Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0039-0724
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-01-05T05:00Z

Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Source
October­
05
October­
06
October­
07
Annual
(
Exhibit)
September­
06
September­
07
September­
08
Total
Average
PWSs
Burden
(
hours)
A.
2
5,952
13,701
122,552
142,204
47,401
Respondents
(
number)
A.
3
376
645
7,337
7,337
2,446
Responses
(
number)
A.
4
7,664
24,877
209,805
242,347
80,782
Costs
(
dollars)
A.
5
1,504,216
$
4,952,437
$
18,216,276
$
24,672,929
$
8,224,310
$

Labor
197,438
$
413,319
$
3,013,484
$
3,624,241
$
1,208,080
$

O&
M
1,306,779
$
4,539,118
$
15,202,792
$
21,048,689
$
7,016,230
$

Capital
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$

Burden
per
respondent
19.4
Cost
per
respondent
3,363
$

States
Burden
(
hours)
A.
2
7,818
7,061
266,802
281,681
93,894
Respondents
(
number)
A.
3
57
57
57
57
57
Responses
(
number)
A.
4
285
299
435,157
435,741
145,247
Costs
(
dollars)
A.
5
262,736
$
237,295
$
8,965,816
$
9,465,847
$
3,155,282
$

Labor
262,736
$
237,295
$
8,965,816
$
9,465,847
$
3,155,282
$

O
&
M
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$

Capital
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$

Burden
per
respondent
4,941.8
Cost
per
respondent
166,067
$

Total
­
PWS
and
States
Burden
(
hours)
A.
2
13,770
20,762
389,354
423,886
141,295
Respondents
(
number)
A.
3
433
702
7,394
7,394
2,503
Responses
(
number)
A.
4
7,949
25,176
644,962
678,088
226,029
Cost
(
dollars)
A.
5
1,766,952
$
5,189,732
$
27,182,092
$
34,138,776
$
11,379,592
$

Labor
460,174
$
650,614
$
11,979,301
$
13,090,088
$
4,363,363
$

O
&
M
1,306,779
$
4,539,118
$
15,202,792
$
21,048,689
$
7,016,230
$

Capital
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$

Burden
per
respondent
57.3
Cost
per
respondent
4,617
$

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

Exhibit
A.
1
Summary
of
Burden,
Respondents,
Responses,
and
Costs
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
The
number
of
respondents
is
not
added;
rather
the
maximum
number
of
respondents
for
the
3
years
for
a
given
activity
is
used
to
avoid
double­
counting.

ICR
for
the
LT2ESWTR
A­
2
Draft­­
August
2005
Exhibit
A.
2
Burden
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
(
Hours)

Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Source
October­
05
October­
06
October­
07
Annual
(
Exhibit)
September­
06
September­
07
September­
08
Total
Average
PWSs
Start­
up
[
1]
B.
2
2,178
1,953
53,576
57,707
19,236
Assessment
for
binning
[
2]

E.
coli
Monitoring
B.
4
1,652
5,284
39,074
46,011
15,337
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
B.
5
1,223
4,194
10,231
15,648
5,216
Reporting
B.
6
564
1,936
19,670
22,170
7,390
UCFWR
Reporting
[
3]
B.
8
334
334
­
668
223
PWSs
­
Total
5,952
13,701
122,552
142,204
47,401
States
and
Territories
Start­
up
[
4]
B.
3
7,818
7,011
216,363
231,192
77,064
Reporting
and
bin
determination
B.
7
­
­
50,388
50,388
16,796
Reviewing/
Approving
UCFWR
Schedule
[
5]
B.
9
­
51
51
101
34
States
and
Territories
­
Total
7,818
7,061
266,802
281,681
93,894
Total
13,770
20,762
389,354
423,886
141,295
Note:
Detail
may
not
add
to
total
due
to
independent
rounding.

Sources
See
Exhibit
C.
1
for
breakdown
of
burden
by
year
and
system
type.

(
4)
State
rule
start­
up
activities
will
parallel
system
activities.

(
1)
All
large
PWS
start­
up
burden
will
be
incurred
in
Year
1.
Start­
up
burden
for
medium
PWSs
serving
50,000
­
99,999
people
will
be
incurred
in
Year
2.
Start­
up
burden
for
medium
PWSs
serving
10,000
­
49,999
people
and
small
PWSs
will
be
incurred
in
Year
3.

(
2)
1/
4
of
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
by
large
systems
will
take
place
in
Year
1.

1/
2
of
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
by
medium
systems
serving
50,000
­
99,999
people
and
large
systems
will
take
place
in
Year
2.
1/
2
of
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
by
medium
systems
and
1/
4
of
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidum
monitoring
by
large
systems,
and
1/
2
of
E.

coli
monitoring
by
small
systems
will
take
place
in
Year
3.

(
3)
Systems
must
report
the
use
of
UCFWRs
to
the
State
within
24
months,
and
must
have
a
State­
approved
schedule
to
cover
or
treat
the
reservoir
discharge
within
36
months.
In
order
to
allow
States
adequate
time
to
review/
approve
system
schedules,
it
is
assumed
that
systems
will
submit
schedules
to
States
within
24
months.

NTNCWS
and
TNCWS
do
not
have
UCFWRs.

(
5)
It
is
assumed
that
States
will
need
one
year
to
review/
approve
system
schedules
to
cover
or
treat
the
reservoir
discharge.
Systems
submitting
schedules
to
the
State
in
Year
1
will
receive
responses
in
Year
2,
and
systems
submitting
schedules
to
the
State
in
Year
2
will
receive
responses
in
Year
3.

ICR
for
the
LT2ESWTR
A­
3
Draft­­
August
2005
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Source
October­
05
October­
06
October­
07
Annual
(
Exhibit)
September­
06
September­
07
September­
08
Total
[
9]
Average
PWSs
Start­
up
[
1,2]
B.
2
242
217
6,697
7,156
2,385
Assessment
for
binning
[
3,
4]

E.
coli
Monitoring
B.
4
367
631
7,308
7,308
2,436
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
B.
5
376
645
1,762
1,762
587
Reporting
B.
6
376
645
7,337
7,337
2,446
UCFWR
Reporting
[
5]
B.
8
40
41
PWSs
­
Total
376
645
7,337
7,337
2,446
States
and
Territories
Start­
up
[
6]
B.
3
57
57
57
57
57
Reporting
and
bin
determination
[
7]
B.
7
­
­
57
57
19
Reviewing/
Approving
UCFWR
Schedule
[
8]
B.
9
7
7
7
2
States
and
Territories
­
Total
57
57
57
57
57
Total
433
702
7,394
7,394
2,503
Note:
Detail
may
not
add
to
total
due
to
independent
rounding.

Sources
(
1)
Each
PWS
is
assumed
to
be
a
respondent.

(
3)
Each
plant
is
assumed
to
be
a
respondent.

(
6)
Each
State
is
assumed
to
be
a
respondent
for
start­
up
in
Years
1,
2,
and
3.

(
7)
Each
State
will
be
a
respondent
associated
with
reviewing
small
system
monitoring
data
in
Year
3.

(
9)
To
avoid
double­
counting
the
number
of
respondents
for
assessment
for
binning
and
for
State
activities,
the
highest
number
of
respondents
for
an
activity
for
each
year
is
used
for
the
total
number
of
respondents.

(
4)
For
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
monitoring,
large
PWS
will
be
respondents
in
Years
1­
3.
For
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
monitoring,
medium
PWSs
serving
50,000
­
99,999
people
will
be
respondents
in
Years
2­
3.
For
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
medium
PWSs
serving
10,000
­
49,999
people
will
be
respondents
in
Year
3,
and
for
E.
coli
monitoring,
small
PWSs
will
be
respondents
in
Year
3.

(
2)
All
large
PWS
will
perform
start­
up
activities
in
Year
1.
Medium
PWSs
serving
50,000
­
99,999
people
will
perform
start­
up
activities
in
Year
2.
Medium
PWSs
serving
10,000
­
49,999
people
and
small
PWSs
will
perform
start­
up
activities
in
Year
3.

Exhibit
A.
3
Respondents
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
(
5)
Systems
must
report
the
use
of
UCFWRs
to
the
State
within
24
months,
and
must
have
a
State­
approved
schedule
to
cover
or
treat
the
reservoir
discharge
within
36
months.
In
order
to
allow
States
adequate
time
to
review/
approve
system
schedules,
it
is
assumed
that
systems
will
submit
schedules
to
States
within
24
months.
NTNCWS
and
TNCWS
do
not
have
UCFWRs.

(
8)
It
is
assumed
that
States
will
need
one
year
to
review/
approve
system
schedules
to
cover
or
treat
the
reservoir
discharge.
Systems
submitting
schedules
to
the
State
in
Year
1
will
receive
responses
in
Year
2,
and
systems
submitting
schedules
to
the
State
in
Year
2
will
receive
responses
in
Year
3.

ICR
for
the
LT2ESWTR
A­
4
Draft­­
August
2005
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Source
October­
05
October­
06
October­
07
Annual
(
Exhibit)
September­
06
September­
07
September­
08
Total
Average
PWSs
Start­
up
[
1,2]
B.
2
484
434
13,394
14,312
4,771
Assessment
for
binning
[
3]

E.
coli
Monitoring
B.
4
2,203
7,574
91,069
100,846
33,615
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
B.
5
2,446
8,387
20,463
31,296
10,432
Reporting
B.
6
2,450
8,401
84,880
95,731
31,910
UCFWR
Reporting
[
4]
B.
8
81
81
162
54
PWSs
­
Total
7,664
24,877
209,805
242,347
80,782
States
and
Territories
Start­
up
[
5]
B.
3
285
285
285
855
285
Reporting
and
bin
determination
[
6]
B.
7
434,858
434,858
144,953
Reviewing/
approving
UCFWR
schedule
[
7]
B.
9
14
14
28
9
States
and
Territories
­
Total
285
299
435,157
435,741
145,247
Total
7,949
25,176
644,962
678,088
226,029
Note:
Detail
may
not
add
to
total
due
to
independent
rounding.

Sources
(
1)
Each
PWS
will
have
2
responses
(
reading
and
training)
for
start­
up
activities.

(
3)
For
monitoring,
each
sample
taken
is
considered
to
be
a
response,
and
two
additional
responses
are
added
(
one
for
sample
schedule/
location
and
one
for
bin
classification).

(
7)
It
is
assumed
that
States
will
need
one
year
to
review/
approve
system
schedules
to
cover
or
treat
the
reservoir
discharge.
Systems
submitting
schedules
to
the
State
in
Year
1
will
receive
responses
in
Year
2,
and
systems
submitting
schedules
to
the
State
in
Year
2
will
receive
responses
in
Year
3.

Exhibit
A.
4
Responses
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
(
2)
All
large
PWS
will
perform
start­
up
activities
in
Year
1.
Medium
PWSs
serving
50,000
­
99,999
people
will
perform
startup
activities
in
Year
2.
Medium
PWSs
serving
10,000
­
49,999
people
and
small
PWSs
will
perform
start­
up
activities
in
Year
3.

(
5)
Each
State
will
have
5
responses
for
start­
up
activities
(
see
Exhibit
B.
3).
The
number
of
responses
from
States
and
Territories
equals
five
times
the
number
of
States
and
Territories.

(
6)
Each
State
will
have
3
responses
associated
with
binning
and
reviewing
monitoring
data
(
see
Exhibit
B.
7).
The
number
of
responses
from
States
and
Territories
equals
three
times
the
number
of
small
systems
performing
E.
coli
monitoring
in
a
given
year.

(
4)
Systems
must
report
the
use
of
UCFWRs
to
the
State
within
24
months,
and
must
have
a
State­
approved
schedule
to
cover
or
treat
the
reservoir
discharge
within
36
months.
In
order
to
allow
States
adequate
time
to
review/
approve
system
schedules,
it
is
assumed
that
systems
will
submit
schedules
to
States
within
24
months.
NTNCWS
and
TNCWS
do
not
have
UCFWRs.

ICR
for
the
LT2ESWTR
A­
5
Draft­­
August
2005
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Total
Source
October­
05
to
September­
06
October­
06
to
September­
07
October­
07
to
September­
08
October­
05
to
September­
08
Annual
(
Exhibit)
Labor
O&
M
Capital
Labor
O&
M
Capital
Labor
O&
M
Capital
Labor
O&
M
Capital
Total
Average
PWSs
Start­
up
[
1]
B.
2
76,770
$
­

$
­

$
60,699
$
­

$
­

$
1,450,287
$
­

$
­

$
1,587,756
$
­

$
­

$
1,587,756
$
529,252
$

Assessment
for
binning
[
2]

E.
coli
Monitoring
B.
4
51,652
$
11,831
$
­

$
154,875
$
98,038
$
­

$
747,296
$
4,367,776
$
­

$
953,823
$
4,477,644
$
­

$
5,431,468
$
1,810,489
$

Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
B.
5
38,225
$
1,294,948
$
­

$
121,986
$
4,441,080
$
­

$
272,898
$
10,835,016
$
­

$
433,109
$
16,571,044
$
­

$
17,004,153
$
5,668,051
$

Reporting
B.
6
19,893
$
­

$
­

$
64,861
$
­

$
­

$
543,003
$
­

$
­

$
627,757
$
­

$
­

$
627,757
$
209,252
$

UCFWR
Reporting
[
3]
B.
8
10,898
$
­

$
­

$
10,898
$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
21,795
$
­

$
­

$
21,795
$
7,265
$

PWSs
­
Total
197,438
$
1,306,779
$
­

$
413,319
$
4,539,118
$
­

$
3,013,484
$
15,202,792
$
­

$
3,624,241
$
21,048,689
$
­

$
24,672,929
$
8,224,310
$

States
and
Territories
Start­
up
[
4]
B.
3
262,736
$
­

$
­

$
235,594
$
­

$
­

$
7,270,835
$
­

$
­

$
7,769,165
$
­

$
­

$
7,769,165
$
2,589,722
$

Reporting
and
bin
determination
B.
7
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
­

$
1,693,280
$
­

$
­

$
1,693,280
$
­

$
­

$
1,693,280
$
564,427
$

Reviewing/
Approving
UCFWR
Schedule
[
5]
B.
9
­

$
­

$
­

$
1,701
$
­

$
­

$
1,701
$
­

$
­

$
3,402
$
­

$
­

$
3,402
$
1,134
$

States
and
Territories
­
Total
262,736
$
­

$
­

$
237,295
$
­

$
­

$
8,965,816
$
­

$
­

$
9,462,444
$
­

$
­

$
9,465,847
$
3,155,282
$

Total
460,174
$
1,306,779
$
­

$
650,614
$
4,539,118
$
­

$
11,979,301
$
15,202,792
$
­

$
13,086,685
$
21,048,689
$
­

$
34,138,776
$
11,379,592
$

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

Sources
See
Exhibit
C.
2
for
a
breakdown
of
cost
by
year
and
system
type.
Exhibit
A.
5
Cost
for
the
ICR
Approval
Period
(
3)
Systems
must
report
the
use
of
UCFWRs
to
the
State
within
24
months,
and
must
have
a
State­
approved
schedule
to
cover
or
treat
the
reservoir
discharge
within
36
months.
In
order
to
allow
States
adequate
time
to
review/
approve
system
schedules,
it
is
assumed
that
systems
will
submit
schedules
to
States
within
24
months.
NTNCWS
and
TNCWS
do
not
have
UCFWRs.

(
5)
It
is
assumed
that
States
will
need
one
year
to
review/
approve
system
schedules
to
cover
or
treat
the
reservoir
discharge.
Systems
submitting
schedules
to
the
State
in
Year
1
will
receive
responses
in
Year
2,
and
systems
submitting
schedules
to
the
State
in
Year
2
will
receive
responses
in
Year
3.

(
1)
All
medium
and
large
PWS
start­
up
cost
will
be
incurred
in
Year
1.

All
small
PWS
start­
up
cost
will
be
incurred
in
Year
3.

(
2)
1/
4
of
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
by
systems
serving
>
100K
will
take
place
in
Year
1.

1/
2
of
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
by
systems
serving
>
50K
will
take
place
in
Year
2.

1/
4
of
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
by
systems
serving
>
100K
and
1/
2
of
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
by
systems
serving
10­
50K
and
1/
2
of
E.
coli
monitoring
by
small
systems
will
take
place
in
Year
3.

(
4)
State
rule
start­
up
activities
will
parallel
system
activities.

ICR
for
the
LT2ESWTR
A­
6
Draft­­
August
2005
Implementation
Monitoring
for
Initial
Bin
Classification
Future
Monitoring
for
Re­
Binning
Baseline
#

PWSs
Percent
of
Plants
with
>

5.5
Log
Treatment
Prior
to
Rule
Promulgation
Plants
Per
System
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
E.

coli
Monitoring
Percent
of
Plants
Triggered
to
Monitor
for
Cryptosporidium
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
Cryptospori­
dium
Monitoring
Percent
of
Plants
with
>

5.5
Log
Treatment
for
LT2
Compliance
Percent
of
Plants
with
>

5.5
Log
Treatment
for
Stage
2
Compliance
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
E.
coli
Monitoring
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
A
B
C
D
=
A*
C*(
1­
B)
E
F
G
H
I
=
D*(
1­
G­
H)
J
=
E*
I
CWSs
<
100
342
3.6%
1.0
333
35%
117
5.3%
15.0%
265
92
100­
499
712
3.6%
1.0
683
35%
242
5.3%
6.3%
603
210
500­
999
428
3.6%
1.1
432
35%
153
5.3%
6.3%
382
133
1,000­
3,299
1,091
3.6%
1.0
1,072
35%
388
9.7%
1.8%
948
330
3,300­
9,999
1,066
3.6%
1.0
1,054
35%
381
9.5%
1.8%
934
325
10,000­
49,999
1,024
0.4%
1.1
1,092
0%
1,107
30.4%
1.5%
744
744
50,000­
99,999
217
0.4%
1.2
264
0%
269
30.3%
1.5%
180
180
100,000­
999,999
224
0.4%
1.4
313
0%
318
29.7%
1.5%
215
215
1,000,000+
17
0.4%
3.4
53
0%
57
29.7%
1.5%
37
37
National
Totals
5,121
5,294
3,032
4,309
2,266
NTNCWSs
<
100
180
3.6%
1.0
174
35%
60
5.3%
15.0%
138
48
100­
499
241
3.6%
1.0
232
35%
81
5.3%
6.3%
205
71
500­
999
81
3.6%
1.0
78
35%
27
5.3%
6.3%
69
24
1,000­
3,299
63
3.6%
1.0
61
35%
21
9.7%
1.8%
54
19
3,300­
9,999
13
3.6%
1.0
13
35%
4
9.5%
1.8%
11
4
10,000­
49,999
1
0.4%
1.0
1
0%
1
30.4%
1.5%
1
1
50,000­
99,999
­
0.4%
1.0
­
0%
0
0.0%
1.5%
­
0
100,000­
999,999
­
0.4%
1.0
­
0%
0
0.0%
1.5%
­
0
1,000,000+
­
0.4%
1.0
­
0%
0
0.0%
1.5%
­
0
National
Totals
579
558
195
478
167
TCWSs
<
100
793
0.0%
1.0
793
35%
276
5.3%
0.0%
751
261
100­
499
509
0.0%
1.0
509
35%
177
5.3%
0.0%
482
168
500­
999
79
0.0%
1.0
79
35%
27
5.3%
0.0%
75
26
1,000­
3,299
49
0.0%
1.0
49
35%
17
9.7%
0.0%
44
15
3,300­
9,999
16
0.0%
1.0
16
35%
6
9.5%
0.0%
14
5
10,000­
49,999
9
0.0%
1.0
9
0%
9
30.4%
0.0%
6
6
50,000­
99,999
­
0.0%
1.0
­
0%
0
0.0%
0.0%
­
0
100,000­
999,999
1
0.0%
1.0
1
0%
1
14.8%
0.0%
1
1
1,000,000+
­
0.0%
1.0
­
0%
0
58.6%
0.0%
­
0
National
Totals
1,456
1,456
513
1,374
483
Grand
Totals
7,156
7,308
3,741
6,161
2,916
Notes:

Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
rounding.

Sources:

(
H)
EPA
assumes
only
membrane
plants
will
have
>
5.5
log
Cryptosporidium
treatment
as
a
result
of
the
Stage
2
DBPR.
Estimates
from
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR.

Exhibit
B.
1
Baseline
Number
of
Plants
for
Rule
Start­
up
and
Monitoring
Activities
System
Size
(
Population
Served)

(
G)
Derived
from
Appendix
G
of
the
LT2ESWTR
Economic
Analysis;
this
number
is
calculated
by
dividing
the
number
of
plants
achieving
5.5
log
treatment
for
the
LT2ESWTR
by
the
total
number
of
plants
for
the
size
category.

(
A)
Number
of
non­
purchased
SW
&
GWUDI
systems
is
from
EPA's
Safe
Drinking
Water
Information
System
as
of
September
30,
2000.

(
B)
EPA
assumes
only
membrane
filtration
plants
will
have
>
5.5
log
Cryptosporidium
treatment
prior
to
rule
promulgation.
Plants
estimated
to
have
membrane
filtration
as
a
result
of
Stage
1
DBPR
compliance
are
from
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
Stage
2
DBPR.

(
C)
Estimate
of
the
number
of
plants,
or
entry
points
per
system.
Derived
from
1995
Community
Water
System
Survey
data.

(
E)
Percentage
of
plants
triggered
into
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
is
estimated
from
the
modelled
Information
Collection
Rule
Occurrence
Distribution.

ICR
for
the
LT2ESWTR
B­
7
Draft­­
August
2005
Exhibit
B.
2
Burden
and
Cost
to
PWSs
Associated
with
Rule
Start­
Up
Activities
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Read
Hours
per
PWS
Train
Hours
per
PWS
Total
Hours
per
PWS
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Baseline
#

of
Systems
Conducting
Implementation
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)

A
B
C
=
A
+
B
D
E
F
=
C*
D*
E
G
=
C*
E
H
=
G/
2080
CWSs
<
100
4
4
8
21.44
$
342
58,660
$
2,736
1.3
100­
499
4
4
8
23.09
712
131,521
5,696
2.7
500­
999
4
4
8
30.03
428
102,830
3,424
1.6
1,000­
3,299
4
4
8
30.03
1,091
262,119
8,728
4.2
3,300­
9,999
4
4
8
30.51
1,066
260,206
8,528
4.1
10,000­
49,999
4
4
8
31.08
1,024
254,607
8,192
3.9
50,000­
99,999
4
5
9
31.08
217
60,699
1,953
0.9
100,000­
999,999
4
5
9
35.25
224
71,060
2,016
1.0
1,000,000+
4
5
9
35.25
17
5,393
153
0.1
National
Totals
5,121
1,207,095
$
41,426
19.9
NTNCWSs
<
100
4
4
8
21.44
$
180
30,874
$
1,440
0.7
100­
499
4
4
8
23.09
241
44,518
1,928
0.9
500­
999
4
4
8
30.03
81
19,461
648
0.3
1,000­
3,299
4
4
8
30.03
63
15,136
504
0.2
3,300­
9,999
4
4
8
30.51
13
3,173
104
0.1
10,000­
49,999
4
4
8
31.08
1
249
8
0.0
50,000­
99,999
4
5
9
31.08
­
­
­
­

100,000­
999,999
4
5
9
35.25
­
­
­
­

1,000,000+
4
5
9
35.25
­
­
­
­

National
Totals
579
113,410
$
4,632
2.2
TCWSs
<
100
4
4
8
21.44
$
793
136,015
$
6,344
3.1
100­
499
4
4
8
23.09
509
94,022
4,072
2.0
500­
999
4
4
8
30.03
79
18,980
632
0.3
1,000­
3,299
4
4
8
30.03
49
11,773
392
0.2
3,300­
9,999
4
4
8
30.51
16
3,906
128
0.1
10,000­
49,999
4
4
8
31.08
9
2,238
72
0.0
50,000­
99,999
4
5
9
31.08
­
­
­
­

100,000­
999,999
4
5
9
35.25
1
317
9
0.0
1,000,000+
4
5
9
35.25
­
­
­
­

National
Totals
1,456
267,251
$
11,649
5.6
Grand
Totals
7,156
1,587,756
$
57,707
27.7
Notes:

Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
rounding.

Sources:

(
A
&
B)
Burden
estimates
for
each
activity
are
based
on
EPA
experience
with
similar
rules.

(
D)
For
systems
serving
up
to
500
people,
the
full
technical
rate
($
21.44/
hour
for
<
100
and
$
23.09
for
100­
499)
was
applied.
For
systems
serving
more
than
500
people,
cost
are
based
on
an
80%/
20%
split
between
technical
and
managerial
rates
(
range
from
$
30.03/
hour
to
$
35.25,
depending
on
system
size).
Rates
are
based
on
Labor
Costs
for
National
Drinking
Water
Rules
(
USEPA,
2003).

(
E)
Taken
from
Exhibit
B.
1,
column
A.

ICR
for
the
LT2ESWTR
B­
8
Draft­­
August
2005
Implementation
Activities
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
FTEs
per
State
Hours
per
State
Cost
Per
State
A
B
C
=
B*
2080
D
=
A*
C
Regulation
Adoption
and
Program
Development
33.60
$
0.50
1,040
34,949
$

Training
State
Staff
33.60
0.25
520
17,475
Training
PWS
Staff
and
Technical
Assistants
33.60
1.00
2,080
69,898
Updating
Data
Management
System
33.60
0.10
208
6,990
Public
Notification
33.60
0.10
208
6,990
Totals
per
State
1.95
4,056
136,301
$

National
Totals
(
57
States/
Primacy
Agencies)
111.15
231,192
7,769,165
$

Notes:

Detail
may
not
add
to
totals
due
to
rounding.

All
States/
Primacy
Agencies
are
assumed
to
incur
some
costs
for
each
activity.

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

Sources:

(
A)
State
labor
rates
based
on
the
State
Workload
Model,
updated
to
current
dollar
values.

(
B)
FTEs
per
State/
Primacy
Agency
based
on
EPA
experience
with
previous
regulations.

Exhibit
B.
3
Burden
and
Cost
to
States
and
Primacy
Agencies
Associated
with
Rule
Start­
up
Activities
ICR
for
the
LT2ESWTR
B­
9
Draft­­
August
2005
Sampling
Sample
Analysis
#
of
E.

coli
Samples
Hours
per
Sample
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Total
Sampling
Labor
Cost
Commercial
Analysis
(
Includes
Shipping)
Utility
Analysis
Hours
per
Sample
(
Labor)
Utility
Analysis
Cost
per
Sample
(
O&
M)
Utility
Analysis
Cost
per
Sample
(
Total)
Percent
Utilities
with
E.
coli
Analysis
Capabilities
Total
Laboratory
Analysis
Cost
(
Labor)
Total
Laboratory
Analysis
Cost
(
O&
M)
Responses
A
B
C
D
E
=
A*
B*
C*
D
F
G
H
I
=
H+
G*
D
J
K
=
D*
G*
J*
A*
B
L
=
F*
A*
B*(
1­

J)+
H*
A*
B*
J
M
=
E+
K+
L
N
=
A*
B*
C+
A*
B*
G*
J
O
=

N/
2,080
P
=
A*
B
CWSs
<
100
333
26
0.25
21.44
$
46,363
$
70.00
$
0.5
10.28
$
21.00
$
25%
23,181
$
476,343
$
545,888
$
3,244
1.6
8,650
100­
499
683
26
0.25
23.09
102,435
70.00
0.5
9.46
21.00
25%
51,217
973,574
1,127,227
6,654
3.2
17,745
500­
999
432
26
0.25
24.74
69,402
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
34,701
613,311
717,414
4,208
2.0
11,221
1,000­
3,299
1,072
26
0.25
24.74
172,310
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
86,155
1,522,723
1,781,189
10,447
5.0
27,859
3,300­
9,999
1,054
26
0.25
25.34
173,543
70.00
0.5
8.33
21.00
25%
86,771
1,495,248
1,755,562
10,273
4.9
27,394
10,000­
49,999
1,092
24
0.25
26.05
170,651
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
255,976
615,293
1,041,920
16,377
7.9
26,204
50,000­
99,999
264
24
0.25
26.05
41,256
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
61,884
148,752
251,893
3,959
1.9
6,335
100,000­
999,999
313
24
0.25
31.26
58,657
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
117,314
40,305
216,276
5,629
2.7
7,506
1,000,000+
53
24
0.25
31.26
10,025
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
20,050
6,889
36,964
962
0.5
1,283
National
Totals
5,294
844,641
$
737,251
$
5,892,439
$
7,474,332
$
61,754
29.7
134,197
NTNCWSs
<
100
174
26
0.25
21.44
$
24,182
$
70.00
$
0.5
10.28
$
21.00
$
25%
12,091
$
248,449
$
284,722
$
1,692
0.8
4,512
100­
499
232
26
0.25
23.09
$
34,868
70.00
0.5
9.46
21.00
25%
17,434
331,400
383,703
2,265
1.1
6,040
500­
999
78
26
0.25
24.74
$
12,557
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
6,278
110,965
129,800
761
0.4
2,030
1,000­
3,299
61
26
0.25
24.74
$
9,766
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
4,883
86,306
100,955
592
0.3
1,579
3,300­
9,999
13
26
0.25
25.34
$
2,064
70.00
0.5
8.33
21.00
25%
1,032
17,785
20,881
122
0.1
326
10,000­
49,999
1
24
0.25
26.05
$
156
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
234
561
951
15
0.0
24
50,000­
99,999
­
24
0.25
26.05
$
­
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
­
­
­
­
­
­

100,000­
999,999
­
24
0.25
31.26
$
­
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
­
­
­
­
­
­

1,000,000+
­
24
0.25
31.26
$
­
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
­
­
­
­
­
­

National
Totals
558
83,593
$
41,952
$
795,467
$
921,012
$
5,448
2.6
14,511
TNCWSs
<
100
793
26
0.25
21.44
$
110,512
$
70.00
$
0.5
10.28
$
21.00
$
25%
55,256
$
1,135,433
$
1,301,202
$
7,732
3.7
20,618
100­
499
509
26
0.25
23.09
76,393
70.00
0.5
9.46
21.00
25%
38,197
726,067
840,657
4,963
2.4
13,234
500­
999
79
26
0.25
24.74
12,704
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
6,352
112,267
131,322
770
0.4
2,054
1,000­
3,299
49
26
0.25
24.74
7,880
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
3,940
69,634
81,453
478
0.2
1,274
3,300­
9,999
16
26
0.25
25.34
2,635
70.00
0.5
8.33
21.00
25%
1,318
22,706
26,659
156
0.1
416
10,000­
49,999
9
24
0.25
26.05
1,407
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
2,110
5,072
8,589
135
0.1
216
50,000­
99,999
­
24
0.25
26.05
­
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
­
­
­
­
­
­

100,000­
999,999
1
24
0.25
31.26
188
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
375
129
692
18
0.0
24
1,000,000+
­
24
0.25
31.26
­
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
­
­
­
­
­
­

National
Totals
1,456
211,719
$
107,548
$
2,071,307
$
2,390,574
$
14,252
6.9
37,836
Grand
Totals
7,308
1,139,953
$
886,751
$
8,759,214
$
10,785,918
$
81,453
39.2
186,544
Notes:

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

Sources:

(
A)
Taken
from
Exhibit
B.
1,
column
D.

(
B)
Bi­
weekly
source
water
monitoring
for
one
year
for
small
systems
and
monthly
samples
for
24
months
for
medium
and
large
systems.

(
C)
Estimate
of
labor
for
collecting
sample
and
shipping,
based
on
expert
opinion.

(
D)
All
size
categories
were
assumed
to
use
a
technical
rate
from
Labor
Costs
for
National
Drinking
Water
Rules
(
USEPA,
2003b).

(
F)
DynCorp
study,
Kevin
Connell,
June
2002.

(
G)
Based
on
professional
judgment.

(
H)
The
amount
left
after
half
an
hour
of
labor
is
subtracted
from
the
amount
in
column
I.

(
I)
DynCorp
study,
Kevin
Connell,
December
2000.

(
J)
Estimate
based
on
Third
Edition
Baseline
Handbook
data.
Exhibit
B.
4
Burden
and
Cost
to
Plants
Associated
with
E.
coli
Monitoring
for
Bin
Determination
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)

System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Baseline
#

of
Plants
Conducting
E.
coli
Monitoring
Total
Cost
ICR
for
the
LT2ESWTR
B­
10
Draft­­
August
2005
Sampling
Sample
Analysis
#
of
Cryptosporidium
Samples
Hours
per
Sample
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Total
Sampling
Labor
Cost
Cost
per
Sample
Total
Laboratory
Analysis
Cost
(
O&
M)

A
B
C
D
E
=
A*
B*
C*
D
F
G
=
A*
B*
F
H
=
E+
G
I
=
A*
B*
C
J
=
I/
2080
K
=
A*
B
CWSs
<
100
117
26
0.5
21.44
$
32,551
$
529.50
$
1,607,793
$
1,640,344
$
1,518
0.7
3,036
100­
499
242
26
0.5
23.09
72,495
529.50
$
3,324,926
3,397,421
3,140
1.5
6,279
500­
999
153
26
0.5
24.74
49,320
529.50
$
2,111,153
2,160,473
1,994
1.0
3,987
1,000­
3,299
388
26
0.5
24.74
124,911
529.50
$
5,346,858
5,471,770
5,049
2.4
10,098
3,300­
9,999
381
26
0.5
25.34
125,577
529.50
$
5,248,078
5,373,655
4,956
2.4
9,911
10,000­
49,999
1,107
26
0.5
26.05
374,887
529.50
$
15,240,147
15,615,035
14,391
6.9
28,782
50,000­
99,999
269
26
0.5
26.05
91,073
529.50
$
3,702,369
3,793,442
3,496
1.7
6,992
100,000­
999,999
318
26
0.5
31.26
129,409
529.50
$
4,384,011
4,513,420
4,140
2.0
8,280
1,000,000+
57
26
0.5
31.26
23,084
529.50
$
782,014
805,097
738
0.4
1,477
National
Totals
3,032
1,023,308
$
41,747,349
$
42,770,657
$
39,421
19.0
78,843
NTNCWSs
<
100
60
26
0.5
21.44
$
16,830
$
529.50
$
831,320
$
848,150
$
785
0.4
1,570
100­
499
81
26
0.5
23.09
24,268
529.50
1,113,045
1,137,313
1,051
0.5
2,102
500­
999
27
26
0.5
24.74
8,739
529.50
374,094
382,833
353
0.2
707
1,000­
3,299
21
26
0.5
24.74
6,797
529.50
290,962
297,759
275
0.1
550
3,300­
9,999
4
26
0.5
25.34
1,437
529.50
60,040
61,476
57
0.0
113
10,000­
49,999
1
26
0.5
26.05
337
529.50
13,717
14,054
13
0.0
26
50,000­
99,999
­
26
0.5
26.05
­
529.50
­
­
­
­
­

100,000­
999,999
­
26
0.5
31.26
­
529.50
­
­
­
­
­

1,000,000+
­
26
0.5
31.26
­
529.50
­
­
­
­
­

National
Totals
195
58,410
$
2,683,177
$
2,741,586
$
2,534
1.2
5,067
TNCWSs
<
100
276
26
0.5
21.44
$
76,917
$
529.50
$
3,799,196
$
3,876,113
$
3,588
1.7
7,175
100­
499
177
26
0.5
23.09
53,170
529.50
2,438,576
2,491,746
2,303
1.1
4,605
500­
999
27
26
0.5
24.74
8,842
529.50
378,482
387,324
357
0.2
715
1,000­
3,299
17
26
0.5
24.74
5,484
529.50
234,755
240,239
222
0.1
443
3,300­
9,999
6
26
0.5
25.34
1,834
529.50
76,655
78,489
72
0.0
145
10,000­
49,999
9
26
0.5
26.05
3,048
529.50
123,903
126,951
117
0.1
234
50,000­
99,999
­
26
0.5
26.05
­
529.50
­
­
­
­
­

100,000­
999,999
1
26
0.5
31.26
406
529.50
13,767
14,173
13
0.0
26
1,000,000+
­
26
0.5
31.26
­
529.50
­
­
­
­
­

National
Totals
513
149,701
$
7,065,335
$
7,215,036
$
6,672
3.2
13,343
Grand
Totals
3,741
1,231,419
$
51,495,860
$
52,727,279
$
48,627
23.4
97,254
Notes:

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

Sources:

(
A)
Taken
from
Exhibit
B.
1,
column
F.

(
C)
Estimate
of
labor
for
collecting
sample
and
shipping,
based
on
expert
opinion.

(
D)
All
size
categories
were
assumed
to
use
a
technical
rate
from
Labor
Costs
for
National
Drinking
Water
Rules
(
USEPA,
2003b).

Exhibit
B.
5
Burden
and
Cost
to
Plants
Associated
with
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
for
Bin
Determination
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)

(
B)
Semimonthly
source
water
monitoring
for
one
year
for
small
systems
and
monthly
samples
for
24
months
for
medium
and
large
systems,
plus
two
matrix
spike
samples.

(
F)
Cost
per
sample
includes
$
403
in
lab
costs,
$
88.70
for
shipping,
and
$
37.80
in
additional
costs.
Assumes
all
plants
must
ship
samples
to
private
lab
for
Cryptosporidium
analysis.
Samples
must
be
shipped
overnight
to
meet
24­
hour
holding
time
requirements.
Costs
based
on
FedEx
priority
overnight
rates
for
10
L
sample
(
22
lb.)
shipped
in
a
34­
quart
polyethylene
cooler
packed
with
wet
ice,
median
cost
for
all
zones.
Samples
generating
a
pellet
volume
of
>
0.5
ml
require
multiple
subsample
processing
at
a
cost
of
$
140
each.
During
the
ICR
Supplemental
Survey,
approximately
27
percent
of
field
samples
required
analysis
of
multiple
subsamples,
resulting
in
an
additional
per­
plant
charge
of
$
38
($
140
x
0.27).
Responses
ICR
for
the
LT2ESWTR
B­
11
Draft­­
August
2005
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Source
Water
Sampling
Plan
hours
per
plant
Bin
Classification
hours
per
plant
Total
hours
per
plant
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Baseline
#

of
Plants
Reporting
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)

A
B
C=
A+
B
D
E
F
=
C*
D*
E
G
=
C*
E
H
=
G/
2080
CWSs
<
100
1
5.5
6.5
21.44
$
333
46,363
$
2,162
1.0
100­
499
1
5.5
6.5
23.09
683
102,435
4,436
2.1
500­
999
1
5.5
6.5
30.03
432
84,247
2,805
1.3
1,000­
3,299
1
5.5
6.5
30.03
1,072
209,168
6,965
3.3
3,300­
9,999
1
5.5
6.5
30.51
1,054
208,964
6,849
3.3
10,000­
49,999
1
5
6
31.08
1,092
203,602
6,551
3.1
50,000­
99,999
1
5
6
31.08
264
49,222
1,584
0.8
100,000­
999,999
1
5
6
35.25
313
66,140
1,876
0.9
1,000,000+
1
5
6
35.25
53
11,304
321
0.2
National
Totals
5,294
981,445
$
33,549
16.1
NTNCWSs
<
100
1
5.5
6.5
21.44
$
174
24,182
$
1,128
0.5
100­
499
1
5.5
6.5
23.09
232
34,868
1,510
0.7
500­
999
1
5.5
6.5
30.03
78
15,243
508
0.2
1,000­
3,299
1
5.5
6.5
30.03
61
11,855
395
0.2
3,300­
9,999
1
5.5
6.5
30.51
13
2,485
81
0.0
10,000­
49,999
1
5
6
31.08
1
186
6
0.0
50,000­
99,999
1
5
6
31.08
0
­
­
­

100,000­
999,999
1
5
6
35.25
0
­
­
­

1,000,000+
1
5
6
35.25
0
­
­
­

National
Totals
558
88,819
$
3,628
1.7
TCWSs
<
100
1
5.5
6.5
21.44
$
793
110,512
$
5,155
2.5
100­
499
1
5.5
6.5
23.09
509
76,393
3,309
1.6
500­
999
1
5.5
6.5
30.03
79
15,421
514
0.2
1,000­
3,299
1
5.5
6.5
30.03
49
9,565
319
0.2
3,300­
9,999
1
5.5
6.5
30.51
16
3,173
104
0.1
10,000­
49,999
1
5
6
31.08
9
1,678
54
0.0
50,000­
99,999
1
5
6
31.08
0
­
­
­

100,000­
999,999
1
5
6
35.25
1
211
6
0.0
1,000,000+
1
5
6
35.25
0
­
­
­

National
Totals
1,456
216,955
$
9,459
4.5
Grand
Totals
7,308
1,287,220
$
46,636
22.4
Notes:

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

Sources:

(
E)
Taken
from
Exhibit
B.
1,
column
D.

(
C)
Hours
per
plant
reporting
to
the
State/
Primacy
Agency
for
bin
classification
exemption
and
to
report
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
data
and
bin
classification.
Assumes
15
minutes
per
sample.
Based
on
24
monthly
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
samples
for
medium
and
large
systems
and
26
biweekly
E.
coli
and
24
semimonthly
Cryptosporidium
samples
for
small
systems.
Although
small
systems
will
not
report
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
results
at
the
same
time,
the
additional
reporting
burden
is
assumed
to
be
negligible.
The
decrease
in
burden
for
small
plants
that
report
E.
coli
but
are
exempt
from
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
is
also
assumed
to
be
negligible.

(
D)
For
systems
serving
up
to
500
people,
the
full
technical
rate
($
21.44/
hour
for
<
100
and
$
23.09
for
100­
499)
was
applied.
For
systems
serving
more
than
500
people,
cost
are
based
on
an
80%/
20%
split
between
technical
and
managerial
rates
(
range
from
$
30.03/
hour
to
$
35.25,
depending
on
system
size).

Rates
are
based
on
Labor
Costs
for
National
Drinking
Water
Rules
(
USEPA,
2003).

Exhibit
B.
6
Burden
and
Cost
to
Plants
Associated
with
Reporting
for
Source
Water
Sampling
Plan
and
Initial
Bin
Classification
Monitoring
ICR
for
the
LT2ESWTR
B­
12
Draft­­
August
2005
Initial
Monitoring
for
Small
Systems
State
Activity
FTEs
per
State
for
E.
coli
Monitoring
Total
Hours
for
E.
coli
FTEs
Per
State
for
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
Total
Hours
for
Crypto­
sporidium
Total
FTEs
Per
State
Total
Hours
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Total
Cost
A
B
=
A*
2080
C
D
=
C*
2080
E
=
A+
C
F
=
B+
D
G
H
=
F*
G
Analyze
PWS
Reports
and
Make
Bin
Classifications
0.3
624
0.2
416
0.5
1040
33.60
34,949
Respond
to
PWS
0.3
624
0.2
416
0.5
1040
33.60
34,949
Recordkeeping
0.25
520
0.25
520
0.5
1040
33.60
34,949
Totals
per
State
0.9
1,768
0.7
1,352
1.5
3,120
104,847
$

National
Totals
(
57
States/
Primacy
Agencies)
48.5
100,776
37.1
77,064
85.5
177,840
5,976,281
$

Notes:

Detail
may
not
add
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.

All
States/
Primacy
Agencies
are
assumed
to
incur
some
costs
for
each
activity.

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

Sources
(
A),
(
C)
EPA
estimated
FTEs
based
on
experience
with
similar
regulations.

(
G)
Based
on
information
gathered
during
the
development
of
the
State
Workload
Model.

Future
Monitoring
State
Activity
FTEs
per
State
for
E.
coli
Monitoring
in
Small
Systems
Total
Hours
for
E.
coli
in
Small
Systems
FTEs
Per
State
for
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
in
Small
Systems
Total
Hours
for
Crypto­
sporidium
in
Small
Systems
FTEs
Per
State
for
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
in
Medium
&

Large
Systems
Total
Hours
for
Cryptosporidi
um
in
Medium
&
Large
Systems
Total
FTEs
Per
State
Total
Hours
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Total
Cost
A
B
=
A*
2080
C
D
=
C*
2080
E
F
=
E*
2080
G
=
A+
C+
E
H
=
B+
D+
F
I
J
=
H*
I
Analyze
PWS
Report
and
Make
Bin
Classifications
0.2
416
0.1
208
0.1
208
0.4
832
33.60
27959.20804
Respond
to
PWS
0.2
416
0.1
208
0.1
208
0.4
832
33.60
27959.20804
Recordkeeping
0.25
520
0.25
520
0.25
520
0.75
1560
33.60
52423.51507
Totals
per
State
0.7
1,352
0.5
936
0.5
936
1.6
3,224
108,342
$

National
Totals
(
57
States/
Primacy
Agencies)
37.1
77,064
25.7
53,352
25.7
53,352
88.4
183,768
6,175,490
$

Notes:

Detail
may
not
add
to
totals
due
to
independent
rounding.

All
States/
Primacy
Agencies
are
assumed
to
incur
some
costs
for
each
activity.

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

Sources
(
A),
(
C),
(
E)
EPA
estimated
FTEs
based
on
experience
with
similar
regulations.

(
I)
Based
on
information
gathered
during
the
development
of
the
State
Workload
Model.

Exhibit
B.
7
Burden
and
Cost
to
States
Associated
with
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
and
Bin
Determination
(
Initial
and
Future
Rounds)

ICR
for
the
LT2ESWTR
B­
13
Draft­­
August
2005
Exhibit
B.
8
Burden
and
Cost
to
PWSs
Associated
with
UCFWR
Reporting
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Reporting
Use
of
UCFWR
Reporting
Schedule
for
Covering
UCFWR
or
Disinfecting
UCFWR
Effluent
Total
Hours
per
PWS
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Baseline
#
of
Systems
with
UCFWRs
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)

A
B
C
=
A
+
B
D
E
F
=
C*
D*
E
G
=
C*
E
H
=
G/
2080
CWSs
<
100
0.25
8
8.25
21.44
$
3
531
$
25
0.01
100­
499
0.25
8
8.25
23.09
­
­

$
­
­

500­
999
0.25
8
8.25
30.03
­
­

$
­
­

1,000­
3,299
0.25
8
8.25
30.03
­
­

$
­
­

3,300­
9,999
0.25
8
8.25
30.51
9
2,266
$
74
0.04
10,000­
49,999
0.25
8
8.25
31.08
26
6,667
$
215
0.10
50,000­
99,999
0.25
8
8.25
31.08
5
1,282
$
41
0.02
100,000­
999,999
0.25
8
8.25
35.25
37
10,759
$
305
0.15
1,000,000+
0.25
8
8.25
35.25
1
291
$
8
0.00
National
Totals
81
21,795
$
668
0.3
Notes:

Detail
may
not
add
exactly
to
totals
due
to
rounding.

NTNCWS
and
TNCWS
do
not
have
UCFWRs
Sources:

(
A
&
B)
Burden
estimates
for
each
activity
are
based
on
EPA
experience
with
similar
rules.

(
D)
For
systems
serving
up
to
500
people,
the
full
technical
rate
($
21.44/
hour
for
<
100
and
$
23.09
for
100­
499)
was
applied.
For
systems
serving
more
than
500
people,
cost
are
(
E)
Exhibit
4.23,
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR
ICR
for
the
LT2ESWTR
B­
14
Draft­­
August
2005
State/
Primacy
Agency
Activity
Baseline
#
of
Systems
with
UCFWRs
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
FTEs
per
UCFWR
Hours
per
UCFWR
Cost
Per
UCFWR
A
B
C
D
E
=
B*
D
Recording
Use
of
UCFWR
81
33.60
$
0.0001
0.25
8.4
$

Approving
State
Schedule
81
33.60
0.0005
1
33.6
$

Totals
per
UCFWR
0.0006
1.25
42.0
$

Burden
and
Cost
per
State/
Primacy
Agency
0.01
14.46
486.1
$

Notes:

Detail
may
not
add
to
totals
due
to
rounding.

Only
the
seven
States/
Primacy
Agencies
with
UNFWRs
are
assumed
to
incur
burden
and
costs
for
these
activities.

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

Sources:

(
B)
State
labor
rates
based
on
the
State
Workload
Model,
updated
to
current
dollar
values.

(
C)
FTEs
per
State/
Primacy
Agency
based
on
EPA
experience
with
previous
regulations.

Exhibit
B.
9
Burden
and
Cost
to
States
and
Primacy
Agencies
Associated
with
Reviewing/
Approving
UCFWR
Schedule
ICR
for
the
LT2ESWTR
B­
15
Draft­­
August
2005
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Number
of
Plants
Installing
UV
Number
of
Plants
Installing
MF/
UF
Number
of
Unfiltered
Plants
Installing
Ozone
Number
of
Plants
Installing
Bank
Filtration
Total
Plants
Annual
Labor
Hours
per
Plant
Labor
Rate
Total
Annual
Labor
Hours
Total
Annual
Costs
A
B
C
D
E
=
A+
B+
C+
D
F
G
H
=
E*
F
I
=
G*
H
<
100
85
88
­
­
173
6
33.60
$
1,037
34,853
$

100­
499
79
68
­
­
147
6
33.60
884
29,718
500­
999
32
37
0
­
69
6
33.60
414
13,928
1,000­
3,299
125
27
1
­
154
6
33.60
922
30,976
3,300­
9,999
116
23
1
­
140
6
33.60
840
28,220
10,000­
49,999
366
22
1
4
392
6
33.60
2,353
79,075
50,000­
99,999
100
5
0
1
107
6
33.60
639
21,488
100,000­
999,999
115
6
0
1
122
6
33.60
734
24,655
1,000,000+
21
1
­
0
22
6
33.60
132
4,449
National
Totals
1,038
277
4
6
1,326
7,956
267,362
$

Notes:

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

UV
stands
for
ultraviolet
disinfection
and
MF/
UF
stands
for
microfiltration/
ultrafiltration.

Sources:

(
A)­(
D)
Taken
from
Appendix
G
of
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2
ESWTR.

(
F)
Based
on
an
estimate
of
0.5
hours
per
month
needed
to
review
each
plant's
reports.

(
G)
Based
on
information
gathered
during
the
development
of
the
State
Workload
Model.

Exhibit
B.
10
Burden
and
Cost
to
States
Associated
with
Reviewing
Plants'
Reports
on
Technology
Compliance
(
Beginning
Year
7)

ICR
for
the
LT2ESWTR
B­
16
Draft­­
August
2005
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Number
Plants
Installing
UV
Number
of
Plants
Installing
MF/
UF
Number
of
Plants
Installing
Bank
Filtration
Number
of
Unfiltered
Plants
Installing
Ozone
Total
Plants
Annual
Labor
Hours
per
Plant
Labor
Rate
Total
Annual
Labor
Hours
Total
Annual
Costs
A
B
C
D
E=
A+
B+
C+
D
F
G
H=
E*
F
I=
G*
H
CWS
<
100
16
54
­
­
69
36
21.44
2,486
53,296
100­
499
37
48
­
­
85
36
23.09
3,067
70,825
500­
999
23
31
­
0
53
36
30.03
1,918
57,611
1,000­
3,299
111
25
­
1
138
36
30.03
4,956
148,845
3,300­
9,999
112
23
­
1
136
36
30.51
4,885
149,037
10,000­
49,999
361
21
4
1
387
36
31.08
13,931
432,980
50,000­
99,999
100
5
1
0
107
36
31.08
3,837
119,240
100,000­
999,999
114
6
1
0
122
36
35.25
4,381
154,406
1,000,000+
20
1
0
­
21
36
35.25
773
27,240
National
Totals
893
214
6
4
1,118
40,233
1,213,480
$

NTNCWS
<
100
9
28
­
­
37
36
21.44
1,323
28,371
100­
499
13
17
­
­
30
36
23.09
1,082
24,985
500­
999
5
6
­
­
10
36
30.03
366
10,980
1,000­
3,299
8
2
­
­
9
36
30.03
341
10,249
3,300­
9,999
2
0
­
­
2
36
30.51
89
2,722
10,000­
49,999
1
0
0
­
2
36
31.08
55
1,703
50,000­
99,999
­
­
­
­
­
36
31.08
­
­

100,000­
999,999
0
0
0
­
0
36
35.25
11
374
1,000,000+
­
­
­
­
­
36
35.25
­
­

National
Totals
38
52
0
­
91
3,267
79,382
$

TNCWS
<
100
60
7
­
­
67
36
21.44
2,414
51,753
100­
499
29
3
­
­
32
36
23.09
1,157
26,708
500­
999
5
1
­
­
6
36
30.03
203
6,093
1,000­
3,299
6
0
­
­
6
36
30.03
233
7,004
3,300­
9,999
2
0
­
­
2
36
30.51
65
1,976
10,000­
49,999
4
0
0
­
4
36
31.08
133
4,123
50,000­
99,999
­
­
­
­
­
36
31.08
­
­

100,000­
999,999
0
0
0
­
0
36
35.25
11
381
1,000,000+
1
0
0
­
1
36
35.25
22
758
National
Totals
107
11
0
­
118
4,236
98,796
$

Grand
Totals
1,038
277
6
4
1,326
47,736
1,391,658
$

Notes:

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

UV
stands
for
ultraviolet
disinfection
and
MF/
UF
stands
for
microfiltration/
ultrafiltration.

Sources:

(
A),
(
B),
(
C),
(
D)
Taken
from
Appendix
G
of
the
LT2ESWTR
Economic
Analysis.

(
F)
Based
on
an
estimate
of
3
hours
per
month
to
prepare
each
report.

(
G)
For
systems
serving
up
to
500
people,
the
full
technical
rate
($
21.44/
hour
for
<
100
and
$
23.09
for
100­
499)
was
applied.
For
systems
serving
more
than
500
people,
cost
are
based
on
an
80%/
20%
split
between
technical
and
managerial
rates
(
range
from
$
30.03/
hour
to
$
35.25,
depending
on
system
size).
Rates
are
based
on
Labor
Costs
for
National
Drinking
Water
Rules
(
USEPA,

2003).
Exhibit
B.
11
Filtered
and
Unfiltered
Plant
Burden
and
Cost
for
Preparing
Reports
Demonstrating
Technology
Compliance
(
Beginning
Year
7)

Some
unfiltered
plants
may
install
ozone
treatment,
but
no
new
burden
is
expected
to
be
incurred
because
ozone
will
replace
the
currently
used
disinfectant.

ICR
for
the
LT2ESWTR
B­
17
Draft­­
August
2005
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Number
of
Plants
Installing
UV
Number
of
Plants
Installing
MF/
UF
Number
of
Unfiltered
Plants
Installing
Ozone
Total
Number
of
Plants
Changing
Disinfection
Annual
Labor
Hours
per
Plant
Labor
Rate
Total
Annual
Labor
Hours
Total
Annual
Costs
A
B
C
D
=
A+
B+
C
E
F
G
=
D*
E
H
=
F*
G
CWS
<
100
16
54
­
69
4
21
276
5,922
100­
499
37
48
­
85
4
23
341
7,869
500­
999
23
31
0
53
4
30
213
6,401
1,000­
3,299
111
25
1
138
4
30
551
16,538
3,300­
9,999
112
23
3
138
4
31
551
16,820
10,000­
49,999
361
21
16
398
4
31
1,593
49,503
50,000­
99,999
100
5
5
110
4
31
440
13,663
100,000­
999,999
114
6
5
125
4
35
502
17,694
1,000,000+
20
1
1
22
4
35
89
3,129
National
Totals
893
214
32
1,139
36
137,540
NTNCWS
<
100
9
28
­
37
4
21
147
3,152
100­
499
13
17
­
30
4
23
120
2,776
500­
999
5
6
­
10
4
30
41
1,220
1,000­
3,299
8
2
­
9
4
30
38
1,139
3,300­
9,999
2
0
0
3
4
31
10
308
10,000­
49,999
1
0
0
2
4
31
6
195
50,000­
99,999
­
­
­
­
4
31
­
­

100,000­
999,999
0
0
0
0
4
35
1
43
1,000,000+
­
­
­
­
4
35
­
­

National
Totals
38
52
0
91
36
8,833
TNCWS
<
100
60
7
­
67
4
21
268
5,750
100­
499
29
3
­
32
4
23
129
2,968
500­
999
5
1
­
6
4
30
23
677
1,000­
3,299
6
0
­
6
4
30
26
778
3,300­
9,999
2
0
0
2
4
31
7
224
10,000­
49,999
4
0
0
4
4
31
15
472
50,000­
99,999
­
­
­
­
4
31
­
­

100,000­
999,999
0
0
0
0
4
35
1
44
1,000,000+
1
0
0
1
4
35
2
87
National
Totals
107
11
0
118
36
11,001
Grand
Totals
1,038
277
32
1,348
108
157,374
Notes:

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

UV
stands
for
ultraviolet
disinfection
and
MF/
UF
stands
for
microfiltration/
ultrafiltration.

Sources:

(
A)
­
(
C)
From
Appendix
G
of
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR.

(
E)
Based
on
expert
opinion.

(
G)
For
systems
serving
up
to
500
people,
the
full
technical
rate
($
21.44/
hour
for
<
100
and
$
23.09
for
100­
499)
was
applied.
For
systems
serving
more
than
500
people,
cost
are
based
on
an
80%/
20%
split
between
technical
and
managerial
rates
(
range
from
$
30.03/
hour
to
$
35.25,
depending
on
system
size).
Rates
are
based
on
Labor
Costs
for
National
Drinking
Water
Rules
(
USEPA,

2003).
Exhibit
B.
12
Plant
Burden
and
Cost
for
Disinfection
Benchmarking
Reports
This
ICR
only
characterizes
burden
and
costs
associated
with
systems
complying
with
LT2ESWTR.
Estimates
of
disinfection
and
profiling
burden
and
costs
associated
with
systems
changing
treatment
to
comply
with
Stage
2
DBPR
are
not
yet
available;
they
fall
outside
of
the
clearance
period
and
will
be
added
in
future
ICRs.

ICR
for
the
LT2ESWTR
B­
18
Draft­­
August
2005
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Number
of
Plants
Installing
UV
Number
of
Plants
Installing
MF/
UF
Number
of
Plants
Installing
Ozone
Total
Number
of
Plants
Changing
Disinfection
Labor
Hours
per
Plant
Labor
Rate
Total
Labor
Hours
Total
Costs
A
B
C
D
=
A
+
B
+

C
E
F
G
=
D*
E
H
=
F*
G
<
100
85
88
­
173
2
34
345.72
$
11618
100­
499
79
68
­
147
2
34
294.78
9906
500­
999
32
37
0
69
2
34
138.16
4643
1,000­
3,299
125
27
1
154
2
34
307.26
10325
3,300­
9,999
116
23
3
142
2
34
284.35
9555
10,000­
49,999
366
22
16
404
2
34
807.12
27123
50,000­
99,999
100
5
5
110
2
34
219.81
7387
100,000­
999,999
115
6
5
126
2
34
252.23
8476
1,000,000+
21
1
1
23
2
34
45.62
1533
National
Totals
1,038
277
32
1,348
18
302
90,566
Notes:

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

UV
stands
for
ultraviolet
disinfection
and
MF/
UF
stands
for
microfiltration/
ultrafiltration.

Sources:

(
A)
­
(
C)
From
Appendix
G
of
the
Economic
Analysis
for
the
LT2ESWTR.

(
E)
Based
on
expert
opinion.

(
F)
Based
on
information
gathered
during
the
development
of
the
State
Workload
Model.

Exhibit
B.
13
State
Burden
and
Cost
for
Disinfection
Benchmarking
Reports
This
ICR
only
characterizes
burden
and
costs
associated
with
systems
complying
with
LT2ESWTR.
Estimates
of
disinfection
and
profiling
burden
and
costs
associated
with
systems
changing
treatment
to
comply
with
Stage
2
DBPR
are
not
yet
available;
they
fall
outside
of
the
clearance
period
and
will
be
added
in
future
ICRs.

ICR
for
the
LT2ESWTR
B­
19
Draft­­
August
2005
Sampling
Sample
Analysis
#
of
E.

coli
Samples
Hours
per
Sample
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Total
Sampling
Labor
Cost
Commercial
Analysis
(
Includes
Shipping)
Utility
Analysis
Hours
per
Sample
(
Labor)
Utility
Analysis
Cost
per
Sample
(
O&
M)
Utility
Analysis
Cost
per
Sample
(
Total)
Percent
Utilities
with
E.
coli
Analysis
Capabilities
Total
Laboratory
Analysis
Cost
(
Labor)
Total
Laboratory
Analysis
Cost
(
O&
M)

A
B
C
D
E
=
A*
B*
C*
D
F
G
H
I
=
H+
G*
D
J
K
=
D*
G*
J*
A*
B
L
=
F*
A*
B*(
1­

J)+
H*
A*
B*
J
M
=
E+
K+
L
N
=
A*
B*
C+

A*
B*
G*
J
O
=
N/
2,080
P
=
A*
F
CWSs
<
100
265
26
0.25
21.44
$
36,948
$
70.00
$
0.5
10.28
$
21.00
$
25%
18,473.92
$
379,611
$
435,033
$
2,585
1.2
6,893
100­
499
603
26
0.25
23.09
90,555
70.00
0.5
9.46
21.00
25%
45,277.62
860,667
996,500
5,883
2.8
15,687
500­
999
382
26
0.25
24.74
61,353
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
30,676.70
542,186
634,217
3,720
1.8
9,920
1,000­
3,299
948
26
0.25
24.74
152,478
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
76,239.19
1,347,468
1,576,185
9,245
4.4
24,653
3,300­
9,999
934
26
0.25
25.34
153,917
70.00
0.5
8.33
21.00
25%
76,958.46
1,326,152
1,557,027
9,111
4.4
24,296
10,000­
49,999
744
24
0.25
26.05
116,306
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
174,459.25
419,350
710,115
11,162
5.4
17,859
50,000­
99,999
180
24
0.25
26.05
28,136
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
42,204.32
101,447
171,788
2,700
1.3
4,320
100,000­
999,999
215
24
0.25
31.26
40,377
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
80,753.85
27,745
148,875
3,875
1.9
5,167
1,000,000+
37
24
0.25
31.26
6,903
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
13,806.09
4,743
25,452
662
0.3
883
National
Totals
4,309
686,974
$
558,849
$
5,009,369
$
6,255,192
$
48,943
23.5
109,679
NTNCWSs
<
100
138
26
0.25
21.44
$
19,271
$
70.00
$
0.5
10.28
$
21.00
$
25%
9,635.56
$
197,996
$
226,903
$
1,348
0.6
3,595
100­
499
205
26
0.25
23.09
30,825
70.00
0.5
9.46
21.00
25%
15,412.30
292,967
339,204
2,002
1.0
5,340
500­
999
69
26
0.25
24.74
11,101
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
5,550.25
98,096
114,747
673
0.3
1,795
1,000­
3,299
54
26
0.25
24.74
8,642
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
4,321.14
76,373
89,336
524
0.3
1,397
3,300­
9,999
11
26
0.25
25.34
1,831
70.00
0.5
8.33
21.00
25%
915.36
15,773
18,520
108
0.1
289
10,000­
49,999
1
24
0.25
26.05
106
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
159.20
383
648
10
0.0
16
50,000­
99,999
­
24
0.25
26.05
­
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
­
­
­
­
­
­

100,000­
999,999
­
24
0.25
31.26
­
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
­
­
­
­
­
­

1,000,000+
­
24
0.25
31.26
­
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
­
­
­
­
­
­

National
Totals
478
71,775
$
35,994
$
681,589
$
789,358
$
4,666
2.2
12,433
TNCWSs
<
100
751
26
0.25
21.44
$
104,692
$
70.00
$
0.5
10.28
$
21.00
$
25%
52,345.78
$
1,075,628
$
1,232,665
$
7,325
3.5
19,532
100­
499
482
26
0.25
23.09
72,369
70.00
0.5
9.46
21.00
25%
36,184.74
687,823
796,378
4,701
2.3
12,537
500­
999
75
26
0.25
24.74
12,035
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
6,017.45
106,354
124,406
730
0.4
1,946
1,000­
3,299
44
26
0.25
24.74
7,118
70.00
0.5
8.63
21.00
25%
3,558.89
62,901
73,577
432
0.2
1,151
3,300­
9,999
14
26
0.25
25.34
2,386
70.00
0.5
8.33
21.00
25%
1,192.91
20,556
24,135
141
0.1
377
10,000­
49,999
6
24
0.25
26.05
979
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
1,469.01
3,531
5,979
94
0.0
150
50,000­
99,999
­
24
0.25
26.05
­
70.00
0.5
7.98
21.00
75%
­
­
­
­
­
­

100,000­
999,999
1
24
0.25
31.26
160
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
319.42
110
589
15
0.0
20
1,000,000+
­
24
0.25
31.26
­
70.00
0.5
5.37
21.00
100%
­
­
­
­
­
­

National
Totals
1,374
199,739
$
101,088
$
1,956,902
$
2,257,729
$
13,438
6.5
35,713
Grand
Totals
6,161
958,488
$
695,931
$
7,647,860
$
9,302,279
$
67,047
32.2
157,824
Notes:

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

Sources:

(
A)
Taken
from
Exhibit
B.
1,
column
I.

(
B)
Bi­
weekly
source
water
monitoring
for
one
year
for
small
systems
and
monthly
samples
for
24
months
for
medium
and
large
systems.

(
C)
Estimate
of
labor
for
collecting
sample
and
shipping,
based
on
expert
opinion.

(
D)
All
size
categories
were
assumed
to
use
a
technical
rate
from
Labor
Costs
for
National
Drinking
Water
Rules
(
USEPA,
2003b).

(
F)
DynCorp
study,
Kevin
Connell,
June
2002.

(
G)
Based
on
expert
opinion.

(
H)
The
amount
left
over
after
the
cost
of
half
an
hour
of
labor
is
subtracted
from
the
cost
of
utility
analysis
provided
in
Column
I.

(
I)
DynCorp
study,
Kevin
Connell,
December
2000.

(
J)
Estimate
based
on
Third
Edition
Baseline
Handbook
data.
Exhibit
B.
14
Burden
and
Cost
to
Plants
Associated
with
E.
coli
Monitoring
for
Bin
Reclassification
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)
Responses
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Baseline
#

of
Plants
Conducting
E.
coli
Monitoring
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)

ICR
for
the
LT2ESWTR
B­
20
Draft­­
August
2005
Sampling
Sample
Analysis
#
of
Cryptosporidium
Samples
Hours
per
Sample
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Total
Sampling
Labor
Cost
Cost
per
Sample
Total
Laboratory
Analysis
Cost
(
O&
M)

A
B
C
D
E
=
A*
B*
C*
D
F
G
=
A*
B*
F
H
=
E+
G
I
=
A*
B*
C
J
=

I/
2080
K
=
A*
B
CWSs
<
100
92
26
0.5
21.44
$
25,716
$
529.50
$
1,270,192
$
1,295,908
$
1,199
0.6
2,399
100­
499
210
26
0.5
23.09
63,026
529.50
2,890,646
2,953,672
2,730
1.3
5,459
500­
999
133
26
0.5
24.74
42,702
529.50
1,827,865
1,870,567
1,726
0.8
3,452
1,000­
3,299
330
26
0.5
24.74
106,125
529.50
4,542,697
4,648,822
4,290
2.1
8,579
3,300­
9,999
325
26
0.5
25.34
107,126
529.50
4,476,978
4,584,104
4,228
2.0
8,455
10,000­
49,999
744
26
0.5
26.05
251,997
529.50
10,244,319
10,496,315
9,674
4.7
19,347
50,000­
99,999
180
26
0.5
26.05
60,962
529.50
2,478,255
2,539,217
2,340
1.1
4,680
100,000­
999,999
215
26
0.5
31.26
87,483
529.50
2,963,687
3,051,170
2,799
1.3
5,597
1,000,000+
37
26
0.5
31.26
14,957
529.50
506,687
521,644
478
0.2
957
National
Totals
2,266
760,094
$
31,201,326
$
31,961,420
$
29,463
14.2
58,926
NTNCWSs
<
100
48
26
0.5
21.44
$
13,413
$
529.50
$
662,502
$
675,915
$
626
0.3
1,251
100­
499
71
26
0.5
23.09
21,454
529.50
983,963
1,005,417
929
0.4
1,858
500­
999
24
26
0.5
24.74
7,726
529.50
330,711
338,437
312
0.2
625
1,000­
3,299
19
26
0.5
24.74
6,015
529.50
257,474
263,489
243
0.1
486
3,300­
9,999
4
26
0.5
25.34
1,274
529.50
53,250
54,524
50
0.0
101
10,000­
49,999
1
26
0.5
26.05
230
529.50
9,348
9,578
9
0.0
18
50,000­
99,999
­
26
0.5
26.05
­
529.50
­
­
­
­
­

100,000­
999,999
­
26
0.5
31.26
­
529.50
­
­
­
­
­

1,000,000+
­
26
0.5
31.26
­
529.50
­
­
­
­
­

National
Totals
167
50,112
$
2,297,248
$
2,347,360
$
2,169
1.0
4,339
TNCWSs
<
100
261
26
0.5
21.44
$
72,865
$
529.50
$
3,599,085
$
3,671,950
$
3,399
1.6
6,797
100­
499
168
26
0.5
23.09
50,369
529.50
2,310,132
2,360,501
2,181
1.0
4,363
500­
999
26
26
0.5
24.74
8,376
529.50
358,548
366,925
339
0.2
677
1,000­
3,299
15
26
0.5
24.74
4,954
529.50
212,056
217,010
200
0.1
400
3,300­
9,999
5
26
0.5
25.34
1,661
529.50
69,396
71,057
66
0.0
131
10,000­
49,999
6
26
0.5
26.05
2,122
529.50
86,261
88,383
81
0.0
163
50,000­
99,999
­
26
0.5
26.05
­
529.50
­
­
­
­
­

100,000­
999,999
1
26
0.5
31.26
346
529.50
11,723
12,069
11
0.0
22
1,000,000+
­
26
0.5
31.26
­
529.50
­
­
­
­
­

National
Totals
483
140,693
$
6,647,200
$
6,787,894
$
6,277
3.0
12,554
Grand
Totals
2,916
950,899
$
40,145,774
$
41,096,673
$
37,909
18.2
75,818
Notes:

(
A)
Taken
from
Exhibit
B.
1,
column
J.

(
C)
Estimate
of
labor
for
collecting
sample
and
shipping,
based
on
expert
opinion.

(
D)
All
size
categories
were
assumed
to
use
a
technical
rate
from
Labor
Costs
for
National
Drinking
Water
Rules
(
USEPA,
2003b).
Responses
Assume
unfiltered
plants
achieve
3
log
removal
due
to
treatment
installed
following
initial
Cryptosporidium
monitoring,
and
are
therefore
exempt
from
future
Cryptosporidium
monitoring.

Exhibit
B.
15
Burden
and
Cost
to
Plants
Associated
with
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
for
Bin
Reclassification
(
B)
Semimonthly
source
water
monitoring
for
one
year
for
small
systems
and
monthly
samples
for
24
months
for
medium
and
large
systems,
plus
two
matrix
spike
samples.

(
F)
Cost
per
sample
includes
$
403
in
lab
costs,
$
88.70
for
shipping,
and
$
37.80
in
additional
costs.
Assumes
all
plants
must
ship
samples
to
private
lab
for
Cryptosporidium
analysis.
Samples
must
be
shipped
overnight
to
meet
24­
hour
holding
time
requirements.
Costs
based
on
FedEx
priority
overnight
rates
for
10
L
sample
(
22
lb.)
shipped
in
a
34­
quart
polyethylene
cooler
packed
with
wet
ice,
median
cost
for
all
zones.
Samples
generating
a
pellet
volume
of
>
0.5
ml
require
multiple
subsample
processing
at
a
cost
of
$
140
each.
During
the
ICR
Supplemental
Survey,
approximately
27
percent
of
field
samples
required
analysis
of
multiple
subsamples,
resulting
in
an
additional
per­
plant
charge
of
$
38
($
140
x
0.27).

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

System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Conducting
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)

ICR
for
the
LT2ESWTR
B­
21
Draft­­
August
2005
System
Size
(
Population
Served)
Source
Water
Sampling
Plan
hours
per
plant
Bin
Re­
Classification
hours
per
plant
Hours
per
Plant
Cost
per
Labor
Hour
Baseline
#
of
Plants
Reporting
Total
Cost
Total
Burden
(
Hours)
Total
Burden
(
FTEs)

A
B
C=
A+
B
D
E
F
=
C*
D*
E
G
=
C*
E
H
=
G/
2080
CWSs
<
100
1
5.5
6.5
21.44
$
265
36,948
$
1,723
0.8
100­
499
1
5.5
6.5
23.09
603
90,555
3,922
1.9
500­
999
1
5.5
6.5
30.03
382
74,477
2,480
1.2
1,000­
3,299
1
5.5
6.5
30.03
948
185,094
6,163
3.0
3,300­
9,999
1
5.5
6.5
30.51
934
185,332
6,074
2.9
10,000­
49,999
1
5
6
31.08
744
138,764
4,465
2.1
50,000­
99,999
1
5
6
31.08
180
33,569
1,080
0.5
100,000­
999,999
1
5
6
35.25
215
45,528
1,292
0.6
1,000,000+
1
5
6
35.25
37
7,784
221
0.1
National
Totals
4,309
798,051
$
27,420
13.2
NTNCWSs
<
100
1
5.5
6.5
21.44
$
138
19,271
$
899
0.4
100­
499
1
5.5
6.5
23.09
205
30,825
1,335
0.6
500­
999
1
5.5
6.5
30.03
69
13,475
449
0.2
1,000­
3,299
1
5.5
6.5
30.03
54
10,491
349
0.2
3,300­
9,999
1
5.5
6.5
30.51
11
2,204
72
0.0
10,000­
49,999
1
5
6
31.08
1
127
4
0.0
50,000­
99,999
1
5
6
31.08
­
­
­
­

100,000­
999,999
1
5
6
35.25
­
­
­
­

1,000,000+
1
5
6
35.25
­
­
­
­

National
Totals
478
76,393
$
3,108
1.5
TCWSs
<
100
1
5.5
6.5
21.44
$
751
104,692
$
4,883
2.3
100­
499
1
5.5
6.5
23.09
482
72,369
3,134
1.5
500­
999
1
5.5
6.5
30.03
75
14,609
486
0.2
1,000­
3,299
1
5.5
6.5
30.03
44
8,640
288
0.1
3,300­
9,999
1
5.5
6.5
30.51
14
2,873
94
0.0
10,000­
49,999
1
5
6
31.08
6
1,168
38
0.0
50,000­
99,999
1
5
6
31.08
­
­
­
­

100,000­
999,999
1
5
6
35.25
1
180
5
0.0
1,000,000+
1
5
6
35.25
­
­
­
­

National
Totals
1,374
204,532
$
8,928
4.3
Grand
Totals
6,161
1,078,975
$
39,456
19.0
Sources
Exhibit
B.
16
Burden
and
Cost
to
Plants
Associated
with
Reporting
for
Source
Water
Sampling
Schedule
and
Bin
Re­

Classification
Monitoring
(
A)
Hours
per
plant
reporting
to
the
State/
Primacy
Agency
for
bin
classification
exemption
and
to
report
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
data
and
bin
classification.
Assumes
15
minutes
per
sample.
Based
on
24
monthly
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
samples
for
medium
and
large
systems
and
26
biweekly
E.
coli
and
24
semimonthly
Cryptosporidium
samples
for
small
systems.
Although
small
systems
will
not
report
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
results
at
the
same
time,
the
additional
reporting
burden
is
assumed
to
be
negligible.

The
decrease
in
burden
for
small
plants
that
report
E.
coli
but
are
exempt
from
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
is
also
assumed
to
be
negligible.

(
E)
Taken
from
Exhibit
B.
1,
column
I.

(
D)
For
systems
serving
up
to
500
people,
the
full
technical
rate
($
21.44/
hour
for
<
100
and
$
23.09
for
100­
499)
was
applied.
For
systems
serving
more
than
50
people,
cost
are
based
on
an
80%/
20%
split
between
technical
and
managerial
rates
(
range
from
$
30.03/
hour
to
$
35.25,
depending
on
system
size).
Rates
are
based
on
Labor
Costs
for
National
Drinking
Water
Rules
(
USEPA,
2003).

ICR
for
the
LT2ESWTR
B­
22
Draft­­
August
2005
Exhibit
C.
1
12­
Year
Summary
of
Burden
Associated
with
Implementing
the
LT2ESWTR
(
Hours)

Activity
Source
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Year
4
Year
5
Year
6
Year
7
Year
8
Year
9
Year
10
Year
11
Year
12
CWSs
Start­
up
[
1]
Exhibit
B.
2,
Column
G
2,169
1,953
37,304
Assessment
for
Binning
[
2]
E.
coli
Monitoring
Exhibit
B.
4,
Column
N
1,648
5,275
29,229
25,602
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
Exhibit
B.
5,
Column
I
1,220
4,187
10,163
7,196
8,328
8,328
Reporting
Exhibit
B.
6,
Column
G
563
1,933
14,268
12,898
2,156
2,156
UCFWR
Reporting
[
3]
Exhibit
B.
8,
Column
G
334
334
Technology
Reporting
[
4]
Exhibit
B.
11,
Column
H
4,818
13,077
25,283
30,184
36,771
38,502
Disinfection
Benchmarking
[
5]
Exhibit
B.
12,
Column
G
162
365
525
950
950
788
584
213
Assessment
for
Bin
Reclassification
[
6]
E.
coli
Monitoring
Exhibit
B.
14,
Column
N
2,944
6,409
21,528
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
Exhibit
B.
15,
Column
I
2,224
5,227
5,422
Reporting
Exhibit
B.
16,
Column
G
1,026
2,412
12,684
Yearly
Total
5,933
13,682
90,964
45,858
10,849
11,008
5,768
14,027
26,071
36,962
51,032
78,135
NTNCWSs
Start­
up
[
1]
Exhibit
B.
2,
Column
G
­
­
4,632
Assessment
for
Binning
[
2]
E.
coli
Monitoring
Exhibit
B.
4,
Column
N
0
0
2,724
2,724
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
Exhibit
B.
5,
Column
I
0
0
6
6
1,260
1,260
Reporting
Exhibit
B.
6,
Column
G
0
0
1,497
1,497
317
317
UCFWR
Reporting
[
3]
Exhibit
B.
8,
Column
G
Technology
Reporting
[
4]
Exhibit
B.
11,
Column
H
6
33
1,330
1,661
2,626
2,947
Disinfection
Benchmarking
[
5]
Exhibit
B.
12,
Column
G
0
1
1
80
80
80
79
39
Assessment
for
Bin
Reclassification
[
6]
E.
coli
Monitoring
Exhibit
B.
14,
Column
N
0
3
2,333
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
Exhibit
B.
15,
Column
I
0
2
4
Reporting
Exhibit
B.
16,
Column
G
0
1
1,554
Yearly
Totals
0
0
8,859
4,227
1,578
1,579
86
113
1,409
1,740
2,671
6,838
TNCWSs
Start­
up
[
1]
Exhibit
B.
2,
Column
G
9
­
11,640
Assessment
for
Binning
[
2]
E.
coli
Monitoring
Exhibit
B.
4,
Column
N
5
9
7,121
7,117
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
Exhibit
B.
5,
Column
I
3
7
62
59
3,271
3,271
Reporting
Exhibit
B.
6,
Column
G
2
3
3,906
3,904
822
822
UCFWR
Reporting
[
3]
Exhibit
B.
8,
Column
G
Technology
Reporting
[
4]
Exhibit
B.
11,
Column
H
19
86
1,754
2,187
3,422
3,829
Disinfection
Benchmarking
[
5]
Exhibit
B.
12,
Column
G
1
2
4
103
103
103
101
50
Assessment
for
Bin
Reclassification
[
6]
E.
coli
Monitoring
Exhibit
B.
14,
Column
N
8
31
6,711
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
Exhibit
B.
15,
Column
I
6
26
41
Reporting
Exhibit
B.
16,
Column
G
3
12
4,462
Yearly
Totals
18
19
22,729
11,080
4,096
4,097
123
189
1,856
2,304
3,541
15,043
States
and
Territories
Start­
up
[
7]
Exhibit
B.
2,
Column
E,
and
Exhibit
B.
3,
Column
C
7,818
7,011
216,363
Bin
Determination
and
Reviewing
Monitoring
Data[
8]
Exhibit
B.
7,
Column
B,
Column
D
50,388
50,388
38,532
38,532
9,904
23,348
76,967
Reviewing/
Approving
UCFWR
Schedule
[
9]
Exhibit
B.
9,
Column
C
51
51
Technology
Reporting
[
10]
Exhibit
B.
10,
Column
H
807
2,199
4,728
5,672
7,137
7,546
Disinfection
Benchmarking
[
11]
Exhibit
B.
13,
Column
G
82
184
265
566
566
485
382
151
Yearly
Totals
7,818
7,061
266,802
50,470
38,716
38,797
1,374
2,766
5,213
15,958
30,636
84,513
Grand
Totals
13,770
20,762
389,354
111,635
55,239
55,481
7,351
17,095
34,548
56,964
87,880
184,529
Notes:

[
10]
State
activities
will
parallel
system
activities.
[
4]
Systems
must
begin
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
technologies
42
months
following
the
completion
of
Cryptosporidium
monitoring.

[
7]
State
rule
start­
up
activities
will
parallel
system
activities.
[
8]
In
the
first
round
of
monitoring,
States
will
perform
these
activities
for
small
systems
only;
States
will
perform
these
activities
for
all
systems
during
future
monitoring.
[
5]
Disinfection
profiling
must
be
completed
prior
to
changing
the
disinfection
process.
Thus,
the
schedule
reflects
treatment
installation.

[
9]
It
is
assumed
that
States
will
need
one
year
to
review/
approve
system
schedules
to
cover
or
treat
the
reservoir
discharge.
Systems
submitting
schedules
to
the
State
in
Year
1
will
receive
responses
in
Year
2,
and
systems
submitting
schedules
to
the
State
in
Year
2
will
receive
responses
in
Year
3.
This
ICR
only
characterizes
burden
associated
with
systems
complying
with
LT2ESWTR.
Estimates
of
disinfection
and
profiling
burden
associated
with
systems
changing
treatment
to
comply
with
Stage
2
DBPR
are
not
yet
available;
they
fall
outside
of
the
clearance
period
and
will
be
added
in
future
ICRs.

[
1]
All
large
PWS
start­
up
burden
will
be
incurred
in
Year
1.
Start­
up
burden
for
medium
PWSs
serving
50,000
­
99,999
people
will
be
incurred
in
Year
2.
Startup
burden
for
medium
PWSs
serving
10,000
­
49,999
people
and
small
PWSs
will
be
incurred
in
Year
3.
[
2]
Assessments
for
binning:
systems
serving
at
least
100,000
people
will
begin
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
in
Year
1,
6
months
after
rule
promulgation;
systems
serving
50,000­<
100,000
people
will
begin
in
Year
2,
12
months
after
rule
promulgation;
and
systems
serving
10,000
­
<
50,000
people
will
begin
in
Year
3,
24
months
after
rule
promulgation.
This
monitoring
will
be
completed
in
24
months.
Small
systems
will
begin
1
year
of
E.
coli
monitoring
6
months
into
Year
3;
small
systems
that
are
triggered
into
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
will
begin
this
6
months
into
Year
5.

[
6]
Assessments
for
re­
binning:
A
second
round
of
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
for
re­
binning
will
take
place
starting
6.5
years
after
the
completion
of
initial
monitoring.
[
3]
Systems
must
report
the
use
of
UCFWRs
to
the
State
within
24
months,
and
must
have
a
State­
approved
schedule
to
cover
or
treat
the
reservoir
discharge
within
36
months.
In
order
to
allow
States
adequate
time
to
review/
approve
system
schedules,
it
is
assumed
that
systems
will
submit
schedules
to
States
within
24
months.
NTNCWS
and
TNCWS
do
not
have
UCFWRs.

ICR
for
the
LT2ESWTR
C­
23
Draft­­
August
2005
Exhibit
C.
2
12­
Year
Summary
of
Cost
Associated
with
Implementing
the
LT2ESWTR
Activity
Source
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Year
4
Year
5
Year
6
Year
7
Year
8
Year
9
Year
10
Year
11
Year
12
CWSs
Start­
up
[
1]
Exhibit
B.
2,
Column
F
76,453
60,699
1,069,943
Assessment
for
Binning
[
2]
E.
coli
Monitoring
Exhibit
B.
4,
Column
M
63,310
252,567
3,673,856
3,484,599
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
Exhibit
B.
5,
Column
H
1,329,629
4,555,980
11,033,868
7,807,517
9,021,831
9,021,831
Reporting
Exhibit
B.
6,
Column
F
19,840
64,755
416,743
371,828
60,612
60,612
UCFWR
Reporting
[
3]
Exhibit
B.
8,
Column
F
10,898
10,898
Technology
Reporting
[
4]
Exhibit
B.
11,
Column
I
162,646
423,626
783,893
930,375
1,117,557
1,165,518
Disinfection
Benchmarking
[
5]
Exhibit
B.
12,
Column
H
5,531
11,848
16,798
28,579
28,579
23,048
16,731
5,891
Assessment
for
Bin
Reclassification
[
6]
E.
coli
Monitoring
Exhibit
B.
14,
Column
M
130,111
350,586
2,997,485
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
Exhibit
B.
15,
Column
H
2,421,211
5,680,094
5,882,962
Reporting
Exhibit
B.
16,
Column
F
35,048
78,131
363,977
Yearly
Total
1,500,130
$
4,944,898
$
16,194,409
$
11,669,475
$
9,094,291
$
9,099,241
$
191,225
$
452,205
$
806,941
$
3,533,476
$
7,232,260
$
10,409,943
$
NTNCWSs
Start­
up
[
1]
Exhibit
B.
2,
Column
F
­
­
113,410
Assessment
for
Binning
[
2]
E.
coli
Monitoring
Exhibit
B.
4,
Column
M
0
0
460,506
460,506
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
Exhibit
B.
5,
Column
H
0
0
7,027
7,027
1,363,766
1,363,766
Reporting
Exhibit
B.
6,
Column
F
0
0
36,654
36,654
7,755
7,755
UCFWR
Reporting
[
3]
Exhibit
B.
8,
Column
F
Technology
Reporting
[
4]
Exhibit
B.
11,
Column
I
224
1,065
32,488
40,559
63,921
71,652
Disinfection
Benchmarking
[
5]
Exhibit
B.
12,
Column
H
9
28
48
1,939
1,939
1,930
1,910
945
Assessment
for
Bin
Reclassification
[
6]
E.
coli
Monitoring
Exhibit
B.
14,
Column
M
0
162
394,679
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
Exhibit
B.
15,
Column
H
0
2,395
4,789
Reporting
Exhibit
B.
16,
Column
F
0
32
38,196
Yearly
Totals
­
$
­
$
617,597
$
504,196
$
1,371,550
$
1,371,569
$
2,163
$
3,004
$
34,418
$
42,470
$
67,455
$
509,316
$
TNCWSs
Start­
up
[
1]
Exhibit
B.
2,
Column
F
317
­
266,934
Assessment
for
Binning
[
2]
E.
coli
Monitoring
Exhibit
B.
4,
Column
M
173
346
1,195,114
1,194,941
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
Exhibit
B.
5,
Column
H
3,543
7,087
67,019
63,475
3,536,956
3,536,956
Reporting
Exhibit
B.
6,
Column
F
53
106
89,607
89,554
18,818
18,818
UCFWR
Reporting
[
3]
Exhibit
B.
8,
Column
F
Technology
Reporting
[
4]
Exhibit
B.
11,
Column
I
683
2,766
41,438
51,616
80,089
89,442
Disinfection
Benchmarking
[
5]
Exhibit
B.
12,
Column
H
26
73
121
2,408
2,408
2,382
2,335
1,144
Assessment
for
Bin
Reclassification
[
6]
E.
coli
Monitoring
Exhibit
B.
14,
Column
M
294
1,789
1,128,570
Cryptosporidium
Monitoring
Exhibit
B.
15,
Column
H
6,034
28,130
44,191
Reporting
Exhibit
B.
16,
Column
F
90
382
102,176
Yearly
Totals
4,086
$
7,538
$
1,618,673
$
1,347,997
$
3,555,847
$
3,555,895
$
3,092
$
5,175
$
43,820
$
60,370
$
111,534
$
1,364,380
$
States
and
Territories
Start­
up
[
7]
Exhibit
B.
2,
Column
E,
Exhibit
B.
3,
Column
D
262,736
235,594
7,270,835
Bin
Determination
and
Reviewing
Monitoring
Data
[
8]
Exhibit
B.
7,
Column
G,
Column
I
­
$
­
$
1,693,280
$
1,693,280
$
1,294,861
$
1,294,861
$
­
$
­
$
­
$
332,816
$
784,615
$
2,586,447
$
Reviewing/
Approving
UCFWR
Schedule
[
9]
Exhibit
B.
9,
Column
D
1,701
$
1,701
$
Technology
Reporting
[
10]
Exhibit
B.
10,
Column
I
27,132
73,908
158,873
190,607
239,823
253,593
Disinfection
Benchmarking
[
11]
Exhibit
B.
13,
Column
H
2,740
6191
8904
19034
19034
16294
12843
5065
Yearly
Totals
262,736
$
237,295
$
8,965,816
$
1,696,020
$
1,301,052
$
1,303,765
$
46,166
$
92,942
$
175,167
$
536,265
$
1,029,504
$
2,840,040
$
Grand
Totals
1,766,952
$
5,189,732
$
27,396,496
$
15,217,688
$
15,322,740
$
15,330,469
$
242,645
$
553,325
$
1,060,347
$
4,172,581
$
8,440,752
$
15,123,678
$

Notes:

[
10]
State
activities
will
parallel
system
activities.
[
8]
In
the
first
round
of
monitoring,
States
will
perform
these
activities
for
small
systems
only;
States
will
perform
these
activities
for
all
systems
during
future
monitoring.
[
5]
Disinfection
profiling
must
be
completed
prior
to
changing
the
disinfection
process.
Thus,
the
schedule
reflects
treatment
installation.

[
7]
State
rule
start­
up
activities
will
parallel
system
activities.
[
4]
Systems
must
begin
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
technologies
42
months
following
the
completion
of
Cryptosporidium
monitoring.
[
2]
Assessments
for
binning:
systems
serving
at
least
100,000
people
will
begin
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
in
Year
1,
6
months
after
rule
promulgation;
systems
serving
50,000­<
100,000
people
will
begin
in
Year
2,
12
months
after
rule
promulgation;
and
systems
serving
10,000
­
<
50,000
people
will
begin
in
Year
3,
24
months
after
rule
promulgation.
This
monitoring
will
be
completed
in
24
months.
Small
systems
will
begin
1
year
of
E.
coli
monitoring
6
months
into
Year
3;
small
systems
that
are
triggered
into
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
will
begin
this
6
months
into
Year
5.

[
6]
Assessments
for
re­
binning:
A
second
round
of
E.
coli
and
Cryptosporidium
monitoring
for
re­
binning
will
take
place
starting
6.5
years
after
the
completion
of
initial
monitoring.
[
1]
All
large
PWS
start­
up
burden
will
be
incurred
in
Year
1.
Start­
up
burden
for
medium
PWSs
serving
50,000
­
99,999
people
will
be
incurred
in
Year
2.
Start­
up
burden
for
medium
PWSs
serving
10,000
­
49,999
people
and
small
PWSs
will
be
incurred
in
Year
3.
This
ICR
only
characterizes
costs
associated
with
systems
complying
with
LT2ESWTR.
Estimates
of
disinfection
and
profiling
costs
associated
with
systems
changing
treatment
to
comply
with
Stage
2
DBPR
are
not
yet
available;
they
fall
outside
of
the
clearance
period
and
will
be
added
in
future
ICRs.

[
3]
Systems
must
report
the
use
of
UCFWRs
to
the
State
within
24
months,
and
must
have
a
State­
approved
schedule
to
cover
or
treat
the
reservoir
discharge
within
36
months.
In
order
to
allow
States
adequate
time
to
review/
approve
system
schedules,
it
is
assumed
that
systems
will
submit
schedules
to
States
within
24
months.
NTNCWS
and
TNCWS
do
not
have
UCFWRs.

[
9]
It
is
assumed
that
States
will
need
one
year
to
review/
approve
system
schedules
to
cover
or
treat
the
reservoir
discharge.
Systems
submitting
schedules
to
the
State
in
Year
1
will
receive
responses
in
Year
2,
and
systems
submitting
schedules
to
the
State
in
Year
2
will
receive
responses
in
Year
3.

ICR
for
the
LT2ESWTR
C­
24
Draft­­
August
2005
Exhibit
C.
3
Implementation
Timeline
for
the
LT2ESWTR
Systems
Serving
50,000­
99,999
People
Systems
Serving
 
100,000
People
Systems
Serving
10,000­
49,999
People
Systems
Serving
<
10,000
People
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Year
4
Year
5
Year
6
Year
7
Year
8
Year
9
Year
10
Year
11
Treatment
Installation
Possible
Extension
Treatment
Installation
Possible
Extension
Treatment
Installation
Possible
Extension
Crypto
Monitoring
2nd
Round
Crypto
Mon.

Crypto
Monitoring
Crypto
Monitoring
2nd
Round
Crypto
Mon.

Treatment
Installation
Possible
Extension
Crypto
Mon.
(
Opt)
E.
coli
Mon.
Filtered
Only
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Year
4
Year
5
Year
6
Year
7
Year
8
Year
9
Year
10
Year
11
2nd
Round
Crypto
Mon.
Year
12
Year
12
Year
13
Year
13
2nd
Round
E.
coli
Mon.
Filtered
Only
ICR
for
the
LT2ESWTR
C­
25
Draft­­
August
2005