Using the ICRSSL rather than the ICR data set, the percentages of population above a selected risk level is generally higher at individual risk levels of 1x10 4 and 1x10 3 ( probably because fewer systems provide additional treatment) and about the same at 1x10 2. Only at very high risk levels ( such as 1x10 1) do fewer people face these risks ( probably because of the lower estimated occurrence) than estimated under the ICR data set. Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 S 8 Cumulative Percent Annual Individual Risk of Illness 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10^ 8 10^ 7 10^ 6 10^ 5 10^ 4 10^ 3 0.01 0.1 1 2 Log Pre LT2 Risk Post LT2 Risk  As Required Post LT2 Risk  As Achieved Annual Individual Risk by Bin ICR CWS Option A1 Exhibit S. 5 Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 S 9 Cumulative Percent Annual Individual Risk of Illness 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10^ 8 10^ 7 10^ 6 10^ 5 10^ 4 10^ 3 0.01 0.1 1 No Action 0.5 Log 1.5 Log 2.5 Log Pre LT2 Risk Post LT2 Risk  As Required Post LT2 Risk  As Achieved Annual Individual Risk by Bin ICR CWS Option A2 Exhibit S. 6 Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 S 10 Cumulative Percent Annual Individual Risk of Illness 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10^ 8 10^ 7 10^ 6 10^ 5 10^ 4 10^ 3 0.01 0.1 1 No Action 1 Log 2 Log Pre LT2 Risk Post LT2 Risk  As Required Post LT2 Risk  As Achieved Annual Individual Risk by Bin ICR CWS Option A3 Exhibit S. 7 Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 S 11 Cumulative Percent Annual Individual Risk of Illness 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10^ 8 10^ 7 10^ 6 10^ 5 10^ 4 10^ 3 0.01 0.1 1 No Action 0.5 Log 1 Log Pre LT2 Risk Post LT2 Risk  As Required Post LT2 Risk  As Achieved Annual Individual Risk by Bin ICR CWS Option A4 Exhibit S. 8 Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 S 12 Cumulative Percent Annual Individual Risk of Illness 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10^ 8 10^ 7 10^ 6 10^ 5 10^ 4 10^ 3 0.01 0.1 1 2 Log Pre LT2 Risk Post LT2 Risk  As Required Post LT2 Risk  As Achieved Annual Individual Risk by Bin SSL CWS Option A1 Exhibit S. 9 Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 S 13 Cumulative Percent Annual Individual Risk of Illness 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10^ 8 10^ 7 10^ 6 10^ 5 10^ 4 10^ 3 0.01 0.1 1 No Action 0.5 Log 1.5 Log Pre LT2 Risk Post LT2 Risk  As Required Post LT2 Risk  As Achieved Annual Individual Risk by Bin SSL CWS Option A2 Exhibit S. 10 Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 S 14 Cumulative Percent Annual Individual Risk of Illness 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10^ 8 10^ 7 10^ 6 10^ 5 10^ 4 10^ 3 0.01 0.1 1 No Action 1 Log Pre LT2 Risk Post LT2 Risk  As Required Post LT2 Risk  As Achieved Annual Individual Risk by Bin SSL CWS Option A3 Exhibit S. 11 Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 S 15 Cumulative Percent Annual Individual Risk of Illness 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10^ 8 10^ 7 10^ 6 10^ 5 10^ 4 10^ 3 0.01 0.1 1 No Action 0.5 Log Pre LT2 Risk Post LT2 Risk  As Required Post LT2 Risk  As Achieved Annual Individual Risk by Bin SSL CWS Option A4 Exhibit S. 12 Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 S 16 Cumulative Percent Annual Individual Risk of Illness 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10^ 8 10^ 7 10^ 6 10^ 5 10^ 4 10^ 3 0.01 0.1 1 2 Log Pre LT2 Risk Post LT2 Risk  As Required Post LT2 Risk  As Achieved Annual Individual Risk by Bin SSM CWS Option A1 Exhibit S. 13 Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 S 17 Cumulative Percent Annual Individual Risk of Illness 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10^ 8 10^ 7 10^ 6 10^ 5 10^ 4 10^ 3 0.01 0.1 1 No Action 0.5 Log 1.5 Log Pre LT2 Risk Post LT2 Risk  As Required Post LT2 Risk  As Achieved Annual Individual Risk by Bin SSM CWS Option A2 Exhibit S. 14 Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 S 18 Cumulative Percent Annual Individual Risk of Illness 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10^ 8 10^ 7 10^ 6 10^ 5 10^ 4 10^ 3 0.01 0.1 1 No Action 1 Log Pre LT2 Risk Post LT2 Risk  As Required Post LT2 Risk  As Achieved Annual Individual Risk by Bin SSM CWS Option A3 Exhibit S. 15 Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 S 19 Cumulative Percent Annual Individual Risk of Illness 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10^ 8 10^ 7 10^ 6 10^ 5 10^ 4 10^ 3 0.01 0.1 1 No Action 0.5 Log Pre LT2 Risk Post LT2 Risk  As Required Post LT2 Risk  As Achieved Annual Individual Risk by Bin SSM CWS Option A4 Exhibit S. 16 Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 S 20 S. 4 Relationship Among the Modeled True, Measured, and Binning Concentrations of Cryptosporidium The data throughout this Economic Analysis uses data on the concentration of Cryptosporidium, but in three different ways. Exhibit S. 17 shows those differences graphically using the ICR data set and alternative A3. Data from one of three occurrence data sets ICR, ICRSSL, or ICRSSM) are used by a model to model a " true" distribution. This distribution of occurrence means would, when measured under the analytical laboratory protocols produced a distribution of means, labeled as " measured concentrations" in Exhibit S. 17. Binning assignments are made using a particular computation from these concentrations   the highest annual running average from 2 years of monthly data. That computation actually produces the step function shown in Exhibit S. 17 as MaxRAA.

Part of the point of this distinction is that the model and the results in this appendix derive their estimates of risk using the " true concentration" estimated distributions, after taking into account any treatment in a system required by being binned by the MaxRAA. Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 S 21 Cumulative Percent Plant Mean Cryptosporidium Concentration ( oocysts/ liter)

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10^ 5 10^ 4 10^ 3 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 True Concentration Measured Concentration Max RAA ( for binning)

65% 93% 97% 0.075 1.0 3.0 Relationship Among True, Measured and Binning Concentrations Based on Occurence Model for ICR Data; Marked Bin Limits are for Regulatory Option A3 Exhibit S. 17 Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 S 22 S. 5 Development of Estimates of Risk Distributions by Regulatory Alternative Bin Developing estimates of risk distributions by regulatory alternative bin requires several steps. The following series of graphs ( Exhibits S. 18 through S. 24, and S. 6) illustrate each of those steps, and they are described below. These graphs are for filtered CWS systems only. These graphs do not include the variability related to ingestion, and therefore are not exactly comparable to the graphs used in the Economic Analysis ( Exhibits 5.12 and C. 11). Those graphs show somewhat steeper peaks due to accounting for the above average ingestion levels by some individuals. The sequence of eight graphs is repeated for each regulatory alternative.

1. Modeled Cryptosporidium Source Water Distribution by Bin In this step, the graph ( Exhibit S. 18) shows the overall source water occurrence distribution ( the dashed line) of system means. It also shows how that distribution divides up into distributions by bin. Note that the distributions for each bin are not merely cut segments of the overall distribution, but overlap somewhat, reflecting the misclassification inherent in the monitoring, testing, and Maximum Running Annual Average ( Max RAA) calculation that place systems into bins.

2. Pre LT2 Finished Water By Bin, Modeled Points In this step, the graph ( Exhibit S. 19) repeats the distributions of source water by bin, and adds the pre LT2 finished water concentration for each of the simulation points. The mass of data points reflects the percentages of small and large systems, the modeled treatment effectiveness based on the appropriate treatment distribution ( including variability), and the effect of treatment credits. Each estimated data point only corresponds vertically to its original placement in the overall distribution curve by bin ( the lines above).

3. Pre LT2 Finished Water by Bin, Distribution Curve This graph ( Exhibit S. 20) resorts all the individual simulation estimates from the bottom of the graph for Step 2 ( Exhibit S. 19) into a single distribution curve for each bin. ( The points on the finished water curve now do not correspond vertically to the source water curve because they have been resorted in order of concentration.)

4. Post LT2 Finished Water, Required Reduction, Modeled Points This graph ( Exhibit S. 21) repeats the finished water distributions derived in Exhibit S. 16, and adds for each of those simulated points, the Post LT2 required log reduction. Thus, in the No Action bins, all points are exactly along the finished water curve. For an action bin, there may be several lines, reflecting that some systems must meet the stated bin requirement ( such as 1 log), but others may be entitled to a half log or 1 log credit. In some cases, that may mean some systems in action bins will require no additional treatment and lie along the original finished water distribution line.

5. Post LT2 Finished Water, Required Reduction, Distribution Curve This graph ( Exhibit S. 22) takes the individual points shown in the graph for Step 4 ( Exhibit S. 21) and resorts them into distributions. It shows two distributions by bin: the distribution of Pre LT2 finished water and the minimum improvement required by that rule alternative. Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 S 23 6. Post LT2 Finished Water, Achieved Reduction, Modeled Points This graph ( Exhibit S. 23) again shows the Pre LT2 finished water distribution derived in Exhibit S. 20 and shown in Exhibits S. 21 and S. 22. Analogous with Exhibit S. 21, this graph shows the simulation points based on the achieved log reductions. Because the Decision Tree includes many technologies that achieve different log reductions, there can be multiple lines. For example, for " systems" in a 1 log bin, they may achieve 0.0 log reduction ( because they are entitled to a 1 log credit and need no further treatment), a half log reduction ( because they are entitled to a 0.5 log credit and choose a technology that achieves only a half log of treatment), or any degree of treatment up to 3.0 logs.

7. All Finished Water Distributions by Bin This graph ( Exhibit S. 24) includes the distributions from the graph from Step 5 ( finished water and " required", Exhibit S. 22), and adds the resorted distribution of " as achieved" from the graph for Step 6 ( Exhibit S. 23). In this one graph, each bin shows the finished water occurrence, the required improvement, and the improvement achieved.

8. Annual Individual Risk by Bin Exhibit S. 6 takes the distributions from the graph for Step 7 and computes the distributions in terms of annual individual risk of illness. As expected, the same general shapes of the curves from Exhibit S. 24 are seen. Again, these graphs do not include the variability related to ingestion, and therefore are not exactly comparable to the graphs used in the Economic Analysis ( Exhibits 5.12 and C. 11). Those graphs show somewhat steeper peaks due to accounting for the above average ingestion levels by some individuals. Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 S 24 Cumulative Percent Plant Mean Cryptosporidium Concentration( oocysts/ liter)

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10^ 6 10^ 5 10^ 4 10^ 3 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 No Action 0.5 Log 1.5 Log 2.5 Log Source Water Distribution ( Mean Uncertainty Curve) Source Water Distribution by Bin Modeled Cryptosporidium Source Water Distribution by Bin ICR CWS Option A2 Exhibit S. 18 Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 S 25 Cumulative Percent Plant Mean Cryptosporidium Concentration( oocysts/ liter)

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10^ 10 10^ 9 10^ 8 10^ 7 10^ 6 10^ 5 10^ 4 10^ 3 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 No Action 0.5 Log 1.5 Log 2.5 Log Source Water Pre LT2 Finished Water Pre LT2 Finished Water by Bin, Modeled Points ICR CWS Option A2 Exhibit S. 19 Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 S 26 Cumulative Percent Plant Mean Cryptosporidium Concentration( oocysts/ liter)

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10^ 10 10^ 9 10^ 8 10^ 7 10^ 6 10^ 5 10^ 4 10^ 3 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 No Action 0.5 Log 1.5 Log 2.5 Log Source Water Pre LT2 Finished Water Pre LT2 Finished Water by Bin, Distribution Curve ICR CWS Option A2 Exhibit S. 20 Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 S 27 Cumulative Percent Plant Mean Cryptosporidium Concentration( oocysts/ liter)

50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10^ 8 10^ 7 10^ 6 10^ 5 10^ 4 10^ 3 0.01 0.1 1 0.5 Log 1.5 Log 2.5 Log Pre LT2 Finished Water Post LT2 As Required Post LT2 Finished Water, Required Reduction, Modeled Points ICR CWS Option A2 Exhibit S. 21 Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 S 28 Cumulative Percent Plant Mean Cryptosporidium Concentration( oocysts/ liter)

50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10^ 8 10^ 7 10^ 6 10^ 5 10^ 4 10^ 3 0.01 0.1 1 0.5 Log 1.5 Log 2.5 Log Pre LT2 Finished Water Post LT2 As Required Post LT2 Finished Water, Required Reduction, Distribution Curve ICR CWS Option A2 Exhibit S. 22 Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 S 29 Cumulative Percent Plant Mean Cryptosporidium Concentration( oocysts/ liter)

50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10^ 8 10^ 7 10^ 6 10^ 5 10^ 4 10^ 3 0.01 0.1 1 0.5 Log 1.5 Log 2.5 Log Pre LT2 Finished Water Post LT2 As Achieved Post LT2 Finished Water, Achieved Reduction, Modeled Points ICR CWS Option A2 Exhibit S. 23 Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 S 30 Cumulative Percent Plant Mean Cryptosporidium Concentration( oocysts/ liter)

50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10^ 8 10^ 7 10^ 6 10^ 5 10^ 4 10^ 3 0.01 0.1 1 0.5 Log 1.5 Log 2.5 Log Pre LT2 Finished Water Post LT2 As Required Post LT2 As Achieved All Finished Water Distributions by Bin ICR CWS Option A2 Exhibit S. 24 Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal T 1 June 2003 Appendix T Risk Assessment Model   Program and Data Files T. 1 Summary This appendix describes the program and data files used in the LT2ESWTR risk assessment model. It is meant to be used in conjunction with running the SAS Risk and Benefits model, provided on CD. It describes the general progression of the programs, the inputs to the model ( constants and distributions), macros used in the intermediate steps, and the Excel output files. The chapter and appendix exhibits containing the model outputs are also noted at the relevant steps. Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal T 2 June 2003 Running the SAS Risk and Benefits Model Program1. sas Generates national risk uncertainty distributions for all filtered systems Program1a. sas Generates national risk uncertainty distributions for Very small ( VS), Small ( SM), and Medium ( MD) unfiltered systems Program2. sas Generates benefits for all filtered/ unfiltered systems and output for Appendices Program1b. sas Generates national risk uncertainty distributions for Large ( LG) unfiltered systems Program3. sas Generates Annual Individual Risk Distributions ( variability) from data generated by Programs 1, 1a and 1b Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal T 3 June 2003 Excel Outputs CasesAvoid_ BenefitAnn_ 3_ enhan. xls ( Exhibit C4a), CasesAvoid_ BenefitAnn_ 3_ trad. xls ( Exhibit C4b), CasesAvoid_ BenefitAnn_ 7_ enhan. xls ( Exhibit C5a), CasesAvoid_ BenefitAnn_ 7_ trad. xls ( Exhibit C5b),

CasesAvoid_ BenefitAnn_ filt_ 3_ enhan. xls ( Exhibit C6a), CasesAvoid_ BenefitAnn_ filt_ 3_ trad. xls ( Exhibit C6b), CasesAvoid_ BenefitAnn_ filt_ 7_ enhan. xls ( Exhibit C8a), CasesAvoid_ BenefitAnn_ filt_ 7_ trad. xls ( Exhibit C8b), CasesAvoid_ BenefitAnn_ unfilt_ 3_ enhan. xls ( Exhibit C7a), CasesAvoid_ BenefitAnn_ unfilt_ 3_ trad. xls ( Exhibit C7b), CasesAvoid_ BenefitAnn_ unfilt_ 7_ enhan. xls ( Exhibit C9a), CasesAvoid_ BenefitAnn_ unfilt_ 7_ trad. xls ( Exhibit C9b)

Cases Avoided Benefits Annualized tables for 3% and 7% discount rate, All/ filtered/ unfiltered systems and enhanced/ traditional COI Appendix C PV_ Benefits_ 3_ enhan. xls, PV_ Benefits_ 3_ trad, PV_ Benefits_ 7_ enhan. xls, PV_ Benefits_ 7_ trad. xls,

Present Value summary statistic tables for 3% and 7% discount rates, all systems, and enhanced/ traditional COI Appendix O ICR_ NomBenefits_ a3_ enhan. xls, ICR_ NomBenefits_ a3_ trad. xls Nominal Benefits for ICR, A3 ( Enhanced and Traditional COI) Appendix C VSL_ Stats. xls Mean of Yearly Values for a Statistical Life ( simulation results) Appendix C Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal T 4 June 2003 Program1. sas   Calculating Risk Uncertainty Distributions for Filtered Systems MACRO generateLogN( dataset) 1. Select 250 mu sigma pairs at random out of 1000 plausible pairs from occurrence modeling 2. From each selected mu sigma pair, generate 1000 random lognormal plant mean concentrations 3. Repeat for each dataset ( ICR, SSL, SSM)

MACRO calculateMaxRAA( dataset) 1. For each simulated plant mean concentration, generate 24 monthly concentrations as random lognormal values x1.. x24 2. Generate r1.. r24 recovery rates as random Beta( 2,3) 3. Calculate lambda1.. lambda24 as Volume( L) * conc( oocyst/ L) * Recovery ( unitless). Volume is always 10L. 4. Generate integer counts zi as random Poisson( lambdai), i= 1.. 24 5. Calculate 12 months moving average i= 1.. 13 ( for month 12.. 24) and divide it by 10 to obtain count/ L. 6. Return max of 13 moving average values. 7. Repeat for each dataset CONSTANT All Benefits Model mu sig pairs. xls ( mu sigma pairs from modeled Cryptosporidium occurrence data)

DATA: ICR_ musigma SSL_ musigma SSM_ musigma DATA: ICR_ MaxRAA SSL_ MaxRAA SSM_ MaxRAA DATA: Credit MACRO computeRequiredRemoval( dataset) 1. For each rule calculate rule removal ( bins) based on MaxRAA values 2. For a0 ( baseline), there is no rule removal 3. For a1, all rule removals are 2 logs 4. Determine required removal by subtracting credit value ( 0,0.5,1) from rule removal. If difference< 0, input 0. 5. Repeat for each dataset by option, size and credit DATA: ICR_ RuleRemoval SSL_ RuleRemoval SSM_ RuleRemoval TO MACRO calculateAchievedRemoval ( NEXT PAGE) MACRO assignCredit 1. Assign credit ( half or full) to systems with some credit 2. Probabilities are conditional given that system has some credit 3. Credit probabilities vary by size Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal T 5 June 2003 Program1. sas   Calculate Risk Uncertainty Distributions for Filtered Systems MACRO calculateAchievedRemoval( dataset) 1. Calculate the actual removal achieved ( based on removal required) as a random value with probabilities drawn from compliance matrix 2. Compliance forecast probabilities are given by credit and size 3. Repeat for each dataset by rule, size and credit MACRO computeFWCryptoConc( dataset) 1. Calculate the finished water crypto concentration 2. Finished water crypto concentration is plant concentration divided by 10^( plt2 + achieved removal) 3. For baseline achieved removal is always zero 4. Repeat for each dataset by rule, size and credit MACRO generateComplianceForecastProbs 1. Create compliance forecast probabilities as random values with probabilities drawn from compliance matrix 2. Compliance forecast probabilities are used to determine the actual achieved removal based on required removal value 3. Compliance matrix probabilities are given by credit and size MACRO performPreLT2Removal 1. Generate pre LT2 removal by credit/ nocredit and size 2. Generate triangular distribution mode as random uniform uncertainty parameter 3. Pre LT2 is based on triangular distribution with parameters for small size ( VS, SM) and large size ( MD, LG) 4. For systems with some credit, 0.5 log is added to the triangular distribution parameters 5. Values vary by size and credit DATA: PreLT2 DATA: Credit From MACRO assignCredit ( PREV PAGE) DATA: ICR_ RuleRemoval SSL_ RuleRemoval SSM_ RuleRemoval DATA: ICR_ AchievedRemoval SSL_ AchievedRemoval SSM_ AchievedRemoval CONSTANT Alternate Compliance Matrix. xls ( compliance forecast probabilities)

DATA: compliance_ forecast_ probs DATA: ICR_ musigma SSL_ musigma SSM_ musigma From MACRO generateLogN ( PREV PAGE)

DATA: ICR_ FW_ crypto_ conc SSL_ FW_ crypto_ conc SSM_ FW_ crypto_ conc From MACRO computeRequiredRemoval ( PREV PAGE)

TO MACRO calculateRiskCurves ( NEXT PAGE) Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal T 6 June 2003 Program1. sas   Calculate Risk Uncertainty Distributions for Filtered Systems MACRO generateRiskParams 1. Generate risk dose response parameters 2. m = morbidity = unc param from triangular distribution for each outer loop ( 250 values) 3. v = viability unc param from triangular distribution for each outer loop ( 250 values) 4. I = constant  avg drinking water ingestion 5. r = unc param drawn from collection of 8000 values for each outer loop ( 250 values) 6. n = constant  number of days of exposure ( varies by CWS, NTN, TN)

MACRO calculateRiskCurves ( dataset) 1. Calculate the risk curves 2. Risk Curve = m * [ 1  exp( CvIrn)] 3. m, v, r are randomly generated risk parameters 4. C = finished water crypto concentration 5. I = avg. drinking water consumption ( constant) 6. n = number of exposure days ( constant) by system type 7. Repeat for each dataset by rule, size and credit and system type MACRO calculateRiskCurvesMean( dataset) 1. Calculate 250 risk means 2. Repeat for each dataset by rule, size and credit and system type CONSTANT Mean r Values. xls ( 8000 R values)

DATA: ICR_ FW_ crypto_ conc SSL_ FW_ crypto_ conc SSM_ FW_ crypto_ conc DATA Risk_ params DATA: ICR_ Risk_ Curves SSL_ Risk_ Curves SSM_ Risk_ Curves DATA: ICR_ Risk_ Means SSL_ Risk_ Means SSM_ Risk_ Means FROM MACRO computeFWCryptoConc ( PREV PAGE) Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal T 7 June 2003 Program1a. sas   Calculate Risk Uncertainty Distributions for VS ( very small), SM ( small), and MD medium) Unfiltered Systems ( using MD as an example)

MACRO generateLogN( dataset) 1. Select 250 random mu sigma pairs from the list of 1000 previously generated mu sigma values 2. From each selected mu sigma pair, generate 1000 random lognormal plant mean concentrations 3. Implement cap ( plant mean < 1000 oocysts/ l) CONSTANT All Benefits Model mu sig pairs. xls ( mu sigma pairs)

DATA: UMD_ musigma DATA: UMD_ PlantAvg MACRO computeRequiredRemoval( dataset) 1. For each rule calculate rule removal ( bins) based on Plant Avg. values 2. For baseline there is no rule removal 3. For rule options, all rule removals are 2 or 3 logs 4. Determine required removal by comparing plant average to 0.01 5. Repeat for each size DATA: UMD_ RuleRemoval TO MACRO calculateAchievedRemoval ( NEXT PAGE) MACRO calculatePlantAvg( dataset) 1. For each simulated plant mean concentration, generate 24 monthly concentrations as random lognormal values x1.. x24 2. Generate r1.. r24 recovery rates as random Beta( 2,3) 3. Calculate lambda1.. lambda24 as Volume( L) * conc( oocyst/ L) * Recovery ( unitless). Volume is always 10L. 4. Generate integer counts zi as random Poisson( lambdai), i= 1.. 24 5. Calculate simple 24 month average and divide by 10 to obtain count/ l Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal T 8 June 2003 FROM Program1. sas MACRO calculateAchievedRemoval( dataset) 1. Calculate the actual removal achieved ( based on removal required) as a random value with probabilities drawn from compliance matrix 2. Compliance forecast probabilities are given by size 3. Repeat for each dataset by size DATA: UMD_ AchievedRemoval MACRO computeFWCryptoConc ( dataset) 1. Calculate the finished water crypto concentration 2. Finished water crypto concentration is plant concentration divided by 10^( plt2 + achieved removal) 3. For baseline achieved removal is always zero 4. Repeat for each dataset by rule, size DATA: UMD_ FW_ crypto_ conc MACRO calculateRiskCurves ( dataset) 1. Calculate the risk curves 2. Risk Curve = m * [ 1  exp( CvIrn)] 3. m, v, and r are randomly generated risk parameters 4. C = finished water crypto concentration 6. I = avg. drinking water consumption ( constant) 7. n = number of exposure days ( constant) by system type 8. Repeat for each rule by size NOTE: For unfiltered systems risk is capped at 0.10 and CWS is the only system type MACRO calculateRiskCurvesMean ( dataset) 1. Calculate 250 risk means 2. Repeat for each rule by size DATA: UMD_ Risk_ Curves DATA: UMD_ Risk_ Means DATA Risk_ params Program1a. sas   Calculate Risk Uncertainty Distributions for VS ( very small), SM ( small), and MD ( medium) Unfiltered Systems ( using MD as an example)

FROM MACRO computeRequiredRemoval ( PREV PAGE)

DATA: UMD_ RuleRemoval Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal T 9 June 2003 Program1b. sas   Calculate Risk Uncertainty Distribution for LG ( large) Unfiltered Systems MACRO generateLogN( dataset) 1. For 2 large unfiltered systems, select 250 mu sigma pairs at random out of 1000 plausible pairs from occurrence modeling 2. From each selected mu sigma pair, generate 1000 random lognormal plant mean concentrations 3. Implement cap ( plant mean < 1000 oocysts/ l) CONSTANT All Benefits Model mu sig pairs. xls ( mu sigma pairs)

DATA: ULG_ musigma DATA: ULG_ PlantAvg MACRO computeRequiredRemoval( dataset) 1. Calculate rule removal ( bins) based on Plant Avg. values 2. For baseline there is no rule removal 3. For rule, all rule removals are 2 or 3 logs 4. Determine required removal by comparing plant average to 0.01 5. Repeat for each LG VL ( large, very large) system DATA: ULG_ RuleRemoval DATA VL_ Counts ( mu sigma pairs) MACRO generateVLCounts For 8 very large systems, select 250 random plant means, per system, from 1000 simulated means for each system based on occurrence models and ICR data for each of the 8 systems To MACRO calculateAchievedRemoval ( NEXT PAGE) MACRO calculatePlantAvg( dataset) 1. For each simulated plant mean concentration, generate 24 monthly concentrations as random lognormal values x1.. x24 2. Generate r1.. r24 recovery rates as random Beta( 2,3) 3. Calculate lambda1.. lambda24 as Volume( L) * conc( oocyst/ L) * Recovery ( unitless). Volume is always 10L. 4. Generate integer counts zi as random Poisson( lambdai), i= 1.. 24 5. Calculate simple 24 month average and divide by 10 to obtain count/ l 6. Repeat for each one of the 10 LG/ VL ( large, very large) unfiltered systems Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal T 10 June 2003 FROM Program1. sas MACRO calculateAchievedRemoval( dataset) 1. Calculate the actual removal achieved ( based on removal required) as a random value with probabilities drawn from compliance matrix 2. Compliance forecast probabilities are given by size 3. Repeat for each LG VL ( large, very large) plant DATA: ULG_ AchievedRemoval MACRO computeFWCryptoConc ( dataset) 1. Calculate the finished water crypto concentration 2. Finished water crypto concentration is plant concentration divided by 10^( plt2 + achieved removal) 3. For baseline achieved removal is always zero 4. Repeat for each LG VL plant DATA: ULG_ FW_ crypto_ conc MACRO calculateRiskCurvesMean ( dataset) 1. Calculate 250 risk means 2. Repeat for each dataset by rule and 1 size ( LG) DATA: ULG_ Risk_ Curves DATA: ULG_ Risk_ Means DATA Risk_ params Program1b. sas   Calculate Risk Uncertainty Distributions for LG Unfiltered Systems ( cont)

FROM MACRO computeRequiredRemoval ( PREV PAGE)

DATA: ULG_ RuleRemoval MACRO calculateRiskCurves ( dataset) 1. Calculate the risk curves 2. Risk Curve = m * [ 1  exp( CvIrn)] 3. m, v, and r are randomly generated risk parameters 4. C = finished water crypto concentration 6. I = avg. drinking water consumption ( constant) 7. n = number of exposure days ( constant) by system type 8. Repeat for each LG VL system 9. Calculate risk curves as weighted average of 10 systems with weights based on system population served NOTE: For unfiltered systems risk is capped at 0.10 and CWS is the only system type Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal T 11 June 2003 Program2. sas  Generates benefits for filtered/ unfiltered systems and output for Appendices DATA: randomRiskParams MACRO generateRndParamsForRiskAvoided 1. Generate a random vector ( w/ replacement) of 10000 to be used for selection of risk means 2. Generate a random vector of 10000 secondary spread parameters from random triangular distribution 3. Generate a random vector of 10000 TNC population multipliers from random triangular distribution MACRO sampleRiskAvoided( dataset), MACRO sampleRiskAvoidedUNF( dataset), 1. Read Risk Curve Means generated in previous step 2. Subtract baseline from each alternative to calculate risk avoided 3. Generate random sample ( w/ replacement) of 10000 from the set of 250 risk means. 4. Repeat for each dataset DATA: ICR_ Risk_ Means SSM_ Risk_ Means SSL_ Risk_ Means UMD_ Risk_ Means ULG_ Risk_ Means MACRO generatePopulationNumbers 1. Read system type populations system type 2. Create population numbers by system type broken down by credit/ nocredit population 3. TNC population will have randomness factors once it is merged with risk means DATA: Population DATA: ICR_ Risk_ Avoided SSM_ Risk_ Avoided SSL_ Risk_ Avoided UMD_ Risk_ Avoided ULG_ Risk_ Avoided TO MACROS calculateIllnessesAvoided calculateIllnessesAvoidedUNF ( NEXT PAGE) Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal T 12 June 2003 Program2. sas  Generates benefits for filtered/ unfiltered systems and output for Appendices MACRO calculateIllnesesAvoided ( dataset), MACRO calculateIllnesesAvoidedUNF( dataset), 1. Calculate number of illnesses avoided by multiplying the number Risk Avoided by population and secondary spread rates 2. For TNC system type population include uncertainty factor ( random TNC multiplier) 3. Repeat for each dataset DATA: ICR_ Illnesses_ Avoided SSM_ Illnesses_ Avoided SSL_ Illnesses_ Avoided UMD_ Illnesses_ Avoided ULG_ Illnesses_ Avoided MACRO calculateUNFcoef( dataset), MACRO calculateUNFcoef2 1. Calculate proportion of SSL and SSM to ICR for filtered systems and apply same ratio to estimate unfiltered systems illnesses for SSL and SSM 2. Combine unfiltered and filtered DATA: UNF_ Coef MACRO combineIA Combine Illnesses avoided for filtered and unfiltered DATA: ICR_ IA SSM_ IA SSL_ IA Combine with Total and Annualized Benefits to produce output tables FROM MACROS generatePopulationNumbers sampleRiskAvoided sampleRiskAvoidedUNF ( PREV PAGE) DATA: Population DATA: ICR_ Risk_ Avoided SSM_ Risk_ Avoided SSL_ Risk_ Avoided UMD_ Risk_ Avoided ULG_ Risk_ Avoided Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal T 13 June 2003 Program2. sas  Generates benefits for filtered/ unfiltered systems and output for Appendices MACRO calculateCOI( type) 1. Calculate COI as the sum of medical COI and lost time COI multiplied by income growth 2. Income growth is ratio of GDP/ person for the current year and GDP/ person for 2003 as the base year 3. Repeat for each year NOTE: Type options for COI are traditional and enhanced MACRO calculateVSL 1. Calculate VSL as product of VSL factor ( 1990$), inflation adjustment ( to 2000$) and income elasticity 2. VSL factor is uncertainty parameter from Weibull distribution 3. Inflation adjustment factor is a constant 4. Income elasticity is ( eI1 eI2 I2 I1)/( eI2 eI1 I1 I2) where e is uncertainty parameter from triangular dist, I2 is GDP for the current year and I1 is GDP for 1990 as the base year 5. Repeat for each year DATA: COI_ Trad COI_ Enhan DATA: VSL MACRO calculateBenefitsperPerson 1. Calculate illness and death total and annualized benefits per person 2. Produce benefit dataset for 3% and 7% discount and original/ traditional/ enhanced COI DATA: Benefit3_ trad Benefit7_ trad Benefit3_ enhan Benefit7_ enhan Combine with Illnesses Avoided to produce output tables Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal T 14 June 2003 Program2. sas  Generates benefits for filtered/ unfiltered systems and output for Appendices ( Produce Cases Avoided Benefits Annualized for Exhibits C4 C9)

MACRO calculateTotalBenefits1 MACRO calculateTotalBenefits2 MACRO calculateTotalBenefits3 Calculate statistical summary for Illnesses and Deaths avoided by dataset ( ICR, SSM, SSL), size( Small, Large), filtration( filtered/ unfiltered), discount rate ( 3%, 7%) and COI ( traditional, enhanced) DATA: Benefit3_ trad Benefit7_ trad Benefit3_ enhan Benefit7_ enhan DATA: ICR_ IA SSM_ IA SSL_ IA DATA: CasesAvoid_ BenefitAnn_ 3_ enhan. xls CasesAvoid_ BenefitAnn_ Filt_ 3_ enhan. xls CasesAvoid_ BenefitAnn_ Unfilt_ 3_ enhan. xls CasesAvoid_ BenefitAnn_ 7_ enhan. xls CasesAvoid_ BenefitAnn_ Filt_ 7_ enhan. xls CasesAvoid_ BenefitAnn_ Unfilt_ 7_ enhan. xls CasesAvoid_ BenefitAnn_ 3_ trad. xls CasesAvoid_ BenefitAnn_ Filt_ 3_ trad. xls CasesAvoid_ BenefitAnn_ Unfilt_ 3_ trad. xls CasesAvoid_ BenefitAnn_ 7_ trad. xls CasesAvoid_ BenefitAnn_ Filt_ 7_ trad. xls CasesAvoid_ BenefitAnn_ Unfilt_ 7_ trad. xls Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal T 15 June 2003 Program2. sas  Generates benefits for filtered/ unfiltered systems and output for Appendices ( Produce Present Value of Benefits for Illnesses and Deaths for Exhibits C4 C9)

MACRO calculatePVTotBenef Calculate statistical summary for Present Value Illnesses and Deaths avoided by dataset ( ICR, SSL, SSM), size( Small, Large), discount rate ( 3%, 7%) and COI ( traditional, enhanced) DATA: Benefit3_ trad Benefit7_ trad Benefit3_ enhan Benefit7_ enhan DATA: ICR_ IA SSL_ IA SSM_ IA DATA: PV_ Benefits_ 3_ enhan. xls PV_ Benefits_ 7_ enhan. xls PV_ Benefits_ 3_ trad. xls PV_ Benefits_ 7_ trad. xls Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal T 16 June 2003 Program2. sas  Generates benefits for filtered/ unfiltered systems and output for Appendices ( Produce Nominal Benefits for Exhibits O. 7. d, O. 7e)

MACRO calculateNominalBenefits Calculate Nominal Benefits for Illnesses and Deaths avoided by for ICR, A3 ( preferred rule) by COI ( traditional, enhanced) DATA: VSL COI_ Trad COI_ Enhan DATA: ICR_ IA SSL_ IA SSM_ IA DATA: ICR_ NomBenefits_ a3_ enhan. xls ICR_ NomBenefits_ a3_ trad. xls Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal T 17 June 2003 Program2. sas  Generates benefits for filtered/ unfiltered systems and output for Appendices ( Produce Baseline Illnesses/ Deaths for Exhibit C3)

MACRO calculateBaselineIllness( dataset) MACRO calculateBaselineIllnessUNF( dataset) 1. Calculate number of illnesses at baseline by multiplying the risk mean numbers by population and secondary spread rates 2. For TN system type population include uncertainty factor ( random TN multiplier) 3. Repeat for each dataset DATA: ICR_ Baseline SSL_ Baseline SSM_ Baseline UNF_ Baseline MACRO calculateBaseUNFcoef MACRO calculateBaseUNFcoef2 1. Calculate proportion of SSL and SSM in ICR in order to estimate unfiltered values for SSL and SSM for Baseline numbers 2. Combine unfiltered and filtered DATA: UNF_ BaseCoef DATA: ICR_ Risk_ Means SSM_ Risk_ Means SSL_ Risk_ Means UMD_ Risk_ Means ULG_ Risk_ Means MACRO combineBaseline( dataset) 1. Combine Baseline Illnesses and Deaths for filtered and unfiltered DATA: ICR_ Baseline SSL_ Baseline SSM_ Baseline MACRO calculateBaselineStats( dataset, subset) 1. Calculate statistical summary for Baseline Illnesses and Deaths by dataset, size and filtration DATA: Baseline. xls Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal T 18 June 2003 Program3. sas  Generates data for Annual Individual Risk Distributions MACRO generatePopulation MACRO generatePopulationUNF 1. Sample population of 10,000 from each of 8 categories ( 4 sizes, 2 credits). For unfiltered systems there are 4 population categories ( 4 sizes) 2. Probability of a person falling into one of the categories is based on population numbers 3. Extrapolate 0,1,2,..., 100 percentiles for water Consumed, and assign random percentiles and water consumed to each sampled person 4. Divide water consumed by avg daily water consumed to obtain relative factor that multiplies risk DATA: Samplepopulation SamplepopulationUNF MACRO calculateRiskCurvePcts MACRO calculateRiskCurvePctsUNF 1. Calculate 0,1,2,..., 100 percentiles of risk curves 2. First calculate 0,1,2,..., 100 percentiles for each of 250 systems 3. Average each percentile across 250 systems 4. Repeat for each dataset by size and credit ( for unfiltered by size only)

DATA: ICR_ RC SSL_ RC SSM_ RC UNF_ RC DATA: ICR_ Risk_ Curves SSL_ Risk_ Curves SSM_ Risk_ Curves UNF_ Risk_ Curves Collection of simulated risk curves from Programs 1, 1a and 1b MACRO annualIndivRisk MACRO annualIndivRiskUNF 1. Assign risk to each person sampled 2. Multiply risk curve by relative water consumption factor ( original risk curve is calculated based on avg daily water consumption) 3. Prepare XLS tables to be used for XLS plots of Annual Individual Risk Distributions DATA: ICR_ IndivRiskCurve. xls SSL_ IndivRiskCurve. xls SSM_ IndivRiskCurve. xls UNF_ IndivRiskCurve. xls Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 U 1 Appendix U Cost Models U. 1 Summary This appendix provides detailed documentation of the cost models used for the LT2ESWTR along with a CD containing all data files and models. A flow chart is shown and then descriptions of each component of the flow chart and the files used in it are provided. The appendix is organized as follows:

U. 1 Summary U. 2 Flow Chart U. 3 Baseline Inputs U. 4 Technology Unit Costs U. 5 Technology Selection Forecasts U. 6 Cost Models U. 7 Projections and Discounting U. 8 National Costs U. 9 Household Costs U. 2 Flow Chart Exhibit U. 1 shows a flow chart of the LT2 Cost Model process. Each box in the flow chart represent one or more spreadsheets. Sections U. 3 through U. 9 detail the specific files in each of the boxes below. On an overall level, baseline data on systems, plants and flows is combined with unit cost data for each technology. These data are then combined with compliance forecasts as inputs to the cost models which calculate total costs. These costs are then discounted over time and then manipulated to give total national costs as well as household costs. Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 U 2 Baseline Inputs Technology Unit Costs Technology Selection Forecasts COST MODELS Projections and Discounting National Costs Household Costs Results Exhibit U. 1 LT2ESWTR Cost Model Flow Chart U. 3 Baseline Inputs The Baseline input files contain data input into the cost models to determine the conditions before changes are made to comply with the LT2ESWTR. They include number and types of systems, population served, flows, and technologies installed. The files included in this section are listed below.

° System and Population Inventories. xls This workbook is used for both the LT2ESWTR and Stage 2 DBPR cost models. It contains information from SDWIS and the Baseline Handbook on the number and type of PWSs and the population they serve.

° LT2 Drivers. xls Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 U 3 This workbook calculates the baseline number of systems and plants performing each of the LT2 activities using the data from System and Population Inventories. It also calculates plant daily flows and the number of households served by plants performing LT2 activities.

° Compliance Forecasts All. xls A Stage 2 file showing the number of plants predicted to use membranes before and after Stage 2.

° HH linking exercise. xls Apportions the households belonging to purchased systems from their linked size category to their unlinked size category.

U. 4 Technology Unit Costs These files contain technology unit cost per plant ( capital and O& M) for all applicable technologies based on cost equations derived from the T& C document and average daily and design flows in the LT2 Drivers file. The files included under this heading are detailed below.

° LT2 Cost Summary 01_ 25_ 02. xls This workbook is used for both the LT2 and Stage 2 Cost models. It contains the cost data from the Technology and Cost document.

° Linear Regressions. xls This workbook is used for both the LT2 and Stage 2 cost models. It contains regressions to the cost points presented in the Technology and Cost document which are used to calculate unit costs.

° LT2 Unit Cost Curves. xls Calculates the unit cost from the regression equations for each of the size categories and system types for technologies used by both LT2 and Stage2.

° LT2 regressions. xls Performs regressions for technologies used only for LT2.

U. 5 Technology Selection Forecasts These files contain the technology selection percentages for the plants required to add treatment for LT2.

° App F Tables. xls Contains the technology selection forecasts for four different size classes. There are two sets of tables, one for systems receiving pre LT2 credits and one for systems with no credits. Both the preferred alternative and the bromide sensitivity analysis are included. Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 U 4 U. 6 Cost Models These files contain separate models for " treatment" and " non treatment" costs. The treatment cost model includes a Crystal Ball function to model the effect of uncertainty in unit treatment costs on national treatment costs. Non treatment costs include State and PWS costs for rule implementation and monitoring. There is also a cost model for uncovered finished water reservoirs. The files included in this section are detailed below.

° LT2 Treatment Cost Model. xls This work book contains a " Crystal Ball" function to model uncertainty surrounding unit costs. Several macros are included to produce costs as well. The Cost_ results macro runs the Crystal Ball function for each regulatory and occurrence distribution option and creates the output files. The generate_ bin_ results macro creates the output tables for the number of plants selecting each technology. The HH_ distribution macro generates the household cost results and the small systems distribution generates a distribution of small system costs which are used in the analyses in Chapter 7. It calculates all treatment costs for filtered and unfiltered systems and uncovered finished water reservoirs.

° LT2 Implementation and Monitoring Model. xls This model contains a macro, Rule_ results_ file_ generation to generate results for each of the possible regulatory options, Cryptosporidium distributions, and sensitivity analyses.

° Uncovered reservoir cost model. xls Calculates the unit costs required for treating or covering uncovered finished water reservoirs.

° Uncovered reservoir dose data. xls Calculates the dose required to treat uncovered finished water reservoirs with booster chlorination. Checks to make sure the assumed dose can deliver sufficient CT in a reasonable distance.

U. 7 Projections and Discounting These files use results from the treatment model ( cost uncertainty results), the non treatment cost model, and the rule activity schedule to project costs over a 25 year period. Calculates present value based on Yr 2000 dollars, and annualizes using 3 and 7 percent discount rates. The file in this section is detailed below.

° LT2 Cost Results. xls This file contains the schedule of tasks for the LT2ESWTR. Each cost is then spread out over the 25 year period for which rule costs are calculated and discounted to present value. The present value costs are then annualized. Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 U 5 U. 8 National Costs These files contain the results as output by the cost models and as presented in the EA. The files are detailed below.

° LT2 Technology Selection Results. xls Shows the number of plants selecting each technology for each of the possible options.

° Cost Variations Results A#. xls Consists of four files, which contain the treatment costs results for each of the four regulatory options.

° LT2 Benefits Inputs Contains removal achieved versus removal required for each size category. This is used as an input to the benefits calculations.

° LT2 Implementation_ Monitoring files Files coded as LT2 Implementation_ Monitoring A# ICR??? UV90 10? ????. xls. The files contain the cost results for all non treatment costs. The coding of the file name is as follows. The number following the A designates the regulatory alternative. The next series of letters designates the Cryptosporidium occurrence distribution used ( ICR, ICRSSL, ICRSSM). The next designation indicates the technology sensitivity option ( UV 90 10 or UV 90 10B) and the last designation indicates whether the high, low, or average lab costs were used.

° Appendix D. xls Contains all the non treatment cost results.

° Appendix H. xls Contains the treatment cost results for filtered and unfiltered plants adding treatment.

° Cost Table for Appendix I v2. xls Contains the household costs for uncovered finished water reservoirs.

° Appendix O exhibits   print version. xls A version of sample sheets formatted for printing.

° Cost Variation Results   Sum of Filt + Unfilt v2. xls Contains the treatment costs for filtered and unfiltered plants broken down by size category and ownership type.

° LT2 EA Charts   4. xls Contains exhibits for chapter 6 of the EA.

° Chapter 6 Exhibits ( 9,14,17) v4. xls Contains exhibits 9, 14, and 17 for chapter 6 of the EA. Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 U 6 ° Ch 4 exhibits. xls Contains exhibits for chapter 4 of the EA.

° Ch 7 exhibits v3 ( 05 01 03). xls Contains exhibits for chapter 7 of the EA.

U. 9 Household Costs These files contain the result for household costs which are generated by a macro in the cost model. The file is detailed below.

° HH Distributions. xls Contains the results of the household costs calculations, including the graphs and tables displayed in Appendix J of the EA. Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal V 1 June 2003 Appendix V Total Annualized Costs for Rule Alternatives This appendix presents total annualized costs for each regulatory alternative ( A1, A2, A3, and A4), occurrence data set ( ICR, ICRSSL, and ICRSSM), and discount rate ( 3 and 7 percent).

Exhibit V. 1 Total Costs, Annualized at 3 Percent, Alternative A3, ICR Data Exhibit V. 2 Total Costs, Annualized at 7 Percent, Alternative A3, ICR Data Exhibit V. 3 Total Costs, Annualized at 3 Percent, Alternative A3, ICRSSL Data Exhibit V. 4 Total Costs, Annualized at 7 Percent, Alternative A3, ICRSSL Data Exhibit V. 5 Total Costs, Annualized at 3 Percent, Alternative A3, ICRSSM Data Exhibit V. 6 Total Costs, Annualized at 7 Percent, Alternative A3, ICRSSM Data Exhibit V. 7 Total Costs, Annualized at 3 Percent, Alternative A1, ICR Data Exhibit V. 8 Total Costs, Annualized at 7 Percent, Alternative A1, ICR Data Exhibit V. 9 Total Costs, Annualized at 3 Percent, Alternative A1, ICRSSL Data Exhibit V. 10 Total Costs, Annualized at 7 Percent, Alternative A1, ICRSSL Data Exhibit V. 11 Total Costs, Annualized at 3 Percent, Alternative A1, ICRSSM Data Exhibit V. 12 Total Costs, Annualized at 7 Percent, Alternative A1, ICRSSM Data Exhibit V. 13 Total Costs, Annualized at 3 Percent, Alternative A4, ICR Data Exhibit V. 14 Total Costs, Annualized at 7 Percent, Alternative A4, ICR Data Exhibit V. 15 Total Costs, Annualized at 3 Percent, Alternative A4, ICRSSL Data Exhibit V. 16 Total Costs, Annualized at 7 Percent, Alternative A4, ICRSSL Data Exhibit V. 17 Total Costs, Annualized at 3 Percent, Alternative A4, ICRSSM Data Exhibit V. 18 Total Costs, Annualized at 7 Percent, Alternative A4, ICRSSM Data Exhibit V. 19 Total Costs, Annualized at 3 Percent, Alternative A2, ICR Data Exhibit V. 20 Total Costs, Annualized at 7 Percent, Alternative A2, ICR Data Exhibit V. 21 Total Costs, Annualized at 3 Percent, Alternative A2, ICRSSL Data Exhibit V. 22 Total Costs, Annualized at 7 Percent, Alternative A2, ICRSSL Data Exhibit V. 23 Total Costs, Annualized at 3 Percent, Alternative A2, ICRSSM Data Exhibit V. 24 Total Costs, Annualized at 7 Percent, Alternative A2, ICRSSM Data Exhibit V. 25 Total Costs, Annualized at 3 Percent, High Option, ICR Data Exhibit V. 26 Total Costs, Annualized at 7 Percent, High Option, ICR Data Exhibit V. 27 Total Costs, Annualized at 3 Percent, Low Option, ICR Data Exhibit V. 28 Total Costs, Annualized at 7 Percent, Low Option, ICR Data Exhibit V. 29 Initial Capital and One Time Costs, Annualized at 3 Percent, Alternative A3, ICR Data Set, UV90 10B Exhibit V. 30 Initial Capital and One Time Costs, Annualized at 7 Percent, Alternative A3, ICR Data Set, UV90 10B Exhibit V. 31 National Costs, Annualized at 3 Percent, Alternative A3, ICRSSL Data Set, UV90 10B Exhibit V. 32 National Costs, Annualized at 7 Percent, Alternative A3, ICRSSL Data Set, UV90 10B Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal V 2 June 2003 CWS Serving £   10,000 Serving > 10,000 Total ($ Millions, 2000$)

Total National Annualized Costs ( System Cost + State Costs) at 3% Discount Rate $ 110.51 Annualized System Costs ( 3%) $ 12.97 $ 96.54 $ 109.51 Annualized Implementation 0.07 0.02 $ 0.09 Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 1 1.99 1.48 $ 3.46 Annualized Future Monitoring for Re

Binning 1 1.35 0.82 $ 2.17 Total Annualized Costs for Filtered and Unfiltered Plants 2 $ 9.56 $ 88.82 $ 98.38 Total Annualized Costs for Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs 2 $ 0.01 $ 5.40 $ 5.40 System Costs for Benchmarking $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.01 State/ Primacy Agency Annualized Costs ( 3%) $ 0.99 Annualized Implementation 0.38 $ Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 0.47 $ State Costs for Benchmarking 0.00 $ State Costs for Technology Reporting 0.15 $ Type of Cost Exhibit V. 1 Total Costs, Annualized at 3 Percent, Alternative A3, ICR Data Set ($ Millions, 2000$) Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal V 3 June 2003 CWS Serving £   10,000 Serving > 10,000 Total ($ Millions, 2000$)

Total National Annualized Costs ( System Cost + State Costs) at 7% Discount Rate $ 127.09 Annualized System Costs ( 7%) $ 12.97 $ 106.50 $ 125.89 Annulaized Implementation 0.09 0.03 $ 0.12 Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 1 2.54 2.08 $ 4.63 Annualized Future Monitoring for Re

Binning 1 1.22 0.84 $ 2.07 Total Annual Costs for Filtered and Unfiltered Plants 2 $ 9.10 $ 97.13 $ 106.24 Total Annual Costs for Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs 2 $ 0.01 $ 6.41 $ 6.42 System Costs for Benchmarking $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.01 State/ Primacy Agency Annualized Costs ( 7%) $ 1.20 Annualized Implementation 0.55 $ Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 0.52 $ State Costs for Benchmarking 0.00 $ State Costs for Technology Reporting 0.12 $ Type of Cost Exhibit V. 2 Total Costs, Annualized at 7 Percent, Alternative A3, ICR Data Set ($ Millions, 2000$) Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal V 4 June 2003 CWS Serving £   10,000 Serving > 10,000 Total ($ Millions, 2000$)

Total National Annualized Costs ( System Cost + State Costs) at 3% Discount Rate $ 73.48 Annualized System Costs ( 3%) $ 7.92 $ 64.62 $ 72.54 Annualized Implementation 0.07 0.02 $ 0.09 Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 1 1.48 1.48 $ 2.95 Annualized Future Monitoring for Re

Binning 1 1.06 0.94 $ 2.00 Total Annualized Costs for Filtered and Unfiltered Plants 2 $ 5.32 $ 56.79 $ 62.10 Total Annualized Costs for Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs 2 $ 0.01 $ 5.40 $ 5.40 System Costs for Benchmarking $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 State/ Primacy Agency Annualized Costs ( 3%) $ 0.94 Annualized Implementation 0.38 $ Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 0.47 $ State Costs for Benchmarking 0.00 $ State Costs for Technology Reporting 0.09 $ Type of Cost Exhibit V. 3 Total Costs, Annualized at 3 Percent, Alternative A3, ICRSSL Data Set ($ Millions, 2000$) Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal V 5 June 2003 CWS Serving £   10,000 Serving > 10,000 Total ($ Millions, 2000$)

Total National Annualized Costs ( System Cost + State Costs) at 7% Discount Rate $ 87.35 Annualized System Costs ( 7%) $ 8.04 $ 71.74 $ 86.20 Annulaized Implementation 0.09 0.03 $ 0.12 Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 1 1.90 2.08 $ 3.99 Annualized Future Monitoring for Re

Binning 1 0.97 0.96 $ 1.93 Total Annual Costs for Filtered and Unfiltered Plants 2 $ 5.07 $ 62.26 $ 67.33 Total Annual Costs for Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs 2 $ 0.01 $ 6.41 $ 6.42 System Costs for Benchmarking $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 State/ Primacy Agency Annualized Costs ( 7%) $ 1.15 Annualized Implementation 0.55 $ Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 0.52 $ State Costs for Benchmarking 0.00 $ State Costs for Technology Reporting 0.08 $ Type of Cost Exhibit V. 4 Total Costs, Annualized at 7 Percent, Alternative A3, ICRSSL Data Set ($ Millions, 2000$) Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal V 6 June 2003 CWS Serving £   10,000 Serving > 10,000 Total ($ Millions, 2000$) Total National Annualized Costs ( System Cost + State Costs) at 3% Discount Rate $ 86.04 Annualized System Costs ( 3%) $ 9.49 $ 75.60 $ 85.09 Annualized Implementation 0.07 0.02 $ 0.09 Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 1 1.68 1.48 $ 3.15 Annualized Future Monitoring for Re

Binning 1 1.19 0.90 $ 2.08 Total Annualized Costs for Filtered and Unfiltered Plants 2 $ 6.55 $ 67.81 $ 74.36 Total Annualized Costs for Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs 2 $ 0.01 $ 5.40 $ 5.40 System Costs for Benchmarking $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 State/ Primacy Agency Annualized Costs ( 3%) $ 0.96 Annualized Implementation 0.38 $ Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 0.47 $ State Costs for Benchmarking 0.00 $ State Costs for Technology Reporting 0.11 $ Type of Cost Exhibit V. 5 Total Costs, Annualized at 3 Percent, Alternative A3, ICRSSM Data Set ($ Millions, 2000$) Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal V 7 June 2003 CWS Serving £   10,000 Serving > 10,000 Total ($ Millions, 2000$)

Total National Annualized Costs ( System Cost + State Costs) at 7% Discount Rate $ 100.91 Annualized System Costs ( 7%) $ 9.58 $ 83.75 $ 99.74 Annulaized Implementation 0.09 0.03 $ 0.12 Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 1 2.15 2.08 $ 4.24 Annualized Future Monitoring for Re

Binning 1 1.08 0.92 $ 2.00 Total Annual Costs for Filtered and Unfiltered Plants 2 $ 6.25 $ 74.30 $ 80.55 Total Annual Costs for Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs 2 $ 0.01 $ 6.41 $ 6.42 System Costs for Benchmarking $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.01 State/ Primacy Agency Annualized Costs ( 7%) $ 1.17 Annualized Implementation 0.55 $ Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 0.52 $ State Costs for Benchmarking 0.00 $ State Costs for Technology Reporting 0.09 $ Type of Cost Exhibit V. 6 Total Costs, Annualized at 7 Percent, Alternative A3, ICRSSM Data Set ($ Millions, 2000$) Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal V 8 June 2003 CWS Serving £   10,000 Serving > 10,000 Total ($ Millions, 2000$)

Total National Annualized Costs ( System Cost + State Costs) at 3% Discount Rate $ 361.00 Annualized System Costs ( 3%) $ 40.59 $ 319.00 $ 359.59 Annualized Implementation 0.07 0.02 $ 0.09 Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 1   $  Annualized Future Monitoring for Re

Binning 1   $  Total Annualized Costs for Filtered and Unfiltered Plants 2 $ 40.51 $ 313.57 $ 354.08 Total Annualized Costs for Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs 2 $ 0.01 $ 5.40 $ 5.40 System Costs for Benchmarking $ 0.02 $ 0.01 $ 0.03 State/ Primacy Agency Annualized Costs ( 3%) $ 1.41 Annualized Implementation 0.38 $ Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 0.47 $ State Costs for Benchmarking 0.01 $ State Costs for Technology Reporting 0.55 $ Type of Cost Exhibit V. 7 Total Costs, Annualized at 3 Percent, Alternative A1 ICR Data Set ($ Millions, 2000$) Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal V 9 June 2003 CWS Serving £   10,000 Serving > 10,000 Total ($ Millions, 2000$)

Total National Annualized Costs ( System Cost + State Costs) at 7% Discount Rate $ 394.13 Annualized System Costs ( 7%) $ 38.85 $ 347.31 $ 392.58 Annulaized Implementation 0.09 0.03 $ 0.12 Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 1   $  Annualized Future Monitoring for Re

Binning 1   $  Total Annual Costs for Filtered and Unfiltered Plants 2 $ 38.74 $ 340.86 $ 379.59 Total Annual Costs for Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs 2 $ 0.01 $ 6.41 $ 6.42 System Costs for Benchmarking $ 0.02 $ 0.01 $ 0.03 State/ Primacy Agency Annualized Costs ( 7%) $ 1.55 Annualized Implementation 0.55 $ Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 0.52 $ State Costs for Benchmarking 0.02 $ State Costs for Technology Reporting 0.46 $ Type of Cost Exhibit V. 8 Total Costs, Annualized at 7 Percent, Alternative A1, ICR Data Set ($ Millions, 2000$) Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal V 10 June 2003 CWS Serving £   10,000 Serving > 10,000 Total ($ Millions, 2000$)

Total National Annualized Costs ( System Cost + State Costs) at 3% Discount Rate $ 361.00 Annualized System Costs ( 3%) $ 40.59 $ 319.00 $ 359.59 Annualized Implementation 0.07 0.02 $ 0.09 Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 1   $  Annualized Future Monitoring for Re

Binning 1   $  Total Annualized Costs for Filtered and Unfiltered Plants 2 $ 40.51 $ 313.57 $ 354.08 Total Annualized Costs for Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs 2 $ 0.01 $ 5.40 $ 5.40 System Costs for Benchmarking $ 0.02 $ 0.01 $ 0.03 State/ Primacy Agency Annualized Costs ( 3%) $ 1.41 Annualized Implementation 0.38 $ Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 0.47 $ State Costs for Benchmarking 0.01 $ State Costs for Technology Reporting 0.55 $ Type of Cost Exhibit V. 9 Total Costs, Annualized at 3 Percent, Alternative A1, ICRSSL Data Set ($ Millions, 2000$) Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal V 11 June 2003 CWS Serving £   10,000 Serving > 10,000 Total ($ Millions, 2000$)

Total National Annualized Costs ( System Cost + State Costs) at 7% Discount Rate $ 394.13 Annualized System Costs ( 7%) $ 38.85 $ 347.31 $ 392.58 Annulaized Implementation 0.09 0.03 $ 0.12 Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 1   $  Annualized Future Monitoring for Re

Binning 1   $  Total Annual Costs for Filtered and Unfiltered Plants 2 $ 38.74 $ 340.86 $ 379.59 Total Annual Costs for Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs 2 $ 0.01 $ 6.41 $ 6.42 System Costs for Benchmarking $ 0.02 $ 0.01 $ 0.03 State/ Primacy Agency Annualized Costs ( 7%) $ 1.55 Annualized Implementation 0.55 $ Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 0.52 $ State Costs for Benchmarking 0.02 $ State Costs for Technology Reporting 0.46 $ Type of Cost Exhibit V. 10 Total Costs, Annualized at 7 Percent, Alternative A1, ICRSSL Data Set ($ Millions, 2000$) Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal V 12 June 2003 CWS Serving £   10,000 Serving > 10,000 Total ($ Millions, 2000$) Total National Annualized Costs ( System Cost + State Costs) at 3% Discount Rate $ 361.00 Annualized System Costs ( 3%) $ 40.59 $ 319.00 $ 359.59 Annualized Implementation 0.07 0.02 $ 0.09 Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 1   $  Annualized Future Monitoring for Re

Binning 1   $  Total Annualized Costs for Filtered and Unfiltered Plants 2 $ 40.51 $ 313.57 $ 354.08 Total Annualized Costs for Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs 2 $ 0.01 $ 5.40 $ 5.40 System Costs for Benchmarking $ 0.02 $ 0.01 $ 0.03 State/ Primacy Agency Annualized Costs ( 3%) $ 1.41 Annualized Implementation 0.38 $ Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 0.47 $ State Costs for Benchmarking 0.01 $ State Costs for Technology Reporting 0.55 $ Type of Cost Exhibit V. 11 Total Costs, Annualized at 3 Percent, Alternative A1, ICRSSM Data Set ($ Millions, 2000$) Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal V 13 June 2003 CWS Serving £   10,000 Serving > 10,000 Total ($ Millions, 2000$)

Total National Annualized Costs ( System Cost + State Costs) at 7% Discount Rate $ 394.13 Annualized System Costs ( 7%) $ 38.85 $ 347.31 $ 392.58 Annulaized Implementation 0.09 0.03 $ 0.12 Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 1   $  Annualized Future Monitoring for Re

Binning 1   $  Total Annual Costs for Filtered and Unfiltered Plants 2 $ 38.74 $ 340.86 $ 379.59 Total Annual Costs for Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs 2 $ 0.01 $ 6.41 $ 6.42 System Costs for Benchmarking $ 0.02 $ 0.01 $ 0.03 State/ Primacy Agency Annualized Costs ( 7%) $ 1.55 Annualized Implementation 0.55 $ Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 0.52 $ State Costs for Benchmarking 0.02 $ State Costs for Technology Reporting 0.46 $ Type of Cost Exhibit V. 12 Total Costs, Annualized at 7 Percent, Alternative A1, ICRSSM Data Set ($ Millions, 2000$) Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal V 14 June 2003 CWS Serving £   10,000 Serving > 10,000 Total ($ Millions, 2000$)

Total National Annualized Costs ( System Cost + State Costs) at 3% Discount Rate $ 59.41 Annualized System Costs ( 3%) $ 8.25 $ 50.24 $ 58.49 Annualized Implementation 0.07 0.02 $ 0.09 Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 1 1.80 1.48 $ 3.28 Annualized Future Monitoring for Re

Binning 1 1.29 1.02 $ 2.31 Total Annualized Costs for Filtered and Unfiltered Plants 2 $ 5.08 $ 42.33 $ 47.41 Total Annualized Costs for Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs 2 $ 0.01 $ 5.40 $ 5.40 System Costs for Benchmarking $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 State/ Primacy Agency Annualized Costs ( 3%) $ 0.92 Annualized Implementation 0.38 $ Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 0.47 $ State Costs for Benchmarking 0.00 $ State Costs for Technology Reporting 0.07 $ Type of Cost Exhibit V. 13 Total Costs, Annualized at 3 Percent, Alternative A4, ICR Data Set ($ Millions, 2000$) Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal V 15 June 2003 CWS Serving £   10,000 Serving > 10,000 Total ($ Millions, 2000$)

Total National Annualized Costs ( System Cost + State Costs) at 7% Discount Rate $ 71.33 Annualized System Costs ( 7%) $ 8.43 $ 55.34 $ 70.19 Annulaized Implementation 0.09 0.03 $ 0.12 Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 1 2.31 2.08 $ 4.40 Annualized Future Monitoring for Re

Binning 1 1.18 1.04 $ 2.22 Total Annual Costs for Filtered and Unfiltered Plants 2 $ 4.84 $ 45.78 $ 50.62 Total Annual Costs for Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs 2 $ 0.01 $ 6.41 $ 6.42 System Costs for Benchmarking $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 State/ Primacy Agency Annualized Costs ( 7%) $ 1.14 Annualized Implementation 0.55 $ Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 0.52 $ State Costs for Benchmarking 0.00 $ State Costs for Technology Reporting 0.06 $ Type of Cost Exhibit V. 14 Total Costs, Annualized at 7 Percent, Alternative A4, ICR Data Set ($ Millions, 2000$) Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal V 16 June 2003 CWS Serving £   10,000 Serving > 10,000 Total ($ Millions, 2000$)

Total National Annualized Costs ( System Cost + State Costs) at 3% Discount Rate $ 36.71 Annualized System Costs ( 3%) $ 4.98 $ 30.83 $ 35.81 Annualized Implementation 0.07 0.02 $ 0.09 Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 1 1.22 1.48 $ 2.69 Annualized Future Monitoring for Re

Binning 1 0.88 1.09 $ 1.98 Total Annualized Costs for Filtered and Unfiltered Plants 2 $ 2.81 $ 22.84 $ 25.65 Total Annualized Costs for Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs 2 $ 0.01 $ 5.40 $ 5.40 System Costs for Benchmarking $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 State/ Primacy Agency Annualized Costs ( 3%) $ 0.90 Annualized Implementation 0.38 $ Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 0.47 $ State Costs for Benchmarking 0.00 $ State Costs for Technology Reporting 0.05 $ Type of Cost Exhibit V. 15 Total Costs, Annualized at 3 Percent, Alternative A4, ICRSSL Data Set ($ Millions, 2000$) Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal V 17 June 2003 CWS Serving £   10,000 Serving > 10,000 Total ($ Millions, 2000$)

Total National Annualized Costs ( System Cost + State Costs) at 7% Discount Rate $ 46.94 Annualized System Costs ( 7%) $ 5.17 $ 34.24 $ 45.82 Annulaized Implementation 0.09 0.03 $ 0.12 Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 1 1.57 2.08 $ 3.66 Annualized Future Monitoring for Re

Binning 1 0.81 1.12 $ 1.93 Total Annual Costs for Filtered and Unfiltered Plants 2 $ 2.68 $ 24.60 $ 27.28 Total Annual Costs for Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs 2 $ 0.01 $ 6.41 $ 6.42 System Costs for Benchmarking $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 State/ Primacy Agency Annualized Costs ( 7%) $ 1.12 Annualized Implementation 0.55 $ Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 0.52 $ State Costs for Benchmarking 0.00 $ State Costs for Technology Reporting 0.04 $ Type of Cost Exhibit V. 16 Total Costs, Annualized at 7 Percent, Alternative A4, ICRSSL Data Set ($ Millions, 2000$) Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal V 18 June 2003 CWS Serving £   10,000 Serving > 10,000 Total ($ Millions, 2000$) Total National Annualized Costs ( System Cost + State Costs) at 3% Discount Rate $ 43.60 Annualized System Costs ( 3%) $ 6.14 $ 36.56 $ 42.70 Annualized Implementation 0.07 0.02 $ 0.09 Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 1 1.44 1.48 $ 2.92 Annualized Future Monitoring for Re

Binning 1 1.04 1.07 $ 2.12 Total Annualized Costs for Filtered and Unfiltered Plants 2 $ 3.58 $ 28.59 $ 32.17 Total Annualized Costs for Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs 2 $ 0.01 $ 5.40 $ 5.40 System Costs for Benchmarking $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 State/ Primacy Agency Annualized Costs ( 3%) $ 0.91 Annualized Implementation 0.38 $ Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 0.47 $ State Costs for Benchmarking 0.00 $ State Costs for Technology Reporting 0.06 $ Type of Cost Exhibit V. 17 Total Costs, Annualized at 3 Percent, Alternative A4, ICRSSM Data Set ($ Millions, 2000$) Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal V 19 June 2003 CWS Serving £   10,000 Serving > 10,000 Total ($ Millions, 2000$)

Total National Annualized Costs ( System Cost + State Costs) at 7% Discount Rate $ 54.28 Annualized System Costs ( 7%) $ 6.33 $ 40.41 $ 53.15 Annulaized Implementation 0.09 0.03 $ 0.12 Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 1 1.86 2.08 $ 3.94 Annualized Future Monitoring for Re

Binning 1 0.95 1.10 $ 2.05 Total Annual Costs for Filtered and Unfiltered Plants 2 $ 3.42 $ 30.79 $ 34.21 Total Annual Costs for Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs 2 $ 0.01 $ 6.41 $ 6.42 System Costs for Benchmarking $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 State/ Primacy Agency Annualized Costs ( 7%) $ 1.12 Annualized Implementation 0.55 $ Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 0.52 $ State Costs for Benchmarking 0.00 $ State Costs for Technology Reporting 0.05 $ Type of Cost Exhibit V. 18 Total Costs, Annualized at 7 Percent, Alternative A4, ICRSSM Data Set ($ Millions, 2000$) Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal V 20 June 2003 CWS Serving £   10,000 Serving > 10,000 Total ($ Millions, 2000$)

Total National Annualized Costs ( System Cost + State Costs) at 3% Discount Rate $ 133.93 Annualized System Costs ( 3%) $ 21.88 $ 111.00 $ 132.88 Annualized Implementation 0.07 0.02 $ 0.09 Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 1 4.66 1.48 $ 6.14 Annualized Future Monitoring for Re

Binning 1 2.89 0.79 $ 3.68 Total Annualized Costs for Filtered and Unfiltered Plants 2 $ 14.25 $ 103.31 $ 117.56 Total Annualized Costs for Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs 2 $ 0.01 $ 5.40 $ 5.40 System Costs for Benchmarking $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.01 State/ Primacy Agency Annualized Costs ( 3%) $ 1.05 Annualized Implementation 0.38 $ Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 0.47 $ State Costs for Benchmarking 0.00 $ State Costs for Technology Reporting 0.20 $ Type of Cost Exhibit V. 19 Total Costs, Annualized at 3 Percent, Alternative A2, ICR Data Set ($ Millions, 2000$) Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal V 21 June 2003 CWS Serving £   10,000 Serving > 10,000 Total ($ Millions, 2000$)

Total National Annualized Costs ( System Cost + State Costs) at 7% Discount Rate $ 151.74 Annualized System Costs ( 7%) $ 22.19 $ 121.89 $ 150.49 Annulaized Implementation 0.09 0.03 $ 0.12 Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 1 5.91 2.08 $ 8.00 Annualized Future Monitoring for Re

Binning 1 2.60 0.81 $ 3.41 Total Annual Costs for Filtered and Unfiltered Plants 2 $ 13.57 $ 112.56 $ 126.13 Total Annual Costs for Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs 2 $ 0.01 $ 6.41 $ 6.42 System Costs for Benchmarking $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 State/ Primacy Agency Annualized Costs ( 7%) $ 1.25 Annualized Implementation 0.55 $ Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 0.52 $ State Costs for Benchmarking 0.01 $ State Costs for Technology Reporting 0.17 $ Type of Cost Exhibit V. 20 Total Costs, Annualized at 7 Percent, Alternative A2, ICR Data Set ($ Millions, 2000$) Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal V 22 June 2003 CWS Serving £   10,000 Serving > 10,000 Total ($ Millions, 2000$)

Total National Annualized Costs ( System Cost + State Costs) at 3% Discount Rate $ 99.65 Annualized System Costs ( 3%) $ 17.60 $ 81.07 $ 98.67 Annualized Implementation 0.07 0.02 $ 0.09 Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 1 4.66 1.48 $ 6.14 Annualized Future Monitoring for Re

Binning 1 3.14 0.90 $ 4.05 Total Annualized Costs for Filtered and Unfiltered Plants 2 $ 9.72 $ 73.27 $ 82.99 Total Annualized Costs for Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs 2 $ 0.01 $ 5.40 $ 5.40 System Costs for Benchmarking $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.01 State/ Primacy Agency Annualized Costs ( 3%) $ 0.98 Annualized Implementation 0.38 $ Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 0.47 $ State Costs for Benchmarking 0.00 $ State Costs for Technology Reporting 0.13 $ Type of Cost Exhibit V. 21 Total Costs, Annualized at 3 Percent, Alternative A2, ICRSSL Data Set ($ Millions, 2000$) Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal V 23 June 2003 CWS Serving £   10,000 Serving > 10,000 Total ($ Millions, 2000$)

Total National Annualized Costs ( System Cost + State Costs) at 7% Discount Rate $ 114.80 Annualized System Costs ( 7%) $ 18.12 $ 89.08 $ 113.62 Annulaized Implementation 0.09 0.03 $ 0.12 Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 1 5.91 2.08 $ 8.00 Annualized Future Monitoring for Re

Binning 1 2.83 0.92 $ 3.75 Total Annual Costs for Filtered and Unfiltered Plants 2 $ 9.28 $ 79.63 $ 88.91 Total Annual Costs for Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs 2 $ 0.01 $ 6.41 $ 6.42 System Costs for Benchmarking $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.01 State/ Primacy Agency Annualized Costs ( 7%) $ 1.19 Annualized Implementation 0.55 $ Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 0.52 $ State Costs for Benchmarking 0.00 $ State Costs for Technology Reporting 0.11 $ Type of Cost Exhibit V. 22 Total Costs, Annualized at 7 Percent, Alternative A2, ICRSSL Data Set ($ Millions, 2000$) Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal V 24 June 2003 CWS Serving £   10,000 Serving > 10,000 Total ($ Millions, 2000$) Total National Annualized Costs ( System Cost + State Costs) at 3% Discount Rate $ 112.52 Annualized System Costs ( 3%) $ 19.05 $ 92.47 $ 111.52 Annualized Implementation 0.07 0.02 $ 0.09 Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 1 4.66 1.48 $ 6.14 Annualized Future Monitoring for Re

Binning 1 3.07 0.86 $ 3.92 Total Annualized Costs for Filtered and Unfiltered Plants 2 $ 11.24 $ 84.72 $ 95.96 Total Annualized Costs for Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs 2 $ 0.01 $ 5.40 $ 5.40 System Costs for Benchmarking $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.01 State/ Primacy Agency Annualized Costs ( 3%) $ 1.00 Annualized Implementation 0.38 $ Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 0.47 $ State Costs for Benchmarking 0.00 $ State Costs for Technology Reporting 0.15 $ Type of Cost Exhibit V. 23 Total Costs, Annualized at 3 Percent, Alternative A2, ICRSSM Data Set ($ Millions, 2000$) Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal V 25 June 2003 CWS Serving £   10,000 Serving > 10,000 Total ($ Millions, 2000$)

Total National Annualized Costs ( System Cost + State Costs) at 7% Discount Rate $ 128.78 Annualized System Costs ( 7%) $ 19.50 $ 101.65 $ 127.57 Annulaized Implementation 0.09 0.03 $ 0.12 Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 1 5.91 2.08 $ 8.00 Annualized Future Monitoring for Re

Binning 1 2.76 0.87 $ 3.64 Total Annual Costs for Filtered and Unfiltered Plants 2 $ 10.72 $ 92.25 $ 102.97 Total Annual Costs for Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs 2 $ 0.01 $ 6.41 $ 6.42 System Costs for Benchmarking $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.01 State/ Primacy Agency Annualized Costs ( 7%) $ 1.21 Annualized Implementation 0.55 $ Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 0.52 $ State Costs for Benchmarking 0.00 $ State Costs for Technology Reporting 0.13 $ Type of Cost Exhibit V. 24 Total Costs, Annualized at 7 Percent, Alternative A2, ICRSSM Data Set ($ Millions, 2000$) Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal V 26 June 2003 CWS Serving £   10,000 Serving > 10,000 Total ($ Millions, 2000$)

Total National Annualized Costs ( System Cost + State Costs) at 3% Discount Rate $ 119.16 Annualized System Costs ( 3%) $ 13.98 $ 104.17 $ 118.16 Annualized Implementation 0.07 0.02 $ 0.09 Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 1 2.14 1.48 $ 3.62 Annualized Future Monitoring for Re

Binning 1 1.44 0.79 $ 2.24 Total Annualized Costs for Filtered and Unfiltered Plants 2 $ 10.33 $ 96.48 $ 106.81 Total Annualized Costs for Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs 2 $ 0.01 $ 5.40 $ 5.40 System Costs for Benchmarking $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.01 State/ Primacy Agency Annualized Costs ( 3%) $ 1.00 Annualized Implementation 0.38 $ Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 0.47 $ State Costs for Benchmarking 0.00 $ State Costs for Technology Reporting 0.15 $ Type of Cost Exhibit V. 25 Total Costs, Annualized at 3 Percent, High Option, ICR Data Set ($ Millions, 2000$) Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal V 27 June 2003 CWS Serving £   10,000 Serving > 10,000 Total ($ Millions, 2000$)

Total National Annualized Costs ( System Cost + State Costs) at 7% Discount Rate $ 136.47 Annualized System Costs ( 7%) $ 13.98 $ 114.86 $ 135.26 Annulaized Implementation 0.09 0.03 $ 0.12 Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 1 2.74 2.08 $ 4.82 Annualized Future Monitoring for Re

Binning 1 1.31 0.81 $ 2.12 Total Annual Costs for Filtered and Unfiltered Plants 2 $ 9.83 $ 105.53 $ 115.36 Total Annual Costs for Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs 2 $ 0.01 $ 6.41 $ 6.42 System Costs for Benchmarking $ 0.00 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 State/ Primacy Agency Annualized Costs ( 7%) $ 1.21 Annualized Implementation 0.55 $ Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 0.52 $ State Costs for Benchmarking 0.00 $ State Costs for Technology Reporting 0.13 $ Type of Cost Exhibit V. 26 Total Costs, Annualized at 7 Percent, High Option, ICR Data Set ($ Millions, 2000$) Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal V 28 June 2003 CWS Serving £   10,000 Serving > 10,000 Total ($ Millions, 2000$)

Total National Annualized Costs ( System Cost + State Costs) at 3% Discount Rate $ 52.70 Annualized System Costs ( 3%) $ 5.48 $ 46.31 $ 51.79 Annualized Implementation 0.07 0.02 $ 0.09 Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 1 1.11 1.48 $ 2.59 Annualized Future Monitoring for Re

Binning 1 0.81 1.02 $ 1.82 Total Annualized Costs for Filtered and Unfiltered Plants 2 $ 3.48 $ 38.40 $ 41.88 Total Annualized Costs for Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs 2 $ 0.01 $ 5.40 $ 5.40 System Costs for Benchmarking $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 State/ Primacy Agency Annualized Costs ( 3%) $ 0.92 Annualized Implementation 0.38 $ Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 0.47 $ State Costs for Benchmarking 0.00 $ State Costs for Technology Reporting 0.07 $ Type of Cost Exhibit V. 27 Total Costs, Annualized at 3 Percent, Low Option, ICR Data Set ($ Millions, 2000$) Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal V 29 June 2003 CWS Serving £   10,000 Serving > 10,000 Total ($ Millions, 2000$)

Total National Annualized Costs ( System Cost + State Costs) at 7% Discount Rate $ 64.83 Annualized System Costs ( 7%) $ 5.61 $ 51.66 $ 63.69 Annulaized Implementation 0.09 0.03 $ 0.12 Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 1 1.44 2.08 $ 3.53 Annualized Future Monitoring for Re

Binning 1 0.74 1.04 $ 1.78 Total Annual Costs for Filtered and Unfiltered Plants 2 $ 3.33 $ 42.10 $ 45.43 Total Annual Costs for Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs 2 $ 0.01 $ 6.41 $ 6.42 System Costs for Benchmarking $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 State/ Primacy Agency Annualized Costs ( 7%) $ 1.13 Annualized Implementation 0.55 $ Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 0.52 $ State Costs for Benchmarking 0.00 $ State Costs for Technology Reporting 0.06 $ Type of Cost Exhibit V. 28 Total Costs, Annualized at 7 Percent, Low Option, ICR Data Set ($ Millions, 2000$) Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal V 30 June 2003 CWS Serving £   10,000 Serving > 10,000 Total ($ Millions, 2000$)

Total National Annualized Costs ( System Cost + State Costs) at 3% Discount Rate $ 121.19 Annualized System Costs ( 3%) $ 13.14 $ 107.06 $ 120.20 Annualized Implementation 0.07 0.02 $ 0.09 Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 1 1.99 1.48 $ 3.46 Annualized Future Monitoring for Re

Binning 1 1.35 0.82 $ 2.16 Total Annualized Costs for Filtered and Unfiltered Plants 2 $ 9.73 $ 99.35 $ 109.07 Total Annualized Costs for Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs 2 $ 0.01 $ 5.40 $ 5.40 System Costs for Benchmarking $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.01 State/ Primacy Agency Annualized Costs ( 3%) $ 1.00 Annualized Implementation 0.38 $ Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 0.47 $ State Costs for Benchmarking 0.00 $ State Costs for Technology Reporting 0.15 $ Type of Cost Exhibit V. 29 Initial Capital and One Time Costs, Annualized at 3 Percent, Alternative A3, ICR Data Set, UV90 10B ($ Millions, 2000$) Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal V 31 June 2003 CWS Serving £   10,000 Serving > 10,000 Total ($ Millions, 2000$)

Total National Annualized Costs ( System Cost + State Costs) at 7% Discount Rate $ 138.42 Annualized System Costs ( 7%) $ 13.16 $ 117.65 $ 137.22 Annulaized Implementation 0.09 0.03 $ 0.12 Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 1 2.54 2.08 $ 4.63 Annualized Future Monitoring for Re

Binning 1 1.22 0.84 $ 2.06 Total Annual Costs for Filtered and Unfiltered Plants 2 $ 9.29 $ 108.28 $ 117.57 Total Annual Costs for Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs 2 $ 0.01 $ 6.41 $ 6.42 System Costs for Benchmarking $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.01 State/ Primacy Agency Annualized Costs ( 7%) $ 1.20 Annualized Implementation 0.55 $ Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 0.52 $ State Costs for Benchmarking 0.00 $ State Costs for Technology Reporting 0.12 $ Type of Cost Exhibit V. 30 Initial Capital and One Time Costs, Annualized at 7 Percent, Alternative A3, ICR Data Set, UV90 10B ($ Millions, 2000$) Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal V 32 June 2003 CWS Serving £   10,000 Serving > 10,000 Total ($ Millions, 2000$)

Total National Annualized Costs ( System Cost + State Costs) at 3% Discount Rate $ 77.12 Annualized System Costs ( 3%) $ 7.98 $ 68.20 $ 76.18 Annualized Implementation 0.07 0.02 $ 0.09 Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 1 1.48 1.48 $ 2.95 Annualized Future Monitoring for Re

Binning 1 1.06 0.94 $ 2.00 Total Annualized Costs for Filtered and Unfiltered Plants 2 $ 5.37 $ 60.36 $ 65.74 Total Annualized Costs for Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs 2 $ 0.01 $ 5.40 $ 5.40 System Costs for Benchmarking $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 State/ Primacy Agency Annualized Costs ( 3%) $ 0.94 Annualized Implementation 0.38 $ Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 0.47 $ State Costs for Benchmarking 0.00 $ State Costs for Technology Reporting 0.09 $ Type of Cost Exhibit V. 31 National Costs, Annualized at 3 Percent, Alternative A3, ICRSSL Data Set, UV90 10B ($ Millions, 2000$) Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal V 33 June 2003 CWS Serving £   10,000 Serving > 10,000 Total ($ Millions, 2000$)

Total National Annualized Costs ( System Cost + State Costs) at 7% Discount Rate $ 91.17 Annualized System Costs ( 7%) $ 8.10 $ 75.50 $ 90.01 Annulaized Implementation 0.09 0.03 $ 0.12 Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 1 1.90 2.08 $ 3.99 Annualized Future Monitoring for Re

Binning 1 0.97 0.96 $ 1.93 Total Annual Costs for Filtered and Unfiltered Plants 2 $ 5.13 $ 66.01 $ 71.14 Total Annual Costs for Uncovered Finished Water Reservoirs 2 $ 0.01 $ 6.41 $ 6.42 System Costs for Benchmarking $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 State/ Primacy Agency Annualized Costs ( 7%) $ 1.16 Annualized Implementation 0.55 $ Annualized Monitoring for Initial Bin Classification 0.52 $ State Costs for Benchmarking 0.00 $ State Costs for Technology Reporting 0.08 $ Type of Cost Exhibit V. 32 National Costs, Annualized at 7 Percent, Alternative A3, ICRSSL Data Set, UV90 10B ($ Millions, 2000$)

Notes: Detail may not add to totals due to independent rounding. Regulatory Alternative A1 is independent of occurrence, therefore, data sets will equal. [ 1] Includes E. coli monitoring, Cryptosporidium monitoring, and reporting. [ 2] Sum of capital costs, discounted to present value and annualized over 20 years, and annual O& M cost. [ 3] Benchmarking costs estimated for systems and States are both less than $ 10,000 and therefore show as $ 0.00 million. Sources: Appendiix O. Implementation ( system), monitoring ( system), future monitoring, and benchmarking costs from Exhibits O. 3d and O. 3e. Total annual costs for filtered and unfiltered plants, and uncovered finished water reservoirs from Exhibits O. 4d and O. 4e; mean values. State costs from Exhibits O. 5d and O. 5e. Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 W 1 Appendix W Regulatory Flexibility Screening Analysis W. 1 Summary EPA is required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act ( SBREFA) ( 5 USC 601 et seq.), to prepare a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or other statutes, unless the Agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities ( 5 USC 603( a)).

This appendix describes EPA's initial assessment of the impacts on small entities as a result of the LT2ESWTR. Based on the results of this screening analysis, EPA certifies that the LT2ESWTR will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, in accordance with 5 USC 605, EPA did not prepare a formal Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ( IRFA) or a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ( FRFA).

W. 2 Methodology The screening analysis involves four major tasks: ( 1) defining " small entities" for the rule being analyzed, including PWSs run by " small businesses," " small governments," and " small organizations;" ( 2) determining what number constitutes a " substantial number" of these entities; ( 3) determining how " significant impacts" will be measured; and ( 4) completing a screening analysis. If the screening analysis determines that a substantial number of small entities may face significant impacts as a result of the rule, then a formal IRFA and FRFA may be required.

W. 2.1 Defining " Small Entities" Affected by the Rule The RFA defines small entities as including " small businesses," " small governments," and " small organizations" ( 5 USC 601). The RFA references the definition of " small business" found in the Small Business Act, which authorizes the Small Business Administration ( SBA) to further define " small business" by regulation. The SBA defines small businesses by category using the North American Industry Classification System ( NAICS). For example, in the manufacturing sector, the SBA generally defines small business in terms of number of employees; in the agriculture, mining, and electric, gas, and sanitary services sectors, the SBA generally defines small businesses in terms of annual receipts ( ranging from $ 0.5 million for crops to $ 25 million for certain types of pipelines). The RFA also authorizes an agency to adopt alternative definitions for each category of small entity " which are appropriate to the activities of the Agency after proposing the alternative definition( s) in the Federal Register and taking comment" ( 5 U. S. C. secs. 601( 3)  ( 5)). In addition to the above, agencies must consult with SBA's Chief Council for Advocacy to establish an alternative small business definition.

This screening analysis uses the following definitions of small entities affected by the LT2ESWTR: Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 W 2 ° A " small business" is any small business concern that is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field as defined by the Small Business Act ( 15 USC 632). Examples of public water systems ( PWSs) within this category include small, privately owned PWSs and for profit businesses where provision of water may be ancillary, such as mobile home parks or day care centers.

° A " small organization" under the LT2ESWTR is any not for profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated, not dominant in its field, and operates a PWS. Examples of small organizations include churches, schools, and homeowners associations.

° A " small governmental jurisdiction" is a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000 ( 5 USC 601) that operates a PWS.

The LT2ESWTR will apply to all PWSs using surface water and GWUDI as a source. The NAICS code for PWSs is 22131 ( Administration of Water Supply and Irrigation Programs) and State agencies that include drinking water programs are classified as 92411 ( Administration of Air and Water Resources and Solid Waste Management Programs) or 923312 ( Administration of Public Health Programs). Ancillary systems ( i. e., those that supplement the function of other establishments like factories, power plants, mobile home parks, etc.) cannot be categorized in a single NAICS code. For ancillary systems, the NAICS code is that of the primary establishment or industry.

The LT2ESWTR contains provisions that apply to PWSs serving fewer than 10,000 people. This is the cut off level specified by Congress in the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act for small system flexibility provisions. In accordance with the RFA requirements, EPA proposed using this alternative definition in the Federal Register ( 63 FR 7620, February 13, 1998), requested public comment, consulted with the SBA, and expressed its intention to use the alternative definition for all future drinking water regulations in the Consumer Confidence Reports regulation ( 63 FR 44511, August 19, 1998).

W. 2.2 Determining What Number Constitutes a Substantial Number This initial assessment assumes that all small PWSs that use surface water or GWUDI are potentially affected by the rule, approximately 11,820 small entity PWSs. EPA SBREFA guidance uses the following criteria to determine what constitutes a substantial number of affected entities: no more than 20 percent of small systems affected by a rule or no more than 1,000 systems affected by a rule may experience economic impacts of 1 percent of their revenues or greater. In addition, no more than 100 systems may experience economic impacts of 3 percent of their revenues or greater. The LT2ESWTR falls under these thresholds.

W. 2.3 Measuring Significant Impacts To evaluate the impact that a small entity is expected to incur as a result of the rule, this analysis calculates the entity's annualized compliance costs as a percentage of sales ( for privately owned systems) or the entity's annualized compliance costs as a percentage of annual governmental revenue or expenditures ( for publicly owned systems). EPA guidance suggests using 1 percent as a threshold for determining significance, although additional factors may be considered. If compliance costs are less than 1 percent of sales or revenues, the regulation may in most cases be presumed to have no significant Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 W 3 impact ( U. S. House of Representatives 1996). In addition, if no more than 100 systems experience economic impacts of 3 percent of their revenues or greater, than in most cases there is no significant impact.

Exhibit W. 1 presents the data EPA used for the screening analysis to determine if the LT2ESWTR will have a substantial impact on a significant number of small entities. Using this data, EPA calculated the annual compliance costs per system as a percentage of revenues or expenditures. These percentages are presented in Column D. The numbers of systems expected to incur costs of more than 1 and 3 percent of their revenues are presented in Columns E and G, respectively. The numbers of systems experiencing impacts of more than 1 and 3 percent of their revenues were compared to the total number of systems in each size category to calculate percentages, shown in Columns F and H.

The ratio of compliance cost to revenue was calculated using the 80th percentile of annualized ( at 3 percent) compliance costs and the average annual revenue. The average revenue for all was used for all systems and size categories because no information on the distribution of annual revenues was available. The resulting overall cost to revenue ratio for all small entity PWSs was 0.14 percent. The use of the 80th percentile compliance cost to determine the ratio implies that 80 percent of systems affected by the LT2ESWTR have lower compliance costs, and therefore, 80 percent of systems have ratios of even less than 0.14 percent. Thus, the threshold of 20 percent of systems having costs as percentages of revenues of 1 percent or more is not exceeded.

Further, EPA determined that, based on the 80th percentile annualized compliance costs, a total of 274 small entity PWSs, representing 2.3 percent of all small entity PWSs affected by the LT2ESWTR, will experience an impact of 1 percent or greater of average annual revenues. This is less than the criteria of 1,000 systems or 20 percent of systems used to determine significant impact. Within each class of small entity, the number of PWSs experiencing an impact of 1 percent or greater of average annual revenues ranges from 13 ( small organization PWSs) to 140 ( small government PWSs), which is 1.2 to 2.4 percent of the systems in each category.

Further, the Agency has determined that 31 small entity PWSs, representing 0.3 percent of all small entity PWSs subject to the LT2ESWTR, will experience an impact of 3 percent or greater of average annual revenues. This is less than the criterion of 100 systems used to determine significant impact at this cost level. Considering each class of small entity, the number of PWSs experiencing an impact of 3 percent or greater of average annual revenues ranges from 1 ( small organization PWS) to 15 ( small government PWSs), which is 0.1 to 0.3 percent of the systems in each category, respectively.

With respect to different size categories, no small entity PWSs serving 500 or fewer people and fewer than 0.8 percent of systems serving 501 to 3,300 people will experience an impact of 1 percent or greater of average annual revenues. Approximately 6.0 percent of small organization PWSs and 12.2 percent of small government and business PWSs serving 3,301 to 10,000 people will experience an impact of 1 percent or greater of revenues.

Obtaining Data on the Number of Small PWSs and Their Revenues or Expenditures EPA obtained data on the number of PWSs in each small entity category, which are presented in Column A of Exhibit W. 1. The numbers of PWSs and their distribution among categories are derived from EPA's Baseline Handbook ( USEPA 2001c). 1 Methodology recommended by Bruce E. Baker, State and Local Governments, Government Division, U. S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.

2 The " other" category contains systems that do not yet have a specific function identified.

Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 W 4 EPA also estimated the annual revenues or expenditures of small PWSs, presented in Column B of Exhibit W. 1. PWS inventories, managed by EPA and other organizations, have traditionally been categorized by size and by the characteristics of the population served ( i. e., CWSs, NTNCWSs, and TNCWSs) rather than by NAICS code. Revenues by NAICS code are not readily applicable to EPA's categorization of systems. Therefore, alternative methods for determining revenue were developed, as discussed below.

The estimated revenues for small entities in Exhibit W. 1 are from the Bureau of the Census ( U. S. Department of Commerce 1992), the Safe Drinking Water Information System ( SDWIS), and additional data on independent privately owned CWSs, special districts, and authorities from the 1995 Community Water System Survey ( USEPA 1997c). Column A of Exhibit W. 1 shows the numbers of systems classified as small businesses, governments, and organizations, obtained using information from the Third Edition of the Baseline Handbook ( USEPA 2001c). These numbers were used to determine the weighted averages of estimated revenue. Column B shows the estimated revenues.

Small government systems include municipal, county, state, federal, military, and special district systems. Data on revenue for townships and municipalities were obtained from the 1992 Census of Governments ( U. S. Department of Commerce 1992), converted to 2000 dollars by applying a conversion factor calculated from the national income and product account tables of the U. S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1 Specifically, the price deflators for 1992 and 2000 were obtained from Chain Type Price Indexes for State and Local Governments ( U. S. Department of Commerce 2002). The average revenue for all small governments with PWSs was calculated at $ 2,434,200.

Small business run PWSs in Exhibit W. 1 include both CWSs and NTNCWSs, such as privately owned CWSs, mobile home parks, country clubs, hotels, manufacturers, hospitals, and other establishments. For this analysis, all hospitals and day care centers are assumed to be businesses, as are 50 percent of systems classified as " other." 2 Estimated average revenue for the small businesses affected by the LT2ESWTR is $ 2,391,978.

Small organizations include primarily nonprofit NTNCWS such as schools and homeowners associations. The revenue estimates for small nonprofit organizations serving more than 500 people are actually higher than those for small businesses because the total number of such systems is small, and a large proportion of these organizations are schools and colleges with large budgets. This category also includes 50 percent of systems classified as " other." The average estimated revenue for small organizations affected by the LT2ESWTR is $ 4,446,165.

EPA also calculated the average estimated revenue for all small entity PWSs. This estimate is weighted to account for the number of small entity PWSs in each category ( government, business, and organization) affected by the LT2ESWTR. This overall average is $ 2,597,966. Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 W 5 Cost per System Cost as a Percentage of Revenue Percent of Systems Number of Systems Percent of Systems Number of Systems B C D = C/ B E F = A* E G H = A* G Small Government PWSs 5,910 50% $ 2,434,200 $ 3,593 0.1% 2.4% 140 0.3% 15 < 100 1,801 $ 2,434,200 $ 2,124 0.1% 0.0%  0.0%  101 500 1,422 $ 2,434,200 $ 3,160 0.1% 0.0%  0.0%  501 1,000 570 $ 2,434,200 $ 4,571 0.2% 0.6% 3 0.5% 3 1,001 3,300 1,099 $ 2,434,200 $ 7,612 0.3% 1.1% 13 0.5% 6 3,301 10,000 1,018 $ 2,434,200 $ 19,556 0.8% 12.2% 124 0.7% 7 Small Business PWSs 4,846 41% $ 2,391,978 $ 3,593 0.2% 2.4% 115 0.3% 13 < 100 1,477 $ 2,391,978 $ 2,124 0.1% 0.0%  0.0%  101 500 1,166 $ 2,391,978 $ 3,160 0.1% 0.0%  0.0%  501 1,000 467 $ 2,391,978 $ 4,571 0.2% 0.6% 3 0.5% 2 1,001 3,300 901 $ 2,391,978 $ 7,612 0.3% 1.1% 10 0.5% 5 3,301 10,000 834 $ 2,391,978 $ 19,556 0.8% 12.2% 102 0.7% 5 Small Organization PWSs 1,064 9% $ 4,446,165 $ 3,593 0.1% 1.2% 13 0.1% 1 < 100 324 $ 4,446,165 $ 2,124 0.0% 0.0%  0.0%  101 500 256 $ 4,446,165 $ 3,160 0.1% 0.0%  0.0%  501 1,000 103 $ 4,446,165 $ 4,571 0.1% 0.6% 1 0.0% 0 1,001 3,300 198 $ 4,446,165 $ 7,612 0.2% 0.6% 1 0.1% 0 3,301 10,000 183 $ 4,446,165 $ 19,556 0.4% 6.0% 11 0.6% 1 All Small Entity PWSs 11,820 100% $ 2,597,966 $ 3,593 0.1% 2.3% 274 0.3% 31 < 100 3,602 $ 2,597,966 $ 2,124 0.1% 0.0%  0.0%  101 500 2,845 $ 2,597,966 $ 3,160 0.1% 0.0%  0.0%  501 1,000 1,139 $ 2,597,966 $ 4,571 0.2% 0.6% 7 0.5% 6 1,001 3,300 2,198 $ 2,597,966 $ 7,612 0.3% 0.9% 19 0.5% 11 3,301 10,000 2,035 $ 2,597,966 $ 19,556 0.8% 12.2% 248 0.7% 13 PWSs by Ownership Type and System Size Systems Experiencing Costs of > 1% of their Revenues Systems Experiencing Costs of > 3% of their Revenues A Annualized 80th Percentile Compliance Cost[ 2] ($) Average Annual Estimated Revenues[ 1] per System ($) Number of Small Systems ( Percent) Exhibit W. 1 Annualized Compliance Cost of the LT2ESWTR as a Percentage of Revenue and Number of Small Entity PWSs Experiencing Impacts ($ 2000)

Note: Detail may not add due to independent rounding.

1 Revenue information was used whenever available. When it was not available, different measures, such as sales or annual operating expenditures, were used. Data were not available to differentiate revenue by system size. 2 Cost data are based on the means of the highest modeled distributions generated using the Information Collection Rule ( ICR) occurrence data set. Column C shows costs annualized at 3 percent over 20 years.

Sources: [ A] Number of small systems taken from Exhibit 4.3, multiplied by percentages ( 50%, 41%, and 9%) to obtain numbers for small governments, businesses, and organizations. [ B] Small Governments: Revenues from 1992 Census of Governments, GC92( 4) 4: Finances of Municipal and Township Governments, U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census; price deflators from Table 7.11, Chain Type Quantity and Price Indexes for Government. All other price adjustments based on Consumer Price Index. [ C] Derived from the LT2ESWTR Cost Model ( Appendix U). [ E, G] Derived from Column B and compliance costs from the LT2ESWTR Cost Model ( Appendix U).

W. 2.4 Screening Analysis Results As part of its screening analysis, EPA evaluated the potential economic impact of the rule on small entities by comparing compliance costs as a percentage of sales, revenues, or operating expenditures for each small entity classification. Based on the information presented in Exhibit W. 1, EPA certifies that the LT2ESWTR will not lead to significant economic impacts for a substantial number of small entities and, therefore, is not required by the RFA, as amended by SBREFA, to conduct an IRFA or a FRFA.

As shown in Exhibit W. 1, the costs associated with the LT2ESWTR in the 80th percentile ( annualized at 3 percent) do not approach 1 percent of the small entity PWSs' average annual revenues or expenditures. The annualized cost for all small entity PWSs for the 80th percentile is $ 3,593. Since Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 W 6 fewer than 20 percent of systems will experience economic impacts of 1 percent of their revenues, the screening analysis threshold of 20 percent of systems experiencing economic impacts is not exceeded. Taking this analysis one step further, EPA evaluated the number of systems that are above the 1 percent threshold for each small entity, based on the 80th percentile annualized compliance costs. Only 274 small entity PWSs ( 2.3 percent) will experience an impact of 1 percent or greater of average annual revenues, which falls below the criteria of 1,000 systems or 20 percent of systems. In addition, only 31 small entity PWSs ( 0.3 percent) will experience an impact of 3 percent or greater, which falls below the criteria of 100 systems.