Information
Collection
Request
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
(
Supporting
Statement
for
OMB
Form
83­
I)

September
2002
Prepared
by:

The
Cadmus
Group,
Inc.
57
Water
Street
Watertown,
MA
02472
Prepared
for:

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Office
of
Ground
Water
and
Drinking
Water
Drinking
Water
Protection
Division
i
Table
of
Contents
A.
1
IDENTIFICATION
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
A.
1.
a
Title
of
the
Information
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
A.
1.
b
Short
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
A.
2
NEED
FOR
AND
USE
OF
THE
COLLECTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
A.
2.
a
Authority
and
Need
for
the
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
A.
2.
b
Use
and
Users
of
the
Information
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
A.
3
NONDUPLICATION,
CONSULTATIONS,
AND
OTHER
COLLECTION
CRITERIA
.
.
.
.
.
5
A.
3.
a
Nonduplication
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
A.
3.
b
Public
Notice
Required
Prior
to
ICR
Submission
to
OMB
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
A.
3.
c
Consultations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
A.
3.
d
Effects
of
less
Frequent
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
A.
3.
e
General
Guidelines
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
A.
3.
f
Confidentiality
and
Sensitive
Questions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
A.
3.
g
Sensitive
Questions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
A.
4
THE
RESPONDENTS
AND
THE
INFORMATION
REQUESTED
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
A.
4.
a
Respondents/
NAICS
Codes
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
A.
4.
b
Information
Requested
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
A.
4.
b.
i
Data
Items
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
A.
4.
b.
ii
Respondent
Activities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11
A.
5
INFORMATION
COLLECTED:
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY,
AND
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
A.
5.
a
Agency
and
State
Activities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
A.
5.
b
Collection
Methodology
and
Management
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15
A.
5.
c
Small
Entity
Flexibility
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
19
A.
5.
d
Collection
Schedule
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
A.
6
ESTIMATING
THE
BURDEN
AND
COST
OF
THE
COLLECTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
22
A.
6.
a
Respondent
Burden
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
22
A.
6.
a.
i
Burden
to
Public
Water
Systems
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
22
A.
6.
a.
ii
Burden
to
Primacy
Agencies
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
29
A.
6.
b
Respondent
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
34
A.
6.
b.
i
Costs
to
Public
Water
Systems
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
34
A.
6.
b.
ii
Cost
to
Primacy
Agencies
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
35
A.
6.
c
Agency
Burden
and
Cost
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
36
A.
6.
d
Estimating
Respondent
Universe
and
Total
Burden
and
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
39
A.
6.
e
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
39
A.
6.
f
Reasons
for
Change
in
Burden
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
40
A.
6.
g
Burden
Statement
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
40
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
ii
B.
1
SURVEY
OBJECTIVES,
KEY
VARIABLES
AND
OTHER
PRELIMINARIES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
45
B.
1.
a
Survey
Objectives
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
45
B.
1.
b
Key
Variables
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
45
B.
1.
c
Statistical
Approach
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
46
B.
1.
d
Feasibility
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
47
B.
2
SURVEY
DESIGN
FOR
MEDIUM
AND
LARGE
CWSs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
48
B.
2.
a
Target
Population
and
Coverage
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
48
B.
2.
b
Sample
Design
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
48
B.
2.
b.
i
Sampling
Frame
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
49
B.
2.
b.
ii
Sample
Size
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
50
B.
2.
b.
iii
Stratification
Variables
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
55
B.
2.
b.
iv
Sampling
Method
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
55
B.
2.
b.
v
Multi­
Stage
Sampling
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
55
B.
2.
c
Precision
Requirements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
56
B.
2.
c.
i
Precision
Targets
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
56
B.
2.
c.
ii
Nonsampling
Error
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
56
B.
2.
d
Data
Collection
Instrument
Design
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
58
B.
3
PRETESTS
AND
PILOT
TEST
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
59
B.
3.
a
Pretests
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
59
B.
3.
b
Pilot
Test
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
59
B.
4
COLLECTION
METHODS
AND
FOLLOW­
UP
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
60
B.
4.
a
Collection
Method
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
60
B.
4.
b
Survey
Response
and
Follow­
up
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
60
B.
5
ANALYZING
AND
REPORTING
SURVEY
RESULTS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
61
B.
5.
a
Data
Preparation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
61
B.
5.
b
Analysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
61
B.
5.
c
Reporting
Results
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
62
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
1For
the
purposes
of
this
ICR,
American
Indian
and
Alaska
Native
water
systems
are
not
included
among
the
"
large,"
"
medium,"
and
"
small"
systems,
but
are
included
in
separate
categories.

1
PART
A
OF
THE
SUPPORTING
STATEMENT
A.
1
IDENTIFICATION
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
A.
1.
a
Title
of
the
Information
Collection
The
title
of
this
ICR
is
Information
Collection
Request
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey.
The
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
control
number
for
this
ICR
is
2040­
new;
EPA
Form
No.
2085.01.

A.
1.
b
Short
Characterization
The
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
will
conduct
a
survey
to
estimate
the
capital
investment
needs
for
drinking
water
systems.
The
nationwide
survey
will
be
conducted
by
the
Drinking
Water
Protection
Division
(
DWPD)
of
EPA's
Office
of
Ground
Water
and
Drinking
Water
(
OGWDW).
The
data
collection
is
authorized
by
Sections
1452(
h)
and
1452(
i)(
4)
of
the
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act
(
SDWA)
and
will
be
used
to
estimate
the
cost
of
providing
safe
drinking
water
to
consumers
over
a
20­
year
period.
The
data
from
the
report
will
also
be
used
to
allot
Drinking
Water
State
Revolving
Fund
(
DWSRF)
monies
among
States
and,
as
part
of
an
allotment
formula
for
the
American
Indian
and
Alaska
Native
DWSRF
set­
aside
program,
among
the
EPA
Regions.
The
focus
of
the
survey
is
collecting
information
on
systems'
needs
and
on
the
projected
costs
associated
with
those
needs.
All
States
have
committed
to
help
EPA
administer
this
survey.

For
the
survey,
EPA
will
conduct
a
census
of
all
community
water
systems
(
CWSs)
serving
populations
greater
than
40,000
and
select
a
random
sample
of
CWSs
that
serve
populations
of
3,301
to
40,000.
The
Agency
will
also
conduct
a
census
for
all
Alaska
Native
systems
and
all
American
Indian
systems
serving
more
than
3,300
people
and
conduct
telephone
interviews
with
a
limited
number
of
small
American
Indian
systems.
For
the
purposes
of
this
ICR,
large
systems
are
systems
that
serve
more
than
50,000
people
and
medium
systems
serve
populations
of
3,301
­
50,000.
Due
to
funding
limitations,
information
will
not
be
collected
from
State­
regulated
small
systems,
which
serve
3,300
and
fewer
people.
1
EPA
will
mail
the
data
collection
instrument
to
all
large
and
selected
medium
systems,
including
medium
American
Indian
systems.
The
data
collection
instrument
consists
of
project
tables
in
which
the
water
systems
list
all
their
capital
improvement
projects
through
the
year
2022.
EPA
will
request
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
2See
Exhibit
A­
6­
8.

2
information
from
Region
10
for
all
Alaska
Native
Systems.
Similarly,
EPA
will
request
information
on
the
needs
of
non­
tribally
owned
water
systems
that
serve
predominantly
American
Indian
systems
from
the
appropriate
Regions
and
Tribes.

The
effort
will
involve
3,790
respondents,
requiring
45,065
hours
at
a
total
cost
to
the
respondents
of
$
1,301,553.
Section
A.
6,
Estimating
the
Burden
and
Cost
of
the
Collection,
provides
a
detailed
description
of
the
unit
burden
and
costs
for
this
collection.
The
average
water
system
burden
per
response
is
3.97
hours.
The
average
burden
per
response
to
complete
the
data
collection
instrument
is
4.00
hours
per
response.
2
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
3
A.
2
NEED
FOR
AND
USE
OF
THE
COLLECTION
A.
2.
a
Authority
and
Need
for
the
Collection
The
Agency
is
conducting
this
Needs
Survey
pursuant
to
its
authority
under
Sections
1452(
h)
and
1452(
i)(
4)
of
the
SDWA.
Section
1452(
h)
requires
that
"
the
Administrator
shall
conduct
an
assessment
of
water
system
capital
improvements
needs
of
all
eligible
public
water
systems
in
the
United
States
and
submit
a
report
to
the
Congress
containing
the
results
of
such
assessment
within
180
days
after
the
date
of
the
enactment
of
the
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act
Amendments
of
1996
and
every
4
years
thereafter."
Section
1452(
i)(
4)
requires
that
"
1
½
percent
of
the
amounts
appropriated
annually
to
carry
out
this
section
may
be
used
by
the
Administrator
to
make
grants
to
Indian
Tribes
and
Alaskan
Native
Villages
which
are
not
otherwise
eligible
to
receive
either
grants
from
the
Administrator
under
this
section
or
assistance
from
state
revolving
funds
established
under
this
section.
Such
grants
may
only
be
used
for
expenditures
by
such
tribes
and
villages
for
public
water
system
expenditures
referred
to
in
subsection
(
a)(
2)."

A.
2.
b
Use
and
Users
of
the
Information
The
results
of
the
survey
will
be
used
as
a
basis
for
allocation
of
DWSRF
funds
among
States
and
as
one
of
the
tools
to
allocate
the
drinking
water
DWSRF
set­
aside
for
American
Indian
and
Alaska
Native
water
systems
among
EPA
Regions.
In
addition,
many
water
systems
have
now
complied
with
SDWA
regulations
and
have
empirical
data
on
the
cost
of
compliance.
A
national
survey
will
improve
the
Agency's
ability
to
gauge
the
real
cost
of
SDWA
regulations.

We
will
collect
two
types
of
system­
specific
information:
(
1)
inventory
and
system
characteristics;
and
(
2)
information
on
capital
improvement
projects.
The
specific
uses
of
each
data
type
vary.
We
will
use
inventory
and
system
characteristics
to
characterize
CWSs
nationwide,
and,
in
some
cases,
model
individual
systems'
capital
improvement
projects.
We
will
use
all
data
collected
to
estimate
State
and
national
needs.

On
the
data
collection
instrument,
the
respondent
will
identify
needs
on
a
project­
by­
project
basis
and
list
the
"
type(
s)
of
need"
that
the
project
will
meet.
For
projects
designed
to
alleviate
contamination
problems,
we
will
collect
information
on
the
proposed
treatment
to
be
installed
or
replacement
of
deteriorated
infrastructure.
We
will
use
the
information
to
assess
cost
reasonableness
and
verify
our
cost
models.

If
a
system
cannot
document
costs
associated
with
specific
project(
s),
we
will
request
information
on
the
project(
s)
to
help
us
model
those
needs.
The
information
we
request
will
depend
on
the
type
of
need.
For
example,
we
may
collect
information
on
the
type
and
number
of
valves,
or
the
diameter
and
length
of
transmission
or
distribution
lines.
EPA
expects
that
modeling
will
be
required
to
project
the
capital
needs
for
many
medium
systems
and
some
large
systems.
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
4
The
data
collected
by
this
survey
will
likely
have
several
secondary
uses,
both
inside
and
outside
of
EPA.
For
example,
EPA
will
use
the
information
to
support
various
program
activities,
such
as
the
development
of
general
enforcement
strategies
and
new
regulations.
The
Indian
Health
Service
(
IHS)
may
compare
the
results
of
the
Needs
Survey
with
its
own
projections.
EPA
will
examine
the
differences
between
the
needs
of
American
Indian
and
Alaska
Native
water
systems
and
similar,
State
systems,
to
respond
to
the
Administration's
concerns
over
environmental
justice
issues.
Congress
may
use
occurrence
and
cost
information
in
considering
new
drinking
water
legislation.
States
have
indicated
to
EPA
that
they
plan
to
use
the
data
collected
to
help
identify
projects
that
should
be
included
on
the
State's
DWSRF
priority
list
and
to
implement
capacity
development
strategies.
The
public
may
use
information
on
costs
associated
with
SDWA
compliance.
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
5
A.
3
NONDUPLICATION,
CONSULTATIONS,
AND
OTHER
COLLECTION
CRITERIA
The
following
sections
verify
that
this
information
collection
satisfies
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget's
(
OMB's)
nonduplication
and
consultation
guidelines,
and
does
not
duplicate
another
collection.

A.
3.
a
Nonduplication
To
the
best
of
our
knowledge,
up­
to­
date
State­
by­
State
information
on
needs
is
not
available
from
any
other
source.
Some
of
the
data
collection
efforts
we
considered
include
the
following:

°
Safe
Drinking
Water
Information
System.
Some
of
the
inventory
data
and
information
on
system
characteristics
have
been
collected
by
States
and
Regions
and
entered
into
the
Safe
Drinking
Water
Information
System
(
SDWIS).
For
the
statistical
sample,
we
will
preprint
the
SDWIS
data
on
the
survey
form
and
ask
the
respondents
to
provide
information
only
if
SDWIS
data
are
inaccurate
or
missing.

°
Community
Water
System
Survey.
EPA
recently
completed
a
statistical
survey
that
focuses
on
the
operating
and
financial
characteristics
of
CWSs.
The
survey
is
addressed
in
Information
Collection
Request
for
National
Survey
of
the
Financial
and
Operating
Characteristics
of
Community
Water
Suppliers.
The
CWS
Survey
had
a
different
objective
than
the
Needs
Survey.
The
CWS
Survey
was
designed
to
characterize
the
technical
and
financial
aspects
of
CWSs.
In
contrast,
the
Needs
Survey
will
be
used
to
develop
national
estimates
of
capital
needs.
In
addition,
the
CWS
Survey's
targeted
precision
was
on
a
national
basis;
the
Needs
Survey
will
provide
State­
by­
State
estimates.

°
Economic
Analyses
(
EAs)
for
National
Primary
Drinking
Water
Regulations.
The
Agency
has
developed
EAs
(
formerly
referred
to
Regulatory
Impact
Analyses)
for
its
National
Primary
Drinking
Water
Regulations.
These
documents
estimate
the
costs
of
complying
with
proposed
regulations.
EPA
is
utilizing
the
information
in
these
EAs
to
develop
its
models
for
the
Needs
Survey,
but
the
EAs
do
not
provide
an
adequate
substitute
for
the
Needs
Survey.
This
is
because
the
EAs
provide
nationwide
estimates.
As
discussed
above,
EPA
is
conducting
the
Needs
Survey
because
it
needs
a
State­
by­
State
estimate
so
that
an
allocation
formula
can
be
developed
for
the
DWSRF.
Also,
many
EAs
are
several
years
out
of
date.
They
do
not
consider
currently
available
contaminant
occurrence
data,
or
current
or
emerging
treatment
technology
costs.
Finally,
EAs
deal
solely
with
regulations
and,
therefore,
cover
only
a
portion
of
costs
associated
with
providing
safe
drinking
water.

°
State
Needs
Surveys.
Several
States
have
conducted
needs
surveys
of
their
own
drinking
water
systems.
The
State
results
cannot
be
extrapolated
to
the
nation
as
a
whole
because
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
6
the
State
surveys
do
not
use
a
consistent
methodology
and
they
do
not
account
for
national
variations
in
system
characteristics.

°
American
Water
Works
Association
Water
Industry
Data
Base:
Utility
Profiles.
Like
the
CWS
Survey,
this
AWWA
survey
and
associated
data
base
focus
on
financial
and
operating
characteristics
of
water
systems.
Moreover,
the
AWWA
database
is
not
statistically
representative.

°
1995
and
1999
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Surveys.
Under
the
SDWA,
EPA
must
conduct
the
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
every
4
years.
The
approach
for
the
2003
survey
will
incorporate
a
portion
of
the
data
collected
during
the
previous
surveys,
as
well
as
"
lessons
learned"
from
the
earlier
surveys.
In
addition,
the
approach
for
the
2003
survey
ensures
that
up­
to­
date
data
on
infrastructure
needs
are
collected
from
large
and
medium
water
systems,
which
together
account
for
approximately
74
percent
of
the
national
need.
Among
other
needs,
these
data
will
reflect
needs
associated
with
recently
promulgated
drinking
water
regulations.

A.
3.
b
Public
Notice
Required
Prior
to
ICR
Submission
to
OMB
To
comply
with
the
1995
Amendments
to
the
PRA,
EPA
solicited
public
comment
on
this
ICR
for
a
60­
day
period
before
it
was
submitted
to
OMB.
Specifically,
EPA
published
a
notice
in
the
Federal
Register
(
FR)
requesting
comment
on
the
estimated
respondent
burden
and
other
aspects
of
this
ICR
(
67
FR
46664).
This
notice
is
included
in
Appendix
A.
Before
submission
to
OMB,
EPA
considers
the
comments
received
and
determines
if
any
adjustments
are
needed
to
the
burden
and
cost
calculations
or
to
the
supporting
statement
for
this
ICR.
Comments
received
and
EPA's
responses
are
included
in
Appendix
C.
An
additional
Federal
Register
notice
was
published
when
this
ICR
was
submitted
to
OMB.
The
public
comment
period
for
this
additional
notice
was
30
days.

A.
3.
c
Consultations
For
this
survey,
EPA
has
developed
a
workgroup
that
consists
of
EPA
Headquarter,
EPA
Regional,
State,
American
Indian,
and
Alaska
Native
representatives.
EPA
will
also
hold
periodic
stakeholder
meetings
to
involve
interested
parties,
such
as
trade
associations.
In
April
2002,
EPA
held
a
3­
day
meeting
with
workgroup
members.
The
purpose
of
the
meeting
was
to
gather
information
on
State
and/
or
Regional
concerns
and
to
hear
about
lessons
learned
in
needs
surveys
conducted
by
the
States
and
during
the
1999
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey.
The
information
gathered
during
the
meeting
was
used
to
develop
the
survey
methodology
for
the
2003
Needs
Survey.

A.
3.
d
Effects
of
less
Frequent
Collection
The
survey
is
a
single
collection
and
does
not
involve
periodic
reporting
or
recordkeeping.
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
7
A.
3.
e
General
Guidelines
The
survey
does
not
violate
any
guidelines
for
information
collection
activities
specified
by
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget.
Specifically,
the
survey
respondents
are
not
required
to:

°
Report
information
to
EPA
more
often
than
quarterly.

°
Retain
records
for
more
than
3
years.

°
Complete
the
data
collection
instrument
in
less
than
30
days.

°
Maintain
or
provide
information
in
a
format
other
than
that
in
which
it
is
customarily
maintained.

°
Submit
proprietary,
trade
secret,
or
other
confidential
information.

°
Submit
more
than
one
original
and
two
copies
of
any
document.

The
information
collection:

°
Is
a
statistical
survey
designed
to
produce
data
that
can
be
generalized
to
the
universe
of
the
study
(
see
Section
B.
2).

°
Does
not
provide
remuneration
to
participants.

°
Will
transcribe
information
collected
into
an
automated
format.

°
Is
designed
with
small
entities
particularly
in
mind
(
see
Part
A.
5.
c).

°
Does
not
concern
grants
or
grantees.

°
Is
voluntary.

A.
3.
f
Confidentiality
and
Sensitive
Questions
This
information
collection
does
not
require
the
respondent
to
disclose
any
confidential
information.
Respondents
are
not
obliged
to
respond
to
this
strictly
voluntary
information
collection.
Further,
respondents
could
eliminate
any
confidential
business
information
from
their
reply.
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
8
A.
3.
g
Sensitive
Questions
The
survey
does
not
ask
sensitive
questions,
such
as
those
pertaining
to
sexual
attitudes
or
behavior
or
religious
beliefs.

A.
4
THE
RESPONDENTS
AND
THE
INFORMATION
REQUESTED
A.
4.
a
Respondents/
NAICS
Codes
NAICS
&
SIC
Codes
The
respondents
for
the
survey
are
CWSs.
According
to
40
CFR
Part
141,
a
CWS
is
a
"
public
water
system
which
serves
at
least
15
service
connections
used
by
year­
round
residents
or
regularly
serve
at
least
25
year­
round
residents."
The
North
American
Industry
Classification
System
(
NAICS)
code
for
Public
Water
Systems
(
PWSs)
is
22131.
State
agencies
that
include
drinking
water
programs
are
classified
as
NAICS
code
92411
(
Administration
of
Air
and
Water
Resources
and
Solid
Waste
Management
Programs)
or
923312
(
Administration
of
Public
Health
Programs).
Ancillary
systems
(
i.
e.,
those
that
supplement
the
function
of
other
establishments
like
factories,
power
plants,
mobile
home
parks,
etc.)
cannot
be
categorized
in
a
single
NAICS
code.
For
ancillary
systems,
the
NAICS
code
is
that
of
the
primary
establishment
or
industry.

Respondents
We
will
gather
information
from
large
and
medium
CWSs,
as
well
as
a
limited
number
of
small
American
Indian
water
systems.
Because
of
their
variability
and
significant
contribution
to
the
overall
drinking
water
capital
investment
need,
large
systems
 
those
that
serve
more
than
50,000
people
 
will
be
sampled
with
certainty.
There
are
886
large
systems.

There
are
7,949
medium
systems.
At
this
time,
surveying
all
of
these
systems
would
impose
a
large
burden
on
respondents,
EPA,
and
States.
Therefore,
EPA
will
conduct
a
census
of
all
systems
serving
40,001
­
50,000
and
will
select
a
statistically
representative
sample
of
systems
serving
3,301
­
40,000.
This
will
result
in
2,781
medium
systems
receiving
the
mailed
data
collection
instrument.
Part
B
of
the
supporting
statement
describes
the
sampling
methodology.

EPA
will
collect
needs
data
from
all
Alaska
Native
water
systems
and
all
medium
American
Indian.
Small
American
Indian
system
needs
will
be
based
on
the
1999
results.
These
results
will
be
confirmed
through
a
number
of
phone
interviews
(
48
calls
are
assumed).
Alaska
Native
system
needs
will
be
collected
from
Region
10
and
assigned
to
one
of
four
regions
in
the
State,
so
there
are
no
CWS
respondents
for
Alaska
Native
systems.
Section
A.
4.
b
describes
our
methodology,
which
uses
the
results
of
the
1999
survey
as
a
basis
for
estimating
the
needs
of
these
systems.
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
9
A.
4.
b
Information
Requested
As
discussed
above,
we
will
collect
two
types
of
information
from
systems:
(
1)
inventory
and
system
characteristics;
and
(
2)
information
on
capital
improvement
projects.
EPA
anticipates
that
respondents
will
provide
varying
levels
of
information
by
system
size
category.
Based
on
experience
from
the
1995
and
1999
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey,
EPA
expects
larger
systems
to
have
a
good
understanding
of
their
capital
needs
and
the
costs
for
meeting
them.
Almost
all
of
these
systems
will
have
detailed
Capital
Improvement
Plans
(
CIPs).
Most
large
systems
will
be
capable
of
providing
accurate
information
on
cost.
Most
medium
systems
can
provide
reliable
data
on
their
needs
and
some
can
provide
cost
estimates
for
meeting
their
needs.
The
information
that
respondents
will
be
asked
to
provide
is
generally
maintained
and
reported
as
a
function
of
the
management
and
operation
of
the
water
system.

A.
4.
b.
i
Data
Items
Medium
and
Large
CWSs
The
data
collection
instrument
asks
respondents
to
verify
or
correct
inventory
information
(
i.
e.,
name
and
address
of
the
system,
contact
person,
address,
population
served,
total
design
capacity,
number
of
connections,
primary
source,
whether
the
system
is
privately
or
publicly
owned,
and
whether
the
system
purchases/
sells
water
from/
to
another
PWS).
It
is
Customary
Business
Practice
(
CBP)
for
the
system
to
maintain
this
information.
The
respondent
will
either
indicate
that
the
information
is
correct
as
printed
or
enter
correct
information
in
the
space
provided.
States
will
verify
this
information
in
advance
of
the
survey.
Based
on
previous
surveys,
we
anticipate
that
very
few
systems
will
need
to
correct
the
information
provided.

In
addition,
the
respondent
is
asked
to
provide
information
on
tables
associated
with
specific
types
of
projects:

°
Source;
°
Treatment;
°
Finished
or
Treated
Water
Storage,
Pumping
and
Other
Projects;
°
Transmission
and
Distribution;
and
°
Backflow
Prevention
Devices/
Assemblies,
Flushing
Hydrants,
Service
Lines,
Valves,
and
Water
Meters.

For
each
of
these
projects,
the
respondent
is
asked
to:

°
Briefly
describe
the
needed
capital
project
(
e.
g.,
"
routine
distribution
system
replacement,"
"
filtration
plant
upgrade,"
"
high
service
pump
replacement,"
"
corrosion
control
treatment,"
or
"
storage
tank
rehabilitation").
Information
is
being
collected
on
a
projectby
project
basis
because
it
is
most
commonly
available
to
respondents
in
that
form,
and
because
documentation,
when
available,
is
usually
developed
on
a
project­
by­
project
basis.
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
10
°
Provide
the
code
that
best
describes
the
project
from
List
1
of
the
Lists
of
Codes
and
that
best
describes
the
reason
for
the
need
from
List
2.
We
will
use
this
information
to:

 
Develop
separate
cost
estimates
for
source
water
treatment,
transmission,
storage,
distribution,
and
other
needs.
(
We
will
work
with
the
State
to
disaggregate
the
costs
when
projects
meet
multiple
needs,
but
we
expect
this
to
occur
only
rarely.)

 
Help
verify
that
adequate
documentation
of
the
need
has
been
submitted.

 
Help
determine
if
the
project
is
an
allowable
need.

 
Help
gauge
cost­
reasonableness.

°
Indicate
if
the
project
is
to
install
new
or
replace
old
infrastructure
or
rehabilitate
or
upgrade
existing
infrastructure.

°
Indicate
if
the
project
is
needed
now
to
protect
public
health
or
not
needed
now,
but
will
be
necessary
to
continue
providing
safe
drinking
water
over
the
next
20
years.

°
Indicate
if
the
project
is
associated
with
a
regulation,
the
codes
for
which
are
listed
on
List
3
in
the
Lists
of
Codes.
We
will
use
this
information
to
determine
which
needs
are
required
because
of
an
SDWA
regulation
or
State
requirement.

°
Provide
design
capacity
when
applicable
 
millions
of
gallons
per
day
(
MGD)
for
treatment
and
pumping;
or
millions
of
gallons
(
MG)
for
storage;
the
number
of
feet
of
distribution
or
transmission
lines
that
will
be
replaced
or
added;
or
the
size
and
number
of
backflow
prevention
devices/
assemblies,
flushing
hydrants,
service
lines,
valves,
and
water
meters.
EPA
will
use
these
parameters
to
model
project
costs.

°
Provide
capital
cost
estimate
and
year
and
month
(
if
known)
of
the
estimate.
We
will
use
this
information
to
identify
the
cost
of
the
project.
The
year
and
month
are
important
because
they
will
allow
us
to
account
for
differences
in
the
value
of
money
over
different
years
and
to
convert
all
costs
to
a
common
year.

°
Indicate
the
type
of
documentation,
from
List
4
of
the
Lists
of
Codes,
that
explains
why
the
project
is
needed.
If
a
cost
estimate
is
available,
indicate
the
documentation
that
explains
the
breakdown
of
the
cost.
This
will
verify
the
cost
for
the
project.
NOTE:
EPA
will
not
expect
systems
to
develop
cost
estimates
for
the
purposes
of
this
survey.

The
respondent
is
also
asked
to
provide
his
or
her
name,
title,
address,
phone
number,
and
e­
mail
address.
This
information
is
requested
in
case
EPA
or
the
State
must
contact
the
respondent
for
clarification
or
explanation
of
any
response.
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
11
The
respondent
is
asked
to
attach
documentation
for
all
needs
and
costs
reported
in
the
survey.

The
data
collection
instrument
is
attached
as
Appendix
B.

American
Indian
and
Alaska
Native
Water
Systems
EPA
will
determine
the
needs
of
medium
American
Indian
water
systems
by
conducting
a
census
of
all
systems.
EPA
will
base
the
needs
for
small
American
Indian
water
systems
on
the
1999
Needs
Survey
results.
These
results
will
be
confirmed
through
48
phone
interviews
with
a
random
selection
of
systems
for
which
EPA
conducted
site
visits
in
1999.
Contractor
personnel
will
complete
the
phone
interviews.
EPA
anticipates
that
most
system
operators
will
make
themselves
available
to
answer
questions
about
the
water
system.
Region
10
will
identify
and
document
the
needs
of
small
Alaska
Native
water
systems.
Tribes
and
EPA
Regions
will
have
the
opportunity
to
identify
projects
associated
with
non­
tribally
owned
water
systems
that
serve
predominantly
American
Indian
communities.

A.
4.
b.
ii
Respondent
Activities
Large
CWSs
To
complete
the
instrument,
large
CWSs
will:

°
Participate
in
an
informational
telephone
call
from
the
State.
Respondents
will
receive
a
call
from
the
State
describing
the
purpose
of
the
Needs
Survey,
the
information
that
will
be
requested,
and
the
timetable
for
completing
and
returning
the
survey
instrument.

°
Read
the
cover
letter
and
survey
instructions.
Respondents
will
review
the
cover
letter
and
instructions
accompanying
the
survey
instrument.

°
Collect
and
copy
supporting
documentation.
Respondents
will
locate
the
necessary
supporting
documentation
in
system
files
and
copy
it.

°
Complete
the
data
collection
instrument.
Respondents
will
fill
out
the
survey
instrument
and
attach
supporting
documentation.

In
addition,
some
systems
may
contact
States
(
or
an
EPA­
established
helpline)
to
obtain
clarifying
information
on
the
data
collection
instrument.

Medium
CWSs
To
complete
the
data
collection
instrument,
medium
CWSs
will:
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
12
°
Participate
in
an
informational
telephone
call
from
the
State.
Respondents
will
receive
a
call
from
the
State
describing
the
purpose
of
the
Needs
Survey,
the
information
that
will
be
requested,
and
the
timetable
for
completing
and
returning
the
survey
instrument.

°
Read
cover
letter
and
survey
instructions.
Respondents
will
review
the
cover
letter
and
instructions
accompanying
the
survey
instrument.

°
Collect
and
copy
supporting
documentation.
Respondents
will
locate
the
necessary
supporting
documentation
in
system
files
and
copy
it.

°
Complete
the
data
collection
instrument.
Respondents
will
fill
out
the
survey
instrument
and
attach
supporting
documentation.

Some
systems
may
contact
the
EPA
helpline
or
States
to
obtain
assistance
completing
the
data
collection
instrument.

American
Indian
and
Alaska
Native
Water
Systems
The
survey
methodology
has
been
designed
to
minimize
the
burden
on
American
Indian
and
Alaska
Native
water
systems.
Medium
systems
will
be
asked
to
participate
in
the
same
processes
outlined
above.
Only
a
handful
of
small
American
Indian
systems
will
be
asked
to
answer
basic
questions
during
a
phone
call.
Needs
for
small
Alaska
Native
and
non­
tribally
owned
systems
serving
predominantly
American
Indian
communities
will
be
identified
by
the
Regions.

Some
small
American
Indian
water
systems
will:

°
Participate
in
telephone
call
from
EPA.
Respondents
will
receive
a
call
from
EPA
to
review
their
1999
Needs
Survey
and
revise
or
add
new
projects.
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
3In
States
that
do
not
participate
in
the
survey,
EPA
will
also
perform
the
activities
identified
in
this
ICR
as
"
State
Activities."
This
should
have
no
net
impact
on
burden.

13
A.
5
INFORMATION
COLLECTED:
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY,
AND
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
A.
5.
a
Agency
and
State
Activities
EPA
and
Contractor
Activities3
Many
of
the
EPA
activities
described
here
will
be
conducted
by
contractors
with
EPA
oversight/
technical
direction.
For
example,
EPA
will
oversee
contractor
development
of
the
collection
methodology,
and
collection
and
analysis
of
survey
data.
For
purposes
of
describing
Agency
activities
related
to
this
survey,
contractor
effort
is
not
distinguished
from
EPA
effort.
Separate
estimates
for
contractor
burden
and
cost
will
be
provided
in
Section
A.
6.
c.
In
addition,
Section
B.
1.
c
describes
the
contractor's
role.
EPA
Regional
staff
will
provide
assistance
in
implementing
the
methodology
developed
for
the
American
Indian
and
Alaska
Native
survey.

Up­
Front
Activities
The
following
pre­
survey
activities
will
be
conducted:

°
Revise
the
data
collection
instruments
protocol.
EPA
is
revising
the
data
collection
instrument
based
on
lessons
learned
during
the
1999
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey.
This
task
will
include
developing
cover
letters
and
other
materials
for
State
use.

°
Train
survey
participants.
To
ensure
that
participating
State,
Regional,
American
Indian,
and
Alaska
Native
officials
understand
every
aspect
of
the
survey,
we
will
conduct
Regional
training
sessions.
The
training
will
help
ensure
consistent
responses
across
the
country,
high
response
rates,
and
efficient
use
of
State
and
EPA
Regional
staff.

°
Select
survey
respondents.
The
Agency
will
draw
samples
for
the
survey.

°
Develop
data
system.
EPA
will
develop
a
data
system
to
store
and
analyze
data.
The
system
will
produce
the
necessary
statistical
reports
for
EPA,
Congress,
and
States.
The
system
will
also
allow
States
and
EPA
Regional
offices
access
to
the
data.

°
Mail
data
collection
instruments.
Data
collection
instruments
will
be
mailed
to
the
selected
systems.
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
14
Data
Collection
Activities
EPA
will
conduct
the
following
activities
during
the
data
collection
phase
of
the
survey:

°
Provide
technical
assistance.
The
Agency
will
maintain
a
helpline
primarily
to
provide
technical
assistance
to
large
and
medium
systems
(
unless
the
State
wishes
to
do
so),
and
to
American
Indian
and
Alaska
Native
water
systems.
The
helpline
will
help
ensure
consistent
responses
across
the
country.

°
Review
survey
instrument.
We
will
review
the
completed
collection
instruments
to
ensure
that
all
data
are
documented
and
reasonable.

°
Maintain
the
data.
We
will
enter
survey
data
into
the
data
system
and
perform
quality
control/
quality
assurance
checks
of
data
entry.

State
Activities
All
States
have
committed
to
support
EPA
on
the
Needs
Survey.
Region
3
(
Philadelphia)
will
act
as
the
State
for
the
District
of
Columbia.
Region
8
(
Denver)
will
act
as
the
State
for
Wyoming.
Region
9
(
San
Francisco)
will
perform
State
activities
for
the
three
Pacific
Islands
(
Commonwealth
of
the
Northern
Mariana
Islands,
American
Samoa,
and
Guam).

The
activities
described
in
this
section
represent
a
level
of
participation
that
will
ensure
nationally
consistent
results.
Some
States
will
participate
at
a
higher
level.
Also,
States
will
have
the
option
of
increasing
the
sample
size
we
develop,
provided
that
we
draw
the
sample
to
ensure
the
integrity
of
the
survey.
Because
these
activities
are
optional
and
not
essential
to
ensure
national
consistency,
this
ICR
does
not
address
the
associated
burden.

Up­
Front
Activities
This
first
activity
category
includes
the
States'
"
fixed
burden"
for
helping
EPA
prepare
for
the
survey.

°
Participate
in
training
and
other
pre­
survey
efforts.
This
activity
includes
participating
in
training
sessions
offered
to
the
States
and
becoming
familiar
with
the
project
design.
In
addition,
it
includes
activities
such
as
reviewing
the
draft
data
collection
instrument.

°
Help
EPA
verify
SDWIS
data.
There
are
several
important
variables
for
which
SDWIS
data
must
be
verified
once
the
sample
has
been
chosen.
Critical
inventory
data
for
the
statistical
sample
will
need
to
be
reviewed
by
States.
Such
data
include
PWS
identification
number
(
PWSID),
system
name,
address,
telephone
numbers
(
if
any),
primary
source,
population
served,
number
of
service
connections,
whether
the
facility
is
publicly
or
privately
owned,
and
whether
the
system
is
a
consecutive
system.
To
help
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
15
States
and
Regions
with
this
verification
activity,
we
will
provide
the
information
that
must
be
reviewed
in
either
printout
or
electronic
form.

°
Perform
miscellaneous
administrative
activities.
States
will
perform
various
administrative
duties
prior
to
the
survey
(
e.
g.,
establishing
system
files).
In
addition,
State
management
will
explain
the
survey
to
staff
and
allocate
resources.

Data
Collection
Activities
States
will
conduct
the
following
activities
during
the
data
collection
phase
of
the
survey:

°
Provide
technical
assistance.
Participating
States
will
provide
technical
assistance
to
these
systems
by
answering
their
questions
about
the
survey
instrument
and
how
needs
should
be
represented.

°
Telephone
systems
to
ensure
participation.
To
improve
response
rates,
States
that
participate
in
the
survey
will
telephone
the
medium
and
large
systems
early
in
the
process
to
ensure
that
they
have
received
the
data
collection
instruments
and
that
they
understand
how
to
complete
them.

°
Call
back
systems
that
do
not
return
the
data
collection
instrument
by
a
certain
date.
To
improve
response
rates,
participating
States
will
telephone
systems
that
have
not
returned
their
survey
by
a
specific
date.

°
Review
completed
data
collection
instruments
and
documentation.
The
data
collection
instrument
will
be
returned
directly
to
the
State.
State
personnel
will
have
the
opportunity
to
review
the
information
on
the
survey
instrument,
as
well
as
any
accompanying
documentation.

°
Discuss
results
with
EPA.
After
the
State
reviews
the
submission
and
documentation,
the
State
forwards
the
data
to
EPA
for
review
and
data
entry.
EPA
performs
a
second
quality
control/
quality
assurance
check
to
ensure
all
data
are
documented
and
reasonable.
Any
differences
of
opinion
regarding
the
documentation
of
the
data
will
be
resolved
by
EPA
and
the
State.

A.
5.
b
Collection
Methodology
and
Management
This
section
discusses
the
steps
that
EPA
has
taken
in
order
to
ensure
that
the
information
being
collected
will
be
accurate,
reliable,
and
retrievable.
This
methodology
was
developed
using
experience
gained
in
conducting
the
previous
drinking
water
and
clean
water
needs
surveys.
We
have
incorporated
into
this
methodology
comments
and
advice
from
EPA
staff
involved
with
those
surveys.
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
16
Development
of
Data
Collection
Instrument
Appendix
B
contains
the
data
collection
instrument.
EPA
has
developed
the
survey
approach
and
the
survey
instrument
with
the
assistance
of
a
workgroup.
As
is
explained
in
Section
A.
3.
c,
the
committee
includes
States,
EPA
Headquarters,
EPA
Regions,
and
American
Indian
and
Alaska
Native
representatives.
The
survey
approach
and
survey
instrument
were
refined
through
testing
with
water
systems
and
consultations
with
outside
groups.
Our
basic
approach
and
many
of
the
refinements
to
it
were
based
on
experience
in
conducting
the
1995
and
1999
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Surveys.
In
developing
the
survey,
we
selected
a
set
of
appropriate
survey
objectives
for
which
we
framed
questions
that
are
easily
answerable
by
knowledgeable
respondents.
Our
pretest
of
the
instrument
is
described
in
Section
B.
3.
a.
Section
B.
2.
c.
ii
describes
the
steps
taken
to
ensure
that
the
instrument
would
be
an
effective
tool
for
retrieving
the
information
we
need
to
meet
our
survey
objectives.

Methodology
for
Large
and
Medium
CWSs
Almost
all
large
systems
have
Capital
Improvement
Plans
(
CIPs)
or
similar
documents
that
summarize
their
needs.
These
systems,
therefore,
are
generally
able
to
provide
accurate
information
on
their
needs,
and
for
most
needs,
accurate
estimates
on
the
associated
cost.
A
data
collection
instrument
will
be
sent
to
each
of
these
systems.
Clarifying
information
for
completing
the
instrument
will
be
available
from
the
State
or
EPA.

The
experience
of
States
that
participated
in
the
previous
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Surveys
indicated
that
"
medium
CWSs"
could
reliably
complete
a
data
collection
instrument,
if
technical
support
is
available.
Most
of
these
systems
could
provide
reliable
data
on
the
needs,
and
a
large
portion
could
provide
cost
estimates
for
meeting
those
needs.
The
State
will
provide
technical
support
to
these
systems
by
answering
their
questions.
Training
will
also
be
provided
to
the
States
that
may
want
to
collect
the
needs
for
systems
through
site
visits.
We
will
offer
a
helpline
for
Regional,
State,
and
system
personnel.

EPA
will
mail
the
data
collection
instrument
to
the
systems.
Respondents
will
send
the
completed
data
collection
instruments
to
the
State.
The
State
reviews
all
data
and
provides
a
quality
control/
quality
assurance
function.
Next,
the
State
forwards
data
to
EPA
for
review
and
data
entry.
EPA
performs
a
second
quality
control/
quality
assurance
check
to
see
that
all
data
are
documented
and
reasonable.
We
will
enter
the
data.
If
the
State
chooses,
it
may
verify
that
the
data
have
been
entered
into
the
data
system.
Projects
or
cost
estimates
that
are
not
documented
will
be
identified
in
the
data
system
as
lacking
documentation.
If
the
system
or
State
does
not
provide
documentation,
the
project
or
cost
estimate
will
be
deleted
from
the
survey.

Methodology
for
Small
Systems
Due
to
funding
limitations,
data
will
not
be
collected
from
small
systems.
Needs
will
be
based
on
data
collected
during
the
1999
Needs
Survey.
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
17
Methodology
for
American
Indian
and
Alaska
Native
Water
Systems
The
approach
developed
to
estimate
the
American
Indian
and
Alaska
Native
water
system
projects
will
use
EPA
and
Tribal
resources
to
establish
a
system­
by­
system
estimate
of
need
for
all
American
Indian
and
Alaska
Native
water
systems.
The
approach
for
compiling
infrastructure
needs
for
these
systems
is
outlined
below.

To
ensure
that
all
appropriate
systems
are
addressed,
EPA
Regional
Offices
will
review
the
inventory
data
in
SDWIS
and
provide
any
updates
or
changes
to
EPA
Headquarters.
Costs
for
medium
American
Indian
systems
will
be
assigned
using
the
model
developed
for
the
overall
Needs
Survey.
Phone
interviews
to
a
handful
of
small
American
Indian
systems
will
be
conducted
to
confirm
the
1999
Needs
Survey
results.

For
Alaska
Native
systems,
separate
cost
models
will
be
used
to
reflect
unique
construction
challenges
in
arctic
areas.
Project­
specific
cost
estimates
that
were
developed
for
the
1999
survey
will
be
refined,
if
necessary,
by
Region
10
for
each
of
the
four
regions
for
Alaska
Native
systems
(
unless
documented
costs
are
available).

Data
Quality
Data
quality
will
be
assured
by
implementing
the
following
mechanisms
throughout
the
gathering
and
processing
phases
of
the
information
collection:

°
Adequate
documentation.
EPA
has
requested
documentation
of
needs
and
costs
in
order
to
ensure
the
accuracy
and
reliability
of
the
data.
Acceptable
forms
of
documentation
of
needs
and
costs
are
listed
on
List
4
of
the
Lists
of
Codes.
EPA
will
not
accept
needs
or
costs
without
adequate
documentation.
We
will
make
it
very
clear
to
respondents
that
they
are
not
expected
to
develop
cost
estimates
(
such
as
a
Capital
Improvement
Plan)
for
the
purposes
of
this
survey.

°
Training.
Among
the
most
important
steps
in
quality
assurance
is
training.
We
will
provide
training
sessions
for
State
and
Regional
officials
involved
in
the
Needs
Survey.
We
will
also
establish
a
helpline
to
answer
questions.
It
is
anticipated
that
the
helpline
will
be
used
primarily
to
provide
information
to
the
EPA
Regions
and
States
and
that
the
States
will
provide
technical
support
to
the
systems.
However,
the
helpline
will
be
available
to
systems
in
States
that
have
chosen
not
to
provide
their
own
technical
assistance.

It
is
crucial
that
the
results
of
the
Needs
Survey
be
as
uniform
as
possible
across
the
country.
Toward
this
end,
we
will
take
the
following
steps.
We
will
establish
a
uniform
set
of
assumptions
or
criteria
for
State,
Regional,
Headquarters,
and
contractor
staff
to
evaluate
data
submitted
by
systems.
We
will
provide
training
to
all
those
involved
in
the
Needs
Survey
to
ensure
that
the
assumptions
and
procedures
are
clear
and
understood.
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
18
The
Regional
training
will
be
designed
to
enable
State
and
Regional
staff
to
review
completed
survey
data
collection
instruments
and
respond
to
questions
from
systems
on
the
data
collection
instrument.
The
training
will
emphasize
the
following
elements:

 
Identifying
the
capital
improvements
associated
with
source,
transmission,
storage,
treatment,
and
distribution.

 
Estimating
and
reviewing
construction
cost
estimates.

 
Completing
the
survey.

We
will
develop
materials
for
distribution
to
State
personnel
who
are
unable
to
attend
Regional
training
sessions.

In
addition
to
the
training
seminars,
we
will
provide
support
for
a
helpline
for
State,
Regional,
and
water
system
personnel
to
address
questions
that
arise
after
the
training
sessions.
Helpline
staff
will
refer
questions
that
raise
a
policy
or
technical
issue
to
EPA
staff.

°
Receipt
control.
The
primary
objective
of
the
receipt
control
system
will
be
to
ensure
that
completed
forms
submitted
by
respondents
(
or
forwarded
by
States)
are
logged
in
promptly
and
given
proper
custody.
A
second
objective
is
to
provide
States
with
the
data
needed
to
monitor
cumulative
receipts
by
date
to
identify
potential
problems
with
the
response
rate.
Such
response
rate
problems
could
necessitate
action.
See
Section
B.
2.
c.
ii
for
our
method
for
improving
the
response
rate.
States
that
receive
data
collection
instruments
from
respondents
will
be
trained
in
receipt
control.

°
Data
review
by
States.
As
discussed
above
under
"
Data
Flow,"
we
will
rely
on
the
States
to
help
ensure
data
quality.
To
date,
all
States
have
committed
to
support
EPA
in
this
effort.
EPA
will
also
ask
the
Association
of
State
Drinking
Water
Administrators
(
ASDWA)
to
communicate
with
the
State
drinking
water
administrators
to
encourage
their
participation.
Staff
from
Region
9
will
perform
the
State
activities
for
systems
in
the
three
Pacific
Islands,
staff
from
EPA
Region
3
will
act
as
the
State
for
the
District
of
Columbia,
and
staff
from
EPA
Region
8
will
act
as
the
State
for
Wyoming.

EPA
believes
State
participation
is
essential
in
ensuring
nationally
consistent
results
because
the
States
have
more
frequent
communications
with
the
system
and
possess
a
better
understanding
of
the
particular
system's
needs.
Therefore,
State
personnel
will
have
the
opportunity
to
review
the
information
on
the
form,
as
well
as
any
accompanying
documentation.
When
necessary,
the
States
will
contact
the
system
to
ask
for
clarifying
information.
In
addition,
we
have
improved
States'
ability
to
submit
modifications
through
the
Web
site.
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
4Nonprofit
NCWSs
are
also
eligible
for
DWSRF
funding.

19
°
Data
entry.
Prior
to
entry
into
the
Needs
Survey
database,
the
EPA
contractor
will
screen
the
completed
survey
instruments
for
legibility,
completeness,
and
internal
consistency.
Reviewers
will
also
code
the
open­
ended
questions
in
preparation
for
entry
into
the
database.
Data
from
the
survey
instruments
will
be
keyed
into
the
database
only
after
they
have
passed
the
initial
screening.
As
data
are
keyed,
an
automatic
data
entry
program
will
provide
reasonable
bounds
checking
and
data
verification.
The
program
will
signal
the
data
entry
operator,
if
an
entry
is
out
of
the
allowable
range
or
is
an
invalid
entry.

°
Data
systems.
EPA
is
developing
a
web­
based
database
system
with
a
data
entry
interface
allowing
the
Agency
and
its
contractors
to
input
data
and
allowing
States
to
access,
download,
verify,
and
suggest
modifications
to
their
data
(
www.
2003needs.
com).
EPA
will
use
the
commercial
"
off
the
shelf"
program,
Microsoft
Access,
to
manage
the
information.
The
data
system
will
provide
the
following
functions:

 
Data
entry
through
the
user
interface
or
batch
upload.
 
Data
verification
through
bounds
checking.
 
A
password­
protected
data
modification
interface.
 
Data
access
for
States
and
Regions
for
review
and
verification
of
their
data.
 
Predefined
summary
and
statistical
reports.

EPA
will
design
and
build
the
system
data
structures
to
be
as
compatible
with
the
replacement
for
the
existing
SDWIS
data
structure
as
possible.

°
Cost
reasonableness
ranges.
EPA
will
develop
"
cost
reasonableness
ranges"
to
help
verify
the
accuracy
of
the
data.

Public
Access
to
Data
The
Agency's
policy
is
to
make
the
fullest
possible
disclosure
of
information
without
unjustifiable
expense
or
unnecessary
delay
to
the
requester.
Once
the
final
report
to
Congress
has
been
submitted,
the
public
will
be
given
access
to
survey
data
in
accordance
with
EPA's
policies
and
procedures
for
Freedom
of
Information
Act
(
FOIA)
requests.
We
will
develop
standard
report
formats
for
providing
data
to
the
public.

A.
5.
c
Small
Entity
Flexibility
In
designing
the
survey
methodology,
EPA
has
taken
small
systems'
relatively
limited
technical
capabilities
and
financial
resources
into
account.
Because
of
budget
constraints,
small
CWSs
and
nonprofit
noncommunity
water
systems
(
NCWSs)
4
regulated
by
the
States
will
not
be
included
in
the
2003
survey.
The
2003
survey
will
use
the
1999
results
as
the
primary
basis
for
its
estimates.
However,
most
of
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
20
the
American
Indian
and
Alaska
Native
systems
in
the
survey
are
small
systems.
Our
experience
with
the
previous
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Surveys
has
shown
that
small
systems
lack
the
resources
and
technical
ability
to
complete
the
data
collection
instruments.
Instead
of
mailing
a
data
collection
instrument
to
American
Indian
systems,
we
will
collect
data
from
Regions
and
Tribes,
through
phone
interviews.
The
data
collected
during
the
phone
interview
will
be
used
to
confirm
the
data
collected
from
small
American
Indian
systems
in
the
1999
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey.
Thus,
the
1999
results
will
serve
as
the
primary
basis
for
the
2003
estimates
of
small
system
needs.

EPA
anticipates
that
many
medium
systems
will
not
be
able
to
provide
information
on
all
needs
and
capital
costs.
For
projects
without
a
documented
cost,
EPA
will
model
a
cost.

A.
5.
d
Collection
Schedule
The
current
schedule
assumes
we
will
receive
OMB
approval
for
the
collection
by
October
27,
2002.
We
will
mail
data
collection
instruments
to
drinking
water
systems
on
November
18,
2002.
All
systems
participating
in
the
survey
will
be
asked
to
complete
and
return
the
data
collection
instruments
within
one
month
of
receipt.

To
facilitate
efficient
data
entry
at
EPA
Headquarters,
we
will
ask
the
States
to
submit
data
for
one­
third
of
the
systems
within
4
months
after
data
collection
begins,
or
by
March
18,
2003.
Data
for
twothirds
of
the
systems
will
be
due
within
7
months
(
by
June
18,
2003),
and
all
data
will
be
due
on
October
18,
2003.
The
schedule
for
American
Indian
and
Alaska
Native
systems
will
be
similar.
Exhibit
A­
5­
1
summarizes
the
major
collection
milestones.
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
21
Exhibit
A­
5­
1
Collection
Schedule
Task
Date
Information
Collection
Request
Submitted
to
OMB
July
2002
States
Review
Inventory
Data
mid­
June
­
mid­
July
2002
States
Submit
to
EPA
Contact
Information
to
be
Included
on
Return
FedEx
Labels
August
2002
EPA
Selects
Systems
to
be
Included
in
State
Samples
August
2002
Training
Sessions
for
States
and
Regions
September
­
November
2002
Mailout
of
Data
Collection
Instruments
to
Selected
Systems
November
18,
2002
Deadline
Given
to
Systems
to
Return
the
Data
collection
instrument
to
States
December
18,
2002
1/
3
of
Sent
Data
Collection
Instruments
Returned
by
States
to
EPA
March
18,
2003
2/
3
of
Sent
Data
Collection
Instruments
Returned
by
States
to
EPA
June
18,
2003
All
Sent
Data
Collection
Instruments
Returned
by
States
to
EPA
October
18,
2003
No
New
Data
Collection
Instrument
Submission
will
be
Accepted
by
EPA
November
18,
2003
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
22
A.
6
ESTIMATING
THE
BURDEN
AND
COST
OF
THE
COLLECTION
A.
6.
a
Respondent
Burden
A.
6.
a.
i
Burden
to
Public
Water
Systems
The
annual
CWS
burden
for
the
2003
Needs
Survey
is
estimated
to
be
approximately
14,809
hours.
Exhibit
A­
6­
8
(
at
the
end
of
Section
A.
6.
b)
shows
the
breakdown
of
the
annual
burden
hours
for
large
systems,
medium
systems,
and
American
Indian
systems.
The
bases
for
the
burden
estimates
are
detailed
below.

Large
Systems
The
respondent
burden
for
the
large
systems
consists
of
systems'
burden
for
completing
the
data
collection
instrument.
EPA
estimates
that
the
total
unit
burden
is
5.39
hours
per
system.
Exhibit
A­
6­
1
summarizes
the
unit
burden,
broken
down
by
activity
and
labor
category.

°
Participate
in
informational
phone
call.
Each
informational
call
should
last
about
15
minutes
(
0.25
hour).
EPA
anticipates
that
management
staff
will
take
the
call
at
half
of
the
systems
and
technical
staff
will
take
the
call
at
the
other
half.
Thus,
the
unit
burdens
are
0.125
hours
for
management
staff
and
0.125
hour
for
technical
staff.

°
Read
cover
letter/
survey
instructions.
EPA
made
the
following
assumptions
in
estimating
the
burden
for
reviewing
the
cover
letter
and
survey
instructions:

 
At
50
percent
of
the
systems,
a
manager
will
receive
the
survey,
read
the
cover
letter,
and
delegate
the
task
of
completing
the
survey
to
technical
staff.
At
the
other
50
percent
of
the
systems,
the
survey
will
be
received
by
the
technical
staff.
The
estimated
time
for
managers
to
review
the
cover
letter
is
12
minutes
(
0.20
hours).
Given
that
this
activity
occurs
at
50
percent
of
the
systems,
the
unit
burden
is
6
minutes
(
0.10
hours)
per
system.

 
Regardless
of
whether
or
not
a
manager
receives
the
survey
instrument
initially,
technical
staff
will
read
the
cover
letter
and
survey
instructions.
We
estimate
that
the
burden
for
this
activity
is
15
minutes
(
0.25
hours)
per
system.

Thus,
the
total
unit
burden
is
21
minutes
(
0.35
hours)
per
system
[
0.50(
0.20)+(
0.25)].

°
Collect
and
copy
supporting
documentation.
Time
required
to
review
system
files,
and
collect
and
copy
supporting
documentation
will
vary
greatly.
We
estimate
that
it
will
take
1
hour
at
30
percent
of
the
systems,
2
hours
at
30
percent
of
the
systems,
3
hours
at
30
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
5As
noted
in
Section
A.
4,
the
data
collection
instrument
for
the
2003
survey
requests
slightly
more
information
than
the
previous
data
collection
instruments.
However,
the
States
believe
that
the
format
of
the
new
data
collection
instrument
will
be
easier
to
follow,
resulting
in
no
overall
increase
in
per­
system
burden.

23
(
1
x
0.30)

(
2
x
0.30)

(
3
x
0.30)

(
16
x
0.10)

3.4
hrs/
system
percent
of
the
systems,
and
16
hours
at
10
percent
of
the
systems.
Thus,
the
average
time
per
system
is
as
follows:

°
Call
for
technical
assistance.
Many
systems
will
call
States
for
technical
assistance.
In
developing
the
burden
estimate
for
this
activity,
we
made
the
following
assumptions:

 
The
number
of
requests
for
assistance
will
equal
100
percent
of
the
number
of
systems.
(
This
estimate
accounts
for
the
fact
that
some
systems
will
call
more
than
once,
while
some
will
not
call
at
all.)

 
Each
call
will
be
placed
by
technical
staff.

 
About
50
percent
of
the
questions
will
be
"
easy"
and
require
a
single
phone
call
averaging
15
minutes
(
0.25
hours).

 
About
50
percent
of
the
questions
will
require
the
State
to
perform
research
and
call
the
system
back.
In
this
case,
we
estimate
that
the
total
burden
for
the
two
calls
is
26
minutes
(
0.43
hours).

Thus,
the
total
unit
burden
is
20.5
minutes
(
0.34
hours)
per
system
[
0.50(
0.25)+
0.50(
0.43)].

°
Complete
data
collection
instrument.
EPA
estimates
that
technical
staff
will
take
45
minutes
(
0.75
hours)
to
complete
the
data
collection
instrument.
This
estimate
is
consistent
with
EPA
experience
with
the
previous
Needs
Surveys.
5
Management
is
expected
to
take
18
minutes
(
0.30
hours)
to
review
the
completed
survey
instrument
for
accuracy.
Thus,
the
total
unit
burden
is
approximately
1
hour
per
system.
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
24
Exhibit
A­
6­
1
Estimated
Unit
Burden
for
Large
CWSs
Activity
Estimated
Burden
(
hours)

Management
Technical
Clerical
Total
Participate
in
informational
phone
call
0.125
0.125
0.25
Read
cover
letter/
survey
instructions
0.10
0.25
0.35
Collect
and
copy
supporting
documentation
1.70
1.70
3.40
Call
for
technical
assistance
0.34
0.34
Complete
data
collection
instrument
0.30
0.75
1.05
TOTAL
0.53
3.17
1.70
5.39
Medium
Systems
Exhibit
A­
6­
2
shows
the
unit
burden
for
2,781
medium
CWSs.
EPA
estimates
that
each
of
these
systems
will
take
a
total
of
3.56
hours
to
respond
to
the
survey.

°
Participate
in
informational
phone
call.
Each
informational
call
should
last
about
15
minutes
(
0.25
hour).
EPA
anticipates
that
management
staff
will
take
the
call
at
half
of
the
systems
and
technical
staff
will
take
the
call
at
the
other
half.
Thus,
the
unit
burdens
are
0.125
hours
for
management
staff
and
0.125
hour
for
technical
staff.

°
Read
cover
letter/
survey
instructions.
EPA
used
the
following
assumptions
to
estimate
the
burden
for
reviewing
the
cover
letter
and
survey
instructions:

 
At
50
percent
of
the
systems,
a
manager
will
receive
the
survey,
read
the
cover
letter,
and
delegate
the
task
of
completing
the
survey
to
technical
staff.
At
the
other
50
percent
of
the
systems,
the
survey
will
be
received
by
the
technical
staff.
The
estimated
time
for
managers
to
review
the
cover
letter
is
12
minutes
(
0.20
hours).
Given
that
this
activity
occurs
at
50
percent
of
the
systems,
the
unit
burden
is
6
minutes
(
0.10
hours)
per
system.

 
Regardless
of
whether
a
manager
receives
the
survey
instrument
initially,
technical
staff
will
read
the
cover
letter
and
survey
instructions.
We
estimate
that
the
burden
for
this
activity
is
15
minutes
(
0.25
hours)
per
system.

Thus,
the
total
unit
burden
is
21
minutes
(
0.35
hours)
per
system
[
0.50(
0.20)+(
0.25)].
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
25
(
0.5
x
0.5)

(
1
x
0.25)

(
2
x
0.25)

1
hr/
system
°
Collect
and
copy
supporting
documentation.
Medium
CWSs
typically
have
less
documentation
than
large
CWSs.
However,
the
time
required
to
review
system
files,
and
collect
and
copy
supporting
documentation
will
vary
greatly.
We
estimate
that
it
will
take
30
minutes
at
50
percent
of
the
systems,
1
hour
at
25
percent
of
the
systems,
and
2
hours
at
25
percent
of
the
systems.
Thus,
the
average
time
per
system
is
as
follows:

°
Call
for
technical
assistance.
Many
systems
will
call
EPA
or
the
contractor
for
technical
assistance.
In
developing
the
burden
estimate
for
this
activity,
we
make
the
following
assumptions:

 
The
number
of
requests
for
assistance
will
equal
150
percent
of
the
number
of
systems.
(
This
estimate
accounts
for
the
fact
that
some
systems
will
call
more
than
once.)

 
Each
call
will
be
placed
by
technical
staff.

 
About
50
percent
of
the
questions
will
be
"
easy"
and
require
a
single
phone
call
averaging
15
minutes
(
0.25
hours)
in
duration.

 
About
50
percent
of
the
questions
will
require
the
State
to
perform
research
and
call
the
system
back.
In
this
case,
we
estimate
that
the
total
burden
for
the
two
calls
will
be
30
minutes
(
0.50
hours).

Thus,
the
total
unit
burden
is
34
minutes
(
0.56
hours)
per
system
[
1.5(.
50(
0.25)+.
50(
0.50))]

°
Complete
data
collection
instrument.
The
burden
for
completing
the
data
collection
instrument
is
greater
for
medium
CWSs
than
for
large
systems
because
medium
CWSs
are
expected
to
be
less
familiar
with
their
capital
needs
and
costs.
They
are
also
less
likely
to
have
documentation
for
their
costs,
and
would
therefore
supply
more
information.
Medium
systems
should
take
about
1.40
hours
to
complete
the
data
collection
instrument.
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
6Additional
analysis
is
necessary
to
determine
the
exact
number
of
American
Indian
and
Alaska
Native
respondents.
At
this
time,
EPA
believes
that
19
medium
systems
will
receive
questions,
and
25­
50
will
receive
phone
calls
(
the
ICR
assumes
48).

26
Exhibit
A­
6­
2
Estimated
Unit
Burden
for
Medium
CWSs
Activity
Estimated
Burden
(
hours)

Management
Technical
Clerical
Total
Participate
in
informational
phone
call
0.125
0.125
0.25
Read
cover
letter/
survey
instructions
0.10
0.25
0.35
Collect
supporting
documentation
0.50
0.50
1.00
Call
for
technical
assistance
0.56
0.56
Complete
data
collection
instrument
0.47
0.93
1.40
TOTAL
0.70
2.37
0.50
3.56
American
Indian
and
Alaska
Native
System
Survey
Exhibit
A­
6­
3
shows
the
unit
burden
for
approximately
67
American
Indian
and
Alaska
Native
water
systems.
6
The
burden
for
these
systems
depends
on
whether
they
receive
mailed
data
collection
instruments,
or
phone
calls.

Systems
completing
data
collection
instruments.
EPA
estimates
that
the
approximately
19
medium
systems
will
take
a
total
of
1.94
hours
to
respond
to
the
mailed
data
collection
instrument.
Activities
include
the
following:

°
Read
cover
letter/
survey
instructions.
EPA
used
the
following
assumptions
to
estimate
the
burden
for
reviewing
the
cover
letter
and
survey
instructions:

 
At
25
percent
of
the
systems,
a
manager
will
receive
the
survey,
read
the
cover
letter,
and
delegate
the
task
of
completing
the
survey
to
technical
staff.
At
the
other
75
percent
of
the
systems,
the
survey
will
be
received
by
the
technical
staff.
The
estimated
time
for
managers
to
review
the
cover
letter
is
12
minutes
(
0.20
hours).
Given
that
this
activity
occurs
at
25
percent
of
the
systems,
the
unit
burden
is
3
minutes
(
0.05
hours)
per
system.
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
27
((
0.5
x
0.2)

(
1
x
0.60)

(
2
x
0.20))
x
0.3

20
min/
system
 
Regardless
of
whether
a
manager
receives
the
survey
instrument
initially,
technical
staff
will
read
the
cover
letter
and
survey
instructions.
We
estimate
that
the
burden
for
this
activity
is
15
minutes
(
0.25
hours)
per
system.

Thus,
the
total
unit
burden
is
18
minutes
(
0.30
hours)
per
system
[
0.25(
0.20)+(
0.25)].

°
Collect
and
copy
supporting
documentation.
All
the
American
Indian
water
system
data
collection
instruments
will
have
been
completed
based
on
last
survey's
responses.
Therefore,
only
systems
adding
projects
will
be
required
to
collect
documentation.
We
estimate
that
30
percent
of
the
system
will
add
projects
to
the
instrument.
We
also
estimate
that
it
will
take
30
minutes
at
20
percent
of
the
systems,
1
hour
at
60
percent
of
the
systems,
and
2
hours
at
20
percent
of
the
systems.
Thus,
the
average
time
per
system
is
as
follows:

°
Participate
in
technical
assistance
phone
call.
EPA
or
contractor
staff
will
contact
medium
American
Indian
systems
to
provide
technical
assistance.
In
developing
the
burden
estimate
for
this
activity,
we
make
the
following
assumptions:

 
The
number
of
requests
for
assistance
will
equal
150
percent
of
the
number
of
systems.
(
This
estimate
accounts
for
the
fact
that
some
systems
will
call
more
than
once.)

 
Each
call
will
involve
technical
staff.

 
About
50
percent
of
the
discussions
will
cover
"
easy"
issues
and
require
a
single
phone
call
averaging
15
minutes
(
0.25
hours)
in
duration.

 
About
50
percent
of
the
questions
will
require
the
contractor
to
perform
research
and
call
the
system
back.
In
this
case,
we
estimate
that
the
total
burden
for
the
two
calls
will
be
30
minutes
(
0.50
hours).

Thus,
the
total
unit
burden
is
34
minutes
(
0.56
hours)
per
system
[
1.5(.
50(
0.25)+.
50(
0.50))]

°
Review
data
collection
instrument.
Since
the
data
collection
instrument
will
have
already
been
completed
using
data
from
the
previous
survey,
water
systems
will
review
what
was
provided
and
add,
modify,
or
delete
projects.
American
Indian
systems
should
take
about
45
minutes
to
review
and
modify
the
data
collection
instrument
(
0.20
hours
of
management
time
and
0.55
hours
of
technical
time).
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
28
Exhibit
A­
6­
3a
Estimated
Unit
Burden
for
American
Indian
and
Alaska
Native
Systems
Receiving
Mailed
Data
collection
instruments
Activity
Estimated
Burden
(
hours)

Management
Technical
Clerical
Total
Read
cover
letter/
survey
instructions
0.05
0.25
0.30
Collect
supporting
documentation
0.23
0.10
0.33
Receive
technical
assistance
0.56
0.56
Complete
data
collection
instrument
0.20
0.55
0.75
TOTAL
0.25
1.59
0.10
1.94
Systems
receiving
phone
interviews.
In
order
to
confirm
the
1999
Needs
Survey
results
for
small
American
Indian
systems,
a
subset
of
small
American
Indian
systems
will
receive
phone
calls
in
which
EPA
or
its
contractor
will
seek
updated
information
on
projects
reported
on
the
1999
Needs
Survey
data
collection
instruments.
EPA
will
conduct
phone
interview
with
25­
50
such
systems.
This
ICR
assumes
that
48
will
be
interviewed.
Because
the
Agency
is
conducting
phone
interviews,
the
burden
imposed
on
the
systems
is
small.
We
estimate
that
the
unit
burden
to
these
systems
averages
1.25
hours
per
system.
Exhibit
A­
6­
3b
summarizes
the
burden
for
each
activity.

°
Participate
in
informational/
scheduling
telephone
call.
The
telephone
call
to
discuss
the
survey
should
take
approximately
15
minutes
(
0.25
hours).
Most
small
systems
are
staffed
by
one
technical
person;
therefore,
the
entire
burden
falls
with
the
technical
labor
category.

°
Participate
in
interview.
The
phone
interview
will
be
supplementing
data
completed
on
the
last
survey's
responses.
We
estimate
that
the
burden
to
answer
questioning
regarding
new
needs
is
1
hour
per
system.
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
29
Exhibit
A­
6­
3b
Estimated
Unit
Burden
for
American
Indian
Systems
Receiving
Phone
Interviews
Activity
Estimated
Burden
(
hours)

Management
Technical
Clerical
Total
Participate
in
informational/
scheduling
telephone
call
0.25
0.25
Participate
in
interview
1.00
1.00
TOTAL
1.25
1.25
A.
6.
a.
ii
Burden
to
Primacy
Agencies
Participating
States
will
play
an
important
role
in
conducting
the
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
 
they
will
help
EPA
ensure
that
the
survey
is
administered
consistently
nationwide.
Most
State
activities
will
either
involve
using
and
reviewing
data
directly
or
facilitating
EPA's
use
and
review
of
data.
For
example,
States
will
review
SDWIS
inventory
information
for
the
statistical
sample
and
verify
that
it
is
correct.
They
will
help
ensure
a
high
response
rate
by
telephoning
medium
and
large
systems
before
the
survey
and
by
making
reminder
calls
to
large
and
medium
CWSs
that
have
not
returned
their
data
collection
instruments
by
a
specified
date.
States
will
help
ensure
data
quality
by
answering
large
systems'
questions
on
the
data
collection
instrument
and
by
reviewing
completed
data
collection
instruments
and
accompanying
documentation
for
completeness
and
accuracy.

Given
varying
time
and
resource
constraints,
some
States
will
wish
to
participate
in
the
survey
more
fully
than
others.
The
burden
and
cost
estimates
presented
below
represent
a
level
of
participation
that
EPA
believes
will
ensure
nationally
consistent
results.
EPA
encourages
all
States
to
participate
at
least
at
this
level.
The
unit
burden
estimates
are
consistent
with
what
was
found
to
be
true
in
the
1999
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey.

The
reader
should
note
that
the
burden
will
vary
widely
by
State,
even
for
the
same
set
of
activities.
A
State's
actual
burden
depends
on
the
number
of
drinking
water
systems
in
the
State,
the
size
and
sophistication
of
those
systems,
the
extent
to
which
the
State
goes
beyond
the
minimum
requirements
for
the
survey,
and
other
factors.
Exhibit
A­
6­
4
summarizes
the
burden
estimates
for
each
of
the
activity
categories.
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
30
Exhibit
A­
6­
4
Overall
State
Burden
Summary
Activity
Category
Estimated
Burden
Up­
Front
Activities
110
hours,
plus
0.2
hours/
system
State
Burden
for
Large
CWS
Survey
6.50
hours
per
system
State
Burden
for
Medium
CWS
Survey
6.33
hours
per
system
Up­
Front
Burden
This
activity
category
includes
the
State
"
fixed
burden"
for
helping
EPA
prepare
for
the
survey.
The
total
burden
for
these
activities
is
110
hours
per
State,
plus
0.2
hour
per
system
surveyed.
Exhibit
A­
6­
5
summarizes
this
burden.

°
Participate
in
training
and
other
pre­
survey
efforts.
The
burden
for
this
activity
is
estimated
at
80
hours
per
State
and
is
not
expected
to
depend
on
the
number
of
systems
in
the
State.

°
Help
EPA
verify
SDWIS
data.
Based
on
State
experience
EPA
estimates
that
verifying
SDWIS
data
for
systems
in
the
sample
will
require
approximately
12
minutes
(
0.2
hour)
per
system.

°
Perform
miscellaneous
administrative
activities.
The
burden
for
these
activities
should
be
30
hours
per
state.

Exhibit
A­
6­
5
State
Unit
Burden
for
Up­
Front
Activities
Activity
Estimated
Burden
Participate
in
training
and
other
pre­
survey
activities
80
hours/
state
Help
EPA
verify
SDWIS
data
0.2
hours/
system
Perform
miscellaneous
administrative
activities
30
hours/
state
TOTAL
110
hours/
State,
plus
0.2
hours/
system
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
31
State
Burden
for
Large
System
Survey
This
section
estimates
the
State
burden
for
helping
EPA
conduct
the
large
system
survey
by
providing
technical
assistance
where
needed,
calling
systems
that
do
not
return
the
data
collection
instrument
on
time,
reviewing
the
completed
surveys
and
documentation,
and
discussing
the
results
with
EPA.
Although
most
of
these
systems
will
be
able
to
answer
the
questions
on
the
data
collection
instrument,
States
participating
in
the
large
system
survey
will
provide
them
with
clarifying
information
as
necessary.
The
State
burden
for
activities
associated
with
the
large
system
survey
is
summarized
in
Exhibit
A­
6­
6,
which
follows
the
activity
descriptions.

°
Telephone
systems
to
ensure
participation.
We
estimate
that
this
preliminary
phone
call
will
take
about
10
minutes
(
0.17
hours)
per
system.

°
Provide
technical
assistance.
In
developing
a
burden
estimate
for
this
analysis,
we
make
the
following
assumptions:

 
The
number
of
requests
for
technical
assistance
will
equal
100
percent
of
the
number
of
systems.
(
This
estimate
accounts
for
the
fact
that
some
systems
make
such
requests
more
than
once.)

 
Of
those
that
do
require
technical
assistance,
about
50
percent
of
their
questions
will
be
"
easy,"
requiring
only
15
minutes
(
0.25
hours)
to
answer.

 
About
25
percent
of
their
questions
will
entail
limited
research
and
follow­
up,
requiring
30
minutes
(
0.50
hours)
to
answer,
including
time
to
call
EPA
with
questions.

 
About
25
percent
of
their
questions
will
require
the
State
to
perform
some
research,
and
will
require
1.0
hours
to
answer.

Therefore,
the
State
burden
is
estimated
at
about
30
minutes
(
0.50
hours)
per
request
[
0.5(
0.25)
+
0.25(
0.50)+
0.25(
1.0)].
This
is
an
average.
Some
States
may
choose
to
provide
a
much
higher
or
lower
level
of
technical
assistance
than
anticipated
by
EPA.

°
Call
back
systems
that
do
not
return
the
data
collection
instrument
by
a
certain
date.
EPA
assumes
that
the
number
of
these
"
reminder"
calls
will
equal
100
percent
of
the
systems.
This
assumes
that
most
(
but
not
all)
will
need
at
least
one
reminder
call
and
some
will
need
two
or
three.
The
average
time
for
these
calls
is
20
minutes
(
0.33
hours)
per
system.
This
does
not
include
answering
technical
questions,
which
is
accounted
for
above.
Rather,
it
includes
locating
the
correct
contact
person
and
obtaining
a
brief
report
on
the
status
of
the
survey.
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
32
°
Review
completed
data
collection
instruments
and
documentation.
The
data
collection
instrument
will
be
returned
directly
to
the
State
for
review.
For
some
systems,
this
documentation
is
expected
to
be
quite
voluminous,
and
reviewing
it
will
be
the
most
burdensome
part
of
the
large
system
survey.
The
time
required
for
this
review
is
difficult
to
estimate.
Based
on
discussions
with
the
States
concerning
their
level
of
effort
in
previous
surveys,
EPA
estimates
that,
on
average,
States
will
take
5
hours
to
review
each
submission.
This
estimate
includes
the
time
required
to
make
follow­
up
phone
calls
and
gather
additional
information
as
necessary.

°
Discuss
results
with
EPA.
To
estimate
the
State
burden
for
resolving
questions
on
completed
surveys,
we
made
the
following
assumptions:

 
We
will
have
questions
on
50
percent
of
the
completed
surveys.
Some
of
these
questions
will
actually
apply
to
all
systems.

 
Each
question
will
take
the
State
1
hour
to
resolve.

Therefore,
the
burden
per
system
is
0.5
times
1
hour,
or
0.5
hours
per
system
[
0.50(
1.0)].

Exhibit
A­
6­
6
State
Unit
Burden
for
Large
System
Survey
Activity
Estimated
Burden
(
hours
per
system)

Call
to
ensure
participation
0.17
Provide
Technical
Assistance
0.50
Call
back
systems
that
do
not
return
the
data
collection
instrument
by
a
certain
date
0.33
Review
completed
survey
forms
and
documentation
5.00
Discuss
results
with
EPA
0.50
TOTAL
6.50
State
Burden
for
Medium
CWSs
This
section
estimates
the
State
burden
for
helping
EPA
conduct
these
medium
CWS
surveys
by
telephoning
systems
to
ensure
participation,
calling
back
systems
that
did
not
return
the
data
collection
instrument
on
time,
reviewing
the
completed
surveys
and
the
accompanying
documentation,
and
discussing
the
results
with
EPA.
The
State
burden
for
activities
associated
with
the
medium
system
survey
is
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
33
summarized
in
Exhibit
A­
6­
7,
which
follows
the
activity
descriptions.

°
Telephone
systems
to
ensure
participation.
We
estimate
that
this
preliminary
phone
call
will
take
about
20
minutes
(
0.33
hours)
per
system.

°
Provide
technical
assistance.
In
developing
a
burden
estimate
for
this
analysis,
we
make
the
following
assumptions:

 
The
number
of
requests
for
technical
assistance
will
equal
150
percent
of
the
number
of
systems.
(
This
estimate
accounts
for
the
fact
that
some
systems
make
such
requests
more
than
once.)

 
Of
those
that
do
require
technical
assistance,
about
50
percent
of
their
questions
will
be
"
easy,"
requiring
only
15
minutes
(
0.25
hours)
to
answer.

 
About
25
percent
of
their
questions
will
entail
limited
research
and
follow­
up,
requiring
30
minutes
(
0.50
hours)
to
answer,
including
time
to
call
EPA
with
questions.

 
About
25
percent
of
their
questions
will
require
the
State
to
perform
some
research,
and
will
require
1.0
hours
to
answer.

Therefore,
the
State
burden
is
estimated
at
about
45
minutes
(
0.75
hours)
per
request
[
1.5(
0.5(
0.25)
+
0.25(
0.50)+
0.25(
1.0))].
This
is
an
average.
Some
States
may
choose
to
provide
a
much
higher
or
lower
level
of
technical
assistance
than
anticipated
by
EPA.

°
Call
back
systems
that
do
not
return
the
data
collection
instrument
by
a
certain
date.
It
is
assumed
that
the
number
of
these
"
reminder"
calls
will
equal
100
percent
of
the
systems.
This
assumes
that
most
(
but
not
all)
will
need
at
least
one
reminder
call
and
some
will
need
two
or
three.
The
average
time
for
these
calls
is
30
minutes
(
0.50
hours)
per
system.
This
does
not
include
answering
technical
questions,
which
is
accounted
for
above.
Rather,
it
includes
locating
the
correct
contact
person
and
obtaining
a
brief
report
on
the
status
of
the
survey.

°
Review
completed
data
collection
instruments
and
documentation.
The
data
collection
instrument
will
be
returned
directly
to
the
State
for
review.
For
States,
this
is
the
most
burdensome
part
of
the
medium
system
survey,
and
the
burden
for
this
review
is
difficult
to
estimate.
For
this
ICR,
EPA
assumes
that
this
activity
takes
States
an
average
of
4.25
hours
per
system.
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
34
°
Discuss
results
with
EPA.
To
estimate
the
State
burden
for
resolving
questions
on
completed
surveys,
we
made
the
following
assumptions:

 
We
will
have
questions
on
50
percent
of
the
completed
surveys.
Some
of
these
questions
will
actually
apply
to
all
systems.

 
Each
question
will
take
the
State
one
hour
to
resolve.

Therefore,
the
burden
per
system
is
0.5
times
1
hour,
or
0.50
hours
per
system.

Exhibit
A­
6­
7
State
Unit
Burden
for
Medium
Systems
Activity
Estimated
Burden
(
hours
per
system)

Telephone
systems
to
ensure
participation
0.33
Provide
Technical
Assistance
0.75
Call
back
systems
that
do
not
return
the
data
collection
instrument
by
a
certain
date
0.50
Review
completed
data
collection
instruments
and
documentation
4.25
Discuss
results
with
EPA
0.50
TOTAL
6.33
A.
6.
b
Respondent
Costs
A.
6.
b.
i
Costs
to
Public
Water
Systems
Exhibit
A­
6­
8
summarizes
the
burden
and
costs
to
large,
medium,
and
American
Indian
and
Alaska
Native
water
systems.
Total
costs
are
estimated
at
$
389,032,
which
consists
solely
of
labor
costs.
There
are
no
operation
and
maintenance
(
O&
M)
costs
or
capital
costs
associated
with
the
collection.

PWS
labor
costs
are
based
on
the
number
of
burden
hours
times
the
average
hourly
wage
rate,
including
overhead.
The
average
hourly
wage
rate
is
the
rate
quoted
by
the
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
for
SIC
Code
51­
8031,
"
Local
Government
 
Water
and
Liquid
Waste
Treatment
Plant
and
System
Operators."
The
quoted
rate
was
$
14.69
in
1999
dollars
(
see
http://
stats.
bls.
gov).
For
consistency
with
ICRs
recently
developed
by
DWPD,
this
rate
has
been
inflated
to
2002
dollars
using
the
Employment
Cost
Index.
The
inflated
rate
is
$
16.42.
In
addition,
60
percent
overhead
was
assumed,
bringing
the
loaded
rate
to
$
26.27
in
2002
dollars.
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
7
Region
9
will
perform
State
functions
for
the
three
Pacific
Islands,
Region
3
will
perform
these
functions
for
the
District
of
Columbia,
and
Region
8
will
perform
these
functions
for
Wyoming.
For
simplicity,
however,
we
are
including
the
burden
for
these
States
in
this
ICR.

8
According
to
the
ICR
Handbook,
an
employee
works
an
average
of
2,080
hours
in
one
year.

9
The
State
Workload
Model
is
a
spreadsheet
model
used
by
States/
Primacy
Agencies
to
estimate
resource
needs
for
implementation
of
the
SDWA.

35
Exhibit
A­
6­
8
Total
Burden
and
Cost
to
Water
Systems*

Respondent
Unit
Burden
(
hours)

Total
Responses
Total
Hours
Hourly
Rate
Total
Cost
Management
Technical
Clerical
Large
CWSs
0.53
3.17
1.70
886
4,784
$
26.27
$
125,676
Medium
CWSs
0.70
2.37
0.50
2,781
9,928
$
26.27
$
260,809
American
Indian
and
Alaska
Native
Water
Systems
Medium
Systems
0.25
1.59
0.10
19
37
$
26.27
$
972
Small
Systems
(
American
Indian
only)
1.25
48
60
$
26.27
$
1,576
TOTAL
3,734
14,809
$
389,032
*
The
average
burden
per
response
is
3.97
hours
(
14,809/
3,734).
The
average
burden
for
those
systems
completing
a
data
collection
instrument
 
all
except
the
small
American
Indian
systems
 
is
4.00
hours
[(
4,784+
9,928+
37)/(
886+
2,781+
19)].

A.
6.
b.
ii
Cost
to
Primacy
Agencies
Exhibit
A­
6­
9
shows
the
annual
costs
to
primacy
agencies.
As
discussed
above,
all
States
have
committed
to
support
EPA
on
this
survey.
7
Based
on
our
projection
that
all
States
will
participate
in
the
Needs
Survey,
the
cost
to
States
is
$
912,521.
We
will
survey
a
total
of
3,667
systems
in
the
States.
The
labor
costs
are
based
on
an
average
full
time
equivalent
(
FTE)
cost
of
$
62,735
including
overhead,
which
equates
to
approximately
$
30.16
per
hour.
8
This
rate,
which
has
been
inflated
to
year
2002
dollars,
is
based
on
the
rate
($
55,000)
suggested
by
the
workgroup
that
developed
the
State
Workload
Model
in
19979
and
is
consistent
with
the
rates
used
in
ICRs
recently
developed
by
DWPD.
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
10Hourly
rates
are
from
U.
S.
Office
of
Personnel
Management,
2002
General
Schedule
(
Gs)
Locality
Pay
Tables
and
overhead
rates
are
from
Information
Collection
Request
for
Public
Water
Supply
Program,
December
20,
1993.

36
There
are
no
O&
M
or
capital
costs
for
primacy
agencies
under
this
ICR.

Exhibit
A­
6­
9
Total
Burden
and
Cost
to
States
Activity
Number
of
States/
Systems*
Unit
Burden
Total
Burden
Hourly
Rate
Total
Cost
Up­
front
56
110
hours/
state
6,160
$
30.16
$
185,786
3,667
0.20
hours/
system
733
$
30.16
$
22,107
State
burden
for
large
system
survey
886
6.50
hours/
system
5,759
$
30.16
$
173,691
State
burden
for
medium
CWS
survey
2,781
6.33
hours/
system
17,604
$
30.16
$
530,937
TOTAL
30,256
$
912,521
A.
6.
c
Agency
Burden
and
Cost
The
Agency
burden
and
cost
reflects
the
burden
and
cost
directly
incurred
by
EPA
Headquarters,
EPA
Regions
and
IHS,
summarized
in
Exhibit
A­
6­
10.
EPA
will
also
bear
the
cost
of
contractor
activities.
Exhibit
A­
6­
10
details
the
burden/
cost
of
contractor
activities.
Both
Exhibits
distribute
burden/
costs
among
Fiscal
Years
2002,
2003,
2004,
and
2005,
reflecting
that
Agency
and
contractor
activities
will
vary
substantially
over
the
four­
year
survey
period.
These
estimates
provide
for
all
burden
and
costs
that
the
Federal
Government
will
assume
in
the
place
of
States
that
do
not
participate
in
the
Needs
Survey.

EPA
made
the
following
assumptions
in
developing
its
estimate
of
Agency
and
contractor
burden
and
cost10:

EPA
Headquarters
°
Over
the
four
year
survey
period,
EPA
Headquarters
will
expend
a
total
of
2.8
FTEs
(
e.
g.,
an
average
of
0.7
FTEs
per
year
over
the
four
years).
Assuming
2,080
hours
per
year,
this
equates
to
5,824
hours.
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
37
°
The
average
salary
and
benefits
(
i.
e.,
personnel
compensation
and
benefits
[
PC&
B])
of
the
FTEs
is
at
the
GS
13,
Step
5
level
of
$
120,093.
Assuming
2,080
hours
per
year,
this
equates
to
$
57.74
per
hour.

EPA
Regional
Offices
°
Over
the
survey
period,
EPA
Regions
will
expend
an
a
total
of
1.4
FTEs
(
i.
e.,
an
average
of
0.35
FTE
per
year).
Assuming
2,080
hours
per
year,
this
equates
to
2,912
hours.

°
The
average
salary
and
benefits
(
i.
e.,
PC&
B)
of
the
4
FTEs
is
at
the
GS
11,
Step
5
level
of
$
85,377.
Assuming
2,080
hours
per
year,
this
equates
to
$
41.05
per
hour.

Indian
Health
Service
°
Over
the
four
year
survey
period,
IHS
Headquarters
will
expend
a
total
of
0.1
FTE.
Assuming
2,080
hours
per
year,
this
equates
to
208
hours.

°
The
average
salary
and
benefits
(
i.
e.,
PC&
B)
of
the
FTEs
is
at
the
GS
13,
Step
5
level
of
$
120,093.
Assuming
2,080
hours
per
year,
this
equates
to
$
57.74
per
hour.

EPA
Contractor(
s)

°
Over
four
years,
the
EPA
contractor(
s)
will
expend
a
total
of
37,500
hours
of
direct
labor.

°
The
EPA
contractor(
s)
will
provide
this
professional
labor
at
a
total
hourly
rate,
including
all
applicable
indirect
costs,
of
$
64.00.

Based
on
these
assumptions,
EPA
estimates
that
the
total
burden/
cost
to
EPA
and
IHS
of
the
Needs
Survey
over
the
four­
year
period
is
46,444
hours
and
$
2,867,825.
Exhibits
A­
6­
10
and
A­
6­
11
follow,
providing
greater
detail.

Exhibit
A­
6­
10
Burden/
Cost
to
EPA
(
Excluding
Contractor
Activities)

Fiscal
Year
EPA
Headquarters
EPA
Regions
IHS
Total
Hours
Cost
Hours
Cost
Hours
Cost
Total
Hours
Total
Cost
FY
2002
892
$
51,504
446
$
18,308
60
$
3,464
1,398
$
73,277
FY
2003
2,020
$
116,635
1,010
$
41,461
64
$
3,695
3,094
$
161,791
FY
2004
2,020
$
116,635
1,010
$
41,461
64
$
3,695
3,094
$
161,791
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
38
FY
2005
892
$
51,504
446
$
18,308
20
$
1,155
1,358
$
70,967
TOTAL
5,824
$
336,278
2,912
$
119,538
208
$
12,010
8,944
$
467,825
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
39
Exhibit
A­
6­
11
Burden/
Cost
of
Contractor
Activities
Activities
FY
02
FY
03
FY
04
FY
05
Total
Hours
Cost
Hours
Cost
Hours
Cost
Hours
Cost
Hours
Cost
Planning
2,000
$
128,000
5,159
$
330,176
3,200
$
204,800
300
$
19,200
10,659
$
682,176
Survey
Design
200
$
12,800
0
$
0
0
$
0
0
$
0
200
$
12,800
Modeling
334
$
21,376
982
$
62,848
960
$
61,440
960
$
61,440
3,236
$
207,104
Data
Base
Development
862
$
55,168
1,000
$
64,000
1,000
$
64,000
1,000
$
64,000
3,862
$
247,168
Survey
Production
0
$
0
945
$
60,480
0
$
0
0
$
0
945
$
60,480
Data
Analysis
0
$
0
9,629
$
616,256
2,533
$
162,112
0
$
0
12,162
$
778,368
Report
Writing
0
$
0
208
$
13,312
1,459
$
93,376
700
$
44,800
2,367
$
151,488
Statistical
Analysis
0
$
0
94
$
6,016
656
$
41,984
750
$
48,000
1,500
$
96,000
Tech
Assistance
0
$
0
960
$
61,440
200
$
12,800
200
$
12,800
1,360
$
87,040
Training
389
$
24,896
820
$
52,480
0
$
0
0
$
0
1,209
$
77,376
Total
3,785
$
242,240
19,797
$
1,267,008
10,008
$
640,512
3,910
$
250,240
37,500
$
2,400,000
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
11
For
several
of
these
entities,
primacy
activities
are
actually
implemented
by
EPA
Regional
offices.
However,
as
a
simplifying
assumption,
they
are
included
with
the
States
for
respondent
calculations
under
this
ICR.

40
A.
6.
d
Estimating
Respondent
Universe
and
Total
Burden
and
Costs
Respondents
for
this
ICR
include
CWSs
and
primacy
agencies.
This
ICR
estimates
that
the
number
of
CWS
respondents
is
3,734
CWSs,
including
3,667
CWSs
in
the
States
and
67
American
Indian
systems.
In
addition
to
the
CWS
respondents,
this
ICR
assumes
56
primacy
agencies
(
50
States
plus
the
District
of
Columbia
and
U.
S.
Territories).
11
Therefore,
the
total
number
of
respondents
is
3,790.
The
total
costs
and
burden
for
these
respondents
are
summarized
in
Exhibits
A­
6­
8
and
A­
6­
9.

A.
6.
e
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
Exhibit
A­
6­
12
summarizes
the
bottom
line
burden
hours
and
costs
for
CWSs
and
States
for
this
collection.
The
total
burden
for
CWSs
and
States
is
45,065
hours
at
a
cost
of
$
1,301,553.

Exhibit
A­
6­
12
Bottom
Line
Respondent
Burden
Respondent
Type
Burden
Hours
Total
Cost
Community
Water
Systems
14,809
$
389,032
States
30,256
$
912,521
TOTAL
45,065
$
1,301,553
Exhibit
A­
6­
13
summarizes
the
burden
hours
and
costs
for
CWSs
and
States
per
year.
It
is
estimated
that
the
water
systems
will
complete
the
data
collection
instrument
in
2003.
It
is
estimated
that
States
will
incur
half
of
the
burden
associated
with
the
survey
in
2003.
The
remaining
half
is
assumed
to
be
incurred
evenly
in
2002
and
2004.
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
41
Exhibit
A­
6­
13
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
for
Respondents
per
Year
Respondent
Type
Total
Hour
Burden
(
per
year)
Total
Cost
(
per
year)

2002
2003
2004
2005
2002
2003
2004
2005
CWSs
0
14,809
0
0
$
0
$
389,032
$
0
$
0
States
7,564
15,128
7,564
0
$
228,130
$
456,260
$
228,130
$
0
Total
7,564
29,937
7,564
0
$
228,130
$
845,293
$
228,130
$
0
Average
2.0
7.9
2.0
$
60
$
223
$
60
Exhibit
A­
6­
14
summarizes
the
bottom
line
burden
hours
and
costs
for
EPA
and
IHS
for
this
collection.
The
total
burden
for
EPA
(
including
its
contractor)
and
IHS
is
46,444
hours
at
a
cost
of
$
2,867,825.

Exhibit
A­
6­
14
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
for
EPA
and
IHS
Respondent
Type
Burden
Hours
Total
Cost
EPA
46,236
$
2,855,816
IHS
208
$
12,010
TOTAL
46,444
$
2,867,826
A.
6.
f
Reasons
for
Change
in
Burden
This
ICR
does
not
modify
an
existing
ICR.

A.
6.
g
Burden
Statement
The
public
reporting
burden
for
collections
included
in
this
ICR
is
detailed
above.
The
total
burden
over
the
four­
year
length
of
the
survey
to
be
45,065
hours,
of
which
14,809
hours
are
attributable
to
CWSs
and
30,256
hours
to
primacy
agencies.
These
estimates
include
time
for
gathering
information
as
well
as
developing
and
maintaining
records.
Public
reporting
burden
for
this
collection
of
information
is
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
12For
this
ICR,
the
number
of
responses
is
calculated
at
3,790
(
886
large
systems;
2,781
medium
systems,
67
American
Indian
systems,
and
56
States
and
U.
S.
Territories).
The
burden
per
response
is
calculated
as
the
total
respondent
burden
(
45,065)
divided
by
the
number
of
responses
(
3,790).
Note
that
CWSs'
burden
is
ranges
between
1.25
and
5.39
hours
per
response.

13See
Exhibit
A­
6­
8.

42
estimated
to
average
12
hours
per
response.
12
Respondent
burden
for
completing
the
data
collection
instrument
is
4.00
hours.
13
Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
people
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
disclose,
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions,
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements,
train
personnel
to
respond
to
the
information
collection
request,
search
data
sources,
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information,
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.
An
agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to,
a
request
for
information
collection
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.

Please
send
comments
on
the
Agency's
need
for
this
information,
accuracy
of
the
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques
to
Director,
Office
of
Environmental
Information,
Collection
Strategies
Division,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
2822T),
Ariel
Rios
Building,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
N.
W.,
Washington,
D.
C.
20460;
and
to
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
725
17th
Street,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20503,
Attention:
Desk
Officer
for
EPA.
Please
include
the
EPA
ICR
number
and
OMB
control
number
in
any
correspondence.
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
43
This
page
intentionally
left
blank.
44
PART
B
OF
THE
SUPPORTING
STATEMENT
(
FOR
STATISTICAL
SURVEYS)

INTRODUCTION
TO
PART
B
EPA
proposes
to
conduct
the
following
type
of
statistical
survey
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Survey.
EPA
proposes
a
mail
survey
of
community
water
systems
serving
populations
of
more
than
3,300.
We
will
present
a
complete
Part
B
of
the
Supporting
Statement
for
the
survey
of
community
water
systems
serving
populations
of
more
than
3,300.
EPA
is
proposing
the
same
methodology
for
collecting
data
for
systems
serving
more
than
3,300
as
was
used
in
the
1999
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey.
No
revision
to
that
methodology
has
taken
place.
Due
to
budgetary
constraints,
EPA
is
not
currently
proposing
to
collect
additional
data
from
systems
serving
3,300
and
fewer.
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
45
This
page
intentionally
left
blank.
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
46
SURVEY
OF
COMMUNITY
WATER
SYSTEMS
SERVING
MORE
THAN
3,300
PERSONS
B.
1
SURVEY
OBJECTIVES,
KEY
VARIABLES
AND
OTHER
PRELIMINARIES
B.
1.
a
Survey
Objectives
The
primary
objective
of
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
is
to
collect
information
from
CWSs
on
their
infrastructure
needs
associated
with
providing
safe
drinking
water
to
consumers.
(
If
information
on
costs
is
not
available
from
systems,
EPA
proposes
to
collect
information
that
will
enable
the
Agency
to
model
costs.)
In
the
data
collection
instrument,
the
respondent
will
identify
needs
on
a
project­
by­
project
basis
and
list
the
"
type(
s)
of
need"
that
the
project
will
meet.
The
"
types
of
need"
include
raw
water
source,
transmission,
source
water
treatment,
storage,
distribution,
pumping
stations,
and
other
needs.

EPA
will
use
the
information
from
the
Needs
Survey
to
project
capital
investment
requirements
of
drinking
water
systems.
The
information
will
be
used
to
allot
DWSRF
monies
among
States
and
as
part
of
an
allotment
formula
for
the
American
Indian
and
Alaska
Native
DWSRF
set­
aside
program.

EPA
is
proposing
the
same
methodology
for
collecting
data
for
systems
serving
more
than
3,300
as
was
used
in
the
1999
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey.
No
revision
to
that
methodology
has
taken
place.
Due
to
budgetary
constraints,
EPA
is
not
currently
proposing
to
collect
additional
data
from
systems
serving
3,300
and
fewer.

B.
1.
b
Key
Variables
Several
key
variables
are
available
from
SDWIS.
To
ensure
accuracy,
the
survey
will
verify
these
data
by
asking
respondents
to
confirm
existing
information
(
pre­
printed
on
the
survey
instrument),
or
correct
it.
These
variables
include
population
served,
total
design
capacity,
number
of
service
connections,
primary
source
of
supply,
ownership
type
(
private
or
public),
and
whether
the
system
purchases
water
from,
or
sells
water
to,
another
public
water
system.

The
principal
variable
of
interest
is
total
projected
capital
need
for
each
CWS
in
the
survey
for
the
period
2003
­
2022.
Total
capital
needs
for
all
systems
in
each
State
(
to
be
derived
from
the
statistical
sample
of
systems)
is
the
key
variable
that
decision­
makers
at
EPA
need
for
allocation
of
funds
to
States
based
on
need.
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
47
Information
on
capital
needs
will
be
collected
from
respondents
on
a
project­
by­
project
basis.
For
each
project,
respondents
will
be
asked
to
provide
the
following
types
of
information:
type
of
need,
documentation
of
need
and
cost
(
if
necessary),
if
the
project
is
a
new
project
or
rehabilitation
of
existing
infrastructure,
if
the
project
is
needed
now
to
protect
public
health
or
if
it
is
needed
over
the
next
20
years
to
continue
to
provide
safe
drinking
water,
if
the
project
is
to
meet
a
current
regulation
or
state
requirement
what
regulation
or
requirement,
design
capacity
of
source,
storage,
and
treatment
projects,
cost
of
the
project,
and
date
of
the
cost
estimate.
For
most
of
these
variables,
respondents
will
choose
the
appropriate
"
documentation,"
"
type,"
or
"
regulation
or
requirement,"
from
the
Lists
of
Codes.

The
method
of
data
collection
has
been
designed
to
minimize
burden
on
respondents
while
ensuring
that
information
is
collected
in
a
consistent
manner.
Collecting
information
on
a
project­
by­
project
basis,
for
example,
will
be
particularly
helpful
in
reducing
burden
since
most
respondents
develop
CIPs
in
this
manner.

Information
on
type
of
need
will
be
used
to
disaggregate
total
capital
needs
for
EPA's
Report
to
Congress.
Information
on
documentation
of
need
will
be
used
to
verify
the
public
health
benefit
of
the
need.
Information
on
the
date
of
the
cost
estimate
will
be
used
to
provide
a
consistent
basis
for
cost
estimates
across
systems.
Information
on
a
regulation
or
requirement
will
be
used
to
determine
the
reported
project
costs
related
to
Federal
regulations
or
State
requirements.

If
a
system
cannot
provide
cost
estimates,
additional
data
are
necessary
so
that
the
Agency
can
create
cost
models
to
impute
costs.
Each
of
these
variables
will
be
described
in
greater
detail
later
in
this
document.

B.
1.
c
Statistical
Approach
This
survey
is
being
designed
to
achieve
a
desired
level
of
precision
for
state­
level
estimates
of
total
capital
needs
for
medium
and
large
CWSs.
EPA
proposes
to
use
a
statistical
survey
approach
to
estimate
total
capital
needs
for
CWSs
serving
populations
of
more
than
3,300.
This
statistical
approach
minimizes
burden
while
achieving
the
desired
level
of
precision.

The
survey
design
divides
CWSs
serving
populations
of
more
than
3,300
into
two
groups:
large
CWSs
(
serving
populations
of
more
than
50,000),
and
medium­
sized
systems
(
serving
populations
of
3,301
to
50,000).
For
large
CWSs,
EPA
proposes
to
conduct
a
mail
survey
and
sample
with
certainty
all
systems
in
that
category.
These
systems
have
the
largest
capital
needs,
and
they
have
the
staff
to
respond
efficiently
to
the
survey.
For
a
minimal
burden,
we
can
sample
with
certainty
in
the
domain
that
has
the
greatest
impact
on
total
State
needs.
For
medium­
sized
systems
(
3,301
to
50,000),
EPA
proposes
to
conduct
a
mail
survey
and
sample
with
certainty
systems
serving
between
40,001
and
50,000
and
conduct
a
statistical
sample
of
systems
serving
between
3,301
and
40,000.
By
using
this
methodology,
we
can
reduce
burden
and
still
achieve
our
precision
targets.
Since
State­
level
precision
is
important
for
EPA
decision­
makers,
we
have
selected
a
two­
step
approach
to
sampling.
First,
we
will
determine
the
total
sample
size
per
State
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
48
to
meet
the
target
level
of
precision.
Second,
we
will
allocate
the
sample
to
strata
in
order
to
maximize
the
efficiency
of
our
design.

EPA
is
designing
and
conducting
the
survey
with
the
assistance
of
several
contractors,
as
listed
below:

Contractor
The
Cadmus
Group,
Inc.
57
Water
Street
Watertown,
MA
02472
(
617)
673­
7000
Contractor
Roles
°
Technical
oversight
for
all
contractor
activities.
°
Oversight
of
data
collection
instrument
design
and
testing.
°
Oversight
of
statistical
sample
design.
°
Training.
°
Mailings;
logistics.
°
Technical
support
for
respondents
and
States.
°
Model
development.
°
Data
processing.

Abt
Associates
Inc.
55
Wheeler
Street
Cambridge,
MA
02138
°
Statistical
sample
design.

B.
1.
d
Feasibility
The
survey
data
collection
instrument
has
been
designed
with
the
capabilities
of
the
typical
respondent
in
mind.
To
fully
assess
feasibility,
the
Agency
undertook
the
following
steps.
First,
EPA
convened
a
workgroup
(
see
Section
A.
5.
b)
to
comment
on
the
proposed
data
collection
and
its
feasibility.
Second,
EPA
met
with
individual
CWS
operators
around
the
country
and
discussed
the
proposed
survey.
System
operators
were
asked
to
comment
on
all
proposed
data
elements
and
the
feasibility
of
collecting
information
by
a
mail
survey.
The
survey
instrument
is
currently
being
pre­
tested,
as
described
in
Section
B.
3.
a,
below.

The
Agency
recognizes
that
some
medium­
sized
systems
(
and
a
few
large
CWSs)
may
not
have
cost
data
or
documentation
of
costs
for
some
projects.
In
those
cases,
the
survey
data
collection
instrument
requests
other
readily­
available
information
that
EPA
can
use
to
model
costs.
EPA
will
make
it
very
clear
to
respondents
that
they
are
not
expected
to
develop
cost
estimates
for
the
purposes
of
this
survey.
In
addition,
EPA
(
or
States)
will
provide
large
and
medium
CWSs
with
a
helpline
to
assist
them
in
completing
the
data
collection
instrument.

Sufficient
contract
funds
have
been
identified
to
complete
the
survey.
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
49
The
time
frame
for
the
survey
is
acceptable
to
the
users
of
data
within
the
Office
of
Ground
Water
and
Drinking
Water
and
sufficient
to
complete
a
report
to
Congress
by
its
anticipated
due
date
of
early
2005.
The
schedule
also
is
acceptable
to
other
users
of
the
data
including:
the
Indian
Health
Service
of
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Health
and
Human
Services,
State
drinking
water
administrators,
and
American
Indian
and
Alaska
Native
representatives.
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
50
B.
2
SURVEY
DESIGN
FOR
MEDIUM
AND
LARGE
CWSs
This
section
contains
a
detailed
description
of
the
statistical
survey
design
including
a
description
of
the
sampling
frame,
sample
identification,
precision
requirements,
data
collection
instrument,
pretest,
collection
methods,
and
follow­
up
procedures.

The
sample
design
for
the
Needs
Survey
is
based
on
the
concept
of
stratified
random
sampling
within
each
State.
Stratification
increases
the
precision
of
estimates
compared
with
a
simple
random
sample
of
a
target
population.
In
stratified
samples,
the
target
population
is
divided
into
non­
overlapping
groups,
known
as
strata,
from
which
separate
samples
are
drawn.
The
goal
of
stratified
sampling
is
to
choose
sample
sizes
within
each
stratum
in
a
manner
designed
to
obtain
maximum
precision
in
the
overall
estimate
for
the
population.
Stratification
variables
for
this
study
include:
population
size
(
populations
of
more
than
50,000,
populations
of
40,001
to
50,000,
25,001
to
40,000,
10,001
to
25,000,
and
3,301
to
10,000),
and
primary
source
of
supply
(
surface
and
ground).

There
are
two
steps
in
the
stratification
process.
The
first
step
is
to
compute
a
total
sample
size
for
the
target
populations
(
i.
e.,
systems
serving
populations
of
more
than
3,300
in
each
state)
that
will
provide
a
pre­
specified
level
of
precision.
For
example,
in
this
survey,
our
precision
target
is
to
be
95
percent
confident
that
the
true
need
lies
within
an
interval,
the
upper
and
lower
bounds
of
which
do
not
exceed
10
percent
of
the
sample
mean
(
or
estimated
need).
Once
a
total
sample
size
has
been
determined
for
the
entire
population
of
CWSs
serving
populations
of
more
than
3,300
in
a
State,
the
number
of
samples
to
be
taken
in
each
of
the
within­
State
strata
will
be
computed
(
or
allocated).
Samples
will
be
allocated
in
a
manner
that
minimizes
the
variance
of
the
variable
of
interest
(
total
capital
costs)
being
estimated
for
the
population
in
each
state.
For
the
allocation
of
samples
in
systems
serving
populations
of
more
than
3,300,
we
employ
an
allocation
method
referred
to
as
Neyman
allocation.
The
Neyman
allocation
is
described
in
detail
in
Section
B.
2.
b.
ii.

B.
2.
a
Target
Population
and
Coverage
The
target
population
is
CWSs
serving
populations
greater
than
3,300.
A
CWS
is
a
public
water
system
that
serves
at
least
15
service
connections
used
by
year­
round
residents
or
regularly
serves
at
least
25
year­
round
residents
(
40
CFR
141.2).

B.
2.
b
Sample
Design
This
section
describes
the
sample
design.
It
includes
a
description
of
the
sampling
frame,
target
sample
size,
stratification
variables,
and
sampling
method.
The
sampling
design
employed
is
a
stratified
random
sample
of
CWSs.
The
strata
employed
in
the
design
are
discussed
in
Section
B.
2.
b.
iii.
Neyman
allocation
is
used
to
efficiently
allocate
the
sample
of
water
systems
among
the
strata.
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
51
B.
2.
b.
i
Sampling
Frame
The
sampling
frame
is
developed
from
SDWIS.
SDWIS
is
a
centralized
database
for
information
on
public
water
systems,
including
their
compliance
with
monitoring
requirements,
maximum
contaminant
levels
(
MCLs),
and
other
requirements
of
the
SDWA
Amendments
of
1996.
The
following
information
will
be
extracted
from
SDWIS
for
the
statistical
survey
and
verified
by
participating
States:

°
Name
of
system
°
Address
of
system
°
Population
served
°
Total
design
capacity
°
Number
of
connections
°
Primary
source
(
surface
water
or
ground
water)
°
PWSID
°
Ownership
type
°
Consecutive
system
(
i.
e.,
does
system
purchase
or
sell
water)

From
these
data,
we
will
develop
a
list
frame
from
which
we
will
(
1)
calculate
summary
statistics
(
e.
g.,
number
of
systems
per
State
in
pre­
defined
strata)
for
use
in
calculating
sample
size,
and
(
2)
randomly
choose
systems
within
the
design
strata
from
which
take
part
in
the
survey.

Justification
for
the
Use
of
SDWIS
Criteria
often
used
in
assessing
a
proposed
sampling
frame
are:

°
It
fully
covers
the
target
population.
°
It
contains
no
duplication.
°
It
contains
no
foreign
elements
(
i.
e.,
elements
that
are
not
members
of
the
population).
°
It
contains
information
for
identifying
and
contacting
the
units
selected
in
the
sample.
°
It
contains
other
information
that
will
improve
the
efficiency
of
the
sample
design.

The
units
of
observation
for
this
medium
and
large
system
survey
are
CWSs,
a
subset
of
public
water
systems
(
PWSs).
SDWIS
is
the
ideal
choice
for
a
sample
frame
because
of
its
inclusive
coverage
of
all
units
of
observation
for
this
survey.
In
addition,
SDWIS
has
two
other
advantages:
it
contains
information
that
will
facilitate
contacting
the
respondents,
and
it
contains
other
information
that
is
useful
in
stratifying
the
sample,
thereby
improving
the
efficiency
of
the
sample
design.

In
previous
surveys
where
SDWIS
was
used
as
a
sample
frame,
there
have
been
criticisms
of
its
utility.
Since
1989,
EPA
has
conducted
audits
of
the
quality
of
SDWIS
data.
As
a
result,
EPA
is
aware
of
the
problems
with
SDWIS.
The
audits,
however,
show
the
following:

°
Errors
in
classification
of
systems
by
strata
proposed
for
this
survey
are
rare.
Audits
show
that
systems
are
misclassified
by
population
or
source
in
fewer
than
one
percent
of
all
cases.
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
52
Aspects
of
the
proposed
sample
design
that
mitigate
any
potential
problems
with
the
sample
frame
include
the
following:

°
The
survey
design
anticipates
substantial
State
involvement
in
the
survey
process.
Participating
States,
for
example,
will
be
checking
the
sample
frame
of
systems
that
will
be
used
to
determine
the
final
sample.
In
our
experience,
States
often
have
in­
house
data
systems
with
very
accurate
data,
particularly
on
medium­
and
large­
sized
CWSs.
Even
if
these
data
are
not
transmitted
to
SDWIS,
they
are
available
to
States
and
can
be
used
by
States
to
check
the
sample
frame.

B.
2.
b.
ii
Sample
Size
Exhibit
B­
2­
1
at
the
end
of
this
subsection
shows
the
preliminary
sample
sizes
for
the
survey.
As
shown
on
this
exhibit,
the
sampling
design
will
be
implemented
to
achieve
state­
level
precision
targets
for
medium
and
large
CWSs.
Precision
targets
are
discussed
in
Section
B.
2.
b.
iii.

The
task
of
designing
a
sample
size
requires
two
steps.
The
first
is
selecting
a
sample
size
for
each
State
that
achieves
the
precision
targets
for
that
state.
The
second
is
allocating
the
sample
across
the
relevant
strata
in
the
population.
As
stated
in
the
introduction
to
this
section,
we
have
ten
possible
strata
within
each
State,
based
on
five
population
categories
and
two
categories
for
source
of
supply.

These
strata
are:

Size
of
Population
Served
Source
Sample
Methodologies
More
than
50,000
Ground
Sampled
with
certainty
More
than
50,000
Surface
40,001
to
50,000
Ground
40,001
to
50,000
Surface
25,001
to
40,000
Ground
Random
sample.
In
some
States
the
number
of
strata
will
be
reduced
based
on
analysis
of
optimal
stratum
boundaries.
Specifically,
in
some
States
one
grouping
for
systems
serving
between
10,001
to
40,000,
will
be
used
(
versus
two
groupings
for
populations
of
10,001
to
25,000
and
25,000
to
40,000),
provided
the
survey's
precision
is
not
affected.
25,001
to
40,000
Surface
10,001
to
25,000
Ground
10,001
to
25,000
Surface
3,301
to
10,000
Ground
Random
sample.
3,301
to
10,000
Surface
The
first
step
in
selecting
sample
size
is
calculating
the
total
number
of
samples
required
at
the
State
level
to
meet
the
precision
requirements.
This
estimate
is
calculated
from:
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
14J.
Neyman,
"
On
the
Two
Different
Aspects
of
the
Representative
Method:
The
Method
of
Stratified
Sampling
and
the
Method
of
Purposive
Selection,"
Journal
of
the
Royal
Statistical
Society,
Vol.
97
(
1934),
pp.
558­
606;
as
cited
in
William
G.
Cochran,
Sampling
Techniques
(
New
York:
John
Wiley
&
Sons),
1977.

53
n
0g


H
h

1
N
gh
s
gh
2
V
g
(
4)

n
g

n
0g
1

1
V
g

H
h

1
N
gh
s
2
gh
(
5)
Where:
n0g
=
the
sample
size
prior
to
the
finite
population
correction
Ngh
=
the
total
number
of
systems
in
the
hth
stratum
in
the
gth
State
(
taken
from
SDWIS)

sgh
=
the
standard
deviation
of
the
variable
of
interest
for
the
hth
stratum
in
the
gth
State
(
taken
from
existing
1999
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
data)

H
=
the
number
of
strata
defined
in
the
sample
design
for
the
gth
State
Vg
=
the
desired
sampling
variance
for
the
total
medium
and
large
system
capital
needs
estimate
for
State
g.

The
desired
error
in
the
sample
estimate
can
be
expressed
as
a
relative
error
or
an
absolute
error.
From
a
relative
error
perspective,
one
often
specifies
the
desired
coefficient
of
variation
(
cv)
rather
than
the
desired
variance
of
the
sample
estimate.
In
Equation
1
above,
Vg
=
(
cv
*

g)
2.

g
is
an
estimate
of
the
total
capital
needs
for
a
given
state.

g
is
computed
for
each
State
by
calculating
the
mean
total
capital
needs
for
stratum
h
(
from
the
1999
Needs
Survey)
and
multiplying
by
the
actual
number
of
systems
in
each
stratum
for
that
State
(
Ngh).
Summing
across
strata
provides
an
estimate
of

g.

Because
the
number
of
water
systems
is
known
and
finite,
the
following
population
correction
is
applied:

The
second
step
involves
allocating
the
total
number
of
samples
to
each
of
the
six
strata
(
i.
e.,
we
will
randomly
draw
this
number
of
samples
from
each
of
these
strata).
The
Neyman
allocation
formula
is
used
for
the
allocation:
14
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
54
n
gh

n
g
N
gh
S
gh

H
h

1
N
gh
s
gh
(
6)

Note:
Since
large
systems
(
those
serving
populations
more
than
50,000)
are
to
be
sampled
with
certainty,
H
is
reduced
by
the
number
of
large­
system
strata
in
the
sample
design
for
the
large
and
medium
systems.

In
order
to
implement
these
sample
size
and
sample
allocation
equations,
we
needed
estimates
for
Vg,
Ngh,
sgh,
and
mean
total
capital
needs
by
stratum.
Information
on
mean
total
capital
needs
by
stratum
and
sgh
were
available
from
the
1999
Needs
Survey.

We
set
the
precision
level
for
the
estimate
of
capital
need
for
all
large
and
medium
systems
in
each
State
to
be
95
percent
confident
that
the
true
need
is
within
10
percent
of
the
estimated
need.
This
implies
a
cv
of
5.1
percent
(
i.
e.,
ten
percent
divided
by
1.96).
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
55
Exhibit
B­
2­
1
State
Sample
Sizes
State
Total
Number
of
Medium
and
Large
Systems
Estimated
Sample
Size
for
Medium
and
Large
Systems
Alabama
242
105
Alaska
15
13
American
Samoa
1
1
Arizona
85
60
Arkansas
159
112
California
620
253
Colorado
96
67
Connecticut
58
40
Delaware
11
10
District
of
Columbia
1
1
Florida
370
121
Georgia
183
91
Guam
3
3
Hawaii
28
21
Idaho
38
25
Illinois
434
114
Indiana
180
103
Iowa
113
93
Kansas
84
39
Kentucky
219
111
Louisiana
197
81
Maine
32
15
Maryland
49
35
Massachusetts
238
75
Michigan
261
81
Minnesota
142
74
Mississippi
156
99
Missouri
162
54
Montana
28
26
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
State
Total
Number
of
Medium
and
Large
Systems
Estimated
Sample
Size
for
Medium
and
Large
Systems
56
Nebraska
42
20
Nevada
25
20
New
Hampshire
34
26
New
Jersey
228
67
New
Mexico
51
52
New
York
305
305
North
Carolina
225
93
North
Dakota
23
19
Northern
Mariana
Islands
1
4
Ohio
304
94
Oklahoma
137
69
Oregon
95
51
Pennsylvania
314
115
Puerto
Rico
113
63
Rhode
Island
26
25
South
Carolina
141
80
South
Dakota
29
20
Tennessee
231
108
Texas
742
181
Utah
88
41
Vermont
30
25
Virgin
Islands
3
3
Virginia
122
85
Washington
181
60
West
Virginia
74
36
Wisconsin
156
57
Wyoming
24
25
Total
7,949
3,667
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
15For
the
purposes
of
this
survey,
purchased
surface
water
systems
are
included
with
ground
water
systems.
This
design
yields
lower
within­
stratum
variance.

16For
purposes
of
burden
calculation,
we
assume
100
percent
response.
New
York
State
has
indicated
that
it
plans
to
increase
its
sample
size
by
187
systems
in
order
to
achieve
a
census
of
its
systems.
This
will
not
affect
the
statistical
precision
of
the
estimate.
However,
for
completeness,
we
are
including
these
187
systems
in
the
burden
estimate.

57
B.
2.
b.
iii
Stratification
Variables
The
objective
of
stratification
is
to
increase
the
efficiency
of
the
sampling
design
(
thereby
reducing
the
number
of
samples
required
at
any
level
of
precision)
by
the
creation
of
independent
strata.
Stratified
sampling
may
produce
a
gain
in
precision
in
the
estimates
of
the
characteristics
of
the
target
population
as
compared
to
simple
random
sampling.
In
stratified
sampling,
the
target
population
(
e.
g.,
the
State)
is
divided
into
non­
overlapping
strata
that
are
internally
homogeneous,
in
that
the
measurements
vary
little
from
one
unit
to
another
(
i.
e.,
the
within
strata
variance
is
minimized).
If
the
within­
stratum
variance
is
relatively
small,
then
a
precise
estimate
of
the
variable
of
interest
can
be
obtained
with
a
relatively
small
number
of
samples.
Each
of
the
strata
estimates
can
be
combined
to
obtain
a
precise
estimate
for
the
target
population.
If
the
strata
are
constructed
correctly,
the
target
population
estimate
can
be
achieved
with
greater
precision
and
with
fewer
samples
than
the
estimate
obtained
from
simple
random
sampling.

EPA's
drinking
water
programs
have
historically
evaluated
CWSs
based
on
(
1)
size
(
number
of
persons
served
by
the
CWS),
and
(
2)
primary
source
(
ground
water
and
surface
water).
15
Using
total
capital
need
information
obtained
from
the
1999
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey,
we
evaluated
several
classification
schemes.
This
analysis
showed
that
the
stratification
scheme
selected
for
this
survey
(
ten
strata
based
on
size
and
source)
was
reasonable.
Some
states
may
have
a
different
number
of
strata;
this
accommodated
using
their
data
as
it
is
currently
organized.
Varying
strata
will
be
permitted
only
when
the
survey's
overall
precision
is
not
affected.

B.
2.
b.
iv
Sampling
Method
As
indicated
above,
all
CWSs
serving
populations
of
more
than
40,000
will
be
sampled
with
certainty.

For
systems
serving
3,301
to
40,000
persons,
all
CWSs
will
be
allocated
to
six
strata,
based
on
population
served
and
primary
source.
The
sample
size
for
each
stratum
in
each
State
will
be
determined
by
the
sampling
strategy
outlined
above.
The
sampling
method
will
be
an
equal
probability
systematic
sample
within
each
stratum.
Anticipating
a
level
of
non­
response,
we
will
over­
sample
to
achieve
the
desired
number
of
completed
data
collection
instruments.
Since
the
expected
response
rate
for
systems
serving
3,301
to
40,000
persons
is
90
percent,
we
will
draw
a
sample
of
2,588.16
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
58
B.
2.
b.
v
Multi­
Stage
Sampling
The
design
does
not
include
multi­
stage
sampling.

B.
2.
c
Precision
Requirements
B.
2.
c.
i
Precision
Targets
The
sampling
design
for
large
and
medium
systems
will
be
implemented
at
the
State
level.
Our
goal
is
to
be
95
percent
confident
that
the
margin
of
error,
when
estimating
the
total
capital
needs
facing
these
systems
in
each
State
will
be
plus
or
minus
10
percent
of
the
sample
mean.
For
example,
if
the
total
need
for
these
systems
in
a
State
is
estimated
to
be
$
2
billion,
we
will
be
95
percent
confident
that
the
actual
total
need
is
between
$
1.8
billion
and
$
2.2
billion.

B.
2.
c.
ii
Nonsampling
Error
EPA
has
developed
a
survey
approach
that
will
employ
several
quality
assurance
techniques
to
maximize
response
rates,
response
accuracy,
and
processing
accuracy
to
minimize
nonsampling
error.
A
pretest
will
supplement
the
experience
of
EPA
and
its
contractors
(
The
Cadmus
Group,
Inc.)
in
formulating
a
strategy
to
reduce
non­
sampling
error.

Particular
emphasis
will
be
placed
on
maximizing
response
rate.
Standard
methods
that
have
proved
effective
in
other
surveys
of
CWSs
will
be
used.
These
include:

°
States
will
review
the
sample
of
systems
to
receive
the
mail
survey
instrument
and
will
ensure
that
the
best
person
to
receive
the
data
collection
instrument
is
determined
in
advance.

°
EPA
and
the
States
will
coordinate
in
the
production
of
a
cover
letter
for
the
survey.
EPA's
opinion
(
shared
by
State
drinking
water
administrators,
trade
associations,
and
public
water
systems),
is
that
surveys
on
State
letterhead
will
be
better
received
than
letters
on
EPA
letterhead.
Therefore,
States
can
use
State­
level
cover
letters
signed
by
a
senior
State
official
instead
of
the
EPA
letter.

°
The
data
collection
instrument
design,
content,
and
format
have
been
reviewed
by
organizations
representing
CWSs.
In
addition,
the
data
collection
instrument
design,
content,
and
format
were
reviewed
by
States
that
participated
in
the
1995
and
1999
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Surveys.

°
The
data
collection
instrument
design,
content,
and
format
will
be
pretested
to
ensure
that
all
questions
are
properly
stated
and
can
be
answered
by
all
systems
in
the
mail
survey.
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
59
°
Items
being
asked
are
those
that
owners
or
operators
of
systems
serving
populations
greater
than
3,300
should
know.
We
do
not
ask
for
items
that
require
monitoring,
research,
or
calculations
on
the
part
of
the
respondent.

°
The
data
collection
instrument
design
is
limited
to
12
pages.
By
limiting
the
information
requested,
we
believe
that
the
average
respondent
can
complete
the
instrument
in
approximately
4
hours.

°
Toll­
free
phone
numbers
will
be
provided
to
help
respondents
with
questions
or
problems.
In
addition,
respondents
will
be
encouraged
to
call
State
personnel
who
will
be
trained
to
answer
questions.

°
Pre­
paid
return
envelopes
will
be
provided
to
respondents
to
make
returning
the
data
collection
instrument
convenient.

Standard
methods
to
reduce
other
sources
of
non­
sampling
error
also
will
be
used.

°
We
expect
complete
coverage
of
the
target
population
using
SDWIS,
supplemented
by
State
agency
review
of
all
systems.

°
Data
will
be
100
percent
independently
keyed
and
verified.

°
The
data
collection
instrument
is
precoded
to
improve
accuracy
by
eliminating
unnecessary
processing
steps.

Supplementing
these
standard
methods,
EPA
proposes
several
unique
steps
to
eliminate
nonsampling
error,
which
have
been
developed
in
concert
with
organizations
representing
the
States
and
CWSs.
These
organizations
believe
that
the
survey
is
important
and
that
a
high
level
of
participation
by
all
CWSs
is
essential
to
its
success.
Because
of
the
substantial
commitment
being
made
by
States
and
CWSs
to
this
survey,
we
believe
that
response
rates
will
be
higher
than
most
surveys
of
similar
respondents.
To
ensure
success,
States
and
organizations
representing
CWSs
are
taking
the
following
steps.

°
Participation
of
the
States.
Because
the
Needs
Survey
will
be
used
to
allocate
DWSRF
funds
to
States,
each
State
has
a
strong
interest
in
achieving
a
high
response
rate.
EPA
believes
that
State
participation
will
be
a
key
factor
in
guaranteeing
high
response
rate
and
low
item
non­
response.
State
personnel
who
work
with
CWSs
every
day
are
in
a
strong
position
to
encourage
systems
to
complete
the
survey
form.
These
States
have
committed
to
assisting
EPA
in
achieving
a
high
response
rate
by
participating
in
follow­
up
activities.
The
States
also
will
be
available
for
technical
assistance
for
any
system
that
has
questions
about
the
survey.
All
States
have
already
agreed
to
participate
in
the
survey.

°
Participation
of
Organizations
Representing
CWSs.
EPA
anticipates
public
support
of
organizations
representing
CWSs.
The
prior
surveys
were
supported
by
groups
such
as:
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
60
the
American
Water
Works
Association,
the
National
Association
of
Water
Companies,
and
the
Association
of
Metropolitan
Water
Agencies.

This
support
by
the
organizations
representing
the
respondents
for
this
survey
can
be
helpful
in
many
ways
to
minimize
non­
sampling
errors.
For
example,

 
These
associations
are
likely
to
agree
to
prepare
a
letter
for
each
system
in
their
membership,
stressing
the
importance
of
this
survey
of
drinking
water
infrastructure
needs.
This
letter,
along
with
the
letter
from
the
States,
should
make
systems
more
likely
to
respond.

 
In
the
past
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Surveys,
the
largest
association
representing
CWSs
serving
populations
greater
than
3,300
 
the
American
Water
Works
Association
(
AWWA)
 
agreed
to
put
the
support
of
its
national
organization
behind
the
survey.
To
improve
the
response
rate,
the
AWWA
enlisted
of
the
support
of
its
State
affiliates
(
called
"
Sections")
in
telephone
followup
to
encourage
response.
AWWA
assisted
in
past
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
to
help
achieve
the
overall
response
rate
of
94
percent.
EPA
hopes
to
secure
similar
AWWA
support
for
this
survey.

°
Communications
Strategy.
EPA
has
developed
a
comprehensive
communications
strategy
that
will
inform
likely
respondents
of
the
need
for
their
participation.
This
strategy
includes
articles
in
magazines,
newsletters,
and
bulletins
of
all
major
organizations
that
represent
(
or
communicate
with)
CWSs.
This
includes
publications
of
all
of
the
organizations
mentioned
above,
plus
the
State
and
local
affiliates
of
these
organizations.
The
strategy
is
designed
to
develop
widespread
peer­
group
support
for
participation
in
the
survey.

B.
2.
d
Data
Collection
Instrument
Design
Questions
about
system
characteristics
(
name,
population
served,
number
of
connections,
and
other
customary
business
information)
will
be
pre­
printed
on
all
data
collection
instruments.
The
respondent
needs
only
to
enter
accurate
information
if
any
pre­
printed
information
is
not
correct.

The
survey
is
based
on
matrices
that
requests
a
list
of
capital
projects
that
the
system
plans
for
the
period
2003
through
2022.
For
each
project
listed,
the
system
is
asked
to
provide:
type
of
need;
documentation
of
need
and
cost
(
if
necessary);
if
the
project
is
a
new
project
or
rehabilitation
of
existing
infrastructure;
if
the
project
is
needed
now
to
protect
public
health
or
if
it
is
needed
over
the
next
20
years
to
continue
to
provide
safe
drinking
water;
if
the
project
is
to
meet
a
current
regulation
or
state
requirement
then
what
regulation
or
requirement;
design
capacity
of
source,
storage,
and
treatment
projects;
cost
of
the
project;
and
date
of
the
cost
estimate.
For
most
of
these
variables,
respondents
will
choose
the
appropriate
"
documentation,"
"
type
of
need,"
or
"
regulation
or
requirement,"
from
the
Lists
of
Codes.
All
matrices
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
61
have
been
designed
to
be
concise,
to
avoid
jargon,
and
to
avoid
ambiguous
words
or
instructions.
Terms
and
formats
have
been
standardized
to
the
extent
possible.
There
is
no
intentional
bias
in
the
ordering
of
the
items.
All
design
features
will
be
tested
in
the
pretest.
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
62
B.
3
PRETESTS
AND
PILOT
TEST
B.
3.
a
Pretests
EPA
will
conduct
a
pretest
of
the
instrument
in
order
to
receive
feedback
on
the
effectiveness
of
the
instrument,
highlight
imprecise,
ambiguous,
or
redundant
questions,
and
indicate
where
further
inquiry
is
needed.
The
pretest
will
include
nine
randomly
selected
systems
from
Maryland.
Both
large
and
medium
systems
will
be
pretested.

The
pretest
will
be
conducted
by
EPA's
contractor,
The
Cadmus
Group,
Inc.,
and
a
report
should
be
completed
by
August
18,
2002.
Results
will
be
submitted
to
OMB
as
soon
as
it
is
complete.

B.
3.
b
Pilot
Test
EPA
will
not
conduct
a
pilot
test
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey.
A
pilot
test
was
conducted
for
the
1995
Needs
Survey
and
consisted
of
60
CWSs
from
New
York
and
Texas.
To
eliminate
unnecessary
burden
on
States
and
CWSs,
it
has
been
decided
that
no
pilot
test
for
the
2003
Needs
Survey
will
be
conducted.
The
procedures
for
mailing
the
data
collection
instruments
and
collecting
the
data
are
the
same
as
was
used
for
the
1995
and
1999
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Surveys.
EPA
believes
these
procedures
are
well
tested
and
have
proven
to
be
successful;
therefore,
it
is
not
necessary
repeat
this
testing
step.
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
63
B.
4
COLLECTION
METHODS
AND
FOLLOW­
UP
B.
4.
a
Collection
Method
The
collection
method
proposed
is
a
mail
survey.
The
study
data
collection
instrument
and
Lists
of
Codes
will
be
mailed
to
all
systems
in
the
sample.
State
drinking
water
agencies
will
begin
follow­
up
if
the
mail
data
collection
instrument
has
not
been
returned
in
30
days.
For
a
complete
description
of
the
followup
procedures
proposed
to
increase
response
rate,
see
the
following
paragraph.

B.
4.
b
Survey
Response
and
Follow­
up
The
target
response
rate
for
the
survey
(
defined
as
the
ratio
of
responses
to
eligible
respondents)
is
90
percent.
We
realize
that
this
is
an
ambitious
target,
but
we
believe
that
there
are
special
circumstances
that
warrant
such
a
target
and
overall
response
rates
of
94
percent
and
97
percent
were
achieved
in
the
1995
and
1999
surveys,
respectively.
In
the
first
two
surveys,
we
conducted
the
following
proposed
activities
to
achieve
that
high
response
rate.

°
Support
from
the
Respondent
Population.
This
is
a
national
survey
of
infrastructure
needs
for
drinking
water
systems.
These
systems,
as
well
as
all
national
organizations
representing
these
systems,
understand
the
importance
of
the
survey
results.
All
national
organizations
have
endorsed
the
survey
and
have
communicated
the
importance
of
a
high
response
rate
to
their
members.
As
discussed
in
Section
B.
2.
c
(
above),
organizations
have
provided
access
to
their
newsletters
and
magazines
to
publicize
and
endorse
participation
in
the
survey.

°
Follow­
up
by
States
and
Respondent
Peer
Groups.
Abt
Associates
Inc.,
our
survey
subcontractor
for
this
effort,
is
experienced
in
standard
follow­
up
procedures
for
mail
surveys.
Since
the
vast
majority
of
participating
States
have
indicated
their
willingness
to
participate
in
follow­
up
activities,
these
procedures
will
be
implemented
by
State
personnel,
most
of
whom
are
personally
familiar
with
the
respondents.
Procedures
that
States
will
use
include
reminder
letters
and
telephone
follow­
up.
In
States
that
elect
not
to
participate
in
follow­
up,
the
EPA
contractor
will
conduct
these
activities.
If
the
follow­
up
fails
after
three
attempts
(
one
reminder
letter
plus
two
telephone
follow­
ups),
we
will
shift
to
a
second
approach:
peer­
group
follow­
up
by
members
of
a
trade
association,
such
as
AWWA.
Procedures
to
be
used
by
the
association
include
a
reminder
letter
followed
by
telephone
calls.
Such
involvement
is
likely
to
improve
the
survey's
response
rate.
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
64
B.
5
ANALYZING
AND
REPORTING
SURVEY
RESULTS
B.
5.
a
Data
Preparation
State
personnel
will
check
all
cost
data
and
documentation
to
ensure
that
it
is
consistent
with
State
and
national
standards.
States
will
then
send
the
completed
and
reviewed
data
collection
instruments
to
EPA
for
a
second
round
of
review
by
EPA
contractor
staff.

Once
data
have
been
checked,
the
contractor
will
key
and
verify
the
data.
Senior
data
entry
staff
will
be
used
for
the
verification
process
to
improve
quality
control.
Editing
will
include
automated
logic
and
range
checks,
and
checks
for
missing
data.
Missing
cost
data
will
be
modeled,
using
other
information
provided
by
the
respondents
on
the
data
collection
instrument.
When
modeling
is
insufficient,
missing
data
will
be
imputed
using
the
standard
methods
such
as
cell
means
and
regression.
The
sample
of
CWSs
will
be
weighted
so
that
stratum
estimates
can
be
summed
to
prepare
state­
level
estimates.

B.
5.
b
Analysis
EPA
will
prepare
a
report
that
tabulates
the
results
of
the
survey
and
explains
the
precision
of
the
State­
level
estimates
of
total
capital
needs.
Examples
of
statistics
that
will
be
produced
include:

°
Eligible
capital
needs
by
State
and
by
"
types
of
need."

°
Total
capital
needs
by
State
and
by
types
of
need.

°
Total
capital
needs
by
domains
within
the
total
population,
e.
g.,
systems
serving
populations
greater
than
50,000.

°
Mean
and
median
statistics
on
total
capital
needs
(
by
type
of
need)
for
systems
of
various
sizes.
(
These
statistics
will
be
of
particular
interest
to
participating
respondents
who
will
receive
a
short
summary
of
these
statistics.)

°
Standard
errors
will
be
calculated
for
key
statistics.

The
analysis
will
be
similar
to
that
done
for
the
1999
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
and
previous
Clean
Water
Needs
Surveys.
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
65
B.
5.
c
Reporting
Results
The
survey
results
will
be
made
available
to
EPA
and
the
public
through:

°
A
printed
report
that
is
submitted
to
Congress
on
drinking
water
infrastructure
needs.
This
report
will
be
distributed
to
all
participants
in
the
survey
and
all
interested
offices
at
EPA.

°
Micro­
computer
access
to
State
data
(
each
State
can
access
only
its
own
data).

°
Micro­
computer
access
to
the
entire
database
(
EPA
only).

A
report
containing
all
technical
information
(
data
collection
instrument,
sampling
plan,
response
rates,
and
variances)
will
be
prepared
and
distributed.
Record
layouts,
codes,
and
complete
file
documentation
will
be
developed
for
data
users
(
both
micro­
computer
and
mainframe
users).
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
66
This
page
intentionally
left
blank.
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
67
Appendix
A
Public
Notice
Required
Prior
to
ICR
Submission
to
OMB
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
68
This
page
intentionally
left
blank.
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
69
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
70
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
71
Appendix
B
Data
Collection
Instrument
and
Lists
of
Codes
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
72
This
page
intentionally
left
blank.
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Washington,
DC
20460
OMB
No.:

Approval
Expires:

Federal
PWSID
No.:

Please
verify
or
correct
the
following
information:
Check
if
Correct
as
Printed
Corrected
Information
(
Fill
in
only
if
pre­
printed
information
is
missing
or
incorrect)

Name
of
System
(
Community):

Name
of
Contact:

Street
Address:

City,
State,
and
Zip:

Ownership
Type:
Check
All
That
Apply:
Public
Investor­
owned/
Private
Native
American
Federal
Government
Population
Served
(
if
seller,
include
population
of
systems
sold
to):

Number
of
Connections:

Total
Design
Capacity:

Source:
Check
All
That
Apply:
Ground
Surface/
GWUDI
Purchased
Ground
Purchased
Surface/
GWUDI
Public
reporting
burden
for
this
collection
of
information
is
estimated
to
average
4
hours
per
response.
This
estimate
includes
time
for
reviewing
the
instructions,
searching
existing
data
sources,
gathering
and
maintaining
the
data
needed,
and
completing
and
reviewing
the
information
collection.
Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
person
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;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions;
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.

Send
comments
on
the
Agency's
need
for
this
information,
the
accuracy
of
the
provided
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
through
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques
to
the
Director,
OPPI,
Regulatory
Information
Division,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
1804A),
Ariel
Rios
Building,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20460;
and
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
725
17th
Street,
N.
W.,
Washington,
DC
20503.

State
Use
Only
State
Reviewer:
Telephone
Number:
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
74
Information
provided
for
this
survey
can
be
requested
by
the
public;
however,
it
is
our
experience
that
this
information
is
rarely
requested.
09­
19­
02
draft
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
Overview
What
is
the
Purpose
of
the
Survey?

$
The
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
captures
the
20­
year
(
January
1,
2003
to
December
31,
2022)
infrastructure
needs
of
public
water
systems
eligible
for
Drinking
Water
State
Revolving
Fund
(
DWSRF)
monies.
The
DWSRF
provides
loans
and
other
forms
of
financial
assistance
to
water
systems.
Infrastructure
needs
are
those
that
would
preserve
the
physical
integrity
of
a
water
system
and
protect
public
health.
The
results
of
this
survey
will
document
the
total
national
and
State­
specific
infrastructure
need
for
drinking
water
systems.

$
The
results
of
the
survey
are
used
to
allocate
DWSRF
monies
to
the
States
for
fiscal
years
2006
through
2009.
Your
participation
is
critical
to
the
success
of
the
survey
and
to
your
State's
DWSRF
allotment.

How
Does
the
Survey
Work?

$
Over
4,000
of
the
55,000
community
water
systems
across
the
country
have
been
selected
to
participate
in
the
survey.
Their
infrastructure
needs
will
be
used
to
statistically
represent
the
total
national
need
and
the
proportional
needs
of
their
State.

$
The
20­
year
need
for
each
participating
system
is
extrapolated
to
represent
the
total
need
for
each
State.

What
is
My
Role?

$
Please
record
infrastructure
projects
to
meet
the
needs
of
current
water
users
over
the
20­
year
survey
period.
Each
project
must
be
documented
or
described
to
show
it
would
address
a
current
or
future
water
quality
and/
or
quantity
deficiency.
Please
provide
project
costs,

if
cost
documentation
is
available.
For
projects
without
documented
costs,
please
provide
design
parameters
(
e.
g.,
length
and
diameter
of
pipe
needed)
so
EPA
can
model
the
costs.

How
is
the
Questionnaire
Organized?

$
The
questionnaire
consists
of
three
separate
tables
on
which
water
system
projects
are
recorded.
The
tables
address
the
categories
of
the
type
of
projects
listed
below:

­
Transmission
and
Distribution
Projects.

­
Source,
Treatment,
Finished
or
Treated
Water
Storage,
Pumping,

and
Other
Projects.

­
Backflow
Prevention
Devices/
Assemblies,
Flushing
Hydrants,

Service
Lines,
Valves,
and
Water
Meter
Projects.

$
Examples
of
typical
projects
and
how
they
would
be
recorded
on
the
questionnaire
are
provided
for
each
category
of
need.

$
Some
projects
may
fall
into
more
than
one
of
these
categories.
If
so,
please
record
each
component
of
a
project
in
the
appropriate
table.
For
example:
a
project
to
replace
distribution
mains
and
install
a
new
elevated
storage
tank
would
include
the
pipe
and
appurtenances
on
the
Transmission
and
Distribution
Projects
table
(
page
4)
and
the
tank
on
the
Source,

Treatment,
Storage,
Pumping,
and
Other
Projects
table
(
page
8).
If
a
documented
cost
is
provided,
please
divide
the
cost
between
each
project
component
based
on
their
proportional
contribution
to
the
total
cost.
How
is
Project
Information
Recorded?

$
Please
record
individual
infrastructure
projects
on
the
questionnaire
using
the
"
Instructions
and
Lists
of
Codes"
(
purple
booklet)
included
in
the
questionnaire
packet.
The
booklet
provides
instructions
for
each
column
on
the
tables
and
provides
the
appropriate
codes.

Projects
with
multiple
parts
should
be
presented
in
separate
entries
on
the
appropriate
project
tables
(
e.
g.,
a
project
with
a
storage
tank
and
8­
inch
and
12­
inch
distribution
mains
would
have
one
entry
in
the
Source,
Treatment,
Storage,
Pumping,
and
Other
Projects
table
and
two
entries
in
the
Transmission
and
Distribution
Projects
table).

$
Supplemental
sheets
for
each
table
are
included
in
the
questionnaire
packet.
These
blank
sheets
may
be
copied
and
included
with
the
appropriate
section
if
additional
pages
are
necessary
to
list
all
projects.
Each
project
category
has
an
associated
numbering
system
(
indicated
in
each
section
of
the
questionnaire).
Please
assign
sequential
numbers
to
projects
if
additional
pages
are
used.
There
is
a
box
at
the
bottom
of
each
project
table
that
should
be
marked
to
indicate
supplemental
sheets
are
included
with
additional
projects.

What
Types
of
Projects
Should
Be
Included?

$
Infrastructure
projects
should
be
included
that
are
needed
now
as
well
as
projects
needed
through
calendar
year
2022
to
provide
adequate
water
quality
and
quantity
to
current
users.
"
List
1
­
Type
of
Need"

in
the
accompanying
booklet,
"
Instructions
and
Lists
of
Codes,"
lists
codes
for
typical
projects.
Scanning
this
list
may
help
clarify
the
types
of
projects
to
be
included.

$
Examples
of
typical
projects
are
provided
as
an
introduction
to
each
table
in
the
questionnaire.
Brief
project
descriptions
are
also
provided
as
examples
of
adequate
documentation/
descriptions
of
project
need.

$
Projects
may
be
for
new
construction
or
to
upgrade/
rehabilitate
existing
infrastructure.
However,
projects
are
recorded
only
once
during
the
20­
year
survey
period,
even
if
they
will
occur
more
than
once
within
that
time
frame
(
such
as
for
a
tank
rehabilitation
that
may
occur
every
10­
15
years).

$
Projects
must
not
have
begun
construction
prior
to
January
1,
2003.

If
construction
has
begun
by
January
1,
2003
phases
of
the
project
should
be
included
if
their
construction
begins
at
a
later
date.

What
Types
of
Projects
Should
Not
Be
Included?

$
Do
not
include
the
following
types
of
projects:

­
Projects
solely
for
fire
flow,
fire
protection,
or
ISA
ratings
­
Projects
solely
to
meet
demand
of
expected
future
growth
­
Projects
to
encourage
future
expansion
or
development
that
do
not
also
serve
existing
customers
­
Projects
for
land
acquisition
not
associated
with
siting
of
an
infrastructure
component
(
e.
g.,
land
purchase
to
locate
a
tank
would
be
eligible)

­
Projects
that
do
not
construct
infrastructure
(
e.
g.,
studies,

watershed
control
programs,
staff,
operations
and
maintenance
costs,
monitoring
costs)

­
Projects
for
dams
or
raw
water
reservoirs
$
If
existing
documentation
implies
projects
are
for
one
of
the
above
reasons,
additional
or
replacement
documentation
or
project
descriptions
may
be
used
to
clarify
that
the
project
would
address
a
water
quality,
water
quantity,
or
physical
integrity
deficiency.

If
you
have
any
questions,
refer
to
Page
12
(
last
page)
to
see
who
to
call
for
help.
Transmission
and
Distribution
Projects
Transmission
and
distribution
projects
are
the
piping
needs
of
a
water
system.
Projects
for
valves,
hydrants,
and
meters
that
are
not
part
of
a
transmission
or
distribution
project
listed
in
this
table
should
be
recorded
in
the
table
on
page
11.

To
ensure
all
potential
projects
are
considered,
it
may
be
helpful
to
complete
this
simple
inventory
for
your
system's
existing
piping
needs
(
a
rough
estimate
is
acceptable):

Inventory
Needing
Replacement
Needing
Upgrading
or
Rehabilitation
Needing
New
Pipe
Total
Length
of
Existing
Transmission
Mains:
Feet
Miles
Transmission
mains
are
any
mains
that
transport
raw
water
to
the
treatment
plant,

or
treated
water
from
the
plant
to
the
distribution
system
grid.
Percentage
or
Length
of
Existing
Transmission
Mains:

(
e.
g.,
installation
of
pipe
in
new
area
or
replacement
of
existing
pipe)
Percentage
or
Length
of
Existing
Transmission
Mains:

(
e.
g.,
pigging
or
lining)
Does
your
system
have
needs
for
additional
transmission
mains
to
meet
the
needs
of
current
customers
(
e.
g.,
provide
a
second
main
to
an
isolated
area)?
(
check
one)
Yes
No
If
yes,
what
additional
lengths
and
sizes
are
needed?

Total
Length
of
Existing
Distribution
Mains:
Feet
Miles
Distribution
mains
are
any
mains
that
transport
water
through
a
piping
grid
serving
customers.
Percentage
or
Length
of
Existing
Distribution
Mains:

(
e.
g.,
installation
of
pipe
in
new
area
or
replacement
of
existing
pipe)
Percentage
or
Length
of
Existing
Distribution
Mains:

(
e.
g.,
pigging
or
lining)
Does
your
system
have
needs
for
additional
distribution
mains
to
meet
the
needs
of
current
customers
(
e.
g.,
to
eliminate
dead­
end
mains)?(
check
one)
Yes
No
If
yes,
what
additional
lengths
and
sizes
are
needed?

Examples
of
Projects
for
the
Transmission
and
Distribution
Project
Table:

$
Example
1
is
for
18,000
feet
of
old
and
deteriorated
12­
inch
diameter
distribution
mains
which
need
to
be
rehabilitated
now.
No
cost
is
available.
A
brief
description
of
the
need
and
extent
of
the
project,
such
as
the
first
sentence
of
this
example,
is
submitted
by
the
system.

$
Example
2
is
for
20,000
feet
of
old
8­
inch
diameter
pipe
which
needs
to
be
replaced
now
to
continue
to
provide
water
to
the
users.
Cost
is
from
the
CIP.

$
Examples
3
and
4
are
for
installation
of
15,200
feet
of
new
12­
inch
diameter
transmission
pipe
and
2,000
feet
of
8­
inch
transmission
pipe
to
connect
existing
nearby
homes
without
a
supply
of
safe
drinking
water.
Although
this
is
considered
one
project
by
the
utility,
it
is
recorded
as
two
entries
on
the
project
table.

Project
Number
Project
Name
Type
of
Need
(
List
1)
Reason
for
Need
(
List
2)
New
or
Upgrade
Current
or
Future
Regulation
(
List
3)
Diameter
of
Pipe
(
Inches)
Length
of
Pipe
(
Feet)
Cost
Estimate
Date
of
Cost
Estimate
(
Month/
Year)
Documentation
(
List
4)

Example
1
Pigging
Mains
M1
A1
U
C
N/
A
12
18,000
N/
A
N/
A
10
Example
2
Replace
Galvanized
Pipe
M1
A1
N
C
N/
A
8
20,000
$
1,200,000
06/
00
1
Example
3
Connect
existing
homes­
8"
X2
A11
N
C
N/
A
8
2,000
N/
A
N/
A
10
Example
4
Connect
existing
homes­
12"
X2
A11
N
C
N/
A
12
15,200
N/
A
N/
A
10
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
78
Transmission
and
Distribution
Project
Table
Using
the
completed
simple
inventory,
capital
improvement
plans,
or
other
existing
planning
documents
and
resources,
please
identify
and
document
projects
on
the
table
below.

Project
Number
Project
Name
Type
of
Need
(
List
1)
Reason
for
Need
(
List
2)
New
or
Upgrade
Current
or
Future
Regulatio
n
(
List
3)
Diameter
of
Pipe
(
Inches)
Length
of
Pipe
(
Feet)
Cost
Estimate
Date
of
Cost
Estimate
(
Month/
Year)
Documentation
(
List
4)

1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
If
you
have
more
transmission
or
distribution
projects
check
this
box
and
continue
on
a
supplemental
sheet.
Project
numbers
for
these
projects
are
1000­
1999,
and
should
be
numbered
in
sequence.

EPA
needs
documentation
of
all
data
provided.
Applicable
types
of
documentation
are
presented
in
List
4
of
the
Lists
of
Codes.
Use
only
existing
documentation
of
cost.
We
do
not
expect
you
to
develop
new
cost
estimates.
Source,
Treatment,
Storage,
Pumping,
and
Other
Projects
Source
projects
are
all
projects
related
to
collecting
and
pumping
raw
water.
This
includes
wells,
surface
water
intakes,
springs,
off­
stream
raw
water
storage,
pumps,
and
well
houses.

Treatment
projects
are
all
projects
related
to
disinfection,
filtration,
or
other
treatment
processes
for
ground
or
surface
water
sources,
or
for
treatment
applied
in
the
distribution
system.

Storage,
pumping,
and
other
projects
are
related
to
finished
or
treated
water
storage,
booster
pump
stations,
and
miscellaneous
items
such
as
emergency
generators
and
SCADA
or
telemetry
projects.

To
ensure
all
potential
projects
are
considered,
it
may
be
helpful
to
complete
this
simple
inventory
for
your
system's
sources,
treatment,
storage,

and
pumping
facilities:

Source
Water
Inventory
Needing
Replacement
Needing
Upgrading
or
Rehabilitation
Needing
New
Source
Water
Capacity
Total
Number
of
Existing
Wells
or
Springs:
Wells
(
including
pumps):
Wells
or
Springs
(
including
pumps):
Does
your
system
have
additional
source
water
capacity
needs
to
meet
the
needs
of
current
users?
(
check
one)

Yes
No
Total
Number
of
Existing
Surface
Water
Intakes:
Existing
Surface
Water
Intakes
(
excluding
pumps):
Existing
Surface
Water
Intakes
(
excluding
pumps):
If
yes,
how
many
additional
sources
are
necessary?

Existing
Pumps
(
but
not
wells):
Existing
Pumps
(
but
not
wells):

Existing
Raw
Water
Pumps:
Existing
Raw
Water
Pumps:

Treatment
Inventory
Needing
Replacement
Needing
Upgrading
or
Rehabilitation
Needing
New
Treatment
Capacity
For
the
sources
identified
above,
enter
the
number
of
locations
where
the
following
treatment
is
applied:

Disinfection
Disinfection
Disinfection
Does
your
system
have
additional
treatment
needs
for
provision
of
additional
public
health
protection
or
for
aesthetic
concerns?
(
check
one)
Yes
No
Filtration
Filtration
Filtration
If
yes,
what
additional
treatment
is
necessary?

Chemical
removal
Chemical
removal
Chemical
removal
Storage
and
Pump
Stations
Inventory
Needing
Replacement
Needing
Upgrading
or
Rehabilitation
Needing
New
Storage
and/
or
Pumping
Capacity
Total
Number
of
Existing
Elevated
or
Ground­
Level
Storage
Tanks:
Number
of
Existing
Elevated
or
Ground­

Level
Storage
Tanks:
Number
of
Existing
Elevated
or
Ground­

Level
Storage
Tanks:
Does
your
system
have
additional
storage
capacity
and/
or
booster
pumping
needs
to
meet
the
needs
of
current
users?
(
check
one)
Yes
No
Total
Number
of
Existing
Booster
Pump
Stations:
Number
of
Existing
Booster
Pump
Stations:
Number
of
Existing
Booster
Pump
Stations:
If
yes,
how
much
additional
finished
water
storage
or
booster
pumping
capacity
is
necessary?

Examples
of
Source
Projects:

$
Example
1
is
for
a
0.5
MGD
well
(
and
pump)
that
must
be
rehabilitated
now
to
continue
to
provide
safe
water.
No
cost
is
available
so
EPA
would
model
a
cost
for
this
need.
(
Note
that
if
the
system
has
more
than
one
well,
a
separate
project
line
is
required
for
each
well
even
if
the
project
information
is
identical.
A
brief
description
of
the
need
and
extent
of
the
project,
such
as
the
first
sentence
of
this
example,
is
submitted
by
the
system).

$
Example
2
is
for
a
new
0.5
MGD
well
needed
to
meet
current
user
demands.
Cost
documentation
developed
in
1999
is
provided.

$
Example
3
is
for
upgrading/
rehabilitating
the
existing
deteriorated
2
MGD
surface
water
intake.
This
project
is
not
needed
for
several
years
and
a
cost
is
not
available.
The
need
was
identified
in
the
sanitary
survey,
a
copy
of
which
is
submitted
by
the
system.

Examples
of
Treatment
Projects:

$
Example
4
is
for
upgrade
and
rehabilitation
of
a
5.0
MG
conventional
water
treatment
plant.
The
upgrade
is
needed
now
to
maintain
compliance
with
the
Surface
Water
Treatment
Rule.
The
cost
is
provided
from
a
preliminary
engineering
report.

$
Example
5
is
for
a
new
chlorinator
for
a
0.5
MGD
well.
The
existing
chlorinator
is
expected
to
last
another
5
years
before
the
replacement
is
needed.
A
cost
is
not
provided
so
the
capacity
of
the
well
to
be
treated
is
entered
as
the
design
capacity
for
the
chlorination
system.
Disinfection
of
the
well
is
not
required,
but
it
is
applied
by
the
system
voluntarily
so
a
regulation
code
does
not
apply.

Examples
of
Finished
or
Treated
Water
Storage,
Pumping
and
Other
Projects:

$
Example
6
is
for
a
new
0.25
MG
elevated
storage
tank
that
is
needed
now
to
correct
low
pressure
problems
in
part
of
the
service
area.
No
cost
is
available.

$
Example
7
is
for
rehabilitation
of
an
existing
1
MG
standpipe
storage
tank
that
needs
sand
blasting
and
repainting
in
about
5
years.
No
cost
is
available.

$
Example
8
is
for
replacement
of
an
old
0.25
MGD
Booster
Pump
Station.
No
cost
is
available.

Project
Number
Project
Name
Type
of
Need
(
List
1)
Reason
for
Need
(
List
2)
New
or
Upgrade
Current
or
Future
Regulation
(
List
3)
Design
Capacity
(
MG,

MGD,
kW)
Cost
Estimate
Date
of
Cost
Estimate
(
Month/
Year)
Documentation
(
List
4)

Example
1
Rehab
Well
1
R1
A1
U
C
N/
A
0.5
N/
A
N/
A
10
Example
2
New
Well
#
2
R1
A2
N
C
N/
A
0.5
43,000
11/
99
1
Example
3
Rehab
WTP
Intake
R6
A1
U
F
1A
2.0
N/
A
N/
A
8
Example
4
Rehab
Treatment
Plant
T10
A1,
A8
U
C
1A
5.0
$
6,027,000
12/
01
2
Example
5
Well
2
Chlorinator
T1
A10
N
F
N/
A
0.5
N/
A
N/
A
10
Example
6
New
Tank
S1
A4
N
C
N/
A
0.25
N/
A
N/
A
10
Example
7
Rehab.
Main
St.
Tank
S2
A1
U
F
N/
A
1.0
N/
A
N/
A
10
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
Project
Number
Project
Name
Type
of
Need
(
List
1)
Reason
for
Need
(
List
2)
New
or
Upgrade
Current
or
Future
Regulation
(
List
3)
Design
Capacity
(
MG,

MGD,
kW)
Cost
Estimate
Date
of
Cost
Estimate
(
Month/
Year)
Documentation
(
List
4)

82
Example
8
Replace
Pump
Station
P2
A1
N
C
N/
A
0.25
N/
A
N/
A
10
Source,
Treatment,
Storage,
Pumping
and
Other
Project
Table
Using
the
completed
simple
inventory,
capital
improvement
plans,
or
other
existing
planning
documents
and
resources,
please
identify
and
document
projects
on
the
following
table.

Project
Number
Project
Name
Type
of
Need
(
List
1)
Reason
for
Need
(
List
2)
New
or
Upgrade
Current
or
Future
Regulatio
n
(
List
3)
Design
Capacity
(
MG,

MGD,
kW)
Cost
Estimate
Date
of
Cost
Estimate
(
Month/
Year)
Documentation
(
List
4)

2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
EPA
needs
documentation
of
all
data
provided.
Applicable
types
of
documentation
are
presented
in
List
4
of
the
Lists
of
Codes.
Use
only
existing
documentation
of
cost.
We
do
not
expect
you
to
develop
new
cost
estimates.
Source,
Treatment,
Storage,
Pumping
and
Other
Project
Table,
cont.

Project
Number
Project
Name
Type
of
Need
(
List
1)
Reason
for
Need
(
List
2)
New
or
Upgrade
Current
or
Future
Regulatio
n
(
List
3)
Design
Capacity
(
MG,

MGD,
kW)
Cost
Estimate
Date
of
Cost
Estimate
(
Month/
Year)
Documentation
(
List
4)

2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
If
you
have
more
source,
treatment,
storage,
pumping
or
other­
related
projects
check
this
box
and
continue
on
a
supplemental
sheet.

Project
numbers
for
these
projects
are
2000­
2999,
and
should
be
numbered
in
sequence.

EPA
needs
documentation
of
all
data
provided.
Applicable
types
of
documentation
are
presented
in
List
4
of
the
Lists
of
Codes.
Use
only
existing
documentation
of
cost.
We
do
not
expect
you
to
develop
new
cost
estimates.
Backflow
Prevention
Devices/
Assemblies,
Flushing
Hydrants,
Service
Lines,
Valves,
and
Water
Meter
Projects
Although
these
needs
may
fit
into
the
other
categories
of
the
questionnaire,
projects
for
backflow
prevention
devices
and
assemblies,
hydrants
used
to
flush
water
mains,
service
line
replacement,
and
other
items
such
as
valves,
hydrants,
and
meters
are
recorded
in
this
section
to
accommodate
entries
of
multiple
identical
items
on
one
line
in
the
project
table.

To
ensure
all
potential
projects
are
considered,
it
may
be
helpful
to
complete
this
simple
inventory
for
your
system's
existing
needs:

Inventory
Needing
Replacement
Needing
Upgrading
or
Rehabilitation
Please
do
not
list
any
component
that
is
included
in
a
pipe
replacement
or
rehabilitation
project
listed
on
the
Transmission
and
Distribution
Project
Table.
If
you
listed
any
pipe
replacement
or
rehabilitation
project
without
a
cost,
EPA
will
assign
a
cost
using
a
model
that
includes
all
these
components.

Total
Number
of
Existing
Valves
(
gate,
butterfly,
PRVs,
altitude,
etc.):
Number
of
Valves:
Number
of
Valves
Total
Number
of
Existing
Water
Meters:
Number
of
Water
Meters:
Number
of
Water
Meters:

Total
Number
of
Existing
Flushing
Hydrants:
Number
of
Flushing
Hydrants:
Number
of
Flushing
Hydrants:

Total
Number
of
Lead
Service
Lines:
Number
of
Lead
Service
Lines:
Number
of
Lead
Service
Lines:

Total
Number
of
Backflow
Prevention
Devices/
Assemblies:
Number
of
Backflow
Prevention
Devices/
Assemblies:
Number
of
Backflow
Prevention
Devices/
Assemblies:

Examples
of
Projects
for
the
Backflow
Prevention
Devices/
Assemblies,
Flushing
Hydrants,
Service
Lines,
Valves
and
Water
Meter
Project
Table:

$
Example
1
is
for
25,
12­
inch
diameter
valves
that
will
need
to
be
replaced
due
to
deterioration
before
the
end
of
2022.
They
are
not
part
of
an
existing
distribution
or
transmission
project.
No
cost
estimate
is
provided.
A
description
of
the
need
and
extent
of
the
project
is
submitted
by
the
system.

$
Example
2
is
for
replacement
of
100
lead
service
lines.
The
cost
is
from
the
CIP.
Because
they
are
lead
lines,
the
Lead
and
Copper
Rule
applies.
No
diameter
is
needed
for
service
lines.

Project
Number
Project
Name
Type
of
Need
(
List
1)
Reason
for
Need
(
List
2)
New
or
Upgrade
Current
or
Future
Regulation
(
List
3)
Size
(
Diameter
in
Inches)
Number
Needed
Cost
Estimate
Date
of
Cost
Estimate
(
Month/
Year)
Documentation
(
List
4)

Example
1
Replace
Valves
M5
A1
N
F
N/
A
12
25
N/
A
N/
A
10
Example
2
Replace
Lead
Service
Lines
M2
A7
N
C
1D
NA
100
100,000
5/
01
1
Backflow
Prevention
Devices/
Assemblies,
Flushing
Hydrants,
Service
Lines,
Valves,
and
Water
Meter
Project
Table
Using
the
completed
simple
inventory,
capital
improvement
plans,
or
other
existing
planning
documents
and
resources,
please
identify
and
document
projects
on
the
table
below.
Please
do
not
list
any
component
that
is
included
in
a
pipe
replacement
or
rehabilitation
project
listed
on
the
Transmission
and
Distribution
Project
Table.
If
you
listed
any
pipe
replacement
or
rehabilitation
project
without
a
cost,
EPA
will
assign
a
cost
using
a
model
that
includes
all
these
components.

Project
Number
Project
Name
Type
of
Need
(
List
1)
Reason
for
Need
(
List
2)
New
or
Upgrade
Current
or
Future
Regulatio
n
(
List
3)
Size
(
Diameter
in
Inches)
Number
Needed
Cost
Estimate
Date
of
Cost
Estimate
(
Month/
Year)
Documentation
(
List
4)

3000
3001
3002
3003
3004
3005
3006
3007
3008
If
you
have
more
of
these
projects
check
this
box
and
continue
on
a
supplemental
sheet.
Project
numbers
for
these
projects
are
3000­
3999,

and
should
be
numbered
in
sequence.
EPA
needs
documentation
of
all
data
provided.
Applicable
types
of
documentation
are
presented
in
List
4
of
the
Lists
of
Codes.
Use
only
existing
documentation
of
cost.
We
do
not
expect
you
to
develop
new
cost
estimates.

Respondent
Information
Please
provide
the
following
information
in
case
we
need
to
contact
you
for
clarification
or
additional
explanation
of
any
of
your
responses.

Contact
Person
(
Person
who
completed
this
questionnaire):

Signature:

Name
(
please
print):

Title:
Mailing
Address:

(
Street
Address)
Telephone
Number:

Fax
Number:

E­
mail
Address:

Best
Time
to
Reach
You:

If
you
have
any
questions,
contact
{
State
Contact}
at
{
State
Contact
Phone
Number}
or
e­
mail
to
{
State
Contact
EMail
or
call
the
U.
S.
EPA
toll­
free
Needs
Survey
Helpline
at
1­
877­
XXXXXXX.

CLOSING:
Thank
you
for
your
help.
Did
you
remember
to:

Attach
to
the
questionnaire
all
additional
project
tables.

Identify
by
project
number,
available
documentation
for
all
needs
and
costs
reported
above.

Put
the
questionnaire
and
the
documentation
in
the
pre­
paid,
pre­
addressed
Federal
Express
Pak
provided
and
return
this
questionnaire
and
the
documentation
to
the
address
below.
(
See
the
pink
enclosure
for
further
return
instructions.)

Jane
Q.
Official
Division
of
Water
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
88
State
Environmental
Department
One
Capital
Street
Capital,
XX
99999
LIST
4
 
DOCUMENTATION
Code
For
Need
and/
or
Cost
Documentation
1
Capital
Improvement
Plan
or
Master
Plan:
The
plan
must
address
why
the
project
is
needed.

2
Facilities
Plan
or
Preliminary
Engineering
Report:
Excerpts
from
the
plan
or
report
are
acceptable
if
project­
specific.

3
Grant
or
Loan
Application
Form:
An
application
form
is
acceptable
if
it
specifically
describes
a
problem
requiring
capital
expenditures.

4
Engineer's
Estimate:
The
estimate
must
provide
costs
that
are
projectspecific
and
be
accompanied
by
an
explanation
of
why
the
project
is
needed.

Code
For
Need
Documentation
Only
5
Intended
Use
Plan/
State
Priority
List:
These
are
acceptable
forms
of
documentation
if
they
include
a
description
of
why
the
project
is
needed
(
costs
from
IUPs
will
not
be
used
­
modeling
parameters
or
other
cost
document
must
be
provided).

6
Indian
Health
Service
Sanitary
Deficiency
System
Printout:
For
use
by
Native
American
public
water
system
projects
only.

7
Comprehensive
Performance
Evaluation
(
CPE)
Results:
The
results
of
a
CPE
may
be
used
to
justify
need
if
the
State
concurs
with
the
results.

8
Sanitary
Survey:
A
sanitary
survey
by
the
State
or
a
party
approved
by
the
State
may
be
used
to
justify
need
if
the
sanitary
survey
report
describes
a
problem
that
must
be
solved
through
capital
improvement.

9
Monitoring
Results:
Monitoring
results
can
demonstrate
a
need
for
treatment
or
system
upgrade
when
accompanied
by
documentation
indicating
that
the
project
is
necessary.

10
Other
Need
Document:
Use
this
code
if
none
of
the
codes
listed
above
(
1
­
9)
apply,
and
include
a
signed
and
dated
brief
explanation
of
why
the
project
is
needed
and
the
extent
of
the
project.
Be
specific.
(
Example
explanation:
This
project
is
for
18,000
feet
of
old
and
deteriorated
12­
inch
diameter
distribution
mains
which
need
to
be
rehabilitated
now.
No
cost
is
available.)

Code
For
Cost
Documentation
Only
11
Cost
of
Previous
Comparable
Construction:
This
may
be
used
to
justify
costs
if
the
costs
are
project­
specific.
It
must
include
documentation
of
how
the
costs
were
derived.

12
Other
Cost
Document:
Use
this
code
if
none
of
the
cost
documentation
codes
listed
above
(
1
­
4,
11)
apply.
Include
documentation
of
how
the
costs
were
derived.
7
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
90
Use
these
instructions
and
lists
of
codes
when
you
fill
out
the
Needs
Survey
questionnaire.
Please
be
sure
to
include
project
descriptions.
Also
include
copies
of
the
breakdown
of
cost
estimates,
if
available.

Instructions
and
Lists
of
Codes
9­
19­
02
draft
Instructions
for
Each
Column
on
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
Questionnaire
The
following
instructions
apply
to
columns
on
all
tables
in
the
questionnaire.

Column
Title
Instructions
Project
Number
Number
the
projects
in
each
category
in
sequence,
using
the
range
of
numbers
specified
for
each
category
of
need.

Project
Name
Write
a
brief
description
of
each
project.
Examples
of
possible
projects
are
provided
on
the
questionnaire
for
each
category
of
need.

Type
of
Need
Refer
to
List
1
in
the
Lists
of
Codes
and
enter
the
code(
s)
that
best
describes
the
project.
More
than
one
code
may
apply
to
a
project.

Reason
for
Need
Refer
to
List
2
in
the
Lists
of
Codes
and
enter
the
code(
s)
that
best
justifies
the
project.
More
than
one
code
may
apply
to
a
project.

New
or
Upgrade
If
the
project
is
to:

°
Install
new
or
replace
old
infrastructure,
enter
`
N'

(
will
have
all
new
infrastructure)

or
°
Upgrade
or
rehabilitate
existing
infrastructure,
enter
`
U'

(
will
keep
some
of
the
old
infrastructure
in
place)

Current
or
If
the
project
is:

Future
°
Needed
now,
enter
`
C'

(
even
if
you
cannot
start
construction
now)

or
°
Not
needed
now,
enter
`
F'

(
but
will
be
necessary
before
12/
31/
2022)

Regulation
If
the
project
is
needed
to
maintain
or
obtain
compliance
with
a
regulation,
secondary
MCL
or
State
requirement
refer
to
List
3
in
the
Lists
of
Codes
and
enter
the
code
that
applies.
Enter
N/
A
if
not
applicable.

Cost
Estimate
Enter
the
cost
estimate
(
if
known)
for
this
project.
Use
only
existing
cost
estimates.
If
no
cost
estimate
is
provided
and
modeling
parameters
are
recorded,
EPA
will
use
models
to
estimate
the
cost.

Date
of
Cost
Enter
the
month
and
year
of
the
cost
estimate.
EPA
will
Estimate
adjust
cost
estimates
to
current­
year
dollars.

Documentation
Refer
to
List
4
in
the
Lists
of
Codes
and
enter
the
code(
s)
that
applies
to
the
type
of
documentation
provided
that
explains
why
the
project
is
needed.
If
a
cost
estimate
is
provided,
also
list
the
code
that
applies
to
the
type
of
cost
documentation.
Please
enclose
the
appropriate
pages
of
need
and
cost
documentation,
identified
by
project
number.
1
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
92
LIST
3
 
REGULATION
OR
REQUIREMENT
Code
Regulation
or
Requirement
EXISTING
SDWA
REGULATIONS
1A
Surface
Water
Treatment
Rule
1B
Total
Coliform
Rule
1C
Nitrate
or
Nitrite
Standard
1D
Lead
and
Copper
Rule
1E
Total
Trihalomethanes
(
for
compliance
with
the
100
µ
g/
l
standard)

1F
Other
Regulated
VOCs/
SOCs/
IOCs/
Rads/
Arsenic
(
for
compliance
with
Arsenic
at
a
50
µ
g/
l
standard)

1G
Interim
Enhanced
Surface
Water
Treatment
Rule
(
for
systems
serving
>
10,000
people
that
are
not
meeting
turbidity
requirements
of
0.3
NTU)

OTHER
REQUIREMENTS
2A
Secondary
Contaminants
(
e.
g.,
MTBE,
iron,
taste
and
odor,
and
color)

2B
State
Requirements
POTENTIAL
AND
RECENTLY
PROMULGATED
SDWA
REGULATIONS
(
Use
these
codes
only
if
the
project
is
solely
for
compliance
with
a
potential
or
recently
promulgated
regulation
or
requirement
and
none
of
the
other
codes
in
List
3
apply)

3A
Stage
1
and/
or
Proposed
Stage
2
Disinfectants/
Disinfection
Byproducts
Rule
(
use
1E
if
system
is
not
meeting
the
100
µ
g/
l
TTHM
standard.)

3B
Arsenic
Rule
(
for
compliance
with
the
new
Arsenic
standard
of
10
µ
g/
l
if
the
system
is
meeting
the
50
µ
g/
l
Arsenic
Standard)

3C
Ground
Water
Rule
3D
Radon
Rule
3E
Radionuclides
Rule
(
other
than
Radon)

3F
Filter
Backwash
Recycling
Rule
3G
Long­
Term
1
and/
or
Proposed
Long­
Term
2
Enhanced
Surface
Water
Treatment
Rule
3H
Other
(
Please
include
an
explanation)

6
LIST
2
 
REASON
FOR
NEED
Code
Reason
the
Project
is
Needed
A1
Project
is
for
existing
infrastructure
that
is,
or
will
be
by
12/
31/
2022,
old
or
deteriorated
(
e.
g.,
leaking,
broken).

A2
Project
is
to
correct
a
deficiency
in
source
water
quantity
caused
by
current
user
demand.

A3
Project
is
to
correct
a
deficiency
in
storage
capacity
caused
by
current
user
demand.

A4
Project
is
to
correct
existing
pressure
problems
not
related
to
fire
flow.

A5
Project
is
solely
to
meet
demand
of
expected
future
growth.

A6
Project
is
solely
for
fire
flow,
fire
protection,
or
ISA
ratings.

A7
Project
is
to
obtain
compliance
with
an
existing
regulation
(
enter
regulation
code
from
List
3
in
the
Lists
of
Codes
in
the
regulation
column,

and
for
chemical
and
radiological
contaminants
provide
the
level
detected
in
the
project
description/
documentation).

A8
Project
is
to
maintain
compliance
with
an
existing
regulation
(
enter
regulation
code
from
List
3
in
the
Lists
of
Codes
in
the
regulation
column,

and
for
chemical
and
radiological
contaminants
provide
the
level
detected
in
the
documentation).

A9
Project
is
solely
for
compliance
with
a
potential
or
recently
promulgated
regulation
(
enter
regulation
code
from
List
3
in
the
Lists
of
Codes
in
the
regulation
column,
and
ensure
an
alternate
code
does
not
apply).

A10
Project
is
for
consolidation
with
and/
or
connection
to
an
existing
public
water
system.

A11
Project
is
for
providing
service
to
existing
homes
without
adequate
water
quantity
or
quality.

A12
Use
this
code
if
codes
A1­
A11
do
not
apply.
A
description
of
the
project
including
the
reason
it
is
needed
must
be
provided
and
clearly
identified
by
project
number.

Important
Note:
A
description
of
each
project
or
a
copy
of
the
documentation
must
also
be
clearly
identified
by
project
number
and
submitted
with
the
completed
questionnaire.

5
The
following
instructions
apply
to
columns
on
specific
tables
in
the
questionnaire.

Column
Title
Instructions
Design
Capacity
On
the
Source,
Treatment,
Finished
or
Treated
Water
Storage,

Pumping,
and
Other
project
table
enter
the
design
capacity
when
applicable
 
millions
of
gallons
per
day
(
MGD)
for
source,

treatment,
and
pumping;
millions
of
gallons
(
MG)
for
storage;
and
kilowatts
(
kW)
for
emergency
power.
For
this
survey,
"
design
capacity"
is
the
flow
that
can
be
produced
when
all
components
of
the
project
are
operating.

Diameter
of
Pipe
On
the
Transmission
and
Distribution
project
table
enter
the
diameter
of
pipe
(
in
inches)
that
must
be
installed
or
rehabilitated.

Use
a
separate
line
for
different
sizes
of
pipe.

Length
of
Pipe
On
the
Transmission
and
Distribution
project
table
enter
the
feet
of
pipe
that
must
be
installed
or
rehabilitated
for
each
diameter
identified
in
the
previous
column.

Size
On
the
Backflow
Prevention
Devices/
Assemblies,
Flushing
Hydrants,
Service
Lines,
Valves,
and
Water
Meter
project
table
enter
the
diameter
(
in
inches)
for
backflow
prevention
devices/
assemblies,
flushing
hydrants,
valves,
and
water
meters
that
must
be
installed
or
rehabilitated.
Use
a
separate
line
for
different
diameters
of
the
same
type
of
need.
Diameter
is
not
needed
for
service
line
projects.

Number
Needed
On
the
Backflow
Prevention
Devices/
Assemblies,
Flushing
Hydrants,
Service
Lines,
Valves,
and
Water
Meter
project
table
indicate
the
total
number
of
individual
components
included
where
more
than
one
identical
component
is
recorded
on
one
line.
For
example,
a
future
project
to
install
4
identical
meters
would
include
data
for
one
of
the
meters
and
the
number
4
would
be
entered
as
the
number
needed.

2
LIST
1
 
TYPE
OF
NEED
Code
Type
of
Need
RAW/
UNTREATED
WATER
SOURCE
R1
Well
(
including
pump
and
appurtenances,
not
including
a
well
house)

R2
Well
Pump
R3
Well
House
(
may
include
a
chemical
feed
room)

R4
Eliminate
Well
Pit
R5
Abandon
Well
R6
Surface
Water
Intake
R7
Raw
Water
Pump
R8
Dam/
Reservoir
R9
Off­
Stream
Raw
Water
Storage
R10
Spring
Collector
R11
De­
stratification
R12
Aquifer
Storage
and
Recovery
Well
TREATMENT:
Disinfection
T1
Chlorination
T2
Chloramination
T3
Chlorine
Dioxide
T4
Ozonation
T5
Mixed
Oxidant
Type
Equipment
T6
Ultraviolet
Disinfection
T7
Contact
Basin
for
CT
T8
Dechlorination
of
Treated
Water
T9
Chlorine
Gas
Scrubber
TREATMENT:
Filtration
(
surface
or
ground
water)

T10
Conventional
Filter
Plant
(
complete
plant;
includes
CAC
technologies)

T11
Direct
or
In­
line
Filter
Plant
(
complete
plant)

T12
Presedimentation
Basin
T13
Chemical
Feed
T14
Sedimentation/
Flocculation
T15
Filters
T16
Slow
Sand
Filter
Plant
(
complete
plant)

T17
Diatomaceous
Earth
Filter
Plant
(
complete
plant)

T18
Membrane
Technology
for
Particulate
Removal
(
complete
plant)

T19
Cartridge
or
Bag
Filtration
Plant
(
complete
plant)

T20
Streaming
Current
Monitors
T21
Particle
Counters
T22
Turbidity
Meters
T23
Chlorine
Residual
Monitors
TREATMENT:
Other
Treatment
Needs
T30
Powdered
Activated
Carbon
T31
Granular
Activated
Carbon
T32
Sequestering
for
Iron
and/
or
Manganese
T33
Manganese
Green
Sand
(
or
other
oxidation/
filtration
technology­
complete
plant)
T34
Ion
Exchange
(
complete
plant)
3
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
95
LIST
1
 
TYPE
OF
NEED
(
cont.)

Code
Type
of
Need
T35
Lime
Softening
(
complete
plant)

T36
Reverse
Osmosis
(
complete
plant)

T37
Electrodialysis
(
complete
plant)

T38
Aeration
T39
Activated
Alumina
(
complete
plant)

T40
Corrosion
Control
(
chemical
addition)

T41
Waste
Handling/
Treatment:
Mechanical
(
not
included
in
another
project)

T42
Waste
Handling/
Treatment:
Nonmechanical
or
Connection
to
a
Sanitary
Sewer
(
not
included
in
another
project)

T43
Zebra
Mussel
Control
T44
Fluoride
Addition
T45
Chemical
Storage
Tank
T46
Type
of
Treatment
Unknown
T47
Other
(
Please
include
an
explanation)

TRANSMISSION:
(
Considered
any
mains
that
transport
raw
water
to
the
treatment
plant,
or
treated
water
from
the
plant
to
the
distribution
system
grid)

X1
Raw
Water
Transmission
X2
Finished
Water
Transmission
DISTRIBUTION
M1
Distribution
Mains
(
Considered
any
mains
that
transport
water
through
a
piping
grid
serving
customers­
see
"
transmission"
above)

M2
Lead
Service
Lines
M3
Service
Lines
(
other
than
lead
service
lines)

M4
Flushing
Hydrants
M5
Valves
(
gate,
butterfly,
etc.)

M6
Control
Valves
(
PRVs,
altitude,
etc.)

M7
Backflow
Prevention
Devices/
Assemblies
M8
Water
Meters
FINISHED/
TREATED
WATER
STORAGE
S1
Elevated
Finished/
Treated
Water
Storage
S2
Ground­
level
Finished/
Treated
Water
Storage
S3
Hydropneumatic
Storage
S4
Cisterns
S5
Cover
for
Existing
Finished/
Treated
Water
Storage
PUMP
STATION
AND
FINISHED
WATER
PUMP
P1
Finished
Water
Pump
P2
Pump
Station
(
booster
or
raw
water
pump
station­
includes
clearwell,
pumps,

and
housing)

OTHER
INFRASTRUCTURE
NEEDS
W1
Laboratory
Capital
Costs
for
Labs
Owned
by
the
System
W2
Computer
and
Automation
Costs
(
SCADA)
W3
Pump
Controls/
Telemetry
W4
Emergency
Power
(
enter
design
capacity
as
kilowatts)

W5
Security
(
must
be
used
in
conjunction
with
another
Type
of
Need
code)

W6
Other
(
Please
include
an
explanation)

4
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
96
Appendix
C
Response
to
Comments
Received
on
First
Federal
Register
Notice
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
97
This
page
intentionally
left
blank.
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
98
In
response
to
the
first
Federal
Register
document
published
July
16,
2002,
EPA
received
three
sets
of
comments.
The
National
Association
of
Water
Companies
(
NAWC)
recommended
that
the
survey
form
include
an
ownership
field
to
distinguish
between
publicly
owned
and
privately
owned
systems.
EPA
concurred
and
changed
the
form
to
include
an
ownership
field.

The
American
Water
Works
Association
(
AWWA)
suggested
including
a
separate
category
for
security
capital
improvements
on
the
survey
form,
in
addition
to
a
separate
security
code
in
the
"
Type
of
Need"
section
of
the
List
of
Codes.
EPA
noted
that
security
projects
involving
capital
improvements
are
presently
eligible
for
Drinking
Water
State
Revolving
Fund
(
DWSRF)
assistance.
As
with
the
two
previous
surveys,
systems
may
enter
security
related
projects
on
the
survey
form.
While
creating
a
separate
category
for
security
needs
would
unduly
complicate
the
form,
including
a
separate
security
code
would
serve
to
capture
the
security
investment
needs
of
water
systems.
EPA
believes
that
this
information
would
prove
useful
in
understanding
the
infrastructure
needs
of
the
nation's
water
systems.
EPA
thus
concurred
with
AWWA
on
its
second
recommendation
and
changed
the
List
of
Codes
to
include
a
security
code.

AWWA
also
suggested
revising
the
loaded
hourly
rate
for
respondents
from
large
water
systems.
AWWA
commented
that
engineering
and
construction
management
staff
would
likely
complete
the
survey
form
for
large
systems.
These
staff
have
a
higher
loaded
hourly
rate
than
the
treatment
plant
operator
rate
which
EPA
used
to
estimate
the
burden
cost.
AWWA
recommended
using
the
rate
provided
in
the
SOC
Code
for
Local
Government
 
Engineering
and
Construction
Staff.
EPA
concurred
and
adjusted
the
loaded
hourly
rate
of
large
system
respondents,
though
we
used
the
SOC
Environmental
Engineer
rate
as
it
more
closely
reflects
the
wage
of
water
system
management
staff.

The
Association
of
State
Drinking
Water
Administrators
(
ASDWA)
cited
the
increased
costs
of
new
regulations
that
will
be
borne
by
small
systems
as
a
reason
for
EPA
to
develop
a
method
for
surveying
the
needs
of
these
systems.
As
with
the
previous
two
surveys,
EPA
will
use
the
Economic
Analyses
(
EAs)
that
accompany
the
publication
of
proposed
and
final
rules
to
model
the
costs
of
potential
or
recently
promulgated
regulations.
The
EAs
are
the
most
accurate
means
for
estimating
these
costs.
Many
systems
have
not
yet
identified
the
infrastructure
needs
to
comply
with
potential
or
recently
promulgated
regulations,
and
thus
conducting
a
survey
to
collect
the
costs
of
these
regulations
would
significantly
understate
the
true
need.

ASDWA
also
expressed
concern
that
the
duration
of
the
data
collection
period
would
not
allow
states
adequate
time
to
respond
to
information
posted
by
EPA.
States
will
have
nearly
one
year
in
which
to
provide
data,
followed
by
two
to
four
months
of
follow­
up
during
which
states
can
provide
additional
data
in
response
to
EPA's
review.
This
schedule
should
afford
ample
time
for
the
states
to
submit
their
data.

ASDWA
submitted
several
comments
relating
to
the
survey
form.
ASDWA
suggested
adding
a
section
for
source
water
protection.
Source
water
protection
needs
are
funded
through
a
special
set­
aside
under
the
DWSRF
and,
therefore,
these
needs
are
not
collected
as
part
of
the
survey.

ASDWA
recommended
adding
a
question
on
chemical
addition
to
the
treatment
section
on
page
6
of
the
form.
Most
of
the
chemical
addition
projects
involve
chlorination,
and
thus
including
a
chemical
addition
question
along
with
a
chlorination
question
might
confuse
respondents.

ASDWA
suggested
adding
hydropneumatic
storage
to
the
storage
section
on
page
6
of
the
form.
As
most
of
the
medium
and
large
sized
systems
in
the
sample
would
not
use
hydropneumatic
tanks,
adding
this
question
would
increase
burden
to
the
respondent
without
yielding
useful
information.
ICR
for
the
2003
Drinking
Water
Infrastructure
Needs
Survey
September
2002
99
ASDWA
recommended
adding
a
non­
lead
service
line
question
to
page
10
of
the
form.
EPA
determined
that
the
replacement
of
lead
service
lines
could
be
prompted
by
a
system's
efforts
to
obtain
compliance
with
the
federal
lead
standard.
EPA,
therefore,
emphasizes
these
projects
in
the
survey.
The
portion
of
the
service
line
from
the
main
to
the
curb
stop
generally
falls
under
the
ownership
of
the
water
systems,
and
therefore
the
survey
also
includes
the
needs
for
these
lines.
The
costs
for
these
non­
lead
lines
typically
are
included
in
the
cost
estimates
provided
by
the
system
for
distribution
improvements
and
in
the
cost
models
that
EPA
uses
to
assign
costs
for
distribution
projects
lacking
cost
documentation.
Thus,
a
separate
question
for
non­
lead
service
lines
is
not
necessary.

ASDWA
commented
that
some
respondents
might
not
assign
the
correct
code
to
a
project
needed
for
compliance
with
the
new
arsenic
standard,
as
the
Lists
of
Codes
includes
a
code
both
for
the
previous
standard
and
the
new
standard.
The
code
for
the
new
arsenic
standard
includes
the
contaminant
level
for
which
the
code
applies.
This
reference,
in
addition
to
discussing
the
issue
with
states
at
training
sessions,
should
ensure
that
systems
and
states
apply
the
correct
code
for
arsenic
remediation
projects.
