# Final Information Collection Request for the Public Water System Supervision Programiii TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATI ON 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

................................ ................................ .. 3 2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection

................................ ................................ ............ 3 2(b) Use/Users of the Data

................................ ................................ ............................... 9

3 NON

- DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER

................................ .............. 11

COLLECTION CRITERIA

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 11 3(a) Non

- duplication

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 11 3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

................................ .... 11 3(c) Consultations

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 11 3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection

................................ ................................ ........ 11 3(f) Confidentiality

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 12 3(g) Sensitive Quest ions

................................ ................................ ................................ . 12

4 RESPONDENTS AND INFORMATION REQUESTED

................................ .................... 13 4(a) Respondents/North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Codes

.... 13 4(b) Information Requested

................................ ................................ ............................ 13 4(b)(i) Data Items

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 13
4(b)(ii) Respondent A ctivities

................................ ................................ ........................ 23

5 INFORMATION COLLECTED

-- AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

................................ .......... 29 5(a) Agency Activiti es

................................ ................................ ................................ .... 29 5(b) Collection Methodology and Management

................................ ............................. 31 5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

................................ ................................ ........................... 32 5(d) Collection Schedule

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 34

6 ESTIMATING BURDEN AND COST OF COLLECTION

................................ ................ 35 6(a) Respondent Burden

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 35 6(a)(i) Burden to Public Water Systems

................................ ................................ ..... 35
6(a)(ii) Burden to Primacy Agencies

................................ ................................ ............. 40
6(a)(iii) Bu rden to Laboratories

................................ ................................ .................. 44
6(b) Respondent Costs

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 45 6(b)(i) Cost to Public Water Systems

................................ ................................ ........... 45
6(b)(ii) Cost to Primacy Agencies

................................ ................................ ................ 45
6(b)(iii) Cost to Laboratories

................................ ................................ ........................ 46
6(c) Agency Burden and Costs

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

................................ ...... 50 6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs

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

................................ ................................ ....................... 53 6(f)(i) Restructuring Adjustments

................................ ................................ .............. 53
6(f)(ii) Additional Program Adjustme nts

................................ ................................ .... 54
6(g) Burden Statement

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 57iv APPENDICES

Appendix A. Federal Register Notice Soliciting Comment on Information Collection Requests

Appendix B. Consumer Con fidence Rule Spreadsheets

Appendix C. Variances and Exemptions Spreadsheets

Appendix D

. Capacity Development Spreadsheets

Appendix E

. General State Primacy Spreadsheets

Appendix F

. Public Notification Spreadsheets

Appendix G

. Operator Certification Sp readsheets

Appendix H

. Tribal Operator Certification Spreadsheets

Appendix I

. Constructed Conveyance Spreadsheets

Appendix J

. Proficiency Testing Spreadsheetsv LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1: Structure of OGWDW ICRs

................................ ................................ ................... 5

Exhibit 2: PWS Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

................................ .............. 14

Exhibit 3: Primacy Agency Recordkeeping a nd Reporting Requirements

............................ 17

Exhibit 4: Laboratories Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirement s

................................ .. 22

Exhibit 5: PWSS Program Requirements for EPA Regions and Headquarters

..................... 29

Exhibit 6: Annual PWS Burden and Cost (April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2015 )

...................... 47

Exhibit 7: Annual State Burden and Cost (April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2015 )

...................... 47

Exhibit 8: Annual Laboratory Burden and Cost (April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2015 )

............ 48

Exhibit 9: Bottom Line Annual Burden and C ost (April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2015 )

.......... 52

Exhibit 10: Summary of Changes in Annual Burden

................................ .............................. 53

Exhibit 11: Restructuring Adjustme nts to the Annual Burden Inventory

for the PWSS Program ICR

................................ ................................ .................. 53

Exhibit 12: Adjustments to PWS Burden from Previous ICR Estimates

................................ 54

Exhibit 13: Adjustments to Primacy Agency Burden from Previous ICR Estimates

.............. 55

Exhibit 14: Adjustments to Laboratory Burden from Previous ICR Estimates

....................... 56

Exhibit 15: Adjustments to Activities Carried Forward from Previous ICRs

......................... 57vi LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Structure of OGWDW ICRs

............................................................... 4vii ACRONYMS

AG Attorney General

AMWA Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies

ASDWA Association of State Drinking Water Administrators

AWWA American Water Works Association

CCR Consumer Confidence Report

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

CFR Code of Federal Reg ulations

CWS Community Water System

DBP Disinfection Byproduct

DBPR Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule

DDBP/Chem/Rads Disinfectant / Disinfection Byproducts, Chemical, and Radionuclides

DWIG TSA Drinking Water Infrastructure Grant Triba l Set Aside

DWSRF Drinking Water State Revolving Fund

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ERP Enforcement Response Policy

ETT Enforcement Targeting Tool

FR Federal Register

FTE Full Time Equivalent

GWR Ground Water Rule

ICR Information Col lection Request

IESWTR Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule

LCR Lead and Copper Rule

LT1ESWTR Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule

LT2ESWTR Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule

MCL Maximum Contaminant Level

MCL G Maximum Contaminant Level Goal

MRDL Maximum Residual Disinfection Level

MRDLG Maximum Residual Disinfection Level Goal

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

NAWA Native American Water Association

NAWC National Association of Water Companies

NCWS Noncommunity Water System

NDWAC National Drinking Water Advisory Council

NPDWR National Primary Drinking Water Regulation

NRWA National Rural Water Association

NTEC National Tribal Environmental Council

NTNCWS Nontransient Noncom munity Water System

O&M Operation and Maintenance

OGWDW Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PC&B Personnel Compensation and Benefits

PN Public Notification

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act

PT Proficiency Testingviii

PWS Public Water System

PWSS Public Water System Supervision

SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SDWIS Safe Drinking Water Information System

SMCL Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level

SNC Significant Noncompliance or Significant Non

- Compliers

SWAP Source Water Assessment Program

SWTR Surface Water Treatment Rule

TCR Total Coliform Rule

TNCWS Transient Noncommunity Water System

UIC Underground Injection Control

V/E Vari ance and ExemptionPublic Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

1 

### 1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

1(a) Title and Number of the Information Collection

Title: Public Water System Supervision Program

OMB Control Number: 2040

- 0090

EPA Tracking Number: 0270. 4 4

1( b) Short Characterization

The Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (OGWDW) in the Office of Water at the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is responsible for managing the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Progra m, a national program mandated by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Section 1412 of the SDWA requires EPA to establish National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) for contaminants that may adversely impact human health. The Act further require s EPA to monitor and enforce these regulations to ensure that the nation’s drinking water dependably complies with the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) and other requirements stipulated in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 40

CFR p art 141, s ubpart B.

Section 1445 of the SDWA stipulates that every drinking water supplier must conduct monitoring, maintain records, and provide such information as is needed for EPA to implement its monitoring and enforcement responsibilities with respect to the Act. S tate 1 governments

— in those states that have assumed primary enforcement responsibility (primacy) for public water systems (PWSs) under SDWA s ection 1413

— ensure that PWSs are complying with these monitoring requirements. In addition, under 40 CFR §§ 141.23( k)(3), 141.131(b)(2), 141.28, and 141.24(f)(17), laboratories must successfully participate in Proficiency Testing (PT) studies each year to be certified to conduct analysis of compliance monitoring samples.

As part of the PWSS Program, the OGWDW uses th e Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) to record some of the data collected as a result of NPDWR requirements. SDWIS is a database management system that assists EPA in tracking and interpreting violation data and other program

- related data. Th ese data assist EPA in fulfilling its SDWA obligations.

This Information Collection Request (ICR) was prepared in accordance with the October

2009 version of EPA’s Guide to Writing Information Collection Requests Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (or ―ICR Handbook‖) prepared by EPA’s Office of Environmental Information, Office of Information Collection, Collection Strategies Division. The ICR Handbook provides the most current instructions for ICR preparation to ensure compliance with

the 1995 PRA amendments and Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) implementing guidelines.

1 Throughout this document, the terms ― S tate‖ or ― S tates‖ are used to refer to all types of primacy age ncies. There are currently 57 primacy entities, including the 50 states, U.S. territories (Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and Northern Marianas), and the Navajo Nation. Though Wyoming and the District of Columbia do not have prim acy, the EPA burden for these activities is counted as primacy agency burden.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

2 Many information collection requirements associated with the SDWA and its implementing regulations are associated with rulemakings that address specific contamina nts or groups of contaminants. This ICR examines PWS, primacy agency, laboratory, and EPA burden

and costs for ―cross

- cutting‖ recordkeeping and reporting requirements (i.e., the burden and costs for complying with drinking water information requirements that are not associated with

contaminant

- specific rulemakings). These activities include the following

—

1) Consumer Confidence Reports (CCRs) 2) Variance and Exemption Rule (V/E Rule) 3) Capacity Development Program 4) General State Primacy Activities 5) Public Notifi cation (PN) 6) Operator Certification and Expense Reimbursement Grants Program 7) Tribal Operator Certification Program 8) Constructed Conveyances 9) Proficiency Testing

This ICR updates the burden and cost estimates provided in the 2008 PWSS Program ICR, which exp ires on March 31, 2012 . The ICR estimates costs for April 1, 2012 to March 31,

2015

.

The total annual respondent burden associated with this ICR is estimated to be approximately 4.1 million hours per year. T he total annual respondent cost associated wi th this ICR is estimated to be approximately $ 187.6 million. The distribution of annual burden between PWSs and primacy agencies is approximately 2. 4 million hours and 1. 7 million hours, respectively. Laboratories conducting Proficiency Testing ( PT ) incu r an annual burden of
42,892 hours. The distribution of annual costs between PWSs and primacy agencies is approximately $ 116 .3 million and $ 67 .8 million, respectively. The annual costs for laboratories conducting PT are $ 3.5 million

.

The approximate annu al operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for respondents are $ 4 0 million ($ 39 million for PWSs , $ 0.77 million for laboratories, and $0 for primacy agencies ). This represents the ―cost burden‖ as reported in the OMB inventory. Note that these costs are fo r O&M only; there are no capital costs associated with the activities covered by this ICR.

The annual EPA burden for this ICR totals 0.5 9 million hours, at a cost of approximately $2 9.1 million; 0. 1 0 million hours (approximately $ 6.5 million) is for Head quarters activities and

0. 48 million hours (approximately $ 21 million) is for EPA Regional office activities. The Agency also incurs $ 1.5 million in O&M costs as part of the t ribal operator certification program and for EPA contractors to manage and mainta in the SDWIS database

.

The total number of respondents for this ICR is 1 5 4

, 938 ; 57 of these respondents are primacy agencies

, 1

, 902 are laboratories, and the balance (15 2

, 979 ) are PWSs

. The total annual number of responses for these respondents is 1 .0 m illion ( 382,658 for PWSs

, 1

, 902 for laboratories, and 628

, 9 25 for primacy agencies).Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

3 

### 2 NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection

This section identifies the regulatory or statutory authority for the information coll ection

activities covered in this ICR and explains EPA ’s need for the information. Section 4 of the ICR contains a summary of the PWSS Program recordkeeping and reporting requirements covered by

this ICR.

To allow the public to better understand the i mpact of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements ste mming from the SDWA and 40 CFR p arts 141 and 142, OGWDW has organized its ICRs so that related activities are addressed in the same ICR. Specifically, there are three primary ICRs

— the Microbial Rule s ICR, the Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts, Chemical and Radionuclides Rules (DDBP/Chem/Rads Rules) ICR, and the PWSS Program ICR. The Microbial Rules ICR includes rules addressing microbial contaminants, such as the Total Coliform Rule (TCR), Surfa ce Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), and the Ground Water

Rule ( GWR ). The DDBP/Chem/Rads Rules ICR includes rules addressing chemical

contaminants such as the Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproduct Rule (Stage 1 DBPR), the Arsenic Rule, and the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR). The PWSS Program ICR includes public notification and rules addressing cross

- cutting requirements that are not

associated with contaminant

- specific rule s . The specific regulations and programs addressed in

this ICR are

—

1) Consumer Confidence Reports

2) Variance and Exemption Rule 3) Capacity Development Program 4) General State Primacy Activities 5) Public Notification 6) Operator Certification and Expense Reimbursement Grants Program 7) Tribal Operator Certification Program 8) Constructed Conveyance s 9) Proficiency Testing

As EPA publishes new regulations, it will amend the appropriate ICR to include the new

rules.

For a graphical depiction of the structure of the OGWDW ICRs, see Figure 1. A complete itemization of the activities included in the three primary ICRs, as well as other drinking water program ICRs, is included as Exhibit 1.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

4Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

5 Exhibit 1
Structure of OGWDW ICRs

Currently covered To be covered in the future

PWSS Program ICR (2040

- 0090)

Consumer Confidence Reports (CCRs)

Varia nces & Exemptions Capacity Development Program General State Primacy Activities Public Notification (PN) Operator Certification Expense Reimbursement Grants Program Tribal Operator Certification Constructed Conveyances Proficiency Testing Microbial Rules ICR (2040

- 0205)

Surface Water Treatment Rule, except disinfectant residual monitoring and associated activities 2 Revised Total Coliform Rule

Total Coliform Rule

Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR)

Filter Backwash Recycling Rule Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT1ESWTR) Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR)

Ground Water Rule Aircraft Drinking Water Rule Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts, Chemical, and Radionucl ides Rules ICR (2040

- 0204)

Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts

Rule Disinfectant Residual Monitoring and associated
activities under the SWTR Stage 2 DBPR

Chemical Phase Rules

Radionuclides Rule

Arsenic Rule Lead and Copper Ru le Source Water Assessment Program (SWAP) ICR (2040

- 0197)

SWAP Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program ICR (2040

- 0042)

UIC Base Program Activities Class VI Geologic Sequestration Rule

– Under
current EPA ICR No. 0370.24

Class V Rule

Flo rida Class I Rule

2 Disinfectant residual monitoring and associated activities are included in the DDBP/Chem/Rads Rules ICR.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

6 Currently covered To be covered in the future

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) Program ICR (2040

- 0185)

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey ICR (2040

- 0274)

2011 Needs Survey Title VI of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002: Drinking Water Security and Safety ICR (2040

- 0253)

Vulnerability Assessments and Emergency Response Plans for community water systems (CWSs). Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule ICR (2040

- 0 270)

Monitoring of Unregulated Contaminants Laboratory Quality Assurance Evaluation Program for Analysis of Cryptosporidium ICR (2040

- 0246)

Proficiency Testing Program for Laboratories Analyzing Cryptosporidium Samples

1) Consumer Confidence Reports

Section 114 of the 1996 SDWA amends Section 1414(c) of the Act. The amendments require community water systems (CWSs) to distribute CCRs describing CWS water quality to their customers annually. EPA wrote regulations under s ubpart O of 40 CFR p art 141 to implement this provision.

The initial Federal Register (FR) notice containing CCR requirements was published on August 19, 1998 (63 FR 44512). These initial requirements have since been modified by other rulemaking efforts . However, these other rul e makings are assumed to have no effect on the underlying burden.

The information on the CCRs submitted to s tates by CWSs is needed by EPA to ensure compliance with the CCR requirements

.

2) Variance & Exemption Rule

The 1996 SDWA Amendments established c riteria under which PWSs, especially those serving 10,000 or fewer people, could apply for a variance or exemption. Variances allow eligible systems to provide drinking water that does not comply with a NPDWR on the condition that the quality of the drink ing water is still protective of public health. Exemptions allow PWSs additional time above that specified in rule requirements to come into compliance. There are two types of variances: g eneral variances are intended for systems that are not able to co mply with a NPDWR due to the quality of the source water; small system variances are intended for systems serving 3,300 persons or fewer that cannot afford to comply with a NPDWR (but may be allowed for systems serving up to 10,000 persons). Small system variances are only allowed if EPA designates a Small System Variance Technology. The information required of PWSs seeking general variances, small system variances

, or exemptions is needed to determine if the system satisfies SDWA conditions for variances or exemptions.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

7 3) Capacity Development Program

Through the 1996 SDWA Amendments, Congress conveyed the importance of efforts to ensure that PWSs maintain the technical, managerial, and financial capacity to comply with the requirements of the SDWA. To un derscore its importance the capacity development program was linked to the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) ; a state is subject to a withholding of 20 percent of the funds to which it is otherwise entitled if its program does not meet EPA’s guid elines.

Specifically, Section 1420(a) of the SDWA explains that a state ―shall receive only 80 percent of the allotment that the state is otherwise entitled to receive under Section 1452 (relating to state loan funds) unless the state has obtained the l egal authority or other means to ensure that

all new CWSs and new nontransient noncommunity water systems (NTNCWSs) commencing operation after October 1, 1999, demonstrate technical, managerial, and financial capacity with respect to each NPDWR in effect, or likely to be in effect, on the date of commencement of operations.‖ In addition, according to Section 1420(c), states incur a graduated withholding, beginning with 10 percent in fiscal year 2001, 15 percent in fiscal year 2002, and 20 percent in

all su bsequent fiscal years, if they do not develop and implement a strategy to assist all PWSs in acquiring and maintaining capacity.

EPA needs the information states submit on capacity development to ensure that states are implementing appropriate capacity d evelopment strategies.

4) General State Primacy Activities

To implement its compliance oversight and enforcement responsibilities under the SDWA, EPA requires primacy agencies to report a specified subset of PWS monitoring and

related information in SDWIS. Additionally, primacy agencies must maintain records of analysis results and other related activities (e.g., sanitary survey results). Without comprehensive, up

- to

- date information on drinking water contamination (as provided by SDWIS), EPA would not be able to assure ― a supply of drinking water which dependably complies with such maximum contaminant levels‖ (SDWA Section 1401(1)(d)). If these reporting requirements were voluntary, primacy agencies would not receive timely, comprehensive data on contamin ant levels and associated acute and long

- term public health risks. Specifically, voluntary monitoring would not

—

1) Reliably occur with sufficient frequency. 2) Follow uniform national standards on quality of sampling, collection, and analysis. 3) Ensure that mo nitoring addresses all contaminants listed in the regulations.

5) Public Notification

Section 114 of the 1996 SDWA Amendments required the EPA Administrator to develop and issue new regulations for public notification of PWS failure to comply with applicab le national drinking water standards. Regulations mandating the form, manner, frequency, and content of public notification are codified under 40 CFR p art 141, Subpart Q. SectionsPublic Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

8 1414(c)(2)(C)(ii) and 1414(c)(2)(D)(ii) of the 1996 Amendments require tha t notices provide a clear and understandable explanation of the violation, the potential adverse health effects, steps that the system is taking to correct the violation, and necessity of seeking alternative water supplies until the violation is corrected.

Without the ability to collect information on public notification, EPA could not ensure that PWSs were notifying the public of violations that could affect their health.

6) Operator Certification and Expense Reimbursement Grants Program

Through the 1996 SDWA Amendments, Congress conveyed the importance of properly trained operators in providing safe drinking water to the public. Congress then established the Operator Certification (OpCert) Program to assure that PWSs were being operated by properly

trai ned and certified personnel

. As a result, the Expense Reimbursement Grant was created to provide funding for certification and training costs for small drinking water systems operators. Funding was also used by states to develop data management systems t o track OpCert compliance. To underscore the importance of operator certification, the OpCert program was linked to the DWSRF program through a withholding of 20 percent of the funds that a state is otherwise entitled to if its program does not meet EPA’s g uidelines.

Although the ERG stops providing funding on December 31, 2012, EPA still requires the submission of annual OpCert reports from states. T he information collected under this program

will continue to ensure that states are implementing OpCert programs that meet EPA guidelines.

7) Tribal Operator Certification Program

The purpose of the Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification Program is to improve public health protection by increasing the training and certification opportunities for person nel at drinking water systems in Indian Country. The program guidelines establish seven baseline standards. The guidelines also list requirements for organizations that wish to obtain EPA approval for their certification programs.

The statutory requirem ent to develop an operator certification program does not apply to Tribes. While there are certain EPA regulations under SDWA that require qualified operators

for PWS s, whether located in Indian Country or not (see 40 CFR 141.70(c) and 40 CFR 141.130(c)), this Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification Program for systems in Indian Country is voluntary. However, this information collection is driven by the grant eligibility requirements originally outlined in the Drinking Water Infrastructure Grant Trib al Set

- Aside Program Final Guidelines (published in October 1998) and the Tribal Operator Certification Program Final Guidelines (published in July 2005 ; 70 FR 43868 ).

EPA needs the information collected under this program to reimburse tribal systems an d

third

- party certification providers

.

8) Constructed Conveyances

In the 1996 Amendments to the SDWA, Section 1401(4) broadened the definition of ―public water system‖ to include systems that provide water for human consumption and deliver

the water via con structed conveyances. Prior to this change, PWSs included only piped waterPublic Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

9 systems. This new definition affects the reporting and recordkeeping burdens for both PWSs and

states.

9) Proficiency Testing

Title XIV of the Public Health Service Act of SDWA r equires EPA to specify contaminants that may adversely affect public health when present in PWSs, specify maximum contaminant levels for these contaminants, and publish ― criteria and procedures to assure a supply of drinking water which dependably complies with such maximum contaminant levels. ‖ Participation in the PT studies that relate to drinking water analyses is mandated in 40 CFR §§ 141.23(k)(3), 141.24(f)(17), 141.28

, and 141.131(b)(2) for those laboratories that report data to support PWS complianc e with the NPDWRs. Under 40 CFR 142.10(b)(3), authority for certifying drinking water laboratories is provided to s tates

.

In the PT program, private sector companies (i.e., PT vendors) manufacture and distribute samples of regulated contaminants , also ca lled standards, to the participating laboratories . The

vendors know the concentrations of the standards but the laboratories do not. The laboratories

determine the concentrations of each analyte for which they wish to be certified and then submit

their res ults to the vendors. Assuming the laboratories’ results are accurate, PT vendors certify

to the s tate that the laboratories have successfully completed their PT studies. This certification of PT study completion is then used by the states to support the certification of the laboratories to conduct drinking water compliance analyses. EPA, state s, and laboratory personnel will use the results of these studies to identify laboratory problems for resolution, and thereby improve the quality of data used to de termine regulatory compliance

.

2(b) Use/Users of the Data

The information described in the previous sections will be collected by EPA and made available to the public upon request, as required by the Freedom of Information Act (40 CFR, Chapter 1, Par t 2). In some cases, the SDWA requires that the information be provided to the public or the primacy agency. Primary users of the data collected under this ICR are OGWDW, PWS managers, and primacy agencies, which include state regulators, Indian Tribes, a nd, in some instances, EPA Regional Administrators. Other users include

—

Laboratory personnel Staff from other EPA programs (such as Superfund, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance)

Federal E mergency Management Administration Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Military bases

Farmers Home Administration Department of Interior Department of Housing and Urban Development U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

White House Task Forces

American Water Works Association (AWWA) Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA)

National Rural Water Association (NRWA)Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

10 National Association of Water Companies (NAWC) Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA)

Natural Resources Defense Cou ncil

Consumers Federation of America

News o rganizations

Native American Water Association

Association of American Indian Affairs

Inter

- tribal Environmental Council

National Tribal Environmental Council Other intertribal groupsPublic Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

11 

### 3 NON

- DUPLICATION, CONSULT ATIONS, AND OTHER

COLLECTION CRITERIA

3(a) Non

- duplication

EPA has made an effort to ensure that the data collection efforts associated with this ICR are not duplicated. EPA has consulted s tate environmental programs, other f ederal agencies (such as the CDC), and regulated entities (such as PWSs and their representative trade associations). To the best of EPA's knowledge, data currently required by the SDWA (and its implementing regulations codified at 40 CFR p arts 141 and 142) are not available fro m any other

source.

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

To comply with the 1995 Amendments to the PRA, EPA solicited public comment on

this ICR for a 60

- day period before it was submitted to OMB. Specifically, EPA published a

no tice in the Federal Register requesting comment on the estimated respondent burden and other aspects of this ICR ( 7 6 FR 3 9092 , see Appendix A). EPA did not receive any comments during

the 60

- day comment period.

An additional FR notice will be published prior to submission of this ICR to OMB. The public comment period for this additional notice is 30 days.

3(c) Consultations

As part of the revision of the PWSS ICR, in summer 2011 EPA consulted with representatives of PWSs and s tates regarding the accu racy of EPA’s burden estimates. The groups consulted were NAWC, AWWA, AMWA, and ASDWA (NRWA was also consulted but did not submit comments)

. These groups’ comments were incorporated into this ICR to the extent possible

. Each individual model for the PWSS ICR shown in the appendices to this document contains a table showing how burden estimates have been revised.

In brief, the resulting consultations provided that t here were large increases in burden to such things as the Consumer Confidence Reports

, Oper ator Certification Guidelines and Expense Reimbursement Grants Program. This was partly offset by a large decrease in burden for Public

Notification.

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection

EPA has considered a wide range of alternatives for freque ncy of data collection

. The CCR Rule and Capacity Development Program require annual reporting. Distributing CCRs less frequently than annually is not allowed under the SDWA. Annual reporting of capacity development information is essential to enable EPA to make withholding determinations on each fiscal year’s funds.

Laboratories producing drinking water compliance monitoring data are expected to demonstrate adequate analytical proficiency once each year for each analyte they test. Any decrease in frequ ency would not adequately support the s tate s ' laboratory certification/evaluation

programs.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

12 For other information collection activities, EPA has chosen to require the least frequent collection that remains consistent with overall public health preservat ion objectives. If data are collected less frequently, the primacy agencies may not identify in a timely fashion violations

that might threaten the health and safety of drinking water consumers.

3(e) General Guidelines

This ICR was prepared in accorda nce with the October 2009 version of ICR Handbook prepared by EPA ’s Office of Environmental Information, Office of Information Collection, Collection Strategies Division. The ICR Handbook provides the most current instructions for ICR preparation to ensur e compliance with the 1995 PRA amendments and OMB’s implementing guidelines.

3(f) Confidentiality

No confidential information will be collected as a result of this ICR.

3(g) Sensitive Questions

No information of a sensitive nature will be collect ed as a result of this ICR.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

13 

### 4 RESPONDENTS AND INFORMATION REQUESTED

4(a) Respondents/ North American Industry Classification System ( NAICS ) Codes

Data associated with this ICR are collected and maintained at the PWS, s tate , and federal levels. Respon dents include

—

Owners/operators of PWSs, who must report to the primacy agency. Primacy agencies , which include states

, t ribes (if they have been authorized to act as primacy agencies), and EPA Regions that act as primacy agencies in Indian

lands and s ta tes that do not have primacy. Laboratories conducting PT to achieve state certification, which permits them to analyze samples for compliance with NPDWRs. (PT vendors are not considered respondents because they are paid for their incurred burden and costs via the prices that laboratories pay for the PT standards).

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for PWSs is 22131. The NAICS code for state agencies that include drinking water programs is 92411 (Administration of Air and Wat er Resources and Solid Waste Management Programs) or 923312 (Administration of Public Health Programs). Ancillary systems (i.e., those that supplement the function of other establishments like factories, power plants, mobile home parks, etc.) cannot be

ca tegorized in a single NAICS code. For ancillary systems, the NAICS code is that of the primary establishment or industry. The c ode for laboratories that include environmental testing is 541380 (Testing Laboratories).

Data associated with this ICR are col lected and maintained by laboratories seeking Primacy Agency certification for the analysis of drinking water samples.

4(b) Information Requested

4(b)(i) Data Items

R espondent information collection requirements covered by the PWSS Program ICR are summarized in Exhibits 2

- 4 below. These reflect cross

- cutting recordkeeping and reporting requirements under the PWSS Program (i.e., requirements that are not associated with

contaminant

- specific rules). The requirements are discussed following Exhibits 2

- 4

.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

14 Exhibit 2 PWS Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

Requirement Regulatory Citation Frequency/Retention

CCRs Mail copies of CCR to customers. 40 CFR 141.155(a) Annually, unless waived per §141.155(g) Announce availability of CCR. 40 CFR 141.15 5(b) Annually Submit copy of CCR to primacy

agency. 40 CFR 141.155(c) Annually

Submit copy of CCR to agencies or clearinghouses identified by the primacy agency. 40 CFR 141.155(d) Annually, as required

Make current year’s CCR available to public. 40 CFR 141.155(e) As requested

Post current year’s CCR on the Internet (for systems serving ≥100,000 people). 40 CFR 141.155(f) Annually

Publish CCR in local newspaper, if the mailing requirement has

been waived. 40 CFR 141.155(g)(1) Annually, except that syst ems serving ≤500 can forego per §141.155(g)(2) Retain copy of CCR. 40 CFR 141.155(h) For at least 3 years
VARIANCES AND EXEMPTIONS Retain records concerning variance or exemption grants. 40 CFR 141.33 Not less than 5 years after variance/exemption expir ation Submit information supporting request for variance. 40 CFR 142.41 One

- time, PWS discretion

Submit information supporting request for exemption. 40 CFR 142.51 One

- time, PWS discretion

Submit information supporting request for small system

variance. 40 CFR 142.306 One

- time, PWS discretion

Report on compliance with terms
and conditions of the small system variance. 40 CFR 142.307 Quarter ly after granting

CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT Demonstrate capacity (new CWSs & NTNCWSs). N/A One

- time

Cooperate with st ate to demonstrate continued capacity. N/A As needed

GENERAL STATE PRIMACY ACTIVITIES

PWSs are not involved in general state primacy activities.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION RULE Notify persons served within 24 hours of learning of a violation which requires Ti er 1 public
notification. 40 CFR 141.202(b)(1) As necessary, within 24 hours

Consult with the primacy agency within 24 hours of learning of a

violation or other situation that requires Tier 1 public notification. 40 CFR 141.202(b)(2) As necessary, within 24 hours

Comply with any additional notification requirements for Tier

1. 40 CFR 141.202(b)(3) As necessaryPublic Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

15 Requirement Regulatory Citation Frequency/Retention Notify persons served within 30 days of a violation that requires Tier 2 public notification. 40 CFR 141.203(b)(1) As necessary, within 30 days

Provide repeat notices for unresolved violations every three months, unless the primacy agency determines a different frequency. 40 CFR 141.203(b)(2) As necessary, every 3 months

Consult with the primacy agency if a violation of the turbidity MCL
or SWTR /IESWTR treatment technique requirements for single exceedances of turbidity limits

occurs. 40 CFR 141.203(b)(3) As necessary, within 24 hours

Notify persons served within one year of learning of a violation or situation that requires Tier 3
notification. 40 CFR 141.204(b)(1) As necessary, within 1 year

Provide repeat notices annually
for unresolved Tier 3
violations/situations. 40 CFR 141.204(b)(1) As necessary, annually

Notify new customers of ongoing violations/situations prior to or at

the time serv ice begins. 40 CFR 141.206 As necessary

Notify persons served of the availability of the results of unregulated contaminant monitoring. 40 CFR 141.207 As necessary, within 12 months of receiving results

Provide special notice to persons
served for an ex ceedance of the fluoride secondary MCL (SMCL). 40 CFR 141.208 As necessary, within 12 months
of exceedance

Provide repeat notice of a fluoride SMCL exceedance, if

unresolved. 40 CFR 141.208 As necessary, annually

Notify persons served by noncommunity wat er systems ( NCWSs ) if the primacy agency grants permission to exceed the
nitrate MCL. 40 CFR 141.209 As necessary, within 24 hours

Submit to the state a copy of each notice provided (Tiers 1, 2, and 3 and any repeat notices)

and a certification that all P N requirements were met. 40 CFR 141.31(d) and 141.201(c)(3) As necessary, within 10 days after completing notification requirements

Retain copies of all notices and

certifications. 40 CFR 141.33(e) 3 years

OPERATOR CERTIFICATION & EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT G RANTS PROGRAM Acquire certified operator(s) per state requirements. N/A As necessary

Maintain and renew operator certification(s). N/A As necessary

TRIBAL OPERATOR CERTIFICATION PROGRAM Acquire certified tribal water system operator(s) per EPA guidelin es. N/A As necessary

Apply for “grandparent”

certificate. N/A One time, if eligiblePublic Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

16 Requirement Regulatory Citation Frequency/Retention

CONSTRUCTED CONVEYANCE S

Conduct a house

- by

- house survey of water use practices

and document efforts to ascertain

water uses. SDWA 1401(4)(B)(i) On

- going

Apply for Other Residential Uses

Exclusion. One time, if eligible

Apply for Alternative Water

Exclusion. One time, if eligible

Apply for Treatment Exclusion. One time, if eligible Apply for Certain Piped Irrigation

Districts Exclusion SDWA 1401(4)(B)(ii) One time, if eligible

PROFICIENCY TESTING PWSs are not involved in proficiency testing

Note: Content requirements for public notices are described in 40 CFR 141.205, 141.207, and 141.208.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

17 E xhibit 3 Primacy Agency Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

Requir ement Regulatory Citation Report Frequency/Minimum

Retention

CCRs Make CCRs available to public. 40 CFR 142.16(f)(2) As requested

Retain copies of CCRs and
certifications that CCRs were

distributed. 40 CFR 142.16(f)(3) CCRs: 5 years
Certifications: 1 year

Report violations of CCR provisions. 40 CFR 142.16(f)(4) Quarterly

VARIANCES AND EXEMPTIONS Issue variances and exemptions (for other than small system variances). 40 CFR 142.20 At primacy agency discretion

Consider system V/E requests (for o ther than small system variances). 40 CFR 142.21 Within 90 days of request

Review V/E requests previously granted. 40 CFR 142.22 Within 18 months of new

standards Notify EPA of new variances or exemptions granted. 40 CFR 142.15(a)(3) Quarterly

Summarize the status of variances or exemptions currently in effect. 40 CFR 142.15(b)(2) Annually

Propose small system variances and provide supporting information and responses to

comments. 40 CFR 142.311 & 142.312 When s tate proposes to grant a small system vari ance

Following notification of EPA’s objections and proposed modifications to proposed small system variances, respond to

EPA. 40 CFR 142.311 Before s tate grants a small community variance to a PWS serving 3,300 or fewer people

Re

- propose small system

va riances. 40 CFR 142.312 Before s tate grants a small community variance to a PWS serving more than 3,300 and fewer than 10,000 people Review each small system
variance to determine if the PWS continues to meet eligibility

criteria. 40 CFR 142.307 Not less than 5 years

Notice of public meeting on proposed small system variances, with supporting
information. 40 CFR 142.308 At least 30 days prior to public meeting

CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT

Submit evidence to EPA that

s tate has established and continues to implem ent a Capacity Development Program. N/A Annually

Submit report to Governor on the status of the Capacity Development Program. SDWA 1420(c)(3) Every three yearsPublic Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

18 Requir ement Regulatory Citation Report Frequency/Minimum

Retention

GENERAL STATE PRIMACY ACTIVITIES

Retain s tate records for public inspection. 40 CFR 142.14 Va ries

Retain quarterly SDWIS reports to EPA, make them available for public inspection. 40 CFR 142.15(d) Upon completion and submittal by state

Report any new violation data or
enforcement actions. 40 CFR 142.15(a)(1)

- (2) Quarterly

Report any new data re lated to SDWIS elements or any revisions to existing data. 40 CFR 142.15(b)(1) Annually

Submit information required for

review of s tate programs, including review of monitoring

determinations. 40 CFR 142.17

- 142.18 Annually, as requested

Request primacy t reatment for a state or tribal primacy (for Indian tribes). 40 CFR 142.76 One

- time

Submit initial application for primacy. 40 CFR 142.11 One

- time

Submit statutory and regulatory provisions authorizing administrative penalties or

demonstrate that authorit y does

not exist. 40 CFR 142.11(a)(6) One

- time

Submit revised primacy application. 40 CFR 142.12 As needed

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Primacy agencies may exercise flexibility in the following areas as long as they establish enforceable procedures: Requiring PWSs to notify persons served for violations or

situations other than those requiring notice under the PN

rule. 40 CFR 142.16(a) If necessary

Allowing PWSs to limit

distribution of a notice to the portion of the distribution system that is out of complian ce. 40 CFR 142.16(a) If necessary

Elevating violations/situations

from Tiers 2 or 3 to Tier 1. 40 CFR 142.16(a) If necessary

Requiring additional notification

for Tier 1 as a result of the 24

- hour consultation. 40 CFR 142.16(a) If necessary

Requiring or permitting a different form of delivery than is required in the PN rule for Tiers 1, 2, or 3. 40 CFR 142.16(a) If necessary

Elevating monitoring/testing procedure violations from Tier 3

to Tier 2. 40 CFR 142.16(a) If necessary

Granting extensions for

d istribution of Tier 2 notices. 40 CFR 142.16(a) If necessary

Allowing less frequent repeat

notification for Tier 2. 40 CFR 142.16(a) If necessaryPublic Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

19 Requir ement Regulatory Citation Report Frequency/Minimum

Retention Consulting with PWS within 24 hours for exceedance of turbidity

limits. 40 CFR 142.16(a) If necessary

Dete rmining the need for multilingual content in a notice. 40 CFR 142.16(a) If necessary

Consult with PWSs within 24

hours for Tier 1
violations/situations. 40 CFR 141.202(b)(2) As necessary, within 24 hours

Consult with PWSs within 24

hours for exceedances of turbidity MCL or violations of turbidity single exceedance

limits. 40 CFR 141.203(b)(3) As necessary, within 24 hours

May give the required public
notice on behalf of the PWS. 40 CFR 141.210 If necessary

Report violations of the PN Rule

to EPA. 40 CF R 142.15(a)(1) Quarterly

Retain copies of certification and notices submitted by PWSs. Also keep records of

determinations of alternative requirements made under 40
CFR 142.16. 40 CFR 142.14(f) 3 years

OPERATOR CERTIFICATION & EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT GRAN TS PROGRAM
Submit a report to EPA describing ongoing implementation activities of the state’s operator certification

program. N/A Annually

Submit to EPA a new Attorney General ( AG ) certification and a copy of the state’s regulations (if

the state makes c hanges to its operator certification program) N/A As necessary

Submit to EPA a report describing ongoing implementation activities of the state’s Expense Reimbursement
Grant N/A Annually, as necessary

TRIBAL OPERATOR CERTIFICATION PROGRAM Primacy agenci es are not affected by the Tribal Operator Certification Program

CONSTRUCTED CONVEYANCE S

Review data to determine if a constructed conveyance should
be considered a PWS. SDWA 1401(4) As necessary

Review applications and make
determinations about Other

R esidential Uses Exclusions. SDWA 1401(4)(B)(i) As necessary

Review applications and make

determinations about Alternative

Water Exclusions. SDWA 1401(4)(B)(i) As necessaryPublic Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

20 Requir ement Regulatory Citation Report Frequency/Minimum

Retention Review applications and make

determinations about Treatment

Exclusions. SDWA 1401( 4)(B)(i) As necessary

Review applications and make
determinations about Certain Piped Irrigation Districts

Exclusions. SDWA 1401(B)(ii) As necessary

PROFICIENCY TESTING States are not involved in the proficiency testing program (they are involved in cer tification, which is addressed under general state primacy activities)

Exhibit 4 Laboratories Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

Requirement Regulatory Citation Report Frequency/Minimum

Retention

PROFICIENCY TESTING Analyze standards 40 CFR 141 .23(k), 141.24(f)(17), 141.132(b)(2) Annually

Report results to PT vendor N/A Annually

Maintain records N/A Not specified

1) Consumer Confidence Reports

CCRs must identify the source of the water delivered by the CWS, describe whether it is ground wa ter or surface water, and provide the common name and location of bodies of water used as sources. Reports also must define the terms ―Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL),‖

― Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG), ‖ ― Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level (MRDL), ‖ ― Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal (MRDLG), ‖ ― variance, ‖ and

― exemption. ‖ Reports must contain a table providing data on contaminant levels detected as well

as the MCLG and MCL for these contaminants. If contaminants are detected above the MCL or MRDL, health effects information must also be provided. Reports must indicate any violations of the NPDWRs, including monitoring and reporting, treatment techniques, public notification, recordkeeping, special monitoring requirements, and the terms of a variance, exemption, or administrative or judicial order. Reports must explain any granted variance or exemption. Reports must contain a brief explanation regarding contaminants that may be found in drinking water. Reports must also display relevant hea lth information concerning drinking water and potential risks from possible contaminants.

2) Variance & Exemption Rule

To obtain a variance or exemption, systems must submit a request for the variance or exemption that contains supporting information. Syst ems that are granted a variance or exemption must also provide public notice within one year after operating under the variance or exemption. They must also maintain records associated with the granting of the variance or exemption. States must review the information contained in variance/exemption applications

.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

21 3) Capacity Development Program

Under SDWA §1420, states are required to submit the following information to EPA

—

An annual report that describes ongoing implementation activities for both the

new s ystems’ programs (SDWA 1420(a)) and the existing systems’ strategies (SDWA 1420(c)). A triennial report to the Governor on the status of the capacity development program (EPA receives a courtesy copy of each state report). A triennial list of systems tha t are historical significant non

- compliers and, to the extent practicable, the reason(s) for noncompliance.

Systems must document their financial, technical, and managerial capacity, as required by the state.

4) General State Primacy Activities

Section 142 .14(a) stipulates, ―Each state which has primary enforcement responsibility shall maintain records of tests, measurements, analyses, decisions, and determinations performed

on each PWS to determine compliance with applicable provisions of state primary dri nking water regulations.‖ Further, Section 141.14(g) states, ―Records required to be kept under this section shall be made available to the Regional Administrator upon request.‖ Under s ection 142.17, EPA may request information from a s tate in order to d etermine compliance of the s tate

w ith requirements of 40 CFR 142 s ubpart B. Information requested may include s tate determinations made under Section 142.19 and records kept by s tates in accordance with Section

142.14.

To implement its compliance over sight and enforcement responsibilities under the SDWA, EPA requires primacy agencies to report a specified subset of PWS monitoring information in SDWIS. Additionally, primacy agencies must maintain records of analysis results

and other related activities (e.g., sanitary survey results).

Systems are not required to submit any data under this program.

5) Public Notification

Under the public notification regulations, systems must notify all system users of any violation of drinking water regulations. The m ethods and deadlines for notification are based on

a three

- tier system. Tier 1 violations , which require 24

- hour notice, are those that risk serious health effects from short term exposure. Tier 2 violations , which require 30

- day notice, are any violatio ns that pose a health risk that are not Tier 1 violations. Tier 3 violations and situations are any not covered under the first two tiers ; they include monitoring violations, exceeding the fluoride secondary standard, operating under a variance or exempti on , and announcing the availability of unregulated contaminant monitoring results. Tier 3 public notification must take place within a year of the violation and may be included in the system’s CCR. Systems must consult with primacy agencies within 24 hou rs of a turbidity violation to determine if the violation is Tier 1 or Tier 2. Primacy agencies must consult with any systems with Tier 1 violations within 24 hours of the violation. They may also decide to elevate certain Tier 2 or

Tier 3 violations. P rimacy agencies must report all violations to EPA and keep records for three years after the violation.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

22 6) Operator Certification and Expense Reimbursement Grants Program

To satisfy §1419 of SDWA (regarding EPA’s Operator Certification Guidelines), state s are required to submit the following information to EPA

—

An annual report that describes ongoing implementation activities of a state’s operator certification program. A new Attorney General (AG) certification and a copy of the state’s regulations if a state makes changes to its operator certification

program. An annual report that describes ongoing implementation activities of a state’s Expense Reimbursement Grant (note that the Expense Reimbursement Grant program will end in December 2012)

.

Systems must document that they have certified operators, and their operators must maintain certification as required by the state program.

7) Tribal Operator Certification Program

Although this program is voluntary, previously established Drinking Water Infrastr ucture Grant Tribal Set Aside (DWIG TSA) Final Guidelines (October 1998) state that after EPA has developed a Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification Program for operators of systems in Indian Country, ―any system to be assisted with TSA funds must be operated by an adequately trained and certified operator‖ in order for a tribe to receive a grant for that system.

The program guidelines establish seven baseline standards for the program and list the certification program requirements that must be me t for organizations that certify operators of drinking water systems in Indian Country to receive approval from EPA.

Any current certification provider or organization interested in establishing an operator certification program in Indian Country may sub mit programs to EPA for review and approval. EPA will be responsible for implementing this voluntary Tribal Drinking Water Operator Certification Program in Indian Country and for tracking the number of water systems with certified operators. Certification providers will be responsible for tracking training taken and operator status and for reporting this information to EPA.

System operator s must obtain and renew certifications as required by the EPA guidelines.

8) Constructed Conveyances

In order to comply with the 1996 SDWA Amendments, systems and states must work together to determine if the system meets the new definition of ―public water system.‖ In addition, Section 1401(4)(B) of the 1996 SDWA Amendments provides several exemption options. If a syste m is eligible for one of these exemptions, the system must submit an application to the state. The state must then review the exemption applications and make

determinations.

9) Proficiency Testing

In all laboratory PT studies, laboratories submit the results of analyses for all

contaminants for which they wish to be certified to conduct drinking water analyses

.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

23 4(b)(ii) Respondent Activities

PWSs and primacy agencies must complete the activities described in the sections below.

Public Water Systems

1) Consumer Confidence Reports

For CCRs, CWSs must conduct the following activities

—

Compile the report. Mail one report to each customer. For consumers who do not receive water bills, publish a notice in the news paper indicating how a consumer may obtain a copy of a CCR. Submit one copy of the completed report to the primacy agency annually and retain one copy of the report. Submit copy of CCR to agencies or clearinghouses identified by the primacy

agency. Certify to the primacy agency that the report ha s been distributed to customers

and that the information is correct

. Publish the report in a local newspaper rather than mail it , if the s tate Governor allows CWSs serving 10,000 or fewer people to do so. Post an annual notice for customers rather than pub li shing or mailing a report, i f

the s tate Governor allows CWSs serving fewer than 500 people to do so. Post the report to a publicly accessible Internet si te, for CWSs serving 100,000 or more people.

2) Variance & Exemption Rule

A PWS that elects to apply for a variance or exemption must either perform the following activities or assist the state in performing these activities

—

Apply for the variance or exemption and submit any information that the state requires. For small system variances, a system must dem onstrate that it cannot afford to comply with the NPDWR for which the small system variance is sought, that its source water meets the quality standards for installation of the small system variance technology, that it is financially and technically capabl e of installing, operating, and maintaining the applicable small system variance technology, and that the terms and conditions of the small system variance would ensure adequate protection of human health. Work with the state to hold a public hearing on th e proposed variance or exemption and provide public notice within one year after operating under the variance or exemption. Write and submit a quarterly report on compliance with the terms and conditions of the small system variance.

Retain records associ ated with the variance or exemption.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

24 3) Capacity Development Program

Under the Capacity Development Program for new systems, all CWSs and NTNCWSs must demonstrate adequate capacity and comply with all state capacity development requirements. All PWS s are as ked to cooperate with the state’s strategy for existing systems. This includes achieving, maintaining, and improving capacity.

4) General State Primacy Activities

There are no PWS activities associated with the General State Primacy Activities.

5) Public No tification

To comply with the PN regulations, PWSs must complete the following activities

—

Prepare the notice (§§141.201, 141.205, 141.206, 141.207, and 141.208). Distribute the notice to all persons served within the applicable time frame (§§141.202,141 .203, and 141.204). If the violation or situation requires public notification within 24 hours, consult with primacy agency within the 24

- hour period to determine subsequent actions (§141.202(b)(2)). Consultation is also required for exceedances of the ma ximum allowable turbidity level (§141.203(b)(3)). If a violation is unresolved, prepare an updated notice for repeat distribution (§§141.205, 141.206, 141.207, and 141.208). Distribute the updated notice (§§141.202,141.203, and 141.204). Take any additiona l actions required by the primacy agency (§§141.201 and 141.202). Submit certification to the primacy agency along with copies of all public

notifications that were distributed.

Retain records of all notices and certifications.

6) Operator Certification and Expense Reimbursement Grants Program

Systems are required to comply with the state requirements for operator certification. Systems must

—

Acquire certified operator(s) holding a valid certification equal to or greater than the classification of the syst em. Maintain/renew certification(s) as needed.

7) Tribal Operator Certification Program

For the voluntary Tribal Operator Certification Program, tribal water systems are expected to have a certified operator available. To become certified, a tribal water s ystem operator must pass an exam and have the appropriate education and/or experience. EPA subsidizes the training and certification of operators in Indian Country.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

25 8) Constructed Conveyances

In order to adhere to the broadened definition of ―public wate r system‖ introduced by the
1996 SDWA Amendments, PWS s may complete the following activities

—

Conduct a house

- by

- house survey of water use practices and document efforts to

ascertain water uses. Apply for an Other Residential Uses Exclusion. Apply for an Alternative Water Exclusion. Apply for a Treatment Exclusion. Apply for a Certain Piped Irrigation Districts Exclusion

Primacy Agencies

1) Consumer Confidence Reports

As part of the CCR Rule, primacy agencies must

—

Review and retain reports and certific ations from CWSs. Assist in preparation of reports as needed

. Report compliance to EPA.

2) Variance & Exemption Rule

In addition to helping PWSs meet application requirements, states must

—

Provide EPA with the proposed small system variance, supporting information, and responses to public comments. Respond to EPA’s objections to a proposed small system variance for a PWS serving 3,300 or fewer persons, if the state chooses to pursue the variance. Revise a proposed small systems variance as necessary to r eflect EPA’s comments on variance requests for systems that serve more than 3,300 people and fewer than 10,000 people, if the state chooses to pursue the variance. Submit a quarterly report on violations of increments of progress or any other

violated term or condition of a small system variance. Conduct a public meeting on a small system variance request, provide notice of the public meeting, and provide supporting information to the public. Respond to significant public comments on the proposed variance r equest. Retain records associated with a granted variance or exemption not less than five years after its expiration.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

26 3) Capacity Development Program

States must

—

Submit an annual report that describes ongoing implementation activities for both

the new s ystems’ programs (SDWA 1420(a)) and the existing systems’ strategies (SDWA 1420(c))

. Submit a triennial report to the Governor on the status of the capacity development program (EPA receives a courtesy copy of each state report).

Note that S ection 1420(b) (1) of the SDWA requires that ―... each state shall prepare, periodically update, and submit to the Administrator a list of community water systems and nontransient, noncommunity water systems that have a history of significant noncompliance... and, to the ext ent practicable, the reasons for noncompliance.” However, EPAs Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance ( OECA ) released a new enforcement approach in December 2009 , the Enforcement Response Policy (ERP), replacing the existing contaminant

- by

- contami nant compliance strategy, often referred to as "Significant Non

- Compliers" (SNC) and ―Historical Significant Non

- Compliers

, ‖ with a system

- wide approach using the Enforcement Targeting Tool (ETT). The ETT assigns a point value to specific

violations for e ach system to bring attention to drinking water systems with the most serious and unaddressed violations. In light of this change, EPA will utilize the spreadsheet output generated by the ETT on a quarterly basis. Currently, as part of the ETT implementati on, EPA and states meet on a quarterly basis to discuss the status of public water systems on this list and identify steps to enable systems to return to compliance. EPA believe s that the current approach of establishi ng quarterly meetings with the s tates to discuss the output generated by the ETT is a more proactive approach than the current activity of addressing the reasons for non

compliance only every three years.

4) General State Primacy Activities

As part of their general primacy activities, primacy agencies must

—

Prepare grant packages requesting funding to operate the program in a state. Maintain state drinking water data systems. Review monthly violations reports to monitor compliance. Maintain records submitted by PWSs regarding results of analy tical tests and other milestones, such as treatment decisions. Take timely and appropriate enforcement actions. Review PWS projects regarding design, construction, and treatment

modifications. Conduct routine inspections to supplement information collected during sanitary

surveys. Certify laboratories to analyze drinking water samples for compliance with drinking water regulations.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

27 This ICR assumes that no applications for primacy will be submitted during the next three years. However, since a new prima cy application is a possibility, the following discussion of possible implications is provided. To obtain primacy, the applicant must

—

Adopt drinking water regulations that are no less stringent than the NPDWRs currently in effect. An agency may also be granted primacy for new or revised EPA regulations if they demonstrate that their approved program has been updated to include regulations no less stringent than those new or revised EPA regulations. Adopt adequate procedures for enforcement of these regu lations. Report these procedures according to EPA's requirements. Permit variances and exemptions under conditions no less stringent than those specified by the regulations. Adopt and implement an adequate plan for providing safe drinking water under

emerg ency circumstances.

The regulations allow Indian tribes to be granted primacy, although no primacy applications are expected from tribes during the next three years. In order for an Indian tribe to receive primacy, they must first apply for and receive designation as a ―state.‖ The tribe may then apply for a developmental grant to assist it in preparing the necessary infrastructure (e.g., regulations). Once the regulations are in place, the tribe may apply for primacy.

Under the Indian Primacy Rule promulgated September 26, 1988, an Indian tribe that

wish es to apply for and be designated as a ―state‖ must

—

Submit evidence that the tribe is recognized by the Secretary of the Interior. Certify that it is currently ― carrying out substantial governmen tal duties and

powers ‖ over a defined area. The statement must describe the governmental functions currently performed by the tribal governing body, including, but not limited to, the exercise of police power, taxation, and the exercise of the power of

em inent domain. Copies of applicable tribal documents must also be provided. Prepare and submit a map or legal description of the area over which the Indian tribe asserts jurisdiction for the purposes of the proposed program. Provide copies of applicable tr ibal codes, ordinances, etc. Describe the Indian tribe's capability to administer such a program.

5) Public Notification

The PN Rule requires primacy agencies to consult with the violating PWS to determine appropriate follow up actions. Additionally, the primacy agencies must receive and review PN certifications submitted by PWSs. Primacy agencies must submit quarterly reports of PN Rule

violations to EPA.

Primacy agencies may give notice on behalf of a PWS (40 CFR 141.210). However, no

data is availab le for estimating how often this occurs . For the purposes of this ICR, the burden for preparing and distributing public notification is assumed to be incurred by the PWS.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

28 6) Operator Certification and Expense Reimbursement Grants Program

A state comply ing with the program must

—

Submit an annual report that describes ongoing implementation activities of a state’s operator certification program.

Submit a new AG certification and a copy of the state’s regulations if a state makes changes to its operator cer tification program. Submit an annual report that describes ongoing implementation activities

associated with the state’s e xpense r eimbursement g rant (note that the expense reimbursement grant program will end in December 2012)

.

7) Tribal Operator Certificat ion Program

States are not affected by the Tribal Operator Certification Program.

8) Constructed Conveyances

To comply with the broadened definition of ―public water system‖ introduced by the 1996 SDWA Amendments, states may complete the following activit ies

—

Review data to determine if a constructed conveyance should be considered a

PWS. Review applications for Other Residential Uses Exclusions and make determinations about the exemption applications. Review applications for Alternative Water Exclusions and make determinations about the exemption applications. Review applications for Treatment Exclusions and make determinations about the exemption applications. Review applications for Certain Piped Irrigation Districts Exclusions and make

determinations a bout the exemption applications.

Laboratories

Proficiency Testing

The primary burden involves analyzing and reporting results for relevant study samples according to instructions. Samples may be analyzed for inorganics, disinfection byproducts

and/or or ganic chemicals. Respondents will participate in the following activities

—

Read instructions

Plan activities Analyze inorganic chemicals Analyze Disinfection Byproducts ( DBPs ) Analyze organic chemicals Report results to the proficiency testing vendor

Main tain records

Laboratories are not subject to any of the other collections covered in this ICR.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

29 

### 5 INFORMATION COLLECTED

-- AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION

MANAGEMENT

5(a) Agency Activities

As part of its supervisory responsib ility for the PWSS Program, EPA oversees contractors who maintain SDWIS and assist EPA in evaluat ing the data in SDWIS to determine compliance rates

. EPA instructs contractors to reformat, distribute, and store these data for a number of uses, including r esponding to Congressional and public inquiries. EPA also oversees the state programs, provides technical assistance, and develops policies designed to ensure consistent program implementation. EPA also oversees the tribal operator certification program. In addition to its management activities, EPA directly implements the Aircraft Drinking Water Rule (see the microbial ICR for more information). EPA officials serve as respondents when testifying to Congress on the PWSS Program or in the courts for enfor cement actions. EPA’s recordkeeping requirements are outlined in Exhibit 4 above

.

Exhibit 5 PWSS Program Requirements for EPA Regions and Headquarters

Requirement CFR Citation Report Frequency/Minimum

Retention

Review initial and revised applications for primacy

. 40 CFR 142.11

- 142.12 As needed

Inform primacy agency of PWS noncompliance with any
NPDWRs in 40 CFR 141 or with any requirement under SDWA
Sections 1415 and 1416. 40 CFR 142.30, 142.15 Quarterly

Review existing s tate primacy

programs

. 40 CF R 142.17 Annually

Review s tate monitoring

determinations

. 40 CFR 142.18 As needed

Review s tate implementation of
LCR

. 40 CFR 142.19 As needed

Inform primacy agency of
substantial abuse of discretion in granting variances and exemptions. 40 CFR 142.23 As needed

Provide notice of public hearing for states abusing right to grant variances and exemptions. 40 CFR 142.23 As needed

Notify primacy agencies of failure to prescribe schedules in
accordance with SDWA. 40 CFR 142.23 As needed

Notify primacy agenci es of repeal of notice or promulgation of any

revisions to schedules or
revocation of schedules proposed in notice. 40 CFR 142.23 Within 180 days of first notice given to the state; revised

schedule or revocation takes effect 90 days after state is

notifie d.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

30 Requirement CFR Citation Report Frequency/Minimum

Retention Notify primacy agencies of objection and proposed modifications to small system variances proposed by states for PWSs serving 3,300 or fewer people. 40 CFR 142.311 Within 90 days of receiving proposal

Notify primacy agencies of deficiencies in state p rogram for granting small system variances. 40 CFR 142.313 As needed

Notify PWSs of noncompliance with any NPDWRs in 40 CFR 141 or with any requirement
under SDWA Sections 1415 and

1416. 40 CFR 142.30, 142.15 Quarterly

Provide PWSs with copies of

Federal Register notice about PWS failure to comply. 40 CFR 142.23 Within 30 days of notice

Notify PWSs of denial or grant of variance (for PWSs in non

primacy states). 40 CFR 142.42 Within 90 days of request

Notify PWSs of denial or grant of exemption (for PWS s in non

primacy states). 40 CFR 142.52 Within 90 days of request

Notify PWSs of denial or grant of small system variance (for PWSs

in non

- primacy states). 40 CFR 142.311, 142.312 Within 90 days of request

Provide notice to PWSs in non

primacy states tha t are no longer eligible for small system

variances. 40 CFR 142.307 As needed

Provide public notice of public meeting on proposed small system variances (in non

primacy states), with supporting

information. 40 CFR 142.308 At least 30 days prior to public meeting

Respond to significant public

comments. 40 CFR 142.308 Before proposal

Notify public of proposed small system variance (in non

- primacy states), with supporting
information. 40 CFR 142.309 No later than 15 days after receiving small system varianc e proposal.

Make DWSRF grant withholding decisions with regard to States’ Capacity Development Programs. SDWA Section 1420(a), (c) 35 CFR 35.3515(b)ii Annually

Make DWSRF grant withholding decisions with regards to States’ Operator Certification Programs

. SDWA Section 1419(b) Annually

Provide state and PWS assistance and training with regard to recordkeeping and reporting requirements covered
in this ICR N/A As needed

Maintain SDWIS

. N/A As neededPublic Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

31 Requirement CFR Citation Report Frequency/Minimum

Retention

Review data in SDWIS

. N/A Quarterly Implement tribal o perator certification program N/A As needed

5(b) Collection Methodology and Management

Primacy agencies must report data quarterly to EPA. In Wyoming and Indian Country (except for the Navajo Nation, which has primacy), results of system samples ar e sent directly to the EPA Region. Virtually all SDWIS data are reported electronically by the primacy agency. These data include any new data and revisions or corrections to existing data. This information is maintained in SDWIS, which contains the foll owing

—

Inventory data for each PWS

Violations

Enforcement actions and some follow

- up activity Variances and exemptions Lead and Copper Rule information Limited sample results

On a quarterly basis, EPA uses the ETT to generate a list of PWSs that a re considered ―priority systems‖ for enforcement. Together

, the ERP and ETT will help EPA and primacy agencies prioritize and direct enforcement response to systems with the most systemic noncompliance by considering all violations incurred by a system in a comprehensive way. The policy and tool identify priority systems for enforcement response ; provide a model to escalate responses to violations; define timely and appropriate actions; and clarify what constitutes a

formal action. If a state has failed to take timely and appropriate action, EPA may become directly involved in enforcement by issuing an administrative order. If the system does not comply with the order, EPA may seek an administrative penalty or court action. EPA may also take action agai nst a PWS before it becomes a priority system

.

EPA also undertake s PWSS f ile r eviews of SDWIS inventory, violation, and enforcement data. The methodology for the f ile r eviews include s the review of a targeted sample of PWS inventory

. EPA Headquarters a nd Regional staff , with contractor support, conduct an on

- site verification of each sample system’s data at the offices of the primacy agency. The team

compare s the recorded compliance determined by the f ile r eview process with the information reported to SDWIS and prepare s reports summarizing the differences. The report summarizes

the state ’ s compliance determination procedures, observations, and any recommendations for improving program management.

The primary purposes of the f ile r eview program are to assess the accuracy and quality of data collected and reported by the states and to recommend any necessary changes in collection or reporting. In addition, the process of verification provides insights into the primacy agency’s program implementation. During f ile r eview , EPA is able to gain greater understanding of how the primacy agencies interpret and implement regulations. For example, EPA can perform the following activities

—Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

32 Evaluate procedures used to manage the program. Critique implementati on methods used for follow

- up activity, in cases of

violation. Verify the flow of information through the state to ensure that the data reflect actual state experience. Observe how the program is implemented in various primacy agencies.

The f ile r eview p rocess also enables EPA to educate states abo ut the SDWA regulations

and to standardize interpretations and implementation procedures. For example, a state's definition of compliance with the f ederal regulations may differ from the official definition.

T hese discrepancies become evident during the f ile r eview process and can be corrected by EPA and state staff. Thus, the f ile r eview process plays a role in standardizing state implementation

of the SDWA.

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

In developing th is ICR, EPA considered the requirement of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) to minimize the burden of information collections on small entities. Small entities include ―small businesses,‖ ―small organizations‖ and ―small gove rnment jurisdictions.‖ These terms are defined below. 3

A small business is any business that is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field as defined by the Small Business Administration regulations under Section 3 of the Small Busine ss Act.

A small organization is any non

- profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and not dominant in its field.

A small governmental jurisdiction is the government of a city, county, town, township, village, school district

, or special district that has a population of fewer than 50,000. This definition may also include Indian Tribes.

The major requirement under SBREFA is a regulatory flexibility analysis of all new rules that have a ―significant economic impact on a substantial numbe r of small entities.‖ This ICR is not associated with new rules. Therefore, this ICR is not subject to the SBREFA.

However, EPA has made significant efforts to minimize the burden for all respondents, particularly for small entities. In setting both MCLs and monitoring requirements, EPA has been

able to minimize burden for small entities as detailed below.

1) Consumer Confidence Reports

EPA’s regulations allow systems serving fewer than 10,000 people to publish a newspaper notice in lieu of sending re ports to customers. Under 40 CFR 141.155(g)(2), CWSs serving 500 or fewer people may forego the notice

- publishing requirement, provided they give notice at least annually to their customers by mail, door

- to

- door delivery, or posting in an

3 These definitions were taken from Section 601 of the Regulatory Flexi bility Act.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

33 appropriate loca tion that the CCR is available upon request. In addition, only very large systems (those serving more than 100,000 people) must provide CCR information on the Internet.

2) Variance & Exemption Rule

The V/E Rule includes procedures and conditions under wh ich the primacy agency (or

the EPA Administrator in non

- primacy states) may issue variances or exemptions to PWS s. The V/E Rule is intended to provide regulatory relief, while still protecting public health. Specifically, it permits primacy agencies to i ssue variances to PWSs that cannot comply with the national primary drinking water standards due to source water quality or affordability. These variances generally allow a system to provide drinking water that may be above the MCL if the drinking water q uality is still protective of public health. Duration of small system variances generally coincides with the life of the technology. Exemptions are intended to allow a small system with compelling circumstances additional time to comply with applicable S DWA requirements. An exemption is generally limited to three years after the initial compliance date stated in the regulations.

3) Capacity Development Program

EPA’s guidelines provide states with maximum flexibility in developing and implementing the cap acity development program. As mentioned above, EPA published a document entitled, Small System Regulatory Requirements Under the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, which, among other things, explains the requirements of the Capacity Development P rogram. In addition, EPA published a Handbook for Capacity Development: Developing Water System Capacity Under the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 and is working on several other tools to help small systems comply.

4) General State Primacy A ctivities

There are no PWS activities associated with the General State Primacy Activities.

5) Public Notification

EPA allows systems serving fewer than 10,000 persons several options for delivering public notices, such as hand delivery and posting in a pr ominent location.

6) Operator Certification and Expense Reimbursement Grants Program

EPA’s Guidelines provide states with maximum flexibility in developing and implementing their operator certification programs. Furthermore, funding is available for

train ing and certification expenses of small system operators through the Expense Reimbursement Grants program, and EPA’s Guidelines permit the use of circuit riders (certified operators who are responsible for multiple systems) as determined to be appropriate by the state. Note that the Expense Reimbursement Grants program will be ending in December 2012.

7) Tribal Operator Certification Program

Since the Tribal Operator Certification Program is voluntary, the program provides tribes with maximum flexibility in seeking operator certification. Water system operators in Indian Country can decide if they would like to be certified by an EPA

- approved tribal certificationPublic Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

34 provider or by a state program. Furthermore, EPA subsidizes the training and certification of

t ribal water system operators in Indian Country.

Additionally, certification providers have flexibility in developing and implementing their tribal operator certification programs.

8) Constructed Conveyances

The broadened definition of ―public water s ystem‖ could financially a ffect small constructed conveyance systems that would now be considered PWSs. Consequently, the 1996 SDWA Amendments provided several exemption options. Examples of these exclusions

include

—

If water provided by a supplier is use d exclusively for purposes other than

residential uses (drinking, bathing, cooking, and similar uses), then a system may apply for an ― Other T han Residential Uses‖ e xclusion. If a water supplier provides adequate health protection through means specified i n section 1401(4)(B)(i)(II) and (III), then the system may apply for an ―Alternative

Water Treatment‖ Exclusion. If the water supply will be used for drinking, cooking, or bathing, then the water must be treated either centrally or at the point

- of

- entry at each connection. To receive a ―Treatment‖ Exclusion, a system must demonstrate that this treatment is occurring. If an irrigation district existed prior to May 18, 1994, and if the district provides primarily agricultural service through piped water syst ems (with incidental residential use), the system may be eligible for a ―Certain Piped Irrigation

Districts‖ Exclusion.

9) Proficiency Testing

The proficiency testing program is not part of a rule, so it is not subject to the requirements of SBREFA. The PT p rogram applies only to those laboratories that wish to be certified to conduct drinking water analyses.

5(d) Collection Schedule

Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 of this document contain summaries of the collection schedules for

each rule. Additional information may be obtained by consulting the individual rules for specific

collection schedules.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

35 

### 6 ESTIMATING BURDEN AND COST OF COLLECTION

This section estimates the burden and cost to PWSs, primacy agencies, and EPA for complying with drinking water information requirements that are not associated with

contaminant

- specific rulemakings. These activities include the following

—

1) Consumer Confidence Reports 2) Variance and Exemption Rule 3) Capacity Development Program 4) General State Primacy Activities 5) Public Notificatio n 6) Operator Certification and Expense Reimbursement Grants Program 7) Tribal Operator Certification Program 8) Constructed Conveyances 9) Proficiency Testing

This section also discusses the assumptions used to estimate costs and burden and describes the change in burden, as compared with the 2008 PWSS Program ICR. Note that the burden incorporates the results of consultations with representatives of states and PWSs.

6(a) Respondent Burden

6(a)(i) Burden to Public Water Systems

The annual PWS burden for Apri l 1, 2012

, to March 31

, 2015

, is estimated to be approximately 2. 4 million hours. Exhibit 6 shows the breakdown of the annual burden hours on an activity

- specific basis. The bases for the burden estimates are detailed below.

1) Consumer Confidence Reports

CCR regulations require, at a minimum, that each CWS mail to each of its customers an annual report on the level of contaminants in the drinking water purveyed by that system. EPA estimates that CCR requirements will affect approximately 51,460 PWSs, all of which are CWSs, during the course of this ICR period. Activities associated with the preparation and delivery of CCRs account for 963,561 burden hours per year, which includes burden for both CCR development and distribution for PWSs

.

Appendix B sum marizes the assumptions used to calculate the CCR burden and provides detailed burden and cost calculations. The assumptions used to calculate the CCR burden are based largely on assumptions from the 2008 PWSS Program ICR. For the PWSS Program ICR

renewa l, these assumptions have been augmented or supplanted where updated data were available. Section 6(f) describes the reasons for changes in burden and shows the effects of any new assumptions on the CCR burden estimates.

Report Development

Preparation of a CCR includes assembling data, writing the report, ensuring that the notice meets regulatory requirements, and printing the document. Burden estimates range from 4 hours for CWSs serving 500 or fewer people to 160 hours for CWSs serving 10 0 ,000 peopl e orPublic Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

36 more . After completion of CCR preparation activities, all CWSs, regardless of size, are assumed to have the same burden (0. 5 hours) for submitting to the state a copy of the CCR distributed to customers. Certification that the reports were, in fact, distributed is also required along with the report. Finally, all CWSs, regardless of size, are assumed to have the same burden (0.25 hours) for maintaining a copy of the CCR and making it publicly available, if requested.

Report Delivery

The burden estimate for CCR delivery includes the following activities and assumptions

—

Except for CWSs serving 500 or fewer people, all CWSs incur a burden for publishing a notice about obtaining a CCR. The burden per system for this activity is

0.25 hours. For systems serving at least 10,000 people, publication is in addition to report delivery to customers. For systems serving fewer than 10,000 people, this ICR assumes that 50 percent of systems will publish a notice in lieu of sending reports to

customers.

Under 40 CFR 141.155(g)(2), CWSs serving 500 or fewer people may forego the

notice

- publishing requirement, provided they give notice at least annually to their customers by mail, door

- to

- door delivery, or posting in an appropriate location that

the CCR is available upon request. This ICR assumes that 50 percent of these CWSs post the report and 50 percent deliver the report to their customers as part of their standard water bill. Those that post the CCR are estimated to incur a burden of 0.12

hours for th is activity.

Regardless of CWS size category, this ICR assumes a burden of 1 0 hour s per system for coordinating delivery of the CCR as a bill stuffer. CWSs serving 10,000 or more people must deliver the CCR to all service connections. However, CWSs ser ving

fewer than 10,000 people may apply to the s tate Governor (or Tribal Leader) for a

waiver of th e requirement to deliver a CCR to each customer. This ICR assumes that half of such CWSs will receive a waiver. For CWSs serving 500 or fewer people, the

5 0 percent without a waiver are assumed to include the CCR along with the normal water bill (instead of sending the CCR in a separate mailing). For CWSs serving between 501 and 10,000 people, half of the systems without a waiver (or 25 percent

of the total number of CWSs in this size category) are assumed to include the CCR as a bill stuffer, and the remaining systems will mail the CCR separately.

Under §141.155(f), CWSs serving at least 100,000 people must post a copy of the current CCR on a publicly ac cessible Internet site. This burden is estimated at 2 hours per system.

2) Variance and Exemption Rule

In the 2012 PWSS Program ICR, data for exemptions are carried forward from the 2008 OMB approved ICR, which was derived from April 2008 EPA data on the t otal number of actual exemptions applied for under the Arsenic Rule (286 systems). The number of systems applying for variances, however, is carried forward from the 1998 V/E ICR, and the number of systemsPublic Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

37 completing each task is based on the percentages o f systems completing each task in the 1998 V/E ICR (assuming a total of 411 systems in 1998).

Based on the above estimates, it is estimated that the average annual burden to PWSs will be approximately 9,066 hours. Appendix C summarizes the assumptions u sed to calculate the Variances and Exemptions Rule burden and provides detailed burden and cost calculations.

3) Capacity Development

EPA estimates that capacity development will affect approximately 14,109 PWSs, including CWSs, NTNCWSs, and transient non community water systems (TNCWSs), during the course of this ICR period , as explained below . The Capacity Development Program consists of two major components

—

1) Implementation of a program to ensure that all new CWSs and NTNCWSs demonstrate the capacity to comply with NPDWRs.

2) Implementation of a strategy to assist existing PWSs in acquiring and maintaining capacity to comply with the SDWA.

The burden estimate associated with new and existing capacity development efforts is based on expert opinions, inc luding opinions provided by members of the NDWAC Small Systems Workgroup, and consultations with drinking water industry representatives. Specifically, the burden estimate includes the following activities and assumptions

—

New systems must demonstrate ca pacity in order to obtain approval. Each new system applying for approval will require 40 hours to prepare and submit new system approval materials to the state. This burden estimate does not include compliance with state technical requirements since the se were generally unaffected by the capacity development provisions. EPA estimates that there will be an average of 8

new systems per state per year.

Some new systems must improve capacity in order to obtain approval. An estimated 20 percent of new sys tems applying for approval will be required to submit supplemental materials before approval is granted by the state. To develop and submit these materials, it is estimated that each system denied initial approval will require an additional 40 hours. As with the approval application, it is estimated that there will be 8 new systems per state per year (20 percent of which will be required to submit supplemental materials) and that the burden estimate does not include the time needed to comply with technica l requirements.

Some existing systems will incur burden for complying with state capacity development strategies. Each year, EPA estimates that 20 percent of CWSs, 7 percent of NTNCWSs, and 2.5 percent of TNCWSs will incur a burden to comply

with state capacity development strategy efforts. EPA estimates that these systems will spend, on average, 8 hours per year participating in capacity development strategy activities (primarily consultations with states).Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

38 Based on these assumptions, EPA estimates that the average annual burden to PWSs will be approximately 131,114 hours for capacity development activities.

Appendix D summarizes the assumptions used to calculate the Capacity Development Program burden and provides detailed burden and cost calcula tions.

4) General State Primacy

There is no PWS burden associated with general state primacy activities.

5) Public Notification

Only PWSs with one or more violation s during the year incur a burden. (PWSs with no violations have no requirements under th is rule.) The information collection burden for systems that do experience a violation is estimated to average 7

. 6 hours per violation per year ( 1.0 million hours divided by 136,789 violations). This estimate includes time for preparing, copying, mailing , submitting, or posting public notices, as well as time for maintaining records of PN

activities.

In preparing this ICR, EPA assumed that each PWS will deliver a public notice to persons served. A ―person served‖ is defined as an individual who normall y receives water provided by the PWS. Under the statute, PWSs are required to reach persons served, including those who ordinarily do not receive water bills (e.g., residents of apartment buildings, students and staff at schools, etc.).

Under the PN Rul e, CWSs providing a Tier 1 notice are expected either to hand deliver the notice to all residences or to contact all media outlets serving the affected community, including television and radio stations, and submit a press release to them. Burden for

distr ibution of Tier 1 notices is estimated at 12 hours for posting and hand delivery and/or use of mass media. NCWSs providing a Tier 1 notice are likely to post the notice or hand deliver the notice to customers. All water systems are required to take other reasonably calculated steps to ensure all the persons served by the system receive the notice. Although the rule does not specify such actions, PWSs are assumed to place telephone calls to centers of sensitive populations, such as hospitals, nursing home s, and schools. Finally, water systems are expected to prepare a notice suitable for posting in rest areas, government

- owned buildings, libraries, and other facilities served by the water system.

Systems providing a Tier 2 or Tier 3 notice must mail or otherwise directly deliver one

notice to each billing customer. The PN Rule also permits NCWSs to post the notice in lieu of direct delivery or mailing. All water systems must also take other reasonably calculated steps to reach other persons not reached by mail, direct delivery, or routine posting. Estimated burden hours for delivering Tier 2 notices are 9 hours for CWSs under 500 in si ze, and 30 hours for larger CWS s. NTNCWS and TNCWS are estimated to incur 9 burden hours per system.

The burden est imate for mailing assumes that half the CWSs bill their customers less frequently than every month or use postcards rather than envelopes to send bills. Therefore, if a

CWS experiences a violation requiring a Tier 2 notice more than 30 days prior to a reg ular billing date, that CWS is required to send a separate mailing specifically for the public notice. Water systems that bill on a monthly basis and do not use postcards, or those sending out otherPublic Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

39 mailings to the customers, including annual CCRs, will b e able to incorporate the notice as a stuffer in one of the system’s other mailings. Because the mailing alone will not reach all persons served, the burden estimate includes other methods of information dissemination to ensure all persons served receive the notice.

The burden for preparation of these notices was calculated separately from the burden for delivering the notices. For Tier 1 systems serving up to 10,000 customers, the burden estimate per system is 15 hours. Systems over 10,000 customers ca n expect a burden of 30 hours per

system. Systems with T ier 2 notices have an estimated burden of 3.5 hours, regardless of size,

while CWSs with Tier 3 notices have an estimated burden of 3 hour s and NTNCWSs and

TNCWSs have an estimated 3.5 burden hours

.

If repeated notices are necessary, the estimated PWS respondent burden for developing and distributing repeat public notification is 3 hours per system.

Based on the above estimates, it is estimated that the average annual burden to PWSs will be appro ximately 1.0 million hours.

Appendix F summarizes the assumptions used to calculate the PN Rule burden and provides detailed burden and cost calculations.

6) Operator Certification Guidelines and Expense Reimbursement Grant Program

EPA estimates that 3 3,031 CWSs and NTNCWSs will be affected annually by the Operator Certification Program. The burden for PWSs involves operators renewing their

certifications. The burden is estimated to be 263, 018 hours annually for PWSs. Specifically, it

is estimated th at for systems the burden hours per operator will be 8.0 hours

.

Appendix G summarizes the assumptions used to calculate the Operator Certification Program burden and provides detailed burden and cost calculations.

7) Tribal Operator Certification Program

Burden for t ribal PWSs involves obtaining and renewing certification of their operators.
Th e total burden for all three years is estimated to be 14,216 hours. Annually that is an average

burden of 4,739 hours. It is estimated that t ribal systems will re quire 40 hours for new L evel 1 certifications, 26 hours for new L evel 2 certifications and 26 hours for new L evel 3 certifications. Other activities include 40 hours for certification renewals, and 0.5 hours to complete paperwork for reimbursement of certi fication costs. Appendix H summarizes the assumptions used to calculate the Tribal Operator Certification burden and provides detailed

burden and cost calculations.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

40 8) Constructed Conveyances

Certain PWSs may incur burden to adhere to the broadened defi nition of ―public water system‖ introduced by the 1996 SDWA Amendments. It is estimated that, on average, up to 371 PWSs may complete one or more of the following activities annually

—

Conduct a house

- by

- house survey of water use practices and document ef forts to

ascertain water uses. Apply for exclusions.

Communicat e with the primacy agency. Recordkeeping.

The total annual burden to carry out these activities is estimated to be 7,496 hours. It is estimated that surveys and data collection will requi re 20 hours per PWS. Each of four exclusion applications available (other residential uses, alternative water, treatment, and certain piped irrigation districts) will take 10 hours each per system. Communication with the primacy agency

is estimated to take 10 hours and recordkeeping is estimated at 1 hour per system. Appendix I summarizes the assumptions used to calculate the burden for adherence to the constructed conveyance requirements under the revised PWS definition and provides detailed burden and

cos t calculations.

6(a)(ii) Burden to Primacy Agencies

The annual burden for state primacy agencies for April 1, 2012

, to March 31

, 2015

, is

estimated to be approximately 1. 7 million hours. Exhibit 7 shows the annual burden on an activity

- specific basi s. The following briefly describes the bases for the burden estimates

–

1) Consumer Confidence Reports

Primacy agencies are expected to incur a burden for information collection activities associated with preparation assistance, review, and filing of CCRs . The total annual state burden

is estimated at 75,698 hours. Assisting in the preparation of reports for small CWSs is estimated

at 2 hours per system. State recordkeeping activities

, including receiving and reviewing CWS reports and filing reports

, are estimated at 0. 50 hours and 0.10 hours, respectively. Appendix B contains detailed burden and cost assumptions and calculations for primacy agencies.

2) Variance and Exemption Rule

The burden for s tates is based on the number of systems applying for varian ces and exemptions. I n the 2012 PWSS Program ICR, data for exemptions are carried forward from the 2008 OMB approved ICR, which was derived from April 2008 EPA data on the total number of actual exemptions applied for under the Arsenic Rule. The number of systems applying for variances, however, is carried forward from 1998 V/E ICR, and the number of systems completing each task is based on percentages of systems completing each task in the 1998 V/E

ICR.

Based on the above estimates, it is estimated that t he average annual burden to p rimacy

a gencies will be approximately 76,293 hours. Appendix C summarizes the assumptions used toPublic Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

41 calculate the Variances and Exemptions Rule burden and provides detailed burden and cost

calculations.

3) Capacity Development P rogram

As discussed in Section 6(a)(i), the Capacity Development Program, which was added pursuant to the 1996 SDWA Amendments, is a state effort to help drinking water systems improve their finances, management, infrastructure, and operations so they can provide safe drinking water consistently, reliably, and cost

- effectively. The program consists of two major

components

—

1) Implementation of a program to ensure that all new CWSs and NTNCWSs

demonstrate the capacity to comply with NPDWRs.

2) Implementation o f a strategy to assist existing PWSs in acquiring and maintaining capacity to comply with the SDWA.

The burden estimate associated with new and existing capacity development efforts is based on expert opinions, including opinions provided by members o f the NDWAC Small Systems Workgroup, and consultations with drinking water industry representatives. Specifically, the burden estimate assumes that

—

States must review and approve applications for new systems. This ICR assumes that, on average, there wi ll be 8 new systems per state per year. It will take state personnel an estimated 100 hours per system to review new system documentation

and information.

Some applications for new systems will require state follow up. Upon initial review, all new syst ems likely will not meet states’ capacity criteria. An estimated 20 percent of new systems applying for approval each year will be required to submit supplemental materials. It is estimated that a state will need 8 hours per system to

review these materi als.

States must provide capacity development assistance to some existing systems. One element that states must consider in their capacity development strategies is how to identify and prioritize the PWSs most in need of improving capacity. In estimati ng this burden, EPA assumed that states will assist 20 percent of CWSs, 7 percent of NTNCWSs, and 2.5 percent of TNCWSs each year. EPA estimates that, on average, a state will dedicate 4 hours of assistance to each of these existing systems.

Every three years, the primacy agen cy must submit a report to the s tate's Governor on the progress and success of its strategy. It will take an estimated 40 hours to coordinate and prepare this report, for an average annual burden of 13.3 hours per

state.

In tot al, the average annual state burden for capacity development efforts is 103, 983 hours per year. Appendix D summarizes the assumptions used to calculate the Capacity Development Program burden and provides detailed burden and cost calculations.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

42 4) General State Primacy Activities

As illustrated in Exhibit 7, approximately 75 percent of the state burden

— or 1, 242,199

hours

— is for activities that cannot be associated with specific drinking water rules or programs. These ―general primacy activities‖ include

—

Submission of grant applications. Primacy agencies are eligible to receive program grants from EPA to implement their PWSS programs. To receive the grants they must prepare program plans describing their planned activities and use of the grant

funds. P rimacy agencies must apply for the grants on an annual basis. This activity is

estimated to re quire 1,040 hours annually per s tate.

File management (recordkeeping). Each primacy agency is required to maintain records of tests, measurements, analyses, de cisions, and determinations performed on each PWS to assess compliance with the provisions of the state’s primary drinking water regulations. File management is estimated to take 1,040 hours annually per

s tate.

Maintenance of data systems is estimated to re quire 1,040 hours annually per s tate. Each primacy agency must develop a method of storing all PWS inventory, compliance, and enforcement information that it uses to operate its PWSS oversight program. While EPA does not prescribe a storage method, stat es generally store this information electronically because of the volume of data involved. States must routinely enter new inventory, compliance, and enforcement data into their data systems. States must also modify their data systems as necessary.

Subm ission of ongoing violation reports is estimated to require 1,040 hours annua lly

per s tate. Each primacy agency must provide EPA with information regarding all violations of the state drinking water regulations and with other selected water system

informa tion that is necessary to determine compliance with the drinking water requirements. States must also provide new and updated water system inventory

information on an annual basis.

Laboratory certifications are estimated to require 728 hours annually per s tate. The state PWSS programs require that water systems conduct routine monitoring of water quality to ensure that the water produced meets all regulatory standards. States must have some method of ensuring that the laboratories conducting these analy ses are qualified and capable of performing the tests. As a result, states must establish and maintain a program for certifying laboratories that may conduct the required compliance monitoring for PWSs.

Plan and project reviews. Primacy agencies must es tablish and maintain a program that assures the design and construction of new or modified water system facilities that are capable of complying with the s tate primary dri nking water regulations. Most

s tates achieve this assurance by requiring state revie w and approval of plans and specifications for drinking water facility construction. Reviewing plans for major projects for systems with more than 10,000 customers, between 3,301 and 10,000, and less than 3,300 customers is estimated to require 312 , 416, a nd 5, 200 hoursPublic Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

43 annually per s tate, respectively. Reviewing plans for minor projects for systems greater than 500 customers and fewer than 500 customers is estimated to require 1,040 and 2, 600 hours annually per s tate, respectively. Routine inspections are estimated to require 832 burden hours annually per s tate.

Over sight of compliance monitoring ( including issuing notices of violation and ensuring appropriate follow

- up activities ) . States must ensure that water systems

monitor in accordance with the re gulations. Where monitoring does not occur, states must take action to ensure that systems monitor so that the quality of water is known and so that any appropriate actions can be taken. Where violations occur and are not expeditiously corrected, states mu st take appropriate enforcement follow

- up actions. States must maintain administrative penalty authority and the right to sue to ensure the effectiveness of their enforcement programs. These programs require an estimated average of 2,309 hours annually per state

.

Training activities. Primacy agencies conduct rule training for both state staff and for PWS owners and operators. Training is ongoing for all program components (for new staff and owners/operators). Training accounts for 338 hours annually per state

.

Appendix E summarizes the assumptions used to calculate the General State Primacy Activities burden and provides detailed burden and cost calculations.

5) Public Notification

The burden to primacy agencies for the Public Notification Rule results from consulting with PWSs, reviewing the PWS compliance certification and notice copies, preparing quarterly reports to EPA, and filing and maintaining the PN records. The burden for primacy agencies for

these activities is estimated to be 107,175 hours annually. This amounts to 1

, 880 hours per primacy agency. Tier 1 consultation activities require an estimated 3.0 hours annually per system

in violation , Tier 2 consultation requires an average of 1.1 hours and Tier 3 requires 0. 5 hours.

The burden for rec eiving/ reviewing PN certification is 0.2 hours and filing reports is 0.1 hours. Appendix F summarizes the assumptions used to calculate the Public Notification burden and provides detailed burden and cost calculations.

6) Operator Certification Guidelines and Expense Reimbursement Grants Program

The burden to primacy agencies for implementing an EPA

- approved Operator Certification Program includes the ongoing certification of operators and tracking fulfillment of operator certification requirements. I t is assumed that 95 percent of states will opt to contract with third parties to provide group training to small system operators and that 5 percent will opt to reimburse individual operators for training. The burden to primacy agencies also includes

annua l reporting to EPA on program implementation for operator certification and expense reimbursement grants. Note that the grant reimbursement program is ending in December 2012. The total annual burden estimated for primacy agencies is 3,565 hours. It is es timated that submitting a yearly report on the status of implementation will require 16 hours per state

. D ocumenting the actual uses of previous fiscal year ’s allotment will require 8 hours, and administering grants will require 520 hours annually per stat e ; however, the burden for these two

activities will be incurred only during the first year of this ICR period, as the expense reimbursement grant program will end in December 2012

. In addition, a subset of states willPublic Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

44 complete tasks associated with the gr ant program during this ICR period, since some states have already received and used all their grant money. Appendix G summarizes the assumptions used to calculate the Operator Certification Program burden and provides detailed burden and cost

calculations

.

7) Tribal Operator Certification Program

There is no burden to primacy agencies for the Tribal Operator Certification Program.

8) Constructed Conveyances

Primacy agencies incur burden to adhere to the broadened definition of ―public water system‖ introdu ced by the 1996 SDWA Amendments for oversight of PWS activities. These

activities include

—

Review of survey results: estimated at 150 hours per PWS. Reviewing applications for exclusions: estimated at 10 hours for each of four types of exclusions (other residential uses, alternative water, treatment, and certain piped irrigation districts exclusions). Communications with PWSs: estimated at 10 hours per PWS. Recordkeeping: estimated at 60 hours per PWS.

The total annual burden associated with these ac tivities is estimated to be 44,175 hours. Appendix H summarizes the assumptions used to calculate the burden for primacy agencies and provides detailed burden and cost calculations.

6(a)(iii) Burden to Laboratories

The annual l aboratory burden for A pril 1, 2012

, to March 31

, 2015

, is estimated to be approximately 42

, 892 hours. Exhibit 8 shows the annual burden to laboratories associated with Proficiency Testing. The bases for the burden estimate are detailed below.

1) Proficiency Testing

This section describes the estimated average annual burden and costs for the information collection activities for Proficiency Testing (PT) studies that will be conducted by drinking water

laboratories. There is no burden for PT vendors or p rimacy a gencies. The burd en for

laboratories for these activities is estimated to be 42

, 892 hours annually. 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 among three labor categories: manager, chemist, and records clerk. The labor associated with each of the ICR activities is

discussed in more detail below.

Read i nstructions: EPA assumes that each of the 1

, 902 respondents will require 4 .0

hour s to read the instructions provided by the vendor. The burden will be evenly divided between a manager and chemist.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

45 Plan a ctivities: EPA assumes that the manager of each laboratory will require 1.5

hours to plan activities associated with the PT studies.

Analyze inorganic c hemicals: EPA assumes that 871 laboratories will require approximately 16 hours to analyze PT standards for 29 inorganic chemicals. All hours will be incurred by a chemist.

Analyze DBP s: Chemists in 701 laboratories are assumed to require 8 .0 hours to analyze PT standards for 9 DBPs.

Analyze organic c hemicals: Chemists in 330 laboratories are assumed to require 16.0 hours to analyze PT standards for 52 organic chemicals.

Report r esults: EPA assumes that each of the 1

, 902 respondents will require 2 .0

hour s to report the results of the study to the PT vendor. The burden will be divided between a manager and records clerk.

Maintain r ecords: EPA assumes that a records clerk and manager in each of the 1,902 laboratories will require 1.0 hour each to maintain the files from the PT study.

6(b) Respondent Costs

6(b)(i) Cost to Public Water Systems

Exhibit 6 shows the total costs for PWSs over the 3

- year ICR period. Annual costs are estimated at approximately $ 116 million, which consists of $ 77 million in labor costs and $ 3 9

million in O&M costs

.

Labor costs are based on the number of burden hours times the average hourly wage rate, including overhead. In addition to th e labor costs, there are O&M costs associated with the CCR, the Public Notification Rule, and Operator Certification Programs and the Tribal Operator Certification Program. For the CCR, these costs reflect non

- labor costs associated with printing,

deliver y, posting, and publishing CCRs. These costs were carried forward from the previous ICRs, updated with current cost information (e.g., postage rates), and adjusted for inflation. CCR O&M costs and associated calculations are presented in greater detail i n Appendix B. For

the Public Notification Rule these costs reflect non

- labor costs to print and distribute notices of

violation. These costs were carried forward from the 2008 PWSS Program ICR. Appendix F

shows the costs for the Public Notification Rule in more detail. For the Operator Certification Program and Tribal Operator Certification

, O&M costs reflect renewal fees paid by operators to

renew their certifications. These costs were carried forward from the 2008 ICR and are shown in

more detail in Appendices G and H, respectively.

There are no capital costs associated with this ICR.

6(b)(ii) Cost to Primacy Agencies

Exhibit 7 shows that the annual costs to primacy agencies are estimated at approximately $ 6 8 million. All costs incurred by p rimacy agencies are labor costs. Labor costs are based on the number of burden hours times the average hourly wage rate, including overhead. Labor ratesPublic Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

46 in 2010 dollars are used and are loaded with a 60 percent overhead factor. A loaded labor rate of $43 .79 per hour in 2010 dollars was used for state labor.

6(b)(ii i ) Cost to Laboratories

Exhibit 8 shows the total costs for laboratories over the three

- year ICR period. Annual costs are estimated at approximately $ 3

. 5 million, which consists of $ 0.8 mi llion in O&M costs (fees for PT standards) and $ 2.8 million in labor costs (numbers may not add due to rounding)

.

Labor costs are based on the number of burden hours times the average hourly wage rate, including overhead. Labor rates in 2010 dollars ar e used and are loaded with a 60 percent

overhead factor . Loaded hourly labor rates in 20 10 dollars for the three labor categories include a manager at an hourly rate of $ 99.47 , a data entry clerical person at an hourly rate of $ 28.80

, and a skilled techni cian or chemist to conduct the measurements at an hourly rate of $ 56.34

.

O&M costs for laboratories are all costs related to providing personnel with the space, equipment, and materials necessary to perform the tasks required for PT studies. Since

labor atories are driven by their compliance monitoring requirements to purchase the analytical instrumentation and computers and not by PT requirements, no capital costs can be considered associated with PT studies. Only the cost associated with purchasing the PT standards is appropriate for consideration in this category.

Laboratories may participate in the PT studies for some or all of the regulated contaminants. Because EPA does not have sufficient information to estimate how many analytes

are contained in the PT samples sent to each laboratory, EPA has estimated a "worst case" scenario by assuming that a single PT s et contains standards for each possible regulated analyte. Therefore, laboratories participating in the inorganic PT study are assumed to re ceive and run analyses for 29 analytes. Similarly, those participating in the PT study for DBPs and/or organic chemicals will receive samples for each of 9 analytes and/or each of 52 analytes, respectively.

EPA estimates the costs of each PT standard to be $ 15.73 (i.e., $ 15.73 per analyte).Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

47 Exhibit 6
Annual PWS Burden and Cost April 1, 2012 to March 31

, 2015

Exhibit 7
Annual State Burden and Cost April 1, 2012 to March 31

, 2015Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

48 Exhibit 8 Annual Laboratory Burden and Cost April 1, 2012 to Mar ch 31, 2015

6(c) Agency Burden and Costs

EPA’s drinking water program incurs burden both at Headquarters and r egion al offices to
assist states in implementing drinking water regulations. In previous ICRs for the PWSS Program, burden associated with EPA’s enforcement and compliance activities at Headquarters and the Regions w as also included in the Agency’s burden and cost estimates. With the implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act in Federal Fiscal Year 1999, it

has become diff

icult to isolate the resources ( full time equivalents ( FTEs ) and dollars) for drinking water enforcement and compliance activities from the overall Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance operating plan. Thus, this section presents only the burden and costs incurred by EPA’s water program, especially drinking water protection, at Headquarters and in Regions. It is important to note that the burden and costs presented below cover ongoing activities for all EPA drinking water programs (not just those listed in this ICR), including rule development activities.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

49 EPA Headquarters

There are 49.7 Headquarters FTEs dedicated to drinking water protection implementation activities. The following assumptions were used to develop a cost estimate for Headqua rters

—

The average salary and benefits (i.e., personnel compensation and benefits (PC&B))

of the 49.7 FTEs is at the GS 13, Step 5 level of $ 129,968 4

. An FTE is 2,080 hours/year

.

Given these assumptions, the following calculations yield the annual labor cost for Headquarters

—

The 49.7 FTEs equal 103,376 hours ( 49.7 *2,080).

The labor cost of 49.7 FTEs is $ 6,459,410 ( 49.7 *$ 129,968 ).

For most of the programs and regulations covered in the PWSS ICR, there are no O&M costs. However, EPA incurs O&M costs for the t ribal operator certification program and for EPA contractors to manage the SDWIS database.

The O&M costs for the tribal operator certification program are associated with reimbursing providers for training courses and reimbursing PWS operators for travel costs associated with training. Regions are assumed to incur 93 percent of these costs and Headquarters incurs 7 percent. The annual t ribal operator certification O&M cost for Headquarters is $ 9

, 371 (see Appendix H).

As stated above, t he O&M costs associated with SDWIS/state and SDWIS/FED are for EPA contractors to manage the SDWIS database

. These O&M costs are directly related to the

collection of the information discussed in thi s ICR and include SDWIS/state and SDWIS/FED maintenance and user sup port for the system. The SDWIS O&M cost for Headquarters is $1,313,464 5

.

Note that because the EPA burden and labor costs calculated above address burden for all drinking water programs, including t ribal operator certification, the EPA burden and labor c osts
calculated for t ribal operator certification in Appendix H were not added to the labor bu rden

discussed in this section.

4 Base salary, United States Office of Personnel Management ( http://www.opm.gov/oca/10tables/html/gs.asp ). 2010

pay schedule. Loaded with a 60 percent loading factor.

5 SDWIS O&M costs based on comments received from EPA COR, Matthew Reed (11/ 16/2011)Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

50 EPA Regional Offices

There are 231

. 9 Regional FTEs dedicated to drinking water protection implementation

activities. 6 The fol lowing assumptions are used to develop a cost estimate for the Regions

—

The average salary and benefits (i.e., PC&B) of the 231

. 9 FTEs is at the GS 11, Step 5 level of $ 91,186 7

. An FTE is 2,080 hours/year.

Given these assumptions, the following calculati ons yield the annual labor cost for the 10 EPA Regional offices

—

The 231

. 9 FTEs equal 482

, 352 hours ( 231

. 9 *2,080).

The labor cost of 231

. 9 FTEs is $ 21

, 14 5,941 ( 231

. 9 *$ 91,186 ).

The annual Agency O&M cost to the Regions associated with t ribal operator cert ification is $ 133, 867

.

The total cost to the f

ederal government is the sum of the labor cost to Headquarters ($ 6,459,410 ), the labor cost to EPA Regional offices ($ 21,145,941 ) , O&M cost to Headquarters ($ 1,32 2

, 835 ), and the O&M cost to EPA Regional offic es ($ 133, 867 ) for a total of $ 2 9

, 062

, 053

. Similarly, the total burden to the f ederal government (H eadquarters and Regions) is 585

, 728

hours for 281

. 6 FTEs.

6(d) Estimating Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

Respondents for this ICR include PWSs, laboratories, and states or other primacy agencies. This ICR estimates the number of PWS respondents at 152,979 . Not every PWS is necessarily subject to each of the information collection requirements contained in this ICR. The regulations associ ated with each ICR will identify the types of PWSs that are subject to each particular drinking water regulation.

In addition to the PWS respondents, this ICR assumes 57 primacy agencies (50 states plus the District of Columbia , U.S. territories, and t he Navajo Nation) 8 , and 1

, 902 laboratories. Therefore, the total number of respondents is 15 4

, 938

.

The total costs and burden for these respondents are summarized in Exhibits 6

– 8

. Agency costs and burden are detailed in Section 6(c).

6(e) Bottom Lin e Burden Hours and Costs

The bottom line burden hours and costs are presented in Exhibit 9. The total annual respondent burden associated with this ICR is estimated to be approximately 4.1 million burden hours. The corresponding total annual respondent costs are estimated to be $ 187.6 million. The

6 FTE figures based on e

- mail correspondence from EPA COR, Matthew Reed (09/23/2011).

7 Base salary, United States Office of Personnel Management ( http://www.opm.gov/oca/10tables/html/gs.asp ). 2010

pay schedule. Loaded with a 60 percent loading factor.

8 This is a simplifying assumption. Primacy activities for Wyoming and the District of Columbia are actually carried out by the respective EPA Regional offices.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

51 total national burden, including respondent burden and EPA burden, is estimated to be 4.7 million hours annually. The total national cost, for respondents and EPA, is estimated to be $ 217 million annually.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

52 Exhibit 9
Bottom Line Annual Burden and Cost April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2015Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

53 6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden

This section presents the change in burden and explains the reasons for the change in

burden. The discussion is divided into two parts

—

Section 6(f)(i) summarizes the differences between the burden estimated in the 2008 PWSS Program ICR and the current OMB inventory for the PWSS Program ICR.

See Exhibit 11. Section 6(f)(ii) summarizes other adjustments to the annual burden est imates associated with each rule in the PWSS Program ICR. See Exhibits 12

- 14.

Exhibit 10 summarizes how each of these changes has affected the overall burden inventory for the PWSS Program ICR.

Exhibit 10 Summary of Changes in Annual Burden (Inclu des PWS, Primacy Agency , and Laboratory Burden)

6(f)(i) Restructuring Adjustments

No restructuring adjustments are being made for the addition of new stand

- alone ICRs to

the PWSS ICR , as shown in Exhibit 11 . In the next revision to the PWSS ICR

, burden from relevant standalone ICRs that have expired will be newly incorporated into the PWSS ICR.

Exhibit 11 Restructuring Adjustments to the Annual Burden Inventory for the PWSS Program ICR (Includes PWS, Primacy Agency , and Laboratory Burden)Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

54 6(f )(ii) Additional Program Adjustments

The remaining changes in burden consist of program adjustments for activities that were carried forward from existing ICRs to this PWSS Program ICR renewal. Changes in calculated burden are a result of updating relev ant baseline information for each rule with the most current and accurate information on activity compliance. Exhibits 12

- 14 summarize reasons for these changes and quantify the changes by activity. Burden adjustments associated with PWS

activities resul ted in a burden increase of 235,959 hours and are shown in Exhibit 12. Burden adjustments for primacy agencies resulted in a de c rease of 61

, 697 hours per year, as shown in Exhibit 13. Burden adjustments for laboratories resulted in a burden increase of 2 5,601 hours , as shown in Exhibit 14.

Exhibit 12

Adjustments to PWS Burden from Previous ICR EstimatesPublic Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

55 Exhibit 13 Adjustments to Primacy Agency Burden
from Previous ICR EstimatesPublic Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

56 Exhibit 14 Adjustments to Laboratory Burden
from Previo us ICR Estimates

Exhibit 15 shows the e ffect of these adjustments on the bottom line burden. Adding

235

, 959 hours to account for the adjustment for the PWS burden

, subtracting 61

, 697 hours to account for the adjustment for the primacy agency burden

, and adding 25

, 601 hours to account for the adjustment to the laboratory burden yields 4, 113

, 408 hours.Public Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

57 Exhibit 15 Adjustments to Activities Carried Forward from Previous ICRs (Includes PWS , Primacy Agency , and Laboratory Burden)

6(g) Burden Statemen t

The public reporting burden for collections included in this ICR is detailed in Exhibit 15 above. The annual respondent burden is estimated to average approximately 4.1 million hours, of

which 2. 4 million hours are attributable to PWSs, 1. 7 million hour s to primacy agencies, and

0.0 4 million hours to laboratories. These estimates include time for gathering information as well as developing and maintaining records.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by people to

generat e, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to or for a f ederal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology, and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifyin g 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 infor mation; 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 request for information collection unle ss it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA’s

re gulations are listed in 40 CFR p art 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency'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 has established a public docket for this ICR under

Docket ID N umber EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0443 , which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov , or in person viewing at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334 , 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The 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 the Reading R oom 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 viewPublic Water Systems Supervision Program ICR December 2011

58 public comments, to access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electron ically. When in the system, select ―search,‖ then key in the D ocket ID N umber 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, DC 20503, Att ention: Desk Office r for EPA. Please include the EPA

Docket ID N umber ( EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 2011

- 0443 ) and the OMB Control N umber 2040

- 0090 in any correspondence.