Office of Water (MS-140) EPA 815-P-15-001 March 2015

Information Collection Request 

Renewal

for the Unregulated Contaminant 

Monitoring Rule (UCMR 3)

March 2015

Prepared by:

The Cadmus Group, Inc.

57 Water Street

Watertown, MA 02472

Prepared for:

Brenda D. Parris, Project Officer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water

26 West Martin Luther King Drive

Cincinnati, OH 45268
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

Office of Water (MS-140) EPA 815-P-15-001 March 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

– PART A OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT – .............................................................. 1

1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION......................................................................1

1(a) Title and Number of the Information Collection .....................................................................................1

1(b) Short Characterization .............................................................................................................................1

2 NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION.............................................................................................4

2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection ...........................................................................................................4

2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data ...........................................................................................................5

3 NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA...............................7

3(a) Non-duplication .......................................................................................................................................7

3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB......................................................................7

3(c) Consultations ...........................................................................................................................................8

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection.........................................................................................................9

3(e) General Guidelines ................................................................................................................................12

3(f) Confidentiality .......................................................................................................................................13

3(g) Sensitive Questions................................................................................................................................13

4 RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION..............................................................................................14

4(a) Respondents and NAICS/SIC Codes.....................................................................................................14

4(b) Information Requested...........................................................................................................................14

5 INFORMATION COLLECTED–AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND 

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT........................................................................................................................22

5(a) Agency Activities ..................................................................................................................................22

5(b) Information Collection Methodology and Management........................................................................24

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility..........................................................................................................................25

5(d) Collection Schedule ...............................................................................................................................29

6 ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION .........................................................31

6(a) Estimating Burden and Cost to Public Water Systems ..........................................................................31

6(b) Estimating the Burden and Cost to States..............................................................................................42

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost.....................................................................................................45

6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs........................................................48

6(e) Reasons for Change in Burden ..............................................................................................................50

6(f) Burden Statement...................................................................................................................................51

– PART B OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT –............................................................. 54

1 SURVEY OBJECTIVES, KEY VARIABLES, AND OTHER PRELIMINARIES .......................................54

1(a) Survey Objectives..................................................................................................................................54

1(b) Key Variables ........................................................................................................................................54

1(c) Statistical Approach...............................................................................................................................54

1(d) Feasibility ..............................................................................................................................................54

2 SURVEY DESIGN..........................................................................................................................................55

2(a) Target Population and Coverage............................................................................................................55

2(b) Sample Design .......................................................................................................................................55

2(c) Precision Requirements .........................................................................................................................57

2(d) Questionnaire Design.............................................................................................................................57

3 PRETESTS AND PILOT TESTS....................................................................................................................57

4 COLLECTION METHODS AND FOLLOW-UP ..........................................................................................58

4(a) Collection Methods................................................................................................................................58
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

ii

4(b) Survey Response and Follow-up ...........................................................................................................58

5 ANALYZING AND REPORTING SURVEY RESULTS..............................................................................59

5(a) Data Preparation ....................................................................................................................................59

5(b) Analysis.................................................................................................................................................59

5(c) Reporting Results...................................................................................................................................60

APPENDICES............................................................................................................................. 61

APPENDIX A: Relevant Authorities in the SDWA 1996 Amendments.................................................................62

APPENDIX B: Burden and Cost Exhibits for the Five-Year UCMR 3 Period of 2012-2016.................................69
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

iii

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1a: UCMR 3 Final Contaminant Lists ............................................................................................................14

Exhibit 1b: Total Chromium Monitoring.....................................................................................................................15

Exhibit 2: UCMR 3 Reporting Requirements..............................................................................................................16

Exhibit 3: Timeline of UCMR 3 Activities..................................................................................................................23

Exhibit 4: Number of Publicly- and Privately-Owned Small Systems Subject to UCMR 3 .......................................26

Exhibit 5: EPA and Systems Costs for Implementation of UCMR 3 at Small Systems..............................................27

Exhibit 6: UCMR 3 Relative Cost Analysis for Small Publicly-Owned Systems (2012-2016) ..................................28

Exhibit 7: UCMR 3 Relative Cost Analysis for Small Privately-Owned Systems (2012-2016).................................29

Exhibit 8: Systems to Participate in UCMR 3 Monitoring ..........................................................................................33

Exhibit 9: UCMR 3 Sampling Activity Timeline for Cost and Burden Estimations...................................................34

Exhibit 10: Labor Rates Applied for Public Water Systems .......................................................................................34

Exhibit 11a: Yearly Cost to Systems, by System Size and by Type of Cost (2015-2017) (corresponds to 

Exhibit B-1a) ........................................................................................................................................................41

Exhibit 11b: Per System (Respondent) and Per Response UCMR Costs (2015-2017) ...............................................42

(corresponds with Exhibit B-1b)..................................................................................................................................42

Exhibit 12: Number of States in Each Size Category (State Resource Model Assumptions)......................................44

Exhibit 13a: Yearly Cost and Burden to States for Implementation of UCMR 3 (2015-2017)

1

(corresponds with Exhibit B-2a)...........................................................................................................................44

Exhibit 13b: Per State (Respondent) and Per Response UCMR 3 Costs (2015-2017) (corresponds with 

Exhibit B-2b) ........................................................................................................................................................44

Exhibit 14a: Yearly Cost to EPA for UCMR Implementation, by Type of Cost (2015-2017) (corresponds 

with Exhibit B-3a) ................................................................................................................................................47

Exhibit 14b: Summary of EPA Burdens and Costs for UCMR Implementation (2015-2017) (corresponds 

with Exhibit B-3b) ................................................................................................................................................48

Exhibit 15: UCMR 3 National Cost Summary for the ICR period (2015-2017) (corresponds with Exhibit 

B-4).......................................................................................................................................................................49

Exhibit 16: UCMR 3 Per Respondent Burden and Cost Summary for the ICR Period (2015-2017) 

(corresponds with Exhibit B-5) ............................................................................................................................52

Exhibit B-1a: Yearly Cost to Systems, by System Size and by Type of Cost (2012-2016) (corresponds to 

Exhibit 11a)..........................................................................................................................................................69

Exhibit B-1b: Per System (Respondent) and Per Response UCMR 3 Costs (2012-2016) (corresponds with 

Exhibit 11b)..........................................................................................................................................................70

Exhibit B-2a: Yearly Cost and Burden to States for Implementation of UCMR 3 (2012-2016)1

(corresponds with Exhibit 13a) ............................................................................................................................70

Exhibit B-2b: Per State (Respondent) and Per Response UCMR 3 Costs (2012-2016) (corresponds with 

Exhibit 13b)..........................................................................................................................................................71

Exhibit B-3a: Yearly Cost to EPA for UCMR 3 Implementation, by Type of Cost (2012-2016) 1

(corresponds with Exhibit 14a) ............................................................................................................................71

Exhibit B-3b: Summary of EPA Burdens and Costs for UCMR 3 Implementation (2012-2016) 

(corresponds with Exhibit 14b) ............................................................................................................................72

Exhibit B-4: National Cost Summary for UCMR 3 Implementation (2012-2016) (corresponds with 

Exhibit 15)............................................................................................................................................................73

Exhibit B-5: UCMR 3 Per Respondent Burden and Cost Summary (2012-2016) (corresponds with Exhibit 

16).........................................................................................................................................................................75
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

iv

ACRONYMS

ASDWA Association of State Drinking Water Administrators

CCL Contaminant Candidate List

CCR Consumer Confidence Report

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CWS Community Water System

DSMRT Distribution System Maximum Residence Time

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPTDS Entry Point to the Distribution System

FR Federal Register 

FTE Full-Time Equivalent

GS General Schedule

GWUDI Ground Water Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water

IC Ion Chromatography

ICP Inductively Coupled Plasma

ICR Information Collection Request

LC Liquid Chromatography

LCMRL Lowest Concentration Minimum Reporting Level 

MCL Maximum Contaminant Level

MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal

MRL Minimum Reporting Level

MS Mass Spectrometry

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

NCOD National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence Database

NPDWR National Primary Drinking Water Regulation 

NTNCWS Non-Transient Non-Community Water System

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OW Office of Water

PA Partnership Agreement

PFC Perfluorinated Chemicals

PT Proficiency Testing

PWS Public Water System

PWSID Public Water System Identification 

QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act

SBA Small Business Administration

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SRF State Revolving Fund

TNCWS Transient Non-Community Water System
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

ii

UCMR Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule

UV Ultraviolet

VIS Visible Spectroscopic

VOCs Voltile Organic Carbons
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

1

– PART A OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT –

1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

1(a) Title and Number of the Information Collection 

Title: Renewal Information Collection Request for UCMR 3

OMB Control Number: 2040-0270

EPA Tracking Number: 2192.06

1(b) Short Characterization 

Section 1445(a)(2) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requires that once every five years, 

beginning in 1999, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issue a new list of 

no more than 30 unregulated contaminants to be monitored by public water systems (PWSs).

Information collected under the program supports the agency decision making regarding whether 

or not to regulation particular contaminants in drinking water. SDWA requires that EPA vary the 

frequency and schedule for the monitoring program based on the number of persons served, the 

source of supply and the contaminants likely to be found. EPA is required by SDWA to only 

include a representative sample of PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people. SDWA also requires 

EPA to enter the monitoring data into the National Drinking Water Contaminant Occurrence 

Database (NCOD). 

EPA published the first Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 1) for PWSs in the 

Federal Register (FR) on September 17, 1999 (64 FR 50556). In addition, EPA published 

several supplemental rules that established analytical methods, and provided clarifications and 

refinements to the initial rule. The second UCMR (UCMR 2) was published in the Federal 

Register on January 4, 2007, and built on the established structure of UCMR 1, while making 

some changes to the rule design. The third UCMR (UCMR 3) was published in the Federal 

Register on May 2, 2012 (77 FR 26071) and builds on the established structure of UCMR 1 and 

UCMR 2, and makes some changes to improve the rule design. EPA revised the contaminant list, 

analytical methods and sampling design for UCMR 3. 
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

2

UCMR 3 monitoring began in 2013 and continues through 2015. The applicable three-year 

period for this particular Information Collection Request (ICR) is 2015-2017. The applicable 

ICR period overlaps with the last two years of the five year UCMR 3 period. Estimates of 

implementation burden and cost over the entire five-year UCMR 3 period of 2012-2016

(including pre-monitoring activity and post-monitoring reporting) are attached as Appendix B to 

this ICR. 

Assessment Monitoring (List 1), the largest tier of the three UCMR monitoring components, 

began in January 2013 and continues through December 2015 for 800 PWSs serving 10,000 or 

fewer (hereafter referred to as small PWSs), and by all PWSs serving more than 10,000 people. 

These PWSs monitor for 20 List 1 chemicals; total chromium will be monitored in conjunction 

with the List 1 chemicals.

1 Under Assessment Monitoring, contaminants for which standard 

analytical methods are available are monitored to assess national occurrence in drinking water.

Screening Survey (List 2) monitoring began in January 2013 and continues through December 

2015 for all (413) very large PWSs serving more than 100,000 people, 320 large PWSs serving 

10,000 to 100,000 people, and by 480 small PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people. Screening 

Survey monitoring is conducted for contaminants with analytical methods that have generally 

been more recently developed and employ technologies that are not as widely used or where 

laboratory capacity may be insufficient to conduct the larger scale Assessment Monitoring. The 

UCMR 3 Screening Survey includes seven List 2 contaminants. 

Pre-Screen Testing (List 3) for two contaminants and related pathogen indicators2also began in 

January 2013 and continues through December 2015. EPA selected 800 small, undisinfected 

ground water PWSs serving fewer than 1,000 customers that were determined to be vulnerable to 

contamination. This sample of small PWSs includes non-transient non-community water systems 

(NTNCWSs) and transient non-community water systems (TNCWSs). Small PWSs are not 

subject to more than one tier of UCMR 3 monitoring. EPA pays for all sampling and analysis 

costs associated with virus and pathogen indicator monitoring at small PWSs. The indicator 

information is useful because the virus method is expensive and complicated, and routine 

monitoring may not be practical. If there is a correlation between virus and indicator presence,

indicator monitoring (simpler and less expensive) can be used to determine possible presence of 

viruses.

 

1 Transient non-community water systems and those systems that sell all of their water to another PWS are being 

excluded from Assessment Monitoring. 

2 Monitoring for pathogen indicators – in conjunction with UCMR 3 Pre-Screen Testing – is also required under the 

authority provided in Section 1445(a)(1)(A) of SDWA.
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

3

EPA expects that approximately one-third of PWSs will monitor during each of the three 

monitoring years (2013-2015). Approximately one-third of PWSs will monitor during the second 

(renewal) UCMR 3 ICR period of 2015-2017.

No small PWSs were selected for more than one of the three monitoring lists.

Respondents to UCMR 3 include 2,080 small PWSs (800 for Assessment Monitoring, 480 for 

Screening Survey, and 800 for the Pre-Screen Testing), 4,215 large and very large PWSs, and 56 

states and primacy agents (referred to collectively as “states” for simplicity), for a total of 6,351

respondents. The frequency of response varies across respondents and years. 

Small PWSs selected for UCMR 3 monitoring (Assessment Monitoring, Screening Survey, and 

Pre-Screen Testing) sample an average of 2.4 times per PWS (i.e., number of responses per 

PWS) across the three-year ICR period. The estimated burden per response for small PWSs is 

2.9 hours. Large PWSs and very large PWSs sample and report an average of 3.2 and 3.7 times 

per PWS, respectively, across the three-year ICR period. The estimated burden per response for 

large and very large PWSs, respectively, are 7.7 and 10.2 hours.

States incur only labor costs associated with UCMR 3 implementation. State activities were

determined through individual Partnership Agreements (PAs) with EPA. EPA assumed that state 

participation levels would reflect the participation levels that occurred in UCMR 1 and UCMR 2. 

States incur 2.0 responses over the three-year ICR period related to coordination with EPA and 

PWSs, with an average burden per response of 109.9 hours. In aggregate, during the ICR period, 

the average response (e.g., responses from PWSs and States) is associated with a burden of 8.4

hours, with a labor plus non-labor cost of $3,507 per response.

The annual average per respondent burden hours and costs for the ICR period are: small PWSs –

2.3 hours burden at $53 for labor; large PWSs – 8.3 hours at $259 for labor, and $3,928 for 

analytical costs; very large PWSs – 12.5 hours at $479 for labor, and $11,394 for analytical 

costs; and states – 73.3 hours at $8,437 for labor. Annual average burden and cost per respondent 

is 8.3 hours, with a labor plus non-labor cost of $3,458 per respondent. 

The annual burden to EPA for UCMR 3 program activities during the ICR years is 3,813 hours, 

at an annual labor cost of $295,000. EPA's annual non-labor costs are $1.9 million. EPA's nonlabor costs are primarily attributed to the cost of sample analysis for small PWSs (sample 

analysis represents approximately 95% of non-labor cost).
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

4

2 NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection 

The information collected under this action is required by EPA to carry out its regulatory 

development responsibilities under SDWA section 1445(a)(2), Monitoring Program for 

Unregulated Contaminants. This section, as amended in 1996, requires that once every 5 years,

the agency issue a new list of no more than 30 unregulated contaminants to be monitored by 

PWSs, and procedures for placement of the monitoring data in NCOD. 

Section 1445(a)(1) of SDWA requires each PWS to “establish and maintain such records, make 

such reports, conduct such monitoring, and provide such information as the Administrator may 

reasonably require by regulation to assist the Administrator in establishing regulations, [or] ... in 

evaluating the health risks of unregulated contaminants ....” This section authorizes EPA to issue 

regulations requiring PWSs to monitor for regulated or unregulated contaminants, provide the 

agency with the resulting data, and to maintain records of this information.

Section 1412(b)(1) and (b)(4) of SDWA, as amended in 1996, requires EPA to promulgate 

maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs) and national primary drinking water regulations 

(NPDWRs) for contaminants that: may have adverse human health effects; are known to or 

anticipated to occur in PWSs; and, in the sole opinion of the Administrator, present an 

opportunity for reducing health risks. The NPDWRs specify maximum contaminant levels 

(MCLs) or treatment techniques for drinking water contaminants (42 USC 300g-1). An MCL 

must generally be set as close to the MCLG as possible. NPDWRs apply to PWSs (42 USC 

300f(1)(A)). Section 1412(b)(1) of SDWA requires the agency to develop a list of unregulated 

contaminants for regulatory consideration (i.e., the candidate contaminant list (CCL)), and to 

issue a determination whether or not to issue drinking water standards for at least 5 contaminants 

on that list every 5 years. Section 1445(a)(2) requires EPA to issue regulations that establish 

criteria for a monitoring program for unregulated contaminants.

Section 1401(1)(d) of the SDWA 1996 Amendments defines NPDWRs to include “criteria and 

procedures to assure a supply of drinking water which dependably complies with such maximum 

contaminant levels; including accepted methods for quality control and testing procedures ...,”

This section authorizes EPA to require PWSs and laboratories to use agency-approved methods 

and quality assurance criteria for collecting and analyzing water samples.

The sections from the SDWA, discussed in the previous paragraphs, are included as Appendix A

of this document, in order by section number. 
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

5

2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data 

The UCMR 3 data supports: the development of the CCL; the Administrator's determination of 

whether to regulate a contaminant; and, as appropriate, regulation development. If the 

contaminant has significant occurrence and health effects, EPA uses the results to: support an 

exposure assessment; establish the baseline for health effects and economic analyses; analyze

contaminant co-occurrence; and evaluate treatment technologies, including contaminant source 

management. The results can suggest that contaminant occurrence is significant enough to 

initiate research on health effects and treatment technologies. Finally, the data can guide future 

source water protection efforts.

Each PWS maintains PWS level records of the analytical results of this monitoring. EPAapproved laboratories report these results to EPA's electronic data reporting system. PWSs 

review the information posted by the laboratory and submit the approved data to the state and 

EPA, via the electronic reporting system. The data collected through the UCMR program are 

stored in the NCOD to facilitate analysis and review of contaminant occurrence.

The primary user of the information collected under this ICR is EPA's Office of Water (OW).

Other users of this information could include the following:

• Primacy agencies, which include state regulators, Indian tribes, and, in some 

instances, EPA regional administrators 

• PWS managers

• Staff from other EPA programs (such as the Office of Superfund Remediation and 

Technology Innovation; the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery; and 

the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance)

• Federal Emergency Management Administration

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

• Military bases

• Rural Development Administration/Farmers Home Administration

• Department of Interior

• Department of Housing and Urban Development

• United States Army Corps of Engineers

• White House Task Forces

• American Water Works Association

• Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies

• National Rural Water Association

• National Association of Water Companies

• Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA)

• Natural Resources Defense Council
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

6

• Consumers Federation of America

• Small Business Administration (SBA)

• Other environmental and industry groups

• News organizations

• Private industries

• Individuals
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

7

3 NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS AND OTHER 

COLLECTION CRITERIA

3(a) Non-duplication 

The data required by UCMR are not available from any other source and are not duplicative of 

information otherwise accessible to EPA. With public health protection as its top priority, EPA 

drew upon several different sources to develop the UCMR 3 contaminant list and used a stepwise 

prioritization process. As a first step, EPA reviewed the 2009 final Contaminant Candidate List 

(CCL 3) and the “pre-CCL” contaminants considered in the development of CCL 3. (Under the 

CCL 3 process, the agency considered the best available data on health effects and occurrence, 

and evaluated 7,500 unregulated contaminants; the final CCL 3 was comprised of 104 chemicals 

or chemical groups and 12 microbiological contaminants.) EPA used CCL 3, along with 

additional sources of information about emerging contaminants of concern, to establish an initial 

list of approximately 150 potential UCMR 3 contaminants. EPA then narrowed that list by 

eliminating contaminants for which methods could not be ready in time for UCMR 3 monitoring. 

An EPA and state workgroup further considered this narrowed list and used health effects data 

and other critical endpoints to arrive at the proposed list of unregulated contaminants. After 

considering the comments received, EPA added chromium-6 to the list of unregulated 

contaminants to be monitored; removed sec-butylbenzene and n-propylbenzene. The seven 

hormones were moved from Assessment Monitoring to the Screening Survey. In addition, EPA 

requires PWSs to monitor for total chromium concurrent with all chromium-6 monitoring. EPA 

requires the monitoring of total chromium under the authority provided in Section 1445 (a)(1)(A) 

of the SDWA. 

3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB 

This ICR document supports the first Federal Register notice which requests public comment 

and proposes renewal of the currently approved UCMR 3 ICR (OMB Control No. 2040-0270), 

which covered the period 2012-2014. The public notice activities for the UCMR 3 include the 

following:

Following publication of the proposed rule on March 3, 2011 (76 FR 11713), EPA received 

several public comments related to ICR and other cost estimates. Those commenters felt that 

EPA's estimates of cost and burden to PWSs were too low, including laboratory analysis fees and 

estimated PWS labor burden. 
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

8

EPA estimates of laboratory fees are based on consultations with national drinking water 

laboratories and a review of the costs of similar analytical methods. In response to comments, 

EPA revisited the estimates of UCMR 3 method pricing. EPA requested pricing estimates for 

UCMR 3 methods from four national drinking water laboratories. Estimates were requested for 

all chemical methods required under Assessment Monitoring and the Screening Survey, 

including: 200.8 (metals and total chromium); 218.7 (chromium-6); 300.1 (chlorate); 522 (1,4-

dioxane); 524.3 (voltile organic carbons (VOCs)); 537 (perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs)); and 

539 (hormones). EPA averaged the pricing estimates from the laboratories that were consulted 

into the cost estimates. Three laboratories provided estimated costs for the Pre-Screening Testing 

viruses and related pathogen indicators. These costs were also averaged and incorporated into the 

cost estimates. 

All burden estimates represent average burden hours, which include surface water PWSs that can

have very few sampling points, and thus lower sampling burden, as well as those PWSs with 

higher numbers of sampling points that would then have greater sampling activity labor burden. 

A PWSs' burden is primarily incurred during its one year of required UCMR monitoring. In 

compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), 

these cost and burden estimates are presented as an average over the applicable three-year ICR 

period. 

Small PWSs have the lowest burden because of the relative smaller size of their infrastructure, 

and because these PWSs receive a great deal of direct assistance from EPA and/or their state

(e.g., EPA collects the samples for the Pre-Screen Testing).

EPA reviewed burden estimates used in recently published drinking water rules and determined 

that estimates used for UCMR 3 are similar.

3(c) Consultations 

EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW) incorporated stakeholder 

involvement early in the regulatory development process. In the late 1990s, EPA held meetings 

for the design and development of both the CCL and UCMR programs. Stakeholders who 

provided comments concerning the development of the UCMR program include PWSs, states, 

industry, and other organizations. Seventeen meetings were held concerning UCMR 

development. A description of public involvement activities related to UCMR are provided in the 

September 17, 1999, UCMR Final Rule Federal Register at 64 FR 50556. A stakeholder meeting 

was held for development of UCMR 2 in October 2003. State agencies, federal agencies, 

laboratories, PWSs, and drinking water associations discussed: the rationale for selecting a new 

list of contaminants; analytical methods to be used in measuring these contaminants; sampling 
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

9

design, particularly for the Screening Survey monitoring; procedure for determining the lowest 

concentration minimum reporting levels (LCMRLs); validation of laboratory performance at or 

below the minimum reporting level (MRL); revisions to data elements; and other revisions based 

on lessons learned during implementation of UCMR 1.

A UCMR 3 stakeholder meeting was held on April 7, 2010, in Washington, DC. There were 22 

attendees, representing state agencies, laboratories, PWSs, environmental organizations and 

drinking water associations. The presentations and discussions included the following: status of 

UCMR 2; rationale for developing a new list of potential contaminants; analytical methods that 

could be used in measuring these contaminants; sampling design; procedure for determining 

MRLs; laboratory approval; and other potential revisions based on lessons learned during 

implementation of UCMR 1 and UCMR 2.

EPA published the proposed UCMR 3 on March 3, 2011 (76 FR 11713), and requested public 

comment on the rule design and content, as well as on the ICR. EPA received comments from 53

public commenters, addressing a variety of issues on the proposed regulation. After considering 

the comments, EPA added chromium-6 to the list of unregulated contaminants to be monitored;

removed sec-butylbenzene and n-propylbenzene; and moved monitoring of hormones from 

Assessment Monitoring to the Screening Survey. EPA requires PWSs to monitor for total 

chromium concurrent with all chromium-6 monitoring. EPA revised or clarified requirements 

pertaining to PWS applicability criteria, reporting, monitoring and quality control. Several 

commenters suggested that EPA's estimates of cost and burden to PWSs were low, including 

laboratory analysis fees and estimated labor burden. EPA's responses to these cost- and burdenrelated comments are addressed in Section 3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission 

to OMB and in Section 6(a)(ii) Estimating Non-labor Costs.

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection 

EPA considered a wide range of alternatives for frequency of collection that could still allow the 

agency to meet its statutory requirements and overall objectives. Less frequent data collection 

would affect the integrity of the data and result in insufficient data to fulfill the needs envisioned 

by the 1996 SDWA Amendments, including the continued development of the CCL, support of 

the Administrator's regulatory determinations and drinking water regulation development. 

Monitoring frequencies were determined based on statutory requirements, which specify that 

monitoring be varied based on the number of people served by a PWS, contaminants likely to be 

found and source of water supply. The monitoring frequency design also considers that the 

number of people served affects exposure to contaminants and resources available to undertake 

monitoring activity. The collection frequencies in this rule are discussed further in section 4(b), 
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

10

part A of this ICR document. Monitoring frequencies have been carefully devised based on the 

following factors:

• data quality needed for a representative sample;

• precision and accuracy needed from the representative sample;

• number of people served by the PWS;

• source of the supply (e.g., surface water or ground water);

• likelihood of finding contaminants; and

• temporal variability in occurrence.

The general timing of monitoring and the number of PWSs required to monitor for each 

component of the UCMR can be found in section 1(b) Part A of this ICR document. Samples are 

collected from entry points to the distribution system (EPTDSs) for all contaminants. Samples 

for the metals, including total chromium), and chlorate under Assessment Monitoring are

collected from sampling locations that represent the distribution system maximum residence time 

(DSMRT). Ground water PWSs with multiple EPTDSs are only required to sample at 

representative sampling locations for each ground water source, as long as those sites have been

approved. Systems were also permitted to select a representative intake from a wholesaler.

Sampling at locations3fed by ground water is conducted twice during the monitoring year (i.e., 

12-month monitoring cycle), and locations fed by surface water or ground water under the direct 

influence of surface water (GWUDI) are sampled four times during the monitoring year. 

Multiple samples during a year are necessary to capture the temporal variability in contaminant 

occurrence to support an adequate characterization of potential exposure. The required sampling 

frequencies help provide the quality and quantity of data that are statistically necessary for 

regulatory determinations. The agency scheduled the year and months of PWS monitoring.

PWSs had the option of changing their schedules by coordinating a new schedule with EPA.

EPA maintained the same statistical design established under UCMR 1 for its UCMR 3 national 

representative sample of 800 small PWSs and a census of large PWSs for Assessment 

Monitoring. EPA determined that the combination of a nationally representative sample of small 

PWSs and a census of large PWSs provides a powerful tool for assessing contaminant 

occurrence in PWSs; this is the most effective and accurate survey approach. A sample of 800 

PWSs from the universe of over 63,000 small PWSs provides a confidence level of 99% with an 

allowable error of ±1%. The set of representative PWSs are distributed among different size 

 

3 Ground water PWSs are required to sample only two times per year because they generally show less seasonal 

fluctuation than surface water or GWUDI PWSs. Rule language regarding sampling schedule/frequency ensures that 

both surface and ground water PWSs collect at least one of their samples during the most vulnerable period, which 

the rule specifies as May - July. 
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

11

categories, but weighted by population served, to ensure that the sample can provide estimates of 

exposure.

EPA selected this design to ensure the quality of the results. EPA considered larger sample 

frames because of the many uncertainties involved, but the sample size of 800 was deemed 

adequate to meet the needs for the national estimate. Smaller sample sizes (i.e., fewer PWSs 

monitored) were also considered, but rejected. Some population surveys with continuous 

variables use a lower level of confidence (95%) and/or a larger allowable error. The larger 

possible error is not acceptable for this program. Examination and analysis of current occurrence 

data show that many contaminants that are currently regulated, or being considered for regulation 

occur in 1% or less of PWSs on a national basis. For many contaminants, a 1% occurrence 

nationally translates into a substantially larger occurrence regionally. Even a small percentage of 

PWSs with detections can translate into a significant population affected. With a greater margin 

of error, and the resultant smaller sample size, such occurrence could be missed entirely. EPA 

made some judgments about the occurrence of contaminants in relation to source waters and 

different PWS size categories. Many statutes and current regulations differentiate 

implementation requirements based on PWS size or water source. While combining sampling 

results from the representative sample of small PWSs with that from all large PWSs provides 

increased power in the total sample, EPA must be able to evaluate occurrence, and possible 

regulatory options, related to the small PWSs. SDWA and many current rules focus on burden 

reduction for small PWSs when feasible. There are many other uncertainties and sources of 

variance in such a sample program. For example, all contaminants have censored distributions 

(i.e., “less than detection level” analytical results) and there are a myriad of factors that affect 

variability and vulnerability of ground water PWSs. It remains unclear how normal sampling 

theory accommodates these factors. The high confidence level, low allowable error, and larger 

sample size helps to ensure adequate data to meet the objectives of the UCMR program. 

The Screening Survey is similar to UCMR 2. Using a census of very large PWSs for the 

Screening Survey minimizes the possibility of missing contaminant occurrence at the PWSs that 

serve the largest portion of the population, while keeping the number of PWSs required to

conduct the Screening Survey relatively small.

The objectives of the UCMR 3 Pre-Screen Testing for List 3 contaminants are to: obtain 

occurrence information for enterovirus and norovirus for further evaluation; and provide EPA 

with a better understanding of the co-occurrence of pathogen indicators and viruses. The PWSs 

selected to monitor for Pre-Screen Testing represent a targeted sample consisting of small 

ground water PWSs that EPA determined are most vulnerable to the List 3 contaminants. The 

ground water wells at these PWSs were selected from areas of karst or fractured bedrock. The 

sample includes community water systems (CWSs), NTNCWSs, and TNCWSs, which ensures 

that sample results are representative of different types of PWSs. 
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

12

UCMR 3 includes a provision for waivers for large PWSs on a state-wide, chemical-specific 

basis because some contaminants may not occur in a particular state. Waivers were not 

considered for small PWSs because eliminating them from the nationally representative sample 

would compromise the data quality and consistency requirements of a representative sample. The 

representative sample must provide adequate information on the presence and absence of 

contaminants for the PWSs sampled. Since EPA pays for this testing, there is no significant 

burden on small PWSs. 

3(e) General Guidelines 

This ICR was completed in accordance with the November 2009 version of EPA's Guide to 

Writing Information Collection Requests Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (hereafter, 

the “ICR Handbook”). The ICR Handbook was prepared by EPA's Office of Environmental 

Information, Collection Strategies Division. The ICR Handbook provides the most current 

instructions for ICR preparation to ensure compliance with the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act 

Amendments and OMB's implementing guidelines.

EPA took an approach that minimizes burden on the respondents. This collection complies with 

all OMB guidelines for information collection activities. Specifically, the respondents are not 

required to:

• Report information to EPA more than quarterly.

• Prepare a written response to a collection of information in fewer than 30 days 

after receipt of a request.

• Submit more than an original and two copies of any document.

• Retain records, other than health, medical, government contract, grant-in-aid or 

tax records, for more than three years.

• Participate in a statistical survey that is not designed to produce data that can be 

generalized to the universe of the study.

• Use a statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and approved by 

OMB.

• Receive a pledge of confidentiality that is not supported by authority established 

in statute or regulation, that is not supported by disclosure and data security 

policies that are consistent with the pledge, or which unnecessarily impedes 

sharing of data with other agencies for compatible confidential use.

• Submit proprietary, trade secret, or other confidential information unless EPA can 

demonstrate that it has instituted procedures to protect the information's 

confidentiality to the extent permitted by law.
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

13

3(f) Confidentiality 

This information collection does not require respondents to disclose confidential information.

3(g) Sensitive Questions 

No questions of a sensitive nature are included in any of the information collection requirements 

outlined in this ICR.
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

14

4 RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION

4(a) Respondents and NAICS/SIC Codes 

Data associated with this ICR are collected and maintained by PWSs. States, territories, and 

tribes with primacy to administer the regulatory program for PWSs under SDWA may 

participate in UCMR 3 implementation through a PA with EPA. These primacy agencies may 

sometimes conduct monitoring and maintain records. The North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) code for PWSs is 221310. The NAICS code for state agencies 

that include drinking water programs, and municipal PWS operators are classified as 924110

(Administration of Air and Water Resources and Solid Waste Management Programs). 

4(b) Information Requested 

This ICR summarizes the data items and respondent activities associated with UCMR 3.

4(b)(i) Data Items, including recordkeeping requirements

A discussion of data and information that are part of the reporting and record keeping 

requirements for PWSs is found in section 4(b)(i)(a), Part A of this ICR document. The 

requirements for states are discussed in section 4(b)(i)(b), Part A of this ICR document.

4(b)(i)(a) Public Water System Reporting and Record Keeping 

Section 141.35 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) requires PWSs that are subject to the 

UCMR requirements to report monitoring results for the 30 contaminants listed in §141.40 to 

EPA (see Exhibit 1 for the contaminant list). The rule added codes for the chlorine residual 

treatment information that is required to be reported by all PWSs.

Exhibit 1a: UCMR 3 Final Contaminant Lists

List 1, Assessment Monitoring

1,4-dioxane Vanadium

Molybdenum strontium
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

15

Exhibit 1a: UCMR 3 Final Contaminant Lists

List 1, Assessment Monitoring

Cobalt chromium-6 (hexavalent chromium)1

1,2,3-trichloropropane chlorate

1,3-butadiene perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) 

chloromethane (methyl chloride) perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)

1,1-dichloroethane perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) 

bromochloromethane (Halon 1011) perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) 

bromomethane (methyl bromide) perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) 

chlorodifluoromethane (HCFC-22) perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS)

List 2, Screening Survey

17-β-estradiol estriol

17-α-ethynylestradiol (ethinyl estradiol) equilin

estrone testosterone

4-androstene-3,17-dione

List 3, Pre-Screen Testing2

enteroviruses noroviruses

Exhibit 1b: Total Chromium Monitoring3

total chromium

1 Chromium-6 is measured as soluble chromate (ion). 

2 Monitoring for microbial indicators – in conjunction with UCMR 3 Pre-Screen Testing – is required. This 

monitoring includes sampling for pathogen indicators (i.e., total coliforms, E.coli, bacteriophage, Enterococci and 

aerobic spores). It is not subject to the stipulation in Section 1445(a)(2)(B)(i) of SDWA that restricts UCMR 

contaminants to not more than 30. List 3 monitoring, including monitoring of microbial indicators, is only required 

at selected small PWSs.

3 Monitoring for total chromium – in conjunction with UCMR 3 Assessment Monitoring – is required under the 

authority provided in Section 1445(a)(1)(A) of SDWA. 
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

16

This action modified the reporting requirements to make reported results more useful for sound 

scientific analyses of the occurrence of unregulated contaminants. The 15 required data elements 

are listed in Exhibit 2. All PWSs must electronically report all 15 data elements with their 

Assessment Monitoring, Screening Survey, and Pre-Screen Testing samples. All PWSs 

participating in UCMR monitoring must inform EPA of any changes to data elements 1 through 

6, if applicable. 

Exhibit 2: UCMR 3 Reporting Requirements

1. Public Water System Identification (PWSID) Code 9. Contaminant

2. Public Water System Facility Identification Code 10. Analytical Method Code

3. Water Source Type 11. Sample Analysis Type

4. Sampling Point Identification Code 12. Analytical Results – Sign

5. Sampling Point Type Identification Code 13. Analytical Result – Value

6. Disinfectant Type 14. Laboratory Identification Code

7. Sample Collection Date 15. Sample Event Code

8. Sample Identification Code

4(b)(i)(b) State Reporting and Record Keeping

UCMR 3 is a direct implementation rule, and therefore states are not required to report to EPA. 

Implementation activities for each state were identified and determined through PAs with EPA. 

If participating in a PA, states review and revise Initial State Monitoring Plans, notify PWSs of 

their UCMR responsibilities, and provide EPA with a list of the PWSs notified. These state 

activities were completed prior to this ICR period. Because states have no specified reporting 

cycle, this analysis assumes that states have 1.0 response per year in 2015 and 2016, 

encompassing all communication and coordination activities with EPA and PWSs. 

4(b)(ii) Respondent Activities 

Respondents include both PWSs and states. PWS and state activities are discussed in sections 

4(b)(ii)(a) and 4(b)(ii)(b), respectively (Part A of this ICR document).

4(b)(ii)(a) Public Water System Activities

To comply with the requirements in this regulation, PWSs conduct the following activities:

• read regulations and/or letter from state or EPA which outline requirements;
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

17

• monitor or provide monitoring assistance (e.g., sample collection and shipping);

• report and maintain records; and 

• report monitoring results to the public.

Each of these activities is discussed in more detail below. 

Read Regulations/State Letter: All PWSs participating in UCMR monitoring read the UCMR 

regulations and/or a state-issued guidance letter during the year in which their monitoring occurs. 

Small PWSs can rely on summarized information from the state or EPA for information 

pertaining to the regulation, rather than reading the regulation. 

Monitoring or Monitoring Assistance: Monitoring activities that are considered in the PWS cost 

and burden estimates include receiving sampling kits from the laboratory, reading sampling 

instructions, traveling to the sampling location and collecting and shipping the sample. 

As noted earlier, for Assessment Monitoring and the Screening survey, surface water (and 

GWUDI) sampling points are monitored four times during the applicable year of monitoring, and 

ground water sampling points are monitored twice during the applicable year of monitoring. 

Monitoring is conducted at EPTDSs. Large ground water PWSs with multiple EPTDSs are only 

required to sample at representative sampling locations for each ground water source, as long as 

those sites have been approved by EPA or the state. In addition, samples for the metals – cobalt, 

molybdenum, vanadium, strontium, total chromium, and chromium-6, – and chlorate under 

Assessment Monitoring are collected from the DSMRT. 

For Pre-Screen Testing, two samples will be collected from EPTDSs from small ground water 

PWSs serving 1,000 or fewer customers during one 12-month monitoring period during 2013-

2015.

Reporting and Record Keeping: Activities related to these reporting requirements include: 

• Reporting Prior to Monitoring- All PWSs implemented the following “reporting 

prior to monitoring” during the previous ICR period (2012-2014).

Contact and zip code information: Large PWSss were required to report contact 

information to EPA. This information included the name, affiliation, mailing 

address, phone number, and email address for the PWS Technical Contact and 

PWS Official (i.e., the official spokesperson for a PWS’s UCMR activities). 

Information was submitted to EPA’s electronic data reporting system within a 

specified time frame after rule promulgation. Small PWSs provided this 

information in response to a specific written request that they received from EPA. 
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

18

As a one-time reporting requirement under UCMR 3, PWSs were required to 

report the U.S. Postal Service Zip Code(s) for all areas being served water by the 

PWS. 

Sampling location and inventory information: Prior to sampling, large PWSs were 

required to provide inventory information to EPA related to each applicable 

sampling location. For each sampling location or each approved representative 

sampling location, large PWSs were required to submit: PWS identification 

(PWSID) code; PWS facility identification code; sampling point identification 

code; sampling point type identification code; and sampling location water type. 

Representative sampling plan proposal: Some PWSs that use ground water as a 

source and have multiple EPTDSs can monitor at representative sampling 

location(s), rather than at each EPTDS. To qualify, these ground water PWSs 

must have either the same treatment or no treatment at all of their well sources 

and they must have an EPTDS for each well within a well field (resulting in 

multiple EPTDSs from the same source, such as an aquifer). PWSs meeting these 

criteria were allowed to submit a proposal to EPA or the state. The proposal had 

to demonstrate that any EPTDS selected as representative of the ground water 

supplied from multiple wells was associated with an individual well that draws 

from the same aquifer as the multiple wells (i.e., those being represented). The 

representative well be one of the higher annual volume producing and more 

consistently active wells in the representative array. If that representative well is 

not in use at the scheduled sampling time, an alternative representative well must 

be sampled.

Representative Intakes from Wholesaler: PWSs that purchase water with multiple 

connections from the same wholesaler are permitted to monitor from one 

representative connection from that wholesaler. PWSs must choose a sampling 

location from among the higher annual volume EPTDS connections. If the 

connection selected as the representative EPTDS is not available for sampling, an 

alternate representative connection must be sampled. 
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

19

• Reporting Monitoring Results

Small PWSs: Small PWSs are only required to record PWS and sample location 

information on the sampling forms and bottles that are sent to them by the UCMR 

Sampling Coordinator. The schedule for submitting this information is specified 

in the instructions sent to the PWS. 

Large PWSs: Laboratories must post the analytical results and associated data 

elements to EPA’s electronic data reporting system within 120 days of sample 

collection. Large PWSs must ensure that their laboratory meets this requirement, 

and those PWSs must review, approve, and submit the data to the state and EPA 

via the electronic reporting system within 60 days from when the laboratory posts 

the data. After 60 days from the laboratory's posting, if the PWS has not taken 

action, the data are considered approved and final for EPA review.

• Record Keeping

Section 141.33 requires PWSs to maintain records of chemical monitoring data 

for 10 years. No changes were made to those record keeping requirements.

Reporting to the Public: SDWA section 1445(a)(2)(E) requires notification of the results of the 

UCMR program to be made available to those served by the PWS. CWSs are required to notify 

their users of the detection of any contaminants (including unregulated contaminants) in their 

Consumer Confidence Reports (CCRs), pursuant to §141.153(d)(3)(iv), published in the Federal 

Register (63 FR 44512, August 19, 1998). Monitoring and reporting violations for all PWSs 

(CWSs, NTNCWSs and TNCWSs) are reportable under the Public Notification Rule (64 FR 

25964, May 13, 1999). No changes were made to these reporting requirements.

4(b)(ii)(b) State Activities 

For UCMR 1, EPA estimated state burdens and costs using the 1993 State Resource Model 

(documented in the “Resource Analysis Computer Program for State Drinking Water 

Agencies”). That model was designed by EPA in coordination with ASDWA and required 

specific input for a list of activities and variables related to state operation of the UCMR drinking 

water program (e.g., number of PWSs affected, estimates of violation rates, etc.). Since that time, 

EPA and ASDWA updated and improved the previous version of the resource model. EPA used 

the updated resource model (the “2001 ASDWA Drinking Water Program Resource Needs Self 

Assessment”, as documented in: “Public Health Protection Threatened by Inadequate Resources 

for State Drinking Water Programs - An Analysis of State Drinking Water Program Resources, 

Needs, and Barriers”; ASDWA, April 2003) to estimate resources that states may need for the 
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

20

oversight and implementation of UCMR 3. Assumptions that were applied in using this resource 

assessment tool are described in section 6(b), Part A of this ICR document. EPA assumed that 

state participation would closely reflect that which occurred during UCMR 2. Therefore, model 

estimates were adjusted to account for actual levels of prior state participation. 

Since UCMR is a direct implementation rule, specifics of each state’s role were delineated in 

PAs between the states and EPA. State activities include coordination activities, data 

management and support, program implementation and training/overhead. Though some states 

may choose to conduct sampling for their PWSs, this activity is not part of the PA agreement and 

is optional. Burden for sampling is currently attributed to PWSs. If states choose to conduct 

monitoring for PWSs, burden would be similar to that estimated for PWSs.

State Coordination with EPA: State activities that involve coordination with EPA include 

coordination and drafting of a PA, review of and response to EPA’s proposed State Monitoring 

Plan, review of PWS proposals for representative ground water sampling locations and general 

ongoing coordination. 

Review of State Monitoring Plans was one of the first UCMR activities to take place at the state 

level. Each state received a proposed initial State Monitoring Plan from EPA, which listed all 

PWSs that would be required to conduct Assessment Monitoring, the Screening Survey, and PreScreen Testing, including small and large PWSs that were statistically selected as a sample, and 

those large PWSs subject to the rule by meeting applicability criteria. For PWSs that are part of 

the sample, EPA also generated a list to provide similar replacement PWSs for states to select 

from, for those PWSs that may not have been correctly specified in the initial plan. If a state 

identified PWSs on the original proposed State Monitoring Plan that it determined were not 

appropriate for the representative ground water sampling locations (e.g., if PWSs are inactive, or 

sell all of their water and do not have their own retail customers), the state could propose an 

alternative plan by selecting other PWSs from EPA’s alternate list to replace the ineligible 

PWSs. The State Monitoring Plans also specified the year and months during which PWSs 

would monitor. States were given the option to modify these schedules. These UCMR 3

activities were completed by states in the previous ICR period, so those activities are not 

applicable to the current ICR period.

EPA assumed that some PWSs that use ground water as a source of water would submit a 

proposal for monitoring at representative sample location(s), rather than monitoring at every 

EPTDS. State involvement in the review of these proposals was determined in the PA process. 

EPA also recognized that it would be necessary for states to maintain ongoing communications 

with EPA regarding UCMR requirements. For example, states could need clarification and 
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

21

guidance on a specific requirement of the regulation. These ongoing communication activities 

are included in estimated burdens across the entire UCMR 3 period of 2012-2016.

Data Management and Support: Though there are no data management and support activities 

included in UCMR, EPA recognizes that many states update their databases to accommodate the 

revised UCMR data elements. Activities likely include data entry/downloading of data and 

general record keeping. 

Program Implementation: Program implementation activities for each state can include 

notification and guidance letter to PWSs, data review, ongoing PWS support and enforcement. 

Following review and finalization of State Monitoring Plans, participating states prepared a 

notification letter that described PWS monitoring schedules and requirements under the 

regulation. These states sent notification to each applicable PWS and sent the list of these 

notified PWSs to EPA. EPA assumed that PWSs would call states asking for clarification and 

guidance about UCMR requirements. States can elect to review monitoring results, in part, to 

determine whether a PWS has met its monitoring and reporting requirements.

State Staff Training and Overhead: EPA assumed that technical staff members would participate 

in rule-specific training designed to assist them in understanding the regulation, their roles and 

responsibilities, and to allow the state to better provide technical assistance to PWSs. General 

overhead costs, such as clerical and managerial needs, are allocated to the UCMR staff 

requirements in the standard State Resource Model, which allocates support staff needs as a 

percentage of professional staff needs. See section 6(b), Part A of this ICR document, for further 

discussion of model assumptions.
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

22

5 INFORMATION COLLECTED–AGENCY ACTIVITIES, 

COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND INFORMATION 

MANAGEMENT

5(a) Agency Activities 

EPA Headquarters and regional offices are responsible for oversight of state PWS programs and 

processing and analysis of UCMR data. EPA implementation activities are categorized into three 

major categories: regulatory support activities; program oversight and data analysis; and small 

PWS testing program, which are described in 5(a)(i)-(iii).

5(a)(i) Regulatory Support Activities 

Regulatory support activities include: laboratory approval and quality assurance/quality control

(QA/QC); and technical support to PWSs, such as guidance documents. 

Laboratory Approval and QA/QC Activities: EPA incurs various costs related to laboratory 

approvals and laboratory quality assurance and control, including the following activities:

• Laboratory approvals/Proficiency Testing (PT) program - EPA assessed whether 

laboratories met the required equipment, laboratory performance and data 

reporting criteria. EPA registered and evaluated laboratories based on the 

applications. Selected laboratories then participated in the UCMR 3 PT program. 

EPA conducted these laboratory assessments during 2012.

• QC audits of contract laboratories - EPA conducts QC audits at each of the 

approved laboratories not more than annually during each UCMR 3 monitoring 

year (January 2013 through December 2015).

• Analytical standards provision and coordination - EPA coordinates and 

distributes specialized analytical standards to participating laboratories.

Technical Support/Guidance Document Development: EPA developed and distributed guidance 

for laboratory calculations and background information about the health effects (e.g., fact sheets) 

of UCMR 3 contaminants. EPA provides technical support throughout the monitoring years of 

2013-2015.
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

23

5(a)(ii) National and Regional Oversight/Data Analysis 

EPA’s UCMR program activities include data analysis, management oversight and 

implementation assistance to states. These are key management and oversight activities that must 

be conducted by EPA Headquarters or its regional offices. Exhibit 3 illustrates the timeline for 

UCMR implementation activities. EPA developed its PAs with states and the State Monitoring 

Plans prior to January 2013, when monitoring began.

Exhibit 3: Timeline of UCMR 3 Activities

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

After proposed 

rule publication:

Lab approval 

program began

After 

applicability 

date: EPA/State 

partnership 

agreements and 

State monitoring 

plans developed 

(incl. national 

representative 

sample)

After final rule 

publication: 

Inform 

PWSs/establish 

monitoring plans

Assessment Monitoring

List 1 Contaminants + Total Chromium

All PWSs serving more than 10,000; 

800 PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer

Complete 

reporting and 

analysis of data

Screening Survey

List 2 Contaminants

All PWSs serving more than 100,000;

320 PWSs serving 10,001 through 100,000;

480 PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer

Pre-Screen Testing

List 3 Contaminants + Indicator Organisms

800 non-disinfecting ground water PWSs in 

vulnerable areas serving 1,000 or fewer
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

24

5(a)(iii) Costs for Small System Testing Program 

Implementation of the small PWS testing program is the largest portion of agency costs for the 

UCMR program. Prior to monitoring, EPA activities for logistical support of the small PWS 

testing program included coordination of small PWS testing and provision of testing supplies. 

During the ICR period, EPA pays for the analytical and shipping costs for small PWSs. EPA also 

collects all of the Pre-Screen Testing samples for all PWSs. EPA conducts some QC activities 

for small PWSs that are not required of the large PWSs. EPA sends duplicates of approximately 

10% of small PWS samples to a separate laboratory for analysis. The quality control duplicates 

provide standard, real time, QC checks among the different contract laboratories. 

5(b) Information Collection Methodology and Management 

Laboratories must report analytical results and associated data elements to EPA’s electronic data 

reporting system. Large PWSs must ensure that their laboratory posts the data in EPA’s 

electronic data reporting system, and must review, approve, and submit the data to the state and 

EPA via the EPA electronic reporting system. Laboratories have 120 days from sample 

collection to report analytical results and required data elements. PWSs have 60 days from the 

laboratory’s posting to review and approve the reported results. After this, if the PWS has not 

taken action, the data are considered approved and final for EPA review. Electronic reporting 

provides significant collection efficiencies, and reduces the possibility of data input error.

The UCMR data are maintained and analyzed through NCOD. The data collected under UCMR 

are used to support regulation development, to analyze the significance of occurrence and health 

effects, and to support the critical agency function of program oversight. The public receives

information regarding UCMR monitoring results through the CCRs, and will be able to access 

data through the NCOD. PWSs that fail to monitor for unregulated contaminants must notify the 

public of their failure to monitor.

EPA conducts ongoing data analysis, which includes checks for anomalies in the data that may 

be related to data entry or laboratory errors. Data quality review and analysis includes: 

continuous analysis of laboratory results, review of all program data, and NCOD review.
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

25

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility 

Note: The following Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act analysis 

summary is the same as that provided in the preamble to the rule. The Regulatory 

Flexibility Act analysis is based on the entire five-year UCMR implementation period 

of 2012-2016, rather than the three-year ICR period of 2015-2017.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions.

The RFA provides default definitions for each type of small entity. Small entities are defined as: 

(1) a small business as defined by the SBA regulations at 13 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any “not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 

and is not dominant in its field.” However, the RFA also authorizes an agency to use alternative 

definitions for each category of small entity, “which are appropriate to the activities of the 

agency” after proposing the alternative definition(s) in the Federal Register and taking comment 

(5 U.S.C. 601(3) - (5)). In addition, to establish an alternative small business definition, agencies 

must consult with SBA’s Chief Counsel for Advocacy.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities, EPA considered small entities 

to be PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people, because this is the system size specified in SDWA 

as requiring special consideration with respect to small system flexibility. As required by the 

RFA, EPA proposed using this alternative definition in the Federal Register (63 FR 7606, 

February 13, 1998 (USEPA, 1998a)), requested public comment, consulted with the SBA, and 

finalized the alternative definition in the CCRs rulemaking (63 FR 44512, August 19, 1998 

(USEPA, 1998b)). Consistent with that Final Rule, the alternative definition has been applied to 

this regulation.

After considering the economic impacts of this rule on small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The small 

entities directly regulated by this rule are PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people. EPA has 

determined that the small entities subject to the requirements of this rule are a subset of the small 

PWSs (those serving 10,000 or fewer people). The agency has determined that 2,080 small 

PWSs (across Assessment Monitoring, Screening Survey and Pre-Screen Testing), or 

approximately 3% of small systems, will experience an impact of no more than 0.4% of 
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

26

revenues; the remainder of small systems will not be impacted. 

Although this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities, EPA has tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. To ensure that 

this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, 

EPA will assume all costs for analyses of the samples and for shipping the samples from these 

systems to the laboratories contracted by EPA to analyze UCMR 3 samples. EPA has set aside 

$2.0 million each year from the State Revolving Fund (SRF) with its authority to use SRF 

monies for the purposes of implementing this provision of SDWA. Thus, the costs to these small 

systems will be limited to the labor hours associated with 2,080 small systems assisting EPA in 

collecting UCMR samples and preparing them for shipping.

The evaluation of the overall impact on small systems, summarized in the preceding discussion, 

is further described as follows. EPA analyzed the impacts for privately-owned and publiclyowned water systems separately due to the different economic characteristics of these ownership 

types, such as different rate structures and profit goals. For both publicly- and privately-owned 

systems, EPA used the “revenue test,” which compares annual system costs attributed to the rule 

to the system’s annual revenues. Median revenue data from the 2006 Community Water System 

Survey Volume II: Detailed Tables and Survey Methodology 

(http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/drinkingwater/pws/upload/cwssreportvolumeII2006.pdf)

were used for public and private water systems. EPA assumes that the distribution of the sample 

of participating small systems will reflect the proportions of publicly- and privately-owned 

systems in the national inventory. The estimated distribution of the representative sample, 

categorized by ownership type, source water and system size is presented in Exhibit 4.

Exhibit 4: Number of Publicly- and Privately-Owned Small Systems Subject to UCMR 3

System Size

(# of people served) Publicly-Owned Privately-Owned Total

Ground Water

500 and under 134 402 536

501 to 3,300 548 209 757

3,301 to 10,000 286 66 352

Subtotal GW 968 677 1,645
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

27

Exhibit 4: Number of Publicly- and Privately-Owned Small Systems Subject to UCMR 3

System Size

(# of people served) Publicly-Owned Privately-Owned Total

Surface Water (and GWUDI)

500 and under 7 9 16

501 to 3,300 98 35 133

3,301 to 10,000 222 64 286

Subtotal SW 327 108 435

Total of Small Water Systems 1,295 785 2,080

The basis for the UCMR 3 RFA certification for this final rule is as follows: for the 2,080 small 

water systems that will be affected, the average annual costs for complying with this rule 

represent 0.4% of system revenues (the highest estimated percentage is for ground water systems 

serving 500 or fewer people, at 0.40% of its median revenue). Exhibit 5 presents the annual costs 

to small systems and to EPA for the small system sampling program, along with an illustration of 

system participation for each year of the UCMR 3 program.

Exhibit 5: EPA and Systems Costs for Implementation of UCMR 3 at Small Systems

Cost Description 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

Costs to EPA for Small System Program (including Assessment Monitoring, the Screening Survey, and Pre-Screen 

Testing)

$0.00 $5,407,232.66 $5,407,232.66 $5,407,232.66 $0.00 $16,221,697.97

Costs to Small Systems (including Assessment Monitoring, the Screening Survey, and Pre-Screen Testing):

$0.00 $110,719.99 $110,719.99 $110,719.99 $0.00 $332,159.97

Total Costs to EPA and Small Systems for UCMR 3:

$0.00 $5,517,952.65 $5,517,952.65 $5,517,952.65 $0 $16,553,857.94

System Monitoring Activity Timeline:1

Assessment 

Monitoring

1/3 PWSs 

Sample

1/3 PWSs 

Sample

1/3 PWSs 

Sample 800
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

28

Exhibit 5: EPA and Systems Costs for Implementation of UCMR 3 at Small Systems

Cost Description 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

Screening Survey 1/3 PWSs 

Sample

1/3 PWSs 

Sample

1/3 PWSs 

Sample 480

Pre-Screen 

Testing

1/3 PWSs 

Sample

1/3 PWSs 

Sample

1/3 PWSs 

Sample 800

1 Total number of systems is 2,080. No small system conducts more than one type of monitoring study.

System costs are attributed to the labor required for reading about their requirements, training 

staff on requirements, monitoring, including travel time needed to collect samples, reporting and 

record keeping. The estimated average annual burden across the five-year UCMR 3

implementation period of 2012-2016 is estimated to be 1.4 hours at $32 per small system. 

Average annual cost, in all cases, is less than or equal to 0.40% of system revenues. As required 

by SDWA, the agency specifically structured the rule to avoid significantly affecting small 

entities by assuming all costs for laboratory analyses, shipping and quality control for small 

entities. As a result, EPA incurs the entirety of the non-labor costs associated with UCMR 3

small system monitoring, or 98% of total small system testing costs. Exhibits 6 and 7 present the 

estimated economic impacts in the form of a revenue test for publicly- and privately-owned 

systems.

Exhibit 6: UCMR 3 Relative Cost Analysis for Small Publicly-Owned Systems (2012-2016)

System Size

(# of people 

served)

Annual 

Number of 

Systems 

Impacted

Average 

Annual Hours 

per System 

(2012-2016)

Average 

Annual Cost 

per System 

(2012-2016)

Revenue Test 1, 2

Ground Water Systems

500 and under 27 1.14 $24.16 0.08%

501 to 3,300 110 1.24 $27.67 0.02%

3,301 to 10,000 57 1.57 $39.74 0.01%

Surface Water (and GWUDI) Systems

500 and under 1 1.63 $34.71 0.06%

501 to 3,300 20 1.69 $37.74 0.02%

3,301 to 10,000 44 1.79 $45.35 0.005%
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

29

1 The “Revenue Test” was used to evaluate the economic impact of an information collection on small government entities (e.g., 

publicly-owned systems); costs are presented as a percentage of median annual revenue in each size category.

2 Median revenue data from the 2006 Community Water System Survey Volume II: Detailed Tables and Survey Methodology 

(http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/drinkingwater/pws/upload/cwssreportvolumeII2006.pdf) were used for public and private 

water systems.

Exhibit 7: UCMR 3 Relative Cost Analysis for Small Privately-Owned Systems (2012-2016)

System Size

(# of people 

served)

Annual Number 

of Systems 

Impacted

Average Annual 

Hours per 

System (2012-

2016)

Average Annual 

Cost per System 

(2012-2016)

Revenue Test 1, 2

Ground Water Systems

500 and under 80 1.14 $24.16 0.40%

501 to 3,300 42 1.24 $27.67 0.02%

3,301 to 10,000 13 1.57 $39.74 0.004%

Surface Water (and GWUDI) Systems

500 and under 2 1.63 $34.71 0.10%

501 to 3,300 7 1.69 $37.74 0.01%

3,301 to 10,000 13 1.79 $45.35 0.005%

1 The “Revenue Test” was used to evaluate the economic impact of an information collection on small private entities (e.g., 

privately-owned systems); costs are presented as a percentage of median annual revenue in each size category.

2 Median revenue data from the 2006 Community Water System Survey Volume II: Detailed Tables and Survey Methodology 

(http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/drinkingwater/pws/upload/cwssreportvolumeII2006.pdf) were used for public and private 

water systems.

EPA specifically solicited additional comment on the impact of the proposed action on small 

systems. No comments were received.

5(d) Collection Schedule 

For Assessment Monitoring and the Screening Survey, surface water or GWUDI PWSs collect 

four samples as follows: PWSs selected either the first, second, or third month of a quarter and 

then collect samples in that same month of each of four consecutive quarters to ensure that one 

of those sampling events occurs during the vulnerable time. Ground water PWSs collect samples 

two times in a year as follows: PWSs collect samples during one month of the vulnerable time 

(typically May through July) and during one month, five to seven months earlier or later. For 
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

30

Pre-Screen Testing, EPA collects two samples for small PWSs at selected undisinfected ground 

water EPTDS locations for enteroviruses and noroviruses on the same schedule as for ground 

water PWSs under Assessment Monitoring. Small PWSs must also allow the collection of 

samples for total coliform, E. coli, bacteriophage, Enterococci and aerobic spores. Small PWSs 

were selected for no more than one component of UCMR monitoring. UCMR activities that 

occur prior to 2015 are not included in this ICR analysis. Appendix B contains estimations for 

the five-year UCMR 3 program, 2012-2016. Exhibits 3 and 9 illustrate the timeline of general 

UCMR activities, and PWS monitoring activities, respectively.
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

31

6 ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

This section describes the respondent burden and cost for activities under UCMR 3. The burden 

and cost estimates for PWSs are shown in section 6(a), burden and costs to states are shown in 

section 6(b), and the agency's burden and cost estimates are shown in section 6(c) (all in Part A 

of this ICR document). 

This ICR focuses only on the cost of the UCMR data collection over the years 2015-2017. Cost 

tables that are presented in this section have analogous tables in Appendix B, which present costs 

for the entire monitoring cycle (2012-2016). 

There are two primary categories of costs associated with UCMR: (1) labor costs, such as 

program implementation, sample collection, record keeping, reporting and data analysis; and (2) 

non-labor costs, such as laboratory fees for analyses of samples, shipping charges and contractor 

costs. The majority of costs are directly attributed to monitoring activities and the fees for 

laboratory analytical services. Assessment Monitoring addresses a list of 21 chemical

contaminants (20 unregulated, plus total chromium); the Screening Survey addresses 7 

unregulated chemical contaminants, and the Pre-Screen Testing targets 2 unregulated microbial 

contaminants. For consistency, the sources and assumptions that were used for the 2012-2014

UCMR 3 ICR period are also used for the 2015-2017 UCMR 3 ICR period.

EPA is committed to accurately characterizing the burden and costs of rules it promulgates. In 

the development of various drinking water program rule ICRs, EPA developed a consistent set of 

assumptions to use in calculations. These have been developed and utilized in other drinking 

water program evaluations. Pertinent to the UCMR ICR are the standard assumptions for labor 

rates, PWS inventory numbers (the number of PWSs in the various size categories by primary 

water source), the number of sampling points for each PWS and analytical services. The sources 

and assumptions used in estimating costs and burdens are described in this section.

6(a) Estimating Burden and Cost to Public Water Systems 

Specific assumptions used in estimating PWS labor burden and cost, as well as non-labor costs 

are discussed in sections 6(a)(i) and 6(a)(ii), respectively (Part A of this ICR document). A 

summary of the cost estimates is provided in section 6(a)(iii), Part A of this ICR document.

EPA used the following sources of PWS information to develop cost and burden estimates: 

• Inventory Data: CWS and NTNCWS inventory was based on a December 31, 

2010, inventory extract from SDWIS/Fed.
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

32

• EPTDS Data: All EPTDS data were taken from the Community Water System 

Survey Volume II: Detailed Tables and Survey Methodology 

(http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/drinkingwater/pws/upload/cwssreportvolumeI

I2006.pdf).

• DSMRT Data: The number of DSMRT samples per PWS was estimated by taking 

the average number of treatment plants per PWS from the 2006 CWSS. The

average number of CWS treatment plants was used to represent the number of 

NTNCWS treatment plants. This provides a conservative estimate because

NTNCWSs tend to have fewer treatment plants than CWSs.

6(a)(i) Estimating Burden and Labor Costs 

The general timing of monitoring was discussed in section 1(b) Short Characterization of Part A 

of this document. The UCMR program affects approximately 6,295 PWSs, roughly one-third of 

which will conduct monitoring in 2015. Exhibit 8 presents the estimated numbers of regulated 

PWSs s to participate. Exhibit 9 presents the timeline in which the PWS monitoring activities

take place.

As noted in Section 3(b), some public commenters felt that EPA underestimated PWS burden. In 

response to these comments, EPA reviewed the UCMR burden estimates against burden 

estimates used in recently published drinking water rules. In all aspects of burden assumptions 

(e.g., time allotted for reading rule requirements, sampling reporting, etc.), the UCMR estimates 

were on par with, or more conservative (higher) than estimates made for other drinking water 

regulations. All per PWS burden estimates represent average burden hours, which include 

surface water PWSs that may have very few sampling points, and thus lower sampling burden, as 

well as those PWSs s with higher numbers of sampling points that would therefore have greater 

sampling activity labor burden. A PWS's burden is primarily incurred during its one year of 

required UCMR monitoring. However, in compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), these cost and burden estimates are presented as an 

average over the applicable three-year ICR period. Small PWSs have the lowest burden because 

of the smaller size of their infrastructure, and because these PWSs receive a great deal of direct 

assistance from EPA and/or their state.
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

33

Exhibit 8: PWSs to Participate in UCMR 3 Monitoring 

PWS Size

Assessment Monitoring 

for

21 List 1 Chemicals

Screening Survey 

for 7 List 2 

Hormones

Pre-Screen Testing 

for 2 List 3 

Microbials1

TOTAL2

National Sample

Small PWS

25 – 10,000 800 randomly selected 

PWSs

480 randomly 

selected PWSs

800 selected 

undisinfected 

ground water 

wells at PWSs

serving 1,000 or 

fewer

~2,080

Large PWSs

10,001 and 

over

All (~4,215)

320 large PWS s 

(serving 10,001 to 

100,000)

413 very large 

PWSs (all serving 

over 100,000)

0 ~4,2153

TOTAL ~5,015 1,213 800 ~6,295

1 Sampling for List 3 contaminants to be conducted at 800 undisinfected ground water PWSs serving 1,000 or fewer customers.

2 Total for small PWSs is additive because these PWSs would only be selected for one component of UCMR 3 sampling.

3 Total for large PWSs is not additive because some of the same PWSs will monitor for both List 1 and List 2 contaminants.
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

34

Exhibit 9: UCMR 3 Sampling Activity Timeline for Cost and Burden Estimations

UCMR 3 – 2012 – 2016

2012 2013 2014

2015 2016

Designated ICR Years

No UCMR 

Monitoring 

Activity

Assessment Monitoring1

No UCMR 

Monitoring 

Activity

~ 1/3 of PWSs sample ~ 1/3 of PWSs sample ~ 1/3 of PWSs sample

Screening Survey

~ 1/3 of PWSs sample ~ 1/3 of PWSs sample ~ 1/3 of PWSs sample

Pre-Screen Testing

~ 1/3 of PWSs sample ~ 1/3 of PWSs sample ~ 1/3 of PWSs sample

1 The following assumptions, based on the specifications in UCMR 3, were used to estimate cost and burden: 

• All Assessment Monitoring, Screening Survey and Pre-Screen Testing PWSs will conduct sampling evenly 

across January 2013-December 2015 (i.e., one-third in each of the 3 consecutive 12-month periods). 

• Approximately two-thirds of PWSs conducted monitoring in 2013 and 2014, and approximately one-third of 

PWSs conduct monitoring during the ICR years of 2015-2017. 

The PWS labor burden consists of three primary activities: (1) reading the regulations or state

guidance letter; (2) monitoring or monitoring assistance; and (3) reporting and record keeping. 

Hourly labor rates (including overhead) vary by PWS size and are taken from the 2006 CWSS. 

Estimated hourly rates range from $21 per hour for staff in PWSs serving 500 or fewer people to 

$38 per hour for PWSs serving more than 100,000 people (see Exhibit 10 for details). 

Exhibit 10: Labor Rates Applied for Public Water Systems 

System Size Labor Rate1

500 and under $21.24

501 to 3,300 $22.34

3,301 to 10,000 $25.36

10,001 to 50,000 $30.90

50,001 to 100,000 $32.95

100,001 and over $38.30

1 PWS hourly labor rates (including overhead) were taken from the 2006 CWSS. Rates are for both ground water and 

surface water/GWUDI PWSs. Wages converted to 2010 dollars using the Employment Cost Index for wages and salaries 
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

35

in trade, transport, and utilities for 2006, and in utilities for December 2009; accessed http://www.bls.gov on April 14, 

2010.

6(a)(i)(a) Reading the Regulations/Guidance Letter 

For each required UCMR 3 tier (Assessment Monitoring, the Screening Survey or Pre-Screen 

Testing), EPA assumed that PWSs read the regulations and/or a state-issued guidance letter 

during the year in which PWSs monitor. Approximately one-third of PWSs read the regulations 

or a state-issued guidance letter in 2015. Small PWSs can rely on the state and EPA for 

information pertaining to their requirements, rather than reading the regulation; EPA assumed 

small PWSs would spend 1 hour, on average, reading the letter or guidance. EPA assumed that 

PWSs serving more than 10,000 people read the regulation and information from the state, 

requiring on average 4 hours. National costs are estimated by multiplying the average burden 

hours by the average PWS labor rate, times the number of PWSs affected. This reading burden is 

assumed for each UCMR component. Small PWSs were only selected for one component of 

UCMR monitoring, thus each small PWS selected to monitor has 1 hour to read a letter or 

guidance. Some large and very large PWSs monitor for Assessment Monitoring and the 

Screening Survey, thus these PWSs receive 4 hours for each UCMR 3 component.

6(a)(i)(b) Monitoring Burden 

Exhibit 9 provides an illustration of the timeline for PWS sampling activity. For both 

Assessment Monitoring and Pre-Screen Testing, EPA assumed that each PWS incurs an 

estimated burden of 0.5 hours per sampling point to collect samples for analysis. For the 

Screening Survey, EPA assumed that small PWSs incur an estimated burden of 0.5 hours per 

sampling point to collect samples for analysis. No additional sampling burden was assumed for 

the large and very large PWSs because EPA assumed these PWSs collect Assessment 

Monitoring and Screening Survey samples at the same time. 

EPA estimated additional time for the Pre-Screen Testing systems because they may need to help 

EPA identify the location of sampling points and obtain access to sampling points that may be 

physically secured. EPA assumed that some PWS staff would want to accompany EPA when the 

samples are collected. This assumption overestimates the cost for some Pre-Screen Testing 

PWSs. The monitoring burden for Assessment Monitoring includes receipt of monitoring kit, 

reading laboratory instructions, travel time to collect samples and collection and shipping of 

samples. It is calculated by: (hour burden per sampling point) times (number of sampling points) 

times (number of PWSs) times (number of sample events per year). This estimate is an average. 

Some PWSs need less than 0.5 hours per sampling point to collect a sample, while other PWSs 

need more time. Many ground water PWSs realize savings in their sampling burden as a result of 

the allowance for representative sample points. Thus, sampling burden is calculated to account 
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

36

for the estimated reduction in entry points where these PWSs will sample (as described in section 

6(a)(ii), Part A of this ICR document). Certain PWSs that purchase all of their water from a 

single wholesaler, and that have more than one connection to that wholesaler, may elect to 

sample from only one entry point. This cost savings has not been factored into the cost estimates, 

so the sampling costs are conservative. 

6(a)(i)(c) Reporting and Record Keeping 

PWSs were required to report specific information prior to monitoring, and are required to report 

some information with their monitoring results. 

• Reporting Prior to Monitoring: As with the reading burden (described above, in 

Section 6(a)(i)(a)), all initial reporting prior to UCMR 3 monitoring (including 

proposals for representative EPTDSs) is complete, and not part of the applicable 

ICR period. The initial reporting burden was accounted for in the first UCMR 3 

ICR period of 2012-2014, and is included in Appendix B.

Small PWSs: EPA assumed that small PWSs only needed to confirm contact 

information prior to monitoring. EPA estimated this one-time reporting burden 

would take PWSs 2 hours.

Large surface water (and GWUDI) PWSs: EPA assumed that large surface 

water/GWUDI PWSs would send contact and sampling point information, and 

were allotted a one-time reporting burden of 6 hours.

Large ground water PWSs: EPA assumed that large ground water PWSs would

send contact and sampling point information, which would require a one-time 

burden of 6 hours. An additional 8 hours were allotted to some ground water 

PWSs to account for compilation and submission of ground water representative 

sampling locations proposals. Since it was unlikely that all PWSs would submit 

these proposals, EPA conservatively assumed that half of ground water PWSs 

serving 10,001 to 100,000 people would compile and submit this proposal; EPA

assumed that all ground water PWSs serving more than 100,000 people would do 

so. 
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

37

• Reporting with Monitoring Results

Small PWSs: Small PWSs can review their UCMR monitoring results, but are not 

required to review and approve their analytical results. Some PWSs may not 

review sample results at all, while others may review the sample results in detail. 

As a conservative assumption, EPA estimated that it would take each small PWSs

0.5 hours per sampling period for data review.

Large PWSs: Large PWSs must review, approve, and submit the data to the state 

and EPA via the EPA electronic reporting system. EPA assumed it would take 

these PWSs 2 hours per sampling period for data review. 

6(a)(i)(d) Public Notification 

PWSs are required to notify their users of the detection of any unregulated contaminants. CWSs 

must report UCMR monitoring results in CCRs (63 FR 44512 (August 19, 1998)). CWSs,

NTNCWSs, and TNCWSs must report any failure to monitor for unregulated contaminants 

required through UCMR under the Public Notification Rule (64 FR 25964 (May 13, 1999)). No 

additional public notification burden is assumed under UCMR.

6(a)(ii) Estimating Non-labor Costs 

Under UCMR, small PWSs only incur labor costs. By design of the rule, EPA assumed all 

laboratory and shipping costs for PWSs in the national representative sample of small PWS. 

Thus, the laboratory fee and shipping cost estimates described here are the basis for EPA and 

large PWS non-labor costs.

The most significant cost associated with the implementation of UCMR is the cost of laboratory 

services for sample analysis. Estimates of laboratory analytical costs associated with the analysis 

of each sample are presented in this section. UCMR 3 sampling and analysis does not coincide 

with other compliance monitoring. EPA estimates are based on consultations with national 

drinking water laboratories. 

In addition to the required initial sample collection, UCMR 3 also specifies requirements for the 

collection and analysis of field blank samples for Methods 524.3 (VOCs), 537 (PFCs), and 539 

(hormones). These field blank samples must be collected with every sample, and must be 

analyzed when a contaminant is detected in the primary sample, to provide an additional degree 

of QA/QC. Individual laboratories have different approaches to the cost and fees for handling 

field blanks. EPA conservatively assumed that laboratories would take certain analytical steps 
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

38

with all field blank samples to ensure field blanks would not exceed required holding times. The 

estimates assume that field blank samples for Methods 539 and 537 are always extracted, and 

that the field blank samples for Method 524.3 are always analyzed. In addition, average cost 

includes the additional cost to complete the analysis of field blank samples and report the results 

for a certain estimated percentage of these samples. 

To estimate what percentage of samples could be “positive”, and thus require analysis and 

reporting for field blanks, EPA reviewed available drinking water contaminant occurrence data. 

Using average occurrence rates, EPA conservatively assumed that 30% of field blanks would be 

analyzed and reported for VOCs (Method 524.3) and perfluorinated chemicals (Method 537), 

and 10% of field blanks for hormones (Method 539). More detailed information is provided on 

existing contaminant occurrence data in the document “UCMR 3 Contaminants - Information 

Compendium” (EPA 815-B-11-001), which can be found in the docket for the final UCMR 3

rule.

Assessment Monitoring (List 1) Analytical Costs

Method Type Average Analysis Cost per 

UCMR 3 Sample 1

Synthetic Organic Compound using EPA Method 522 

(GC/MS) $175.00

7 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) using EPA Method 

524.3

$187.50

5 Metals using EPA Method 200.8 or alternate SM or ASTM 

Methods2 $103.75

Chromium-6 using EPA Method 218.7 ((Ion Chromatography 

/Ultraviolet-Visible Spectroscopic(IC/UV-VIS))

$100.00

Oxyhalide Anion using EPA Method 300.1 (IC/Conductivity) 

or alternate SM or ASTM Methods $50.00

6 Perfluorinated Chemicals using EPA Method 537 $468.33

Total $1,084.58

1 Field blank samples are only required for EPA Methods 539 (LC/MS/MS), 524.3 (GC/MS) and 537 (liquid chromatography 

(LC/MS/MS)).

2 The analytical cost for Method 200.8 (inductively coupled plasma – mass spectrometry (ICP/MS)) includes the cost of total 

chromium monitoring.

Screening Survey (List 2) Analytical Costs

Method Type Average Analysis Cost per 

UCMR 3 Sample 1

7 Hormones using EPA Method 539 $418.33

Total $418.33
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

39

Pre-Screen Testing (List 3) Analytical Costs

Method Average Analysis Cost

Enterovirus and norovirus $1,500.00

Pathogen Indicators 2$380.00

Total $1,880.00

1 The average analytical cost for Pre-Screen Testing was determined by averaging estimates provided by three drinking water 

laboratories. 

2 Pathogen indicators include total coliform, E. coli, bacteriophage, Enterococci and aerobic spores.

In estimating the cost of samples for the Pre-Screen Testing (List 3) viruses and indicators, EPA 

increased the number of samples collected for QA purposes from the number in the proposed 

preamble and rule. In addition to the 1,600 samples collected for each virus and indicator, EPA 

estimated that up to 1,000 QA samples would be collected and analyzed.

UCMR 3 specifies that samples be collected at EPTDSs. Some large PWSs that use ground water 

sources and have multiple EPTDSs may be able to realize significant savings by sampling 

representative sample point(s) rather than sampling each EPTDS. PWSs must meet certain PWS

configuration criteria; submit a proposal regarding representative sample points; and receive 

approval from EPA or the state. Labor related to submission and coordination of these proposals 

is discussed in section 6(a)(i)(c), Part A of this ICR document. To account for the savings on 

laboratory fees that will be realized by large ground water PWSs, EPA assumed that large PWSs

would sample approximately 75% of the current EPTDSs, and that very large PWSs would 

sample at 50% of the current EPTDS. 

PWSs that purchase all of their water from a wholesale PWS, and that have more than one intake

from that wholesaler may collect EPTDS samples from a representative intake. The 

representative site has to be one of the higher annual volume EPTDS connections. Because this 

is the first time this allowance has been made, EPA did not attempt to estimate the number of 

PWSs that would take advantage of this allowance. Thus, the cost estimates presented in this 

ICR are conservative.

PWSs that are required to conduct Assessment Monitoring are also required to collect samples 

for total chromium, chromium-6, cobalt, molybdenum, strontium, vanadium and chlorate at the 

DSMRT (Methods 200.8, 300.1, and 218.7).

Shipping fees were calculated per required sample. EPA assumed that, for each sampling point, a 

package of empty sample bottles is shipped via ground transportation to the PWS; estimated at 

$17 per package. Following sample collection, the PWS sends the package with full bottles via 

overnight air back to the laboratory. To estimate the cost of this overnight shipment, EPA 

applied the approximate cost of shipping a 25 pound package across an average number of 

shipping zones at $80. The shipping cost for a large PWS is $97 per sample. Shipping costs were 
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

40

estimated based on pricing information posted on: http://www.fedex.com/ and 

http://www.ups.com/; accessed May 2010. 

Total laboratory and shipping fees were estimated per required sampling location (accounting for 

both the ground water representative sampling locations allowance, and the additional DSMRT 

samples, as described in the previous paragraphs), per sampling event, as follows: (number of 

PWSs) times (number of periods per year) times (number of sampling points per PWS) times 

(method and shipping costs). 

6(a)(iii) Summary of Labor and Non-labor Costs to Public Water Systems 

Exhibit 11a displays a summary of labor and non-labor costs, by year, for the three-year ICR 

period. Analogous information presenting estimated costs over the five-year UCMR 3

implementation period is provided in Exhibit B-1a, in Appendix B. Small PWSs incur labor costs 

only. Large PWSs incur both labor and non-labor costs.

The nationwide cost to PWSs for implementing the total UCMR program over the three-year 

ICR period is $20.9 million. Large and very large PWSs incur about 99.5% of the total PWS

cost, $20.8 million. Annual cost per small PWSs for UCMR implementation over the three-year 

ICR period is $53 per PWSs, all attributed to labor. Annual cost per large PWSs is $258 for labor 

plus $3,928 for analytical (non-labor) costs; with very large PWSs costs of $479 for labor plus 

$11,394 for analytical (non-labor) costs. Exhibits 8 and 9 illustrate numbers of PWSs

participating and timing of monitoring. Per PWSs labor burdens and costs are presented in 

Exhibit 11b. This exhibit presents a summary of burden and cost per response. Analogous 

information for the five-year implementation period is provided in Exhibit B-1b, in Appendix B.

“Response” is defined as each required reporting event for a PWS. All labor and non-labor costs 

associated with a reporting event (reading the regulations, monitoring and reporting) are included 

in the per response cost estimate.
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

41

Exhibit 11a: Yearly Cost to Systems, by PWS Size and by Type of Cost (2015-2017)

(corresponds to Exhibit B-1a)

Cost Description 2015 2016 2017 Total

SMALL PWSs (standard sample serving 10,000 or fewer people)

Labor Costs

Reading and Initial 

Reporting $46,459.22 $0.00 $0.00 $46,459.22

Monitoring $44,811.37 $0.00 $0.00 $44,811.37

Reporting of Results $19,449.40 $0.00 $0.00 $19,449.40

Non-Labor Costs (Laboratory Analysis and Shipping (paid for by EPA))

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Subtotal – Small PWSs $110,719.99 $0.00 $0.00 $110,719.99

LARGE PWSs (serving 10,001 to 100,000 people)

Labor Costs

Reading and Initial 

Reporting $467,260.15 $0.00 $0.00 $467,260.15

Monitoring $260,570.02 $0.00 $0.00 $260,570.02

Reporting of Results $254,970.73 $0.00 $0.00 $254,970.73

Non-Labor Costs (Laboratory Analysis and Shipping)

$14,935,269.58 $0.00 $0.00 $14,935,269.58

Subtotal – Large PWSs $15,918,070.47 $0.00 $0.00 $15,918,070.47

VERY LARGE PWSs (serving greater than 100,000 people)

Labor Costs

Reading and Initial 

Reporting $74,890.17 $0.00 $0.00 $74,890.17

Monitoring $84,294.07 $0.00 $0.00 $84,294.07

Reporting of Results $38,708.94 $0.00 $0.00 $38,708.94

Non-Labor Costs (Laboratory Analysis and Shipping)

$4,705,632.07 $0.00 $0.00 $4,705,632.07

Subtotal – Very Large 

PWSs $4,903,525.25 $0.00 $0.00 $4,903,525.25

ALL PWSs

Total Labor for All 

Systems $1,291,414.07 $0.00 $0.00 $1,291,414.07

Total Non-Labor for All 

Systems $19,640,901.65 $0.00 $0.00 $19,640,901.65

Total Labor and NonLabor for All PWSs $20,932,315.71 $0.00 $0.00 $20,932,315.71
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

42

Exhibit 11b: Per PWS (Respondent) and Per Response UCMR Costs (2015-2017) 

(corresponds with Exhibit B-1b)

Burden / Cost

Total over 2015-2017 Annual Average over 2015-2017

Small PWSs Large PWSs Very Large 

PWSs

Small PWSs Large PWSs Very Large 

PWSs

PER RESPONDENT:

Labor Cost $159.69 $775.49 $1,437.48 $53.23 $258.50 $479.16

Non-Labor Cost $0.00 $11,784.80 $34,181.35 $0.00 $3,928.27 $11,393.78

Burden (labor hours) 6.88 24.83 37.53 2.29 8.28 12.51

PER RESPONSE:

Number Responses per 

Respondent 2.41 3.22 3.67 0.80 1.07 1.22

Labor Cost per 

Response $66.25 $240.65 $391.61 $22.08 $80.22 $130.54

Non-Labor Cost per 

Response $0.00 $3,657.02 $9,311.94 $0.00 $1,219.01 $3,103.98

Burden (labor hours) 

per Response 2.85 7.70 10.22 0.95 2.57 3.41

6(b) Estimating the Burden and Cost to States 

Since UCMR is a direct implementation rule, individual state costs largely depend on 

specifications in their PA. EPA assumed that states incur only labor costs, because no capital 

investments are expected for UCMR 3. Because states are involved in a variety of UCMR 

implementation and oversight activities but have few defined responses, burden estimates are 

based on yearly activities. Thus, for “per response” estimates, states have an average of 1.0

response per year.

EPA used the “2001 ASDWA Drinking Water Program Resource Needs Self Assessment” to 

estimate state burden and cost for the implementation and oversight of UCMR 3. ASDWA 

developed this assessment tool (or model) to assist states in estimating the resources needed to 

implement their statewide drinking water programs (in both full-time equivalent staff (FTEs) and 

dollars). In 2000, the United States General Accounting Office used a previous version of this 
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

43

model to estimate nationwide drinking water program needs for Congress. The tool was later 

updated and improved based on comments from 27 states. To make the model easier to use, 

ASDWA established suggested salary and benefit ranges (i.e., default values), resource needs for 

the various NPDWRs, and other key variables. 

EPA used the default values (or average values within a default range) that were provided in the 

model to estimate the national burden and cost for state UCMR 3 activities. Defaults included: 

 one FTE is equivalent to 1,800 hours per year; overhead and holidays, sick leave, etc. are 

accounted for in default loading of base salaries;

 professional and support staff salaries vary for different sized states (very small, small, 

medium, large, very large); and

 suggested ranges of FTEs for the implementation of the Phase II/V, Arsenic, and UCMR 

programs (i.e., the relevant subsection of the model).

The model bundled the state resource needs for Phase II/V, Arsenic and UCMR because of the 

inherent overlap and similarities in the programs. EPA needed to “extract” the UCMR costs from 

the aggregated costs. Based on professional judgment and consultations with staff from three 

state drinking water programs (California, Connecticut and Nebraska) regarding the relative 

magnitude of the UCMR program, EPA assumed that: 

 during the first and last year of the five-year UCMR period (2012 and 2016), when there 

are no monitoring activities, UCMR represents 1% of the bundled program resource 

needs (although the costs for 2012 are not relevant to the current ICR estimations);

 during the three years when monitoring is conducted, UCMR represents 3% of the 

bundled program resource needs.

EPA ran the model for each of the state size categories that were based on the number of PWSs

for which states have drinking water program oversight responsibilities. To estimate nationwide 

costs, the size-specific “per state” estimates that are generated by the model were then multiplied 

by the number of states in each size category, as shown in Exhibit 12. 

EPA further refined the model estimates by taking the level of state participation under UCMR 2

into consideration. EPA reviewed key areas of state participation under UCMR 2, including: 

review and revision to the State Monitoring Plans; assisting EPA with updates to information for 

large PWSs; two separate sets of PWS notifications; and compliance assistance. Based on levels 

of involvement in each of these UCMR activities, states typically participated in 50 to 100% of 

their optional UCMR activities. However, some states chose not to participate at all. Burden 
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

44

estimates generated from the resource model were multiplied by this “percent participation in 

UCMR 2” to approximate state costs at expected participation levels under UCMR 3. 

Exhibit 12: Number of States in Each Size Category (State Resource Model Assumptions)

Size Category Number of States

Very Small 10

Small 11

Medium 23

Large 10

Very Large 2

Total 56

EPA estimates that the average annual burden over the 3 ICR years (2015-2017) for 56 states to 

implement UCMR is 4,103 hours (or 73 hours per state per year), with an average annual cost of 

$472,489 (or $8,437 per state per year). See Exhibits 13a and 13b for a summary of estimated 

state burdens and costs (analogous five-year information for 2012-2016 provided in Exhibits B2a and B-2b, in Appendix B).

Exhibit 13a: Yearly Cost and Burden to States for Implementation of UCMR 3 (2015-

2017)

1

(corresponds with Exhibit B-2a)

Cost/Burden 2015 2016 2017 Total Annual 

Average

Costs to all states for labor related to UCMR implementation and oversight

$1,055,186 $362,280 $0.00 $1,417,466 $472,489

Labor burden for all states for UCMR implementation and oversight (number of hours)

6,202 6,108 0 12,310 4,103

1 All costs are attributed to labor and are estimated over the period 2015-2017. 

Exhibit 13b: Per State (Respondent) and Per Response UCMR 3 Costs (2015-2017) 

(corresponds with Exhibit B-2b)

Burden / Cost Total over 2015-2017 Annual Average 

over 2015-2017

PER RESPONDENT:

Labor Cost $25,312 $8,437

Non-Labor Cost $0.00 $0.00

Burden (labor hours) 219.82 73.27

PER RESPONSE:

Number Responses per Respondent1 2.00 0.67
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

45

Exhibit 13b: Per State (Respondent) and Per Response UCMR 3 Costs (2015-2017) 

(corresponds with Exhibit B-2b)

Burden / Cost Total over 2015-2017 Annual Average 

over 2015-2017

Labor Cost per Response $12,655.95 $4,218.65

Non-Labor Cost per Response $0.00 $0.00

Burden (labor hours) per Response 109.91 36.64

1 States have 1 response per year, since there are no specific cyclical state reporting requirements under the UCMR program. 

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost 

EPA incurs burden and costs related to UCMR implementation activities, including: regulatory 

support activities; national and regional oversight and data analysis; and the small PWS testing 

program. These activities are described in detail in section 5(a), Part A of this ICR document. 

Labor and contractual costs are estimated using the federal government general schedule (GS) 

pay scale; assuming a labor level of GS 13, step 5, and taken from the Maryland/District of 

Columbia rate schedule during the first quarter of 2010 (see the U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management website: www.opm.gov). With these assumptions, labor and contractor rates were 

based on a 2,080 hour work year, with an $81,723 annual salary plus 60% overhead, or $62.86 

per hour. Additional cost assumptions are described in sections 6(c)(i)-(iii), Part A of this ICR 

document. Cost and burden estimates are presented in Exhibits 14a and 14b, respectively. 

6(c)(i) Regulatory Support Activities 

Regulatory support activities include the labor and non-labor costs for laboratory approval 

process and QA/QC activities; and general technical support and guidance documents. Cost and 

burden assumptions for these activities are as follows: 

Laboratory Approvals and QA/QC Activities: EPA incurs various labor or contractor 

costs related to the laboratory PT/approvals; laboratory QA/QC; and provision of 

analytical standards, as follows: 

• The laboratory approval (PT program) cost EPA $231,855 prior to the beginning 

of monitoring, in 2012. Cost estimates from best professional judgment were

based on costs realized by the agency for prior similar activities for UCMR 2. A 

3% inflation rate was added to the costs of UCMR 2 to estimate the costs for 

UCMR 3. Though not relevant to the applicable ICR period of 2015-2017, these 

costs are included in Appendix B.
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

46

• QC Audits of contract laboratories occurs throughout active UCMR monitoring. 

Labor (hours) for each trip includes: a 3-day site inspection (for 2 individuals); 1 

full-day travel for 2 individuals (assume 2 half days); and 3 days of report writing 

(for 1 individual), which includes review and response to laboratory comments. 

Travel costs for 2 individuals include: $500 round trip flight, 3 nights hotel stay, 2 

full day food per diem, and 2 days at the proportional meals rate from the 2010 

federal rate for the Continental U.S. (from the U.S. Government Services 

Administration website: www.gsa.gov). Also included is $150 for rental of one 

car for both travelers. EPA estimated that these QC audits would take place 4 

times each monitoring year, at an estimated cost of $8,699.68 per trip.

• EPA estimated that analytical standards provision and coordination would cost 

$253,354 total for three ICR years (or $84,452 per ICR year). Cost estimates from 

best professional judgment are based on costs realized by the agency for prior 

similar activities, and inflated by 3% each year. 

Technical Support/Guidance Document Development: These activities cost EPA 

approximately $175,630 total over the previous ICR period (2012-2014) including: costs 

for developing and distributing guidance for laboratories that will participate in UCMR 3

testing; health effects fact sheets; and other pertinent guidance related to UCMR 3

implementation. These activities took place in 2012 and 2013, and thus are not applicable 

to the current ICR period. These costs are included in Appendix B, which presents costs 

for the entire UCMR 3 period. Cost estimates from best professional judgment were

based on costs realized by the agency for prior similar activities. For UCMR 3, a 3% 

inflation rate was added to the costs of UCMR 2. 

6(c)(ii) National and Regional Oversight and Data Analysis 

EPA activities include data analysis, management oversight and support at both the regional and 

national level for assistance to states with UCMR implementation. During the core period of 

UCMR 3 activity, EPA estimated that it would dedicate 5.5 FTEs each year to program oversight 

and data analysis. These activities are estimated as labor cost and burden to the agency (see the 

corresponding description of these activities in section 5(a)(ii), Part A of this ICR document). 

These activities will cost EPA $884,998 in total over the three-year ICR period. 
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

47

6(c)(iii) Costs for Small System Testing Program

EPA provides logistical support for the small PWS testing program. This activity includes costs 

for contractual labor and sampling supplies, and costs EPA $400 per sampling event per 

sampling site, based on actual costs incurred during UCMR 1 for this same activity. These 

activities cost EPA $1.2 million in total over the three ICR years.

EPA used the same cost assumptions described in section 6(a)(ii), Part A of this ICR for large 

PWSs to determine the cost of sample bottle shipping. Small PWS sampling includes the cost for 

one extra ground trip, for sending the empty bottles from the laboratory to the sampling 

coordinator, so that the sampling kit can be reused. Thus, shipping cost for a small PWS is 

estimated at $114 per sample.

These analytical and shipping fees cost EPA $5.4 million in total over the three ICR years for 

Assessment Monitoring, the Screening Survey, and Pre-Screen Testing. See section 6(a)(ii), Part 

A of this ICR document, for assumptions regarding applicable laboratory fees for individual 

methods. Total costs that EPA incurs for the small PWS testing program were calculated by 

multiplying the laboratory and shipping fees by: (number of PWSs) times (number of sampling 

periods per year (including an additional 10% QA samples)) times (number of sampling points 

per PWS). 

6(c)(iv) Estimated Agency Cost and Burden 

EPA estimates that the cost for the UCMR 3 program during the ICR period of 2015-2017 is 

$6.6 million; (with annual average cost over the ICR period of $2.2 million). EPA costs for 

UCMR implementation are shown in Exhibit 14a; average annual labor and non-labor costs, as 

well as small PWS testing program costs are shown in Exhibit 14b. Appendix B, Exhibits B-3a 

and B-3b provide analogous information over the five-year UCMR 3 implementation period. 

Exhibit 14a: Yearly Cost to EPA for UCMR Implementation, by Type of Cost (2015-2017)

1

(corresponds with Exhibit B-3a)

Cost Description 2015 2016 2017 Total Annual Average

Regulatory Support Activities: laboratory proficiency testing; QC audits; analytical standards provision; and 

technical support, guidance document development

Lab PT $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

QC Audits $17,399.36 $0.00 $0.00 $17,399.36 $5,799.79

Analytical Standards $253,354.00 $0.00 $0.00 $253,354.00 $84,451.33
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

48

Exhibit 14a: Yearly Cost to EPA for UCMR Implementation, by Type of Cost (2015-2017)

1

(corresponds with Exhibit B-3a)

Cost Description 2015 2016 2017 Total Annual Average

Technical Support $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Subtotal –

Regulatory Support $270,753.36 $0.00 $0.00 $270,753.36 $90,251.12

National and Regional Oversight and Data Analysis: UCMR management oversight; review and evaluation of 

data from all UCMR monitoring

$884,998.40 $0.00 $0.00 $884,998.40 $294,999.47

Small PWS Testing: implementation coordination; and analytical and shipping costs for small PWS testing for 

Assessment Monitoring, the Screening Survey, and Pre-Screen Testing

Implementation 

Coordination $1,219,832.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,219,832.00 $406,610.67

Fees for Analysis and 

shipping – standard 

sample $4,187,400.66 $0.00 $0.00 $4,187,400.66 $1,395,800.22

Subtotal –

Small PWS Testing $5,407,232.66 $0.00 $0.00 $5,407,232.66 $1,802,410.89

TOTAL $6,562,984.42 $0.00 $0.00 $6,562,984.42 $2,187,661.47

1 Agency costs were estimated over the period 2015-2017.

Exhibit 14b: Summary of EPA Burdens and Costs for UCMR Implementation (2015-

2017) (corresponds with Exhibit B-3b)

Burden / Cost

Annual Average Cost over Three-year 

ICR Period of 2015-2017

Labor Cost $294,999.46

Non-Labor Cost $1,892,662.01

Total Cost to EPA for UCMR Implementation $2,187,661.47

Burden (labor hours) 3,813.33

6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

Section 1(b) of Part A of this ICR describes the general timing of monitoring. Exhibit 8 presents 

the estimated numbers of regulated PWSs affected by UCMR 3, and Exhibit 9 presents the 
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

49

timeline in which the PWS monitoring activities take place. The frequency of responses for 

PWSs is described in Section 4(b)(ii)(a).

Exhibit 15 summarizes national hours and costs for UCMR 3 during the ICR period. Analogous 

information for the entire five-year UCMR 3 period is presented in Exhibit B-4 in Appendix B. 

The total labor and non-labor costs are presented for each category of respondent. The total labor 

burden to the sample of small PWSs is 4,769 hours, with a cost of $110,720. The total labor 

burden to large PWSs is 31,462 hours, with a labor cost of $982,801, and non-labor costs for 

analysis and shipping of $14.9 million. Very large PWSs have a total labor burden for the ICR 

period of 5,167 hours, with labor and non-labor costs of $197,893 and $4.7 million, respectively. 

The total burden to states over the three-year ICR period is 12,238.02 hours, with a labor cost of 

$1.1 million. EPA anticipates that states will not incur any significant non-labor costs. EPA’s

total burden over the same time frame is 11,440 hours, with labor costs of $884,998, and nonlabor costs of $5.7 million. 

Exhibit 15: UCMR 3 National Cost Summary for the ICR period (2015-2017) (corresponds with 

Exhibit B-4)

Type of Cost 2015 2016 2017 TOTAL Annual Average

Small PWSs

Labor Cost $110,719.99 $0.00 $0.00 $110,719.99 $36,906.66

Non-Labor Cost $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Total Small PWS Cost $110,719.99 $0.00 $0.00 $110,719.99 $36,906.66

Large PWS

Labor Cost $982,800.90 $0.00 $0.00 $982,800.90 $327,600.30

Non-Labor Cost $14,935,269.58 $0.00 $0.00 $14,935,269.58 $4,978,423.19

Total Large PWS Cost $15,918,070.47 $0.00 $0.00 $15,918,070.47 $5,306,023.49

Very Large PWSs

Labor Cost $197,893.18 $0.00 $0.00 $197,893.18 $65,964.39

Non-Labor Cost $4,705,632.07 $0.00 $0.00 $4,705,632.07 $1,568,544.02

Total Very Large 

PWS Cost $4,903,525.25 $0.00 $0.00 $4,903,525.25 $1,634,508.42

States

Labor Cost $1,055,185.58 $362,280.38 $0.00 $1,417,465.96 $472,488.65

Non-Labor Cost $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Total state Cost $1,055,185.58 $362,280.38 $0.00 $1,417,465.96 $472,488.65
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

50

Exhibit 15: UCMR 3 National Cost Summary for the ICR period (2015-2017) (corresponds with 

Exhibit B-4)

Type of Cost 2015 2016 2017 TOTAL Annual Average

EPA

Labor Cost $884,998.40 $0.00 $0.00 $884,998.40 $294,999.47

Non-Labor Cost $5,677,986.02 $0.00 $0.00 $5,677,986.02 $1,892,662.01

Total EPA Cost $6,562,984.42 $0.00 $0.00 $6,562,984.42 $2,187,661.47

National Total

Total with EPA $28,550,485.71 $362,280.38 $0.00 $28,912,766.09 $9,637,588.70

Total without EPA $21,987,501.29 $362,280.38 $0.00 $22,349,781.67 $7,449,927.22

Total Burden (hours) for All Responses 1

Small PWSs 4,769.41 0 0 4,769.41 1,589.80

Large PWSs 31,461.90 0 0 31,461.90 10,487.30

Very Large PWSs 5,166.87 0 0 5,166.87 1,722.29

States 6,202.26 6,107.76 0 12,310.02 4,103.34

EPA 11,440.00 0 0 11,440.00 3,813.33

Total with EPA 59,040.44 6,107.76 0 65,148.20 21,716.07

Total without EPA 47,600.44 6,107.76 0 53,708.20 17,902.73

1 Although EPA is not considered a respondent to the UCMR, agency burdens are shown here to illustrate the 

national costs of the program. National totals are shown with and without the agency costs.

6(e) Reasons for Change in Burden 

The renewal of this ICR results in an overall decrease of 85,159 hours in the total estimated 

respondent burden identified in the currently approved ICR. The reasons that respondents to this 

renewal ICR incur a different burden than those responding to the original ICR include: 

 Fewer PWSs participating during the current ICR period. Only one third of PWSs

monitor for UCMR 3 contaminants in 2015-2017; two-thirds of PWS already monitored 

in 2012-2014. 

 The schedule of activities for PWSs differs. Some initial activities were conducted by all 

PWSs prior to monitoring, including reporting prior to monitoring (contact and sampling 

location information, and representative EPTDS proposals). These activities do not take 

place during the second ICR period. See Section 4(b)(ii)(a) Public Water System 

Activities for detailed explanations.
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

51

 The schedule of activities differs for participating states and EPA: Management and 

support activities for states and EPA vary with the UCMR 3 monitoring schedule. Both

states and EPA have different burdens during this second UCMR 3 ICR period. See 

Section 4(b)(ii)(b) State Activities and Section 5(a) Agency Activities for details.

6(f) Burden Statement 

Small PWSs that were selected for UCMR 3 monitoring sample an average of 2.4 times per PWS

(i.e., number of responses per PWS) across the three-year ICR period. The average burden per 

response for small PWSs is 2.9 hours. Large PWSs and very large PWSs sample and report an 

average of 3.2 and 3.7 times per PWS, respectively, across the three-year ICR period. The 

average burden per response for large and very large PWSs is 7.7 and 10.2 hours, respectively. 

States incur 2.0 responses over the three-year ICR period related to coordination with EPA and 

PWSss, with an average burden per response of 109.9 hours. In aggregate during the ICR period, 

the average response (e.g., responses from PWS and states) is associated with a burden of 8.4

hours, with a labor plus non-labor cost of $3,507 per response. 

The annual average per respondent burden hours and costs for the ICR period are: small PWSs –

2.3 hour burden at $53 for labor; large PWSs – 8.3 hours at $259 for labor, and $3,928 for 

analytical costs; very large PWSs –12.5 hours at $479 for labor, and $11,394 for analytical costs; 

and states – 73.3 hours at $8,437 for labor. Annual average burden and cost per respondent 

(including PWSs and states) is 8.3 hours, with a labor plus non-labor cost of $3,458 per

respondent. 

The annual average burden to EPA for UCMR 3 program activities during the ICR years is 3,813

hours, with an annual labor cost of $295,000. EPA's annual average non-labor costs are $1.9 

million. Non-labor costs are primarily attributed to the cost of sample testing for small PWSs 

(testing is 95% of non-labor costs).

Exhibit 16 presents per respondent and per response burdens and costs over the UCMR ICR 

period of (analogous information for the 2012-2016 UCMR 3 implementation period is provided 

in Exhibit B-5, Appendix B). This Exhibit also presents average annual burdens and costs.
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

52

Exhibit 16: UCMR 3 Per Respondent Burden and Cost Summary for the ICR Period 

(2015-2017) (corresponds with Exhibit B-5)

Burden (hours)/

Cost (dollars) Small PWSs Large PWSs Very Large PWSs States EPA

National 

Average 

with EPA1

National 

Average 

without 

EPA

Three-Year Total per Respondent

Total # of 

Responses Per 

Respondent 2.41 3.22 3.67 2.00 n/a n/a 2.96

Labor Cost Per 

Respondent $159.69 $775.49 $1,437.48 $25,311.89 $884,998.40 $1,667.44 $1,257.41

Non-Labor Cost 

Per Respondent $0.00 $11,784.80 $34,181.35 $0.00 $5,677,986.02 $11,747.09 $9,116.93

Total Cost 

(Labor plus 

Non-Labor) $159.69 $12,560.29 $35,618.83 $25,311.89 $6,562,984.42 $13,414.52 $10,374.34

Total Cost Per 

Response $66.25 $3,897.67 $9,703.55 $12,655.95 $0.00 $0.00 $3,507.17

Total Burden Per 

Respondent (hr) 6.88 24.83 37.53 219.82 11,440.00 30.23 24.93

Total Burden Per 

Response (hr) 2.85 7.70 10.22 109.91 0.00 0.00 8.43

Average Annual per Respondent

Ave. # of 

Responses Per 

Respondent 0.80 1.07 1.22 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.99

Labor Cost Per 

Respondent $53.23 $258.50 $479.16 $8,437.30 $294,999.47 $555.81 $419.14

Non-Labor Cost 

Per Respondent $0.00 $3,928.27 $11,393.78 $0.00 $1,892,662.01 $3,915.70 $3,038.98

Ave. Cost (Labor 

plus Non-Labor) $53.23 $4,186.76 $11,872.94 $8,437.30 $2,187,661.47 $4,471.51 $3,458.11

Ave. Cost Per 

Response $22.08 $1,299.22 $3,234.52 $4,218.65 $0.00 $0.00 $1,169.06

Ave. Burden Per 

Respondent (hr) 2.29 8.28 12.51 73.27 3813.33 10.08 8.31

Ave. Burden Per 

Response (hr) 0.95 2.57 3.41 36.64 0.00 0.00 2.81
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

53

1 National average burdens and costs differ greatly between the state respondents and the various PWS respondents. This should 

be taken into consideration when looking at the national average with or without EPA.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, 

maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency. This includes: the 

time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems 

for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining 

information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with 

any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to 

a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays 

a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are 

listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on EPA’s need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, 

and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated

collection techniques, EPA established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number

OW-2009-0090, which is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket 

Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. This 

EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for this Public Reading Room is (202) 

566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-2426. An electronic 

version of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov. This site can be used to submit 

or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to 

access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. When in the 

system, select “search,” then key in the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send 

comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please 

include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ- OW-2009-0090 and OMB Control Number 2040-

0270 in any correspondence.
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

54

– PART B OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT –

1 SURVEY OBJECTIVES, KEY VARIABLES, AND OTHER 

PRELIMINARIES

1(a) Survey Objectives 

The primary objective of the statistical methods applied in this information collection is for EPA 

to identify and select a sample of PWSs that is representative of PWSs nationwide. The selected 

sample of PWSs monitors for contaminants identified by the UCMR program. The 

representativeness of this sample of PWSs is critical to the UCMR program because the drinking 

water contaminant occurrence data collected by the PWSs is used to: estimate national 

occurrence and exposure, establish a baseline for health effects and economic analyses, and 

provide information for regulatory determinations and, as appropriate, regulatory development.

1(b) Key Variables 

Key variables associated with selecting a nationally representative sample of PWSs include: 

PWS size, source water type and geographical location.

1(c) Statistical Approach 

Section 1445(a)(2) of SDWA (as amended in 1996) requires that the UCMR program include 

only a representative sample of PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people. In addition to satisfying 

statutory requirements, selection of a sample of PWSs for participation in UCMR allows for 

significant national costs savings, as compared to monitoring by all PWSs. To estimate national 

occurrence and exposure, the primary UCMR program objective, the representative sample of 

PWSs must allow EPA to collect high quality data about contaminant occurrence. 

1(d) Feasibility 

EPA anticipates that the survey (the statistical sample) objectives are achievable given the 

existing time and resource constraints. 
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

55

• High PWS response/participation rates (>95%) during UCMR 1 and 2 give EPA 

confidence that equivalent or better participation rates can be achieved during UCMR 3. 

• The statistical approach to this data collection requires only a fraction of small PWSs to 

conduct monitoring, resulting in much smaller cost and burden at the national level than 

would be incurred if all PWSs monitored. Small PWSs that are selected for UCMR 3

monitoring incur only a few hours of labor burden. EPA pays for all laboratory fees and 

shipping costs related to small PWS testing. 

• The survey results will be completed in time to inform the next cycle of CCL regulatory 

determinations. 

2 SURVEY DESIGN

2(a) Target Population and Coverage 

PWSs are the target population for UCMR monitoring. All PWSs that serve more than 10,000 

retail customers are subject to the Assessment Monitoring component of UCMR 3 monitoring. 

Eligible small PWSs (serving 10,000 or fewer people) are only required to conduct UCMR 3

monitoring if they are part of the statistical selection for Assessment Monitoring, the Screening 

Survey, or if they have been selected to monitor for Pre-Screen Testing. Small PWSs were only 

selected to monitor for one component of UCMR 3.

2(b) Sample Design 

2(b)(i) Sampling Frame 

EPA developed the sample frame for the statistical selection of UCMR PWSs, including the 

system PWSID, name, source water category, and population-served data for each UCMReligible PWS. Initial data were pulled from EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System 

(SDWIS/FED) inventory database and were adjusted to account for known anomalies in 

population and inventory reporting (for example, how wholesalers report their population data). 

2(b)(ii) Sample Size 

UCMR 3 monitoring includes: Assessment Monitoring conducted by all PWSs serving more 

than 10,000 people (“large” PWSs), and 800 representative PWSs serving 10,000 or fewer 
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

56

people (“small” PWSs); the Screening survey conducted by all 413 PWSs serving more than 

100,000 people (“very large” PWSs), 320 large PWSs, and 480 small PWSs; and Pre-Screen 

Testing conducted by 800 undisinfected ground water PWSs serving 1,000 or fewer people. The 

Pre-Screen Testing PWSs are located in areas with sensitive aquifers containing fractured or 

karst bedrock. 

2(b)(iii) Stratification Variables 

In developing the representative sample, EPA considered factors such as population served, 

water source and geographic location. The sample PWSs were stratified by population served 

(PWS size), allocating samples proportionately to each state by PWS size and then by water 

source type. (Other provisions, presented below, ensure broad geographic coverage.)

2(b)(iv) Sampling Method 

To satisfy the specifications of SDWA section 1445(a)(2)(A), the representative sample of PWSs

accounts for different PWS sizes, sources of water supply and geographic location (e.g., states). 

The sample was stratified by water source type (i.e., ground or surface water) and by PWS size 

category (i.e., serves 25 to 500 people, 501 to 3,300 people, etc.). This stratification allowed

EPA to account for different exposure risks of contaminant occurrence that could be related to 

the vulnerability differences between surface and ground water sources and differing 

management and financial capacity that can vary across PWS sizes. 

With contaminant exposure assessment as a primary goal, PWSs were selected in proportion to 

the population served. This population-weighted allocation leads to statistically valid estimates 

of national exposure. To ensure the sample provides equity across states for involvement in the 

UCMR, EPA included at least two PWSs from each state. This additional PWS selection 

requirement provides allocation across all the states and territories to account for differences in 

spatial vulnerability and contaminant occurrence, and to ensure equity in participation. Small 

tribal PWSs across the EPA regions were grouped into a single category (equivalent to a “state”) 

for the representative sample. 

2(b)(v) Multi-Stage Sampling 

Because PWS status often changes over time, EPA also selected “alternate” PWSs that fit the 

size/source water strata of the originally selected PWS. Through an interactive review process 

with the states, PWSs that no longer meet eligibility criteria (for example, if they are in a 
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

57

different size category than when originally selected, have become inactive, or do not have a 

retail customer base) will be replaced by an alternate PWS that meets the stratification criteria.

2(c) Precision Requirements 

2(c)(i) Precision Targets 

The representative sample of PWSs must be selected so that the data collected yield accurate and 

precise estimates of national contaminant occurrence (the fraction of PWSs in which a 

contaminant occurs) and exposure (the fraction of people exposed to a contaminant). For 

estimates of exposure fractions, EPA allows a margin of error of ± 1% with 99% confidence, 

when the estimated exposure fraction is 1%. That is, if the estimated exposure fraction is 1%, 

EPA will be able to state with 99% confidence that the true exposure fraction is between 0% and 

2%. Because there are uncertainties and sources of variation in this and other such sampling 

programs, statistical sampling theory used to derive levels of accuracy and precision may not 

account for all of these sources of variation. Hence, the high confidence level, low allowable 

error, and consequent large sample size should help ensure adequate data to meet the objectives 

of the UCMR program. 

2(c)(ii) Non-sampling error 

For those PWSs required to conduct UCMR monitoring, response is a requirement. As with any 

regulation, some non-compliance can be expected. However, high compliance levels (>95%) 

during UCMR 1 and 2 (attributable to extensive outreach and compliance assistance) give EPA 

confidence that the same or better compliance levels can be achieved during UCMR 3. EPA 

plans to continue outreach and compliance assistance efforts as needed.

2(d) Questionnaire Design 

No questionnaires will be used for the UCMR. Analytical results for contaminant occurrence will 

be electronically reported directly by the laboratories to EPA’s electronic reporting system.

3 PRETESTS AND PILOT TESTS

For UCMR 3, EPA applied the same basic statistical methods that were used for the UCMR 1

and UCMR 2 national representative sample of small PWSs. Following sample adjustments 
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

58

made through communications with states, >99% of the final sample of small PWSs (and >95% 

of large PWSs) completed their required monitoring and reporting. 

4 COLLECTION METHODS AND FOLLOW-UP

4(a) Collection Methods 

Large PWSs are required to submit their data through EPA's electronic data reporting system. 

Small PWSs work directly with an EPA-appointed UCMR Sampling Coordinator, and 

monitoring data from the small PWSs are submitted directly to EPA's electronic reporting system 

by the laboratories conducting the analyses. 

4(b) Survey Response and Follow-up 

High compliance levels (>95%) during UCMR 1 and 2 give EPA confidence that equivalent or 

better levels can be achieved during UCMR 3. EPA continues outreach and compliance 

assistance efforts as needed. Each small PWS works with a UCMR Sampling Coordinator, and 

has minimal reporting requirements and one-on-one compliance assistance. 

Lessons learned during UCMR 1 and UCMR 2 helped refine UCMR 3 requirements. 

 Sampling schedule specifications were refined, and clarify that sampling schedules 

should be adjusted based on sample point availability. 

 UCMR 3 also modified PWS applicability, i.e., the types of PWSs that are required to 

monitor. In UCMR 1 and 2, PWSs that purchased 100% of their water were excluded 

from monitoring, making estimates of exposure more difficult because many of these 

purchasing PWSs represented high-population areas. Wholesalers that have a retail 

population of 10,000 or below are only required to monitor if they are selected as part of 

the nationally representative sample of small PWSs for any list of UCMR contaminants. 

This should greatly improve exposure estimates for UCMR 3, since exposure estimates 

will be based on the monitoring data collected from where the water is consumed rather 

than where it is sold. 

EPA revised the rule language to establish a requirement of reporting zip codes for customers 

served by the PWS. These reporting specifications are established in §§141.35(c)(1) and (d)(1) 

for large and small PWSs, respectively. Required reporting of customer zip codes provides EPA 

with useful information for future occurrence analyses.
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

59

5 ANALYZING AND REPORTING SURVEY RESULTS

5(a) Data Preparation 

After PWSs or their laboratories post their UCMR 3 monitoring results and required data 

elements to EPA's electronic reporting system, EPA allows a specified time for quality control 

review by the PWSs, states, and the agency before placing the data in the NCOD for public 

access. 

Data problems may occur, but EPA takes the following efforts to reduce problems and increase 

the dependability and quality of the occurrence data. The UCMR electronic data reporting 

system and EPA QA/QC assessments screen for the use of inappropriate measurement units and 

other improper data. Additional automated QC functions are in place to identify possible data 

quality issues such as duplicate data submissions and data completeness. All Assessment 

Monitoring and Screening Survey samples are collected by trained PWS staff (Pre-Screen 

Testing samples are collected by EPA) and analytical results are generated by laboratories that 

are approved for UCMR 3 drinking water analysis. Electronic data submission also avoids 

potential re-keying errors. As part of the data QA/QC procedures, all edits or changes made to 

the data are documented.

5(b) Analysis

For UCMR 1 and UCMR 2, EPA developed a two-stage analytical approach for the evaluation of 

the national occurrence of contaminants. EPA will use the same 2-tier approach to analyzing the 

data for UCMR 3.

The first stage of analysis, Stage 1, provides a straightforward evaluation of occurrence for 

simple and conservative assessments of contaminant occurrence. The Stage 1 analysis of the 

UCMR data consists of non-parametric, unweighted counts and simple descriptive statistics of 

analytical results for each of the contaminants. These occurrence analyses are conducted at the 

sample level, PWS level and population-served level. For each contaminant, occurrence 

measures include the number and percent of samples with analytical detections and the 

minimum, median, maximum, and 99th percentile values of those detections. PWS-level 

occurrence measures include the number and percent of PWSs with one or more analytical 

detections and the number and percent of PWSs with two or more analytical detections of a

given contaminant. Population-served occurrence measures include: the number and percent of 

population served by PWSs with one or more analytical detections, and the number and percent 

of population served by PWSs with two or more analytical detections of a given contaminant. 
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

60

Similar measures may also be conducted for each EPTDS for each PWS. Since these 

contaminant and PWS- level occurrence measures are based on raw occurrence data (that have 

not been adjusted for population-weighting and sampling), they are less accurate representations 

of national occurrence than occurrence measures based on adjusted occurrence data. 

Based on the findings of the Stage 1 analysis, EPA can select contaminant(s) for which more 

detailed and sophisticated statistical evaluations – the Stage 2 analysis – may be warranted as a 

next step to generate national probability estimates of contaminant occurrence and exposure. 

Specifically, the modeling and estimation of PWS mean contaminant concentrations may be 

desired. The Stage 2 analysis uses a Bayesian-based hierarchical model to estimate the percent 

(and number) of PWSs with a mean contaminant concentration above any specified 

concentration threshold. The Bayesian-based Hierarchical Model also provides quantified error 

of estimation, and enables estimates of mean contaminant concentrations below the MRL. This 

statistical model was used to generate the contaminant occurrence estimates for 60 regulated

contaminants for the first Six-Year Review of NPDWRs, for which it underwent a peer review. 

5(c) Reporting Results 

After final review and formatting the data collected through this ICR, the data will be made 

available to the public through the NCOD, as was done with the data collected for UCMR 1 and 

UCMR 2. The analytical results from UCMR 3 monitoring will support the development of the 

CCL; regulatory determinations; and, as appropriate, regulation development. For contaminants 

with significant occurrence and health effects, EPA will use the results: to support an exposure 

assessment; to establish the baseline for health effects and economic analyses; to analyze 

contaminant co-occurrence; and to evaluate treatment technology, including contaminant source 

management. Further, the results may suggest that the occurrence of certain contaminants may 

be significant enough to initiate research on health effects and treatment technology. Finally, the 

data may guide future source water protection efforts.
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

61

APPENDICES
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

62

APPENDIX A: Relevant Authorities in the SDWA 1996 Amendments 

Section 1401 For purposes of this title:

(1) The term “primary drinking water regulation” means a regulation which-

(A) applies to public water systems;

(B) specifies contaminants which, in the judgment of the Administrator, may have any 

adverse effect on the health of persons;

(C) specifies for each such contaminant either–

(i) a maximum contaminant level, if, in the judgment of the Administrator, it is 

economically or technologically feasible to ascertain the level of such 

contaminant in water in public water systems, or

(ii) if, in the judgment of the Administrator, it is not economically or 

technologically feasible to ascertain the level of such contaminant sufficient to 

satisfy the requirements of section 1412; and

(D) contains criteria and procedures to assure a supply of drinking water which 

dependably complies with such maximum contaminant levels; including accepted 

methods for quality control and testing procedures to ensure compliance with such levels 

and to ensure proper operation and maintenance of the system, and requirements as to (i) 

the minimum quality of water which may be taken into the system and (ii) siting for new 

facilities for public water systems. At any time after promulgation of a regulation referred 

to in this paragraph, the Administrator may add equally effective quality control and 

testing procedures by guidance published in the Federal Register. Such procedures shall 

be treated as an alternative for public water systems to the quality control and testing 

procedures listed in the regulation.

Section 1412(b)(1) Identification of contaminants for listing:

(A) General authority – The Administrator shall, in accordance with the procedures 

established by this subsection, publish a maximum contaminant level goal and 

promulgate a national primary drinking water regulation for a contaminant (other than a 

contaminant referred to in paragraph (2) for which a national primary drinking water 

regulation has been promulgated as of the date of enactment of the Safe Drinking Water 

Act Amendments of 1996) if the Administrator determines that:

(i) the contaminant may have an adverse effect on the health of persons;

(ii) the contaminant is known to occur or there is a substantial likelihood that the 

contaminant will occur in public water systems with a frequency and at levels of 

public health concern; and 

(iii) in the sole judgment of the Administrator, regulation of such contaminant 

presents a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by 

public water systems. 

(B) Regulation of unregulated contaminants–

(i) Listing of contaminants for consideration–

(I) Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of the Safe 

Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 and every 5 years thereafter, the 

Administrator, after consultation with the scientific community, including
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

63

the Science Advisory Board, after notice and opportunity for public 

comment, and after considering the occurrence data base established under 

section 1445(g), shall publish a list of contaminants which, at the time of 

publication, are not subject to any proposed or promulgated national 

primary drinking water regulation, which are known or anticipated to 

occur in public water systems, and which may require regulation under 

this title. 

(II) The unregulated contaminants considered under subclause (i) shall 

include, but not be limited to, substances referred to in section 101(14) of 

the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act of 1980, and substances registered as pesticides under the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. 

(III) The Administrator's decision whether or not to select an unregulated 

contaminant for a list under this clause shall not be subject to judicial 

review. 

(ii) Determination to regulate–

(I) Not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of the Safe Drinking 

Water Act Amendments of 1996, and every 5 years thereafter, the 

Administrator shall, after notice of the preliminary determination and 

opportunity for public comment, for not fewer than 5 contaminants 

included on the list published under clause (i), make determinations of 

whether or not to regulate such contaminants.

(II) A determination to regulate a contaminant shall be based on findings 

that the criteria of clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of subparagraph (A) are 

satisfied. Such findings shall be based on the best available public health 

information, including the occurrence data base established under section 

1445(g).

(III) The Administrator may make a determination to regulate a 

contaminant that does not appear on a list under clause (i) if the 

determination to regulate is made pursuant to subclause (II).

(IV) A determination under this clause not to regulate a contaminant shall 

be considered final agency action and subject to judicial review. 

(iii) Review – Each document setting forth the determination for a contaminant 

under clause (ii) shall be available for public comment at such time as the 

determination is published.

(C) Priorities – In selecting unregulated contaminants for consideration under 

subparagraph (B), the Administrator shall select contaminants that present the greatest 

public health concern. The Administrator, in making such selection, shall take into 

consideration, among other factors of public health concern, the effect of such 

contaminants upon subgroups that comprise a meaningful portion of the general 

population (such as infants, children, pregnant women, the elderly, individuals with a 

history of serious illness, or other subpopulations) that are identifiable as being at greater 

risk of adverse health effects due to exposure to contaminants in drinking water than the 

general population.

(D) Urgent threats to public health – The Administrator may promulgate an interim 

national primary drinking water regulation for a contaminant without making a 
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

64

determination for the contaminant under paragraph (4)(C), or completing the analysis 

under paragraph (3)(C), to address an urgent threat to public health as determined by the 

Administrator after consultation with and written response to any comments provided by 

the Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through the director of the Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention or the director of the National Institutes of Health. A 

determination for any contaminant in accordance with paragraph (4)(C) subject to an 

interim regulation under this subparagraph shall be issued, and a completed analysis 

meeting the requirements of paragraph (3)(C) shall be published, not later than 3 years 

after the date on which the regulation is promulgated and the regulation shall be 

repromulgated, or revised if appropriate, not later than 5 years after that date.

(E) Regulation – For each contaminant that the Administrator determines to regulate 

under subparagraph (B), the Administrator shall publish maximum contaminant level 

goals and promulgate, by rule, national primary drinking water regulations under this 

subsection. The Administrator shall propose the maximum contaminant level goal and 

national primary drinking water regulation for a contaminant not later than 24 months 

after the determination to regulate under subparagraph (B), and may publish such 

proposed regulation concurrent with the determination to regulate. The Administrator 

shall publish a maximum contaminant level goal and promulgate a national primary 

drinking water regulation within 18 months after the proposal thereof. The Administrator, 

by notice in the Federal Register, may extend the deadline for such promulgation for up 

to 9 months.

(F) Health advisories and other actions – The Administrator may publish health 

advisories (which are not regulations) or take other appropriate actions for contaminants 

not subject to any national primary drinking water regulation.

Section 1412(b)(4) Goals and standards:

(A) Maximum contaminant level goals – Each maximum contaminant level goal 

established under this subsection shall be set at the level at which no known or 

anticipated adverse effects of health of persons occur and which allows an adequate 

margin of safety.

(B) Maximum contaminant levels – Except as provided in paragraphs (5) and (6), each 

national primary drinking water regulation for a contaminant for which a maximum 

contaminant level goal is established under this subsection shall specify a maximum 

contaminant level for such a contaminant which is as close to the maximum contaminant 

level goal as is feasible.

(C) Determination – At the time the Administrator proposes a national primary drinking 

water regulation under this paragraph, the Administrator shall publish a determination as 

to whether the benefits of the maximum contaminant level justify, or do not justify, the 

costs based on the analysis conducted under paragraph (3)(C).

(D) Definition of feasible – For the purposes of this subsection, the term “feasible” means 

feasible with the use of the best technology, treatment techniques, and other means which 

the Administrator finds, after examination for efficacy under field conditions and not 

solely under laboratory conditions, are available (taking cost into consideration). For the 

purpose of this paragraph, granular activated carbon is feasible for the control of 

synthetic organic chemicals, and any technology, treatment technique, or other means 
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

65

found to be the best available for the control of synthetic organic chemicals must be at 

least as effective in controlling synthetic organic chemicals as granular activated carbon.

(E) Feasible technologies:

(i) In general – Each national primary drinking water regulation which establishes 

a maximum contaminant level shall list the technology, treatment techniques, and 

other means which the Administrator finds to be feasible for purposes of meeting 

such maximum contaminant level, but regulation under this subsection shall not 

require that any specified technology, treatment technique, or other means be used 

for purposes of meeting such maximum contaminant level.

(ii) List of technologies for small systems – The Administrator shall include in the 

list any technology, treatment technique, or other means that is affordable, as 

determined by the Administrator in consultation with the States, for small public 

water systems serving:

(I) a population of 10,000 or fewer but more than 3,300;

(II) a population of 3,300 or fewer but more than 500; and 

(III) a population of 500 or fewer but more than 25; 

and that achieves compliance with the maximum contaminant level or treatment 

technique, including packaged or modular systems and point- of-entry or point-ofuse treatment units. Point- of-entry and point-of-use treatment units shall be 

owned, controlled and maintained by the public water system or by a person 

under contract with the public water system to ensure proper operation and 

maintenance and compliance with the maximum contaminant level or treatment 

technique and equipped with mechanical warnings to ensure that customers are 

automatically notified of operational problems. The Administrator shall not 

include in the list any point-of-use treatment technology, treatment technique, or 

other means to achieve compliance with a maximum contaminant level or 

treatment technique requirement for a microbial contaminant (or an indicator of a 

microbial contaminant). If the American National Standards Institute has issued 

product standards applicable to a specific type of point-of-entry or point-of-use 

treatment unit, individual units of that type shall not be accepted for compliance 

with a maximum contaminant level or treatment technique requirement unless 

they are independently certified in accordance with such standards. In listing any 

technology, treatment technique, or other means pursuant to this clause, the 

Administrator shall consider the quality of the source water to be treated. 

(iii) List of technologies that achieve compliance – Except as provided in clause 

(v), not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this clause and after 

consultation with the States, the Administrator shall issue a list of technologies 

that achieve compliance with the maximum contaminant level or treatment 

technique for each category of public water systems described in subclauses (I),

(II), and (III) of clause (ii) for each national primary drinking water regulation 

promulgated prior to the date of enactment of this paragraph.

(iv) Additional technologies – The Administrator may, at any time after a national 

primary drinking water regulation has been promulgated, supplement the list of 

technologies describing additional or new or innovative treatment technologies 

that meet the requirements of this paragraph for categories of small public water 
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

66

systems described in subclauses (I), (II), and (III) of clause (ii) that are subject to 

the regulation. 

(v) Technologies that meet surface water treatment rule – Within one year after 

the date of enactment of this clause, the Administrator shall list technologies that 

meet the Surface Water Treatment Rule for each category of public water systems 

described in subclauses (I), (II), and (III) of clause (ii).

Section 1445(a)(1)(A) Every person who is subject to any requirement of this title or who is a 

grantee, shall establish and maintain such records, make such reports, conduct such monitoring, 

and provide such information as the Administrator may reasonably require by regulation to assist 

the Administrator in establishing regulations under this title, in determining whether such person 

has acted or is acting in compliance with this title, in administering any program of financial 

assistance under this title, in evaluating the health risks of unregulated contaminants, or in 

advising the public of such risks. In requiring a public water system to monitor under this 

subsection, the Administrator may take into consideration the system size and the contaminants 

likely to be found in the system's drinking water. 

(B) Every person who is subject to a national primary drinking water regulation under 

section 1412 shall provide such information as the Administrator may reasonably require, 

after consultation with the State in which such person is located if such State has primary 

enforcement responsibility for public water systems, on a case-by-case basis, to 

determine whether such person has acted or is acting in compliance with this title. 

(C) Every person who is subject to a national primary drinking water regulation under 

section 1412 shall provide such information as the Administrator may reasonably require 

to assist the Administrator in establishing regulations under section 1412 of this title, 

after consultation with States and suppliers of water. The Administrator may not require 

under this subparagraph the installation of treatment equipment or process changes, the 

testing of treatment technology, or the analysis or processing of monitoring samples, 

except where the Administrator provides the funding for such activities. Before 

exercising this authority, the Administrator shall first seek to obtain the information by 

voluntary submission. 

(D) The Administrator shall not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this 

subparagraph, after consultation with public health experts, representatives of the general 

public, and officials of State and local governments, review the monitoring requirements 

for not fewer than 12 contaminants identified by the Administrator, and promulgate any 

necessary modifications.

(2) MONITORING PROGRAM FOR UNREGULATED CONTAMINANTS:

(A) ESTABLISHMENT – The Administrator shall promulgate regulations establishing 

the criteria for a monitoring program for unregulated contaminants. The regulations shall 

require monitoring of drinking water supplied by public water systems and shall vary the 

frequency and schedule for monitoring requirements for systems based on the number of 

persons served by the system, the source of supply, and the contaminants likely to be 

found, ensuring that only a representative sample of systems serving 10,000 persons or 

fewer are required to monitor.
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

67

(B) MONITORING PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN UNREGULATED 

CONTAMINANTS:

(i) INITIAL LIST – Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of the Safe 

Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 and every 5 years thereafter, the 

Administrator shall issue a list pursuant to subparagraph (A) of not more than 30 

unregulated contaminants to be monitored by public water systems and to be 

included in the national drinking water occurrence data base maintained pursuant 

to subsection (g).

(ii) GOVERNORS' PETITION – The Administrator shall include among the list 

of contaminants for which monitoring is required under this paragraph each 

contaminant recommended in a petition signed by the Governor of each of 7 or 

more States, unless the Administrator determines that the action would prevent 

the listing of other contaminants of a higher public health concern.

(C) MONITORING PLAN FOR SMALL AND MEDIUM SYSTEMS 

(i) IN GENERAL – Based on the regulations promulgated by the Administrator, 

each State may develop a representative monitoring plan to assess the occurrence 

of unregulated contaminants in public water systems that serve a population of 

10,000 or fewer in that State. The plan shall require monitoring for systems 

representative of different sizes, types, and geographic locations in the State.

(ii) GRANTS FOR SMALL SYSTEM COSTS – From funds reserved under 

section 1452(o) or appropriated under subparagraph (H), the Administrator shall 

pay the reasonable cost of such testing and laboratory analysis as are necessary to 

carry out monitoring under the plan.

(D) MONITORING RESULTS – Each public water system that conducts monitoring of 

unregulated contaminants pursuant to this paragraph shall provide the results of the 

monitoring to the primary enforcement authority for the system.

(E) NOTIFICATION – Notification of the availability of the results of monitoring 

programs required under paragraph (2)(A) shall be given to the persons served by the 

system.

(F) WAIVER OF MONITORING REQUIREMENT – The Administrator shall waive the 

requirement for monitoring for a contaminant under this paragraph in a State, if the State 

demonstrates that the criteria for listing the contaminant do not apply in that State.

(G) ANALYTICAL METHODS – The State may use screening methods approved by the 

Administrator under subsection (i) in lieu of monitoring for particular contaminants under 

this paragraph.

(H) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS – There are authorized to be 

appropriated to carry out this paragraph $10,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1997 

through 2003.

(d) SCREENING METHODS – Section 1445 (42 U.S.C. 300j_4) is amended by adding the 

following after subsection (h):

(I) SCREENING METHODS – The Administrator shall review new analytical methods 

to screen for regulated contaminants and may approve such methods as are more accurate 

or cost-effective than established reference methods for use in compliance monitoring.
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

68

(g) OCCURRENCE DATA BASE 

(1) IN GENERAL – Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of the Safe 

Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, the Administrator shall assemble and maintain 

a national drinking water contaminant occurrence data base, using information on the 

occurrence of both regulated and unregulated contaminants in public water systems 

obtained under subsection (a)(1)(A) or subsection (a)(2) and reliable information from 

other public and private sources.

(2) PUBLIC INPUT – In establishing the occurrence data base, the Administrator shall 

solicit recommendations from the Science Advisory Board, the States, and other 

interested parties concerning the development and maintenance of a national drinking 

water contaminant occurrence data base, including such issues as the structure and design 

of the data base, data input parameters and requirements, and the use and interpretation of 

data.

(3) USE – The data shall be used by the Administrator in making determinations under 

section 1412(b)(1) with respect to the occurrence of a contaminant in drinking water at a 

level of public health concern.

(4) PUBLIC RECOMMENDATIONS – The Administrator shall periodically solicit 

recommendations from the appropriate officials of the National Academy of Sciences and 

the States, and any person may submit recommendations to the Administrator, with 

respect to contaminants that should be included in the national drinking water 

contaminant occurrence data base, including recommendations with respect to additional 

unregulated contaminants that should be listed under subsection (a)(2). Any 

recommendation submitted under this clause shall be accompanied by reasonable 

documentation that–

(A) the contaminant occurs or is likely to occur in drinking water; and

(B) the contaminant poses a risk to public health.

(5) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY – The information from the data base shall be available to 

the public in readily accessible form.

(6) REGULATED CONTAMINANTS – With respect to each contaminant for which a 

national primary drinking water regulation has been established, the data base shall 

include information on the detection of the contaminant at a quantifiable level in public 

water systems (including detection of the contaminant at levels not constituting a 

violation of the maximum contaminant level for the contaminant).

(7) UNREGULATED CONTAMINANTS – With respect to contaminants for which a 

national primary drinking water regulation has not been established, the data base shall 

include:

(A) monitoring information collected by public water systems that serve a 

population of more than 10,000, as required by the Administrator under 

subsection (a);

(B) monitoring information collected from a representative sampling of public 

water systems that serve a population of 10,000 or fewer; and

(C) other reliable and appropriate monitoring information on the occurrence of the 

contaminants in public water systems that is available to the Administrator.
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

69

APPENDIX B: Burden and Cost Exhibits for the Five-Year UCMR 3 Period 

of 2012-2016

Exhibit B-1a: Yearly Cost to PWSs, by PWS Size and by Type of Cost (2012-2016) 

(corresponds to Exhibit 11a)

Cost Description 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total

SMALL PWSs (serving 10,000 or fewer people)

Labor Costs

Reading and Initial 

Reporting $0.00 $46,459.22 $46,459.22 $46,459.22 $0.00 $139,377.65

Monitoring $0.00 $44,811.37 $44,811.37 $44,811.37 $0.00 $134,434.12

Reporting of Results $0.00 $19,449.40 $19,449.40 $19,449.40 $0.00 $58,348.20

Non-Labor Costs (Laboratory Analysis and Shipping (paid for by EPA))

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Subtotal – Small PWSs $0.00 $110,719.99 $110,719.99 $110,719.99 $0.00 $332,159.97

LARGE PWSs (serving 10,001 to 100,000 people)

Labor Costs

Reading and Initial 

Reporting $0.00 $467,260.11 $467,260.11 $467,260.11 $0.00 $1,401,780.33

Monitoring $0.00 $260,570.02 $260,570.02 $260,570.02 $0.00 $781,710.05

Reporting of Results $0.00 $254,970.73 $254,970.73 $254,970.73 $0.00 $764,912.20

Non-Labor Costs (Laboratory Analysis and Shipping)

$0.00 $14,935,269.58 $14,935,269.58 $14,935,269.58 $0.00 $44,805,808.73

Subtotal – Large PWSs $0.00 $15,918,070.44 $15,918,070.44 $15,918,070.44 $0.00 $47,754,211.32

VERY LARGE PWSs (serving greater than 100,000 people)

Labor Costs

Reading and Initial 

Reporting $0.00 $74,890.05 $74,890.05 $74,890.05 $0.00 $224,670.14

Monitoring $0.00 $84,294.07 $84,294.07 $84,294.07 $0.00 $252,882.21

Reporting of Results $0.00 $38,708.94 $38,708.94 $38,708.94 $0.00 $116,126.81

Non-Labor Costs (Laboratory Analysis and Shipping)

$0.00 $4,705,632.07 $4,705,632.07 $4,705,632.07 $0.00 $14,116,896.21

Subtotal – Very Large 

PWSs $0.00 $4,903,525.12 $4,903,525.12 $4,903,525.12 $0.00 $14,710,575.36

ALL PWSs

Total Labor for 

All PWSs $0.00 $1,291,413.90 $$1,291,413.90 $$1,291,413.90 $0.00 $3,874,241.71

Total Non-Labor for All 

PWSs $0.00 $19,640,901.65 $19,640,901.65 $19,640,901.65 $0.00 $58,922,704.94

Total Labor and NonLabor for All PWSs $0.00 $20,932,315.55 $20,932,315.55 $20,932,315.55 $0.00 $62,796,946.65
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

70

Exhibit B-1b: Per System (Respondent) and Per Response UCMR 3 Costs (2012-2016) 

(corresponds with Exhibit 11b)

Burden / Cost

Total over 2012-2016 Annual Average over 2012-2016

Small PWSs Large PWSs Very Large 

PWSs Small PWSs Large PWSs Very Large PWSs

PER RESPONDENT:

Labor Cost $159.69 $775.49 $1,437.48 $31.94 $155.10 $287.50

Non-Labor Cost $0.00 $11,784.80 $34,181.35 $0.00 $2,356.96 $6,836.27

Burden (labor hours) 6.88 24.83 37.53 1.38 4.97 7.51

PER RESPONSE:

Number Responses per 

Respondent 2.42 3.22 3.67 0.48 0.64 0.73

Labor Cost per 

Response $66.03 $240.65 $391.61 $13.21 $48.13 $78.32

Non-Labor Cost per 

Response $0.00 $3,657.02 $9,311.94 $0.00 $731.40 $1,862.39

Burden (labor hours) 

per Response 2.84 7.70 10.22 0.57 1.54 2.04

Exhibit B-2a: Yearly Cost and Burden to States for Implementation of UCMR 3 (2012-

2016)

1

(corresponds with Exhibit 13a)

Cost/

Burden 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total Annual Average

Costs to All States for labor related to UCMR implementation and oversight

$331,537.87 $994,613.61 $1,024,452.02 $1,055,185.58 $362,280.38 $3,768,069.46 $753,613.89

Labor burden for all States for UCMR implementation and oversight (number of hours) 

13,341.96 13,625.46 12,238.02 6,202.26 6,107.76 51,515.46 10,303.09

1 All costs are attributed to labor and are estimated over the period 2012-2016. 
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

71

Exhibit B-2b: Per State (Respondent) and Per Response UCMR 3 Costs (2012-2016) 

(corresponds with Exhibit 13b)

Burden / Cost Total over 2012-2016

Annual Average 

over 2012-2016

PER RESPONDENT:

Labor Cost $67,286.95 $13,457.39

Non-Labor Cost $0.00 $0.00

Burden (labor hours) 919.90 183.98

PER RESPONSE:

Number Responses per Respondent1 5.00 1.00

Labor Cost per Response $13,457.39 $2,691.48

Non-Labor Cost per Response $0.00 $0.00

Burden (labor hours) per Response 183.98 36.80

1 States are assumed to have 1 response per year, since there are no specific cyclical state reporting requirements under the 

UCMR program. 

Exhibit B-3a: Yearly Cost to EPA for UCMR 3 Implementation, by Type of Cost (2012-

2016) 1(corresponds with Exhibit 14a)

Cost Description 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total Average

Regulatory Support Activities: laboratory proficiency testing; QC audits; analytical standards provision; and 

technical support, guidance document development

Lab PT $231,855.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $231,855.00 $46,371.00

QC Audits $17,399.36 $34,798.72 $34,798.72 $17,399.36 $0.00 $104,396.16 $20,879.23

Analytical 

Standards $115,927.00 $238,811.00 $245,975.00 $253,354.00 $0.00 $854,067.00 $170,813.40

Technical Support $115,927.00 $59,703.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $175,630.00 $35,126.00

Subtotal –

Regulatory 

Support

$481,108.36 $333,312.72 $280,773.72 $270,753.36 $0.00 $1,365,948.16 $273,189.63

National and Regional Oversight and Data Analysis: UCMR management oversight; review and evaluation of 

data from all UCMR monitoring

$442,499.20 $884,998.40 $884,998.40 $884,998.40 $0.00 $3,097,494.40 $619,498.88

Small PWS Testing: implementation coordination; and analytical and shipping costs for small PWS testing for 

both Assessment Monitoring, Screening Survey, and Pre-Screen Testing

Implementation 

Coordination $0.00 $1,219,832.00 $1,219,832.00 $1,219,832.00 $0.00 $3,659,496.00 $731,899.20

Fees for Analysis 

and shipping $0.00 $4,187,400.66 $4,187,400.66 $4,187,400.66 $0.00 $12,562,201.97 $2,512,440.39

Subtotal –

Small PWS

Testing

$0.00 $5,407,232.66 $5,407,232.66 $5,407,232.66 $0.00 $16,221,697.97 $3,244,339.59

TOTAL $923,607.56 $6,625,543.78 $6,573,004.78 $6,562,984.42 $0.00 $20,685,140.53 $4,137,028.11

1 Agency costs are estimated over the period 2012-2016. 
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

72

Exhibit B-3b: Summary of EPA Burdens and Costs for UCMR 3 Implementation (2012-

2016) (corresponds with Exhibit 14b)

Burden / Cost Annual Average Cost over Five-Year UCMR Period 

(2012-2016)

Labor Cost $619,498.88

Non-Labor Cost $3,517,529.23

Total Cost to EPA for UCMR Implementation $4,137,028.11

Burden (labor hours) 8,008.00
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

73

Exhibit B-4: National Cost Summary for UCMR 3 Implementation (2012-2016) 

(corresponds with Exhibit 15)

Type of Cost 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 TOTAL

Small PWSs

Labor Cost $0.00 $110,719.99 $110,719.99 $110,719.99 $0.00 $332,159.97

Non-Labor Cost $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Total Small 

PWS Cost $0.00 $110,719.99 $110,719.99 $110,719.99 $0.00 $332,159.97

Large PWSs

Labor Cost $0.00 $982,800.86 $982,800.86 $982,800.86 $0.00 $2,948,402.59

Non-Labor Cost $0.00 $14,935,269.58 $14,935,269.58 $14,935,269.58 $0.00 $44,805,808.73

Total Large 

PWS Cost $0.00 $15,918,070.44 $15,918,070.44 $15,918,070.44 $0.00 $47,754,211.32

Very Large PWSs

Labor Cost $0.00 $197,893.05 $197,893.05 $197,893.05 $0.00 $593,679.16

Non-Labor Cost $0.00 $4,705,632.07 $4,705,632.07 $4,705,632.07 $0.00 $14,116,896.21

Total Very 

Large 

PWS Cost $0.00 $4,903,525.12 4,903,525.12 4,903,525.12 $0.00 $14,710,575.36

States

Labor Cost $331,537.87 $994,613.61 $1,024,452.02 $1,055,185.58 $362,280.38 $3,768,069.46

Non-Labor Cost $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Total State Cost $331,537.87 $994,613.61 $1,024,452.02 $1,055,185.58 $362,280.38 $3,768,069.46

EPA

Labor Cost $442,499.20 $884,998.40 $884,998.40 $884,998.40 $0.00 $3,097,494.40

Non-Labor Cost $481,108.36 $5,740,545.38 $5,688,006.38 $5,677,986.02 $0.00 $17,587,646.13

Total EPA Cost $923,607.56 $6,625,543.78 $6,573,004.78 $6,562,984.42 $0.00 $20,685,140.53

National Total

Total with EPA $1,255,145.43 $28,552,472.94 $28,529,772.34 $28,550,485.55 $362,280.38 $87,250,156.64

Total without 

EPA $331,537.87 $21,926,929.16 $21,956,767.57 $21,987,501.13 $362,280.38 $66,565,016.10

Total Burden (hours) for All Responses

Small PWSs 0.00 4,769.41 4,769.41 4,769.41 0.00 14,308.24

Large PWSs 0.00 31,461.90 31,461.90 31,461.90 0.00 94,385.70

Very Large 

PWSs 0.00 5,166.87 5,166.87 5,166.87 0.0 15,500.60

States 13,341.96 13,625.46 12,238.02 6,202.26 6,107.76 51,515.46

EPA 5,720.00 11,440.00 11,440.00 11,440.00 0 40,040.00

Total with EPA 19,061.96 66,463.64 65,076.20 59,040.44 6,107.76 215,749.99
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

74

Exhibit B-4: National Cost Summary for UCMR 3 Implementation (2012-2016) 

(corresponds with Exhibit 15)

Type of Cost 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 TOTAL

Total without 

EPA 13,341.96 55,023.64 53,636.20 47,600.44 6,107.76 175,709.99

1 Although EPA is not considered a respondent to the UCMR, agency burdens are shown here to illustrate the 

national costs of the program. National totals are shown with and without the agency costs.
Renewal ICR for UCMR 3 Final Rule February 2015

75

Exhibit B-5: UCMR 3 Per Respondent Burden and Cost Summary (2012-2016) 

(corresponds with Exhibit 16)

Burden (hours)/

Cost (dollars)

Small 

PWSs Large PWSs Very Large PWSs States EPA

National 

Average 

with EPA1

National 

Average 

without 

EPA

Five-Year Total per Respondent

Total # of 

Responses Per 

Respondent 2.42 3.22 3.67 5.0 n/a n/a 3.00

Labor Cost Per 

Respondent $159.69 $775.49 $1,437.48 $67,286.95 $3,097,494.40 $1,690.78 $1,203.32

Non-Labor Cost 

Per Respondent n/a $11,784.80 $34,181.35 n/a $17,587,646.13 $12,045.08 $9,277.71

Total Cost 

(Labor plus 

Non-Labor) $159.69 $12,560.29 $35,618.83 $67,286.95 $20,685,140.53 $13,735.86 $10,481.03

Total Cost Per 

Response $66.03 $3,897.67 $9,703.55 $13,457.39 n/a n/a $3,489.03

Total Burden Per 

Respondent (hr) 6.88 24.83 37.53 919.92 40,040.00 33.97 27.67

Total Burden Per 

Response (hr) 2.84 3.22 3.67 183.98 n/a n/a 9.21

Average Annual per Respondent

Ave. # of 

Responses Per 

Respondent 0.48 0.64 0.73 1.0 n/a n/a 0.60

Labor Cost Per 

Respondent $31.94 $155.10 $287.50 $13,457.39 $619,498.88 $338.16 $240.66

Non-Labor Cost 

Per Respondent n/a $2,356.96 $6,836.27 n/a $3,517,529.23 $2,409.02 $1,855.54

Ave. Cost (Labor 

plus Non-Labor) $31.94 $2,512.06 $7,123.77 $13,457.39 $4,137,028.11 $2,747.17 $2,096.21

Ave. Cost Per 

Response $13.21 $779.53 $1,940.71 $2,691.48 n/a n/a $697.81

Ave. Burden Per 

Respondent (hr) 1.38 4.97 7.51 183.98 8,008.00 6.79 5.53

Ave. Burden Per 

Response (hr) 0.57 0.64 0.73 36.80 n/a n/a 1.84

1 National average burdens and costs differ greatly between the state respondents and the various PWS respondents. 

This should be taken into consideration when looking at the national average with or without EPA.