# Appendices to the Economic

Analysis for Final Ground

Water Rule

Volume I (A – L)

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

# Appendix A

Calculations Supporting the Cost of Illness (COI)

Analysis

# 1 

# The studies consulted include Anderson et al. (2004), Banyai et al. (2002), Bartlett et al. (1988), Carabin et

al. (1999), Cherry (1995), Dormitzer et al. (2005), Ferson (1996), Fletcher et al. (2000), Fruhwirth et al. (2001),

Garthright et al. (1988), Glass et al (1996), Grimwood et al. (1988), Grim wood (1983), Haffejee (1991), Hamilton et

al. (1999), Heiselman (1997), Jin et al . (1996); Kafetzis et al. (2001), Kapi kian (2001), Kapikian and Chanock

(1996), Khuffash et al. (1988), Kovacs et al. (1987), Liddle et al. (1997); Lynch et al. (2001), Matson and Estes

(1990), Mesa et al. (1996), Miller (1997), Modlin (1995) , Nigrovic (2001), Nigrovic a nd Chiang (2000), O’Ryan et

al. (2001), Parashar et al. (1998), Para shar et al. (1999), Parasuraman et al. (2001), Pichichero et al. (1998),

Rodriguez et al. (1977), Sawyer (2001) , Schumacher et al. (1999), Szucs et al. (1999), Tallett et al. (1977), Ward

(2001), Wenman (1979).

Economic Analysis for the A-1 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Appendix A

Calculations Supporting the Cost of Illness (COI) Analysis

A.1 Introduction

This appendix presents data and calculations that this Economic Analysis (EA) uses to estimate

the monetized morbidity benefits of the Ground Wate r Rule (GWR). Chapter 5 presents the general

methodology for using a cost of illness (COI) approach . This appendix, Appendix A, provides additional

detail on the data from other sources that are used to support the analyses and the methodology applied to

adapt that data for use in the GWR EA. The appro ach used to value reductions in nonfatal cases of Type

A and Type B viruses combines estimates of the medi cal costs of illness with estimates of the value of

related time losses. Many of the values in the followi ng analysis rely on data collected from a broad and

thorough review of the literature concerning the valuation of illnesses. 1



# A.2 Type A and Type B Viruses Cost-Related Data

EPA chose rotavirus to represent Type A viruses and enterovirus (including echovirus and

coxsackievirus) to represent Type B viruses. The Agency conducted a literature search focusing on the

most recent studies that quantified the direct and/ or indirect costs associated with rotavirus and

enterovirus. Data for mean values and ranges from more than one study have been combined in some

cases to include more information about the range of uncertainty. Where no range data were available,

only mean estimates are used.

Type A and Type B viruses can result in a range of illnesses with varying degrees of impacts.

Because the effects differ by age, separate age groups were specified. Type A viral illnesses were

additionally examined by the health sensitivity of the patient (immunocompromised or healthy). Because

of differences in costs and time lost due to an ente rovirus (Type B) infection, EPA chose to model these

effects with three levels of severity of illness defined by the following requirements: no medical care,

doctor’s visit, and hospitalization. Data was unava ilable to further define Type B viral illnesses with

regard to the health sensitivity of the patient as was done with Type A.

A.2.1 Data for Type A Viruses: Rotavirus

Deriving the cost of illness for a case of rotavirus requires both the quantity of various medical

services consumed (e.g., number of doctor visits) as we ll as the cost per unit. Exhibit A.1 presents the

former, including the percentages of the ill population th at seek outpatient and inpatient care, the duration

# Economic Analysis for the A-2 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule Healthy Population Immunocompromised Population

<2 2 to 4 5 to 15 > 16

(G2 & G9) > 16

(All Others) <2 2 to 4 5 to 15 > 16

14% 14% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100% 100% 100% 100%

1.4% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100% 100% 100% 100%

3 3 3 2.5 2.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A

5 5 N/A N/A N/A 5 3 3 2.5

3 3 1.5 1 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A

5 5 N/A N/A N/A 5 3 3 2.5

3 3 1.5 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A

5 5 1.5 N/A N/A 5 3 3 0

00 0 1 1 0 0 0 0

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

5 5 NA NA N/A 5 3 3 2.5

44N A N A N/ A 4222

Note:

Sources and Derivations: Percent seeking inpatient (B)

Lost productivity days (F) Duration of symptoms - No Medical Care/

Outpatient (days) (C)

Patient days lost to illness: Inpatient - (D) Category

Duration of symptoms - Inpatient (days) (C) Percent seeking outpatient (A)

Caregiver days lost: Inpatient - (E)

(I) Assumes daily follow-up doctor visit after day of admission. (A) Healthy population: Kapikian (2001) and CDC (1999) for patients <5 years; Glass et al. (1996) for patients 5 years and olde r; Wenman et

al. (1979) for patients 16 and over. Immunocompromised population: Assumed to be 100% for all age categories.

(B) Healthy population: Ward (2001) for patients <5 years; Glass et al. (1996) for patients 5 years and older. Immunocompromise d

population: Assumed to be 100% for all age categories.

(C) Healthy Immunocompromised populations: Kovacs (1987) and Grimwood (1988) for patients <2 years; (Dormitzer (2005), Rodrigu ez

(1977) Tallett (1977), Haffejee (1991) for patients <16 years; Grimwood (1983) for children >12 years and adults. Immunocompromised

population: All cases are assumed to be inpatient.

(D) Healthy population: Assumes lost patient days are equal to illness duration for patients <5 years; assumed equal to the num ber of bed

days per acute intestinal virus infection for patients 5 to 15 years and older (bed days from National Center for Health Statis tics (1999).

Additional information for adult cases from Grimwood (1983). Immunocompromised population: Assumes lost patient days are equa l to

illness duration for all patients.

(E) Assumes caregiver days are equal to the number of lost patient days for patients under 16 years of age.

(F) Banyai (2002) and Anderson (2004) for healthy adults and composite review of all ages, respectively. Lost productivity ass umed 1/2 of

the 2-3 days (0.5 * 2 = 1) of fever/vomiting/diarrhea symptoms. Assumed zero days for all other categories.

(G) Liddle et al. (1997) for patients <4 years. Assumes no follow-up visits for patients 5 years and older. For the healthy population > 16 years, the severity of symptom manifestation is dependent on the Rotavirus strain and can be divided into two

groups. The G2 & G9 strains represent 15.3% of illnesses, while all other strains comprise the remaining 84.7% (Griffin, 2000). Patient days lost to illness: No Medical Care/

Outpatient - (D)

Caregiver days lost: No Medical Care/

Outpatient - (E)

(H) Hospitalized children data from Khuffash (1988), Mesa (1996), Haffejee (1991), Grimwood (1988), low estimate ranging from 3 to 5.5 Follow-up doctor visits (I) Duration of hospital stay (days) (H) Outpatient data

Follow-up doctor visits (G)

Inpatient data 

# of the illness’s symptoms, days lost due to the illness, the number of follow-up visits, and the duration of

hospital stays. The exhibit also provides data used later for estimating the indirect costs associated with

rotavirus.

Valuing illnesses from rotavirus begins by dete rmining what percentage of patients seek

outpatient and what percentage of patients seek inpa tient medical care. EPA used these percentages, in

conjunction with the data associated with outpatient a nd inpatient care, to create weighted COI estimates.

For outpatient care, EPA assumed one initial physician visit and, based on data from recent literature

(cited in exhibit A.1 below), the average number of fo llow-up visits (see row G). For inpatient care, the

literature that the Agency examined reported the dur ations of a hospital stay associated with a case of

rotavirus, by age. The data for hospital stays asso ciated with rotavirus come from studies of children

under the age of five. Data were not available with regard to hospital stays for older patients, thus no

hospital stays were assigned for these age groups. EPA also assumed an initial physician visit once

admitted for each person seeking inpatient care and daily follow-up doctor visits thereafter while in the

hospital.



# Exhibit A.1 Nonmonetary Cost Data, by Age, for Type A Viruses: Rotavirus

# Economic Analysis for the A-3 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule A verage Cost per Patient

Base Year $ 2003$

<2 2 to 4 5 to 15 > 16 <2 2 to 4 5 to 15 > 16

99.58 $ 99.58 $ 99.58 $ 99.58 $ 266.0 306.0 114.55 $ 114.55 $ 114.55 $ 114.55 $

57.53 $ 57.53 $ 57.53 $ 57.53 $ 266.0 306.0 66.18 $ 66.18 $ 66.18 $ 66.18 $

3,512 $ 3,512 $ 3,512 $ 3,512 $ N/A N/A N/A N./A N/A N/A

702 $ 702 $ 702 $ 702 $ 213.4 306.0 1,007 $ 1,007 $ 1,007 $ 1,007 $

132.89 $ 132.89 $ 132.89 $ 132.89 $ 266.0 306.0 152.87 $ 152.87 $ 152.87 $ 152.87 $

45.42 $ 45.42 $ 45.42 $ 45.42 $ 266.0 306.0 52.25 $ 52.25 $ 52.25 $ 52.25 $

Notes: (A, B, D, & E) Updated using CPI-U Medical care services, not seasonally adjusted (Base year: 2000 annual).

(C) Updated using CPI-U Medical care services, not seasonally adjusted (Base year: 1994 annual).

Sources and Derivations:

(E) CPT-4 Code 99262: Evaluation and Management: Follow-up inpatient consultation for an established patient, which

requires at least two of these three key components: an expanded problem-focused interval history, an expanded problemfocused examination, and medical decision-making of moderate complexity. CPI

Base CPI

2003 Cost Category

Hospital costs per day (C)

Initial physician visit (A)

Cost per follow-up (B)

Inpatient costs

Hospital costs (C)

Initial physician visit (D)

Cost per follow-up (E) Outpatient costs

(D) CPT-4 Code 99254: Evaluation and Management: Initial inpatient consultation for a new or established patient, which

requires three key components: a comprehensive history, a comprehensive examination, and medical decision-making of

moderate complexity. (A) CPT-4 Code 99204: Evaluation and Management: Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of

a new patient, which requires these three key components: a comprehensive history, a comprehensive examination, and

medical decision-making of moderate complexity.

(B) CPT-4 Code 99214: Evaluation and Management: Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of

an established patient, which requires at least two of these three key components: a detailed history, a detailed examination,

medical decision-making of moderate complexity.

(C) Hospital charges associated with "esophagitis, gastroenteritis and miscellaneous digestive disorders" for patients 0-17

years old; from the HCUP-3 Nationwide Inpatient Sample for 1994: Diagnosis=Related Groups (DRG #184). Cost per day

based on a 5-day hospital stay (e.g., $702 = $3,512/5). 

# Exhibit A.2 provides unit costs for the medical ser vices listed in Exhibit A.1. These include the

costs for an initial physician visit, follow-up visits, a nd the per-day cost of a hospital stay. All costs are

presented in both base year and 2003 dollars. Fo r costing purposes, EPA assumed hospital charges

associated with “esophagitis, gastroenteritis, and misce llaneous digestive disorders” for patients under the

age of 18 adequately represented the hospital costs of patients of all age groups. Dividing that value by

four yielded the per-day cost of a hospital stay.



# Exhibit A.2 Unit Cost Data, by Age, for Type A Viruses: Rotavirus

A.2.2 Data for Type B Viruses: Enteroviruses

The methodology described above matches the general process used to model the COI of

enteroviruses, although EPA used different illnesses to model the costs of cases defined by the following

requirements: no medical care, doctor’s visit, and hospitalization. For example, EPA bases most of its

estimates for a case of enterovirus that requires no medical care or outpatient care on data for an acute

case of intestinal virus infection. However, EPA based its estimate for enterovirus cases requiring

hospitalization on “other circulatory system diagnoses without complications or comorbidities.” Exhibits

A.3 and A.4 display these data.Economic Analysis for the A-4 October 2006Final Ground Water RuleNo Care Outpatient<1 year1to 45to 15 >16<1 year1to 45to 15 >16<1 year1to 45to 15 >160% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100%3 (1-6) 3 (1-6) 3 (1-6) 3 (1-6) 5 (2-12) 5 (2-10) 5 (2-7) 5 (2-9) 7 (2-14) 7 (2-14) 7 (2-14) 7 (2-14)3 (1-6) 3 (1-6) 1.5 1.15 5 (2-12) 5 (2-10) 5 (2-7) 5 (2-9) 7 (2-14) 7 (2-14) 7 (2-14) 7 (2-14)3 (1-6) 3 (1-6) 1.5 0 5 (2-12) 5 (2-10) 5 (2-7) 0 7 (2-14) 7 (2-14) 7 (2-14) 00 0 0 1.09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0N/AN/AN/AN/A1 111 1 11 1N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4.7 4.7 2.5 2.5N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A4 42 2Sources:(E) No Care, Inpatient, and Outpatient: Assumes caregiver days equal to number of patient days lost for patients under 16 yearsof age.(F) No Care: Assumes lost productivity days are equal to thenumber of restricted activity days (minus bed days) per acute caseof intestinal virus infection (intestinal virus data fromNational Center for Health Statistics (1999)) for healthy patients>15 years. Inpatient & Outpatient: Assumes lost productivity days are equal to zero.(G) No Care: NA. Outpatient: Miller (1997). Inpatient: Assumes one follow-up visit for all patients.(I) No Care & Outpatient: NA. Inpatient: Assumes daily follow-up doctor visit after day of admission.(H) No Care and Outpatient: NA. Inpatient: Khetsuriani et al. (2003) for patients <5 years; Rice et al. (1995) for patients 5 years and older.(D) No Care: Assumes lost days are equal to illness duration for patients 4 years old and younger. Assumes lost days are equalto number of bed days for acute case of intestinal virusfor patients 5-15 years of age (intestinal virus data from National Center for Health Statistics, 1999). Assumed equal to number of bed days per acute case of intestinal virus forpatients >15 years (National Center for Health Statistics, 1999). Inpatient & Outpatient: Assumes lost days equal to durationof illness.Percent seeking outpatient (A)Duration of hospital stay (days) (H)Follow-up doctor visits (I)Inpatient dataPercent seeking inpatient (B)Lost productivity days (F)OutpatientdataFollow-up doctor visits (G)Duration of symptoms (days) (C)Inpatient(A & B) No care, Outpatient, and Inpatient categorizations established to represent relative severity differences in disease manifestation.(C) No Care: Cherry (2004) and Modlin and Rotbart (1997) for patients <1 year; Cherry (2004) and Chin (2001) for patients 1 to4 years; Cherry (2004) for patients 5 to 15 years; formean for all patients; Cherry (2004) and Modlin and Rotbart (1997) for patients >15 years. Outpatient: Cherry (2004) for patients <1 year; Cherry (2004) and Chin 2001 for patients 1 to4 years; Cherry (2004) for patients 5 to 15 years; Cherry (2004) and Modlin and Rotbart (1997) for patients >15 years. Inpatient: Modlin and Rotbart (1997), Modlin (2005), Cherry(2004), and Morens et al. (1990) for patients <1 year; Modlin and Rotbart (1997), Modlin (2005), and Cherry (2004) for patients1 to 4 years; Modlin and Rotbart (1997), Modlin (2005),Cherry (2004), and Chin (2001) for patients >4 years.CategoryPatient days lost to illness (D)Caregiver days lost (E)Exhibit A.3 Non-monetary Cost Data, by Age, for Type B Viruses: EnterovirusesEconomic Analysis for the A-5 October 2006Final Ground Water RuleAverage Cost per PatientBase Year $ 2003$<1 Year1to 45to 15 >16<1 Year1to 45to 15 >1699.58$ 99.58$ 99.58$ 99.58$ 266.0306.0114.55$ 114.55$ 114.55$ 114.55$57.53$ 57.53$ 57.53$ 57.53$ 266.0306.066.18$ 66.18$ 66.18$ 66.18$16,981$ 6,413$ 6,413$ 6,413$ N/A N/A N/AN/A N/A N/A3,396$ 1,283$ 1,283$ 1,283$ 213.4306.04,870$ 1,839$ 1,839$ 1,839$132.89$ 132.89$ 132.89$ 132.89$ 266.0306.0152.87$ 152.87$ 152.87$ 152.87$45.42$ 45.42$ 45.42$ 45.42$ 266.0306.052.25$ 52.25$ 52.25$ 52.25$Notes: (A, B, E, & F) Updated using CPI-U Medical care services, not seasonally adjusted (Base year: 2000 annual).(C & D) Updated using CPI-U Medical care services, not seasonally adjusted (Base year: 1994 annual).Sources:(F) CPT-4 Code 99262: Evaluation and Management: Follow-up inpatient consultation for an established patient which requires atleast two ofthese three key components: an expanded problem-focused interval history, an expanded problem-focused examination, medical decisionmaking of moderate complexity.(E) CPT-4 Code 99254: Evaluation and Management: Initial inpatient consultation for a new or established patient, which requires three keycomponents: a comprehensive history, a comprehensive examination, and medical decision-making of moderate complexity.Hospital costs:(C)Cost per follow-up (B)Inpatient costs(A) CPT-4 Code 99204: Evaluation and Management: Office or otheroutpatient visit for the evaluation and management of a new patient, whichrequires these three key components: a comprehensive history, acomprehensive examination, and medical decision-making of moderatecomplexity.(B) CPT-4 Code 99214: Evaluation and Management: Office or otheroutpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an establishedpatient, which requires at least two of these three key components: a detailed history, a detailed examination, medical decision-making ofmoderate complexity.(C & D) Hospital charges associated with "other circulatory system diagnoses without complications or comorbidities" from the HCUP-3Nationwide Inpatient Sample for 1994: Diagnosis=Related Groups (DRG #145). Cost per day based on a 5-day hospital stay.Hospital costs per day: (D)Initial physician visit (E)Cost per follow-up (F)CPI-U2003Cost CategoryOutpatient costsInitial physician visit (A)CPIBaseExhibit A.4 Unit Cost Data, by Age, for Type B Viruses: Enteroviruses

# 2 

# Based on annual average of monthly figures, U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstr act of the United States,

2003, Table No. 602, sourced to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings , monthly, January 2003

issue, and based on the Current Population Survey.

3 

# Derived from the estimate of 131,091 thousand people at work (year 2002, based on annual average of

monthly figures, U.S. Census Bureau, St atistical Abstract of the United Stat es, 2003, Table No. 602, sourced to U.S.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings , monthly, January 2003 issue, and based on the Current

Population Survey) of the 217,570 thousand people in th is age range (year 2002, based on annual average of

monthly figures, U.S. Census Bureau, St atistical Abstract of the United Stat es, 2003, Table No. 587, sourced to U.S.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2307 and Employment and Earnings , monthly, January issues; Monthly Labor

Review, November 2001; and based on the Current Popul ation Survey). 131,091 thousand/ 217,570 thousand = 60.3

percent.

4 

# 39.2 hours/week ÷ 7 days/week x (131,091 thousand/ 217,570 thousand)=3.4 hours/day.

5 

# EPA's National Human Activity Pattern Survey, c onducted 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 A-6 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# A.3 Normal Time Allocation

The U.S. Census Bureau compiles data on weekly hours worked, and loss of work hours is a key

loss category used in this analysis. For the year 2002, that figure was 39.2 hours per week for the civilian

noninstitutional population 16 years old and ove r who are working full or part-time. 2 

# This figure

excludes those employed but not working because of vacations, illness, strikes, etc.; noncivilians;

institutionalized persons; and those in the labor pool but unemployed. This group of workers is about 60.3

percent of the population in this age range. 3 

# For an average day for the whole population, the average lost

market work hours per day of illness is, therefore, about 3.4 hours. 4



# Another important component of people’s lost time th at is valued in the calculation of benefits is

the time spent performing nonpaid work (e.g., erra nds, housework, child care). For these estimates,

studies of how people allocate their time is helpful. In recent years, a number of research teams have

explored the allocation of time across different activities. For example, a recent National Research

Council (2000) study lists more than 50 major time-use surveys that have been completed internationally.

However, the majority of the studies completed in recent years address countries other than the United

States, including Australia, the European Community, Japan, New Zealand, and Canada. The most recent

U.S. studies were completed by the University of Michigan in 1981-1982 and by the University of

Maryland in 1985; the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics is in the process of developing a new

time-use study and expects the results to be availa ble 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 inte raction, and recreation and leisure) that are

subdivided into 99 subgroups, each of which is furthe r subdivided into a number of discrete categories

(National Research Council 2000). 5 

# For the purpose of analyzing time losses associated with nonfatal

# 6 

# 40 hours/week ÷ 7 days/week x (1-131,091 thousand/ 217,570 thousand)= 2.3 hours/day.

7 

# 24 hours - 8 hours sleep - 3.4 market work hours - 2.3 nonmarket work hours = 10.3 hours/day.

Economic Analysis for the A-7 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# cases of Type A and Type B viruses, the dollar valu e applied (as discussed below) varies across three

larger categories: market work, nonmarket work, and leisure activities, so more aggregate data can be

used.

In lieu of a recent United States-based study, assumptions were made about time usage, which

were then compared to existing data for reasonabl eness. Specifically, this economic analysis computes

unpaid work time using 40 hours per week and appl ying it to the 39.7 percent of the population not

otherwise employed. While applied to the populati on of unpaid individuals, this estimate is not an

assumption that this entire population is performing full time (although nonmarket) work, because this

group includes infants, retired persons, and others. Nor is it an assumption that market workers do not

also perform nonmarket work. For an average day for the whole population, the average lost nonmarket

work hours per day of illness is about 2.3 hours. 6



# This analysis also assumes that, for the population as a whole, leisure time is the time left after

sleep time (which is assumed to be 8 hours) and th e time spent in market and nonmarket work. That

estimate for leisure time is then about 10.3 hours per day. 7



# These estimates compare reasonably with other st udies. For example, a recent Canadian study

addresses a different population but has similar results. Exhibit A.5 summarizes the results of the

Canadian study, which provides national estimates fo r individuals ages 15 and older in 1998. The hours

per day estimates are based on a 7-day week for all tim e categories. It seems reasonable to expect that

Canadian time-use patterns will be similar to U.S. pa tterns due to the proximity of the two countries and

the extent of interaction between their populations.



# Exhibit A.5 Time Allocation Estimates

Compared to 1998 Canadian Study (hours)

Time Category Estimates Used

in EA Canadian

Estimates

Market Work 3.4 3.3

Nonmarket Work and Leisure 12.6 12.6

Nonmarket Work 2.3

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 Statisti cs Canada 1999 and see text and footnotes.

# 8 

# See, for example, Final Heavy Duty Engine/Fuel Rule: Air Quality Planning and Standards.

Economic Analysis for the A-8 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# The time allocation estimates also appear not to be inconsistent with data from other sources. In

particular, the estimates of time devoted to night sl eep are similar across studies. For the United States,

1985 data indicate that individuals aged 18-64 av eraged 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 sl eep and naps (Statistics New Zealand 1999).



# A.4 Dollar Value of Time Losses

This analysis uses compensation data to estimat e the opportunity costs of lost market work,

nonmarket work, and leisure time. There are numerous sources of U.S. compensation data, each of which

focuses on somewhat different data elements and u ses different approaches to data collection. The

estimates developed for this analysis are based on well-established and fre quently cited sources of

national data, relying largely on year 2002 data included in the Statistical Abstract of the United States:

2003

.

The starting point for the development of these es timates is median weekly earnings for the year

2002 for full time workers ($609 per week), as reported by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics

(United States Bureau of the Census, 2003, Tabl e 641). This value is derived from the Current

Population Survey and includes wages and salaries, but not other costs (e.g., benefits) paid by the

employer.

This analysis uses median rather than average earnings as the starting point, consistent with other

EPA analyses. 8 

# The distribution of income in the United States is highly skewed due to the small number

of people who are extremely highly compensated, hen ce mean income is significantly higher than the

median. Use of the median reflects the notion that the small fraction of the U.S. population affected by

this rulemaking are likely to be better represented by the median of the income distribution than by the

mean value, which is closer to the upper tail of the distribution.

The next step is conversion of this value to ear nings per hour. According to the Bureau of Labor

Statistics, individuals usually working full time av eraged 42.9 hours per week at work in 2002 (United

States Bureau of the Census, 2003, Table 602). This means that the median earnings per hour averaged

$14.20 ($609/42.9).

For market work time, the measure of opportunity costs used in this analysis is total pre-tax

compensation from the perspective of the employer. The earnings number reported above does not reflect

employer paid benefits. To adjust this estimate upw ards to reflect total compensation, the analysis uses

the ratio of average wages and salar ies to average total compensation, as reported by the Bureau of Labor

Statistics for private industry workers for 2002 (Un ited States Bureau of the Census, 2003, Table 646).

These data show that total compensation per hour averages 1.41 times wages and salaries for full time

workers ($25.37/$18.02 per hour). Using this factor to adjust median hourly earnings (as reported above)

leads to an estimate of $20.02 per hour for total comp ensation. The value is then updated to 2003 dollars

($20.82) using the Employment Cost Index (ECI) (United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2004).

# 9 

# This median income estimate differs from the earni ngs estimates cited earlier because it reflects household

income, rather than individual earnings, and relies on a different data source.

Economic Analysis for the A-9 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# For nonmarket work and leisure time (excluding sleep), the measure of opportunity costs used is

post-tax earnings, i.e., the “take home” pay of the me dian individual. This analysis relies on Current

Population Survey data on household income before and after taxes (United States Census Bureau, 2003)

to determine the percent of earnings paid as taxes. In 2002, the median before-tax income was $42,409,

and median after-tax income was $35,812. 9 

# After-tax income was 84.4 percent of the pre-tax amount.

Applying this factor to median hourly earnings lead s to estimated after tax earnings of $11.98 per hour.

The value is then updated to 2003 dollars ($12.46) us ing the ECI. The Traditional COI uses half that

amount, or $6.23 per hour. For children under the age of 16 years, The results of these calculations are

reported in Exhibit A.6 below.

Exhibit A.7 multiplies these dollar per hour values by the time allocations presented in Exhibit

A.5 to determine the weighted average value of tim e per hour and per day. The exhibit also shows the

value of a caregiver day, which is the sum of a we ighted market work day, nonmarket work day, and

nonmarket leisure day.



# Exhibit A.6 Dollar per Hour Values

Time Loss Category Basis for Estimate of Value Dollar Value

Market Work Time Median gross (pre-tax) wage plus benefits $20.82 per hour

Nonmarket Work Time (Enhanced

COI) Median post-tax wage $12.46 per hour

Nonmarket Leisure Time

(Enhanced COI) Median post-tax wage $12.46 per hour

Nonmarket Work Time (Traditional

COI) Half the median post-tax wage $6.23 per hour

Sources: Derived from U. S. Census Bureau 2002 and 2003.

# Economic Analysis for the A-10 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Exhibit A.7 Weighted Average Value of Time

Time Loss Category Hours per Day of

Illness Per Hour Value Per Day Value

(weighted by time)

Enhanced COI

Market Work Time 3.4 $20.82 $70.79

Nonmarket Work Time 2.3 $12.46 $28.66

Nonmarket Leisure Time 10.3 $12.46 $128.34

Caregiver Day Sum of weighted lost market work,

nonmarket work, and nonmarket leisure

days $227.79 1



# Traditional COI

Market Work Time 3.4 $20.82 $70.79

Nonmarket Work Time 2.3 $6.23 $14.33

Caregiver Day Sum of weighted lost market work and

nonmarket work days $85.12 2

1 

# For children under 16 years, the value of a lost day under the Enhanced approach is $199.36 instead of $227.79 (16

hours x $12.46/hour) because it excludes any va lue for market work time and allocate s all lost time to the Nonmarket

Work and Nonmarket Leisure categories.

2 

# For children under 16 years, the value of a lost day under the Traditional approach is $0.

Sources: Exhibits A.5 and A.6



# A.5 Lost Productivity (Enhanced COI Only)

Productivity losses are only included in the Enhan ced COI. Time losses associated with nonfatal

cases of Type A and Type B viruses may include (1) a reduction in time (hours) engaged in normal

activities; and (2) an additional loss of productivity (or effectiveness) that occurs even when the ill

individual continues to engage in normal activities. Reductions in time (or hours) would result, for

example, when an ill individual spends time on doctor’ s visits, bed rest, or in the hospital rather than

engaging in normal market work and nonmarket work activities. Additional losses in productivity occur

when the individual continues to engage in normal activities, but is less productive or finds them less

enjoyable due to illness.

A reasonable estimate for lost productivity assum es that time spent in normal activities is 30

percent less productive than it would be normally, i. e., an individual produces 30 percent less per unit of

time engaged in market or nonmarket work, and is 30 percent less effective at leisure activities.

Furthermore, a reasonable estimate assumes that the do llar value (i.e., the utility loss, estimated based on

opportunity costs) of this reduction is equal to the reduction in productivity multiplied by the relevant

dollar per hour value (from Exhibit A.7 above). In other words, the 30 percent productivity loss is

multiplied by $20.82 per hour to estimate the value of reduced productivity while at work, and by $12.46

per hour to estimate the value of reduced productiv ity while engaged in nonmarket work and leisure

activities. As noted earlier, the value of sleep time is conservatively estimated as “zero” as the effect of

illness on sleep time is not quantified in this analysis.

# Economic Analysis for the A-11 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# The 30 percent reduction is based on Harrington et al. (1991), which reports the results of a

survey of individuals affected by a 1983 giardiasi s outbreak in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. In

addition to asking questions about missed wo rk 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 discussion was followed by a bounded multiple choice questions regarding the percent

decrease in normal capacity while working with th e illness. The researchers found that respondents

identified as workers reported a 30.4 percent loss, while those identified as homemakers reported a 34

percent loss (Harrington et al. 1991, p 103). For the an alysis of Type A and Type B viruses contained in

this report, these values are rounded to 30 percent. These losses are to the employer for market work

time, and to the individual for nonmarket work and leisure time

In addition to applying this 30 percent rate to market and nonmarket work time, the analysis

applies this rate to leisure time. The Harrington et al. survey asked respondents whether their leisure

activities changed as a result of the illness, as well as whether the illness required them to change their

normal routines. While percentage losses were not requested for time engaged in leisure activities while

ill, the survey results make it clear that these activiti es were altered as a result of the illness. While these

changes in leisure activities are partially captured in the analysis of time losses (i.e., decreased hours

spent in market work, nonmarket work, and leisure activities), it appears reasonable to assume that the

utility or pleasure associated with those leisure activ ities that are pursued while ill is also reduced as a

result of the illness.

The effects of giardiasis are very similar to the effects of Type A and Type B viruses, and a

review of the literature failed to identify any othe r recent U.S. studies that report productivity losses for

similar illnesses. The estimate of an approximately 30 percent reduction (based on Harrington et al.

1991) appears reasonable based on review of studi es estimating productivity losses due to other illnesses.



# A.6 Best Estimates for Cost of Illness

The data discussed throughout this appendix relate to Type A and Type B viruses. The costs,

time allocation, weighted average value of time, a nd loss of productivity estimates have been presented in

Exhibits A.1 through A.7. These cost of illness values ar e later adjusted for income growth in Appendix B

and yearly values are used in the model. These yearly values are the basis for the calculations of the COI

estimates, as discussed in Chapter 5, section 5.3.1.

# Appendix B

Detail of Benefits Valuation Inputs

# GWR Benefits Valuation Inputs Model Introduction Sheet

Worksheet Exhibit No. Description

Benefits Schedule B.1 Schedule used to estimate the accumulation of benefits by year.

VSL Valuation Inputs B.2 Distribution functions for VSL for fatalities.

CPI Proj B.3 CPI values for all goods (1990 - 2003).

Pop & GDP Proj B.4 Population projections, real GDP projections, and real per capita income projections

from 1990 to 2029 (values from 1990 - 2003 are actual values).

Inc Elasticity Factors B.5 Factors for incorporation of income elasticity into yearly benefits estimates.

VSL Values by Year B.6 Projected cost of dying from viral infection years 2005 to 2029.

Type A Base COI B.7 Mean direct and indirect cost of illness (COI) for Type A illnesses.

Type A COI by Year: Healthy B.8 COI values by year for Type A illnesses in healthy populations.

Type A COI by Year: Sensitive B.9 COI values by year for Type A illnesses in immunocompromised populations.

Type B Base COI B.10 Mean direct and indirect cost of illness (COI) for Type B illnessess.

Type B COI by Year: Mild B.11 COI values by year for mild cases of Type B illness.

Type B COI by Year: Moderate B.12 COI values by year for moderate cases of Type B illness.

Type B COI by Year: Severe B.13 COI values by year for severe cases of Type B illness.

Type A Healthy Illnesses

Avoided by GWR B.14a Estimated Type A illnesses avoided in the healthy population as a result of the GWR.

Type A Immunocompromised

Illnesses Avoided by GWR B.14b Estimated Type A illnesses avoided in the immunocompromised population as a result o f

the GWR.

Mild Type B Illnesses Avoided

by GWR B.15a Estimated Type B illnesses requiring no medical care avoided as a result of the GWR.

Moderate Type B Illnesses

Avoided by GWR B.15b Estimated Type B illnesses requiring doctor visit avoided as a result of the GWR.

Severe Type B Illnesses

Avoided by GWR B.15c Estimated Type B illnesses requiring no hospitalization avoided as a result of the GWR.

Type A Deaths Avoided by

GWR B.16 Estimated Type A deaths avoided as a result of the GWR.

Type B Deaths Avoided by

GWR B.17 Estimated Type B deaths avoided as a result of the GWR.

Water System Violations B.18 TCR violation data.

Economic Analysis for the

Final Ground Water Rule B-1 October 2006

# Exhibit B.1 Benefits Accumulation Schedule

Year CWS NTNCWS TNCWS

2007 0% 0% 0%

2008 0% 0% 0%

2009 17% 11% 11%

2010 33% 22% 22%

2011 50% 33% 33%

2012 67% 44% 44%

2013 83% 56% 56%

2014 100% 67% 67%

2015 100% 78% 78%

2016 100% 89% 89%

2017 100% 100% 100%

2018 100% 100% 100%

2019 100% 100% 100%

2020 100% 100% 100%

2021 100% 100% 100%

2022 100% 100% 100%

2023 100% 100% 100%

2024 100% 100% 100%

2025 100% 100% 100%

2026 100% 100% 100%

2027 100% 100% 100%

2028 100% 100% 100%

2029 100% 100% 100%

2030 100% 100% 100%

2031 100% 100% 100%

Source: Derived from rule implementation schedule.

Economic Analysis for the

Final Ground Water Rule B-1 October 2006

# Dist. Type Weibull

Parameters Loc: 0

Scale: 5.32

Shape: 1.509588

Simulation Mean 4.80 $ Million (1990$)

Central Estimate 0.40

Low End 0.08

High End 1.00

Dist. Type Triangular

Simulation Mean 0.49

Source: Kleckner and Neumann (2000) 

# Exhibit B.2 Description of VSL Valuation Parameters

VSL

Source: Distribution adapted from The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1970-1990 (USEPA, 1997b)



# VSL Income Elasticity

Economic Analysis for the

Final Ground Water Rule B-3 October 2006

# CPI

(Annual

Average) Percent

Change Adjustment

Factor

(1990 base)

1990 130.7

- 1.00

1991 136.2 4.2% 1.04

1992 140.3 3.0% 1.07

1993 144.5 3.0% 1.11

1994 148.2 2.6% 1.13

1995 152.4 2.8% 1.17

1996 156.9 3.0% 1.20

1997 160.5 2.3% 1.23

1998 163.0 1.6% 1.25

1999 166.6 2.2% 1.27

2000 172.2 3.4% 1.32

2001 177.1 2.8% 1.36

2002 179.9 1.6% 1.38

2003 184.0 2.3% 1.41

Notes: 1990 base factors (all items) used to update VSL values.

Source: 1990-2003 CPI values from Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

# Exhibit B.3 CPI Projections

Y ea r CPI - All Items

Economic Analysis for the

Final Ground Water Rule B-4 October 2006

# Estimates/

Projections

(Thousands) Percent

Change Projection

(Billions Chained

2000$) Percent

Change Projection

(Thousands

2000$) Percent

Change

1990 249,439

- 7,112.5

- 28,514

-

1991 252,127 1.1% 7,100.5 -0.2% 28,162 -1.2%

1992 254,995 1.1% 7,336.6 3.3% 28,772 2.2%

1993 257,746 1.1% 7,532.7 2.7% 29,225 1.6%

1994 260,289 1.0% 7,835.5 4.0% 30,103 3.0%

1995 262,765 1.0% 8,031.7 2.5% 30,566 1.5%

1996 265,190 0.9% 8,328.9 3.7% 31,407 2.8%

1997 267,744 1.0% 8,703.5 4.5% 32,507 3.5%

1998 270,299 1.0% 9,066.9 4.2% 33,544 3.2%

1999 272,820 0.9% 9,470.3 4.4% 34,713 3.5%

2000 275,306 0.9% 9,817.0 3.7% 35,659 2.7%

2001 277,803 0.9% 9,866.6 0.5% 35,517 -0.4%

2002 280,306 0.9% 10,083.0 2.2% 35,971 1.3%

2003 282,798 0.9% 10,398.0 3.1% 36,768 2.2%

2004 285,266 0.9% 10,730.7 3.2% 37,617 2.3%

2005 287,716 0.9% 11,245.8 4.8% 39,086 3.9%

2006 290,153 0.8% 11,718.1 4.2% 40,386 3.3%

2007 292,583 0.8% 12,093.1 3.2% 41,332 2.3%

2008 295,009 0.8% 12,419.6 2.7% 42,099 1.9%

2009 297,436 0.8% 12,767.4 2.8% 42,925 2.0%

2010 299,862 0.8% 13,124.9 2.8% 43,770 2.0%

2011 302,300 0.8% 13,466.1 2.6% 44,546 1.8%

2012 304,764 0.8% 13,802.8 2.5% 45,290 1.7%

2013 307,250 0.8% 14,147.8 2.5% 46,047 1.7%

2014 309,753 0.8% 14,501.5 2.5% 46,816 1.7%

2015 312,268 0.8% 14,864.1 2.5% 47,600 1.7%

2016 314,793 0.8% 15,235.7 2.5% 48,399 1.7%

2017 317,325 0.8% 15,616.6 2.5% 49,213 1.7%

2018 319,860 0.8% 16,007.0 2.5% 50,044 1.7%

2019 322,395 0.8% 16,407.2 2.5% 50,891 1.7%

2020 324,927 0.8% 16,817.3 2.5% 51,757 1.7%

2021 327,468 0.8% 17,237.8 2.5% 52,640 1.7%

2022 330,028 0.8% 17,668.7 2.5% 53,537 1.7%

2023 332,607 0.8% 18,110.4 2.5% 54,450 1.7%

2024 335,202 0.8% 18,563.2 2.5% 55,379 1.7%

2025 337,815 0.8% 19,027.3 2.5% 56,325 1.7%

2026 340,441 0.8% 19,502.9 2.5% 57,287 1.7%

2027 343,078 0.8% 19,990.5 2.5% 58,268 1.7%

2028 345,735 0.8% 20,490.3 2.5% 59,266 1.7%

2029 348,391 0.8% 21,002.5 2.5% 60,284 1.7%

Source: Population projections from US Census Bureau (NP-T1: Middle Series).

1990-2003 real GDP from Bureau of Economic Analysis, all other years calculated based on percent change projections from

Congressional Budget Office (January 26, 2004). Projections for years beyond 2014 based on percent change reported for 2014

due to lack of other data.

Income (Real GDP per Capita)=Real GDP/Population 

# Exhibit B.4 Population, GDP, and Per Capita Income Projections

Y ear Population Real GDP Income

(Real GDP per Capita)

Economic Analysis for the

Final Ground Water Rule B-5 October 2006

# Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile)

2005 1.169 1.163 1.066 1.295 1.063

2006 1.188 1.181 1.073 1.330 1.098

2007 1.202 1.194 1.078 1.356 1.124

2008 1.213 1.204 1.082 1.376 1.145

2009 1.224 1.215 1.086 1.398 1.167

2010 1.236 1.227 1.090 1.420 1.190

2011 1.247 1.237 1.094 1.441 1.212

2012 1.257 1.246 1.097 1.460 1.232

2013 1.268 1.256 1.101 1.480 1.252

2014 1.278 1.265 1.104 1.500 1.273

2015 1.288 1.275 1.108 1.520 1.295

2016 1.299 1.285 1.111 1.540 1.316

2017 1.310 1.295 1.115 1.561 1.338

2018 1.320 1.304 1.118 1.582 1.361

2019 1.331 1.314 1.122 1.604 1.384

2020 1.342 1.324 1.126 1.625 1.408

2021 1.353 1.335 1.129 1.648 1.432

2022 1.364 1.345 1.133 1.670 1.456

2023 1.376 1.355 1.136 1.692 1.481

2024 1.387 1.365 1.140 1.715 1.506

2025 1.398 1.375 1.143 1.739 1.532

2026 1.410 1.386 1.147 1.762 1.558

2027 1.421 1.396 1.150 1.786 1.585

2028 1.433 1.406 1.154 1.810 1.612

2029 1.445 1.417 1.157 1.834 1.640

Source: Derived using elasticity distributions and per capita GDP projections from Exhibits B.2 and B.4. 

# Real Income

Adjustment Factors

for Indirect

Costs of Illness

( Point Estimates ) 

# Exhibit B.5 Factors for Incorporation of Income Elasticity into

Yearly Benefits Estimates

Y ea r Factors for Fatal Illnesses

Mean

V alue Median

V alue 90 Percent

Note: Income elasticity factors calculated as [(eI 1 

# - eI 2 

# - I 2 

# - I 1 

# ) / (eI 2 

# - eI 1 

# - I 2 

# - I 1 

# )]; where e=income elasticity of

WTP estimate, and I=income.



# Economic Analysis for the

Final Ground Water Rule B-6 October 2006

# Exhibit B.6 Value of VSL Estimates

by Year ($Millions) ($2003)

Lower

(5th %tile) Uppe r

(95th %tile)

2007 

# 7.4 6.4 1.1 16.8

2008 

# 7.5 6.5 1.2 17.1

2009 

# 7.6 6.6 1.2 17.5

2010 

# 7.7 6.7 1.2 17.7

2011 

# 7.8 6.7 1.2 17.9

2012 

# 7.9 6.8 1.2 18.0

2013 

# 8.0 6.8 1.2 18.1

2014 

# 8.1 6.9 1.2 18.3

2015 

# 8.1 7.0 1.2 18.5

2016 

# 8.2 7.0 1.2 18.7

2017 

# 8.3 7.1 1.2 19.0

2018 

# 8.3 7.1 1.2 19.1

2019 

# 8.4 7.1 1.2 19.3

2020 

# 8.5 7.2 1.3 19.5

2021 

# 8.5 7.2 1.3 19.7

2022 

# 8.6 7.3 1.3 19.9

2023 

# 8.7 7.4 1.3 20.0

2024 

# 8.8 7.5 1.3 20.2

2025 

# 8.8 7.5 1.3 20.4

2026 

# 8.9 7.6 1.3 20.6

2027 

# 9.0 7.6 1.3 20.8

2028 

# 9.1 7.7 1.4 21.1

2029 

# 9.1 7.8 1.4 21.4

2030 

# 9.2 7.8 1.4 21.6

2031 

# 9.3 7.9 1.4 21.9

Source: Derived using data from Exhibits B.2 and B.5.

Year VSL

Mean

Value Median

Value 90 Percent

Confidence Bound



# Economic Analysis for the

Final Ground Water Rule B-7 October 2006

# Dist. Type Triangular

Age Distribution < 2 yrs 2 to 4 yrs 5 to 15 yrs > 15 yrs

Mode 97 $ 82 $ - $ - $

Low End 16 $ 16 $ - $ - $

High End 101 $ 99 $ - $ - $

Mean 71 $ 66 $ - $ - $

Mode 1,293 $ 1,293 $ 641 $ 103 $

Low End n/a n/a n/a n/a

High End n/a n/a n/a n/a

Mean n/a n/a n/a n/a

Dist. Type Triangular

Age Distribution < 2 yrs 2 to 4 yrs 5 to 15 yrs > 15 yrs

Mode 4,486 $ 4,486 $ 4,453 $ 4,453 $

Low End 4,453 $ 4,453 $ n/a n/a

High End 5,049 $ 5,049 $ n/a n/a

Mean 4,663 $ 4,663 $ n/a n/a

Mode 2,136 $ 1,281 $ 1,281 $ 569 $

Low End n/a n/a n/a n/a

High End n/a n/a n/a n/a

Mean n/a n/a n/a n/a

Source: Appendix A, Exhibits A.1and A.2. 

# Cost of Illness for Immunocompromised Populations

Direct Costs

Indirect Costs

Note: N/A Designates Point Estimate. 

# Exhibit B.7 Description of Rotavirus Valuation Parameters

Cost of Illness for Healthy Populations

Direct Costs

Indirect Costs

Economic Analysis for the

Final Ground Water Rule B-8 October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20071,410$ 1,413$ 1,373$ 1,435$ 1,404$ 1,407$ 1,371$ 1,429$ 663$ 663$ 663$ 663$ 107$ 107$ 107$ 107$20081,441$ 1,444$ 1,404$ 1,466$ 1,435$ 1,438$ 1,402$ 1,460$ 679$ 679$ 679$ 679$ 109$ 109$ 109$ 109$20091,494$ 1,498$ 1,457$ 1,520$ 1,489$ 1,491$ 1,455$ 1,513$ 705$ 705$ 705$ 705$ 114$ 114$ 114$ 114$20101,542$ 1,545$ 1,505$ 1,567$ 1,536$ 1,539$ 1,503$ 1,561$ 729$ 729$ 729$ 729$ 117$ 117$ 117$ 117$20111,576$ 1,579$ 1,539$ 1,602$ 1,570$ 1,573$ 1,537$ 1,595$ 746$ 746$ 746$ 746$ 120$ 120$ 120$ 120$20121,604$ 1,607$ 1,567$ 1,629$ 1,598$ 1,601$ 1,565$ 1,623$ 759$ 759$ 759$ 759$ 122$ 122$ 122$ 122$20131,634$ 1,637$ 1,597$ 1,660$ 1,628$ 1,631$ 1,595$ 1,653$ 774$ 774$ 774$ 774$ 125$ 125$ 125$ 125$20141,665$ 1,668$ 1,628$ 1,690$ 1,659$ 1,662$ 1,626$ 1,684$ 790$ 790$ 790$ 790$ 127$ 127$ 127$ 127$20151,693$ 1,696$ 1,656$ 1,719$ 1,687$ 1,690$ 1,654$ 1,712$ 804$ 804$ 804$ 804$ 129$ 129$ 129$ 129$20161,720$ 1,723$ 1,683$ 1,746$ 1,714$ 1,717$ 1,681$ 1,739$ 817$ 817$ 817$ 817$ 132$ 132$ 132$ 132$20171,748$ 1,751$ 1,711$ 1,773$ 1,742$ 1,745$ 1,709$ 1,767$ 831$ 831$ 831$ 831$ 134$ 134$ 134$ 134$20181,776$ 1,779$ 1,739$ 1,801$ 1,770$ 1,773$ 1,737$ 1,795$ 845$ 845$ 845$ 845$ 136$ 136$ 136$ 136$20191,804$ 1,808$ 1,767$ 1,830$ 1,799$ 1,801$ 1,765$ 1,823$ 859$ 859$ 859$ 859$ 138$ 138$ 138$ 138$20201,833$ 1,837$ 1,796$ 1,859$ 1,828$ 1,830$ 1,794$ 1,853$ 873$ 873$ 873$ 873$ 141$ 141$ 141$ 141$20211,863$ 1,866$ 1,826$ 1,888$ 1,857$ 1,860$ 1,824$ 1,882$ 888$ 888$ 888$ 888$ 143$ 143$ 143$ 143$20221,893$ 1,896$ 1,856$ 1,919$ 1,888$ 1,890$ 1,854$ 1,912$ 903$ 903$ 903$ 903$ 145$ 145$ 145$ 145$20231,924$ 1,927$ 1,887$ 1,950$ 1,918$ 1,921$ 1,885$ 1,943$ 918$ 918$ 918$ 918$ 148$ 148$ 148$ 148$20241,956$ 1,959$ 1,919$ 1,981$ 1,950$ 1,953$ 1,917$ 1,975$ 934$ 934$ 934$ 934$ 150$ 150$ 150$ 150$20251,988$ 1,991$ 1,951$ 2,013$ 1,982$ 1,985$ 1,949$ 2,007$ 950$ 950$ 950$ 950$ 153$ 153$ 153$ 153$20262,020$ 2,024$ 1,983$ 2,046$ 2,015$ 2,017$ 1,981$ 2,040$ 966$ 966$ 966$ 966$ 156$ 156$ 156$ 156$20272,054$ 2,057$ 2,017$ 2,079$ 2,048$ 2,051$ 2,015$ 2,073$ 982$ 982$ 982$ 982$ 158$ 158$ 158$ 158$20282,087$ 2,091$ 2,051$ 2,113$ 2,082$ 2,084$ 2,048$ 2,107$ 999$ 999$ 999$ 999$ 161$ 161$ 161$ 161$20292,122$ 2,125$ 2,085$ 2,147$ 2,116$ 2,119$ 2,083$ 2,141$ 1,016$ 1,016$ 1,016$ 1,016$ 164$ 164$ 164$ 164$20282,157$ 2,160$ 2,120$ 2,182$ 2,151$ 2,154$ 2,118$ 2,176$ 1,033$ 1,033$ 1,033$ 1,033$ 166$ 166$ 166$ 166$20292,193$ 2,196$ 2,156$ 2,218$ 2,187$ 2,190$ 2,154$ 2,212$ 1,051$ 1,051$ 1,051$ 1,051$ 169$ 169$ 169$ 169$Source:MedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundDerived from Exhibits B.5 and B.7MeanValueExhibit B.8 Value of COI Increment by Year (Rotavirus, Healthy Populations)Year< 2 Years Old 2 to 4 Years Old 5 to 15 Years Old > 15 Years OldMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleB-9October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20076,874$ 6,851$ 6,695$ 7,131$ 5,989$ 5,965$ 5,810$ 6,245$ 5,779$ 5,779$ 5,779$ 5,779$ 5,042$ 5,042$ 5,042$ 5,042$20086,925$ 6,902$ 6,746$ 7,182$ 6,019$ 5,996$ 5,841$ 6,276$ 5,810$ 5,810$ 5,810$ 5,810$ 5,056$ 5,056$ 5,056$ 5,056$20097,013$ 6,990$ 6,835$ 7,270$ 6,072$ 6,049$ 5,894$ 6,329$ 5,863$ 5,863$ 5,863$ 5,863$ 5,079$ 5,079$ 5,079$ 5,079$20107,092$ 7,068$ 6,913$ 7,348$ 6,119$ 6,096$ 5,940$ 6,376$ 5,910$ 5,910$ 5,910$ 5,910$ 5,100$ 5,100$ 5,100$ 5,100$20117,148$ 7,125$ 6,970$ 7,405$ 6,153$ 6,130$ 5,975$ 6,410$ 5,944$ 5,944$ 5,944$ 5,944$ 5,115$ 5,115$ 5,115$ 5,115$20127,195$ 7,171$ 7,016$ 7,451$ 6,181$ 6,158$ 6,002$ 6,437$ 5,971$ 5,971$ 5,971$ 5,971$ 5,127$ 5,127$ 5,127$ 5,127$20137,244$ 7,221$ 7,066$ 7,501$ 6,211$ 6,187$ 6,032$ 6,467$ 6,001$ 6,001$ 6,001$ 6,001$ 5,141$ 5,141$ 5,141$ 5,141$20147,295$ 7,272$ 7,116$ 7,552$ 6,241$ 6,218$ 6,063$ 6,498$ 6,032$ 6,032$ 6,032$ 6,032$ 5,154$ 5,154$ 5,154$ 5,154$20157,342$ 7,318$ 7,163$ 7,598$ 6,269$ 6,246$ 6,091$ 6,526$ 6,060$ 6,060$ 6,060$ 6,060$ 5,167$ 5,167$ 5,167$ 5,167$20167,386$ 7,363$ 7,208$ 7,643$ 6,296$ 6,273$ 6,117$ 6,552$ 6,086$ 6,086$ 6,086$ 6,086$ 5,179$ 5,179$ 5,179$ 5,179$20177,432$ 7,409$ 7,253$ 7,689$ 6,323$ 6,300$ 6,145$ 6,580$ 6,114$ 6,114$ 6,114$ 6,114$ 5,191$ 5,191$ 5,191$ 5,191$20187,478$ 7,455$ 7,300$ 7,735$ 6,351$ 6,328$ 6,172$ 6,608$ 6,142$ 6,142$ 6,142$ 6,142$ 5,203$ 5,203$ 5,203$ 5,203$20197,525$ 7,502$ 7,347$ 7,782$ 6,380$ 6,356$ 6,201$ 6,636$ 6,170$ 6,170$ 6,170$ 6,170$ 5,216$ 5,216$ 5,216$ 5,216$20207,573$ 7,550$ 7,395$ 7,830$ 6,408$ 6,385$ 6,229$ 6,665$ 6,199$ 6,199$ 6,199$ 6,199$ 5,228$ 5,228$ 5,228$ 5,228$20217,622$ 7,599$ 7,444$ 7,879$ 6,438$ 6,414$ 6,259$ 6,694$ 6,228$ 6,228$ 6,228$ 6,228$ 5,241$ 5,241$ 5,241$ 5,241$20227,672$ 7,649$ 7,494$ 7,929$ 6,468$ 6,444$ 6,289$ 6,724$ 6,258$ 6,258$ 6,258$ 6,258$ 5,255$ 5,255$ 5,255$ 5,255$20237,723$ 7,700$ 7,545$ 7,980$ 6,498$ 6,475$ 6,319$ 6,755$ 6,288$ 6,288$ 6,288$ 6,288$ 5,268$ 5,268$ 5,268$ 5,268$20247,775$ 7,752$ 7,597$ 8,032$ 6,529$ 6,506$ 6,351$ 6,786$ 6,320$ 6,320$ 6,320$ 6,320$ 5,282$ 5,282$ 5,282$ 5,282$20257,828$ 7,805$ 7,650$ 8,085$ 6,561$ 6,538$ 6,382$ 6,818$ 6,352$ 6,352$ 6,352$ 6,352$ 5,296$ 5,296$ 5,296$ 5,296$20267,882$ 7,859$ 7,704$ 8,139$ 6,594$ 6,570$ 6,415$ 6,850$ 6,384$ 6,384$ 6,384$ 6,384$ 5,311$ 5,311$ 5,311$ 5,311$20277,937$ 7,914$ 7,759$ 8,194$ 6,627$ 6,603$ 6,448$ 6,883$ 6,417$ 6,417$ 6,417$ 6,417$ 5,325$ 5,325$ 5,325$ 5,325$20287,993$ 7,970$ 7,815$ 8,250$ 6,660$ 6,637$ 6,481$ 6,916$ 6,450$ 6,450$ 6,450$ 6,450$ 5,340$ 5,340$ 5,340$ 5,340$20298,050$ 8,027$ 7,871$ 8,307$ 6,694$ 6,671$ 6,515$ 6,950$ 6,484$ 6,484$ 6,484$ 6,484$ 5,355$ 5,355$ 5,355$ 5,355$20288,108$ 8,085$ 7,929$ 8,365$ 6,729$ 6,705$ 6,550$ 6,985$ 6,519$ 6,519$ 6,519$ 6,519$ 5,371$ 5,371$ 5,371$ 5,371$20298,167$ 8,144$ 7,988$ 8,424$ 6,764$ 6,741$ 6,585$ 7,021$ 6,555$ 6,555$ 6,555$ 6,555$ 5,386$ 5,386$ 5,386$ 5,386$Source:90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundDerived from Exhibits B.5 and B.7Exhibit B.9 Value of COI Increment by Year (Rotavirus, Immunocompromised Populations)Year< 2 Years Old 2 to 4 Years Old 5 to 15 Years Old > 15 Years OldMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleB-10October 2006

# Dist. Type Triangular

Age Distribution < 1 mo 1 mo - < 1 yr 1 to < 5 yrs 5 to < 16 yrs > 16 yrs

Mode - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

Low End n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

High End n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Mean n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Mode 1,281 $ 1,281 $ 1,281 $ 641 $ 336 $

Low End 427 $ 427 $ 427 $ n/a n/a

High End 2,563 $ 2,563 $ 2,563 $ n/a n/a

Mean 1,424 $ 1,424 $ 1,424 $ n/a n/a

Dist. Type Triangular

Age Distribution < 1 mo 1 mo - < 1 yr 1 to < 5 yrs 5 to < 16 yrs > 16 yrs

Mode 181 $ 181 $ 181 $ 181 $ 181 $

Low End n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

High End n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Mean n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Mode 2,136 $ 2,136 $ 2,136 $ 2,136 $ 1,139 $

Low End 854 $ 854 $ 854 $ 854 $ 456 $

High End 5,126 $ 5,126 $ 4,272 $ 2,990 $ 2,050 $

Mean 2,705 $ 2,705 $ 2,421 $ 1,993 $ 1,215 $

Dist. Type Triangular

Age Distribution < 1 mo 1 mo - < 1 yr 1 to < 5 yrs 5 to < 16 yrs > 16 yrs

Central Estimate 23,431 $ 23,431 $ 9,187 $ 5,036 $ 5,036 $

Low End n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

High End n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Simulation Mean n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Central Estimate 2,990 $ 2,990 $ 2,990 $ 2,990 $ 1,595 $

Low End 854 $ 854 $ 854 $ 854 $ 456 $

High End 5,980 $ 5,980 $ 5,980 $ 5,980 $ 3,189 $

Simulation Mean 2,990 $ 2,990 $ 2,990 $ 2,990 $ 1,595 $ Direct Costs

Direct Costs

Note: N/A Designates Point Estimate.

Source: Appendix A, Exhibits A.3 and A.4. 

# Cost of Illness for Illnesses Requiring Doctor Visit

Direct Costs

Direct Costs

Cost of Illness for Illnesses Requiring Hospitalization 

# Exhibit B.10 Description of Enterovirus Valuation Parameters

Cost of Illness for Iillnesses Not Requiring Medical Treatment

Direct Costs

Direct Costs

Economic Analysis for the

Final Ground Water Rule B-11 October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20071,474$ 1,441$ 754$ 2,268$ 1,474$ 1,441$ 751$ 2,267$ 1,474$ 1,441$ 754$ 2,270$ 663$ 663$ 663$ 663$ 348$ 348$ 348$ 348$20081,508$ 1,474$ 772$ 2,320$ 1,508$ 1,474$ 768$ 2,319$ 1,508$ 1,474$ 771$ 2,322$ 679$ 679$ 679$ 679$ 356$ 356$ 356$ 356$20091,567$ 1,531$ 802$ 2,411$ 1,567$ 1,532$ 798$ 2,410$ 1,567$ 1,531$ 801$ 2,413$ 705$ 705$ 705$ 705$ 370$ 370$ 370$ 370$20101,619$ 1,582$ 829$ 2,491$ 1,619$ 1,582$ 825$ 2,490$ 1,619$ 1,582$ 828$ 2,493$ 729$ 729$ 729$ 729$ 383$ 383$ 383$ 383$20111,657$ 1,619$ 848$ 2,550$ 1,657$ 1,620$ 844$ 2,548$ 1,657$ 1,619$ 848$ 2,551$ 746$ 746$ 746$ 746$ 392$ 392$ 392$ 392$20121,688$ 1,649$ 864$ 2,597$ 1,688$ 1,650$ 860$ 2,595$ 1,688$ 1,649$ 863$ 2,599$ 759$ 759$ 759$ 759$ 399$ 399$ 399$ 399$20131,721$ 1,682$ 881$ 2,648$ 1,721$ 1,682$ 877$ 2,646$ 1,721$ 1,682$ 880$ 2,650$ 774$ 774$ 774$ 774$ 407$ 407$ 407$ 407$20141,755$ 1,715$ 898$ 2,700$ 1,755$ 1,715$ 894$ 2,698$ 1,755$ 1,715$ 898$ 2,702$ 790$ 790$ 790$ 790$ 415$ 415$ 415$ 415$20151,786$ 1,745$ 914$ 2,748$ 1,786$ 1,745$ 910$ 2,746$ 1,786$ 1,745$ 913$ 2,750$ 804$ 804$ 804$ 804$ 422$ 422$ 422$ 422$20161,816$ 1,774$ 929$ 2,794$ 1,816$ 1,775$ 925$ 2,792$ 1,816$ 1,774$ 929$ 2,796$ 817$ 817$ 817$ 817$ 429$ 429$ 429$ 429$20171,846$ 1,804$ 945$ 2,840$ 1,846$ 1,804$ 941$ 2,839$ 1,846$ 1,804$ 944$ 2,842$ 831$ 831$ 831$ 831$ 436$ 436$ 436$ 436$20181,877$ 1,834$ 961$ 2,888$ 1,877$ 1,834$ 956$ 2,886$ 1,877$ 1,834$ 960$ 2,890$ 845$ 845$ 845$ 845$ 443$ 443$ 443$ 443$20191,908$ 1,865$ 977$ 2,936$ 1,908$ 1,865$ 972$ 2,934$ 1,908$ 1,865$ 976$ 2,938$ 859$ 859$ 859$ 859$ 451$ 451$ 451$ 451$20201,940$ 1,896$ 993$ 2,985$ 1,940$ 1,896$ 989$ 2,984$ 1,940$ 1,896$ 992$ 2,987$ 873$ 873$ 873$ 873$ 458$ 458$ 458$ 458$20211,973$ 1,928$ 1,010$ 3,036$ 1,973$ 1,928$ 1,005$ 3,034$ 1,973$ 1,928$ 1,009$ 3,038$ 888$ 888$ 888$ 888$ 466$ 466$ 466$ 466$20222,006$ 1,961$ 1,027$ 3,087$ 2,006$ 1,961$ 1,022$ 3,085$ 2,006$ 1,961$ 1,026$ 3,089$ 903$ 903$ 903$ 903$ 474$ 474$ 474$ 474$20232,040$ 1,994$ 1,044$ 3,139$ 2,040$ 1,994$ 1,039$ 3,137$ 2,040$ 1,994$ 1,044$ 3,141$ 918$ 918$ 918$ 918$ 482$ 482$ 482$ 482$20242,075$ 2,028$ 1,062$ 3,193$ 2,075$ 2,028$ 1,057$ 3,191$ 2,075$ 2,028$ 1,061$ 3,195$ 934$ 934$ 934$ 934$ 490$ 490$ 490$ 490$20252,110$ 2,062$ 1,080$ 3,247$ 2,110$ 2,063$ 1,075$ 3,245$ 2,110$ 2,062$ 1,079$ 3,249$ 950$ 950$ 950$ 950$ 499$ 499$ 499$ 499$20262,146$ 2,098$ 1,098$ 3,302$ 2,146$ 2,098$ 1,094$ 3,300$ 2,146$ 2,098$ 1,098$ 3,305$ 966$ 966$ 966$ 966$ 507$ 507$ 507$ 507$20272,183$ 2,133$ 1,117$ 3,359$ 2,183$ 2,134$ 1,112$ 3,357$ 2,183$ 2,133$ 1,117$ 3,361$ 982$ 982$ 982$ 982$ 516$ 516$ 516$ 516$20282,220$ 2,170$ 1,136$ 3,416$ 2,220$ 2,170$ 1,131$ 3,414$ 2,220$ 2,170$ 1,136$ 3,418$ 999$ 999$ 999$ 999$ 525$ 525$ 525$ 525$20292,258$ 2,207$ 1,156$ 3,474$ 2,258$ 2,207$ 1,150$ 3,472$ 2,258$ 2,207$ 1,155$ 3,477$ 1,016$ 1,016$ 1,016$ 1,016$ 534$ 534$ 534$ 534$20282,296$ 2,245$ 1,175$ 3,534$ 2,297$ 2,245$ 1,170$ 3,532$ 2,296$ 2,245$ 1,175$ 3,536$ 1,033$ 1,033$ 1,033$ 1,033$ 543$ 543$ 543$ 543$20292,336$ 2,283$ 1,196$ 3,594$ 2,336$ 2,283$ 1,190$ 3,592$ 2,336$ 2,283$ 1,195$ 3,597$ 1,051$ 1,051$ 1,051$ 1,051$ 552$ 552$ 552$ 552$Source: Derived from Exhibits B.5 and B.10.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueExhibit B.11 Value of COI Increment by Year (Enterovirus, Cases Not Requiring Medical Care)Year< 1 Month Old 1 Month to < 1 Year Old 1 to < 5 Years Old 5 to < 16 Years Old >16 Years OldMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleB-12October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20072,981$ 2,866$ 1,602$ 4,651$ 2,981$ 2,866$ 1,604$ 4,657$ 2,687$ 2,625$ 1,547$ 3,977$ 2,244$ 2,276$ 1,447$ 2,959$ 1,439$ 1,420$ 894$ 2,021$20083,046$ 2,928$ 1,635$ 4,755$ 3,046$ 2,928$ 1,637$ 4,760$ 2,744$ 2,682$ 1,578$ 4,064$ 2,292$ 2,324$ 1,476$ 3,023$ 1,468$ 1,448$ 910$ 2,063$20093,158$ 3,036$ 1,691$ 4,933$ 3,158$ 3,036$ 1,694$ 4,939$ 2,845$ 2,779$ 1,633$ 4,216$ 2,375$ 2,408$ 1,527$ 3,134$ 1,518$ 1,498$ 939$ 2,137$20103,257$ 3,131$ 1,742$ 5,091$ 3,257$ 3,131$ 1,745$ 5,098$ 2,933$ 2,866$ 1,681$ 4,350$ 2,447$ 2,482$ 1,572$ 3,233$ 1,562$ 1,542$ 964$ 2,202$20113,329$ 3,200$ 1,778$ 5,206$ 3,329$ 3,200$ 1,781$ 5,213$ 2,998$ 2,929$ 1,716$ 4,448$ 2,501$ 2,536$ 1,604$ 3,304$ 1,595$ 1,573$ 982$ 2,249$20123,387$ 3,256$ 1,808$ 5,300$ 3,387$ 3,256$ 1,811$ 5,306$ 3,050$ 2,980$ 1,745$ 4,527$ 2,544$ 2,579$ 1,631$ 3,362$ 1,621$ 1,599$ 997$ 2,287$20133,450$ 3,316$ 1,840$ 5,400$ 3,450$ 3,316$ 1,843$ 5,407$ 3,106$ 3,035$ 1,775$ 4,612$ 2,590$ 2,626$ 1,659$ 3,424$ 1,649$ 1,627$ 1,013$ 2,329$20143,515$ 3,378$ 1,872$ 5,503$ 3,515$ 3,378$ 1,876$ 5,510$ 3,164$ 3,091$ 1,807$ 4,700$ 2,637$ 2,675$ 1,688$ 3,488$ 1,678$ 1,656$ 1,030$ 2,371$20153,574$ 3,434$ 1,902$ 5,597$ 3,574$ 3,435$ 1,906$ 5,604$ 3,217$ 3,142$ 1,836$ 4,780$ 2,681$ 2,719$ 1,715$ 3,547$ 1,705$ 1,682$ 1,045$ 2,410$20163,631$ 3,489$ 1,931$ 5,688$ 3,631$ 3,489$ 1,934$ 5,695$ 3,267$ 3,192$ 1,863$ 4,856$ 2,723$ 2,761$ 1,741$ 3,603$ 1,730$ 1,707$ 1,059$ 2,447$20173,688$ 3,544$ 1,960$ 5,780$ 3,688$ 3,544$ 1,964$ 5,787$ 3,319$ 3,242$ 1,891$ 4,935$ 2,765$ 2,804$ 1,767$ 3,660$ 1,756$ 1,732$ 1,074$ 2,485$20183,747$ 3,600$ 1,990$ 5,873$ 3,747$ 3,600$ 1,994$ 5,880$ 3,371$ 3,293$ 1,920$ 5,014$ 2,808$ 2,848$ 1,793$ 3,719$ 1,782$ 1,758$ 1,089$ 2,524$20193,807$ 3,658$ 2,020$ 5,968$ 3,807$ 3,658$ 2,024$ 5,976$ 3,425$ 3,346$ 1,949$ 5,095$ 2,852$ 2,893$ 1,820$ 3,778$ 1,809$ 1,785$ 1,104$ 2,563$20203,867$ 3,716$ 2,051$ 6,066$ 3,867$ 3,716$ 2,055$ 6,073$ 3,479$ 3,399$ 1,979$ 5,177$ 2,897$ 2,938$ 1,848$ 3,838$ 1,836$ 1,812$ 1,119$ 2,603$20213,929$ 3,775$ 2,083$ 6,165$ 3,929$ 3,775$ 2,086$ 6,172$ 3,535$ 3,453$ 2,009$ 5,262$ 2,943$ 2,985$ 1,876$ 3,900$ 1,864$ 1,839$ 1,135$ 2,643$20223,993$ 3,836$ 2,115$ 6,266$ 3,993$ 3,836$ 2,118$ 6,273$ 3,591$ 3,508$ 2,040$ 5,347$ 2,990$ 3,032$ 1,904$ 3,962$ 1,893$ 1,867$ 1,151$ 2,685$20234,057$ 3,898$ 2,148$ 6,369$ 4,057$ 3,898$ 2,151$ 6,377$ 3,649$ 3,564$ 2,071$ 5,435$ 3,037$ 3,080$ 1,934$ 4,026$ 1,922$ 1,896$ 1,168$ 2,727$20244,123$ 3,961$ 2,181$ 6,474$ 4,123$ 3,961$ 2,185$ 6,482$ 3,708$ 3,622$ 2,103$ 5,524$ 3,086$ 3,130$ 1,963$ 4,092$ 1,951$ 1,925$ 1,185$ 2,771$20254,190$ 4,026$ 2,215$ 6,581$ 4,190$ 4,026$ 2,219$ 6,589$ 3,768$ 3,681$ 2,136$ 5,615$ 3,135$ 3,180$ 1,994$ 4,159$ 1,981$ 1,954$ 1,202$ 2,815$20264,259$ 4,091$ 2,250$ 6,690$ 4,259$ 4,091$ 2,254$ 6,699$ 3,829$ 3,740$ 2,170$ 5,708$ 3,186$ 3,231$ 2,025$ 4,226$ 2,012$ 1,985$ 1,219$ 2,860$20274,328$ 4,158$ 2,285$ 6,801$ 4,328$ 4,158$ 2,289$ 6,810$ 3,892$ 3,801$ 2,203$ 5,802$ 3,237$ 3,283$ 2,056$ 4,295$ 2,043$ 2,016$ 1,237$ 2,905$20284,399$ 4,226$ 2,321$ 6,914$ 4,399$ 4,226$ 2,325$ 6,923$ 3,955$ 3,863$ 2,238$ 5,898$ 3,289$ 3,336$ 2,088$ 4,366$ 2,075$ 2,047$ 1,255$ 2,952$20294,471$ 4,295$ 2,358$ 7,029$ 4,471$ 4,295$ 2,362$ 7,038$ 4,019$ 3,926$ 2,273$ 5,996$ 3,342$ 3,390$ 2,121$ 4,437$ 2,107$ 2,079$ 1,273$ 2,999$20284,544$ 4,365$ 2,395$ 7,146$ 4,544$ 4,365$ 2,399$ 7,155$ 4,085$ 3,990$ 2,309$ 6,095$ 3,396$ 3,445$ 2,154$ 4,510$ 2,140$ 2,111$ 1,292$ 3,047$20294,619$ 4,437$ 2,433$ 7,266$ 4,619$ 4,437$ 2,437$ 7,275$ 4,152$ 4,055$ 2,345$ 6,196$ 3,451$ 3,501$ 2,188$ 4,584$ 2,174$ 2,144$ 1,311$ 3,097$Source: Derived from Exhibits B.5 and B.10.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueExhibit B.12 Value of COI Increment by Year (Enterovirus, Cases Requiring Doctor Visit)Year< 1 Month Old 1 Month to < 1 Year Old 1 to < 5 Years Old 5 to < 16 Years Old >16 Years OldMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleB-13October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)200726,821$ 26,753$ 25,081$ 28,713$ 26,821$ 26,755$ 25,077$ 28,713$ 12,577$ 12,511$ 10,835$ 14,459$ 8,426$ 8,358$ 6,679$ 10,319$ 6,844$ 6,808$ 5,914$ 7,850$200826,900$ 26,830$ 25,119$ 28,835$ 26,899$ 26,832$ 25,115$ 28,835$ 12,655$ 12,587$ 10,873$ 14,581$ 8,504$ 8,435$ 6,717$ 10,441$ 6,886$ 6,849$ 5,935$ 7,915$200927,035$ 26,963$ 25,185$ 29,046$ 27,035$ 26,965$ 25,181$ 29,046$ 12,791$ 12,720$ 10,939$ 14,792$ 8,640$ 8,568$ 6,782$ 10,652$ 6,958$ 6,919$ 5,970$ 8,027$201027,155$ 27,080$ 25,243$ 29,233$ 27,155$ 27,082$ 25,239$ 29,233$ 12,911$ 12,838$ 10,997$ 14,978$ 8,760$ 8,685$ 6,840$ 10,839$ 7,022$ 6,982$ 6,001$ 8,127$201127,242$ 27,166$ 25,286$ 29,369$ 27,242$ 27,168$ 25,282$ 29,369$ 12,998$ 12,923$ 11,039$ 15,114$ 8,847$ 8,771$ 6,883$ 10,975$ 7,069$ 7,028$ 6,024$ 8,199$201227,313$ 27,235$ 25,320$ 29,479$ 27,313$ 27,237$ 25,316$ 29,479$ 13,068$ 12,993$ 11,074$ 15,224$ 8,918$ 8,840$ 6,917$ 11,085$ 7,106$ 7,065$ 6,042$ 8,258$201327,389$ 27,310$ 25,357$ 29,598$ 27,389$ 27,312$ 25,353$ 29,597$ 13,145$ 13,067$ 11,111$ 15,342$ 8,994$ 8,914$ 6,954$ 11,203$ 7,147$ 7,104$ 6,062$ 8,321$201427,467$ 27,386$ 25,395$ 29,719$ 27,467$ 27,388$ 25,391$ 29,719$ 13,223$ 13,144$ 11,148$ 15,463$ 9,072$ 8,991$ 6,992$ 11,325$ 7,188$ 7,145$ 6,082$ 8,386$201527,538$ 27,456$ 25,430$ 29,831$ 27,538$ 27,458$ 25,426$ 29,830$ 13,294$ 13,214$ 11,183$ 15,575$ 9,143$ 9,061$ 7,026$ 11,436$ 7,227$ 7,183$ 6,100$ 8,445$201627,607$ 27,523$ 25,463$ 29,938$ 27,607$ 27,525$ 25,459$ 29,937$ 13,363$ 13,281$ 11,217$ 15,681$ 9,212$ 9,128$ 7,060$ 11,543$ 7,263$ 7,218$ 6,118$ 8,502$201727,677$ 27,592$ 25,497$ 30,046$ 27,677$ 27,594$ 25,493$ 30,046$ 13,432$ 13,350$ 11,251$ 15,790$ 9,281$ 9,197$ 7,093$ 11,652$ 7,300$ 7,255$ 6,136$ 8,560$201827,748$ 27,661$ 25,532$ 30,157$ 27,748$ 27,663$ 25,527$ 30,157$ 13,503$ 13,419$ 11,285$ 15,900$ 9,352$ 9,266$ 7,128$ 11,763$ 7,338$ 7,292$ 6,155$ 8,619$201927,820$ 27,732$ 25,567$ 30,270$ 27,820$ 27,734$ 25,562$ 30,269$ 13,576$ 13,490$ 11,320$ 16,013$ 9,425$ 9,337$ 7,163$ 11,875$ 7,377$ 7,330$ 6,173$ 8,679$202027,894$ 27,804$ 25,603$ 30,384$ 27,894$ 27,806$ 25,598$ 30,384$ 13,649$ 13,562$ 11,356$ 16,127$ 9,498$ 9,409$ 7,198$ 11,990$ 7,416$ 7,368$ 6,192$ 8,740$202127,969$ 27,878$ 25,639$ 30,501$ 27,969$ 27,880$ 25,635$ 30,501$ 13,724$ 13,636$ 11,392$ 16,244$ 9,573$ 9,483$ 7,235$ 12,107$ 7,456$ 7,407$ 6,212$ 8,802$202228,045$ 27,953$ 25,676$ 30,621$ 28,045$ 27,955$ 25,672$ 30,620$ 13,801$ 13,711$ 11,430$ 16,363$ 9,650$ 9,558$ 7,272$ 12,226$ 7,497$ 7,447$ 6,232$ 8,866$202328,124$ 28,029$ 25,714$ 30,742$ 28,123$ 28,032$ 25,710$ 30,742$ 13,879$ 13,788$ 11,468$ 16,485$ 9,728$ 9,634$ 7,310$ 12,348$ 7,539$ 7,488$ 6,252$ 8,931$202428,203$ 28,108$ 25,753$ 30,867$ 28,203$ 28,110$ 25,748$ 30,866$ 13,959$ 13,866$ 11,506$ 16,609$ 9,808$ 9,712$ 7,348$ 12,472$ 7,581$ 7,530$ 6,273$ 8,997$202528,285$ 28,187$ 25,793$ 30,994$ 28,285$ 28,190$ 25,788$ 30,993$ 14,040$ 13,946$ 11,546$ 16,735$ 9,889$ 9,792$ 7,388$ 12,599$ 7,625$ 7,573$ 6,294$ 9,065$202628,368$ 28,269$ 25,833$ 31,122$ 28,367$ 28,271$ 25,828$ 31,122$ 14,123$ 14,027$ 11,586$ 16,864$ 9,972$ 9,873$ 7,428$ 12,728$ 7,669$ 7,616$ 6,315$ 9,133$202728,452$ 28,351$ 25,874$ 31,254$ 28,452$ 28,353$ 25,869$ 31,253$ 14,207$ 14,109$ 11,627$ 16,995$ 10,056$ 9,956$ 7,469$ 12,859$ 7,714$ 7,660$ 6,337$ 9,203$202828,537$ 28,435$ 25,916$ 31,387$ 28,537$ 28,437$ 25,911$ 31,387$ 14,293$ 14,193$ 11,669$ 17,128$ 10,142$ 10,040$ 7,510$ 12,993$ 7,759$ 7,705$ 6,359$ 9,274$202928,625$ 28,520$ 25,958$ 31,523$ 28,624$ 28,523$ 25,953$ 31,522$ 14,380$ 14,279$ 11,711$ 17,264$ 10,229$ 10,125$ 7,553$ 13,129$ 7,806$ 7,750$ 6,382$ 9,347$202828,713$ 28,607$ 26,001$ 31,661$ 28,713$ 28,610$ 25,996$ 31,661$ 14,469$ 14,366$ 11,754$ 17,402$ 10,318$ 10,212$ 7,596$ 13,267$ 7,853$ 7,797$ 6,405$ 9,420$202928,804$ 28,696$ 26,045$ 31,802$ 28,804$ 28,699$ 26,040$ 31,802$ 14,559$ 14,455$ 11,798$ 17,542$ 10,408$ 10,301$ 7,639$ 13,408$ 7,901$ 7,844$ 6,428$ 9,495$Source: Derived from Exhibits B.5 and B.10.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueExhibit B.13 Value of COI Increment by Year (Enterovirus, Cases Requiring Hospitalization)Year< 1 Month Old 1 Month to < 1 Year Old 1 to < 5 Years Old 5 to < 16 Years Old >16 Years OldMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleB-14October 20065th 95th 5th 95th 5th 95th 5th 95th 5th 95th<10075 14 116 41 6 71 224 33 376 1,615 230 2,612 316 45 510100 -500133 32 189 71 13 142 383 68 778 2,650 472 5,271 518 92 1,030501- 1,00084 24 131 45 10 89 237 48 466 1,552 320 3,080 303 62 5991,001 - 3,300138 33 264 74 15 150 366 79 714 2,226 485 4,355 434 95 8443,301 - 10,000247 74 447 130 33 269 628 160 1,357 3,607 880 7,278 701 172 1,41610,001 - 50,000223 73 386 118 31 251 582 157 1,344 3,429 895 8,094 668 174 1,57550,001-100,000396 139 637 217 60 438 1,061 315 2,090 6,077 1,886 11,317 1,180 368 2,196100,001-1,000,000388 141 660 208 55 482 1,013 292 2,317 5,832 1,661 12,850 1,133 322 2,493> 1,000,0000 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total1,684 531 2,829 904 224 1,893 4,494 1,151 9,442 26,989 6,828 54,858 5,252 1,329 10,664Exhibit B.14a Type A Virus Illnesses Avoided for Healthy Population by the GWR90 PercentConfidenceBound90 PercentConfidenceBound90 PercentConfidenceBound90 PercentConfidenceBound90 PercentConfidenceBoundAges >65 yearsAges <2 years Ages 2 - 4 years Ages 5 - 15 yearsmeanvalueSize CategorymeanvaluemeanvaluemeanvaluemeanvalueAges 16 - 64 yearsEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleB-15 October 20065th 95th 5th 95th 5th 95th 5th 95th 5th 95th<1000.2 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.1 1.1 4.9 0.7 7.9 0.9 0.1 1.5100 -5000.4 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.0 0.4 1.2 0.2 2.3 8.0 1.4 15.9 1.6 0.3 3.1501- 1,0000.3 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.1 1.4 4.7 1.0 9.3 0.9 0.2 1.81,001 - 3,3000.4 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.5 1.1 0.2 2.1 6.7 1.5 13.1 1.3 0.3 2.53,301 - 10,0000.7 0.2 1.3 0.4 0.1 0.8 1.9 0.5 4.1 10.9 2.6 21.9 2.1 0.5 4.310,001 - 50,0000.7 0.2 1.2 0.4 0.1 0.8 1.8 0.5 4.0 10.3 2.7 24.4 2.0 0.5 4.750,001-100,0001.2 0.4 1.9 0.7 0.2 1.3 3.2 0.9 6.3 18.3 5.7 34.1 3.6 1.1 6.6100,001-1,000,0001.2 0.4 2.0 0.6 0.2 1.5 3.0 0.9 7.0 17.5 5.0 38.7 3.4 1.0 7.5> 1,000,0000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total5.1 1.6 8.5 2.7 0.7 5.7 13.5 3.5 28.4 81.2 20.5 165.1 15.8 4.0 32.190 PercentConfidenceBoundmeanvalue90 PercentConfidenceBound90 PercentConfidenceBoundmeanvalue90 PercentConfidenceBoundmeanvaluemeanvalue90 PercentConfidenceBoundExhibit B.14b Type A Virus Illnesses Avoided for Immunocompromised Population by the GWRSize CategoryAges <2 years Ages 2 - 4 years Ages 5 - 15 years Ages 16 - 64 years Ages >65 yearsmeanvalueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleB-16 October 2006Size Category 5th 95th 5th 95th 5th 95th 5th 95th 5th 95th 5th 95th<1000.1 0.0 0.3 1.0 0.1 3.1 4.0 0.2 12.6 9.2 0.5 30.2 44.1 2.8 149.1 8.6 0.5 29.1100 -5000.2 0.0 0.6 1.8 0.1 6.1 7.5 0.4 24.8 17.7 1.0 61.3 84.8 6.1 282.7 16.6 1.2 55.3501- 1,0000.1 0.0 0.5 1.5 0.1 5.2 6.0 0.3 21.0 13.7 0.8 50.2 65.2 3.6 213.2 12.7 0.7 41.61,001 - 3,3000.2 0.0 0.8 2.5 0.1 9.3 10.4 0.5 37.8 24.4 1.3 79.0 117.0 7.3 405.4 22.9 1.4 79.23,301 - 10,0000.5 0.0 1.3 5.3 0.3 14.3 21.7 1.2 58.7 48.0 2.3 124.1 211.6 16.5 643.5 41.3 3.2 125.510,001 - 50,0000.5 0.0 1.6 5.2 0.3 17.2 21.2 1.2 70.8 47.8 2.9 165.0 215.0 15.3 678.2 42.0 3.0 132.450,001-100,0000.8 0.1 2.5 8.5 0.7 28.0 34.7 2.7 114.8 79.3 5.6 247.3 352.9 28.2 1,159.4 68.9 5.5 225.9100,001-1,000,0000.8 0.1 2.7 8.7 0.8 30.1 35.7 3.1 123.2 83.9 5.8 285.7 376.2 33.4 1,418.0 73.5 6.5 277.0> 1,000,0000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total3.1 0.2 10.3 34.5 2.4 113.2 141.2 9.8 463.8 324.1 20.3 1,042.8 1,466.7 113.1 4,949.5 286.5 22.2 966.0Ages >65 yearsAges < 1 month Ages 1 month - < 1 year Ages 1 - 4 years Ages 5 - 15 years90 PercentConfidenceBoundmeanvalueAges 16 - 64 years90 PercentConfidenceBoundmeanvalue90 PercentConfidenceBoundExhibit B.15a Type B Virus Illnesses - No Medical Care - Avoided by the GWRmeanvalue90 PercentConfidenceBoundmeanvalue90 PercentConfidenceBoundmeanvalue90 PercentConfidenceBoundmeanvalueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleB-17 October 2006Size Category 5th 95th 5th 95th 5th 95th 5th 95th 5th 95th 5th 95th<1000.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.8 0.6 0.0 1.9 2.8 0.2 9.6 0.6 0.0 1.9100 -5000.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.0 1.6 1.1 0.1 4.0 5.5 0.4 18.2 1.1 0.1 3.6501- 1,0000.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 1.4 0.9 0.1 3.2 4.2 0.2 13.8 0.8 0.0 2.71,001 - 3,3000.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.7 0.0 2.4 1.6 0.1 5.1 7.5 0.5 26.2 1.5 0.1 5.13,301 - 10,0000.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.9 1.4 0.1 3.8 3.1 0.1 8.0 13.7 1.1 41.5 2.7 0.2 8.110,001 - 50,0000.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 1.1 1.4 0.1 4.6 3.1 0.2 10.6 13.9 1.0 43.8 2.7 0.2 8.550,001-100,0000.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.0 1.8 2.2 0.2 7.4 5.1 0.4 16.0 22.8 1.8 74.8 4.4 0.4 14.6100,001-1,000,0000.1 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.0 1.9 2.3 0.2 8.0 5.4 0.4 18.4 24.3 2.2 91.5 4.7 0.4 17.9> 1,000,0000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total0.2 0.0 0.7 2.2 0.2 7.3 9.1 0.6 29.9 20.9 1.3 67.3 94.6 7.3 319.3 18.5 1.4 62.3meanvaluePercentConfidence BoundmeanvaluePercentConfidence BoundExhibit B.15b Type B Virus Illnesses - Doctor Care Required - Avoided by the GWRAges < 1 monthAges 1 month - < 1year Ages 1 - 4 years Ages 5 - 15 years Ages 16 - 64 years Ages >65 yearsmeanvalue90 PercentConfidenceBoundmeanvalue90 PercentConfidenceBoundmeanvalue90 PercentConfidenceBoundmeanvalue90 PercentConfidenceBoundEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleB-18 October 20065th 95th 5th 95th 5th 95th 5th 95th 5th 95th 5th 95th<1000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.0 1.6 0.1 0.0 0.3100 -5000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.9 0.1 3.0 0.2 0.0 0.6501- 1,0000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.7 0.0 2.3 0.1 0.0 0.41,001 - 3,3000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.8 1.3 0.1 4.4 0.2 0.0 0.93,301 - 10,0000.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.5 0.0 1.3 2.3 0.2 6.9 0.4 0.0 1.310,001 - 50,0000.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.5 0.0 1.8 2.3 0.2 7.3 0.5 0.0 1.450,001-100,0000.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 1.2 0.9 0.1 2.7 3.8 0.3 12.5 0.7 0.1 2.4100,001-1,000,0000.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 1.3 0.9 0.1 3.1 4.0 0.4 15.2 0.8 0.1 3.0> 1,000,0000.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 1.2 1.5 0.1 5.0 3.5 0.2 11.2 15.8 1.2 53.2 3.1 0.2 10.4Exhibit B.15c Type B Virus Illnesses - Hospitalization Required - Avoided by the GWRAges < 1 monthAges 1 month - <1 year Ages 1 - 4 years Ages 5 - 15 years Ages 16 - 64 years Ages >65 yearsSize Categorymeanvalue90 PercentConfidence Boundmeanvalue90 PercentConfidence Boundmeanvalue90 PercentConfidence Boundmeanvalue90 PercentConfidenceBoundmeanvalue90 PercentConfidenceBoundmeanvalue90 PercentConfidenceBoundEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleB-19 October 20065th 95th 5th 95th 5th 95th 5th 95th 5th 95th<1000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00100 -5000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01501- 1,0000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.001,001 - 3,3000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.013,301 - 10,0000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.0110,001 - 50,0000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.0150,001-100,0000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.02100,001-1,000,0000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.02> 1,000,0000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Total0.01 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.06 0.18 0.04 0.38 0.04 0.01 0.0790 PercentConfidence Boundmeanvalue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence Boundmeanvalue90 PercentConfidence Boundmeanvaluemeanvalue90 PercentConfidence BoundExhibit B.16 Type A Virus Deaths Avoided by the GWRSize CategoryAges <2 years Ages 2 - 4 years Ages 5 - 15 years Ages 16 - 64 Ages > 65 yearsmeanvalueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleB-20 October 20065th 95th 5th 95th 5th 95th 5th 95th 5th 95th 5th 95th<1000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.01100 -5000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.00 0.14 0.01 0.00 0.03501- 1,0000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.021,001 - 3,3000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.09 0.01 0.12 0.02 0.00 0.023,301 - 10,0000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.08 0.13 0.01 0.32 0.02 0.00 0.0610,001 - 50,0000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.07 0.10 0.00 0.25 0.02 0.00 0.0550,001-100,0000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.10 0.16 0.01 0.43 0.03 0.00 0.08100,001-1,000,0000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.10 0.16 0.01 0.48 0.03 0.00 0.09> 1,000,0000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Total0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.07 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.01 0.46 0.77 0.04 1.89 0.15 0.01 0.37Exhibit B.17 Type B Virus Deaths Avoided by the GWRAges < 1 monthAges 1 month to< 1 year Ages 1 - 4 years Ages 5 - 15 years Ages 16 - 64 years Ages >65 yearsSize Categorymeanvalue90 PercentConfidenceBoundmeanvalue90 PercentConfidenceBoundmeanvalue90 PercentConfidenceBoundmeanvalue90 PercentConfidenceBoundmeanvalue90 PercentConfidenceBoundmeanvalue90 PercentConfidenceBoundEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleB-21 October 2006

# System Size

(Population

Served) Total

Systems Systems

with Acute

TCR MCL

Violations Additional

Systems with

Monthly TCR

MCL

Violations Total

Systems

with TCR

MCL

Violations

A B C D E = B/A F = (B+C)/A G = (E+F)/2

<100 12,506 46 625 671 0.37% 5.37% 2.87%

101-500 13,306 56 596 652 0.42% 4.90% 2.66%

501-1,000 4,233 13 131 144 0.31% 3.40% 1.85%

1,001-3,300 5,359 10 219 229 0.19% 4.27% 2.23%

3,301-10,000 2,513 10 155 165 0.40% 6.57% 3.48%

10,001-50,000 1,233 6 72 78 0.49% 6.33% 3.41%

50,001-100K 137 0 55 0.00% 3.65% 1.82%

100,001- 1 Million 64 1 23 1.56% 4.69% 3.13%

> 1 Million 3 0 00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

<100 9,432 47 442 489 0.50% 5.18% 2.84%

101-500 6,726 28 246 274 0.42% 4.07% 2.25%

501-1,000 1,884 6 58 64 0.32% 3.40% 1.86%

1,001-3,300 706 3 27 30 0.42% 4.25% 2.34%

3,301-10,000 68 0 33 0.00% 4.41% 2.21%

10,001-50,000 7 0 00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

50,001-100K 1 0 00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

100,001- 1 Million 1 0 00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

> 1 Million 0 0 00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

<100 63,856 292 2390 2682 0.46% 4.20% 2.33%

101-500 18,915 106 696 802 0.56% 4.24% 2.40%

501-1,000 1,913 8 72 80 0.42% 4.18% 2.30%

1,001-3,300 571 2 37 39 0.35% 6.83% 3.59%

3,301-10,000 71 0 44 0.00% 5.63% 2.82%

10,001-50,000 17 0 11 0.00% 5.88% 2.94%

50,001-100K 0 0 00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

100,001- 1 Million 1 0 00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

> 1 Million 0 0 00 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Source: SDWIS (2003a)

Note: System totals may not match totals presented in Exhibit 4.1. Systems without adequate TCR violation data are not

included in this exhibit.NTNCWSTNCWS 

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

and System Size

Number of Systems Mean

Percentage

of Systems

with TCR

MCL

Violations as

a Percent of

Total

SystemsCWS 

# Percentage

of Systems

with Acute

TCR MCL

Violations as

a Percent of

Total

Systems Percentage

of Systems

with Any TCR

MCL

Violations as

a Percent of

Total

Systems

Economic Analysis for the

Final Ground Water Rule B-22 October 2006

# Appendix C

Benefits Detail

# Applicable

Rule

Option(s) Applicable

System

Type(s) Exhibit Description Virus

Type Applicable

System

Size Exhibit

Numbe r

Type A C.1a

Type B C.1b

Type A C.1c

Type B C.1d

Type A C.1e

Type B C.1f

Type A C.1g

Type B C.1h

Type A C.1i

Type B C.1j

Type A C.1k

Type B C.1l

Type A C.1m

Type B C.1n

Type A C.1o

Type B C.1p

Type A C.1q

Type B C.1r

Total Value of Avoided Illnesses and Deaths Both All C.2a

Present Value of Total at 3 Percent Both All C.2b

Present Value of Total at 7 Percent Both All C.2c

Type A C.3a

Type B C.3b

Type A C.3c

Type B C.3d

Type A C.3e

Type B C.3f

Type A C.3g

Type B C.3h

Type A C.3i

Type B C.3j

Type A C.3k

Type B C.3l

Type A C.3m

Type B C.3n

Type A C.3o

Type B C.3p

Type A C.3q

Type B C.3r

Total Value of Avoided Illnesses and Deaths Both All C.4a

Present Value of Total at 3 Percent Both All C.4b

Present Value of Total at 7 Percent Both All C.4c

Type A C.5a

Type B C.5b

Type A C.5c

Type B C.5d

Type A C.5e

Type B C.5f

Type A C.5g

Type B C.5h

Type A C.5i

Type B C.5j

Type A C.5k

Type B C.5l

Type A C.5m

Type B C.5n

Type A C.5o

Type B C.5p

Type A C.5q

Type B C.5r

Total Value of Avoided Illnesses and Deaths Both All C.6a

Present Value of Total at 3 Percent Both All C.6b

Present Value of Total at 7 Percent Both All C.6c

All Total Value of Avoided Illnesses and Deaths Both All C.7a

All Present Value of Total at 3 Percent Both All C.7b

All Present Value of Total at 7 Percent Both All C.7c CWSs <100

101-500

501-1,000

1,001-3,300

3,301-10K

10,001-50K

50,001-100K

100,001-1M

>1 Million 

# Matrix of Appendix C Contents

Final Rule

>1 Million NTNCWSs Value of Avoided Illnesses and Deaths <100

101-500

501-1,000

1,001-3,300

3,301-10K

3,301-10K

10,001-50K

50,001-100K Value of Avoided Illnesses and Deaths

10,001-50K

50,001-100K

100,001-1M

100,001-1M

>1 Million Final Rule TNCWSs Value of Avoided Illnesses and Deaths <100

101-500

501-1,000

1,001-3,300

E conomic Analysis for the

F inal Ground Water Rule C-1 October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0003$ 0.0003$ 0.0000$ 0.0009$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0005$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0002$ 0.0006$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0017$20090.0015$ 0.0012$ 0.0003$ 0.0032$ 0.0008$ 0.0006$ 0.0002$ 0.0017$ 0.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0002$ 0.0003$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0008$ 0.0026$ 0.0021$ 0.0006$ 0.0060$20100.0033$ 0.0028$ 0.0007$ 0.0070$ 0.0016$ 0.0014$ 0.0004$ 0.0036$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0004$ 0.0006$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0017$ 0.0057$ 0.0047$ 0.0012$ 0.0127$20110.0297$ 0.0266$ 0.0128$ 0.0538$ 0.0148$ 0.0137$ 0.0056$ 0.0257$ 0.0015$ 0.0011$ 0.0002$ 0.0043$ 0.0059$ 0.0042$ 0.0006$ 0.0164$ 0.0519$ 0.0455$ 0.0191$ 0.1003$20120.0392$ 0.0352$ 0.0171$ 0.0699$ 0.0197$ 0.0183$ 0.0078$ 0.0338$ 0.0019$ 0.0014$ 0.0002$ 0.0056$ 0.0078$ 0.0055$ 0.0008$ 0.0224$ 0.0687$ 0.0604$ 0.0259$ 0.1317$20130.0690$ 0.0609$ 0.0280$ 0.1256$ 0.0356$ 0.0320$ 0.0127$ 0.0672$ 0.0034$ 0.0023$ 0.0004$ 0.0096$ 0.0141$ 0.0097$ 0.0014$ 0.0389$ 0.1221$ 0.1048$ 0.0426$ 0.2413$20140.0718$ 0.0636$ 0.0296$ 0.1296$ 0.0372$ 0.0336$ 0.0134$ 0.0690$ 0.0035$ 0.0024$ 0.0004$ 0.0099$ 0.0146$ 0.0103$ 0.0015$ 0.0403$ 0.1271$ 0.1098$ 0.0449$ 0.2487$20150.0746$ 0.0671$ 0.0309$ 0.1346$ 0.0387$ 0.0351$ 0.0142$ 0.0709$ 0.0036$ 0.0025$ 0.0004$ 0.0101$ 0.0150$ 0.0105$ 0.0016$ 0.0416$ 0.1319$ 0.1152$ 0.0471$ 0.2573$20160.0908$ 0.0822$ 0.0425$ 0.1587$ 0.0472$ 0.0433$ 0.0208$ 0.0793$ 0.0044$ 0.0032$ 0.0005$ 0.0120$ 0.0182$ 0.0130$ 0.0020$ 0.0496$ 0.1606$ 0.1417$ 0.0657$ 0.2996$20170.0935$ 0.0843$ 0.0437$ 0.1640$ 0.0486$ 0.0448$ 0.0213$ 0.0821$ 0.0045$ 0.0032$ 0.0005$ 0.0121$ 0.0186$ 0.0133$ 0.0020$ 0.0512$ 0.1652$ 0.1456$ 0.0675$ 0.3094$20180.0967$ 0.0876$ 0.0460$ 0.1698$ 0.0502$ 0.0462$ 0.0220$ 0.0838$ 0.0046$ 0.0033$ 0.0005$ 0.0125$ 0.0191$ 0.0137$ 0.0021$ 0.0535$ 0.1707$ 0.1508$ 0.0706$ 0.3196$20190.1112$ 0.1000$ 0.0522$ 0.1950$ 0.0572$ 0.0521$ 0.0251$ 0.0986$ 0.0052$ 0.0038$ 0.0006$ 0.0141$ 0.0216$ 0.0156$ 0.0023$ 0.0618$ 0.1951$ 0.1716$ 0.0802$ 0.3695$20200.1144$ 0.1032$ 0.0541$ 0.2013$ 0.0589$ 0.0538$ 0.0260$ 0.1011$ 0.0053$ 0.0039$ 0.0006$ 0.0145$ 0.0220$ 0.0159$ 0.0024$ 0.0628$ 0.2006$ 0.1767$ 0.0831$ 0.3797$20210.1229$ 0.1125$ 0.0601$ 0.2129$ 0.0642$ 0.0603$ 0.0290$ 0.1068$ 0.0057$ 0.0042$ 0.0006$ 0.0153$ 0.0238$ 0.0172$ 0.0027$ 0.0672$ 0.2165$ 0.1943$ 0.0923$ 0.4021$20220.1269$ 0.1167$ 0.0623$ 0.2184$ 0.0661$ 0.0620$ 0.0299$ 0.1096$ 0.0058$ 0.0043$ 0.0007$ 0.0157$ 0.0243$ 0.0176$ 0.0028$ 0.0683$ 0.2231$ 0.2006$ 0.0956$ 0.4120$20230.1303$ 0.1203$ 0.0640$ 0.2248$ 0.0680$ 0.0637$ 0.0311$ 0.1123$ 0.0059$ 0.0044$ 0.0007$ 0.0160$ 0.0248$ 0.0179$ 0.0028$ 0.0692$ 0.2290$ 0.2063$ 0.0986$ 0.4223$20240.1441$ 0.1307$ 0.0686$ 0.2569$ 0.0755$ 0.0700$ 0.0341$ 0.1297$ 0.0064$ 0.0047$ 0.0008$ 0.0174$ 0.0272$ 0.0195$ 0.0030$ 0.0771$ 0.2532$ 0.2249$ 0.1065$ 0.4811$20250.1480$ 0.1344$ 0.0704$ 0.2632$ 0.0775$ 0.0716$ 0.0352$ 0.1325$ 0.0066$ 0.0048$ 0.0008$ 0.0176$ 0.0277$ 0.0198$ 0.0031$ 0.0781$ 0.2597$ 0.2306$ 0.1094$ 0.4914$20260.1531$ 0.1391$ 0.0729$ 0.2721$ 0.0801$ 0.0742$ 0.0364$ 0.1355$ 0.0067$ 0.0049$ 0.0008$ 0.0180$ 0.0284$ 0.0203$ 0.0031$ 0.0793$ 0.2683$ 0.2385$ 0.1133$ 0.5050$20270.1656$ 0.1514$ 0.0797$ 0.2916$ 0.0871$ 0.0793$ 0.0401$ 0.1538$ 0.0072$ 0.0053$ 0.0008$ 0.0193$ 0.0306$ 0.0224$ 0.0034$ 0.0846$ 0.2905$ 0.2584$ 0.1240$ 0.5492$20280.1698$ 0.1551$ 0.0816$ 0.2992$ 0.0894$ 0.0811$ 0.0411$ 0.1574$ 0.0073$ 0.0054$ 0.0008$ 0.0195$ 0.0311$ 0.0227$ 0.0034$ 0.0857$ 0.2976$ 0.2644$ 0.1270$ 0.5617$20290.1810$ 0.1642$ 0.0862$ 0.3127$ 0.0956$ 0.0868$ 0.0439$ 0.1642$ 0.0078$ 0.0057$ 0.0009$ 0.0205$ 0.0332$ 0.0239$ 0.0036$ 0.0933$ 0.3176$ 0.2805$ 0.1346$ 0.5908$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source:MedianValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundGWR Benefits Model.MedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueExhibit C.1a Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for CWSs Serving <100 (Rotavirus)YearValue of Illnesses Avoided Value of Deaths AvoidedTotal Benefits0 - 15 years > 15 yrs 0 - 15 years > 15 yrsMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-2October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0007$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0012$20090.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0005$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0010$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0008$ 0.0008$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0025$ 0.0015$ 0.0005$ 0.0000$ 0.0047$20100.0004$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0017$ 0.0006$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0031$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0022$ 0.0017$ 0.0005$ 0.0000$ 0.0075$ 0.0032$ 0.0010$ 0.0001$ 0.0145$20110.0026$ 0.0020$ 0.0006$ 0.0072$ 0.0036$ 0.0028$ 0.0009$ 0.0088$ 0.0035$ 0.0018$ 0.0002$ 0.0123$ 0.0116$ 0.0061$ 0.0007$ 0.0409$ 0.0213$ 0.0127$ 0.0024$ 0.0692$20120.0034$ 0.0026$ 0.0008$ 0.0093$ 0.0047$ 0.0037$ 0.0012$ 0.0115$ 0.0045$ 0.0024$ 0.0003$ 0.0157$ 0.0150$ 0.0079$ 0.0009$ 0.0531$ 0.0276$ 0.0165$ 0.0032$ 0.0895$20130.0057$ 0.0040$ 0.0012$ 0.0164$ 0.0079$ 0.0058$ 0.0021$ 0.0215$ 0.0075$ 0.0038$ 0.0004$ 0.0263$ 0.0249$ 0.0133$ 0.0014$ 0.0929$ 0.0460$ 0.0269$ 0.0052$ 0.1572$20140.0059$ 0.0042$ 0.0013$ 0.0170$ 0.0083$ 0.0061$ 0.0023$ 0.0224$ 0.0077$ 0.0040$ 0.0005$ 0.0271$ 0.0258$ 0.0138$ 0.0015$ 0.0979$ 0.0477$ 0.0280$ 0.0056$ 0.1645$20150.0063$ 0.0045$ 0.0014$ 0.0179$ 0.0089$ 0.0067$ 0.0024$ 0.0238$ 0.0081$ 0.0042$ 0.0005$ 0.0284$ 0.0274$ 0.0145$ 0.0016$ 0.1013$ 0.0507$ 0.0298$ 0.0059$ 0.1715$20160.0076$ 0.0056$ 0.0018$ 0.0212$ 0.0113$ 0.0086$ 0.0033$ 0.0283$ 0.0098$ 0.0054$ 0.0006$ 0.0315$ 0.0342$ 0.0194$ 0.0021$ 0.1182$ 0.0629$ 0.0390$ 0.0078$ 0.1992$20170.0085$ 0.0057$ 0.0019$ 0.0254$ 0.0121$ 0.0087$ 0.0033$ 0.0304$ 0.0107$ 0.0056$ 0.0006$ 0.0387$ 0.0364$ 0.0198$ 0.0021$ 0.1267$ 0.0676$ 0.0398$ 0.0080$ 0.2211$20180.0087$ 0.0059$ 0.0020$ 0.0259$ 0.0125$ 0.0090$ 0.0034$ 0.0310$ 0.0109$ 0.0058$ 0.0006$ 0.0397$ 0.0372$ 0.0201$ 0.0022$ 0.1282$ 0.0694$ 0.0409$ 0.0083$ 0.2248$20190.0139$ 0.0068$ 0.0023$ 0.0471$ 0.0186$ 0.0106$ 0.0040$ 0.0756$ 0.0168$ 0.0069$ 0.0007$ 0.0730$ 0.0536$ 0.0235$ 0.0025$ 0.2233$ 0.1030$ 0.0478$ 0.0096$ 0.4190$20200.0142$ 0.0070$ 0.0024$ 0.0478$ 0.0190$ 0.0108$ 0.0042$ 0.0769$ 0.0171$ 0.0070$ 0.0007$ 0.0736$ 0.0543$ 0.0238$ 0.0026$ 0.2261$ 0.1046$ 0.0486$ 0.0099$ 0.4245$20210.0151$ 0.0075$ 0.0025$ 0.0506$ 0.0203$ 0.0114$ 0.0044$ 0.0823$ 0.0181$ 0.0074$ 0.0008$ 0.0782$ 0.0576$ 0.0257$ 0.0028$ 0.2439$ 0.1111$ 0.0519$ 0.0105$ 0.4550$20220.0155$ 0.0077$ 0.0026$ 0.0515$ 0.0208$ 0.0118$ 0.0047$ 0.0836$ 0.0184$ 0.0075$ 0.0008$ 0.0790$ 0.0587$ 0.0261$ 0.0028$ 0.2499$ 0.1134$ 0.0531$ 0.0110$ 0.4641$20230.0158$ 0.0079$ 0.0027$ 0.0524$ 0.0213$ 0.0121$ 0.0048$ 0.0851$ 0.0186$ 0.0076$ 0.0008$ 0.0796$ 0.0594$ 0.0265$ 0.0029$ 0.2527$ 0.1151$ 0.0542$ 0.0112$ 0.4697$20240.0165$ 0.0085$ 0.0029$ 0.0537$ 0.0222$ 0.0127$ 0.0051$ 0.0872$ 0.0192$ 0.0079$ 0.0009$ 0.0809$ 0.0615$ 0.0281$ 0.0030$ 0.2632$ 0.1194$ 0.0573$ 0.0119$ 0.4851$20250.0168$ 0.0087$ 0.0030$ 0.0546$ 0.0226$ 0.0130$ 0.0052$ 0.0886$ 0.0195$ 0.0080$ 0.0009$ 0.0815$ 0.0623$ 0.0289$ 0.0031$ 0.2659$ 0.1213$ 0.0587$ 0.0121$ 0.4906$20260.0174$ 0.0092$ 0.0030$ 0.0559$ 0.0234$ 0.0138$ 0.0054$ 0.0911$ 0.0200$ 0.0084$ 0.0009$ 0.0834$ 0.0641$ 0.0296$ 0.0031$ 0.2716$ 0.1249$ 0.0609$ 0.0125$ 0.5020$20270.0188$ 0.0097$ 0.0033$ 0.0650$ 0.0249$ 0.0148$ 0.0059$ 0.0974$ 0.0213$ 0.0090$ 0.0010$ 0.0908$ 0.0678$ 0.0322$ 0.0033$ 0.2798$ 0.1328$ 0.0657$ 0.0135$ 0.5329$20280.0193$ 0.0099$ 0.0033$ 0.0666$ 0.0256$ 0.0151$ 0.0060$ 0.0999$ 0.0216$ 0.0092$ 0.0010$ 0.0922$ 0.0690$ 0.0329$ 0.0034$ 0.2848$ 0.1355$ 0.0672$ 0.0138$ 0.5436$20290.0198$ 0.0104$ 0.0035$ 0.0679$ 0.0264$ 0.0158$ 0.0063$ 0.1020$ 0.0221$ 0.0095$ 0.0010$ 0.0930$ 0.0707$ 0.0340$ 0.0035$ 0.2868$ 0.1390$ 0.0698$ 0.0143$ 0.5497$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source: GWR Benefits Model.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueExhibit C.1b Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for CWSs Serving <100 (Echovirus)YearValue of Illnesses Avoided Value of Deaths AvoidedTotal Benefits0 -16 years >16 years 0 -16 years >16 yearsMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-3October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0008$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0020$ 0.0004$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0011$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0001$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0005$ 0.0014$ 0.0011$ 0.0002$ 0.0038$20090.0035$ 0.0029$ 0.0008$ 0.0078$ 0.0019$ 0.0016$ 0.0005$ 0.0043$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0005$ 0.0007$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0022$ 0.0063$ 0.0051$ 0.0014$ 0.0148$20100.0453$ 0.0394$ 0.0206$ 0.0853$ 0.0234$ 0.0212$ 0.0094$ 0.0421$ 0.0023$ 0.0017$ 0.0002$ 0.0068$ 0.0093$ 0.0068$ 0.0010$ 0.0284$ 0.0803$ 0.0690$ 0.0312$ 0.1626$20110.0640$ 0.0559$ 0.0302$ 0.1183$ 0.0331$ 0.0297$ 0.0145$ 0.0598$ 0.0032$ 0.0023$ 0.0003$ 0.0094$ 0.0130$ 0.0095$ 0.0014$ 0.0389$ 0.1134$ 0.0974$ 0.0464$ 0.2264$20120.0851$ 0.0756$ 0.0400$ 0.1545$ 0.0442$ 0.0405$ 0.0198$ 0.0789$ 0.0042$ 0.0031$ 0.0004$ 0.0124$ 0.0173$ 0.0127$ 0.0018$ 0.0500$ 0.1508$ 0.1320$ 0.0620$ 0.2959$20130.1484$ 0.1243$ 0.0669$ 0.2772$ 0.0775$ 0.0673$ 0.0350$ 0.1497$ 0.0073$ 0.0054$ 0.0007$ 0.0210$ 0.0305$ 0.0222$ 0.0028$ 0.0865$ 0.2638$ 0.2192$ 0.1054$ 0.5345$20140.1545$ 0.1303$ 0.0702$ 0.2842$ 0.0808$ 0.0710$ 0.0367$ 0.1553$ 0.0076$ 0.0055$ 0.0008$ 0.0217$ 0.0316$ 0.0231$ 0.0029$ 0.0905$ 0.2744$ 0.2299$ 0.1106$ 0.5517$20150.1923$ 0.1678$ 0.0975$ 0.3464$ 0.1022$ 0.0904$ 0.0492$ 0.1904$ 0.0094$ 0.0068$ 0.0009$ 0.0266$ 0.0395$ 0.0297$ 0.0039$ 0.1091$ 0.3433$ 0.2947$ 0.1516$ 0.6724$20160.1978$ 0.1730$ 0.1005$ 0.3545$ 0.1051$ 0.0931$ 0.0507$ 0.1952$ 0.0096$ 0.0070$ 0.0010$ 0.0269$ 0.0403$ 0.0304$ 0.0040$ 0.1115$ 0.3528$ 0.3035$ 0.1562$ 0.6881$20170.2043$ 0.1785$ 0.1041$ 0.3692$ 0.1085$ 0.0959$ 0.0525$ 0.2058$ 0.0098$ 0.0072$ 0.0010$ 0.0274$ 0.0413$ 0.0310$ 0.0041$ 0.1134$ 0.3639$ 0.3126$ 0.1617$ 0.7158$20180.2346$ 0.2079$ 0.1215$ 0.4164$ 0.1230$ 0.1080$ 0.0610$ 0.2323$ 0.0111$ 0.0083$ 0.0012$ 0.0315$ 0.0463$ 0.0341$ 0.0049$ 0.1313$ 0.4150$ 0.3582$ 0.1886$ 0.8115$20190.2431$ 0.2165$ 0.1277$ 0.4275$ 0.1275$ 0.1132$ 0.0651$ 0.2373$ 0.0114$ 0.0085$ 0.0012$ 0.0323$ 0.0476$ 0.0358$ 0.0050$ 0.1340$ 0.4296$ 0.3740$ 0.1991$ 0.8311$20200.2611$ 0.2357$ 0.1402$ 0.4499$ 0.1375$ 0.1236$ 0.0702$ 0.2508$ 0.0121$ 0.0092$ 0.0013$ 0.0336$ 0.0508$ 0.0390$ 0.0055$ 0.1410$ 0.4615$ 0.4074$ 0.2171$ 0.8754$20210.2704$ 0.2430$ 0.1451$ 0.4742$ 0.1425$ 0.1280$ 0.0726$ 0.2594$ 0.0124$ 0.0094$ 0.0014$ 0.0342$ 0.0522$ 0.0400$ 0.0056$ 0.1457$ 0.4775$ 0.4204$ 0.2246$ 0.9135$20220.2790$ 0.2509$ 0.1504$ 0.4861$ 0.1468$ 0.1325$ 0.0744$ 0.2657$ 0.0127$ 0.0096$ 0.0014$ 0.0349$ 0.0534$ 0.0411$ 0.0057$ 0.1503$ 0.4919$ 0.4342$ 0.2320$ 0.9370$20230.3066$ 0.2759$ 0.1604$ 0.5588$ 0.1616$ 0.1437$ 0.0847$ 0.3058$ 0.0139$ 0.0104$ 0.0015$ 0.0379$ 0.0585$ 0.0443$ 0.0061$ 0.1596$ 0.5406$ 0.4743$ 0.2526$ 1.0621$20240.3189$ 0.2866$ 0.1663$ 0.5763$ 0.1673$ 0.1504$ 0.0877$ 0.3150$ 0.0143$ 0.0109$ 0.0015$ 0.0394$ 0.0601$ 0.0461$ 0.0062$ 0.1637$ 0.5605$ 0.4940$ 0.2617$ 1.0943$20250.3432$ 0.3093$ 0.1815$ 0.6176$ 0.1804$ 0.1622$ 0.0965$ 0.3367$ 0.0153$ 0.0115$ 0.0016$ 0.0431$ 0.0644$ 0.0491$ 0.0068$ 0.1723$ 0.6033$ 0.5321$ 0.2863$ 1.1698$20260.3565$ 0.3208$ 0.1880$ 0.6511$ 0.1862$ 0.1674$ 0.1002$ 0.3579$ 0.0157$ 0.0118$ 0.0017$ 0.0444$ 0.0659$ 0.0503$ 0.0069$ 0.1784$ 0.6243$ 0.5503$ 0.2967$ 1.2318$20270.3679$ 0.3313$ 0.1936$ 0.6664$ 0.1922$ 0.1740$ 0.1028$ 0.3666$ 0.0161$ 0.0121$ 0.0017$ 0.0453$ 0.0675$ 0.0512$ 0.0071$ 0.1838$ 0.6437$ 0.5686$ 0.3052$ 1.2621$20280.3936$ 0.3510$ 0.2047$ 0.7115$ 0.2066$ 0.1828$ 0.1075$ 0.3853$ 0.0171$ 0.0127$ 0.0018$ 0.0497$ 0.0720$ 0.0538$ 0.0075$ 0.1977$ 0.6893$ 0.6002$ 0.3215$ 1.3443$20290.4045$ 0.3613$ 0.2112$ 0.7314$ 0.2120$ 0.1894$ 0.1104$ 0.3945$ 0.0174$ 0.0130$ 0.0018$ 0.0508$ 0.0733$ 0.0546$ 0.0076$ 0.2021$ 0.7072$ 0.6182$ 0.3311$ 1.3788$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source: GWR Benefits Model.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueExhibit C.1c Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for CWSs Serving 101-500 (Rotavirus)YearValue of Illnesses Avoided Value of Deaths AvoidedTotal Benefits0 - 15 years > 15 yrs 0 - 15 years > 15 yrsMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-4October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0003$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0011$ 0.0005$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0020$20090.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0021$ 0.0007$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0038$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0018$ 0.0020$ 0.0005$ 0.0000$ 0.0077$ 0.0038$ 0.0010$ 0.0001$ 0.0154$20100.0037$ 0.0030$ 0.0008$ 0.0088$ 0.0057$ 0.0047$ 0.0014$ 0.0151$ 0.0047$ 0.0027$ 0.0002$ 0.0145$ 0.0174$ 0.0100$ 0.0009$ 0.0611$ 0.0315$ 0.0203$ 0.0033$ 0.0995$20110.0051$ 0.0041$ 0.0012$ 0.0120$ 0.0080$ 0.0065$ 0.0021$ 0.0207$ 0.0065$ 0.0037$ 0.0004$ 0.0202$ 0.0241$ 0.0143$ 0.0012$ 0.0859$ 0.0437$ 0.0286$ 0.0049$ 0.1389$20120.0066$ 0.0054$ 0.0016$ 0.0154$ 0.0104$ 0.0086$ 0.0029$ 0.0264$ 0.0083$ 0.0048$ 0.0005$ 0.0258$ 0.0312$ 0.0185$ 0.0016$ 0.1125$ 0.0565$ 0.0373$ 0.0066$ 0.1801$20130.0118$ 0.0093$ 0.0027$ 0.0294$ 0.0177$ 0.0140$ 0.0048$ 0.0494$ 0.0140$ 0.0081$ 0.0009$ 0.0456$ 0.0509$ 0.0314$ 0.0031$ 0.1626$ 0.0944$ 0.0629$ 0.0115$ 0.2869$20140.0125$ 0.0097$ 0.0028$ 0.0309$ 0.0186$ 0.0146$ 0.0051$ 0.0520$ 0.0146$ 0.0085$ 0.0009$ 0.0486$ 0.0527$ 0.0324$ 0.0031$ 0.1658$ 0.0984$ 0.0652$ 0.0120$ 0.2973$20150.0163$ 0.0130$ 0.0038$ 0.0415$ 0.0246$ 0.0198$ 0.0070$ 0.0659$ 0.0189$ 0.0111$ 0.0013$ 0.0629$ 0.0691$ 0.0420$ 0.0047$ 0.2086$ 0.1289$ 0.0858$ 0.0168$ 0.3789$20160.0168$ 0.0133$ 0.0039$ 0.0432$ 0.0254$ 0.0203$ 0.0071$ 0.0683$ 0.0193$ 0.0113$ 0.0013$ 0.0641$ 0.0706$ 0.0425$ 0.0048$ 0.2115$ 0.1321$ 0.0875$ 0.0172$ 0.3871$20170.0195$ 0.0136$ 0.0040$ 0.0586$ 0.0283$ 0.0207$ 0.0073$ 0.0799$ 0.0221$ 0.0116$ 0.0014$ 0.0738$ 0.0773$ 0.0439$ 0.0049$ 0.2371$ 0.1471$ 0.0897$ 0.0175$ 0.4494$20180.0268$ 0.0150$ 0.0046$ 0.1078$ 0.0373$ 0.0231$ 0.0086$ 0.1510$ 0.0292$ 0.0134$ 0.0016$ 0.0984$ 0.0974$ 0.0516$ 0.0057$ 0.3618$ 0.1907$ 0.1032$ 0.0205$ 0.7189$20190.0276$ 0.0155$ 0.0048$ 0.1104$ 0.0384$ 0.0239$ 0.0090$ 0.1548$ 0.0298$ 0.0136$ 0.0017$ 0.0994$ 0.0995$ 0.0528$ 0.0059$ 0.3713$ 0.1953$ 0.1058$ 0.0214$ 0.7360$20200.0287$ 0.0164$ 0.0052$ 0.1141$ 0.0400$ 0.0251$ 0.0097$ 0.1582$ 0.0307$ 0.0141$ 0.0018$ 0.1023$ 0.1030$ 0.0552$ 0.0064$ 0.3826$ 0.2024$ 0.1109$ 0.0231$ 0.7573$20210.0299$ 0.0170$ 0.0054$ 0.1183$ 0.0416$ 0.0259$ 0.0100$ 0.1629$ 0.0316$ 0.0143$ 0.0018$ 0.1057$ 0.1061$ 0.0576$ 0.0065$ 0.4017$ 0.2092$ 0.1148$ 0.0237$ 0.7886$20220.0307$ 0.0175$ 0.0055$ 0.1208$ 0.0428$ 0.0267$ 0.0105$ 0.1656$ 0.0323$ 0.0152$ 0.0019$ 0.1066$ 0.1085$ 0.0599$ 0.0069$ 0.4045$ 0.2144$ 0.1193$ 0.0248$ 0.7975$20230.0318$ 0.0188$ 0.0059$ 0.1233$ 0.0445$ 0.0281$ 0.0113$ 0.1691$ 0.0333$ 0.0158$ 0.0020$ 0.1118$ 0.1124$ 0.0625$ 0.0073$ 0.4076$ 0.2220$ 0.1251$ 0.0264$ 0.8117$20240.0328$ 0.0195$ 0.0061$ 0.1258$ 0.0459$ 0.0295$ 0.0117$ 0.1719$ 0.0340$ 0.0160$ 0.0020$ 0.1129$ 0.1152$ 0.0638$ 0.0075$ 0.4104$ 0.2278$ 0.1288$ 0.0274$ 0.8209$20250.0362$ 0.0207$ 0.0065$ 0.1412$ 0.0493$ 0.0314$ 0.0124$ 0.1893$ 0.0371$ 0.0172$ 0.0021$ 0.1301$ 0.1234$ 0.0680$ 0.0079$ 0.4597$ 0.2460$ 0.1373$ 0.0290$ 0.9203$20260.0373$ 0.0216$ 0.0067$ 0.1439$ 0.0509$ 0.0328$ 0.0128$ 0.1926$ 0.0381$ 0.0176$ 0.0022$ 0.1314$ 0.1270$ 0.0688$ 0.0082$ 0.4636$ 0.2533$ 0.1409$ 0.0299$ 0.9315$20270.0381$ 0.0222$ 0.0070$ 0.1465$ 0.0521$ 0.0337$ 0.0131$ 0.1959$ 0.0386$ 0.0179$ 0.0022$ 0.1324$ 0.1289$ 0.0695$ 0.0083$ 0.4670$ 0.2577$ 0.1434$ 0.0306$ 0.9418$20280.0395$ 0.0232$ 0.0074$ 0.1509$ 0.0542$ 0.0350$ 0.0137$ 0.2003$ 0.0397$ 0.0187$ 0.0023$ 0.1337$ 0.1330$ 0.0718$ 0.0085$ 0.4737$ 0.2664$ 0.1488$ 0.0319$ 0.9585$20290.0404$ 0.0237$ 0.0076$ 0.1539$ 0.0554$ 0.0359$ 0.0141$ 0.2037$ 0.0402$ 0.0191$ 0.0023$ 0.1346$ 0.1349$ 0.0740$ 0.0088$ 0.4774$ 0.2709$ 0.1527$ 0.0328$ 0.9696$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source: GWR Benefits Model.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueExhibit C.1d Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for CWSs Serving 101-500 (Echovirus)YearValue of Illnesses Avoided Value of Deaths AvoidedTotal Benefits0 -16 years >16 years 0 -16 years >16 yearsMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-5October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0006$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0019$ 0.0004$ 0.0003$ 0.0000$ 0.0010$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0005$ 0.0012$ 0.0008$ 0.0001$ 0.0035$20090.0028$ 0.0023$ 0.0006$ 0.0069$ 0.0016$ 0.0013$ 0.0004$ 0.0041$ 0.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0004$ 0.0006$ 0.0004$ 0.0000$ 0.0020$ 0.0051$ 0.0040$ 0.0010$ 0.0134$20100.0393$ 0.0337$ 0.0164$ 0.0765$ 0.0203$ 0.0176$ 0.0079$ 0.0427$ 0.0019$ 0.0013$ 0.0002$ 0.0056$ 0.0077$ 0.0054$ 0.0008$ 0.0241$ 0.0692$ 0.0581$ 0.0253$ 0.1489$20110.0557$ 0.0484$ 0.0239$ 0.1061$ 0.0286$ 0.0248$ 0.0112$ 0.0585$ 0.0027$ 0.0019$ 0.0003$ 0.0078$ 0.0109$ 0.0078$ 0.0011$ 0.0330$ 0.0979$ 0.0828$ 0.0365$ 0.2055$20120.1047$ 0.0870$ 0.0438$ 0.2138$ 0.0547$ 0.0463$ 0.0205$ 0.1208$ 0.0050$ 0.0034$ 0.0005$ 0.0149$ 0.0206$ 0.0142$ 0.0021$ 0.0620$ 0.1849$ 0.1509$ 0.0669$ 0.4115$20130.1308$ 0.1087$ 0.0569$ 0.2648$ 0.0684$ 0.0583$ 0.0258$ 0.1516$ 0.0062$ 0.0042$ 0.0006$ 0.0185$ 0.0255$ 0.0180$ 0.0026$ 0.0765$ 0.2310$ 0.1892$ 0.0859$ 0.5114$20140.1633$ 0.1382$ 0.0816$ 0.3132$ 0.0880$ 0.0746$ 0.0397$ 0.1784$ 0.0077$ 0.0056$ 0.0009$ 0.0218$ 0.0327$ 0.0240$ 0.0036$ 0.0950$ 0.2918$ 0.2424$ 0.1258$ 0.6083$20150.1693$ 0.1450$ 0.0854$ 0.3219$ 0.0912$ 0.0771$ 0.0416$ 0.1831$ 0.0079$ 0.0058$ 0.0009$ 0.0222$ 0.0336$ 0.0249$ 0.0037$ 0.0972$ 0.3020$ 0.2527$ 0.1316$ 0.6244$20160.1928$ 0.1669$ 0.0955$ 0.3685$ 0.1044$ 0.0879$ 0.0486$ 0.2121$ 0.0089$ 0.0065$ 0.0010$ 0.0254$ 0.0382$ 0.0278$ 0.0042$ 0.1147$ 0.3444$ 0.2891$ 0.1494$ 0.7207$20170.1985$ 0.1715$ 0.0985$ 0.3779$ 0.1072$ 0.0897$ 0.0499$ 0.2168$ 0.0091$ 0.0066$ 0.0010$ 0.0259$ 0.0390$ 0.0282$ 0.0043$ 0.1170$ 0.3538$ 0.2960$ 0.1536$ 0.7377$20180.2143$ 0.1862$ 0.1104$ 0.3954$ 0.1166$ 0.0996$ 0.0555$ 0.2326$ 0.0098$ 0.0072$ 0.0011$ 0.0280$ 0.0420$ 0.0308$ 0.0047$ 0.1238$ 0.3827$ 0.3237$ 0.1717$ 0.7798$20190.2219$ 0.1940$ 0.1145$ 0.4052$ 0.1205$ 0.1039$ 0.0572$ 0.2401$ 0.0101$ 0.0075$ 0.0012$ 0.0285$ 0.0431$ 0.0317$ 0.0048$ 0.1252$ 0.3956$ 0.3371$ 0.1776$ 0.7991$20200.2468$ 0.2140$ 0.1227$ 0.4628$ 0.1324$ 0.1148$ 0.0620$ 0.2643$ 0.0111$ 0.0082$ 0.0013$ 0.0311$ 0.0469$ 0.0351$ 0.0053$ 0.1372$ 0.4372$ 0.3721$ 0.1912$ 0.8955$20210.2549$ 0.2198$ 0.1256$ 0.4884$ 0.1366$ 0.1188$ 0.0640$ 0.2720$ 0.0113$ 0.0084$ 0.0013$ 0.0322$ 0.0480$ 0.0359$ 0.0053$ 0.1385$ 0.4509$ 0.3828$ 0.1963$ 0.9311$20220.2781$ 0.2408$ 0.1400$ 0.5287$ 0.1492$ 0.1299$ 0.0707$ 0.2961$ 0.0123$ 0.0090$ 0.0014$ 0.0345$ 0.0521$ 0.0386$ 0.0058$ 0.1499$ 0.4917$ 0.4183$ 0.2178$ 1.0091$20230.2854$ 0.2468$ 0.1431$ 0.5419$ 0.1531$ 0.1326$ 0.0720$ 0.3020$ 0.0125$ 0.0091$ 0.0014$ 0.0349$ 0.0531$ 0.0393$ 0.0058$ 0.1524$ 0.5041$ 0.4280$ 0.2223$ 1.0313$20240.3110$ 0.2702$ 0.1545$ 0.5923$ 0.1666$ 0.1418$ 0.0783$ 0.3392$ 0.0135$ 0.0098$ 0.0015$ 0.0372$ 0.0572$ 0.0420$ 0.0062$ 0.1731$ 0.5483$ 0.4639$ 0.2404$ 1.1419$20250.3187$ 0.2777$ 0.1581$ 0.6068$ 0.1709$ 0.1449$ 0.0806$ 0.3487$ 0.0137$ 0.0100$ 0.0015$ 0.0379$ 0.0582$ 0.0427$ 0.0063$ 0.1754$ 0.5615$ 0.4753$ 0.2465$ 1.1687$20260.3381$ 0.2945$ 0.1677$ 0.6416$ 0.1808$ 0.1569$ 0.0839$ 0.3697$ 0.0144$ 0.0105$ 0.0016$ 0.0398$ 0.0611$ 0.0444$ 0.0065$ 0.1812$ 0.5945$ 0.5064$ 0.2598$ 1.2324$20270.3478$ 0.3036$ 0.1715$ 0.6564$ 0.1863$ 0.1617$ 0.0871$ 0.3813$ 0.0147$ 0.0108$ 0.0016$ 0.0407$ 0.0625$ 0.0464$ 0.0066$ 0.1829$ 0.6112$ 0.5225$ 0.2668$ 1.2614$20280.3581$ 0.3117$ 0.1758$ 0.6792$ 0.1924$ 0.1661$ 0.0905$ 0.3969$ 0.0150$ 0.0111$ 0.0017$ 0.0417$ 0.0641$ 0.0476$ 0.0068$ 0.1864$ 0.6297$ 0.5364$ 0.2747$ 1.3042$20290.3676$ 0.3199$ 0.1816$ 0.6929$ 0.1975$ 0.1708$ 0.0942$ 0.4073$ 0.0153$ 0.0113$ 0.0017$ 0.0423$ 0.0653$ 0.0485$ 0.0069$ 0.1889$ 0.6456$ 0.5505$ 0.2844$ 1.3315$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source: GWR Benefits Model.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueExhibit C.1e Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for CWSs Serving 501-1,000 (Rotavirus)YearValue of Illnesses Avoided Value of Deaths AvoidedTotal Benefits0 - 15 years > 15 yrs 0 - 15 years > 15 yrsMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-6October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0003$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0013$ 0.0006$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0023$20090.0004$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0018$ 0.0006$ 0.0003$ 0.0000$ 0.0030$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0018$ 0.0015$ 0.0004$ 0.0000$ 0.0064$ 0.0029$ 0.0009$ 0.0001$ 0.0130$20100.0035$ 0.0026$ 0.0006$ 0.0088$ 0.0052$ 0.0041$ 0.0010$ 0.0128$ 0.0041$ 0.0021$ 0.0002$ 0.0159$ 0.0141$ 0.0077$ 0.0009$ 0.0504$ 0.0269$ 0.0166$ 0.0029$ 0.0879$20110.0048$ 0.0036$ 0.0010$ 0.0121$ 0.0072$ 0.0059$ 0.0016$ 0.0175$ 0.0056$ 0.0030$ 0.0003$ 0.0216$ 0.0196$ 0.0112$ 0.0013$ 0.0682$ 0.0373$ 0.0236$ 0.0042$ 0.1194$20120.0078$ 0.0057$ 0.0017$ 0.0222$ 0.0118$ 0.0095$ 0.0029$ 0.0314$ 0.0091$ 0.0048$ 0.0006$ 0.0335$ 0.0315$ 0.0185$ 0.0022$ 0.1143$ 0.0603$ 0.0385$ 0.0073$ 0.2013$20130.0102$ 0.0073$ 0.0021$ 0.0287$ 0.0153$ 0.0119$ 0.0038$ 0.0419$ 0.0117$ 0.0061$ 0.0007$ 0.0417$ 0.0405$ 0.0235$ 0.0027$ 0.1424$ 0.0777$ 0.0489$ 0.0094$ 0.2547$20140.0125$ 0.0095$ 0.0030$ 0.0338$ 0.0194$ 0.0162$ 0.0051$ 0.0495$ 0.0144$ 0.0079$ 0.0011$ 0.0543$ 0.0518$ 0.0312$ 0.0042$ 0.1744$ 0.0981$ 0.0647$ 0.0133$ 0.3121$20150.0134$ 0.0100$ 0.0032$ 0.0371$ 0.0209$ 0.0171$ 0.0055$ 0.0557$ 0.0153$ 0.0082$ 0.0011$ 0.0570$ 0.0551$ 0.0330$ 0.0045$ 0.1801$ 0.1047$ 0.0683$ 0.0143$ 0.3299$20160.0231$ 0.0111$ 0.0037$ 0.0866$ 0.0319$ 0.0190$ 0.0063$ 0.1030$ 0.0258$ 0.0098$ 0.0013$ 0.0874$ 0.0815$ 0.0368$ 0.0052$ 0.2643$ 0.1623$ 0.0767$ 0.0165$ 0.5413$20170.0244$ 0.0113$ 0.0038$ 0.1052$ 0.0335$ 0.0193$ 0.0065$ 0.1275$ 0.0268$ 0.0100$ 0.0013$ 0.0931$ 0.0843$ 0.0372$ 0.0052$ 0.2782$ 0.1690$ 0.0779$ 0.0168$ 0.6041$20180.0254$ 0.0121$ 0.0041$ 0.1078$ 0.0349$ 0.0203$ 0.0072$ 0.1306$ 0.0276$ 0.0105$ 0.0014$ 0.0975$ 0.0874$ 0.0399$ 0.0057$ 0.2849$ 0.1754$ 0.0828$ 0.0184$ 0.6208$20190.0261$ 0.0126$ 0.0043$ 0.1100$ 0.0359$ 0.0208$ 0.0076$ 0.1333$ 0.0282$ 0.0106$ 0.0014$ 0.0987$ 0.0893$ 0.0413$ 0.0061$ 0.2888$ 0.1795$ 0.0852$ 0.0194$ 0.6308$20200.0270$ 0.0131$ 0.0046$ 0.1121$ 0.0374$ 0.0223$ 0.0082$ 0.1361$ 0.0290$ 0.0113$ 0.0015$ 0.1003$ 0.0925$ 0.0441$ 0.0064$ 0.2930$ 0.1859$ 0.0908$ 0.0206$ 0.6416$20210.0282$ 0.0135$ 0.0047$ 0.1183$ 0.0390$ 0.0228$ 0.0084$ 0.1440$ 0.0301$ 0.0115$ 0.0015$ 0.1042$ 0.0959$ 0.0451$ 0.0064$ 0.3243$ 0.1932$ 0.0928$ 0.0211$ 0.6908$20220.0311$ 0.0146$ 0.0050$ 0.1398$ 0.0417$ 0.0245$ 0.0091$ 0.1574$ 0.0325$ 0.0124$ 0.0016$ 0.1129$ 0.1017$ 0.0483$ 0.0068$ 0.3340$ 0.2070$ 0.0998$ 0.0225$ 0.7440$20230.0317$ 0.0149$ 0.0051$ 0.1430$ 0.0426$ 0.0249$ 0.0093$ 0.1614$ 0.0329$ 0.0126$ 0.0017$ 0.1143$ 0.1030$ 0.0491$ 0.0069$ 0.3366$ 0.2101$ 0.1015$ 0.0230$ 0.7553$20240.0335$ 0.0170$ 0.0055$ 0.1463$ 0.0454$ 0.0287$ 0.0100$ 0.1657$ 0.0345$ 0.0135$ 0.0018$ 0.1185$ 0.1090$ 0.0525$ 0.0074$ 0.3681$ 0.2225$ 0.1118$ 0.0247$ 0.7986$20250.0342$ 0.0173$ 0.0057$ 0.1489$ 0.0464$ 0.0294$ 0.0103$ 0.1704$ 0.0349$ 0.0138$ 0.0018$ 0.1198$ 0.1104$ 0.0536$ 0.0076$ 0.3708$ 0.2258$ 0.1141$ 0.0254$ 0.8099$20260.0356$ 0.0184$ 0.0059$ 0.1517$ 0.0486$ 0.0305$ 0.0106$ 0.1755$ 0.0361$ 0.0144$ 0.0019$ 0.1249$ 0.1150$ 0.0562$ 0.0079$ 0.3806$ 0.2352$ 0.1195$ 0.0263$ 0.8327$20270.0363$ 0.0188$ 0.0060$ 0.1542$ 0.0497$ 0.0314$ 0.0109$ 0.1783$ 0.0366$ 0.0147$ 0.0019$ 0.1263$ 0.1166$ 0.0572$ 0.0080$ 0.3844$ 0.2391$ 0.1222$ 0.0269$ 0.8431$20280.0372$ 0.0192$ 0.0062$ 0.1583$ 0.0510$ 0.0321$ 0.0113$ 0.1828$ 0.0371$ 0.0150$ 0.0020$ 0.1284$ 0.1189$ 0.0583$ 0.0082$ 0.4006$ 0.2441$ 0.1246$ 0.0276$ 0.8702$20290.0380$ 0.0196$ 0.0064$ 0.1611$ 0.0521$ 0.0327$ 0.0116$ 0.1860$ 0.0376$ 0.0153$ 0.0020$ 0.1297$ 0.1206$ 0.0610$ 0.0082$ 0.4106$ 0.2482$ 0.1286$ 0.0282$ 0.8874$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source: GWR Benefits Model.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueExhibit C.1f Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for CWSs Serving 501-1,000 (Echovirus)YearValue of Illnesses Avoided Value of Deaths AvoidedTotal Benefits0 -16 years >16 years 0 -16 years >16 yearsMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-7October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0025$ 0.0018$ 0.0003$ 0.0065$ 0.0015$ 0.0012$ 0.0002$ 0.0042$ 0.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0006$ 0.0006$ 0.0003$ 0.0000$ 0.0022$ 0.0048$ 0.0035$ 0.0006$ 0.0134$20090.0120$ 0.0107$ 0.0024$ 0.0278$ 0.0064$ 0.0052$ 0.0018$ 0.0160$ 0.0006$ 0.0004$ 0.0000$ 0.0021$ 0.0024$ 0.0017$ 0.0002$ 0.0075$ 0.0215$ 0.0179$ 0.0044$ 0.0534$20100.0270$ 0.0226$ 0.0065$ 0.0642$ 0.0144$ 0.0107$ 0.0037$ 0.0355$ 0.0013$ 0.0009$ 0.0001$ 0.0043$ 0.0054$ 0.0034$ 0.0004$ 0.0163$ 0.0480$ 0.0376$ 0.0107$ 0.1204$20110.0469$ 0.0403$ 0.0128$ 0.1073$ 0.0249$ 0.0210$ 0.0068$ 0.0595$ 0.0023$ 0.0016$ 0.0002$ 0.0069$ 0.0094$ 0.0061$ 0.0007$ 0.0301$ 0.0834$ 0.0690$ 0.0206$ 0.2038$20120.0711$ 0.0655$ 0.0199$ 0.1471$ 0.0387$ 0.0335$ 0.0107$ 0.0907$ 0.0035$ 0.0025$ 0.0003$ 0.0105$ 0.0146$ 0.0100$ 0.0012$ 0.0464$ 0.1279$ 0.1115$ 0.0320$ 0.2948$20130.3371$ 0.3127$ 0.1437$ 0.5928$ 0.1709$ 0.1591$ 0.0689$ 0.3221$ 0.0158$ 0.0122$ 0.0018$ 0.0439$ 0.0628$ 0.0475$ 0.0070$ 0.1760$ 0.5866$ 0.5316$ 0.2214$ 1.1348$20140.3544$ 0.3324$ 0.1543$ 0.6118$ 0.1797$ 0.1671$ 0.0737$ 0.3343$ 0.0166$ 0.0127$ 0.0019$ 0.0462$ 0.0658$ 0.0493$ 0.0074$ 0.1879$ 0.6166$ 0.5615$ 0.2372$ 1.1802$20150.3772$ 0.3545$ 0.1646$ 0.6523$ 0.1904$ 0.1788$ 0.0787$ 0.3521$ 0.0175$ 0.0134$ 0.0020$ 0.0483$ 0.0695$ 0.0521$ 0.0078$ 0.1965$ 0.6545$ 0.5988$ 0.2531$ 1.2491$20160.3951$ 0.3715$ 0.1740$ 0.6783$ 0.2006$ 0.1867$ 0.0848$ 0.3711$ 0.0181$ 0.0140$ 0.0021$ 0.0496$ 0.0725$ 0.0542$ 0.0081$ 0.2034$ 0.6864$ 0.6263$ 0.2689$ 1.3023$20170.5437$ 0.4924$ 0.2207$ 1.0581$ 0.2796$ 0.2552$ 0.1091$ 0.5580$ 0.0245$ 0.0184$ 0.0026$ 0.0696$ 0.0995$ 0.0699$ 0.0108$ 0.2882$ 0.9473$ 0.8358$ 0.3432$ 1.9740$20180.5642$ 0.5115$ 0.2314$ 1.0803$ 0.2897$ 0.2670$ 0.1147$ 0.5812$ 0.0252$ 0.0191$ 0.0027$ 0.0715$ 0.1025$ 0.0727$ 0.0110$ 0.2992$ 0.9816$ 0.8703$ 0.3598$ 2.0322$20190.5894$ 0.5385$ 0.2462$ 1.1128$ 0.3032$ 0.2816$ 0.1257$ 0.5947$ 0.0262$ 0.0197$ 0.0028$ 0.0733$ 0.1067$ 0.0788$ 0.0115$ 0.3164$ 1.0255$ 0.9186$ 0.3861$ 2.0972$20200.6103$ 0.5604$ 0.2542$ 1.1578$ 0.3159$ 0.2939$ 0.1304$ 0.6214$ 0.0269$ 0.0202$ 0.0028$ 0.0758$ 0.1103$ 0.0811$ 0.0120$ 0.3251$ 1.0634$ 0.9556$ 0.3994$ 2.1801$20210.6356$ 0.5827$ 0.2668$ 1.2252$ 0.3296$ 0.3046$ 0.1368$ 0.6647$ 0.0277$ 0.0207$ 0.0029$ 0.0776$ 0.1141$ 0.0846$ 0.0125$ 0.3333$ 1.1069$ 0.9926$ 0.4190$ 2.3009$20220.7750$ 0.7106$ 0.3798$ 1.4193$ 0.4062$ 0.3748$ 0.1901$ 0.7817$ 0.0338$ 0.0269$ 0.0039$ 0.0899$ 0.1397$ 0.1060$ 0.0165$ 0.3921$ 1.3547$ 1.2184$ 0.5903$ 2.6830$20230.8018$ 0.7357$ 0.3904$ 1.5042$ 0.4210$ 0.3881$ 0.1958$ 0.8296$ 0.0346$ 0.0277$ 0.0039$ 0.0926$ 0.1436$ 0.1080$ 0.0168$ 0.4051$ 1.4011$ 1.2595$ 0.6070$ 2.8315$20240.8403$ 0.7740$ 0.4114$ 1.5467$ 0.4393$ 0.4054$ 0.2043$ 0.8505$ 0.0361$ 0.0290$ 0.0041$ 0.0958$ 0.1490$ 0.1117$ 0.0176$ 0.4238$ 1.4646$ 1.3201$ 0.6374$ 2.9168$20250.8673$ 0.8010$ 0.4247$ 1.5920$ 0.4531$ 0.4171$ 0.2099$ 0.8725$ 0.0369$ 0.0295$ 0.0042$ 0.0986$ 0.1526$ 0.1144$ 0.0180$ 0.4350$ 1.5100$ 1.3621$ 0.6567$ 2.9982$20260.9704$ 0.8974$ 0.4853$ 1.8170$ 0.4965$ 0.4549$ 0.2407$ 0.9479$ 0.0408$ 0.0331$ 0.0048$ 0.1076$ 0.1655$ 0.1280$ 0.0198$ 0.4626$ 1.6732$ 1.5134$ 0.7506$ 3.3351$20271.0067$ 0.9281$ 0.5013$ 1.8623$ 0.5151$ 0.4745$ 0.2482$ 0.9818$ 0.0420$ 0.0340$ 0.0050$ 0.1112$ 0.1706$ 0.1312$ 0.0202$ 0.4753$ 1.7344$ 1.5678$ 0.7746$ 3.4307$20281.0414$ 0.9541$ 0.5141$ 1.9640$ 0.5316$ 0.4871$ 0.2554$ 1.0470$ 0.0429$ 0.0348$ 0.0051$ 0.1138$ 0.1744$ 0.1344$ 0.0204$ 0.4842$ 1.7903$ 1.6105$ 0.7949$ 3.6091$20291.0750$ 0.9837$ 0.5363$ 2.0131$ 0.5500$ 0.5022$ 0.2656$ 1.0832$ 0.0440$ 0.0356$ 0.0051$ 0.1164$ 0.1790$ 0.1389$ 0.0208$ 0.4986$ 1.8480$ 1.6604$ 0.8278$ 3.7113$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source: GWR Benefits Model.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueExhibit C.1g Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for CWSs Serving 1,001-3,300 (Rotavirus)YearValue of Illnesses Avoided Value of Deaths AvoidedTotal Benefits0 - 15 years > 15 yrs 0 - 15 years > 15 yrsMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-8October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0006$ 0.0003$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0013$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0010$ 0.0012$ 0.0003$ 0.0000$ 0.0044$ 0.0019$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0073$20090.0016$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0076$ 0.0025$ 0.0008$ 0.0001$ 0.0118$ 0.0022$ 0.0004$ 0.0000$ 0.0071$ 0.0088$ 0.0016$ 0.0001$ 0.0357$ 0.0151$ 0.0034$ 0.0004$ 0.0622$20100.0031$ 0.0011$ 0.0002$ 0.0164$ 0.0047$ 0.0017$ 0.0002$ 0.0239$ 0.0041$ 0.0009$ 0.0001$ 0.0148$ 0.0162$ 0.0032$ 0.0002$ 0.0591$ 0.0280$ 0.0068$ 0.0007$ 0.1142$20110.0046$ 0.0019$ 0.0004$ 0.0226$ 0.0072$ 0.0031$ 0.0009$ 0.0337$ 0.0060$ 0.0016$ 0.0002$ 0.0211$ 0.0240$ 0.0063$ 0.0006$ 0.0798$ 0.0419$ 0.0130$ 0.0020$ 0.1573$20120.0065$ 0.0033$ 0.0006$ 0.0288$ 0.0103$ 0.0051$ 0.0012$ 0.0432$ 0.0084$ 0.0025$ 0.0003$ 0.0312$ 0.0336$ 0.0097$ 0.0010$ 0.1058$ 0.0588$ 0.0206$ 0.0031$ 0.2090$20130.0284$ 0.0206$ 0.0058$ 0.0751$ 0.0444$ 0.0351$ 0.0106$ 0.1098$ 0.0384$ 0.0196$ 0.0023$ 0.1313$ 0.1416$ 0.0759$ 0.0087$ 0.4890$ 0.2528$ 0.1512$ 0.0275$ 0.8052$20140.0300$ 0.0217$ 0.0062$ 0.0795$ 0.0469$ 0.0373$ 0.0112$ 0.1183$ 0.0402$ 0.0205$ 0.0025$ 0.1358$ 0.1486$ 0.0814$ 0.0092$ 0.5039$ 0.2657$ 0.1610$ 0.0291$ 0.8375$20150.0335$ 0.0243$ 0.0066$ 0.0889$ 0.0523$ 0.0410$ 0.0118$ 0.1339$ 0.0443$ 0.0229$ 0.0026$ 0.1466$ 0.1647$ 0.0925$ 0.0096$ 0.5396$ 0.2948$ 0.1808$ 0.0306$ 0.9091$20160.0350$ 0.0252$ 0.0069$ 0.0934$ 0.0546$ 0.0426$ 0.0122$ 0.1424$ 0.0459$ 0.0237$ 0.0027$ 0.1498$ 0.1704$ 0.0950$ 0.0101$ 0.5549$ 0.3058$ 0.1865$ 0.0319$ 0.9405$20170.0517$ 0.0333$ 0.0093$ 0.1643$ 0.0749$ 0.0526$ 0.0160$ 0.2446$ 0.0657$ 0.0293$ 0.0032$ 0.2302$ 0.2317$ 0.1198$ 0.0130$ 0.8178$ 0.4241$ 0.2351$ 0.0415$ 1.4570$20180.0540$ 0.0350$ 0.0100$ 0.1677$ 0.0783$ 0.0553$ 0.0173$ 0.2532$ 0.0680$ 0.0307$ 0.0035$ 0.2389$ 0.2396$ 0.1226$ 0.0139$ 0.8400$ 0.4399$ 0.2435$ 0.0447$ 1.4997$20190.0566$ 0.0371$ 0.0104$ 0.1710$ 0.0821$ 0.0595$ 0.0183$ 0.2590$ 0.0708$ 0.0325$ 0.0036$ 0.2494$ 0.2495$ 0.1275$ 0.0147$ 0.8554$ 0.4591$ 0.2566$ 0.0470$ 1.5348$20200.0581$ 0.0383$ 0.0108$ 0.1741$ 0.0842$ 0.0622$ 0.0191$ 0.2631$ 0.0720$ 0.0337$ 0.0038$ 0.2525$ 0.2539$ 0.1324$ 0.0151$ 0.8634$ 0.4682$ 0.2667$ 0.0487$ 1.5531$20210.0612$ 0.0404$ 0.0111$ 0.1930$ 0.0893$ 0.0639$ 0.0199$ 0.2786$ 0.0753$ 0.0347$ 0.0038$ 0.2622$ 0.2679$ 0.1354$ 0.0154$ 0.8727$ 0.4937$ 0.2745$ 0.0503$ 1.6065$20220.0755$ 0.0520$ 0.0155$ 0.2214$ 0.1129$ 0.0826$ 0.0273$ 0.3287$ 0.0922$ 0.0452$ 0.0049$ 0.3148$ 0.3337$ 0.1808$ 0.0203$ 1.0703$ 0.6143$ 0.3607$ 0.0680$ 1.9352$20230.0772$ 0.0535$ 0.0160$ 0.2253$ 0.1155$ 0.0848$ 0.0280$ 0.3347$ 0.0934$ 0.0462$ 0.0050$ 0.3177$ 0.3383$ 0.1834$ 0.0206$ 1.0870$ 0.6244$ 0.3679$ 0.0695$ 1.9647$20240.0804$ 0.0555$ 0.0167$ 0.2339$ 0.1198$ 0.0881$ 0.0288$ 0.3466$ 0.0963$ 0.0484$ 0.0052$ 0.3266$ 0.3480$ 0.1899$ 0.0213$ 1.0993$ 0.6445$ 0.3818$ 0.0720$ 2.0064$20250.0823$ 0.0570$ 0.0173$ 0.2381$ 0.1226$ 0.0907$ 0.0293$ 0.3531$ 0.0978$ 0.0494$ 0.0053$ 0.3294$ 0.3530$ 0.1932$ 0.0215$ 1.1165$ 0.6557$ 0.3904$ 0.0734$ 2.0371$20260.0895$ 0.0634$ 0.0201$ 0.2552$ 0.1344$ 0.1014$ 0.0357$ 0.3812$ 0.1052$ 0.0546$ 0.0060$ 0.3466$ 0.3829$ 0.2119$ 0.0241$ 1.1941$ 0.7120$ 0.4313$ 0.0859$ 2.1771$20270.0920$ 0.0652$ 0.0206$ 0.2609$ 0.1381$ 0.1055$ 0.0365$ 0.3897$ 0.1072$ 0.0564$ 0.0061$ 0.3514$ 0.3905$ 0.2188$ 0.0247$ 1.2201$ 0.7278$ 0.4459$ 0.0879$ 2.2221$20280.0946$ 0.0667$ 0.0211$ 0.2696$ 0.1419$ 0.1080$ 0.0374$ 0.4036$ 0.1092$ 0.0570$ 0.0062$ 0.3621$ 0.3982$ 0.2214$ 0.0251$ 1.2594$ 0.7439$ 0.4531$ 0.0897$ 2.2947$20290.1017$ 0.0692$ 0.0219$ 0.3106$ 0.1498$ 0.1124$ 0.0386$ 0.4451$ 0.1160$ 0.0584$ 0.0063$ 0.3979$ 0.4172$ 0.2271$ 0.0253$ 1.2766$ 0.7847$ 0.4670$ 0.0921$ 2.4302$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source: GWR Benefits Model.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueExhibit C.1h Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for CWSs Serving 1,001-3,300 (Echovirus)YearValue of Illnesses Avoided Value of Deaths AvoidedTotal Benefits0 -16 years >16 years 0 -16 years >16 yearsMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-9October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0045$ 0.0038$ 0.0005$ 0.0124$ 0.0020$ 0.0017$ 0.0004$ 0.0051$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0009$ 0.0008$ 0.0005$ 0.0000$ 0.0029$ 0.0077$ 0.0062$ 0.0009$ 0.0212$20090.0182$ 0.0164$ 0.0050$ 0.0383$ 0.0091$ 0.0078$ 0.0029$ 0.0186$ 0.0010$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0030$ 0.0036$ 0.0024$ 0.0003$ 0.0116$ 0.0318$ 0.0272$ 0.0084$ 0.0715$20100.2414$ 0.2181$ 0.1116$ 0.4383$ 0.1174$ 0.1063$ 0.0514$ 0.2178$ 0.0118$ 0.0084$ 0.0012$ 0.0331$ 0.0451$ 0.0325$ 0.0056$ 0.1271$ 0.4156$ 0.3653$ 0.1698$ 0.8164$20110.4879$ 0.4329$ 0.2235$ 0.8597$ 0.2423$ 0.2177$ 0.1095$ 0.4362$ 0.0239$ 0.0162$ 0.0024$ 0.0677$ 0.0929$ 0.0639$ 0.0112$ 0.2548$ 0.8470$ 0.7308$ 0.3466$ 1.6184$20120.6374$ 0.5731$ 0.2958$ 1.1120$ 0.3185$ 0.2934$ 0.1445$ 0.5638$ 0.0310$ 0.0213$ 0.0032$ 0.0875$ 0.1215$ 0.0841$ 0.0144$ 0.3365$ 1.1084$ 0.9718$ 0.4579$ 2.0997$20130.9526$ 0.8667$ 0.4845$ 1.6415$ 0.4895$ 0.4456$ 0.2287$ 0.8245$ 0.0459$ 0.0328$ 0.0048$ 0.1273$ 0.1868$ 0.1314$ 0.0213$ 0.5069$ 1.6747$ 1.4765$ 0.7393$ 3.1001$20140.9858$ 0.8980$ 0.5076$ 1.6856$ 0.5065$ 0.4639$ 0.2380$ 0.8457$ 0.0471$ 0.0336$ 0.0050$ 0.1298$ 0.1919$ 0.1376$ 0.0223$ 0.5207$ 1.7314$ 1.5332$ 0.7729$ 3.1819$20151.1401$ 1.0451$ 0.5916$ 1.9354$ 0.5831$ 0.5397$ 0.2850$ 0.9834$ 0.0540$ 0.0389$ 0.0056$ 0.1470$ 0.2184$ 0.1597$ 0.0273$ 0.5964$ 1.9956$ 1.7834$ 0.9095$ 3.6622$20161.1715$ 1.0789$ 0.6077$ 2.0004$ 0.5998$ 0.5559$ 0.2933$ 1.0021$ 0.0550$ 0.0399$ 0.0057$ 0.1503$ 0.2232$ 0.1640$ 0.0279$ 0.6099$ 2.0494$ 1.8388$ 0.9346$ 3.7628$20171.2592$ 1.1652$ 0.6732$ 2.1052$ 0.6550$ 0.6067$ 0.3227$ 1.0891$ 0.0587$ 0.0439$ 0.0061$ 0.1612$ 0.2417$ 0.1812$ 0.0294$ 0.6413$ 2.2146$ 1.9970$ 1.0314$ 3.9968$20181.3948$ 1.2902$ 0.7321$ 2.3590$ 0.7280$ 0.6721$ 0.3599$ 1.2051$ 0.0643$ 0.0467$ 0.0067$ 0.1741$ 0.2663$ 0.1991$ 0.0324$ 0.7200$ 2.4534$ 2.2080$ 1.1311$ 4.4582$20191.4420$ 1.3332$ 0.7631$ 2.4196$ 0.7511$ 0.6940$ 0.3747$ 1.2322$ 0.0661$ 0.0480$ 0.0068$ 0.1798$ 0.2731$ 0.2022$ 0.0330$ 0.7329$ 2.5323$ 2.2774$ 1.1777$ 4.5646$20201.5656$ 1.4493$ 0.8172$ 2.6398$ 0.8174$ 0.7683$ 0.4064$ 1.3341$ 0.0710$ 0.0520$ 0.0074$ 0.1926$ 0.2943$ 0.2166$ 0.0358$ 0.7916$ 2.7483$ 2.4863$ 1.2669$ 4.9581$20211.6152$ 1.4897$ 0.8426$ 2.7276$ 0.8427$ 0.7897$ 0.4181$ 1.3737$ 0.0727$ 0.0534$ 0.0076$ 0.1975$ 0.3014$ 0.2188$ 0.0365$ 0.8056$ 2.8319$ 2.5516$ 1.3048$ 5.1044$20221.7530$ 1.6182$ 0.9183$ 2.9527$ 0.9161$ 0.8476$ 0.4593$ 1.5158$ 0.0785$ 0.0571$ 0.0082$ 0.2120$ 0.3259$ 0.2385$ 0.0386$ 0.8523$ 3.0735$ 2.7615$ 1.4243$ 5.5329$20231.7966$ 1.6558$ 0.9396$ 3.0212$ 0.9396$ 0.8698$ 0.4698$ 1.5558$ 0.0798$ 0.0583$ 0.0084$ 0.2161$ 0.3319$ 0.2405$ 0.0392$ 0.8662$ 3.1478$ 2.8244$ 1.4570$ 5.6593$20241.9078$ 1.7689$ 0.9910$ 3.1853$ 0.9927$ 0.9175$ 0.4960$ 1.6289$ 0.0841$ 0.0609$ 0.0087$ 0.2307$ 0.3481$ 0.2534$ 0.0407$ 0.9102$ 3.3327$ 3.0007$ 1.5364$ 5.9551$20251.9881$ 1.8526$ 1.0479$ 3.3129$ 1.0303$ 0.9527$ 0.5286$ 1.6918$ 0.0869$ 0.0630$ 0.0090$ 0.2338$ 0.3582$ 0.2598$ 0.0422$ 0.9258$ 3.4635$ 3.1281$ 1.6277$ 6.1643$20262.0474$ 1.9072$ 1.0814$ 3.4046$ 1.0596$ 0.9763$ 0.5460$ 1.7440$ 0.0887$ 0.0643$ 0.0092$ 0.2380$ 0.3656$ 0.2660$ 0.0428$ 0.9376$ 3.5613$ 3.2138$ 1.6794$ 6.3241$20272.1342$ 1.9850$ 1.1381$ 3.5239$ 1.1027$ 1.0118$ 0.5707$ 1.8094$ 0.0917$ 0.0674$ 0.0096$ 0.2478$ 0.3777$ 0.2775$ 0.0439$ 0.9792$ 3.7063$ 3.3416$ 1.7623$ 6.5604$20282.1855$ 2.0330$ 1.1665$ 3.6184$ 1.1296$ 1.0420$ 0.5841$ 1.8772$ 0.0931$ 0.0681$ 0.0097$ 0.2508$ 0.3841$ 0.2807$ 0.0444$ 0.9898$ 3.7923$ 3.4238$ 1.8046$ 6.7362$20292.2593$ 2.1195$ 1.2104$ 3.7237$ 1.1772$ 1.0892$ 0.6022$ 1.9630$ 0.0956$ 0.0700$ 0.0099$ 0.2555$ 0.3973$ 0.2914$ 0.0452$ 1.0255$ 3.9294$ 3.5701$ 1.8676$ 6.9677$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source: GWR Benefits Model.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueExhibit C.1i Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for CWSs Serving 3,301-10,000 (Rotavirus)YearValue of Illnesses Avoided Value of Deaths AvoidedTotal Benefits0 - 15 years > 15 yrs 0 - 15 years > 15 yrsMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-10October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0008$ 0.0005$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0015$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0012$ 0.0013$ 0.0005$ 0.0000$ 0.0043$ 0.0024$ 0.0009$ 0.0001$ 0.0079$20090.0022$ 0.0009$ 0.0001$ 0.0051$ 0.0032$ 0.0014$ 0.0003$ 0.0092$ 0.0033$ 0.0007$ 0.0000$ 0.0067$ 0.0107$ 0.0024$ 0.0002$ 0.0227$ 0.0194$ 0.0054$ 0.0007$ 0.0437$20100.0209$ 0.0159$ 0.0037$ 0.0562$ 0.0294$ 0.0258$ 0.0066$ 0.0726$ 0.0248$ 0.0130$ 0.0014$ 0.0871$ 0.0846$ 0.0465$ 0.0054$ 0.2733$ 0.1597$ 0.1013$ 0.0172$ 0.4892$20110.0377$ 0.0283$ 0.0077$ 0.1090$ 0.0534$ 0.0448$ 0.0139$ 0.1363$ 0.0447$ 0.0240$ 0.0025$ 0.1434$ 0.1542$ 0.0877$ 0.0101$ 0.5185$ 0.2901$ 0.1848$ 0.0342$ 0.9073$20120.0487$ 0.0365$ 0.0102$ 0.1414$ 0.0693$ 0.0582$ 0.0180$ 0.1779$ 0.0571$ 0.0308$ 0.0033$ 0.1839$ 0.1980$ 0.1137$ 0.0131$ 0.6624$ 0.3730$ 0.2392$ 0.0446$ 1.1656$20130.0766$ 0.0570$ 0.0168$ 0.2225$ 0.1131$ 0.0936$ 0.0298$ 0.2949$ 0.0905$ 0.0476$ 0.0058$ 0.3003$ 0.3241$ 0.1807$ 0.0218$ 1.0453$ 0.6044$ 0.3789$ 0.0742$ 1.8629$20140.0787$ 0.0587$ 0.0177$ 0.2268$ 0.1161$ 0.0963$ 0.0312$ 0.2994$ 0.0924$ 0.0484$ 0.0060$ 0.3054$ 0.3303$ 0.1853$ 0.0222$ 1.0622$ 0.6175$ 0.3887$ 0.0771$ 1.8938$20150.1241$ 0.0685$ 0.0199$ 0.3909$ 0.1674$ 0.1090$ 0.0370$ 0.5119$ 0.1557$ 0.0559$ 0.0064$ 0.5505$ 0.4916$ 0.2199$ 0.0254$ 1.6400$ 0.9388$ 0.4533$ 0.0888$ 3.0933$20160.1272$ 0.0704$ 0.0207$ 0.3997$ 0.1715$ 0.1120$ 0.0381$ 0.5228$ 0.1584$ 0.0570$ 0.0067$ 0.5577$ 0.5001$ 0.2266$ 0.0262$ 1.6633$ 0.9572$ 0.4659$ 0.0916$ 3.1434$20170.1377$ 0.0733$ 0.0227$ 0.4665$ 0.1852$ 0.1188$ 0.0411$ 0.5678$ 0.1720$ 0.0595$ 0.0071$ 0.6454$ 0.5404$ 0.2371$ 0.0278$ 1.7159$ 1.0353$ 0.4887$ 0.0986$ 3.3957$20180.1437$ 0.0780$ 0.0253$ 0.4772$ 0.1947$ 0.1283$ 0.0443$ 0.5842$ 0.1778$ 0.0639$ 0.0081$ 0.6644$ 0.5637$ 0.2559$ 0.0300$ 1.9013$ 1.0798$ 0.5260$ 0.1077$ 3.6272$20190.1486$ 0.0808$ 0.0262$ 0.4889$ 0.2010$ 0.1320$ 0.0459$ 0.5939$ 0.1818$ 0.0667$ 0.0083$ 0.6803$ 0.5771$ 0.2629$ 0.0303$ 1.9370$ 1.1086$ 0.5424$ 0.1108$ 3.7001$20200.1612$ 0.0877$ 0.0278$ 0.5478$ 0.2161$ 0.1413$ 0.0512$ 0.6517$ 0.1962$ 0.0718$ 0.0090$ 0.7333$ 0.6161$ 0.2785$ 0.0330$ 2.2317$ 1.1896$ 0.5792$ 0.1209$ 4.1645$20210.1665$ 0.0900$ 0.0290$ 0.5672$ 0.2232$ 0.1461$ 0.0527$ 0.6683$ 0.2013$ 0.0736$ 0.0091$ 0.7540$ 0.6322$ 0.2859$ 0.0348$ 2.3448$ 1.2232$ 0.5956$ 0.1256$ 4.3343$20220.1769$ 0.1010$ 0.0313$ 0.5779$ 0.2394$ 0.1614$ 0.0575$ 0.6899$ 0.2111$ 0.0783$ 0.0101$ 0.7616$ 0.6705$ 0.3129$ 0.0400$ 2.4090$ 1.2978$ 0.6536$ 0.1389$ 4.4384$20230.1807$ 0.1035$ 0.0320$ 0.5889$ 0.2445$ 0.1651$ 0.0587$ 0.7024$ 0.2140$ 0.0795$ 0.0102$ 0.7707$ 0.6801$ 0.3157$ 0.0404$ 2.4324$ 1.3193$ 0.6639$ 0.1412$ 4.4943$20240.1880$ 0.1092$ 0.0337$ 0.6018$ 0.2558$ 0.1727$ 0.0607$ 0.7254$ 0.2205$ 0.0821$ 0.0105$ 0.7825$ 0.7048$ 0.3273$ 0.0419$ 2.4858$ 1.3690$ 0.6913$ 0.1468$ 4.5955$20250.2013$ 0.1238$ 0.0360$ 0.6233$ 0.2767$ 0.1981$ 0.0650$ 0.7675$ 0.2335$ 0.0906$ 0.0116$ 0.7971$ 0.7540$ 0.3740$ 0.0453$ 2.6076$ 1.4655$ 0.7864$ 0.1579$ 4.7956$20260.2065$ 0.1267$ 0.0371$ 0.6380$ 0.2837$ 0.2028$ 0.0668$ 0.7811$ 0.2371$ 0.0922$ 0.0118$ 0.8043$ 0.7668$ 0.3843$ 0.0473$ 2.6687$ 1.4940$ 0.8061$ 0.1630$ 4.8922$20270.2130$ 0.1311$ 0.0384$ 0.6511$ 0.2931$ 0.2108$ 0.0689$ 0.8052$ 0.2423$ 0.0952$ 0.0121$ 0.8320$ 0.7852$ 0.3972$ 0.0485$ 2.7159$ 1.5336$ 0.8342$ 0.1679$ 5.0043$20280.2172$ 0.1336$ 0.0393$ 0.6652$ 0.2995$ 0.2148$ 0.0703$ 0.8212$ 0.2452$ 0.0963$ 0.0122$ 0.8381$ 0.7964$ 0.4018$ 0.0492$ 2.7878$ 1.5584$ 0.8464$ 0.1710$ 5.1123$20290.2230$ 0.1375$ 0.0410$ 0.6810$ 0.3075$ 0.2203$ 0.0729$ 0.8454$ 0.2493$ 0.0989$ 0.0125$ 0.8451$ 0.8107$ 0.4117$ 0.0501$ 2.8726$ 1.5906$ 0.8683$ 0.1766$ 5.2441$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source: GWR Benefits Model.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueExhibit C.1j Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for CWSs Serving 3,301-10,000 (Echovirus)YearValue of Illnesses Avoided Value of Deaths AvoidedTotal Benefits0 -16 years >16 years 0 -16 years >16 yearsMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-11October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0417$ 0.0374$ 0.0166$ 0.0799$ 0.0220$ 0.0203$ 0.0093$ 0.0398$ 0.0021$ 0.0015$ 0.0003$ 0.0061$ 0.0089$ 0.0063$ 0.0011$ 0.0270$ 0.0746$ 0.0654$ 0.0272$ 0.1528$20090.1678$ 0.1540$ 0.0771$ 0.3006$ 0.0895$ 0.0831$ 0.0397$ 0.1570$ 0.0085$ 0.0060$ 0.0011$ 0.0229$ 0.0356$ 0.0252$ 0.0047$ 0.0944$ 0.3014$ 0.2683$ 0.1227$ 0.5749$20100.3135$ 0.2911$ 0.1528$ 0.5331$ 0.1690$ 0.1544$ 0.0783$ 0.2905$ 0.0156$ 0.0113$ 0.0021$ 0.0429$ 0.0666$ 0.0489$ 0.0085$ 0.1773$ 0.5646$ 0.5056$ 0.2417$ 1.0438$20110.5031$ 0.4641$ 0.2572$ 0.8692$ 0.2744$ 0.2516$ 0.1346$ 0.4682$ 0.0248$ 0.0184$ 0.0032$ 0.0701$ 0.1070$ 0.0789$ 0.0134$ 0.2922$ 0.9092$ 0.8130$ 0.4084$ 1.6997$20120.7163$ 0.6612$ 0.3599$ 1.2517$ 0.3911$ 0.3557$ 0.1855$ 0.6800$ 0.0352$ 0.0258$ 0.0045$ 0.0997$ 0.1518$ 0.1129$ 0.0190$ 0.4447$ 1.2944$ 1.1556$ 0.5689$ 2.4761$20130.9674$ 0.9012$ 0.5076$ 1.6326$ 0.5246$ 0.4883$ 0.2567$ 0.9067$ 0.0469$ 0.0356$ 0.0061$ 0.1318$ 0.2014$ 0.1493$ 0.0259$ 0.5745$ 1.7402$ 1.5744$ 0.7962$ 3.2456$20141.0209$ 0.9346$ 0.5320$ 1.7128$ 0.5562$ 0.5076$ 0.2701$ 0.9758$ 0.0496$ 0.0370$ 0.0063$ 0.1420$ 0.2136$ 0.1568$ 0.0273$ 0.6128$ 1.8403$ 1.6360$ 0.8356$ 3.4434$20151.0950$ 1.0012$ 0.5588$ 1.8134$ 0.5943$ 0.5402$ 0.2828$ 1.0246$ 0.0528$ 0.0392$ 0.0068$ 0.1494$ 0.2268$ 0.1661$ 0.0296$ 0.6610$ 1.9689$ 1.7466$ 0.8780$ 3.6483$20161.1551$ 1.0718$ 0.5899$ 1.9026$ 0.6278$ 0.5779$ 0.2930$ 1.0569$ 0.0553$ 0.0406$ 0.0070$ 0.1565$ 0.2383$ 0.1731$ 0.0301$ 0.6717$ 2.0765$ 1.8634$ 0.9201$ 3.7877$20171.2092$ 1.1240$ 0.6114$ 1.9744$ 0.6562$ 0.5985$ 0.3068$ 1.0902$ 0.0576$ 0.0422$ 0.0073$ 0.1604$ 0.2476$ 0.1806$ 0.0313$ 0.6900$ 2.1705$ 1.9453$ 0.9568$ 3.9151$20181.2893$ 1.2013$ 0.6480$ 2.1364$ 0.6892$ 0.6305$ 0.3188$ 1.1527$ 0.0609$ 0.0448$ 0.0076$ 0.1727$ 0.2583$ 0.1883$ 0.0321$ 0.7297$ 2.2977$ 2.0650$ 1.0065$ 4.1915$20191.3411$ 1.2504$ 0.6877$ 2.1956$ 0.7169$ 0.6584$ 0.3335$ 1.1809$ 0.0628$ 0.0465$ 0.0078$ 0.1776$ 0.2665$ 0.1958$ 0.0331$ 0.7595$ 2.3872$ 2.1510$ 1.0621$ 4.3136$20201.3832$ 1.2896$ 0.7134$ 2.2783$ 0.7418$ 0.6840$ 0.3438$ 1.2135$ 0.0642$ 0.0478$ 0.0081$ 0.1833$ 0.2737$ 0.2035$ 0.0340$ 0.7873$ 2.4628$ 2.2249$ 1.0992$ 4.4624$20211.4218$ 1.3305$ 0.7316$ 2.3255$ 0.7643$ 0.7125$ 0.3531$ 1.2521$ 0.0654$ 0.0489$ 0.0082$ 0.1867$ 0.2797$ 0.2111$ 0.0347$ 0.8057$ 2.5313$ 2.3029$ 1.1275$ 4.5701$20221.4653$ 1.3773$ 0.7518$ 2.3808$ 0.7851$ 0.7325$ 0.3642$ 1.2933$ 0.0669$ 0.0498$ 0.0084$ 0.1899$ 0.2853$ 0.2154$ 0.0355$ 0.8205$ 2.6026$ 2.3750$ 1.1599$ 4.6846$20231.5105$ 1.4188$ 0.7884$ 2.4375$ 0.8116$ 0.7620$ 0.3899$ 1.3250$ 0.0683$ 0.0513$ 0.0086$ 0.1946$ 0.2925$ 0.2230$ 0.0367$ 0.8400$ 2.6829$ 2.4551$ 1.2235$ 4.7970$20241.5608$ 1.4676$ 0.8201$ 2.5073$ 0.8397$ 0.7865$ 0.4048$ 1.3749$ 0.0700$ 0.0526$ 0.0088$ 0.1986$ 0.3002$ 0.2288$ 0.0377$ 0.8553$ 2.7707$ 2.5355$ 1.2713$ 4.9361$20251.5986$ 1.5013$ 0.8403$ 2.5677$ 0.8601$ 0.8098$ 0.4144$ 1.4070$ 0.0711$ 0.0535$ 0.0089$ 0.2015$ 0.3054$ 0.2314$ 0.0384$ 0.8684$ 2.8352$ 2.5960$ 1.3020$ 5.0445$20261.6436$ 1.5398$ 0.8660$ 2.6208$ 0.8844$ 0.8316$ 0.4248$ 1.4420$ 0.0724$ 0.0544$ 0.0092$ 0.2077$ 0.3114$ 0.2356$ 0.0397$ 0.8810$ 2.9118$ 2.6614$ 1.3397$ 5.1514$20271.6944$ 1.5884$ 0.8939$ 2.6996$ 0.9129$ 0.8559$ 0.4339$ 1.4874$ 0.0740$ 0.0556$ 0.0093$ 0.2136$ 0.3187$ 0.2432$ 0.0406$ 0.9014$ 3.0000$ 2.7431$ 1.3778$ 5.3019$20281.7333$ 1.6230$ 0.9121$ 2.7529$ 0.9344$ 0.8750$ 0.4424$ 1.5244$ 0.0751$ 0.0564$ 0.0094$ 0.2165$ 0.3236$ 0.2491$ 0.0412$ 0.9180$ 3.0664$ 2.8033$ 1.4051$ 5.4118$20291.7727$ 1.6620$ 0.9317$ 2.8123$ 0.9547$ 0.8948$ 0.4502$ 1.5537$ 0.0762$ 0.0574$ 0.0095$ 0.2206$ 0.3281$ 0.2510$ 0.0418$ 0.9351$ 3.1316$ 2.8653$ 1.4333$ 5.5217$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source: GWR Benefits Model.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueExhibit C.1k Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for CWSs Serving 10,001-50,000 (Rotavirus)YearValue of Illnesses Avoided Value of Deaths AvoidedTotal Benefits0 - 15 years > 15 yrs 0 - 15 years > 15 yrsMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-12October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0045$ 0.0026$ 0.0008$ 0.0116$ 0.0064$ 0.0041$ 0.0012$ 0.0161$ 0.0059$ 0.0024$ 0.0003$ 0.0159$ 0.0189$ 0.0079$ 0.0013$ 0.0592$ 0.0356$ 0.0170$ 0.0036$ 0.1028$20090.0159$ 0.0109$ 0.0032$ 0.0424$ 0.0231$ 0.0160$ 0.0062$ 0.0634$ 0.0205$ 0.0096$ 0.0013$ 0.0638$ 0.0681$ 0.0356$ 0.0050$ 0.2262$ 0.1276$ 0.0721$ 0.0158$ 0.3958$20100.0326$ 0.0195$ 0.0060$ 0.0954$ 0.0479$ 0.0287$ 0.0120$ 0.1295$ 0.0417$ 0.0188$ 0.0024$ 0.1244$ 0.1392$ 0.0702$ 0.0097$ 0.4674$ 0.2614$ 0.1372$ 0.0301$ 0.8166$20110.0574$ 0.0307$ 0.0096$ 0.1802$ 0.0785$ 0.0456$ 0.0193$ 0.2216$ 0.0725$ 0.0293$ 0.0039$ 0.2001$ 0.2251$ 0.1046$ 0.0156$ 0.7295$ 0.4334$ 0.2102$ 0.0483$ 1.3314$20120.0822$ 0.0446$ 0.0137$ 0.2508$ 0.1125$ 0.0710$ 0.0266$ 0.3134$ 0.1019$ 0.0420$ 0.0061$ 0.2837$ 0.3200$ 0.1567$ 0.0226$ 0.9775$ 0.6166$ 0.3142$ 0.0689$ 1.8255$20130.1119$ 0.0675$ 0.0205$ 0.3218$ 0.1567$ 0.1061$ 0.0399$ 0.4034$ 0.1376$ 0.0611$ 0.0090$ 0.3975$ 0.4438$ 0.2290$ 0.0370$ 1.3828$ 0.8500$ 0.4636$ 0.1064$ 2.5055$20140.1174$ 0.0706$ 0.0211$ 0.3489$ 0.1640$ 0.1104$ 0.0411$ 0.4293$ 0.1433$ 0.0650$ 0.0093$ 0.4369$ 0.4614$ 0.2326$ 0.0378$ 1.4398$ 0.8861$ 0.4786$ 0.1093$ 2.6549$20150.1252$ 0.0764$ 0.0228$ 0.3730$ 0.1760$ 0.1222$ 0.0434$ 0.4732$ 0.1520$ 0.0681$ 0.0098$ 0.4656$ 0.4934$ 0.2519$ 0.0390$ 1.6036$ 0.9466$ 0.5185$ 0.1149$ 2.9154$20160.1302$ 0.0811$ 0.0245$ 0.3828$ 0.1837$ 0.1277$ 0.0470$ 0.4847$ 0.1568$ 0.0716$ 0.0104$ 0.4830$ 0.5120$ 0.2649$ 0.0410$ 1.6387$ 0.9827$ 0.5453$ 0.1228$ 2.9892$20170.1385$ 0.0836$ 0.0253$ 0.4588$ 0.1919$ 0.1316$ 0.0483$ 0.5196$ 0.1667$ 0.0738$ 0.0108$ 0.5188$ 0.5343$ 0.2747$ 0.0418$ 1.6886$ 1.0313$ 0.5637$ 0.1261$ 3.1859$20180.1464$ 0.0877$ 0.0267$ 0.4940$ 0.2033$ 0.1394$ 0.0520$ 0.5570$ 0.1753$ 0.0768$ 0.0112$ 0.5637$ 0.5641$ 0.2965$ 0.0438$ 1.8129$ 1.0891$ 0.6003$ 0.1337$ 3.4276$20190.1510$ 0.0914$ 0.0281$ 0.5032$ 0.2103$ 0.1455$ 0.0547$ 0.5704$ 0.1795$ 0.0795$ 0.0117$ 0.5725$ 0.5800$ 0.3027$ 0.0456$ 1.8292$ 1.1208$ 0.6190$ 0.1401$ 3.4754$20200.1546$ 0.0936$ 0.0290$ 0.5146$ 0.2152$ 0.1490$ 0.0569$ 0.5827$ 0.1822$ 0.0813$ 0.0120$ 0.5799$ 0.5892$ 0.3058$ 0.0463$ 1.8658$ 1.1411$ 0.6296$ 0.1442$ 3.5431$20210.1574$ 0.0957$ 0.0296$ 0.5233$ 0.2193$ 0.1523$ 0.0584$ 0.5925$ 0.1840$ 0.0820$ 0.0122$ 0.5848$ 0.5963$ 0.3075$ 0.0467$ 1.8866$ 1.1570$ 0.6374$ 0.1469$ 3.5873$20220.1606$ 0.0978$ 0.0303$ 0.5324$ 0.2238$ 0.1559$ 0.0599$ 0.6032$ 0.1862$ 0.0832$ 0.0124$ 0.5902$ 0.6041$ 0.3093$ 0.0471$ 1.9076$ 1.1747$ 0.6463$ 0.1497$ 3.6334$20230.1670$ 0.1005$ 0.0322$ 0.5466$ 0.2327$ 0.1594$ 0.0626$ 0.6186$ 0.1916$ 0.0852$ 0.0126$ 0.6183$ 0.6224$ 0.3152$ 0.0475$ 1.9616$ 1.2137$ 0.6604$ 0.1549$ 3.7450$20240.1711$ 0.1040$ 0.0336$ 0.5585$ 0.2386$ 0.1629$ 0.0647$ 0.6293$ 0.1949$ 0.0881$ 0.0130$ 0.6290$ 0.6335$ 0.3197$ 0.0483$ 1.9908$ 1.2382$ 0.6747$ 0.1595$ 3.8076$20250.1743$ 0.1061$ 0.0342$ 0.5682$ 0.2430$ 0.1665$ 0.0663$ 0.6397$ 0.1968$ 0.0889$ 0.0131$ 0.6373$ 0.6402$ 0.3249$ 0.0488$ 2.0123$ 1.2543$ 0.6864$ 0.1624$ 3.8575$20260.1780$ 0.1090$ 0.0350$ 0.5793$ 0.2484$ 0.1712$ 0.0678$ 0.6555$ 0.1992$ 0.0900$ 0.0133$ 0.6465$ 0.6497$ 0.3290$ 0.0491$ 2.0275$ 1.2754$ 0.6991$ 0.1652$ 3.9088$20270.1823$ 0.1120$ 0.0362$ 0.5893$ 0.2548$ 0.1766$ 0.0695$ 0.6659$ 0.2021$ 0.0916$ 0.0139$ 0.6560$ 0.6605$ 0.3403$ 0.0496$ 2.0530$ 1.2997$ 0.7205$ 0.1692$ 3.9642$20280.1858$ 0.1146$ 0.0370$ 0.6013$ 0.2595$ 0.1808$ 0.0708$ 0.6797$ 0.2043$ 0.0924$ 0.0140$ 0.6648$ 0.6674$ 0.3447$ 0.0500$ 2.0932$ 1.3169$ 0.7326$ 0.1718$ 4.0391$20290.1895$ 0.1169$ 0.0377$ 0.6116$ 0.2649$ 0.1847$ 0.0730$ 0.6919$ 0.2065$ 0.0945$ 0.0143$ 0.6731$ 0.6759$ 0.3525$ 0.0504$ 2.1180$ 1.3368$ 0.7486$ 0.1754$ 4.0945$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source: GWR Benefits Model.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueExhibit C.1l Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for CWSs Serving 10,001-50,000 (Echovirus)YearValue of Illnesses Avoided Value of Deaths AvoidedTotal Benefits0 -16 years >16 years 0 -16 years >16 yearsMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-13October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.1320$ 0.1135$ 0.0584$ 0.2439$ 0.0710$ 0.0612$ 0.0277$ 0.1366$ 0.0068$ 0.0047$ 0.0007$ 0.0189$ 0.0288$ 0.0200$ 0.0028$ 0.0844$ 0.2385$ 0.1994$ 0.0896$ 0.4839$20090.4427$ 0.4023$ 0.2052$ 0.8087$ 0.2449$ 0.2138$ 0.1004$ 0.4929$ 0.0226$ 0.0167$ 0.0023$ 0.0652$ 0.0979$ 0.0687$ 0.0096$ 0.3000$ 0.8081$ 0.7015$ 0.3176$ 1.6668$20100.8168$ 0.7237$ 0.3813$ 1.4409$ 0.4511$ 0.3855$ 0.1815$ 0.8845$ 0.0413$ 0.0297$ 0.0041$ 0.1175$ 0.1792$ 0.1265$ 0.0170$ 0.5409$ 1.4884$ 1.2654$ 0.5839$ 2.9838$20111.2275$ 1.0929$ 0.5599$ 2.1405$ 0.6757$ 0.5770$ 0.2717$ 1.3331$ 0.0614$ 0.0440$ 0.0060$ 0.1760$ 0.2662$ 0.1898$ 0.0249$ 0.7965$ 2.2308$ 1.9036$ 0.8625$ 4.4461$20121.6557$ 1.4809$ 0.7614$ 2.9229$ 0.9062$ 0.7809$ 0.3772$ 1.7617$ 0.0822$ 0.0594$ 0.0081$ 0.2365$ 0.3547$ 0.2569$ 0.0329$ 1.0492$ 2.9988$ 2.5782$ 1.1797$ 5.9703$20132.0799$ 1.8599$ 0.9682$ 3.6550$ 1.1383$ 0.9825$ 0.4806$ 2.1882$ 0.1024$ 0.0741$ 0.0101$ 0.2973$ 0.4426$ 0.3179$ 0.0416$ 1.3347$ 3.7631$ 3.2344$ 1.5004$ 7.4752$20142.1554$ 1.9321$ 1.0076$ 3.7760$ 1.1802$ 1.0257$ 0.4995$ 2.2592$ 0.1053$ 0.0765$ 0.0105$ 0.3078$ 0.4558$ 0.3259$ 0.0431$ 1.3641$ 3.8967$ 3.3602$ 1.5607$ 7.7070$20152.2263$ 1.9978$ 1.0443$ 3.8798$ 1.2187$ 1.0633$ 0.5162$ 2.3137$ 0.1079$ 0.0781$ 0.0108$ 0.3174$ 0.4670$ 0.3335$ 0.0444$ 1.4147$ 4.0200$ 3.4726$ 1.6156$ 7.9255$20162.3085$ 2.0825$ 1.0800$ 3.9885$ 1.2613$ 1.1073$ 0.5327$ 2.3847$ 0.1109$ 0.0796$ 0.0110$ 0.3242$ 0.4801$ 0.3428$ 0.0459$ 1.4566$ 4.1609$ 3.6121$ 1.6696$ 8.1540$20172.3911$ 2.1688$ 1.1197$ 4.0856$ 1.3078$ 1.1486$ 0.5520$ 2.4828$ 0.1138$ 0.0820$ 0.0113$ 0.3359$ 0.4943$ 0.3513$ 0.0472$ 1.5021$ 4.3070$ 3.7506$ 1.7303$ 8.4065$20182.4499$ 2.2229$ 1.1529$ 4.1784$ 1.3391$ 1.1735$ 0.5655$ 2.5302$ 0.1157$ 0.0838$ 0.0114$ 0.3451$ 0.5022$ 0.3560$ 0.0483$ 1.5365$ 4.4068$ 3.8363$ 1.7781$ 8.5902$20192.5369$ 2.2770$ 1.1839$ 4.2865$ 1.3874$ 1.2019$ 0.5804$ 2.5905$ 0.1190$ 0.0859$ 0.0116$ 0.3542$ 0.5169$ 0.3679$ 0.0489$ 1.5643$ 4.5602$ 3.9326$ 1.8249$ 8.7956$20202.6055$ 2.3322$ 1.2256$ 4.3924$ 1.4241$ 1.2365$ 0.5949$ 2.6563$ 0.1212$ 0.0878$ 0.0118$ 0.3601$ 0.5266$ 0.3726$ 0.0497$ 1.5994$ 4.6773$ 4.0291$ 1.8820$ 9.0081$20212.6643$ 2.3833$ 1.2558$ 4.5030$ 1.4577$ 1.2644$ 0.6078$ 2.7098$ 0.1230$ 0.0890$ 0.0121$ 0.3670$ 0.5350$ 0.3772$ 0.0506$ 1.6385$ 4.7800$ 4.1138$ 1.9263$ 9.2183$20222.7264$ 2.4400$ 1.2977$ 4.5897$ 1.4893$ 1.2988$ 0.6242$ 2.7597$ 0.1247$ 0.0903$ 0.0123$ 0.3714$ 0.5425$ 0.3838$ 0.0516$ 1.6704$ 4.8829$ 4.2129$ 1.9857$ 9.3912$20232.8128$ 2.5173$ 1.3301$ 4.8091$ 1.5310$ 1.3213$ 0.6403$ 2.9080$ 0.1274$ 0.0922$ 0.0125$ 0.3858$ 0.5531$ 0.3876$ 0.0528$ 1.7061$ 5.0243$ 4.3185$ 2.0357$ 9.8090$20242.9032$ 2.6112$ 1.3694$ 4.9544$ 1.5748$ 1.3619$ 0.6667$ 2.9719$ 0.1303$ 0.0941$ 0.0129$ 0.3934$ 0.5645$ 0.3964$ 0.0540$ 1.7562$ 5.1728$ 4.4637$ 2.1030$ 10.0760$20252.9613$ 2.6612$ 1.3968$ 5.0469$ 1.6051$ 1.3899$ 0.6819$ 3.0216$ 0.1318$ 0.0952$ 0.0131$ 0.3992$ 0.5709$ 0.4000$ 0.0545$ 1.7878$ 5.2691$ 4.5464$ 2.1463$ 10.2556$20263.0286$ 2.7273$ 1.4308$ 5.1485$ 1.6406$ 1.4187$ 0.6990$ 3.0805$ 0.1336$ 0.0965$ 0.0132$ 0.4057$ 0.5791$ 0.4052$ 0.0555$ 1.8150$ 5.3818$ 4.6477$ 2.1985$ 10.4497$20273.1008$ 2.7866$ 1.4704$ 5.2777$ 1.6764$ 1.4476$ 0.7140$ 3.1419$ 0.1356$ 0.0977$ 0.0135$ 0.4147$ 0.5870$ 0.4093$ 0.0572$ 1.8484$ 5.4998$ 4.7412$ 2.2552$ 10.6826$20283.1813$ 2.8660$ 1.4988$ 5.4061$ 1.7140$ 1.4778$ 0.7256$ 3.2108$ 0.1379$ 0.0989$ 0.0138$ 0.4212$ 0.5957$ 0.4164$ 0.0587$ 1.8727$ 5.6289$ 4.8591$ 2.2970$ 10.9108$20293.2730$ 2.9332$ 1.5308$ 5.6608$ 1.7588$ 1.5174$ 0.7409$ 3.3441$ 0.1405$ 0.1003$ 0.0140$ 0.4278$ 0.6063$ 0.4235$ 0.0595$ 1.9044$ 5.7786$ 4.9745$ 2.3452$ 11.3371$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source: GWR Benefits Model.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueExhibit C.1m Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for CWSs Serving 50,001-100,000 (Rotavirus)YearValue of Illnesses Avoided Value of Deaths AvoidedTotal Benefits0 - 15 years > 15 yrs 0 - 15 years > 15 yrsMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-14October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0123$ 0.0078$ 0.0025$ 0.0354$ 0.0177$ 0.0122$ 0.0041$ 0.0456$ 0.0180$ 0.0066$ 0.0008$ 0.0691$ 0.0626$ 0.0256$ 0.0032$ 0.2246$ 0.1105$ 0.0522$ 0.0106$ 0.3748$20090.0435$ 0.0244$ 0.0080$ 0.1156$ 0.0593$ 0.0395$ 0.0139$ 0.1375$ 0.0637$ 0.0211$ 0.0026$ 0.2086$ 0.2119$ 0.0789$ 0.0097$ 0.6359$ 0.3785$ 0.1638$ 0.0342$ 1.0976$20100.0823$ 0.0489$ 0.0151$ 0.2238$ 0.1156$ 0.0825$ 0.0245$ 0.2923$ 0.1193$ 0.0424$ 0.0051$ 0.4388$ 0.4045$ 0.1584$ 0.0193$ 1.3088$ 0.7218$ 0.3323$ 0.0640$ 2.2637$20110.1177$ 0.0718$ 0.0230$ 0.3217$ 0.1673$ 0.1210$ 0.0361$ 0.4143$ 0.1689$ 0.0624$ 0.0075$ 0.6281$ 0.5776$ 0.2336$ 0.0280$ 1.8737$ 1.0314$ 0.4888$ 0.0946$ 3.2378$20120.1559$ 0.0952$ 0.0313$ 0.4258$ 0.2233$ 0.1627$ 0.0490$ 0.5657$ 0.2227$ 0.0823$ 0.0101$ 0.8284$ 0.7679$ 0.3098$ 0.0379$ 2.5939$ 1.3698$ 0.6500$ 0.1283$ 4.4138$20130.1948$ 0.1183$ 0.0399$ 0.5305$ 0.2793$ 0.2016$ 0.0626$ 0.7123$ 0.2758$ 0.1017$ 0.0126$ 1.0274$ 0.9536$ 0.3837$ 0.0488$ 3.1752$ 1.7034$ 0.8053$ 0.1639$ 5.4454$20140.2004$ 0.1218$ 0.0413$ 0.5427$ 0.2875$ 0.2089$ 0.0649$ 0.7243$ 0.2812$ 0.1043$ 0.0128$ 1.0490$ 0.9734$ 0.3935$ 0.0496$ 3.2124$ 1.7425$ 0.8284$ 0.1686$ 5.5284$20150.2068$ 0.1256$ 0.0429$ 0.5678$ 0.2971$ 0.2163$ 0.0677$ 0.7806$ 0.2879$ 0.1056$ 0.0132$ 1.0615$ 0.9974$ 0.4005$ 0.0522$ 3.2929$ 1.7891$ 0.8481$ 0.1760$ 5.7027$20160.2142$ 0.1303$ 0.0441$ 0.5828$ 0.3078$ 0.2233$ 0.0695$ 0.8021$ 0.2957$ 0.1078$ 0.0135$ 1.0724$ 1.0265$ 0.4088$ 0.0539$ 3.3545$ 1.8442$ 0.8701$ 0.1811$ 5.8119$20170.2245$ 0.1344$ 0.0450$ 0.6996$ 0.3196$ 0.2297$ 0.0710$ 0.8470$ 0.3078$ 0.1095$ 0.0137$ 1.1417$ 1.0573$ 0.4146$ 0.0550$ 3.4760$ 1.9093$ 0.8883$ 0.1847$ 6.1644$20180.2287$ 0.1369$ 0.0458$ 0.7120$ 0.3254$ 0.2344$ 0.0730$ 0.8620$ 0.3110$ 0.1110$ 0.0138$ 1.1502$ 1.0684$ 0.4174$ 0.0562$ 3.5062$ 1.9334$ 0.8998$ 0.1889$ 6.2304$20190.2347$ 0.1416$ 0.0474$ 0.7348$ 0.3334$ 0.2406$ 0.0766$ 0.8814$ 0.3161$ 0.1139$ 0.0142$ 1.1634$ 1.0859$ 0.4314$ 0.0586$ 3.5467$ 1.9702$ 0.9275$ 0.1967$ 6.3262$20200.2393$ 0.1447$ 0.0485$ 0.7478$ 0.3401$ 0.2449$ 0.0787$ 0.8984$ 0.3196$ 0.1152$ 0.0144$ 1.1739$ 1.0986$ 0.4364$ 0.0604$ 3.5848$ 1.9975$ 0.9413$ 0.2020$ 6.4049$20210.2438$ 0.1476$ 0.0493$ 0.7638$ 0.3464$ 0.2502$ 0.0802$ 0.9155$ 0.3228$ 0.1167$ 0.0147$ 1.1844$ 1.1103$ 0.4425$ 0.0608$ 3.6487$ 2.0233$ 0.9570$ 0.2051$ 6.5123$20220.2484$ 0.1505$ 0.0509$ 0.7773$ 0.3532$ 0.2552$ 0.0827$ 0.9316$ 0.3263$ 0.1181$ 0.0150$ 1.1961$ 1.1232$ 0.4451$ 0.0616$ 3.7020$ 2.0511$ 0.9689$ 0.2101$ 6.6070$20230.2612$ 0.1571$ 0.0524$ 0.8273$ 0.3735$ 0.2641$ 0.0845$ 1.0396$ 0.3458$ 0.1226$ 0.0152$ 1.2803$ 1.1973$ 0.4631$ 0.0622$ 4.1269$ 2.1778$ 1.0069$ 0.2142$ 7.2742$20240.2674$ 0.1630$ 0.0538$ 0.8414$ 0.3821$ 0.2701$ 0.0880$ 1.0572$ 0.3508$ 0.1245$ 0.0155$ 1.2940$ 1.2146$ 0.4678$ 0.0631$ 4.1955$ 2.2149$ 1.0254$ 0.2205$ 7.3881$20250.2729$ 0.1662$ 0.0553$ 0.8556$ 0.3898$ 0.2772$ 0.0909$ 1.0739$ 0.3550$ 0.1268$ 0.0159$ 1.3110$ 1.2296$ 0.4822$ 0.0666$ 4.2395$ 2.2474$ 1.0524$ 0.2287$ 7.4800$20260.2787$ 0.1699$ 0.0570$ 0.8797$ 0.3977$ 0.2831$ 0.0928$ 1.0912$ 0.3592$ 0.1286$ 0.0161$ 1.3285$ 1.2441$ 0.4882$ 0.0678$ 4.3067$ 2.2797$ 1.0697$ 0.2337$ 7.6061$20270.2840$ 0.1741$ 0.0585$ 0.8945$ 0.4052$ 0.2913$ 0.0944$ 1.1086$ 0.3630$ 0.1300$ 0.0163$ 1.3424$ 1.2579$ 0.4939$ 0.0684$ 4.3390$ 2.3101$ 1.0893$ 0.2376$ 7.6846$20280.2954$ 0.1800$ 0.0598$ 0.9491$ 0.4193$ 0.2987$ 0.0960$ 1.1640$ 0.3733$ 0.1368$ 0.0166$ 1.3958$ 1.2886$ 0.5278$ 0.0688$ 4.4088$ 2.3765$ 1.1433$ 0.2412$ 7.9177$20290.3018$ 0.1838$ 0.0618$ 0.9677$ 0.4281$ 0.3052$ 0.0978$ 1.1848$ 0.3780$ 0.1391$ 0.0168$ 1.4169$ 1.3052$ 0.5342$ 0.0694$ 4.4555$ 2.4130$ 1.1623$ 0.2458$ 8.0249$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source: GWR Benefits Model.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueExhibit C.1n Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for CWSs Serving 50,001-100,000 (Echovirus)YearValue of Illnesses Avoided Value of Deaths AvoidedTotal Benefits0 -16 years >16 years 0 -16 years >16 yearsMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-15October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.1422$ 0.1291$ 0.0754$ 0.2399$ 0.0784$ 0.0717$ 0.0379$ 0.1334$ 0.0072$ 0.0053$ 0.0009$ 0.0182$ 0.0306$ 0.0236$ 0.0042$ 0.0736$ 0.2583$ 0.2298$ 0.1184$ 0.4651$20090.4636$ 0.4246$ 0.2331$ 0.7892$ 0.2519$ 0.2325$ 0.1244$ 0.4332$ 0.0231$ 0.0175$ 0.0030$ 0.0599$ 0.0983$ 0.0765$ 0.0125$ 0.2484$ 0.8370$ 0.7510$ 0.3731$ 1.5306$20100.8366$ 0.7779$ 0.4131$ 1.4036$ 0.4518$ 0.4119$ 0.2169$ 0.8104$ 0.0414$ 0.0318$ 0.0053$ 0.1098$ 0.1751$ 0.1365$ 0.0227$ 0.4557$ 1.5049$ 1.3581$ 0.6580$ 2.7795$20111.1911$ 1.1002$ 0.6062$ 2.0118$ 0.6503$ 0.5943$ 0.3137$ 1.1407$ 0.0585$ 0.0451$ 0.0075$ 0.1545$ 0.2504$ 0.1964$ 0.0326$ 0.6507$ 2.1503$ 1.9359$ 0.9599$ 3.9577$20121.5568$ 1.4466$ 0.7939$ 2.5936$ 0.8512$ 0.7827$ 0.4084$ 1.4760$ 0.0759$ 0.0579$ 0.0098$ 0.1971$ 0.3251$ 0.2566$ 0.0427$ 0.8349$ 2.8091$ 2.5439$ 1.2548$ 5.1017$20131.9485$ 1.8117$ 0.9931$ 3.2024$ 1.0614$ 0.9779$ 0.5093$ 1.8093$ 0.0941$ 0.0726$ 0.0122$ 0.2438$ 0.4020$ 0.3187$ 0.0529$ 1.0269$ 3.5061$ 3.1808$ 1.5676$ 6.2823$20142.0386$ 1.8923$ 1.0309$ 3.3630$ 1.1098$ 1.0238$ 0.5268$ 1.9336$ 0.0980$ 0.0749$ 0.0125$ 0.2607$ 0.4176$ 0.3279$ 0.0544$ 1.0968$ 3.6640$ 3.3189$ 1.6245$ 6.6541$20152.1128$ 1.9592$ 1.0662$ 3.4689$ 1.1499$ 1.0600$ 0.5474$ 1.9967$ 0.1007$ 0.0771$ 0.0128$ 0.2704$ 0.4298$ 0.3333$ 0.0554$ 1.1470$ 3.7932$ 3.4295$ 1.6817$ 6.8830$20162.1655$ 2.0151$ 1.0994$ 3.5515$ 1.1807$ 1.0853$ 0.5608$ 2.0704$ 0.1024$ 0.0779$ 0.0130$ 0.2757$ 0.4382$ 0.3393$ 0.0563$ 1.1726$ 3.8868$ 3.5176$ 1.7295$ 7.0702$20172.2304$ 2.0902$ 1.1350$ 3.6737$ 1.2120$ 1.1099$ 0.5757$ 2.1121$ 0.1048$ 0.0800$ 0.0132$ 0.2824$ 0.4467$ 0.3465$ 0.0575$ 1.1975$ 3.9939$ 3.6265$ 1.7814$ 7.2657$20182.3094$ 2.1758$ 1.1688$ 3.8398$ 1.2539$ 1.1550$ 0.5901$ 2.2018$ 0.1076$ 0.0816$ 0.0134$ 0.2926$ 0.4594$ 0.3547$ 0.0585$ 1.2496$ 4.1304$ 3.7671$ 1.8308$ 7.5838$20192.3673$ 2.2352$ 1.2039$ 3.9195$ 1.2838$ 1.1842$ 0.6046$ 2.2406$ 0.1094$ 0.0831$ 0.0137$ 0.2967$ 0.4669$ 0.3607$ 0.0594$ 1.2707$ 4.2274$ 3.8632$ 1.8815$ 7.7275$20202.4202$ 2.2839$ 1.2359$ 4.0045$ 1.3126$ 1.2094$ 0.6295$ 2.2970$ 0.1109$ 0.0847$ 0.0138$ 0.3005$ 0.4738$ 0.3671$ 0.0601$ 1.2839$ 4.3174$ 3.9450$ 1.9393$ 7.8858$20212.5030$ 2.3636$ 1.2679$ 4.2159$ 1.3543$ 1.2439$ 0.6477$ 2.3928$ 0.1138$ 0.0868$ 0.0141$ 0.3126$ 0.4855$ 0.3771$ 0.0614$ 1.3040$ 4.4567$ 4.0713$ 1.9913$ 8.2253$20222.5803$ 2.4289$ 1.3430$ 4.3078$ 1.3944$ 1.2731$ 0.6674$ 2.4831$ 0.1163$ 0.0891$ 0.0144$ 0.3188$ 0.4964$ 0.3874$ 0.0625$ 1.3225$ 4.5873$ 4.1786$ 2.0874$ 8.4322$20232.6351$ 2.4810$ 1.3729$ 4.3864$ 1.4218$ 1.2996$ 0.6811$ 2.5255$ 0.1177$ 0.0903$ 0.0146$ 0.3227$ 0.5023$ 0.3929$ 0.0634$ 1.3346$ 4.6770$ 4.2638$ 2.1320$ 8.5693$20242.7210$ 2.5694$ 1.4189$ 4.4824$ 1.4596$ 1.3364$ 0.6992$ 2.5829$ 0.1204$ 0.0928$ 0.0151$ 0.3286$ 0.5116$ 0.4016$ 0.0647$ 1.3574$ 4.8126$ 4.4000$ 2.1979$ 8.7514$20252.8082$ 2.6490$ 1.4588$ 4.5901$ 1.5005$ 1.3758$ 0.7135$ 2.6322$ 0.1232$ 0.0949$ 0.0154$ 0.3346$ 0.5219$ 0.4087$ 0.0658$ 1.3915$ 4.9537$ 4.5284$ 2.2535$ 8.9485$20262.8753$ 2.7244$ 1.4921$ 4.7376$ 1.5358$ 1.4123$ 0.7295$ 2.7080$ 0.1251$ 0.0964$ 0.0156$ 0.3395$ 0.5301$ 0.4146$ 0.0669$ 1.4192$ 5.0663$ 4.6477$ 2.3041$ 9.2043$20272.9482$ 2.7983$ 1.5239$ 4.8360$ 1.5757$ 1.4591$ 0.7512$ 2.7861$ 0.1272$ 0.0983$ 0.0158$ 0.3447$ 0.5400$ 0.4198$ 0.0679$ 1.4518$ 5.1912$ 4.7756$ 2.3588$ 9.4186$20283.0063$ 2.8546$ 1.5558$ 4.9304$ 1.6064$ 1.4891$ 0.7694$ 2.8411$ 0.1286$ 0.0995$ 0.0159$ 0.3488$ 0.5464$ 0.4248$ 0.0685$ 1.4660$ 5.2877$ 4.8680$ 2.4096$ 9.5863$20293.0698$ 2.9165$ 1.5903$ 5.0220$ 1.6402$ 1.5261$ 0.7955$ 2.8898$ 0.1301$ 0.1006$ 0.0161$ 0.3532$ 0.5535$ 0.4305$ 0.0692$ 1.4831$ 5.3935$ 4.9738$ 2.4711$ 9.7481$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source: GWR Benefits Model.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueExhibit C.1o Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for CWSs Serving 100,001-1,000,000 (Rotavirus)YearValue of Illnesses Avoided Value of Deaths AvoidedTotal Benefits0 - 15 years > 15 yrs 0 - 15 years > 15 yrsMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-16October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0166$ 0.0085$ 0.0028$ 0.0559$ 0.0238$ 0.0134$ 0.0045$ 0.0840$ 0.0194$ 0.0079$ 0.0008$ 0.0782$ 0.0656$ 0.0313$ 0.0029$ 0.2412$ 0.1254$ 0.0611$ 0.0110$ 0.4592$20090.0526$ 0.0288$ 0.0086$ 0.1734$ 0.0739$ 0.0470$ 0.0153$ 0.2356$ 0.0613$ 0.0264$ 0.0025$ 0.2513$ 0.2045$ 0.0975$ 0.0105$ 0.7372$ 0.3924$ 0.1996$ 0.0369$ 1.3975$20100.0871$ 0.0517$ 0.0153$ 0.2745$ 0.1246$ 0.0841$ 0.0273$ 0.3883$ 0.1013$ 0.0455$ 0.0046$ 0.3970$ 0.3443$ 0.1681$ 0.0184$ 1.1895$ 0.6572$ 0.3494$ 0.0657$ 2.2492$20110.1239$ 0.0730$ 0.0221$ 0.4014$ 0.1788$ 0.1194$ 0.0395$ 0.5687$ 0.1433$ 0.0643$ 0.0065$ 0.5474$ 0.4915$ 0.2370$ 0.0262$ 1.6903$ 0.9375$ 0.4936$ 0.0942$ 3.2077$20120.1607$ 0.0955$ 0.0289$ 0.5148$ 0.2325$ 0.1550$ 0.0509$ 0.7268$ 0.1850$ 0.0841$ 0.0083$ 0.7176$ 0.6369$ 0.3087$ 0.0342$ 2.1819$ 1.2151$ 0.6433$ 0.1224$ 4.1410$20130.2018$ 0.1215$ 0.0365$ 0.6402$ 0.2928$ 0.1967$ 0.0639$ 0.9093$ 0.2312$ 0.1059$ 0.0104$ 0.8860$ 0.7984$ 0.3875$ 0.0421$ 2.7161$ 1.5242$ 0.8117$ 0.1528$ 5.1516$20140.2067$ 0.1248$ 0.0375$ 0.6514$ 0.2995$ 0.2028$ 0.0661$ 0.9251$ 0.2351$ 0.1080$ 0.0107$ 0.9057$ 0.8110$ 0.3980$ 0.0435$ 2.7699$ 1.5523$ 0.8335$ 0.1578$ 5.2520$20150.2133$ 0.1304$ 0.0387$ 0.6668$ 0.3091$ 0.2104$ 0.0682$ 0.9889$ 0.2409$ 0.1132$ 0.0111$ 0.9241$ 0.8315$ 0.4192$ 0.0443$ 2.8309$ 1.5948$ 0.8732$ 0.1623$ 5.4107$20160.2176$ 0.1333$ 0.0398$ 0.6799$ 0.3154$ 0.2151$ 0.0707$ 1.0108$ 0.2440$ 0.1150$ 0.0112$ 0.9373$ 0.8430$ 0.4240$ 0.0453$ 2.8738$ 1.6200$ 0.8874$ 0.1670$ 5.5018$20170.2276$ 0.1371$ 0.0407$ 0.7780$ 0.3263$ 0.2203$ 0.0719$ 1.0807$ 0.2520$ 0.1171$ 0.0113$ 0.9764$ 0.8639$ 0.4294$ 0.0464$ 2.9344$ 1.6698$ 0.9041$ 0.1703$ 5.7694$20180.2404$ 0.1421$ 0.0419$ 0.8400$ 0.3478$ 0.2307$ 0.0736$ 1.2485$ 0.2637$ 0.1204$ 0.0116$ 0.9997$ 0.9108$ 0.4539$ 0.0471$ 2.9801$ 1.7627$ 0.9471$ 0.1742$ 6.0683$20190.2461$ 0.1462$ 0.0430$ 0.8543$ 0.3551$ 0.2368$ 0.0751$ 1.2710$ 0.2678$ 0.1223$ 0.0120$ 1.0135$ 0.9232$ 0.4575$ 0.0484$ 3.0359$ 1.7922$ 0.9627$ 0.1785$ 6.1748$20200.2506$ 0.1493$ 0.0440$ 0.8688$ 0.3615$ 0.2410$ 0.0770$ 1.2922$ 0.2706$ 0.1238$ 0.0122$ 1.0234$ 0.9334$ 0.4668$ 0.0492$ 3.0882$ 1.8162$ 0.9809$ 0.1824$ 6.2727$20210.2612$ 0.1537$ 0.0451$ 0.8873$ 0.3746$ 0.2509$ 0.0797$ 1.3131$ 0.2809$ 0.1286$ 0.0125$ 1.0984$ 0.9638$ 0.4744$ 0.0505$ 3.5293$ 1.8805$ 1.0076$ 0.1878$ 6.8281$20220.2679$ 0.1596$ 0.0468$ 0.9025$ 0.3844$ 0.2575$ 0.0839$ 1.3366$ 0.2861$ 0.1319$ 0.0128$ 1.1167$ 0.9825$ 0.4839$ 0.0529$ 3.5828$ 1.9208$ 1.0329$ 0.1964$ 6.9386$20230.2727$ 0.1628$ 0.0477$ 0.9177$ 0.3910$ 0.2618$ 0.0857$ 1.3575$ 0.2891$ 0.1330$ 0.0130$ 1.1249$ 0.9924$ 0.4879$ 0.0534$ 3.6203$ 1.9452$ 1.0456$ 0.1998$ 7.0203$20240.2794$ 0.1689$ 0.0496$ 0.9338$ 0.4009$ 0.2693$ 0.0906$ 1.3816$ 0.2940$ 0.1374$ 0.0132$ 1.1527$ 1.0106$ 0.5031$ 0.0551$ 3.6796$ 1.9849$ 1.0787$ 0.2085$ 7.1477$20250.2849$ 0.1726$ 0.0507$ 0.9496$ 0.4088$ 0.2753$ 0.0924$ 1.4035$ 0.2975$ 0.1391$ 0.0133$ 1.1653$ 1.0234$ 0.5125$ 0.0560$ 3.7160$ 2.0146$ 1.0995$ 0.2124$ 7.2345$20260.2913$ 0.1756$ 0.0519$ 0.9660$ 0.4175$ 0.2824$ 0.0948$ 1.4263$ 0.3018$ 0.1419$ 0.0135$ 1.1792$ 1.0376$ 0.5208$ 0.0567$ 3.8145$ 2.0482$ 1.1207$ 0.2169$ 7.3860$20270.2971$ 0.1792$ 0.0530$ 0.9826$ 0.4256$ 0.2896$ 0.0978$ 1.4498$ 0.3055$ 0.1447$ 0.0137$ 1.1976$ 1.0506$ 0.5299$ 0.0576$ 3.8739$ 2.0787$ 1.1435$ 0.2221$ 7.5039$20280.3033$ 0.1830$ 0.0540$ 1.0004$ 0.4341$ 0.2968$ 0.1000$ 1.4727$ 0.3094$ 0.1468$ 0.0140$ 1.2104$ 1.0640$ 0.5376$ 0.0582$ 3.9393$ 2.1108$ 1.1642$ 0.2262$ 7.6228$20290.3089$ 0.1863$ 0.0551$ 1.0175$ 0.4421$ 0.3032$ 0.1020$ 1.4982$ 0.3127$ 0.1483$ 0.0142$ 1.2241$ 1.0757$ 0.5508$ 0.0587$ 3.9994$ 2.1395$ 1.1886$ 0.2299$ 7.7392$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source: GWR Benefits Model.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueExhibit C.1p Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for CWSs Serving 100,001-1,000,000 (Echovirus)YearValue of Illnesses Avoided Value of Deaths AvoidedTotal Benefits0 -16 years >16 years 0 -16 years >16 yearsMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-17October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.000001$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000003$ 0.000001$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000002$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000001$ 0.000002$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000006$20090.000002$ 0.000002$ 0.000000$ 0.000006$ 0.000002$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000006$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000003$ 0.000005$ 0.000004$ 0.000000$ 0.000015$20100.000005$ 0.000004$ 0.000000$ 0.000011$ 0.000004$ 0.000003$ 0.000000$ 0.000010$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000001$ 0.000002$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000005$ 0.000011$ 0.000009$ 0.000000$ 0.000027$20110.000008$ 0.000008$ 0.000000$ 0.000017$ 0.000007$ 0.000006$ 0.000000$ 0.000015$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000001$ 0.000003$ 0.000002$ 0.000000$ 0.000009$ 0.000018$ 0.000016$ 0.000000$ 0.000042$20120.000012$ 0.000011$ 0.000000$ 0.000026$ 0.000010$ 0.000009$ 0.000000$ 0.000023$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000002$ 0.000004$ 0.000003$ 0.000000$ 0.000012$ 0.000026$ 0.000022$ 0.000001$ 0.000063$20130.000019$ 0.000016$ 0.000001$ 0.000046$ 0.000015$ 0.000013$ 0.000001$ 0.000039$ 0.000001$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000003$ 0.000006$ 0.000004$ 0.000000$ 0.000019$ 0.000041$ 0.000033$ 0.000001$ 0.000107$20140.000021$ 0.000019$ 0.000001$ 0.000052$ 0.000018$ 0.000015$ 0.000001$ 0.000044$ 0.000001$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000003$ 0.000007$ 0.000004$ 0.000000$ 0.000022$ 0.000047$ 0.000038$ 0.000001$ 0.000123$20150.000029$ 0.000027$ 0.000001$ 0.000068$ 0.000024$ 0.000020$ 0.000001$ 0.000060$ 0.000001$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000005$ 0.000009$ 0.000005$ 0.000000$ 0.000032$ 0.000063$ 0.000054$ 0.000001$ 0.000165$20160.000032$ 0.000028$ 0.000002$ 0.000080$ 0.000026$ 0.000021$ 0.000001$ 0.000073$ 0.000002$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000005$ 0.000010$ 0.000006$ 0.000000$ 0.000034$ 0.000069$ 0.000056$ 0.000003$ 0.000192$20170.000033$ 0.000030$ 0.000002$ 0.000081$ 0.000027$ 0.000023$ 0.000002$ 0.000074$ 0.000002$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000005$ 0.000010$ 0.000006$ 0.000000$ 0.000035$ 0.000072$ 0.000059$ 0.000004$ 0.000195$20180.000035$ 0.000031$ 0.000002$ 0.000087$ 0.000029$ 0.000024$ 0.000002$ 0.000077$ 0.000002$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000006$ 0.000011$ 0.000006$ 0.000000$ 0.000037$ 0.000077$ 0.000062$ 0.000004$ 0.000207$20190.000037$ 0.000032$ 0.000006$ 0.000091$ 0.000031$ 0.000025$ 0.000005$ 0.000080$ 0.000002$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000006$ 0.000011$ 0.000007$ 0.000001$ 0.000038$ 0.000081$ 0.000064$ 0.000012$ 0.000215$20200.000038$ 0.000033$ 0.000006$ 0.000092$ 0.000032$ 0.000026$ 0.000005$ 0.000081$ 0.000002$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000006$ 0.000012$ 0.000007$ 0.000001$ 0.000039$ 0.000083$ 0.000067$ 0.000012$ 0.000218$20210.000040$ 0.000034$ 0.000007$ 0.000096$ 0.000033$ 0.000027$ 0.000005$ 0.000085$ 0.000002$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000006$ 0.000012$ 0.000007$ 0.000001$ 0.000040$ 0.000087$ 0.000070$ 0.000012$ 0.000227$20220.000042$ 0.000036$ 0.000007$ 0.000100$ 0.000035$ 0.000029$ 0.000005$ 0.000087$ 0.000002$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000006$ 0.000012$ 0.000007$ 0.000001$ 0.000042$ 0.000091$ 0.000073$ 0.000013$ 0.000235$20230.000043$ 0.000037$ 0.000007$ 0.000103$ 0.000036$ 0.000030$ 0.000005$ 0.000090$ 0.000002$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000007$ 0.000013$ 0.000008$ 0.000001$ 0.000043$ 0.000094$ 0.000076$ 0.000013$ 0.000243$20240.000051$ 0.000043$ 0.000007$ 0.000128$ 0.000042$ 0.000034$ 0.000005$ 0.000112$ 0.000002$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000008$ 0.000015$ 0.000008$ 0.000001$ 0.000051$ 0.000109$ 0.000087$ 0.000014$ 0.000299$20250.000053$ 0.000046$ 0.000008$ 0.000131$ 0.000044$ 0.000036$ 0.000006$ 0.000114$ 0.000002$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000008$ 0.000015$ 0.000009$ 0.000001$ 0.000052$ 0.000115$ 0.000093$ 0.000014$ 0.000306$20260.000055$ 0.000048$ 0.000008$ 0.000136$ 0.000045$ 0.000037$ 0.000006$ 0.000119$ 0.000002$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000008$ 0.000016$ 0.000009$ 0.000001$ 0.000054$ 0.000118$ 0.000095$ 0.000015$ 0.000317$20270.000062$ 0.000052$ 0.000008$ 0.000149$ 0.000051$ 0.000041$ 0.000006$ 0.000132$ 0.000003$ 0.000002$ 0.000000$ 0.000010$ 0.000018$ 0.000010$ 0.000001$ 0.000066$ 0.000133$ 0.000104$ 0.000015$ 0.000357$20280.000064$ 0.000053$ 0.000008$ 0.000153$ 0.000052$ 0.000042$ 0.000006$ 0.000136$ 0.000003$ 0.000002$ 0.000000$ 0.000010$ 0.000018$ 0.000010$ 0.000001$ 0.000067$ 0.000137$ 0.000107$ 0.000016$ 0.000367$20290.000068$ 0.000057$ 0.000009$ 0.000159$ 0.000056$ 0.000045$ 0.000007$ 0.000142$ 0.000003$ 0.000002$ 0.000000$ 0.000010$ 0.000019$ 0.000011$ 0.000001$ 0.000068$ 0.000146$ 0.000114$ 0.000016$ 0.000381$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source: GWR Benefits Model.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueExhibit C.1q Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for CWSs Serving >1,000,000 (Rotavirus)YearValue of Illnesses AvoidedValue of Deaths AvoidedTotal Benefits0 - 15 years > 15 yrs 0 - 15 years > 15 yrsMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-18October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000001$20090.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000001$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000002$20100.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000001$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000002$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000004$20110.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000001$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000003$ 0.000002$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000006$20120.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000001$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000002$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000001$ 0.000001$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000005$ 0.000003$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000009$20130.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000002$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000003$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000002$ 0.000002$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000008$ 0.000005$ 0.000002$ 0.000000$ 0.000016$20140.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000002$ 0.000001$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000003$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000002$ 0.000003$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000009$ 0.000005$ 0.000002$ 0.000000$ 0.000016$20150.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000004$ 0.000002$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000007$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000004$ 0.000004$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000015$ 0.000007$ 0.000003$ 0.000000$ 0.000030$20160.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000004$ 0.000002$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000007$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000004$ 0.000004$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000017$ 0.000008$ 0.000003$ 0.000000$ 0.000032$20170.000002$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000005$ 0.000003$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000009$ 0.000003$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000008$ 0.000009$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000033$ 0.000018$ 0.000003$ 0.000000$ 0.000056$20180.000002$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000005$ 0.000004$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000009$ 0.000003$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000008$ 0.000009$ 0.000002$ 0.000000$ 0.000034$ 0.000018$ 0.000003$ 0.000000$ 0.000057$20190.000002$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000006$ 0.000004$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000010$ 0.000003$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000008$ 0.000009$ 0.000002$ 0.000000$ 0.000035$ 0.000018$ 0.000003$ 0.000000$ 0.000058$20200.000003$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000006$ 0.000004$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000010$ 0.000003$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000009$ 0.000010$ 0.000002$ 0.000000$ 0.000035$ 0.000019$ 0.000004$ 0.000000$ 0.000059$20210.000003$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000006$ 0.000004$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000010$ 0.000003$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000009$ 0.000010$ 0.000002$ 0.000000$ 0.000036$ 0.000020$ 0.000004$ 0.000000$ 0.000061$20220.000003$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000006$ 0.000004$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000010$ 0.000003$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000009$ 0.000011$ 0.000002$ 0.000000$ 0.000037$ 0.000021$ 0.000004$ 0.000000$ 0.000063$20230.000003$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000006$ 0.000004$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000011$ 0.000003$ 0.000000$ 0.000000$ 0.000010$ 0.000011$ 0.000002$ 0.000000$ 0.000038$ 0.000021$ 0.000004$ 0.000000$ 0.000065$20240.000003$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000006$ 0.000005$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000011$ 0.000003$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000010$ 0.000012$ 0.000002$ 0.000000$ 0.000039$ 0.000023$ 0.000005$ 0.000001$ 0.000066$20250.000003$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000006$ 0.000005$ 0.000002$ 0.000000$ 0.000011$ 0.000003$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000010$ 0.000012$ 0.000003$ 0.000000$ 0.000039$ 0.000023$ 0.000005$ 0.000001$ 0.000067$20260.000003$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000007$ 0.000005$ 0.000002$ 0.000000$ 0.000011$ 0.000003$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000010$ 0.000012$ 0.000003$ 0.000000$ 0.000039$ 0.000023$ 0.000006$ 0.000001$ 0.000067$20270.000003$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000007$ 0.000005$ 0.000002$ 0.000000$ 0.000012$ 0.000004$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000011$ 0.000012$ 0.000003$ 0.000000$ 0.000041$ 0.000024$ 0.000006$ 0.000001$ 0.000071$20280.000003$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000008$ 0.000005$ 0.000002$ 0.000000$ 0.000014$ 0.000004$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000012$ 0.000013$ 0.000003$ 0.000000$ 0.000042$ 0.000025$ 0.000006$ 0.000001$ 0.000076$20290.000004$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000008$ 0.000005$ 0.000002$ 0.000000$ 0.000014$ 0.000004$ 0.000001$ 0.000000$ 0.000012$ 0.000013$ 0.000003$ 0.000000$ 0.000045$ 0.000026$ 0.000007$ 0.000001$ 0.000079$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source: GWR Benefits Model.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueExhibit C.1r Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for CWSs Serving >1,000,000 (Echovirus)YearValue of Illnesses AvoidedValue of Deaths AvoidedTotal Benefits0 -16 years >16 years 0 -16 years >16 yearsMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-19October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.6$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 1.2$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.9$ 0.9$ 0.6$ 0.3$ 2.1$20092.0$ 1.7$ 0.9$ 3.9$ 1.0$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 3.0$ 3.0$ 2.2$ 0.9$ 7.0$20104.1$ 3.6$ 1.8$ 8.0$ 1.9$ 1.0$ 0.1$ 6.2$ 6.1$ 4.6$ 1.9$ 14.2$20116.4$ 5.6$ 2.8$ 12.3$ 2.9$ 1.6$ 0.2$ 9.3$ 9.3$ 7.1$ 3.0$ 21.6$20128.6$ 7.5$ 3.7$ 16.6$ 3.9$ 2.1$ 0.3$ 12.4$ 12.5$ 9.7$ 4.0$ 29.0$201311.8$ 10.3$ 5.2$ 22.2$ 5.3$ 2.9$ 0.4$ 16.8$ 17.0$ 13.3$ 5.6$ 39.0$201412.3$ 10.8$ 5.5$ 23.2$ 5.4$ 3.0$ 0.4$ 17.3$ 17.8$ 13.8$ 5.9$ 40.5$201513.2$ 11.5$ 5.8$ 24.9$ 5.9$ 3.2$ 0.4$ 18.9$ 19.1$ 14.8$ 6.3$ 43.8$201613.7$ 12.0$ 6.1$ 25.8$ 6.1$ 3.3$ 0.5$ 19.5$ 19.8$ 15.4$ 6.5$ 45.3$201714.5$ 12.7$ 6.4$ 27.9$ 6.5$ 3.5$ 0.5$ 20.7$ 21.0$ 16.2$ 6.9$ 48.6$201815.3$ 13.4$ 6.7$ 29.5$ 6.7$ 3.6$ 0.5$ 21.6$ 22.0$ 17.0$ 7.2$ 51.2$201915.8$ 13.8$ 7.0$ 30.3$ 6.9$ 3.7$ 0.5$ 22.2$ 22.7$ 17.6$ 7.5$ 52.5$202016.4$ 14.4$ 7.3$ 31.5$ 7.1$ 3.8$ 0.5$ 22.9$ 23.5$ 18.2$ 7.8$ 54.4$202116.9$ 14.8$ 7.5$ 32.6$ 7.2$ 3.9$ 0.5$ 23.9$ 24.1$ 18.8$ 8.1$ 56.5$202217.8$ 15.6$ 8.0$ 34.0$ 7.5$ 4.1$ 0.6$ 24.6$ 25.3$ 19.7$ 8.6$ 58.6$202318.3$ 16.1$ 8.3$ 35.2$ 7.7$ 4.2$ 0.6$ 25.5$ 26.0$ 20.3$ 8.9$ 60.7$202419.0$ 16.7$ 8.6$ 36.4$ 7.9$ 4.3$ 0.6$ 26.0$ 26.9$ 21.1$ 9.2$ 62.4$202519.6$ 17.3$ 8.9$ 37.3$ 8.1$ 4.5$ 0.6$ 26.6$ 27.7$ 21.7$ 9.5$ 63.9$202620.2$ 17.9$ 9.2$ 38.5$ 8.3$ 4.6$ 0.6$ 27.1$ 28.5$ 22.4$ 9.9$ 65.7$202720.8$ 18.4$ 9.5$ 39.6$ 8.4$ 4.7$ 0.6$ 27.6$ 29.3$ 23.1$ 10.2$ 67.2$202821.4$ 18.9$ 9.8$ 40.7$ 8.6$ 4.8$ 0.6$ 28.1$ 29.9$ 23.6$ 10.4$ 68.8$202921.9$ 19.4$ 10.0$ 41.9$ 8.7$ 4.9$ 0.7$ 28.6$ 30.7$ 24.3$ 10.7$ 70.5$Source:YearTotal - Illness Total - DeathExhibit C.2a Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for All CWSsTotal Benefits90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueGWR Benefits Model.MeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-20October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.5$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 1.1$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.9$ 0.8$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.9$20091.8$ 1.5$ 0.8$ 3.5$ 0.8$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 2.7$ 2.6$ 2.0$ 0.8$ 6.2$20103.6$ 3.1$ 1.5$ 6.9$ 1.7$ 0.9$ 0.1$ 5.4$ 5.2$ 4.0$ 1.6$ 12.3$20115.4$ 4.7$ 2.3$ 10.3$ 2.4$ 1.3$ 0.2$ 7.8$ 7.8$ 6.0$ 2.5$ 18.1$20127.0$ 6.1$ 3.0$ 13.5$ 3.2$ 1.7$ 0.2$ 10.1$ 10.2$ 7.9$ 3.3$ 23.6$20139.3$ 8.2$ 4.1$ 17.5$ 4.2$ 2.3$ 0.3$ 13.2$ 13.5$ 10.5$ 4.4$ 30.8$20149.4$ 8.3$ 4.2$ 17.8$ 4.2$ 2.3$ 0.3$ 13.3$ 13.6$ 10.6$ 4.5$ 31.1$20159.8$ 8.6$ 4.3$ 18.5$ 4.4$ 2.4$ 0.3$ 14.1$ 14.2$ 11.0$ 4.7$ 32.6$20169.9$ 8.7$ 4.4$ 18.7$ 4.4$ 2.4$ 0.3$ 14.1$ 14.3$ 11.1$ 4.7$ 32.7$201710.2$ 8.9$ 4.5$ 19.6$ 4.5$ 2.4$ 0.3$ 14.5$ 14.7$ 11.4$ 4.8$ 34.1$201810.4$ 9.1$ 4.6$ 20.1$ 4.6$ 2.5$ 0.3$ 14.7$ 15.0$ 11.6$ 4.9$ 34.9$201910.4$ 9.1$ 4.6$ 20.1$ 4.6$ 2.5$ 0.3$ 14.7$ 15.0$ 11.6$ 5.0$ 34.7$202010.5$ 9.2$ 4.7$ 20.2$ 4.5$ 2.5$ 0.3$ 14.7$ 15.1$ 11.7$ 5.0$ 34.9$202110.5$ 9.2$ 4.7$ 20.3$ 4.5$ 2.4$ 0.3$ 14.9$ 15.0$ 11.7$ 5.0$ 35.2$202210.7$ 9.4$ 4.9$ 20.6$ 4.6$ 2.5$ 0.3$ 14.9$ 15.3$ 11.9$ 5.2$ 35.5$202310.7$ 9.4$ 4.9$ 20.7$ 4.5$ 2.5$ 0.3$ 15.0$ 15.3$ 11.9$ 5.2$ 35.7$202410.8$ 9.5$ 4.9$ 20.7$ 4.5$ 2.5$ 0.3$ 14.9$ 15.4$ 12.0$ 5.3$ 35.6$202510.8$ 9.6$ 4.9$ 20.7$ 4.5$ 2.5$ 0.3$ 14.7$ 15.3$ 12.0$ 5.3$ 35.4$202610.9$ 9.6$ 5.0$ 20.7$ 4.5$ 2.5$ 0.3$ 14.6$ 15.3$ 12.1$ 5.3$ 35.3$202710.9$ 9.6$ 5.0$ 20.6$ 4.4$ 2.4$ 0.3$ 14.4$ 15.3$ 12.0$ 5.3$ 35.1$202810.8$ 9.6$ 4.9$ 20.6$ 4.3$ 2.4$ 0.3$ 14.3$ 15.2$ 12.0$ 5.3$ 34.9$202910.8$ 9.5$ 4.9$ 20.6$ 4.3$ 2.4$ 0.3$ 14.1$ 15.1$ 11.9$ 5.3$ 34.7$Total195.2$ 171.5$ 87.4$ 373.3$ 83.9$ 45.9$ 6.3$ 271.7$ 279.1$ 217.4$ 93.7$ 645.0$Ann11.2$ 9.8$ 5.0$ 21.4$ 4.8$ 2.6$ 0.4$ 15.6$ 16.0$ 12.5$ 5.4$ 37.0$Notes: Details may not sum due to rounding and individual statistical analyses.Source:Exhibit C.2b Present Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year at 3 Percent, for CWSsYearTotal - Illness Total - Deaths Total BenefitsMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueGWR Benefits Model.90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-21October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.5$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.9$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.8$ 0.7$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 1.7$20091.5$ 1.3$ 0.6$ 3.0$ 0.7$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 2.3$ 2.3$ 1.7$ 0.7$ 5.3$20103.0$ 2.6$ 1.3$ 5.7$ 1.4$ 0.7$ 0.1$ 4.4$ 4.3$ 3.3$ 1.4$ 10.1$20114.3$ 3.7$ 1.8$ 8.2$ 1.9$ 1.1$ 0.1$ 6.2$ 6.2$ 4.8$ 2.0$ 14.4$20125.4$ 4.7$ 2.3$ 10.3$ 2.4$ 1.3$ 0.2$ 7.7$ 7.8$ 6.0$ 2.5$ 18.1$20136.8$ 6.0$ 3.0$ 12.9$ 3.1$ 1.7$ 0.2$ 9.8$ 9.9$ 7.7$ 3.3$ 22.7$20146.7$ 5.9$ 3.0$ 12.6$ 3.0$ 1.7$ 0.2$ 9.4$ 9.7$ 7.5$ 3.2$ 22.0$20156.7$ 5.9$ 3.0$ 12.7$ 3.0$ 1.6$ 0.2$ 9.6$ 9.7$ 7.5$ 3.2$ 22.3$20166.5$ 5.7$ 2.9$ 12.3$ 2.9$ 1.6$ 0.2$ 9.3$ 9.4$ 7.3$ 3.1$ 21.5$20176.4$ 5.6$ 2.8$ 12.4$ 2.9$ 1.5$ 0.2$ 9.2$ 9.3$ 7.2$ 3.1$ 21.6$20186.3$ 5.6$ 2.8$ 12.3$ 2.8$ 1.5$ 0.2$ 9.0$ 9.1$ 7.1$ 3.0$ 21.2$20196.1$ 5.4$ 2.7$ 11.8$ 2.7$ 1.4$ 0.2$ 8.6$ 8.8$ 6.8$ 2.9$ 20.4$20205.9$ 5.2$ 2.6$ 11.4$ 2.6$ 1.4$ 0.2$ 8.3$ 8.5$ 6.6$ 2.8$ 19.7$20215.7$ 5.0$ 2.5$ 11.0$ 2.5$ 1.3$ 0.2$ 8.1$ 8.2$ 6.4$ 2.7$ 19.1$20225.6$ 4.9$ 2.5$ 10.8$ 2.4$ 1.3$ 0.2$ 7.8$ 8.0$ 6.2$ 2.7$ 18.6$20235.4$ 4.7$ 2.5$ 10.4$ 2.3$ 1.2$ 0.2$ 7.5$ 7.7$ 6.0$ 2.6$ 18.0$20245.3$ 4.6$ 2.4$ 10.1$ 2.2$ 1.2$ 0.2$ 7.2$ 7.4$ 5.8$ 2.6$ 17.3$20255.1$ 4.5$ 2.3$ 9.6$ 2.1$ 1.2$ 0.2$ 6.9$ 7.2$ 5.6$ 2.5$ 16.5$20264.9$ 4.3$ 2.2$ 9.3$ 2.0$ 1.1$ 0.2$ 6.6$ 6.9$ 5.4$ 2.4$ 15.9$20274.7$ 4.2$ 2.2$ 8.9$ 1.9$ 1.1$ 0.1$ 6.2$ 6.6$ 5.2$ 2.3$ 15.2$20284.5$ 4.0$ 2.1$ 8.6$ 1.8$ 1.0$ 0.1$ 5.9$ 6.3$ 5.0$ 2.2$ 14.5$20294.3$ 3.8$ 2.0$ 8.3$ 1.7$ 1.0$ 0.1$ 5.6$ 6.0$ 4.8$ 2.1$ 13.9$Total111.6$ 98.0$ 49.8$ 213.5$ 48.4$ 26.5$ 3.6$ 156.4$ 160.0$ 124.4$ 53.4$ 369.9$Ann9.6$ 8.4$ 4.3$ 18.3$ 4.2$ 2.3$ 0.3$ 13.4$ 13.7$ 10.7$ 4.6$ 31.7$Notes: Details may not sum due to rounding and individual statistical analyses.Source:Exhibit C.2c Present Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year at 7 Percent, for CWSsYearTotal - Illness Total - Deaths Total BenefitsMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueGWR Benefits Model.90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-22October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0001$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0006$20090.0004$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0010$ 0.0003$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0006$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0004$ 0.0008$ 0.0006$ 0.0002$ 0.0021$20100.0009$ 0.0008$ 0.0002$ 0.0024$ 0.0006$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0013$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0002$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0007$ 0.0018$ 0.0014$ 0.0004$ 0.0046$20110.0017$ 0.0016$ 0.0004$ 0.0039$ 0.0010$ 0.0009$ 0.0003$ 0.0022$ 0.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0003$ 0.0004$ 0.0003$ 0.0000$ 0.0013$ 0.0032$ 0.0028$ 0.0007$ 0.0076$20120.0026$ 0.0023$ 0.0006$ 0.0053$ 0.0015$ 0.0014$ 0.0004$ 0.0031$ 0.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0004$ 0.0006$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0018$ 0.0048$ 0.0042$ 0.0011$ 0.0106$20130.0171$ 0.0154$ 0.0069$ 0.0336$ 0.0090$ 0.0081$ 0.0038$ 0.0164$ 0.0008$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0026$ 0.0036$ 0.0024$ 0.0004$ 0.0114$ 0.0306$ 0.0265$ 0.0112$ 0.0640$20140.0208$ 0.0188$ 0.0086$ 0.0404$ 0.0110$ 0.0099$ 0.0047$ 0.0201$ 0.0010$ 0.0007$ 0.0001$ 0.0031$ 0.0043$ 0.0029$ 0.0004$ 0.0137$ 0.0372$ 0.0323$ 0.0138$ 0.0773$20150.0249$ 0.0230$ 0.0102$ 0.0477$ 0.0132$ 0.0121$ 0.0056$ 0.0238$ 0.0012$ 0.0008$ 0.0001$ 0.0037$ 0.0051$ 0.0035$ 0.0005$ 0.0160$ 0.0445$ 0.0394$ 0.0165$ 0.0912$20160.0291$ 0.0269$ 0.0120$ 0.0556$ 0.0155$ 0.0141$ 0.0067$ 0.0276$ 0.0014$ 0.0010$ 0.0002$ 0.0043$ 0.0060$ 0.0040$ 0.0006$ 0.0184$ 0.0519$ 0.0460$ 0.0194$ 0.1059$20170.0393$ 0.0357$ 0.0148$ 0.0714$ 0.0212$ 0.0189$ 0.0081$ 0.0400$ 0.0019$ 0.0013$ 0.0002$ 0.0055$ 0.0081$ 0.0053$ 0.0008$ 0.0259$ 0.0705$ 0.0612$ 0.0238$ 0.1429$20180.0407$ 0.0372$ 0.0154$ 0.0732$ 0.0219$ 0.0198$ 0.0084$ 0.0412$ 0.0019$ 0.0013$ 0.0002$ 0.0057$ 0.0083$ 0.0055$ 0.0008$ 0.0266$ 0.0728$ 0.0639$ 0.0249$ 0.1467$20190.0423$ 0.0389$ 0.0163$ 0.0757$ 0.0229$ 0.0206$ 0.0090$ 0.0423$ 0.0020$ 0.0013$ 0.0002$ 0.0059$ 0.0086$ 0.0057$ 0.0009$ 0.0274$ 0.0757$ 0.0666$ 0.0264$ 0.1512$20200.0436$ 0.0402$ 0.0167$ 0.0777$ 0.0235$ 0.0211$ 0.0093$ 0.0436$ 0.0020$ 0.0014$ 0.0002$ 0.0061$ 0.0088$ 0.0058$ 0.0009$ 0.0279$ 0.0779$ 0.0685$ 0.0271$ 0.1553$20210.0452$ 0.0417$ 0.0173$ 0.0807$ 0.0244$ 0.0217$ 0.0098$ 0.0458$ 0.0021$ 0.0014$ 0.0002$ 0.0062$ 0.0090$ 0.0059$ 0.0009$ 0.0284$ 0.0807$ 0.0707$ 0.0282$ 0.1612$20220.0532$ 0.0494$ 0.0240$ 0.0887$ 0.0296$ 0.0262$ 0.0124$ 0.0531$ 0.0024$ 0.0017$ 0.0003$ 0.0068$ 0.0109$ 0.0072$ 0.0012$ 0.0325$ 0.0961$ 0.0845$ 0.0378$ 0.1810$20230.0548$ 0.0507$ 0.0247$ 0.0931$ 0.0305$ 0.0268$ 0.0128$ 0.0545$ 0.0025$ 0.0017$ 0.0003$ 0.0069$ 0.0111$ 0.0074$ 0.0012$ 0.0337$ 0.0989$ 0.0866$ 0.0390$ 0.1882$20240.0573$ 0.0533$ 0.0260$ 0.0965$ 0.0318$ 0.0280$ 0.0134$ 0.0564$ 0.0026$ 0.0018$ 0.0003$ 0.0071$ 0.0115$ 0.0077$ 0.0012$ 0.0348$ 0.1032$ 0.0907$ 0.0409$ 0.1948$20250.0589$ 0.0548$ 0.0268$ 0.0994$ 0.0327$ 0.0290$ 0.0138$ 0.0585$ 0.0026$ 0.0018$ 0.0003$ 0.0073$ 0.0118$ 0.0078$ 0.0013$ 0.0352$ 0.1060$ 0.0934$ 0.0422$ 0.2004$20260.0656$ 0.0618$ 0.0297$ 0.1100$ 0.0363$ 0.0322$ 0.0154$ 0.0635$ 0.0029$ 0.0020$ 0.0003$ 0.0082$ 0.0129$ 0.0088$ 0.0014$ 0.0383$ 0.1177$ 0.1047$ 0.0468$ 0.2200$20270.0676$ 0.0641$ 0.0307$ 0.1132$ 0.0375$ 0.0332$ 0.0159$ 0.0663$ 0.0030$ 0.0020$ 0.0003$ 0.0084$ 0.0133$ 0.0089$ 0.0014$ 0.0394$ 0.1214$ 0.1083$ 0.0484$ 0.2273$20280.0697$ 0.0664$ 0.0315$ 0.1171$ 0.0386$ 0.0341$ 0.0163$ 0.0699$ 0.0030$ 0.0021$ 0.0003$ 0.0086$ 0.0135$ 0.0090$ 0.0015$ 0.0402$ 0.1248$ 0.1117$ 0.0496$ 0.2359$20290.0716$ 0.0684$ 0.0326$ 0.1200$ 0.0397$ 0.0353$ 0.0171$ 0.0717$ 0.0031$ 0.0021$ 0.0004$ 0.0088$ 0.0138$ 0.0092$ 0.0015$ 0.0412$ 0.1283$ 0.1150$ 0.0516$ 0.2417$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source:> 15 yrsMeanValueMedianValueExhibit C.3a Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving <100 (Rotavirus)YearValue of Illnesses Avoided Value of Deaths AvoidedTotal Benefits0 - 15 years > 15 yrsMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 - 15 years90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueGWR Benefits Model.Economic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-23October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0002$20090.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0001$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0004$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0009$20100.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0004$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0011$ 0.0006$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0023$20110.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0005$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0008$ 0.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0006$ 0.0005$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0021$ 0.0010$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0040$20120.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0007$ 0.0003$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0010$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0008$ 0.0008$ 0.0003$ 0.0000$ 0.0032$ 0.0015$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0057$20130.0009$ 0.0007$ 0.0002$ 0.0024$ 0.0015$ 0.0011$ 0.0003$ 0.0038$ 0.0013$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0050$ 0.0048$ 0.0025$ 0.0003$ 0.0170$ 0.0085$ 0.0049$ 0.0008$ 0.0281$20140.0011$ 0.0008$ 0.0002$ 0.0030$ 0.0018$ 0.0014$ 0.0004$ 0.0046$ 0.0015$ 0.0007$ 0.0001$ 0.0060$ 0.0058$ 0.0031$ 0.0004$ 0.0201$ 0.0102$ 0.0060$ 0.0010$ 0.0338$20150.0014$ 0.0010$ 0.0002$ 0.0037$ 0.0022$ 0.0017$ 0.0005$ 0.0056$ 0.0018$ 0.0009$ 0.0001$ 0.0070$ 0.0069$ 0.0039$ 0.0004$ 0.0234$ 0.0124$ 0.0075$ 0.0012$ 0.0397$20160.0016$ 0.0012$ 0.0003$ 0.0043$ 0.0026$ 0.0020$ 0.0005$ 0.0065$ 0.0021$ 0.0010$ 0.0001$ 0.0080$ 0.0080$ 0.0045$ 0.0005$ 0.0270$ 0.0144$ 0.0088$ 0.0015$ 0.0458$20170.0024$ 0.0015$ 0.0004$ 0.0075$ 0.0038$ 0.0026$ 0.0007$ 0.0102$ 0.0031$ 0.0014$ 0.0002$ 0.0121$ 0.0113$ 0.0056$ 0.0006$ 0.0453$ 0.0206$ 0.0111$ 0.0019$ 0.0751$20180.0025$ 0.0016$ 0.0004$ 0.0076$ 0.0039$ 0.0027$ 0.0008$ 0.0106$ 0.0031$ 0.0014$ 0.0002$ 0.0124$ 0.0117$ 0.0059$ 0.0007$ 0.0461$ 0.0213$ 0.0117$ 0.0020$ 0.0767$20190.0026$ 0.0017$ 0.0004$ 0.0079$ 0.0041$ 0.0028$ 0.0008$ 0.0109$ 0.0032$ 0.0015$ 0.0002$ 0.0130$ 0.0120$ 0.0061$ 0.0007$ 0.0469$ 0.0220$ 0.0121$ 0.0021$ 0.0787$20200.0027$ 0.0017$ 0.0005$ 0.0081$ 0.0042$ 0.0029$ 0.0009$ 0.0111$ 0.0033$ 0.0015$ 0.0002$ 0.0135$ 0.0123$ 0.0062$ 0.0007$ 0.0473$ 0.0225$ 0.0124$ 0.0022$ 0.0800$20210.0028$ 0.0018$ 0.0005$ 0.0088$ 0.0045$ 0.0030$ 0.0009$ 0.0117$ 0.0034$ 0.0016$ 0.0002$ 0.0140$ 0.0128$ 0.0063$ 0.0007$ 0.0497$ 0.0236$ 0.0127$ 0.0023$ 0.0841$20220.0033$ 0.0022$ 0.0007$ 0.0096$ 0.0053$ 0.0037$ 0.0012$ 0.0133$ 0.0040$ 0.0019$ 0.0002$ 0.0156$ 0.0149$ 0.0079$ 0.0008$ 0.0578$ 0.0275$ 0.0157$ 0.0029$ 0.0962$20230.0034$ 0.0023$ 0.0007$ 0.0098$ 0.0054$ 0.0038$ 0.0012$ 0.0136$ 0.0040$ 0.0019$ 0.0002$ 0.0157$ 0.0151$ 0.0080$ 0.0009$ 0.0589$ 0.0280$ 0.0161$ 0.0030$ 0.0979$20240.0036$ 0.0024$ 0.0007$ 0.0101$ 0.0057$ 0.0040$ 0.0013$ 0.0139$ 0.0042$ 0.0020$ 0.0002$ 0.0160$ 0.0156$ 0.0082$ 0.0009$ 0.0599$ 0.0290$ 0.0166$ 0.0031$ 0.0999$20250.0037$ 0.0024$ 0.0007$ 0.0103$ 0.0058$ 0.0041$ 0.0013$ 0.0141$ 0.0042$ 0.0020$ 0.0002$ 0.0162$ 0.0159$ 0.0084$ 0.0009$ 0.0605$ 0.0296$ 0.0170$ 0.0032$ 0.1011$20260.0040$ 0.0027$ 0.0009$ 0.0112$ 0.0063$ 0.0045$ 0.0015$ 0.0154$ 0.0046$ 0.0022$ 0.0003$ 0.0170$ 0.0172$ 0.0090$ 0.0010$ 0.0657$ 0.0321$ 0.0185$ 0.0036$ 0.1093$20270.0041$ 0.0029$ 0.0009$ 0.0114$ 0.0065$ 0.0046$ 0.0015$ 0.0158$ 0.0047$ 0.0023$ 0.0003$ 0.0172$ 0.0175$ 0.0092$ 0.0010$ 0.0665$ 0.0328$ 0.0189$ 0.0037$ 0.1108$20280.0042$ 0.0029$ 0.0009$ 0.0117$ 0.0067$ 0.0047$ 0.0016$ 0.0162$ 0.0047$ 0.0023$ 0.0003$ 0.0173$ 0.0178$ 0.0093$ 0.0010$ 0.0673$ 0.0334$ 0.0192$ 0.0037$ 0.1124$20290.0045$ 0.0030$ 0.0009$ 0.0122$ 0.0071$ 0.0049$ 0.0016$ 0.0171$ 0.0049$ 0.0024$ 0.0003$ 0.0178$ 0.0185$ 0.0095$ 0.0010$ 0.0679$ 0.0350$ 0.0198$ 0.0038$ 0.1150$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source:>16 yearsMeanValueMedianValueExhibit C.3b Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving <100 (Echovirus)YearValue of Illnesses Avoided Value of Deaths AvoidedTotal Benefits0 -16 years >16 yearsMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 -16 years90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueGWR Benefits Model.Economic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-24October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0003$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0009$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0006$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0003$ 0.0006$ 0.0004$ 0.0000$ 0.0018$20090.0014$ 0.0011$ 0.0002$ 0.0036$ 0.0008$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0021$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0003$ 0.0003$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0012$ 0.0026$ 0.0019$ 0.0004$ 0.0072$20100.0031$ 0.0026$ 0.0006$ 0.0084$ 0.0018$ 0.0015$ 0.0003$ 0.0042$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0006$ 0.0007$ 0.0004$ 0.0000$ 0.0026$ 0.0058$ 0.0046$ 0.0009$ 0.0157$20110.0056$ 0.0049$ 0.0011$ 0.0128$ 0.0032$ 0.0028$ 0.0006$ 0.0073$ 0.0003$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0010$ 0.0013$ 0.0008$ 0.0001$ 0.0041$ 0.0103$ 0.0087$ 0.0017$ 0.0252$20120.0411$ 0.0368$ 0.0179$ 0.0777$ 0.0217$ 0.0192$ 0.0087$ 0.0416$ 0.0020$ 0.0015$ 0.0002$ 0.0055$ 0.0082$ 0.0062$ 0.0010$ 0.0230$ 0.0729$ 0.0637$ 0.0278$ 0.1478$20130.0517$ 0.0465$ 0.0224$ 0.0959$ 0.0273$ 0.0243$ 0.0111$ 0.0513$ 0.0024$ 0.0019$ 0.0003$ 0.0069$ 0.0103$ 0.0079$ 0.0012$ 0.0284$ 0.0918$ 0.0806$ 0.0350$ 0.1825$20140.0631$ 0.0571$ 0.0276$ 0.1156$ 0.0335$ 0.0302$ 0.0137$ 0.0624$ 0.0030$ 0.0022$ 0.0004$ 0.0083$ 0.0125$ 0.0095$ 0.0015$ 0.0343$ 0.1121$ 0.0990$ 0.0432$ 0.2206$20150.0760$ 0.0695$ 0.0332$ 0.1373$ 0.0404$ 0.0366$ 0.0168$ 0.0736$ 0.0035$ 0.0027$ 0.0004$ 0.0098$ 0.0150$ 0.0115$ 0.0018$ 0.0406$ 0.1349$ 0.1202$ 0.0522$ 0.2612$20160.0887$ 0.0814$ 0.0389$ 0.1594$ 0.0473$ 0.0426$ 0.0193$ 0.0880$ 0.0041$ 0.0031$ 0.0005$ 0.0113$ 0.0174$ 0.0134$ 0.0021$ 0.0493$ 0.1575$ 0.1405$ 0.0608$ 0.3081$20170.1205$ 0.1098$ 0.0509$ 0.2229$ 0.0648$ 0.0576$ 0.0256$ 0.1207$ 0.0056$ 0.0041$ 0.0007$ 0.0158$ 0.0238$ 0.0167$ 0.0027$ 0.0651$ 0.2146$ 0.1882$ 0.0798$ 0.4245$20180.1249$ 0.1139$ 0.0530$ 0.2291$ 0.0669$ 0.0592$ 0.0264$ 0.1243$ 0.0057$ 0.0042$ 0.0007$ 0.0163$ 0.0244$ 0.0172$ 0.0029$ 0.0667$ 0.2219$ 0.1945$ 0.0830$ 0.4363$20190.1298$ 0.1187$ 0.0561$ 0.2373$ 0.0698$ 0.0617$ 0.0277$ 0.1282$ 0.0059$ 0.0043$ 0.0007$ 0.0166$ 0.0253$ 0.0183$ 0.0029$ 0.0694$ 0.2308$ 0.2029$ 0.0875$ 0.4514$20200.1339$ 0.1221$ 0.0575$ 0.2439$ 0.0720$ 0.0636$ 0.0285$ 0.1343$ 0.0061$ 0.0044$ 0.0008$ 0.0170$ 0.0260$ 0.0186$ 0.0030$ 0.0710$ 0.2379$ 0.2087$ 0.0898$ 0.4662$20210.1588$ 0.1475$ 0.0783$ 0.2732$ 0.0883$ 0.0780$ 0.0358$ 0.1639$ 0.0072$ 0.0054$ 0.0009$ 0.0198$ 0.0315$ 0.0231$ 0.0038$ 0.0884$ 0.2858$ 0.2540$ 0.1188$ 0.5453$20220.1643$ 0.1547$ 0.0813$ 0.2796$ 0.0913$ 0.0811$ 0.0373$ 0.1685$ 0.0074$ 0.0055$ 0.0009$ 0.0204$ 0.0323$ 0.0235$ 0.0039$ 0.0908$ 0.2954$ 0.2649$ 0.1234$ 0.5594$20230.1693$ 0.1584$ 0.0831$ 0.2899$ 0.0942$ 0.0837$ 0.0382$ 0.1739$ 0.0076$ 0.0056$ 0.0009$ 0.0213$ 0.0331$ 0.0238$ 0.0040$ 0.0929$ 0.3042$ 0.2716$ 0.1262$ 0.5781$20240.1774$ 0.1667$ 0.0870$ 0.3010$ 0.0983$ 0.0879$ 0.0402$ 0.1800$ 0.0079$ 0.0059$ 0.0010$ 0.0222$ 0.0343$ 0.0251$ 0.0041$ 0.0955$ 0.3179$ 0.2856$ 0.1323$ 0.5986$20250.1823$ 0.1706$ 0.0897$ 0.3075$ 0.1011$ 0.0904$ 0.0416$ 0.1847$ 0.0080$ 0.0060$ 0.0010$ 0.0227$ 0.0351$ 0.0259$ 0.0042$ 0.0991$ 0.3265$ 0.2928$ 0.1365$ 0.6139$20260.2023$ 0.1896$ 0.1007$ 0.3401$ 0.1122$ 0.1013$ 0.0472$ 0.2081$ 0.0088$ 0.0066$ 0.0011$ 0.0253$ 0.0387$ 0.0279$ 0.0049$ 0.1096$ 0.3620$ 0.3254$ 0.1539$ 0.6831$20270.2091$ 0.1956$ 0.1039$ 0.3502$ 0.1161$ 0.1048$ 0.0485$ 0.2143$ 0.0090$ 0.0067$ 0.0011$ 0.0260$ 0.0397$ 0.0287$ 0.0049$ 0.1113$ 0.3739$ 0.3359$ 0.1585$ 0.7018$20280.2149$ 0.2001$ 0.1062$ 0.3622$ 0.1192$ 0.1072$ 0.0498$ 0.2197$ 0.0092$ 0.0068$ 0.0012$ 0.0272$ 0.0405$ 0.0292$ 0.0051$ 0.1144$ 0.3838$ 0.3433$ 0.1623$ 0.7235$20290.2212$ 0.2066$ 0.1096$ 0.3708$ 0.1230$ 0.1107$ 0.0517$ 0.2261$ 0.0094$ 0.0070$ 0.0012$ 0.0277$ 0.0414$ 0.0299$ 0.0052$ 0.1156$ 0.3950$ 0.3542$ 0.1676$ 0.7402$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source:> 15 yrsMeanValueMedianValueExhibit C.3c Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving 101-500 (Rotavirus)YearValue of Illnesses Avoided Value of Deaths AvoidedTotal Benefits0 - 15 years > 15 yrsMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 - 15 years90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueGWR Benefits Model.Economic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-25October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0006$20090.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0002$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0004$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0015$ 0.0008$ 0.0003$ 0.0000$ 0.0025$20100.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0008$ 0.0004$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0014$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0008$ 0.0008$ 0.0003$ 0.0000$ 0.0032$ 0.0017$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0062$20110.0004$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0013$ 0.0006$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0019$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0012$ 0.0013$ 0.0006$ 0.0000$ 0.0047$ 0.0026$ 0.0012$ 0.0002$ 0.0091$20120.0022$ 0.0015$ 0.0005$ 0.0061$ 0.0033$ 0.0026$ 0.0009$ 0.0086$ 0.0027$ 0.0015$ 0.0002$ 0.0093$ 0.0105$ 0.0056$ 0.0007$ 0.0380$ 0.0187$ 0.0112$ 0.0022$ 0.0620$20130.0028$ 0.0020$ 0.0006$ 0.0082$ 0.0044$ 0.0034$ 0.0011$ 0.0109$ 0.0034$ 0.0019$ 0.0003$ 0.0125$ 0.0135$ 0.0072$ 0.0009$ 0.0541$ 0.0241$ 0.0145$ 0.0029$ 0.0856$20140.0034$ 0.0024$ 0.0007$ 0.0099$ 0.0053$ 0.0042$ 0.0014$ 0.0132$ 0.0041$ 0.0023$ 0.0003$ 0.0152$ 0.0163$ 0.0088$ 0.0011$ 0.0657$ 0.0292$ 0.0177$ 0.0036$ 0.1040$20150.0043$ 0.0030$ 0.0009$ 0.0121$ 0.0066$ 0.0050$ 0.0017$ 0.0159$ 0.0050$ 0.0028$ 0.0004$ 0.0190$ 0.0197$ 0.0108$ 0.0013$ 0.0789$ 0.0356$ 0.0217$ 0.0043$ 0.1260$20160.0050$ 0.0035$ 0.0010$ 0.0144$ 0.0078$ 0.0059$ 0.0019$ 0.0187$ 0.0058$ 0.0033$ 0.0005$ 0.0219$ 0.0229$ 0.0129$ 0.0015$ 0.0907$ 0.0414$ 0.0256$ 0.0050$ 0.1456$20170.0073$ 0.0045$ 0.0014$ 0.0211$ 0.0111$ 0.0070$ 0.0028$ 0.0287$ 0.0076$ 0.0042$ 0.0006$ 0.0285$ 0.0297$ 0.0170$ 0.0022$ 0.1241$ 0.0558$ 0.0327$ 0.0070$ 0.2025$20180.0076$ 0.0047$ 0.0015$ 0.0216$ 0.0115$ 0.0074$ 0.0029$ 0.0294$ 0.0078$ 0.0043$ 0.0007$ 0.0293$ 0.0307$ 0.0175$ 0.0023$ 0.1284$ 0.0576$ 0.0340$ 0.0074$ 0.2086$20190.0079$ 0.0050$ 0.0015$ 0.0222$ 0.0120$ 0.0082$ 0.0031$ 0.0300$ 0.0081$ 0.0045$ 0.0007$ 0.0297$ 0.0318$ 0.0185$ 0.0025$ 0.1360$ 0.0598$ 0.0361$ 0.0078$ 0.2179$20200.0081$ 0.0051$ 0.0016$ 0.0227$ 0.0123$ 0.0084$ 0.0031$ 0.0306$ 0.0083$ 0.0046$ 0.0007$ 0.0300$ 0.0323$ 0.0190$ 0.0026$ 0.1372$ 0.0610$ 0.0371$ 0.0080$ 0.2204$20210.0098$ 0.0064$ 0.0020$ 0.0270$ 0.0151$ 0.0105$ 0.0041$ 0.0382$ 0.0102$ 0.0058$ 0.0009$ 0.0373$ 0.0398$ 0.0238$ 0.0033$ 0.1687$ 0.0749$ 0.0465$ 0.0103$ 0.2713$20220.0103$ 0.0067$ 0.0021$ 0.0279$ 0.0158$ 0.0110$ 0.0043$ 0.0390$ 0.0105$ 0.0061$ 0.0009$ 0.0386$ 0.0411$ 0.0243$ 0.0034$ 0.1801$ 0.0777$ 0.0481$ 0.0107$ 0.2855$20230.0105$ 0.0069$ 0.0022$ 0.0284$ 0.0162$ 0.0113$ 0.0044$ 0.0396$ 0.0106$ 0.0061$ 0.0009$ 0.0391$ 0.0417$ 0.0247$ 0.0034$ 0.1819$ 0.0790$ 0.0490$ 0.0110$ 0.2891$20240.0109$ 0.0071$ 0.0023$ 0.0290$ 0.0168$ 0.0117$ 0.0046$ 0.0404$ 0.0109$ 0.0062$ 0.0010$ 0.0398$ 0.0428$ 0.0259$ 0.0036$ 0.1849$ 0.0815$ 0.0510$ 0.0115$ 0.2940$20250.0112$ 0.0073$ 0.0024$ 0.0296$ 0.0172$ 0.0121$ 0.0047$ 0.0411$ 0.0111$ 0.0064$ 0.0010$ 0.0403$ 0.0435$ 0.0263$ 0.0037$ 0.1913$ 0.0830$ 0.0521$ 0.0118$ 0.3023$20260.0122$ 0.0081$ 0.0027$ 0.0328$ 0.0189$ 0.0133$ 0.0053$ 0.0450$ 0.0120$ 0.0072$ 0.0012$ 0.0427$ 0.0472$ 0.0295$ 0.0041$ 0.2060$ 0.0903$ 0.0580$ 0.0132$ 0.3266$20270.0125$ 0.0084$ 0.0028$ 0.0334$ 0.0194$ 0.0137$ 0.0054$ 0.0459$ 0.0122$ 0.0073$ 0.0012$ 0.0432$ 0.0482$ 0.0300$ 0.0042$ 0.2095$ 0.0923$ 0.0594$ 0.0136$ 0.3321$20280.0129$ 0.0086$ 0.0028$ 0.0344$ 0.0198$ 0.0141$ 0.0056$ 0.0473$ 0.0124$ 0.0074$ 0.0012$ 0.0438$ 0.0490$ 0.0303$ 0.0043$ 0.2139$ 0.0941$ 0.0604$ 0.0139$ 0.3393$20290.0138$ 0.0088$ 0.0029$ 0.0355$ 0.0211$ 0.0145$ 0.0057$ 0.0490$ 0.0129$ 0.0076$ 0.0012$ 0.0453$ 0.0508$ 0.0306$ 0.0044$ 0.2192$ 0.0985$ 0.0615$ 0.0143$ 0.3490$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source:>16 yearsMeanValueMedianValueExhibit C.3d Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving 101-500 (Echovirus)YearValue of Illnesses Avoided Value of Deaths AvoidedTotal Benefits0 -16 years >16 yearsMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 -16 years90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueGWR Benefits Model.Economic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-26October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0002$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0007$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0005$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0002$ 0.0005$ 0.0003$ 0.0000$ 0.0015$20090.0012$ 0.0009$ 0.0003$ 0.0032$ 0.0007$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0017$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0002$ 0.0003$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0010$ 0.0022$ 0.0016$ 0.0004$ 0.0062$20100.0026$ 0.0021$ 0.0006$ 0.0070$ 0.0015$ 0.0012$ 0.0003$ 0.0038$ 0.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0005$ 0.0006$ 0.0004$ 0.0000$ 0.0020$ 0.0049$ 0.0038$ 0.0009$ 0.0134$20110.0047$ 0.0040$ 0.0012$ 0.0109$ 0.0028$ 0.0024$ 0.0007$ 0.0064$ 0.0002$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0008$ 0.0011$ 0.0007$ 0.0001$ 0.0035$ 0.0089$ 0.0073$ 0.0020$ 0.0215$20120.0341$ 0.0306$ 0.0147$ 0.0674$ 0.0190$ 0.0164$ 0.0073$ 0.0379$ 0.0017$ 0.0012$ 0.0002$ 0.0050$ 0.0077$ 0.0051$ 0.0008$ 0.0231$ 0.0625$ 0.0533$ 0.0229$ 0.1335$20130.0428$ 0.0384$ 0.0185$ 0.0838$ 0.0240$ 0.0211$ 0.0093$ 0.0474$ 0.0022$ 0.0015$ 0.0002$ 0.0062$ 0.0096$ 0.0064$ 0.0009$ 0.0286$ 0.0785$ 0.0674$ 0.0290$ 0.1660$20140.0520$ 0.0466$ 0.0229$ 0.1005$ 0.0292$ 0.0255$ 0.0118$ 0.0566$ 0.0026$ 0.0018$ 0.0002$ 0.0073$ 0.0116$ 0.0078$ 0.0011$ 0.0341$ 0.0954$ 0.0816$ 0.0360$ 0.1986$20150.0840$ 0.0759$ 0.0344$ 0.1543$ 0.0477$ 0.0410$ 0.0177$ 0.0951$ 0.0042$ 0.0028$ 0.0004$ 0.0122$ 0.0190$ 0.0118$ 0.0017$ 0.0574$ 0.1549$ 0.1315$ 0.0542$ 0.3190$20160.0977$ 0.0882$ 0.0400$ 0.1785$ 0.0553$ 0.0475$ 0.0205$ 0.1092$ 0.0048$ 0.0033$ 0.0005$ 0.0141$ 0.0218$ 0.0137$ 0.0019$ 0.0660$ 0.1797$ 0.1526$ 0.0629$ 0.3678$20170.1007$ 0.0906$ 0.0412$ 0.1846$ 0.0573$ 0.0492$ 0.0211$ 0.1142$ 0.0049$ 0.0034$ 0.0005$ 0.0148$ 0.0225$ 0.0140$ 0.0020$ 0.0682$ 0.1854$ 0.1571$ 0.0648$ 0.3817$20180.1044$ 0.0942$ 0.0427$ 0.1901$ 0.0591$ 0.0507$ 0.0218$ 0.1173$ 0.0051$ 0.0034$ 0.0005$ 0.0152$ 0.0230$ 0.0143$ 0.0020$ 0.0705$ 0.1916$ 0.1627$ 0.0670$ 0.3930$20190.1243$ 0.1146$ 0.0607$ 0.2097$ 0.0712$ 0.0608$ 0.0310$ 0.1321$ 0.0060$ 0.0042$ 0.0007$ 0.0171$ 0.0274$ 0.0175$ 0.0026$ 0.0773$ 0.2289$ 0.1972$ 0.0950$ 0.4362$20200.1278$ 0.1174$ 0.0619$ 0.2152$ 0.0733$ 0.0629$ 0.0317$ 0.1378$ 0.0061$ 0.0043$ 0.0007$ 0.0173$ 0.0280$ 0.0178$ 0.0027$ 0.0798$ 0.2352$ 0.2024$ 0.0970$ 0.4500$20210.1323$ 0.1218$ 0.0636$ 0.2236$ 0.0758$ 0.0649$ 0.0328$ 0.1411$ 0.0063$ 0.0044$ 0.0007$ 0.0176$ 0.0287$ 0.0184$ 0.0027$ 0.0809$ 0.2430$ 0.2095$ 0.0999$ 0.4632$20220.1480$ 0.1369$ 0.0706$ 0.2593$ 0.0848$ 0.0727$ 0.0371$ 0.1564$ 0.0069$ 0.0049$ 0.0007$ 0.0192$ 0.0319$ 0.0212$ 0.0030$ 0.0920$ 0.2717$ 0.2357$ 0.1115$ 0.5269$20230.1521$ 0.1408$ 0.0723$ 0.2657$ 0.0871$ 0.0753$ 0.0380$ 0.1603$ 0.0071$ 0.0050$ 0.0008$ 0.0195$ 0.0326$ 0.0216$ 0.0031$ 0.0937$ 0.2788$ 0.2428$ 0.1141$ 0.5392$20240.1588$ 0.1473$ 0.0747$ 0.2768$ 0.0905$ 0.0795$ 0.0394$ 0.1668$ 0.0073$ 0.0052$ 0.0008$ 0.0202$ 0.0335$ 0.0221$ 0.0032$ 0.0989$ 0.2902$ 0.2541$ 0.1181$ 0.5627$20250.1631$ 0.1511$ 0.0764$ 0.2827$ 0.0931$ 0.0823$ 0.0404$ 0.1722$ 0.0074$ 0.0053$ 0.0008$ 0.0206$ 0.0342$ 0.0227$ 0.0033$ 0.1003$ 0.2979$ 0.2615$ 0.1210$ 0.5758$20260.1735$ 0.1606$ 0.0835$ 0.2946$ 0.0994$ 0.0867$ 0.0441$ 0.1832$ 0.0079$ 0.0057$ 0.0008$ 0.0215$ 0.0362$ 0.0245$ 0.0034$ 0.1040$ 0.3170$ 0.2775$ 0.1319$ 0.6034$20270.1795$ 0.1662$ 0.0857$ 0.3048$ 0.1027$ 0.0910$ 0.0455$ 0.1919$ 0.0081$ 0.0058$ 0.0009$ 0.0225$ 0.0371$ 0.0250$ 0.0035$ 0.1071$ 0.3274$ 0.2881$ 0.1355$ 0.6263$20280.1852$ 0.1700$ 0.0875$ 0.3137$ 0.1057$ 0.0930$ 0.0465$ 0.1965$ 0.0082$ 0.0059$ 0.0009$ 0.0230$ 0.0379$ 0.0256$ 0.0035$ 0.1094$ 0.3371$ 0.2945$ 0.1385$ 0.6426$20290.1982$ 0.1826$ 0.0942$ 0.3319$ 0.1125$ 0.0979$ 0.0489$ 0.2108$ 0.0087$ 0.0063$ 0.0009$ 0.0243$ 0.0400$ 0.0265$ 0.0037$ 0.1161$ 0.3594$ 0.3132$ 0.1478$ 0.6831$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source:> 15 yrsMeanValueMedianValueExhibit C.3e Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving 501-1,000 (Rotavirus)YearValue of Illnesses Avoided Value of Deaths AvoidedTotal Benefits0 - 15 years > 15 yrsMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 - 15 years90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueGWR Benefits Model.Economic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-27October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0006$20090.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0006$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0009$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0006$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0020$ 0.0011$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0041$20100.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0013$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0017$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0013$ 0.0011$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0045$ 0.0020$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0088$20110.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0018$ 0.0006$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0024$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0018$ 0.0017$ 0.0004$ 0.0000$ 0.0066$ 0.0031$ 0.0009$ 0.0002$ 0.0126$20120.0017$ 0.0013$ 0.0003$ 0.0045$ 0.0028$ 0.0023$ 0.0006$ 0.0065$ 0.0021$ 0.0011$ 0.0001$ 0.0073$ 0.0081$ 0.0044$ 0.0005$ 0.0263$ 0.0148$ 0.0092$ 0.0015$ 0.0446$20130.0023$ 0.0017$ 0.0005$ 0.0064$ 0.0037$ 0.0029$ 0.0008$ 0.0092$ 0.0028$ 0.0014$ 0.0001$ 0.0095$ 0.0107$ 0.0056$ 0.0006$ 0.0356$ 0.0195$ 0.0116$ 0.0020$ 0.0607$20140.0028$ 0.0020$ 0.0006$ 0.0080$ 0.0045$ 0.0035$ 0.0010$ 0.0117$ 0.0033$ 0.0018$ 0.0001$ 0.0113$ 0.0130$ 0.0069$ 0.0007$ 0.0444$ 0.0236$ 0.0142$ 0.0024$ 0.0755$20150.0044$ 0.0032$ 0.0009$ 0.0126$ 0.0070$ 0.0052$ 0.0015$ 0.0187$ 0.0051$ 0.0028$ 0.0003$ 0.0165$ 0.0196$ 0.0108$ 0.0012$ 0.0591$ 0.0360$ 0.0219$ 0.0039$ 0.1069$20160.0051$ 0.0037$ 0.0010$ 0.0149$ 0.0081$ 0.0060$ 0.0018$ 0.0220$ 0.0059$ 0.0032$ 0.0003$ 0.0192$ 0.0226$ 0.0124$ 0.0014$ 0.0678$ 0.0417$ 0.0253$ 0.0045$ 0.1240$20170.0064$ 0.0037$ 0.0011$ 0.0219$ 0.0099$ 0.0061$ 0.0018$ 0.0286$ 0.0073$ 0.0033$ 0.0003$ 0.0244$ 0.0270$ 0.0126$ 0.0015$ 0.0867$ 0.0506$ 0.0257$ 0.0046$ 0.1617$20180.0066$ 0.0039$ 0.0011$ 0.0224$ 0.0102$ 0.0064$ 0.0019$ 0.0292$ 0.0075$ 0.0034$ 0.0003$ 0.0248$ 0.0277$ 0.0131$ 0.0015$ 0.0882$ 0.0520$ 0.0268$ 0.0048$ 0.1645$20190.0080$ 0.0052$ 0.0014$ 0.0245$ 0.0125$ 0.0083$ 0.0028$ 0.0325$ 0.0089$ 0.0044$ 0.0004$ 0.0277$ 0.0336$ 0.0170$ 0.0022$ 0.1082$ 0.0630$ 0.0349$ 0.0068$ 0.1929$20200.0082$ 0.0053$ 0.0015$ 0.0249$ 0.0127$ 0.0085$ 0.0029$ 0.0330$ 0.0090$ 0.0044$ 0.0004$ 0.0282$ 0.0341$ 0.0173$ 0.0022$ 0.1091$ 0.0640$ 0.0355$ 0.0069$ 0.1952$20210.0086$ 0.0054$ 0.0015$ 0.0292$ 0.0134$ 0.0088$ 0.0029$ 0.0396$ 0.0094$ 0.0045$ 0.0004$ 0.0293$ 0.0357$ 0.0176$ 0.0022$ 0.1228$ 0.0671$ 0.0363$ 0.0071$ 0.2208$20220.0136$ 0.0060$ 0.0018$ 0.0701$ 0.0212$ 0.0099$ 0.0035$ 0.1021$ 0.0134$ 0.0051$ 0.0005$ 0.0627$ 0.0523$ 0.0209$ 0.0025$ 0.2042$ 0.1005$ 0.0419$ 0.0082$ 0.4392$20230.0139$ 0.0062$ 0.0018$ 0.0713$ 0.0216$ 0.0101$ 0.0035$ 0.1037$ 0.0135$ 0.0052$ 0.0005$ 0.0632$ 0.0529$ 0.0212$ 0.0025$ 0.2068$ 0.1020$ 0.0427$ 0.0084$ 0.4450$20240.0142$ 0.0064$ 0.0019$ 0.0725$ 0.0221$ 0.0104$ 0.0036$ 0.1054$ 0.0137$ 0.0055$ 0.0005$ 0.0638$ 0.0538$ 0.0217$ 0.0026$ 0.2092$ 0.1039$ 0.0439$ 0.0086$ 0.4509$20250.0145$ 0.0065$ 0.0020$ 0.0737$ 0.0226$ 0.0107$ 0.0037$ 0.1071$ 0.0139$ 0.0056$ 0.0005$ 0.0643$ 0.0545$ 0.0222$ 0.0026$ 0.2139$ 0.1055$ 0.0450$ 0.0088$ 0.4590$20260.0151$ 0.0069$ 0.0021$ 0.0761$ 0.0236$ 0.0114$ 0.0038$ 0.1104$ 0.0144$ 0.0058$ 0.0005$ 0.0659$ 0.0566$ 0.0232$ 0.0027$ 0.2294$ 0.1098$ 0.0474$ 0.0091$ 0.4818$20270.0155$ 0.0071$ 0.0021$ 0.0774$ 0.0241$ 0.0117$ 0.0039$ 0.1123$ 0.0146$ 0.0059$ 0.0005$ 0.0665$ 0.0575$ 0.0235$ 0.0028$ 0.2321$ 0.1117$ 0.0483$ 0.0094$ 0.4883$20280.0158$ 0.0073$ 0.0022$ 0.0790$ 0.0246$ 0.0120$ 0.0040$ 0.1147$ 0.0148$ 0.0060$ 0.0006$ 0.0675$ 0.0584$ 0.0238$ 0.0028$ 0.2352$ 0.1136$ 0.0491$ 0.0096$ 0.4963$20290.0169$ 0.0076$ 0.0023$ 0.0857$ 0.0262$ 0.0126$ 0.0041$ 0.1292$ 0.0158$ 0.0061$ 0.0006$ 0.0695$ 0.0618$ 0.0247$ 0.0030$ 0.2472$ 0.1209$ 0.0510$ 0.0100$ 0.5316$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source:>16 yearsMeanValueMedianValueExhibit C.3f Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving 501-1,000 (Echovirus)YearValue of Illnesses Avoided Value of Deaths AvoidedTotal Benefits0 -16 years >16 yearsMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 -16 years90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueGWR Benefits Model.Economic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-28October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0002$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0007$ 0.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0004$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0002$ 0.0004$ 0.0003$ 0.0000$ 0.0013$20090.0101$ 0.0090$ 0.0038$ 0.0206$ 0.0052$ 0.0046$ 0.0020$ 0.0109$ 0.0005$ 0.0004$ 0.0000$ 0.0014$ 0.0020$ 0.0016$ 0.0002$ 0.0056$ 0.0178$ 0.0155$ 0.0061$ 0.0385$20100.0161$ 0.0143$ 0.0061$ 0.0322$ 0.0083$ 0.0075$ 0.0033$ 0.0173$ 0.0008$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0022$ 0.0032$ 0.0025$ 0.0003$ 0.0086$ 0.0284$ 0.0250$ 0.0097$ 0.0602$20110.0313$ 0.0291$ 0.0125$ 0.0572$ 0.0164$ 0.0146$ 0.0063$ 0.0330$ 0.0015$ 0.0012$ 0.0001$ 0.0041$ 0.0061$ 0.0049$ 0.0006$ 0.0163$ 0.0553$ 0.0498$ 0.0195$ 0.1106$20120.0476$ 0.0449$ 0.0215$ 0.0807$ 0.0264$ 0.0234$ 0.0115$ 0.0516$ 0.0023$ 0.0018$ 0.0002$ 0.0062$ 0.0099$ 0.0078$ 0.0010$ 0.0263$ 0.0862$ 0.0779$ 0.0342$ 0.1649$20130.0593$ 0.0561$ 0.0272$ 0.1001$ 0.0330$ 0.0291$ 0.0145$ 0.0634$ 0.0028$ 0.0023$ 0.0003$ 0.0077$ 0.0122$ 0.0095$ 0.0012$ 0.0322$ 0.1072$ 0.0971$ 0.0432$ 0.2034$20140.0794$ 0.0761$ 0.0379$ 0.1359$ 0.0441$ 0.0398$ 0.0198$ 0.0819$ 0.0037$ 0.0030$ 0.0004$ 0.0101$ 0.0162$ 0.0128$ 0.0017$ 0.0433$ 0.1434$ 0.1317$ 0.0597$ 0.2711$20150.0977$ 0.0933$ 0.0475$ 0.1646$ 0.0548$ 0.0501$ 0.0250$ 0.1000$ 0.0045$ 0.0037$ 0.0005$ 0.0123$ 0.0201$ 0.0156$ 0.0021$ 0.0537$ 0.1771$ 0.1627$ 0.0750$ 0.3307$20160.1129$ 0.1084$ 0.0551$ 0.1895$ 0.0632$ 0.0582$ 0.0293$ 0.1155$ 0.0052$ 0.0042$ 0.0006$ 0.0140$ 0.0230$ 0.0178$ 0.0024$ 0.0614$ 0.2043$ 0.1886$ 0.0873$ 0.3804$20170.1267$ 0.1214$ 0.0595$ 0.2167$ 0.0698$ 0.0628$ 0.0326$ 0.1267$ 0.0058$ 0.0047$ 0.0006$ 0.0157$ 0.0251$ 0.0200$ 0.0025$ 0.0682$ 0.2274$ 0.2088$ 0.0952$ 0.4273$20180.1369$ 0.1321$ 0.0660$ 0.2304$ 0.0750$ 0.0688$ 0.0366$ 0.1364$ 0.0062$ 0.0050$ 0.0007$ 0.0167$ 0.0268$ 0.0217$ 0.0027$ 0.0734$ 0.2449$ 0.2276$ 0.1059$ 0.4570$20190.1494$ 0.1441$ 0.0710$ 0.2462$ 0.0822$ 0.0758$ 0.0398$ 0.1458$ 0.0067$ 0.0055$ 0.0007$ 0.0185$ 0.0291$ 0.0242$ 0.0029$ 0.0806$ 0.2675$ 0.2496$ 0.1144$ 0.4911$20200.1531$ 0.1483$ 0.0727$ 0.2510$ 0.0842$ 0.0775$ 0.0407$ 0.1486$ 0.0068$ 0.0056$ 0.0007$ 0.0187$ 0.0296$ 0.0246$ 0.0029$ 0.0816$ 0.2738$ 0.2559$ 0.1171$ 0.4999$20210.1644$ 0.1593$ 0.0766$ 0.2724$ 0.0908$ 0.0833$ 0.0434$ 0.1582$ 0.0073$ 0.0059$ 0.0008$ 0.0196$ 0.0316$ 0.0260$ 0.0031$ 0.0861$ 0.2941$ 0.2745$ 0.1239$ 0.5363$20220.1759$ 0.1715$ 0.0861$ 0.2842$ 0.0962$ 0.0884$ 0.0471$ 0.1640$ 0.0077$ 0.0063$ 0.0009$ 0.0209$ 0.0333$ 0.0279$ 0.0033$ 0.0903$ 0.3131$ 0.2941$ 0.1374$ 0.5594$20230.1799$ 0.1753$ 0.0878$ 0.2898$ 0.0984$ 0.0907$ 0.0479$ 0.1693$ 0.0078$ 0.0064$ 0.0009$ 0.0212$ 0.0339$ 0.0282$ 0.0034$ 0.0912$ 0.3200$ 0.3006$ 0.1400$ 0.5715$20240.1884$ 0.1840$ 0.0930$ 0.3001$ 0.1030$ 0.0958$ 0.0515$ 0.1756$ 0.0081$ 0.0067$ 0.0009$ 0.0218$ 0.0352$ 0.0290$ 0.0036$ 0.0939$ 0.3347$ 0.3156$ 0.1490$ 0.5914$20250.1949$ 0.1904$ 0.0964$ 0.3120$ 0.1073$ 0.0999$ 0.0534$ 0.1828$ 0.0083$ 0.0069$ 0.0009$ 0.0222$ 0.0364$ 0.0301$ 0.0037$ 0.0970$ 0.3469$ 0.3273$ 0.1544$ 0.6140$20260.2003$ 0.1958$ 0.0988$ 0.3196$ 0.1104$ 0.1025$ 0.0547$ 0.1890$ 0.0085$ 0.0070$ 0.0009$ 0.0225$ 0.0372$ 0.0306$ 0.0037$ 0.0985$ 0.3564$ 0.3359$ 0.1583$ 0.6296$20270.2076$ 0.2024$ 0.1019$ 0.3317$ 0.1149$ 0.1060$ 0.0564$ 0.1956$ 0.0087$ 0.0072$ 0.0010$ 0.0230$ 0.0383$ 0.0318$ 0.0038$ 0.1008$ 0.3696$ 0.3474$ 0.1630$ 0.6512$20280.2129$ 0.2076$ 0.1044$ 0.3402$ 0.1183$ 0.1083$ 0.0577$ 0.2022$ 0.0089$ 0.0073$ 0.0010$ 0.0233$ 0.0390$ 0.0324$ 0.0038$ 0.1023$ 0.3791$ 0.3557$ 0.1670$ 0.6680$20290.2186$ 0.2130$ 0.1076$ 0.3485$ 0.1210$ 0.1112$ 0.0593$ 0.2063$ 0.0090$ 0.0074$ 0.0010$ 0.0237$ 0.0396$ 0.0330$ 0.0039$ 0.1037$ 0.3883$ 0.3646$ 0.1717$ 0.6821$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source:> 15 yrsMeanValueMedianValueExhibit C.3g Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving 1,001-3,300 (Rotavirus)YearValue of Illnesses Avoided Value of Deaths AvoidedTotal Benefits0 - 15 years > 15 yrsMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 - 15 years90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueGWR Benefits Model.Economic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-29October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0004$20090.0009$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0034$ 0.0014$ 0.0008$ 0.0002$ 0.0050$ 0.0012$ 0.0004$ 0.0000$ 0.0035$ 0.0044$ 0.0014$ 0.0002$ 0.0135$ 0.0079$ 0.0030$ 0.0005$ 0.0254$20100.0014$ 0.0008$ 0.0002$ 0.0053$ 0.0022$ 0.0013$ 0.0003$ 0.0078$ 0.0018$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0060$ 0.0069$ 0.0023$ 0.0003$ 0.0219$ 0.0124$ 0.0049$ 0.0008$ 0.0410$20110.0024$ 0.0012$ 0.0003$ 0.0099$ 0.0037$ 0.0021$ 0.0005$ 0.0136$ 0.0031$ 0.0010$ 0.0001$ 0.0102$ 0.0115$ 0.0038$ 0.0005$ 0.0377$ 0.0207$ 0.0081$ 0.0014$ 0.0714$20120.0038$ 0.0020$ 0.0005$ 0.0146$ 0.0058$ 0.0033$ 0.0010$ 0.0224$ 0.0048$ 0.0016$ 0.0002$ 0.0166$ 0.0178$ 0.0065$ 0.0008$ 0.0594$ 0.0321$ 0.0135$ 0.0026$ 0.1130$20130.0047$ 0.0026$ 0.0007$ 0.0181$ 0.0073$ 0.0043$ 0.0013$ 0.0274$ 0.0059$ 0.0021$ 0.0003$ 0.0207$ 0.0222$ 0.0082$ 0.0011$ 0.0756$ 0.0402$ 0.0171$ 0.0033$ 0.1419$20140.0075$ 0.0033$ 0.0010$ 0.0321$ 0.0119$ 0.0055$ 0.0018$ 0.0509$ 0.0095$ 0.0028$ 0.0004$ 0.0354$ 0.0362$ 0.0111$ 0.0015$ 0.1334$ 0.0651$ 0.0228$ 0.0046$ 0.2519$20150.0091$ 0.0041$ 0.0012$ 0.0381$ 0.0144$ 0.0068$ 0.0022$ 0.0613$ 0.0114$ 0.0035$ 0.0005$ 0.0416$ 0.0436$ 0.0134$ 0.0019$ 0.1571$ 0.0786$ 0.0278$ 0.0058$ 0.2981$20160.0105$ 0.0047$ 0.0014$ 0.0438$ 0.0166$ 0.0079$ 0.0026$ 0.0703$ 0.0131$ 0.0041$ 0.0005$ 0.0472$ 0.0499$ 0.0155$ 0.0022$ 0.1802$ 0.0901$ 0.0321$ 0.0068$ 0.3416$20170.0112$ 0.0049$ 0.0015$ 0.0506$ 0.0176$ 0.0082$ 0.0028$ 0.0785$ 0.0139$ 0.0042$ 0.0006$ 0.0494$ 0.0526$ 0.0165$ 0.0023$ 0.1843$ 0.0954$ 0.0338$ 0.0072$ 0.3629$20180.0148$ 0.0055$ 0.0017$ 0.0660$ 0.0220$ 0.0092$ 0.0031$ 0.0954$ 0.0180$ 0.0047$ 0.0006$ 0.0631$ 0.0653$ 0.0181$ 0.0025$ 0.2067$ 0.1201$ 0.0374$ 0.0079$ 0.4313$20190.0156$ 0.0062$ 0.0018$ 0.0676$ 0.0233$ 0.0105$ 0.0034$ 0.0976$ 0.0188$ 0.0051$ 0.0007$ 0.0650$ 0.0686$ 0.0203$ 0.0028$ 0.2190$ 0.1264$ 0.0421$ 0.0087$ 0.4492$20200.0159$ 0.0064$ 0.0019$ 0.0687$ 0.0238$ 0.0107$ 0.0035$ 0.0992$ 0.0190$ 0.0052$ 0.0007$ 0.0655$ 0.0695$ 0.0209$ 0.0028$ 0.2217$ 0.1282$ 0.0432$ 0.0089$ 0.4551$20210.0166$ 0.0067$ 0.0019$ 0.0724$ 0.0249$ 0.0113$ 0.0037$ 0.1078$ 0.0197$ 0.0055$ 0.0007$ 0.0676$ 0.0721$ 0.0217$ 0.0029$ 0.2328$ 0.1333$ 0.0452$ 0.0092$ 0.4806$20220.0179$ 0.0081$ 0.0021$ 0.0746$ 0.0269$ 0.0137$ 0.0039$ 0.1128$ 0.0210$ 0.0065$ 0.0008$ 0.0711$ 0.0771$ 0.0246$ 0.0030$ 0.2408$ 0.1430$ 0.0530$ 0.0099$ 0.4993$20230.0182$ 0.0082$ 0.0022$ 0.0758$ 0.0274$ 0.0140$ 0.0040$ 0.1146$ 0.0212$ 0.0065$ 0.0008$ 0.0716$ 0.0779$ 0.0252$ 0.0031$ 0.2437$ 0.1448$ 0.0540$ 0.0101$ 0.5057$20240.0187$ 0.0086$ 0.0023$ 0.0772$ 0.0281$ 0.0146$ 0.0043$ 0.1167$ 0.0216$ 0.0066$ 0.0008$ 0.0722$ 0.0794$ 0.0263$ 0.0033$ 0.2484$ 0.1478$ 0.0560$ 0.0107$ 0.5144$20250.0191$ 0.0089$ 0.0024$ 0.0786$ 0.0288$ 0.0151$ 0.0044$ 0.1188$ 0.0220$ 0.0068$ 0.0009$ 0.0732$ 0.0808$ 0.0272$ 0.0034$ 0.2534$ 0.1507$ 0.0580$ 0.0111$ 0.5239$20260.0195$ 0.0091$ 0.0024$ 0.0799$ 0.0295$ 0.0156$ 0.0045$ 0.1207$ 0.0222$ 0.0069$ 0.0009$ 0.0740$ 0.0820$ 0.0280$ 0.0035$ 0.2636$ 0.1532$ 0.0597$ 0.0113$ 0.5382$20270.0200$ 0.0094$ 0.0025$ 0.0813$ 0.0301$ 0.0160$ 0.0047$ 0.1227$ 0.0225$ 0.0071$ 0.0009$ 0.0746$ 0.0831$ 0.0286$ 0.0035$ 0.2671$ 0.1557$ 0.0611$ 0.0116$ 0.5456$20280.0203$ 0.0095$ 0.0026$ 0.0827$ 0.0307$ 0.0163$ 0.0048$ 0.1252$ 0.0228$ 0.0072$ 0.0009$ 0.0753$ 0.0841$ 0.0290$ 0.0036$ 0.2703$ 0.1579$ 0.0620$ 0.0118$ 0.5536$20290.0208$ 0.0098$ 0.0026$ 0.0842$ 0.0313$ 0.0168$ 0.0049$ 0.1273$ 0.0230$ 0.0073$ 0.0009$ 0.0759$ 0.0852$ 0.0291$ 0.0036$ 0.2744$ 0.1603$ 0.0630$ 0.0121$ 0.5618$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source:>16 yearsMeanValueMedianValueExhibit C.3h Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving 1,001-3,300 (Echovirus)YearValue of Illnesses Avoided Value of Deaths AvoidedTotal Benefits0 -16 years >16 yearsMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 -16 years90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueGWR Benefits Model.Economic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-30October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0001$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0004$20090.0052$ 0.0045$ 0.0020$ 0.0104$ 0.0028$ 0.0023$ 0.0010$ 0.0059$ 0.0003$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0008$ 0.0011$ 0.0009$ 0.0001$ 0.0033$ 0.0094$ 0.0079$ 0.0031$ 0.0204$20100.0110$ 0.0098$ 0.0049$ 0.0197$ 0.0062$ 0.0053$ 0.0026$ 0.0124$ 0.0006$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0016$ 0.0025$ 0.0019$ 0.0002$ 0.0069$ 0.0202$ 0.0175$ 0.0077$ 0.0405$20110.0172$ 0.0157$ 0.0079$ 0.0304$ 0.0098$ 0.0086$ 0.0042$ 0.0195$ 0.0009$ 0.0007$ 0.0001$ 0.0024$ 0.0039$ 0.0031$ 0.0003$ 0.0105$ 0.0318$ 0.0281$ 0.0126$ 0.0628$20120.0250$ 0.0229$ 0.0121$ 0.0435$ 0.0144$ 0.0126$ 0.0067$ 0.0273$ 0.0013$ 0.0010$ 0.0001$ 0.0034$ 0.0057$ 0.0045$ 0.0005$ 0.0156$ 0.0463$ 0.0410$ 0.0195$ 0.0898$20130.0340$ 0.0319$ 0.0169$ 0.0576$ 0.0194$ 0.0171$ 0.0091$ 0.0371$ 0.0017$ 0.0013$ 0.0002$ 0.0045$ 0.0076$ 0.0059$ 0.0007$ 0.0211$ 0.0627$ 0.0563$ 0.0269$ 0.1204$20140.0411$ 0.0388$ 0.0209$ 0.0689$ 0.0234$ 0.0208$ 0.0113$ 0.0442$ 0.0020$ 0.0016$ 0.0002$ 0.0053$ 0.0091$ 0.0071$ 0.0009$ 0.0250$ 0.0757$ 0.0682$ 0.0333$ 0.1435$20150.0509$ 0.0473$ 0.0251$ 0.0866$ 0.0288$ 0.0255$ 0.0137$ 0.0533$ 0.0025$ 0.0020$ 0.0003$ 0.0067$ 0.0111$ 0.0085$ 0.0011$ 0.0312$ 0.0934$ 0.0833$ 0.0402$ 0.1778$20160.0612$ 0.0563$ 0.0295$ 0.1033$ 0.0347$ 0.0300$ 0.0162$ 0.0642$ 0.0030$ 0.0023$ 0.0003$ 0.0082$ 0.0134$ 0.0102$ 0.0013$ 0.0379$ 0.1123$ 0.0988$ 0.0472$ 0.2137$20170.0645$ 0.0595$ 0.0307$ 0.1088$ 0.0368$ 0.0323$ 0.0170$ 0.0679$ 0.0031$ 0.0024$ 0.0003$ 0.0085$ 0.0141$ 0.0107$ 0.0014$ 0.0401$ 0.1185$ 0.1049$ 0.0494$ 0.2254$20180.0670$ 0.0616$ 0.0317$ 0.1128$ 0.0388$ 0.0336$ 0.0176$ 0.0732$ 0.0032$ 0.0025$ 0.0003$ 0.0087$ 0.0147$ 0.0109$ 0.0014$ 0.0426$ 0.1237$ 0.1086$ 0.0510$ 0.2374$20190.0696$ 0.0638$ 0.0328$ 0.1166$ 0.0402$ 0.0345$ 0.0181$ 0.0747$ 0.0033$ 0.0025$ 0.0003$ 0.0090$ 0.0151$ 0.0112$ 0.0014$ 0.0434$ 0.1282$ 0.1121$ 0.0527$ 0.2437$20200.0725$ 0.0665$ 0.0347$ 0.1247$ 0.0418$ 0.0358$ 0.0190$ 0.0782$ 0.0034$ 0.0026$ 0.0003$ 0.0093$ 0.0156$ 0.0116$ 0.0015$ 0.0443$ 0.1334$ 0.1165$ 0.0556$ 0.2566$20210.0747$ 0.0682$ 0.0357$ 0.1278$ 0.0431$ 0.0367$ 0.0195$ 0.0811$ 0.0035$ 0.0027$ 0.0004$ 0.0094$ 0.0160$ 0.0118$ 0.0015$ 0.0457$ 0.1373$ 0.1194$ 0.0571$ 0.2640$20220.0785$ 0.0724$ 0.0382$ 0.1335$ 0.0448$ 0.0384$ 0.0209$ 0.0836$ 0.0036$ 0.0028$ 0.0004$ 0.0099$ 0.0165$ 0.0121$ 0.0016$ 0.0474$ 0.1434$ 0.1257$ 0.0611$ 0.2744$20230.0805$ 0.0745$ 0.0392$ 0.1362$ 0.0461$ 0.0399$ 0.0217$ 0.0856$ 0.0037$ 0.0029$ 0.0004$ 0.0101$ 0.0168$ 0.0126$ 0.0016$ 0.0483$ 0.1472$ 0.1298$ 0.0629$ 0.2801$20240.0832$ 0.0768$ 0.0406$ 0.1397$ 0.0475$ 0.0415$ 0.0223$ 0.0881$ 0.0038$ 0.0029$ 0.0004$ 0.0103$ 0.0172$ 0.0129$ 0.0017$ 0.0490$ 0.1517$ 0.1342$ 0.0649$ 0.2871$20250.0855$ 0.0786$ 0.0418$ 0.1432$ 0.0490$ 0.0429$ 0.0229$ 0.0903$ 0.0039$ 0.0030$ 0.0004$ 0.0105$ 0.0176$ 0.0133$ 0.0017$ 0.0495$ 0.1560$ 0.1379$ 0.0668$ 0.2935$20260.0878$ 0.0810$ 0.0432$ 0.1464$ 0.0502$ 0.0443$ 0.0236$ 0.0921$ 0.0039$ 0.0030$ 0.0004$ 0.0106$ 0.0179$ 0.0135$ 0.0017$ 0.0500$ 0.1598$ 0.1420$ 0.0690$ 0.2991$20270.0904$ 0.0837$ 0.0448$ 0.1497$ 0.0516$ 0.0455$ 0.0247$ 0.0938$ 0.0040$ 0.0031$ 0.0004$ 0.0109$ 0.0182$ 0.0138$ 0.0018$ 0.0507$ 0.1643$ 0.1461$ 0.0717$ 0.3050$20280.0925$ 0.0857$ 0.0458$ 0.1540$ 0.0527$ 0.0465$ 0.0252$ 0.0956$ 0.0041$ 0.0031$ 0.0004$ 0.0111$ 0.0185$ 0.0141$ 0.0018$ 0.0516$ 0.1677$ 0.1494$ 0.0732$ 0.3122$20290.0950$ 0.0879$ 0.0473$ 0.1588$ 0.0542$ 0.0482$ 0.0259$ 0.0985$ 0.0041$ 0.0032$ 0.0004$ 0.0112$ 0.0188$ 0.0143$ 0.0018$ 0.0531$ 0.1722$ 0.1536$ 0.0755$ 0.3216$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source:> 15 yrsMeanValueMedianValueExhibit C.3i Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving 3,301-10,000 (Rotavirus)YearValue of Illnesses Avoided Value of Deaths AvoidedTotal Benefits0 - 15 years > 15 yrsMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 - 15 years90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueGWR Benefits Model.Economic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-31October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0002$20090.0004$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0012$ 0.0006$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0018$ 0.0004$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0014$ 0.0015$ 0.0007$ 0.0001$ 0.0060$ 0.0028$ 0.0014$ 0.0003$ 0.0103$20100.0009$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0033$ 0.0014$ 0.0008$ 0.0003$ 0.0057$ 0.0009$ 0.0004$ 0.0000$ 0.0035$ 0.0038$ 0.0016$ 0.0001$ 0.0122$ 0.0071$ 0.0033$ 0.0006$ 0.0247$20110.0013$ 0.0007$ 0.0002$ 0.0049$ 0.0021$ 0.0011$ 0.0004$ 0.0088$ 0.0014$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0055$ 0.0056$ 0.0025$ 0.0002$ 0.0189$ 0.0105$ 0.0049$ 0.0009$ 0.0382$20120.0022$ 0.0010$ 0.0003$ 0.0085$ 0.0034$ 0.0018$ 0.0006$ 0.0137$ 0.0022$ 0.0010$ 0.0001$ 0.0080$ 0.0089$ 0.0037$ 0.0003$ 0.0280$ 0.0168$ 0.0075$ 0.0013$ 0.0581$20130.0030$ 0.0015$ 0.0004$ 0.0110$ 0.0046$ 0.0026$ 0.0009$ 0.0176$ 0.0031$ 0.0014$ 0.0001$ 0.0101$ 0.0121$ 0.0054$ 0.0005$ 0.0380$ 0.0229$ 0.0110$ 0.0019$ 0.0766$20140.0036$ 0.0018$ 0.0005$ 0.0130$ 0.0055$ 0.0032$ 0.0010$ 0.0208$ 0.0036$ 0.0017$ 0.0002$ 0.0120$ 0.0144$ 0.0065$ 0.0006$ 0.0449$ 0.0272$ 0.0132$ 0.0023$ 0.0907$20150.0044$ 0.0022$ 0.0007$ 0.0164$ 0.0069$ 0.0039$ 0.0013$ 0.0272$ 0.0044$ 0.0021$ 0.0002$ 0.0149$ 0.0177$ 0.0081$ 0.0007$ 0.0550$ 0.0335$ 0.0163$ 0.0029$ 0.1135$20160.0052$ 0.0026$ 0.0008$ 0.0188$ 0.0080$ 0.0046$ 0.0015$ 0.0311$ 0.0052$ 0.0024$ 0.0002$ 0.0176$ 0.0206$ 0.0097$ 0.0009$ 0.0625$ 0.0390$ 0.0192$ 0.0033$ 0.1300$20170.0055$ 0.0028$ 0.0008$ 0.0216$ 0.0085$ 0.0048$ 0.0015$ 0.0351$ 0.0055$ 0.0025$ 0.0002$ 0.0182$ 0.0218$ 0.0102$ 0.0009$ 0.0633$ 0.0413$ 0.0202$ 0.0035$ 0.1382$20180.0056$ 0.0028$ 0.0008$ 0.0220$ 0.0087$ 0.0049$ 0.0016$ 0.0357$ 0.0056$ 0.0026$ 0.0002$ 0.0186$ 0.0221$ 0.0103$ 0.0009$ 0.0644$ 0.0421$ 0.0207$ 0.0036$ 0.1407$20190.0058$ 0.0029$ 0.0009$ 0.0226$ 0.0090$ 0.0051$ 0.0017$ 0.0368$ 0.0057$ 0.0026$ 0.0002$ 0.0191$ 0.0226$ 0.0106$ 0.0010$ 0.0652$ 0.0431$ 0.0212$ 0.0038$ 0.1437$20200.0060$ 0.0030$ 0.0009$ 0.0237$ 0.0093$ 0.0054$ 0.0019$ 0.0383$ 0.0059$ 0.0027$ 0.0003$ 0.0194$ 0.0233$ 0.0108$ 0.0010$ 0.0672$ 0.0444$ 0.0219$ 0.0041$ 0.1485$20210.0061$ 0.0031$ 0.0009$ 0.0241$ 0.0095$ 0.0055$ 0.0019$ 0.0389$ 0.0060$ 0.0028$ 0.0003$ 0.0198$ 0.0236$ 0.0111$ 0.0010$ 0.0676$ 0.0451$ 0.0224$ 0.0041$ 0.1504$20220.0063$ 0.0032$ 0.0010$ 0.0246$ 0.0097$ 0.0057$ 0.0020$ 0.0395$ 0.0061$ 0.0029$ 0.0003$ 0.0201$ 0.0241$ 0.0114$ 0.0011$ 0.0693$ 0.0462$ 0.0231$ 0.0043$ 0.1536$20230.0064$ 0.0033$ 0.0010$ 0.0251$ 0.0099$ 0.0058$ 0.0021$ 0.0403$ 0.0061$ 0.0029$ 0.0003$ 0.0204$ 0.0244$ 0.0116$ 0.0011$ 0.0701$ 0.0468$ 0.0236$ 0.0044$ 0.1558$20240.0065$ 0.0034$ 0.0010$ 0.0255$ 0.0101$ 0.0059$ 0.0021$ 0.0410$ 0.0062$ 0.0029$ 0.0003$ 0.0207$ 0.0248$ 0.0118$ 0.0011$ 0.0725$ 0.0477$ 0.0241$ 0.0046$ 0.1598$20250.0067$ 0.0035$ 0.0011$ 0.0259$ 0.0103$ 0.0061$ 0.0022$ 0.0417$ 0.0063$ 0.0030$ 0.0003$ 0.0210$ 0.0251$ 0.0120$ 0.0011$ 0.0739$ 0.0484$ 0.0246$ 0.0047$ 0.1625$20260.0068$ 0.0036$ 0.0011$ 0.0266$ 0.0106$ 0.0062$ 0.0023$ 0.0429$ 0.0064$ 0.0030$ 0.0003$ 0.0214$ 0.0257$ 0.0124$ 0.0011$ 0.0754$ 0.0496$ 0.0252$ 0.0048$ 0.1664$20270.0070$ 0.0037$ 0.0012$ 0.0271$ 0.0109$ 0.0064$ 0.0024$ 0.0437$ 0.0065$ 0.0031$ 0.0003$ 0.0217$ 0.0261$ 0.0126$ 0.0012$ 0.0762$ 0.0506$ 0.0258$ 0.0050$ 0.1687$20280.0072$ 0.0038$ 0.0012$ 0.0277$ 0.0111$ 0.0065$ 0.0024$ 0.0445$ 0.0066$ 0.0031$ 0.0003$ 0.0221$ 0.0265$ 0.0127$ 0.0012$ 0.0767$ 0.0513$ 0.0262$ 0.0051$ 0.1710$20290.0073$ 0.0039$ 0.0012$ 0.0282$ 0.0114$ 0.0067$ 0.0024$ 0.0453$ 0.0067$ 0.0032$ 0.0003$ 0.0224$ 0.0269$ 0.0130$ 0.0012$ 0.0780$ 0.0523$ 0.0268$ 0.0052$ 0.1738$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source:>16 yearsMeanValueMedianValueExhibit C.3j Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving 3,301-10,000 (Echovirus)YearValue of Illnesses Avoided Value of Deaths AvoidedTotal Benefits0 -16 years >16 yearsMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 -16 years90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueGWR Benefits Model.Economic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-32October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0015$ 0.0014$ 0.0006$ 0.0029$ 0.0008$ 0.0007$ 0.0003$ 0.0017$ 0.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0002$ 0.0003$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0010$ 0.0028$ 0.0024$ 0.0009$ 0.0058$20090.0051$ 0.0048$ 0.0022$ 0.0088$ 0.0029$ 0.0025$ 0.0011$ 0.0056$ 0.0003$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0008$ 0.0012$ 0.0008$ 0.0001$ 0.0034$ 0.0094$ 0.0082$ 0.0034$ 0.0186$20100.0092$ 0.0085$ 0.0037$ 0.0160$ 0.0052$ 0.0045$ 0.0019$ 0.0098$ 0.0005$ 0.0003$ 0.0000$ 0.0013$ 0.0021$ 0.0014$ 0.0002$ 0.0059$ 0.0169$ 0.0147$ 0.0058$ 0.0331$20110.0135$ 0.0126$ 0.0053$ 0.0238$ 0.0076$ 0.0065$ 0.0029$ 0.0146$ 0.0007$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0020$ 0.0030$ 0.0020$ 0.0003$ 0.0086$ 0.0249$ 0.0216$ 0.0085$ 0.0489$20120.0183$ 0.0170$ 0.0072$ 0.0322$ 0.0104$ 0.0089$ 0.0039$ 0.0203$ 0.0009$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0027$ 0.0041$ 0.0028$ 0.0004$ 0.0120$ 0.0337$ 0.0293$ 0.0115$ 0.0671$20130.0229$ 0.0211$ 0.0092$ 0.0399$ 0.0130$ 0.0111$ 0.0049$ 0.0251$ 0.0011$ 0.0008$ 0.0001$ 0.0032$ 0.0051$ 0.0035$ 0.0005$ 0.0146$ 0.0420$ 0.0365$ 0.0147$ 0.0829$20140.0276$ 0.0258$ 0.0112$ 0.0477$ 0.0157$ 0.0136$ 0.0059$ 0.0300$ 0.0013$ 0.0009$ 0.0001$ 0.0039$ 0.0061$ 0.0041$ 0.0006$ 0.0176$ 0.0507$ 0.0445$ 0.0179$ 0.0992$20150.0325$ 0.0305$ 0.0134$ 0.0558$ 0.0185$ 0.0167$ 0.0070$ 0.0351$ 0.0016$ 0.0011$ 0.0002$ 0.0046$ 0.0071$ 0.0050$ 0.0007$ 0.0204$ 0.0598$ 0.0532$ 0.0213$ 0.1158$20160.0382$ 0.0356$ 0.0157$ 0.0659$ 0.0217$ 0.0194$ 0.0082$ 0.0411$ 0.0018$ 0.0013$ 0.0002$ 0.0054$ 0.0083$ 0.0058$ 0.0008$ 0.0241$ 0.0699$ 0.0621$ 0.0249$ 0.1365$20170.0393$ 0.0365$ 0.0161$ 0.0679$ 0.0224$ 0.0202$ 0.0084$ 0.0427$ 0.0019$ 0.0013$ 0.0002$ 0.0055$ 0.0085$ 0.0059$ 0.0009$ 0.0247$ 0.0721$ 0.0639$ 0.0255$ 0.1408$20180.0404$ 0.0376$ 0.0164$ 0.0698$ 0.0231$ 0.0206$ 0.0085$ 0.0438$ 0.0019$ 0.0013$ 0.0002$ 0.0056$ 0.0087$ 0.0060$ 0.0009$ 0.0249$ 0.0741$ 0.0656$ 0.0260$ 0.1442$20190.0413$ 0.0383$ 0.0168$ 0.0711$ 0.0237$ 0.0212$ 0.0088$ 0.0452$ 0.0019$ 0.0014$ 0.0002$ 0.0057$ 0.0088$ 0.0062$ 0.0009$ 0.0254$ 0.0757$ 0.0671$ 0.0267$ 0.1474$20200.0422$ 0.0391$ 0.0172$ 0.0728$ 0.0242$ 0.0217$ 0.0090$ 0.0461$ 0.0020$ 0.0014$ 0.0002$ 0.0058$ 0.0089$ 0.0063$ 0.0009$ 0.0257$ 0.0773$ 0.0685$ 0.0274$ 0.1503$20210.0432$ 0.0402$ 0.0177$ 0.0744$ 0.0247$ 0.0221$ 0.0093$ 0.0469$ 0.0020$ 0.0014$ 0.0002$ 0.0059$ 0.0091$ 0.0064$ 0.0009$ 0.0261$ 0.0790$ 0.0701$ 0.0281$ 0.1532$20220.0451$ 0.0416$ 0.0182$ 0.0796$ 0.0256$ 0.0227$ 0.0095$ 0.0496$ 0.0020$ 0.0014$ 0.0002$ 0.0061$ 0.0093$ 0.0066$ 0.0009$ 0.0269$ 0.0821$ 0.0724$ 0.0289$ 0.1622$20230.0467$ 0.0434$ 0.0189$ 0.0813$ 0.0263$ 0.0234$ 0.0099$ 0.0509$ 0.0021$ 0.0015$ 0.0002$ 0.0062$ 0.0095$ 0.0067$ 0.0009$ 0.0281$ 0.0846$ 0.0750$ 0.0300$ 0.1665$20240.0479$ 0.0446$ 0.0194$ 0.0834$ 0.0270$ 0.0242$ 0.0102$ 0.0520$ 0.0021$ 0.0015$ 0.0002$ 0.0063$ 0.0097$ 0.0069$ 0.0010$ 0.0285$ 0.0867$ 0.0772$ 0.0308$ 0.1702$20250.0489$ 0.0455$ 0.0198$ 0.0851$ 0.0276$ 0.0246$ 0.0104$ 0.0528$ 0.0022$ 0.0015$ 0.0002$ 0.0064$ 0.0098$ 0.0070$ 0.0010$ 0.0289$ 0.0884$ 0.0786$ 0.0314$ 0.1733$20260.0499$ 0.0465$ 0.0202$ 0.0870$ 0.0281$ 0.0251$ 0.0106$ 0.0538$ 0.0022$ 0.0016$ 0.0002$ 0.0065$ 0.0099$ 0.0070$ 0.0010$ 0.0291$ 0.0901$ 0.0802$ 0.0320$ 0.1764$20270.0515$ 0.0478$ 0.0206$ 0.0901$ 0.0290$ 0.0258$ 0.0107$ 0.0550$ 0.0022$ 0.0016$ 0.0002$ 0.0066$ 0.0101$ 0.0072$ 0.0010$ 0.0304$ 0.0929$ 0.0825$ 0.0326$ 0.1821$20280.0526$ 0.0490$ 0.0211$ 0.0920$ 0.0298$ 0.0263$ 0.0110$ 0.0579$ 0.0023$ 0.0016$ 0.0002$ 0.0067$ 0.0103$ 0.0073$ 0.0010$ 0.0306$ 0.0950$ 0.0842$ 0.0333$ 0.1872$20290.0537$ 0.0502$ 0.0216$ 0.0936$ 0.0304$ 0.0269$ 0.0112$ 0.0589$ 0.0023$ 0.0016$ 0.0002$ 0.0068$ 0.0104$ 0.0074$ 0.0010$ 0.0309$ 0.0968$ 0.0861$ 0.0340$ 0.1902$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source:> 15 yrsMeanValueMedianValueExhibit C.3k Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving 10,001-50,000 (Rotavirus)YearValue of Illnesses Avoided Value of Deaths AvoidedTotal Benefits0 - 15 years > 15 yrsMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 - 15 years90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueGWR Benefits Model.Economic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-33October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0003$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0004$ 0.0005$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0016$ 0.0008$ 0.0004$ 0.0000$ 0.0027$20090.0004$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0013$ 0.0006$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0022$ 0.0005$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0015$ 0.0020$ 0.0007$ 0.0001$ 0.0056$ 0.0036$ 0.0014$ 0.0002$ 0.0106$20100.0007$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0022$ 0.0011$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0037$ 0.0009$ 0.0003$ 0.0000$ 0.0028$ 0.0034$ 0.0012$ 0.0001$ 0.0112$ 0.0061$ 0.0025$ 0.0003$ 0.0199$20110.0010$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0031$ 0.0016$ 0.0009$ 0.0002$ 0.0051$ 0.0012$ 0.0004$ 0.0000$ 0.0040$ 0.0047$ 0.0017$ 0.0001$ 0.0169$ 0.0085$ 0.0036$ 0.0004$ 0.0291$20120.0013$ 0.0007$ 0.0001$ 0.0041$ 0.0021$ 0.0012$ 0.0002$ 0.0069$ 0.0016$ 0.0006$ 0.0000$ 0.0054$ 0.0062$ 0.0023$ 0.0002$ 0.0227$ 0.0112$ 0.0048$ 0.0006$ 0.0390$20130.0016$ 0.0008$ 0.0002$ 0.0051$ 0.0026$ 0.0015$ 0.0003$ 0.0085$ 0.0020$ 0.0007$ 0.0000$ 0.0067$ 0.0077$ 0.0029$ 0.0002$ 0.0288$ 0.0139$ 0.0059$ 0.0007$ 0.0491$20140.0019$ 0.0010$ 0.0002$ 0.0061$ 0.0031$ 0.0018$ 0.0004$ 0.0101$ 0.0023$ 0.0008$ 0.0001$ 0.0080$ 0.0091$ 0.0034$ 0.0003$ 0.0340$ 0.0165$ 0.0070$ 0.0009$ 0.0581$20150.0023$ 0.0012$ 0.0002$ 0.0074$ 0.0037$ 0.0021$ 0.0004$ 0.0123$ 0.0028$ 0.0010$ 0.0001$ 0.0093$ 0.0108$ 0.0040$ 0.0003$ 0.0412$ 0.0196$ 0.0082$ 0.0010$ 0.0702$20160.0026$ 0.0014$ 0.0003$ 0.0085$ 0.0043$ 0.0024$ 0.0005$ 0.0141$ 0.0032$ 0.0011$ 0.0001$ 0.0107$ 0.0124$ 0.0046$ 0.0004$ 0.0470$ 0.0225$ 0.0095$ 0.0012$ 0.0803$20170.0028$ 0.0014$ 0.0003$ 0.0115$ 0.0046$ 0.0025$ 0.0005$ 0.0175$ 0.0034$ 0.0011$ 0.0001$ 0.0110$ 0.0130$ 0.0048$ 0.0004$ 0.0475$ 0.0238$ 0.0098$ 0.0012$ 0.0876$20180.0029$ 0.0014$ 0.0003$ 0.0117$ 0.0047$ 0.0026$ 0.0005$ 0.0177$ 0.0034$ 0.0012$ 0.0001$ 0.0111$ 0.0132$ 0.0048$ 0.0004$ 0.0480$ 0.0241$ 0.0100$ 0.0012$ 0.0886$20190.0029$ 0.0015$ 0.0003$ 0.0119$ 0.0047$ 0.0026$ 0.0005$ 0.0180$ 0.0035$ 0.0012$ 0.0001$ 0.0113$ 0.0133$ 0.0049$ 0.0004$ 0.0484$ 0.0244$ 0.0102$ 0.0012$ 0.0896$20200.0030$ 0.0015$ 0.0003$ 0.0121$ 0.0048$ 0.0027$ 0.0005$ 0.0183$ 0.0035$ 0.0012$ 0.0001$ 0.0115$ 0.0134$ 0.0049$ 0.0004$ 0.0487$ 0.0247$ 0.0103$ 0.0013$ 0.0906$20210.0030$ 0.0015$ 0.0003$ 0.0124$ 0.0049$ 0.0027$ 0.0005$ 0.0186$ 0.0035$ 0.0012$ 0.0001$ 0.0117$ 0.0136$ 0.0050$ 0.0004$ 0.0491$ 0.0250$ 0.0104$ 0.0013$ 0.0917$20220.0032$ 0.0016$ 0.0003$ 0.0129$ 0.0052$ 0.0028$ 0.0006$ 0.0201$ 0.0037$ 0.0012$ 0.0001$ 0.0120$ 0.0142$ 0.0051$ 0.0004$ 0.0558$ 0.0262$ 0.0108$ 0.0013$ 0.1008$20230.0032$ 0.0016$ 0.0003$ 0.0131$ 0.0053$ 0.0030$ 0.0006$ 0.0205$ 0.0037$ 0.0012$ 0.0001$ 0.0122$ 0.0144$ 0.0052$ 0.0004$ 0.0565$ 0.0266$ 0.0111$ 0.0013$ 0.1023$20240.0033$ 0.0017$ 0.0003$ 0.0133$ 0.0054$ 0.0030$ 0.0006$ 0.0208$ 0.0037$ 0.0013$ 0.0001$ 0.0123$ 0.0145$ 0.0053$ 0.0004$ 0.0572$ 0.0269$ 0.0113$ 0.0014$ 0.1037$20250.0034$ 0.0017$ 0.0003$ 0.0136$ 0.0055$ 0.0031$ 0.0006$ 0.0211$ 0.0038$ 0.0013$ 0.0001$ 0.0124$ 0.0146$ 0.0054$ 0.0004$ 0.0580$ 0.0272$ 0.0114$ 0.0014$ 0.1051$20260.0034$ 0.0018$ 0.0003$ 0.0138$ 0.0056$ 0.0031$ 0.0006$ 0.0214$ 0.0038$ 0.0013$ 0.0001$ 0.0126$ 0.0148$ 0.0055$ 0.0004$ 0.0588$ 0.0276$ 0.0116$ 0.0014$ 0.1066$20270.0036$ 0.0018$ 0.0003$ 0.0142$ 0.0058$ 0.0032$ 0.0006$ 0.0218$ 0.0039$ 0.0013$ 0.0001$ 0.0136$ 0.0152$ 0.0056$ 0.0004$ 0.0602$ 0.0285$ 0.0120$ 0.0014$ 0.1098$20280.0037$ 0.0019$ 0.0003$ 0.0145$ 0.0060$ 0.0033$ 0.0006$ 0.0222$ 0.0040$ 0.0013$ 0.0001$ 0.0137$ 0.0154$ 0.0057$ 0.0004$ 0.0624$ 0.0290$ 0.0122$ 0.0014$ 0.1129$20290.0037$ 0.0019$ 0.0003$ 0.0148$ 0.0061$ 0.0034$ 0.0006$ 0.0226$ 0.0040$ 0.0013$ 0.0001$ 0.0138$ 0.0155$ 0.0057$ 0.0004$ 0.0632$ 0.0293$ 0.0123$ 0.0015$ 0.1144$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source:>16 yearsMeanValueMedianValueExhibit C.3l Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving 10,001-50,000 (Echovirus)YearValue of Illnesses Avoided Value of Deaths AvoidedTotal Benefits0 -16 years >16 yearsMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 -16 years90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueGWR Benefits Model.Economic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-34October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0006$ 0.0005$ 0.0002$ 0.0011$ 0.0003$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0007$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0004$ 0.0011$ 0.0009$ 0.0003$ 0.0022$20090.0019$ 0.0017$ 0.0006$ 0.0034$ 0.0011$ 0.0009$ 0.0004$ 0.0022$ 0.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0003$ 0.0005$ 0.0003$ 0.0000$ 0.0013$ 0.0035$ 0.0030$ 0.0010$ 0.0073$20100.0033$ 0.0030$ 0.0011$ 0.0063$ 0.0019$ 0.0017$ 0.0007$ 0.0039$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0005$ 0.0008$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0024$ 0.0062$ 0.0053$ 0.0019$ 0.0130$20110.0047$ 0.0043$ 0.0016$ 0.0088$ 0.0027$ 0.0023$ 0.0010$ 0.0056$ 0.0002$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0007$ 0.0011$ 0.0007$ 0.0001$ 0.0033$ 0.0087$ 0.0075$ 0.0027$ 0.0183$20120.0060$ 0.0055$ 0.0021$ 0.0113$ 0.0035$ 0.0031$ 0.0012$ 0.0071$ 0.0003$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0008$ 0.0014$ 0.0009$ 0.0001$ 0.0043$ 0.0113$ 0.0098$ 0.0035$ 0.0235$20130.0077$ 0.0071$ 0.0027$ 0.0143$ 0.0045$ 0.0039$ 0.0016$ 0.0089$ 0.0004$ 0.0003$ 0.0000$ 0.0011$ 0.0018$ 0.0012$ 0.0001$ 0.0052$ 0.0144$ 0.0125$ 0.0044$ 0.0294$20140.0092$ 0.0086$ 0.0032$ 0.0173$ 0.0055$ 0.0047$ 0.0019$ 0.0106$ 0.0005$ 0.0003$ 0.0000$ 0.0013$ 0.0022$ 0.0015$ 0.0002$ 0.0065$ 0.0173$ 0.0151$ 0.0053$ 0.0357$20150.0109$ 0.0101$ 0.0039$ 0.0203$ 0.0064$ 0.0055$ 0.0023$ 0.0123$ 0.0005$ 0.0004$ 0.0000$ 0.0015$ 0.0026$ 0.0017$ 0.0002$ 0.0076$ 0.0204$ 0.0177$ 0.0064$ 0.0416$20160.0126$ 0.0116$ 0.0044$ 0.0233$ 0.0074$ 0.0063$ 0.0026$ 0.0141$ 0.0006$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0017$ 0.0029$ 0.0020$ 0.0002$ 0.0087$ 0.0235$ 0.0203$ 0.0074$ 0.0478$20170.0133$ 0.0123$ 0.0046$ 0.0247$ 0.0078$ 0.0067$ 0.0027$ 0.0157$ 0.0007$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0018$ 0.0030$ 0.0020$ 0.0002$ 0.0088$ 0.0247$ 0.0215$ 0.0076$ 0.0510$20180.0136$ 0.0126$ 0.0046$ 0.0252$ 0.0079$ 0.0068$ 0.0028$ 0.0160$ 0.0007$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0018$ 0.0031$ 0.0020$ 0.0002$ 0.0089$ 0.0252$ 0.0219$ 0.0077$ 0.0518$20190.0138$ 0.0129$ 0.0048$ 0.0256$ 0.0081$ 0.0070$ 0.0029$ 0.0163$ 0.0007$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0018$ 0.0031$ 0.0021$ 0.0003$ 0.0090$ 0.0257$ 0.0224$ 0.0080$ 0.0527$20200.0143$ 0.0132$ 0.0049$ 0.0266$ 0.0083$ 0.0072$ 0.0029$ 0.0171$ 0.0007$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0019$ 0.0032$ 0.0021$ 0.0003$ 0.0092$ 0.0264$ 0.0230$ 0.0081$ 0.0548$20210.0148$ 0.0137$ 0.0051$ 0.0274$ 0.0086$ 0.0074$ 0.0031$ 0.0176$ 0.0007$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0019$ 0.0033$ 0.0021$ 0.0003$ 0.0094$ 0.0274$ 0.0238$ 0.0085$ 0.0563$20220.0151$ 0.0140$ 0.0052$ 0.0282$ 0.0088$ 0.0076$ 0.0031$ 0.0179$ 0.0007$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0019$ 0.0033$ 0.0022$ 0.0003$ 0.0094$ 0.0279$ 0.0242$ 0.0087$ 0.0575$20230.0154$ 0.0142$ 0.0054$ 0.0287$ 0.0089$ 0.0078$ 0.0032$ 0.0182$ 0.0007$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0019$ 0.0033$ 0.0022$ 0.0003$ 0.0095$ 0.0284$ 0.0247$ 0.0089$ 0.0583$20240.0161$ 0.0150$ 0.0055$ 0.0294$ 0.0093$ 0.0080$ 0.0033$ 0.0186$ 0.0007$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0020$ 0.0035$ 0.0023$ 0.0003$ 0.0098$ 0.0296$ 0.0258$ 0.0092$ 0.0597$20250.0165$ 0.0154$ 0.0056$ 0.0300$ 0.0096$ 0.0083$ 0.0034$ 0.0198$ 0.0008$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0021$ 0.0035$ 0.0023$ 0.0003$ 0.0099$ 0.0303$ 0.0266$ 0.0094$ 0.0619$20260.0168$ 0.0157$ 0.0057$ 0.0306$ 0.0097$ 0.0085$ 0.0035$ 0.0202$ 0.0008$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0021$ 0.0036$ 0.0023$ 0.0003$ 0.0101$ 0.0309$ 0.0270$ 0.0096$ 0.0629$20270.0172$ 0.0161$ 0.0059$ 0.0312$ 0.0100$ 0.0087$ 0.0035$ 0.0206$ 0.0008$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0021$ 0.0036$ 0.0024$ 0.0003$ 0.0102$ 0.0315$ 0.0277$ 0.0098$ 0.0640$20280.0175$ 0.0164$ 0.0060$ 0.0318$ 0.0101$ 0.0088$ 0.0036$ 0.0209$ 0.0008$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0021$ 0.0036$ 0.0024$ 0.0003$ 0.0102$ 0.0321$ 0.0282$ 0.0100$ 0.0650$20290.0179$ 0.0168$ 0.0062$ 0.0323$ 0.0103$ 0.0090$ 0.0037$ 0.0213$ 0.0008$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0022$ 0.0037$ 0.0024$ 0.0003$ 0.0104$ 0.0327$ 0.0288$ 0.0102$ 0.0661$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source:> 15 yrsMeanValueMedianValueExhibit C.3m Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving 50,001-100,000 (Rotavirus)YearValue of Illnesses Avoided Value of Deaths AvoidedTotal Benefits0 - 15 years > 15 yrsMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 - 15 years90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueGWR Benefits Model.Economic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-35October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0003$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0002$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0008$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0015$20090.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0006$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0011$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0006$ 0.0007$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0029$ 0.0013$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0052$20100.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0010$ 0.0004$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0016$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0010$ 0.0012$ 0.0004$ 0.0000$ 0.0047$ 0.0021$ 0.0008$ 0.0001$ 0.0084$20110.0004$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0014$ 0.0006$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0023$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0014$ 0.0016$ 0.0006$ 0.0000$ 0.0064$ 0.0029$ 0.0012$ 0.0002$ 0.0116$20120.0005$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0018$ 0.0007$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0030$ 0.0005$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0019$ 0.0021$ 0.0007$ 0.0001$ 0.0083$ 0.0037$ 0.0015$ 0.0002$ 0.0149$20130.0006$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0022$ 0.0009$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0037$ 0.0006$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0024$ 0.0026$ 0.0009$ 0.0001$ 0.0105$ 0.0047$ 0.0019$ 0.0002$ 0.0188$20140.0007$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0026$ 0.0011$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0044$ 0.0007$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0028$ 0.0031$ 0.0011$ 0.0001$ 0.0124$ 0.0056$ 0.0023$ 0.0003$ 0.0222$20150.0008$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0032$ 0.0013$ 0.0007$ 0.0001$ 0.0053$ 0.0008$ 0.0003$ 0.0000$ 0.0033$ 0.0036$ 0.0012$ 0.0001$ 0.0143$ 0.0065$ 0.0027$ 0.0003$ 0.0261$20160.0009$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0037$ 0.0015$ 0.0008$ 0.0002$ 0.0061$ 0.0009$ 0.0003$ 0.0000$ 0.0037$ 0.0041$ 0.0014$ 0.0001$ 0.0163$ 0.0074$ 0.0030$ 0.0004$ 0.0297$20170.0010$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0050$ 0.0017$ 0.0009$ 0.0002$ 0.0079$ 0.0010$ 0.0003$ 0.0000$ 0.0042$ 0.0045$ 0.0015$ 0.0001$ 0.0167$ 0.0082$ 0.0032$ 0.0004$ 0.0338$20180.0010$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0051$ 0.0017$ 0.0009$ 0.0002$ 0.0080$ 0.0010$ 0.0003$ 0.0000$ 0.0043$ 0.0045$ 0.0015$ 0.0001$ 0.0169$ 0.0082$ 0.0032$ 0.0004$ 0.0342$20190.0011$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0052$ 0.0017$ 0.0009$ 0.0002$ 0.0081$ 0.0010$ 0.0003$ 0.0000$ 0.0043$ 0.0046$ 0.0015$ 0.0001$ 0.0170$ 0.0083$ 0.0033$ 0.0004$ 0.0346$20200.0011$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0053$ 0.0018$ 0.0009$ 0.0002$ 0.0082$ 0.0010$ 0.0004$ 0.0000$ 0.0045$ 0.0047$ 0.0016$ 0.0001$ 0.0180$ 0.0086$ 0.0034$ 0.0004$ 0.0360$20210.0011$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0054$ 0.0018$ 0.0009$ 0.0002$ 0.0084$ 0.0011$ 0.0004$ 0.0000$ 0.0045$ 0.0048$ 0.0016$ 0.0001$ 0.0182$ 0.0088$ 0.0035$ 0.0004$ 0.0365$20220.0011$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0055$ 0.0019$ 0.0010$ 0.0002$ 0.0085$ 0.0011$ 0.0004$ 0.0000$ 0.0046$ 0.0048$ 0.0016$ 0.0001$ 0.0185$ 0.0089$ 0.0035$ 0.0004$ 0.0371$20230.0012$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0055$ 0.0019$ 0.0010$ 0.0002$ 0.0087$ 0.0011$ 0.0004$ 0.0000$ 0.0046$ 0.0048$ 0.0017$ 0.0001$ 0.0187$ 0.0090$ 0.0036$ 0.0005$ 0.0375$20240.0012$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0056$ 0.0019$ 0.0010$ 0.0002$ 0.0088$ 0.0011$ 0.0004$ 0.0000$ 0.0047$ 0.0049$ 0.0017$ 0.0001$ 0.0189$ 0.0091$ 0.0037$ 0.0005$ 0.0380$20250.0012$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0057$ 0.0020$ 0.0010$ 0.0002$ 0.0089$ 0.0011$ 0.0004$ 0.0000$ 0.0047$ 0.0050$ 0.0017$ 0.0001$ 0.0191$ 0.0092$ 0.0038$ 0.0005$ 0.0384$20260.0012$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0058$ 0.0020$ 0.0011$ 0.0002$ 0.0091$ 0.0011$ 0.0004$ 0.0000$ 0.0048$ 0.0050$ 0.0017$ 0.0001$ 0.0192$ 0.0094$ 0.0038$ 0.0005$ 0.0388$20270.0013$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0059$ 0.0020$ 0.0011$ 0.0002$ 0.0092$ 0.0011$ 0.0004$ 0.0000$ 0.0048$ 0.0051$ 0.0018$ 0.0001$ 0.0194$ 0.0095$ 0.0039$ 0.0005$ 0.0394$20280.0013$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0060$ 0.0021$ 0.0011$ 0.0002$ 0.0094$ 0.0011$ 0.0004$ 0.0000$ 0.0048$ 0.0051$ 0.0018$ 0.0001$ 0.0196$ 0.0096$ 0.0039$ 0.0005$ 0.0399$20290.0013$ 0.0007$ 0.0001$ 0.0061$ 0.0021$ 0.0011$ 0.0002$ 0.0095$ 0.0011$ 0.0004$ 0.0000$ 0.0049$ 0.0052$ 0.0018$ 0.0001$ 0.0200$ 0.0097$ 0.0040$ 0.0005$ 0.0406$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source:>16 yearsMeanValueMedianValueExhibit C.3n Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving 50,001-100,000 (Echovirus)YearValue of Illnesses Avoided Value of Deaths AvoidedTotal Benefits0 -16 years >16 yearsMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 -16 years90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueGWR Benefits Model.Economic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-36October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0010$ 0.0009$ 0.0003$ 0.0018$ 0.0006$ 0.0005$ 0.0002$ 0.0011$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0001$ 0.0002$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0006$ 0.0018$ 0.0016$ 0.0006$ 0.0038$20090.0033$ 0.0030$ 0.0011$ 0.0061$ 0.0019$ 0.0016$ 0.0007$ 0.0040$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0005$ 0.0008$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0021$ 0.0062$ 0.0052$ 0.0019$ 0.0126$20100.0058$ 0.0054$ 0.0020$ 0.0111$ 0.0035$ 0.0029$ 0.0012$ 0.0072$ 0.0003$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0008$ 0.0014$ 0.0009$ 0.0001$ 0.0036$ 0.0110$ 0.0093$ 0.0034$ 0.0227$20110.0083$ 0.0075$ 0.0029$ 0.0156$ 0.0049$ 0.0041$ 0.0018$ 0.0103$ 0.0004$ 0.0003$ 0.0000$ 0.0012$ 0.0019$ 0.0013$ 0.0002$ 0.0051$ 0.0155$ 0.0131$ 0.0049$ 0.0322$20120.0107$ 0.0098$ 0.0038$ 0.0199$ 0.0063$ 0.0053$ 0.0023$ 0.0131$ 0.0005$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0015$ 0.0025$ 0.0016$ 0.0002$ 0.0065$ 0.0200$ 0.0172$ 0.0065$ 0.0411$20130.0135$ 0.0126$ 0.0049$ 0.0249$ 0.0080$ 0.0069$ 0.0029$ 0.0164$ 0.0007$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0019$ 0.0031$ 0.0021$ 0.0003$ 0.0088$ 0.0253$ 0.0220$ 0.0082$ 0.0520$20140.0163$ 0.0151$ 0.0059$ 0.0302$ 0.0098$ 0.0084$ 0.0035$ 0.0198$ 0.0008$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0023$ 0.0038$ 0.0025$ 0.0004$ 0.0105$ 0.0307$ 0.0265$ 0.0098$ 0.0628$20150.0192$ 0.0179$ 0.0070$ 0.0352$ 0.0115$ 0.0099$ 0.0042$ 0.0231$ 0.0009$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0026$ 0.0044$ 0.0029$ 0.0004$ 0.0122$ 0.0361$ 0.0312$ 0.0117$ 0.0732$20160.0221$ 0.0206$ 0.0080$ 0.0405$ 0.0133$ 0.0114$ 0.0049$ 0.0265$ 0.0011$ 0.0007$ 0.0001$ 0.0030$ 0.0051$ 0.0033$ 0.0005$ 0.0140$ 0.0415$ 0.0360$ 0.0135$ 0.0839$20170.0234$ 0.0217$ 0.0083$ 0.0429$ 0.0139$ 0.0119$ 0.0050$ 0.0287$ 0.0011$ 0.0008$ 0.0001$ 0.0032$ 0.0052$ 0.0033$ 0.0005$ 0.0150$ 0.0436$ 0.0378$ 0.0139$ 0.0898$20180.0239$ 0.0222$ 0.0085$ 0.0436$ 0.0141$ 0.0121$ 0.0051$ 0.0292$ 0.0011$ 0.0008$ 0.0001$ 0.0032$ 0.0053$ 0.0034$ 0.0005$ 0.0152$ 0.0445$ 0.0386$ 0.0142$ 0.0912$20190.0243$ 0.0228$ 0.0087$ 0.0444$ 0.0144$ 0.0124$ 0.0052$ 0.0297$ 0.0011$ 0.0008$ 0.0001$ 0.0033$ 0.0054$ 0.0035$ 0.0005$ 0.0154$ 0.0453$ 0.0395$ 0.0146$ 0.0927$20200.0251$ 0.0232$ 0.0089$ 0.0459$ 0.0149$ 0.0129$ 0.0053$ 0.0310$ 0.0012$ 0.0008$ 0.0001$ 0.0033$ 0.0055$ 0.0036$ 0.0005$ 0.0159$ 0.0467$ 0.0405$ 0.0149$ 0.0962$20210.0260$ 0.0244$ 0.0093$ 0.0473$ 0.0154$ 0.0132$ 0.0057$ 0.0319$ 0.0012$ 0.0008$ 0.0001$ 0.0034$ 0.0057$ 0.0037$ 0.0005$ 0.0161$ 0.0483$ 0.0422$ 0.0156$ 0.0988$20220.0266$ 0.0249$ 0.0096$ 0.0486$ 0.0157$ 0.0135$ 0.0058$ 0.0325$ 0.0012$ 0.0008$ 0.0001$ 0.0035$ 0.0057$ 0.0037$ 0.0005$ 0.0163$ 0.0492$ 0.0430$ 0.0160$ 0.1009$20230.0270$ 0.0253$ 0.0098$ 0.0494$ 0.0160$ 0.0138$ 0.0059$ 0.0330$ 0.0012$ 0.0009$ 0.0001$ 0.0035$ 0.0058$ 0.0038$ 0.0005$ 0.0165$ 0.0501$ 0.0438$ 0.0163$ 0.1024$20240.0282$ 0.0266$ 0.0101$ 0.0507$ 0.0166$ 0.0143$ 0.0061$ 0.0336$ 0.0013$ 0.0009$ 0.0001$ 0.0036$ 0.0060$ 0.0039$ 0.0006$ 0.0168$ 0.0521$ 0.0457$ 0.0169$ 0.1046$20250.0289$ 0.0273$ 0.0103$ 0.0517$ 0.0171$ 0.0146$ 0.0062$ 0.0348$ 0.0013$ 0.0009$ 0.0001$ 0.0037$ 0.0061$ 0.0040$ 0.0006$ 0.0170$ 0.0534$ 0.0469$ 0.0172$ 0.1072$20260.0295$ 0.0278$ 0.0105$ 0.0527$ 0.0174$ 0.0150$ 0.0063$ 0.0354$ 0.0013$ 0.0009$ 0.0001$ 0.0037$ 0.0062$ 0.0041$ 0.0006$ 0.0174$ 0.0544$ 0.0478$ 0.0176$ 0.1091$20270.0302$ 0.0287$ 0.0108$ 0.0537$ 0.0178$ 0.0153$ 0.0065$ 0.0359$ 0.0013$ 0.0009$ 0.0001$ 0.0038$ 0.0063$ 0.0042$ 0.0006$ 0.0178$ 0.0556$ 0.0491$ 0.0180$ 0.1112$20280.0307$ 0.0292$ 0.0110$ 0.0546$ 0.0181$ 0.0156$ 0.0066$ 0.0365$ 0.0013$ 0.0009$ 0.0001$ 0.0038$ 0.0063$ 0.0042$ 0.0006$ 0.0182$ 0.0565$ 0.0500$ 0.0184$ 0.1131$20290.0314$ 0.0299$ 0.0112$ 0.0560$ 0.0185$ 0.0160$ 0.0068$ 0.0371$ 0.0014$ 0.0009$ 0.0001$ 0.0039$ 0.0064$ 0.0043$ 0.0006$ 0.0185$ 0.0577$ 0.0511$ 0.0187$ 0.1156$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source:> 15 yrsMeanValueMedianValueExhibit C.3o Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving 100,001-1,000,000 (Rotavirus)YearValue of Illnesses Avoided Value of Deaths AvoidedTotal Benefits0 - 15 years > 15 yrsMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 - 15 years90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueGWR Benefits Model.Economic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-37October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0003$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0011$ 0.0007$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0021$20090.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0010$ 0.0004$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0014$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0011$ 0.0014$ 0.0004$ 0.0000$ 0.0040$ 0.0024$ 0.0008$ 0.0001$ 0.0076$20100.0004$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0016$ 0.0006$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0023$ 0.0005$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0019$ 0.0023$ 0.0007$ 0.0000$ 0.0066$ 0.0039$ 0.0014$ 0.0002$ 0.0123$20110.0005$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0022$ 0.0009$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0032$ 0.0008$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0027$ 0.0032$ 0.0009$ 0.0001$ 0.0096$ 0.0054$ 0.0019$ 0.0002$ 0.0178$20120.0007$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0029$ 0.0011$ 0.0007$ 0.0001$ 0.0042$ 0.0010$ 0.0003$ 0.0000$ 0.0034$ 0.0041$ 0.0012$ 0.0001$ 0.0121$ 0.0069$ 0.0025$ 0.0003$ 0.0226$20130.0009$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0036$ 0.0014$ 0.0008$ 0.0002$ 0.0052$ 0.0012$ 0.0004$ 0.0000$ 0.0043$ 0.0052$ 0.0015$ 0.0001$ 0.0151$ 0.0087$ 0.0032$ 0.0004$ 0.0282$20140.0010$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0043$ 0.0017$ 0.0010$ 0.0002$ 0.0062$ 0.0014$ 0.0004$ 0.0000$ 0.0051$ 0.0061$ 0.0018$ 0.0001$ 0.0178$ 0.0103$ 0.0038$ 0.0005$ 0.0333$20150.0012$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0052$ 0.0020$ 0.0012$ 0.0003$ 0.0075$ 0.0017$ 0.0005$ 0.0000$ 0.0059$ 0.0071$ 0.0021$ 0.0002$ 0.0206$ 0.0120$ 0.0044$ 0.0006$ 0.0392$20160.0014$ 0.0007$ 0.0001$ 0.0060$ 0.0023$ 0.0013$ 0.0003$ 0.0086$ 0.0019$ 0.0006$ 0.0000$ 0.0067$ 0.0081$ 0.0024$ 0.0002$ 0.0234$ 0.0137$ 0.0051$ 0.0007$ 0.0447$20170.0016$ 0.0008$ 0.0002$ 0.0078$ 0.0026$ 0.0014$ 0.0003$ 0.0114$ 0.0021$ 0.0006$ 0.0000$ 0.0075$ 0.0088$ 0.0026$ 0.0002$ 0.0270$ 0.0150$ 0.0054$ 0.0007$ 0.0537$20180.0016$ 0.0008$ 0.0002$ 0.0079$ 0.0026$ 0.0014$ 0.0003$ 0.0115$ 0.0021$ 0.0006$ 0.0000$ 0.0075$ 0.0089$ 0.0026$ 0.0002$ 0.0274$ 0.0152$ 0.0055$ 0.0007$ 0.0544$20190.0017$ 0.0008$ 0.0002$ 0.0081$ 0.0027$ 0.0014$ 0.0003$ 0.0117$ 0.0021$ 0.0006$ 0.0000$ 0.0076$ 0.0089$ 0.0027$ 0.0002$ 0.0277$ 0.0154$ 0.0056$ 0.0007$ 0.0551$20200.0017$ 0.0008$ 0.0002$ 0.0083$ 0.0028$ 0.0015$ 0.0003$ 0.0123$ 0.0022$ 0.0007$ 0.0000$ 0.0081$ 0.0092$ 0.0027$ 0.0002$ 0.0292$ 0.0159$ 0.0057$ 0.0007$ 0.0579$20210.0018$ 0.0009$ 0.0002$ 0.0085$ 0.0028$ 0.0016$ 0.0003$ 0.0125$ 0.0022$ 0.0007$ 0.0000$ 0.0082$ 0.0094$ 0.0028$ 0.0002$ 0.0294$ 0.0162$ 0.0059$ 0.0008$ 0.0586$20220.0018$ 0.0009$ 0.0002$ 0.0086$ 0.0029$ 0.0016$ 0.0003$ 0.0127$ 0.0023$ 0.0007$ 0.0000$ 0.0083$ 0.0095$ 0.0028$ 0.0002$ 0.0297$ 0.0164$ 0.0060$ 0.0008$ 0.0592$20230.0018$ 0.0009$ 0.0002$ 0.0087$ 0.0029$ 0.0016$ 0.0003$ 0.0129$ 0.0023$ 0.0007$ 0.0000$ 0.0083$ 0.0096$ 0.0028$ 0.0002$ 0.0299$ 0.0166$ 0.0060$ 0.0008$ 0.0598$20240.0019$ 0.0009$ 0.0002$ 0.0089$ 0.0030$ 0.0017$ 0.0004$ 0.0131$ 0.0023$ 0.0007$ 0.0000$ 0.0084$ 0.0097$ 0.0029$ 0.0002$ 0.0301$ 0.0169$ 0.0062$ 0.0008$ 0.0605$20250.0019$ 0.0010$ 0.0002$ 0.0090$ 0.0031$ 0.0017$ 0.0004$ 0.0133$ 0.0023$ 0.0007$ 0.0000$ 0.0085$ 0.0098$ 0.0029$ 0.0002$ 0.0305$ 0.0171$ 0.0063$ 0.0008$ 0.0613$20260.0020$ 0.0010$ 0.0002$ 0.0092$ 0.0031$ 0.0017$ 0.0004$ 0.0135$ 0.0024$ 0.0007$ 0.0000$ 0.0086$ 0.0099$ 0.0030$ 0.0002$ 0.0307$ 0.0173$ 0.0064$ 0.0008$ 0.0619$20270.0020$ 0.0010$ 0.0002$ 0.0093$ 0.0032$ 0.0018$ 0.0004$ 0.0137$ 0.0024$ 0.0007$ 0.0000$ 0.0086$ 0.0100$ 0.0030$ 0.0002$ 0.0309$ 0.0175$ 0.0065$ 0.0008$ 0.0626$20280.0020$ 0.0010$ 0.0002$ 0.0095$ 0.0032$ 0.0018$ 0.0004$ 0.0139$ 0.0024$ 0.0007$ 0.0000$ 0.0087$ 0.0101$ 0.0030$ 0.0002$ 0.0312$ 0.0177$ 0.0066$ 0.0009$ 0.0633$20290.0021$ 0.0010$ 0.0002$ 0.0097$ 0.0033$ 0.0019$ 0.0004$ 0.0142$ 0.0024$ 0.0008$ 0.0001$ 0.0088$ 0.0102$ 0.0031$ 0.0002$ 0.0314$ 0.0180$ 0.0068$ 0.0009$ 0.0640$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source:>16 yearsMeanValueMedianValueExhibit C.3p Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving 100,001-1,000,000 (Echovirus)YearValue of Illnesses Avoided Value of Deaths AvoidedTotal Benefits0 -16 years >16 yearsMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 -16 years90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueGWR Benefits Model.Economic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-38October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2008-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2009-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2010-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2011-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2012-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2013-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2014-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2015-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2016-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2017-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2018-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2019-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2020-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2021-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2022-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2023-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2024-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2025-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2026-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2027-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2028-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2029-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source:> 15 yrsMeanValueMedianValueExhibit C.3q Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving >1,000,000 (Rotavirus)YearValue of Illnesses Avoided Value of Deaths AvoidedTotal Benefits0 - 15 years > 15 yrsMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 - 15 years90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueGWR Benefits Model.Economic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-39October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2008-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2009-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2010-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2011-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2012-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2013-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2014-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2015-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2016-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2017-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2018-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2019-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2020-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2021-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2022-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2023-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2024-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2025-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2026-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2027-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2028-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2029-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source:>16 yearsMeanValueMedianValueExhibit C.3r Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving >1,000,000 (Echovirus)YearValue of Illnesses Avoided Value of Deaths AvoidedTotal Benefits0 -16 years >16 yearsMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 -16 years90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueGWR Benefits Model.Economic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-40October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$20090.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.2$20100.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$20110.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.2$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.5$20120.3$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 1.0$20130.4$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.8$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.5$ 0.6$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 1.4$20140.5$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 1.1$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.7$ 0.7$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.8$20150.7$ 0.6$ 0.3$ 1.3$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.9$ 0.9$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 2.2$20160.8$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 1.6$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 1.0$ 1.1$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 2.5$20170.9$ 0.8$ 0.4$ 1.8$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 1.1$ 1.2$ 1.0$ 0.4$ 3.0$20180.9$ 0.8$ 0.4$ 1.9$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 1.2$ 1.3$ 1.0$ 0.4$ 3.1$20191.0$ 0.9$ 0.4$ 2.0$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 1.3$ 1.4$ 1.1$ 0.4$ 3.3$20201.0$ 0.9$ 0.4$ 2.1$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 1.3$ 1.5$ 1.1$ 0.5$ 3.4$20211.1$ 1.0$ 0.5$ 2.2$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 1.4$ 1.6$ 1.2$ 0.5$ 3.6$20221.2$ 1.1$ 0.5$ 2.5$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.0$ 1.6$ 1.7$ 1.3$ 0.6$ 4.0$20231.3$ 1.1$ 0.5$ 2.5$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.0$ 1.6$ 1.7$ 1.4$ 0.6$ 4.1$20241.3$ 1.1$ 0.6$ 2.6$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.0$ 1.6$ 1.8$ 1.4$ 0.6$ 4.2$20251.3$ 1.2$ 0.6$ 2.7$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.0$ 1.7$ 1.8$ 1.5$ 0.6$ 4.3$20261.4$ 1.3$ 0.6$ 2.8$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.0$ 1.8$ 1.9$ 1.5$ 0.6$ 4.6$20271.5$ 1.3$ 0.6$ 2.9$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.0$ 1.8$ 2.0$ 1.6$ 0.7$ 4.7$20281.5$ 1.3$ 0.6$ 3.0$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.0$ 1.8$ 2.0$ 1.6$ 0.7$ 4.8$20291.6$ 1.4$ 0.7$ 3.1$ 0.6$ 0.3$ 0.0$ 1.9$ 2.1$ 1.7$ 0.7$ 4.9$Source: GWR Benefits Model.90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundExhibit C.4a Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for All NTNCWSsYearTotal - Illness Total - Deaths Total BenefitsMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-41October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$20090.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.2$20100.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$20110.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.4$20120.3$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.8$20130.3$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.7$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.4$ 0.5$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 1.1$20140.4$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.8$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.5$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 1.3$20150.5$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 1.0$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.6$ 0.7$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 1.6$20160.6$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 1.1$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.7$ 0.8$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.8$20170.6$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 1.3$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.8$ 0.9$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 2.1$20180.6$ 0.6$ 0.3$ 1.3$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.8$ 0.9$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 2.1$20190.7$ 0.6$ 0.3$ 1.3$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.8$ 0.9$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 2.2$20200.7$ 0.6$ 0.3$ 1.3$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.8$ 0.9$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 2.2$20210.7$ 0.6$ 0.3$ 1.4$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.9$ 1.0$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 2.3$20220.7$ 0.6$ 0.3$ 1.5$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 1.0$ 1.0$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 2.4$20230.7$ 0.6$ 0.3$ 1.5$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.9$ 1.0$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 2.4$20240.7$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 1.5$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.9$ 1.0$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 2.4$20250.7$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 1.5$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.9$ 1.0$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 2.4$20260.8$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 1.5$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.9$ 1.0$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 2.5$20270.8$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 1.5$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.9$ 1.0$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 2.4$20280.8$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 1.5$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.9$ 1.0$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 2.4$20290.8$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 1.5$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.9$ 1.0$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 2.4$Total11.6$ 10.2$ 4.8$ 23.2$ 4.4$ 2.4$ 0.3$ 14.6$ 16.1$ 12.6$ 5.1$ 37.8$Ann0.7$ 0.6$ 0.3$ 1.3$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.8$ 0.9$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 2.2$Notes: Details may not sum due to rounding and individual statistical analyses.Source:Exhibit C.4b Present Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year at 3 Percent, for All NTNCWSsYearTotal - Illness Total - Death Total BenefitsMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueGWR Benefits Model.90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-42October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$20090.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$20100.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$20110.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$20120.2$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.6$20130.2$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 0.3$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.8$20140.3$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.6$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 1.0$20150.3$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.7$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.4$ 0.5$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 1.1$20160.4$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.7$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.5$ 0.5$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 1.2$20170.4$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.8$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.5$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 1.3$20180.4$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.8$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.5$ 0.5$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 1.3$20190.4$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.8$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.5$ 0.5$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 1.3$20200.4$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.8$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.5$ 0.5$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 1.2$20210.4$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.8$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.5$ 0.5$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 1.2$20220.4$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.8$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.5$ 0.5$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 1.3$20230.4$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.7$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.5$ 0.5$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 1.2$20240.4$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.7$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.5$ 0.5$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 1.2$20250.3$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.7$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.4$ 0.5$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 1.1$20260.3$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.7$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.4$ 0.5$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 1.1$20270.3$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.7$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.4$ 0.5$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 1.1$20280.3$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 1.0$20290.3$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 1.0$Total6.3$ 5.6$ 2.6$ 12.7$ 2.4$ 1.3$ 0.2$ 8.0$ 8.8$ 6.9$ 2.8$ 20.7$Ann0.5$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 1.1$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.7$ 0.8$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.8$Notes: Details may not sum due to rounding and individual statistical analyses.Source:Exhibit C.4c Present Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year at 7 Percent, for All NTNCWSsYearTotal - Illness Total - Deaths Total BenefitsMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueGWR Benefits Model.90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-43October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0007$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0020$ 0.0006$ 0.0005$ 0.0000$ 0.0018$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0001$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0008$ 0.0016$ 0.0012$ 0.0001$ 0.0048$20090.0035$ 0.0029$ 0.0005$ 0.0081$ 0.0029$ 0.0024$ 0.0004$ 0.0074$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0005$ 0.0012$ 0.0007$ 0.0001$ 0.0036$ 0.0078$ 0.0061$ 0.0009$ 0.0197$20100.0537$ 0.0472$ 0.0163$ 0.1211$ 0.0436$ 0.0385$ 0.0132$ 0.0980$ 0.0028$ 0.0019$ 0.0003$ 0.0075$ 0.0170$ 0.0120$ 0.0016$ 0.0455$ 0.1170$ 0.0995$ 0.0314$ 0.2721$20110.0757$ 0.0676$ 0.0234$ 0.1676$ 0.0611$ 0.0544$ 0.0191$ 0.1349$ 0.0039$ 0.0027$ 0.0004$ 0.0103$ 0.0237$ 0.0167$ 0.0023$ 0.0617$ 0.1644$ 0.1413$ 0.0451$ 0.3743$20120.1259$ 0.1190$ 0.0418$ 0.2359$ 0.1045$ 0.0985$ 0.0336$ 0.2065$ 0.0063$ 0.0047$ 0.0007$ 0.0163$ 0.0397$ 0.0288$ 0.0042$ 0.1017$ 0.2764$ 0.2509$ 0.0802$ 0.5605$20130.1560$ 0.1479$ 0.0537$ 0.2899$ 0.1294$ 0.1220$ 0.0420$ 0.2530$ 0.0077$ 0.0057$ 0.0009$ 0.0199$ 0.0488$ 0.0351$ 0.0053$ 0.1241$ 0.3419$ 0.3108$ 0.1019$ 0.6869$20140.2182$ 0.2071$ 0.0776$ 0.4153$ 0.1787$ 0.1687$ 0.0588$ 0.3374$ 0.0107$ 0.0080$ 0.0012$ 0.0271$ 0.0669$ 0.0485$ 0.0072$ 0.1668$ 0.4745$ 0.4321$ 0.1448$ 0.9466$20150.2643$ 0.2535$ 0.0979$ 0.4935$ 0.2162$ 0.2045$ 0.0729$ 0.3991$ 0.0129$ 0.0095$ 0.0014$ 0.0331$ 0.0806$ 0.0581$ 0.0085$ 0.2038$ 0.5740$ 0.5256$ 0.1807$ 1.1296$20160.3054$ 0.2929$ 0.1139$ 0.5681$ 0.2499$ 0.2368$ 0.0853$ 0.4652$ 0.0148$ 0.0109$ 0.0016$ 0.0378$ 0.0925$ 0.0668$ 0.0097$ 0.2325$ 0.6626$ 0.6073$ 0.2105$ 1.3036$20170.3503$ 0.3332$ 0.1271$ 0.6367$ 0.2834$ 0.2633$ 0.0959$ 0.5314$ 0.0168$ 0.0123$ 0.0018$ 0.0444$ 0.1040$ 0.0754$ 0.0106$ 0.2532$ 0.7545$ 0.6842$ 0.2354$ 1.4657$20180.3674$ 0.3456$ 0.1353$ 0.6583$ 0.2959$ 0.2779$ 0.1022$ 0.5516$ 0.0175$ 0.0129$ 0.0018$ 0.0453$ 0.1079$ 0.0784$ 0.0109$ 0.2597$ 0.7886$ 0.7149$ 0.2502$ 1.5149$20190.3874$ 0.3634$ 0.1441$ 0.6966$ 0.3131$ 0.2974$ 0.1081$ 0.5774$ 0.0183$ 0.0139$ 0.0019$ 0.0471$ 0.1134$ 0.0850$ 0.0121$ 0.2797$ 0.8322$ 0.7597$ 0.2662$ 1.6009$20200.3982$ 0.3754$ 0.1479$ 0.7108$ 0.3218$ 0.3071$ 0.1115$ 0.5888$ 0.0186$ 0.0142$ 0.0020$ 0.0479$ 0.1158$ 0.0874$ 0.0122$ 0.2843$ 0.8544$ 0.7841$ 0.2735$ 1.6318$20210.4446$ 0.4204$ 0.1551$ 0.7942$ 0.3566$ 0.3371$ 0.1218$ 0.6491$ 0.0206$ 0.0157$ 0.0021$ 0.0525$ 0.1272$ 0.0949$ 0.0132$ 0.3350$ 0.9490$ 0.8681$ 0.2922$ 1.8309$20220.4581$ 0.4359$ 0.1598$ 0.8108$ 0.3670$ 0.3487$ 0.1257$ 0.6638$ 0.0210$ 0.0161$ 0.0022$ 0.0535$ 0.1299$ 0.0970$ 0.0134$ 0.3426$ 0.9761$ 0.8977$ 0.3012$ 1.8707$20230.4828$ 0.4637$ 0.1742$ 0.8415$ 0.3865$ 0.3710$ 0.1346$ 0.6884$ 0.0219$ 0.0168$ 0.0023$ 0.0558$ 0.1358$ 0.1017$ 0.0142$ 0.3559$ 1.0270$ 0.9533$ 0.3253$ 1.9416$20240.5020$ 0.4821$ 0.1803$ 0.8737$ 0.4011$ 0.3837$ 0.1391$ 0.7087$ 0.0226$ 0.0173$ 0.0023$ 0.0580$ 0.1399$ 0.1042$ 0.0145$ 0.3659$ 1.0656$ 0.9873$ 0.3363$ 2.0064$20250.5310$ 0.5178$ 0.1963$ 0.9076$ 0.4236$ 0.4138$ 0.1463$ 0.7415$ 0.0238$ 0.0183$ 0.0025$ 0.0624$ 0.1468$ 0.1116$ 0.0150$ 0.3853$ 1.1251$ 1.0615$ 0.3600$ 2.0968$20260.5496$ 0.5357$ 0.2023$ 0.9348$ 0.4385$ 0.4266$ 0.1503$ 0.7738$ 0.0244$ 0.0186$ 0.0025$ 0.0637$ 0.1508$ 0.1163$ 0.0153$ 0.3961$ 1.1633$ 1.0973$ 0.3704$ 2.1684$20270.5814$ 0.5647$ 0.2124$ 0.9924$ 0.4631$ 0.4503$ 0.1565$ 0.8160$ 0.0256$ 0.0196$ 0.0026$ 0.0660$ 0.1580$ 0.1219$ 0.0156$ 0.4081$ 1.2281$ 1.1564$ 0.3871$ 2.2825$20280.5939$ 0.5769$ 0.2171$ 1.0157$ 0.4726$ 0.4599$ 0.1596$ 0.8356$ 0.0259$ 0.0199$ 0.0026$ 0.0667$ 0.1600$ 0.1232$ 0.0158$ 0.4130$ 1.2524$ 1.1798$ 0.3951$ 2.3310$20290.6115$ 0.5946$ 0.2256$ 1.0404$ 0.4861$ 0.4755$ 0.1685$ 0.8630$ 0.0264$ 0.0201$ 0.0027$ 0.0689$ 0.1633$ 0.1257$ 0.0161$ 0.4225$ 1.2873$ 1.2160$ 0.4129$ 2.3947$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source:0 - 15 yearsGWR Benefits Model.MeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound> 15 yrsMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 - 15 years> 15 yrsMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundTotal BenefitsExhibit C.5a Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for TNCWSs Serving <100 (Rotavirus)MeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundValue of Deaths AvoidedYearValue of Illnesses AvoidedEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-44October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0005$20090.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0002$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0004$ 0.0006$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0019$ 0.0011$ 0.0004$ 0.0000$ 0.0030$20100.0016$ 0.0009$ 0.0002$ 0.0056$ 0.0027$ 0.0018$ 0.0004$ 0.0085$ 0.0019$ 0.0009$ 0.0001$ 0.0062$ 0.0082$ 0.0035$ 0.0004$ 0.0255$ 0.0143$ 0.0071$ 0.0011$ 0.0458$20110.0022$ 0.0013$ 0.0003$ 0.0078$ 0.0037$ 0.0024$ 0.0007$ 0.0125$ 0.0027$ 0.0012$ 0.0001$ 0.0086$ 0.0113$ 0.0051$ 0.0005$ 0.0358$ 0.0198$ 0.0100$ 0.0016$ 0.0647$20120.0040$ 0.0024$ 0.0006$ 0.0145$ 0.0067$ 0.0045$ 0.0012$ 0.0226$ 0.0049$ 0.0022$ 0.0002$ 0.0160$ 0.0204$ 0.0097$ 0.0008$ 0.0642$ 0.0359$ 0.0187$ 0.0029$ 0.1173$20130.0049$ 0.0030$ 0.0008$ 0.0184$ 0.0083$ 0.0055$ 0.0015$ 0.0286$ 0.0060$ 0.0027$ 0.0002$ 0.0199$ 0.0252$ 0.0120$ 0.0010$ 0.0816$ 0.0444$ 0.0232$ 0.0036$ 0.1486$20140.0065$ 0.0042$ 0.0012$ 0.0231$ 0.0110$ 0.0077$ 0.0023$ 0.0361$ 0.0079$ 0.0038$ 0.0004$ 0.0265$ 0.0334$ 0.0170$ 0.0014$ 0.1012$ 0.0588$ 0.0326$ 0.0053$ 0.1868$20150.0078$ 0.0050$ 0.0015$ 0.0279$ 0.0132$ 0.0092$ 0.0028$ 0.0432$ 0.0095$ 0.0045$ 0.0004$ 0.0309$ 0.0400$ 0.0203$ 0.0016$ 0.1202$ 0.0705$ 0.0390$ 0.0063$ 0.2221$20160.0090$ 0.0058$ 0.0017$ 0.0320$ 0.0152$ 0.0106$ 0.0032$ 0.0495$ 0.0108$ 0.0052$ 0.0005$ 0.0350$ 0.0456$ 0.0230$ 0.0019$ 0.1373$ 0.0806$ 0.0446$ 0.0073$ 0.2538$20170.0156$ 0.0065$ 0.0019$ 0.0826$ 0.0254$ 0.0123$ 0.0038$ 0.1146$ 0.0183$ 0.0062$ 0.0006$ 0.0654$ 0.0786$ 0.0272$ 0.0023$ 0.2253$ 0.1379$ 0.0521$ 0.0086$ 0.4879$20180.0160$ 0.0067$ 0.0020$ 0.0840$ 0.0259$ 0.0127$ 0.0040$ 0.1164$ 0.0186$ 0.0064$ 0.0006$ 0.0661$ 0.0797$ 0.0277$ 0.0024$ 0.2277$ 0.1401$ 0.0535$ 0.0090$ 0.4943$20190.0169$ 0.0071$ 0.0022$ 0.0872$ 0.0274$ 0.0133$ 0.0043$ 0.1197$ 0.0195$ 0.0067$ 0.0006$ 0.0695$ 0.0834$ 0.0288$ 0.0026$ 0.2463$ 0.1471$ 0.0558$ 0.0097$ 0.5227$20200.0172$ 0.0073$ 0.0022$ 0.0887$ 0.0280$ 0.0137$ 0.0044$ 0.1216$ 0.0197$ 0.0068$ 0.0006$ 0.0700$ 0.0844$ 0.0294$ 0.0027$ 0.2494$ 0.1493$ 0.0571$ 0.0100$ 0.5296$20210.0182$ 0.0079$ 0.0024$ 0.0911$ 0.0295$ 0.0150$ 0.0048$ 0.1256$ 0.0207$ 0.0074$ 0.0007$ 0.0713$ 0.0887$ 0.0319$ 0.0030$ 0.2699$ 0.1570$ 0.0622$ 0.0109$ 0.5580$20220.0187$ 0.0083$ 0.0025$ 0.0927$ 0.0303$ 0.0155$ 0.0050$ 0.1280$ 0.0211$ 0.0077$ 0.0007$ 0.0719$ 0.0905$ 0.0333$ 0.0031$ 0.2799$ 0.1606$ 0.0647$ 0.0114$ 0.5724$20230.0209$ 0.0088$ 0.0026$ 0.1060$ 0.0334$ 0.0164$ 0.0052$ 0.1579$ 0.0234$ 0.0080$ 0.0008$ 0.0786$ 0.1003$ 0.0357$ 0.0033$ 0.2927$ 0.1781$ 0.0690$ 0.0119$ 0.6352$20240.0214$ 0.0091$ 0.0027$ 0.1078$ 0.0342$ 0.0168$ 0.0055$ 0.1603$ 0.0238$ 0.0082$ 0.0008$ 0.0791$ 0.1017$ 0.0366$ 0.0034$ 0.2946$ 0.1811$ 0.0707$ 0.0124$ 0.6418$20250.0222$ 0.0097$ 0.0030$ 0.1105$ 0.0356$ 0.0182$ 0.0059$ 0.1632$ 0.0244$ 0.0088$ 0.0008$ 0.0804$ 0.1047$ 0.0394$ 0.0035$ 0.2991$ 0.1869$ 0.0761$ 0.0132$ 0.6532$20260.0229$ 0.0101$ 0.0031$ 0.1132$ 0.0367$ 0.0188$ 0.0061$ 0.1661$ 0.0251$ 0.0090$ 0.0008$ 0.0818$ 0.1073$ 0.0402$ 0.0036$ 0.3027$ 0.1920$ 0.0781$ 0.0136$ 0.6637$20270.0236$ 0.0106$ 0.0031$ 0.1156$ 0.0378$ 0.0198$ 0.0063$ 0.1694$ 0.0255$ 0.0093$ 0.0009$ 0.0826$ 0.1093$ 0.0416$ 0.0037$ 0.3057$ 0.1962$ 0.0814$ 0.0140$ 0.6733$20280.0240$ 0.0108$ 0.0032$ 0.1179$ 0.0385$ 0.0202$ 0.0065$ 0.1722$ 0.0258$ 0.0095$ 0.0009$ 0.0835$ 0.1107$ 0.0421$ 0.0037$ 0.3106$ 0.1991$ 0.0827$ 0.0143$ 0.6842$20290.0246$ 0.0112$ 0.0033$ 0.1199$ 0.0394$ 0.0207$ 0.0068$ 0.1751$ 0.0262$ 0.0097$ 0.0009$ 0.0842$ 0.1122$ 0.0429$ 0.0038$ 0.3126$ 0.2024$ 0.0845$ 0.0148$ 0.6918$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source:Total BenefitsExhibit C.5b Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for TNCWSs Serving <100 (Echovirus)MeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundValue of Deaths AvoidedYearValue of Illnesses AvoidedMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound>16 yearsMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 -16 yearsGWR Benefits Model.MeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 -16 years>16 yearsMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-45October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0011$ 0.0009$ 0.0001$ 0.0034$ 0.0009$ 0.0007$ 0.0000$ 0.0029$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0002$ 0.0004$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0011$ 0.0025$ 0.0018$ 0.0001$ 0.0076$20090.0057$ 0.0049$ 0.0009$ 0.0132$ 0.0044$ 0.0036$ 0.0006$ 0.0111$ 0.0003$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0009$ 0.0017$ 0.0010$ 0.0001$ 0.0060$ 0.0120$ 0.0096$ 0.0016$ 0.0312$20100.0787$ 0.0637$ 0.0255$ 0.1821$ 0.0630$ 0.0521$ 0.0204$ 0.1488$ 0.0040$ 0.0027$ 0.0004$ 0.0108$ 0.0245$ 0.0175$ 0.0022$ 0.0655$ 0.1702$ 0.1360$ 0.0484$ 0.4073$20110.1107$ 0.0903$ 0.0360$ 0.2524$ 0.0882$ 0.0734$ 0.0300$ 0.2075$ 0.0056$ 0.0039$ 0.0005$ 0.0155$ 0.0341$ 0.0248$ 0.0030$ 0.0932$ 0.2385$ 0.1924$ 0.0695$ 0.5685$20120.1843$ 0.1700$ 0.0697$ 0.3449$ 0.1495$ 0.1298$ 0.0522$ 0.3059$ 0.0092$ 0.0067$ 0.0009$ 0.0255$ 0.0573$ 0.0417$ 0.0053$ 0.1531$ 0.4003$ 0.3483$ 0.1281$ 0.8294$20130.2281$ 0.2112$ 0.0880$ 0.4241$ 0.1852$ 0.1621$ 0.0659$ 0.3759$ 0.0113$ 0.0082$ 0.0011$ 0.0312$ 0.0704$ 0.0512$ 0.0064$ 0.1875$ 0.4950$ 0.4327$ 0.1615$ 1.0188$20140.3218$ 0.2989$ 0.1217$ 0.6171$ 0.2570$ 0.2262$ 0.0921$ 0.5072$ 0.0159$ 0.0112$ 0.0015$ 0.0459$ 0.0978$ 0.0693$ 0.0087$ 0.2789$ 0.6925$ 0.6056$ 0.2241$ 1.4491$20150.3851$ 0.3627$ 0.1477$ 0.7254$ 0.3075$ 0.2750$ 0.1087$ 0.5984$ 0.0189$ 0.0133$ 0.0018$ 0.0537$ 0.1162$ 0.0821$ 0.0103$ 0.3238$ 0.8277$ 0.7331$ 0.2685$ 1.7013$20160.4905$ 0.4606$ 0.1878$ 0.8960$ 0.3851$ 0.3533$ 0.1361$ 0.7464$ 0.0239$ 0.0166$ 0.0024$ 0.0659$ 0.1444$ 0.1010$ 0.0127$ 0.3968$ 1.0439$ 0.9316$ 0.3389$ 2.1050$20170.5011$ 0.4698$ 0.1948$ 0.9137$ 0.3934$ 0.3621$ 0.1389$ 0.7602$ 0.0242$ 0.0167$ 0.0024$ 0.0669$ 0.1465$ 0.1036$ 0.0128$ 0.3984$ 1.0652$ 0.9522$ 0.3490$ 2.1392$20180.5335$ 0.5055$ 0.2089$ 0.9497$ 0.4192$ 0.3856$ 0.1520$ 0.8009$ 0.0256$ 0.0177$ 0.0025$ 0.0707$ 0.1550$ 0.1077$ 0.0138$ 0.4166$ 1.1332$ 1.0166$ 0.3773$ 2.2378$20190.5505$ 0.5208$ 0.2170$ 0.9799$ 0.4327$ 0.3982$ 0.1608$ 0.8276$ 0.0261$ 0.0181$ 0.0026$ 0.0718$ 0.1587$ 0.1110$ 0.0141$ 0.4258$ 1.1680$ 1.0481$ 0.3945$ 2.3051$20200.6048$ 0.5724$ 0.2341$ 1.0739$ 0.4794$ 0.4325$ 0.1738$ 0.8765$ 0.0284$ 0.0198$ 0.0028$ 0.0775$ 0.1737$ 0.1216$ 0.0157$ 0.4757$ 1.2863$ 1.1463$ 0.4264$ 2.5036$20210.6231$ 0.5919$ 0.2392$ 1.0966$ 0.4939$ 0.4477$ 0.1790$ 0.8978$ 0.0290$ 0.0206$ 0.0028$ 0.0791$ 0.1777$ 0.1255$ 0.0159$ 0.4925$ 1.3238$ 1.1857$ 0.4370$ 2.5661$20220.6439$ 0.6085$ 0.2472$ 1.1281$ 0.5091$ 0.4627$ 0.1854$ 0.9157$ 0.0297$ 0.0213$ 0.0029$ 0.0813$ 0.1818$ 0.1291$ 0.0163$ 0.5027$ 1.3645$ 1.2216$ 0.4517$ 2.6278$20230.6817$ 0.6506$ 0.2673$ 1.1821$ 0.5403$ 0.4939$ 0.1994$ 0.9767$ 0.0313$ 0.0223$ 0.0030$ 0.0839$ 0.1915$ 0.1361$ 0.0176$ 0.5354$ 1.4448$ 1.3029$ 0.4874$ 2.7781$20240.7072$ 0.6748$ 0.2755$ 1.2193$ 0.5596$ 0.5108$ 0.2049$ 1.0009$ 0.0321$ 0.0228$ 0.0031$ 0.0864$ 0.1970$ 0.1397$ 0.0178$ 0.5507$ 1.4959$ 1.3481$ 0.5013$ 2.8573$20250.7434$ 0.7206$ 0.2947$ 1.2674$ 0.5877$ 0.5495$ 0.2216$ 1.0386$ 0.0336$ 0.0244$ 0.0034$ 0.0892$ 0.2059$ 0.1489$ 0.0196$ 0.5795$ 1.5706$ 1.4435$ 0.5393$ 2.9747$20260.7715$ 0.7496$ 0.3024$ 1.3153$ 0.6100$ 0.5815$ 0.2271$ 1.0738$ 0.0346$ 0.0253$ 0.0034$ 0.0919$ 0.2122$ 0.1546$ 0.0199$ 0.5915$ 1.6283$ 1.5110$ 0.5528$ 3.0725$20270.8138$ 0.7911$ 0.3168$ 1.3996$ 0.6452$ 0.6051$ 0.2356$ 1.1389$ 0.0362$ 0.0262$ 0.0035$ 0.0979$ 0.2230$ 0.1657$ 0.0206$ 0.6081$ 1.7182$ 1.5881$ 0.5766$ 3.2445$20280.8317$ 0.8080$ 0.3242$ 1.4310$ 0.6591$ 0.6199$ 0.2406$ 1.1642$ 0.0367$ 0.0265$ 0.0036$ 0.0993$ 0.2261$ 0.1674$ 0.0209$ 0.6147$ 1.7536$ 1.6219$ 0.5892$ 3.3093$20290.8528$ 0.8289$ 0.3350$ 1.4683$ 0.6756$ 0.6349$ 0.2455$ 1.1866$ 0.0373$ 0.0270$ 0.0036$ 0.1012$ 0.2299$ 0.1700$ 0.0214$ 0.6269$ 1.7956$ 1.6609$ 0.6055$ 3.3829$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source:Total BenefitsExhibit C.5c Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for TNCWSs Serving 101-500 (Rotavirus)MeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundValue of Deaths AvoidedYearValue of Illnesses AvoidedMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound> 15 yrsMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 - 15 yearsGWR Benefits Model.MeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 - 15 years> 15 yrsMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-46October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0004$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0007$20090.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0008$ 0.0004$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0014$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0011$ 0.0013$ 0.0003$ 0.0000$ 0.0032$ 0.0021$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0065$20100.0022$ 0.0014$ 0.0003$ 0.0068$ 0.0038$ 0.0026$ 0.0007$ 0.0117$ 0.0027$ 0.0012$ 0.0002$ 0.0098$ 0.0115$ 0.0050$ 0.0007$ 0.0436$ 0.0201$ 0.0102$ 0.0019$ 0.0720$20110.0030$ 0.0020$ 0.0005$ 0.0093$ 0.0052$ 0.0036$ 0.0010$ 0.0166$ 0.0037$ 0.0017$ 0.0002$ 0.0135$ 0.0159$ 0.0070$ 0.0010$ 0.0591$ 0.0279$ 0.0143$ 0.0027$ 0.0984$20120.0052$ 0.0035$ 0.0009$ 0.0150$ 0.0092$ 0.0065$ 0.0019$ 0.0278$ 0.0064$ 0.0032$ 0.0004$ 0.0206$ 0.0272$ 0.0132$ 0.0019$ 0.0954$ 0.0481$ 0.0265$ 0.0051$ 0.1588$20130.0065$ 0.0044$ 0.0012$ 0.0191$ 0.0114$ 0.0080$ 0.0024$ 0.0356$ 0.0080$ 0.0040$ 0.0005$ 0.0255$ 0.0339$ 0.0165$ 0.0024$ 0.1165$ 0.0598$ 0.0328$ 0.0065$ 0.1967$20140.0088$ 0.0063$ 0.0018$ 0.0241$ 0.0154$ 0.0114$ 0.0036$ 0.0450$ 0.0106$ 0.0057$ 0.0007$ 0.0334$ 0.0451$ 0.0243$ 0.0033$ 0.1550$ 0.0799$ 0.0477$ 0.0094$ 0.2575$20150.0107$ 0.0074$ 0.0021$ 0.0309$ 0.0187$ 0.0138$ 0.0045$ 0.0541$ 0.0129$ 0.0068$ 0.0009$ 0.0396$ 0.0550$ 0.0291$ 0.0040$ 0.1924$ 0.0973$ 0.0572$ 0.0114$ 0.3169$20160.0212$ 0.0098$ 0.0029$ 0.0881$ 0.0367$ 0.0175$ 0.0057$ 0.1650$ 0.0269$ 0.0093$ 0.0011$ 0.1134$ 0.1121$ 0.0389$ 0.0050$ 0.4849$ 0.1969$ 0.0756$ 0.0146$ 0.8513$20170.0227$ 0.0100$ 0.0029$ 0.0983$ 0.0391$ 0.0179$ 0.0059$ 0.1904$ 0.0287$ 0.0094$ 0.0011$ 0.1194$ 0.1201$ 0.0393$ 0.0050$ 0.5227$ 0.2106$ 0.0766$ 0.0150$ 0.9309$20180.0236$ 0.0104$ 0.0032$ 0.1012$ 0.0407$ 0.0187$ 0.0066$ 0.1955$ 0.0295$ 0.0100$ 0.0012$ 0.1225$ 0.1237$ 0.0415$ 0.0054$ 0.5429$ 0.2175$ 0.0806$ 0.0163$ 0.9621$20190.0244$ 0.0109$ 0.0035$ 0.1030$ 0.0421$ 0.0195$ 0.0068$ 0.1988$ 0.0304$ 0.0103$ 0.0012$ 0.1236$ 0.1271$ 0.0424$ 0.0055$ 0.5785$ 0.2240$ 0.0831$ 0.0170$ 1.0039$20200.0257$ 0.0122$ 0.0038$ 0.1070$ 0.0443$ 0.0217$ 0.0073$ 0.2023$ 0.0315$ 0.0113$ 0.0013$ 0.1247$ 0.1323$ 0.0469$ 0.0059$ 0.5851$ 0.2339$ 0.0921$ 0.0183$ 1.0191$20210.0267$ 0.0126$ 0.0039$ 0.1100$ 0.0459$ 0.0225$ 0.0075$ 0.2098$ 0.0326$ 0.0116$ 0.0014$ 0.1255$ 0.1366$ 0.0497$ 0.0060$ 0.5994$ 0.2418$ 0.0964$ 0.0188$ 1.0448$20220.0274$ 0.0131$ 0.0041$ 0.1120$ 0.0471$ 0.0233$ 0.0078$ 0.2134$ 0.0332$ 0.0120$ 0.0014$ 0.1270$ 0.1391$ 0.0510$ 0.0064$ 0.6085$ 0.2467$ 0.0994$ 0.0197$ 1.0609$20230.0315$ 0.0139$ 0.0043$ 0.1337$ 0.0534$ 0.0246$ 0.0083$ 0.2578$ 0.0384$ 0.0125$ 0.0015$ 0.1557$ 0.1588$ 0.0536$ 0.0067$ 0.6802$ 0.2822$ 0.1046$ 0.0208$ 1.2273$20240.0322$ 0.0143$ 0.0044$ 0.1360$ 0.0547$ 0.0253$ 0.0087$ 0.2624$ 0.0390$ 0.0130$ 0.0015$ 0.1572$ 0.1611$ 0.0551$ 0.0068$ 0.6873$ 0.2870$ 0.1077$ 0.0215$ 1.2429$20250.0334$ 0.0154$ 0.0047$ 0.1391$ 0.0566$ 0.0268$ 0.0092$ 0.2669$ 0.0400$ 0.0136$ 0.0017$ 0.1584$ 0.1653$ 0.0603$ 0.0073$ 0.6929$ 0.2953$ 0.1161$ 0.0228$ 1.2573$20260.0344$ 0.0160$ 0.0048$ 0.1419$ 0.0584$ 0.0278$ 0.0094$ 0.2720$ 0.0409$ 0.0140$ 0.0017$ 0.1607$ 0.1693$ 0.0625$ 0.0075$ 0.7331$ 0.3030$ 0.1202$ 0.0233$ 1.3077$20270.0354$ 0.0169$ 0.0049$ 0.1447$ 0.0600$ 0.0288$ 0.0097$ 0.2777$ 0.0417$ 0.0145$ 0.0018$ 0.1630$ 0.1726$ 0.0641$ 0.0077$ 0.7421$ 0.3098$ 0.1242$ 0.0241$ 1.3275$20280.0361$ 0.0172$ 0.0050$ 0.1473$ 0.0612$ 0.0293$ 0.0099$ 0.2821$ 0.0422$ 0.0147$ 0.0018$ 0.1641$ 0.1746$ 0.0648$ 0.0077$ 0.7577$ 0.3141$ 0.1261$ 0.0245$ 1.3511$20290.0369$ 0.0177$ 0.0052$ 0.1499$ 0.0625$ 0.0302$ 0.0103$ 0.2868$ 0.0427$ 0.0150$ 0.0019$ 0.1654$ 0.1768$ 0.0661$ 0.0079$ 0.7645$ 0.3190$ 0.1289$ 0.0254$ 1.3666$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source:0 -16 yearsGWR Benefits Model.MeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound>16 yearsMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 -16 years>16 yearsMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundTotal BenefitsExhibit C.5d Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for TNCWSs Serving 101-500 (Echovirus)MeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundValue of Deaths AvoidedYearValue of Illnesses AvoidedEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-47October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0005$ 0.0004$ 0.0000$ 0.0013$ 0.0003$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0010$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0005$ 0.0010$ 0.0007$ 0.0000$ 0.0029$20090.0020$ 0.0016$ 0.0003$ 0.0047$ 0.0015$ 0.0012$ 0.0002$ 0.0037$ 0.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0004$ 0.0006$ 0.0003$ 0.0000$ 0.0022$ 0.0042$ 0.0032$ 0.0006$ 0.0109$20100.0317$ 0.0279$ 0.0117$ 0.0690$ 0.0245$ 0.0216$ 0.0081$ 0.0554$ 0.0016$ 0.0011$ 0.0002$ 0.0050$ 0.0097$ 0.0065$ 0.0010$ 0.0292$ 0.0676$ 0.0571$ 0.0210$ 0.1586$20110.0572$ 0.0546$ 0.0220$ 0.1046$ 0.0451$ 0.0412$ 0.0168$ 0.0894$ 0.0029$ 0.0021$ 0.0003$ 0.0087$ 0.0178$ 0.0123$ 0.0020$ 0.0526$ 0.1230$ 0.1102$ 0.0412$ 0.2553$20120.0735$ 0.0701$ 0.0288$ 0.1334$ 0.0579$ 0.0525$ 0.0216$ 0.1148$ 0.0038$ 0.0027$ 0.0004$ 0.0110$ 0.0226$ 0.0158$ 0.0026$ 0.0671$ 0.1578$ 0.1411$ 0.0533$ 0.3262$20130.1072$ 0.0988$ 0.0447$ 0.2019$ 0.0850$ 0.0779$ 0.0331$ 0.1685$ 0.0054$ 0.0037$ 0.0006$ 0.0161$ 0.0327$ 0.0220$ 0.0036$ 0.1004$ 0.2304$ 0.2025$ 0.0820$ 0.4869$20140.1286$ 0.1185$ 0.0536$ 0.2406$ 0.1018$ 0.0932$ 0.0399$ 0.2004$ 0.0064$ 0.0044$ 0.0007$ 0.0192$ 0.0389$ 0.0261$ 0.0042$ 0.1210$ 0.2758$ 0.2422$ 0.0985$ 0.5812$20150.1719$ 0.1598$ 0.0719$ 0.3197$ 0.1364$ 0.1238$ 0.0528$ 0.2670$ 0.0085$ 0.0058$ 0.0010$ 0.0246$ 0.0516$ 0.0347$ 0.0057$ 0.1565$ 0.3684$ 0.3242$ 0.1314$ 0.7679$20160.2016$ 0.1873$ 0.0861$ 0.3706$ 0.1598$ 0.1467$ 0.0636$ 0.3097$ 0.0099$ 0.0069$ 0.0011$ 0.0289$ 0.0600$ 0.0408$ 0.0066$ 0.1821$ 0.4312$ 0.3817$ 0.1574$ 0.8913$20170.2058$ 0.1912$ 0.0879$ 0.3777$ 0.1630$ 0.1496$ 0.0648$ 0.3146$ 0.0100$ 0.0070$ 0.0011$ 0.0293$ 0.0607$ 0.0414$ 0.0067$ 0.1849$ 0.4394$ 0.3891$ 0.1606$ 0.9064$20180.2333$ 0.2186$ 0.0972$ 0.4147$ 0.1834$ 0.1662$ 0.0708$ 0.3428$ 0.0112$ 0.0080$ 0.0012$ 0.0321$ 0.0681$ 0.0474$ 0.0073$ 0.1956$ 0.4961$ 0.4403$ 0.1766$ 0.9852$20190.2403$ 0.2259$ 0.0999$ 0.4256$ 0.1888$ 0.1727$ 0.0728$ 0.3492$ 0.0115$ 0.0082$ 0.0012$ 0.0337$ 0.0696$ 0.0488$ 0.0075$ 0.2107$ 0.5102$ 0.4557$ 0.1814$ 1.0193$20200.2544$ 0.2410$ 0.1102$ 0.4421$ 0.2004$ 0.1849$ 0.0802$ 0.3608$ 0.0120$ 0.0087$ 0.0013$ 0.0347$ 0.0731$ 0.0505$ 0.0080$ 0.2178$ 0.5399$ 0.4851$ 0.1997$ 1.0554$20210.2686$ 0.2529$ 0.1196$ 0.4585$ 0.2113$ 0.1957$ 0.0868$ 0.3778$ 0.0126$ 0.0091$ 0.0014$ 0.0356$ 0.0765$ 0.0541$ 0.0088$ 0.2236$ 0.5689$ 0.5118$ 0.2166$ 1.0955$20220.2766$ 0.2594$ 0.1228$ 0.4701$ 0.2170$ 0.1998$ 0.0888$ 0.3919$ 0.0129$ 0.0093$ 0.0015$ 0.0365$ 0.0779$ 0.0549$ 0.0091$ 0.2285$ 0.5844$ 0.5233$ 0.2222$ 1.1270$20230.2890$ 0.2694$ 0.1282$ 0.4891$ 0.2268$ 0.2094$ 0.0923$ 0.4071$ 0.0133$ 0.0096$ 0.0015$ 0.0378$ 0.0808$ 0.0565$ 0.0095$ 0.2387$ 0.6099$ 0.5449$ 0.2315$ 1.1728$20240.2998$ 0.2802$ 0.1329$ 0.5056$ 0.2350$ 0.2166$ 0.0948$ 0.4189$ 0.0137$ 0.0098$ 0.0016$ 0.0387$ 0.0830$ 0.0579$ 0.0097$ 0.2442$ 0.6315$ 0.5645$ 0.2390$ 1.2073$20250.3178$ 0.2997$ 0.1435$ 0.5387$ 0.2489$ 0.2316$ 0.1022$ 0.4440$ 0.0144$ 0.0103$ 0.0017$ 0.0401$ 0.0872$ 0.0608$ 0.0103$ 0.2574$ 0.6682$ 0.6025$ 0.2577$ 1.2802$20260.3301$ 0.3128$ 0.1494$ 0.5542$ 0.2584$ 0.2421$ 0.1065$ 0.4602$ 0.0148$ 0.0106$ 0.0017$ 0.0413$ 0.0898$ 0.0623$ 0.0106$ 0.2654$ 0.6931$ 0.6277$ 0.2682$ 1.3210$20270.3403$ 0.3237$ 0.1531$ 0.5720$ 0.2656$ 0.2508$ 0.1107$ 0.4713$ 0.0151$ 0.0108$ 0.0017$ 0.0426$ 0.0916$ 0.0634$ 0.0109$ 0.2708$ 0.7126$ 0.6486$ 0.2765$ 1.3567$20280.3492$ 0.3316$ 0.1568$ 0.5852$ 0.2730$ 0.2570$ 0.1131$ 0.4875$ 0.0154$ 0.0110$ 0.0018$ 0.0437$ 0.0934$ 0.0652$ 0.0111$ 0.2778$ 0.7309$ 0.6647$ 0.2828$ 1.3943$20290.3567$ 0.3396$ 0.1603$ 0.5961$ 0.2787$ 0.2634$ 0.1152$ 0.4986$ 0.0156$ 0.0111$ 0.0018$ 0.0443$ 0.0946$ 0.0658$ 0.0112$ 0.2797$ 0.7456$ 0.6799$ 0.2884$ 1.4186$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source:0 - 15 yearsGWR Benefits Model.MeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound> 15 yrsMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 - 15 years> 15 yrsMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundTotal BenefitsExhibit C.5e Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for TNCWSs Serving 501-1,000 (Rotavirus)MeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundValue of Deaths AvoidedYearValue of Illnesses AvoidedEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-48October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0002$20090.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0003$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0010$ 0.0008$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0017$20100.0009$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0035$ 0.0015$ 0.0009$ 0.0002$ 0.0049$ 0.0011$ 0.0005$ 0.0000$ 0.0035$ 0.0045$ 0.0017$ 0.0002$ 0.0149$ 0.0081$ 0.0036$ 0.0005$ 0.0268$20110.0017$ 0.0009$ 0.0003$ 0.0065$ 0.0030$ 0.0017$ 0.0005$ 0.0094$ 0.0022$ 0.0009$ 0.0001$ 0.0071$ 0.0088$ 0.0036$ 0.0005$ 0.0294$ 0.0157$ 0.0070$ 0.0013$ 0.0524$20120.0022$ 0.0012$ 0.0003$ 0.0083$ 0.0038$ 0.0021$ 0.0006$ 0.0122$ 0.0028$ 0.0012$ 0.0001$ 0.0091$ 0.0113$ 0.0046$ 0.0006$ 0.0377$ 0.0201$ 0.0091$ 0.0017$ 0.0673$20130.0031$ 0.0017$ 0.0005$ 0.0113$ 0.0052$ 0.0031$ 0.0010$ 0.0164$ 0.0038$ 0.0017$ 0.0002$ 0.0119$ 0.0154$ 0.0066$ 0.0008$ 0.0495$ 0.0275$ 0.0131$ 0.0024$ 0.0890$20140.0037$ 0.0021$ 0.0006$ 0.0134$ 0.0062$ 0.0037$ 0.0012$ 0.0195$ 0.0046$ 0.0020$ 0.0002$ 0.0140$ 0.0182$ 0.0079$ 0.0009$ 0.0583$ 0.0326$ 0.0157$ 0.0030$ 0.1051$20150.0086$ 0.0028$ 0.0008$ 0.0469$ 0.0148$ 0.0053$ 0.0017$ 0.0873$ 0.0113$ 0.0027$ 0.0003$ 0.0469$ 0.0474$ 0.0110$ 0.0014$ 0.2023$ 0.0821$ 0.0218$ 0.0043$ 0.3833$20160.0100$ 0.0033$ 0.0010$ 0.0544$ 0.0173$ 0.0063$ 0.0021$ 0.1013$ 0.0131$ 0.0032$ 0.0004$ 0.0540$ 0.0548$ 0.0131$ 0.0017$ 0.2327$ 0.0952$ 0.0259$ 0.0051$ 0.4424$20170.0106$ 0.0034$ 0.0010$ 0.0592$ 0.0184$ 0.0064$ 0.0021$ 0.1077$ 0.0138$ 0.0032$ 0.0004$ 0.0552$ 0.0578$ 0.0132$ 0.0017$ 0.2543$ 0.1006$ 0.0263$ 0.0052$ 0.4764$20180.0110$ 0.0037$ 0.0011$ 0.0603$ 0.0191$ 0.0068$ 0.0023$ 0.1095$ 0.0142$ 0.0035$ 0.0004$ 0.0563$ 0.0594$ 0.0147$ 0.0019$ 0.2563$ 0.1037$ 0.0288$ 0.0057$ 0.4824$20190.0114$ 0.0039$ 0.0012$ 0.0619$ 0.0196$ 0.0070$ 0.0024$ 0.1128$ 0.0145$ 0.0036$ 0.0004$ 0.0593$ 0.0606$ 0.0149$ 0.0019$ 0.2591$ 0.1062$ 0.0295$ 0.0059$ 0.4931$20200.0133$ 0.0042$ 0.0012$ 0.0698$ 0.0226$ 0.0077$ 0.0026$ 0.1267$ 0.0168$ 0.0040$ 0.0004$ 0.0678$ 0.0697$ 0.0156$ 0.0020$ 0.3152$ 0.1225$ 0.0315$ 0.0063$ 0.5795$20210.0140$ 0.0046$ 0.0013$ 0.0723$ 0.0238$ 0.0082$ 0.0027$ 0.1291$ 0.0175$ 0.0042$ 0.0005$ 0.0690$ 0.0724$ 0.0170$ 0.0022$ 0.3187$ 0.1276$ 0.0340$ 0.0067$ 0.5891$20220.0143$ 0.0047$ 0.0013$ 0.0735$ 0.0243$ 0.0085$ 0.0028$ 0.1312$ 0.0177$ 0.0043$ 0.0005$ 0.0694$ 0.0733$ 0.0175$ 0.0023$ 0.3207$ 0.1296$ 0.0350$ 0.0069$ 0.5948$20230.0147$ 0.0050$ 0.0014$ 0.0752$ 0.0249$ 0.0089$ 0.0029$ 0.1345$ 0.0180$ 0.0044$ 0.0005$ 0.0704$ 0.0747$ 0.0179$ 0.0024$ 0.3264$ 0.1323$ 0.0361$ 0.0071$ 0.6066$20240.0150$ 0.0051$ 0.0014$ 0.0764$ 0.0254$ 0.0092$ 0.0030$ 0.1366$ 0.0182$ 0.0045$ 0.0005$ 0.0709$ 0.0756$ 0.0182$ 0.0024$ 0.3282$ 0.1342$ 0.0370$ 0.0074$ 0.6122$20250.0159$ 0.0059$ 0.0015$ 0.0787$ 0.0270$ 0.0103$ 0.0031$ 0.1412$ 0.0192$ 0.0050$ 0.0006$ 0.0722$ 0.0792$ 0.0200$ 0.0027$ 0.3323$ 0.1413$ 0.0413$ 0.0080$ 0.6244$20260.0163$ 0.0062$ 0.0016$ 0.0804$ 0.0277$ 0.0108$ 0.0032$ 0.1436$ 0.0195$ 0.0052$ 0.0006$ 0.0734$ 0.0807$ 0.0204$ 0.0029$ 0.3340$ 0.1442$ 0.0425$ 0.0083$ 0.6313$20270.0166$ 0.0063$ 0.0016$ 0.0817$ 0.0282$ 0.0110$ 0.0033$ 0.1459$ 0.0197$ 0.0053$ 0.0006$ 0.0738$ 0.0815$ 0.0207$ 0.0030$ 0.3357$ 0.1460$ 0.0432$ 0.0085$ 0.6370$20280.0169$ 0.0065$ 0.0017$ 0.0833$ 0.0288$ 0.0113$ 0.0035$ 0.1484$ 0.0199$ 0.0053$ 0.0006$ 0.0743$ 0.0824$ 0.0210$ 0.0030$ 0.3379$ 0.1481$ 0.0441$ 0.0087$ 0.6439$20290.0173$ 0.0067$ 0.0017$ 0.0848$ 0.0293$ 0.0115$ 0.0036$ 0.1508$ 0.0201$ 0.0055$ 0.0006$ 0.0749$ 0.0833$ 0.0213$ 0.0031$ 0.3396$ 0.1500$ 0.0449$ 0.0089$ 0.6500$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source:Total BenefitsExhibit C.5f Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for TNCWSs Serving 501-1,000 (Echovirus)MeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundValue of Deaths AvoidedYearValue of Illnesses AvoidedMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound>16 yearsMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 -16 yearsGWR Benefits Model.MeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 -16 years>16 yearsMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-49October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0003$ 0.0003$ 0.0000$ 0.0009$ 0.0002$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0007$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0004$ 0.0007$ 0.0005$ 0.0000$ 0.0020$20090.0136$ 0.0115$ 0.0038$ 0.0310$ 0.0107$ 0.0087$ 0.0031$ 0.0249$ 0.0007$ 0.0005$ 0.0000$ 0.0023$ 0.0043$ 0.0029$ 0.0003$ 0.0140$ 0.0293$ 0.0236$ 0.0073$ 0.0722$20100.0286$ 0.0272$ 0.0091$ 0.0563$ 0.0232$ 0.0214$ 0.0074$ 0.0487$ 0.0015$ 0.0010$ 0.0001$ 0.0044$ 0.0091$ 0.0061$ 0.0008$ 0.0269$ 0.0623$ 0.0558$ 0.0174$ 0.1363$20110.0452$ 0.0421$ 0.0163$ 0.0871$ 0.0366$ 0.0333$ 0.0128$ 0.0753$ 0.0023$ 0.0016$ 0.0002$ 0.0068$ 0.0142$ 0.0102$ 0.0013$ 0.0426$ 0.0982$ 0.0873$ 0.0305$ 0.2119$20120.0663$ 0.0619$ 0.0238$ 0.1241$ 0.0529$ 0.0486$ 0.0184$ 0.1061$ 0.0034$ 0.0023$ 0.0003$ 0.0099$ 0.0206$ 0.0146$ 0.0017$ 0.0591$ 0.1432$ 0.1275$ 0.0443$ 0.2992$20130.0930$ 0.0888$ 0.0329$ 0.1743$ 0.0734$ 0.0671$ 0.0256$ 0.1452$ 0.0047$ 0.0032$ 0.0004$ 0.0135$ 0.0283$ 0.0204$ 0.0023$ 0.0849$ 0.1995$ 0.1795$ 0.0613$ 0.4179$20140.1152$ 0.1100$ 0.0429$ 0.2124$ 0.0912$ 0.0842$ 0.0336$ 0.1762$ 0.0058$ 0.0040$ 0.0005$ 0.0162$ 0.0350$ 0.0251$ 0.0030$ 0.1025$ 0.2473$ 0.2232$ 0.0800$ 0.5073$20150.1424$ 0.1352$ 0.0550$ 0.2620$ 0.1123$ 0.1052$ 0.0439$ 0.2125$ 0.0071$ 0.0049$ 0.0006$ 0.0196$ 0.0427$ 0.0309$ 0.0038$ 0.1228$ 0.3044$ 0.2763$ 0.1034$ 0.6168$20160.1684$ 0.1609$ 0.0645$ 0.3060$ 0.1331$ 0.1240$ 0.0509$ 0.2527$ 0.0083$ 0.0057$ 0.0007$ 0.0227$ 0.0503$ 0.0362$ 0.0044$ 0.1409$ 0.3602$ 0.3267$ 0.1205$ 0.7223$20170.1859$ 0.1762$ 0.0716$ 0.3404$ 0.1471$ 0.1392$ 0.0559$ 0.2798$ 0.0092$ 0.0063$ 0.0008$ 0.0257$ 0.0554$ 0.0392$ 0.0046$ 0.1562$ 0.3976$ 0.3608$ 0.1329$ 0.8021$20180.1944$ 0.1836$ 0.0755$ 0.3528$ 0.1541$ 0.1441$ 0.0590$ 0.2937$ 0.0095$ 0.0066$ 0.0008$ 0.0263$ 0.0578$ 0.0405$ 0.0047$ 0.1602$ 0.4158$ 0.3747$ 0.1400$ 0.8331$20190.2030$ 0.1916$ 0.0803$ 0.3647$ 0.1609$ 0.1508$ 0.0620$ 0.3061$ 0.0099$ 0.0068$ 0.0009$ 0.0275$ 0.0599$ 0.0421$ 0.0050$ 0.1684$ 0.4336$ 0.3914$ 0.1482$ 0.8668$20200.2154$ 0.2116$ 0.0842$ 0.3777$ 0.1698$ 0.1605$ 0.0650$ 0.3138$ 0.0103$ 0.0073$ 0.0009$ 0.0284$ 0.0626$ 0.0446$ 0.0053$ 0.1725$ 0.4582$ 0.4239$ 0.1554$ 0.8924$20210.2209$ 0.2169$ 0.0860$ 0.3859$ 0.1741$ 0.1662$ 0.0670$ 0.3201$ 0.0105$ 0.0074$ 0.0009$ 0.0287$ 0.0637$ 0.0452$ 0.0054$ 0.1744$ 0.4692$ 0.4356$ 0.1594$ 0.9091$20220.2310$ 0.2262$ 0.0886$ 0.3955$ 0.1824$ 0.1770$ 0.0695$ 0.3324$ 0.0109$ 0.0076$ 0.0010$ 0.0295$ 0.0663$ 0.0463$ 0.0057$ 0.1783$ 0.4906$ 0.4571$ 0.1648$ 0.9357$20230.2363$ 0.2310$ 0.0906$ 0.4040$ 0.1866$ 0.1806$ 0.0712$ 0.3394$ 0.0111$ 0.0077$ 0.0010$ 0.0299$ 0.0673$ 0.0470$ 0.0058$ 0.1805$ 0.5013$ 0.4663$ 0.1686$ 0.9538$20240.2445$ 0.2392$ 0.0940$ 0.4176$ 0.1931$ 0.1874$ 0.0756$ 0.3485$ 0.0113$ 0.0080$ 0.0010$ 0.0303$ 0.0691$ 0.0492$ 0.0060$ 0.1862$ 0.5181$ 0.4837$ 0.1766$ 0.9826$20250.2521$ 0.2453$ 0.0963$ 0.4326$ 0.1981$ 0.1917$ 0.0776$ 0.3560$ 0.0116$ 0.0080$ 0.0010$ 0.0306$ 0.0704$ 0.0497$ 0.0061$ 0.1886$ 0.5323$ 0.4949$ 0.1811$ 1.0079$20260.2596$ 0.2525$ 0.0988$ 0.4443$ 0.2038$ 0.1984$ 0.0796$ 0.3673$ 0.0118$ 0.0082$ 0.0010$ 0.0310$ 0.0719$ 0.0506$ 0.0062$ 0.1918$ 0.5471$ 0.5096$ 0.1856$ 1.0344$20270.2688$ 0.2609$ 0.1010$ 0.4631$ 0.2102$ 0.2026$ 0.0813$ 0.3791$ 0.0122$ 0.0084$ 0.0011$ 0.0324$ 0.0737$ 0.0517$ 0.0063$ 0.1971$ 0.5649$ 0.5236$ 0.1896$ 1.0716$20280.2778$ 0.2713$ 0.1063$ 0.4778$ 0.2169$ 0.2105$ 0.0846$ 0.3870$ 0.0124$ 0.0086$ 0.0011$ 0.0329$ 0.0753$ 0.0531$ 0.0064$ 0.2035$ 0.5825$ 0.5436$ 0.1984$ 1.1013$20290.2846$ 0.2773$ 0.1088$ 0.4873$ 0.2221$ 0.2159$ 0.0870$ 0.3946$ 0.0126$ 0.0088$ 0.0011$ 0.0333$ 0.0765$ 0.0539$ 0.0066$ 0.2057$ 0.5958$ 0.5559$ 0.2034$ 1.1209$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source:Total BenefitsExhibit C.5g Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for TNCWSs Serving 1,001-3,300 (Rotavirus)MeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundValue of Deaths AvoidedYearValue of Illnesses AvoidedMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound> 15 yrsMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 - 15 yearsGWR Benefits Model.MeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 - 15 years> 15 yrsMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-50October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0001$20090.0005$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0022$ 0.0009$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0031$ 0.0008$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0027$ 0.0035$ 0.0010$ 0.0001$ 0.0101$ 0.0057$ 0.0019$ 0.0003$ 0.0182$20100.0011$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0044$ 0.0019$ 0.0010$ 0.0003$ 0.0075$ 0.0016$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0054$ 0.0071$ 0.0022$ 0.0002$ 0.0221$ 0.0116$ 0.0043$ 0.0007$ 0.0394$20110.0016$ 0.0009$ 0.0003$ 0.0061$ 0.0027$ 0.0015$ 0.0005$ 0.0104$ 0.0022$ 0.0008$ 0.0001$ 0.0080$ 0.0102$ 0.0034$ 0.0004$ 0.0304$ 0.0167$ 0.0066$ 0.0012$ 0.0549$20120.0026$ 0.0013$ 0.0004$ 0.0109$ 0.0046$ 0.0023$ 0.0007$ 0.0174$ 0.0037$ 0.0012$ 0.0001$ 0.0140$ 0.0174$ 0.0052$ 0.0006$ 0.0528$ 0.0283$ 0.0099$ 0.0018$ 0.0951$20130.0033$ 0.0017$ 0.0005$ 0.0135$ 0.0059$ 0.0031$ 0.0010$ 0.0218$ 0.0047$ 0.0016$ 0.0002$ 0.0175$ 0.0222$ 0.0069$ 0.0007$ 0.0666$ 0.0361$ 0.0132$ 0.0024$ 0.1194$20140.0053$ 0.0021$ 0.0007$ 0.0226$ 0.0096$ 0.0039$ 0.0013$ 0.0319$ 0.0081$ 0.0020$ 0.0002$ 0.0261$ 0.0390$ 0.0088$ 0.0009$ 0.1284$ 0.0620$ 0.0168$ 0.0031$ 0.2090$20150.0064$ 0.0027$ 0.0009$ 0.0269$ 0.0116$ 0.0049$ 0.0016$ 0.0397$ 0.0097$ 0.0025$ 0.0003$ 0.0337$ 0.0462$ 0.0114$ 0.0013$ 0.1503$ 0.0739$ 0.0214$ 0.0041$ 0.2506$20160.0076$ 0.0032$ 0.0011$ 0.0325$ 0.0136$ 0.0058$ 0.0020$ 0.0488$ 0.0112$ 0.0029$ 0.0004$ 0.0388$ 0.0536$ 0.0132$ 0.0015$ 0.1781$ 0.0861$ 0.0251$ 0.0049$ 0.2982$20170.0085$ 0.0038$ 0.0012$ 0.0353$ 0.0152$ 0.0070$ 0.0022$ 0.0539$ 0.0123$ 0.0034$ 0.0004$ 0.0458$ 0.0579$ 0.0162$ 0.0017$ 0.1904$ 0.0938$ 0.0304$ 0.0055$ 0.3255$20180.0088$ 0.0040$ 0.0012$ 0.0359$ 0.0158$ 0.0073$ 0.0023$ 0.0548$ 0.0126$ 0.0035$ 0.0004$ 0.0465$ 0.0594$ 0.0165$ 0.0018$ 0.2077$ 0.0966$ 0.0313$ 0.0058$ 0.3450$20190.0091$ 0.0042$ 0.0013$ 0.0367$ 0.0163$ 0.0077$ 0.0025$ 0.0558$ 0.0129$ 0.0037$ 0.0005$ 0.0471$ 0.0607$ 0.0169$ 0.0019$ 0.2118$ 0.0990$ 0.0324$ 0.0061$ 0.3514$20200.0097$ 0.0044$ 0.0014$ 0.0393$ 0.0174$ 0.0083$ 0.0026$ 0.0614$ 0.0135$ 0.0040$ 0.0005$ 0.0525$ 0.0637$ 0.0179$ 0.0019$ 0.2252$ 0.1043$ 0.0345$ 0.0063$ 0.3784$20210.0099$ 0.0045$ 0.0014$ 0.0400$ 0.0177$ 0.0084$ 0.0026$ 0.0625$ 0.0136$ 0.0040$ 0.0005$ 0.0530$ 0.0644$ 0.0182$ 0.0019$ 0.2263$ 0.1057$ 0.0351$ 0.0065$ 0.3817$20220.0101$ 0.0046$ 0.0014$ 0.0407$ 0.0181$ 0.0086$ 0.0027$ 0.0635$ 0.0138$ 0.0041$ 0.0005$ 0.0534$ 0.0651$ 0.0186$ 0.0020$ 0.2284$ 0.1071$ 0.0360$ 0.0066$ 0.3859$20230.0103$ 0.0047$ 0.0015$ 0.0417$ 0.0185$ 0.0088$ 0.0028$ 0.0648$ 0.0139$ 0.0042$ 0.0005$ 0.0537$ 0.0658$ 0.0189$ 0.0020$ 0.2302$ 0.1086$ 0.0366$ 0.0068$ 0.3904$20240.0106$ 0.0049$ 0.0015$ 0.0425$ 0.0189$ 0.0091$ 0.0029$ 0.0659$ 0.0142$ 0.0043$ 0.0005$ 0.0541$ 0.0668$ 0.0198$ 0.0020$ 0.2321$ 0.1105$ 0.0382$ 0.0070$ 0.3946$20250.0108$ 0.0051$ 0.0016$ 0.0432$ 0.0193$ 0.0093$ 0.0029$ 0.0671$ 0.0143$ 0.0045$ 0.0005$ 0.0543$ 0.0676$ 0.0205$ 0.0021$ 0.2332$ 0.1121$ 0.0393$ 0.0071$ 0.3978$20260.0111$ 0.0052$ 0.0016$ 0.0440$ 0.0197$ 0.0096$ 0.0030$ 0.0684$ 0.0145$ 0.0046$ 0.0005$ 0.0547$ 0.0684$ 0.0208$ 0.0021$ 0.2342$ 0.1138$ 0.0403$ 0.0073$ 0.4013$20270.0113$ 0.0054$ 0.0017$ 0.0447$ 0.0201$ 0.0098$ 0.0031$ 0.0695$ 0.0147$ 0.0047$ 0.0006$ 0.0549$ 0.0693$ 0.0213$ 0.0021$ 0.2352$ 0.1154$ 0.0412$ 0.0075$ 0.4044$20280.0116$ 0.0056$ 0.0018$ 0.0456$ 0.0206$ 0.0101$ 0.0032$ 0.0708$ 0.0149$ 0.0048$ 0.0006$ 0.0554$ 0.0703$ 0.0218$ 0.0022$ 0.2369$ 0.1174$ 0.0423$ 0.0077$ 0.4086$20290.0119$ 0.0057$ 0.0018$ 0.0464$ 0.0211$ 0.0104$ 0.0033$ 0.0721$ 0.0151$ 0.0049$ 0.0006$ 0.0557$ 0.0711$ 0.0224$ 0.0022$ 0.2388$ 0.1192$ 0.0433$ 0.0079$ 0.4130$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source:0 -16 yearsGWR Benefits Model.MeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound>16 yearsMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 -16 years>16 yearsMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundTotal BenefitsExhibitC.5h Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for TNCWSs Serving 1,001-3,300 (Echovirus)MeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundValue of Deaths AvoidedYearValue of Illnesses AvoidedEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-51October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0026$ 0.0022$ 0.0007$ 0.0059$ 0.0020$ 0.0017$ 0.0006$ 0.0046$ 0.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0004$ 0.0008$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0024$ 0.0056$ 0.0045$ 0.0014$ 0.0133$20090.0095$ 0.0090$ 0.0036$ 0.0176$ 0.0076$ 0.0070$ 0.0028$ 0.0151$ 0.0005$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0014$ 0.0031$ 0.0023$ 0.0003$ 0.0087$ 0.0208$ 0.0186$ 0.0067$ 0.0428$20100.0178$ 0.0169$ 0.0073$ 0.0318$ 0.0142$ 0.0131$ 0.0054$ 0.0263$ 0.0009$ 0.0007$ 0.0001$ 0.0026$ 0.0057$ 0.0042$ 0.0006$ 0.0160$ 0.0386$ 0.0350$ 0.0134$ 0.0766$20110.0287$ 0.0276$ 0.0121$ 0.0496$ 0.0230$ 0.0215$ 0.0093$ 0.0405$ 0.0015$ 0.0011$ 0.0002$ 0.0042$ 0.0091$ 0.0067$ 0.0010$ 0.0252$ 0.0623$ 0.0569$ 0.0225$ 0.1196$20120.0385$ 0.0368$ 0.0163$ 0.0665$ 0.0306$ 0.0286$ 0.0123$ 0.0534$ 0.0020$ 0.0015$ 0.0002$ 0.0056$ 0.0120$ 0.0089$ 0.0013$ 0.0339$ 0.0831$ 0.0759$ 0.0302$ 0.1594$20130.0510$ 0.0484$ 0.0205$ 0.0875$ 0.0405$ 0.0379$ 0.0159$ 0.0722$ 0.0026$ 0.0019$ 0.0003$ 0.0071$ 0.0157$ 0.0118$ 0.0018$ 0.0426$ 0.1099$ 0.0999$ 0.0384$ 0.2094$20140.0643$ 0.0612$ 0.0251$ 0.1108$ 0.0507$ 0.0470$ 0.0195$ 0.0904$ 0.0032$ 0.0024$ 0.0004$ 0.0090$ 0.0196$ 0.0148$ 0.0021$ 0.0566$ 0.1379$ 0.1255$ 0.0471$ 0.2669$20150.0770$ 0.0733$ 0.0304$ 0.1316$ 0.0609$ 0.0566$ 0.0236$ 0.1076$ 0.0038$ 0.0029$ 0.0004$ 0.0106$ 0.0233$ 0.0176$ 0.0026$ 0.0665$ 0.1650$ 0.1503$ 0.0570$ 0.3163$20160.0914$ 0.0881$ 0.0359$ 0.1562$ 0.0723$ 0.0673$ 0.0279$ 0.1295$ 0.0045$ 0.0034$ 0.0005$ 0.0122$ 0.0274$ 0.0210$ 0.0032$ 0.0768$ 0.1956$ 0.1798$ 0.0675$ 0.3748$20170.0972$ 0.0929$ 0.0378$ 0.1662$ 0.0767$ 0.0705$ 0.0296$ 0.1369$ 0.0047$ 0.0036$ 0.0005$ 0.0129$ 0.0289$ 0.0220$ 0.0034$ 0.0805$ 0.2076$ 0.1889$ 0.0713$ 0.3965$20180.0998$ 0.0954$ 0.0391$ 0.1696$ 0.0786$ 0.0726$ 0.0307$ 0.1397$ 0.0048$ 0.0036$ 0.0006$ 0.0131$ 0.0295$ 0.0224$ 0.0035$ 0.0814$ 0.2128$ 0.1939$ 0.0738$ 0.4038$20190.1032$ 0.0985$ 0.0405$ 0.1736$ 0.0813$ 0.0755$ 0.0317$ 0.1436$ 0.0050$ 0.0037$ 0.0006$ 0.0133$ 0.0302$ 0.0229$ 0.0036$ 0.0822$ 0.2196$ 0.2006$ 0.0764$ 0.4126$20200.1063$ 0.1011$ 0.0419$ 0.1791$ 0.0836$ 0.0774$ 0.0328$ 0.1463$ 0.0051$ 0.0038$ 0.0006$ 0.0134$ 0.0309$ 0.0233$ 0.0036$ 0.0830$ 0.2258$ 0.2056$ 0.0790$ 0.4219$20210.1085$ 0.1030$ 0.0429$ 0.1827$ 0.0852$ 0.0787$ 0.0335$ 0.1488$ 0.0051$ 0.0039$ 0.0006$ 0.0136$ 0.0312$ 0.0237$ 0.0037$ 0.0839$ 0.2300$ 0.2092$ 0.0807$ 0.4291$20220.1110$ 0.1055$ 0.0450$ 0.1864$ 0.0871$ 0.0806$ 0.0349$ 0.1517$ 0.0052$ 0.0039$ 0.0006$ 0.0139$ 0.0317$ 0.0240$ 0.0038$ 0.0852$ 0.2350$ 0.2141$ 0.0843$ 0.4372$20230.1132$ 0.1075$ 0.0460$ 0.1901$ 0.0887$ 0.0821$ 0.0356$ 0.1546$ 0.0053$ 0.0040$ 0.0006$ 0.0141$ 0.0320$ 0.0242$ 0.0038$ 0.0857$ 0.2391$ 0.2178$ 0.0861$ 0.4444$20240.1165$ 0.1107$ 0.0477$ 0.1958$ 0.0912$ 0.0843$ 0.0367$ 0.1580$ 0.0054$ 0.0041$ 0.0006$ 0.0143$ 0.0326$ 0.0247$ 0.0039$ 0.0870$ 0.2457$ 0.2237$ 0.0890$ 0.4550$20250.1189$ 0.1132$ 0.0487$ 0.1996$ 0.0930$ 0.0860$ 0.0376$ 0.1609$ 0.0054$ 0.0041$ 0.0007$ 0.0145$ 0.0330$ 0.0251$ 0.0040$ 0.0874$ 0.2504$ 0.2284$ 0.0909$ 0.4624$20260.1223$ 0.1167$ 0.0500$ 0.2043$ 0.0956$ 0.0887$ 0.0389$ 0.1642$ 0.0055$ 0.0042$ 0.0007$ 0.0147$ 0.0337$ 0.0256$ 0.0040$ 0.0886$ 0.2571$ 0.2352$ 0.0936$ 0.4718$20270.1259$ 0.1201$ 0.0512$ 0.2104$ 0.0980$ 0.0914$ 0.0398$ 0.1684$ 0.0056$ 0.0043$ 0.0007$ 0.0149$ 0.0342$ 0.0258$ 0.0041$ 0.0897$ 0.2637$ 0.2416$ 0.0958$ 0.4835$20280.1286$ 0.1227$ 0.0523$ 0.2143$ 0.1000$ 0.0937$ 0.0407$ 0.1727$ 0.0057$ 0.0043$ 0.0007$ 0.0151$ 0.0347$ 0.0261$ 0.0041$ 0.0912$ 0.2690$ 0.2468$ 0.0977$ 0.4933$20290.1313$ 0.1252$ 0.0538$ 0.2189$ 0.1020$ 0.0956$ 0.0415$ 0.1762$ 0.0058$ 0.0044$ 0.0007$ 0.0153$ 0.0351$ 0.0265$ 0.0041$ 0.0920$ 0.2742$ 0.2517$ 0.1001$ 0.5024$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source:0 - 15 yearsGWR Benefits Model.MeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound> 15 yrsMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 - 15 years> 15 yrsMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundTotal BenefitsExhibit C.5i Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for TNCWSs Serving 3,301-10,000 (Rotavirus)MeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundValue of Deaths AvoidedYearValue of Illnesses AvoidedEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-52October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0005$ 0.0004$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0015$ 0.0007$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0027$20090.0003$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0011$ 0.0006$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0017$ 0.0004$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0014$ 0.0016$ 0.0007$ 0.0001$ 0.0060$ 0.0029$ 0.0013$ 0.0003$ 0.0102$20100.0008$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0033$ 0.0014$ 0.0006$ 0.0002$ 0.0049$ 0.0009$ 0.0003$ 0.0000$ 0.0033$ 0.0037$ 0.0013$ 0.0002$ 0.0147$ 0.0067$ 0.0025$ 0.0005$ 0.0262$20110.0013$ 0.0006$ 0.0002$ 0.0050$ 0.0023$ 0.0011$ 0.0003$ 0.0078$ 0.0016$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0060$ 0.0065$ 0.0023$ 0.0003$ 0.0249$ 0.0117$ 0.0046$ 0.0009$ 0.0437$20120.0017$ 0.0008$ 0.0002$ 0.0065$ 0.0030$ 0.0015$ 0.0004$ 0.0102$ 0.0021$ 0.0007$ 0.0001$ 0.0078$ 0.0085$ 0.0031$ 0.0004$ 0.0323$ 0.0153$ 0.0061$ 0.0011$ 0.0568$20130.0023$ 0.0011$ 0.0003$ 0.0082$ 0.0040$ 0.0019$ 0.0006$ 0.0127$ 0.0027$ 0.0009$ 0.0001$ 0.0098$ 0.0110$ 0.0040$ 0.0005$ 0.0442$ 0.0198$ 0.0079$ 0.0014$ 0.0749$20140.0027$ 0.0014$ 0.0004$ 0.0097$ 0.0048$ 0.0024$ 0.0007$ 0.0152$ 0.0032$ 0.0011$ 0.0001$ 0.0117$ 0.0132$ 0.0051$ 0.0006$ 0.0531$ 0.0239$ 0.0100$ 0.0018$ 0.0898$20150.0033$ 0.0017$ 0.0005$ 0.0117$ 0.0057$ 0.0028$ 0.0009$ 0.0179$ 0.0038$ 0.0014$ 0.0002$ 0.0136$ 0.0157$ 0.0060$ 0.0007$ 0.0616$ 0.0285$ 0.0119$ 0.0022$ 0.1048$20160.0038$ 0.0020$ 0.0005$ 0.0134$ 0.0067$ 0.0033$ 0.0010$ 0.0208$ 0.0044$ 0.0016$ 0.0002$ 0.0158$ 0.0181$ 0.0070$ 0.0008$ 0.0708$ 0.0330$ 0.0139$ 0.0025$ 0.1208$20170.0041$ 0.0021$ 0.0006$ 0.0174$ 0.0072$ 0.0035$ 0.0011$ 0.0232$ 0.0047$ 0.0017$ 0.0002$ 0.0194$ 0.0197$ 0.0074$ 0.0008$ 0.0760$ 0.0357$ 0.0146$ 0.0027$ 0.1360$20180.0042$ 0.0021$ 0.0006$ 0.0177$ 0.0074$ 0.0036$ 0.0011$ 0.0237$ 0.0048$ 0.0017$ 0.0002$ 0.0196$ 0.0201$ 0.0077$ 0.0008$ 0.0766$ 0.0366$ 0.0151$ 0.0027$ 0.1376$20190.0044$ 0.0022$ 0.0006$ 0.0181$ 0.0077$ 0.0037$ 0.0011$ 0.0245$ 0.0050$ 0.0018$ 0.0002$ 0.0202$ 0.0207$ 0.0078$ 0.0008$ 0.0781$ 0.0377$ 0.0154$ 0.0028$ 0.1409$20200.0045$ 0.0022$ 0.0006$ 0.0185$ 0.0079$ 0.0038$ 0.0012$ 0.0249$ 0.0050$ 0.0018$ 0.0002$ 0.0205$ 0.0210$ 0.0081$ 0.0009$ 0.0800$ 0.0384$ 0.0160$ 0.0029$ 0.1438$20210.0046$ 0.0023$ 0.0007$ 0.0188$ 0.0080$ 0.0039$ 0.0012$ 0.0253$ 0.0051$ 0.0019$ 0.0002$ 0.0206$ 0.0212$ 0.0081$ 0.0009$ 0.0807$ 0.0389$ 0.0162$ 0.0030$ 0.1455$20220.0047$ 0.0023$ 0.0007$ 0.0191$ 0.0082$ 0.0040$ 0.0013$ 0.0258$ 0.0052$ 0.0019$ 0.0002$ 0.0209$ 0.0215$ 0.0083$ 0.0009$ 0.0818$ 0.0396$ 0.0166$ 0.0031$ 0.1475$20230.0048$ 0.0024$ 0.0007$ 0.0194$ 0.0083$ 0.0041$ 0.0013$ 0.0262$ 0.0052$ 0.0019$ 0.0002$ 0.0210$ 0.0217$ 0.0084$ 0.0009$ 0.0826$ 0.0400$ 0.0168$ 0.0031$ 0.1492$20240.0049$ 0.0025$ 0.0007$ 0.0197$ 0.0085$ 0.0042$ 0.0014$ 0.0267$ 0.0053$ 0.0020$ 0.0002$ 0.0213$ 0.0220$ 0.0086$ 0.0009$ 0.0836$ 0.0407$ 0.0172$ 0.0032$ 0.1513$20250.0050$ 0.0025$ 0.0007$ 0.0201$ 0.0088$ 0.0043$ 0.0014$ 0.0276$ 0.0054$ 0.0020$ 0.0002$ 0.0216$ 0.0224$ 0.0086$ 0.0009$ 0.0844$ 0.0415$ 0.0174$ 0.0033$ 0.1537$20260.0051$ 0.0026$ 0.0008$ 0.0205$ 0.0089$ 0.0044$ 0.0014$ 0.0281$ 0.0054$ 0.0020$ 0.0002$ 0.0219$ 0.0226$ 0.0087$ 0.0009$ 0.0858$ 0.0421$ 0.0177$ 0.0034$ 0.1562$20270.0052$ 0.0026$ 0.0008$ 0.0208$ 0.0091$ 0.0045$ 0.0015$ 0.0285$ 0.0055$ 0.0020$ 0.0002$ 0.0222$ 0.0229$ 0.0089$ 0.0009$ 0.0867$ 0.0427$ 0.0181$ 0.0034$ 0.1582$20280.0053$ 0.0027$ 0.0008$ 0.0212$ 0.0093$ 0.0046$ 0.0015$ 0.0290$ 0.0056$ 0.0021$ 0.0002$ 0.0224$ 0.0231$ 0.0090$ 0.0010$ 0.0873$ 0.0432$ 0.0184$ 0.0035$ 0.1598$20290.0054$ 0.0027$ 0.0008$ 0.0215$ 0.0094$ 0.0047$ 0.0015$ 0.0295$ 0.0056$ 0.0021$ 0.0003$ 0.0226$ 0.0233$ 0.0092$ 0.0010$ 0.0879$ 0.0438$ 0.0187$ 0.0036$ 0.1615$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source:Total BenefitsExhibit C.5j Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for TNCWSs Serving 3,301-10,000 (Echovirus)MeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundValue of Deaths AvoidedYearValue of Illnesses AvoidedMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound>16 yearsMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 -16 yearsGWR Benefits Model.MeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 -16 years>16 yearsMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-53October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0042$ 0.0040$ 0.0015$ 0.0078$ 0.0034$ 0.0031$ 0.0011$ 0.0066$ 0.0002$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0007$ 0.0014$ 0.0010$ 0.0001$ 0.0044$ 0.0093$ 0.0082$ 0.0027$ 0.0195$20090.0133$ 0.0130$ 0.0050$ 0.0229$ 0.0108$ 0.0104$ 0.0038$ 0.0191$ 0.0007$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0022$ 0.0044$ 0.0031$ 0.0005$ 0.0143$ 0.0293$ 0.0270$ 0.0093$ 0.0585$20100.0244$ 0.0236$ 0.0085$ 0.0425$ 0.0194$ 0.0189$ 0.0065$ 0.0352$ 0.0013$ 0.0009$ 0.0001$ 0.0040$ 0.0079$ 0.0056$ 0.0008$ 0.0250$ 0.0529$ 0.0491$ 0.0160$ 0.1067$20110.0341$ 0.0331$ 0.0122$ 0.0596$ 0.0271$ 0.0261$ 0.0092$ 0.0489$ 0.0018$ 0.0013$ 0.0002$ 0.0055$ 0.0109$ 0.0077$ 0.0012$ 0.0343$ 0.0740$ 0.0682$ 0.0228$ 0.1482$20120.0439$ 0.0425$ 0.0158$ 0.0764$ 0.0349$ 0.0335$ 0.0121$ 0.0626$ 0.0023$ 0.0016$ 0.0002$ 0.0070$ 0.0139$ 0.0098$ 0.0015$ 0.0434$ 0.0950$ 0.0875$ 0.0297$ 0.1894$20130.0556$ 0.0540$ 0.0204$ 0.0964$ 0.0441$ 0.0423$ 0.0155$ 0.0803$ 0.0029$ 0.0021$ 0.0003$ 0.0086$ 0.0175$ 0.0122$ 0.0019$ 0.0543$ 0.1201$ 0.1106$ 0.0382$ 0.2397$20140.0669$ 0.0649$ 0.0246$ 0.1152$ 0.0530$ 0.0508$ 0.0186$ 0.0960$ 0.0034$ 0.0024$ 0.0004$ 0.0103$ 0.0208$ 0.0144$ 0.0023$ 0.0647$ 0.1442$ 0.1325$ 0.0459$ 0.2862$20150.0788$ 0.0763$ 0.0298$ 0.1350$ 0.0625$ 0.0598$ 0.0223$ 0.1120$ 0.0040$ 0.0029$ 0.0005$ 0.0122$ 0.0244$ 0.0171$ 0.0028$ 0.0771$ 0.1697$ 0.1561$ 0.0554$ 0.3363$20160.0908$ 0.0875$ 0.0344$ 0.1553$ 0.0718$ 0.0686$ 0.0259$ 0.1286$ 0.0046$ 0.0033$ 0.0005$ 0.0139$ 0.0278$ 0.0194$ 0.0032$ 0.0876$ 0.1950$ 0.1789$ 0.0640$ 0.3854$20170.0948$ 0.0914$ 0.0357$ 0.1647$ 0.0756$ 0.0717$ 0.0270$ 0.1355$ 0.0047$ 0.0035$ 0.0005$ 0.0142$ 0.0290$ 0.0207$ 0.0033$ 0.0908$ 0.2041$ 0.1873$ 0.0665$ 0.4052$20180.0971$ 0.0935$ 0.0370$ 0.1683$ 0.0772$ 0.0731$ 0.0275$ 0.1381$ 0.0048$ 0.0035$ 0.0005$ 0.0145$ 0.0294$ 0.0212$ 0.0033$ 0.0923$ 0.2085$ 0.1913$ 0.0683$ 0.4133$20190.0997$ 0.0958$ 0.0383$ 0.1722$ 0.0791$ 0.0749$ 0.0283$ 0.1407$ 0.0049$ 0.0036$ 0.0005$ 0.0147$ 0.0299$ 0.0215$ 0.0033$ 0.0933$ 0.2136$ 0.1957$ 0.0704$ 0.4208$20200.1028$ 0.0985$ 0.0397$ 0.1781$ 0.0813$ 0.0768$ 0.0290$ 0.1456$ 0.0050$ 0.0036$ 0.0006$ 0.0150$ 0.0305$ 0.0219$ 0.0034$ 0.0950$ 0.2197$ 0.2008$ 0.0726$ 0.4337$20210.1071$ 0.1026$ 0.0405$ 0.1884$ 0.0845$ 0.0796$ 0.0296$ 0.1542$ 0.0052$ 0.0037$ 0.0006$ 0.0155$ 0.0315$ 0.0220$ 0.0034$ 0.0972$ 0.2283$ 0.2080$ 0.0741$ 0.4552$20220.1094$ 0.1047$ 0.0417$ 0.1919$ 0.0863$ 0.0813$ 0.0306$ 0.1573$ 0.0052$ 0.0037$ 0.0006$ 0.0157$ 0.0319$ 0.0222$ 0.0035$ 0.0985$ 0.2328$ 0.2119$ 0.0763$ 0.4634$20230.1114$ 0.1067$ 0.0424$ 0.1952$ 0.0878$ 0.0826$ 0.0311$ 0.1599$ 0.0053$ 0.0038$ 0.0006$ 0.0159$ 0.0322$ 0.0223$ 0.0035$ 0.0993$ 0.2367$ 0.2154$ 0.0776$ 0.4702$20240.1174$ 0.1121$ 0.0438$ 0.2088$ 0.0926$ 0.0870$ 0.0322$ 0.1728$ 0.0055$ 0.0038$ 0.0006$ 0.0168$ 0.0338$ 0.0227$ 0.0036$ 0.1047$ 0.2492$ 0.2256$ 0.0803$ 0.5030$20250.1200$ 0.1143$ 0.0453$ 0.2127$ 0.0946$ 0.0892$ 0.0331$ 0.1766$ 0.0056$ 0.0039$ 0.0006$ 0.0171$ 0.0343$ 0.0236$ 0.0037$ 0.1072$ 0.2545$ 0.2309$ 0.0827$ 0.5136$20260.1224$ 0.1168$ 0.0462$ 0.2167$ 0.0964$ 0.0907$ 0.0341$ 0.1795$ 0.0057$ 0.0039$ 0.0006$ 0.0172$ 0.0346$ 0.0238$ 0.0037$ 0.1082$ 0.2591$ 0.2352$ 0.0847$ 0.5217$20270.1256$ 0.1196$ 0.0480$ 0.2209$ 0.0988$ 0.0926$ 0.0349$ 0.1825$ 0.0058$ 0.0040$ 0.0006$ 0.0176$ 0.0352$ 0.0242$ 0.0038$ 0.1104$ 0.2654$ 0.2404$ 0.0873$ 0.5314$20280.1280$ 0.1217$ 0.0489$ 0.2253$ 0.1006$ 0.0942$ 0.0355$ 0.1855$ 0.0058$ 0.0041$ 0.0006$ 0.0178$ 0.0356$ 0.0245$ 0.0038$ 0.1123$ 0.2700$ 0.2445$ 0.0889$ 0.5409$20290.1307$ 0.1240$ 0.0500$ 0.2296$ 0.1026$ 0.0959$ 0.0363$ 0.1892$ 0.0059$ 0.0041$ 0.0006$ 0.0181$ 0.0360$ 0.0248$ 0.0038$ 0.1140$ 0.2752$ 0.2488$ 0.0908$ 0.5508$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source:Total BenefitsExhibit C.5k Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for TNCWSs Serving 10,001-50,000 (Rotavirus)MeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundValue of Deaths AvoidedYearValue of Illnesses AvoidedMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound> 15 yrsMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 - 15 yearsGWR Benefits Model.MeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 - 15 years> 15 yrsMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-54October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0003$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0006$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0005$ 0.0007$ 0.0003$ 0.0000$ 0.0021$ 0.0013$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0035$20090.0005$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0016$ 0.0009$ 0.0005$ 0.0002$ 0.0027$ 0.0007$ 0.0003$ 0.0000$ 0.0023$ 0.0029$ 0.0012$ 0.0001$ 0.0103$ 0.0051$ 0.0022$ 0.0004$ 0.0169$20100.0009$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0025$ 0.0015$ 0.0009$ 0.0003$ 0.0042$ 0.0011$ 0.0005$ 0.0000$ 0.0035$ 0.0047$ 0.0020$ 0.0002$ 0.0161$ 0.0082$ 0.0038$ 0.0006$ 0.0264$20110.0012$ 0.0007$ 0.0002$ 0.0036$ 0.0022$ 0.0012$ 0.0004$ 0.0061$ 0.0016$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0050$ 0.0066$ 0.0028$ 0.0003$ 0.0232$ 0.0115$ 0.0053$ 0.0009$ 0.0379$20120.0016$ 0.0009$ 0.0003$ 0.0047$ 0.0028$ 0.0016$ 0.0005$ 0.0078$ 0.0020$ 0.0008$ 0.0001$ 0.0064$ 0.0084$ 0.0036$ 0.0003$ 0.0292$ 0.0148$ 0.0068$ 0.0012$ 0.0481$20130.0020$ 0.0011$ 0.0003$ 0.0059$ 0.0035$ 0.0020$ 0.0007$ 0.0098$ 0.0025$ 0.0011$ 0.0001$ 0.0081$ 0.0105$ 0.0046$ 0.0004$ 0.0372$ 0.0186$ 0.0088$ 0.0015$ 0.0609$20140.0024$ 0.0013$ 0.0004$ 0.0070$ 0.0042$ 0.0024$ 0.0008$ 0.0116$ 0.0030$ 0.0013$ 0.0001$ 0.0095$ 0.0125$ 0.0054$ 0.0005$ 0.0438$ 0.0220$ 0.0104$ 0.0018$ 0.0719$20150.0028$ 0.0015$ 0.0005$ 0.0083$ 0.0049$ 0.0028$ 0.0009$ 0.0137$ 0.0035$ 0.0015$ 0.0001$ 0.0112$ 0.0146$ 0.0065$ 0.0006$ 0.0505$ 0.0258$ 0.0123$ 0.0021$ 0.0836$20160.0032$ 0.0018$ 0.0006$ 0.0095$ 0.0057$ 0.0033$ 0.0011$ 0.0157$ 0.0040$ 0.0017$ 0.0002$ 0.0127$ 0.0166$ 0.0074$ 0.0006$ 0.0572$ 0.0295$ 0.0141$ 0.0024$ 0.0951$20170.0035$ 0.0018$ 0.0006$ 0.0119$ 0.0062$ 0.0034$ 0.0011$ 0.0220$ 0.0042$ 0.0017$ 0.0002$ 0.0142$ 0.0177$ 0.0078$ 0.0007$ 0.0655$ 0.0315$ 0.0147$ 0.0025$ 0.1136$20180.0036$ 0.0019$ 0.0006$ 0.0122$ 0.0064$ 0.0035$ 0.0011$ 0.0224$ 0.0043$ 0.0018$ 0.0002$ 0.0143$ 0.0180$ 0.0080$ 0.0007$ 0.0661$ 0.0322$ 0.0151$ 0.0026$ 0.1150$20190.0037$ 0.0019$ 0.0006$ 0.0124$ 0.0065$ 0.0035$ 0.0012$ 0.0228$ 0.0043$ 0.0018$ 0.0002$ 0.0144$ 0.0182$ 0.0082$ 0.0007$ 0.0669$ 0.0327$ 0.0155$ 0.0027$ 0.1165$20200.0038$ 0.0020$ 0.0006$ 0.0127$ 0.0067$ 0.0036$ 0.0012$ 0.0235$ 0.0044$ 0.0019$ 0.0002$ 0.0148$ 0.0186$ 0.0085$ 0.0007$ 0.0709$ 0.0335$ 0.0160$ 0.0027$ 0.1219$20210.0039$ 0.0021$ 0.0007$ 0.0129$ 0.0068$ 0.0037$ 0.0012$ 0.0239$ 0.0045$ 0.0019$ 0.0002$ 0.0150$ 0.0189$ 0.0087$ 0.0007$ 0.0717$ 0.0341$ 0.0164$ 0.0028$ 0.1234$20220.0040$ 0.0021$ 0.0007$ 0.0131$ 0.0070$ 0.0038$ 0.0013$ 0.0243$ 0.0045$ 0.0020$ 0.0002$ 0.0151$ 0.0191$ 0.0088$ 0.0007$ 0.0721$ 0.0345$ 0.0167$ 0.0029$ 0.1246$20230.0040$ 0.0022$ 0.0007$ 0.0133$ 0.0071$ 0.0039$ 0.0013$ 0.0247$ 0.0046$ 0.0020$ 0.0002$ 0.0152$ 0.0193$ 0.0089$ 0.0007$ 0.0726$ 0.0349$ 0.0169$ 0.0029$ 0.1257$20240.0042$ 0.0023$ 0.0007$ 0.0137$ 0.0073$ 0.0041$ 0.0013$ 0.0252$ 0.0047$ 0.0021$ 0.0002$ 0.0155$ 0.0197$ 0.0093$ 0.0008$ 0.0730$ 0.0358$ 0.0177$ 0.0030$ 0.1275$20250.0043$ 0.0024$ 0.0007$ 0.0140$ 0.0074$ 0.0042$ 0.0014$ 0.0256$ 0.0047$ 0.0021$ 0.0002$ 0.0157$ 0.0199$ 0.0094$ 0.0008$ 0.0734$ 0.0364$ 0.0180$ 0.0031$ 0.1287$20260.0043$ 0.0024$ 0.0008$ 0.0142$ 0.0076$ 0.0043$ 0.0014$ 0.0261$ 0.0048$ 0.0021$ 0.0002$ 0.0158$ 0.0202$ 0.0094$ 0.0008$ 0.0740$ 0.0368$ 0.0183$ 0.0032$ 0.1301$20270.0044$ 0.0025$ 0.0008$ 0.0145$ 0.0077$ 0.0044$ 0.0015$ 0.0265$ 0.0048$ 0.0022$ 0.0002$ 0.0159$ 0.0204$ 0.0095$ 0.0008$ 0.0744$ 0.0373$ 0.0185$ 0.0032$ 0.1313$20280.0045$ 0.0025$ 0.0008$ 0.0147$ 0.0079$ 0.0044$ 0.0015$ 0.0270$ 0.0049$ 0.0022$ 0.0002$ 0.0160$ 0.0206$ 0.0096$ 0.0008$ 0.0750$ 0.0378$ 0.0187$ 0.0033$ 0.1327$20290.0046$ 0.0026$ 0.0008$ 0.0150$ 0.0080$ 0.0045$ 0.0015$ 0.0275$ 0.0049$ 0.0022$ 0.0002$ 0.0162$ 0.0208$ 0.0097$ 0.0008$ 0.0754$ 0.0383$ 0.0190$ 0.0034$ 0.1341$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source:0 -16 yearsGWR Benefits Model.MeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound>16 yearsMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 -16 years>16 yearsMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundTotal BenefitsExhibit C.5l Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for TNCWSs Serving 10,001-50,000 (Echovirus)MeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundValue of Deaths AvoidedYearValue of Illnesses AvoidedEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-55October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0006$ 0.0006$ 0.0002$ 0.0012$ 0.0005$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0011$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0001$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0006$ 0.0014$ 0.0012$ 0.0003$ 0.0029$20090.0020$ 0.0019$ 0.0006$ 0.0037$ 0.0017$ 0.0015$ 0.0004$ 0.0032$ 0.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0003$ 0.0006$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0019$ 0.0044$ 0.0040$ 0.0011$ 0.0090$20100.0036$ 0.0035$ 0.0009$ 0.0068$ 0.0030$ 0.0028$ 0.0008$ 0.0059$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0005$ 0.0011$ 0.0009$ 0.0001$ 0.0034$ 0.0079$ 0.0073$ 0.0018$ 0.0166$20110.0051$ 0.0048$ 0.0013$ 0.0095$ 0.0041$ 0.0038$ 0.0011$ 0.0082$ 0.0003$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0007$ 0.0016$ 0.0012$ 0.0001$ 0.0046$ 0.0110$ 0.0100$ 0.0025$ 0.0231$20120.0065$ 0.0062$ 0.0017$ 0.0122$ 0.0053$ 0.0049$ 0.0014$ 0.0105$ 0.0003$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0009$ 0.0020$ 0.0015$ 0.0002$ 0.0059$ 0.0141$ 0.0128$ 0.0033$ 0.0296$20130.0083$ 0.0079$ 0.0021$ 0.0154$ 0.0067$ 0.0063$ 0.0017$ 0.0132$ 0.0004$ 0.0003$ 0.0000$ 0.0012$ 0.0025$ 0.0019$ 0.0002$ 0.0073$ 0.0179$ 0.0164$ 0.0041$ 0.0371$20140.0099$ 0.0095$ 0.0025$ 0.0184$ 0.0081$ 0.0076$ 0.0020$ 0.0160$ 0.0005$ 0.0004$ 0.0000$ 0.0014$ 0.0030$ 0.0022$ 0.0003$ 0.0087$ 0.0215$ 0.0197$ 0.0049$ 0.0444$20150.0117$ 0.0113$ 0.0032$ 0.0216$ 0.0095$ 0.0091$ 0.0026$ 0.0188$ 0.0006$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0016$ 0.0035$ 0.0026$ 0.0003$ 0.0102$ 0.0253$ 0.0234$ 0.0062$ 0.0522$20160.0135$ 0.0129$ 0.0037$ 0.0249$ 0.0109$ 0.0104$ 0.0030$ 0.0216$ 0.0006$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0018$ 0.0040$ 0.0030$ 0.0004$ 0.0116$ 0.0291$ 0.0267$ 0.0071$ 0.0599$20170.0142$ 0.0135$ 0.0038$ 0.0267$ 0.0116$ 0.0108$ 0.0031$ 0.0228$ 0.0007$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0019$ 0.0042$ 0.0031$ 0.0004$ 0.0119$ 0.0308$ 0.0279$ 0.0073$ 0.0634$20180.0145$ 0.0140$ 0.0041$ 0.0272$ 0.0119$ 0.0110$ 0.0032$ 0.0232$ 0.0007$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0019$ 0.0043$ 0.0031$ 0.0004$ 0.0120$ 0.0314$ 0.0286$ 0.0077$ 0.0644$20190.0148$ 0.0142$ 0.0042$ 0.0277$ 0.0121$ 0.0112$ 0.0033$ 0.0236$ 0.0007$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0019$ 0.0043$ 0.0032$ 0.0004$ 0.0122$ 0.0319$ 0.0291$ 0.0079$ 0.0654$20200.0152$ 0.0146$ 0.0042$ 0.0286$ 0.0124$ 0.0114$ 0.0034$ 0.0243$ 0.0007$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0020$ 0.0044$ 0.0032$ 0.0004$ 0.0124$ 0.0327$ 0.0298$ 0.0081$ 0.0673$20210.0160$ 0.0151$ 0.0044$ 0.0302$ 0.0130$ 0.0120$ 0.0035$ 0.0259$ 0.0007$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0021$ 0.0045$ 0.0033$ 0.0004$ 0.0128$ 0.0342$ 0.0310$ 0.0085$ 0.0709$20220.0163$ 0.0154$ 0.0045$ 0.0307$ 0.0132$ 0.0122$ 0.0036$ 0.0263$ 0.0007$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0021$ 0.0046$ 0.0034$ 0.0004$ 0.0130$ 0.0348$ 0.0315$ 0.0087$ 0.0722$20230.0166$ 0.0157$ 0.0046$ 0.0313$ 0.0134$ 0.0124$ 0.0037$ 0.0267$ 0.0007$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0021$ 0.0046$ 0.0034$ 0.0004$ 0.0132$ 0.0354$ 0.0320$ 0.0088$ 0.0733$20240.0175$ 0.0167$ 0.0047$ 0.0331$ 0.0142$ 0.0131$ 0.0038$ 0.0284$ 0.0008$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0022$ 0.0049$ 0.0035$ 0.0005$ 0.0142$ 0.0374$ 0.0339$ 0.0091$ 0.0780$20250.0179$ 0.0171$ 0.0049$ 0.0340$ 0.0146$ 0.0133$ 0.0040$ 0.0290$ 0.0008$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0023$ 0.0049$ 0.0035$ 0.0005$ 0.0146$ 0.0382$ 0.0345$ 0.0094$ 0.0799$20260.0182$ 0.0174$ 0.0050$ 0.0346$ 0.0148$ 0.0135$ 0.0040$ 0.0295$ 0.0008$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0023$ 0.0050$ 0.0036$ 0.0005$ 0.0147$ 0.0388$ 0.0350$ 0.0096$ 0.0811$20270.0187$ 0.0178$ 0.0053$ 0.0354$ 0.0152$ 0.0141$ 0.0042$ 0.0302$ 0.0008$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0024$ 0.0051$ 0.0036$ 0.0005$ 0.0150$ 0.0397$ 0.0361$ 0.0100$ 0.0829$20280.0191$ 0.0182$ 0.0054$ 0.0361$ 0.0154$ 0.0144$ 0.0043$ 0.0307$ 0.0008$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0024$ 0.0051$ 0.0036$ 0.0005$ 0.0152$ 0.0404$ 0.0367$ 0.0102$ 0.0843$20290.0194$ 0.0185$ 0.0055$ 0.0369$ 0.0157$ 0.0146$ 0.0044$ 0.0312$ 0.0008$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0024$ 0.0052$ 0.0037$ 0.0005$ 0.0153$ 0.0411$ 0.0374$ 0.0104$ 0.0857$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source:0 - 15 yearsGWR Benefits Model.MeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound> 15 yrsMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 - 15 years> 15 yrsMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundTotal BenefitsExhibit C.5m Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for TNCWSs Serving 50,001-100,000 (Rotavirus)MeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundValue of Deaths AvoidedYearValue of Illnesses AvoidedEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-56October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0003$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0004$20090.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0003$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0012$ 0.0007$ 0.0003$ 0.0000$ 0.0019$20100.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0003$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0005$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0004$ 0.0007$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0019$ 0.0012$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0031$20110.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0004$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0007$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0006$ 0.0010$ 0.0003$ 0.0000$ 0.0026$ 0.0017$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0043$20120.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0005$ 0.0004$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0010$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0008$ 0.0013$ 0.0004$ 0.0000$ 0.0034$ 0.0021$ 0.0008$ 0.0001$ 0.0056$20130.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0006$ 0.0005$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0012$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0010$ 0.0016$ 0.0005$ 0.0000$ 0.0044$ 0.0027$ 0.0010$ 0.0001$ 0.0072$20140.0003$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0008$ 0.0005$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0014$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0012$ 0.0019$ 0.0006$ 0.0000$ 0.0052$ 0.0032$ 0.0012$ 0.0001$ 0.0085$20150.0004$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0009$ 0.0006$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0017$ 0.0005$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0014$ 0.0022$ 0.0007$ 0.0000$ 0.0062$ 0.0037$ 0.0014$ 0.0002$ 0.0103$20160.0004$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0011$ 0.0007$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0020$ 0.0006$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0016$ 0.0025$ 0.0008$ 0.0001$ 0.0071$ 0.0042$ 0.0016$ 0.0002$ 0.0117$20170.0004$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0014$ 0.0008$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0025$ 0.0006$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0018$ 0.0026$ 0.0008$ 0.0001$ 0.0076$ 0.0045$ 0.0016$ 0.0002$ 0.0133$20180.0005$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0015$ 0.0008$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0025$ 0.0006$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0018$ 0.0026$ 0.0008$ 0.0001$ 0.0076$ 0.0045$ 0.0017$ 0.0002$ 0.0134$20190.0005$ 0.0003$ 0.0000$ 0.0015$ 0.0008$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0026$ 0.0006$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0018$ 0.0027$ 0.0008$ 0.0001$ 0.0077$ 0.0046$ 0.0017$ 0.0002$ 0.0136$20200.0005$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0015$ 0.0008$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0026$ 0.0006$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0018$ 0.0027$ 0.0009$ 0.0001$ 0.0078$ 0.0047$ 0.0017$ 0.0002$ 0.0138$20210.0005$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0015$ 0.0009$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0027$ 0.0006$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0019$ 0.0027$ 0.0009$ 0.0001$ 0.0079$ 0.0047$ 0.0018$ 0.0002$ 0.0140$20220.0005$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0016$ 0.0009$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0027$ 0.0006$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0019$ 0.0028$ 0.0009$ 0.0001$ 0.0081$ 0.0048$ 0.0018$ 0.0002$ 0.0143$20230.0005$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0016$ 0.0009$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0028$ 0.0006$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0019$ 0.0028$ 0.0009$ 0.0001$ 0.0081$ 0.0048$ 0.0018$ 0.0002$ 0.0144$20240.0005$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0016$ 0.0009$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0028$ 0.0007$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0020$ 0.0029$ 0.0009$ 0.0001$ 0.0082$ 0.0050$ 0.0020$ 0.0002$ 0.0147$20250.0005$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0016$ 0.0009$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0028$ 0.0007$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0020$ 0.0029$ 0.0010$ 0.0001$ 0.0083$ 0.0051$ 0.0020$ 0.0002$ 0.0148$20260.0005$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0017$ 0.0010$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0029$ 0.0007$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0021$ 0.0029$ 0.0010$ 0.0001$ 0.0084$ 0.0051$ 0.0020$ 0.0002$ 0.0150$20270.0006$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0017$ 0.0010$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0029$ 0.0007$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0021$ 0.0030$ 0.0010$ 0.0001$ 0.0084$ 0.0052$ 0.0021$ 0.0002$ 0.0152$20280.0006$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0017$ 0.0010$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0030$ 0.0007$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0021$ 0.0030$ 0.0010$ 0.0001$ 0.0085$ 0.0052$ 0.0021$ 0.0002$ 0.0153$20290.0006$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0018$ 0.0010$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0030$ 0.0007$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0021$ 0.0030$ 0.0010$ 0.0001$ 0.0086$ 0.0053$ 0.0021$ 0.0003$ 0.0155$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source:Total BenefitsExhibit C.5n Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for TNCWSs Serving 50,001-100,000 (Echovirus)MeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundValue of Deaths AvoidedYearValue of Illnesses AvoidedMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound>16 yearsMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 -16 yearsGWR Benefits Model.MeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 -16 years>16 yearsMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-57October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0014$ 0.0014$ 0.0004$ 0.0028$ 0.0011$ 0.0010$ 0.0003$ 0.0024$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0002$ 0.0004$ 0.0003$ 0.0000$ 0.0013$ 0.0031$ 0.0027$ 0.0007$ 0.0068$20090.0045$ 0.0044$ 0.0012$ 0.0087$ 0.0037$ 0.0034$ 0.0009$ 0.0075$ 0.0002$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0007$ 0.0014$ 0.0009$ 0.0001$ 0.0041$ 0.0099$ 0.0088$ 0.0022$ 0.0209$20100.0085$ 0.0082$ 0.0020$ 0.0170$ 0.0067$ 0.0062$ 0.0015$ 0.0143$ 0.0004$ 0.0003$ 0.0000$ 0.0013$ 0.0026$ 0.0017$ 0.0003$ 0.0076$ 0.0182$ 0.0163$ 0.0038$ 0.0401$20110.0118$ 0.0113$ 0.0028$ 0.0233$ 0.0094$ 0.0087$ 0.0021$ 0.0197$ 0.0006$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0018$ 0.0036$ 0.0023$ 0.0004$ 0.0106$ 0.0253$ 0.0228$ 0.0054$ 0.0553$20120.0151$ 0.0145$ 0.0037$ 0.0297$ 0.0120$ 0.0111$ 0.0027$ 0.0251$ 0.0007$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0022$ 0.0045$ 0.0030$ 0.0005$ 0.0133$ 0.0324$ 0.0291$ 0.0070$ 0.0703$20130.0192$ 0.0184$ 0.0046$ 0.0376$ 0.0153$ 0.0140$ 0.0034$ 0.0315$ 0.0009$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0028$ 0.0057$ 0.0037$ 0.0006$ 0.0168$ 0.0411$ 0.0367$ 0.0087$ 0.0888$20140.0230$ 0.0221$ 0.0056$ 0.0454$ 0.0183$ 0.0169$ 0.0041$ 0.0385$ 0.0011$ 0.0007$ 0.0001$ 0.0034$ 0.0068$ 0.0044$ 0.0007$ 0.0205$ 0.0493$ 0.0441$ 0.0105$ 0.1078$20150.0271$ 0.0260$ 0.0066$ 0.0536$ 0.0216$ 0.0198$ 0.0050$ 0.0458$ 0.0013$ 0.0008$ 0.0001$ 0.0040$ 0.0080$ 0.0051$ 0.0008$ 0.0241$ 0.0580$ 0.0518$ 0.0126$ 0.1274$20160.0311$ 0.0298$ 0.0076$ 0.0615$ 0.0248$ 0.0228$ 0.0058$ 0.0524$ 0.0015$ 0.0010$ 0.0001$ 0.0046$ 0.0091$ 0.0059$ 0.0009$ 0.0276$ 0.0665$ 0.0595$ 0.0144$ 0.1460$20170.0329$ 0.0313$ 0.0078$ 0.0661$ 0.0263$ 0.0240$ 0.0059$ 0.0564$ 0.0016$ 0.0010$ 0.0002$ 0.0048$ 0.0096$ 0.0060$ 0.0009$ 0.0293$ 0.0704$ 0.0623$ 0.0148$ 0.1566$20180.0337$ 0.0320$ 0.0081$ 0.0675$ 0.0269$ 0.0244$ 0.0060$ 0.0574$ 0.0016$ 0.0010$ 0.0002$ 0.0049$ 0.0097$ 0.0061$ 0.0009$ 0.0296$ 0.0719$ 0.0635$ 0.0152$ 0.1594$20190.0344$ 0.0327$ 0.0083$ 0.0688$ 0.0274$ 0.0248$ 0.0062$ 0.0584$ 0.0016$ 0.0010$ 0.0002$ 0.0050$ 0.0098$ 0.0062$ 0.0009$ 0.0299$ 0.0732$ 0.0648$ 0.0156$ 0.1620$20200.0353$ 0.0333$ 0.0086$ 0.0705$ 0.0281$ 0.0254$ 0.0064$ 0.0602$ 0.0016$ 0.0011$ 0.0002$ 0.0050$ 0.0100$ 0.0063$ 0.0010$ 0.0302$ 0.0749$ 0.0661$ 0.0161$ 0.1659$20210.0370$ 0.0349$ 0.0090$ 0.0735$ 0.0293$ 0.0264$ 0.0066$ 0.0639$ 0.0017$ 0.0011$ 0.0002$ 0.0052$ 0.0104$ 0.0066$ 0.0010$ 0.0317$ 0.0784$ 0.0690$ 0.0168$ 0.1743$20220.0377$ 0.0356$ 0.0092$ 0.0747$ 0.0299$ 0.0269$ 0.0068$ 0.0650$ 0.0017$ 0.0011$ 0.0002$ 0.0052$ 0.0105$ 0.0067$ 0.0010$ 0.0320$ 0.0797$ 0.0703$ 0.0171$ 0.1770$20230.0383$ 0.0362$ 0.0094$ 0.0760$ 0.0304$ 0.0274$ 0.0069$ 0.0660$ 0.0017$ 0.0011$ 0.0002$ 0.0053$ 0.0106$ 0.0067$ 0.0010$ 0.0322$ 0.0810$ 0.0714$ 0.0175$ 0.1794$20240.0406$ 0.0386$ 0.0096$ 0.0799$ 0.0322$ 0.0290$ 0.0071$ 0.0694$ 0.0018$ 0.0012$ 0.0002$ 0.0056$ 0.0111$ 0.0070$ 0.0010$ 0.0339$ 0.0857$ 0.0758$ 0.0179$ 0.1887$20250.0415$ 0.0394$ 0.0098$ 0.0824$ 0.0330$ 0.0296$ 0.0072$ 0.0709$ 0.0018$ 0.0012$ 0.0002$ 0.0057$ 0.0113$ 0.0071$ 0.0010$ 0.0347$ 0.0877$ 0.0773$ 0.0182$ 0.1936$20260.0423$ 0.0401$ 0.0100$ 0.0838$ 0.0336$ 0.0301$ 0.0073$ 0.0721$ 0.0019$ 0.0012$ 0.0002$ 0.0057$ 0.0114$ 0.0072$ 0.0011$ 0.0349$ 0.0891$ 0.0786$ 0.0186$ 0.1964$20270.0434$ 0.0411$ 0.0101$ 0.0861$ 0.0344$ 0.0311$ 0.0075$ 0.0733$ 0.0019$ 0.0012$ 0.0002$ 0.0057$ 0.0116$ 0.0073$ 0.0011$ 0.0351$ 0.0913$ 0.0807$ 0.0189$ 0.2002$20280.0442$ 0.0419$ 0.0103$ 0.0877$ 0.0350$ 0.0316$ 0.0076$ 0.0744$ 0.0019$ 0.0012$ 0.0002$ 0.0058$ 0.0117$ 0.0074$ 0.0011$ 0.0352$ 0.0929$ 0.0821$ 0.0193$ 0.2031$20290.0451$ 0.0427$ 0.0105$ 0.0893$ 0.0357$ 0.0323$ 0.0078$ 0.0758$ 0.0019$ 0.0012$ 0.0002$ 0.0058$ 0.0119$ 0.0074$ 0.0011$ 0.0354$ 0.0946$ 0.0836$ 0.0196$ 0.2063$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source:Total BenefitsExhibit C.5o Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for TNCWSs Serving 100,001-1,000,000 (Rotavirus)MeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundValue of Deaths AvoidedYearValue of Illnesses AvoidedMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound> 15 yrsMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 - 15 yearsGWR Benefits Model.MeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 - 15 years> 15 yrsMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-58October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0001$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0000$ 0.0002$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0007$ 0.0004$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0012$20090.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0005$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0009$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0008$ 0.0009$ 0.0003$ 0.0000$ 0.0030$ 0.0015$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0053$20100.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0009$ 0.0005$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0015$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0000$ 0.0012$ 0.0014$ 0.0005$ 0.0000$ 0.0049$ 0.0025$ 0.0010$ 0.0001$ 0.0085$20110.0004$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0013$ 0.0007$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0022$ 0.0005$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0018$ 0.0019$ 0.0007$ 0.0001$ 0.0067$ 0.0035$ 0.0014$ 0.0002$ 0.0119$20120.0005$ 0.0002$ 0.0001$ 0.0016$ 0.0009$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0028$ 0.0006$ 0.0002$ 0.0000$ 0.0023$ 0.0025$ 0.0009$ 0.0001$ 0.0087$ 0.0045$ 0.0018$ 0.0002$ 0.0155$20130.0006$ 0.0003$ 0.0001$ 0.0021$ 0.0011$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0035$ 0.0008$ 0.0003$ 0.0000$ 0.0029$ 0.0031$ 0.0011$ 0.0001$ 0.0109$ 0.0056$ 0.0023$ 0.0003$ 0.0194$20140.0008$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0024$ 0.0013$ 0.0007$ 0.0001$ 0.0042$ 0.0009$ 0.0003$ 0.0000$ 0.0034$ 0.0037$ 0.0013$ 0.0001$ 0.0128$ 0.0067$ 0.0027$ 0.0003$ 0.0229$20150.0009$ 0.0004$ 0.0001$ 0.0030$ 0.0016$ 0.0008$ 0.0002$ 0.0051$ 0.0011$ 0.0004$ 0.0000$ 0.0041$ 0.0043$ 0.0016$ 0.0001$ 0.0148$ 0.0079$ 0.0032$ 0.0004$ 0.0270$20160.0010$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0034$ 0.0018$ 0.0010$ 0.0002$ 0.0058$ 0.0012$ 0.0004$ 0.0000$ 0.0047$ 0.0049$ 0.0018$ 0.0001$ 0.0170$ 0.0090$ 0.0037$ 0.0005$ 0.0309$20170.0011$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0043$ 0.0020$ 0.0010$ 0.0002$ 0.0070$ 0.0013$ 0.0004$ 0.0000$ 0.0058$ 0.0053$ 0.0018$ 0.0002$ 0.0222$ 0.0097$ 0.0038$ 0.0005$ 0.0395$20180.0012$ 0.0005$ 0.0001$ 0.0044$ 0.0020$ 0.0010$ 0.0002$ 0.0071$ 0.0013$ 0.0004$ 0.0000$ 0.0059$ 0.0054$ 0.0019$ 0.0002$ 0.0223$ 0.0099$ 0.0039$ 0.0005$ 0.0398$20190.0012$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0045$ 0.0020$ 0.0010$ 0.0002$ 0.0073$ 0.0013$ 0.0005$ 0.0000$ 0.0059$ 0.0054$ 0.0019$ 0.0002$ 0.0225$ 0.0100$ 0.0039$ 0.0005$ 0.0402$20200.0012$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0046$ 0.0021$ 0.0011$ 0.0002$ 0.0074$ 0.0014$ 0.0005$ 0.0000$ 0.0060$ 0.0055$ 0.0019$ 0.0002$ 0.0226$ 0.0102$ 0.0040$ 0.0005$ 0.0406$20210.0012$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0047$ 0.0021$ 0.0011$ 0.0002$ 0.0075$ 0.0014$ 0.0005$ 0.0000$ 0.0061$ 0.0056$ 0.0020$ 0.0002$ 0.0230$ 0.0104$ 0.0042$ 0.0005$ 0.0413$20220.0013$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0048$ 0.0022$ 0.0011$ 0.0002$ 0.0076$ 0.0014$ 0.0005$ 0.0000$ 0.0061$ 0.0057$ 0.0020$ 0.0002$ 0.0231$ 0.0105$ 0.0042$ 0.0005$ 0.0417$20230.0013$ 0.0006$ 0.0001$ 0.0048$ 0.0022$ 0.0011$ 0.0002$ 0.0078$ 0.0014$ 0.0005$ 0.0000$ 0.0062$ 0.0057$ 0.0020$ 0.0002$ 0.0232$ 0.0106$ 0.0043$ 0.0006$ 0.0420$20240.0013$ 0.0007$ 0.0001$ 0.0049$ 0.0023$ 0.0012$ 0.0002$ 0.0079$ 0.0015$ 0.0005$ 0.0000$ 0.0066$ 0.0059$ 0.0021$ 0.0002$ 0.0246$ 0.0110$ 0.0045$ 0.0006$ 0.0441$20250.0013$ 0.0007$ 0.0001$ 0.0050$ 0.0023$ 0.0012$ 0.0002$ 0.0081$ 0.0015$ 0.0005$ 0.0000$ 0.0066$ 0.0060$ 0.0021$ 0.0002$ 0.0248$ 0.0112$ 0.0046$ 0.0006$ 0.0445$20260.0014$ 0.0007$ 0.0001$ 0.0051$ 0.0024$ 0.0013$ 0.0002$ 0.0082$ 0.0015$ 0.0005$ 0.0000$ 0.0067$ 0.0061$ 0.0022$ 0.0002$ 0.0251$ 0.0113$ 0.0046$ 0.0006$ 0.0451$20270.0014$ 0.0007$ 0.0001$ 0.0052$ 0.0024$ 0.0013$ 0.0002$ 0.0083$ 0.0015$ 0.0005$ 0.0000$ 0.0067$ 0.0061$ 0.0022$ 0.0002$ 0.0252$ 0.0114$ 0.0047$ 0.0006$ 0.0455$20280.0014$ 0.0007$ 0.0001$ 0.0053$ 0.0025$ 0.0013$ 0.0003$ 0.0085$ 0.0015$ 0.0005$ 0.0000$ 0.0068$ 0.0062$ 0.0022$ 0.0002$ 0.0255$ 0.0116$ 0.0048$ 0.0006$ 0.0460$20290.0014$ 0.0007$ 0.0001$ 0.0054$ 0.0025$ 0.0013$ 0.0003$ 0.0086$ 0.0015$ 0.0005$ 0.0000$ 0.0068$ 0.0062$ 0.0023$ 0.0002$ 0.0257$ 0.0117$ 0.0049$ 0.0006$ 0.0465$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source:0 -16 yearsGWR Benefits Model.MeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound>16 yearsMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 -16 years>16 yearsMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundTotal BenefitsExhibit C.5p Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for TNCWSs Serving 100,001-1,000,000 (Echovirus)MeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundValue of Deaths AvoidedYearValue of Illnesses AvoidedEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-59October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2008-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2009-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2010-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2011-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2012-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2013-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2014-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2015-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2016-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2017-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2018-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2019-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2020-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2021-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2022-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2023-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2024-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2025-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2026-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2027-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2028-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2029-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source:0 - 15 yearsGWR Benefits Model.MeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound> 15 yrsMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 - 15 years> 15 yrsMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundTotal BenefitsExhibit C.5q Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for TNCWSs Serving >1,000,000 (Rotavirus)MeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundValue of Deaths AvoidedYearValue of Illnesses AvoidedEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-60October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2008-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2009-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2010-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2011-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2012-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2013-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2014-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2015-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2016-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2017-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2018-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2019-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2020-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2021-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2022-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2023-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2024-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2025-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2026-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2027-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2028-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2029-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$Note: Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Source:Total BenefitsExhibit C.5r Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for TNCWSs Serving >1,000,000 (Echovirus)MeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundValue of Deaths AvoidedYearValue of Illnesses AvoidedMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound>16 yearsMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 -16 yearsGWR Benefits Model.MeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence Bound0 -16 years>16 yearsMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-61October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$20090.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$20100.5$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 1.0$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.4$ 0.6$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 1.5$20110.7$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.5$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.6$ 0.9$ 0.7$ 0.2$ 2.1$20121.1$ 1.0$ 0.4$ 2.1$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 1.0$ 1.4$ 1.2$ 0.4$ 3.0$20131.4$ 1.2$ 0.5$ 2.7$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 1.2$ 1.8$ 1.5$ 0.5$ 3.9$20141.8$ 1.6$ 0.6$ 3.5$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.0$ 1.6$ 2.3$ 2.0$ 0.7$ 5.1$20152.2$ 2.0$ 0.8$ 4.3$ 0.7$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 2.1$ 2.9$ 2.4$ 0.8$ 6.4$20162.7$ 2.4$ 1.0$ 5.3$ 0.9$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 2.8$ 3.5$ 2.9$ 1.0$ 8.1$20172.8$ 2.6$ 1.0$ 5.8$ 1.0$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 3.1$ 3.8$ 3.1$ 1.1$ 8.9$20183.0$ 2.7$ 1.1$ 6.0$ 1.0$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 3.2$ 4.0$ 3.3$ 1.2$ 9.2$20193.1$ 2.8$ 1.1$ 6.2$ 1.0$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 3.3$ 4.1$ 3.4$ 1.2$ 9.5$20203.3$ 3.0$ 1.2$ 6.5$ 1.1$ 0.6$ 0.1$ 3.5$ 4.4$ 3.6$ 1.3$ 10.0$20213.5$ 3.2$ 1.3$ 6.8$ 1.1$ 0.6$ 0.1$ 3.6$ 4.6$ 3.8$ 1.3$ 10.4$20223.6$ 3.3$ 1.3$ 6.9$ 1.1$ 0.6$ 0.1$ 3.7$ 4.7$ 3.9$ 1.4$ 10.7$20233.8$ 3.4$ 1.4$ 7.3$ 1.2$ 0.6$ 0.1$ 3.9$ 5.0$ 4.1$ 1.5$ 11.2$20243.9$ 3.6$ 1.4$ 7.5$ 1.2$ 0.7$ 0.1$ 4.0$ 5.1$ 4.2$ 1.5$ 11.5$20254.1$ 3.8$ 1.5$ 7.8$ 1.3$ 0.7$ 0.1$ 4.1$ 5.4$ 4.5$ 1.6$ 11.9$20264.2$ 3.9$ 1.5$ 8.0$ 1.3$ 0.7$ 0.1$ 4.2$ 5.5$ 4.7$ 1.6$ 12.2$20274.4$ 4.1$ 1.6$ 8.4$ 1.3$ 0.7$ 0.1$ 4.2$ 5.7$ 4.8$ 1.7$ 12.6$20284.5$ 4.2$ 1.6$ 8.6$ 1.4$ 0.8$ 0.1$ 4.3$ 5.9$ 5.0$ 1.7$ 12.9$20294.6$ 4.3$ 1.7$ 8.8$ 1.4$ 0.8$ 0.1$ 4.4$ 6.0$ 5.1$ 1.8$ 13.1$Source:Exhibit C.6a Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, for All TNCWSsYearTotal - Illness Total - Deaths Total BenefitsMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueGWR Benefits Model.90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-62 October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$20090.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$20100.4$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.9$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.4$ 0.5$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 1.3$20110.6$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 1.2$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.5$ 0.8$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.8$20120.9$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 1.7$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.8$ 1.1$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 2.5$20131.1$ 1.0$ 0.4$ 2.1$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 1.0$ 1.4$ 1.2$ 0.4$ 3.1$20141.4$ 1.3$ 0.5$ 2.7$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 1.3$ 1.8$ 1.5$ 0.5$ 3.9$20151.6$ 1.5$ 0.6$ 3.2$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.0$ 1.6$ 2.1$ 1.8$ 0.6$ 4.8$20161.9$ 1.8$ 0.7$ 3.8$ 0.6$ 0.3$ 0.0$ 2.0$ 2.5$ 2.1$ 0.7$ 5.8$20172.0$ 1.8$ 0.7$ 4.0$ 0.7$ 0.4$ 0.0$ 2.2$ 2.7$ 2.2$ 0.8$ 6.2$20182.0$ 1.9$ 0.7$ 4.1$ 0.7$ 0.4$ 0.0$ 2.2$ 2.7$ 2.2$ 0.8$ 6.3$20192.1$ 1.9$ 0.7$ 4.1$ 0.7$ 0.4$ 0.0$ 2.2$ 2.7$ 2.2$ 0.8$ 6.3$20202.1$ 1.9$ 0.8$ 4.2$ 0.7$ 0.4$ 0.0$ 2.3$ 2.8$ 2.3$ 0.8$ 6.4$20212.2$ 2.0$ 0.8$ 4.2$ 0.7$ 0.4$ 0.0$ 2.3$ 2.9$ 2.4$ 0.8$ 6.5$20222.2$ 2.0$ 0.8$ 4.2$ 0.7$ 0.4$ 0.0$ 2.2$ 2.9$ 2.4$ 0.8$ 6.4$20232.2$ 2.0$ 0.8$ 4.3$ 0.7$ 0.4$ 0.0$ 2.3$ 2.9$ 2.4$ 0.9$ 6.6$20242.2$ 2.0$ 0.8$ 4.3$ 0.7$ 0.4$ 0.0$ 2.3$ 2.9$ 2.4$ 0.9$ 6.6$20252.3$ 2.1$ 0.8$ 4.3$ 0.7$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 2.3$ 3.0$ 2.5$ 0.9$ 6.6$20262.3$ 2.1$ 0.8$ 4.3$ 0.7$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 2.2$ 3.0$ 2.5$ 0.9$ 6.6$20272.3$ 2.1$ 0.8$ 4.4$ 0.7$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 2.2$ 3.0$ 2.5$ 0.9$ 6.6$20282.3$ 2.1$ 0.8$ 4.4$ 0.7$ 0.4$ 0.0$ 2.2$ 3.0$ 2.5$ 0.9$ 6.5$20292.3$ 2.1$ 0.8$ 4.3$ 0.7$ 0.4$ 0.0$ 2.1$ 3.0$ 2.5$ 0.9$ 6.5$Total36.4$ 33.3$ 13.1$ 71.0$ 11.4$ 6.3$ 0.8$ 36.6$ 47.8$ 39.6$ 13.9$ 107.6$Ann2.1$ 1.9$ 0.8$ 4.1$ 0.7$ 0.4$ 0.0$ 2.1$ 2.7$ 2.3$ 0.8$ 6.2$Notes: Details may not sum due to rounding and individual statistical analyses.Source: GWR Benefits Model.90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundExhibit C.6b Present Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year at 3 Percent, for All TNCWSsYearTotal - Illness Total -Deaths Total BenefitsMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-63October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$20090.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$20100.3$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.7$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 1.0$20110.5$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 1.0$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.4$ 0.6$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 1.4$20120.7$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.3$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.6$ 0.9$ 0.7$ 0.2$ 1.9$20130.8$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 1.6$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.7$ 1.0$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 2.3$20141.0$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 1.9$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.9$ 1.3$ 1.1$ 0.4$ 2.8$20151.1$ 1.0$ 0.4$ 2.2$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 1.1$ 1.5$ 1.2$ 0.4$ 3.3$20161.3$ 1.2$ 0.5$ 2.5$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 1.3$ 1.7$ 1.4$ 0.5$ 3.8$20171.3$ 1.1$ 0.4$ 2.6$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 1.4$ 1.7$ 1.4$ 0.5$ 3.9$20181.2$ 1.1$ 0.4$ 2.5$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 1.3$ 1.7$ 1.4$ 0.5$ 3.8$20191.2$ 1.1$ 0.4$ 2.4$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 1.3$ 1.6$ 1.3$ 0.5$ 3.7$20201.2$ 1.1$ 0.4$ 2.4$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 1.3$ 1.6$ 1.3$ 0.5$ 3.6$20211.2$ 1.1$ 0.4$ 2.3$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 1.2$ 1.6$ 1.3$ 0.5$ 3.5$20221.1$ 1.0$ 0.4$ 2.2$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 1.2$ 1.5$ 1.2$ 0.4$ 3.4$20231.1$ 1.0$ 0.4$ 2.2$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 1.2$ 1.5$ 1.2$ 0.4$ 3.3$20241.1$ 1.0$ 0.4$ 2.1$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 1.1$ 1.4$ 1.2$ 0.4$ 3.2$20251.1$ 1.0$ 0.4$ 2.0$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 1.1$ 1.4$ 1.2$ 0.4$ 3.1$20261.0$ 1.0$ 0.4$ 1.9$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 1.0$ 1.3$ 1.1$ 0.4$ 3.0$20271.0$ 0.9$ 0.4$ 1.9$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 1.0$ 1.3$ 1.1$ 0.4$ 2.9$20281.0$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 1.8$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.9$ 1.2$ 1.0$ 0.4$ 2.7$20290.9$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 1.7$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.9$ 1.2$ 1.0$ 0.4$ 2.6$Total20.1$ 18.3$ 7.2$ 39.3$ 6.3$ 3.5$ 0.5$ 20.2$ 26.4$ 21.8$ 7.7$ 59.5$Ann1.7$ 1.6$ 0.6$ 3.4$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.0$ 1.7$ 2.3$ 1.9$ 0.7$ 5.1$Notes: Details may not sum due to rounding and individual statistical analyses.Source: GWR Benefits Model.90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundExhibit C.6c Present Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year at 7 Percent, for All TNCWSsYearTotal - Illness Total - Deaths Total BenefitsMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMedianValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-64October 2006Lower(5th%tile)Upper(95th%tile)Lower(5th%tile)Upper(95th%tile)Lower(5th%tile)Upper(95th%tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.6$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 1.2$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 1.0$ 0.9$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 2.2$20092.1$ 1.9$ 0.9$ 4.3$ 1.0$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 3.2$ 3.2$ 2.4$ 1.0$ 7.5$20104.7$ 4.1$ 1.9$ 9.2$ 2.1$ 1.1$ 0.2$ 6.8$ 6.8$ 5.2$ 2.1$ 16.0$20117.2$ 6.3$ 3.1$ 14.1$ 3.2$ 1.7$ 0.2$ 10.1$ 10.4$ 8.0$ 3.3$ 24.3$201210.0$ 8.8$ 4.2$ 19.3$ 4.3$ 2.4$ 0.3$ 13.8$ 14.3$ 11.2$ 4.6$ 33.1$201313.5$ 11.9$ 5.9$ 25.7$ 5.8$ 3.3$ 0.4$ 18.5$ 19.4$ 15.2$ 6.3$ 44.3$201414.6$ 12.9$ 6.3$ 27.7$ 6.2$ 3.5$ 0.5$ 19.7$ 20.8$ 16.4$ 6.8$ 47.4$201516.0$ 14.1$ 6.9$ 30.5$ 6.9$ 3.8$ 0.5$ 21.9$ 22.9$ 17.9$ 7.4$ 52.5$201617.1$ 15.1$ 7.3$ 32.7$ 7.3$ 4.0$ 0.5$ 23.3$ 24.4$ 19.1$ 7.9$ 55.9$201718.2$ 16.1$ 7.8$ 35.5$ 7.8$ 4.2$ 0.6$ 24.9$ 26.0$ 20.2$ 8.3$ 60.4$201819.2$ 16.9$ 8.2$ 37.5$ 8.1$ 4.4$ 0.6$ 26.0$ 27.3$ 21.3$ 8.8$ 63.5$201919.9$ 17.6$ 8.6$ 38.6$ 8.3$ 4.5$ 0.6$ 26.8$ 28.2$ 22.1$ 9.2$ 65.3$202020.8$ 18.3$ 8.9$ 40.1$ 8.6$ 4.6$ 0.6$ 27.7$ 29.3$ 23.0$ 9.6$ 67.8$202121.5$ 19.0$ 9.2$ 41.6$ 8.8$ 4.8$ 0.6$ 28.9$ 30.3$ 23.8$ 9.9$ 70.5$202222.6$ 20.0$ 9.9$ 43.4$ 9.2$ 5.0$ 0.7$ 29.9$ 31.7$ 25.0$ 10.5$ 73.3$202323.3$ 20.6$ 10.2$ 45.1$ 9.4$ 5.1$ 0.7$ 31.0$ 32.7$ 25.7$ 10.9$ 76.0$202424.2$ 21.5$ 10.6$ 46.5$ 9.7$ 5.3$ 0.7$ 31.7$ 33.9$ 26.7$ 11.3$ 78.1$202525.0$ 22.2$ 11.0$ 47.8$ 9.9$ 5.4$ 0.7$ 32.3$ 34.9$ 27.7$ 11.7$ 80.1$202625.9$ 23.0$ 11.4$ 49.4$ 10.1$ 5.6$ 0.8$ 33.1$ 36.0$ 28.6$ 12.2$ 82.4$202726.7$ 23.8$ 11.8$ 50.8$ 10.3$ 5.7$ 0.8$ 33.6$ 37.0$ 29.5$ 12.6$ 84.5$202827.4$ 24.4$ 12.1$ 52.2$ 10.5$ 5.8$ 0.8$ 34.3$ 37.9$ 30.2$ 12.8$ 86.5$202928.1$ 25.1$ 12.4$ 53.8$ 10.7$ 6.0$ 0.8$ 34.8$ 38.8$ 31.0$ 13.2$ 88.6$Source:Exhibit C.7a Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year, All SystemsYearTotal - Illness Total - Death Total BenefitsMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentMeanValueMedianValueGWR Benefits Model.90 PercentMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-65 October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th%tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th%tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.6$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 1.1$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.9$ 0.8$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 2.0$20091.9$ 1.7$ 0.8$ 3.8$ 0.9$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 2.9$ 2.8$ 2.1$ 0.9$ 6.6$20104.0$ 3.5$ 1.7$ 8.0$ 1.8$ 1.0$ 0.1$ 5.8$ 5.9$ 4.5$ 1.8$ 13.8$20116.1$ 5.3$ 2.6$ 11.8$ 2.7$ 1.5$ 0.2$ 8.5$ 8.7$ 6.7$ 2.8$ 20.3$20128.1$ 7.1$ 3.4$ 15.7$ 3.5$ 1.9$ 0.3$ 11.2$ 11.6$ 9.1$ 3.7$ 26.9$201310.7$ 9.4$ 4.6$ 20.3$ 4.6$ 2.6$ 0.4$ 14.6$ 15.3$ 12.0$ 5.0$ 34.9$201411.2$ 9.9$ 4.8$ 21.3$ 4.7$ 2.7$ 0.4$ 15.1$ 16.0$ 12.5$ 5.2$ 36.3$201511.9$ 10.5$ 5.1$ 22.7$ 5.1$ 2.8$ 0.4$ 16.3$ 17.0$ 13.3$ 5.5$ 39.0$201612.4$ 10.9$ 5.3$ 23.6$ 5.3$ 2.9$ 0.4$ 16.8$ 17.6$ 13.8$ 5.7$ 40.4$201712.8$ 11.3$ 5.5$ 24.9$ 5.4$ 2.9$ 0.4$ 17.5$ 18.2$ 14.2$ 5.9$ 42.4$201813.1$ 11.5$ 5.6$ 25.5$ 5.5$ 3.0$ 0.4$ 17.7$ 18.6$ 14.5$ 6.0$ 43.2$201913.2$ 11.6$ 5.7$ 25.5$ 5.5$ 3.0$ 0.4$ 17.7$ 18.7$ 14.6$ 6.1$ 43.2$202013.3$ 11.8$ 5.7$ 25.7$ 5.5$ 3.0$ 0.4$ 17.8$ 18.8$ 14.7$ 6.1$ 43.5$202113.4$ 11.8$ 5.8$ 25.9$ 5.5$ 3.0$ 0.4$ 18.0$ 18.9$ 14.8$ 6.2$ 44.0$202213.7$ 12.1$ 6.0$ 26.3$ 5.5$ 3.0$ 0.4$ 18.1$ 19.2$ 15.1$ 6.4$ 44.4$202313.7$ 12.1$ 6.0$ 26.5$ 5.5$ 3.0$ 0.4$ 18.2$ 19.2$ 15.1$ 6.4$ 44.7$202413.8$ 12.2$ 6.0$ 26.5$ 5.5$ 3.0$ 0.4$ 18.1$ 19.3$ 15.2$ 6.5$ 44.6$202513.8$ 12.3$ 6.1$ 26.5$ 5.5$ 3.0$ 0.4$ 17.9$ 19.3$ 15.3$ 6.5$ 44.3$202613.9$ 12.4$ 6.1$ 26.6$ 5.4$ 3.0$ 0.4$ 17.8$ 19.3$ 15.4$ 6.5$ 44.3$202713.9$ 12.4$ 6.1$ 26.5$ 5.4$ 3.0$ 0.4$ 17.6$ 19.3$ 15.4$ 6.6$ 44.1$202813.9$ 12.4$ 6.1$ 26.5$ 5.3$ 3.0$ 0.4$ 17.4$ 19.2$ 15.3$ 6.5$ 43.8$202913.8$ 12.3$ 6.1$ 26.4$ 5.2$ 2.9$ 0.4$ 17.1$ 19.1$ 15.3$ 6.5$ 43.6$Total243.2$ 215.0$ 105.4$ 467.5$ 99.7$ 54.6$ 7.4$ 322.9$ 343.0$ 269.6$ 112.8$ 790.4$Ann14.0$ 12.3$ 6.1$ 26.8$ 5.7$ 3.1$ 0.4$ 18.5$ 19.7$ 15.5$ 6.5$ 45.4$Notes: Details may not sum due to rounding and individual statistical analyses.Source:Exhibit C.7b Present Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year at 3 Percent,All SystemsYearTotal - Illness Total - Deaths Total BenefitsMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentMeanValueMedianValueGWR Benefits Model.90 PercentMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-66 October 2006Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th%tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th%tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th%tile)2005-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2006-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2007-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20080.5$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 1.0$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.8$ 0.7$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 1.8$20091.6$ 1.4$ 0.7$ 3.2$ 0.8$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 2.5$ 2.4$ 1.8$ 0.7$ 5.7$20103.3$ 2.9$ 1.4$ 6.6$ 1.5$ 0.8$ 0.1$ 4.8$ 4.8$ 3.7$ 1.5$ 11.4$20114.8$ 4.2$ 2.0$ 9.4$ 2.1$ 1.2$ 0.2$ 6.7$ 7.0$ 5.3$ 2.2$ 16.2$20126.2$ 5.5$ 2.6$ 12.0$ 2.7$ 1.5$ 0.2$ 8.6$ 8.9$ 6.9$ 2.8$ 20.6$20137.9$ 6.9$ 3.4$ 15.0$ 3.4$ 1.9$ 0.3$ 10.8$ 11.3$ 8.9$ 3.7$ 25.8$20148.0$ 7.0$ 3.4$ 15.1$ 3.4$ 1.9$ 0.3$ 10.7$ 11.3$ 8.9$ 3.7$ 25.8$20158.1$ 7.2$ 3.5$ 15.5$ 3.5$ 1.9$ 0.3$ 11.1$ 11.6$ 9.1$ 3.8$ 26.7$20168.1$ 7.2$ 3.5$ 15.5$ 3.5$ 1.9$ 0.3$ 11.1$ 11.6$ 9.1$ 3.7$ 26.6$20178.1$ 7.1$ 3.5$ 15.8$ 3.4$ 1.8$ 0.3$ 11.1$ 11.5$ 9.0$ 3.7$ 26.8$20188.0$ 7.0$ 3.4$ 15.5$ 3.4$ 1.8$ 0.2$ 10.8$ 11.3$ 8.8$ 3.6$ 26.4$20197.7$ 6.8$ 3.3$ 15.0$ 3.2$ 1.7$ 0.2$ 10.4$ 11.0$ 8.6$ 3.6$ 25.3$20207.5$ 6.6$ 3.2$ 14.5$ 3.1$ 1.7$ 0.2$ 10.0$ 10.6$ 8.3$ 3.5$ 24.6$20217.3$ 6.4$ 3.1$ 14.1$ 3.0$ 1.6$ 0.2$ 9.8$ 10.3$ 8.1$ 3.4$ 23.9$20227.1$ 6.3$ 3.1$ 13.7$ 2.9$ 1.6$ 0.2$ 9.5$ 10.0$ 7.9$ 3.3$ 23.2$20236.9$ 6.1$ 3.0$ 13.3$ 2.8$ 1.5$ 0.2$ 9.2$ 9.7$ 7.6$ 3.2$ 22.5$20246.7$ 5.9$ 2.9$ 12.9$ 2.7$ 1.5$ 0.2$ 8.8$ 9.4$ 7.4$ 3.1$ 21.6$20256.5$ 5.7$ 2.8$ 12.3$ 2.6$ 1.4$ 0.2$ 8.3$ 9.0$ 7.1$ 3.0$ 20.7$20266.2$ 5.6$ 2.8$ 11.9$ 2.4$ 1.3$ 0.2$ 8.0$ 8.7$ 6.9$ 2.9$ 19.9$20276.0$ 5.4$ 2.7$ 11.5$ 2.3$ 1.3$ 0.2$ 7.6$ 8.4$ 6.7$ 2.8$ 19.1$20285.8$ 5.1$ 2.5$ 11.0$ 2.2$ 1.2$ 0.2$ 7.2$ 8.0$ 6.4$ 2.7$ 18.2$20295.5$ 4.9$ 2.4$ 10.6$ 2.1$ 1.2$ 0.2$ 6.9$ 7.6$ 6.1$ 2.6$ 17.5$Total138.0$ 121.9$ 59.6$ 265.5$ 57.1$ 31.3$ 4.2$ 184.6$ 195.2$ 153.1$ 63.9$ 450.1$Ann.11.8$ 10.5$ 5.1$ 22.8$ 4.9$ 2.7$ 0.4$ 15.8$ 16.7$ 13.1$ 5.5$ 38.6$Notes: Details may not sum due to rounding and individual statistical analyses.Source:Exhibit C.7c Present Value of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided Under the Final Rule by Year at 7 Percent,All SystemsYearTotal - Illness Total - Deaths Total BenefitsMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentMeanValueMedianValueGWR Benefits Model.90 PercentMeanValueMedianValue90 PercentEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleC-67 October 2006

# Appendix D

Cost Details

# Applicable

Rule

Option(s) Exhibit Description A pplicable

System

Type(s) A pplicable

System

Size Exhibit

Number

<100 D.1a

101-500 D.1b

501-1,000 D.1c

1,001-3,300 D.1d

3,301-10K D.1e

10,001-50K D.1f

50,001-100K D.1g

>100,001 D.1h

All D.1i

<100 D.2a

101-500 D.2b

501-1,000 D.2c

1,001-3,300 D.2d

3,301-10K D.2e

10,001-50K D.2f

50,001-100K D.2g

>100,001 D.2h

All D.2i

<100 D.3a

101-500 D.3b

501-1,000 D.3c

1,001-3,300 D.3d

3,301-10K D.3e

10,001-50K D.3f

50,001-100K D.3g

>100,001 D.3h

All D.3i

All All D.4a

All (By Component) All D.4b

CWSs All D.4c

NTNCWSs All D.4d

TNCWSs All D.4e

All All D.4f

All (By Component) All D.4g

CWSs All D.4h

NTNCWSs All D.4i

TNCWSs All D.4j

All All D.4k

All (By Component) All D.4l

Total State Costs N/A N/A D.5a

Present Value of State Costs at 3 Percent N/A N/A D.5b

Present Value of State Costs at 7 Percent N/A N/A D.5c

Rule Activity Costs All All D.6a

Present Value of Costs at 3 Percent All All D.6b

Present Value of Costs at 7 Percent All All D.6c

Total State Costs N/A N/A D.6d

Present Value of State Costs at 3 Percent N/A N/A D.6e

Present Value of State Costs at 7 Percent N/A N/A D.6f

Rule Activity Costs All All D.7a

Present Value of Costs at 3 Percent All All D.7b

Present Value of Costs at 7 Percent All All D.7c

Total State Costs N/A N/A D.7d

Present Value of State Costs at 3 Percent N/A N/A D.7e

Present Value of State Costs at 7 Percent N/A N/A D.7f

Rule Activity Costs All All D.8a

Present Value of Costs at 3 Percent All All D.8b

Present Value of Costs at 7 Percent All All D.8c

Total State Costs N/A N/A D.8d

Present Value of State Costs at 3 Percent N/A N/A D.8e

Present Value of State Costs at 7 Percent N/A N/A D.8f 

# Matrix of Appendix D Contents

Final Rule CWSs

NTNCWSs

TNCWSs

Present Value of Costs at 7 Percent Present Value of Costs at 3 Percent Rule Activity Costs

Alternative 1

Alternative 3

Alternative 4

Note:

Appendix D presents step by step results for the projection and discounting of costs to show how yearly costs for each rule

component are accounted for by the cost model for CWSs, NTNCWSs, TNCWSs, and Primacy Agencies. Exhibits D.1

through D.5 show the nominal costs projected over the rule schedule and the present value of each cost calculated to the

expected year of rule implementation for the preferred regulatory alternative. Exhibits D.6 through D.8 show the results for

Alternatives 1, 3, and 4. The detailed cost breakouts presented in this appendix are based on an independent analysis of the

cost model outputs, and as a result the ninety percent confidence bounds presented in this appendix may not exactly match

those presented in Chapter 6 and elsewhere in the GWR EA.



# Economic Analysis for the

Final Ground Water Rule D-1 October 2006Implementation Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action - Plans Corrective Action - Capital Corrective Action - O&M Compliance MonitoringLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20050.5$ 0.5$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20060.5$ 0.5$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20070.5$ 0.5$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2008-$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.6$ 1.2$ -$ -$ -$ 1.1$ 1.0$ 1.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 5.6$ 2.6$ 9.8$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$2009-$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.6$ 1.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$2010-$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.6$ 1.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$2011-$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.6$ 1.2$ -$ -$ -$ 1.0$ 1.0$ 1.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 3.5$ 1.6$ 6.2$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.8$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.9$2012-$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.6$ 1.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.9$2013-$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.6$ 1.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.9$2014-$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.6$ 1.2$ -$ -$ -$ 1.0$ 0.9$ 1.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 2.6$ 1.1$ 4.9$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.8$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.2$2015-$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.6$ 1.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.6$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.2$2016-$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.6$ 1.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.2$2017-$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.6$ 1.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.9$ 1.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 2.0$ 0.7$ 4.1$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.8$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 1.3$2018-$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.6$ 1.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.7$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 1.3$2019-$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.6$ 1.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 1.3$2020-$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.6$ 1.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.9$ 1.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 1.7$ 0.5$ 3.5$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.8$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 1.5$2021-$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.6$ 1.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.7$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 1.5$2022-$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.6$ 1.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.7$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 1.5$2023-$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.6$ 1.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.9$ 0.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 1.3$ 0.4$ 2.8$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.9$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 1.6$2024-$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.6$ 1.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.8$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 1.6$2025-$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.6$ 1.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.8$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 1.6$2026-$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.6$ 1.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.9$ 0.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 1.1$ 0.3$ 2.7$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.9$ 1.0$ 0.3$ 1.7$2027-$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.6$ 1.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.8$ 1.0$ 0.3$ 1.7$2028-$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.6$ 1.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.8$ 1.0$ 0.3$ 1.7$2029-$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.6$ 1.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.9$ 0.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 1.0$ 0.2$ 2.4$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 1.0$ 1.0$ 0.4$ 1.8$Notes:Source: Ground Water Rule model output.MeanValueYear90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundExhibit D.1a Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for CWSs Serving <10090 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueDetail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.Values in millions of 2003 dollars.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-2October 2006Implementation Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action - Plans Corrective Action - Capital Corrective Action - O&M Compliance MonitoringLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20050.6$ 0.6$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20060.6$ 0.6$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20070.6$ 0.6$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2008-$ -$ -$ 1.0$ 0.7$ 1.4$ -$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 1.2$ 1.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 4.9$ 2.0$ 9.7$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.7$2009-$ -$ -$ 1.0$ 0.7$ 1.4$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.7$2010-$ -$ -$ 1.0$ 0.7$ 1.4$ -$ -$ -$ 1.2$ 1.1$ 1.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 3.2$ 1.2$ 6.7$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.9$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 1.1$2011-$ -$ -$ 1.0$ 0.7$ 1.4$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.8$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 1.1$2012-$ -$ -$ 1.0$ 0.7$ 1.4$ -$ -$ -$ 1.1$ 1.1$ 1.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 2.3$ 0.7$ 5.0$ 0.6$ 0.3$ 1.0$ 0.7$ 0.2$ 1.4$2013-$ -$ -$ 1.0$ 0.7$ 1.4$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 1.0$ 0.7$ 0.2$ 1.4$2014-$ -$ -$ 1.0$ 0.7$ 1.4$ -$ -$ -$ 1.1$ 1.1$ 1.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 1.8$ 0.4$ 4.1$ 0.6$ 0.3$ 1.2$ 0.8$ 0.2$ 1.6$2015-$ -$ -$ 1.0$ 0.7$ 1.4$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.1$ 0.8$ 0.2$ 1.6$2016-$ -$ -$ 1.0$ 0.7$ 1.4$ -$ -$ -$ 1.1$ 1.0$ 1.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 1.4$ 0.3$ 3.4$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 1.2$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 1.8$2017-$ -$ -$ 1.0$ 0.7$ 1.4$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.2$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 1.8$2018-$ -$ -$ 1.0$ 0.7$ 1.4$ -$ -$ -$ 1.1$ 1.0$ 1.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 1.2$ 0.2$ 2.9$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 1.3$ 1.0$ 0.3$ 2.0$2019-$ -$ -$ 1.0$ 0.7$ 1.4$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 1.3$ 1.0$ 0.3$ 2.0$2020-$ -$ -$ 1.0$ 0.7$ 1.4$ -$ -$ -$ 1.0$ 1.0$ 1.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 1.0$ 0.2$ 2.5$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 1.4$ 1.1$ 0.3$ 2.1$2021-$ -$ -$ 1.0$ 0.7$ 1.4$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.7$ 0.2$ 1.4$ 1.1$ 0.3$ 2.1$2022-$ -$ -$ 1.0$ 0.7$ 1.4$ -$ -$ -$ 1.0$ 1.0$ 1.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.8$ 0.1$ 2.2$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 1.5$ 1.1$ 0.3$ 2.3$2023-$ -$ -$ 1.0$ 0.7$ 1.4$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 1.4$ 1.1$ 0.3$ 2.3$2024-$ -$ -$ 1.0$ 0.7$ 1.4$ -$ -$ -$ 1.0$ 1.0$ 1.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.8$ 0.1$ 2.3$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 1.5$ 1.2$ 0.3$ 2.3$2025-$ -$ -$ 1.0$ 0.7$ 1.4$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 1.5$ 1.2$ 0.3$ 2.3$2026-$ -$ -$ 1.0$ 0.7$ 1.4$ -$ -$ -$ 1.0$ 1.0$ 1.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.7$ 0.0$ 2.1$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 1.6$ 1.2$ 0.3$ 2.4$2027-$ -$ -$ 1.0$ 0.7$ 1.4$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 1.6$ 1.2$ 0.3$ 2.4$2028-$ -$ -$ 1.0$ 0.7$ 1.4$ -$ -$ -$ 1.0$ 1.0$ 1.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.6$ 0.0$ 1.9$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 1.6$ 1.3$ 0.4$ 2.5$2029-$ -$ -$ 1.0$ 0.7$ 1.4$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 1.6$ 1.3$ 0.4$ 2.5$Notes:Source: Ground Water Rule model output.Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.Exhibit D.1b Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for CWSs Serving 101-500YearMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-3October 2006Implementation Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action - Plans Corrective Action - Capital Corrective Action - O&M Compliance MonitoringLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20050.2$ 0.2$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20060.2$ 0.2$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20070.2$ 0.2$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2008-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.5$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 2.1$ 0.9$ 3.8$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$2009-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$2010-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 1.4$ 0.6$ 2.7$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$2011-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$2012-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 1.0$ 0.3$ 2.1$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$2013-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$2014-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.8$ 0.2$ 1.7$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$2015-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$2016-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.3$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.7$2017-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.7$2018-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 1.2$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.7$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.7$2019-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.7$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.7$2020-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 1.1$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.7$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.8$2021-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.7$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.8$2022-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.9$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.8$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.8$2023-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.8$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.8$2024-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 0.0$ 0.9$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.8$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 0.8$2025-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.8$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 0.8$2026-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 0.0$ 0.8$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.8$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 0.9$2027-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.8$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 0.9$2028-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 0.0$ 0.7$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.8$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 0.9$2029-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.8$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 0.9$Notes:Source: Ground Water Rule model output.90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundValues in millions of 2003 dollars.Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.Exhibit D.1c Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for CWSs Serving 501-1,000YearMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-4October 2006Implementation Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action - Plans Corrective Action - Capital Corrective Action - O&M Compliance MonitoringLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20050.2$ 0.2$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20060.2$ 0.2$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20070.2$ 0.2$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2008-$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.8$ 0.7$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 4.8$ 2.3$ 7.9$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$2009-$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$2010-$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$2011-$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$2012-$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$2013-$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.7$ 0.7$ 0.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 3.2$ 1.4$ 5.9$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 0.9$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.7$2014-$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 0.9$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.7$2015-$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 0.9$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.7$2016-$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 0.9$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.7$2017-$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 0.9$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.7$2018-$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.7$ 0.7$ 0.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 2.3$ 0.9$ 4.4$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.1$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 0.8$2019-$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.1$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 0.8$2020-$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.1$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 0.8$2021-$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.1$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 0.8$2022-$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.1$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 0.8$2023-$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.7$ 0.6$ 0.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 1.8$ 0.7$ 3.5$ 0.7$ 0.2$ 1.3$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 1.0$2024-$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.7$ 0.2$ 1.3$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 1.0$2025-$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.7$ 0.2$ 1.3$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 1.0$2026-$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.7$ 0.2$ 1.3$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 1.0$2027-$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.7$ 0.2$ 1.3$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 1.0$2028-$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.7$ 0.6$ 0.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 1.4$ 0.5$ 3.1$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 1.5$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.1$2029-$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 1.5$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.1$Notes:Source: Ground Water Rule model output.90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundExhibit D.1d Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for CWSs Serving 1,001-3,30090 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValueDetail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.YearMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundValues in millions of 2003 dollars.MeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-5October 2006Implementation Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action - Plans Corrective Action - Capital Corrective Action - O&M Compliance MonitoringLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20050.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20060.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20070.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2008-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.5$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.4$ 5.3$ 2.7$ 8.4$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.3$2009-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$2010-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.5$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 3.4$ 1.6$ 5.8$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.9$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.3$2011-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.9$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2012-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.4$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 2.5$ 1.1$ 4.2$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.2$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.4$2013-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.2$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.3$2014-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 1.9$ 0.8$ 3.5$ 0.7$ 0.2$ 1.3$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$2015-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.7$ 0.2$ 1.3$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$2016-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 1.6$ 0.5$ 3.0$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 1.5$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$2017-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 1.5$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$2018-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 1.3$ 0.4$ 2.6$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 1.6$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.5$2019-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 1.6$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$2020-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 1.1$ 0.2$ 2.3$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 1.7$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$2021-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 1.7$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$2022-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.9$ 0.2$ 1.9$ 1.0$ 0.3$ 1.8$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$2023-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.0$ 0.3$ 1.8$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.5$2024-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.8$ 0.2$ 1.8$ 1.0$ 0.3$ 1.9$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$2025-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.0$ 0.3$ 1.9$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$2026-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.7$ 0.1$ 1.7$ 1.1$ 0.4$ 2.0$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$2027-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.1$ 0.4$ 2.0$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$2028-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.6$ 0.1$ 1.6$ 1.1$ 0.4$ 2.0$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$2029-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.1$ 0.4$ 2.0$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$Notes:Source: Ground Water Rule model output.90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundValues in millions of 2003 dollars.Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.Exhibit D.1e Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for CWSs Serving 3,301-10,000YearMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-6October 2006Implementation Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action - Plans Corrective Action - Capital Corrective Action - O&M Compliance MonitoringLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20050.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20060.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20070.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2008-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.5$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.5$ 9.4$ 5.5$ 14.2$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.6$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2009-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.5$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 4.8$ 2.3$ 7.7$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.9$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2010-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.5$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 3.0$ 1.3$ 5.3$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 1.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2011-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.4$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 2.1$ 0.8$ 3.8$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 1.2$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2012-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 1.6$ 0.5$ 3.0$ 0.8$ 0.4$ 1.3$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2013-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 1.2$ 0.3$ 2.6$ 0.9$ 0.4$ 1.4$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2014-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 1.1$ 0.2$ 2.3$ 0.9$ 0.4$ 1.5$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2015-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.9$ 0.1$ 1.9$ 0.9$ 0.4$ 1.6$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2016-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.7$ 0.1$ 1.7$ 1.0$ 0.4$ 1.6$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2017-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.7$ 0.1$ 1.6$ 1.0$ 0.4$ 1.7$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2018-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.6$ 0.0$ 1.3$ 1.0$ 0.4$ 1.7$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$2019-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.5$ 0.0$ 1.3$ 1.0$ 0.5$ 1.7$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$2020-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.4$ 0.0$ 1.2$ 1.0$ 0.5$ 1.8$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$2021-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.4$ -$ 1.1$ 1.1$ 0.5$ 1.8$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$2022-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.4$ -$ 1.1$ 1.1$ 0.5$ 1.8$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$2023-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.3$ -$ 1.0$ 1.1$ 0.5$ 1.8$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$2024-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.3$ -$ 0.9$ 1.1$ 0.5$ 1.8$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$2025-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.3$ -$ 1.0$ 1.1$ 0.5$ 1.9$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$2026-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.3$ -$ 0.9$ 1.1$ 0.5$ 1.9$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$2027-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.2$ -$ 0.8$ 1.1$ 0.5$ 1.9$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$2028-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.3$ -$ 0.8$ 1.1$ 0.5$ 1.9$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$2029-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.2$ -$ 0.7$ 1.1$ 0.5$ 2.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$Notes:Source: Ground Water Rule model output.90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundValues in millions of 2003 dollars.Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.Exhibit D.1f Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for CWSs Serving 10,001-50,000YearMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-7October 2006Implementation Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action - Plans Corrective Action - Capital Corrective Action - O&M Compliance MonitoringLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20050.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20060.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20070.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2008-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.5$ 0.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.3$ 6.7$ 3.8$ 10.5$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.8$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.3$2009-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 1.8$ 0.7$ 3.1$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2010-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 1.8$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 1.2$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2011-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.6$ 0.1$ 1.2$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 1.3$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2012-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.4$ 0.0$ 0.9$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 1.3$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2013-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 0.0$ 0.7$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 1.3$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2014-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 0.0$ 0.6$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 1.4$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2015-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.5$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 1.4$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2016-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.4$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 1.5$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2017-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.2$ -$ 0.4$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 1.5$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2018-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ 0.4$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 1.5$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2019-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ 0.3$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 1.5$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2020-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ 0.3$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 1.5$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2021-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ 0.3$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 1.5$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2022-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ 0.3$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 1.6$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2023-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ 0.3$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 1.6$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$2024-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ 0.2$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 1.6$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$2025-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ 0.2$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 1.6$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2026-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ 0.2$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 1.6$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2027-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ 0.2$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 1.6$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2028-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ 0.2$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 1.6$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$2029-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ 0.2$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 1.6$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$Notes:Source: Ground Water Rule model output.Exhibit D.1g Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for CWSs Serving 50,001-100,000Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundYearMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-8October 2006Implementation Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action - Plans Corrective Action - Capital Corrective Action - O&M Compliance MonitoringLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20050.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20060.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20070.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2008-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.5$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 11.9$ 6.9$ 17.9$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.7$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$2009-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 2.5$ 0.6$ 4.5$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.8$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$2010-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.3$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 1.2$ 0.2$ 2.5$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.9$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$2011-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.3$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.8$ 0.0$ 1.8$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$2012-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.3$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.6$ 0.0$ 1.4$ 0.6$ 0.3$ 1.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$2013-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.3$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.4$ -$ 1.1$ 0.6$ 0.3$ 1.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$2014-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.3$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.4$ -$ 0.9$ 0.6$ 0.3$ 1.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$2015-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.3$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.3$ -$ 0.9$ 0.6$ 0.3$ 1.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$2016-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.3$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.2$ -$ 0.7$ 0.6$ 0.3$ 1.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$2017-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.3$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.2$ -$ 0.7$ 0.6$ 0.3$ 1.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$2018-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.3$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.2$ -$ 0.6$ 0.6$ 0.3$ 1.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$2019-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.3$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.2$ -$ 0.6$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 1.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$2020-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.3$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ 0.5$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 1.2$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$2021-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.3$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ 0.5$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 1.2$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$2022-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.3$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ 0.4$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 1.2$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$2023-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.3$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ 0.5$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 1.2$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$2024-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.3$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ 0.4$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 1.2$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$2025-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.3$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ 0.4$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 1.2$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$2026-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.3$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ 0.3$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 1.2$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$2027-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.3$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ 0.4$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 1.2$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$2028-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.3$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ 0.4$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 1.2$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$2029-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.3$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ 0.3$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 1.2$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$Notes:Source: Ground Water Rule model output.90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundYearExhibit D.1h Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for CWSs Serving >100,001Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-9October 2006Implementation Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action - Plans Corrective Action - Capital Corrective Action - O&M Compliance MonitoringLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20051.7$ 1.7$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20061.7$ 1.7$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20071.7$ 1.7$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2008-$ -$ -$ 3.1$ 2.0$ 4.2$ -$ -$ -$ 5.8$ 5.5$ 6.2$ -$ -$ -$ 1.6$ 1.1$ 2.2$ 50.7$ 26.7$ 82.2$ 3.0$ 1.4$ 5.1$ 1.4$ 0.4$ 2.9$2009-$ -$ -$ 3.1$ 2.0$ 4.2$ -$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 1.2$ 1.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.5$ 9.0$ 3.7$ 15.3$ 2.9$ 1.2$ 5.2$ 1.3$ 0.3$ 2.6$2010-$ -$ -$ 3.1$ 2.0$ 4.2$ -$ -$ -$ 3.3$ 3.2$ 3.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.7$ 13.2$ 5.0$ 24.8$ 3.5$ 1.4$ 6.2$ 1.7$ 0.5$ 3.3$2011-$ -$ -$ 3.1$ 2.0$ 4.2$ -$ -$ -$ 2.2$ 2.1$ 2.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 7.0$ 2.5$ 12.9$ 3.9$ 1.6$ 6.9$ 1.8$ 0.5$ 3.5$2012-$ -$ -$ 3.1$ 2.0$ 4.2$ -$ -$ -$ 3.2$ 3.0$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.5$ 8.4$ 2.7$ 16.5$ 4.2$ 1.7$ 7.4$ 2.2$ 0.6$ 4.1$2013-$ -$ -$ 3.1$ 2.0$ 4.2$ -$ -$ -$ 1.8$ 1.8$ 1.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 5.2$ 1.8$ 10.4$ 4.3$ 1.7$ 7.7$ 2.3$ 0.6$ 4.3$2014-$ -$ -$ 3.1$ 2.0$ 4.2$ -$ -$ -$ 4.0$ 3.9$ 4.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 8.8$ 2.8$ 18.0$ 4.9$ 2.0$ 8.7$ 2.6$ 0.7$ 5.0$2015-$ -$ -$ 3.1$ 2.0$ 4.2$ -$ -$ -$ 1.1$ 1.1$ 1.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 1.4$ 0.1$ 3.2$ 4.8$ 1.9$ 8.6$ 2.6$ 0.7$ 4.9$2016-$ -$ -$ 3.1$ 2.0$ 4.2$ -$ -$ -$ 3.0$ 2.9$ 3.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 4.8$ 1.1$ 10.6$ 5.0$ 1.9$ 9.0$ 2.8$ 0.8$ 5.3$2017-$ -$ -$ 3.1$ 2.0$ 4.2$ -$ -$ -$ 2.0$ 2.0$ 2.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 3.1$ 0.8$ 6.9$ 5.2$ 2.0$ 9.3$ 2.9$ 0.8$ 5.4$2018-$ -$ -$ 3.1$ 2.0$ 4.2$ -$ -$ -$ 3.7$ 3.5$ 3.8$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 6.2$ 1.6$ 13.4$ 5.5$ 2.1$ 9.7$ 3.1$ 0.9$ 5.9$2019-$ -$ -$ 3.1$ 2.0$ 4.2$ -$ -$ -$ 1.1$ 1.0$ 1.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.8$ 0.0$ 2.2$ 5.4$ 2.1$ 9.7$ 3.1$ 0.9$ 5.8$2020-$ -$ -$ 3.1$ 2.0$ 4.2$ -$ -$ -$ 3.9$ 3.7$ 4.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 4.8$ 1.0$ 11.4$ 5.8$ 2.3$ 10.2$ 3.3$ 1.0$ 6.2$2021-$ -$ -$ 3.1$ 2.0$ 4.2$ -$ -$ -$ 1.1$ 1.0$ 1.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.6$ -$ 1.9$ 5.7$ 2.2$ 10.1$ 3.3$ 1.0$ 6.2$2022-$ -$ -$ 3.1$ 2.0$ 4.2$ -$ -$ -$ 2.9$ 2.8$ 3.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 2.7$ 0.4$ 6.8$ 5.8$ 2.2$ 10.4$ 3.4$ 1.0$ 6.5$2023-$ -$ -$ 3.1$ 2.0$ 4.2$ -$ -$ -$ 2.7$ 2.5$ 2.8$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 3.7$ 1.1$ 8.0$ 6.0$ 2.3$ 10.8$ 3.6$ 1.0$ 6.7$2024-$ -$ -$ 3.1$ 2.0$ 4.2$ -$ -$ -$ 2.9$ 2.8$ 3.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 2.4$ 0.3$ 6.4$ 6.1$ 2.3$ 11.0$ 3.7$ 1.1$ 6.9$2025-$ -$ -$ 3.1$ 2.0$ 4.2$ -$ -$ -$ 1.1$ 1.0$ 1.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.5$ -$ 1.5$ 6.1$ 2.2$ 11.0$ 3.7$ 1.1$ 6.9$2026-$ -$ -$ 3.1$ 2.0$ 4.2$ -$ -$ -$ 3.8$ 3.6$ 4.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 3.2$ 0.5$ 8.7$ 6.3$ 2.4$ 11.3$ 3.8$ 1.1$ 7.2$2027-$ -$ -$ 3.1$ 2.0$ 4.2$ -$ -$ -$ 1.1$ 1.0$ 1.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.4$ -$ 1.3$ 6.2$ 2.3$ 11.2$ 3.8$ 1.1$ 7.2$2028-$ -$ -$ 3.1$ 2.0$ 4.2$ -$ -$ -$ 3.5$ 3.4$ 3.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 3.3$ 0.6$ 8.7$ 6.4$ 2.4$ 11.5$ 3.9$ 1.2$ 7.4$2029-$ -$ -$ 3.1$ 2.0$ 4.2$ -$ -$ -$ 2.0$ 1.9$ 2.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 1.3$ 0.2$ 3.6$ 6.5$ 2.4$ 11.7$ 4.0$ 1.2$ 7.5$Notes:Source: Ground Water Rule model output.Exhibit D.1i Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for All CWSsValues in millions of 2003 dollars.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundYearMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-10October 2006Implementation Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action - Plans Corrective Action - Capital Corrective Action - O&M Compliance MonitoringLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20050.3$ 0.3$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20060.3$ 0.3$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20070.3$ 0.3$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2008-$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ 0.7$ 0.7$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 4.0$ 1.8$ 7.0$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$2009-$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$2010-$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$2011-$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$2012-$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$2013-$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ 0.7$ 0.7$ 0.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 2.7$ 1.2$ 4.8$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.6$2014-$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.6$2015-$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.6$2016-$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.6$2017-$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.6$2018-$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ 0.7$ 0.6$ 0.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 1.9$ 0.8$ 3.5$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.6$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.8$2019-$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.8$2020-$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.8$2021-$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.8$2022-$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.8$2023-$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.6$ 0.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 1.5$ 0.5$ 3.1$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.6$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 1.0$2024-$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 1.0$2025-$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 1.0$2026-$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 1.0$2027-$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 1.0$2028-$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.6$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 1.2$ 0.4$ 2.5$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.6$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.1$2029-$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.1$Notes:Source: Ground Water Rule model output.90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundYearExhibit D.2a Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving <100Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-11October 2006Implementation Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action - Plans Corrective Action - Capital Corrective Action - O&M Compliance MonitoringLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20050.3$ 0.3$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20060.3$ 0.3$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20070.3$ 0.3$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2008-$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.5$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 3.7$ 1.6$ 6.9$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.5$2009-$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.5$2010-$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.5$2011-$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.5$2012-$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.5$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 2.4$ 1.0$ 4.5$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.8$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.8$2013-$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.7$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.8$2014-$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.7$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.8$2015-$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.7$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.8$2016-$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.5$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 1.8$ 0.6$ 3.5$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.9$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 1.0$2017-$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.9$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 1.0$2018-$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.9$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 1.0$2019-$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.9$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 1.0$2020-$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.4$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 1.4$ 0.4$ 2.9$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.1$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.1$2021-$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 1.0$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.1$2022-$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 1.0$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.1$2023-$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 1.0$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.1$2024-$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.4$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 1.1$ 0.3$ 2.4$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.1$ 0.7$ 0.2$ 1.3$2025-$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.1$ 0.7$ 0.2$ 1.3$2026-$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.1$ 0.7$ 0.2$ 1.3$2027-$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.1$ 0.7$ 0.2$ 1.3$2028-$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.9$ 0.2$ 2.1$ 0.7$ 0.2$ 1.2$ 0.7$ 0.2$ 1.4$2029-$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.2$ 0.7$ 0.2$ 1.4$Notes:Source: Ground Water Rule model output.Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundValues in millions of 2003 dollars.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundExhibit D.2b Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving 101-500YearMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-12October 2006Implementation Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action - Plans Corrective Action - Capital Corrective Action - O&M Compliance MonitoringLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20050.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20060.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20070.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2008-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 1.4$ 0.6$ 2.3$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$2009-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$2010-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$2011-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$2012-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.9$ 0.4$ 1.6$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2013-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2014-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2015-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2016-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 1.3$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.3$2017-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.3$2018-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.3$2019-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.3$2020-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 1.0$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$2021-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$2022-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$2023-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$2024-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$2025-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$2026-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$2027-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$2028-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$2029-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$Notes:Source: Ground Water Rule model output.Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundValues in millions of 2003 dollars.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundExhibit D.2c Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving 501-1,000YearMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-13October 2006Implementation Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action - Plans Corrective Action - Capital Corrective Action - O&M Compliance MonitoringLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20050.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20060.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20070.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2008-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 1.2$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$2009-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.8$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$2010-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$2011-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$2012-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$2013-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2014-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2015-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2016-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2017-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2018-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2019-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2020-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2021-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ 0.2$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2022-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ 0.2$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2023-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2024-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2025-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2026-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2027-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2028-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2029-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$Notes:Source: Ground Water Rule model output.90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundYearExhibit D.2d Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving 1,001-3,300Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-14October 2006Implementation Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action - Plans Corrective Action - Capital Corrective Action - O&M Compliance MonitoringLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20050.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20060.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20070.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2008-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2009-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2010-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2011-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2012-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2013-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2014-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2015-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2016-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2017-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2018-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2019-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2020-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2021-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2022-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2023-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2024-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2025-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2026-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2027-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2028-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2029-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$Notes:Source: Ground Water Rule model output.Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundValues in millions of 2003 dollars.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundExhibit D.2e Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving 3,301-10,000YearMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-15October 2006Implementation Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action - Plans Corrective Action - Capital Corrective Action - O&M Compliance MonitoringLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20050.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20060.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20070.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2008-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2009-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2010-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2011-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2012-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2013-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2014-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2015-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2016-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2017-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2018-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2019-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2020-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2021-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2022-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2023-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2024-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2025-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2026-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2027-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2028-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2029-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$Notes:Source: Ground Water Rule model output.Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundValues in millions of 2003 dollars.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundExhibit D.2f Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving 10,001-50,000YearMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-16October 2006Implementation Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action - Plans Corrective Action - Capital Corrective Action - O&M Compliance MonitoringLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20050.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20060.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20070.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2008-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2009-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2010-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2011-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2012-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2013-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2014-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2015-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2016-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2017-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2018-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2019-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2020-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2021-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2022-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2023-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2024-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2025-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2026-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2027-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2028-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2029-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$Notes:Source: Ground Water Rule model output.90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundYearExhibit D.2g Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving 50,001-100,000Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-17October 2006Implementation Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action - Plans Corrective Action - Capital Corrective Action - O&M Compliance MonitoringLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20050.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20060.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20070.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2008-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2009-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2010-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2011-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2012-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2013-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2014-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2015-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2016-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2017-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2018-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2019-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2020-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2021-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2022-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2023-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2024-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2025-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2026-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2027-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2028-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2029-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$Notes:Source: Ground Water Rule model output.Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundValues in millions of 2003 dollars.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundExhibit D.2h Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for NTNCWSs Serving >100,001YearMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-18October 2006Implementation Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action - Plans Corrective Action - Capital Corrective Action - O&M Compliance MonitoringLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20050.7$ 0.7$ 0.7$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20060.7$ 0.7$ 0.7$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20070.7$ 0.7$ 0.7$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2008-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 1.5$ 1.4$ 1.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 10.3$ 4.6$ 18.4$ 1.2$ 0.7$ 1.7$ 0.6$ 0.1$ 1.1$2009-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.7$ 0.2$ 1.2$ 0.8$ 0.4$ 1.3$ 0.6$ 0.1$ 1.1$2010-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.9$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.1$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.1$2011-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.7$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.2$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.2$2012-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.7$ 0.7$ 0.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 3.6$ 1.5$ 6.7$ 1.0$ 0.5$ 1.7$ 0.8$ 0.2$ 1.6$2013-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.7$ 0.7$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 2.9$ 1.2$ 5.3$ 1.2$ 0.5$ 2.0$ 1.0$ 0.3$ 1.8$2014-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.4$ 1.0$ 0.3$ 1.8$ 1.0$ 0.3$ 1.8$2015-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.4$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 1.8$ 1.0$ 0.3$ 1.8$2016-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.7$ 0.6$ 0.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 2.6$ 0.9$ 5.1$ 1.2$ 0.5$ 2.2$ 1.1$ 0.3$ 2.1$2017-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 1.1$ 0.4$ 2.1$ 1.1$ 0.3$ 2.1$2018-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.7$ 0.7$ 0.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 2.0$ 0.8$ 3.8$ 1.3$ 0.5$ 2.3$ 1.3$ 0.4$ 2.3$2019-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 1.2$ 0.4$ 2.2$ 1.3$ 0.4$ 2.3$2020-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.7$ 0.6$ 0.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 2.0$ 0.6$ 4.1$ 1.4$ 0.5$ 2.5$ 1.4$ 0.4$ 2.5$2021-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ 0.2$ 1.3$ 0.4$ 2.4$ 1.4$ 0.4$ 2.5$2022-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ 0.2$ 1.3$ 0.4$ 2.4$ 1.4$ 0.4$ 2.5$2023-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.7$ 0.7$ 0.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 1.6$ 0.5$ 3.3$ 1.4$ 0.5$ 2.6$ 1.5$ 0.5$ 2.7$2024-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.6$ 0.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 1.6$ 0.5$ 3.4$ 1.5$ 0.6$ 2.7$ 1.6$ 0.5$ 2.9$2025-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ 0.2$ 1.4$ 0.5$ 2.6$ 1.6$ 0.5$ 2.9$2026-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ 0.2$ 1.4$ 0.4$ 2.7$ 1.6$ 0.5$ 2.9$2027-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.2$ 1.4$ 0.4$ 2.7$ 1.6$ 0.5$ 2.9$2028-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 1.2$ 1.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 2.5$ 0.7$ 5.5$ 1.7$ 0.6$ 3.0$ 1.7$ 0.5$ 3.1$2029-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.1$ 1.6$ 0.5$ 2.9$ 1.7$ 0.5$ 3.1$Notes:Source: Ground Water Rule model output.90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundYearExhibit D.2i Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for All NTNCWSsValues in millions of 2003 dollars.Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-19October 2006Implementation Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action - Plans Corrective Action - Capital Corrective Action - O&M Compliance MonitoringLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20052.3$ 2.3$ 2.3$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20062.3$ 2.3$ 2.3$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20072.3$ 2.3$ 2.3$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2008-$ -$ -$ 4.3$ 2.9$ 5.9$ -$ -$ -$ 5.3$ 5.0$ 5.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.6$ 30.7$ 14.6$ 51.3$ 3.3$ 2.0$ 4.8$ 1.7$ 0.5$ 3.2$2009-$ -$ -$ 4.3$ 2.9$ 5.9$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.5$ 0.8$ 2.4$ 1.7$ 0.5$ 3.2$2010-$ -$ -$ 4.3$ 2.9$ 5.9$ -$ -$ -$ 5.0$ 4.8$ 5.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.4$ 21.0$ 9.3$ 37.6$ 3.0$ 1.8$ 4.2$ 2.8$ 1.0$ 5.0$2011-$ -$ -$ 4.3$ 2.9$ 5.9$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.8$ 0.8$ 2.9$ 2.8$ 1.0$ 5.0$2012-$ -$ -$ 4.3$ 2.9$ 5.9$ -$ -$ -$ 4.8$ 4.7$ 5.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 14.8$ 5.8$ 27.3$ 2.8$ 1.6$ 4.4$ 3.6$ 1.2$ 6.4$2013-$ -$ -$ 4.3$ 2.9$ 5.9$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2.0$ 0.8$ 3.4$ 3.6$ 1.2$ 6.4$2014-$ -$ -$ 4.3$ 2.9$ 5.9$ -$ -$ -$ 4.7$ 4.6$ 4.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 11.6$ 4.2$ 21.6$ 2.8$ 1.4$ 4.7$ 4.2$ 1.5$ 7.4$2015-$ -$ -$ 4.3$ 2.9$ 5.9$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2.2$ 0.8$ 3.8$ 4.2$ 1.5$ 7.4$2016-$ -$ -$ 4.3$ 2.9$ 5.9$ -$ -$ -$ 4.6$ 4.5$ 4.8$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 9.3$ 3.1$ 18.9$ 2.9$ 1.4$ 4.7$ 4.7$ 1.7$ 8.6$2017-$ -$ -$ 4.3$ 2.9$ 5.9$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2.3$ 0.9$ 4.1$ 4.7$ 1.7$ 8.6$2018-$ -$ -$ 4.3$ 2.9$ 5.9$ -$ -$ -$ 4.6$ 4.5$ 4.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 7.2$ 2.4$ 15.7$ 2.9$ 1.3$ 5.0$ 5.2$ 2.0$ 9.2$2019-$ -$ -$ 4.3$ 2.9$ 5.9$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2.5$ 1.0$ 4.3$ 5.2$ 2.0$ 9.2$2020-$ -$ -$ 4.3$ 2.9$ 5.9$ -$ -$ -$ 4.5$ 4.4$ 4.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 6.5$ 1.9$ 13.3$ 3.0$ 1.3$ 5.1$ 5.5$ 2.0$ 9.9$2021-$ -$ -$ 4.3$ 2.9$ 5.9$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2.6$ 1.0$ 4.6$ 5.5$ 2.0$ 9.9$2022-$ -$ -$ 4.3$ 2.9$ 5.9$ -$ -$ -$ 4.5$ 4.4$ 4.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 5.5$ 1.5$ 12.6$ 3.0$ 1.2$ 5.2$ 5.8$ 2.1$ 10.6$2023-$ -$ -$ 4.3$ 2.9$ 5.9$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2.7$ 1.0$ 4.8$ 5.8$ 2.1$ 10.6$2024-$ -$ -$ 4.3$ 2.9$ 5.9$ -$ -$ -$ 4.5$ 4.4$ 4.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 4.7$ 1.2$ 11.5$ 3.1$ 1.3$ 5.5$ 6.1$ 2.2$ 10.9$2025-$ -$ -$ 4.3$ 2.9$ 5.9$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2.8$ 1.0$ 5.2$ 6.1$ 2.2$ 10.9$2026-$ -$ -$ 4.3$ 2.9$ 5.9$ -$ -$ -$ 4.5$ 4.3$ 4.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 4.1$ 0.8$ 10.3$ 3.1$ 1.3$ 5.5$ 6.3$ 2.2$ 11.3$2027-$ -$ -$ 4.3$ 2.9$ 5.9$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2.9$ 1.1$ 5.2$ 6.3$ 2.2$ 11.3$2028-$ -$ -$ 4.3$ 2.9$ 5.9$ -$ -$ -$ 4.4$ 4.3$ 4.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 3.8$ 0.5$ 9.3$ 3.2$ 1.3$ 5.7$ 6.5$ 2.4$ 11.5$2029-$ -$ -$ 4.3$ 2.9$ 5.9$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3.0$ 1.1$ 5.3$ 6.5$ 2.4$ 11.5$Notes:Source: Ground Water Rule model output.Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundValues in millions of 2003 dollars.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundExhibit D.3a Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for TNCWSs Serving <100YearMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-20October 2006Implementation Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action - Plans Corrective Action - Capital Corrective Action - O&M Compliance MonitoringLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20050.7$ 0.7$ 0.7$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20060.7$ 0.7$ 0.7$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20070.7$ 0.7$ 0.7$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2008-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 1.6$ 1.5$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 11.4$ 5.1$ 21.5$ 1.3$ 0.8$ 1.8$ 0.8$ 0.2$ 1.5$2009-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.4$ 1.4$ 0.8$ 0.2$ 1.5$2010-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 1.5$ 1.4$ 1.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 7.5$ 3.2$ 14.1$ 1.4$ 0.8$ 2.2$ 1.3$ 0.4$ 2.4$2011-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.1$ 0.5$ 2.0$ 1.3$ 0.4$ 2.4$2012-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 1.4$ 1.4$ 1.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 5.4$ 2.0$ 10.3$ 1.5$ 0.8$ 2.5$ 1.7$ 0.5$ 3.4$2013-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.5$ 2.4$ 1.7$ 0.5$ 3.4$2014-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 1.4$ 1.4$ 1.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 4.1$ 1.4$ 8.4$ 1.7$ 0.7$ 2.9$ 2.0$ 0.6$ 3.8$2015-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.5$ 0.6$ 2.7$ 2.0$ 0.6$ 3.8$2016-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 1.4$ 1.3$ 1.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 3.3$ 1.0$ 6.8$ 1.8$ 0.7$ 3.1$ 2.2$ 0.7$ 4.2$2017-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.7$ 0.6$ 3.0$ 2.2$ 0.7$ 4.2$2018-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 1.4$ 1.3$ 1.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 2.7$ 0.8$ 6.3$ 1.9$ 0.7$ 3.3$ 2.4$ 0.7$ 4.5$2019-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.8$ 0.6$ 3.3$ 2.4$ 0.7$ 4.5$2020-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 1.3$ 1.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 2.3$ 0.6$ 5.5$ 2.0$ 0.8$ 3.5$ 2.6$ 0.8$ 4.8$2021-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.9$ 0.6$ 3.5$ 2.6$ 0.8$ 4.8$2022-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 1.3$ 1.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 1.9$ 0.4$ 4.5$ 2.0$ 0.8$ 3.7$ 2.7$ 0.8$ 4.9$2023-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2.0$ 0.7$ 3.6$ 2.7$ 0.8$ 4.9$2024-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 1.3$ 1.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 1.7$ 0.3$ 4.5$ 2.1$ 0.8$ 3.9$ 2.8$ 0.9$ 5.3$2025-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2.0$ 0.6$ 3.8$ 2.8$ 0.9$ 5.3$2026-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 1.3$ 1.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 1.6$ 0.3$ 3.8$ 2.2$ 0.8$ 3.9$ 2.9$ 1.0$ 5.5$2027-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2.1$ 0.7$ 4.0$ 2.9$ 1.0$ 5.5$2028-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 1.3$ 1.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 1.3$ 0.2$ 3.5$ 2.2$ 0.8$ 4.2$ 3.0$ 1.0$ 5.7$2029-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2.2$ 0.7$ 4.1$ 3.0$ 1.0$ 5.7$Notes:Source: Ground Water Rule model output.90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundYearExhibit D.3b Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for TNCWSs Serving 101-500Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-21October 2006Implementation Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action - Plans Corrective Action - Capital Corrective Action - O&M Compliance MonitoringLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20050.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20060.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20070.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2008-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.2$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 1.6$ 0.8$ 2.6$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2009-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2010-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 1.0$ 0.5$ 1.7$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$2011-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$2012-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 1.4$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$2013-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$2014-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.1$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$2015-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$2016-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 0.9$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.7$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.5$2017-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.7$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.5$2018-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.8$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$2019-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$2020-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.7$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$2021-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$2022-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$2023-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$2024-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.6$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$2025-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$2026-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.5$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$2027-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$2028-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.5$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$2029-$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$Notes:Source: Ground Water Rule model output.90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundYearExhibit D.3c Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for TNCWSs Serving 501-1,000Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-22October 2006Implementation Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action - Plans Corrective Action - Capital Corrective Action - O&M Compliance MonitoringLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20050.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20060.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20070.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2008-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.6$ 0.3$ 1.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2009-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.7$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$2010-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$2011-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$2012-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$2013-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$2014-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2015-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2016-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2017-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2018-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2019-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2020-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2021-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2022-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2023-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2024-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2025-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2026-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2027-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2028-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$2029-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$Notes:Source: Ground Water Rule model output.Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundValues in millions of 2003 dollars.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundExhibit D.3d Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for TNCWSs Serving 1,001-3,300YearMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-23October 2006Implementation Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action - Plans Corrective Action - Capital Corrective Action - O&M Compliance MonitoringLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20050.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20060.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20070.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2008-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.8$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2009-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2010-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2011-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2012-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2013-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2014-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2015-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2016-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2017-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2018-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2019-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2020-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2021-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2022-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2023-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2024-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2025-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2026-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2027-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2028-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2029-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$Notes:Source: Ground Water Rule model output.Exhibit D.3e Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for TNCWSs Serving 3,301-10,000Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundYearMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-24October 2006Implementation Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action - Plans Corrective Action - Capital Corrective Action - O&M Compliance MonitoringLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20050.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20060.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20070.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2008-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.8$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2009-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2010-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2011-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2012-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2013-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2014-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2015-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2016-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2017-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2018-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2019-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2020-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2021-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2022-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2023-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2024-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2025-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2026-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2027-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2028-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2029-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$Notes:Source: Ground Water Rule model output.90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundYearExhibit D.3f Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for TNCWSs Serving 10,001-50,000Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-25October 2006Implementation Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action - Plans Corrective Action - Capital Corrective Action - O&M Compliance MonitoringLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20050.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20060.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20070.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2008-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2009-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2010-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2011-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2012-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2013-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2014-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2015-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2016-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2017-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2018-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2019-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2020-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2021-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2022-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2023-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2024-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2025-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2026-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2027-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2028-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2029-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$Notes:Source: Ground Water Rule model output.Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundValues in millions of 2003 dollars.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundExhibit D.3g Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for TNCWSs Serving 50,001-100,000YearMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-26October 2006Implementation Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action - Plans Corrective Action - Capital Corrective Action - O&M Compliance MonitoringLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20050.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20060.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20070.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2008-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2009-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2010-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2011-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2012-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2013-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2014-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2015-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2016-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2017-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2018-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2019-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2020-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2021-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2022-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2023-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2024-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2025-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2026-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2027-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2028-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$2029-$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$Notes:Source: Ground Water Rule model output.90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundYearExhibit D.3h Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for TNCWSs Serving >100,001Values in millions of 2003 dollars.Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-27October 2006Implementation Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action - Plans Corrective Action - Capital Corrective Action - O&M Compliance MonitoringLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20053.1$ 3.1$ 3.1$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20063.1$ 3.1$ 3.1$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20073.1$ 3.1$ 3.1$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2008-$ -$ -$ 5.7$ 3.9$ 7.9$ -$ -$ -$ 7.1$ 6.8$ 7.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.7$ 0.5$ 0.9$ 45.3$ 21.2$ 78.1$ 5.0$ 3.0$ 7.2$ 2.6$ 0.8$ 5.0$2009-$ -$ -$ 5.7$ 3.9$ 7.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 1.3$ 2.7$ 1.3$ 4.3$ 2.6$ 0.8$ 5.0$2010-$ -$ -$ 5.7$ 3.9$ 7.9$ -$ -$ -$ 6.7$ 6.4$ 6.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.6$ 30.0$ 13.2$ 54.4$ 4.8$ 2.8$ 7.2$ 4.3$ 1.5$ 7.9$2011-$ -$ -$ 5.7$ 3.9$ 7.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.7$ 3.3$ 1.5$ 5.7$ 4.4$ 1.5$ 7.9$2012-$ -$ -$ 5.7$ 3.9$ 7.9$ -$ -$ -$ 6.5$ 6.2$ 6.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.5$ 21.2$ 8.1$ 39.5$ 4.9$ 2.5$ 7.9$ 5.6$ 1.8$ 10.3$2013-$ -$ -$ 5.7$ 3.9$ 7.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.5$ 3.8$ 1.5$ 6.7$ 5.6$ 1.8$ 10.3$2014-$ -$ -$ 5.7$ 3.9$ 7.9$ -$ -$ -$ 6.3$ 6.1$ 6.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 16.5$ 5.9$ 31.5$ 5.1$ 2.4$ 8.7$ 6.5$ 2.2$ 11.8$2015-$ -$ -$ 5.7$ 3.9$ 7.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.4$ 4.3$ 1.6$ 7.5$ 6.5$ 2.2$ 11.8$2016-$ -$ -$ 5.7$ 3.9$ 7.9$ -$ -$ -$ 6.2$ 6.0$ 6.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 13.1$ 4.3$ 27.0$ 5.3$ 2.3$ 8.9$ 7.3$ 2.5$ 13.4$2017-$ -$ -$ 5.7$ 3.9$ 7.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 4.6$ 1.7$ 8.2$ 7.3$ 2.5$ 13.4$2018-$ -$ -$ 5.7$ 3.9$ 7.9$ -$ -$ -$ 6.1$ 6.0$ 6.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 10.5$ 3.3$ 23.1$ 5.5$ 2.3$ 9.5$ 7.9$ 2.8$ 14.4$2019-$ -$ -$ 5.7$ 3.9$ 7.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 4.9$ 1.8$ 8.8$ 7.9$ 2.8$ 14.4$2020-$ -$ -$ 5.7$ 3.9$ 7.9$ -$ -$ -$ 6.1$ 5.9$ 6.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 9.3$ 2.6$ 19.7$ 5.7$ 2.3$ 9.9$ 8.5$ 2.9$ 15.4$2021-$ -$ -$ 5.7$ 3.9$ 7.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 5.2$ 1.8$ 9.4$ 8.5$ 2.9$ 15.4$2022-$ -$ -$ 5.7$ 3.9$ 7.9$ -$ -$ -$ 6.0$ 5.9$ 6.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 7.8$ 2.0$ 17.9$ 5.8$ 2.2$ 10.3$ 8.9$ 3.1$ 16.4$2023-$ -$ -$ 5.7$ 3.9$ 7.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 5.4$ 1.9$ 9.8$ 8.9$ 3.1$ 16.4$2024-$ -$ -$ 5.7$ 3.9$ 7.9$ -$ -$ -$ 6.0$ 5.8$ 6.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 6.7$ 1.5$ 16.7$ 6.0$ 2.3$ 10.8$ 9.4$ 3.3$ 17.0$2025-$ -$ -$ 5.7$ 3.9$ 7.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ 0.2$ 5.6$ 1.8$ 10.4$ 9.4$ 3.3$ 17.0$2026-$ -$ -$ 5.7$ 3.9$ 7.9$ -$ -$ -$ 6.0$ 5.8$ 6.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 6.0$ 1.1$ 14.9$ 6.1$ 2.3$ 10.9$ 9.7$ 3.2$ 17.7$2027-$ -$ -$ 5.7$ 3.9$ 7.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.2$ 5.8$ 2.0$ 10.7$ 9.7$ 3.2$ 17.7$2028-$ -$ -$ 5.7$ 3.9$ 7.9$ -$ -$ -$ 6.0$ 5.8$ 6.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 5.4$ 0.8$ 13.5$ 6.2$ 2.3$ 11.4$ 10.0$ 3.5$ 18.0$2029-$ -$ -$ 5.7$ 3.9$ 7.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.2$ 6.0$ 2.0$ 11.0$ 10.0$ 3.5$ 18.0$Notes:Source: Ground Water Rule model output.Exhibit D.3i Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for All TNCWSsValues in millions of 2003 dollars.Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundYearMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-28October 2006

# CWSs NTNCWSs TNCWSs Grand Total

Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile) Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile) Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile) Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile)

2005 1.7 $ 1.7 $ 1.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 5.5 $ 5.5 $ 5.5 $

2006 1.7 $ 1.7 $ 1.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 5.5 $ 5.5 $ 5.5 $

2007 1.7 $ 1.7 $ 1.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 5.5 $ 5.5 $ 5.5 $

2008 65.7 $ 37.0 $ 102.8 $ 14.9 $ 7.8 $ 24.8 $ 66.4 $ 36.1 $ 106.7 $ 147.0 $ 80.9 $ 234.2 $

2009 17.9 $ 8.6 $ 29.1 $ 3.4 $ 1.7 $ 5.5 $ 11.9 $ 6.3 $ 18.7 $ 33.2 $ 16.6 $ 53.3 $

2010 25.3 $ 12.4 $ 42.7 $ 3.0 $ 1.4 $ 4.9 $ 52.0 $ 28.0 $ 84.9 $ 80.3 $ 41.8 $ 132.6 $

2011 18.2 $ 8.9 $ 30.1 $ 2.9 $ 1.4 $ 4.8 $ 13.8 $ 7.0 $ 22.3 $ 34.9 $ 17.2 $ 57.2 $

2012 21.3 $ 10.3 $ 36.0 $ 7.4 $ 3.7 $ 12.5 $ 44.2 $ 22.7 $ 72.8 $ 72.9 $ 36.7 $ 121.2 $

2013 16.8 $ 8.0 $ 28.8 $ 7.1 $ 3.6 $ 11.6 $ 15.4 $ 7.3 $ 25.5 $ 39.4 $ 18.9 $ 65.9 $

2014 23.8 $ 11.6 $ 40.5 $ 3.5 $ 1.6 $ 5.8 $ 40.4 $ 20.6 $ 66.8 $ 67.7 $ 33.8 $ 113.2 $

2015 13.0 $ 5.8 $ 22.2 $ 3.4 $ 1.5 $ 5.8 $ 16.8 $ 7.7 $ 27.7 $ 33.1 $ 15.0 $ 55.7 $

2016 18.8 $ 8.8 $ 32.5 $ 6.9 $ 3.3 $ 11.8 $ 37.9 $ 19.1 $ 63.9 $ 63.6 $ 31.1 $ 108.2 $

2017 16.3 $ 7.7 $ 28.0 $ 3.7 $ 1.6 $ 6.3 $ 17.8 $ 8.2 $ 29.9 $ 37.9 $ 17.5 $ 64.3 $

2018 21.8 $ 10.3 $ 37.4 $ 6.6 $ 3.2 $ 10.9 $ 35.9 $ 18.3 $ 61.5 $ 64.2 $ 31.9 $ 109.8 $

2019 13.5 $ 6.1 $ 23.2 $ 3.9 $ 1.7 $ 6.6 $ 18.7 $ 8.5 $ 31.5 $ 36.1 $ 16.3 $ 61.2 $

2020 21.1 $ 10.1 $ 36.3 $ 6.7 $ 3.1 $ 11.5 $ 35.3 $ 17.6 $ 59.3 $ 63.1 $ 30.7 $ 107.2 $

2021 13.8 $ 6.2 $ 23.6 $ 4.1 $ 1.8 $ 7.0 $ 19.5 $ 8.6 $ 33.0 $ 37.4 $ 16.6 $ 63.6 $

2022 18.0 $ 8.4 $ 31.1 $ 4.0 $ 1.7 $ 6.9 $ 34.4 $ 17.0 $ 58.8 $ 56.5 $ 27.2 $ 96.8 $

2023 19.2 $ 9.1 $ 32.7 $ 6.4 $ 3.0 $ 11.0 $ 20.2 $ 8.9 $ 34.3 $ 45.8 $ 21.0 $ 78.0 $

2024 18.2 $ 8.5 $ 31.7 $ 6.6 $ 3.0 $ 11.4 $ 33.8 $ 16.8 $ 58.7 $ 58.7 $ 28.3 $ 101.8 $

2025 14.4 $ 6.4 $ 24.8 $ 4.4 $ 1.9 $ 7.5 $ 20.8 $ 9.0 $ 35.5 $ 39.5 $ 17.2 $ 67.7 $

2026 20.3 $ 9.7 $ 35.5 $ 4.3 $ 1.8 $ 7.5 $ 33.6 $ 16.3 $ 57.6 $ 58.2 $ 27.9 $ 100.5 $

2027 14.6 $ 6.5 $ 25.1 $ 4.3 $ 1.8 $ 7.5 $ 21.3 $ 9.2 $ 36.5 $ 40.2 $ 17.5 $ 69.0 $

2028 20.3 $ 9.6 $ 35.7 $ 8.5 $ 4.0 $ 14.7 $ 33.4 $ 16.3 $ 57.1 $ 62.1 $ 29.9 $ 107.5 $

2029 16.9 $ 7.8 $ 29.1 $ 4.7 $ 2.0 $ 7.9 $ 21.8 $ 9.5 $ 37.1 $ 43.3 $ 19.3 $ 74.2 $

Notes:

Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.

Source: Ground Water Rule model output.

Year 

# Exhibit D.4a Total Rule Activity Costs, by Year, for All PWS s

Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2003.

Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.

Mean

Value 90 Percent

Confidence Bound

Mean

Value Mean

Value 90 Percent

Confidence Bound 90 Percent

Confidence Bound

Mean

Value 90 Percent

Confidence Bound



# Economic Analysis for the

Final Ground Water Rule D-29 October 2006Implementation Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action - Plans Corrective Action - Capital Corrective Action - O&M Compliance Monitoring Grand TotalLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20055.5$ 5.5$ 5.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5.5$ 5.5$ 5.5$20065.5$ 5.5$ 5.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5.5$ 5.5$ 5.5$20075.5$ 5.5$ 5.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5.5$ 5.5$ 5.5$2008-$ -$ -$ 10.0$ 6.8$ 13.8$ -$ -$ -$ 14.4$ 13.6$ 15.3$ -$ -$ -$ 2.5$ 1.7$ 3.3$ 106.3$ 52.4$ 178.8$ 9.2$ 5.1$ 14.1$ 4.6$ 1.3$ 8.9$ 147.0$ 80.9$ 234.2$2009-$ -$ -$ 10.0$ 6.8$ 13.8$ -$ -$ -$ 1.5$ 1.4$ 1.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.5$ 10.4$ 4.2$ 17.9$ 6.4$ 2.8$ 10.9$ 4.5$ 1.2$ 8.7$ 33.2$ 16.6$ 53.3$2010-$ -$ -$ 10.0$ 6.8$ 13.8$ -$ -$ -$ 10.1$ 9.7$ 10.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.6$ 1.4$ 43.7$ 18.3$ 80.0$ 8.9$ 4.4$ 14.6$ 6.6$ 2.1$ 12.3$ 80.3$ 41.8$ 132.6$2011-$ -$ -$ 10.0$ 6.8$ 13.8$ -$ -$ -$ 2.3$ 2.2$ 2.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 7.7$ 2.7$ 14.4$ 7.9$ 3.3$ 13.7$ 6.8$ 2.2$ 12.6$ 34.9$ 17.2$ 57.2$2012-$ -$ -$ 10.0$ 6.8$ 13.8$ -$ -$ -$ 10.3$ 9.9$ 10.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.7$ 0.4$ 1.1$ 33.2$ 12.3$ 62.8$ 10.1$ 4.7$ 17.0$ 8.6$ 2.6$ 15.9$ 72.9$ 36.7$ 121.2$2013-$ -$ -$ 10.0$ 6.8$ 13.8$ -$ -$ -$ 2.7$ 2.5$ 2.8$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 8.3$ 3.0$ 16.1$ 9.3$ 3.7$ 16.4$ 8.8$ 2.7$ 16.4$ 39.4$ 18.9$ 65.9$2014-$ -$ -$ 10.0$ 6.8$ 13.8$ -$ -$ -$ 10.4$ 10.1$ 10.8$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.8$ 25.5$ 8.7$ 49.9$ 11.0$ 4.7$ 19.2$ 10.2$ 3.2$ 18.6$ 67.7$ 33.8$ 113.2$2015-$ -$ -$ 10.0$ 6.8$ 13.8$ -$ -$ -$ 1.2$ 1.2$ 1.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 1.7$ 0.2$ 4.0$ 10.0$ 3.7$ 17.9$ 10.1$ 3.2$ 18.6$ 33.1$ 15.0$ 55.7$2016-$ -$ -$ 10.0$ 6.8$ 13.8$ -$ -$ -$ 9.9$ 9.6$ 10.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.7$ 20.4$ 6.2$ 42.6$ 11.5$ 4.7$ 20.0$ 11.3$ 3.6$ 20.9$ 63.6$ 31.1$ 108.2$2017-$ -$ -$ 10.0$ 6.8$ 13.8$ -$ -$ -$ 2.2$ 2.1$ 2.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 3.3$ 0.8$ 7.5$ 11.0$ 4.1$ 19.6$ 11.4$ 3.7$ 21.0$ 37.9$ 17.5$ 64.3$2018-$ -$ -$ 10.0$ 6.8$ 13.8$ -$ -$ -$ 10.5$ 10.2$ 10.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.7$ 18.7$ 5.8$ 40.2$ 12.2$ 4.9$ 21.6$ 12.3$ 4.1$ 22.6$ 64.2$ 31.9$ 109.8$2019-$ -$ -$ 10.0$ 6.8$ 13.8$ -$ -$ -$ 1.2$ 1.1$ 1.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 1.0$ 0.0$ 2.7$ 11.5$ 4.2$ 20.8$ 12.3$ 4.1$ 22.6$ 36.1$ 16.3$ 61.2$2020-$ -$ -$ 10.0$ 6.8$ 13.8$ -$ -$ -$ 10.6$ 10.3$ 11.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 16.1$ 4.2$ 35.2$ 12.8$ 5.1$ 22.6$ 13.2$ 4.3$ 24.1$ 63.1$ 30.7$ 107.2$2021-$ -$ -$ 10.0$ 6.8$ 13.8$ -$ -$ -$ 1.2$ 1.1$ 1.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.8$ 0.0$ 2.3$ 12.2$ 4.4$ 22.0$ 13.2$ 4.3$ 24.1$ 37.4$ 16.6$ 63.6$2022-$ -$ -$ 10.0$ 6.8$ 13.8$ -$ -$ -$ 9.0$ 8.7$ 9.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 10.5$ 2.4$ 24.9$ 12.9$ 4.8$ 23.0$ 13.8$ 4.5$ 25.3$ 56.5$ 27.2$ 96.8$2023-$ -$ -$ 10.0$ 6.8$ 13.8$ -$ -$ -$ 3.4$ 3.3$ 3.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 5.3$ 1.6$ 11.5$ 12.9$ 4.7$ 23.2$ 14.0$ 4.6$ 25.8$ 45.8$ 21.0$ 78.0$2024-$ -$ -$ 10.0$ 6.8$ 13.8$ -$ -$ -$ 9.6$ 9.2$ 9.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 10.7$ 2.3$ 26.6$ 13.6$ 5.1$ 24.5$ 14.6$ 4.8$ 26.7$ 58.7$ 28.3$ 101.8$2025-$ -$ -$ 10.0$ 6.8$ 13.8$ -$ -$ -$ 1.2$ 1.1$ 1.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.6$ -$ 1.9$ 13.1$ 4.5$ 24.0$ 14.6$ 4.8$ 26.7$ 39.5$ 17.2$ 67.7$2026-$ -$ -$ 10.0$ 6.8$ 13.8$ -$ -$ -$ 9.8$ 9.5$ 10.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 9.3$ 1.5$ 23.7$ 13.8$ 5.1$ 24.8$ 15.1$ 4.9$ 27.7$ 58.2$ 27.9$ 100.5$2027-$ -$ -$ 10.0$ 6.8$ 13.8$ -$ -$ -$ 1.2$ 1.1$ 1.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.5$ -$ 1.7$ 13.4$ 4.7$ 24.5$ 15.1$ 4.9$ 27.7$ 40.2$ 17.5$ 69.0$2028-$ -$ -$ 10.0$ 6.8$ 13.8$ -$ -$ -$ 10.7$ 10.4$ 11.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 11.1$ 2.1$ 27.7$ 14.3$ 5.3$ 25.9$ 15.6$ 5.3$ 28.5$ 62.1$ 29.9$ 107.5$2029-$ -$ -$ 10.0$ 6.8$ 13.8$ -$ -$ -$ 2.1$ 2.0$ 2.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 1.4$ 0.2$ 3.9$ 14.0$ 5.0$ 25.6$ 15.7$ 5.3$ 28.6$ 43.3$ 19.3$ 74.2$Notes:Source: Ground Water Rule model output.Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.Values in millions of 2003 dollars.90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueExhibit D.4b Rule Activity Costs, by Year and Component, for All PWS'sYearMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-30October 2006Implementation Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action - Plans Corrective Action - Capital Corrective Action - O&M Compliance MonitoringLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20051.7$ 1.7$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20061.6$ 1.6$ 1.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20071.6$ 1.6$ 1.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2008-$ -$ -$ 2.8$ 1.9$ 3.9$ -$ -$ -$ 5.3$ 5.0$ 5.7$ -$ -$ -$ 1.5$ 1.0$ 2.0$ 46.4$ 24.4$ 75.2$ 2.8$ 1.3$ 4.7$ 1.3$ 0.3$ 2.6$2009-$ -$ -$ 2.7$ 1.8$ 3.7$ -$ -$ -$ 1.2$ 1.1$ 1.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.4$ 8.0$ 3.3$ 13.6$ 2.6$ 1.0$ 4.6$ 1.1$ 0.3$ 2.3$2010-$ -$ -$ 2.6$ 1.8$ 3.6$ -$ -$ -$ 2.9$ 2.7$ 3.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.6$ 11.4$ 4.3$ 21.4$ 3.0$ 1.2$ 5.4$ 1.5$ 0.4$ 2.9$2011-$ -$ -$ 2.6$ 1.7$ 3.5$ -$ -$ -$ 1.8$ 1.7$ 1.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 5.8$ 2.1$ 10.8$ 3.3$ 1.4$ 5.7$ 1.5$ 0.4$ 2.9$2012-$ -$ -$ 2.5$ 1.7$ 3.4$ -$ -$ -$ 2.6$ 2.5$ 2.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 6.8$ 2.2$ 13.4$ 3.4$ 1.4$ 6.0$ 1.8$ 0.5$ 3.3$2013-$ -$ -$ 2.4$ 1.6$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 1.5$ 1.4$ 1.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 4.1$ 1.4$ 8.2$ 3.4$ 1.3$ 6.1$ 1.8$ 0.5$ 3.4$2014-$ -$ -$ 2.3$ 1.6$ 3.2$ -$ -$ -$ 3.1$ 3.0$ 3.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 6.8$ 2.1$ 13.8$ 3.8$ 1.6$ 6.7$ 2.0$ 0.6$ 3.8$2015-$ -$ -$ 2.3$ 1.5$ 3.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.8$ 0.8$ 0.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 1.0$ 0.1$ 2.4$ 3.6$ 1.4$ 6.4$ 1.9$ 0.6$ 3.7$2016-$ -$ -$ 2.2$ 1.5$ 3.0$ -$ -$ -$ 2.2$ 2.1$ 2.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 3.4$ 0.8$ 7.6$ 3.6$ 1.4$ 6.5$ 2.0$ 0.6$ 3.8$2017-$ -$ -$ 2.1$ 1.4$ 3.0$ -$ -$ -$ 1.4$ 1.4$ 1.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 2.1$ 0.5$ 4.8$ 3.7$ 1.4$ 6.5$ 2.0$ 0.6$ 3.8$2018-$ -$ -$ 2.1$ 1.4$ 2.9$ -$ -$ -$ 2.5$ 2.4$ 2.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 4.2$ 1.1$ 9.1$ 3.7$ 1.4$ 6.6$ 2.1$ 0.6$ 4.0$2019-$ -$ -$ 2.0$ 1.4$ 2.8$ -$ -$ -$ 0.7$ 0.7$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.5$ 0.0$ 1.5$ 3.6$ 1.4$ 6.4$ 2.1$ 0.6$ 3.9$2020-$ -$ -$ 2.0$ 1.3$ 2.7$ -$ -$ -$ 2.5$ 2.4$ 2.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 3.1$ 0.6$ 7.3$ 3.7$ 1.5$ 6.6$ 2.1$ 0.6$ 4.0$2021-$ -$ -$ 1.9$ 1.3$ 2.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.7$ 0.6$ 0.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.4$ -$ 1.2$ 3.5$ 1.3$ 6.3$ 2.1$ 0.6$ 3.9$2022-$ -$ -$ 1.9$ 1.2$ 2.5$ -$ -$ -$ 1.8$ 1.7$ 1.8$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 1.6$ 0.2$ 4.1$ 3.5$ 1.3$ 6.3$ 2.1$ 0.6$ 3.9$2023-$ -$ -$ 1.8$ 1.2$ 2.5$ -$ -$ -$ 1.6$ 1.5$ 1.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 2.2$ 0.6$ 4.7$ 3.5$ 1.4$ 6.3$ 2.1$ 0.6$ 3.9$2024-$ -$ -$ 1.7$ 1.2$ 2.4$ -$ -$ -$ 1.7$ 1.6$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 1.4$ 0.2$ 3.7$ 3.5$ 1.3$ 6.3$ 2.1$ 0.6$ 3.9$2025-$ -$ -$ 1.7$ 1.1$ 2.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.6$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.3$ -$ 0.9$ 3.4$ 1.2$ 6.1$ 2.0$ 0.6$ 3.8$2026-$ -$ -$ 1.6$ 1.1$ 2.3$ -$ -$ -$ 2.0$ 2.0$ 2.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 1.7$ 0.2$ 4.7$ 3.4$ 1.3$ 6.1$ 2.0$ 0.6$ 3.9$2027-$ -$ -$ 1.6$ 1.1$ 2.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.5$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.2$ -$ 0.7$ 3.3$ 1.2$ 5.9$ 2.0$ 0.6$ 3.7$2028-$ -$ -$ 1.6$ 1.0$ 2.1$ -$ -$ -$ 1.8$ 1.7$ 1.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 1.6$ 0.3$ 4.4$ 3.2$ 1.2$ 5.8$ 2.0$ 0.6$ 3.7$2029-$ -$ -$ 1.5$ 1.0$ 2.1$ -$ -$ -$ 1.0$ 0.9$ 1.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.7$ 0.1$ 1.8$ 3.2$ 1.2$ 5.7$ 2.0$ 0.6$ 3.7$Total 4.9$ 4.9$ 4.9$ 46.0$ 30.7$ 63.2$ -$ -$ -$ 40.1$ 38.2$ 41.9$ -$ -$ -$ 3.8$ 2.2$ 5.8$ 113.8$ 44.6$ 215.2$ 74.7$ 29.1$ 133.1$ 41.8$ 12.0$ 78.8$Ann. 0.3$ 0.3$ 0.3$ 2.6$ 1.8$ 3.6$ -$ -$ -$ 2.3$ 2.2$ 2.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 6.5$ 2.6$ 12.4$ 4.3$ 1.7$ 7.6$ 2.4$ 0.7$ 4.5$Notes:Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.Source: Ground Water Rule model output.90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundYearExhibit D.4c Present Value of Rule Activity Costs at 3 Percent, by Year, for All CWSsPresent values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2005.Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-31October 2006Implementation Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action - Plans Corrective Action - Capital Corrective Action - O&M Compliance MonitoringLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20050.7$ 0.7$ 0.7$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20060.7$ 0.7$ 0.7$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20070.7$ 0.7$ 0.7$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2008-$ -$ -$ 1.2$ 0.8$ 1.6$ -$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 1.3$ 1.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 9.4$ 4.2$ 16.9$ 1.1$ 0.6$ 1.6$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 1.0$2009-$ -$ -$ 1.1$ 0.8$ 1.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.1$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 1.2$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 1.0$2010-$ -$ -$ 1.1$ 0.7$ 1.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.7$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 1.0$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 1.0$2011-$ -$ -$ 1.1$ 0.7$ 1.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 1.0$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 1.0$2012-$ -$ -$ 1.0$ 0.7$ 1.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.5$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 2.9$ 1.2$ 5.5$ 0.8$ 0.4$ 1.4$ 0.7$ 0.2$ 1.3$2013-$ -$ -$ 1.0$ 0.7$ 1.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.6$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 2.3$ 1.0$ 4.2$ 0.9$ 0.4$ 1.6$ 0.8$ 0.2$ 1.4$2014-$ -$ -$ 1.0$ 0.7$ 1.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 0.7$ 0.2$ 1.4$ 0.8$ 0.2$ 1.4$2015-$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.6$ 1.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 0.7$ 0.2$ 1.3$ 0.7$ 0.2$ 1.4$2016-$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.6$ 1.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.5$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 1.8$ 0.7$ 3.7$ 0.9$ 0.4$ 1.6$ 0.8$ 0.2$ 1.5$2017-$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.6$ 1.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 1.5$ 0.8$ 0.2$ 1.5$2018-$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.6$ 1.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.5$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 1.4$ 0.5$ 2.6$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 1.6$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 1.6$2019-$ -$ -$ 0.8$ 0.6$ 1.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 1.5$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 1.5$2020-$ -$ -$ 0.8$ 0.6$ 1.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 1.3$ 0.4$ 2.6$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 1.6$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 1.6$2021-$ -$ -$ 0.8$ 0.5$ 1.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.1$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 1.5$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 1.6$2022-$ -$ -$ 0.8$ 0.5$ 1.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.1$ 0.8$ 0.2$ 1.4$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 1.5$2023-$ -$ -$ 0.7$ 0.5$ 1.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 1.9$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 1.5$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 1.6$2024-$ -$ -$ 0.7$ 0.5$ 1.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 1.9$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 1.6$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 1.6$2025-$ -$ -$ 0.7$ 0.5$ 0.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.1$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 1.5$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 1.6$2026-$ -$ -$ 0.7$ 0.5$ 0.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.1$ 0.8$ 0.2$ 1.4$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 1.5$2027-$ -$ -$ 0.7$ 0.5$ 0.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.1$ 0.7$ 0.2$ 1.4$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 1.5$2028-$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.6$ 0.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 1.3$ 0.4$ 2.8$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 1.5$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 1.6$2029-$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.1$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 1.4$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 1.5$Total 2.1$ 2.1$ 2.1$ 19.0$ 13.0$ 25.7$ -$ -$ -$ 5.8$ 5.6$ 6.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.6$ 24.0$ 9.4$ 46.1$ 17.4$ 6.4$ 31.3$ 16.9$ 5.1$ 31.3$Ann. 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 1.1$ 0.7$ 1.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.3$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 1.4$ 0.5$ 2.6$ 1.0$ 0.4$ 1.8$ 1.0$ 0.3$ 1.8$Notes:Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.Source: Ground Water Rule model output.Exhibit D.4d Present Value of Rule Activity Costs at 3 Percent, by Year, for All NTNCWSsPresent values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2005.Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundYearMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-32October 2006Implementation Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action - Plans Corrective Action - Capital Corrective Action - O&M Compliance MonitoringLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20053.1$ 3.1$ 3.1$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20063.1$ 3.1$ 3.1$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20073.0$ 3.0$ 3.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2008-$ -$ -$ 5.2$ 3.5$ 7.2$ -$ -$ -$ 6.5$ 6.2$ 6.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.9$ 41.4$ 19.4$ 71.5$ 4.5$ 2.8$ 6.6$ 2.4$ 0.7$ 4.6$2009-$ -$ -$ 5.1$ 3.4$ 7.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.2$ 2.4$ 1.2$ 3.9$ 2.3$ 0.7$ 4.4$2010-$ -$ -$ 4.9$ 3.3$ 6.8$ -$ -$ -$ 5.8$ 5.6$ 6.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.5$ 25.9$ 11.4$ 46.9$ 4.2$ 2.4$ 6.2$ 3.7$ 1.3$ 6.8$2011-$ -$ -$ 4.8$ 3.2$ 6.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$ 2.8$ 1.3$ 4.8$ 3.6$ 1.3$ 6.6$2012-$ -$ -$ 4.7$ 3.1$ 6.4$ -$ -$ -$ 5.3$ 5.1$ 5.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 17.3$ 6.6$ 32.2$ 4.0$ 2.1$ 6.4$ 4.5$ 1.4$ 8.4$2013-$ -$ -$ 4.5$ 3.1$ 6.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.4$ 3.0$ 1.2$ 5.3$ 4.4$ 1.4$ 8.1$2014-$ -$ -$ 4.4$ 3.0$ 6.0$ -$ -$ -$ 4.8$ 4.7$ 5.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 12.6$ 4.5$ 24.2$ 3.9$ 1.8$ 6.6$ 5.0$ 1.7$ 9.1$2015-$ -$ -$ 4.3$ 2.9$ 5.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 3.2$ 1.2$ 5.6$ 4.9$ 1.6$ 8.8$2016-$ -$ -$ 4.1$ 2.8$ 5.7$ -$ -$ -$ 4.5$ 4.4$ 4.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 9.5$ 3.1$ 19.5$ 3.8$ 1.6$ 6.4$ 5.3$ 1.8$ 9.7$2017-$ -$ -$ 4.0$ 2.7$ 5.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 3.2$ 1.2$ 5.8$ 5.1$ 1.8$ 9.4$2018-$ -$ -$ 3.9$ 2.6$ 5.4$ -$ -$ -$ 4.2$ 4.1$ 4.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 7.1$ 2.3$ 15.7$ 3.7$ 1.6$ 6.5$ 5.4$ 1.9$ 9.8$2019-$ -$ -$ 3.8$ 2.6$ 5.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 3.2$ 1.2$ 5.8$ 5.3$ 1.9$ 9.5$2020-$ -$ -$ 3.7$ 2.5$ 5.1$ -$ -$ -$ 3.9$ 3.8$ 4.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 5.9$ 1.7$ 12.6$ 3.6$ 1.5$ 6.3$ 5.4$ 1.9$ 9.9$2021-$ -$ -$ 3.6$ 2.4$ 4.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 3.2$ 1.1$ 5.9$ 5.3$ 1.8$ 9.6$2022-$ -$ -$ 3.5$ 2.3$ 4.8$ -$ -$ -$ 3.7$ 3.6$ 3.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 4.7$ 1.2$ 10.8$ 3.5$ 1.3$ 6.2$ 5.4$ 1.9$ 9.9$2023-$ -$ -$ 3.4$ 2.3$ 4.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 3.2$ 1.1$ 5.8$ 5.3$ 1.8$ 9.6$2024-$ -$ -$ 3.3$ 2.2$ 4.5$ -$ -$ -$ 3.4$ 3.3$ 3.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 3.8$ 0.9$ 9.5$ 3.4$ 1.3$ 6.1$ 5.3$ 1.9$ 9.7$2025-$ -$ -$ 3.2$ 2.1$ 4.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.1$ 3.1$ 1.0$ 5.7$ 5.2$ 1.8$ 9.4$2026-$ -$ -$ 3.1$ 2.1$ 4.2$ -$ -$ -$ 3.2$ 3.1$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 3.2$ 0.6$ 8.0$ 3.3$ 1.2$ 5.8$ 5.2$ 1.7$ 9.5$2027-$ -$ -$ 3.0$ 2.0$ 4.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.1$ 3.0$ 1.0$ 5.6$ 5.1$ 1.7$ 9.2$2028-$ -$ -$ 2.9$ 2.0$ 4.0$ -$ -$ -$ 3.0$ 2.9$ 3.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 2.7$ 0.4$ 6.8$ 3.2$ 1.2$ 5.8$ 5.1$ 1.8$ 9.1$2029-$ -$ -$ 2.8$ 1.9$ 3.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.1$ 2.9$ 1.0$ 5.4$ 4.9$ 1.7$ 8.9$Total 9.2$ 9.2$ 9.2$ 85.9$ 58.1$ 118.4$ -$ -$ -$ 48.8$ 47.2$ 50.4$ -$ -$ -$ 2.0$ 1.1$ 3.0$ 135.7$ 52.2$ 261.1$ 74.5$ 31.3$ 128.5$ 104.2$ 35.4$ 190.1$Ann. 0.5$ 0.5$ 0.5$ 4.9$ 3.3$ 6.8$ -$ -$ -$ 2.8$ 2.7$ 2.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 7.8$ 3.0$ 15.0$ 4.3$ 1.8$ 7.4$ 6.0$ 2.0$ 10.9$Notes:Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.Source: Ground Water Rule model output.90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundYearExhibit D.4e Present Value of Rule Activity Costs at 3 Percent, by Year, for All TNCWSsPresent values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2005.Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-33October 2006

# CWSs NTNCWSs TNCWSs Grand Total

Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile) Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile) Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile) Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile)

2005 1.7 $ 1.7 $ 1.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 5.5 $ 5.5 $ 5.5 $

2006 1.6 $ 1.6 $ 1.6 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 5.4 $ 5.4 $ 5.4 $

2007 1.6 $ 1.6 $ 1.6 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 3.0 $ 3.0 $ 3.0 $ 5.2 $ 5.2 $ 5.2 $

2008 60.2 $ 33.9 $ 94.1 $ 13.7 $ 7.2 $ 22.7 $ 60.7 $ 33.0 $ 97.6 $ 134.6 $ 74.1 $ 214.4 $

2009 15.9 $ 7.7 $ 25.9 $ 3.0 $ 1.5 $ 4.9 $ 10.5 $ 5.6 $ 16.6 $ 29.5 $ 14.7 $ 47.4 $

2010 21.8 $ 10.7 $ 36.8 $ 2.6 $ 1.2 $ 4.3 $ 44.9 $ 24.1 $ 73.3 $ 69.3 $ 36.1 $ 114.3 $

2011 15.2 $ 7.4 $ 25.2 $ 2.4 $ 1.1 $ 4.1 $ 11.6 $ 5.9 $ 18.7 $ 29.2 $ 14.4 $ 47.9 $

2012 17.3 $ 8.3 $ 29.2 $ 6.1 $ 3.0 $ 10.2 $ 35.9 $ 18.5 $ 59.2 $ 59.3 $ 29.8 $ 98.6 $

2013 13.3 $ 6.3 $ 22.7 $ 5.6 $ 2.9 $ 9.2 $ 12.2 $ 5.8 $ 20.1 $ 31.1 $ 14.9 $ 52.0 $

2014 18.2 $ 8.9 $ 31.1 $ 2.7 $ 1.2 $ 4.5 $ 31.0 $ 15.8 $ 51.2 $ 51.9 $ 25.9 $ 86.7 $

2015 9.7 $ 4.3 $ 16.5 $ 2.5 $ 1.1 $ 4.3 $ 12.5 $ 5.7 $ 20.6 $ 24.6 $ 11.2 $ 41.5 $

2016 13.6 $ 6.4 $ 23.5 $ 5.0 $ 2.4 $ 8.6 $ 27.4 $ 13.8 $ 46.2 $ 45.9 $ 22.5 $ 78.2 $

2017 11.5 $ 5.4 $ 19.6 $ 2.6 $ 1.2 $ 4.4 $ 12.5 $ 5.7 $ 21.0 $ 26.6 $ 12.3 $ 45.1 $

2018 14.8 $ 7.0 $ 25.5 $ 4.5 $ 2.2 $ 7.4 $ 24.4 $ 12.5 $ 41.9 $ 43.7 $ 21.7 $ 74.8 $

2019 8.9 $ 4.0 $ 15.3 $ 2.6 $ 1.1 $ 4.3 $ 12.4 $ 5.6 $ 20.8 $ 23.9 $ 10.8 $ 40.5 $

2020 13.5 $ 6.5 $ 23.3 $ 4.3 $ 2.0 $ 7.4 $ 22.7 $ 11.3 $ 38.1 $ 40.5 $ 19.7 $ 68.8 $

2021 8.6 $ 3.8 $ 14.7 $ 2.5 $ 1.1 $ 4.3 $ 12.2 $ 5.4 $ 20.6 $ 23.3 $ 10.4 $ 39.6 $

2022 10.9 $ 5.1 $ 18.8 $ 2.4 $ 1.0 $ 4.2 $ 20.8 $ 10.3 $ 35.6 $ 34.2 $ 16.5 $ 58.6 $

2023 11.2 $ 5.3 $ 19.2 $ 3.8 $ 1.8 $ 6.5 $ 11.9 $ 5.2 $ 20.2 $ 26.9 $ 12.3 $ 45.8 $

2024 10.4 $ 4.9 $ 18.1 $ 3.8 $ 1.7 $ 6.5 $ 19.3 $ 9.6 $ 33.5 $ 33.5 $ 16.1 $ 58.1 $

2025 7.9 $ 3.5 $ 13.7 $ 2.4 $ 1.0 $ 4.1 $ 11.5 $ 5.0 $ 19.7 $ 21.9 $ 9.5 $ 37.5 $

2026 10.9 $ 5.2 $ 19.1 $ 2.3 $ 1.0 $ 4.0 $ 18.0 $ 8.8 $ 30.9 $ 31.3 $ 15.0 $ 54.1 $

2027 7.6 $ 3.4 $ 13.1 $ 2.3 $ 1.0 $ 3.9 $ 11.1 $ 4.8 $ 19.0 $ 21.0 $ 9.1 $ 36.0 $

2028 10.3 $ 4.9 $ 18.1 $ 4.3 $ 2.0 $ 7.4 $ 16.9 $ 8.2 $ 28.9 $ 31.5 $ 15.1 $ 54.5 $

2029 8.3 $ 3.8 $ 14.3 $ 2.3 $ 1.0 $ 3.9 $ 10.7 $ 4.7 $ 18.3 $ 21.3 $ 9.5 $ 36.5 $

Total 325.2 $ 161.7 $ 542.9 $ 85.5 $ 41.8 $ 143.1 $ 460.4 $ 234.4 $ 760.8 $ 871.1 $ 437.8 $ 1,446.8 $

Ann. 18.7 $ 9.3 $ 31.2 $ 4.9 $ 2.4 $ 8.2 $ 26.4 $ 13.5 $ 43.7 $ 50.0 $ 25.1 $ 83.1 $

Notes: Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2005.

Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.

Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.

Source: Ground Water Rule model output.

Year 

# Exhibit D.4f Present Value of Total Rule Activity Costs at 3 Percent, by Year, for All PWSs

90 Percent

Confidence Bound 90 Percent

Confidence Bound

Mean

V alue 90 Percent

Confidence Bound

Mean

V alue 90 Percent

Confidence Bound

Mean

V alue Mean

V alue



# Economic Analysis for the

Final Ground Water Rule D-34 October 2006Implementation Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action - Plans Corrective Action - Capital Corrective Action - O&M Compliance Monitoring Grand TotalLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20055.5$ 5.5$ 5.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5.5$ 5.5$ 5.5$20065.4$ 5.4$ 5.4$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5.4$ 5.4$ 5.4$20075.2$ 5.2$ 5.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5.2$ 5.2$ 5.2$2008-$ -$ -$ 9.2$ 6.2$ 12.6$ -$ -$ -$ 13.2$ 12.5$ 14.0$ -$ -$ -$ 2.2$ 1.5$ 3.1$ 97.3$ 48.0$ 163.6$ 8.4$ 4.7$ 12.9$ 4.2$ 1.2$ 8.2$ 134.6$ 74.1$ 214.4$2009-$ -$ -$ 8.9$ 6.0$ 12.3$ -$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 1.2$ 1.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.4$ 9.3$ 3.7$ 15.9$ 5.7$ 2.5$ 9.7$ 4.0$ 1.1$ 7.7$ 29.5$ 14.7$ 47.4$2010-$ -$ -$ 8.7$ 5.8$ 11.9$ -$ -$ -$ 8.7$ 8.3$ 9.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.8$ 0.5$ 1.2$ 37.7$ 15.8$ 69.0$ 7.7$ 3.8$ 12.6$ 5.7$ 1.8$ 10.7$ 69.3$ 36.1$ 114.3$2011-$ -$ -$ 8.4$ 5.7$ 11.6$ -$ -$ -$ 1.9$ 1.9$ 2.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 6.4$ 2.2$ 12.0$ 6.6$ 2.8$ 11.5$ 5.7$ 1.8$ 10.5$ 29.2$ 14.4$ 47.9$2012-$ -$ -$ 8.2$ 5.5$ 11.2$ -$ -$ -$ 8.4$ 8.1$ 8.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.3$ 0.9$ 27.0$ 10.0$ 51.0$ 8.2$ 3.8$ 13.8$ 7.0$ 2.1$ 13.0$ 59.3$ 29.8$ 98.6$2013-$ -$ -$ 7.9$ 5.3$ 10.9$ -$ -$ -$ 2.1$ 2.0$ 2.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 6.5$ 2.4$ 12.7$ 7.4$ 2.9$ 13.0$ 7.0$ 2.1$ 12.9$ 31.1$ 14.9$ 52.0$2014-$ -$ -$ 7.7$ 5.2$ 10.6$ -$ -$ -$ 8.0$ 7.7$ 8.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.6$ 19.6$ 6.7$ 38.3$ 8.4$ 3.6$ 14.7$ 7.8$ 2.5$ 14.3$ 51.9$ 25.9$ 86.7$2015-$ -$ -$ 7.5$ 5.0$ 10.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.9$ 1.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 1.2$ 0.1$ 3.0$ 7.4$ 2.7$ 13.3$ 7.6$ 2.4$ 13.8$ 24.6$ 11.2$ 41.5$2016-$ -$ -$ 7.3$ 4.9$ 10.0$ -$ -$ -$ 7.2$ 6.9$ 7.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 14.8$ 4.5$ 30.8$ 8.3$ 3.4$ 14.5$ 8.1$ 2.6$ 15.1$ 45.9$ 22.5$ 78.2$2017-$ -$ -$ 7.0$ 4.8$ 9.7$ -$ -$ -$ 1.5$ 1.5$ 1.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 2.3$ 0.6$ 5.3$ 7.7$ 2.9$ 13.7$ 8.0$ 2.6$ 14.7$ 26.6$ 12.3$ 45.1$2018-$ -$ -$ 6.8$ 4.6$ 9.4$ -$ -$ -$ 7.2$ 6.9$ 7.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 12.7$ 3.9$ 27.4$ 8.3$ 3.3$ 14.7$ 8.4$ 2.8$ 15.4$ 43.7$ 21.7$ 74.8$2019-$ -$ -$ 6.6$ 4.5$ 9.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.8$ 0.8$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.6$ 0.0$ 1.8$ 7.6$ 2.8$ 13.7$ 8.2$ 2.7$ 14.9$ 23.9$ 10.8$ 40.5$2020-$ -$ -$ 6.4$ 4.3$ 8.9$ -$ -$ -$ 6.8$ 6.6$ 7.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 10.3$ 2.7$ 22.6$ 8.2$ 3.3$ 14.5$ 8.5$ 2.8$ 15.5$ 40.5$ 19.7$ 68.8$2021-$ -$ -$ 6.3$ 4.2$ 8.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.8$ 0.7$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.5$ 0.0$ 1.5$ 7.6$ 2.7$ 13.7$ 8.2$ 2.7$ 15.0$ 23.3$ 10.4$ 39.6$2022-$ -$ -$ 6.1$ 4.1$ 8.4$ -$ -$ -$ 5.5$ 5.3$ 5.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 6.4$ 1.4$ 15.1$ 7.8$ 2.9$ 13.9$ 8.3$ 2.7$ 15.3$ 34.2$ 16.5$ 58.6$2023-$ -$ -$ 5.9$ 4.0$ 8.1$ -$ -$ -$ 2.0$ 1.9$ 2.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 3.1$ 0.9$ 6.8$ 7.6$ 2.8$ 13.6$ 8.2$ 2.7$ 15.1$ 26.9$ 12.3$ 45.8$2024-$ -$ -$ 5.7$ 3.9$ 7.9$ -$ -$ -$ 5.4$ 5.3$ 5.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 6.1$ 1.3$ 15.1$ 7.8$ 2.9$ 14.0$ 8.3$ 2.8$ 15.2$ 33.5$ 16.1$ 58.1$2025-$ -$ -$ 5.6$ 3.8$ 7.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.7$ 0.6$ 0.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.3$ -$ 1.1$ 7.3$ 2.5$ 13.3$ 8.1$ 2.7$ 14.8$ 21.9$ 9.5$ 37.5$2026-$ -$ -$ 5.4$ 3.6$ 7.4$ -$ -$ -$ 5.3$ 5.1$ 5.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 5.0$ 0.8$ 12.7$ 7.4$ 2.8$ 13.3$ 8.1$ 2.6$ 14.9$ 31.3$ 15.0$ 54.1$2027-$ -$ -$ 5.2$ 3.5$ 7.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.6$ 0.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.3$ -$ 0.9$ 7.0$ 2.5$ 12.8$ 7.9$ 2.5$ 14.5$ 21.0$ 9.1$ 36.0$2028-$ -$ -$ 5.1$ 3.4$ 7.0$ -$ -$ -$ 5.4$ 5.3$ 5.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 5.6$ 1.1$ 14.0$ 7.3$ 2.7$ 13.1$ 7.9$ 2.7$ 14.5$ 31.5$ 15.1$ 54.5$2029-$ -$ -$ 4.9$ 3.3$ 6.8$ -$ -$ -$ 1.0$ 1.0$ 1.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.7$ 0.1$ 1.9$ 6.9$ 2.4$ 12.6$ 7.7$ 2.6$ 14.1$ 21.3$ 9.5$ 36.5$Total 16.1$ 16.1$ 16.1$ 150.9$ 101.8$ 207.3$ -$ -$ -$ 94.7$ 91.0$ 98.4$ -$ -$ -$ 6.2$ 3.5$ 9.4$ 273.6$ 106.3$ 522.5$ 166.6$ 66.7$ 292.9$ 162.9$ 52.5$ 300.2$ 871.1$ 437.8$ 1,446.8$Ann. 0.9$ 0.9$ 0.9$ 8.7$ 5.8$ 11.9$ -$ -$ -$ 5.4$ 5.2$ 5.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.5$ 15.7$ 6.1$ 30.0$ 9.6$ 3.8$ 16.8$ 9.4$ 3.0$ 17.2$ 50.0$ 25.1$ 83.1$Notes:Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.Source: Ground Water Rule model output.Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundPresent values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2005.90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundExhibit D.4g Present Value of Rule Activity Costs at 3 Percent, by Year and Component, for All PWSsYearMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-35October 2006Implementation Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action - Plans Corrective Action - Capital Corrective Action - O&M Compliance MonitoringLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20051.7$ 1.7$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20061.6$ 1.6$ 1.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20071.5$ 1.5$ 1.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2008-$ -$ -$ 2.5$ 1.7$ 3.4$ -$ -$ -$ 4.8$ 4.5$ 5.1$ -$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.8$ 41.4$ 21.8$ 67.1$ 2.5$ 1.1$ 4.2$ 1.2$ 0.3$ 2.3$2009-$ -$ -$ 2.3$ 1.6$ 3.2$ -$ -$ -$ 1.0$ 0.9$ 1.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 6.9$ 2.8$ 11.7$ 2.2$ 0.9$ 4.0$ 1.0$ 0.3$ 2.0$2010-$ -$ -$ 2.2$ 1.5$ 3.0$ -$ -$ -$ 2.4$ 2.3$ 2.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.5$ 9.4$ 3.6$ 17.7$ 2.5$ 1.0$ 4.4$ 1.2$ 0.3$ 2.4$2011-$ -$ -$ 2.0$ 1.4$ 2.8$ -$ -$ -$ 1.4$ 1.4$ 1.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 4.7$ 1.6$ 8.6$ 2.6$ 1.1$ 4.6$ 1.2$ 0.4$ 2.3$2012-$ -$ -$ 1.9$ 1.3$ 2.6$ -$ -$ -$ 2.0$ 1.9$ 2.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 5.2$ 1.7$ 10.3$ 2.6$ 1.1$ 4.6$ 1.3$ 0.4$ 2.5$2013-$ -$ -$ 1.8$ 1.2$ 2.4$ -$ -$ -$ 1.1$ 1.0$ 1.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 3.0$ 1.0$ 6.0$ 2.5$ 1.0$ 4.5$ 1.3$ 0.4$ 2.5$2014-$ -$ -$ 1.7$ 1.1$ 2.3$ -$ -$ -$ 2.2$ 2.1$ 2.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 4.8$ 1.5$ 9.8$ 2.7$ 1.1$ 4.7$ 1.4$ 0.4$ 2.7$2015-$ -$ -$ 1.6$ 1.0$ 2.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.5$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.7$ 0.1$ 1.6$ 2.4$ 0.9$ 4.4$ 1.3$ 0.4$ 2.5$2016-$ -$ -$ 1.5$ 1.0$ 2.0$ -$ -$ -$ 1.4$ 1.4$ 1.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 2.3$ 0.5$ 5.0$ 2.4$ 0.9$ 4.3$ 1.3$ 0.4$ 2.5$2017-$ -$ -$ 1.4$ 0.9$ 1.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.9$ 0.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 1.4$ 0.3$ 3.1$ 2.3$ 0.9$ 4.1$ 1.3$ 0.4$ 2.4$2018-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.8$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 1.5$ 1.5$ 1.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 2.6$ 0.7$ 5.6$ 2.3$ 0.9$ 4.0$ 1.3$ 0.4$ 2.4$2019-$ -$ -$ 1.2$ 0.8$ 1.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 0.0$ 0.9$ 2.1$ 0.8$ 3.8$ 1.2$ 0.4$ 2.3$2020-$ -$ -$ 1.1$ 0.7$ 1.5$ -$ -$ -$ 1.4$ 1.3$ 1.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 1.8$ 0.4$ 4.1$ 2.1$ 0.8$ 3.7$ 1.2$ 0.3$ 2.3$2021-$ -$ -$ 1.0$ 0.7$ 1.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.2$ -$ 0.6$ 1.9$ 0.7$ 3.4$ 1.1$ 0.3$ 2.1$2022-$ -$ -$ 1.0$ 0.6$ 1.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.9$ 1.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.8$ 0.1$ 2.1$ 1.8$ 0.7$ 3.3$ 1.1$ 0.3$ 2.0$2023-$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.6$ 1.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.8$ 0.8$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 1.1$ 0.3$ 2.4$ 1.8$ 0.7$ 3.2$ 1.1$ 0.3$ 2.0$2024-$ -$ -$ 0.8$ 0.6$ 1.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.8$ 0.8$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.7$ 0.1$ 1.8$ 1.7$ 0.6$ 3.0$ 1.0$ 0.3$ 1.9$2025-$ -$ -$ 0.8$ 0.5$ 1.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.3$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ 0.4$ 1.6$ 0.6$ 2.8$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 1.8$2026-$ -$ -$ 0.7$ 0.5$ 1.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.9$ 1.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.8$ 0.1$ 2.1$ 1.5$ 0.6$ 2.7$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 1.7$2027-$ -$ -$ 0.7$ 0.5$ 0.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.2$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ 0.3$ 1.4$ 0.5$ 2.5$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 1.6$2028-$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.7$ 0.7$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.7$ 0.1$ 1.8$ 1.4$ 0.5$ 2.4$ 0.8$ 0.2$ 1.6$2029-$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 0.0$ 0.7$ 1.3$ 0.5$ 2.3$ 0.8$ 0.2$ 1.5$Total 4.7$ 4.7$ 4.7$ 29.6$ 19.7$ 40.7$ -$ -$ -$ 26.5$ 25.3$ 27.8$ -$ -$ -$ 3.0$ 1.7$ 4.4$ 89.1$ 36.8$ 163.7$ 45.6$ 17.9$ 81.1$ 25.0$ 7.1$ 47.3$Ann. 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 2.5$ 1.7$ 3.5$ -$ -$ -$ 2.3$ 2.2$ 2.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 7.6$ 3.2$ 14.0$ 3.9$ 1.5$ 7.0$ 2.1$ 0.6$ 4.1$Notes:Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.Source: Ground Water Rule model output.Exhibit D.4h Present Value of Rule Activity Costs at 7 Percent, by Year, for All CWSsPresent values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2005.Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundYearMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-36October 2006Implementation Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action - Plans Corrective Action - Capital Corrective Action - O&M Compliance MonitoringLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20050.7$ 0.7$ 0.7$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20060.7$ 0.7$ 0.7$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20070.6$ 0.6$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2008-$ -$ -$ 1.0$ 0.7$ 1.4$ -$ -$ -$ 1.2$ 1.1$ 1.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 8.4$ 3.8$ 15.0$ 1.0$ 0.6$ 1.4$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 0.9$2009-$ -$ -$ 1.0$ 0.7$ 1.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.9$ 0.6$ 0.3$ 1.0$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.9$2010-$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.6$ 1.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.8$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.8$2011-$ -$ -$ 0.8$ 0.6$ 1.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.8$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.8$2012-$ -$ -$ 0.8$ 0.5$ 1.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 2.2$ 0.9$ 4.2$ 0.6$ 0.3$ 1.1$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 1.0$2013-$ -$ -$ 0.7$ 0.5$ 1.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 1.7$ 0.7$ 3.1$ 0.7$ 0.3$ 1.2$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.1$2014-$ -$ -$ 0.7$ 0.5$ 0.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 1.0$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 1.0$2015-$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 0.9$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 0.9$2016-$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.3$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 1.2$ 0.4$ 2.4$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.0$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 1.0$2017-$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.9$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 1.0$2018-$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.4$ 0.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.3$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 1.6$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 1.0$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 1.0$2019-$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 0.9$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.9$2020-$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.2$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.7$ 0.2$ 1.5$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.9$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.9$2021-$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.8$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 0.9$2022-$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.8$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.8$2023-$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.2$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 1.0$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.8$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.8$2024-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.2$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.9$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.8$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.8$2025-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.7$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.7$2026-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.7$2027-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.6$2028-$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.3$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 1.2$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.7$2029-$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.2$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$Total 2.0$ 2.0$ 2.0$ 12.2$ 8.4$ 16.5$ -$ -$ -$ 3.9$ 3.7$ 4.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.4$ 17.9$ 7.2$ 33.9$ 10.6$ 4.0$ 19.1$ 10.0$ 3.0$ 18.6$Ann. 0.2$ 0.2$ 0.2$ 1.0$ 0.7$ 1.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.3$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 1.5$ 0.6$ 2.9$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 1.6$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 1.6$Notes:Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.Source: Ground Water Rule model output.90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundYearExhibit D.4i Present Value of Rule Activity Costs at 7 Percent, by Year, for All NTNCWSsPresent values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2005.Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-37October 2006Implementation Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action - Plans Corrective Action - Capital Corrective Action - O&M Compliance MonitoringLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20053.1$ 3.1$ 3.1$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20062.9$ 2.9$ 2.9$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$20072.7$ 2.7$ 2.7$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$2008-$ -$ -$ 4.7$ 3.2$ 6.4$ -$ -$ -$ 5.8$ 5.5$ 6.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.4$ 0.8$ 37.0$ 17.3$ 63.8$ 4.1$ 2.5$ 5.9$ 2.1$ 0.6$ 4.1$2009-$ -$ -$ 4.4$ 2.9$ 6.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 1.0$ 2.1$ 1.0$ 3.3$ 2.0$ 0.6$ 3.8$2010-$ -$ -$ 4.1$ 2.8$ 5.6$ -$ -$ -$ 4.8$ 4.6$ 4.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.4$ 21.4$ 9.4$ 38.8$ 3.4$ 2.0$ 5.1$ 3.1$ 1.1$ 5.6$2011-$ -$ -$ 3.8$ 2.6$ 5.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 2.2$ 1.0$ 3.8$ 2.9$ 1.0$ 5.3$2012-$ -$ -$ 3.6$ 2.4$ 4.9$ -$ -$ -$ 4.0$ 3.9$ 4.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 13.2$ 5.1$ 24.6$ 3.1$ 1.6$ 4.9$ 3.5$ 1.1$ 6.4$2013-$ -$ -$ 3.3$ 2.2$ 4.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 2.2$ 0.9$ 3.9$ 3.3$ 1.0$ 6.0$2014-$ -$ -$ 3.1$ 2.1$ 4.3$ -$ -$ -$ 3.4$ 3.3$ 3.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 9.0$ 3.2$ 17.1$ 2.8$ 1.3$ 4.7$ 3.6$ 1.2$ 6.4$2015-$ -$ -$ 2.9$ 2.0$ 4.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 2.2$ 0.8$ 3.8$ 3.3$ 1.1$ 6.0$2016-$ -$ -$ 2.7$ 1.8$ 3.7$ -$ -$ -$ 3.0$ 2.9$ 3.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 6.2$ 2.0$ 12.8$ 2.5$ 1.1$ 4.2$ 3.5$ 1.2$ 6.4$2017-$ -$ -$ 2.5$ 1.7$ 3.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 2.1$ 0.8$ 3.7$ 3.2$ 1.1$ 6.0$2018-$ -$ -$ 2.4$ 1.6$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 2.5$ 2.5$ 2.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 4.3$ 1.4$ 9.6$ 2.3$ 1.0$ 3.9$ 3.3$ 1.2$ 6.0$2019-$ -$ -$ 2.2$ 1.5$ 3.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 1.9$ 0.7$ 3.4$ 3.1$ 1.1$ 5.6$2020-$ -$ -$ 2.1$ 1.4$ 2.9$ -$ -$ -$ 2.2$ 2.1$ 2.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 3.4$ 0.9$ 7.1$ 2.1$ 0.8$ 3.6$ 3.1$ 1.0$ 5.6$2021-$ -$ -$ 1.9$ 1.3$ 2.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 1.8$ 0.6$ 3.2$ 2.9$ 1.0$ 5.2$2022-$ -$ -$ 1.8$ 1.2$ 2.5$ -$ -$ -$ 1.9$ 1.9$ 2.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 2.5$ 0.6$ 5.7$ 1.8$ 0.7$ 3.2$ 2.8$ 1.0$ 5.2$2023-$ -$ -$ 1.7$ 1.1$ 2.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 1.6$ 0.6$ 2.9$ 2.6$ 0.9$ 4.8$2024-$ -$ -$ 1.6$ 1.1$ 2.2$ -$ -$ -$ 1.7$ 1.6$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 1.8$ 0.4$ 4.6$ 1.7$ 0.6$ 3.0$ 2.6$ 0.9$ 4.7$2025-$ -$ -$ 1.5$ 1.0$ 2.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 1.5$ 0.5$ 2.7$ 2.4$ 0.8$ 4.4$2026-$ -$ -$ 1.4$ 0.9$ 1.9$ -$ -$ -$ 1.4$ 1.4$ 1.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 1.4$ 0.3$ 3.6$ 1.5$ 0.6$ 2.6$ 2.3$ 0.8$ 4.3$2027-$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.9$ 1.8$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 1.3$ 0.5$ 2.4$ 2.2$ 0.7$ 4.0$2028-$ -$ -$ 1.2$ 0.8$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 1.2$ 1.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 1.1$ 0.2$ 2.8$ 1.3$ 0.5$ 2.4$ 2.1$ 0.7$ 3.8$2029-$ -$ -$ 1.1$ 0.8$ 1.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 1.2$ 0.4$ 2.2$ 2.0$ 0.7$ 3.6$Total 8.8$ 8.8$ 8.8$ 55.3$ 37.3$ 76.2$ -$ -$ -$ 32.3$ 31.3$ 33.5$ -$ -$ -$ 1.5$ 0.9$ 2.3$ 102.5$ 41.0$ 193.0$ 46.4$ 20.2$ 78.9$ 61.9$ 20.9$ 113.1$Ann. 0.8$ 0.8$ 0.8$ 4.7$ 3.2$ 6.5$ -$ -$ -$ 2.8$ 2.7$ 2.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 8.8$ 3.5$ 16.6$ 4.0$ 1.7$ 6.8$ 5.3$ 1.8$ 9.7$Notes:Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.Source: Ground Water Rule model output.Exhibit D.4j Present Value of Rule Activity Costs at 7 Percent, by Year, for All TNCWSsPresent values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2005.Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundYearMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-38October 2006

# CWSs NTNCWSs TNCWSs Grand Total

Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile) Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile) Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile) Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile)

2005 1.7 $ 1.7 $ 1.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 5.5 $ 5.5 $ 5.5 $

2006 1.6 $ 1.6 $ 1.6 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 2.9 $ 2.9 $ 2.9 $ 5.2 $ 5.2 $ 5.2 $

2007 1.5 $ 1.5 $ 1.5 $ 0.6 $ 0.6 $ 0.6 $ 2.7 $ 2.7 $ 2.7 $ 4.8 $ 4.8 $ 4.8 $

2008 53.7 $ 30.2 $ 83.9 $ 12.2 $ 6.4 $ 20.2 $ 54.2 $ 29.4 $ 87.1 $ 120.0 $ 66.1 $ 191.2 $

2009 13.7 $ 6.6 $ 22.2 $ 2.6 $ 1.3 $ 4.2 $ 9.0 $ 4.8 $ 14.3 $ 25.3 $ 12.7 $ 40.7 $

2010 18.0 $ 8.9 $ 30.4 $ 2.1 $ 1.0 $ 3.5 $ 37.1 $ 20.0 $ 60.6 $ 57.3 $ 29.8 $ 94.5 $

2011 12.1 $ 5.9 $ 20.0 $ 1.9 $ 0.9 $ 3.2 $ 9.2 $ 4.7 $ 14.8 $ 23.2 $ 11.5 $ 38.1 $

2012 13.3 $ 6.4 $ 22.4 $ 4.6 $ 2.3 $ 7.8 $ 27.5 $ 14.1 $ 45.3 $ 45.4 $ 22.9 $ 75.5 $

2013 9.8 $ 4.6 $ 16.8 $ 4.1 $ 2.1 $ 6.8 $ 9.0 $ 4.2 $ 14.8 $ 22.9 $ 11.0 $ 38.4 $

2014 12.9 $ 6.3 $ 22.1 $ 1.9 $ 0.9 $ 3.2 $ 22.0 $ 11.2 $ 36.3 $ 36.8 $ 18.4 $ 61.6 $

2015 6.6 $ 3.0 $ 11.3 $ 1.7 $ 0.8 $ 2.9 $ 8.5 $ 3.9 $ 14.1 $ 16.8 $ 7.6 $ 28.3 $

2016 8.9 $ 4.2 $ 15.4 $ 3.3 $ 1.5 $ 5.6 $ 18.0 $ 9.1 $ 30.4 $ 30.2 $ 14.8 $ 51.4 $

2017 7.2 $ 3.4 $ 12.4 $ 1.7 $ 0.7 $ 2.8 $ 7.9 $ 3.6 $ 13.3 $ 16.8 $ 7.8 $ 28.5 $

2018 9.0 $ 4.3 $ 15.5 $ 2.7 $ 1.3 $ 4.5 $ 14.9 $ 7.6 $ 25.5 $ 26.7 $ 13.2 $ 45.6 $

2019 5.2 $ 2.4 $ 9.0 $ 1.5 $ 0.7 $ 2.5 $ 7.3 $ 3.3 $ 12.2 $ 14.0 $ 6.3 $ 23.7 $

2020 7.6 $ 3.6 $ 13.2 $ 2.4 $ 1.1 $ 4.2 $ 12.8 $ 6.4 $ 21.5 $ 22.9 $ 11.1 $ 38.9 $

2021 4.7 $ 2.1 $ 8.0 $ 1.4 $ 0.6 $ 2.4 $ 6.6 $ 2.9 $ 11.2 $ 12.7 $ 5.6 $ 21.5 $

2022 5.7 $ 2.7 $ 9.8 $ 1.3 $ 0.5 $ 2.2 $ 10.9 $ 5.4 $ 18.6 $ 17.9 $ 8.6 $ 30.6 $

2023 5.7 $ 2.7 $ 9.7 $ 1.9 $ 0.9 $ 3.3 $ 6.0 $ 2.6 $ 10.2 $ 13.6 $ 6.2 $ 23.1 $

2024 5.0 $ 2.4 $ 8.8 $ 1.8 $ 0.8 $ 3.2 $ 9.4 $ 4.6 $ 16.2 $ 16.2 $ 7.8 $ 28.2 $

2025 3.7 $ 1.6 $ 6.4 $ 1.1 $ 0.5 $ 1.9 $ 5.4 $ 2.3 $ 9.2 $ 10.2 $ 4.5 $ 17.5 $

2026 4.9 $ 2.3 $ 8.6 $ 1.0 $ 0.4 $ 1.8 $ 8.1 $ 3.9 $ 13.9 $ 14.1 $ 6.7 $ 24.3 $

2027 3.3 $ 1.5 $ 5.7 $ 1.0 $ 0.4 $ 1.7 $ 4.8 $ 2.1 $ 8.2 $ 9.1 $ 3.9 $ 15.6 $

2028 4.3 $ 2.0 $ 7.5 $ 1.8 $ 0.8 $ 3.1 $ 7.0 $ 3.4 $ 12.0 $ 13.1 $ 6.3 $ 22.7 $

2029 3.3 $ 1.5 $ 5.7 $ 0.9 $ 0.4 $ 1.6 $ 4.3 $ 1.9 $ 7.3 $ 8.5 $ 3.8 $ 14.6 $

Total 223.6 $ 113.3 $ 369.6 $ 57.0 $ 28.5 $ 94.6 $ 308.8 $ 160.4 $ 505.8 $ 589.3 $ 302.2 $ 970.0 $

Ann. 19.2 $ 9.7 $ 31.7 $ 4.9 $ 2.4 $ 8.1 $ 26.5 $ 13.8 $ 43.4 $ 50.6 $ 25.9 $ 83.2 $

Notes: Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2005.

Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.

Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.

Source: Ground Water Rule model output.

Year 

# Exhibit D.4k Present Value of Total Rule Activity Costs at 7 Percent, by Year, for All PWS s

Mean

Value 90 Percent

Confidence Bound

Mean

Value Mean

Value 90 Percent

Confidence Bound 90 Percent

Confidence Bound

Mean

Value 90 Percent

Confidence Bound



# Economic Analysis for the

Final Ground Water Rule D-39 October 2006Implementation Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action - Plans Corrective Action - Capital Corrective Action - O&M Compliance Monitoring Grand TotalLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20055.5$ 5.5$ 5.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5.5$ 5.5$ 5.5$20065.2$ 5.2$ 5.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5.2$ 5.2$ 5.2$20074.8$ 4.8$ 4.8$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4.8$ 4.8$ 4.8$2008-$ -$ -$ 8.2$ 5.5$ 11.3$ -$ -$ -$ 11.8$ 11.1$ 12.5$ -$ -$ -$ 2.0$ 1.4$ 2.7$ 86.8$ 42.8$ 145.9$ 7.5$ 4.2$ 11.5$ 3.8$ 1.0$ 7.3$ 120.0$ 66.1$ 191.2$2009-$ -$ -$ 7.7$ 5.2$ 10.5$ -$ -$ -$ 1.1$ 1.0$ 1.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 7.9$ 3.2$ 13.6$ 4.9$ 2.2$ 8.3$ 3.4$ 0.9$ 6.6$ 25.3$ 12.7$ 40.7$2010-$ -$ -$ 7.2$ 4.8$ 9.8$ -$ -$ -$ 7.2$ 6.9$ 7.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.7$ 0.4$ 1.0$ 31.1$ 13.1$ 57.1$ 6.4$ 3.1$ 10.4$ 4.7$ 1.5$ 8.8$ 57.3$ 29.8$ 94.5$2011-$ -$ -$ 6.7$ 4.5$ 9.2$ -$ -$ -$ 1.5$ 1.5$ 1.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 5.1$ 1.8$ 9.6$ 5.2$ 2.2$ 9.1$ 4.5$ 1.5$ 8.4$ 23.2$ 11.5$ 38.1$2012-$ -$ -$ 6.3$ 4.2$ 8.6$ -$ -$ -$ 6.4$ 6.2$ 6.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.7$ 20.7$ 7.6$ 39.1$ 6.3$ 2.9$ 10.6$ 5.3$ 1.6$ 9.9$ 45.4$ 22.9$ 75.5$2013-$ -$ -$ 5.8$ 3.9$ 8.0$ -$ -$ -$ 1.5$ 1.5$ 1.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 4.8$ 1.8$ 9.4$ 5.4$ 2.2$ 9.6$ 5.1$ 1.6$ 9.5$ 22.9$ 11.0$ 38.4$2014-$ -$ -$ 5.5$ 3.7$ 7.5$ -$ -$ -$ 5.7$ 5.5$ 5.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 13.9$ 4.7$ 27.1$ 6.0$ 2.6$ 10.4$ 5.5$ 1.8$ 10.1$ 36.8$ 18.4$ 61.6$2015-$ -$ -$ 5.1$ 3.4$ 7.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.6$ 0.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.8$ 0.1$ 2.0$ 5.1$ 1.9$ 9.1$ 5.2$ 1.6$ 9.5$ 16.8$ 7.6$ 28.3$2016-$ -$ -$ 4.8$ 3.2$ 6.6$ -$ -$ -$ 4.7$ 4.5$ 4.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 9.7$ 3.0$ 20.2$ 5.5$ 2.2$ 9.5$ 5.3$ 1.7$ 9.9$ 30.2$ 14.8$ 51.4$2017-$ -$ -$ 4.5$ 3.0$ 6.1$ -$ -$ -$ 1.0$ 0.9$ 1.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 1.5$ 0.4$ 3.3$ 4.9$ 1.8$ 8.7$ 5.0$ 1.6$ 9.3$ 16.8$ 7.8$ 28.5$2018-$ -$ -$ 4.2$ 2.8$ 5.7$ -$ -$ -$ 4.4$ 4.2$ 4.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 7.8$ 2.4$ 16.7$ 5.1$ 2.0$ 9.0$ 5.1$ 1.7$ 9.4$ 26.7$ 13.2$ 45.6$2019-$ -$ -$ 3.9$ 2.6$ 5.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.4$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.4$ 0.0$ 1.1$ 4.5$ 1.6$ 8.1$ 4.8$ 1.6$ 8.8$ 14.0$ 6.3$ 23.7$2020-$ -$ -$ 3.6$ 2.5$ 5.0$ -$ -$ -$ 3.8$ 3.7$ 4.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 5.8$ 1.5$ 12.7$ 4.6$ 1.8$ 8.2$ 4.8$ 1.6$ 8.8$ 22.9$ 11.1$ 38.9$2021-$ -$ -$ 3.4$ 2.3$ 4.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 0.0$ 0.8$ 4.1$ 1.5$ 7.4$ 4.5$ 1.5$ 8.2$ 12.7$ 5.6$ 21.5$2022-$ -$ -$ 3.2$ 2.1$ 4.4$ -$ -$ -$ 2.9$ 2.8$ 2.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 3.3$ 0.7$ 7.9$ 4.1$ 1.5$ 7.3$ 4.4$ 1.4$ 8.0$ 17.9$ 8.6$ 30.6$2023-$ -$ -$ 3.0$ 2.0$ 4.1$ -$ -$ -$ 1.0$ 1.0$ 1.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 1.6$ 0.5$ 3.4$ 3.8$ 1.4$ 6.9$ 4.1$ 1.4$ 7.6$ 13.6$ 6.2$ 23.1$2024-$ -$ -$ 2.8$ 1.9$ 3.8$ -$ -$ -$ 2.6$ 2.6$ 2.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 2.9$ 0.6$ 7.3$ 3.8$ 1.4$ 6.8$ 4.0$ 1.3$ 7.4$ 16.2$ 7.8$ 28.2$2025-$ -$ -$ 2.6$ 1.8$ 3.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.3$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ 0.5$ 3.4$ 1.2$ 6.2$ 3.8$ 1.3$ 6.9$ 10.2$ 4.5$ 17.5$2026-$ -$ -$ 2.4$ 1.6$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 2.4$ 2.3$ 2.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 2.2$ 0.4$ 5.7$ 3.3$ 1.2$ 6.0$ 3.6$ 1.2$ 6.7$ 14.1$ 6.7$ 24.3$2027-$ -$ -$ 2.3$ 1.5$ 3.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.3$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ 0.4$ 3.0$ 1.1$ 5.5$ 3.4$ 1.1$ 6.3$ 9.1$ 3.9$ 15.6$2028-$ -$ -$ 2.1$ 1.4$ 2.9$ -$ -$ -$ 2.3$ 2.2$ 2.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 2.3$ 0.4$ 5.8$ 3.0$ 1.1$ 5.5$ 3.3$ 1.1$ 6.0$ 13.1$ 6.3$ 22.7$2029-$ -$ -$ 2.0$ 1.3$ 2.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 0.0$ 0.8$ 2.8$ 1.0$ 5.0$ 3.1$ 1.0$ 5.6$ 8.5$ 3.8$ 14.6$Total 15.5$ 15.5$ 15.5$ 97.1$ 65.5$ 133.4$ -$ -$ -$ 62.8$ 60.3$ 65.3$ -$ -$ -$ 4.8$ 2.8$ 7.1$ 209.5$ 85.0$ 390.6$ 102.6$ 42.1$ 179.0$ 97.0$ 31.0$ 179.0$ 589.3$ 302.2$ 970.0$Ann. 1.3$ 1.3$ 1.3$ 8.3$ 5.6$ 11.4$ -$ -$ -$ 5.4$ 5.2$ 5.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.6$ 18.0$ 7.3$ 33.5$ 8.8$ 3.6$ 15.4$ 8.3$ 2.7$ 15.4$ 50.6$ 25.9$ 83.2$Notes:Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.Source: Ground Water Rule model output.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundDetail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundPresent values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2005.90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValueExhibit D.4l Present Value of Rule Activity Costs at 7 Percent, by Year and Component, for All PWSsYearMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-40October 2006Rule Implementation & AnnualAdministration Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action Plans Compliance Monitoring TotalLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20054.2$ 4.2$ 4.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4.2$ 4.2$ 4.2$20064.2$ 4.2$ 4.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4.2$ 4.2$ 4.2$20074.2$ 4.2$ 4.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4.2$ 4.2$ 4.2$20089.9$ 9.9$ 9.9$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.4$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ 3.0$ 2.0$ 4.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 15.8$ 13.6$ 18.1$20099.9$ 9.9$ 9.9$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 12.4$ 11.3$ 13.5$20109.9$ 9.9$ 9.9$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 0.8$ 1.8$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 13.7$ 12.2$ 15.4$20119.9$ 9.9$ 9.9$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 12.4$ 11.3$ 13.5$20129.9$ 9.9$ 9.9$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 1.0$ 0.6$ 1.5$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 13.4$ 11.9$ 15.0$20139.9$ 9.9$ 9.9$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.5$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 12.5$ 11.4$ 13.7$20149.9$ 9.9$ 9.9$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.8$ 0.4$ 1.2$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 13.1$ 11.7$ 14.6$20159.9$ 9.9$ 9.9$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 12.2$ 11.2$ 13.2$20169.9$ 9.9$ 9.9$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.3$ 1.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 12.9$ 11.6$ 14.4$20179.9$ 9.9$ 9.9$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 12.3$ 11.3$ 13.3$20189.9$ 9.9$ 9.9$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.3$ 1.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 12.9$ 11.6$ 14.4$20199.9$ 9.9$ 9.9$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 12.2$ 11.2$ 13.2$20209.9$ 9.9$ 9.9$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.8$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 12.8$ 11.5$ 14.1$20219.9$ 9.9$ 9.9$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 12.2$ 11.2$ 13.2$20229.9$ 9.9$ 9.9$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 12.6$ 11.4$ 13.8$20239.9$ 9.9$ 9.9$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 12.4$ 11.3$ 13.5$20249.9$ 9.9$ 9.9$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 12.6$ 11.3$ 13.8$20259.9$ 9.9$ 9.9$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 12.2$ 11.2$ 13.2$20269.9$ 9.9$ 9.9$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 12.5$ 11.3$ 13.8$20279.9$ 9.9$ 9.9$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 12.2$ 11.2$ 13.2$20289.9$ 9.9$ 9.9$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.7$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 12.6$ 11.4$ 13.9$20299.9$ 9.9$ 9.9$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 12.2$ 11.2$ 13.2$Notes: Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2004.Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.Source: Ground Water Rule model output.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundYearMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueExhibit D.5a Primacy Agency Rule Activity Costs, by Year90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-41October 2006Rule Implementation & AnnualAdministration Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action Plans Compliance Monitoring TotalLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20054.2$ 4.2$ 4.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4.2$ 4.2$ 4.2$20064.1$ 4.1$ 4.1$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4.1$ 4.1$ 4.1$20074.0$ 4.0$ 4.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4.0$ 4.0$ 4.0$20089.0$ 9.0$ 9.0$ 2.1$ 1.2$ 3.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.7$ -$ -$ -$ 2.7$ 1.9$ 3.8$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 14.4$ 12.5$ 16.6$20098.8$ 8.8$ 8.8$ 2.1$ 1.2$ 2.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 11.0$ 10.1$ 12.0$20108.5$ 8.5$ 8.5$ 2.0$ 1.2$ 2.8$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 1.1$ 0.7$ 1.6$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 11.9$ 10.5$ 13.3$20118.3$ 8.3$ 8.3$ 2.0$ 1.1$ 2.8$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 10.4$ 9.5$ 11.3$20128.0$ 8.0$ 8.0$ 1.9$ 1.1$ 2.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.8$ 0.5$ 1.2$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 10.9$ 9.7$ 12.2$20137.8$ 7.8$ 7.8$ 1.8$ 1.1$ 2.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 9.9$ 9.0$ 10.8$20147.6$ 7.6$ 7.6$ 1.8$ 1.0$ 2.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.3$ 0.9$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 10.1$ 9.0$ 11.2$20157.3$ 7.3$ 7.3$ 1.7$ 1.0$ 2.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 9.1$ 8.4$ 9.8$20167.1$ 7.1$ 7.1$ 1.7$ 1.0$ 2.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.7$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 9.3$ 8.4$ 10.4$20176.9$ 6.9$ 6.9$ 1.6$ 1.0$ 2.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 8.6$ 7.9$ 9.3$20186.7$ 6.7$ 6.7$ 1.6$ 0.9$ 2.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.7$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 8.8$ 7.9$ 9.8$20196.5$ 6.5$ 6.5$ 1.5$ 0.9$ 2.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 8.1$ 7.4$ 8.7$20206.3$ 6.3$ 6.3$ 1.5$ 0.9$ 2.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 8.2$ 7.4$ 9.1$20216.1$ 6.1$ 6.1$ 1.5$ 0.8$ 2.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 7.6$ 7.0$ 8.2$20226.0$ 6.0$ 6.0$ 1.4$ 0.8$ 2.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 7.6$ 6.9$ 8.4$20235.8$ 5.8$ 5.8$ 1.4$ 0.8$ 1.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 7.3$ 6.7$ 7.9$20245.6$ 5.6$ 5.6$ 1.3$ 0.8$ 1.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 7.2$ 6.5$ 7.9$20255.5$ 5.5$ 5.5$ 1.3$ 0.8$ 1.8$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 6.8$ 6.2$ 7.3$20265.3$ 5.3$ 5.3$ 1.3$ 0.7$ 1.8$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 6.7$ 6.1$ 7.4$20275.1$ 5.1$ 5.1$ 1.2$ 0.7$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 6.4$ 5.9$ 6.9$20285.0$ 5.0$ 5.0$ 1.2$ 0.7$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 6.4$ 5.8$ 7.1$20294.8$ 4.8$ 4.8$ 1.1$ 0.7$ 1.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 6.0$ 5.5$ 6.5$Total 160.2$ 160.2$ 160.2$ 35.0$ 20.4$ 49.5$ -$ -$ -$ 1.5$ 0.9$ 2.3$ -$ -$ -$ 8.0$ 4.6$ 12.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 204.9$ 186.1$ 224.3$Ann. 9.2$ 9.2$ 9.2$ 2.0$ 1.2$ 2.8$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.7$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 11.8$ 10.7$ 12.9$Notes: Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2005.Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.Source: Ground Water Rule model output.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueYearMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundExhibit D.5b Present Value of Primacy Agency Rule Activity Costs at 3 Percent, by Year90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-42October 2006Rule Implementation & AnnualAdministration Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action Plans Compliance Monitoring TotalLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20054.2$ 4.2$ 4.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4.2$ 4.2$ 4.2$20063.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$20073.7$ 3.7$ 3.7$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3.7$ 3.7$ 3.7$20088.0$ 8.0$ 8.0$ 1.9$ 1.1$ 2.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ 2.4$ 1.7$ 3.4$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 12.9$ 11.1$ 14.8$20097.5$ 7.5$ 7.5$ 1.8$ 1.0$ 2.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 9.5$ 8.7$ 10.3$20107.0$ 7.0$ 7.0$ 1.7$ 1.0$ 2.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.6$ 1.3$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 9.8$ 8.7$ 11.0$20116.6$ 6.6$ 6.6$ 1.6$ 0.9$ 2.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 8.3$ 7.6$ 9.0$20126.1$ 6.1$ 6.1$ 1.5$ 0.8$ 2.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.3$ 0.9$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 8.3$ 7.4$ 9.3$20135.7$ 5.7$ 5.7$ 1.4$ 0.8$ 1.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 7.3$ 6.6$ 8.0$20145.4$ 5.4$ 5.4$ 1.3$ 0.7$ 1.8$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.7$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 7.1$ 6.4$ 8.0$20155.0$ 5.0$ 5.0$ 1.2$ 0.7$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 6.2$ 5.7$ 6.7$20164.7$ 4.7$ 4.7$ 1.1$ 0.6$ 1.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 6.1$ 5.5$ 6.8$20174.4$ 4.4$ 4.4$ 1.0$ 0.6$ 1.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 5.5$ 5.0$ 5.9$20184.1$ 4.1$ 4.1$ 1.0$ 0.6$ 1.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 5.4$ 4.8$ 6.0$20193.8$ 3.8$ 3.8$ 0.9$ 0.5$ 1.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 4.7$ 4.3$ 5.1$20203.6$ 3.6$ 3.6$ 0.8$ 0.5$ 1.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 4.6$ 4.2$ 5.1$20213.3$ 3.3$ 3.3$ 0.8$ 0.5$ 1.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 4.1$ 3.8$ 4.5$20223.1$ 3.1$ 3.1$ 0.7$ 0.4$ 1.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 4.0$ 3.6$ 4.4$20232.9$ 2.9$ 2.9$ 0.7$ 0.4$ 1.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 3.7$ 3.4$ 4.0$20242.7$ 2.7$ 2.7$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 3.5$ 3.1$ 3.8$20252.5$ 2.5$ 2.5$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 3.2$ 2.9$ 3.4$20262.4$ 2.4$ 2.4$ 0.6$ 0.3$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 3.0$ 2.7$ 3.3$20272.2$ 2.2$ 2.2$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 2.8$ 2.5$ 3.0$20282.1$ 2.1$ 2.1$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 2.7$ 2.4$ 2.9$20291.9$ 1.9$ 1.9$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 2.4$ 2.2$ 2.6$Total 107.0$ 107.0$ 107.0$ 22.5$ 13.1$ 31.8$ -$ -$ -$ 1.1$ 0.7$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 6.1$ 3.6$ 9.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 136.8$ 124.4$ 149.7$Ann. 9.2$ 9.2$ 9.2$ 1.9$ 1.1$ 2.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.8$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 11.7$ 10.7$ 12.8$Notes: Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2005.Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.Source: Ground Water Rule model output.MeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueYearMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundExhibit D.5c Present Value of Primacy Agency Rule Activity Costs at 7 Percent, by Year90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-43October 2006

# CWSs NTNCWSs TNCWSs Grand Total

Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile) Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile) Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile) Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile)

2005 1.7 $ 1.7 $ 1.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 5.5 $ 5.5 $ 5.5 $

2006 1.7 $ 1.7 $ 1.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 5.5 $ 5.5 $ 5.5 $

2007 1.7 $ 1.7 $ 1.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 5.5 $ 5.5 $ 5.5 $

2008 3.0 $ 2.0 $ 4.2 $ 1.3 $ 0.9 $ 1.7 $ 5.7 $ 3.9 $ 7.7 $ 10.0 $ 6.8 $ 13.6 $

2009 3.0 $ 2.0 $ 4.2 $ 1.3 $ 0.9 $ 1.7 $ 5.7 $ 3.9 $ 7.7 $ 10.0 $ 6.8 $ 13.6 $

2010 3.0 $ 2.0 $ 4.2 $ 1.3 $ 0.9 $ 1.7 $ 5.7 $ 3.9 $ 7.7 $ 10.0 $ 6.8 $ 13.6 $

2011 3.0 $ 2.0 $ 4.2 $ 1.3 $ 0.9 $ 1.7 $ 5.7 $ 3.9 $ 7.7 $ 10.0 $ 6.8 $ 13.6 $

2012 3.0 $ 2.0 $ 4.2 $ 1.3 $ 0.9 $ 1.7 $ 5.7 $ 3.9 $ 7.7 $ 10.0 $ 6.8 $ 13.6 $

2013 3.0 $ 2.0 $ 4.2 $ 1.3 $ 0.9 $ 1.7 $ 5.7 $ 3.9 $ 7.7 $ 10.0 $ 6.8 $ 13.6 $

2014 3.0 $ 2.0 $ 4.2 $ 1.3 $ 0.9 $ 1.7 $ 5.7 $ 3.9 $ 7.7 $ 10.0 $ 6.8 $ 13.6 $

2015 3.0 $ 2.0 $ 4.2 $ 1.3 $ 0.9 $ 1.7 $ 5.7 $ 3.9 $ 7.7 $ 10.0 $ 6.8 $ 13.6 $

2016 3.0 $ 2.0 $ 4.2 $ 1.3 $ 0.9 $ 1.7 $ 5.7 $ 3.9 $ 7.7 $ 10.0 $ 6.8 $ 13.6 $

2017 3.0 $ 2.0 $ 4.2 $ 1.3 $ 0.9 $ 1.7 $ 5.7 $ 3.9 $ 7.7 $ 10.0 $ 6.8 $ 13.6 $

2018 3.0 $ 2.0 $ 4.2 $ 1.3 $ 0.9 $ 1.7 $ 5.7 $ 3.9 $ 7.7 $ 10.0 $ 6.8 $ 13.6 $

2019 3.0 $ 2.0 $ 4.2 $ 1.3 $ 0.9 $ 1.7 $ 5.7 $ 3.9 $ 7.7 $ 10.0 $ 6.8 $ 13.6 $

2020 3.0 $ 2.0 $ 4.2 $ 1.3 $ 0.9 $ 1.7 $ 5.7 $ 3.9 $ 7.7 $ 10.0 $ 6.8 $ 13.6 $

2021 3.0 $ 2.0 $ 4.2 $ 1.3 $ 0.9 $ 1.7 $ 5.7 $ 3.9 $ 7.7 $ 10.0 $ 6.8 $ 13.6 $

2022 3.0 $ 2.0 $ 4.2 $ 1.3 $ 0.9 $ 1.7 $ 5.7 $ 3.9 $ 7.7 $ 10.0 $ 6.8 $ 13.6 $

2023 3.0 $ 2.0 $ 4.2 $ 1.3 $ 0.9 $ 1.7 $ 5.7 $ 3.9 $ 7.7 $ 10.0 $ 6.8 $ 13.6 $

2024 3.0 $ 2.0 $ 4.2 $ 1.3 $ 0.9 $ 1.7 $ 5.7 $ 3.9 $ 7.7 $ 10.0 $ 6.8 $ 13.6 $

2025 3.0 $ 2.0 $ 4.2 $ 1.3 $ 0.9 $ 1.7 $ 5.7 $ 3.9 $ 7.7 $ 10.0 $ 6.8 $ 13.6 $

2026 3.0 $ 2.0 $ 4.2 $ 1.3 $ 0.9 $ 1.7 $ 5.7 $ 3.9 $ 7.7 $ 10.0 $ 6.8 $ 13.6 $

2027 3.0 $ 2.0 $ 4.2 $ 1.3 $ 0.9 $ 1.7 $ 5.7 $ 3.9 $ 7.7 $ 10.0 $ 6.8 $ 13.6 $

2028 3.0 $ 2.0 $ 4.2 $ 1.3 $ 0.9 $ 1.7 $ 5.7 $ 3.9 $ 7.7 $ 10.0 $ 6.8 $ 13.6 $

2029 3.0 $ 2.0 $ 4.2 $ 1.3 $ 0.9 $ 1.7 $ 5.7 $ 3.9 $ 7.7 $ 10.0 $ 6.8 $ 13.6 $

Notes:

Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.

Source: Ground Water Rule model output. 

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

Year Mean

Value 90 Percent

Confidence Bound

Mean

Value 90 Percent

Confidence Bound

Mean

Value 90 Percent

Confidence Bound

Mean

Value 90 Percent

Confidence Bound

Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2004.

Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.



# Economic Analysis for the

Final Ground Water Rule D-44 October 2006

# CWSs NTNCWSs TNCWSs Grand Total

Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile) Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile) Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile) Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile)

2005 1.7 $ 1.7 $ 1.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 5.5 $ 5.5 $ 5.5 $

2006 1.6 $ 1.6 $ 1.6 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 5.4 $ 5.4 $ 5.4 $

2007 1.6 $ 1.6 $ 1.6 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 3.0 $ 3.0 $ 3.0 $ 5.2 $ 5.2 $ 5.2 $

2008 2.8 $ 1.9 $ 3.8 $ 1.1 $ 0.8 $ 1.6 $ 5.2 $ 3.6 $ 7.1 $ 9.1 $ 6.2 $ 12.4 $

2009 2.7 $ 1.8 $ 3.7 $ 1.1 $ 0.8 $ 1.5 $ 5.1 $ 3.5 $ 6.9 $ 8.9 $ 6.0 $ 12.1 $

2010 2.6 $ 1.7 $ 3.6 $ 1.1 $ 0.7 $ 1.5 $ 4.9 $ 3.4 $ 6.7 $ 8.6 $ 5.8 $ 11.7 $

2011 2.6 $ 1.7 $ 3.5 $ 1.1 $ 0.7 $ 1.4 $ 4.8 $ 3.3 $ 6.5 $ 8.4 $ 5.7 $ 11.4 $

2012 2.5 $ 1.6 $ 3.4 $ 1.0 $ 0.7 $ 1.4 $ 4.6 $ 3.2 $ 6.3 $ 8.1 $ 5.5 $ 11.1 $

2013 2.4 $ 1.6 $ 3.3 $ 1.0 $ 0.7 $ 1.3 $ 4.5 $ 3.1 $ 6.1 $ 7.9 $ 5.3 $ 10.7 $

2014 2.3 $ 1.6 $ 3.2 $ 1.0 $ 0.7 $ 1.3 $ 4.4 $ 3.0 $ 5.9 $ 7.7 $ 5.2 $ 10.4 $

2015 2.3 $ 1.5 $ 3.1 $ 0.9 $ 0.6 $ 1.3 $ 4.2 $ 2.9 $ 5.7 $ 7.4 $ 5.0 $ 10.1 $

2016 2.2 $ 1.5 $ 3.0 $ 0.9 $ 0.6 $ 1.2 $ 4.1 $ 2.8 $ 5.6 $ 7.2 $ 4.9 $ 9.8 $

2017 2.1 $ 1.4 $ 2.9 $ 0.9 $ 0.6 $ 1.2 $ 4.0 $ 2.7 $ 5.4 $ 7.0 $ 4.8 $ 9.5 $

2018 2.1 $ 1.4 $ 2.8 $ 0.9 $ 0.6 $ 1.2 $ 3.9 $ 2.7 $ 5.3 $ 6.8 $ 4.6 $ 9.3 $

2019 2.0 $ 1.3 $ 2.8 $ 0.8 $ 0.6 $ 1.1 $ 3.8 $ 2.6 $ 5.1 $ 6.6 $ 4.5 $ 9.0 $

2020 2.0 $ 1.3 $ 2.7 $ 0.8 $ 0.5 $ 1.1 $ 3.6 $ 2.5 $ 5.0 $ 6.4 $ 4.3 $ 8.7 $

2021 1.9 $ 1.3 $ 2.6 $ 0.8 $ 0.5 $ 1.1 $ 3.5 $ 2.4 $ 4.8 $ 6.2 $ 4.2 $ 8.5 $

2022 1.8 $ 1.2 $ 2.5 $ 0.8 $ 0.5 $ 1.0 $ 3.4 $ 2.4 $ 4.7 $ 6.0 $ 4.1 $ 8.2 $

2023 1.8 $ 1.2 $ 2.5 $ 0.7 $ 0.5 $ 1.0 $ 3.3 $ 2.3 $ 4.5 $ 5.9 $ 4.0 $ 8.0 $

2024 1.7 $ 1.2 $ 2.4 $ 0.7 $ 0.5 $ 1.0 $ 3.2 $ 2.2 $ 4.4 $ 5.7 $ 3.9 $ 7.8 $

2025 1.7 $ 1.1 $ 2.3 $ 0.7 $ 0.5 $ 0.9 $ 3.1 $ 2.2 $ 4.3 $ 5.5 $ 3.8 $ 7.5 $

2026 1.6 $ 1.1 $ 2.2 $ 0.7 $ 0.5 $ 0.9 $ 3.1 $ 2.1 $ 4.1 $ 5.4 $ 3.6 $ 7.3 $

2027 1.6 $ 1.1 $ 2.2 $ 0.7 $ 0.4 $ 0.9 $ 3.0 $ 2.0 $ 4.0 $ 5.2 $ 3.5 $ 7.1 $

2028 1.5 $ 1.0 $ 2.1 $ 0.6 $ 0.4 $ 0.9 $ 2.9 $ 2.0 $ 3.9 $ 5.1 $ 3.4 $ 6.9 $

2029 1.5 $ 1.0 $ 2.1 $ 0.6 $ 0.4 $ 0.8 $ 2.8 $ 1.9 $ 3.8 $ 4.9 $ 3.3 $ 6.7 $

Total 50.7 $ 35.3 $ 67.6 $ 20.9 $ 14.9 $ 27.7 $ 94.6 $ 67.7 $ 125.1 $ 166.1 $ 117.9 $ 220.4 $

Ann. 2.9 $ 2.0 $ 3.9 $ 1.2 $ 0.9 $ 1.6 $ 5.4 $ 3.9 $ 7.2 $ 9.5 $ 6.8 $ 12.7 $

Notes: Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2004.

Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.

Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.

Source: Ground Water Rule model output. 

# Exhibit D.6b Present Value of Total Activity Costs at 3 Percent for Option 1, by Year, for All PWS s

Year Mean

Value 90 Percent

Confidence Bound

Mean

Value 90 Percent

Confidence Bound

Mean

Value 90 Percent

Confidence Bound

Mean

Value 90 Percent

Confidence Bound



# Economic Analysis for the

Final Ground Water Rule D-45 October 2006

# CWSs NTNCWSs TNCWSs Grand Total

Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile) Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile) Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile) Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile)

2005 1.7 $ 1.7 $ 1.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 5.5 $ 5.5 $ 5.5 $

2006 1.6 $ 1.6 $ 1.6 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 2.9 $ 2.9 $ 2.9 $ 5.2 $ 5.2 $ 5.2 $

2007 1.5 $ 1.5 $ 1.5 $ 0.6 $ 0.6 $ 0.6 $ 2.7 $ 2.7 $ 2.7 $ 4.8 $ 4.8 $ 4.8 $

2008 2.5 $ 1.7 $ 3.4 $ 1.0 $ 0.7 $ 1.4 $ 4.6 $ 3.2 $ 6.3 $ 8.2 $ 5.5 $ 11.1 $

2009 2.3 $ 1.5 $ 3.2 $ 1.0 $ 0.7 $ 1.3 $ 4.3 $ 3.0 $ 5.9 $ 7.6 $ 5.2 $ 10.4 $

2010 2.2 $ 1.4 $ 3.0 $ 0.9 $ 0.6 $ 1.2 $ 4.1 $ 2.8 $ 5.5 $ 7.1 $ 4.8 $ 9.7 $

2011 2.0 $ 1.3 $ 2.8 $ 0.8 $ 0.6 $ 1.1 $ 3.8 $ 2.6 $ 5.1 $ 6.7 $ 4.5 $ 9.1 $

2012 1.9 $ 1.3 $ 2.6 $ 0.8 $ 0.5 $ 1.1 $ 3.5 $ 2.4 $ 4.8 $ 6.2 $ 4.2 $ 8.5 $

2013 1.8 $ 1.2 $ 2.4 $ 0.7 $ 0.5 $ 1.0 $ 3.3 $ 2.3 $ 4.5 $ 5.8 $ 3.9 $ 7.9 $

2014 1.7 $ 1.1 $ 2.3 $ 0.7 $ 0.5 $ 0.9 $ 3.1 $ 2.1 $ 4.2 $ 5.4 $ 3.7 $ 7.4 $

2015 1.5 $ 1.0 $ 2.1 $ 0.6 $ 0.4 $ 0.9 $ 2.9 $ 2.0 $ 3.9 $ 5.1 $ 3.4 $ 6.9 $

2016 1.4 $ 1.0 $ 2.0 $ 0.6 $ 0.4 $ 0.8 $ 2.7 $ 1.9 $ 3.7 $ 4.7 $ 3.2 $ 6.5 $

2017 1.4 $ 0.9 $ 1.9 $ 0.6 $ 0.4 $ 0.8 $ 2.5 $ 1.7 $ 3.4 $ 4.4 $ 3.0 $ 6.0 $

2018 1.3 $ 0.8 $ 1.7 $ 0.5 $ 0.4 $ 0.7 $ 2.4 $ 1.6 $ 3.2 $ 4.1 $ 2.8 $ 5.6 $

2019 1.2 $ 0.8 $ 1.6 $ 0.5 $ 0.3 $ 0.7 $ 2.2 $ 1.5 $ 3.0 $ 3.9 $ 2.6 $ 5.3 $

2020 1.1 $ 0.7 $ 1.5 $ 0.5 $ 0.3 $ 0.6 $ 2.1 $ 1.4 $ 2.8 $ 3.6 $ 2.5 $ 4.9 $

2021 1.0 $ 0.7 $ 1.4 $ 0.4 $ 0.3 $ 0.6 $ 1.9 $ 1.3 $ 2.6 $ 3.4 $ 2.3 $ 4.6 $

2022 1.0 $ 0.6 $ 1.3 $ 0.4 $ 0.3 $ 0.5 $ 1.8 $ 1.2 $ 2.4 $ 3.2 $ 2.1 $ 4.3 $

2023 0.9 $ 0.6 $ 1.2 $ 0.4 $ 0.3 $ 0.5 $ 1.7 $ 1.2 $ 2.3 $ 3.0 $ 2.0 $ 4.0 $

2024 0.8 $ 0.6 $ 1.2 $ 0.3 $ 0.2 $ 0.5 $ 1.6 $ 1.1 $ 2.1 $ 2.8 $ 1.9 $ 3.8 $

2025 0.8 $ 0.5 $ 1.1 $ 0.3 $ 0.2 $ 0.4 $ 1.5 $ 1.0 $ 2.0 $ 2.6 $ 1.8 $ 3.5 $

2026 0.7 $ 0.5 $ 1.0 $ 0.3 $ 0.2 $ 0.4 $ 1.4 $ 0.9 $ 1.9 $ 2.4 $ 1.6 $ 3.3 $

2027 0.7 $ 0.5 $ 0.9 $ 0.3 $ 0.2 $ 0.4 $ 1.3 $ 0.9 $ 1.7 $ 2.3 $ 1.5 $ 3.1 $

2028 0.6 $ 0.4 $ 0.9 $ 0.3 $ 0.2 $ 0.4 $ 1.2 $ 0.8 $ 1.6 $ 2.1 $ 1.4 $ 2.9 $

2029 0.6 $ 0.4 $ 0.8 $ 0.2 $ 0.2 $ 0.3 $ 1.1 $ 0.8 $ 1.5 $ 2.0 $ 1.3 $ 2.7 $

Total 34.2 $ 24.3 $ 45.0 $ 14.1 $ 10.2 $ 18.4 $ 63.7 $ 46.5 $ 83.4 $ 112.0 $ 81.0 $ 146.9 $

Ann. 2.9 $ 2.1 $ 3.9 $ 1.2 $ 0.9 $ 1.6 $ 5.5 $ 4.0 $ 7.2 $ 9.6 $ 7.0 $ 12.6 $

Notes: Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2004.

Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.

Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.

Source: Ground Water Rule model output. Mean

Value 90 Percent

Confidence Bound 

# Exhibit D.6c Present Value of Total Rule Costs at 7 Percent for Option 1, by Year, for All PWSs

Year Mean

Value 90 Percent

Confidence Bound

Mean

Value 90 Percent

Confidence Bound

Mean

Value 90 Percent

Confidence Bound



# Economic Analysis for the

Final Ground Water Rule D-46 October 2006Rule Implementation & AnnualAdministration Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action Plans Compliance Monitoring TotalLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20051.8$ 1.8$ 1.8$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.8$ 1.8$ 1.8$20061.8$ 1.8$ 1.8$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.8$ 1.8$ 1.8$20071.8$ 1.8$ 1.8$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.8$ 1.8$ 1.8$20083.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 2.4$ 1.4$ 3.4$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6.4$ 5.3$ 7.4$20093.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 2.4$ 1.4$ 3.4$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6.4$ 5.3$ 7.4$20103.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 2.4$ 1.4$ 3.4$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6.4$ 5.3$ 7.4$20113.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 2.4$ 1.4$ 3.4$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6.4$ 5.3$ 7.4$20123.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 2.4$ 1.4$ 3.4$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6.4$ 5.3$ 7.4$20133.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 2.4$ 1.4$ 3.4$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6.4$ 5.3$ 7.4$20143.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 2.4$ 1.4$ 3.4$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6.4$ 5.3$ 7.4$20153.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 2.4$ 1.4$ 3.4$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6.4$ 5.3$ 7.4$20163.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 2.4$ 1.4$ 3.4$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6.4$ 5.3$ 7.4$20173.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 2.4$ 1.4$ 3.4$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6.4$ 5.3$ 7.4$20183.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 2.4$ 1.4$ 3.4$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6.4$ 5.3$ 7.4$20193.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 2.4$ 1.4$ 3.4$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6.4$ 5.3$ 7.4$20203.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 2.4$ 1.4$ 3.4$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6.4$ 5.3$ 7.4$20213.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 2.4$ 1.4$ 3.4$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6.4$ 5.3$ 7.4$20223.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 2.4$ 1.4$ 3.4$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6.4$ 5.3$ 7.4$20233.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 2.4$ 1.4$ 3.4$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6.4$ 5.3$ 7.4$20243.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 2.4$ 1.4$ 3.4$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6.4$ 5.3$ 7.4$20253.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 2.4$ 1.4$ 3.4$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6.4$ 5.3$ 7.4$20263.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 2.4$ 1.4$ 3.4$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6.4$ 5.3$ 7.4$20273.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 2.4$ 1.4$ 3.4$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6.4$ 5.3$ 7.4$20283.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 2.4$ 1.4$ 3.4$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6.4$ 5.3$ 7.4$20293.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 2.4$ 1.4$ 3.4$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6.4$ 5.3$ 7.4$Notes: Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2004.Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.Source: Ground Water Rule model output.Exhibit D.6d Primacy Agency Activity Costs for Option 1, by YearYearMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-47October 2006Rule Implementation & AnnualAdministration Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action Plans Compliance Monitoring TotalLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20051.8$ 1.8$ 1.8$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.8$ 1.8$ 1.8$20061.8$ 1.8$ 1.8$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.8$ 1.8$ 1.8$20071.7$ 1.7$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.7$ 1.7$ 1.7$20083.6$ 3.6$ 3.6$ 2.2$ 1.3$ 3.1$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5.8$ 4.9$ 6.7$20093.5$ 3.5$ 3.5$ 2.2$ 1.3$ 3.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5.6$ 4.7$ 6.5$20103.4$ 3.4$ 3.4$ 2.1$ 1.2$ 3.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5.5$ 4.6$ 6.3$20113.3$ 3.3$ 3.3$ 2.0$ 1.2$ 2.9$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5.3$ 4.5$ 6.2$20123.2$ 3.2$ 3.2$ 2.0$ 1.1$ 2.8$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5.2$ 4.3$ 6.0$20133.1$ 3.1$ 3.1$ 1.9$ 1.1$ 2.7$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5.0$ 4.2$ 5.8$20143.0$ 3.0$ 3.0$ 1.9$ 1.1$ 2.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4.9$ 4.1$ 5.6$20152.9$ 2.9$ 2.9$ 1.8$ 1.0$ 2.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4.7$ 4.0$ 5.5$20162.8$ 2.8$ 2.8$ 1.8$ 1.0$ 2.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4.6$ 3.9$ 5.3$20172.8$ 2.8$ 2.8$ 1.7$ 1.0$ 2.4$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4.5$ 3.7$ 5.2$20182.7$ 2.7$ 2.7$ 1.7$ 1.0$ 2.3$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4.3$ 3.6$ 5.0$20192.6$ 2.6$ 2.6$ 1.6$ 0.9$ 2.3$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4.2$ 3.5$ 4.9$20202.5$ 2.5$ 2.5$ 1.6$ 0.9$ 2.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4.1$ 3.4$ 4.7$20212.4$ 2.4$ 2.4$ 1.5$ 0.9$ 2.1$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4.0$ 3.3$ 4.6$20222.4$ 2.4$ 2.4$ 1.5$ 0.9$ 2.1$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3.8$ 3.2$ 4.4$20232.3$ 2.3$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 0.8$ 2.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3.7$ 3.1$ 4.3$20242.2$ 2.2$ 2.2$ 1.4$ 0.8$ 2.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3.6$ 3.0$ 4.2$20252.2$ 2.2$ 2.2$ 1.3$ 0.8$ 1.9$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3.5$ 3.0$ 4.1$20262.1$ 2.1$ 2.1$ 1.3$ 0.8$ 1.8$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3.4$ 2.9$ 4.0$20272.1$ 2.1$ 2.1$ 1.3$ 0.7$ 1.8$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3.3$ 2.8$ 3.8$20282.0$ 2.0$ 2.0$ 1.2$ 0.7$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3.2$ 2.7$ 3.7$20291.9$ 1.9$ 1.9$ 1.2$ 0.7$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3.1$ 2.6$ 3.6$Total 64.4$ 64.4$ 64.4$ 36.4$ 21.1$ 51.4$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 100.9$ 85.6$ 115.8$Ann. 3.7$ 3.7$ 3.7$ 2.1$ 1.2$ 3.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5.8$ 4.9$ 6.7$Notes: Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2005.Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.Source: Ground Water Rule model output.Exhibit D.6e Present Value of Primacy Agency Rule Activity Costs for Option 1 at 3 Percent, by YearYearMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-48October 2006Rule Implementation & AnnualAdministration Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action Plans Compliance Monitoring TotalLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20051.8$ 1.8$ 1.8$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.8$ 1.8$ 1.8$20061.7$ 1.7$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.7$ 1.7$ 1.7$20071.6$ 1.6$ 1.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.6$ 1.6$ 1.6$20083.2$ 3.2$ 3.2$ 2.0$ 1.1$ 2.8$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5.2$ 4.4$ 6.0$20093.0$ 3.0$ 3.0$ 1.9$ 1.1$ 2.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4.8$ 4.1$ 5.6$20102.8$ 2.8$ 2.8$ 1.7$ 1.0$ 2.4$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4.5$ 3.8$ 5.2$20112.6$ 2.6$ 2.6$ 1.6$ 0.9$ 2.3$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4.2$ 3.6$ 4.9$20122.4$ 2.4$ 2.4$ 1.5$ 0.9$ 2.1$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4.0$ 3.3$ 4.6$20132.3$ 2.3$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 0.8$ 2.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3.7$ 3.1$ 4.3$20142.1$ 2.1$ 2.1$ 1.3$ 0.8$ 1.9$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3.5$ 2.9$ 4.0$20152.0$ 2.0$ 2.0$ 1.2$ 0.7$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3.2$ 2.7$ 3.7$20161.9$ 1.9$ 1.9$ 1.2$ 0.7$ 1.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3.0$ 2.5$ 3.5$20171.7$ 1.7$ 1.7$ 1.1$ 0.6$ 1.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2.8$ 2.4$ 3.3$20181.6$ 1.6$ 1.6$ 1.0$ 0.6$ 1.4$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2.6$ 2.2$ 3.1$20191.5$ 1.5$ 1.5$ 0.9$ 0.5$ 1.3$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2.5$ 2.1$ 2.9$20201.4$ 1.4$ 1.4$ 0.9$ 0.5$ 1.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2.3$ 1.9$ 2.7$20211.3$ 1.3$ 1.3$ 0.8$ 0.5$ 1.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2.2$ 1.8$ 2.5$20221.2$ 1.2$ 1.2$ 0.8$ 0.4$ 1.1$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2.0$ 1.7$ 2.3$20231.2$ 1.2$ 1.2$ 0.7$ 0.4$ 1.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.9$ 1.6$ 2.2$20241.1$ 1.1$ 1.1$ 0.7$ 0.4$ 0.9$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.8$ 1.5$ 2.0$20251.0$ 1.0$ 1.0$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.9$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.6$ 1.4$ 1.9$20260.9$ 0.9$ 0.9$ 0.6$ 0.3$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.5$ 1.3$ 1.8$20270.9$ 0.9$ 0.9$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.4$ 1.2$ 1.7$20280.8$ 0.8$ 0.8$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.7$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 1.1$ 1.6$20290.8$ 0.8$ 0.8$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.7$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.3$ 1.1$ 1.4$Total 43.2$ 43.2$ 43.2$ 23.4$ 13.6$ 33.1$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 66.6$ 56.7$ 76.2$Ann. 3.7$ 3.7$ 3.7$ 2.0$ 1.2$ 2.8$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5.7$ 4.9$ 6.5$Notes: Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2005.Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.Source: Ground Water Rule model output.Exhibit D.6f Present Value of Primacy Agency Rule Activity Costs for Option 1 at 7 Percent, by YearYearMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-49October 2006

# CWSs NTNCWSs TNCWSs Grand Total

Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile) Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile) Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile) Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile)

2005 1.7 $ 1.7 $ 1.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 5.5 $ 5.5 $ 5.5 $

2006 1.7 $ 1.7 $ 1.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 5.5 $ 5.5 $ 5.5 $

2007 1.7 $ 1.7 $ 1.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 5.5 $ 5.5 $ 5.5 $

2008 64.2 $ 36.1 $ 100.3 $ 15.0 $ 8.1 $ 24.8 $ 66.1 $ 36.5 $ 106.9 $ 145.2 $ 80.6 $ 232.0 $

2009 17.6 $ 8.5 $ 29.0 $ 3.4 $ 1.7 $ 5.5 $ 11.8 $ 6.2 $ 18.9 $ 32.8 $ 16.4 $ 53.4 $

2010 66.7 $ 35.9 $ 106.6 $ 3.0 $ 1.4 $ 5.0 $ 50.9 $ 27.3 $ 83.0 $ 120.6 $ 64.6 $ 194.6 $

2011 18.5 $ 8.6 $ 31.4 $ 2.9 $ 1.3 $ 4.9 $ 43.7 $ 21.0 $ 73.1 $ 65.1 $ 31.0 $ 109.4 $

2012 20.9 $ 9.7 $ 36.0 $ 22.7 $ 12.4 $ 35.7 $ 54.6 $ 29.4 $ 88.6 $ 98.2 $ 51.5 $ 160.2 $

2013 17.0 $ 7.7 $ 28.9 $ 7.1 $ 3.5 $ 11.9 $ 30.8 $ 14.6 $ 53.3 $ 54.9 $ 25.8 $ 94.1 $

2014 22.8 $ 10.8 $ 39.1 $ 4.1 $ 1.7 $ 7.1 $ 38.1 $ 19.3 $ 63.4 $ 65.0 $ 31.9 $ 109.7 $

2015 14.0 $ 6.1 $ 24.3 $ 4.0 $ 1.7 $ 7.0 $ 18.6 $ 8.3 $ 31.2 $ 36.7 $ 16.1 $ 62.4 $

2016 19.0 $ 8.8 $ 33.1 $ 6.8 $ 3.1 $ 11.9 $ 36.6 $ 18.1 $ 62.6 $ 62.4 $ 30.0 $ 107.6 $

2017 16.7 $ 7.7 $ 28.7 $ 4.3 $ 1.8 $ 7.5 $ 19.5 $ 8.7 $ 33.1 $ 40.5 $ 18.2 $ 69.2 $

2018 21.2 $ 10.0 $ 36.5 $ 6.5 $ 3.1 $ 11.3 $ 35.1 $ 17.7 $ 59.2 $ 62.9 $ 30.8 $ 106.9 $

2019 14.4 $ 6.3 $ 24.7 $ 4.4 $ 1.9 $ 7.6 $ 20.2 $ 8.8 $ 34.0 $ 39.0 $ 17.0 $ 66.3 $

2020 20.8 $ 10.0 $ 36.1 $ 6.7 $ 3.0 $ 11.6 $ 34.6 $ 16.8 $ 59.2 $ 62.1 $ 29.7 $ 106.9 $

2021 14.6 $ 6.5 $ 25.2 $ 4.6 $ 1.9 $ 7.9 $ 20.8 $ 9.0 $ 35.4 $ 40.1 $ 17.4 $ 68.6 $

2022 18.5 $ 8.6 $ 32.0 $ 4.5 $ 1.9 $ 7.9 $ 33.9 $ 16.6 $ 57.6 $ 56.9 $ 27.1 $ 97.5 $

2023 19.0 $ 8.9 $ 32.6 $ 6.5 $ 3.0 $ 11.2 $ 21.4 $ 9.2 $ 36.4 $ 46.9 $ 21.1 $ 80.2 $

2024 18.5 $ 8.6 $ 32.2 $ 6.6 $ 2.9 $ 11.7 $ 33.6 $ 16.2 $ 57.7 $ 58.7 $ 27.7 $ 101.7 $

2025 15.1 $ 6.7 $ 25.8 $ 4.8 $ 2.0 $ 8.4 $ 21.9 $ 9.3 $ 37.2 $ 41.7 $ 18.0 $ 71.4 $

2026 20.4 $ 9.7 $ 35.2 $ 4.8 $ 2.0 $ 8.4 $ 33.2 $ 16.1 $ 56.7 $ 58.4 $ 27.9 $ 100.3 $

2027 15.3 $ 6.8 $ 26.3 $ 4.8 $ 2.0 $ 8.4 $ 22.3 $ 9.5 $ 37.9 $ 42.3 $ 18.3 $ 72.6 $

2028 20.3 $ 9.6 $ 35.2 $ 8.2 $ 3.8 $ 14.4 $ 33.0 $ 16.1 $ 56.6 $ 61.5 $ 29.5 $ 106.2 $

2029 17.2 $ 8.0 $ 29.7 $ 5.0 $ 2.1 $ 8.7 $ 22.7 $ 9.6 $ 38.5 $ 44.9 $ 19.6 $ 76.9 $

Notes:

Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.

Source: Ground Water Rule model output. 

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

Year Mean

Value 90 Percent

Confidence Bound

Mean

Value 90 Percent

Confidence Bound

Mean

Value 90 Percent

Confidence Bound

Mean

Value 90 Percent

Confidence Bound

Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2004.

Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.



# Economic Analysis for the

Final Ground Water Rule D-50 October 2006

# CWSs NTNCWSs TNCWSs Grand Total

Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile) Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile) Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile) Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile)

2005 1.7 $ 1.7 $ 1.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 5.5 $ 5.5 $ 5.5 $

2006 1.6 $ 1.6 $ 1.6 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 5.4 $ 5.4 $ 5.4 $

2007 1.6 $ 1.6 $ 1.6 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 3.0 $ 3.0 $ 3.0 $ 5.2 $ 5.2 $ 5.2 $

2008 58.7 $ 33.0 $ 91.8 $ 13.7 $ 7.4 $ 22.7 $ 60.5 $ 33.4 $ 97.8 $ 132.9 $ 73.8 $ 212.3 $

2009 15.7 $ 7.6 $ 25.8 $ 3.0 $ 1.5 $ 4.9 $ 10.5 $ 5.5 $ 16.8 $ 29.2 $ 14.6 $ 47.4 $

2010 57.6 $ 31.0 $ 92.0 $ 2.6 $ 1.2 $ 4.3 $ 43.9 $ 23.5 $ 71.6 $ 104.0 $ 55.7 $ 167.9 $

2011 15.5 $ 7.2 $ 26.3 $ 2.4 $ 1.1 $ 4.1 $ 36.6 $ 17.6 $ 61.2 $ 54.6 $ 25.9 $ 91.6 $

2012 17.0 $ 7.9 $ 29.3 $ 18.4 $ 10.1 $ 29.0 $ 44.4 $ 23.9 $ 72.0 $ 79.9 $ 41.9 $ 130.3 $

2013 13.4 $ 6.1 $ 22.8 $ 5.6 $ 2.8 $ 9.4 $ 24.3 $ 11.5 $ 42.1 $ 43.4 $ 20.4 $ 74.3 $

2014 17.5 $ 8.3 $ 30.0 $ 3.1 $ 1.3 $ 5.4 $ 29.2 $ 14.8 $ 48.6 $ 49.8 $ 24.4 $ 84.0 $

2015 10.4 $ 4.6 $ 18.1 $ 3.0 $ 1.3 $ 5.2 $ 13.8 $ 6.2 $ 23.2 $ 27.3 $ 12.0 $ 46.5 $

2016 13.7 $ 6.3 $ 23.9 $ 4.9 $ 2.2 $ 8.6 $ 26.4 $ 13.1 $ 45.3 $ 45.1 $ 21.7 $ 77.7 $

2017 11.7 $ 5.4 $ 20.1 $ 3.0 $ 1.3 $ 5.2 $ 13.7 $ 6.1 $ 23.2 $ 28.4 $ 12.7 $ 48.6 $

2018 14.5 $ 6.8 $ 24.9 $ 4.5 $ 2.1 $ 7.7 $ 23.9 $ 12.0 $ 40.3 $ 42.8 $ 20.9 $ 72.8 $

2019 9.5 $ 4.2 $ 16.3 $ 2.9 $ 1.2 $ 5.1 $ 13.4 $ 5.8 $ 22.5 $ 25.8 $ 11.2 $ 43.8 $

2020 13.4 $ 6.4 $ 23.2 $ 4.3 $ 1.9 $ 7.5 $ 22.2 $ 10.8 $ 38.0 $ 39.8 $ 19.1 $ 68.6 $

2021 9.1 $ 4.0 $ 15.7 $ 2.8 $ 1.2 $ 4.9 $ 13.0 $ 5.6 $ 22.1 $ 25.0 $ 10.9 $ 42.8 $

2022 11.2 $ 5.2 $ 19.4 $ 2.7 $ 1.2 $ 4.8 $ 20.5 $ 10.0 $ 34.8 $ 34.4 $ 16.4 $ 59.0 $

2023 11.2 $ 5.2 $ 19.2 $ 3.8 $ 1.8 $ 6.6 $ 12.6 $ 5.4 $ 21.4 $ 27.5 $ 12.4 $ 47.1 $

2024 10.6 $ 4.9 $ 18.4 $ 3.8 $ 1.7 $ 6.7 $ 19.2 $ 9.2 $ 32.9 $ 33.5 $ 15.8 $ 58.0 $

2025 8.3 $ 3.7 $ 14.3 $ 2.7 $ 1.1 $ 4.6 $ 12.1 $ 5.1 $ 20.6 $ 23.1 $ 10.0 $ 39.5 $

2026 10.9 $ 5.2 $ 18.9 $ 2.6 $ 1.1 $ 4.5 $ 17.9 $ 8.7 $ 30.5 $ 31.4 $ 15.0 $ 53.9 $

2027 8.0 $ 3.5 $ 13.7 $ 2.5 $ 1.0 $ 4.4 $ 11.6 $ 5.0 $ 19.8 $ 22.1 $ 9.5 $ 37.9 $

2028 10.3 $ 4.9 $ 17.8 $ 4.2 $ 1.9 $ 7.3 $ 16.7 $ 8.2 $ 28.7 $ 31.2 $ 15.0 $ 53.8 $

2029 8.5 $ 3.9 $ 14.6 $ 2.5 $ 1.0 $ 4.3 $ 11.2 $ 4.7 $ 18.9 $ 22.1 $ 9.7 $ 37.8 $

Total 361.6 $ 180.2 $ 601.3 $ 101.0 $ 49.4 $ 169.1 $ 506.8 $ 255.4 $ 841.4 $ 969.3 $ 485.0 $ 1,611.8 $

Ann. 20.8 $ 10.4 $ 34.5 $ 5.8 $ 2.8 $ 9.7 $ 29.1 $ 14.7 $ 48.3 $ 55.7 $ 27.9 $ 92.6 $

Notes: Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2005.

Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.

Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.

Source: Ground Water Rule model output. 

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

Year Mean

Value 90 Percent

Confidence Bound

Mean

Value 90 Percent

Confidence Bound

Mean

Value 90 Percent

Confidence Bound

Mean

Value 90 Percent

Confidence Bound



# Economic Analysis for the

Final Ground Water Rule D-51 October 2006

# CWSs NTNCWSs TNCWSs Grand Total

Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile) Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile) Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile) Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile)

2005 1.7 $ 1.7 $ 1.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 5.5 $ 5.5 $ 5.5 $

2006 1.6 $ 1.6 $ 1.6 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 2.9 $ 2.9 $ 2.9 $ 5.2 $ 5.2 $ 5.2 $

2007 1.5 $ 1.5 $ 1.5 $ 0.6 $ 0.6 $ 0.6 $ 2.7 $ 2.7 $ 2.7 $ 4.8 $ 4.8 $ 4.8 $

2008 52.4 $ 29.4 $ 81.9 $ 12.2 $ 6.6 $ 20.2 $ 53.9 $ 29.8 $ 87.2 $ 118.5 $ 65.8 $ 189.4 $

2009 13.4 $ 6.5 $ 22.1 $ 2.6 $ 1.3 $ 4.2 $ 9.0 $ 4.7 $ 14.4 $ 25.0 $ 12.5 $ 40.7 $

2010 47.6 $ 25.6 $ 76.0 $ 2.1 $ 1.0 $ 3.5 $ 36.3 $ 19.4 $ 59.2 $ 86.0 $ 46.1 $ 138.7 $

2011 12.3 $ 5.7 $ 20.9 $ 1.9 $ 0.9 $ 3.2 $ 29.1 $ 14.0 $ 48.7 $ 43.4 $ 20.6 $ 72.9 $

2012 13.0 $ 6.0 $ 22.4 $ 14.1 $ 7.7 $ 22.2 $ 34.0 $ 18.3 $ 55.1 $ 61.2 $ 32.1 $ 99.8 $

2013 9.9 $ 4.5 $ 16.8 $ 4.1 $ 2.1 $ 6.9 $ 17.9 $ 8.5 $ 31.0 $ 32.0 $ 15.0 $ 54.8 $

2014 12.4 $ 5.9 $ 21.3 $ 2.2 $ 0.9 $ 3.8 $ 20.7 $ 10.5 $ 34.5 $ 35.4 $ 17.3 $ 59.6 $

2015 7.1 $ 3.1 $ 12.3 $ 2.1 $ 0.9 $ 3.6 $ 9.5 $ 4.2 $ 15.8 $ 18.6 $ 8.2 $ 31.7 $

2016 9.0 $ 4.2 $ 15.7 $ 3.2 $ 1.5 $ 5.7 $ 17.4 $ 8.6 $ 29.8 $ 29.6 $ 14.2 $ 51.1 $

2017 7.4 $ 3.4 $ 12.7 $ 1.9 $ 0.8 $ 3.3 $ 8.7 $ 3.8 $ 14.7 $ 18.0 $ 8.1 $ 30.7 $

2018 8.8 $ 4.2 $ 15.2 $ 2.7 $ 1.3 $ 4.7 $ 14.6 $ 7.3 $ 24.5 $ 26.1 $ 12.8 $ 44.4 $

2019 5.6 $ 2.4 $ 9.6 $ 1.7 $ 0.7 $ 3.0 $ 7.8 $ 3.4 $ 13.2 $ 15.1 $ 6.6 $ 25.7 $

2020 7.6 $ 3.6 $ 13.1 $ 2.4 $ 1.1 $ 4.2 $ 12.5 $ 6.1 $ 21.5 $ 22.5 $ 10.8 $ 38.8 $

2021 5.0 $ 2.2 $ 8.5 $ 1.5 $ 0.7 $ 2.7 $ 7.1 $ 3.1 $ 12.0 $ 13.6 $ 5.9 $ 23.2 $

2022 5.9 $ 2.7 $ 10.1 $ 1.4 $ 0.6 $ 2.5 $ 10.7 $ 5.3 $ 18.2 $ 18.0 $ 8.6 $ 30.9 $

2023 5.6 $ 2.6 $ 9.7 $ 1.9 $ 0.9 $ 3.3 $ 6.3 $ 2.7 $ 10.8 $ 13.9 $ 6.2 $ 23.7 $

2024 5.1 $ 2.4 $ 8.9 $ 1.8 $ 0.8 $ 3.2 $ 9.3 $ 4.5 $ 16.0 $ 16.2 $ 7.7 $ 28.1 $

2025 3.9 $ 1.7 $ 6.7 $ 1.2 $ 0.5 $ 2.2 $ 5.6 $ 2.4 $ 9.6 $ 10.8 $ 4.6 $ 18.4 $

2026 4.9 $ 2.4 $ 8.5 $ 1.2 $ 0.5 $ 2.0 $ 8.0 $ 3.9 $ 13.7 $ 14.1 $ 6.7 $ 24.2 $

2027 3.4 $ 1.5 $ 5.9 $ 1.1 $ 0.4 $ 1.9 $ 5.0 $ 2.2 $ 8.6 $ 9.5 $ 4.1 $ 16.4 $

2028 4.3 $ 2.0 $ 7.4 $ 1.7 $ 0.8 $ 3.0 $ 7.0 $ 3.4 $ 11.9 $ 13.0 $ 6.2 $ 22.4 $

2029 3.4 $ 1.6 $ 5.9 $ 1.0 $ 0.4 $ 1.7 $ 4.5 $ 1.9 $ 7.6 $ 8.9 $ 3.9 $ 15.2 $

Total 252.8 $ 128.5 $ 416.5 $ 68.2 $ 34.3 $ 113.1 $ 343.9 $ 176.8 $ 566.9 $ 665.0 $ 339.6 $ 1,096.5 $

Ann. 21.7 $ 11.0 $ 35.7 $ 5.9 $ 2.9 $ 9.7 $ 29.5 $ 15.2 $ 48.6 $ 57.1 $ 29.1 $ 94.1 $

Notes: Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2005.

Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.

Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.

Source: Ground Water Rule model output. 

# Exhibit D.7c Present Value of Total Rule Costs at 7 Percent for Option 3, by Year, for All PWSs

Year Mean

Value 90 Percent

Confidence Bound

Mean

Value 90 Percent

Confidence Bound

Mean

Value 90 Percent

Confidence Bound

Mean

Value 90 Percent

Confidence Bound



# Economic Analysis for the

Final Ground Water Rule D-52 October 2006Rule Implementation & AnnualAdministration Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action Plans Compliance Monitoring TotalLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20054.2$ 4.2$ 4.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4.2$ 4.2$ 4.2$20064.2$ 4.2$ 4.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4.2$ 4.2$ 4.2$20074.2$ 4.2$ 4.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4.2$ 4.2$ 4.2$20089.9$ 9.9$ 9.9$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.4$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ 3.0$ 2.0$ 4.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 15.8$ 13.5$ 18.1$20099.9$ 9.9$ 9.9$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 3.3$ 1.9$ 1.7$ 2.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 14.3$ 13.0$ 15.6$20109.9$ 9.9$ 9.9$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.7$ 0.2$ 1.4$ 2.2$ 1.3$ 3.2$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 15.3$ 12.8$ 18.1$20119.9$ 9.9$ 9.9$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 3.3$ 5.6$ 4.9$ 6.2$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.3$ 1.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 18.5$ 16.6$ 20.6$20129.9$ 9.9$ 9.9$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.7$ 1.2$ 0.6$ 1.8$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 13.9$ 12.0$ 15.8$20139.9$ 9.9$ 9.9$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.6$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 12.6$ 11.4$ 13.9$20149.9$ 9.9$ 9.9$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.3$ 1.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 12.9$ 11.6$ 14.3$20159.9$ 9.9$ 9.9$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 12.2$ 11.2$ 13.2$20169.9$ 9.9$ 9.9$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.8$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 12.8$ 11.5$ 14.1$20179.9$ 9.9$ 9.9$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 12.3$ 11.3$ 13.3$20189.9$ 9.9$ 9.9$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.8$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 12.8$ 11.5$ 14.1$20199.9$ 9.9$ 9.9$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 12.2$ 11.2$ 13.2$20209.9$ 9.9$ 9.9$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.7$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 12.6$ 11.4$ 14.0$20219.9$ 9.9$ 9.9$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 12.2$ 11.2$ 13.2$20229.9$ 9.9$ 9.9$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 12.5$ 11.3$ 13.7$20239.9$ 9.9$ 9.9$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 12.4$ 11.3$ 13.4$20249.9$ 9.9$ 9.9$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 12.5$ 11.3$ 13.7$20259.9$ 9.9$ 9.9$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 12.2$ 11.2$ 13.2$20269.9$ 9.9$ 9.9$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 12.5$ 11.3$ 13.7$20279.9$ 9.9$ 9.9$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 12.2$ 11.2$ 13.2$20289.9$ 9.9$ 9.9$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 12.5$ 11.3$ 13.8$20299.9$ 9.9$ 9.9$ 2.3$ 1.4$ 3.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 12.2$ 11.2$ 13.2$Notes: Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2004.Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.Source: Ground Water Rule model output.Exhibit D.7d Primacy Agency Activity Costs for Option 3, by YearYearMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-53October 2006Rule Implementation & AnnualAdministration Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action Plans Compliance Monitoring TotalLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20054.2$ 4.2$ 4.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4.2$ 4.2$ 4.2$20064.1$ 4.1$ 4.1$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4.1$ 4.1$ 4.1$20074.0$ 4.0$ 4.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4.0$ 4.0$ 4.0$20089.0$ 9.0$ 9.0$ 2.1$ 1.2$ 3.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.7$ -$ -$ -$ 2.7$ 1.8$ 3.8$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 14.4$ 12.4$ 16.5$20098.8$ 8.8$ 8.8$ 2.1$ 1.2$ 2.9$ 1.7$ 1.5$ 1.9$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 12.7$ 11.6$ 13.8$20108.5$ 8.5$ 8.5$ 2.0$ 1.2$ 2.8$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.6$ 0.2$ 1.2$ 1.9$ 1.1$ 2.7$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 13.2$ 11.1$ 15.6$20118.3$ 8.3$ 8.3$ 1.9$ 1.1$ 2.7$ 4.7$ 4.1$ 5.2$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.8$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 15.5$ 13.9$ 17.3$20128.0$ 8.0$ 8.0$ 1.9$ 1.1$ 2.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.6$ 0.9$ 0.5$ 1.4$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 11.3$ 9.8$ 12.9$20137.8$ 7.8$ 7.8$ 1.8$ 1.1$ 2.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 10.0$ 9.0$ 11.0$20147.6$ 7.6$ 7.6$ 1.8$ 1.0$ 2.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.2$ 0.7$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 9.9$ 8.9$ 11.0$20157.3$ 7.3$ 7.3$ 1.7$ 1.0$ 2.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 9.1$ 8.4$ 9.8$20167.1$ 7.1$ 7.1$ 1.7$ 1.0$ 2.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.6$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 9.2$ 8.3$ 10.2$20176.9$ 6.9$ 6.9$ 1.6$ 1.0$ 2.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 8.6$ 7.9$ 9.3$20186.7$ 6.7$ 6.7$ 1.6$ 0.9$ 2.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.6$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 8.7$ 7.8$ 9.6$20196.5$ 6.5$ 6.5$ 1.5$ 0.9$ 2.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 8.1$ 7.4$ 8.7$20206.3$ 6.3$ 6.3$ 1.5$ 0.9$ 2.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 8.1$ 7.3$ 9.0$20216.1$ 6.1$ 6.1$ 1.4$ 0.9$ 2.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 7.6$ 7.0$ 8.2$20226.0$ 6.0$ 6.0$ 1.4$ 0.8$ 2.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 7.6$ 6.9$ 8.3$20235.8$ 5.8$ 5.8$ 1.4$ 0.8$ 1.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 7.3$ 6.6$ 7.9$20245.6$ 5.6$ 5.6$ 1.3$ 0.8$ 1.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.3$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 7.1$ 6.5$ 7.8$20255.5$ 5.5$ 5.5$ 1.3$ 0.8$ 1.8$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 6.7$ 6.2$ 7.3$20265.3$ 5.3$ 5.3$ 1.3$ 0.7$ 1.8$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 6.7$ 6.1$ 7.3$20275.1$ 5.1$ 5.1$ 1.2$ 0.7$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 6.4$ 5.9$ 6.9$20285.0$ 5.0$ 5.0$ 1.2$ 0.7$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 6.4$ 5.7$ 7.0$20294.8$ 4.8$ 4.8$ 1.1$ 0.7$ 1.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 6.0$ 5.5$ 6.5$Total 160.2$ 160.2$ 160.2$ 34.9$ 20.5$ 49.3$ 6.4$ 5.6$ 7.1$ 1.4$ 0.8$ 2.2$ 0.9$ 0.2$ 1.7$ 8.8$ 4.8$ 13.4$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 212.7$ 192.2$ 234.1$Ann. 9.2$ 9.2$ 9.2$ 2.0$ 1.2$ 2.8$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.4$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.8$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 12.2$ 11.0$ 13.4$Notes: Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2005.Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.Source: Ground Water Rule model output.Exhibit D.7e Present Value of Primacy Agency Rule Activity Costs for Option 3 at 3 Percent, by YearYearMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-54October 2006Rule Implementation & AnnualAdministration Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action Plans Compliance Monitoring TotalLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20054.2$ 4.2$ 4.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4.2$ 4.2$ 4.2$20063.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$20073.7$ 3.7$ 3.7$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3.7$ 3.7$ 3.7$20088.0$ 8.0$ 8.0$ 1.9$ 1.1$ 2.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ 2.4$ 1.6$ 3.4$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 12.9$ 11.1$ 14.8$20097.5$ 7.5$ 7.5$ 1.8$ 1.0$ 2.5$ 1.4$ 1.3$ 1.6$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 10.9$ 9.9$ 11.9$20107.0$ 7.0$ 7.0$ 1.7$ 1.0$ 2.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 1.0$ 1.6$ 0.9$ 2.3$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 10.9$ 9.2$ 12.9$20116.6$ 6.6$ 6.6$ 1.5$ 0.9$ 2.2$ 3.7$ 3.3$ 4.2$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.2$ 0.7$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 12.3$ 11.0$ 13.7$20126.1$ 6.1$ 6.1$ 1.4$ 0.9$ 2.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 0.7$ 0.4$ 1.1$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 8.6$ 7.5$ 9.9$20135.7$ 5.7$ 5.7$ 1.4$ 0.8$ 1.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 7.3$ 6.6$ 8.1$20145.4$ 5.4$ 5.4$ 1.3$ 0.7$ 1.8$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.5$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 7.0$ 6.3$ 7.8$20155.0$ 5.0$ 5.0$ 1.2$ 0.7$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 6.2$ 5.7$ 6.7$20164.7$ 4.7$ 4.7$ 1.1$ 0.6$ 1.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.4$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 6.1$ 5.5$ 6.7$20174.4$ 4.4$ 4.4$ 1.0$ 0.6$ 1.5$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 5.4$ 5.0$ 5.9$20184.1$ 4.1$ 4.1$ 1.0$ 0.6$ 1.4$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.1$ 0.3$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 5.3$ 4.8$ 5.9$20193.8$ 3.8$ 3.8$ 0.9$ 0.5$ 1.3$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 4.7$ 4.4$ 5.1$20203.6$ 3.6$ 3.6$ 0.8$ 0.5$ 1.2$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.2$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 4.6$ 4.1$ 5.1$20213.3$ 3.3$ 3.3$ 0.8$ 0.5$ 1.1$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 4.1$ 3.8$ 4.5$20223.1$ 3.1$ 3.1$ 0.7$ 0.4$ 1.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 4.0$ 3.6$ 4.4$20232.9$ 2.9$ 2.9$ 0.7$ 0.4$ 1.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 3.7$ 3.3$ 4.0$20242.7$ 2.7$ 2.7$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.9$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 3.5$ 3.1$ 3.8$20252.5$ 2.5$ 2.5$ 0.6$ 0.4$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 3.2$ 2.9$ 3.4$20262.4$ 2.4$ 2.4$ 0.6$ 0.3$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 3.0$ 2.7$ 3.3$20272.2$ 2.2$ 2.2$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 2.8$ 2.5$ 3.0$20282.1$ 2.1$ 2.1$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.7$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 2.6$ 2.4$ 2.9$20291.9$ 1.9$ 1.9$ 0.5$ 0.3$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ -$ 0.0$ 2.4$ 2.2$ 2.6$Total 107.0$ 107.0$ 107.0$ 22.5$ 13.2$ 31.7$ 5.2$ 4.6$ 5.8$ 1.1$ 0.6$ 1.7$ 0.7$ 0.2$ 1.4$ 6.8$ 3.9$ 10.2$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.2$ 143.3$ 129.4$ 157.9$Ann. 9.2$ 9.2$ 9.2$ 1.9$ 1.1$ 2.7$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.5$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.1$ 0.0$ 0.1$ 0.6$ 0.3$ 0.9$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 0.0$ 12.3$ 11.1$ 13.5$Notes: Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2005.Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.Source: Ground Water Rule model output.Exhibit D.7f Present Value of Primacy Agency Rule Activity Costs for Option 3 at 7 Percent, by YearYearMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-55October 2006

# CWSs NTNCWSs TNCWSs Grand Total

Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile) Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile) Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile) Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile)

2005 1.7 $ 1.7 $ 1.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 5.5 $ 5.5 $ 5.5 $

2006 1.7 $ 1.7 $ 1.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 5.5 $ 5.5 $ 5.5 $

2007 1.7 $ 1.7 $ 1.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 5.5 $ 5.5 $ 5.5 $

2008 2.9 $ 2.0 $ 3.9 $ 1.3 $ 0.9 $ 1.7 $ 5.7 $ 3.9 $ 7.6 $ 9.9 $ 6.8 $ 13.1 $

2009 2.9 $ 2.0 $ 3.9 $ 1.3 $ 0.9 $ 1.7 $ 5.7 $ 3.9 $ 7.6 $ 9.9 $ 6.8 $ 13.1 $

2010 1,396.8 $ 1,066.0 $ 1,723.7 $ 384.3 $ 304.5 $ 463.8 $ 1,189.4 $ 952.9 $ 1,424.6 $ 2,970.4 $ 2,323.4 $ 3,612.1 $

2011 229.8 $ 207.5 $ 252.3 $ 113.9 $ 105.9 $ 121.7 $ 398.8 $ 371.1 $ 426.1 $ 742.6 $ 684.5 $ 800.1 $

2012 229.8 $ 207.5 $ 252.3 $ 113.9 $ 105.9 $ 121.7 $ 398.8 $ 371.1 $ 426.1 $ 742.6 $ 684.5 $ 800.1 $

2013 229.8 $ 207.5 $ 252.3 $ 113.9 $ 105.9 $ 121.7 $ 398.8 $ 371.1 $ 426.1 $ 742.6 $ 684.5 $ 800.1 $

2014 229.8 $ 207.5 $ 252.3 $ 113.9 $ 105.9 $ 121.7 $ 398.8 $ 371.1 $ 426.1 $ 742.6 $ 684.5 $ 800.1 $

2015 229.8 $ 207.5 $ 252.3 $ 113.9 $ 105.9 $ 121.7 $ 398.8 $ 371.1 $ 426.1 $ 742.6 $ 684.5 $ 800.1 $

2016 229.8 $ 207.5 $ 252.3 $ 113.9 $ 105.9 $ 121.7 $ 398.8 $ 371.1 $ 426.1 $ 742.6 $ 684.5 $ 800.1 $

2017 229.8 $ 207.5 $ 252.3 $ 113.9 $ 105.9 $ 121.7 $ 398.8 $ 371.1 $ 426.1 $ 742.6 $ 684.5 $ 800.1 $

2018 229.8 $ 207.5 $ 252.3 $ 113.9 $ 105.9 $ 121.7 $ 398.8 $ 371.1 $ 426.1 $ 742.6 $ 684.5 $ 800.1 $

2019 229.8 $ 207.5 $ 252.3 $ 113.9 $ 105.9 $ 121.7 $ 398.8 $ 371.1 $ 426.1 $ 742.6 $ 684.5 $ 800.1 $

2020 229.8 $ 207.5 $ 252.3 $ 113.9 $ 105.9 $ 121.7 $ 398.8 $ 371.1 $ 426.1 $ 742.6 $ 684.5 $ 800.1 $

2021 229.8 $ 207.5 $ 252.3 $ 113.9 $ 105.9 $ 121.7 $ 398.8 $ 371.1 $ 426.1 $ 742.6 $ 684.5 $ 800.1 $

2022 229.8 $ 207.5 $ 252.3 $ 113.9 $ 105.9 $ 121.7 $ 398.8 $ 371.1 $ 426.1 $ 742.6 $ 684.5 $ 800.1 $

2023 229.8 $ 207.5 $ 252.3 $ 113.9 $ 105.9 $ 121.7 $ 398.8 $ 371.1 $ 426.1 $ 742.6 $ 684.5 $ 800.1 $

2024 229.8 $ 207.5 $ 252.3 $ 113.9 $ 105.9 $ 121.7 $ 398.8 $ 371.1 $ 426.1 $ 742.6 $ 684.5 $ 800.1 $

2025 229.8 $ 207.5 $ 252.3 $ 113.9 $ 105.9 $ 121.7 $ 398.8 $ 371.1 $ 426.1 $ 742.6 $ 684.5 $ 800.1 $

2026 229.8 $ 207.5 $ 252.3 $ 113.9 $ 105.9 $ 121.7 $ 398.8 $ 371.1 $ 426.1 $ 742.6 $ 684.5 $ 800.1 $

2027 229.8 $ 207.5 $ 252.3 $ 113.9 $ 105.9 $ 121.7 $ 398.8 $ 371.1 $ 426.1 $ 742.6 $ 684.5 $ 800.1 $

2028 229.8 $ 207.5 $ 252.3 $ 113.9 $ 105.9 $ 121.7 $ 398.8 $ 371.1 $ 426.1 $ 742.6 $ 684.5 $ 800.1 $

2029 229.8 $ 207.5 $ 252.3 $ 113.9 $ 105.9 $ 121.7 $ 398.8 $ 371.1 $ 426.1 $ 742.6 $ 684.5 $ 800.1 $

Notes:

Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.

Source: Ground Water Rule model output. 

# Exhibit D.8a Total Activity Costs for Option 4, by Year, for All PWS s

Year Mean

Value 90 Percent

Confidence Bound

Mean

Value 90 Percent

Confidence Bound

Mean

Value 90 Percent

Confidence Bound

Mean

Value 90 Percent

Confidence Bound

Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2004.

Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.



# Economic Analysis for the

Final Ground Water Rule D-56 October 2006

# CWSs NTNCWSs TNCWSs Grand Total

Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile) Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile) Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile) Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile)

2005 1.7 $ 1.7 $ 1.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 5.5 $ 5.5 $ 5.5 $

2006 1.6 $ 1.6 $ 1.6 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 5.4 $ 5.4 $ 5.4 $

2007 1.6 $ 1.6 $ 1.6 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 3.0 $ 3.0 $ 3.0 $ 5.2 $ 5.2 $ 5.2 $

2008 2.7 $ 1.9 $ 3.6 $ 1.2 $ 0.8 $ 1.5 $ 5.2 $ 3.6 $ 6.9 $ 9.0 $ 6.2 $ 12.0 $

2009 2.6 $ 1.8 $ 3.5 $ 1.1 $ 0.8 $ 1.5 $ 5.0 $ 3.5 $ 6.7 $ 8.8 $ 6.1 $ 11.7 $

2010 1,204.9 $ 919.5 $ 1,486.9 $ 331.5 $ 262.7 $ 400.1 $ 1,025.9 $ 822.0 $ 1,228.9 $ 2,562.3 $ 2,004.2 $ 3,115.8 $

2011 192.5 $ 173.8 $ 211.3 $ 95.4 $ 88.7 $ 102.0 $ 334.0 $ 310.8 $ 356.8 $ 621.9 $ 573.2 $ 670.1 $

2012 186.9 $ 168.7 $ 205.1 $ 92.6 $ 86.1 $ 99.0 $ 324.3 $ 301.7 $ 346.4 $ 603.8 $ 556.6 $ 650.5 $

2013 181.4 $ 163.8 $ 199.2 $ 89.9 $ 83.6 $ 96.1 $ 314.8 $ 292.9 $ 336.3 $ 586.2 $ 540.3 $ 631.6 $

2014 176.1 $ 159.0 $ 193.4 $ 87.3 $ 81.2 $ 93.3 $ 305.7 $ 284.4 $ 326.5 $ 569.1 $ 524.6 $ 613.2 $

2015 171.0 $ 154.4 $ 187.7 $ 84.8 $ 78.8 $ 90.6 $ 296.8 $ 276.1 $ 317.0 $ 552.6 $ 509.3 $ 595.3 $

2016 166.0 $ 149.9 $ 182.3 $ 82.3 $ 76.5 $ 87.9 $ 288.1 $ 268.1 $ 307.8 $ 536.5 $ 494.5 $ 578.0 $

2017 161.2 $ 145.5 $ 177.0 $ 79.9 $ 74.3 $ 85.4 $ 279.7 $ 260.3 $ 298.8 $ 520.8 $ 480.1 $ 561.2 $

2018 156.5 $ 141.3 $ 171.8 $ 77.6 $ 72.1 $ 82.9 $ 271.6 $ 252.7 $ 290.1 $ 505.7 $ 466.1 $ 544.8 $

2019 151.9 $ 137.2 $ 166.8 $ 75.3 $ 70.0 $ 80.5 $ 263.7 $ 245.3 $ 281.7 $ 490.9 $ 452.5 $ 529.0 $

2020 147.5 $ 133.2 $ 161.9 $ 73.1 $ 68.0 $ 78.1 $ 256.0 $ 238.2 $ 273.5 $ 476.6 $ 439.3 $ 513.5 $

2021 143.2 $ 129.3 $ 157.2 $ 71.0 $ 66.0 $ 75.9 $ 248.5 $ 231.3 $ 265.5 $ 462.8 $ 426.6 $ 498.6 $

2022 139.0 $ 125.5 $ 152.6 $ 68.9 $ 64.1 $ 73.7 $ 241.3 $ 224.5 $ 257.8 $ 449.3 $ 414.1 $ 484.1 $

2023 135.0 $ 121.9 $ 148.2 $ 66.9 $ 62.2 $ 71.5 $ 234.3 $ 218.0 $ 250.3 $ 436.2 $ 402.1 $ 470.0 $

2024 131.1 $ 118.3 $ 143.9 $ 65.0 $ 60.4 $ 69.4 $ 227.5 $ 211.6 $ 243.0 $ 423.5 $ 390.4 $ 456.3 $

2025 127.2 $ 114.9 $ 139.7 $ 63.1 $ 58.6 $ 67.4 $ 220.8 $ 205.5 $ 235.9 $ 411.2 $ 379.0 $ 443.0 $

2026 123.5 $ 111.5 $ 135.6 $ 61.2 $ 56.9 $ 65.4 $ 214.4 $ 199.5 $ 229.0 $ 399.2 $ 367.9 $ 430.1 $

2027 119.9 $ 108.3 $ 131.7 $ 59.5 $ 55.3 $ 63.5 $ 208.2 $ 193.7 $ 222.4 $ 387.6 $ 357.2 $ 417.6 $

2028 116.5 $ 105.1 $ 127.8 $ 57.7 $ 53.7 $ 61.7 $ 202.1 $ 188.0 $ 215.9 $ 376.3 $ 346.8 $ 405.4 $

2029 113.1 $ 102.1 $ 124.1 $ 56.0 $ 52.1 $ 59.9 $ 196.2 $ 182.6 $ 209.6 $ 365.3 $ 336.7 $ 393.6 $

Total 4,054.8 $ 3,491.7 $ 4,616.0 $ 1,743.6 $ 1,575.0 $ 1,909.3 $ 5,973.3 $ 5,423.3 $ 6,516.0 $ 11,771.6 $ 10,490.0 $ 13,041.4 $

Ann. 232.9 $ 200.5 $ 265.1 $ 100.1 $ 90.5 $ 109.6 $ 343.0 $ 311.4 $ 374.2 $ 676.0 $ 602.4 $ 748.9 $

Notes: Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2005.

Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.

Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.

Source: Ground Water Rule model output. 

# Exhibit D.8b Present Value of Total Activity Costs at 3 Percent for Option 4, by Year, for All PWSs

Year Mean

V alue 90 Percent

Confidence Bound

Mean

V alue 90 Percent

Confidence Bound

Mean

V alue 90 Percent

Confidence Bound

Mean

V alue 90 Percent

Confidence Bound



# Economic Analysis for the

Final Ground Water Rule D-57 October 2006

# CWSs NTNCWSs TNCWSs Grand Total

Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile) Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile) Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile) Lower

(5th %tile) Upper

(95th %tile)

2005 1.7 $ 1.7 $ 1.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 3.1 $ 5.5 $ 5.5 $ 5.5 $

2006 1.6 $ 1.6 $ 1.6 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.7 $ 2.9 $ 2.9 $ 2.9 $ 5.2 $ 5.2 $ 5.2 $

2007 1.5 $ 1.5 $ 1.5 $ 0.6 $ 0.6 $ 0.6 $ 2.7 $ 2.7 $ 2.7 $ 4.8 $ 4.8 $ 4.8 $

2008 2.4 $ 1.7 $ 3.2 $ 1.0 $ 0.7 $ 1.4 $ 4.6 $ 3.2 $ 6.2 $ 8.1 $ 5.6 $ 10.7 $

2009 2.2 $ 1.6 $ 3.0 $ 1.0 $ 0.7 $ 1.3 $ 4.3 $ 3.0 $ 5.8 $ 7.5 $ 5.2 $ 10.0 $

2010 995.9 $ 760.0 $ 1,229.0 $ 274.0 $ 217.1 $ 330.7 $ 848.0 $ 679.4 $ 1,015.7 $ 2,117.9 $ 1,656.5 $ 2,575.4 $

2011 153.1 $ 138.3 $ 168.1 $ 75.9 $ 70.6 $ 81.1 $ 265.8 $ 247.3 $ 283.9 $ 494.8 $ 456.1 $ 533.1 $

2012 143.1 $ 129.2 $ 157.1 $ 71.0 $ 66.0 $ 75.8 $ 248.4 $ 231.1 $ 265.3 $ 462.5 $ 426.3 $ 498.3 $

2013 133.8 $ 120.8 $ 146.8 $ 66.3 $ 61.6 $ 70.9 $ 232.1 $ 216.0 $ 248.0 $ 432.2 $ 398.4 $ 465.7 $

2014 125.0 $ 112.9 $ 137.2 $ 62.0 $ 57.6 $ 66.2 $ 216.9 $ 201.8 $ 231.7 $ 403.9 $ 372.3 $ 435.2 $

2015 116.8 $ 105.5 $ 128.3 $ 57.9 $ 53.8 $ 61.9 $ 202.7 $ 188.6 $ 216.6 $ 377.5 $ 348.0 $ 406.7 $

2016 109.2 $ 98.6 $ 119.9 $ 54.1 $ 50.3 $ 57.8 $ 189.5 $ 176.3 $ 202.4 $ 352.8 $ 325.2 $ 380.1 $

2017 102.0 $ 92.1 $ 112.0 $ 50.6 $ 47.0 $ 54.1 $ 177.1 $ 164.8 $ 189.2 $ 329.7 $ 303.9 $ 355.2 $

2018 95.4 $ 86.1 $ 104.7 $ 47.3 $ 44.0 $ 50.5 $ 165.5 $ 154.0 $ 176.8 $ 308.2 $ 284.0 $ 332.0 $

2019 89.1 $ 80.5 $ 97.8 $ 44.2 $ 41.1 $ 47.2 $ 154.7 $ 143.9 $ 165.2 $ 288.0 $ 265.5 $ 310.3 $

2020 83.3 $ 75.2 $ 91.4 $ 41.3 $ 38.4 $ 44.1 $ 144.6 $ 134.5 $ 154.4 $ 269.2 $ 248.1 $ 290.0 $

2021 77.8 $ 70.3 $ 85.5 $ 38.6 $ 35.9 $ 41.2 $ 135.1 $ 125.7 $ 144.3 $ 251.5 $ 231.9 $ 271.0 $

2022 72.8 $ 65.7 $ 79.9 $ 36.1 $ 33.5 $ 38.5 $ 126.3 $ 117.5 $ 134.9 $ 235.1 $ 216.7 $ 253.3 $

2023 68.0 $ 61.4 $ 74.6 $ 33.7 $ 31.3 $ 36.0 $ 118.0 $ 109.8 $ 126.1 $ 219.7 $ 202.5 $ 236.7 $

2024 63.5 $ 57.4 $ 69.8 $ 31.5 $ 29.3 $ 33.7 $ 110.3 $ 102.6 $ 117.8 $ 205.3 $ 189.3 $ 221.2 $

2025 59.4 $ 53.6 $ 65.2 $ 29.4 $ 27.4 $ 31.5 $ 103.1 $ 95.9 $ 110.1 $ 191.9 $ 176.9 $ 206.8 $

2026 55.5 $ 50.1 $ 60.9 $ 27.5 $ 25.6 $ 29.4 $ 96.3 $ 89.6 $ 102.9 $ 179.3 $ 165.3 $ 193.2 $

2027 51.9 $ 46.8 $ 56.9 $ 25.7 $ 23.9 $ 27.5 $ 90.0 $ 83.8 $ 96.2 $ 167.6 $ 154.5 $ 180.6 $

2028 48.5 $ 43.8 $ 53.2 $ 24.0 $ 22.3 $ 25.7 $ 84.1 $ 78.3 $ 89.9 $ 156.6 $ 144.4 $ 168.8 $

2029 45.3 $ 40.9 $ 49.7 $ 22.5 $ 20.9 $ 24.0 $ 78.6 $ 73.2 $ 84.0 $ 146.4 $ 134.9 $ 157.7 $

Total 2,698.9 $ 2,296.9 $ 3,099.0 $ 1,117.6 $ 1,001.0 $ 1,232.4 $ 3,804.9 $ 3,429.0 $ 4,176.2 $ 7,621.3 $ 6,727.0 $ 8,507.6 $

Ann. 231.6 $ 197.1 $ 265.9 $ 95.9 $ 85.9 $ 105.8 $ 326.5 $ 294.2 $ 358.4 $ 654.0 $ 577.2 $ 730.0 $

Notes: Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2005.

Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.

Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.

Source: Ground Water Rule model output. 

# Exhibit D.8c Present Value of Total Rule Costs at 7 Percent for Option 4, by Year, for All PWS s

Year Mean

V alue 90 Percent

Confidence Bound

Mean

V alue 90 Percent

Confidence Bound

Mean

V alue 90 Percent

Confidence Bound

Mean

V alue 90 Percent

Confidence Bound



# Economic Analysis for the

Final Ground Water Rule D-58 October 2006Rule Implementation & AnnualAdministration Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action Plans Compliance Monitoring TotalLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20051.8$ 1.8$ 1.8$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.8$ 1.8$ 1.8$20061.8$ 1.8$ 1.8$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.8$ 1.8$ 1.8$20071.8$ 1.8$ 1.8$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.8$ 1.8$ 1.8$20083.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 1.4$ 1.4$ 1.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5.3$ 5.3$ 5.4$20093.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 1.4$ 1.4$ 1.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5.3$ 5.3$ 5.4$20103.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 1.4$ 1.4$ 1.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 92.6$ 91.3$ 93.9$ 1.1$ 1.0$ 1.3$ 99.1$ 97.6$ 100.6$20113.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 1.4$ 1.4$ 1.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.1$ 1.0$ 1.3$ 6.5$ 6.2$ 6.7$20123.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 1.4$ 1.4$ 1.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.1$ 1.0$ 1.3$ 6.5$ 6.2$ 6.7$20133.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 1.4$ 1.4$ 1.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.1$ 1.0$ 1.3$ 6.5$ 6.2$ 6.7$20143.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 1.4$ 1.4$ 1.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.1$ 1.0$ 1.3$ 6.5$ 6.2$ 6.7$20153.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 1.4$ 1.4$ 1.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.1$ 1.0$ 1.3$ 6.5$ 6.2$ 6.7$20163.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 1.4$ 1.4$ 1.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.1$ 1.0$ 1.3$ 6.5$ 6.2$ 6.7$20173.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 1.4$ 1.4$ 1.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.1$ 1.0$ 1.3$ 6.5$ 6.2$ 6.7$20183.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 1.4$ 1.4$ 1.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.1$ 1.0$ 1.3$ 6.5$ 6.2$ 6.7$20193.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 1.4$ 1.4$ 1.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.1$ 1.0$ 1.3$ 6.5$ 6.2$ 6.7$20203.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 1.4$ 1.4$ 1.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.1$ 1.0$ 1.3$ 6.5$ 6.2$ 6.7$20213.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 1.4$ 1.4$ 1.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.1$ 1.0$ 1.3$ 6.5$ 6.2$ 6.7$20223.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 1.4$ 1.4$ 1.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.1$ 1.0$ 1.3$ 6.5$ 6.2$ 6.7$20233.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 1.4$ 1.4$ 1.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.1$ 1.0$ 1.3$ 6.5$ 6.2$ 6.7$20243.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 1.4$ 1.4$ 1.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.1$ 1.0$ 1.3$ 6.5$ 6.2$ 6.7$20253.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 1.4$ 1.4$ 1.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.1$ 1.0$ 1.3$ 6.5$ 6.2$ 6.7$20263.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 1.4$ 1.4$ 1.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.1$ 1.0$ 1.3$ 6.5$ 6.2$ 6.7$20273.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 1.4$ 1.4$ 1.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.1$ 1.0$ 1.3$ 6.5$ 6.2$ 6.7$20283.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 1.4$ 1.4$ 1.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.1$ 1.0$ 1.3$ 6.5$ 6.2$ 6.7$20293.9$ 3.9$ 3.9$ 1.4$ 1.4$ 1.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.1$ 1.0$ 1.3$ 6.5$ 6.2$ 6.7$Notes: Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2004.Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.Source: Ground Water Rule model output.Exhibit D.8d Primacy Agency Activity Costs for Option 4, by YearYearMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-59October 2006Rule Implementation & AnnualAdministration Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action Plans Compliance Monitoring TotalLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20051.8$ 1.8$ 1.8$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.8$ 1.8$ 1.8$20061.8$ 1.8$ 1.8$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.8$ 1.8$ 1.8$20071.7$ 1.7$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.7$ 1.7$ 1.7$20083.6$ 3.6$ 3.6$ 1.3$ 1.2$ 1.3$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4.9$ 4.8$ 4.9$20093.5$ 3.5$ 3.5$ 1.3$ 1.2$ 1.3$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4.7$ 4.7$ 4.8$20103.4$ 3.4$ 3.4$ 1.2$ 1.2$ 1.3$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 79.9$ 78.8$ 81.0$ 1.0$ 0.8$ 1.1$ 85.5$ 84.2$ 86.7$20113.3$ 3.3$ 3.3$ 1.2$ 1.1$ 1.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.8$ 1.1$ 5.4$ 5.2$ 5.6$20123.2$ 3.2$ 3.2$ 1.1$ 1.1$ 1.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.8$ 1.0$ 5.2$ 5.1$ 5.4$20133.1$ 3.1$ 3.1$ 1.1$ 1.1$ 1.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.8$ 1.0$ 5.1$ 4.9$ 5.3$20143.0$ 3.0$ 3.0$ 1.1$ 1.0$ 1.1$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.9$ 0.7$ 1.0$ 4.9$ 4.8$ 5.1$20152.9$ 2.9$ 2.9$ 1.0$ 1.0$ 1.1$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.8$ 0.7$ 0.9$ 4.8$ 4.6$ 5.0$20162.8$ 2.8$ 2.8$ 1.0$ 1.0$ 1.1$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.8$ 0.7$ 0.9$ 4.7$ 4.5$ 4.8$20172.8$ 2.8$ 2.8$ 1.0$ 1.0$ 1.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.8$ 0.7$ 0.9$ 4.5$ 4.4$ 4.7$20182.7$ 2.7$ 2.7$ 1.0$ 0.9$ 1.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.8$ 0.7$ 0.9$ 4.4$ 4.3$ 4.5$20192.6$ 2.6$ 2.6$ 0.9$ 0.9$ 1.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.7$ 0.6$ 0.8$ 4.3$ 4.1$ 4.4$20202.5$ 2.5$ 2.5$ 0.9$ 0.9$ 0.9$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.7$ 0.6$ 0.8$ 4.1$ 4.0$ 4.3$20212.4$ 2.4$ 2.4$ 0.9$ 0.8$ 0.9$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.7$ 0.6$ 0.8$ 4.0$ 3.9$ 4.2$20222.4$ 2.4$ 2.4$ 0.9$ 0.8$ 0.9$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.7$ 0.6$ 0.8$ 3.9$ 3.8$ 4.0$20232.3$ 2.3$ 2.3$ 0.8$ 0.8$ 0.9$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.7$ 0.6$ 0.7$ 3.8$ 3.7$ 3.9$20242.2$ 2.2$ 2.2$ 0.8$ 0.8$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.5$ 0.7$ 3.7$ 3.6$ 3.8$20252.2$ 2.2$ 2.2$ 0.8$ 0.8$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.5$ 0.7$ 3.6$ 3.5$ 3.7$20262.1$ 2.1$ 2.1$ 0.8$ 0.7$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.5$ 0.7$ 3.5$ 3.4$ 3.6$20272.1$ 2.1$ 2.1$ 0.7$ 0.7$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.5$ 0.7$ 3.4$ 3.3$ 3.5$20282.0$ 2.0$ 2.0$ 0.7$ 0.7$ 0.7$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.5$ 0.6$ 3.3$ 3.2$ 3.4$20291.9$ 1.9$ 1.9$ 0.7$ 0.7$ 0.7$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.5$ 0.6$ 3.2$ 3.1$ 3.3$Total 64.4$ 64.4$ 64.4$ 21.2$ 20.4$ 21.9$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 79.9$ 78.8$ 81.0$ 14.8$ 12.7$ 16.8$ 180.2$ 176.3$ 184.1$Ann. 3.7$ 3.7$ 3.7$ 1.2$ 1.2$ 1.3$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4.6$ 4.5$ 4.7$ 0.8$ 0.7$ 1.0$ 10.4$ 10.1$ 10.6$Notes: Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2005.Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.Source: Ground Water Rule model output.Exhibit D.8e Present Value of Primacy Agency Rule Activity Costs for Option 4 at 3 Percent, by YearYearMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-60October 2006Rule Implementation & AnnualAdministration Sanitary Surveys HSAs Triggered Monitoring Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action Plans Compliance Monitoring TotalLower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)Lower(5th %tile)Upper(95th %tile)20051.8$ 1.8$ 1.8$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.8$ 1.8$ 1.8$20061.7$ 1.7$ 1.7$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.7$ 1.7$ 1.7$20071.6$ 1.6$ 1.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 1.6$ 1.6$ 1.6$20083.2$ 3.2$ 3.2$ 1.2$ 1.1$ 1.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4.4$ 4.3$ 4.4$20093.0$ 3.0$ 3.0$ 1.1$ 1.0$ 1.1$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 4.1$ 4.0$ 4.1$20102.8$ 2.8$ 2.8$ 1.0$ 1.0$ 1.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 66.0$ 65.1$ 66.9$ 0.8$ 0.7$ 0.9$ 70.6$ 69.6$ 71.7$20112.6$ 2.6$ 2.6$ 0.9$ 0.9$ 1.0$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.7$ 0.6$ 0.8$ 4.3$ 4.2$ 4.4$20122.4$ 2.4$ 2.4$ 0.9$ 0.8$ 0.9$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.7$ 0.6$ 0.8$ 4.0$ 3.9$ 4.1$20132.3$ 2.3$ 2.3$ 0.8$ 0.8$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.6$ 0.7$ 3.8$ 3.6$ 3.9$20142.1$ 2.1$ 2.1$ 0.8$ 0.7$ 0.8$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.5$ 0.7$ 3.5$ 3.4$ 3.6$20152.0$ 2.0$ 2.0$ 0.7$ 0.7$ 0.7$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.6$ 0.5$ 0.6$ 3.3$ 3.2$ 3.4$20161.9$ 1.9$ 1.9$ 0.7$ 0.6$ 0.7$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.5$ 0.6$ 3.1$ 3.0$ 3.2$20171.7$ 1.7$ 1.7$ 0.6$ 0.6$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.4$ 0.6$ 2.9$ 2.8$ 3.0$20181.6$ 1.6$ 1.6$ 0.6$ 0.6$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.5$ 0.4$ 0.5$ 2.7$ 2.6$ 2.8$20191.5$ 1.5$ 1.5$ 0.5$ 0.5$ 0.6$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.5$ 2.5$ 2.4$ 2.6$20201.4$ 1.4$ 1.4$ 0.5$ 0.5$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.5$ 2.3$ 2.3$ 2.4$20211.3$ 1.3$ 1.3$ 0.5$ 0.5$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.4$ 2.2$ 2.1$ 2.3$20221.2$ 1.2$ 1.2$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.5$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.4$ 0.3$ 0.4$ 2.0$ 2.0$ 2.1$20231.2$ 1.2$ 1.2$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.3$ 0.4$ 1.9$ 1.8$ 2.0$20241.1$ 1.1$ 1.1$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.3$ 0.4$ 1.8$ 1.7$ 1.8$20251.0$ 1.0$ 1.0$ 0.4$ 0.4$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.3$ 1.7$ 1.6$ 1.7$20260.9$ 0.9$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 0.3$ 0.4$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.3$ 1.6$ 1.5$ 1.6$20270.9$ 0.9$ 0.9$ 0.3$ 0.3$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.3$ 0.2$ 0.3$ 1.5$ 1.4$ 1.5$20280.8$ 0.8$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 0.3$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.2$ 0.3$ 1.4$ 1.3$ 1.4$20290.8$ 0.8$ 0.8$ 0.3$ 0.3$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.2$ 0.2$ 0.3$ 1.3$ 1.2$ 1.3$Total 43.2$ 43.2$ 43.2$ 13.6$ 13.1$ 14.1$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 66.0$ 65.1$ 66.9$ 9.0$ 7.8$ 10.3$ 131.8$ 129.1$ 134.5$Ann. 3.7$ 3.7$ 3.7$ 1.2$ 1.1$ 1.2$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5.7$ 5.6$ 5.7$ 0.8$ 0.7$ 0.9$ 11.3$ 11.1$ 11.5$Notes: Present values in millions of 2003 dollars. Estimates are discounted to 2005.Detail may not add exactly to totals due to independent rounding.Ann = value of total annualized at discount rate.Source: Ground Water Rule model output.Exhibit D.8f Present Value of Primacy Agency Rule Activity Costs for Option 4 at 7 Percent, by YearYearMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence Bound90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValue90 PercentConfidence BoundMeanValueEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleD-61October 2006

# Appendix E

Potential Implications of Population Dynamics and

Secondary Transmission of Infection on the Benefits of

the Ground Water Rule

# Economic Analysis for the E-1 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Appendix E

Potential Implications of Popul ation Dynamics and Secondary

Transmission of Infection on the Be nefits of the Ground Water Rule

E.1 Introduction

In this appendix the Agency provides a summa ry of its investigation into the potential

uncertainties associated with secondary transmission of infection and subsequent illness within the

context of the Ground Water Rule (GWR). Secondary transmission of an infectious disease occurs when

an individual becomes infected due to person-to-p erson contact with an infected individual.

Microbiological Contaminants and Health Effects

Pathogenic enteric viral and bacterial microorga nisms are excreted in the feces of infected

humans and animals. The word enteric indicates that the natural habitat of these microorganisms is the

intestinal tract of animals and humans. Enteric mi croorganisms sometimes referred to as intestinal

microflora, can survive in wastewater and leach ate (effluent) derived from septic tanks. When

wastewater and leachate are released into the environm ent, they are sources of intestinal microflora and

potential sources of viral and bacterial pathogens. On ce in the environment, fecal matter from infected

humans or animals may make its way into groundwater sources. If enteric pathogens are ingested, the

likelihood of infection varies depending on the path ogenicity of the organism. The likelihood and

severity of symptomatic illness also vary with the ty pe of pathogen, the level of acquired immunity, and

the general resistance of the person.

Examples of common fecal viral pathogens include enteroviruses (e.g., echoviruses and

coxsackieviruses), rotavirus, and hepatitis A virus (HAV). Viruses cannot reproduce outside a host,

although they can survive and remain infectious. With a few exceptions, viruses that can infect human

cells typically cannot infect the cells of other an imals, and vice versa. Viruses become capable of

reproducing once they infect humans. Once infected, humans shed viruses in their feces. Regardless of

whether individuals infected by the waterborne path ogen have symptoms of illness, such as diarrhea, they

still shed the pathogen, and thus may infect other individuals. Infection via this process is called

secondary spread or person-to-person transmission.

Examples of common bacterial pathogens include E. coli

, Salmonella

, Shigella , and

Campylobacter jejuni . Some waterborne bacterial pat hogens cause disease by rapid growth and

dissemination (e.g., Salmonella ) while others primarily cause disease via toxin production (e.g., Shigella

, E.coli O157, Campylobacter jejuni ). Campylobacter jejuni

, E. coli , and Salmonella have a host range

that includes both animals and humans; Shigella seems to be associated primarily but not exclusively with

humans. Unlike pathogenic viruses, bacteria are able to reproduce outside the host.

Most of the waterborne bacterial pathogens cause gastrointestinal illness, but some can cause

more severe illnesses as well. For example, Legionella causes Legionnaires Disease, a form of

pneumonia that has a fatality rate of about 15 percent, and Pontiac Fever, which is a milder respiratory

infection form of Legionnaires Disease. Several strains of E. coli can cause severe disease, including

kidney failure.

Some bacterial pathogens are opportunistic (i.e., are only infectious in the presence of another,

preexisting condition or weakness). Opportuni stic pathogens usually cause illness only in

immunocompromised persons or in ot her sensitive subpopulations, such as the very young or the elderly.

# Economic Analysis for the E-2 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Other pathogens, such as Salmonella

, Shigella

, Campylobacter jejuni , are not entirely opportunistic but

result in certain diseases with greater frequency and severity in immunocompromised persons (Framm

and Soave 1997).

Data on the types of pathogens that have cau sed waterborne disease outbreaks can be obtained

from EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Of the 68 outbreaks in

groundwater systems reported to the CDC from 1991 through 2000, 14 (21%) were associated with

specific bacterial pathogens. The fecal bacterial pathogen Shigella caused more reported outbreaks (7%)

than any other single agent. Identified viral pathogens were associated with four (6%) reported outbreaks.

Etiologic agents were not identified in 39 (57% ) outbreaks; however, EPA suspects that many of these

were caused by viruses, given that it is generally more difficult to analyze for viral pathogens than

bacterial pathogens.

Microbial Risk Assessment

Microbial risk assessment (MRA) is a process that is used to evaluate the likelihood of adverse

human health effects that can occur following exposur e to pathogenic microorganisms or to a medium in

which pathogens are present (ILSI 1996). Quantitativ e risk assessment has been used since the 1970s to

assess human health effects associated with exposur e to chemicals (Hammond and Coppick 1990). The

principles, processes and methods for carrying out risk assessments for chemical agents were formalized

in 1983 by the National Research Council (NRC) resulti ng in a four step framework (National Research

Council 1983). The steps outlined by the NRC incl ude hazard identification, dose-response assessment,

exposure assessment, and risk characterization. Many of the early MRAs employed the NRC conceptual

framework to provide a structure from which the ass essments could be conducted (Haas 1983; Regli et al.

1991; Rose et al. 1987).

As the field of microbial risk assessment devel oped, it became clear that there were some

complexities associated with the modeling of infec tious diseases that are unique to pathogens such as

person-to-person transmission of in fection and immunity. Therefore, the conceptual framework for

chemicals may not always be appropriate for the assessment of risk of human infection following

exposure to pathogens (ILSI 1996). To address this concern, the EPA Office of Water sponsored a series

of workshops to develop a conceptual framework to assess the risks of human infection associated with

pathogenic microorganisms. Those workshops resulted in a published framework (ILSI 1996) that was

then tested through the conduct of two case studies (Soller et al. 1999; Teunis et al. 1999) and

subsequently revised (ILSI 2000; Schaub 2004). The EPA/ILSI frame work for assessing the risk of

human infection following exposure to water- and food- borne pathogens is comprised of three principal

components: hazard identification, exposure assessment, dose response assessment, and risk

characterization. At this time, both the NRC a nd EPA/ILSI frameworks are currently employed for the

conduct of MRAs. Assessments conduc ted by EPA under either the NRC framework or the more recent

EPA/ILSI framework are organized in accordance with the EPA Policy for Risk Characterization, EPA’s

Guidance for Risk Characterization, and EPA’s Po licy for Use of Probabilistic Analysis in Risk

Assessment (U.S. EPA 1995a; U.S. EPA 1995b; U.S. EPA 1997)

A literature review was conducted recently to docum ent the status, advantages, and limitations of

different types of microbial risk assessment risk char acterization techniques (Soller et al. 2004). That

literature review of approximately 1,100 citations indicated that at the broadest level there was a

distinction between direct estimates of risk or illness using epidemiological data and indirect estimates

using models. Direct estimates entail collecting infection or disease outcome data, for example,

prospective studies or outbreak investigations. In direct estimates employ exposure data as input to

numerical models to compute estimates of illnesses.

# Economic Analysis for the E-3 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Based on the available literature, direct met hods are used most commonly to assess the public

health impact associated with a specific and known (o r identifiable) exposure pathway. Those methods

may not, however, provide the regulatory and manage ment information needed for making decisions

regarding changes in environmental conditions. For th is purpose indirect methods of analysis can play a

useful role. From the literature review it was found that MRA methodologies vary primarily in the

manner in which they address the population dyna mics of infectious disease transmission. The

fundamental difference between the most common risk assessment techniques is that one class of models

does not incorporate population level impacts of seconda ry transmission via person to person interaction

nor the immune status of the infected population into the risk estimations for a given exposure scenario or

range of exposures (static models), whereas the ot her class of models (dynamic models) does.

The risk characterization method employed by the base analysis in the GWR is based on a static

model. A schematic of the GWR risk characterizati on method is presented in Exhibit E.1. As shown in

Exhibit E.1, the predicted intensity of secondary (per son-to-person) transmission is a multiplicative factor

comprised of the number of illnesses and a secondary morbidity factor.



# Exhibit E.1 MRA Conceptual Appr oach for the GWR Base Analysis

Susceptible

Individuals 

# Illness



# Pathogen

Dose DoseResponse

Relation



# P ill|inf 

# P-P

factor 

# #

Illnesses

Movement of individuals

Movement of pathogens 

# Infection Primary

Morbidity

(M

P 

# ) Secondary

Morbidity

(M

S 

# )



# P

D 

# = 1-E

− (dose* α /( α + β ))



# E.2 Motivation for Investigation

The limitations of treating infectious disease transmission as a static disease process with no

interaction between those infected or diseased and those at risk has been illustrated for various infectious

diseases including Giardia (Eisenberg et al. 1996), dengue (K oopman et al. 1991b), and sexually

transmitted diseases (Koopman et al. 1991a). Further, a variety of model forms can be employed to

characterize infectious disease transmission and to eval uate the potential for effective interventions. In

this context, a model form is a mathematical represen tation of the epidemiological status of the population

together with rules that define the movement of individuals and pathogens among sub-populations with

defined characteristics (e.g. infected indivi duals, ill individuals, immune individuals).

Particular characteristics of each model form capture different aspects of the disease transmission

system. However, it is unrealistic to presume that one model form is most appr opriate for all waterborne

microbial risk assessments (Soller et al. 2004).

# Economic Analysis for the E-4 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# In this investigation, a dynamic infectious disease model is used to explore the potential

implications of population dynamics and secondary transmission of infection and subsequent illness

relative to the static method employed by the base analysis in the GWR as described in the Economic

Analysis for the GWR. For the purposes of this inve stigation, secondary transmission includes infections

due to both person-to-person contacts and pers on-to-environment-to-person contacts where the

environmental time frame is short. For example, in ter-household disease transmission due to contact with

contaminated household surfaces (fomites) would be included in this analysis.



# E.3 Methods of Investigation

The potential implications of uncertainties associ ated with secondary transmission of infection

and subsequent illness in the Ground Water Rule are evaluated via a hypothetical case study. In this case

study it is assumed that a large tour group from a tota l population of 100,000 visit an outlying area that is

served by a NCWS with untreated or inadequately treat ed groundwater that is contaminated with a type A

virus. It is assumed that all of the individuals ar e exposed to the type A virus, 100 become infected, and

then return home to the larger community 1 

# . The population is then assumed to mix homogeneously (that

is inter-household transmission is not considered separately from intra-household transmission).

In the GWR base analysis, rotavirus is employed as the prototype type A virus to quantify the

benefits of the rule. Noroviruses are also describ ed as epidemiologically important type A viruses,

however, illnesses from norovirus infection are not quan tified in the GWR EA. Two types of analyses

were conducted in this investigation, a median value analysis and a sens itivity/uncertainty analysis. In the

median value analysis, the model type A virus empl oyed is assumed to have the clinical properties and

infectivity of rotavirus. However, it is assumed that age is not an important factor relative to infection

and that individuals of all ages are equally likely to become infected and subsequently propagate infection

via person-to-person transmission. The sensitivity/uncer tainty analysis (referred to as uncertainty analysis

hereafter) explores how uncertainty in model parame ters and the model form selection influence the

potential insights provided by the analysis and to consider how those insights may change for other type

A viruses, such as noroviruses, with somewhat different clinical or environmental properties than the

model virus investigated.

A literature review was conducted to identify appropriate values for model parameters.

Numerical simulations are used to estimate the num ber of additional infections and illnesses (due to

person-to-person transmission) within the large communi ty after the group of infected individuals returns

home. Cumulatively, the results of the median valu e analysis and uncertainty analysis simulations are

used to identify combinations of model parameters under which the predicted magnitude of person-toperson transmission of illness in the community is subs tantially higher or lower than would have been

predicted under the GWR base analysis method and assumptions.

The analysis presented herein is intended to comp lement the base analysis in the GWR. Although

the GWR base analysis and that presented herein bot h focus on characterizing the risk associated with

illness from groundwater sources, each analysis is built on a different set of assumptions. To the extent

feasible, similar assumptions were applied in this anal ysis compared to those u sed in the base analysis.

However, because the two analyses were intended to address slightly different questions, the results are

not necessarily directly comparable. Further elabora tion on this point is provided in Section 5.1.

1 

# The larger community is assumed to be served by a CWS.

# Economic Analysis for the E-5 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# E.3.1 Overview of Scenario Evaluated

The case study scenario may be characterized as follows:

• A hypothetical community with population of 100,000 individuals is considered;

• From that population, a large tour group is assumed to visit a NCWS that is contaminated with a

type A virus;

• 100 individuals are assumed to become infected and then return home;

• The type A virus has the infectivity of rotavirus among adults in the US population;

• The type A virus has the background incidence levels of rotavirus in the US population;

• The type A virus has the morbidity of rotavirus among adults and children in the US population,

based on weighted population averages;

• Secondary transmission is homoge neous among all individuals of all ages within the larger

population, and the median value is based on community level data describing the proportion of

household level infections in the community;

• Incubation and clinical severity are based on unweighted data on rota virus from children and

adults;

• Immunity data are based primarily on rotavi rus data from children but informed by qualitative

assessment of adults;

• None of the infected individuals woul d be considered “super-spreaders”; and

• Immunocompromised individuals are not considered separately from the rest of the population.

E.3.2 Risk Assessment Methodology

In the base analysis for the GWR, the magnit ude of secondary transmission is estimated by

multiplying the number of children less than 3 who are ill by a constant factor. In this investigation a

population perspective is taken, and secondary transm ission is estimated in a more mathematically

rigorous manner using a dynamic infectious disease me thodology. The basis for the numerical modeling

approach employed herein is well supported in the t echnical literature and is consistent with a large base

of literature describing the use of dynamic populatio n models in the study of epidemics (Anderson and

May 1991; Hethcote 1976; Hethco te 2000) and environmental processes and disease (Koopman et al.

2002.; Koopman et al. 2001; Koopman et al. 1991a).

The microbial risk assessment approach employed herein builds on previous studies addressing

human health risks from exposure to waterborne pathog ens (Eisenberg et al. 1996; Eisenberg et al. 1998;

Soller et al. 2006; Soller et al. 1999; Soller et al. 2003; Soller et al. 2004), and is consistent with the

EPA/ILSI framework for microbial risk assessment (ILSI 1996).

Two routes of transmission are accounted for in this investigation: primary transmission by

background or environmental expos ure and secondary transmission via person-to-person transmission.

The conceptual model investigated he rein for health effects associated with exposure to the model type A

virus is presented in Exhibit E.2.

# Economic Analysis for the E-6 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Exhibit E.2 Conceptual Health Effects Model

β _env ζ (1-Psym)



# β _pp σ γ

Psym



# δ

Movement of Individuals

Movement of Pathogens

State

S Susceptible to infection

E Infected, pre-symptoms, pre-infectious

C Infectious, asymptomatic

D Infectious, symptomatic

P Protected from infection Description 

# S E C

D P

Pathogen Sources



# The model is composed of 5 state variables that ar e used to track the number of individuals in each

epidemiological state over time:

• S-Individuals susceptible to infection (Susceptible);

• E-Individuals who have been exposed but ha ve yet to become infectious (Exposed);

• C-Infectious but asymptomatic individuals (Carrier);

• D-Infectious and symptomatic individuals (Diseased); and

• P-Post-symptomatic and non-infec tious individuals (with limited te rm protection from infection)

(Protected).

Eleven (11) model parameters are used to define the model (Exhibits E.3 and E.4). The parameters

include the background incidence of infection in th e community, parameters describing the dose-response

relation, the rate of movement of individuals between epidemiological states, the probability of

symptomatic response, the background level of pathog ens that result in a disease incidence consistent

with the primary endemic incidence, the probabilit y of infection from environmental contact, and the

probability of an infective contact.



# Exhibit E.3 Model Parameters Derived Directly From Scientific Literature

Model Parameter Description Comments

Background incidence Disease incidence in US

α Beta poisson dose response parameter Maximum Liklihood Estimate fit to beta-Poisson

β dr 

# Beta poisson dose response parameter Maximum Liklihood Estimate fit to beta-Poisson

ζ Inverse of duration of incubation (days) Inverse represents rate of movement out of state E

psym Probability of symptomatic response

σ Inverse of duration of asymptomatic infection (days) Inverse represents rate of movement out of state C

δ Inverse of duration of symptomatic infection (days) Inverse represents rate of movement out of state D

γ Inverse of duration of protection from infection (days) Inverse represents rate of movement out of state P

# Economic Analysis for the E-7 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Exhibit E.4 Model Parameters That Are Computed Based On Other Parameters

Model Parameter Dependant Variables Description Comments

End_dose All other model

parameters Background level of pathogen that

results in a disease prevalence

consistent with estimated levels in US End_dose is derived for each simulation.

It is the dose results in an average

prevalence consistent with a specified

level of endemic disease

β End_dose, α

, β dr 

# Probability of infecton from

environmental exosure

β _pp All other model

parameters Probability of infective contact due to

person-to-person exposure β _pp is derived for each simulation. It is a

rate that results in a specified level of

endemic disease due to secondary

transmission 

# 1 exp end_dose

− α

α β dr

+ ⋅ 

# ⎛ ⎜ ⎝ ⎞

⎠ −



# Assuming that the primary and secondary transm ission processes are independent (Anderson and

May 1991; Hethcote 1976), the change in the fraction of the population in any state from one time period

to the next may be modeled as a series of first order differential equations. A summary of the

mathematical details describing the movement of th e population from one time step to the next is

provided in Exhibit E.5. The model is implemen ted via numerical simulation and integration using

MathCad version 13 (Mathsoft, Inc.). The model para meter values used in th e analyses are discussed in

the following section and a description of the numerical simulation methodology follows in Section E.3.4.



# Exhibit E.5 First Order Differential Equations Used for MRA Modeling

t S t

( ) d

d β

− S t ( ) ⋅ β _pp S t ( )

⋅ C t () Dt ( ) + ( )

⋅ − γ P t ( )

⋅ +

t E t

( ) d

d β S t ( ) ⋅ β _pp S t ( )

⋅ C t () Dt ( ) + ( )

⋅ + ζ E t ( )

⋅ −

t C t ( ) d

d ζ 1 psym

− ( )

⋅ E t ( ) ⋅ σ C t ( )

⋅ −

t D t ( ) d

d ζ psym

⋅ E t ( ) ⋅ δ D t ( )

⋅ −

t P t

( ) d

d δ D t ( ) ⋅ σ C t ( )

⋅ + γ P t ( )

⋅ −



# E.3.3 Parameter Values Used in Model

A comprehensive literature review was conducted for the purpose of parameter value selection.

Detailed results of the literature review are presente d in a separate report (Soller, 2004). From the

literature review, median values were determined for each of the model parameters shown in Exhibit E.3.

Minimum and maximum reasonable values were also iden tified for use in the uncertainty analysis (Refer

# Economic Analysis for the E-8 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# to Section E.3.5). The parameter values derived fro m the literature review used in the median value

analysis and the uncertainty analyses are summarized in Exhibit E.6; a brief description of the basis for

selection of these values follows.



# Exhibit E.6 Parameter Values Used in Simulations

Primary Variable Description Median Value

or Duration Minimum and Maximum

Reasonable Range Median Rate 1



# Background incidence Disease incidence in US 3,900,000 500,000-23,000,000

α Beta poisson dose response parameter 0.26 0.126-0.52

β dr Beta poisson dose response parameter 0.42 0.21-0.84

ζ inverse of duration of incubation (1/days) 2.5 1-5 days 0.4

psym Probability of symptomatic response 0.45 0.1-0.6

σ Inverse of duration of asymptomatic infection (1/days) 5 2-8 days 0.2

δ Inverse of duration of symptomatic infection (1/days) 6 2-8 days 0.17

γ Inverse of duration of protection from infection (1/days) 548 7-30 months 0.0018

1 

# The rates shown are the inverse of the median values and correspond to the mean amount of time spent in the

corresponding states.



# Background Incidence

The median estimate of background incidence of rotavirus illness in the US is 3,900,000 cases per

year (Mead et al. 1999; Tucker et al. 1998) based on available primary data (Gurwith et al. 1981;

Rodriquez et al. 1987). For the purposes of the uncertainty analysis, the minimum and maximum

reasonable values are 50,000 and 23,000,000 cases per year, respectively (Mead et al. 1999). The

minimum and maximum values are selected with the understanding that noroviruses are also type A

viruses (highly infectious with low severity). This wide parameter range was investigated to account for

the estimated incidence of norovirus illness in the US, their genetic diversity, and the uncertainty

associated with norovirus cross-genotype immunity.

Dose-Response Parameters

The best fitting beta-Poisson dose response model has point estimates of α =0.265 and β dr=0.42

(Haas et al. 1999; Regli et al. 1991; Ward et al. 1986). The corresponding 95% confidence intervals

range from 0.126 to 0.52 for α and from 0.21 to 0.84 for β dr. The best fitting point estimates are

employed in the median value analyses and the lo wer and upper 95% confidence values are used as the

minimum and maximum reasonable values, respectively in the uncertainty analysis. Unfortunately, the

shape of the 95% confidence region of the rotavi rus dose-response maximum likelihood estimate (MLE)

is not defined by a simple formula (Regli et al . 1991). The minimum and maximum values employed

herein represent a reasonable approximation to th e 95% confidence region. Preliminary numerical

analyses indicated that refinement of the simple surface defined by the upper and lower 95% confidence

values to more closely match the MLE 95% confiden ce region was not warranted for this investigation

given the necessary complexity associated with the refinement.

Duration of Incubation

Based on the data presented in Appendix 1 of the investigator’s full report (in Soller 2006 see

Flewett et al. 1975; Flewett and Woode 1978; Rodriguez et al. 1979; Shepherd et al. 1975; Ward et al.

1986), a duration of incubation of 2.5 days is used in the median value analyses, and 1 and 5 days are

used as the minimum and maximum reasonable values, respectively.

# Economic Analysis for the E-9 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Probability of Symptomatic Response

Based on the data presented in Appendix 1 of the investigator’s full report (in Soller 2006 see

Kim et al. 1977; Tufvesson et al. 1977; Ward et al. 1986; Wenman et al. 1979), the median probability of

symptomatic response for adults is 0.43. The mini mum and maximum reasonable values for adults is 0.1

and 0.57, respectively.

For children, the median probability of symp tomatic response is 0.67. The minimum and

maximum reasonable values are 0.17 and 0.82, respectively (Barron-Romero et al. 1985; Bernstein et al.

1991; Champsaur et al. 1984; Ferson et al. 1997; Gurwith et al. 1981; Velazquez et al. 1993; Wenman et

al. 1979).

Values used in the analysis are weighted aver ages for children and adults, based on census data

from 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000), assuming that children are represented by those under age 5 yrs.

Thus, a probability of symptomatic response of 0.45 is used in the median value analyses, and 0.1 and 0.6

are used as the minimum and maximum reasonable values, respectively.

Duration of Symptomatic Infection

Based on the data presented in Appendix 1 of the investigator’s full report (in Soller 2006 see

Flewett et al. 1975; Flewett and Woode 1978; Gomez-Barreto et al. 1976; Gurwith et al. 1981; Lycke et

al. 1978; Shepherd et al. 1975; Ward et al. 1986), a dura tion of symptomatic infection of 6 days is used in

the median value analyses, and 2 and 8 days are used as the minimum and maximum reasonable values,

respectively.

Duration of Asymptomatic Infection

The average duration of asymptomatic infections is 5 days with durations of asymptomatic

infections ranging from 1 to 12 days (Ward et al. 198 6). Based on these data, a duration of asymptomatic

infection of 5 days is used in the median value analyses. Given the sparse data available for this

parameter, the minimum and maximum reasonable values are the same as those used for the duration of

symptomatic infections (2 and 8 days, respectively).

Duration of Protection from Infection

Based on the data presented in Appendix 1 of the investigator’s full report (in Soller 2006 see

Bernstein et al. 1991; Chiba et al. 1993; Koopman and Monto 1989; Ward and Bernstein 1994), it is

inferred that the duration of protection from infecti on is highly uncertain and not well understood. From

studies on children it has been found that infection co nfers immunity (typically from disease but not

necessarily from infection) for a duration of not less th an 1 year. Based on data from a lifetime analysis it

appears that the duration of protection may be longer fo r adults than for children. Thus, a duration of 18

months is used in the median value analyses, and du rations of 12 and 60 months are used as the minimum

and maximum reasonable values, respectively.

Person-to-Person Transmission

Based on data from the Tecumseh study, Koopman et al. estimated the proportion of rotavirus

infections acquired in the household (17-20%) co mpared to those acquired outside the household

(Koopman et al. 1989). For the purposes of this investiga tion, it is assumed that infections acquired in the

household are through a person-to-person route of tran smission, and infections acquired in the community

are acquired either through person- to-person transmission or from environmental sources. Based on data

# Economic Analysis for the E-10 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# from the Tecumseh study, 20% is used in the medi an value analyses as the proportion of rotavirus

infections acquired via person-to-per son transmission, and a range of 10 and 60% is used to encapsulate

the minimum and maximum reasonable values, respectivel y. This relatively wide range employed in the

uncertainty analysis is based on professional judg ment and is intended to be representative of the

uncertainty associated with 1) extrapolating the r esults from Tecumseh to the US population and 2) the

assumption that infections acquired in the community are due to a combination of environmental sources

and person-to-person contacts outside of the household.

E.3.4 Numerical Simulation Methodology

Numerical simulation, as described above, was used to determine the number of individuals in

each epidemiological state over time. To exam ine the impact of illness propagation through the

community, several steps are required.

The first step is a calibration step that is used to identify the proportion of individuals in each

state for the endemic conditions and to find appropriat e values for the model parameters shown in Exhibit

E.4. At the inception of each calibration simulation, it is assumed that 95% of the population is in State

S (Susceptible) and 5% is in State E (Exposed), in a manner consistent with previous work (Soller et al.

2006; Soller et al. 1999). Note that the calibration pro cedure described below is also reasonably robust to

other initial conditions. The parameter values shown in Exhibit E.6 are used to conduct the median value

analysis calibration, and subsequently the medi an value analysis. Using those values with β pp set to zero,

an “endemic dose” (and resulting value for β )

 is found that results in a proportion of the population in

State D (Diseased) that is consiste nt with the background level of illness incidence in the United States

and the assumption that 20% of cases are due to pers on-to-person transmission (o r equivalently, 80% of

cases due to primary transmission). Using those values for β and “endemic dose”, a value of β pp is then

identified so that the incidence of illness in the population was cons istent with the background level

shown in Exhibit E.6.

After the calibration is complete the median valu e analysis is conducted. The median value

analysis is used to assess the magnitude of illness attribut able to the 100 individuals returning with type

A virus illnesses after visiting a contaminated NCWS, assuming that all parameter values are set equal to

the median values of those reported in the literature. Mathematically, the simulation is conducted in a

similar manner to that described above for the me dian value calibration except that 1) the initial

conditions are set equal to the steady state conditions identified in the calibration including values for β

and β pp, and then 2) 100 people are removed from State S (Susceptible) and moved into State E

(Exposed). (Details are provided in Appendix II of the investigator’s full report (Soller 2006)).

Similar simulations are employed to conduct the uncertainty analysis, except different parameter

values or model forms are used as specified in Sec tion E.3.5. For each simulation conducted for the

uncertainty analysis, a calibration simulation is pe rformed as described above, followed by a simulation

representing the case study.

E.3.5 Uncertainty Analysis

The goal of the uncertainty analysis is to c onsider how uncertainty in the model and model

parameters could impact the model output and the sub sequent interpretation of the results. Specifically,

the goal of this portion of the analysis is to identify parameter values and/or co mbinations of parameters

that could have substantial impact on the interpretation of the results once uncertainty is considered.

# Economic Analysis for the E-11 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# The methodology for the sensitivity/uncertainty analysis is described in this section. The uncertainty

analysis plan encompasses four broad categories:

• Model parameter uncertainty issues;

• Transmission parameter uncertainty issues;

• Model form uncertainty issues; and

• Population uncertainty issues.

The approach used to address each type of issue is discussed below. In all cases, the results from the

analyses described below are interpreted relative to the results of the median value analysis.

E.3.5.1 Model parameter uncertainty issues

Background Incidence of Illness

The background level of illness, as noted in Sections E.3.3 and E.3.4, is an important factor in

determining the status of the popul ation under endemic conditions. Speci fically, the calibration step is

used to determine an “endemic dose” (and resulting value for β )

  resulting in a proportion of the

population in State D (Diseased) that is consistent w ith the background level of illness incidence and the

assumption that 20% of cases are due to person-to-per son transmission (or equivalently, 80% of cases due

to primary transmission). Using these values, β pp is then determined. The background level of illness

may be substantially different than the value estimat ed using the median value for a number of reasons,

including, but not limited to, the following:

• The background level of rotavirus illness in the US is uncertain. The values presented herein are

the best available estimates, however, from a review of the primary literature, it is possible that

the true incidence could be higher or lower than that estimated;

• The background level of illness varies between communities;

• Other type A viruses may have substantially di fferent illness incidence levels than the one

investigated in the median value analysis; and

• The general classification of type A viruses in cludes noroviruses. Noroviruses are estimated to

cause 23,000,000 illnesses annually in the United States (Mead et al. 1999). However,

noroviruses as a class are a genetically and antigenically diverse group of viruses (Ando et al.

2000). Of approximately 300 outbreaks in the United States between 1993 and 1999, 68 different

outbreak strains have been identified and classified(Ando et al. 2000). The potential for crossstrain immunity is not well understood at this time.

To explore how the background level of illness could im pact the insights provided by this analysis, a

series of simulations was conducted in which the endemic level of illness in the US population was

allowed to vary between 50,000 and 23,000,000 (as compared to an estimated 3,900,000 based on the

incidence of rotavirus illness in the US). In each of these simulations, it is assumed that β pp (the

probability of an infective contact due to person-to -person exposure) is not impacted by changing the

background level of disease in the community.

# Economic Analysis for the E-12 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Literature Derived Model Parameter Uncertainty

There are 7 model parameters (see Exhibit E.3) th at impact the rate at which individuals move

between epidemiological states. Those parameters include: ζ

, σ

, δ

, γ

, α

, β _dr 

# , and P

sym 

# . Based on the peerreviewed literature, there is substantial un certainty in each of these values (data for ζ

, σ

, δ , and γ are

reported in clinical literature as durations rather than rates, those durations are then converted to rates as

the inverse of the durations for this analysis). For example, the duration of incubation is reported in the

literature to range from 1 to 5 days (Flewett et al . 1975; Flewett and Woode 1978; Rodriguez et al. 1979;

Shepherd et al. 1975; Ward et al. 1986). In the median value analysis a duration of incubation of 2.5 days

was used to derive a median rate of 0.4 day -1



# .

To determine how the uncertainty in these para meter values impacts the potential propagation of

secondary transmission of illness, the minimum and maximum reasonable values are explored for each

variable. Each unique combinati on of these minimum and maximum values was simulated. Given that

there are 7 parameters to explore, each with two values (minimum and maximum reasonable values), this

portion of the uncertainty analysis results in 128 simulations (2 7 

# ).

As described previously, minimum and maximum reasonable values for α and β _dr 

# are the lower

and upper 95% confidence values of the maximum li kelihood fits for the beta-Poisson dose response

function. Minimum and maximum reasonable values for P

sym 

# , ζ

, σ

, δ , and γ were based on data from the

literature review.

In these analyses, the background incidence of illnesses is assumed to be the same as in the

median value analysis. Thus, an “endemic dose” (and resulting value for β ) and β pp were computed in

each calibration simulation based on the background incidence of illnesses and the assumption that 20%

of cases are due to person-to-person transmission.

E.3.5.2 Transmission parameter uncertainty issues

The two transmission parameters in the analysis are β (also referred to as β

env 

# ) (probability of

movement out of State S (Susceptible) due to environmental exposure) and β

pp 

# (probability of movement

out of State S due to person-to-person exposure). The purpose of this component of the uncertainty

analysis is to evaluate the impact of the assump tions about the transmissi on parameters on the model

output and the subsequent interpretation of that output.

Environmental Exposure

To be consistent with the base analysis in the GWR, β

env 

# was computed using the following

formula:

Equation E.1

# Economic Analysis for the E-13 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# This is an approximation to the beta-Poisson m odel. Approximations to the beta-Poisson model

are commonly employed in microbial risk assessment investigations because the exact form is complex

and computationally intensive (Teunis et al. 1996). There are however, other approximations to the betaPoisson function that are also reported and used in the literature, the most common of which are the

following:

Equation E.2

Equation E.3

To determine if the functional form of the dose response model substantially impacts the

interpretation of this analysis, additional analy ses are conducted using the dose response model forms

described above.

Person-to-Person Exposure

The approach employed for estimating the propor tion of person-to-person transmission in a

community is to solve the system of differential equations given in Exhibit E.5 for β

pp 

# so that the results

are consistent with those reported in the Tecumseh st udy (Koopman et al. 1989). In that study, the effect

of rotavirus transmission within households and on the risk of infection from outside of the household

was investigated through analyses of serum pairs (Koopman et al. 1989). Based on an analysis of

serologic observations from 1,508 individuals from 1977 through 1981, it was found that 17 to 20% of

rotavirus infections were acquired in the household, and the remainder were acquired in the community

(Koopman et al. 1989). For this analysis it is assumed that rotavirus infections acquired in the household

are due to person-to-person transmission and t hose acquired in the community are from other

(environmental) exposures and from pe rson-to-person transmission outside of the household. Thus, using

the data from Koopman et al., it is inferred that pers on-to-person transmission was responsible for at least

approximately 20% of the total infections in the community.

To determine how the uncertainty in β

pp 

# impacts the propagation of secondary transmission of

illness for the case study scenario, person-to-person tr ansmission intensity within the minimum (10%)

and maximum (60%) reasonable values for β

pp 

# are explored.

E.3.5.3 Model form uncertainty issues

The conceptual model used in the median value analysis was presented previously in Exhibit E.2.

This model form is similar to conceptual models that have been used in othe r peer-reviewed studies used

to investigate health effects associated with waterbor ne pathogens (Eisenberg et al. 1996; Eisenberg et al.

1998; Eisenberg et al. 2004; Soller et al. 2006; Soller et al. 2003; Soller et al. 2004). It should however

be clear that a variety of model forms can be employed to characterize infectious disease transmission and

to evaluate the potential for effective interventions.

The particular characteristics of a model form capture different aspects of the disease

transmission system. However, it is unrealistic to pres ume that one model form is most appropriate for all

waterborne microbial risk assessments. The selecti on of a model involves tradeoffs. Biological or

demographic “realism” can come with the cost of analytical complexity that distances the model from

available data (U.S. EPA 2004). With the perspec tive that different model forms and accompanying

# Economic Analysis for the E-14 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# analytical approaches may be necess ary for different applications, Koopman et al. (Koopman et al. 2001)

suggested an analysis strategy involving a hierarchy of models from simple to increasingly complex

models, which could be traversed to make microbi al risk assessment analyses more realistic while

remaining mathematically tractable.

To determine how the particular model form im pacts the magnitude of secondary transmission of

illness in this investigation, two alternative mode l forms were evaluated through simulation using a

median value analysis. The two alternative m odels are presented in Exhibits E.7 and E.8.



# Exhibit E.7 Alternative Conceptual Model 1

γ

β _env ζ (1-Psym)



# β _pp σ

Psym



# δ σ

State

S Susceptible to infection

E Infected, pre-symptoms, pre-infectious Movement of Individuals

C Infectious, asymptomatic Movement of Pathogens

D Infectious, symptomatic

P Protected from infection Description 

# S E C1

D P

Pathogen Sources 

# C2



# Exhibit E.8 Alternative Conceptual Model 2

γ

β _env ζ (1-Psym) 

# σ

β

_ pp

Psym



# δ

State Description

S Susceptible to infection

E Infected, pre-symptoms, pre-infectious Movement of Individuals

C Infectious, asymptomatic Movement of Pathogens

D Infectious, symptomatic

P Protected from infection 

# S

Pathogen Sources E1 E2 E3 E4 C1 C2 C3 C4

D1 D2 D3 D4 P1 P2 P3 P4

# Economic Analysis for the E-15 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Relative to the model shown in Exhibit E.2, th e model shown in Exhibit E.7 adds a carrier

(infectious and asymptomatic) state after the diseased (infectious and symptomatic) state and prior to the

state, which provides protection from infection. Th is modification accounts for the shedding of pathogens

after symptoms subside. This characteristic has be en reported in outbreak litera ture (refer to Appendix 1

of the investigator’s full report (Soller 2006)) and h as the potential to impact the predicted propagation of

person-to-person transmission of illness in a community.

In the model presented in Exhibit E.8, movement wi thin states E, C, D, and P is characterized by

a distributed delay process (Eisenberg et al. 2004). The time that individuals sp end in each these states is

described by a gamma distribution. In the model presen ted in Exhibit E.2, the ti me that individuals spend

in each of these states is characterized by an exponen tial distribution. The two parameters describing the

gamma distribution are the number of sub-states pe r state (4) and the rate constant governing the

movement between sub-states. The mean transit time in each state is 4 divided by the transition rate

parameter used in the median value analysis. Th is model form was selected for evaluation based on

models in peer reviewed literature (Eisenberg et al . 1996) and the fact that the incubation period is

reasonably well characterized by a gamma distribution (Brookhart et al. 2002; Eisenberg et al. 2005).

E.3.5.4 Population uncertainty issues

One important assumption employed in this analysis is that the type A virus under investigation

does not attack any particular portion of the population differently than any other (for example the model

does not differentiate between children and adults). The purpose of this component of the uncertainty

analysis is to determine how sensitive the predic ted magnitude of secondary transmission in the

community is to this assumption.

The type A virus described in the GWR is me ant to represent highly infectious viruses with

relatively low severity of illness. In considering ro tavirus and noroviruses, both of which are considered

type A viruses and account for a large percentage of illnesses from known pathogens (Mead et al. 1999),

some portion of the population is likely either se mi-permanently immune or genetically immune

(Anderson and Weber 2004; Lindesmith et al. 2003).

To evaluate the uncertainty associated with portions of the population never moving into a

“susceptible” state, a series of simulations are conducte d in which 10, 25, 50 a nd 75% of the population

never move out of State P (Protected).

E.3.5.5 Interaction of uncertainties

The final component of the uncertainty analysis is to determine if the results of the analysis are

synergistically affected by uncertainty in multiple mo del parameters. To conduc t this component of the

analysis, the results from the four previously descr ibed components of the uncertainty analysis are

considered jointly and several simulations are conduc ted. This component is important because it is

possible that the results are sens itive to multiple parameters and/or categories of assumptions and the

uncertainty analysis described above is limited in scope.

The methodology for this component of the analysis is to 1) identify several parameters which,

based on the results of the analyses described in Sections E.3.5.1 thr ough E.3.5.4 appear to have the

strongest influence on the results, and 2) run si mulations to investigate how the resultant disease

propagation is influenced.

# Economic Analysis for the E-16 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# E.4 Results

The results of the median value analysis and the corresponding uncertainty analyses are presented

and discussed in this section. These results summari ze the output from over 300 individual simulations

including the required calibration simulations. Repr esentative programming code for the simulations that

is used to generate the results presented in this sec tion is found in Appendix II of the investigator’s full

report (Soller, 2006)

E.4.1 Median Value Analysis

The results of the median value analysis calibrati on and the median value analysis simulations are

presented and discussed in following two subsections.

E.4.1.1 Median value analysis calibration

Calibration of the median value analysis was conduc ted as described in Section E.3.4. The results

of the median value analysis calibration are shown in Exhibit E.9 and presented in Exhibit E.10. A

detailed description of the calibration and the computer programming code used for the simulation of the

median value analysis calibration are found in Appendix II of the investigator’s full report (Soller 2006).



# Exhibit E.9 Median Value Analysis Calibration

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 1

. 10 6 

# 1

. 10 5 

# 1

. 10 4 

# 1

. 10 3



# 0.01 0.1

1 10

susceptibles

Infected

Carrier

Diseased

Protected

Time (days)Proportion of people in state



# Exhibit E.10 Median Value Anal ysis Endemic Calibration Results

Endemic Level of Disease in US 3,900,000

Incidence per 100,000 / year 1418

Proportion ill 2.331E-04

Proportion ill -Primary transmission 1.87E-04

Proportion ill - Secondary transmission 4.66E-05

β

_ pp 3.99E-07

Endemic dose 1.88E-04

State S 0.95204

State E 0.00022

State C 0.00024

State D 0.00023

State P 0.04728

# Economic Analysis for the E-17 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# From a review of Exhibit E.9 and Exhibit E.10 it can be seen that a steady-state condition is

reached relatively quickly in the simulation (about 60 da ys) and that the vast majority of the population is

in State S (Susceptible) (95.2%) under these ende mic conditions. For a population size of 100,000

individuals, the calibration indicates that under ende mic conditions, approximate ly 95,200 individuals

would be in State S, 22-24 individuals would be in St ates E, C, and D, and 4,728 individuals would be in

State P (Protected). Equivalently, the proportion of individuals in State D (those individuals who are ill,

defined as both infectious and symptomatic) under endemic conditions would be expected to be

approximately 2.3x10 -4 

# {23/100,000 or approximately (3.9 million/275 million)/ (365 days/year) x 6 days

duration of disease}. (Kleinbaum et al. 1982; Soller et al. 2006).

E.4.1.2 Median value analysis results

The results of the median value analysis are pr esented in Exhibit E.11. A detailed description of

the median value analysis and the computer code used for the simulation of the median value analysis are

found in Appendix II on the investigator’s full report (Soller 2006).



# Exhibit E.11 Median Value Analysis Results

0 20 40 60 80 100 1 10 100 1

. 10 3 

# 1

. 10 4 

# 1

. 10 5 

# 1

. 10 6



# susceptibles

Infected

Carrier

Diseased

Protected Time (days)# Individuals in State



# The dynamic nature of the model under the case st udy scenario (for median parameter values) is

illustrated in Exhibit E.12 and compared to endemic conditions. As illustrated in Exhibit E.12, endemic

steady state conditions are reestablished approximately 50 da ys after the infected individuals return home.

# Economic Analysis for the E-18 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Exhibit E.12 Median Value Analys is Compared to Endemic Conditions

0 20 40 60 80 100 0 12 24 36 48 60

Endemic State D

GW contam. State D

Endemic State C

GW contam. State C

Time (days)# Individuals in State



# The number of illnesses attributable to the case st udy is obtained as the difference of the areas

under the curves shown in Exhibit E.12 for State D (D iseased) (one for endemic conditions and one for

the case study) divided by the average duration of sy mptomatic illness. Mathematically, the number of

attributable illnesses is computed as follows:

Avg_Attrib_Inc 0 T



# t D_gwc t ( ) D_end t ( )

− ( ) ⌠ ⎮ ⌡ d

delt_avg 

# ⎡ ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎣ ⎤ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎦ := 

# Equation E.4

where:

• D_gwc represents the number of individuals in state D under the groundwater contamination case

study scenario;

• D_end represents the number of individuals in state D under the endemic conditions; and

• delt_avg represents the average duration of symptomatic illness.

Further, the number of illness per incident illnesses and the number of illnesses per incident

infection may be computed as follows:

Illness_per_inc_illness Avg_Attrib_Inc

0.001Pop

⋅ psym

⋅ := 

# Equation E.5

Illness_per_infection Avg_Attrib_Inc

0.001Pop

⋅ := 

# Equation E.6

where:

• Pop equals 100,000 and

• Psym is the probability of symptomatic response (in the median value analysis = 0.45).

# Economic Analysis for the E-19 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# The results of the median value analysis are su mmarized in Exhibit E.13. The principal findings

reported in Exhibit E.13 are as follows:

• The number of illnesses attributable to the case study was approximately 53 illnesses: 45 of those

illnesses were from primary exposure (the NCWS) and 8 from subsequent person-to-person

transmission; and

• There were, on average, an additional 0.18 illn esses attributable to person-to-person transmission

for each ill individual returning to the community . Alternatively, the number of additional

illnesses can be computed based on the number of infected individual returning to the

community, in which case were, there were on averag e, an additional 0.08 illnesses attributable to

person-to-person transmission (for each infected individual returning to the community).



# Exhibit E.13 Median Value Analysis Results

Endemic Level of Disease in US 3,900,000

Incidence per 100,000 / year 1418

Proportion ill 2.331E-04

Proportion ill - Primary transmission 1.87E-04

Proportion ill - Secondary transmission 4.66E-05

β _pp 3.99E-07

Endemic dose 1.88E-04

State S 0.95204

State E 0.00022

State C 0.00024

State D 0.00023

State P 0.04728

Attributable Number of Illnesses 53.2

# Illnesses per incident illness 1.18

# Illnesses per incident infection 0.53



# E.4.2 Uncertainty Analysis

The results of the uncertainty an alyses described in Section E.3.5 are presented in this section.

E.4.2.1 Model parameter uncertainty

Background Incidence

The results of the uncertainty analysis for b ackground level of illness are presented in Exhibit

E.14. Referring to Exhibit E.14, the magnitude of person-to-person transmission attributable to the case

study is inversely related to the backgr ound level of disease in the community.

For example, at an average background inci dence level of 50,000 illnesses annually in a

population the size of the United States (as compar ed to the median value analysis which uses a

background level of 3,90 0,000 illnesses), the number of illnesses attributable to the case study was about

# Economic Analysis for the E-20 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# 57 illnesses, 12 of which were due to person-to-person transmission. These resu lts indicate an average

additional 0.27 illnesses attributable to person-to-pers on transmission for each ill individual returning to

the community. Similarly, it can be seen that as th e background incidence level increases, the number of

illnesses attributable to the case study decreases.

From the data presented in Exhibit E.14, it app ears that the number of individuals in State S

(Susceptible) decreases as the endemic level of disease increases. Thus, it is likely that the inverse

relation between attributable illness levels and bac kground levels of disease is due to decreasing numbers

of successful contacts with individuals in State S as the endemic level of disease increases.



# Exhibit E.14 Uncertainty Analys is for Background Level of Illness

50,000 500,000 1,500,000 3,900,000 10,000,000 23,000,000

Incidence per 100,000 / year 18 182 545 1418 3636 8364

Proportion ill 2.989E-06 2.989E-05 8.966E-05 2.331E-04 5.978E-04 1.375E-03

Proportion ill Env 2.337E-06 2.344E-05 7 .073E-05 1.865E-04 4.950E-04 1.214E-03

Proportion ill P-P 6.518E-07 6.448E-06 1 .893E-05 4.663E-05 1.196E-04 2.750E-04

β _pp 4.005E-07 4.005E-07 4.005E-07 4.005E-07 4.005E-07 4.005E-07

Endemic dose 2.265E-06 2.282E-05 6.953E-05 1.879E-04 5.339E-04 1.567E-03

Steady State Conditions

State S 0.99930 0.99378 0.9815 0.95203 0.8771 0.7172

State E 0.0000028 0.000028 0.000083 0.00022 0.00056 0.00127

State C 0.0000030 0.000030 0.000091 0.00024 0.00061 0.0014

State D 0.0000030 0.000030 0.000090 0.00023 0.00060 0.00138

State P 0.0006875 0.00613 0.01823 0.04728 0.12119 0.27880

Average Point Prevalence 0.3 3.0 9.0 23.3 59.81 137.58

Results of Perturbed Steady State

Attributable Number of Illnesses 57.3 56.79 55.74 53.2 47.4 36.27

# Illness per Incident Illness 1.27 1.26 1.24 1.18 1.05 0.81

# Illness per incident infection 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.53 0.47 0.36

Notes:

Proportion ill based on duration of symptoms of 6 days (average symptomatic duration)

In these results the probability of symptomatic response is 0.45 Endemic Level of Disease in US



# Other Literature Derived Model Parameters

The results of the uncertainty analysis for other literature derived model pa rameters are presented

in histogram format Exhibits E.15 and E.16. The attributable number of illnesses for these 128

simulations is presented in Exhibit E.15 and the numbe r of illnesses per incident illness is presented in

Exhibit E.16.

# Economic Analysis for the E-21 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Exhibit E.15 Attributable Number of Illnesses for Model Pa rameter Uncertainty

Analysis

Attributable Number of Illnesses 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80Frequency



# 0 5 10 15 20 25 30



# Exhibit E.16 Illnesses per Incident Il lness for Model Parameter Uncertainty

Analysis

# Illnesses per Incident Illness 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8Frequency



# 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

# Economic Analysis for the E-22 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# From a review of Exhibits E.15 and E.16, it is found that the attributable number of illnesses

varied between approximately 7 and 75 and the numbe r of illnesses per incident illness varied between

approximately 0.7 and 1.25 for these simulations. Note that the results of the median value analysis were

an attributable number of illnesses of 53 and a corresponding 1.18 illnesses per incident illness.

Also of note is the fact that the results of these simulations appear to fall into two separate groups.

For the attributable number of illnesses, the disparity is explained by the valu e of the probability of

symptomatic response (the probability of symptomatic r esponse was 0.1 in 50 % of simulations and 0.6 in

the remaining 50 %). That is, in the simulations in which the probability of symptomatic response was

low (0.1), the attributable number of illnesses was also low, and vice versa. The observation regarding

the number of illnesses per incident illness is more comp lex. However, what can be said is that the

combination of the probability of symptomatic response and the duration of immunity seem to interact to

yield the lowest and highest values observed. Speci fically, when the probability of symptomatic response

was high and the duration of immunity was short, th e highest values of illnesses per incident illness were

observed. Similarly, when the probability of symptomatic response was low and the duration of

immunity was long, the lowest values of illnesses per incident illness were observed.

E.4.2.2 Transmission parameter uncertainty

Environmental Exposure

The results of the uncertainty analysis for the dose response model form are presented in Exhibit

E.17. As shown, two “variants” were run for each do se response model from investigated. In Variant 1,

β

pp 

# was kept constant relative to the median value an alysis and the “endemic dose” was varied to ensure

that the incidence was consistent with the specified level (same as median value analysis). In Variant 2,

β

pp 

# and “endemic dose” were kept constant relative to the median value analysis, and the incidence was

allowed to vary. Results for variant 2 for the second alternative form are not shown because they are

exactly the same as variant 1.

As shown in Exhibit E.17, the magnitude of person-to-person illness propagation in the case

study is not related in a substantial way to the form of the dose response function, for the functional forms

evaluated. It is however noteworthy that under the first alternative investigat ed, either the effective

environmental dose was lower than in the other simulations (variant 1) or the incidence is higher (variant

2). Nevertheless, the number of illnesses attributab le to the case study does not substantially change

under any of the dose response model forms or variants investigated.



# Exhibit E.17 Uncertainty Analysis for Dose Response Model Form

Dose Response Model form Median value analysis

β

env 

# = 1-exp(dose* α/(α+β )) β

env 

# = dose*[ α /( α + β )]

Incidence per 100,000 / year 1418 Variant 1 Variant 2 1418

Proportion ill 2.331E-04 2.331E-04 3.640E-04 2.331E-04

Proportion ill Env 1.865E-04 1.87E-04 2.948E-04 1.87E-04

Proportion ill P-P 4.663E-05 4.66E-05 6.916E-05 4.66E-05

β

_ pp 4.005E-07 4.005E-07 4.005E-07 4.005E-07

Endemic dose 1.879E-04 1.161E-04 1.879E-04 1.879E-04

Steady State Conditions

State S 0.95203 0.95204 0.92513 0.95203

State E 0.00022 0.00022 0.00034 0.00022

State C 0.00024 0.00024 0.00037 0.00024

State D 0.00023 0.00023 0.00036 0.00023

State P 0.04728 0.04728 0.07380 0.04729

Average Point Prevalence 23.3 23.3 36.4 23.3

Results of Perturbed Steady State

Average Attributable Incidence 53.27 53.27 51.09 53.27

# Illness per incident illness 1.18 1.18 1.14 1.18 β

env 

# = 1-(1 + dose/ β ) - α

# Economic Analysis for the E-23 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Person-to-Person Exposure

The results of the uncertainty analysis for the proportion of person-to-person transmission in a

community are presented in Exhibit E.18. As shown in Exhibit E.18, the proportion of person-to-person

transmission does impact the magnitude of the incide nce attributable to the case study and consequently

also impacts the number of illnesses per incident illness. For example, if person-to-person transmission

accounted for 10% of the illness rather than the 20% reported in the Tecumseh study (Koopman et al.

1989), the estimated number of illnesses due to person- to-person transmission deceases from 8 to 2, and

thus, the number of illnesses per incident illness decre ases from 1.18 to 1.05. Similarly, if person-toperson transmission accounts for 60% of the illness in the community, the estimated number of illnesses

from person-to-person transmission increases from 8 to 57 and, thus the number of illnesses per incident

illness increases to 2.27. In interp reting the results presented in this section it should be noted that a

static model would also predict increased attribut able illnesses as the proportion of infections due to

person-to-person transmission increases. Thus, the re sults observed in this portion of the uncertainty

analysis are not necessarily due to the fact that a dy namic model was employed, but rather may be due to

the particular scenario investigated.



# Exhibit E.18 Uncertainty Analysis for Person-to-Person Transmission Intensity

P-P transmission % 10% Median value analysis

20% 40% 60%

Incidence per 100,000 / year 1418 1418 1418 1418

Proportion ill 2.331E-04 2.331E-04 2.331E-04 2.331E-04

Proportion ill Env 2.098E-04 1.865E-04 1.399E-04 9.325E-05

Proportion ill P-P 2.331E-05 4.663E-05 9.325E-05 1.399E-04

β

_ pp 2.010E-07 4.005E-07 7.940E-07 1.179E-06

Endemic dose 2.124E-04 1.879E-04 1.395E-04 9.210E-05

Steady State Conditions

State S 0.95205 0.95203 0.95201 0.95200

State E 0.00022 0.00022 0.00022 0.00022

State C 0.00024 0.00024 0.00024 0.00024

State D 0.00023 0.00023 0.00023 0.00023

State P 0.04727 0.04728 0.04731 0.04732

Average Point Prevalence 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3

Results of Perturbed Steady State

Attributable Number of Illnesses 47.4 53.2 70.4 102.4

# Illness per Incident Illness 1.05 1.18 1.56 2.27



# E.4.2.3 Model form uncertainty

The results of the uncertainty analysis for hea lth effects model form are presented in Exhibit

E.19. The results of the simulations with the dist ributed delay model, as reported in Exhibit E.19 are

similar to those for the median value analysis, and the attributable number of illnesses for the model

employing a post-disease carrier state is slightly higher than those for the median value analysis for both

variants investigated. Note that, in variant 1, β

pp 

# and the endemic illness level were held constant, and in

variant 2, β

pp 

# and endemic dose were held constant. Th e observed increased attributable number of

illnesses for the model with a post-disease carrier state is likely due to the fact that there are individuals

that are shedding pathogens for a longer period of time, and thus the potential for person-to-person

transmission is increased.

# Economic Analysis for the E-24 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Exhibit E.19 Uncertainty Analysis for Model Form

Model description Median value analysis

Standard model Distributed delay

model

Incidence per 100,000 / year 1418 variant 1 variant 2 1418

Proportion ill 2.331E-04 2.331E-04 2.593E-04 2.331E-04

Proportion ill Env 1.865E-04 1.670E-04 1.865E-04 1.865E-04

Proportion ill P-P 4.663E-05 6.613E-05 7.280E-05 4.663E-05

β

_ pp 4.005E-07 4.005E-07 4.005E-07 4.005E-07

Endemic dose 1.879E-04 1.676E-04 1.879E-04 1.879E-04

Steady State Conditions

State S 0.95203 0.95183 0.94644 0.95204

State E 0.00022 0.00022 0.00024 0.00022

State C1 0.00024 0.00024 0.00026 0.00024

State C2 - 0.00019 0.00022 -

State D 0.00023 0.00023 0.00026 0.00023

State P 0.04728 0.04729 0.05258 0.04727

Average Point Prevalence 23.3 23.3 25.9 23.3

Results of Perturbed Steady State

Attributable Number of Illnesses 53.3 59.3 58.7 53.8

# Illness per incident illness 1.18 1.32 1.30 1.20 Model has post disease carrrier state



# E.4.2.4 Population issues uncertainty

The results of the uncertainty analysis for popula tion uncertainty issues are presented in Exhibit

E.20. As shown, two “variants” were run for each proportion of the population that was permanently

removed from State S (Susceptible). In Variant 1, the “endemic dose” was kept constant relative to the

median value analysis and β

pp 

# was varied to ensure that the incide nce was consistent with the specified

level (same as median value analysis). In Variant 2, β

pp 

# was kept constant relative to the median value

analysis, and the “endemic dose” and was varied to en sure that the incidence was consistent with the

specified level. In both variants, the total inciden ce rate is the same as in the median value analysis,

therefore, the endemic incidence in the genetically susceptible part of the population needs to be

progressively greater as this portion of the population becomes smaller.

Variant 1 effectively keeps constant the number of pathogens that individuals are exposed to from

the environment. Thus, as the number of individuals in State S decreases, the intensity of person-toperson transmission must increase for a given level of inci dence. Similarly for Variant 2, with a constant

probability of infective contact ( β

pp 

# ), the endemic dose must increase as the number of individuals in State

S decreases for a given level of incidence. It is not known which of these two processes are more likely

to represent a real world situation (or whether it is a combination thereof).



# Exhibit E.20 Uncertainty Anal ysis for Population Uncertainty

Percent of Population Always in

State P Median value analysis

0% 10%

Variant 1 10%

Variant 2 25%

Variant 1 25%

Variant 2 50%

Variant 1 50%

Variant 2 75%

Variant 1 75%

Variant 2

Incidence per 100,000 / year 1418 1418 1418 1418 1418 1418 1418 1418 1418

Proportion ill 2.331E-04 2.331E-04 2.331E-04 2.331E-04 2.331E-04 2.331E-04 2.331E-04 2.331E-04 2.331E-04

Proportion ill Env 1.865E-04 1.679E-04 1.916E-04 1.399E-04 1.993E-04 9.326E-05 2.121E-04 4.662E-05 2.329E-04

Proportion ill P-P 4.663E-05 6.523E-05 4.153E-05 9.323E-05 3.383E-05 1.399E-04 2.103E-05 1.865E-04 2.258E-07

β

_ pp 4.005E-07 6.270E-07 4.005E-07 1.087E-06 4.005E-07 2.532E-06 4.005E-07 7.554E-06 4.005E-07

Endemic dose 1.879E-04 1.879E-04 2.157E-04 1.879E-04 2.723E-04 1.879E-04 4.503E-04 1.879E-04 1.069E-03

Steady State Conditions

State S 0.95203 0.85202 0.85204 0.70202 0.70205 0.45204 0.45204 0.20205 0.20204

State E 0.00022 0.00022 0.00022 0.00022 0.00022 0.00022 0.00022 0.00022 0.00022

State C 0.00024 0.00024 0.00024 0.00024 0.00024 0.00024 0.00024 0.00024 0.00024

State D 0.00023 0.00023 0.00023 0.00023 0.00023 0.00023 0.00023 0.00023 0.00023

State P 0.04728 0.14730 0.14727 0.29730 0.29727 0.54728 0.54728 0.79726 0.79727

Average Point Prevalence 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3

Results of Perturbed Steady State

Attributable Number of Illnesses 53.2 58.7 51.6 68.9 49.1 92.9 44.6 106.7 37.6

# Illness per Incident Illness 1.18 1.30 1.15 1.53 1.09 2.06 0.99 2.37 0.84

# Illness per incident infection 0.53 0.59 0.52 0.69 0.49 0.93 0.45 1.07 0.38

# Economic Analysis for the E-25 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Based on the results presented in Exhibit E.20, the number of illnesses attributable to the case

study increases under Variant 1 assumptions rather dramat ically. For example, if 25% of the population

is permanently removed from State S (Susceptible), the estimated number of illnesses due to person-to

person transmission increases from 8 to 24, and th e number of illnesses per incident illness increases from

1.18 to 1.53. This type of analysis is intended to simulate the population dynamics that may be occurring

in the general population for noroviruses (Lindesmith et al. 2003) or in the adult population for rotavirus

(Anderson and Weber 2004). Similarly, if 50% of th e population were permanently removed from State

S, the estimated number of illnesses due to person-to person transmission increases from 8 to 48, and the

number of illnesses per incident illness increases from 1.18 to 2.06 relative to the median value analysis.

One subtle but important point associated with this analysis is that these simulations involved a

constant number of infected indivi duals regardless of the proportion of susceptible individuals in the

population. As noted previously, it is assumed in this case study that a small subset of a population (100

people out of a population of 100,000) is exposed to untreated or inadequately treated groundwater from a

NCWS contaminated with type A virus, and that all of those individuals become infected with the type A

virus, and then return home. As the genetically susceptible portion of the population becomes smaller,

this scenario becomes more unrealistic (for exampl e, in the case where 75% of the population is never

susceptible, ~20% of the population is in a susceptible state under endemic conditions, thus, it would be

expected that 500 individuals would have to be expo sed to result in 100 infections). Thus, caution is

needed in interpreting these results.

E.4.2.5 Potential importance of uncertainty interaction

Based on the results presented in Sections E.4.2. 1 through E.4.2.4 a combination of the following

parameter values was investigated:

• Model parameter uncertainty: the probability of symptomatic response and the duration of

immunity were shown to be parameters that influence disease propagation for the case study.

Therefore, these two parameters were selected for further investigation.

• Transmission parameter uncertainty: from secti on E.4.2.2 the person-to-person transmission

intensity influences the magnitude of the in cidence attributable to the case study and

consequently also impacts the number of illnesses per incident illness. For this portion of the

uncertainty analysis, it is assumed that pers on-to-person transmission accounts for 40% of the

illness rather than the 20% used in the median value analysis.

• Population issues uncertainty: from section E.4.2.4 the number of illnesses per incident illness

increases if some of the population is permanently removed from State S (Susceptible). For this

component of the uncertainty analysis, it is assume d that 25% of the population is either semipermanently immune or genetically immune.

The results of the uncertainty analysis that consider the interaction of different types of uncertainties

are presented in Exhibit E.21.

# Economic Analysis for the E-26 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Exhibit E.21 Uncertainty Analysis for Interaction of Uncertainties

P-P transmission % Median value analysis

20% 40% 40%

Percent of population always in

State P 0% 0% 25%

Psym 0.45 0.60 0.60

gamma 0.0018 0.0048 0.0048

Incidence per 100,000 / year 1418 1418 1418

Proportion ill 2.331E-04 2.331E-04 2.331E-04

Proportion ill Env 1.865E-04 1.399E-04 1.399E-04

Proportion ill P-P 4.663E-05 9.325E-05 9.325E-05

β

_ pp 4.005E-07 7.303E-07 9.805E-07

Endemic dose 1.879E-04 1.025E-04 1.371E-04

Steady State Conditions

State S 0.95203 0.98599 0.73599

State E 0.00022 0.00016 0.00016

State C 0.00024 0.00013 0.00013

State D 0.00023 0.00023 0.00023

State P 0.04728 0.01349 0.26349

Average Point Prevalence 23.3 23.3 23.3

Results of Perturbed Steady State

Attributable Number of Illnesses 53.2 97.8 97.2

# Illness per Incident Illness 1.18 1.63 1.62



# Based on the results presented in Exhibit E.21, th ere does seem to be some synergistic effects

when the interactions of different types of uncer tainties are considered. For example, in the second

simulation shown in Exhibit E.21, the number of illnesse s per incident illness is 1.63. This level may be

compared to that shown in Exhibit E.18 (1.56) , which uses median values for the probability of

symptomatic response and duration of incubation alon g with a person-to-person transmission intensity

based on 40% of illnesses due to person-to-person transmission.

In the third simulation presented in Exhibit E.21 , the same parameter values are used as in the

second simulation, except 25% of the population is assu med to be either semi-permanently immune or

genetically immune. This modification did not impact the disease propagation through the community

compared to the second simulation in Exhibit E.21. However, when compared to the analogous

simulation in Exhibit E.20 (25% removed from State S, Variant 1), the reported number of illnesses per

incident illness are slightly elevated (1.53 compared to 1.62). From a careful comparison of the data in

Exhibits E.20 and E.21, the noted difference are lik ely due to changes in the parameter values for the

probability of symptomatic response and the duration of immunity.

Finally, it should be noted that other simulations similar to those presented in Exhibit E.21 could

be conducted. Those selected here are not intended to be exhaustive nor extreme values. Rather they

were selected to determine the potential for inter action between important factors identified during the

uncertainty analysis.



# E.5 Discussion of results

E.5.1 Interpretation and Insights Gained from Analysis

In the analysis presented above, an infectious disease paradigm was employed to evaluate the

potential implications of secondary transmission of infection and illness relative to the intensity of

secondary transmission estimated using the approach in the GWR base analysis. The evaluation was

conducted using a hypothetical case study scenario of a type A virus in a community with a population

size of 100,000.

# Economic Analysis for the E-27 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# The predicted magnitude of pe rson-to-person transmission of illness in the community was

reported and discussed herein in terms of the num ber of illnesses per incident illness based on a number

of individuals from that community visiting a NCWS contaminated with a type A virus. The number of

illnesses per incident illness is a normalized metric to characterize person-to-person transmission

intensity. It is robust to other formulations of the case study provided that the ratio of infected individuals

(those that visit the NCWS and return home infected ) to the total population is small. A series of

sensitivity analyses were conducted to verify that th e normalized results are robust within the range of

0.001% to 0.1% of the population assumed to be infected. Repr esentative results of those sensitivity

analyses are summarized in Exhibit E.22.



# Exhibit E.22 Sensitivity Analysis for Case Study Formulation

Model description

Number of Individuals Assumed Infected 100 1 100 1 100 1

Incidence per 100,000 / year 1418 1418 1418 1418 1418 1418

Proportion ill 2.331E-04 2.331E-04 2.331E -04 2.331E-04 2.331E-04 2.331E-04

Proportion ill Env 1.865E-04 1.865E-04 9.325E-05 9.325E-05 1.399E-04 1.399E-04

Proportion ill P-P 4.663E-05 4.663E-05 1.399E-04 1.399E-04 9.323E-05 9.323E-05

β

_ pp 4.005E-07 4.005E-07 1.179E-06 1 .179E-06 1.087E-06 1.087E-06

Endemic dose 1.879E-04 1.879E-04 9. 210E-05 9.210E-05 1.879E-04 1.879E-04

Steady State Conditions

State S 0.95203 0.95203 0.95200 0.95200 0.70202 0.70202

State E 0.00022 0.00022 0.00022 0.00022 0.00022 0.00022

State C 0.00024 0.00024 0.00024 0.00024 0.00024 0.00024

State D 0.00023 0.00023 0.00023 0.00023 0.00023 0.00023

State P 0.04728 0.04728 0.04732 0.04732 0.29730 0.29730

Average Point Prevalence 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3 23.3

Results of Perturbed Steady State

Attributable Number of Illnesses 53.3 0.53 102.4 1.03 68.9 0.69

# Illness per incident illness 1.18 1.18 2.27 2.28 1.53 1.53 Median value analysis Person-to-person transmission

accounts for 60% of infections in

community 25% of population not

available to move to State S

variant 1



# Because the number of illnesses per incident illness is robust to other case study scenarios and is

thus, scalable, it is a useful metric for providing in sight toward the expected implications for other

situations in which either more or less individuals are exposed to or infected with Type A viruses from

untreated or inadequately treated groundwater. For example, another scenario relevant to the GWR may

be one in which low numbers of individuals return to a large community infect ed with a Type A virus

after visiting an area served by a NCWS with untreat ed or inadequately treated groundwater. Based on

the results summarized in Exhibit E. 22, the average number of illnesses pe r incident illness can be used to

predict the expected magnitude of person-to-person tr ansmission from one or more event of this type.

Based on the results presented in Section E.4, it is clear that person-to-person transmission of

infection is an important population level characteris tic that could have significant implications on the

predicted benefits of the GWR. The median value analysis predicted, on average, an additional 0.18

illnesses attributable to person-to-person transmission fo r each ill individual returning to the community.

From the results of the uncertainty analysis it was found that several parameters and assumptions

have the potential to substantially influence the ma gnitude of disease propagation predicted by the median

value analysis for the case study investigated. For example, the probability of symptomatic response and

duration of immunity were both found to be important factors in predicting the propagation of illness via

person-to-person transmission. Similarly, transmi ssion parameter and population issue uncertainties were

found to strongly affect the predicted magnitude of di sease propagation. Finally, synergistic effects were

observed when the interactions of different typ es of uncertainties were considered simultaneously.

# Economic Analysis for the E-28 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# One of the most important differences between th e assumptions employed in this investigation

and those employed in the GWR base analysis was th e relaxation of the assumption that only children are

sources of secondary infections. In the GWR base analysis, primary waterborne illnesses in young

children are multiplied by a secondary transmission factor to estimate the number of secondary cases in

individuals of all ages. In the analysis described herein, it is assume d that individuals of all ages are

equally likely to become infected and subsequently pr opagate infection via person- to-person transmission.

By relaxing the GWR assumption and deriving a different multiplicative factor for secondary spread

based on the epidemiological data reported by Koopm an et al. (1989), it is possible to illustrate the

importance of this assumption for the analysis described herein. Those calculations (not shown) produce

similar, albeit slightly higher estimates of person- to-person transmission than those derived with the

dynamic model. The assumption that individuals of all ages are equally likely to become infected and

subsequently propagate infecti on via person-to-person transmission, coupled with a simple

epidemiologically based multiplicative factor tends to systematically overestimate the total number of

illnesses attributable to TNCWS outbreak relative to th e dynamic model. In this case, the dynamic

model accounts for temporary removal of the primar y infections (and all secondary infection cases that

they generated) from the pool of susceptible individua ls. By way of contrast, both the dynamic model

and the simple epidemiologically based multiplicative factor model with the relaxed assumption about

sources of secondary infection, both predict substan tially higher person-to-person transmission than the

GWR base analysis, with specific results depe nding on the parameter values employed.

The analysis presented herein is intended to comple ment the base analysis in the GWR. In that

context, this analysis provides a perspective on th e relative magnitude of uncertainty that may be

associated with the benefits of the GWR due to seco ndary transmission of infection. Although the GWR

base analysis and that presented herein both focus on characterizing the risk associated with illness from

groundwater sources, each analysis is built on a differe nt set of assumptions. To the extent feasible,

similar parameter values and assumptions were applied in this analysis compared to those used in the base

analysis. However, because the two analyses were in tended to address slightly different questions, the

results are not necessarily directly comparable. For ex ample, in this analysis 6 days was used in the

median value analyses for the duration of symptoma tic infection, and 2 and 8 days are used as the

minimum and maximum reasonable values, respectively. These durations represent the mean time

periods for which individuals with symptomatic infecti ons could realistically infect other individuals. In

the base analysis, the duration of symptoms repr esents the time period in which individuals are

sufficiently ill that they are likely to miss work or otherwise suspend their normal activities. Thus, the

results of the two analyses address slightly different outcomes, and caution is warranted in directly

comparing the results.

The analysis presented herein employed a model virus that was intended to be representative of

highly infectious viruses that have low severity of c linical illness (type A viruses). The model virus in the

median value analysis was assumed to have the c linical properties and endemic level of illness of

rotavirus. As discussed above, it was further assume d that no specific portion of the population was any

more or less likely to be infected upon exposure to the model virus.

Uncertainty analysis was used to explore the poten tial implications of type A virus characteristics

different than those of the model virus employed. Of particular note and concern are noroviruses which

are estimated to cause approximately 23,000,000 illn esses in the United States annually (Mead et al.

1999), are associated with up to 90% of the epidemic nonbacterial gastroenteritis worldwide (Lindesmith

et al. 2003), and are also the major cause of acute nonbacterial gastroenteritis outbreaks worldwide (Ando

et al. 2000). Although noroviruses are highly infectious , volunteer studies have shown that some subjects

remain uninfected even after challenges with hi gh doses (Johnson et al. 1990; Matsui and Greenberg

2000). Recent research indicates that resistance to norovirus infection is multifactorial and that a

substantial portion of the population (approximately 20%) may not be susceptible to infection at any point

# Economic Analysis for the E-29 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# in time (Lindesmith et al. 2003). Further, for the po pulation that could be susceptible (at some point in

time), it was found that a portion of the population (3 5%) was resistant to infection, suggesting that a

memory immune response or some other unidentif ied factor also affords protection from norovirus

infection (Lindesmith et al. 2003).

Rigorous modeling of norovirus transmission is extremely difficult at the present time for a

number of reasons. Several important issues incl ude: 1) the dose response relation has yet to be

published, 2) little is known about the potential for cr oss strain immunity, and 3) the person-to-person

transmission potential appears to be substantial based on outbreak data. It was noted previously that

about 300 norovirus outbreaks were documented in the US between 1993 and 1999 and that the genetic

diversity of the noroviruses responsible for tho se outbreaks encompassed approximately 68 strains (Ando

et al. 2000). Clearly, the transmission of norovirus infection in a community is much more complicated

than that presented herein. Nevertheless, several sal ient properties of noroviruses were explored in the

uncertainty analysis in an attempt to provide so me perspective on the potential importance of population

dynamics for noroviruses with respect to the GWR. Sp ecifically, 1) all infected individuals (children and

adults) can spread infection , 2) portions of th e population never move into the susceptible state

(population uncertainty) and 3) person-to-person transmission intensity (transmission parameter

uncertainty) different than that of rota virus, were investigated herein.

Based on the results of this investigation, it is clear that secondary transmission could

substantially impact the potential benefits of th e GWR depending on the suite of population dynamic

elements considered and the assumptions employed.

E.5.2 Limitations

Given the complexity of characterizing disease propagation from a case study such as that

presented herein, a number of methodological assumptions were required for this investigation. The

limitations of the analyses presented herein generally stem from those assumptions.

One fundamental limitation of any analysis such as th is one is that the results are applicable only

for parameter values within the range of those inv estigated. Although a detailed literature review was

conducted and the data from the litera ture were evaluated carefully to identify appropriate parameter

values for the investigation, it is possible that pa rameter values could be refined or changed based on

future research.

A related assumption was that the epidemiological status of the population could be approximated

reasonably with the relatively simple structure of the disease transmission model (Exhibit E.2). Although

several alternative model forms were also investigat ed, it is possible that other types of models could

yield additional and/or alternative insights. For example, 1) “super-spread events” may be important

determinants in characterizing disease transmission ma gnitude (Riley et al. 2003), 2) There may be

different transmission rates of viruses within and outside of households (but within the same community),

and 3) virus infection rates may vary by season. An y or all of these factors are worthy of consideration

for future extensions of this or related work.

Other simplifying assumptions were made to streamli ne both the analysis and the interpretation of

the results presented herein. The most important of those assumptions were that insights could be drawn

from the one hypothetical case study scenario that was i nvestigated, and that the model type A virus, as

constructed in the median value analysis and the unc ertainty analyses is representative of the type A

viruses of concern for groundwater contamination scenarios. Given these simplifying assumptions, the

results presented herein should not be interpreted as absolu te estimates of risk for any particular situation.

# Economic Analysis for the E-30 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# E.6 Conclusions

The major conclusion of this investigation is th at population dynamics could substantially impact

the potential benefits of the GWR depending on the su ite of population dynamic elements considered and

the assumptions employed. Potentially important elem ents include clinical disease character, etiologic

agent infectivity, population imm unity, and person-to-person transmission characteristics of each

etiologic agent of interest. Specifically, based on th e results described herein 1) the uncertainty bounding

the magnitude of person-to-person transmission for t ype A virus illnesses is subs tantial; and 2) depending

on the assumptions employed, the predicted number of additional illnesses due to secondary transmission

could be greater than that predicted by the GWR base an alysis by approximately an order of magnitude or

could be as low as effectively zero. Given the un certainties associated with estimating the potential

benefits of regulating groundwater to prevent waterborne disease, the r esults of this investigation could

have profound implications when extrapolated to the GWR.

# Appendix F

Infectivity Dose Response Relationships: Description

of Analyses Conducted to Select Model Forms and

Estimate Model Parameters

# Economic Analysis for the F-1 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Appendix F

Infectivity Dose Response Relationships:

Description of Analyses Conducted to Select Model Forms

and Estimate Model Parameters

F.1 Introduction

This appendix provides an e xpanded discussion of the information presented in EA

Section 5.2.4 (Probability of Inf ection, Illness, and Mortality).

The following are the key information s ources related to the development of these

models.

1. Schiff et al. (1984). Studies of Echovirus-12 in Volunteers: Determination of Minimal

Infectious Dose and the Effect of Previous Infection on Infective Dose.

This study provides data on the rate of inf ection of 144 volunteers ingesting 0 to 333,000

plaque-forming units of echovirus-12 (a Type B virus).

2. Ward et al. (1986). Human Rotavirus Studies in Volunteers: Determination of Infectious

Dose and Serological Response to Infection.

This study provides data on the rate of in fection of 62 volunteers ingesting 0 to 90,000

focus-forming units of rotavirus (a Type A virus).

3. Regli et al. (1991). Modeling the Risk from Giardia and Viruses from Drinking Water.

This paper presents a detailed discussion of the use of the exponential and beta-Poisson

dose-response models for characterizing risk of infectivity from ingestion of certain

waterborne microorganisms. Included in this paper are model-fitting efforts for Type A

and Type B viruses using the data from the tw o studies identified above. It should be

noted that the model form described as the be ta-Poisson in this paper is an approximation

to the exact beta-Poisson, an important distinc tion that is discussed further in this section.

4. Haas et al. (1999). Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment.

This book, and specifically Chapter 7 “Conducting the Dose-Response Assessment,”

provides a detailed discussion of the use of various model forms – including the betaPoisson and exponential models – to character ize the risk of infection from exposure to

waterborne microbes.



# 5. Teunis and Havelaar (2000). The Beta Po isson Dose-Response Model Is Not a SingleHit Model.

This paper provides a detailed discussion of the application of the beta-Poisson doseresponse model and, in particular, highlights limitations in using the approximation to the

exact beta-Poisson model (as done in Regli et al. noted above).

# Economic Analysis for the F-2 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# F.2 Dose-Response Data

Dose-response data for rotavirus, shown belo w in Exhibit F.1, were taken from the paper

by Ward et al. Data for echovirus, shown in E xhibit F.2, were taken from the paper by Schiff et

al. These full data sets are used in EPA’s primary dose-response analysis.



# Exhibit F.1 Rotaviru s Dose-Response Data

Dose (Poisson),

focus-forming units

(ffu) Subjects

receiving Dose Subjects Infected

0.009 7 0

0.09 7 0

0.9 7 1

9 11 8

90 7 6

900 8 7

9,000 7 5

90,000 3 3



# Exhibit F.2 Echovirus Dose-Response Data

Dose (Poisson),

plaque-forming

units (pfu) Subjects

receiving Dose Subjects Infected

330 50 15

1,000 20 9

3,300 26 19

10,000 12 12

33,000 4 2

330,000 3 2

As discussed in EA section 5.2.4, EPA select ed subsets of the data to inform the

sensitivity analyses. These data are shaded in E xhibits F.1 and F.2, above. For rotavirus, the

sensitivity analysis utilized only the data for dose 0.9. For echovirus, only data at doses less than

33,000 and 330,000 were used.



# F.3 Dose-Response Models

The subsections that follow describe the exponen tial and beta-Poisson dose-response models and

identify how they were used in th e primary and sensitivity analysis.

# Economic Analysis for the F-3 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# F.3.1 Exponential Model

Haas et al. (1999) provide a detailed discussi on of the derivation of the beta-Poisson

model and its applicability to microbial risk assessment. Haas first describes a simpler doseresponse model, the exponential model, which has the following form:

d r 

# e d P

−



# − = 1 ) (

,

where P(d) is the probability of infection, given Poisson dose d and r is the probability that an

organism, once ingested, will survive to initiate an infection. In the dose-response studies, dose is

expected number of infectious units (either pla que-forming or focus-forming units) in a carefully

measured volume of diluted viral suspension. Similarly, the dose ingested by someone

consuming contaminated drinking water is the e xpected number of infectious units in the volume

of water ingested (the product of virus concentration in water and the volume ingested). In

theory, the exact numbers ingested vary as Poisson random variables, about their expected values.

For example, 1 ml volumes taken from a dilution that contains 9 infectious units per ml will have

9 infectious units, on average, but about 90% of the exact numbers will fall between 4 and 14,

inclusive. This Poisson distribution (mea n 9) is shown in Exhibit F.3, below.



# Exhibit F.3 Poisson Probability Mass Function ( λ = 9)

0 5 10 15 20 0 0.05

0.1



# Exact DoseProbability



# Under the exponential model, each viral infec tious unit has an independent and identical

probability, r, of initiating infecti on, if ingested by a human host. If these successful units could

be identified and counted in advance, they w ould constitute r*100% of the total population of

infectious units and the number of these in a volume taken from a well-mixed suspension will, in

theory, be a Poisson random variable with parame ter r*d, where d is the product of concentration

and volume. The probability of having exactly zero of these successful units in the volume

equals the Poisson probability of zero: e -d*r 

# . The probability of infection is 1 minus that quantity,

which is precisely the formula for P(d) shown above.

# Economic Analysis for the F-4 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# F.3.2 Beta-Poisson Model

The beta-Poisson model is an extension of the exponential model and has the following

form:



# ( ) ∫

−



# − = 1

0 

# ) ( 1 ) ( dr r f e d P d r



# In this model form, the underlying assump tion that each infectious unit has an

independent and identical survival probability, r, is changed to reflect that for some host-unit

combinations there may be variation in the surv ivability rate, perhaps reflecting different degrees

of susceptibility in the exposed individuals. This variation is captured by the f(r) term, which is

the beta probability density function. This function has two parameters ( α and β ) and the

function form (where Γ is the gamma function):

1 1 

# ) 1 )( ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (

− −



# − Γ Γ + Γ

= β α 

# β α β α

r r r f

Thus, the full dose-response function of the exact beta-Poisson model is:



# ( ) ∫

− − −



# − Γ Γ + Γ

− = 1

0 1 1 

# ) 1 )( ( ) ( ) ( ) ( 1 ) ( dr r r e d P d r β α 

# β α β α

This expression does not have a simple algebraic solution and must be evaluated numerically.

The numerical integration is difficult. Large parameter values can lead to numerical overflow

( Γ (171) > 2 1023 

# , which is a common computational limit). This difficulty led to the development

of simpler forms that approximate the exact functi on. One of these, which is also discussed in the

three modeling papers referenced above, is attributed to Furumoto and Mickey (1967) and has the

form:

α



# β − 

# ⎟ ⎟

⎠ ⎞

⎜ ⎜

⎝ ⎛

+

− = d d P 1 1 ) (

This form is often referred to as the beta-Poisson, with the full dose response form referred to as

the exact beta-Poisson. In other cases, this approximati on is referred to as the Pareto or Pareto II

approximation to the exact beta-Poisson. For cl arity and simplicity, this model from will be

referred to in the remainder of this di scussion as the Pareto approximation.

Another approximation to the exact beta-Poisson model for the infectivity dose-response

equation was developed by EPA, and it has the form:



# ⎟ ⎟

⎠ ⎞

⎜ ⎜

⎝ ⎛

+ = β α α 

# d d P )

(

# Economic Analysis for the F-5 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# In this case, the α and β parameters are the same as those estimated for the beta distribution of the

exact form of the model. This equation is onl y valid when the expected dose is at most one

infectious unit. For reasons discussed later, this is referred to as the expected value

approximation of the exact beta-Poisson model. These approximation forms are discussed further

in the sections that follow.

F.3.3 Models Selected for the Primary and Secondary Analyses

The remainder of this appendix provides specific information on EPA’s primary and

sensitivity analyses, detailing the data and mathemat ical models that were selected to characterize

the infectivity of Type A and Type B viruses. Results are reported for both the primary and

sensitivity analyses. The primary analysis results are directly used to predict baseline risk and

benefits in the economic analysis. The sensitiv ity analysis reveals the magnitude of model

uncertainty for both types of viruses. Model uncerta inty appears to be relatively small for Type A

(rotavirus), but large for Type B (echovirus), wh ere predictions require extrapolation far below

the range of the dose-response data. The Exhibit below summarizes the data and models used in

the primary and sensitivity analyses.



# Exhibit F.4 Data and Models Used in the Primary and Secondary Analysis

for Type A and Type B Viruses

Type A = Rotavirus Type B = Echovirus

Primary Analysis 

# All Data from Ward et al.

Beta-Poisson Model

(exact beta-Poisson) All Data from Schiff et al.

Beta-Poisson Model

(Pareto approximation)

Sensitivity Analysis 

# Data from Dose 0.9 Only

Exponential Model Data from Doses < 33,000 pfu

Exponential Model

F.4 Primary Analyses

For its primary analysis of both Type A a nd Type B viruses, EPA attempted to use the

exact beta-Poisson model form. This required undertaking analytical steps to estimate the

necessary parameters for the model, namely the α and β parameters for the beta distribution as

included in the exact beta-Poisson model.

Further, it was recognized that because the parameter estimates were being derived from

one study for each of the two virus types, there would be uncertainty inherent in the estimates

obtained. Therefore, the procedures undertaken were designed not to produce just a single “best

estimate” of those parameter values, but rather a set of plausible parameter pairs that capture the

uncertainty in the estimates.

In the following sections, the attempts to est imate these parameter pairs for each of the

two virus types are described. In the case of Type A virus, these parameters were estimable for

the exact model. However, difficulties encount ered with the numerical integration in the

implementation of the model led to the devel opment by EPA of expected value approximation

model form noted earlier. In the case of Type B virus, EPA was unable to successfully estimate

parameters for the exact beta-Poisson model. Therefore, it was necessary to use the Pareto

# Economic Analysis for the F-6 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# approximation form for Type B viruses. The para meters were estimated for this dose response

function using a bootstrap procedure as described below.

F.4.1 Type A Viruses

Description of procedure for estimatin g the parameters for Type A viruses.

BUGS software (WinBUGS13) was used to produce a Markov Chain Monte Carlo

(MCMC) sample of parameter pairs (alpha, beta) fo r rotavirus. The software (described by Gilks,

Thomas, and Spiegelhalter, 1994) provides graphi cal and textual descriptions of the analysis

model. The code below describes subject-specific parameters, r[subj], as beta distributed with

parameters alpha and beta. Disperse, uniform prio rs were assigned to alpha and beta to convey a

lack of prior knowledge about these two paramete rs. Given parameter r[subj], the subject's

probability of infection is an e xponential function of dose, 1 - e -dose[subj]*r[subj]



# .

model;

{

alpha ~ dunif(0,5)

beta ~ dunif(0,200)

for( subj in 1 : 59 ) {

r[subj] ~ dbeta(alpha,beta)

inf[subj] ~ dbern(p[subj])

p[subj] <- 1 - exp(-dose[subj] * r[subj])

}

}

Characterization of Resulting Parameter Pairs for Type A

Parameters alpha and beta were strongly correlated in the posterior sample. The

correlation is evident in Exhibit F.5. The figur e shows that the ranges for these parameters are

well within the much broader ranges defined by the uniform priors. The narrower ranges are due

to the information content of the dose-response data and demonstrate that the priors were

relatively non-informative, which was desired.

# Economic Analysis for the F-7 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Exhibit F.5 Posterior Sample of Parameter Pairs for Type A Virus

0.1

1 10 100

0.1 1

AlphaBeta



# The graph in Exhibit F.6 displays the distribution of average probability of infection for

Type A viruses. As defined here, the average probability of infection is the mean exponential

dose-response parameter (r), based on a distributio n defined by parameters alpha and beta. The

mean for a given parameter pair is alpha / (alpha + beta). This mean is the fraction of the

population that would be infected if each person were to ingest exactly one infectious unit. The

graph reveals the uncertainty in this mean va lue. Variability, though considerable, is not

displayed in this figure. The overall mean is 0.224 and the 90% conf idence bounds (from the 5th

and 95th percentiles) are 0.088 and 0.414.

# Economic Analysis for the F-8 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Exhibit F.6 Distribution of Probabilit y of Infection for Type A Virus

It is important to note that EPA/ORD es timated model parameters using a different

procedure and produced estimates that appear to differ from those produced by this MCMC

procedure. At low doses, ORD’s estimates suggest risks that are about twice as great as those

estimated by the MCMC procedure. To be con servative in our estimate, the lower MCMC values

will be used to calculate the risk of infection from Type A viruses.

Goodness of Fit for Type A Virus

Exhibit F.7 shows the quality of fit for maximum likelihood parameter values ( α = 0.265,

β = 0.442). The likelihood, given this parameter pair, is 3.48*10 -4 

# . A classical or frequentist

approach was used to further assess goodness-of-f it. Artificial dose-response data sets were

generated using the same distribution of subjects across doses, but simulating the outcomes as

binomial random variables with infection pr obabilities as predicted by the maximum likelihood

parameters. This was repeated 10,000 times a nd the likelihood was determined for each of the

10,000 artificial data sets. Among the 10,000 like lihoods, the actual data likelihood ranked at the

40 th 

# percentile. An extremely small value (below 1 st 

# percentile) would have been evidence of

poor model fit or spurious data a nd an extremely large value (above 99 th 

# percentile) would have

been evidence of over-fitting. The moderate value encountered (40 th 

# percentile) is evidence of

good model fit. Risk from Exposure to 1 Virus Reflecting Uncertainty in Parameters-- Type A

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

1

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

RiskCumulative Proibability

# Economic Analysis for the F-9 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Exhibit F.7 Data (Number Infected / Number Subjects) and Maximum

Likelihood Number Dose-Response Function for Type A Viruses

1

. 10 3 

# 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1

. 10 3 

# 1

. 10 4 

# 1

. 10 5



# 0 0.5

1



# Rotavirus Dose, Infectious UnitsProbability of Infection



# F.4.2 Type B Viruses

Description of procedure for estima ting the parameters for Type B viruses

As noted above, the same MCMC procedure was attempted for Type B viruses, but with

limited success. Ideally, the MCMC algorithm would produce a sample of parameter pairs

(alpha, beta) that are independent draws from the joint posterior distribution. The sequence of

parameter pairs actually obtained showed a lack of independence, with strong autocorrelation

(poor mixing).

Rather than run the MCMC algorithm with great thinning (e.g., accepting every 10,000th

parameter pair), EPA used a bootstrap procedur e to estimate the parameters for the Pareto

approximation for Type B viruses. The algor ithm described below is taken directly from

Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment , by Haas, Rose and Gerba, in Chapter 7 on page 291.

1. Fit the dose-response model to the data to get the maximum likelihood estimate (MLE) of

(α, β)

.

2. Plug dose levels, from the study, into the MLE dose-response curve to get the modeled

probability of infection for each data point.

3. Compute the standardized residuals -- the difference between the observed proportion of

infections and the modeled pr obability of infection at each data point. These residuals are

re-scaled to be approxima tely standard normal ( μ = 0, σ 2 

# = 1).

4. Randomly sample, with replacement, from th e standardized residuals, choosing one

residual to pair with each data point.

5. Using the randomly sampled residuals, com pute a bootstrapped probability of infection

from each data point.

# Economic Analysis for the F-10 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# 6. Using each bootstrapped probability of infection ( ) ( m

i 

# π ) and the number of subjects (

i 

# n )

at the given dose level, randomly generate a number of infections by simulating a

binomial ( ) (



# , m

i i 

# n π ) draw.

7. Generate a new (α, β) pair by fitting the dose-response model to the bootstrapped

infection counts.

8. Repeat steps 4 through 7 one thousand times to generate one thousand plausible sets of

(α, β) estimates given the observed variability in the original data set.

F.4.3 Step-by-Step Details for Type B Virus

1. Fit the dose-response model to the data to get the maximum likelihood estimate

(MLE) of (α, β)

.

Maximizing the likelihood function is equivalent to finding the ( α

, β ) pair that minimizes

the overall deviance between the observed infec tion rates and the rates predicted by the

possible Beta-Poisson models. This devian ce is given by equation 7-35 in Haas:



# ∑

= 

# ⎥ ⎥ ⎦ ⎤

⎢ ⎢ ⎣ ⎡

⎟ ⎟

⎠ ⎞

⎜ ⎜

⎝ ⎛

− −

− + ⎟ ⎟

⎠ ⎞

⎜ ⎜

⎝ ⎛

− = k

i i i

i i

i i

i 

# p n p Y

1 0 0 

# 1 1 ln ) ( ln 2

π π

π π

,

where:



# = Y -2 times the log likelihood ratio (deviance)



# = i dose level



# = k number of dose levels in the study



# = i 

# p observed number of infections at dose level i



# = i 

# n number of subjects at dose level i



# = =

i i

i



# n p 0 

# π observed rate of infection at dose level i



# = i 

# π modeled probability of infection from Beta-Poisson fit

In computing the deviance, there are two recurring problems:

First, when the number of infections at a gi ven dose level is zero, the first term in the

likelihood sum above results in division by zero ( 

# 0 0



# = i 

# π ). Second, when the number of

infections was equal to the number of subj ects at a given dose level (everybody got

infected), the second term results in division by zero 

# ). 0 1 1 1 ( 0



# =

− =

− i



# π

# Economic Analysis for the F-11 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# When either of these problems occurred, in f itting the model, the entire term was set to

zero. This appears to be the most sensible wo rkaround since, in both cases, the term also

includes a zero multiplier ( 

# 0

= i 

# p in the first case and 

# 0

=

− i i 

# p n in the second).

The following MLE estimates were obtaine d (published values from Regli paper in

parenthesis):

Rotavirus:

α = 0.265 (0.26)

β = 0.442 (0.42)

Echovirus:

α = 0.374 (0.374)

β = 186.690 (186.69)

The model fitting was done with the S-Plus function nlminb

-- N on L inear MIN imization

subject to B ox constraints. This general purpose S-Plus function takes, as input, an

objective function to minimize over a vector of parameters. In this case, the objective

function was the model deviance function given above.

The nlminb function also takes a starting value and constraints for possible parameter

values to search. Starting alpha/beta values were set to 0.01. Minimum values were set to

0.001. This was necessary to prevent beta di stribution parameters less than or equal to

zero. While, theoretically, there is no upper limit on possible beta distribution parameters,

a limit of one million was set in model fitting. Beyond this value, further changes in

either α or β have negligible impact on the resulti ng modeled distribution of infectivity.

2. Plug dose levels, from the study, into the MLE dose-response curve to get the

modeled probability of infection for each data point.

With MLE estimates for α and β , a fitted probability of infection can be computed for

each study dose using the approximate Beta -Poisson dose-response equation (Equation 7-

19 in Haas):

α



# β − 

# ⎟ ⎟

⎠ ⎞

⎜ ⎜

⎝ ⎛

+

− = 

# d d P

I 

# 1 1 ) (

Where:



# = d the dose level



# = ) ( d P

I 

# modeled probability of infection at that dose

The result is a vector of modeled probabilities of infection, one per study dose.

# Economic Analysis for the F-12 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# 3. Compute the standardized residuals -- the difference between the observed

proportion of infections and the modeled probability of infection at each data point,

scaled to be approximately standard normal ( μ = 0, σ 2 

# = 1).

For each dose level in the study, the diff erence is computed between the observed

proportion of infections 

# ⎟ ⎟

⎠ ⎞

⎜ ⎜

⎝ ⎛

=

i i

i



# n p 0 

# π and the modeled probability of infection



# ) ( 

# d P

I i 

# = 

# π (Equation 7-39 in Haas):

i i i i i

i



# n e / ) 1 ( 0



# π π π π



# − −

=

The result is a set of residuals that is as larg e as the number of dose levels in the study.

Since the variability of a proportion is a func tion of its magnitude, the un-scaled residuals

are not directly comparable and standardizing them is an important step. In scaled form,

each residual can be thought of as a random nu mber of standard deviations from a mean

and, as a collection, these differences refl ect the variability seen in the data.

For the echovirus data, the first data point caused division by zero at this step since



# 0

= i 

# π when 

# 0

= d (see the equation in Step 2). Since fitting the Beta-Poisson model

with and without this zero dose point resulted in the same MLE estimates for ( α

, β ), and

since it was not possible to complete the bootstrap procedure with this point included, it

was dropped from the dataset.

4. Randomly sample, with replacement, from the residuals, choosing one residual to

pair with each data point.

The idea is to create a set of plausible tr ue infection probabilities based on the observed

variability in the original data. This is done by drawing random values, with replacement,

from the standardized residuals.

For example, the rotavirus study has ei ght dose levels resulting in a total of 8 

# 8 equally

likely vectors of 8 residuals (the first sampled residual can be any on of the eight, the

second can be any of eight, and so on through the eighth dose level). While this is a very

large number of possible residual sets, the number of possible bootstrapped infection

vectors is more limited due to the discrete nature of the data (see Step 6).

# Economic Analysis for the F-13 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# 5. Using the randomly sampled residuals, compute a bootstrapped probability of

infection from each data point.

The bootstrapped infection probabilities are computed as the MLE modeled probabilities

plus a random standardized residual times the appropriate standard error (Equation 7-40)

in Haas:

i T

i T

i

i T

i m

i



# n ) 1 ( ) ( ) (

) ( ) ( 

# π π δ π π − + =

Where:



# = ) ( m

i 

# π the bootstrapped infection probability at dose level i



# = ) ( T

i 

# π the MLE modeled infection probability at dose level i



# = i 

# δ a randomly selected standardized residual (number of standard errors)



# = −

i T

i T

i



# n ) 1 ( ) ( ) ( 

# π π standard error of the MLE modeled infection probability

If the bootstrapped probability is greater than one , it is set to one, and if it is less than

zero, it is set to zero.

Note that while the standard error changes along with the dose level, since the mean and

variance are related for proportions, the randomly selected residuals are standardized so

they can be usefully paired with any of these standard errors.

6. Using each bootstrapped probability of infection ( ) ( m

i 

# π ) and the number of subjects

(

i



# n ) at the given dose level, randomly generate a number of infections by simulating

a binomial ( ) (



# , m

i i 

# n π ) draw.

This is the second random element in the pro cedure. To re-fit the Beta-Poisson model,

and generate a new ( α

, β ) pair, a simulated dose response dataset is required, and this

means infection counts, not m odeled probabilities of infection, so the infection counts are

simulated from the bootstrapped infection probabilities.

The result of this step is a set of simulate d infection counts, one for each dose level. The

counts are all greater than or equal to zero, and less than or equal to the number of

subjects at the given dose level.

Since these counts can only be integers, and so me of them are very unlikely (for example

simulating 0 infections out of 10 subjects wh en the bootstrapped probability of infection

is well above 1⁄2), the number of possible simulated datasets, from this step is much

smaller than the number of possible random residual sets in Step 4. In other words,

drawing a different random sample of eight residuals does not guarantee that the

# Economic Analysis for the F-14 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# simulated infection counts that result will be di fferent. Because of this, some data sets are

repeated over one thousand iterations resulting in some duplicate ( α

, β ) pairs in the final

uncertainty collection.

7. Generate a new (α, β) pair by fitting the dose-response model to the bootstrapped

infection counts.

The model fitting procedure described in St ep 1 is repeated, but this time the BetaPoisson model is fit to the infection counts generated by the bootstrap procedure. These

alternate infection counts represent what mi ght reasonably be seen if the study were

repeated and the first dataset is representative of the true dose-response relationship. Thus

each iteration results in another plausible (α, β).

8. Repeat steps 4 through 7 one thousand tim es to generate one thousand plausible sets

of (α, β) estimates given the observed variability in the original data set.

Steps 1 through 3, fitting the MLE model and computing its residuals occurs just one

time. These MLE estimates and residuals, as well as the number of subjects at each dose

level, remain the same for the remainder of the process.

Steps 4 through 7 are repeated one thousand times, each time starting with a random

selection of residuals and finishing with a simulated (α, β) pair.

The S-Plus procedure generates a plot of the rotovirus (α, Ν 50 

# ) pairs (N 50 

# is computed

directly from α and β) that matches Figure 7-15 in Haas which shows the results of Haas

bootstrap on the same dataset. The shape of the scatter plot is roughly the same, and the

number of outliers (non-plotted points) is similar.

# Economic Analysis for the F-15 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Characterization of Resulting Parameter Pairs for Type B

The graph in Exhibit F.8 displays the dist ribution of average infection probability for

Type B viruses. As defined here, average in fection probability is the mean exponential doseresponse parameter (r), based on a distribution defi ned by parameters alpha and beta. The mean

for a given parameter pair is alpha / (alpha + be ta). This mean is the fraction of the population

that would be infected if each person were to ingest exactly one infectious unit. The graph

reveals the uncertainty in this mean value. Va riability, though considerable, is not displayed in

this figure. The overall mean is 0.0044 and 90% confidence bounds (from the 5th and 95th

percentiles) are 0.0006 and 0.0165.



# Exhibit F.8 Distribution of Probabilit y of Infection for Type B Virus

Goodness of Fit for Type B Virus

Exhibit F.9 shows the quality of fit for maximum likelihood parameter values ( α = 0.374,

β = 186.69). The likelihood, given this parameter pair is 1.73*10 -6 

# . To assess goodness-of-fit,

artificial dose-response data sets were generated using the same distribution of subjects across

doses, but simulating the outcomes as binomial ra ndom variables with infection probabilities as

predicted by the maximum likelihood parameters . This was repeated 10,000 times and the

likelihood was determined for each of the 10, 000 artificial data sets. Among the 10,000

likelihoods, the actual data likelihood ranked at the 6 th 

# percentile. An extremely small value

(below 1 st 

# percentile) would have been evidence of po or model fit or spurious data and an

extremely large value (above 99 th 

# percentile) would have been evidence of over-fitting. The

value encountered (6 th 

# percentile) is satisfactory, but suggest s some sensitivity analysis may be in

order to explore the influence of selected observa tions. In a sensitivity analysis, EPA analyzed

the Echovirus data, but without observations for the two highest doses. Risk from Exposure to 1 Virus Reflecting Uncertainty in Parameters-- Type B

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

1

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1

RiskCumulative PRobability

# Economic Analysis for the F-16 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Exhibit F.9 Data (Number Infected / Number Subjects) and Maximum

Likelihood Dose-Response Funct ion for Type B Viruses

10 100 1

. 10 3 

# 1

. 10 4 

# 1

. 10 5 

# 1

. 10 6 

# 0 0.5

1



# Echovirus Dose, Infectious UnitsProbability of Infection



# F.5 Sensitivity Analyses

As described in Section 5.2.4, EPA considered using alternative analyses for both Type A

and Type B viruses to illustrate the potential magn itude of modeling uncertainty. The analyses

discussed above were based on the full dose-respon se data sets and only one mathematical model

(the beta-Poisson) for each type of virus. T hose analyses produced large samples of parameter

pairs to represent parameter uncertainty. This is the uncertainty due to having a limited amount

of data to estimate the two model parameters ( α and β ). The sensitivity analyses use some of the

same data, but with other mathematical models , so the estimated dose-response relationship will

differ from the primary analysis because (a) less da ta can lead to greater parameter uncertainty,

and systematically different average estimates at environmentally-relevant dose levels and (b)

alternative models can produce si gnificantly different estimates, particularly when extrapolating

beyond the range of the data.

It is important to bear in mind that the m odels used here are only two simple alternatives

to those used in the primary analysis. No measure is provided for these models’ relative

likelihoods or goodness-of-fit, compared to the primary analysis models. The limited amounts of

dose-response data do not support the analysis of ot her, more complex models. It is difficult to

judge how well our simple models would hold up, if large amounts of new data were to become

available. It is unlikely, however, that new dose-response studies will be conducted anytime

soon. The more likely source of new data w ill be from outbreaks, supported by high-quality

exposure information. Until such data become available, EPA believes that the primary and

sensitivity analyses presented here provide reasonabl e indications of the total uncertainty that

may be due to the limited amount of existing data and the small number of plausible models that

they can support.

The sections that follow detail the sensitivit y analyses that were performed for Type A

(rotavirus) and Type B (echovirus) viruses.

# Economic Analysis for the F-17 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# F.5.1 Type A Viruses

The data for this model are simply that one subject was infected of the seven who

ingested doses of 0.9. Bearing in mind that the dose is Poisson, rather than exact, 1/7 is the

maximum likelihood infection probability at this do se. In terms of the exponential model, where

infection probability is 1 – e -d*r 

# = 1 – e -0.9*r 

# , the maximum likelihood value of r is that for which 1

– e -0.9*r 

# = 1/7.

Technically, the likelihood of observing one of sev en subjects infected is the binomial probability

of one success in seven trials with success probability p: dbinom(1,7,p) =

7*p*(1 - p) 6



# Exhibit F.10 displays the full binomial likelihood function. Its maximum is marked at p = 1/7 =

0.1433.



# Exhibit F.10 Likelihood of Observ ing One in Seven Infected at Dose

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4



# p = P(0.9) = Pr{infection, given Poisson dose = 0.9}Likelihood = dbinom(1,7,p)



# In the Exhibit above, p is the probability of infection at dose 0.9, P(0.9), which is 1-e -0.9*r



# under the exponential model. The likelihood, expressed in terms of r is therefore dbinom (1, 7, 1

- e - 0.9 * r 

# ). Exhibit F.11 displays this likelihood function and shows that the maximum likelihood

parameter value is about 0.171, somewhat greater than 1/7 = 0.1433.

# Economic Analysis for the F-18 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Exhibit F.11 Likelihood Functi on for Exponential Parameter r

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4



# r = Pr{infection, given exactly one unit ingested}Likelihood = dbinom(1,7,P(0.9))



# A large sample was drawn, using this like lihood function for r. This was done using a

Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method with WinBUGS software, and also using the

distribution function associated with the likelihoo d (scaling the function by dividing by its total

likelihood mass) and a large set of standard uniform deviates (on the interval from 0 to 1). Below

(Exhibit F.12) are summary statistics for the MCMC sample of size 10,000.



# Exhibit F.12 Summary Statistics for Rotavirus (WinBUGS)

node mean sd MC error 2.5% median 97.5%

P(0.09) 0.239 0.1317 0.001669 0.03655 0.221 0.5271

r 0.3219 0.208 0.002696 0.04137 0.2775 0.8322



# It is clear that this model would predict so mewhat greater baseline risk than the primary

analysis, for which the average probability of inf ection, given exactly one infectious unit, r, is

about 0.224. The corresponding sensitivity analysis value from Exhibit F.12 is 0.3219, which is

about 44% greater than the primary analysis’ 0.224.

A second, simplified version of the exponen tial model was also used for a sensitivity

analysis for Type A viruses. In this approach, the same observations from the Ward et al. (1986)

study that 1 of 7 subjects receiving a 0.9 dose beca me infected. In this case, however, the value

obtained for the parameter r was assumed to be an exact value rather than being generated using

the MCMC method as a set of values to reflect uncer tainty in the true value of the parameter.

# Economic Analysis for the F-19 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# The derivation of the value for r in this case was done as follows:



# 171

. 0 9

. 0 ) 7 / 6 ln( 9

. 0 ) 7 / 6 ln( 7 / 6 7 / 1 1 7 / 1 1

9

. 0 9

. 0



# = − = ⋅ − = = =

− =

−

⋅ − ⋅ −



# r r r e e

r r



# This value for r, which also corresponds to the maximum likelihood value obtained in the

analysis that includes uncertainty in the r parameter, was used as a fixed input to the baseline risk

and benefits computed in the Type A alterna tive analysis as described in Chapter 5 (section

5.5.2).

F.5.2 Type B Viruses

When the high dose (33,000 and 330,000) r esults are discarded, the remaining data are

reasonably consistent with the exponential model. The likelihood is a product of four binomial

probabilities, one for each of the four remaining dose levels:

L r

( )

level 

# ln dbinom K level 

# N level 

# , 1 e d level 

# − r

⋅



# − , 

# ⎛ ⎝ ⎞ ⎠ ⎛ ⎝ ⎞ ⎠ 

# ∑

Exhibit F.13 displays the likelihood function, scaled so the total area under the curve is 1



# Exhibit F.13 Likelihood Functi on for Exponential Parameter r

3

. 10 4 

# 4

. 10 4 

# 5

. 10 4 

# 6

. 10 4 

# 7

. 10 4 

# 8

. 10 4 

# 9

. 10 4 

# 0.001

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

r = Exponential Dose-Response ParameterPr Density = C * Likelihood = C * Pr{data | r}

# Economic Analysis for the F-20 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# As with the other analyses, a large MCMC sa mple was generated usi ng WinBUGS software.

Exhibit F.14 displays summary statistics for the sample.



# Exhibit F.14 Summary Statistics for Echovirus Sensitivity Analysis

node mean sd MC error 2.5% median 97.5%

r 4.215E-4 6.391E-5 6.011E-7 3.091E-4 4.177E-4 5.589E-4

P[300] 0.1297 0.01829 1.722E-4 0.09697 0.1288 0.1684

P[1000] 0.3426 0.04157 3.926E-4 0.2659 0.3414 0.4281

P[3000] 0.7457 0.05219 4.961E-4 0.6394 0.748 0.8419

P[10000] 0.9821 0.01115 1.054E-4 0.9545 0.9847 0.9963



# The average probability of infection, give n exactly one unit ingested, is only about

0.0004. This is much smaller than the corr esponding estimate from the primary analysis, which

was 0.0044. The alternative analysis would be expected to predict a lower baseline risk and

lower benefits from the GWR; this result is observed as described in Section 5.5.3.

# Appendix G

Summary Flowcharts for Baseline Risk

and Benefits ModelEconomic Analysis for theFinal Ground Water RuleOctober 2006Water Systems and Population Categories Used in Risk and Benefits ModelNontransientNoncommunityTransientNoncommunityCommunityWater System Types (3)Water System Size, etc.Same as Community101-500501-1000>1k3.3k>3.3k-10k>10k-50k>50k-100k>100k-1M≤100>1MWater System Sizes (9)Well Condition, etc.Same as≤100 categoryWell Conditions (2)Less VulnerableMore VulnerableIn Accordance withState StandardsNot in Accordancewith State StandardsWell Construction (2)Well Construction, etc.Same as Less VulnerableDisinfectingNot DisinfectingWell Treatment (2)Well Treatment, etc.Same as InAccordance withState StandardsWater System Categories(216 = 3 x 9 x 2 x 2 x 2)Age GroupsSame as Disinfecting0.5-0.9< 0.51-34-67-1011-1415-1920-2425-54 55-6465+Age Groups (11)Population Categories(11 age groups)Total Categories:216 x 11 = 2,376

# Economic Analysis for the

Final Ground Water Rule October 2006 Input Data:

Number of entry points per system and population served per entry point for each of 3 system ty pes (CWS, NTNCWS, TNCWS ) and 9 size categories

(fixed values)

Distribution for population factor for TNCWS (uncertainty)

Distributions for % of wells that are more vulnerable (MV) / less vulnerable (LV) for each of 3 system types (CWS, NTNCWS, TNCW S ) and 9 size

categories (uncertainty)

Inputs for % of wells properly and improperly constructed (f ixed values, vary for more and less vulnerable wells)

Inputs for % of wells disinfecting to 4 logs and < 4- logs (fixed values, vary by system type and size)

Data sets with 1,000 values for Pwell, Psample parameters, and probabilities of indicator positive as a function of assay number (uncertainty)

Data sets with concentration values for viruses in MV and LV wells (variability)

Data sets with 1,000 values for Type A and Ty pe B dose response parameters (uncertainty)

Mean daily water consumption values (fixed values, vary for each of 11 age groups) 

# Part 1 – Determination of Annual Risks of Infection

Step 1: Create Specific Inputs for Each of 250 Uncertainty Iterations

For the first (or next) of the 250 uncertaint y loops, randomly select specific values from uncertainty distributions / data set s for:

Pwell value

Psample distribution parameters

Indicator positive probabilities by assay number

% wells MV and LV

Dose response parameters for Type A and Type B viruses

TNCWS population factor

Step 2A: Specify Viral Occurrence for each of 1,000 Entry Point Variability Iterations for Baseline

For the first (or next) of the 216 system types, create 1,000 entry point variability iterations and use Pw ell to randomly deter mine which iterations

are virus positive and which are virus negative.

For virus negative wells, assign virus concentration = 0.

For virus positive wells, assign virus concentration selected randomly from MV or LV data sets. For disinfecting well categori es, reduce virus

concentration by 4 log or 2 log based on inputs for percent of disinfecting wells achieving those levels.

For each virus positive well, randomly select a specific Psampl e value from the Psample beta dist ribution specified by the Psampl e parameters

selected for this uncertainty iteration.

Step 3: Compute Daily and Annual Individual Risk of In fection for Virus Positive Entry Points by Age Category

For the first (or next) of the 11 age group categories, calculate the daily and annual individual infection risk for each of th e virus

positive entry points (risk is zero for virus negative entry points).

For each virus positive entry point, daily and annual individual risks are calculated for Type A and Type B viruses using the

dose response parameters selected for this uncertainty it eration in Step 1, the viral co ncentration and Psample values

assigned in Step 2, and the daily water consumption rate for the specific age group being evaluated.

For baseline, individual risk values are calculated once to apply to all 25 years.

For rule options, individual risk values are also calcul ated for those years subsequent to when the well is caught.

For virus negative wells, assign risk = 0

Repeat Step 3 for remainder of the 11 age categories.

Repeat Steps 2 and 3 for remainder of the 216 system types

Repeat Steps 1, 2, and 3 for rema inder of 250 uncertainty iterations Step 2B: Specify Viral Occurrence fo r each of 1,000 Entry Point Variability Iterations for Rule Options

For Rule Options determine for each virus positive well created in Step 2A if that well is caught, the year in which it is caug ht and the reduced

concentration of virus for all years after it is caught.

# Economic Analysis for the

Final Ground Water Rule October 2006 Interim data files are created from the results of Steps 1 through 3 that capture the estimated an nual individual risk values f or each of the 2,376

categories of entry point and age characteristics. Each of these 2,376 data files can be visualized as a matrix with 250 colum ns for the 250

uncertainty iterations and 1,000 rows for the 1,000 entry point va riability iterations.

For the baseline, a single set of files is created that apply to all 25 years.

For the rule options, multiple sets of files are created to apply separately to ea ch of the 25 years after rule promulgation.

These data files are processed as described below to serve as input to Parts 2 and 3 of the model.

Step 4: Process data for input to Part 2 of the model (Illness

and Death Estimates)

For each of the 2,376 well type / age group categories,

calculate the average of the annual individual risks from the

results of the 1,000 variability iterations for each of the 250

uncertainty iterations.

Convert these 250 average annual individual risk values for

the 2,376 well type / age group categories into cases of

infection by multiplying the risk values by the number of entry

points and the population per entry point for the well type /

size, and by the percent of the total population represented

by each age group.

The number of entry points for each of the 216 categories of

wells is dependent on the %MV / %LV values selected from

the uncertainty distribution for each of the 250 uncertainty

iterations.

For TNCWS, also multiply by the TNCWS population factor

selected from the uncertainty distribution for each of the 250

uncertainty iterations.

Sort the 250 values of cases of infection for each of the

2,376 well type / age categories from low to high. Determine

percentile values for 0, 0.5, 0.1, 0.15, ....0.85, 0.90, 0.95, 1.0

to represent uncertainty distributions of annual cases of

infection occurring in each of the 2,376 well type / age group

categories.

The data for these uncertainty distributions of annual cases

of infection in each of the 2,376 well type / age categories are

stored to serve as input to Part 2 of the model.

(Note: Separate data sets ar e generated and stored for Type

A and Type B viruses) Step 5. Process data for input to Part 3 of the model

(Individual Risk Distributions)

For each of the 1,000 inner (var iability) loops for each of the

250 outer (uncertainty) loops for each of the 2376 well type /

age groups categories, compute the fraction of the annual

individual infection risk values that meet each of the criteria of:

< 10 0 

# , < 10 -1 

# , < 10 -2 

# , < 10 -3 

# , ...etc. < 10 -8



# .

Convert these fractions at or bel ow these risk levels to cases

of infection by multiplying by the number of entry points, the

population per entry point, and the % of population in the age

group specific to each of the 2,376 well type / age group

categories. This results in 250 estimates at each of these risk

levels for each of the 2,376 well type / age group categories.

Compute the mean number of case s of infection at each risk

level from the 250 estimates for each of the 2,376 well type /

age group categories.

These outputs are generated for the baseline and for Year 25

of the rule options.

These results are stored to serv e as input to Part 3 of the

model.

(Note: Separate data sets ar e generated and stored for Type

A and Type B viruses.)

# Economic Analysis for the

Final Ground Water Rule October 2006 Input Data:

The distributions of annual cases of infe ction for each of the 2,376 well type / age group catergories generated in Step 1 (unce rtainty)

Distributions for morbidity factors for Type A and Type B viruses (uncertainty)

Secondary spread factors for Type A (fixed value)

Distribution of secondary spread factor s for Type B viruses (uncertainty)

Distribution for mortality factors for Type A viruses (uncertainty)

Mortality factors for Type B viruses (fixed values, vary for 2 age groups) 

# Part 2 – Determination of Annual Cases of Illness and Death (Morbidity and Mortality)

Step 1: Modify uncertainty distributions of annual cases of infection to correspond to age groups needed for generating

morbidity estimates.

The uncertainty distributions of the number of annual infections correspond to the 11 age categories reflecting different

mean water consumptions values. However, the morbidity and mortality factors involve some age groups that differ

slightly from some of the 11 water consumption age groups. Therefore, it is necessary to adjust the age groups in the

distributions of annual infections generated in Part 1 of the model.

Step 2: Create Specific Inputs for 1,000 Uncertainty

Iterations

Randomly select 1,000 values from uncertainty distributions

for:

Annual cases of infection

Morbidity factors for Type A and Type B viruses

Secondary spread factors for Type B viruses

Mortality factors for Type A viruses

Step 3: Primary Illnesses

For the first (or next) of the [2,376] well type / age group category, compute 1,000

estimates of primary illnesses using fixed inputs and uncertain values selected in

Step 2.

Step 4: Secondary Illnesses

Using results of Step 3, compute secondary illnesses associated with each of the 1,000 estimates of primary illnesses.

Step 5: Total Illnesses

Combine estimates of primary and secondary illnesses from Steps 3 and 4 for the 1,000 iterations.

Step 6: Mortality

Using the results of Step 5, and mortality factor inputs, compute estimates of deaths for 1,000 iterations.

Repeat Steps 3 - 6 for the remaining [2,376] well type / age group categories.

The outputs of Part 2 are 1,000 estimates of total illnesses and deaths reflecting uncert ainty for each of the [2,376] well type / age group categories.

These outputs are aggregated variously by system type, size, and o ther characteristics and the m eans, 5th, and 95th percentile v alues determined to

present as the best estimates of illnesses and deaths.

For the baseline, a single set of outputs is created that applies to all 25 years.

For the rule options, multiple sets of file s are created to apply to each of the 25 years.

These outputs are also exported for use as uncertainty inputs to the monetization

# Economic Analysis for the

Final Ground Water Rule October 2006 

# Part 3

– 

# Derivation of Individual Risk Distributions

Input data:

Output files from Part 1 of the model providing the means from the

250 outer loops of the counts of infections from the 1,000 inner

loops at or below specified risk levels of < 10 0 

# , < 10 -1 

# , < 10 -2 

# , < 10 -3



# , ...etc. < 10 -8 

# for each of the 2,376 well types.

Step 1: Aggregate Results for Each System Type

For the first (or next) of the 3 system types (CWS,

NTNCWS, TNCWS), sum the mean number of

cases of infections at or below each risk level

across the 792 well types.

Step 2: Convert the Cases of Infection to Percent

of Population Generate Graphs.

Compute the fraction of the total population at or

below each risk level served by the system type.

Step 3: Generate Graphs Comparing Individual Risk

Distributions for Baseline and Rule Options

Graph results for the baseline and rule options (in

year 25) for each of the two virus types. Graphs

show risk levels on the x-axis and fraction of

population at or below those risk levels on the y-axis.

Repeat Steps 1, 2, and 3 for the remaining well types

# Economic Analysis for the October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Description of Methodology for Estimating Risk Reductions (for Parts 1 – 3)

The methodology for estimating the reduction in risk for the regulatory alternatives builds upon

the approach and assumptions used to establish the baseline risk as describ ed in detail in Section 5.2.5 of

the EA and summarized in the preceding flowcharts. The primary difference between the modeling for

estimating the baseline risk model and the modeli ng for estimating the risk reduction from a given

regulatory alternative is that the latter incorporat es a change in the concentration of viral pathogens

reaching the finished drinking water of the exposed population. These changes reflect either a reduction

in pathogen concentration between source water and finished water due to disinfection or the complete

elimination of the pathogen in the finished wate r from other non-treatment corrective actions addressing

the source water contamination. In addition to accounting for the magnitude of pathogen exposure

reduction, an important component of the risk re duction modeling is to account for the timing of when

those reductions occur over a 25 year analysis timeframe following promulgation of the rule.

As discussed in the description of the baseline risk analysis in S ection 5.2.5.1, each well in the

simulation process is designated as either having a virus present at some time or never having a virus

present based on the P

well 

# probability. Also, for those wells having some viral occurrence, values are

assigned for P sample 

# and for the virus concentration. The ri sk reduction part of the model uses the exact

same simulated wells as those generated in the baseline risk part of the model.

For the sake of efficiency in implementi ng the simulation modeling process, those wells

designated as never having a virus present are recogni zed as having zero risk reduction potential and are

counted as such in the model outputs, but are not run through the detailed steps of the risk reduction

model.

For those wells that do have a virus present, th e risk reduction model answers the following three

questions:

1) Is a corrective action performed on this well as a result of the regulatory alternative being

considered?

2) What is the finished water virus concentration following corrective action?

3) In what year following rule implemen tation is the corrective action performed?

The risk reduction model then processes the re duced virus concentrations through the dose

response functions for infectivity, morbidity and mortality as in the baseline risk assessment.

In the baseline risk analysis, the primary outputs are estimates of annual cases of illness and

deaths due to endemic infection from Type A and Type B viruses, and these are assumed to be the same

for each of the 25 years following rule promulgation. The outputs from the risk reduction model are the

same - the cases of illness and death that remain in each of the 25 years following rule promulgation.

These are the remaining cases each year resulting from th e virus concentrations that remain after the

corrective actions are performed. The risk reductions , in terms of cases of illness and deaths avoided, are

then obtained by subtracting the cases rema ining after the rule from the baseline cases.

# Economic Analysis for the October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Estimates of cases avoided calculated for all of the individual wells are aggregated across all

wells to arrive at the total national estimates of risk reduction. In addition, some of the assumptions and

data used in the risk reduction model are uncertain a nd are therefore input as uncertainty distributions. As

a result of the uncertainty reflected in those inputs, t ogether with the uncertainty reflected in other inputs

to the baseline risk model that are also carried into the risk reduction model, the output of the model is a

range of values of cases avoided. The range is used by EPA to determine the expected value and the 90

percent confidence bounds on that expected value.

The following sections describe in more deta il the specific assumptions and inputs–including

considerations of uncertainty–that are used to model risk reduction for each of the four rule alternatives at

the individual well level and the aggregation of t hose well-level estimates to obtain the overall national

estimates of risk reduction.

Alternative 1: Sanitary Survey Only

Regulatory Alternative 1 includes only sanitary surv eys. The Sanitary Survey rule alternative

applies to all ground water wells, including those wells that are currently disinfecting and meeting 4-log

reductions. As described in the baseline information in Chapter 4 and in the estimation of the baseline

risk, all wells are stratified into 8 major categories that reflect the 2x2x2 (=8) combinations of the well

characteristics of: Disinfecting or Nondisinfecting; More Vulnerable or Less Vulnerable; and Proper or

Improper well construction.

As discussed in Chapter 4 (Section 4.3.3), the fraction of wells considered More Vulnerable

varies from 0% to approximately 7% as a function of systems system size and type. The average

(weighted by number of systems) is that about 2.5% are in the More Vulnerable stratum (the remaining

97.5% are, therefore, in the Less Vulnerable stratum) . To estimate the benefits from correcting significant

deficiencies, each of these strata must be fu rther defined in regards to well construction.

Construction status of a well (i.e., whether a well is properly or improperly constructed) is

estimated based on ASDWA survey data (ASDWA, 1997). Those wells identified as improperly

constructed are likely to be identified by states during a sanitary survey. Different percentages of

improper construction are estimated based on historical total or fecal coliform detections. EPA believes

that a history of detection of these contaminants is indicative of wells that fall into the More Vulnerable

classification within the benefits model. The per centages of properly and improperly constructed wells

are estimated as follows.

Less vulnerable wells - The ASDWA survey of States found that of community GWSs with no

TC or fecal coliform detections, 83.6 percent of the systems had wells that were constructed according to

State standards. Thus, 16.4 percent of systems had wells identified by State officials as not being

constructed to State standards and are c onsidered to be improperly constructed.

More vulnerable wells - The same survey found th at of community GWSs with TC detections,

but no fecal coliform detections, 217 of 277 systems ha d wells constructed according to State standards.

A third group consisted of systems with positive fecal coliform detections, of which 164 of 231 systems

had wells constructed according to State standards. Thus, for systems with TC or fecal coliform

detections, 381 of 508 systems (75.0 percent) had wells that were constructed according to State

standards. Therefore, 25.0 percent of systems had wells identified by State officials as not being

constructed to State standards and are c onsidered to be improperly constructed.

# Economic Analysis for the October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# The combination of the vulnerability and well c onstruction estimates described above can be used

to approximate the percent of all wells having viru s present that are expected to be identified and

corrected by sanitary surveys. To arrive at this estimate, the percent of all wells that are improperly

constructed is first calculated as the weighted aver age for the More and Less Vulnerable strata as:

• More vulnerable (2.5%), Improperly constructed (25.0%):

2.5% * 25.0% = 0.6%

• Less vulnerable (97.5%), Imprope rly constructed (16.4%):

97.5% * 16.4% = 16.0%

The total fraction of all wells that are improperly constructed is the sum of these, which is 16.6%.

It is assumed that the sanitary survey provisions of the ground water rule will result in identifying

some (but not all) wells that are improperly constr ucted. It is assumed that corrective actions will be

performed on those improperly constructed wells. Sp ecifically, EPA has estimated that for those wells

that are improperly constructed and also have a virus present, 50% will be identified and the

contamination eliminated by a corrective action. To recognize the uncertainty in this estimate of the

effectiveness of sanitary surveys, EPA has assumed a uniform distribution of 40% to 60% (mean = 50%).

Therefore, as a central value, it is expected that th e sanitary survey alternative of the rule will result in

corrective actions being performed and contamination eliminated at approximately half of the 16.6% of

all wells that are improperly construc ted, which is 8.3% of all wells. Therefore, it can be estimated that

this rule alternative will result in the reduction of 8.3% of the baseline cases of illnesses and deaths per

year by the 25th year after rule promulgation.

For those wells that have virus present in the s ource water that are caught by a sanitary survey,

the corrective action is assumed to eliminate the vi rus completely. Therefore, the finished water

concentration as well as the source water concentration for these wells is set to zero for the risk reduction

calculations for those wells. While the fraction of we lls corrected by sanitary survey is the same for both

the disinfecting and the nondisinfecting strata, almost all of the risk reduction (i.e., cases avoided) from

sanitary surveys will be from the nondisinfecting wells. This is because for the disinfecting wells that are

currently achieving 4-log removal, most of the vi rus present in the source water is already being

inactivated so that the incremental risk reduction fro m eliminating the source entirely is very small and

contributes very little to the total benefits achieved. Nevertheless, the risk reduction for disinfecting wells

that is achieved through sanitary surveys is calculate d in the risk reduction model for completeness sake.

With respect to when this reduction in virus concentration and risk occurs, it is assumed that

identifying the (approximately) 8.3% of wells that are improperly constructed wells and performing a

corrective action on them as a result of sanitary su rveys will occur across the entire 25 year analysis

period. It is assumed that no corrective actions will o ccur in the first three years, and that all of the

corrective actions performed will be evenly distributed across the remaining years. Therefore, in the

benefits model, each well that undergoes a correc tive action from a sanitary survey is assigned a year

between year 4 and year 25 with equal probability of it occurring in any one of the years in the time

period.

# Economic Analysis for the October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Alternative 2: Sanitary Survey + Triggered Monitoring

Regulatory alternative 2 includes both sanitary su rveys and triggered monitoring. The sanitary

survey component of the modeling is carried out as d escribed above. For those wells that are captured by

a sanitary survey, the information generated for im properly constructed wells in the sanitary survey

component of the model regarding the year in whic h any corrective action is performed and the virus

concentration of zero for the years fo llowing the corrective action is stored.

The triggered monitoring component of the mode l applies only to the nondisinfecting subset of

wells and any wells that are applying disinfectant but not achieving 4-log removal of viruses. For the

wells that are currently achieving 4-log removal, the sanitary survey requirements still apply and the

output developed in that part of the model as descr ibed above are retained for those wells For the

triggered monitoring component of the risk reduction analysis, each well goes through a 2-step process.

In the first step of the process, estimates are ma de of the number of TC positives–and therefore the

number of source water indicator samples–that occur during the 22 years between year 4 and year 25 (it is

assumed that no corrective actions will be taken during the first 3 years after rule implementation). The

number of TC positives expected per year for each well of a given type and size are obtained from the DV

data as described in chapter 4 (Section 4.2.7). Th e total number of TC positives expected through year 25

is then calculated as the number TC positives per year times 22. If, for example, a well is in the CWS

size 10,000-50,000 category, the DV data indicate that these wells average 2.21 TC positives per year;

over 22 years, then, it is expected that these wells will have 48.6 TC positives and therefore take up to 49

source water indicator samples between years 4 and 25.

In the second step of the process, a simulation is performed to determine which, if any, of the

indicator samples taken through year 25 is the first positiv e indicator result. As described in Chapter 4, in

each uncertainty loop of the risk reduction model a set of values for both virus and indicator hit rates is

selected. Included among this set of values is the probability that the first positive of an indicator will

occur on a given assay number (contingent on these assays being performed in wells that are known to

have a virus present at some time). Exhibit 4.27 showed the probability of the first indicator positive

occurring on a given assays for the median and the 5th and 95th percentiles of a sample of 1,000 of these

uncertainty sets of occurrence values. The curve for the median set of values shown in that exhibit

indicates that there is about a 40% probability that th e first indicator positive will occur on or before the

49th assay. The data for each uncertainty set pr ovides these cumulative probabilities of observing the

first positive on or before each specific assay number. In the risk reduction model, a random value

between 0 and 1 is generated for each well. That value is used as a look-up value to determine what

assay number would produce the first positive.

For example, if the curve shown as the median da ta set in Exhibit 4.27 were the set of values

being used for a particular uncertainty loop, and the random number between 0 and 1 generated for a well

in the CWS size 10,000-50,000 category were 0.25, the look-up function would indicate that the first

indicator positive would occur on assay number 8. Since these wells are expected to take 48.6 indicator

assays over the 22 year period, the 8th assay would occur in the 6th year (48.6 / 8 ~ 6). Since there are no

samples taken in years 1 through 3, the 6th year of sampling corresponds to year 9 of the 25 year

modeling period. Therefore, this well would be “caught” by triggered monitoring in year 9. This

prediction is then compared to the year in which the well is captured (if it is) by the sanitary survey

provisions. The corrective action is assigned to the ru le provision (SS or TM) that occurs the earliest in

the 25 year period. If both occur in the same year, one of the two is selected randomly.

# Economic Analysis for the October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Based on the number of TC positives expected per well across all well types and sizes, together

with the expected values of indicator positives as a function of assay number across all of the uncertainty

sets available to draw from for the simulation model, it can be estimated that approximately one-third

(33%) of nondisinfecting wells with virus present s hould be caught and corrected by the triggered

monitoring provision of the rule by the 25th year of the modeling timeframe.

Because there are some nondisinfecting wells that will be caught in the simulation model by both

sanitary survey and triggered monitoring (where th e one occurring earliest is selected for corrective

action), the total wells ultimately caught by both compone nts of this rule alternative will be less than the

sum of the two individual components (i.e., ~8.3% fo r SS and 27.5% for TM). The expected fraction of

nondisinfecting wells that are captured by either SS or TM can be estimated from the sum of these minus

the product (to account for the overlap):

(8.3% + 27.5%) - (8.3% * 27.5%) = 33.5%

Therefore, the SS + TM alternative should, by the 25t h year after rule promulgation, result in corrective

actions being performed at approximately 33.5% of all non-disinfecting wells and 8.3% of all (4-log)

disinfecting wells that have virus present in their s ource water. Because most of the baseline risk is

found in nondisinfecting wells, it is also, therefore, exp ected that this rule will result in approximately a

33.5% reduction in the baseline cases of illness and death.

Alternative 3: Sanitary Survey + Trigg ered Monitoring + Assessment Monitoring

Regulatory alternative 3 builds upon alternative 2 by adding a period of source water assessment

monitoring for those wells that are not currently disinf ecting to 4-log virus removal and that are identified

by the States as located in a sensitive aquifer.

As discussed in Chapter 4 (Section 4.3.6), it is estimated that 15% of the ground water wells are

located in sensitive aquifers. Therefore, for th e 85% of ground water wells that are not located in

sensitive aquifers, this regulatory alternative is iden tical to Alternative 2 described above. For the 15%

that are in sensitive aquifers, the requirements are that–in addition to performing sanitary surveys and

taking source water indicator assays from triggered monitoring–they must also perform indicator assays

for 12 source water samples. It is assumed that these samples will be taken monthly during year 6 for

CWSs, and monthly during year 8 for NTNCWS. For TNCWS, it is assumed that these 12 assays will be

performed quarterly across years 6, 7, and 8.

The probability of observing an indicator positive in one of these 12 samples is taken from the

same set of probabilities of indicator positives as a function of the number of assays performed as

described in the preceding section on TM and in Chap ter 4. As shown in Exhibit 4.27, the central

tendency value across all uncertainty sets indicates th at approximately 30% of wells with virus present

will result in an indicator positive within the first 12 indicator assays. In the benefits modeling, it was

assumed that the capture rate of wells from assessm ent monitoring would correspond to the probabilities

associated with those first 12 indicator assays. This is recognized as likely resulting in an overestimate of

the number of wells caught by assessment monitoring for the reasons discussed below.

It is important to note that the 12 assays that are conducted for assessment monitoring are not

necessarily the first 12 assays that will be conducted for those wells performing assessment monitoring.

In many cases, and perhaps most, there will have been source water indicator samples taken in response to

# Economic Analysis for the October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# TC positives occurring prior to the beginning of the assessment monitoring period. Because the

probability of getting the first positive indicator result decreases with each additional assay (refer to

Exhibit 4.27) the actual probability that a given well will get caught by one of the 12 assessment

monitoring samples depends upon how many triggered monitoring indicator assays were performed

(which would all have been negative) prior to the beginning of the assessment monitoring assays. The

more triggered monitoring samples taken, the less lik ely it is that the additional 12 assessment monitoring

assays will produce a positive result. For example, assume a well has taken 3 triggered monitoring

samples (with negative results) prior to the 12 assessment monitoring samples. The expected value of the

probability that a positive result will have been obt ained in those first 3 samples is 16.6%, and the

expected value of the probability that a positive resu lt will have been obtained in the first 15 samples is

32.5% (that is, the 3 triggered plus 12 assessment samples).

Therefore the, incremental probability of obser ving an indicator positive from those additional 12

samples is only about 16%. Assume, however, that a well has taken 20 triggered monitoring samples

(with negative results) prior to the 12 assessment m onitoring samples. The expected value of the

probability that a positive result will have been obt ained in those first 20 samples is 34.9%, and the

expected value of the probability that a positive resu lt will have been obtained in the first 32 samples is

38.4% (that is, the 20 triggered plus 12 assessment sam ples). Therefore the, incremental probability of

observing an indicator positive from those additional 12 samples in this case is only about 3.5%. Since

most wells will have some triggered monitori ng events prior to the beginning of any assessment

monitoring (and more so for the larger systems ha ving more population exposed) EPA believes that the

simplifying assumption used in the benefits model results in an overestimate of cases avoided from

assessment monitoring.

The number of the additional wells captured by this rule option is, therefore, a function of the

fraction of wells that do assessment monitoring in addition to the triggered monitoring and sanitary

surveys plus the fraction of wells that only do tri ggered monitoring and sanitary surveys as described in

the preceding section.

As shown in Chapter 8, Exhibit 8.8, the final GWR (sanitary survey + triggered monitoring), the

annual average cases avoided is 41,868 while for Alterna tive 3 (sanitary survey + triggered monitoring +

assessment monitoring) the annual average cases avoided is 45,419. Therefore, Alternative 3 is estimated

to result in about 8.5% more cases avoided annual th an the final GWR. However, as indicated above,

EPA believes the benefits model produces overestimate of the cases avoided from assessment monitoring

for the reasons discussed above.

Alternative 4: Across the Board Disinfection

For this rule alternative, it is assumed that all wells not currently achieving 4-log disinfection will

do so beginning in year 5 after rule promulgation. No other rule components are considered. That is,

viral levels will be reduced by 4 l ogs for all wells not doing any disinfec tion, and from 2 logs to 4 logs for

those currently doing less than 4-log disinfection. As a result, it is expected that all wells not currently

achieving 4 logs disinfection and with virus present w ill be captured. The risk reduction, accounting for

no changes among those currently achieving 4 logs, an additional 2 log reduction in risk for those

currently disinfecting to only 2 logs, and 4 log reducti ons for those not currently disinfecting will result in

over 99.9% risk reduction of the baseline illnesses.

# Appendix H

Cost Effectiveness Analysis Using a

Quality-Adjusted Life Years Approach

# 1 

# Office of Management and Budget Circular A-4, September 17, 2003, p. 9.

Economic Analysis for the H-1 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Appendix H

Cost Effectiveness Analysis Using a Quality-Adjusted Life Years Approach

H.1 Introduction

This Appendix provides a description and results of an experimental approach to developing a

cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) for the Ground Wa ter Rule (GWR) using quality-adjusted life years

(QALYs). A previous regulatory impact analysis for the Final Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR,

Appendix G, 2005) also explored using QALYs, and a similar methodology was applied to the Stage 2

DBPR EA and the LT2ESWTR EA, promulgated in Dec. 2005 (Appendices N and U, respectively).

Significant language from the CAIR report is used in this Appendix, even though it is not always directly

cited.

H.1.1 Cost-effectiveness analysis

Benefit-cost analysis (BCA) and CEA each pr ovide different, but potentially complementary,

information for decision-makers. Health-based CEA has been used to analyze numerous health

interventions but has not been widely adopted as a tool to analyze environmental policies. Analyses of

environmental regulations have typi cally used benefit-cost analysis (BCA) to characterize impacts on

social welfare. BCA allows for aggregation of the benefits of reducing mortality and morbidity risks with

other monetized benefits of increasing water quality. One of the great advantages of the benefit-cost

paradigm is that a wide range of quantifiable benefits can be compared to costs to evaluate the economic

efficiency of particular actions. However, an alte rnative paradigm such as CE A has also been used. CEA

involves estimation of the costs per unit of benefit (e.g., lives or life years saved) and may incorporate

preference-based measures of effectiveness, such as QALYs.

Prior to 2003, CEA has not been required under Executive Order 12866 or EPA guidance. The

Office of Management and Budget (OMB), however , in its September 2003 update to Circular A-4

interpreting the requirements of Executive Or der 12866, states that executive agencies should

... prepare a CEA for all major rulemakings for which the primary benefits are improved

public health and safety to the extent that a valid effectiveness measure can be developed

to represent expected health and safety outcomes. 1



# Pursuant to this requirement, in 2003 OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

requested that the Institute of Medicine (IOM), a member institution of the National Academies of

Science, investigate the application of CEA to gove rnment regulatory analysis. In response, the IOM

established the Committee to Evaluate Measures of Hea lth Benefits for Environmental, Health, and Safety

Regulation to assess the scientific validity, ethical imp lications, and practical utility of a wide range of

effectiveness measures used or proposed in CEA. Th e committee issued its report in January 2006. The

groundwater CEA was largely completed prior to the IO M report and, in its current form, does not reflect

all of the IOM's recommendations.

# 2 

# The Kaldor-Hicks efficiency criterion requires that th e “winners” in a particular case be potentially able to

compensate the “losers” such that total societal welf are improves. In this case, it is sufficient that total

benefits exceed total costs of the regulation. This is also known as a potential Pareto improvement, because

gains could be allocated such that at least one person in society would be better off while no one would be

worse off.

Economic Analysis for the H-2 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# CEA has been used for comparing programs that have similar goals, for example, alternative

medical interventions or treatments that can save a life or cure a disease. Specifically, QALY-based CEA

has been widely adopted within the health economi cs literature (Neumann, 2003; Gold et al., 1996) and in

the analysis of public health interventions (US FDA, 2004). In addition, the World Health Organization

has adopted the use of disability-adjusted life years, a variant on QALYs, to assess the global burden of

disease due to different causes, including environmen tal pollution (Murray et al., 2002; de Hollander et

al., 1999). The U.S. Public Health Service Pane l on Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine

recommended using QALYs when evaluating medical a nd public health programs that primarily reduce

both mortality and morbidity (Gold et al., 1996).

The use of health preference indices, such as QAL Ys, to characterize the effectiveness of health

and safety based rules has a number of useful attribut es, particularly in cases where benefits are difficult

to monetize. For the benefit-cost component of anal yses that affect human health, EPA typically relies on

estimates of willingness to pay for health risk reduction to determine the net benefits of different policy

options. In contrast, health economists often rely on cost-effectiveness analysis to compare alternative

approaches, using indices to rank preferences for diffe rent types of risk reductions. In these studies,

analysts calculate the ratio of an outcome (or eff ect) measure to costs, then rank the options based on

these ratios.

Environmental quality improvements may have mu ltiple health and ecological benefits, making

application of CEA more difficult. For the GWR, CEA can provide a framework for analysis: nonhealth

benefits are few, and all of the qua ntified benefits come from health effects. Therefore, EPA is including

in the GWR EA a preliminary and experimental application of the QALYs approach to CEA.

H.1.2 QALY methodology

When using a QALY rating system, health quality ranges from 0 to 1.0, where 1.0 may represent

full health, 0 death, and numbers in between (e.g., 0.8) represent an impaired condition. QALYs assume

that duration and quality of life are interchangeable, or “equivalent”, so that 1 year spent in perfect health

is equivalent to 2 years spent with a quality of life that is half that of perfect health.

QALYs can be used to evaluate environmenta l rules under certain circumstances, although some

very strong assumptions apply. These assumptions are embedded in the QALY analytical framework on

which a QALYs application is predicated. As noted in the QALY literature, this analytical tool is

consistent with the utility theory that underlies most of economics only if one imposes several restrictive

assumptions, including independence between longevity and quality of life in the utility function, risk

neutrality with respect to years of life (which imp lies that the utility function is linear), and constant

proportionality in trade-offs between quality and quan tity of life (Pliskin, Shepard, and Weinstein, 1980;

Bleichrodt, Wakker, and Johannesson, 1996). To the ex tent that these assumptions are not consistent with

actual preferences, the QALY approach will not provide results that are consistent with a benefit-cost

analysis based on the Kaldor-Hicks criterion. 2

# Economic Analysis for the H-3 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Paramete r QALY WTP

Risk aversion Risk neutral Empirically determined

Relation of duration and quality Independent Empirically determined

Proportionality of duration/ quality trade-off Constant Variable

Treatment of time/age in utility function Unit linear in time Empirically determined

Preferences Community/Individual Individual

Source of preference data Stated Revealed and stated

Treatment of income and prices Not explicitly

considered Constrains choices Even if the assumptions are reasonably consistent with reality, there are no guarantees that the

option with the largest QALYs saved per dollar cost w ill satisfy the Kaldor-Hicks criterion (i.e., generate

a potential Pareto improvement [Garber and Phelps, 1997]) because QALYs represent an average

valuation of health states rather than th e sum of societal willingness to pay (WTP).

However, benefit-cost analysis based on W TP is not without potentially troubling underlying

structures as well because it incorporates the ability to pa y (and thus the potential for equity concerns) and

the notion of consumer sovereignty (which emphasi zes wealth effects). Exhibit H.1 compares the two

approaches across a number of parameters. For the most part, WTP allows parameters to be determined

empirically, while the QALY approach imposes some conditions a priori.



# Exhibit H.1 Comparison of QALY and WTP Approaches

Source: Exhibit G-1, p. G-11, CAIR RIA



# The QALYs analysis in this appendix accounts for the loss in quality of life without consideration

of the initial health state and summarizes life year s saved for the entire population. In some CEAs

(Cohen, Hammitt, and Levy, 2003; Coyle et al., 2003), an alysts have adjusted the number of life years

saved to reflect that

1) the general public is not in perfect health a nd thus “healthy” life years are less than total

life years saved; and

2) those affected by pollution may be in a wor se health state than the general population and

therefore will not gain as many “healthy” lif e years, adjusted for quality, from a pollution

reduction.

Such adjustments would raise a number of serious ethical issues. Proponents of QALYs have

promoted the nondiscriminatory nature of QALYs in evaluating improvements in quality of life (e.g., an

improvement from a score of 0.2 to 0.4 is equivalent to an improvement from 0.8 to 1.0), so the starting

health status does not affect the evaluation of interv entions that improve quality of life. However, for

life-extending interventions, the gains in QALYs will be directly proportional to the baseline health state

# Economic Analysis for the H-4 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# (e.g., an individual with a 30-year life expectancy and a starting health status of 0.5 will gain exactly half

the QALYs of an individual with the same life expectancy and a starting health status of 1.0 for a similar

life-extending intervention). This is troubling becau se it imposes an additional penalty for those already

suffering from disabling conditions.

OMB (2003) has recognized this issue in its Circ ular A-4 guidance, which includes the following

statement.

When CEA is performed in specific rulemaking contexts, you should be prepared

to make appropriate adjustments to ensure fair treatment of all segments of the

population. Fairness is important in the choice and execution of effectiveness measures.

For example, if QALYs are used to evalua te a lifesaving rule aimed at a population that

happens to experience a high rate of disability (i.e., where the rule is not designed to

affect the disability), the number of life years saved should not necessarily be diminished

simply because the rule saves the lives of pe ople with life-shortening disabilities. Both

analytic simplicity and fairness suggest that the estimated number of life years saved for

the disabled population should be based on aver age life expectancy information for the

relevant age cohorts. More generally, wh en numeric adjustments are made for life

expectancy or quality of life, analysts should prefer use of population averages rather

than information derived from subgroups dom inated by a particular demographic or

income group. (p. 13)

Because of the fairness concerns discussed above, th is analysis does not reduce the number of life

years saved to reflect any differences in underlying h ealth status; rather, EPA assigns a weight of 1.0 to

all direct gains in life years. This estimate has been combined with the QALYs saved from avoided cases

of morbidity to yield a total life years saved from avoided cases. The resulting effectiveness measure has

been termed “Morbidity Inclusive Life Years” (MILYs ) in the regulatory impact analysis for the Final

CAIR Rule (2005). The Stage 2 DBPR and the LT2ESW TR used the same terminology, and it is applied

to this analysis for the GWR as well.

H.1.3 Concerns about the use of QALYs to evaluate environmental regulation

EPA is still evaluating the appropriate methods for application of CEA to environmental

regulations. To summarize, benefit-cost analysis has been the preferred method of choosing among

regulatory alternatives in terms of economic e fficiency for environmental regulations. Most

environmental regulations have multiple categories of benefits, and environmental economists have

preferred to aggregate results in terms of monetary net benefits. QALY-based analyses also have not been

as accepted in the environmental economics literatu re because of concerns about the theoretical

consistency of QALYs with individual preferences (Hammitt, 2002), treatment of benefits other than

human health, and a number of other factors (Freem an, Hammitt, and De Civita, 2002). Concerns with

the standard QALY methodology include consistenc y of CEA indices across multiple contexts; the

treatment of people with fewer years to live (the elderly); fairness to people with preexisting conditions

that may lead to reduced life expectancy and redu ced quality of life; and how the analysis should best

account for nonhealth benefits.

As an illustration of one of the major issues in ensuring consistency across CEAs conducted in

multiple contexts, it is useful to examine the degree of variability across QALY calibration

methodologies. A study by Erik Nord (Nord, 1999) ex amined differences in the health-state scores that

# Economic Analysis for the H-5 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule Severe Considerable Moderate

Rules of Thumb .65 - .85 .90 - .94 .98 - .995

QWB .45 - .55 .65 - .70 <.80

HUM1 .10 - .20 .30 - .40 <.85

HUM2 0.4 0.7 .90 - .94

EuroQol 0.2 0.6 0.7

York EuroQol (TTO) .20 - .25 .40 - .50 0.8

IHQL (3D) .50 - .70 .75 - .85 .89 - .93

IHQL (complex) .70 - .75 .80 - .90 .90 - .94

15 D 0.77 0.86 .91 - .93

Rosser-Kind 0.68 0.94 .97 - .98 Instrument Problem Level

Source: Nord (1999). Note that the estimates in this table represent health state

scores, rather than QALY decrements from a baseline health state. 

# would result by application of a wide range of multi-attribute utility instruments. One of these

instruments, the York EuroQoL Time Trade-off Ta riff, utilized the Time Trade-off (TTO) valuation

technique that which was also used for deriving th e QALY scores applied to this analysis (see Section

H.2.1.1.1). The results of the Nord study are summarized in Exhibit H.2 below.

One interpretation of the data in Exhibit H.2 is that the variability in QALY estimates across

methods suggests that great care must be taken when comparing the results of CEAs that utilize different

QALY scoring systems. An alternative view is that the scoring systems may themselves be ideally suited

to specific types of effects, and therefore compar isons across scales are meaningless (e.g., some argue the

Quality of Well Being Scale is best for acute effects because it specifically addresses symptoms, while

other techniques may be better suited for injuries, life-threatening chronic conditions, and chronic

conditions where severity may vary over time). There are likely other interpretations of these results as

well. The main point is that comparisons to other CEAs must make explicit consideration of

standardization issues such as the use of QALY estimation methods.



# Exhibit H.2 Health-State Scores According to Rules of Thumb and Different

Multi-Attribute Utility Instruments

The GWR EA includes the following MILYs-based analysis to illustrate one potential approach

for conducting a CEA. This is an experimental a pplication, and EPA is still evaluating the appropriate

methods for applying CEA to environmental regul ations with multiple outcomes. The methodology

presented in this section is not intended to stand as pr ecedent for either future water quality regulations or

other EPA regulations: the appropriateness of MI LYs (or QALYs) based CEA should be evaluated on a

case-by-case basis.

This analysis calculates the MILYs saved usi ng a quality of life decrement for rotavirus illness

and the estimated number of such illnesses to be avoided by implementation of the GWR, as presented in

the GWR EA. Additionally, the same decrement for a rotavirus illness is applied to the more severe Type

B illnesses avoided, although the Agency uses echovirus to represent Type B illnesses in the main EA .

This is an underestimate of QALYs saved for a voidance of Type B illnesses because Type B illnesses are

# 3 

# Additionally, the QALYs saved as calculated in this A ppendix are an underestimate for both Type A and Type B

illnesses, as they are based solely on the number of rota virus and echovirus cases avoided, and don’t account for the

avoidance of illness due to co-pathogens in the source wate rs. These and other unquantified benefits to the GWR are

described in Ch. 5, Section 5.1.2, of the EA.

Economic Analysis for the H-6 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# known to be more severe on average than Type A. 3 

# However, this method is considered the best

approach based on available information, which w ill be described in Section H.2.1.1.1 below.

The remainder of this Appendix provides the step-by-step development of a MILY-based

measure of the cost-effectiveness of the GWR in the following order:

1) Development of the MILY denominator. This includes determination of an appropriate

QALY decrement and its application to cases of morbidity; the calculation of life years

saved from avoided cases of mortality; and integration of morbidity and mortality life

years saved into a total life years saved denominator (MILY).

2) Development of the cost numerator. Costs are composed of the regulatory costs minus the

costs for medical treatment and time losses that are avoided by prevention of cases.

3) Finally, integration of the numerator and denominator to yield a cost-per-MILY saved

ratio.



# H.2 Methods

Promulgation of the GWR is expected to achieve reductions in viral concentrations in drinking

water and in the incidence of Type A illnesses su ch as rotavirus illness and Type B illnesses, thereby

avoiding the associated decrements to patients’ quality of life, and in some cases death. To capture the

benefits of reduction in Types A and B illnesses in a measure of cost effectiveness, cases of illness to be

avoided are converted into a life years equivalent (QAL Ys) so that they can be combined with the direct

gains in life expectancy from avoided premature mo rtality (Section H.2.1.2). Other nonquantified benefits

from items such as reduction of bacterial contam ination and improvements in the consistency of

performance of disinfection and distribution systems (as described in Chapter 5) are expected to be

significant. However, because they are not monetized , these benefits are not included in the quantified

QALY analysis.

The first step in the development of a cost-per-M ILY ratio in this CEA is to determine the QALY

decrement per case avoided to be used in calculati ng the MILYs denominator. A QALY decrement is the

time-equivalent by which a person 

# * s years of life are reduced by the loss of quality of life due to illness.

EPA reviewed the health literature to determine an appropriate QALY decrement, as described further in

Section H.2.1.1.1.

The QALY decrement is then used to derive the total QALYs saved across the population from a

reduction in morbidity related to drinking water c ontaminated with Type A viruses such as rotavirus

(Section H.2.1.1.2). The QALYs saved are added to the life years saved from reductions in premature

mortality from avoided fatal cases of such illnesses, resulting in an estimate of MILYs. An estimate of

MILYs saved is the effectiveness measure (denominat or) in the cost-per-MILY ratio of this CEA.

# 4 

# In some QALY calculations, two other elements are require d: the quality of life weight with the health condition

and the quality of life weight without the health condition (i.e., the baseline health state). These elements would be

derived from the medical cost-effectiveness and cost-utility literature. In this CEA, however, these are immaterial

because there is no adjustment of benefits for differing ba selines of health in the population: the health gain is

assumed the same for all individuals.

Economic Analysis for the H-7 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# The numerator of the cost-per-MILY saved measure is the cost of the regulation minus certain

costs associated with the illness to be avoided through rule implementation. The process of determining

these avoided costs and the resulting net cost numerator is described in Section H.2.2 below.

The numerator and denominator are integrated to estimate the cost effectiveness of the regulatory

alternatives in terms of net cost per MILY saved (Section H.2.3).

H.2.1 The CEA Denominator: Deriving MILYs

The QALY calculation for morbidity requires three elements: 4



# 1) Estimated change in incidence of the health condition (cases avoided),

2) Duration of the health condition (estimated time-in-state), and

3) Quality of life decrement due to the condition.

The first element is derived using the health im pact function approach, which requires computing

an estimate of the number of rotavirus illness cases a voided through rule promulgation. EPA calculates

this estimate in the main EA, and presents the results in Ch. 5, Exhibit 5.16. The second element is based

on the medical literature for each health condition. This estimate is compiled in the main EA and

presented in Appendix A, Exhibits A.1 and A.3. The third element is derived in this appendix by the

methods described in the following section (H.2.1.1).

H.2.1.1 Equivalent life years saved from avoided cases of morbidity

Calculating equivalent life years saved from avoided cases of morbidity involves developing a

QALY decrement and applying this to cases of illn ess avoided. The QALY decrement converts a

decrease in quality of life due to illness to a time-equivalent. In this CEA, a small number of cases of

Type A and Type B acute illness become fatal; an estimate of the number of life years saved for avoiding

these cases is calculated separately, in Section H.2.1.2.

H.2.1.1.1 Developing the QALY decrement

There are multiple steps to developing a QALY decr ement per case avoided in a CEA. First, the

Agency reviews and describes the health effect of in terest, i.e., the illness to be avoided; the primary

analysis of this EA uses rotavirus and echovirus to represent the health effects for two classes of illness,

Type A viruses and Type B viruses, respectively. S econd, the Agency conducts a literature review for

QALY-based health preference index scores for the releva nt health effects. Last, the Agency selects and

presents the QALY decrements for each health effect, based on the literature research. The final QALY

decrements for Type A and Type B illnesses are then applied to the estimate of non-fatal and fatal cases

# Economic Analysis for the H-8 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# avoided in each class of illness. These QALY decremen ts do not include nonquan tified benefits, which

for the GWR are expected to be significant.

H.2.1.1.1.1 Determining the Appropriate Health Endpoints

Rotavirus

EPA has selected rotavirus to represent Type A waterborne viral pathoge ns for the Ground Water

Rule risk assessment. Generally, Type A viruses are hi ghly infectious viruses that cause gastroenteritis,

resulting in symptoms that include vomiting, watery diarrhea, fever, and abdominal pain. Although they

are highly infectious, Type A viruses generally lead to mild, non-life-threatening illnesses. In modeling

the Ground Water Rule, EPA has assumed that the dur ation of illness is approximately 2.5 to 5 days

(Appendix A, Exhibit A.1) for Type A illnesses.

The elderly and the immunocompromised are also at greater risk than the general population of

experiencing severe health effects due to rotavirus infection. EPA has calculated specific cost-of-illness

estimates for the immunocompromised, as the duration of their infection tends to be longer than that of

the non-immunocompromised. Furthermore, the COI for Type A illnesses are specified by age group.

Echoviruses

For the Ground Water Rule risk assessment, EPA has selected echoviruses to represent Type B

waterborne viral pathogens, which ar e not highly infectious but result in more severe illness than Type A

viruses. The echoviruses group includes 28 viruses that be long to the enterovirus classification. Other

enteroviruses include the coxsackie viruses and the polio viruses, although because polio has been

eliminated in the United States, the remainder of this discussion focuses on non-polio enteroviruses.

Many people infected with an enteroviru s are asymptomatic, although enteroviruses do cause

approximately 10 million infections in the United St ates each year. Children and adolescents tend to be

more susceptible to illness from enterovirus infecti on, as they are less likely to have antibodies than

adults. Adults without prior immunity to a particular enterovirus may become ill as well.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, symptomatic enterovirus infection generally

manifests as mild upper respiratory illness, a flu-lik e illness with fever and muscle aches, or an illness

with a rash (sometimes called Hand, Foot, and M outh disease). Occasionally, enterovirus infection can

cause viral meningitis, myocarditis (an inflammation of the heart muscle that sometimes leads to heart

failure), encephalitis, or polio-like paralysis. Vira l meningitis is serious but rarely fatal in the

immunocompetent population; symptoms last from 7 to 10 days and the patient recovers completely.

Individuals with encephalitis or paralysis do not r ecover fully, and individuals who experience heart

failure but do not die may also have long-term comp lications. Some experts believe that enterovirus

infections can contribute to juvenile-onset diabetes me llitus, a chronic condition. In addition, enterovirus

infection may be fatal to some infants. EPA estimates for this EA that approximately 1 percent of Type B

illnesses will be severe (see Ch. 5 for discussion).

In modeling the Ground Water Rule, EPA has classifi ed infection with an echovirus into three

levels of severity based on a requirement for: no me dical care, a doctor visit with no hospitalization, or

hospitalization. For individuals of all ages, EPA has assumed a constant distribution of illness across

these severity levels, equal to 93 percent, 6 percent, and 1 percent of cases, respectively; and a duration of

# Economic Analysis for the H-9 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# illness that is 3 days, 5 days or 7 days, respectively (ranges for these means are shown in Appendix A,

Exhibit A.3).

EPA has assumed that a mild case (i.e., no medical care) of echovirus infection is associated with

nonspecific febrile illness, respiratory illness, and gast rointestinal illness. Moderate and severe cases (i.e.,

requiring a doctor visit and hospitalization, respectivel y) of echovirus infection are presumed to manifest

as aseptic (viral) meningitis; severe cases may also l ead to myopericarditis. This is a term that

encompasses both myocarditis (inflamation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis (inflammation of the

pericardium, which is the membrane that surrounds the heart). Most people with myocarditis or

pericarditis experience breathing discomfort, chest pain , fever, and malaise. According to one estimate,

approximately 10 to 30 percent of cases of myoperi carditis lead to long-term heart damage and/or

abnormalities and 5 percent of cases are fatal.

Among young children, infection with an echovirus is more likely to have serious consequences.

EPA has assumed that about 1 percent of cases of echovirus infection among infants under 1 month old

are fatal. Meningitis is an inflammation of the tissue surrounding the brain and the spinal cord, while

encephalitis is an inflammation of the brain itself. Although bacterial meningitis can be very dangerous,

individuals with viral meningitis us ually recover fully. In contrast, viral encephalitis is a very severe

condition that can be fatal or can cause permanent nervous system damage. EPA has assumed that such

cases last 5 days, with a range from 2 to a minimum of 7 days (ranging as high as 12 days for patients <1

year old).

For all age groups, EPA assumes that 93 percent of cases require no medical care, and illness

tends to last for 3 days, with a range of 1 to 6 days. EPA assumes that 6 percent of cases require a doctor

visit (associated with viral meningitis) but no hospitali zation and last for 5 days, with a range of 2 to a

minimum of 7 days. Finally, 1 percent of cases requi re hospitalization (associated with viral meningitis

and myopericarditis) and last for 7 da ys, with a range from 2 to 14 days.

The elderly and the immunocompromised are also at greater risk than the general population of

experiencing severe health effects due to infecti on with an echovirus. EPA has calculated specific

cost-of-illness estimates for the immunocompromised, as the duration of their infection tends to be longer

than that of the non-immunocompromised.

H.2.1.1.1.2 How Much Do Rotavirus and Echovirus Illnesses Affect Quality of Life?

There are three methods by which a decrease in qua lity of life due to illness is quantified in the

form of a QALY decrement: “direct elicitation,” “st andardized questionnaire,” and “database research.”

The first involves primary research, where subjects in a survey setting are asked to express preferences

for specific health states expressed on the 0 to 1 interval, where 0 represents death and 1 represents

perfect health. Most of these studies apply a time-tr adeoff, standard gamble, or rating scale elicitation

technique; sometimes multiple methods are applied. The more rigorous time-tradeoff and standard

gamble techniques are typically considered to yiel d more reliable estimates than the rating scale technique

(Gold, Stevenson, and Fryback, 2002). The direct elicitation method can be administered to samples of

patients with a given condition, to the general population (known as “community” samples), or to expert

panels.

The second method, “standardized questionnaire,” also involves some primary survey work, but

is simpler to implement than the direct elicitation approaches. This method involves administering a

# 5 

# The Harvard CEA database is available online at the following URL:

http://www.hcra.harvard.edu/pdf/preferencescores.pdf. Two versions of the database are available, containing

citations with publication dates through 1997.

(www.hsph.Harvard.edu/cearegistry/data /phase1preferenceweights.pdf), and containing citations with publication

dates from 1998 through 2001 (www.hsph.Harvard.edu/ cearegistry/data/phase2preferenceweights.pdf).

Economic Analysis for the H-10 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# standardized set of questions that evaluate multiple aspects of an individual’s health, including mobility,

degree of pain, and ability to provide care to oneself, and then using the answers to generate a QALY

score on the 0 to 1 scale. The QALY score is estimated using a formula, generated through prior

calibration work, for translating specific combina tions of questionnaire answers. The formula is

questionnaire specific. This method can also be admi nistered to different types of samples. Because of

its ease of use, many applications of this technique ar e conducted as an integral part of clinical trials for

specific treatment regimens. This facilitates calcula ting cost-effectiveness of various treatments of the

patient populations that are the subjects of the clini cal trial. Occasionally, the standardized questionnaire

method is applied by study authors themselves, relying on their own expert judgment.

EPA adopted the third and simplest method, “d atabase research,” for use in this CEA, using

values from existing literature and requiring no new primary research. Several databases have been

developed to facilitate these literature searches; the most extensive is the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

database developed by researchers at Harvar d University School of Public Health. 5 

# As noted below, EPA

used this database, supplemented by broader litera ture searches, to identify studies that include QALY

scores for the health e ffects of rotavirus illness.

Using existing literature requires some care in documenting the technique used to conduct the

study, the nature of the sample, and the match betw een the severity and duration of the health effect

studied and the health effect linked to drinking wate r contamination. The Agency’s criteria for selecting

the highest-quality studies include the following:

1) Where available, EPA generally prefers st udies administered to community-based samples.

These samples best match the attributes of the general population that is exposed to and

potentially at risk of health consequences from drinking water contaminants. Where

community-based studies are not available, th e Agency generally prefers patient samples,

followed by expert panels and author judgement.

2) Where available, EPA generally prefers directly administered time-trade-off (TTO) or standard

gamble studies over studies that administer a sta ndardized questionnaire. In some cases, however,

direct method studies have very small sample sizes or other major methodological shortcomings.

In these cases, the Agency uses its judgement to select a study that provides the most reliable

estimate, or look for consistency of results across several studies to guide the selection process.

EPA selected QALY decrements for this CEA that were developed using the TTO technique, as

will be discussed in the next section on literature for rotavirus.

3) The Agency attempts to select studies with the b est match to the health endpoint of interest. In

cases where the match is not good, because of differences in severity or duration of effect, for

example, EPA may favor use of studies that provide sufficient documentation to adjust the

estimates to better the match the severity and duration of interest.

The development of the QALY decrement (described above) is diagramed in Exhibit H.3 below.NoYes YesYes YesNoNo No NoStandardizedQuestionnaireExpert Panels /Author JudgmentAvailable?EndpointsMatch InSeverityandDurationUse Studies withDocumentation Sufficient ToAllow Duration and SeverityDifferences to Be AdjustedDecrementAdequateSample andSoundMethodAvailable?Use Best Available Studies andAttempt Corroboration withMultiple StudiesTimeTrade Off /StandardGambleStudiesAvailable?Patient SamplesAvailable?Community BasedSamplesAvailable?Exhibit H.3 QALY Decrement DevelopmentEconomic Analysis for the H-11 October 2006Final Ground Water Rule

# Economic Analysis for the H-12 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# H.2.1.1.1.3 Literature Review Methodology

The literature search was conducted using PubMed and EBSCO Host. PubMed is a database of

journal abstracts maintained by the National Librar y of Medicine. The database contains over 15 million

citations for biomedical articles back to the 1950s, including abstracts covered by Medline and

OldMedline. EBSCO Host is a private service that includes three databases: Business Source Corporate,

Regional Business News, and Knight Ridder. These three databases provide coverage of approximately

3,000 magazines, academic journals, and newspape rs, including many economics journals such as Risk

Analysis and PharmacoEconomics , with some publications dating back as far as 1965. Date constraints

were not applied to any of the database searches.

Because of the medical specificity of PubMed , searching on the terms “quality adjusted life

years” or “cost-utility” yielded cost-effectiveness studies with QALY estimates for a broad range of

health end-points. Due to the large number of resu lts, these search terms were coupled with each specific

health end point to focus the results on the h ealth states of relevance to the rule-making.

Perhaps because EBSCO focuses on business and ec onomics rather than medicine, a search of

EBSCO using the terms “quality adjusted life year ” and “cost-utility” yielded few health-specific QALY

studies, especially for the health end-points of relevance to this rulemaking. As a result,

“cost-effectiveness” was also used as a search-term for EBSCO Host. This term produced a large number

of results. To narrow the search, “cost-effectiveness” was coupled with each specific health end-point, as

was done in the PubMed searches.

Rotavirus

EPA found four relevant studies that had deve loped QALY scores for rotavirus infection or

related symptoms:

• an Institute of Medicine (2000) evaluation of a rotavirus vaccine;

• a Food and Drug Administration (2005) internal evaluation; and

• two studies cited in The Harvard CEA Da tabase, Anderson and Moser (1985) and Cook

et al. (1994).

The first study was conducted in 2000, by a panel convened by the Institute of Medicine (IOM).

The IOM panel published a QALY-based analysis of numerous vaccines, including one that prevents

rotavirus illness. The panel assumed that all rotavirus infections occur in children up to 4 years old and

that illness causes 8 days of acute diarrhea. It assigned a QALY score to rotavirus using the Health

Utilities Index Mark II (HUI-II). The HUI-II is a scale th at rates morbidity across seven health attributes:

sensation, mobility, emotion, cognition, self-care, pain, and fertility. The values embedded in the HUI-II

are derived from the responses of a random sample of Canadian parents. The panel developed a

description of the health effects associated with ro tavirus by surveying experts, and then used this

description to score rotavirus on the HUI-II.

Using this expert judgment process, the panel assigned a QALY score of 0.75 to rotavirus illness.

Presuming that children aged 0-4 are generally close to perfect health, this implies a decrement of 0.25.

However, in its calculations the IOM panel used a Ca nadian study to determine baseline health scores for

# Economic Analysis for the H-13 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# individuals age 15 and up. The panel then assumed th at individuals from 0 to 4 years old have the same

baseline health as those ages 15 to 24; this produ ces an age-adjusted QALY score of 0.69 (baseline

health, 0.92, multiplied by the QALY score, 0.75). This would imply a decrement of 0.23, as the IOM

calculates the decrement as the base line health minus an age-adjusted QALY score (0.23 = 0.92 - 0.69).

In the second study, the FDA used a system similar to the HUI-II, called the Quality of

Well-Being Scale (QWB), to assess the quality-of-life im pacts of health conditions. The QWB Scale is

used to generate a quality-of-life score by combining the impact of functional limitations with the impact

of symptoms on quality of life, ultimately weighted by the duration of time with those symptoms.

Because of its focus on specific symptoms in addition to functional limitations, the Quality of Well-Being

Scale is considered by some observers to be well-su ited for analysis of acute effects. The calibration

scheme reflected in the Quality of Well-Being Scale w as determined by clinical judgement (i.e., a panel

of doctors); the FDA has used its own internal expe rtise to assign symptoms and description of functional

ability to patients with various illnesses.

FDA used this system to provide QALY scor es for a recent Regulatory Impact Analysis of

bioterrorism rules (2004) involving gastrointestinal illnesses. The FDA bioterror rule analysis did not

include rotavirus. However, FDA has used the QALY scores from the bioterror analysis to conduct

internal examinations of rotavirus infection, as part of a project called The Annual Health Cost of

Food-Related Illness (2005). FDA applied a QALY score of 0.51 to mild and moderate cases of rotavirus

illness and 0.48 to severe cases of rotavirus illness that re quire hospitalization. Using a baseline health of

1.0, this implies a decrement of 0.49 for mild and moderate cases and 0.52 for severe cases.

EPA found that the description of mild/modera te cases of gastrointestinal illness from the

bioterror rule sounds comparable to rotavirus illn ess. Mild and moderate cases are assumed to include

sick or upset stomach, vomiting or loose bowel move ment, with or without chills, or aching all over;

inability to drive or ride in a car or use public tr ansportation without help; limited social activity, though

able to perform self-care activities; and confinement to the bed, chair, or couch most of the day. The

description of a severe case of gastroin testinal illness is similar to that for mild and moderate cases; the

only difference is that severe cases require hospitalization.

The Harvard CEA database contains two studies that provide QALY scores for symptoms similar

to those experienced by individuals infected w ith rotavirus. These two studies, Anderson and Moser

(1985) and Cook et al. (1994), are catalogued under “Nausea, Vomiting, and Bowel” health effects in the

Harvard CEA database.

Cook et al. (1994) use a TTO study to compare the cost-effectiveness of three gallstone

treatments. The authors surveyed patients to de termine the quality-of-life impact of the treatment

protocols’ side effects, some of which are simila r to rotavirus illness. Cook et al. propose the following

QALY scores: 0.81 for severe diarrhea, 0.68 for severe diarrhea with moderate pain, and 0.47 for severe

diarrhea with severe pain and nausea. The article provides a more detailed description of only the most

severe health state, which is defined as: “2 or 3 a ttacks of continuous agonizing pain,” lasting from a half

hour to four hours; “uncontrollable diarrhea 2 or 3 tim es a week,” which is very painful once a week; and

“nausea for a few hours once a week”.

The study calculates QALY scores for two reference time periods (12 years and 1 year) and finds

no statistically significant difference between the two sets of values when viewed in comparable terms,

which suggests that the QALY scores ar e invariant to the length of illness.

# Economic Analysis for the H-14 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Health Effect or Symptom Complex Baseline QALY

Score Decrement Time in

State Type Source

1 0.75 0.25

0.92 0.69 0.23

mild rotavirus illness 1 0.51 0.49 4 to 8 days

moderate rotavirus illness 1 0.51 0.49 4 to 8 days

severe rotavirus illness 1 0.48 0.52 5 to 9 days

s evere diarrhea 1 0.81 0.19

s evere diarrhea w/ moderate p ain 1 0.68 0.32

severe diarrhea with severe pain and nausea 1 0.47 0.53 invariant to

duration Timetradeoff,

patientbased Cook et al.

(1994) Expert

judgement,

QWB FDA

(2004,

2005)

sick of upset stomach, vomiting or loose bowel

movement, with or without fever, chills, or

aching all over 1 0.428 0.572 5 days Expert

judgement,

QWB Anderson

and Moser

(1985) rotavirus illness, children ages 0-4 8 days Expert

judgement,

HUI-II IOM

(2000) 

# The second study from the Harvard CEA database, Anderson and Moser (1985), uses a QWB

scale to develop QALY decrements for parasitic illnesses, such as entamoeba histolytica, ascaris

lumbircoides, and necetor americanus. The descripti on of the health state associated with the first

parasite, entamoeba histolytica, is similar to the descr iption of rotavirus infection: “sick of upset stomach,

vomiting or loose bowel movement, with or without fever, chills, or aching all over.” Anderson and

Moser apply a QALY decrement of 0.572 to entamoeba histolytica. This study’s methodology is very

similar to that used by the FDA, which also u sed the QWB scale to develop a QALY decrement ranging

from 0.49 to 0.52.

The QALY decrements derived in the four studi es described above are shown in Exhibit H.4.



# Exhibit H.4 Summary of QALY Estimates and Decrements for Rotavirus Illness

# Economic Analysis for the H-15 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Echoviruses

EPA’s literature review did not discover any QALY scores developed specifically for infection

with an echovirus. The Agency expanded the search to include enteroviruses, coxsackievirus, and

poliovirus, to no avail. In addition, neither the EBSCO and PubMed databases nor the Harvard CEA

database contain QALY scores for most of the sequel ae associated with an infection with an echovirus:

aseptic meningitis, exanthum, herpangina, myopericard itis, nonspecific febrile illness, and pleurodynia.

The database does contain a score for fulminant hepatitis , which is similar to the condition used in the

EA, “sepsis-like illness with hepatitis,” although by itsel f this is not enough information for developing a

composite QALY score. The CEA database did contai n a value for bacterial meningitis, but bacterial

meningitis is much more severe than aseptic (viral) meningitis.

H.2.1.1.1.4 Literature Review Conclusions

Lost life years for fatal cases of rotavirus and echoviruses will be calculated based on a mortality

incidence analysis that will attribute to each statisti cal death an age at death and, from that, calculate a

remaining life expectancy absent the ground water cont amination-related death. Each lost life year

should be assigned a QALY equivalent score of 1.0 fo r incorporation in the effectiveness denominator.

The remainder of this section explains the Ag ency’s methods for incorporating a total QALY

decrement for each incident of morbidity, including morbidity preceding mortality.

Rotavirus

EPA considered three possible options for evalua ting the quality-of-life impacts of infection with

rotavirus. The first two options would use a single average case severity level, and would require

determining with which of two studies the Agency’s assumptions on severity of illness were more closely

aligned– the FDA study (2005) or Cook et al. (1994) . The third option, and the option EPA chose,

involves using the high and low estimated decrements from the Cooke et al. study as a range, forgoing the

need to determine one average-case severity level.

First, EPA considered applying the values derive d by the FDA for use in its Annual Health Cost

of Food-Related Illness (2005) project– 0.49 for mild and moderate cases and 0.52 for severe cases. The

Agency believes that of the thr ee QALY decrements for rotavirus infection derived from an expert

judgement process, the FDA value is the most r obust. The FDA used the same quality-of-life scale as

Anderson and Moser (1985); the Agency prefers th e FDA study because the values have already been

used in the FDA bioterror rule and in EPA’s Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. The

QALY decrement from the FDA project is preferable to the score from the IOM report, because there is

relatively little documentation available on the de rivation of the QALY score in the IOM report.

Second, EPA considered using a QALY decrement derived from Cook et al (1994). Of the four

studies identified in its literature review, this is the onl y direct survey of patient preferences. Cook et al.

provide three different decrements: 0.19 for severe di arrhea; 0.32 for severe diarrhea with moderate pain;

and 0.53 for severe diarrhea with pain and nausea. If all of the cases in the EA are homogenous and

relatively severe, then the Cook et al. study would s uggest a QALY decrement, 0.53, that is very similar

to that used by the FDA project (0.49 to 0.52). If most cases do not involve nausea, then Cook et al.

# Economic Analysis for the H-16 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# would suggest that a more appropriate decrement for these cases would be 0.32. Similarly, if most cases

are not associated with abdominal pain, then the smallest decrement from Cook et al. (0.19) may be

appropriate.

Third, EPA noted that the Cook et al. decrement is similar to the FDA study for the most severe

cases and smaller than the FDA decrements for mild and moderate cases. Therefore, EPA decided to

apply the range from Cook et al.(0.19 to 0.53 Quality Adjusted Life Days per day of illness) as a

reasonable sensitivity analysis of a decr ement based on available literature.

Echovirus

The literature did not provide a QALY decremen t for an echovirus illness. Hence the Agency

considered developing a composite QALY decremen t for echovirus illness based on the virus’ sequelae,

however, many of the sequelae also did not have decrements presented in the literature.

Therefore, based on the best available inform ation, EPA chose to apply the rotavirus illness

decrement to Type B cases in addition to Type A cases. Since Type B illnesses are generally more severe

than those of Type A, this is an underestimate of the quality of life decrement due to an average Type B

illness, and the Agency acknowledges that it results in a low estimate of QALYs saved from avoided

Type B illnesses.

Estimating Time-in-State

The time in state, or duration, of these acute illnesses is presented in the GWR EA (see Chapter 5

and Appendix A) and is used in this CEA to determ ine an average QALY decrement that is weighted by

the percent occurrence of cases in each category (by ag e and severity, presented in Exhibits H.5a-b) and

their respective duration estimates (Exhibit H.6).

The next section of this Appendix applies the rotavirus illness QALY decrement to all estimated

cases of Type A and B illnesses (morbidity) that the GWR is expected to prevent.

# Economic Analysis for the H-17 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule Duration

(days) % Cases by

Age Weighted

Duration (days) % Cases in

Healthy and

Immunocompromised

Populations Final Weighted

Average

Duration 1



# (days)

A B C = A * B D E = C * D

< 2 yrs 2 

# 3.0 4% 0.13

2 - < 5 yrs 2 

# 3.0 2% 0.07

5 to < 16 yrs 3.0 11% 0.34

? 16 yrs 2.5 82% 2.05

Total 100% 2.59 99.7% 2.58

< 2 yrs 5.0 4% 0.21

2 to < 5 yrs 3.0 2% 0.07

5 to < 16 yrs 3.0 11% 0.34

? 16 yrs 2.5 82% 2.05

Total 100% 2.67 0.3% 0.01

2.59

Sources: Column A - Appendix A, Exhibit A.1

Column B - GWR model output

Column D - Exhibit 5.4 

# Total Age

Notes: In the GWR EA, rotavirus is used as a representative illness for calculating cases of Type A

illnesses to be avoided by rule implementation. Days of illness are the days ill due to a case of rotavirus

infection. 

# Immunocompromised Population Healthy Population

1 

# A weighted average duration for all Type A illness cases to be avoided by the GWR is derived by

multiplying the duration of symptoms in each age group, for both the Healthy and Immunocompromised

populations, by the corresponding percentage of cases in each age group; the result is multiplied by the

percentage of healthy vs. immunocompromised patients, which is estimated in the primary analysis of the

GWR EA to be 98.4% and 1.6%, respectively. The results for the two populations are summed to yield the

duration, in days, for a weighted average case.

2 

# Duration of symptoms for ages <5 yrs in the healthy population are a weighted average (taken from

Exhibit A.1) between the inpatient (1.4% of cases) and the group of No Medical Care/Outpatient (100% -

1.4% = 98.6% of cases) =(.014 * 5 days) + (.986 * 3 days) = 3.03 days. 

# Exhibit H.5a Duration Per Average Case of Type A Illness

# Economic Analysis for the H-18 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule Duration

(days) % Cases by

Age Weighted

Duration

(days) % Cases by

Severity Level Final

Weighted

Average

Duration 1



# (days)

A B C = A * B D E = C * D

< 1 yr 3.0 0.1% 0.00

1 to < 5 yrs 3.0 7% 0.22

5 to < 16 yrs 3.0 14% 0.42

? 16 yrs 3.0 78% 2.35

Total 100% 3.00 93% 2.79

< 1 yr 5.0 0.1% 0.01

1 to < 5 yrs 5.0 7% 0.37

5 to < 16 yrs 5.0 14% 0.70

? 16 yrs 5.0 78% 3.91

Total 100% 5.00 6% 0.3

< 1 yr 7.0 0.1% 0.01

1 to < 5 yrs 7.0 7% 0.52

5 to < 16 yrs 7.0 14% 0.99

? 16 yrs 7.0 78% 5.48

Total 100% 7.00 1% 0.07

3.16

Sources: Column A - Appendix A, Exhibit A.1

Column B - GWR model output

Column D - Exhibit 5.4 

# Age

Notes: In the GWR EA , rotavirus is used as a representative illness for calculating cases of Type A

illnesses to be avoided by rule implementation. Days of illness are the days ill due to a case of

rotavirus infection.

1 

# A weighted average duration for all Type B illness ca ses to be avoided by the GWR is derived by

multiplying the duration of symptoms in each age group, for each severity level (No Medical Care,

Doctor, and Hospitalization), by the correspondi ng percentage of cases in each age group; the

result is multiplied by the percentage of patients in each severity level, which is estimated to be

93%, 6%, and 1%, respectively. The results for t he three patient populations are summed to yield

the duration, in days, for a weighted average case. 

# Cases Not Requiring Medical Care

Cases Requiring Doctor Visit

Cases Requiring Hospitalization

Total Weighted Duration 1 

# Exhibit H.5b Duration Per Average Case of Type B Illness

# Economic Analysis for the H-19 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule Type of

Illness Type of

Decrement

Estimate 1 

# QALYs Annual

Decrement 2



# (per year) Weighted Avg

Duration of

Illness

(days) Weighted Avg

QALYs Decrement

(life years)

A B C = A * B/365

Low 0.19 2.59 0.0013

High 0.53 2.59 0.0038

Low 0.19 3.16 0.0016

High 0.53 3.16 0.0046

Source: Column A - QALY decrement: Cook et al. (1994)

Column B - Exhibit H.5a-b 1 

# A low and high estimate of QALYs is calculated based on the range of decrements for

rotavirus-like symptoms presented in Cook et al. (1994). Cook et al. decrements

ranged from 0.19 for the mildest case to 0.53 for the most severe (0.32 for the moderate

cases). Using the range provides a sensitivit y analysis that allows for cases that cover

a range in severity.

2 

# In the GWR EA, rotavirus is used as a representative illness and indicator for Type A

viruses, and echovirus for the Type B viruses. In this CEA, a quality of life decrement

for symptoms of rotavirus illness is used to calculate the QALYs saved for avoided

illnesses of both Type A and Type B based on best available information. The rotavirus

decrement serves as a low estimate for Type B illnesses because illnesses of Type B

would generally be more severe and therefore have a larger QALY decrement than

those of Type A.



# Type A

Type B 

# Exhibit H.6 Average QALY Loss Per Case of Type A and Type B Illness

H.2.1.1.2 Applying the QALY decrement to cases of morbidity

An estimate of the number of Type A and Type B illness cases that promulgation of the GWR is

expected to avoid is developed in the EA of this rule. Rotavirus cases are used as a proxy for Type A

illnesses avoided, and echovirus cases for Type B. EPA realizes that the benefit of avoiding these cases

represents only a portion of the benefits of implem enting the GWR (see Footnote 4 of this Appendix and

Ch. 5, Section 5.4, of the primary analysis).

The number of cases avoided as presented in this A ppendix is less than the number shown in the

primary EA because EPA discounts the cases in this A ppendix (which are used to calculate the MILYs

that comprise the denominator in the CEA ratio).

The current consensus in health economics is that discounting should be done to both the

numerator of a CEA ratio (usually in dollars) and the denominator (usually in terms of an effect such as

number of cases avoided). OMB agrees with this position, and presents the following discussion in

Circular A-4:

When future benefits or costs are hea lth-related, some have questioned whether

discounting is appropriate, since the rationa le for discounting money may not appear to

apply to health. It is true that lives saved today cannot be invested in a bank to save more

lives in the future. But the resources that woul d have been used to save those lives can be

invested to earn a higher payoff in future lives saved. People have been observed to

prefer health gains that occur immediately to identical health gains that occur in the

future. Also, if future health gains are not discounted while future costs are, then the

# 6 

# Note that EPA assumes that the morbidity effects a ssociated with fatal and non-fatal cases are the same.

Economic Analysis for the H-20 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# following perverse result occurs: an attrac tive investment today in future health

improvement can always be made more attractive by delaying the investment. For such

reasons, there is a professional consensus th at future health effects, including both

benefits and costs, should be discounted at the same rate. This consensus applies to both

BCA and CEA. (p. 34)

Furthermore, because some of the implementati on and monitoring costs occur before any health

benefits are realized, the overall CEA results are sensitive to the discount rate used. EPA and OMB

guidance documents suggest discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. A 3 percent discount rate reflects the

accepted “social rate of time preference” and is consis tent with recommendations of both the U.S. Public

Health Service Panel on Cost Effectiveness in Hea lth and Medicine and the NAS panel on CEA (Gold et

al., 1996). To examine the impact of the choice of discount rate, EPA also calculates all values of this

CEA using a 7 percent rate, consiste nt with an “opportunity cost of capital” concept to reflect the time

value of resources directed to meet regulatory requirements, as recommended by OMB guidance. Further

discussion of this topic appears in Chapter 7 of Gold et al. (1996) and in Chapter 6 of the EPA Guidelines

for Economic Analysis.

Finally, using the equations below, the annua lized estimate of rotavirus illness cases avoided is

multiplied by the QALY decrement per case to yield a total estimated number of QALYs saved (Exhibits

H.7a-b). 6



# Low estimate: (0.0013 QALYs per case) X (annualized rotavirus illness cases)

High estimate: (0.0038 QALYs per case) X (annualized rotavirus illness cases)

The low and high estimates represent the range of severity of illness documented in the study by

Cook et al., as described previously in Literature Review Methodology (Section H.2.1).

# Economic Analysis for the H-21 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule Low Hi g h Low Hi g h Low Hi g h

A B C=A*0.0013 D=A*0.0038 E=B*0.0013 F=B*0.0038 G = C + E H = D + F

A1 6,194 0.0 8 23 0.0001 0.0002 8 23

A2 36,689 0.2 49 138 0.0003 0.0009 49 138

A3 39,931 0.3 54 150 0.0004 0.0010 54 150

A4 141,650 0.9 191 533 0.0013 0.0035 191 533

A1 5,151 0.0 7 19 0.0000 0.0001 7 19

A2 32,773 0.2 44 123 0.0003 0.0008 44 123

A3 35,754 0.2 48 135 0.0003 0.0009 48 135

A4 132,709 0.9 179 499 0.0012 0.0033 179 499



# Sources: Columns C - F: QALY decrement

Columns A and B: Ch. 5, Exhibit 5.16 

# Non-Fatal Cases Fatal Cases Morbidity-Related

QALYs for Cases

Avoided Annualized

Cases Avoided

1 

# In the GWR EA, rotavirus is used as a representative illness and indicator for the Type A viruses.

2 

# A low and high estimate of QALYs is calculated based on the range of decrements for rotavirus-like symptoms presented

in Cook et al. (1994). Cook et al. decrements ranged from 0.19 for the mildest case to 0.53 for the most severe (0.32 for

the moderate cases). The decrements shown for low and high estimate here (.0013 and .0038) are multiplied by the

duration of an average Type B illness.

# NonFatal Fatal Rule

Alternative

3% Discount Rate

7% Discount Rate Morbidity-Related QALYs 2 

# (years) 

# Exhibit H.7a QALYs Saved for Avoided Morbidity Related to Type A Viruses 1



# (All Ages)

# Economic Analysis for the H-22 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule Low Hi g h Low Hi g h Low Hi g h

A B C = A * 0.0016 D = A * 0.0046 E = B * 0.0016 F = B * 0.0046 G = C + E H = D + F

A1 425 0.1 1 2 0.0001 0.0004 1 2

A2 2,259 0.4 4 10 0.0007 0.0021 4 10

A3 2,410 0.5 4 11 0.0008 0.0022 4 11

A4 8,111 1.6 13 37 0.0027 0.0075 13 37

A1 351 0.1 1 2 0.0001 0.0003 1 2

A2 2,021 0.4 3 9 0.0007 0.0018 3 9

A3 2,160 0.4 4 10 0.0007 0.0020 4 10

A4 7,599 1.5 12 35 0.0025 0.0070 13 35



# Sources: Columns C - F: QALY decrement

Columns A and B: Ch. 5, Exhibit 5.16 

# 3% Discount Rate

7% Discount Rate

1 

# In the GWR EA, echovirus is used as a representative illness and indicator for the Type B viruses, and rotavirus for Type A. I n this CEA,

rotavirus is used as a lower bound estimate for Type B illnesses (the r ange of Low to High QALYs pr esented here is a lower boun d on a

range that would be expected with Type B illnesses) based on best available information.

2 

# A low and high estimate of QALYs is calculated based on the rang e of decrements for rotavirus-like symptoms presented in Cook e t al.

(1994). Cook et al. decrements ranged from 0.19 for the mildest case to 0.53 for the most severe (0.32 for the moderate cases) . The

decrements shown for low and high estimate here (.0016 and .00 46) are multiplied by the duration of an average Type B illness. 

# Rule

Alternative Morbidity-Related

QALYs for Cases

Avoided Morbidity-Related QALYs 2 

# (years)

Fatal Cases Non-Fatal Cases Annualized Cases

Avoided

Non-Fatal Fatal 

# Exhibit H.7b QALYs Saved for Avoided Morbidity Related to Type B Viruses 1



# (All Ages)

# Economic Analysis for the H-23 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# H.2.1.2 Life years saved from avoided cases of premature mortality

As shown in the previous section, the denominat or of the CEA ratio includes QALYs saved (in

the form of life year equivalents) from avoide d morbidity in non-fatal cases of rotavirus illness.

Additionally, it includes life years saved that are associ ated with the morbidity for avoided fatal cases. A

different method applies for calculating life years saved from avoided premature mortality, as this section

will show. This computation, which does not involve a QALY decrement, is simply the aggregate

number of projected life years saved for people who would die prematurely from rotavirus illness without

the regulation.

Using the quantity of fatal cases avoided by each multi-year age group as estimated by the GWR

model, this analysis allocates those deaths even ly across the years within the age group using the

following calculation.

cases avoided

n 

# = (cases avoided)

I 

# ÷ (A

2 

# - A

1 

# )

where n = year in age interval

I = age interval from A

1 

# to A

2



# A

1 

# = Youngest age in age interval I

A

2 

# = Oldest age in age interval I

For example, 0.2 deaths were prevented fo r the age group 16 to 65 years (using cases annualized

at a 3 percent discount rate); 0.2 deaths/(65 - 16) year s = .004 deaths avoided per year in the 16 to 65 age

group.

Next, the cases avoided for each year y are multiplied by the average life expectancy remaining

for each single-year age group n . Last, total life years saved for each age n are summed to produce a total

life years saved for the population. EPA presents these results in Exhibits H.8a-h for the Final GWR and

each Alternative, and provides a summary of results in Exhibit H.9.

# Economic Analysis for the H-24 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule Annualized Deaths

Avoided Annualized LifeYears Saved Annualized

Deaths Avoided Annualized LifeYears Saved

A B C = A * B D E = A * D

Under 1 year 76.9 0.001 0.067 0.001 0.056

1 year 76.4 0.001 0.067 0.000 0.000

2 years 75.4 0.000 0.024 0.000 0.020

3 years 74.5 0.000 0.023 0.000 0.019

4 years 73.5 0.000 0.023 0.000 0.019

5 years 72.5 0.000 0.031 0.000 0.019

6 years 71.5 0.000 0.030 0.000 0.019

7 years 70.5 0.000 0.030 0.000 0.018

8 years 69.5 0.000 0.030 0.000 0.018

9 years 68.6 0.000 0.029 0.000 0.018

10 years 67.6 0.000 0.029 0.000 0.018

11 years 66.6 0.000 0.028 0.000 0.017

12 years 65.6 0.000 0.028 0.000 0.017

13 years 64.6 0.000 0.027 0.000 0.017

14 years 63.6 0.000 0.027 0.000 0.017

15 years 62.6 0.000 0.027 0.000 0.016

16 years 61.7 0.001 0.036 0.000 0.030

17 years 60.7 0.001 0.035 0.000 0.029

18 years 59.7 0.001 0.035 0.000 0.029

19 years 58.8 0.001 0.034 0.000 0.028

20 years 57.8 0.001 0.033 0.000 0.028

21 years 56.9 0.001 0.033 0.000 0.027

22 years 55.9 0.001 0.032 0.000 0.027

23 years 55.0 0.001 0.032 0.000 0.026

24 years 54.0 0.001 0.031 0.000 0.026

25 years 53.1 0.001 0.031 0.000 0.026

26 years 52.1 0.001 0.030 0.000 0.025

27 years 51.2 0.001 0.030 0.000 0.025

28 years 50.2 0.001 0.029 0.000 0.024

29 years 49.3 0.001 0.029 0.000 0.024

30 years 48.3 0.001 0.028 0.000 0.023

31 years 47.4 0.001 0.027 0.000 0.023

32 years 46.5 0.001 0.027 0.000 0.022

33 years 45.5 0.001 0.026 0.000 0.022

34 years 44.6 0.001 0.026 0.000 0.021

35 years 43.6 0.001 0.025 0.000 0.021

36 years 42.7 0.001 0.025 0.000 0.021

37 years 41.7 0.001 0.024 0.000 0.020

38 years 40.8 0.001 0.024 0.000 0.020

39 years 39.9 0.001 0.023 0.000 0.019

40 years 38.9 0.001 0.023 0.000 0.019

41 years 38.0 0.001 0.022 0.000 0.018

42 years 37.1 0.001 0.021 0.000 0.018

43 years 36.2 0.001 0.021 0.000 0.017

44 years 35.3 0.001 0.020 0.000 0.017

45 years 34.4 0.001 0.020 0.000 0.017

46 years 33.5 0.001 0.019 0.000 0.016

47 years 32.6 0.001 0.019 0.000 0.016

48 years 31.7 0.001 0.018 0.000 0.015

49 years 30.8 0.001 0.018 0.000 0.015

50 years 30.0 0.001 0.017 0.000 0.014 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate

Age Group Life Expectancy

(years) 

# Exhibit H.8a Annualized Life-Years Saved for Avoided Premature Mortality,

Type A Illness, Alternative 1 (Continued on next page)

# Economic Analysis for the H-25 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule Annualized Deaths

Avoided Annualized LifeYears Saved Annualized

Deaths Avoided Annualized LifeYears Saved

51 years 29.1 0.001 0.017 0.000 0.014

52 years 28.2 0.001 0.016 0.000 0.014

53 years 27.4 0.001 0.016 0.000 0.013

54 years 26.5 0.001 0.015 0.000 0.013

55 years 25.7 0.001 0.015 0.000 0.012

56 years 24.8 0.001 0.014 0.000 0.012

57 years 24.0 0.001 0.014 0.000 0.012

58 years 23.2 0.001 0.013 0.000 0.011

59 years 22.4 0.001 0.013 0.000 0.011

60 years 21.6 0.001 0.013 0.000 0.010

61 years 20.9 0.001 0.012 0.000 0.010

62 years 20.1 0.001 0.012 0.000 0.010

63 years 19.3 0.001 0.011 0.000 0.009

64 years 18.6 0.001 0.011 0.000 0.009

65 years 17.9 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.002

66 years 17.2 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.002

67 years 16.4 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.002

68 years 15.8 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.002

69 years 15.1 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.002

70 years 14.4 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.002

71 years 13.8 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.002

72 years 13.1 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.002

73 years 12.5 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.002

74 years 11.9 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.002

75 years 11.3 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.001

76 years 10.7 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.001

77 years 10.2 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.001

78 years 9.6 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001

79 years 9.1 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001

80 years 8.6 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001

81 years 8.1 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001

82 years 7.6 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001

83 years 7.2 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001

84 years 6.7 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001

85 years 6.3 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001

86 years 6.0 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001

87 years 5.6 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001

88 years 5.3 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001

89 years 5.0 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001

90 years 4.7 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001

91 years 4.4 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001

92 years 4.1 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001

93 years 3.9 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000

94 years 3.7 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000

95 years 3.5 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000

96 years 3.3 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000

97 years 3.1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

98 years 2.9 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

99 years 2.7 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

>=100 years 2.6 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Total 0.041 1.7 0.033 1.3

Notes:

Sources: 

# Life Expectancy

(years)

Column A: National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 51, No. 3, December 29, 2002, "Life table for the total

population: United States, 2000". Columns B and D: GWR model output. Columns B and D: The GWR model generates the allocation of deaths by age interval: <2 yrs (4%), 2 -

4 yrs (2%), 5 - 15 (11%), 16 - 64 (69%), and 65 - 100 (14%). For each age, the following is calculated:

(annualized deaths avoided) x (% deaths in age interval) / (no. years in interval). 

# 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate

Age Group 

# Exhibit H.8a Annualized Life-Years Saved from Avoided Premature Mortality,

Type A Illness, Alternative 1 (Continued)

# Economic Analysis for the H-26 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule Annualized Deaths

Avoided Annualized LifeYears Saved Annualized

Deaths Avoided Annualized LifeYears Saved

A B C = A * B D E = A * D

Under 1 year 76.9 0.005 0.402 0.005 0.359

1 year 76.4 0.005 0.399 0.005 0.357

2 years 75.4 0.002 0.141 0.002 0.126

3 years 74.5 0.002 0.139 0.002 0.124

4 years 73.5 0.002 0.137 0.002 0.123

5 years 72.5 0.003 0.184 0.002 0.164

6 years 71.5 0.003 0.181 0.002 0.162

7 years 70.5 0.003 0.179 0.002 0.160

8 years 69.5 0.003 0.176 0.002 0.157

9 years 68.6 0.003 0.174 0.002 0.155

10 years 67.6 0.003 0.171 0.002 0.153

11 years 66.6 0.003 0.169 0.002 0.151

12 years 65.6 0.003 0.166 0.002 0.149

13 years 64.6 0.003 0.164 0.002 0.146

14 years 63.6 0.003 0.161 0.002 0.144

15 years 62.6 0.003 0.159 0.002 0.142

16 years 61.7 0.003 0.211 0.003 0.188

17 years 60.7 0.003 0.207 0.003 0.185

18 years 59.7 0.003 0.204 0.003 0.182

19 years 58.8 0.003 0.201 0.003 0.179

20 years 57.8 0.003 0.198 0.003 0.176

21 years 56.9 0.003 0.194 0.003 0.174

22 years 55.9 0.003 0.191 0.003 0.171

23 years 55.0 0.003 0.188 0.003 0.168

24 years 54.0 0.003 0.185 0.003 0.165

25 years 53.1 0.003 0.181 0.003 0.162

26 years 52.1 0.003 0.178 0.003 0.159

27 years 51.2 0.003 0.175 0.003 0.156

28 years 50.2 0.003 0.172 0.003 0.153

29 years 49.3 0.003 0.168 0.003 0.150

30 years 48.3 0.003 0.165 0.003 0.147

31 years 47.4 0.003 0.162 0.003 0.145

32 years 46.5 0.003 0.159 0.003 0.142

33 years 45.5 0.003 0.155 0.003 0.139

34 years 44.6 0.003 0.152 0.003 0.136

35 years 43.6 0.003 0.149 0.003 0.133

36 years 42.7 0.003 0.146 0.003 0.130

37 years 41.7 0.003 0.143 0.003 0.127

38 years 40.8 0.003 0.139 0.003 0.125

39 years 39.9 0.003 0.136 0.003 0.122

40 years 38.9 0.003 0.133 0.003 0.119

41 years 38.0 0.003 0.130 0.003 0.116

42 years 37.1 0.003 0.127 0.003 0.113

43 years 36.2 0.003 0.124 0.003 0.111

44 years 35.3 0.003 0.121 0.003 0.108

45 years 34.4 0.003 0.118 0.003 0.105

46 years 33.5 0.003 0.114 0.003 0.102

47 years 32.6 0.003 0.111 0.003 0.100

48 years 31.7 0.003 0.108 0.003 0.097

49 years 30.8 0.003 0.105 0.003 0.094

50 years 30.0 0.003 0.103 0.003 0.092 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate

Age Group Life Expectancy

(years) 

# Exhibit H.8b Annualized Life-Years Saved for Avoided Premature Mortality,

Type A Illness, Alternative 2 (Continued on next page)

# Economic Analysis for the H-27 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule Annualized Deaths

Avoided Annualized LifeYears Saved Annualized

Deaths Avoided Annualized LifeYears Saved

A B C = A * B D E = A * D

51 years 29.1 0.003 0.099 0.003 0.089

52 years 28.2 0.003 0.096 0.003 0.086

53 years 27.4 0.003 0.094 0.003 0.084

54 years 26.5 0.003 0.091 0.003 0.081

55 years 25.7 0.003 0.088 0.003 0.078

56 years 24.8 0.003 0.085 0.003 0.076

57 years 24.0 0.003 0.082 0.003 0.073

58 years 23.2 0.003 0.079 0.003 0.071

59 years 22.4 0.003 0.077 0.003 0.068

60 years 21.6 0.003 0.074 0.003 0.066

61 years 20.9 0.003 0.071 0.003 0.064

62 years 20.1 0.003 0.069 0.003 0.061

63 years 19.3 0.003 0.066 0.003 0.059

64 years 18.6 0.003 0.064 0.003 0.057

65 years 17.9 0.001 0.016 0.001 0.014

66 years 17.2 0.001 0.016 0.001 0.014

67 years 16.4 0.001 0.015 0.001 0.013

68 years 15.8 0.001 0.014 0.001 0.013

69 years 15.1 0.001 0.014 0.001 0.012

70 years 14.4 0.001 0.013 0.001 0.012

71 years 13.8 0.001 0.012 0.001 0.011

72 years 13.1 0.001 0.012 0.001 0.011

73 years 12.5 0.001 0.011 0.001 0.010

74 years 11.9 0.001 0.011 0.001 0.010

75 years 11.3 0.001 0.010 0.001 0.009

76 years 10.7 0.001 0.010 0.001 0.009

77 years 10.2 0.001 0.009 0.001 0.008

78 years 9.6 0.001 0.009 0.001 0.008

79 years 9.1 0.001 0.008 0.001 0.007

80 years 8.6 0.001 0.008 0.001 0.007

81 years 8.1 0.001 0.007 0.001 0.007

82 years 7.6 0.001 0.007 0.001 0.006

83 years 7.2 0.001 0.007 0.001 0.006

84 years 6.7 0.001 0.006 0.001 0.005

85 years 6.3 0.001 0.006 0.001 0.005

86 years 6.0 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.005

87 years 5.6 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.005

88 years 5.3 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.004

89 years 5.0 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.004

90 years 4.7 0.001 0.004 0.001 0.004

91 years 4.4 0.001 0.004 0.001 0.004

92 years 4.1 0.001 0.004 0.001 0.003

93 years 3.9 0.001 0.004 0.001 0.003

94 years 3.7 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.003

95 years 3.5 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.003

96 years 3.3 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.003

97 years 3.1 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.003

98 years 2.9 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.002

99 years 2.7 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.002

>=100 years 2.6 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.002

Total 0.244 10.0 0.218 8.9

Notes:

Sources: Column A: National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 51, No. 3, December 29, 2002, "Life table for the total

population: United States, 2000". Columns B and D: GWR model output. Columns B and D: The GWR model generates the allocation of deaths by age interval: <2 yrs (4%), 2 -

4 yrs (2%), 5 - 15 (11%), 16 - 64 (69%), and 65 - 100 (14%). For each age, the following is calculated:

(annualized deaths avoided) x (% deaths in age interval) / (no. years in interval). 

# 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate

Age Group Life Expectancy

(years) 

# Exhibit H.8b Annualized Life-Years Saved for Avoided Premature Mortality, Type A

Illness, Alternative 2 (Continued)

# Economic Analysis for the H-28 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule Annualized Deaths

Avoided Annualized LifeYears Saved Annualized

Deaths Avoided Annualized LifeYears Saved

A B C = A * B D E = A * D

Under 1 year 76.9 0.006 0.437 0.005 0.391

1 year 76.4 0.006 0.434 0.005 0.388

2 years 75.4 0.002 0.153 0.002 0.137

3 years 74.5 0.002 0.151 0.002 0.136

4 years 73.5 0.002 0.149 0.002 0.134

5 years 72.5 0.003 0.200 0.002 0.179

6 years 71.5 0.003 0.197 0.002 0.176

7 years 70.5 0.003 0.194 0.002 0.174

8 years 69.5 0.003 0.191 0.002 0.171

9 years 68.6 0.003 0.189 0.002 0.169

10 years 67.6 0.003 0.186 0.002 0.167

11 years 66.6 0.003 0.183 0.002 0.164

12 years 65.6 0.003 0.181 0.002 0.162

13 years 64.6 0.003 0.178 0.002 0.159

14 years 63.6 0.003 0.175 0.002 0.157

15 years 62.6 0.003 0.172 0.002 0.154

16 years 61.7 0.004 0.230 0.003 0.206

17 years 60.7 0.004 0.226 0.003 0.202

18 years 59.7 0.004 0.222 0.003 0.199

19 years 58.8 0.004 0.219 0.003 0.196

20 years 57.8 0.004 0.215 0.003 0.193

21 years 56.9 0.004 0.212 0.003 0.190

22 years 55.9 0.004 0.208 0.003 0.186

23 years 55.0 0.004 0.205 0.003 0.183

24 years 54.0 0.004 0.201 0.003 0.180

25 years 53.1 0.004 0.198 0.003 0.177

26 years 52.1 0.004 0.194 0.003 0.174

27 years 51.2 0.004 0.191 0.003 0.171

28 years 50.2 0.004 0.187 0.003 0.167

29 years 49.3 0.004 0.183 0.003 0.164

30 years 48.3 0.004 0.180 0.003 0.161

31 years 47.4 0.004 0.176 0.003 0.158

32 years 46.5 0.004 0.173 0.003 0.155

33 years 45.5 0.004 0.169 0.003 0.152

34 years 44.6 0.004 0.166 0.003 0.149

35 years 43.6 0.004 0.162 0.003 0.145

36 years 42.7 0.004 0.159 0.003 0.142

37 years 41.7 0.004 0.155 0.003 0.139

38 years 40.8 0.004 0.152 0.003 0.136

39 years 39.9 0.004 0.148 0.003 0.133

40 years 38.9 0.004 0.145 0.003 0.130

41 years 38.0 0.004 0.141 0.003 0.127

42 years 37.1 0.004 0.138 0.003 0.124

43 years 36.2 0.004 0.135 0.003 0.121

44 years 35.3 0.004 0.131 0.003 0.118

45 years 34.4 0.004 0.128 0.003 0.115

46 years 33.5 0.004 0.125 0.003 0.112

47 years 32.6 0.004 0.121 0.003 0.109

48 years 31.7 0.004 0.118 0.003 0.106

49 years 30.8 0.004 0.115 0.003 0.103

50 years 30.0 0.004 0.112 0.003 0.100 7% Discount Rate 3% Discount Rate

Age Group Life Expectancy

(years) 

# Exhibit H.8c Annualized Life-Years Saved for Avoided Premature Mortality, Type A

Illness, Alternative 3 (Continued on next page)

# Economic Analysis for the H-29 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule Annualized Deaths

Avoided Annualized LifeYears Saved Annualized

Deaths Avoided Annualized LifeYears Saved

A B C = A * B D E = A * D

51 years 29.1 0.004 0.108 0.003 0.097

52 years 28.2 0.004 0.105 0.003 0.094

53 years 27.4 0.004 0.102 0.003 0.091

54 years 26.5 0.004 0.099 0.003 0.088

55 years 25.7 0.004 0.096 0.003 0.086

56 years 24.8 0.004 0.092 0.003 0.083

57 years 24.0 0.004 0.089 0.003 0.080

58 years 23.2 0.004 0.086 0.003 0.077

59 years 22.4 0.004 0.083 0.003 0.075

60 years 21.6 0.004 0.080 0.003 0.072

61 years 20.9 0.004 0.078 0.003 0.070

62 years 20.1 0.004 0.075 0.003 0.067

63 years 19.3 0.004 0.072 0.003 0.064

64 years 18.6 0.004 0.069 0.003 0.062

65 years 17.9 0.001 0.018 0.001 0.016

66 years 17.2 0.001 0.017 0.001 0.015

67 years 16.4 0.001 0.016 0.001 0.014

68 years 15.8 0.001 0.016 0.001 0.014

69 years 15.1 0.001 0.015 0.001 0.013

70 years 14.4 0.001 0.014 0.001 0.013

71 years 13.8 0.001 0.014 0.001 0.012

72 years 13.1 0.001 0.013 0.001 0.012

73 years 12.5 0.001 0.012 0.001 0.011

74 years 11.9 0.001 0.012 0.001 0.011

75 years 11.3 0.001 0.011 0.001 0.010

76 years 10.7 0.001 0.011 0.001 0.009

77 years 10.2 0.001 0.010 0.001 0.009

78 years 9.6 0.001 0.009 0.001 0.008

79 years 9.1 0.001 0.009 0.001 0.008

80 years 8.6 0.001 0.008 0.001 0.008

81 years 8.1 0.001 0.008 0.001 0.007

82 years 7.6 0.001 0.007 0.001 0.007

83 years 7.2 0.001 0.007 0.001 0.006

84 years 6.7 0.001 0.007 0.001 0.006

85 years 6.3 0.001 0.006 0.001 0.006

86 years 6.0 0.001 0.006 0.001 0.005

87 years 5.6 0.001 0.006 0.001 0.005

88 years 5.3 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.005

89 years 5.0 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.004

90 years 4.7 0.001 0.005 0.001 0.004

91 years 4.4 0.001 0.004 0.001 0.004

92 years 4.1 0.001 0.004 0.001 0.004

93 years 3.9 0.001 0.004 0.001 0.003

94 years 3.7 0.001 0.004 0.001 0.003

95 years 3.5 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.003

96 years 3.3 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.003

97 years 3.1 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.003

98 years 2.9 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.003

99 years 2.7 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.002

>=100 years 2.6 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.002

Total 0.27 10.8 0.24 9.7

Notes:

Sources: 

# Age Group Life Expectancy

(years)

Column A: National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 51, No. 3, December 29, 2002, "Life table for the total

population: United States, 2000". Columns B and D: GWR model output. Columns B and D: The GWR model generates the allocation of deaths by age interval: <2 yrs (4%), 2 - 4

yrs (2%), 5 - 15 (11%), 16 - 64 (69%), and 65 - 100 (14%). For each age, the following is calculated:

(annualized deaths avoided) x (% deaths in age interval) / (no. years in interval). 

# 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate 

# Exhibit H.8c Annualized Life-Years Saved for Avoided Premature Mortality,

Type A Illness, Alternative 3 (Continued)

# Economic Analysis for the H-30 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule Annualized

Deaths Avoided Annualized LifeYears Saved Annualized Deaths

Avoided Annualized LifeYears Saved

A B C = A * B D E = A * D

Under 1 year 76.9 0.020 1.543 0.019 1.446

1 year 76.4 0.020 1.533 0.019 1.436

2 years 75.4 0.007 0.540 0.007 0.506

3 years 74.5 0.007 0.533 0.007 0.500

4 years 73.5 0.007 0.526 0.007 0.493

5 years 72.5 0.010 0.703 0.009 0.659

6 years 71.5 0.010 0.694 0.009 0.650

7 years 70.5 0.010 0.684 0.009 0.641

8 years 69.5 0.010 0.674 0.009 0.632

9 years 68.6 0.010 0.665 0.009 0.623

10 years 67.6 0.010 0.656 0.009 0.614

11 years 66.6 0.010 0.646 0.009 0.605

12 years 65.6 0.010 0.636 0.009 0.596

13 years 64.6 0.010 0.627 0.009 0.587

14 years 63.6 0.010 0.617 0.009 0.578

15 years 62.6 0.010 0.607 0.009 0.569

16 years 61.7 0.013 0.816 0.012 0.764

17 years 60.7 0.013 0.802 0.012 0.752

18 years 59.7 0.013 0.789 0.012 0.739

19 years 58.8 0.013 0.777 0.012 0.728

20 years 57.8 0.013 0.764 0.012 0.716

21 years 56.9 0.013 0.752 0.012 0.705

22 years 55.9 0.013 0.739 0.012 0.692

23 years 55.0 0.013 0.727 0.012 0.681

24 years 54.0 0.013 0.714 0.012 0.669

25 years 53.1 0.013 0.702 0.012 0.658

26 years 52.1 0.013 0.689 0.012 0.645

27 years 51.2 0.013 0.677 0.012 0.634

28 years 50.2 0.013 0.664 0.012 0.622

29 years 49.3 0.013 0.652 0.012 0.611

30 years 48.3 0.013 0.638 0.012 0.598

31 years 47.4 0.013 0.627 0.012 0.587

32 years 46.5 0.013 0.615 0.012 0.576

33 years 45.5 0.013 0.601 0.012 0.563

34 years 44.6 0.013 0.590 0.012 0.552

35 years 43.6 0.013 0.576 0.012 0.540

36 years 42.7 0.013 0.564 0.012 0.529

37 years 41.7 0.013 0.551 0.012 0.516

38 years 40.8 0.013 0.539 0.012 0.505

39 years 39.9 0.013 0.527 0.012 0.494

40 years 38.9 0.013 0.514 0.012 0.482

41 years 38.0 0.013 0.502 0.012 0.471

42 years 37.1 0.013 0.490 0.012 0.459

43 years 36.2 0.013 0.478 0.012 0.448

44 years 35.3 0.013 0.467 0.012 0.437

45 years 34.4 0.013 0.455 0.012 0.426

46 years 33.5 0.013 0.443 0.012 0.415

47 years 32.6 0.013 0.431 0.012 0.404

48 years 31.7 0.013 0.419 0.012 0.393

49 years 30.8 0.013 0.407 0.012 0.381

50 years 30.0 0.013 0.397 0.012 0.372 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate

Age Group Life Expectancy

(years) 

# Exhibit H.8d Annualized Life-Years Saved for Avoided Premature Mortality,

Type A Illness, Alternative 4 (Continued on next page)

# Economic Analysis for the H-31 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule Annualized

Deaths Avoided Annualized LifeYears Saved Annualized Deaths

Avoided Annualized LifeYears Saved

A B C = A * B D E = A * D

51 years 29.1 0.013 0.385 0.012 0.360

52 years 28.2 0.013 0.373 0.012 0.349

53 years 27.4 0.013 0.362 0.012 0.339

54 years 26.5 0.013 0.350 0.012 0.328

55 years 25.7 0.013 0.340 0.012 0.318

56 years 24.8 0.013 0.328 0.012 0.307

57 years 24.0 0.013 0.317 0.012 0.297

58 years 23.2 0.013 0.307 0.012 0.287

59 years 22.4 0.013 0.296 0.012 0.277

60 years 21.6 0.013 0.286 0.012 0.267

61 years 20.9 0.013 0.276 0.012 0.259

62 years 20.1 0.013 0.266 0.012 0.249

63 years 19.3 0.013 0.255 0.012 0.239

64 years 18.6 0.013 0.246 0.012 0.230

65 years 17.9 0.004 0.063 0.003 0.059

66 years 17.2 0.004 0.060 0.003 0.056

67 years 16.4 0.004 0.057 0.003 0.054

68 years 15.8 0.004 0.055 0.003 0.052

69 years 15.1 0.004 0.053 0.003 0.050

70 years 14.4 0.004 0.050 0.003 0.047

71 years 13.8 0.004 0.048 0.003 0.045

72 years 13.1 0.004 0.046 0.003 0.043

73 years 12.5 0.004 0.044 0.003 0.041

74 years 11.9 0.004 0.042 0.003 0.039

75 years 11.3 0.004 0.040 0.003 0.037

76 years 10.7 0.004 0.037 0.003 0.035

77 years 10.2 0.004 0.036 0.003 0.033

78 years 9.6 0.004 0.034 0.003 0.031

79 years 9.1 0.004 0.032 0.003 0.030

80 years 8.6 0.004 0.030 0.003 0.028

81 years 8.1 0.004 0.028 0.003 0.027

82 years 7.6 0.004 0.027 0.003 0.025

83 years 7.2 0.004 0.025 0.003 0.024

84 years 6.7 0.004 0.023 0.003 0.022

85 years 6.3 0.004 0.022 0.003 0.021

86 years 6.0 0.004 0.021 0.003 0.020

87 years 5.6 0.004 0.020 0.003 0.018

88 years 5.3 0.004 0.019 0.003 0.017

89 years 5.0 0.004 0.018 0.003 0.016

90 years 4.7 0.004 0.016 0.003 0.015

91 years 4.4 0.004 0.015 0.003 0.014

92 years 4.1 0.004 0.014 0.003 0.013

93 years 3.9 0.004 0.014 0.003 0.013

94 years 3.7 0.004 0.013 0.003 0.012

95 years 3.5 0.004 0.012 0.003 0.011

96 years 3.3 0.004 0.012 0.003 0.011

97 years 3.1 0.004 0.011 0.003 0.010

98 years 2.9 0.004 0.010 0.003 0.010

99 years 2.7 0.004 0.009 0.003 0.009

>=100 years 2.6 0.004 0.009 0.003 0.009

Total 0.942 38.4 0.883 36.0

Notes:

Sources: Column A: National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 51, No. 3, December 29, 2002, "Life table for the total

population: United States, 2000". Columns B and D: GWR model output. Columns B and D: The GWR model generates the allocation of deaths by age interval: <2 yrs (4%), 2 - 4

yrs (2%), 5 - 15 (11%), 16 - 64 (69%), and 65 - 100 (14%). For each age, the following is calculated:

(annualized deaths avoided) x (% deaths in age interval) / (no. years in interval). 

# 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate

Age Group Life Expectancy

(years) 

# Exhibit H.8d Annualized Life-Years Saved for Avoided Premature Mortality,

Type A Illness, Alternative 4, (Continued)

# Economic Analysis for the H-32 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule Annualized

Deaths Avoided Annualized LifeYears Saved Annualized Deaths

Avoided Annualized LifeYears Saved

A B C = A * B D E = A * D

Under 1 year 76.9 0.002 0.137 0.001 0.113

1 year 76.4 0.002 0.136 0.000 0.000

2 years 75.4 0.001 0.048 0.001 0.040

3 years 74.5 0.001 0.048 0.001 0.039

4 years 73.5 0.001 0.047 0.001 0.039

5 years 72.5 0.001 0.063 0.001 0.038

6 years 71.5 0.001 0.062 0.001 0.038

7 years 70.5 0.001 0.061 0.001 0.037

8 years 69.5 0.001 0.061 0.001 0.037

9 years 68.6 0.001 0.060 0.001 0.036

10 years 67.6 0.001 0.059 0.001 0.036

11 years 66.6 0.001 0.058 0.001 0.035

12 years 65.6 0.001 0.057 0.001 0.035

13 years 64.6 0.001 0.056 0.001 0.034

14 years 63.6 0.001 0.055 0.001 0.034

15 years 62.6 0.001 0.055 0.001 0.033

16 years 61.7 0.001 0.073 0.001 0.060

17 years 60.7 0.001 0.072 0.001 0.059

18 years 59.7 0.001 0.071 0.001 0.058

19 years 58.8 0.001 0.070 0.001 0.058

20 years 57.8 0.001 0.069 0.001 0.057

21 years 56.9 0.001 0.067 0.001 0.056

22 years 55.9 0.001 0.066 0.001 0.055

23 years 55.0 0.001 0.065 0.001 0.054

24 years 54.0 0.001 0.064 0.001 0.053

25 years 53.1 0.001 0.063 0.001 0.052

26 years 52.1 0.001 0.062 0.001 0.051

27 years 51.2 0.001 0.061 0.001 0.050

28 years 50.2 0.001 0.060 0.001 0.049

29 years 49.3 0.001 0.058 0.001 0.048

30 years 48.3 0.001 0.057 0.001 0.047

31 years 47.4 0.001 0.056 0.001 0.046

32 years 46.5 0.001 0.055 0.001 0.046

33 years 45.5 0.001 0.054 0.001 0.045

34 years 44.6 0.001 0.053 0.001 0.044

35 years 43.6 0.001 0.052 0.001 0.043

36 years 42.7 0.001 0.051 0.001 0.042

37 years 41.7 0.001 0.049 0.001 0.041

38 years 40.8 0.001 0.048 0.001 0.040

39 years 39.9 0.001 0.047 0.001 0.039

40 years 38.9 0.001 0.046 0.001 0.038

41 years 38.0 0.001 0.045 0.001 0.037

42 years 37.1 0.001 0.044 0.001 0.036

43 years 36.2 0.001 0.043 0.001 0.035

44 years 35.3 0.001 0.042 0.001 0.035

45 years 34.4 0.001 0.041 0.001 0.034

46 years 33.5 0.001 0.040 0.001 0.033

47 years 32.6 0.001 0.039 0.001 0.032

48 years 31.7 0.001 0.038 0.001 0.031

49 years 30.8 0.001 0.037 0.001 0.030

50 years 30.0 0.001 0.036 0.001 0.029 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate

Age Group Life Expectancy

(years) 

# Exhibit H.8e Annualized Life-Years Saved for Avoided Premature Mortality,

Type B Illness, Alternative 1 (Continued on next page)

# Economic Analysis for the H-33 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule Annualized

Deaths Avoided Annualized LifeYears Saved Annualized Deaths

Avoided Annualized LifeYears Saved

A B C = A * B D E = A * D

51 years 29.1 0.001 0.035 0.001 0.029

52 years 28.2 0.001 0.033 0.001 0.028

53 years 27.4 0.001 0.032 0.001 0.027

54 years 26.5 0.001 0.031 0.001 0.026

55 years 25.7 0.001 0.030 0.001 0.025

56 years 24.8 0.001 0.029 0.001 0.024

57 years 24.0 0.001 0.028 0.001 0.024

58 years 23.2 0.001 0.028 0.001 0.023

59 years 22.4 0.001 0.027 0.001 0.022

60 years 21.6 0.001 0.026 0.001 0.021

61 years 20.9 0.001 0.025 0.001 0.020

62 years 20.1 0.001 0.024 0.001 0.020

63 years 19.3 0.001 0.023 0.001 0.019

64 years 18.6 0.001 0.022 0.001 0.018

65 years 17.9 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.005

66 years 17.2 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.004

67 years 16.4 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.004

68 years 15.8 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.004

69 years 15.1 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.004

70 years 14.4 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.004

71 years 13.8 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.004

72 years 13.1 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.003

73 years 12.5 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.003

74 years 11.9 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.003

75 years 11.3 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.003

76 years 10.7 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.003

77 years 10.2 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.003

78 years 9.6 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.002

79 years 9.1 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.002

80 years 8.6 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.002

81 years 8.1 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.002

82 years 7.6 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.002

83 years 7.2 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.002

84 years 6.7 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.002

85 years 6.3 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.002

86 years 6.0 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.002

87 years 5.6 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.001

88 years 5.3 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.001

89 years 5.0 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.001

90 years 4.7 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001

91 years 4.4 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001

92 years 4.1 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001

93 years 3.9 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001

94 years 3.7 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001

95 years 3.5 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001

96 years 3.3 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001

97 years 3.1 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001

98 years 2.9 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001

99 years 2.7 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001

>=100 years 2.6 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001

Total 0.084 3.4 0.066 2.6

Notes:

Sources: Column A: National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 51, No. 3, December 29, 2002, "Life table for the total

population: United States, 2000". Columns B and D: GWR model output. Columns B and D: The GWR model generates the allocation of deaths by age interval: <2 yrs (4%), 2 - 4

yrs (2%), 5 - 15 (11%), 16 - 64 (69%), and 65 - 100 (14%). For each age, the following is calculated:

(annualized deaths avoided) x (% deaths in age interval) / (no. years in interval). 

# 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate

Age Group Life Expectancy

(years) 

# Exhibit H.8e Annualized Life-Years Saved for Avoided Premature Mortality,

Type B Illness, Alternative 1 (Continued)

# Economic Analysis for the H-34 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule Annualized

Deaths Avoided Annualized LifeYears Saved Annualized

Deaths Avoided Annualized LifeYears Saved

A B C = A * B D E = A * D

Under 1 year 76.9 0.010 0.739 0.009 0.660

1 year 76.4 0.010 0.734 0.009 0.656

2 years 75.4 0.003 0.259 0.003 0.232

3 years 74.5 0.003 0.256 0.003 0.229

4 years 73.5 0.003 0.253 0.003 0.226

5 years 72.5 0.005 0.338 0.004 0.302

6 years 71.5 0.005 0.333 0.004 0.298

7 years 70.5 0.005 0.328 0.004 0.294

8 years 69.5 0.005 0.324 0.004 0.289

9 years 68.6 0.005 0.320 0.004 0.286

10 years 67.6 0.005 0.315 0.004 0.282

11 years 66.6 0.005 0.310 0.004 0.277

12 years 65.6 0.005 0.306 0.004 0.273

13 years 64.6 0.005 0.301 0.004 0.269

14 years 63.6 0.005 0.296 0.004 0.265

15 years 62.6 0.005 0.292 0.004 0.261

16 years 61.7 0.006 0.387 0.006 0.346

17 years 60.7 0.006 0.381 0.006 0.341

18 years 59.7 0.006 0.375 0.006 0.335

19 years 58.8 0.006 0.369 0.006 0.330

20 years 57.8 0.006 0.363 0.006 0.325

21 years 56.9 0.006 0.357 0.006 0.320

22 years 55.9 0.006 0.351 0.006 0.314

23 years 55.0 0.006 0.345 0.006 0.309

24 years 54.0 0.006 0.339 0.006 0.303

25 years 53.1 0.006 0.333 0.006 0.298

26 years 52.1 0.006 0.327 0.006 0.293

27 years 51.2 0.006 0.322 0.006 0.288

28 years 50.2 0.006 0.315 0.006 0.282

29 years 49.3 0.006 0.310 0.006 0.277

30 years 48.3 0.006 0.303 0.006 0.271

31 years 47.4 0.006 0.298 0.006 0.266

32 years 46.5 0.006 0.292 0.006 0.261

33 years 45.5 0.006 0.286 0.006 0.256

34 years 44.6 0.006 0.280 0.006 0.250

35 years 43.6 0.006 0.274 0.006 0.245

36 years 42.7 0.006 0.268 0.006 0.240

37 years 41.7 0.006 0.262 0.006 0.234

38 years 40.8 0.006 0.256 0.006 0.229

39 years 39.9 0.006 0.251 0.006 0.224

40 years 38.9 0.006 0.244 0.006 0.218

41 years 38.0 0.006 0.239 0.006 0.213

42 years 37.1 0.006 0.233 0.006 0.208

43 years 36.2 0.006 0.227 0.006 0.203

44 years 35.3 0.006 0.222 0.006 0.198

45 years 34.4 0.006 0.216 0.006 0.193

46 years 33.5 0.006 0.210 0.006 0.188

47 years 32.6 0.006 0.205 0.006 0.183

48 years 31.7 0.006 0.199 0.006 0.178

49 years 30.8 0.006 0.193 0.006 0.173

50 years 30.0 0.006 0.188 0.006 0.168 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate

Age Group Life Expectancy

(years) 

# Exhibit H.8f: Annualized Life-Years Saved for Avoided Premature Mortality,

Type B Illness, Alternative 2 (Continued on next page)

# Economic Analysis for the H-35 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule Annualized

Deaths Avoided Annualized LifeYears Saved Annualized

Deaths Avoided Annualized LifeYears Saved

A B C = A * B D E = A * D

51 years 29.1 0.006 0.183 0.006 0.163

52 years 28.2 0.006 0.177 0.006 0.158

53 years 27.4 0.006 0.172 0.006 0.154

54 years 26.5 0.006 0.166 0.006 0.149

55 years 25.7 0.006 0.161 0.006 0.144

56 years 24.8 0.006 0.156 0.006 0.139

57 years 24.0 0.006 0.151 0.006 0.135

58 years 23.2 0.006 0.146 0.006 0.130

59 years 22.4 0.006 0.141 0.006 0.126

60 years 21.6 0.006 0.136 0.006 0.121

61 years 20.9 0.006 0.131 0.006 0.117

62 years 20.1 0.006 0.126 0.006 0.113

63 years 19.3 0.006 0.121 0.006 0.108

64 years 18.6 0.006 0.117 0.006 0.104

65 years 17.9 0.002 0.030 0.001 0.027

66 years 17.2 0.002 0.029 0.001 0.026

67 years 16.4 0.002 0.027 0.001 0.024

68 years 15.8 0.002 0.026 0.001 0.024

69 years 15.1 0.002 0.025 0.001 0.022

70 years 14.4 0.002 0.024 0.001 0.021

71 years 13.8 0.002 0.023 0.001 0.021

72 years 13.1 0.002 0.022 0.001 0.019

73 years 12.5 0.002 0.021 0.001 0.019

74 years 11.9 0.002 0.020 0.001 0.018

75 years 11.3 0.002 0.019 0.001 0.017

76 years 10.7 0.002 0.018 0.001 0.016

77 years 10.2 0.002 0.017 0.001 0.015

78 years 9.6 0.002 0.016 0.001 0.014

79 years 9.1 0.002 0.015 0.001 0.014

80 years 8.6 0.002 0.014 0.001 0.013

81 years 8.1 0.002 0.013 0.001 0.012

82 years 7.6 0.002 0.013 0.001 0.011

83 years 7.2 0.002 0.012 0.001 0.011

84 years 6.7 0.002 0.011 0.001 0.010

85 years 6.3 0.002 0.010 0.001 0.009

86 years 6.0 0.002 0.010 0.001 0.009

87 years 5.6 0.002 0.009 0.001 0.008

88 years 5.3 0.002 0.009 0.001 0.008

89 years 5.0 0.002 0.008 0.001 0.007

90 years 4.7 0.002 0.008 0.001 0.007

91 years 4.4 0.002 0.007 0.001 0.007

92 years 4.1 0.002 0.007 0.001 0.006

93 years 3.9 0.002 0.006 0.001 0.006

94 years 3.7 0.002 0.006 0.001 0.006

95 years 3.5 0.002 0.006 0.001 0.005

96 years 3.3 0.002 0.005 0.001 0.005

97 years 3.1 0.002 0.005 0.001 0.005

98 years 2.9 0.002 0.005 0.001 0.004

99 years 2.7 0.002 0.004 0.001 0.004

>=100 years 2.6 0.002 0.004 0.001 0.004

Total 0.448 18.3 0.401 16.4

Notes:

Sources: Column A: National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 51, No. 3, December 29, 2002, "Life table for the total

population: United States, 2000". Columns B and D: GWR model output. Columns B and D: The GWR model generates the allocation of deaths by age interval: <2 yrs (4%), 2 - 4

yrs (2%), 5 - 15 (11%), 16 - 64 (69%), and 65 - 100 (14%). For each age, the following is calculated:

(annualized deaths avoided) x (% deaths in age interval) / (no. years in interval). 

# 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate

Age Group Life Expectancy

(years) 

# Exhibit H.8f Annualized Life-Years Saved for Avoided Premature Mortality,

Type B Illness, Alternative 2 (Continued)

# Economic Analysis for the H-36 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule Annualized

Deaths Avoided Annualized LifeYears Saved Annualized

Deaths Avoided Annualized LifeYears Saved

A B C = A * B D E = A * D

Under 1 year 76.9 0.010 0.788 0.009 0.706

1 year 76.4 0.010 0.782 0.009 0.701

2 years 75.4 0.004 0.276 0.003 0.248

3 years 74.5 0.004 0.273 0.003 0.245

4 years 73.5 0.004 0.269 0.003 0.241

5 years 72.5 0.005 0.360 0.004 0.323

6 years 71.5 0.005 0.355 0.004 0.318

7 years 70.5 0.005 0.350 0.004 0.314

8 years 69.5 0.005 0.345 0.004 0.309

9 years 68.6 0.005 0.341 0.004 0.305

10 years 67.6 0.005 0.336 0.004 0.301

11 years 66.6 0.005 0.331 0.004 0.296

12 years 65.6 0.005 0.326 0.004 0.292

13 years 64.6 0.005 0.321 0.004 0.287

14 years 63.6 0.005 0.316 0.004 0.283

15 years 62.6 0.005 0.311 0.004 0.279

16 years 61.7 0.007 0.414 0.006 0.371

17 years 60.7 0.007 0.407 0.006 0.365

18 years 59.7 0.007 0.401 0.006 0.359

19 years 58.8 0.007 0.395 0.006 0.354

20 years 57.8 0.007 0.388 0.006 0.348

21 years 56.9 0.007 0.382 0.006 0.342

22 years 55.9 0.007 0.375 0.006 0.336

23 years 55.0 0.007 0.369 0.006 0.331

24 years 54.0 0.007 0.362 0.006 0.325

25 years 53.1 0.007 0.356 0.006 0.319

26 years 52.1 0.007 0.350 0.006 0.313

27 years 51.2 0.007 0.344 0.006 0.308

28 years 50.2 0.007 0.337 0.006 0.302

29 years 49.3 0.007 0.331 0.006 0.297

30 years 48.3 0.007 0.324 0.006 0.291

31 years 47.4 0.007 0.318 0.006 0.285

32 years 46.5 0.007 0.312 0.006 0.280

33 years 45.5 0.007 0.305 0.006 0.274

34 years 44.6 0.007 0.299 0.006 0.268

35 years 43.6 0.007 0.293 0.006 0.262

36 years 42.7 0.007 0.287 0.006 0.257

37 years 41.7 0.007 0.280 0.006 0.251

38 years 40.8 0.007 0.274 0.006 0.245

39 years 39.9 0.007 0.268 0.006 0.240

40 years 38.9 0.007 0.261 0.006 0.234

41 years 38.0 0.007 0.255 0.006 0.229

42 years 37.1 0.007 0.249 0.006 0.223

43 years 36.2 0.007 0.243 0.006 0.218

44 years 35.3 0.007 0.237 0.006 0.212

45 years 34.4 0.007 0.231 0.006 0.207

46 years 33.5 0.007 0.225 0.006 0.202

47 years 32.6 0.007 0.219 0.006 0.196

48 years 31.7 0.007 0.213 0.006 0.191

49 years 30.8 0.007 0.207 0.006 0.185

50 years 30.0 0.007 0.201 0.006 0.180 Age Group Life Expectancy

(years) 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate 

# Exhibit H.8g Annualized Life-Years Saved for Avoided Premature Mortality,

Type B Illness, Alternative 3 (Continued on next page)

# Economic Analysis for the H-37 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule Annualized

Deaths Avoided Annualized LifeYears Saved Annualized

Deaths Avoided Annualized LifeYears Saved

A B C = A * B D E = A * D

51 years 29.1 0.007 0.195 0.006 0.175

52 years 28.2 0.007 0.189 0.006 0.170

53 years 27.4 0.007 0.184 0.006 0.165

54 years 26.5 0.007 0.178 0.006 0.159

55 years 25.7 0.007 0.172 0.006 0.155

56 years 24.8 0.007 0.166 0.006 0.149

57 years 24.0 0.007 0.161 0.006 0.144

58 years 23.2 0.007 0.156 0.006 0.140

59 years 22.4 0.007 0.150 0.006 0.135

60 years 21.6 0.007 0.145 0.006 0.130

61 years 20.9 0.007 0.140 0.006 0.126

62 years 20.1 0.007 0.135 0.006 0.121

63 years 19.3 0.007 0.130 0.006 0.116

64 years 18.6 0.007 0.125 0.006 0.112

65 years 17.9 0.007 0.120 0.002 0.029

66 years 17.2 0.002 0.031 0.002 0.027

67 years 16.4 0.002 0.029 0.002 0.026

68 years 15.8 0.002 0.028 0.002 0.025

69 years 15.1 0.002 0.027 0.002 0.024

70 years 14.4 0.002 0.026 0.002 0.023

71 years 13.8 0.002 0.025 0.002 0.022

72 years 13.1 0.002 0.023 0.002 0.021

73 years 12.5 0.002 0.022 0.002 0.020

74 years 11.9 0.002 0.021 0.002 0.019

75 years 11.3 0.002 0.020 0.002 0.018

76 years 10.7 0.002 0.019 0.002 0.017

77 years 10.2 0.002 0.018 0.002 0.016

78 years 9.6 0.002 0.017 0.002 0.015

79 years 9.1 0.002 0.016 0.002 0.014

80 years 8.6 0.002 0.015 0.002 0.014

81 years 8.1 0.002 0.014 0.002 0.013

82 years 7.6 0.002 0.014 0.002 0.012

83 years 7.2 0.002 0.013 0.002 0.011

84 years 6.7 0.002 0.012 0.002 0.011

85 years 6.3 0.002 0.011 0.002 0.010

86 years 6.0 0.002 0.011 0.002 0.010

87 years 5.6 0.002 0.010 0.002 0.009

88 years 5.3 0.002 0.009 0.002 0.008

89 years 5.0 0.002 0.009 0.002 0.008

90 years 4.7 0.002 0.008 0.002 0.007

91 years 4.4 0.002 0.008 0.002 0.007

92 years 4.1 0.002 0.007 0.002 0.007

93 years 3.9 0.002 0.007 0.002 0.006

94 years 3.7 0.002 0.007 0.002 0.006

95 years 3.5 0.002 0.006 0.002 0.006

96 years 3.3 0.002 0.006 0.002 0.005

97 years 3.1 0.002 0.006 0.002 0.005

98 years 2.9 0.002 0.005 0.002 0.005

99 years 2.7 0.002 0.005 0.002 0.004

>=100 years 2.6 0.002 0.005 0.002 0.004

Total 0.484 19.6 0.429 17.5

Notes:

Sources: 

# Age Group Life Expectancy

(years)

Column A: National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 51, No. 3, December 29, 2002, "Life table for the total

population: United States, 2000". Columns B and D: GWR model output. Columns B and D: The GWR model generates the allocation of deaths by age interval: <2 yrs (4%), 2 -

4 yrs (2%), 5 - 15 (11%), 16 - 64 (69%), and 65 - 100 (14%). For each age, the following is calculated:

(annualized deaths avoided) x (% deaths in age interval) / (no. years in interval). 

# 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate 

# Exhibit H.8g Annualized Life-Years Saved for Avoided Premature Mortality,

Type B Illness, Alternative 3 (Continued)

# Economic Analysis for the H-38 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule Annualized

Deaths Avoided Annualized LifeYears Saved Annualized

Deaths Avoided Annualized LifeYears Saved

A B C = A * B D E = A * D

Under 1 year 76.9 0.035 2.670 0.033 2.501

1 year 76.4 0.035 2.653 0.033 2.485

2 years 75.4 0.012 0.934 0.012 0.875

3 years 74.5 0.012 0.923 0.012 0.864

4 years 73.5 0.012 0.910 0.012 0.853

5 years 72.5 0.017 1.217 0.016 1.140

6 years 71.5 0.017 1.200 0.016 1.124

7 years 70.5 0.017 1.183 0.016 1.109

8 years 69.5 0.017 1.166 0.016 1.093

9 years 68.6 0.017 1.151 0.016 1.079

10 years 67.6 0.017 1.135 0.016 1.063

11 years 66.6 0.017 1.118 0.016 1.047

12 years 65.6 0.017 1.101 0.016 1.031

13 years 64.6 0.017 1.084 0.016 1.016

14 years 63.6 0.017 1.067 0.016 1.000

15 years 62.6 0.017 1.051 0.016 0.984

16 years 61.7 0.023 1.411 0.021 1.322

17 years 60.7 0.023 1.388 0.021 1.301

18 years 59.7 0.023 1.365 0.021 1.279

19 years 58.8 0.023 1.345 0.021 1.260

20 years 57.8 0.023 1.322 0.021 1.238

21 years 56.9 0.023 1.301 0.021 1.219

22 years 55.9 0.023 1.278 0.021 1.198

23 years 55.0 0.023 1.258 0.021 1.178

24 years 54.0 0.023 1.235 0.021 1.157

25 years 53.1 0.023 1.214 0.021 1.138

26 years 52.1 0.023 1.192 0.021 1.116

27 years 51.2 0.023 1.171 0.021 1.097

28 years 50.2 0.023 1.148 0.021 1.076

29 years 49.3 0.023 1.128 0.021 1.056

30 years 48.3 0.023 1.105 0.021 1.035

31 years 47.4 0.023 1.084 0.021 1.016

32 years 46.5 0.023 1.063 0.021 0.996

33 years 45.5 0.023 1.041 0.021 0.975

34 years 44.6 0.023 1.020 0.021 0.956

35 years 43.6 0.023 0.997 0.021 0.934

36 years 42.7 0.023 0.977 0.021 0.915

37 years 41.7 0.023 0.954 0.021 0.894

38 years 40.8 0.023 0.933 0.021 0.874

39 years 39.9 0.023 0.913 0.021 0.855

40 years 38.9 0.023 0.890 0.021 0.834

41 years 38.0 0.023 0.869 0.021 0.814

42 years 37.1 0.023 0.848 0.021 0.795

43 years 36.2 0.023 0.828 0.021 0.776

44 years 35.3 0.023 0.807 0.021 0.756

45 years 34.4 0.023 0.787 0.021 0.737

46 years 33.5 0.023 0.766 0.021 0.718

47 years 32.6 0.023 0.746 0.021 0.699

48 years 31.7 0.023 0.725 0.021 0.679

49 years 30.8 0.023 0.704 0.021 0.660

50 years 30.0 0.023 0.686 0.021 0.643 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate

Age Group Life Expectancy

(years) 

# Exhibit H.8h Annualized Life-Years Saved for Avoided Premature Mortality,

Type B Illness, Alternative 4 (Continued on next page)

# Economic Analysis for the H-39 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule Annualized

Deaths Avoided Annualized LifeYears Saved Annualized

Deaths Avoided Annualized LifeYears Saved

A B C = A * B D E = A * D

51 years 29.1 0.023 0.666 0.021 0.624

52 years 28.2 0.023 0.645 0.021 0.604

53 years 27.4 0.023 0.627 0.021 0.587

54 years 26.5 0.023 0.606 0.021 0.568

55 years 25.7 0.023 0.588 0.021 0.551

56 years 24.8 0.023 0.567 0.021 0.531

57 years 24.0 0.023 0.549 0.021 0.514

58 years 23.2 0.023 0.531 0.021 0.497

59 years 22.4 0.023 0.512 0.021 0.480

60 years 21.6 0.023 0.494 0.021 0.463

61 years 20.9 0.023 0.478 0.021 0.448

62 years 20.1 0.023 0.460 0.021 0.431

63 years 19.3 0.023 0.441 0.021 0.414

64 years 18.6 0.023 0.425 0.021 0.399

65 years 17.9 0.006 0.108 0.006 0.102

66 years 17.2 0.006 0.104 0.006 0.098

67 years 16.4 0.006 0.099 0.006 0.093

68 years 15.8 0.006 0.096 0.006 0.090

69 years 15.1 0.006 0.091 0.006 0.086

70 years 14.4 0.006 0.087 0.006 0.082

71 years 13.8 0.006 0.084 0.006 0.078

72 years 13.1 0.006 0.079 0.006 0.074

73 years 12.5 0.006 0.076 0.006 0.071

74 years 11.9 0.006 0.072 0.006 0.068

75 years 11.3 0.006 0.068 0.006 0.064

76 years 10.7 0.006 0.065 0.006 0.061

77 years 10.2 0.006 0.062 0.006 0.058

78 years 9.6 0.006 0.058 0.006 0.054

79 years 9.1 0.006 0.055 0.006 0.052

80 years 8.6 0.006 0.052 0.006 0.049

81 years 8.1 0.006 0.049 0.006 0.046

82 years 7.6 0.006 0.046 0.006 0.043

83 years 7.2 0.006 0.044 0.006 0.041

84 years 6.7 0.006 0.041 0.006 0.038

85 years 6.3 0.006 0.038 0.006 0.036

86 years 6.0 0.006 0.036 0.006 0.034

87 years 5.6 0.006 0.034 0.006 0.032

88 years 5.3 0.006 0.032 0.006 0.030

89 years 5.0 0.006 0.030 0.006 0.028

90 years 4.7 0.006 0.028 0.006 0.027

91 years 4.4 0.006 0.027 0.006 0.025

92 years 4.1 0.006 0.025 0.006 0.023

93 years 3.9 0.006 0.024 0.006 0.022

94 years 3.7 0.006 0.022 0.006 0.021

95 years 3.5 0.006 0.021 0.006 0.020

96 years 3.3 0.006 0.020 0.006 0.019

97 years 3.1 0.006 0.019 0.006 0.018

98 years 2.9 0.006 0.018 0.006 0.016

99 years 2.7 0.006 0.016 0.006 0.015

>=100 years 2.6 0.006 0.016 0.006 0.015

Total 1.630 66.5 1.527 62.3

Notes:

Sources: Column A: National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 51, No. 3, December 29, 2002, "Life table for the total

population: United States, 2000". Columns B and D: GWR model output. Columns B and D: The GWR model generates the allocation of deaths by age interval: <2 yrs (4%), 2 -

4 yrs (2%), 5 - 15 (11%), 16 - 64 (69%), and 65 - 100 (14%). For each age, the following is calculated:

(annualized deaths avoided) x (% deaths in age interval) / (no. years in interval). 

# 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate

Age Group Life Expectancy

(years) 

# Exhibit H.8h Annualized Life-Years Saved for Avoided Premature Mortality,

Type B Illness, Alternative 4 (Continued)

# Economic Analysis for the H-40 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule Type A Type B

A B C = A + B

A1 2 35

A2 10 18 28

A3 11 20 30

A4 38 66 105

A1 1 34

A2 9 16 25

A3 10 18 27

A4 36 62 98

Sources: Columns A and B from Exhibits H.8a - h 

# Total Annualized Life-Years Saved

Rule Alternative

Notes: Based on cases avoided that are annualized over the 25-year period

of analysis. Total may not add due to rounding. In the GWR EA, rotavirus is

used as a representative illness and indicator for the Type A Viruses and

echovirus for Type B illness. In this CEA, a rotavirus illness decrement is

used to calculate QALYs for Type A cases, and to calculate a lower bound

estimate of QALYs for Type B Illness. 

# 7% Discount Rate 3% Discount Rate 

# Exhibit H.9 Life Years Saved for Avoided Cases of Premature Mortality

from Type A and Type B Illnesses

H.2.1.3 MILYs saved from reduced morbidity and premature mortality for avoided cases of

Types A and B illness

The use of QALYs allows for integration of lif e year equivalents saved from avoided morbidity

(quality adjusted life years) with life years saved by avoidance of premature mortality (life years). As

mentioned in the Introduction to this Appendix, this measure is referred to in this CEA as “Morbidity

Inclusive Life Years” (MILYs). As the Agency d escribes in Section H.1.2, and as applied in the CAIR

analysis, EPA assumes for this CEA that all individuals start with a baseline quality of life equal to 1.0:

No deduction is made from life years saved to account for individual differences in baseline health or

functionality in the population.

MILYs are calculated as follows (values are annualized):

MILYs = (QALYs saved from avoided morbidity) + (life years saved from avoided mortality)

for each regulatory alternative.

Based on a 3 percent discount rate, the MILYs saved are highest in Alternative 4 and lowest in

Alternative 1, and the final GWR saves approximately 6 to 6.5 times more MILYs than Alternative 1 and

approximately 9 to 11 percent more than Alternativ e 2 (using ECOI and TCOI approaches, respectively).

This comparison using a 7 percent discount rate exhibits a similar pattern (Exhibit H.10).

# Economic Analysis for the H-41 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule Low High Low High Low High

A B C D E = A+ C F = B + D

A1 10 25 4 5 14 30

A2 59 148 22 29 81 177

A3 65 161 24 31 88 192

A4 230 571 80 104 309 675

A1 8 21 3 4 11 25

A2 53 132 20 26 73 158

A3 58 144 21 27 79 172

A4 215 535 75 97 290 633



# Source: Exhibits H.7a-b and H.9 1 

# MILYs (morbidity inclusive life years) are the sum of QALYs saved (Exhibits H.7a - b) from avoided morbidity

and life-years saved from avoided mortality (Exhibit H.9). 

# MILYs

Type B Illness Total MILYs

7% Discount Rate 3% Discount Rate MILYs

Type A Illness

Notes: Numbers are annualized over the 25-year period of analysis. In the GWR EA, rotavirus is used as a

representative illness and indicator for the Type A Viruses and echovirus for Type B illness. In this CEA, a

rotavirus illness decrement is used to calculate QALYs for Type A cases, and to calculate a lower bound

estimate of QALYs for Type B cases. 

# Rule

Alternative 

# Exhibit H.10 MILYs 1 

# for Morbidity and Mortality of Type A and B Illnesses

by Rule Alternative

H.2.2 The CEA Numerator: Deriving Net Cost

The avoidance of time losses and medical cost s associated with the illnesses to be avoided by

implementation of the GWR comprise the cost of illn ess (COI) to be subtracted from the rule’s cost.

These values are developed based on information about these losses and consideration of the elicitation

process used by Cook et al. to develop the QALY d ecrements on which the MILYs denominator is based.

The COI per case is multiplied by the number of cases a voided and this amount is subtracted from the

regulation costs to calculate a net cost num erator for the cost-per-MILYs saved ratio.

H.2.2.1 Identifying costs to be subtracted from the numerator

The numerator in any cost-effectiveness calculation is an estimate of the relevant costs to achieve

the change in health state characterized by the effectiveness measure. For environmental

decision-making, regulatory costs of particular options are the appropriate starting point for defining the

numerator in a cost-effectiveness assessment of environmental improvement options.

In medical CEAs, net costs of disease treatment are included in the numerator for those

interventions involving treatment. In the envir onmental protection context, the handling of disease

treatment costs depends on the scope of the effec tiveness measure. If the QALY score reflects a health

state after treatment is administered, then the costs of treatment necessary to achieve that health state must

# 7 

# Subtracting costs from the numerator is not appropriate when the same costs are considered by participants

(elicitees) in the QALY elicitation process. If the cost s are already reflected as a component of the QALY

decrement, the denominator of the cost-per-MILY measur e will also account for them, and subtracting them from

regulatory costs in the numerator would, in effect, be doubl e-counting the cost avoidance. Therefore, selection of

appropriate costs to subtract from the numerator requires careful consideration of the QALY decrement used in the

analysis.

8 

# See Milton C. Weinstein, Joanna E. Siegel, Alan M. Garber, Joseph Lipscomb, Bryan R. Luce, Willard G.

Manning, Jr., and George W. Torrance, Productivity Costs, Time Costs and Health-related Quality of Life: A

Response to the Erasmus Group, Health Economics , 6:505-510, 1997.

Economic Analysis for the H-42 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# be subtracted from the regulatory costs to yi eld the net cost of avoiding a QALY decrement. 7



# In 1997, the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Hea lth and Medicine published, in the journal Health

Economics

, 8 

# a paper supporting that lost paid work time that is a loss to the individual (e.g., lost market

compensation, lost ability to complete uncompensated work, and lost leisure time) might best be assumed

to be reflected in a full and complete QALY score . In other words, elicitees, or experts assessing quality

of life for patients, are likely to have considered these effects in the quality of life score they report.

However, Cook et al. performed a separate COI anal ysis from the TTO study that generated the QALY

decrements that are used in this analysis, indicating that participants did not consider these costs in the

elicitation process.

The Cook et al. COI analysis accounted for costs associated with gallstone treatments in addition

to the rotavirus symptoms that apply to this analys is. The authors include in their cost analysis the

medical costs, patient transport costs, professional and informal care (caregiver) costs, and a patient’s

paid work and home duties losses/costs. Therefore, this analysis uses the Cook et al. decrements, but

adopts the COI estimates directly from the GWR EA (Exhibits 5.18 and 5.19), which account for

symptoms of rotavirus and echovirus illnesses.

After identifying the appropriate costs to subtr act from the numerator, the Agency discounts the

medical costs and time losses over the 25-year period of analysis. For each subsequent year after Year 1,

the present value (PV) of the medical cost stream is discounted by 3 percent and 7 percent to account for

the time preference for normal goods. In contrast, tim e losses are first increased in value to account for

income increases and then discounted. Additionally, time losses are valued using two different

approaches, Enhanced and Traditional (explained in the following section), while medical costs are the

same for both approaches.

Valuing Time Losses

Time losses to the patient that are associated w ith cases of Type A or B illness may include (1) a

reduction in time (hours) engaged in normal activiti es and (2) an additional loss of productivity (or

effectiveness) that occurs even when the ill individual continues to engage in normal activities

(“

presenteeism” ). Reductions in time (or hours) would result, for example, when an ill individual spends

time on doctor visits, bed rest, or in the hospital ra ther than engaging in normal market and non-market

work. Additionally, a portion of time may be spent by a family member or friend in caring for a patient at

home.

# 9 

# Embedded in this approach are a number of assumptions regarding the operations of the labor market and the

factors that influence individual choice. In addition, the actual effect of missed work time will vary depending on

how individuals are compensated; e.g., on whether they are salaried or hourly employees and on whether they

receive sick leave or disability payments. For example, if the individual has access to paid sick leave, a marginal

loss of work time (within certain limits) will not result in an immediate loss of income. However, a loss will accrue

to the employer, who must pay wages without the benefit of the worker’s productivity. The individual also has the

ability to save this sick leave for another time.

Economic Analysis for the H-43 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Time losses are assigned a value so that they can be combined with medical costs. As in the

LT2ESWTR, this analysis employs two approaches to value time losses. One approach, the Traditional

Cost of Illness (COI), is based on the human capital approach typically applied in COI studies, focusing

on the effect of illness on labor productivity (as measured by work time lost). Another approach, the

Enhanced COI, attempts to provide a more complete estimate of the social welfare impacts of time losses

due to illness based on the existing data and literature.

In the Enhanced COI estimate, these values are applied to both complete losses of time (time

spent in illness-related activities rather than normal activities), as well as to partial losses (time spent in

normal activities that are less productive or pleasurable than in the absence of illness). After calculating

the mean duration of illness, data on the days with re duced productivity can be derived by subtracting the

mean number of days lost (where no work is done) fro m the mean duration of illness. Consistent with the

method of application in the LT2ESWTR EA and the St age 2 DBPR, this analysis assumes that the dollar

value (i.e., the utility loss, estimated based on opportunity costs) of this reduction is equal to the reduction

in productivity multiplied by the relevant dollar-per- hour value (see Appendix A of the GWR EA for COI

detail). Also consistent with those analyses, presen teeism is accounted for only in the Enhanced COI, not

in the Traditional COI approach. Using the Enhanced approach, the Agency values lost leisure time and

non-market work time at 60 percent of the rate at wh ich it values market work time. In the Traditional

COI estimate, these values are applied only to comp lete losses of time (time spent in illness-related

activities rather than normal activities), because less productive time is not included.

In a social welfare context, the value of ma rginal changes in market work time has two

components: (1) the value of the time loss to that i ndividual, and (2) any additional value to the rest of

society. In this analysis, lost market work is valued at the median gross (pre-tax) wage rate plus benefits,

also referred to as total compensation or employer’s costs. 9 

# This approach is most representative of the

full social impact of lost work time because it incorporates both the loss to the individual in terms of lost

income and the loss to society in terms of redu ced tax revenue or decreased production of goods and

services.

This approach recognizes that, when an individual misses work or is less productive due to

illness, he or she loses the associated utility. This loss, in part, is measured by income, which the

individual can trade for goods and services. However, in come is an incomplete measure of value, because

the individual may derive utility from working that ex ceeds post-tax wages or take home pay. Hence the

post-tax wage rates provide a lower bound estimate of the value of paid work time from the individual

perspective.

This approach also recognizes that the employer (and society) loses the value of the individual’s

productivity, and that this value exceeds the value of the post-tax wages received by the employee. From

the employer’s perspective, the value of the indivi dual’s productivity is equal at minimum to his or her

total compensation (pre-tax wages plus benefits). This perspective is similar to that of the human capital

# 10 

# A number of COI studies use lost earnings to estimate indirect costs. For example, the total compensation

approach is used in Buzby et al. (1996), Rice et al. (1992), and Waitzman et al. (1996).

11 

# For a recent discussion that indicates that illness-rela ted losses of work time can substantially exceed the wage

rate, see: Pauley et al. (2002).

12 

# Based on annual average of monthly figures, U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstr act of the United States, 2003,

Table No. 602, sourced to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statis tics, Employment and Earnings, monthly, January 2003 issue,

and based on the Current Population Survey.

13 

# Derived from the estimate of 131,019 thousand people at work (year 2002, based on annual average of monthly

figures, U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2003, Table No. 602, sourced to U.S. Bureau

of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings, monthly, January 2003 issue, and based on the Current Population

Survey) of the 217,570 thousand people in this age range (year 2002, based on annual average of monthly figures,

U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United St ates, 2003, Table No. 587, sourced to U.S. Bureau of Labor

Statistics, Bulletin 2307 and Employment and Earnings, mont hly, January issues; Monthly Labor Review, November

2001; and based on the Current Population Survey). 131,091 thousand/ 217,570 thousand = 60.3 percent.

14 

# 39.2 hours/week ÷ 7 days/week x (131,091 thousand pe rsons working/ 217,570 thousand persons of working

age)=3.4 hours/day.

15 

# Note that the Agency values time loss for patients at th e same rate regardless of the patient's age and whether the

lost time is for remunerative work or school-related activities.

Economic Analysis for the H-44 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# approach, which assumes that an employer would not pay more to an employee, in salary plus benefits,

than that employee is worth to the company (i.e., the value of the employee’s marginal product) and

hence to society. 10 

# Some of this value is reflected in the employee’s take home pay, and the remainder

accrues in terms of taxes paid and reflects the value of product created above and beyond what is reflected

in pre-tax wages. 11



# The U.S. Census Bureau compiles data on weekly hours worked, and loss of work hours is a key

loss category used in this analysis. For the year 2002, that figure was 39.2 hours per week for the civilian

noninstitutional population 16 years old or ol der who are working full or part-time. 12 

# This figure

excludes those employed but not working because of vacations, illness, strikes, etc.; noncivilians;

institutionalized persons; and those in the labor pool but unemployed. This group of workers includes

about 60.3 percent of the population in this age range. 13 

# Over the whole population, the average lost work

hours per day of illness is, therefore, about 3.4 hours. 14



# Summary of Valuation of Lost Time

The costs that would normally be incurred and wh ich rule implementation is expected to avoid

should be subtracted from the regulatory costs wh ich comprise the numerator. The QALY decrement

used in this analysis does not appear to include patie nts' consideration of treatment costs. As the Agency

interprets Cook et al., their QALY score does not refl ect the impact of these expenses, as information on

costs was gathered in a separate section of their QALY questionnaire. As a result, subtraction of direct

and indirect treatment costs from the numerator is c onsistent with the information reflected in the QALY

denominator. This includes medical costs associat ed with Type A and B illness and certain time losses

for patients and caregivers. 15 

# Time losses include: lost paid work time, lost caregiver time, and reduced

productivity while on the job (presenteeism). The qua lified costs do not include: unpaid lost market work

# Economic Analysis for the H-45 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# time, lost leisure time, or lost non-market produc tivity. In addition, caregiver time losses in the

Traditional approach exclude leisure time losses and valu e non-market work time at one half that of the

Enhanced approach. The remaining exhibits of this Appendix present results using both the Enhanced

and the Traditional approach. The details of the deri vation of the COI estimates are described in Chapter

5 and Appendix A of the GWR EA.

In summary, the subtraction from the numerator (of the cost effectiveness ratio) of appropriate

costs results in the following calculation:

Net Cost = C

t,n 

# - (Avoided

t,n 

# x COI

t,a 

# )

Where C = Total compliance cost of rule

t = Type of Illness (Type A or B)

n = Rule Alternative (1,2,4, or the final GWR)

Avoided = Number of cases of Type A or B illness avoided by rule alternative n

COI = The sum of the medical cost of Type A or B illness and lost time costs per

case avoided and

a = age group.

Weighted Cost of Illness

The costs of illness associated with the Type A and Type B illnesses to be avoided by GWR

implementation are based on COI estimates for ro tavirus (Type A) and echovirus (Type B) illnesses.

These costs, both in terms of time losses and medical care required, vary across age groups, individual

health status for Type A (cases in immunocompromi sed individuals tend to be more severe and require

more care), and severity of cases for Type B (requires no medical care, doctor visit required, or

hospitalization). To simplify the calculations acro ss these COI subgroups, a weighted COI is calculated

using the percentage of cases in each subgroup, as s hown in Exhibits H.11a-b. As described in the

previous section, the derivation of the COI estimat es is presented in Ch. 5 and Appendix A of the GWR

EA.

H.2.2.2 Calculating costs by year to be subtracted from regulatory costs

The value of lost time can increase or decr ease over time, depending on the change in real

income. Using data on income growth from the Bur eau of Labor Statistics, the income lost over the

25-year period of analysis is increased to reflect that real income growth. Benefits derived from medical

costs are not adjusted for chang es in real income over time, because medical costs do not necessarily have

a direct or indirect link with income. The cost ad justment per case is calculated for each year using the

following equation.

Annual Cost Adjustment Per Case =

Type A cases: [( B + 1)

i 

# x (Lost Time Costs)

i- 1 

# ] + $19

Type B cases: [( B + 1)

i 

# x (Lost Time Costs)

i- 1 

# ] + $65

# Economic Analysis for the H-46 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Where B is the real income increase factor,

i = year 1 to 25,

Lost Time Costs = Indirect Weighted COI, and

$19 (or $65) = Direct Weighted COI (Medical costs), for Type A

illnesses (and Type B illnesses).

The Annual Cost Adjustment Per Case is calcu lated in Exhibits H.12a-b, where it is then

multiplied by discounted cases, as shown in the following section.

H.2.2.3 Calculating total cost adjustment to regulatory costs based upon cases of rotavirus

illness avoided

To calculate a total cost adjustment (i.e., subtr action) to the regulatory costs that comprise the

numerator of the CE ratio, the Annual Cost Adjustment Per Case developed in the preceding section is

applied to cases avoided annually over the 25-year period of analysis (Exhibits H.12a - p). As described

in Ch. 5 of the EA, the primary analysis quantifies a limited portion of the total anticipated benefits of the

Rule. Section 5.4.3.2 presents a discussion of nonqua ntified benefits and estimates a portion of their

value, based on bacterial illnesses avoided, at four times the primary analysis benefits (for a benefits total

that is five times the primary benefits). Havi ng benefits valued at five times the primary analysis

estimates would significantly increase the Co st Adjustment to the rule cost.

First, the number of cases avoided for each year (years 1 through 25) is discounted back to Year 1

of the analysis to account for the time preference for normal goods (such as avoiding illness). Next, these

cases are multiplied by the Cost Adjustment per case for each year (years 1 through 25):

Total Cost Adjustment

n 

# = (Discounted Cases

i,n 

# x Cost Adjustment

i 

# )

for i = year 1 to 25, and

n = regulatory alternative.

This calculation is made using a 3 percent and a 7 percent discount rate. The final GWR is the

second most stringent alternative and reduces risk pr oportionally; therefore, it has the second highest cost

adjustment, which reflects its potential for avoiding lost time and medical costs due to illness.

# ECOI TCOI ECOI TCOI ECOI TCOI

A B C D E = A*B F = A * C G = A * D H = E + G I = F + G

< 2 years 4% 1,293 $ 258 $ 97 $ 55 $ 11 $ 4 $ 59 $ 15 $

2 to < 5 yrs 2% 1,293 $ 258 $ 82 $ 29 $ 6 $ 2 $ 31 $ 8 $

5 to < 16 yrs 11% 641 $ 128 $ - $ 73 $ 14 $ - $ 73 $ 14 $

? 16 yrs 82% 103 $ 39 $ - $ 85 $ 32 $ - $ 85 $ 32 $

Total 100% 242 $ 63 $ 6 $ 248 $ 69 $

< 2 years 4% 2,136 $ 426 $ 4,486 $ 91 $ 18 $ 191 $ 282 $ 209 $

2 to < 5 yrs 2% 1,281 $ 255 $ 4,486 $ 29 $ 6 $ 102 $ 131 $ 108 $

5 to < 16 yrs 11% 1,281 $ 255 $ 4,453 $ 145 $ 29 $ 504 $ 649 $ 533 $

? 16 yrs 82% 569 $ 213 $ 4,453 $ 468 $ 175 $ 3,658 $ 4,125 $ 3,833 $

Total 100% 733 $ 228 $ 4,455 $ 5,188 $ 4,683 $

243 $ 63 $ 19 $ 263 $ 83 $

Sources: Column A - GWR model output

Columns B,C,D - Exhbits 5.18 and 5.19 

# Weighted COI

Ag e Indirect

Direct COI Total Indirect

Total Weighted Average COI 1 

# Direct COI

1 

# A weighted average COI for all Type A illness cases to be avoided by the GWR is derived by multiplying the duration of symptom s

in each age group, for both the Healthy and Immunocompromised populations, by the corresponding percentage of cases in each

age group; the result is multiplied by the percentage of healthy vs. immunocompromised patients, which is estimated in the prim ary

analysis of the GWR EA to be 99.7% and 0.3%, respectively. The results for the two populations are summed to yield the COI, in

days, for a weighted average case. 

# Healthy Population (99.7%) % Cases by

Age

Notes: In the GWR EA, rotavirus is used as a representative illness for calculating cases of Type A illnesses to be avoided by rule

implementation. Indirect COI includes costs of time losses related to illness. Direct COI includes medical costs. 

# Immunocompromised Population (0.3%) 

# Exhibit H.11a Weighted 1 

# Cost of Illness Per Case Avoided, Type A Illness

# Economic Analysis for the H-48 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule ECOI TCOI ECOI TCOI ECOI TCOI

A B C D E = A*B F = A * C G = A * D H = E + G I = F + G

< 1 yr 0.1% 1,281 $ 255 $ - $ 2 $ 0 $ - $ 2 $ 0 $

1 to < 5 yrs 7% 1,281 $ 255 $ - $ 96 $ 19 $ - $ 96 $ 19 $

5 to < 16 yrs 14% 641 $ 128 $ - $ 90 $ 18 $ - $ 90 $ 18 $

? 16 yrs 78% 336 $ 126 $ - $ 263 $ 98 $ - $ 263 $ 98 $

Total 100% 451 $ 136 $ - $ 451 $ 136 $

< 1 yr 0.1% 2,136 $ 426 $ 181 $ 3 $ 1 $ 0 $ 3 $ 1 $

1 to < 5 yrs 7% 2,136 $ 426 $ 181 $ 160 $ 32 $ 14 $ 173 $ 45 $

5 to < 16 yrs 14% 2,136 $ 426 $ 181 $ 301 $ 60 $ 25 $ 326 $ 85 $

? 16 yrs 78% 1,139 $ 426 $ 181 $ 892 $ 333 $ 142 $ 1,033 $ 475 $

Total 100% 1,355 $ 426 $ 181 $ 1,536 $ 606 $

< 1 yr 0.1% 2,990 $ 596 $ 23,431 $ 4 $ 1 $ 31 $ 35 $ 32 $

1 to < 5 yrs 7% 2,990 $ 596 $ 9,187 $ 224 $ 45 $ 688 $ 911 $ 732 $

5 to < 16 yrs 14% 2,990 $ 596 $ 5,036 $ 421 $ 84 $ 709 $ 1,130 $ 793 $

? 16 yrs 78% 1,595 $ 596 $ 5,036 $ 1,249 $ 467 $ 3,943 $ 5,192 $ 4,410 $

Total 100% 1,897 $ 596 $ 5,371 $ 7,269 $ 7,865 $

520 $ 158 $ 65 $ 585 $ 241 $

Sources: Column A - GWR model output

Columns B,C,D - Exhbits 5.18 and 5.19 1 

# A weighted average COI for all Type B illness cases to be avoided by the GWR is derived by multiplying the duration of symptom s in each age

group, for each severity level (No Medical Care, Doctor, and Hosp italization), by the correspondi ng percentage of cases in each age group; the

result is multiplied by the percentage of patients in each severity level, which is estimated to be 93%, 6%, and 1%, respective ly. The results for the

three patient populations are summed to yield the COI, in days, for a weighted average case. Notes: In the Ground Water Rule EA, rotavirus is used as a re presentative illness for calculating cases of Type A illnesses to be avoided by rule

implementation. Indirect COI includes co sts of time losses related to illness. Direct COI includes medical costs. 

# Weighted COI

Indirect

Direct COI Total

A g e % Cases by

Age Indirect

Direct COI

Total Weighted Average COI 1 

# Cases Not Requiring Medical Care (93%)

Cases Requiring Doctor Visit (6%)

Cases Requiring Hospitalization (1%) 

# Exhibit H.11b Weighted 1 

# Cost of Illness Per Case Avoided, Type B Illness

# Economic Analysis for the H-49 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule ECOI TCOI

A B C D E F G H



# – B = A/1.03^( n -2006)



# – – G = (B * (D + F))/10 6 

# G = (B * (E + F))/10 6



# 2007 -

- Base Year 243 $ 63 $ 19 $ - $ - $

2008 -

- 2.3% 249 $ 65 $ 19 $ - $ - $

2009 -

- 3.9% 259 $ 67 $ 19 $ - $ - $

2010 768 703 3.3% 267 $ 70 $ 19 $ 0 $ 0 $

2011 1,667 1,481 2.3% 274 $ 71 $ 19 $ 0 $ 0 $

2012 2,371 2,045 1.9% 279 $ 73 $ 19 $ 1 $ 0 $

2013 3,064 2,566 2.0% 284 $ 74 $ 19 $ 1 $ 0 $

2014 3,715 3,021 2.0% 290 $ 76 $ 19 $ 1 $ 0 $

2015 4,397 3,471 1.8% 295 $ 77 $ 19 $ 1 $ 0 $

2016 5,001 3,833 1.7% 300 $ 78 $ 19 $ 1 $ 0 $

2017 5,836 4,343 1.7% 305 $ 79 $ 19 $ 1 $ 0 $

2018 6,330 4,573 1.7% 310 $ 81 $ 19 $ 2 $ 0 $

2019 6,825 4,787 1.7% 315 $ 82 $ 19 $ 2 $ 0 $

2020 7,484 5,096 1.7% 320 $ 84 $ 19 $ 2 $ 1 $

2021 8,147 5,386 1.7% 326 $ 85 $ 19 $ 2 $ 1 $

2022 8,719 5,596 1.7% 331 $ 86 $ 19 $ 2 $ 1 $

2023 9,514 5,929 1.7% 337 $ 88 $ 19 $ 2 $ 1 $

2024 10,209 6,176 1.7% 342 $ 89 $ 19 $ 2 $ 1 $

2025 10,829 6,361 1.7% 348 $ 91 $ 19 $ 2 $ 1 $

2026 11,739 6,694 1.7% 354 $ 92 $ 19 $ 3 $ 1 $

2027 12,191 6,750 1.7% 360 $ 94 $ 19 $ 3 $ 1 $

2028 13,037 7,008 1.7% 366 $ 96 $ 19 $ 3 $ 1 $

2029 13,799 7,201 1.7% 373 $ 97 $ 19 $ 3 $ 1 $

2030 14,431 7,312 1.7% 379 $ 99 $ 19 $ 3 $ 1 $

2031 15,279 7,516 1.7% 386 $ 101 $ 19 $ 3 $ 1 $

23 $ 7 $

1 $ 0 $

Sources: Column A: Ch. 5, Exhibit 5.16.

Columns D, E: Base Year value from Exhibit 5.a; 2007 - 2030 values calculated as shown above.



# Column F: Exhibit H.5.a Lost Time

w/Growth

Factor (ECOI) Discounted Cases

Avoided Direct

Medical Costs

Notes: Values are in 2003$. In the Ground Water Rule EA, rotavirus is used as a representative illness for the Type A Viruses . Detail may not sum to totals due to independent

rounding.

1 

# A cost adjustment is the value of direct (medical) and indirect (time losses) costs that are saved when an illness of Type A or B is avoided. These estimates represent only the

quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unquantified benefits are expected to compose a significant portion of the overall benefi ts of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and

would cause the Cost Adjustment to increase .

Column C: 2003 real GDP from Bureau of Economic Analysis, subsequent years calculated based on percent change projections from Congressional Budget Office

(January 26, 2004). Projections for years beyond 2014 based on per cent change reported for 2014 based on available information. Population projections used in

assessing GDP on a per capital basis are from US Census Bureau (NP-T1: Middle Series). 

# %Change in

Income (Real GDP

per Capita) Lost Time

w/Growth

Factor (TCOI)

25 Year PV

25 Year Annualized Value Year n Cost Adjustment

($) (Million $) 

# Undiscounted

Cases Avoided

(1+C) * Prior Year's Lost Time 

# Exhibit H.12a Cost Adjustment fo r Type A Illness, Alternative 1,

3 Percent Discount Rate

# Economic Analysis for the H-50 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule ECOI TCOI

A B C D E F G H



# – G = (B * (D + F))/10 6 

# G = (B * (E + F))/10 6



# 2007 -

- Base Year 520 $ 158 $ 65 $ - $ - $

2008 -

- 2.3% 532 $ 162 $ 65 $ - $ - $

2009 -

- 3.9% 553 $ 168 $ 65 $ - $ - $

2010 36 33 3.3% 571 $ 173 $ 65 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $

2011 121 107 2.3% 585 $ 177 $ 65 $ 0.1 $ 0.0 $

2012 159 137 1.9% 595 $ 181 $ 65 $ 0.1 $ 0.0 $

2013 185 155 2.0% 607 $ 184 $ 65 $ 0.1 $ 0.0 $

2014 210 171 2.0% 619 $ 188 $ 65 $ 0.1 $ 0.0 $

2015 267 211 1.8% 630 $ 191 $ 65 $ 0.1 $ 0.1 $

2016 300 230 1.7% 641 $ 194 $ 65 $ 0.2 $ 0.1 $

2017 374 279 1.7% 651 $ 198 $ 65 $ 0.2 $ 0.1 $

2018 397 287 1.7% 662 $ 201 $ 65 $ 0.2 $ 0.1 $

2019 530 372 1.7% 673 $ 204 $ 65 $ 0.3 $ 0.1 $

2020 566 385 1.7% 684 $ 208 $ 65 $ 0.3 $ 0.1 $

2021 608 402 1.7% 696 $ 211 $ 65 $ 0.3 $ 0.1 $

2022 627 402 1.7% 708 $ 215 $ 65 $ 0.3 $ 0.1 $

2023 679 423 1.7% 720 $ 218 $ 65 $ 0.3 $ 0.1 $

2024 752 455 1.7% 732 $ 222 $ 65 $ 0.4 $ 0.1 $

2025 767 451 1.7% 744 $ 226 $ 65 $ 0.4 $ 0.1 $

2026 819 467 1.7% 757 $ 230 $ 65 $ 0.4 $ 0.1 $

2027 835 462 1.7% 770 $ 234 $ 65 $ 0.4 $ 0.1 $

2028 901 484 1.7% 783 $ 238 $ 65 $ 0.4 $ 0.1 $

2029 929 485 1.7% 797 $ 242 $ 65 $ 0.4 $ 0.1 $

2030 954 483 1.7% 810 $ 246 $ 65 $ 0.4 $ 0.2 $

2031 1,056 520 1.7% 824 $ 250 $ 65 $ 0.5 $ 0.2 $

4 $ 1 $

0.2 $ 0.1 $

Sources: Column A: Ch. 5, Exhibit 5.16.

Columns D, E: Base Year value from Exhibit 5.a; 2007 - 2030 values calculated as shown above.



# Column F: Exhibit H.5.a Direct

Medical Costs Cost Adjustment

25 Year Annualized Value Year n Undiscounted

Cases Avoided Discounted Cases

Avoided

– B = A/1.03^( n -2006)



# 25 Year PV

Note: Values are in 2003$. A decrement for rotavirus illness was the best available data for Type A illnesses as well as Type B , and is used as a low estimate for Type B

Illnesses, which are known to be generally more severe than those of Type A. Detail may not sum to totals due to independent r ounding.

1 

# A cost adjustment is the value of direct (medical) and indirect (time losses) costs that are saved when an illness of Type A or B is avoided. These estimates represent only the

quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unquantified benefits are expected to compose a significant portion of the overall benefi ts of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and

would cause the Cost Adjustment to increase .

Column C: 2003 real GDP from Bureau of Economic Analysis, subsequent years calculated based on percent change projections from Congressional Budget Office

(January 26, 2004). Projections for years beyond 2014 based on per cent change reported for 2014 based on available information. Population projections used in

assessing GDP on a per capital basis are from US Census Bureau (NP-T1: Middle Series). 

# %Change in

Income (Real GDP

per Capita) Lost Time

w/Growth

Factor (ECOI) Lost Time

w/Growth

Factor (TCOI)

– ($) (Million $)

(1+C) * Prior Year's Lost Time 

# Exhibit H.12b Cost Adjustment for Type B Illness, Alternative 1,

3 Percent Discount Rate

# Economic Analysis for the H-51 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule ECOI TCOI

A B C D E F G H



# – G = (B * (D + F))/10 6 

# G = (B * (E + F))/10 6



# 2007 -

- Base Year 243 $ 63 $ 19 $ - $ - $

2008 -

- 2.3% 249 $ 65 $ 19 $ - $ - $

2009 -

- 3.9% 259 $ 66 $ 19 $ - $ - $

2010 10,626 9,724 3.3% 267 $ 68 $ 19 $ 3 $ 1 $

2011 18,737 16,647 2.3% 274 $ 70 $ 19 $ 5 $ 1 $

2012 27,973 24,130 1.9% 279 $ 71 $ 19 $ 7 $ 2 $

2013 31,950 26,758 2.0% 284 $ 73 $ 19 $ 8 $ 2 $

2014 35,297 28,699 2.0% 290 $ 74 $ 19 $ 9 $ 3 $

2015 39,013 30,797 1.8% 295 $ 76 $ 19 $ 10 $ 3 $

2016 40,828 31,291 1.7% 300 $ 78 $ 19 $ 10 $ 3 $

2017 42,864 31,895 1.7% 305 $ 80 $ 19 $ 10 $ 3 $

2018 44,080 31,845 1.7% 310 $ 82 $ 19 $ 10 $ 3 $

2019 46,196 32,401 1.7% 315 $ 83 $ 19 $ 11 $ 3 $

2020 47,826 32,567 1.7% 320 $ 85 $ 19 $ 11 $ 3 $

2021 48,872 32,310 1.7% 326 $ 87 $ 19 $ 11 $ 3 $

2022 50,247 32,252 1.7% 331 $ 89 $ 19 $ 11 $ 4 $

2023 51,328 31,986 1.7% 337 $ 91 $ 19 $ 11 $ 4 $

2024 52,978 32,052 1.7% 342 $ 94 $ 19 $ 12 $ 4 $

2025 53,835 31,623 1.7% 348 $ 96 $ 19 $ 12 $ 4 $

2026 55,032 31,384 1.7% 354 $ 98 $ 19 $ 12 $ 4 $

2027 55,931 30,968 1.7% 360 $ 100 $ 19 $ 12 $ 4 $

2028 56,936 30,606 1.7% 366 $ 102 $ 19 $ 12 $ 4 $

2029 57,935 30,236 1.7% 373 $ 105 $ 19 $ 12 $ 4 $

2030 58,442 29,612 1.7% 379 $ 107 $ 19 $ 12 $ 4 $

2031 59,126 29,086 1.7% 386 $ 110 $ 19 $ 12 $ 4 $

142 $ 44 $

8 $ 3 $

Sources: Column A: Ch. 5, Exhibit 5.16.

Columns D, E: Base Year value from Exhibit 5.a; 2007 - 2030 values calculated as shown above.



# Column F: Exhibit H.5.a (1+C) * Prior Year's Lost Time 

# Lost Time

w/Growth

Factor (ECOI) %Change in

Income (Real GDP

per Capita) Lost Time

w/Growth

Factor (TCOI) Direct

Medical Costs

Year n Discounted Cases

Avoided Undiscounted

Cases Avoided

– B = A/1.03^( n -2006)



# – ($) (Million $) 

# Cost Adjustment

25 Year PV

25 Year Annualized Value

Notes: Values are in 2003$. In the Ground Water Rule EA, ro tavirus is used as a representative illness for the Type A Viruses . Detail may not sum to totals due to independent

rounding.

1 

# A cost adjustment is the value of direct (medical) and indirect (time losses) costs t hat are saved when an illness of Type A or B is avoided. These estimates represent only the

quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unquantified benefits are expected to compose a significant portion of the overall benefi ts of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and

would cause the Cost Adjustment to increase .

Column C: 2003 real GDP from Bureau of Economic Analysis, subs equent years calculated based on percent change projections from Congressional Budget

Office (January 26, 2004). Projections for years beyond 2014 ba sed on percent change reported for 2014 based on available infor mation. Population projections

used in assessing GDP on a per capital basis are from US Census Bureau (NP-T1: Middle Series). 

# Exhibit H.12c Cost Adjustment fo r Type A Illness, Alternative 2,

3 Percent Discount Rate

# Economic Analysis for the H-52 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule ECOI TCOI

A B C D E F G H



# – G = (B * (D + F))/10 6 

# G = (B * (E + F))/10 6



# 2007 -

- Base Year 520 $ 158 $ 65 $ - $ - $

2008 -

- 2.3% 532 $ 162 $ 65 $ - $ - $

2009 -

- 3.9% 553 $ 168 $ 65 $ - $ - $

2010 746 683 3.3% 571 $ 173 $ 65 $ 0 $ 0.2 $

2011 1,277 1,134 2.3% 585 $ 177 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.3 $

2012 1,735 1,497 1.9% 595 $ 181 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.4 $

2013 1,935 1,620 2.0% 607 $ 184 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.4 $

2014 2,082 1,693 2.0% 619 $ 188 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.4 $

2015 2,332 1,841 1.8% 630 $ 191 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.5 $

2016 2,401 1,840 1.7% 641 $ 194 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.5 $

2017 2,619 1,949 1.7% 651 $ 198 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.5 $

2018 2,720 1,965 1.7% 662 $ 201 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.5 $

2019 2,892 2,028 1.7% 673 $ 204 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.5 $

2020 2,999 2,042 1.7% 684 $ 208 $ 65 $ 2 $ 0.6 $

2021 3,058 2,022 1.7% 696 $ 211 $ 65 $ 2 $ 0.6 $

2022 3,110 1,996 1.7% 708 $ 215 $ 65 $ 2 $ 0.6 $

2023 3,165 1,972 1.7% 720 $ 218 $ 65 $ 2 $ 0.6 $

2024 3,275 1,982 1.7% 732 $ 222 $ 65 $ 2 $ 0.6 $

2025 3,340 1,962 1.7% 744 $ 226 $ 65 $ 2 $ 0.6 $

2026 3,387 1,931 1.7% 757 $ 230 $ 65 $ 2 $ 0.6 $

2027 3,441 1,905 1.7% 770 $ 234 $ 65 $ 2 $ 0.6 $

2028 3,489 1,875 1.7% 783 $ 238 $ 65 $ 2 $ 0.6 $

2029 3,518 1,836 1.7% 797 $ 242 $ 65 $ 2 $ 0.6 $

2030 3,549 1,798 1.7% 810 $ 246 $ 65 $ 2 $ 0.6 $

2031 3,583 1,763 1.7% 824 $ 250 $ 65 $ 2 $ 0.6 $

19 $ 7 $

1 $ 0.4 $

Sources: Column A: Ch. 5, Exhibit 5.16.

Columns D, E: Base Year value from Exhibit 5.a; 2007 - 2030 values calculated as shown above.



# Column F: Exhibit H.5.a %Change in

Income (Real GDP

per Capita)

25 Year PV Discounted Cases

Avoided

Year n Undiscounted

Cases Avoided

– B = A/1.03^( n -2006)



# – ($) (Million $)



# Note: Values are in 2003$. A decrement for rotavirus illness was the best available data for Type A illnesses as well as Type B , and is used as a low estimate for Type B

Illnesses, which are known to be generally more severe than those of Type A. Detail may not sum to totals due to independent r ounding.

1 

# A cost adjustment is the value of direct (medical) and indirect (time losses) costs that are saved when an illness of Type A or B is avoided. These estimates represent only the

quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unquantified benefits are expected to compose a significant portion of the overall benefi ts of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and

would cause the Cost Adjustment to increase .

Column C: 2003 real GDP from Bureau of Economic Analysis, su bsequent years calculated based on percent change projections from Congressional Budget

Office (January 26, 2004). Projections for years beyond 2014 base d on percent change reported for 2014 based on available infor mation. Population projections

used in assessing GDP on a per capital basis are from US Census Bureau (NP-T1: Middle Series). 

# Cost Adjustment Lost Time

w/Growth

Factor (TCOI) Direct

Medical Costs

(1+C) * Prior Year's Lost Time 

# Lost Time

w/Growth

Factor (ECOI)

25 Year Annualized Value 

# Exhibit H.12d Cost Adjustment for Type B Illness, Alternative 2,

3 Percent Discount Rate

# Economic Analysis for the H-53 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule ECOI TCOI

A B C D E F G H



# – G = (B * (D + F))/10 6 

# G = (B * (E + F))/10 6



# 2007 -

- Base Year 243 $ 63 $ 19 $ - $ - $

2008 -

- 2.3% 249 $ 65 $ 19 $ - $ - $

2009 -

- 3.9% 259 $ 67 $ 19 $ - $ - $

2010 10,626 9,724 3.3% 267 $ 70 $ 19 $ 3 $ 1 $

2011 18,737 16,647 2.3% 274 $ 71 $ 19 $ 5 $ 2 $

2012 31,833 27,459 1.9% 279 $ 73 $ 19 $ 8 $ 3 $

2013 35,930 30,090 2.0% 284 $ 74 $ 19 $ 9 $ 3 $

2014 40,114 32,616 2.0% 290 $ 76 $ 19 $ 10 $ 3 $

2015 43,765 34,549 1.8% 295 $ 77 $ 19 $ 11 $ 3 $

2016 45,483 34,859 1.7% 300 $ 78 $ 19 $ 11 $ 3 $

2017 47,364 35,243 1.7% 305 $ 79 $ 19 $ 11 $ 3 $

2018 48,651 35,147 1.7% 310 $ 81 $ 19 $ 12 $ 4 $

2019 50,657 35,530 1.7% 315 $ 82 $ 19 $ 12 $ 4 $

2020 52,189 35,538 1.7% 320 $ 84 $ 19 $ 12 $ 4 $

2021 53,203 35,173 1.7% 326 $ 85 $ 19 $ 12 $ 4 $

2022 54,534 35,003 1.7% 331 $ 86 $ 19 $ 12 $ 4 $

2023 55,553 34,619 1.7% 337 $ 88 $ 19 $ 12 $ 4 $

2024 57,115 34,556 1.7% 342 $ 89 $ 19 $ 13 $ 4 $

2025 57,957 34,044 1.7% 348 $ 91 $ 19 $ 13 $ 4 $

2026 59,060 33,681 1.7% 354 $ 92 $ 19 $ 13 $ 4 $

2027 59,979 33,209 1.7% 360 $ 94 $ 19 $ 13 $ 4 $

2028 60,921 32,748 1.7% 366 $ 96 $ 19 $ 13 $ 4 $

2029 61,908 32,309 1.7% 373 $ 97 $ 19 $ 13 $ 4 $

2030 62,351 31,593 1.7% 379 $ 99 $ 19 $ 13 $ 4 $

2031 62,971 30,978 1.7% 386 $ 101 $ 19 $ 13 $ 4 $

154 $ 47 $

9 $ 3 $

Sources: Column A: Ch. 5, Exhibit 5.16.

Columns D, E: Base Year value from Exhibit 5.a; 2007 - 2030 values calculated as shown above.



# Column F: Exhibit H.5.a – B = A/1.03^( n -2006)



# – ($) (Million $) 

# Cost Adjustment 1



# Year n Discounted Cases

Avoided Undiscounted

Cases Avoided

25 Year PV Lost Time

w/Growth

Factor (TCOI) Direct

Medical Costs

(1+C) * Prior Year's Lost Time 

# Lost Time

w/Growth

Factor (ECOI) % Change in

Income

(Real GDP per

Capita)

25 Year Annualized Value

Notes: Values are in 2003$. In the Ground Water Rule EA, rotavirus is used as a representative illness for the Type A Viruses . Detail may not sum to totals due to independent

rounding.

1 

# A cost adjustment is the value of direct (medical) and indirect (time losses) costs that are saved when an illness of Type A or B is avoided. These estimates represent only the

quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unquantified benefits are expected to compose a significant portion of the overall benefi ts of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and

would cause the Cost Adjustment to increase .

Column C: 2003 real GDP from Bureau of Economic Analysis, subsequent years calculated based on percent change projections from Congressional Budget Office

(January 26, 2004). Projections for years beyond 2014 based on percent change reported for 2014 based on available information. Population projections used in

assessing GDP on a per capital basis are from US Census Bureau (NP-T1: Middle Series). 

# Exhibit H.12e Cost Adjustment fo r Type A Illness, Alternative 3,

3 Percent Discount Rate

# Economic Analysis for the H-54 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule ECOI TCOI

A B C D E F G H



# – G = (B * (D + F))/10 6 

# G = (B * (E + F))/10 6



# 2007 -

- Base Year 520 $ 158 $ 65 $ - $ - $

2008 -

- 2.3% 532 $ 162 $ 65 $ - $ - $

2009 -

- 3.9% 553 $ 168 $ 65 $ - $ - $

2010 746 683 3.3% 571 $ 173 $ 65 $ 0 $ 0 $

2011 1,277 1,134 2.3% 585 $ 177 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0 $

2012 1,949 1,681 1.9% 595 $ 181 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0 $

2013 2,147 1,798 2.0% 607 $ 184 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0 $

2014 2,301 1,871 2.0% 619 $ 188 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0 $

2015 2,545 2,009 1.8% 630 $ 191 $ 65 $ 1 $ 1 $

2016 2,616 2,005 1.7% 641 $ 194 $ 65 $ 1 $ 1 $

2017 2,819 2,098 1.7% 651 $ 198 $ 65 $ 2 $ 1 $

2018 2,925 2,113 1.7% 662 $ 201 $ 65 $ 2 $ 1 $

2019 3,099 2,173 1.7% 673 $ 204 $ 65 $ 2 $ 1 $

2020 3,204 2,182 1.7% 684 $ 208 $ 65 $ 2 $ 1 $

2021 3,261 2,156 1.7% 696 $ 211 $ 65 $ 2 $ 1 $

2022 3,313 2,127 1.7% 708 $ 215 $ 65 $ 2 $ 1 $

2023 3,355 2,091 1.7% 720 $ 218 $ 65 $ 2 $ 1 $

2024 3,458 2,092 1.7% 732 $ 222 $ 65 $ 2 $ 1 $

2025 3,521 2,068 1.7% 744 $ 226 $ 65 $ 2 $ 1 $

2026 3,567 2,034 1.7% 757 $ 230 $ 65 $ 2 $ 1 $

2027 3,619 2,004 1.7% 770 $ 234 $ 65 $ 2 $ 1 $

2028 3,673 1,975 1.7% 783 $ 238 $ 65 $ 2 $ 1 $

2029 3,701 1,931 1.7% 797 $ 242 $ 65 $ 2 $ 1 $

2030 3,723 1,887 1.7% 810 $ 246 $ 65 $ 2 $ 1 $

2031 3,753 1,846 1.7% 824 $ 250 $ 65 $ 2 $ 1 $

21 $ 7 $

1 $ 0 $

Sources: Column A: Ch. 5, Exhibit 5.16.

Columns D, E: Base Year value from Exhibit 5.a; 2007 - 2030 values calculated as shown above.



# Column F: Exhibit H.5.a 25 Year PV

25 Year Annualized Value – B = A/1.03^( n -2006)



# – ($) (Million $)



# Year n Discounted Cases

Avoided Undiscounted

Cases Avoided

Column C: 2003 real GDP from Bureau of Economic Analysis, subsequent years calculated based on percent change projections from Congressional Budget Office

(January 26, 2004). Projections for years beyond 2014 based on percent change reported for 2014 based on available information. Population projections used in

assessing GDP on a per capital basis are from US Census Bureau (NP-T1: Middle Series). (1+C) * Prior Year's Lost Time 

# Lost Time

w/Growth

Factor (ECOI) % Change in

Income

(Real GDP per

Capita) Cost Adjustment Lost Time

w/Growth

Factor (TCOI) Direct

Medical Costs

Note: Values are in 2003$. A decrement for rotavirus illness was the best available data for Type A illnesses as well as Type B , and is used as a low estimate for Type B Illnesses,

which are known to be generally more severe than those of Type A. Detail may not sum to totals due to independent rounding.

1 

# A cost adjustment is the value of direct (medical) and indirect (time losses) costs that are saved when an illness of Type A or B is avoided. These estimates represent only the

quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unquantified benefits are expected to compose a significant portion of the overall benefi ts of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and

would cause the Cost Adjustment to increase . 

# Exhibit H.12f Cost Adjustment for Type B Illness, Alternative 3,

3 Percent Discount Rate

# Economic Analysis for the H-55 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule ECOI TCOI

A B C D E F G H



# – B = A/1.03^( n -2006)



# – – G = (B * (D + F))/10 6 

# G = (B * (E + F))/10 6



# 2007 -

- Base Year 243 $ 63 $ 19 $ - $ - $

2008 -

- 2.3% 249 $ 65 $ 19 $ - $ - $

2009 -

- 3.9% 259 $ 67 $ 19 $ - $ - $

2010 -

- 3.3% 267 $ 70 $ 19 $ - $ - $

2011 174,849 155,351 2.3% 274 $ 71 $ 19 $ 45 $ 14 $

2012 174,849 150,826 1.9% 279 $ 73 $ 19 $ 45 $ 14 $

2013 174,849 146,433 2.0% 284 $ 74 $ 19 $ 44 $ 14 $

2014 174,849 142,168 2.0% 290 $ 76 $ 19 $ 44 $ 13 $

2015 174,849 138,027 1.8% 295 $ 77 $ 19 $ 43 $ 13 $

2016 174,849 134,007 1.7% 300 $ 78 $ 19 $ 43 $ 13 $

2017 174,849 130,104 1.7% 305 $ 79 $ 19 $ 42 $ 13 $

2018 174,849 126,314 1.7% 310 $ 81 $ 19 $ 42 $ 13 $

2019 174,849 122,635 1.7% 315 $ 82 $ 19 $ 41 $ 12 $

2020 174,849 119,063 1.7% 320 $ 84 $ 19 $ 40 $ 12 $

2021 174,849 115,596 1.7% 326 $ 85 $ 19 $ 40 $ 12 $

2022 174,849 112,229 1.7% 331 $ 86 $ 19 $ 39 $ 12 $

2023 174,849 108,960 1.7% 337 $ 88 $ 19 $ 39 $ 12 $

2024 174,849 105,786 1.7% 342 $ 89 $ 19 $ 38 $ 11 $

2025 174,849 102,705 1.7% 348 $ 91 $ 19 $ 38 $ 11 $

2026 174,849 99,714 1.7% 354 $ 92 $ 19 $ 37 $ 11 $

2027 174,849 96,810 1.7% 360 $ 94 $ 19 $ 37 $ 11 $

2028 174,849 93,990 1.7% 366 $ 96 $ 19 $ 36 $ 11 $

2029 174,849 91,252 1.7% 373 $ 97 $ 19 $ 36 $ 11 $

2030 174,849 88,594 1.7% 379 $ 99 $ 19 $ 35 $ 10 $

2031 174,849 86,014 1.7% 386 $ 101 $ 19 $ 35 $ 10 $

556 $ 169 $

32 $ 10 $

Sources: Column A: Ch. 5, Exhibit 5.16.

Columns D, E: Base Year value from Exhibit 5. a; 2007 - 2030 values calculated as shown above.



# Column F: Exhibit H.5.a 25 Year PV

25 Year Annualized Value Year n Cost Adjustment Direct

Medical Costs

(1+C) * Prior Year's Lost Time 

# Lost Time

w/Growth

Factor (ECOI)

(Million $) ($) 

# Discounted Cases

Avoided Undiscounted

Cases Avoided %Change in

Income (Real GDP

per Capita) Lost Time

w/Growth

Factor (TCOI)

Notes: Values are in 2003$. In the Ground Water Rule EA, rotavirus is used as a representative illness for the Type A Viruses . Detail may not sum to totals due to independent

rounding.

1 

# A cost adjustment is the value of direct (m edical) and indirect (time losses) costs that are saved when an illness of Type A or B is avoided. These estimates represent only the

quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unquantified benefits are expected to compose a significant portion of the overall benefi ts of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and

would cause the Cost Adjustment to increase .

Column C: 2003 real GDP from Bureau of Economic Analysis, subsequent years calculated based on percent change projections from Congressional Budget

Office (January 26, 2004). Projections for years beyond 2014 based on percent change reported for 2014 based on available infor mation. Population projections

used in assessing GDP on a per capital basis are from US Census Bureau (NP-T1: Middle Series). 

# Exhibit H.12g Cost Adjustment for Type A Illness, Alternative 4,

3 Percent Discount Rate

# Economic Analysis for the H-56 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule ECOI TCOI

A B C D E F G H



# – G = (B * (D + F))/10 6 

# G = (B * (E + F))/10 6



# 2007 -

- Base Year 520 $ 158 $ 65 $ - $ - $

2008 -

- 2.3% 532 $ 162 $ 65 $ - $ - $

2009 -

- 3.9% 553 $ 168 $ 65 $ - $ - $

2010 0 0 3.3% 571 $ 173 $ 65 $ - $ - $

2011 10,011 8,895 2.3% 585 $ 177 $ 65 $ 6 $ 2 $

2012 10,011 8,636 1.9% 595 $ 181 $ 65 $ 6 $ 2 $

2013 10,011 8,384 2.0% 607 $ 184 $ 65 $ 6 $ 2 $

2014 10,011 8,140 2.0% 619 $ 188 $ 65 $ 6 $ 2 $

2015 10,011 7,903 1.8% 630 $ 191 $ 65 $ 5 $ 2 $

2016 10,011 7,673 1.7% 641 $ 194 $ 65 $ 5 $ 2 $

2017 10,011 7,449 1.7% 651 $ 198 $ 65 $ 5 $ 2 $

2018 10,011 7,232 1.7% 662 $ 201 $ 65 $ 5 $ 2 $

2019 10,011 7,022 1.7% 673 $ 204 $ 65 $ 5 $ 2 $

2020 10,011 6,817 1.7% 684 $ 208 $ 65 $ 5 $ 2 $

2021 10,011 6,619 1.7% 696 $ 211 $ 65 $ 5 $ 2 $

2022 10,011 6,426 1.7% 708 $ 215 $ 65 $ 5 $ 2 $

2023 10,011 6,239 1.7% 720 $ 218 $ 65 $ 5 $ 2 $

2024 10,011 6,057 1.7% 732 $ 222 $ 65 $ 5 $ 2 $

2025 10,011 5,881 1.7% 744 $ 226 $ 65 $ 5 $ 2 $

2026 10,011 5,709 1.7% 757 $ 230 $ 65 $ 5 $ 2 $

2027 10,011 5,543 1.7% 770 $ 234 $ 65 $ 5 $ 2 $

2028 10,011 5,382 1.7% 783 $ 238 $ 65 $ 5 $ 2 $

2029 10,011 5,225 1.7% 797 $ 242 $ 65 $ 4 $ 2 $

2030 10,011 5,073 1.7% 810 $ 246 $ 65 $ 4 $ 2 $

2031 10,011 4,925 1.7% 824 $ 250 $ 65 $ 4 $ 2 $

70 $ 26 $

4 $ 1 $

Sources: Column A: Ch. 5, Exhibit 5.16.

Columns D, E: Base Year value from Exhibit 5. a; 2007 - 2030 values calculated as shown above.



# Column F: Exhibit H.5.a Direct

Medical Costs Cost Adjustment

– B = A/1.03^( n -2006)



# – ($) (Million $)

(1+C) * Prior Year's Lost Time 

# Discounted Cases

Avoided %Change in

Income (Real GDP

per Capita) Lost Time

w/Growth

Factor (ECOI) Lost Time

w/Growth

Factor (TCOI)

Year n Undiscounted

Cases Avoided

Note: Values are in 2003$. A decrement for rotavirus illness was the best available data for Type A illnesses as well as Type B , and is used as a low estimate for Type B

Illnesses, which are known to be generally more severe than those of Type A. Detail may not sum to totals due to independent r ounding.

1 

# A cost adjustment is the value of direct (m edical) and indirect (time losses) costs that are saved when an illness of Type A or B is avoided. These estimates represent only the

quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unquantified benefits are expected to compose a significant portion of the overall benefi ts of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and

would cause the Cost Adjustment to increase .

Column C: 2003 real GDP from Bureau of Economic Analysis, su bsequent years calculated based on percent change projections from Congressional Budget

Office (January 26, 2004). Projections for years beyond 2014 ba sed on percent change reported for 2014 based on available infor mation. Population projections

used in assessing GDP on a per capital basis are from US Census Bureau (NP-T1: Middle Series). 

# 25 Year PV

25 Year Annualized Value 

# Exhibit H.12h Cost Adjustment for Type B Illness, Alternative 4,

3 Percent Discount Rate

# Economic Analysis for the H-57 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule ECOI TCOI

A B C D E F G H



# – B = A/1.07^( n -2006)



# – – G = (B * (D + F))/10 6 

# G = (B * (E + F))/10 6



# 2007 -

- Base Year 243 $ 63 $ 19 $ - $ - $

2008 -

- 2.3% 249 $ 65 $ 19 $ - $ - $

2009 -

- 3.9% 259 $ 67 $ 19 $ - $ - $

2010 768 627 3.3% 267 $ 70 $ 19 $ 0 $ 0 $

2011 1,667 1,271 2.3% 274 $ 71 $ 19 $ 0 $ 0 $

2012 2,371 1,690 1.9% 279 $ 73 $ 19 $ 1 $ 0 $

2013 3,064 2,042 2.0% 284 $ 74 $ 19 $ 1 $ 0 $

2014 3,715 2,314 2.0% 290 $ 76 $ 19 $ 1 $ 0 $

2015 4,397 2,559 1.8% 295 $ 77 $ 19 $ 1 $ 0 $

2016 5,001 2,720 1.7% 300 $ 78 $ 19 $ 1 $ 0 $

2017 5,836 2,967 1.7% 305 $ 79 $ 19 $ 1 $ 0 $

2018 6,330 3,007 1.7% 310 $ 81 $ 19 $ 1 $ 0 $

2019 6,825 3,031 1.7% 315 $ 82 $ 19 $ 1 $ 0 $

2020 7,484 3,106 1.7% 320 $ 84 $ 19 $ 1 $ 0 $

2021 8,147 3,160 1.7% 326 $ 85 $ 19 $ 1 $ 0 $

2022 8,719 3,160 1.7% 331 $ 86 $ 19 $ 1 $ 0 $

2023 9,514 3,223 1.7% 337 $ 88 $ 19 $ 1 $ 0 $

2024 10,209 3,232 1.7% 342 $ 89 $ 19 $ 1 $ 0 $

2025 10,829 3,204 1.7% 348 $ 91 $ 19 $ 1 $ 0 $

2026 11,739 3,246 1.7% 354 $ 92 $ 19 $ 1 $ 0 $

2027 12,191 3,151 1.7% 360 $ 94 $ 19 $ 1 $ 0 $

2028 13,037 3,149 1.7% 366 $ 96 $ 19 $ 1 $ 0 $

2029 13,799 3,115 1.7% 373 $ 97 $ 19 $ 1 $ 0 $

2030 14,431 3,044 1.7% 379 $ 99 $ 19 $ 1 $ 0 $

2031 15,279 3,012 1.7% 386 $ 101 $ 19 $ 1 $ 0 $

13 $ 4 $

1 $ 0 $

Sources: Column A: Ch. 5, Exhibit 5.16.

Columns D, E: Base Year value from Exhibit 5.a; 2007 - 2030 values calculated as shown above.



# Column F: Exhibit H.5.a 25 Year Annualized Value Year n Discounted Cases

Avoided Undiscounted

Cases Avoided %Change in

Income (Real GDP

per Capita) Cost Adjustment Lost Time

w/Growth

Factor (TCOI) Direct

Medical Costs

(1+C) * Prior Year's Lost Time 

# Lost Time

w/Growth

Factor (ECOI)

(Million $) ($)



# 25 Year PV

Notes: Values are in 2003$. In the Ground Water Rule EA, rotavirus is used as a representative illness for the Type A Viruses . Detail may not sum to totals due to independent

rounding.

1 

# A cost adjustment is the value of direct (m edical) and indirect (time losses) costs that are saved when an illness of Type A or B is avoided. These estimates represent only the

quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unquantified benefits are expected to compose a significant portion of the overall benefi ts of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and

would cause the Cost Adjustment to increase .

Column C: 2003 real GDP from Bureau of Economic Analysis, su bsequent years calculated based on percent change projections from Congressional Budget

Office (January 26, 2004). Projections for years beyond 2014 ba sed on percent change reported for 2014 based on available infor mation. Population projections

used in assessing GDP on a per capital basis are from US Census Bureau (NP-T1: Middle Series). 

# Exhibit H.12i Cost Adjustment for Type A Illness, Alternative 1,

7 Percent Discount Rate

# Economic Analysis for the H-58 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule ECOI TCOI

A B C D E F G H



# – G = (B * (D + F))/10 6 

# G = (B * (E + F))/10 6



# 2007 -

- Base Year 520 $ 158 $ 65 $ - $ - $

2008 -

- 2.3% 532 $ 162 $ 65 $ - $ - $

2009 -

- 3.9% 553 $ 168 $ 65 $ - $ - $

2010 36 30 3.3% 571 $ 173 $ 65 $ 0.0 $ 0.01 $

2011 121 92 2.3% 585 $ 177 $ 65 $ 0.1 $ 0.02 $

2012 159 113 1.9% 595 $ 181 $ 65 $ 0.1 $ 0.03 $

2013 185 123 2.0% 607 $ 184 $ 65 $ 0.1 $ 0.03 $

2014 210 131 2.0% 619 $ 188 $ 65 $ 0.1 $ 0.03 $

2015 267 156 1.8% 630 $ 191 $ 65 $ 0.1 $ 0.04 $

2016 300 163 1.7% 641 $ 194 $ 65 $ 0.1 $ 0.04 $

2017 374 190 1.7% 651 $ 198 $ 65 $ 0.1 $ 0.05 $

2018 397 188 1.7% 662 $ 201 $ 65 $ 0.1 $ 0.05 $

2019 530 235 1.7% 673 $ 204 $ 65 $ 0.2 $ 0.06 $

2020 566 235 1.7% 684 $ 208 $ 65 $ 0.2 $ 0.06 $

2021 608 236 1.7% 696 $ 211 $ 65 $ 0.2 $ 0.07 $

2022 627 227 1.7% 708 $ 215 $ 65 $ 0.2 $ 0.06 $

2023 679 230 1.7% 720 $ 218 $ 65 $ 0.2 $ 0.07 $

2024 752 238 1.7% 732 $ 222 $ 65 $ 0.2 $ 0.07 $

2025 767 227 1.7% 744 $ 226 $ 65 $ 0.2 $ 0.07 $

2026 819 227 1.7% 757 $ 230 $ 65 $ 0.2 $ 0.07 $

2027 835 216 1.7% 770 $ 234 $ 65 $ 0.2 $ 0.06 $

2028 901 217 1.7% 783 $ 238 $ 65 $ 0.2 $ 0.07 $

2029 929 210 1.7% 797 $ 242 $ 65 $ 0.2 $ 0.06 $

2030 954 201 1.7% 810 $ 246 $ 65 $ 0.2 $ 0.06 $

2031 1,056 208 1.7% 824 $ 250 $ 65 $ 0.2 $ 0.07 $

2 $ 1 $

0.11 $ 0.04 $

Sources: Column A: Ch. 5, Exhibit 5.16.

Columns D, E: Base Year value from Exhibit 5.a; 2007 - 2030 values calculated as shown above.



# Column F: Exhibit H.5.a Column C: 2003 real GDP from Bureau of Economic Analysis, su bsequent years calculated based on percent change projections from Congressional Budget

Office (January 26, 2004). Projections for years beyond 2014 ba sed on percent change reported for 2014 based on available infor mation. Population projections

used in assessing GDP on a per capital basis are from US Census Bureau (NP-T1: Middle Series). 

# 25 Year PV

25 Year Annualized Value

Note: Values are in 2003$. A decrement for rotavirus illness was the best available data for Type A illnesses as well as Type B , and is used as a low estimate for Type B

Illnesses, which are known to be generally more severe than those of Type A. Detail may not sum to totals due to independent r ounding.

1 

# A cost adjustment is the value of direct (m edical) and indirect (time losses) costs that are saved when an illness of Type A or B is avoided. These estimates represent only the

quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unquantified benefits are expected to compose a significant portion of the overall benefi ts of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and

would cause the Cost Adjustment to increase .



# Year n Undiscounted

Cases Avoided Discounted Cases

Avoided %Change in

Income (Real GDP

per Capita) Lost Time

w/Growth

Factor (ECOI) Lost Time

w/Growth

Factor (TCOI) Cost Adjustment

– B = A/1.07^( n -2006)



# – ($) (Million $)

(1+C) * Prior Year's Lost Time 

# Direct

Medical Costs 

# Exhibit H.12j Cost Adjustment for Type B Illness, Alternative 1,

7 Percent Discount Rate

# Economic Analysis for the H-59 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule ECOI TCOI

A B C D E F G H



# – G = (B * (D + F))/10 6 

# G = (B * (E + F))/10 6



# 2007 -

- Base Year 243 $ 63 $ 19 $ - $ - $

2008 -

- 2.3% 249 $ 65 $ 19 $ - $ - $

2009 -

- 3.9% 259 $ 67 $ 19 $ - $ - $

2010 10,626 8,674 3.3% 267 $ 70 $ 19 $ 2 $ 1 $

2011 18,737 14,294 2.3% 274 $ 71 $ 19 $ 4 $ 1 $

2012 27,973 19,945 1.9% 279 $ 73 $ 19 $ 6 $ 2 $

2013 31,950 21,290 2.0% 284 $ 74 $ 19 $ 6 $ 2 $

2014 35,297 21,981 2.0% 290 $ 76 $ 19 $ 7 $ 2 $

2015 39,013 22,706 1.8% 295 $ 77 $ 19 $ 7 $ 2 $

2016 40,828 22,207 1.7% 300 $ 78 $ 19 $ 7 $ 2 $

2017 42,864 21,790 1.7% 305 $ 79 $ 19 $ 7 $ 2 $

2018 44,080 20,942 1.7% 310 $ 81 $ 19 $ 7 $ 2 $

2019 46,196 20,512 1.7% 315 $ 82 $ 19 $ 7 $ 2 $

2020 47,826 19,846 1.7% 320 $ 84 $ 19 $ 7 $ 2 $

2021 48,872 18,953 1.7% 326 $ 85 $ 19 $ 7 $ 2 $

2022 50,247 18,212 1.7% 331 $ 86 $ 19 $ 6 $ 2 $

2023 51,328 17,387 1.7% 337 $ 88 $ 19 $ 6 $ 2 $

2024 52,978 16,771 1.7% 342 $ 89 $ 19 $ 6 $ 2 $

2025 53,835 15,928 1.7% 348 $ 91 $ 19 $ 6 $ 2 $

2026 55,032 15,217 1.7% 354 $ 92 $ 19 $ 6 $ 2 $

2027 55,931 14,454 1.7% 360 $ 94 $ 19 $ 5 $ 2 $

2028 56,936 13,751 1.7% 366 $ 96 $ 19 $ 5 $ 2 $

2029 57,935 13,077 1.7% 373 $ 97 $ 19 $ 5 $ 2 $

2030 58,442 12,328 1.7% 379 $ 99 $ 19 $ 5 $ 1 $

2031 59,126 11,656 1.7% 386 $ 101 $ 19 $ 5 $ 1 $

86 $ 26 $

5 $ 2 $

Sources: Column A: Ch. 5, Exhibit 5.16.

Columns D, E: Base Year value from Exhibit 5.a; 2007 - 2030 values calculated as shown above.



# Column F: Exhibit H.5.a – B = A/1.07^( n -2006)



# – ($) (Million $)



# Year n Lost Time

w/Growth

Factor (ECOI) Discounted Cases

Avoided Undiscounted

Cases Avoided Cost Adjustment Lost Time

w/Growth

Factor (TCOI) Direct

Medical Costs

25 Year PV

25 Year Annualized Value %Change in

Income (Real GDP

per Capita)

(1+C) * Prior Year's Lost Time



# Notes: Values are in 2003$. In the Ground Water Rule EA, rotavirus is used as a representative illness for the Type A Viruses . Detail may not sum to totals due to independent

rounding.

1 

# A cost adjustment is the value of direct (medical) and indirect (time losses) costs that are saved when an illness of Type A or B is avoided. These estimates represent only the

quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unquantified benefits are expected to compose a significant portion of the overall benefi ts of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and

would cause the Cost Adjustment to increase .

Column C: 2003 real GDP from Bureau of Economic Analysis, subsequent years calculated based on percent change projections from Congressional Budget Office

(January 26, 2004). Projections for years beyond 2014 based on percent change reported for 2014 based on available information. Population projections used in

assessing GDP on a per capital basis are from US Census Bureau (NP-T1: Middle Series). 

# Exhibit H.12k Cost Adjustment fo r Type A Illness, Alternative 2,

7 Percent Discount Rate

# Economic Analysis for the H-60 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule ECOI TCOI

A B C D E F G H



# – G = (B * (D + F))/10 6 

# G = (B * (E + F))/10 6



# 2007 -

- Base Year 520 $ 158 $ 65 $ - $ - $

2008 -

- 2.3% 532 $ 162 $ 65 $ - $ - $

2009 -

- 3.9% 553 $ 168 $ 65 $ - $ - $

2010 746 609 3.3% 571 $ 173 $ 65 $ 0 $ 0.1 $

2011 1,277 974 2.3% 585 $ 177 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.2 $

2012 1,735 1,237 1.9% 595 $ 181 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.3 $

2013 1,935 1,289 2.0% 607 $ 184 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.3 $

2014 2,082 1,297 2.0% 619 $ 188 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.3 $

2015 2,332 1,357 1.8% 630 $ 191 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.3 $

2016 2,401 1,306 1.7% 641 $ 194 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.3 $

2017 2,619 1,331 1.7% 651 $ 198 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.3 $

2018 2,720 1,292 1.7% 662 $ 201 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.3 $

2019 2,892 1,284 1.7% 673 $ 204 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.3 $

2020 2,999 1,244 1.7% 684 $ 208 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.3 $

2021 3,058 1,186 1.7% 696 $ 211 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.3 $

2022 3,110 1,127 1.7% 708 $ 215 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.3 $

2023 3,165 1,072 1.7% 720 $ 218 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.3 $

2024 3,275 1,037 1.7% 732 $ 222 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.3 $

2025 3,340 988 1.7% 744 $ 226 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.3 $

2026 3,387 936 1.7% 757 $ 230 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.3 $

2027 3,441 889 1.7% 770 $ 234 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.3 $

2028 3,489 843 1.7% 783 $ 238 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.3 $

2029 3,518 794 1.7% 797 $ 242 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.2 $

2030 3,549 749 1.7% 810 $ 246 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.2 $

2031 3,583 706 1.7% 824 $ 250 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.2 $

12 $ 4 $

1 $ 0.2 $

Sources: Column A: Ch. 5, Exhibit 5.16.

Columns D, E: Base Year value from Exhibit 5.a; 2007 - 2030 values calculated as shown above.



# Column F: Exhibit H.5.a %Change in

Income (Real GDP

per Capita) Lost Time

w/Growth

Factor (ECOI)

Year n Undiscounted

Cases Avoided Discounted Cases

Avoided

B = A/1.07^( n -2006)



# – ($) (Million $)

(1+C) * Prior Year's Lost Time



# 25 Year PV

Note: Values are in 2003$. A decrement for rotavirus illness was the best available data for Type A illnesses as well as Type B , and is used as a low estimate for Type B Illnesses,

which are known to be generally more severe than those of Type A. Detail may not sum to totals due to independent rounding.

1 

# A cost adjustment is the value of direct (medical) and indirect (time losses) costs that are saved when an illness of Type A or B is avoided. These estimates represent only the

quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unquantified benefits are expected to compose a significant portion of the overall benefi ts of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and

would cause the Cost Adjustment to increase .

Column C: 2003 real GDP from Bureau of Economic Analysis, subsequent years calculated based on percent change projections from Congressional Budget Office

(January 26, 2004). Projections for years beyond 2014 based on percent change reported for 2014 based on available information. Population projections used in

assessing GDP on a per capital basis are from US Census Bureau (NP-T1: Middle Series). 

# Lost Time

w/Growth

Factor (TCOI)

25 Year Annualized Value Direct

Medical Costs Cost Adjustment

– 

# Exhibit H.12l Cost Adjustment for Type B Illness, Alternative 2,

7 Percent Discount Rate

# Economic Analysis for the H-61 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule ECOI TCOI

A B C D E F G H



# – G = (B * (D + F))/10 6 

# G = (B * (E + F))/10 6



# 2007 -

- Base Year 243 $ 63 $ 19 $ - $ - $

2008 -

- 2.3% 249 $ 65 $ 19 $ - $ - $

2009 -

- 3.9% 259 $ 67 $ 19 $ - $ - $

2010 10,626 8,674 3.3% 267 $ 70 $ 19 $ 2 $ 1 $

2011 18,737 14,294 2.3% 274 $ 71 $ 19 $ 4 $ 1 $

2012 31,833 22,696 1.9% 279 $ 73 $ 19 $ 7 $ 2 $

2013 35,930 23,941 2.0% 284 $ 74 $ 19 $ 7 $ 2 $

2014 40,114 24,981 2.0% 290 $ 76 $ 19 $ 8 $ 2 $

2015 43,765 25,472 1.8% 295 $ 77 $ 19 $ 8 $ 2 $

2016 45,483 24,740 1.7% 300 $ 78 $ 19 $ 8 $ 2 $

2017 47,364 24,077 1.7% 305 $ 79 $ 19 $ 8 $ 2 $

2018 48,651 23,114 1.7% 310 $ 81 $ 19 $ 8 $ 2 $

2019 50,657 22,492 1.7% 315 $ 82 $ 19 $ 8 $ 2 $

2020 52,189 21,657 1.7% 320 $ 84 $ 19 $ 7 $ 2 $

2021 53,203 20,633 1.7% 326 $ 85 $ 19 $ 7 $ 2 $

2022 54,534 19,766 1.7% 331 $ 86 $ 19 $ 7 $ 2 $

2023 55,553 18,818 1.7% 337 $ 88 $ 19 $ 7 $ 2 $

2024 57,115 18,081 1.7% 342 $ 89 $ 19 $ 7 $ 2 $

2025 57,957 17,147 1.7% 348 $ 91 $ 19 $ 6 $ 2 $

2026 59,060 16,331 1.7% 354 $ 92 $ 19 $ 6 $ 2 $

2027 59,979 15,500 1.7% 360 $ 94 $ 19 $ 6 $ 2 $

2028 60,921 14,713 1.7% 366 $ 96 $ 19 $ 6 $ 2 $

2029 61,908 13,973 1.7% 373 $ 97 $ 19 $ 5 $ 2 $

2030 62,351 13,153 1.7% 379 $ 99 $ 19 $ 5 $ 2 $

2031 62,971 12,415 1.7% 386 $ 101 $ 19 $ 5 $ 1 $

94 $ 29 $

5 $ 2 $

Sources: Column A: Ch. 5, Exhibit 5.16.

Columns D, E: Base Year value from Exhibit 5. a; 2007 - 2030 values calculated as shown above.



# Column F: Exhibit H.5.a – 

# Cost Adjustment

($) (Million $)

(1+C) * Prior Year's Lost Time 

# Y ear n Undiscounted

Cases Avoided Discounted Cases

Avoided %Change in

Income (Real GDP

per Capita) Lost Time

w/Growth

Factor (ECOI) Lost Time

w/Growth

Factor (TCOI) Direct

Medical Costs

– B = A/1.07^( n -2006)



# 25 Year PV

25 Year Annualized Value

Notes: Values are in 2003$. In the Ground Water Rule EA, rotavirus is used as a representative illness for the Type A Viruses . Detail may not sum to totals due to independent

rounding.

1 

# A cost adjustment is the value of direct (m edical) and indirect (time losses) costs that are saved when an illness of Type A or B is avoided. These estimates represent only the

quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unquantified benefits are expected to compose a significant portion of the overall benefi ts of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and

would cause the Cost Adjustment to increase .

Column C: 2003 real GDP from Bureau of Economic Analysis, subsequent years calculated based on percent change projections from Congressional Budget

Office (January 26, 2004). Projections for years beyond 2014 ba sed on percent change reported for 2014 based on available infor mation. Population projections

used in assessing GDP on a per capital basis are from US Census Bureau (NP-T1: Middle Series). 

# Exhibit H.12m Cost Adjustment for Type A Illness, Alternative 3,

7 Percent Discount Rate

# Economic Analysis for the H-62 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule ECOI TCOI

A B C D E F G H



# – G = (B * (D + F))/10 6 

# G = (B * (E + F))/10 6



# 2007 -

- Base Year 520 $ 158 $ 65 $ - $ - $

2008 -

- 2.3% 532 $ 162 $ 65 $ - $ - $

2009 -

- 3.9% 553 $ 168 $ 65 $ - $ - $

2010 746 609 3.3% 571 $ 173 $ 65 $ 0 $ 0.1 $

2011 1,277 974 2.3% 585 $ 177 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.2 $

2012 1,949 1,390 1.9% 595 $ 181 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.3 $

2013 2,147 1,430 2.0% 607 $ 184 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.4 $

2014 2,301 1,433 2.0% 619 $ 188 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.4 $

2015 2,545 1,482 1.8% 630 $ 191 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.4 $

2016 2,616 1,423 1.7% 641 $ 194 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.4 $

2017 2,819 1,433 1.7% 651 $ 198 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.4 $

2018 2,925 1,390 1.7% 662 $ 201 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.4 $

2019 3,099 1,376 1.7% 673 $ 204 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.4 $

2020 3,204 1,329 1.7% 684 $ 208 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.4 $

2021 3,261 1,265 1.7% 696 $ 211 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.3 $

2022 3,313 1,201 1.7% 708 $ 215 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.3 $

2023 3,355 1,137 1.7% 720 $ 218 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.3 $

2024 3,458 1,095 1.7% 732 $ 222 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.3 $

2025 3,521 1,042 1.7% 744 $ 226 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.3 $

2026 3,567 986 1.7% 757 $ 230 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.3 $

2027 3,619 935 1.7% 770 $ 234 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.3 $

2028 3,673 887 1.7% 783 $ 238 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.3 $

2029 3,701 835 1.7% 797 $ 242 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.3 $

2030 3,723 785 1.7% 810 $ 246 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.2 $

2031 3,753 740 1.7% 824 $ 250 $ 65 $ 1 $ 0.2 $

13 $ 5 $

1 $ 0.3 $

Sources: Column A: Ch. 5, Exhibit 5.16.

Columns D, E: Base Year value from Exhibit 5. a; 2007 - 2030 values calculated as shown above.



# Column F: Exhibit H.5.a Column C: 2003 real GDP from Bureau of Economic Analysis, subsequent years calculated based on percent change projections from Congressional Budget

Office (January 26, 2004). Projections for years beyond 2014 ba sed on percent change reported for 2014 based on available infor mation. Population projections

used in assessing GDP on a per capital basis are from US Census Bureau (NP-T1: Middle Series). 

# 25 Year Annualized Value 25 Year PV (1+C) * Prior Year's Lost Time



# Note: Values are in 2003$. A decrement for rotavirus illness was the best available data for Type A illnesses as well as Type B , and is used as a low estimate for Type B

Illnesses, which are known to be generally more severe than those of Type A. Detail may not sum to totals due to independent r ounding.

1 

# A cost adjustment is the value of direct (m edical) and indirect (time losses) costs that are saved when an illness of Type A or B is avoided. These estimates represent only the

quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unquantified benefits are expected to compose a significant portion of the overall benefi ts of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and

would cause the Cost Adjustment to increase . 

# Cost Adjustment Lost Time

w/Growth

Factor (TCOI) Direct

Medical Costs %Change in

Income (Real GDP

per Capita)

($) (Million $) 

# Lost Time

w/Growth

Factor (ECOI)

Year n Discounted Cases

Avoided Undiscounted

Cases Avoided

– B = A/1.07^( n -2006)



# – 

# Exhibit H.12n Cost Adjustment fo r Type B Illness, Alternative 3,

7 Percent Discount Rate

# Economic Analysis for the H-63 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule ECOI TCOI

A B C D E F G H



# – B = A/1.07^( n -2006)



# – – G = (B * (D + F))/10 6 

# G = (B * (E + F))/10 6



# 2007 -

- Base Year 243 $ 63 $ 19 $ - $ - $

2008 -

- 2.3% 249 $ 65 $ 19 $ - $ - $

2009 -

- 3.9% 259 $ 67 $ 19 $ - $ - $

2010 -

- 3.3% 267 $ 70 $ 19 $ - $ - $

2011 174,849 133,391 2.3% 274 $ 71 $ 19 $ 39 $ 12 $

2012 174,849 124,665 1.9% 279 $ 73 $ 19 $ 37 $ 11 $

2013 174,849 116,509 2.0% 284 $ 74 $ 19 $ 35 $ 11 $

2014 174,849 108,887 2.0% 290 $ 76 $ 19 $ 34 $ 10 $

2015 174,849 101,764 1.8% 295 $ 77 $ 19 $ 32 $ 10 $

2016 174,849 95,106 1.7% 300 $ 78 $ 19 $ 30 $ 9 $

2017 174,849 88,884 1.7% 305 $ 79 $ 19 $ 29 $ 9 $

2018 174,849 83,069 1.7% 310 $ 81 $ 19 $ 27 $ 8 $

2019 174,849 77,635 1.7% 315 $ 82 $ 19 $ 26 $ 8 $

2020 174,849 72,556 1.7% 320 $ 84 $ 19 $ 25 $ 7 $

2021 174,849 67,809 1.7% 326 $ 85 $ 19 $ 23 $ 7 $

2022 174,849 63,373 1.7% 331 $ 86 $ 19 $ 22 $ 7 $

2023 174,849 59,227 1.7% 337 $ 88 $ 19 $ 21 $ 6 $

2024 174,849 55,353 1.7% 342 $ 89 $ 19 $ 20 $ 6 $

2025 174,849 51,731 1.7% 348 $ 91 $ 19 $ 19 $ 6 $

2026 174,849 48,347 1.7% 354 $ 92 $ 19 $ 18 $ 5 $

2027 174,849 45,184 1.7% 360 $ 94 $ 19 $ 17 $ 5 $

2028 174,849 42,228 1.7% 366 $ 96 $ 19 $ 16 $ 5 $

2029 174,849 39,466 1.7% 373 $ 97 $ 19 $ 15 $ 5 $

2030 174,849 36,884 1.7% 379 $ 99 $ 19 $ 15 $ 4 $

2031 174,849 34,471 1.7% 386 $ 101 $ 19 $ 14 $ 4 $

355 $ 108 $

20 $ 6 $

Sources: Column A: Ch. 5, Exhibit 5.16.

Columns D, E: Base Year value from Exhibit 5.a; 2007 - 2030 values calculated as shown above.



# Column F: Exhibit H.5.a Cost Adjustment

($) (Million $)

(1+C) * Prior Year's Lost Time 

# Year n Undiscounted

Cases Avoided Discounted Cases

Avoided %Change in

Income (Real GDP

per Capita) Lost Time

w/Growth

Factor (ECOI) Lost Time

w/Growth

Factor (TCOI) Direct

Medical Costs

25 Year PV

25 Year Annualized Value

Notes: Values are in 2003$. In the Ground Water Rule EA, rotavirus is used as a representative illness for the Type A Viruses . Detail may not sum to totals due to independent

rounding.

1 

# A cost adjustment is the value of direct (medical) and indirect (time losses) costs that are saved when an illness of Type A or B is avoided. These estimates represent only the

quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unquantified benefits are expected to compose a significant portion of the overall benefi ts of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and

would cause the Cost Adjustment to increase .

Column C: 2003 real GDP from Bureau of Economic Analysis, subsequent years calculated based on percent change projections from Congressional Budget Office

(January 26, 2004). Projections for years beyond 2014 based on percent change reported for 2014 based on available information. Population projections used in

assessing GDP on a per capital basis are from US Census Bureau (NP-T1: Middle Series). 

# Exhibit H.12o Cost Adjustment for Type A Illness, Alternative 4,

7 Percent Discount Rate

# Economic Analysis for the H-64 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule ECOI TCOI

A B C D E F G H



# – G = (B * (D + F))/10 6 

# G = (B * (E + F))/10 6



# 2007 -

- Base Year 520 $ 158 $ 65 $ - $ - $

2008 -

- 2.3% 532 $ 162 $ 65 $ - $ - $

2009 -

- 3.9% 553 $ 168 $ 65 $ - $ - $

2010 -

- 3.3% 571 $ 173 $ 65 $ - $ - $

2011 10,011 7,638 2.3% 585 $ 177 $ 65 $ 5 $ 2 $

2012 10,011 7,138 1.9% 595 $ 181 $ 65 $ 5 $ 2 $

2013 10,011 6,671 2.0% 607 $ 184 $ 65 $ 4 $ 2 $

2014 10,011 6,235 2.0% 619 $ 188 $ 65 $ 4 $ 2 $

2015 10,011 5,827 1.8% 630 $ 191 $ 65 $ 4 $ 1 $

2016 10,011 5,446 1.7% 641 $ 194 $ 65 $ 4 $ 1 $

2017 10,011 5,089 1.7% 651 $ 198 $ 65 $ 4 $ 1 $

2018 10,011 4,756 1.7% 662 $ 201 $ 65 $ 3 $ 1 $

2019 10,011 4,445 1.7% 673 $ 204 $ 65 $ 3 $ 1 $

2020 10,011 4,154 1.7% 684 $ 208 $ 65 $ 3 $ 1 $

2021 10,011 3,883 1.7% 696 $ 211 $ 65 $ 3 $ 1 $

2022 10,011 3,629 1.7% 708 $ 215 $ 65 $ 3 $ 1 $

2023 10,011 3,391 1.7% 720 $ 218 $ 65 $ 3 $ 1 $

2024 10,011 3,169 1.7% 732 $ 222 $ 65 $ 3 $ 1 $

2025 10,011 2,962 1.7% 744 $ 226 $ 65 $ 2 $ 1 $

2026 10,011 2,768 1.7% 757 $ 230 $ 65 $ 2 $ 1 $

2027 10,011 2,587 1.7% 770 $ 234 $ 65 $ 2 $ 1 $

2028 10,011 2,418 1.7% 783 $ 238 $ 65 $ 2 $ 1 $

2029 10,011 2,260 1.7% 797 $ 242 $ 65 $ 2 $ 1 $

2030 10,011 2,112 1.7% 810 $ 246 $ 65 $ 2 $ 1 $

2031 10,011 1,974 1.7% 824 $ 250 $ 65 $ 2 $ 1 $

45 $ 16 $

3 $ 1 $

Sources: Column A: Ch. 5, Exhibit 5.16.

Columns D, E: Base Year value from Exhibit 5.a; 2007 - 2030 values calculated as shown above.



# Column F: Exhibit H.5.a Column C: 2003 real GDP from Bureau of Economic Analysis, subsequent years calculated based on percent change projections from Congressional Budget Office

(January 26, 2004). Projections for years beyond 2014 based on percent change reported for 2014 based on available information. Population projections used in

assessing GDP on a per capital basis are from US Census Bureau (NP-T1: Middle Series). 

# 25 Year PV

25 Year Annualized Value

Note: Values are in 2003$. A decrement for rotavirus illness was the best available data for Type A illnesses as well as Type B , and is used as a low estimate for Type B

Illnesses, which are known to be generally more severe than those of Type A. Detail may not sum to totals due to independent r ounding.

1 

# A cost adjustment is the value of direct (medical) and indirect (time losses) costs that are saved when an illness of Type A or B is avoided. These estimates represent only the

quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unquantified benefits are expected to compose a significant portion of the overall benefi ts of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and

would cause the Cost Adjustment to increase . 

# Direct

Medical Costs Cost Adjustment

– B = A/1.07^( n -2006)



# – ($) (Million $)

(1+C) * Prior Year's Lost Time 

# Year n Undiscounted

Cases Avoided Discounted Cases

Avoided %Change in

Income (Real GDP

per Capita) Lost Time

w/Growth

Factor (ECOI) Lost Time

w/Growth

Factor (TCOI) 

# Exhibit H.12p Cost Adjustment for Type B Illness, Alternative 4,

7 Percent Discount Rate

# Economic Analysis for the H-65 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule ECOI TCOI ECOI TCOI ECOI TCOI

A B C D E F = A - (B+D) G = A - (C+E)

A1 

# 15 $ 1 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 14 $ 15 $

A2 

# 62 $ 8 $ 3 $ 1 $ 0 $ 53 $ 59 $

A3 

# 68 $ 9 $ 3 $ 1 $ 0 $ 58 $ 65 $

A4 

# 686 $ 32 $ 10 $ 4 $ 1 $ 650 $ 675 $

A1 

# 15 $ 1 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 14 $ 15 $

A2 

# 62 $ 5 $ 2 $ 1 $ 0 $ 57 $ 61 $

A3 

# 69 $ 5 $ 2 $ 1 $ 0 $ 63 $ 67 $

A4 

# 665 $ 20 $ 6 $ 3 $ 1 $ 642 $ 658 $

Sources: Column A: Ch. 6, Exhibit 6.30

Columns B - E: Exhibits H.12a-o 

# 3 Percent

7 Percent

1 

# A cost adjustment is the value of direct (medical) and indirect (time losses) costs that are saved when an illness of Type A o r B is

avoided. These estimates represent only the quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unquantified benefits are expected to

compose a significant portion of the overall benefits of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and would cause the Cost

Adjustment to increase and the net rule cost to decrease . 

# (Million $) Net Cost

Rule Cost

Rule

Alternative Type A Illness Type B Illness Cost Adjustment 1



# Notes: Numbers are annualized. Detail may not sum to total due to independent rounding. 

# H.2.2.4 Calculating the net cost numerator

The Total Cost Adjustment in annualized terms was calculated for each regulatory alternative in

Section H.2.2.3 (all values were annualized). Exhib it H.13 subtracts the Total Cost Adjustment specific

to each alternative from the regulatory costs for that alternative, at 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates.

Using a 3 percent discount rate and the ECOI appro ach, the lowest Net Cost is associated with the

least stringent alternative (Alternative 1) and the high est with the most stringent (Alternative 4). Results

based upon TCOI approach exhibit a similar pattern.



# Exhibit H.13 Net Cost for All Rule Alte rnatives, 3 and 7 Percent Discount Rates

H.2.3 Cost Effectiveness Based on Avoided Cases of Type A and Type B Illness

The CEA ratio is the average cost per MILY saved by each regulatory alternative. In Exhibit

H.14, the Net Cost estimates developed in Section H.2.2 are divided by the MILYs saved for each

alternative to yield this ratio. The cost per MILY ratios for the Final GWR and Alternative 3 are similar

($297,396 and $301,571 using the high decrement es timate, and $644,893 and $654,928 using the low

decrement estimate, respectively; a 3 percent discount rate; and the ECOI approach). The cost per MILY

# Economic Analysis for the H-66 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# of the Final GWR is approximately $4,000 to $11,000 (using high and low decrement estimates and the

ECOI and TCOI approaches) less than that of Alternativ e 3, which is the next most cost effective option.

Using a 7 percent discount rate and the ECOI or TCOI approach, the cost per MILY of the Final GWR is

approximately $9,000 to $22,000 less than that of the next most cost effective option, Alternative 3. The

cost per MILY of the Final GWR is approximately $157,000 to $328,000 less than the third most cost

effective option, Alternative 1 (using high and low decrement estimates and the ECOI and TCOI

approaches). The highest cost per MILY is associ ated with Alternative 4: approximately $963,000 to

$2,200,000 per MILY using the high and low decremen t estimates, a 3 percent discount rate, and the

ECOI approach.

Although the U.S. Public Health Service Panel on Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine did

not recommend a cost-effectiveness threshold for gene ralized use, it may be useful to identify cost

thresholds that some have used in comparing lif e saving or quality-of-life-improving interventions. The

Harvard Cost Utility Analysis database presents a median cost-utility ratio of $31,000 per QALY (or

MILY) (2002$) for respiratory and cardiovascular in terventions, while Tengs et al. (1995) report a

median cost per life-year saved for life-saving in terventions of $48,000 (1993$). The health economics

literature sometimes uses either $50,000 or $100,000 per QALY (or MILY) as a threshold, with ratios

less than these values considered de facto cost effectiv e. However, it is important to recognize that these

thresholds are arbitrary values, often derived by re ference to the cost per QALY for interventions that

public health specialists agree are justified. In ge neral, EPA recommends that decisions as to whether a

specific control strategy is justified should be based on a complete comparison of benefits and costs. The

cost per MILY ratios presented in this analysis ar e greater than these thresholds; however, these estimates

do not consider nonqua ntified benefits.

In the primary analysis of this EA, the benefits are expected to extend beyond those quantified for

Types A and B viral illnesses. Equivalently, if this analysis were to incorporate QALY decrements and

account for additional viral or bacterial illnesses, the MILYs saved would increase. A discussion of

nonquantified benefits is presented in Chapters 5 and 8 of this EA (sections 8.41 and 5.4.3). The

estimated benefits from avoiding bacterial illnesses based on waterborne bacterial outbreak cases and

associated hospitalization rates are estimated to be five times the benefits estimated in the primary

analysis.

Cost effectiveness can be considered further with an incremental CEA, which describes how

much additional benefit is saved per additional unit co st expended from one alternative to the next. The

incremental gain (in MILYs) of a first alternative (in a series of increasingly stringent alternatives) is

equivalent to the CEA ratio of that alternative and captures the large amount of benefits achieved by

having a rule (compared to the status quo). The di fferences between subsequent rule alternatives are

narrower by comparison. Alternatives 2 (the Fi nal GWR), 3, and 4 show a pattern of increasing

incremental cost with increasing stringency when usi ng either the ECOI or TCOI approach and 3 and 7

percent discount rates. When comparing the incremen tal cost per MILY (Exhibit H.15) to the thresholds

(i.e., $50,000 and $100,000) described above, each alte rnative is greater than these thresholds.

An additional analysis that can be performed is a breakeven analysis. This analysis uses the

arbitrary threshold estimates discussed above ($50,000 and $100,000 per MILY) and the MILYs

calculated in Section H.2.1.3 to calculate a maximum rule cost that would break even with the costs

allowed by these thresholds. Exhibits H.16a-d presen t two estimates of the break even cost of the rule

alternatives based on the lower and higher estimat es of rotavirus illness decrements as discussed in

section H.2.1; the lower, more stringent break even cost estimate reflects th e lower (for less severe illness)

# Economic Analysis for the H-67 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# rotavirus decrement estimate. For example, using a threshold of $100,000 per MILY expenditure and a 3

percent discount rate, a Final Rule cost lower than $8 million to $18 million (based on the lower and

higher estimates, respectively, of a rotavirus illness d ecrement) would break even. At approximately $53

million and $59 million (using the ECOI and TCOI approaches, respectively), the net cost of the Final

GWR is higher than this range. Similarly, the net costs for the other alternatives are higher than their

break even costs.

For each of the cost effectiven ess measures described above, the costs of the Final GWR and its

alternatives A1, A3, and A4 are higher than the cost effective thresholds of $50,000 and $100,000 cost

per MILY. However, the inclusion of benef its beyond the Type A and B viral illnesses could

significantly increase the cost effectiveness of each a lternative. In Chapters 5 and 8 of the EA, an

estimate based only on avoided deaths and hospitaliza tion costs for outbreaks of waterborne bacterial

illness suggests an increase by a multiple 5 of the primary analysis benefits. The increase in cost

effectiveness based on a fuller accounting of MILYs saved from additional illnesses avoided by the Final

GWR and alternatives would not necessarily be directly equivalent to the increase in the primary benefits.

However, the estimate of a portion of costs potentia lly avoided for bacterial illnesses indicates that the

additional MILYs saved (and the increase in cost effectiveness) could be significant when other

waterborne illnesses are considered.

# Economic Analysis for the H-68 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule Low Hi g h Low Hi g h

A B CD E = A * 10 6 

# /D F = A * 10 6 

# /C E = B * 10 6 

# /D E = B * 10 6 

# /C

A1 14 $ 15 $ 14 30 453,911 $ 972,530 $ 488,941 $ 1,047,583 $

A2 53 $ 59 $ 81 177 297,396 $ 644,893 $ 333,153 $ 722,430 $

A3 58 $ 65 $ 88 192 301,571 $ 654,928 $ 337,688 $ 733,364 $

A4 650 $ 675 $ 309 675 963,307 $ 2,102,460 $ 1,000,044 $ 2,182,638 $

Sources: Columns A,B: Exhibit H.13

Columns C,D: Exhibit H.10 

# ($)

Rule Alternative TCOI Cost per MILY 1



# Low High

1 

# Results are based on a low and high QALY decrement for rotavirus-like symptoms presented in Cook et al. (1994). Cook et al. de crements

ranged from 0.19 for the mildest case to 0.53 for the most severe (0.32 for the moderate cases). At the high end, they are con sistent with FDA

estimates based on expert judgement; having the low and high estimates provides a sensitivity analysis that allows for cases th at cover a range

in severity.

These estimates represent only the quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unquantified benefits are expected to compose a signif icant portion of

the overall benefits of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and would cause the Cost Adjustment (Ex. 12a-p) to increase. This would cause

a decrease in net rule cost and the Cost per MILY (increasing the cost effectiveness of the Rule). Note: Values are annualized. Results shown are combined for Types A and B illnesses avoided. 

# MILYs 1 

# Net Rule Cost

ECOI

ECOI TCOI

(Million $) (Years)



# Low Hi g h Low Hi g h

A B CD E = A * 10 6 

# /C F = A * 10 6 

# /D E = B * 10 6 

# /C E = B * 10 6 

# /D

A1 14 $ 15 $ 11 25 581,410 $ 1,268,781 $ 605,595 $ 1,321,558 $

A2 57 $ 61 $ 73 158 359,042 $ 778,482 $ 383,582 $ 831,691 $

A3 63 $ 67 $ 79 172 368,296 $ 800,181 $ 392,878 $ 853,588 $

A4 642 $ 658 $ 290 633 1,015,469 $ 2,216,305 $ 1,040,460 $ 2,270,848 $

Sources: Columns A,B: Exhibit H.13

C o l umns C

, D : E x hibit H

. 10 

# MILYs 1 

# Net Rule Cost

ECOI

ECOI TCOI

Rule Alternative TCOI Cost per MILY 1



# Low

1 

# Results are based on a low and high QALY decrement for rotavirus-like symptoms presented in Cook et al. (1994). Cook et al.

decrements ranged from 0.19 for the mildest case to 0.53 for the most severe (0.32 for the moderate cases). At the high end, t hey

are consistent with FDA estimates based on expert judgement; having the low and high estimates provides a sensitivity analysis that

allows for cases that cover a range in severity.

These estimates represent only the quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unquantified benefits are expected to compose a

significant portion of the overall benefits of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and would cause the Cost Adjustment (E x. 12a-p)

to increase. This would cause a decrease in net rule cost and the Cost per MILY (increasing the cost effectiveness of the Rule ). Note: Values are annualized. Results shown are combined for Types A and B illnesses avoided. 

# High

(Million $) (Years) ($) 

# Exhibit H.14a Cost Effectiveness Analysis By Rule Alternative,

3 Percent Discount Rate

Exhibit H.14b Cost Effectiveness Analysis By Rule Alternative,

7 Percent Discount Rate

# Economic Analysis for the H-69 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule Low High Low High

A B CD E = A

n 

# - A (n-1) 

# F = B

n 

# - B (n-1) 

# G = C

n 

# - C (n-1) 

# H = D

n 

# - D (n-1) 

# I=E*10 6 

# /H J=E*10 6 

# /G M = F/H N = F/G



# A1 14 $ 15 $ 14 30 14 $ 15 $ 14 30 453,911 $ 972,530 $ 488,941 $ 1,047,583 $



# A2 53 $ 59 $ 81 177 39 $ 44 $ 67 146 264,896 $ 575,864 $ 300,804 $ 653,924 $



# A3 58 $ 65 $ 88 192 5 $ 6 $ 7 15 350,422 $ 774,647 $ 390,760 $ 863,819 $



# A4 650 $ 675 $ 309 675 593 $ 610 $ 221 483 1,225,892 $ 2,680,863 $ 1,262,874 $ 2,761,738 $ 

# Rule Alternative Incremental Net Cost

ECOI Incremental Cost per MILY 1



# TCOI

Low ECOI TCOI

MILYs 1 

# Incremental MILYs 1



# (Million $) Net Cost

1 

# Results are based on a low and high QALY decrement for rotavirus-like symptoms presented in Cook et al. (1994). Cook et al. de crements ranged from 0.19 for the mildest

case to 0.53 for the most severe (0.32 for the moderate cases). At the high end, they are consistent with FDA estimates based on expert judgement; having the low and high

estimates provides a sensitivity analysis that allows for cases that cover a range in severity.

These estimates represent only the quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unquantified benefits are expected to compose a signif icant portion of the overall benefits of the Rule

(Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and would cause the Cost Adjustment (Ex. 12a-p) to increase. This would cause a decrease in n et rule cost and the Incremental Net Cost per

MILY (increasing the cost effectiveness of the Rule). 

# TCOI ECOI

($)

(Million $) (Year n ) Low High High

(Years)

Note: Values are annualized. Results shown are combined for Types A and B illnesses avoided.

Sources: Columns A - D, Exhibit H.14a



# Low High Low High

A B CD E = A

n 

# - A (n-1) 

# F = B

n 

# - B (n-1) 

# G = C

n 

# - C (n-1) 

# H = D

n 

# - D (n-1) 

# I = E/H J = E/G M = F/H N = F/G

A1 14 $ 15 $ 11 25 14 $ 15 $ 11 25 581,410 $ 1,268,781 $ 605,595 $ 1,321,558 $



# A2 57 $ 61 $ 73 158 42 $ 46 $ 61 133 317,480 $ 687,541 $ 342,087 $ 740,831 $



# A3 63 $ 67 $ 79 172 7 $ 7 $ 6 14 473,999 $ 1,054,463 $ 499,043 $ 1,110,177 $



# A4 642 $ 658 $ 290 633 579 $ 591 $ 211 461 1,256,582 $ 2,747,203 $ 1,281,726 $ 2,802,173 $ 

# ECOI

ECOI TCOI Low High Net Cost MILYs 1 

# Incremental Net Cost Incremental MILYs 1



# Rule Alternative (Million $) (Year n ) ECOI TCOI Low High

Sources: Columns A - D, Exhibit H.14b 1 

# Results are based on a low and high QALY decrement for rotavirus-like symptoms presented in Cook et al. (1994). Cook et al. de crements ranged from 0.19 for the mildest

case to 0.53 for the most severe (0.32 for the moderate cases). At the high end, they are consistent with FDA estimates based on expert judgement; having the low and high

estimates provides a sensitivity analysis that allows for cases that cover a range in severity.

These estimates represent only the quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unquantified benefits are expected to compose a signif icant portion of the overall benefits of the Rule

(Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and would cause the Cost Adjustment (Ex. 12a-p) to increase. This would cause a decrease in n et rule cost and the Incremental Net Cost per

MILY (increasing the cost effectiveness of the Rule). Note: Values are annualized. Results shown are combined for Types A and B illnesses avoided. 

# Incremental Cost per MILY 1



# (Million $) (Years) ($) TCOI 

# Exhibit H.15a Incremental Cost Effecti veness Analysis By Rule Alternative,

3 Percent Discount Rate

Exhibit H.15b Incremental Cost Effecti veness Analysis By Rule Alternative,

7 Percent Discount Rate

# Economic Analysis for the H-70 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule Low High Low High ECOI TCOI

A B C = $50,000*A/10 6 

# D = $50,000*B/10 6 

# E F

A1 14 30 1 $ 2 $ 14 $ 15 $

A2 81 177 4 $ 9 $ 53 $ 59 $

A3 88 192 4 $ 10 $ 58 $ 65 $

A4 309 675 15 $ 34 $ 650 $ 675 $

Sources: Columns A,B - Exhibit H.10; Columns E,F - Exhibit H.13 Note: Values are annualized. Results shown are combined for Types A and B illnesses avoided. 

# Breakeven Cost Assuming

$50,000/MILY Threshold 1



# (Years) (Million $)

1 

# Results are based on a low and high QALY decrement for rotavirus-like symptoms presented in Cook

et al. (1994). Cook et al. decrements ranged from 0.19 for the mildest case to 0.53 for the most severe

(0.32 for the moderate cases). At the high end, they are consistent with FDA estimates based on expert

judgement; having the low and high estimates provides a sensitivity analysis that allows for cases that

cover a range in severity.

These estimates represent only the quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unquantified benefits are

expected to compose a significant portion of the overall benefits of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the

EA) and would cause the Cost Adjustment (Ex. 12a-p) to increase. This would cause an increase in

MILYs, a decrease in net rule cost, and an increase in the breakeven cost (increasing the cost

effectiveness of the Rule). 

# Rule

Alternative Net Cost MILYs 1



# Low High Low High ECOI TCOI

A B C = $100,000*A/10 6 

# D = $100,000*B/10 6 

# E F

A1 14 30 1 $ 3 $ 14 $ 15 $

A2 81 177 8 $ 18 $ 53 $ 59 $

A3 88 192 9 $ 19 $ 58 $ 65 $

A4 309 675 31 $ 68 $ 650 $ 675 $

Sources: Columns A,B - Exhibit H.10; Columns E,F - Exhibit H.13 

# Net Cost MILYs 1 

# Breakeven Cost Assuming

$100,000/MILY Threshold 1



# (Years) (Million $) Rule

Alternative

1 

# Results are based on a low and high QALY decrement for rotavirus-like symptoms presented in Cook

et al. (1994). Cook et al. decrements ranged from 0.19 for the mildest case to 0.53 for the most severe

(0.32 for the moderate cases). At the high end, they are consistent with FDA estimates based on expert

judgement; having the low and high estimates provides a sensitivity analysis that allows for cases that

cover a range in severity.

These estimates represent only the quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unquantified benefits are

expected to compose a significant portion of the overall benefits of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the

EA) and would cause the Cost Adjustment (Ex. 12a-p) to increase. This would cause an increase in

MILYs, a decrease in net rule cost, and an increase in the breakeven cost (increasing the cost

effectiveness of the Rule). Note: Values are annualized. Results shown are combined for Types A and B illnesses avoided. 

# Exhibit H.16a Breakeven Analysis By Rule Alternative, 3 Percent Discount Rate,

$50,000 Per MILY Threshold

Exhibit H.16b Breakeven Analysis By Rule Alternative, 3 Percent Discount Rate,

$100,000 Per MILY Threshold

# Economic Analysis for the H-71 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule Low High Low High ECOI TCOI

A B C=$50,000*A/10 6 

# D=$50,000*B/10 6 

# E G

A1 11 25 1 $ 1 $ 14 $ 15 $

A2 73 158 4 $ 8 $ 57 $ 61 $

A3 79 172 4 $ 9 $ 63 $ 67 $

A4 290 633 14 $ 32 $ 642 $ 658 $

S ources: C o l umns A

, B

- E x hibit H

. 10 ; C o l umns E

, F

- E x hibit H

. 13 Note: Values are annualized. Results shown are combined for Types A and B illnesses avoided. 

# Rule

Alternative Net Cost MILYs 1 

# Breakeven Cost Assuming

$50,000/MILY Threshold 1



# (Years) (Million $)

1 

# Results are based on a low and high QALY decrement for rotavirus-like symptoms presented in Cook et al.

(1994). Cook et al. decrements ranged from 0.19 for the mildest case to 0.53 for the most severe (0.32 for the

moderate cases). At the high end, they are consistent with FDA estimates based on expert judgement; having

the low and high estimates provides a sensitivity analysis that allows for cases that cover a range in severity.

These estimates represent only the quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unquantified benefits are expected

to compose a significant portion of the overall benefits of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and would

cause the Cost Adjustment (Ex. 12a-p) to increase. This would cause an increase in MILYs, a decrease in net

rule cost, and an increase in the breakeven cost (increasing the cost effectiveness of the Rule).



# Low High Low High ECOI TCOI

A B C = $100,000*A/10 6 

# D = $100,000*B/10 6 

# E F

A1 11 25 1 $ 2 $ 14 $ 15 $

A2 73 158 7 $ 16 $ 57 $ 61 $

A3 79 172 8 $ 17 $ 63 $ 67 $

A4 290 633 29 $ 63 $ 642 $ 658 $

Sources: Columns A,B - Exhibit H.10; Columns E,F - Exhibit H.13 

# Net Cost

Rule

Alternative MILYs 1 

# Breakeven Cost Assuming

$100,000/MILY Threshold 1

1 

# Results are based on a low and high QALY decrement for rotavirus-like symptoms presented in Cook et al.

(1994). Cook et al. decrements ranged from 0.19 for the mildest case to 0.53 for the most severe (0.32 for the

moderate cases). At the high end, they are consistent with FDA estimates based on expert judgement; having

the low and high estimates provides a sensitivity analysis that allows for cases that cover a range in severity.

These estimates represent only the quantifiable benefits of the GWR. The unquantified benefits are expected

to compose a significant portion of the overall benefits of the Rule (Section 5.4 of Ch. 5 of the EA) and would

cause the Cost Adjustment (Ex. 12a-p) to increase. This would cause an increase in MILYs, a decrease in net

rule cost, and an increase in the breakeven cost (increasing the cost effectiveness of the Rule). 

# (Years) (Million $)

Note: Values are annualized. Results shown are combined for Types A and B illnesses avoided. 

# Exhibit H.16c Breakeven Analysis By Rule Alternative, 7 Percent Discount Rate,

$50,000 Per MILY Threshold

Exhibit H.16d Breakeven Analysis By Rule Alternative, 7 Percent Discount Rate,

$100,000 Per MILY Threshold

# Economic Analysis for the H-72 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# H.3 Conclusions

In this CEA, the most protective alternative has the highest cost per MILY (Alternative 4). The

Final Rule and Alternative 3 perform similarly by the measures of cost effectiveness presented in section

H.2.3, although the Final Rule is slightly mo re cost effective than the Alternative 3.

Important considerations in reviewing th e cost effectiveness of the rule include:

1) This CEA uses a quality of life decrement (for rotavirus illness) that underestimates the value

of avoiding Type B illnesses (explained in Section H.2);

2) The nonquantified benefits, described in Ch. 5 of this EA, are also not included in this CEA

(e.g., illness due to co-occurri ng pathogens which the GWR will avoid are not counted); and

3) The nonquantified benefits are estimated to be significant (See sections 8.41 and 5.4.3).

In the health field, where QALYs analysis w as originally developed, a common usage for CEA

measures is as an entry in a "league table" th at ranks the relative cost-effectiveness of multiple

interventions. The main difficulty in constructing su ch a table is ensuring consistency of methodology in

all the values being compared. The variation in QALY decrements renders comparisons across

rulemakings difficult to the extent that disparat e QALY scales and decrements are used, as discussed in

Section H.1.0.

In addition, while QALYs are used extens ively in the economic evaluation of medical

interventions (Gold et al., 1996), they have not been widely used in evaluating environmental health

regulations. A number of specific issues arise with the use of QALYs in evaluating environmental

programs that affect a broad and heterogeneous population and that provide both health and nonhealth

benefits. The U.S. Public Health Service report on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine notes the

following:

For decisions that involve greater diversity in interventions and the people to whom they apply,

cost-effectiveness ratios continue to provide essential in formation, but that information must, to a greater

degree, be evaluated in light of circumstances a nd values that cannot be included in the analysis.

Individuals in the population will differ widely in thei r health and disability before the intervention, or in

age, wealth, or other characteristics, raising questi ons about how society values gains for the more and

less healthy, for young and old, for rich and poor, a nd so on. The assumption that all QALYs are of equal

value is less likely to be reasonable in this context. (Gold et al., 1996, p. 11)

The use of QALYs (and MILYs) as a measure of effectiveness for environmental regulations is

still developing, and while this analysis provides one such framework, the Agen cy notes that there are

clearly many issues, both scientific and ethical, th at need to be addressed with additional research.

# Appendix I

Analysis of Total Coliform Hit Rates in Drinking

Water Systems with Ground Water Sources

# Economic Analysis for the I-1 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Appendix I

Analysis of Total Coliform Hit Rates in Drinking Water Systems

With Ground Water Sources

I.1 Introduction

The frequency of samples that test positive for total coliform (TC+) in ground water, in the

United States is an important driver in the analysis of the economic costs and benefits associated with the

new Ground Water Rule (GWR). Th is Appendix is intended to expand upon the methodologies used to

assess this frequency. The analyses described below u se data collected as part of the Data Verification

(DV) project, which verifies PWSs’ da ta reported to the Federal Safe Drinking Water Information System

(SDWIS/Fed). The state files collected during fiel d visits to state offices report the number of total

coliform samples taken to comply with the Total Co liform Rule (TCR) and the number that tested

positive for total coliform. This project therefore provides an ideal source of data to estimate the

frequency of TC+ test results in ground water used for drinking water, by system type and population

served.



# I.2 DV System Sampling and Data Collection Procedure

I.2.1 DV Study Purpose and Scope

Every public water system is required to submit data collection informati on to the Federal Safe

Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS/Fed). To ensure accurate reporting of data, the DV Project

verifies the information submitted to SDWIS/Fed by comp aring it to the actual state files and databases.

The SDWIS/Fed does capture the number of TC+ samp les, but it does not capture the number of total

samples taken. This information is collected, howev er, as part of the Data Verification field visits.

Contractor staff conduct DV site visits to a portion of states each year, averaging about 15 states over

each of the past few years, and have conducte d DVs on United States territories and some direct

implementation 1 

# (DI) programs, such as Region 8’s DI progr am for Wyoming and Region 9’s tribal DI

program. The records of a stratified random sample of public water systems are reviewed during each

visit.

I.2.2 Data Capture Form s and Data Collection

The development of a standardized “data captu re” form for collecting TCR compliance data (a

sample of a completed form is shown in Exhibit I.1) allows for collection of data from on-site files and

databases for comparison with the SDWIS/Fed files. Each DV site visit reviews a specific compliance

period, rather than a system’s entire history. Th e data capture forms cover one year of TCR sampling

data: the year preceding the most recent quarter of data uploaded to SDWIS/ Fed. This information

includes the number of totale d samples of total coliform, E.coli , and fecal coliform-positive samples,

additional sampling resulting from positive samples, as well as monitoring, reporting, and maximum

contaminant level (MCL) violations. Other data regarding the system are downloaded from SDWIS/Fed

for the DV site visits and are available from other DV sheets (not shown). These data include the system

name, SDWIS identification number, source water t ype, disinfection used, and the population served.

1 

# Direct Implementation (DI) refers to oversight of drinking water programs by EPA for those States that do not

have primacy.

# Economic Analysis for the I-2 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Exhibit I.1 TCR Data Capture Table Example

D. TOTAL COLIFORM RULE JAN FEB MAR A PR MAY JUN JUL A UG SEP OCT NOV DEC

1. Routine Samples Required 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 222

2. Routine Samples Taken 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 2 1 2

3. M/R Vio - State (code) NF

4. M/R Vio - SDWIS (code) NF

5. M/R Vio - DV (code) 24

6. No. of Routine Samples TC+/FC+ 1TC+

7. Repeat Samples Required 4

8. Repeat Samples Taken 3

9. M/R Vio - State (code) 26

10. M/R Vio - SDWIS (code) 26

11. M/R Vio - DV (code) 26

12. Repeat Samples TC+/FC+(Y/N) 2TC+

13. MCL Vio - State (code) 22

14. MCL Vio - SDWIS (code) 22

15. MCL Vio - DV (code) 22



# I.2.3 Sampling Actions

Designers of the DV project worked to create a dataset of sampling “actions” 2 

# taken by water

systems on a state level, by system type 3 

# , and within certain bounds of accuracy. These actions are

sampled via clustered sampling. The protocol used to choose systems to get a representative sample was

modified in the summer of 2004 to also sample by syst em size. In both protocols, the most recent version

of the SDWIS/Fed universe was the source of the sample universe. The sample frame is representative of

all systems, not just ground water systems; ground water systems are not a separate sub sample

I.2.4 DV System Selection

The DV project protocol uses a standardized table to determine sample sizes based on typical

confidence and error tolerance levels (USEPA, 2003c). In the pre-2004 protocol, the desired level of

confidence and tolerable level of error and the optimum sample size are established. For each system

type, the protocol then calls for calculating the size of the entire population, equal to the total number of

actions in the state. This number is generated by multiplying the number of systems in the state by the

average number of actions per system. If the state f iles are decentralized and the DV team cannot visit all

offices, the protocol is to use the total number of sy stems in the offices the team will visit rather than the

total number of systems in the state. The sample size is then adjusted based on total number of actions in

the state. A random sample of systems is pulle d from SDWIS/Fed for each type of system (CWS,

NTNCWS, and TNCWS).

The pre-2004 protocol did not take into account the population that the system served, and thus

sampled mostly very small water systems since most sy stems are in this size category. The new protocol

2 

# “Actions” are violations the State de tected and reported to SD WIS/Fed, violations the State detected but did not

report to SDWIS/Fed, violations the State did not detect, and all inventory information required to be submitted to

SDWIS/Fed.

3 

# Public water systems are divided into three types: co mmunity water systems (CWS), nontransient noncommunity

water systems (NTNCWS), and transient noncommunity wa ter systems (TNCWS). En ough public water systems

are sampled in each state to create a dataset representative of each system type within that state. Samples sets are

stratified by system type because different system types have to adhere to different regulations.

# Economic Analysis for the I-3 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# balances two objectives; it samples systems to create a data set that can be manipulated to represent both

the prevalence of different action occurrences and th e correlation between actions and different system

size categories.

The post-2004 protocol includes at least one very large system and creates a randomly selected

sample from the other systems weighted by the size of the population served. Large systems are four

times more likely than small systems to be chosen, while medium systems are twice as likely to be chosen

(Exhibit I.2). A protocol that randomly sampled systems based purely on system size would be likely to

include very few actions taken by small systems, while under the pre-2004 protocol it is unlikely that

actions taken by very large systems will be represente d in the sample. Therefore, the weighting method

favors choosing larger systems, but not nearly to the extent of a weighting based purely on system size.

As with the original protocol, samples for each water system type within each state are drawn separately.

The desired level of confidence and acceptable erro r are also the same as in the pre-2004 protocol.



# Exhibit I.2 Weighting System

Systems Size Weight

≥ 1,000,000 At least one

10,000-999,999 4

3,301-9,999 2

< 3,300 1



# Under both protocols, the desired confidence leve l and acceptable level of error varied from state

to state. In states sampled using the pre-2004 prot ocol, the acceptable level of error was ±5 percent and

the confidence level was 90 or 95 percent, with a 90 percent confidence level generally being selected.

States sampled using the post-2004 protocol tended to have a confidence level of 95 percent and ±7

percent as the acceptable level of error. Texas, while sampling using the pre-2004 protocol, was only

sampled to the 90 percent confidence level.



# I.3 Total Coliform Sampling Database

For use in the GWR analysis, data capture forms for only ground water systems (no mixed

systems or GWUDI systems) from the 53 most recent DVs for 47 State programs, one territorial program,

and two EPA Regional DI programs were reviewed. Two states, New York and North Dakota, are not

included in this review since forms for those states could not be located, and Wyoming was reviewed as a

DI program. The Virgin Islands had no ground water systems included in their samples. Arkansas has no

systems represented because only disinfecting systems or systems where it is not reported whether they

disinfected were included in the DV sample. Four st ates, (Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, and Illinois),

Puerto Rico and Regional DI programs are also not in cluded in this part of the analysis because necessary

data regarding the percent of systems that do not disinfect are not available for these locations.

Three DVs of Florida are included in this review because Florida’s files are decentralized, and

biannual DVs over 6 years focused on different regions of Florida. These combined data give a more

complete picture of TCR in Florida (although not a ll of Florida’s regions have been reviewed).

# Economic Analysis for the I-4 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# All three PWS types—community, nontransient noncommunity, and transient noncommunity—

are represented, except for the State of Michigan 4 

# . Disinfecting systems, systems with unknown

disinfection methods, and those reporting zero samples ta ken in the compliance period were not included.

Some groundwater systems treating to less than 4-lo gs by removal, inactivation, or State-approved

combination of these technologies would be subject to triggered monitoring; however, these systems

could not be distinguished from other disinfecti ng systems in the DV data. Therefore, only

nondisinfecting systems were used in this part of th e analysis. Systems that purchased and sold ground

water, but had no disinfection responsibilities, are included only if they tested their water for

contaminants.

The state programs reviewed are from different compliance periods (Exhibit I.3) and from one of

the two sampling protocols described above (Exhibit I.4). An access database was created to store the

information collected from the state files (Exhibit I.5).



# Exhibit I.3 First Month of One Year of Data

Program 1 Year of Data Program 1 Year of Data

Alabama October, 2001 Nevada April, 1999

Arizona April, 2003 New Hampshire October, 1999

California October, 2000 Ne w Jersey January, 2002

Delaware July, 2000 New Mexico July, 2002

Florida January, 1996

January, 1999

January, 2001 North Carolina January, 2003

Georgia April, 2000 Ohio January, 2003

Hawaii October, 2003 Oklahoma July, 2003

Idaho July, 2002 Oregon January, 1999

Indiana July, 1999 Pennsylvania January, 2004 (draft)

Iowa January, 2004 (draft) Rhode Island April, 2002

Kansas April, 2000 South Carolina April, 2003

Kentucky April, 2002 South Dakota October, 2001

Louisiana January, 2004 (draft) Tennessee January, 2002

Maine January, 2004 (draft) Texas July, 2003

Maryland January, 2002 Utah July, 2003

Massachusetts July, 2003 Vermont January, 2001

Michigan July, 2001(CWSs only) Virginia July, 2003

Minnesota April, 2001 Washington January, 2003

Mississippi October, 2002 West Virginia April, 2004 (draft)

Missouri October, 2002 Wisconsin April, 2004 (draft)

Montana July, 2000 Wyoming January, 2004 (draft)

Nebraska January, 1999

4 

# Michigan delegates all noncommunity supervision to lo cal health departments, which have not yet been

subject to a data verification site visit when the database was compiled.

# Economic Analysis for the I-5 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Exhibit I.4 States Using Origin al or Second Sampling Protocols

Using Original (Pre-2004)

Protocol Using Second (Post-2004)

Protocol

AL IN MS NM SD HI TX

AZ KS MO NC TN IA VA

CA KY MT OH UT LA WI

DE MD NE OK VT ME WV

FL MA NV OR WA PA WY

GA MI NH RI

ID MN NJ SC



# Exhibit I.5 TCR Access Database Data Fields

Responsible US EPA Region Routine Samples Total Coliform Positive

State, Territory, or Regional Tribe Acronym Routine Samples Fecal Coliform Positive

SDWIS ID Routine Samples Positive for E. Coli

System Name Repeat Samples Total Coliform Positive

Primary System Business Repeat Samples Fecal Coliform Positive

System Type Repeat Samples Positive for E. Coli

Activity Status Number of Routine Major M/R Violations

Population Number of Routine Minor M/R Violations

Disinfection Number of Repeat Major M/R Violations

First Month of Data Review Period Number of Repeat Minor M/R Violations

Routine Samples Required Federally Number of Acute MCL Violations

Routine Samples Required by the State Number of Monthly MCL Violations

Routine Samples Taken Data Entry Initials

Repeat Samples Taken QA Reviewer Initials Data Fields in the TCR Database



# There are several anomalies in the data. Some states, such as Texas, require all systems to

disinfect, but one nondisinfecting wholesale distributor is included because it took TCR samples. In Iowa

and Ohio, several systems are labeled as employing “innovative” disinfection. Compilers of this database

believe this term is actually chlorine disinfection a nd an error in the original SDWIS database populated

this field with the term “innovative” erroneously. The disinfection methods employed by less than 1

percent of the systems in the survey were not availabl e (Exhibit I.6). Of these systems, one is in Arkansas

and 18 are in Ohio.

# Economic Analysis for the I-6 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Exhibit I.6 Number of Systems wi th Unreported Disinfection Methods

Population

Served Systems with unreported

disinfection methods

=100 11

101-500 5

501-1,000 3

1,001-3,300 0

3,301-10K 0

10,001-50K 0

50,001-100K 0

100,001-1 Million 0

> 1 Million 0



# I.4 TC-Positive Hit Rate Analysis for the EA

I.4.1 Weighting Scheme

For this analysis, the data are broken down into categories: state, type of PWS (community,

nontransient noncommunity, and transien t noncommunity), and system size (initially in 8 size categories,

but eventually combined into two categories). Since the DV study has only been conducted on a portion

of the total groundwater systems in the United States, th e analysis utilized a weigh ting system to make the

data more nationally representative.

One of the pieces of information n eeded for the weighting factors is the total number of systems

in each category. Data on the number of systems by type, size, and state are pulled from the SDWIS/Fed

inventory 2004, 4th Quarter. The inventory does not offer easy access to or complete information on the

number of systems that did not disinfect 5 

# , and so these values are estimated using a 1996 EPA study 6



# . Multiplying the percent nondisinfecting from the EPA study by the SDWIS/Fed number of systems

yielded the total number of nondisinfecting systems fo r each state. Occasionally, this calculation resulted

in fewer systems than have been sampled in the DV study, especially in the la rger size categories where

so few systems exist. In cases where the DV data co ntained more systems than the calculation yielded,

the number of systems in the DV study was used as th e total number of systems since this was considered

the more accurate estimate.

For each weighting category, the number of DV sy stems, the number of TC samples taken, and

the number of TC+ samples were tallied from the DV da tabase. The raw hit rates are derived by dividing

the total TC+ samples by the total number of DV samp les. These raw hit rates are then weighted based

on the estimated number of total samples taken in eac h weighting category, calculated by multiplying the

5 

# The type of disinfection used by the systems in the DV project is drawn from SDWIS/Fed (and checked against

state files), but such an effort for all systems has not be en performed. States are now required to submit this

information in SDWIS/fed and so more complete information will be available in the future, although the compiling

of these data is not straightforward because disinfection practices are not listed as part of the overall system

information, but are linked to entry points.

6 

# Merkle JC. and Macler BA. 1996. Ground Water Disinfection and Protective Practices in the United States

. Washington (DC): US EPA.

# Economic Analysis for the I-7 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# average number of samples taken per system 7 

# by the total number of systems. These weights give an

estimate of the current sampling patterns in place and reflect differences in the number of systems in

different size categories and differences in state requirements for sampling. The weighted national hit

rate for each weighting category (si ze and type of system) is derived by multiplying each raw hit rate by

its weight (the total number of samples), summing the weighted hit rates, and dividing by the sum of the

weights:

# TC+

Samples

# of

Samples X X # of

Systems Weight

DV Study Data SDWIS

Inventory Weighted Sample

Hit Rate (by State) 

# =

Weighted

National

Sample Hit

Rates = Sum of the Weighted

Sample Hit Rates (by State)

Sum of the Weights Raw Sample

Hit Rate

Average

samples

per system



# I.4.2 Size Categories

The above calculations were done for each of the nine size categories typically used in Federal

regulations. However, the results of this analysis re vealed some anomalies in the data that led to the

decision to group systems into two size categori es—those serving above and below 1,000 people.

First, the DV data revealed no total colifor m positive samples in the two noncommunity DV

systems serving over 3,300 people (one NTNCWS and one TNCWS). Thus, any grouping that used

3,300 or 10,000 persons served as a lower boundary would have produced the anomaly of no TC

contamination in those systems, based on data from on ly one system. Further, since these data are from

the DV study, only 1 year of data are examined for each of these two systems. Assuming that

contamination was never possible, therefore, seemed imprudent. This analysis sets the boundary at 1,000

people served, still results in small samples (only eight NTNCWSs and eight TNCWSs), but has the

benefit of providing some nonzero estimates of hit rates for these larger systems.

Second, there are obvious breakpoints in terms of population size. For CWSs, that breakpoint is

at 1,000 people served; the three smallest categories have hit rates over 2 percent and larger systems have

hit rates less than 1 percent. A similar break occurs in the data for noncommunity systems serving 3,300

people, but including the category of 3,300 served w ould introduce a sample size of one and a zero hit

rate for the remaining categories for both NTNCWSs and TNCWSs.

Third, at this boundary (above and below 1,000 people served), the confidence intervals

(discussed in further detail in the next section) ar e acceptable given the uncertainties in the data. The

confidence intervals show a narrow range for small sy stems (± 4 percent). For the bigger systems, the

confidence intervals are larger, (± 11 to 29 percent) given the small sample size. There is no way to

improve the confidence intervals without combining them with categories of smaller systems, which

would introduce summary data that would be inconsiste nt with the patterns seen in the data by individual

size category. There are few nondisinfecting ground water systems serving over 1,000 people— only

7 

# The average number of samples taken per system is the sum of all samples taken by systems in the DV sample

divided by the total number of systems in the sample.

# Economic Analysis for the I-8 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# about 13 percent of CWSs, and less than 2 percent of both NTNCWSs and TNCWSs. For all these

reasons, a size boundary of 1,000 people served is appropriate and used throughout the analysis.

I.4.3 Confidence Intervals

The result is that data pulled and summarized fro m the DV database for this analysis represent 43

states and span 1,252 water systems with 18,467 total coliform samples (Exhibit I.7).



# Exhibit I.7

Number of Data Verification Systems and Samples Used in This Analysis,

by Type of System and System Size

Type of

System System Size

(Population

Served) Number

of DV

Systems Number of

DV

Samples

≤ 1,000 325 4,553 CWS

>1,000 50 7,902

≤ 1,000 419 3,317 NTNCWS

>1,000 8 170

≤ 1,000 441 2,396 TNCWS

>1,000 9 129



# The confidence intervals for these hit rates are al so approximated. They cannot be easily known

with precision for several reasons. One reason is because the sources of data used are from different time

periods. Another reason is that the percentage of sy stems in each state that do not disinfect are based on a

1996 study, and some discrepancies are noted with more current data (the DV data). As a result, this

analysis uses an approximation of the confidence inte rvals at a 90 percent confidence level and assumes a

percentage of 50 (the most conservative assumption possible when determining confidence intervals).

The estimated intervals are approximate and the more realistic intervals are probably broader given that

the TC samples are drawn from clustered, non-random samples.

The confidence intervals are estimated by comp aring the number of DV systems sampled to the

total number of systems. The number of total systems used for this estimate is the number of

nondisinfecting systems used throughout the Economic Analysis (Exhibit 4.2). This includes systems in

states that are not used in the derivation of the hit ra tes, but represents the total universe of systems that

the hit rates are representing. Confidence interv als were calculated for a number of possible size

categories; however, all calculations support the sy stem point breakpoint of above/below 1,000 people

served, discussed below. Exhibit I.8 shows the fina l calculated hit rates along with their approximate

confidence intervals.

# Economic Analysis for the I-9 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Exhibit I.8 Total Coliform Positive Hit Rates and Confidence Intervals

Type of

System Size of System

(Population Served) TC+ Hit Rate

(per sample) Approximate

Confidence Interval

(at 90 Confidence,

Percentage 50)

≤ 1,000 2.72% ± 4%

>1,000 0.71% ± 11%

≤ 1,000 2.98% ± 4%

>1,000 2.25% ± 29%

≤ 1,000 6.36% ± 4%

>1,000 3.53% ± 27% CWS

NTNCWS

TNCWS



# I.5 TC+ Samples

I.5.1 Estimate of Number of TC Samples

While the above analysis does calculate the total number of samples taken per year by type of

system and size category, it does so for only a sub set of the total groundwater systems in the United

States. Therefore, 

# t he dataset for this step was expanded to include disinfecting systems and systems in

states that had previously been excluded. The ne w dataset represents 2,774 system-years of data and

94,307 total coliform samples from 48 states, two Regional DI programs, and Puerto Rico 8



# .

However, even with the expanded data set, the data include relatively few noncommunity systems

serving more than 1,000 people, and none at all for NTNCWS serving more than 50,000 people and

TNCWS serving more than 10,000 people. In order to have data in all categories and to minimize the

effect of sampling only a few large noncommunity systems, EPA grouped systems according to their

baseline monitoring requirements under the TCR and weighed the number of samples by the number of

systems subject to triggered monitoring. The averag e number of samples per system was then calculated

by dividing the sum of the weighted number of samp les by the sum of the number of systems subject to

triggered monitoring. The estimated number of rout ine samples taken per system range from 7 to 1,496

per month (Exhibit I.9).

8 

# Alaska (DV data started 10/1/2001, pre-2004), Arkansas (DV data started 1/1/2002, pre-2004), Colorado (DV data

started 4/1/2001, pre-2004), Connecticut (DV data started 4/1/2004, post-2004), Illinois (DV data started 7/1/2003,

post-2004), Puerto Rico (DV data started 1/1/1999, pre-2004), R8 Tribal DI (DV data started 1/1/2004 draft, post2004) and R9 Tribal DI (DV data started 1/1/2002, pre-2004).

# Economic Analysis for the I-10 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Exhibit I.9 Estimated Number of R outine Total Coliform Samples Taken per

System per Year, by Type and Size of System

System Type Population

Served TCR Baseline # of

Routine Samples

per System Estimated Number of

Routine Samples per

System

<100 12 14

101-500 12 15 CWS

500-1K 12 18

<100 4 7

101-500 4 8 NTNCWS + TNCWS

500-1K 4 9

1011-3300 24 31

3301-10K 84 82

10,001-50K 360 311

50,001-100K 960 924 CWS + NTNCWS + TNCWS

>100,001 2,520 1,496



# Source: TCR baseline number of routine samp les per system calculated in Chapter 4.

I.5.2 Estimate of Number of TC+ Samples

Finally, EPA was able to estimate the freque ncy of TC+ samples per year per system by

multiplying the number of TC samples per year (from E xhibit I.9) by the probability of a TC+ sample

(from Exhibit I.8). Exhibit I.10 shows these estimated frequencies.



# Exhibit I.10 Estimated Number of TC+ Samples per System, per Year,

by System Size and System Type

System Type

<100 101-500 501-1K 1,001-3,300 3,301-10K 10,001-50K 50,001-100K >100K

CWS 0.38 0.41 0.49 0.22 0.58 2.2 6.6 10.6

NTNCWS 0.22 0.23 0.28 0.70 1.8 7.0 20.8 33.7

TNCWS 0.47 0.48 0.60 1.1 2.9 11.0 32.6 52.8 System Size (Population Served)

# Economic Analysis for the J-1 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Appendix J

Changes in GWR Economic Analys is from Proposal to Final

J. 1 Introduction

In preparing the final Ground Water Rule Economic Analysis (EA), EPA made changes

to the calculations of benefits and costs based on updated information that became available since

development of the economic analysis for the pr oposed GWR. The Regulatory Impact Analysis

(RIA) for the Proposed Ground Water Rule Do cument (USEPA, 2000h.) contains the proposed

GWR economic analysis.



# J. 2 Benefits

EPA conducted an updated literature searc h and refined the method for risk

characterization and for calculating and valuing the reduction in illnesses and deaths due to the

rule, as described in the following sections.

J.2.1 Hazard Identification

Key aspects that have remained the same

Both the proposed GWR RIA and the fina l EA identify acute and chronic illnesses

(morbidity) and death (mortality) caused by viruses and bacteria as the primary adverse health

effects (hazards) that are addressed by the GWR. (See Section 5.2.2 of the GWR EA.)

Both the proposed GWR RIA and the final EA focus on acute gastrointestinal illness and

associated mortality caused by viruses resulting from endemic exposures as the health hazard

endpoints that are quantified in the baseline risk assessment and in the risk reduction (benefits)

analyses of the GWR.

Both the proposed GWR RIA and the final EA use two types of viruses to represent the

hazard from a variety of viruses that may occur in drinking water from ground water sources.

These are identified as Type A (relatively high inf ectivity, but generally lead to mild, non-life

threatening illnesses) and Type B (less infectious th an Type A, but result in more severe illnesses

than Type A).

Both the proposed GWR RIA and the final EA identify the very young, the elderly, and

the immunocompromised as sensitive subgroups wi th respect to the adverse health effects

addressed by the GWR.

Key aspects that have changed

Although, as noted above, both the proposed GWR RIA and final EA use Type A and

Type B viruses as categories to represent a variet y of viruses that may occur in drinking water

from ground water sources, the final EA is more r estrictive with respect to the range of viruses

represented.

# Economic Analysis for the J-2 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# In the hazard identification presented in th e proposed GWR RIA, Type A viruses were

intended to explicitly include Norwalk virus, th e Norwalk-like or small round structured viruses

(SRSV), calicivirus, adenovirus, astrovirus and other enteric viruses. In the final EA, Type A

viruses are recognized as representing only a few strains of rotavirus.

Similarly, in the hazard identification presented in the proposed GWR RIA, Type B

viruses were intended to include a range of en teroviruses including echovirus, coxsackie virus

and hepatitis A virus (HAV). In the final EA, Type B viruses are recognized as representing only

echoviruses



# .

J.2.2 Exposure Assessment

Key aspects that have remained the same

Both the proposed GWR RIA and the final EA do the following:

• Focus on the occurrence of Type A and Type B viruses in source water for ground

water systems.

• Address source water occurrence of Type A and Type B viruses in terms of a “hit

rate” (probability that a given well ever h as a virus) and a concentration (for those

source waters that have virus present).

Additionally, both the proposed GWR RIA and the final EA consider the following:

• Two strata with respect to virus concentrati ons: a small fraction of wells that tend to

have high virus concentrations in source wa ter when virus is present; and the larger

fraction of wells that tend to have relativ ely lower concentrations in source water

when virus is present.

• Three levels of inactivation (disinfectio n) among ground water systems for reduction

in virus concentrations between source wa ter and finished water: none, 2-log

inactivation, and 4-log inactivation.

• Finished water virus occurrence under normal operating conditions only (i.e.,

occurrence of viruses is not exp licitly considered in relation to treatment failures or to

distribution system deficiencies).

• Populations consuming ground water fro m CWS, NTNCWS, and TNCWS, with

different days of water consumption per year for those exposed at these three types of

systems.

• Individual daily water consumption as a function of age based on the CSFII water

consumption data.

(See Section 5.2.3 of the GWR EA.)

# Economic Analysis for the J-3 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Key aspects that have changed

Both the methodology for characterizing viru s hit rates and the data sources used to

derive them changed substan tially between the proposed GWR RIA and the final EA.

• In the proposed GWR RIA, viral hit rates were based on data from two studies; in the

final EA hit rates are based on data from 12 studies

• In the proposed GWR RIA, viral hit rates were derived primarily from cell culture

data but were informed in the case of Type A viruses by PCR data; in the final EA hit

rates were derived only from cell culture data

• The methodology used in the proposed GWR RIA to obtain hit rates was a

frequentist approach and did not consider uncertainty; the methodology used in the

final EA to obtain hit rates was a Bayesian approach and did include consideration of

uncertainty.

• In the proposed GWR RIA, a well with a “hit” (virus positive) was assumed to have

virus present at all times; in the final EA, a well with a “hit” is assumed to have virus

present only a fraction of the time. The fr action of time present varies from one well

to another.

The methodology for characterizing virus con centrations and the data sources used to

changed between the proposed GWR RIA and the final EA

• In the proposed GWR RIA, virus concentrations were a function of whether a well

was considered a “properly constructed well” (~83%) or “improperly constructed

well” (~17%) based on data from the ASDWA (1998) Survey. Virus concentrations

for the “properly constructed wells” were derived from the Abbaszadegan data; virus

concentrations for “improperly construc ted wells” (~17%) were derived from the

Lieberman data. In both cases, those data were used to estimate parameters of

lognormal distributions of virus concentr ations (one for properly and one for

improperly constructed wells ) from which values were selected in the simulation

analysis for entry points determined in the simulation to have a virus present. In the

final EA, virus concentrations were a function of whether wells were “less

vulnerable” (~97%) or “more vulnerable (~ 3%) to fecal contamination (based on

TCR MCL violation data. Virus concentra tions for the “less vulnerable wells” were

derived from the Abbaszadegan and Lindsey da ta; virus concentrations for the “more

vulnerable wells” were derived from the Lieb erman data. In the final EA, the actual

values from these studies were used in the simulation and selected randomly for those

wells determined to have virus present at some time.

The approach to characterizing individual daily drinking water consumption changed

between the proposed GWR RIA and final EA.

• In the proposed GWR RIA, two sets of water consumption data from the USDA

Continuing Survey of Food Intake by In dividuals (CSFII) were used: one set was

based on “all sources, consumers only” with an overall mean of 1.24 L/day, used as

the main analysis; the other set was based on “community water supply, all

respondents” with an overall mean of 0.93 L/day and was used as a lower bound

estimate. In the final EA, water consumption was based on a single set of water

consumption data from CSFII for “all sour ces, all respondents” with an overall mean

of 1.23 L/day.

# Economic Analysis for the J-4 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# • Both the proposed GWR RIA and the final EA included consideration of age-group

specific daily water intake as provided by CSFII. The proposed GWR RIA collapsed

age groups prior to calculating infectivity risk to correspond with the morbidity data

age bins; the final EA used all CSFII age groups to calculate infectivity risk and

applied these, as appropriate, to the morbidity age bins.

• In the proposed GWR RIA, no adjustment was made for bottled water consumption.

In the final EA, the mean water consumption for each age group was multiplied by

0.87 to account for bottled water consum ption (based on data for bottled water

consumption from the same CSFII data).

• In the proposed GWR RIA, no adjustment was made for water consumption from

noncommunity sources to account for these sources likely being only contributing to

a portion of an individual’s daily water in take. In the final EA, the daily water

consumption values (after the bottled wate r adjustment) were further multiplied by

0.5 for NTNCWSs and by 0.4 for TNCWSs.

The approach for characterizing the days of water consumption per year and the number

of individuals consuming water at TNCWSs changed between the proposed GWR RIA and the

final EA.

• In the proposed GWR RIA, it was assumed that individuals consuming water at

TNCWSs did so for 15 days per year. In the final EA, it was assumed that

individuals consuming water at TNCWSs did so for 10 days per year.

• In the proposed GWR RIA, the population consuming water from TNCWSs was

taken as the population reported in SDWIS as being served by TNCWSs (that is, the

average per system in the various size categories). In the final EA, it was recognized

that SDWIS reported number reflected the average population served during peak

operating periods and that the total number of individuals consuming water over the

course of a year (each for 10 days) is greater than the population served numbers

reported in SDWIS. An adjustment was made to first recognize that during each

month of operation there are 3 cohorts of individuals consuming water for 10 days

each, and that TNCWSs typically operate 6 m onths per year (specifically, a range of

3 to 9 months and incorporated into the model as a uniform uncertainty distribution).

Therefore, the population exposed at TNCWSs was determined by multiplying the

SDWIS values by a factor in the range of 9 to 27 (i.e., 3 cohorts per month x 3

months to 3 cohorts per month x 9 months ), averaging 18 (3 cohorts per month x 6

months).

J.2.3 Dose Response Relationsh ips for Viruses (probability of infection, illness, secondary

spread of illness, and mortality)

Key aspects that have remained the same

Both the proposed GWR RIA and the final EA use two “types” of viruses to represent the

variety of viruses that may be present in fecally contaminated ground water. Type A viruses are

those that are highly infectious, but with effects that are typically not severe. Type B viruses are

less infectious than Type A, but produce illnesses that can be more severe than Type A.

# Economic Analysis for the J-5 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Both the proposed GWR RIA and the fina l EA use dose response data from studies

involving rotavirus to inform the analysis for Type A viruses, and from studies involving

echovirus to inform the analysis for Type B viruses.

Both the proposed GWR RIA and the final EA use the same elements for the doseresponse relationships of (1) pr obability of infection given ing estion; (2) proba bility of illnesses

given infection from ingestion; (3) secondary sp read of additional illnesses relative to illnesses

due to direct ingestion; and (4) probability of death given illness. Generally, the same data

sources were used in the proposed GWR RIA and final EA to estimate these relationships.

However, with the exception of the secondary spr ead uncertainty distribution used for Type B

viruses and the mortality factor for ages < 1 month for Type B viruses, both of which remained

the same in the final EA as in the proposed GWR RIA, the specific values for these various

factors and / or the ages to which they are applie d have changed, and most values that were used

as single “best estimates” in the proposed GW R RIA were incorporated as uncertainty

distributions in the final EA. (See Section 5.2.4 of the GWR EA.)

Key aspects that have changed

Probability of infection:

• In the proposed GWR RIA, the form of the dose response function used for both

Type A and Type B viruses was the Pareto approximation of the Beta Poisson dose

response model. The two parameters of th is model were estimated from the human

challenge studies on rotavirus by Ward et al. 1986 for Type A viruses and on

echovirus by Schiff et al 1984 for Type B viruses, and the parameter estimates used

were Maximum Likelihood Estimates taken fro m Regli et al 1991. There was no

uncertainty included in the parameter estimates for the proposed GWR RIA.

• In the final EA, the same two human challenge studies were used as the source of

infectivity data. For Type A viruses, the dose response model used was an expected

value form of the exact Beta Poiss on model; for Type B viruses the Pareto

approximation of the Beta Poisson was used ( as in the proposal). In the final EA, the

parameter estimates included consideration of uncertainty. A Markov Chain Monte

Carlo (MCMC) procedure was used to obtain a large number (1,000) of parameter

pairs for the expected value form of the exact Beta Poisson model for Type A viruses

consistent with the underlying data. A bootstrap procedure was used to obtain 1,000

parameter pairs for the Pareto approximati on of the Beta Poisson model for Type B

viruses.

• The final EA also includes analyses usin g alternative infectivity dose response

functions and subsets of the human challenge data focusing on those dose levels most

closely approximating the exposur e levels from drinking water.

Probability of Illness Given Infection (Morbidity):

• In the proposed GWR RIA, the probability of illness given infection for Type A

viruses was 0.88 for ages < 2 years and 0.1 fo r all other ages. In the final EA, the

probability of illness given infection for T ype A viruses is a uniform uncertainty

distribution of 0.10 – 0.88 for ages < 3 and a uniform uncertainty distribution of 0.10

– 0.50 for all other ages.

# Economic Analysis for the J-6 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# • In the proposed GWR RIA, the probability of illness given infection for Type B

viruses was 0.5 for ages < 5 years, 0.57 for ages 5 to 16 years, and 0.33 for all other

ages. In the final EA, the probability of i llness given infection for Type B viruses is a

uniform uncertainty distribution of 0.5 – 0.78 for ages < 5, a uniform uncertainty

distribution of 0.12 – 0.57 for ages 5 – 19, and a uniform uncertainty distribution of

0.12 – 0.33 for all other ages.

Secondary Spread of Illness:

• In the proposed GWR RIA, the secondary spread rate for Type A viruses was an

additional 0.55 illnesses for all primary illnesses of ages < 2. In the final EA this

value was applied to primary illness of ages < 3.

Probability of Death Given Illness (Mortality):

• In the proposed GWR RIA, for Type A viruses the probability of death given an

illness was 7.3*10 -6 

# . In the final EA, the probability of death given an illness for

Type A viruses is a uniform uncertainty distribution of 5.7*10 -6 

# to 7.3*10 -6



# .

• In the proposed GWR RIA, for Type B viruses the probability of death given an

illness was 4.1*10 -4 

# for all ages > 1 month. In the final EA, the probability of death

is 2*10 -2 

# for ages > 1 month, applied to the illnesses requiring hospitalization (which

are 1% of all illnesses). (As noted above, the mortality factor for Type B viruses for

ages < 1month, 9.2*10 -3 

# , did not change between the proposal and final EA.

J.2.4 Risk Characterization



# Key aspects that have remained the same

Both the proposed GWR RIA and the final EA provide estimates of the baseline risk (that

is, in the absence of the GWR) focusing pr imarily on the number of cases of endemic

gastrointestinal illnesses per year due to source water viral contam ination of public ground water

systems.

Similarly, both the proposed GWR RIA and fi nal EA provide estimates of the benefits of

the GWR options in terms of the cases of e ndemic illnesses avoided per year resulting from

corrective actions performed as a result of the rule.

Both the proposed GWR RIA and the final EA estimates of the baseline risk and benefits

use a Monte Carlo simulation model to account for both variability and uncertainty.

Both the proposed GWR RIA and the final EA also provide information on the

distribution of annual individual risk for baseline conditions.

In both the proposed GWR RIA and fina l EA, the assumptions and approach for

estimating risk reduction (benefits) for Regulatory Alternative 1 – Sanitary Survey Only – have

largely remained the same. In both the proposal and the EA, an estimate is made of the fraction

of wells that are improperly constructed. In both cases, that estimate is approximately 17%,

although the approach to arriving at that value is slightly different in the final EA. In both the

proposal and the final EA, it is assumed that 50% (uniform uncertainty range of 40% to 60%) of

# Economic Analysis for the J-7 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# improperly constructed wells that have virus presen t will have a significant deficiency identified.

Correction of these deficiencies is assumed to eliminate virus exposure.

In both the proposed GWR RIA and the fi nal EA, the assumptions and approach for

estimating risk reduction (benefits) for Regulator y Alternative 4 – Across the Board Disinfection

– have remained the same.

Key aspects that have changed

In the proposed GWR RIA, the estimate of the baseline risk includes estimates of

illnesses due to treatment failures and distribution system contamination as part of the primary

analysis. The proposed GWR RIA included reductions of illnesses due to these factors as part of

the Sanitary Survey benefits. In the final EA, baseline illnesses due to treatment failures and

distribution system contamination are not quantif ied nor are benefits from their reductions but,

rather, are considered among the nonquantified be nefits of the rule. (See Section 5.2.5 of the

GWR EA.)

Relative to the proposed GWR RIA, the si mulation modeling performed to estimate the

baseline risk and benefits in the final EA is considerably more complex, includes many more

values input as distributions, and provides outputs that can be disaggregated to a substantially

higher level of detail.

In the proposed GWR RIA, the benefits (a nnual cases avoided) were estimated in terms

of the expected benefits following full implem entation of the rule options without explicit

consideration of expected differences from year to year as the rules are implemented. In the final

EA, the benefits are modeled to explicitly account for the timing when corrective actions occur

reflecting both rule implementation schedules and the probability of identifying contaminated

wells as a function of the number of indicator sa mples that a system may take for its wells over

time and the probability of obser ving an indicator positive as a function of the number of assays

performed.

The key changes with respect to estimati ng risk reduction (benefits) for the Triggered

Monitoring provision of Regulatory Alternativ e 2 and the assessment monitoring provision of

Regulatory Alternative 3 are summarized below:

• In the proposed GWR RIA, the effectiven ess of triggered monitoring was based upon

estimates derived from the Lieberman data on the co-occurrence of viruses and fecal

indicators; this was done without specific consideration of the number of TC+ assays

occurring per year to trigger source water monitoring. This approach led to an

estimates that triggered monitoring would capture between 30% and 54% of viral

illnesses due to source water contamination. In the final EA, the effectiveness of

triggered monitoring is modeled more ri gorously, using available Data Verification

data to estimate the expected number of TC+ samples occurring per year by system

type and size. Using the Pwell and Psam ple data for indicators derived from the

occurrence analysis which considers co-occu rrence of virus and E coli indicators, a

simulation is carried out to determine which indicator sample following a TC+ will

also be positive to determine whether and in what year each corrective action due to

triggered monitoring occurs and the risk from exposure to viruses will be reduced or

eliminated.

# Economic Analysis for the J-8 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# • In the proposed GWR RIA, the effectiveness of assessment monitoring (then referred

to as routine monitoring) was based on assumptions that 15% of wells were in

sensitive areas, between 20 and 50% of wells with pathogens present are in sensitive

areas that will be subject to assessment monitoring, and that based upon data from

Lieberman, between 71 and 100% of the we lls with pathogens that are subject to

assessment monitoring will be identified and corrective actions performed. In the

final EA, it was also assumed that 15% of wells are in sensitive areas. There is no

specific assumption, however, in the final EA on the presence of wells with

pathogens in these sensitive areas. The effectiveness of assessment monitoring is

modeled more rigorously in the final EA using the Pwell and Psample data for

indicators derived from the occurrence anal ysis which considers co-occurrence of

virus and E coli indicators in a simulation to determine whether and in what year an

indicator positive will occur on one of th e 12 samples assessment monitoring samples

for a particular well resulting in corrective action being performed and the risk from

exposure to viruses in those wells reduced or eliminated.

J.2.5 Monetization of Illnesses and Deaths Avoided

Key aspects that have remained the same

As in the proposed GWR RIA, the final EA assigns value to the illnesses and deaths

avoided as a result of the rule based on measures of the direct (i.e., medical) and indirect (i.e.,

productivity and leisure time loss) cost of illness (COI) and the Value of a Statistical Life (VSL),

respectively. The VSL is calculated as a triangul ar distribution in both analyses based on the

same studies and resulting base year estimate. Bo th analyses quantify the value of only the acute,

endemic illnesses and include only a qualitative di scussion of the value of avoided chronic

illnesses and outbreaks.

Key aspects that have changed



# In the final EA, valuation was cha nged from the proposed GWR RIA in the

following aspects:

• Discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent we re applied to benefits to represent the

social discount rate and the opportunity cost of capital, respectively, consistent with

OMB Circular A-4. (See Section 5.3.1.5 of the GWR EA.)

• The VSL was updated from 1999 to 2003 dollars. (See Section 5.3.1.2 of the GWR

EA.)

• Benefits were shown in present value ( 2003 dollars) and were calculated separately

for each of the 25 years; in the proposed GWR RIA, benefits were calculated as one

annualized value for the 25 year analysis period. (See Section 5.3.1.3 and Appendix

B of the GWR EA.)

# Economic Analysis for the J-9 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# • Based on an updated literature search, COI me an estimates were refined and ranges

were developed for many of the estimates fo r indirect and direct costs for Type A and

Type B illnesses, resulting in a triangular distribution rather than a point estimate. In

particular, the new literature presented esti mates that increased duration of illness

from those used in the proposed GWR RI A, resulting in increased COI values for

most categories of age for Type A and T ype B illnesses. (See Section 5.3.1.1 of the

GWR EA.)

• For Type A COI, the age groups were change d to reflect that neonates were no longer

assigned a unique COI value for Type A valuation. For Type B COI, the designation

of mild, moderate, and severe changed to one based on medical needs: no doctor

required, doctor visit required, and hospitali zation required. (See Section 5.3.1.1 of

the GWR EA.)

• COI estimates were developed to represen t a Traditional and Enhanced method of

assessment. The proposed GWR RIA was cl osest to the Traditional method and was

a smaller value than the Enhanced. (See Section 5.3.1.1 of the GWR EA.)

• A quantified estimate of the value of a voided bacterial illnesses was included only as

an illustrative analysis in the “nonquantif ied benefits” section (Section 5.4 of the

GWR EA); the proposed GWR RIA included th is in the total quantified benefits.

• Discussion of the estimated value of avoided outbreaks was further developed in the

final EA from the proposed GWR RIA, alt hough it was maintained as an illustrative

analysis in the “nonquantified benefits” sec tion (Section 5.4 of the GWR EA) as in

the proposed GWR RIA.



# J.3 Costs

Key aspects that have remained the same

Costs were discounted in both the proposed GWR RIA and the final EA using both 3

percent (social) and 7 percent (opportu nity cost of capital) discount rates.

Key aspects that have changed

Costs are calculated over a 25 year period of analysis to be consistent with the other

SDWA rules; the proposed GWR RIA used a 20 year period based on the estimated time of

depreciation. Also, costs in the final EA are calculated as annualized costs based on net present

values; in the proposal, values were annualized w ithout first calculating the present value. (See

Section 6.3 of the GWR EA.)

J.3.1 Baseline Estimate of Fecal Indicator Occurrence

Key aspects that have remained the same

Both the proposed GWR RIA and the final EA draw upon fecal indicator occurrence data

to derive estimates of the number of ground water wells that will be required to perform

corrective actions as a result of triggered or assessment (routine) monitoring of source water.

# Economic Analysis for the J-10 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Key aspects that have changed

In the proposed GWR RIA, the fecal indi cator occurrence data used for triggered

monitoring were from the Abbaszadegan study, a nd those used for assessment monitoring were

from the Lieberman study. In the final EA, the fecal indicator occurrence data used for both

triggered and assessment monitoring were from 15 st udies combined in a Bayesian analysis that

generated Pwell and Psample estimates for E. Coli . (See Section 4.3.2 of the GWR EA.)

J.3.2 Sanitary survey provisions

J.3.2.1 Basis for percentage of corrective actions

Key aspects that have remained the same

Under all of the regulatory options consider ed, all PWSs were required to perform the

minimum requirement of conducting sanitary surveys and to correct any significant deficiencies

found.

Key aspects that have changed

For the proposed GWR RIA, EPA based the estimate of percentages of systems (11-13%,

depending on system sizes) having any uncorrected significant deficiencies on data from a survey

conducted by the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA, 1998b). EPA

applied these percentages to every survey cycle to estimate corrective action costs resulting from

the GWR provision, resulting in a cumulative 60% of systems having significant deficiencies.

This percentage included distribution system significant deficiencies.



# In the final EA, t he number of PWSs identifying a significant deficiency during a

sanitary survey is determined based on survey da ta from the Association of State Drinking Water

Administrators (ASDWA) (1997). Based on respon ses to the ASDWA survey, it was determined

that 17% of systems had wells that were not cons tructed according to applicable State regulations.

This estimate of significant deficiencies (17%) was ap plied equally in years 4 - 25 of the analysis,

resulting in approximately 0.77% of systems a nnually (17% / 22 years) having been assigned a

corrective action in each of those years. Due to high uncertainty, costs of corrective actions for

deficiencies identified in distribution systems and treatment plants are not included in the final

EA. (See Section 6.4.4 of the final GWR EA.)

J.3.2.2 Basis for types of corrective actions

Key aspects that have remained the same

The two corrective actions used in the fi nal EA for costing are the same two that

comprised a majority of actions under the proposal (i.e., 

# r eplacing a sanitary well seal or



# r ehabilitating an existing well).

# Economic Analysis for the J-11 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Key aspects that have changed

For the proposal, EPA included several poten tial types of corrective actions, ranging from

lower cost (e.g., fencing off or providing othe r limited access to infrastructure to protect wells,

installation of pump block seals, pump block/well pad repair, or correcti ng runoff and drainage

problems) to higher cost (e.g., drilling a new well or purchasing water from another supplier).

The Agency selected two corrective actions for the final EA cost model – one lower in cost than

the other – that focus on problems at the wellh ead: (1) Replacing a sanitary well seal; and (2)

Rehabilitating an existing well. To account for the uncertainty in the national estimate, a low and

high cost estimate based on the estimated percent of systems using each of the two corrective

actions (ratio of action 1 to action 2) was used : 60% / 40% and 40% / 60%, respectively (final

EA Section 6.4.4).

J.3.2.3 Costs for sanitary surveys

Key aspects that have remained the same

Both the proposed GWR RIA and the final EA assumed that States and systems would

incur additional costs for program maintenance a nd corrective action development if a significant

deficiency was identified, and that tho se costs would increase with system size.

Key aspects that have changed

For the proposed GWR RIA, EPA used the same unit costs as the ones used in a previous

economic analysis (Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR)) for estimating

costs of full sanitary surveys. Fifty percent of full survey costs was app lied to all systems as the

incremental costs resulting from the GWR sanitary su rvey provision. This percentage was used

to account for the more comprehensive survey co verage (i.e., evaluation of eight elements) under

the GWR than under existing requirements of the TCR.

For the final EA, EPA revised its cost anal ysis for conducting sanitary surveys based on

new information from States. First, EPA revised its estimates for conducting full sanitary surveys

specifically for GWS with and without treatme nt. Second, EPA estimated the number of

additional full sanitary costs (including travel time costs) that would result from the higher

frequency of sanitary surveys required under the GWR than the number currently being

implemented. This number of additional sanitary surveys was multiplied by the sanitary survey

unit costs to estimate national costs for this effect.

Third, for those sanitary surveys already be ing conducted, EPA estimated the percent of

systems for which sanitary surveys would need to be increased in scope to ensure that all 8

elements were being implemented. Because all States currently have sanitary surveys in place

under the IESWTR, TCR, or other State programs, most States are now conducting sanitary

surveys at the frequencies and scope required by the GWR. (See Section 6.4.2 of the GWR EA.)

# Economic Analysis for the J-12 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# J.3.2.3.1 Systems

Key aspects that have remained the same

The proposed GWR RIA and final EA both assumed that systems would incur

incremental costs for the increase in frequenc y and scope of surveys, as well as for the

development of corrective action plans in the case of a significant deficiency.

Key aspects that have changed

The average hourly rates for technical and ma nagerial staff were upda ted to 2003 dollars

using the Employment Cost Index.

J.3.2.3.2 States

Key aspects that have remained the same

EPA assumed for both analyses that add itional time would be spent by States in

developing and maintaining a program to ensure system compliance with the GWR, and in

reviewing and approving corrective action plans. Costs in both analyses were estimated using the

full-time equivalent hourly rate for an average state employee times the number of labor hours

estimated, which increased with system size.

Key aspects that have changed

State labor costs were increased to refl ect updated labor rates from the 2001 State

Drinking Water Needs Analysis and were conve rted to present day (2003) dollars using the

Employment Cost Index.

J.3.3 Triggered Monitoring Provisions

J.3.3.1 Estimate of percent wells with corre ctive actions and implementation timing

Key aspects that have remained the same

For triggered monitoring provisions, EPA assu med no differences in the percent of wells

implicated for sensitive vs. nonsensitive wells. Es timated TC occurrence in the Data Verification

data was used to inform frequency of source water monitoring for triggered monitoring

provisions.

Key aspects that have changed

For triggered monitoring, the proposed GWR RIA used enterococci data from the

Abbaszadegan study as a basis for estimating the num ber of wells that would test positive for an

indicator and perform corrective actions. It w as assumed that all triggered monitoring positives

would occur in the first year of triggered monitoring.

In the final EA, a two-step simulation mode ling process was used. In the first step, an

estimate of the probability that a well is TC+ based upon Data Verification data was used to

determine if and when a triggered monitoring ev ent occurs for a given well. For TC+ wells, a

# Economic Analysis for the J-13 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# second step determines whether an indicator pos itive occurs based upon the modeling of Pwell

and Psample for indicators from 13 of the occurrence studies. This procedure determines not

only the percent of wells that do corrective actions as a result of triggered monitoring but also

determines what year after rule implementation those corrective actions take place. (See Section

6.4.3 of the GWR EA.)

J.3.3.2 Compliance forecast of corrective actions

Key aspects that have remained the same

In the proposed GWR RIA and the fina l EA, the representative corrective actions

remained the same. EPA used the same method for deriving the high estimate of percentage of

systems that would choose a disinfection action. For entry points requiring corrective action,

EPA assumed that the ratio of currently disinfecti ng to nondisinfecting was equivalent to the ratio

of entry points disinfecting to less than 4-log to nondisinfecting. For those entry points already

disinfecting (but to less than 4-log protection) , the Agency assigned a corrective action based on

probabilities adopted from an AWWA survey. Fo r entry points that were currently not

disinfecting, estimates were made as follows:

EPA derived a range estimate of the percen t which would choose to disinfect (versus

choosing a nontreatment action): the high end, X percent, was based on the percent of CWS

currently disinfecting according to CWSS data.

Those estimated to choose not to disinf ect were the balance of the percent ( X

) derived

above (= 100% – X %).

The percent choosing a disinfecting correctiv e action were then assigned a treatment

option from a range of 10 treatment options (incl uding 5 treatments applied prior to filtration, 1

filtration method, and 4 treatments applied after f iltration) based on the current distribution across

treatment options in CWSS results (See Exhibit 4.7.).

Key aspects that have changed

For the proposed GWR RIA, EPA used poi nt estimates for forecasting percentages of

systems taking treatment (mainly installing disinfection) vs. nontreatment corrective actions that

resulted from the source water monitoring provision. For instance, it was forecasted that 54.4%

of systems serving fewer than 100 people and 11.8% of systems serving more than 100,000

people that need to take corrective actions would select nontreatment options, respectively, for

the rule compliance.

For the final EA, EPA revised the complian ce forecasts and estimated the uncertainty

around compliance forecasts. EPA added an upper bound (90%) to nontreatment options and a

lower bound (10%) to treatment options for the fina l rule. For instance, EPA forecasted that 54.4

– 90% of systems serving fewer than 100 people and 11.8 – 90% of systems serving more than

100,000 people will take nontreatment options. With such ranges, EPA estimated the corrective

action costs with quantified uncertainties. (See Section 6.4.4 of the GWR EA.)

EPA also developed separate compliance monitoring estimates for all systems installing

disinfection. EPA included the cost of adding interim disinfection for the systems taking

nontreatment corrective actions due to a fecal indicator-positive ground water source sample.

# Economic Analysis for the J-14 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# J.3.3.3 Baseline disinfection rates

For the proposed GWR RIA, EPA based th e estimate of community GWSs achieving 4-

log inactivation of viruses (77 percent) on the data from the AWWA disinfection survey for

community GWSs (AWWA, 1998a). Such an estimate is likely to bias the system disinfection

rates upward. Also, the relatively small sample si ze for the survey contributed to the uncertainty

for this estimate.

For the final EA, the existing 4-log disinfecti on rate was revised downward to 52 percent,

by excluding those systems with insufficient information for making the log inactivation

calculation. (See Section 6.4.5 of the GWR EA.)

J.3.4 Impacts of 5 repeat samples

Key aspects that have remained the same

No similar provision was included in the proposed GWR RIA

Key aspects that have changed

The final GWR requires five repeat samples to be taken, and one of the repeat samples

must be fecal indicator-positive before correctiv e action is required, unless the State determines

that corrective action should be taken foll owing an initial fecal indicator-positive.

The Agency did not include the costs for taking five rep eat samples following a positive

source water sample. However, EPA overestimated the cost of triggered monitoring because it

assumed all systems would take an additional sample beyond the current TCR requirements.

However, many small systems (and most ground wate r systems are small) will be able to use one

of their TCR samples to also comply with the GWR. Overall, the impact of not including the five

repeat sample cost (approximately $200,000 per yea r) is much smaller than the overestimate of a

few million dollars associated with the initial fecal indicator sampling cost already conducted for

TCR monitoring. (See Sections 6.4.3 and 6.6 of the GWR EA.)



# J.4 Hydrogeologic Sensitivity Asse ssments and Routine Monitoring

Key Aspects that Have Remained the Same

The rule provisions relate d to hydrogeologic sensitiv ity assessments and routine

monitoring have changed and are discussed below.

# Economic Analysis for the J-15 October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule 

# Key Aspects that Have Changed

The term routine monitoring used in th e proposed GWR RIA has been changed to

assessment monitoring in the final GWR EA.

The preferred regulatory option in the proposed GWR RIA included provisions for states

to conduct hydrogeologic sens itivity assessments (HSAs) to iden tify sensitive aquifers where

wells would be required to conduc t monthly source water sampling for fecal indicators; sampling

could be reduced to quarterly (or waived) if no f ecal indicators were identified after 12 months of

sampling.

In the final EA, the final regulatory option does not include the requirements for HSAs or

assessment monitoring. Regulatory Alternative 3, however, does include these provisions, with

some modifications (e.g., after 12 months of s ource water monitoring with no fecal indicator

positives, assessment monitoring ends without going to quarterly monitoring as in the proposal).

In the final GWR EA, assessment monitoring is presented as an optional provision of the

rule for states to consider at wells determined to be most susceptible to fecal contamination. This

optional provision also suggests that HSAs be u sed as a tool to identify high risk wells for

assessment monitoring.

# Economic Analysis for the October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule K-1 

# Appendix K

Costing Details for Alternatives 1, 3, and 4

This appendix provides costing details for alterna tives not presented in the main text. Chapter 6

of this EA provides a discussion of the rule compone nts and a detailed analysis of the corresponding costs

for Alternative 2, the final rule alternative. Appendi x D contains detailed cost breakouts for the final rule,

and summary cost results for Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 in Exhibits D.6 through D.8. Details of the four

main regulatory alternatives considered are provided in Chapter 3 of this EA, and a comparison of the

quantified benefits and costs of each of the four re gulatory alternatives for the GWR is found in Chapter 8

of this EA.



# K.1 Costing Details for Alternative 1 and Alternative 4

Costing details for Alternative 1, the sanitary su rvey and corrective action alternative, are the

same as the sanitary survey and corrective action details discussed in Chapter 6 of this EA and further

detail is not provided in this appendix.

Under Alternative 4, the across-the-board disi nfection alternative, which requires all public

ground water systems to provide treatment to 4-log in activation and/or removal of viruses, all systems

must conduct compliance monitoring and States shall perform sanitary surveys. Under this alternative, all

of the GWSs not providing 4-log treatment (including systems with less than 4-log virus treatment and

without virus treatment) are required to employ treatment as a corrective action.

Costing details for sanitary surveys under A lternative 4 are the same as those discussed in

Chapter 6 and further detail is not provided in this appendix. Also, compliance forecasts of treatment

corrective actions for this alternative remain the same as ones presented Chapter 6 (Exhibit 6.21b, Steps 4

and 5) of this EA for systems with less than 4-log virus treatment. Furthermore, the assumptions and the

procedures used for compliance monitoring cost estim ates are the same as ones d escribed in Chapter 6 of

this EA.



# K.2 Costing Details for Alternative 3 (Multi-Barrier Approach)

This section presents the methodology and unit costs used to derive national costs for systems and

States to perform GWR related activities under the multi- barrier approach. Only costing details for the

hydrogeological sensitivity assessment (HSA) and assessment source water monitoring components of

Alternative 3, which are not provided in Chapter 6 of this EA, are discussed in this appendix. The costs

associated with State oversight and administration varies among the different regulatory alternatives.

However, these costs are estimated to be similar for Alternatives 2 and 3 because State oversight for

monitoring activities is not expected to vary between Alternatives 2 and 3. Costing details for rule

implementation and annual administration, sanitary su rveys, triggered monitoring, corrective action

(compliance forecast), and compliance monitoring provide d in Chapter 6 of this EA are the same as those

for Alternative 3, and therefore are not discussed in this appendix.

This appendix uses information from the baseline an alysis in Chapter 4 of this EA as a starting

point for analysis of PWSs subject to each rule re quirement. Exhibits K.1 and K.2 present key baseline

information and intermediate model outputs that are referenced throughout this section. Because many of

the assumptions apply not to systems but to entry points, Exhibit K.1 uses both system and entry point

# Economic Analysis for the October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule K-2 

# estimates where appropriate. The numbers shown in these two exhibits are cost model outputs. The

number of entry points implicated by triggered m onitoring and corrective action requirements shown in

Exhibit K.1 are slightly lower than those in E xhibit 6.5b in Chapter 6 of this EA since assessment

monitoring captures some of the fecal contaminati on that would otherwise be captured by triggered

monitoring.Economic Analysis for theOctober 2006Final Ground Water RuleK-3System SizeSystemsReceivingSanitarySurveySystems withCorrectiveActions forSignificantDeficienciesEntryPointsReceivingHSAsEntry PointswithAssessmentMonitoringEntry Pointswith CorrectiveActions forAssessmentMonitoringEntry PointswithTriggeredMonitoringEntry PointswithCorrectiveActions forTriggeredMonitoringEntry Points withViral DisinfectionIncreased fromless than 4 logsto 4 logsPreviously Nondisinfecting Entry PointsTaking Corrective ActionEntry PointswithIncrementalComplianceMonitoringA B C D E F G H I JCommunity Water Systems (CWSs)<100 12,8432,18710,2333,70631912,7911,045390973270101-500 14,3582,43911,8484,30537014,8091,344969745307501-1,000 4,6497894,4681,6211415,5855093842651131,001-3,300 5,9101,0057,1252,5922228,9065984543661503,301-10K 2,8844914,5051,6391415,63151137327911610,001-50K 1,4442463,4841,264644,3555965511085550,001-100K 167281,03637471,2952209313346100,001-1 Million 103175992183749134944221> 1 Million 3---------Nontransient Noncommunity Water Systems (NTNCWSs)<100 9,4561,6076,8792,4942168,601580174622173101-500 6,7581,1504,9201,7871556,152445132468193501-1,000 1,8943211,379499431,72312537131561,001-3,300 7151215211889651781968283,301-10K 73125319166928310,001-50K 1027309201150,001-100K 1010010000100,001-1 Million 1010010000> 1 Million ----------Transient Noncommunity Water Systems (TNCWSs)<100 64,44810,97250,64518,3381,29063,2986,0351,2106,0921,702101-500 18,9933,23114,9165,41338018,6501,7793581,796746501-1,000 1,9403311,524553391,90518237184781,001-3,300 5859946016710574671364263,301-10K 7413582117311210410,001-50K 193155019313150,001-100K 1010010000100,001-1 Million 1010010000> 1 Million ----------Source: Cost Model Outputs(J) Indicates number of entry points with treatment corrective actions.(I) - (J) Indicates non treatment corrective actions.Exhibit K.1 Summary of Rule Implications under the Multi-Barrier ApproachEconomic Analysis for theOctober 2006Final Ground Water RuleK-4RuleImplementation &AnnualAdministrationSanitarySurveysCorrectiveActions forSignificantDeficiencies HSAsAssessmentMonitoringCorrectiveActions forAssessmentMonitoringTriggeredMonitoringCorrective Actionsfor TriggeredMonitoringComplianceMonitoring Total CostsAB C D E F G H I JMean$0.93 $0.21 $8.39 $0.00 $2.29 $5.31 $5.40 $22.47 $10.69 $55.66Lower Bound(5th %ile)$0.93 $0.11 $5.83 $0.00 $1.59 $1.99 $5.29 $12.94 $3.39 $38.07Upper Bound(95th %ile)$0.93 $0.31 $11.52 $0.00 $3.04 $9.76 $5.52 $33.73 $19.35 $76.34Mean$9.20 $1.44 $0.56 $0.37 $0.05 $0.07 $0.08 $0.43 $0.00 $12.22Lower Bound(5th %ile)$9.20 $0.66 $0.52 $0.32 $0.01 $0.04 $0.06 $0.30 $0.00 $11.30Upper Bound(95th %ile)$9.20 $2.22 $0.61 $0.41 $0.10 $0.12 $0.11 $0.58 $0.01 $13.11Mean$10.13 $1.65 $8.95 $0.37 $2.34 $5.38 $5.49 $22.90 $10.70 $67.88Lower Bound(5th %ile)$10.13 $0.77 $6.34 $0.32 $1.61 $2.02 $5.34 $13.23 $3.39 $49.37UpperBound(95th %ile)$10.13 $2.53 $12.13 $0.41 $3.13 $9.88 $5.63 $34.30 $19.35 $89.45Mean$1.33 $0.20 $8.06 $0.00 $2.71 $5.75 $5.36 $24.11 $9.58 $57.06Lower Bound(5th %ile)$1.33 $0.11 $5.60 $0.00 $1.88 $2.17 $5.24 $14.23 $3.03 $39.56Upper Bound(95th %ile)$1.33 $0.30 $11.07 $0.00 $3.60 $10.43 $5.47 $36.00 $17.50 $77.38Mean$9.18 $1.39 $0.54 $0.44 $0.06 $0.09 $0.10 $0.50 $0.01 $12.30Lower Bound(5th %ile)$9.18 $0.63 $0.50 $0.39 $0.02 $0.04 $0.07 $0.34 $0.00 $11.40Upper Bound(95th %ile)$9.18 $2.13 $0.59 $0.49 $0.12 $0.14 $0.13 $0.66 $0.01 $13.20Mean$10.51 $1.59 $8.60 $0.44 $2.78 $5.84 $5.45 $24.60 $9.59 $69.36Lower Bound(5th %ile)$10.51 $0.74 $6.10 $0.39 $1.90 $2.22 $5.31 $14.57 $3.04 $50.96UpperBound(95th %ile)$10.51 $2.43 $11.65 $0.49 $3.72 $10.57 $5.60 $36.66 $17.51 $90.58Notes: Detail may not add to totals due to independent rounding and independent cost model runs.Source: Cost Model OutputsStatesTotalSystems3%7%SystemsStatesTotalExhibit K.2 Annualized Costs to Systems and Statesfor Meeting the GWR Provisions under the Multi-BarrierApproach ($Millions, 2003$)

# Economic Analysis for the October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule K-5 

# K.2.1 Hydrogeologic Sensitivity Assessment

PWSs

Under the multi-barrier approach, the GWR requi res systems to provide the State with any

pertinent information that allows the State to co mplete the HSA upon request. However, it is expected

that such requests will be minimal and have a neglig ible cost impact on PWSs. Exhibit K.3 provides a

schematic of the HSA process and assessment monitoring (AM) determination.

# Economic Analysis for the October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule K-6 State performs

HSA

Is the EP

sensitive? Assume system is sensitive

to fecal contamination

1,126 EP Yes No

See Section K.2.2

on AM

Not subject to AM Sensitive EP for

which State seeks

barrier? Yes No Entry points providing

< 4 log disinfection

5,631 EP

85% * 4,505 EP =

3,829 EP 15% * 4,505 EP =

676 EP 80% * 5,631 EP =

4,505 EP 20% * 5,631 EP =

1,126 EP

50% * 676 EP =

338 EP 50% * 676 EP =

338 EP Yes No

Barrier detected by

State? See Section K.2.2

on AM

50% * 338 EP =

169 EP 50% * 338 EP =

169 EP

No Yes

Not subject to AM See Section K.2.2

on AM 

# Exhibit K.3 Schematic of HSA Process

(Numbers based on 3,301 - 10,000 population category for CWSs)

Note: A total of 1,639 entry points from CWSs serving 3,301 to 10,000 people would be subject to assessment source water

monitoring (see Section K.2.2 on assessment m onitoring). Sum based on this schematic di ffers slightly from that shown in other

exhibits due to rounding.

# 1 

# Distribution parameters given in the text of this appendix describe those used in the Monte-Carlo

simulation model. Where point estimates of results are pr esented in exhibits, the numbers presented are calculated

based on the mean of the distribution described.

Economic Analysis for the October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule K-7 

# States

Under the multi-barrier approach, HSAs may be performed by States on each ground water

source that does not rely on treatment to meet rule requirements. States can perform HSAs to determine if

a system’s source is sensitive to microbial cont amination and requires assessment monitoring to ensure

that there is no fecal contamination. As illust rated in Exhibit K.3, EPA assumes that a uniform

distribution of 70 to 90 percent 1 

# of entry points (80% as mean) that do not provide 4-log treatment of

viruses (using inactivation, removal, or State-appr oved combination of these technologies) before or at

the first customer will undergo HSAs. EPA assumes that States will determine the remaining 20 percent

(as mean) of entry points to do assessment source wa ter monitoring. Of these assessed entry points, EPA

estimates that States will determine that 15 percent are sensitive. The Agency based this assumption upon

data collected for the Abbaszadegan et al. (2003) st udy. This study reported aquifer characterization

information from well operators based on a checklist of aquifer types provided by the study investigators.

EPA determined aquifer sensitivity based on the available information. EPA determined that 68 of the

wells with aquifer characterization information woul d likely be determined by States to be wells in

sensitive aquifers. All other wells, including tho se for which no aquifer characterization data were

available were assumed to be wells in non-sensitive aquifers. States may choose not to conduct an HSA

because it has determined that the setting from which ground water systems draw their water is known to

be sensitive or the State has determined that the HS A is not an appropriate screening mechanism. The

States must document the rationale for the decision in its primacy application. In this case, the aquifer is

considered to be sensitive and the ground water sour ce assumed to be “sensitive” to fecal contamination.

Systems with aquifers located in hydrogeologically sensitive settings and lacking a hydrogeologic barrier

are required, therefore, to conduct assessment sour ce water monitoring. Exhibits K.4a and K.4b

summarize the assumptions regarding systems undergoing HSAs and their sensitivity.

EPA estimated the time for States to locate exis ting hydrogeologic data, such as well construction

records, and for a State assessor to inspect and review these data. The CWS burden per HSA is

developed using an estimate of 2 hours per well. The 2 hour per well estimate is a national average.

Some systems may require additional resources to pe rform an HSA (e.g., systems with wells distributed

across a large distance and different aquifer types) while others may require less resources (e.g., systems

with relatively compact well fields and drawing water fro m uniform aquifers). Further, it is expected that

HSAs will be performed by hydrogeologists with an existing familiarity with the regional hydrogeology

and relatively easy access to records that will aid in making assessments, minimizing the time required to

make sensitivity determinations. Multiplying the es timated labor burden by the average number of wells

per system (by system size) yields the burden per system. Finally, dividing the system burden by the

number of entry points per system yields the assessment burden per entry point. The Agency assumes

that per entry point costs for CWSs and NCWSs are equal. The average HSA costs generally increase as

system size increases, ranging from under $70 per assessment for systems serving less than 1000 people

to $238 per assessment for the entry points in systems serving more than 1,000,000 people. Exhibit K.4a

also develops these costs.

As part of the process of determining the sensitivity of a ground water source, a State may look

for the presence of a hydrogeologic barrier for initially sensitive entry points (see Exhibit K.3). Entry

# Economic Analysis for the October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule K-8 HSAs

Labor

Cost

(per

hour) HSA

Labor

per Well Wells

per

System Conduct

HSA

(hours/

system) Entry

Points

per

System Conduct

HSA

(hours/

entry point) Unit

Cost Total

HSA

Burden

(hours) Total

HSA

Cost

A B=0.8* A C D E F=D*E G H=F/G I=C*H J=B*H K=B*I

Community Water Systems (CWSs)

<100 12,791 10,233 27.10 $ 2 1.5 3.0 1.3 2.3 62 $ 23,394 634,059 $

101-500 14,809 11,848 27.10 $ 2 2.0 4.0 1.6 2.5 66 $ 29,068 787,840 $

501-1,000 5,585 4,468 27.10 $ 2 2.3 4.6 2.0 2.4 64 $ 10,519 285,102 $

1,001-3,300 8,906 7,125 27.10 $ 2 3.1 6.2 2.4 2.6 69 $ 18,202 493,324 $

3,301-10K 5,631 4,505 27.10 $ 2 4.6 9.2 3.2 2.9 77 $ 12,879 349,072 $

10,001-50K 4,355 3,484 27.10 $ 2 9.8 19.6 5.6 3.5 95 $ 12,155 329,440 $

50,001-100K 1,295 1,036 27.10 $ 2 16.1 32.2 11.3 2.9 77 $ 2,953 80,033 $

100,001-1 M illion 749 599 27.10 $ 2 49.9 99.8 12.4 8.1 218 $ 4,827 130,816 $

> 1 Million -

- 27.10 $ 2 49.9 99.8 11.4 8.8 238 $ -

- $

Total 54,121 43,297 113,998 3,089,687 $

Nontransient Noncommunity Water Systems (NTNCWSs)

<100 8,601 6,881 27.10 $ 1.0 2.3 62 $ 15,731 426,354 $

101-500 6,152 4,922 27.10 $ 1.0 2.5 66 $ 12,075 327,282 $

501-1,000 1,723 1,379 27.10 $ 1.0 2.4 64 $ 3,246 87,964 $

1,001-3,300 651 521 27.10 $ 1.0 2.6 69 $ 1,330 36,040 $

3,301-10K 66 53 27.10 $ 1.0 2.9 77 $ 152 4,119 $

10,001-50K 9 7 27.10 $ 1.0 3.5 95 $ 25 688 $

50,001-100K 1 1 27.10 $ 1.0 2.9 77 $ 2 56 $

100,001-1 Million 1 1 27.10 $ 1.0 8.1 218 $ 6 159 $

> 1 Million -

- NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 17,204 13,763 32,567 882,661 $

Transient Noncommunity Water Systems (TNCWSs)

<100 63,298 50,638 27.10 $ 1.0 2.3 62 $ 115,771 3,137,734 $

101-500 18,650 14,920 27.10 $ 1.0 2.5 66 $ 36,607 992,161 $

501-1,000 1,905 1,524 27.10 $ 1.0 2.4 64 $ 3,589 97,263 $

1,001-3,300 574 460 27.10 $ 1.0 2.6 69 $ 1,174 31,819 $

3,301-10K 73 58 27.10 $ 1.0 2.9 77 $ 166 4,505 $

10,001-50K 19 15 27.10 $ 1.0 3.5 95 $ 52 1,412 $

50,001-100K 1 1 27.10 $ 1.0 2.9 77 $ 2 61 $

100,001-1 Million 1 1 27.10 $ 1.0 8.1 218 $ 6 172 $

> 1 Million -

- NA NA NA NA NA NA

Total 84,521 67,617 157,367 4,265,127 $

155,846 124,676 303,932 8,237,475 $ Entry

Points

Subject

to HSAs HSA

Performed by

State

All Total System Size

(Population Served) 

# points drawing from aquifers that the State determ ines to have hydrogeologic barriers are not sensitive,

and therefore not subject to assessment monitoring. EPA estimates that in 40 to 60 percent (uniform

distribution) of the cases where States determine that an entry point is otherwise sensitive, States will also

look for the presence of a hydrogeologic barrier, as shown in Exhibit K.4b. The Agency also estimates

that 40 to 60 percent (uniform distribution) of the systems assessed for a barrier will find one. Because

determining and documenting the presence of a hydroge ologic barrier is generally a difficult activity,

EPA estimates the cost and burden for barrier determina tions to be equal to the total cost and burden of

performing an HSA. Exhibit K.4b shows the cost of barrier determinations.



# Exhibit K.4a State Burden and Cost Estimates for Performing

Hydrogeologic Sensitivity Assessments

Notes: Detail may not add to totals due to independent rounding.

Calculations use means of distri butions described in Section K.2.1.

NA Not applicable (no NCWSs of this size category).

Sources: (A) Number of entry points from Exhibit K.1

(C) Labor rates for staff hydrogeologist from Chapter 6, Exhibit 6.2 of GWR EA

(D,E,F) Well information not available fo r NCWSs. CWSs well data applied to NCWSs.

(D) Labor for conducing HSA includes ti me for travel, records review, we llhead inspection, and report preparation.

(E) Wells per system from US EPA Drinking Water Baseline Handbook (2001)

(G) Entry points per system from Chapter 4, Exhibit 4.3 of GWR EA

(H) Labor hours per entry point for NTNCWSs and TNCWSs bas ed on EPA estimate of hours per entry point for CWSs.

# Economic Analysis for the October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule K-9 Barrier Determination

Barrier

Determination

(hours/entry point) Unit

Cost Total Barrier

Determination

Burden Total Barrier

Determination

Cost

L=0.15*B M=0.5*L N=0.5*M O=L-N P=H Q=C*P R=M*P S=M*Q

Community Water Systems (CWSs)

<100 1,535 767 384 1,151 2.3 62 $ 1,755 47,554 $

101-500 1,777 889 444 1,333 2.5 66 $ 2,180 59,088 $

501-1,000 670 335 168 503 2.4 64 $ 789 21,383 $

1,001-3,300 1,069 534 267 802 2.6 69 $ 1,365 36,999 $

3,301-10K 676 338 169 507 2.9 77 $ 966 26,180 $

10,001-50K 523 261 131 392 3.5 95 $ 912 24,708 $

50,001-100K 155 78 39 117 2.9 77 $ 221 6,003 $

100,001-1 Million 90 45 22 67 8.1 218 $ 362 9,811 $

> 1 Million -

- - - 8.8 238 $ -

- $

Total 6,494 3,247 1,624 4,871 8,550 231,727 $

Nontransient Noncommunity Water Systems (NTNCWSs)

<100 1,032 516 258 774 2.3 62 $ 1,180 31,977 $

101-500 738 369 185 554 2.5 66 $ 906 24,546 $

501-1,000 207 103 52 155 2.4 64 $ 243 6,597 $

1,001-3,300 78 39 20 59 2.6 69 $ 100 2,703 $

3,301-10K 8 4 2 6 2.9 77 $ 11 309 $

10,001-50K 1 1 0 1 3.5 95 $ 2 52 $

50,001-100K 0 0 0 0 2.9 77 $ 0 4 $

100,001-1 Million 0 0 0 0 8.1 218 $ 0 12 $

> 1 Million -

- - - NA NA NA NA

Total 2,064 1,032 516 1,548 2,443 66,200 $

Transient Noncommunity Water Systems (TNCWSs)

<100 7,596 3,798 1,899 5,697 2.3 62 $ 8,683 235,330 $

101-500 2,238 1,119 560 1,679 2.5 66 $ 2,746 74,412 $

501-1,000 229 114 57 171 2.4 64 $ 269 7,295 $

1,001-3,300 69 34 17 52 2.6 69 $ 88 2,386 $

3,301-10K 9 4 2 7 2.9 77 $ 12 338 $

10,001-50K 2 1 1 2 3.5 95 $ 4 106 $

50,001-100K 0 0 0 0 2.9 77 $ 0 5 $

100,001-1 Million 0 0 0 0 8.1 218 $ 0 13 $

> 1 Million -

- - - NA NA NA NA

Total 10,142 5,071 2,536 7,607 11,803 319,885 $

18,701 9,351 4,675 14,026 22,795 617,811 $

N t D t il t dd t t t l d t i d d t di Sensitive Entry

Points with

Detected

Barrier by

State Sensitive

Entry

Points without

Detected Barrier

by State

All Total System Size

(Population Served) Sensitive Entry

Points for

which State

Seeks for

Barrier Sensitive

Entry

Points 

# Exhibit K.4b State Burden a nd Cost Estimates for Performing

Hydrogeologic Barrier Determination

Notes: Detail may not add to totals due to independent rounding.

Calculations use means of distri butions described in Section K.2.1.

NA Not applicable (no NCWSs of this size category).

Sources: (L) 15% is based on data from Abbaszadegan et al., 1999, 2003 and Abbaszadegan 2002.

(M) Mean number of sensitive entry points for which State s eeks for barrier, from Section K.2.1 (50 percent is the

arithmetic mean of 40 percent and 60 percent).

(N) Mean number of sensitive entry points with detected barri er by State, from Section K.2.1 (50 percent is the

arithmetic mean of 40 percent and 60 percent).

(P) EPA estimates that the labor hours for determining the pr esence of a hydrogeologic barrier equal those to perform an

HSA.

# Economic Analysis for the October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule K-10 Mean Lower

Bound

(5th %ile) Upper

Bound

(95th

%ile) Mean Lower

Bound

(5th %ile) Upper

Bound

(95th

%ile) Mean Lower

Bound

(5th %ile) Upper

Bound

(95th

%ile)

3 % $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.37 $0.32 $0.41 $0.37 $0.32 $0.41

7 % $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.44 $0.39 $0.49 $0.44 $0.39 $0.49

Notes: Detail may not add to totals due to independent rounding and independent cost model runs.

Source: Cost Model Outputs 

# Systems States Total Annualized Costs for HSA Performance 

# Annualized costs estimates for systems and States to perform HSAs are presented in Exhibit K.5.



# Exhibit K.5 PWS and State Cost Estimates for HSA Performance

K.2.2 Assessment Source Water Monitoring

PWSs

The assessment source water monitoring provision requires sampling of those entry points that

are determined to be sensitive based on the performan ce of HSAs, as well as those for which the State has

not performed an HSA. Exhibit K.6 presents a schematic of the assessment monitoring process as

applied in the cost model. Similar to triggered mon itoring (described in Section 6.4.3 of Chapter 6 of this

EA), several compliance assumptions were needed to model the cost of assessment monitoring. These

assumptions are described below and summarized in Exhibit K.7 (entry points incurring costs) and

Exhibit K.8 (unit costs).

# Economic Analysis for the October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule K-11 EPs not achieving 4-log virus

treatment

5,631 Eps

(cost model output, see Exhibit K.1)

Is the system sensitive?

1,639 EPs (see Exhibit

K.3 for derivation)

Fecal-indicator

positive from AM? AM

-Collect 12 source

water samples

Continue AM at

specified intervals Yes

No Yes 223 EPs

(see Exhibit K.7 for

derivation)

Apply for treatment

waiver? 1,416 EPs

(see Exhibit K.7 for

derivation)

See Chapter 6,

Section 6.4.4 on

Corrective Action 82 EPs receiving

corrective action

waivers (see Exhibit

K.7 for derivation) Yes 141 EPs

(see Exhibit K.7 for

derivation) No 

# Exhibit K.6 Schematic of Assessment Monitoring Process

(Numbers based on 3,301 - 10,000 population category for CWSs)

# 2 

# (0.8*0.15*0.5) + (0.8*0.15*0.5*0.5) = 0.09

Economic Analysis for the October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule K-12 

# Frequency of Performing Assessment Monitoring : Entry points subject to assessment monitoring

must collect and analyze at least 12 source water samples for the presence of fecal contamination using

one of three possible indicators as selected by the Stat e. One sample must be tested each month that the

system is in operation. For costing purposes, EPA assumes that States will select E. coli as the indicator

of contamination for analysis. EPA assumes for modeling purposes, that all CWSs and NTNCWSs

conduct assessment monitoring on a monthly schedule in years 6 and 8 after rule implementation,

respectively. Because of the seasonal nature of many TNCWSs, EPA assumes that the 12 assessment

monitoring samples will be taken over 3 years (years 7-9 after rule implementation). Sampling costs for

assessment monitoring are calculated by multiplying the annual number of assessment monitoring

samples taken by the sampling unit costs presented Chapter 6, Exhibit 6.3 of this EA.

Percent of EPs Testing Positive : As discussed in Section K.2.1, it is estimated that 9.0 percent 2 

# of

ground water entry points among those without 4-log virus treatment are determined to be

hydrogeologically susceptible to fecal contamination. The cost model assumes that these entry points (in

addition to being subject to sanitary surveys a nd taking source water indicator assays from triggered

monitoring) must also perform indicator assays fo r 12 source water samples. It is assumed that these

samples will be taken monthly during year 6 for CWSs, and monthly during year 8 for NTNCWS. For

TNCWS, it is assumed that these 12 assays will be performed across years 6, 7, and 8.

The probability of observing an indicator positive in one of these 12 assessment monitoring

samples is taken from the same set of probabilities of indicator positives as a function of the number of

assays performed as described in Chapter 6, Section 6.4.3 on triggered monitoring and in Chapter 4 of

this EA. As shown in Chapter 4, Exhibit 4.26, the central tendency value across all uncertainty sets

indicates that approximately 11.2% of wells will result in an indicator positive within the first 12 indicator

assays (95% confidence bounds of 8.1% to 15.0%).

It is important to note that the 12 assays that are conducted for assessment monitoring are not

necessarily the first 12 assays that will be conducted for those wells performing assessment monitoring.

In many cases, and perhaps most, there will have been source water indicator samples taken in response to

TC positives occurring prior to the beginning of the assessment monitoring period. Because the

probability of getting the first positive indicator result decreases with each additional assay (refer to

Exhibit 4.26) the actual probability that a given well will get caught by one of the 12 assessment

monitoring samples depends upon how many triggered monitoring indicator assays were performed

(which would all have been negative) prior to the beginning of the assessment monitoring assays. The

more triggered monitoring samples taken, the less lik ely it is that the additional 12 assessment monitoring

assays will produce a positive result. For example, assume a well has taken 3 triggered monitoring

samples (with negative results) prior to the 12 assessment monitoring samples. The expected value of the

probability that a positive result will have been obtaine d in those first 3 samples is 6.0%, and the expected

value of the probability that a positive result will have been obtained in the first 15 samples is 12.0% (that

is, the 3 triggered plus 12 assessment samples). Therefore the, incremental probability of observing an

indicator positive from those additional 12 samples is only about 6.0%. Assume, however, that a well

has taken 20 triggered monitoring samples (with ne gative results) prior to the 12 assessment monitoring

samples. The expected value of the probability that a positive result will have been obtained in those first

20 samples is 12.9%, and the expected value of th e probability that a positive result will have been

obtained in the first 32 samples is 14.1% (that is, the 20 triggered plus 12 assessment samples). Therefore

# Economic Analysis for the October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule K-13 

# the, incremental probability of observing an indi cator positive from those additional 12 samples in this

case is only about 1.2%. Since most wells will have some triggered monitoring events prior to the

beginning of any assessment monitoring, the probability of observing an indicator positive in the one of

the 12 assessment monitoring samples is less than would be expected if those samples were the first 12

taken at that well (that is, if no triggered monitoring occurred). In the cost model, the simulation process

took this into account by assigning to each simulated well a number of triggered monitoring samples

(based on the expected number of TC positive results o ccurring per year for wells of different types and

sizes as discussed in Chapter 4).

Systems where an entry point tests positive for fecal contamination and does not receive a

treatment waiver must perform a corrective action.

Systems must report all positive source water samples to the State. As with triggered monitoring,

EPA estimates that this report will require, on averag e, 2.5 hours to complete and submit. EPA has

developed and systems will have access to automated forms that will minimize the burden to systems in

complying with this reporting requirement. Exhibit K.8 presents system unit costs for assessment

monitoring reporting requirements.

Waiver from Corrective Action : A one-time treatment waiver exists for assessment source water

monitoring. Once a PWS finds a single positive source water sample, it may take 5 repeat samples within

24 hours. If all five repeat samples are negative, and the system has no fecal indicator-positives among its

required source water samples for that entry point sin ce the last sanitary survey inspection, the system

does not have to perform a corrective action at that time. To prepare and submit the waiver application,

EPA estimates that systems will require 2.5 hours. As with other reporting requirements, EPA has

developed and systems will have access to automated forms that will minimize the burden to systems in

complying with this application process. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that all PWSs

that have a positive source water sample will apply for this one-time treatment waiver. It is assumed that

every year in which assessment source water monitoring occurs, 0 to 10 percent of entry points will test

positive in addition to those estimated above, but five repeat samples will test negative, and the systems

will apply for and receive a treatment waiver for those samples.

Invalidation of Samples : The GWR allows a State to invalidate a positive source water sample if

it believes that the positive is due to improper analys is. States may also invalidate positive source water

samples that are due to circumstances not reflecting source water quality. Systems must resample after a

sample is invalidated. For costing purposes, EPA estimates that States will invalidate a minimal number

of samples, resulting in a negligible cost and burden

.

States

State costs for assessment monitoring are assumed to be solely administrative. States incur costs

to review several paperwork requirements: re ports of positive samples; corrective action waiver

applications; and sample invalidation documentation. With the exception of corrective action waivers,

these reviews apply to both triggered and assessment monitoring requirements. Because of similarities in

costing assumptions, the discussion provided in Chapter 6, Section 6.4.3 of this EA applies to both

triggered and assessment monitoring. Under the multi- barrier approach, the GWR requires systems that

find fecal contamination through triggered monitoring or assessment monitoring to perform corrective

action. However, a one-time treatment waiver ex ists for assessment source water monitoring. To make

this determination, States must review all waiver applications. For costing purposes, EPA estimates that

# Economic Analysis for the October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule K-14 A B C=0.05*A D=B+C E=D F=C

Community Water Systems (CWSs)

<100 3,706 319 185 504 504 185

101-500 4,305 370 215 586 586 215

501-1,000 1,621 141 81 222 222 81

1,001-3,300 2,592 222 130 352 352 130

3,301-10K 1,639 141 82 223 223 82

10,001-50K 1,264 64 63 127 127 63

50,001-100K 374 7 19 26 26 19

100,001-1 Million 218 3 11 14 14 11

> 1 Million -

- - - - -

Totals 15,721 1,267 786 2,053 2,053 786

Nontransient Noncommunity Water Systems (NTNCWSs)

<100 2,494 216 125 341 341 125

101-500 1,787 155 89 244 244 89

501-1,000 499 43 25 68 68 25

1,001-3,300 188 9 9 19 19 9

3,301-10K 19 1 1 2 2 1

10,001-50K 3 0 0 0 0 0

50,001-100K 0 0 0 0 0 0

100,001-1 Million 0 0 0 0 0 0

> 1 Million -

- - - - -

Totals 4,992 425 250 674 674 250

Transient Noncommunity Water Systems (TNCWSs)

<100 18,338 1,290 917 2,207 2,207 917

101-500 5,413 380 271 651 651 271

501-1,000 553 39 28 67 67 28

1,001-3,300 167 10 8 18 18 8

3,301-10K 21 1 1 2 2 1

10,001-50K 5 0 0 0 0 0

50,001-100K 0 0 0 0 0 0

100,001-1 Million 0 0 0 0 0 0

> 1 Million -

- - - - -

Totals 24,498 1,720 1,225 2,945 2,945 1,225

Grand Total 45,210 3,412 2,261 5,672 5,672 2,261

N t D t il t dd t t t l d t i d d t di Entry Points

with Positive

Assessment

Monitoring

Samples Corrective

Action

Waivers System Size

(Population

Served) Entry

Points

Monitoring;

Initial Sampling Apply for

Treatment

Waiver Entry Points

Performing

Corrective

Actions Prepare

Assessment

Monitoring

Report and

Perform Repeat

Sampling 

# each waiver application will take 3.5 hours to re view, and using a labor cost of $33.61 per hour, EPA

estimates a unit cost of $117.61 to review the report.



# Exhibit K.7 Entry Points Incurring Assessment Monitoring Costs

Notes: Detail may not add to totals due to independent rounding.

Source: (A) Exhibit K.1, Column D

(B) Exhibit K.1, Column E

# Economic Analysis for the October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule K-15 Reporting Waiver Application

Report

Prep

(hours) Labor

Cost

(per

hour) Unit

Cost Application

Prep

(hours) Labor

Cost

(per

hour) Unit

Cost

A B C=A*B D E F=D*E

Community Water Systems (CWSs)

<100 2.5 21.44 $ 53.60 $ 2.5 21.44 $ 53.60 $

101-500 2.5 23.09 $ 57.73 $ 2.5 23.09 $ 57.73 $

501-1,000 2.5 24.74 $ 61.85 $ 2.5 24.74 $ 61.85 $

1,001-3,300 2.5 24.74 $ 61.85 $ 2.5 24.74 $ 61.85 $

3,301-10K 2.5 30.51 $ 76.28 $ 2.5 30.51 $ 76.28 $

10,001-50K 2.5 31.08 $ 77.70 $ 2.5 31.08 $ 77.70 $

50,001-100K 2.5 31.08 $ 77.70 $ 2.5 31.08 $ 77.70 $

100,001-1 M illion 2.5 35.25 $ 88.12 $ 2.5 35.25 $ 88.12 $

> 1 Million 2.5 35.25 $ 88.12 $ 2.5 35.25 $ 88.12 $

Nontransient Noncommunity Water Systems (NTNCWSs)

<100 2.5 21.44 $ 53.60 $ 2.5 21.44 $ 53.60 $

101-500 2.5 23.09 $ 57.73 $ 2.5 23.09 $ 57.73 $

501-1,000 2.5 24.74 $ 61.85 $ 2.5 24.74 $ 61.85 $

1,001-3,300 2.5 24.74 $ 61.85 $ 2.5 24.74 $ 61.85 $

3,301-10K 2.5 30.51 $ 76.28 $ 2.5 30.51 $ 76.28 $

10,001-50K 2.5 31.08 $ 77.70 $ 2.5 31.08 $ 77.70 $

50,001-100K 2.5 31.08 $ 77.70 $ 2.5 31.08 $ 77.70 $

100,001-1 M illion 2.5 35.25 $ 88.12 $ 2.5 35.25 $ 88.12 $

> 1 Million NA 35.25 $ NA NA 35.25 $ NA

Transient Noncommunity Water Systems (TNCWSs)

<100 2.5 21.44 $ 53.60 $ 2.5 21.44 $ 53.60 $

101-500 2.5 23.09 $ 57.73 $ 2.5 23.09 $ 57.73 $

501-1,000 2.5 24.74 $ 61.85 $ 2.5 24.74 $ 61.85 $

1,001-3,300 2.5 24.74 $ 61.85 $ 2.5 24.74 $ 61.85 $

3,301-10K 2.5 30.51 $ 76.28 $ 2.5 30.51 $ 76.28 $

10,001-50K 2.5 31.08 $ 77.70 $ 2.5 31.08 $ 77.70 $

50,001-100K 2.5 31.08 $ 77.70 $ 2.5 31.08 $ 77.70 $

100,001-1 M illion 2.5 35.25 $ 88.12 $ 2.5 35.25 $ 88.12 $

> 1 Million NA 35.25 $ NA NA 35.25 $ NA

N t D t il t dd t t t l d t i d d t di System Size

(Population Served) 

# Exhibit K.8 PWS Unit Costs for Assessment Monitoring

Notes: Detail may not add to totals due to independent rounding.

NA = Not applicable (no NCWSs of this size category).

Source: (A,D) Labor hours for report prepar ation and waiver application preparation based on EPA experience with similar rule

requirements.

(B,E,F) Labor rates from Chapter 6, Exhibit 6.1.

# Economic Analysis for the October 2006

Final Ground Water Rule K-16 Mean Lower

Bound

(5th %ile) Upper

Bound

(95th

%ile) Mean Lower

Bound

(5th %ile) Upper

Bound

(95th

%ile) Mean Lower

Bound

(5th %ile) Upper

Bound

(95th

%ile)

3 % $2.29 $1.59 $3.04 $0.05 $0.01 $0.10 $2.34 $1.61 $3.13

7 % $2.71 $1.88 $3.60 $0.06 $0.02 $0.12 $2.78 $1.90 $3.72

Notes: Detail may not add to totals due to independent rounding and independent cost model runs.

Source: Cost Model Outputs 

# Systems States Total

Annualized Costs for Assessment Monitoring Performance

Mean Lower

Bound

(5th %ile) Upper

Bound

(95th

%ile) Mean Lower

Bound

(5th %ile) Upper

Bound

(95th

%ile) Mean Lower

Bound

(5th %ile) Upper

Bound

(95th

%ile)

3 % $5.31 $1.99 $9.76 $0.07 $0.04 $0.12 $5.38 $2.02 $9.88

7 % $5.75 $2.17 $10.43 $0.09 $0.04 $0.14 $5.84 $2.22 $10.57

Notes: Detail may not add to totals due to independent rounding and independent cost model runs.

Source: Cost Model Outputs 

# Systems States Total Annualized Costs for Assessment Monitoring Corrective Action Activities 

# Annualized cost estimates for systems and Stat es to perform assessment monitoring are presented

in Exhibit K.9.



# Exhibit K.9 PWS and State Cost Estimates for Performing Assessment

Monitoring ($Millions, 2003$)

.

K.2.2.1 Assessment Monitoring Corrective Actions

All systems that detect fecal contamination in th eir source water must perform a corrective action.

For costing purposes, EPA assumes that each indicator positive sample will correspond to either one entry

point predicted to have corrective treatment or one we ll per entry point to have a nontreatment corrective

action. Compliance forecasts of treatment corrective actions for this alternative remain the same as ones

presented Chapter 6 (Exhibit 6.21b, Steps 1 thru 5) of this EA for systems without 4-log virus treatment

and with less than 4-log virus treatment.

Annualized cost estimates for systems and St ates to perform assessment monitoring corrective

actions are presented in Exhibit K.10.



# Exhibit K.10 PWS and State Cost Estimates for Assessment Monitoring

Corrective Actions Activities ($Millions, 2003$)

# Appendix L

Summary Flowcharts for GWR Cost Model

# Appendix L

Summary Flowcharts fo r GWR Cost Model

STEP 1: PRE-PROCESS PWS SAMPLE

STEP 2: PREPARE FOR UNCERTAINTY ITERATION

STEP 3: DETERMINE PWS AND STATE SANITARY

SURVEY AND SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCY ACTIVITY

STEP 4: DETERMINE PWS AND STATE SOURCE

WATER MONITORING

ACTIVITIES

STEP 5: DETERMINE PWS AND STATE CORRECTIVE

ACTION ACTIVITY

STEP 6: CALCULATE ANNU AL AND PRESENT VALUE

OF PWS AND STATE COSTS

STEP 7: CALCULATE PWS AND STATE COST

SUMMARY STATISTICS BY PWS TYPE AND SIZE

STEP 8: CALCULATE MEAN AND CONFIDENCE

INTERVAL OF PWS AND STATE COST SUMMARY

STATISTICS REPEAT OVER ALL

UNCERTAINTY

ITERATIONS



# Economic Analysis for the Final Ground Water Rule L-1 October 2006

# INPUTS:

SDWIS Inventory

Flow Equations

Entry Point Probability Distributions

Compliance Decision Matrices

Unit Technology Cost Equations (function of

Flow)

Entry Point Probability Matrix for Parameters

that are Certain

Unit Cost Values (not a function of flow)

OUTPUTS

Sample of PWSs including:

PWS Type

PWS Size

PWS Population Served

Number of Entry Points

PWS Design and Average Daily

Flow

Entry Point Design and Average

Daily Flow

Compliance Choices

Compliance Unit Cost Parameters

Significant Deficiency Assigned

Significant Deficiency Unit Cost

Parameters

Entry Point Probabilities for

Parameters that are Certain

Unit Costs for Values that are Not a

function of Flow 

# STEP 1: PRE-PR OCESS PWS SAMPLE

Select a Sample of

PWSs from the

SDWIS Inventory

Calculate PWS

Design and

Average Daily

Flow

Assign each PWS

a Number of Entry

Points

Calculate Entry

Point Design and

Average Daily

Flow

Assign each PWS

a High Cost and

Low Cost

Treatment

Corrective Action

Option Assign each PWS

a High Cost and

Low Cost NonTreatment

Corrective Action

Option Assign each PWS

a High Cost and

Low Cost

Disinfection

Modification Action

Option Assign each PWS

a High Cost and

Low Cost

Significant

Deficiency

Corrective Action

Read in PWS’s

High Cost and Low

Cost Treatment

Corrective Action

Unit Cost

Parameters Read in PWS’s

High Cost and Low

Cost NonTreatment

Corrective Action

Unit Cost

Parameters Read in PWS’s

High Cost and Low

Cost Treatment

Modification Action

Unit Cost

Parameters Read in PWS’s High

Cost and Low Cost

Significant Deficiency

Corrective Action

Unit Cost Parameters

Read in Entry

Point Probabilities

for Parameters

that are Certain

Read in Unit Cost

Values that are not

a function of Flow



# Economic Analysis for the Final Ground Water Rule L-2 October 2006

# INPUTS:

Sample of PWSs including:

PWS Type

PWS Size

PWS Population Served

Number of Entry Points

PWS Design and Average Daily

Flow

Entry Point Design and Average

Daily Flow

Compliance Choices

Compliance Unit Cost Parameters

Significant Defect Assigned

Significant Defect Unit Cost

Parameters

Uncertain Parameter Probability

Distributions

Occurrence Distributions

Matrix of Annual TC Positive Hits

OUTPUTS

Uncertainty Iteration Specific Values for:

EP Corrective Action Capital Costs

EP Corrective Action O&M Costs

PWS Significant Defect Capital Cost

PWS Significant Defect O&M Cost

Likelihood of a Positive Assay

During the Period of Analysis

Year in which Positive Assay occurs

if one occurs

Number of TC Positives Each Year

All Uncertain EP Probability

Parameters Choose a Value

for Each Uncertain

Parameter form

Distribution of

Values

Pre-Calculate EP

Costs for High and

Low Treatment

and NonTreatment

Corrective Action

Given Uncertainty

Factor 

# STEP 2: PREPARE FOR UNCERTAINTY ITERATION

Pre-Calculate

PWS Costs for

High and Low

Significant

Deficiency Given

Uncertainty Factor

Pre-Calculate EP

Costs for

Corrective Action

Given Probability

of High/Low and

Probability of

Treatment versus

Non-Treatment Pre-Calculate

PWS Costs for

Significant

Deficiency Given

Probability of High/

Low Significant

Deficiency Determine the

Year in which a

positive assay will

occur if one does

occur. Choose an

Occurrence

Distribution from

1,000 potential

Occurrence

Distributions

Determine the

likelihood of a

single positive

assay based on

the number of

assays taken

during the period

of analysis



# Economic Analysis for the Final Ground Water Rule L-3 October 2006

# INPUTS:

Sample of PWSs including:

PWS Type

PWS Size

PWS Population Served

Unit Cost Estimates (not a function

of flow) including Sanitary

Surveys

Uncertainty Iteration Specific Values for:

EP Significant Deficiency Capital

Costs

EP Significant Deficiency O&M

Costs

Number of EPs Disinfecting

Probability that PWS has no History

of TC Violation

OUTPUTS

Uncertainty Iteration Specific Values for:

PWS and State Sanitary Survey Costs

PWS and State Significant Deficiency

Costs 

# STEP 3: DETERMINE PWS AND STATE SANITARY SURVEY

AND SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCY ACTIVITY

Determine

Frequency of

Sanitary Survey

based on: PWS

Type, PWS History

of TC Violations,

and PWS

Disinfection Status

Calculate Number

of Sanitary

Surveys over the

Period of Analysis

Estimate PWS and

State Sanitary

Survey Costs Determine if PWS

has a Significant

Deficiency

Estimate PWS and

State Significant

Deficiency Costs



# Economic Analysis for the Final Ground Water Rule L-4 October 2006

# INPUTS:

Sample of PWSs including:

PWS Type

PWS Size

PWS Population Served

Number of Entry Points

Entry Point Probabilities for

Parameters that are Certain

Uncertainty Iteration Specific Values for:

Number of TC Positives Each Year

Likelihood of a Positive Assay

During the Period of Analysis

OUTPUTS

Uncertainty Iteration Specific Values for:

PWS and State Annual Monitoring Costs 

# STEP 4: DETERMINE PWS AND STATE SO URCE WATER MONITORING ACTIVITIES

Estimate Number

of Entry Points in a

PWS that Do Not

Achieve 4-log in

Baseline

Estimate Number

of Entry Points in a

PWS that must

Take Corrective

Action During

Period of Analysis Number of Entry

Points in a PWS

that Must Monitor

Estimate Number

of EPs that must

Monitor Until They

Take Corrective

Action Estimate Number

of EPs that must

Monitor Until the

End of the Period

of Analysis

Calculate Number

of Assays PWS

Must Take Each

Year

Estimate Annual

PWS and State

Monitoring Cost



# Economic Analysis for the Final Ground Water Rule L-5 October 2006

# INPUTS:

Sample of PWSs including:

PWS Type

PWS Size

PWS Population Served

Number of Entry Points

Entry Point Probabilities for

Parameters that are Certain

Uncertainty Iteration Specific Values for:

EP Corrective Action Capital Costs

EP Corrective Action O&M Costs

Likelihood of a Positive Assay

During the Period of Analysis

OUTPUTS

Uncertainty Iteration Specific Values for:

Number of EPs Take New Corrective

Action

Number of EPs Modify Disinfection

PWS and State Corrective Action Costs

PWS and State Compliance Monitoring

Costs 

# STEP 5: DETERMINE PWS AND STATE

CORRECTIVE ACTION ACTIVITY

Estimate Number

of Entry Points in a

PWS that Do Not

Disinfect in

Baseline Estimate Number

of Entry Points in a

PWS that Disinfect

But Do Not

Achieve 4-log

Inactivation in the

Baseline

Estimate Number

of Entry Points in a

PWS that Do Not

Disinfect in

Baseline that Have

Positive Assay Estimate Number

of Entry Points in a

PWS that Disinfect

But Do Not

Achieve 4-log

Inactivation in the

Baseline that have

Positive Assay

Estimate Number

of Entry Points in a

PWS that must

take New

Corrective Action Estimate Number

of Entry Points in a

PWS that must

Modify Disinfection

Estimate PWS and

State Compliance

Monitoring Costs Estimate PWS and

State Corrective

Action Costs



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