Leisure For the Enhanced COI estimate, the approach used to value lost leisure time is the same as that applied to nonmarket work. This approach reflects two considerations: ( 1) the difficulties inherent in developing a clear cut distinction between hours spent in nonmarket work and leisure as noted above, and ( 2) the assumption that, at the margin, an individual will choose to engage in nonmarket work or leisure activities only if the value of these activities exceeds the wage rate that the individual would otherwise earn. The individual presumably chooses to engage in activities other than market work because, at the margin, the utility gained from these other activities is greater than the utility gained from market work. This approach is a simplification of how individuals are likely to view leisure time. Leisure activities are undertaken for a number of different purposes   e. g., to relax, for exercise, or to maintain emotional connections with loved ones. Some leisure activities involve extensive planning and travel time, like major vacations, while others, like watching television, require almost no planning, travel, or even thought. Hence, in reality the utility of leisure is likely to vary depending on the activity affected. Even with these uncertainties, the opportunity cost approach provides a more complete measure of the value of time losses from the perspective of the individual as well as society. This approach is supported by the travel cost studies noted earlier, which suggest that even relatively mundane forms of leisure ( such as travel time) may have utility that approaches the wage rate. The fact that workers often demand a higher hourly wage for " overtime" work further supports the notion that the marginal value of nonwork time exceeds the usual wage rate. Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 K 14 Leisure time is generally not valued in COI studies due to the emphasis of these studies on measuring productivity rather than utility. While leisure time may have some impact on an individual's productivity, this impact is believed to be largely captured in the valuation of market and nonmarket work. From the human capital perspective, including a separate value for leisure runs the risk of doublecounting The loss of leisure time is not included in the Traditional COI estimate.

Lost Sleep Time Sleep time presents special problems in this analysis, in part because data on the effect of cryptosporidiosis related morbidity on the amount or quality of sleep time are not available. In addition, sleep is rarely valued in the literature due to problems related to determining its dollar value. Sleep time is not addressed in most COI studies because ( like leisure) its effect on productivity is believed to be largely captured in the value of market and nonmarket work time.

However, from an opportunity cost perspective, it is possible to argue that lost sleep should be valued at the wage rate. For example, assuming that some minimal level of sleep is necessary, sleep time missed at night may be made up through daytime naps. These naps in turn may displace some of the time the individual would otherwise spend engaged in leisure, nonmarket work, or market work activities.

This analysis conservatively assumes that lost sleep time has zero value. Given that individuals derive utility from sleep and, thus, are likely to value it at a rate greater than zero, this approach will understate the value of related time losses.

K. 6 Special Considerations Several sub groups of the population present specific valuation challenges, because they often do not engage in paid work and hence wage rate data may not be an appropriate measure of the value of their time losses due to illness. These groups include the following.

° Children: Children do not generally engage in paid work, and wage rate data are not generally collected for those who do. The definition of " child" can vary, but the age cut off is usually at 16 or 18 years of age. The Bureau of Labor Statistics does not collect employment data on individuals under the age of 16.

° Elderly Individuals: As individuals age, they generally leave the work force. However, retired persons may value their time differently than younger workers who are out of the labor force due to the availability of pensions and Social Security. These individuals may lose benefits if they increase their job related income.

° Unemployed Individuals: Individuals not currently engaged in market work, but actively seeking employment, would prefer to earn a wage, but are not currently doing so.

° Individuals Not in the Labor Force: Individuals not currently engaged in market work, and not seeking employment, presumably value their time at a rate higher than the earnings they could gain from paid employment. However, at times they may be engaged in nonmarket 32 Although an argument can be made for including the discounted present value of any decrease in future earnings, the types of acute illnesses considered in this analysis are not likely to have a measurable impact on future earnings.

Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 K 15 work ( such as child care) where the cost of hiring a replacement worker exceeds the amount they could earn as a member of the labor force.

The approach taken in this analysis is to value all time losses at rates applicable to adult wage earners ( or their theoretical adult replacements in the case of the Traditional COI's estimate for the value of nonmarket work time).

Valuation of the effects on children present a number of difficult challenges related to the fact that children are not ? economic actors" who can answer valuation questions or engage in market activities that reflect their own preferences. Under the human capital approach, the primary issue concerning the valuation of children's time losses is that of double counting. Analysts assume that time spent in school or other productive activities will be reflected in future earnings, and generally assign a value of " zero" to childhood time losses. 32 However, from a social welfare perspective, children can be profoundly affected by illness. These effects may be direct   i. e., children may be unable to engage in normal activities because they are ill; or they may be indirect   i. e., children may receive a lesser quantity or quality of care due to the illness of their caretakers. The dollar values of these impacts are highly uncertain.

For the other groups listed above, the challenge is largely the absence of compensation data as a proxy for opportunity costs. Whether the approaches taken in this analysis under state or over state the value of time for these individuals is uncertain. Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 L 1 Appendix L Calculations Supporting the Cost of Illness ( COI) Analysis L. 1 Introduction This appendix presents data and calculations that this Economic Analysis ( EA) uses to estimate the monetized morbidity benefits of the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule ( LT2ESWTR) rule. These data are used in Chapters 5 and 8. The general methodology for using a cost of illness ( COI) approach is presented in Appendix K. This appendix, Appendix L, applies that methodology, identifies the data from other sources that are used, and describes the methodology used to estimate the duration of illness for moderate and severe cases of cryptosporidiosis. The approach used to value reductions in nonfatal cases of cryptosporidiosis combines estimates of the medical costs of illness with estimates of the value of related time losses under two sets of assumptions: the Enhanced and Traditional COI . Many of the values in the analysis rely on data collected by Corso et al. ( 2003) and MacKenzie et al. ( 1994).

L. 2 Cryptosporidiosis Cost Related Data Some of the most directly relevant data for this COI estimate derives from the outbreak of cryptosporidiosis in Milwaukee in 1993. The study by Corso et al. ( 2003) of this outbreak reports cost of illness data using three categories of severity of illnesses: mild, moderate, and severe. Definitions of the categories are as follows.

° mild: the person did not seek medical care for the illness, but may have taken over thecounter medication ° moderate: the person had one or more outpatient visits to a physician or emergency room, but the person was not hospitalized ° severe: the person was hospitalized one or more times.

The percentage of patients with each severity of illness is reported in Corso et al. ( 2003) ( and derived from MacKenzie et al., 1995) as 87.99 percent with mild cases, 10.92 percent with moderate cases, and 1.09 percent with severe cases. For the purposes of this Economic Analysis, these figures were rounded to 88, 11, and 1 percent. Costs used from the Corso et al. ( 2003) study are presented in Exhibit L. 1 and are averages per illness ( in 1993 dollars). 1Number of days lost does not include number of days lost due to reoccurrence of cryptosporidiosis. Respondents provided estimates of days of normal activities lost due to illness.

2Number of days lost does not include any days lost due to the reoccurrence of cryptosporidiosis. Estimates of days lost for mild and moderate cases are averages from survey respondents. The days lost for caregivers assisting severe cases was an estimate based on half the duration of the hospital stay.

3Average total cost of medication is the cost of medication used before receiving medical attention for those who took medication and does not include the cost of medication for reoccurrence. Data drawn from review of medical files for moderate and severe cases, but for mild cases, the percent of moderate cases self medicating before health care was used, and other sources and author assumptions were used regarding, dosage, frequency, and duration of illness.

4Of the moderately ill persons, 95 percent first saw a physician rather than visiting an Emergency Room ( ER) and of severely ill persons, 29 percent saw a physician before being hospitalized.

5Corso et al. ( 2003) cites MacKenzie et al. ( 1995).

6Corso et al. ( 2003) cites Osewe et al., 1996.

Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 L 2 Exhibit L. 1 Cryptosporidiosis Cost Related Data From Corso et al. ( 2003)

Cost Category Mild Moderate Severe Number of Days Lost 1 ( Mean days) 1.3 days 3.8 days 13.5 days Duration of Illness 4.7 days see L. 4 see L. 4 Number of Days Lost for Caregivers 2 0.1 day 1.3 days 3.9 days Percent Taking Medication Before Health Care 30% 30% 29%

Average Total Cost of Medication for Those Taking Medication Before Health Care 3 $ 5.73 $ 5.92 $ 6.74 Percent That Visited a Physician4 NA 95% 29%

Cost of a Physician Visit NA $ 45 $ 45 Percent Taking Medication after Health Care NA 54% 48%

Average Total Cost of Medication Taken after Health Care for Those Taking Medication NA $ 8.91 $ 70.52 Percent with Reoccurrence of Illness5 21% 21% 21%

Length of Reoccurrence of Illness 6 2 days 2 days 2 days Average Medication Cost for a Reoccurrence $ 2.44 $ 2.44 $ 2.44 Exhibit L. 1 Cryptosporidiosis Cost Related Data From Corso et al. ( 2003)

Cost Category Mild Moderate Severe 7Of the moderately ill, 5 percent went first to the emergency room ( ER), and of severely ill persons, 71 percent visited the ER.

8The cost of hospitalization reported by Corso et al.( 2003) is $ 6,312, which includes the cost of 71 percent of patients that visited the ER [$ 6,312( 71%*$ 224)=$ 6,152.96].

9For moderately ill persons, of those admitted to the ER, 4.9 percent used an ambulance. For severely ill persons, 16.3 percent took an ambulance to the ER or hospital.

Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 L 3 Percent That Visited an ER 7 NA 5% 71%

Cost of the ER NA $ 224 $ 224 Percent Hospitalized NA NA 100%

Cost of Hospitalization 8 NA NA $ 6,152.96 Percent Taking an Ambulance, of Those Who Went to the ER or Hospital 9 NA 4.9% 16.3%

Cost of an Ambulance NA $ 228 $ 228 Note: NA= not applicable.

L. 3 Calculation of Direct Medical Costs In Corso et al. ( 2003), the total cost of illness is reported as $ 79 ( in 1993$) derived from the above data. This Economic Analysis uses different rounding conventions, notably, the rounding of the percent of the population with each severity of illness. For comparison, these changes generate an estimate of about $ 73 ( in 1993$)( not shown). Further, this Economic Analysis inflates the 1993 data to 2000$, so the final estimate used is $ 93.82. Using data from Exhibit L. 1, Exhibit L. 2 calculates this estimate of the direct medical costs for a case of cryptosporidiosis based on the Corso et al. ( 2003) data and assumptions. Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 L 4 Mild Moderate Severe Mild Moderate Severe Mild ( 88%) Moderate ( 11%) Severe ( 1%)

Doctor Visits NA $ 45.00 $ 45.00 NA $ 58.05 $ 58.05 NA 95%*$ 58.05 =$ 55.15 29%*$ 58.05 =$ 16.83 Emergency Room Visits NA $ 224.00 $ 224.00 NA $ 288.96 $ 288.96 NA 5%*$ 288.96 =$ 14.45 71%*$ 288.96 =$ 205.16 Hospital Stays NA NA $ 6,152.96 NA NA $ 7,937.32 NA NA 100%* 7,937.32 =$ 7,937.32 Ambulance NA $ 228.00 $ 228.00 NA $ 294.12 $ 294.12 NA 4.9%* 5%* $ 294.12 =$ 0.72 16.3%*$ 294.12 =$ 47.94 Medication $ 5.73 $ 5.92 $ 6.74 $ 7.39 $ 7.64 $ 8.69 30%*$ 7.39 =$ 2.22 30%*$ 7.64 =$ 2.29 29%*$ 8.69 =$ 2.52 Medication after Health Care NA $ 8.91 $ 70.52 NA $ 11.49 $ 90.97 NA 54%*$ 11.49 =$ 6.21 48%*$ 90.97= $ 43.67 Medication Taken upon Reoccurrence $ 2.44 $ 2.44 $ 2.44 $ 3.15 $ 3.15 $ 3.15 21%*$ 3.15 =$ 0.66 21%*$ 3.15 =$ 0.66 21%*$ 3.15 =$ 0.66 Totals $ 2.88 $ 79.47 $ 8,254.10 Weighted Total $ 93.82 December 2000$ December 2000$ Average Cost [ 1]

Medical Cost 1993$ Average Cost Per Patient Exhibit L. 2 Direct Medical Costs of a Case of Cryptosporidiosis Notes: Detail may not add to totals due to independent rounding[ 1] All direct medical costs are obtained in December 1993$ and updated by a 1.29 CPI U update factor to December 2000$. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 264.8 ( Dec2000$)/ 205.2 ( Dec1993$) = 1.29. Sources: 1993$ average cost data from Corso et al. ( 2003).

L. 4 Calculations for Duration of Illness for Moderate and Severe Cases Corso et al. ( 2003) does not provide duration of illness estimates for moderate and severe cases, but does report that medical care was sought in approximately 12 percent of cases: 11 percent being " moderate" cases, and 1 percent being " severe" cases..

Using data from MacKenzie et al. ( 1994), a data set was constructed to provide a hypothetical population that could be evaluated to estimate the duration of illness for moderate and severe cases. This is because the MacKenzie et al. ( 1994) distribution represents patients with laboratory confirmed cases of cryptosporidiosis, who fit the requirement that they sought medical care. While the duration of illness might differ between those whose doctors ordered laboratory tests from those that didn't, no evidence is available to suggest a difference or to provide a factor by which to adjust these data. In the absence of any better data, the analysis assumes that this distribution of illness duration can be used to reasonably represent the collection of moderate and severe cases. Further, an assumption is made that the severe cases are best represented by the upper tail of the distribution, and moderate cases are best represented by the lower tail of the distribution. While it is likely the case that some severe cases were of shorter duration that at least some of the moderate cases, no data are available to estimate the potential overlap. The mean for moderate cases was therefore determined by calculating the average of the lowest 11/ 12 of Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 L 5 the distribution. The mean for severe cases was determined by calculating the average of the highest 1/ 12 of the distribution.

The data set constructed is intended to approximate the distribution described by MacKenzie et al. ( 1994); one with a reported duration of illness with a " range of 1 to 55 days, mean of 12, and median of 9." These summary statistics suggest a nearly lognormal distribution, and we therefore assumed a lognormal distribution with parameters mu and sigma,

X = duration of illness ~ lognormal ( m ,   s )

Or equivalently,

log ( X) ~ normal ( m , s 2)

To generate a population of data with a lognormal distribution, the analysis used a Monte Carlo program that required a mean and standard deviation to define the lognormal distribution. To derive the standard deviation from the mean and median, we used the following relationships that hold for all lognormal distributions.

1. mean ( X) = exp( m   +   s 2 / 2 )

2. var ( X) = exp( 2 m + s 2) ( exp( s 2)  1)

and 3. median ( X) = exp( median ( log ( X))) = exp( m )

Then,

9 = median ( X) = exp( m ) => m = ln ( 9)

12 = mean ( X) = exp( m + s 2/ 2) => s 2 = 2( ln( 12)  ln( 9))

Now, using formula 3 above and these values for m and s 2 we can compute the variance of X as Var ( X) = 112, which implies a standard deviation of 10.58.

A Monte Carlo program was used to generate a data set based on this mean and standard deviation. In this program, the assumed distribution was thus set at a mean of 12 and a standard deviation of 10.58, with a range of 1 to 55, and multiplied by " 1 " for 50,000 iterations. The derived overall mean and median of this 50,000 item data set ( which match the MacKenzie et al. ( 1994) statistics reasonably well) are presented in Exhibit L. 3 along with the decile distribution. Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 L 6 Exhibit L. 3 Decile and Mean for Moderate and Severe Data Set Value Percentile 1.00 0%

3.25 10%

4.62 20%

5.91 30%

7.26 40%

8.79 50%

10.70 60%

13.16 70%

16.73 80%

23.31 90%

54.95 100%

11.46 mean Source: Monte Carlo simulations based on MacKenzie et al. 1994 summary data.

The final step involves dividing this data set into two parts to represent moderate and severe cases. Again, the mean for moderate cases was determined by calculating the average of the lowest 11/ 12 of the distribution. The mean for severe cases was determined by calculating the average of the highest 1/ 12 of the distribution. The results are shown in Exhibit L. 4.

Exhibit L. 4 Mean Duration of Illness for Moderate and Severe Cases ( Days)

Moderate Cases 9.4 Severe Cases 34.0 Source: Monte Carlo simulations.

L. 5 Calculation for Weighted Average Days Lost After calculating the mean duration of illness for moderate and severe cases, data on the days with lost productivity, by severity, can be derived by subtracting the mean number of days lost from the mean duration of illness, for each severity. The results are presented in Exhibit L. 5. Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 L 7 Exhibit L. 5 Derivation of Days with Lost Productivity by Severity Row Derivation Time Category Mild Cases Moderate Cases Severe Cases a Mean Duration of Illness 4.7 9.4 34.0 b Number of Days Lost 1.3 3.8 13.5 c a b Days with Lost Productivity 3.4 5.6 20.5 Source: Number of days lost and the mean duration of illness ( mild cases) and are from Corso et al. ( 2003). Duration of moderate and severe cases are from Exhibit L. 4.

The days lost for work, caregivers, and productivity can be calculated using the data from Exhibit L. 5 and the percentages of each severity of illness and the extent of reoccurrence. These data are shown in Exhibit L. 6 Exhibit L. 6 Weighted Average Days Lost for Work, Caregivers, and Productivity Severity Days Lost Weight Weighted Average Days Work ( Patients) Mild 1.3 88% 1.144 Moderate 3.8 11% 0.418 Severe 13.5 1% 0.135 Total 1.697 Caregivers Mild 0.1 88% 0.088 Moderate 1.3 11% 0.143 Severe 3.9 1% 0.039 Total 0.270 Productivity Losses Mild 3.4 88% 2.992 Moderate 5.6 11% 06.616 Severe 20.5 1% 0.205 Reoccurrence 2.0 21% 0.420 Total 4.233 Source: Exhibit L. 5 and Corso et al. ( 2003) 10Based on annual average of monthly figures, U. S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2001, Table No. 582, sourced to U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, monthly, January 2000 issue, and based on the Current Population Survey.

11Derived from the estimate of 129,592 thousand people at work ( year 2000, based on annual average of monthly figures, U. S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2001, Table No. 582, sourced to U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, monthly, January 2000 issue, and based on the Current Population Survey) of the 209,699 thousand people in this age range ( year 2000, based on annual average of monthly figures, U. S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2001, Table No. 567, sourced to U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2307 and Employment and Earnings, monthly, and based on the Current Population Survey). 129,592 thousand/ 209,699 thousand = 61.8 percent.

1239.7 hours/ week ÷ 7 days/ week x ( 129,592 thousand/ 209,699 thousand)= 3.5 hours/ day ( rounded).

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

Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 L 8 L. 6 Normal Time Allocation The U. S. Census Bureau compiles data on weekly hours worked, and loss of work hours is a key loss category used in this analysis. For the year 2000, that figure was 39.7 hours per week for the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years old or older who are working full or part time. 10 This figure excludes those employed but not working because of vacations, illness, strikes, etc.; noncivilians; institutionalized persons; and those in the labor pool but unemployed. This group of workers is about 61.8 percent of the population in this age range. 11 For an average day for the whole population, the average lost work hours per day of illness is, therefore, about 3.5 hours. 12 Another important component of people's lost time that is valued in the calculation of benefits is the time spent performing nonpaid work. For these estimates, studies of how people allocate their time is helpful. In recent years, a number of research teams have explored the allocation of time across different activities. For example, a recent National Research Council ( 2000) study lists more than 50 major timeuse surveys that have been completed internationally. However, the majority of the studies completed in recent years address countries other than the United States, including Australia, the European Community, Japan, New Zealand, and Canada. The most recent U. S. studies were completed by the University of Michigan in 1981 1982 and by the University of Maryland in 1985; the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics is in the process of developing a new time use study and expects the results to be available in 2004 ( United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, undated).

These studies generally address the allocation of time across a large number of different activities. For example, the proposed U. S. survey may include nine groups ( personal care, employment activities, education activities, domestic activities, care for dependent household members, purchasing activities, voluntary work and care, social and community interaction, and recreation and leisure) that are subdivided into 99 subgroups, each of which is further subdivided into a number of discrete categories ( National Research Council 2000). 13 For the purpose of analyzing time losses associated with nonfatal cases of cryptosporidiosis, the dollar value applied ( as discussed below) varies across three larger categories: paid work, unpaid work, and leisure activities, so more aggregate data can be used. 1440 hours/ week ÷ 7 days/ week x ( 1 129,592 thousand/ 209,699 thousand )= 2.18 hours/ day ( rounded).

1524 hours  8 hours sleep  3.5 paid hours( rounded)  2.18 unpaid hours( rounded) = 10.3 hours/ day ( rounded).

Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 L 9 In lieu of a recent United States based study, assumptions were made about time usage, which were then compared to existing data for reasonableness. Specifically, this economic analysis computes unpaid work time using 40 hours per week and applying it to the 38.2 percent of the population not otherwise employed. While applied to the population of unpaid individuals, this estimate is not an assumption that this entire population is performing full time ( although unpaid) work, because this group includes infants, retired persons, and others. Nor is it an assumption that paid workers do not also perform unpaid work. For an average day for the whole population, the average lost unpaid work hours per day of illness is about 2.18 hours. 14 This analysis also assumes that, for the population as a whole, leisure time is the time left after sleep time ( which is assumed to be 8 hours) and the time spent in paid and unpaid work. That estimate for leisure time is then about 10.3 hours per day. 15 These estimates compare reasonably with other studies. For example, a recent Canadian study addresses a different population but has similar results. Exhibit L. 7 summarizes the results of the Canadian study, which provides national estimates for individuals ages 15 and older in 1998. The hours per day estimates are based on a 7 day week for all time categories. It seems reasonable to expect that Canadian time use patterns will be similar to U. S. patterns due to the proximity of the two countries and the extent of interaction between their populations.

Exhibit L. 7 Time Allocation Estimates Compared to 1998 Canadian Study ( hours)

Time Category Estimates Used in EA ( rounded data) Canadian Estimates Market Work 3.5 3.3 Nonwork ( nonmarket work and leisure) 12.5 12.6 Nonmarket ( unpaid) Work 2.2 Leisure 10.3 Sleep 8.0 8.1 Note: Market work includes paid work time only. The nonmarket and leisure category includes all other activities except sleep, including unpaid work related activities such as commuting time. Sleep includes night sleep only.

Source: Canadian data from Statistics Canada 1999 and see text and footnotes.

The time allocation estimates also appear not to be inconsistent with data from other sources. In 16 See, for example, Final Heavy Duty Engine/ Fuel Rule: Air Quality Planning and Standards.

17$ 576 per week/ 43.4 work hours per week = $ 13.27 per hour. Although rounded data are shown here, full precision was used in all calculations.

Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 L 10 particular, the estimates of time devoted to night sleep are similar across studies. For the United States, 1985 data indicate that individuals aged 18 64 averaged 7.8 hours of night sleep ( USEPA 1997d). A 1998 1999 New Zealand study found that individuals aged 12 years and older devoted 8.6 hours to sleep, but did not distinguish between night sleep and naps ( Statistics New Zealand 1999).

L. 7 Dollar Value of Time Losses This analysis uses compensation data to estimate the opportunity costs of lost work and nonwork time. There are numerous sources of U. S. compensation data, each of which focuses on somewhat different data elements and uses different approaches to data collection. The estimates developed for this analysis are based on well established and frequently cited sources of national data, relying largely on year 2000 data included in the Statistical Abstract of the United States.

The starting point for the development of these estimates is median weekly earnings for the year 2000 for full time workers ($ 576 per week), as reported by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics ( United States Census Bureau, November 2001, Table 621). This value is derived from the Current Population Survey and includes wages and salaries, but not other costs ( e. g., benefits) paid by the employer.

This analysis uses median rather than average earnings as the starting point, consistent with other EPA analyses. 16 The distribution of income in the United States is highly skewed due to the small number of people who are extremely highly compensated, hence average income is significantly higher than the median. Use of the median reflects the notion that the small fraction of the U. S. population affected by this rulemaking are likely to be better represented by the median than by the mean value, which is closer to the upper tail of the distribution.

The next step is conversion of this value to earnings per hour. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, individuals usually working full time averaged 43.4 hours per week at work in 2000 ( United States Census Bureau, November 2001, Table 582). This means that median earnings per hour averaged about $ 13.2717.

For market work time, the measure of opportunity costs used in this analysis is total pre tax compensation from the perspective of the employer. The earnings number reported above does not reflect employer paid benefits. To adjust this estimate upwards to reflect total compensation, the analysis uses the ratio of average wages and salaries to average total compensation, as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for private industry workers for 2000 ( United States Census Bureau, December 2000, Table 701). These data show that total compensation per hour averages about 1.4 times wages and 18 $ 22.62 total compensation per hour / $ 16.25 salary and wages per hour = 1.4. The earnings per hour estimates vary across data sources depending on sample characteristics, whether mean or median values are reported, and other factors.

19($ 576 per week/ 43.4 work hours per week ) x ($ 22.62 total compensation per hour / $ 16.25 salary and wages per hour) = $ 18.47 per hour. Although rounded data are shown here and in the text, full precision was used in all calculations.

20This median income estimates differ from the earnings estimates cited earlier because it reflects household income, rather than individual earnings, and relies on a different data source. With additional precision, the estimate of after tax earning is $ 10.9154; but full precision was used in all calculations.

21 A pioneering example of this approach is Rice 1966; a more recent example is Thamer et al. 1998.

Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 L 11 salaries for full time workers. 18 Using these data to adjust median hourly earnings ( as reported above) leads to an estimate of about $ 18.47 per hour for total compensation19.

For nonwork time ( excluding sleep), two measures were used ( see Appendix K for more background on these measures). The first measure, used in the Enhanced Cost of Illness ( Enhanced COI), is after tax earnings, i. e., the " take home" pay of the median working individual. This analysis relies on Current Population Survey data on household income before and after taxes ( United States Census Bureau, March 2002) to determine the percent of earnings paid as taxes. In 2000, the median before tax income was $ 42,151 and median after tax income was $ 34,667.20 Thus, after tax income was about 82.2 percent of the pre tax amount. Applying these data to median hourly earnings leads to estimated after tax earnings of about $ 10.92 per hour. This figure was used to value both lost unpaid work time and lost leisure time in the Enhanced COI. It was also a component of the value of the lost caregiver time.

A second measure was used to value lost unpaid work time for the Traditional COI. The value is half of the after tax wage, or about $ 5.46 per hour. The use of 50 percent of the wage rate is consistent with the common practice in the human capital literature of valuing nonmarket work time at the market rate for domestic workers21. This literature uses replacement costs as a measure of the productivity of nonmarket work, rather than focusing on the opportunity costs ( or utility loss) for the individual who chooses to engage in nonmarket work. The median weekly earnings of private household workers in the service industry were $ 261 per week in 2000, about 45 percent of the median weekly earnings of $ 576 for all workers ( U. S. Census Bureau Table 621). Private household workers include childcare workers, cleaners, and servants. The Traditional COI does not include values for lost leisure time or lost productivity. The results of these calculations are reported in Exhibit L. 8 below. Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 L 12 Exhibit L. 8 Per Hour Dollar Values Time Loss Category Basis for Estimate of Value Per Hour Dollar Value ( rounded)

Lost work time Median gross ( pre tax) wage plus benefits $ 18.47 Lost unpaid work day and leisure time ( Enhanced COI) Median after tax wage $ 10.92 Lost unpaid work time ( Traditional COI) Half the median after tax wage $ 5.46 Note: Rounded data are shown here, but full precision was used in all calculations. Sources: Derived from U. S. Census Bureau 2000, U. S. Census Bureau 2001, and U. S. Census Bureau March 2002.

Exhibit L. 9 multiplies these dollar per hour values by the time allocations ( rounded data are presented in Exhibit L. 7) to determine the weighted average value of time per hour and per day.

Exhibit L. 9 Value of Time Enhanced COI Time Loss Category Hours Per Day of Illness Per Hour Value Per Day Value ( weighted by time)

Lost Work Time 3.505 $ 18.474 $ 64.75 Lost Unpaid Work Time 2.183 $ 10.915 $ 23.83 Lost Leisure Time 10.312 $ 10.915 $ 112.56 Subtotal 16.000 Lost Caregiver Day Sum of weighted lost paid and unpaid work and leisure days $ 201.14 Traditional COI Time Loss Category Hours Per Day of Illness Per Hour Value Per Day Value ( weighted by time)

Lost Work Day 3.505 $ 18.474 $ 64.75 Lost Unpaid Work Day 2.183 $ 5.458 $ 11.91 Subtotal 5.688 Lost Caregiver Day Sum of weighted lost paid and unpaid work days $ 76.66 Note: Rounded data are shown here, but full precision was used in all calculations.

Source: Exhibits L. 7 and L. 8. Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 L 13 L. 8 Lost Productivity ( Enhanced COI Only)

Time losses associated with nonfatal cases of cryptosporidiosis may include ( 1) a reduction in time ( hours) engaged in normal activities and ( 2) an additional loss of productivity ( or effectiveness) that occurs even when the ill individual continues to engage in normal activities. Reductions in time ( or hours) would result, for example, when an ill individual spends time on doctor visits, bed rest, or in the hospital rather than engaging in normal work and nonwork activities. Additional losses in productivity occur when the individual continues to engage in normal activities, but is less productive or finds them less enjoyable due to illness. In this Economic Analysis, the Enhanced COI includes estimates for lost productivity, but the Traditional COI does not.

The estimate used for lost productivity assumes that time spent in normal activities is 30 percent less productive than it would be normally, i. e., an individual produces 30 percent less per unit of time engaged in market or nonmarket work, and is 30 percent less effective at leisure activities. Furthermore, the best estimate assumes that the dollar value ( i. e., the utility loss, estimated based on opportunity costs) of this reduction is equal to the reduction in productivity multiplied by the relevant dollar per hour value ( from Exhibit L. 9 above). In other words, the 30 percent loss in productivity is multiplied by $ 64.75 per day to estimate the value of reduced productivity while at work, and by $ 23.83 per day to estimate the value of reduced productivity while engaged in unpaid work, and by $ 112.56 per day for leisure activities. As noted earlier, the value of sleep time is conservatively estimated as " zero" as the effect of illness on sleep time is not quantified in this analysis.

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

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

This question was followed by a bounded multiple choice question regarding the percent decrease in normal capacity while working with the illness. The researchers found that respondents identified as workers reported a 30.4 percent loss, while those identified as homemakers reported a 34.0 percent loss ( Harrington et al. ( 1991), p. 103). For the analysis of cryptosporidiosis contained in this report, these values are rounded to 30 percent. These losses are to the employer for paid work time, and to the individual for nonpaid work.

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

The effects of giardiasis are very similar to the effects of cryptosporidiosis, and a review of the literature failed to identify any other recent U. S. studies that report productivity losses for similar gastrointestinal illnesses. The Harrington et al. estimate of an approximately 30 percent reduction appears reasonable based on review of studies estimating productivity losses due to other illnesses, as discussed in more detail in Appendix P. Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 L 14 L. 9 Estimates for Enhanced and Traditional Costs of Illness The data discussed throughout this appendix are the basis for the Traditional and Enhanced Cost of Illness and are presented in Exhibit L. 10. These estimates are discussed in Chapter 5, section 5.3.1 and are used to estimate morbidity benefits.

Exhibit L. 10 Total Loss Per Case, Enhanced and Traditional COI Loss Category Average Days Lost Per Illness Value Per Day ( weighted by time) Total Loss Per Case Enhanced COI Traditional COI Enhanced COI Traditional COI A x B A x C A B C D E Total $ 744.89 $ 244.62 Direct Medical Costs $ 93.82 $ 93.82 Lost Time Subtotal $ 651.07 $ 150.80 Lost Paid Work Days 1.697 $ 64.75 $ 64.75 $ 109.88 $ 109.88 Lost Unpaid Work Days $ 23.83 $ 11.91 $ 40.44 $ 20.22 Lost Leisure Time $ 112.56  $ 191.02

Lost Caregiver Days 0.270 $ 201.14 $ 76.66 $ 54.31 $ 20.70 Lost Leisure Productivity 4.233 $ 112.56 x 30%  $ 142.94

Lost Productivity at Work ($ 64.75 + $ 23.83) x 30%  $ 112.49

Note: Detail may not calculate to totals due to independent rounding. Source: Exhibits L. 6 and L. 9.

L. 10 Year By Year Estimates for Enhanced and Traditional Costs of Illness Using data presented in Appendix C and Exhibit C. 12, the data presented in Exhibit L. 10 are adjusted to reflect increases in income growth and, therefore, the value of time, each year to 2027. This increase in income growth means that the cost of an illness would increase over time because lost time is recovered by wage rates or their equivalent. The same per capita GDP values used to value mortality in the future ( and presented in Exhibit C. 12), are employed to compute income growth between the future year and the year 2000 ( the baseline year for cost of illness calculations). Using the data from 2000 as the base year, the lost time portion of the cost of illness is adjusted to reflect the annual percent change in income ( the real GDP per capita). In the benefits model, the cases avoided in each year are valued as shown in Exhibit L. 11 ( using unrounded data). Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 L 15 Exhibit L. 11 Yearly Total Loss Per Case, Enhanced and Traditional COI Year Annual Percent Change in Income ( Real GDP per Capita) Lost Time Direct Medical Costs Total Loss Per Case Enhanced COI Traditional COI Enhanced COI Traditional COI ( 1 + A) x previous year ( 1 + A) x previous year B + D C + D A B C D E F 2000 Base Year $ 651.07 $ 150.80 $ 93.82 $ 744.89 $ 244.62 2001 0.1% $ 651.67 $ 150.94 $ 93.82 $ 802.61 $ 244.76 2002  0.1% $ 651.02 $ 150.79 $ 93.82 $ 801.81 $ 244.61 2003 3.2% $ 671.74 $ 155.59 $ 93.82 $ 827.32 $ 249.41 2004 2.4% $ 687.90 $ 159.33 $ 93.82 $ 847.23 $ 253.15 2005 2.4% $ 704.55 $ 163.19 $ 93.82 $ 867.74 $ 257.01 2006 2.4% $ 721.69 $ 167.16 $ 93.82 $ 888.85 $ 260.98 2007 2.4% $ 739.31 $ 171.24 $ 93.82 $ 910.55 $ 265.06 2008 2.3% $ 755.96 $ 175.10 $ 93.82 $ 931.06 $ 268.92 2009 2.3% $ 773.04 $ 179.05 $ 93.82 $ 952.09 $ 272.87 2010 2.3% $ 790.55 $ 183.11 $ 93.82 $ 973.66 $ 276.93 2011 2.3% $ 808.49 $ 187.26 $ 93.82 $ 995.75 $ 281.08 2012 2.3% $ 826.81 $ 191.51 $ 93.82 $ 1,018.32 $ 285.33 2013 2.3% $ 845.55 $ 195.84 $ 93.82 $ 1,041.39 $ 289.66 2014 2.3% $ 864.71 $ 200.28 $ 93.82 $ 1,065.00 $ 294.10 2015 2.3% $ 884.34 $ 204.83 $ 93.82 $ 1,089.17 $ 298.65 2016 2.3% $ 904.44 $ 209.49 $ 93.82 $ 1,113.93 $ 303.31 2017 2.3% $ 925.04 $ 214.26 $ 93.82 $ 1,139.29 $ 308.08 2018 2.3% $ 946.16 $ 219.15 $ 93.82 $ 1,165.30 $ 312.97 2019 2.3% $ 967.82 $ 224.16 $ 93.82 $ 1,191.18 $ 317.98 2020 2.3% $ 990.04 $ 229.31 $ 93.82 $ 1,219.36 $ 323.13 2021 2.3% $ 1,012.81 $ 234.59 $ 93.82 $ 1,247.40 $ 328.41 2022 2.3% $ 1,036.11 $ 239.98 $ 93.82 $ 1,276.09 $ 333.80 Year Annual Percent Change in Income ( Real GDP per Capita) Lost Time Direct Medical Costs Total Loss Per Case Enhanced COI Traditional COI Enhanced COI Traditional COI Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 L 16 2023 2.3% $ 1,059.95 $ 245.50 $ 93.82 $ 1,305.45 $ 339.32 2024 2.3% $ 1,084.35 $ 251.15 $ 93.82 $ 1,335.50 $ 344.97 2025 2.3% $ 1,109.31 $ 256.94 $ 93.82 $ 1,366.25 $ 350.76 2026 2.3% $ 1,134.88 $ 262.86 $ 93.82 $ 1,397.74 $ 356.68 2027 2.3% $ 1,161.07 $ 268.93 $ 93.82 $ 1,429.99 $ 362.75 Note: Full precision is used in model calculations. Rounded data are shown here. The Traditional COI only includes valuation for medical costs and lost work time ( including some portion of unpaid household production). The Enhanced COI also factors in valuations for lost personal time ( non work time) such as child care and homemaking ( to the extent not covered by the traditional COI), time with family, and recreation, and lost productivity at work on days when workers are ill but go to work anyway. Source: Col. A: Exhibit C. 12 Year 2000 and Col. D: Exhibit L. 10. Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 M 1 Appendix M Small Community Surface Water and GWUDI Systems by State This appendix presents the data used to develop Exhibits 7.7 and 7.8, which depict the percent of the population of CWSs served by small surface and GWUDI systems. The numbers are based on the total unlinked population served by CWSs using surface water or GWUDI, derived directly from SDWIS 4th Quarter Year 2000 Freeze data, adjusted for reporting errors in Massachusetts and Montana ( USEPA 2000f).

Exhibit M. 1 Small Community Surface Water and GWUDI Systems by State State Number of Small Community SW & GWUDI Systems Population Served by Small Community SW & GWUDI Systems Population Served by All SW & GWUDI Systems Percent of CWS Population Served by Small Community SW & GWUDI Systems A B C D = B/ C Alabama 178 628,064 3,503,275 17.9%

Alaska 117 107,863 271,337 39.8%

American Samoa 10 2,840 2,840 100.0%

Arizona 34 37,338 3,135,983 1.2%

Arkansas 241 477,532 1,373,810 34.8%

California 520 1,031,906 25,896,708 4.0%

Colorado 220 385,258 3,470,578 11.1%

Connecticut 39 125,441 2,346,030 5.3%

Delaware 1 425 457,225 0.1%

D. C. 0 0 595,000 0.0%

Florida 39 127,394 2,229,070 5.7%

Georgia 132 457,114 5,109,405 8.9%

Guam 1 1,635 88,850 1.8%

Hawaii 13 29,516 87,582 33.7%

Idaho 56 51,287 251,339 20.4%

Illinois 414 933,392 8,229,110 11.3%

Indiana 83 236,918 2,262,499 10.5%

Iowa 125 207,153 1,251,348 16.6% State Number of Small Community SW & GWUDI Systems Population Served by Small Community SW & GWUDI Systems Population Served by All SW & GWUDI Systems Percent of CWS Population Served by Small Community SW & GWUDI Systems A B C D = B/ C Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 M 2 Kansas 308 342,461 1,672,967 20.5%

Kentucky 256 948,948 3,993,419 23.8%

Louisiana 46 161,734 2,066,994 7.8%

Maine 45 100,048 412,960 24.2%

Maryland 52 105,213 4,094,391 2.6%

Massachusetts 56 200,376 6,851,895 2.9%

Michigan 191 602,871 5,328,797 11.3%

Minnesota 21 78,032 1,408,686 5.5%

Mississippi 5 6,943 110,609 6.3%

Missouri 210 388,584 3,143,083 12.4%

Montana 85 126,057 850,453 14.8%

N. Mariana Is. 0 0 50,769 0.0%

Nebraska 12 24,505 555,814 4.4%

Nevada 33 51,986 1,392,181 3.7%

New Hampshire 42 99,409 495,395 20.1%

New Jersey 30 172,144 5,276,474 3.3%

New Mexico 28 46,568 204,868 22.7%

New York 683 1,135,884 13,279,347 8.6%

North Carolina 464 771,762 4,446,374 17.4%

North Dakota 55 57,478 349,257 16.5%

Ohio 219 542,683 6,809,974 8.0%

Oklahoma 588 775,578 2,775,685 27.9%

Oregon 173 276,869 2,455,009 11.3%

Palau 14 11,660 11,660 100.0%

Pennsylvania 360 830,393 8,980,210 9.2%

Puerto Rico 172 233,267 4,378,264 5.3%

Rhode Island 12 56,276 823,380 6.8% State Number of Small Community SW & GWUDI Systems Population Served by Small Community SW & GWUDI Systems Population Served by All SW & GWUDI Systems Percent of CWS Population Served by Small Community SW & GWUDI Systems A B C D = B/ C Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 M 3 South Carolina 126 413,124 2,636,666 15.7%

South Dakota 117 106,791 381,709 28.0%

Tennessee 348 957,072 3,754,947 25.5%

Texas 789 1,695,522 14,161,144 12.0%

Utah 53 125,593 1,616,005 7.8%

Vermont 97 163,141 361,954 45.1%

Virginia 266 521,961 6,033,605 8.7%

Virgin Islands 133 30,473 94,473 32.3%

Washington 159 231,714 2,703,880 8.6%

West Virginia 322 554,247 1,549,200 35.8%

Wisconsin 17 61,678 1,661,338 3.7%

Wyoming 71 100,020 295,789 33.8%

Note: Systems that are wholesalers serving a population of 0 or 1 were not included in this analysis. Unlinked system numbers were used for this analysis. Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal N 1 June 2003 Appendix N Dose Response Infectivity Analysis The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA or the Agency) revised its dose response infectivity analysis in response to the report produced from the December 12, 2001, Science Advisory Board ( SAB) meeting. The SAB report recommended removing the results of the experiment using the UCP isolate of Cryptosporidium parvum from the dose response analysis, based on concerns about the age of the isolate and its poor performance in cell culture assays. Based on discussions with Dr. Cynthia Chappell, author of the study reporting the UCP results, EPA decided to run the analysis in a way to combine distributions that included and excluded the UCP data.

With only two ( IOWA and TAMU ( Texas A& M University) Cryptosporidium isolates) or three ( IOWA, TAMU, and UCP isolates) studies, model uncertainty is a concern. To address model uncertainty, SAB statisticians recommended using a 50/ 50 mix of two models; lognormal and log t ( 3 degrees of freedom). Because the exponential dose response parameter r is a probability, lognormal and log t distributions would have to be constrained to less than 0 ( ln( 1) = 0). To overcome the technical difficulty posed by this truncation, EPA uses logit rather than natural logarithms. The two models are logit normal and logit t. For the logit normal model, logit( r) is normally distributed with parameters mu and sigma. For the logit t model, [ logit( r)  mu] / sigma is t distributed with 3 degrees of freedom.

Thus, the analysis combines the results of four models ( Exhibit N. 1). The analysis samples results from each of these four models equally during iterations in the Monte Carlo benefits model.

Exhibit N. 1 The Four Models Studies Used Logit( r) ~ Normal Logit( r) ~ t3 IOWA, TAMU, and UCP MODEL 1 MODEL 2 IOWA and TAMU MODEL 1b MODEL 2b This is accomplished by using the program BUGS to estimate model parameters ( mu, sigma) for each model. The program produced a large sample ( 10,000 mu sigma pairs) for each model. For each mu sigma pair, the expectation of r ( E( r)) was computed for use in the benefits model.

In each outer loop ( uncertainty) of the benefits model, a single value of E( r) is selected. Daily probability of infection is then computed as 1  e E( r)* vol* V* C, where vol is the volume of water ingested during a day ( liters), V is the infectivity of environmental oocysts ( compared to the infectivity of dosestudy oocysts), and C is the finished water concentration ( oocysts per liter). The values of E( r) are means, and thus the model only includes uncertainty in E( r), and no variability.

The sections that follow provide details on the data, the analysis model ( including priors), Markov Chain Monte Carlo ( MCMC) performance, model output, and output data processing. Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal N 2 June 2003 N. 1 Data Dose response data come from three studies: IOWA, TAMU, and UCP. Exhibits N. 2, N. 3, and N. 4 display the data for the three studies. The IOWA study involved the greatest number of subjects and the greatest range of dose levels. Exhibit N. 2 shows that the fraction infected ( number infected divided by number of subjects) tends to increase with dose and that all those dosed at the highest levels became infected.

Exhibit N. 2 IOWA Study Data i Dose = IOWAd( i) No. of Subjects = IOWAs( i) No. of Infections = IOWAi( i) Percent Infected = IOWAi( i)/ IOWAs( i) 1 30 5 2 40% 2 100 8 4 50% 3 300 3 2 67% 4 500 6 5 83% 5 1,000 2 2 100% 6 10,000 3 3 100% 7 100,000 1 1 100% 8 1,000,000 1 1 100%

Exhibit N. 3 TAMU Study Data k Dose = TAMUd( k) No. of Subjects = TAMUs( k) No. of Infections = TAMUi( k) Percent Infected = TAMUi( k)/ IOWAs( k) 1 10 3 2 67% 2 30 3 2 67% 3 100 3 3 100% 4 500 5 5 100%

Exhibit N. 4 UCP Study Data i Dose = UCPd( j) No. of Subjects = UCPs( j) No. of Infections = UCPi( j) Percent Infected = UCPi( j)/ UCPs( j) 1 500 5 3 60% 2 1,000 3 2 67% 3 5,000 5 2 40% 4 10,000 4 4 100% Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal N 3 June 2003 N. 2 Analysis Models The probability of infection depends on the dose and the isolate's dose response parameter, r:

Pr{ infection | dose} = 1  e  r* dose Subjects given the same dose independently share the same probability of infection. Given S subjects at dose D, the number actually infected is a binomial random variable with parameters S and ( 1  e  r* D).

Different isolates have different dose response parameters. Only two ( or three) isolates were studied; IOWA and TAMU ( and UCP). Their dose response parameters are called IOWA, TAMU, and UCP, respectively. These parameters are assumed to represent a much larger population of doseresponse parameters. Under the logit normal model ( MODEL 1 and MODEL 1b), the distribution of logit( r) is normal with unknown parameters ( mu, phi), where phi is precision, 1/ sigma2. Under the logit t model ( MODEL 2 and MODEL 2b) the distribution of [ logit( r) mu] / phi1/ 2 is Student's t with 3 degrees of freedom.

Prior to reviewing the data, not much could be known about parameters mu and phi for these models. It would be very surprising if mu were to lie outside the range ( 14.2, 2.2) or if phi were to lie outside the range [ 0.04, 100]. If mu were less than  14.2 ( eventually rounded to  14 in the model), then the median value of r would be less than 10 6. If mu were greater than 2.2, then the median value of r would exceed 0.9. It would not be credible for the median value for r ( the probability of infection, given exactly one oocyst ingested) to be outside the range ( 10 6, 0.9).

Regarding phi, it would be unlikely that a 95 percent interval for logit( r) could be much wider than logit( 10 5) to logit( 0.5). This interval is 11.513 logit units wide. If a 2 sigma interval ( containing 68.3 percent of the probability mass) is 10 logit units wide, the corresponding precision, phi, would be 0.04. At the other extreme, it would not be surprising if the precision were very large. A precision of 100 would correspond to a standard deviation of 1/ 10, which would require the relative standard deviation of r to be about 10 percent. Given the differences in isolate sources, history, and handling, it would not be credible that the standard deviation of r could be smaller than this. Therefore, the feasible range for phi is ( 0.04, 100).

Within these ranges, ( 14, and 2.2) for mu and ( 0.04, 100) for phi, it is assumed that mu and sigma could fall anywhere. Rather than construct a more complex prior, the model uses uniform priors on these ranges.

The program code for BUGS for one of the models ( 1b) is shown below as an example. The code for MODEL 2b is almost identical. The difference is that MODEL 2b defines a as dt( mu, phi, df) and c as dt( mu, phi, df), with df = 3. The codes for MODEL1 and MODEL2 include UCP. Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal N 4 June 2003 BUGS program code for MODEL 1b model; Remarks { TAMU < exp( a) / ( 1 + exp( a)) a is the logit of r for TAMU IOWA < exp( c) / ( 1 + exp( c)) c is the logit of r for IOWA for( i in 1 : 4 ) { TAMUr[ i] < 1  exp((  TAMUd[ i]) * TAMU) TAMUr[ i] is the probability of infection in group i TAMUi[ i] ~ dbin( TAMUr[ i], TAMUs[ i]) TAMUi[ i] is the number of infected subjects in group i } for( k in 1 : 8 ) { IOWAr[ k] < 1  exp((  IOWAd[ k]) * IOWA) IOWAr[ k] is the probability of infection in group k IOWAi[ k] ~ dbin( IOWAr[ k], IOWAs[ k]) IOWAi[ k] is the number of infected subjects in group k } mu ~ dunif( 14, 2.2) mu and phi define the normal distribution of logit[ r] phi ~ dunif( 0.04,100) priors for mu and phi are uniform, with feasibility constraints a ~ dnorm( mu, phi) a and c constitute a sample of size 2 from the population c ~ dnorm( mu, phi) }

N. 3 MCMC Performance The output of the models are, as expected, autocorrelated between close runs. Thinning the resulting data essentially removes this autocorrelation. To help determine the needed degree of thinning, autocorrelation plots for the hyperparameters mu and phi were prepared, and these plots are shown in Exhibits N. 5 and N. 6 using MODEL2 as an example. These plots based on a sample size of 100,000 without thinning.

Exhibit N. 5 Autocorrelation Plot Exhibit N. 6 Autocorrelation Plot for mu for phi As can be seen, autocorrelation is not noticeable for phi after a lag of about 20. Thus, thinning to 1 in 20 ( discarding 19 of every 20 mu phi pairs), the program produced a sample of 10,000 mu phi pairs with negligible autocorrelation. Scatterplots ( not shown) of ( mu, phi) also confirmed good mixing.

The program required 200 thinned runs for adapting, so the first 200 ( mu, phi) pairs of each analysis were discarded and not included in the final output set. Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal N 5 June 2003 N. 4 Model Output Exhibits N. 7 through N. 10 provide summary statistics for the model parameters.

Exhibit N. 7 Summary Statistics for MODEL 1 node mean sd MC error 2.5% median 97.5% start sample IOWA 0.005373 0.001633 1.441E 5 0.002758 0.005175 0.009113 201 10000 TAMU 0.05492 0.02883 3.23E 4 0.01651 0.049 0.1267 201 10000 UCP 3.618E 4 1.249E 4 1.181E 6 1.661E 4 3.443E 4 6.51E 4 201 10000 a  2.975 0.5487 0.006085  4.087  2.966  1.93 201 10000 b  7.983 0.348 0.003238  8.703  7.974  7.336 201 10000 c  5.267 0.3065 0.002761  5.891  5.259  4.689 201 10000 deviance 35.99 2.531 0.02395 33.12 35.35 42.63 201 10000 mu  5.41 1.693 0.01733  8.933  5.418  1.944 201 10000 phi 0.2049 0.1777 0.001731 0.04423 0.1497 0.6852 201 10000 Exhibit N. 8 Summary Statistics for MODEL 1b node mean sd MC error 2.5% median 97.5% start sample IOWA 0.005698 0.001723 1.329E 5 0.002902 0.00549 0.009684 201 10000 TAMU 0.05201 0.02825 3.147E 4 0.01373 0.04652 0.1231 201 10000 a  3.048 0.5854 0.006349  4.274  3.02  1.963 201 10000 c  5.207 0.3054 0.002302  5.84  5.199  4.628 201 10000 deviance 17.88 2.464 0.02511 15.61 17.1 24.65 201 10000 mu  4.172 1.606 0.01824  7.71  4.175  0.7443 201 10000 phi 1.004 3.649 0.03863 0.04646 0.3436 4.91 201 10000 Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal N 6 June 2003 Exhibit N. 9 Summary Statistics for MODEL 2 node mean sd MC error 2.5% median 97.5% start sample IOWA 0.005356 0.001639 1.801E 5 0.002744 0.005159 0.009197 201 10000 TAMU 0.05448 0.02828 2.735E 4 0.01607 0.04894 0.1248 201 10000 UCP 3.628E 4 1.234E 4 1.207E 6 1.694E 4 3.452E 4 6.464E 4 201 10000 a  2.983 0.5489 0.00515  4.115  2.967  1.948 201 10000 b  7.979 0.3437 0.00338  8.683  7.971  7.343 201 10000 c  5.271 0.3093 0.003474  5.895  5.262  4.68 201 10000 deviance 35.99 2.547 0.02361 33.1 35.31 42.62 201 10000 mu  5.377 1.761 0.01881  8.987  5.378  1.794 201 10000 phi 0.4139 0.675 0.006507 0.04488 0.2209 2.003 201 10000 Exhibit N. 10 Summary Statistics for MODEL 2b node mean sd MC error 2.5% median 97.5% start sample IOWA 0.005654 0.001741 1.895E 5 0.002916 0.00543 0.009703 201 10000 TAMU 0.05286 0.02882 2.991E 4 0.01462 0.04711 0.1232 201 10000 a  3.028 0.5754 0.006116  4.21  3.007  1.962 201 10000 c  5.216 0.309 0.003382  5.835  5.21  4.626 201 10000 deviance 17.84 2.34 0.02332 15.6 17.12 24.37 201 10000 mu  4.127 1.674 0.01722  7.662  4.159  0.6536 201 10000 phi 2.106 6.273 0.06093 0.04916 0.5134 15.18 201 10000 Ten thousand mu phi ordered pairs were generated for each model ( logit normal and logit t).

Examples of posterior hyperparameter densities are shown for MODEL 1b and MODEL 2b in Exhibits N. 11 through N. 14. The definite peaks of these distributions show that the prior limits for these parameters did not strongly influence the posteriors. Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal N 7 June 2003 Exhibit N. 11 MODEL 1b Exhibit N. 12 MODEL 1b Density Function for mu Density Function for phi Exhbit N. 13 MODEL 2b Exhibit N. 14 MODEL 2b Density Function for mu Density Function for phi Posteriors for isolate specific dose response parameters were similar. For example, Exhibits N. 15 and N. 16 are the densities for IOWA produced by MODEL 1b and MODEL 2b, respectively.

Exhibit N. 15 MODEL 1b Exhibit N. 16 MODEL 2b Density Function for IOWA Density Function for IOWA Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal N 8 June 2003 N. 5 Data Reduction Expected values of r were derived for each mu phi pair using numerical integration. The ordered pairs from each MODEL provided 10,000 estimates of the expectation, named Er1 for MODEL 1 and Er2 for MODEL 2:

Distribution functions for these 10,000 values of E( r) for MODEL 1 and MODEL 2 are displayed as examples in Exhibit N. 17.

Exhibit N. 17 Distribution Functions for E( r)

Mean E( r) for MODEL 1b and MODEL 2b are 0.089 and 0.105, respectively. Mean E( r) for MODEL1 and MODEL 2 were 0.073 and 0.090, respectively. Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 O 1 Appendix O Assigning LT2ESWTR Costs and Benefits This appendix presents data used to calculate the costs and benefits associated with full implementation of the LT2ESWTR. In order to extract cost and benefit data from the model and present them in comparable terms, it is necessary to calculate the annualized value of all costs and benefits over the lifetime of the implementation schedule. LT2ESWTR implementation will occur over several years as States and public water systems ( PWSs) learn the requirements of the rule, train their staffs, perform initial monitoring, and add any treatment necessary to comply with the rule. A 25 year horizon is used for this economic analysis ( EA) and the EA for the Stage 2 Disinfection Byproducts Rule. This time frame accounts for both the 20 year life for technologies considered in this analysis, and the 5 year period that systems have to comply with treatment requirements.

O. 1 Benefit and Cost Distributions Both costs and benefits are presented as distributions of values. The benefits model calculates one distribution for each of the 3 occurrence data sets   Information Collection Rule ( ICR), Information Rule Supplemental Survey Large ( ICRSSL), and Information Rule Supplemental Survey Medium ( ICRSSM). The cost model generates 5 distributions from the 3 occurrence data sets   3 representing the means of each data set and 2 representing the bounds. Exhibit O. 1 illustrates the five cost distributions ( ICR, ICRSSM, ICRSSL, High, and Low) that were generated and what they represent in reference to occurrence. Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 O 2 Occurrence Distributions Cost Distributions ICRSSL ICRSSM ICR 5th percentile 95th percentile Mean Low ICRSSL ICRSSM ICR High Mean Mean Exhibit O. 1 Derivation of Cost Distributions The three primary cost distributions; ICR, ICRSSL, and ICRSSM, are derived from the binning percentage associated with the mean of each occurrence distribution ( for binning percentages see section 4.5.6). To more fully describe the uncertainty surrounding occurrence, two more distributions were considered. The Low cost distribution is generated from the binning percentage at the 5th percentile of the modeled ICRSSL occurrence distribution. The High cost distribution is generated from the 95th percentile of the modeled ICR occurrence distribution. This appendix presents the means, 5th percentiles, and 95th percentiles of all five cost distributions to characterize costs ( Exhibits 3 and 4). Benefits are characterized by three distributions ( Exhibits 5 and 6).

O. 2 Benefit and Cost Values Costs and benefits models output values that are representative of the value they would have if they were all incurred immediately. These values are referred to as the value at full implementation throughout this appendix. In order to be able to compare these values properly, the costs and benefits must be distributed over the period in which they are expected to occur and the costs must be brought into comparable terms.

Exhibits O. 2a c show the schedules over which the various components of costs and benefits are distributed ( for implementation and monitoring, treatment, and State, respectively). Most of the cost numbers are one time costs that are incurred only once during the 25 year period examined. The data given in Exhibits O. 2a c are the percentage of the value at full implementation expected to be incurred in the given year. In general, it is assumed that such expenses are evenly distributed over the time frame Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal June 2003 O 3 Mean 5th Percentile 95th Percentile allowed by the regulation. For example, E. coli monitoring for large systems must be completed in one year, so 100 percent of these costs is applied to one year. Installation of covers or treatment for uncovered reservoirs, however, has a five year period in which to comply. Therefore, it is assumed that 20 percent of the costs will be incurred in each of those five years.

Operation and maintenance ( O& M) and compliance monitoring costs, as well as benefits, are annual values expected to be incurred every year once treatment is installed and operational. The value at full implementation represents the annual cost once all plants have treatment fully installed and operational. As shown in Exhibit O. 2b, the schedules for O& M costs and benefits are delayed one year from the treatment schedule to allow for installation and implementation of the technology.

Once the costs and benefits are distributed across the 25 year time frame, they must be brought into comparable terms. This is done in two ways. The first is by expressing the values as present values using a social discount rate. The second is by taking the present value and annualizing it.

The present value of a cost or benefit incurred in a given year is given by the following formula:

PV = V( t) / ( 1 + R) t Where: t = The number of years from the reference period R = Social discount rate V( t) = The cost occurring t years from the reference period The total present value of a given component is then the sum of the present value calculated for each year from 1 to 25.

The formula for converting the present value into an annualized value is as follows:

A = PV* R( 1 + R) 25/[( 1 + R) 25  1]

Where: A = Annualized value PV = Present value R = Social discount rate Exhibits O. 3 through O. 6 show the nominal ( value at full implementation, undiscounted), present value ( Year 2000$), and annualized value for each component of costs and benefits. The present and annualized values are calculated at both a 3 and 7 percent social discount rate.

For all treatment and benefit values, the exhibits list the mean, 5th percentile, and 95th percentile values according to the picture below:

Exhibits O. 7a O. 7d show the costs and benefits according to the estimated year incurred by the systems and States. Exhibit O. 2a Implementation and Monitoring Schedule for Assigning LT2ESWTR Cost and Benefits Year Small System Implementation Small System 1st Round E.

coli Monitoring Small System 1st Round Crypto Monitoring Small System 2nd Round E.

coli Monitoring Small System 2nd Round Crypto Monitoring Small System Benchmarking Large System Implementation Large System 1st Round Monitoring Large System 2nd Round Monitoring Large System Benchmarking A B C D E F G H I J 2003 100%

2004 50%

2005 100% 50%

2006 100%

2007 50% 20%

2008 50% 20%

2009 20% 20%

2010 20% 20%

2011 20% 20%

2012 20% 25%

2013 20% 50%

2014 25%

2015 100%

2016 50%

2017 50%

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Notes:

1. Assumes a July 2003 final rule.

2. Assumes benefits and O& M costs lag 1 year from the expenditure of capital costs.

Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal O 4 June 2003 Exhibit O. 2b Treatment Schedule for Assigning LT2ESWTR Cost and Benefits Year Small System Filtered Treatment Capital Small System Filtered Treatment O& M Small System Unfiltered Treatment Capital Small System Unfiltered Treatment O& M Small System Uncovered Reservoirs Capital Small Systems Uncovered Reservoirs O& M Large Systems Filtered Treatment Capital Large Systems Filtered Treatment O& M Large Systems Unfiltered Treatment Capital Large Systems Treatment Unfiltered O& M Large Systems Uncovered Reservoirs Capital Large Systems Uncovered Reservoirs O& M Illnesses Avoided Small Systems Illnesses Avoided Large Systems Deaths Avoided Small Systems Deaths Avoided Large Systems A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P 2003 2004 20% 20%

2005 20% 20% 20% 20%

2006 20% 40% 20% 40%

2007 20% 60% 10% 10% 20% 60%

2008 20% 80% 20% 10% 20% 10% 20% 80% 10% 10%

2009 10% 10% 100% 30% 30% 30% 30% 100% 30% 30%

2010 20% 10% 20% 10% 100% 20% 60% 20% 60% 100% 10% 60% 10% 60%

2011 30% 30% 30% 30% 100% 20% 80% 20% 80% 100% 30% 80% 30% 80%

2012 20% 60% 20% 60% 100% 100% 100% 100% 60% 100% 60% 100%

2013 20% 80% 20% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100% 80% 100% 80% 100%

2014 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

2015 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

2016 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

2017 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

2018 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

2019 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

2020 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

2021 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

2022 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

2023 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

2024 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

2025 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

2026 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

2027 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Notes:

1. Assumes a July 2003 final rule.

2. Assumes benefits and O& M costs lag 1 year from the expenditure of capital costs.

Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal O 5 June 2003 Exhibit O. 2c State Schedule for Assigning LT2ESWTR Costs and Benefits Year Implementation Small E. coli Monitoring Review 1st Round Small Crypto Monitoring Review 1st Round Medium/

Large Monitoring Review 2nd Round Small E. coli Monitoring Review 2nd Round Small Crypto Monitoring Review 2nd Round Small System Benchmarking Large System Benchmarking Small System Technology Monitoring Large System Technology Monitoring A B C D E F G H I J 2003 50%

2004 50%

2005 2006 2007 100% 20%

2008 100% 20% 10%

2009 20% 20% 30%

2010 20% 20% 10% 60%

2011 20% 20% 30% 80%

2012 20% 60% 100%

2013 20% 80% 100%

2014 100% 100% 100%

2015 100% 100%

2016 100% 100% 100%

2017 100% 100% 100%

2018 100% 100%

2019 100% 100%

2020 100% 100%

2021 100% 100%

2022 100% 100%

2023 100% 100%

2024 100% 100%

2025 100% 100%

2026 100% 100%

2027 100% 100%

Notes:

1. Assumes a July 2003 final rule.

2. Assumes benefits and O& M costs lag 1 year from the expenditure of capital costs.

Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal O 6 June 2003 Exhibit O. 3a Nominal Implementation and Monitoring Costs of LT2ESWTR ($ Millions, 2000$)

Occurrence Distribution Rule Alternative Small System Implementation Small System 1st Round E.

coli Monitoring Small System 1st Round Crypto Monitoring Small System 2nd Round E.

coli Monitoring Small System 2nd Round Crypto Monitoring Small System Benchmarking Large System Implementation Large System 1st Round Monitoring Large System 2nd Round Monitoring Large System Benchmarking Total Nontreatment Costs A B C D E F G H I J K ICR A1 1.23 $

$

$

$

$ 0.35 $ 0.33 $

$

$ 0.25 $ 2.15 $

A2 1.23 $ 10.65 $ 81.61 $ 8.43 $ 65.91 $ 0.11 $ 0.33 $ 26.88 $ 18.50 $ 0.09 $ 213.75 $

A3 1.23 $ 10.65 $ 28.40 $ 9.22 $ 25.12 $ 0.06 $ 0.33 $ 26.88 $ 19.29 $ 0.08 $ 121.26 $

A3 UV90 10B 1.23 $ 10.65 $ 28.40 $ 9.21 $ 25.08 $ 0.06 $ 0.33 $ 26.88 $ 19.15 $ 0.08 $ 121.08 $

A4 1.23 $ 10.65 $ 24.73 $ 9.77 $ 23.16 $ 0.02 $ 0.33 $ 26.88 $ 23.84 $ 0.04 $ 120.65 $

ICRSSL A1 1.23 $

$

$

$

$ 0.35 $ 0.33 $

$

$ 0.25 $ 2.15 $

A2 1.23 $ 10.65 $ 81.61 $ 9.37 $ 71.81 $ 0.06 $ 0.33 $ 26.88 $ 21.10 $ 0.06 $ 223.11 $

A3 1.23 $ 10.65 $ 18.25 $ 9.95 $ 17.04 $ 0.02 $ 0.33 $ 26.88 $ 22.01 $ 0.05 $ 106.42 $

A3 UV90 10B 1.23 $ 10.65 $ 18.25 $ 9.95 $ 17.04 $ 0.02 $ 0.33 $ 26.88 $ 21.97 $ 0.05 $ 106.37 $

A4 1.23 $ 10.65 $ 13.06 $ 10.10 $ 12.38 $ 0.01 $ 0.33 $ 26.88 $ 25.62 $ 0.02 $ 100.27 $

ICRSSM A1 1.23 $

$

$

$

$ 0.35 $ 0.33 $

$

$ 0.25 $ 2.15 $

A2 1.23 $ 10.65 $ 81.61 $ 9.14 $ 70.07 $ 0.07 $ 0.33 $ 26.88 $ 20.04 $ 0.07 $ 220.10 $

A3 1.23 $ 10.65 $ 22.20 $ 9.84 $ 20.50 $ 0.03 $ 0.33 $ 26.88 $ 21.00 $ 0.07 $ 112.71 $

A3 UV90 10B 1.23 $ 10.65 $ 22.20 $ 9.83 $ 20.49 $ 0.03 $ 0.33 $ 26.88 $ 20.93 $ 0.07 $ 112.63 $

A4 1.23 $ 10.65 $ 17.55 $ 10.06 $ 16.56 $ 0.02 $ 0.33 $ 26.88 $ 25.13 $ 0.02 $ 108.43 $

High A3 1.23 $ 10.65 $ 31.42 $ 9.37 $ 27.65 $ 0.06 $ 0.33 $ 26.88 $ 18.55 $ 0.09 $ 126.23 $

Low A3 1.23 $ 10.65 $ 11.02 $ 10.06 $ 10.40 $ 0.02 $ 0.33 $ 26.88 $ 23.80 $ 0.03 $ 94.42 $

Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal O 7 June 2003 Exhibit O. 3b Present Value of Implementation and Monitoring Costs of LT2ESWTR, at 3 Percent ($ Millions, 2000$)

Occurrence Distribution Rule Alternative Small System Implementation Small System 1st Round E.

coli Monitoring Small System 1st Round Crypto Monitoring Small System 2nd Round E.

coli Monitoring Small System 2nd Round Crypto Monitoring Small System Benchmarking Large System Implementation Large System 1st Round Monitoring Large System 2nd Round Monitoring Large System Benchmarking Total Nontreatment Costs A B C D E F G H I J K ICR A1 1.16 $

$

$

$

$ 0.27 $ 0.33 $

$

$ 0.21 $ 1.97 $

A2 1.16 $ 9.75 $ 71.46 $ 5.91 $ 44.23 $ 0.09 $ 0.33 $ 25.71 $ 13.77 $ 0.07 $ 172.48 $

A3 1.16 $ 9.75 $ 24.87 $ 6.47 $ 16.85 $ 0.05 $ 0.33 $ 25.71 $ 14.36 $ 0.07 $ 99.61 $

A3 UV90 10B 1.16 $ 9.75 $ 24.87 $ 6.46 $ 16.83 $ 0.05 $ 0.33 $ 25.71 $ 14.25 $ 0.07 $ 99.48 $

A4 1.16 $ 9.75 $ 21.65 $ 6.85 $ 15.54 $ 0.02 $ 0.33 $ 25.71 $ 17.75 $ 0.03 $ 98.79 $

ICRSSL A1 1.16 $

$

$

$

$ 0.27 $ 0.33 $

$

$ 0.21 $ 1.97 $

A2 1.16 $ 9.75 $ 71.46 $ 6.57 $ 48.19 $ 0.05 $ 0.33 $ 25.71 $ 15.71 $ 0.05 $ 178.98 $

A3 1.16 $ 9.75 $ 15.98 $ 6.98 $ 11.44 $ 0.02 $ 0.33 $ 25.71 $ 16.38 $ 0.05 $ 87.79 $

A3 UV90 10B 1.16 $ 9.75 $ 15.98 $ 6.98 $ 11.43 $ 0.02 $ 0.33 $ 25.71 $ 16.35 $ 0.05 $ 87.75 $

A4 1.16 $ 9.75 $ 11.43 $ 7.08 $ 8.30 $ 0.01 $ 0.33 $ 25.71 $ 19.07 $ 0.01 $ 82.86 $

ICRSSM A1 1.16 $

$

$

$

$ 0.27 $ 0.33 $

$

$ 0.21 $ 1.97 $

A2 1.16 $ 9.75 $ 71.46 $ 6.41 $ 47.02 $ 0.06 $ 0.33 $ 25.71 $ 14.91 $ 0.06 $ 176.87 $

A3 1.16 $ 9.75 $ 19.44 $ 6.90 $ 13.75 $ 0.02 $ 0.33 $ 25.71 $ 15.63 $ 0.05 $ 92.75 $

A3 UV90 10B 1.16 $ 9.75 $ 19.44 $ 6.90 $ 13.75 $ 0.02 $ 0.33 $ 25.71 $ 15.58 $ 0.06 $ 92.69 $

A4 1.16 $ 9.75 $ 15.36 $ 7.05 $ 11.11 $ 0.01 $ 0.33 $ 25.71 $ 18.71 $ 0.02 $ 89.22 $

High A3 1.16 $ 9.75 $ 27.51 $ 6.57 $ 18.55 $ 0.05 $ 0.33 $ 25.71 $ 13.80 $ 0.08 $ 103.52 $

Low A3 1.16 $ 9.75 $ 9.65 $ 7.06 $ 6.98 $ 0.01 $ 0.33 $ 25.71 $ 17.71 $ 0.03 $ 78.39 $

Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal O 8 June 2003 Exhibit O. 3c Present Value of Implementation and Monitoring Costs of LT2ESWTR, at 7 Percent ($ Millions, 2000$)

Occurrence Distribution Rule Alternative Small System Implementation Small System 1st Round E.

coli Monitoring Small System 1st Round Crypto Monitoring Small System 2nd Round E. coli Monitoring Small System 2nd Round Crypto Monitoring Small System Benchmarking Large System Implementation Large System 1st Round Monitoring Large System 2nd Round Monitoring Large System Benchmarking Total Nontreatment Costs A B C D E F G H I J K ICR A1 1.07 $

$

$

$

$ 0.20 $ 0.33 $

$

$ 0.17 $ 1.77 $

A2 1.07 $ 8.70 $ 60.23 $ 3.74 $ 26.46 $ 0.06 $ 0.33 $ 24.30 $ 9.42 $ 0.06 $ 134.36 $

A3 1.07 $ 8.70 $ 20.96 $ 4.10 $ 10.08 $ 0.03 $ 0.33 $ 24.30 $ 9.82 $ 0.06 $ 79.44 $

A3 UV90 10B 1.07 $ 8.70 $ 20.96 $ 4.09 $ 10.07 $ 0.03 $ 0.33 $ 24.30 $ 9.75 $ 0.06 $ 79.35 $

A4 1.07 $ 8.70 $ 18.25 $ 4.34 $ 9.30 $ 0.01 $ 0.33 $ 24.30 $ 12.14 $ 0.03 $ 78.45 $

ICRSSL A1 1.07 $

$

$

$

$ 0.20 $ 0.33 $

$

$ 0.17 $ 1.77 $

A2 1.07 $ 8.70 $ 60.23 $ 4.16 $ 28.83 $ 0.03 $ 0.33 $ 24.30 $ 10.74 $ 0.04 $ 138.43 $

A3 1.07 $ 8.70 $ 13.47 $ 4.42 $ 6.84 $ 0.01 $ 0.33 $ 24.30 $ 11.20 $ 0.04 $ 70.37 $

A3 UV90 10B 1.07 $ 8.70 $ 13.47 $ 4.42 $ 6.84 $ 0.01 $ 0.33 $ 24.30 $ 11.18 $ 0.04 $ 70.35 $

A4 1.07 $ 8.70 $ 9.64 $ 4.48 $ 4.97 $ 0.01 $ 0.33 $ 24.30 $ 13.04 $ 0.01 $ 66.54 $

ICRSSM A1 1.07 $

$

$

$

$ 0.20 $ 0.33 $

$

$ 0.17 $ 1.77 $

A2 1.07 $ 8.70 $ 60.23 $ 4.06 $ 28.13 $ 0.04 $ 0.33 $ 24.30 $ 10.20 $ 0.05 $ 137.10 $

A3 1.07 $ 8.70 $ 16.38 $ 4.37 $ 8.23 $ 0.02 $ 0.33 $ 24.30 $ 10.69 $ 0.04 $ 74.12 $

A3 UV90 10B 1.07 $ 8.70 $ 16.38 $ 4.37 $ 8.22 $ 0.02 $ 0.33 $ 24.30 $ 10.65 $ 0.04 $ 74.08 $

A4 1.07 $ 8.70 $ 12.95 $ 4.47 $ 6.65 $ 0.01 $ 0.33 $ 24.30 $ 12.79 $ 0.02 $ 71.27 $

High A3 1.07 $ 8.70 $ 23.19 $ 4.16 $ 11.10 $ 0.04 $ 0.33 $ 24.30 $ 9.44 $ 0.06 $ 82.38 $

Low A3 1.07 $ 8.70 $ 8.13 $ 4.47 $ 4.18 $ 0.01 $ 0.33 $ 24.30 $ 12.11 $ 0.02 $ 63.31 $

Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal O 9 June 2003 Exhibit O. 3d Annualized Implementation and Monitoring Costs of LT2ESWTR, at 3 Percent ($ Millions, 2000$)

Occurrence Distribution Rule Alternative Small System Implementation Small System 1st Round E.

coli Monitoring Small System 1st Round Crypto Monitoring Small System 2nd Round E.

coli Monitoring Small System 2nd Round Crypto Monitoring Small System Benchmarking Large System Implementation Large System 1st Round Monitoring Large System 2nd Round Monitoring Large System Benchmarking Total Nontreatment Costs A B C D E F G H I J K ICR A1 0.07 $

$

$

$

$ 0.02 $ 0.02 $

$

$ 0.01 $ 0.11 $

A2 0.07 $ 0.56 $ 4.10 $ 0.34 $ 2.54 $ 0.00 $ 0.02 $ 1.48 $ 0.79 $ 0.00 $ 9.91 $

A3 0.07 $ 0.56 $ 1.43 $ 0.37 $ 0.97 $ 0.00 $ 0.02 $ 1.48 $ 0.82 $ 0.00 $ 5.72 $

A3 UV90 10B 0.07 $ 0.56 $ 1.43 $ 0.37 $ 0.97 $ 0.00 $ 0.02 $ 1.48 $ 0.82 $ 0.00 $ 5.71 $

A4 0.07 $ 0.56 $ 1.24 $ 0.39 $ 0.89 $ 0.00 $ 0.02 $ 1.48 $ 1.02 $ 0.00 $ 5.67 $

ICRSSL A1 0.07 $

$

$

$

$ 0.02 $ 0.02 $

$

$ 0.01 $ 0.11 $

A2 0.07 $ 0.56 $ 4.10 $ 0.38 $ 2.77 $ 0.00 $ 0.02 $ 1.48 $ 0.90 $ 0.00 $ 10.28 $

A3 0.07 $ 0.56 $ 0.92 $ 0.40 $ 0.66 $ 0.00 $ 0.02 $ 1.48 $ 0.94 $ 0.00 $ 5.04 $

A3 UV90 10B 0.07 $ 0.56 $ 0.92 $ 0.40 $ 0.66 $ 0.00 $ 0.02 $ 1.48 $ 0.94 $ 0.00 $ 5.04 $

A4 0.07 $ 0.56 $ 0.66 $ 0.41 $ 0.48 $ 0.00 $ 0.02 $ 1.48 $ 1.09 $ 0.00 $ 4.76 $

ICRSSM A1 0.07 $

$

$

$

$ 0.02 $ 0.02 $

$

$ 0.01 $ 0.11 $

A2 0.07 $ 0.56 $ 4.10 $ 0.37 $ 2.70 $ 0.00 $ 0.02 $ 1.48 $ 0.86 $ 0.00 $ 10.16 $

A3 0.07 $ 0.56 $ 1.12 $ 0.40 $ 0.79 $ 0.00 $ 0.02 $ 1.48 $ 0.90 $ 0.00 $ 5.33 $

A3 UV90 10B 0.07 $ 0.56 $ 1.12 $ 0.40 $ 0.79 $ 0.00 $ 0.02 $ 1.48 $ 0.89 $ 0.00 $ 5.32 $

A4 0.07 $ 0.56 $ 0.88 $ 0.41 $ 0.64 $ 0.00 $ 0.02 $ 1.48 $ 1.07 $ 0.00 $ 5.12 $

High A3 0.07 $ 0.56 $ 1.58 $ 0.38 $ 1.07 $ 0.00 $ 0.02 $ 1.48 $ 0.79 $ 0.00 $ 5.94 $

Low A3 0.07 $ 0.56 $ 0.55 $ 0.41 $ 0.40 $ 0.00 $ 0.02 $ 1.48 $ 1.02 $ 0.00 $ 4.50 $

Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal O 10 June 2003 Exhibit O. 3e Annualized Implementation and Monitoring Costs of LT2ESWTR, at 7 Percent ($ Millions, 2000$)

Occurrence Distribution Rule Alternative Small System Implementation Small System 1st Round E.

coli Monitoring Small System 1st Round Crypto Monitoring Small System 2nd Round E. coli Monitoring Small System 2nd Round Crypto Monitoring Small System Benchmarking Large System Implementation Large System 1st Round Monitoring Large System 2nd Round Monitoring Large System Benchmarking Total Nontreatment Costs A B C D E F G H I J K ICR A1 0.09 $

$

$

$

$ 0.017 $ 0.03 $

$

$ 0.01 $ 0.15 $

A2 0.09 $ 0.75 $ 5.17 $ 0.32 $ 2.27 $ 0.006 $ 0.03 $ 2.08 $ 0.81 $ 0.01 $ 11.53 $

A3 0.09 $ 0.75 $ 1.80 $ 0.35 $ 0.87 $ 0.003 $ 0.03 $ 2.08 $ 0.84 $ 0.00 $ 6.82 $

A3 UV90 10B 0.09 $ 0.75 $ 1.80 $ 0.35 $ 0.86 $ 0.003 $ 0.03 $ 2.08 $ 0.84 $ 0.00 $ 6.81 $

A4 0.09 $ 0.75 $ 1.57 $ 0.37 $ 0.80 $ 0.001 $ 0.03 $ 2.08 $ 1.04 $ 0.00 $ 6.73 $

ICRSSL A1 0.09 $

$

$

$

$ 0.017 $ 0.03 $

$

$ 0.01 $ 0.15 $

A2 0.09 $ 0.75 $ 5.17 $ 0.36 $ 2.47 $ 0.003 $ 0.03 $ 2.08 $ 0.92 $ 0.00 $ 11.88 $

A3 0.09 $ 0.75 $ 1.16 $ 0.38 $ 0.59 $ 0.001 $ 0.03 $ 2.08 $ 0.96 $ 0.00 $ 6.04 $

A3 UV90 10B 0.09 $ 0.75 $ 1.16 $ 0.38 $ 0.59 $ 0.001 $ 0.03 $ 2.08 $ 0.96 $ 0.00 $ 6.04 $

A4 0.09 $ 0.75 $ 0.83 $ 0.38 $ 0.43 $ 0.001 $ 0.03 $ 2.08 $ 1.12 $ 0.00 $ 5.71 $

ICRSSM A1 0.09 $

$

$

$

$ 0.017 $ 0.03 $

$

$ 0.01 $ 0.15 $

A2 0.09 $ 0.75 $ 5.17 $ 0.35 $ 2.41 $ 0.004 $ 0.03 $ 2.08 $ 0.87 $ 0.00 $ 11.76 $

A3 0.09 $ 0.75 $ 1.41 $ 0.37 $ 0.71 $ 0.002 $ 0.03 $ 2.08 $ 0.92 $ 0.00 $ 6.36 $

A3 UV90 10B 0.09 $ 0.75 $ 1.41 $ 0.37 $ 0.71 $ 0.002 $ 0.03 $ 2.08 $ 0.91 $ 0.00 $ 6.36 $

A4 0.09 $ 0.75 $ 1.11 $ 0.38 $ 0.57 $ 0.001 $ 0.03 $ 2.08 $ 1.10 $ 0.00 $ 6.12 $

High A3 0.09 $ 0.75 $ 1.99 $ 0.36 $ 0.95 $ 0.003 $ 0.03 $ 2.08 $ 0.81 $ 0.01 $ 7.07 $

Low A3 0.09 $ 0.75 $ 0.70 $ 0.38 $ 0.36 $ 0.001 $ 0.03 $ 2.08 $ 1.04 $ 0.00 $ 5.43 $

Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal O 11 June 2003 Exhibit O. 4a Nominal Treatment Costs of LT2ESWTR ($ Millions, 2000$)

Occurrence Distribution Rule Alternative Small System Filtered Treatment Capital Small System Filtered Treatment O& M Small System Unfiltered Treatment Capital Small System Unfiltered Treatment O& M Small System Uncovered Reservoirs Capital Small Systems Uncovered Reservoirs O& M Large Systems Filtered Treatment Capital Large Systems Filtered Treatment O& M Large Systems Unfiltered Treatment Capital Large Systems Treatment Unfiltered O& M Large Systems Uncovered Reservoirs Capital Large Systems Uncovered Reservoirs O& M Total Treatment Costs A B C D E F G H I J K L M ICR A1  Mean 5th, 95th $ 522.72 $ 37.40 $ 11.82 $ 0.72 $ 0.07 $ 0.002 $ 4,856.38 $ 145.95 $ 181.02 $ 4.89 $ 64.28 $ 2.52 $ 5,827.77 440.18 607.52 34.98 39.82 9.98 13.68 0.67 0.77 0.05 0.08 $ 0.002 $ 0.002 4,191.18 5,541.11 138.05 153.75 149.77 213.05 4.54 5.25 52.09 76.56 2.32 2.72 5,023.83 6,654.32 A2 $ 170.44 $ 13.06 $ 11.82 $ 0.72 $ 0.07 $ 0.002 $ 1,497.25 $ 43.59 $ 181.02 $ 4.89 $ 64.28 $ 2.52 $ 1,989.66 150.04 190.72 12.45 13.66 9.98 13.68 0.67 0.77 0.05 0.08 $ 0.002 $ 0.002 1,287.99 1,713.35 41.60 45.58 149.77 213.05 4.54 5.25 52.09 76.56 2.32 2.72 1,711.53 2,275.43 A3 $ 110.48 $ 8.52 $ 11.82 $ 0.72 $ 0.07 $ 0.002 $ 1,288.48 $ 35.05 $ 181.02 $ 4.89 $ 64.28 $ 2.52 $ 1,707.86 98.73 122.30 8.12 8.90 9.98 13.68 0.67 0.77 0.05 0.08 $ 0.002 $ 0.002 1,099.15 1,476.97 33.38 36.72 149.77 213.05 4.54 5.25 52.09 76.56 2.32 2.72 1,458.82 1,957.01 A3 UV90 10B $ 115.17 $ 8.52 $ 11.82 $ 0.72 $ 0.07 $ 0.002 $ 1,436.53 $ 41.48 $ 181.02 $ 4.89 $ 64.28 $ 2.52 $ 1,867.03 103.22 127.36 8.13 8.92 9.98 13.68 0.67 0.77 0.05 0.08 $ 0.002 $ 0.002 1,236.54 1,634.37 39.22 43.70 149.77 213.05 4.54 5.25 52.09 76.56 2.32 2.72 1,606.54 2,126.47 A4 $ 53.67 $ 4.15 $ 11.82 $ 0.72 $ 0.07 $ 0.002 $ 481.56 $ 16.61 $ 181.02 $ 4.89 $ 64.28 $ 2.52 $ 821.32 46.75 60.59 3.89 4.41 9.98 13.68 0.67 0.77 0.05 0.08 $ 0.002 $ 0.002 413.35 551.93 15.97 17.24 149.77 213.05 4.54 5.25 52.09 76.56 2.32 2.72 699.41 946.28 ICRSSL A1 $ 522.72 $ 37.40 $ 11.82 $ 0.72 $ 0.07 $ 0.002 $ 4,856.38 $ 145.95 $ 181.02 $ 4.89 $ 64.28 $ 2.52 $ 5,827.77 440.18 607.52 34.98 39.82 9.98 13.68 0.67 0.77 0.05 0.08 $ 0.002 $ 0.002 4,191.18 5,541.11 138.05 153.75 149.77 213.05 4.54 5.25 52.09 76.56 2.32 2.72 5,023.83 6,654.32 A2 $ 114.48 $ 8.55 $ 11.82 $ 0.72 $ 0.07 $ 0.002 $ 994.76 $ 30.43 $ 181.02 $ 4.89 $ 64.28 $ 2.52 $ 1,413.56 101.84 127.24 8.15 8.95 9.98 13.68 0.67 0.77 0.05 0.08 $ 0.002 $ 0.002 851.23 1,137.84 29.19 31.68 149.77 213.05 4.54 5.25 52.09 76.56 2.32 2.72 1,209.85 1,617.81 A3 $ 56.90 $ 4.37 $ 11.82 $ 0.72 $ 0.07 $ 0.002 $ 770.12 $ 19.88 $ 181.02 $ 4.89 $ 64.28 $ 2.52 $ 1,116.60 49.89 63.87 4.11 4.63 9.98 13.68 0.67 0.77 0.05 0.08 $ 0.002 $ 0.002 655.69 888.16 18.88 20.86 149.77 213.05 4.54 5.25 52.09 76.56 2.32 2.72 948.01 1,289.64 A3 UV90 10B $ 58.08 $ 4.40 $ 11.82 $ 0.72 $ 0.07 $ 0.002 $ 818.04 $ 22.22 $ 181.02 $ 4.89 $ 64.28 $ 2.52 $ 1,168.07 51.05 65.07 4.15 4.66 9.98 13.68 0.67 0.77 0.05 0.08 $ 0.002 $ 0.002 698.68 937.21 21.12 23.32 149.77 213.05 4.54 5.25 52.09 76.56 2.32 2.72 994.45 1,342.37 A4 $ 25.02 $ 1.94 $ 11.82 $ 0.72 $ 0.07 $ 0.002 $ 168.63 $ 7.22 $ 181.02 $ 4.89 $ 64.28 $ 2.52 $ 468.14 21.77 28.28 1.82 2.06 9.98 13.68 0.67 0.77 0.05 0.08 $ 0.002 $ 0.002 145.52 191.80 6.99 7.46 149.77 213.05 4.54 5.25 52.09 76.56 2.32 2.72 395.54 541.71 ICRSSM A1 $ 522.72 $ 37.40 $ 11.82 $ 0.72 $ 0.07 $ 0.002 $ 4,856.38 $ 145.95 $ 181.02 $ 4.89 $ 64.28 $ 2.52 $ 5,827.77 440.18 607.52 34.98 39.82 9.98 13.68 0.67 0.77 0.05 0.08 $ 0.002 $ 0.002 4,191.18 5,541.11 138.05 153.75 149.77 213.05 4.54 5.25 52.09 76.56 2.32 2.72 5,023.83 6,654.32 A2 $ 133.95 $ 10.02 $ 11.82 $ 0.72 $ 0.07 $ 0.002 $ 1,191.34 $ 35.12 $ 181.02 $ 4.89 $ 64.28 $ 2.52 $ 1,635.76 118.86 149.20 9.55 10.48 9.98 13.68 0.67 0.77 0.05 0.08 $ 0.002 $ 0.002 1,019.47 1,362.72 33.62 36.62 149.77 213.05 4.54 5.25 52.09 76.56 2.32 2.72 1,400.95 1,871.14 A3 $ 72.66 $ 5.57 $ 11.82 $ 0.72 $ 0.07 $ 0.002 $ 952.12 $ 24.86 $ 181.02 $ 4.89 $ 64.28 $ 2.52 $ 1,320.53 64.08 81.11 5.26 5.88 9.98 13.68 0.67 0.77 0.05 0.08 $ 0.002 $ 0.002 811.56 1,097.30 23.63 26.06 149.77 213.05 4.54 5.25 52.09 76.56 2.32 2.72 1,123.97 1,522.47 A3 UV90 10B $ 74.43 $ 5.60 $ 11.82 $ 0.72 $ 0.07 $ 0.002 $ 1,023.36 $ 28.20 $ 181.02 $ 4.89 $ 64.28 $ 2.52 $ 1,396.92 65.90 82.95 5.30 5.91 9.98 13.68 0.67 0.77 0.05 0.08 $ 0.002 $ 0.002 875.33 1,170.59 26.78 29.61 149.77 213.05 4.54 5.25 52.09 76.56 2.32 2.72 1,192.75 1,601.17 A4 $ 34.81 $ 2.69 $ 11.82 $ 0.72 $ 0.07 $ 0.002 $ 256.85 $ 10.26 $ 181.02 $ 4.89 $ 64.28 $ 2.52 $ 569.94 30.35 39.27 2.53 2.86 9.98 13.68 0.67 0.77 0.05 0.08 $ 0.002 $ 0.002 221.23 292.72 9.91 10.61 149.77 213.05 4.54 5.25 52.09 76.56 2.32 2.72 483.45 657.57 High A3 $ 120.20 $ 9.27 $ 11.82 $ 0.72 $ 0.07 $ 0.002 $ 1,416.48 $ 38.41 $ 181.02 $ 4.89 $ 64.28 $ 2.52 $ 1,849.69 107.13 132.95 8.83 9.70 9.98 13.68 0.67 0.77 0.05 0.08 $ 0.002 $ 0.002 1,212.46 1,626.99 36.57 40.24 149.77 213.05 4.54 5.25 52.09 76.56 2.32 2.72 1,584.42 2,122.00 Low A3 $ 33.67 $ 2.59 $ 11.82 $ 0.72 $ 0.07 $ 0.002 $ 462.21 $ 11.86 $ 181.02 $ 4.89 $ 64.28 $ 2.52 $ 775.65 29.50 37.86 2.43 2.75 9.98 13.68 0.67 0.77 0.05 0.08 $ 0.002 $ 0.002 392.49 532.09 11.25 12.46 149.77 213.05 4.54 5.25 52.09 76.56 2.32 2.72 655.11 897.27 Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal O 12 June 2003 Exhibit O. 4b Present Value of Treatment Costs of LT2ESWTR, at 3 Percent ($ Millions, 2000$)

Occurrence Distribution Rule Alternative Small System Filtered Treatment Capital Small System Filtered Treatment O& M Small System Unfiltered Treatment Capital Small System Unfiltered Treatment O& M Small System Uncovered Reservoirs Capital Small Systems Uncovered Reservoirs O& M Large Systems Filtered Treatment Capital Large Systems Filtered Treatment O& M Large Systems Unfiltered Treatment Capital Large Systems Treatment Unfiltered O& M Large Systems Uncovered Reservoirs Capital Large Systems Uncovered Reservoirs O& M Total Treatment Costs A B C D E F G H I J K L M ICR A1  Mean 5th, 95th $ 325.23 $ 365.69 $ 7.35 $ 7.06 $ 0.06 $ 0.029 $ 3,610.21 $ 1,659.82 $ 134.57 $ 55.67 $ 58.32 $ 35.63 $ 6,259.66 273.88 378.00 342.07 389.39 6.21 8.51 6.57 7.55 0.05 0.07 $ 0.026 $ 0.032 3,115.71 4,119.24 1,569.99 1,748.53 111.34 158.38 51.68 59.68 47.26 69.47 32.86 38.44 5,557.64 6,977.30 A2 $ 106.05 $ 127.68 $ 7.35 $ 7.06 $ 0.06 $ 0.029 $ 1,113.05 $ 495.74 $ 134.57 $ 55.67 $ 58.32 $ 35.63 $ 2,141.21 93.35 118.67 121.78 133.62 6.21 8.51 6.57 7.55 0.05 0.07 $ 0.026 $ 0.032 957.49 1,273.69 473.07 518.36 111.34 158.38 51.68 59.68 47.26 69.47 32.86 38.44 1,901.69 2,386.48 A3 $ 68.74 $ 83.31 $ 7.35 $ 7.06 $ 0.06 $ 0.029 $ 957.85 $ 398.61 $ 134.57 $ 55.67 $ 58.32 $ 35.63 $ 1,807.22 61.43 76.10 79.40 87.06 6.21 8.51 6.57 7.55 0.05 0.07 $ 0.026 $ 0.032 817.10 1,097.97 379.59 417.63 111.34 158.38 51.68 59.68 47.26 69.47 32.86 38.44 1,593.53 2,020.90 A3 UV90 10B $ 71.66 $ 83.31 $ 7.35 $ 7.06 $ 0.06 $ 0.029 $ 1,067.91 $ 471.77 $ 134.57 $ 55.67 $ 58.32 $ 35.63 $ 1,993.36 64.22 79.24 79.46 87.22 6.21 8.51 6.57 7.55 0.05 0.07 $ 0.026 $ 0.032 919.24 1,214.99 446.08 497.04 111.34 158.38 51.68 59.68 47.26 69.47 32.86 38.44 1,765.00 2,220.64 A4 $ 33.39 $ 40.60 $ 7.35 $ 7.06 $ 0.06 $ 0.029 $ 357.99 $ 188.91 $ 134.57 $ 55.67 $ 58.32 $ 35.63 $ 919.59 29.08 37.70 38.06 43.10 6.21 8.51 6.57 7.55 0.05 0.07 $ 0.026 $ 0.032 307.29 410.30 181.66 196.02 111.34 158.38 51.68 59.68 47.26 69.47 32.86 38.44 812.09 1,029.26 ICRSSL A1 $ 325.23 $ 365.69 $ 7.35 $ 7.06 $ 0.06 $ 0.029 $ 3,610.21 $ 1,659.82 $ 134.57 $ 55.67 $ 58.32 $ 35.63 $ 6,259.66 273.88 378.00 342.07 389.39 6.21 8.51 6.57 7.55 0.05 0.07 $ 0.026 $ 0.032 3,115.71 4,119.24 1,569.99 1,748.53 111.34 158.38 51.68 59.68 47.26 69.47 32.86 38.44 5,557.64 6,977.30 A2 $ 71.23 $ 83.65 $ 7.35 $ 7.06 $ 0.06 $ 0.029 $ 739.50 $ 346.13 $ 134.57 $ 55.67 $ 58.32 $ 35.63 $ 1,539.21 63.36 79.17 79.70 87.53 6.21 8.51 6.57 7.55 0.05 0.07 $ 0.026 $ 0.032 632.80 845.86 331.96 360.26 111.34 158.38 51.68 59.68 47.26 69.47 32.86 38.44 1,363.83 1,714.95 A3 $ 35.40 $ 42.75 $ 7.35 $ 7.06 $ 0.06 $ 0.029 $ 572.50 $ 226.07 $ 134.57 $ 55.67 $ 58.32 $ 35.63 $ 1,175.43 31.04 39.74 40.20 45.26 6.21 8.51 6.57 7.55 0.05 0.07 $ 0.026 $ 0.032 487.43 660.26 214.74 237.25 111.34 158.38 51.68 59.68 47.26 69.47 32.86 38.44 1,029.42 1,324.65 A3 UV90 10B $ 36.14 $ 43.03 $ 7.35 $ 7.06 $ 0.06 $ 0.029 $ 608.13 $ 252.73 $ 134.57 $ 55.67 $ 58.32 $ 35.63 $ 1,238.73 31.77 40.48 40.55 45.54 6.21 8.51 6.57 7.55 0.05 0.07 $ 0.026 $ 0.032 519.40 696.72 240.22 265.26 111.34 158.38 51.68 59.68 47.26 69.47 32.86 38.44 1,087.94 1,390.14 A4 $ 15.57 $ 18.95 $ 7.35 $ 7.06 $ 0.06 $ 0.029 $ 125.36 $ 82.17 $ 134.57 $ 55.67 $ 58.32 $ 35.63 $ 540.74 13.54 17.59 17.77 20.12 6.21 8.51 6.57 7.55 0.05 0.07 $ 0.026 $ 0.032 108.18 142.58 79.50 84.84 111.34 158.38 51.68 59.68 47.26 69.47 32.86 38.44 474.99 607.27 ICRSSM A1 $ 325.23 $ 365.69 $ 7.35 $ 7.06 $ 0.06 $ 0.029 $ 3,610.21 $ 1,659.82 $ 134.57 $ 55.67 $ 58.32 $ 35.63 $ 6,259.66 273.88 378.00 342.07 389.39 6.21 8.51 6.57 7.55 0.05 0.07 $ 0.026 $ 0.032 3,115.71 4,119.24 1,569.99 1,748.53 111.34 158.38 51.68 59.68 47.26 69.47 32.86 38.44 5,557.64 6,977.30 A2 $ 83.34 $ 97.98 $ 7.35 $ 7.06 $ 0.06 $ 0.029 $ 885.64 $ 399.40 $ 134.57 $ 55.67 $ 58.32 $ 35.63 $ 1,765.07 73.95 92.83 93.42 102.48 6.21 8.51 6.57 7.55 0.05 0.07 $ 0.026 $ 0.032 757.87 1,013.04 382.33 416.47 111.34 158.38 51.68 59.68 47.26 69.47 32.86 38.44 1,563.58 1,966.96 A3 $ 45.21 $ 54.51 $ 7.35 $ 7.06 $ 0.06 $ 0.029 $ 707.80 $ 282.67 $ 134.57 $ 55.67 $ 58.32 $ 35.63 $ 1,388.89 39.87 50.47 51.47 57.50 6.21 8.51 6.57 7.55 0.05 0.07 $ 0.026 $ 0.032 603.31 815.73 268.75 296.42 111.34 158.38 51.68 59.68 47.26 69.47 32.86 38.44 1,219.40 1,562.26 A3 UV90 10B $ 46.31 $ 54.80 $ 7.35 $ 7.06 $ 0.06 $ 0.029 $ 760.77 $ 320.69 $ 134.57 $ 55.67 $ 58.32 $ 35.63 $ 1,481.27 41.00 51.61 51.82 57.80 6.21 8.51 6.57 7.55 0.05 0.07 $ 0.026 $ 0.032 650.72 870.21 304.59 336.70 111.34 158.38 51.68 59.68 47.26 69.47 32.86 38.44 1,304.13 1,658.46 A4 $ 21.66 $ 26.33 $ 7.35 $ 7.06 $ 0.06 $ 0.029 $ 190.94 $ 116.65 $ 134.57 $ 55.67 $ 58.32 $ 35.63 $ 654.28 18.88 24.43 24.71 27.99 6.21 8.51 6.57 7.55 0.05 0.07 $ 0.026 $ 0.032 164.46 217.61 112.67 120.62 111.34 158.38 51.68 59.68 47.26 69.47 32.86 38.44 576.73 732.79 High A3 $ 74.79 $ 90.63 $ 7.35 $ 7.06 $ 0.06 $ 0.029 $ 1,053.01 $ 436.82 $ 134.57 $ 55.67 $ 58.32 $ 35.63 $ 1,953.95 66.66 82.72 86.32 94.83 6.21 8.51 6.57 7.55 0.05 0.07 $ 0.026 $ 0.032 901.34 1,209.50 415.86 457.60 111.34 158.38 51.68 59.68 47.26 69.47 32.86 38.44 1,726.18 2,186.80 Low A3 $ 20.95 $ 25.30 $ 7.35 $ 7.06 $ 0.06 $ 0.029 $ 343.61 $ 134.83 $ 134.57 $ 55.67 $ 58.32 $ 35.63 $ 823.39 18.35 23.55 23.78 26.85 6.21 8.51 6.57 7.55 0.05 0.07 $ 0.026 $ 0.032 291.78 395.55 127.92 141.74 111.34 158.38 51.68 59.68 47.26 69.47 32.86 38.44 717.83 929.84 Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal O 13 June 2003 Exhibit O. 4c Present Value of Treatment Costs of LT2ESWTR, at 7 Percent ($ Millions, 2000$)

Occurrence Distribution Rule Alternative Small System Filtered Treatment Capital Small System Filtered Treatment O& M Small System Unfiltered Treatment Capital Small System Unfiltered Treatment O& M Small System Uncovered Reservoirs Capital Small Systems Uncovered Reservoirs O& M Large Systems Filtered Treatment Capital Large Systems Filtered Treatment O& M Large Systems Unfiltered Treatment Capital Large Systems Treatment Unfiltered O& M Large Systems Uncovered Reservoirs Capital Large Systems Uncovered Reservoirs O& M Total Treatment Costs A B C D E F G H I J K L M ICR A1  Mean 5th, 95th $ 239.55 $ 202.53 $ 5.42 $ 3.91 $ 0.05 $ 0.018 $ 2,868.46 $ 964.49 $ 106.92 $ 32.35 $ 52.25 $ 22.44 $ 4,498.40 201.72 278.42 189.45 215.65 4.58 6.27 3.64 4.18 0.04 0.07 $ 0.016 $ 0.020 2,475.56 3,272.90 912.29 1,016.04 88.46 125.84 30.03 34.68 42.35 62.24 20.69 24.20 3,968.82 5,040.51 A2 $ 78.11 $ 70.71 $ 5.42 $ 3.91 $ 0.05 $ 0.018 $ 884.36 $ 288.07 $ 106.92 $ 32.35 $ 52.25 $ 22.44 $ 1,544.61 68.76 87.40 67.44 74.00 4.58 6.27 3.64 4.18 0.04 0.07 $ 0.016 $ 0.020 760.76 1,012.00 274.89 301.21 88.46 125.84 30.03 34.68 42.35 62.24 20.69 24.20 1,361.66 1,732.12 A3 $ 50.63 $ 46.14 $ 5.42 $ 3.91 $ 0.05 $ 0.018 $ 761.05 $ 231.63 $ 106.92 $ 32.35 $ 52.25 $ 22.44 $ 1,312.81 45.24 56.05 43.97 48.22 4.58 6.27 3.64 4.18 0.04 0.07 $ 0.016 $ 0.020 649.22 872.38 220.58 242.68 88.46 125.84 30.03 34.68 42.35 62.24 20.69 24.20 1,148.82 1,476.83 A3 UV90 10B $ 52.78 $ 46.14 $ 5.42 $ 3.91 $ 0.05 $ 0.018 $ 848.50 $ 274.14 $ 106.92 $ 32.35 $ 52.25 $ 22.44 $ 1,444.92 47.30 58.36 44.00 48.31 4.58 6.27 3.64 4.18 0.04 0.07 $ 0.016 $ 0.020 730.37 965.36 259.21 288.82 88.46 125.84 30.03 34.68 42.35 62.24 20.69 24.20 1,270.69 1,618.35 A4 $ 24.59 $ 22.48 $ 5.42 $ 3.91 $ 0.05 $ 0.018 $ 284.44 $ 109.77 $ 106.92 $ 32.35 $ 52.25 $ 22.44 $ 664.65 21.42 27.77 21.08 23.87 4.58 6.27 3.64 4.18 0.04 0.07 $ 0.016 $ 0.020 244.15 326.00 105.56 113.90 88.46 125.84 30.03 34.68 42.35 62.24 20.69 24.20 582.01 749.04 ICRSSL A1 $ 239.55 $ 202.53 $ 5.42 $ 3.91 $ 0.05 $ 0.018 $ 2,868.46 $ 964.49 $ 106.92 $ 32.35 $ 52.25 $ 22.44 $ 4,498.40 201.72 278.42 189.45 215.65 4.58 6.27 3.64 4.18 0.04 0.07 $ 0.016 $ 0.020 2,475.56 3,272.90 912.29 1,016.04 88.46 125.84 30.03 34.68 42.35 62.24 20.69 24.20 3,968.82 5,040.51 A2 $ 52.46 $ 46.33 $ 5.42 $ 3.91 $ 0.05 $ 0.018 $ 587.56 $ 201.13 $ 106.92 $ 32.35 $ 52.25 $ 22.44 $ 1,110.84 46.67 58.31 44.14 48.47 4.58 6.27 3.64 4.18 0.04 0.07 $ 0.016 $ 0.020 502.79 672.07 192.90 209.34 88.46 125.84 30.03 34.68 42.35 62.24 20.69 24.20 976.30 1,245.70 A3 $ 26.08 $ 23.67 $ 5.42 $ 3.91 $ 0.05 $ 0.018 $ 454.88 $ 131.37 $ 106.92 $ 32.35 $ 52.25 $ 22.44 $ 859.36 22.86 29.27 22.27 25.07 4.58 6.27 3.64 4.18 0.04 0.07 $ 0.016 $ 0.020 387.29 524.60 124.78 137.86 88.46 125.84 30.03 34.68 42.35 62.24 20.69 24.20 747.00 974.30 A3 UV90 10B $ 26.62 $ 23.83 $ 5.42 $ 3.91 $ 0.05 $ 0.018 $ 483.18 $ 146.86 $ 106.92 $ 32.35 $ 52.25 $ 22.44 $ 903.85 23.40 29.82 22.46 25.22 4.58 6.27 3.64 4.18 0.04 0.07 $ 0.016 $ 0.020 412.68 553.57 139.59 154.14 88.46 125.84 30.03 34.68 42.35 62.24 20.69 24.20 787.93 1,020.25 A4 $ 11.47 $ 10.49 $ 5.42 $ 3.91 $ 0.05 $ 0.018 $ 99.61 $ 47.74 $ 106.92 $ 32.35 $ 52.25 $ 22.44 $ 392.67 9.98 12.96 9.84 11.14 4.58 6.27 3.64 4.18 0.04 0.07 $ 0.016 $ 0.020 85.95 113.29 46.19 49.30 88.46 125.84 30.03 34.68 42.35 62.24 20.69 24.20 341.77 444.19 ICRSSM A1 $ 239.55 $ 202.53 $ 5.42 $ 3.91 $ 0.05 $ 0.018 $ 2,868.46 $ 964.49 $ 106.92 $ 32.35 $ 52.25 $ 22.44 $ 4,498.40 201.72 278.42 189.45 215.65 4.58 6.27 3.64 4.18 0.04 0.07 $ 0.016 $ 0.020 2,475.56 3,272.90 912.29 1,016.04 88.46 125.84 30.03 34.68 42.35 62.24 20.69 24.20 3,968.82 5,040.51 A2 $ 61.39 $ 54.27 $ 5.42 $ 3.91 $ 0.05 $ 0.018 $ 703.68 $ 232.08 $ 106.92 $ 32.35 $ 52.25 $ 22.44 $ 1,274.77 54.47 68.38 51.74 56.75 4.58 6.27 3.64 4.18 0.04 0.07 $ 0.016 $ 0.020 602.16 804.90 222.17 242.00 88.46 125.84 30.03 34.68 42.35 62.24 20.69 24.20 1,120.34 1,429.54 A3 $ 33.30 $ 30.19 $ 5.42 $ 3.91 $ 0.05 $ 0.018 $ 562.38 $ 164.26 $ 106.92 $ 32.35 $ 52.25 $ 22.44 $ 1,013.48 29.36 37.17 28.50 31.84 4.58 6.27 3.64 4.18 0.04 0.07 $ 0.016 $ 0.020 479.36 648.13 156.16 172.24 88.46 125.84 30.03 34.68 42.35 62.24 20.69 24.20 883.19 1,146.89 A3 UV90 10B $ 34.11 $ 30.35 $ 5.42 $ 3.91 $ 0.05 $ 0.018 $ 604.46 $ 186.35 $ 106.92 $ 32.35 $ 52.25 $ 22.44 $ 1,078.62 30.20 38.01 28.70 32.01 4.58 6.27 3.64 4.18 0.04 0.07 $ 0.016 $ 0.020 517.02 691.42 176.99 195.65 88.46 125.84 30.03 34.68 42.35 62.24 20.69 24.20 942.72 1,214.59 A4 $ 15.95 $ 14.58 $ 5.42 $ 3.91 $ 0.05 $ 0.018 $ 151.71 $ 67.78 $ 106.92 $ 32.35 $ 52.25 $ 22.44 $ 473.39 13.91 17.99 13.69 15.50 4.58 6.27 3.64 4.18 0.04 0.07 $ 0.016 $ 0.020 130.67 172.90 65.47 70.09 88.46 125.84 30.03 34.68 42.35 62.24 20.69 24.20 413.54 533.99 High A3 $ 55.08 $ 50.19 $ 5.42 $ 3.91 $ 0.05 $ 0.018 $ 836.66 $ 253.83 $ 106.92 $ 32.35 $ 52.25 $ 22.44 $ 1,419.12 49.10 60.93 47.81 52.52 4.58 6.27 3.64 4.18 0.04 0.07 $ 0.016 $ 0.020 716.15 961.00 241.65 265.90 88.46 125.84 30.03 34.68 42.35 62.24 20.69 24.20 1,244.50 1,597.85 Low A3 $ 15.43 $ 14.01 $ 5.42 $ 3.91 $ 0.05 $ 0.018 $ 273.01 $ 78.35 $ 106.92 $ 32.35 $ 52.25 $ 22.44 $ 604.16 13.52 17.35 13.17 14.87 4.58 6.27 3.64 4.18 0.04 0.07 $ 0.016 $ 0.020 231.83 314.28 74.33 82.36 88.46 125.84 30.03 34.68 42.35 62.24 20.69 24.20 522.65 686.36 Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal O 14 June 2003 Exhibit O. 4d Annualized Treatment Costs of LT2ESWTR, at 3 Percent ($ Millions, 2000$)

Occurrence Distribution Rule Alternative Small System Filtered Treatment Capital Small System Filtered Treatment O& M Small System Unfiltered Treatment Capital Small System Unfiltered Treatment O& M Small System Uncovered Reservoirs Capital Small Systems Uncovered Reservoirs O& M Large Systems Filtered Treatment Capital Large Systems Filtered Treatment O& M Large Systems Unfiltered Treatment Capital Large Systems Treatment Unfiltered O& M Large Systems Uncovered Reservoirs Capital Large Systems Uncovered Reservoirs O& M Total Treatment Costs A B C D E F G H I J K L M ICR A1  Mean 5th, 95th $ 18.68 $ 21.00 $ 0.42 $ 0.41 $ 0.004 $ 0.002 $ 207.33 $ 95.32 $ 7.73 $ 3.20 $ 3.35 $ 2.05 $ 359.48 15.73 21.71 19.64 22.36 0.36 0.49 0.38 0.43 $ 0.003 $ 0.004 $ 0.001 $ 0.002 178.93 236.56 90.16 100.41 6.39 9.10 2.97 3.43 2.71 3.99 1.89 2.21 319.16 400.69 A2 $ 6.09 $ 7.33 $ 0.42 $ 0.41 $ 0.004 $ 0.002 $ 63.92 $ 28.47 $ 7.73 $ 3.20 $ 3.35 $ 2.05 $ 122.97 5.36 6.81 6.99 7.67 0.36 0.49 0.38 0.43 $ 0.003 $ 0.004 $ 0.001 $ 0.002 54.99 73.15 27.17 29.77 6.39 9.10 2.97 3.43 2.71 3.99 1.89 2.21 109.21 137.05 A3 $ 3.95 $ 4.78 $ 0.42 $ 0.41 $ 0.004 $ 0.002 $ 55.01 $ 22.89 $ 7.73 $ 3.20 $ 3.35 $ 2.05 $ 103.78 3.53 4.37 4.56 5.00 0.36 0.49 0.38 0.43 $ 0.003 $ 0.004 $ 0.001 $ 0.002 46.92 63.05 21.80 23.98 6.39 9.10 2.97 3.43 2.71 3.99 1.89 2.21 91.51 116.06 A3 UV90 10B $ 4.12 $ 4.78 $ 0.42 $ 0.41 $ 0.004 $ 0.002 $ 61.33 $ 27.09 $ 7.73 $ 3.20 $ 3.35 $ 2.05 $ 114.47 3.69 4.55 4.56 5.01 0.36 0.49 0.38 0.43 $ 0.003 $ 0.004 $ 0.001 $ 0.002 52.79 69.77 25.62 28.54 6.39 9.10 2.97 3.43 2.71 3.99 1.89 2.21 101.36 127.53 A4 $ 1.92 $ 2.33 $ 0.42 $ 0.41 $ 0.004 $ 0.002 $ 20.56 $ 10.85 $ 7.73 $ 3.20 $ 3.35 $ 2.05 $ 52.81 1.67 2.16 2.19 2.47 0.36 0.49 0.38 0.43 $ 0.003 $ 0.004 $ 0.001 $ 0.002 17.65 23.56 10.43 11.26 6.39 9.10 2.97 3.43 2.71 3.99 1.89 2.21 46.64 59.11 ICRSSL A1 $ 18.68 $ 21.00 $ 0.42 $ 0.41 $ 0.004 $ 0.002 $ 207.33 $ 95.32 $ 7.73 $ 3.20 $ 3.35 $ 2.05 $ 359.48 15.73 21.71 19.64 22.36 0.36 0.49 0.38 0.43 $ 0.003 $ 0.004 $ 0.001 $ 0.002 178.93 236.56 90.16 100.41 6.39 9.10 2.97 3.43 2.71 3.99 1.89 2.21 319.16 400.69 A2 $ 4.09 $ 4.80 $ 0.42 $ 0.41 $ 0.004 $ 0.002 $ 42.47 $ 19.88 $ 7.73 $ 3.20 $ 3.35 $ 2.05 $ 88.39 3.64 4.55 4.58 5.03 0.36 0.49 0.38 0.43 $ 0.003 $ 0.004 $ 0.001 $ 0.002 36.34 48.58 19.06 20.69 6.39 9.10 2.97 3.43 2.71 3.99 1.89 2.21 78.32 98.49 A3 $ 2.03 $ 2.45 $ 0.42 $ 0.41 $ 0.004 $ 0.002 $ 32.88 $ 12.98 $ 7.73 $ 3.20 $ 3.35 $ 2.05 $ 67.50 1.78 2.28 2.31 2.60 0.36 0.49 0.38 0.43 $ 0.003 $ 0.004 $ 0.001 $ 0.002 27.99 37.92 12.33 13.62 6.39 9.10 2.97 3.43 2.71 3.99 1.89 2.21 59.12 76.07 A3 UV90 10B $ 2.08 $ 2.47 $ 0.42 $ 0.41 $ 0.004 $ 0.002 $ 34.92 $ 14.51 $ 7.73 $ 3.20 $ 3.35 $ 2.05 $ 71.14 1.82 2.32 2.33 2.62 0.36 0.49 0.38 0.43 $ 0.003 $ 0.004 $ 0.001 $ 0.002 29.83 40.01 13.80 15.23 6.39 9.10 2.97 3.43 2.71 3.99 1.89 2.21 62.48 79.83 A4 $ 0.89 $ 1.09 $ 0.42 $ 0.41 $ 0.004 $ 0.002 $ 7.20 $ 4.72 $ 7.73 $ 3.20 $ 3.35 $ 2.05 $ 31.05 0.78 1.01 1.02 1.16 0.36 0.49 0.38 0.43 $ 0.003 $ 0.004 $ 0.001 $ 0.002 6.21 8.19 4.57 4.87 6.39 9.10 2.97 3.43 2.71 3.99 1.89 2.21 27.28 34.87 ICRSSM A1 $ 18.68 $ 21.00 $ 0.42 $ 0.41 $ 0.004 $ 0.002 $ 207.33 $ 95.32 $ 7.73 $ 3.20 $ 3.35 $ 2.05 $ 359.48 15.73 21.71 19.64 22.36 0.36 0.49 0.38 0.43 $ 0.003 $ 0.004 $ 0.001 $ 0.002 178.93 236.56 90.16 100.41 6.39 9.10 2.97 3.43 2.71 3.99 1.89 2.21 319.16 400.69 A2 $ 4.79 $ 5.63 $ 0.42 $ 0.41 $ 0.004 $ 0.002 $ 50.86 $ 22.94 $ 7.73 $ 3.20 $ 3.35 $ 2.05 $ 101.36 4.25 5.33 5.36 5.89 0.36 0.49 0.38 0.43 $ 0.003 $ 0.004 $ 0.001 $ 0.002 43.52 58.18 21.96 23.92 6.39 9.10 2.97 3.43 2.71 3.99 1.89 2.21 89.79 112.96 A3 $ 2.60 $ 3.13 $ 0.42 $ 0.41 $ 0.004 $ 0.002 $ 40.65 $ 16.23 $ 7.73 $ 3.20 $ 3.35 $ 2.05 $ 79.76 2.29 2.90 2.96 3.30 0.36 0.49 0.38 0.43 $ 0.003 $ 0.004 $ 0.001 $ 0.002 34.65 46.85 15.43 17.02 6.39 9.10 2.97 3.43 2.71 3.99 1.89 2.21 70.03 89.72 A3 UV90 10B $ 2.66 $ 3.15 $ 0.42 $ 0.41 $ 0.004 $ 0.002 $ 43.69 $ 18.42 $ 7.73 $ 3.20 $ 3.35 $ 2.05 $ 85.07 2.35 2.96 2.98 3.32 0.36 0.49 0.38 0.43 $ 0.003 $ 0.004 $ 0.001 $ 0.002 37.37 49.97 17.49 19.34 6.39 9.10 2.97 3.43 2.71 3.99 1.89 2.21 74.89 95.24 A4 $ 1.24 $ 1.51 $ 0.42 $ 0.41 $ 0.004 $ 0.002 $ 10.97 $ 6.70 $ 7.73 $ 3.20 $ 3.35 $ 2.05 $ 37.57 1.08 1.40 1.42 1.61 0.36 0.49 0.38 0.43 $ 0.003 $ 0.004 $ 0.001 $ 0.002 9.44 12.50 6.47 6.93 6.39 9.10 2.97 3.43 2.71 3.99 1.89 2.21 33.12 42.08 High A3 $ 4.29 $ 5.20 $ 0.42 $ 0.41 $ 0.004 $ 0.002 $ 60.47 $ 25.09 $ 7.73 $ 3.20 $ 3.35 $ 2.05 $ 112.21 3.83 4.75 4.96 5.45 0.36 0.49 0.38 0.43 $ 0.003 $ 0.004 $ 0.001 $ 0.002 51.76 69.46 23.88 26.28 6.39 9.10 2.97 3.43 2.71 3.99 1.89 2.21 99.13 125.58 Low A3 $ 1.20 $ 1.45 $ 0.42 $ 0.41 $ 0.004 $ 0.002 $ 19.73 $ 7.74 $ 7.73 $ 3.20 $ 3.35 $ 2.05 $ 47.29 1.05 1.35 1.37 1.54 0.36 0.49 0.38 0.43 $ 0.003 $ 0.004 $ 0.001 $ 0.002 16.76 22.72 7.35 8.14 6.39 9.10 2.97 3.43 2.71 3.99 1.89 2.21 41.22 53.40 Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal O 15 June 2003 Exhibit O. 4e Annualized Treatment Costs of LT2ESWTR, at 7 Percent ($ Millions, 2000$)

Occurrence Distribution Rule Alternative Small System Filtered Treatment Capital Small System Filtered Treatment O& M Small System Unfiltered Treatment Capital Small System Unfiltered Treatment O& M Small System Uncovered Reservoirs Capital Small Systems Uncovered Reservoirs O& M Large Systems Filtered Treatment Capital Large Systems Filtered Treatment O& M Large Systems Unfiltered Treatment Capital Large Systems Treatment Unfiltered O& M Large Systems Uncovered Reservoirs Capital Large Systems Uncovered Reservoirs O& M Total Treatment Costs A B C D E F G H I J K L M ICR A1  Mean 5th, 95th $ 20.56 $ 17.38 $ 0.46 $ 0.34 $ 0.005 $ 0.002 $ 246.14 $ 82.76 $ 9.18 $ 2.78 $ 4.48 $ 1.93 $ 386.01 17.31 23.89 16.26 18.51 0.39 0.54 0.31 0.36 $ 0.004 $ 0.006 $ 0.001 $ 0.002 212.43 280.85 78.28 87.19 7.59 10.80 2.58 2.98 3.63 5.34 1.78 2.08 340.57 432.53 A2 $ 6.70 $ 6.07 $ 0.46 $ 0.34 $ 0.005 $ 0.002 $ 75.89 $ 24.72 $ 9.18 $ 2.78 $ 4.48 $ 1.93 $ 132.54 5.90 7.50 5.79 6.35 0.39 0.54 0.31 0.36 $ 0.004 $ 0.006 $ 0.001 $ 0.002 65.28 86.84 23.59 25.85 7.59 10.80 2.58 2.98 3.63 5.34 1.78 2.08 116.84 148.63 A3 $ 4.34 $ 3.96 $ 0.46 $ 0.34 $ 0.005 $ 0.002 $ 65.31 $ 19.88 $ 9.18 $ 2.78 $ 4.48 $ 1.93 $ 112.65 3.88 4.81 3.77 4.14 0.39 0.54 0.31 0.36 $ 0.004 $ 0.006 $ 0.001 $ 0.002 55.71 74.86 18.93 20.82 7.59 10.80 2.58 2.98 3.63 5.34 1.78 2.08 98.58 126.73 A3 UV90 10B $ 4.53 $ 3.96 $ 0.46 $ 0.34 $ 0.005 $ 0.002 $ 72.81 $ 23.52 $ 9.18 $ 2.78 $ 4.48 $ 1.93 $ 123.99 4.06 5.01 3.78 4.15 0.39 0.54 0.31 0.36 $ 0.004 $ 0.006 $ 0.001 $ 0.002 62.67 82.84 22.24 24.78 7.59 10.80 2.58 2.98 3.63 5.34 1.78 2.08 109.04 138.87 A4 $ 2.11 $ 1.93 $ 0.46 $ 0.34 $ 0.005 $ 0.002 $ 24.41 $ 9.42 $ 9.18 $ 2.78 $ 4.48 $ 1.93 $ 57.03 1.84 2.38 1.81 2.05 0.39 0.54 0.31 0.36 $ 0.004 $ 0.006 $ 0.001 $ 0.002 20.95 27.97 9.06 9.77 7.59 10.80 2.58 2.98 3.63 5.34 1.78 2.08 49.94 64.28 ICRSSL A1 $ 20.56 $ 17.38 $ 0.46 $ 0.34 $ 0.005 $ 0.002 $ 246.14 $ 82.76 $ 9.18 $ 2.78 $ 4.48 $ 1.93 $ 386.01 17.31 23.89 16.26 18.51 0.39 0.54 0.31 0.36 $ 0.004 $ 0.006 $ 0.001 $ 0.002 212.43 280.85 78.28 87.19 7.59 10.80 2.58 2.98 3.63 5.34 1.78 2.08 340.57 432.53 A2 $ 4.50 $ 3.98 $ 0.46 $ 0.34 $ 0.005 $ 0.002 $ 50.42 $ 17.26 $ 9.18 $ 2.78 $ 4.48 $ 1.93 $ 95.32 4.00 5.00 3.79 4.16 0.39 0.54 0.31 0.36 $ 0.004 $ 0.006 $ 0.001 $ 0.002 43.14 57.67 16.55 17.96 7.59 10.80 2.58 2.98 3.63 5.34 1.78 2.08 83.78 106.89 A3 $ 2.24 $ 2.03 $ 0.46 $ 0.34 $ 0.005 $ 0.002 $ 39.03 $ 11.27 $ 9.18 $ 2.78 $ 4.48 $ 1.93 $ 73.74 1.96 2.51 1.91 2.15 0.39 0.54 0.31 0.36 $ 0.004 $ 0.006 $ 0.001 $ 0.002 33.23 45.02 10.71 11.83 7.59 10.80 2.58 2.98 3.63 5.34 1.78 2.08 64.10 83.61 A3 UV90 10B $ 2.28 $ 2.05 $ 0.46 $ 0.34 $ 0.005 $ 0.002 $ 41.46 $ 12.60 $ 9.18 $ 2.78 $ 4.48 $ 1.93 $ 77.56 2.01 2.56 1.93 2.16 0.39 0.54 0.31 0.36 $ 0.004 $ 0.006 $ 0.001 $ 0.002 35.41 47.50 11.98 13.23 7.59 10.80 2.58 2.98 3.63 5.34 1.78 2.08 67.61 87.55 A4 $ 0.98 $ 0.90 $ 0.46 $ 0.34 $ 0.005 $ 0.002 $ 8.55 $ 4.10 $ 9.18 $ 2.78 $ 4.48 $ 1.93 $ 33.70 0.86 1.11 0.84 0.96 0.39 0.54 0.31 0.36 $ 0.004 $ 0.006 $ 0.001 $ 0.002 7.38 9.72 3.96 4.23 7.59 10.80 2.58 2.98 3.63 5.34 1.78 2.08 29.33 38.12 ICRSSM A1 $ 20.56 $ 17.38 $ 0.46 $ 0.34 $ 0.005 $ 0.002 $ 246.14 $ 82.76 $ 9.18 $ 2.78 $ 4.48 $ 1.93 $ 386.01 17.31 23.89 16.26 18.51 0.39 0.54 0.31 0.36 $ 0.004 $ 0.006 $ 0.001 $ 0.002 212.43 280.85 78.28 87.19 7.59 10.80 2.58 2.98 3.63 5.34 1.78 2.08 340.57 432.53 A2 $ 5.27 $ 4.66 $ 0.46 $ 0.34 $ 0.005 $ 0.002 $ 60.38 $ 19.92 $ 9.18 $ 2.78 $ 4.48 $ 1.93 $ 109.39 4.67 5.87 4.44 4.87 0.39 0.54 0.31 0.36 $ 0.004 $ 0.006 $ 0.001 $ 0.002 51.67 69.07 19.06 20.77 7.59 10.80 2.58 2.98 3.63 5.34 1.78 2.08 96.14 122.67 A3 $ 2.86 $ 2.59 $ 0.46 $ 0.34 $ 0.005 $ 0.002 $ 48.26 $ 14.09 $ 9.18 $ 2.78 $ 4.48 $ 1.93 $ 86.97 2.52 3.19 2.45 2.73 0.39 0.54 0.31 0.36 $ 0.004 $ 0.006 $ 0.001 $ 0.002 41.13 55.62 13.40 14.78 7.59 10.80 2.58 2.98 3.63 5.34 1.78 2.08 75.79 98.42 A3 UV90 10B $ 2.93 $ 2.60 $ 0.46 $ 0.34 $ 0.005 $ 0.002 $ 51.87 $ 15.99 $ 9.18 $ 2.78 $ 4.48 $ 1.93 $ 92.56 2.59 3.26 2.46 2.75 0.39 0.54 0.31 0.36 $ 0.004 $ 0.006 $ 0.001 $ 0.002 44.37 59.33 15.19 16.79 7.59 10.80 2.58 2.98 3.63 5.34 1.78 2.08 80.89 104.23 A4 $ 1.37 $ 1.25 $ 0.46 $ 0.34 $ 0.005 $ 0.002 $ 13.02 $ 5.82 $ 9.18 $ 2.78 $ 4.48 $ 1.93 $ 40.62 1.19 1.54 1.17 1.33 0.39 0.54 0.31 0.36 $ 0.004 $ 0.006 $ 0.001 $ 0.002 11.21 14.84 5.62 6.01 7.59 10.80 2.58 2.98 3.63 5.34 1.78 2.08 35.49 45.82 High A3 $ 4.73 $ 4.31 $ 0.46 $ 0.34 $ 0.005 $ 0.002 $ 71.79 $ 21.78 $ 9.18 $ 2.78 $ 4.48 $ 1.93 $ 121.78 4.21 5.23 4.10 4.51 0.39 0.54 0.31 0.36 $ 0.004 $ 0.006 $ 0.001 $ 0.002 61.45 82.46 20.74 22.82 7.59 10.80 2.58 2.98 3.63 5.34 1.78 2.08 106.79 137.11 Low A3 $ 1.32 $ 1.20 $ 0.46 $ 0.34 $ 0.005 $ 0.002 $ 23.43 $ 6.72 $ 9.18 $ 2.78 $ 4.48 $ 1.93 $ 51.84 1.16 1.49 1.13 1.28 0.39 0.54 0.31 0.36 $ 0.004 $ 0.006 $ 0.001 $ 0.002 19.89 26.97 6.38 7.07 7.59 10.80 2.58 2.98 3.63 5.34 1.78 2.08 44.85 58.90 Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal O 16 June 2003 Exhibit O. 5a Nominal State Costs of LT2ESWTR ($ Millions, 2000$)

Occurrence Distribution Rule Alternative Implementation Small E. coli Monitoring Review 1st Round Small Crypto Monitoring Review 1st Round Medium/

Large Monitoring Review 2nd Round Small E. coli Monitoring Review 2nd Round Small Crypto Monitoring Review 2nd Round Small System Benchmarking Large System Benchmarking Small System Technology Monitoring Large System Technology Monitoring Total State Costs A B C D E F G H I J K ICR A1 6.68 $ 2.91 $ 2.23 $ 1.54 $ 2.23 $ 1.54 $ 0.18 $ 0.12 $ 0.57 $ 0.34 $ 18.34 $

A2 6.68 $ 2.91 $ 2.23 $ 1.54 $ 2.23 $ 1.54 $ 0.06 $ 0.04 $ 0.21 $ 0.12 $ 17.56 $

A3 6.68 $ 2.91 $ 2.23 $ 1.54 $ 2.23 $ 1.54 $ 0.03 $ 0.04 $ 0.13 $ 0.11 $ 17.44 $

A3 UV90 10B 6.68 $ 2.91 $ 2.23 $ 1.54 $ 2.23 $ 1.54 $ 0.03 $ 0.04 $ 0.13 $ 0.11 $ 17.44 $

A4 6.68 $ 2.91 $ 2.23 $ 1.54 $ 2.23 $ 1.54 $ 0.01 $ 0.02 $ 0.08 $ 0.05 $ 17.28 $

ICRSSL A1 6.68 $ 2.91 $ 2.23 $ 1.54 $ 2.23 $ 1.54 $ 0.18 $ 0.12 $ 0.57 $ 0.34 $ 18.34 $

A2 6.68 $ 2.91 $ 2.23 $ 1.54 $ 2.23 $ 1.54 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 0.14 $ 0.08 $ 17.41 $

A3 6.68 $ 2.91 $ 2.23 $ 1.54 $ 2.23 $ 1.54 $ 0.01 $ 0.03 $ 0.08 $ 0.07 $ 17.32 $

A3 UV90 10B 6.68 $ 2.91 $ 2.23 $ 1.54 $ 2.23 $ 1.54 $ 0.01 $ 0.03 $ 0.08 $ 0.07 $ 17.32 $

A4 6.68 $ 2.91 $ 2.23 $ 1.54 $ 2.23 $ 1.54 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.07 $ 0.02 $ 17.23 $

ICRSSM A1 6.68 $ 2.91 $ 2.23 $ 1.54 $ 2.23 $ 1.54 $ 0.18 $ 0.12 $ 0.57 $ 0.34 $ 18.34 $

A2 6.68 $ 2.91 $ 2.23 $ 1.54 $ 2.23 $ 1.54 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 0.16 $ 0.10 $ 17.46 $

A3 6.68 $ 2.91 $ 2.23 $ 1.54 $ 2.23 $ 1.54 $ 0.02 $ 0.03 $ 0.09 $ 0.08 $ 17.35 $

A3 UV90 10B 6.68 $ 2.91 $ 2.23 $ 1.54 $ 2.23 $ 1.54 $ 0.02 $ 0.03 $ 0.09 $ 0.09 $ 17.35 $

A4 6.68 $ 2.91 $ 2.23 $ 1.54 $ 2.23 $ 1.54 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.07 $ 0.03 $ 17.24 $

High A3 6.68 $ 2.91 $ 2.23 $ 1.54 $ 2.23 $ 1.54 $ 0.03 $ 0.05 $ 0.14 $ 0.12 $ 17.46 $

Low A3 6.68 $ 2.91 $ 2.23 $ 1.54 $ 2.23 $ 1.54 $ 0.01 $ 0.02 $ 0.07 $ 0.05 $ 17.27 $

Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal O 17 June 2003 Exhibit O. 5b Present Value of State Costs of LT2ESWTR, at 3 Percent ($ Millions, 2000$)

Occurrence Distribution Rule Alternative Implementation Small E. coli Monitoring Review 1st Round Small Crypto Monitoring Review 1st Round Medium/

Large Monitoring Review 2nd Round Small E. coli Monitoring Review 2nd Round Small Crypto Monitoring Review 2nd Round Small System Benchmarking Large System Benchmarking Small System Technology Monitoring Large System Technology Monitoring Total State Costs A B C D E F G H I J K ICR A1 6.58 $ 2.59 $ 1.92 $ 1.11 $ 1.52 $ 1.02 $ 0.14 $ 0.10 $ 5.58 $ 3.92 $ 24.49 $

A2 6.58 $ 2.59 $ 1.92 $ 1.11 $ 1.52 $ 1.02 $ 0.05 $ 0.04 $ 2.09 $ 1.34 $ 18.25 $

A3 6.58 $ 2.59 $ 1.92 $ 1.11 $ 1.52 $ 1.02 $ 0.02 $ 0.03 $ 1.31 $ 1.22 $ 17.32 $

A3 UV90 10B 6.58 $ 2.59 $ 1.92 $ 1.11 $ 1.52 $ 1.02 $ 0.02 $ 0.03 $ 1.32 $ 1.24 $ 17.36 $

A4 6.58 $ 2.59 $ 1.92 $ 1.11 $ 1.52 $ 1.02 $ 0.01 $ 0.02 $ 0.76 $ 0.53 $ 16.05 $

ICRSSL A1 6.58 $ 2.59 $ 1.92 $ 1.11 $ 1.52 $ 1.02 $ 0.14 $ 0.10 $ 5.58 $ 3.92 $ 24.49 $

A2 6.58 $ 2.59 $ 1.92 $ 1.11 $ 1.52 $ 1.02 $ 0.02 $ 0.03 $ 1.33 $ 0.95 $ 17.07 $

A3 6.58 $ 2.59 $ 1.92 $ 1.11 $ 1.52 $ 1.02 $ 0.01 $ 0.02 $ 0.79 $ 0.81 $ 16.37 $

A3 UV90 10B 6.58 $ 2.59 $ 1.92 $ 1.11 $ 1.52 $ 1.02 $ 0.01 $ 0.02 $ 0.79 $ 0.81 $ 16.38 $

A4 6.58 $ 2.59 $ 1.92 $ 1.11 $ 1.52 $ 1.02 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.64 $ 0.25 $ 15.65 $

ICRSSM A1 6.58 $ 2.59 $ 1.92 $ 1.11 $ 1.52 $ 1.02 $ 0.14 $ 0.10 $ 5.58 $ 3.92 $ 24.49 $

A2 6.58 $ 2.59 $ 1.92 $ 1.11 $ 1.52 $ 1.02 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 1.55 $ 1.11 $ 17.46 $

A3 6.58 $ 2.59 $ 1.92 $ 1.11 $ 1.52 $ 1.02 $ 0.01 $ 0.03 $ 0.90 $ 0.96 $ 16.64 $

A3 UV90 10B 6.58 $ 2.59 $ 1.92 $ 1.11 $ 1.52 $ 1.02 $ 0.01 $ 0.03 $ 0.90 $ 0.97 $ 16.65 $

A4 6.58 $ 2.59 $ 1.92 $ 1.11 $ 1.52 $ 1.02 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.68 $ 0.33 $ 15.77 $

High A3 6.58 $ 2.59 $ 1.92 $ 1.11 $ 1.52 $ 1.02 $ 0.03 $ 0.04 $ 1.35 $ 1.34 $ 17.49 $

Low A3 6.58 $ 2.59 $ 1.92 $ 1.11 $ 1.52 $ 1.02 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.68 $ 0.53 $ 15.97 $

Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal O 18 June 2003 Exhibit O. 5c Present Value of State Costs of LT2ESWTR, at 7 Percent ($ Millions, 2000$)

Occurrence Distribution Rule Alternative Implementation Small E. coli Monitoring Review 1st Round Small Crypto Monitoring Review 1st Round Medium/

Large Monitoring Review 2nd Round Small E. coli Monitoring Review 2nd Round Small Crypto Monitoring Review 2nd Round Small System Benchmarking Large System Benchmarking Small System Technology Monitoring Large System Technology Monitoring Total State Costs A B C D E F G H I J K ICR A1 6.46 $ 2.22 $ 1.59 $ 0.73 $ 0.92 $ 0.60 $ 0.10 $ 0.08 $ 3.09 $ 2.28 $ 18.08 $

A2 6.46 $ 2.22 $ 1.59 $ 0.73 $ 0.92 $ 0.60 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 1.16 $ 0.78 $ 14.52 $

A3 6.46 $ 2.22 $ 1.59 $ 0.73 $ 0.92 $ 0.60 $ 0.02 $ 0.03 $ 0.72 $ 0.71 $ 14.00 $

A3 UV90 10B 6.46 $ 2.22 $ 1.59 $ 0.73 $ 0.92 $ 0.60 $ 0.02 $ 0.03 $ 0.73 $ 0.72 $ 14.02 $

A4 6.46 $ 2.22 $ 1.59 $ 0.73 $ 0.92 $ 0.60 $ 0.01 $ 0.01 $ 0.42 $ 0.31 $ 13.27 $

ICRSSL A1 6.46 $ 2.22 $ 1.59 $ 0.73 $ 0.92 $ 0.60 $ 0.10 $ 0.08 $ 3.09 $ 2.28 $ 18.08 $

A2 6.46 $ 2.22 $ 1.59 $ 0.73 $ 0.92 $ 0.60 $ 0.02 $ 0.02 $ 0.74 $ 0.55 $ 13.85 $

A3 6.46 $ 2.22 $ 1.59 $ 0.73 $ 0.92 $ 0.60 $ 0.01 $ 0.02 $ 0.44 $ 0.47 $ 13.45 $

A3 UV90 10B 6.46 $ 2.22 $ 1.59 $ 0.73 $ 0.92 $ 0.60 $ 0.01 $ 0.02 $ 0.44 $ 0.47 $ 13.46 $

A4 6.46 $ 2.22 $ 1.59 $ 0.73 $ 0.92 $ 0.60 $ 0.00 $ 0.01 $ 0.36 $ 0.15 $ 13.04 $

ICRSSM A1 6.46 $ 2.22 $ 1.59 $ 0.73 $ 0.92 $ 0.60 $ 0.10 $ 0.08 $ 3.09 $ 2.28 $ 18.08 $

A2 6.46 $ 2.22 $ 1.59 $ 0.73 $ 0.92 $ 0.60 $ 0.02 $ 0.02 $ 0.86 $ 0.65 $ 14.08 $

A3 6.46 $ 2.22 $ 1.59 $ 0.73 $ 0.92 $ 0.60 $ 0.01 $ 0.02 $ 0.50 $ 0.56 $ 13.61 $

A3 UV90 10B 6.46 $ 2.22 $ 1.59 $ 0.73 $ 0.92 $ 0.60 $ 0.01 $ 0.02 $ 0.50 $ 0.56 $ 13.62 $

A4 6.46 $ 2.22 $ 1.59 $ 0.73 $ 0.92 $ 0.60 $ 0.00 $ 0.01 $ 0.38 $ 0.19 $ 13.10 $

High A3 6.46 $ 2.22 $ 1.59 $ 0.73 $ 0.92 $ 0.60 $ 0.02 $ 0.03 $ 0.75 $ 0.78 $ 14.10 $

Low A3 6.46 $ 2.22 $ 1.59 $ 0.73 $ 0.92 $ 0.60 $ 0.00 $ 0.01 $ 0.38 $ 0.31 $ 13.23 $

Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal O 19 June 2003 Exhibit O. 5d Annualized State Costs of LT2ESWTR, at 3 Percent ($ Millions, 2000$)

Occurrence Distribution Rule Alternative Implementation Small E. coli Monitoring Review 1st Round Small Crypto Monitoring Review 1st Round Medium/

Large Monitoring Review 2nd Round Small E. coli Monitoring Review 2nd Round Small Crypto Monitoring Review 2nd Round Small System Benchmarking Large System Benchmarking Small System Technology Monitoring Large System Technology Monitoring Total State Costs A B C D E F G H I J K ICR A1 0.38 $ 0.15 $ 0.11 $ 0.06 $ 0.09 $ 0.06 $ 0.008 $ 0.006 $ 0.32 $ 0.23 $ 1.41 $

A2 0.38 $ 0.15 $ 0.11 $ 0.06 $ 0.09 $ 0.06 $ 0.003 $ 0.002 $ 0.12 $ 0.08 $ 1.05 $

A3 0.38 $ 0.15 $ 0.11 $ 0.06 $ 0.09 $ 0.06 $ 0.001 $ 0.002 $ 0.07 $ 0.07 $ 0.99 $

A3 UV90 10B 0.38 $ 0.15 $ 0.11 $ 0.06 $ 0.09 $ 0.06 $ 0.001 $ 0.002 $ 0.08 $ 0.07 $ 1.00 $

A4 0.38 $ 0.15 $ 0.11 $ 0.06 $ 0.09 $ 0.06 $ 0.001 $ 0.001 $ 0.04 $ 0.03 $ 0.92 $

ICRSSL A1 0.38 $ 0.15 $ 0.11 $ 0.06 $ 0.09 $ 0.06 $ 0.008 $ 0.006 $ 0.32 $ 0.23 $ 1.41 $

A2 0.38 $ 0.15 $ 0.11 $ 0.06 $ 0.09 $ 0.06 $ 0.001 $ 0.002 $ 0.08 $ 0.05 $ 0.98 $

A3 0.38 $ 0.15 $ 0.11 $ 0.06 $ 0.09 $ 0.06 $ 0.001 $ 0.001 $ 0.05 $ 0.05 $ 0.94 $

A3 UV90 10B 0.38 $ 0.15 $ 0.11 $ 0.06 $ 0.09 $ 0.06 $ 0.001 $ 0.001 $ 0.05 $ 0.05 $ 0.94 $

A4 0.38 $ 0.15 $ 0.11 $ 0.06 $ 0.09 $ 0.06 $ 0.000 $ 0.000 $ 0.04 $ 0.01 $ 0.90 $

ICRSSM A1 0.38 $ 0.15 $ 0.11 $ 0.06 $ 0.09 $ 0.06 $ 0.008 $ 0.006 $ 0.32 $ 0.23 $ 1.41 $

A2 0.38 $ 0.15 $ 0.11 $ 0.06 $ 0.09 $ 0.06 $ 0.002 $ 0.002 $ 0.09 $ 0.06 $ 1.00 $

A3 0.38 $ 0.15 $ 0.11 $ 0.06 $ 0.09 $ 0.06 $ 0.001 $ 0.002 $ 0.05 $ 0.06 $ 0.96 $

A3 UV90 10B 0.38 $ 0.15 $ 0.11 $ 0.06 $ 0.09 $ 0.06 $ 0.001 $ 0.002 $ 0.05 $ 0.06 $ 0.96 $

A4 0.38 $ 0.15 $ 0.11 $ 0.06 $ 0.09 $ 0.06 $ 0.000 $ 0.001 $ 0.04 $ 0.02 $ 0.91 $

High A3 0.38 $ 0.15 $ 0.11 $ 0.06 $ 0.09 $ 0.06 $ 0.001 $ 0.002 $ 0.08 $ 0.08 $ 1.00 $

Low A3 0.38 $ 0.15 $ 0.11 $ 0.06 $ 0.09 $ 0.06 $ 0.000 $ 0.001 $ 0.04 $ 0.03 $ 0.92 $

Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal O 20 June 2003 Exhibit O. 5e Annualized State Costs of LT2ESWTR, at 7 Percent ($ Millions, 2000$)

Occurrence Distribution Rule Alternative Implementation Small E. coli Monitoring Review 1st Round Small Crypto Monitoring Review 1st Round Medium/

Large Monitoring Review 2nd Round Small E. coli Monitoring Review 2nd Round Small Crypto Monitoring Review 2nd Round Small System Benchmarking Large System Benchmarking Small System Technology Monitoring Large System Technology Monitoring Total State Costs A B C D E F G H I J K ICR A1 0.55 $ 0.19 $ 0.14 $ 0.06 $ 0.08 $ 0.05 $ 0.009 $ 0.007 $ 0.27 $ 0.20 $ 1.55 $

A2 0.55 $ 0.19 $ 0.14 $ 0.06 $ 0.08 $ 0.05 $ 0.003 $ 0.003 $ 0.10 $ 0.07 $ 1.25 $

A3 0.55 $ 0.19 $ 0.14 $ 0.06 $ 0.08 $ 0.05 $ 0.002 $ 0.002 $ 0.06 $ 0.06 $ 1.20 $

A3 UV90 10B 0.55 $ 0.19 $ 0.14 $ 0.06 $ 0.08 $ 0.05 $ 0.002 $ 0.002 $ 0.06 $ 0.06 $ 1.20 $

A4 0.55 $ 0.19 $ 0.14 $ 0.06 $ 0.08 $ 0.05 $ 0.001 $ 0.001 $ 0.04 $ 0.03 $ 1.14 $

ICRSSL A1 0.55 $ 0.19 $ 0.14 $ 0.06 $ 0.08 $ 0.05 $ 0.009 $ 0.007 $ 0.27 $ 0.20 $ 1.55 $

A2 0.55 $ 0.19 $ 0.14 $ 0.06 $ 0.08 $ 0.05 $ 0.002 $ 0.002 $ 0.06 $ 0.05 $ 1.19 $

A3 0.55 $ 0.19 $ 0.14 $ 0.06 $ 0.08 $ 0.05 $ 0.001 $ 0.002 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 1.15 $

A3 UV90 10B 0.55 $ 0.19 $ 0.14 $ 0.06 $ 0.08 $ 0.05 $ 0.001 $ 0.002 $ 0.04 $ 0.04 $ 1.16 $

A4 0.55 $ 0.19 $ 0.14 $ 0.06 $ 0.08 $ 0.05 $ 0.000 $ 0.000 $ 0.03 $ 0.01 $ 1.12 $

ICRSSM A1 0.55 $ 0.19 $ 0.14 $ 0.06 $ 0.08 $ 0.05 $ 0.009 $ 0.007 $ 0.27 $ 0.20 $ 1.55 $

A2 0.55 $ 0.19 $ 0.14 $ 0.06 $ 0.08 $ 0.05 $ 0.002 $ 0.002 $ 0.07 $ 0.06 $ 1.21 $

A3 0.55 $ 0.19 $ 0.14 $ 0.06 $ 0.08 $ 0.05 $ 0.001 $ 0.002 $ 0.04 $ 0.05 $ 1.17 $

A3 UV90 10B 0.55 $ 0.19 $ 0.14 $ 0.06 $ 0.08 $ 0.05 $ 0.001 $ 0.002 $ 0.04 $ 0.05 $ 1.17 $

A4 0.55 $ 0.19 $ 0.14 $ 0.06 $ 0.08 $ 0.05 $ 0.000 $ 0.001 $ 0.03 $ 0.02 $ 1.12 $

High A3 0.55 $ 0.19 $ 0.14 $ 0.06 $ 0.08 $ 0.05 $ 0.002 $ 0.003 $ 0.06 $ 0.07 $ 1.21 $

Low A3 0.55 $ 0.19 $ 0.14 $ 0.06 $ 0.08 $ 0.05 $ 0.000 $ 0.001 $ 0.03 $ 0.03 $ 1.13 $

Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal O 21 June 2003 Exhibit O. 6a Present Value of Benefits of LT2ESWTR, at 3 Percent ($ Millions, 2000$),

Enhanced Cost of Illness Occurrence Distribution Rule Alternative Illnesses Avoided Small Systems Illnesses Avoided Large Systems Deaths Avoided Small Systems Deaths Avoided Large Systems Total Benefits A B C D E ICR A1  Mean 5th, 95th $ 661 $ 11,595 $ 592 $ 12,952 $ 25,801 $ 81 $ 1,733 $ 1,934 $ 26,439 $ 32 $ 1,942 $ 871 $ 39,966 $ 3,503 $ 66,007 A2 $ 643 $ 11,417 $ 577 $ 12,802 $ 25,439 $ 79 $ 1,691 $ 1,914 $ 25,958 $ 31 $ 1,889 $ 863 $ 39,426 $ 3,470 $ 64,744 A3 $ 621 $ 11,292 $ 559 $ 12,696 $ 25,168 $ 77 $ 1,633 $ 1,902 $ 25,603 $ 31 $ 1,828 $ 858 $ 39,060 $ 3,445 $ 63,834 A4 $ 535 $ 10,467 $ 487 $ 11,999 $ 23,487 $ 70 $ 1,379 $ 1,815 $ 23,023 $ 28 $ 1,578 $ 832 $ 36,395 $ 3,300 $ 58,461 ICRSSL A1 $ 216 $ 3,568 $ 193 $ 3,977 $ 7,954 $ 26 $ 586 $ 599 $ 8,267 $ 10 $ 681 $ 260 $ 12,364 $ 1,027 $ 21,148 A2 $ 166 $ 3,057 $ 151 $ 3,546 $ 6,920 $ 21 $ 453 $ 537 $ 6,787 $ 8 $ 531 $ 242 $ 10,827 $ 938 $ 17,970 A3 $ 130 $ 2,868 $ 121 $ 3,388 $ 6,508 $ 16 $ 358 $ 516 $ 6,202 $ 7 $ 422 $ 235 $ 10,278 $ 903 $ 16,699 A4 $ 101 $ 2,461 $ 97 $ 3,045 $ 5,705 $ 13 $ 273 $ 470 $ 5,077 $ 6 $ 331 $ 220 $ 9,074 $ 838 $ 14,106 ICRSSM A1 $ 373 $ 6,216 $ 333 $ 6,937 $ 13,859 $ 40 $ 1,097 $ 1,039 $ 14,913 $ 16 $ 1,164 $ 447 $ 21,610 $ 1,794 $ 36,424 A2 $ 327 $ 5,756 $ 296 $ 6,549 $ 12,928 $ 36 $ 968 $ 987 $ 13,568 $ 15 $ 1,025 $ 430 $ 20,316 $ 1,711 $ 33,623 A3 $ 288 $ 5,541 $ 262 $ 6,367 $ 12,458 $ 32 $ 858 $ 959 $ 12,914 $ 13 $ 906 $ 422 $ 19,693 $ 1,667 $ 32,193 A4 $ 238 $ 4,834 $ 221 $ 5,769 $ 11,062 $ 28 $ 705 $ 887 $ 10,786 $ 12 $ 751 $ 399 $ 17,541 $ 1,547 $ 27,877 Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal O 22 June 2003 Exhibit O. 6b Present Value of Benefits of LT2ESWTR, at 3 Percent ($ Millions, 2000$),

Traditional Cost of Illness Occurrence Distribution Rule Alternative Illnesses Avoided Small Systems Illnesses Avoided Large Systems Deaths Avoided Small Systems Deaths Avoided Large Systems Total Benefits A B C D E ICR A1  Mean 5th, 95th $ 24 $ 518 $ 198 $ 582 $ 7,951 $ 3,487 $ 32 $ 1,942 $ 592 $ 871 $ 39,966 $ 12,952 $ 1,854 $ 48,474 $ 17,229 A2 $ 24 $ 506 $ 192 $ 576 $ 7,806 $ 3,433 $ 31 $ 1,889 $ 577 $ 863 $ 39,426 $ 12,802 $ 1,835 $ 47,778 $ 17,005 A3 $ 23 $ 489 $ 186 $ 572 $ 7,699 $ 3,396 $ 31 $ 1,828 $ 559 $ 858 $ 39,060 $ 12,696 $ 1,824 $ 47,250 $ 16,837 A4 $ 21 $ 412 $ 160 $ 546 $ 6,924 $ 3,148 $ 28 $ 1,578 $ 487 $ 832 $ 36,395 $ 11,999 $ 1,750 $ 43,938 $ 15,793 ICRSSL A1 $ 8 $ 175 $ 65 $ 180 $ 2,486 $ 1,073 $ 10 $ 681 $ 193 $ 260 $ 12,364 $ 3,977 $ 532 $ 15,421 $ 5,308 A2 $ 6 $ 136 $ 50 $ 162 $ 2,041 $ 919 $ 8 $ 531 $ 151 $ 242 $ 10,827 $ 3,546 $ 491 $ 13,300 $ 4,666 A3 $ 5 $ 107 $ 39 $ 155 $ 1,865 $ 863 $ 7 $ 422 $ 121 $ 235 $ 10,278 $ 3,388 $ 474 $ 12,412 $ 4,411 A4 $ 4 $ 82 $ 30 $ 141 $ 1,527 $ 740 $ 6 $ 331 $ 97 $ 220 $ 9,074 $ 3,045 $ 442 $ 10,732 $ 3,913 ICRSSM A1 $ 12 $ 328 $ 112 $ 312 $ 4,485 $ 1,869 $ 16 $ 1,164 $ 333 $ 447 $ 21,610 $ 6,937 $ 925 $ 26,853 $ 9,251 A2 $ 11 $ 290 $ 98 $ 297 $ 4,080 $ 1,731 $ 15 $ 1,025 $ 296 $ 430 $ 20,316 $ 6,549 $ 889 $ 24,962 $ 8,674 A3 $ 10 $ 257 $ 86 $ 288 $ 3,884 $ 1,666 $ 13 $ 906 $ 262 $ 422 $ 19,693 $ 6,367 $ 869 $ 23,897 $ 8,382 A4 $ 8 $ 211 $ 71 $ 267 $ 3,244 $ 1,454 $ 12 $ 751 $ 221 $ 399 $ 17,541 $ 5,769 $ 809 $ 20,963 $ 7,515 Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal O 23 June 2003 Exhibit O. 6c Present Value of Benefits of LT2ESWTR, at 7 Percent ($ Millions, 2000$),

Enhanced Cost of Illness Occurrence Distribution Rule Alternative Illnesses Avoided Small Systems Illnesses Avoided Large Systems Deaths Avoided Small Systems Deaths Avoided Large Systems Total Benefits A B C D E ICR A1  Mean 5th, 95th $ 44 $ 941 $ 359 $ 1,098 $ 15,008 $ 6,582 $ 18 $ 1,063 $ 324 $ 498 $ 22,850 $ 7,423 $ 1,993 $ 37,624 $ 14,689 A2 $ 43 $ 918 $ 350 $ 1,086 $ 14,735 $ 6,481 $ 17 $ 1,034 $ 316 $ 495 $ 22,527 $ 7,337 $ 1,975 $ 36,883 $ 14,484 A3 $ 42 $ 887 $ 337 $ 1,080 $ 14,534 $ 6,410 $ 17 $ 1,000 $ 306 $ 493 $ 22,326 $ 7,277 $ 1,962 $ 36,362 $ 14,330 A4 $ 38 $ 749 $ 291 $ 1,030 $ 13,069 $ 5,941 $ 15 $ 865 $ 267 $ 475 $ 20,871 $ 6,877 $ 1,875 $ 33,321 $ 13,376 ICRSSL A1 $ 14 $ 318 $ 118 $ 340 $ 4,693 $ 2,025 $ 5 $ 373 $ 106 $ 149 $ 7,090 $ 2,279 $ 583 $ 12,061 $ 4,528 A2 $ 11 $ 246 $ 90 $ 305 $ 3,853 $ 1,735 $ 4 $ 290 $ 83 $ 139 $ 6,206 $ 2,033 $ 533 $ 10,249 $ 3,940 A3 $ 9 $ 195 $ 71 $ 293 $ 3,520 $ 1,628 $ 4 $ 231 $ 66 $ 135 $ 5,888 $ 1,942 $ 515 $ 9,509 $ 3,707 A4 $ 7 $ 149 $ 55 $ 267 $ 2,882 $ 1,397 $ 3 $ 181 $ 53 $ 127 $ 5,207 $ 1,745 $ 476 $ 8,038 $ 3,251 ICRSSM A1 $ 22 $ 596 $ 203 $ 590 $ 8,466 $ 3,529 $ 9 $ 638 $ 183 $ 257 $ 12,399 $ 3,976 $ 1,018 $ 20,776 $ 7,889 A2 $ 19 $ 526 $ 178 $ 560 $ 7,702 $ 3,268 $ 8 $ 562 $ 162 $ 247 $ 11,653 $ 3,753 $ 971 $ 19,178 $ 7,361 A3 $ 18 $ 466 $ 156 $ 544 $ 7,331 $ 3,146 $ 7 $ 495 $ 144 $ 243 $ 11,301 $ 3,649 $ 948 $ 18,372 $ 7,095 A4 $ 15 $ 383 $ 129 $ 503 $ 6,123 $ 2,744 $ 6 $ 411 $ 121 $ 229 $ 10,050 $ 3,307 $ 880 $ 15,887 $ 6,301 Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal O 24 June 2003 Exhibit O. 6d Present Value of Benefits of LT2ESWTR, at 7 Percent ($ Millions, 2000$),

Tradional Cost of Illness Occurrence Distribution Rule Alternative Illnesses Avoided Small Systems Illnesses Avoided Large Systems Deaths Avoided Small Systems Deaths Avoided Large Systems Total Benefits A B C D E ICR A1  Mean 5th, 95th $ 108 $ 1,989 $ 324 $ 7,423 $ 9,844 $ 13 $ 283 $ 332 $ 4,535 $ 18 $ 1,063 $ 498 $ 22,850 $ 1,058 $ 27,660 A2 $ 105 $ 1,958 $ 316 $ 7,337 $ 9,716 $ 13 $ 276 $ 328 $ 4,453 $ 17 $ 1,034 $ 495 $ 22,527 $ 1,048 $ 27,263 A3 $ 101 $ 1,937 $ 306 $ 7,277 $ 9,621 $ 13 $ 266 $ 326 $ 4,392 $ 17 $ 1,000 $ 493 $ 22,326 $ 1,041 $ 26,982 A4 $ 87 $ 1,795 $ 267 $ 6,877 $ 9,026 $ 11 $ 225 $ 311 $ 3,949 $ 15 $ 865 $ 475 $ 20,871 $ 999 $ 25,118 ICRSSL A1 $ 35 $ 612 $ 106 $ 2,279 $ 3,032 $ 4 $ 96 $ 103 $ 1,418 $ 5 $ 373 $ 149 $ 7,090 $ 305 $ 8,825 A2 $ 27 $ 524 $ 83 $ 2,033 $ 2,667 $ 3 $ 74 $ 92 $ 1,164 $ 4 $ 290 $ 139 $ 6,206 $ 281 $ 7,597 A3 $ 21 $ 492 $ 66 $ 1,942 $ 2,521 $ 3 $ 58 $ 88 $ 1,064 $ 4 $ 231 $ 135 $ 5,888 $ 271 $ 7,111 A4 $ 17 $ 422 $ 53 $ 1,745 $ 2,237 $ 2 $ 45 $ 81 $ 871 $ 3 $ 181 $ 127 $ 5,207 $ 252 $ 6,139 ICRSSM A1 $ 61 $ 1,066 $ 183 $ 3,976 $ 5,285 $ 7 $ 179 $ 178 $ 2,558 $ 9 $ 638 $ 257 $ 12,399 $ 529 $ 15,348 A2 $ 53 $ 987 $ 162 $ 3,753 $ 4,956 $ 6 $ 158 $ 169 $ 2,327 $ 8 $ 562 $ 247 $ 11,653 $ 508 $ 14,272 A3 $ 47 $ 950 $ 144 $ 3,649 $ 4,790 $ 5 $ 140 $ 164 $ 2,215 $ 7 $ 495 $ 243 $ 11,301 $ 497 $ 13,656 A4 $ 39 $ 829 $ 121 $ 3,307 $ 4,296 $ 5 $ 115 $ 152 $ 1,850 $ 6 $ 411 $ 229 $ 10,050 $ 463 $ 11,988 Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal O 25 June 2003 Exhibit O. 6e Annualized Benefits of LT2ESWTR, at 3 Percent ($ Millions, 2000$),

Enhanced Cost of Illness Occurrence Distribution Rule Alternative A1  Mean 5th, 95th $ 5 $ 100 $ 111 $ 1,518 $ 2 $ 112 $ 50 $ 2,295 $ 201 $ 3,791 $ 5 $ 97 $ 110 $ 1,491 $ 2 $ 108 $ 50 $ 2,264 $ 199 $ 3,718 $ 4 $ 94 $ 109 $ 1,470 $ 2 $ 105 $ 49 $ 2,243 $ 198 $ 3,666 $ 4 $ 79 $ 104 $ 1,322 $ 2 $ 91 $ 48 $ 2,090 $ 189 $ 3,357 E D A C A2 A3 A4 ICR $ 31 $ 601 $ 28 $ 689 $ 1,349 $ 36 $ 648 $ 32 $ 729 $ 1,445 $ 37 $ 656 $ 33 $ 735 $ 1,461 $ 38 $ 666 $ 34 $ 744 $ 1,482 Illnesses Avoided Small Systems Illnesses Avoided Large Systems Deaths Avoided Small Systems Deaths Avoided Large Systems Total Benefits B ICRSSL $ 2 $ 34 $ 34 $ 475 $ 1 $ 39 $ 15 $ 710 $ 59 $ 1,214 $ 1 $ 26 $ 31 $ 390 $ 0 $ 30 $ 14 $ 622 $ 54 $ 1,032 $ 1 $ 21 $ 30 $ 356 $ 0 $ 24 $ 14 $ 590 $ 52 $ 959 $ 1 $ 16 $ 27 $ 292 $ 0 $ 19 $ 13 $ 521 $ 48 $ 810 $ 10 $ 6 A1 $ 141 $ 6 $ 175 $ 328 $ 374 $ 7 $ 165 $ 7 $ 195 $ 176 $ 9 $ 204 $ 397 $ 457 $ 12 $ 205 $ 11 $ 228 A2 A3 A4 ICRSSM $ 2 $ 63 $ 60 $ 856 $ 1 $ 67 $ 26 $ 1,241 $ 103 $ 2,092 $ 2 $ 56 $ 57 $ 779 $ 1 $ 59 $ 25 $ 1,167 $ 98 $ 1,931 $ 2 $ 49 $ 55 $ 742 $ 1 $ 52 $ 24 $ 1,131 $ 96 $ 1,849 $ 2 $ 41 $ 51 $ 619 $ 1 $ 43 $ 23 $ 1,007 $ 89 $ 1,601 $ 19 $ 14 $ 278 $ 17 $ 318 $ 331 $ 13 $ 15 $ 17 $ 331 $ 635 $ 796 $ 366 $ 715 $ 376 $ 742 $ 21 $ 357 $ 19 $ 398 A2 A3 A4 A1 Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal O 26 June 2003 Exhibit O. 6f Annualized Benefits of LT2ESWTR, at 3 Percent ($ Millions, 2000$),

Traditional Cost of Illness Occurrence Distribution Rule Alternative Illnesses Avoided Small Systems Illnesses Avoided Large Systems Deaths Avoided Small Systems Deaths Avoided Large Systems Total Benefits A B C D E ICR A1  Mean 5th, 95th $ 1 $ 30 $ 11 $ 33 $ 457 $ 200 $ 2 $ 112 $ 34 $ 50 $ 2,295 $ 744 $ 106 $ 2,784 $ 989 A2 $ 1 $ 29 $ 11 $ 33 $ 448 $ 197 $ 2 $ 108 $ 33 $ 50 $ 2,264 $ 735 $ 105 $ 2,744 $ 977 A3 $ 1 $ 28 $ 11 $ 33 $ 442 $ 195 $ 2 $ 105 $ 32 $ 49 $ 2,243 $ 729 $ 105 $ 2,713 $ 967 A4 $ 1 $ 24 $ 9 $ 31 $ 398 $ 181 $ 2 $ 91 $ 28 $ 48 $ 2,090 $ 689 $ 101 $ 2,523 $ 907 ICRSSL A1 $ 0 $ 10 $ 4 $ 10 $ 143 $ 62 $ 1 $ 39 $ 11 $ 15 $ 710 $ 228 $ 31 $ 886 $ 305 A2 $ 0 $ 8 $ 3 $ 9 $ 117 $ 53 $ 0 $ 30 $ 9 $ 14 $ 622 $ 204 $ 28 $ 764 $ 268 A3 $ 0 $ 6 $ 2 $ 9 $ 107 $ 50 $ 0 $ 24 $ 7 $ 14 $ 590 $ 195 $ 27 $ 713 $ 253 A4 $ 0 $ 5 $ 2 $ 8 $ 88 $ 43 $ 0 $ 19 $ 6 $ 13 $ 521 $ 175 $ 25 $ 616 $ 225 ICRSSM A1 $ 1 $ 19 $ 6 $ 18 $ 258 $ 107 $ 1 $ 67 $ 19 $ 26 $ 1,241 $ 398 $ 53 $ 1,542 $ 531 A2 $ 1 $ 17 $ 6 $ 17 $ 234 $ 99 $ 1 $ 59 $ 17 $ 25 $ 1,167 $ 376 $ 51 $ 1,434 $ 498 A3 $ 1 $ 15 $ 5 $ 17 $ 223 $ 96 $ 1 $ 52 $ 15 $ 24 $ 1,131 $ 366 $ 50 $ 1,372 $ 481 A4 $ 0 $ 12 $ 4 $ 15 $ 186 $ 83 $ 1 $ 43 $ 13 $ 23 $ 1,007 $ 331 $ 46 $ 1,204 $ 432 Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal O 27 June 2003 Exhibit O. 6g Annualized Benefits of LT2ESWTR, at 7 Percent ($ Millions, 2000$)

Enhanced Cost of Illness Occurrence Distribution Rule Alternative Illnesses Avoided Small Systems Illnesses Avoided Large Systems Deaths Avoided Small Systems Deaths Avoided Large Systems Total Benefits A B C D E ICR A1  Mean 5th, 95th $ 31 $ 565 $ 28 $ 637 $ 1,260 $ 4 $ 81 $ 94 $ 1,288 $ 2 $ 91 $ 43 $ 1,961 $ 171 $ 3,229 A2 $ 30 $ 556 $ 27 $ 630 $ 1,243 $ 4 $ 79 $ 93 $ 1,264 $ 1 $ 89 $ 42 $ 1,933 $ 170 $ 3,165 A3 $ 29 $ 550 $ 26 $ 624 $ 1,230 $ 4 $ 76 $ 93 $ 1,247 $ 1 $ 86 $ 42 $ 1,916 $ 168 $ 3,120 A4 $ 25 $ 510 $ 23 $ 590 $ 1,148 $ 3 $ 64 $ 88 $ 1,121 $ 1 $ 74 $ 41 $ 1,791 $ 161 $ 2,859 ICRSSL A1 $ 10 $ 174 $ 9 $ 196 $ 389 $ 1 $ 27 $ 29 $ 403 $ 0 $ 32 $ 13 $ 608 $ 50 $ 1,035 A2 $ 8 $ 149 $ 7 $ 174 $ 338 $ 1 $ 21 $ 26 $ 331 $ 0 $ 25 $ 12 $ 533 $ 46 $ 879 A3 $ 6 $ 140 $ 6 $ 167 $ 318 $ 1 $ 17 $ 25 $ 302 $ 0 $ 20 $ 12 $ 505 $ 44 $ 816 A4 $ 5 $ 120 $ 5 $ 150 $ 279 $ 1 $ 13 $ 23 $ 247 $ 0 $ 16 $ 11 $ 447 $ 41 $ 690 ICRSSM A1 $ 17 $ 303 $ 16 $ 341 $ 677 $ 2 $ 51 $ 51 $ 726 $ 1 $ 55 $ 22 $ 1,064 $ 87 $ 1,783 A2 $ 15 $ 280 $ 14 $ 322 $ 632 $ 2 $ 45 $ 48 $ 661 $ 1 $ 48 $ 21 $ 1,000 $ 83 $ 1,646 A3 $ 13 $ 270 $ 12 $ 313 $ 609 $ 2 $ 40 $ 47 $ 629 $ 1 $ 42 $ 21 $ 970 $ 81 $ 1,577 A4 $ 11 $ 235 $ 10 $ 284 $ 541 $ 1 $ 33 $ 43 $ 525 $ 1 $ 35 $ 20 $ 862 $ 75 $ 1,363 Economic Analysis for the LT2ESWTR Proposal O 28 June 2003 Exhibit O. 6h Annualized Benefits of LT2ESWTR, at 7 Percent ($ Millions, 2000$)