### i



# Information Collection Request for **Performance Evaluation Studies of Waste** **wa ter Laboratories** 

October 2013

Prepared by: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

Office of Com pliance Monitoring, Assistance , and Media Programs Division

Water Branch 1200 Penns yl vania Ave., N
.W
. Washington, D.C. 20460

# TA**BLE OF CONTENTS** 

**1 IDENTIFICA** **TION OF**  **THE INFORMA** **TION COLLECTION**  **................................ .....**  **1** 1(a) Title and Number of the Information Collection
................................ ........................... 1 1(b) Short Characterization
................................ ................................ ................................ 1 

### 2 **NEED FOR**  **AN D**  **USE OF**  **THE COLLECTION**  **................................ ........................**  **2** 2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection
................................ ................................ ................ 2 2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data
................................ ................................ ................ 2 

### 3 **NONDUPLICA TION,**  **CONSULTA TIONS,**  **AND OTHER**  **COLLECTION CRITERIA**  **3** 3(a) Non -duplication
................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 3 3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB
................................ ............ 3 3(c) Consultations
................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 3 3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection
................................ ................................ ............ 4 3(e) General Guidelines
................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 4 3(f) Confidentiality
................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 4 3(g) Sen sitive Questions
................................ ................................ ................................ .... 4 

### 4 **THE RESPONDENTS**  **AN D**  **THE INFORMA** **TION REQUESTED**  **............................ 5**  **4(a) Respondents and NA** **ICS/SIC Codes**
................................ ................................ ....... 5 **4(b) Information Needed** 
................................ ................................ ................................ .. 5 4(b)(i) Data items, including recordkeeping requirements
................................ .................. 5 4(b)(ii) Respondent Activities
................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 5 

### 5 **THE INFORMA** **TION COLLECTED**  **– AG**  **ENCY ACTIVITIES,**  **COLLECTION METHODOLOGY**  **AN D**  **INFORMA TION**  **MA NA** **GEMENT ................................**  **............... 7**  5(a) Agency Activities
................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 7 5(b) Collection Methodology and Management
................................ ................................ .. 7 5(c) Small Entity Flexibility
................................ ................................ ................................ . 7 5(d) Collection Schedule
................................ ................................ ................................ .... 7 

### 6 **ESTIMA TING**  **THE BURDEN**  **AND COST**  **OF THE**  **COLLECTION ..........................**  **8** 6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden
................................ ................................ .................. 8 6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs
................................ ................................ ..................... 9 6(b)(i) Respondent Labor
................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 10 6(b)(ii) Respondent Operation and Maintenance Costs
................................ ....................... 10 6(b)(iii) Capital/Startup Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs
................................ .. 11 

### 6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Costs
................................ ................................ ........ 11 6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs
............................ 12 6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables
................................ .............................. 12 6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden
................................ ................................ .................. 13 6(g) Burden Statement
................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 13

### 1



## 1 **IDENTIFICA TION OF THE INFORM**  **AT ION COLLECTION**  **1(a) Title**  **and Number of the Information Collection**  Performance Evaluation Studies of Wastewater Laboratories
. OMB Control No. 2080- 0021, ICR No. 0 234.11
. 

### 1(b) **Short Characterization** This is a request to renew an existing Information Collection Request (ICR) to support the collection of Proficiency Testing (PT) data on the performance of laboratories that conduct discharge analyses for the Discharge Monitoring Report
– Quality Assurance (DMR-QA) study program . This request will replace the expiring ICR (Performance Evaluation Studies of Water and Wastewater Laboratories (OMB Control No. 2080 -0021, EPA ICR No. 0234. 10 ). T his ICR refers only to DMR-QA. T herefore, the figures for burdens only support DMR-QA. EPA is requestin g a standard three -year clearance for this ICR. Chemical mo nitoring data for drinking water and wastewater are submitted from a variety of laboratories to the United States Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) every ye ar. T hese results mu st be relied on by EPA, as they form the primary

basis for its regulatory decisions. I n order to provide an objective dem onstration that these laboratories are submitting reliable information, the subject Performance Evaluation (PE) studies were developed. Participat ion in the Discharge Monitoring Report - Quality Assurance (DMR-QA) studies is ma ndatory for ma jor wastewater dischargers and selected mi nor dischargers under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Major mu nicipal dischargers are defined as facilities designed to discharge at l east 1 mi llion gallons of wastewater per day a nd also those facility(s) that serve a population of at least 10,000. Non - mu nicipal m ajor facilities are designated based on a num erical rating system that evaluates their significance using criteria such as toxic pollutant potential, flow volume and water quality factors. Minor dischargers are selected to mo nitor the analytes/toxics discharged by the facility. EPA formerly adm inistered and prepa red test standards for the DMR-QA program as part of the Agency’ s ma ndate to assure the quality of environmental mo nitoring data submitted by N PDES permit holders (permittees)
. P reparation, distribution and grading of the test standards have now been privatized to lessen EPA= s burden in carrying out this ma ndate. P rivate sector com panies ma nufacture and distribute test samples to contract and in - house laboratories , and are known as Proficiency Testing (PT) providers
. T he laboratories submit their analytical results to the PT providers for evaluation. T he PT providers evaluate the submitted data and send the graded results back to the laboratories. T hese laboratories then forward copies of their graded data to their permittee clients, who will review the results and forward the data to their designated certifying/enforcement authorities. P roviders also send electronic copies of the graded results to the designated certifying/enforcement authorities and to EPA. G raded results include the nam es and addresses of the laboratories, analytes tested , concentration of the analytes , and the acceptance criteria and evaluations. EPA is required to conduct this ICR analysis because mo re than nine non - Federal entities will be asked to respond to this data re quest. B ecause state agencies use the resulting data for their own laboratory certification/enforcement programs, and are not reporting any i nformation from the PT studies to EPA, they d o not incur any

b urden under this ICR. I n addition, cost and burden to PT Providers are not considered in this ICR because the vendor costs associated with this program are accounted for in the pricing of their standards (i.e., the costs incurred by t he Providers is factored into the cost of the PT standards).

### 2 The total a nnual burden and labor costs incurred by the 5,509 permittees associated with this ICR are estimated to be 36,361 hours and $4, 176 , 26 3 per year over the 3-ye ar ICR period ( calendar ye ars 2014 -20 16 ). E PA estimates that it takes 6.6 hours and costs $ 758
. 0 8 per year per respondent to comply

with this requirement
. Respondent labor costs are linked with the tim e it takes to read and understand the annual DMR-QA announcement sent by E PA, plan activities, analyze PT standards, report information to the PT provi ders, and maintain records. Respondent operation and ma intenance (O&M) costs are associated with purchasing the PT standards. N o costs or burdens to PT Providers or state regulatory agencies are associated with this ICR. 

## 2 **NEED FOR A ND USE OF THE**  **COLLECTION 2(a)**  **Need/A uthority for the Collection**  Laboratory Performance Evaluation (PE) studies are designed to fulfill the need to mo nitor the quality of analytical data for select critical analytes within ma jor point-source discharge samples. Results from the PE studies over time have generally shown a slow but regular im provement in average performance by t he laboratories producing the mo nitored data. B y helping laboratories iden tify and correct analytical problems, the PE studies are also responsible for documented im provement in th is data. Public Law 92 -500, the Federal W ater Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, and the related regulations in 40 CFR part 136, required exte nsive analysis of water and wastewater samples by EPA, state, local government and private laboratories, to ma intain am bient water quality and control point-source discharges. T hese mo nitoring requirements were continued in the Clean Water Act of 1987 § 3 08(a) ( Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Public Law 100-4, 33 U.S.C. § 1318)
. EPA uses this data as the basis for ma ny i mportant decisions , including policy and regulation development, compliance and enforcement determinations, and program development
. The data quality depends heavily upon the availability of capable laboratory analys es at all levels and reliability must be ensured
. 

### 2(b) **Practical Utility /Users of the Data**  States and laboratory personnel will use the results of these studies to identify problems associated with laboratory analysis and substandard facility discharges. T his will im prove the quality of water data in critical mo nitoring areas and the quality of facility d ischarges returned to the environment
. T hese studies have dem onstrated that problems exist and arise periodically with all dischargers and water testing laboratories
. W ithout future studies, ma ny s uch problems will go unrecognized and unresolved. Results from th e D M R-QA studies are used to highlight N P DES facilities and laboratories with apparent analytical problems that should be inspected on site by state regulatory personnel. Results from the PT studies are used by State personnel as a ma jor part of the basis for certifying laboratories to produce required regulatory data and as a bas is for potential regulatory enforcement
.

### 3



## 3 **NONDUPLICA TION, CONSULTA** **TIONS, A ND OTHER**  **COLLECTION CRITERIA 3(a)**  **Non -** **duplication** D ata and resu lts from other federally sponsored water quality programs, such as the Water Pollution (W P) program, can be used to fulfill obligations under the DMR-QA as long as the laboratories meet the condition that they perform the PE sample analyses between January 1 st and the last day

of the DMR-QA study
. T he DMR- QA study commences on or around March 15th, and concludes on or around July 1 st of each year. As of January 1 , 2013, EPA has granted waivers to 12 states to use their state laboratory certification program i n lieu of their permittees participating in DMR-QA. Seven of these waivers have been granted since the last ICR was renewed in December 2010
. 

### 3(b) **Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB** In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, a notice of this Information Collection Request ICR was published in the Federal Register on Ju ly 12 , 2013 ( 78 FR 41926 ), 

### 3(c) **Consultations** The DMR-QA has been administered by the EPA for over 30 ye ars. Th e Office of Research and Development initiated and adm inistered the program until the responsibility was assigned to the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA). O ECA will con sider any comments received and ma ke appropriate adjustments to the program . The seven PT providers are accredited by

the Am erican Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) , and ACLASS , a brand of the ANSI -ASQ National Accreditation Board. A2LA is a nonprofit, non -governmental, public service, membership society. The mission of A2LA is to provide comprehensive services in laboratory accreditation and laboratory- related training. The list of PT providers is available at http://www.nelac- institute.org/ptproviders.php
. ACLASS is one of three brands of the ANSI -ASQ National Accreditation Board, a non - profit, non governmental organization that provides accreditation services to public- and p rivate-sector organizations and is jointly owned by the American National Standards Institute and the American Society for Quality. ACLASS provides accreditation for ISO/IEC 17043 for proficiency testing providers . The list of PT providers is available at http://www.aclasscorp.com/search -accredited com panies.aspx
. EPA contacted the seven PT Providers and three responded
. The PT Providers were asked to provide input on the estimated time burden for respondents as well as the fees which lab oratories need to pay

for sam ples provided by the PT Providers. T he three PT Providers that responded indicated that it costs on average $474 to $ 620 per laboratory for chemi stry/m icrobiological sam ples. EPA chos e to use the conservative high end estimate of $ 62 0 per laboratory for the purposes of estimating ICR costs to respondents
. For W hole Effluent Toxicity (W ET ) tests, the range was $673 to $1,290 per laboratory, and th e high end estimate of $1,290 was used. It should be noted that this is the cost that both in - house and contract laboratories pay, and this is passed onto the permittee. T herefore, if a lab is contracted by s everal permittees, then EPA considers that the cost will be distributed evenly am ong the permittees. H owever, if a perm ittee em ploys an in - house laboratory, the permittee is burdened with the entire cost of obtaining sam ples as well as the labor costs of the laboratory. S ince the ratio of in - house a nd contract laboratories is unknown, an average was obtained for all laboratories and a ratio of 0.633 laboratories per permittee was used. Th is ratio is the sam e as used in the 2010 ICR. Th erefore,

### 4 the cost of obtaining samples is estimated to be $ 392 per permittee for chem istry/microbiological tests , and $817 for WET tests, using the ratio of 0.633 laboratories per permittee. 

### 3(d) **Effects of Less Frequent Collection** The current frequency for the DMR-QA is judged to be the m inim um needed to assess the accuracy of data production required by d ischarge permits. U nder DMR-QA, l aboratories producing data are expected to dem onstrate adequate analytical proficiency once per year for each analyte they test routinely for their NPDES permittee clients
. Collecting water quality data less than once per year to measure the accuracy of laboratory work would potentially delay corrective actions required by the permittee and therefore compromise discharge water quality. 

### 3(e) **General Guidelines** This ICR was prepared in accordance with the October 2009 version of the ICR Handbook developed by

E PA's Office of Environmental Information, Office of Information Collection, Collection Strategies Division. Th e ICR Handbook provides the most current instructions for ICR preparation to ensure compliance with the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Am endm ents and OMB's implementing guidelines. EPA believes participation in these studies is a reasonable requirement fo r all laboratories routinely producing data for environmental water regulation. Any p ublic health data on drinking waters, ambient waters or effluents under regulation deserve the minimal quality assurance check that these studies represent. 

### 3(f) **Confide ntiality**  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.

### 5



## 4 **THE RESPONDENTS A ND THE INFORM**  **AT ION REQUESTED**  **4(a) Respondents and NA** **ICS/SIC Codes** Respondents in DMR-QA studies are NPDES permittees designated by the EPA region or state with permitting responsibility and the laboratories doing chemical/microbiological analysis and whole-effluent toxicity testing for these ma jor dischargers. T hese respondents are most likely from the following SIC Codes:
CATEGORY SIC NUMBERS NAICS NUMBERS Manufacturers 2011 through through 3999 311611 Water Supply Systems 4941 22131 Sewerage Systems 4952 22132 Water Testing Laboratories 8734 54194 

### 4(b) **Information Needed 4(b)(i)**  **Data items** In all laboratory PE studies, the data result from analyses of synthetic samples that contain known am ounts of specific com pounds, usually dissolved in reagent water. I n DMR-QA studies, the compounds are those of primary interest with regard to the mo nitoring requirements in the NPDES permits. All studies also collect sufficient data to properly identify and characterize the respondents. E ach respondent reports only data for that portion of the study a nalytes for which they wish to be certifi ed or as directed by the responsible regulatory official. 

### 4(b)(ii) Respondent A**ctiv ities**  The primary

b urden involves analyzing and reporting results for relevant study samples according to instructions. 5,509 respondents participated in the 2013 DMR-QA study
. Wep roject that this num ber of respondents will remain relatively static for the next ICR period
. The DMR-QA program requires ma jor perm ittees to submit results annually, and minor permittees are optionally selected for participation by the DMR-QA state coordinators. T h e fluctuation of ma jor perm it holders and the selection process at the state level causes the exact num ber of permittees to vary each ye ar . A percentage of these permittees do all the work onsite themselves, using in - house la boratories. The remaining permittees contract at least some of the analysis to a commercial laboratory(s). T he commercial laboratory may d o work for ma ny permittees; the DMR-QA results would then be sent to these permittees. T herefore, there are fewer la bs than permittees. H owever, EPA does not have data on how ma ny i n - house laboratories and contract laboratories are used , as permit holders may c hoose to have commercial or in - house laboratories perform the analyses . Furthermore, EPA does not track how m any laboratories participated in one or more studies or how many permittees participated in only chemistry

a nd mi crobiology and those that also participated in WET testing. E PA is estimating

### 6 the “maxi mu m” im pact of the DMR-QA program on the regulated comm unity. E PA will assume that all 5,509 permittees will fulfill requirements for the top 10 chemistry &m icrobiology

a nalytes and the top 10 W ETtest methods. EPA believes this ICR may overestimate the burden because not all permittees are required to perform WET testing. ( See Appendix B for a list of the top 10 chemistry

& m icrobiology analytes and the top 10 W ETtest m ethods). To calculate the burden incurred on laboratories performing PE samples, EPA used a ratio of 0.633 laboratories per NPDES permittee. Th is ratio was calculated based on data procured by 4 PT Providers in 2006. E PA assumes that the ratio of laboratories per permittee has not changed significantly since the last ICR was approved. Based on this ratio (0.633 laboratories per NPDES permi ttee) and that there are 5,509 permittees participating in the DMR-QA, EPA estimates there are a total of 3,487 laboratories performing PE studies under DMR-QA. To provide an estimate of respondent burden for the WET testing portion of DMR-QA, EPA dete rmined that an average of 4.77% of all laboratories participating in DMR-QA perform WET PE tests, or 166 laboratories. This percentage is also based on the information from the 4 providers received in 2006. EPA is not estimating the burden for the PT Providers, because this burden is internalized in the cost of obtaining PE samples from the PT Providers. Respondents (permittees) will participate in the following activities: 1. Read Instructions: Each of the 5,509 respondents will read the instructions provided by EPA. 2. Plan Activities: Each of the 5,509 respondents will incur burden to plan activities associated with the PT studies
. 3. Analyze Chemistry

and Microbiology Analytes: EPA assumes that all 5,509 respondents will participate in the PT studie s for mi crobiology, trace metals, demands, mi nerals, nutrients, and miscellaneous analytes as required by respondents’ permits. EPA assumes that 3,487 in - house and contract laboratories will do the work for the 5,509 permittees. 4. Analyze WET: EPA assu mes that all 5,509 permittees will participate in the PT studies for WET. I t is assumed that 166 in - house and contract laboratories will do the work for the 5,509 permittees. 5. Report Results: Each of the 5,509 respondents will incur burden to report its study results to the PT provider. 6. Maintain Records: Each of the 5,509 respondents will incur burden to ma intain records associated with the PT study.

### 7

**5 THE INFORMA** **TION COLLECTED –**  **AG ENCY**  **ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY**  **AN D INFORMA** **TION MANA GEMENT**  **5(a) Ag**  **ency A** **ctiv ities**  EPA provid es general program management support , develops guidance and ma intains oversight of state DMR-QA activities, as well as oversight of the PT Providers and participating laboratories on an as- needed basis. 

### 5(b) **Collection M ethodology and Management**  EPA notifies the permittee of their requirement to participate in the relevant PE program annually. The perm ittee’s in - house or contract laboratory will then select an accredited private PT Provider to provide them with the appro priate samples. The testing facility will then send the analysis data of these samples to the PT Provider. The permittee will use the form approved by O MB to report DMR-QA results. T his form will be available in two formats: a hard copy that will be part of the announcement which is ma iled annually and an online PDF form, available on the EPA website. This PDF form can be filled out and then printed for submission. T he PT Provider will send evaluations of the submitted data back to the permittee and th e designated certifying/enforcement authority. PT Providers may also send summary data in electronic form to EPA for archiving. 

### 5(c) **Small Entity**

**Flexibility** The major requirement under Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) is a regulatory flexibility analysis of all rules that have a "significant economic im pact on a substantial num ber of sm all entities." S ince this data request is not part of a rule, this ICR is not subject to SBREFA. 

### 5(d) **Collection Schedule** EPA determines th e requirements for the frequency that a permittee mu st dem onstrate proficiency by passing a PE study. The study typically starts on or around March 15 th and ends on or around July

1 st

. The participating permittees’ in - house/contract laboratories demonstrate their proficiency by

passing a PE study conducted by a n accredited PT Provider for a fee. The PT Provider mu st submit the results of each study to the state and EPA regional coordinator, as well as the EPA National Coordinator. In summary: each part icipating in - house or contract laboratory mu st report test results to the PT Provider once a year. The PT Provider mu st electronically submit the results of all studies they conduct to participating permittees and state and EPA regional coordinators. Parti cipating permittees mu st re-qualify for each analyte it reports one year from the last certification that it received.

### 8



## 6 **ESTIM AT**  **ING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION**  This section describes the estimated average annual burden and costs for the information collection activities for PT studies that will be conducted by l aboratories. F or this data submission, PT providers and state agencies and EPA have no burden and costs; this is discussed further in Section 6(a). T he Agency's burden and cost estimates are outlined in Section 6(c). To estimate the costs, EPA made assumptions about the burden associated with activities that would likely be needed to fulfill the request. EPA em phasizes that the per- respondent estimates represent the average burden and cost over the 3-ye ar period covered by this ICR (2014 -2016 ). Som e respondents may i ncur higher costs and some will fall below the average. EPA made the assumption that al l respondents perform all the tests included in this analysis. As a result, the tim e burden is assumed to be a high estimate
. Burden and costs are not distinguished by categorized entities, public (federal, state and local government dischargers) and p rivate (commercial, industrial and others) sectors, because EPA currently does not track this information. 

### 6(a) **Estimating Respondent Burden** The average annual respondent burden (in labor hours) for permi ttees is shown in Table 6.1. PT Providers conduct the studies, removing this burden from EPA . Participating laboratories receive sam ples from the PT Provider, return test results to the PT Providers and the PT Providers evaluate the data and send reports to the laboratories, the state accrediting authorities and EPA
. The total burden on the laboratories is 36,361 hours, with an average of 6.6 hours per respondent ( 36,361 total hours divided by 5,509 permittees). This estimate includes burden for participating laboratories to read instructions, plan activities, analyze samples, submit data to the PT vendors, and maintain records. EPA assumes that the respondent burden will be divided am ong three la bor categories: ma nager, chemist, and records clerk. T he labor associated with each of the ICR activities are discussed in more detail below.

 Read Instructions: EPA assumes that each of the 5,509 respondents will require 0.5 hours to read the instruct ions provided by EPA
. T he burden will be divided between a ma nager and chemist. Sam ple instructions and forms can be found in the attached DMR-QA Study 33 package accompanying this ICR.

 Plan Activities: EPA assumes that the ma nager of each laboratory will require 0.5 hours to plan activities associated with the PT studies. The burden will be divided between a ma nager and chemist.

 Analyze Chemi stry a nd Microbiology Analytes : A total of 5,509 permittees are expected to use a total of 3,487 laboratories (a ratio of 0.633 lab oratories for every permittee). Analysis is assumed to require approximately 2.1 hours to analyze PT standards for the top 10 analytes. All hours will be incurred by ac hem ist. See Appen dix B for these tests and the estimated time for an analysis. T hese estimates assume that the laboratory is adding a DMR-QA sample to the normal processing that occurs in the laboratory using an already calibrated instrument/process.

 Analyze WET : A biol ogist or project ma nager constructs the test chambers and records organism mo rtality (morbidity) of test organisms while a chemist analyzes the water

### 9 chemistry
. B iologists and c hem ists are assumed to require 2.4 hours to analyze PT standards for WET
. It is assumed that 166 laboratories do this work for all 5,509 permittees. These estimates assume that the laboratory is adding a DMR-QA sample to the normal processing that occurs in the laboratory using an already calibrated instrument/process.

 Report Results: EPA assumes that each of the 5,509 respondents will require 1.0 hours to report the results of the study to the PT Provider. T he burden will be divided between a manager and records clerk.

 Maintain Records: EPA assumes that a records clerk in each of the 5,509 laboratories will require 0.1 hours to ma intain the files from the PT study.



# Table 6.1 **Estimated A nnual Respondent Burdens for Proficiency**  **Testing**

Collection Activities Annual # Respondents 1 

### Burden

Manager Chemist2 Record Clerk Total Burden

(hours/year) hours /year hours

/year hours

/year Per

Respondent All

Respondents Read Instructions 5,509 0.2 0.3 0 0.5 2,755 Plan activities 5,509 0.2 0.3 0 0.5 2,755 Analyze Chemistry/Microbiology 5,509 0 2.1 0 2.1 11,569 Analyze W ET 5,509 0 2.4 0 2.4 13,222 Report Results 5,509 0.3 0 0.7 1 5,509 Maintain Records 5,509 0 0 0.1 0.1 551 **Total 5,509**  **36,361 Total A** **nnual # Responses: 5,509**  **Av g. Labor (hours) per Respondent:**  **6.6 1**  In 2013 it is estimated that 5,509 NPDES permittees participated in the DMR-QA program. Most of the permittees participate in the Chemistry/Microbiology component. A smaller amount also participate in W ET analysis. It is estimated that 4.77% of all labs participate in the WET analysis. 2 Refer to Appendix B for analysis times for Chemistry /Microbiology analytes and W ET m ethods. 

### 6(b) **Estimating Respondent Costs** Table 6. 2 shows the annual average costs for laboratories over the 3-ye ar ICR period
. Average annual labor costs for all 5,509 permittees are estimated to be $1,799,625 . Average annual O&M costs are estimated to be $2,376,638
. E PA estimates each laboratory will incur an annual average labor plus non - labor cost of $ 846.78 for this data collection effort. (see Table 6.2)
.

### 10

**6(b)(i) Respondent Labor** The labor cost was arrived at by estimating the amount of labor required to participate on an annual basis i n the DMR- QA study
. Labor costs are based on information provided by t he U.S. Department of Labor Statistics, May 2012 , National Industry Specific Occupational Em ployme nt and Wage Estimate. The labor categories include a ma nager at an hourly rate of $ 55.64 , a data entry clerical person at an hourly rate of $ 17.19 , and a skilled technician or chemist to conduct the measurements at an hourly rate of $ 34.50
. Table 6.2 lists the estimated burden and costs for labor related to each activity. T he annual respond ent labor cost, for all 5,509 respondents is estimated to be $ 1,799 ,625 for 36,361 hours
. Th e labor costs take into account benefits/ com pensation in addition to salary. EPA estimates the ben efits/compensation to be 30 % of total com pensation, or 42.9% of salary. 

### 6(b)(ii) Respondent Operation and Maintenance Costs Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs for laboratories include all costs related to providing personnel with the space, equipment and materials necessary to perform the tasks required by th is ICR. S ince laboratories are driven by their compliance mo nitoring requirements to purchase the analytical instrumentation and computers and not by this ICR, no capital costs are be considered associated with this ICR. Only the costs associated with purchasing the PT standards is appropriate for consideration in this category. Permittees may

p articipate in the PT studies for some or all of the chemistry, mi crobiology analytes and WET test methods ( refer to Appendix A for a list of chemistry and mi crobiology analytes and WET test methods). The cost of the PE samples vari es with the costs for the analytes, microbiological and W ET testing required for each calendar year . This is complicated by the fact that the participants in any g iven study

n eed not analyze all of the samples available for that study, only the ones that are required by their permits
. EPA estimated a cost of $ 681.53 per laboratory based on feedback from PTP roviders who did an analysi s of the average cost of buying PE samples. Because EPA does not have sufficient information to estimate how ma ny a nalytes are contained in the PT sam ples sent to each laboratory, EPA assumes that a single PT sam ple contains standards for the top ten an alytes for chemistry a nd mi crobiology and the top 10 WET test methods, based on information from the PT Providers. T herefore, laboratories participating in the chemistry

a nd mi crobiology PT study a re assumed to receive and run analyses for 10 analytes. S im ilarly, those participating in the PT study for W ETwould receive samples for each of 10 WET test methods. EPA estimates the costs of obtaining PT samples to be $ 681.53 per laboratory and $431.41 per permittee (respondent). Average annual O&M costs (fees for PE samples ) for the respondents is estimated to be $ 2,376,638
.

### 11 

# Table 6.2 **Estimated A nnual Respondent Costs for**  **Proficiency Testing** 

Collection Activities 

### Labor Cost **1** 

### Non **- Labor Cost**  **Labor Plus Non**   ** Labor** Manager 2 Chemist 3 Record Clerk 4 Labor Costs Cost of Standards per PT Analysis 5 Average Labor plus Non Labor Costs at $55.64/hr at

$34.50/hr at

$17.19/ hr per Respondent All

Respondents per

Respondent All

Respondents per

Respondent All

Respondents Read Instructions $15.90 $14.79 $0.00 $30.69 $169,071.21 $0 $0 $30.69 $169,071.21 Plan activities $15.90 $14.79 $0.00 $30.69 $169,071.21 $0 $0 $30.69 $169,071.21 Analyze Chemistry and Microbiology $0.00 $103.50 $0.00 $103.50 $570,181.50 $392.46 $2,162,062 .14 $495.96 $2,732,243.64 Analyze W ET $0.00 $118.29 $0.00 $118.29 $651,659.61 $38.95 $214,57 7.69 $157.24 $866,237.30 Report Results $23.85 $0.00 $17.19 $41.04 $226,089.36 $0 $0 $41.04 $226,089.36 Maintain Records $0.00 $0.00 $2.46 $2.46 $13,552.14 $0 $0 $2.46 $13,552.14 **Total $326.67**  **$1,799,625 $431.41**  **$2,376,638 $758.08**  **$4,176,265 1**  Median salaries from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), May 2012, National Industry Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates ( http://www.bls.gov/oes/). These are loaded rates wh ich include benefits estimated at 30% of total compensation, or 42.9% of applicable wages. As a percentage of total compensation, BLS estimates benefits to be 29.8% for management positions, 32.2% for natural resource positions and 28.7% for office positi ons. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t05.htm
. 2 U.S. Department of Labor Statistics, Natural Science Manager 11 -9121. ($55.64)

. **3** U.S. Department of Labor Statistics, Chemist 19 -2031. ($34.50)

. **4** U.S. Department of Labor Statistics, Information and Record Clerk 43 -4199. ($17.19)

. 5 Uses estimated cost of $620 per chem/micro lab and $1,290 per W ET lab. Includes a factor of 0.633 labs per respondent. WET analysis is multiplied by .0477 since o nly 4.77% of all labs perform W ET tests . Therefore, the average cost spread out over all respondents is $1,290 * 0.633 * .0477 = $3 8.95
. 

### 6(b)(iii) Capital/Startup Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs T here are no Capital/Startup costs associated with this information collection. T he annual Operating and Maintenance costs associated with this ICR are estimated to be $431.41 per respondent
. 

### 6(c) **Estimating A gency** **Burden and Costs** EPA’ s role i s advisory and involves program management only . T he burden to the Agency, other than the time required to put together the annual announcement and printing and mailing costs of the annual announcement is low
. O n average, 3 ,750 announcements are printed annually to send out to permittees, PT Providers, state and regional coordinators as well as spare copies.

### 12 Th is annual average is also a conservative estimate because in 2013 EPA began distributing announceme nts by e- ma il when possible. The annual burden is estimated below:

 Maintaining records of active participants in the program: 80 hours  Putting together the annual announcement and answering questions: 4 80 hours (40 hours/month)  Cost of printing 3 ,750 announcements: $2 , 400  Cost of mailing announcements: $4 , 2 00  Total annual burden and cost to EPA: 560 hours and $ 6 , 6 00 

### 6(d) **Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs** The respondents for this ICR are ma jor and select mi nor NPDES permittees. Som e or all permittees in states that have received EPA waivers from the DMR-QA program may n ot be required to participate. Permittees who participate may u se contract laboratories to perform the work, but the burden is considered to be upon the permittees, since they bear the costs of labor and operations & ma intenance. As itemized in section 6(b), the annual respondent burden is 6.6 hours and $ 846.78 per participant. T he total annual respondent burden is 36,361 hours and $4,176,263 for 5,509 participants. Currently, there are 7 PT Providers. PT Providers’ burdens are not assessed in this ICR because the ir cost burden for this ICR is part of the esti mated PE sam ple cost burden for the laboratories . Burden and costs to EPA is minimal, being limited to the drafting of the annual announcement and printing/mailing costs, whic h come to a total of 560 hours and $ 6,600 on an annual basis. 

### 6(e) **Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables**  The bottom line burden hours and costs for this ICR are shown in Table 6. 3. T his includes the burden and costs to the 5,509 respondents that are affected by t his ICR.



# Table 6.3 **Bottom Line Burden and Costs for ICR period (2014**  **- 16)**  **Cost / Burden Total Across Three**  **ICR Years (2014 -** **2016) Average Per Year over**  **ICR Years (2014 -** **2016) Number of**  **Respondents (Permittees)** 5,509 5,509 **Total Responses** 16,527 5,509 **Number of Responses per Permittee** 3 1 **Burden Hours per Permittee** 19.8 6.6 **Total Burden Hours (all 5,509 Permittees)** 109,078 36,361 **Per Permittee Labor Costs** $980.01 $326.67 **Total Labor Costs (all 5,509 Permittees)**  $5,398,875 $1,799,625 **Per Permittee O&M Costs** $1,294.23 $431.41 **Total O&M Costs (all 5,509 Permittees)** $7,129,913 $2,376,638 **Total Costs** (Labor plus O&M costs for all 5,509 permittees) $12,528,788 $4,176,263

### 13

**6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden**  Participation in the DMR- QA PE study h as decreased from an estimated average of 6,589 to 5,509 since the last renewal of this ICR . This is due to EPA granting a waiver to seven additional states, allowing them to em ploy their state laboratory certification program as a full or partial substitute for the federal DMR-QA program. Labor and Operation & Maintenance costs were updated since the previous renewal of this ICR. Labor costs in the 2010 ICR me ntioned but did not include fringe benefits/compensation. T h e addition of these costs coupled with inflation resulted in an increase in the labor cost for 2013, although the total burden hours decreased by approximately 5,150 hours. Operation & Maintenance costs reflect the costs of obtaining PE samples from the PT Providers. T he estimated average cost of obtaining PE samples increased from $ 190 per respondent (permittee) to $431 per respondent. This increase is due to increased cost and two new analytes added to the top te n list of most common analytes
. The new analytes are expensive compared to those they replaced
. 

### 6(g) **Burden Statement** The average annual respondent burden for each permittee is estimated to be 6.6 hours per response. T his estimate includes the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by permittees to gather and report information, and develop and maintain record. **Burden Statement**  : T he reporting burden for data collections included in this ICR is detailed above. T he total annual respondent burden (for calendar ye ars 2014
– 2016) im posed by t hese collections is estimated to be 36,361 hours, or 6.6 hours per respondent per year. E stimates include time for reading instructions, planning activities, analyzing standards, reporting results, and maintaining records. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by p ersons to generate, ma intain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. T his includes the tim e needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and ma intaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing wa ys to com ply 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 n ot conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collectio n 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 the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provid ed burden estimates, and any suggested methods for mi nim izing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA- HQ- OECA-2013-0 547 , which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov , or in person viewing at the Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW , W ashington, DC. T he EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202 -566- 1744, and the telephone num ber for the E nforcement and Compliance Docket is 202 -566- 1752
. Use EPA’s electronic docket and comment system at www.regulations.gov , to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket that are available electronically. O nce in the system, select “docket search,” then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please note that EPA’s policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically o r in paper, will be made available for public

### 14 viewing at www.regulations.gov as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic docket, go to www.regulations.gov
. Also, you can send comments by m ail to the Office of Inform ation and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW , Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. P lease include the EPA Docket ID No. EPA- HQ- OECA-2013- 0 547 and OMB control num ber 2080-0021 in any correspondence.

### 15



## AP **PENDIX A**  **: L**  **IST OF CHEMISTRY & MICROBIOLOGY A NA** **LYTES AND WET TEST METHODS** 

**Mic robiology**  **Tr ace M**  **etals** E.coli Alum inum Fecal Coliform, MF or MPN Antim ony Total Coliform, MF or MPN Arsenic **Minerals** Barium Alkalinity, total (CaCO3) Beryllium Chloride Cadmium Fluoride Chromium, total Hardness, total (CaCO3) Chromium, hexavalent Specific conductance (25°C) Cobalt Sulfate Copper Total Dissolved Solids (180°C) Iron **Nutrients** Lead Ammonia as N Manganese Nitrate as N Mercury Nitrite as N Mercury (Low Level) Orthophosphate as P Molybdenum Total Kjeldahl-Nitrogen as N Nickel Total Phosphorus as P Selenium **Mis c. A** **nalytes** Silver Non-Filterable Residue (TSS) Th allium Oi l and Grease Vanadium pH Zinc Total Cy anide **Demands** Total Phenolics (4-AAP) 5-day BOD Total Residual Chlorine 5-day Carbonaceous BOD Total Residual Chlorine (Low COD Level) TOC Settleable Solids Turbidity 

## Chemistry

**and Microbiology**

**A naly**  **tes**

### 16

**An aly** **te Number Organisms/Conditions**  **End Points Test Code 13/EPA** 

**Method 2000** 754 Fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas ) - MHSF 25OC LC50 **Test Code 14/EPA**

**Method 2000** 755 Fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas ) - 20% DMW LC50 **Test Code 15/EPA**

**Method 1000** 756 Fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas ) - MHSF NOEC SURVIVAL 808 Fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas ) - MHSF IC25 (ON) GROWTH 810 Fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas ) - MHSF NOEC (ON)GROWTH **Test Code 16/EPA**

**Method 1000** 759 Fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas ) - 20% DMW NOEC SURVIVAL 812 Fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas ) - 20% DMW IC25 (ON) GROWTH 814 Fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas ) - 20% DMW NOEC (ON) GROWTH **Test Code 19/EPA**

**Method 2002** 764 Ceriodaphnia dubia - MHSF 25OC LC50 **Test Code 20/EPA**

**Method 2002** 765 Ceriodaphnia dubia - 20% DMW25 OC LC50 **Test Code 21/EPA**

**Method 1002** 766 Ceriodaphnia dubia - MHSF NOEC SURVIVAL 767 Ceriodaphnia dubia - MHSF IC 25 REPRODUCTION 768 Ceriodaphnia dubia - MHSF NOEC REPRODUCTION **Test Code 22/EPA**

**Method 1002** 769 Ceriodaphnia dubia - 20% DMW NOEC SURVIVAL 770 Ceriodaphnia dubia - 20% DMW IC25 REPRODUCTION 771 Ceriodaphnia dubia - 20% DMW NOEC REPRODUCTION **Test Code 32/EPA**

**Method 2021** 788 Daphnia magna - MHSF 25OC LC50 **Test Code 38/EPA**

**Method 2021** 794 Daphnia pulex - MHSF 25OC LC50 **Test Code 42/EPA**

**Method 2007** 798 Mysid (Mysidopsis bahia ) 25 OC LC50 **Test Code 43/EPA**

**Method 1007** 799 Mysid (Mysidopsis bahia ) NOEC SURVIVAL 816 Mysid (Mysidopsis bahia ) IC25 (ON) GROWTH 818 Mysid (Mysidopsis bahia ) NOEC (ON) GROWTH **Test Code 44/EPA**

**Method 2006** 803 Inland silverside (Menidia berylina ) 25 OC LC50 **Test Code 45/EPA**

**Method 1006** 824 Inland silverside (Menidia berylina ) NOEC SURVIVAL 825 Inland silverside (Menidia berylina ) IC25 (ON) GROWTH 826 Inland silverside (Menidia berylina ) NOEC (ON) GROWTH **Test Code 46/EPA**

**Method 2004** 804 Sheepshead minnow ( Cyprinodon variegatus ) 25 OC LC50 **Test Code 47/EPA**

**Method 1004** 805 Sheepshead minnow ( Cyprinodon variegatus ) NOEC SURVIVAL 820 Sheepshead minnow ( Cyprinodon variegatus ) IC25 GROWTH 822 Sheepshead minnow ( Cyprinodon variegatus ) NOEC (ON) GROWTH 

## WET Organisms/Test Conditions/End Points

### 17



## AP **PENDIX B: LIST OF TOP CHEMISTRY & MICROBIOLOGY AN**  **AL YTES A** **ND WET TEST METHODS A ND TIMES FOR A** **NA LYZING**  **CHEMISTRY/MICROBIOLOGY A NA** **LYTE CHECKLIST Rank**  **An al**  **yte Time (in minutes)**  **for one analy**

**sis**  These estimates**  **assume the DMR -** **QA sample is being**  **added as additional single analyses to**  **an already calibrated instrument/process,**  **and to the normal processing that**  **occurs in the laboratory.**  1 pH 10 2 Total Suspended Solids 30 3 Ammonia (as N) 5 4 Total Residual Chlorine 3 5 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) 45 6 Carbonaceous BOD 45 7 Total Phosphorous as P 10 8 Settleable Solids 10 9 Fecal Coliform (MF) 30 - > 24 hours for incubation 10 Oil and Grease 15 **TOTA L (minutes)**  203 TOTAL (hours) 3.38 **2.1 hours** per permittee for Chemistry /Microbiology **using ratio of 0.633 labs per permittee**

**WET ORGA NISMS/TEST CONDITIONS/END POINTS CHECKLIST**  **Rank An**  **al yte**  **Time (hours) for one analy** **sis*** **ty pe**  **of test**  1 Fathead minnow - MHSF - NOEC Survival 10 Chronic 2 Fathead minnow - MHSF - NOEC (ON) Growth 10 Chronic 3 Ceriodaphnia - MHSF - NOEC Survival 10 Chronic 4 Fathead minnow - MHSF 25°C - LC50 3 Acute 5 Fathead minnow - MHSF - IC25 (ON) Growth 10 Chronic 6 Ceriodaphnia - MHSF - NOEC Reproduction 10 Chronic 7 Ceriodaphnia - MHSF - IC25 Reproduction 10 Chronic 8 Ceriodaphnia - MHSF 25°C - LC50 3 Acute 9 Fathead minnow - MHSF 20°C - LC50 3 Acute 10 Mysid - 40 fathoms - NOEC Survival 10 Chronic **TOTA L (hours)**  79 *based on set- up, maintenance, data crunching at conclusion, 10 hr (chronic) also includes daily weighting **50.0 hours for WET analysis per lab using ratio of 0.633 labs per permittee because only 4.77% of labs do WET analyses, the following number**  **will be used for time burden for WET tests: 2.4 hours**  for WET analysis