. Labor rates vary by system size;
see Section 6.1 for details on rates. The costs of reporting are presented in Exhibit D.16 for CWSs,
NTNCWSs, and TNCWSs, respectively. The number of plants reporting is the same for the ICR,
ICRSSM, and ICRSSL occurrence distributions.
D.4.4 Initial and Future Monitoring Costs for States/Primacy Agencies
States/Primacy Agencies will incur costs as a result of the small system E. coli and
Cryptosporidium monitoring. To estimate State/Primacy Agency costs, the number of FTEs required per
activity is multiplied by the number of labor hours per FTE, the State/Primacy Agency labor hour cost,
and the number of States and Territories.
EPA estimated the number of FTEs required per activity based on similar rules. States/Primacy
Agencies are expected to work with the small systems conducting monitoring to review data and make
bin classification determinations. State/Primacy Agency activities include:
Reviewing source water sampling schedules and locations;
• Analyzing monitoring reports and determining bin classification-0.3 FTEs for initial E. coli
monitoring, 0.2 FTEs for initial Cryptosporidium monitoring and future E. coli monitoring,
and 0.1 FTEs for future Cryptosporidium monitoring;
Consulting with PWSs-the same number of FTEs as above; and
Keeping records-0.25 FTEs.
State/Primacy Agency labor rates, as described in Chapter 6, section 6.1.1, are $33.60. The
number of States and Territories is the sum of the 50 States, 6 Territories, and 1 Indian Tribe. EPA
estimates the national total monitoring cost for States/Primacy Agencies to be $12.2 million for initial and
future monitoring combined. State costs are expected to be minimal during the initial phase of
monitoring for large and medium systems because EPA will be analyzing the data.
The initial monitoring costs for States/Primacy Agencies are presented in Exhibit D.17a. The
future (bin reassignment) monitoring costs for States/Primacy Agencies are presented in Exhibits D.17b.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D-6
December 2005
-------
D.5 Technology Compliance Reporting
D.5.1 State Burden for Reviewing Technology Compliance Reports
PWSs of all sizes that install new technology as a result of their bin classifications will be
required to demonstrate compliance with certain criteria for each technology. States/Primacy Agencies
are expected to review the data PWSs submit for this purpose. LT2ESWTR gives States the authority to
allow certification of system compliance instead of submitting operating data. Considering many states
will adopt this method of reporting while others will require submission of the operating data, the burden
is estimated to be 0.5 hours per plant reviewed per month, or 6 hours per plant per year. The number of
plants reporting is expected to vary with the occurrence distribution used and the regulatory alternative
chosen. The labor rate for States and Primacy Agencies is the same as for other exhibits calculating State
costs—$33.60. The State burden and cost for reviewing reports on compliance with each technology are
shown in Exhibits D. 18 to D.20.
D.5.2 Technology Compliance Reporting for Plants
In order to get log removal credit for Cryptosporidium, PWSs will be required to demonstrate that
they are complying with design and operational criteria for any new toolbox technologies they install.
For some technologies, the demonstration of compliance will be similar to that required for existing
technologies, and no additional burden will be incurred. For instance, the combined filter performance
toolbox option requires monitoring of each filter's effluent turbidity; systems are already required to do
this monitoring under the IESWTR and the LT1ESWTR. No new burden is assumed for these systems.
It is assumed that few systems will implement other technologies (based on technology distributions
modeled for the LT2ESWTR EA), so the overall burden for demonstrating compliance is negligible. Few
systems, for example, are expected to implement watershed control programs for log removal credit.
The labor associated with each regulatory alternative and occurrence distribution is shown in
Exhibits D.21 through D.23. Only systems switching to UV, ozone, microfiltration/ultrafiltration, and
bank filtration are predicted to incur the new burden. Only systems installing UV or ozone for
disinfection (supplementing their existing disinfectants) are predicted to incur reporting costs.
Reporting costs for plants serving fewer than 3,300 people are based on the full technical rate.
For those plants serving 3,300 or more people, costs are based on an 80/20 percent split between technical
and managerial labor rates.
The reporting and record-keeping burden for each plant is assumed to be 3 hours per month, or 36
hours per year.
D.6 Disinfection Benchmarking
D.6.1 Disinfection Benchmarking for PWSs
PWSs that make significant changes to their disinfection process will be required to develop a
disinfection profile for Giardia and viruses, and to calculate benchmarks.
Prior to making the change, plants must compile and submit their disinfection profiles and
benchmarks to their States and consult with their States about the change. Only plants that are predicted
to change technologies as a result of bin classification are assumed to submit their disinfection profile.
The burden for this is estimated to be 4 hours per plant and is shown in Exhibits D.24 through D.26.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D-7
December 2005
-------
Reporting costs for plants serving fewer than 3,300 people are based on the full technical rate.
For those plants serving 3,300 or more people, costs are based on an 80/20 percent split between technical
and managerial labor rates.
D.6.2 State Burden for Disinfection Benchmarking
The burden for reviewing disinfection benchmarks and plants' requests to change disinfection
processes (2 hours per plant) is shown in Exhibits D.27 through D.29.
D.7 Future Monitoring for Bin Reclassification
Six years after initial bin assignment, systems will be required to undergo another round of
monitoring to determine if their source water quality has changed, thus changing the required treatment.
Lacking better information, EPA assumed that costs are the same as the costs for the initial monitoring
round. The number of plants did change, however, as plants that achieved 5.5 log treatment to comply
with the LT2ESWTR were omitted from the second round of monitoring.
D.7.1 Future E. coli Monitoring
Exhibits D.30 through D.32 show the future laboratory and labor costs for E. coli monitoring.
The only change from the original round is the number of plants sampling. The tables display costs for
the three Cryptosporidium occurrence distributions for Alternatives A2 through A4.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D-8
December 2005
-------
D.7.2 Future Cryptosporidium Monitoring
Exhibits D.33 through D.35 show costs and labor for future Cryptosporidium monitoring. Only
small plants assigned to a treatment bin after the first round of monitoring are assumed to monitor for
Cryptosporidium. Also, plants that install 5.5 log removal treatment technology are omitted from the
future monitoring requirements.
D.7.3 Future Monitoring Reporting
Labor and cost of labor for future monitoring are assumed to be the same as for initial monitoring,
although for future monitoring, all systems are expected to report their results to their States/Primacy
Agencies rather than to EPA. The number of systems monitoring, however, will be lower than for initial
monitoring, since some plants are expected to have implemented treatment that exempts them from future
monitoring.
Costs associated with reporting will include the amount of time it takes for a plant to gather
monitoring information and to submit it to its State/Primacy Agency for review. Since the exact schedule
of reporting to States is not set in the rule, there may be some variation in reporting effort from State to
State.
For this analysis, 0.25 hours per sample (6.5 hours for small plants and 6 hours for medium and
large systems) is used to estimate costs.
Reporting costs for small plants serving fewer than 3,300 people are based on the full technical
rate. For those plants serving 3,300 or more people, costs are based on an 80/20 percent split between
technical and managerial labor rates. The costs of reporting are presented in Exhibits D.36 to D.38 for
Alternatives A2 to A4, respectively. The number of systems reporting also varies with the use of the ICR,
ICRSSM, and ICRSSL occurrence distributions. This is because future monitoring and reporting depends
on the number of systems placed in different treatment bins, and this is a function of the occurrence
distribution.
D.8 Uncovered Finished Water Reservoir Reporting
LT2ESWTR contains provisions to mitigate risk from UCFWRs, in which water is subject to
contamination after being treated. Systems with UCFWRs must cover the reservoir or treat reservoir
discharge to the distribution system to achieve 4 log virus inactivation, 3-log Giardia lamblia
inactivation, and 2-log Cryptosporidium inactivation. Based on a survey of EPA regions, EPA estimates
that systems must report the use of and submit plans to cover or treat 81 uncovered finished water
reservoirs.
D.8.1 Uncovered Finished Water Reservoir Reporting for PWSs
The burden associated with UCFWR reporting includes the time PWS staff will take to report the
use of the UCFWR. It also includes the time needed to prepare and submit to the State a schedule to
cover or treat the UCFWR discharge. This burden will incurred by the 81 CWSs with UCFWRs.
Systems must report the use of UCFWRs to the State within 24 months, and must have a
State-approved schedule to cover or treat the reservoir discharge within 36 months. In order to allow
States adequate time to review/approve system schedules, it is assumed that systems will submit
schedules to States within 24 months.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D-9
December 2005
-------
Columns A and B of Exhibit D.39 present the burden to PWSs associated with UCFWR
reporting. EPA estimates the burden associated with UCFWR reporting will be 8.25 hours per system.
EPA estimates the burden associated with reporting the use of the UCFWR will be 0.25 hours per system,
and that the burden associated with reporting to the State a schedule to cover or treat the UCFWR
discharge will be eight hours per system.
D.8.2 State/Primacy Agency Burden for Uncovered Finished Water Reservoir Reporting
States must record systems using UCFWRs and review and approve schedules for system to
disinfect the reservoir. Exhibit D.40 shows the total State/Primacy Agency burden associated with
reviewing/approving UCFWR schedules submitted by PWSs. It is assumed that States will need one year
to review/approve system schedules to cover or treat the reservoir discharge. The burden for a State to
record the use of an individual UCFWR is estimated as 0.25 hours, and the burden for a State to approve
a State's schedule to cover or disinfect UCFWR discharge is estimated as 1 hour. The national total
burden for the seven States/Primacy Agencies with UCFWRs is estimated as 101 hours.
Costs to States/Primacy Agencies for recording, reviewing and approving UCFWR schedules are
estimated in Column E of Exhibit D.40. Only the seven States/Primacy Agencies with UCFWRs are
expected to incur burden for these activities.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D-10
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.1 Baseline Implementation and Monitoring Activities for All System Types,
Based on ICR Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A2

Implementation
Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification
Future Monitoring for Re-Binning



Percent of


Percent of
Baseline # of
Percent of
Percent of

Baseline # of



Plants with >


Plants
Plants
Plants with >
Plants with >
Baseline # of
Plants



5.5 Log

Baseline # of
Triggered to
Conducting
5.5 Log
5.5 Log
Plants
Conducting
System Size
Number of
Number of
Treatment
Plants
Plants
Monitor for
Crypto-
Treatment for
Treatment for
Conducting
Crypto-
(Population
Filtered
Unfiltered
Prior to Rule
Per
Conducting E.
Crypto-
sporidium
LT2
Stage 2
E. coli
sporidium
Served)
Systems
Systems
Promulgation
System
coli Monitoring
sporidium
Monitoring
Compliance
Compliance
Monitoring
Monitoring

A
B
C
D
E = A*D*(1-C)
F
G = E*F+B*D
H
1
J = E*(1-H-l)
I
n
*
CWSs
<100
341
1
3.6%
1.0
333
100%
334
8.3%
15.0%
255
255
100-499
708
4
3.6%
1.0
683
100%
687
8.3%
6.3%
582
582
500-999
425
3
3.6%
1.1
432
100%
435
8.3%
6.3%
368
368
1,000-3,299
1,076
15
3.6%
1.0
1,072
100%
1,087
22.0%
1.8%
816
816
3,300-9,999
1,052
14
3.6%
1.0
1,054
100%
1,068
21.8%
1.8%
804
804
10,000-49,999
1,010
14
0.4%
1.1
1,092

1,107
33.7%
1.5%
708
708
50,000-99,999
213
4
0.4%
1.2
264

269
33.6%
1.5%
171
171
100,000-999,999
220
4
0.4%
1.4
313

318
33.1%
1.5%
205
205
> 1 Million
16
1
0.4%
3.4
53

57
33.1%
1.5%
35
35
National Totals
5,061
60


5,294

5,361


3,945
3,945
NTNCWSs
<100
180
-
3.6%
1.0
174
100%
174
8.3%
15.0%
133
133
100-499
241
-
3.6%
1.0
232
100%
232
8.3%
6.3%
198
198
500-999
81
-
3.6%
1.0
78
100%
78
8.3%
6.3%
67
67
1,000-3,299
63
-
3.6%
1.0
61
100%
61
22.0%
1.8%
46
46
3,300-9,999
13
-
3.6%
1.0
13
100%
13
21.8%
1.8%
10
10
10,000-49,999
1
-
0.4%
1.0
1

1
33.7%
1.5%
1
1
50,000-99,999
-
-
0.4%
1.0
-

-
0.0%
1.5%
-
-
100,000-999,999
-
-
0.4%
1.0
-

-
0.0%
1.5%
-
-
> 1 Million
-
-
0.4%
1.0
-

-
0.0%
1.5%
-
-
National Totals
579



558

558


454
454
TNCWSs
<100
793
-
0.0%
1.0
793
100%
793
8.3%
0.0%
727
727
100-499
509
-
0.0%
1.0
509
100%
509
8.3%
0.0%
467
467
500-999
79
-
0.0%
1.0
79
100%
79
8.3%
0.0%
72
72
1,000-3,299
49
-
0.0%
1.0
49
100%
49
22.0%
0.0%
38
38
3,300-9,999
16
-
0.0%
1.0
16
100%
16
21.8%
0.0%
13
13
10,000-49,999
9
-
0.0%
1.0
9

9
33.7%
0.0%
6
6
50,000-99,999
-
-
0.0%
1.0
0

0
0.0%
0.0%
-
-
100,000-999,999
1
-
0.0%
1.0
1

1
16.6%
0.0%
1
1
> 1 Million
-
-
0.0%
1.0
0

0
65.4%
0.0%
-
-
National Totals
1,456


0.0
1,456

1,456


1,324
1,324
Grand Totals
7,096
60

0.0
7,308

7,375


5,723
5,723
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Number of unlinked, non-purchased SW& GWUDI systems from the Third Edition Baseline Handbook, which is based on data from EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System (USEPA
2000h).
(B)	EPA assumes only membrane plants will have >5.5 log Cryptosporidium treatment prior to rule promulgation. Percentage estimates are from the Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR.
(C)	Estimate of the number of plants or entry points per system. Derived from 1995 Community Water System Survey data.
(E) Percent of plants triggered into Cryptosporidium monitoring is estimated from the modeled Occurrence Distributions.
(G)	Derived from Appendix F. This number is calculated by dividing the number of plants estimated to be achieving 5.5 log treatment by the total number of plants for the size category.
(H)	EPA assumes only membrane plants will have > 5.5 log Cryptosporidium treatment as a result of the Stage 2 DBPR. Percent estimates are from the Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D-11
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.2 Baseline Implementation and Monitoring Activities for All System Types,
Based on ICRSSM Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A2

Implementation
Monitorint
for Initial Bin Classification
Future Monitoring for Re-Binning



Percent of


Percent of

Percent of
Percent of

Baseline # of



Plants with >


Plants
Baseline # of
Plants with >
Plants with >
Baseline # of
Plants



5.5 Log

Baseline # of
Triggered to
Plants
5.5 Log
5.5 Log
Plants
Conducting
System Size
Number of
Number of
Treatment
Plants
Plants
Monitor for
Conducting
Treatment for
Treatment for
Conducting
Crypto-
(Population
Filtered
Unfiltered
Prior to Rule
Per
Conducting E.
Cryptospori-
Cryptospori-
LT2
Stage 2
E. coli
sporidium
Served)
Systems
Systems
Promulgation
System
coli Monitoring
dium
dium Monitoring
Compliance
Compliance
Monitoring
Monitoring

A
B
C
D
E = A*D*(1-C)
F
G = E*F+B*D
H
1
J = E*(1-H-l)
p
ij-
ii
*
CWSs
<100
341
1
3.6%
1.0
333
100%
334
4.7%
15.0%
267
267
100-499
708
4
3.6%
1.0
683
100%
687
4.7%
6.3%
608
608
500-999
425
3
3.6%
1.1
432
100%
435
4.6%
6.3%
384
384
1,000-3,299
1,076
15
3.6%
1.0
1,072
100%
1,087
15.2%
1.8%
889
889
3,300-9,999
1,052
14
3.6%
1.0
1,054
100%
1,068
15.0%
1.8%
876
876
10,000-49,999
1,010
14
0.4%
1.1
1,092

1,107
28.0%
1.5%
770
770
50,000-99,999
213
4
0.4%
1.2
264

269
27.9%
1.5%
186
186
100,000-999,999
220
4
0.4%
1.4
313

318
27.3%
1.5%
223
223
> 1 Million
16
1
0.4%
3.4
53

57
27.3%
1.5%
38
38
National Totals
5,061
60

5,294

5,361

4,241
4,241
NTNCWSs

<100
180
-
3.6%
1.0
174
100%
174
4.7%
15.0%
139
139
100-499
241
-
3.6%
1.0
232
100%
232
4.7%
6.3%
207
207
500-999
81
-
3.6%
1.0
78
100%
78
4.6%
6.3%
70
70
1,000-3,299
63
-
3.6%
1.0
61
100%
61
15.2%
1.8%
50
50
3,300-9,999
13
-
3.6%
1.0
13
100%
13
15.0%
1.8%
10
10
10,000-49,999
1
-
0.4%
1.0
1

1
28.0%
1.5%
1
1
50,000-99,999
-
-
0.4%
1.0


0
0.0%
1.5%
-
-
100,000-999,999
-
-
0.4%
1.0


0
0.0%
1.5%
-
-
> 1 Million
-
-
0.4%
1.0


0
0.0%
1.5%
-
-
National Totals
579
-

558

558

477
477
TNCWSs

<100
793
-
0.0%
1.0
793
100%
793
4.7%
0.0%
756
756
100-499
509
-
0.0%
1.0
509
100%
509
4.7%
0.0%
485
485
500-999
79
-
0.0%
1.0
79
100%
79
4.6%
0.0%
75
75
1,000-3,299
49
-
0.0%
1.0
49
100%
49
15.2%
0.0%
42
42
3,300-9,999
16
-
0.0%
1.0
16
100%
16
15.0%
0.0%
14
14
10,000-49,999
9
-
0.0%
1.0
9

9
28.0%
0.0%
6
6
50,000-99,999
-
-
0.0%
1.0
-

0
0.0%
0.0%
-
-
100,000-999,999
1
-
0.0%
1.0
1

1
13.7%
0.0%
1
1
> 1 Million
-
-
0.0%
1.0
-

0
54.0%
0.0%
-
-
National Totals
1,456
-

1,456

1,456

1,379
1,379
Grand Totals
7,096
60

7,308

7,375

6,097
6,097
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Number of unlinked, non-purchased SW& GWUDI systems from the Third Edition Baseline Handbook, which is based on data from EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System (USEPA
2000h).
(B)	EPA assumes only membrane plants will have > 5.5 log Cryptosporidium treatment prior to rule promulgation. Percentage estimates are from the Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR.
(C)	Estimate of the number of plants or entry points per system. Derived from 1995 Community Water System Survey data.
(E) Percent of plants triggered into Cryptosporidium monitoring is estimated from the modeled Occurrence Distributions.
(G)	Derived from Appendix F. This number is calculated by dividing the number of plants estimated to be achieving 5.5 log treatment by the total number of plants for the size category.
(H)	EPA assumes only membrane plants will have >5.5 log Cryptosporidium treatment as a result of the Stage 2 DBPR. Percent estimates are from the Economic Analysis for the Stage 2
DBPR.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D-12
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.3 Baseline Implementation and Monitoring Activities for All System Types,
Based on ICRSSL Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A2

Implementation
Monitorint
for Initial Bin Classification
Future Monitoring for Re-Binning






Percent of

Percent of
Percent of

Baseline # of



Percent of Plants


Plants
Baseline # of
Plants with >
Plants with >
Baseline # of
Plants



with > 5.5 Log

Baseline # of
Triggered to
Plants
5.5 Log
5.5 Log
Plants
Conducting
System Size
Number of
Number of
Treatment Prior
Plants
Plants
Monitor for
Conducting
Treatment for
Treatment for
Conducting
Cryptospori-
(Population
Filtered
Unfiltered
to Rule
Per
Conducting E.
Cryptospori-
Cryptospori-
LT2
Stage 2
E. coli
dium
Served)
Systems
Systems
Promulgation
System
coli Monitoring
dium
dium Monitoring
Compliance
Compliance
Monitoring
Monitoring

A
B
C
D
E = A*D*(1-C)
F
G = E*F+B*D
H
1
J = E*(1-H-l)
K = FAJ
CWSs
<100
341
1
3.6%
1.0
333
100%
334
3.7%
15.0%
270
270
100-499
708
4
3.6%
1.0
683
100%
687
3.7%
6.3%
614
614
500-999
425
3
3.6%
1.1
432
100%
435
3.7%
6.3%
388
388
1,000-3,299
1,076
15
3.6%
1.0
1,072
100%
1,087
11.8%
1.8%
925
925
3,300-9,999
1,052
14
3.6%
1.0
1,054
100%
1,068
11.7%
1.8%
911
911
10,000-49,999
1,010
14
0.4%
1.1
1,092

1,107
24.2%
1.5%
812
812
50,000-99,999
213
4
0.4%
1.2
264

269
24.1%
1.5%
196
196
100,000-999,999
220
4
0.4%
1.4
313

318
23.5%
1.5%
235
235
> 1 Million
16
1
0.4%
3.4
53

57
23.5%
1.5%
40
40
National Totals
5,061
60


5,294

5,361


4,392
4,392
NTNCWSs
<100
180
-
3.6%
1.0
174
100%
174
3.7%
15.0%
141
141
100-499
241
-
3.6%
1.0
232
100%
232
3.7%
6.3%
209
209
500-999
81
-
3.6%
1.0
78
100%
78
3.7%
6.3%
70
70
1,000-3,299
63
-
3.6%
1.0
61
100%
61
11.8%
1.8%
52
52
3,300-9,999
13
-
3.6%
1.0
13
100%
13
11.7%
1.8%
11
11
10,000-49,999
1
-
0.4%
1.0
1

1
24.2%
1.5%
1
1
50,000-99,999
-
-
0.4%
1.0
-

0
0.0%
1.5%
-
-
100,000-999,999
-
-
0.4%
1.0
-

0
0.0%
1.5%
-
-
> 1 Million
-
-
0.4%
1.0
-

0
0.0%
1.5%
-
-
National Totals
579
-


558

558


484
484
TNCWSs
<100
793
-
0.0%
1.0
793
100%
793
3.7%
0.0%
764
764
100-499
509
-
0.0%
1.0
509
100%
509
3.7%
0.0%
490
490
500-999
79
-
0.0%
1.0
79
100%
79
3.7%
0.0%
76
76
1,000-3,299
49
-
0.0%
1.0
49
100%
49
11.8%
0.0%
43
43
3,300-9,999
16
-
0.0%
1.0
16
100%
16
11.7%
0.0%
14
14
10,000-49,999
9
-
0.0%
1.0
9

9
24.2%
0.0%
7
7
50,000-99,999
-
-
0.0%
1.0
-

0
0.0%
0.0%
-
0
100,000-999,999
1
-
0.0%
1.0
1

1
11.7%
0.0%
1
1
> 1 Million
-
-
0.0%
1.0
-

0
46.4%
0.0%
-
-
National Totals
1,456
-


1,456

1,456


1,395
1,395
Grand Totals
7,096
60


7,308

7,375


6,271
6,271
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Number of unlinked, non-purchased SW& GWUDI systems from the Third Edition Baseline Handbook, which is based on data from EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System (USEPA
2000h).
(B)	EPA assumes only membrane plants will have > 5.5 log Cryptosporidium treatment prior to rule promulgation. Percentage estimates are from the Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR.
(C)	Estimate of the number of plants or entry points per system. Derived from 1995 Community Water System Survey data.
(E) Percent of plants triggered into Cryptosporidium monitoring is estimated from the modeled Occurrence Distributions.
(G)	Derived from Appendix F. This number is calculated by dividing the number of plants estimated to be achieving 5.5 log treatment by the total number of plants for the size category.
(H)	EPA assumes only membrane plants will have >5.5 log Cryptosporidium treatment as a result of the Stage 2 DBPR. Percent estimates are from the Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D-13
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.4 Baseline Implementation and Monitoring Activities for All System Types, by System Size
Based on ICR Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A3

Implementation
Monitorint
for Initial Bin Classification
Future Monitoring for Re-Binning



Percent of


Percent of

Percent of
Percent of

Baseline # of



Plants with >


Plants
Baseline # of
Plants with >
Plants with >
Baseline # of
Plants



5.5 Log

Baseline # of
Triggered to
Plants
5.5 Log
5.5 Log
Plants
Conducting
System Size
Number of
Number of
Treatment
Plants
Plants
Monitor for
Conducting
Treatment for
Treatment for
Conducting
Cryptospori-
(Population
Filtered
Unfiltered
Prior to Rule
Per
Conducting E.
Cryptospori-
Cryptospori-
LT2
Stage 2
E. coli
dium
Served)
Systems
Systems
Promulgation
System
coli Monitoring
dium
dium Monitoring
Compliance
Compliance
Monitoring
Monitoring

A
B
C
D
E = A*D*(1-C)
F
G = E*F+B*D
H
1
J = E*(1-H-l)
p
ij-
ii
*
CWSs
<100
341
1
3.6%
1.0
333
35%
117
5.3%
15.0%
265
92
100-499
708
4
3.6%
1.0
683
35%
242
5.3%
6.3%
603
210
500-999
425
3
3.6%
1.1
432
35%
153
5.3%
6.3%
382
133
1,000-3,299
1,076
15
3.6%
1.0
1,072
35%
388
9.7%
1.8%
948
330
3,300-9,999
1,052
14
3.6%
1.0
1,054
35%
381
9.5%
1.8%
934
325
10,000-49,999
1,010
14
0.4%
1.1
1,092

1,107
30.4%
1.5%
744
744
50,000-99,999
213
4
0.4%
1.2
264

269
30.3%
1.5%
180
180
100,000-999,999
220
4
0.4%
1.4
313

318
29.7%
1.5%
215
215
> 1 Million
16
1
0.4%
3.4
53

57
29.7%
1.5%
37
37
National Totals
5,061
60


5,294

3,032


4,309
2,266
NTNCWSs
<100
180
-
3.6%
1.0
174
35%
60
5.3%
15.0%
138
48
100-499
241
-
3.6%
1.0
232
35%
81
5.3%
6.3%
205
71
500-999
81
-
3.6%
1.0
78
35%
27
5.3%
6.3%
69
24
1,000-3,299
63
-
3.6%
1.0
61
35%
21
9.7%
1.8%
54
19
3,300-9,999
13
-
3.6%
1.0
13
35%
4
9.5%
1.8%
11
4
10,000-49,999
1
-
0.4%
1.0
1

1
30.4%
1.5%
1
1
50,000-99,999
-
-
0.4%
1.0
-

0
0.0%
1.5%
-
-
100,000-999,999
-
-
0.4%
1.0
-

0
0.0%
1.5%
-
-
> 1 Million
-
-
0.4%
1.0
-

0
0.0%
1.5%
-
-
National Totals
579
-


558

195


478
167
TNCWSs
<100
793
-
0.0%
1.0
793
35%
276
5.3%
0.0%
751
261
100-499
509
-
0.0%
1.0
509
35%
177
5.3%
0.0%
482
168
500-999
79
-
0.0%
1.0
79
35%
27
5.3%
0.0%
75
26
1,000-3,299
49
-
0.0%
1.0
49
35%
17
9.7%
0.0%
44
15
3,300-9,999
16
-
0.0%
1.0
16
35%
6
9.5%
0.0%
14
5
10,000-49,999
9
-
0.0%
1.0
9

9
30.4%
0.0%
6
6
50,000-99,999
-
-
0.0%
1.0
-

0
0.0%
0.0%
-
0
100,000-999,999
1
-
0.0%
1.0
1

1
14.8%
0.0%
1
1
> 1 Million
-
-
0.0%
1.0
-

0
58.6%
0.0%
-
-
National Totals
1,456
-


1,456

513


1,374
483
Grand Totals
7,096
60


7,308

3,741


6,161
2,916
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Number of unlinked, non-purchased SW& GWUDI systems from the Third Edition Baseline Handbook, which is based on data from EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System (USEPA
2000h).
(B)	EPA assumes only membrane plants will have > 5.5 log Cryptosporidium treatment prior to rule promulgation. Percentage estimates are from the Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR.
(C)	Estimate of the number of plants or entry points per system. Derived from 1995 Community Water System Survey data.
(E) Percent of plants triggered into Cryptosporidium monitoring is estimated from the modeled Occurrence Distributions.
(G)	Derived from Appendix F. This number is calculated by dividing the number of plants estimated to be achieving 5.5 log treatment by the total number of plants for the size category.
(H)	EPA assumes only membrane plants will have >5.5 log Cryptosporidium treatment as a result of the Stage 2 DBPR. Percent estimates are from the Economic Analysis for the Stage 2
DBPR.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D-14
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.5 Baseline Implementation and Monitoring Activities for All System Types,
Based on ICRSSM Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A3

Implementation
Monitorin
g for Initial Bin Classification
Future Monitoring for Re-Binning



Percent of











Plants with >



Baseline # of
Percent of
Percent of





5.5 Log


Percent of Plants
Plants
Plants with >
Plants with >

Baseline # of



Treatment

Baseline # of
Triggered to
Conducting
5.5 Log
5.5 Log
Baseline # of
Plants
System Size
Number of
Number of
Prior to Rule

Plants
Monitor for
Cryptospori-
Treatment for
Treatment for
Plants
Conducting
(Population
Filtered
Unfiltered
Promulgatio
Plants Per
Conducting E.
Cryptospori-
dium
LT2
Stage 2
Conducting E.
Cryptospori-
Served)
Systems
Systems
n
System
coli Monitoring
dium
Monitoring
Compliance
Compliance
coli Monitoring
dium Monitoring

A
B
C
D
E = A*D*(1-C)
F
G = E*F+B*D
H
1
J = E*(1-H-l)
I
n
*
CWSs
<100
341
1
3.6%
1.0
333
27%
92
2.9%
15.0%
273
74
100-499
708
4
3.6%
1.0
683
27%
190
2.9%
6.3%
619
168
500-999
425
3
3.6%
1.1
432
27%
121
2.9%
6.3%
392
107
1,000-3,299
1,076
15
3.6%
1.0
1072
27%
307
4.1%
1.8%
1008
274
3,300-9,999
1,052
14
3.6%
1.0
1054
27%
301
3.9%
1.8%
993
270
10,000-49,999
1,010
14
0.4%
1.1
1092

1107
23.3%
1.5%
821
821
50,000-99,999
213
4
0.4%
1.2
264

269
23.3%
1.5%
199
199
100,000-999,999
220
4
0.4%
1.4
313

318
22.7%
1.5%
237
237
> 1 Million
16
1
0.4%
3.4
53

57
22.7%
1.5%
41
41
National Totals
5,061
60


5294
2761


4,582
2191
NTNCWSs
<100
180
0
3.6%
1.0
174
27%
47
2.9%
15.0%
142
39
100-499
241
0
3.6%
1.0
232
27%
63
2.9%
6.3%
211
57
500-999
81
0
3.6%
1.0
78
27%
21
2.9%
6.3%
71
19
1,000-3,299
63
0
3.6%
1.0
61
27%
17
4.1%
1.8%
57
16
3,300-9,999
13
0
3.6%
1.0
13
27%
3
3.9%
1.8%
12
3
10,000-49,999
1
0
0.4%
1.0
1

1
23.3%
1.5%
1
1
50,000-99,999
-
0
0.4%
1.0


0
0.0%
1.5%
-
0
100,000-999,999
-
0
0.4%
1.0


0
0.0%
1.5%
-
0
>1 Million
-
0
0.4%
1.0


0
0.0%
1.5%
-
0
National Totals
579



558
153


494
135
TNCWSs
<100
793
0
0.0%
1.0
793
27%
216
2.9%
0.0%
770
209
100-499
509
0
0.0%
1.0
509
27%
138
2.9%
0.0%
494
134
500-999
79
0
0.0%
1.0
79
27%
21
2.9%
0.0%
77
21
1,000-3,299
49
0
0.0%
1.0
49
27%
13
4.1%
0.0%
47
13
3,300-9,999
16
0
0.0%
1.0
16
27%
4
3.9%
0.0%
15
4
10,000-49,999
9
0
0.0%
1.0
9

9
23.3%
0.0%
7
7
50,000-99,999
-
0
0.0%
1.0


0
0.0%
0.0%
0
0
100,000-999,999
1
0
0.0%
1.0
1

1
11.4%
0.0%
1
1
>1 Million
-
0
0.0%
1.0


0
44.9%
0.0%
-
0
National Totals
1,456



1456
403


1,411
389
Grand Totals
7,096
60

7308
3317


6,487
2715
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Number of unlinked, non-purchased SW & GWUDI systems from the Third Edition Baseline Handbook, which is based on data from EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System
(USEPA 2000h).
(B)	EPA assumes only membrane plants will have >5.5 log Cryptosporidium treatment prior to rule promulgation. Percentage estimates are from the Economic Analysis for the Stage 2
DBPR.
(C)	Estimate of the number of plants or entry points per system. Derived from 1995 Community Water System Survey data.
(E) Percent of plants triggered into Cryptosporidium monitoring is estimated from the modeled Occurrence Distributions.
(G)	Derived from Appendix F. This number is calculated by dividing the number of plants estimated to be achieving 5.5 log treatment by the total number of plants for the size category.
(H)	EPA assumes only membrane plants will have >5.5 log Cryptosporidium treatment as a result of the Stage 2 DBPR. Percent estimates are from the Economic Analysis for the Stage 2
DBPR.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D-15
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.6 Baseline Implementation and Monitoring Activities for All System Types,
Based on ICRSSL Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A3

Implementation
Monitorint
for Initial Bin Classification
Future Monitoring for Re-Binning



Percent of


Percent of

Percent of
Percent of

Baseline # of



Plants with >


Plants
Baseline # of
Plants with >
Plants with >
Baseline # of
Plants



5.5 Log

Baseline # of
Triggered to
Plants
5.5 Log
5.5 Log
Plants
Conducting
System Size
Number of
Number of
Treatment
Plants
Plants
Monitor for
Conducting
Treatment for
Treatment for
Conducting
Cryptospori-
(Population
Filtered
Unfiltered
Prior to Rule
Per
Conducting E.
Cryptospori-
Cryptospori-
LT2
Stage 2
E. coli
dium
Served)
Systems
Systems
Promulgation
System
coli Monitoring
dium
dium Monitoring
Compliance
Compliance
Monitoring
Monitoring

A
B
C
D
E = A*D*(1-C)
F
G = E*F+B*D
H
1
J = E*(1-H-l)
p
ij-
ii
*
CWSs
<100
341
1
3.6%
1.0
333
22%
75
2.2%
15.0%
275
62
100-499
708
4
3.6%
1.0
683
22%
157
2.2%
6.3%
624
140
500-999
425
3
3.6%
1.1
432
22%
100
2.2%
6.3%
395
88
1,000-3,299
1,076
15
3.6%
1.0
1,072
22%
255
2.6%
1.8%
1,024
229
3,300-9,999
1,052
14
3.6%
1.0
1,054
22%
250
2.5%
1.8%
1,008
225
10,000-49,999
1,010
14
0.4%
1.1
1,092

1,107
19.1%
1.5%
867
867
50,000-99,999
213
4
0.4%
1.2
264

269
19.1%
1.5%
210
210
100,000-999,999
220
4
0.4%
1.4
313

318
18.6%
1.5%
250
250
> 1 Million
16
1
0.4%
3.4
53

57
18.6%
1.5%
43
43
National Totals
5,061
60


5,294

2,588


4,696
2,114
NTNCWSs
<100
180
-
3.6%
1.0
174
22%
39
2.2%
15.0%
144
32
100-499
241
-
3.6%
1.0
232
22%
52
2.2%
6.3%
212
47
500-999
81
-
3.6%
1.0
78
22%
17
2.2%
6.3%
71
16
1,000-3,299
63
-
3.6%
1.0
61
22%
14
2.6%
1.8%
58
13
3,300-9,999
13
-
3.6%
1.0
13
22%
3
2.5%
1.8%
12
3
10,000-49,999
1
-
0.4%
1.0
1

1
19.1%
1.5%
1
1
50,000-99,999
-
-
0.4%
1.0
-

0
0.0%
1.5%
-
-
100,000-999,999
-
-
0.4%
1.0
-

0
0.0%
1.5%
-
-
> 1 Million
-
-
0.4%
1.0
-

0
0.0%
1.5%
-
-
National Totals
579
-


558

126


498
112
TNCWSs
<100
793
-
0.0%
1.0
793
22%
177
2.2%
0.0%
775
173
100-499
509
-
0.0%
1.0
509
22%
114
2.2%
0.0%
498
111
500-999
79
-
0.0%
1.0
79
22%
18
2.2%
0.0%
77
17
1,000-3,299
49
-
0.0%
1.0
49
22%
11
2.6%
0.0%
48
11
3,300-9,999
16
-
0.0%
1.0
16
22%
4
2.5%
0.0%
16
3
10,000-49,999
9
-
0.0%
1.0
9

9
19.1%
0.0%
7
7
50,000-99,999
-
-
0.0%
1.0
-

0
0.0%
0.0%
-
0
100,000-999,999
1
-
0.0%
1.0
1

1
9.3%
0.0%
1
1
> 1 Million
-
-
0.0%
1.0
-

0
36.7%
0.0%
-
-
National Totals
1,456
-


1,456

333


1,421
324
Grand Totals
7,096
60


7,308

3,047


6,615
2,550
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Number of unlinked, non-purchased SW & GWUDI systems from the Third Edition Baseline Handbook, which is based on data from EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System (USEPA
2000h).
(B)	EPA assumes only membrane plants will have > 5.5 log Cryptosporidium treatment prior to rule promulgation. Percentage estimates are from the Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR.
(C)	Estimate of the number of plants or entry points per system. Derived from 1995 Community Water System Survey data.
(E) Percent of plants triggered into Cryptosporidium monitoring is estimated from the modeled Occurrence Distributions.
(G)	Derived from Appendix F. This number is calculated by dividing the number of plants estimated to be achieving 5.5 log treatment by the total number of plants for the size category.
(H)	EPA assumes only membrane plants will have >5.5 log Cryptosporidium treatment as a result of the Stage 2 DBPR. Percent estimates are from the Economic Analysis for the Stage 2
DBPR.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D-16
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.7 Baseline Implementation and Monitoring Activities for All System Types,
Based on ICR Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A4

Implementation
Monitorint
for Initial Bin Classification
Future Monitoring for Re-Binning



Percent of


Percent of

Percent of
Percent of

Baseline # of



Plants with >


Plants
Baseline # of
Plants with >
Plants with >
Baseline # of
Plants



5.5 Log

Baseline # of
Triggered to
Plants
5.5 Log
5.5 Log
Plants
Conducting
System Size
Number of
Number of
Treatment
Plants
Plants
Monitor for
Conducting
Treatment for
Treatment for
Conducting
Cryptospori-
(Population
Filtered
Unfiltered
Prior to Rule
Per
Conducting E.
Cryptospori-
Cryptospori-
LT2
Stage 2
E. coli
dium
Served)
Systems
Systems
Promulgation
System
coli Monitoring
dium
dium Monitoring
Compliance
Compliance
Monitoring
Monitoring

A
B
C
D
E = A*D*(1-C)
F
G = E*F+B*D
H
1
J = E*(1-H-l)
K = FAJ
CWSs
<100
341
1
3.6%
1.0
333
30%
102
2.2%
15.0%
275
83
100-499
708
4
3.6%
1.0
683
30%
211
2.2%
6.3%
624
189
500-999
425
3
3.6%
1.1
432
30%
134
2.2%
6.3%
395
120
1,000-3,299
1,076
15
3.6%
1.0
1,072
30%
340
2.0%
1.8%
1,030
312
3,300-9,999
1,052
14
3.6%
1.0
1,054
30%
334
2.0%
1.8%
1,014
307
10,000-49,999
1,010
14
0.4%
1.1
1,092

1,107
13.7%
1.5%
926
926
50,000-99,999
213
4
0.4%
1.2
264

269
13.7%
1.5%
224
224
100,000-999,999
220
4
0.4%
1.4
313

318
13.0%
1.5%
267
267
> 1 Million
16
1
0.4%
3.4
53

57
13.0%
1.5%
46
46
National Totals
5,061
60


5,294

2,872


4,801
2,475
NTNCWSs
<100
180
-
3.6%
1.0
174
30%
53
2.2%
15.0%
144
44
100-499
241
-
3.6%
1.0
232
30%
70
2.2%
6.3%
213
64
500-999
81
-
3.6%
1.0
78
30%
24
2.2%
6.3%
71
22
1,000-3,299
63
-
3.6%
1.0
61
30%
18
2.0%
1.8%
58
18
3,300-9,999
13
-
3.6%
1.0
13
30%
4
2.0%
1.8%
12
4
10,000-49,999
1
-
0.4%
1.0
1

1
13.7%
1.5%
1
1
50,000-99,999
-
-
0.4%
1.0
-

0
0.0%
1.5%
-
-
100,000-999,999
-
-
0.4%
1.0
-

0
0.0%
1.5%
-
-
> 1 Million
-
-
0.4%
1.0
-

0
0.0%
1.5%
-
-
National Totals
579
-


558

170


499
152
TNCWSs
<100
793
-
0.0%
1.0
793
30%
240
2.2%
0.0%
776
235
100-499
509
-
0.0%
1.0
509
30%
154
2.2%
0.0%
498
151
500-999
79
-
0.0%
1.0
79
30%
24
2.2%
0.0%
77
23
1,000-3,299
49
-
0.0%
1.0
49
30%
15
2.0%
0.0%
48
15
3,300-9,999
16
-
0.0%
1.0
16
30%
5
2.0%
0.0%
16
5
10,000-49,999
9
-
0.0%
1.0
9

9
13.7%
0.0%
8
8
50,000-99,999
-
-
0.0%
1.0
-

0
0.0%
0.0%
-
0
100,000-999,999
1
-
0.0%
1.0
1

1
6.5%
0.0%
1
1
> 1 Million
-
-
0.0%
1.0
-

0
25.8%
0.0%
-
-
National Totals
1,456
-


1,456

448


1,423
437
Grand Totals
7,096
60


7,308

3,490


6,724
3,064
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Number of unlinked, non-purchased SW & GWUDI systems from the Third Edition Baseline Handbook, which is based on data from EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System (USEPA
2000h).
(B)	EPA assumes only membrane plants will have > 5.5 log Cryptosporidium treatment prior to rule promulgation. Percentage estimates are from the Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR.
(C)	Estimate of the number of plants or entry points per system. Derived from 1995 Community Water System Survey data.
(E) Percent of plants triggered into Cryptosporidium monitoring is estimated from the modeled Occurrence Distributions.
(G)	Derived from Appendix F. This number is calculated by dividing the number of plants estimated to be achieving 5.5 log treatment by the total number of plants for the size category.
(H)	EPA assumes only membrane plants will have >5.5 log Cryptosporidium treatment as a result of the Stage 2 DBPR. Percent estimates are from the Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D -17
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.8 Baseline Implementation and Monitoring Activities for All System Types,
Based on ICRSSM Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A4

Implementation
Monitorint
for Initial Bin Classification
Future Monitoring for Re-Binning



Percent of


Percent of

Percent of
Percent of

Baseline # of



Plants with >


Plants
Baseline # of
Plants with >
Plants with >
Baseline # of
Plants



5.5 Log

Baseline # of
Triggered to
Plants
5.5 Log
5.5 Log
Plants
Conducting
System Size
Number of
Number of
Treatment
Plants
Plants
Monitor for
Conducting
Treatment for
Treatment for
Conducting
Cryptospori-
(Population
Filtered
Unfiltered
Prior to Rule
Per
Conducting E.
Cryptospori-
Cryptospori-
LT2
Stage 2
E. coli
dium
Served)
Systems
Systems
Promulgation
System
coli Monitoring
dium
dium Monitoring
Compliance
Compliance
Monitoring
Monitoring

A
B
C
D
E = A*D*(1-C)
F
G = E*F+B*D
H
1
J = E*(1-H-l)
K = FAJ
CWSs
<100
341
1
3.6%
1.0
333
22%
73
1.4%
15.0%
278
60
100-499
708
4
3.6%
1.0
683
22%
151
1.4%
6.3%
630
135
500-999
425
3
3.6%
1.1
432
22%
96
1.4%
6.3%
398
86
1,000-3,299
1,076
15
3.6%
1.0
1,072
22%
246
1.3%
1.8%
1,038
223
3,300-9,999
1,052
14
3.6%
1.0
1,054
22%
241
1.3%
1.8%
1,021
219
10,000-49,999
1,010
14
0.4%
1.1
1,092

1,107
7.9%
1.5%
990
990
50,000-99,999
213
4
0.4%
1.2
264

269
7.9%
1.5%
239
239
100,000-999,999
220
4
0.4%
1.4
313

318
7.4%
1.5%
285
285
> 1 Million
16
1
0.4%
3.4
53

57
7.4%
1.5%
49
49
National Totals
5,061
60


5,294

2,557


4,927
2,286
NTNCWSs
<100
180
-
3.6%
1.0
174
22%
37
1.4%
15.0%
145
31
100-499
241
-
3.6%
1.0
232
22%
50
1.4%
6.3%
214
46
500-999
81
-
3.6%
1.0
78
22%
17
1.4%
6.3%
72
15
1,000-3,299
63
-
3.6%
1.0
61
22%
13
1.3%
1.8%
59
13
3,300-9,999
13
-
3.6%
1.0
13
22%
3
1.3%
1.8%
12
3
10,000-49,999
1
-
0.4%
1.0
1

1
7.9%
1.5%
1
1
50,000-99,999
-
-
0.4%
1.0
-

0
0.0%
1.5%
-
-
100,000-999,999
-
-
0.4%
1.0
-

0
0.0%
1.5%
-
-
> 1 Million
-
-
0.4%
1.0
-

0
0.0%
1.5%
-
-
National Totals
579
-


558

121


503
109
TNCWSs
<100
793
-
0.0%
1.0
793
22%
170
1.4%
0.0%
782
168
100-499
509
-
0.0%
1.0
509
22%
109
1.4%
0.0%
502
108
500-999
79
-
0.0%
1.0
79
22%
17
1.4%
0.0%
78
17
1,000-3,299
49
-
0.0%
1.0
49
22%
11
1.3%
0.0%
48
10
3,300-9,999
16
-
0.0%
1.0
16
22%
3
1.3%
0.0%
16
3
10,000-49,999
9
-
0.0%
1.0
9

9
7.9%
0.0%
8
8
50,000-99,999
-
-
0.0%
1.0
-

0
0.0%
0.0%
-
0
100,000-999,999
1
-
0.0%
1.0
1

1
3.7%
0.0%
1
1
> 1 Million
-
-
0.0%
1.0
-

0
14.6%
0.0%
-
-
National Totals
1,456
-


1,456

321


1,435
316
Grand Totals
7,096
60


7,308

2,999


6,865
2,711
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Number of unlinked, non-purchased SW& GWUDI systems from the Third Edition Baseline Handbook, which is based on data from EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System (USEPA
2000h).
(B)	EPA assumes only membrane plants will have > 5.5 log Cryptosporidium treatment prior to rule promulgation. Percentage estimates are from the Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR.
(C)	Estimate of the number of plants or entry points per system. Derived from 1995 Community Water System Survey data.
(E) Percent of plants triggered into Cryptosporidium monitoring is estimated from the modeled Occurrence Distributions.
(G)	Derived from Appendix F. This number is calculated by dividing the number of plants estimated to be achieving 5.5 log treatment by the total number of plants for the size category.
(H)	EPA assumes only membrane plants will have >5.5 log Cryptosporidium treatment as a result of the Stage 2 DBPR. Percent estimates are from the Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D-18
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.9 Baseline Implementation and Monitoring Activities for All System Types,
Based on ICRSSL Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A4

Implementation
Monitorint
for Initial Bin Classification
Future Monitoring for Re-Binning



Percent of


Percent of

Percent of
Percent of

Baseline # of



Plants with >


Plants
Baseline # of
Plants with >
Plants with >
Baseline # of
Plants



5.5 Log

Baseline # of
Triggered to
Plants
5.5 Log
5.5 Log
Plants
Conducting
System Size
Number of
Number of
Treatment

Plants
Monitor for
Conducting
Treatment for
Treatment for
Conducting
Cryptospori-
(Population
Filtered
Unfiltered
Prior to Rule
Plants Per
Conducting E.
Cryptospori-
Cryptospori-
LT2
Stage 2
E. coli
dium
Served)
Systems
Systems
Promulgation
System
coli Monitoring
dium
dium Monitoring
Compliance
Compliance
Monitoring
Monitoring

A
B
C
D
E = A*D*(1-C)
F
G = E*F+B*D
H
1
J = E*(1-H-l)
K = FAJ
CWSs
<100
341
1
3.6%
1.0
333
16%
54
1.0%
15.0%
279
45
100-499
708
4
3.6%
1.0
683
16%
113
1.0%
6.3%
632
101
500-999
425
3
3.6%
1.1
432
16%
72
1.0%
6.3%
400
64
1,000-3,299
1,076
15
3.6%
1.0
1,072
16%
187
0.9%
1.8%
1,042
167
3,300-9,999
1,052
14
3.6%
1.0
1,054
16%
183
0.9%
1.8%
1,025
164
10,000-49,999
1,010
14
0.4%
1.1
1,092

1,107
5.4%
1.5%
1,017
1017
50,000-99,999
213
4
0.4%
1.2
264

269
5.4%
1.5%
246
246
100,000-999,999
220
4
0.4%
1.4
313

318
5.0%
1.5%
292
292
> 1 Million
16
1
0.4%
3.4
53

57
5.0%
1.5%
50
50
National Totals
5,061
60


5,294

2,361


4,984
2,146
NTNCWSs
<100
180
-
3.6%
1.0
174
16%
28
1.0%
15.0%
146
23
100-499
241
-
3.6%
1.0
232
16%
37
1.0%
6.3%
215
34
500-999
81
-
3.6%
1.0
78
16%
12
1.0%
6.3%
72
12
1,000-3,299
63
-
3.6%
1.0
61
16%
10
0.9%
1.8%
59
9
3,300-9,999
13
-
3.6%
1.0
13
16%
2
0.9%
1.8%
12
2
10,000-49,999
1
-
0.4%
1.0
1

1
5.4%
1.5%
1
1
50,000-99,999
-
-
0.4%
1.0
-

0
0.0%
1.5%
-
-
100,000-999,999
-
-
0.4%
1.0
-

0
0.0%
1.5%
-
-
> 1 Million
-
-
0.4%
1.0
-

0
0.0%
1.5%
-
-
National Totals
579
-


558

90


505
82
TNCWSs
<100
793
-
0.0%
1.0
793
16%
127
1.0%
0.0%
785
126
100-499
509
-
0.0%
1.0
509
16%
81
1.0%
0.0%
504
81
500-999
79
-
0.0%
1.0
79
16%
13
1.0%
0.0%
78
13
1,000-3,299
49
-
0.0%
1.0
49
16%
8
0.9%
0.0%
49
8
3,300-9,999
16
-
0.0%
1.0
16
16%
3
0.9%
0.0%
16
3
10,000-49,999
9
-
0.0%
1.0
9

9
5.4%
0.0%
9
9
50,000-99,999
-
-
0.0%
1.0
-

0
0.0%
0.0%
-
0
100,000-999,999
1
-
0.0%
1.0
1

1
2.5%
0.0%
1
1
> 1 Million
-
-
0.0%
1.0
-

0
9.9%
0.0%
-
-
National Totals
1,456
-


1,456

241


1,441
238
Grand Totals
7,096
60


7,308

2,692


6,930
2,466
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Number of unlinked, non-purchased SW & GWUDI systems from the Third Edition Baseline Handbook, which is based on data from EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System (USEPA
2000h).
(B)	EPA assumes only membrane plants will have > 5.5 log Cryptosporidium treatment prior to rule promulgation. Percentage estimates are from the Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR.
(C)	Estimate of the number of plants or entry points per system. Derived from 1995 Community Water System Survey data.
(E) Percent of plants triggered into Cryptosporidium monitoring is estimated from the modeled Occurrence Distributions.
(G)	Derived from Appendix F. This number is calculated by dividing the number of plants estimated to be achieving 5.5 log treatment by the total number of plants for the size category.
(H)	EPA assumes only membrane plants will have >5.5 log Cryptosporidium treatment as a result of the Stage 2 DBPR. Percent estimates are from the Economic Analysis for the Stage 2 DBPR.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D-19
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.10 Cost and Burden Estimates for Rule Implementation Activities for All Regulatory Alternatives





BaseTTrreTrUT








Systems



System Size


Total

Conducting

Total
Total
(Population
Read Hours
Train Hours
Hours per
Cost per
Implementa-

Burden
Burden
Served)
per PWS
per PWS
PWS
Labor Hour
tion
Total Cost
(Hours)
(FTEs)

A
B
C = A + B
D
E
F = C*D*E
G = C*E
H = G/2080
CWSs
<100
4
4
8
$ 21.44
342
$ 58,660
2,736
1.3
100-499
4
4
8
23.09
712
131,521
5,696
2.7
500-999
4
4
8
30.03
428
102,830
3,424
1.6
1,000-3,299
4
4
8
30.03
1,091
262,119
8,728
4.2
3,300-9,999
4
4
8
30.51
1,066
260,206
8,528
4.1
10,000-49,999
4
4
8
31.08
1,024
254,607
8,192
3.9
50,000-99,999
4
5
9
31.08
217
60,699
1,953
0.9
100,000-999,999
4
5
9
35.25
224
71,060
2,016
1.0
> 1 Million
4
5
9
35.25
17
5,393
153
0.1
National Totals




5,121
$ 1,207,095
41,426
19.9
NTNCWSs
<100
4
4
8
$ 21.44
180
$ 30,874
1,440
0.7
100-499
4
4
8
23.09
241
44,518
1,928
0.9
500-999
4
4
8
30.03
81
19,461
648
0.3
1,000-3,299
4
4
8
30.03
63
15,136
504
0.2
3,300-9,999
4
4
8
30.51
13
3,173
104
0.1
10,000-49,999
4
4
8
31.08
1
249
8
0.0
50,000-99,999
4
5
9
31.08
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
4
5
9
35.25
-
-
-
-
> 1 Million
4
5
9
35.25
-
-
-
-
National Totals




579
$ 113,410
4,632
2.2
TNCWSs
<100
4
4
8
$ 21.44
793
$ 136,015
6,344
3.1
100-499
4
4
8
23.09
509
94,022
4,072
2.0
500-999
4
4
8
30.03
79
18,980
632
0.3
1,000-3,299
4
4
8
30.03
49
11,773
392
0.2
3,300-9,999
4
4
8
30.51
16
3,906
128
0.1
10,000-49,999
4
4
8
31.08
9
2,238
72
0.0
50,000-99,999
4
5
9
31.08
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
4
5
9
35.25
1
317
9
0.0
> 1 Million
4
5
9
35.25
-
-
-
-
National Totals




1,456
$ 267,251
11,649
5.6
Grand Totals




7,156
$ 1,587,756
57,707
27.7
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A & B) Burden estimates for each activity are based on EPA experience with similar rules.
(D)	For plants serving up to 500 people, the full technical rate ($24.96/hour) was applied. For plants serving more than 500 people, costs are
based on an 80%/20% split between technical and managerial ($44.91/hour) rates. Rates are based on Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data.
(E)	Taken from "Baseline for Implementation and Monitoring Activities."
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 20
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.11 State Primacy Agency Cost and Burden Estimates for Rule Implementation Activities

Cost per
FTEs per
Hours per
Cost Per
Implementation Activities
Labor Hour
State
State
State

A
B
C = B*2080
D = A*C
Regulation Adoption and Program Development
$ 33.60
0.50
1,040
$ 34,949
Training State Staff
33.60
0.25
520
17,475
Training PWS Staff and Technical Assistants
33.60
1.00
2,080
69,898
Updating Data Management System
33.60
0.10
208
6,990
Public Notification
33.60
0.10
208
6,990
Totals per State
1.95
4,056
$ 136,301
National Totals (57 States/Primacy Agencies)
111.15
231,192
$ 7,769,165
Notes:
Detail may not add to totals due to independent rounding.
All States/Primacy Agencies are assumed to incur some costs for each activity.
1 FTE = 2,080 hours (40 hours/week; 52 weeks/year
Sources:
(A)	State labor rates based on the State Workload Model, updated to current dollar values.
(B)	FTEs per State/Primacy Agency based on EPA experience with previous regulations.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 21	December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.12 Labor Hours and Cost Estimates to Plants Associated with E. coli Monitoring for All Regulatory Alternatives


Sampling
Sample Analysis








Commercial









Baseline # of




Analysis
Utility
Utility

Percent





Plants




Cost per
Analysis
Analysis
Utility
Utilities with
Total
Total


System Size
Conducting E.


Cost per
Total
Sample
Hours per
Cost per
Analysis
E. coli
Laboratory
Laboratory


(Population
coli
# of E. coli
Hours per
Labor
Sampling
(Includes
Sample
Sample
Cost per
Analysis
Analysis
Analysis Cost

Total Burden
Served)
Monitoring
Samples
Sample
Hour
Labor Cost
Shipping)
(Labor)
(O&M)
Sample
Capabilities
Cost (Labor)
(O&M)
Total Cost
(Hours)











K =
L = F*A*B*(1-

N =

A
B
C
D
E = A*B*C*D
F
G
H
I = H+G*D
J
d*g*j*a*b
J)+H*A*B*J
M = E+K+L
A*B*C+A*B*G*J
CWSs
<100
333
26
0.25
$ 21.44
$ 46,363
$ 70.00
0.5
$ 10.28
$ 21.00
25%
$ 23,181
$ 476,343
$ 545,888
3,244
100-499
683
26
0.25
23.09
102,435
70.00
0.5
9.46
21.00
25%
51,217
973,574
1,127,227
6,654
500-999
432
26
0.25
24.74
69,402
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
34,701
613,311
717,414
4,208
1,000-3,299
1,072
26
0.25
24.74
172,310
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
86,155
1,522,723
1,781,189
10,447
3,300-9,999
1,054
26
0.25
25.34
173,543
70.00
0.5
8.33
21.00
25%
86,771
1,495,248
1,755,562
10,273
10,000-49,999
1,092
24
0.25
26.05
170,651
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
255,976
615,293
1,041,920
16,377
50,000-99,999
264
24
0.25
26.05
41,256
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
61,884
148,752
251,893
3,959
100,000-999,999
313
24
0.25
31.26
58,657
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
117,314
40,305
216,276
5,629
> 1 Million
53
24
0.25
31.26
10,025
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
20,050
6,889
36,964
962
National Totals
5,294


$
$ 844,641





$ 737,251
$ 5,892,439
$ 7,474,332
61,754
NTNCWSs
<100
174
26
0.25
$ 21.44
$ 24,182
$ 70.00
0.5
$ 10.28
$ 21.00
25%
$ 12,091
$ 248,449
$ 284,722
1,692
100-499
232
26
0.25
$ 23.09
34,868
70.00
0.5
9.46
21.00
25%
17,434
331,400
383,703
2,265
500-999
78
26
0.25
$ 24.74
12,557
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
6,278
110,965
129,800
761
1,000-3,299
61
26
0.25
$ 24.74
9,766
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
4,883
86,306
100,955
592
3,300-9,999
13
26
0.25
$ 25.34
2,064
70.00
0.5
8.33
21.00
25%
1,032
17,785
20,881
122
10,000-49,999
1
24
0.25
$ 26.05
156
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
234
561
951
15
50,000-99,999
-
24
0.25
$ 26.05
-
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
-
24
0.25
$ 31.26
-
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
-
-
-
-
> 1 Million
-
24
0.25
$ 31.26
-
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
-
-
-
-
National Totals
558


$
$ 83,593





$ 41,952
$ 795,467
$ 921,012
5,448
TNCWSs
<100
793
26
0.25
$ 21.44
$ 110,512
$ 70.00
0.5
$ 10.28
$ 21.00
25%
$ 55,256
$ 1,135,433
$ 1,301,202
7,732
100-499
509
26
0.25
23.09
76,393
70.00
0.5
9.46
21.00
25%
38,197
726,067
840,657
4,963
500-999
79
26
0.25
24.74
12,704
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
6,352
112,267
131,322
770
1,000-3,299
49
26
0.25
24.74
7,880
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
3,940
69,634
81,453
478
3,300-9,999
16
26
0.25
25.34
2,635
70.00
0.5
8.33
21.00
25%
1,318
22,706
26,659
156
10,000-49,999
9
24
0.25
26.05
1,407
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
2,110
5,072
8,589
135
50,000-99,999
-
24
0.25
26.05
-
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
1
24
0.25
31.26
188
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
375
129
692
18
> 1 Million
-
24
0.25
31.26
-
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
-
-
-
-
National Totals
1,456


$
$ 211,719





$ 107,548
$ 2,071,307
$ 2,390,574
14,252
Grand Totals
7,308


$
$ 1,139,953





$ 886,751
$ 8,759,214
$10,785,918
81,453
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Taken from "Baseline for Implementation and Monitoring Activities."
(B)	Bi-weekly source water monitoring for one year for small systems and monthly samples for 24 months for medium and large systems.
(C)	Estimate of labor for collecting sample and shipping, based on expert opinion.
(D)	All size categories were assumed to use a technical rate of $24.96/hour, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics rates.
(F)	DynCorp study, Kevin Connell, June 2002.
(G)	Based on expert opinion.
(H)	The amount left over after the cost of half an hour of labor is subtracted from the cost of utility analysis provided in Column I.
(I)	DynCorp study, Kevin Connell, December 2000.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 22
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.13a Total Cost Estimates for Cryptosporidium Monitoring for All System Types, by System Size
Based on ICR Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A2


Sampling
Sample Analysis











Total




System Size
Baseline # of
# of Crypto-

Cost per
Total

Laboratory

Total
Total

(Population
Plants Monitoring
sporidium
Hours per
Labor
Sampling
Cost per
Analysis Cost

Burden
Burden

Served)
Cryptosporidium
Samples
Sample
Hour
Labor Cost
Sample
(O&M)
Total Cost
(Hours)
(FTEs)
Responses

A
B
C
D
E = A*B*C*D
F
G = A*B*F
H = E+G
I = A*B*C
J = I/2080
K = A*B
CWSs

<100
334
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$ 93,008
$ 529.50
$ 4,593,992
$ 4,686,999
4,338
2.1
8,676
100-499
687
26
0.5
23.09
206,070
$ 529.50
9,451,211
9,657,281
8,925
4.3
17,849
500-999
435
26
0.5
24.74
139,820
$ 529.50
5,985,020
6,124,840
5,652
2.7
11,303
1,000-3,299
1,087
26
0.5
24.74
349,604
$ 529.50
14,964,859
15,314,463
14,131
6.8
28,262
3,300-9,999
1,068
26
0.5
25.34
351,877
$ 529.50
14,705,512
15,057,389
13,886
6.7
27,772
10,000-49,999
1,107
26
0.5
26.05
374,887
$ 529.50
15,240,147
15,615,035
14,391
6.9
28,782
50,000-99,999
269
26
0.5
26.05
91,073
$ 529.50
3,702,369
3,793,442
3,496
1.7
6,992
100,000-999,999
318
26
0.5
31.26
129,409
$ 529.50
4,384,011
4,513,420
4,140
2.0
8,280
> 1 Million
57
26
0.5
31.26
23,084
$ 529.50
782,014
805,097
738
0.4
1,477
National Totals
5,361



$ 1,758,833

$ 73,809,134
$ 75,567,967
69,697
33.5
139,394
NTNCWSs
<100
174
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$ 48,363
$ 529.50
$ 2,388,850
$ 2,437,213
2,256
1.1
4,512
100-499
232
26
0.5
23.09
69,737
529.50
3,198,405
3,268,141
3,020
1.5
6,040
500-999
78
26
0.5
24.74
25,113
529.50
1,074,982
1,100,096
1,015
0.5
2,030
1,000-3,299
61
26
0.5
24.74
19,533
529.50
836,097
855,630
790
0.4
1,579
3,300-9,999
13
26
0.5
25.34
4,128
529.50
172,528
176,656
163
0.1
326
10,000-49,999
1
26
0.5
26.05
337
529.50
13,717
14,054
13
0.0
26
50,000-99,999
-
26
0.5
26.05
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
-
26
0.5
31.26
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
> 1 Million
-
26
0.5
31.26
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
National Totals
558



$ 167,212

$ 7,684,579
$ 7,851,791
7,256
3.5
14,513
TNCWSs
<100
793
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$ 221,025
$ 529.50
$ 10,917,231
$ 11,138,256
10,309
5.0
20,618
100-499
509
26
0.5
23.09
152,787
529.50
7,007,403
7,160,190
6,617
3.2
13,234
500-999
79
26
0.5
24.74
25,408
529.50
1,087,593
1,113,001
1,027
0.5
2,054
1,000-3,299
49
26
0.5
24.74
15,759
529.50
674,583
690,342
637
0.3
1,274
3,300-9,999
16
26
0.5
25.34
5,271
529.50
220,272
225,543
208
0.1
416
10,000-49,999
9
26
0.5
26.05
3,048
529.50
123,903
126,951
117
0.1
234
50,000-99,999
-
26
0.5
26.05
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
1
26
0.5
31.26
406
529.50
13,767
14,173
13
0.0
26
> 1 Million
-
26
0.5
31.26
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
National Totals
1,456



$ 423,704

$ 20,044,752
$ 20,468,456
18,928
9.1
37,856
Grand Totals
7,375



$ 2,349,748

$ 101,538,465
$ 103,888,213
95,881
46.1
-
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Taken from "Baseline for Implementation and Monitoring Activities."
(B)	Semimonthly source water monitoring for one year for small systems and monthly samples for 24 months for medium and large systems, plus two matrix spike
samples.
(C)	Estimate of labor for collecting sample and shipping, based on expert opinion.
(D)	All size categories were assumed to use a technical rate of $24.96/hour, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics rates.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D- 23
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.13b Total Cost Estimates for Cryptosporidium Monitoring for All System Types, by System Size
Based on ICRSSM Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A2

Baseline # of
Sampling
Sample Analysis






Plants













System Size
Monitoring
# of Crypto-

Cost per

Total

Total Laboratory


Total
Total

(Population
Cryptospori-
sporidium
Hours per
Labor

Sampling
Cost per
Analysis Cost


Burden
Burden

Served)
dium
Samples
Sample
Hour
Labor Cost
Sample

(O&M)

Total Cost
(Hours)
(FTEs)
Responses

A
B
C
D
E
_ A*B*C*D
F
G = A*B*F
H = E+G
I = A*B*C
J = I/2080
K = A*B
CWSs

<100
334
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$
93,008
$ 529.50
$
4,593,992
$
4,686,999
4,338
2.1
8,676
100-499
687
26
0.5
23.09

206,070
$ 529.50

9,451,211

9,657,281
8,925
4.3
17,849
500-999
435
26
0.5
24.74

139,820
$ 529.50

5,985,020

6,124,840
5,652
2.7
11,303
1,000-3,299
1,087
26
0.5
24.74

349,604
$ 529.50

14,964,859

15,314,463
14,131
6.8
28,262
3,300-9,999
1,068
26
0.5
25.34

351,877
$ 529.50

14,705,512

15,057,389
13,886
6.7
27,772
10,000-49,999
1,107
26
0.5
26.05

374,887
$ 529.50

15,240,147

15,615,035
14,391
6.9
28,782
50,000-99,999
269
26
0.5
26.05

91,073
$ 529.50

3,702,369

3,793,442
3,496
1.7
6,992
100,000-999,999
318
26
0.5
31.26

129,409
$ 529.50

4,384,011

4,513,420
4,140
2.0
8,280
> 1 Million
57
26
0.5
31.26

23,084
$ 529.50

782,014

805,097
738
0.4
1,477
National Totals
5,361



$
1,758,833

$
73,809,134
$
75,567,967
69,697
33.5
139,394
NTNCWSs
<100
174
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$
48,363
$ 529.50
$
2,388,850
$
2,437,213
2,256
1.1
4,512
100-499
232
26
0.5
23.09

69,737
529.50

3,198,405

3,268,141
3,020
1.5
6,040
500-999
78
26
0.5
24.74

25,113
529.50

1,074,982

1,100,096
1,015
0.5
2,030
1,000-3,299
61
26
0.5
24.74

19,533
529.50

836,097

855,630
790
0.4
1,579
3,300-9,999
13
26
0.5
25.34

4,128
529.50

172,528

176,656
163
0.1
326
10,000-49,999
1
26
0.5
26.05

337
529.50

13,717

14,054
13
0.0
26
50,000-99,999
-
26
0.5
26.05

-
529.50

-

-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
-
26
0.5
31.26

-
529.50

-

-
-
-
-
> 1 Million
-
26
0.5
31.26

-
529.50

-

-
-
-
-
National Totals
558



$
167,212

$
7,684,579
$
7,851,791
7,256
3.5
14,513
TNCWSs
<100
793
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$
221,025
$ 529.50
$
10,917,231
$
11,138,256
10,309
5.0
20,618
100-499
509
26
0.5
23.09

152,787
529.50

7,007,403

7,160,190
6,617
3.2
13,234
500-999
79
26
0.5
24.74

25,408
529.50

1,087,593

1,113,001
1,027
0.5
2,054
1,000-3,299
49
26
0.5
24.74

15,759
529.50

674,583

690,342
637
0.3
1,274
3,300-9,999
16
26
0.5
25.34

5,271
529.50

220,272

225,543
208
0.1
416
10,000-49,999
9
26
0.5
26.05

3,048
529.50

123,903

126,951
117
0.1
234
50,000-99,999
-
26
0.5
26.05

-
529.50

-

-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
1
26
0.5
31.26

406
529.50

13,767

14,173
13
0.0
26
> 1 Million
-
26
0.5
31.26

-
529.50

-

-
-
-
-
National Totals
1,456



$
423,704

$
20,044,752
$
20,468,456
18,928
9.1
37,856
Grand Totals
7,375



$
2,349,748

$
101,538,465
$
103,888,213
95,881
46.1
-
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Taken from "Baseline for Implementation and Monitoring Activities."
(B)	Semimonthly source water monitoring for one year for small systems and monthly samples for 24 months for medium and large systems, plus two matrix spike
samples.
(C)	Estimate of labor for collecting sample and shipping, based on expert opinion.
(D)	All size categories were assumed to use a technical rate of $24.96/hour, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics rates.
(F) Cost per sample includes $403 in lab costs, $88.70 for shipping, and $37.80 in additional costs. Assume all plants must ship samples to private lab for
Cryptosporidium analysis. Samples must be shipped overnight to meet 24-hour holding time requirements. Costs based on FedEx priority overnight rates for 10 L
sample (22 LB) shipped in a 34-quart polyethylene cooler packed with wet ice, median cost for all zones. Samples generating a pellet volume of >0.5 ml require
multiple subsample processing at a cost of $140 each. During the ICR Supplemental Survey, approximately 27 percent of field samples required analysis of multiple
subsamples, resulting in an additional per-plant charge of $38 ($140 x 0.27).
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 24
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.13c Total Cost Estimates for Cryptosporidium Monitoring for All System Types, by System Size
Based on ICRSSL Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A2

Baseline # of
Sampling
Sampl
e Analysis






Plants













System Size
Monitoring
# of Crypto-

Cost per

Total

Total Laboratory


Total
Total

(Population
Cryptospori-
sporidium
Hours per
Labor
Sampling
Cost per

Analysis Cost


Burden
Burden

Served)
dium
Samples
Sample
Hour
Labor Cost
Sample

(O&M)

Total Cost
(Hours)
(PTEs)
Responses

A
B
C
D
E
= A*B*C*D
P
G = A*B*F
0
+
u
ii
z
I = A*B*C
J = I/2080
K = A*B
CWSs

<100
334
26
1
21

93,008
$ 529.50
$
4,593,992
$
4,686,999
4,338
2.1
8,676
100-499
687
26
0.5
23.09

206,070
529.50

9,451,211

9,657,281
8,925
4.3
17,849
500-999
435
26
0.5
24.74

139,820
529.50

5,985,020

6,124,840
5,652
2.7
11,303
1,000-3,299
1,087
26
0.5
24.74

349,604
529.50

14,964,859

15,314,463
14,131
6.8
28,262
3,300-9,999
1,068
26
0.5
25.34

351,877
529.50

14,705,512

15,057,389
13,886
6.7
27,772
10,000-49,999
1,107
26
0.5
26.05

374,887
529.50

15,240,147

15,615,035
14,391
6.9
28,782
50,000-99,999
269
26
0.5
26.05

91,073
529.50

3,702,369

3,793,442
3,496
1.7
6,992
100,000-999,999
318
26
0.5
31.26

129,409
529.50

4,384,011

4,513,420
4,140
2.0
8,280
> 1 Million
57
26
0.5
31.26

23,084
529.50

782,014

805,097
738
0.4
1,477
National Totals
5,361



$
1,758,833

$
73,809,134
$
75,567,967
69,697
33.5
139,394
NTNCWSs
<100
174
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$
48,363
$ 529.50
$
2,388,850
$
2,437,213
2,256
1.1
4,512
100-499
232
26
0.5
23.09

69,737
529.50

3,198,405

3,268,141
3,020
1.5
6,040
500-999
78
26
0.5
24.74

25,113
529.50

1,074,982

1,100,096
1,015
0.5
2,030
1,000-3,299
61
26
0.5
24.74

19,533
529.50

836,097

855,630
790
0.4
1,579
3,300-9,999
13
26
0.5
25.34

4,128
529.50

172,528

176,656
163
0.1
326
10,000-49,999
1
26
0.5
26.05

337
529.50

13,717

14,054
13
0.0
26
50,000-99,999
-
26
0.5
26.05

-
529.50

-

-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
-
26
0.5
31.26

-
529.50

-

-
-
-
-
> 1 Million
-
26
0.5
31.26

-
529.50

-

-
-
-
-
National Totals
558



$
167,212






TNCWSs
<100
793
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$
221,025
$ 529.50
$
10,917,231
$
11,138,256
10,309
5.0
20,618
100-499
509
26
0.5
23.09

152,787
529.50

7,007,403

7,160,190
6,617
3.2
13,234
500-999
79
26
0.5
24.74

25,408
529.50

1,087,593

1,113,001
1,027
0.5
2,054
1,000-3,299
49
26
0.5
24.74

15,759
529.50

674,583

690,342
637
0.3
1,274
3,300-9,999
16
26
0.5
25.34

5,271
529.50

220,272

225,543
208
0.1
416
10,000-49,999
9
26
0.5
26.05

3,048
529.50

123,903

126,951
117
0.1
234
50,000-99,999
-
26
0.5
26.05

-
529.50

-

-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
1
26
0.5
31.26

406
529.50

13,767

14,173
13
0.0
26
> 1 Million
-
26
0.5
31.26

-
529.50

-

-
-
-
-
National Totals
1,456



$
423,704

$
20,044,752
$
20,468,456
18,928
9.1
37,856
Grand Totals
7,375



$
2,349,748

$
101,538,465
$
103,888,213
95,881
46.1
-
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Taken from "Baseline for Implementation and Monitoring Activities."
(B)	Semimonthly source water monitoring for one year for small systems and monthly samples for 24 months for medium and large systems, plus two matrix spike
samples.
(C)	Estimate of labor for collecting sample and shipping, based on expert opinion.
(D)	All size categories were assumed to use a technical rate of $24.96/hour, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics rates.
(F) Cost per sample includes $403 in lab costs, $88.70 for shipping, and $37.80 in additional costs. Assume all plants must ship samples to private lab for
Cryptosporidium analysis. Samples must be shipped overnight to meet 24-hour holding time requirements. Costs based on FedEx priority overnight rates for 10 L
sample (22 LB) shipped in a 34-quart polyethylene cooler packed with wet ice, median cost for all zones. Samples generating a pellet volume of >0.5 ml require multiple
subsample processing at a cost of $140 each. During the ICR Supplemental Survey, approximately 27 percent of field samples required analysis of multiple
subsamples, resulting in an additional per-plant charge of $38 ($140 x 0.27).
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D -25
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.14a Total Cost Estimates for Cryptosporidium Monitoring for All System Types, by System Size
Based on ICR Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A3

Baseline # of
Sampling
Sampl
e Analysis





Plants





Total




System Size
Monitoring
# of Crypto-

Cost per
Total

Laboratory

Total
Total

(Population
Cryptospori-
sporidium
Hours per
Labor
Sampling
Cost per
Analysis Cost

Burden
Burden

Served)
dium
Samples
Sample
Hour
Labor Cost
Sample
(O&M)
Total Cost
(Hours)
(PTEs)
Responses

A
B
C
D
E = A*B*C*D
P
G = A*B*F
H = E+G
I = A*B*C
J = I/2080
K = A*B
CWSs

<100
117
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$ 32,551
$ 529.50
$ 1,607,793
$ 1,640,344
1,518
0.7
3,036
100-499
242
26
0.5
23.09
72,495
$ 529.50
3,324,926
3,397,421
3,140
1.5
6,279
500-999
153
26
0.5
24.74
49,320
$ 529.50
2,111,153
2,160,473
1,994
1.0
3,987
1,000-3,299
388
26
0.5
24.74
124,911
$ 529.50
5,346,858
5,471,770
5,049
2.4
10,098
3,300-9,999
381
26
0.5
25.34
125,577
$ 529.50
5,248,078
5,373,655
4,956
2.4
9,911
10,000-49,999
1,107
26
0.5
26.05
374,887
$ 529.50
15,240,147
15,615,035
14,391
6.9
28,782
50,000-99,999
269
26
0.5
26.05
91,073
$ 529.50
3,702,369
3,793,442
3,496
1.7
6,992
100,000-999,999
318
26
0.5
31.26
129,409
$ 529.50
4,384,011
4,513,420
4,140
2.0
8,280
> 1 Million
57
26
0.5
31.26
23,084
$ 529.50
782,014
805,097
738
0.4
1,477
National Totals
3,032



$ 1,023,308

$ 41,747,349
$ 42,770,657
39,421
19.0
78,843
NTNCWSs
<100
60
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$ 16,830
$ 529.50
$ 831,320
$ 848,150
785
0.4
1,570
100-499
81
26
0.5
23.09
24,268
529.50
1,113,045
1,137,313
1,051
0.5
2,102
500-999
27
26
0.5
24.74
8,739
529.50
374,094
382,833
353
0.2
707
1,000-3,299
21
26
0.5
24.74
6,797
529.50
290,962
297,759
275
0.1
550
3,300-9,999
4
26
0.5
25.34
1,437
529.50
60,040
61,476
57
0.0
113
10,000-49,999
1
26
0.5
26.05
337
529.50
13,717
14,054
13
0.0
26
50,000-99,999
-
26
0.5
26.05
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
-
26
0.5
31.26
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
> 1 Million
-
26
0.5
31.26
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
National Totals
195



$ 58,410

$ 2,683,177
$ 2,741,586
2,534
1.2
5,067
TNCWSs
<100
276
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$ 76,917
$ 529.50
$ 3,799,196
$ 3,876,113
3,588
1.7
7,175
100-499
177
26
0.5
23.09
53,170
529.50
2,438,576
2,491,746
2,303
1.1
4,605
500-999
27
26
0.5
24.74
8,842
529.50
378,482
387,324
357
0.2
715
1,000-3,299
17
26
0.5
24.74
5,484
529.50
234,755
240,239
222
0.1
443
3,300-9,999
6
26
0.5
25.34
1,834
529.50
76,655
78,489
72
0.0
145
10,000-49,999
9
26
0.5
26.05
3,048
529.50
123,903
126,951
117
0.1
234
50,000-99,999
-
26
0.5
26.05
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
1
26
0.5
31.26
406
529.50
13,767
14,173
13
0.0
26
> 1 Million
-
26
0.5
31.26
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
National Totals
513



$ 149,701

$ 7,065,335
$ 7,215,036
6,672
3.2
13,343
Grand Totals
3,741



$ 1,231,419

$ 51,495,860
$ 52,727,279
48,627
23.4
-
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Taken from "Baseline for Implementation and Monitoring Activities."
(B)	Semimonthly source water monitoring for one year for small systems and monthly samples for 24 months for medium and large systems, plus two matrix
spike samples.
(C)	Estimate of labor for collecting sample and shipping, based on expert opinion.
(D)	All size categories were assumed to use a technical rate of $24.96/hour, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics rates.
(F) Cost per sample includes $403 in lab costs, $88.70 for shipping, and $37.80 in additional costs. Assume all plants must ship samples to private lab for
Cryptosporidium analysis. Samples must be shipped overnight to meet 24-hour holding time requirements. Costs based on FedEx priority overnight rates for
10 L sample (22 LB) shipped in a 34-quart polyethylene cooler packed with wet ice, median cost for all zones. Samples generating a pellet volume of >0.5 ml
require multiple subsample processing at a cost of $140 each. During the ICR Supplemental Survey, approximately 27 percent of field samples required
analysis of multiple subsamples, resulting in an additional per-plant charge of $38 ($140 x 0.27).
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D -26
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.14b Total Cost Estimates for Cryptosporidium Monitoring for All System Types, by System Size
Based on ICRSSM Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A3

Baseline # of
Sampling
Sampl
e Analysis





Plants





Total




System Size
Monitoring
# of Crypto-

Cost per
Total

Laboratory

Total
Total

(Population
Cryptospori-
sporidium
Hours per
Labor
Sampling
Cost per
Analysis Cost

Burden
Burden

Served)
dium
Samples
Sample
Hour
Labor Cost
Sample
(O&M)
Total Cost
(Hours)
(PTEs)
Responses

A
B
C
D
E = A*B*C*D
P
G = A*B*F
H = E+G
I = A*B*C
J = I/2080
K = A*B
CWSs

<100
92
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$ 25,503
$ 529.50
$ 1,259,709
$ 1,285,212
1,190
0.6
2,379
100-499
190
26
0.5
23.09
56,925
529.50
2,610,819
2,667,744
2,465
1.2
4,931
500-999
121
26
0.5
24.74
38,771
529.50
1,659,598
1,698,369
1,567
0.8
3,134
1,000-3,299
307
26
0.5
24.74
98,720
529.50
4,225,741
4,324,462
3,990
1.9
7,981
3,300-9,999
301
26
0.5
25.34
99,199
529.50
4,145,677
4,244,876
3,915
1.9
7,829
10,000-49,999
1,107
26
0.5
26.05
374,887
529.50
15,240,147
15,615,035
14,391
6.9
28,782
50,000-99,999
269
26
0.5
26.05
91,073
529.50
3,702,369
3,793,442
3,496
1.7
6,992
100,000-999,999
318
26
0.5
31.26
129,409
529.50
4,384,011
4,513,420
4,140
2.0
8,280
> 1 Million
57
26
0.5
31.26
23,084
529.50
782,014
805,097
738
0.4
1,477
National Totals
2,761



$ 937,572

$ 38,010,085
$ 38,947,658
35,892
17.3
71,785
NTNCWSs
<100
47
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$ 13,155
$ 529.50
$ 649,767
$ 662,922
614
0.3
1,227
100-499
63
26
0.5
23.09
18,968
529.50
869,966
888,934
821
0.4
1,643
500-999
21
26
0.5
24.74
6,831
529.50
292,395
299,226
276
0.1
552
1,000-3,299
17
26
0.5
24.74
5,313
529.50
227,419
232,731
215
0.1
429
3,300-9,999
3
26
0.5
25.34
1,123
529.50
46,928
48,051
44
0.0
89
10,000-49,999
1
26
0.5
26.05
337
529.50
13,717
14,054
13
0.0
26
50,000-99,999
-
26
0.5
26.05
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
-
26
0.5
31.26
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
> 1 Million
-
26
0.5
31.26
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
National Totals
153



$ 45,727

$ 2,100,191
$ 2,145,918
1,983
1.0
3,966
TNCWSs
<100
216
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$ 60,119
$ 529.50
$ 2,969,487
$ 3,029,606
2,804
1.3
5,608
100-499
138
26
0.5
23.09
41,558
529.50
1,906,014
1,947,572
1,800
0.9
3,600
500-999
21
26
0.5
24.74
6,911
529.50
295,825
302,736
279
0.1
559
1,000-3,299
13
26
0.5
24.74
4,287
529.50
183,487
187,773
173
0.1
347
3,300-9,999
4
26
0.5
25.34
1,434
529.50
59,914
61,348
57
0.0
113
10,000-49,999
9
26
0.5
26.05
3,048
529.50
123,903
126,951
117
0.1
234
50,000-99,999
-
26
0.5
26.05
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
1
26
0.5
31.26
406
529.50
13,767
14,173
13
0.0
26
> 1 Million
-
26
0.5
31.26
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
National Totals
403



$ 117,762

$ 5,552,396
$ 5,670,158
5,243
2.5
10,486
Grand Totals
3,317



$ 1,101,062

$ 45,662,673
$ 46,763,735
43,119
20.7
-
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Taken from "Baseline for Implementation and Monitoring Activities."
(B)	Semimonthly source water monitoring for one year for small systems and monthly samples for 24 months for medium and large systems, plus two matrix
spike samples.
(C)	Estimate of labor for collecting sample and shipping, based on expert opinion.
(D)	All size categories were assumed to use a technical rate of $24.96/hour, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics rates.
(F) Cost per sample includes $403 in lab costs, $88.70 for shipping, and $37.80 in additional costs. Assume all plants must ship samples to private lab for
Cryptosporidium analysis. Samples must be shipped overnight to meet 24-hour holding time requirements. Costs based on FedEx priority overnight rates for
10 L sample (22 LB) shipped in a 34-quart polyethylene cooler packed with wet ice, median cost for all zones. Samples generating a pellet volume of >0.5 ml
require multiple subsample processing at a cost of $140 each. During the ICR Supplemental Survey, approximately 27 percent of field samples required
analysis of multiple subsamples, resulting in an additional per-plant charge of $38 ($140 x 0.27).
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D -27
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.14c Total Cost Estimates for Cryptosporidium Monitoring for All System Types, by System Size
Based on ICRSSL Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A3

Baseline # of
Sampling
Sampl
e Analysis





Plants





Total




System Size
Monitoring
# of Crypto-

Cost per
Total

Laboratory

Total
Total

(Population
Cryptospori-
sporidium
Hours per
Labor
Sampling
Cost per
Analysis Cost

Burden
Burden

Served)
dium
Samples
Sample
Hour
Labor Cost
Sample
(O&M)
Total Cost
(Hours)
(PTEs)
Responses

A
B
C
D
E = A*B*C*D
P
G = A*B*F
H = E+G
I = A*B*C
J = I/2080
K = A*B
CWSs

<100
75
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$ 21,016
$ 529.50
$ 1,038,034
$ 1,059,050
980
0.5
1,960
100-499
157
26
0.5
23.09
47,010
529.50
2,156,046
2,203,055
2,036
1.0
4,072
500-999
100
26
0.5
24.74
32,053
529.50
1,372,029
1,404,082
1,296
0.6
2,591
1,000-3,299
255
26
0.5
24.74
82,041
529.50
3,511,767
3,593,808
3,316
1.6
6,632
3,300-9,999
250
26
0.5
25.34
82,400
529.50
3,443,622
3,526,022
3,252
1.6
6,504
10,000-49,999
1,107
26
0.5
26.05
374,887
529.50
15,240,147
15,615,035
14,391
6.9
28,782
50,000-99,999
269
26
0.5
26.05
91,073
529.50
3,702,369
3,793,442
3,496
1.7
6,992
100,000-999,999
318
26
0.5
31.26
129,409
529.50
4,384,011
4,513,420
4,140
2.0
8,280
> 1 Million
57
26
0.5
31.26
23,084
529.50
782,014
805,097
738
0.4
1,477
National Totals
2,588



$ 882,972

$ 35,630,039
$ 36,513,011
33,645
16.2
67,290
NTNCWSs
<100
39
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$ 10,814
$ 529.50
$ 534,147
$ 544,961
504
0.2
1,009
100-499
52
26
0.5
23.09
15,593
529.50
715,163
730,756
675
0.3
1,351
500-999
17
26
0.5
24.74
5,615
529.50
240,366
245,981
227
0.1
454
1,000-3,299
14
26
0.5
24.74
4,367
529.50
186,951
191,319
177
0.1
353
3,300-9,999
3
26
0.5
25.34
923
529.50
38,577
39,500
36
0.0
73
10,000-49,999
1
26
0.5
26.05
337
529.50
13,717
14,054
13
0.0
26
50,000-99,999
-
26
0.5
26.05
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
-
26
0.5
31.26
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
> 1 Million
-
26
0.5
31.26
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
National Totals
126



$ 37,651

$ 1,728,921
$ 1,766,572
1,633
0.8
3,265
TNCWSs
<100
177
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$ 49,421
$ 529.50
$ 2,441,093
$ 2,490,514
2,305
1.1
4,610
100-499
114
26
0.5
23.09
34,163
529.50
1,566,855
1,601,018
1,480
0.7
2,959
500-999
18
26
0.5
24.74
5,681
529.50
243,186
248,867
230
0.1
459
1,000-3,299
11
26
0.5
24.74
3,524
529.50
150,837
154,361
142
0.1
285
3,300-9,999
4
26
0.5
25.34
1,179
529.50
49,253
50,431
47
0.0
93
10,000-49,999
9
26
0.5
26.05
3,048
529.50
123,903
126,951
117
0.1
234
50,000-99,999
-
26
0.5
26.05
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
1
26
0.5
31.26
406
529.50
13,767
14,173
13
0.0
26
> 1 Million
-
26
0.5
31.26
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
National Totals
333



$ 97,422

$ 4,588,894
$ 4,686,316
4,333
2.1
8,666
Grand Totals
3,047



$ 1,018,045

$ 41,947,854
$ 42,965,898
39,611
19.0
-
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Taken from "Baseline for Implementation and Monitoring Activities."
(B)	Semimonthly source water monitoring for one year for small systems and monthly samples for 24 months for medium and large systems, plus two matrix
spike samples.
(C)	Estimate of labor for collecting sample and shipping, based on expert opinion.
(D)	All size categories were assumed to use a technical rate of $24.96/hour, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics rates.
(F) Cost per sample includes $403 in lab costs, $88.70 for shipping, and $37.80 in additional costs. Assume all plants must ship samples to private lab for
Cryptosporidium analysis. Samples must be shipped overnight to meet 24-hour holding time requirements. Costs based on FedEx priority overnight rates for
10 L sample (22 LB) shipped in a 34-quart polyethylene cooler packed with wet ice, median cost for all zones. Samples generating a pellet volume of >0.5 ml
require multiple subsample processing at a cost of $140 each. During the ICR Supplemental Survey, approximately 27 percent of field samples required
analysis of multiple subsamples, resulting in an additional per-plant charge of $38 ($140 x 0.27).
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D -28
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.15a Total Cost Estimates for Cryptosporidium Monitoring for All System Types, by System Size
Based on ICR Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A4

Baseline # of
Sampling
Sampl
e Analysis





Plants





Total




System Size
Monitoring
# of Crypto-

Cost per
Total

Laboratory

Total
Total

(Population
Cryptospori-
sporidium
Hours per
Labor
Sampling
Cost per
Analysis Cost

Burden
Burden

Served)
dium
Samples
Sample
Hour
Labor Cost
Sample
(O&M)
Total Cost
(Hours)
(PTEs)
Responses

A
B
C
D
E = A*B*C*D
P
G = A*B*F
H = E+G
I = A*B*C
J = I/2080
K = A*B
CWSs
<100
102
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$ 28,378
$ 529.50
$ 1,401,691
$ 1,430,069
1,324
0.6
2,647
100-499
211
26
0.5
23.09
63,276
529.50
2,902,099
2,965,375
2,740
1.3
5,481
500-999
134
26
0.5
24.74
43,074
529.50
1,843,785
1,886,859
1,741
0.8
3,482
1,000-3,299
340
26
0.5
24.74
109,404
529.50
4,683,039
4,792,443
4,422
2.1
8,844
3,300-9,999
334
26
0.5
25.34
109,958
529.50
4,595,341
4,705,299
4,339
2.1
8,679
10,000-49,999
1,107
26
0.5
26.05
374,887
529.50
15,240,147
15,615,035
14,391
6.9
28,782
50,000-99,999
269
26
0.5
26.05
91,073
529.50
3,702,369
3,793,442
3,496
1.7
6,992
100,000-999,999
318
26
0.5
31.26
129,409
529.50
4,384,011
4,513,420
4,140
2.0
8,280
> 1 Million
57
26
0.5
31.26
23,084
529.50
782,014
805,097
738
0.4
1,477
National Totals
2,872



$ 972,544

$ 39,534,495
$ 40,507,039
37,332
17.9
74,664
NTNCWSs
<100
53
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$ 14,654
$ 529.50
$ 723,822
$ 738,476
683
0.3
1,367
100-499
70
26
0.5
23.09
21,130
529.50
969,117
990,247
915
0.4
1,830
500-999
24
26
0.5
24.74
7,609
529.50
325,720
333,329
308
0.1
615
1,000-3,299
18
26
0.5
24.74
5,918
529.50
253,338
259,256
239
0.1
478
3,300-9,999
4
26
0.5
25.34
1,251
529.50
52,276
53,527
49
0.0
99
10,000-49,999
1
26
0.5
26.05
337
529.50
13,717
14,054
13
0.0
26
50,000-99,999
-
26
0.5
26.05
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
-
26
0.5
31.26
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
> 1 Million
-
26
0.5
31.26
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
National Totals
170



$ 50,900

$ 2,337,988
$ 2,388,888
2,208
1.1
4,415
TNCWSs
<100
240
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$ 66,971
$ 529.50
$ 3,307,921
$ 3,374,892
3,124
1.5
6,247
100-499
154
26
0.5
23.09
46,294
529.50
2,123,243
2,169,537
2,005
1.0
4,010
500-999
24
26
0.5
24.74
7,699
529.50
329,541
337,239
311
0.1
622
1,000-3,299
15
26
0.5
24.74
4,775
529.50
204,399
209,174
193
0.1
386
3,300-9,999
5
26
0.5
25.34
1,597
529.50
66,742
68,339
63
0.0
126
10,000-49,999
9
26
0.5
26.05
3,048
529.50
123,903
126,951
117
0.1
234
50,000-99,999
-
26
0.5
26.05
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
1
26
0.5
31.26
406
529.50
13,767
14,173
13
0.0
26
> 1 Million
-
26
0.5
31.26
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
National Totals
448



$ 130,790

$ 6,169,516
$ 6,300,306
5,826
2.8
11,652
Grand Totals
3,490



$ 1,154,234

$ 48,041,999
$ 49,196,233
45,365
21.8
-
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Taken from "Baseline for Implementation and Monitoring Activities."
(B)	Semimonthly source water monitoring for one year for small systems and monthly samples for 24 months for medium and large systems, plus two matrix
spike samples.
(C)	Estimate of labor for collecting sample and shipping, based on expert opinion.
(D)	All size categories were assumed to use a technical rate of $24.96/hour, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics rates.
(F) Cost per sample includes $403 in lab costs, $88.70 for shipping, and $37.80 in additional costs. Assume all plants must ship samples to private lab for
Cryptosporidium analysis. Samples must be shipped overnight to meet 24-hour holding time requirements. Costs based on FedEx priority overnight rates for
10 L sample (22 LB) shipped in a 34-quart polyethylene cooler packed with wet ice, median cost for all zones. Samples generating a pellet volume of >0.5 ml
require multiple subsample processing at a cost of $140 each. During the ICR Supplemental Survey, approximately 27 percent of field samples required
analysis of multiple subsamples, resulting in an additional per-plant charge of $38 ($140 x 0.27).
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D -29
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.15b Total Cost Estimates for Cryptosporidium Monitoring for All System Types, by System Size
Based on ICRSSM Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A4

Baseline # of
Sampling
Sampl
e Analysis





Plants





Total




System Size
Monitoring
# of Crypto-

Cost per
Total

Laboratory

Total
Total

(Population
Cryptospori-
sporidium
Hours per
Labor
Sampling
Cost per
Analysis Cost

Burden
Burden

Served)
dium
Samples
Sample
Hour
Labor Cost
Sample
(O&M)
Total Cost
(Hours)
(PTEs)
Responses

A
B
C
D
E = A*B*C*D
P
G = A*B*F
H = E+G
I = A*B*C
J = I/2080
K = A*B
CWSs

<100
73
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$ 20,218
$ 529.50
$ 998,645
$ 1,018,864
943
0.5
1,886
100-499
151
26
0.5
23.09
45,248
529.50
2,075,239
2,120,486
1,960
0.9
3,919
500-999
96
26
0.5
24.74
30,859
529.50
1,320,932
1,351,791
1,247
0.6
2,495
1,000-3,299
246
26
0.5
24.74
79,077
529.50
3,384,904
3,463,981
3,196
1.5
6,393
3,300-9,999
241
26
0.5
25.34
79,415
529.50
3,318,877
3,398,292
3,134
1.5
6,268
10,000-49,999
1,107
26
0.5
26.05
374,887
529.50
15,240,147
15,615,035
14,391
6.9
28,782
50,000-99,999
269
26
0.5
26.05
91,073
529.50
3,702,369
3,793,442
3,496
1.7
6,992
100,000-999,999
318
26
0.5
31.26
129,409
529.50
4,384,011
4,513,420
4,140
2.0
8,280
> 1 Million
57
26
0.5
31.26
23,084
529.50
782,014
805,097
738
0.4
1,477
National Totals
2,557



$ 873,270

$ 35,207,138
$ 36,080,408
33,246
16.0
66,491
NTNCWSs
<100
37
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$ 10,398
$ 529.50
$ 513,603
$ 524,001
485
0.2
970
100-499
50
26
0.5
23.09
14,993
529.50
687,657
702,650
649
0.3
1,299
500-999
17
26
0.5
24.74
5,399
529.50
231,121
236,521
218
0.1
436
1,000-3,299
13
26
0.5
24.74
4,200
529.50
179,761
183,960
170
0.1
339
3,300-9,999
3
26
0.5
25.34
888
529.50
37,094
37,981
35
0.0
70
10,000-49,999
1
26
0.5
26.05
337
529.50
13,717
14,054
13
0.0
26
50,000-99,999
-
26
0.5
26.05
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
-
26
0.5
31.26
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
> 1 Million
-
26
0.5
31.26
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
National Totals
121



$ 36,215

$ 1,662,952
$ 1,699,167
1,570
0.8
3,141
TNCWSs
<100
170
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$ 47,520
$ 529.50
$ 2,347,205
$ 2,394,725
2,216
1.1
4,433
100-499
109
26
0.5
23.09
32,849
529.50
1,506,592
1,539,441
1,423
0.7
2,845
500-999
17
26
0.5
24.74
5,463
529.50
233,832
239,295
221
0.1
442
1,000-3,299
11
26
0.5
24.74
3,388
529.50
145,035
148,424
137
0.1
274
3,300-9,999
3
26
0.5
25.34
1,133
529.50
47,358
48,492
45
0.0
89
10,000-49,999
9
26
0.5
26.05
3,048
529.50
123,903
126,951
117
0.1
234
50,000-99,999
-
26
0.5
26.05
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
1
26
0.5
31.26
406
529.50
13,767
14,173
13
0.0
26
> 1 Million
-
26
0.5
31.26
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
National Totals
321



$ 93,808

$ 4,417,693
$ 4,511,501
4,172
2.0
8,343
Grand Totals
2,999



$ 1,003,294

$ 41,287,782
$ 42,291,076
38,988
18.7
-
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Taken from "Baseline for Implementation and Monitoring Activities."
(B)	Semimonthly source water monitoring for one year for small systems and monthly samples for 24 months for medium and large systems, plus two matrix
spike samples.
(C)	Estimate of labor for collecting sample and shipping, based on expert opinion.
(D)	All size categories were assumed to use a technical rate of $24.96/hour, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics rates.
(F) Cost per sample includes $403 in lab costs, $88.70 for shipping, and $37.80 in additional costs. Assume all plants must ship samples to private lab for
Cryptosporidium analysis. Samples must be shipped overnight to meet 24-hour holding time requirements. Costs based on FedEx priority overnight rates for
10 L sample (22 LB) shipped in a 34-quart polyethylene cooler packed with wet ice, median cost for all zones. Samples generating a pellet volume of >0.5 ml
require multiple subsample processing at a cost of $140 each. During the ICR Supplemental Survey, approximately 27 percent of field samples required
analysis of multiple subsamples, resulting in an additional per-plant charge of $38 ($140 x 0.27).
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 30
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.15c Total Cost Estimates for Cryptosporidium Monitoring for All System Types, by System Size
Based on ICRSSL Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A4

Baseline # of
Sampling
Sampl
e Analysis





Plants






Total




System Size
Monitoring
# of Crypto-

Cost per

Total

Laboratory

Total
Total

(Population
Cryptospori-
sporidium
Hours per
Labor
Sampling
Cost per
Analysis Cost

Burden
Burden

Served)
dium
Samples
Sample
Hour
Labor Cost
Sample
(O&M)
Total Cost
(Hours)
(PTEs)
Responses

A
B
C
D
E
= A*B*C*D
P
G = A*B*F
H = E+G
I = A*B*C
J = I/2080
K = A*B
CWSs

<100
54
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$
15,118
$ 529.50
$ 746,742
$ 761,860
705
0.3
1,410
100-499
113
26
0.5
23.09

33,980
529.50
1,558,451
1,592,431
1,472
0.7
2,943
500-999
72
26
0.5
24.74

23,225
529.50
994,148
1,017,373
939
0.5
1,878
1,000-3,299
187
26
0.5
24.74

60,123
529.50
2,573,569
2,633,692
2,430
1.2
4,860
3,300-9,999
183
26
0.5
25.34

60,325
529.50
2,521,087
2,581,413
2,381
1.1
4,761
10,000-49,999
1,107
26
0.5
26.05

374,887
529.50
15,240,147
15,615,035
14,391
6.9
28,782
50,000-99,999
269
26
0.5
26.05

91,073
529.50
3,702,369
3,793,442
3,496
1.7
6,992
100,000-999,999
318
26
0.5
31.26

129,409
529.50
4,384,011
4,513,420
4,140
2.0
8,280
> 1 Million
57
26
0.5
31.26

23,084
529.50
782,014
805,097
738
0.4
1,477
National Totals
2,361



$
811,225

$ 32,502,539
$ 33,313,764
30,692
14.8
61,383
NTNCWSs
<100
28
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$
7,738
$ 529.50
$ 382,216
$ 389,954
361
0.2
722
100-499
37
26
0.5
23.09

11,158
529.50
511,745
522,903
483
0.2
966
500-999
12
26
0.5
24.74

4,018
529.50
171,997
176,015
162
0.1
325
1,000-3,299
10
26
0.5
24.74

3,125
529.50
133,776
136,901
126
0.1
253
3,300-9,999
2
26
0.5
25.34

661
529.50
27,604
28,265
26
0.0
52
10,000-49,999
1
26
0.5
26.05

337
529.50
13,717
14,054
13
0.0
26
50,000-99,999
-
26
0.5
26.05

-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
-
26
0.5
31.26

-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
> 1 Million
-
26
0.5
31.26

-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
National Totals
90



$
27,037

$ 1,241,055
$ 1,268,092
1,172
0.6
2,344
TNCWSs
<100
127
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$
35,364
$ 529.50
$ 1,746,757
$ 1,782,121
1,649
0.8
3,299
100-499
81
26
0.5
23.09

24,446
529.50
1,121,184
1,145,630
1,059
0.5
2,117
500-999
13
26
0.5
24.74

4,065
529.50
174,015
178,080
164
0.1
329
1,000-3,299
8
26
0.5
24.74

2,522
529.50
107,933
110,455
102
0.0
204
3,300-9,999
3
26
0.5
25.34

843
529.50
35,244
36,087
33
0.0
67
10,000-49,999
9
26
0.5
26.05

3,048
529.50
123,903
126,951
117
0.1
234
50,000-99,999
-
26
0.5
26.05

-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
1
26
0.5
31.26

406
529.50
13,767
14,173
13
0.0
26
> 1 Million
-
26
0.5
31.26

-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
National Totals
241



$
70,694

$ 3,322,803
$ 3,393,497
3,138
1.5
6,275
Grand Totals
2,692



$
908,956

$ 37,066,397
$ 37,975,353
35,001
16.8
-
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Taken from "Baseline for Implementation and Monitoring Activities."
(B)	Semimonthly source water monitoring for one year for small systems and monthly samples for 24 months for medium and large systems, plus two matrix
spike samples.
(C)	Estimate of labor for collecting sample and shipping, based on expert opinion.
(D)	All size categories were assumed to use a technical rate of $24.96/hour, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics rates.
(F) Cost per sample includes $403 in lab costs, $88.70 for shipping, and $37.80 in additional costs. Assume all plants must ship samples to private lab for
Cryptosporidium analysis. Samples must be shipped overnight to meet 24-hour holding time requirements. Costs based on FedEx priority overnight rates for
10 L sample (22 LB) shipped in a 34-quart polyethylene cooler packed with wet ice, median cost for all zones. Samples generating a pellet volume of >0.5 ml
require multiple subsample processing at a cost of $140 each. During the ICR Supplemental Survey, approximately 27 percent of field samples required
analysis of multiple subsamples, resulting in an additional per-plant charge of $38 ($140 x 0.27).
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 31
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.16 Reporting Cost and Labor Estimates for Bin Classification Monitoring
for All Regulatory Alternatives


uost per
baseline ff




System Size
Hours
Labor
of Plants


Total Burden
Total Burden
(Population Served)
per Plant
Hour
Reporting

Total Cost
(Hours)
(PTEs)

A
B
C
D = A*B*C
E = A*C
F = E/2080
CWSs
<100
6.5
$ 21.44
333
$
46,363
2,162
1.0
100-499
6.5
23.09
683

102,435
4,436
2.1
500-999
6.5
30.03
432

84,247
2,805
1.3
1,000-3,299
6.5
30.03
1,072

209,168
6,965
3.3
3,300-9,999
6.5
30.51
1,054

208,964
6,849
3.3
10,000-49,999
6
31.08
1,092

203,602
6,551
3.1
50,000-99,999
6
31.08
264

49,222
1,584
0.8
100,000-999,999
6
35.25
313

66,140
1,876
0.9
> 1 Million
6
35.25
53

11,304
321
0.2
National Totals

5,294
$
981,445
33,549
16.1
NTNCWSs
<100
6.5
$ 21.44
174
$
24,182
1,128
0.5
100-499
6.5
23.09
232

34,868
1,510
0.7
500-999
6.5
30.03
78

15,243
508
0.2
1,000-3,299
6.5
30.03
61

11,855
395
0.2
3,300-9,999
6.5
30.51
13

2,485
81
0.0
10,000-49,999
6
31.08
1

186
6
0.0
50,000-99,999
6
31.08
0

-
-
-
100,000-999,999
6
35.25
0

-
-
-
> 1 Million
6
35.25
0

-
-
-
National Totals

558
$
88,819
3,628
1.7
TNCWSs
<100
6.5
$ 21.44
793
$
110,512
5,155
2.5
100-499
6.5
23.09
509

76,393
3,309
1.6
500-999
6.5
30.03
79

15,421
514
0.2
1,000-3,299
6.5
30.03
49

9,565
319
0.2
3,300-9,999
6.5
30.51
16

3,173
104
0.1
10,000-49,999
6
31.08
9

1,678
54
0.0
50,000-99,999
6
31.08
0

-
-
-
100,000-999,999
6
35.25
1

211
6
0.0
> 1 Million
6
35.25
0

-
-
-
National Totals

1,456
$
216,955
9,459
4.5
Grand Totals

7,308
$
1,287,220
46,636
22.4
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Hours per plant reporting to the State/Primacy Agency for bin classification exemption and to report E. coli
and Cryptosporidium monitoring data and bin classification. Assumes 15 minutes per sample. Based on 24
monthly E. coli and Cryptosporidium samples for medium and large systems and 26 biweekly E. coli and 24
semimonthly Cryptosporidium samples for small systems. Although small systems will not report E. coli and
Cryptosporidium results at the same time, the additional reporting burden is assumed to be negligible. The
decrease in burden for small plants that report E. coli but are exempt from Cryptosporidium monitoring is also
assumed to be negligible.
(B)	For plants serving up to 500 people, the full technical rate ($24.96/hour) was applied. For plants serving more
than 500 people, costs are based on an 80%/20% split between technical and managerial ($44.91/hour) rates.
Rates are based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
(C)	Taken from "Baseline for Implementation and Monitoring Activities," column D.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 32
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.17a State Reporting Costs and Labor Estimate for Initial E. coli and Cryptosporidium Monitoring for Small Systems

FTEs per State

FTEs Per State for






for E. coli
Total Hours
Cryptosporidium
Total Hours for


Cost per

State Activity
Monitoring
for E. coli
Monitoring
Cryptosporidium
Total FTEs Per State
Total Hours
Labor Hour
Total Cost

A
B = A*2080
C
D = C*2080
E = A+C
F = B+D
G
H = F*G
Analyze PWS Report and Make Bin








Classifications
0.3
624
0.2
416
0.5
1040
$ 33.60
$ 34,949
Respond to PWS
0.3
624
0.2
416
0.5
1040
33.60
34,949
Recordkeeping
0.25
520
0.25
520
0.5
1040
33.60
34,949
Totals per State
0.9
1,768
0.7
1,352
2
3,120
-
$ 104,847
National Totals (57








States/Primacy Agencies]
48.5
100,776
37.1
77,064
86
177,840
0
$ 5,976,281
Notes:
Detail may not add to totals due to independent rounding.
All States/Primacy Agencies are assumed to incur some costs for each activitiy.
1 FTE = 2,080 hours (40 hours/week; 52 weeks/year)
Sources:
(A), (C) EPA estimated FTEs based on experience with similar regulations.
(G) Based on information gathered during the development of the State Workload Model.
Exhibit D.17b State Reporting Costs and Labor Estimate for Future E. coli and Cryptosporidium Monitoring





FTEs Per State for






FTEs per State
Total Hours
FTEs Per State for

Cryptosporidium
Total Hours for





for E. coli
for E. coli
Cryptosporidium
Total Hours for
Monitoring in
Cryptosporidium


Cost per


Monitoring in
in Small
Monitoring in Small
Cryptosporidium
Medium & Large
in Medium &
Total FTEs

Labor

State Activity
Small Systems
Systems
Systems
in Small Systems
Systems
Large Systems
Per State
Total Hours
Hour
Total Cost

A
B = A*2080
C
D = C*2080
E
F = E*2080
G = A+C+E
H = B+D+F
I
J = H*l
Analyze PWS Report and Make Bin










Classifications
0.2
416
0.1
208
0.1
208
0.4
832
$ 33.60
$ 27,959
Respond to PWS
0.2
416
0.1
208
0.1
208
0.4
832
33.60
$ 27,959
Recordkeeping
0.25
520
0.25
520
0.25
520
0.75
1560
33.60
$ 52,424
Totals per State
0.7
1,352
0.5
936
0.5
936
1.6
3,224
-
$ 108,342
National Totals (57










States/Primacy Agencies]
37.1
77,064
25.7
53,352
25.7
53,352
88.4
183,768
0
$6,175,490
Notes:
Detail may not add to totals due to independent rounding.
All States/Primacy Agencies are assumed to incur some costs for each activity.
1 FTE = 2,080 hours (40 hours/week; 52 weeks/year)
Sources:
(A), (C), (E) EPA estimated FTEs based on experience with similar regulations.
(I) Based on information gathered during the development of the State Workload Model.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 33
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.18a Burden and Cost to States Associated with Reviewing Plants' Reports on Technology Compliance
Based on ICR Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A2



Number of
Number







Number
Unfiltered
of Plants

Annual

Total

System Size
Number of
of Plants
Plants
Installing

Labor

Annual
Total
(Population
Plants Installing
Installing
Installing
Bank

Hours per

Labor
Annual
Served)
UV
MF/UF
Ozone
Filtration
Total Plants
Plant
Labor Rate
Hours
Costs

A
B
C
D
E = A+B+C+D
F
G
H = E*F
I = G*H
<100
133
94
-
-
227
6
$ 33.60
1,361
$ 45,732
100-499
123
73
-
-
196
6
33.60
1,175
39,478
500-999
49
39
0
-
88
6
33.60
527
17,724
1,000-3,299
271
30
1
-
303
6
33.60
1,815
61,007
3,300-9,999
250
26
1
-
277
6
33.60
1,663
55,888
10,000-49,999
399
27
1
4
431
6
33.60
2,586
86,911
50,000-99,999
109
6
0
1
117
6
33.60
702
23,578
100,000-999,999
126
7
0
1
135
6
33.60
812
27,271
> 1 Million
23
1
-
0
24
6
33.60
146
4,900
Totals
1,483
304
4
6
1,798
0
$
10,787
$ 362,487
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
UV stands for ultraviolet disinfection and MF/UF stands for microfiltration/ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(A), (B), (C) Taken from Appendix G of the Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR.
(F)	Based on an estimate of 0.5 hours per month needed to review each plant's reports.
(G)	Based on information gathered during the development of the State Workload Model.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D- 34
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.18b Burden and Cost to States Associated with Reviewing Plants' Reports on Technology Compliance
Based on ICRSSM Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A2



Number of
Number







Number
Unfiltered
of Plants

Annual

Total

System Size
Number of
of Plants
Plants
Installing

Labor

Annual
Total
(Population
Plants Installing
Installing
Installing
Bank

Hours per

Labor
Annual
Served)
UV
MF/UF
Ozone
Filtration
Total Plants
Plant
Labor Rate
Hours
Costs

A
B
C
D
E = A+B+C+D
F
G
H = E*F
I = G*H
<100
75
87
-
-
162
6
$ 33.60
972
$ 32,676
100-499
70
67
-
-
138
6
33.60
826
27,765
500-999
29
36
0
-
65
6
33.60
392
13,159
1,000-3,299
194
26
1
-
220
6
33.60
1,322
44,414
3,300-9,999
178
22
1
-
202
6
33.60
1,211
40,685
10,000-49,999
337
22
1
4
364
6
33.60
2,184
73,380
50,000-99,999
92
5
0
1
99
6
33.60
593
19,938
100,000-999,999
106
6
0
1
113
6
33.60
679
22,831
> 1 Million
19
1
-
0
21
6
33.60
123
4,143
Totals
1,101
273
4
6
1,384
0
$
8,302
$ 278,991
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
UV stands for ultraviolet disinfection and MF/UF stands for microfiltration/ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(A), (B), (C) Taken from Appendix G of the Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR.
(F)	Based on an estimate of 0.5 hours per month needed to review each plant's reports.
(G)	Based on information gathered during the development of the State Workload Model.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D- 35
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.18c Burden and Cost to States Associated with Reviewing Plants' Reports on Technology Compliance
Based on ICRSSL Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A2



Number of
Number







Number
Unfiltered
of Plants

Annual

Total

System Size
Number of
of Plants
Plants
Installing

Labor

Annual
Total
(Population
Plants Installing
Installing
Installing
Bank

Hours per

Labor
Annual
Served)
UV
MF/UF
Ozone
Filtration
Total Plants
Plant
Labor Rate
Hours
Costs

A
B
C
D
E = A+B+C+D
F
G
H = E*F
I = G*H
<100
60
86
-
-
145
6
$ 33.60
873
$ 29,327
100-499
57
66
-
-
123
6
33.60
737
24,760
500-999
23
36
0
-
59
6
33.60
357
11,987
1,000-3,299
154
24
1
-
180
6
33.60
1,077
36,198
3,300-9,999
142
21
1
-
165
6
33.60
988
33,186
10,000-49,999
294
20
1
3
319
6
33.60
1,913
64,291
50,000-99,999
81
5
0
1
87
6
33.60
520
17,491
100,000-999,999
92
6
0
1
99
6
33.60
592
19,878
> 1 Million
17
1
-
0
18
6
33.60
108
3,640
Totals
920
264
4
6
1,194
0
$
7,164
$ 240,758
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
UV stands for ultraviolet disinfection and MF/UF stands for microfiltration/ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(A), (B), (C) Taken from Appendix G of the Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR.
(F)	Based on an estimate of 0.5 hours per month needed to review each plant's reports.
(G)	Based on information gathered during the development of the State Workload Model.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D- 36
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.19a Burden and Cost to States Associated with Reviewing Plants' Reports on Technology Compliance
Based on ICR Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A3



Number of
Number







Number
Unfiltered
of Plants

Annual

Total

System Size
Number of
of Plants
Plants
Installing

Labor

Annual
Total
(Population
Plants Installing
Installing
Installing
Bank

Hours per

Labor
Annual
Served)
UV
MF/UF
Ozone
Filtration
Total Plants
Plant
Labor Rate
Hours
Costs

A
B
C
D
E = A+B+C+D
F
G
H = E*F
I = G*H
<100
85
88
-
-
173
6
$ 33.60
1,037
$ 34,853
100-499
79
68
-
-
147
6
33.60
884
29,718
500-999
32
37
0
-
69
6
33.60
414
13,928
1,000-3,299
125
27
1
-
154
6
33.60
922
30,976
3,300-9,999
116
23
1
-
140
6
33.60
840
28,220
10,000-49,999
366
22
1
4
392
6
33.60
2,353
79,075
50,000-99,999
100
5
0
1
107
6
33.60
639
21,488
100,000-999,999
115
6
0
1
122
6
33.60
734
24,655
> 1 Million
21
1
-
0
22
6
33.60
132
4,449
Totals
1,038
277
4
6
1,326
0
$
7,956
$ 267,362
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
UV stands for ultraviolet disinfection and MF/UF stands for microfiltration/ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(A), (B), (C) Taken from Appendix G of the Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR.
(F)	Based on an estimate of 0.5 hours per month needed to review each plant's reports.
(G)	Based on information gathered during the development of the State Workload Model.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 37
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.19b Burden and Cost to States Associated with Reviewing Plants' Reports on Technology Compliance
Based on ICRSSM Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A3



Number of
Number







Number
Unfiltered
of Plants

Annual

Total

System Size
Number of
of Plants
Plants
Installing

Labor

Annual
Total
(Population
Plants Installing
Installing
Installing
Bank

Hours per

Labor
Annual
Served)
UV
MF/UF
Ozone
Filtration
Total Plants
Plant
Labor Rate
Hours
Costs

A
B
C
D
E = A+B+C+D
F
G
H = E*F
I = G*H
<100
47
84
-
-
131
6
$ 33.60
789
$ 26,514
100-499
46
65
-
-
110
6
33.60
662
22,236
500-999
19
35
0
-
55
6
33.60
328
11,014
1,000-3,299
61
24
1
-
86
6
33.60
518
17,406
3,300-9,999
56
21
1
-
78
6
33.60
470
15,808
10,000-49,999
286
18
1
3
309
6
33.60
1,852
62,229
50,000-99,999
78
4
0
1
84
6
33.60
504
16,948
100,000-999,999
89
5
0
1
96
6
33.60
574
19,297
> 1 Million
17
1
-
0
18
6
33.60
105
3,539
Totals
700
257
4
6
967
0
$
5,802
$ 194,992
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
UV stands for ultraviolet disinfection and MF/UF stands for microfiltration/ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(A), (B), (C) Taken from Appendix G of the Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR.
(F)	Based on an estimate of 0.5 hours per month needed to review each plant's reports.
(G)	Based on information gathered during the development of the State Workload Model.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D- 38
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.19c Burden and Cost to States Associated with Reviewing Plants' Reports on Technology Compliance
Based on ICRSSL Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A3



Number of
Number







Number
Unfiltered
of Plants

Annual

Total

System Size
Number of
of Plants
Plants
Installing

Labor

Annual
Total
(Population
Plants Installing
Installing
Installing
Bank

Hours per

Labor
Annual
Served)
UV
MF/UF
Ozone
Filtration
Total Plants
Plant
Labor Rate
Hours
Costs

A
B
C
D
E = A+B+C+D
F
G
H = E*F
I = G*H
<100
37
83
-
-
120
6
$ 33.60
718
$ 24,121
100-499
36
64
-
-
100
6
33.60
598
20,089
500-999
15
35
0
-
50
6
33.60
303
10,178
1,000-3,299
44
23
1
-
68
6
33.60
411
13,796
3,300-9,999
40
21
1
-
62
6
33.60
373
12,548
10,000-49,999
237
17
1
3
258
6
33.60
1,549
52,047
50,000-99,999
65
4
0
1
70
6
33.60
423
14,200
100,000-999,999
74
5
0
1
80
6
33.60
479
16,097
> 1 Million
14
1
-
0
15
6
33.60
89
2,996
Totals
562
252
4
5
824
0
$
4,942
$ 166,072
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
UV stands for ultraviolet disinfection and MF/UF stands for microfiltration/ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(A), (B), (C) Taken from Appendix G of the Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR.
(F)	Based on an estimate of 0.5 hours per month needed to review each plant's reports.
(G)	Based on information gathered during the development of the State Workload Model.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D- 39
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.20a Burden and Cost to States Associated with Reviewing Plants' Reports on Technology Compliance
Based on ICR Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A4



Number of
Number







Number
Unfiltered
of Plants

Annual

Total

System Size
Number of
of Plants
Plants
Installing

Labor

Annual
Total
(Population
Plants Installing
Installing
Installing
Bank

Hours per

Labor
Annual
Served)
UV
MF/UF
Ozone
Filtration
Total Plants
Plant
Labor Rate
Hours
Costs

A
B
C
D
E = A+B+C+D
F
G
H = E*F
I = G*H
<100
36
83
-
-
118
6
$ 33.60
710
$ 23,874
100-499
35
64
-
-
99
6
33.60
591
19,868
500-999
15
35
0
-
50
6
33.60
300
10,084
1,000-3,299
38
22
1
-
62
6
33.60
369
12,413
3,300-9,999
35
20
1
-
57
6
33.60
340
11,439
10,000-49,999
174
16
1
2
194
6
33.60
1,164
39,116
50,000-99,999
48
4
0
1
53
6
33.60
319
10,711
100,000-999,999
53
5
0
1
59
6
33.60
352
11,819
> 1 Million
10
1
-
0
11
6
33.60
67
2,267
Totals
445
250
4
3
702
0
$
4,213
$ 141,591
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
UV stands for ultraviolet disinfection and MF/UF stands for microfiltration/ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(A), (B), (C) Taken from Appendix G of the Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR.
(F)	Based on an estimate of 0.5 hours per month needed to review each plant's reports.
(G)	Based on information gathered during the development of the State Workload Model.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 40
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.20b Burden and Cost to States Associated with Reviewing Plants' Reports on Technology Compliance
Based on ICRSSM Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A4



Number of
Number







Number
Unfiltered
of Plants

Annual

Total

System Size
Number of
of Plants
Plants
Installing

Labor

Annual
Total
(Population
Plants Installing
Installing
Installing
Bank

Hours per

Labor
Annual
Served)
UV
MF/UF
Ozone
Filtration
Total Plants
Plant
Labor Rate
Hours
Costs

A
B
C
D
E = A+B+C+D
F
G
H = E*F
I = G*H
<100
24
81
-
-
105
6
$ 33.60
630
$ 21,174
100-499
24
62
-
-
87
6
33.60
519
17,446
500-999
11
34
0
-
45
6
33.60
272
9,141
1,000-3,299
30
22
1
-
53
6
33.60
317
10,653
3,300-9,999
28
20
1
-
49
6
33.60
295
9,900
10,000-49,999
106
16
1
1
124
6
33.60
745
25,027
50,000-99,999
30
4
0
0
34
6
33.60
205
6,905
100,000-999,999
32
5
0
0
37
6
33.60
222
7,451
> 1 Million
7
1
-
0
8
6
33.60
45
1,527
Totals
289
246
4
2
542
0
$
3,250
$ 109,223
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
UV stands for ultraviolet disinfection and MF/UF stands for microfiltration/ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(A), (B), (C) Taken from Appendix G of the Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR.
(F)	Based on an estimate of 0.5 hours per month needed to review each plant's reports.
(G)	Based on information gathered during the development of the State Workload Model.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 41
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.20c Burden and Cost to States Associated with Reviewing Plants' Reports on Technology Compliance
Based on ICRSSL Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A4



Number of
Number







Number
Unfiltered
of Plants

Annual

Total

System Size
Number of
of Plants
Plants
Installing

Labor

Annual
Total
(Population
Plants Installing
Installing
Installing
Bank

Hours per

Labor
Annual
Served)
UV
MF/UF
Ozone
Filtration
Total Plants
Plant
Labor Rate
Hours
Costs

A
B
C
D
E = A+B+C+D
F
G
H = E*F
I = G*H
<100
17
81
-
-
98
6
$ 33.60
588
$ 19,763
100-499
19
62
-
-
80
6
33.60
481
16,180
500-999
9
34
0
-
43
6
33.60
257
8,650
1,000-3,299
25
22
1
-
48
6
33.60
290
9,754
3,300-9,999
24
20
1
-
45
6
33.60
271
9,098
10,000-49,999
76
16
1
1
94
6
33.60
565
18,982
50,000-99,999
22
4
0
0
26
6
33.60
157
5,272
100,000-999,999
23
5
0
0
28
6
33.60
167
5,604
> 1 Million
5
1
-
0
6
6
33.60
36
1,215
Totals
219
244
4
1
469
0
$
2,813
$ 94,516
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
UV stands for ultraviolet disinfection and MF/UF stands for microfiltration/ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(A), (B), (C) Taken from Appendix G of the Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR.
(F)	Based on an estimate of 0.5 hours per month needed to review each plant's reports.
(G)	Based on information gathered during the development of the State Workload Model.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 42
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.21a Plant Burden and Cost for Preparing Reports Demonstrating Technology Compliance
Based on ICR Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A2

Number of
Number

Number of

Annual

Total

System Size
Plants
of Plants
Number of
Unfiltered

Labor

Annual

(Population
Installing
Installing
Plants Installing
Plants Installing

Hours per
Labor
Labor
Total Annual
Served)
UV
MF/UF
Bank Filtration
Ozone
Total Plants
Plant
Rate
Hours
Costs

A
B
C
D
E=A+B+C+D
F
G
H=E*F
l=G*H
CWS
<100
24
54
-
0.0
78
36
$ 21.44
2,823
$ 60,530
100-499
56
51
-
0.0
106
36
23.09
3,828
88,397
500-999
34
32
-
0.3
66
36
30.03
2,373
71,276
1,000-3,299
238
28
-
1.2
268
36
30.03
9,637
289,421
3,300-9,999
241
26
-
1.2
268
36
30.51
9,635
293,974
10,000-49,999
394
27
4
1.1
425
36
31.08
15,310
475,837
50,000-99,999
109
6
1
0.4
117
36
31.08
4,210
130,839
100,000-999,999
126
7
1
0.3
135
36
35.25
4,845
170,784
> 1 Million
22
1
0
0.0
24
36
35.25
851
29,989
National Totals
1,243
232
6
4.5
1,486

53,513
$ 1,611,047
NTNCWS
<100
14
29
-
0.0
42
36
$ 21.44
1,526
$ 32,713
100-499
21
18
-
0.0
39
36
23.09
1,392
32,133
500-999
7
6
-
0.0
13
36
30.03
471
14,134
1,000-3,299
18
2
-
0.0
20
36
30.03
724
21,747
3,300-9,999
5
0
-
0.0
5
36
30.51
194
5,933
10,000-49,999
2
0
0
0.0
2
36
31.08
61
1,884
50,000-99,999
-
-
-
0.0
-
36
31.08
-
-
100,000-999,999
0
0
0
0.0
0
36
35.25
12
417
> 1 Million
-
-
-
0.0
-


-
-
National Totals
67
54
0
0.0
122


4,379
$ 108,960
TNCWS
<100
95
11
-
0.0
106
36
$ 21.44
3,816
$ 81,819
100-499
46
5
-
0.0
51
36
23.09
1,829
42,224
500-999
8
1
-
0.0
9
36
30.03
321
9,627
1,000-3,299
14
0
-
0.0
15
36
30.03
531
15,957
3,300-9,999
4
0
-
0.0
4
36
30.51
149
4,557
10,000-49,999
4
0
0
0.0
4
36
31.08
147
4,565
50,000-99,999
-
-
-
0.0
-
36
31.08
-
-
100,000-999,999
0
0
0
0.0
0
36
35.25
12
424
> 1 Million
1
0
0
0.0
1
36
35.25
24
846
National Totals
172
17
0
0.0
190


6,829
$ 160,020
Grand Totals
1,483
304
6
4.5
1,798


64,721
$ 1,880,026
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
UV stands for ultraviolet disinfection and MF/UF stands for microfiltration/ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(A), (B), (C) Taken from Appendix G of the LT2ESWTR.
(E)	Based on an estimate of 3 hours per month to prepare each report.
(F)	For plants serving up to 500 people, the full technical rate ($24.96/hour) was applied. For plants serving more than 500 people, costs are based
on an 80%/20% split between technical and managerial ($44.91/hour) rates. Rates are based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 43
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.21b Plant Burden and Cost for Preparing Reports Demonstrating Technology Compliance
Based on ICRSSM Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A2

Number of
Number

Number of

Annual

Total

System Size
Plants
of Plants
Number of
Unfiltered

Labor

Annual

(Population
Installing
Installing
Plants Installing
Plants Installing

Hours per
Labor
Labor
Total Annual
Served)
UV
MF/UF
Bank Filtration
Ozone
Total Plants
Plant
Rate
Hours
Costs

A
B
C
D
E=A+B+C+
F
G
H=E*F
l=G*H
CWS
<100
14
53
-
0.0
67
36
$ 21.44
2,418
$ 51,848
100-499
33
48
-
0.0
81
36
23.09
2,915
67,308
500-999
20
30
-
0.3
51
36
30.03
1,826
54,842
1,000-3,299
171
24
-
1.2
196
36
30.03
7,051
211,746
3,300-9,999
172
22
-
1.2
195
36
30.51
7,025
214,334
10,000-49,999
333
22
4
1.1
359
36
31.08
12,929
401,831
50,000-99,999
92
5
1
0.4
99
36
31.08
3,560
110,642
100,000-999,999
105
6
1
0.3
113
36
35.25
4,057
142,988
> 1 Million
19
1
0
0.0
20
36
35.25
720
25,376
National Totals
959
211
6
4.5
1,181


42,500
$ 1,280,914
NTNCWS
<100
8
28
-
0.0
36
36
$ 21.44
1,283
$ 27,501
100-499
12
17
-
0.0
28
36
23.09
1,020
23,554
500-999
4
6
-
0.0
10
36
30.03
344
10,341
1,000-3,299
13
1
-
0.0
14
36
30.03
513
15,394
3,300-9,999
4
0
-
0.0
4
36
30.51
137
4,168
10,000-49,999
1
0
0
0.0
1
36
31.08
51
1,571
50,000-99,999
-
-
-
0.0
-
36
31.08
-
-
100,000-999,999
0
0
0
0.0
0
36
35.25
10
344
> 1 Million
-
-
-
0.0
-
36
35.25
-
-
National Totals
41
52
0
0.0
93


3,357
$ 82,874
TNCWS
<100
53
6
-
0.0
59
36
$ 21.44
2,133
$ 45,736
100-499
26
3
-
0.0
28
36
23.09
1,022
23,602
500-999
4
0
-
0.0
5
36
30.03
179
5,377
1,000-3,299
10
0
-
0.0
10
36
30.03
367
11,010
3,300-9,999
3
0
-
0.0
3
36
30.51
103
3,139
10,000-49,999
3
0
0
0.0
3
36
31.08
122
3,801
50,000-99,999
-
-
-
0.0
-
36
31.08
-
-
100,000-999,999
0
0
0
0.0
0
36
35.25
10
351
> 1 Million
1
0
0
0.0
1
36
35.25
20
698
National Totals
100
10
0
0.0
110


3,956
$ 93,714
Grand Totals
1,101
273
6
4.5
1,384


49,813
$ 1,457,502
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
UV stands for ultraviolet disinfection and MF/UF stands for microfiltration/ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(A), (B), (C) Taken from Appendix G of the LT2ESWTR.
(E)	Based on an estimate of 3 hours per month to prepare each report.
(F)	For plants serving up to 500 people, the full technical rate ($24.96/hour) was applied. For plants serving more than 500 people, costs are
based on an 80%/20% split between technical and managerial ($44.91/hour) rates. Rates are based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 44
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.21c Plant Burden and Cost for Preparing Reports Demonstrating Technology Compliance
Based on ICRSSL Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A2

Number of
Number

Number of

Annual

Total

System Size
Plants
of Plants
Number of
Unfiltered

Labor

Annual

(Population
Installing
Installing
Plants Installing
Plants Installing

Hours per
Labor
Labor
Total Annual
Served)
UV
MF/UF
Bank Filtration
Ozone
Total Plants
Plant
Rate
Hours
Costs

A
B
C
D
E=A+B+C+D
F
G
H=E*F
l=G*H
CWS
<100
11
53
-
0.0
64
36
$ 21.44
2,314
$ 49,620
101-500
27
47
-
0.0
74
36
23.09
2,681
61,898
501-1000
17
30
-
0.3
47
36
30.03
1,686
50,624
1001-3,300
136
23
-
1.2
160
36
30.03
5,770
173,287
3,301-10,000
137
21
-
1.2
159
36
30.51
5,737
175,051
10,001-50,000
290
20
3
1.1
315
36
31.08
11,329
352,115
50,001-100,000
81
5
1
0.4
87
36
31.08
3,123
97,060
100,001-1 Million
91
6
1
0.3
98
36
35.25
3,532
124,502
> 1 Million
17
1
0
0.0
18
36
35.25
633
22,307
National Totals
807
205
5
4.5
1,022


36,805
$ 1,106,465
NTNCWS
<100
6
28
-
0.0
34
36
$ 21.44
1,220
$ 26,164
101-500
9
16
-
0.0
26
36
23.09
925
21,353
501-1000
3
5
-
0.0
9
36
30.03
312
9,367
1001-3,300
10
1
-
0.0
11
36
30.03
408
12,248
3,301-10,000
3
0
-
0.0
3
36
30.51
108
3,298
10,001-50,000
1
0
0
0.0
1
36
31.08
44
1,361
50,001-100,000
-
-
-
0.0
-
36
31.08
-
-
100,001-1 Million
0
0
0
0.0
0
36
35.25
8
296
> 1 Million
-
-
-
0.0
-
36
35.25
-
-
National Totals
33
51
0
0.0
84


3,025
$ 74,088
TNCWS
<100
43
5
-
0.0
47
36
$ 21.44
1,701
$ 36,479
100-499
20
2
-
0.0
23
36
23.09
815
18,825
500-999
4
0
-
0.0
4
36
30.03
143
4,286
1,000-3,299
8
0
-
0.0
8
36
30.03
285
8,561
3,300-9,999
2
0
-
0.0
2
36
30.51
80
2,439
10,000-49,999
3
0
0
0.0
3
36
31.08
106
3,288
50,000-99,999
-
-
-
0.0
-
36
31.08
-
-
100,000-999,999
0
0
0
0.0
0
36
35.25
9
301
> 1 Million
0
0
0
0.0
0
36
35.25
17
600
National Totals
80
8
0
0.0
88


3,156
$ 74,780
Grand Totals
920
264
6
4.5
1,194


42,986
$ 1,255,334
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
UV stands for ultraviolet disinfection and MF/UF stands for microfiltration/ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(A), (B), (C) Taken from Appendix G of the LT2ESWTR.
(E)	Based on an estimate of 3 hours per month to prepare each report.
(F)	For plants serving up to 500 people, the full technical rate ($24.96/hour) was applied. For plants serving more than 500 people, costs are based
on an 80%/20% split between technical and managerial ($44.91/hour) rates. Rates are based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 45
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.22a Plant Burden and Cost for Preparing Reports Demonstrating Technology Compliance
Based on ICR Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A3

Number of
Number

Number of

Annual

Total


System Size
Plants
of Plants
Number of
Unfiltered

Labor

Annual


(Population
Installing
Installing
Plants Installing
Plants Installing

Hours per
Labor
Labor
Total Annual
Served)
UV
MF/UF
Bank Filtration
Ozone
Total Plants
Plant
Rate
Hours

Costs

A
B
C
D
E=A+B+C+D
F
G
H=E*F
l=G H
CWS
<100
16
54
-
0.0
69
36
$ 21.44
2,486
$
53,296
100-499
37
48
-
0.0
85
36
23.09
3,067

70,825
500-999
23
31
-
0.3
53
36
30.03
1,918

57,611
1,000-3,299
111
25
-
1.2
138
36
30.03
4,956

148,845
3,300-9,999
112
23
-
1.2
136
36
30.51
4,885

149,037
10,000-49,999
361
21
4
1.1
387
36
31.08
13,931

432,980
50,000-99,999
100
5
1
0.4
107
36
31.08
3,837

119,240
100,000-999,999
114
6
1
0.3
122
36
35.25
4,381

154,406
> 1 Million
20
1
0
0.0
21
36
35.25
773

27,240
National Totals
893
214
6
4.5
1,118


40,233
$
1,213,480
NTNCWS
<100
9
28
-
0.0
37
36
$ 21.44
1,323
$
28,371
100-499
13
17
-
0.0
30
36
23.09
1,082

24,985
500-999
5
6
-
0.0
10
36
30.03
366

10,980
1,000-3,299
8
2
-
0.0
9
36
30.03
341

10,249
3,300-9,999
2
0
-
0.0
2
36
30.51
89

2,722
10,000-49,999
1
0
0
0.0
2
36
31.08
55

1,703
50,000-99,999
-
-
-
0.0
-
36
31.08
-

-
100,000-999,999
0
0
0
0.0
0
36
35.25
11

374
> 1 Million
-
-
-
0.0
-
36
35.25
-

-
National Totals
38
52
0
0.0
91


3,267
$
79,382
TNCWS
<100
60
7
-
0.0
67
36
$ 21.44
2,414
$
51,753
100-499
29
3
-
0.0
32
36
23.09
1,157

26,708
500-999
5
1
-
0.0
6
36
30.03
203

6,093
1,000-3,299
6
0
-
0.0
6
36
30.03
233

7,004
3,300-9,999
2
0
-
0.0
2
36
30.51
65

1,976
10,000-49,999
4
0
0
0.0
4
36
31.08
133

4,123
50,000-99,999
-
-
-
0.0
-
36
31.08
-

-
100,000-999,999
0
0
0
0.0
0
36
35.25
11

381
> 1 Million
1
0
0
0.0
1
36
35.25
22

758
National Totals
107
11
0
0.0
118


4,236
$
98,796
Grand Totals
1,038
277
6
4.5
1,326


47,736
$
1,391,658
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
UV stands for ultraviolet disinfection and MF/UF stands for microfiltration/ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(A), (B), (C) Taken from Appendix G of the LT2ESWTR.
(E)	Based on an estimate of 3 hours per month to prepare each report.
(F)	For plants serving up to 500 people, the full technical rate ($24.96/hour) was applied. For plants serving more than 500 people, costs are based
on an 80%/20% split between technical and managerial ($44.91/hour) rates. Rates are based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 46
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.22b Plant Burden and Cost for Preparing Reports Demonstrating Technology Compliance
Based on ICRSSM Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A3

Number of
Number

Number of

Annual

Total

System Size
Plants
of Plants
Number of
Unfiltered

Labor

Annual
Total
(Population
Installing
Installing
Plants Installing
Plants Installing

Hours per
Labor
Labor
Annual
Served)
UV
MF/UF
Bank Filtration
Ozone
Total Plants
Plant
Rate
Hours
Costs

A
B
C
D
E=A+B+C+D
F
G
H=E*F
l=G*H
CWS
<100
9
53
0.0
-
62
36
$ 21.44
2,227
$ 47,750
100-499
22
47
0.0
-
69
36
23.09
2,484
57,354
500-999
14
30
0.0
0
44
36
30.03
1,569
47,120
1,000-3,299
55
23
0.0
1
79
36
30.03
2,841
85,321
3,300-9,999
55
21
0.0
1
76
36
30.51
2,754
84,022
10,000-49,999
282
18
3.4
1
305
36
31.08
10,966
340,836
50,000-99,999
78
4
0.9
0
84
36
31.08
3,026
94,049
100,000-999,999
89
5
1.0
0
95
36
35.25
3,429
120,868
> 1 Million
16
1
0.1
-
17
36
35.25
615
21,691
National Totals
620
201
5.4
4
831


29,912
$ 899,009
NTNCWS
<100
5
28
0.0
-
32
36
$ 21.44
1,168
$ 25,041
100-499
7
16
0.0
-
23
36
23.09
845
19,505
500-999
3
5
0.0
-
8
36
30.03
285
8,559
1,000-3,299
3
1
0.0
-
5
36
30.03
168
5,053
3,300-9,999
1
0
0.0
-
1
36
30.51
42
1,281
10,000-49,999
1
0
0.0
-
1
36
31.08
42
1,314
50,000-99,999
-
-
0.0
-
0
36
31.08
0
-
100,000-999,999
0
0
0.0
-
0
36
35.25
8
286
> 1 Million
-
-
0.0
-
0
36
35.25
0
-
National Totals
20
51
0.0
-
71


2,558
$ 61,039
TNCWS
<100
33
4
0.0
-
37
36
$ 21.44
1,339
$ 28,704
100-499
16
2
0.0
-
18
36
23.09
642
14,813
500-999
3
0
0.0
-
3
36
30.03
113
3,379
1,000-3,299
3
0
0.0
-
3
36
30.03
99
2,959
3,300-9,999
1
0
0.0
-
1
36
30.51
27
818
10,000-49,999
3
0
0.0
-
3
36
31.08
102
3,171
50,000-99,999
-
-
0.0
-
0
36
31.08
0
-
100,000-999,999
0
0
0.0
-
0
36
35.25
8
292
> 1 Million
0
0
0.0
-
0
36
35.25
16
581
National Totals
59
6
0.0
-
65


2,345
$ 54,717
Grand Totals
700
257
5.5
4
967


34,815
$1,014,765
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
UV stands for ultraviolet disinfection and MF/UF stands for microfiltration/ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(A), (B), (C) Taken from Appendix G of the LT2ESWTR.
(E)	Based on an estimate of 3 hours per month to prepare each report.
(F)	For plants serving up to 500 people, the full technical rate ($24.96/hour) was applied. For plants serving more than 500 people, costs are
based on an 80%/20% split between technical and managerial ($44.91/hour) rates. Rates are based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 47
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.22c Plant Burden and Cost for Preparing Reports Demonstrating Technology Compliance
Based on ICRSSL Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A3
System Size
Plants
of Plants
Number of
Number of

Labor

Annual
Total
(Population
Installing
Installing
Plants Installing
Unfiltered Plants

Hours per
Labor
Labor
Annual
Served)
UV
MF/UF
Bank Filtration
Installing Ozone
Total Plants
Plant
Rate
Hours
Costs

A
B
C
D
E=A+B+C+D
F
G
H=E*F
l=G*H
CWS
<100
7
53
-
0.0
60
36
$ 21.44
2,153
$ 46,158
100-499
18
46
-
0.0
64
36
23.09
2,317
53,489
500-999
11
29
-
0.3
41
36
30.03
1,469
44,109
1,000-3,299
40
22
-
1.2
63
36
30.03
2,278
68,424
3,300-9,999
39
20
-
1.2
61
36
30.51
2,194
66,940
10,000-49,999
234
17
3
1.1
255
36
31.08
9,175
285,145
50,000-99,999
65
4
1
0.4
70
36
31.08
2,535
78,799
100,000-999,999
73
5
1
0.3
79
36
35.25
2,861
100,833
> 1 Million
14
1
0
0.0
14
36
35.25
521
18,381
National Totals
502
198
5
4.5
708

25,503
$ 762,279
NTNCWS
<100
4
27
-
0.0
31
36
$ 21.44
1,123
$ 24,086
100-499
6
16
-
0.0
22
36
23.09
777
17,933
500-999
2
5
-
0.0
7
36
30.03
262
7,864
1,000-3,299
2
1
-
0.0
3
36
30.03
122
3,671
3,300-9,999
1
0
-
0.0
1
36
30.51
30
902
10,000-49,999
1
0
0
0.0
1
36
31.08
35
1,078
50,000-99,999
-
-
-
0.0
-
36
31.08
-
-
100,000-999,999
0
0
0
0.0
0
36
35.25
7
234
> 1 Million
-
-
-
0.0
-
36
35.25
-
-
National Totals
15
50
0
0.0
65

2,355
$ 55,768
TNCWS
<100
26
3
-
0.0
29
36
$ 21.44
1,030
$ 22,090
100-499
12
1
-
0.0
14
36
23.09
494
11,400
500-999
2
0
-
0.0
2
36
30.03
87
2,600
1,000-3,299
2
0
-
0.0
2
36
30.03
63
1,883
3,300-9,999
0
0
-
0.0
0
36
30.51
17
514
10,000-49,999
2
0
0
0.0
2
36
31.08
84
2,596
50,000-99,999
-
-
-
0.0
-
36
31.08
-
-
100,000-999,999
0
0
0
0.0
0
36
35.25
7
239
> 1 Million
0
0
0
0.0
0
36
35.25
13
475
National Totals
45
5
0
0.0
50

1,794
$ 41,796
Grand Totals
562
252
5
4.5
824

29,651
$ 859,844
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
UV stands for ultraviolet disinfection and MF/UF stands for microfiltration/ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(A), (B), (C) Taken from Appendix G of the LT2ESWTR.
(E)	Based on an estimate of 3 hours per month to prepare each report.
(F)	For plants serving up to 500 people, the full technical rate ($24.96/hour) was applied. For plants serving more than 500 people, costs are based
on an 80%/20% split between technical and managerial ($44.91/hour) rates. Rates are based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 48
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.23a Plant Burden and Cost for Preparing Reports Demonstrating Technology Compliance
Based on ICR Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A4

Number of
Number

Number of

Annual

Total

System Size
Plants
of Plants
Number of
Unfiltered

Labor

Annual
Total
(Population
Installing
Installing
Plants Installing
Plants Installing

Hours per
Labor
Labor
Annual
Served)
UV
MF/UF
Bank Filtration
Ozone
Total Plants
Plant
Rate
Hours
Costs

A
B
C
D
E=A+B+C+D
F
G
H=E*F
l=G*H
CWS
<100
7
53
-
0.0
60
36
$ 21.44
2,145
$ 45,994
100-499
18
46
-
0.0
64
36
23.09
2,299
53,091
500-999
11
29
-
0.3
40
36
30.03
1,457
43,771
1,000-3,299
35
21
-
1.2
57
36
30.03
2,063
61,949
3,300-9,999
34
20
-
1.2
56
36
30.51
2,003
61,131
10,000-49,999
172
16
2
1.1
192
36
31.08
6,899
214,416
50,000-99,999
48
4
1
0.4
53
36
31.08
1,912
59,437
100,000-999,999
53
5
1
0.3
58
36
35.25
2,101
74,050
> 1 Million
10
1
0
0.0
11
36
35.25
395
13,935
National Totals
388
195
3
4.5
591


21,276
$ 627,774
NTNCWS
<100
4
27
-
0.0
31
36
$ 21.44
1,119
$ 23,988
100-499
6
16
-
0.0
21
36
23.09
770
17,771
500-999
2
5
-
0.0
7
36
30.03
259
7,786
1,000-3,299
2
1
-
0.0
3
36
30.03
105
3,141
3,300-9,999
0
0
-
0.0
1
36
30.51
25
774
10,000-49,999
1
0
0
0.0
1
36
31.08
25
780
50,000-99,999
-
-
-
0.0
-
36
31.08
-
-
100,000-999,999
0
0
0
0.0
0
36
35.25
5
165
> 1 Million
-
-
-
0.0
-
36
35.25
-
-
National Totals
14
50
0
0.0
64


2,307
$ 54,403
TNCWS
<100
25
3
-
0.0
28
36
$ 21.44
999
$ 21,409
100-499
12
1
-
0.0
13
36
23.09
478
11,048
500-999
2
0
-
0.0
2
36
30.03
84
2,513
1,000-3,299
1
0
-
0.0
1
36
30.03
49
1,470
3,300-9,999
0
0
-
0.0
0
36
30.51
13
411
10,000-49,999
2
0
0
0.0
2
36
31.08
60
1,866
50,000-99,999
-
-
-
0.0
-
36
31.08
-
-
100,000-999,999
0
0
0
0.0
0
36
35.25
5
168
> 1 Million
0
0
0
0.0
0
36
35.25
9
333
National Totals
43
4
0
0.0
47


1,697
$ 39,217
Grand Totals
445
250
3
4.5
702


25,280
$ 721,394
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
UV stands for ultraviolet disinfection and MF/UF stands for microfiltration/ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(A), (B), (C) Taken from Appendix G of the LT2ESWTR.
(E)	Based on an estimate of 3 hours per month to prepare each report.
(F)	For plants serving up to 500 people, the full technical rate ($24.96/hour) was applied. For plants serving more than 500 people, costs are
based on an 80%/20% split between technical and managerial ($44.91/hour) rates. Rates are based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 49
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.23b Plant Burden and Cost for Preparing Reports Demonstrating Technology Compliance
Based on ICRSSM Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A4

Number of
Number

Number of

Annual

Total

System Size
Plants
of Plants
Number of
Unfiltered

Labor

Annual
Total
(Population
Installing
Installing
Plants Installing
Plants Installing

Hours per
Labor
Labor
Annual
Served)
UV
MF/UF
Bank Filtration
Ozone
Total Plants
Plant
Rate
Hours
Costs

A
B
C
D
E=A+B+C+D
F
G
H=E*F
l=G*H
CWS
<100
5
52
-
0.0
57
36
$ 21.44
2,061
$ 44,198
100-499
13
46
-
0.0
59
36
23.09
2,110
48,728
500-999
8
29
-
0.3
37
36
30.03
1,345
40,378
1,000-3,299
28
21
-
1.2
50
36
30.03
1,788
53,707
3,300-9,999
27
20
-
1.2
48
36
30.51
1,739
53,069
10,000-49,999
104
16
1
1.1
123
36
31.08
4,419
137,358
50,000-99,999
30
4
0
0.4
34
36
31.08
1,233
38,317
100,000-999,999
32
5
0
0.3
37
36
35.25
1,325
46,701
> 1 Million
7
1
0
0.0
7
36
35.25
267
9,424
National Totals
253
193
2
4.5
452


16,289
$ 471,881
NTNCWS
<100
2
27
-
0.0
30
36
$ 21.44
1,069
$ 22,910
100-499
4
16
-
0.0
19
36
23.09
693
15,996
500-999
1
5
-
0.0
6
36
30.03
233
7,003
1,000-3,299
1
1
-
0.0
2
36
30.03
82
2,467
3,300-9,999
0
0
-
0.0
1
36
30.51
20
595
10,000-49,999
0
0
0
0.0
0
36
31.08
15
454
50,000-99,999
-
-
-
0.0
-
36
31.08
-
-
100,000-999,999
0
0
0
0.0
0
36
35.25
3
93
> 1 Million
-
-
-
0.0
-
36
35.25
-
-
National Totals
9
50
0
0.0
59


2,113
$ 49,518
TNCWS
<100
16
2
-
0.0
18
36
$ 21.44
650
$ 13,945
100-499
8
1
-
0.0
9
36
23.09
312
7,197
500-999
1
0
-
0.0
2
36
30.03
54
1,635
1,000-3,299
1
0
-
0.0
1
36
30.03
31
945
3,300-9,999
0
0
-
0.0
0
36
30.51
9
267
10,000-49,999
1
0
0
0.0
1
36
31.08
34
1,070
50,000-99,999
-
-
-
0.0
-
36
31.08
-
-
100,000-999,999
0
0
0
0.0
0
36
35.25
3
95
> 1 Million
0
0
0
0.0
0
36
35.25
5
188
National Totals
28
3
0
0.0
31


1,099
$ 25,343
Grand Totals
289
246
2
4.5
542


19,501
$ 546,742
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
UV stands for ultraviolet disinfection and MF/UF stands for microfiltration/ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(A), (B), (C) Taken from Appendix G of the LT2ESWTR.
(E)	Based on an estimate of 3 hours per month to prepare each report.
(F)	For plants serving up to 500 people, the full technical rate ($24.96/hour) was applied. For plants serving more than 500 people, costs are basec
on an 80%/20% split between technical and managerial ($44.91/hour) rates. Rates are based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 50
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.23c Plant Burden and Cost for Preparing Reports Demonstrating Technology Compliance
Based on ICRSSL Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A4

Number of
Number

Number of

Annual

Total

System Size
Plants
of Plants
Number of
Unfiltered

Labor

Annual
Total
(Population
Installing
Installing
Plants Installing
Plants Installing

Hours per
Labor
Labor
Annual
Served)
UV
MF/UF
Bank Filtration
Ozone
Total Plants
Plant
Rate
Hours
Costs

A
B
C
D
E=A+B+C+D
F
G
H=E*F
l=G*H
CWS
<100
4
52
-
-
56
36
$ 21.44
2,018
$ 43,260
100-499
10
46
-
-
56
36
23.09
2,012
46,449
500-999
7
29
-
0.3
36
36
30.03
1,286
38,608
1,000-3,299
24
21
-
1.2
46
36
30.03
1,648
49,500
3,300-9,999
23
20
-
1.2
44
36
30.51
1,602
48,868
10,000-49,999
75
16
1
1.1
93
36
31.08
3,356
104,293
50,000-99,999
22
4
0
0.4
26
36
31.08
941
29,253
100,000-999,999
23
5
0
0.3
28
36
35.25
997
35,141
> 1 Million
5
1
0
0.0
6
36
35.25
213
7,519
National Totals
193
193
1
4.5
391


14,072
$ 402,893
NTNCWS
<100
2
27
-
0.0
29
36
$ 21.44
1,042
$ 22,346
100-499
3
16
-
0.0
18
36
23.09
653
15,069
500-999
1
5
-
0.0
6
36
30.03
220
6,594
1,000-3,299
1
1
-
0.0
2
36
30.03
71
2,123
3,300-9,999
0
0
-
0.0
0
36
30.51
16
502
10,000-49,999
0
0
0
0.0
0
36
31.08
10
314
50,000-99,999
-
-
-
0.0
-
36
31.08
-
-
100,000-999,999
0
0
0
0.0
0
36
35.25
2
63
> 1 Million
-
-
-
0.0
-
36
35.25
-
-
National Totals
6
49
0
0.0
56


2,014
$ 47,012
TNCWS
<100
12
1
-
0.0
13
36
$ 21.44
469
$ 10,046
100-499
6
1
-
0.0
6
36
23.09
225
5,184
500-999
1
0
-
0.0
1
36
30.03
39
1,178
1,000-3,299
1
0
-
0.0
1
36
30.03
23
677
3,300-9,999
0
0
-
0.0
0
36
30.51
6
192
10,000-49,999
1
0
0
0.0
1
36
31.08
23
729
50,000-99,999
-
-
-
0.0
-
36
31.08
-
-
100,000-999,999
0
0
0
0.0
0
36
35.25
2
64
> 1 Million
0
0
0
0.0
0
36
35.25
4
127
National Totals
20
2
0
0.0
22


790
$ 18,197
Grand Totals
219
244
1
4.5
469


16,876
$ 468,102
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
UV stands for ultraviolet disinfection and MF/UF stands for microfiltration/ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(A), (B), (C) Taken from Appendix G of the LT2ESWTR.
(E)	Based on an estimate of 3 hours per month to prepare each report.
(F)	For plants serving up to 500 people, the full technical rate ($24.96/hour) was applied. For plants serving more than 500 people, costs are
based on an 80%/20% split between technical and managerial ($44.91/hour) rates. Rates are based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 51
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.24a Plant Burden and Cost for Preparing Disinfection Benchmark Reports
Based on ICR Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A2

Number
Number ot
Number ot





System Size
of Plants
Plants
Plants
Total Number of
Labor

Total

(Population
Installing
Installing
Installing
Plants Changing
Hours per
Labor
Labor

Served)
UV
MF/UF
Ozone
Disinfection
Plant
Rate
Hours
Total Costs

A
B
C
D = A+B+C
E
F
G = D*E
H = F*G
CWS
<100
24
54
-
78
4
$ 21.44
314
$ 6,726
100-499
56
51
-
106
4
23.09
425
9,822
500-999
34
32
0
66
4
30.03
264
7,920
1,000-3,299
238
28
1
268
4
30.03
1,071
32,158
3,300-9,999
241
26
3
270
4
30.51
1,079
32,914
10,000-49,999
394
27
22
443
4
31.08
1,771
55,031
50,000-99,999
109
6
7
122
4
31.08
489
15,196
100,000-999,999
126
7
8
141
4
35.25
564
19,863
> 1 Million
22
1
1
25
4
35.25
99
3,489
National Totals
1,243
232
43
1,519


6,074
$ 183,117
NTNCWS
<100
14
29
-
42
4
$ 21.44
170
$ 3,635
100-499
21
18
-
39
4
23.09
155
3,570
500-999
7
6
-
13
4
30.03
52
1,570
1,000-3,299
18
2
-
20
4
30.03
80
2,416
3,300-9,999
5
0
0
5
4
30.51
22
665
10,000-49,999
2
0
0
2
4
31.08
7
218
50,000-99,999
-
-
-
-
4
31.08
-
-
100,000-999,999
0
0
0
0
4
35.25
1
49
> 1 Million
-
-
-
-
4
35.25
-
-
National Totals
67
54
0
122


487
$ 12,124
TNCWS
<100
95
11
-
106
4
$ 21.44
424
$ 9,091
100-499
46
5
-
51
4
23.09
203
4,692
500-999
8
1
-
9
4
30.03
36
1,070
1,000-3,299
14
0
-
15
4
30.03
59
1,773
3,300-9,999
4
0
0
4
4
30.51
17
511
10,000-49,999
4
0
0
4
4
31.08
17
530
50,000-99,999
-
-
-
-
4
31.08
-
-
100,000-999,999
0
0
0
0
4
35.25
1
50
> 1 Million
1
0
0
1
4
35.25
3
99
National Totals
172
17
0
190
-
-
760
$ 17,814
Grand Totals
1,483
304
43
1,830


7,321
213,055
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
UV stands for ultraviolet disinfection and MF/UF stands for microfiltration/ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(A) - (D) From Appendix G of the Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR.
(F)	Based on expert opinion.
(G)	For plants serving up to 500 people, the full technical rate ($24.96/hour) was applied. For plants serving more than 500
people, costs are based on an 80%/20% split between technical and managerial ($44.91/hour) rates. Rates are based on
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 52
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.24b Plant Burden and Cost for Preparing Disinfection Benchmark Reports
Based on ICRSSM Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A2

Number
Number ot
Number ot





System Size
of Plants
Plants
Plants
Total Number of
Labor

Total

(Population
Installing
Installing
Installing
Plants Changing
Hours per
Labor
Labor

Served)
UV
MF/UF
Ozone
Disinfection
Plant
Rate
Hours
Total Costs

A
B
C
D = A+B+C
E
F
G = D*E
H = F*G
CWS
<100
14
53
-
67
4
$ 21.44
269
$ 5,761
100-499
33
48
-
81
4
23.09
324
7,479
500-999
20
30
0
51
4
30.03
203
6,094
1,000-3,299
171
24
1
196
4
30.03
783
23,527
3,300-9,999
172
22
3
197
4
30.51
787
24,022
10,000-49,999
333
22
18
372
4
31.08
1,489
46,288
50,000-99,999
92
5
5
103
4
31.08
411
12,787
100,000-999,999
105
6
6
117
4
35.25
470
16,555
> 1 Million
19
1
1
21
4
35.25
83
2,939
National Totals
959
211
35
1,205


4,820
$ 145,452
NTNCWS
<100
8
28
-
36
4
$ 21.44
143
$ 3,056
100-499
12
17
-
28
4
23.09
113
2,617
500-999
4
6
-
10
4
30.03
38
1,149
1,000-3,299
13
1
-
14
4
30.03
57
1,710
3,300-9,999
4
0
0
4
4
30.51
15
468
10,000-49,999
1
0
0
1
4
31.08
6
182
50,000-99,999
-
-
-
-
4
31.08
-
-
100,000-999,999
0
0
0
0
4
35.25
1
40
> 1 Million
-
-
-
-
4
35.25
-
-
National Totals
41
52
0
93
-
-
373
$ 9,221
TNCWS
<100
53
6
-
59
4
$ 21.44
237
$ 5,082
100-499
26
3
-
28
4
23.09
114
2,622
500-999
4
0
-
5
4
30.03
20
597
1,000-3,299
10
0
-
10
4
30.03
41
1,223
3,300-9,999
3
0
0
3
4
30.51
12
352
10,000-49,999
3
0
0
4
4
31.08
14
439
50,000-99,999
-
-
-
-
4
31.08
-
-
100,000-999,999
0
0
0
0
4
35.25
1
41
> 1 Million
1
0
0
1
4
35.25
2
81
National Totals
100
10
0
110
-
-
440
$ 10,439
Grand Totals
1,101
273
35
1,408
-
-
5,634
$ 165,112
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
UV stands for ultraviolet disinfection and MF/UF stands for microfiltration/ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(A) - (D) From Appendix G of the Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR.
(F)	Based on expert opinion.
(G)	For plants serving up to 500 people, the full technical rate ($24.96/hour) was applied. For plants serving more than 500
people, costs are based on an 80%/20% split between technical and managerial ($44.91/hour) rates. Rates are based on
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR	D - 53	December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.24c Plant Burden and Cost for Preparing Disinfection Benchmark Reports
Based on ICRSSL Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A2

Number
Number ot
Number ot





System Size
of Plants
Plants
Plants
Total Number of
Labor

Total

(Population
Installing
Installing
Installing
Plants Changing
Hours per
Labor
Labor

Served)
UV
MF/UF
Ozone
Disinfection
Plant
Rate
Hours
Total Costs

A
B
C
D = A+B+C
E
F
G = D*E
H = F*G
CWS
<100
11
53
-
64
4
$ 21.44
257
$ 5,513
100-499
27
47
-
74
4
23.09
298
6,878
500-999
17
30
0
47
4
30.03
187
5,625
1,000-3,299
136
23
1
160
4
30.03
641
19,254
3,300-9,999
137
21
3
161
4
30.51
643
19,619
10,000-49,999
290
20
15
325
4
31.08
1,299
40,374
50,000-99,999
81
5
4
90
4
31.08
359
11,160
100,000-999,999
91
6
5
102
4
35.25
407
14,344
> 1 Million
17
1
1
18
4
35.25
73
2,573
National Totals
807
205
29
1,041


4,164
$ 125,340
NTNCWS
<100
6
28
-
34
4
$ 21.44
136
$ 2,907
100-499
9
16
-
26
4
23.09
103
2,373
500-999
3
5
-
9
4
30.03
35
1,041
1,000-3,299
10
1
-
11
4
30.03
45
1,361
3,300-9,999
3
0
0
3
4
30.51
12
370
10,000-49,999
1
0
0
1
4
31.08
5
157
50,000-99,999
-
-
-
-
4
31.08
-
-
100,000-999,999
0
0
0
0
4
35.25
1
34
> 1 Million
-
-
-
-
4
35.25
-
-
National Totals
33
51
0
84


336
$ 8,242
TNCWS
<100
43
5
-
47
4
$ 21.44
189
$ 4,053
100-499
20
2
-
23
4
23.09
91
2,092
500-999
4
0
-
4
4
30.03
16
476
1,000-3,299
8
0
-
8
4
30.03
32
951
3,300-9,999
2
0
0
2
4
30.51
9
274
10,000-49,999
3
0
0
3
4
31.08
12
378
50,000-99,999
-
-
-
-
4
31.08
-
-
100,000-999,999
0
0
0
0
4
35.25
1
35
> 1 Million
0
0
0
0
4
35.25
2
70
National Totals
80
8
0
88


351
$ 8,329
Grand Totals
920
264
29
1,213


4,852
141,911
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
UV stands for ultraviolet disinfection and MF/UF stands for microfiltration/ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(A) - (D) From Appendix G of the Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR.
(F)	Based on expert opinion.
(G)	For plants serving up to 500 people, the full technical rate ($24.96/hour) was applied. For plants serving more than 500
people, costs are based on an 80%/20% split between technical and managerial ($44.91/hour) rates. Rates are based on
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR	D - 54	December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.25a Plant Burden and Cost for Preparing Disinfection Benchmark Reports
Based on ICR Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A3

Number
Number ot
Number ot





System Size
of Plants
Plants
Plants
Total Number of
Labor

Total

(Population
Installing
Installing
Installing
Plants Changing
Hours per
Labor
Labor

Served)
UV
MF/UF
Ozone
Disinfection
Plant
Rate
Hours
Total Costs

A
B
C
D = A+B+C
E
F
G = D*E
H = F*G
CWS
<100
16
54
-
69
4
$ 21.44
276
$ 5,922
100-499
37
48
-
85
4
23.09
341
7,869
500-999
23
31
0
53
4
30.03
213
6,401
1,000-3,299
111
25
1
138
4
30.03
551
16,538
3,300-9,999
112
23
3
138
4
30.51
551
16,820
10,000-49,999
361
21
16
398
4
31.08
1,593
49,503
50,000-99,999
100
5
5
110
4
31.08
440
13,663
100,000-999,999
114
6
5
125
4
35.25
502
17,694
> 1 Million
20
1
1
22
4
35.25
89
3,129
National Totals
893
214
32
1,139
-
-
4,555
$ 137,540
NTNCWS
<100
9
28
-
37
4
$ 21.44
147
$ 3,152
100-499
13
17
-
30
4
23.09
120
2,776
500-999
5
6
-
10
4
30.03
41
1,220
1,000-3,299
8
2
-
9
4
30.03
38
1,139
3,300-9,999
2
0
0
3
4
30.51
10
308
10,000-49,999
1
0
0
2
4
31.08
6
195
50,000-99,999
-
-
-
-
4
31.08
-
-
100,000-999,999
0
0
0
0
4
35.25
1
43
> 1 Million
-
-
-
-
4
35.25
-
-
National Totals
38
52
0
91
-
-
363
$ 8,833
TNCWS
<100
60
7
-
67
4
$ 21.44
268
$ 5,750
100-499
29
3
-
32
4
23.09
129
2,968
500-999
5
1
-
6
4
30.03
23
677
1,000-3,299
6
0
-
6
4
30.03
26
778
3,300-9,999
2
0
0
2
4
30.51
7
224
10,000-49,999
4
0
0
4
4
31.08
15
472
50,000-99,999
-
-
-
-
4
31.08
-
-
100,000-999,999
0
0
0
0
4
35.25
1
44
> 1 Million
1
0
0
1
4
35.25
2
87
National Totals
107
11
0
118
-
-
471
$ 11,001
Grand Totals
1,038
277
32
1,348
-
-
5,390
$ 157,374
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
UV stands for ultraviolet disinfection and MF/UF stands for microfiltration/ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(A) - (D) From Appendix G of the Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR.
(F)	Based on expert opinion.
(G)	For plants serving up to 500 people, the full technical rate ($24.96/hour) was applied. For plants serving more than 500
people, costs are based on an 80%/20% split between technical and managerial ($44.91/hour) rates. Rates are based on
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 55
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.25b Plant Burden and Cost for Preparing Disinfection Benchmark Reports
Based on ICRSSM Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A3

Number
Number ot
Number ot





System Size
of Plants
Plants
Plants
Total Number of
Labor

Total

(Population
Installing
Installing
Installing
Plants Changing
Hours per
Labor
Labor

Served)
UV
MF/UF
Ozone
Disinfection
Plant
Rate
Hours
Total Costs

A
B
C
D = A+B+C
E
F
G = D*E
H = F*G
CWS
<100
9
53
-
62
4
$ 21.44
247
$ 5,306
100-499
22
47
-
69
4
23.09
276
6,373
500-999
14
30
0
44
4
30.03
174
5,236
1,000-3,299
55
23
1
79
4
30.03
316
9,480
3,300-9,999
55
21
3
78
4
30.51
313
9,547
10,000-49,999
282
18
12
312
4
31.08
1,250
38,844
50,000-99,999
78
4
4
86
4
31.08
345
10,732
100,000-999,999
89
5
4
98
4
35.25
391
13,789
> 1 Million
16
1
1
18
4
35.25
70
2,480
National Totals
620
201
25
846
-
-
3,383
$ 101,787
NTNCWS
<100
5
28
-
32
4
$ 21.44
130
$ 2,782
100-499
7
16
-
23
4
23.09
94
2,167
500-999
3
5
-
8
4
30.03
32
951
1,000-3,299
3
1
-
5
4
30.03
19
561
3,300-9,999
1
0
0
1
4
30.51
5
147
10,000-49,999
1
0
0
1
4
31.08
5
150
50,000-99,999
-
-
-
-
4
31.08
-
-
100,000-999,999
0
0
0
0
4
35.25
1
33
> 1 Million
-
-
-
-
4
35.25
-
-
National Totals
20
51
0
71
-
-
285
$ 6,792
TNCWS



<100
33
4
-
37
4
$ 21.44
149
$ 3,189
100-499
16
2
-
18
4
23.09
71
1,646
500-999
3
0
-
3
4
30.03
13
375
1,000-3,299
3
0
-
3
4
30.03
11
329
3,300-9,999
1
0
0
1
4
30.51
3
95
10,000-49,999
3
0
0
3
4
31.08
12
362
50,000-99,999
-
-
-
-
4
31.08
-
-
100,000-999,999
0
0
0
0
4
35.25
1
33
> 1 Million
0
0
0
0
4
35.25
2
67
National Totals
59
6
0
65


261
$ 6,097
Grand Totals
700
257
25
982


3,929
$ 114,675
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
UV stands for ultraviolet disinfection and MF/UF stands for microfiltration/ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(A) - (D) From Appendix G of the Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR.
(F)	Based on expert opinion.
(G)	For plants serving up to 500 people, the full technical rate ($24.96/hour) was applied. For plants serving more than 500
people, costs are based on an 80%/20% split between technical and managerial ($44.91/hour) rates. Rates are based on
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR	D - 56	December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.25c Plant Burden and Cost for Preparing Disinfection Benchmark Reports
Based on ICRSSL Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A3

Number
Number ot
Number ot





System Size
of Plants
Plants
Plants
Total Number of
Labor

Total

(Population
Installing
Installing
Installing
Plants Changing
Hours per
Labor
Labor

Served)
UV
MF/UF
Ozone
Disinfection
Plant
Rate
Hours
Total Costs

A
B
C
D = A+B+C
E
F
G = D*E
H = F*G
CWS
<100
7
53
-
60
4
$ 21.44
239
5,129
100-499
18
46
-
64
4
23.09
257
5,943
500-999
11
29
0
41
4
30.03
163
4,901
1,000-3,299
40
22
1
63
4
30.03
253
7,603
3,300-9,999
39
20
3
62
4
30.51
250
7,613
10,000-49,999
234
17
10
261
4
31.08
1,044
32,453
50,000-99,999
65
4
3
72
4
31.08
289
8,977
100,000-999,999
73
5
3
81
4
35.25
326
11,484
> 1 Million
14
1
0
15
4
35.25
60
2,098
National Totals
502
198
21
720


2,881
$ 86,200
NTNCWS
<100
4
27
-
31
4
$ 21.44
125
2,676
100-499
6
16
-
22
4
23.09
86
1,993
500-999
2
5
-
7
4
30.03
29
874
1,000-3,299
2
1
-
3
4
30.03
14
408
3,300-9,999
1
0
0
1
4
30.51
3
104
10,000-49,999
1
0
0
1
4
31.08
4
123
50,000-99,999
-
-
-
-
4
31.08
-
-
100,000-999,999
0
0
0
0
4
35.25
1
27
> 1 Million
-
-
-
-
4
35.25
-
-
National Totals
15
50
0
65


262
$ 6,204
TNCWS
<100
26
3
-
29
4
$ 21.44
114
2,454
100-499
12
1
-
14
4
23.09
55
1,267
500-999
2
0
-
2
4
30.03
10
289
1,000-3,299
2
0
-
2
4
30.03
7
209
3,300-9,999
0
0
0
0
4
30.51
2
60
10,000-49,999
2
0
0
2
4
31.08
10
296
50,000-99,999
-
-
-
-
4
31.08
-
-
100,000-999,999
0
0
0
0
4
35.25
1
27
> 1 Million
0
0
0
0
4
35.25
2
55
National Totals
45
5
0
50
-
-
200
$ 4,658
Grand Totals
562
252
21
836
-
-
3,342
$ 97,062
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
UV stands for ultraviolet disinfection and MF/UF stands for microfiltration/ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(A) - (D) From Appendix G of the Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR.
(F)	Based on expert opinion.
(G)	For plants serving up to 500 people, the full technical rate ($24.96/hour) was applied. For plants serving more than 500
people, costs are based on an 80%/20% split between technical and managerial ($44.91/hour) rates. Rates are based on
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR	D - 57	December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.26a Plant Burden and Cost for Preparing Disinfection Benchmark Reports
Based on ICR Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A4

Number
Number ot
Number ot





System Size
of Plants
Plants
Plants
Total Number of
Labor

Total

(Population
Installing
Installing
Installing
Plants Changing
Hours per
Labor
Labor

Served)
UV
MF/UF
Ozone
Disinfection
Plant
Rate
Hours
Total Costs

A
B
C
D = A+B+C
E
F
G = D*E
H = F*G
CWS
<100
7
53
-
60
4
$ 21.44
238
$ 5,110
100-499
18
46
-
64
4
23.09
255
5,899
500-999
11
29
0
40
4
30.03
162
4,863
1,000-3,299
35
21
1
57
4
30.03
229
6,883
3,300-9,999
34
20
2
56
4
30.51
225
6,872
10,000-49,999
172
16
5
193
4
31.08
773
24,034
50,000-99,999
48
4
1
54
4
31.08
214
6,665
100,000-999,999
53
5
2
59
4
35.25
236
8,312
> 1 Million
10
1
0
11
4
35.25
45
1,571
National Totals
388
195
11
595


2,378
$ 70,211
NTNCWS
<100
4
27
-
31
4
$ 21.44
124
$ 2,665
100-499
6
16
-
21
4
23.09
86
1,975
500-999
2
5
-
7
4
30.03
29
865
1,000-3,299
2
1
-
3
4
30.03
12
349
3,300-9,999
0
0
0
1
4
30.51
3
88
10,000-49,999
1
0
0
1
4
31.08
3
88
50,000-99,999
-
-
-
-
4
31.08
-
-
100,000-999,999
0
0
0
0
4
35.25
1
18
> 1 Million
-
-
-
-
4
35.25
-
-
National Totals
14
50
0
64


256
$ 6,048
TNCWS
<100
25
3
-
28
4
$ 21.44
111
$ 2,379
100-499
12
1
-
13
4
23.09
53
1,228
500-999
2
0
-
2
4
30.03
9
279
1,000-3,299
1
0
-
1
4
30.03
5
163
3,300-9,999
0
0
0
0
4
30.51
2
47
10,000-49,999
2
0
0
2
4
31.08
7
209
50,000-99,999
-
-
-
-
4
31.08
-
-
100,000-999,999
0
0
0
0
4
35.25
1
19
> 1 Million
0
0
0
0
4
35.25
1
38
National Totals
43
4
0
47


189
$ 4,362
Grand Totals
445
250
11
706


2,824
$ 80,621
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
UV stands for ultraviolet disinfection and MF/UF stands for microfiltration/ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(A) - (D) From Appendix G of the Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR.
(F)	Based on expert opinion.
(G)	For plants serving up to 500 people, the full technical rate ($24.96/hour) was applied. For plants serving more than 500
people, costs are based on an 80%/20% split between technical and managerial ($44.91/hour) rates. Rates are based on
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR	D - 58	December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.26b Plant Burden and Cost for Preparing Disinfection Benchmark Reports
Based on ICRSSM Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A4

Number
Number ot
Number ot





System Size
of Plants
Plants
Plants
Total Number of
Labor

Total

(Population
Installing
Installing
Installing
Plants Changing
Hours per
Labor
Labor

Served)
UV
MF/UF
Ozone
Disinfection
Plant
Rate
Hours
Total Costs

A
B
C
D = A+B+C
E
F
G = D*E
H = F*G
CWS
<100
5
52
-
57
4
$ 21.44
229
$ 4,911
100-499
13
46
-
59
4
23.09
234
5,414
500-999
8
29
0
37
4
30.03
149
4,486
1,000-3,299
28
21
1
50
4
30.03
199
5,967
3,300-9,999
27
20
1
49
4
30.51
194
5,929
10,000-49,999
104
16
3
123
4
31.08
492
15,287
50,000-99,999
30
4
1
34
4
31.08
137
4,266
100,000-999,999
32
5
1
37
4
35.25
148
5,205
> 1 Million
7
1
0
7
4
35.25
30
1,056
National Totals
253
193
7
453


1,813
$ 52,521
NTNCWS
-







<100
2
27
-
30
4
$ 21.44
119
$ 2,546
100-499
4
16
-
19
4
23.09
77
1,777
500-999
1
5
-
6
4
30.03
26
778
1,000-3,299
1
1
-
2
4
30.03
9
274
3,300-9,999
0
0
0
1
4
30.51
2
67
10,000-49,999
0
0
0
0
4
31.08
2
51
50,000-99,999
-
-
-
-
4
31.08
-
-
100,000-999,999
0
0
0
0
4
35.25
0
10
> 1 Million
-
-
-
-
4
35.25
-
-
National Totals
9
50
0
59


235
$ 5,503
TNCWS
<100
16
2
-
18
4
$ 21.44
72
$ 1,549
100-499
8
1
-
9
4
23.09
35
800
500-999
1
0
-
2
4
30.03
6
182
1,000-3,299
1
0
-
1
4
30.03
3
105
3,300-9,999
0
0
0
0
4
30.51
1
30
10,000-49,999
1
0
0
1
4
31.08
4
119
50,000-99,999
-
-
-
-
4
31.08
-
-
100,000-999,999
0
0
0
0
4
35.25
0
11
> 1 Million
0
0
0
0
4
35.25
1
21
National Totals
28
3
0
31


122
$ 2,817
Grand Totals
289
246
7
542


2,170
$ 60,841
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
UV stands for ultraviolet disinfection and MF/UF stands for microfiltration/ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(A) - (D) From Appendix G of the Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR.
(F)	Based on expert opinion.
(G)	For plants serving up to 500 people, the full technical rate ($24.96/hour) was applied. For plants serving more than 500
people, costs are based on an 80%/20% split between technical and managerial ($44.91/hour) rates. Rates are based on
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR	D - 59	December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.26c Plant Burden and Cost for Preparing Disinfection Benchmark Reports
Based on ICRSSL Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A4

Number
Number ot
Number ot





System Size
of Plants
Plants
Plants
Total Number of
Labor

Total

(Population
Installing
Installing
Installing
Plants Changing
Hours per
Labor
Labor

Served)
UV
MF/UF
Ozone
Disinfection
Plant
Rate
Hours
Total Costs

A
B
C
D = A+B+C
E
F
G = D*E
H = F*G
CWS
<100
4
52
-
56
4
$ 21.44
224
$ 4,807
100-499
10
46
-
56
4
23.09
224
5,161
500-999
7
29
0
36
4
30.03
143
4,290
1,000-3,299
24
21
1
46
4
30.03
183
5,500
3,300-9,999
23
20
1
45
4
30.51
179
5,447
10,000-49,999
75
16
2
93
4
31.08
372
11,574
50,000-99,999
22
4
1
26
4
31.08
104
3,247
100,000-999,999
23
5
1
28
4
35.25
111
3,905
> 1 Million
5
1
0
6
4
35.25
24
840
National Totals
193
193
6
391


1,564
$ 44,770
NTNCWS
<100
2
27
-
29
4
$ 21.44
116
$ 2,483
100-499
3
16
-
18
4
23.09
73
1,674
500-999
1
5
-
6
4
30.03
24
733
1,000-3,299
1
1
-
2
4
30.03
8
236
3,300-9,999
0
0
0
0
4
30.51
2
56
10,000-49,999
0
0
0
0
4
31.08
1
35
50,000-99,999
-
-
-
-
4
31.08
-
-
100,000-999,999
0
0
0
0
4
35.25
0
7
> 1 Million
-
-
-
-
4
35.25
-
-
National Totals
6
49
0
56


224
$ 5,224
TNCWS
<100
12
1
-
13
4
$ 21.44
52
$ 1,116
100-499
6
1
-
6
4
23.09
25
576
500-999
1
0
-
1
4
30.03
4
131
1,000-3,299
1
0
-
1
4
30.03
3
75
3,300-9,999
0
0
0
0
4
30.51
1
22
10,000-49,999
1
0
0
1
4
31.08
3
81
50,000-99,999
-
-
-
-
4
31.08
-
-
100,000-999,999
0
0
0
0
4
35.25
0
7
> 1 Million
0
0
0
0
4
35.25
0
14
National Totals
20
2
0
22


88
$ 2,022
Grand Totals
219
244
6
469


1,875
$ 52,016
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
UV stands for ultraviolet disinfection and MF/UF stands for microfiltration/ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(A) - (D) From Appendix G of the Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR.
(F)	Based on expert opinion.
(G)	For plants serving up to 500 people, the full technical rate ($24.96/hour) was applied. For plants serving more than 500
people, costs are based on an 80%/20% split between technical and managerial ($44.91/hour) rates. Rates are based on
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR	D - 60	December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.27a State Burden and Cost for Reviewing Disinfection Benchmark Reports
Based on ICR Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A2

Number
Number of
Number of





System Size
of Plants
Plants
Plants
Total Number of
Labor

Total

(Population
Installing
Installing
Installing
Plants Changing
Hours per
Labor
Labor
Total
Served)
UV
MF/UF
Ozone
Disinfection
Plant
Rate
Hours
Costs

A
B
C
D = A + B + C
E
F
G = D*E
H = F*G
<100
133
94
-
227
2
$ 33.60
454
$ 15,244
100-499
123
73
-
196
2
33.60
392
13,159
500-999
49
39
0
88
2
33.60
176
5,908
1,000-3,299
271
30
1
303
2
33.60
605
20,336
3,300-9,999
250
26
3
279
2
33.60
559
18,773
10,000-49,999
399
27
23
449
2
33.60
897
30,155
50,000-99,999
109
6
7
122
2
33.60
244
8,215
100,000-999,999
126
7
8
142
2
33.60
283
9,515
> 1 Million
23
1
1
25
2
33.60
51
1,710
National Totals
1,483
304
43
1,830


3,661
$ 123,015
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
UV stands for ultraviolet disinfection and MF/UF stands for microfiltration/ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(A) - (D) From Appendix G of the Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR.
(F)	Based on expert opinion.
(G)	Based on information gathered during the development of the State Workload Model.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 61
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.27b State Burden and Cost for Reviewing Disinfection Benchmark Reports
Based on ICRSSM Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A2

Number
Number of
Number of





System Size
of Plants
Plants
Plants
Total Number of
Labor

Total

(Population
Installing
Installing
Installing
Plants Changing
Hours per
Labor
Labor
Total
Served)
UV
MF/UF
Ozone
Disinfection
Plant
Rate
Hours
Costs

A
B
C
D = A + B + C
E
F
G = D*E
H = F*G
<100
75
87
-
162
2
$ 33.60
324
$ 10,892
100-499
70
67
-
138
2
33.60
275
9,255
500-999
29
36
0
65
2
33.60
131
4,386
1,000-3,299
194
26
1
220
2
33.60
441
14,805
3,300-9,999
178
22
3
204
2
33.60
407
13,680
10,000-49,999
337
22
18
377
2
33.60
755
25,360
50,000-99,999
92
5
5
103
2
33.60
206
6,913
100,000-999,999
106
6
6
118
2
33.60
236
7,930
> 1 Million
19
1
1
21
2
33.60
43
1,440
National Totals
1,101
273
35
1,408


2,817
$ 94,661
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
UV stands for ultraviolet disinfection and MF/UF stands for microfiltration/ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(A) - (D) From Appendix G of the Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR.
(F)	Based on expert opinion.
(G)	Based on information gathered during the development of the State Workload Model.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 62
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.27c State Burden and Cost for Reviewing Disinfection Benchmark Reports
Based on ICRSSL Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A2

Number
Number of
Number of





System Size
of Plants
Plants
Plants
Total Number of
Labor

Total

(Population
Installing
Installing
Installing
Plants Changing
Hours per
Labor
Labor
Total
Served)
UV
MF/UF
Ozone
Disinfection
Plant
Rate
Hours
Costs

A
B
C
D = A + B + C
E
F
G = D*E
H = F*G
<100
60
86
-
145
2
$ 33.60
291
$ 9,776
100-499
57
66
-
123
2
33.60
246
8,253
500-999
23
36
0
59
2
33.60
119
3,996
1,000-3,299
154
24
1
180
2
33.60
359
12,066
3,300-9,999
142
21
3
166
2
33.60
332
11,158
10,000-49,999
294
20
15
329
2
33.60
658
22,116
50,000-99,999
81
5
4
90
2
33.60
180
6,033
100,000-999,999
92
6
5
102
2
33.60
204
6,871
> 1 Million
17
1
1
19
2
33.60
37
1,260
National Totals
920
264
29
1,213


2,426
$ 81,529
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
UV stands for ultraviolet disinfection and MF/UF stands for microfiltration/ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(A) - (D) From Appendix G of the Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR.
(F)	Based on expert opinion.
(G)	Based on information gathered during the development of the State Workload Model.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 63
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.28a State Burden and Cost for Reviewing Disinfection Benchmark Reports
Based on ICR Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A3

Number
Number of
Number of





System Size
of Plants
Plants
Plants
Total Number of
Labor

Total

(Population
Installing
Installing
Installing
Plants Changing
Hours per
Labor
Labor
Total
Served)
UV
MF/UF
Ozone
Disinfection
Plant
Rate
Hours
Costs

A
B
C
D = A + B + C
E
F
G = D*E
H = F*G
<100
85
88
-
173
2
$ 33.60
346
$ 11,618
100-499
79
68
-
147
2
33.60
295
9,906
500-999
32
37
0
69
2
33.60
138
4,643
1,000-3,299
125
27
1
154
2
33.60
307
10,325
3,300-9,999
116
23
3
142
2
33.60
284
9,555
10,000-49,999
366
22
16
404
2
33.60
807
27,123
50,000-99,999
100
5
5
110
2
33.60
220
7,387
100,000-999,999
115
6
5
126
2
33.60
252
8,476
> 1 Million
21
1
1
23
2
33.60
46
1,533
National Totals
1,038
277
32
1,348


2,695
$ 90,566
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
UV stands for ultraviolet disinfection and MF/UF stands for microfiltration/ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(A) - (D) From Appendix G of the Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR.
(F)	Based on expert opinion.
(G)	Based on information gathered during the development of the State Workload Model.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 64
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.28b State Burden and Cost for Reviewing Disinfection Benchmark Reports
Based on ICRSSM Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A3

Number
Number of
Number of





System Size
of Plants
Plants
Plants
Total Number of
Labor

Total

(Population
Installing
Installing
Installing
Plants Changing
Hours per
Labor
Labor
Total
Served)
UV
MF/UF
Ozone
Disinfection
Plant
Rate
Hours
Costs

A
B
C
D = A + B + C
E
F
G = D*E
H = F*G
<100
47
84
-
131
2
$ 33.60
263
$ 8,838
100-499
46
65
-
110
2
33.60
221
7,412
500-999
19
35
0
55
2
33.60
109
3,671
1,000-3,299
61
24
1
86
2
33.60
173
5,802
3,300-9,999
56
21
3
80
2
33.60
160
5,391
10,000-49,999
286
18
12
317
2
33.60
633
21,277
50,000-99,999
78
4
4
86
2
33.60
173
5,802
100,000-999,999
89
5
4
98
2
33.60
197
6,605
> 1 Million
17
1
1
18
2
33.60
36
1,214
National Totals
700
257
25
982


1,964
$ 66,012
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
UV stands for ultraviolet disinfection and MF/UF stands for microfiltration/ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(A) - (D) From Appendix G of the Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR.
(F)	Based on expert opinion.
(G)	Based on information gathered during the development of the State Workload Model.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 65
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.28c State Burden and Cost for Reviewing Disinfection Benchmark Reports
Based on ICRSSL Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A3

Number
Number of
Number of





System Size
of Plants
Plants
Plants
Total Number of
Labor

Total

(Population
Installing
Installing
Installing
Plants Changing
Hours per
Labor
Labor
Total
Served)
UV
MF/UF
Ozone
Disinfection
Plant
Rate
Hours
Costs

A
B
C
D = A + B + C
E
F
G = D*E
H = F*G
<100
37
83
-
120
2
$ 33.60
239
$ 8,040
100-499
36
64
-
100
2
33.60
199
6,696
500-999
15
35
0
50
2
33.60
101
3,393
1,000-3,299
44
23
1
68
2
33.60
137
4,599
3,300-9,999
40
21
3
64
2
33.60
127
4,283
10,000-49,999
237
17
10
264
2
33.60
529
17,771
50,000-99,999
65
4
3
72
2
33.60
144
4,853
100,000-999,999
74
5
3
82
2
33.60
164
5,500
> 1 Million
14
1
0
15
2
33.60
31
1,026
National Totals
562
252
21
836


1,671
$ 56,161
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
UV stands for ultraviolet disinfection and MF/UF stands for microfiltration/ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(A) - (D) From Appendix G of the Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR.
(F)	Based on expert opinion.
(G)	Based on information gathered during the development of the State Workload Model.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 66
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.29a State Burden and Cost for Reviewing Disinfection Benchmark Reports
Based on ICR Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A4

Number
Number of
Number of





System Size
of Plants
Plants
Plants
Total Number of
Labor

Total

(Population
Installing
Installing
Installing
Plants Changing
Hours per
Labor
Labor
Total
Served)
UV
MF/UF
Ozone
Disinfection
Plant
Rate
Hours
Costs

A
B
C
D = A + B + C
E
F
G = D*E
H = F*G
<100
36
83
-
118
2
$ 33.60
237
$ 7,958
100-499
35
64
-
99
2
33.60
197
6,623
500-999
15
35
0
50
2
33.60
100
3,361
1,000-3,299
38
22
1
62
2
33.60
123
4,138
3,300-9,999
35
20
2
57
2
33.60
115
3,859
10,000-49,999
174
16
5
196
2
33.60
391
13,154
50,000-99,999
48
4
1
54
2
33.60
107
3,603
100,000-999,999
53
5
2
59
2
33.60
118
3,980
> 1 Million
10
1
0
11
2
33.60
23
767
National Totals
445
250
11
706


1,412
$ 47,443
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
UV stands for ultraviolet disinfection and MF/UF stands for microfiltration/ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(A) - (D) From Appendix G of the Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR.
(F)	Based on expert opinion.
(G)	Based on information gathered during the development of the State Workload Model.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 67
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.29b State Burden and Cost for Reviewing Disinfection Benchmark Reports
Based on ICRSSM Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A4

Number
Number of
Number of





System Size
of Plants
Plants
Plants
Total Number of
Labor

Total

(Population
Installing
Installing
Installing
Plants Changing
Hours per
Labor
Labor
Total
Served)
UV
MF/UF
Ozone
Disinfection
Plant
Rate
Hours
Costs

A
B
C
D = A + B + C
E
F
G = D*E
H = F*G
<100
24
81
-
105
2
$ 33.60
210
$ 7,058
100-499
24
62
-
87
2
33.60
173
5,815
500-999
11
34
0
45
2
33.60
91
3,047
1,000-3,299
30
22
1
53
2
33.60
106
3,551
3,300-9,999
28
20
1
49
2
33.60
99
3,318
10,000-49,999
106
16
3
124
2
33.60
249
8,356
50,000-99,999
30
4
1
34
2
33.60
69
2,306
100,000-999,999
32
5
1
37
2
33.60
74
2,491
> 1 Million
7
1
0
8
2
33.60
15
513
National Totals
289
246
7
542


1,085
$ 36,456
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
UV stands for ultraviolet disinfection and MF/UF stands for microfiltration/ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(A) - (D) From Appendix G of the Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR.
(F)	Based on expert opinion.
(G)	Based on information gathered during the development of the State Workload Model.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 68
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.29c State Burden and Cost for Reviewing Disinfection Benchmark Reports
Based on ICRSSL Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A4

Number
Number of
Number of





System Size
of Plants
Plants
Plants
Total Number of
Labor

Total

(Population
Installing
Installing
Installing
Plants Changing
Hours per
Labor
Labor
Total
Served)
UV
MF/UF
Ozone
Disinfection
Plant
Rate
Hours
Costs

A
B
C
D = A + B + C
E
F
G = D*E
H = F*G
<100
17
81
-
98
2
$ 33.60
196
$ 6,588
100-499
19
62
-
80
2
$ 33.60
160
$ 5,393
500-999
9
34
0
43
2
$ 33.60
86
$ 2,883
1,000-3,299
25
22
1
48
2
$ 33.60
97
$ 3,251
3,300-9,999
24
20
1
45
2
$ 33.60
91
$ 3,043
10,000-49,999
76
16
2
94
2
$ 33.60
188
$ 6,319
50,000-99,999
22
4
1
26
2
$ 33.60
52
$ 1,755
100,000-999,999
23
5
1
28
2
$ 33.60
56
$ 1,868
> 1 Million
5
1
0
6
2
$ 33.60
12
$ 407
National Totals
219
244
6
469


938
$ 31,508
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
UV stands for ultraviolet disinfection and MF/UF stands for microfiltration/ultrafiltration.
Sources:
(A) - (D) From Appendix G of the Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR.
(F)	Based on expert opinion.
(G)	Based on information gathered during the development of the State Workload Model.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 69
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.30a Burden and Cost to Plants Associated withE. coli Monitoring for Bin Reclassification for All Systems, by System Size
Based on ICR Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A2


Sampling
Sample Analysis








commercial









Baseline #




Analysis
Utility
Utility

Percent





of Plants




Cost per
Analysis
Analysis
Utility
Utilities with
Total
Total


System Size
Conducting


Cost per
Total
Sample
Hours per
Cost per
Analysis
E. coli
Laboratory
Laboratory


(Population
E. coli
# of E. coli
Hours per
Labor
Sampling
(Includes
Sample
Sample
Cost per
Analysis
Analysis
Analysis Cost

Total Burden
Served)
Monitoring
Samples
Sample
Hour
Labor Cost
Shipping)
(Labor)
(O&M)
Sample
Capabilities
Cost (Labor)
(O&M)
Total Cost
(Hours)











K =
L = FtA*B*(1-

N =

A
B
C
D
E = A*B*C*D
F
G
H
I = H+G*D
J
D*G*J*A*B
J)+H*A*B*J
M = E+K+L
A*B*C+A*B*G*J
CWSs
<100
255
26
0.25
$ 21.44
$ 35,529
$ 70.00
0.5
$ 10.28
$ 21.00
25%
$ 17,765
$ 365,035
$ 418,329
2,486
100-499
582
26
0.25
23.09
87,421
70.00
0.5
9.46
21.00
25%
43,710
830,876
962,007
5,679
500-999
368
26
0.25
24.74
59,233
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
29,616
523,448
612,297
3,591
1,000-3,299
816
26
0.25
24.74
131,182
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
65,591
1,159,271
1,356,044
7,954
3,300-9,999
804
26
0.25
25.34
132,454
70.00
0.5
8.33
21.00
25%
66,227
1,141,230
1,339,912
7,841
10,000-49,999
708
24
0.25
26.05
110,677
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
166,016
399,055
675,748
10,622
50,000-99,999
171
24
0.25
26.05
26,793
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
40,190
96,605
163,588
2,571
100,000-999,999
205
24
0.25
31.26
38,366
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
76,731
26,362
141,459
3,682
> 1 Million
35
24
0.25
31.26
6,561
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
13,122
4,508
24,192
630
National Totals
3,945

$ 628,217





$ 518,969
$ 4,546,390
$ 5,693,576
45,055
NTNCWSs
<100
133
26
0.25
$ 21.44
$ 18,531
$ 70.00
0.5
$ 10.28
$ 21.00
25%
$ 9,266
$ 190,394
$ 218,190
1,296
100-499
198
26
0.25
23.09
29,758
70.00
0.5
9.46
21.00
25%
14,879
282,826
327,463
1,933
500-999
67
26
0.25
24.74
10,717
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
5,358
94,706
110,781
650
1,000-3,299
46
26
0.25
24.74
7,435
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
3,718
65,706
76,859
451
3,300-9,999
10
26
0.25
25.34
1,575
70.00
0.5
8.33
21.00
25%
788
13,574
15,937
93
10,000-49,999
1
24
0.25
26.05
101
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
151
364
617
10
50,000-99,999
-
24
0.25
26.05
-
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
-
24
0.25
31.26
-
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
-
-
-
-
> 1 Million
-
24
0.25
31.26
-
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
-
-
-
-
National Totals
454

$ 68,117





$ 34,160
$ 647,570
$ 749,847
4,433
TNCWSs
<100
727
26
0.25
$ 21.44
$ 101,310
$ 70.00
0.5
$ 10.28
$ 21.00
25%
$ 50,655
$ 1,040,883
$ 1,192,848
7,088
100-499
467
26
0.25
23.09
70,032
70.00
0.5
9.46
21.00
25%
35,016
665,606
770,654
4,549
500-999
72
26
0.25
24.74
11,647
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
5,823
102,924
120,394
706
1,000-3,299
38
26
0.25
24.74
6,144
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
3,072
54,294
63,510
373
3,300-9,999
13
26
0.25
25.34
2,060
70.00
0.5
8.33
21.00
25%
1,030
17,748
20,838
122
10,000-49,999
6
24
0.25
26.05
933
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
1,399
3,364
5,696
90
50,000-99,999
-
24
0.25
26.05
-
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
1
24
0.25
31.26
156
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
313
108
577
15
> 1 Million
-
24
0.25
31.26
-
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
-
-
-
-
National Totals
1,324

$ 192,282





$ 97,309
$ 1,884,927
$ 2,174,517
12,943
Grand Totals
5,723

$ 888,616





$ 650,437
$ 7,078,887
$ 8,617,940
62,431
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Taken from "Baseline for Implementation and Monitoring Activities," column I.
(B)	Bi-weekly source water monitoring for one year for small systems and monthly samples for 24 months for medium and large systems.
(C)	Estimate of labor for collecting sample and shipping, based on expert opinion.
(D)	All size categories were assumed to use a technical rate of $24.96/hour, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics rates.
(F)	DynCorp study, Kevin Connell, June 2002.
(G)	Based on expert opinion.
(H)	The amount left over after the cost of half an hour of labor is subtracted from the cost of utility analysis provided in Column I.
(I)	DynCorp study, Kevin Connell, December 2000.
(J) Estimate based on Third Edition Baseline Handbook data.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D- 70
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.30b Burden and Cost to Plants Associated with E. coli Monitoring for Bin Reclassification for All Systems, by System Size
Based on ICRSSM Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A2


Sampling
Sample Analysis



Baseline #




Commercial
Utility
Utility

Percent





of Plants




Analysis Cost
Analysis
Analysis
Utility
Utilities with
Total
Total


System Size
Conducting


Cost per
Total
per Sample
Hours per
Cost per
Analysis
E. coli
Laboratory
Laboratory


(Population
E. coli
# of E. coli
Hours per
Labor
Sampling
(Includes
Sample
Sample
Cost per
Analysis
Analysis
Analysis Cost

Total Burden
Served)
Monitoring
Samples
Sample
Hour
Labor Cost
Shipping)
(Labor)
(O&M)
Sample
Capabilities
Cost (Labor)
(O&M)
Total Cost
(Hours)











K =
L = PA*B*(1-

N =

A
B
C
D
E = A*B*C*D
F
G
H
I = H+G*D
J
d*g*j*a*b
J)+H*A*B*J
M = E+K+L
A*B*C+A*B*G*J
CWSs
<100
267
26
0.25
$ 21.44
$ 37,232
$ 70.00
0.5
$ 10.28
$ 21.00
25%
$ 18,616
$ 382,529
$ 438,376
2,605
100-499
608
26
0.25
23.09
91,183
70.00
0.5
9.46
21.00
25%
45,591
866,629
1,003,403
5,924
500-999
384
26
0.25
24.74
61,783
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
30,892
545,984
638,659
3,746
1,000-3,299
889
26
0.25
24.74
142,949
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
71,475
1,263,259
1,477,683
8,667
3,300-9,999
876
26
0.25
25.34
144,248
70.00
0.5
8.33
21.00
25%
72,124
1,242,840
1,459,212
8,539
10,000-49,999
770
24
0.25
26.05
120,392
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
180,588
434,081
735,062
11,554
50,000-99,999
186
24
0.25
26.05
29,130
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
43,696
105,032
177,858
2,796
100,000-999,999
223
24
0.25
31.26
41,772
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
83,544
28,703
154,019
4,009
> 1 Million
38
24
0.25
31.26
7,141
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
14,283
4,907
26,331
685
National Totals
4,241



$ 675,830





$ 560,807
$ 4,873,964
$ 6,110,602
48,524
NTNCWSs
<100
139
26
0.25
$ 21.44
$ 19,419
$ 70.00
0.5
$ 10.28
$ 21.00
25%
$ 9,710
$ 199,518
$ 228,647
1,359
100-499
207
26
0.25
23.09
31,038
70.00
0.5
9.46
21.00
25%
15,519
294,997
341,554
2,016
500-999
70
26
0.25
24.74
11,178
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
5,589
98,783
115,551
678
1,000-3,299
50
26
0.25
24.74
8,102
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
4,051
71,600
83,753
491
3,300-9,999
10
26
0.25
25.34
1,716
70.00
0.5
8.33
21.00
25%
858
14,783
17,356
102
10,000-49,999
1
24
0.25
26.05
110
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
165
396
671
11
50,000-99,999
-
24
0.25
26.05
-
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
-
24
0.25
31.26
-
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
-
-
-
-
> 1 Million
-
24
0.25
31.26
-
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
-
-
-
-
National Totals
477



$ 71,563





$ 35,892
$ 680,076
$ 787,531
4,656
TNCWSs
<100
756
26
0.25
$ 21.44
$ 105,368
$ 70.00
0.5
$ 10.28
$ 21.00
25%
$ 52,684
$ 1,082,581
$ 1,240,634
7,372
100-499
485
26
0.25
23.09
72,837
70.00
0.5
9.46
21.00
25%
36,419
692,270
801,526
4,732
500-999
75
26
0.25
24.74
12,114
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
6,057
107,049
125,219
734
1,000-3,299
42
26
0.25
24.74
6,682
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
3,341
59,050
69,073
405
3,300-9,999
14
26
0.25
25.34
2,239
70.00
0.5
8.33
21.00
25%
1,119
19,291
22,650
133
10,000-49,999
6
24
0.25
26.05
1,013
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
1,520
3,653
6,185
97
50,000-99,999
-
24
0.25
26.05
-
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
1
24
0.25
31.26
162
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
324
111
597
16
> 1 Million
-
24
0.25
31.26
-
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
-
-
-
-
National Totals
1,379



$ 200,415





$ 101,464
$ 1,964,004
$ 2,265,883
13,488
Grand Totals
6,097



$ 947,809





$ 698,162
$ 7,518,045
$ 9,164,016
66,668
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Taken from "Baseline for Implementation and Monitoring Activities," column I.
(B)	Bi-weekly source water monitoring for one year for small systems and monthly samples for 24 months for medium and large systems.
(C)	Estimate of labor for collecting sample and shipping, based on expert opinion.
(D)	All size categories were assumed to use a technical rate of $24.96/hour, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics rates.
(F)	DynCorp study, Kevin Connell, June 2002.
(G)	Based on expert opinion.
(H)	The amount left over after the cost of half an hour of labor is subtracted from the cost of utility analysis provided in Column I.
(I)	DynCorp study, Kevin Connell, December 2000.
(J) Estimate based on Third Edition Baseline Handbook data.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 71
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.30c Burden and Cost to Plants Associated with E. coli Monitoring for Bin Reclassification for All Systems, by System Size
Based on ICRSSL Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A2


Sampling
Sample Analysis








uommerciai









Baseline #




Analysis
Utility
Utility

Percent





of Plants




Cost per
Analysis
Analysis
Utility
Utilities with
Total
Total


System Size
Conducting


Cost per
Total
Sample
Hours per
Cost per
Analysis
E. coli
Laboratory
Laboratory


(Population
E. coli
# of E. coli
Hours per
Labor
Sampling
(Includes
Sample
Sample
Cost per
Analysis
Analysis
Analysis Cost

Total Burden
Served)
Monitoring
Samples
Sample
Hour
Labor Cost
Shipping)
(Labor)
(O&M)
Sample
Capabilities
Cost (Labor)
(O&M)
Total Cost
(Hours)











K =
L = F*A*B*(1-

N =

A
B
C
D
E = A*B*C*D
F
G
H
I = H+G*D
J
d*g*j*a*b
J)+H*A*B*J
M = E+K+L
A*B*C+A*B*G*J
CWSs

<100
270
26
0.25
$ 21.44
$ 37,669
$ 70.00
0.5
$ 10.28
$ 21.00
25%
$ 18,834
$ 387,016
$ 443,519
2,635
100-499
614
26
0.25
23.09
92,148
70.00
0.5
9.46
21.00
25%
46,074
875,801
1,014,023
5,986
500-999
388
26
0.25
24.74
62,438
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
31,219
551,768
645,424
3,786
1,000-3,299
925
26
0.25
24.74
148,776
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
74,388
1,314,746
1,537,910
9,020
3,300-9,999
911
26
0.25
25.34
150,065
70.00
0.5
8.33
21.00
25%
75,032
1,292,960
1,518,057
8,883
10,000-49,999
812
24
0.25
26.05
126,865
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
190,297
457,419
774,581
12,175
50,000-99,999
196
24
0.25
26.05
30,689
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
46,034
110,652
187,375
2,945
100,000-999,999
235
24
0.25
31.26
44,020
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
88,040
30,248
162,308
4,225
> 1 Million
40
24
0.25
31.26
7,525
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
15,050
5,171
27,745
722
National Totals
4,392


$
$ 700,193





$ 584,968
$ 5,025,781
$ 6,310,942
50,378
NTNCWSs
<100
141
26
0.25
$ 21.44
$ 19,647
$ 70.00
0.5
$ 10.28
$ 21.00
25%
$ 9,824
$ 201,858
$ 231,329
1,375
100-499
209
26
0.25
23.09
31,367
70.00
0.5
9.46
21.00
25%
15,683
298,119
345,169
2,038
500-999
70
26
0.25
24.74
11,297
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
5,648
99,830
116,775
685
1,000-3,299
52
26
0.25
24.74
8,432
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
4,216
74,518
87,167
511
3,300-9,999
11
26
0.25
25.34
1,785
70.00
0.5
8.33
21.00
25%
892
15,379
18,056
106
10,000-49,999
1
24
0.25
26.05
116
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
174
417
707
11
50,000-99,999
-
24
0.25
26.05
-
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
-
24
0.25
31.26
-
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
-
-
-
-
> 1 Million
-
24
0.25
31.26
-
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
-
-
-
-
National Totals
484



$ 72,643




0
$ 36,437
$ 690,121
$ 799,202
4,725
TNCWSs
<100
764
26
0.25
$ 21.44
$ 106,409
$ 70.00
0.5
$ 10.28
$ 21.00
25%
$ 53,205
$ 1,093,278
$ 1,252,892
7,445
100-499
490
26
0.25
23.09
73,557
70.00
0.5
9.46
21.00
25%
36,779
699,110
809,446
4,778
500-999
76
26
0.25
24.74
12,233
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
6,117
108,107
126,457
742
1,000-3,299
43
26
0.25
24.74
6,948
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
3,474
61,404
71,827
421
3,300-9,999
14
26
0.25
25.34
2,327
70.00
0.5
8.33
21.00
25%
1,164
20,052
23,543
138
10,000-49,999
7
24
0.25
26.05
1,066
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
1,600
3,845
6,511
102
50,000-99,999
-
24
0.25
26.05
-
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
1
24
0.25
31.26
166
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
331
114
610
16
> 1 Million
-
24
0.25
31.26
-
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
-
-
-
-
National Totals
1,395



$ 202,708





$ 102,668
$ 1,985,911
$ 2,291,287
13,642
Grand Totals
6,271



$ 975,544





$ 724,074
$ 7,701,813
$ 9,401,431
68,745
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Taken from "Baseline for Implementation and Monitoring Activities," column I.
(B)	Bi-weekly source water monitoring for one year for small systems and monthly samples for 24 months for medium and large systems.
(C)	Estimate of labor for collecting sample and shipping, based on expert opinion.
(D)	All size categories were assumed to use a technical rate of $24.96/hour, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics rates.
(F)	DynCorp study, Kevin Connell, June 2002.
(G)	Based on expert opinion.
(H)	The amount left over after the cost of half an hour of labor is subtracted from the cost of utility analysis provided in Column I.
(I)	DynCorp study, Kevin Connell, December 2000.
(J) Estimate based on Third Edition Baseline Handbook data.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D- 72
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.31a Burden and Cost to Plants Associated with E. coli Monitoring for Bin Reclassification for All Systems, by System Size
Based on ICR Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A3


Sampling
Sample Analysis








uommerciai









Baseline #




Analysis
Utility
Utility

Percent





of Plants




Cost per
Analysis
Analysis
Utility
Utilities with
Total
Total


System Size
Conducting


Cost per
Total
Sample
Hours per
Cost per
Analysis
E. coli
Laboratory
Laboratory


(Population
E. coli
# of E. coli
Hours per
Labor
Sampling
(Includes
Sample
Sample
Cost per
Analysis
Analysis
Analysis Cost

Total Burden
Served)
Monitoring
Samples
Sample
Hour
Labor Cost
Shipping)
(Labor)
(O&M)
Sample
Capabilities
Cost (Labor)
(O&M)
Total Cost
(Hours)











K =
L = F*A*B*(1-

N =

A
B
C
D
E = A*B*C*D
F
G
H
I = H+G*D
J
d*g*j*a*b
J)+H*A*B*J
M = E+K+L
A*B*C+A*B*G*J
CWSs
<100
265
26
0.25
$ 21.44
$ 36,948
$ 70.00
0.5
$ 10.28
$ 21.00
25%
$ 18,474
$ 379,611
$ 435,033
2,585
100-499
603
26
0.25
23.09
90,555
70.00
0.5
9.46
21.00
25%
45,278
860,667
996,500
5,883
500-999
382
26
0.25
24.74
61,353
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
30,677
542,186
634,217
3,720
1,000-3,299
948
26
0.25
24.74
152,478
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
76,239
1,347,468
1,576,185
9,245
3,300-9,999
934
26
0.25
25.34
153,917
70.00
0.5
8.33
21.00
25%
76,958
1,326,152
1,557,027
9,111
10,000-49,999
744
24
0.25
26.05
116,306
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
174,459
419,350
710,115
11,162
50,000-99,999
180
24
0.25
26.05
28,136
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
42,204
101,447
171,788
2,700
100,000-999,999
215
24
0.25
31.26
40,377
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
80,754
27,745
148,875
3,875
> 1 Million
37
24
0.25
31.26
6,903
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
13,806
4,743
25,452
662
National Totals
4,309



$ 686,974





$ 558,849
$ 5,009,369
$ 6,255,192
48,943
NTNCWSs
<100
138
26
0.25
$ 21.44
$ 19,271
$ 70.00
0.5
$ 10.28
$ 21.00
25%
$ 9,636
$ 197,996
$ 226,903
1,348
100-499
205
26
0.25
23.09
30,825
70.00
0.5
9.46
21.00
25%
15,412
292,967
339,204
2,002
500-999
69
26
0.25
24.74
11,101
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
5,550
98,096
114,747
673
1,000-3,299
54
26
0.25
24.74
8,642
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
4,321
76,373
89,336
524
3,300-9,999
11
26
0.25
25.34
1,831
70.00
0.5
8.33
21.00
25%
915
15,773
18,520
108
10,000-49,999
1
24
0.25
26.05
106
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
159
383
648
10
50,000-99,999
-
24
0.25
26.05
-
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
-
24
0.25
31.26
-
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
-
-
-
-
> 1 Million
-
24
0.25
31.26
-
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
-
-
-
-
National Totals
478



$ 71,775





$ 35,994
$ 681,589
$ 789,358
4,666
TNCWSs
<100
751
26
0.25
$ 21.44
$ 104,692
$ 70.00
0.5
$ 10.28
$ 21.00
25%
$ 52,346
$ 1,075,628
$ 1,232,665
7,325
100-499
482
26
0.25
23.09
72,369
70.00
0.5
9.46
21.00
25%
36,185
687,823
796,378
4,701
500-999
75
26
0.25
24.74
12,035
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
6,017
106,354
124,406
730
1,000-3,299
44
26
0.25
24.74
7,118
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
3,559
62,901
73,577
432
3,300-9,999
14
26
0.25
25.34
2,386
70.00
0.5
8.33
21.00
25%
1,193
20,556
24,135
141
10,000-49,999
6
24
0.25
26.05
979
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
1,469
3,531
5,979
94
50,000-99,999
-
24
0.25
26.05
-
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
1
24
0.25
31.26
160
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
319
110
589
15
> 1 Million
-
24
0.25
31.26
-
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
-
-
-
-
National Totals
1,374



$ 199,739





$ 101,088
$ 1,956,902
$ 2,257,729
13,438
Grand Totals
6,161



$ 958,488





$ 695,931
$ 7,647,860
$ 9,302,279
67,047
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Taken from "Baseline for Implementation and Monitoring Activities," column I.
(B)	Bi-weekly source water monitoring for one year for small systems and monthly samples for 24 months for medium and large systems.
(C)	Estimate of labor for collecting sample and shipping, based on expert opinion.
(D)	All size categories were assumed to use a technical rate of $24.96/hour, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics rates.
(F)	DynCorp study, Kevin Connell, June 2002.
(G)	Based on expert opinion.
(H)	The amount left over after the cost of half an hour of labor is subtracted from the cost of utility analysis provided in Column I.
(I)	DynCorp study, Kevin Connell, December 2000.
(J) Estimate based on Third Edition Baseline Handbook data.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D- 73
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.31b Burden and Cost to Plants Associated with E. coli Monitoring for Bin Reclassification for All Systems, by System Size
Based on ICRSSM Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A3


Sampling
Sample Analysis



Baseline #




Commercial
Utility
Utility

Percent





of Plants




Analysis Cost
Analysis
Analysis
Utility
Utilities with
Total
Total


System Size
Conducting


Cost per
Total
per Sample
Hours per
Cost per
Analysis
E. coli
Laboratory
Laboratory


(Population
E. coli
# of E. coli
Hours per
Labor
Sampling
(Includes
Sample
Sample
Cost per
Analysis
Analysis
Analysis Cost

Total Burden
Served)
Monitoring
Samples
Sample
Hour
Labor Cost
Shipping)
(Labor)
(O&M)
Sample
Capabilities
Cost (Labor)
(O&M)
Total Cost
(Hours)











K =
L = PA*B*(1-

N =

A
B
C
D
E = A*B*C*D
F
G
H
I = H+G*D
J
d*g*j*a*b
J)+H*A*B*J
M = E+K+L
A*B*C+A*B*G*J
CWSs
<100
273
26
0.25
$ 21.44
$ 38,035
$ 70.00
0.5
$ 10.28
$ 21.00
25%
$ 19,018
$ 390,785
$ 447,839
2,661
100-499
619
26
0.25
23.09
92,958
70.00
0.5
9.46
21.00
25%
46,479
883,505
1,022,942
6,039
500-999
392
26
0.25
24.74
62,981
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
31,491
556,573
651,045
3,819
1,000-3,299
1,008
26
0.25
24.74
162,102
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
81,051
1,432,512
1,675,665
9,828
3,300-9,999
993
26
0.25
25.34
163,545
70.00
0.5
8.33
21.00
25%
81,772
1,409,103
1,654,420
9,681
10,000-49,999
821
24
0.25
26.05
128,339
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
192,508
462,735
783,582
12,317
50,000-99,999
199
24
0.25
26.05
31,036
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
46,554
111,903
189,493
2,979
100,000-999,999
237
24
0.25
31.26
44,470
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
88,940
30,557
163,968
4,268
> 1 Million
41
24
0.25
31.26
7,601
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
15,202
5,223
28,027
729
National Totals
4,582



$ 731,068





$ 603,016
$ 5,282,897
$ 6,616,981
52,320
NTNCWSs
<100
142
26
0.25
$ 21.44
$ 19,838
$ 70.00
0.5
$ 10.28
$ 21.00
25%
$ 9,919
$ 203,824
$ 233,582
1,388
100-499
211
26
0.25
23.09
31,643
70.00
0.5
9.46
21.00
25%
15,821
300,741
348,205
2,056
500-999
71
26
0.25
24.74
11,395
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
5,698
100,699
117,792
691
1,000-3,299
57
26
0.25
24.74
9,188
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
4,594
81,193
94,974
557
3,300-9,999
12
26
0.25
25.34
1,945
70.00
0.5
8.33
21.00
25%
973
16,760
19,678
115
10,000-49,999
1
24
0.25
26.05
117
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
176
422
715
11
50,000-99,999
-
24
0.25
26.05
-
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
-
24
0.25
31.26
-
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
-
-
-
-
> 1 Million
-
24
0.25
31.26
-
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
-
-
-
-
National Totals
494



$ 74,126





$ 37,180
$ 703,640
$ 814,946
4,818
TNCWSs
<100
770
26
0.25
$ 21.44
$ 107,284
$ 70.00
0.5
$ 10.28
$ 21.00
25%
$ 53,642
$ 1,102,263
$ 1,263,189
7,506
100-499
494
26
0.25
23.09
74,162
70.00
0.5
9.46
21.00
25%
37,081
704,856
816,098
4,818
500-999
77
26
0.25
24.74
12,333
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
6,166
108,987
127,486
748
1,000-3,299
47
26
0.25
24.74
7,558
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
3,779
66,790
78,126
458
3,300-9,999
15
26
0.25
25.34
2,532
70.00
0.5
8.33
21.00
25%
1,266
21,816
25,614
150
10,000-49,999
7
24
0.25
26.05
1,079
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
1,618
3,889
6,585
104
50,000-99,999
-
24
0.25
26.05
-
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
1
24
0.25
31.26
166
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
333
114
613
16
> 1 Million
-
24
0.25
31.26
-
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
-
-
-
-
National Totals
1,411



$ 205,113





$ 103,884
$ 2,008,714
$ 2,317,711
13,799
Grand Totals
6,487



$ 1,010,307





$ 744,081
$ 7,995,251
$ 9,749,639
70,937
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Taken from "Baseline for Implementation and Monitoring Activities," column I.
(B)	Bi-weekly source water monitoring for one year for small systems and monthly samples for 24 months for medium and large systems.
(C)	Estimate of labor for collecting sample and shipping, based on expert opinion.
(D)	All size categories were assumed to use a technical rate of $24.96/hour, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics rates.
(F)	DynCorp study, Kevin Connell, June 2002.
(G)	Based on expert opinion.
(H)	The amount left over after the cost of half an hour of labor is subtracted from the cost of utility analysis provided in Column I.
(I)	DynCorp study, Kevin Connell, December 2000.
(J) Estimate based on Third Edition Baseline Handbook data.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 74
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.31c Burden and Cost to Plants Associated with E. coli Monitoring for Bin Reclassification for All Systems, by System Size
Based on ICRSSL Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A3


Sampling
Sample Analysis








uommerciai









Baseline #




Analysis
Utility
Utility

Percent





of Plants




Cost per
Analysis
Analysis
Utility
Utilities with
Total
Total


System Size
Conducting


Cost per
Total
Sample
Hours per
Cost per
Analysis
E. coli
Laboratory
Laboratory


(Population
E. coli
# of E. coli
Hours per
Labor
Sampling
(Includes
Sample
Sample
Cost per
Analysis
Analysis Cost
Analysis Cost

Total Burden
Served)
Monitoring
Samples
Sample
Hour
Labor Cost
Shipping)
(Labor)
(O&M)
Sample
Capabilities
(Labor)
(O&M)
Total Cost
(Hours)












L = PA*B*(1-

N =

A
B
C
D
E = A*B*C*D
F
G
H
I = H+G*D
J
K = D*G*J*A*B
J)+H*A*B*J
M = E+K+L
A*B*C+A*B*G*J
CWSs
<100
275
26
0.25
$ 21.44
$ 38,348
$ 70.00
0.5
$ 10.28
$ 21.00
25%
$ 19,174
$ 393,992
$ 451,513
2,683
100-499
624
26
0.25
23.09
93,648
70.00
0.5
9.46
21.00
25%
46,824
890,059
1,030,531
6,084
500-999
395
26
0.25
24.74
63,449
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
31,724
560,702
655,875
3,847
1,000-3,299
1,024
26
0.25
24.74
164,662
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
82,331
1,455,132
1,702,125
9,984
3,300-9,999
1,008
26
0.25
25.34
166,074
70.00
0.5
8.33
21.00
25%
83,037
1,430,897
1,680,008
9,831
10,000-49,999
867
24
0.25
26.05
135,572
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
203,358
488,815
827,745
13,011
50,000-99,999
210
24
0.25
26.05
32,782
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
49,173
118,198
200,153
3,146
100,000-999,999
250
24
0.25
31.26
46,903
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
93,806
32,229
172,937
4,501
> 1 Million
43
24
0.25
31.26
8,017
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
16,033
5,509
29,558
769
National Totals
4,696



$ 749,453





$ 625,460
$ 5,375,532
$ 6,750,445
53,855
NTNCWSs
<100
144
26
0.25
$ 21.44
$ 20,001
$ 70.00
0.5
$ 10.28
$ 21.00
25%
$ 10,001
$ 205,497
$ 235,499
1,399
100-499
212
26
0.25
23.09
31,877
70.00
0.5
9.46
21.00
25%
15,939
302,972
350,788
2,071
500-999
71
26
0.25
24.74
11,480
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
5,740
101,446
118,666
696
1,000-3,299
58
26
0.25
24.74
9,333
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
4,666
82,475
96,474
566
3,300-9,999
12
26
0.25
25.34
1,975
70.00
0.5
8.33
21.00
25%
988
17,019
19,982
117
10,000-49,999
1
24
0.25
26.05
124
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
186
446
755
12
50,000-99,999
-
24
0.25
26.05
-
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
-
24
0.25
31.26
-
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
-
-
-
-
> 1 Million
-
24
0.25
31.26
-
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
-
-
-
-
National Totals
498



$ 74,790





$ 37,519
$ 709,856
$ 822,164
4,861
TNCWSs
<100
775
26
0.25
$ 21.44
$ 108,028
$ 70.00
0.5
$ 10.28
$ 21.00
25%
$ 54,014
$ 1,109,906
$ 1,271,948
7,558
100-499
498
26
0.25
23.09
74,676
70.00
0.5
9.46
21.00
25%
37,338
709,743
821,757
4,851
500-999
77
26
0.25
24.74
12,418
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
6,209
109,743
128,370
753
1,000-3,299
48
26
0.25
24.74
7,675
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
3,837
67,824
79,336
465
3,300-9,999
16
26
0.25
25.34
2,570
70.00
0.5
8.33
21.00
25%
1,285
22,147
26,003
152
10,000-49,999
7
24
0.25
26.05
1,138
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
1,707
4,104
6,949
109
50,000-99,999
-
24
0.25
26.05
-
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
1
24
0.25
31.26
170
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
340
117
627
16
> 1 Million
-
24
0.25
31.26
-
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
-
-
-
-
National Totals
1,421



$ 206,676





$ 104,731
$ 2,023,584
$ 2,334,991
13,905
Grand Totals
6,615



$ 1,030,919





$ 767,710
$ 8,108,971
$ 9,907,600
72,621
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Taken from "Baseline for Implementation and Monitoring Activities," column I.
(B)	Bi-weekly source water monitoring for one year for small systems and monthly samples for 24 months for medium and large systems.
(C)	Estimate of labor for collecting sample and shipping, based on expert opinion.
(D)	All size categories were assumed to use a technical rate of $24.96/hour, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics rates.
(F)	DynCorp study, Kevin Connell, June 2002.
(G)	Based on expert opinion.
(H)	The amount left over after the cost of half an hour of labor is subtracted from the cost of utility analysis provided in Column I.
(I)	DynCorp study, Kevin Connell, December 2000.
(J) Estimate based on Third Edition Baseline Handbook data.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D- 75
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.32a Burden and Cost to Plants Associated with E. coli Monitoring for Bin Reclassification for All Systems, by System Size
Based on ICR Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A4


Sampling
Sample Analysis



Baseline #





Commercial
Utility
Utility

Percent







of Plants





Analysis Cost
Analysis
Analysis
Utility
Utilities with

Total

Total


System Size
Conducting


Cost per

Total
per Sample
Hours per
Cost per
Analysis
E. coli

Laboratory

Laboratory


(Population
E. coli
# of E. coli
Hours per
Labor

Sampling
(Includes
Sample
Sample
Cost per
Analysis
Analysis Cost
Analysis Cost

Total Burden
Served)
Monitoring
Samples
Sample
Hour
Labor Cost
Shipping)
(Labor)
(O&M)
Sample
Capabilities

(Labor)

(OaM)
Total Cost
(Hours)














L = PA*B*(1-

N =

A
B
C
D
E = A*B*C*D
F
G
H
I = H+G*D
J
K
= D*G*J*A*B

J)+H*A*B*J
M = E+K+L
A*B*C+A*B*G*J
CWSs
<100
275
26
0.25
$ 21.44
$
38,380
$ 70.00
0.5
$ 10.28
$ 21.00
25%
$
19,190
$
394,322
$ 451,892
2,685
100-499
624
26
0.25
23.09

93,719
70.00
0.5
9.46
21.00
25%

46,859

890,734
1,031,312
6,088
500-999
395
26
0.25
24.74

63,501
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%

31,751

561,165
656,417
3,850
1,000-3,299
1,030
26
0.25
24.74

165,642
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%

82,821

1,463,800
1,712,264
10,043
3,300-9,999
1,014
26
0.25
25.34

166,934
70.00
0.5
8.33
21.00
25%

83,467

1,438,309
1,688,711
9,882
10,000-49,999
926
24
0.25
26.05

144,747
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%

217,120

521,894
883,761
13,891
50,000-99,999
224
24
0.25
26.05

34,996
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%

52,494

126,181
213,671
3,359
100,000-999,999
267
24
0.25
31.26

50,144
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%

100,289

34,456
184,889
4,812
> 1 Million
46
24
0.25
31.26

8,570
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%

17,141

5,889
31,600
822
National Totals
4,801



$
766,634





$
651,132
$
5,436,751
$ 6,854,517
55,433
NTNCWSs
<100
144
26
0.25
$ 21.44
$
20,018
$ 70.00
0.5
$ 10.28
$ 21.00
25%
$
10,009
$
205,669
$ 235,696
1,401
100-499
213
26
0.25
23.09

31,901
70.00
0.5
9.46
21.00
25%

15,951

303,202
351,054
2,072
500-999
71
26
0.25
24.74

11,489
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%

5,745

101,530
118,764
697
1,000-3,299
58
26
0.25
24.74

9,388
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%

4,694

82,966
97,049
569
3,300-9,999
12
26
0.25
25.34

1,986
70.00
0.5
8.33
21.00
25%

993

17,107
20,086
118
10,000-49,999
1
24
0.25
26.05

132
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%

198

476
806
13
50,000-99,999
-
24
0.25
26.05

-
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%

-

-
-
-
100,000-999,999
-
24
0.25
31.26

-
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%

-

-
-
-
> 1 Million
-
24
0.25
31.26

-
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%

-

-
-
-
National Totals
499



$
74,914





$
37,589
$
710,951
$ 823,455
4,869
TNCWSs
<100
776
26
0.25
$ 21.44
$
108,105
$ 70.00
0.5
$ 10.28
$ 21.00
25%
$
54,052
$
1,110,693
$ 1,272,850
7,563
100-499
498
26
0.25
23.09

74,729
70.00
0.5
9.46
21.00
25%

37,364

710,247
822,340
4,855
500-999
77
26
0.25
24.74

12,428
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%

6,214

109,828
128,470
754
1,000-3,299
48
26
0.25
24.74

7,720
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%

3,860

68,220
79,800
468
3,300-9,999
16
26
0.25
25.34

2,583
70.00
0.5
8.33
21.00
25%

1,292

22,259
26,135
153
10,000-49,999
8
24
0.25
26.05

1,214
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%

1,821

4,376
7,411
116
50,000-99,999
-
24
0.25
26.05

-
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%

-

-
-
-
100,000-999,999
1
24
0.25
31.26

175
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%

351

120
646
17
> 1 Million
-
24
0.25
31.26

-
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%

-

-
-
-
National Totals
1,423



$
206,954





$
104,954
$
2,025,744
$ 2,337,652
13,926
Grand Totals
6,724



$
1,048,502





$
793,675
$
8,173,447
$10,015,623
74,227
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Taken from "Baseline for Implementation and Monitoring Activities," column I.
(B)	Bi-weekly source water monitoring for one year for small systems and monthly samples for 24 months for medium and large systems.
(C)	Estimate of labor for collecting sample and shipping, based on expert opinion.
(D)	All size categories were assumed to use a technical rate of $24.96/hour, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics rates.
(F)	DynCorp study, Kevin Connell, June 2002.
(G)	Based on expert opinion.
(H)	The amount left over after the cost of half an hour of labor is subtracted from the cost of utility analysis provided in Column I.
(I)	DynCorp study, Kevin Connell, December 2000.
(J) Estimate based on Third Edition Baseline Handbook data.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 76
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.32b Burden and Cost to Plants Associated with E. coli Monitoring for Bin Reclassification for All Systems, by System Size
Based on ICRSSM Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A4


Sampling
Sample Analysis








commercial









Baseline #




Analysis
Utility
Utility







of Plants




Cost per
Analysis
Analysis

Percent Utilities

Total


System Size
Conducting


Cost per
Total
Sample
Hours per
Cost per

with E. coli
Total Laboratory
Laboratory


(Population
E. coli
# of E. coli
Hours per
Labor
Sampling
(Includes
Sample
Sample
Utility Analysis
Analysis
Analysis Cost
Analysis Cost

Total Burden
Served)
Monitoring
Samples
Sample
Hour
Labor Cost
Shipping)
(Labor)
(O&M)
Cost per Sample
Capabilities
(Labor)
(O&M)
Total Cost
(Hours)












L =

N =

A
B
C
D
E = A*B*C*D
F
G
H
I = H+G*D
J
K = D*G*J*A*B
J)+H*A*B*J
M = E+K+L
A*B*C+A*B*G*J
CWSs
<100
278
26
0.25
$ 21.44
$ 38,732
$ 70.00
0.5
$ 10.28
$ 21.00
25%
$ 19,366
$ 397,941
$ 456,038
2,710
100-499
630
26
0.25
23.09
94,497
70.00
0.5
9.46
21.00
25%
47,248
898,129
1,039,874
6,139
500-999
398
26
0.25
24.74
64,028
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
32,014
565,818
661,860
3,882
1,000-3,299
1,038
26
0.25
24.74
166,891
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
83,446
1,474,834
1,725,171
10,119
3,300-9,999
1,021
26
0.25
25.34
168,128
70.00
0.5
8.33
21.00
25%
84,064
1,448,595
1,700,787
9,952
10,000-49,999
990
24
0.25
26.05
154,730
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
232,095
557,889
944,713
14,849
50,000-99,999
239
24
0.25
26.05
37,408
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
56,112
134,877
228,397
3,590
100,000-999,999
285
24
0.25
31.26
53,458
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
106,915
36,733
197,106
5,130
> 1 Million
49
24
0.25
31.26
9,137
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
18,273
6,278
33,688
877
National Totals
4,927



$ 787,008





$ 679,533
$ 5,521,094
$ 6,987,635
57,248
NTNCWSs
<100
145
26
0.25
$ 21.44
$ 20,202
$ 70.00
0.5
$ 10.28
$ 21.00
25%
$ 10,101
$ 207,556
$ 237,859
1,413
100-499
214
26
0.25
23.09
32,166
70.00
0.5
9.46
21.00
25%
16,083
305,719
353,969
2,090
500-999
72
26
0.25
24.74
11,584
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
5,792
102,372
119,749
702
1,000-3,299
59
26
0.25
24.74
9,459
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
4,730
83,592
97,780
574
3,300-9,999
12
26
0.25
25.34
2,000
70.00
0.5
8.33
21.00
25%
1,000
17,230
20,229
118
10,000-49,999
1
24
0.25
26.05
141
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
212
509
862
14
50,000-99,999
-
24
0.25
26.05
-
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
-
24
0.25
31.26
-
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
-
-
-
-
> 1 Million
-
24
0.25
31.26
-
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
-
-
-
-
National Totals
503



$ 75,552





$ 37,917
$ 716,978
$ 830,448
4,911
TNCWSs
<100
782
26
0.25
$ 21.44
$ 108,944
$ 70.00
0.5
$ 10.28
$ 21.00
25%
$ 54,472
$ 1,119,318
$ 1,282,734
7,622
100-499
502
26
0.25
23.09
75,309
70.00
0.5
9.46
21.00
25%
37,655
715,762
828,725
4,892
500-999
78
26
0.25
24.74
12,524
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
6,262
110,679
129,466
759
1,000-3,299
48
26
0.25
24.74
7,777
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
3,888
68,725
80,390
472
3,300-9,999
16
26
0.25
25.34
2,602
70.00
0.5
8.33
21.00
25%
1,301
22,416
26,318
154
10,000-49,999
8
24
0.25
26.05
1,296
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
1,944
4,673
7,913
124
50,000-99,999
-
24
0.25
26.05
-
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
1
24
0.25
31.26
181
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
361
124
666
17
> 1 Million
-
24
0.25
31.26
-
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
-
-
-
-
National Totals
1,435



$ 208,633





$ 105,883
$ 2,041,697
$ 2,356,213
14,041
Grand Totals
6,865



$ 1,071,193





$ 823,334
$ 8,279,770
$10,174,296
76,200
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Taken from "Baseline for Implementation and Monitoring Activities," column I.
(B)	Bi-weekly source water monitoring for one year for small systems and monthly samples for 24 months for medium and large systems.
(C)	Estimate of labor for collecting sample and shipping, based on expert opinion.
(D)	All size categories were assumed to use a technical rate of $24.96/hour, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics rates.
(F)	DynCorp study, Kevin Connell, June 2002.
(G)	Based on expert opinion.
(H)	The amount left over after the cost of half an hour of labor is subtracted from the cost of utility analysis provided in Column I.
(I)	DynCorp study, Kevin Connell, December 2000.
(J) Estimate based on Third Edition Baseline Handbook data.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D- 77
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.32c Burden and Cost to Plants Associated with E. coli Monitoring for Bin Reclassification for All Systems, by System Size
Based on ICRSSL Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A4


Sampling
Sample Analysis








uommerciai









Baseline #




Analysis
Utility
Utility

Percent





of Plants




Cost per
Analysis
Analysis
Utility
Utilities with

Total


System Size
Conducting


Cost per
Total
Sample
Hours per
Cost per
Analysis
E. coli
Total Laboratory
Laboratory


(Population
E. coli
# of E. coli
Hours per
Labor
Sampling
(Includes
Sample
Sample
Cost per
Analysis
Analysis Cost
Analysis Cost

Total Burden
Served)
Monitoring
Samples
Sample
Hour
Labor Cost
Shipping)
(Labor)
(O&M)
Sample
Capabilities
(Labor)
(O&M)
Total Cost
(Hours)












L = F*A*B*(1-

N =

A
B
C
D
E = A*B*C*D
F
G
H
I = H+G*D
J
K = D*G*J*A*B
J)+H*A*B*J
M = E+K+L
A*B*C+A*B*G*J
CWSs
<100
279
26
0.25
$ 21.44
$ 38,916
$ 70.00
0.5
$ 10.28
$ 21.00
25%
$ 19,458
$ 399,831
$ 458,205
2,723
100-499
632
26
0.25
23.09
94,903
70.00
0.5
9.46
21.00
25%
47,452
901,993
1,044,348
6,165
500-999
400
26
0.25
24.74
64,302
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
32,151
568,245
664,699
3,899
1,000-3,299
1,042
26
0.25
24.74
167,528
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
83,764
1,480,467
1,731,760
10,157
3,300-9,999
1,025
26
0.25
25.34
168,750
70.00
0.5
8.33
21.00
25%
84,375
1,453,955
1,707,081
9,989
10,000-49,999
1,017
24
0.25
26.05
159,013
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
238,519
573,332
970,864
15,260
50,000-99,999
246
24
0.25
26.05
38,443
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
57,665
138,609
234,717
3,689
100,000-999,999
292
24
0.25
31.26
54,859
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
109,718
37,696
202,272
5,265
> 1 Million
50
24
0.25
31.26
9,376
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
18,752
6,443
34,571
900
National Totals
4,984



$ 796,091





$ 691,854
$ 5,560,571
$ 7,048,517
58,047
NTNCWSs
<100
146
26
0.25
$ 21.44
$ 20,298
$ 70.00
0.5
$ 10.28
$ 21.00
25%
$ 10,149
$ 208,542
$ 238,989
1,420
100-499
215
26
0.25
23.09
32,305
70.00
0.5
9.46
21.00
25%
16,152
307,034
355,491
2,099
500-999
72
26
0.25
24.74
11,634
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
5,817
102,811
120,262
705
1,000-3,299
59
26
0.25
24.74
9,495
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
4,748
83,911
98,154
576
3,300-9,999
12
26
0.25
25.34
2,007
70.00
0.5
8.33
21.00
25%
1,004
17,294
20,304
119
10,000-49,999
1
24
0.25
26.05
145
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
218
523
886
14
50,000-99,999
-
24
0.25
26.05
-
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
-
24
0.25
31.26
-
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
-
-
-
-
> 1 Million
-
24
0.25
31.26
-
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
-
-
-
-
National Totals
505



$ 75,884





$ 38,087
$ 720,116
$ 834,087
4,933
TNCWSs
<100
785
26
0.25
$ 21.44
$ 109,383
$ 70.00
0.5
$ 10.28
$ 21.00
25%
$ 54,691
$ 1,123,825
$ 1,287,898
7,653
100-499
504
26
0.25
23.09
75,612
70.00
0.5
9.46
21.00
25%
37,806
718,644
832,062
4,912
500-999
78
26
0.25
24.74
12,575
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
6,287
111,124
129,986
762
1,000-3,299
49
26
0.25
24.74
7,806
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
3,903
68,983
80,692
473
3,300-9,999
16
26
0.25
25.34
2,611
70.00
0.5
8.33
21.00
25%
1,306
22,497
26,414
155
10,000-49,999
9
24
0.25
26.05
1,331
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
1,997
4,800
8,129
128
50,000-99,999
-
24
0.25
26.05
-
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
1
24
0.25
31.26
183
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
366
126
674
18
> 1 Million
-
24
0.25
31.26
-
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
-
-
-
-
National Totals
1,441



$ 209,501





$ 106,356
$ 2,049,997
$ 2,365,854
14,100
Grand Totals
6,930



$ 1,081,476





$ 836,297
$ 8,330,684
$10,248,457
77,080
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Taken from "Baseline for Implementation and Monitoring Activities," column I.
(B)	Bi-weekly source water monitoring for one year for small systems and monthly samples for 24 months for medium and large systems.
(C)	Estimate of labor for collecting sample and shipping, based on expert opinion.
(D)	All size categories were assumed to use a technical rate of $24.96/hour, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics rates.
(F)	DynCorp study, Kevin Connell, June 2002.
(G)	Based on expert opinion.
(H)	The amount left over after the cost of half an hour of labor is subtracted from the cost of utility analysis provided in Column I.
(I)	DynCorp study, Kevin Connell, December 2000.
(J) Estimate based on Third Edition Baseline Handbook data.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D- 78
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.33a Burden and Cost to Plants Associated with Cryptosporidium Monitoring for Bin Reclassification for All System Types, by System Size
Based on ICR Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A2

Baseline u oi
Sampling
Sample Analysis





Plants











Conducting










System Size
Crypto-
# of Crypto-


Total

Total Laboratory

Total
Total

(Population
sporidium
sporidium
Hours per
Cost per
Sampling
Cost per
Analysis Cost

Burden
Burden

Served)
Monitoring
Samples
Sample
Labor Hour
Labor Cost
Sample
(O&M)
Total Cost
(Hours)
(FTEs)
Responses

A
B
C
D
E = A*B*C*D
F
G = A*B*F
H = E+G
I = A*B*C
J =
I/2080
K = A*B
CWSs

<100
255
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$ 71,058
$529.50
$ 3,509,827
$ 3,580,886
3,314
1.6
6,629
100-499
582
26
0.5
23.09
174,841
529.50
8,018,931
8,193,773
7,572
3.6
15,144
500-999
368
26
0.5
24.74
118,466
529.50
5,070,954
5,189,420
4,788
2.3
9,577
1,000-3,299
816
26
0.5
24.74
262,364
529.50
11,230,551
11,492,915
10,605
5.1
21,210
3,300-9,999
804
26
0.5
25.34
264,909
529.50
11,070,972
11,335,881
10,454
5.0
20,908
10,000-49,999
708
26
0.5
26.05
239,801
529.50
9,748,537
9,988,339
9,205
4.4
18,411
50,000-99,999
171
26
0.5
26.05
58,052
529.50
2,359,967
2,418,019
2,228
1.1
4,457
100,000-999,999
205
26
0.5
31.26
83,125
529.50
2,816,048
2,899,173
2,659
1.3
5,318
> 1 Million
35
26
0.5
31.26
14,216
529.50
481,598
495,814
455
0.2
910
National Totals
3,945



$ 1,286,833
$ -
$ 54,307,386
$55,594,219
51,282
24.7
102,564
NTNCWSs
<100
133
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$ 37,062
$529.50
$ 1,830,643
$ 1,867,705
1,729
0.8
3,457
100-499
198
26
0.5
23.09
59,515
529.50
2,729,608
2,789,123
2,578
1.2
5,155
500-999
67
26
0.5
24.74
21,434
529.50
917,474
938,908
866
0.4
1,733
1,000-3,299
46
26
0.5
24.74
14,870
529.50
636,533
651,403
601
0.3
1,202
3,300-9,999
10
26
0.5
25.34
3,151
529.50
131,680
134,831
124
0.1
249
10,000-49,999
1
26
0.5
26.05
219
529.50
8,896
9,115
8
0.0
17
50,000-99,999
-
26
0.5
26.05
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
-
26
0.5
31.26
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
> 1 Million
-
26
0.5
31.26
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
National Totals
454



$ 136,251
$ -
$ 6,254,834
$ 6,391,085
5,906
2.8
11,813
TNCWSs
<100
727
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$ 202,620
$529.50
$ 10,008,131
$10,210,751
9,451
4.5
18,901
100-499
467
26
0.5
23.09
140,064
529.50
6,423,883
6,563,946
6,066
2.9
12,132
500-999
72
26
0.5
24.74
23,293
529.50
997,082
1,020,375
942
0.5
1,883
1,000-3,299
38
26
0.5
24.74
12,288
529.50
525,982
538,270
497
0.2
993
3,300-9,999
13
26
0.5
25.34
4,120
529.50
172,173
176,293
163
0.1
325
10,000-49,999
6
26
0.5
26.05
2,021
529.50
82,174
84,195
78
0.0
155
50,000-99,999
-
26
0.5
26.05
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
1
26
0.5
31.26
339
529.50
11,487
11,826
11
0.0
22
> 1 Million
-
26
0.5
31.26
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
National Totals
1,324



$ 384,745
$ -
$ 18,220,911
$18,605,656
17,206
8.3
34,412
Grand Totals
5,723



$ 1,807,830

$ 78,783,131
$80,590,961
74,394
35.8
148,788
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Taken from "Baseline for Implementation and Monitoring Activities," column J.
(B)	Semimonthly source water monitoring for one year for small systems and monthly samples for 24 months for medium and large systems,
plus two matrix spike samples.
(C)	Estimate of labor for collecting sample and shipping, based on expert opinion.
(D)	All size categories were assumed to use a technical rate of $24.96/hour, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics rates.
(F) Cost per sample includes $403 in lab costs, $88.70 for shipping, and $37.80 in additional costs. Assumes all plants ship samples to private lab for
Cryptosporidium analysis. Samples must be shipped overnight to meet 24-hour holding time requirements. Costs based on FedEx priority overnight rates for
10 L sample (22 LB) shipped in a 34-quart polyethylene cooler packed with wet ice, median cost for all zones. Samples generating a pellet volume of >0.5 ml
require multiple subsample processing at a cost of $140 each. During the ICR Supplemental Survey, approximately 27 percent of field samples required
analysis of multiple subsamples, resulting in an additional per-plant charge of $38 ($140 x 0.27).
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D- 79
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.33b Burden and Cost to Plants Associated with Cryptosporidium Monitoring for Bin Reclassification for All System Types, by System Size
Based on ICRSSM Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A2

Baseline ff ot
Sampling
Sample Analysis





Plants











Conducting










System Size
Crypto-
# of Crypto-


Total

Total Laboratory

Total
Total

(Population
sporidium
sporidium
Hours per
Cost per
Sampling
Cost per
Analysis Cost

Burden
Burden

Served)
Monitoring
Samples
Sample
Labor Hour
Labor Cost
Sample
(O&M)
Total Cost
(Hours)
(FTEs)
Responses

A
B
C
D
E = A*B*C*D
F
G = A*B*F
H = E+G
I = A*B*C
J =
I/2080
K = A*B
CWSs

<100
267
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$ 74,464
$529.50
$ 3,678,025
$ 3,752,489
3,473
1.7
6,946
100-499
608
26
0.5
23.09
182,365
529.50
8,363,995
8,546,360
7,898
3.8
15,796
500-999
384
26
0.5
24.74
123,566
529.50
5,289,275
5,412,841
4,995
2.4
9,989
1,000-3,299
889
26
0.5
24.74
285,899
529.50
12,237,943
12,523,842
11,556
5.6
23,112
3,300-9,999
876
26
0.5
25.34
288,495
529.50
12,056,685
12,345,180
11,385
5.5
22,770
10,000-49,999
770
26
0.5
26.05
260,849
529.50
10,604,204
10,865,053
10,013
4.8
20,027
50,000-99,999
186
26
0.5
26.05
63,116
529.50
2,565,826
2,628,942
2,423
1.2
4,846
100,000-999,999
223
26
0.5
31.26
90,506
529.50
3,066,079
3,156,585
2,895
1.4
5,791
> 1 Million
38
26
0.5
31.26
15,473
529.50
524,179
539,652
495
0.2
990
National Totals
4,241



$ 1,384,733

$ 58,386,212
$ 59,770,945
55,133
26.5
110,267
NTNCWSs
<100
139
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$ 38,838
$529.50
$ 1,918,371
$ 1,957,209
1,811
0.9
3,623
100-499
207
26
0.5
23.09
62,076
529.50
2,847,066
2,909,142
2,688
1.3
5,377
500-999
70
26
0.5
24.74
22,357
529.50
956,975
979,331
904
0.4
1,807
1,000-3,299
50
26
0.5
24.74
16,204
529.50
693,630
709,835
655
0.3
1,310
3,300-9,999
10
26
0.5
25.34
3,431
529.50
143,404
146,836
135
0.1
271
10,000-49,999
1
26
0.5
26.05
238
529.50
9,677
9,915
9
0.0
18
50,000-99,999
-
26
0.5
26.05
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
-
26
0.5
31.26
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
> 1 Million
-
26
0.5
31.26
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
National Totals
477



$ 143,145

$ 6,569,123
$ 6,712,268
6,203
3.0
12,406
TNCWSs
<100
756
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$ 210,737
$529.50
$ 10,409,056
$10,619,792
9,829
4.7
19,658
100-499
485
26
0.5
23.09
145,675
529.50
6,681,222
6,826,897
6,309
3.0
12,618
500-999
75
26
0.5
24.74
24,227
529.50
1,037,046
1,061,273
979
0.5
1,959
1,000-3,299
42
26
0.5
24.74
13,364
529.50
572,050
585,414
540
0.3
1,080
3,300-9,999
14
26
0.5
25.34
4,478
529.50
187,142
191,620
177
0.1
353
10,000-49,999
6
26
0.5
26.05
2,195
529.50
89,227
91,422
84
0.0
169
50,000-99,999
-
26
0.5
26.05
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
1
26
0.5
31.26
351
529.50
11,886
12,237
11
0.0
22
> 1 Million
-
26
0.5
31.26
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
National Totals
1,379



$ 401,026

$ 18,987,629
$19,388,655
17,930
8.6
35,860
Grand Totals
6,097



$ 1,928,904
0
$ 83,942,963
$85,871,867
79,266
38.1
158,533
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Taken from "Baseline for Implementation and Monitoring Activities," column J.
(B)	Semimonthly source water monitoring for one year for small systems and monthly samples for 24 months for medium and large systems,
plus two matrix spike samples.
(C)	Estimate of labor for collecting sample and shipping, based on expert opinion.
(D)	All size categories were assumed to use a technical rate of $24.96/hour, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics rates.
(F) Cost per sample includes $403 in lab costs, $88.70 for shipping, and $37.80 in additional costs. Assumes all plants ship samples to private lab for
Cryptosporidium analysis. Samples must be shipped overnight to meet 24-hour holding time requirements. Costs based on FedEx priority overnight rates for 10
L sample (22 LB) shipped in a 34-quart polyethylene cooler packed with wet ice, median cost for all zones. Samples generating a pellet volume of >0.5 ml
require multiple subsample processing at a cost of $140 each. During the ICR Supplemental Survey, approximately 27 percent of field samples required
analysis of multiple subsamples, resulting in an additional per-plant charge of $38 ($140 x 0.27).
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 80
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.33c Burden and Cost to Plants Associated with Cryptosporidium Monitoring for Bin Reclassification for All System Types, by System Size
Based on ICRSSL Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A2

Baseline ff ot
Sampling
Sample Analysis





Plants











Conducting










System Size
Crypto-
# of Crypto-


Total

Total Laboratory

Total
Total

(Population
sporidium
sporidium
Hours per
Cost per
Sampling
Cost per
Analysis Cost

Burden
Burden

Served)
Monitoring
Samples
Sample
Labor Hour
Labor Cost
Sample
(O&M)
Total Cost
(Hours)
(FTEs)
Responses

A
B
C
D
E = A*B*C*D
F
G = A*B*F
H = E+G
I = A*B*C
J =
I/2080
K = A*B
CWSs

<100
270
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$ 75,337
$529.50
$ 3,721,174
$ 3,796,511
3,514
1.7
7,028
100-499
614
26
0.5
23.09
184,295
529.50
8,452,516
8,636,811
7,982
3.8
15,963
500-999
388
26
0.5
24.74
124,875
529.50
5,345,304
5,470,179
5,048
2.4
10,095
1,000-3,299
925
26
0.5
24.74
297,551
529.50
12,736,737
13,034,288
12,027
5.8
24,054
3,300-9,999
911
26
0.5
25.34
300,129
529.50
12,542,892
12,843,021
11,844
5.7
23,688
10,000-49,999
812
26
0.5
26.05
274,874
529.50
11,174,325
11,449,198
10,552
5.1
21,104
50,000-99,999
196
26
0.5
26.05
66,493
529.50
2,703,126
2,769,619
2,553
1.2
5,105
100,000-999,999
235
26
0.5
31.26
95,377
529.50
3,231,089
3,326,466
3,051
1.5
6,102
> 1 Million
40
26
0.5
31.26
16,304
529.50
552,333
568,638
522
0.3
1,043
National Totals
4,392



$ 1,435,236

$ 60,459,496
$61,894,731
57,091
27.4
114,182
NTNCWSs
<100
141
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$ 39,294
$529.50
$ 1,940,876
$ 1,980,170
1,833
0.9
3,665
100-499
209
26
0.5
23.09
62,733
529.50
2,877,198
2,939,932
2,717
1.3
5,434
500-999
70
26
0.5
24.74
22,593
529.50
967,112
989,705
913
0.4
1,826
1,000-3,299
52
26
0.5
24.74
16,865
529.50
721,901
738,766
682
0.3
1,363
3,300-9,999
11
26
0.5
25.34
3,570
529.50
149,187
152,757
141
0.1
282
10,000-49,999
1
26
0.5
26.05
251
529.50
10,197
10,448
10
0.0
19
50,000-99,999
-
26
0.5
26.05
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
-
26
0.5
31.26
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
> 1 Million
-
26
0.5
31.26
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
National Totals
484



$ 145,306

$ 6,666,472
$ 6,811,778
6,295
3.0
12,590
TNCWSs
<100
764
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$ 212,819
$529.50
$ 10,511,907
$10,724,726
9,926
4.8
19,853
100-499
490
26
0.5
23.09
147,114
529.50
6,747,239
6,894,353
6,371
3.1
12,743
500-999
76
26
0.5
24.74
24,467
529.50
1,047,302
1,071,768
989
0.5
1,978
1,000-3,299
43
26
0.5
24.74
13,897
529.50
594,859
608,756
562
0.3
1,123
3,300-9,999
14
26
0.5
25.34
4,655
529.50
194,525
199,180
184
0.1
367
10,000-49,999
7
26
0.5
26.05
2,310
529.50
93,927
96,238
89
0.0
177
50,000-99,999
-
26
0.5
26.05
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
1
26
0.5
31.26
359
529.50
12,150
12,509
11
0.0
23
> 1 Million
-
26
0.5
31.26
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
National Totals
1,395



$ 405,620

$ 19,201,909
$19,607,530
18,132
8.7
36,264
Grand Totals
6,271



$ 1,986,162

$ 86,327,877
$88,314,039
81,518
39.2
163,037
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Taken from "Baseline for Implementation and Monitoring Activities," column J.
(B)	Semimonthly source water monitoring for one year for small systems and monthly samples for 24 months for medium and large systems,
plus two matrix spike samples.
(C)	Estimate of labor for collecting sample and shipping, based on expert opinion.
(D)	All size categories were assumed to use a technical rate of $24.96/hour, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics rates.
(F) Cost per sample includes $403 in lab costs, $88.70 for shipping, and $37.80 in additional costs. Assumes all plants ship samples to private lab for
Cryptosporidium analysis. Samples must be shipped overnight to meet 24-hour holding time requirements. Costs based on FedEx priority overnight rates for 10
L sample (22 LB) shipped in a 34-quart polyethylene cooler packed with wet ice, median cost for all zones. Samples generating a pellet volume of >0.5 ml
require multiple subsample processing at a cost of $140 each. During the ICR Supplemental Survey, approximately 27 percent of field samples required
analysis of multiple subsamples, resulting in an additional per-plant charge of $38 ($140 x 0.27).
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 81
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.34a Burden and Cost to Plants Associated with Cryptosporidium Monitoring for Bin Reclassification for All System Types, by System Size
Based on ICR Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A3

Baseline ff ot
Sampling
Sample Analysis





Plants











Conducting










System Size
Crypto-
# of Crypto-


Total

Total Laboratory

Total
Total

(Population
sporidium
sporidium
Hours per
Cost per
Sampling
Cost per
Analysis Cost

Burden
Burden

Served)
Monitoring
Samples
Sample
Labor Hour
Labor Cost
Sample
(O&M)
Total Cost
(Hours)
(FTEs)
Responses

A
B
C
D
E = A*B*C*D
F
G = A*B*F
H = E+G
I = A*B*C
J =
I/2080
K = A*B
CWSs

<100
92
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$ 25,716
$529.50
$ 1,270,192
$ 1,295,908
1,199
0.6
2,399
100-499
210
26
0.5
23.09
63,026
529.50
2,890,646
2,953,672
2,730
1.3
5,459
500-999
133
26
0.5
24.74
42,702
529.50
1,827,865
1,870,567
1,726
0.8
3,452
1,000-3,299
330
26
0.5
24.74
106,125
529.50
4,542,697
4,648,822
4,290
2.1
8,579
3,300-9,999
325
26
0.5
25.34
107,126
529.50
4,476,978
4,584,104
4,228
2.0
8,455
10,000-49,999
744
26
0.5
26.05
251,997
529.50
10,244,319
10,496,315
9,674
4.7
19,347
50,000-99,999
180
26
0.5
26.05
60,962
529.50
2,478,255
2,539,217
2,340
1.1
4,680
100,000-999,999
215
26
0.5
31.26
87,483
529.50
2,963,687
3,051,170
2,799
1.3
5,597
> 1 Million
37
26
0.5
31.26
14,957
529.50
506,687
521,644
478
0.2
957
National Totals
2,266



$ 760,094

$ 31,201,326
$31,961,420
29,463
14.2
58,926
NTNCWSs
<100
48
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$ 13,413
$529.50
$ 662,502
$ 675,915
626
0.3
1,251
100-499
71
26
0.5
23.09
21,454
529.50
983,963
1,005,417
929
0.4
1,858
500-999
24
26
0.5
24.74
7,726
529.50
330,711
338,437
312
0.2
625
1,000-3,299
19
26
0.5
24.74
6,015
529.50
257,474
263,489
243
0.1
486
3,300-9,999
4
26
0.5
25.34
1,274
529.50
53,250
54,524
50
0.0
101
10,000-49,999
1
26
0.5
26.05
230
529.50
9,348
9,578
9
0.0
18
50,000-99,999
-
26
0.5
26.05
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
-
26
0.5
31.26
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
> 1 Million
-
26
0.5
31.26
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
National Totals
167



$ 50,112

$ 2,297,248
$ 2,347,360
2,169
1.0
4,339
TNCWSs
<100
261
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$ 72,865
$529.50
$ 3,599,085
$ 3,671,950
3,399
1.6
6,797
100-499
168
26
0.5
23.09
50,369
529.50
2,310,132
2,360,501
2,181
1.0
4,363
500-999
26
26
0.5
24.74
8,376
529.50
358,548
366,925
339
0.2
677
1,000-3,299
15
26
0.5
24.74
4,954
529.50
212,056
217,010
200
0.1
400
3,300-9,999
5
26
0.5
25.34
1,661
529.50
69,396
71,057
66
0.0
131
10,000-49,999
6
26
0.5
26.05
2,122
529.50
86,261
88,383
81
0.0
163
50,000-99,999
-
26
0.5
26.05
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
1
26
0.5
31.26
346
529.50
11,723
12,069
11
0.0
22
> 1 Million
-
26
0.5
31.26
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
National Totals
483



$ 140,693

$ 6,647,200
$ 6,787,894
6,277
3.0
12,554
Grand Totals
2,916



$ 950,899

$ 40,145,774
$41,096,673
37,909
18.2
75,818
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Taken from "Baseline for Implementation and Monitoring Activities," column J.
(B)	Semimonthly source water monitoring for one year for small systems and monthly samples for 24 months for medium and large systems,
plus two matrix spike samples.
(C)	Estimate of labor for collecting sample and shipping, based on expert opinion.
(D)	All size categories were assumed to use a technical rate of $24.96/hour, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics rates.
(F) Cost per sample includes $403 in lab costs, $88.70 for shipping, and $37.80 in additional costs. Assumes all plants ship samples to private lab for
Cryptosporidium analysis. Samples must be shipped overnight to meet 24-hour holding time requirements. Costs based on FedEx priority overnight rates for 10
L sample (22 LB) shipped in a 34-quart polyethylene cooler packed with wet ice, median cost for all zones. Samples generating a pellet volume of >0.5 ml
require multiple subsample processing at a cost of $140 each. During the ICR Supplemental Survey, approximately 27 percent of field samples required
analysis of multiple subsamples, resulting in an additional per-plant charge of $38 ($140 x 0.27).
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 82
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.34b Burden and Cost to Plants Associated with Cryptosporidium Monitoring for Bin Reclassification for All System Types, by System Size
Based on ICRSSM Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A3

Baseline ff ot
Sampling
Sample Analysis





Plants











Conducting










System Size
Crypto-
# of Crypto-


Total

Total Laboratory

Total
Total

(Population
sporidium
sporidium
Hours per
Cost per
Sampling
Cost per
Analysis Cost

Burden
Burden

Served)
Monitoring
Samples
Sample
Labor Hour
Labor Cost
Sample
(O&M)
Total Cost
(Hours)
(FTEs)
Responses

A
B
C
D
E = A*B*C*D
F
G = A*B*F
H = E+G
I = A*B*C
J =
I/2080
K = A*B
CWSs

<100
74
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$ 20,691
$529.50
$ 1,022,017
$ 1,042,708
965
0.5
1,930
100-499
168
26
0.5
23.09
50,569
529.50
2,319,308
2,369,877
2,190
1.1
4,380
500-999
107
26
0.5
24.74
34,262
529.50
1,466,586
1,500,848
1,385
0.7
2,770
1,000-3,299
274
26
0.5
24.74
88,183
529.50
3,774,708
3,862,892
3,564
1.7
7,129
3,300-9,999
270
26
0.5
25.34
88,968
529.50
3,718,127
3,807,095
3,511
1.7
7,022
10,000-49,999
821
26
0.5
26.05
278,068
529.50
11,304,172
11,582,239
10,674
5.1
21,349
50,000-99,999
199
26
0.5
26.05
67,245
529.50
2,733,682
2,800,927
2,581
1.2
5,163
100,000-999,999
237
26
0.5
31.26
96,352
529.50
3,264,138
3,360,491
3,082
1.5
6,165
> 1 Million
41
26
0.5
31.26
16,469
529.50
557,930
574,399
527
0.3
1,054
National Totals
2,191



$ 740,808

$ 30,160,669
$30,901,477
28,480
13.7
56,961
NTNCWSs
<100
39
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$ 10,792
$529.50
$ 533,060
$ 543,852
503
0.2
1,007
100-499
57
26
0.5
23.09
17,214
529.50
789,482
806,696
745
0.4
1,491
500-999
19
26
0.5
24.74
6,199
529.50
265,346
271,544
251
0.1
501
1,000-3,299
16
26
0.5
24.74
4,998
529.50
213,945
218,944
202
0.1
404
3,300-9,999
3
26
0.5
25.34
1,058
529.50
44,224
45,282
42
0.0
84
10,000-49,999
1
26
0.5
26.05
254
529.50
10,316
10,569
10
0.0
19
50,000-99,999
-
26
0.5
26.05
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
-
26
0.5
31.26
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
> 1 Million
-
26
0.5
31.26
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
National Totals
135



$ 40,515

$ 1,856,373
$ 1,896,887
1,753
0.8
3,506
TNCWSs
<100
209
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$ 58,362
$529.50
$ 2,882,736
$ 2,941,099
2,722
1.3
5,444
100-499
134
26
0.5
23.09
40,344
529.50
1,850,331
1,890,675
1,747
0.8
3,494
500-999
21
26
0.5
24.74
6,709
529.50
287,184
293,893
271
0.1
542
1,000-3,299
13
26
0.5
24.74
4,111
529.50
175,992
180,104
166
0.1
332
3,300-9,999
4
26
0.5
25.34
1,377
529.50
57,565
58,942
54
0.0
109
10,000-49,999
7
26
0.5
26.05
2,337
529.50
94,997
97,334
90
0.0
179
50,000-99,999
-
26
0.5
26.05
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
1
26
0.5
31.26
360
529.50
12,203
12,563
12
0.0
23
> 1 Million
-
26
0.5
31.26
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
National Totals
389



$ 113,601

$ 5,361,009
$ 5,474,610
5,062
2.4
10,125
Grand Totals
2,715



$ 894,924

$ 37,378,051
$ 38,272,975
35,296
17.0
70,591
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Taken from "Baseline for Implementation and Monitoring Activities," column J.
(B)	Semimonthly source water monitoring for one year for small systems and monthly samples for 24 months for medium and large systems,
plus two matrix spike samples.
(C)	Estimate of labor for collecting sample and shipping, based on expert opinion.
(D)	All size categories were assumed to use a technical rate of $24.96/hour, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics rates.
(F) Cost per sample includes $403 in lab costs, $88.70 for shipping, and $37.80 in additional costs. Assumes all plants ship samples to private lab for
Cryptosporidium analysis. Samples must be shipped overnight to meet 24-hour holding time requirements. Costs based on FedEx priority overnight rates for 10
L sample (22 LB) shipped in a 34-quart polyethylene cooler packed with wet ice, median cost for all zones. Samples generating a pellet volume of >0.5 ml
require multiple subsample processing at a cost of $140 each. During the ICR Supplemental Survey, approximately 27 percent of field samples required
analysis of multiple subsamples, resulting in an additional per-plant charge of $38 ($140 x 0.27).
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 83
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.34c Burden and Cost to Plants Associated with Cryptosporidium Monitoring for Bin Reclassification for All System Types
by System Size, Based on ICRSSL Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A3

Baseline u oi
Sampling
Sample Analysis





Plants











Conducting










System Size
Crypto-
# of Crypto-


Total

Total Laboratory

Total
Total

(Population
sporidium
sporidium
Hours per
Cost per
Sampling
Cost per
Analysis Cost

Burden
Burden

Served)
Monitoring
Samples
Sample
Labor Hour
Labor Cost
Sample
(O&M)
Total Cost
(Hours)
(FTEs)
Responses

A
B
C
D
E = A*B*C*D
F
G = A*B*F
H = E+G
I = A*B*C
J =
I/2080
K = A*B
CWSs

<100
62
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$ 17,149
$529.50
$ 847,052
$ 864,201
800
0.4
1,600
100-499
140
26
0.5
23.09
41,879
529.50
1,920,751
1,962,630
1,814
0.9
3,627
500-999
88
26
0.5
24.74
28,374
529.50
1,214,563
1,242,937
1,147
0.6
2,294
1,000-3,299
229
26
0.5
24.74
73,637
529.50
3,152,031
3,225,668
2,976
1.4
5,953
3,300-9,999
225
26
0.5
25.34
74,268
529.50
3,103,792
3,178,060
2,931
1.4
5,862
10,000-49,999
867
26
0.5
26.05
293,740
529.50
11,941,288
12,235,028
11,276
5.4
22,552
50,000-99,999
210
26
0.5
26.05
71,028
529.50
2,887,467
2,958,495
2,727
1.3
5,453
100,000-999,999
250
26
0.5
31.26
101,623
529.50
3,442,693
3,544,316
3,251
1.6
6,502
> 1 Million
43
26
0.5
31.26
17,369
529.50
588,424
605,794
556
0.3
1,111
National Totals
2,114



$ 719,067

$ 29,098,061
$29,817,129
27,477
13.2
54,954
NTNCWSs
<100
32
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$ 8,945
$529.50
$ 441,802
$ 450,747
417
0.2
834
100-499
47
26
0.5
23.09
14,256
529.50
653,815
668,070
617
0.3
1,235
500-999
16
26
0.5
24.74
5,134
529.50
219,748
224,881
208
0.1
415
1,000-3,299
13
26
0.5
24.74
4,174
529.50
178,653
182,827
169
0.1
337
3,300-9,999
3
26
0.5
25.34
883
529.50
36,917
37,800
35
0.0
70
10,000-49,999
1
26
0.5
26.05
268
529.50
10,897
11,165
10
0.0
21
50,000-99,999
-
26
0.5
26.05
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
-
26
0.5
31.26
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
> 1 Million
-
26
0.5
31.26
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
National Totals
112



$ 33,659

$ 1,541,832
$ 1,575,491
1,456
0.7
2,912
TNCWSs
<100
173
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$ 48,310
$529.50
$ 2,386,212
$ 2,434,522
2,253
1.1
4,507
100-499
111
26
0.5
23.09
33,395
529.50
1,531,629
1,565,024
1,446
0.7
2,893
500-999
17
26
0.5
24.74
5,554
529.50
237,719
243,273
224
0.1
449
1,000-3,299
11
26
0.5
24.74
3,432
529.50
146,917
150,349
139
0.1
277
3,300-9,999
3
26
0.5
25.34
1,149
529.50
48,039
49,189
45
0.0
91
10,000-49,999
7
26
0.5
26.05
2,466
529.50
100,249
102,715
95
0.0
189
50,000-99,999
-
26
0.5
26.05
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
1
26
0.5
31.26
369
529.50
12,489
12,857
12
0.0
24
> 1 Million
-
26
0.5
31.26
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
National Totals
324



$ 94,675

$ 4,463,254
$ 4,557,929
4,215
2.0
8,429
Grand Totals
2,550



$ 847,401

$ 35,103,147
$35,950,548
33,147
15.9
66,295
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Taken from "Baseline for Implementation and Monitoring Activities," column J.
(B)	Semimonthly source water monitoring for one year for small systems and monthly samples for 24 months for medium and large systems,
plus two matrix spike samples.
(C)	Estimate of labor for collecting sample and shipping, based on expert opinion.
(D)	All size categories were assumed to use a technical rate of $24.96/hour, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics rates.
(F) Cost per sample includes $403 in lab costs, $88.70 for shipping, and $37.80 in additional costs. Assumes all plants ship samples to private lab for
Cryptosporidium analysis. Samples must be shipped overnight to meet 24-hour holding time requirements. Costs based on FedEx priority overnight rates for
10 L sample (22 LB) shipped in a 34-quart polyethylene cooler packed with wet ice, median cost for all zones. Samples generating a pellet volume of >0.5 ml
require multiple subsample processing at a cost of $140 each. During the ICR Supplemental Survey, approximately 27 percent of field samples required
analysis of multiple subsamples, resulting in an additional per-plant charge of $38 ($140 x 0.27).
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D- 84
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.35a Burden and Cost to Plants Associated with Cryptosporidium Monitoring for Bin Reclassification for All System Types, by System Size
Based on ICR Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A4

Baseline # of
Sampling
Sample Analysis





Plants













Conducting












System Size
Crypto-
# of Crypto-



Total

Total Laboratory

Total
Total

(Population
sporidium
sporidium
Hours per
Cost per

Sampling
Cost per

Analysis Cost

Burden
Burden

Served)
Monitoring
Samples
Sample
Labor Hour
Labor Cost
Sample

(O&M)
Total Cost
(Hours)
(FTEs)
Responses

A
B
C
D
E
= A*B*C*D
F
G = A*B*F
H = E+G
I = A*B*C
J =
I/2080
K = A*B
CWSs

<100
83
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$
23,258
$529.50
$
1,148,801
$ 1,172,059
1,085
0.5
2,170
100-499
189
26
0.5
23.09

56,794
529.50

2,604,780
2,661,574
2,460
1.2
4,919
500-999
120
26
0.5
24.74

38,482
529.50

1,647,213
1,685,694
1,555
0.7
3,111
1,000-3,299
312
26
0.5
24.74

100,379
529.50

4,296,756
4,397,135
4,057
2.0
8,115
3,300-9,999
307
26
0.5
25.34

101,162
529.50

4,227,732
4,328,894
3,992
1.9
7,984
10,000-49,999
926
26
0.5
26.05

313,618
529.50

12,749,385
13,063,003
12,039
5.8
24,078
50,000-99,999
224
26
0.5
26.05

75,825
529.50

3,082,477
3,158,302
2,911
1.4
5,821
100,000-999,999
267
26
0.5
31.26

108,646
529.50

3,680,615
3,789,261
3,476
1.7
6,951
> 1 Million
46
26
0.5
31.26

18,569
529.50

629,070
647,639
594
0.3
1,188
National Totals
2,475



$
836,733

$
34,066,829
$ 34,903,561
32,169
15.5
64,338
NTNCWSs
<100
44
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$
12,131
$529.50
$
599,187
$ 611,318
566
0.3
1,132
100-499
64
26
0.5
23.09

19,332
529.50

886,655
905,988
837
0.4
1,675
500-999
22
26
0.5
24.74

6,962
529.50

298,026
304,988
281
0.1
563
1,000-3,299
18
26
0.5
24.74

5,689
529.50

243,534
249,224
230
0.1
460
3,300-9,999
4
26
0.5
25.34

1,203
529.50

50,285
51,489
47
0.0
95
10,000-49,999
1
26
0.5
26.05

286
529.50

11,634
11,921
11
0.0
22
50,000-99,999
-
26
0.5
26.05

-
529.50

-
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
-
26
0.5
31.26

-
529.50

-
-
-
-
-
> 1 Million
-
26
0.5
31.26

-
529.50

-
-
-
-
-
National Totals
152



$
45,604

$
2,089,323
$ 2,134,927
1,973
0.9
3,946
TNCWSs
<100
235
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$
65,511
$529.50
$
3,235,845
$ 3,301,356
3,056
1.5
6,111
100-499
151
26
0.5
23.09

45,286
529.50

2,076,980
2,122,265
1,961
0.9
3,923
500-999
23
26
0.5
24.74

7,531
529.50

322,382
329,913
304
0.1
609
1,000-3,299
15
26
0.5
24.74

4,678
529.50

200,250
204,928
189
0.1
378
3,300-9,999
5
26
0.5
25.34

1,566
529.50

65,429
66,995
62
0.0
124
10,000-49,999
8
26
0.5
26.05

2,630
529.50

106,910
109,540
101
0.0
202
50,000-99,999
-
26
0.5
26.05

-
529.50

-
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
1
26
0.5
31.26

380
529.50

12,869
13,249
12
0.0
24
> 1 Million
-
26
0.5
31.26

-
529.50

-
-
-
-
-
National Totals
437



$
127,582

$
6,020,665
$ 6,148,247
5,685
2.7
11,370
Grand Totals
3,064



$
1,009,919

$
42,176,817
$43,186,735
39,827
19.1
79,654
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Taken from "Baseline for Implementation and Monitoring Activities," column J.
(B)	Semimonthly source water monitoring for one year for small systems and monthly samples for 24 months for medium and large systems,
plus two matrix spike samples.
(C)	Estimate of labor for collecting sample and shipping, based on expert opinion.
(D)	All size categories were assumed to use a technical rate of $24.96/hour, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics rates.
(F) Cost per sample includes $403 in lab costs, $88.70 for shipping, and $37.80 in additional costs. Assumes all plants ship samples to private lab for
Cryptosporidium analysis. Samples must be shipped overnight to meet 24-hour holding time requirements. Costs based on FedEx priority overnight rates for 10
L sample (22 LB) shipped in a 34-quart polyethylene cooler packed with wet ice, median cost for all zones. Samples generating a pellet volume of >0.5 ml require
multiple subsample processing at a cost of $140 each. During the ICR Supplemental Survey, approximately 27 percent of field samples required analysis of
multiple subsamples, resulting in an additional per-plant charge of $38 ($140 x 0.27).
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 85
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.35b Burden and Cost to Plants Associated with Cryptosporidium Monitoring for Bin Reclassification for All System Types, by System Size
Based on ICRSSM Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A4

Baseline # of
Sampling
Sample Analysis





Plants













Conducting












System Size
Crypto-
# of Crypto-



Total

Total Laboratory

Total
Total

(Population
sporidium
sporidium
Hours per
Cost per

Sampling
Cost per

Analysis Cost

Burden
Burden

Served)
Monitoring
Samples
Sample
Labor Hour
Labor Cost
Sample

(O&M)
Total Cost
(Hours)
(FTEs)
Responses

A
B
C
D
E
= A*B*C*D
F
G = A*B*F
H = E+G
I = A*B*C
J =
I/2080
K = A*B
CWSs

<100
60
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$
16,655
$529.50
$
822,636
$ 839,291
777
0.4
1,554
100-499
135
26
0.5
23.09

40,634
529.50

1,863,622
1,904,255
1,760
0.8
3,520
500-999
86
26
0.5
24.74

27,532
529.50

1,178,505
1,206,037
1,113
0.5
2,226
1,000-3,299
223
26
0.5
24.74

71,763
529.50

3,071,835
3,143,598
2,901
1.4
5,801
3,300-9,999
219
26
0.5
25.34

72,295
529.50

3,021,329
3,093,624
2,853
1.4
5,706
10,000-49,999
990
26
0.5
26.05

335,248
529.50

13,628,700
13,963,948
12,869
6.2
25,739
50,000-99,999
239
26
0.5
26.05

81,051
529.50

3,294,926
3,375,977
3,111
1.5
6,223
100,000-999,999
285
26
0.5
31.26

115,825
529.50

3,923,826
4,039,651
3,705
1.8
7,410
> 1 Million
49
26
0.5
31.26

19,796
529.50

670,633
690,429
633
0.3
1,267
National Totals
2,286



$
780,798

$
31,476,012
$32,256,811
29,722
14.3
59,445
NTNCWSs
<100
31
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$
8,687
$529.50
$
429,067
$ 437,754
405
0.2
810
100-499
46
26
0.5
23.09

13,832
529.50

634,368
648,200
599
0.3
1,198
500-999
15
26
0.5
24.74

4,981
529.50

213,224
218,205
201
0.1
403
1,000-3,299
13
26
0.5
24.74

4,067
529.50

174,108
178,175
164
0.1
329
3,300-9,999
3
26
0.5
25.34

860
529.50

35,936
36,796
34
0.0
68
10,000-49,999
1
26
0.5
26.05

306
529.50

12,437
12,743
12
0.0
23
50,000-99,999
-
26
0.5
26.05

-
529.50

-
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
-
26
0.5
31.26

-
529.50

-
-
-
-
-
> 1 Million
-
26
0.5
31.26

-
529.50

-
-
-
-
-
National Totals
109



$
32,733

$
1,499,140
$ 1,531,873
1,416
0.7
2,831
TNCWSs
<100
168
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$
46,846
$529.50
$
2,313,891
$ 2,360,737
2,185
1.1
4,370
100-499
108
26
0.5
23.09

32,383
529.50

1,485,209
1,517,591
1,402
0.7
2,805
500-999
17
26
0.5
24.74

5,385
529.50

230,527
235,912
218
0.1
435
1,000-3,299
10
26
0.5
24.74

3,344
529.50

143,143
146,487
135
0.1
270
3,300-9,999
3
26
0.5
25.34

1,119
529.50

46,752
47,871
44
0.0
88
10,000-49,999
8
26
0.5
26.05

2,808
529.50

114,159
116,967
108
0.1
216
50,000-99,999
-
26
0.5
26.05

-
529.50

-
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
1
26
0.5
31.26

391
529.50

13,258
13,649
13
0.0
25
> 1 Million
-
26
0.5
31.26

-
529.50

-
-
-
-
-
National Totals
316



$
92,277

$
4,346,938
$ 4,439,214
4,105
2.0
8,210
Grand Totals
2,711



$
905,808

$
37,322,090
$ 38,227,898
35,243
16.9
70,486
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Taken from "Baseline for Implementation and Monitoring Activities," column J.
(B)	Semimonthly source water monitoring for one year for small systems and monthly samples for 24 months for medium and large systems,
plus two matrix spike samples.
(C)	Estimate of labor for collecting sample and shipping, based on expert opinion.
(D)	All size categories were assumed to use a technical rate of $24.96/hour, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics rates.
(F) Cost per sample includes $403 in lab costs, $88.70 for shipping, and $37.80 in additional costs. Assumes all plants ship samples to private lab for
Cryptosporidium analysis. Samples must be shipped overnight to meet 24-hour holding time requirements. Costs based on FedEx priority overnight rates for 10
L sample (22 LB) shipped in a 34-quart polyethylene cooler packed with wet ice, median cost for all zones. Samples generating a pellet volume of >0.5 ml require
multiple subsample processing at a cost of $140 each. During the ICR Supplemental Survey, approximately 27 percent of field samples required analysis of
multiple subsamples, resulting in an additional per-plant charge of $38 ($140 x 0.27).
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 86
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.35c Burden and Cost to Plants Associated with Cryptosporidium Monitoring for Bin Reclassification for All System Types, by System Size
Based on ICRSSL Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A4

Baseline ff ot
Sampling
Sample Analysis





Plants











Conducting










System Size
Crypto-
# of Crypto-


Total

Total Laboratory

Total
Total

(Population
sporidium
sporidium
Hours per
Cost per
Sampling
Cost per
Analysis Cost

Burden
Burden

Served)
Monitoring
Samples
Sample
Labor Hour
Labor Cost
Sample
(O&M)
Total Cost
(Hours)
(FTEs)
Responses

A
B
C
D
E = A*B*C*D
F
G = A*B*F
H = E+G
I = A*B*C
J =
I/2080
K = A*B
CWSs

<100
45
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$ 12,453
$529.50
$ 615,103
$ 627,556
581
0.3
1,162
100-499
101
26
0.5
23.09
30,369
529.50
1,392,848
1,423,217
1,315
0.6
2,630
500-999
64
26
0.5
24.74
20,577
529.50
880,789
901,366
832
0.4
1,663
1,000-3,299
167
26
0.5
24.74
53,609
529.50
2,294,747
2,348,356
2,167
1.0
4,334
3,300-9,999
164
26
0.5
25.34
54,000
529.50
2,256,751
2,310,751
2,131
1.0
4,262
10,000-49,999
1,017
26
0.5
26.05
344,528
529.50
14,005,961
14,350,489
13,226
6.4
26,451
50,000-99,999
246
26
0.5
26.05
83,293
529.50
3,386,093
3,469,387
3,197
1.5
6,395
100,000-999,999
292
26
0.5
31.26
118,861
529.50
4,026,671
4,145,532
3,802
1.8
7,605
> 1 Million
50
26
0.5
31.26
20,315
529.50
688,209
708,524
650
0.3
1,300
National Totals
2,146



$ 738,005

$ 29,547,172
$30,285,177
27,901
13.4
55,802
NTNCWSs
<100
23
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$ 6,495
$529.50
$ 320,823
$ 327,318
303
0.1
606
100-499
34
26
0.5
23.09
10,337
529.50
474,119
484,457
448
0.2
895
500-999
12
26
0.5
24.74
3,723
529.50
159,359
163,082
150
0.1
301
1,000-3,299
9
26
0.5
24.74
3,038
529.50
130,063
133,102
123
0.1
246
3,300-9,999
2
26
0.5
25.34
642
529.50
26,842
27,484
25
0.0
51
10,000-49,999
1
26
0.5
26.05
314
529.50
12,781
13,096
12
0.0
24
50,000-99,999
-
26
0.5
26.05
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
-
26
0.5
31.26
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
> 1 Million
-
26
0.5
31.26
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
National Totals
82



$ 24,551

$ 1,123,988
$ 1,148,538
1,061
0.5
2,123
TNCWSs
<100
126
26
0.5
$ 21.44
$ 35,002
$529.50
$ 1,728,898
$ 1,763,901
1,633
0.8
3,265
100-499
81
26
0.5
23.09
24,196
529.50
1,109,721
1,133,917
1,048
0.5
2,096
500-999
13
26
0.5
24.74
4,024
529.50
172,243
176,267
163
0.1
325
1,000-3,299
8
26
0.5
24.74
2,498
529.50
106,924
109,422
101
0.0
202
3,300-9,999
3
26
0.5
25.34
836
529.50
34,919
35,754
33
0.0
66
10,000-49,999
9
26
0.5
26.05
2,885
529.50
117,269
120,153
111
0.1
221
50,000-99,999
-
26
0.5
26.05
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
100,000-999,999
1
26
0.5
31.26
396
529.50
13,422
13,818
13
0.0
25
> 1 Million
-
26
0.5
31.26
-
529.50
-
-
-
-
-
National Totals
238



$ 69,837

$ 3,283,397
$ 3,353,233
3,100
1.5
6,201
Grand Totals
2,466



$ 832,393

$ 33,954,556
$ 34,786,948
32,063
15.4
64,126
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Taken from "Baseline for Implementation and Monitoring Activities," column J.
(B)	Semimonthly source water monitoring for one year for small systems and monthly samples for 24 months for medium and large systems,
plus two matrix spike samples.
(C)	Estimate of labor for collecting sample and shipping, based on expert opinion.
(D)	All size categories were assumed to use a technical rate of $24.96/hour, based on Bureau of Labor Statistics rates.
(F) Cost per sample includes $403 in lab costs, $88.70 for shipping, and $37.80 in additional costs. Assumes all plants ship samples to private lab for
Cryptosporidium analysis. Samples must be shipped overnight to meet 24-hour holding time requirements. Costs based on FedEx priority overnight rates for 10
L sample (22 LB) shipped in a 34-quart polyethylene cooler packed with wet ice, median cost for all zones. Samples generating a pellet volume of >0.5 ml
require multiple subsample processing at a cost of $140 each. During the ICR Supplemental Survey, approximately 27 percent of field samples required
analysis of multiple subsamples, resulting in an additional per-plant charge of $38 ($140 x 0.27).
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 87
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.36a Reporting Cost and Labor Estimates for Bin Reclassification Monitoring for All System
Types, by System Size, Based on ICR Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A2


uost per
baseline ff




System Size
Hours
Labor
of Plants


Total Burden
Total Burden
(Population Served)
per Plant
Hour
Reporting

Total Cost
(Hours)
(PTEs)

A
B
C
D = A*B*C
E = A*C
F = E/2080
CWSs
<100
6.5
$ 21.44
255
$
35,529
1,657
0.8
100-499
6.5
23.09
582

87,421
3,786
1.8
500-999
6.5
30.03
368

71,903
2,394
1.2
1,000-3,299
6.5
30.03
816

159,243
5,302
2.5
3,300-9,999
6.5
30.51
804

159,489
5,227
2.5
10,000-49,999
6
31.08
708

132,048
4,249
2.0
50,000-99,999
6
31.08
171

31,967
1,029
0.5
100,000-999,999
6
35.25
205

43,260
1,227
0.6
> 1 Million
6
35.25
35

7,398
210
0.1
National Totals


3,945
$
728,258
25,081
12.1
NTNCWSs
<100
6.5
$ 21.44
133
$
18,531
864
0.4
100-499
6.5
23.09
198

29,758
1,289
0.6
500-999
6.5
30.03
67

13,009
433
0.2
1,000-3,299
6.5
30.03
46

9,026
301
0.1
3,300-9,999
6.5
30.51
10

1,897
62
0.0
10,000-49,999
6
31.08
1

121
4
0.0
50,000-99,999
6
31.08
-

-
-
-
100,000-999,999
6
35.25
-

-
-
-
> 1 Million
6
35.25
-

-
-
-
National Totals


454
$
72,341
2,953
1.4
TNCWSs
<100
6.5
$ 21.44
727
$
101,310
4,725
2.3
100-499
6.5
23.09
467

70,032
3,033
1.5
500-999
6.5
30.03
72

14,138
471
0.2
1,000-3,299
6.5
30.03
38

7,458
248
0.1
3,300-9,999
6.5
30.51
13

2,480
81
0.0
10,000-49,999
6
31.08
6

1,113
36
0.0
50,000-99,999
6
31.08
-

-
-
-
100,000-999,999
6
35.25
1

176
5
0.0
> 1 Million
6
35.25
-

-
-
-
National Totals


1,324
$
196,708
8,599
4.1
Grand Totals


5,723
$
997,307
36,634
17.6
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Hours per plant reporting to the State/Primacy Agency for bin classification exemption and to report E. coli
and Cryptosporidium monitoring data and bin classification. Assumes 15 minutes per sample. Based on 24
monthly E. coli and Cryptosporidium samples for medium and large systems and 26 biweekly E. coli and 24
semimonthly Cryptosporidium samples for small systems. Although small systems will not report E. coli and
Cryptosporidium results at the same time, the additional reporting burden is assumed to be negligible. The
decrease in burden for small plants that report E. coli but are exempt from Cryptosporidium monitoring is also
assumed to be negligible.
(B)	For plants serving up to 500 people, the full technical rate ($24.96/hour) was applied. For plants serving
more than 500 people, costs are based on an 80%/20% split between technical and managerial ($44.91/hour)
rates. Rates are based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
(C)	Taken from "Baseline for Implementation and Monitoring Activities," column I.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 88
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.36b Reporting Cost and Labor Estimates for Bin Reclassification Monitoring for All System
Types, by System Size, Based on ICRSSM Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A2


uost per
baseline ff




System Size
Hours
Labor
of Plants


Total Burden
Total Burden
(Population Served)
per Plant
Hour
Reporting

Total Cost
(Hours)
(PTEs)

A
B
C
D = A*B*C
E = A*C
F = E/2080
CWSs
<100
6.5
$ 21.44
267
$
37,232
1,737
0.8
100-499
6.5
23.09
608

91,183
3,949
1.9
500-999
6.5
30.03
384

74,999
2,497
1.2
1,000-3,299
6.5
30.03
889

173,527
5,778
2.8
3,300-9,999
6.5
30.51
876

173,689
5,692
2.7
10,000-49,999
6
31.08
770

143,639
4,622
2.2
50,000-99,999
6
31.08
186

34,755
1,118
0.5
100,000-999,999
6
35.25
223

47,101
1,336
0.6
> 1 Million
6
35.25
38

8,052
228
0.1
National Totals


4,241
$
784,176
26,958
13.0
NTNCWSs
<100
6.5
$ 21.44
139
$
19,419
906
0.4
100-499
6.5
23.09
207

31,038
1,344
0.6
500-999
6.5
30.03
70

13,569
452
0.2
1,000-3,299
6.5
30.03
50

9,835
327
0.2
3,300-9,999
6.5
30.51
10

2,066
68
0.0
10,000-49,999
6
31.08
1

131
4
0.0
50,000-99,999
6
31.08
-

-
-
-
100,000-999,999
6
35.25
-

-
-
-
> 1 Million
6
35.25
-

-
-
-
National Totals


477
$
76,059
3,101
1.5
TNCWSs
<100
6.5
$ 21.44
756
$
105,368
4,915
2.4
100-499
6.5
23.09
485

72,837
3,154
1.5
500-999
6.5
30.03
75

14,705
490
0.2
1,000-3,299
6.5
30.03
42

8,111
270
0.1
3,300-9,999
6.5
30.51
14

2,696
88
0.0
10,000-49,999
6
31.08
6

1,209
39
0.0
50,000-99,999
6
31.08
-

-
-
-
100,000-999,999
6
35.25
1

183
5
0.0
> 1 Million
6
35.25
-

-
-
-
National Totals


1,379
$
205,109
8,961
4.3
Grand Totals


6,097
$
1,065,344
39,020
18.8
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Hours per plant reporting to the State/Primacy Agency for bin classification exemption and to report E. coli
and Cryptosporidium monitoring data and bin classification. Assumes 15 minutes per sample. Based on 24
monthly E. coli and Cryptosporidium samples for medium and large systems and 26 biweekly E. coli and 24
semimonthly Cryptosporidium samples for small systems. Although small systems will not report E. coli and
Cryptosporidium results at the same time, the additional reporting burden is assumed to be negligible. The
decrease in burden for small plants that report E. coli but are exempt from Cryptosporidium monitoring is also
assumed to be negligible.
(B)	For plants serving up to 500 people, the full technical rate ($24.96/hour) was applied. For plants serving
more than 500 people, costs are based on an 80%/20% split between technical and managerial ($44.91/hour)
rates. Rates are based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
(C)	Taken from "Baseline for Implementation and Monitoring Activities," column I.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 89
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.36c Reporting Cost and Labor Estimates for Bin Reclassification Monitoring for All System
Types, by System Size, Based on ICRSSL Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A2


uost per
baseline ff




System Size
Hours
Labor
of Plants


Total Burden
Total Burden
(Population Served)
per Plant
Hour
Reporting

Total Cost
(Hours)
(PTEs)

A
B
C
D = A*B*C
E = A*C
F = E/2080
CWSs
<100
6.5
$ 21.44
270
$
37,669
1,757
0.8
100-499
6.5
23.09
614

92,148
3,991
1.9
500-999
6.5
30.03
388

75,793
2,524
1.2
1,000-3,299
6.5
30.03
925

180,599
6,014
2.9
3,300-9,999
6.5
30.51
911

180,693
5,922
2.8
10,000-49,999
6
31.08
812

151,361
4,870
2.3
50,000-99,999
6
31.08
196

36,615
1,178
0.6
100,000-999,999
6
35.25
235

49,636
1,408
0.7
> 1 Million
6
35.25
40

8,485
241
0.1
National Totals


4,392
$
812,999
27,904
13.4
NTNCWSs
<100
6.5
$ 21.44
141
$
19,647
916
0.4
100-499
6.5
23.09
209

31,367
1,358
0.7
500-999
6.5
30.03
70

13,713
457
0.2
1,000-3,299
6.5
30.03
52

10,236
341
0.2
3,300-9,999
6.5
30.51
11

2,149
70
0.0
10,000-49,999
6
31.08
1

138
4
0.0
50,000-99,999
6
31.08
-

-
-
-
100,000-999,999
6
35.25
-

-
-
-
> 1 Million
6
35.25
-

-
-
-
National Totals


484
$
77,250
3,147
1.5
TNCWSs
<100
6.5
$ 21.44
764
$
106,409
4,963
2.4
100-499
6.5
23.09
490

73,557
3,186
1.5
500-999
6.5
30.03
76

14,850
494
0.2
1,000-3,299
6.5
30.03
43

8,435
281
0.1
3,300-9,999
6.5
30.51
14

2,802
92
0.0
10,000-49,999
6
31.08
7

1,272
41
0.0
50,000-99,999
6
31.08
-

-
-
-
100,000-999,999
6
35.25
1

187
5
0.0
> 1 Million
6
35.25
-

-
-
-
National Totals


1,395
$
207,513
9,062
4.4
Grand Totals


6,271
$
1,097,762
40,114
19.3
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Hours per plant reporting to the State/Primacy Agency for bin classification exemption and to report E. coli
and Cryptosporidium monitoring data and bin classification. Assumes 15 minutes per sample. Based on 24
monthly E. coli and Cryptosporidium samples for medium and large systems and 26 biweekly E. coli and 24
semimonthly Cryptosporidium samples for small systems. Although small systems will not report E. coli and
Cryptosporidium results at the same time, the additional reporting burden is assumed to be negligible. The
decrease in burden for small plants that report E. coli but are exempt from Cryptosporidium monitoring is also
assumed to be negligible.
(B)	For plants serving up to 500 people, the full technical rate ($24.96/hour) was applied. For plants serving
more than 500 people, costs are based on an 80%/20% split between technical and managerial ($44.91/hour)
rates. Rates are based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
(C)	Taken from "Baseline for Implementation and Monitoring Activities," column I.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D -90
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.37a Reporting Cost and Labor Estimates for Bin Reclassification Monitoring for All System
Types, by System Size, Based on ICR Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A3


uost per
baseline ff




System Size
Hours
Labor
of Plants


Total Burden
Total Burden
(Population Served)
per Plant
Hour
Reporting

Total Cost
(Hours)
(PTEs)

A
B
C
D = A*B*C
E = A*C
F = E/2080
CWSs
<100
6.5
$ 21.44
265
$
36,948
1,723
0.8
100-499
6.5
23.09
603

90,555
3,922
1.9
500-999
6.5
30.03
382

74,477
2,480
1.2
1,000-3,299
6.5
30.03
948

185,094
6,163
3.0
3,300-9,999
6.5
30.51
934

185,332
6,074
2.9
10,000-49,999
6
31.08
744

138,764
4,465
2.1
50,000-99,999
6
31.08
180

33,569
1,080
0.5
100,000-999,999
6
35.25
215

45,528
1,292
0.6
> 1 Million
6
35.25
37

7,784
221
0.1
National Totals


4,309
$
798,051
27,420
13.2
NTNCWSs
<100
6.5
$ 21.44
138
$
19,271
899
0.4
100-499
6.5
23.09
205

30,825
1,335
0.6
500-999
6.5
30.03
69

13,475
449
0.2
1,000-3,299
6.5
30.03
54

10,491
349
0.2
3,300-9,999
6.5
30.51
11

2,204
72
0.0
10,000-49,999
6
31.08
1

127
4
0.0
50,000-99,999
6
31.08
-

-
-
-
100,000-999,999
6
35.25
-

-
-
-
> 1 Million
6
35.25
-

-
-
-
National Totals


478
$
76,393
3,108
1.5
TNCWSs
<100
6.5
$ 21.44
751
$
104,692
4,883
2.3
100-499
6.5
23.09
482

72,369
3,134
1.5
500-999
6.5
30.03
75

14,609
486
0.2
1,000-3,299
6.5
30.03
44

8,640
288
0.1
3,300-9,999
6.5
30.51
14

2,873
94
0.0
10,000-49,999
6
31.08
6

1,168
38
0.0
50,000-99,999
6
31.08
-

-
-
-
100,000-999,999
6
35.25
1

180
5
0.0
> 1 Million
6
35.25
-

-
-
-
National Totals


1,374
$
204,532
8,928
4.3
Grand Totals


6,161
$
1,078,975
39,456
19.0
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Hours per plant reporting to the State/Primacy Agency for bin classification exemption and to report E. coli
and Cryptosporidium monitoring data and bin classification. Assumes 15 minutes per sample. Based on 24
monthly E. coli and Cryptosporidium samples for medium and large systems and 26 biweekly E. coli and 24
semimonthly Cryptosporidium samples for small systems. Although small systems will not report E. coli and
Cryptosporidium results at the same time, the additional reporting burden is assumed to be negligible. The
decrease in burden for small plants that report E. coli but are exempt from Cryptosporidium monitoring is also
assumed to be negligible.
(B)	For plants serving up to 500 people, the full technical rate ($24.96/hour) was applied. For plants serving
more than 500 people, costs are based on an 80%/20% split between technical and managerial ($44.91/hour)
rates. Rates are based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
(C)	Taken from "Baseline for Implementation and Monitoring Activities," column I.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D -91
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.37b Reporting Cost and Labor Estimates for Bin Reclassification Monitoring for All System
Types, by System Size, Based on ICRSSM Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A3


uost per
baseline ff




System Size
Hours
Labor
of Plants


Total Burden
Total Burden
(Population Served)
per Plant
Hour
Reporting

Total Cost
(Hours)
(PTEs)

A
B
C
D = A*B*C
E = A*C
F = E/2080
CWSs
<100
6.5
$ 21.44
273
$
38,035
1,774
0.9
100-499
6.5
23.09
619

92,958
4,026
1.9
500-999
6.5
30.03
392

76,453
2,546
1.2
1,000-3,299
6.5
30.03
1,008

196,776
6,552
3.2
3,300-9,999
6.5
30.51
993

196,925
6,454
3.1
10,000-49,999
6
31.08
821

153,120
4,927
2.4
50,000-99,999
6
31.08
199

37,029
1,191
0.6
100,000-999,999
6
35.25
237

50,144
1,423
0.7
> 1 Million
6
35.25
41

8,571
243
0.1
National Totals


4,582
$
850,011
29,136
14.0
NTNCWSs
<100
6.5
$ 21.44
142
$
19,838
925
0.4
100-499
6.5
23.09
211

31,643
1,370
0.7
500-999
6.5
30.03
71

13,833
461
0.2
1,000-3,299
6.5
30.03
57

11,153
371
0.2
3,300-9,999
6.5
30.51
12

2,342
77
0.0
10,000-49,999
6
31.08
1

140
4
0.0
50,000-99,999
6
31.08
-

-
-
-
100,000-999,999
6
35.25
-

-
-
-
> 1 Million
6
35.25
-

-
-
-
National Totals


494
$
78,948
3,209
1.5
TNCWSs
<100
6.5
$ 21.44
770
$
107,284
5,004
2.4
100-499
6.5
23.09
494

74,162
3,212
1.5
500-999
6.5
30.03
77

14,971
499
0.2
1,000-3,299
6.5
30.03
47

9,175
305
0.1
3,300-9,999
6.5
30.51
15

3,049
100
0.0
10,000-49,999
6
31.08
7

1,287
41
0.0
50,000-99,999
6
31.08
-

-
-
-
100,000-999,999
6
35.25
1

187
5
0.0
> 1 Million
6
35.25
-

-
-
-
National Totals


1,411
$
210,114
9,166
4.4
Grand Totals


6,487
$
1,139,074
41,511
20.0
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Hours per plant reporting to the State/Primacy Agency for bin classification exemption and to report E. coli
and Cryptosporidium monitoring data and bin classification. Assumes 15 minutes per sample. Based on 24
monthly E. coli and Cryptosporidium samples for medium and large systems and 26 biweekly E. coli and 24
semimonthly Cryptosporidium samples for small systems. Although small systems will not report E. coli and
Cryptosporidium results at the same time, the additional reporting burden is assumed to be negligible. The
decrease in burden for small plants that report E. coli but are exempt from Cryptosporidium monitoring is also
assumed to be negligible.
(B)	For plants serving up to 500 people, the full technical rate ($24.96/hour) was applied. For plants serving
more than 500 people, costs are based on an 80%/20% split between technical and managerial ($44.91/hour)
rates. Rates are based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
(C)	Taken from "Baseline for Implementation and Monitoring Activities," column I.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D -92
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.37c Reporting Cost and Labor Estimates for Bin Reclassification Monitoring
for All System Types, by Sytem Size, Based on ICRSSL Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A3


uost per
baseline ff




System Size
Hours
Labor
of Plants


Total Burden
Total Burden
(Population Served)
per Plant
Hour
Reporting

Total Cost
(Hours)
(PTEs)

A
B
C
D = A*B*C
E = A*C
F = E/2080
CWSs
<100
6.5
$ 21.44
275
$
38,348
1,789
0.9
100-499
6.5
23.09
624

93,648
4,056
1.9
500-999
6.5
30.03
395

77,021
2,565
1.2
1,000-3,299
6.5
30.03
1,024

199,884
6,656
3.2
3,300-9,999
6.5
30.51
1,008

199,970
6,554
3.2
10,000-49,999
6
31.08
867

161,750
5,204
2.5
50,000-99,999
6
31.08
210

39,112
1,258
0.6
100,000-999,999
6
35.25
250

52,886
1,500
0.7
> 1 Million
6
35.25
43

9,039
256
0.1
National Totals


4,696
$
871,657
29,838
14.3
NTNCWSs
<100
6.5
$ 21.44
144
$
20,001
933
0.4
100-499
6.5
23.09
212

31,877
1,381
0.7
500-999
6.5
30.03
71

13,935
464
0.2
1,000-3,299
6.5
30.03
58

11,329
377
0.2
3,300-9,999
6.5
30.51
12

2,378
78
0.0
10,000-49,999
6
31.08
1

148
5
0.0
50,000-99,999
6
31.08
-

-
-
-
100,000-999,999
6
35.25
-

-
-
-
> 1 Million
6
35.25
-

-
-
-
National Totals


498
$
79,669
3,237
1.6
TNCWSs
<100
6.5
$ 21.44
775
$
108,028
5,039
2.4
100-499
6.5
23.09
498

74,676
3,234
1.6
500-999
6.5
30.03
77

15,075
502
0.2
1,000-3,299
6.5
30.03
48

9,317
310
0.1
3,300-9,999
6.5
30.51
16

3,095
101
0.0
10,000-49,999
6
31.08
7

1,358
44
0.0
50,000-99,999
6
31.08
-

-
-
-
100,000-999,999
6
35.25
1

192
5
0.0
> 1 Million
6
35.25
-

-
-
-
National Totals


1,421
$
211,740
9,235
4.4
Grand Totals


6,615
$
1,163,066
42,311
20.3
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Hours per plant reporting to the State/Primacy Agency for bin classification exemption and to report E. coli
and Cryptosporidium monitoring data and bin classification. Assumes 15 minutes per sample. Based on 24
monthly E. coli and Cryptosporidium samples for medium and large systems and 26 biweekly E. coli and 24
semimonthly Cryptosporidium samples for small systems. Although small systems will not report E. coli and
Cryptosporidium results at the same time, the additional reporting burden is assumed to be negligible. The
decrease in burden for small plants that report E. coli but are exempt from Cryptosporidium monitoring is also
assumed to be negligible.
(B)	For plants serving up to 500 people, the full technical rate ($24.96/hour) was applied. For plants serving
more than 500 people, costs are based on an 80%/20% split between technical and managerial ($44.91/hour)
rates. Rates are based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
(C)	Taken from "Baseline for Implementation and Monitoring Activities," column I.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 93
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.38a Reporting Cost and Labor Estimates for Bin Reclassification Monitoring
All System Types, by System Size, Based on ICR Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A4


uost per
baseline ff




System Size
Hours
Labor
of Plants


Total Burden
Total Burden
(Population Served)
per Plant
Hour
Reporting

Total Cost
(Hours)
(PTEs)

A
B
C
D = A*B*C
E = A*C
F = E/2080
CWSs
<100
6.5
$ 21.44
275
$
38,380
1,790
0.9
100-499
6.5
23.09
624

93,719
4,059
2.0
500-999
6.5
30.03
395

77,084
2,567
1.2
1,000-3,299
6.5
30.03
1,030

201,074
6,695
3.2
3,300-9,999
6.5
30.51
1,014

201,006
6,588
3.2
10,000-49,999
6
31.08
926

172,696
5,556
2.7
50,000-99,999
6
31.08
224

41,753
1,343
0.6
100,000-999,999
6
35.25
267

56,541
1,604
0.8
> 1 Million
6
35.25
46

9,664
274
0.1
National Totals


4,801
$
891,918
30,477
14.7
NTNCWSs
<100
6.5
$ 21.44
144
$
20,018
934
0.4
100-499
6.5
23.09
213

31,901
1,382
0.7
500-999
6.5
30.03
71

13,947
464
0.2
1,000-3,299
6.5
30.03
58

11,397
379
0.2
3,300-9,999
6.5
30.51
12

2,391
78
0.0
10,000-49,999
6
31.08
1

158
5
0.0
50,000-99,999
6
31.08
-

-
-
-
100,000-999,999
6
35.25
-

-
-
-
> 1 Million
6
35.25
-

-
-
-
National Totals


499
$
79,811
3,243
1.6
TNCWSs
<100
6.5
$ 21.44
776
$
108,105
5,042
2.4
100-499
6.5
23.09
498

74,729
3,236
1.6
500-999
6.5
30.03
77

15,086
502
0.2
1,000-3,299
6.5
30.03
48

9,371
312
0.2
3,300-9,999
6.5
30.51
16

3,111
102
0.0
10,000-49,999
6
31.08
8

1,448
47
0.0
50,000-99,999
6
31.08
-

-
-
-
100,000-999,999
6
35.25
1

198
6
0.0
> 1 Million
6
35.25
-

-
-
-
National Totals


1,423
$
212,047
9,247
4.4
Grand Totals


6,724
$
1,183,776
42,967
20.7
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Hours per plant reporting to the State/Primacy Agency for bin classification exemption and to report E. coli
and Cryptosporidium monitoring data and bin classification. Assumes 15 minutes per sample. Based on 24
monthly E. coli and Cryptosporidium samples for medium and large systems and 26 biweekly E. coli and 24
semimonthly Cryptosporidium samples for small systems. Although small systems will not report E. coli and
Cryptosporidium results at the same time, the additional reporting burden is assumed to be negligible. The
decrease in burden for small plants that report E. coli but are exempt from Cryptosporidium monitoring is also
assumed to be negligible.
(B)	For plants serving up to 500 people, the full technical rate ($24.96/hour) was applied. For plants serving
more than 500 people, costs are based on an 80%/20% split between technical and managerial ($44.91/hour)
rates. Rates are based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
(C)	Taken from "Baseline for Implementation and Monitoring Activities," column I.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D -94
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.38b Reporting Cost and Labor Estimates for Bin Reclassification Monitoring
All System Types, by System Size, Based on ICRSSM Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A4


uost per
baseline ff




System Size
Hours
Labor
of Plants


Total Burden
Total Burden
(Population Served)
per Plant
Hour
Reporting

Total Cost
(Hours)
(PTEs)

A
B
C
D = A*B*C
E = A*C
F = E/2080
CWSs
<100
6.5
$ 21.44
278
$
38,732
1,807
0.9
100-499
6.5
23.09
630

94,497
4,093
2.0
500-999
6.5
30.03
398

77,723
2,588
1.2
1,000-3,299
6.5
30.03
1,038

202,590
6,746
3.2
3,300-9,999
6.5
30.51
1,021

202,444
6,635
3.2
10,000-49,999
6
31.08
990

184,607
5,940
2.9
50,000-99,999
6
31.08
239

44,631
1,436
0.7
100,000-999,999
6
35.25
285

60,278
1,710
0.8
> 1 Million
6
35.25
49

10,302
292
0.1
National Totals


4,927
$
915,803
31,246
15.0
NTNCWSs
<100
6.5
$ 21.44
145
$
20,202
942
0.5
100-499
6.5
23.09
214

32,166
1,393
0.7
500-999
6.5
30.03
72

14,062
468
0.2
1,000-3,299
6.5
30.03
59

11,483
382
0.2
3,300-9,999
6.5
30.51
12

2,408
79
0.0
10,000-49,999
6
31.08
1

168
5
0.0
50,000-99,999
6
31.08
-

-
-
-
100,000-999,999
6
35.25
-

-
-
-
> 1 Million
6
35.25
-

-
-
-
National Totals


503
$
80,489
3,270
1.6
TNCWSs
<100
6.5
$ 21.44
782
$
108,944
5,081
2.4
100-499
6.5
23.09
502

75,309
3,262
1.6
500-999
6.5
30.03
78

15,203
506
0.2
1,000-3,299
6.5
30.03
48

9,440
314
0.2
3,300-9,999
6.5
30.51
16

3,133
103
0.0
10,000-49,999
6
31.08
8

1,546
50
0.0
50,000-99,999
6
31.08
-

-
-
-
100,000-999,999
6
35.25
1

204
6
0.0
> 1 Million
6
35.25
-

-
-
-
National Totals


1,435
$
213,779
9,322
4.5
Grand Totals


6,865
$
1,210,072
43,838
21.1
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Hours per plant reporting to the State/Primacy Agency for bin classification exemption and to report E. coli
and Cryptosporidium monitoring data and bin classification. Assumes 15 minutes per sample. Based on 24
monthly E. coli and Cryptosporidium samples for medium and large systems and 26 biweekly E. coli and 24
semimonthly Cryptosporidium samples for small systems. Although small systems will not report E. coli and
Cryptosporidium results at the same time, the additional reporting burden is assumed to be negligible. The
decrease in burden for small plants that report E. coli but are exempt from Cryptosporidium monitoring is also
assumed to be negligible.
(B)	For plants serving up to 500 people, the full technical rate ($24.96/hour) was applied. For plants serving
more than 500 people, costs are based on an 80%/20% split between technical and managerial ($44.91/hour)
rates. Rates are based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
(C)	Taken from "Baseline for Implementation and Monitoring Activities," column I.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 95
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.38c Reporting Cost and Labor Estimates for Bin Reclassification Monitoring
for All System Types, by System Size, Based on ICRSSL Occurrence Distribution, Alternative A4


uost per
baseline ff




System Size
Hours
Labor
of Plants


Total Burden
Total Burden
(Population Served)
per Plant
Hour
Reporting

Total Cost
(Hours)
(PTEs)

A
B
C
D = A*B*C
E = A*C
F = E/2080
CWSs
<100
6.5
$ 21.44
279
$
38,916
1,815
0.9
100-499
6.5
23.09
632

94,903
4,110
2.0
500-999
6.5
30.03
400

78,057
2,599
1.2
1,000-3,299
6.5
30.03
1,042

203,364
6,772
3.3
3,300-9,999
6.5
30.51
1,025

203,193
6,659
3.2
10,000-49,999
6
31.08
1,017

189,717
6,104
2.9
50,000-99,999
6
31.08
246

45,866
1,476
0.7
100,000-999,999
6
35.25
292

61,858
1,755
0.8
> 1 Million
6
35.25
50

10,572
300
0.1
National Totals


4,984
$
926,445
31,590
15.2
NTNCWSs
<100
6.5
$ 21.44
146
$
20,298
947
0.5
100-499
6.5
23.09
215

32,305
1,399
0.7
500-999
6.5
30.03
72

14,123
470
0.2
1,000-3,299
6.5
30.03
59

11,526
384
0.2
3,300-9,999
6.5
30.51
12

2,417
79
0.0
10,000-49,999
6
31.08
1

173
6
0.0
50,000-99,999
6
31.08
-

-
-
-
100,000-999,999
6
35.25
-

-
-
-
> 1 Million
6
35.25
-

-
-
-
National Totals


505
$
80,841
3,285
1.6
TNCWSs
<100
6.5
$ 21.44
785
$
109,383
5,102
2.5
100-499
6.5
23.09
504

75,612
3,275
1.6
500-999
6.5
30.03
78

15,264
508
0.2
1,000-3,299
6.5
30.03
49

9,476
316
0.2
3,300-9,999
6.5
30.51
16

3,144
103
0.0
10,000-49,999
6
31.08
9

1,588
51
0.0
50,000-99,999
6
31.08
-

-
-
-
100,000-999,999
6
35.25
1

206
6
0.0
> 1 Million
6
35.25
-

-
-
-
National Totals


1,441
$
214,674
9,360
4.5
Grand Totals


6,930
$
1,221,960
44,235
21.3
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.
Sources:
(A)	Hours per plant reporting to the State/Primacy Agency for bin classification exemption and to report E. coli
and Cryptosporidium monitoring data and bin classification. Assumes 15 minutes per sample. Based on 24
monthly E. coli and Cryptosporidium samples for medium and large systems and 26 biweekly E. coli and 24
semimonthly Cryptosporidium samples for small systems. Although small systems will not report E. coli and
Cryptosporidium results at the same time, the additional reporting burden is assumed to be negligible. The
decrease in burden for small plants that report E. coli but are exempt from Cryptosporidium monitoring is also
assumed to be negligible.
(B)	For plants serving up to 500 people, the full technical rate ($24.96/hour) was applied. For plants serving
more than 500 people, costs are based on an 80%/20% split between technical and managerial ($44.91/hour)
rates. Rates are based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
(C)	Taken from "Baseline for Implementation and Monitoring Activities," column I.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 96
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.39 Burden and Cost to PWSs Associated with UCFWR Reporting
System Size
Keporting
Keporting schedule tor


baseline # or



(Population
Use of
Covering UCFWR or
Total Hours
Cost per
Systems with

Total Burden
Total Burden
Served)
UCFWR
Disinfecting UCFWR Effluent
per PWS
Labor Hour
UCFWRs
Total Cost
(Hours)
(FTEs)

A
B
C = A + B
D
E
F = C*D*E
G = C*E
H = G/2080
CWSs
<100
0.25
8
8.25
$ 21.44
3
$ 531
25
0.01
100-499
0.25
8
8.25
23.09
-
-
-
-
500-999
0.25
8
8.25
30.03
-
-
-
-
1,000-3,299
0.25
8
8.25
30.03
-
-
-
-
3,300-9,999
0.25
8
8.25
30.51
9
2,266
74
0.04
10,000-49,999
0.25
8
8.25
31.08
26
6,667
215
0.10
50,000-99,999
0.25
8
8.25
31.08
5
1,282
41
0.02
100,000-999,999
0.25
8
8.25
35.25
37
10,759
305
0.15
1,000,000+
0.25
8
8.25
35.25
1
291
8
0.00
National Totals

81
$ 21,795
668
0.3
Notes:
Detail may not add exactly to totals due to rounding.
NTNCWS and TNCWS do not have UCFWRs
Sources:
(A & B) Burden estimates for each activity are based on EPA experience with similar rules.
(D)	For systems serving up to 500 people, the full technical rate ($21,44/hour for <100 and $23.09 for 100-499) was applied. For systems serving more than 500 people, cost are
based on an 80%/20% split between technical and managerial rates (range from $3
(E)	Exhibit 4.23, Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 97
December 2005
-------
Exhibit D.40 Burden and Cost to States and Primacy Agencies Associated
with Reviewing/Approving UCFWR Schedule

Baseline # ot Systems with
Cost per Labor
FTEs per
Hours per

Cost Per
State/Primacy Agency Activity
UCFWRs
Hour
UCFWR
UCFWR

UCFWR

A
B
C
D
E = B*D
Recording Use of UCFWR
81
$ 33.60
0.0001
0.25
$
8.4
Approving State Schedule
81
$ 33.60
0.0005
1
$
33.6

Totals per UCFWR
0.0006
1.25
$
42.0
Burden and Cost per State/Primacy Agency
0.01
14.46
$
486.1


National Totals
0.05
101.25
$
3,402
Notes:
Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.
Only the seven States/Primacy Agencies with UNFWRs are assumed to incur burden and costs for these activities.
1 FTE = 2,080 hours (40 hours/week; 52 weeks/year)
Sources:
(B)	State labor rates based on the State Workload Model, updated to current dollar values.
(C)	FTEs per State/Primacy Agency based on EPA experience with previous regulations.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
D - 98	December 2005
-------
Appendix E
Unit Costs for Technologies Considered in the Long Term 2 Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule
Exhibit 6.8 in Chapter 6 lists the treatment technologies, along with their constraints and design
criteria, that were considered for plants treating surface water and surface water under the direct influence
of ground water (GWUDI) to meet the LT2ESWTR. This appendix builds on information in Chapter 6
by presenting:
Capital unit cost estimates for a wide range of design flows (in tabular and graphical forms);
and
Operation and maintenance (O&M) unit cost estimates for a wide range of average daily
flows (in tabular and graphical forms).
The unit costs are derived from equations and other information in the Technology and Cost
Document for Control of Microbial Contaminants and Disinfection By-Products " (T&C document)
(USEPA 2003a), and are revised to incorporate recommendations from the National Drinking Water
Advisory Council (NDWAC) Arsenic Cost Working Group (NDWAC 2001), and labor rates from Labor
Costs for National Drinking Water Rules (USEPA, 2003b). Unit costs presented in this appendix are
based on labor rates presented in Exhibit 6.2, and are in 2003$. The costs are given over a wide range of
design flows, from 7,000 gallons per day to 520 million gallons per day (MGD). These are representative
of the flow range water systems exhibit.
The T&C document provides costs at 16 flows covering the above range for each technology.
However, the EA cost model initially uses nine size categories that do not match any of the 16 flows.
Linear interpolation between each of the 16 points is used to generate unit costs for the nine size
categories. If an EA size category correlated to a flow lower than the minimum flow in the T&C
document, the cost at the minimum flow was used. If an EA size category exceeded the maximum flow,
the costs were extrapolated linearly with the same slope as given between the highest two points.
The following table lists the exhibits in this appendix. Each exhibit lists the constraints and
design criteria for the technology and presents a table showing the unit cost estimates for each design or
average flow point. The graph displays each point connected by a line; the unit costs calculated for the
EA cost model fall on these lines. All graphs are in log-log scale.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
E-l
December 2005
-------
Appendix E Contents
Technology
Cost Type
Exhibit
Number
Bag Filtration
Capital
O&M
E.1
E.2
Cartridge Filtration
Capital
O&M
E.3
E.4
Chlorine Dioxide
Capital
O&M
E.5
E.6
Combined Filter Performance
Capital
O&M
E.7
E.8
In-Bank Filtration
Capital
E.9
Membrane Filtration (MF/UF)
Capital
O&M
E.10
E.11
Ozone, 0.5 Log Inactivation of
Cryptosporidium
Capital
O&M
E.12
E.13
Ozone, 1.0 Log Inactivation of
Cryptosporidium
Capital
O&M
E.14
E.15
Ozone, 2.0 Log Inactivation of
Cryptosporidium
Capital
O&M
E.16
E.17
Secondary Filters
Capital
O&M
E.18
E.19
UV
Capital
O&M
E.20
E.21
Watershed Control
Capital
O&M
E.22
E.23
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
E-2
December 2005
-------
Exhibit E.1
Capital Costs for Bag Filtration
Design Flow
Capital Cost
(mgd)
($)
0.0001
$10,280
0.0070
$10,280
0.0220
$10,420
0.0370
$12,828
0.0910
$13,320
0.1800
$19,487
0.2700
$23,424
0.3600
$28,771
0.6800
$42,479
1.0000
$65,653
1.2000
$75,011
2.0000
$136,788
3.5000
Data Not Used
7.0000
Data Not Used
17.0000
Data Not Used
22.0000
Data Not Used
76.0000
Data Not Used
210.0000
Data Not Used
430.0000
Data Not Used
520.0000
Data Not Used
1,500.0000
Data Not Used
$1,000,000
$100,000
V)
o
o
ra
o.
ra
O
$10,000
$1,000
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
Design Flow (mgd)
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
E-3
December 2005
-------
Exhibit E.2
O&M Costs for Bag Filtration
Average Flow
O&M Cost
(mgd)
($)
0.00005
$479
0.00150
$479
0.00540
$481
0.00950
$701
0.02500
$732
0.05400
$962
0.08400
$1,223
0.11000
$1,673
0.23000
$2,602
0.35000
$3,956
0.41000
$4,851
0.77000
$8,151
1.40000
Data Not Used
3.00000
Data Not Used
7.80000
Data Not Used
11.00000
Data Not Used
38.00000
Data Not Used
120.00000
Data Not Used
270.00000
Data Not Used
350.00000
Data Not Used
750.00000
Data Not Used
$10,000
$1,000
V)
o
O
$100
$10
0.00001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
Average Flow (mgd)
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
E-4
December 2005
-------
Exhibit E.3
Capital Costs for Cartridge Filtration
Design Flow
Capital Cost
(mgd)
($)
0.0001
$10,465
0.0070
$10,465
0.0220
$10,605
0.0370
$13,196
0.0910
$17,256
0.1800
$24,024
0.2700
$31,479
0.3600
$43,699
0.6800
$73,535
1.0000
$111,151
1.2000
$136,393
2.0000
$265,089
3.5000
Data Not Used
7.0000
Data Not Used
17.0000
Data Not Used
22.0000
Data Not Used
76.0000
Data Not Used
210.0000
Data Not Used
430.0000
Data Not Used
520.0000
Data Not Used
1,500.0000
Data Not Used
$1,000,000
$100,000
V)
o
o
ra
o.
ra
O
$10,000
$1,000
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
Design Flow (mgd)
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
E-5
December 2005
-------
Exhibit E.4
O&M Costs for Cartrige Filtration
Average Flow
O&M Cost
(mgd)
($)
0.00005
$680
0.00150
$680
0.00540
$682
0.00950
$1,099
0.02500
$1,465
0.05400
$2,808
0.08400
$4,596
0.11000
$5,621
0.23000
$9,821
0.35000
$14,315
0.41000
$18,075
0.77000
$28,189
1.40000
Data Not Used
3.00000
Data Not Used
7.80000
Data Not Used
11.00000
Data Not Used
38.00000
Data Not Used
120.00000
Data Not Used
270.00000
Data Not Used
350.00000
Data Not Used
750.00000
Data Not Used
$100,000
$10,000
V)
o
o
$1,000
$100
0.00001 0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
Average Flow (mgd)
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
E-6
December 2005
-------
Exhibit E.5
Capital Costs for Chlorine Dioxide
Design Flow
Capital Cost
(mgd)
($)
0.0001
Data Not Used
0.0070
Data Not Used
0.0220
Data Not Used
0.0370
Data Not Used
0.0910
$32,427
0.1800
$38,370
0.2700
$39,172
0.3600
$40,066
0.6800
$43,005
1.0000
$40,035
1.2000
$80,585
2.0000
$82,054
3.5000
$191,088
7.0000
$211,473
17.0000
$268,223
22.0000
$296,568
76.0000
$603,425
210.0000
$897,449
430.0000
$1,245,987
520.0000
$1,368,982
1,500.0000
$2,708,268
CI02 Dose = 1.25 mg/L
$10,000,000
$1,000,000
V)
o
o
ra
o.
ra
O
$100,000
$10,000
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000 10000
Design Flow (mgd)
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
E-7
December 2005
-------
Exhibit E.6
O&M Costs for Chlorine Dioxide
Average Flow
O&M Cost
(mgd)
($)
0.00005
Data Not Used
0.00150
Data Not Used
0.00540
Data Not Used
0.00950
Data Not Used
0.02500
$14,093
0.05400
$15,204
0.08400
$16,721
0.11000
$16,999
0.23000
$17,812
0.35000
$18,571
0.41000
$18,984
0.77000
$21,638
1.40000
$22,001
3.00000
$25,392
7.80000
$35,939
11.00000
$42,336
38.00000
$87,061
120.00000
$216,813
270.00000
$446,533
350.00000
$561,934
750.00000
$1,138,937
CI02 Dose = 1.25 mg/L
$10,000,000
$1,000,000
$100,000
$10,000
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
Average Flow (mgd)
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
E-8
December 2005
-------
Exhibit E.7
Capital Costs for Combined Filter Performance
Design Flow
Capital Cost
(mgd)
($)
0.0001
Data Not Used
0.0070
Data Not Used
0.0220
Data Not Used
0.0370
Data Not Used
0.0910
Data Not Used
0.1800
$9,986
0.2500
$17,840
0.3600
$19,764
0.6300
$24,486
1.0000
$30,133
1.2000
$33,186
1.8100
$42,497
3.5000
$58,321
6.9000
$90,156
17.0000
$136,850
19.8700
$150,119
77.5000
$653,715
210.0000
$1,069,457
430.0000
$1,759,746
575.4100
$2,215,996
1,500.0000
$5,117,060
$10,000,000
$1,000,000
$100,000
$10,000
$1,000
0
10	100
Design Flow (mgd)
1000
10000
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
E-9
December 2005
-------
Exhibit E.8
O&M Costs for Combined Filter Performance
Average Flow
O&M Cost
(mgd)
($)
0.00005
Data Not Used
0.00150
Data Not Used
0.00540
Data Not Used
0.00950
Data Not Used
0.02500
Data Not Used
0.05400
$7,090
0.09300
$16,626
0.11000
$16,698
0.25000
$17,295
0.35000
$20,227
0.41000
$21,986
0.75000
$31,954
1.40000
$33,036
3.00000
$35,702
7.80000
$58,854
9.10000
$65,124
37.90000
$133,775
120.00000
$161,628
270.00000
$212,517
307.00000
$225,069
750.00000
$375,359
$1,000,000
$100,000
$10,000
$1,000
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
Average Flow (mgd)
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
E-10
December 2005
-------
Exhibit E.9
Capital Costs for In-Bank Filtration
Design Flow
Capital Cost
(mgd)
($)
0.0001
$150,000
0.0070
$150,000
0.0220
$150,000
0.0370
$150,000
0.0910
$150,000
0.1800
$150,000
0.2700
$150,000
0.3600
$150,000
0.6800
$150,000
1.0000
$224,684
1.2000
$271,361
2.0000
$458,070
3.5000
$808,149
7.0000
$1,625,000
17.0000
$3,382,246
22.0000
$4,260,870
76.0000
$13,750,000
210.0000
$37,297,101
430.0000
$75,956,522
520.0000
$91,771,739
1,500.0000
$263,981,884
$1,000,000,000
$100,000,000
$10,000,000
$1,000,000
Q.
re
o
~ ~ ~ ~~~
$100,000
$10,000
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1
1
10
100 1000 10000
Design Flow (mgd)
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
E-ll
December 2005
-------
Exhibit E.10
Capital Costs for Membrane Filtration (MF/UF)
Design Flow
Capital Cost
(mgd)
($)
0.0001
$131,478
0.0070
$131,478
0.0220
$214,432
0.0370
$270,819
0.0910
$409,983
0.1800
$628,117
0.2700
$748,563
0.3600
$850,970
0.6800
$1,133,988
1.0000
$1,594,911
1.2000
$1,738,505
2.0000
$2,720,593
3.5000
$4,142,559
7.0000
$7,382,351
17.0000
$15,991,348
22.0000
$20,058,196
76.0000
$61,150,358
210.0000
$153,184,031
430.0000
$293,759,889
520.0000
$349,252,221
1,500.0000
$953,502,064
Temp. = 10 degrees C, Sewer Disposal
$1,000,000,000
$100,000,000
$10,000,000
Q.
re
o
$1,000,000
$100,000
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1
1
10
100 1000 10000
Design Flow (mgd)
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
E-12
December 2005
-------
Exhibit E.11
O&M Costs for Membrane Filtration (MF/UF)
Average Flow
O&M Cost
(mgd)
($)
0.00005
$6,230
0.0015
$6,230
0.0054
$6,686
0.0095
$7,156
0.0250
$9,329
0.0540
$22,042
0.0840
$26,348
0.1100
$29,272
0.2300
$41,522
0.3500
$69,214
0.4100
$75,317
0.7700
$106,798
1.4000
$164,173
3.0000
$324,393
7.8000
$786,427
11.0000
$1,034,793
38.0000
$3,301,730
120.0000
$9,888,387
270.0000
$21,519,157
350.0000
$27,300,426
750.0000
$56,206,770
Temp. = 10 degrees C, Sewer Disposal
$100,000,000
$10,000,000
(0
o
o
$1,000,000
$100,000
$10,000
$1,000
0.00001
0.001
0.1
10
1000
Average Flow (mgd)
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
E-13
December 2005
-------
Exhibit E.12
Capital Costs for Ozone
0.5 Log Inactivation of Cryptosporidium
Design Flow
Capital Cost
(mgd)
($)
0.0001
Data Not Used
0.0070
Data Not Used
0.0220
Data Not Used
0.0370
Data Not Used
0.0910
$322,787
0.1800
$382,874
0.2700
$438,785
0.3600
$493,394
0.6800
$675,951
1.0000
$804,614
1.2000
$902,391
2.0000
$1,226,541
3.5000
$1,595,373
7.0000
$2,357,412
17.0000
$3,946,957
22.0000
$4,546,365
76.0000
$12,628,950
210.0000
$26,317,852
430.0000
$44,918,178
520.0000
$53,248,978
1,500.0000
$143,962,124
Maximum Dose = 3.19 mg/L, Contact Time = 12 minutes
$1,000,000,000
$100,000,000
$10,000,000
$1,000,000
$100,000
0.01
1 10 100
Design Flow (mgd)
1000 10000
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
E-14
December 2005
-------
Exhibit E.13
O&M Costs for Ozone
0.5 Log Inactivation of Cryptosporidium
Average Flow
O&M Cost
(mgd)
($)
0.00005
Data Not Used
0.00150
Data Not Used
0.00540
Data Not Used
0.00950
Data Not Used
0.02500
$55,520
0.05400
$55,884
0.08400
$59,391
0.11000
$59,737
0.23000
$61,152
0.35000
$62,566
0.41000
$63,350
0.77000
$67,621
1.40000
$77,719
3.00000
$95,346
7.80000
$145,700
11.00000
$177,752
38.00000
$464,832
120.00000
$1,377,320
270.00000
$2,871,997
350.00000
$3,662,456
750.00000
$7,614,752
Average Dose = 1.78 mg/L, Contact Time = 12 minutes
$10,000,000
** $1,000,000
(0
o
o
$100,000
$10,000
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
Average Flow (mgd)
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
E-15
December 2005
-------
Exhibit E.14
Capital Costs for Ozone
1.0 Log Inactivation of Cryptosporidium
Design Flow
Capital Cost
(mgd)
($)
0.0001
Data Not Used
0.0070
Data Not Used
0.0220
Data Not Used
0.0370
Data Not Used
0.0910
$351,943
0.1800
$440,546
0.2700
$525,292
0.3600
$608,737
0.6800
$893,979
1.0000
$1,043,133
1.2000
$1,119,608
2.0000
$1,416,784
3.5000
$1,922,483
7.0000
$2,912,264
17.0000
$4,697,222
22.0000
$5,517,296
76.0000
$15,011,417
210.0000
$30,378,296
430.0000
$55,716,052
520.0000
$66,369,920
1,500.0000
$182,378,707
Maximum Dose = 5.00 mg/L, Contact Time = 12 minutes
tit
+•>
w
o
O
15
+•>
"5.
(0
O
$1,000,000,000
$100,000,000
$10,000,000
$1,000,000
$100,000
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Design Flow (mgd)
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR	E-16	December 2005
-------
Exhibit E.15
O&M Costs for Ozone
1.0 Log Inactivation of Cryptosporidium
Average Flow
O&M Cost
(mgd)
($)
0.00005
Data Not Used
0.00150
Data Not Used
0.00540
Data Not Used
0.00950
Data Not Used
0.02500
$55,827
0.05400
$56,438
0.08400
$60,197
0.11000
$60,781
0.23000
$63,138
0.35000
$65,357
0.41000
$66,210
0.77000
$75,885
1.40000
$87,731
3.00000
$115,823
7.80000
$194,432
11.00000
$245,991
38.00000
$694,758
120.00000
$2,083,382
270.00000
$4,473,882
350.00000
$5,734,314
750.00000
$12,036,475
Average Dose = 2.75 mg/L, Contact Time = 12 minutes
$100,000,000
$10,000,000
V)
o
o
$1,000,000
$100,000
$10,000
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
Average Flow (mgd)
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
E-17
December 2005
-------
Exhibit E.16
Capital Costs for Ozone
2.0 Log Inactivation of Cryptosporidium
Design Flow
Capital Cost
(mgd)
($)
0.0001
Data Not Used
0.0070
Data Not Used
0.0220
Data Not Used
0.0370
Data Not Used
0.0910
$372,391
0.1800
$480,993
0.2700
$585,963
0.3600
$689,631
0.6800
$1,069,196
1.0000
$1,107,713
1.2000
$1,200,916
2.0000
$1,547,877
3.5000
$2,151,897
7.0000
$3,124,381
17.0000
$5,223,408
22.0000
$6,291,141
76.0000
$16,720,757
210.0000
$34,225,903
430.0000
$63,362,091
520.0000
$75,616,293
1,500.0000
$209,050,936
Maximum Dose = 7.50 mg/L, Contact Time = 12 minutes
$1,000,000,000
$100,000,000
$10,000,000
$1,000,000
$100,000
0.01
1 10 100
Design Flow (mgd)
1000 10000
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
E-18
December 2005
-------
Exhibit E.17
O&M Costs for Ozone
2.0 Log Inactivation of Cryptosporidium
Average Flow
O&M Cost
(mgd)
($)
0.00005
Data Not Used
0.00150
Data Not Used
0.00540
Data Not Used
0.00950
Data Not Used
0.02500
$56,096
0.05400
$56,900
0.08400
$60,858
0.11000
$61,627
0.23000
$64,836
0.35000
$66,956
0.41000
$68,079
0.77000
$74,291
1.40000
$85,473
3.00000
$211,156
7.80000
$424,479
11.00000
$541,290
38.00000
$1,710,724
120.00000
$4,846,200
270.00000
$10,067,081
350.00000
$12,436,352
750.00000
$24,282,705
Average Dose = 3.91 mg/L, Contact Time = 12 minutes
$100,000,000
~ $10,000,000
199
(0
o
o
$1,000,000
$100,000
$10,000
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
1000
Average Flow (mgd)
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
E-19
December 2005
-------
Exhibit E.18
Capital Costs for Secondary Filters
Design Flow
Capital Cost
(mgd)
($)
0.0001
$1,106,000
0.0070
$1,106,000
0.0220
$1,106,000
0.0370
$1,106,000
0.0910
$1,106,000
0.1800
$1,106,000
0.2700
$1,106,000
0.3600
$1,106,000
0.6800
$1,106,000
1.0000
$1,331,013
1.2000
$1,471,646
2.0000
$2,034,177
3.5000
$3,088,924
7.0000
$5,550,000
17.0000
$7,731,159
22.0000
$8,821,739
76.0000
$20,600,000
210.0000
$49,827,536
430.0000
$97,813,043
520.0000
$117,443,478
1,500.0000
$331,197,101
$1,000,000,000
$100,000,000
Q.
re
O
$10,000,000
$1,000,000
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1
1
10
100 1000 10000
Design Flow (mgd)
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
E-20
December 2005
-------
Exhibit E.19
O&M Costs for Secondary Filters
Average Flow
O&M Cost
(mgd)
($)
0.00005
$62,300
0.00150
$62,300
0.00540
$62,300
0.00950
$62,300
0.02500
$62,300
0.05400
$62,300
0.08400
$62,300
0.11000
$62,300
0.23000
$62,300
0.35000
$66,034
0.41000
$67,901
0.77000
$79,104
1.40000
$98,709
3.00000
$148,500
7.80000
$182,031
11.00000
$204,386
38.00000
$393,000
120.00000
$965,829
270.00000
$2,013,686
350.00000
$2,572,543
750.00000
$5,366,829
$10,000,000
S? $1,000,000
¦+¦»
(A
o
o
06
o
$100,000
$10,000
1E-05 1E-04 0.001 0.01 0.1
1
10 100 1000
Average Flow (mgd)
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
E-21
December 2005
-------
Exhibit E.20
Capital Costs for UV
Design Flow
Capital Cost
(mgd)
($)
0.0001
$10,195
0.0070
$10,195
0.0220
$13,034
0.0370
$15,834
0.0910
$25,596
0.1800
$40,597
0.2700
$54,386
0.3600
$66,790
0.6800
$99,661
1.0000
$310,154
1.2000
$313,662
2.0000
$333,331
3.5000
$362,965
7.0000
$544,728
17.0000
$1,342,022
22.0000
$1,933,041
76.0000
$3,367,751
210.0000
$8,074,450
430.0000
$15,798,603
520.0000
$18,601,681
1,500.0000
$49,124,085
UV dose = 40 mJ/cm2, UV 254 = 0.051 cm"1,
Turbidity = 0.1 NTU, Alkalinity = 60 mg/L CaC03,
Hardness = 100 mg/L CaC03
$100,000,000
$10,000,000
$1,000,000
$100,000
$10,000
1E-04 0.001 0.01
100 1000 10000
Design Flow (mgd)
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
E-22
December 2005
-------
Exhibit E.21
O&M Costs for UV
Average Flow
O&M Cost
(mgd)
($)
0.00005
$3,350
0.00150
$3,350
0.00540
$3,380
0.00950
$3,769
0.02500
$4,549
0.05400
$4,736
0.08400
$6,115
0.11000
$6,493
0.23000
$8,152
0.35000
$9,016
0.41000
$9,450
0.77000
$11,512
1.40000
$13,979
3.00000
$16,183
7.80000
$22,908
11.00000
$27,531
38.00000
$66,755
120.00000
$188,219
270.00000
$422,455
350.00000
$551,123
750.00000
$1,194,464
UV Dose = 40 mJIcm, UV 254 = 0.051 cm . Turbidity = 0.1
NTU, Alkalinity = 60 mg/L CaC03,
Hardness = 100 mg/L CaC03
$10,000,000
$1,000,000
$100,000
$10,000
$1,000
0.00001
0.001
1000
Average Flow (mgd)
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
E-23
December 2005
-------
Exhibit E.22
Capital Costs for Watershed Control
Design Flow
Capital Cost
(mgd)
($)
0.0001
$250,000
0.0070
$250,000
0.0220
$250,000
0.0370
$250,000
0.0910
$250,000
0.1800
$250,000
0.2700
$250,000
0.3600
$250,000
0.6800
$250,000
1.0000
$262,658
1.2000
$270,570
2.0000
$302,215
3.5000
$361,551
7.0000
$500,000
17.0000
$572,464
22.0000
$608,696
76.0000
$1,000,000
210.0000
$1,971,014
430.0000
$3,565,217
520.0000
$4,217,391
1,500.0000
$11,318,841
$100,000,000
$10,000,000
$1,000,000
$100,000
0.0001 0.001 0.01
100 1000 10000
Design Flow (mgd)
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
E-24
December 2005
-------
Exhibit E.23
O&M Costs for Watershed Control
Average Flow
O&M Cost
(mgd)
($)
0.00005
$350,000
0.00150
$350,000
0.00540
$350,000
0.00950
$350,000
0.02500
$350,000
0.05400
$350,000
0.08400
$350,000
0.11000
$350,000
0.23000
$350,000
0.35000
$378,159
0.41000
$392,238
0.77000
$476,715
1.40000
$624,549
3.00000
$1,000,000
7.80000
$1,205,714
11.00000
$1,342,857
38.00000
$2,500,000
120.00000
$6,014,286
270.00000
$12,442,857
350.00000
$15,871,429
750.00000
$33,014,286
$100,000,000
S? $10,000,000
¦+¦»
(A
o
o
06
o
$1,000,000
$100,000
1E-05 1E-04 0.001 0.01 0.1
1
10 100 1000
Average Flow (mgd)
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
E-25
December 2005
-------
Appendix F
Technology Selection Forecast Methodology
F.l Introduction
This appendix describes the methodology used in estimating the technologies that plants are most
likely to select to meet the requirements of the LT2ESWTR. This estimate is known as the technology
selection forecast. Separate technology selection forecasts are developed for filtered plants, unfiltered
plants, and uncovered finished water reservoirs. This appendix specifically deals with the technology
selection forecasts for filtered plants. Technology selections for unfiltered plants and uncovered finished
water reservoirs are more straightforward and are summarized in Chapter 6. The remainder of this
appendix is organized as follows:
F.2 Binning Categories Used for Technology Selection
F.3 Technologies Available to Meet Bin Requirements
F.4 Technology Selection Forecast Methodology
F.5 Scenarios Evaluated for this EA
F.6 Results
F.6.1 Standard Conditions
F.6.2 Sensitivity Analysis
F.2 Binning Categories Used for Technology Selection
The technology selection forecast for filtered surface water and GWUDI plants depends on
Cryptosporidium reduction requirements. The reduction required under the LT2ESWTR is a function of
each plant's source water Cryptosporidium monitoring results and consequent bin classification.
Treatment requirements for each bin are summarized in Chapter 2 of this EA. In addition to the three
action bins laid out by the regulation, two other bins are created for purposes of the technology selection
analysis. These bins take into account the 0.5 log credit plants can get for existing combined filter
performance (0.15 NTU filtered water turbidity 95 percent of the time) or other toolbox options which are
currently operating. A more detailed discussion of this binning is included in Chapter 4 and Appendix B.
F.3 Technologies Available to Meet Bin Requirements
The LT2ESWTR employs a toolbox approach for meeting action bin requirements. The
"microbial toolbox" contains various Cryptosporidium reduction strategies for which plants can receive
"credit" (or a range of credit) to meet treatment requirements for a given bin. Components of the
microbial toolbox cover a wide array of management strategies including watershed control, selecting an
alternative source, pretreatment, improved treatment, improved disinfection, peer review, and other plant
demonstration strategies. Exhibit 2.2 in Chapter 2 lists each toolbox component and its corresponding log
credit or range of log credits.
Many toolbox components, such as peer review and selecting an alternative source, are not
included in this technology selection forecast because of the lack of data on appropriate cost and percent
usage by plants. Also, some technologies are not considered feasible for small and very small systems
because of operational constraints. Technologies may be selected alone or in combination to achieve the
required log credit. The log credits are based on the minimum removal that the technology is expected to
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
F-l
December 2005
-------
achieve with proper design and implementation. Systems could potentially receive higher log credits
through performance demonstration studies.
Exhibits F.3 through F.34 summarize the percent of filtered plants selecting each technology
according to system size and whether the plant has Pre-LT2 credit (described in Appendix A). These
exhibits present outputs from the cost model. Technologies are listed according to abbreviations shown
in Exhibit F.l.
Exhibit F.1: Technologies Evaluated for this EA
Technology Considered
Technology Abbreviation
Bag Filter 1.0 Log
BF_1_0_LOG
UV 3.0 Log
UV_3_0_LOG
Microfiltration/Ultrafiltration 2.5 Log
MF_UF_2_5_LOG
Cartridge Filter 2.0 Log
CF_2_0_LOG
Combined Filter Performance 0.5 Log
CFP_0_5_LOG
Ozone 0.5 Log
O3_0_5_LOG
Ozone 1.0 Log
O3_1_0_LOG
Ozone 2.0 Log
O3_2_0_LOG
Combined Filter Performance + Ozone (0.5 Log) 1.0 Log
CFP_O3_0_5_LOG_1_0_LOG
Ozone (1.0 Log) + Combined Filter Performance 1.5 Log
03_1 _0_LOG_CFP_1 _5_LOG
Ozone (2.0 Log) + Combined Filter Performance 2.5 Log
O3_2_0_LOG_CFP_2_5_LOG
Secondary Filter 0.5 Log
SF_0_5_LOG
In-bank Filtration 1.0 Log
lnbank_1_0_LOG
In-bank Filtration + Combined Filter Performance 1.5 Log
lnbank_CFP_1_5_LOG
In-bank Filtration + Ozone (0.5 Log) 1.5 Log
I n ban k_O3_0_5_LOG_1 _5_LOG
Ozone (0.5 Log) + Secondary Filter 1.0 Log
O3_0_5_LOG_SF_1 _0_LOG
Ozone (1.0 Log) + Secondary Filter 1.5 Log
03_1 _0_LOG_SF_1 _5_LOG
Ozone (2.0 Log) + Secondary Filter 2.5 Log
O3_2_0_LOG_SF_2_5_LOG
Ozone (0.5 Log) + Watershed Control Program 1.0 Log
O3_0_5_LOG_WC_1 _0_LOG
Ozone (1.0 Log) + Watershed Control Program 1.5 Log
03_1 _0_LOG_WC_1 _5_LOG
Ozone (2.0 Log) + Watershed Control Program 2.5 Log
O3_2_0_LOG_WC_2_5_LOG
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
F-2
December 2005
-------
F.4 Technology Selection Forecast Methodology
The overall methodology used to develop the technology selection forecast for each action bin
and size category relies on a "least-cost decision tree." In other words, for estimating the economic cost
of the rule requirements, it assumes that drinking water plants will select the least expensive technology
or combination of technologies available to meet the log removal requirements of a given action bin.
Technology selection forecasts are estimated separately for the each of nine size categories.
The least-cost decision tree uses relative cost ratios to rank the technologies by cost. The relative
cost ratios shown in column two of Exhibits F.3-F.34 are equal to the total annual cost of a given
technology divided by the total annual cost of the cheapest technology. Total annual costs are calculated
by annualizing the capital cost at a 3 percent interest rate over 20 years and adding it to the annual O&M
cost.
The relative cost ratios for various technologies change with size because technologies have
different economies of scale associated with them and different applicability to different flow ranges.
Therefore the relative cost ratio is calculated separately for each of the nine size categories.
Technology selections within the least-cost decision tree are limited by predicted "maximum use
percentages." These are limits on the percent of plants that may select a particular technology to meet the
bin requirements. Maximum use percentages recognize the following: not all treatment plants may be
able to implement certain technologies due to site-specific constraints such as system hydraulics, lack of
space, and source water quality; for some technologies, industry may not have the capacity to meet rapid
increases in demand; applicability of some technologies is dependent on existing treatment train (e.g.,
direct filtration plants cannot receive credit for pre-sedimentation and are estimated not to be able to
achieve compliance with combined filter performance). Finally, maximum use percentages recognize
special operational constraints for very small and small systems, as identified through an expert opinion
process for the Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 2 DBPR) compliance
forecast. For example, ozone is not considered viable technologies for systems serving fewer than 500
people. These systems are assumed to select only bag/cartridge filters, ultraviolet (UV), and
microfiltration/ultrafiltration (MF/UF).
The maximum use percentages for combination technologies are the product of the maximum use
percentages for the individual technologies. The product is used because the set of conditions that limit
use of one technology are assumed to be independent of the conditions that limit another. For instance, a
plant that could use chlorine dioxide might not be near a source that would allow use of in-bank filtration.
As an example calculation, the maximum use percentage for in-bank filtration (10 percent) combined with
secondary filtration (10 percent) for large systems is equal to 1 percent—10 percent times 10 percent.
The maximum use percentages for chlorine dioxide and ozone are determined using the Surface
Water Analytical Tool (SWAT). To calculate the maximum use percentage for these two disinfectants
SWAT was run in monster mode. SWAT calculated the dose required to achieve the desired inactivation
for each plant, along with the disinfection byproducts bromate for ozone and chlorite for chlorine dioxide.
For ozone, Cryptosporidium inactivation levels of 0.5 log, 1.0 log and 2.0 log were used. For chlorine
dioxide a Cryptosporidium inactivation level of 0.5 log was used. Inactivation levels were determined
using the CT tables presented in the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Rule. It was assumed that the
disinfectant was applied to the settled water before the filters. This positioning would be the one plants
would select to maximize inactivation and minimize byproduct formation. Once SWAT had determined
the dose and byproduct concentration, the percent of plants that could achieve the desired inactivation
without exceeding 80 percent of the MCL on the average for either bromate or chlorite was determined
and used as the maximum use percentage. The 80 percent safety factor was used in order to ensure that
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
F-3
December 2005
-------
changes in water quality or treatment performance would not cause violations of the MCL. For chlorine
dioxide, because the required dose to achieve 0.5 log Cryptosporidium inactivation is high under most
water conditions and chlorite production can be 70 to 80 percent of the total dose, only 2 percent of plants
were predicted to be able to use chlorine dioxide without exceeding 80 percent of the chlorite MCL. To
be conservative and to account for other difficulties such as safety issues in using chlorine dioxide, the
maximum use percent for chlorine dioxide was set to zero.
Maximum use percentages for bag filters, cartridge filters, and UV disinfection were set to 90
percent. The 90 percent value was arrived at as a conservative estimate based on the best professional
judgement of water professionals. Most industry experts felt there were no factors which would prohibit
systems from using these technologies either in terms of water quality or system configuration. The
maximum use percentages were set at 90 percent rather than 100 percent to give a conservative estimate
and to take into account unforeseen difficulties. Maximum use percentages for other technologies were
all set by best professional judgement. This judgement took into account factors such as limitations in
system configuration, water quality, and the number of plants that might already have taken credit for
having the technology installed.
Plants predicted to have toolbox technologies installed prior to the promulgation of LT2ESWTR
use a separate set of maximum use percentages than those plants without pre-LT2 credit. These plants
must be tracked separately because those with existing toolbox technologies cannot be allowed to select
those same technologies. For example, consider the maximum use percentage for combined filter
performance for large systems. It is assumed that overall 80 percent of conventional filtration plants can
use combined filter performance to achieve a reduction credit. 60 percent of all large systems are
conventional filtration plants according to the 2000 CWSS survey. For the large plants, 58 percent
receive a pre-LT2 credit, 46 percent due to credit for combined filter performance. Therefore, 80 percent
(46/58) of large plants with pre-LT2 credit already achieve compliance for combined filter performance
and would not be able to select that technology to obtain the remainder of their required log treatment.
Also, because a large percentage of conventional plants (46 out of 60 percent) receive the combined filter
performance pre-LT2ESWTR credit, the remaining plants will disproportionately use treatment processes
other than conventional filtration. Of the remaining plants only 26 percent ((0.6-0.46)/0.54) are
conventional. These 26 percent are assumed to be evenly distributed among the 12 percent of plants that
received a pre-LT2ESWTR credit and the 42 percent that did not. The maximum use percentage of 80
percent of all conventional systems is still assumed. The resulting maximum use percentages for pre-LT2
credit plants is 4.2 percent (0.2*0.8*0.26) and for those plants not receiving the pre-LT2 credit, the
maximum use percentage is 20.8 percent (0.8*0.26).
Exhibits F.3 through F.34 present the relative cost ratios and maximum use percentages used for
the very small, small, medium, and large plant technology selection forecasts. The percentages listed are
limitations on the percent of plants that may use individual technologies.
A technology or combination of technologies may only be used if its log credit is equal to or
greater than the log action bin. The least expensive technology is chosen first and the maximum use
percentage is used without any adjustment. The maximum use percentage of the second least expensive
technology is then multiplied by the difference of 100 percent and the maximum use percentage of the
first technology. This process continues through all the technologies until the sum of the calculated
percentages equals 100 percent. Microfiltration (MF/UF) does not have a limit on its maximum use
percentage, so any plants not selecting a cheaper technology are included in this technology. If the
percent of plants selecting a particular technology or technology combination is less than 0.1 percent, it is
assumed to be negligible, and the next technology is evaluated.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
F-4
December 2005
-------
Below is an example that shows a step-by-step calculation of the technology selection forecast for
small systems serving less than 500 people in the 2.0 log action bin. Note that combinations with
technologies that have been previously used in the decision tree may not be selected. For example, the
first step assumes that all plants that could use cartridge filters do so. Therefore, the option of cartridge
filters plus chlorine dioxide cannot be selected, as no plants remain that have the capability of using
cartridge filters. On the other hand, if the technology selected first is not a single technology but a
combination of technologies, other combinations that utilize that technology may be possible. For
example, in the 2.5 log bin, cartridge filters plus chlorine dioxide is the cheapest technology; 12 percent
of the plants would use it. Because the maximum use percentage for cartridge filters is 50 percent and
only 12 percent have selected cartridge filters, 38 percent of the plants could still select cartridge filters.
Therefore, the option of cartridge filters plus ozone is not ruled out.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
F-5
December 2005
-------
Choose least expensive technology that has log credit equal to 2.0 or more:
Technology
Log Credit
Relative Cost
Max % Usage
CF
2.0
1.7
90% including BF
% plants selecting CF = Max % Usage * % Plants Available = (0.9)*(1.0)
=90%(A)
Choose 2nd least expensive technology that has log credit equal to 2.0 or more:
Technology
Log Credit
Relative Cost
Max % Usage
UV
3.0
2.6
90%
% plants selecting CF = Max % Usage * % Plants Available = (0.9)*(1,0-A)
=9%(B)
Choose 3rd least expensive technology that has log credit equal to 2.0 or more:
Technology
Log Credit
Relative Cost
Max % Usage
CF + CI02
2.5
4.8
20.7%
% plants selecting CF + CI02 = 0% because all the plants remaining after selection of UV that
could use cartridge filters (15%) have already done so. For this reason, omit CF + 03(.5) and
CF + EF as well.
Choose 4th least expensive technology that has log credit equal to 2.0 or more:
Technology
Log Credit
Relative Cost
Max % Usage
03(2)
2.0
17.6
66%
% plants selecting 03 = Max % Usage * 03 % Plants Avail. = (0.66)*(1-A-B)
= 0.66%(C)
Choose 5th least expensive technology that has log credit equal to 2.0 or more:
Technology
Log Credit
Relative Cost
Max % Usage
MF/UF
2.5
21.2
100%
% plants selecting MF = Max % Usage * % Plants Avail. = (1,0)*(1-A-B-C) =
= 0.34%(D)
Check: A+ B + C + D = 90 + 9 + .66 + .34 = 100%
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
F-6
December 2005
-------
F.5 Scenarios and Technologies Evaluated for this EA
This appendix provides technology selection for the standard analysis and the high bromide
sensitivity analysis (summarized in section 6.11). Bromide is a concern for ozone because it reacts with
ozone to form bromate, a regulated contaminant. EPA calculated all cost estimates for an a separate
baseline that assumes the influent source water has an elevated bromide concentration, and thus, limits the
use of ozone. Exhibit F.2 summarizes the conditions (standard bromide and increased bromide) and
technologies evaluated in this appendix.
Exhibit F.2: Scenarios Evaluated for this EA
Analysis
UV Maximum
Use Percentage
Bromate
MCL
Influent Bromide
UV90-10 (standard)
90%
10 ppb
ICR average
concentration
UV90-10B
90%
10 ppb
ICR average
concentration + 50 ppb
F.6 Results
F.6.1 Standard Conditions
The compliance forecast is the percent of plants selecting each technology for the five action bins.
The compliance forecasts for very small, small, medium, and large plants are provided in Exhibits F.3 to
F. 10. Technologies not selected by any plants are not included in the exhibits. The exhibits show the
percentage of plants selecting the technology or combination of technologies in each of the bins. The
exhibits also show the relative cost, the minimum log removal, and the maximum use percentage of each
technology or combination of technologies. The selection percentages remain constant, regardless of the
regulatory option or the occurrence distribution used. Although the number of plants selecting a
technology depends on these options, the percentages remain constant. The only variables that affect the
selection percentages are size of the plant, the bin in which the plant is placed, and the limits on
technology selection covered in the scenarios in Exhibit F.2. Although costs are computed for all three
Cryptosporidium distributions, the distributions do not affect the technology selection. Exhibits F.3 to
F.18 show the technology selection forecasts forthe UV90-10 scenario.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
F-7
December 2005
-------
Exhibit F.3: Technology Selection for Very Small Plants (<100)
UV90-10
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
Percent of Plants Selecting Technology by Bin
0.5 Log
Bin
1.0 Log
Bin
1.5 Log
Bin
2.0 Log
Bin
2.5 Log
Bin
Total
-
-
-
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
BF10LOG
1.0
1.0
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
CF_2_0_LOG
1.2
2.0
90.0%
0.0%
0.0%
90.0%
90.0%
0.0%
UV30LOG
3.8
3.0
90.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
90.0%
M F_UF_2_5_LOG
15.6
2.5
100.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
10.0%
Note: Total may not add to 100.0% because of rounding.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
F-8
December 2005
-------
Exhibit F.4: Technology Selection for Very Small Plants (100-499)
UV90-10
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
Percent of Plants Selecting Technology by Bin
0.5 Log
Bin
1.0 Log
Bin
1.5 Log
Bin
2.0 Log
Bin
2.5 Log
Bin
Total
-
-
-
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
BF10LOG
1.0
1.0
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
CF_2_0_LOG
1.7
2.0
90.0%
0.0%
0.0%
90.0%
90.0%
0.0%
UV30LOG
3.9
3.0
90.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
90.0%
M F_UF_2_5_LOG
21.1
2.5
100.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
10.0%
Note: Total may not add to 100.0% because of rounding.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
F-9
December 2005
-------
Exhibit F.5: Technology Selection for Small Plants (500-999)
UV90-10, no pre-LT2 credits
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
Percent of Plants Selecting Technoloc
y by Bin
0.5 Log
Bin
1.0 Log
Bin
1.5 Log
Bin
2.0 Log
Bin
2.5 Log
Bin
Total
-
-
-
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
BF_1_0_LOG
1.0
1.0
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
CF_2_0_LOG
2.4
2.0
90.0%
0.0%
0.0%
90.0%
90.0%
0.0%
UV_3_0_LOG
3.5
3.0
90.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
90.0%
CFP_0_5_LOG
7.7
0.5
4.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
M F_U F_2_5_LOG
27.1
2.5
100.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
10.0%
O3_0_5_LOG
35.1
0.5
87.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG
37.0
1.0
75.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG
38.4
2.0
54.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
C F P_O3_0_5_LOG_1 _0_LOG
42.8
1.0
3.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
03_1 _0_LOG_C F P_1 _5_LOG
44.7
1.5
3.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_CFP_2_5_LOG
46.0
2.5
2.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
SF_0_5_LOG
54.6
0.5
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Note: Total may not add to 100.0% because of rounding.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
F-10
December 2005
-------
Exhibit F.6: Technology Selection for Small Plants (500-999)
UV90-10, with pre-LT2 credits
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
Percent of Plants Selecting Technoloc
y by Bin
0.5 Log
Bin
1.0 Log
Bin
1.5 Log
Bin
2.0 Log
Bin
2.5 Log
Bin
Total
-
-
-
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
BF_1_0_LOG
1.0
1.0
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
CF_2_0_LOG
2.4
2.0
90.0%
0.0%
0.0%
90.0%
90.0%
0.0%
UV_3_0_LOG
3.5
3.0
90.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
90.0%
CFP_0_5_LOG
7.7
0.5
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
M F_U F_2_5_LOG
27.1
2.5
100.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
10.0%
O3_0_5_LOG
35.1
0.5
87.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG
37.0
1.0
75.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG
38.4
2.0
54.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
C F P_O3_0_5_LOG_1 _0_LOG
42.8
1.0
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
03_1 _0_LOG_C F P_1 _5_LOG
44.7
1.5
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_CFP_2_5_LOG
46.0
2.5
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
SF_0_5_LOG
54.6
0.5
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Note: Total may not add to 100.0% because of rounding.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
F-ll
December 2005
-------
Exhibit F.7: Technology Selection for Small Plants (1,000-3,299)
UV90-10, no pre-LT2 credits
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
Percent of Plants Selecting Technoloc
y by Bin
0.5 Log
Bin
1.0 Log
Bin
1.5 Log
Bin
2.0 Log
Bin
2.5 Log
Bin
Total
-
-
-
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
BF_1_0_LOG
1.0
1.0
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
UV_3_0_LOG
2.8
3.0
90.0%
9.0%
9.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
CF_2_0_LOG
2.8
2.0
90.0%
0.0%
0.0%
9.0%
9.0%
0.0%
CFP_0_5_LOG
3.9
0.5
4.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_0_5_LOG
20.3
0.5
87.0%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
M F_U F_2_5_LOG
21.2
2.5
100.0%
0.1%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
10.0%
O3_1_0_LOG
23.0
1.0
75.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
C F P_O3_0_5_LOG_1 _0_LOG
24.3
1.0
3.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG
25.1
2.0
54.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
SF_0_5_LOG
26.8
0.5
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
03_1 _0_LOG_C F P_1 _5_LOG
26.9
1.5
3.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_CFP_2_5_LOG
29.0
2.5
2.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Note: Total may not add to 100.0% because of rounding.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
F-12
December 2005
-------
Exhibit F.8: Technology Selection for Small Plants (1,000-3,299)
UV90-10, with pre-LT2 credits
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
Percent of Plants Selecting Tech nolo*
gy by Bin
0.5 Log
Bin
1.0 Log
Bin
1.5 Log
Bin
2.0 Log
Bin
2.5 Log
Bin
Total
-
-
-
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
BF_1_0_LOG
1.0
1.0
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
UV_3_0_LOG
2.8
3.0
90.0%
9.0%
9.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
CF_2_0_LOG
2.8
2.0
90.0%
0.0%
0.0%
9.0%
9.0%
0.0%
CFP_0_5_LOG
3.9
0.5
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_0_5_LOG
20.3
0.5
87.0%
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
M F_U F_2_5_LOG
21.2
2.5
100.0%
0.1%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
10.0%
O3_1_0_LOG
23.0
1.0
75.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
CFP_O3_0_5_LOG_1_0_LOG
24.3
1.0
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG
25.1
2.0
54.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
SF_0_5_LOG
26.8
0.5
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG_CFP_1_5_LOG
26.9
1.5
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_CFP_2_5_LOG
29.0
2.5
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Note: Total may not add to 100.0% because of rounding.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
F-13
December 2005
-------
Exhibit F.9: Technology Selection for Small Plants (3,300-9,999)
UV90-10, no pre-LT2 credits
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
Percent of Plants Selecting Tech nolo*
gy by Bin
0.5 Log
Bin
1.0 Log
Bin
1.5 Log
Bin
2.0 Log
Bin
2.5 Log
Bin
Total
-
-
-
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
BF_1_0_LOG
1.0
1.0
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
UV_3_0_LOG
2.1
3.0
90.0%
9.0%
9.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
CFP_0_5_LOG
2.5
0.5
4.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
CF_2_0_LOG
2.8
2.0
90.0%
0.0%
0.0%
9.0%
9.0%
0.0%
O3_0_5_LOG
9.4
0.5
87.0%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG
10.7
1.0
75.0%
0.1%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG
11.1
2.0
54.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.5%
0.5%
0.0%
CFP_O3_0_5_LOG_1_0_LOG
11.9
1.0
3.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG_CFP_1_5_LOG
13.2
1.5
3.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_CFP_2_5_LOG
13.6
2.5
2.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
SF_0_5_LOG
14.0
0.5
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
M F_U F_2_5_LOG
16.9
2.5
100.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.4%
0.4%
9.8%
Note: Total may not add to 100.0% because of rounding.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
F-14
December 2005
-------
Exhibit F.10: Technology Selection for Small Plants (3,300-9,999)
UV90-10, with pre-LT2 credits
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
Percent of Plants Selecting Technology by Bin
0.5 Log
Bin
1.0 Log
Bin
1.5 Log
Bin
2.0 Log
Bin
2.5 Log
Bin
Total
-
-
-
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
BF_1_0_LOG
1.0
1.0
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
UV_3_0_LOG
2.1
3.0
90.0%
9.0%
9.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
CFP_0_5_LOG
2.5
0.5
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
CF_2_0_LOG
2.8
2.0
90.0%
0.0%
0.0%
9.0%
9.0%
0.0%
O3_0_5_LOG
9.4
0.5
87.0%
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG
10.7
1.0
75.0%
0.1%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG
11.1
2.0
54.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.5%
0.5%
0.0%
CFP_O3_0_5_LOG_1_0_LOG
11.9
1.0
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG_CFP_1_5_LOG
13.2
1.5
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_CFP_2_5_LOG
13.6
2.5
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
SF_0_5_LOG
14.0
0.5
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
M F_U F_2_5_LOG
16.9
2.5
100.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.5%
0.5%
10.0%
Note: Total may not add to 100.0% because of rounding.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
F-15
December 2005
-------
Exhibit F.11: Technology Selection for Medium Plants (10,000-49,999)
UV90-10, no pre-LT2 credits
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
Percent of Plants Selecting Technology by Bin
0.5 Log
Bin
1.0 Log
Bin
1.5 Log
Bin
2.0 Log
Bin
2.5 Log
Bin
Total
-
-
-
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
CFP_0_5_LOG
1.1
0.5
20.7%
20.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
UV_3_0_LOG
1.2
3.0
90.0%
71.4%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
lnbank_1_0_LOG
2.4
1.0
10.0%
0.8%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
I n bank_CFP_1_5_LOG
3.6
1.5
2.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_0_5_LOG
6.0
0.5
87.0%
6.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
C F P_O3_0_5_LO G_1 _0_LO G
7.1
1.0
18.0%
0.2%
1.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG
7.3
1.0
75.0%
0.6%
5.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
03_1 _0_LO G_C F P_1 _5_LO G
8.4
1.5
15.5%
0.0%
0.3%
1.5%
0.0%
0.0%
I n bank_O3_0_5_LOG_1_5_LOG
8.4
1.5
8.7%
0.0%
0.1%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG
9.8
2.0
54.0%
0.1%
0.8%
4.1%
5.4%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_CFP_2_5_LOG
10.9
2.5
11.2%
0.0%
0.1%
0.4%
0.5%
1.1%
SF_0_5_LOG
12.7
0.5
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
MF_UF_2_5_LOG
18.6
2.5
100.0%
0.1%
0.6%
3.1%
4.1%
8.9%
O3_0_5_LOG_SF_1_0_LOG
18.6
1.0
8.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG_SF_1_5_LOG
19.9
1.5
7.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_SF_2_5_LOG
22.5
2.5
5.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Note: Total may not add to 100.0% because of rounding.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
F-16
December 2005
-------
Exhibit F.12: Technology Selection for Medium Plants (10,000-49,999)
UV90-10, with pre-LT2 credits
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
Percent of Plants Selecting Technology by Bin
0.5 Log
Bin
1.0 Log
Bin
1.5 Log
Bin
2.0 Log
Bin
2.5 Log
Bin
Total
-
-
-
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
CFP_0_5_LOG
1.1
0.5
3.4%
3.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
UV_3_0_LOG
1.2
3.0
90.0%
87.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
lnbank_1_0_LOG
2.4
1.0
10.0%
1.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
I n ban k_CFP_1_5_LOG
3.6
1.5
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_0_5_LOG
6.0
0.5
87.0%
7.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
CFP_O3_0_5_LOG_1_0_LOG
7.1
1.0
2.9%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG
7.3
1.0
75.0%
0.8%
6.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG_CFP_1_5_LOG
8.4
1.5
2.5%
0.0%
0.1%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
I n ban k_O3_0_5_LOG_1 _5_LOG
8.4
1.5
8.7%
0.0%
0.2%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG
9.8
2.0
54.0%
0.1%
1.0%
4.8%
5.4%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_CFP_2_5_LOG
10.9
2.5
1.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
SF_0_5_LOG
12.7
0.5
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
M F_U F_2_5_LOG
18.6
2.5
100.0%
0.1%
0.9%
4.0%
4.5%
9.8%
O3_0_5_LOG_SF_1_0_LOG
18.6
1.0
8.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG_SF_1_5_LOG
19.9
1.5
7.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_SF_2_5_LOG
22.5
2.5
5.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Note: Total may not add to 100.0% because of rounding.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
F-17
December 2005
-------
Exhibit F.13: Technology Selection for Medium Plants (50,000-99,999)
UV90-10, no pre-LT2 credits
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
Percent of Plants Selecting Technology by Bin
0.5 Log
Bin
1.0 Log
Bin
1.5 Log
Bin
2.0 Log
Bin
2.5 Log
Bin
Total
-
-
-
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
CFP_0_5_LOG
1.5
0.5
20.7%
20.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
UV_3_0_LOG
1.9
3.0
90.0%
71.4%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
lnbank_1_0_LOG
4.5
1.0
10.0%
0.8%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
I n bank_CFP_1_5_LOG
6.0
1.5
2.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_0_5_LOG
7.1
0.5
87.0%
6.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
C F P_O3_0_5_LO G_1 _0_LO G
8.6
1.0
18.0%
0.2%
1.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG
8.9
1.0
75.0%
0.6%
5.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
03_1 _0_LO G_C F P_1 _5_LO G
10.4
1.5
15.5%
0.0%
0.3%
1.5%
0.0%
0.0%
I n bank_O3_0_5_LOG_1_5_LOG
11.7
1.5
8.7%
0.0%
0.1%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG
13.7
2.0
54.0%
0.1%
0.8%
4.1%
5.4%
0.0%
SF_0_5_LOG
14.2
0.5
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_CFP_2_5_LOG
15.2
2.5
11.2%
0.0%
0.1%
0.4%
0.5%
1.1%
O3_0_5_LOG_SF_1_0_LOG
21.4
1.0
8.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG_SF_1_5_LOG
23.1
1.5
7.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_SF_2_5_LOG
28.0
2.5
5.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.2%
0.5%
MF_UF_2_5_LOG
31.9
2.5
100.0%
0.0%
0.5%
2.7%
3.9%
8.4%
Note: Total may not add to 100.0% because of rounding.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
F-18
December 2005
-------
Exhibit F.14: Technology Selection for Medium Plants (50,000-99,999)
UV90-10, with pre-LT2 credits
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
Percent of Plants Selecting Technology by Bin
0.5 Log
Bin
1.0 Log
Bin
1.5 Log
Bin
2.0 Log
Bin
2.5 Log
Bin
Total
-
-
-
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
CFP_0_5_LOG
1.5
0.5
3.4%
3.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
UV_3_0_LOG
1.9
3.0
90.0%
87.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
lnbank_1_0_LOG
4.5
1.0
10.0%
1.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
I n bank_CFP_1_5_LOG
6.0
1.5
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_0_5_LOG
7.1
0.5
87.0%
7.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
C F P_O3_0_5_LO G_1 _0_LO G
8.6
1.0
2.9%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG
8.9
1.0
75.0%
0.8%
6.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG_CFP_1_5_LOG
10.4
1.5
2.5%
0.0%
0.1%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
I n bank_O3_0_5_LOG_1_5_LOG
11.7
1.5
8.7%
0.0%
0.2%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG
13.7
2.0
54.0%
0.1%
1.0%
4.8%
5.4%
0.0%
SF_0_5_LOG
14.2
0.5
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_CFP_2_5_LOG
15.2
2.5
1.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
O3_0_5_LOG_SF_1_0_LOG
21.4
1.0
8.7%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG_SF_1_5_LOG
23.1
1.5
7.5%
0.0%
0.1%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_SF_2_5_LOG
28.0
2.5
5.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.2%
0.5%
MF_UF_2_5_LOG
31.9
2.5
100.0%
0.1%
0.7%
3.5%
4.3%
9.3%
Note: Total may not add to 100.0% because of rounding.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
F-19
December 2005
-------
Exhibit F.15: Technology Selection for Large Plants (100,000-999,999)
UV90-10, no pre-LT2 credits
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
Percent of Plants Selecting Technology by Bin
0.5 Log
Bin
1.0 Log
Bin
1.5 Log
Bin
2.0 Log
Bin
2.5 Log
Bin
Total
-
-
-
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
CFP_0_5_LOG
1.8
0.5
20.7%
20.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
UV_3_0_LOG
2.2
3.0
90.0%
71.4%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
I n ban k_1_0_LOG
8.1
1.0
10.0%
0.8%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_0_5_LOG
9.2
0.5
87.0%
6.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
I n ban k_CFP_1_5_LOG
9.9
1.5
2.1%
0.0%
0.2%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
C FP_O3_0_5_LOG_1 _0_LOG
11.0
1.0
18.0%
0.2%
1.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG
11.9
1.0
75.0%
0.6%
5.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
03_1 _0_LOG_C F P_1 _5_LOG
13.8
1.5
15.5%
0.0%
0.3%
1.5%
0.0%
0.0%
I n ban k_O3_0_5_LOG_1_5_LOG
17.3
1.5
8.7%
0.0%
0.1%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
SF_0_5_LOG
17.6
0.5
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG
20.1
2.0
54.0%
0.1%
0.8%
4.1%
5.4%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_C F P_2_5_LOG
21.9
2.5
11.2%
0.0%
0.1%
0.4%
0.5%
1.1%
O3_0_5_LOG_S F_1 _0_LOG
26.8
1.0
8.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
03_1 _0_LOG_S F_1 _5_LOG
29.5
1.5
7.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_S F_2_5_LOG
37.7
2.5
5.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.2%
0.5%
O3_0_5_LOG_WC_1 _0_LOG
43.8
1.0
8.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG_WC_1_5_LOG
46.6
1.5
7.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
MF_UF_2_5_LOG
51.0
2.5
100.0%
0.0%
0.4%
2.5%
3.9%
8.4%
O3_2_0_LOG_WC_2_5_LOG
54.7
2.5
5.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Note: Total may not add to 100.0% because of rounding.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
F-20
December 2005
-------
Exhibit F.16: Technology Selection for Large Plants (100,000-999,999)
UV90-10, with pre-LT2 credits
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
Percent of Plants Selecting Technology by Bin
0.5 Log
Bin
1.0 Log
Bin
1.5 Log
Bin
2.0 Log
Bin
2.5 Log
Bin
Total
-
-
-
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
CFP_0_5_LOG
1.8
0.5
4.3%
4.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
UV_3_0_LOG
2.2
3.0
90.0%
86.1%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
1 n ban k_1_0_LOG
8.1
1.0
10.0%
1.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_0_5_LOG
9.2
0.5
87.0%
7.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
I n ban k_CFP_1_5_LOG
9.9
1.5
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
C FP_O3_0_5_LOG_1 _0_LOG
11.0
1.0
3.2%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG
11.9
1.0
75.0%
0.8%
6.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
03_1 _0_LOG_C F P_1 _5_LOG
13.8
1.5
3.2%
0.0%
0.1%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
I n ban k_O3_0_5_LOG_1_5_LOG
17.3
1.5
8.7%
0.0%
0.2%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
SF_0_5_LOG
17.6
0.5
7.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG
20.1
2.0
54.0%
0.1%
1.0%
4.8%
5.4%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_C F P_2_5_LOG
21.9
2.5
2.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
O3_0_5_LOG_S F_1 _0_LOG
26.8
1.0
6.9%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
03_1 _0_LOG_S F_1 _5_LOG
29.5
1.5
5.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_S F_2_5_LOG
37.7
2.5
4.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.2%
0.4%
O3_0_5_LOG_WC_1 _0_LOG
43.8
1.0
8.7%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
03_1 _0_LOG_WC_1 _5_LOG
46.6
1.5
7.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
MF_UF_2_5_LOG
51.0
2.5
100.0%
0.1%
0.6%
3.3%
4.3%
9.4%
O3_2_0_LOG_WC_2_5_LOG
54.7
2.5
5.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Note: Total may not add to 100.0% because of rounding.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
F-21
December 2005
-------
Exhibit F.17: Technology Selection for Large Plants (>1,000,000)
UV90-10, no pre-LT2 credits
Note: Total may not add to 100.0% because of rounding.
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
Percent of Plants Selecting Technology by Bin
0.5 Log
Bin
1.0 Log
Bin
1.5 Log
Bin
2.0 Log
Bin
2.5 Log
Bin
Total
-
-
-
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
CFP_0_5_LOG
1.5
0.5
20.7%
20.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
UV_3_0_LOG
2.4
3.0
90.0%
71.4%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
O3_0_5_LOG
10.8
0.5
87.0%
6.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
I n ban k_1_0_LOG
11.4
1.0
10.0%
0.1%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
C FP_O3_0_5_LOG_1 _0_LOG
12.3
1.0
18.0%
0.2%
1.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
I n ban k_CFP_1_5_LOG
12.9
1.5
2.1%
0.0%
0.2%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG
14.2
1.0
75.0%
0.6%
5.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
03_1 _0_LOG_C F P_1 _5_LOG
15.8
1.5
15.5%
0.0%
0.3%
1.5%
0.0%
0.0%
SF_0_5_LOG
22.0
0.5
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
I n ban k_O3_0_5_LOG_1_5_LOG
22.2
1.5
8.7%
0.0%
0.1%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG
25.0
2.0
54.0%
0.1%
0.8%
4.1%
5.4%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_C F P_2_5_LOG
26.6
2.5
11.2%
0.0%
0.1%
0.4%
0.5%
1.1%
O3_0_5_LOG_S F_1 _0_LOG
32.7
1.0
8.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
03_1 _0_LOG_S F_1 _5_LOG
36.2
1.5
7.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_S F_2_5_LOG
47.0
2.5
5.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.2%
0.5%
O3_0_5_LOG_WC_1 _0_LOG
54.3
1.0
8.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG_WC_1_5_LOG
57.7
1.5
7.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_WC_2_5_LOG
68.5
2.5
5.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.2%
0.5%
MF_UF_2_5_LOG
68.8
2.5
100.0%
0.0%
0.4%
2.4%
3.7%
7.9%
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
F-22
December 2005
-------
Exhibit F.18: Technology Selection for Large Plants (>1,000,000)
UV90-10, with pre-LT2 credits
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
Percent of Plants Selecting Technology by Bin
0.5 Log
Bin
1.0 Log
Bin
1.5 Log
Bin
2.0 Log
Bin
2.5 Log
Bin
Total
-
-
-
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
CFP_0_5_LOG
1.5
0.5
4.3%
4.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
UV_3_0_LOG
2.4
3.0
90.0%
86.1%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
O3_0_5_LOG
10.8
0.5
87.0%
8.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
I n ban k_1_0_LOG
11.4
1.0
10.0%
0.1%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
C FP_O3_0_5_LOG_1 _0_LOG
12.3
1.0
3.2%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
I n ban k_CFP_1_5_LOG
12.9
1.5
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG
14.2
1.0
75.0%
0.8%
6.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
03_1 _0_LOG_C F P_1 _5_LOG
15.8
1.5
3.2%
0.0%
0.1%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
SF_0_5_LOG
22.0
0.5
7.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
I n ban k_O3_0_5_LOG_1_5_LOG
22.2
1.5
8.7%
0.0%
0.2%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG
25.0
2.0
54.0%
0.1%
1.0%
4.8%
5.4%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_C F P_2_5_LOG
26.6
2.5
2.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
O3_0_5_LOG_S F_1 _0_LOG
32.7
1.0
6.9%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
03_1 _0_LOG_S F_1 _5_LOG
36.2
1.5
5.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_S F_2_5_LOG
47.0
2.5
4.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.2%
0.4%
O3_0_5_LOG_WC_1 _0_LOG
54.3
1.0
8.7%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG_WC_1_5_LOG
57.7
1.5
7.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_WC_2_5_LOG
68.5
2.5
5.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.2%
0.5%
MF_UF_2_5_LOG
68.8
2.5
100.0%
0.1%
0.6%
3.1%
4.1%
8.8%
Note: Total may not add to 100.0% because of rounding.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
F-23
December 2005
-------
F.6.2 Sensitivity Analysis
Technology selection forecasts for the high bromide sensitivity analysis are given in this section.
Exhibits F.19 through F.34 show the technology selection forecasts for the UV90-10B sensitivity
analysis. Displayed for each technology or combination of technologies are relative cost, minimum log
removal credit, maximum use percentage, and percent of plants selecting the technologies for each bin.
Exhibit F.19: Technology Selection for Very Small Plants (<100)
UV90-10B
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
Percent of Plants Selecting Technology by Bin
0.5 Log
Bin
1.0 Log
Bin
1.5 Log
Bin
2.0 Log
Bin
2.5 Log
Bin
Total
-
-
-
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
BF10LOG
1.0
1.0
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
CF_2_0_LOG
1.2
2.0
90.0%
0.0%
0.0%
90.0%
90.0%
0.0%
UV30LOG
3.8
3.0
90.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
90.0%
M F_UF_2_5_LOG
15.6
2.5
100.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
10.0%
Note: Total may not add to 100.0% because of rounding.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
F-24
December 2005
-------
Exhibit F.20: Technology Selection for Very Small Plants (100-499)
UV90-10B
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
Percent of Plants Selecting Technology by Bin
0.5 Log
Bin
1.0 Log
Bin
1.5 Log
Bin
2.0 Log
Bin
2.5 Log
Bin
Total
-
-
-
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
BF10LOG
1.0
1.0
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
CF_2_0_LOG
1.7
2.0
90.0%
0.0%
0.0%
90.0%
90.0%
0.0%
UV30LOG
3.9
3.0
90.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
90.0%
M F_UF_2_5_LOG
21.1
2.5
100.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
10.0%
Note: Total may not add to 100.0% because of rounding.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
F-25
December 2005
-------
Exhibit F.21: Technology Selection for Small Plants (501-999)
UV90-10B, no pre-LT2 credits
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
Percent of Plants Selecting Technoloc
y by Bin
0.5 Log
Bin
1.0 Log
Bin
1.5 Log
Bin
2.0 Log
Bin
2.5 Log
Bin
Total
-
-
-
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
BF_1_0_LOG
1.0
1.0
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
CF_2_0_LOG
2.4
2.0
90.0%
0.0%
0.0%
90.0%
90.0%
0.0%
UV_3_0_LOG
3.5
3.0
90.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
90.0%
CFP_0_5_LOG
7.7
0.5
4.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
M F_U F_2_5_LOG
27.1
2.5
100.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
10.0%
O3_0_5_LOG
35.1
0.5
84.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG
37.0
1.0
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG
38.4
2.0
3.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
C F P_O3_0_5_LOG_1 _0_LOG
42.8
1.0
3.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
03_1 _0_LOG_C F P_1 _5_LOG
44.7
1.5
2.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_CFP_2_5_LOG
46.0
2.5
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
SF_0_5_LOG
54.6
0.5
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Note: Total may not add to 100.0% because of rounding.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
F-26
December 2005
-------
Exhibit F.22: Technology Selection for Small Plants (501-999)
UV90-10B, with pre-LT2 credits
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
Percent of Plants Selecting Technology by Bin
0.5 Log
Bin
1.0 Log
Bin
1.5 Log
Bin
2.0 Log
Bin
2.5 Log
Bin
Total
-
-
-
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
BF_1_0_LOG
1.0
1.0
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
CF_2_0_LOG
2.4
2.0
90.0%
0.0%
0.0%
90.0%
90.0%
0.0%
UV_3_0_LOG
3.5
3.0
90.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
90.0%
CFP_0_5_LOG
7.7
0.5
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
M F_U F_2_5_LOG
27.1
2.5
100.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
10.0%
O3_0_5_LOG
35.1
0.5
84.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG
37.0
1.0
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG
38.4
2.0
3.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
CFP_O3_0_5_LOG_1_0_LOG
42.8
1.0
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
03_1 _0_LOG_C FP_1_5_LOG
44.7
1.5
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_CFP_2_5_LOG
46.0
2.5
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
SF_0_5_LOG
54.6
0.5
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Note: Total may not add to 100.0% because of rounding.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
F-27
December 2005
-------
Exhibit F.23: Technology Selection for Small Plants (1,000-3,299)
UV90-10B, no pre-LT2 credits
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
Percent of Plants Selecting Technoloc
y by Bin
0.5 Log
Bin
1.0 Log
Bin
1.5 Log
Bin
2.0 Log
Bin
2.5 Log
Bin
Total
-
-
-
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
BF_1_0_LOG
1.0
1.0
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
UV_3_0_LOG
2.8
3.0
90.0%
9.0%
9.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
CF_2_0_LOG
2.8
2.0
90.0%
0.0%
0.0%
9.0%
9.0%
0.0%
CFP_0_5_LOG
3.9
0.5
4.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_0_5_LOG
20.3
0.5
84.0%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
M F_U F_2_5_LOG
21.2
2.5
100.0%
0.2%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
10.0%
O3_1_0_LOG
23.0
1.0
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
C F P_O3_0_5_LOG_1 _0_LOG
24.3
1.0
3.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG
25.1
2.0
3.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
SF_0_5_LOG
26.8
0.5
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
03_1 _0_LOG_C F P_1 _5_LOG
26.9
1.5
2.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_CFP_2_5_LOG
29.0
2.5
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Note: Total may not add to 100.0% because of rounding.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
F-28
December 2005
-------
Exhibit F.24: Technology Selection for Small Plants (1,000-3,299)
UV90-10B, with pre-LT2 credits
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
Percent of Plants Selecting Technoloj
3y by Bin
0.5 Log
Bin
1.0 Log
Bin
1.5 Log
Bin
2.0 Log
Bin
2.5 Log
Bin
Total
-
-
-
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
BF_1_0_LOG
1.0
1.0
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
UV_3_0_LOG
2.8
3.0
90.0%
9.0%
9.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
CF_2_0_LOG
2.8
2.0
90.0%
0.0%
0.0%
9.0%
9.0%
0.0%
CFP_0_5_LOG
3.9
0.5
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_0_5_LOG
20.3
0.5
84.0%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
M F_U F_2_5_LOG
21.2
2.5
100.0%
0.2%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
10.0%
O3_1_0_LOG
23.0
1.0
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
CFP_O3_0_5_LOG_1_0_LOG
24.3
1.0
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG
25.1
2.0
3.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
SF_0_5_LOG
26.8
0.5
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
03_1 _0_LOG_C FP_1_5_LOG
26.9
1.5
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_CFP_2_5_LOG
29.0
2.5
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Note: Total may not add to 100.0% because of rounding.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
F-29
December 2005
-------
Exhibit F.25: Technology Selection for Small Plants (3,300-9,999)
UV90-10B, no pre-LT2 credits
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
Percent of Plants Selecting Technoloc
y by Bin
0.5 Log
Bin
1.0 Log
Bin
1.5 Log
Bin
2.0 Log
Bin
2.5 Log
Bin
Total
-
-
-
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
BF_1_0_LOG
1.0
1.0
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
UV_3_0_LOG
2.1
3.0
90.0%
9.0%
9.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
CFP_0_5_LOG
2.5
0.5
4.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
CF_2_0_LOG
2.8
2.0
90.0%
0.0%
0.0%
9.0%
9.0%
0.0%
O3_0_5_LOG
9.4
0.5
84.0%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG
10.7
1.0
50.0%
0.1%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG
11.1
2.0
3.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
C F P_O3_0_5_LOG_1 _0_LOG
11.9
1.0
3.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
03_1 _0_LOG_C F P_1 _5_LOG
13.2
1.5
2.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_CFP_2_5_LOG
13.6
2.5
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
SF_0_5_LOG
14.0
0.5
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
M F_U F_2_5_LOG
16.9
2.5
100.0%
0.1%
0.5%
0.9%
1.0%
10.0%
Note: Total may not add to 100.0% because of rounding.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
F-30
December 2005
-------
Exhibit F.26: Technology Selection for Small Plants (3,300-9,999)
UV90-10B, with pre-LT2 credits
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
Percent of Plants Selecting Technology by Bin
0.5 Log
Bin
1.0 Log
Bin
1.5 Log
Bin
2.0 Log
Bin
2.5 Log
Bin
Total
-
-
-
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
BF_1_0_LOG
1.0
1.0
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
UV_3_0_LOG
2.1
3.0
90.0%
9.0%
9.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
CFP_0_5_LOG
2.5
0.5
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
CF_2_0_LOG
2.8
2.0
90.0%
0.0%
0.0%
9.0%
9.0%
0.0%
O3_0_5_LOG
9.4
0.5
84.0%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG
10.7
1.0
50.0%
0.1%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG
11.1
2.0
3.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
CFP_O3_0_5_LOG_1_0_LOG
11.9
1.0
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG_CFP_1_5_LOG
13.2
1.5
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_CFP_2_5_LOG
13.6
2.5
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
SF_0_5_LOG
14.0
0.5
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
M F_U F_2_5_LOG
16.9
2.5
100.0%
0.1%
0.5%
1.0%
1.0%
10.0%
Note: Total may not add to 100.0% because of rounding.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
F-31
December 2005
-------
Exhibit F.27: Technology Selection for Medium Plants (10,000-49,999)
UV90-10B, no pre-LT2 credits
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
Percent of Plants Selecting Technology by Bin
0.5 Log
Bin
1.0 Log
Bin
1.5 Log
Bin
2.0 Log
Bin
2.5 Log
Bin
Total
-
-
-
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
CFP_0_5_LOG
1.1
0.5
20.7%
20.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
UV_3_0_LOG
1.2
3.0
90.0%
71.4%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
lnbank_1_0_LOG
2.4
1.0
10.0%
0.8%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
I n bank_CFP_1_5_LOG
3.6
1.5
2.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_0_5_LOG
6.0
0.5
84.0%
5.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
C F P_O3_0_5_LO G_1 _0_LO G
7.1
1.0
17.4%
0.2%
1.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG
7.3
1.0
50.0%
0.5%
3.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
03_1 _0_LO G_C F P_1 _5_LO G
8.4
1.5
10.4%
0.0%
0.4%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
I n bank_O3_0_5_LOG_1_5_LOG
8.4
1.5
8.4%
0.0%
0.3%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG
9.8
2.0
3.3%
0.0%
0.1%
0.3%
0.3%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_CFP_2_5_LOG
10.9
2.5
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
SF_0_5_LOG
12.7
0.5
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
MF_UF_2_5_LOG
18.6
2.5
100.0%
0.3%
2.9%
7.7%
9.6%
9.9%
O3_0_5_LOG_SF_1_0_LOG
18.6
1.0
8.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG_SF_1_5_LOG
19.9
1.5
5.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_SF_2_5_LOG
22.5
2.5
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Note: Total may not add to 100.0% because of rounding.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
F-32
December 2005
-------
Exhibit F.28: Technology Selection for Medium Plants (10,000-49,999)
UV90-10B, with pre-LT2 credits
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
Percent of Plants Selecting Technology by Bin
0.5 Log
Bin
1.0 Log
Bin
1.5 Log
Bin
2.0 Log
Bin
2.5 Log
Bin
Total
-
-
-
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
CFP_0_5_LOG
1.1
0.5
3.4%
3.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
UV_3_0_LOG
1.2
3.0
90.0%
87.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
lnbank_1_0_LOG
2.4
1.0
10.0%
1.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
I n bank_CFP_1_5_LOG
3.6
1.5
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_0_5_LOG
6.0
0.5
84.0%
7.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
C F P_O3_0_5_LO G_1 _0_LO G
7.1
1.0
2.8%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG
7.3
1.0
50.0%
0.7%
4.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG_CFP_1_5_LOG
8.4
1.5
1.7%
0.0%
0.1%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
I n bank_O3_0_5_LOG_1_5_LOG
8.4
1.5
8.4%
0.1%
0.4%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG
9.8
2.0
3.3%
0.0%
0.1%
0.3%
0.3%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_CFP_2_5_LOG
10.9
2.5
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
SF_0_5_LOG
12.7
0.5
10.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
MF_UF_2_5_LOG
18.6
2.5
100.0%
0.5%
3.8%
8.7%
9.7%
10.0%
O3_0_5_LOG_SF_1_0_LOG
18.6
1.0
8.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG_SF_1_5_LOG
19.9
1.5
5.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_SF_2_5_LOG
22.5
2.5
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Note: Total may not add to 100.0% because of rounding.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
F-33
December 2005
-------
Exhibit F.29: Technology Selection for Medium Plants (50,000-99,999)
UV90-10B, no pre-LT2 credits
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
Percent of Plants Selecting Technology by Bin
0.5 Log
Bin
1.0 Log
Bin
1.5 Log
Bin
2.0 Log
Bin
2.5 Log
Bin
Total
-
-
-
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
CFP_0_5_LOG
1.5
0.5
20.7%
20.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
UV_3_0_LOG
1.9
3.0
90.0%
71.4%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
lnbank_1_0_LOG
4.5
1.0
10.0%
0.8%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
I n bank_CFP_1_5_LOG
6.0
1.5
2.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_0_5_LOG
7.1
0.5
84.0%
5.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
C F P_O3_0_5_LO G_1 _0_LO G
8.6
1.0
17.4%
0.2%
1.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG
8.9
1.0
50.0%
0.5%
3.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
03_1 _0_LO G_C F P_1 _5_LO G
10.4
1.5
10.4%
0.0%
0.4%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
I n bank_O3_0_5_LOG_1_5_LOG
11.7
1.5
8.4%
0.0%
0.3%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG
13.7
2.0
3.3%
0.0%
0.1%
0.3%
0.3%
0.0%
SF_0_5_LOG
14.2
0.5
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_CFP_2_5_LOG
15.2
2.5
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
O3_0_5_LOG_SF_1_0_LOG
21.4
1.0
8.4%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG_SF_1_5_LOG
23.1
1.5
5.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_SF_2_5_LOG
28.0
2.5
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
MF_UF_2_5_LOG
31.9
2.5
100.0%
0.3%
2.5%
7.3%
9.6%
9.9%
Note: Total may not add to 100.0% because of rounding.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
F-34
December 2005
-------
Exhibit F.30: Technology Selection for Medium Plants (50,000-99,999)
UV90-10B, with pre-LT2 credits
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
Percent of Plants Selecting Technology by Bin
0.5 Log
Bin
1.0 Log
Bin
1.5 Log
Bin
2.0 Log
Bin
2.5 Log
Bin
Total
-
-
-
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
CFP_0_5_LOG
1.5
0.5
3.4%
3.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
UV_3_0_LOG
1.9
3.0
90.0%
87.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
lnbank_1_0_LOG
4.5
1.0
10.0%
1.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
I n bank_CFP_1_5_LOG
6.0
1.5
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_0_5_LOG
7.1
0.5
84.0%
7.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
C F P_O3_0_5_LO G_1 _0_LO G
8.6
1.0
2.8%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG
8.9
1.0
50.0%
0.7%
4.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG_CFP_1_5_LOG
10.4
1.5
1.7%
0.0%
0.1%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
I n bank_O3_0_5_LOG_1_5_LOG
11.7
1.5
8.4%
0.1%
0.4%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG
13.7
2.0
3.3%
0.0%
0.1%
0.3%
0.3%
0.0%
SF_0_5_LOG
14.2
0.5
10.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_CFP_2_5_LOG
15.2
2.5
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_0_5_LOG_SF_1_0_LOG
21.4
1.0
8.4%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG_SF_1_5_LOG
23.1
1.5
5.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_SF_2_5_LOG
28.0
2.5
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
MF_UF_2_5_LOG
31.9
2.5
100.0%
0.5%
3.3%
8.2%
9.6%
10.0%
Note: Total may not add to 100.0% because of rounding.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
F-35
December 2005
-------
Exhibit F.31: Technology Selection for Large Plants (100,000-999,999)
UV90-10B, no pre-LT2 credits
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
Percent of Plants Selecting Technology by Bin
0.5 Log
Bin
1.0 Log
Bin
1.5 Log
Bin
2.0 Log
Bin
2.5 Log
Bin
Total
-
-
-
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
CFP_0_5_LOG
1.8
0.5
20.7%
20.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
UV_3_0_LOG
2.2
3.0
90.0%
71.4%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
I n ban k_1_0_LOG
8.1
1.0
10.0%
0.8%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_0_5_LOG
9.2
0.5
84.0%
6.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
I n ban k_CFP_1_5_LOG
9.9
1.5
2.1%
0.0%
0.2%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
C FP_O3_0_5_LOG_1 _0_LOG
11.0
1.0
10.4%
0.1%
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG
11.9
1.0
50.0%
0.5%
4.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
03_1 _0_LOG_C F P_1 _5_LOG
13.8
1.5
10.4%
0.1%
0.4%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
I n ban k_O3_0_5_LOG_1_5_LOG
17.3
1.5
8.4%
0.0%
0.3%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
SF_0_5_LOG
17.6
0.5
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG
20.1
2.0
3.3%
0.0%
0.1%
0.3%
0.3%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_C F P_2_5_LOG
21.9
2.5
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
O3_0_5_LOG_S F_1 _0_LOG
26.8
1.0
8.4%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
03_1 _0_LOG_S F_1 _5_LOG
29.5
1.5
5.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_S F_2_5_LOG
37.7
2.5
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_0_5_LOG_WC_1 _0_LOG
43.8
1.0
8.4%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
03_1 _0_LOG_WC_1 _5_LOG
46.6
1.5
5.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
MF_UF_2_5_LOG
51.0
2.5
100.0%
0.3%
2.4%
6.9%
9.6%
9.9%
O3_2_0_LOG_WC_2_5_LOG
54.7
2.5
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Note: Total may not add to 100.0% because of rounding.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
F-36
December 2005
-------
Exhibit F.32: Technology Selection for Large Plants (100,000-999,999)
UV90-10B, with pre-LT2 credits
Note: Total may not add to 100.0% because of rounding.
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
Percent of Plants Selecting Technology by Bin
0.5 Log
Bin
1.0 Log
Bin
1.5 Log
Bin
2.0 Log
Bin
2.5 Log
Bin
Total
-
-
-
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
CFP_0_5_LOG
1.8
0.5
4.3%
4.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
UV_3_0_LOG
2.2
3.0
90.0%
86.1%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
I n ban k_1_0_LOG
8.1
1.0
10.0%
1.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_0_5_LOG
9.2
0.5
84.0%
7.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
I n ban k_CFP_1_5_LOG
9.9
1.5
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
C FP_O3_0_5_LOG_1 _0_LOG
11.0
1.0
2.1%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG
11.9
1.0
50.0%
0.7%
4.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
03_1 _0_LOG_C F P_1 _5_LOG
13.8
1.5
2.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
I n ban k_O3_0_5_LOG_1_5_LOG
17.3
1.5
8.4%
0.1%
0.4%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
SF_0_5_LOG
17.6
0.5
7.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG
20.1
2.0
3.3%
0.0%
0.1%
0.3%
0.3%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_C F P_2_5_LOG
21.9
2.5
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_0_5_LOG_S F_1 _0_LOG
26.8
1.0
6.7%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
03_1 _0_LOG_S F_1 _5_LOG
29.5
1.5
4.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_S F_2_5_LOG
37.7
2.5
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_0_5_LOG_WC_1 _0_LOG
43.8
1.0
8.4%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
03_1 _0_LOG_WC_1 _5_LOG
46.6
1.5
5.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
MF_UF_2_5_LOG
51.0
2.5
100.0%
0.4%
3.0%
7.8%
9.6%
10.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_WC_2_5_LOG
54.7
2.5
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
F-37
December 2005
-------
Exhibit F.33: Technology Selection for Large Plants (>1,000,000)
UV90-10B, no pre-LT2 credits
Note: Total may not add to 100.0% because of rounding.
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
Percent of Plants Selecting Technology by Bin
0.5 Log
Bin
1.0 Log
Bin
1.5 Log
Bin
2.0 Log
Bin
2.5 Log
Bin
Total
-
-
-
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
CFP_0_5_LOG
1.5
0.5
20.7%
20.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
UV_3_0_LOG
2.4
3.0
90.0%
71.4%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
O3_0_5_LOG
10.8
0.5
84.0%
6.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
I n ban k_1_0_LOG
11.4
1.0
10.0%
0.1%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
C FP_O3_0_5_LOG_1 _0_LOG
12.3
1.0
10.4%
0.1%
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
I n ban k_CFP_1_5_LOG
12.9
1.5
2.1%
0.0%
0.2%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG
14.2
1.0
50.0%
0.5%
4.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
03_1 _0_LOG_C F P_1 _5_LOG
15.8
1.5
10.4%
0.1%
0.4%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
SF_0_5_LOG
22.0
0.5
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
I n ban k_O3_0_5_LOG_1_5_LOG
22.2
1.5
8.4%
0.0%
0.3%
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG
25.0
2.0
3.3%
0.0%
0.1%
0.3%
0.3%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_C F P_2_5_LOG
26.6
2.5
0.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
O3_0_5_LOG_S F_1 _0_LOG
32.7
1.0
8.4%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
03_1 _0_LOG_S F_1 _5_LOG
36.2
1.5
5.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_S F_2_5_LOG
47.0
2.5
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_0_5_LOG_WC_1 _0_LOG
54.3
1.0
8.4%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG_WC_1_5_LOG
57.7
1.5
5.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_WC_2_5_LOG
68.5
2.5
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
MF_UF_2_5_LOG
68.8
2.5
100.0%
0.3%
2.3%
6.9%
9.5%
9.9%
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
F-38
December 2005
-------
Exhibit F.34: Technology Selection for Large Plants (>1,000,000)
UV90-10B, with pre-LT2 credits
Technology
Relative
Cost
Actual
Log
Credit
Maximum
Percent
Usage
Percent of Plants Selecting Technology by Bin
0.5 Log
Bin
1.0 Log
Bin
1.5 Log
Bin
2.0 Log
Bin
2.5 Log
Bin
Total
-
-
-
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
CFP_0_5_LOG
1.5
0.5
4.3%
4.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
UV_3_0_LOG
2.4
3.0
90.0%
86.1%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
90.0%
O3_0_5_LOG
10.8
0.5
84.0%
8.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
I n ban k_1_0_LOG
11.4
1.0
10.0%
0.2%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
C FP_O3_0_5_LOG_1 _0_LOG
12.3
1.0
2.1%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
I n ban k_CFP_1_5_LOG
12.9
1.5
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG
14.2
1.0
50.0%
0.7%
4.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
03_1 _0_LOG_C F P_1 _5_LOG
15.8
1.5
2.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
SF_0_5_LOG
22.0
0.5
7.9%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
I n ban k_O3_0_5_LOG_1_5_LOG
22.2
1.5
8.4%
0.1%
0.4%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG
25.0
2.0
3.3%
0.0%
0.1%
0.3%
0.3%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_C F P_2_5_LOG
26.6
2.5
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_0_5_LOG_S F_1 _0_LOG
32.7
1.0
6.7%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
03_1 _0_LOG_S F_1 _5_LOG
36.2
1.5
4.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_S F_2_5_LOG
47.0
2.5
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_0_5_LOG_WC_1 _0_LOG
54.3
1.0
8.4%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_1_0_LOG_WC_1_5_LOG
57.7
1.5
5.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
O3_2_0_LOG_WC_2_5_LOG
68.5
2.5
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
MF_UF_2_5_LOG
68.8
2.5
100.0%
0.4%
2.9%
7.8%
9.6%
9.9%
Note: Total may not add to 100.0% because of rounding.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
F-39
December 2005
-------
Appendix G
Technology Selection Results
Appendix G presents technology selection results for filtered plants. To estimate technology
selections for filtered plants, a number of conditions were used (see Appendix F for a description of the
methodology for technology selection). Below is an explanation of the abbreviations used in this
appendix, and a brief explanation of each condition.
Regulatory Alternatives
A1	A1 is across-the-board inactivation. All systems are required to achieve a 2.0 log inactivation
for Cryptosporidium.
A2	A2 is the alternative that requires the most reduction of Cryptosporidium. Systems with 0.03-
0.1 oocysts/L must achieve a 0.5 log treatment credit for Cryptosporidium. Systems with 0.1-
1.0 oocysts/L must meet a 1.5 log, and systems with greater than 1.0 oocysts/L must meet a
2.5 log.
A3	A3 is the Preferred Alternative. Under this option, systems that have 0.075-1.0 oocysts/L
must achieve a 1.0 log treatment credit for Cryptosporidium. Systems with 1.0-3.0 oocysts/L
must achieve a 2.0 log, and systems with greater than 3.0 oocysts/L must meet a 2.5 log.
A4	A4 is the alternative that requires the least reduction of Cryptosporidium. Systems that have
0.1-1.0 oocysts/L must achieve a 0.5 log treatment credit for Cryptosporidium and systems
that have greater than 1.0 oocysts/L must achieve 1.0 log.
Occurrence Distribution
ICR	Modeling results based on the Information Collection Rule (ICR) were used to predict plant
binning
ICRSSL Modeling results based on the Information Collection Rule Supplemental Survey for large
systems (ICRSSL) were used to predict plant binning
ICRSSM Modeling results based on the Information Collection Rule Supplemental Survey for medium
systems (ICRSSM) were used to predict plant binning
High Modeling results based on the upper, 95th percentile, limit were used to predict binning for the
high-case scenario for each occurrence distribution
Low	Modeling results based on the lower, 5th percentile, limit were used to predict binning for the
low-case scenario for each occurrence distribution
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-l
December 2005
-------
Population Size Categories
51
52
53
54
55
Ml
M2
LI
L2
0-<100
100-<500
500 -<1,000
1,000 - <3,300
3,300 -<10,000
10,000- <50,000
50,000- <100,000
100,000 - <1,000,000
> 1,000,00
Sensitivity Analysis
The technology selection forecasts include sensitivity analyses that assume a high source
water bromide level (summarized in section 6.10).
UV90-10 UV maximum usage = 90 percent, Bromate maximum contaminant level (MCL) = 10 parts
per billion (ppb), No additional influent bromide
UV90-10B UV maximum usage = 90 percent, Bromate MCL =10 ppb, Additional influent Bromide =
50 ppb
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-2
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.1: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A1
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
306
3
273
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
28
0
VS2
691
6
616
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
62
0
S1
414
4
369
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
37
0
S2
1,052
9
94
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
938
0
S3
1,067
10
95
0
0
5
0
0
6
0
952
0
M1
1,172
0
0
5
6
46
5
5
60
0
1,046
0
M2
323
0
0
1
2
11
1
2
17
1
287
0
L1
382
0
0
2
2
13
2
3
20
1
339
1
L2
64
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
3
0
56
0
Total Plants
5,470
32
1,446
9
10
101
9
10
106
2
3,745
1
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-3
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.2: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A1
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-10
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
184
2
164
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
17
0
VS2
281
3
250
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
25
0
S1
95
1
85
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
9
0
S2
86
1
8
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
77
0
S3
24
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
0
M1
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
676
6
509
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
154
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-4
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.3: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A1
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
1,273
11
1,134
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
115
0
VS2
610
5
544
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
55
0
S1
107
1
95
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
10
0
S2
67
1
6
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
60
0
S3
19
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
M1
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
11
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
L2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
Total Plants
2,091
19
1,781
0
0
21
0
0
1
0
269
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-5
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.4: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A1
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
306
3
273
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
28
0
VS2
691
6
616
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
62
0
S1
414
4
369
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
37
0
S2
1,052
9
94
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
938
0
S3
1,067
10
95
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
952
0
M1
1,169
0
0
2
6
103
5
3
4
0
1,046
0
M2
321
0
0
0
2
27
1
2
1
1
287
0
L1
381
0
0
1
2
31
2
3
1
1
339
1
L2
63
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
56
0
Total Plants
5,464
32
1,446
3
10
202
9
8
7
2
3,745
1
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-6
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.5: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A1
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-1 Ob
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
184
2
164
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
17
0
VS2
281
3
250
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
25
0
S1
95
1
85
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
9
0
S2
86
1
8
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
77
0
S3
24
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
0
M1
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
676
6
509
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
154
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-7
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.6: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A1
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
1,273
11
1,134
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
115
0
VS2
610
5
544
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
55
0
S1
107
1
95
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
10
0
S2
67
1
6
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
60
0
S3
19
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
M1
12
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
11
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
L2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
Total Plants
2,091
19
1,781
0
0
22
0
0
0
0
269
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-8
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.7: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR_Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
121
54
44
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
20
0
VS2
273
122
100
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
45
0
S1
163
73
60
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
27
0
S2
415
186
15
0
0
7
1
0
0
0
206
0
S3
421
189
15
0
0
5
1
1
1
0
209
0
M1
426
0
0
24
4
9
8
11
9
0
361
0
M2
117
0
0
7
1
2
2
3
3
0
99
0
L1
136
0
0
7
1
2
3
4
3
0
115
0
L2
23
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
19
0
Total Plants
2,095
625
236
39
6
36
16
19
16
1
1,101
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-9
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.8: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-10
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
73
33
27
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
12
0
VS2
111
50
41
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
18
0
S1
38
17
14
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
6
0
S2
34
15
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
17
0
S3
9
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
M1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
267
119
83
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
60
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-10
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.9: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
503
226
185
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
83
0
VS2
241
108
89
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
40
0
S1
42
19
16
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
7
0
S2
26
12
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
S3
8
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
M1
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Total Plants
825
368
290
0
0
15
0
0
0
0
151
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-11
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.10: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR_Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
121
54
44
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
20
0
VS2
273
122
100
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
45
0
S1
163
73
60
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
27
0
S2
415
186
15
0
0
7
1
0
0
0
206
0
S3
421
189
15
0
0
6
1
1
0
0
209
0
M1
425
0
0
22
4
21
8
8
1
0
361
0
M2
117
0
0
6
1
5
2
2
0
0
99
0
L1
136
0
0
7
1
6
3
3
0
0
115
0
L2
23
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
19
0
Total Plants
2,094
625
236
37
6
56
16
14
1
1
1,101
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-12
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.11: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-1 Ob
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
73
33
27
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
12
0
VS2
111
50
41
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
18
0
S1
38
17
14
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
6
0
S2
34
15
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
17
0
S3
9
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
M1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
267
119
83
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
60
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-13
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.12: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
503
226
185
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
83
0
VS2
241
108
89
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
40
0
S1
42
19
16
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
7
0
S2
26
12
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
S3
8
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
M1
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Total Plants
825
368
290
0
0
15
0
0
0
0
151
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-14
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.13: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
127
54
47
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
23
0
VS2
285
122
106
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
52
0
S1
171
73
63
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
31
0
S2
435
186
16
0
0
8
1
0
0
0
224
0
S3
441
188
16
0
0
6
1
1
1
0
227
0
M1
448
0
0
23
4
10
8
11
10
0
381
0
M2
123
0
0
6
1
3
2
3
3
0
104
0
L1
144
0
0
7
1
3
3
4
3
0
122
0
L2
24
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
20
0
Total Plants
2,197
623
249
39
6
42
16
20
18
1
1,185
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-15
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.14: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-10
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
76
32
28
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
14
0
VS2
116
50
43
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
21
0
S1
39
17
15
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
7
0
S2
36
15
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
18
0
S3
10
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
M1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
279
118
88
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
67
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-16
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.15: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
526
225
195
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
95
0
VS2
252
108
94
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
46
0
S1
44
19
16
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
8
0
S2
28
12
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
S3
8
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
M1
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Total Plants
863
366
306
0
0
17
0
0
0
0
172
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-17
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.16: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
127
54
47
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
23
0
VS2
285
122
106
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
52
0
S1
171
73
63
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
31
0
S2
435
186
16
0
0
8
1
0
0
0
224
0
S3
441
188
16
0
0
7
1
1
0
0
227
0
M1
447
0
0
22
4
23
8
8
1
0
381
0
M2
123
0
0
6
1
6
2
2
0
0
104
0
L1
143
0
0
7
1
7
3
3
0
0
122
0
L2
24
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
20
0
Total Plants
2,195
623
249
36
7
63
16
14
1
1
1,185
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-18
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.17: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-1 Ob
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
76
32
28
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
14
0
VS2
116
50
43
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
21
0
S1
39
17
15
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
7
0
S2
36
15
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
18
0
S3
10
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
M1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
279
118
88
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
67
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-19
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.18: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
526
225
195
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
95
0
VS2
252
108
94
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
46
0
S1
44
19
16
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
8
0
S2
28
12
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
S3
8
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
M1
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Total Plants
863
366
306
0
0
17
0
0
0
0
172
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-20
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.19: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRJHigh
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
144
62
53
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
26
0
VS2
325
139
119
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
60
0
S1
194
84
71
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
36
0
S2
494
212
18
0
0
9
1
0
0
0
254
0
S3
502
215
18
0
0
7
1
1
1
0
257
0
M1
508
0
0
27
4
12
9
13
11
0
432
0
M2
140
0
0
7
1
3
3
4
3
0
118
0
L1
163
0
0
8
1
3
3
4
4
0
138
0
L2
27
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
23
0
Total Plants
2,497
713
279
45
7
48
18
22
20
1
1,344
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-21
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.20: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR High
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-10
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
86
37
32
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
16
0
VS2
132
57
48
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
24
0
S1
45
19
16
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
8
0
S2
40
17
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
21
0
S3
11
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
M1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
317
135
98
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
77
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-22
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.21: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR High
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
598
257
219
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
110
0
VS2
287
123
105
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
53
0
S1
50
22
18
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
9
0
S2
31
14
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
16
0
S3
9
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
M1
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Total Plants
982
419
344
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
198
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-23
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.22: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRJHigh
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
144
62
53
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
26
0
VS2
325
139
119
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
60
0
S1
194
84
71
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
36
0
S2
494
212
18
0
0
9
1
0
0
0
254
0
S3
501
215
18
0
0
8
1
1
0
0
257
0
M1
507
0
0
26
5
26
9
9
1
0
432
0
M2
139
0
0
7
1
7
3
3
0
0
118
0
L1
163
0
0
8
1
7
3
3
0
0
138
0
L2
27
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
23
0
Total Plants
2,495
713
279
42
7
72
18
16
2
1
1,344
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-24
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.23: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR High
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-1 Ob
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
86
37
32
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
16
0
VS2
132
57
48
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
24
0
S1
45
19
16
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
8
0
S2
40
17
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
21
0
S3
11
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
M1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
317
135
98
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
77
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-25
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.24: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR High
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
598
257
219
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
110
0
VS2
287
123
105
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
53
0
S1
50
22
18
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
9
0
S2
31
14
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
16
0
S3
9
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
M1
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Total Plants
982
419
344
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
198
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-26
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.25: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR_Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
98
73
12
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
12
0
VS2
222
164
28
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
27
0
S1
133
98
17
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
16
0
S2
338
249
4
0
0
4
1
0
0
0
80
0
S3
342
253
4
0
0
2
1
1
1
0
81
0
M1
367
0
0
9
4
4
15
9
4
0
322
0
M2
101
0
0
2
1
1
4
3
1
0
88
0
L1
117
0
0
3
1
1
5
3
1
0
102
0
L2
19
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
17
0
Total Plants
1,738
836
65
15
6
18
26
17
8
0
746
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-27
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.26: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-10
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
59
44
7
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
7
0
VS2
90
67
11
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
11
0
S1
31
23
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
S2
28
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
S3
8
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
217
159
23
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
32
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-28
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.27: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
409
302
51
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
50
0
VS2
196
144
24
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
24
0
S1
34
25
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
S2
22
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
S3
6
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M1
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Total Plants
671
492
80
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
90
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-29
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.28: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR_Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
98
73
12
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
12
0
VS2
222
164
28
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
27
0
S1
133
98
17
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
16
0
S2
338
249
4
0
0
4
1
0
0
0
80
0
S3
342
253
4
0
0
3
1
1
0
0
81
0
M1
367
0
0
8
4
11
14
7
0
0
322
0
M2
101
0
0
2
1
3
4
2
0
0
88
0
L1
117
0
0
3
1
3
5
2
0
0
102
0
L2
19
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
17
0
Total Plants
1,738
836
65
14
6
30
26
13
1
1
746
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-30
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.29: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-1 Ob
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
59
44
7
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
7
0
VS2
90
67
11
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
11
0
S1
31
23
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
S2
28
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
S3
8
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
217
159
23
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
32
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-31
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.30: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
409
302
51
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
50
0
VS2
196
144
24
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
24
0
S1
34
25
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
S2
22
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
S3
6
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M1
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Total Plants
671
492
80
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
90
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-32
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.31: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
106
74
15
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
15
0
VS2
239
168
34
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
33
0
S1
143
100
21
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
20
0
S2
363
255
5
0
0
5
1
0
0
0
97
0
S3
368
259
5
0
0
3
1
1
1
0
98
0
M1
396
0
0
9
4
5
15
10
5
0
348
0
M2
109
0
0
2
1
1
4
3
2
0
95
0
L1
126
0
0
3
1
1
5
3
2
0
110
0
L2
21
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
18
0
Total Plants
1,871
857
81
16
6
23
27
17
10
0
834
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-33
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.32: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-10
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
63
45
9
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
9
0
VS2
97
68
14
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
13
0
S1
33
23
5
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
5
0
S2
30
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
S3
8
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
233
163
28
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
38
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-34
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.33: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
440
309
63
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
60
0
VS2
211
148
30
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
29
0
S1
37
26
5
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
5
0
S2
23
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
S3
7
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M1
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Total Plants
722
504
100
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
107
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-35
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.34: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
106
74
15
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
15
0
VS2
239
168
34
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
33
0
S1
143
100
21
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
20
0
S2
363
255
5
0
0
5
1
0
0
0
97
0
S3
368
259
5
0
0
4
1
1
0
0
98
0
M1
396
0
0
9
4
13
15
7
0
0
348
0
M2
109
0
0
2
1
3
4
2
0
0
95
0
L1
126
0
0
3
1
4
5
3
0
0
110
0
L2
21
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
18
0
Total Plants
1,871
857
81
15
7
37
26
13
1
1
834
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-36
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.35: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-1 Ob
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
63
45
9
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
9
0
VS2
97
68
14
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
13
0
S1
33
23
5
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
5
0
S2
30
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
S3
8
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
233
163
28
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
38
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-37
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.36: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
440
309
63
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
60
0
VS2
211
148
30
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
29
0
S1
37
26
5
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
5
0
S2
23
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
S3
7
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M1
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Total Plants
722
504
100
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
107
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-38
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.37: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRJHigh
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
118
83
17
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
17
0
VS2
267
187
38
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
37
0
S1
160
112
23
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
22
0
S2
407
285
6
0
0
5
1
0
0
0
109
0
S3
412
289
6
0
0
3
1
2
1
0
111
0
M1
443
0
0
10
4
6
17
11
6
0
389
0
M2
122
0
0
3
1
2
5
3
2
0
107
0
L1
141
0
0
4
1
2
5
3
2
0
124
0
L2
24
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
21
0
Total Plants
2,094
956
90
17
7
26
30
19
11
0
937
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-39
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.38: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR High
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-10
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
71
50
10
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
10
0
VS2
109
76
16
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
15
0
S1
37
26
5
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
5
0
S2
33
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
S3
9
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
261
181
32
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
44
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-40
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.39: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR High
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
492
345
70
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
69
0
VS2
236
165
34
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
33
0
S1
41
29
6
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
6
0
S2
26
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
S3
7
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M1
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Total Plants
808
562
111
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
122
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-41
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.40: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRJHigh
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
118
83
17
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
17
0
VS2
267
187
38
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
37
0
S1
160
112
23
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
22
0
S2
407
285
6
0
0
5
1
0
0
0
109
0
S3
412
289
6
0
0
4
1
1
0
0
111
0
M1
443
0
0
10
4
15
16
8
1
0
389
0
M2
122
0
0
3
1
4
5
2
0
0
107
0
L1
141
0
0
3
1
4
5
3
0
0
124
0
L2
23
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
21
0
Total Plants
2,093
956
90
16
7
42
29
14
1
1
937
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-42
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.41: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR High
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-1 Ob
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
71
50
10
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
10
0
VS2
109
76
16
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
15
0
S1
37
26
5
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
5
0
S2
33
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
S3
9
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
261
181
32
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
44
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-43
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.42: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR High
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
492
345
70
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
69
0
VS2
236
165
34
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
33
0
S1
41
29
6
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
6
0
S2
26
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
S3
7
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M1
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Total Plants
808
562
111
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
122
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-44
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.43: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR_Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
60
54
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
5
0
VS2
136
123
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
12
0
S1
82
74
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
7
0
S2
208
187
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
19
0
S3
211
190
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
19
0
M1
182
0
0
26
2
0
10
3
0
0
140
0
M2
50
0
0
7
1
0
3
1
0
0
38
0
L1
56
0
0
8
1
0
3
1
0
0
43
0
L2
9
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
7
0
Total Plants
994
627
0
43
3
4
20
5
1
0
292
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-45
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.44: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-10
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
36
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
VS2
55
50
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
5
0
S1
19
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S2
17
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S3
5
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
133
119
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
13
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-46
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.45: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
VS2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-47
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.46: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR_Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
60
54
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
5
0
VS2
136
123
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
12
0
S1
82
74
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
7
0
S2
208
187
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
19
0
S3
211
190
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
19
0
M1
182
0
0
26
2
1
10
2
0
0
140
0
M2
50
0
0
7
1
0
3
1
0
0
38
0
L1
56
0
0
8
1
0
3
1
0
0
43
0
L2
9
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
7
0
Total Plants
995
627
0
43
3
6
20
4
0
0
292
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-48
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.47: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-1 Ob
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
36
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
VS2
55
50
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
5
0
S1
19
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S2
17
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S3
5
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
133
119
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
13
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-49
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.48: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
VS2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-50
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.49: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
67
60
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
6
0
VS2
151
135
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
14
0
S1
90
81
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
8
0
S2
229
206
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
21
0
S3
232
209
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
21
0
M1
204
0
0
27
2
0
12
3
0
0
159
0
M2
56
0
0
8
1
0
3
1
0
0
44
0
L1
63
0
0
8
1
0
4
1
0
0
49
0
L2
10
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
8
0
Total Plants
1,103
692
0
45
3
4
22
6
1
0
329
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-51
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.50: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-10
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
40
36
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
VS2
61
55
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
6
0
S1
21
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S2
19
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S3
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
147
131
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
14
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-52
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.51: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
277
250
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
25
0
VS2
133
120
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
12
0
S1
23
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S2
15
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S3
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
455
407
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
43
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-53
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.52: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
67
60
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
6
0
VS2
151
135
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
14
0
S1
90
81
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
8
0
S2
229
206
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
21
0
S3
232
209
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
21
0
M1
204
0
0
28
2
2
11
2
0
0
159
0
M2
56
0
0
8
1
0
3
1
0
0
44
0
L1
63
0
0
8
1
0
4
1
0
0
49
0
L2
10
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
8
0
Total Plants
1,103
692
0
45
3
7
21
5
0
0
329
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-54
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.53: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-1 Ob
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
40
36
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
VS2
61
55
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
6
0
S1
21
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S2
19
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S3
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
147
131
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
14
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-55
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.54: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
277
250
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
25
0
VS2
133
120
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
12
0
S1
23
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S2
15
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S3
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
455
407
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
43
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-56
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.55: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRJHigh
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
75
67
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
7
0
VS2
169
152
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
15
0
S1
101
91
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
9
0
S2
257
232
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
23
0
S3
261
235
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
23
0
M1
230
0
0
31
2
0
13
4
1
0
179
0
M2
63
0
0
8
1
0
4
1
0
0
49
0
L1
71
0
0
9
1
0
4
1
0
0
55
0
L2
12
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
9
0
Total Plants
1,239
777
0
50
4
5
25
7
1
0
371
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-57
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.56: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR High
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-10
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
45
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
VS2
69
62
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
6
0
S1
23
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S2
21
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S3
6
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
165
148
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
16
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-58
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.57: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR High
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
VS2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-59
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.58: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRJHigh
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
75
67
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
7
0
VS2
169
152
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
15
0
S1
101
91
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
9
0
S2
257
232
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
23
0
S3
261
235
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
23
0
M1
230
0
0
31
2
2
13
3
0
0
179
0
M2
63
0
0
8
1
0
4
1
0
0
49
0
L1
71
0
0
9
1
0
4
1
0
0
55
0
L2
12
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
9
0
Total Plants
1,240
777
0
50
4
8
24
5
0
0
371
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-60
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.59: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR High
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-1 Ob
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
45
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
VS2
69
62
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
6
0
S1
23
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S2
21
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S3
6
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
165
148
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
16
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-61
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.60: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICR High
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
VS2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-62
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.61: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL_Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
89
58
21
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
8
0
VS2
200
131
48
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
19
0
S1
120
79
29
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
11
0
S2
305
200
7
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
94
0
S3
309
203
7
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
96
0
M1
285
0
0
31
3
3
10
7
4
0
228
0
M2
78
0
0
8
1
1
3
2
1
0
62
0
L1
89
0
0
9
1
1
3
2
1
0
72
0
L2
15
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
12
0
Total Plants
1,491
672
113
51
5
11
19
12
7
0
602
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-63
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.62: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-10
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
53
35
13
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
5
0
VS2
82
53
20
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
8
0
S1
28
18
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S2
25
16
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
S3
7
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
196
127
40
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
26
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-64
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.63: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
369
242
89
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
34
0
VS2
177
116
42
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
17
0
S1
31
20
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S2
19
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
S3
6
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
606
395
139
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
65
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-65
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.64: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL_Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
89
58
21
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
8
0
VS2
200
131
48
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
19
0
S1
120
79
29
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
11
0
S2
305
200
7
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
94
0
S3
309
203
7
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
96
0
M1
284
0
0
30
3
8
10
5
0
0
228
0
M2
78
0
0
8
1
2
3
1
0
0
62
0
L1
89
0
0
9
1
2
3
2
0
0
72
0
L2
15
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
12
0
Total Plants
1,490
672
113
50
5
20
19
8
1
1
602
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-66
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.65: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-1 Ob
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
53
35
13
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
5
0
VS2
82
53
20
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
8
0
S1
28
18
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S2
25
16
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
S3
7
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
196
127
40
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
26
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-67
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.66: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
369
242
89
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
34
0
VS2
177
116
42
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
17
0
S1
31
20
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S2
19
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
S3
6
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
606
395
139
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
65
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-68
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.67: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
105
66
28
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
10
0
VS2
237
148
63
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
23
0
S1
142
89
38
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
14
0
S2
361
225
10
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
122
0
S3
366
228
10
0
0
1
2
1
1
0
124
0
M1
343
0
0
34
3
4
11
8
5
0
277
0
M2
94
0
0
9
1
1
3
2
1
0
76
0
L1
108
0
0
10
1
1
4
3
2
0
88
0
L2
18
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
15
0
Total Plants
1,773
755
149
55
5
14
21
15
9
0
748
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-69
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.68: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-10
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
63
39
17
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
6
0
VS2
96
60
26
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
9
0
S1
33
20
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S2
30
18
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
S3
8
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
232
143
52
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
33
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-70
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.69: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
437
272
117
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
43
0
VS2
209
131
56
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
20
0
S1
37
23
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
S2
23
14
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
S3
7
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M1
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
716
444
184
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
80
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-71
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.70: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
105
66
28
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
10
0
VS2
237
148
63
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
23
0
S1
142
89
38
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
14
0
S2
361
225
10
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
122
0
S3
366
228
10
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
124
0
M1
342
0
0
33
4
11
11
6
0
0
277
0
M2
94
0
0
9
1
3
3
2
0
0
76
0
L1
108
0
0
10
1
3
4
2
0
0
88
0
L2
18
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
15
0
Total Plants
1,773
755
149
54
6
27
21
11
1
1
748
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-72
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.71: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-1 Ob
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
63
39
17
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
6
0
VS2
96
60
26
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
9
0
S1
33
20
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S2
30
18
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
S3
8
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
232
143
52
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
33
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-73
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.72: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
437
272
117
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
43
0
VS2
209
131
56
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
20
0
S1
37
23
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
S2
23
14
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
S3
7
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M1
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
716
444
184
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
80
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-74
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.73: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSLJHigh
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
119
72
33
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
12
0
VS2
268
163
74
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
27
0
S1
160
98
44
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
16
0
S2
407
249
11
0
0
3
2
0
0
0
143
0
S3
413
252
11
0
0
1
2
1
1
0
145
0
M1
389
0
0
37
4
5
12
10
6
0
316
0
M2
107
0
0
10
1
1
3
3
2
0
87
0
L1
123
0
0
11
1
1
4
3
2
0
100
0
L2
20
0
0
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
17
0
Total Plants
2,006
835
173
60
6
17
23
17
11
0
862
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-75
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.74: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL High
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-10
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
71
44
20
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
7
0
VS2
109
67
30
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
11
0
S1
37
23
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
S2
33
20
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
S3
9
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
M1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
261
159
61
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
39
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-76
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.75: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL High
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
493
301
136
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
50
0
VS2
236
144
65
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
24
0
S1
41
25
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
S2
26
16
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
S3
7
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
M1
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Total Plants
809
491
213
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
94
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-77
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.76: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSLJHigh
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
119
72
33
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
12
0
VS2
268
163
74
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
27
0
S1
160
98
44
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
16
0
S2
407
249
11
0
0
3
2
0
0
0
143
0
S3
413
252
11
0
0
2
2
1
0
0
145
0
M1
389
0
0
36
4
13
12
7
0
0
316
0
M2
107
0
0
10
1
3
3
2
0
0
87
0
L1
123
0
0
11
1
4
4
3
0
0
100
0
L2
20
0
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
17
0
Total Plants
2,006
835
173
59
7
32
23
12
1
1
862
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-78
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.77: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL High
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-1 Ob
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
71
44
20
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
7
0
VS2
109
67
30
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
11
0
S1
37
23
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
S2
33
20
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
S3
9
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
M1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
261
159
61
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
39
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-79
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.78: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL High
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
493
301
136
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
50
0
VS2
236
144
65
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
24
0
S1
41
25
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
S2
26
16
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
S3
7
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
M1
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Total Plants
809
491
213
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
94
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-80
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.79: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL_Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
54
48
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
5
0
VS2
121
108
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
11
0
S1
72
64
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
7
0
S2
184
164
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
18
0
S3
187
166
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
18
0
M1
199
0
0
6
2
1
9
6
1
0
174
0
M2
55
0
0
2
1
0
3
2
0
0
48
0
L1
63
0
0
2
1
0
3
2
0
0
55
0
L2
11
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
9
0
Total Plants
945
549
3
9
4
5
17
11
2
0
345
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-81
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.80: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-10
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
32
29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
VS2
49
44
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
S1
17
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S2
15
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S3
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
118
104
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
12
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-82
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.81: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
223
198
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
20
0
VS2
107
95
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
10
0
S1
19
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S2
12
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S3
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
366
323
3
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
35
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-83
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.82: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL_Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
54
48
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
5
0
VS2
121
108
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
11
0
S1
72
64
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
7
0
S2
184
164
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
18
0
S3
187
166
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
18
0
M1
199
0
0
6
2
3
9
4
0
0
174
0
M2
55
0
0
2
1
1
3
1
0
0
48
0
L1
63
0
0
2
1
1
3
2
0
0
55
0
L2
11
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
9
0
Total Plants
946
549
3
9
4
10
17
8
0
0
345
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-84
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.83: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-1 Ob
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
32
29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
VS2
49
44
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
S1
17
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S2
15
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S3
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
118
104
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
12
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-85
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.84: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
223
198
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
20
0
VS2
107
95
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
10
0
S1
19
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S2
12
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S3
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
366
323
3
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
35
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-86
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.85: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
68
60
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
6
0
VS2
153
134
3
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
14
0
S1
92
80
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
8
0
S2
233
204
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
26
0
S3
236
207
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
26
0
M1
252
0
0
7
3
1
12
8
1
0
221
0
M2
69
0
0
2
1
0
3
2
0
0
61
0
L1
80
0
0
3
1
0
4
2
0
0
70
0
L2
13
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
12
0
Total Plants
1,197
686
8
12
5
7
21
14
3
0
443
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-87
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.86: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-10
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
41
36
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
VS2
62
55
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
6
0
S1
21
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S2
19
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S3
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
150
130
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
15
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-88
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.87: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
282
247
6
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
26
0
VS2
135
119
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
12
0
S1
24
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S2
15
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S3
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
463
403
9
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
45
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-89
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.88: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
68
60
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
6
0
VS2
153
134
3
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
14
0
S1
92
80
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
8
0
S2
233
204
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
26
0
S3
236
207
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
26
0
M1
253
0
0
7
3
5
12
5
0
0
221
0
M2
69
0
0
2
1
1
3
2
0
0
61
0
L1
80
0
0
2
1
1
4
2
0
0
70
0
L2
13
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
12
0
Total Plants
1,197
686
8
12
5
13
21
10
0
0
443
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-90
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.89: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-1 Ob
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
41
36
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
VS2
62
55
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
6
0
S1
21
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S2
19
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S3
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
150
130
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
15
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-91
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.90: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
282
247
6
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
26
0
VS2
135
119
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
12
0
S1
24
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S2
15
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S3
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
463
403
9
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
45
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-92
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.91: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSLJHigh
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
78
67
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
7
0
VS2
175
152
5
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
16
0
S1
105
91
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
10
0
S2
266
231
1
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
32
0
S3
270
235
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
32
0
M1
289
0
0
8
3
1
13
9
2
0
253
0
M2
79
0
0
2
1
0
4
2
1
0
69
0
L1
92
0
0
3
1
0
4
3
1
0
80
0
L2
15
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
13
0
Total Plants
1,368
776
12
13
5
8
24
15
3
0
511
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-93
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.92: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL High
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-10
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
47
40
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
VS2
71
62
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
7
0
S1
24
21
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S2
22
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S3
6
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
171
147
4
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
18
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-94
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.93: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL High
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
322
280
9
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
30
0
VS2
154
134
4
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
14
0
S1
27
24
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S2
17
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S3
5
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
529
456
14
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
53
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-95
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.94: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSLJHigh
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
78
67
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
7
0
VS2
175
152
5
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
16
0
S1
105
91
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
10
0
S2
266
231
1
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
32
0
S3
270
235
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
32
0
M1
289
0
0
8
3
5
13
6
0
0
253
0
M2
79
0
0
2
1
1
4
2
0
0
69
0
L1
92
0
0
3
1
1
4
2
0
0
80
0
L2
15
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
13
0
Total Plants
1,369
776
12
13
6
15
23
11
0
1
511
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-96
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.95: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL High
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-1 Ob
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
47
40
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
VS2
71
62
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
7
0
S1
24
21
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S2
22
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S3
6
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
171
147
4
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
18
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-97
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.96: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL High
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
322
280
9
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
30
0
VS2
154
134
4
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
14
0
S1
27
24
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S2
17
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S3
5
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
529
456
14
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
53
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-98
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.97: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL_Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
24
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
VS2
54
49
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
5
0
S1
33
29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S2
83
74
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
7
0
S3
84
75
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
8
0
M1
66
0
0
13
1
0
4
0
0
0
47
0
M2
18
0
0
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
13
0
L1
20
0
0
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
14
0
L2
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
Total Plants
385
250
0
22
1
1
8
1
0
0
102
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-99
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.98: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-10
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
14
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
VS2
22
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S1
8
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S2
7
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S3
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
53
47
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-100
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.99: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
100
90
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
9
0
VS2
48
43
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
S1
8
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S2
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S3
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
164
147
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
15
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-101
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.100: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL_Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
24
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
VS2
54
49
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
5
0
S1
33
29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S2
83
74
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
7
0
S3
84
75
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
8
0
M1
66
0
0
13
1
0
4
0
0
0
47
0
M2
18
0
0
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
13
0
L1
20
0
0
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
14
0
L2
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
Total Plants
385
250
0
22
1
2
8
1
0
0
102
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-102
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.101: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-1 Ob
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
14
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
VS2
22
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S1
8
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S2
7
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S3
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
53
47
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-103
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.102: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
100
90
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
9
0
VS2
48
43
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
S1
8
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S2
5
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
S3
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
164
147
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
15
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-104
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.103: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
31
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
VS2
71
64
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
6
0
S1
42
38
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
S2
108
97
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
10
0
S3
109
98
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
10
0
M1
86
0
0
17
1
0
5
1
0
0
62
0
M2
24
0
0
5
0
0
1
0
0
0
17
0
L1
26
0
0
5
0
0
2
0
0
0
19
0
L2
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
Total Plants
501
325
0
28
1
2
10
1
0
0
134
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-105
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.104: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-10
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
19
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
VS2
29
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S1
10
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S2
9
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S3
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
69
62
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
6
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-106
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.105: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
130
117
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
12
0
VS2
62
56
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
6
0
S1
11
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S2
7
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S3
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
213
191
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
20
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-107
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.106: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
31
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
VS2
71
64
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
6
0
S1
42
38
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
S2
108
97
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
10
0
S3
109
98
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
10
0
M1
86
0
0
17
1
0
5
1
0
0
62
0
M2
24
0
0
5
0
0
1
0
0
0
17
0
L1
26
0
0
5
0
0
2
0
0
0
19
0
L2
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
Total Plants
502
325
0
28
1
2
10
1
0
0
134
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-108
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.107: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-1 Ob
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
19
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
VS2
29
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S1
10
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S2
9
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S3
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
69
62
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
6
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-109
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.108: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
130
117
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
12
0
VS2
62
56
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
6
0
S1
11
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S2
7
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S3
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
213
191
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
20
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-110
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.109: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSLJHigh
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
38
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
VS2
86
77
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
8
0
S1
51
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
S2
131
118
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
12
0
S3
133
119
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
12
0
M1
106
0
0
20
1
0
6
1
0
0
77
0
M2
29
0
0
6
0
0
2
0
0
0
21
0
L1
32
0
0
6
0
0
2
0
0
0
23
0
L2
5
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
Total Plants
611
395
0
33
2
2
13
2
0
0
165
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-111
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.110: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL High
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-10
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
23
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
VS2
35
31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S1
12
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S2
11
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S3
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
84
75
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
8
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-112
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.111: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL High
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
158
142
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
14
0
VS2
76
68
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
7
0
S1
13
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S2
8
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S3
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
259
232
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
24
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-113
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.112: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSLJHigh
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
38
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
VS2
86
77
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
8
0
S1
51
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
S2
131
118
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
12
0
S3
133
119
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
12
0
M1
106
0
0
20
1
0
6
1
0
0
77
0
M2
29
0
0
6
0
0
2
0
0
0
21
0
L1
32
0
0
6
0
0
2
0
0
0
23
0
L2
5
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
Total Plants
612
395
0
33
2
3
12
1
0
0
165
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-114
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.113: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL High
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-1 Ob
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
23
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
VS2
35
31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S1
12
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S2
11
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S3
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
84
75
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
8
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-115
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.114: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSL High
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
158
142
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
14
0
VS2
76
68
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
7
0
S1
13
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S2
8
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S3
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
259
232
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
24
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-116
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.115: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM_Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
103
59
32
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
11
0
VS2
232
132
72
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
25
0
S1
139
79
43
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
15
0
S2
353
201
11
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
137
0
S3
358
204
11
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
139
0
M1
345
0
0
28
3
5
9
9
6
0
284
0
M2
95
0
0
8
1
1
3
3
2
0
78
0
L1
109
0
0
9
1
1
3
3
2
0
90
0
L2
18
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
15
0
Total Plants
1,753
676
170
46
5
17
18
16
11
0
793
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-117
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.116: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-10
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
62
35
19
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
7
0
VS2
94
54
29
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
10
0
S1
32
18
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S2
29
16
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
S3
8
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
227
128
60
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
36
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-118
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.117: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
427
244
133
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
46
0
VS2
205
117
64
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
22
0
S1
36
20
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
S2
22
13
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
S3
6
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M1
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
702
397
209
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
86
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-119
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.118: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM_Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
103
59
32
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
11
0
VS2
232
132
72
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
25
0
S1
139
79
43
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
15
0
S2
353
201
11
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
137
0
S3
358
204
11
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
139
0
M1
345
0
0
28
4
13
9
6
0
0
284
0
M2
95
0
0
8
1
3
3
2
0
0
78
0
L1
110
0
0
8
1
4
3
2
0
0
90
0
L2
18
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
15
0
Total Plants
1,752
676
170
45
6
31
18
11
1
1
793
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-120
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.119: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-1 Ob
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
62
35
19
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
7
0
VS2
94
54
29
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
10
0
S1
32
18
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S2
29
16
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
S3
8
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
227
128
60
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
36
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-121
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.120: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
427
244
133
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
46
0
VS2
205
117
64
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
22
0
S1
36
20
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
S2
22
13
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
S3
6
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M1
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
702
397
209
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
86
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-122
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.121: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
115
64
36
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
13
0
VS2
259
145
82
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
29
0
S1
155
87
49
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
17
0
S2
394
220
12
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
156
0
S3
400
224
13
0
0
2
1
1
1
0
159
0
M1
387
0
0
31
4
6
10
10
7
0
320
0
M2
106
0
0
8
1
1
3
3
2
0
88
0
L1
123
0
0
9
1
1
3
4
2
0
102
0
L2
20
0
0
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
17
0
Total Plants
1,959
739
193
50
6
20
20
18
12
0
900
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-123
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.122: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-10
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
69
39
22
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
8
0
VS2
105
59
33
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
12
0
S1
36
20
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
S2
32
18
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
S3
9
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
M1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
253
140
68
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
41
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-124
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.123: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
477
267
151
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
53
0
VS2
229
128
72
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
26
0
S1
40
22
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
S2
25
14
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
S3
7
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
M1
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Total Plants
783
435
237
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
100
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-125
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.124: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
115
64
36
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
13
0
VS2
259
145
82
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
29
0
S1
155
87
49
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
17
0
S2
394
220
12
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
156
0
S3
400
224
13
0
0
3
1
1
0
0
159
0
M1
386
0
0
30
4
15
10
7
1
0
320
0
M2
106
0
0
8
1
4
3
2
0
0
88
0
L1
123
0
0
9
1
4
3
3
0
0
102
0
L2
20
0
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
17
0
Total Plants
1,959
739
193
49
7
36
20
13
1
1
900
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-126
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.125: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-1 Ob
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
69
39
22
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
8
0
VS2
105
59
33
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
12
0
S1
36
20
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
S2
32
18
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
S3
9
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
M1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
253
140
68
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
41
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-127
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.126: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
477
267
151
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
53
0
VS2
229
128
72
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
26
0
S1
40
22
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
S2
25
14
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
S3
7
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
M1
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Total Plants
783
435
237
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
100
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-128
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.127: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSMJHigh
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
126
69
40
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
15
0
VS2
283
156
90
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
34
0
S1
170
93
54
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
20
0
S2
431
237
14
0
0
4
2
0
0
0
175
0
S3
437
240
14
0
0
2
2
1
1
0
177
0
M1
424
0
0
33
4
6
11
11
7
0
351
0
M2
117
0
0
9
1
2
3
3
2
0
96
0
L1
135
0
0
10
1
2
4
4
2
0
111
0
L2
22
0
0
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
19
0
Total Plants
2,144
795
211
54
7
24
21
19
14
0
998
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-129
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.128: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM High
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-10
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
lb
41
24
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
9
0
VS2
115
63
36
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
14
0
S1
39
22
12
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
5
0
S2
35
19
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
S3
10
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
M1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
277
151
74
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
48
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-130
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.129: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM High
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
522
287
165
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
63
0
VS2
250
137
79
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
30
0
S1
44
24
14
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
5
0
S2
27
15
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
S3
8
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
M1
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Total Plants
856
467
259
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
117
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-131
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.130: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSMJHigh
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
126
69
40
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
15
0
VS2
283
156
90
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
34
0
S1
170
93
54
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
20
0
S2
431
237
14
0
0
4
1
0
0
0
175
0
S3
437
240
14
0
0
4
1
1
0
0
177
0
M1
423
0
0
32
4
17
11
8
1
0
351
0
M2
116
0
0
9
1
4
3
2
0
0
96
0
L1
135
0
0
10
1
5
4
3
0
0
111
0
L2
22
0
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
19
0
Total Plants
2,143
795
211
53
7
42
21
14
1
1
998
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-132
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.131: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM High
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-1 Ob
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
lb
41
24
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
9
0
VS2
115
63
36
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
14
0
S1
39
22
12
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
5
0
S2
35
19
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
S3
10
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
M1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
277
151
74
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
48
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-133
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.132: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A2
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM High
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
522
287
165
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
63
0
VS2
250
137
79
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
30
0
S1
44
24
14
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
5
0
S2
27
15
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
S3
8
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
M1
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Total Plants
856
467
259
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
117
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-134
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.133: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM_Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
73
62
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
7
0
VS2
164
141
6
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
15
0
S1
98
84
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
9
0
S2
250
215
1
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
32
0
S3
254
218
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
32
0
M1
271
0
0
7
3
1
12
8
2
0
237
0
M2
74
0
0
2
1
0
3
2
1
0
65
0
L1
86
0
0
3
1
0
4
2
1
0
75
0
L2
14
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
12
0
Total Plants
1,285
720
14
13
5
8
22
14
3
0
485
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-135
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.134: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-10
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
44
38
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
VS2
67
57
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
6
0
S1
23
19
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S2
20
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S3
6
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
161
137
5
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
17
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-136
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.135: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
302
260
11
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
28
0
VS2
145
124
5
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
14
0
S1
25
22
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S2
16
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S3
5
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
497
423
18
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
50
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-137
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.136: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM_Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
73
62
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
7
0
VS2
164
141
6
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
15
0
S1
98
84
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
9
0
S2
250
215
1
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
32
0
S3
254
218
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
32
0
M1
271
0
0
7
3
5
12
6
0
0
237
0
M2
75
0
0
2
1
1
3
2
0
0
65
0
L1
86
0
0
3
1
1
4
2
0
0
75
0
L2
14
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
12
0
Total Plants
1,285
720
14
12
5
15
22
11
0
1
485
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-138
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.137: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-1 Ob
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
44
38
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
VS2
67
57
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
6
0
S1
23
19
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S2
20
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S3
6
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
161
137
5
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
17
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-139
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.138: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
302
260
11
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
28
0
VS2
145
124
5
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
14
0
S1
25
22
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S2
16
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S3
5
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
497
423
18
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
50
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-140
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.139: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
83
69
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
8
0
VS2
186
156
10
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
18
0
S1
111
94
6
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
11
0
S2
283
238
1
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
41
0
S3
288
242
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
41
0
M1
308
0
0
8
3
2
14
9
2
0
269
0
M2
84
0
0
2
1
0
4
2
1
0
74
0
L1
98
0
0
3
1
0
5
3
1
0
85
0
L2
16
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
14
0
Total Plants
1,457
799
22
14
5
10
25
16
4
0
562
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-141
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.140: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-10
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
50
42
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
5
0
VS2
76
64
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
7
0
S1
26
22
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S2
23
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S3
6
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
182
152
8
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
20
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-142
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.141: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
343
288
18
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
33
0
VS2
164
138
8
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
16
0
S1
29
24
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S2
18
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S3
5
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
563
470
28
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
59
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-143
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.142: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
83
69
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
8
0
VS2
186
156
10
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
18
0
S1
111
94
6
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
11
0
S2
283
238
1
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
41
0
S3
288
242
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
41
0
M1
308
0
0
8
4
7
14
6
0
0
269
0
M2
85
0
0
2
1
2
4
2
0
0
74
0
L1
98
0
0
3
1
2
4
2
0
0
85
0
L2
16
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
14
0
Total Plants
1,458
799
22
14
6
18
24
12
0
1
562
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-144
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.143: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-1 Ob
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
50
42
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
5
0
VS2
76
64
4
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
7
0
S1
26
22
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S2
23
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S3
6
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
182
152
8
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
20
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-145
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.144: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
343
288
18
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
33
0
VS2
164
138
8
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
16
0
S1
29
24
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S2
18
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S3
5
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
563
470
28
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
59
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-146
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.145: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSMJHigh
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
91
75
6
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
9
0
VS2
205
169
13
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
20
0
S1
123
101
8
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
12
0
S2
312
258
2
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
49
0
S3
316
262
2
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
49
0
M1
339
0
0
9
4
2
15
10
3
0
296
0
M2
93
0
0
2
1
1
4
3
1
0
81
0
L1
108
0
0
3
1
1
5
3
1
0
94
0
L2
18
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
16
0
Total Plants
1,603
865
30
15
6
11
27
17
5
0
627
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-147
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.146: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM High
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-10
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
55
45
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
5
0
VS2
83
69
5
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
8
0
S1
28
23
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S2
26
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
S3
7
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
200
164
11
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
23
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-148
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.147: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM High
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
377
312
24
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
38
0
VS2
181
150
11
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
18
0
S1
32
26
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S2
20
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S3
6
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
620
509
37
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
67
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-149
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.148: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSMJHigh
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
91
75
6
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
9
0
VS2
205
169
13
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
20
0
S1
123
101
8
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
12
0
S2
312
258
2
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
49
0
S3
316
262
2
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
49
0
M1
339
0
0
9
4
8
15
7
0
0
296
0
M2
93
0
0
2
1
2
4
2
0
0
81
0
L1
108
0
0
3
1
2
5
2
0
0
94
0
L2
18
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
16
0
Total Plants
1,604
865
30
15
6
21
26
13
1
1
627
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-150
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.149: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM High
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-1 Ob
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
55
45
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
5
0
VS2
83
69
5
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
8
0
S1
28
23
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S2
26
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
S3
7
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
200
164
11
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
23
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-151
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.150: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A3
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM High
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
377
312
24
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
38
0
VS2
181
150
11
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
18
0
S1
32
26
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S2
20
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S3
6
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
620
509
37
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
67
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-152
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.151: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM_Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
38
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
VS2
85
76
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
8
0
S1
51
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
S2
129
116
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
12
0
S3
131
118
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
12
0
M1
106
0
0
20
1
0
6
1
0
0
77
0
M2
29
0
0
5
0
0
2
0
0
0
21
0
L1
32
0
0
6
0
0
2
0
0
0
24
0
L2
5
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
Total Plants
606
391
0
33
2
2
13
2
0
0
165
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-153
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.152: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-10
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
23
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
VS2
35
31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S1
12
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S2
11
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S3
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
83
74
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
8
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-154
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.153: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
157
141
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
14
0
VS2
75
68
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
7
0
S1
13
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S2
8
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S3
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
257
230
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
24
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-155
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.154: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM_Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
38
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
VS2
85
76
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
8
0
S1
51
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
S2
129
116
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
12
0
S3
131
118
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
12
0
M1
106
0
0
20
1
1
6
1
0
0
77
0
M2
29
0
0
5
0
0
2
0
0
0
21
0
L1
32
0
0
6
0
0
2
0
0
0
24
0
L2
5
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
Total Plants
607
391
0
33
2
3
12
1
0
0
165
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-156
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.155: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-1 Ob
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
23
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
VS2
35
31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
S1
12
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S2
11
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S3
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
83
74
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
8
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-157
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.156: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM Low
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
157
141
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
14
0
VS2
75
68
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
7
0
S1
13
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S2
8
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S3
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
257
230
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
24
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-158
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.157: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
43
39
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
VS2
98
88
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
9
0
S1
59
53
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
5
0
S2
149
134
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
13
0
S3
151
136
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
14
0
M1
124
0
0
22
1
0
7
1
0
0
91
0
M2
34
0
0
6
0
0
2
0
0
0
25
0
L1
38
0
0
7
0
0
2
0
0
0
28
0
L2
6
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
Total Plants
703
451
0
36
2
2
14
2
0
0
194
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-159
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.158: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-10
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
26
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
VS2
40
36
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
S1
14
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S2
12
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S3
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
96
86
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
9
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-160
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.159: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
181
163
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
16
0
VS2
87
78
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
8
0
S1
15
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S2
10
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S3
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
296
265
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
28
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-161
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.160: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
43
39
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
VS2
98
88
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
9
0
S1
59
53
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
5
0
S2
149
134
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
13
0
S3
151
136
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
14
0
M1
124
0
0
22
1
1
7
1
0
0
91
0
M2
34
0
0
6
0
0
2
0
0
0
25
0
L1
38
0
0
7
0
0
2
0
0
0
28
0
L2
6
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
Total Plants
703
451
0
36
2
3
14
2
0
0
194
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-162
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.161: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-1 Ob
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
26
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
VS2
40
36
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
S1
14
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S2
12
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S3
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
96
86
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
9
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-163
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.162: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
181
163
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
16
0
VS2
87
78
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
8
0
S1
15
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S2
10
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S3
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
296
265
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
28
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-164
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.163: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSMJHigh
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
49
44
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
VS2
110
99
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
10
0
S1
66
59
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
6
0
S2
168
151
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
15
0
S3
170
153
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
15
0
M1
140
0
0
24
1
0
8
2
0
0
104
0
M2
38
0
0
7
0
0
2
0
0
0
29
0
L1
43
0
0
7
0
0
3
0
0
0
32
0
L2
7
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
Total Plants
791
506
0
40
2
3
16
3
0
0
220
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-165
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.164: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM High
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-10
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
29
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
VS2
45
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
S1
15
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S2
14
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S3
4
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
107
96
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
10
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-166
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.165: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM High
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
203
183
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
18
0
VS2
97
87
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
9
0
S1
17
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S2
11
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S3
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
333
298
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
31
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-167
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.166: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSMJHigh
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
CWS


Technology Selection Forecast (Number of Total
Plants Selecting
Different Technoloc
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
49
44
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
VS2
110
99
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
10
0
S1
66
59
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
6
0
S2
168
151
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
15
0
S3
170
153
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
15
0
M1
140
0
0
24
1
1
8
1
0
0
104
0
M2
38
0
0
7
0
0
2
0
0
0
29
0
L1
43
0
0
7
0
0
3
0
0
0
32
0
L2
7
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
Total Plants
791
506
0
40
2
4
16
2
0
0
220
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-168
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.167: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM High
Technology Selection Sensitivity:	UV90-1 Ob
NTNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting
Different Technolog
ies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
uv
ws


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performance
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


0.5 LOG








Category
(Including Purchasers)












A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
29
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
VS2
45
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
S1
15
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S2
14
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S3
4
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
107
96
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
10
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-169
December 2005
-------
Exhibit G.168: Technology Selection for Filtered Plants
Conditions
Regulatory Alternative:	A4
Occurrence Distribution:	ICRSSM High
Technology Selection Sensitivity: UV90-10b
TNCWS


Technology SelectionsForecast (Number of Total Plants Selecting Different Technologies)


Bag
Cartridge
Combined
In-bank
MF/UF
03
03
03
Secondary
UV
WS


Filter
Filter
Filter
Filtration
2.5
0.5
1.0
2.0
Filter
2.5
Control


1.0 LOG
2.0 LOG
Performanc
1.0 LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
LOG
1 LOG
LOG
0.5 LOG
EPA Size
Total Plants Affected


e








Category
(Including Purchasers)


0.5 LOG









A
B
C
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
VS1
203
183
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
18
0
VS2
97
87
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
9
0
S1
17
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
S2
11
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
S3
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
M2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
L2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Plants
333
298
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
31
0
Note: Sum of columns B through M may not add to column A.
Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR
G-170
December 2005
-------