Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0031-0004
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2005-05-24T04:00Z

INFORMATION
COLLECTION
REQUEST
FOR
NATIONAL
POLLUTANT
DISCHARGE
ELIMINATION
SYSTEM
(
NPDES)
AND
SEWAGE
SLUDGE
MONITORING
REPORTS
OMB
CONTROL
NO.
2040­
0004;
EPA
ICR#
0229.16
April
29,
2005
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Office
of
Wastewater
Management
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW
Washington,
D.
C.
20460
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
i
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
1.0
IDENTIFICATION
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1.
a
Title
of
the
Information
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1.
b
Short
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
2.0
NEED
FOR
AND
USE
OF
THE
COLLECTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
2.
a
Need/
Authority
for
the
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
2.
b
Practical
Utility/
Users
of
the
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
3.0
NON­
DUPLICATION,
CONSULTATIONS,
AND
OTHER
COLLECTION
CRITERIA
.
6
3.
a
Non­
duplication
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
3.
b
Public
Notice
Required
Prior
to
ICR
Submission
to
OMB
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
3.
c
Consultations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
3.
d
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
3.
e
General
Guidelines
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
3.
f
Confidentiality
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
3.
g
Sensitive
Questions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
4.0
THE
RESPONDENTS
AND
THE
INFORMATION
REQUESTED
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
4.
a
Respondents/
SIC
Codes
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
4.
b
Information
Requested
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12
4.
b.
1
Data
Requirements
of
NPDES
Permittees:
Major
and
Minor
Individual
Permittees,
General
Permittees,
and
MS4s
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15
4.
b.
2
Data
Requirements
for
Sewage
Sludge
Facilities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15
5.0
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTED
 
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY,
AND
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
16
5.
a
EPA
Activities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
16
5.
b
Collection
Methodology
and
Management
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
5.
c
Small
Entity
Flexibility
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
5.
d
Collection
Schedule
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
6.0
ESTIMATING
THE
BURDEN
AND
COST
OF
THE
COLLECTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
19
6.
a
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
19
6.
a.
1
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
 
Sampling
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
6.
a.
2
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
 
Analysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
6.
a.
3
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
 
Reporting/
Record­
keeping
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
6.
b
Estimating
Respondent
Cost
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
21
6.
b.
1
Estimating
Labor
Costs
(
2004
Dollars)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
21
6.
b.
2
Estimating
Capital
and
Operating
and
Maintenance
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
21
6.
c
Estimating
Agency
Burden
and
Cost
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
21
6.
d
Estimating
Respondent
Universe
and
Total
Burden
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
22
6.
e
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
22
6.
e.
1
Variations
in
the
Annual
Bottom
Line
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
22
6.
f
Reasons
for
Change
in
Burden
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
22
6.
g
Burden
Statement
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
23
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
ii
LIST
OF
EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT
6.1a
Number
of
Respondents
and
Responses
(
NPDES
Permittees)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
26
EXHIBIT
6.1b
Number
of
Respondents
and
Responses
(
Biosolids
Facilities)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
27
EXHIBIT
6.2a
Annual
Sampling
Labor
Burden
and
Costs
(
NPDES
Permittees)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
28
EXHIBIT
6.2b
Annual
Sampling
Labor
Burden
(
Biosolids
Facilities)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
29
EXHIBIT
6.3a
Annual
Analysis
Labor
Burden
(
For
NPDES
Facilities)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
30
EXHIBIT
6.3b
Annual
Analysis
Labor
Burden
(
for
Biosolids
Facilities)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
31
EXHIBIT
6.4a
Annual
Burden
for
Reporting
and
Record­
keeping*
of
DMRs
(
NPDES
Facilities)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
32
EXHIBIT
6.4b
Annual
Burden
for
Reporting
and
Record­
keeping
of
DMRs
(
Biosolids
Facilities
Required
to
Report
and
Record­
keep)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
33
EXHIBIT
6.4c
Annual
DMR
Record­
keeping
Burden
(
Sludge
Facilities
Required
to
Record­
keep
Only)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
34
EXHIBIT
6.5a
Total
Agency
Burden
and
Cost
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
35
EXHIBIT
6.5b
Total
State
Burden
and
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
36
EXHIBIT
6.6a
Total
Respondent
Burden
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
37
EXHIBIT
6.6b
Summary
(
bottom
line)
Burden
and
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
38
EXHIBIT
6.6c
Change
in
Burden
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
39
LIST
OF
TABLES
Table
1.1.
Summary
of
Burden
and
Costs
Information
Collection
Request
for
Discharge
Monitoring
Reports
for
the
NPDES
Program
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
Table
4.1.
Discharge
Monitoring
Reports:
Respondent
Requirements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
iii
Table
5.1.
DMR
State
and
Federal
Requirements
(
As
Users
of
Data)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
Table
B­
1
Estimate
of
Annual
Burden
and
Costs
for
MS4s
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
B­
2
Table
B­
2
Non­
Storm
Water
General
Permits
from
ePIFT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
B­
4
Table
B­
3
Number
and
Distribution
of
Non­
Storm
Water
General
Permits
by
Reporting
Frequency
from
PCS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
B­
4
Table
B­
4
Number
of
Non­
Storm
Water
General
Permits
by
Reporting
Frequency
from
ePIFT
adjusted
using
PCS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
B­
4
Table
B­
5
EPA
Issued
Non­
Storm
Water
General
Permits
Data
From
2002
ICR
(
EPA
ICR
No.
0229.15)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
B­
5
Table
B­
6
EPA
Issued
Non­
Storm
Water
General
Permits
Data
for
2005
ICR
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
B­
5
Table
B­
7
State
Issued
Non­
Storm
Water
General
Permits
Data
for
2005
ICR
From
ePIFT
adjusted
using
PCS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
B­
5
Table
B­
8
State
Issued
Non­
Storm
Water
General
Permits
Data
for
2005
ICR
From
Table
B­
7
and
Appendix
B
2005
ICR
(
EPA
ICR
No.
0229.15
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
B­
5
Table
B­
9
EPA
and
State
Issued
Non­
Storm
Water
General
Permits
Data
for
2005
ICR
From
Table
B­
6
and
Table
B
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
B­
5
APPENDICES
Appendix
A
Input
Values
and
Assumptions
Appendix
B
MS4
and
General
Permits
Burden
Appendix
C
Sample
DMR
Form
Appendix
D
NPDES/
Sludge
Program
Status
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
1
1.0
IDENTIFICATION
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
1.
a
Title
of
the
Information
Collection
ICR:
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
And
Sewage
Sludge
Monitoring
Reports
OMB
Control
Number:
2040­
0004
EPA
ICR
No.
0229.16
1.
b
Short
Characterization/
Abstract
This
ICR
revises
the
estimates
of
the
2002
Discharge
Monitoring
Report
(
DMR)
ICR
monitoring,
reporting,
and
record­
keeping
burden
and
costs
associated
with
submitting
and
reviewing
DMRs,
sewage
sludge
monitoring
reports,
and
other
monitoring
reports
under
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
(
EPA)
NPDES
program.
It
was
prepared
according
to
the
guidance
contained
in
the
Office
of
Policy
(
OP)
February
1999
ICR
Handbook.

The
NPDES
program
regulations,
codified
at
40
CFR
Parts
122
through
125,
require
permitted
municipal
and
non­
municipal
point
source
dischargers
to
collect,
analyze,
and
submit
data
on
their
wastewater
discharges.
Under
these
regulations,
the
permittee
is
required
to
collect
and
analyze
wastewater
samples
or
have
the
analysis
performed
at
an
outside
laboratory
and
report
the
results
to
the
permitting
authority
(
EPA
or
an
approved
NPDES
State)
primarily
through
the
use
of
a
pre­
printed
DMR
form
used
for
reporting
pollutant
discharge
information.
Sample
monitoring,
analysis,
and
reporting
frequencies
vary
by
permit,
but
typically
must
be
performed
at
least
annually.

Under
40
CFR
Part
501
(
State
Sewage
Sludge
Management
Program
Requirements)
and
40
CFR
Part
503
(
Sewage
Sludge
Use
or
Disposal
Standards),
EPA
also
requires
similar
discharge
monitoring
and
reporting
for
sewage
sludge.

Under
the
existing
NPDES
management
structure,
EPA
authorizes
States
to
manage
and
administer
the
NPDES
Program
under
State
law
based
on
minimum
federal
requirements.
In
addition
to
States,
EPA
may
authorize
NPDES
program
administration
by
U.
S.
Territories
and
Indian
tribes
that
have
been
approved
to
be
treated
in
the
same
manner
as
a
State.
In
States
without
NPDES
program
approval,
EPA
is
the
permitting
authority
and
undertakes
all
permitting
activities.

As
of
February
2005,
45
States
and
1
Territory
(
i.
e.,
approved
States)
had
received
approval
from
EPA
to
administer
the
NPDES
permit
program
within
their
States;
45
States
had
received
approval
for
the
NPDES
General
Permits
program
(
a
part
of
the
NPDES
Permit
Program);
and
only
6
States
had
received
approval
for
the
NPDES
Sewage
Sludge
Program
(
also
a
part
of
the
NPDES
Permit
Program).
A
table
of
approved
programs
is
provided
in
Appendix
D.

Upon
approval
of
this
ICR,
the
permitting
authority
will
require
NPDES
and
sewage
sludge
facilities
to
report
pollutant
discharge
monitoring
data.
The
permitting
authority
will
use
the
data
from
these
forms
to
assess
permittee
compliance,
modify/
add
new
permit
requirements,
and
revise
effluent
guidelines.
The
monitoring
data
required
of
NPDES
and
sewage
sludge
facilities
represents
the
minimum
information
necessary
to
achieve
the
Agency's
goals
and
satisfy
regulatory
standards.
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
2
Table
1.1
presents
a
summary
of
the
time
and
financial
resources
(
burden)
for
NPDES
facilities
for
submitting
DMRs.
These
resources
will
be
expended
by
NPDES
(
and
sludge)
facilities
for
collecting,
analyzing,
reporting,
and
record­
keeping
pollutant
monitoring
data
under
the
terms
and
conditions
of
their
discharge
permits
and
existing
NPDES
regulations.
Table
1.1
also
presents
a
summary
of
the
time
that
States
and
the
Federal
Government
will
spend
in
reviewing,
analyzing,
and
processing
the
data
submitted
by
NPDES
permittees.

Table
1.1.
Summary
of
Burden
and
Costs
Information
Collection
Request
for
Discharge
Monitoring
Reports
for
the
NPDES
Program
Category
Burden
Annual
Pollutant
Sampling
Burden
(
hours)
(
A)
3,934,507
Annual
Pollutant
Analysis
Burden
(
hours)
(
B)
8,888,433
Annual
DMR
Reporting
Burden
(
hours)
(
C)
1,174,626
Annual
Record­
keeping
Burden
(
hours)
(
D)
19,226
Total
Annual
Response
Burden
(
hours)
(
A
+
B
+
C
+
D)
14,016,791
Annual
State
Burden
(
hours)
147,791
Annual
Federal
Burden
(
hours)
9,886
Annual
Number
of
Responses
(
E)
583,987
Average
time
per
response
(
hours)
(
A
+
B
+
C
+
D)/(
E)
24.0
Total
Number
of
Respondents*
81,998
*
In
addition
to
permittees,
total
number
of
respondents
includes
the
45
States
and
1
Territory
that
are
responsible
for
NPDES
program
implementation.
Permittees
include
total
respondents
identified
in
Exhibit
6.1.
a
and
the
sludge­
only
facilities
and
domestic
septage
haulers
identified
in
Exhibit
6.1.
b.
Sludge/
NPDES
Permittees
POTWs
identified
in
Exhibit
6.1.
b
are
already
accounted
for
in
Exhibit
6.1.
a.
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
3
2.0
NEED
FOR
AND
USE
OF
THE
COLLECTION
2.
a
Need/
Authority
for
the
Collection
EPA
established
the
NPDES
permit
program
under
the
authority
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA).
The
purpose
of
the
CWA
is
"
to
restore
and
maintain
the
chemical,
physical,
and
biological
integrity
of
the
nation's
waters"
[
Section
101(
a)].
Section
402
of
the
Act
established
the
NPDES
program
to
regulate
the
discharge
of
any
pollutant,
or
combination
of
pollutants,
from
point
sources
into
waters
of
the
United
States.
Point
source
dischargers
include
publicly
owned
treatment
works
(
POTWs),
privately
owned
treatment
works
(
PrOTWs),
manufacturing
facilities,
concentrated
animal
feeding
operations,
aquatic
animal
production
facilities,
mining
operations,
and
other
types
of
facilities
or
industries.
Section
402(
a)
of
the
CWA,
as
amended,
authorizes
the
EPA
Administrator
to
issue
permits
to
dischargers
of
pollutants
if
the
discharge
meets:

°
All
applicable
requirements
of
CWA
Sections
301,
302,
306,
307,
308,
and
403
°
Any
conditions
established
by
the
Administrator
to
ensure
that
the
provisions
of
the
CWA
are
met.

In
particular,
Section
402(
a)(
2)
of
the
CWA
requires
EPA
to
prescribe
permit
conditions
to
assure
compliance
with
requirements
"
including
conditions
on
data
and
information
collection,
reporting
and
such
other
requirements
as
[
the
Administrator]
deems
appropriate."

While
Section
402
establishes
the
base
NPDES
permit
program
for
both
technology
and
water
quality­
based
permits,
Section
304(
l)
accelerated
the
identification
and
control
requirements
of
certain
toxic
discharges
where
water
quality
was
impaired.
Where
appropriate,
States
have
translated
results
of
whole
effluent
toxicity
and
water
quality
studies
into
water
quality­
based
limits.
Where
additional
data
are
necessary
to
assess
the
need
for
toxic
controls,
monitoring
requirements
have
been
imposed
requiring
whole
effluent
toxicity
and/
or
chemical
specific
data.
In
some
cases,
stream
quality
monitoring
is
necessary
to
assess
the
effect
of
the
permitted
discharge
on
stream
standards.

In
1987,
Congress
passed
the
Water
Quality
Act
(
WQA),
which
added
a
provision
[
Section
402(
p)]
that
directed
EPA
to
establish
final
regulations
governing
storm
water
discharges
under
the
NPDES
program.

Section
405
of
the
CWA
prohibits
the
discharge
of
pollutants
caused
by
the
disposal
of
sewage
sludge
except
in
accordance
with
an
npdes
permit
(
or
an
approved
State
permit
issued
to
control
such
disposal
of
sewage
sludge).
In
addition,
this
section
establishes
a
comprehensive
sewage
sludge
permitting
program
and
requires
EPA
to
develop
technical
criteria
for
controlling
sewage
sludge
disposal
and
use.

Under
Section
308
of
the
CWA,
NPDES
and
sewage
sludge
regulated
entities
must:
"(
I)
establish
and
maintain
such
records,
(
ii)
make
such
reports,
(
iii)
install,
use,
and
maintain
such
monitoring
equipment
or
methods
(
including
where
appropriate,
biological
monitoring
equipment
methods),
(
iv)
sample
such
effluent
(
in
accordance
with
such
methods,
at
such
locations,
at
such
intervals,
and
in
such
a
matter
as
the
Administrator
shall
prescribe),
and
(
v)
provide
such
other
information
as
the
Administrator
may
reasonably
require."

The
specific
monitoring,
reporting,
and
record­
keeping
requirements
for
NPDES
and
sewage
sludge
programs
included
under
this
information
collection
request
are
applicable
to
EPA
and
State
wastewater
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
1
The
information
collection
requirements
associated
with
this
site
inspection
are
addressed
in
the
Compliance
Assessment
ICR
(
OMB
No.
2040­
0110).

4
management
programs,
NPDES
permittees
(
including
storm
water)
and
treatment
works
treating,
using
or
disposing
of
sewage
sludge.
The
Federal
requirements
are
codified
at
40
CFR
Parts
122
and
123,
40
CFR
Part
501,
and
40
CFR
Part
503.
Each
of
these
requirements
is
described
below:

PART
122
 
EPA
ADMINISTERED
PERMIT
PROGRAMS:
THE
NATIONAL
POLLUTANT
DISCHARGE
ELIMINATION
SYSTEM
Describes
the
general
NPDES
program
requirements;
establishes
permit
conditions,
including
monitoring,
reporting,
and
record­
keeping
requirements
to
assure
compliance
with
permit
limits;
specifies
monitoring
type,
interval,
and
frequency
sufficient
to
yield
representative
data
of
the
monitored
activity;
and
mandates
that
reporting
frequency
be
dependent
on
the
nature
and
effect
of
the
discharge,
but,
except
for
storm
water
discharge,
in
no
case
less
than
annually.
Stipulates
monitoring
requirements
for
storm
water
discharges
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
with
sampling
and
reporting
frequency
dependent
on
the
nature
and
effect
of
the
discharge.
At
a
minimum,
storm
water
permittees
must
conduct
an
annual
inspection.
1
PART
123
 
STATE
PROGRAM
REQUIREMENTS
Outlines
comparable
program
requirements
for
NPDES
State
permits,
including
similar
monitoring,
reporting,
and
record­
keeping
standards,
as
outlined
above
in
Part
122.

PART
501
 
STATE
SEWAGE
SLUDGE
MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM
REGULATIONS
Identifies
general
State
sewage
sludge
program
requirements
and
establishes
application,
monitoring,
reporting,
and
record­
keeping
requirements,
including
monitoring
types
and
frequencies
for
all
treatment
works
treating
domestic
sewage.

PART
503
 
STANDARDS
FOR
THE
USE
OR
DISPOSAL
OF
SEWAGE
SLUDGE
Details
the
monitoring,
reporting,
and
record­
keeping
and
technical
criteria
and
standards
for
treatment
works
that
land
apply,
surface
dispose,
or
incinerate
sewage
sludge.

While
the
above
establishes
EPA's
authority
and
requirement
to
collect
pollutant
information,
EPA
has
specific
needs
for
collecting
the
data.
These
needs
include:

°
To
provide
information
on
pollutant
discharge
trends
°
To
provide
information
to
permitting
authorities
to
prioritize
permit
activities
°
To
determine
whether
permittees
are
in
compliance
with
their
permit
conditions
°
To
provide
information
to
the
permit
writer
to
determine
the
need
for
permit
limits.

A
summary
of
the
specific
monitoring,
reporting,
and
record­
keeping
requirements
for
affected
NPDES
and
sewage
sludge
entities
is
described
in
Section
4.0
and
is
outlined
in
Table
4.1
(
DMR
Respondent
Requirements).
Table
5.1
(
DMR
State
and
Federal
Requirements)
summarizes
the
review
and
oversight
requirements
for
users
of
DMR
data.
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
5
2.
b
Practical
Utility/
Users
of
the
Data
As
noted
above,
discharge
monitoring
data
provides
EPA
and
States
with
approved
NPDES
and
sewage
sludge
management
programs
with
the
necessary
information
to
assess
permittee
compliance.
Selfmonitoring
data
also
helps
the
permitting
authority
modify
or
develop
appropriate
permit
limits.
Permitting
authorities
also
may
require
other
types
of
monitoring
data,
such
as:
influent
monitoring
data
to
evaluate
a
plant's
operational
aspects;
ambient
stream
monitoring
data
to
measure
a
permit's
effectiveness
in
protecting
water
quality;
internal
waste
stream
data
when
monitoring
at
the
point
of
discharge
is
impractical
or
infeasible;
or
visual
monitoring
(
including
underwater
surveys)
that
may
be
necessary
to
determine
compliance
with
permit
limits.

EPA
and
States
analyze
monitoring
data
when
establishing
permit
conditions.
For
example,
NPDES
permit
writers
may
revise
permit
requirements
based
on
data
from
monitoring
reports.
Furthermore
EPA
and
States
have
referred
to
DMR
data
on
toxic
pollutants
when
developing
lists
of
waters
impaired
by
toxic
pollutants
and
point
source
dischargers
responsible
for
damaging
the
quality
of
those
waters.

Permittees
use
the
monitoring
data
they
collect
to
evaluate
facility
performance.
For
this
reason,
most
permittees
collect
additional
data
(
e.
g.,
product
quality
and
production
efficiency
information)
that
may
or
may
not
be
included
with
monitoring
reports.
Collection
and
reporting
of
data
to
permitting
authorities
also
provides
permittees
with
an
incentive
to
remain
in
compliance
with
their
established
permit
conditions.

As
public
information,
monitoring
data
are
used
by
public
groups
for
a
variety
of
purposes.
Citizen
groups
review
monitoring
data
to
independently
assess
pollutant
discharger
compliance
and
noncompliance
In
some
instances
the
data
forms
the
basis
for
citizen
suits
that
are
authorized
under
Section
505
of
the
CWA.
In
addition,
environmental
groups,
academicians,
and
others
use
monitoring
data
to
estimate
toxic
pollutant
loading
to
streams,
lakes,
oceans,
and
estuaries.
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
6
3.0
NON­
DUPLICATION,
CONSULTATIONS,
AND
OTHER
COLLECTION
CRITERIA
3.
a
Non­
duplication
EPA
has
examined
all
other
reporting
requirements
contained
in
the
CWA
and
40
CFR
Parts
122,
123,
501,
and
503.
From
previous
experience,
EPA
knows
that
DMR­
type
data
are
not
available
from
the
following
sources:

°
Permit
Application
Data
°
Sampling
Inspections
°
Toxic
Chemical
Release
Inventory.

Permit
Application
Data
Data
presented
with
the
NPDES
permit
application
represent
effluent
levels
at
the
time
the
facility
submits
its
application
for
a
new
or
re­
issued
permit.
EPA
uses
monitoring
data
in
conjunction
with
effluent
guidelines
and
water
quality
standards
to
establish
appropriate
permit
conditions.
Although
data
submitted
with
the
application
may
adequately
represent
effluent
quality
at
the
time
of
the
submission,
they
do
not
adequately
assess
compliance
with
permit
limits
which
are
developed
after
the
application
is
submitted.
Also,
permittees
submit
application
data
only
once
during
the
typical
5­
year
life
of
a
permit.
Therefore,
permit
application
data
are
inadequate
for
measuring
ongoing
permittee
compliance
with
effluent
limitations.

Sampling
Inspections
Discharge
data
are
generated
from
the
sampling
inspections
that
permitting
authorities
are
required
to
conduct.
However,
permitting
authorities
conduct
these
inspections
only
occasionally.
Furthermore,
sampling
inspections
are
limited
to
a
portion
of
major
facilities
and
to
a
selected
number
of
minor
permittees.
Although
EPA
uses
monitoring
data
in
conjunction
with
inspection
data
to
assess
permit
compliance,
inspection
data
are
infrequent
and
sparse,
and
therefore,
are
an
inadequate
replacement
to
routine
monitoring
data.

Toxic
Chemical
Release
Data
Toxic
chemical
release
data
provide
general
information
on
industrial
releases
to
different
media.
Annual
estimates
are
made
of
releases
to
land,
air,
injection,
water,
and
POTWs.
These
estimates
are
derived
using
methods
documented
on
Form
R.
Although
these
data
are
valuable
for
estimating
annual
total
pounds
of
pollutants
released,
these
data
cannot
be
used
to
assess
permittee
compliance
for
two
reasons.
First,
the
data
are
submitted
only
annually,
and
second,
the
forms
report
pounds
per
discharge
per
facility.
The
toxic
chemical
release
information
is
not
outfall
specific.
EPA
cannot
assess
permittee
compliance
with
a
concentration
or
daily
discharge
limitation.

Therefore,
permit
application,
compliance
inspection,
and
toxic
chemical
release,
though
similar
to
DMR
data,
are
insufficient
to
assess
compliance
with
permit
limitations.

3.
b
Public
Notice
Required
Prior
to
ICR
Submission
to
OMB
In
compliance
with
the
1995
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
EPA
solicited
comments
for
a
60­
day
period
prior
to
submission
of
the
ICR
to
OMB.
Comments
were
requested
on
November
23,
2004
via
a
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
7
Federal
Register
Notice
(
69
FR
68142).
One
non­
substantial
comment
was
received
in
response
to
this
notice,
which
did
not
address
any
of
the
burden
calculations
in
this
ICR.

3.
c
Consultations
EPA
regularly
consults
other
interested
parties
regarding
monitoring
related
information
collection
activities.
In
particular,
EPA
has
instituted:

°
Public
comment
opportunities
on
ICRs
and
on
regulations
°
Public
notice
and
comment
opportunities
prior
to
permit
issuance
°
Informal
discussions
between
permittees
and
permit
writers
°
Appeal
opportunities
after
permit
issuance.

Historically,
public
comment
periods
have
been
associated
with
DMR­
related
regulatory
changes.
Since
1973,
EPA
has
solicited
public
comments
on
monitoring­
related
issues
in
conjunction
with
the
promulgation
of
NPDES
rules
and
regulations.
For
example,
with
the
promulgation
of
the
Phase
II
Storm
Water
Rule,
numerous
comments
were
received
from
private
industry,
public
municipalities,
and
private
interest
groups.
In
all
cases,
EPA
carefully
reviewed
and
considered
the
comments.

3.
d
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
EPA
recognizes
the
importance
of
balancing
the
need
for
data
collection
efforts
against
respondent
burden
and
costs.
From
the
inception
of
the
NPDES
program,
cost
has
been
one
of
the
major
factors
considered
in
setting
monitoring
requirements
and
frequencies.
In
the
past
ten
years,
the
Executive
and
Legislative
branches
of
the
U.
S.
Government
have
stressed
the
need
for
evaluating
the
costs
and
benefits
of
regulation
and
the
financial
impact
on
the
regulated
community,
State,
and
local
government.
In
this
new
environment,
EPA
is
seeking
new
opportunities
to
reduce
monitoring
and
reporting
burden
on
the
regulated
community.

For
example,
on
April
19,
1996,
EPA
issued
a
memorandum
entitled,
"
Interim
Guidance
for
Performance­
Based
Reductions
of
NPDES
Permit
Monitoring
Frequencies"
to
reduce
reporting,
where
appropriate,
while
maintaining
a
high
level
of
environmental
protection
for
the
Nation.
The
interim
guidance
allows
NPDES
authorities
to
grant
relief
to
permittees
that
have
a
good
record
of
compliance
and
pollutant
discharges
at
levels
below
permit
requirements.
In
the
1998
ICR,
EPA
estimated
a
26­
percent
reduction
in
burden
from
previous
levels
for
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
would
result
from
the
implementation
of
this
initiative.
To
validate
this
estimate
for
the
2002
ICR,
EPA
evaluated
actual
implementation
of
the
interim
guidance
and
found
a
wide
range
of
implementation
activities.
While
some
states
have
implemented
the
guidance
fully,
others
have
not
yet
implemented
any
aspects
identified
in
the
guidance.
EPA
found
that
approximately
25
percent
of
permittees
are
expected
to
be
evaluated
for
the
reduced
monitoring/
reporting
requirements.

EPA
strives
to
minimize
monitoring
related
workloads.
For
example,
EPA
developed
an
automated
procedure
that
pre­
prints
relevant
permittee
information,
such
as
discharger
name
and
address,
pollutants
limited,
and
effluent
limitations
on
the
DMR
form
before
sending
it
to
the
permittee.
Permittees
are
required
only
to
record
their
monitoring
results
and
to
report
any
violations.

EPA
also
has
made
extensive
use
of
general
permits
which
tend
to
have
less
stringent
and,
therefore,
less
burdensome
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
than
individual
permits.
In
fact,
the
majority
of
storm
water
permits
discharges
from
industrial
facilities
are
covered
under
general
permits.
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
8
EPA
continues
its
efforts
to
minimize
permittee
burden
associated
with
monitoring
data
collection
and
reporting
requirements.
However,
the
Agency
has
determined
that
the
information
currently
required
is
at,
or
near
the
minimum
that
is
necessary
to
adequately
evaluate
permittee
compliance.

3.
e
General
Guidelines
This
information
collection
request
is
in
compliance
with
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
(
PRA)
guidelines
(
5
CFR
§
1320.5(
d)(
2)).

3.
f
Confidentiality
The
data
required
under
this
information
collection
request,
discharge
monitoring
data,
are
not
confidential.
Section
308(
b)
of
the
CWA
specifically
excludes
"
effluent
data"
from
protection
as
confidential
information.
However,
to
the
extent
that
issues
regarding
confidentiality
do
arise,
they
will
be
handled
pursuant
to
40
CFR
Part
2.

3.
g
Sensitive
Questions
Sensitive
questions
are
defined
in
EPA's
ICR
Handbook,
"
Guide
to
Writing
Information
Collection
Requests
Under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
of
1995
"
as
"
questions
concerning
sexual
behavior
or
attitudes,
religious
beliefs,
or
other
matters
usually
considered
private."
The
reporting
requirements
addressed
in
this
information
collection
request
do
not
include
sensitive
questions.
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
2
There
are
no
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
established
in
the
General
Permit
for
Storm
Water
Discharges
from
Construction
Activities.

9
4.0
THE
RESPONDENTS
AND
THE
INFORMATION
REQUESTED
4.
a
Respondents/
SIC
Codes
The
respondents
to
this
information
collection
request
are
NPDES
permittees
including
publicly
owned
treatment
works
(
POTWs),
privately
owned
treatment
works,
industrial
facilities,
and
storm
water
permittees
(
Part
122).
The
sewage
sludge
record­
keeping
and
reporting
requirements
identified
in
this
ICR
apply
to
treatment
works
(
public
and
private)
treating
domestic
sewage
and
to
domestic
septage
haulers.

NPDES
PERMITTEES
(
40
CFR
PART
122)

Under
40
CFR
§
122.21,
any
point
source
discharger
of
pollutants
into
waters
of
the
United
States
must
apply
for
an
NPDES
permit
that
establishes
effluent
limitations
and
outlines
monitoring
requirements
(
i.
e.,
collecting,
analyzing,
and
reporting
sample
results
to
the
permitting
authority).
The
following
categories
of
NPDES
permittees
are
required
to
submit
DMRs.

°
Major
Dischargers
(
Individual
Permittees):
Municipal
and
Non­
municipal
°
Minor
Dischargers
(
Individual
Permittees):
Municipal
and
Non­
municipal
°
Dischargers
Covered
by
a
Non­
Storm
Water
General
Permit
°
Storm
Water
Discharges
Associated
with
Industrial
Activity
("
industrial
storm
water
discharges")
°
Storm
Water
Discharges
Associated
with
Construction
Activity
2
°
Municipal
Separate
Storm
Sewer
Systems
(
MS4s)
°
Combined
Sewer
Overflows
(
CSOs).

An
estimate
of
the
number
of
permittees
within
each
of
these
categories
is
shown
in
Exhibit
6.1a.

Major
Dischargers
(
Individual
Permittees):
Municipal
and
Non­
municipal
EPA
uses
discharge
volume
and
the
strength
of
organic
waste
(
i.
e.,
population
equivalent)
to
distinguish
facilities
as
major
or
minor
dischargers.

A
major
municipal
discharger
discharges
at
least
one
million
gallons
of
wastewater
a
day,
or
serves
a
population
equivalent
of
10,000.
POTWs
are
classified
under
SIC
Code
4952
(
Sewerage
Systems).

EPA
uses
a
formula
based
on
the
following
discharge
characteristics
to
classify
non­
municipal
dischargers
as
majors
or
minors:

°
Toxic
pollutant
potential
°
Flow
°
Conventional
pollutant
potential
°
Public
health
impact
°
Water
quality
impact
°
Proximity
to
coastal
waters.
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
3
See
Appendix
B.

10
EPA
assigns
weighted
numerical
values
to
each
discharge
characteristic
based
on
its
environmental
risk
potential.
Each
non­
municipal
facility
receives
a
total
numerical
value
which
is
the
sum
of
the
weighted
values.
EPA
categorizes
non­
municipal
facilities
with
values
greater
than
80
points
(
0
to
265
scale)
as
major
dischargers.
Facilities
with
point
totals
below
this
threshold
are
classified
as
minor
dischargers.

Permittee
wastewater
characteristics
vary
greatly
among
non­
municipal
dischargers.
Unlike
POTWs,
which
are
described
by
a
single
SIC
code,
non­
municipal
dischargers
may
be
categorized
into
many
SIC
codes.
Non­
municipal
dischargers
are
industrial
facilities
but
the
materials
used,
the
products
manufactured,
the
production
processes,
the
by­
products,
and
the
recycling
procedures
can
be
very
different.
Even
the
combination
of
waste
stream
types
and
treatment
systems
can
vary
greatly.

Minor
Dischargers
(
Individual
Permittees):
Municipal
and
Non­
municipal
All
facilities
that
are
not
majors
(
as
defined
above)
are
categorized
as
minor
dischargers.
However,
in
some
instances,
where
the
receiving
water
quality
is
of
significant
concern,
EPA
may
reclassify
some
minor
dischargers
as
majors.
The
SIC
codes
for
minor
municipal
dischargers
are
the
same
as
major
municipal
dischargers
(
4952).
Non­
municipal
facilities,
as
described
above,
can
be
categorized
into
many
SIC
codes.

Dischargers
Covered
by
a
Non­
Storm
Water
General
Permit3
EPA
and
authorized
States
issue
general
permits
to
groups
of
facilities
that
have
similar
operating
procedures,
discharge
characteristics,
and
geographic
location
(
e.
g.,
States).
In
this
way,
permitting
authorities
can
cover
a
large
number
of
facilities
within
one
permit
and
establish
a
common
set
of
limitations
monitoring
requirements,
and
permit
conditions.
For
these
permittees,
the
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
tend
to
be
less
stringent
than
those
imposed
on
holders
of
individual
permits.
Non­
storm
water
general
permittees,
similar
to
non­
municipal
permittees,
are
covered
by
many
SIC
codes.
For
example,
general
permits
have
been
issued
by
EPA
Regions
for
the
following
types
of
dischargers:

°
Oil
and
Gas
Facilities
(
e.
g.,
Regions
4,
6,
and
10)
°
Seafood
Processing
Facilities
(
e.
g,
Region
10)
°
Aquaculture
Facilities
(
e.
g,
Region
10)
°
Other
Facilities
with
General
Permits
S
Concentrated
Animal
Feeding
Operations
(
e.
g,
Regions
9
and
10)

S
Log
Transfer
Facilities
(
e.
g,
Region
10)

S
Suction
Dredging
(
e.
g.,
Region
10)

S
Placer
Mining
(
e.
g.,
Region
10)

S
Petroleum
Bulk
Stations
and
Terminal
(
e.
g.,
Region
6)

S
Cleanups
of
Petroleum
Underground
Storage
Tank
Systems
(
e.
g.,
Region
6)

S
Concrete
Facilities
(
e.
g.,
Region
6)

S
Beneficial
Reuse
or
Disposal
of
Municipal
Sewage
Sludge
(
e.
g.,
Region
6)

S
Noncontact
Cooling
Water
Dischargers
(
e.
g.,
Region
1)

S
Water
Treatment
Facilities
(
e.
g.
Region
1)

Storm
Water
Discharges
Associated
with
Industrial
Activity
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
11
The
majority
of
industrial
storm
water
permittees
are
covered
under
storm
water
general
permits.
In
some
instances,
permittees
are
required
to
monitor
their
discharge
and
submit
monitoring
results
to
the
permitting
authority.
The
following
types
of
facilities
and
manufacturing
operations
defined
in
40
CFR
122.26(
b)(
14)
are
required
to
obtain
NPDES
permit
coverage
for
their
industrial
storm
water
discharges
and
may
also
be
required
to
monitor
and
report:

Facilities
subject
to
storm
water
effluent
limitations
guidelines,
new
source
performance
standards,
or
toxic
pollutant
effluent
standards
(
40
CFR
122.26(
b)(
14)(
i)),

Heavy
industrial
manufacturing
(
40
CFR
122.26(
b)(
14)(
ii)),

Mineral
and
metal
mining
and
certain
oil
and
gas
exploration,
production,
processing
or
treatment,
and
transmission
activities
(
40
CFR
122.26(
b)(
14)(
iii)),

Hazardous
waste
treatment,
storage,
or
disposal
facilities
(
40
CFR
122.26(
b)(
14)(
iv)),

Landfills,
land
application,
and
open
dumps
that
receive
industrial
wastes
(
40
CFR
122.26(
b)(
14)(
v)),

Recycling
facilities
(
40
CFR
122.26(
b)(
14)(
vi)),

Steam
electric
power
generating
facilities,
including
coal
handling
(
40
CFR
122.26(
b)(
14)(
vii)),

Transportation
facilities
(
40
CFR
122.26(
b)(
14)(
viii)),

Treatment
works
treating
domestic
sewage,
generally
with
a
design
flow
or
1.0
million
gallons
per
day
(
40
CFR
122.26(
b)(
14)(
ix)),

Light
industrial
activity
(
40
CFR
122.26(
b)(
14)(
xi)).

EPA
promulgated
Phase
II
Storm
Water
Regulations
on
December
8,
1999,
that
contain
a
no
exposure
certification
option
for
facilities
that
will
provide
a
waiver
from
permit
coverage
(
and
monitoring).
Estimates
of
the
number
of
facilities
that
will
be
able
to
claim
the
no
exposure
exclusion
are
based
on
the
economic
analysis
prepared
for
that
rule.

Storm
Water
Discharges
Associated
with
Construction
Activity
The
majority
of
construction
storm
water
permittees
are
covered
under
a
general
permit.
There
are
no
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
established
for
facilities
discharging
under
authority
of
these
general
permits.

The
Phase
II
Storm
Water
Regulations
promulgated
on
December
8,
1999,
added
construction
sites
between
one
and
five
acres
to
the
list
of
federally
regulated
facilities;
however,
information
collection
burden
and
costs
for
those
facilities
are
included
in
the
Phase
II
ICR,
OMB
Control
Number
2040­
0211.

Municipal
Separate
Storm
Sewer
Systems
(
MS4s)

MS4s
are
defined
as
conveyances
or
systems
of
conveyances
that
are:
owned
or
operated
by
a
State,
city,
town,
borough,
county,
parish,
district,
association,
or
other
public
body
(
created
by
or
pursuant
to
State
law)
having
jurisdiction
over
disposal
of
sewage,
industrial
wastes,
storm
water,
or
other
wastes,
including
special
districts
under
State
law
such
as
a
sewer
district,
flood
control
district
or
drainage
district,
or
similar
entity,
or
an
Indian
tribe
or
an
authorized
Indian
tribal
organization,
or
a
designated
and
approved
management
agency
under
section
208
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
that
discharges
to
waters
of
the
United
States;
designed
or
used
for
collecting
or
conveying
storm
water;
which
is
not
a
combined
sewer;
and
which
is
not
part
of
a
POTW.
As
part
of
their
permit
application,
MS4s
that
serve
populations
over
100,000
are
required
to
establish
monitoring
programs.
Currently,
EPA
estimates
that
270
MS4
permits,
encompassing
approximately
1,000
municipalities
are
affected
by
this
requirement.
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
12
The
Phase
II
Storm
Water
Regulations
promulgated
on
December
8,
1999,
added
small
MS4s
to
the
list
of
federally
regulated
facilities;
however,
information
collection
burden
and
costs
for
those
facilities
are
included
in
the
Phase
II
ICR,
OMB
Control
Number
2040­
0211.

Combined
Sewer
Overflows
Burden
related
to
Combined
Sewer
Overflow
(
CSO)
DMRs
is
incorporated
and
presented
in
the
CSO
Policy
ICR
in
1997
(
OMB
Control
No.
2040­
0170).

SEWAGE
SLUDGE
FACILITIES
Under
§
122.21(
a),
all
treatment
works
treating
domestic
sewage
(
TWTDS)
or
sludge
must
apply
for
a
sewage
sludge
management
permit.
Treatment
works
are
required
to
report
sewage
sludge
monitoring
data
according
to
the
parameters
set
forth
in
their
permits.

Part
503
establishes
technical
standards
for
treatment
works
that
land
apply,
surface
dispose,
or
incinerate
sewage
sludge.
Part
503
details
requirements
for
use
or
disposal,
including
monitoring,
reporting,
and
record­
keeping
for
the
affected
entities.

Facilities
covered
under
Part
503
are
classified
according
to
how
they
use
or
dispose
of
sewage
sludge.
Facilities
engaging
in
land
application
spray
or
spread
sewage
sludge
onto
the
land
surface,
inject
sewage
sludge
below
the
land
surface,
or
incorporate
sewage
sludge
into
soils.
Surface
disposal
involves
placement
of
sewage
sludge
on
an
area
of
land
for
final
disposal
(
this
excludes
land
on
which
sewage
sludge
is
placed
for
either
treatment
or
storage).
Incineration
involves
combustion
of
organic
matter
and
inorganic
matter
in
sewage
sludge
at
high
temperatures
in
a
sewage
sludge
incinerator.
Each
type
of
facility
must
meet
certain
general
monitoring,
reporting,
and
record­
keeping
requirements.

4.
b
Information
Requested
The
following
two
sections
outline
the
monitoring,
reporting,
and
record­
keeping
requirements
for
NPDES
permittees
(
major
and
minor
individual
permittees,
general
permittees,
and
MS4s)
and
Sewage
Sludge
Facilities
under
40
CFR
Part
503.
Table
4.1
outlines
the
information
requirements
for
each
category
of
respondents.
The
data
requirements
are
listed
by
regulation
number
and
are
grouped
by
respondent
category.
Within
each
category,
the
information
data
requirements
are
further
organized
into
the
following
sections:

°
Monitoring
Requirements:
Sample
Collection
and
Analysis
°
Reporting
and
Record­
keeping
Requirements.
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
13
Table
4.1.
Discharge
Monitoring
Reports:
Respondent
Requirements
40
CFR
Citation
Regulatory
Description
Response
Frequency
NPDES
MAJOR
AND
MINOR
INDIVIDUAL
PERMITTEES,
GENERAL
PERMITTEES,
AND
MS4S
Monitoring
Requirements:
Sample
Collection
and
Analysis
§
122.41(
j)(
1)
Requires
the
permittee
to
collect
representative
samples,
take
measurements.
(
Sample
collection
requirements
[
e.
g.,
collection
frequency,
sample
type]
are
as
listed
in
the
facilities'
permit.)
Variable/
Permit
Specific
§
122.41(
j)(
1)
Requires
the
permittee
to
conduct
pollutant
analysis
on
the
representative
samples
collected.
Variable/
Permit
Specific
Reporting
and
Record­
keeping
Requirements
§
122.41(
l)(
4)
Requires
the
permittee
to
report
all
monitoring
results
to
the
permitting
authority
using
Discharge
Monitoring
Reports.
Permit
Specific/
At
Least
Annually
§
122.41(
j)(
2)
Requires
permittee
to
retain
ongoing
monitoring
records
and
copies
of
all
reports
for
at
least
3
years.
Permit
specific/
At
Least
Annually
SEWAGE
SLUDGE
FACILITIES
Monitoring
Requirements:
Sample
Collection
and
Analysis
§
503.16(
a­
b)
§
503.26(
a­
b)
§
503.46(
a­
b)
Requires
permittee
to
conduct
pollutant
monitoring
of
disposed
sewage
sludge.
Sampling
frequencies
are
as
follows:

°
Greater
than
0
but
less
than
290
metric
tons
a
year
(
mt/
yr)
Annually
°
Greater
than
or
equal
to
290
but
less
than
1,500
mt/
yr
Quarterly
°
Greater
than
or
equal
to
1,500
but
less
than
15,000
mt/
yr
Bi­
monthly
°
Greater
than
or
equal
to
15,000
mt/
yr
Monthly
After
2
years
and
at
the
discretion
of
the
permitting
authority,
the
pollutant
sampling
frequency
may
be
reduced,
but
in
no
case
will
it
be
less
than
once
a
year.

§
503.16(
a­
b)
§
503.26(
a­
b)
§
503.46(
a­
b)
Requires
the
permittee
to
conduct
pollutant
analysis
on
all
representative
samples
collected.
Variable/
At
Least
Annually
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
14
Table
4.1.
Discharge
Monitoring
Reports:
Respondent
Requirements
(
Continued)

40
CFR
Citation
Regulatory
Description
Response
Frequency
Reporting
and
Record­
keeping
Requirements
§
503.18(
a)
§
503.28(
a)
§
503.48(
a)
Requires
Class
I
facility
to
report
all
pollutant
monitoring
and
analysis
results
to
the
permitting
authority.
Annually
§
503.17(
a)(
1)
§
503.27(
a)(
1)
§
503.47(
a)
Requires
the
facility
to
retain
records
of
all
monitoring
data
for
at
least
5
years.
The
facility
also
must
keep
copies
of
all
reports.
Ongoing
§
501.15(
b)(
10)(
ii)
Requires
permitted
treatment
works
to
conduct
pollutant
monitoring.
(
Sampling
frequency
is
dependent
on
its
sewage
sludge
use
and
disposal
practices.)
At
a
minimum,
the
permittee
must
follow
the
monitoring
and
analysis
requirements
set
forth
under
Part
503.
In
no
case
will
the
permittee
sample
less
than
once
a
year.
Variable/
At
Least
Annually
§
501.15(
b)(
10)(
ii)
Requires
the
permittee
to
conduct
pollutant
analysis
on
and
take
measurements
of
all
representative
samples
collected.
Variable/
At
Least
Annually
§
501.15(
b)(
10)(
i)
Requires
the
permittee
to
report
all
pollutant
monitoring
and
analysis
results
to
the
permitting
authority.
Variable/
At
Least
Annually
§
501.15(
b)(
10)(
iii)
Requires
the
permittee
to
retain
records
of
all
monitoring
data
and
keep
copies
of
all
reports
for
at
least
5
years.
This
period
may
be
extended
at
the
discretion
of
the
Director.
All
monitoring
records
must
include:

°
Sample
date,
place,
and
time
°
Name
of
individual
who
performed
testing
°
Date
analysis
was
performed
°
Name
of
individual
who
performed
analysis
°
Analysis
techniques
°
Analysis
results.
Ongoing
While
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
vary
considerably
among
and
within
permittee
categories,
all
permits
specify
sampling
and
reporting
frequency
and
location
as
well
as
other
sampling
and
analysis
parameters.
Should
a
facility
choose
to
collect
and
analyze
more
samples
than
specified
in
its
permit,
the
permittee
is
required
to
include
all
monitoring
data
in
reports.
Also,
the
permittee
must
collect
and
analyze
representative
samples
and
must
conduct
all
monitoring
according
to
permit
specific
conditions
and/
or
approved
test
procedures
as
set
forth
under
40
CFR
Part
136
or
as
specified
in
Part
503.

To
simplify
and
accelerate
State
and/
or
EPA
review,
it
is
essential
that
monitoring
data
be
reported
uniformly.
Therefore,
the
permitting
authority
requires
the
permittee
to
submit
most
of
its
effluent
monitoring
data
in
DMRs.
(
Some
approved
States
use
a
variant
of
EPA's
form.)
A
DMR
is
a
pre­
printed
summary
form
that
EPA
has
developed
to
minimize
respondent
burden
and
standardize
NPDES
data
reporting
by
permittees.
In
instances
where
EPA
requires
monitoring
other
than
effluent
monitoring,
the
permittee
may
need
to
prepare
and
submit
additional
or
supplemental
forms.
Permittees
submit
DMRs,
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
15
and/
or
other
forms
where
necessary,
to
the
appropriate
permitting
authority,
which
may
be
either
a
State
with
an
approved
NPDES
or
sewage
sludge
management
program,
or
an
EPA
regional
office.

4.
b.
1
Data
Requirements
of
NPDES
Permittees:
Major
and
Minor
Individual
Permittees,
General
Permittees,
and
MS4s
Monitoring
Requirements:
Sample
Collection
and
Analysis
(
§
122.41(
j))

NPDES
permittees
are
required
to
collect
representative
samples
of
all
monitored
activity
and
to
take
associated
measurements.
Permittees
are
also
required
to
conduct
pollutant
analysis
on
all
samples
collected
according
to
the
parameters
outlined
in
the
facility's
permit.
The
permit
also
will
specify
the
frequency
with
which
the
permittee
must
conduct
sampling
and
analysis.

Reporting
and
Record­
keeping
Requirements
(
§
122.41
(
l)
and
§
122.41(
j))

NPDES
permittees
are
required
to
report
all
monitoring
results
to
the
permitting
authority.
The
frequency
with
which
the
permittee
must
submit
these
reports
is
permit
specific.
Appendix
C
contains
a
sample
pre­
printed
discharge
monitoring
form
(
i.
e.,
a
blank
DMR).
Permittees
reporting
monitoring
data
that
is
not
effluent
data
may
submit
the
information
in
other
formats,
as
specified
by
the
permitting
authority.
NPDES
permittees
are
required
to
retain
monitoring
records,
copies
of
all
reports
required
by
the
permit,
and
records
of
all
data
used
to
complete
the
permit
application
for
at
least
3
years.
The
burden
associated
with
the
record­
keeping
requirements
for
NPDES
permittees
is
included
in
the
Compliance
Assessment
ICR.

4.
b.
2
Data
Requirements
for
Sewage
Sludge
Facilities
Monitoring
Requirements:
Sample
Collection
and
Analysis
(
§
503.16,
§
503.26,
and
§
503.46)

The
Part
503
rule
includes
tables
listing
minimum
monitoring
frequencies
for
sludge
that
will
be
land
applied,
placed
on
a
surface
disposal
site,
or
incinerated.
Frequency
of
monitoring
requirements
range
from
once
a
year
for
facilities
using
or
disposing
of
relatively
small
amounts
of
sludge
to
once
a
month
for
facilities
disposing
of
larger
amounts
of
sludge
(
see
Table
4­
1
for
specific
monitoring
frequencies).

Reporting
and
Record­
keeping
Requirements
(
§
503.18,
§
503.28,
and
§
503.48)

Treatment
works
that
land
apply,
surface
dispose,
or
incinerate
sewage
sludge
are
required
to
report
all
pollutant
monitoring
results
to
the
permitting
authority.
Reporting
frequencies
are
permit
specific.
The
permitting
authority
requires
sewage
sludge
monitoring
reports
at
least
once
a
year.

Even
if
the
treatment
works
is
not
required
to
report
monitoring
data,
they
must
be
retained
for
a
period
of
5
years,
or
indefinitely
for
cumulative
amounts
of
pollutants
added
to
any
site
by
Cumulative
Pollutant
Land
Rates
(
CPLR)
sludge.

Requirements
for
additional
monitoring
and
reporting
are
determined
according
to
the
permit
writer's
best
professional
judgement
(
BPJ).
These
requirements
are
dependent
on
the
amount
of
sewage
sludge
produced,
sewage
sludge
use,
the
number
and
types
of
industrial
users
discharging
to
treatment
works,
and
previous
sewage
sludge
quality
data.
EPA
may
require
more
frequent
data
collection
or
additional
pollutant
monitoring
to
assess
permit
compliance.
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
16
Part
503
requires
Class
I
sludge
management
facilities
and
POTWs
with
a
flow
rate
equal
to
or
greater
than
one
MGD,
or
that
serve
a
population
of
10,000
or
more,
to
report
data
at
least
once
a
year
if
they
land
apply,
surface
dispose,
or
incinerate
sewage
sludge.
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
17
5.0
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTED
 
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY,
AND
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
5.
a
EPA
Activities
Upon
approval
of
this
ICR,
permittees
will
submit
DMRs,
and/
or
other
forms
where
necessary,
to
the
appropriate
permitting
authority.
The
permitting
authority
can
be
either
an
approved
NPDES
State,
or
one
of
EPA's
regional
offices.

The
permitting
authority
is
required
to
review
data,
and
where
necessary,
conduct
follow­
up
actions.
Table
5.1
summarizes
the
Agency's
oversight
responsibilities.
The
data
requirements
are
listed
by
regulation
number
and
are
grouped
by
respondent
category.
Within
each
category,
the
information
data
requirements
are
further
organized
into
the
following
sections:

°
Discharge
Monitoring
Report
(
DMR)
Review
°
Reporting
and
Record­
keeping
Requirements.

Data
review
varies
from
region
to
region
and
state
to
state.
Generally,
the
permitting
authority
routinely
screens
data
to
identify
permit
violations
and
conducts
a
more
thorough
technical
review
and
follow­
up
when
violations
are
detected.
Follow­
up
activities
may
include
informal
contact
with
the
permittee
(
by
telephone
or
letter)
requesting
prompt
corrective
action,
technical
assistance,
field
inspections
to
further
substantiate
violations,
or
a
formal
enforcement
action
such
as
an
Administrative
Order
or
referral
to
the
U.
S.
Attorney
General
(
or
State
Attorney
General
in
the
case
of
NPDES­
authorized
States).

The
extent
to
which
EPA
reviews
data
in
assessing
permit
compliance
also
varies.
For
example,
EPA
will
conduct
a
more
extensive
review
of
permittees
that
are,
or
have
been,
in
violation
of
their
permit
requirements,
than
of
permittees
who
have
been
in
full
compliance.
In
cases
of
continued
non­
compliance,
EPA
may
use
monitoring
report
data
to
identify
patterns
of
non­
compliance
and/
or
to
support
Agency
enforcement
efforts.

EPA
limits
its
review
of
data
submitted
by
fully
compliant
permittees
to
a
simple
determination
of
continuing
compliance.
EPA
may
reduce
monitoring
requirements
for
permittees
that
consistently
demonstrate
an
ability
to
reduce
pollutants
in
their
discharge
below
their
permit
limitations.

The
extent
to
which
EPA
reviews
data
also
depends
on
available
resources
and
the
specific
reviewing
procedures
of
the
permitting
authority
(
State
or
EPA
region).
In
NPDES
States,
State
environmental
agencies
generally
review
permittee
data.
EPA
regions
also
may
review
data
from
permittees
in
NPDES
States
while
performing
program
oversight
functions
(
e.
g.,
during
file
audits
and
when
compiling
statistical
compliance
summaries).

EPA
regions
review
data
in
non­
authorized
States.
The
regional
permitting
authority
places
emphasis
on
data
from
major
permittees
and
from
minor
permittees
that
may
cause
water
quality
problems
(
i.
e,
significant
minors).
EPA
reviews
data
from
other
minor
permittees
and
general
permittees
less
frequently.
In
most
cases,
EPA
will
forward
copies
of
reports
to
non­
authorized
States,
which
routinely
review
data
from
minor
permittees.

EPA
does
not
require
these
non­
authorized
States
to
review
data,
but
several
States
voluntarily
conduct
the
review
and
use
the
results
in
their
own
programs.
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
18
Table
5.1.
DMR
State
and
Federal
Requirements
(
As
Users
of
Data)

40
CFR
Citation
Regulatory
Description
Response
Frequency
NPDES
PERMITTEES:
MAJOR
AND
MINOR
INDIVIDUAL
PERMITTEES,
GENERAL
PERMITTEES,
AND
MS4S
Discharge
Monitoring
Report
(
DMR)
Review
§
123.26(
a)
Requires
the
permitting
authority
to
review
DMR
submissions,
using
the
reported
data
to
monitor
permittee
compliance.
The
permitting
authority
also
will
conduct
an
initial
screening.
Variable/
Permit
Specific
§
123.26(
e)(
3)
When
warranted,
requires
the
permitting
authority
to
followup
the
initial
screening
with
a
substantive
technical
evaluation
to
determine
permittee
compliance
with
permit
conditions.
As
Necessary
Reporting
and
Record­
keeping
Requirements
§
123.26(
e)(
4)
Requires
the
permitting
authority
to
establish
and
regularly
maintain
a
management
information
system.
Ongoing
SEWAGE
SLUDGE
FACILITIES
(
PART
501)
STATE
SLUDGE
MANAGEMENT
PROGRAMS
Monitoring
Report
Review
§
501.16
§
123.26(
a)
Requires
State
sewage
sludge
management
programs
to
follow
the
requirements
and
procedures
for
compliance
monitoring
and
evaluation
as
set
forth
under
§
123.26.
Under
§
123.26,
the
permitting
authority
is
required
to
review
DMR
submissions,
using
the
reported
data
to
monitor
permittee
compliance.
The
permitting
authority
will
conduct
an
initial
screening.
Variable/
Permit
Specific
§
501.16
§
123.26(
e)(
3)
When
warranted,
the
permitting
authority
must
follow­
up
the
initial
screening
with
a
substantive
technical
evaluation
to
determine
permittee
compliance
with
permit
conditions.
As
Necessary
Reporting
and
Record­
keeping
Requirements
§
501.16
§
123.26(
e)(
4)
Requires
the
permitting
authority
to
establish
and
regularly
maintain
a
management
information
system.
Ongoing
Data
reported
by
major
permittees
is
stored
in
the
Permit
Compliance
System
(
PCS)
for
use
at
a
later
date.
Data
reported
by
minor
permittees
and
general
permittees
may
be
stored
in
the
PCS.
EPA
may
use
this
data
to
evaluate
problems
resulting
from
citizen
complaints,
focus
inspection
efforts,
conduct
spot
check
reviews,
and
determine
appropriate
enforcement
action.

5.
b
Collection
Methodology
and
Management
EPA
has
considered
using
improved
information
technology
to
reduce
respondent
burden
.
Preprinted
DMR
forms
are
one
method
that
EPA
has
used
to
improve
its
collection
methodology.
EPA
is
working
toward
the
implementation
of
electronic
submission
of
DMR
data
as
well.
The
electronic
submission
of
DMR
data
are
voluntary
and
will
be
an
alternative
to
the
paper
DMR
submission.
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
19
5.
c
Small
Entity
Flexibility
Small
businesses
that
do
not
discharge
wastewater
or
that
discharge
wastewater
to
POTWs
are
exempt
from
NPDES
permit
requirements,
and
therefore,
do
not
have
any
DMR
monitoring
or
reporting
burdens.
Although
small
business
direct
dischargers
are
not
treated
as
a
separate
class
under
the
NPDES
program,
efforts
to
minimize
the
burdens
imposed
upon
them
by
NPDES
information
collection
activities
are
implicit
in
the
existing
monitoring/
reporting
framework.
Most
small
businesses
permitted
under
NPDES,
except
those
discharging
toxic
chemicals,
are
covered
either
by
permits
with
less
rigorous
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
or
by
general
permits.
This
tends
to
impose
lesser
DMR­
related
workloads
on
minor
permittees
and
general
permittees
than
major
individual
permittees.

In
general,
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
are
based
upon
many
factors,
the
most
important
of
which
are
the
volume
and
environmental
significance
of
wastewater
discharge.
Since
small
businesses
which
are
subject
to
NPDES
permits
usually
discharge
small
volumes
of
wastewater,
their
monitoring
and
reporting
burdens
tend
to
be
minimal.

5.
d
Collection
Schedule
The
information
collection
process
includes
two
distinct
collection
activities:
monitoring
(
sample
collection
and
analysis),
and
reporting
and
record­
keeping.
Collection
frequencies
vary
for
the
universe
of
permittees
covered
by
the
NPDES
program.
However,
permittees
are
required,
at
a
minimum,
to
monitor
their
wastewater
or
biosolids
annually.
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
4
Some
facilities
may
only
have
a
record­
keeping
burden
(
i.
e.,
they
are
not
required
to
report
monitoring
results).

5
This
is
not
necessarily
true
for
MS4s,
because
many
municipalities
may
have
a
great
number
of
outfalls
discharging
stormwater.
See
Appendix
B.

6
The
facilities
covered
by
the
Region
4
General
Permit
for
the
Beneficial
Reuse
and
Disposal
of
Municipal
Sludge
in
Louisianna
are
counted
in
this
Exhibit.

20
6.0
ESTIMATING
THE
BURDEN
AND
COST
OF
THE
COLLECTION
6.
a
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
This
section
describes
the
methods
EPA
used
to
calculate
the
burden
to
respondents
associated
with
collecting
and
reporting
or
maintaining
records
of
monitoring
data.
The
burden
on
each
respondent
is
the
sum
of
three
activities.

Respondent
Burden
=
Sampling
Burden
+
Analysis
Burden
+
Reporting/
Record­
keeping
Burden4
Respondent
burden
is
a
function
of
factors
that
are
specific
to
each
NPDES
permit
or,
in
the
case
of
Part
503
biosolids
facilities,
specified
in
the
regulations.
These
factors
include,
but
are
not
limited
to:

°
The
number
of
facility
outfalls
(
a
DMR
is
submitted
for
each
outfall)
5
°
The
number
of
samples
collected
°
The
number
of
parameters
monitored
°
The
burden
associated
with
analyzing
each
parameter
°
The
frequency
of
sample
collection.

EPA
has
estimated
average
or
typical
values
for
each
of
the
above
factors
(
i.
e.,
number
of
outfalls,
number
of
samples,
number
of
hours
to
collect
a
sample)
to
calculate
respondent
burden.
These
averages
are
difficult
to
estimate
because
of
the
variability
of
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements
among
regulated
facilities.
EPA
has
attempted
to
categorize
DMR
respondents
by
ownership
(
public
vs.
private),
major/
minor,
effluent
flow,
and/
or
industrial
classification;
however,
burden
values
vary
significantly
within
these
respondent
categories.
Accordingly,
it
is
not
possible
to
define
a
"
typical"
respondent.

However,
to
develop
appropriate
burden
estimates,
for
the
2002
ICR
EPA
tried
to
determine
typical
values
using
information
from
interviews
with
EPA
staff,
data
from
the
PCS
database,
the
NOI
Processing
Center,
the
previous
DMR
ICR,
and
two
prior
NPDES
Streamlining
Rules.
Values
and
assumptions
from
the
previous
DMR
information
collection
requests
were
used,
to
the
best
extent
that
they
were
considered
reasonable
estimates
or
their
unequivocal
verification
would
result
in
excessive
expense
with
no
corresponding
increase
in
the
accuracy
of
burden
and
cost
estimates.
Except
as
specified,
these
values
are
used
for
the
current
estimates.

Exhibit
6.1a
shows
the
number
of
respondents
required
to
complete
DMRs
and
the
number
of
annual
responses
(
i.
e.,
number
of
DMRs
submitted).
Exhibit
6.1b
shows
the
number
of
sludge
facilities
and
the
number
of
times
sludge
management
facilities
monitor
per
year.
6
Estimates
of
the
number
of
major
and
minor
NPDES
permittees,
sludge
facilities,
and
the
frequency
at
which
they
are
required
to
submit
DMRs
are
based
on
current
data
from
EPA's
NPDES
permit
database,
Permit
Compliance
System
(
PCS),
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
7
Because
MS4s
and
the
general
permits
for
Oil
and
Gas,
Seafood
Processing,
and
Aquaculture
have
a
more
involved
process
of
sampling
and
analysis,
a
more
detailed
estimate
of
these
burdens
was
presented
in
Appendix
B
of
EPA
ICR#
0229.15.
For
this
updated
ICR,
burden
assumptions
considered
for
the
2002
ICR
are
believed
to
still
be
valid.

21
and
on
the
previous
ICR.
Estimates
of
the
number
of
non­
storm
water
general
permittees
covered
under
the
EPA­
issued
non­
storm
water
general
permits
are
based
on
EPA's
PCS
and
ePIFT
(
see
Appendix
B).

6.
a.
1
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
 
Sampling
NPDES
permittees
and
sludge
facilities
have
to
spend
time
collecting
wastewater
and/
or
sludge
samples.
These
respondents
can
collect
samples
either
automatically
or
manually.
The
samples
can
be
either
grab,
or
composite
(
which
involves
collecting
individual
samples
and
combining
them
into
one
sample
representative
of
a
daily
discharge).
Burdens
for
collecting
samples
vary
depending
on
the
types
of
samples
taken.
For
example,
economies
of
scale
are
realized
when
a
single
sample
can
be
used
for
many
parameters.
The
time
to
collect
a
sample
may
vary
from
a
few
minutes
(
in
the
case
of
automatic
sampling
for
some
parameters)
to
three
hours
for
manually
collected
composite
samples.
Sample
collection
burdens
also
will
vary
depending
on
the
number
of
outfalls
that
must
be
sampled
and
the
distance
between
sampling
locations.
Sampling
burden
is
calculated
as
follows:

Sampling
Burden
(
hours)
=
Avg.
Number
of
Samples
x
Avg.
Hours
to
Collect
a
Sample
The
assumptions
(
i.
e.,
number
of
samples,
hours
to
collect
a
sample)
used
to
calculate
the
sampling
burden
are
based
on
the
previous
DMR
ICR.
Exhibit
6.2a
and
6.2b
present
the
individual
and
aggregate
sampling
burden
associated
with
NPDES
permittees
and
sludge
facilities,
respectively.

6.
a.
2
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
 
Analysis
Once
the
facility
has
collected
wastewater
or
sludge
samples,
they
are
analyzed.
The
assumptions
(
i.
e.,
number
of
parameters
analyzed,
hours
to
conduct
analysis)
used
to
calculate
the
analysis
burden
are
based
on
the
previous
DMR
ICR.
The
analysis
burden
(
in
hours)
is
calculated
as
follows:

Analysis
Burden
(
Hours)
=
Avg.
No.
of
Parameters
Analyzed
×
Avg.
No.
of
Samples
×
Hours
per
Parameter
Exhibits
6.3a
and
6.3b
present
estimates
of
the
time
respondents
spend
conducting
pollutant
analysis.
7
6.
a.
3
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
 
Reporting/
Record­
keeping
Reporting
of
monitoring
data
involves
compilation
of
data
from
various
pollutant
analysis,
and
calculation
of
average
pollutant
concentrations
and/
or
loadings.
The
respondent
records
this
information
on
DMRs.
When
pre­
printed
DMRs
are
used,
the
respondent
spends
time
for
reporting
only
the
analytical
results
(
the
general
DMR
information
is
already
pre­
printed).
Exhibit
6.4a
shows
the
reporting
burden
for
NPDES
permittees.
EPA
estimates
the
reporting
burden
per
DMR
to
be
two
hours.

Sewage
sludge
facilities
that
are
required
to
submit
monitoring
data
are
also
required
to
maintain
records
of
that
information.
EPA
assumes
that
the
time
devoted
to
record­
keeping
at
these
facilities
generally
involves
copying
and
filing
DMRs.
EPA
estimates
this
burden
to
be
10
minutes
per
DMR
submitted.
EPA
estimates
the
time
required
to
report
this
information
to
be
two
hours
(
the
same
as
NPDES
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
22
permittees).
Exhibit
6.4b
shows
the
reporting
and
record­
keeping
burden
for
biosolids
facilities
that
are
required
to
report
and
keep
records
of
DMR
data.

Some
sewage
sludge
facilities
are
required
to
monitor,
but
are
only
required
to
maintain
records
of
their
monitoring
data
(
i.
e.,
monitoring
data
does
not
have
to
be
reported).
The
annual
record­
keeping
burden
per
facility
is
assumed
to
be
1.5
hours.
Exhibit
6.4c
presents
the
record­
keeping
burden
for
facilities
required
to
maintain
monitoring
data.

6.
b
Estimating
Respondent
Cost
The
total
cost
for
each
respondent
activity
is
comprised
of:

°
Labor
Cost
°
Capital/
Start­
up
Cost
°
Operating
and
Maintenance
(
O&
M)
Costs.

6.
b.
1
Estimating
Labor
Costs
(
2004
Dollars)

When
estimating
the
labor
costs
to
respondents
and
the
Agency,
the
following
labor
rates
were
used:

°
Labor
rates
for
the
Federal
employees
are
based
on
the
estimated
hourly
rates
of
$
45.97
for
technical
personnel
(
GS­
12,
Step
5).
These
values
represent
the
inclusion
of
a
1.6
multiplier
to
account
for
overhead
and
fringe
benefit
costs.
(
EPA
ICR
Handbook).

°
Labor
rates
for
State
and
municipal
employees
(
including
MS4s)
are
based
on
the
estimated
total
compensation
cost
(
including
benefits)
of
$
34.72
per
hour
($
72,218
annually)
presented
by
the
Department
of
Labor
for
September
2004.

°
Labor
rates
for
MS4s
were
assumed
to
be
$
42.51
per
hour
(
wage
and
overhead).
This
labor
rate
from
the
May
2003
National
Industry­
Specific
Occupational
Employment
and
Wage
Estimates
for
NAICS
541330
­
Engineering
Services.
The
mean
hourly
wage
for
Architecture
and
Engineering
Occupations
(
SOC
Code
17­
0000),
including
50
percent
for
overhead
and
fringe
benefits
and
adjusted
to
September
2004
dollars
with
the
Employment
Cost
Index
6.
b.
2
Estimating
Capital
and
Operating
and
Maintenance
Costs
Capital
Costs
There
are
no
capital
costs
associated
with
this
ICR
because
all
monitoring
and
record­
keeping
are
performed
using
equipment
that
NPDES
facilities
already
have
as
a
routine
part
of
running
their
facility
or
the
facilities
send
their
samples
to
outside
sources.

Operating
and
Maintenance
Costs
There
are
no
operation
and
maintenance
costs
associated
with
this
ICR
because
all
monitoring
and
record­
keeping
are
performed
using
equipment
that
NPDES
facilities
already
have
as
a
routine
part
of
running
their
facility
or
the
facilities
send
their
samples
to
outside
sources.
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
23
6.
c
Estimating
Agency
Burden
and
Cost
The
costs
to
Federal
and
State
governments
for
processing
and
analyzing
monitoring
data
are
a
function
of
three
factors:
(
1)
the
number
of
DMRs
received
by
the
permitting
authority,
(
2)
the
time
it
takes
to
process
and
analyze
monitoring
data
(
including
entry
into
the
PCS
database),
and
(
3)
the
salary
and
associated
overhead
costs
of
the
Federal
and
State
employees
who
process
DMRs.
In
addition
to
entering
monitoring
data
into
PCS,
staff
may
need
to
conduct
follow­
up
actions
in
instances
of
noncompliance
This
follow­
up
could
be
a
phone
conversation
or
a
letter
to
verify,
clarify
or
substantiate
the
information
reported.
For
those
facilities
only
required
to
maintain
records,
there
is
no
corresponding
Federal
or
State
burden.

EPA
estimates
that
it
takes
about
an
average
of
10
minutes
(
0.17
hrs)
to
review
and
enter
the
data
into
PCS.
EPA
also
estimates
that
20
percent
of
the
DMRs
submitted
will
require
some
form
of
follow­
up
action
because
of
non­
compliance.
EPA
estimates
that
this
follow­
up
action
requires
an
average
of
30
minutes
per
DMR.
The
estimates
of
Agency
and
State
burden
and
costs
are
presented
in
Exhibit
6.5a
and
6.5b,
respectively.

6.
d
Estimating
Respondent
Universe
and
Total
Burden
The
respondent
universe
for
NPDES
facilities
was
updated
from
the
previous
ICR
by
using
EPA's
PCS
database,
the
existing
ICR,
and
consultations
with
EPA
staff
and
contractors.
Exhibit
6.1a
and
Exhibit
6.1b
present
the
universe
of
NPDES
and
sludge
facilities.
Total
burden
for
each
category
of
respondents
are
summarized
in
Exhibit
6.6a.

6.
e
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
The
bottom
line
burden
hours
and
cost
tables
for
respondents
are
the
summaries
of
all
the
hours
and
costs
incurred
for
all
activities.

(
i)
Respondent
Tally
The
bottom
line
respondent
tally
is
presented
in
Exhibit
6.6b.

(
ii)
The
Agency
Tally
The
bottom
line
Agency
tally
is
presented
in
Exhibit
6.6b.

6.
e.
1
Variations
in
the
Annual
Bottom
Line
The
burden
and
cost
estimates
are
not
expected
to
vary
from
year
to
year
over
the
collection
period
for
this
ICR.
That
is,
the
bottom
line
tallies
presented
in
Exhibit
6.6b
are
not
expected
to
change
over
the
course
of
the
next
3
years.

6.
f
Reasons
for
Change
in
Burden
The
DMR
ICR
approved
by
OMB
in
2002
contains
line­
by­
line
estimates
of
burden
hours
similar
to
the
estimates
presented
in
this
document.
Activities
contemplated
in
this
ICR
have
not
changed.
Exhibit
6.6c
presents
a
comparison
of
burden
estimates
between
the
2002
and
the
2005
ICR.

Major
Dichargers
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
24
The
2005
DMR
ICR
estimates
that
the
hourly
burden
for
major
municipal
dischargers
will
increase
from
the
2002
estimate
of
3,884,238
hours
to
3,975,932
hours
(
an
increase
of
2.4%).
The
burden
hours
for
non­
municipal
individual
permittees
will
decrease
from
2,899,050
to
2,773,155
(
an
decrease
of
4.3%).
This
changes
are
attributable
to
the
change
in
the
number
of
major
municipal
and
non­
municipal
dischargers.

Minor
Dischargers
The
burden
hours
for
minor
individual
permittees
will
decrease
from
5,118,746
to
4,770,869
(
a
decrease
of
6.8%).
This
decrease
is
attributable
to
the
decrease
in
the
number
of
permitted
minor
dischargers
required
to
monitor.

Discharges
Under
Non­
Stormwater
General
Permits
The
burden
hours
for
permittees
discharging
under
non­
stormwater
general
permits
increased
from
635,202
hours
to
635,201
(
a
0%
increase).
This
increase
in
burden
is
primarily
the
result
of
the
increase
in
the
number
of
non­
stormwater
general
permitted
facilities.

Storm
Water
Industrial
Multisector
General
Permits
The
burden
hours
for
storm
water
industrial
general
permittees
is
expected
to
remain
constant
at
129,993.

Municipal
Separate
Storm
Sewer
Systems
(
MS4s)

The
burden
hours
for
MS4s
is
expected
to
remain
constant
at
491,392.

Sludge
Facilities
(
Sludge
Only
and
Part
503)

The
burden
hours
for
sludge
only
facilities
is
expected
to
remain
constant
at
43,056
hours.
Similarly,
for
treatment
works
treating
sludge,
the
burden
hours
also
are
expected
to
remain
constant
at
0.

Domestic
Septage
Haulers
The
burden
hours
for
domestic
septage
haulers
is
expected
to
remain
constant
at
increase
from
14,221,957
6.
g
Burden
Statement
EPA
estimates
that
74,917
NPDES
permittees
and
24,346
sludge
permittees
(
of
which
17,311
facilities
are
included
in
both
the
NPDES
and
sludge
permittees)
will
perform
sample
collection,
pollutant
analysis,
reporting
and
record­
keeping
as
part
of
their
NPDES
permit
requirements
to
collect
and
report
discharge
monitoring
data
to
permit
authorities.
These
permittees
are
expected
to
provide
583,987
responses
to
State
and
Federal
permit
authorities.
Nationally,
permittees
will
spend
3,934,507
hours
per
year
collecting
samples
of
their
wastewater
or
sludge.
An
additional
8,888,433
hours
will
be
spent
by
permittees
for
analyzing
the
samples
collected.
Permittees
will
spend
1,174,626
hours
for
reporting
the
sampling
and
analysis
information
on
DMRs.
Each
permittee
will
spend
an
average
of
24.0
hours
per
year
to
collect,
analyze
and
report
discharge
monitoring
data.
EPA
also
estimates
that
sludge
facilities
will
spend
19,226
hours
keeping
records
of
monitoring
records
(
the
record­
keeping
burden
for
the
remaining
NPDES
permittees
is
reported
in
the
Compliance
Assessment
ICR,
OMB
Control
Number
2040­
0110).
In
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
25
addition
to
the
permittees,
the
total
number
of
respondents
includes
the
45
States
and
1
Territory
that
are
responsible
for
NPDES
program
implementation.
The
total
State
and
Territory
burden
averages
147,791
hours
per
year.

Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.
An
agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to,
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
part
9
and
48
CFR
chapter
15.

To
comment
on
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
2004­
0031,
which
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
Water
(
OW)
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.
Once
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
Office
for
EPA.
Please
include
the
EPA
Docket
ID
No.
(
OW­
2004­
0031)
and
OMB
control
number
(
2040­
0004)
in
any
correspondence.
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
26
EXHIBITS
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
27
EXHIBIT
6.1a
Number
of
Respondents
and
Responses
(
NPDES
Permittees)

[
A]
[
B]
[
C]
[
A]*[
B]*[
C]

Facility/
Permit
Type
No
of
Respondents
No.
of
Outfalls
Per
Facility
Annual
DMR
Submissions
No.
of
Responses
Major
Dischargers
Municipal
4,206
1
12
50,472
Non­
municipal
2,401
3.5
12
100,842
Subtotal
(
Majors)
6,607
151,314
Minor
Dischargers
Monthly
21,514
1
12
258,168
Bimonthly
10
3
6
180
Quarterly
3,543
2
4
28,344
Semi­
Annually
326
1.4
2
913
Annually
1,873
2
1
3,746
Subtotal
(
Minors)
(
1)
27,266
291,351
General
Permits
­
Non
Storm
Water
(
2)
15,286
88,990
Storm
Water
Permittees
(
Industrial)
(
3)
(
Year
2
Only
Quarterly)
12,744
1
0.2
2,549
(
Year
2
and
Year
4
Quarterly)
12,744
1
0.4
5,098
Subtotal
(
General
Permits
­
SW)
25,488
7,646
MS4s
(
See
Appendix
B)
270
1
5,400
Total
74,917
544,701
(
1)
Based
on
data
from
EPA's
PCS
database,
an
additional
17,430
minor
facilities
exist
that
are
not
required
to
submit
DMRs.
(
2)
Based
on
data
from
EPA's
PCS
database,
an
additional
38,066
general
permittees
exist
that
are
not
required
to
submit
DMRs.
(
3)
Presently,
EPA
estimates
120,000
facilities
are
permitted
under
a
storm
water
industrial
permit
(
EPA
Permit
Issuance
Statistics
website).
Based
on
data
from
the
Final
Phase
II
Storm
Water
Rule
Economic
Analysis,
it
is
expected
that
approximately
11.5
percent
of
those
facilities
will
claim
"
No
Exposure"
and
be
exempt
from
permit
requirements.
Of
the
remaining
facilities,
EPA
estimates
that
approximately
24
percent
of
the
facilities
are
required
to
monitor
in
Year
2.
It
is
assumed
that
50%
of
facilities
that
monitored
in
Year
2
will
be
required
to
monitor
in
Year
4
also.
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
28
EXHIBIT
6.1b
Number
of
Respondents
and
Responses
(
Biosolids
Facilities)

[
A]
[
B]
[
C]
[
B]*[
C]

Facility/
Permit
Type
No.
of
Facilities
Total
No.
of
Monitoring
Episodes
Percent
Reporting
No.
of
Responses*

Sludge­
Only
Facilities
Class
I
Sludge
Management
Facilities
635
2,411
100%
2,411
Non­
Class
I
Sludge
Management
Facilities
1,616
2,076
10%
208
Sludge
(
40
CFR
Part
503)/
NPDES
Permittees
POTWs
Class
I
Sludge
Management
Facilities
4,908
25,506
100%
25,506
Non­
Class
I
Sludge
Management
Facilities
12,403
12,898
**
11,161
Domestic
Septage
Haulers
4,784
4,784
0%
0
Total
24,346
47,675
39,286
*
Number
of
DMR
Submissions.
**
Of
the
12,403
Non­
Class
I
Sludge
management
facilities,
90
percent
of
POTWs
and
50
percent
of
PrOTWs
are
required
to
both
report
and
record­
keep.
This
results
in
11,161
responses
[
0.9
times
(
11,781
mon.
episodes)]
+
[
0.5
times
(
1,117
mon.
episodes)].
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
29
EXHIBIT
6.2a
Annual
Sampling
Labor
Burden
and
Costs
(
NPDES
Permittees)

[
A]
[
B]
[
C]
[
A]*[
B]*[
C]

Facility/
Permit
Type
No.
of
Responses
No.
of
Samples
Per
Response
Hours
Per
Sample
Annual
Sampling
Burden
Major
Dischargers
Municipal
50,472
8.3
2.25
942,565
Non­
municipal
100,842
2.0
2.75
554,631
Subtotal
(
Majors)
151,314
1,497,196
Minor
Dischargers
Monthly
258,168
2.3
2.0
1,187,573
Bimonthly
180
2.3
2.0
828
Quarterly
28,344
2.3
2.0
130,382
Semi­
Annually
913
2.3
2.0
4,199
Annually
3,746
2.3
2.0
17,232
Subtotal
(
Minors)
291,351
1,340,214
Non
Storm
Water
General
Permits
(
1)
88,990
492,588
Storm
Water
Permittees
(
Industrial)
(
2)
(
Year
2
Only
Quarterly)
2,549
4
2.25
22,939
(
Year
2
and
Year
4
Quarterly)
5,098
4
2.25
45,878
Subtotal
(
General
Permits
­
SW)
7,646
68,817
MS4s
(
See
Appendix
B)
5,400
395,059
Total
544,701
3,793,874
(
1)
See
Appendix
B,
Tables
B­
2
through
B­
9
for
breakdown
of
hours.
(
2)
Under
the
Storm
Water
Multi­
Sector
General
Permit,
monitoring
is
required
quarterly
in
Year
2
and
based
on
the
results,
monitoring
may
also
be
required
in
Year
4.
It
is
assumed
that
50%
of
facilities
that
monitored
in
Year
2
will
be
required
to
monitor
in
Year
4
also.
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
30
EXHIBIT
6.2b
Annual
Sampling
Labor
Burden
(
Biosolids
Facilities)

[
A]
[
B]
[
A]*[
B]

Facility/
Permit
Type
No.
of
Monitoring
Episodes*
Hours
Per
Sample
Annual
Sampling
Burden
Sludge­
Only
Facilities
Class
I
Sludge
Management
Facilities
2,411
3.0
7,233
Non­
Class
I
Sludge
Management
Facilities
2,076
3.0
6,228
Sludge
(
40
CFR
Part
503)/
NPDES
Permittees
POTWs
Class
I
Sludge
Management
Facilities
25,506
3.0
76,518
Non­
Class
I
Sludge
Management
Facilities
12,898
3.0
38,694
Domestic
Septage
Haulers
4,784
2.5
11,960
Total
47,675
140,633
*
One
sample
is
collected
per
monitoring
episode.
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
31
EXHIBIT
6.3a
Annual
Analysis
Labor
Burden
(
For
NPDES
Facilities)

[
A]
[
B]
[
C]
[
D]
[
A]*[
B]*[
C]*[
D]

Facility/
Permit
Type
No.
of
Responses
No.
of
Parameters
Per
Sample
No.
of
Samples
Per
Response
Hours
Per
Parameter
Annual
Analysis
Burden
Major
Dischargers
Municipal
50,472
14
8.3
0.5
2,932,423
Non­
municipal
100,842
20
2.0
0.5
2,016,840
Subtotal
(
Majors)
151,314
4,949,263
Minor
Dischargers
Monthly
258,168
8.5
2.3
0.5
2,523,592
Bimonthly
180
8.5
2.3
0.5
1,759
Quarterly
28,344
8.5
2.3
0.5
277,063
Semi­
Annually
913
8.5
2.3
0.5
8,923
Annually
3,746
8.5
2.3
0.5
36,617
Subtotal
(
Minors)
291,351
2,847,954
Non
Storm
Water
General
Permits
88,990
472,251
Storm
Water
Permittees
(
Industrial)(
1)
(
Year
2
Only
Quarterly)
2,549
3
4
0.5
15,294
(
Year
2
and
Year
4
Quarterly)
5,098
3
4
0.5
30,588
Subtotal
(
General
Permits
­
SW)
7,647
45,882
MS4s
(
See
Appendix
B)
5,400
223,040
Total
544,702
8,538,390
(
1)
Under
the
Storm
Water
Multi­
Sector
General
Permit,
monitoring
is
required
quarterly
in
Year
2
and
based
on
the
results,
monitoring
may
also
be
required
in
Year
4.
It
is
assumed
that
50%
of
facilities
that
monitored
in
Year
2
will
be
required
to
monitor
in
Year
4
also.
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
32
EXHIBIT
6.3b
Annual
Analysis
Labor
Burden
(
for
Biosolids
Facilities)

[
A]
[
B]
[
C]
[
A]*[
B]*[
C]

Facility/
Permit
Type
No.
of
Monitoring
Episodes*
No.
of
Parameters
Per
Sample
Hours
Per
Parameter
Annual
Analysis
Burden
Sludge­
Only
Facilities
Class
I
Sludge
Management
Facilities
2,411
18
0.5
21,699
Non­
Class
I
Sludge
Management
Facilities
2,076
10
0.5
10,380
Sludge
(
40
CFR
Part
503)/
NPDES
Permittees
POTWs
Class
I
Sludge
Management
Facilities
25,506
18
0.5
229,554
Non­
Class
I
Sludge
Management
Facilities
12,898
10
0.5
64,490
Domestic
Septage
Haulers
4,784
10
0.5
23,920
Total
47,675
350,043
*
One
sample
per
episode.
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
33
EXHIBIT
6.4a
Annual
Burden
for
Reporting
and
Record­
keeping*
of
DMRs
(
NPDES
Facilities)

[
A]
[
B]
[
C]
[
B]*[
C]

Facility/
Permit
Type
No.
of
Respondents
No.
of
Responses
Burden
Per
Response
Annual
Reporting
Burden
Major
Dischargers
Municipal
4,206
50,472
2
100,944
Non­
municipal
2,401
100,842
2
201,684
Subtotal
(
Majors)
6,607
151,314
302,628
Minor
Dischargers
Monthly
21,514
258,168
2
516,336
Bimonthly
10
180
2
360
Quarterly
3,543
28,344
2
56,688
Semi­
Annually
326
913
2
1,826
Annually
1,873
3,746
2
7,492
Subtotal
(
Minors)
27,266
291,351
582,702
Non
Storm
Water
General
Permit
15,286
88,990
178,330
Storm
Water
Permittees
(
Industrial)
(
1)
(
Year
2
Only
Quarterly)
12,744
2,549
2
5,098
(
Year
2
and
Year
4
Quarterly)
12,744
5,098
2
10,195
Subtotal
(
General
Permits
­
SW)
25,488
7,646
15,293
MS4s
(
See
Appendix
B)
270
5,400
17,102
Total
74,917
544,701
1,096,054
(
1)
Under
the
Storm
Water
Multi­
Sector
General
Permit,
monitoring
is
required
quarterly
in
Year
2
and
based
on
the
results,
monitoring
may
also
be
required
in
Year
4.
It
is
assumed
that
50%
of
facilities
that
monitored
in
Year
2
will
be
required
to
monitor
in
Year
4
also.

*
Record­
keeping
burden
is
addressed
in
the
Compliance
Assessment
ICR.
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
34
EXHIBIT
6.4b
Annual
Burden
for
Reporting
and
Record­
keeping
of
DMRs
(
Biosolids
Facilities
Required
to
Report
and
Record­
keep)

[
A]
[
B]
[
C]
[
D]
[
A]*[
B]*[
C]
[
A]*[
B]*[
D]

Facility/
Permit
Type
No.
of
Monitoring
Episodes
%
Required
to
Report
and
Recordkeep
Reporting
Burden
Per
Report
Recordkeeping
Burden
Per
Report
Annual
Reporting
Burden
Annual
Recordkeeping
Burden
Sludge­
Only
Facilities
Class
I
Sludge
Management
Facilities
2,411
100%
2
0.17
4,822
410
Non­
Class
I
Sludge
Management
Facilities
2,076
10%
2
0.17
415
35
Sludge
(
40
CFR
Part
503)/
NPDES
Permittees
POTWs
Class
I
Sludge
Management
Facilities
25,506
100%
2
0.17
51,012
4,336
Non­
Class
I
Sludge
Management
Facilities
12,898
*
2
0.17
22,322
1,860
Domestic
Septage
Haulers
4,784
0%
2
0.17
0
0
Total
47,675
78,571
6,641
*
Of
the
12,403
Non­
Class
I
Sludge
Management
facilities,
90
percent
of
POTWs
and
50
percent
of
PrOTWs
are
required
to
both
report
and
record­
keep.
This
results
in
11,161
responses
[
0.9
times
(
11,781
mon.
episodes)]
+
[
0.5
times
(
1,117
mon.
episodes)].
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
35
EXHIBIT
6.4c
Annual
DMR
Record­
keeping
Burden
(
Sludge
Facilities
Required
to
Record­
keep
Only)

[
A]
[
B]
[
C]
[
A]*[
B]*[
C]

Facility/
Permit
Type
No.
of
Monitoring
Episodes
%
Required
to
Recordkeep
Only
Record­
keeping
Burden
Per
Report
Annual
Recordkeeping
Burden
Sludge­
Only
Facilities
Class
I
Sludge
Management
Facilities
2,411
0%
NA
0
Non­
Class
I
Sludge
Management
Facilities
2,076
90%
1.5
2,803
Sludge
(
40
CFR
Part
503)/
NPDES
Permittees
POTWs
Class
I
Sludge
Management
Facilities
25,506
0%
NA
0
Non­
Class
I
Sludge
Management
Facilities
12,898
*
1.5
2,606
Domestic
Septage
Haulers
4,784
100%
1.5
7,176
Total
47,675
12,585
*
Of
the
12,403
Non­
Class
I
Sludge
Management
facilities,
90
percent
of
POTWs
and
50
percent
of
PrOTWs
are
required
to
both
report
and
record­
keep.
This
results
in
11,161
responses
[
0.9
times
(
11,781
mon.
episodes)]
+
[
0.5
times
(
1,117
mon.
episodes)].
Thus
only
10
percent
of
POTWs
and
50
percent
of
PrOTWs
are
required
to
record­
keep
only.
This
results
in
1,737
[
0.1
times
(
11,781
mon.
episodes)]
+
[
0.5
times
(
1,117
mon.
episodes)].
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
36
EXHIBIT
6.5a
Total
Agency
Burden
and
Cost
[
A]
[
B]
[
C]
[
D]
=
[
A*
B]+[
0.2*
A*
C]
[
E]
[
D]*[
E]

Facility/
Permit
Type
Annual
DMR
Submissions
Total
Processing
Time
Additional
Follow­
up
Time
Total
Agency
Burden
(
1)
Hourly
Labor
Rate
Total
Agency
Processing
Cost
Major
Discharger
Municipal
3,036
0.17
0.5
820
$
45.97
$
37,683
Non­
Municipal
6,300
0.17
0.5
1,701
$
45.97
$
78,195
Minor
Dischargers
6,696
0.17
0.5
1,808
$
45.97
$
83,110
EPA
Non­
Storm
Water
General
Permits
14,333
0.17
0.5
3,870
$
40.34
$
156,112
Storm
Water
Industrial
General
Permits
618
0.17
0.5
167
$
45.97
$
7,671
Mun.
Separate
Storm
Sewer
Systems
(
MS4s)
162
0.17
0.5
44
$
45.97
$
2,011
Sludge­
Only
Facilities
389
0.17
0.5
105
$
45.97
$
4,828
Sludge
Facilities
(
Under
Part
503)
5,079
0.17
0.5
1,371
$
45.97
$
63,040
Domestic
Septage
Haulers
0
0.17
0.5
0
$
45.97
$
0
Totals
36,613
9,886
$
432,649
(
1)
Twenty
percent
of
DMR
submissions
require
additional
follow­
up
time
of
30
minutes
in
addition
to
the
standard
processing
time
of
10
minutes.
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
37
EXHIBIT
6.5b
Total
State
Burden
and
Costs
[
A]
[
B]
[
C]
[
D]
=
[
A*
B]+[
0.2*
A*
C]
[
E]
[
D]*[
E]

Facility/
Permit
Type
Annual
DMR
Submissions
Total
Processing
Time
Additional
Follow­
up
Time
Total
State
Burden
Hourly
Labor
Rate
Total
State
Processing
Cost
Major
Discharger
Municipal
47,436
0.17
0.5
12,808
$
34.72
$
444,684
Non­
Municipal
94,542
0.17
0.5
25,526
$
34.72
$
886,275
Minor
Dischargers
284,655
0.17
0.5
76,857
$
34.72
$
2,668,470
State
Non­
Storm
Water
General
Permits
74,657
0.17
0.5
20,157
$
34.72
$
699,865
Storm
Water
Industrial
General
Permits
7,029
0.17
0.5
1,898
$
34.72
$
65,893
Municipal
Separate
Storm
Sewer
Systems
(
MS4s)
5,238
0.17
0.5
1,414
$
34.72
$
49,103
Sludge­
Only
Facilities
2,230
0.17
0.5
602
$
34.72
$
20,905
Sludge
Facilities
(
Under
Part
503)
31,588
0.17
0.5
8,529
$
34.72
$
296,119
Domestic
Septage
Haulers
0
0
0
0
$
34.72
$
0
Totals
547,375
147,791
$
5,131,312
(
1)
Twenty
percent
of
DMR
submissions
require
additional
follow­
up
time
of
30
minutes
in
addition
to
the
standard
processing
time
of
10
minutes.
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
38
EXHIBIT
6.6a
Total
Respondent
Burden
(
excluding
State
burden)

Facility/
Permit
Type
Annual
Burden
Major
Discharger
Municipal
3,975,932
Non­
Municipal
2,773,155
Minor
Dischargers
4,770,869
Non­
Storm
Water
General
Permits
1,143,169
Storm
Water
Industrial
General
Permits
129,992
Municipal
Separate
Storm
Sewer
Systems
(
MS4s)
635,201
Sludge­
Only
Facilities
54,025
Sludge
Facilities
(
Under
Part
503)
491,392
Domestic
Septage
Haulers
43,056
Totals
14,016,791
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
39
EXHIBIT
6.6b
Summary
(
bottom
line)
Respondent
Burden
and
Costs
(
including
State)

Category
Costs
($)

Capital
$
0
O&
M
Costs
$
0
State
$
5,131,312
Federal
$
432,649
Annual
Bottomline
Burden
Hours
Annual
Sampling
Burden
3,934,507
Annual
Analysis
Burden
8,888,433
Annual
Reporting
Burden
1,174,626
Annual
Record­
keeping
Burden*
19,226
Total
Respondent
Burden
14,016,791
Total
Number
of
Responses
Annual
(
Number
of
DMRs
submitted)
583,987
Average
Number
of
Hours/
Responses
(
To
collect,
analyze,
and
report
only)
24.0
Annual
State
Burden
(
To
process
DMRs)
147,791
*
Includes
only
sludge
facilities.
Record­
keeping
burden
for
NPDES
permittees
is
contained
in
the
Compliance
Assessment
ICR.
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
EXHIBIT
6.6c
Change
in
Burden
Facility/
Permit
Type
2002
ICR
(
hours)
2005
ICR
(
Hours)
%
Difference
(
2002/
2005)
Reason
for
Changes
Major
Discharger
Municipal
3,884,238
3,975,932
2.4%
Adjustment
Non­
Municipal
2,899,050
2,773,155
­
4.3%
Adjustment
Minor
Dischargers
5,118,746
4,770,869
­
6.8%
Adjustment
Combined
Sewer
Overflows
see
Combined
Sewer
Overflow
under
Section
4.
a.

Non­
Storm
Water
General
Permits
966,255
1,143,169
18.3%
Adjustment
Storm
Water
Industrial
General
Permits
129,993
129,992
0.0%
NA
Municipal
Separate
Storm
Sewer
Systems
(
MS4s)
635,202
635,201
0.0%
NA
Sludge­
Only
Facilities
54,025
54,025
0.0%
NA
Sludge
Facilities
(
Under
Part
503)
491,392
491,392
0.0%
NA
Domestic
Septage
Haulers
43056
43,056
0.0%
NA
Totals
14,221,957
14,016,791
­
1.4%
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
41
APPENDIX
A
INPUT
VALUES
AND
ASSUMPTIONS
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
A­
1
Source
for
Input
Values
By
Discharger
Category
Category:
Major
Dischargers
Item
Source/
Assumption
Number
of
dischargers
Updated
2005
from
EPA's
Permit
Compliance
System
(
PCS)
Database.

Number
of
outfalls
per
facility
2002
DMR
ICR
(
EPA
No.
0229.15).

Annual
DMR
submissions.
2002
DMR
ICR.

Number
of
samples
per
response
2002
DMR
ICR.

Number
of
hours
to
collect
a
sample.
2002
DMR
ICR.

Number
of
parameters
per
sample
2002
DMR
ICR.

Hours
to
analyze
a
sample
2002
DMR
ICR.

Average
time
it
takes
to
prepare
and
report
a
DMR
(
excluding
sampling
and
analysis
time)
2002
DMR
ICR.

Average
time
it
takes
to
keep
records
of
a
DMR.
Record­
keeping
burden
is
already
captured
in
the
Compliance
Assessment
ICR.
Not
included
here.
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
A­
2
Source
for
Input
Values
By
Discharger
Category
Category:
Minor
Dischargers
Item
Source/
Assumption
Number
of
dischargers
Updated
2005
from
EPA's
Permit
Compliance
System
(
PCS)
Database.

Number
of
outfalls
per
facility
2002
DMR
ICR.

Annual
DMR
submissions.
2002
DMR
ICR.

Number
of
samples
per
response
2002
DMR
ICR.

Number
of
hours
to
collect
a
sample.
2002
DMR
ICR.

Number
of
parameters
per
sample
2002
DMR
ICR.

Hours
to
analyze
a
sample
2002
DMR
ICR.

Average
time
it
takes
to
prepare
and
report
a
DMR
(
excluding
sampling
and
analysis
time)
2002
DMR
ICR.

Average
time
it
takes
to
keep
records
of
a
DMR.
Record­
keeping
burden
is
already
captured
in
the
Compliance
Assessment
ICR.
Not
included
here.
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
A­
3
Source
for
Input
Values
By
Discharger
Category
Category:
Non­
Storm
Water
General
Permittees*

Item
Source/
Assumption
Number
of
dischargers
Number
of
facilities
covered
under
State­
issued
and
EPA­
issued
nonstorm
water
general
permits
from
2005
PCS
database
and
additional
facilities
in
Gulf
of
Mexico.

Number
of
outfalls
per
facility
2002
DMR
ICR
Annual
DMR
submissions.
2002
DMR
ICR
Number
of
samples
per
response
2002
DMR
ICR
Number
of
hours
to
collect
a
sample.
2002
DMR
ICR
Number
of
parameters
per
sample
2002
DMR
ICR
Hours
to
analyze
a
sample
2002
DMR
ICR
Hours
to
conduct
other
monitoring
requirements
­
seafloor
survey,
bark
monitoring
plan,
site
inspections,
oil
sheen
or
debris
observations,
toxicity
testing,
etc.
2002
DMR
ICR
Average
time
it
takes
to
prepare
and
report
a
DMR
(
excluding
sampling
and
analysis
time)
2002
DMR
ICR
Average
time
it
takes
to
keep
records
of
a
DMR.
Record­
keeping
burden
is
already
captured
in
the
Compliance
Assessment
ICR.
Not
included
here.
*
See
Appendix
B
for
explanation
of
methodology
used
to
update
information
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
A­
4
Source
for
Input
Values
By
Discharger
Category
Category:
Storm
Water
Industrial
General
Permittees
Item
Source/
Assumption
Number
of
dischargers
2002
DMR
ICR.
NOI
processing
center
figures
and
state
estimates
(
for
permittees
in
only
those
categories/
subcategories
that
will
be
required
to
monitor
pollutants)
for
46
States
extrapolated
to
all
50
states.
Assumed
50
percent
of
industrial
facilities
would
require
4th
year
permit
monitoring.

Number
of
outfalls
per
facility
2002
DMR
ICR.
Permittees
can
sample
one
representative
outfall
for
their
facility.

Annual
DMR
submissions.
2002
DMR
ICR.
Under
the
multi­
sector
storm
water
general
permit,
permittees
are
required
to
monitor
four
times
in
the
2nd
year
of
their
permit
and,
if
pollutant
concentrations
exceed
a
benchmark
level,
they
may
also
be
required
to
monitor
an
additional
four
times
in
the
4th
year.
Quarterly
data
is
to
be
compiled
and
submitted
as
part
of
an
annual
report.
Thus,
a
range
of
one
to
two
reports
need
to
be
completed
in
a
5­
year
permit
cycle
(
0.2
DMRs
per
year)
for
facilities
required
to
monitor.

Number
of
samples
per
response
2002
ICR
estimated
the
number
of
samples
based
on
the
multi­
sector
permit's
requirements.
On
average,
about
3
parameters
will
have
to
be
analyzed
by
specific
industrial
categories
covered
by
the
multi­
sector
permit.
The
three
pollutants
are
expected
to
be
in
three
pollutant
categories
(
1
conventional;
1
nutrient;
1
toxic
metal).

Number
of
hours
to
collect
a
sample.
2002
DMR
ICR.

Number
of
parameters
per
sample
See
number
of
samples
per
response
above.

Hours
to
analyze
a
sample
2002
DMR
ICR.

Average
time
it
takes
to
prepare
and
report
a
DMR
(
excluding
sampling
and
analysis
time)
2002
DMR
ICR.

Average
time
it
takes
to
keep
records
of
a
DMR.
Record­
keeping
burden
is
already
captured
in
the
Compliance
Assessment
ICR.
Not
included
here.
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
A­
5
Source
for
Input
Values
By
Discharger
Category
Category:
MS4s
Item
Source/
Assumption
See
Appendix
B
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
A­
6
Source
for
Input
Values
By
Discharger
Category
Category:
Sludge
Facilities
Item
Source/
Assumption
Number
of
dischargers
2002
DMR
ICR.
Based
on
consultations
with
professionals
involved
in
EPA's
sludge
program,
numbers
are
not
expected
to
have
changed
from
1995
DMR
ICR
estimates.
Reported
categories
in
current
DMR
ICR
aggregated
into
two
major
categories
(
sludge­
only
and
NPDES
permittees)
with
two
sub­
categories
(
Class
I
and
non­
Class
I
sludge
facilities).

Number
of
outfalls
per
facility
Not
Applicable.

Annual
DMR
submissions.
2002
DMR
ICR.

Number
of
samples
per
response
2002
DMR
ICR.

Number
of
hours
to
collect
a
sample.
2002
DMR
ICR.

Number
of
parameters
per
sample
2002
DMR
ICR.

Hours
to
analyze
a
sample
2002
DMR
ICR.

Average
time
it
takes
to
prepare
and
report
a
DMR
(
excluding
sampling
and
analysis
time)
2002
DMR
ICR.

Average
time
it
takes
to
keep
records
of
a
DMR.
2002
DMR
ICR.
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
APPENDIX
B
MS4
BURDEN
AND
GENERAL
PERMITS
BURDEN
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
B­
1
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
 
MS4s
MS4s
bear
a
different
set
of
burdens
and
costs
from
other
respondents.
The
sampling
process
for
MS4s
is
more
involved
and
may
consist
of
the
mobilization
of
the
sampling
crew,
the
collection
of
samples,
and
the
transportation
of
samples
from
the
site
to
the
laboratory
for
analysis.
These
steps
may
be
performed
by
several
different
crews.
Another
MS4
burden
is
that
of
unsuccessful
sampling
attempts.
If
storm
event
characteristics
(
e.
g.,
duration,
rainfall
accumulation,
and
inter­
event
period)
do
not
meet
the
criteria
established
in
the
permit,
the
expanded
effort
to
collect
and
analyze
samples
essentially
is
wasted.
Stop­
start
storm
events,
therefore,
significantly
increase
the
number
of
storm
events
attempted
for
sampling.
The
1995
ICR
reported
that
the
analysis
of
23
municipalities'
sampling
programs
indicated
that
50
percent
of
the
municipalities
had
to
sample
more
than
10
events
to
meet
the
minimum
three­
storm
event
requirement.

MS4s
are
also
required
to
maintain
controls
over
discharges
to
their
system.
It
is
likely,
therefore,
that
some
MS4s
will
conduct
special
monitoring
of
certain
facilities,
including
landfills
and
Superfund
Amendments
and
Reauthorization
Act
(
SARA)
Section
313
facilities.
In
addition,
MS4s
conduct
field
screening
of
their
systems
during
the
permit
term.
This
requirement
includes
sending
out
field
crews
to
conduct
on­
site
testing
of
dry­
weather
flows
to
detect
possible
illicit
connections
and
illegal
dumping.
This
also
includes
conducting
follow­
up
investigations
to
ensure
that
illicit
connections
have
been
eliminated.
MS4s
also
bear
the
burden
of
submitting
estimates
of
seasonal
pollutant
loadings
for
each
outfall.
In
most
instances,
these
estimates
will
be
provided
during
the
permit
term
and
will
be
based
on
site­
specific
monitoring
results.
Since
the
monitoring
is
likely
to
be
collected
for
typically
five
to
10
outfalls,
loading
estimates
will
have
to
be
extrapolated
to
all
major
outfalls,
of
which
there
may
be
hundreds,
or
even
thousands.
Finally,
each
MS4
will
be
required
to
submit
annual
reports
for
its
entire
program.
The
reports
will
include
results
of
all
sampling
for
the
year.

Each
of
these
requirements
is
part
of
the
total
burden
on
MS4s,
and
each
burden
incurs
a
cost.
The
burdens
and
costs
for
MS4s
are
summarized
in
Table
B­
1
below.
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
B­
2
Table
B­
1
Estimate
of
Annual
Burden
and
Costs
for
MS4s
Line
Item
No.
of
MS4
Permittees*
%

Conducting
No.
Conducting
Cost
Per
Event**
No.
of
Events***
Annual
Costs
Burden
Activity
Code
Sample
Analysis
270
100%
270
$
1,402
20
$
7,570,800
178,147
A
Mobilize/
Collect/
Transport
270
100%
270
$
1,010
20
$
5,454,000
128,266
S
Adjustment
for
Start/
Stop
Events
270
100%
270
$
1,010
20
$
5,454,000
128,266
S
Special
Monitoring
Lab
Analysis
270
20%
54
$
1,402
6
$
454,248
10,689
A
Mobilize/
Collect/
Transport
270
20%
54
$
1,010
6
$
327,240
7,696
S
Start­
Stop
Events
270
20%
54
$
1,010
2
$
109,080
2,565
S
Field
Screening
Program
(
100
outfalls/
yr,
1
hr/
outfall)
270
100%
270
$
13
100
$
351,000
8,551
S
Illicit
Connection
Investigation
(
20
investigations/
yr,
5
hrs/
outfall)
270
100%
270
$
673
20
$
3,634,200
85,511
S
Illicit
Connection
Follow­
up
(
20
follow­
ups/
yr,
2
hrs/
outfall)
270
100%
270
$
269
20
$
1,452,600
34,204
S
Seasonal
Pollutant
Loading
Estimate
(
20
hrs/
event)
270
100%
270
$
1,346
4
$
1,453,680
34,204
A
Annual
Report
Preparation
(
DMR
only)
270
100%
270
$
2,693
1
$
727,110
17,102
R
TOTALS
$
26,987,958
635,202
Category
Summary
Analysis
Burden
(
hours)
223,040
Sampling
Burden
(
hours)
395,059
Reporting
Burden
(
hours)
17,102
Number
of
Responses
5,400
*
There
are
approximately
1,000
MS4s
covered
by
270
NPDES
permits.
The
requirements
above
are
permit­
specific.
MS4
labor
rate
is
$
42.51.

**
Costs
per
event
updated
from
the
2002
ICR
using
the
increase
factor
for
MS4
labor
rate
($
42.51/$
37.89)

***
MS4
permittees
have
to
sample
a
minimum
of
5
outfalls
representative
of
their
systems
quarterly.

A
=
Analysis
S
=
Sampling
R
=
Reporting
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
­
Non­
Storm
Water
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
8
The
electronic
Permit
Issuance
Forecasting
Tool
(
ePIFT)
is
a
recently
developed
database
used
by
EPA's
Office
of
Wastewater
Management's
Water
Permits
Division
to
collect
information
about
individual
and
general
permits.
Non­
stormwater
general
permits
data
are
used
in
EPA's
monthly
and
quarterly
backlog
status
reports.

9
For
example,
the
2002
ICR
EPA
considered
general
permits
for
oil
and
gas
facilities,
seafood
processing
facilities,
aquaculture
facilities,
concentrated
animal
feeding
operations,
log
transfer,
suction
dredging,
placer
mining,
petroleum
bulk
stations
and
terminals,
underground
storage
tank
system
cleanups,
concrete
facilities,
beneficial
reuse
or
disposal
of
municipal
sewage
sludge,
noncontact
cooling
water
discharges,
and
water
treatment
facilities.

B­
3
EPA's
estimate
of
burden
associated
with
non­
storm
water
general
permits
is
based
on
respondent
data
contained
in
PCS
and
ePIFT,
8
and
information
collection
burden
data
(
for
State­
issued
permits)
and
non­
reporting
permits
(
for
State
and
EPA­
issued
permits)
obtained
from
PCS.
In
addition,
for
EPA­
issued
permits,
burden
factors
were
calculated
based
on
the
federally
issued
non­
stormwater
general
permits
characterized
in
the
previous
(
2002)
ICR.
These
burden
factors
are
based
on
Appendix
B
of
the
2002
ICR
(
EPA
ICR
No.
0229.15),
which
presented
a
detailed
analysis
based
on
actual
permits
estimating
the
number
of
respondents,
responses,
and
burden
for
EPA­
issued
non­
stormwater
general
permits.
For
this
2005
ICR,
those
numbers
were
used
to
develop
burden
factors
for
the
sampling,
analysis,
recordkeeping,
reporting
and
other
burden
associated
with
EPA­
issued,
nonstormwater
general
permits
addressed
in
this
ICR.
These
burden
factors
were
then
used
in
conjunction
with
current
ePIFT
and
PCS
respondent
data
to
estimate
the
burden
for
EPA­
issued,
non­
stormwater
general
permits.
For
this
ICR,
it
was
assumed
that
neither
the
distribution
of
the
EPA­
issued
non­
stormwater
general
permits
to
the
different
industrial
categories
nor
the
level
of
effort
for
the
required
activities
has
changed
relative
to
the
2002
ICR.
EPA
believes
that
the
data
used
in
the
2002
ICR
is
reasonably
representative
of
the
burdens
imposed
under
EPA­
issued
non­
stormwater
general
permits
because
the
permits
characterized
in
the
2002
ICR
address
a
range
of
typical
activities
conducted
in
various
regions
and
relative
burden
factors
were
derived
to
the
extent
practicable
taking
into
account
each
EPA­
issued
permit.
9
Tables
B­
2
to
B­
9
below
present
the
data
from
e­
PIFT,
PCS,
and
the
previous
ICR
used
for
the
burden
estimation
analysis
and
the
results.
Table
B­
2
shows
the
number
for
non­
storm
water
general
permits
from
ePIFT
and
the
total
number
of
EPA
and
state­
issued
non­
stormwater
general
permits.
Table
B­
3
has
the
distribution
of
reporting
frequency
from
PCS;
these
numbers,
and
the
number
for
non­
stormwater
general
permits
from
Table
B­
2
are
then
used
to
estimate
the
final
number
of
non­
reporting
and
reporting
permits
in
each
of
the
frequencies
presented
in
Table
B­
4.
Table
B­
5
shows
the
information
from
the
2002
ICR
(
EPA
ICR
No.
0229.15)
and
the
burden
factors
for
the
sampling,
analysis,
recordkeeping,
reporting
and
other
burden
associated
with
EPA­
issued,
non­
stormwater
general
permits;
these
factors
are
applied
to
the
number
of
EPA­
issued
permits
to
generate
the
burden
used
in
the
2005
ICR,
which
is
presented
in
Table
B­
6.

Tables
B­
7
and
B­
8
show
the
analysis
for
state­
issued
non­
stormwater
general
permits.
The
first
table
estimates
the
number
of
responses
based
on
the
total
number
of
permits
from
ePIFT
and
the
distribution
of
reporting
frequency
from
PCS.
The
second
table
presented
the
final
burden
for
the
sampling,
analysis,
recordkeeping,
reporting
and
other
burden
associated
with
state­
issued,
non­
stormwater
general
permits.
For
these
numbers
EPA
assumed
that
the
level
of
effort
for
the
required
activities
has
not
changed
relative
to
the
2002
ICR.

The
final
Table
B­
9
has
the
total
numbers
for
EPA
and
state­
issued
non­
stormwater
general
permits
used
throughout
this
ICR.
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
B­
4
Table
B­
2
Non­
Storm
Water
General
Permits
from
ePIFT
Total
53,352
AK
2,153
DC
0
ID
191
MA
219
NH
29
NM
47
Total
non­
authorized
States
2,639
EPA/
MOU
Permits
Region
4
290
EPA/
MOU
Permits
Region
5
11,197
EPA/
MOU
Permits
Region
8
213
Total
EPA/
MOU
Permits
11,700
Total
EPA
Issued
14,339
Total
State
Issued
39,013
Table
B­
3
Number
and
Distribution
of
Non­
Storm
Water
General
Permits
by
Reporting
Frequency
from
PCS
Reporting
Frequency
(
per
year)
0
1
2
4
6
12
TOTALS
EPA
Issued
2,814
353
0
75
0
241
3,483
State
Issued
24,274
1,715
2,739
2,893
3
4,138
35,762
EPA
Issued
81%
10%
0%
2%
0%
7%
State
Issued
68%
5%
8%
8%
0%
12%

Table
B­
4
Number
of
Non­
Storm
Water
General
Permits
by
Reporting
Frequency
from
ePIFT
adjusted
using
PCS
Reporting
Frequency
(
per
year)
0
1
2
4
6
12
EPA
Issued
11,585
1,453
0
309
0
992
State
Issued
26,481
1,871
2,988
3,156
3
4,514
Totals:
Non­
Reporting
38,065
EPA
Issued
Reporting
2,754
State
Issued
Reporting
12,532
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
B­
5
Table
B­
5
EPA
Issued
Non­
Storm
Water
General
Permits
Data
From
2002
ICR
(
EPA
ICR
No.
0229.15)

Respondents
Responses
Annual
Sample
Burden
Annual
Labor
Burden
Annual
Reporting
Burden
Agency
Burden
EPANonSW
1,500
7,039
160,198
250,267
14,078
7,039
Oils&
Gas
420
3,735
21,622
41,335
7,470
3,735
Seafood
238
462
76,224
788
981
462
Aquaculture
91
469
7,042
1,813
1,166
469
TOTALS
2,249
11,705
265,086
294,203
23,695
11,705
FACTOR
5.20
117.87
130.82
10.54
5.20
Table
B­
6
EPA
Issued
Non­
Storm
Water
General
Permits
Data
for
2005
ICR
Respondents
Responses
Annual
Sample
Burden
Annual
Labor
Burden
Annual
Reporting
Burden
Agency
Burden
TOTALS
2,754
14,333
324,610
360,265
29,016
14,333
Table
B­
7
State
Issued
Non­
Storm
Water
General
Permits
Data
for
2005
ICR
From
ePIFT
adjusted
using
PCS
(
based
on
frequency
of
DMR
submission)

No.
of
Respondents
No.
of
Outfalls
per
Facility
Annual
DMR
Submissions
No.
of
Responses
1,871
1
1
1,871
2,988
1
2
5,976
3,156
1
4
12,624
3
1
6
18
4,514
1
12
54,168
Total
State
Issued
12,532
74,657
Table
B­
8
State
Issued
Non­
Storm
Water
General
Permits
Data
for
2005
ICR
From
Table
B­
7
and
Appendix
B
2005
ICR
(
EPA
ICR
No.
0229.15)

Respondents
Responses
Annual
Sample
Burden
Annual
Labor
Burden
Annual
Reporting
Burden
Agency
Burden
TOTALS
12,532
74,657
167,978
111,986
149,314
0
Table
B­
9
EPA
and
State
Issued
Non­
Storm
Water
General
Permits
Data
for
2005
ICR
From
Table
B­
6
and
Table
B­
8
Respondents
Responses
Annual
Sample
Burden
Annual
Labor
Burden
Annual
Reporting
Burden
Agency
Burden
TOTALS
15,286
88,990
492,588
472,251
178,330
14,333
APPENDIX
C
SAMPLE
DMR
FORM
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
C­
1
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
C­
2
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
APPENDIX
D
NPDES/
SLUDGE
PROGRAM
STATUS
DMR
Information
Collection
Request
April
29,
2005
D­
1
NPDES/
Sludge
Program
Status
Approved
NPDES
Program
Approved
General
Permits
Program
Approved
Sludge
Program
Alabama

Alaska
American
Samoa
Arkansas

Arizona

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District
of
Columbia
Florida

Georgia

Guam
Hawaii

Idaho
Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts
Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New
Hampshire
New
Jersey

New
Mexico
New
York

North
Carolina

North
Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pacific
Trust
Territories
Pennsylvania

Puerto
Rico
Rhode
Island

South
Carolina

South
Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virgin
Islands

Virginia

Washington

West
Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Federally
Recognized
Indian
Tribes
Totals
46
45
5