Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0043-0693
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-01-04T05:00Z

ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
1
Information
Collection
Request
for
The
National
Primary
Drinking
Water
Regulations;
Stage
2
Disinfectants
and
Disinfection
Byproducts
Rule
Supporting
Statement
for
Recordkeeping
and
Reporting
1
Identification
of
the
Information
Collection
1a
Title
of
the
Information
Collection
Title:
Information
Collection
Request
for
National
Primary
Drinking
Water
Regulations;
Stage
2
Disinfectants
and
Disinfection
Byproducts
Rule
U.
S.
EPA
Tracking
Number:
2068.02
Note:
The
description
of
reporting
and
recordkeeping
burden
in
this
supporting
statement
covers
all
that
is
required
for
full
rule
implementation,
which
extends
beyond
the
3­
year
approval
period
for
the
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR).
For
the
purposes
of
the
ICR
approval
period,
the
3­
year
costs
and
burden
are
described
in
sections
4
and
6,
with
supporting
summary
information
in
Exhibits
1
through
5
at
the
end
of
the
document.
The
estimates
of
burden
and
cost
are
due
to
new
requirements
under
the
Stage
2
Disinfectants
and
Disinfection
Byproducts
Rule
(
DBPR).

1b
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
developing
National
Primary
Drinking
Water
Regulations
(
NPDWRs),
as
mandated
by
the
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act
(
SDWA
or
the
Act).
Section
1412
of
SDWA
requires
EPA
to
establish
NPDWRs
for
contaminants
that
may
adversely
impact
human
health.
The
Act
further
requires
EPA
to
monitor
and
enforce
these
regulations
to
ensure
that
the
nation's
drinking
water
dependably
complies
with
the
maximum
contaminant
levels
(
MCLs)
stipulated
in
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
(
CFR),
40
CFR
Part
141.

Section
1445
of
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.
States/
Primacy
Agencies
ensure
that
public
water
systems
(
PWSs)
are
complying
with
these
monitoring
requirements.
As
part
of
the
Public
Water
System
Supervision
(
PWSS)
Program,
OGWDW
uses
the
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
monitoring
data
and
other
program­
related
data.
These
data
assist
EPA
in
fulfilling
its
SDWA
obligations.
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
2
This
ICR
was
prepared
in
accordance
with
the
February
1999
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.

This
ICR
examines
PWS,
State/
Primacy
Agency,
and
EPA
burden
and
costs
for
recordkeeping
and
reporting
required
in
support
of
the
Stage
2
DBPR;
the
Stage
2
DBPR
requires
the
collection
of
information
on
disinfection
byproducts
(
DBPs)
by
all
community
water
systems
(
CWSs)
and
nontransient
noncommunity
water
systems
(
NTNCWSs)
that
use
a
primary
or
residual
disinfectant
other
than
ultraviolet
light
(
UV)
or
deliver
water
that
has
been
treated
with
a
primary
or
residual
disinfectant
other
than
UV.
The
Stage
2
DBPR
builds
on
the
1979
Total
Trihalomethane
Rule
and
the
1998
Stage
1
DBPR
by
requiring
reduced
levels
of
DBPs
in
distribution
systems.
Each
rule
activity
for
the
Preferred
Regulatory
Alternative
and
the
associated
rule
schedule
are
described
below.

The
numerical
maximum
contaminant
levels
(
MCLs)
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
are
the
same
as
for
the
Stage
1
DBPR
MCLs:
80
micrograms
per
liter
(
µ
g/
L)
for
total
trihalomethanes
(
TTHM),
and
60
µ
g/
L
for
haloacetic
acids
(
five)
(
HAA5).
The
Stage
2
DBPR
is
designed
to
reduce
DBP
occurrence
peaks
in
the
distribution
system
by
changing
compliance
monitoring
requirements
and
compliance
determination.
The
compliance
determination
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
is
based
on
a
locational
running
annual
average
(
LRAA)
instead
of
the
system­
wide
running
annual
average
(
RAA)
used
under
the
Stage
1
DBPR.
LRAAs
are
essentially
RAAs
calculated
separately
for
each
sample
location
in
the
distribution
system.
With
the
Stage
2
LRAA
requirement,
the
TTHM
and
HAA5
maximum
contaminant
levels
(
MCLs)
must
be
met
at
each
monitoring
location,
while
the
Stage
1
RAA
requires
a
system
to
average
results
over
all
monitoring
locations.

For
many
systems,
compliance
monitoring
will
be
preceded
by
an
initial
distribution
system
evaluation
(
IDSE)
to
identify
distribution
system
locations
that
are
representative
of
the
highest
TTHM
and
HAA5
levels
in
the
distribution
system.
Systems
may
perform
an
IDSE
either
by
completing
a
systemspecific
study
(
SSS)
or
standard
monitoring.
NTNCWSs
serving
fewer
than
10,000
people
are
not
required
to
conduct
an
IDSE.
In
addition,
some
systems
may
not
need
to
perform
the
IDSE
if
(
1)
they
demonstrate
low
historic
DBP
distribution
system
concentrations
(
all
samples
less
than
or
equal
to
0.040
mg/
L
(
40

g/
L)
and
0.030
mg/
L
(
30

g/
L)
for
TTHM
and
HAA5,
respectively),
or
if
(
2)
they
serve
fewer
than
500
people
and
qualify
for
the
very
small
system
waiver.

As
mentioned
above,
the
Stage
2
DBPR
changes
compliance
monitoring
requirements.
Stage
1
compliance
monitoring
for
TTHM
and
HAA5
is
based
on
a
system's
population
served,
source
water
type,
system
type,
and
number
of
plants
treating
water
in
that
system.
This
"
plant­
based"
approach
is
grounded
in
the
assumption
that
larger
systems
have
more
treatment
plants
and
thus
greater
system
complexity.
While
this
is
generally
true,
the
plant­
based
approach
created
disproportionate
monitoring
requirements
for
some
systems
where
the
number
of
plants
did
not
reflect
system
size,
such
as
larger
systems
with
very
large
plants
or
smaller
systems
with
many
disinfecting
wells,
and
did
not
result
in
enough
monitoring
for
some
systems,
such
as
a
very
large
population
served
by
a
single
plant.
Moreover,
a
plant­
based
approach
can
complicate
monitoring
of
purchased
water
systems,
particularly
complex
ones
with
multiple
connections.
For
these
reasons,
EPA
has
developed
a
"
population­
based"
monitoring
approach
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR,
whereby
the
monitoring
requirements
are
based
on
population
served,
source
water
type,
and
whether
the
system
is
a
community
or
noncommunity
system
(
not
plants
per
system).
EPA
believes
that
the
new
Stage
2
population­
based
approach
makes
monitoring
requirements
simpler
and
more
equitable
for
systems
of
the
same
size
and
type.
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
3
Systems
must
develop
a
Stage
2
DBPR
monitoring
plan
that
includes
monitoring
locations,
monitoring
dates,
and
compliance
calculation
procedures.
The
monitoring
plan
must
also
incorporate
any
agreements
(
e.
g.,
permits,
contracts)
with
third
parties
to
sample,
analyze,
or
report
compliance
information.
The
compliance
monitoring
locations
identified
in
the
monitoring
plan
are
selected
from
the
results
of
the
IDSE
and
Stage
1
compliance
monitoring.

The
Stage
2
DBPR
is
being
promulgated
simultaneously
with
the
Long
Term
2
Enhanced
Surface
Water
Treatment
Rule
(
LT2ESWTR)
to
address
complex
risk
trade­
offs
between
DBPs
and
microbial
pathogens.
The
Stage
2
schedule
is
summarized
in
Exhibit
21.
Note
that
the
compliance
deadlines
are
based
on
population
served.
For
consecutive
and
wholesale
systems,
the
compliance
schedule
is
based
on
the
population
served
by
the
largest
system
in
a
combined
distribution.

Because
Stage
2
DBPR
MCL
compliance
is
based
on
a
locational
running
annual
average
of
DBP
measurements,
a
system
could
from
time
to
time
experience
DBP
levels
significantly
higher
than
the
MCL
(
referred
to
as
exceeding
the
operational
evaluation
level),
while
maintaining
compliance.
This
is
because
the
high
concentration
levels
could
be
averaged
with
lower
concentrations
at
a
given
location.
For
this
reason,
the
Stage
2
DBPR
includes
a
provision
for
"
operational
evaluation"
as
follows:

°
A
system
exceeds
an
operational
evaluation
level
at
any
monitoring
location
when
the
sum
of
the
two
previous
quarters'
compliance
monitoring
results
plus
twice
the
current
quarters
result
at
one
location,
divided
by
4,
exceeds
80
µ
g/
L
for
TTHM
or
60
µ
g/
L
for
HAA5.

If
an
"
operational
evaluation
level"
is
exceeded,
the
system
must
conduct
an
"
operational
evaluation"
and
submit
a
written
report
of
the
evaluation
to
the
State
no
later
than
90
days
after
being
notified
of
the
DBP
analytical
results
initiating
an
operational
evaluation.

The
total
annual
burden
associated
with
this
ICR
is
estimated
to
be
222,576
hours
per
year.
The
total
annual
cost
associated
with
this
ICR
is
estimated
to
be
approximately
$
15.5
million.
The
distribution
of
annual
burden
between
PWSs
and
States/
Primacy
Agencies
is
143,654
hours
and
78,922
hours,
respectively.
The
distribution
of
annual
costs
between
PWSs
and
States/
Primacy
Agencies
is
approximately
$
13.2
million
and
$
2.6
million,
respectively.
There
are
no
Agency
costs
or
burden
for
this
ICR.
Section
6
details
these
burden
and
cost
calculations.

The
approximate
annual
O&
M
costs
associated
with
this
ICR
are
$
9.1
million.
This
represents
the
"
cost
burden"
as
reported
in
the
OMB
inventory.
Note
that
these
costs
are
for
PWSs
only;
States/
Primacy
Agencies
do
not
have
O&
M
costs
associated
with
the
Stage
2
DBPR.
EPA
assumes
that
the
disinfecting
systems
affected
by
the
Stage
2
DBPR
have
already
purchased
the
basic
equipment
to
record
chlorine
concentrations,
disinfection
efficacy,
etc.
Therefore,
there
are
no
capital
start
 
up
costs
associated
with
this
rule.

The
total
number
of
respondents
for
this
ICR
is
22,491;
57
of
these
respondents
are
States/
Primacy
Agencies
and
the
balance
are
existing
PWSs
(
22,434).
The
total
number
of
responses
for
these
respondents
is
153,512,
only
570
of
which
are
for
States/
Primacy
Agencies.
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
4
2
Need
for
and
Use
of
the
Collection
The
following
sections
describe
the
need
for
this
information
collection
and
the
legal
authority
under
which
this
information
will
be
collected.

2a
Need/
Authority
for
the
Collection
The
information
collected
under
this
rule
is
required
by
the
Agency
to
carry
out
its
monitoring
and
enforcement
responsibilities
under
SDWA.
Without
comprehensive,
up­
to­
date
information
on
drinking
water
contamination,
the
Agency
is
not
able
to
meet
SDWA
statutory
requirements.

Section
1412
of
the
Act
requires
that
"...
there
must
be
criteria
and
standards
to
assure
a
supply
of
drinking
water
which
dependably
complies
with
such
maximum
contaminants
levels;
including
quality
control
and
testing
procedures
to
insure
compliance
with
such
levels
and
to
insure
proper
operation
and
maintenance
of
the
system "

Further,
section
1445
of
SDWA
requires
that
"...
every
person
who
is
a
supplier
of
water
shall
establish
and
maintain
such
records,
make
such
reports,
conduct
such
monitoring,
and
provide
such
information
as
the
Administrator
may
reasonably
require
by
regulation
to
assist
him
in
establishing
regulations,
in
determining
whether
such
person
has
acted
or
is
in
compliance
with
this
title "

To
develop
the
Stage
2
DBPR,
EPA
convened
an
advisory
committee
under
the
Federal
Advisory
Committees
Act
(
FACA)
in
Spring
1999
with
potentially
affected
parties.
The
Microbial­
Disinfectants
and
Disinfection
Byproducts
(
M­
DBP)
Advisory
Committee
included
representatives
from
drinking
water
suppliers,
chemical
and
equipment
manufacturers,
State
and
local
public
health
and
regulatory
agencies,
environmental
groups,
local
elected
officials,
consumer
groups,
and
EPA.
Through
an
extensive
consensus­
building
effort,
the
M­
DBP
Advisory
Committee
made
recommendations
for
EPA
to
use
in
proposing
two
rules:

°
The
Stage
2
DPBR
 
to
address
DBPs
beyond
the
provisions
in
the
Stage
1
DBPR
°
The
LT2ESWTR
 
to
address
microbial
contaminants,
specifically
Cryptosporidium,
beyond
the
provisions
in
the
Interim
Enhanced
Surface
Water
Treatment
Rule
(
IESWTR)
and
the
Long
Term
1
Enhanced
Surface
Water
Treatment
Rule
(
LT1ESWTR)

In
this
regulatory
effort,
EPA
needed
to
balance
the
health
risks
from
microbial
pathogens
(
such
as
Cryptosporidium
and
Giardia
lamblia)
with
the
risks
from
chemical
contaminants
formed
during
disinfection
to
inactivate
these
pathogens.
In
addition
to
considering
the
trade­
offs
in
risk,
the
M­
DBP
Advisory
Committee
reviewed
the
potentially
costly
changes
systems
and
drinking
water
customers
would
face
given
different
regulatory
alternatives.
1
Date
of
promulgation
is
subject
to
change.

ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
5
Since
the
promulgation
of
the
Stage
1
DBPR
and
IESWTR,
the
Agency
has
analyzed
a
large
amount
of
data
collected
under
the
1996
Information
Collection
Rule,
primarily
from
PWSs
serving
at
least
100,000
people.
These
data
were
an
important
addition
to
the
rulemaking
process
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
and
the
LT2ESWTR
and,
pending
their
collection,
constituted
the
primary
reason
the
DBP
and
microbial
regulations
were
developed
in
stages.
EPA
has
also
analyzed
other
data
submitted
by
States
and
systems.
The
Stage
2
DBPR
is
scheduled
to
be
promulgated
in
December
20051.

2b
Practical
Utility/
Users
of
the
Data
System­
level
records
are
maintained
by
each
PWS
on
the
results
of
rule
implementation,
IDSEs,
Stage
2
DBPR
monitoring
plans,
additional
routine
monitoring,
and
operational
evaluations.
PWSs
will
use
the
data
to:

°
Determine
system­
specific
needs
and
modify
compliance
monitoring
locations,
if
necessary
°
Assure
compliance
with
the
MCLs
States/
Primacy
Agencies
will
compile
records
from
their
PWS
respondents.
States/
Primacy
Agencies
can
use
these
records
to:

°
Consult
with
PWSs
on
issues
such
as
their
peak
DBP
occurrences
°
Track
PWS
monitoring
°
Identify
compliance
and
monitoring
violations
°
Track
schedules
for
PWSs
trying
to
achieve
compliance
°
Target
systems
for
compliance
actions
States/
Primacy
Agencies
report
information
on
PWS
violations
to
SDWIS.
This
Federal
information
system
allows
EPA
and
States/
Primacy
Agencies
to
store
and
retrieve
information
over
time.
Trends
in
compliance
data
can
be
evaluated
at
the
system
level,
at
the
State/
Primacy
Agency
level,
and
at
the
national
program
level.
Usually,
these
data
are
used
by
the
Agency
for
maintaining
oversight
and
supporting
Federal
enforcement
actions
in
cases
where
States/
Primacy
Agencies
fail
to
act.

The
States/
Primacy
Agencies
and
EPA
have
a
number
of
critical
questions
to
answer
as
part
of
their
oversight
of
PWSs.
Some
of
these
are
as
follows.

At
the
PWS
level:

°
Is
each
PWS
in
compliance
with
applicable
MCLs?

°
For
systems
not
in
compliance,
why
are
they
not
in
compliance
and
how
can
compliance
be
achieved?
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
6
°
What
is
the
threat
to
public
health
from
a
system
that
is
not
in
compliance?

At
the
national
and
State/
Primacy
Agency
levels:

°
What
are
national
and
State/
Primacy
Agency
compliance
trends?

°
What
changes
in
national
policy
or
regulation
may
be
needed
to
increase
the
national
compliance
rate?

°
Is
noncompliance
a
function
of
the
system's
location,
size,
or
another
factor?

Requests
for
PWS
data
and
related
statistical
analyses
are
frequent.
Requests
are
often
received
under
the
Freedom
of
Information
Act.
The
data
may
also
be
used
by
the
Farmers
Home
Administration,
the
Department
of
the
Interior,
the
Department
of
Housing
and
Urban
Development,
the
U.
S.
Army
Corps
of
Engineers,
White
House
Task
Forces,
Congress,
the
Federal
Emergency
Management
Agency,
the
Food
and
Drug
Administration,
public
interest
groups,
and
many
private
companies
and
individuals.
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
7
3
Nonduplication,
Consultations,
and
Other
Collection
Criteria
The
following
sections
verify
and
affirm
that
this
ICR
satisfies
the
OMB
data­
collection
guidelines,
has
public
support,
and
does
not
duplicate
another
collection.

3a
Nonduplication
To
the
best
of
the
Agency's
knowledge,
data
currently
required
by
this
rule
are
not
available
from
any
other
source.

3b
Public
Notice
Required
Prior
to
ICR
Submission
to
OMB
Agencies
developing
ICRs
must
solicit
public
comments
for
a
60­
day
period
prior
to
submitting
the
request
to
OMB.
A
notice
for
public
comment
is
included
in
the
Federal
Register
preamble
for
the
rule.

3c
Consultations
The
Stage
2
DBPR
is
the
result
of
a
lengthy
regulatory
negotiation
process
that
began
in
the
Spring
of
1999.
To
address
the
public
health
concerns
necessitating
promulgation
of
the
Stage
2
DBPR,
EPA
explored
a
number
of
regulatory
alternatives
with
the
M­
DBP
Advisory
Committee,
an
advisory
group
to
EPA,
which
was
convened
under
the
FACA.
The
M­
DBP
Advisory
Committee
was
composed
of
representatives
from
the
following
groups:

°
All
Indian
Pueblo
Council,
Pueblo
Office
of
Environmental
Protection
°
American
Water
Works
Association
°
Association
of
Metropolitan
Water
Agencies
°
Association
of
State
Drinking
Water
Administrators
°
Chlorine
Chemistry
Council
°
Clean
Water
Action
°
Conservation
Law
Foundation
°
Environmental
Council
of
the
States
°
International
Ozone
Association
°
National
Association
of
County
and
City
Health
Officials
°
National
Association
of
People
with
AIDS
°
National
Association
of
Regulatory
Utility
Commissioners
°
National
Association
of
State
Utility
Consumer
Advocates
°
National
Association
of
Water
Companies
°
National
Environmental
Health
Association
°
National
League
of
Cities
°
National
Resources
Defense
Council
°
National
Rural
Water
Association
°
Physicians
for
Social
Responsibility
°
Unfiltered
Systems
°
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
°
Water
and
Wastewater
Equipment
Manufacturers
Association
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
8
3d
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
The
Agency
has
determined
that
less
frequent
data
collection
may
fail
to
identify,
in
a
timely
manner,
significant
contaminant
concentrations
that
may
threaten
the
health
and
safety
of
drinking
water
consumers.
EPA
considered
alternative
frequencies
for
data
collection
and
has
selected
the
approach
that
requires
the
lowest
frequency
possible
while
maintaining
the
Agency's
objectives
for
monitoring
contaminants.

Where
possible,
the
State/
Primacy
Agency
has
discretion
in
adjusting
the
monitoring
schedules
required
in
this
rule.
The
sampling
frequencies
required
in
this
rule
are
described
in
section
4
of
this
document.
Monitoring
frequencies
have
been
carefully
devised
based
on
the
following
factors:

°
Type
of
contaminant
°
Source
water
type
and
size
(
population
served)
of
system
°
Factors
contributing
to
DBP
formation
°
Simultaneous
compliance
with
the
provisions
of
the
LT2ESWTR
°
Reduced
monitoring
for
systems
that
meet
specific
criteria
3e
General
Guideline
The
Stage
2
DBPR
complies
with
the
guidelines
(
5
CFR
1320.6)
implemented
under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act.
Under
SDWA,
monitoring
records
must
be
maintained
on
a
constant
basis;
therefore,
the
collection
period
is
supported
by
statutory
requirement.
§
141.33
of
the
rule
requires
records
of
microbiological
analyses
and
turbidity
analyses
to
be
kept
for
not
less
than
5
years,
and
records
of
actions
taken
by
a
system
to
correct
violations
of
primary
drinking
water
regulations
shall
be
kept
for
a
period
of
not
less
than
3
years.
Monitoring
plans
shall
also
be
kept
for
a
period
of
5
years
or
3
years
after
modification,
whichever
is
longer.

3f
Confidentiality
and
Sensitive
Questions
The
proposed
data
collection
does
not
raise
confidentiality
issues
or
ask
any
sensitive
questions
concerning
sex,
behavior,
attitudes,
religious
beliefs,
or
other
matters.
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
9
4
The
Respondents
and
the
Information
Requested
The
following
sections
provide
information
on
the
respondents
and
the
information
they
are
being
requested
to
provide.

4a
Respondents
and
NAICS/
SIC
Codes
Data
associated
with
this
ICR
are
collected
and
maintained
at
the
PWS,
State,
and
Federal
levels.
Respondents
include
the
following:

°
Owners/
operators
of
PWSs
that
must
report
to
the
State/
Primacy
Agency;
these
PWSs
include
CWSs
and
NTNCWSs
°
States/
Primacy
Agencies
that
must
provide
oversight,
report
to
EPA
Headquarters,
and
retain
federally
required
records
The
Standard
Industrial
Classification
(
SIC)
code
for
investor­
owned
water
systems
is
4941.
The
SIC
code
for
both
publicly
owned
water
systems
and
State
agencies
is
9511.
The
North
American
Industry
Classification
System
(
NAICS)
code
for
PWSs
is
22131.
State
agencies
that
include
drinking
water
programs
are
classified
as
NAICS
code
92411
(
Administration
of
Air
and
Water
Resources
and
Solid
Waste
Management
Programs)
or
923120
(
Administration
of
Public
Health
Programs).
Ancillary
systems
(
i.
e.,
those
that
supplement
the
function
of
other
establishments
such
as
factories,
power
plants,
mobile
home
parks,
etc.)
cannot
be
categorized
in
a
single
NAICS
or
SIC
code.
For
ancillary
systems,
the
NAICS
or
SIC
code
is
that
of
the
primary
establishment
or
industry.

4b
Information
Requested
The
following
sections
provide
details
on
data
items
requested
and
associated
activities
respondents
must
undertake
to
provide
this
information.
These
data
items
and
activities
are
the
result
of
new
requirements
under
the
Stage
2
DBPR.
Although
some
of
this
information
may
have
been
submitted
for
the
Stage
1
DBPR,
updated
information
will
need
to
be
provided.

4b(
i)
Data
Items
EPA
is
adding
several
data
recordkeeping
requirements
for
both
systems
and
States/
Primacy
Agencies.
These
data
items
are
described
separately
below.

Public
Water
System
Items
Most
PWSs
are
required
to
conduct
IDSEs
to
identify
Stage
2
compliance
monitoring
sites
that
are
representative
of
the
highest
TTHM
and
HAA5
levels
in
the
distribution
system.
IDSEs
can
be
performed
by
either
(
1)
conducting
standard
monitoring
or
(
2)
completing
an
SSS
that
may
include
historical
data
or
hydraulic
modeling
results.
Nontransient
noncommunity
water
systems
(
NTNCWSs)
serving
fewer
than
10,000
people
are
not
subject
to
IDSE
requirements
of
the
Stage
2
DBPR.
A
system
does
not
have
to
perform
the
IDSE
if:
(
1)
all
Stage
1
DBPR
compliance
samples
are
less
than
or
equal
to
40
µ
g/
L
for
TTHM
and
30
µ
g/
L
for
HAA5
(
40/
30
certification),
or
(
2)
the
system
serves
less
than
500
people
and
its
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
10
Stage
1
DBPR
site
represents
both
high
TTHM
and
high
HAA5
concentrations.
Systems
not
conducting
IDSEs
must
still
keep
records
of
their
Stage
2
monitoring
locations.

In
addition
to
maintaining
a
copy
of
any
monitoring
plan
and
monitoring
plan
results,
IDSE
reports
and
any
corresponding
State
notifications,
40/
30
certifications,
and
locations
of
Stage
2
monitoring
sites,
PWSs
must
maintain
the
following
items:

°
Microbiological
and
turbidity
analyses
records
(
§
141.33)

°
Results
of
operational
evaluations
(
to
be
discussed
with
the
States/
Primacy
Agencies
during
the
next
sanitary
survey)
(
§
141.626)

State/
Primacy
Agency
Items
Currently,
EPA
requires
that
States/
Primacy
Agencies
maintain
the
following
items,
among
others,
for
each
PWS
in
their
jurisdiction
(
§
142.14):

°
A
current
inventory
of
PWSs
°
A
record
of
the
most
recent
vulnerability
determination
°
A
record
of
all
current
monitoring
requirements
and
the
most
recent
monitoring
frequency
decision
pertaining
to
the
contaminant
°
A
record
of
the
interim
measures
PWSs
are
taking
toward
installing
advanced
technologies
°
List
of
laboratories
approved
for
DBP
analysis
°
List
of
PWSs
required
to
monitor
for
various
disinfectants
and
DBPs
EPA
is
adding
the
following
items
to
State/
Primacy
Agency
recordkeeping
requirements
in
§
142.14:

°
Any
decisions
made
pursuant
to
IDSE
and
Stage
2
DBPR
site
requirements
until
replaced
or
revised
°
Systems
which
have
been
granted
a
small
system
waiver
°
Records
of
IDSE
study
plans
submitted
by
PWSs
plus
any
modifications,
until
replaced
by
approved
IDSE
reports.

°
Records
of
IDSE
reports
and
any
modifications
required
by
the
State,
until
replaced
or
revised.

°
Operational
evaluations
submitted
by
a
system,
for
10
years
following
submission.
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
11
4b(
ii)
Respondent
Activities
As
mentioned
above,
respondents
include
both
PWSs
and
State/
Primacy
Agency
officials.
Information
collection
activities
are
described
separately
for
the
two
respondent
groups.

Public
Water
System
Activities
Most
PWSs
will
be
involved
in
the
following
collection
activities:

Rule
Implementation
Activities
(
see
Exhibit
7)

°
Reading
and
understanding
the
rule
°
Training
staff
IDSE
Activities
(
see
Exhibits
8
through
11)

Systems
performing
the
IDSE
°
Systems
conducting
standard
monitoring
(
see
Exhibit
9)

°
Preparing
an
IDSE
monitoring
plan
°
Monitoring
°
Reporting
°
Systems
performing
an
SSS
(
see
Exhibit
10)

°
Preparing
a
study
plan
°
Conducting
the
study
°
Reporting
results
Systems
not
performing
the
IDSE
(
see
Exhibit
11)

°
All
NTNCWS
serving
fewer
than
10,000
people
°
Systems
receiving
very
small
system
waivers
°
Systems
receiving
the
40/
30
certification
NTNCWSs
serving
fewer
than
10,000
people
that
are
subject
to
the
Stage
2
DBPR
are
not
subject
to
the
IDSE
requirements,
and
thus,
are
not
anticipated
to
have
any
respondent
activities
associated
with
the
IDSE.
PWSs
serving
fewer
than
500
people
may
be
waived
from
conducting
an
IDSE
if
their
State/
Primacy
Agency
determines
that
the
monitoring
site
approved
for
Stage
1
DBPR
compliance
is
sufficient
to
represent
the
highest
HAA5
and
TTHM
concentrations
in
the
distribution
system.
Systems
receiving
very
small
system
waivers
are
not
required
to
submit
an
IDSE
report;
however,
all
other
systems
must
submit
an
IDSE
report.
Systems
receiving
a
40/
30
certification
must
submit
a
certification
of
their
data
instead
of
an
IDSE
report.
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
12
Small
PWSs
do
not
have
to
monitor
as
frequently
as
large
PWSs
because
small
systems
typically
have
much
shorter
and
less
complex
distribution
systems
than
larger
ones.
Ground
water
systems
monitor
less
frequently
than
surface
water
systems
because
their
source
water
generally
has
better
quality,
resulting
in
less
DBP
formation.
In
addition,
seasonal
water
quality
changes
in
ground
water
systems
are
slower
and
less
dramatic.
A
summary
of
the
IDSE
monitoring
frequency
and
locations
is
provided
below.
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
13
Summary
of
IDSE
Monitoring
Frequencies
and
Locations
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Total
Sample
Locations
per
System
Monitoring
Frequency1
Total
Dual
Sample
Sets2
Systems
Using
Surface
Water
in
Whole
or
in
Part3
<
500
2
Every
365
days
2
500
 
3,300
2
Every
90
days
8
3,301
 
9,999
4
Every
90
days
16
10,000
 
49,999
8
Every
60
days
48
50,000
 
249,999
16
Every
60
days
96
250,000
 
999,999
24
Every
60
days
144
1,000,000
 
4,999,999
32
Every
60
days
192
>
5
million
40
Every
60
days
240
Systems
Using
Only
Ground
Water
<
500
2
Every
365
days
2
500
 
9,999
2
Every
90
days
8
10,000
 
99,999
6
Every
90
days
24
100,000
 
499,999
8
Every
90
days
32
>
500,000
12
Every
90
days
48
1
Monitoring
frequency
is
the
approximate
number
of
days
between
sampling
events.
2
A
dual
sample
set
is
one
TTHM
and
one
HAA5
sample
that
are
taken
at
the
same
time
and
location.
3
For
the
purposes
of
this
ICR,
"
surface
water"
systems
are
equivalent
to
"
subpart
H"
systems
and
include
systems
that
provide
ground
water
under
the
direct
influence
of
surface
water
(
GWUDI).

Stage
2
Monitoring
Plan
(
see
Exhibit
12)

°
Develop
Stage
2
monitoring
plan
For
systems
that
perform
the
IDSE
(
SSS
or
standard
monitoring)
or
that
qualify
for
the
40/
30
certification,
most
of
the
information
required
by
the
Stage
2
monitoring
plan
will
be
available
in
the
IDSE
report
or
40/
30
certification
approval
request;
therefore,
most
of
the
work
required
will
be
consulting
with
the
State/
Primacy
Agency
and
making
modifications
that
are
suggested
by
the
State/
Primacy
Agency.

Additional
Routine
Monitoring
(
see
Exhibit
13)

°
Assess
the
change
in
the
number
of
samples
to
be
collected
from
the
Stage
1
to
the
Stage
2
DBPR
°
Conduct
additional
routine
monitoring
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
14
°
Determine
if
provisions
for
reduced
monitoring
are
satisfied
°
Determine
if
increased
monitoring
for
small
systems
is
required
In
addition
to
the
systems
included
in
the
baseline
for
additional
routine
monitoring,
some
systems
will
add
disinfection
to
correct
a
significant
deficiency
as
required
by
the
Ground
Water
Rule
(
GWR).
Because
adding
disinfection
is
only
one
option
to
correct
a
significant
deficiency
under
the
GWR,
it
is
assumed
systems
won't
add
disinfection
if
it
would
cause
them
to
be
out
of
compliance
with
the
Stage
2
DBPR.
Therefore,
these
systems
are
not
included
in
the
baseline.
They
will,
however,
incur
monitoring
costs
if
the
primary
or
residual
disinfectant
is
other
than
UV.
These
systems
will
incur
burden
for
the
entire
Stage
2
sampling
requirements.
Systems
adding
disinfectant
for
the
GWR
are
presented
in
Exhibit
13b.

Operational
evaluations
(
see
Exhibits
14)

If
a
operational
evaluation
level
is
exceeded,
systems
must:

°
Conduct
an
operational
evaluation
°
Compile
and
submit
written
report
to
the
State
no
later
than
90
days
after
being
notified
of
the
analytical
result
that
resulted
in
the
significant
excursion.

Systems
are
not
required
to
make
changes
in
response
to
operational
evaluation
level
exceedances;
however,
they
may
still
decide
to
change
their
operations
to
reduce
the
likelihood
of
future
significant
excursions
and
potential
MCL
violations.
Because
changes
are
not
required
by
EPA,
the
burden
and
costs
for
responding
to
operational
evaluation
level
exceedances
are
not
included
as
part
of
the
national
costs
of
the
Stage
2
DBPR,
and
therefore
are
not
included
in
this
ICR.

State/
Primacy
Agency
Activities
State/
Primacy
Agency
officials
serve
as
respondents
when
reporting
compliance
data
to
EPA.
States/
Primacy
Agencies
are
currently
required
to
maintain
records
of
State/
Primacy
Agency
verification
activities
and
each
determination
made
and
report
to
EPA
must
be
in
accordance
with
State/
Primacy
Agency
recordkeeping
requirements
(
§
142.14)
through
SDWIS.
See
section
4b(
i)
of
this
ICR
for
specific
recordkeeping
requirements
for
State/
Primacy
Agencies.

States/
Primacy
Agencies
will
act
as
the
Agency
in
ensuring
the
implementation
of
the
Stage
2
DBPR.
To
successfully
meet
their
responsibilities,
the
States/
Primacy
Agencies
are
anticipated
to
be
involved
in
several
activities
as
described
below.
Costs
and
burden
estimates
for
these
activities
are
presented
in
Exhibits
15
to
18.

Primacy
Requirements
Under
the
Stage
2
DBPR,
States/
Primacy
Agencies
must
apply
for
primacy
under
§
142.12
and
§
142.16.
The
primacy
application
must
be
submitted
to
the
Agency
for
approval
and
must
describe
how
the
State/
Primacy
Agency
will
accomplish
the
Stage
2
DBPR
State/
Primacy
Agency
activities.
Nontreatment
costs
are
shown
in
Exhibit
7.7
of
the
Stage
2
Economic
Analysis.
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
15
Rule
Implementation
Activities
°
Public
notification
°
Regulation
adoption
and
program
development
°
Training
State/
Primacy
Agency
staff
°
Training
PWS
staff
°
Technical
assistance
°
Updating
the
data
management
system
IDSE
Activities
°
Analyzing
PWS
IDSE
reports,
40/
30
certification
requests,
study
plans,
and
monitoring
plans
and
making
determinations
­
Making
very
small
system
waiver
determinations
and
evaluating
40/
30
certifications
­
Reviewing
site
selection
for
the
IDSE
and
confirming
compliance
with
the
IDSE
­
Analyzing
and
reviewing
the
IDSE
results
­
Making
determinations
concerning
PWSs
based
on
IDSE
results
°
Consulting
with
PWSs
on
the
results
of
their
IDSEs

Evaluating
PWSs
standard
monitoring

Evaluating
PWSs
SSSs
°
IDSE
Recordkeeping
­
Maintaining
records
on
IDSE
results
and
decisions,
including
standard
monitoring
and
SSSs
­
Entering
data
and
developing
spreadsheets
for
IDSE
decisions
Stage
2
Monitoring
Plans
°
Review
monitoring
plans
submitted
by
surface
water
systems
serving
more
than
3,300
people
Additional
Routine
Monitoring
°
Review
and
evaluate
monitoring
data
submitted
by
systems
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
16
Operational
evaluations
°
Review
operational
evaluations
from
systems
4c
ICR
Approval
Activities
Many
of
the
required
regulatory
monitoring,
reporting,
and
recordkeeping
activities
described
above
will
occur
outside
the
3­
year
ICR
collection
period.
This
section
clarifies
the
activities
that
are
included
in
the
ICR
burden
and
cost
estimates
that
cover
the
first
3
years
after
promulgation.

4c(
i)
PWSs
Systems
will
have
to
conduct
rule
implementation
activities
including
reading
and
understanding
the
rule
and
training
system
personnel.
Systems
will
also
conduct
an
IDSE
standard
monitoring
(
or
conduct
an
SSS
or
receive
a
40/
30
certification),
and
prepare
a
routine
monitoring
plan.
Conducting
additional
routine
monitoring,
and
performing
operational
evaluations
will
occur
outside
the
ICR
collection
period.
The
exhibit
below
shows
which
of
these
activities
are
included
within
the
ICR
collection
period
and
which
fall
outside
it.

4c(
ii)
States
During
the
3­
year
ICR
clearance
period,
States
will
be
involved
in
start­
up
activities,
including
reading
and
understanding
the
rule,
training
State
and
PWS
staff,
regulatory
adoption,
and
primacy
application.
They
will
also
begin
to
review
IDSE
results,
SSSs,
and
review
40/
30
certifications,
and
routine
monitoring
plans.
Routine
monitoring
recordkeeping
and
reviewing
operational
evaluations
will
occur
outside
the
ICR
collection
period.

Stage
2
DBPR
Activities
to
Be
Completed
by
Systems
During
the
3
Years
Following
Promulgation
Activity
Systems
Serving
>
100,000
Systems
Serving
50,000­
99,999
Systems
Serving
10,000­
49,999
Systems
Serving
<
10,000
Implementation
50%
complete
50%
complete
50%
complete
50%
complete
IDSE
Standard
monitoring
All
All
67%
complete
31%
complete
System
Specific
Study
All
All
67%
complete
31%
complete
40/
30
Certification
All
All
67%
complete
31%
complete
Routine
Monitoring
Plans
50%
complete
15%
complete
14%
complete
8%
complete
Additional
Routine
Monitoring
None
None
None
None
Operational
Evaluations
None
None
None
None
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
17
5
The
Information
Collected,
Agency
Activities,
Collection
Methodology,
and
Information
Management
The
following
sections
describe
the
Agency
activities
related
to
analyzing,
maintaining,
and
distributing
the
information
collected.

5a
Agency
Activities
The
Agency
will
be
responsible
for
promulgating
this
rule
and
overseeing
its
implementation.
Implementation
of
specific
Stage
2
DBPR
requirements
will
rely
extensively
on
those
States
that
have
assumed
primacy
under
section
1413
of
SDWA
and
§
142.12
and
§
142.16
of
Title
40
of
the
CFR.
The
Agency
will
assume
the
activities
normally
performed
by
the
State
in
those
States
and
territories
that
do
not
have
primacy.
Burden
and
costs
for
these
activities
are
accounted
for
under
the
State/
Primacy
Agency
burden
(
see
section
6
of
this
ICR).

As
part
of
its
supervisory
responsibility,
EPA
maintains
SDWIS
and
evaluates
SDWIS
data
to
determine
system
compliance.
Agency
personnel
also
reformat,
distribute,
and
store
these
data
for
a
number
of
uses,
including
responding
to
Congressional
and
public
inquiries.
EPA
also
oversees
its
regional
and
State
programs,
provides
technical
assistance,
and
develops
policies
designed
to
ensure
consistent
program
implementation.
In
addition,
EPA
officials
serve
as
respondents
when
testifying
to
Congress
on
the
PWSS
Program
or
in
the
courts
for
enforcement
actions.
Burden
and
costs
for
these
broader
PWSS
Program
activities
are
addressed
in
the
PWSS
Program
ICR
(
OMB
No.
2040
 
0090).
Section
5(
a)
of
the
PWSS
Program
ICR
contains
additional
detail
regarding
the
activities
supported
by
the
collection
of
SDWIS
data
described
above.

5b
Collection
Methodology
and
Management
Under
the
PWSS
Program,
EPA
will
modify
SDWIS
and
its
data
verification
procedures
to
accommodate
new
violation
data
from
all
rules.
EPA
checks
data
quality
by
doing
the
following:

°
Developing
standard
operating
procedures
for
each
rule
°
Editing
the
data
submitted
for
content
and
required
format
in
SDWIS
°
Sending
rejected
data
back
to
the
States/
Primacy
Agencies
for
corrections
°
Requiring
the
State/
Primacy
Agency
to
resubmit
corrected
data
°
Auditing
data
submitted
by
the
States/
Primacy
Agencies
based
on
the
EPA
data
verification
protocol
°
Reviewing
State/
Primacy
Agency
data
annually
for
corrective
actions
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
18
EPA
plans
to
modify
its
existing
data
verification
process
to:

°
Include
the
number
of
systems
with
discrepancies
°
Include
onsite
verification
in
States/
Primacy
Agencies
and
water
systems,
if
necessary,
every
2
 
3
years
°
Train
States/
Primacy
Agencies
on
data
verification
procedures
so
they
can
conduct
self­
audits
°
Include
timeliness
review
°
Make
data
verification
a
part
of
EPA
regional
quarterly/
annual
reviews
°
Include
a
regional
check
with
States/
Primacy
Agencies
within
6
months
of
the
previous
data
verification
EPA
defines
information
requirements
and
States/
Primacy
Agencies
need
to
update
the
data
in
a
predefined
format.
The
public
may
access
the
violation
data
in
SDWIS
through
the
Internet
at
www.
epa.
gov/
safewater/
data/
getdata.
html.

5c
Small
Entity
Flexibility
The
provisions
of
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA),
5
U.
S.
C.
601
et
seq.,
as
amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
(
SBREFA)
of
1996,
generally
require
an
agency
to
prepare
an
Initial
Regulatory
Flexibility
Analysis
(
IRFA)
for
a
proposed
rule
and
a
Final
Regulatory
Flexibility
Analysis
(
FRFA)
for
a
final
rule.
However,
such
an
analysis
is
not
required
if
the
Agency
certifies
that
the
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
To
make
a
determination
of
whether
to
certify
the
Stage
2
DBPR
or
conduct
an
FRFA,
EPA
conducted
a
preliminary
screening
analysis
and
presented
the
result
in
the
Stage
2
DBPR
Economic
Analysis.

As
part
of
its
screening
analysis,
EPA
evaluated
the
potential
economic
impact
of
the
rule
on
small
entities
by
comparing
compliance
costs
as
a
percentage
of
sales,
revenues,
and
operating
expenses
for
different
small
entity
classifications.
An
analysis
was
conducted
separately
for
the
three
classification
categories:
small
businesses,
small
governments,
and
small
organizations.
The
Stage
2
DBPR
Economic
Analysis
provides
data
on
the
small
entities
potentially
affected
by
the
Stage
2
DBPR,
the
changes
systems
would
have
to
make,
and
the
likely
costs.
Using
information
found
in
the
Economic
Analysis,
along
with
additional
information
from
SDWIS,
the
Community
Water
System
Survey,
and
the
U.
S.
Census,
EPA
conducted
a
quantitative
analysis
of
small
system
impacts
as
a
result
of
the
rule.
Based
on
that
analysis,
EPA
certified
that
the
Stage
2
DBPR
will
not
lead
to
significant
economic
impacts
for
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.

Minimizing
Burden
EPA
is
proposing
monitoring
requirements
for
the
IDSE
that
will
help
PWSs
better
target
system
locations
with
high
TTHM
and
HAA5
levels.
At
the
same
time,
the
Agency
has
taken
the
following
steps
to
minimize
the
burden
of
the
IDSE
on
PWSs:

°
NTNCWSs
serving
fewer
than
10,000
people
are
not
subject
to
IDSE
requirements.
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
19
°
PWSs
with
historically
low
DBP
levels
(
40

g/
L
TTHM
and
30

g/
L
HAA5
or
below
in
all
samples)
do
not
have
to
perform
the
IDSE.

°
PWSs
can
use
historical
data
or
other
system­
specific
studies
instead
of
monitoring.

°
PWSs
serving
fewer
than
500
people
will
be
waived
from
conducting
the
IDSE
unless
the
State/
Primacy
Agency
determines
that
the
monitoring
site
approved
for
Stage
1
DBPR
compliance
is
insufficient
to
represent
both
the
highest
HAA5
and
the
highest
TTHM
concentrations
in
the
distribution
system.
The
State/
Primacy
Agency
must
submit
criteria
for
this
determination
to
EPA
as
part
of
their
primacy
application.

°
Small
PWSs
monitor
less
frequently
and
at
fewer
sampling
locations
than
large
PWSs.

°
Ground
water
systems
monitor
less
frequently
and
at
fewer
sampling
locations
than
surface
water
systems.

°
Population­
based
monitoring
will
allow
many
consecutive
systems
to
reduce
their
monitoring.

°
Systems
serving
fewer
than
500
people
will
not
have
to
take
additional
samples.

Consideration
of
Alternatives
The
Agency
developed
and
considered
several
alternatives
for
key
provisions
of
the
rule.
The
development
of
monitoring
requirements
included
the
following
tasks:

°
Examining
available
analytical
methods
for
assessing
compliance
with
MCLs
to
determine
whether
compliance
is
economically
and
technologically
feasible
°
Identifying
pertinent
compliance
monitoring
issues
°
Requesting
comments
from
water
systems,
State/
Primacy
Agency
regulators,
and
the
scientific
community
to
redefine
alternatives
and
select
the
proposed
requirements
°
Projecting
costs
and
burden
associated
with
the
IDSE
requirements
Requirements
for
surface
and
ground
water
PWSs
were
also
considered
separately
because
the
overall
quality
of
ground
water
tends
to
be
better
and
less
variable
than
that
of
surface
waters.
This
can
be
due
to
seasonal
variations
that
tend
to
affect
surface
waters
more
than
ground
waters.
Also,
most
surface
water
systems
have
variations
in
DBP
precursors
(
such
as
TOC),
while
most
ground
water
supplies
have
concentrations
that
are
typically
stable
over
time.

5d
Collection
Schedule
Systems
subject
to
the
Stage
2
DBPR
must
comply
with
the
80/
60

g/
L
MCLs
measured
as
LRAAs
at
the
monitoring
sites
identified
during
the
IDSE.
Compliance
dates
are
staggered
based
on
population
served
in
the
largest
system
within
the
combined
distribution
system.

The
table
below
summarizes
Stage
2
DBPR
implementation
milestones.
These
milestones
are
also
displayed
in
a
timeline
in
Exhibit
21.
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
20
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
21
Implementation
Milestones
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
Rule
Promulgation
Develop
&
Submit
Monitoring
Plan,
Study
Plan,
or
40/
30
Certification
Approval
Request
Review
Monitoring
Plan,
Study
Plan,
or
40/
30
Certification
Approval
Request
IDSE
Treatment
Installation
Comply
with
Rule2
<
10K,
Filtered,
Crypto
Monitoring
December,
20051
24
months
after
promulgation
36
months
after
promulgation
48
months
after
promulgation
78
months
after
promulgation
102
months
after
promulgation
<
10K,
Filtered,
no
Crypto
Monitoring
24
months
after
promulgation
36
months
after
promulgation
48
months
after
promulgation
54
months
after
promulgation
90
months
after
promulgation
10K­<
50K
18
months
after
promulgation
30
months
after
promulgation
42
months
after
promulgation
54
months
after
promulgation
90
months
after
promulgation
50K­<
100K
12
months
after
promulgation
24
months
after
promulgation
36
months
after
promulgation
42
months
after
promulgation
78
months
after
promulgation
>
100K
6
months
after
promulgation
18
months
after
promulgation
30
months
after
promulgation
36
months
after
promulgation
72
months
after
promulgation
1
Date
of
promulgation
is
subject
to
change.
2
States
may
grant
a
2
year
extension
for
systems
which
make
capital
improvements
to
comply
with
the
rule.
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
22
6
Estimating
the
Burden
and
Cost
of
the
Collection
The
following
sections
discuss
the
costs
and
burden
to
systems
and
States/
Primacy
Agencies
for
monitoring,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
requirements
during
the
3
years
covered
by
the
Stage
2
DBPR
ICR.
Exhibits
1
through
5
at
the
end
of
this
chapter
summarize
the
burden,
number
of
respondents,
number
of
responses,
and
costs
over
the
3­
year
period.
Exhibits
19
and
20
summarize
the
burden
and
costs
associated
with
the
Stage
2
DBPR
over
10
years.

6a
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
This
section
discusses
the
burden
faced
by
PWSs
and
States/
Primacy
Agencies.
Respondent
burden
is
defined
as
the
hours
required
to
complete
a
given
information
collection
or
recordkeeping
activity.
Respondent
activities
have
been
separated
into
implementation,
IDSE,
routine
monitoring
plans,
additional
routine
monitoring
(
beyond
that
already
required
by
the
Stage
1
DBPR),
and
significant
excursions.

As
mentioned
previously,
the
rule
does
not
require
all
respondents
to
participate
in
all
activities.
Also
activities
will
take
place
at
differing
times
over
the
3­
year
information
collection
period
for
different
respondent
groups,
e.
g.,
different
size
systems.
The
compliance
schedule
is
presented
in
Exhibit
21.

Exhibits
22
 
27
present
estimated
year­
by­
year
schedules
for
systems
for
the
following
rule
activities:
implementation
(
Exhibit
22),
IDSE
activities
(
Exhibit
23),
routine
monitoring
plans
(
Exhibit
24),
annual
routine
monitoring
(
Exhibit
25),
and
operational
evaluations
(
Exhibit
26).
Schedules
for
State/
Primacy
Agency
activities
are
in
Exhibit
27.
These
schedules
are
based
on
the
Stage
2
implementation
timeline
as
presented
in
Exhibit
21.
When
systems
and
States
have
several
years
within
which
to
complete
a
rule
activity,
EPA
assumed
that
the
same
proportion
of
systems
would
perform
the
activity
in
each
year.
EPA
recognizes
that
more
systems
may
start
in
earlier
or
later
years,
but
believes
that
a
uniform
schedule
is
still
a
reasonable
approximation
nationally.

The
implementation
and
IDSE
schedules
for
smaller
surface
water
systems
are
adjusted
to
account
for
the
consecutive
systems
that
are
on
the
larger
system
schedules.
An
analysis
based
on
the
4th
quarter
2003
frozen
SDWIS
database
was
performed
to
determine
the
number
of
systems
which
buy
from
or
sell
to
larger
systems.

Over
the
3
years
covered
by
this
ICR,
the
total
national
respondent
burden
to
PWSs
and
States/
Primacy
Agencies
is
estimated
at
667,727
labor
hours,
an
annual
average
of
222,576
hours
(
see
Exhibit
1).
The
next
two
sections
describe
the
burden
estimates
in
greater
detail.

6(
a)(
i)
Burden
on
Water
Systems
As
stated
above,
during
the
ICR
collection
period,
the
burden
to
water
systems
associated
with
the
Stage
2
DBPR
will
be
for
rule
implementation
activities,
the
IDSE,
routine
monitoring
plans,
additional
routine
monitoring,
and
operational
evaluations.
EPA
assumes
that
the
systems
affected
by
the
rule
have
already
purchased
basic
monitoring
and
reporting
equipment
and,
therefore,
does
not
expect
PWSs
and
plants
to
have
any
burden
associated
with
capital
costs
for
start­
up,
data
collection,
or
data
reporting
for
the
rule.
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
23
Rule
Implementation
The
burden
associated
with
rule
implementation
includes
the
time
it
will
take
water
system
staff
to
read
and
become
familiar
with
the
rule
and
participate
in
required
training
activities.
All
systems
are
estimated
to
incur
half
of
this
rule
implementation
burden
as
they
prepare
for
the
IDSE,
and
the
remaining
half
as
they
complete
the
IDSE.
The
compliance
schedule
is
based
on
the
size
of
the
largest
system
in
the
combined
distribution
system.
An
analysis
was
performed
using
data
from
the
2003
4th
quarter
frozen
SDWIS
database
to
determine
the
number
of
purchased
systems
which
would
be
on
accelerated
schedules
because
they
buy
or
sell
from
a
system
which
is
larger
than
them.
Systems
serving
more
than
100,000
people
will
begin
implementation
activities
as
soon
as
the
rule
is
promulgated.
For
the
purposes
of
assigning
costs
systems
serving
between
50,000
and
99,999
people
are
assumed
to
begin
implementation
activities
one
year
after
rule
promulgation.
Systems
serving
between
10,000
and
49,999
people
are
assumed
to
begin
implementation
activities
five
years
after
rule
promulgation.
Systems
serving
less
than
10,000
people
are
assumed
to
begin
implementation
activities
2
years
after
rule
promulgation.
Columns
B
and
C
of
Exhibit
7
present
the
unit
burden
to
PWSs
associated
with
rule
implementation
activities.
Unit
burden
estimates
will
vary
based
on
system
size.

Since
States/
Primacy
Agencies
will
be
mainly
responsible
for
understanding
and
adopting
these
regulations
and
for
notifying
PWSs
of
specific
rule
requirements,
PWSs,
especially
small
ones,
are
assumed
to
bear
a
relatively
moderate
burden
associated
with
rule
implementation.
EPA
estimates
that
the
burden
associated
with
reading
the
rule
is
8
to
20
hours
per
system,
and
the
burden
associated
with
training
will
be
1
to
4
hours
per
system,
depending
on
system
size
and
type.

Initial
Distribution
System
Evaluation
The
purpose
of
the
IDSE
is
to
aid
PWSs
in
determining
compliance
monitoring
locations
within
their
distribution
systems
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR.
Some
systems
are
not
subject
to
IDSE
requirements
or
may
receive
waivers.
The
first
step
in
estimating
burden
for
the
IDSE
is
to
categorize
the
systems
into
one
of
the
five
IDSE
options
listed
below.

Systems
Performing
the
IDSE:

°
Systems
conducting
standard
monitoring
°
Systems
using
system
specific
studies
(
SSS)
Systems
Not
Performing
the
IDSE:

°
All
NTNCWSs
serving
fewer
than
10,000
people
°
Other
systems
serving
fewer
than
500
people
that
receive
a
very
small
system
IDSE
waiver
°
Systems
that
receive
the
40/
30
certification
As
stated
earlier
in
this
document,
consecutive
systems
must
meet
rule
requirements
on
the
same
schedule
as
the
largest
system
in
their
combined
distribution
system.
EPA
has
defined
consecutive
systems
according
to
two
categories
for
the
purpose
of
this
document:

°
100
percent
purchasing
systems
buy
or
otherwise
receive
all
of
their
finished
water
from
another
system.
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
24
°
Producing
systems
do
not
buy
or
otherwise
receive
all
of
their
water
(
i.
e.,
they
produce
some
or
all
of
their
own
finished
water).

For
systems
performing
the
IDSE
and
systems
with
compliance
data
less
than
or
equal
to
40

g/
L
and
30

g/
L
for
TTHM
and
HAA5,
respectively,
different
burden
and
costs
are
associated
with
each
activity.
The
activities
include:
IDSE
site
selection
for
monitoring
(
only
at
systems
that
monitor),
IDSE
monitoring
(
only
at
systems
that
monitor),
and
IDSE
reporting
(
at
systems
that
monitor,
use
historical
data,
and
have
compliance
data
less
than
or
equal
to
40

g/
L
and
30

g/
L
for
TTHM
and
HAA5).
The
number
of
sampling
sites
for
a
system
could
increase
or
decrease,
depending
on
the
population
served
and
their
Stage
1
monitoring
plan.
Although
some
of
these
systems
may
have
compliance
data
less
than
or
equal
to
40

g/
L
and
30

g/
L
for
TTHM
and
HAA5
and
thus
do
not
have
to
conduct
an
IDSE,
they
still
have
to
select
and
report
new
Stage
2
monitoring
sites
if
they
differ
in
required
number
of
sites
from
the
Stage
1
DBPR
to
the
Stage
2
DBPR.

The
following
schedule
is
assumed
for
the
purposes
of
assigning
costs.
Systems
serving
greater
than
100,000
people
will
begin
the
IDSE
18
months
after
rule
promulgation.
Systems
serving
between
50,000
and
99,999
people
will
begin
the
IDSE
2
years
after
rule
promulgation.
Systems
serving
between
10,000
and
49,999
people
will
begin
the
IDSE
30
months
after
rule
promulgation.
Small
PWSs
serving
less
than
10,000
people
will
conduct
their
IDSEs
beginning
3
years
after
rule
promulgation
(
outside
of
this
information
collection).
For
consecutive
systems,
the
due
date
for
the
IDSE
report
is
that
of
the
largest
system
in
their
combined
distribution
system.
Compliance
will
be
based
on
MCLs
measured
as
LRAAs
(
80

g/
L
TTHM,
60

g/
L
HAA5)
at
the
sampling
sites
determined
under
the
IDSE.

After
a
1­
year
collection
effort,
systems
will
compile,
review,
and
submit
their
data
to
their
State/
Primacy
Agency.
If
small
PWSs
are
conducting
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
under
the
LT2ESWTR,
compliance
with
the
Stage
2
MCLs,
with
the
sampling
sites
determined
under
the
IDSE,
will
begin
in
the
middle
of
Year
11.
If
small
PWSs
are
not
conducting
the
monitoring
for
the
LT2ESWTR,
they
must
comply
with
the
Stage
2
MCLs
with
the
sampling
sites
determined
under
the
IDSE
in
the
middle
of
Year
9.

Exhibit
9
presents
the
burden
and
costs
associated
with
systems
that
use
standard
monitoring
to
conduct
the
IDSE.
Column
F
of
Exhibit
9
presents
the
unit
burden
associated
with
site
selection
for
the
IDSE.
Site
selection
unit
burden
includes
the
time
necessary
to
select
IDSE
monitoring
sites.
EPA
estimates
that
the
annual
burden
associated
with
site
selection
activities
will
be
between
4
and
24
hours
per
system,
depending
on
system
size.

Column
C
of
Exhibit
9
presents
the
burden
hours
per
sample
for
PWSs
to
monitor.
The
number
of
samples
required
varies
based
on
the
size
of
the
system,
ranging
from
2
to
240
samples
(
as
shown
in
Column
B).
Assuming
that
the
burden
associated
with
taking
each
required
sample
is
1
hour,
the
total
burden
per
system
associated
with
IDSE
monitoring
ranges
from
2
to
240
hours.

Column
G
of
Exhibit
9
presents
the
reporting
burden
for
PWSs
that
monitor
for
the
IDSE.
This
burden
represents
the
time
necessary
to
prepare
the
IDSE
reports
and
submit
them
to
the
State/
Primacy
Agency.
EPA
estimates
that
each
system
that
monitors
will
spend
between
2
and
24
hours
on
reporting
IDSE
results,
depending
on
system
size.

Exhibit
10
presents
the
burden
associated
with
IDSE
reporting
by
CWSs
and
NTNCWS
that
use
system
specific
studies
instead
of
monitoring.
EPA
estimates
in
Columns
B,
C,
and
D
that
each
system
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
25
will
spend
80
hours
on
this
reporting.
EPA
expects
systems
using
system
specific
studies
to
spend
more
time
preparing
the
report
due
to
the
effort
required
for
gathering,
researching,
and
analyzing
information.

Exhibit
11
presents
the
burden
and
cost
for
systems
that
receive
the
40/
30
certification.
These
systems
are
expected
to
bear
some
costs
for
the
IDSE
since
they
certify
that
their
data
meets
the
requirements.
For
systems
serving
between
500
and
10,000
people,
reporting
hours
for
40/
30
certification
were
estimated
to
be
1
hour.
For
systems
serving
10,000
or
more
people
2
to
6
hours
were
assumed.
Resulting
reporting
hours
for
systems
qualifying
for
40/
30
certification
are
shown
in
Column
D
of
Exhibit
11.

Some
small
systems
will
receive
a
small
system
waiver.
For
systems
that
receive
a
small
system
waiver,
given
that
this
activity
is
considered
to
be
part
of
their
routine
communication,
the
burden
and
costs
are
assumed
to
be
negligible.

Monitoring
Plans
Exhibit
12
presents
the
burden
and
costs
for
systems
to
prepare
their
monitoring
plans.
For
this
analysis
it
is
assumed
systems
will
prepare
monitoring
plans
immediately
following
the
IDSE.
This
will
occur
in
Years
3
through
5
depending
on
system
size.
Only
large
systems
will
prepare
monitoring
plans
within
the
collection
period
beginning
in
Year
3.
All
other
system
sizes
will
prepare
monitoring
plans
outside
of
the
ICR
collection
period.

Additional
Routine
Monitoring
Systems
will
conduct
additional
routine
compliance
monitoring
outside
of
the
clearance
period
for
this
ICR.
Large
and
systems
will
begin
compliance
monitoring
in
Year
7
or
8;
small
systems
will
begin
monitoring
in
Year
11
if
they
are
required
to
monitor
for
Cryptosporidium
for
the
LT2ESWTR.
Because
additional
routine
monitoring
occurs
within
the
10­
year
period,
estimated
costs
and
burden
are
presented
for
reference
in
Exhibits
13a
through
13c.

Systems
with
Operational
Evaluations
If
a
sample
result,
multiplied
by
two
added
to
the
two
previous
quarters
results
and
divided
by
4
is
above
the
MCL
for
the
given
DBP,
an
operational
evaluation
level
exceedance
occurs
and
the
system
must
conduct
an
operational
evaluation
and
discuss
the
evaluation
with
the
State/
Primacy
Agency
no
later
than
the
next
sanitary
survey.
An
operational
evaluation
must
include
an
examination
of
distribution
system
operational
practices
and
how
these
practices
may
be
modified
to
reduce
TTHM
and
HAA5
levels.
Although
costs
for
significant
excursions
do
not
occur
within
the
ICR
collection
period,
they
are
presented
in
Exhibit
14
because
they
appear
within
the
10­
year
period.
Systems
with
significant
excursions
will
incur
costs
in
the
year
that
the
significant
excursion
occurs.
This
will
begin
once
systems
have
one
year
worth
of
compliance
monitoring
data,
which
will
occur
between
Years
8
and
12.

6(
a)(
ii)
Burden
on
States/
Primacy
Agencies
The
burden
to
State/
Primacy
Agency
staff
includes
the
time
required
to
perform
implementation
activities,
analyze
and
respond
to
IDSE
reports
submitted
by
systems,
and
maintain
records
and
track
compliance
by
systems.
Exhibits
15
through
18
present
State/
Primacy
Agency
burden
associated
with
the
Stage
2
DBPR.
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
26
States/
Primacy
Agencies
will
conduct
their
implementation
activities
in
Years
1
and
2.
Implementation
activities
include
regulation
adoption
and
program
development;
training
State/
Primacy
Agency
staff,
PWS
staff,
and
technical
assistants;
updating
data
management
systems;
and
public
notification.
EPA
estimates
each
State/
Primacy
Agency
will
devote
1.95
full­
time
equivalents
(
FTEs),
or
4,056
hours
to
these
activities
(
see
Exhibit
15).
An
FTE
equals
2,080
hours,
assuming
that
full­
time
employees
are
paid
for
40
hours
a
week,
52
weeks
a
year.

EPA
estimates
the
state
burden
to
review
monitoring
plans
to
be
4
to
8
hours,
depending
on
system
size
(
see
Exhibit
16).

State
burden
associated
with
the
IDSE
includes
the
State
staff
time
spent
to
analyze
IDSE
reports,
40/
30
certification
approval
requests,
and
study
plans
submitted
by
PWSs,
make
determinations
on
the
results,
and
respond
to
the
PWSs.
This
also
includes
the
burden
associated
with
IDSE
recordkeeping.
EPA
estimates
an
average
burden
of
1,163
hours
per
State
(
see
Exhibit
17).
It
is
assumed
that
most
of
this
burden
will
be
associated
with
reviewing
data
from
small
PWSs,
since
these
systems
account
for
the
overwhelming
majority
of
systems.

EPA
assumes
that
States/
Primacy
Agencies
will
spend
0.4
FTE,
or
832
hours
annually,
on
recordkeeping
and
compliance
tracking
associated
with
the
Stage
2
DBPR
(
see
Exhibit
15).

EPA
estimates
the
state
burden
for
reviewing
operational
evaluations
to
be
4
to
8
hours,
depending
on
system
size
(
see
Exhibit
18).

6b
Estimating
Respondent
Cost
This
section
presents
the
costs
that
are
expected
to
be
incurred
by
PWSs
and
States
as
a
result
of
the
Stage
2
DBPR.
For
the
ICR
approval
period,
the
total
national
respondent
cost
is
estimated
at
$
46.5
million
over
the
3
years,
with
an
annual
national
average
of
$
15.5
million.
Of
this,
$
6.4
million
is
associated
with
labor,
and
$
9.1
million
is
O&
M
costs
(
see
Exhibit
1).
EPA
does
not
anticipate
any
capital
costs
during
the
ICR
approval
period
since
systems
affected
by
the
rule
have
already
purchased
basic
equipment
required
for
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
associated
with
the
Stage
2
DBPR.

6b(
i)
Cost
to
PWSs
The
costs
to
water
systems
associated
with
the
Stage
2
DBPR
include
labor
costs
associated
with
the
activities
described
in
section
6(
a)
and
O&
M
costs
associated
with
TTHM/
HAA5
sampling.
As
previously
stated,
EPA
estimates
that
PWSs
and
plants
will
not
incur
any
capital
costs
during
start­
up,
data
collection,
or
data
reporting.
Systems
are
expected
to
already
have
on
hand
any
necessary
equipment
for
monitoring
and
for
reporting
monitoring
results
(
for
TTHM
and
HAA5)
as
part
of
normal
operations
and
to
meet
existing
rule
requirements.
Any
capital
costs
for
monitoring
equipment
associated
with
new
technologies
are
built
into
the
estimated
capital
costs
for
the
technologies.
These
costs
do
not
need
to
be
addressed
in
the
ICR
because
they
are
not
incurred
specifically
for
the
monitoring
or
reporting
of
information,
but
for
ensuring
proper
operation
of
the
treatment
technologies.

Labor
costs
to
PWSs
presented
in
the
Stage
2
DBPR
ICR
are
estimated
using
hourly
labor
rates
for
technical
and
managerial
labor
categories.
Labor
rates
representative
of
national
averages
as
reported
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
27
by
the
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
(
BLS)
are
used
in
all
analyses.
The
labor
rates
differ
by
system
size
and
come
from
USEPA's
Labor
Costs
for
National
Drinking
Water
Rules
(
2003).

For
this
collection,
O&
M
costs
are
those
costs
associated
with
systems
performing
monitoring
for
the
IDSE
(
cost
for
compliance
monitoring
samples
will
occur
outside
of
the
clearance
period).
EPA
estimates
this
cost
to
be
$
210
per
sample
for
large
systems
and
$
240
per
sample
for
small
systems,
for
laboratory
costs
and
shipping
and
handling.
The
difference
in
the
costs
is
largely
in
shipping
as
more
large
systems
have
internal
laboratory
facilities
and
will
not
have
to
ship
samples,
while
small
systems
generally
have
to
ship
their
samples
to
external
laboratories.
(
See
Column
E
of
Exhibit
9
for
O&
M
costs
associated
with
the
IDSE.)

6b(
ii)
Cost
to
States/
Primacy
Agencies
The
cost
to
States/
Primacy
Agencies
of
the
Stage
2
DBPR
are
derived
in
Exhibits
15
through
18.
State/
Primacy
Agency
implementation
costs
are
expected
to
be
higher
than
for
PWSs.
State/
Primacy
Agency
implementation
costs
are
estimated
using
FTE
assumptions
for
each
anticipated
activity.
The
number
of
FTEs
estimated
for
each
activity
is
multiplied
by
2,080
hours
and
the
hourly
labor
rate
to
calculate
the
total
cost
per
State/
Primacy
Agency.
The
cost
per
State/
Primacy
Agency
is
multiplied
by
57
(
the
number
of
U.
S.
States/
Primacy
Agencies)
to
arrive
at
a
total
national
cost
estimate
for
implementation
activities.

Only
labor
costs
are
incurred
by
States/
Primacy
Agencies.
Labor
costs
attributable
to
States/
Primacy
Agencies
are
estimated
based
on
an
average
annual
full
time
equivalent
(
FTE)
labor
cost,
including
overhead,
of
$
65,255
(
2001$).
This
rate
was
established
based
on
data
from
the
2001
State
Drinking
Water
Needs
Analysis
(
ASDWA
2001).
For
use
in
Stage
2
DBPR
ICR
analyses,
the
$
65,255
annual
rate
was
updated
to
a
year
2003
price
level
($
70,132)
and
converted
to
an
hourly
basis
(
1
FTE
=
2,080
hours)
to
establish
a
State/
Primacy
Agency
rate
of
$
33.60
per
hour.

6c
Agency
Burden
and
Cost
EPA's
costs
include
those
incurred
by
both
regional
offices
and
headquarters
to
process,
analyze,
and
maintain
SDWIS.
These
costs
cannot
be
broken
down
in
detail
by
rule,
but
are
presented
as
an
overall
program
cost
in
the
Public
Water
System
Supervision
(
PWSS)
Program
ICR.
Headquarters
personnel
who
design
and
administer
SDWIS
believe
that
the
net
additional
cost
of
the
new
Stage
2
DBPR
requirements
is
not
significantly
greater
than
that
already
accounted
for
under
the
PWSS
Program
ICR.

EPA
has
primacy
for
small
PWSs
on
most
tribal
lands
and
those
in
the
State
of
Wyoming.
For
these
systems,
EPA
would
incur
costs
and
burden
similar
to
those
incurred
by
States
with
primacy.
Since
these
PWSs
are
potential
respondents
to
the
rule,
the
associated
implementation
costs
and
burden
that
EPA
would
incur
have
been
included
as
part
of
the
State/
Primacy
Agency
costs
and
burden.
It
is
possible
that
Wyoming
may
achieve
primacy
again,
and
at
that
point
it
would
assume
the
burden
of
rule
implementation
from
the
Agency.
Given
this
possibility,
and
the
difficulty
of
distinguishing
small
PWSs
on
tribal
lands
from
those
systems
that
are
not
on
tribal
lands,
this
analysis
does
not
attempt
to
distinguish
between
the
implementation
burden
and
costs
that
would
be
incurred
by
States
and
the
small
portion
that
would
be
incurred
by
EPA
(
i.
e.,
the
estimated
EPA
burden
and
costs
under
the
Stage
2
DBPR
have
been
included
in
the
State/
Primacy
Agency
burden
and
cost
estimates
presented
above).
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
28
6d
Estimating
the
Respondent
Universe
and
Total
Burden
and
Cost
Water
Systems
A
total
of
48,293
water
systems
will
submit
information
in
fulfillment
of
Stage
2
DBPR
requirements.
Of
these,
42,032
are
CWSs
and
6,260
are
NTNCWSs.
Varying
subsets
of
this
total
will
perform
different
activities
related
to
the
IDSE
(
see
Exhibits
8a
and
8b).

All
systems
will
perform
rule
implementation
activities.
EPA
anticipates
that
all
systems
will
need
to
gather
and
report
some
type
of
information
associated
with
IDSE
site
selection.
Differing
numbers
of
systems
will
provide
historical
data,
receive
a
waiver,
or
perform
IDSE
monitoring.

EPA
assumes
that
14
percent
of
surface
water
systems
will
have
their
last
2
years
of
TTHM
and
HAA5
data
at
or
less
than
or
equal
to
the
40/
30

g/
L
threshold
and,
therefore,
will
qualify
for
the
40/
30
certification.
Among
the
disinfecting
ground
water
plants,
66
to
89
percent
of
systems
are
assumed
to
fall
below
the
threshold
and
receive
the
40/
30
certification.
NTNCWSs
serving
fewer
than
10,000
people
are
not
subject
to
IDSE
requirements.

CWSs
serving
fewer
than
500
people
with
Stage
1
DBPR
sites
that
represent
both
the
high
TTHM
and
high
HAA5
concentrations
can
receive
an
IDSE
waiver.
Purchased
systems
are
assumed
to
not
have
sufficient
data
to
receive
a
small
system
waiver,
although
this
is
a
conservative
estimate
as
some
States
do
require
purchased
systems
to
monitor
DBPs.
EPA
estimates
that
approximately
100
percent
of
the
nonpurchased
systems
serving
fewer
than
500
people
will
have
Stage
1
DBPR
sites
that
represent
both
the
high
TTHM
and
high
HAA5
concentrations.
These
systems
will
receive
a
State
waiver
and,
therefore,
will
not
perform
an
IDSE.
Systems
serving
at
least
500
people
are
not
eligible
for
a
State
waiver.

EPA
estimates
that
10
percent
of
the
surface
water
and
disinfecting
ground
water
systems
serving
250,000
or
more
people
and
5
percent
of
surface
water
systems
serving
from
50,000
to
249,999
will
be
able
to
complete
an
SSS
in
lieu
of
monitoring.
It
is
assumed
that
surface
water
systems
serving
fewer
than
50,000
people
and
ground
water
systems
serving
fewer
than
100,000
will
not
have
adequate
historical
data
or
models
to
meet
the
SSS
requirements.

All
systems
that
do
not
receive
a
very
small
system
waiver,
do
not
receive
the
40/
30
certification,
and
cannot
perform
an
SSS
are
required
to
perform
standard
monitoring.
Standard
monitoring
involves
selecting
specific
types
of
sample
sites
(
e.
g.,
maximum
TTHM
sites
and
sites
near
the
entry
point)
in
the
distribution
system.
The
number
and
type
of
required
samples
are
based
on
system
size
and
source
water
type.
Systems
then
collect
monitoring
data
over
a
1­
year
period
on
a
pre­
determined
schedule.
The
system
must
prepare
a
report
summarizing
the
results
of
standard
monitoring
and
identifying
Stage
2
compliance
monitoring
sites.

Appendix
H
of
the
Stage
2
DBPR
Economic
Analysis
explains
EPA's
rationale
for
its
estimates
of
the
number
of
systems
that
will
conduct
each
IDSE
activity.

States/
Primacy
Agencies
Fifty­
seven
States,
tribes,
and
territories
(
or
Primacy
Agencies)
are
respondents
under
this
information
collection.
All
States/
Primacy
Agencies
are
expected
to
perform
activities
associated
with
implementation,
IDSE,
routine
monitoring
plans
and
additional
routine
monitoring
(
see
Exhibits
15
­
18).
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
29
Appendix
H
of
the
Stage
2
DBPR
Economic
Analysis
provides
detailed
information
on
State/
Primacy
Agency
activities
and
their
associated
costs
and
burden.

Total
Burden
and
Cost
Total
burden
is
calculated
as
the
hours
per
response
times
the
number
of
responses.
Total
burden
for
systems
is
presented
in
Column
F
of
Exhibit
7
(
for
rule
implementation),
Column
L
of
Exhibit
9
(
for
the
SMP),
Column
G
of
Exhibits
10
(
for
IDSE
using
SSSs),
and
Column
G
of
Exhibit
11
(
for
systems
not
conducting
an
IDSE,
but
required
to
identify
an
additional
sampling
site),
and
Column
H
of
Exhibit
12
(
for
monitoring
plans).
Additional
burden
estimates
for
activities
outside
of
the
ICR
collection
period
are
presented
for
reference
in
Column
R
of
Exhibit
13
(
for
additional
routine
compliance
monitoring)
and
in
Column
E
of
Exhibit
14
(
for
significant
excursions).
Total
burden
for
States/
Primacy
Agencies
is
presented
in
Column
F
of
Exhibit
15
(
for
rule
implementation
and
annual
routine
monitoring),
Column
F
of
Exhibit
16
(
for
monitoring
plans),
Column
J
of
Exhibit
17
(
for
the
IDSE),
and
Column
F
of
Exhibit
18
(
for
operational
evaluations).

The
total
annual
cost
for
each
activity
is
the
sum
of
labor
costs
and
non­
labor
(
O&
M)
costs
per
response
times
the
number
of
responses.
Total
costs
for
systems
are
presented
in
Column
E
of
Exhibit
7
(
for
rule
implementation),
Column
K
of
Exhibit
9
(
for
IDSE
standard
monitoring),
Column
F
of
Exhibit
10
(
for
IDSE
using
system­
specific
studies),
Column
F
of
Exhibit
11
(
for
systems
not
conducting
an
IDSE,
but
required
to
identify
an
additional
sampling
site),
and
Column
G
of
Exhibit
12
(
for
routine
monitoring
plan
costs).
Annual
cost
estimates
for
activities
outside
of
the
ICR
collection
period
are
presented
for
reference
in
Column
Q
of
Exhibit
13
(
for
additional
routine
compliance
monitoring)
and
in
Column
D
of
Exhibit
14
(
for
significant
excursions).
For
systems
serving
fewer
than
5,000
people
and
for
producing
systems
serving
fewer
than
500
people
that
have
to
monitor
at
different
locations
for
TTHM
and
HAA5,
there
may
be
a
small
labor
cost
associated
with
traveling
to
two
sites,
as
opposed
to
only
one
site,
to
collect
the
samples.
Total
costs
for
States/
Primacy
Agencies
is
presented
in
Column
D
of
Exhibit
15
(
for
rule
implementation
and
routine
monitoring),
Column
D
of
Exhibit
16
(
for
monitoring
plans),
Column
H
of
Exhibit
17
(
for
IDSEs),
and
Column
D
of
Exhibit
18
(
for
significant
excursions).

6e
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
Respondent
Tally
The
total
burden
associated
with
Stage
2
DBPR
requirements
over
the
3
years
covered
by
this
information
collection
is
667,727
burden
hours,
an
annual
average
of
222,576
hours
per
year.
Of
this,
430,962
hours
(
an
average
of
143,654
hours
per
year)
will
be
incurred
by
water
systems,
and
236,765
hours
(
an
average
of
78,922
hours
per
year)
will
be
incurred
by
States
(
see
Exhibit
1).

The
total
cost
over
the
3
years
covered
by
this
information
collection
is
$
46.5
million,
an
average
of
$
15.5
million
per
year.
Of
this,
$
38.5
million
(
an
average
of
$
13.2
million
per
year)
will
be
incurred
by
water
systems,
and
$
8.0
million
(
an
average
of
$
2.7
million
per
year)
will
be
incurred
by
States/
Primacy
Agencies.
Of
the
total
annual
cost,
$
6.4
million
is
associated
with
labor,
and
$
9.1
million
is
O&
M
costs
(
see
Exhibit
1).
There
are
no
capital
costs
associated
with
this
ICR.
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
30
3­
Year
Average
Burden,
Respondents,
and
Responses
Annual
Burden
Annual
Respondents
Annual
Burden/
Respondent
Annual
Responses
Annual
Burden/
Response
Annual
Responses/
Respondent
PWSs
143,654
7,478
19.2
50,981
2.8
6.8
States
and
Territories
78,922
57
1,384.6
190
415.4
3.3
Total
222,576
7,535
29.5
51,171
4.4
6.8
Data
from
Exhibit
1.

3­
Year
Average
Annual
Costs
Annual
Labor
Costs
($
Millions)
Annual
O&
M
Costs
($
Millions)
Annual
Capital
Costs
($
Millions)
Total
Annual
Costs
($
Millions)

PWSs
$
3.8
$
9.1
$
0.0
$
12.8
States
and
Territories
$
2.7
$
0.0
$
0.0
$
2.7
Total
$
6.4
$
9.1
$
0.0
$
15.5
Data
from
Exhibit
1.

Agency
Tally
As
previously
mentioned
in
section
6c,
the
costs
and
burden
incurred
by
EPA
to
process,
analyze,
and
maintain
SDWIS
are
presented
as
part
of
the
PWSS
Program
ICR.
Additional
costs
that
are
likely
to
be
incurred
by
the
Agency
to
administer
the
Stage
2
DBPR
for
tribal
water
systems
and
the
State
of
Wyoming
were
included
in
the
tally
for
States.
This
is
because
most
costs
were
estimated
on
a
national
basis
and
the
portion
of
PWSs
affected
by
this
rule
that
are
located
on
tribal
land
or
in
Wyoming
is
uncertain.

6f
Reasons
for
Change
in
Burden
The
Stage
2
DBPR
is
a
new
regulation.
As
stated
above,
water
systems
and
State/
Primacy
Agencies
will
incur
222,576
hours
of
labor
and
spend
approximately
$
15.5
million
per
year
over
3
years
to
implement
the
Stage
2
DBPR
during
the
clearance
period
of
this
ICR.
The
burden
and
cost
are
offset
by
the
benefits
of
the
Stage
2
DBPR
in
terms
of
the
reduction
in
risk
of
adverse
health
effects,
specifically
bladder
cancer,
and
potential
adverse
reproductive
and
developmental
effects.
These
benefits
are
described
in
detail
in
Chapter
5
of
the
Stage
2
DBPR
Economic
Analysis.
2Average
burden
and
cost
per
respondent
are
calculated
based
on
the
total
values
shown
in
Exhibit
1.

ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
31
6g
Burden
Statement
The
average
burden
per
respondent
for
this
ICR
is
estimated
to
be
29.5
hours;
the
average
cost
of
this
information
collection
is
estimated
to
average
$
2,056
per
respondent.
2
For
PWS
respondents,
the
average
burden
per
respondent
is
19.2
hours;
the
average
cost
per
respondent
is
$
1,718.
For
State/
Primacy
Agencies,
the
average
burden
per
respondent
is
1,384.6
hours,
and
the
average
cost
per
respondent
is
$
46,523
(
see
Exhibit
1).
As
previously
discussed,
EPA
estimates
that
there
will
be
no
burden
related
to
capital
costs
since
PWSs
and
plants
are
not
expected
to
incur
any
capital
costs
during
start­
up
for
data
collection
or
data
reporting.

Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
disclose,
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
the
collection
of
information;
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and,
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.
An
agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to,
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
9
and
48
CFR
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
No.
OW­
2002­
0043,
which
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
Water
Docket
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center
(
EPA/
DC),
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
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
Room
is
(
202)
566­
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
Water
Docket
is
(
202)
566­
2426.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA
Dockets
(
EDOCKET)
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket.
Use
EDOCKET
to
submit
or
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
When
in
the
system,
select
"
search,"
then
key
in
the
docket
ID
number
identified
above.
Also,
you
can
send
comments
to
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
725
17th
Street,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20503,
Attention:
Desk
Officer
for
EPA.
Please
include
the
EPA
Docket
ID
No.
OW­
2002­
0043
in
any
correspondence.
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
32
Summary
Exhibits
for
the
ICR
Collection
Period
Exhibit
1:
Burden,
Respondents,
Responses,
and
Costs
for
the
ICR
collection
period
Exhibit
2:
Burden
for
the
ICR
collection
period
Exhibit
3:
Respondents
for
the
ICR
collection
period
Exhibit
4:
Responses
for
the
ICR
collection
period
Exhibit
5:
Cost
for
the
ICR
collection
period
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
33
PWSs
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Source
(
Exhibit)
2003
2004
2005
Total
Annual
Average
Burden
(
hours)
2
25,660
265,720
139,582
430,962
143,654
Respondents
(
number)
3
1,712
22,434
3,821
22,434
7,478
Responses
(
number)
4
1,712
56,432
94,798
152,942
50,981
Costs
(
dollars)
5
$
755,878
$
13,956,651
$
23,822,909
$
38,535,438
$
12,845,146
Labor
$
755,878
$
6,668,958
$
3,862,094
$
11,286,930
$
3,762,310
O&
M
$
0
$
7,287,693
$
19,960,815
$
27,248,508
$
9,082,836
Capital
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Burden
per
respondent
19.21
Cost
per
respondent
1,717.69
$

States
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Source
(
Exhibit)
2003
2004
2005
Total
Annual
Average
Burden
(
hours)
2
115,596
116,738
4,431
236,765
78,922
Respondents
(
number)
3
57
57
57
57
57
Responses
(
number)
4
228
285
57
570
190
Costs
(
dollars)
5
$
3,884,026
$
3,922,406
$
148,925
$
7,955,357
$
2,651,786
Labor
$
3,884,026
$
3,922,406
$
148,925
$
7,955,357
$
2,651,786
O&
M
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Capital
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Burden
per
respondent
1,384.59
Cost
per
respondent
46,522.55
$

Sum
for
PWSs
and
States
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Source
(
Exhibit)
2003
2004
2005
Total
Annual
Average
Burden
(
hours)
2
141,256
382,458
144,013
667,727
222,576
Respondents
(
number)
3
1,769
22,491
3,878
22,491
7,497
Responses
(
number)
4
1,940
56,717
94,855
153,512
51,171
Costs
(
dollars)
5
$
4,639,904
$
17,879,058
$
23,971,834
$
46,490,795
$
15,496,932
Labor
$
4,639,904
$
10,591,365
$
4,011,019
$
19,242,287
$
6,414,096
O&
M
$
0
$
7,287,693
$
19,960,815
$
27,248,508
$
9,082,836
Capital
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Burden
per
respondent
29.69
Cost
per
respondent
2,067.05
$

Note:
Detail
may
not
appear
to
add
to
total
due
to
independent
rounding.

The
number
of
state
respondents
is
not
added;
rather
the
maximum
number
of
respondents
for
the
3
years
for
a
given
activity
is
used
to
avoid
double­
counting.
Exhibit
1
Burden,
Respondents,
Responses,
and
Costs
for
the
ICR
Collection
Period
(
Totals
by
Year
and
Annual
Averages
for
CWSs
and
NTNCWSs)
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
34
PWSs
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Source
Annual
(
Exhibit)
2003
2004
2005
Total
Average
Subpart
H
and
Mixed
CWSs
Implementation*
[
1]
19a
23,541
50,009
0
73,550
24,517
IDSE
(
monitoring,
system
studies
or
additional
sample
sites)*
[
2]
19a
0
44,336
118,342
162,678
54,226
Monitoring
Plans
19a
0
0
8,377
8,377
2,792
Routine
Monitoring
19a
0
0
0
­
­
Significant
Excursions
19a
0
0
0
­
­
Disinfecting
Ground
Water
CWSs
Implementation*
[
1]
19a
2,113
142,459
0
144,572
48,191
IDSE
(
monitoring,
system
studies
or
additional
sample
sites)*
[
2]
19a
0
663
12,085
12,747
4,249
Monitoring
Plans
19a
0
0
521
521
174
Routine
Monitoring
19a
0
0
0
­
­
Significant
Excursions
19a
0
0
0
­
­
Subpart
H
and
Mixed
NTNCWSs
Implementation*
[
1]
19b
0
3,533
0
3,533
1,178
IDSE
(
monitoring,
system
studies
or
additional
sample
sites)*
[
2]
19b
0
21
212
233
78
Monitoring
Plans
19b
0
0
5
5
2
Routine
Monitoring
19b
0
0
0
­
­
Significant
Excursions
19b
0
0
0
­
­
Disinfecting
Ground
Water
NTNCWSs
Implementation*
[
1]
19b
6
24,691
0
24,698
8,233
IDSE
(
monitoring,
system
studies
or
additional
sample
sites)*
[
2]
19b
0
8
38
46
15
Monitoring
Plans
19b
0
0
3
3
1
Routine
Monitoring
19b
0
0
0
­
­
Significant
Excursions
19b
0
0
0
­
­
Yearly
Total
25,660
265,720
139,582
430,962
143,654
States
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Source
Annual
(
Exhibit)
2003
2004
2005
Total
Average
States
and
Territories
State
rule
implementation
activities
[
3]
19a
115,596
115,596
­
231,192
77,064
State
IDSE
activities*
[
4]
19a
­
1,142
3,958
5,100
1,700
State
Monitoring
Plans
19a
­
­
473
473
158
State
Routine
Monitoring
19a
­
­
­
­
­
State
Significant
Excursion
19a
­
­
­
­
­
Yearly
Total
115,596
116,738
4,431
236,765
15,784
Sum
for
PWSs
and
States
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Annual
2003
2004
2005
Total
Average
CWSs
25,654
237,467
139,324
402,445
134,148
NTNCWSs
6
28,253
258
28,517
9,506
States
and
Territories
115,596
116,738
4,431
236,765
78,922
Yearly
Total
141,256
382,458
144,013
667,727
222,576
Note:
Detail
may
not
appear
to
add
to
total
due
to
independent
rounding.
*
Indicates
some
or
all
burden
will
be
incurred
after
the
3­
year
ICR
Approval
Period.
[
1]
Implementation:
See
Exhibit
22
for
the
PWS
implementation
schedule.

[
2]
IDSE:
See
Exhibit
23
for
the
PWS
IDSE
schedule.

[
4]
State
cost
and
burden
associated
with
IDSE
are
allocated
proportionately
to
the
numbers
of
medium/
large
vs.
small
systems.
[
3]
State
implementation
activities
will
occur
in
Years
1
and
2,
as
states
prepare
their
primacy
packages.
See
Exhibit
27
for
the
state/
primacy
agency
schedule.
Exhibit
2
Burden
Hours
for
the
ICR
Collection
Period
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
35
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
36
PWSs
[
2]
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Source
Annual
(
Exhibit)
2003
2004
2005
Total
[
5]
Average
Subpart
H
and
Mixed
CWSs
Implementation
[
3]
7
1,611
4,291
0
4,291
1,430
IDSE
(
monitoring,
system
studies
or
additional
sample
sites)*
[
4]
8a
&
8b
0
1,066
3,059
3,059
1,020
Monitoring
Plans
12
0
0
1,121
1,121
374
Significant
Excursions
14
0
0
0
0
0
Disinfecting
Ground
Water
CWSs
Implementation
[
3]
7
101
15,014
0
15,014
5,005
IDSE
(
monitoring,
system
studies
or
additional
sample
sites)*
[
3]
8a
&
8b
0
10
757
757
252
Monitoring
Plans
12
0
0
33
33
11
Significant
Excursions
14
0
0
0
0
0
Subpart
H
and
Mixed
NTNCWSs
Implementation
[
3]
7
0
389
0
389
130
IDSE
(
monitoring,
system
studies
or
additional
sample
sites)*
[
4]
8a
&
8b
0
0
3
3
1
Monitoring
Plans
12
0
0
0
0
0
Significant
Excursions
14
0
0
0
0
0
Disinfecting
Ground
Water
NTNCWSs
Implementation
[
3]
7
0
2,741
0
2,741
914
IDSE
(
monitoring,
system
studies
or
additional
sample
sites)*
[
4]
8a
&
8b
0
0
2
2
1
Monitoring
Plans
12
0
0
0
0
0
Significant
Excursions
14
0
0
0
0
0
Yearly
Total
[
7]
1,712
22,434
3,821
22,434
7,478
States
[
5]
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Source
Annual
(
Exhibit)
2003
2004
2005
Total
[
5]
Average
States
and
Territories
State
rule
implementation
activities
[
5]
26
57
57
0
57
57
State
IDSE
activities*
[
6]
26
0
57
57
57
57
State
Monitoring
Plans
26
0
0
57
57
57
State
Routine
Monitoring
26
0
0
57
57
57
State
Significant
Excursions
26
0
0
57
57
57
Yearly
Total
[
7]
57
57
57
57
57
Sum
for
PWSs
and
States
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Annual
2003
2004
2005
Total
[
5]
Average
CWSs
1,712
19,305
3,816
19,305
6,435
NTNCWSs
0
3,130
5
3,130
1,043
States
and
Territories
57
57
57
57
19
Yearly
Total
1,769
22,491
3,878
22,491
7,497
Note:
Detail
may
not
appear
to
add
to
total
due
to
independent
rounding.
*
Indicates
some
or
all
PWSs
will
be
respondents
after
the
3­
year
ICR
Approval
Period.

[
2]
Each
PWS
is
assumed
to
be
a
respondent.

[
7]
In
order
to
not
double­
count
the
number
of
respondents,
the
highest
number
of
respondents
for
each
PWS
category
represents
the
number
of
respondents
for
that
year.
[
6]
State
cost
and
burden
associated
with
IDSE
are
allocated
proportionately
to
the
numbers
of
medium/
large
vs.
small
systems.
[
1]
Non­
treatment­
Related
Rule
Activities,
in
addition
to
those
shown
in
the
table,
also
include
routine
compliance
monitoring.
Some
systems
are
expected
to
take
more
samples
and
some
are
expected
to
take
less
from
Stage
1
to
Stage
2
depending
on
the
number
of
plants
in
their
systems.
Overall,
the
Stage
2
DBPR
results
in
an
increase
in
the
total
number
of
compliance
samples
taken
from
the
Stage
1
DBPR.
See
Exhibit
13a
column
I,
for
the
change
in
total
samples
for
different
system
size
categories.

[
3]
Implementation:
See
Exhibit
22
for
the
PWS
implementation
schedule.
[
4]
IDSE:
See
Exhibit
23
for
the
PWS
IDSE
schedule.
[
5]
State
implementation
activities
will
occur
in
Years
1
and
2,
as
states
prepare
their
primacy
packages.
See
Exhibit
27
for
the
state/
primacy
agency
schedule.
Exhibit
3
Respondents
for
the
ICR
Collection
Period
[
1]
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
37
PWSs
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Source
Annual
(
Exhibit)
2003
2004
2005
Total
Average
Subpart
H
and
Mixed
CWSs
Implementation*
[
1]
7
1,611
4,291
0
5,902
1,967
IDSE
(
monitoring,
system
studies
or
additional
sample
sites)*
[
2]
9,
10,
11
0
33,668
89,370
123,038
41,013
Monitoring
Plans
12
0
0
1,121
1,121
374
Routine
Monitoring
13
0
0
0
0
0
Significant
Excursions
14
0
0
0
0
0
Disinfecting
Ground
Water
CWSs
Implementation*
[
1]
7
101
15,014
0
15,115
5,038
IDSE
(
monitoring,
system
studies
or
additional
sample
sites)*
[
2]
9,
10,
11
0
307
4,086
4,394
1,465
Monitoring
Plans
12
0
0
33
33
11
Routine
Monitoring
13
0
0
0
0
0
Significant
Excursions
14
0
0
0
0
0
Subpart
H
and
Mixed
NTNCWSs
Implementation*
[
1]
7
0
389
0
389
130
IDSE
(
monitoring,
system
studies
or
additional
sample
sites)*
[
2]
9,
10,
11
0
18
174
192
64
Monitoring
Plans
12
0
0
0
0
0
Routine
Monitoring
13
0
0
0
0
0
Significant
Excursions
14
0
0
0
0
0
Disinfecting
Ground
Water
NTNCWSs
Implementation*
[
1]
7
0
2,741
0
2,742
914
IDSE
(
monitoring,
system
studies
or
additional
sample
sites)*
[
2]
9,
10,
11
0
5
14
19
6
Monitoring
Plans
12
0
0
0
0
0
Routine
Monitoring
13
0
0
0
0
0
Significant
Excursions
14
0
0
0
0
0
Yearly
Total
1,712
56,432
94,798
152,942
50,981
States
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Source
Annual
(
Exhibit)
2003
2004
2005
Total
Average
States
and
Territories
State
rule
implementation
activities
[
3]
26
228
228
0
456
152
State
IDSE
activities
[
4]
26
0
57
57
114
38
State
Monitoring
Plans
26
0
0
57
57
19
State
Routine
Monitoring
26
0
0
57
57
19
State
Significant
Excursions
26
0
0
57
57
19
Yearly
Total
228
285
57
570
190
Sum
for
PWSs
and
States
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Annual
2003
2004
2005
Total
Average
CWSs
1,712
53,280
94,610
149,601
49,867
NTNCWSs
0
3,152
189
3,341
1,114
States
and
Territories
228
285
57
570
190
Yearly
Total
1,940
56,717
94,855
153,513
51,171
Note:
Detail
may
not
appear
to
add
to
total
due
to
independent
rounding.
*
Indicates
some
or
all
PWSs
will
be
respondents
after
the
3­
year
ICR
Approval
Period.

[
4]
Each
state
will
have
4
responses
associated
with
the
IDSE
(
Exhibit
17).
See
Exhibit
26
for
the
state/
primacy
agency
schedule.
[
1]
Implementation:
See
Exhibit
22
for
the
PWS
implementation
schedule.
[
2]
Systems
using
SMPs
will
have
between
6
and
246
responses
(
from
4
and
244
number
samples,
plus
1
response
for
site
selection
and
1
for
reporting
per
system;
see
Exhibit
9).
Systems
using
SSSs
will
have
one
response
per
system
(
see
Exhibit
10).
Systems
not
doing
an
IDSE
will
have
one
response
per
system
(
see
Exhibit
11).
Responses
will
occur
during
the
first
4
years
of
the
rule
(
see
Exhibit
23
for
the
PWS
IDSE
schedule).

[
3]
Each
state
will
have
4
responses
associated
with
rule
implementation
(
Exhibit
15).
See
Exhibit
27
for
the
state/
primacy
agency
schedule.
Exhibit
4
Responses
for
the
ICR
Collection
Period
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
38
PWSs
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Total
Source
2003
2004
2005
(
Exhibit)
Labor
O&
M
Capital
Labor
O&
M
Capital
Labor
O&
M
Capital
Labor
O&
M
Capital
Total
Subpart
H
and
Mixed
CWSs
Implementation*
[
1]
20a
$
687,224
$
0
$
0
$
1,337,727
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
2,024,951
$
0
$
0
$
2,024,951
IDSE
(
monitoring,
system
studies
or
additional
sample
sites)*
[
2]
20a
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
1,246,095
$
7,218,630
$
0
$
3,258,335
$
19,192,802
$
0
$
4,504,430
$
26,411,432
$
0
$
30,915,861
Monitoring
Plans
20a
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
218,874
$
0
$
0
$
218,874
$
0
$
0
$
218,874
Routine
Monitoring
20a
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Significant
Excursions
20a
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Disinfecting
Ground
Water
CWSs
Implementation
[
1]
20a
$
68,547
$
0
$
0
$
3,420,980
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
3,489,527
$
0
$
0
$
3,489,527
IDSE
(
monitoring,
system
studies
or
additional
sample
sites)*
[
2]
20a
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
22,138
$
64,313
$
0
$
361,216
$
728,804
$
0
$
383,355
$
793,116
$
0
$
1,176,471
Monitoring
Plans
20a
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
16,278
$
0
$
0
$
16,278
$
0
$
0
$
16,278
Routine
Monitoring
20a
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Significant
Excursions
20a
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Subpart
H
and
Mixed
NTNCWSs
Implementation
[
1]
20b
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
82,677
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
82,677
$
0
$
0
$
82,677
IDSE
(
monitoring,
system
studies
or
additional
sample
sites)*
[
2]
20b
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
668
$
3,775
$
0
$
6,175
$
36,545
$
0
$
6,843
$
40,320
$
0
$
47,163
Monitoring
Plans
20b
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
59
$
0
$
0
$
59
$
0
$
0
$
59
Routine
Monitoring
20b
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Significant
Excursions
20b
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Disinfecting
Ground
Water
NTNCWSs
Implementation
[
1]
20b
$
107
$
0
$
0
$
558,406
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
558,514
$
0
$
0
$
558,514
IDSE
(
monitoring,
system
studies
or
additional
sample
sites)*
[
2]
20b
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
268
$
974
$
0
$
1,157
$
2,665
$
0
$
1,425
$
3,640
$
0
$
5,064
Monitoring
Plans
20b
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Routine
Monitoring
20b
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Significant
Excursions
20b
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Yearly
Total
$
755,878
$
0
$
0
$
6,668,958
$
7,287,693
$
0
$
3,862,094
$
19,960,815
$
0
$
11,286,930
$
27,248,508
$
0
$
38,535,438
States
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Total
Source
2003
2004
2005
(
Exhibit)
Labor
O&
M
Capital
Labor
O&
M
Capital
Labor
O&
M
Capital
Labor
O&
M
Capital
Total
States
and
Territories
State
rule
implementation
activities
[
3]
20a
$
3,884,026
$
0
$
0
$
3,884,026
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
7,768,051
$
0
$
0
$
7,768,051
State
IDSE
activities*
[
4]
20a
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
38,381
$
0
$
0
$
132,974
$
0
$
0
$
171,354
$
0
$
0
$
171,354
State
Monitoring
Plans
20a
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
15,951
$
0
$
0
$
15,951
$
0
$
0
$
15,951
State
Routine
Monitoring
20a
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
State
Significant
Excursions
20a
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Yearly
Total
$
3,884,026
$
0
$
0
$
3,922,406
$
0
$
0
$
148,925
$
0
$
0
$
7,955,357
$
0
$
0
$
7,955,357
Sum
for
PWSs
and
States
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Total
2003
2004
2005
Labor
O&
M
Capital
Labor
O&
M
Capital
Labor
O&
M
Capital
Labor
O&
M
Capital
Total
CWSs
$
755,771
$
0
$
0
$
6,026,940
$
7,282,943
$
0
$
3,854,703
$
19,921,605
$
0
$
10,637,414
$
27,204,548
$
0
$
37,841,963
NTNCWSs
$
107
$
0
$
0
$
642,018
$
4,750
$
0
$
7,391
$
39,210
$
0
$
649,516
$
43,960
$
0
$
693,476
States
and
Territories
$
3,884,026
$
0
$
0
$
3,922,406
$
0
$
0
$
148,925
$
0
$
0
$
7,955,357
$
0
$
0
$
7,955,357
Yearly
Total
$
4,639,904
$
0
$
0
$
10,591,365
$
7,287,693
$
0
$
4,011,019
$
19,960,815
$
0
$
19,242,287
$
27,248,508
$
0
$
46,490,795
Note:
Detail
may
not
appear
to
add
to
total
due
to
independent
rounding.
*
Indicates
some
or
all
costs
will
be
incurred
after
the
3­
year
ICR
Approval
Period.
[
1]
Implementation:
See
Exhibit
22
for
the
PWS
implementation
schedule.
[
2]
IDSE:
See
Exhibit
23
for
the
PWS
IDSE
schedule.
[
3]
State
implementation
activities
will
occur
in
Years
1
and
2,
as
states
prepare
their
primacy
packages.
See
Exhibit
27
for
the
state/
primacy
agency
schedule.
[
4]
State
cost
and
burden
associated
with
IDSE
are
allocated
proportionately
to
the
numbers
of
medium/
large
vs.
small
systems.
Exhibit
5
Cost
for
the
ICR
Collection
Period
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
39
Supporting
Exhibits
for
Full
Implementation
of
the
Rule
Exhibit
6:
Baseline
Number
of
100
Percent
Purchasing
Systems
and
Producing
Systems
Exhibit
7:
Rule
Implementation
Costs
for
Systems
Exhibit
8a:
Percent
and
Number
of
100
Percent
Purchasing
Systems
in
Each
IDSE
Category
Exhibit
8b:
Percent
and
Number
of
Producing
Systems
in
Each
IDSE
Category
Exhibit
9:
IDSE
Costs
Systems
Using
SMPs
Exhibit
10:
IDSE
Costs
for
Systems
Using
SSSs
Exhibit
11:
IDSE
Costs
for
Systems
Qualifying
for
the
40/
30
Certification
Exhibit
12:
Monitoring
Plan
Costs
for
Systems
Exhibit
13:
System
Costs
for
Additional
Routine
Monitoring
Exhibit
14:
Significant
Excursion
Costs
Systems
Exhibit
15:
State
Costs
for
Rule
Implementation
and
Routine
Monitoring
Exhibit
16:
State
Costs
for
Monitoring
Plans
Exhibit
17:
States
Costs
for
IDSE
Exhibit
18:
State
Costs
for
Significant
Excursions
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
40
Systems
Plants
Systems
Plants
A
B
C
=
A
+
B
D
E
F
G=
Round
[
B*
D*
F]
H=
Round
[
E*
G]
I=
Round
[(
C­
(
B*
D))*
F]
J=
Round
[
E*
I]

1,106
2,191
3,297
94%
1.2
100%
2,060
2,493
1,237
1,497
1,527
2,531
4,058
94%
1.2
100%
2,379
2,902
1,679
2,048
1,041
1,001
2,042
94%
1.6
100%
941
1,468
1,101
1,718
978
795
1,773
94%
1.4
100%
747
1,023
1,026
1,406
346
188
534
94%
1.8
100%
177
324
357
653
72
9
81
94%
2.5
100%
8
20
73
185
17
­
17
94%
3.5
100%
­
­
17
60
1
­
1
94%
3.5
100%
­
­
1
4
5,088
6,715
11,803
6,312
8,230
5,491
7,571
25,501
1,127
26,628
100%
1.0
67%
752
752
17,005
17,005
12,390
976
13,366
100%
1.5
83%
807
1,227
10,243
15,569
1,381
41
1,422
100%
3.9
95%
39
153
1,319
5,182
61
1
62
100%
7.3
96%
1
7
59
431
6
­
6
100%
17.0
98%
­
­
6
100
39,339
2,145
41,484
1,599
2,139
28,631
38,287
422
126
548
100%
1.0
100%
126
126
422
422
144
55
199
100%
1.0
100%
55
55
144
144
13
11
24
100%
1.0
100%
11
11
13
13
1
4
5
100%
1.0
100%
4
4
1
1
­
1
1
100%
1.0
100%
1
1
­
­

­
­
­
100%
1.0
100%
­
­
­
­

­
­
­
100%
1.0
100%
­
­
­
­

­
­
­
100%
1.0
100%
­
­
­
­

580
197
777
197
197
580
580
15,882
55
15,937
100%
1.0
29%
16
16
4,606
4,606
2,933
25
2,958
100%
1.0
29%
7
7
851
851
9
3
12
100%
1.0
29%
1
1
3
3
1
­
1
100%
1.0
29%
­
­
0
­

­
­
­
100%
1.0
29%
­
­
­
­

18,825
83
18,908
24
24
5,459
5,460
63,832
9,140
72,972
8,132
10,590
40,161
51,898
National
Totals
10,000­
49,999
Grand
Total
250,000­
999,999
>
500,000
1,000,000­
4,999,999
 
5
 
500­
9,999
100,000­
499,999
3,301­
9,999
10,000­
99,999
National
Totals
500­
9,999
<
500
250,000­
999,999
1,000,000­
4,999,999
 
5
 
100%
Ground
Water
CWSs
(
Disinfecting)

100%
Ground
Water
NTNCWSs
(
Disinfecting)
50,000­
249,999
National
Totals
10,000­
99,999
100,000­
499,999
>
500,000
500­
3,300
3,301­
9,999
National
Totals
Subpart
H
and
Mixed
NTNCWSs
<
500
<
500
50,000­
249,999
Total
Number
of
Systems
Purchased
Total
Non­
Purchased
<
500
500­
3,300
10,000­
49,999
Subpart
H
and
Mixed
CWSs
Producing
Systems
Percent
of
Purchased
Systems
that
Buy
all
of
Their
Water
(
100%
Purchasing
Systems)
Plants
Per
System
100%
Purchasing
Systems
Systems
Subject
to
Stage
2
DBPR
Size
Category
Percent
Disinfecting
Exhibit
6
Baseline
Number
of
100
Percent
Purchasing
Systems
and
Producing
Systems
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
41
Number
of
Systems
Read
Hours
per
PWS
Train
Hours
per
PWS
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)

A
B
C
D
E
=
A*(
B+
C)*
D
F
=
A*(
B+
C)
G
=
F/
2,080
3,297
8
2
22.55
$
743,375
$
32,970
15.9
4,058
8
2
24.74
$
1,003,949
$
40,580
19.5
2,042
8
2
30.51
$
623,055
$
20,420
9.8
1,773
20
2
31.08
$
1,212,306
$
39,006
18.8
534
20
2
32.64
$
383,467
$
11,748
5.6
81
20
4
35.25
$
68,522
$
1,944
0.9
17
20
4
35.25
$
14,381
$
408
0.2
1
20
4
35.25
$
846
$
24
0.0
National
Totals
11,803
4,049,902
$
147,100
70.7
17,756
8
1
22.35
$
3,572,101
$
159,807
76.8
11,050
8
1
24.86
$
2,472,179
$
99,446
47.8
1,358
20
1
31.08
$
886,174
$
28,513
13.7
60
20
1
35.25
$
44,241
$
1,255
0.6
6
20
1
35.25
$
4,361
$
124
0.1
National
Totals
30,229
6,979,054
$
289,145
139.0
548
8
1
22.39
$
110,450
$
4,932
2.4
199
8
1
24.74
$
44,309
$
1,791
0.9
24
8
1
30.51
$
6,591
$
216
0.1
5
20
1
31.08
$
3,263
$
105
0.1
1
20
1
35.25
$
740
$
21
0.0
­
20
2
N/
A
­
$
­
­

­
20
2
N/
A
­
$
­
­

­
20
2
N/
A
­
$
­
­

National
Totals
777
165,353
$
7,065
3.4
4,622
8
1
22.20
$
923,423
$
41,596
20.0
858
8
1
24.76
$
191,118
$
7,720
3.7
3
20
1
31.08
$
2,271
$
73
0.0
0
20
1
35.25
$
215
$
6
0.0
­
20
1
N/
A
­
$
­
­

National
Totals
5,483
1,117,027
$
49,395
23.7
Grand
Totals
48,293
12,311,336
$
492,705
236.9
Notes:

Sources:

(
D)
Labor
rates
from
the
Labor
Costs
for
National
Drinking
Water
Rules
(
USEPA,
2003s).
An
80:
20
split
between
technical
and
managerial
labor
rates
was
assumed,
except
for
systems
serving
500
or
fewer
people,
for
which
only
a
technical
rate
was
applied.
3,301­
9,999
10,000­
49,999
50,000­
249,999
(
B
and
C)
Hours
for
reading
the
rule
and
training
appropriate
personel
are
estimated
based
on
EPA
experience
implementing
previous
regulations.
<
500
Subpart
H
and
Mixed
NTNCWSs
1,000,000­
4,999,999
250,000­
999,999
50,000­
249,999
1,000,000­
4,999,999
 
5
 
Subpart
H
and
Mixed
CWSs
Size
Category
250,000­
999,999
<
500
500­
3,300
 
5
 
100%
Ground
Water
CWSs
(
Disinfecting)

<
500
500­
9,999
10,000­
99,999
100,000­
499,999
>
500,000
500­
3,300
3,301­
9,999
10,000­
49,999
100%
Ground
Water
NTNCWSs
(
Disinfecting)

<
500
500­
9,999
10,000­
99,999
(
A)
Number
of
disinfecting
systems
(
column
K)
from
Exhibit
H.
1.
1
FTE=
2,080
hours
(
40
hours/
week;
52
weeks/
year).
100,000­
499,999
>
500,000
Detail
may
not
add
due
to
independent
rounding.
Exhibit
7
Rule
Implementation
Costs
for
Systems
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
42
Total
Number
of
100%
Purchasing
Systems
Percentage
Receiving
a
Very
Small
System
Waiver
Percentage
Less
than
or
Equal
to
40/
30
Percentage
Using
Studies
Systems
Conducting
IDSE
Standard
Monitoring
Systems
Receiving
the
40/
30
Certification
Systems
Using
Studies
A
B
C
D
E=
Round
[
A*(
1­
B)*(
1­
C)*(
1­
D)]
F=
Round
[
A*(
1­
B)*
C]
G=
Round
[
A*(
1­
B)*(
1­
C)*
D]

2,060
0%
0%
0%
2,060
0
0
2,379
0%
0%
0%
2,379
0
0
941
0%
0%
0%
941
0
0
747
0%
14%
0%
642
105
0
177
0%
14%
5%
144
25
8
8
0%
14%
10%
6
1
1
0
0%
14%
10%
0
0
0
0
0%
14%
10%
0
0
0
National
Totals
6,312
6,172
131
9
752
0%
0%
0%
752
0
0
807
0%
0%
0%
807
0
0
39
0%
82%
0%
7
32
0
1
0%
66%
10%
0
1
0
0
0%
79%
10%
0
0
0
National
Totals
1,598
1,566
33
0
126
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
55
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
11
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
4
0%
14%
0%
3
1
0
1
0%
14%
0%
1
0
0
0
0%
14%
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
14%
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
14%
0%
0
0
0
National
Totals
197
4
1
0
16
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
7
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
1
0%
92%
0%
0
1
0
0
0%
92%
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
92%
0%
0
0
0
National
Totals
24
0
1
0
Grand
Totals
8,132
7,742
166
9
Notes:

Sources:
(
B)­(
C)
100%
purchasing
systems
may
not
have
DBP
data
with
which
to
qualify
for
the
waiver
or
certification.
As
a
conservative
assumption,
0%
is
used.

(
D)
Percentage
of
systems
able
to
use
historical
data
based
on
expert
opinion.
Size
Category
>
500,000
(
A)
Number
of
disinfecting
100%
purchasing
systems
(
Exhibit
H.
1,
column
I).
Detail
may
not
add
due
to
independent
rounding.
Results
in
columns
F
and
G
are
rounded
to
whole
systems.
10,000­
99,999
100,000­
499,999
<
500
500­
9,999
500­
3,300
3,301­
9,999
10,000­
49,999
50,000­
249,999
250,000­
999,999
1,000,000­
4,999,999
 
5
 
100%
Ground
Water
NTNCWSs
(
Disinfecting)
Subpart
H
and
Mixed
NTNCWSs
<
500
10,000­
99,999
100,000­
499,999
>
500,000
250,000­
999,999
1,000,000­
4,999,999
 
5
 
100%
Ground
Water
CWSs
(
Disinfecting)
<
500
Subpart
H
and
Mixed
CWSs
Column
C
is
percent
of
systems
with
TTHM
concentrations
less
than
or
equal
to
40
ug/
L
and
HAA5
concentrations
less
than
or
equal
to
30
ug/
L
for
Stage
1
DBPR
monitoring.
500­
3,300
3,301­
9,999
10,000­
49,999
50,000­
249,999
<
500
500­
9,999
Exhibit
8a
Percent
and
Number
of
100
Percent
Purchasing
Systems
in
Each
IDSE
Category
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
43
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
44
Total
Number
of
Producing
Systems
Percentage
Receiving
a
Very
Small
System
Waiver
Percentage
Having
Concentrations
Less
than
or
Equal
to
40/
30
Percentage
Using
Studies
Systems
Conducting
IDSE
Standard
Monitoring
Systems
Receiving
the
40/
30
Certification
Systems
Using
Studies
A
B
C
D
E=
Round
[
A*(
1­
B)*(
1­
C)*(
1­
D)]
F=
Round
[
A*(
1­
B)*
C]
G=
Round
[
A*(
1­
B)*(
1­
C)*
D]

1,237
100%
0%
0%
0
0
0
1,679
0%
14%
0%
1,444
235
0
1,101
0%
14%
0%
947
154
0
1,026
0%
14%
0%
882
144
0
357
0%
14%
5%
292
50
15
73
0%
14%
10%
57
10
6
17
0%
14%
10%
14
2
1
1
0%
14%
10%
1
0
0
National
Totals
5,491
3,636
595
22
17,005
100%
0%
0%
0
0
0
10,243
0%
89%
0%
1,149
9,094
0
1,319
0%
82%
0%
233
1,086
0
59
0%
66%
10%
18
39
2
6
0%
79%
10%
1
5
0
National
Totals
28,631
1,400
10,224
2
422
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
144
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
13
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
1
0%
14%
0%
1
0
0
0
0%
14%
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
14%
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
14%
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
14%
0%
0
0
0
National
Totals
580
1
­
­

4,606
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
851
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
3
0%
92%
0%
1
2
0
0
0%
92%
0%
0
0
0
0
0%
92%
0%
0
0
0
National
Totals
5,459
1
2
­

Grand
Totals
40,161
5,038
10,821
24
Notes:

Sources:
500­
9,999
10,000­
99,999
100,000­
499,999
(
D)
Percentage
of
systems
able
to
use
historical
data
based
on
expert
opinion.
>
500,000
(
B)
The
percentage
of
small
systems
to
receive
a
very
small
system
waiver
is
an
assumption
based
on
EPA
experience
with
small
systems.
100%
purchasing
systems
may
not
have
DBP
data
with
which
to
qualify
for
small
system
waivers.
As
a
conservative
estima
Column
C
is
percent
of
systems
with
TTHM
concentrations
less
than
or
equal
to
40
ug/
L
and
HAA5
concentrations
less
than
or
equal
to
30
ug/
L
for
Stage
1
DBPR
monitoring.
Detail
may
not
add
due
to
independent
rounding.

(
A)
Number
of
producing
disinfecting
systems
(
Exhibit
H.
1,
column
J).
Results
in
columns
F
and
G
are
rounded
to
whole
systems.
 
5
 
250,000­
999,999
<
500
500­
3,300
3,301­
9,999
100,000­
499,999
>
500,000
50,000­
249,999
10,000­
49,999
Size
Category
(
C)
Percentage
of
systems
with
all
data
less
than
or
equal
to
40/
30
for
Surface
Water
and
Mixed
systems
based
on
ICR
and
NRWA
data.
3,301­
9,999
10,000­
49,999
50,000­
249,999
250,000­
999,999
1,000,000­
4,999,999
500­
9,999
10,000­
99,999
<
500
Subpart
H
and
Mixed
CWSs
Subpart
H
and
Mixed
NTNCWSs
100%
Ground
Water
NTNCWSs
(
Disinfecting)
<
500
100%
Ground
Water
CWSs
(
Disinfecting)

 
5
 
<
500
500­
3,300
1,000,000­
4,999,999
Exhibit
8b
Percent
and
Number
of
Producing
Systems
in
Each
IDSE
Category
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
45
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
46
Number
of
Dual
Sample
Sets
per
System
Hours
per
Sample
Sampling
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Laboratory
Cost
per
Sample
Preparation
of
IDSE
Monitoring
Plan
Preparation
of
IDSE
Report
Reporting
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Total
Labor
Cost
Total
Non­
Labor
Cost
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I=
A*(
B*
C*
D
+
(
F+
G)*
H)
J=
A*
E*
B
K=
I+
J
L=
A*(
B*
C+(
F+
G))
M=
L/
2,080
2,060
2
1
22.55
$
240
$
4
2
22.55
$
371,492
$
988,579
$
1,360,071
$
16,476
7.9
3,823
8
1
24.74
$
240
$
4
2
24.74
$
1,324,134
$
7,340,160
$
8,664,294
$
53,522
25.7
1,888
16
1
25.34
$
240
$
4
2
30.51
$
1,111,111
$
7,249,920
$
8,361,031
$
41,536
20.0
1,524
48
1
26.05
$
210
$
8
4
31.08
$
2,474,001
$
15,361,920
$
17,835,921
$
91,440
44.0
436
96
1
28.00
$
210
$
8
8
32.64
$
1,399,727
$
8,789,760
$
10,189,487
$
48,832
23.5
63
144
1
31.26
$
210
$
12
12
35.25
$
336,886
$
1,905,120
$
2,242,006
$
10,584
5.1
14
192
1
31.26
$
210
$
16
24
35.25
$
103,766
$
564,480
$
668,246
$
3,248
1.6
1
240
1
31.26
$
210
$
24
24
35.25
$
9,194
$
50,400
$
59,594
$
288
0.1
9,809
7,130,310
$
42,250,339
$
49,380,649
$
265,926
127.8
752
2
1
22.35
$
240
$
4
2
22.35
$
134,387
$
360,728
$
495,114
$
6,012
2.9
1,956
8
1
24.86
$
240
$
4
2
24.86
$
680,605
$
3,754,716
$
4,435,321
$
27,378
13.2
240
24
1
26.05
$
210
$
8
8
31.08
$
269,110
$
1,208,320
$
1,477,430
$
9,590
4.6
18
32
1
31.26
$
210
$
12
12
35.25
$
32,871
$
119,643
$
152,514
$
997
0.48
1
48
1
31.26
$
210
$
16
24
35.25
$
2,594
$
8,982.86
$
11,576
$
78
0.0
2,966
1,119,567
$
5,452,389
$
6,571,956
$
44,056
21.2
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
4
48
1
26.05
$
210
$
8
4
31.08
$
6,493
$
40,320
$
46,813
$
240
0.1
1
96
1
31.26
$
210
$
8
8
35.25
$
3,565
$
20,160
$
23,725
$
112
0.1
0
144
1
N/
A
210
$
12
12
N/
A
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
­

0
192
1
N/
A
210
$
16
24
N/
A
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
­

0
240
1
N/
A
210
$
24
24
N/
A
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
­

5
10,058
$
60,480
$
70,538
$
352
0.2
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
1
24
1
26.05
$
210
$
8
8
31.08
$
685
$
3,074
$
3,759
$
24
0.0
0
32
1
31.26
$
210
$
12
12
35.25
$
535
$
1,949
$
2,484
$
16
0.0
0
48
1
N/
A
210
$
16
24
N/
A
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
­

1
1,220
$
5,023
$
6,243
$
41
0.0
Grand
Totals
12,780
8,261,155
$
47,768,231
$
56,029,386
$
310,375
149.2
Notes:

Sources:

(
E)
Laboratory
cost
for
TTHM
and
HAA5
analyses
per
sample
based
on
costs
incurred
for
the
ICR.
$
10
Shipping
is
added
for
large
systems
as
many
large
systems
have
in­
house
capacity
and
will
not
have
to
ship.
$
40
is
added
for
small
systems
because
of
higher
shipping
charges
and
less
samples
(
no
bulk
discounts)
(
B)
Number
of
IDSE
samples
per
system
based
on
rule
requirements
for
conducting
IDSE
monitoring.
Column
E
in
Exhibit
1.2(
Number
of
sites
multiplied
by
frequency
of
samples
for
one
year.)

(
C)
Labor
hours
per
sample
reflects
EPA
estimate.
1
FTE=
2,080
hours
(
40
hours/
week;
52
weeks/
year).

(
A)
From
Exhibits
H.
3a
and
H.
3b,
column
E.
1,000,000­
4,999,999
 
5
 
National
Totals
National
Totals
(
F
and
G)
Labor
hours
for
site
selection
and
reporting
based
on
expert
opinion
received
during
regulatory
development
process.

(
H)
Site
selection
and
reporting
labor
rates
estimated
based
on
labor
rates
from
Labor
Costs
for
National
Drinking
Water
Rules
(
USEPA,
2003s)
.
An
80:
20
split
between
technical
and
managerial
labor
rates
was
assumed,
except
for
systems
serving
500
or
fewer
people,
for
which
only
a
technical
rate
was
applied.
(
D)
Sampling
labor
rates
estimated
based
on
technical
labor
rates
from
the
Labor
Costs
for
National
Drinking
Water
Rules
(
USEPA,
2003)
.
Detail
may
not
add
due
to
independent
rounding.

Shaded
areas
represent
systems
that
are
not
subject
to
IDSE
requirements.
<
500
500­
9,999
>
500,000
<
500
500­
3,300
10,000­
99,999
100,000­
499,999
50,000­
249,999
250,000­
999,999
3,301­
9,999
10,000­
49,999
100%
Ground
Water
NTNCWSs
(
Disinfecting)
<
500
500­
9,999
Subpart
H
and
Mixed
NTNCWSs
National
Totals
10,000­
99,999
100,000­
499,999
>
500,000
1,000,000­
4,999,999
 
5
 
National
Totals
100%
Ground
Water
CWSs
(
Disinfecting)
Total
Number
of
Systems
that
Monitor
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)

250,000­
999,999
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)
Sampling
10,000­
49,999
50,000­
249,999
Develop
IDSE
Monitoring
Plan
&
Report
<
500
500­
3,300
3,301­
9,999
Size
Category
Subpart
H
and
Mixed
CWSs
Exhibit
9
IDSE
Costs
Systems
Using
Standard
Monitoring
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
47
Number
of
Systems
Qualifying
for
SSS
Preparation
of
IDSE
Study
Plan
Conduct
Study
Preparation
of
IDSE
Study
Report
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)

A
B
C
D
E
F
=
A*(
B+
C+
D)*
E
G
=
A*(
B+
C+
D)
H
=
G/
2,080
­
­
­
­
­
$
­
$
­
­

­
­
­
­
­
$
­
$
­
­

­
­
­
­
­
$
­
$
­
­

­
­
­
­
­
$
­
$
­
­

23
20
40
20
32.64
$
60,060
$
1,840
0.9
7
20
40
20
35.25
$
19,739
$
560
0.3
1
20
40
20
35.25
$
2,820
$
80
0.0
­
­
­
­
­
$
­
$
­
­
National
Total
31
82,618
$
2,480
1.2
­
­
­
­
­
$
­
$
­
­

­
­
­
­
­
$
­
$
­
­

­
­
­
­
­
$
­
$
­
­

2
20
40
20
35.25
$
5,640
$
160
0.1
­
­
­
­
­
$
­
$
­
­
National
Total
2
5,640
$
160
0.1
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
­
­
­
­
­
$
­
$
­
­

­
­
­
­
­
$
­
$
­
­

­
­
­
­
­
$
­
$
­
­

­
­
­
­
­
$
­
$
­
­

­
­
­
­
­
$
­
$
­
­
National
Total
­
­
$
­
$
­
­

N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
­
­
­
­
­
$
­
$
­
­

­
­
­
­
­
$
­
$
­
­

­
­
­
­
­
$
­
$
­
­

National
Total
­
­
­
­
­
$
­
$
­
­

Grand
Totals
33
­
88,258
$
2,640
1.3
Notes:

Sources:
Shaded
areas
represent
systems
that
are
not
subject
to
IDSE
requirements.

(
A)
Number
of
systems
using
studies
to
satisfy
IDSE
requirements
from
Exhibits
H.
3a
and
H.
3b,
column
G.

(
B),
(
C),
(
D)
Reporting
hours
required
per
system
based
on
expert
opinion.

(
E)
Labor
rates
from
Labor
Costs
for
National
Drinking
Water
Rules
(
USEPA,
2003s).
An
80:
20
split
between
technical
and
managerial
labor
rates
was
assumed,
except
for
systems
serving
500
or
fewer
people,
for
which
only
a
technical
rate
was
applied.
 
5
 
100%
Ground
Water
NTNCWSs
(
Disinfecting)

10,000­
99,999
500­
9,999
100,000­
499,999
>
500,000
Detail
may
not
add
due
to
independent
rounding.
Subpart
H
and
Mixed
NTNCWSs
<
500
500­
3,300
3,301­
9,999
10,000­
49,999
<
500
50,000­
249,999
250,000­
999,999
1,000,000­
4,999,999
500­
9,999
10,000­
99,999
100,000­
499,999
>
500,000
500­
3,300
3,301­
9,999
10,000­
49,999
<
500
50,000­
249,999
250,000­
999,999
 
5
 
1,000,000­
4,999,999
100%
Ground
Water
CWSs
(
Disinfecting)
Size
Category
<
500
Subpart
H
and
Mixed
CWSs
Exhibit
10
IDSE
Costs
for
Systems
Using
SSSs
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
48
Systems
Receiving
40/
30
Certification
but
Adding
Stage
2
site(
s)
Hours
per
System
Number
of
Systems
Receiving
40/
30
Certification
Reporting
Hours
per
System
A
B
C
D
E
F
=
(
A*
B+
C*
D)*
E
G
=
A*
B+
C*
D
H
=
G/
2,080
­
1
­
1
22.55
$
­
$
­
­

­
3
235
1
24.74
$
5,814
$
235
0.1
154
3
154
1
30.51
$
18,795
$
616
0.3
­
8
249
2
31.08
$
15,478
$
498
0.2
75
8
75
2
32.64
$
24,481
$
750
0.4
11
8
11
2
35.25
$
3,877
$
110
0.1
2
8
2
2
35.25
$
705
$
20
0.0
­
8
­
2
35.25
$
­
$
­
­

National
Totals
242
726
69,150
$
2,229
1.1
­
1
­
1
22.35
$
­
$
­
­

9,094
3
9,094
1
24.86
$
904,287
$
36,376
17.5
1,118
8
1,118
2
31.08
$
347,474
$
11,180
5.4
­
8
40
2
35.25
$
2,820
$
80
0.0
­
8
5
2
35.25
$
352
$
10
0.0
National
Totals
10,212
10,257
1,254,934
$
47,646
22.9
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
­
8
1
2
31.08
$
62
$
2
0.0
­
8
­
2
35.25
$
­
$
­
­

­
8
­
2
N/
A
­
$
­
­

­
8
­
2
N/
A
­
$
­
­

­
8
­
2
N/
A
­
$
­
­

National
Totals
­
1
62
$
2
0.0
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
3
8
3
2
31.08
$
932
$
30
0.0
­
8
­
3
35.25
$
­
$
­
­

­
8
­
6
N/
A
­
$
­
­

National
Totals
3
3
932
$
30
0.0
Grand
Totals
10,457
10,987
1,325,079
$
49,907
24.0
Notes:
Sources:

(
C)
Number
of
systems
that
qualify
for
40/
30
certification
from
Exhibit
H.
3a
and
H.
3b,
column
F.

(
D)
Reporting
hours
are
based
on
best
professional
judgement
and
experience
with
similar
rules.

(
E)
Labor
rates
from
Labor
Costs
for
National
Drinking
Water
Rules
(
USEPA,
2003s).
An
80:
20
split
between
technical
and
managerial
labor
rates
was
assumed,
except
for
systems
serving
500
or
fewer
people,
for
which
only
a
technical
rate
was
applied.
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)

(
A)
Number
of
systems
less
than
or
equal
to
40/
30
from
Exhibit
H.
3a
and
H.
3b
(
column
F)
for
only
those
system
size
categories
that
are
predicted
to
have
additional
routine
monitoring
from
Stage
1
to
Stage
2
(
see
Exhibit
H.
8a,
column
I).

(
B)
Hours
per
system
required
to
select
new
sites
for
Stage
2
based
on
expert
opinion.
10,000­
99,999
100,000­
499,999
>
500,000
Shaded
areas
represent
systems
that
are
not
subject
to
IDSE
requirements.
50,000­
249,999
250,000­
999,999
 
5
 
1,000,000­
4,999,999
100%
Ground
Water
NTNCWSs
(
Disinfecting)

<
500
500­
9,999
<
500
500­
3,300
3,301­
9,999
10,000­
49,999
Subpart
H
and
Mixed
NTNCWSs
<
500
500­
9,999
10,000­
99,999
100,000­
499,999
>
500,000
500­
3,300
10,000­
49,999
50,000­
249,999
3,301­
9,999
Size
Category
Selecting
additional
sites
Preparing
IDSE
Report
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Total
Cost
Subpart
H
and
Mixed
CWSs
<
500
100%
Ground
Water
CWSs
(
Disinfecting)
250,000­
999,999
1,000,000­
4,999,999
 
5
 
Exhibit
11
IDSE
Costs
for
Systems
Receiving
the
40/
30
Certification
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
49
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
=
F*((
A+
B)*
D
+
B*
E)
H
=
(
A+
B)*
D
+
B*
E
G
=
H/
2080
2,060
1,237
­
5
2
22.55
$
287,984
$
12,773
6.1
4,058
­
­
5
­
24.74
$
501,975
$
20,290
9.8
2,042
­
­
5
­
25.34
$
258,721
$
10,210
4.9
1,773
­
­
10
­
26.05
$
461,867
$
17,730
8.5
534
­
­
10
­
28.00
$
149,527
$
5,340
2.6
81
­
­
15
­
31.26
$
37,981
$
1,215
0.6
17
­
­
20
­
31.26
$
10,628
$
340
0.2
1
­
­
30
­
31.26
$
938
$
30
0.0
10,566
1,237
­
1,709,621
$
67,928
32.7
752
17,005
793
5
2
22.35
$
932,815
$
41,732
20.1
11,050
­
237
5
­
24.86
$
1,402,853
$
56,431
27.1
1,358
­
11
10
­
26.05
$
356,494
$
13,685
6.6
60
­
2
15
­
31.26
$
28,822
$
922
0.4
6
­
0
20
­
31.26
$
3,735
$
119
0.1
13,225
17,005
1,042
2,724,718
$
112,890
54.3
­
548
­
5
2
22.39
$
24,544
$
1,096
0.5
­
199
­
5
2
24.74
$
9,847
$
398
0.2
­
24
­
5
2
25.34
$
1,216
$
48
0.0
5
­
­
10
­
26.05
$
1,303
$
50
0.0
1
­
­
10
­
31.26
$
313
$
10
0.0
­
­
­
15
­
N/
A
­
$
­
­

­
­
­
20
­
N/
A
­
$
­
­

­
­
­
30
­
N/
A
­
$
­
­

6
771
­
37,222
$
1,602
0.8
Disinfecting
Ground
Water
Only
NTNCWSs
­
4,622
1,241
5
2
22.20
$
342,966
$
15,449
7.4
­
858
268
5
2
24.76
$
75,586
$
3,053
1.5
3
­
1
10
­
26.05
$
1,247
$
48
0.0
0
­
0
15
­
31.26
$
192
$
6
0.0
­
­
­
20
­
N/
A
­
$
­
­

4
5,480
1,510
419,990
$
18,556
8.9
Grand
Totals
23,800
24,493
2,552
4,891,552
$
200,975
96.6
Notes:

Sources:
>
500,000
National
Totals
Detail
may
not
add
due
to
independent
rounding.

Shaded
areas
represent
systems
that
are
not
subject
to
IDSE
requirements.
<
500
500­
9,999
1
FTE=
2,080
hours
(
40
hours/
week;
52
weeks/
year).

(
A)
Exhibit
H.
1
Column
K
minus
systems
receiving
small
system
waivers
from
column
B
in
this
Exhibit
(
B)
From
Exhibit
H.
3a
and
H.
3b,
colulmn
A
minus
columns
E,
F,
and
G
(
C),
(
D)
Labor
hours
based
on
a
one
half
the
hours
required
to
prepare
the
IDSE
report.
10,000­
99,999
100,000­
499,999
250,000­
999,999
1,000,000­
4,999,999
 
5
 
National
Totals
500­
3,300
3,301­
9,999
10,000­
49,999
50,000­
249,999
>
500,000
National
Totals
Surface
Water
and
Mixed
NTNCWSs
<
500
<
500
500­
9,999
10,000­
99,999
100,000­
499,999
1,000,000­
4,999,999
 
5
 
National
Totals
Disinfecting
Ground
Water
Only
CWSs
3,301­
9,999
10,000­
49,999
50,000­
249,999
250,000­
999,999
<
500
500­
3,300
Hours
to
Update
Exisiting
Stage
1
Monitoring
Plan
Labor
Cost
Size
Category
Number
Systems
Performing
IDSE,
SSS,
or
40/
30
Certification
Number
of
Systems
Receiving
Very
Small
System
Waiver
or
Small
NTNCWS
Hours
to
Prepare
Stage
2
Monitoring
Plan
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)

Surface
Water
and
Mixed
CWSs
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
hours)
Number
of
Systems
Adding
Disinfection
for
the
GWR
Preparing
Monitoring
Plans
Exhibit
12
Monitoring
Plan
Costs
for
Systems
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
50
A
B
C=
A*
B
D
E
=
C*
D
F
G
Subpart
H
and
Mixed
CWSs
3,297
1.2
3,989
1
3,989
1
3,297
4,058
1.2
4,951
4
19,803
4
16,232
2,042
1.6
3,186
4
12,742
8
16,336
1,773
1.4
2,429
16
38,864
16
28,368
534
1.8
977
16
15,636
32
17,088
81
2.5
205
16
3,279
48
3,888
17
3.5
60
16
960
64
1,088
1
3.5
4
16
56
80
80
National
Totals
11,803
15,800
95,330
86,377
100%
Ground
Water
CWSs
(
Disinfecting)
17,756
1.0
17,756
1
17,756
1
17,756
11,050
1.5
16,795
1
16,795
2
22,099
1,358
3.9
5,336
1
5,336
16
21,724
60
7.3
438
4
1,752
24
1,434
6
17.0
100
4
401
32
189
National
Totals
30,229
40,426
42,041
63,202
Subpart
H
and
Mixed
NTNCWSs
548
1.0
548
1
548
1
548
199
1.0
199
4
796
4
796
24
1.0
24
4
96
8
192
5
1.0
5
16
80
16
80
1
1.0
1
16
16
32
32
­
1.0
­
16
­
48
­

­
1.0
­
16
­
64
­

­
1.0
­
16
­
80
­

National
Totals
777
777
1,536
1,648
100%
Ground
Water
NTNCWSs
(
Disinfecting)
4,622
1.0
4,622
1
4,622
1
4,622
858
1.0
858
1
858
2
1,716
3
1.0
3
1
3
16
56
0
1.0
0
4
1
24
7
­
1.0
­
4
­
32
­

National
Totals
5,483
5,483
5,484
6,400
Grand
Totals
48,293
62,487
144,390
157,627
Notes:
Detail
may
not
added
due
to
independent
rounding.

Sources:

(
See
Percent
of
Systems
with
High
TTHM
&
HAA5
at
Same
Location.
xls).
Total
Stage
1
Samples
<
500
500­
9,999
500­
3,300
10,000­
49,999
50,000­
249,999
250,000­
999,999
3,301­
9,999
<
500
500­
9,999
10,000­
99,999
>
500,000
100,000­
499,999
<
500
250,000­
999,999
1,000,000­
4,999,999
 
5
 
500­
3,300
10,000­
49,999
50,000­
249,999
3,301­
9,999
<
500
Size
Category
Stage
2
Sampling
Routine
Samples
Per
System
Total
Stage
2
Samples
Total
Systems
Plants
Per
System
Total
Plants
Stage
1
Sampling
Routine
Samples
Per
Plant
1,000,000­
4,999,999
 
5
 
100,000­
499,999
10,000­
99,999
(
A)
Number
of
systems
from
Exhibit
H.
1
(
column
K).

(
B)
Number
of
plants
per
system
based
on
2000
CWSS
question
18.
>
500,000
Systems
will
incur
routine
monitoring
costs
only
for
sites
and
samples
that
are
required
beyond
those
required
under
the
Stage
1
DBPR
(
i.
e.,
systems
that,
as
a
result
of
the
IDSE,
only
move
sample
sites
will
incur
no
additional
costs).

1
FTE
=
2,080
hours
(
40
hours/
week;
52
weeks/
year).

(
D)
Routine
samples
per
plant
from
the
Stage
1
Rule
(
USEPA
1998a).

(
F)
Number
of
routine
samples
per
system
based
on
Stage
2
rule
requirements
(
population­
based
approach).
Number
of
samples
may
be
less
for
SW
systems
serving
<
5,000
and
GW
systems
serving
<
500
if
high
TTHM
and
HAA5
locations
are
the
same.
Exhibit
13a
System
Costs
for
Additional
Routine
Monitoring
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
51
I
=
H­
E
J
K
L
M
N
=
I*
J*
L
O
=
A*
K*
J*
L
P
=
I*
M
Q
=
N
+
O
+
P
R
=
(
O+
N)/
L
S
=
R/
2080
Subpart
H
and
Mixed
CWSs
(
692)
1
32%
22.55
$
240
$
(
15,611)
$
23,455
$
(
166,169)
$
(
158,325)
$
348
0.2
(
3,571)
1
30%
24.74
$
240
$
(
88,348)
$
29,730
$
(
857,050)
$
(
915,667)
$
(
2,369)
(
1.1)

3,594
1
0%
25.34
$
240
$
91,070
$
­
$
862,541
$
953,611
$
3,594
1.7
(
10,496)
1
0%
26.05
$
210
$
(
273,425)
$
­
$
(
2,204,194)
$
(
2,477,619)
$
(
10,496)
(
5.0)

1,452
1
0%
28.00
$
210
$
40,671
$
­
$
305,021
$
345,692
$
1,452
0.7
609
1
0%
31.26
$
210
$
19,041
$
­
$
127,915
$
146,956
$
609
0.3
128
1
0%
31.26
$
210
$
3,996
$
­
$
26,846
$
30,843
$
128
0.1
24
1
0%
31.26
$
210
$
735
$
­
$
4,939
$
5,674
$
24
0.0
National
Totals
(
8,953)
(
221,869)
$
53,185
$
(
1,900,150)
$
(
2,068,834)
$
(
6,711)
(
3.2)

100%
Ground
Water
CWSs
(
Disinfecting)

0
1
2%
22.35
$
240
$
­
$
8,485
$
­
$
8,485
$
380
0.2
5,304
1
0%
24.86
$
240
$
131,850
$
­
$
1,272,912
$
1,404,761
$
5,304
2.5
16,388
1
0%
26.05
$
210
$
426,907
$
­
$
3,441,479
$
3,868,386
$
16,388
7.9
(
318)
1
0%
31.26
$
210
$
(
9,940)
$
­
$
(
66,773)
$
(
76,712)
$
(
318)
(
0.2)

(
212)
1
0%
31.26
$
210
$
(
6,630)
$
­
$
(
44,537)
$
(
51,167)
$
(
212)
(
0.1)

National
Totals
21,162
542,188
$
8,485
$
4,603,081
$
5,153,753
$
21,541
10.4
Subpart
H
and
Mixed
NTNCWSs
0
1
0%
22.39
$
240
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
0
0.0
0
1
0%
24.74
$
240
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
0
0.0
96
1
0%
25.34
$
240
$
2,433
$
­
$
23,040
$
25,473
$
96
0.0
0
1
0%
26.05
$
210
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
0
0.0
16
1
0%
31.26
$
210
$
500
$
­
$
3,360
$
3,860
$
16
0.0
0
1
0%
N/
A
210
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
0
0.0
0
1
0%
N/
A
210
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
0
0.0
0
1
0%
N/
A
210
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
0
0.0
National
Totals
112
2,933
$
­
$
26,400
$
29,333
$
112
0.1
100%
Ground
Water
NTNCWSs
(
Disinfecting)

0
1
0%
22.20
$
240
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
0
0.0
858
1
0%
24.76
$
240
$
21,235
$
­
$
205,877
$
227,112
$
858
0.4
52
1
0%
26.05
$
210
$
1,360
$
­
$
10,962
$
12,322
$
52
0.0
6
1
0%
31.26
$
210
$
181
$
­
$
1,218
$
1,399
$
6
0.0
0
1
0%
N/
A
210
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
0
0.0
National
Totals
916
22,776
$
­
$
218,057
$
240,833
$
916
0.4
Grand
Totals
13,237
346,027
$
61,670
$
2,947,388
$
3,355,085
$
15,858
7.6
Notes:
Detail
may
not
added
due
to
independent
rounding.

FTE
=
2,080
hours
(
40
hours/
week;
52
weeks/
year).

Sources:
(
J)
Labor
hours
per
sample
reflects
EPA
estimate.

(
L)
Technical
labor
rates
from
Labor
Costs
for
National
Drinking
Water
Rules
(
USEPA,
2003s).

(
M)
Laboratory
cost
for
TTHM
and
HAA5
analyses
per
sample
based
on
costs
incurred
for
the
ICR.
(
K)
Estimated
percent
of
systems
that
will
have
only
one
sampling
site
because
their
high
TTHM
and
HAA5
site
occur
at
the
same
location
based
on
analysis
of
Information
Collection
Rule
data
from
4
distribution
system
locations
.
Percent
of
Systems
with
Separate
TTHM
and
HAA5
Sites
Additional
Labor
Costs
for
Systems
with
Two
Sites
<
500
500­
3,300
3,301­
9,999
10,000­
49,999
 
5
 
50,000­
249,999
250,000­
999,999
1,000,000­
4,999,999
Annual
Total
Cost
Annual
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Additional
Samples
Required
for
Stage
2
Monitoring
Hours
per
Sample
Size
Category
Annual
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)
Sampling
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Cost
per
Sample
Total
Labor
Cost
Total
O&
M
Cost
<
500
500­
9,999
 
5
 
<
500
500­
9,999
10,000­
99,999
100,000­
499,999
>
500,000
<
500
500­
3,300
3,301­
9,999
10,000­
49,999
50,000­
249,999
250,000­
999,999
1,000,000­
4,999,999
10,000­
99,999
100,000­
499,999
>
500,000
Systems
will
incur
routine
monitoring
costs
only
for
sites
and
samples
that
are
required
beyond
those
required
under
the
Stage
1
DBPR
(
i.
e.,
systems
that,
as
a
result
of
the
IDSE,
only
move
sample
sites
will
incur
no
additional
costs).

1
Columns
N
and
O
for
SW
<
3,300
and
GW
<
500
adds
in
an
hour
extra
sampling
time
for
systems
which
only
take
1
dual
sample
but
at
two
different
sites.
This
additional
labor
is
calculated
by
Exhibit
13a
System
Costs
for
Additional
Routine
Monitoring
(
continued)
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
52
A
B
C
D
E
F
=
A*
B*(
C*
D+
E)
G
=
A*
B*
C
H
=
G/
2080
­
1
1
22.55
$
240
$
­
$
­
­

­
4
1
24.74
$
240
$
­
$
­
­

­
8
1
25.34
$
240
$
­
$
­
­

­
16
1
26.05
$
210
$
­
$
­
­

­
32
1
28.00
$
210
$
­
$
­
­

­
48
1
31.26
$
210
$
­
$
­
­

­
64
1
31.26
$
210
$
­
$
­
­

­
80
1
31.26
$
210
$
­
$
­
­

National
Totals
­
­
$
­
­

793
1
1
22.35
$
240
$
208,026
$
793
0.38
237
2
1
24.86
$
240
$
125,379
$
473
0.23
11
16
1
26.05
$
210
$
40,611
$
172
0.08
2
24
1
31.26
$
210
$
9,834
$
41
0.02
0
32
1
31.26
$
210
$
645
$
3
0.00
National
Totals
1,042
384,494
$
1,482
0.71
­
1
1
22.39
$
240
$
­
$
­
­

­
4
1
24.74
$
240
$
­
$
­
­

­
8
1
25.34
$
240
$
­
$
­
­

­
16
1
26.05
$
210
$
­
$
­
­

­
32
1
31.26
$
210
$
­
$
­
­

­
48
1
N/
A
210
$
­
$
­
­

­
64
1
N/
A
210
$
­
$
­
­

­
80
1
N/
A
210
$
­
$
­
­

National
Totals
­
­
$
­
­

1,241
1
1
22.20
$
240
$
325,412
$
1,241
0.60
268
2
1
24.76
$
240
$
141,666
$
535
0.26
1
16
1
26.05
$
210
$
4,938
$
21
0.01
0
24
1
31.26
$
210
$
686
$
3
0.00
­
32
1
N/
A
210
$
­
$
­
0.00
National
Totals
1,510
472,703
$
1,800
0.87
Grand
Totals
2,552
857,197
$
3,282
1.58
Size
Category
Number
of
Systems
Increasing
Disinfectant
Dose
for
GWR
Increased
Number
of
Samples
per
System
from
Stage
1
DBPR
to
Stage
2
DBPR
Hours
Per
Sample
Sampling
Cost
Per
Labor
Hour
Cost
Per
Sample
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)

Surface
Water
and
Mixed
CWSs
<
500
500­
3,300
3,301­
9,999
10,000­
49,999
50,000­
249,999
250,000­
999,999
1,000,000­
4,999,999
 
5
 
Disinfecting
Ground
Water
Only
CWSs
<
500
500­
9,999
10,000­
99,999
100,000­
499,999
>
500,000
Surface
Water
and
Mixed
NTNCWSs
<
500
500­
3,300
3,301­
9,999
10,000­
49,999
500­
9,999
10,000­
99,999
50,000­
249,999
250,000­
999,999
1,000,000­
4,999,999
 
5
 
(
C)
Labor
hours
per
sample
reflects
EPA
estimate.

(
D)
Technical
labor
rates
from
Labor
Costs
for
National
Drinking
Water
Rules
(
USEPA,
2003s).

(
E)
Laboratory
cost
for
TTHM
and
HAA5
analyses
per
sample
based
on
costs
incurred
for
the
ICR.
Total
Costs
100,000­
499,999
>
500,000
(
A)
Ground
Water
Rule
EA,
Exhibit
6.21
(
B)
Calculated
from
Exhibit
H.
8
using
the
formula
(
F*(
1­
G)+
F*
G/
2)
­
B*
D
Disinfecting
Ground
Water
Only
NTNCWSs
<
500
Exhibit
13b
System
Costs
for
Routine
Monitoring
for
Systems
Adding
Disinfection
to
Comply
with
the
GWR
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
53
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
54
A
B
C
D
E
F=
E/
2080
(
692)
7,844
$
(
166,169)
$
(
158,325)
$
348
0.2
(
3,571)
(
58,617)
$
(
857,050)
$
(
915,667)
$
(
2,369)
(
1.1)

3,594
91,070
$
862,541
$
953,611
$
3,594
1.7
(
10,496)
(
273,425)
$
(
2,204,194)
$
(
2,477,619)
$
(
10,496)
(
5.0)

1,452
40,671
$
305,021
$
345,692
$
1,452
0.7
609
19,041
$
127,915
$
146,956
$
609
0.3
128
3,996
$
26,846
$
30,843
$
128
0.1
24
735
$
4,939
$
5,674
$
24
0.0
National
Totals
(
8,953)
(
168,684)
$
(
1,900,150)
$
(
2,068,834)
$
(
6,711)
(
3.2)

793
26,209
$
190,302
$
216,511
$
1,173
0.6
5,777
143,617
$
1,386,523
$
1,530,140
$
5,777
2.8
16,560
431,389
$
3,477,608
$
3,908,997
$
16,560
8.0
(
277)
(
8,665)
$
(
58,213)
$
(
66,879)
$
(
277)
(
0.1)

(
209)
(
6,546)
$
(
43,976)
$
(
50,522)
$
(
209)
(
0.1)

National
Totals
22,644
586,004
$
4,952,244
$
5,538,247
$
23,023
11.1
­
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
­

­
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
­

96
2,433
$
23,040
$
25,473
$
96
0.0
­
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
­

16
500
$
3,360
$
3,860
$
16
0.0
­
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
­

­
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
­

­
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
­

National
Totals
112
2,933
$
26,400
$
29,333
$
112
0.1
1,241
27,552
$
297,860
$
325,412
$
1,241
0.6
1,393
34,481
$
334,297
$
368,779
$
1,393
0.7
73
1,905
$
15,355
$
17,260
$
73
0.0
9
270
$
1,815
$
2,085
$
9
0.0
­
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
­

National
Totals
2,716
64,208
$
649,328
$
713,536
$
2,716
1.3
Grand
Totals
16,519
484,461
$
3,727,822
$
4,212,282
$
19,140
9.2
Note:

Sources:
Surface
Water
and
Mixed
CWSs
<
500
500­
3,300
Total
Costs
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)

Size
Category
Total
Additional
Compliance
Samples
per
Year
Total
Labor
Costs
Total
Sampling
Costs
3,301­
9,999
10,000­
49,999
50,000­
249,999
250,000­
999,999
1,000,000­
4,999,999
 
5
 
Disinfecting
Ground
Water
Only
CWSs
<
500
500­
9,999
10,000­
99,999
100,000­
499,999
>
500,000
Surface
Water
and
Mixed
NTNCWSs
<
500
500­
3,300
3,301­
9,999
10,000­
49,999
50,000­
249,999
250,000­
999,999
1,000,000­
4,999,999
 
5
 
Disinfecting
Ground
Water
Only
NTNCWSs
<
500
500­
9,999
10,000­
99,999
100,000­
499,999
>
500,000
(
A)
Shows
the
difference
in
total
compliance
monitoring
samples
from
Stage
1
to
Stage
2
for
disinfecting
systems
and
systms
predicted
to
install
disinfection
for
the
GWR.
For
disinfecting
systems,
derived
from
Exhibit
H.
8a,
column
I.
For
systems
installing
disinfection
for
the
GWR,
derived
from
Exhibit
H.
8b,
product
of
columns
A
and
B.

(
A)
sum
of
column
I
from
Exhibit
H.
8a
and
column
(
A)
times
column
(
B)
from
Exhibit
H.
8b
(
B)
­
(
E)
Summed
from
tables
H.
8a
­
H.
8b.
Exhibit
13c
Total
System
Costs
for
Routine
Monitoring
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
55
Estimated
No.
of
Locations/
yr
that
exceed
Operational
Evaluation
Levels
Reporting
Hours
per
Operational
Evaluation
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)

A
B
C
D
=
A*
B*
C
E
=
A*
B
F=
E/
2,080
12
6
22.55
$
1,623
$
72
0.0
28
12
24.74
$
8,313
$
336
0.2
57
12
30.51
$
20,870
$
684
0.3
199
16
31.08
$
98,959
$
3,184
1.5
120
16
32.64
$
62,671
$
1,920
0.9
27
16
35.25
$
15,227
$
432
0.2
8
16
35.25
$
4,512
$
128
0.1
1
16
35.25
$
564
$
16
0.0
452
212,739
$
6,772
3.3
­
6
22.35
$
­
$
­
­

­
12
24.86
$
­
$
­
­

­
16
31.08
$
­
$
­
­

­
16
35.25
$
­
$
­
­

­
16
35.25
$
­
$
­
­

­
­
$
­
­

­
6
22.39
$
­
$
­
­

­
12
24.74
$
­
$
­
­

­
12
30.51
$
­
$
­
­

­
16
31.08
$
­
$
­
­

­
16
35.25
$
­
$
­
­

­
16
­
$
­
$
­
­

­
16
­
$
­
$
­
­

­
16
­
$
­
$
­
­

­
­
$
­
­

­
2
22.20
$
­
$
­
­

­
2
24.76
$
­
$
­
­

­
3
31.08
$
­
$
­
­

­
3
35.25
$
­
$
­
­

­
3
­
$
­
$
­
­

­
­
$
­
­

452
­
­
212,739
$
6,772
3.3
Notes:

Sources:
Size
Category
>
500,000
250,000­
999,999
 
5
 
10,000­
49,999
National
Totals
500­
9,999
10,000­
99,999
<
500
1,000,000­
4,999,999
250,000­
999,999
1,000,000­
4,999,999
<
500
3,301­
9,999
National
Totals
<
500
(
A)
Exhibit
H.
10,
column
D.
National
Totals
Grand
Totals
1
FTE
=
2,080
hours
(
40
hours/
week;
52
weeks/
year).
Detail
may
not
add
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.
50,000­
249,999
National
Totals
500­
9,999
<
500
500­
3,300
10,000­
49,999
50,000­
249,999
3,301­
9,999
 
5
 
500­
3,300
100,000­
499,999
(
C)
Labor
rates
from
the
Labor
Costs
for
National
Drinking
Water
Rules
(
USEPA,
2003s).
An
80:
20
split
between
technical
and
managerial
labor
rates
was
assumed,
except
for
systems
serving
500
or
fewer
people,
for
which
only
a
technical
rate
was
applied.
(
B)
Hours
estimated
by
EPA
to
complete
Operational
Evaluations.
EPA
expects
it
to
take
less
time
for
small
systems
given
they
have
simpler
distribution
systems.
Surface
Water
and
Mixed
CWSs
Disinfecting
Ground
Water
Only
CWSs
Disinfecting
Ground
Water
Only
NTNCWSs
Surface
Water
and
Mixed
NTNCWSs
100,000­
499,999
>
500,000
10,000­
99,999
Exhibit
14
Significant
Excursion
Costs
for
100
Percent
Purchasing
Systems
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
56
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
FTEs
per
State
Hours
per
State
Cost
per
State
National
Total
FTEs
National
Total
Hours
National
Total
Cost
A
B
C=
B*
2,080
D=
A*
C
E=
B*
57
F=
C*
57
G=
D*
57
Implementation
Activities
Public
Notification
33.60
$
0.10
208
6,989
$
5.7
11,856
398,362
$
Regulation
Adoption
and
Program
Development
33.60
$
0.50
1,040
34,944
$
28.5
59,280
1,991,808
$
Training
State
Staff
33.60
$
0.25
520
17,472
$
14.3
29,640
995,904
$
Training
PWS
Staff
and
Technical
Assistants
33.60
$
1.00
2,080
69,888
$
57.0
118,560
3,983,616
$

Updating
Data
Management
System
33.60
$
0.10
208
6,989
$
5.7
11,856
398,362
$
Totals
1.95
4,056
136,282
$
111.2
231,192
7,768,051
$

Annual
Routine
Monitoring
Activities
Recordkeeping
and
Compliance
Tracking
33.60
$
0.40
832
27,955
$
22.8
47,424
1,593,446
$

Totals
0.40
832
27,955
$
22.8
47,424
1,593,446
$

Grand
Totals
2.35
4,888
164,237
134.0
278,616
9,361,498
Notes:

Sources:

(
B)
FTEs
per
State/
Primacy
Agency
based
on
EPA
experience
with
previous
regulations.
All
states/
primacy
agencies
are
assumed
to
incur
some
costs
for
each
activity.

(
A)
State
labor
rates
based
on
the
State
Workload
Model,
updated
to
year
2003
dollar
values.
Exhibit
15
State
Costs
for
Rule
Implementation
and
Routine
Monitoring
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
57
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
58
A
B
C
D
=
A*
B*
C
E
=
D/
57
F
=
A*
B
Surface
Water
and
Mixed
CWSs
3,297
­
33.60
$
­
$
­
$
­

4,058
­
33.60
$
­
$
­
$
­

2,042
4
33.60
$
274,445
$
4,815
$
8,168
1,773
8
33.60
$
476,582
$
8,361
$
14,184
534
8
33.60
$
143,539
$
2,518
$
4,272
81
8
33.60
$
21,773
$
382
$
648
17
8
33.60
$
4,570
$
80
$
136
1
8
33.60
$
269
$
5
$
8
National
Totals
11,803
921,178
$
16,161
$
27,416
Ground
Water
Only
CWSs
18,549
­
33.60
$
­
$
­
$
­

11,286
­
33.60
$
­
$
­
$
­

1,368
­
33.60
$
­
$
­
$
­

61
­
33.60
$
­
$
­
$
­

6
­
33.60
$
­
$
­
$
­

National
Totals
31,271
­
$
­
$
­

Surface
Water
and
Mixed
NTNCWSs
548
­
33.60
$
­
$
­
$
­

199
­
33.60
$
­
$
­
$
­

24
4
33.60
$
3,226
$
57
$
96
5
8
33.60
$
1,344
$
24
$
40
1
8
33.60
$
269
$
5
$
8
­
8
33.60
$
­
$
­
$
­

­
8
33.60
$
­
$
­
$
­

­
8
33.60
$
­
$
­
$
­

National
Totals
777
4,838
$
85
$
48
Disinfecting
Ground
Water
Only
NTNCWSs
5,863
­
33.60
$
­
$
­
$
­

1,125
­
33.60
$
­
$
­
$
­

5
­
33.60
$
­
$
­
$
­

0
­
33.60
$
­
$
­
$
­

­
­
33.60
$
­
$
­
$
­

National
Totals
6,993
­
$
­
$
­

Grand
Totals
50,845
926,016
$
16,246
$
27,464
Notes:

Sources:

[
A]

[
B]
[
C]
10,000­
99,999
100,000­
499,999
State
labor
rates
based
on
the
State
Workload
Model,
updated
to
year
2003
dollar
values.
From
EPA
experience
with
other
regulations.
From
column
A
in
Exhibit
H.
7
>
500,000
<
500
500­
9,999
<
500
500­
3,300
3,301­
9,999
10,000­
49,999
50,000­
249,999
250,000­
999,999
1,000,000­
4,999,999
 
5
 
500­
9,999
10,000­
99,999
100,000­
499,999
>
500,000
250,000­
999,999
1,000,000­
4,999,999
 
5
 
<
500
500­
3,300
3,301­
9,999
10,000­
49,999
50,000­
249,999
Average
Total
Costs
to
States
Average
Total
Costs
per
State
Total
Burden
<
500
Size
Category
Number
of
Systems
Conducting
Monitoring
Plan,
by
Category
Number
of
Hours
to
Review
Monitoring
Plans
per
System
Average
State
Employee
Hourly
Wage
Exhibit
16
State
Costs
for
Monitoring
Plans
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
59
Number
of
Systems
Conducting
IDSE,
by
Category
Standard
Monitoring
Program
System­
Specific
Study
40/
30
Certification
Standard
Monitoring
Program
System­
Specific
Study
40/
30
Certification
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
=
G*(
A*
D+
B*
E+
C*
F)
I
=
H
/
57
J
K
Surface
Water
and
Mixed
CWSs
2,060
­
­
4
4
1
33.60
$
276,802
$
4,856
$
8,238
144.5
3,823
­
235
4
4
1
33.60
$
517,759
$
9,083
$
15,410
270.3
1,888
­
154
4
4
1
33.60
$
256,334
$
4,497
$
7,629
133.8
1,524
­
249
8
8
1
33.60
$
413,834
$
7,260
$
12,317
216.1
436
23
75
8
8
1
33.60
$
124,639
$
2,187
$
3,710
65.1
63
7
11
10
12
1
33.60
$
24,175
$
424
$
720
12.6
14
1
2
12
16
1
33.60
$
6,216
$
109
$
185
3.2
1
­
­
12
16
1
33.60
$
403
$
7
$
12
0.2
National
Totals
9,809
31
726
1,620,164
$
28,424
$
48,219
846.0
Ground
Water
Only
CWSs
752
­
­
4
4
1
33.60
$
101,004
$
1,772
$
3,006
52.7
1,956
­
9,094
4
4
1
33.60
$
415,609
$
7,291
$
12,369
217.0
240
­
1,118
8
8
1
33.60
$
83,226
$
1,460
$
2,477
43.5
18
2
40
8
8
1
33.60
$
5,995
$
105
$
178
3.1
1
­
5
12
16
1
33.60
$
443
$
8
$
13
0.2
National
Totals
2,966
2
10,257
606,278
$
10,636
$
18,044
316.6
Surface
Water
and
Mixed
NTNCWSs
­
­
­
­
­
­­
­
­
­
­

­
­
­
­
­
­­
­
­
­
­

­
­
­
­
­
­­
­
­
­
­

4
­
1
8
8
1
33.60
$
1,092
$
19
$
33
0.6
1
­
­
8
8
1
33.60
$
269
$
5
$
8
0.1
­
­
­
10
12
1
33.60
$
­
$
­
$
­
­

­
­
­
12
16
1
33.60
$
­
$
­
$
­
­

­
­
­
12
16
1
33.60
$
­
$
­
$
­
­

National
Totals
5
­
1
1,361
$
24
$
41
0.7
Disinfecting
Ground
Water
Only
NTNCWSs
­
­
­
­
­
­­
­
­
­
­

­
­
­
­
­
­­
­
­
­
­

1
­
3
8
8
1
33.60
$
214
$
4
$
6
0.1
0
­
­
8
8
1
33.60
$
78
$
1
$
2
0.0
­
­
­
12
16
1
33.60
$
­
$
­
$
­
­

National
Totals
1
­
3
292
$
5
$
9
0.2
Grand
Totals
12,780
33
10,987
2,228,095
$
39,089
$
66,312
1,163.4
Sources:

A,
B,
C
From
columns
E,
F,
and
G
in
Exhibits
H.
3a
and
H.
3b
D,
E,
F
From
EPA
experience
with
other
regulations.
>
500,000
<
500
500­
9,999
10,000­
99,999
100,000­
499,999
50,000­
249,999
250,000­
999,999
1,000,000­
4,999,999
 
5
 
<
500
500­
3,300
3,301­
9,999
10,000­
49,999
500­
9,999
10,000­
99,999
100,000­
499,999
>
500,000
250,000­
999,999
1,000,000­
4,999,999
 
5
 
<
500
500­
3,300
3,301­
9,999
10,000­
49,999
50,000­
249,999
Average
Total
Costs
per
State
Total
Burden
Average
Burden/
State
<
500
Size
Category
Number
of
Hours
to
Work
with
Systems
on
IDSE
and
Review
IDSE
Reports
Average
State
Employee
Hourly
Wage
Average
Total
Costs
to
States
Exhibit
17
State
Costs
for
IDSE
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
60
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
61
A
B
C
D
=
A*
B*
C
E
=
D/
57
F
=
A*
B
Surface
Water
and
Mixed
CWSs
12
4
33.60
$
1,613
$
28
$
48
28
6
33.60
$
5,645
$
99
$
168
57
6
33.60
$
11,491
$
202
$
342
199
8
33.60
$
53,491
$
938
$
1,592
120
8
33.60
$
32,256
$
566
$
960
27
8
33.60
$
7,258
$
127
$
216
8
8
33.60
$
2,150
$
38
$
64
1
8
33.60
$
269
$
5
$
8
National
Totals
452
114,173
$
2,003
$
3,398
Ground
Water
Only
CWSs
­
4
33.60
$
­
$
­
$
­

­
6
33.60
$
­
$
­
$
­

­
8
33.60
$
­
$
­
$
­

­
8
33.60
$
­
$
­
$
­

­
8
33.60
$
­
$
­
$
­

National
Totals
­
­
$
­
$
­

Surface
Water
and
Mixed
NTNCWSs
­
4
33.60
$
­
$
­
$
­

­
6
33.60
$
­
$
­
$
­

­
6
33.60
$
­
$
­
$
­

­
8
33.60
$
­
$
­
$
­

­
8
33.60
$
­
$
­
$
­

­
8
33.60
$
­
$
­
$
­

­
8
33.60
$
­
$
­
$
­

­
8
33.60
$
­
$
­
$
­

National
Totals
­
­
$
­
$
­

Disinfecting
Ground
Water
Only
NTNCWSs
­
4
33.60
$
­
$
­
$
­

­
6
33.60
$
­
$
­
$
­

­
8
33.60
$
­
$
­
$
­

­
8
33.60
$
­
$
­
$
­

­
8
33.60
$
­
$
­
$
­

National
Totals
­
­
$
­
$
­

Grand
Totals
452
114,173
$
2,003
$
3,398
Sources:

[
A]

[
B]
[
C]
<
500
500­
9,999
3,301­
9,999
State
labor
rates
based
on
the
State
Workload
Model,
updated
to
year
2003
dollar
values.
100,000­
499,999
>
500,000
1,000,000­
4,999,999
10,000­
99,999
From
column
D
in
Exhibit
H.
10
From
EPA
experience
with
other
regulations.
100,000­
499,999
<
500
10,000­
49,999
50,000­
249,999
250,000­
999,999
>
500,000
<
500
500­
3,300
 
5
 
500­
9,999
10,000­
99,999
<
500
500­
3,300
3,301­
9,999
10,000­
49,999
50,000­
249,999
250,000­
999,999
1,000,000­
4,999,999
 
5
 
Size
Category
Number
of
Significant
Excursions
per
Year
Number
of
Hours
to
Review
Operational
Evaluations
per
System
Average
State
Employee
Hourly
Wage
Average
Total
Costs
to
States
Average
Total
Costs
per
State
Total
Burden
Exhibit
18
State
Costs
for
Significant
Excursions
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
62
Summary
Exhibits
for
Full
Implementation
of
the
Rule
Exhibit
19a:
Ten­
year
Summary
of
Burden
Associated
with
the
Stage
2
DBPR
for
CWSs
Exhibit
19b:
Ten­
year
Summary
of
Burden
Associated
with
the
Stage
2
DBPR
for
NTNCWSs
Exhibit
20a:
Ten­
year
Summary
of
Costs
Associated
with
the
Stage
2
DBPR
for
CWSs
Exhibit
20b:
Ten­
year
Summary
of
Costs
Associated
with
the
Stage
2
DBPR
for
NTNCWSs
Exhibit
21:
Implementation
Timeline
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
Exhibit
22a:
Schedule
for
Stage
2
DBPR
PWS
Implementation
Costs
for
SW
Systems
Exhibit
22b:
Schedule
for
Stage
2
DBPR
PWS
Implementation
Costs
for
GW
Systems
Exhibit
23a:
Schedule
for
Stage
2
DBPR
PWS
IDSE
Costs
for
SW
Systems
Exhibit
23b:
Schedule
for
Stage
2
DBPR
PWS
IDSE
Costs
for
GW
Systems
Exhibit
24a:
Schedule
for
Stage
2
DBPR
Monitoring
Plan
Costs
for
SW
Systems
Exhibit
24b:
Schedule
for
Stage
2
DBPR
Monitoring
Plan
Costs
for
GW
Systems
Exhibit
25a:
Schedule
for
Stage
2
DBPR
Annual
Routine
Monitoring
Costs
for
SW
Systems
Exhibit
25b:
Schedule
for
Stage
2
DBPR
Annual
Routine
Monitoring
Costs
for
GW
Systems
Exhibit
26a:
Schedule
for
Stage
2
DBPR
Annual
PWS
Operational
evaluation
Costs
for
SW
Systems
Exhibit
26b:
Schedule
for
Stage
2
DBPR
Annual
PWS
Operational
evaluation
Costs
for
GW
Systems
Exhibit
27:
Schedule
for
Stage
2
DBPR
States/
Primacy
Agency
Costs
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
63
Subpart
H
and
Mixed
CWSs
Activity
Source
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Year
4
Year
5
Year
6
Year
7
Year
8
Year
9
Year
10
TOTAL
Implementation
[
1]
Exh
7,
Col
F
23,541
50,009
­
20,657
27,888
25,005
­
­
­
­
147,100
IDSE
Standard
monitoring
plan
[
2]
Exh
9
Col
L
­
43,078
115,643
107,206
­
­
­
­
­
­
265,926
System­
specific
studies
[
2]
Exh
10
Col
G
­
840
1,640
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
2,480
40/
30
Certification
Exh
11
Col
G
­
418
1,060
751
­
­
­
­
­
­
2,229
Monitoring
Plans
Exh
12
Col
J
­
­
8,377
23,883
35,668
­
­
­
­
­
67,928
Additional
Routine
Monitoring
[
3]
Exh
13a,
Col
R
­
­
­
­
­
­
1,759
(
2,249)
(
6,711)
(
6,711)
(
13,912)

Significant
Excursions
Exh
14,
Col
E
­
­
­
­
­
­
1,896
4,634
6,772
6,772
20,074
Yearly
Total
23,541
94,345
126,719
152,497
63,556
25,005
3,654
2,385
61
61
491,825
Disinfecting
Ground
Water
CWSs
Activity
Source
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Year
4
Year
5
Year
6
Year
7
Year
8
Year
9
Year
10
TOTAL
Implementation
[
1]
Exh
7,
Col
F
2,113
142,459
­
1,401
71,941
71,230
­
­
­
­
289,145
IDSE
Standard
monitoring
plan
[
2]
Exh
9
Col
L
­
538
5,811
37,706
­
­
­
­
­
­
44,056
System­
specific
studies
[
2]
Exh
10
Col
G
­
80
80
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
160
40/
30
Certification
Exh
11
Col
G
­
45
6,193
41,408
­
­
­
­
­
­
47,646
Monitoring
Plans
Exh
12
Col
J
­
­
521
8,047
104,322
­
­
­
­
­
112,890
Additional
Routine
Monitoring
[
3]
Exh
13a,
Col
R
­
­
­
­
­
­
340
12,095
23,023
23,023
58,482
Significant
Excursions
Exh
14,
Col
E
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­

Yearly
Total
2,113
143,122
12,605
88,562
176,264
71,230
340
12,095
23,023
23,023
552,377
States
and
Territories
Source
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Year
4
Year
5
Year
6
Year
7
Year
8
Year
9
Year
10
TOTAL
Implementation
activities
[
4]
Exh
15
115,596
115,596
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
231,192
State
IDSE
activities
[
5]
Exh
17
­
1,142
3,958
61,213
­
­
­
­
­
­
66,312
State
Monitoring
Plans
Exh
16
­
­
473
1,639
25,352
­
­
­
­
­
27,464
State
Routine
Monitoring
Exh
15
­
­
­
­
­
­
47,424
47,424
47,424
47,424
189,696
State
Significant
Excursions
Exh
18
­
­
­
­
­
­
3,398
3,398
3,398
3,398
13,592
Yearly
Total
115,596
116,738
4,431
62,852
25,352
­
50,822
50,822
50,822
50,822
528,256
[
3]
Compliance
Monitoring:
See
Exhibit
25
for
PWS
compliance
monitoring
costs
[
4]
State
implementation
activities
will
occur
in
Years
1
and
2,
as
states
prepare
their
primacy
packages.
See
Exhibit
27
for
the
state/
primacy
agency
schedule.

[
1]
Implementation:
See
Exhibit
22
for
the
PWS
implementation
schedule.

[
2]
IDSE:
See
Exhibit
23
for
the
PWS
IDSE
schedule.

[
5]
State
cost
and
burden
associated
with
IDSE
are
allocated
proportionately
to
the
numbers
of
systems
and
their
schedule.

Exhibit
19a
Ten­
Year
Summary
of
Burden
Associated
with
the
Stage
2
DBPR
(
CWS)
(
Hours)
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
64
Subpart
H
and
Mixed
NTNCWSs
Source
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Year
4
Year
5
Year
6
Year
7
Year
8
Year
9
Year
10
TOTAL
Implementation
[
1]
Exh
7,
Col
F
­
3,533
­
­
1,766
1,766
­
­
­
­
7,065
IDSE
Standard
monitoring
plan
[
2]
Exh
9
Col
L
­
21
211
120
­
­
­
­
­
­
352
System­
specific
studies
[
2]
Exh
10
Col
G
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­

40/
30
Certification
Exh
11
Col
G
­
­
1
1
­
­
­
­
­
­
2
Monitoring
Plans
Exhibit
12
Col
J
­
­
5
30
1,567
­
­
­
­
­
1,602
Additional
Routine
Monitoring
[
3]
Exh
13a,
Col
R
­
­
­
­
­
­
16
64
112
112
304
Significant
Excursions
Exh
14,
Col
E
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­

Yearly
Total
0
3,553
217
151
3,333
1,766
16
64
112
112
9,325
Disinfecting
Ground
Water
NTNCWSs
Source
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Year
4
Year
5
Year
6
Year
7
Year
8
Year
9
Year
10
TOTAL
Implementation
[
1]
Exh
7,
Col
F
6
24,691
­
5
12,347
12,346
­
­
­
­
49,395
IDSE
Standard
monitoring
plan
[
2]
Exh
9
Col
L
­
8
22
11
­
­
­
­
­
­
41
System­
specific
studies
[
2]
Exh
10
Col
G
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­

40/
30
Certification
Exh
11
Col
G
­
­
16
14
­
­
­
­
­
­
30
Monitoring
Plans
Exhibit
12
Col
J
­
­
3
29
18,524
­
­
­
­
­
18,556
Additional
Routine
Monitoring
[
3]
Exh
13a,
Col
R
­
­
­
­
­
­
3
1,361
2,716
2,716
6,795
Significant
Excursions
Exh
14,
Col
E
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­

Yearly
Total
6
24,700
41
58
30,871
12,346
3
1,361
2,716
2,716
74,817
[
1]
Implementation:
See
Exhibt
22
for
schedule
[
2]
IDSE:
See
Exhibit
23
for
the
PWS
IDSE
schedule.

[
3]
Compliance
Monitoring:
See
Exhibit
25
for
PWS
compliance
monitoring
schedule
Exhibit
19b
Ten­
Year
Summary
of
Burden
Associated
with
the
Stage
2
DBPR
(
NTNCWS)
(
Hours)
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
65
Subpart
H
and
Mixed
CWSs
Activity
Source
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Year
4
Year
5
Year
6
Year
7
Year
8
Year
9
Implementation
[
1]
Exh
7,
Col
D
$
687,224
$
1,337,727
$
­
$
602,404
$
753,683
$
668,863
$
­
$
­
$
­

IDSE
Standard
monitoring
plan[
2]
Exh
9
Col
K
$
­
$
8,423,022
$
22,363,157
$
18,594,470
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­

System­
specific
studies[
2]
Exh
10
Col
F
$
­
$
28,262
$
54,356
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­

40/
30
Certification
Exh
11
Col
F
$
­
$
13,441
$
33,623
$
22,086
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­

Monitoring
Plans
Exh
12
Col
F
$
­
$
­
$
218,874
$
615,613
$
875,135
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­

Additional
Routine
Monitoring[
3]
Exh
13,
Col
Q
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
421,056
$
(
769,834)
$
(
2,068,834)

Significant
Excursions
Exh
14,
Col
D
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
63,374
$
147,856
$
212,739
Yearly
Total
687,224
$
9,802,452
$
22,670,010
$
19,834,573
$
1,628,818
$
668,863
$
484,430
$
(
621,978)

$
(
1,856,095)

$

Disinfecting
Ground
Water
CWSs
Activity
Source
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Year
4
Year
5
Year
6
Year
7
Year
8
Year
9
Implementation
[
1]
Exh
7,
Col
D
$
68,547
$
3,420,980
$
­
$
46,424
$
1,732,613
$
1,710,490
$
­
$
­
$
­

IDSE
Standard
monitoring
plan[
2]
Exh
9
Col
K
$
­
$
82,045
$
894,527
$
5,595,383
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­

System­
specific
studies[
2]
Exh
10
Col
F
$
­
$
2,820
$
2,820
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­

40/
30
Certification
Exh
11
Col
F
$
­
$
1,586
$
192,673
$
1,060,675
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­

Monitoring
Plans
Exh
12
Col
F
$
­
$
­
$
16,278
$
212,325
$
2,496,115
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­

Additional
Routine
Monitoring[
3]
Exh
13,
Col
Q
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
77,774
$
2,905,598
$
5,538,247
Significant
Excursions
Exh
14,
Col
D
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­

Yearly
Total
68,547
$
3,507,431
$
1,106,298
$
6,914,807
$
4,228,728
$
1,710,490
$
77,774
$
2,905,598
$
5,538,247
$

States
and
Territories
Source
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Year
4
Year
5
Year
6
Year
7
Year
8
Year
9
Implementation
activities
[
4]
Exh
15
$
3,884,026
$
3,884,026
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­

State
IDSE
activities
[
5]
Exh
17
$
­
$
38,381
$
132,974
$
2,056,740
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­

State
Monitoring
Plans
Exh
16
$
­
$
­
$
15,951
$
55,265
$
854,800
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­

State
Routine
Monitoring
Exh
15
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
1,593,446
$
1,593,446
$
1,593,446
State
Significant
Excursions
Exh
18
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
114,173
$
114,173
$
114,173
Yearly
Total
$
3,884,026
$
3,922,406
$
148,925
$
2,112,005
$
854,800
$
­
$
1,707,619
$
1,707,619
$
1,707,619
[
5]
State
IDSE
activities
will
occur
in
Years
1
to
4
and
will
lag
6
months
behind
medium
and
large
system
IDSE
progress
and
be
concurrent
with
IDSE
work
by
small
systems.
State
cost
and
burden
associat
are
allocated
proportionately
to
the
numbers
of
medium/
large
vs.
small
systems.

[
3]
Compliance
Monitoring:
large
and
medium
systems
are
assumed
to
begin
monitoring
in
Year
7
or
8;
small
systems
are
assumed
to
begin
monitoring
in
Year
8
or
9.

[
1]
Implementation:
Large
and
medium
systems
and
small
systems
buying
from
large
systems
will
be
respondents
in
Year
1
or
4;
all
remaining
small
water
systems
will
be
respondents
in
Year
3,
or
6.
See
E
the
PWS
implementation
schedule.

[
2]
IDSE:
Large
and
medium
systems
and
small
systems
buying
from
large
systems
will
be
respondents
in
Year
1
or
2;
all
small
groundwater
systems
will
be
respondents
in
Year
4;
all
remaining
small
wate
be
respondents
in
Year
4.
See
Exhibit
23
for
the
PWS
IDSE
schedule.

[
4]
State
implementation
activities
will
occur
in
Years
1
and
2,
as
states
prepare
their
primacy
packages.
See
Exhibit
27
for
the
state/
primacy
agency
schedule.

Exhibit
20a
Ten­
Year
Summary
of
Costs
Associated
with
the
Stage
2
DBPR
(
CWS)
(
Dollars)
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
66
Subpart
H
and
Mixed
NTNCWSs
Source
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Year
4
Year
5
Year
6
Year
7
Year
8
Year
9
Year
10
Implementation
[
1]
Exh
7,
Col
D
$
­
$
82,677
$
­
$
­
$
41,338
$
41,338
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­

IDSE
Standard
monitoring
plan[
2]
Exh
9
Col
K
$
­
$
4,443
$
42,689
$
23,407
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­

System­
specific
studies[
2]
Exh
10
Col
F
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­

40/
30
Certification
Exh
11
Col
F
$
­
$
­
$
31
$
31
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­

Monitoring
Plans
Exh
12
Col
F
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
964
$
36,258
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­

Additional
Routine
Monitoring[
3]
Exh
13,
Col
Q
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
3,860
$
16,596
$
29,333
$
29,333
Significant
Excursions
Exh
14,
Col
D
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­

Yearly
Total
­

$
87,119
$
42,720
$
24,402
$
77,597
$
41,338
$
3,860
$
16,596
$
29,333
$
29,333
$

Disinfecting
Ground
Water
NTNCWSs
Source
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Year
4
Year
5
Year
6
Year
7
Year
8
Year
9
Year
10
Implementation
[
1]
Exh
7,
Col
D
$
107
$
558,406
$
­
$
107
$
279,203
$
279,203
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­

IDSE
Standard
monitoring
plan[
2]
Exh
9
Col
K
$
­
$
1,242
$
3,309
$
1,692
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­

System­
specific
studies[
2]
Exh
10
Col
F
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­

40/
30
Certification
Exh
11
Col
F
$
­
$
­
$
513
$
420
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­

Monitoring
Plans
Exh
12
Col
F
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
867
$
419,123
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­

Additional
Routine
Monitoring[
3]
Exh
13,
Col
Q
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
719
$
357,487
$
713,536
$
713,536
Significant
Excursions
Exh
14,
Col
D
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
­

Yearly
Total
107
$
559,648
$
3,822
$
3,086
$
698,326
$
279,203
$
719
$
357,487
$
713,536
$
713,536
$

[
1]
Implementation:
See
Exhibt
22
for
schedule
[
2]
IDSE:
See
Exhibit
23
for
the
PWS
IDSE
schedule.

[
3]
Compliance
Monitoring:
See
Exhibit
25
for
PWS
compliance
monitoring
schedule
Exhibit
20b
Ten­
Year
Summary
of
Costs
Associated
with
the
Stage
2
DBPR
(
NTNCWS)
(
Dollars)
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
67
Systems
Serving
50,000­
99,999
People1
Systems
Serving
 
100,000
People1
Systems
Serving
10,000­
49,999
People1
Systems
Serving
<
10,000
People1
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Year
4
Year
5
Year
6
Year
7
Year
8
Year
9
Year
10
Year
11
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Year
4
Year
5
Year
6
Year
7
Year
8
Year
9
Year
10
Year
11
Year
12
Year
12
Medium
and
Large
Systems
Small
Systems
IDSE
Crypto
monitoring
IDSE
Plan
Due
IDSE
Report
Due
Treatment
Installation2
Possible
Extension
IDSE
Crypto
monitoring
IDSE
Plan
Due
IDSE
Report
Due
Treatment
Installation2
Possible
Extension
IDSE
Crypto
monitoring
IDSE
Plan
Due
IDSE
Report
Due
Treatment
Installation2
Possible
Extension
IDSE
Crypto
monitoring3
IDSE
Plan
Due
IDSE
Report
Due
Treatment
Installation2
Possible
Extension
E.
coli
Exhibit
21
Implementation
Timeline
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
68
<
10,000
10,000
­
49,999
50,000
­
99,999
100,000+
<
10,000
10,000
­
49,999
50,000
­
99,999
100,000+
1
11%
17%
50%
50%
­
­
50%
50%
2
39%
33%
0%
­
50%
50%
0%
­
3
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
4
9%
15%
33%
50%
­
­
25%
50%
5
21%
18%
17%
­
25%
25%
25%
­
6
20%
17%
­
­
25%
25%
­
­
7
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
8
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
9
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
10
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
11
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
12
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
13
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
14
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
15
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
16
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
17
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
18
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
19
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
20
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
21
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
22
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
23
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
24
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
25
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­

Source:

The
schedule
for
small
surface
water
systems
has
been
adjusted
to
account
for
small
systems
that
purchase
100
percent
of
their
water
from
a
large
system
and
are,
thus,
on
the
large
surface
water
system
schedule
for
implementation
and
IDSE
activities.
Nontransient
Noncommunity
Water
Systems
Year
Community
Water
Systems
The
schedule
for
all
systems
assumes
that
they
will
incur
half
of
implementation
costs
as
they
prepare
for
the
IDSE
and
the
other
half
as
they
prepare
for
compliance
with
the
Stage
2
requirements.
Exhibit
22a
Schedule
for
Stage
2
DBPR
PWS
Implementation
Costs
for
SW
Systems
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
69
Year
Community
Water
Systems
Nontransient
Noncommunity
Water
Systems
<
10,000
10,000
­
49,999
50,000
­
99,999
100,000+
<
10,000
10,000
­
49,999
50,000
­
99,999
100,000+
1
­
­
50%
50%
­
­
50%
50%
2
50%
50%
­
­
50%
50%
­
­
3
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
4
­
­
25%
50%
­
­
25%
50%
5
25%
25%
25%
­
25%
25%
25%
­
6
25%
25%
­
­
25%
25%
­
­
7
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
8
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
9
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
10
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
11
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
12
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
13
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
14
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
15
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
16
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
17
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
18
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
19
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
20
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
21
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
22
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
23
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
24
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
25
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­

Source:
Derived
from
rule
implementation
schedule.
The
schedule
for
all
systems
assumes
that
they
will
incur
half
of
implementation
costs
as
they
prepare
for
the
IDSE
and
the
other
half
as
they
prepare
for
compliance
with
the
Stage
2
requirements.
The
schedule
for
small
surface
water
systems
has
been
adjusted
to
account
for
small
100%
purchasing
systems
that
purchase
water
from
a
large
system
and
are,
thus,
on
the
large
surface
water
system
schedule
for
implementation
and
IDSE
activities.
Exhibit
22b
Schedule
for
Stage
2
DBPR
PWS
Implementation
Costs
for
GW
Systems
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
70
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
71
<
10,000
10,000
­
49,999
50,000
­
99,999
100,000+
<
10,000
10,000
­
49,999
50,000
­
99,999
100,000+

1
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
2
8%
14%
15%
50%
­
­
­
50%
3
23%
52%
85%
50%
­
50%
100%
50%
4
69%
33%
­
­
100%
50%
­
­
5
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
6
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
7
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
8
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
9
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
10
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
11
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
12
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
13
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
14
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
15
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
16
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
17
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
18
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
19
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
20
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
21
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
22
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
23
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
24
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
25
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­

Source:
Derived
from
rule
implementation
schedule.
Nontransient
Noncommunity
Water
Systems
Year
Community
Water
Systems
Exhibit
23a
Schedule
for
Stage
2
DBPR
PWS
IDSE
Costs
for
SW
Systems
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
72
<
10,000
10,000
­
49,999
50,000
­
99,999
100,000+
<
10,000
10,000
­
49,999
50,000
­
99,999
100,000+

1
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
2
­
­
­
50%
­
­
­
50%
3
­
50%
100%
50%
­
50%
100%
50%
4
100%
50%
­
­
100%
50%
­
­
5
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
6
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
7
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
8
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
9
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
10
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
11
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­

12
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
13
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
14
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
15
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
16
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
17
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
18
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
19
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
20
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
21
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
22
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
23
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
24
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
25
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­

Source:
Derived
from
rule
implementation
schedule.
Year
Community
Water
Systems
Nontransient
Noncommunity
Water
Systems
Exhibit
23b
Schedule
for
Stage
2
DBPR
PWS
IDSE
Costs
for
GW
Systems
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
73
<
10,000
10,000
­
49,999
50,000
­
99,999
100,000+
<
10,000
10,000
­
49,999
50,000
­
99,999
100,000+
1
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
2
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
3
8%
14%
15%
50%
­
­
­
50%
4
23%
52%
85%
50%
­
50%
100%
50%
5
69%
33%
­
­
100%
50%
­
­
6
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
7
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
8
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
9
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
10
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
11
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
12
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­

13
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
14
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
15
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
16
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
17
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
18
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
19
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
20
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
21
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
22
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
23
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
24
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
25
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­

Source:
Derived
from
rule
implementation
schedule.
Year
Community
Water
Systems
Nontransient
Noncommunity
Water
Systems
Exhibit
24a
Schedule
for
Stage
2
DBPR
Monitoring
Plan
Costs
for
SW
Systems
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
74
<
10,000
10,000
­
49,999
50,000
­
99,999
100,000+
<
10,000
10,000
­
49,999
50,000
­
99,999
100,000+
1
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
2
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
3
­
­
­
50%
­
­
­
50%
4
­
50%
100%
50%
­
50%
100%
50%
5
100%
50%
­
­
100%
50%
­
­
6
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
7
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
8
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
9
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
10
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
11
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­

12
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
13
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
14
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
15
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
16
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
17
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
18
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
19
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
20
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
21
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
22
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
23
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
24
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
25
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­

Source:
Derived
from
rule
implementation
schedule.
Year
Community
Water
Systems
NonTransient
Noncommunity
Water
Systems
Exhibit
24b
Schedule
for
Stage
2
DBPR
Monitoring
Plan
Costs
for
GW
Systems
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
75
<
10,000
10,000
­
49,999
50,000
­
99,999
100,000+
<
10,000
10,000
­
49,999
50,000
­
99,999
100,000+
1
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
2
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
3
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
4
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
5
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
6
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
7
­
­
50%
100%
­
­
50%
100%
8
50%
50%
100%
100%
50%
50%
100%
100%
9
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
10
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
11
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
12
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

13
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
14
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
15
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
16
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
17
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
18
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
19
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
20
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
21
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
22
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
23
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
24
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
25
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

Source:
Derived
from
rule
implementation
schedule.
Nontransient
Noncommunity
Water
Systems
Year
Community
Water
Systems
Exhibit
25a
Schedule
for
Stage
2
DBPR
Annual
Routine
Monitoring
Costs
for
SW
Systems
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
76
<
10,000
10,000
­
49,999
50,000
­
99,999
100,000+
<
10,000
10,000
­
49,999
50,000
­
99,999
100,000+
1
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
2
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
3
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
4
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
5
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
6
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
7
­
­
50%
100%
­
­
50%
100%
8
50%
50%
100%
100%
50%
50%
100%
100%
9
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
10
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
11
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

12
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
13
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
14
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
15
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
16
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
17
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
18
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
19
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
20
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
21
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
22
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
23
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
24
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
25
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

Source:
Derived
from
rule
implementation
schedule.
Year
Community
Water
Systems
Nontransient
Noncommunity
Water
Systems
Exhibit
25b
Schedule
for
Stage
2
DBPR
Annual
Routine
Monitoring
Costs
for
GW
Systems
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
77
<
10,000
10,000
­
49,999
50,000
­
99,999
100,000+
<
10,000
10,000
­
49,999
50,000
­
99,999
100,000+
1
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
2
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
3
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
4
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
5
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
6
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
7
­
­
50%
100%
­
­
50%
100%
8
50%
50%
100%
100%
50%
50%
100%
100%
9
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
10
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
11
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
12
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

13
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
14
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
15
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
16
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
17
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
18
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
19
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
20
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
21
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
22
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
23
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
24
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
25
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

Source:
Derived
from
rule
implementation
schedule.
Nontransient
Noncommunity
Water
Systems
Year
Community
Water
Systems
Exhibit
26a
Schedule
for
Stage
2
DBPR
Annual
PWS
Operational
evaluation
Costs
for
SW
Systems
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
78
<
10,000
10,000
­
49,999
50,000
­
99,999
100,000+
<
10,000
10,000
­
49,999
50,000
­
99,999
100,000+
1
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
2
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
3
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
4
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
5
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
6
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
7
­
­
50%
100%
­
­
50%
100%
8
50%
50%
100%
100%
50%
50%
100%
100%
9
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
10
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
11
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
12
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
13
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

14
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
15
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
16
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
17
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
18
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
19
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
20
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
21
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
22
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
23
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
24
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
25
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%

Source:
Derived
from
rule
implementation
schedule.
Year
Community
Water
Systems
Nontransient
Noncommunity
Water
Systems
Exhibit
26b
Schedule
for
Stage
2
DBPR
Annual
PWS
Operational
evaluation
Costs
for
GW
Systems
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
79
ICR
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR
­
OMB
Draft
August
2005
80
Year
Implementation
Costs
IDSE
Costs
Monitoring
Plan
Costs
Compliance
Monitoring
Costs
Significant
Excursion
Report
Cost
1
50%
­
­
­
­
2
50%
2%
­
­
­
3
­
6%
2%
­
­
4
­
92%
6%
­
­
5
­
­
92%
­
­
6
­
­
­
­
­
7
­
­
­
100%
100%
8
­
­
­
100%
100%
9
­
­
­
100%
100%
10
­
­
­
100%
100%
11
­
­
­
100%
100%
12
­
­
­
100%
100%
13
­
­
­
100%
100%
14
­
­
­
100%
100%
15
­
­
­
100%
100%
16
­
­
­
100%
100%
17
­
­
­
100%
100%
18
­
­
­
100%
100%
19
­
­
­
100%
100%
20
­
­
­
100%
100%
21
­
­
­
100%
100%
22
­
­
­
100%
100%
23
­
­
­
100%
100%
24
­
­
­
100%
100%
25
­
­
­
100%
100%

Source:
Derived
from
rule
implementation
schedule.
State
implementation
will
occur
in
years
1
and
2
as
states
prepare
their
primacy
packages.

State
IDSE
activities
will
lag
6
months
behind
large
system
IDSE
progress
and
be
concurrent
with
IDSE
work
by
small
systems.
Exhibit
27
Schedule
for
Stage
2
DBPR
States/
Primacy
Agency
Costs