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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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