Information
Collection
Request
for
UCMR
2
May
2005
Prepared
by:
The
Cadmus
Group,
Inc.
57
Water
Street
Watertown,
MA
02472
Prepared
for:
Jane
Holtorf,
Project
Officer
Phyllis
Branson,
Work
Assignment
Manager
David
Munch,
Alternate
Work
Assignment
Manager
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Office
of
Ground
Water
and
Drinking
Water
26
West
Martin
Luther
King
Drive
Cincinnati,
OH
45268
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
i
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
 
PART
A
OF
THE
SUPPORTING
STATEMENT
 
1
IDENTIFICATION
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1(
a)
Title
and
Number
of
the
Information
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1(
b)
Short
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
2
NEED
FOR
AND
USE
OF
THE
COLLECTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
2(
a)
Need/
Authority
for
the
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
2(
b)
Practical
Utility/
Users
of
the
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
3
NON­
DUPLICATION,
CONSULTATIONS
AND
OTHER
COLLECTION
CRITERIA
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
3(
a)
Non­
duplication
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
3(
b)
Public
Notice
Required
Prior
to
ICR
Submission
to
OMB
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
3(
c)
Consultations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
3(
d)
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
3(
e)
General
Guidelines
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11
3(
f)
Confidentiality
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12
3(
g)
Sensitive
Questions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
12
4
RESPONDENTS
AND
THE
INFORMATION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
4(
a)
Respondents
and
NAICS/
SIC
Codes
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
4(
b)
Information
Requested
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
4(
b)(
i)
Data
Items
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
4(
b)(
i)(
a)
Public
Water
System
Reporting
and
Record
Keeping
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
4(
b)(
i)(
b)
State
Reporting
and
Record
Keeping
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15
4(
b)(
ii)
Respondent
Activities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15
4(
b)(
ii)(
a)
Public
Water
System
Activities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15
4(
b)(
ii)(
b)
State
Activities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
5
INFORMATION
COLLECTED
 
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY,
AND
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
5(
a)
Agency
Activities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
5(
a)(
i)
Regulatory
Support
Activities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
5(
a)(
ii)
National
and
Regional
Oversight/
Data
Analysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
5(
a)(
iii)
Costs
for
Small
System
Testing
Program
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
21
5(
b)
Information
Collection
Methodology
and
Management
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
22
5(
c)
Small
Entity
Flexibility
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
22
5(
d)
Collection
Schedule
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
27
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
ii
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS,
continued...

6
ESTIMATING
THE
BURDEN
AND
COST
OF
THE
COLLECTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
28
6(
a)
Estimating
Burden
and
Cost
to
Public
Water
Systems
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
28
6(
a)(
i)
Estimating
Burden
and
Labor
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
29
6(
a)(
i)(
a)
Reading
the
Regulations/
Guidance
Letter
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
31
6(
a)(
i)(
b)
Monitoring
Burden
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
32
6(
a)(
i)(
c)
Reporting
and
Record
Keeping
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
32
6(
a)(
i)(
d)
Public
Notification
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
33
6(
a)(
ii)
Estimating
Non­
labor
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
33
6(
a)(
iii)
Summary
of
Labor
and
Non­
labor
Costs
to
Public
Water
Systems
.
.
.
.
35
6(
b)
Estimating
the
Burden
and
Cost
to
States
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
37
6(
c)
Estimating
Agency
Burden
and
Cost
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
40
6(
c)(
i)
Regulatory
Support
Activities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
40
6(
c)(
ii)
National
and
Regional
Oversight
and
Data
Analysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
41
6(
c)(
iii)
Costs
for
Small
System
Testing
Program
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
41
6(
c)(
iv)
Estimated
Agency
Cost
and
Burden
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
42
6(
d)
Estimating
the
Respondent
Universe
and
Total
Burden
and
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
44
6(
e)
Reasons
for
Change
in
Burden
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
45
6(
f)
Burden
Statement
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
46
 
PART
B
OF
THE
SUPPORTING
STATEMENT
 
1
SURVEY
OBJECTIVES,
KEY
VARIABLES,
AND
OTHER
PRELIMINARIES
.
.
.
50
1(
a)
Survey
Objectives
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
50
1(
b)
Key
Variables
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
50
1(
c)
Statistical
Approach
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
50
1(
d)
Feasibility
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
50
2
SURVEY
DESIGN
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
51
2(
a)
Target
Population
and
Coverage
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
51
2(
b)
Sample
Design
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
51
2(
b)(
i)
Sampling
Frame
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
51
2(
b)(
ii)
Sample
Size
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
51
2(
b)(
iii)
Stratification
Variables
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
51
2(
b)(
iv)
Sampling
Method
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
52
2(
b)(
v)
Multi­
Stage
Sampling
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
52
2(
c)
Precision
Requirements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
52
2(
c)(
i)
Precision
Targets
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
52
2(
c)(
ii)
Nonsampling
error
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
53
2(
d)
Questionnaire
Design
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
53
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
iii
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS,
continued...

3
PRETESTS
AND
PILOT
TESTS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
53
4
COLLECTION
METHODS
AND
FOLLOW­
UP
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
53
4(
a)
Collection
Methods
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
53
4(
b)
Survey
Response
and
Follow­
up
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
53
5
ANALYZING
AND
REPORTING
SURVEY
RESULTS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
54
5(
a)
Data
Preparation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
54
5(
b)
Analysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
54
5(
c)
Reporting
Results
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
55
APPENDICES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A­
56
APPENDIX
A:
Relevant
Authorities
in
the
SDWA
1996
Amendments
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A­
1
APPENDIX
B:
Burden
and
Cost
Exhibits
for
the
Five­
Year
UCMR
2
Cycle
of
2007­
2011
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
B­
1
LIST
OF
EXHIBITS
Exhibit
1:
Proposed
Contaminant
List
and
Sampling
Design
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
13
Exhibit
2:
Unregulated
Contaminant
Monitoring
Reporting
Requirements
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
Exhibit
3:
Time
Line
of
UCMR
Activities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
21
Exhibit
4:
Number
of
Publicly­
and
Privately­
Owned
Systems
Subject
to
UCMR
2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
24
Exhibit
5:
EPA
and
Small
Systems
Costs
for
Implementation
UCMR
2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
25
Exhibit
6a:
UCMR
2
Relative
Cost
Analysis
for
Publicly­
Owned
Systems
(
2007­
2011)
.
.
.
.
.
.
26
Exhibit
6b:
UCMR
2
Relative
Cost
Analysis
for
Privately­
Owned
Systems
(
2007­
2011)
.
.
.
.
.
26
Exhibit
7:
Systems
to
Participate
in
UCMR
2
Monitoring
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
30
Exhibit
8:
UCMR
2
Sampling
Activity
Time
Line
for
Cost
and
Burden
Estimations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
30
Exhibit
9:
Labor
Rates
Applied
for
Public
Water
Systems
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
31
Exhibit
10:
Contaminant
Group
or
Analytical
Method
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
34
Exhibit
11a:
Yearly
Cost
to
Systems,
by
System
Size
and
by
Type
of
Cost
(
2007­
2009)
.
.
.
.
.
36
Exhibit
11b:
Per
System
(
Respondent)
and
Per
Response
UCMR
Costs
(
2007­
2009)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
37
Exhibit
12:
Number
of
States
in
Each
Size
Category
(
State
Resource
Model
Assumptions)
.
.
.
39
Exhibit
13a:
Yearly
Cost
and
Burden
to
States
for
Implementation
of
UCMR
(
2007­
2009)
.
.
.
39
Exhibit
13b:
Per
State
(
Respondent)
and
Per
Response
UCMR
Costs
(
2007­
2009)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
39
Exhibit
14a:
Yearly
Cost
to
EPA
for
UCMR
Implementation,
by
Type
of
Cost
(
2007­
2009)
.
.
42
Exhibit
14b:
Summary
of
EPA
Burdens
and
Costs
for
UCMR
Implementation
(
2007­
2009)
.
.
43
Exhibit
15:
UCMR
2
National
Cost
Summary
for
the
ICR
period
(
2007­
2009)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
44
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
iv
LIST
OF
EXHIBITS,
continued...

Exhibit
16:
UCMR
2
Per
Respondent
Burden
and
Cost
Summary
for
the
ICR
Period
(
2007­
2009)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
47
Exhibit
B­
1a:
Yearly
Cost
to
Systems,
by
System
Size
and
by
Type
of
Cost
(
2007­
2011)
.
.
.
B­
1
Exhibit
B­
1b:
Per
System
(
Respondent)
and
Per
Response
UCMR
Costs
(
2007­
2011)
.
.
.
.
.
B­
2
Exhibit
B­
2a:
Yearly
Cost
and
Burden
to
States
for
Implementation
of
UCMR
(
2007­
2011)
.
B­
2
Exhibit
B­
2b:
Per
State
(
Respondent)
and
Per
Response
UCMR
Costs
(
2007­
2011)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
B­
2
Exhibit
B­
3a:
Yearly
Cost
to
EPA
for
UCMR
Implementation,
by
Type
of
Cost
(
2007­
2011)
B­
3
Exhibit
B­
3b:
Summary
of
EPA
Burdens
and
Costs
for
UCMR
Implementation
(
2007­
2011)
B­
4
Exhibit
B­
4:
National
Cost
Summary
for
UCMR
2
Implementation
(
2007­
2011)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
B­
4
Exhibit
B­
5:
UCMR
2
Per
Respondent
Burden
and
Cost
Summary
(
2007­
2011)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
B­
5
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
v
ACRONYMS
ASDWA
Association
of
State
Drinking
Water
Administrators
CCL
Contaminant
Candidate
List
CCR
Consumer
Confidence
Report
CFR
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
CWS
Community
Water
System
DBP
Disinfection
Byproduct
DBPR
Stage
1
Disinfection
Byproducts
Rule
DSMRT
Distribution
System
Maximum
Residence
Time
EPA
Environmental
Protection
Agency
EPTDS
Entry
Point
to
the
Distribution
System
FR
Federal
Register
FTE
Full
Time
Equivalent
GS
General
Schedule
GWUDI
Ground
Water
under
the
Direct
Influence
of
Surface
Water
ICR
Information
Collection
Request
LCMRL
Lowest
Concentration
Minimum
Reporting
Level
MCL
Maximum
Contaminant
Level
MCLG
Maximum
Contaminant
Level
Goal
MRL
Minimum
Reporting
Level
NAICS
North
American
Industry
Classification
System
NCOD
National
Contaminant
Occurrence
Database
NPDWR
National
Primary
Drinking
Water
Regulation
NTNCWS
Non­
transient
Non­
community
Water
System
OMB
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
OW
Office
of
Water
PA
Partnership
Agreement
PT
Proficiency
Testing
PWS
Public
Water
System
PWSID
Public
Water
System
Identification
QA/
QC
Quality
Assurance/
Quality
Control
RFA
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
SBA
Small
Business
Administration
SDWA
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act
SRF
State
Revolving
Fund
UCMR
Unregulated
Contaminant
Monitoring
Regulation
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
1
Additional
technical
corrections
to
the
rule,
as
well
as
adjustments
to
the
initial
reporting
process,
were
published
including:
May
16,
2001
(
66
FR
27215);
September
4,
2001
(
66
FR
46221);
and
March
12,
2002
(
67
FR
11043).
In
total,
these
rules
and
revisions
constitute
"
UCMR
1".

1
 
PART
A
OF
THE
SUPPORTING
STATEMENT
 
1
IDENTIFICATION
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
1(
a)
Title
and
Number
of
the
Information
Collection
Title:
Information
Collection
Request
for
UCMR
2
OMB
Control
Number:
2040­
xxxx
EPA
Tracking
Number:
2192.01
1(
b)
Short
Characterization
Section
1445(
a)(
2)
of
the
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act
(
SDWA),
as
amended
in
1996,
requires
that
once
every
5
years,
beginning
in
August
1999,
the
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
issue
a
new
list
of
no
more
than
30
contaminants
to
be
monitored,
and
procedures
for
placement
of
the
monitoring
data
in
the
National
Contaminant
Occurrence
Database
(
NCOD).
EPA's
program
must
also
include
a
nationally
"
representative
sample
of
systems
serving
10,000
or
fewer
persons"
that
will
be
required
to
monitor,
and
a
frequency
and
schedule
for
monitoring.

EPA
published
the
revisions
to
the
Unregulated
Contaminant
Monitoring
Regulation
(
UCMR)
for
public
water
systems
(
PWSs)
on
September
17,
1999
(
64
FR
50556).
This
revised
regulation
included
programmatic
changes,
and
provided
a
list
of
contaminants
for
which
monitoring
was
required
or
would
be
required
in
the
future.
Several
supplemental
rules
were
published
to
establish
analytical
methods
and
to
provide
clarifications
and
refinements
to
the
initial
rule
(
March
2,
2000
(
65
FR
11372),
January
11,
2001
(
66
FR
2273),
and
October
29,
2002
(
67
FR
65888))
1.
UCMR
1
established
a
three­
tiered
approach
for
monitoring
contaminants
based
on
the
availability
of
analytical
methods
and
contaminant
properties.

EPA
has
developed
a
contaminant
list
and
sampling
design
for
the
second
UCMR
cycle
(
i.
e.,
UCMR
2).
The
rule
for
UCMR
2
builds
on
the
established
structure
of
UCMR
1,
and
proposes
some
changes
to
the
rule
design.
UCMR
2
monitoring
will
take
place
in
2007­
2011.
The
applicable
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
period
is
2007­
2009.
Estimates
of
implementation
burden
and
cost
over
the
entire
five­
year
UCMR
cycle
of
2007­
2011
are
attached
as
Appendix
B
to
this
ICR.
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
2
Transient
non­
community
water
systems
and
those
systems
that
purchase
all
of
their
water
from
another
PWS
are
excluded
from
regulation.

2
Assessment
Monitoring,
the
largest
in
scale
of
the
three
UCMR
monitoring
components,
will
be
conducted
from
July
2007
through
June
2010
by
800
systems
serving
10,000
or
fewer
(
hereafter
referred
to
as
small
systems),
and
by
all
systems
serving
10,001
and
over,
for
11
List
1
contaminants.
2
Under
Assessment
Monitoring,
contaminants
for
which
standard
analytical
methods
are
available
are
monitored
to
assess
national
occurrence
in
drinking
water.
It
is
assumed
for
this
cost
estimation
that
one­
third
of
systems
will
monitor
each
year.

The
Screening
Survey
(
for
15
List
2
contaminants)
will
be
conducted
from
July
2007
through
June
2009
by
800
systems
serving
100,000
or
fewer,
and
all
systems
serving
more
than
100,000
people
(
322
systems).
Small
systems
will
not
be
subject
to
more
than
one
component
of
UCMR
2
monitoring.

Respondents
to
UCMR
2
will
include
1,280
small
water
systems
(
800
for
Assessment
Monitoring,
and
480
for
the
Screening
Survey),
the
3,110
large
and
very
large
PWSs,
and
the
56
States
and
primacy
agents
(
referred
to
collectively
as
"
States"
for
simplicity
in
this
document),
for
a
total
of
4,446
respondents.
The
frequency
of
response
varies
across
respondents
and
years.

Small
systems
that
are
selected
for
UCMR
2
monitoring
will
sample
an
average
of
2.2
times
per
system
(
i.
e.,
number
of
responses
per
system)
across
the
three­
year
ICR
period
of
2007­
2009.
The
estimated
burden
per
response
for
small
systems
is
3.1
hours.
Large
systems
(
those
serving
10,001
to
100,000
people)
and
very
large
systems
(
those
serving
more
than
100,000
people)
will
sample
and
report
an
average
of
2.5
and
3.6
times
per
system,
respectively,
across
the
three­
year
ICR
period
of
2007­
2009.
The
estimated
burdens
per
response
for
large
and
very
large
systems
are
8.9
and
12.9
hours,
respectively.

EPA
expects
that
States
will
incur
only
labor
costs
associated
with
UCMR
2
implementation.
State
activities
are
determined
through
their
individual
Partnership
Agreements
with
EPA.
To
estimate
State
burden,
it
was
assumed
that
State
participation
levels
would
reflect
the
participation
levels
which
occurred
in
UCMR
1.
States
are
assumed
to
incur
3.0
responses
over
the
three­
year
ICR
period
related
to
coordination
with
EPA
and
systems,
with
an
average
burden
per
response
of
203.2
hours.
In
aggregate,
during
the
ICR
period
of
2007­
2009,
the
average
response
(
e.
g.,
responses
from
systems
and
States)
is
associated
with
a
burden
of
10.7
hours,
with
a
labor
plus
non­
labor
cost
of
$
1,609
per
response.

The
annual
average
per
respondent
burden
hours
and
costs
for
the
ICR
period
of
2007­
2009
are:
small
systems
 
2.3
hour
burden
at
$
57
for
labor;
large
systems
 
7.5
hours
at
$
204
for
labor,
and
$
1,894
for
analytical
costs;
very
large
systems
 
15.6
hours
at
$
512
for
labor,
and
$
7,392
for
analytical
costs;
and
States
 
203.2
hours
at
$
11,107
for
labor.
Annual
average
burden
and
cost
per
respondent
(
including
both
systems
and
States)
is
estimated
to
be
9.02
hours,
with
a
labor
plus
non­
labor
cost
of
$
1,355
per
respondent
(
note
that
small
systems
do
not
pay
for
testing
costs,
so
they
only
incur
labor
costs).
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
3
The
Agency
estimates
the
annual
burden
to
EPA
for
proposed
UCMR
program
activities
during
the
ICR
years
of
2007­
2009
to
be
approximately
9,533
hours,
at
an
annual
labor
cost
of
$
0.60
million.
EPA's
annual
non­
labor
costs
are
estimated
to
be
$
2.8
million.
EPA's
non­
labor
costs
are
primarily
attributed
to
the
cost
of
sample
testing
for
small
systems
(
testing
is
just
under
90
percent
of
non­
labor
cost).
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
4
2
NEED
FOR
AND
USE
OF
THE
COLLECTION
2(
a)
Need/
Authority
for
the
Collection
The
information
collected
under
this
action
is
required
by
EPA
to
carry
out
its
regulatory
development
responsibilities
under
SDWA
section
1445(
a)(
2),
Monitoring
Program
for
Unregulated
Contaminants.
This
section,
as
amended
in
1996,
requires
that
once
every
5
years
beginning
in
August
1999,
the
Agency
issue
a
new
list
of
no
more
than
30
contaminants
to
be
monitored,
and
procedures
for
placement
of
the
monitoring
data
in
NCOD.
EPA's
program
must
also
include
a
nationally
"
representative
sample
of
systems
serving
10,000
or
fewer
persons"
that
will
be
required
to
monitor,
and
a
frequency
and
schedule
for
monitoring.

Section
1412(
b)(
4)
of
SDWA,
as
amended
in
1996,
requires
EPA
to
promulgate
maximum
contaminant
level
goals
(
MCLGs)
and
promulgate
National
Primary
Drinking
Water
Regulations
(
NPDWRs)
for
contaminants
that:
may
have
adverse
human
health
effects;
are
known
to
or
anticipated
to
occur
in
PWSs;
or,
in
the
opinion
of
the
Administrator,
present
an
opportunity
for
reducing
health
risks.
The
NPDWRs
specify
maximum
contaminant
levels
(
MCLs)
or
treatment
techniques
for
drinking
water
contaminants
(
42
USC
300g­
1).
An
MCL
must
be
set
as
close
to
the
MCLG
as
possible.
NPDWRs
apply
to
PWSs
(
42
USC
300f(
1)(
A)).
Section
1412(
b)(
1)
requires
the
Agency
to
develop
a
list
of
unregulated
contaminants
for
regulatory
consideration
(
i.
e.,
the
candidate
contaminant
list
(
CCL)),
to
issue
regulations
that
establish
criteria
for
listing
contaminants,
and
to
carry
out
the
UCMR
Program.
The
Agency
was
required
to
issue
the
list
of
contaminants
by
August
1999,
and
every
5
years
thereafter.

Section
1445(
a)(
1)
of
the
Act
requires
each
PWS
to
"
establish
and
maintain
such
records,
make
such
reports,
conduct
such
monitoring,
and
provide
such
information
as
the
Administrator
may
reasonably
require
by
regulation
to
assist
him
in
establishing
regulations,
[
or]
...
in
evaluating
the
health
risks
of
unregulated
contaminants
...".
This
section
authorizes
EPA
to
require
systems
to
monitor,
provide
the
Agency
with
these
data,
and
to
maintain
records
of
this
information.

In
addition,
section
1401(
1)(
d)
of
the
SDWA
1996
Amendments
defines
NPDWRs
to
include
"
criteria
and
procedures
to
assure
a
supply
of
drinking
water
which
dependably
complies
with
such
maximum
contaminant
levels;
including
accepted
methods
for
quality
control
and
testing
procedures
...".
This
section
authorizes
EPA
to
require
systems
and
laboratories
to
use
Agency­
approved
methods
and
quality
assurance
criteria
for
collecting
and
analyzing
water
samples.

The
sections
from
the
SDWA
1996
Amendments,
discussed
above,
are
included
as
Appendix
A
of
this
document,
in
order
by
section
number.
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
5
2(
b)
Practical
Utility/
Users
of
the
Data
The
unregulated
contaminant
monitoring
data
collected
under
this
rule
will
be
used
to
support:
(
1)
the
development
and
interactive
evolution
of
the
CCL;
(
2)
the
Administrator's
determination
of
whether
to
regulate
a
contaminant;
and
(
3)
regulation
development.
In
addition,
if
the
contaminant
has
significant
occurrence
and
health
effects,
EPA
will
use
the
results
as
part
of
an
exposure
assessment;
for
establishing
the
baseline
for
health
effects
and
economic
analyses;
for
contaminant
co­
occurrence
analysis;
and
for
treatment
technology
evaluation,
including
contaminant
source
management.
Further,
the
results
may
suggest
that
the
occurrence
of
certain
contaminants
may
be
significant
enough
to
initiate
research
on
health
effects
and
treatment
technology.
Finally,
the
data
may
guide
future
source
water
protection
efforts.

System
level
records
of
the
analytical
results
of
this
monitoring
will
be
maintained
by
each
PWS.
EPA­
approved
laboratories
will
report
these
results
to
EPA's
electronic
data
reporting
system.
PWSs
will
review
the
information
posted
by
the
laboratory
and
submit
the
approved
data
to
the
State
and
EPA,
via
the
electronic
reporting
system.

The
data
collected
through
the
UCMR
program
is
being
stored
in
the
NCOD
to
facilitate
analysis
and
review
of
contaminant
occurrence,
to
guide
the
development
of
the
CCL
process,
and
to
support
the
Administrator's
determination
of
whether
or
not
to
regulate
a
contaminant
in
the
interest
of
protecting
public
health.

The
primary
user
of
the
information
collected
under
this
ICR
will
be
EPA's
Office
of
Water
(
OW).
Other
users
of
this
information
may
include
the
following:

°
Primacy
agencies,
which
include
State
regulators,
Indian
Tribes,
and,
in
some
instances,
EPA
Regional
Administrators
°
PWS
managers
°
Staff
from
other
EPA
programs
(
such
as
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Act;
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act;
and
the
Office
of
Enforcement
and
Compliance
Assurance)
°
Federal
Emergency
Management
Administration
°
Centers
for
Disease
Control
and
Prevention
°
Military
bases
°
Rural
Development
Administration/
Farmers
Home
Administration
°
Department
of
Interior
°
Department
of
Housing
and
Urban
Development
°
United
States
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
°
White
House
task
forces
°
American
Water
Works
Association
°
Association
of
Metropolitan
Water
Agencies
°
National
Rural
Water
Association
°
National
Association
of
Water
Companies
°
Association
of
State
Drinking
Water
Administrators
(
ASDWA)
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
6
°
Natural
Resources
Defense
Council
°
Consumers
Federation
of
America
°
Small
Business
Administration
°
Other
environmental
and
industry
groups
°
News
organizations
°
Private
industries
°
Individuals.
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
7
3
NON­
DUPLICATION,
CONSULTATIONS
AND
OTHER
COLLECTION
CRITERIA
3(
a)
Non­
duplication
The
data
required
by
UCMR
are
not
available
from
any
other
source
and
are
not
duplicative
of
information
otherwise
accessible
to
EPA.
With
public
health
protection
as
its
top
priority,
EPA
drew
upon
several
different
sources
in
developing
the
UCMR
2
contaminant
list.
In
the
early
stages
of
list
development,
EPA
began
by
identifying
a
broad
list
of
over
200
contaminants.
These
contaminants
were:
(
1)
UCMR
"
reserved"
contaminants
(
i.
e.,
those
identified
as
priorities
under
UCMR
1
but
reserved
for
later
monitoring
because
methods
were
not
yet
available);
(
2)
contaminants
on
the
first
CCL
(
either
deferred
pesticides
for
which
additional
information
was
needed
or
suspected
endocrine
disruptors);
or
(
3)
other
emerging
contaminants
(
those
identified
as
probable
carcinogens
or
those
that
could
be
identified
by
analytical
methods
used
in
measuring
other
priority
UCMR
contaminants).
EPA
pared
down
the
list
based
on
previously
established
priorities,
health
effects,
and
the
availability
of
an
analytical
method
and
analytical
reference
standard.

3(
b)
Public
Notice
Required
Prior
to
ICR
Submission
to
OMB
To
comply
with
the
1995
Amendments
to
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
EPA
is
seeking
public
comment
on
this
ICR.
To
comment
on
the
Agency's
need
for
this
information,
the
accuracy
of
the
provided
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques,
EPA
has
established
a
public
docket
for
UCMR
2,
which
includes
this
ICR,
under
Docket
ID
No.
OW­
2004­
0001.
The
public
can
submit
any
comments
related
to
the
ICR
for
this
proposed
action
to
EPA
and
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB).

3(
c)
Consultations
EPA's
Office
of
Ground
Water
and
Drinking
Water
developed
a
process
for
stakeholder
involvement
in
its
regulatory
activities
for
the
purpose
of
providing
early
input
to
regulation
development.
When
designing
and
developing
the
UCMR
program,
prior
to
1999,
EPA
held
meetings
for:
developing
the
CCL;
establishing
the
information
requirements
of
the
NCOD;
and
contaminant
selection.
During
the
initial
development
of
the
UCMR
program,
stakeholders
including
PWSs,
States,
industry,
and
other
organizations
attended
meetings
to
discuss
UCMR.
Seventeen
other
meetings
were
held
specifically
concerning
UCMR
development.
A
description
of
public
involvement
activities
related
to
UCMR
are
provided
in
the
September
1999,
UCMR
Final
Rule
Federal
Register
at
64
FR
50556.

Specific
to
the
development
of
UCMR
2,
a
stakeholder
meeting
was
held
on
October
29,
2003
in
Washington,
DC.
There
were
25
attendees,
representing
State
agencies,
federal
agencies,
laboratories,
PWSs,
and
drinking
water
associations.
The
topics
of
presentations
and
discussions
included:
the
rationale
for
selecting
a
new
list
of
contaminants;
analytical
methods
to
be
used
in
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
8
measuring
these
contaminants;
sampling
design,
particularly
for
the
Screening
Survey
monitoring;
procedure
for
determining
the
lowest
concentration
minimum
reporting
levels
(
LCMRLs);
validation
of
laboratory
performance
at
or
below
the
minimum
reporting
level
(
MRL);
revisions
to
data
elements;
and
other
proposed
revisions
based
on
lessons
learned
during
implementation
of
UCMR
1.

3(
d)
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
The
Agency
has
considered
a
wide
range
of
alternatives
for
frequency
of
collection
that
would
still
allow
the
Agency
to
meet
its
statutory
requirements
and
overall
objectives.
Less
frequent
data
collection
than
that
being
implemented
would
seriously
affect
the
integrity
of
the
data
and
result
in
insufficient
data
to
fulfill
the
needs
envisioned
by
the
1996
SDWA
Amendments,
including
the
continued
development
of
the
CCL,
support
of
the
Administrator's
regulatory
determinations,
and
overall
regulation
development.

Monitoring
frequencies
were
determined
based
on
statutory
requirements,
which
specify
that
monitoring
be
varied
based
on
the
number
of
people
served
by
a
system,
contaminants
likely
to
be
found,
and
source
of
supply.
The
monitoring
frequency
design
also
considers
that
the
number
of
people
served
affects
exposure
to
contaminants,
as
well
as
the
resources
available
to
undertake
monitoring
activity.
The
collection
frequencies
in
this
rule
are
discussed
further
in
section
5(
b),
Part
A
of
this
ICR
document.
Monitoring
frequencies
have
been
carefully
devised
based
on
the
following
factors:

°
data
quality
needed
for
a
representative
sample;
°
precision
and
accuracy
needed
from
the
representative
sample;
°
number
of
people
served
by
the
system;
°
source
of
the
supply
(
e.
g.,
surface
water
or
ground
water);
°
contaminants
likely
to
be
found;
and
°
temporal
variability
in
occurrence.

The
Assessment
Monitoring
component
of
data
collection
will
be
conducted
in
July
2007
through
June
2010
by
all
large
(
those
systems
serving
10,001
to
100,000
people)
and
very
large
systems
(
those
systems
serving
more
than
100,000
people),
and
by
a
nationally
representative
sample
of
800
small
systems
(
those
serving
10,000
people
or
fewer).
The
Screening
Survey
component
will
be
conducted
in
July
2007
through
June
2009
by
all
very
large
systems
and
by
a
sample
of
800
systems
serving
100,000
or
fewer
people.
Samples
will
be
collected
from
entry
points
to
the
distribution
system
(
EPTDSs).
As
specified
in
the
proposed
rule,
ground
water
systems
with
multiple
EPTDSs
will
only
be
required
to
sample
at
representative
sampling
locations
for
each
ground
water
source,
as
long
as
those
sites
have
been
approved.
In
addition,
Screening
Survey
systems
that
are
required
to
monitor
for
disinfection
byproducts
(
DBPs)
under
the
Stage
1
Disinfection
Byproducts
Rule
(
DBPR)
will
be
required
to
sample
for
nitrosamines
at
one
distribution
system
sampling
point
per
treatment
plant,
as
well
as
their
EPTDS
sampling
locations.
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
3
Ground
water
systems
are
required
to
sample
only
two
times
per
year
because
they
generally
show
less
seasonal
fluctuation
than
surface
water
or
GWUDI
systems.
Rule
language
regarding
sampling
schedule/
frequency
ensures
that
both
surface
and
ground
water
systems
collect
at
least
one
of
their
samples
during
the
most
vulnerable
period,
which
the
rule
specifies
by
default
to
be
May
­
July.

9
For
both
Assessment
Monitoring
and
Screening
Surveys,
samples
will
be
collected
twice
during
the
monitoring
year
for
ground
water
sampling
locations3,
and
four
times
during
the
monitoring
year
for
sampling
locations
that
are
fed
in
whole
or
part
by
a
surface
water
or
ground
water
under
the
direct
influence
of
surface
water
(
GWUDI)
source.
Multiple
samples
during
a
year
are
necessary
to
capture
the
annual
variability
in
contaminant
occurrence
to
approach
an
adequate
characterization
of
potential
exposure.
The
required
sampling
frequencies
will
help
provide
the
quality
and
quantity
of
data
that
will
be
statistically
necessary
for
regulatory
determinations.
The
Agency
will
schedule
the
year
and
months
of
system
monitoring.
Though
large
systems
will
have
the
option
of
changing
their
schedules
by
coordinating
a
new
schedule
with
EPA.

EPA
is
maintaining
the
same
statistical
design
that
was
established
under
UCMR
1
for
its
UCMR
2
national
representative
sample
of
800
small
systems
and
continuing
with
a
census
of
large
water
systems
for
Assessment
Monitoring.
EPA
believes
that
the
combination
of
a
nationally
representative
sample
of
small
systems
and
a
census
of
large
systems
provides
a
powerful
tool
for
assessing
contaminant
occurrence
in
PWSs,
and
that
this
is
the
most
effective
and
accurate
survey
approach.
A
sample
of
800
systems
from
the
universe
of
over
61,000
small
systems
will
provide
a
confidence
level
of
99
percent
with
an
allowable
error
of
±
1
percent.
The
set
of
representative
systems
are
distributed
among
different
size
categories,
but
weighted
by
population
served,
to
ensure
that
the
sample
can
provide
estimates
of
exposure.

EPA
has
selected
these
high
standards
to
ensure
the
quality
of
the
estimation.
EPA
considered
larger
sample
frames
because
of
the
many
uncertainties
involved,
but
the
sample
size
of
800
was
deemed
adequate
to
meet
the
needs
for
the
national
estimate.
Smaller
sample
sizes
(
i.
e.,
fewer
systems
monitored)
were
also
considered,
but
rejected.
In
general,
many
population
surveys
with
continuous
variables
use
a
lower
level
of
confidence
(
95
percent)
and/
or
a
larger
allowable
error.
However,
the
larger
possible
error
is
not
considered
acceptable
for
this
program.
Examination
and
analysis
of
current
occurrence
data
show
that
many
contaminants
that
are
currently
regulated,
or
being
considered
for
regulation
occur
in
1
percent
or
less
of
systems
on
a
national
basis.
For
many
contaminants,
a
1
percent
occurrence
nationally
translates
into
a
substantially
larger
occurrence
regionally.
Also,
even
a
small
percentage
of
systems
with
detections
can
translate
into
a
significant
population
affected.
With
a
greater
margin
of
error,
and
the
resultant
smaller
sample
size,
such
occurrence
might
be
missed
entirely.
Also,
it
is
necessary
for
EPA
to
make
some
judgements
about
the
occurrence
of
contaminants
in
relation
to
source
waters
and
different
size
categories
of
systems.
Many
statutes
and
current
regulations
differentiate
implementation
requirements
based
on
system
size
or
water
source.
While
combining
sampling
results
from
the
representative
sample
of
small
systems
with
that
from
all
large
systems
provides
increased
power
in
the
total
sample,
EPA
must
be
able
to
evaluate
occurrence,
and
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
10
possible
regulatory
options,
related
to
the
small
systems.
SDWA
and
many
current
rules
focus
on
burden
reduction
for
small
systems
when
feasible.
Also,
there
are
many
other
uncertainties
and
sources
of
variance
in
such
a
sample
program.
For
example,
all
contaminants
have
censored
distributions
(
i.
e.,
"
less
than
detection
level"
analytical
results)
and
there
are
a
myriad
of
factors
that
affect
variability
and
vulnerability
of
ground
water
systems.
It
remains
unclear
how
normal
sampling
theory
accommodates
these.
Hence,
the
high
confidence
level,
low
allowable
error,
and
larger
sample
size
should
help
to
ensure
adequate
data
to
meet
the
objectives
of
the
UCMR
program.

The
sample
size
for
the
Screening
Survey
under
UCMR
2
will
be
increased
to
ensure
the
data
can
be
used
to
support
regulatory
determinations,
and
rule
development,
if
warranted.
Thus,
if
a
contaminant
of
concern
is
found
to
occur
with
some
significance
during
the
Screening
Survey,
it
may
not
be
necessary
to
conduct
Assessment
Monitoring.
EPA
may
instead
be
able
to
make
a
regulatory
determination
based
on
these
data
and
move
to
protect
public
health
more
quickly.
The
new
Screening
Survey
design
also
accounts
for
possible
laboratory
capacity
issues
related
to
the
use
of
uncommon
methods.

The
proposed
design
increases
confidence
in
the
sampling
results
in
two
ways.
First,
the
Screening
Survey
would
use
a
larger
stratified
random
sample
of
800
systems
(
compared
to
300
under
UCMR
1),
allocated
across
five
strata
for
systems
serving
100,000
or
fewer
people.
The
sample
size
is
derived
from
the
same
rationale
as
that
for
Assessment
Monitoring,
but
the
sample
frame
is
expanded
to
include
large
systems
serving
between
10,001
and
100,000
people.
Second,
the
Screening
Survey
will
include
a
census
of
the
largest
PWSs,
those
serving
100,001
or
more
people
(
322
systems),
referred
to
as
"
very
large"
systems.
Using
a
census
of
these
very
large
systems
will
minimize
the
possibility
of
missing
contaminant
occurrence
at
the
systems
that
serve
the
largest
portion
of
the
population,
while
keeping
the
number
of
systems
required
to
conduct
the
Screening
Survey
relatively
small.

There
will
be
no
"
Index
System"
component
to
the
UCMR
2
program.
Under
UCMR
1,
samples
were
collected
from
30
small
Index
Systems
during
all
5
years
of
the
monitoring
cycle
to
assess
any
trends
in
temporal
occurrence,
other
data
variability,
or
program
problems.
EPA
is
not
proposing
Index
System
monitoring
for
UCMR
2
based
on
the
lack
of
contaminant
occurrence
observed
at
Index
Systems
monitored
in
UCMR
1.

EPA
has
further
reduced
the
number
of
systems
burdened
by
not
requiring
systems
that
purchase
all
of
their
water
to
monitor.
The
national
sample
(
described
above)
will
exclude
systems
that
purchase
the
entirety
of
their
water
from
other
systems,
to
minimize
redundant
sampling
of
sources.
Further,
exposure
estimates
can
be
extrapolated
to
purchased
systems
from
the
monitoring
data
of
the
original
source
systems.

The
UCMR
program
will
also
exclude
transient,
non­
community
systems.
Furthermore,
projecting
exposure
from
such
systems
is
complex
and
inconclusive
because
of
the
transient
nature
of
the
population
served
by
them.
The
results
from
the
small
community
water
systems
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
11
(
CWSs)
and
non­
transient
non­
community
water
systems
(
NTNCWSs)
can
be
extrapolated
to
these
systems.

Since
it
is
possible
that
certain
contaminants
are
not
likely
to
be
found
if
their
associated
chemical
use
does
not
occur
in
a
particular
State,
UCMR
includes
a
provision
for
waivers
for
large
systems
on
a
State­
wide,
chemical­
specific
basis.
However,
for
small
systems,
waivers
will
not
be
considered
because
eliminating
small
systems
from
the
nationally
representative
sample
would
compromise
the
data
quality
and
consistency
requirements
of
a
representative
sample.
The
representative
sample
must
provide
adequate
information
on
both
the
presence
and
absence
of
contaminants
for
the
systems
sampled.
Furthermore,
since
EPA
will
pay
for
this
testing,
it
does
not
place
a
significant
burden
on
these
small
systems.

3(
e)
General
Guidelines
This
ICR
has
been
completed
in
accordance
with
the
October
2001
version
of
EPA's
Guide
to
Writing
Information
Collection
Requests
Under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
of
1995
(
hereafter,
the
"
ICR
Handbook").
The
ICR
Handbook
was
prepared
by
EPA's
Office
of
Environmental
Information,
Office
of
Information
Collection,
Collection
Strategies
Division.
The
ICR
Handbook
provides
the
most
current
instructions
for
ICR
preparation
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
1995
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
Amendments
and
OMB's
implementing
guidelines.

EPA
is
taking
an
approach
that
minimizes
burden
to
the
respondents.
In
addition,
this
collection
does
not
violate
any
of
the
OMB
guidelines
for
information
collection
activities.
Specifically,
the
respondents
are
not
required
to:

°
Report
information
to
EPA
more
than
quarterly.
°
Prepare
a
written
response
to
a
collection
of
information
in
fewer
than
30
days
after
receipt
of
a
request.
°
Submit
more
than
an
original
and
two
copies
of
any
document.
°
Retain
records,
other
than
health,
medical,
government
contract,
grant­
in­
aid
or
tax
records,
for
more
than
three
years.
°
Participate
in
a
statistical
survey
that
is
not
designed
to
produce
data
that
can
be
generalized
to
the
universe
of
the
study.
°
Use
a
statistical
data
classification
that
has
not
been
reviewed
and
approved
by
OMB.
°
Receive
a
pledge
of
confidentiality
that
is
not
supported
by
authority
established
in
statute
or
regulation,
that
is
not
supported
by
disclosure
and
data
security
policies
that
are
consistent
with
the
pledge,
or
which
unnecessarily
impedes
sharing
of
data
with
other
agencies
for
compatible
confidential
use.
°
Submit
proprietary,
trade
secret,
or
other
confidential
information
unless
EPA
can
demonstrate
that
it
has
instituted
procedures
to
protect
the
information's
confidentiality
to
the
extent
permitted
by
law.
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
12
3(
f)
Confidentiality
This
information
collection
does
not
require
respondents
to
disclose
confidential
information.

3(
g)
Sensitive
Questions
No
questions
of
a
sensitive
nature
are
included
in
any
of
the
information
collection
requirements
outlined
in
this
ICR.
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
13
4
RESPONDENTS
AND
THE
INFORMATION
4(
a)
Respondents
and
NAICS/
SIC
Codes
Data
associated
with
this
ICR
are
collected
and
maintained
by
PWSs.
States,
Territories,
and
Tribes
with
primacy
to
administer
the
regulatory
program
for
PWSs
under
SDWA
may
participate
in
UCMR
2
implementation
through
a
Partnership
Agreement
(
PA).
These
primacy
agencies
may
sometimes
conduct
monitoring
and
maintain
records.
The
North
American
Industry
Classification
System
(
NAICS)
code
for
PWSs
is
22131.
The
NAICS
code
for
State
agencies
that
include
drinking
water
programs
are
classified
as
92411
(
Administration
of
Air
and
Water
Resources
and
Solid
Waste
Management
Programs)
or
92312
(
Administration
of
Public
Health
Programs).

4(
b)
Information
Requested
This
ICR
summarizes
the
data
items
and
respondent
activities
associated
with
UCMR
2.

4(
b)(
i)
Data
Items
A
discussion
of
data
and
information
that
are
part
of
the
reporting
and
record
keeping
requirements
for
systems
is
found
below
in
section
4(
b)(
i)(
a),
Part
A
of
this
ICR
document.
The
requirements
for
States
are
discussed
below
in
section
4(
b)(
i)(
b),
Part
A
of
this
ICR
document.

4(
b)(
i)(
a)
Public
Water
System
Reporting
and
Record
Keeping
Section
141.35
requires
PWSs
that
are
subject
to
the
UCMR
requirements
to
report
monitoring
results
for
the
26
contaminants
listed
in
§
141.40
to
EPA
(
see
Exhibit
1
for
the
contaminant
list).
The
proposed
rule
modifies
and
clarifies
several
of
the
requirements
related
to
reporting
of
contact
information
by
all
PWSs.
Modifications
and
clarifications
to
reporting
requirements
for
large
systems
include:
reporting
sampling
location
and
contact
information
prior
to
monitoring;
submitting
proposals
for
representative
EPTDSs;
ensuring
electronic
reporting
of
analytical
results
and
associated
data
elements
by
laboratories;
and
reviewing,
approving,
and
submitting
monitoring
data
that
was
posted
by
laboratories.

Exhibit
1:
Proposed
Contaminant
List
and
Sampling
Design
List
1,
Assessment
Monitoring
1,3­
dinitrobenzene
2,4,6­
trinitrotoluene
(
TNT)

2,2',
4,4'­
tetrabromodiphenyl
ether
(
BDE­
47)
Dimethoate
2,2',
4,4',
5­
pentabromodiphenyl
ether
(
BDE­
99)
Hexahydro­
1,3,5­
trinitro­
1,3,5­
triazine
(
RDX)

2,2',
4,4',
5,5'­
hexabromobiphenyl
(
245­
HBB)
Terbufos
sulfone
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
Exhibit
1:
Proposed
Contaminant
List
and
Sampling
Design
List
1,
Assessment
Monitoring
14
2,2',
4,4',
5,5'­
hexabromodiphenyl
ether
(
BDE­
153)
Perchlorate
2,2',
4,4',
6­
pentabromodiphenyl
ether
(
BDE­
100)

List
2,
Screening
Survey
Acetochlor
Metolachlor
OA
Acetochlor
ESA
N­
nitroso­
diethylamine
(
NDEA)

Acetochlor
OA
N­
nitroso­
dimethylamine
(
NDMA)

Alachlor
N­
nitroso­
di­
n­
butylamine
(
NDBA)

Alachlor
ESA
N­
nitroso­
di­
n­
propylamine
(
NDPA)

Alachlor
OA
N­
nitroso­
methylethylamine
(
NMEA)

Metolachlor
N­
nitroso­
pyrrolidine
(
NPYR)

Metolachlor
ESA
The
proposed
action
also
modifies
the
reporting
requirements
to
make
reported
results
more
useful
for
sound
scientific
analyses
of
the
occurrence
of
unregulated
contaminants.
Some
of
the
reporting
requirements
will
remain
the
same,
a
few
are
clarified,
some
have
been
removed,
and
one
new
additional
data
element
is
being
proposed.
The
15
required
data
elements
are
listed
in
Exhibit
2.
Large
systems
must
electronically
report
data
elements
1
through
5,
and
7
through
15
if
conducting
Assessment
Monitoring,
and
all
15
if
conducting
Screening
Survey.
Small
systems
must
record
data
elements
1
through
5,
and
7
if
conducting
Assessment
Monitoring,
and
1
through
7
if
conducting
Screening
Survey.
All
systems
participating
in
UCMR
monitoring
must
inform
EPA
of
any
changes
to
data
elements
1
through
6,
if
applicable.

Exhibit
2:
Unregulated
Contaminant
Monitoring
Reporting
Requirements
1.
Public
Water
System
Identification
(
PWSID)
Code
9.
Contaminant
2.
Public
Water
System
Facility
Identification
Code
10.
Analytical
Method
Code
3.
Water
Source
Type
11.
Sample
Analysis
Type
4.
Sampling
Point
Identification
Code
12.
Analytical
Results
­
Sign
5.
Sampling
Point
Type
Identification
Code
13.
Analytical
Result
­
Value
6.
Disinfectant
Residual
Type
(
applies
only
to
those
systems
required
to
conduct
the
Screening
Survey)
14.
Laboratory
Identification
Code
7.
Sample
Collection
Date
15.
Sample
Event
Code
8.
Sample
Identification
Code
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
15
4(
b)(
i)(
b)
State
Reporting
and
Record
Keeping
As
was
true
for
UCMR
1,
the
UCMR
2
proposed
regulation
will
be
a
direct
implementation
rule,
and
therefore
States
will
not
be
required
to
report
to
EPA.
Implementation
activities
for
each
State
will
be
identified
and
determined
through
PAs
with
EPA.
If
participating
in
a
PA,
States
will
at
a
minimum
be
reviewing
and
revising
Initial
State
Monitoring
Plans,
notifying
systems
of
their
UCMR
responsibilities,
and
providing
EPA
with
a
list
of
the
systems
notified.
Because
States
have
no
specified
reporting
cycle,
it
is
assumed
that
States
have
1.0
response
per
year,
encompassing
all
communication
and
coordination
activities
with
EPA
and
systems.

4(
b)(
ii)
Respondent
Activities
Respondents
include
both
PWSs
and
States.
System
activities
and
State
activities
are
discussed
below
in
sections
4(
b)(
ii)(
a)
and
4(
b)(
ii)(
b),
respectively
(
Part
A
of
this
ICR
document).

4(
b)(
ii)(
a)
Public
Water
System
Activities
To
comply
with
the
requirements
in
this
regulation,
systems
are
expected
to
conduct
the
following
activities:

°
read
regulations
and/
or
letter
from
State
or
EPA
which
outline
requirements;
°
monitor
or
provide
monitoring
assistance
(
e.
g.,
sample
collection
and
shipping);
°
report
and
maintain
records;
and
°
report
to
the
public.

Each
of
these
activities
are
discussed
in
more
detail
below.

Read
Regulations/
State
Letter:
All
PWSs
that
are
participating
in
UCMR
monitoring
are
assumed
to
read
the
UCMR
regulations
and/
or
a
State­
issued
guidance
letter
during
2007.
Small
systems
can
rely
on
summarized
information
from
the
State
or
EPA
for
information
pertaining
to
the
regulation,
rather
than
reading
the
regulation.

Monitoring
or
Monitoring
Assistance:
Monitoring
activities
that
are
considered
in
the
system
cost
and
burden
estimates
include
receiving
sampling
kits
from
the
laboratory,
reading
sampling
instructions,
and
collecting
and
shipping
the
sample.
Assessment
Monitoring
is
scheduled
to
occur
during
July
2007
through
June
2010
for
11
chemical
contaminants.
The
Screening
Survey
is
scheduled
for
July
2007
through
June
2009
for
15
other
chemical
contaminants.
Because
an
equal
percentage
of
systems
are
assumed
to
monitor
during
each
consecutive
12­
month
period,
all
systems
required
to
conduct
Assessment
Monitoring
will
monitor
during
the
ICR
period
of
2007­
2009,
however,
the
last
group
of
systems
will
have
only
one­
half
of
their
monitoring
completed
(
with
January
through
June
of
2010
to
complete
their
monitoring).
All
required
Screening
Survey
monitoring
will
take
place
during
the
ICR
period.
To
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
16
provide
a
comprehensive
cost
estimate
for
the
proposed
rule,
Appendix
B
provides
monitoring
costs
for
the
entire
monitoring
period
of
2007­
2011.

For
both
Assessment
Monitoring
and
the
Screening
Survey,
surface
water
(
and
GWUDI)
sampling
points
will
be
monitored
four
times
during
the
applicable
year
of
monitoring,
and
ground
water
sampling
points
will
be
monitored
twice
during
the
applicable
year
of
monitoring.
Monitoring
will
be
conducted
at
EPTDSs.
Large
ground
water
systems
with
multiple
EPTDSs
will
only
be
required
to
sample
at
representative
sampling
locations
for
each
ground
water
source,
as
long
as
those
sites
have
been
approved
by
EPA
or
the
State.
In
addition,
Screening
Survey
systems
that
are
required
to
monitor
for
DBPs
will
be
required
to
sample
for
nitrosamines
at
one
distribution
system
sampling
point
per
treatment
plant
(
i.
e.,
at
the
distribution
system
maximum
residence
time
(
DSMRT)),
as
well
as
their
EPTDS
sampling
locations.

Reporting
and
Record
Keeping:
As
noted
in
section
4(
b)(
i)(
a),
Part
A
of
this
ICR
document,
the
proposed
rule
modifies
and
clarifies
several
of
the
requirements
related
to
reporting
of
contact
information,
reporting
of
sampling
location
data,
electronic
reporting
by
laboratories,
and
data
elements
associated
with
monitoring
data.
Activities
related
to
these
reporting
requirements
include:

°
Reporting
Prior
to
Monitoring
Contact
information:
As
under
UCMR
1,
large
systems
are
required
to
report
contact
information
to
EPA.
This
information
includes
the
name,
affiliation,
mailing
address,
phone
number,
facsimile
number,
and
e­
mail
address
for
the
PWS
Technical
Contact
and
PWS
Official
(
i.
e.,
the
official
spokesperson
for
a
PWS's
UCMR
activities).
The
proposed
rule
clarifies
that
the
information
must
be
submitted
to
EPA's
electronic
data
reporting
system
within
a
specified
time
frame
after
rule
promulgation.
Small
systems
must
provide
this
information
by
mail,
in
response
to
a
specific
written
request
that
they
will
receive
from
EPA.

Sampling
location
information:
Prior
to
sampling,
large
PWSs
must
also
provide
inventory
information
related
to
each
applicable
sampling
location.
For
each
sampling
location
or
each
approved
representative
sampling
location,
large
PWSs
must
submit:
PWS
identification
(
PWSID)
code;
PWS
facility
identification
code;
sampling
point
identification
code;
sampling
point
type
identification
code;
sampling
location
water
type.
In
addition,
large
systems
that
are
required
to
conduct
Screening
Survey
monitoring
must
report
the
disinfectant(
s)
used
to
maintain
a
residual
in
the
distribution
system
for
each
distribution
system
sampling
location.

Representative
EPTDS
proposal:
Some
systems
that
use
ground
water
as
a
source
and
have
multiple
EPTDSs
may
monitor
at
representative
entry
point(
s),
rather
than
at
each
EPTDS.
To
qualify,
these
ground
water
systems
must
have
either
the
same
treatment
or
no
treatment
at
all
of
their
well
sources;
and
they
must
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
17
have
an
EPTDS
for
each
well
within
a
well
field
(
resulting
in
multiple
EPTDSs
from
the
same
source,
such
as
an
aquifer).
Systems
meeting
these
criteria
can
submit
a
proposal
to
EPA
or
the
State.
The
proposal
must
demonstrate
that
any
EPTDS
selected
as
representative
of
the
ground
water
supplied
from
multiple
wells
be
associated
with
an
individual
well
that
draws
from
the
same
aquifer
as
the
multiple
wells
(
i.
e.,
those
being
represented).

°
Reporting
Monitoring
Results
Small
systems:
Under
UCMR
1,
small
systems
were
technically
held
to
the
same
data
review
and
approval
requirements
as
those
for
large
systems.
However,
because
EPA
pays
for
and
organizes
the
small
system
testing
program,
this
review
and
approval
step
for
small
systems
proved
impractical.
Under
UCMR
2,
small
systems
would
only
be
required
to
record
system
and
sample
location
information
on
the
sampling
forms
and
bottles
that
are
sent
to
them
by
the
UCMR
Sampling
Coordinator.
The
schedule
for
submitting
this
information
will
be
specified
in
the
instructions
sent
to
the
system.

Large
systems:
The
proposed
rule
specifies
that
laboratories
must
post
the
analytical
results
and
associated
data
elements
to
EPA's
electronic
data
reporting
system
within
120
days
of
sample
collection.
The
proposed
rule
also
clarifies
that
large
systems
must
ensure
that
their
laboratory
meets
this
requirement,
and
that
systems
review,
approve,
and
submit
the
data
to
the
State
and
EPA
via
the
electronic
reporting
system
within
60
days
from
when
the
laboratory
posts
the
data.
After
60
days
from
the
laboratory's
posting,
if
the
PWS
has
not
approved
and
submitted
the
data,
the
data
will
be
considered
approved
and
final
for
EPA
review.

°
Record
Keeping
Section
141.33
requires
systems
to
maintain
records
of
chemical
monitoring
data
for
10
years.
No
changes
are
being
made
to
those
record
keeping
requirements.

Reporting
to
the
Public:
SDWA
section
1445(
a)(
2)(
E)
requires
notification
of
the
results
of
the
UCMR
program
to
be
made
available
to
those
served
by
the
system.
CWSs
are
required
to
notify
their
users
of
the
detection
of
any
contaminants
(
including
unregulated
contaminants)
in
their
Consumer
Confidence
Reports
(
CCRs),
pursuant
to
§
141.153(
d)(
3)(
iv),
published
in
the
Federal
Register
(
63
FR
44512).
Monitoring
and
reporting
violations
for
all
systems
(
CWSs
and
NTNCWSs)
will
be
reportable
under
the
Public
Notification
Rule
(
64
FR
25964
(
May
13,
1999)).

4(
b)(
ii)(
b)
State
Activities
For
UCMR
1,
EPA
estimated
State
burdens
and
costs
using
the
1993
State
Resource
Model
(
documented
in
the
"
Resource
Analysis
Computer
Program
for
State
Drinking
Water
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
18
Agencies").
That
model
was
designed
by
EPA
in
coordination
with
ASDWA
and
required
specific
input
for
a
list
of
activities
and
variables
related
to
State
operation
of
the
UCMR
drinking
water
program
(
e.
g.,
number
of
systems
affected,
estimates
of
violation
rates,
etc.).
Since
that
time,
EPA
and
ASDWA
have
worked
together
to
update
and
improve
the
previous
version
of
the
resource
model.
EPA
used
the
updated
resource
model
(
the
"
2001
ASDWA
Drinking
Water
Program
Resource
Needs
Self
Assessment",
as
documented
in:
"
Public
Health
Protection
Threatened
by
Inadequate
Resources
for
State
Drinking
Water
Programs
­
An
Analysis
of
State
Drinking
Water
Program
Resources,
Needs,
and
Barriers";
ASDWA,
April
2003)
to
estimate
resources
that
States
may
need
for
the
oversight
and
implementation
of
UCMR
2.
Assumptions
that
were
applied
in
using
this
resource
assessment
tool
are
described
in
section
6(
b),
Part
A
of
this
ICR
document.
EPA
assumes
that
State
participation
will
closely
reflect
that
which
occurred
during
UCMR
1.
Therefore,
model
estimates
were
adjusted
to
account
for
actual
levels
of
prior
State
participation.

Since
UCMR
is
a
"
direct
implementation"
rule,
specifics
of
each
State's
role
will
be
delineated
in
PAs
between
the
States
and
EPA.
However,
in
response
to
the
regulation,
EPA
anticipates
that
State
activities
will
generally
include
EPA
coordination
activities/
PAs,
data
management
and
support,
program
implementation,
and
training/
overhead.
Though
some
States
may
choose
to
conduct
sampling
for
their
systems,
this
activity
is
not
part
of
the
PA
agreement
and
is
optional
for
States.
Burden
for
sampling
is
currently
attributed
to
systems
only.
If
States
choose
to
conduct
monitoring
for
systems,
burden
would
be
similar
to
that
estimated
for
systems.

State
Coordination
with
EPA/
PAs:
State
activities
that
involve
coordination
with
EPA
include
coordination
and
drafting
of
a
PA,
review
of
and
response
to
EPA's
proposed
State
Monitoring
Plan,
review
of
PWS
proposals
for
representative
EPTDSs,
and
general
ongoing
coordination.

Review
of
State
Monitoring
Plans
will
be
one
of
the
first
UCMR
activities
to
take
place
at
the
State
level.
Each
State
will
receive
a
proposed
initial
State
Monitoring
Plan
from
EPA.
This
plan
will
list
all
systems
that
will
be
required
to
conduct
Assessment
Monitoring
and
the
Screening
Surveys,
including
small
and
large
systems
that
were
statistically
selected
as
a
sample,
and
those
large
systems
subject
to
the
rule
by
meeting
applicability
criteria.
For
systems
that
are
part
of
the
sample,
EPA
will
also
generate
a
list
to
provide
similar
replacement
systems
for
States
to
select
from,
for
those
systems
that
may
not
have
been
correctly
specified
in
the
initial
plan.
If
a
State
identifies
systems
on
the
original
proposed
State
Monitoring
Plan
that
it
determines
are
not
appropriate
for
the
representative
sample
(
e.
g.,
if
systems
are
inactive,
or
have
switched
to
purchased
water),
the
State
can
propose
an
alternative
plan
by
selecting
other
systems
from
EPA's
alternate
list
to
replace
the
ineligible
systems.
The
State
Monitoring
Plans
will
also
specify
the
year
and
months
during
which
regulated
systems
will
monitor.
States
will
have
the
option
to
modify
these
schedules.

Some
systems
that
use
ground
water
as
a
source
of
water
are
expected
to
submit
a
proposal
for
monitoring
at
representative
entry
point(
s),
rather
than
monitor
at
every
EPTDS.
State
involvement
in
the
review
of
these
proposals
will
be
determined
in
the
PA
process.
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
19
EPA
also
recognizes
that
it
will
be
necessary
for
States
to
maintain
ongoing
communications
with
EPA
regarding
the
requirements
of
UCMR.
An
example
of
this
would
be
instances
when
States
need
clarification
and
guidance
regarding
a
specific
requirement
of
the
regulation.

Data
Management
and
Support:
Though
there
are
no
data
management
and
support
activities
included
in
UCMR,
EPA
recognizes
that
many
States
will
update
their
databases
to
accommodate
the
revised
UCMR
data
elements.
Activities
will
likely
include
data
entry/
downloading
of
data,
and
general
record
keeping.

Program
Implementation:
Program
implementation
activities
for
each
State
may
include
notification
and
guidance
letter
to
systems,
data
review,
ongoing
system
support,
and
enforcement.

Following
review
and
finalization
of
State
Monitoring
Plans,
participating
States
will
prepare
a
notification
letter
that
describes
system
monitoring
schedules
and
requirements
under
the
regulation.
These
States
will
send
notification
to
each
applicable
system
and
send
the
list
of
these
notified
systems
to
EPA.
It
is
also
likely
that
States
will
receive
telephone
calls
from
water
systems
asking
for
clarification
and
guidance
pertaining
to
the
requirements
of
UCMR.
States
may
choose
to
review
monitoring
results,
in
part
to
determine
whether
a
system
has
met
its
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements.

State
Staff
Training
and
Overhead:
Technical
staff
are
assumed
to
participate
in
rulespecific
training
designed
to
assist
them
in
understanding
the
regulation,
their
roles
and
responsibilities,
and
to
allow
the
State
to
better
provide
technical
assistance
to
the
systems.
In
addition,
general
overhead
costs,
such
as
clerical
and
managerial
needs,
are
allocated
to
the
UCMR
staff
requirements
in
the
standard
State
Resource
Model,
which
allocates
support
staff
needs
as
a
percentage
of
professional
staff
needs.
See
section
6(
b),
Part
A
of
this
ICR
document,
for
further
discussion
of
model
assumptions.
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
20
5
INFORMATION
COLLECTED
 
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY,
AND
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
5(
a)
Agency
Activities
EPA
Headquarters
and
Regional
offices
will
be
responsible
for
oversight
of
State
PWS
programs,
and
processing
and
analysis
of
the
UCMR
data.
EPA
implementation
activities
are
categorized,
as
follows,
into
three
major
categories:
regulatory
support
activities;
program
oversight
and
data
analysis;
and
small
system
testing
program,
which
are
described
below,
in
5(
a)(
i)­(
iii).

5(
a)(
i)
Regulatory
Support
Activities
Regulatory
support
activities
include:
laboratory
approval
and
quality
assurance/
quality
control;
and
technical
support
to
PWSs,
such
as
guidance
documents.

Laboratory
Approval
and
Quality
Assurance/
Quality
Control
(
QA/
QC)
Activities:
EPA
anticipates
incurring
various
costs
related
to
laboratory
approvals
and
laboratory
quality
assurance
and
control,
including
the
following
activities:

°
Laboratory
approvals/
Proficiency
Testing
(
PT)
program
­
EPA
will
assess
whether
laboratories
meet
the
required
equipment,
laboratory
performance,
and
data
reporting
criteria.
EPA
will
register
and
evaluate
laboratories
based
on
the
applications.
Selected
laboratories
will
then
participate
in
the
UCMR
2
PT
program.
EPA
plans
to
conduct
these
laboratory
assessments
during
2006;
however,
these
costs
are
included
with
the
2007
costs
to
reflect
the
costs
of
the
five­
year
UCMR
2
program
(
2007­
2011).
°
QC
audits
of
contract
laboratories
­
EPA
expects
to
conduct
QC
audits
at
each
of
the
approved
laboratories
during
each
year
of
UCMR
2
monitoring
(
July
2007
through
June
2010).
°
Analytical
standards
provision
and
coordination
­
EPA
will
coordinate
and
distribute
specialized
analytical
standards
to
participating
laboratories.

Technical
Support/
Guidance
Document
Development:
Technical
support
and
guidance
document
include:
developing
and
distributing
guidance
for
laboratory
calculations
MRL/
LCMRL;
and
background
information
about
the
health
effects
(
e.
g.,
fact
sheets)
of
the
UCMR
2
contaminants.

5(
a)(
ii)
National
and
Regional
Oversight/
Data
Analysis
EPA's
UCMR
program
activities
include
data
analysis,
management
oversight,
and
implementation
assistance
to
States.
These
are
key
management
and
oversight
activities
that
must
be
conducted
by
EPA
Headquarters
or
its
Regional
offices.
Exhibit
3,
below,
illustrates
the
time
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
21
line
for
UCMR
implementation
activities.
EPA
will
develop
its
PAs
with
States
and
the
State
Monitoring
Plans
prior
to
2007.
EPA
will
conduct
its
ongoing
evaluation
of
the
data
during
2007­
2011.

Exhibit
3:
Time
Line
of
UCMR
Activities
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
EPA
Lab
approval
program
begins
Representative
Sample
of
PWSs
Selected
by
EPA
EPA/
State
PAs
and
State
Monitoring
Plans
Developed
Inform
PWSs/
Establish
Monitoring
Plans
Next
RegDet1
scheduled
for
CCL2
contaminants
Assessment
Monitoring:
List
1
Contaminants
All
systems
serving
more
than
10,000;
800
systems
serving
10,000
or
fewer
people
Screening
Survey:
List
2
Contaminants
All
systems
serving
more
than
100,000
people;
800
systems
serving
100,000
or
fewer
people
Potential
Additional
Screening
Survey:
Potential
monitoring
for
emerging
contaminants
not
identified
in
today's
action
1
RegDet
=
Regulatory
Determination
5(
a)(
iii)
Costs
for
Small
System
Testing
Program
EPA
expects
that
implementation
of
small
system
testing
program
will
be
the
largest
portion
of
Agency
costs
for
the
UCMR
program.
Prior
to
monitoring,
EPA
activities
for
logistical
support
of
the
small
system
testing
program
will
include
coordination
of
small
system
testing
and
provision
of
testing
supplies.
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
22
The
single
largest
cost
to
EPA
for
implementation
of
UCMR
is
for
small
system
sample
analyses.
During
the
ICR
period
of
2007­
2009,
EPA
will
pay
for
the
analytical
and
shipping
costs
for
small
systems
in
the
national
representative
sample
for
most
of
Assessment
Monitoring
(
the
monitoring
period
of
January
through
June
2010
falls
outside
of
the
ICR
period),
and
for
the
entire
Screening
Survey.
EPA
also
expects
to
conduct
some
QC
activities
that
will
not
be
required
of
the
large
systems.
Specifically,
EPA
plans
to
send
duplicates
of
10
percent
of
small
system
samples
to
a
separate
laboratory
for
analysis.
The
quality
control
duplicates
are
intended
to
provide
standard,
real
time,
QC
checks
among
the
different
contract
laboratories.

5(
b)
Information
Collection
Methodology
and
Management
This
proposed
rule
specifies
that
laboratories
must
report
the
analytical
results
and
associated
data
elements
to
EPA's
electronic
data
reporting
system.
The
proposed
rule
clarifies
that
large
systems
must
ensure
that
their
laboratory
posts
the
data
in
EPA's
electronic
data
reporting
system,
and
must
review,
approve,
and
submit
the
data
to
the
State
and
EPA
via
the
EPA
electronic
reporting
system.
After
60
days
from
the
laboratory's
posting,
if
the
PWS
has
not
approved
and
submitted
the
data,
the
data
will
be
considered
approved
and
final
for
EPA
review.
Electronic
reporting
will
provide
significant
collection
efficiencies,
and
reduce
the
possibility
of
data
input
error.

EPA
plans
to
conduct
ongoing
data
analysis
which
will
include
checks
for
anomalies
in
the
data
that
may
be
related
to
data
entry
or
laboratory
errors.
Data
quality
review
and
analysis
will
include:
continuous
analysis
of
laboratory
results,
review
of
all
program
data,
and
NCOD
review.

The
UCMR
data
will
be
maintained
and
analyzed
through
NCOD.
The
data
collected
under
UCMR
will
be
used
for
regulation
development,
to
analyze
the
significance
of
occurrence
and
health
effects,
and
to
support
the
critical
Agency
function
of
program
oversight.
The
public
will
receive
information
regarding
UCMR
monitoring
results
through
the
CCRs,
and
will
be
able
to
access
data
through
the
NCOD.
In
addition,
systems
that
fail
to
monitor
for
unregulated
contaminants
will
be
required
to
notify
the
public
of
their
failure
to
monitor.

5(
c)
Small
Entity
Flexibility
Note:
The
following
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
analysis
summary
is
the
same
as
that
provided
in
the
preamble
to
the
proposed
rule.
The
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
analysis
is
based
on
the
entire
five­
year
UCMR
implementation
period
of
2007­
2011,
rather
the
three­
year
ICR
period
of
2007­
2009.

The
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA)
generally
requires
an
agency
to
prepare
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
of
any
rule
subject
to
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
requirements
under
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act
or
any
other
statute
unless
the
agency
certifies
that
the
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
Small
entities
include
small
businesses,
small
organizations,
and
small
governmental
jurisdictions.
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
23
The
RFA
provides
default
definitions
for
each
type
of
small
entity.
Small
entities
are
defined
as:
(
1)
a
small
business
as
defined
by
the
Small
Business
Administration's
(
SBA)
regulations
at
13
CFR
121.201;
(
2)
a
small
governmental
jurisdiction
that
is
a
government
of
a
city,
county,
town,
school
district
or
special
district
with
a
population
of
less
than
50,000;
and
(
3)
a
small
organization
that
is
any
"
not­
for­
profit
enterprise
which
is
independently
owned
and
operated
and
is
not
dominant
in
its
field."
However,
the
RFA
also
authorizes
an
agency
to
use
alternative
definitions
for
each
category
of
small
entity,
"
which
are
appropriate
to
the
activities
of
the
agency"
after
proposing
the
alternative
definition(
s)
in
the
Federal
Register
and
taking
comment
5
USC
601(
3)
­
(
5).
In
addition,
to
establish
an
alternative
small
business
definition,
agencies
must
consult
with
SBA's
Chief
Counsel
for
Advocacy.

For
purposes
of
assessing
the
impacts
of
today's
proposed
rule
on
small
entities,
EPA
considered
small
entities
to
be
PWSs
serving
10,000
or
fewer
people,
because
this
is
the
system
size
specified
in
SDWA
as
requiring
special
consideration
with
respect
to
small
system
flexibility.
As
required
by
the
RFA,
EPA
proposed
using
this
alternative
definition
in
the
Federal
Register,
(
63
FR
7605,
February
13,
1998
(
USEPA,
1998a)),
requested
public
comment,
consulted
with
the
SBA,
and
finalized
the
alternative
definition
in
the
Consumer
Confidence
Reports
rulemaking,
(
63
FR
44511,
August
19,
1998
(
USEPA,
1998c)).
As
stated
in
that
Final
rule,
the
alternative
definition
would
be
applied
to
this
regulation
as
well.

The
small
entities
directly
regulated
by
this
proposed
rule
are
PWSs
serving
10,000
or
fewer
people.
EPA
has
determined
that
the
small
entities
subject
to
the
requirements
of
this
proposed
rule
are
a
subset
of
the
small
PWSs
(
those
serving
10,000
or
fewer
people).
The
Agency
has
determined
that
1,280
small
PWSs
(
across
Assessment
Monitoring
and
the
Screening
Survey),
or
approximately
2
percent
of
small
systems,
will
experience
an
impact
of
less
than
0.6
percent
of
revenues/
sales;
the
remainder
of
systems
will
not
be
impacted.

Although
this
proposed
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities,
EPA
nonetheless
has
tried
to
reduce
the
impact
of
this
rule
on
small
entities.
To
ensure
that
this
proposed
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities,
EPA
will
assume
all
costs
for
analyses
of
the
samples
and
for
shipping
the
samples
from
these
systems
to
the
laboratories
contracted
by
EPA
to
analyze
UCMR
2
samples.
EPA
has
set
aside
$
2.0
million
each
year
from
the
State
Revolving
Fund
(
SRF)
with
its
authority
to
use
SRF
monies
for
the
purposes
of
implementing
this
provision
of
SDWA.
Thus,
the
costs
to
these
small
systems
will
be
limited
to
the
labor
hours
associated
with
collecting
a
sample
and
preparing
it
for
shipping.

EPA
continues
to
be
interested
in
the
potential
impacts
of
the
proposed
rule
on
small
entities
and
welcome
comments
on
issues
related
to
such
impacts.

To
evaluate
the
overall
impact
on
small
entities,
EPA
analyzed
the
impacts
for
privatelyowned
and
publicly­
owned
water
systems
separately,
due
to
the
different
economic
characteristics
of
these
ownership
types.
For
publicly­
owned
systems,
EPA
used
the
"
revenue
test,"
which
compares
annual
system
costs
attributed
to
the
rule
to
the
system's
annual
revenues.
EPA
used
a
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
24
"
sales
test"
for
privately­
owned
systems,
which
involves
the
analogous
comparison
of
UCMRrelated
costs
to
a
privately­
owned
system's
sales.
EPA
assumes
that
the
distribution
of
the
sample
of
participating
small
systems
will
reflect
the
proportions
of
publicly­
and
privately­
owned
systems
in
the
national
inventory.
The
estimated
distribution
of
the
representative
sample,
categorized
by
ownership
type,
source
water,
and
system
size,
is
presented
below
in
Exhibit
4.

Exhibit
4:
Number
of
Publicly­
and
Privately­
Owned
Systems
Subject
to
UCMR
2
System
Size
Publicly­
Owned
Privately­
Owned
Total
Ground
Water
500
and
under
102
528
630
501
to
3,300
179
61
240
3,301
to
10,000
95
19
114
Subtotal
GW
376
608
984
Surface
Water
(
and
GWUDI)

500
and
under
48
53
101
501
to
3,300
95
6
101
3,301
to
10,000
87
7
94
Subtotal
SW
230
66
296
Total
of
Small
Water
Systems
606
674
1,280
The
basis
for
the
UCMR
RFA
certification
for
this
proposed
rule
is
as
follows:
for
the
1,280
small
water
systems
that
will
be
affected,
the
average
annual
costs
for
complying
with
this
rule
represent
less
than
0.6
percent
of
system
revenues
or
sales
(
the
highest
estimated
percentage
is
for
surface
water/
GWUDI
systems
serving
500
or
fewer
people,
at
0.53
percent
of
its
median
sales).
Therefore,
the
Administrator
certifies
that
this
proposed
action
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
small
entities.
Exhibit
5
presents
the
yearly
costs
to
small
systems,
and
to
EPA
for
the
small
system
sampling
program,
along
with
an
illustration
of
system
participation
for
each
year
of
the
program.
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
25
Exhibit
5:
EPA
and
Small
Systems
Costs
for
Implementation
UCMR
2
Cost
Description
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Total
Costs
to
EPA
for
Small
System
Program
(
including
Assessment
Monitoring,
and
the
Screening
Survey):

$
1,747,951
$
3,495,903
$
2,278,325
$
530,374
$
0
$
8,052,553
Costs
to
Small
Systems
(
including
Assessment
Monitoring,
and
the
Screening
Survey):

$
122,838
$
56,789
$
37,731
$
9,337
$
0
$
226,695
Total
Costs
to
EPA
and
Small
Systems
for
UCMR
2:

$
1,870,789
$
3,552,692
$
2,316,056
$
539,711
$
0
$
8,279,248
System
Monitoring
Activity
Time
Line:
1
Assessment
Monitoring
a
PWSs
Sample
a
PWSs
Sample
a
PWSs
Sample
800
Screening
Survey
½
PWSs
Sample
½
PWSs
Sample
480
1
Total
number
of
systems
is
1,280.
No
small
system
conducts
both
Assessment
Monitoring
and
Screening
Survey.

System
costs
are
attributed
to
the
additional
labor
required
for
reading
about
their
requirements,
monitoring,
reporting,
and
record
keeping.
The
estimated
average
annual
burden
across
the
five­
year
UCMR
2
implementation
period
of
2007­
2011
is
estimated
to
be
1.4
hours
at
$
35
per
small
system.
Average
annual
cost,
in
all
cases,
is
less
than
0.6
percent
of
system
revenues/
sales.
As
required
by
SDWA,
the
Agency
specifically
structured
the
rule
to
avoid
significantly
affecting
small
entities
by
assuming
all
costs
for
laboratory
analyses,
shipping,
and
quality
control
for
small
entities.
As
a
result,
EPA
incurs
the
entirety
of
the
non­
labor
costs
associated
with
UCMR
2
small
system
monitoring,
or
97
percent
of
small
system
testing
costs.
Exhibits
6a
and
6b
present
the
estimated
economic
impacts
in
the
form
of
a
revenue
test
for
publicly­
owned
systems
and
a
sales
test
for
privately­
owned
systems,
respectively.
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
26
Exhibit
6a:
UCMR
2
Relative
Cost
Analysis
for
Publicly­
Owned
Systems
(
2007­
2011)

System
Size
Annual
Number
of
Systems
Impacted
Average
Annual
Hours
per
System
(
2007­
2011)
Average
Annual
Cost
per
System
(
2007­
2011)
"
Revenue
Test"
1
Ground
Water
Systems
500
and
under
20
1.1
$
26.38
0.11%

501
to
3,300
36
1.3
$
33.43
0.02%

3,301
to
10,000
19
1.8
$
46.50
0.01%

Surface
Water
(
and
GWUDI)
Systems
500
and
under
9
2.0
$
47.45
0.20%

501
to
3,300
19
2.0
$
50.63
0.04%

3,301
to
10,000
17
2.2
$
58.46
0.01%

1
The
"
Revenue
Test"
was
used
to
evaluate
the
economic
impact
of
an
information
collection
on
small
government
entities
(
e.
g.,
publicly­
owned
systems);
costs
are
presented
as
a
percentage
of
median
annual
revenue
in
each
size
category.

Exhibit
6b:
UCMR
2
Relative
Cost
Analysis
for
Privately­
Owned
Systems
(
2007­
2011)

System
Size
Annual
Number
of
Systems
Impacted
Average
Annual
Hours
per
System
(
2007­
2011)
Average
Annual
Cost
per
System
(
2007­
2011)
"
Sales
Test"
1
Ground
Water
Systems
500
and
under
105
1.1
$
26.38
0.30%

501
to
3,300
12
1.3
$
33.43
0.02%

3,301
to
10,000
4
1.8
$
46.50
0.01%

Surface
Water
(
and
GWUDI)
Systems
500
and
under
11
2.0
$
47.45
0.53%

501
to
3,300
1
2.0
$
50.63
0.03%

3,301
to
10,000
1
2.2
$
58.46
0.01%

1
The
"
Sales
Test"
was
used
to
evaluate
the
economic
impact
of
an
information
collection
on
small
private
entities
(
e.
g.,
privately­
owned
systems);
costs
are
presented
as
a
percentage
of
median
annual
sales
in
each
size
category.
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
27
5(
d)
Collection
Schedule
EPA
is
proposing
to
use
the
same
monitoring
frequency
as
that
used
under
UCMR
1
because,
as
detailed
in
section
3(
d),
Part
A
of
this
ICR
document,
the
Agency
believes
that
it
is
sufficient
to
gather
necessary
information
on
occurrence
of
unregulated
contaminants,
without
significantly
burdening
small
systems.
Assessment
Monitoring
activities
are
expected
to
occur
from
July
2007
through
June
2010,
and
the
Screening
Survey
will
take
place
from
July
2007
through
June
2009.
Monitoring
frequency
specifications
are
the
same
for
both
Assessment
Monitoring
and
Screening
Surveys.
Surface
water
or
GWUDI
systems
will
collect
four
samples
for
each
required
component
of
UCMR
monitoring,
taken
as
follows:
systems
will
select
either
the
first,
second,
or
third
month
of
a
quarter
and
sample
in
that
same
month
of
each
of
four
consecutive
quarters
to
ensure
that
one
of
those
sampling
events
occurs
during
the
vulnerable
time.
Ground
water
systems
will
collect
samples
two
times
in
a
year
for
each
required
component
of
UCMR
monitoring,
taken
as
follows:
systems
will
sample
during
one
month
of
the
vulnerable
time
(
typically
May
through
July)
and
during
one
month,
five
to
seven
months
earlier
or
later.
Small
systems
will
only
be
selected
for
one
component
of
UCMR
monitoring,
if
at
all.
UCMR
activities
that
occur
after
the
year
2009
are
not
included
in
this
ICR
analysis
(
Appendix
B
contains
estimations
for
the
five­
year
UCMR
2
program,
2007­
2011).
Exhibits
3
and
8
illustrate
the
time
line
of
general
UCMR
activities,
and
system
monitoring
activities,
respectively.
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
28
6
ESTIMATING
THE
BURDEN
AND
COST
OF
THE
COLLECTION
This
section
describes
the
respondent
burden
and
cost
for
activities
under
UCMR
2.
The
burden
and
cost
estimates
for
PWSs
are
shown
in
section
6(
a),
burden
and
costs
to
States
are
shown
in
section
6(
b),
and
the
Agency's
burden
and
cost
estimates
are
shown
in
section
6(
c)
(
all
in
Part
A
of
this
ICR
document).

This
ICR
focuses
only
on
the
cost
of
the
UCMR
data
collection
over
the
years
2007­
2009.
Cost
tables
that
are
presented
in
this
section
have
analogous
tables
in
Appendix
B,
which
present
costs
for
the
entire
monitoring
cycle
(
2007­
2011).

There
are
two
primary
categories
of
costs
associated
with
UCMR:
(
1)
labor
costs,
such
as
program
implementation,
sample
collection,
record
keeping,
reporting,
and
data
analysis;
and
(
2)
non­
labor
costs,
such
as
laboratory
fees
for
analyses
of
samples,
shipping
charges,
and
contractor
costs.
The
majority
of
costs
are
directly
attributed
to
monitoring
activities
and
the
fees
for
laboratory
analytical
services.
Assessment
Monitoring
targets
a
list
of
11
contaminants
and
the
Screening
Survey
targets
15
contaminants.

EPA
is
committed
to
accurately
characterizing
the
burden
and
costs
of
rules
it
promulgates.
In
the
development
of
various
drinking
water
program
rule
ICRs,
EPA
has
developed
a
consistent
set
of
assumptions
to
use
in
calculations.
These
have
been
developed
and
utilized
in
other
drinking
water
program
evaluations.
Pertinent
to
the
UCMR
ICR
are
the
standard
assumptions
for
labor
rates,
system
inventory
numbers
(
the
number
of
water
systems
in
the
various
size
categories
by
primary
water
source),
the
number
of
sampling
points
for
each
system,
and
analytical
services.
The
sources
and
assumptions
used
in
estimating
costs
and
burdens
are
described
below.

6(
a)
Estimating
Burden
and
Cost
to
Public
Water
Systems
Specific
assumptions
used
in
estimating
system
labor
burden
and
cost,
as
well
as
non­
labor
costs
are
discussed
in
sections
6(
a)(
i)
and
6(
a)(
ii),
respectively
(
Part
A
of
this
ICR
document).
A
summary
of
the
costs
estimates
is
provided
in
section
6(
a)(
iii),
Part
A
of
this
ICR
document.

EPA
used
the
following
sources
of
system
information
to
develop
cost
and
burden
estimates:

°
Inventory
Data:
Small
system
inventory
was
based
on
the
same
source
as
that
used
for
the
current
drinking
water
ICR
entitled:
Disinfectants/
Disinfection
Byproducts,
Chemical,
and
Radionuclides
Information
Collection
Request
(
OMB
Control
Number:
2040­
0204;
EPA
Tracking
Number:
1896.05).
Inventory
data
frozen
on
December
31,
2003
was
extracted
from
EPA's
Safe
Drinking
Water
Information
System.
Large
system
inventory
data
are
from
UCMR
data
collected
for
UCMR
1
implementation,
as
of
October
2004.
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
29
°
EPTDS
Data:
All
EPTDS
data
were
taken
from
Community
Water
System
Survey
2000,
Volume
II
Detailed
Tables
and
Survey
Methodology,
Table
7,
entitled
"
Average
Number
of
Entry
Points
to
the
Distribution
System
By
Primary
Source
Water",
which
gives
the
average
number
of
entry
points
for
ground
water
and
surface
water
systems.

°
DSMRT
Data:
Number
of
DSMRT
samples
per
system
per
sampling
period
were
estimated
by
multiplying
the
number
of
treatment
plants
per
system
(
from
Community
Water
System
Survey
2000,
Volume
II
Detailed
Tables
and
Survey
Methodology,
Table
11)
by
the
percentage
of
systems
disinfecting
(
Fourth
Edition
of
the
Baseline
Handbook,
Table
B1.3.3,
originally
derived
from
the
1995
Community
Water
System
Survey).
As
a
conservative
measure,
the
average
number
of
CWSs
treatment
plants
were
also
used
to
represent
the
number
of
NTNCWS
treatment
plants
(
i.
e.,
it
is
likely
that
NTNCWSs
have
fewer
treatment
plants
than
CWSs,
and
thus
lower
actual
costs
for
DSMRT
sampling
than
estimated).

6(
a)(
i)
Estimating
Burden
and
Labor
Costs
Assessment
Monitoring
will
be
conducted
from
July
2007
through
June
2010
by
800
systems
serving
10,000
or
fewer
people,
and
all
systems
serving
10,001
and
over.
Screening
Survey
monitoring
will
be
conducted
from
July
2007
through
June
2009
by
800
systems
serving
100,000
or
fewer
people,
plus
all
systems
serving
more
than
100,000
people.
It
is
assumed
for
this
cost
estimation
that
one­
third
of
systems
will
conduct
Assessment
Monitoring
each
year
with
one
exception:
the
very
large
systems
(
322)
that
are
required
to
conduct
the
Screening
Survey
must
also
conduct
Assessment
Monitoring.
Thus,
these
systems
are
assumed
to
complete
their
Assessment
Monitoring
along
with
Screening
Survey
monitoring
during
July
2007
through
June
2009.
The
UCMR
program
will
affect
a
total
of
4,390
systems,
all
of
which
will
conduct
monitoring
during
the
ICR
years
of
2007­
2009.
However,
the
last
group
of
systems
to
conduct
Assessment
Monitoring
will
only
have
completed
the
first
half
of
their
UCMR
sampling
in
2009,
with
the
remaining
sampling
to
be
conducted
in
January­
June
of
2010.
Exhibit
7
below
presents
the
estimated
numbers
of
regulated
systems
to
participate.
Exhibit
8
presents
the
time
line
in
which
the
system
monitoring
activities
will
take
place.
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
30
Exhibit
7:
Systems
to
Participate
in
UCMR
2
Monitoring
System
Size
Assessment
Monitoring
Screening
Survey
TOTAL1
List
1
(
July
2007­
June
2010)
List
2
(
July
2007­
June
2009)

Small
(
serving
25
­
10,000)
800
(
selected
systems)
480
(
selected
systems;
different
from
those
for
List
1)
1,280
Large
(
serving
10,001­
100,000)
2,788
(
all)
320
(
selected
systems)
2,788
Very
Large
(
serving
>
100,000)
322
(
all)
322
(
all)
322
TOTAL
3,910
1,122
4,390
1
Totals
for
large
and
very
large
systems
are
not
additive,
since
Screening
Survey
systems
are
a
subset
of
those
conducting
Assessment
Monitoring
(
i.
e.,
some
large
and
all
very
large
systems
will
conduct
both
Assessment
Monitoring
and
Screening
Survey
monitoring).

Exhibit
8:
UCMR
2
Sampling
Activity
Time
Line
for
Cost
and
Burden
Estimations
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
(
designated
ICR
years)

No
UCMR
monitoring
activity
No
UCMR
monitoring
activity
No
UCMR
monitoring
activity
Assessment
Monitoring1
July
2007­
June
2008:
~
a
systems
sample
(~
1,357
PWSs)
July
2008­
June
2009:
~
a
systems
sample
(~
1,357
PWSs)
July
2009­
June
2010:
~
a
systems
sample
(~
1,196
PWSs)

Screening
Survey1
July
2007­
June
2008:
½
systems
sample
(
561
PWSs)
July
2008­
June
2009:
½
systems
sample
(
561
PWSs)

1
The
following
assumptions,
based
on
the
proposed
UCMR
2,
were
used
to
estimate
cost
and
burden:

°
Most
Assessment
Monitoring
systems
will
conduct
sampling
evenly
across
July
2007­
June
2010
(
i.
e.,
one­
third
in
each
of
the
3
consecutive
12­
month
periods).

°
All
Screening
Survey
systems
will
conduct
sampling
evenly
across
July
2007­
June
2008
(
i.
e.,
one­
half
in
each
of
the
2
consecutive
12­
month
periods).

°
Systems
serving
more
than
100,000
people
must
conduct
both
Assessment
Monitoring
and
Screening
Surveys.
It
is
assumed
that
these
systems
will
conduct
Assessment
Monitoring
and
Screening
Surveys
simultaneously,
during
either
July
2007­
June
2008
or
July
2008­
June
2009.

°
Systems
will
conduct
monitoring
during
the
ICR
years
of
2007­
2009;
however,
the
last
group
of
systems
to
conduct
Assessment
Monitoring
will
only
have
completed
the
first
half
of
their
UCMR
sampling
in
2009,
with
the
remaining
sampling
to
be
conducted
in
January­
June
of
2010.
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
31
The
water
system
labor
burden
consists
of
three
primary
activities:
(
1)
reading
the
regulations
or
State
guidance
letter;
(
2)
monitoring
or
monitoring
assistance;
and
(
3)
reporting
and
record
keeping.
Hourly
labor
rates
(
including
overhead)
vary
by
system
size
and
are
taken
from
the
October
20,
2003
document
Labor
Costs
for
National
Drinking
Water
Rules,
Exhibit
20.
Estimated
hourly
rates
range
from
$
23
per
hour
for
staff
in
water
systems
serving
500
or
fewer
people
to
almost
$
33
per
hour
for
systems
serving
more
than
100,000
people
(
see
Exhibit
9
for
details).

Exhibit
9:
Labor
Rates
Applied
for
Public
Water
Systems
System
Size
Labor
Rate1
500
and
under
$
23.35
(
for
ground
water)
$
23.52
(
for
surface
water/
GWUDI)

501
to
3,300
$
25.99
3,301
to
10,000
$
26.62
10,001
to
50,000
$
27.37
50,001
to
100,000
$
27.37
100,001
and
over
$
32.84
1
PWS
hourly
labor
rates
(
including
overhead)
are
taken
from
Labor
Costs
for
National
Drinking
Water
Rules,
Exhibit
20.
All
rates
represent
that
for
both
ground
water
and
surface
water/
GWUDI
systems,
except
as
noted.
Wage
rates
are
converted
to
2004
dollars
using
the
Employment
Cost
Index
for
wages
and
salaries
in
electric,
gas,
and
sanitary
services;
accessed
http://
www.
bls.
gov
on
March
11,
2005.

6(
a)(
i)(
a)
Reading
the
Regulations/
Guidance
Letter
For
each
required
UCMR
component
(
Assessment
Monitoring
and/
or
Screening
Surveys),
systems
are
assumed
to
read
the
regulations
and/
or
a
State­
issued
guidance
letter
during
2007.
Small
systems
can
rely
on
the
State
and
EPA
for
information
pertaining
to
their
requirements,
rather
than
reading
the
regulation;
and
are
expected
to
spend
1
hour,
on
average,
reading
this
letter
or
guidance.
Systems
serving
more
than
10,000
people
are
assumed
to
read
both
the
regulation
and
information
from
the
State,
requiring
on
average
4
hours.
National
costs
are
estimated
by
multiplying
the
average
burden
hours
by
the
average
system
labor
rate,
times
the
number
of
systems
affected.
This
reading
burden
is
assumed
for
each
UCMR
component.
Small
systems
(
those
serving
10,000
or
fewer)
will
only
be
selected
for
one
component
of
UCMR.
Large
systems
(
those
serving
10,001
to
100,000)
are
subject
to
Assessment
Monitoring,
with
a
subset
of
160
of
these
systems
subject
to
the
Screening
Survey.
Very
large
systems
(
those
serving
more
than
100,000)
are
subject
to
both
Assessment
Monitoring
and
the
Screening
Survey.
Thus,
reading
burden
for
any
one
small
system
would
be
1
hour;
4
or
8
hours
for
large
systems;
and
8
hours
for
very
large
systems.
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
32
6(
a)(
i)(
b)
Monitoring
Burden
For
Assessment
Monitoring,
it
is
assumed
that
all
participating
systems
will
collect
samples
during
July
2007
through
June
2010,
with
approximately
one­
third
of
systems
involved
during
each
of
the
3
consecutive
12­
month
periods.
The
exception,
as
noted
above,
are
the
very
large
systems
that
are
required
to
conduct
Screening
Survey
monitoring.
For
this
cost
estimation,
it
is
assumed
that
these
systems
will
conduct
their
Screening
Survey
and
Assessment
Monitoring
at
the
same
time.
In
addition,
for
the
last
group
of
systems
to
monitor
(
i.
e.,
those
monitoring
from
July
2090
through
June
2010),
only
one­
half
of
their
monitoring
will
be
completed
during
the
ICR
period
of
2007­
2009.
The
second
half
of
their
monitoring
will
be
completed
during
January
through
June
2010,
which
is
after
the
applicable
ICR
period.
See
Exhibit
8,
above,
for
an
illustration
of
the
time
line
for
system
sampling
activity.
For
both
Assessment
Monitoring
and
the
Screening
Survey,
EPA
assumes
that
each
system
will
incur
an
estimated
burden
of
0.5
hours
per
sampling
point
to
collect
chemical
samples
for
analysis.
This
monitoring
burden
includes
receipt
of
monitoring
kit,
reading
laboratory
instructions,
and
collection
and
shipping
of
samples.
It
is
calculated
by:
(
hour
burden
per
sampling
point)
times
(
number
of
sampling
points)
times
(
number
of
systems)
times
(
number
of
sample
events
per
year).
Many
ground
water
systems
may
realize
savings
in
their
sampling
burden
as
a
result
of
the
allowance
for
representative
EPTDSs.
Thus,
sampling
burden
is
calculated
to
account
for
the
estimated
reduction
in
entry
points
where
these
systems
will
sample
(
as
described
below
in
section
6(
a)(
ii),
Part
A
of
this
ICR
document).

6(
a)(
i)(
c)
Reporting
and
Record
Keeping
Under
UCMR
2,
regulated
systems
are
required
to
report
specific
information
prior
to
monitoring,
and
with
their
monitoring
results.

°
Reporting
Prior
to
Monitoring
Small
systems:
EPA
assumes
that
small
systems
will
only
need
to
send
and
confirm
contact
information
prior
to
monitoring.
These
systems
are
allotted
a
onetime
reporting
burden
of
2
hours.

Large
surface
water
(
and
GWUDI)
systems:
EPA
assumes
that
large
surface
water/
GWUDI
systems
will
be
sending
contact
and
sampling
point
information,
and
are
allotted
a
one­
time
reporting
burden
of
6
hours.

Large
ground
water
systems:
EPA
assumes
that
large
ground
water
systems
will
be
sending
contact
and
sampling
point
information,
which
will
require
a
one­
time
burden
of
6
hours.
An
additional
8
hours
are
allotted
to
some
ground
water
systems
to
account
for
compilation
and
submission
of
representative
EPTDS
proposal.
Since
it
is
unlikely
that
all
systems
will
submit
these
proposals,
EPA
conservatively
assumes
that
half
of
ground
water
systems
serving
10,001
to
100,000
people
would
compile
and
submit
this
proposal;
and
assumes
that
all
ground
water
systems
serving
more
than
100,000
people
would
do
so.
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
33
°
Reporting
with
Monitoring
Results
Small
systems:
Small
systems
can
choose
whether
to
review
their
UCMR
monitoring
results.
Because
EPA
is
paying
for
and
coordinating
laboratory
analyses,
small
systems
are
not
required
to
review
and
approve
their
analytical
results.
Some
systems
may
choose
not
to
review
at
all,
while
others
may
review
in
detail.
However,
as
a
conservative
assumption,
small
systems
are
each
allotted
0.5
hours
per
sampling
period
for
data
review.

Large
systems:
This
proposed
rule
clarifies
that
large
systems
must
review,
approve,
and
submit
the
data
to
the
State
and
EPA
via
the
EPA
electronic
reporting
system.
These
systems
are
allotted
2
hours
per
sampling
period
for
this
activity.

6(
a)(
i)(
d)
Public
Notification
Systems
are
required
to
notify
their
users
of
the
detection
of
any
unregulated
chemicals.
Specifically,
UCMR
monitoring
results
will
be
reported
by
CWSs
through
the
CCRs
(
63
FR
44512
(
August
19,
1998)).
Both
CWSs
and
NTNCWSs
must
report
any
failure
to
monitor
for
unregulated
contaminants
required
through
UCMR
under
the
Public
Notification
Rule
(
64
FR
25964
(
May
13,
1999)).
Therefore,
no
additional
public
notification
burden
is
assumed
under
UCMR.

6(
a)(
ii)
Estimating
Non­
labor
Costs
Under
UCMR,
small
systems
will
only
incur
labor
costs.
By
design
of
the
rule,
EPA
assumes
all
laboratory
and
shipping
costs
for
systems
in
the
national
representative
sample
of
small
systems.
Thus,
the
laboratory
fee
and
shipping
cost
estimates
described
here
are
the
basis
for
EPA
and
large
system
non­
labor
costs.

The
most
significant
cost
associated
with
the
implementation
of
UCMR
is
the
cost
of
laboratory
services
for
contaminant
analysis.
Exhibit
10
provides
estimates
of
laboratory
analytical
costs
associated
with
the
analysis
of
each
sample.
These
methods
are
comparatively
new
(
with
the
exception
of
Method
525.2
for
the
parent
acetanilides),
and
will
not
coincide
with
other
compliance
monitoring.
EPA
estimates
of
laboratory
fees
are
based
on
consultations
with
national
drinking
water
laboratories
and
costs
of
analytical
methods
similar
to
those
that
will
be
used
for
UCMR
2.
For
systems
serving
10,000
or
fewer
people,
EPA
will
pay
for
the
costs
for
shipping
and
laboratory
analysis.
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
34
Exhibit
10:
Contaminant
Group
or
Analytical
Method
Contaminant/
Contaminant
Group
Cost
List
1
­
Assessment
Monitoring
Gas
Chromatography
(
GC)/
Mass
Spectrometry
(
MS)
(
for
7
contaminants)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Perchlorate
(
for
1
contaminant)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Explosives
(
for
3
contaminants)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
$
225
$
150
$
225
Total
$
600
List
2
­
Screening
Survey
Monitoring
Nitrosamines
(
for
6
contaminants)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Acetanilides
(
for
6
contaminants)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Acetanilide
parents
(
for
2
contaminants)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
$
300
$
350
$
125
Total
$
775
UCMR
2
specifies
that
all
samples
be
collected
at
EPTDSs.
Some
large
systems
that
use
ground
water
sources
and
have
multiple
EPTDSs
may
be
able
to
realize
significant
savings
by
sampling
representative
entry
point(
s)
rather
than
at
each
EPTDS.
Systems
can
do
this
if:
they
meet
certain
system
configuration
criteria;
submit
a
proposal
regarding
representative
entry
points;
and
receive
approval
from
EPA
or
the
State.
Labor
related
to
submission
and
coordination
of
these
proposals
is
discussed
above
in
section
6(
a)(
i)(
c),
Part
A
of
this
ICR
document.
To
account
for
the
savings
on
laboratory
fees
that
will
be
realized
by
large
ground
water
systems,
EPA
assumed
that
effectively
75
percent
of
the
current
EPTDSs
will
be
sampled
at
systems
serving
10,001
to
100,000
people,
and
at
ground
water
systems
that
serve
more
than
100,000
people
50
percent
of
EPTDSs
will
be
sampled.

In
addition
to
EPTDS
samples,
systems
that
are
required
to
conduct
Screening
Survey
sampling,
and
are
subject
to
the
distribution
system
sampling
requirements
of
the
DBPR,
are
required
to
also
sample
for
nitrosamines
at
the
point
of
DSMRT.
Thus,
large
systems
that
are
required
to
collect
samples
at
both
locations
will
incur
additional
costs
for
laboratory
fees
for
the
nitrosamine
analyses.
All
surface
water/
GWUDI
systems
are
assumed
to
disinfect,
and
thus
have
one
DSMRT
sampling
point
per
treatment
plant
(
surface
water/
GWUDI
systems
had
an
average
number
of
1
to
2
treatment
plants
per
system).
Whereas,
ground
water
systems
are
estimated
to
disinfect
at
between
65
to
96
percent
of
their
treatment
plants
(
average
number
of
treatment
plants
ranged
from
1
to
7),
depending
on
system
size.
These
percentages
were
multiplied
by
the
number
of
treatment
plants
to
estimate
the
number
of
DSMRT
samples
collected
by
large
ground
water
systems.

Shipping
fees
were
calculated
per
required
sample.
It
is
assumed
that,
for
each
sampling
point,
a
package
of
empty
sample
bottles
is
shipped
via
ground
transportation
to
the
system;
estimated
at
$
20
per
package.
Following
sample
collection,
the
system
sends
the
package
with
full
bottles
via
overnight
air
back
to
the
laboratory.
To
estimate
the
cost
of
this
overnight
shipment,
EPA
applied
the
approximate
cost
of
shipping
a
15­
pound
package
across
an
average
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
35
number
of
shipping
zones
at
$
60.
Thus,
shipping
cost
for
a
large
PWS
is
estimated
at
$
80
per
sample
(
again,
small
system
laboratory
and
shipping
costs
are
paid
for
by
EPA).
Shipping
costs
were
estimated
based
on
pricing
information
posted
on:
http://
www.
fedex.
com/
and
http://
www.
ups.
com/;
accessed
January
2004.

Total
laboratory
and
shipping
fees
were
estimated
per
required
sampling
location
(
accounting
for
both
the
representative
EPTDS
allowance,
and
the
additional
DSMRT
samples,
as
described
above),
per
sampling
event,
as
follows:
(
number
systems)
times
(
number
of
periods
per
year)
times
(
number
of
sampling
points
per
system)
times
(
method
and
shipping
costs).

6(
a)(
iii)
Summary
of
Labor
and
Non­
labor
Costs
to
Public
Water
Systems
Exhibit
11a
displays
a
summary
of
labor
and
non­
labor
costs,
by
year,
for
the
three­
year
ICR
period.
As
previously
discussed,
the
UCMR
2
cycle
is
2007­
2011,
and
the
ICR
period
of
2007­
2009
coincides
with
the
three
primary
years
of
program
implementation.
Analogous
information
presenting
estimated
costs
over
the
five­
year
UCMR
2
implementation
period
is
provided
in
Exhibit
B­
1a,
in
Appendix
B.
Small
systems
incur
labor
costs
only.
Large
systems
will
incur
both
labor
and
non­
labor
costs,
as
they
are
responsible
for
analytical
costs.

The
nationwide
cost
to
systems
for
implementing
the
total
UCMR
program
over
the
threeyear
ICR
period
of
2007­
2009
is
estimated
to
be
$
25.4
million.
Large
and
very
large
systems
are
expected
to
incur
about
99
percent
of
this
cost,
$
25.2
million.
Annual
cost
per
small
system
for
UCMR
implementation
over
the
three­
year
ICR
period
is
estimated
to
be
$
57
per
system,
all
attributed
to
labor.
Annual
cost
per
large
system
is
estimated
to
be
$
204
for
labor
plus
$
1,894
for
analytical
(
non­
labor)
costs;
with
very
large
systems
costs
of
$
512
for
labor
plus
$
7,392
for
analytical
(
non­
labor)
costs.
Exhibits
7
and
8
illustrate
numbers
of
systems
participating
and
timing
of
monitoring.
Per
system
labor
burdens
and
costs
for
the
UCMR
program
are
presented
in
Exhibit
11b.
In
addition,
this
exhibit
presents
a
summary
of
burden
and
cost
per
response.
Analogous
information
for
the
five­
year
implementation
period
is
provided
in
Exhibit
B­
1b,
in
Appendix
B.
"
Response"
is
defined
as
each
required
reporting
event
for
a
system.
All
labor
and
non­
labor
costs
associated
with
a
reporting
event
(
reading
the
regulations,
monitoring,
and
reporting)
are
included
in
the
per
response
cost
estimate.
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
36
Exhibit
11a:
Yearly
Cost
to
Systems,
by
System
Size
and
by
Type
of
Cost
(
2007­
2009)
(
corresponds
to
Exhibit
B­
1a)

Cost
Description
2007
2008
2009
Total
SMALL
SYSTEMS
(
serving
10,000
or
fewer
people)

Labor
Costs
Reading
and
Initial
Reporting
$
94,444
$
0
$
0
$
94,444
Monitoring
$
20,375
$
40,749
$
26,256
$
87,380
Reporting
of
Results
$
8,020
$
16,039
$
11,475
$
35,534
Non­
Labor
Costs
(
Laboratory
Analysis
and
Shipping
(
paid
for
by
EPA))

$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Subtotal
 
Small
Systems
$
122,839
$
56,788
$
37,731
$
217,358
LARGE
SYSTEMS
(
serving
10,001
to
100,000
people)

Labor
Costs
Reading
and
Initial
Reporting
$
946,564
$
0
$
0
$
946,564
Monitoring
$
67,802
$
135,605
$
118,104
$
321,511
Reporting
of
Results
$
90,139
$
180,277
$
167,139
$
437,555
Non­
Labor
Costs
(
Laboratory
Analysis
and
Shipping)

$
3,335,493
$
6,670,985
$
5,834,963
$
15,841,441
Subtotal
 
Large
Systems
$
4,439,998
$
6,986,867
$
6,120,206
$
17,547,071
VERY
LARGE
SYSTEMS
(
serving
greater
than
100,000
people)

Labor
Costs
Reading
and
Initial
Reporting
$
164,069
$
0
$
0
$
164,069
Monitoring
$
44,384
$
88,768
$
44,384
$
177,536
Reporting
of
Results
$
38,291
$
76,583
$
38,291
$
153,165
Non­
Labor
Costs
(
Laboratory
Analysis
and
Shipping)

$
2,905,235
$
3,570,317
$
665,083
$
7,140,635
Subtotal
 
Very
Large
Systems
$
3,151,979
$
3,735,668
$
747,758
$
7,635,405
ALL
SYSTEMS
Total
Labor
for
All
Systems
$
1,474,088
$
538,021
$
405,649
$
2,417,758
Total
Non­
Labor
for
All
Systems
$
6,240,728
$
10,241,302
$
6,500,046
$
22,982,076
Total
Labor
and
Non­
Labor
for
All
Systems
$
7,714,816
$
10,779,323
$
6,905,695
$
25,399,834
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
37
Exhibit
11b:
Per
System
(
Respondent)
and
Per
Response
UCMR
Costs
(
2007­
2009)
(
corresponds
with
Exhibit
B­
1b)

Burden
/
Cost
Total
over
2007­
2009
Annual
Average
over
2007­
2009
Small
Systems
Large
Systems
Very
Large
Systems
Small
Systems
Large
Systems
Very
Large
Systems
PER
RESPONDENT:

Labor
Cost
$
171
$
612
$
1,537
$
57
$
204
$
512
Non­
Labor
Cost
$
0
$
5,682
$
22,176
$
0
$
1,894
$
7,392
Burden
(
labor
hours)
6.8
22.4
46.8
2.3
7.5
15.6
PER
RESPONSE:

Number
Responses
per
Respondent
2.2
2.5
3.6
0.7
0.8
1.2
Labor
Cost
per
Response
$
76
$
243
$
424
$
25
$
81
$
141
Non­
Labor
Cost
per
Response
$
0
$
2,252
$
6,124
$
0
$
751
$
2,041
Burden
(
labor
hours)
per
Response
3.1
8.9
12.9
1.0
3.0
4.3
6(
b)
Estimating
the
Burden
and
Cost
to
States
Since
UCMR
is
a
direct
implementation
rule,
individual
State
costs
will
largely
depend
on
specifications
in
their
PA.
EPA
assumed
that
States
will
incur
only
labor
costs,
because
no
capital
investments
are
expected
for
this
second
cycle
of
the
program.
Because
States
will
be
involved
in
a
variety
of
UCMR
implementation
and
oversight
activities
but
have
few
defined
responses,
burden
estimates
are
based
on
yearly
activities.
Thus,
for
"
per
response"
estimates,
States
are
assumed
to
have
an
average
of
1.0
response
per
year.

EPA
used
the
"
2001
ASDWA
Drinking
Water
Program
Resource
Needs
Self
Assessment"
to
estimate
State
burden
and
cost
for
the
implementation
and
oversight
of
UCMR
2.
This
assessment
tool
(
or
model)
was
developed
by
ASDWA
to
assist
States
in
estimating
the
resources
needed
to
implement
their
Statewide
drinking
water
programs
(
in
both
full­
time
equivalent
staff
(
FTEs)
and
dollars).
In
2000,
the
United
States
General
Accounting
Office
had
used
a
previous
version
of
this
model
to
estimate
nationwide
drinking
water
program
needs
for
Congress.
The
tool
was
later
updated
and
improved
based
on
comments
from
27
States.
To
make
the
model
easier
to
use,
ASDWA
established
suggested
salary
and
benefit
ranges
(
i.
e.,
default
values),
resource
needs
for
the
various
NPDWRs,
and
other
key
variables.
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
38
EPA
used
the
defaults
values
(
or
average
values
within
a
default
range)
that
were
provided
in
the
model
to
estimate
the
national
burden
and
cost
for
State
UCMR
2
activities.
Defaults
included:

°
one
FTE
is
equivalent
to
1,800
hours
per
year;
overhead
and
holidays,
sick
leave,
etc.
are
accounted
for
in
through
default
loading
of
base
salaries;
°
professional
and
support
staff
salaries
vary
for
different
sized
States
(
very
small,
small,
medium,
large,
very
large);
and
°
suggested
ranges
of
FTEs
for
the
implementation
of
the
Phase
II/
V,
Arsenic,
and
UCMR
programs
(
i.
e.,
the
relevant
subsection
of
the
model).

Understandably,
the
model
had
bundled
the
State
resource
needs
for
Phase
II/
V,
Arsenic,
and
UCMR,
because
of
the
inherent
overlap
and
similarities
in
the
programs.
However,
because
these
programs
were
bundled,
EPA
needed
to
"
extract"
the
UCMR
costs
from
the
aggregated
costs.
Based
on
best
professional
estimates,
and
consultations
with
staff
from
three
State
drinking
water
programs
(
California,
Connecticut,
and
Nebraska)
regarding
the
relative
magnitude
of
the
UCMR
program,
EPA
assumed
that:

°
during
the
first
three
years
of
implementation
(
2007­
2009),
i.
e.,
when
the
State
Monitoring
Plans
are
finalized,
system
notifications
sent,
and
Assessment
Monitoring
and
Screening
Survey
monitoring
are
being
conducted,
UCMR
represents
3
percent
of
the
bundled
program
resource
needs;
and
°
during
the
last
years
of
the
five­
year
cycle,
when
there
are
little
or
no
monitoring
activities,
UCMR
represents
1
percent
of
the
bundled
program
resource
needs
(
though
these
are
not
relevant
to
the
current
ICR
estimations
for
2007­
2009).

EPA
ran
the
model
for
each
of
the
State
size
categories
that
were
based
on
the
number
of
systems
for
which
States
have
drinking
water
program
oversight
responsibilities.
To
estimate
nationwide
costs,
the
size­
specific
"
per
State"
estimates
that
are
generated
by
the
model
were
then
multiplied
by
the
number
of
States
in
each
size
category,
as
shown
in
Exhibit
12.

EPA
further
refined
the
model
estimates
by
taking
the
level
of
State
participation
under
UCMR
1
into
consideration.
EPA
reviewed
5
key
areas
of
State
participation
under
UCMR
1,
including:
review
and
revision
to
the
State
Monitoring
Plans;
assisting
EPA
with
update
to
information
for
large
systems;
2
separate
sets
of
system
notifications;
and
compliance
assistance.
Based
on
levels
of
involvement
in
each
of
these
UCMR
activities,
States
typically
participated
in
between
40
and
100
percent
of
their
optional
UCMR
activities.
However,
some
States
chose
not
to
participate
at
all.
Burden
estimates
generated
from
the
resource
model
were
multiplied
by
this
"
percent
participation
in
UCMR
1"
to
approximate
State
costs
at
expected
participation
levels
under
UCMR
2.
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
39
Exhibit
12:
Number
of
States
in
Each
Size
Category
(
State
Resource
Model
Assumptions)

Size
Category
Number
of
States
Very
Small
10
Small
11
Medium
23
Large
10
Very
Large
2
Total
56
EPA
estimates
that
the
average
annual
burden
over
3
years
(
2007­
2009)
for
56
States
to
implement
UCMR
will
be
11,382
hours
(
or
203
hours
per
State
per
year),
with
an
average
annual
cost
(
labor
only)
of
$
621,977
(
or
$
11,107
per
State
per
year).
See
Exhibits
13a
and
13b
for
a
summary
of
estimated
State
burdens
and
costs
(
analogous
five­
year
information
for
2007­
2011
provided
in
Exhibits
B­
2a
and
B­
2b,
in
Appendix
B).

Exhibit
13a:
Yearly
Cost
and
Burden
to
States
for
Implementation
of
UCMR
(
2007­
2009)
1
(
corresponds
with
Exhibit
B­
2a)

Cost/
Burden
2007
2008
2009
Total
Annual
Average
Costs
to
All
States
for
labor
related
to
UCMR
implementation
and
oversight
$
617,360
$
648,343
$
600,227
$
1,865,930
$
621,977
Labor
burden
for
all
States
for
UCMR
implementation
and
oversight
11,635
11,861
10,649
34,145
11,382
1
All
costs
are
attributed
to
labor
and
are
estimated
over
the
period
2007­
2009.

Exhibit
13b:
Per
State
(
Respondent)
and
Per
Response
UCMR
Costs
(
2007­
2009)
(
corresponds
with
Exhibit
B­
2b)

Burden
/
Cost
Total
over
2007­
2009
Annual
Average
over
2007­
2009
PER
RESPONDENT:

Labor
Cost
$
33,320
$
11,107
Non­
Labor
Cost
$
0
$
0
Burden
(
labor
hours)
609.7
203.2
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
Exhibit
13b:
Per
State
(
Respondent)
and
Per
Response
UCMR
Costs
(
2007­
2009)
(
corresponds
with
Exhibit
B­
2b)

Burden
/
Cost
Total
over
2007­
2009
Annual
Average
over
2007­
2009
40
PER
RESPONSE:

Number
Responses
per
Respondent1
3.0
1.0
Labor
Cost
per
Response
$
11,107
$
3,702
Non­
Labor
Cost
per
Response
$
0
$
0
Burden
(
labor
hours)
per
Response
203.2
67.7
1
States
are
assumed
to
have
1
response
per
year,
since
there
are
no
specific
cyclical
State
reporting
requirements
under
the
UCMR
program.

6(
c)
Estimating
Agency
Burden
and
Cost
EPA
will
incur
UCMR­
related
burden
and
costs
related
to
UCMR
implementation
activities,
including:
regulatory
support
activities;
national
and
regional
oversight
and
data
analysis;
and
the
small
system
testing
program.
These
activities
are
described
in
detail
in
section
5(
a),
Part
A
of
this
ICR
document.
Labor
and
contractual
costs
are
estimated
using
the
federal
government
general
schedule
(
GS)
pay
scale;
assuming
a
labor
level
of
GS
13,
step
5,
and
taken
from
the
Maryland/
District
of
Columbia
rate
schedule
during
the
third
quarter
of
2004
(
see
the
U.
S.
Office
of
Personnel
Management
website:
www.
opm.
gov).
With
these
assumptions,
labor
and
contractor
rates
were
based
on
a
2,080
hour
work
year,
with
a
$
81,723
annual
salary
plus
60
percent
overhead,
or
$
62.86
per
hour.
Additional
cost
assumptions
are
described
below
in
sections
6(
b)(
i)­(
iii),
Part
A
of
this
ICR
document.
Cost
and
burden
estimates
are
presented
in
Exhibits
14a
and
14b,
respectively.

6(
c)(
i)
Regulatory
Support
Activities
Regulatory
support
activities
include
the
labor
and
non­
labor
costs
for
laboratory
approval
process
and
QA/
QC
activities;
and
general
technical
support
and
guidance
documents.
Cost
and
burden
assumptions
for
these
activities
are
as
follows:

Laboratory
Approvals
and
QA/
QC
Activities:
EPA
anticipates
incurring
various
labor
or
contractor
costs
related
to
the
laboratory
PT/
approvals;
laboratory
QA/
QC;
and
provision
of
analytical
standards,
as
follows:

°
Laboratory
approval
(
PT
program)
is
estimated
to
cost
EPA
$
200,000
prior
to
the
beginning
of
monitoring.
Cost
estimates
from
best
professional
judgement
are
based
on
costs
realized
by
the
Agency
for
prior
similar
activities.
Costs
for
the
PT
program
may
partially
occur
during
2006;
however,
these
costs
are
included
within
the
2007
costs
to
better
reflect
the
costs
of
the
UCMR
2
program.
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
41
°
QC
Audits
of
contract
laboratories
to
occur
throughout
active
UCMR
monitoring.
Labor
(
hours)
for
each
trip
includes:
a
3­
day
site
inspection
(
for
2
individuals);
1
full­
day
travel
for
2
individuals
(
assume
2
half
days);
and
3
days
of
report
writing
(
for
1
individual),
which
includes
review
and
response
to
laboratory
comments.
Travel
costs
for
2
individuals
include:
$
500
round
trip
flight,
3
nights
hotel
stay,
2
full
day
food
per
diem,
and
2
days
at
the
proportional
meals
rate
from
the
2004
Federal
rate
for
the
Continental
U.
S.
(
from
the
U.
S.
Government
Services
Administration
website:
http://
policyworks.
gov/
org/
main/
mt/
homepage/
mtt/
perdiem/
perd04d.
html).
Also
included
is
$
150
for
rental
of
one
car
for
both
travelers.
It
is
estimated
that
these
QC
audits
will
take
place
4
times
each
year,
at
an
estimated
$
7,229
per
trip.

°
Analytical
standards
provision
and
coordination
is
estimated
to
cost
EPA
$
500,000
total
for
three
ICR
years
(
or
$
200,000
per
full
year
of
monitoring).
Cost
estimates
from
best
professional
judgement
are
based
on
costs
realized
by
the
Agency
for
prior
similar
activities.

Technical
Support/
Guidance
Document
Development:
These
activities
are
estimated
to
cost
EPA
$
150,000
total
over
the
ICR
period;
including
costs
for
developing
and
distributing
guidance
for
laboratories
that
will
participate
in
UCMR
2
testing;
health
effects
fact
sheets;
and
other
pertinent
guidance
related
to
UCMR
2
implementation.
Some
of
these
activities
may
take
place
before
2007,
but
are
included
to
best
reflect
the
estimated
costs
of
UCMR
2
implementation.
Cost
estimates
from
best
professional
judgement
are
based
on
costs
realized
by
the
Agency
for
prior
similar
activities.

6(
c)(
ii)
National
and
Regional
Oversight
and
Data
Analysis
EPA
activities
will
include
data
analysis,
management
oversight,
and
support
at
both
the
regional
and
national
level
for
assistance
to
States
with
UCMR
implementation.
During
the
core
period
of
UCMR
2
activity,
EPA
estimates
that
it
will
dedicate
5.5
FTEs
each
year
to
program
oversight
and
data
analysis.
In
2007,
when
monitoring
will
not
begin
until
half
way
through
the
year,
EPA
estimates
that
only
half
as
many
FTEs
will
be
needed.
No
burden
for
these
activities
are
expected
during
2011.
These
activities
are
estimated
as
labor
cost
and
burden
to
the
Agency
(
see
the
corresponding
description
of
these
activities
in
section
5(
a)(
ii),
Part
A
of
this
ICR
document).
These
activities
are
estimated
to
cost
EPA
$
1.8
million
in
total
over
the
three­
year
ICR
period.

6(
c)(
iii)
Costs
for
Small
System
Testing
Program
EPA
will
provide
logistical
support
for
the
small
system
testing
program.
This
activity
includes
costs
for
contractual
labor
and
sampling
supplies,
and
is
estimated
at
$
400
per
sampling
event
per
sampling
site,
based
on
actual
costs
incurred
during
UCMR
1
for
this
same
activity.
These
activities
are
estimated
to
cost
EPA
$
2.8
million
in
total
over
the
three
ICR
years.
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
42
The
single
largest
cost
to
EPA
for
implementation
of
UCMR
is
for
small
system
sample
analyses.
EPA
will
pay
small
system
sample
analyses
and
shipping
for
Assessment
Monitoring
and
Screening
Survey.
EPA
will
also
pay
for
quality
control
duplicates
for
10
percent
of
all
samples.

As
estimated
for
large
systems,
shipping
fees
were
calculated
per
required
sample
(
accounting
for
both
the
representative
EPTDS
allowance,
and
the
additional
DSMRT
samples,
as
described
above
in
section
6(
a)(
ii),
Part
A
of
this
ICR
document).
EPA
assumes
that,
for
each
sampling
point,
a
package
of
empty
sample
bottles
is
shipped
via
ground
transportation
to
the
system;
estimated
at
$
20
per
package.
Following
sample
collection,
the
system
sends
the
package
with
full
bottles
via
overnight
air
back
to
the
laboratory.
To
estimate
the
cost
of
this
overnight
shipment,
EPA
applied
the
approximate
cost
of
shipping
a
15­
pound
package
across
an
average
number
of
shipping
zones
at
$
60.
Thus,
shipping
cost
for
a
large
PWS
is
estimated
at
$
80
per
sample.
Small
system
sampling
includes
the
cost
for
one
extra
ground
trip,
for
sending
the
empty
bottles
from
the
laboratory
to
the
sampling
coordinator,
so
that
the
sampling
kit
can
be
reused.
Thus,
shipping
cost
for
a
small
PWS
is
estimated
at
$
100
per
sample.

These
analytical
and
shipping
fees
are
estimated
to
cost
EPA
$
4.7
million
in
total
over
the
three
ICR
years.
See
Exhibit
10,
in
section
6(
a)(
ii),
Part
A
of
this
ICR
document,
for
assumptions
regarding
applicable
laboratory
fees
for
individual
methods.
Total
costs
that
EPA
will
incur
for
the
small
system
testing
program
were
calculated
by
multiplying
the
laboratory
and
shipping
fees
by:
(
number
of
systems)
times
(
number
of
sampling
periods
per
year
(
including
an
additional
10
percent
QA
samples))
times
(
number
of
sampling
points
per
system).

6(
c)(
iv)
Estimated
Agency
Cost
and
Burden
The
EPA
cost
for
the
UCMR
2
program
during
the
ICR
period
of
2007­
2009
is
estimated
to
be
$
10.24
million
(
with
annual
average
cost
over
the
ICR
period
of
$
3.4
million).
EPA
costs
for
UCMR
implementation
are
shown
in
Exhibit
14a;
average
annual
labor
and
non­
labor
costs,
as
well
as
small
system
testing
program
costs
are
shown
in
Exhibit
14b.
Appendix
B,
Exhibits
B­
3a
and
B­
3b
provide
analogous
information
over
the
five­
year
UCMR
2
implementation
period.

Exhibit
14a:
Yearly
Cost
to
EPA
for
UCMR
Implementation,
by
Type
of
Cost
(
2007­
2009)
1
(
corresponds
with
Exhibit
B­
3a)

Cost
Description
2007
2008
2009
Total
Average
Regulatory
Support
Activities:
laboratory
proficiency
testing;
QC
audits;
analytical
standards
provision;
and
technical
support,
guidance
document
development
Lab
PT
$
200,000
$
0
$
0
$
200,000
$
66,667
QC
Audits
$
14,457
$
28,915
$
28,915
$
72,287
$
24,096
Analytical
Standards
$
100,000
$
200,000
$
200,000
$
500,000
$
166,667
Technical
Support
$
100,000
$
50,000
$
0
$
150,000
$
50,000
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
Exhibit
14a:
Yearly
Cost
to
EPA
for
UCMR
Implementation,
by
Type
of
Cost
(
2007­
2009)
1
(
corresponds
with
Exhibit
B­
3a)

Cost
Description
2007
2008
2009
Total
Average
43
Subtotal
 
Regulatory
Support
$
414,457
$
278,915
$
228,915
$
922,287
$
307,429
National
and
Regional
Oversight
and
Data
Analysis:
UCMR
management
oversight;
review
and
evaluation
of
data
from
Assessment
Monitoring
$
359,559
$
719,118
$
719,118
$
1,797,795
$
599,265
Small
System
Testing:
implementation
coordination;
and
analytical
and
shipping
costs
for
small
system
testing
for
both
Assessment
Monitoring
and
Screening
Surveys
Implementation
Coordination
$
646,855
$
1,293,710
$
839,718
$
2,780,283
$
926,761
Fees
for
Analysis
and
shipping
$
1,101,096
$
2,202,193
$
1,438,607
$
4,741,896
$
1,580,632
Subtotal
 
Small
System
Testing
$
1,747,951
$
3,495,903
$
2,278,325
$
7,522,179
$
2,507,393
TOTAL
$
2,521,967
$
4,493,936
$
3,226,358
$
10,242,261
$
3,414,087
1
Agency
costs
are
estimated
over
the
period
2007­
2009.
Though
some
start­
up
costs
will
likely
begin
in
2006,
costs
are
presented
beginning
in
2007,
with
beginning
of
rule
implementation
activities.

Exhibit
14b:
Summary
of
EPA
Burdens
and
Costs
for
UCMR
Implementation
(
2007­
2009)
(
corresponds
with
Exhibit
B­
3b)

Burden
/
Cost
Annual
Average
Cost
over
Three­
year
ICR
Period
of
2007­
2009
Labor
Cost
$
599,265
Non­
Labor
Cost
$
2,814,822
Total
Cost
to
EPA
for
UCMR
Implementation
$
3,414,087
Burden
(
labor
hours)
9,533
6(
d)
Estimating
the
Respondent
Universe
and
Total
Burden
and
Costs
For
the
UCMR
2
cycle
of
2007­
2011,
the
universe
of
respondents
includes
4,390
PWS
respondents,
comprised
of
non­
purchased
CWSs
and
non­
purchased
NTNCWSs,
as
well
as
56
State
respondents.
Assessment
Monitoring
will
be
conducted
by
800
systems
serving
10,000
or
fewer
people,
plus
all
2,788
systems
that
serve
more
than
10,000
people.
Screening
Survey
monitoring
will
be
conducted
by
800
systems
serving
100,000
or
fewer
people,
plus
all
322
serving
more
than
100,000
people.
As
described
previously,
PWS
sampling
is
conducted
four
times
during
the
monitoring
year
for
surface
water/
GWUDI
sampling
locations,
and
twice
for
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
44
ground
water
sampling
locations
(
i.
e.,
frequency
of
response
depends
on
water
source).
States
will
be
involved
in
a
variety
of
UCMR
implementation
and
oversight
activities,
but
have
few
defined
responses;
thus,
States
are
assumed
to
have
an
average
of
1
response
per
year.

Exhibit
15
summarizes
national
hours
and
costs
for
UCMR
2
during
the
ICR
period
of
2007­
2009.
Analogous
information
for
the
entire
five­
year
UCMR
2
cycle
of
2007­
2011
is
presented
in
Exhibit
B­
4
in
Appendix
B.
The
total
labor
and
non­
labor
costs
are
presented
for
each
category
of
respondent.
The
total
labor
burden
to
small
systems
is
8,749
hours,
with
a
cost
of
$
217,358
(
small
systems
only
incur
labor
costs,
EPA
pays
for
all
laboratory
fees
and
shipping
costs).
The
total
labor
burden
to
large
systems
is
62,318
hours,
with
a
labor
cost
of
$
1.7
million,
and
non­
labor
costs
for
analysis
and
shipping
of
$
15.8
million.
Very
large
systems
are
estimated
to
have
a
total
labor
burden
for
the
ICR
period
of
15,067
hours,
with
a
labor
and
non­
labor
costs
of
$
0.5
million
and
$
7.1
million,
respectively.
The
total
burden
to
States
over
the
three­
year
ICR
period
is
34,145
hours,
with
a
labor
cost
of
$
1.9
million.
EPA
anticipates
that
States
will
not
incur
any
significant
non­
labor
costs.
The
EPA
total
burden
over
the
same
time
frame
is
28,600
hours,
with
labor
costs
of
$
1.8
million,
and
non­
labor
costs
of
$
8.4
million.

Exhibit
15:
UCMR
2
National
Cost
Summary
for
the
ICR
period
(
2007­
2009)
(
corresponds
with
Exhibit
B­
4)

Type
of
Cost
2007
2008
2009
TOTAL
Small
Systems
Labor
Cost
$
122,838
$
56,789
$
37,731
$
217,358
Non­
Labor
Cost
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Total
Small
System
Cost
$
122,838
$
56,789
$
37,731
$
217,358
Large
Systems
Labor
Cost
$
1,104,505
$
315,882
$
285,244
$
1,705,631
Non­
Labor
Cost
$
3,335,493
$
6,670,985
$
5,834,963
$
15,841,441
Total
Large
System
Cost
$
4,439,998
$
6,986,866
$
6,120,207
$
17,547,071
Very
Large
Systems
Labor
Cost
$
246,744
$
165,351
$
82,676
$
494,770
Non­
Labor
Cost
$
2,905,235
$
3,570,317
$
665,083
$
7,140,635
Total
Very
Large
System
Cost
$
3,151,979
$
3,735,668
$
747,759
$
7,635,405
States
Labor
Cost
$
617,360
$
648,343
$
600,227
$
1,865,930
Non­
Labor
Cost
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Total
State
Cost
$
617,360
$
648,343
$
600,227
$
1,865,930
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
Exhibit
15:
UCMR
2
National
Cost
Summary
for
the
ICR
period
(
2007­
2009)
(
corresponds
with
Exhibit
B­
4)

Type
of
Cost
2007
2008
2009
TOTAL
45
EPA
Labor
Cost
$
359,559
$
719,118
$
719,118
$
1,797,795
Non­
Labor
Cost
$
2,162,409
$
3,774,818
$
2,507,240
$
8,444,467
Total
EPA
Cost
$
2,521,968
$
4,493,936
$
3,226,358
$
10,242,262
National
Total
Total
with
EPA
$
10,854,143
$
15,921,602
$
10,732,282
$
37,508,026
Total
without
EPA
$
8,332,175
$
11,427,666
$
7,505,924
$
27,265,764
Total
Burden
(
hours)
for
All
Responses
Small
Systems
4,971
2,263
1,515
8,749
Large
Systems
40,355
11,541
10,422
62,318
Very
Large
Systems
7,514
5,035
2,518
15,067
States
11,635
11,861
10,649
34,145
EPA
5,720
11,440
11,440
28,600
Total
with
EPA
70,195
42,140
36,544
148,879
Total
without
EPA
64,475
30,700
25,104
120,279
1
Although
EPA
is
not
considered
a
respondent
to
the
UCMR
regulations,
Agency
burdens
are
shown
here
to
illustrate
the
national
costs
of
the
program.
National
totals
are
shown
with
and
without
the
Agency
costs.

6(
e)
Reasons
for
Change
in
Burden
This
ICR,
in
effect,
amends
the
current
drinking
water
program
ICR
entitled:
Disinfectants/
Disinfection
Byproducts,
Chemical,
and
Radionuclides
Information
Collection
Request
("
Chem/
Rads
ICR";
OMB
Control
Number:
2040­
0204;
EPA
Tracking
Number:
1896.05).
After
the
UCMR
1
program
was
established
in
1999,
subsequent
UCMR
cost
and
burden
estimates
were
incorporated
into
the
larger
Chem/
Rads
ICR.
However,
the
UCMR
2
ICR,
and
subsequent
UCMR
ICRs
will
be
developed
and
tracked
separately
from
the
Chem/
Rads
ICR,
because
the
Chem/
Rads
ICR
is
essentially
a
renewal
ICR,
whereas
the
UCMR
program
is,
per
SDWA,
a
program
that
must
change
every
five
years.

The
reasons
that
respondents
to
UCMR
2
will
incur
a
different
burden
than
those
responding
to
UCMR
1
include:
°
UCMR
2
establishes
a
new
list
of
26
priority
contaminants,
and
9
analytical
methods
(
see
Exhibit
1
in
section
4(
b)(
i),
Part
A
of
this
ICR
document);
°
more
systems
to
monitor
for
Screening
Survey
(
see
Exhibit
7
in
section
6(
a)(
i),
Part
A
of
this
ICR
document);
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
46
°
nitrosamines
samples
(
under
the
Screening
Survey)
for
PWSs
subject
to
Stage
1
D/
DBP
Rule
will
be
collected
at
DSMRT
in
addition
to
the
required
EPTDS
locations
(
see
explanation
in
section
4(
b)(
i),
Part
A
of
this
ICR
document);
and
°
representative
EPTDSs
proposals
by
PWSs
with
multiple
ground
water
EPTDSs
will
allow
some
large
PWSs
to
reduce
their
required
sampling
points
(
see
explanation
in
section
4(
b)(
i),
Part
A
of
this
ICR
document).

6(
f)
Burden
Statement
Small
systems
(
those
serving
10,000
or
fewer)
that
are
selected
for
UCMR
2
monitoring
will
sample
an
average
of
2.2
times
per
system
(
i.
e.,
number
of
responses
per
system)
across
the
three­
year
ICR
period
of
2007­
2009.
The
average
burden
per
response
for
small
systems
is
estimated
to
be
3.1
hours.
Large
systems
(
those
serving
10,001
to
100,000)
and
very
large
systems
(
those
serving
more
than
100,000)
will
sample
and
report
an
average
of
2.5
and
3.6
times
per
system,
respectively,
across
the
three­
year
ICR
period
of
2007­
2009.
The
average
burden
per
response
for
large
and
very
large
systems
are
estimated
to
be
8.9
and
12.9
hours,
respectively.
The
larger
burden
per
response
for
the
very
large
systems
reflects
the
fact
these
systems
typically
have
more
sampling
locations
than
large
systems.
States
are
assumed
to
incur
3.0
responses
over
the
three­
year
ICR
period
related
to
coordination
with
EPA
and
systems,
with
an
average
burden
per
response
of
203.2
hours.
In
aggregate,
during
the
ICR
period
of
2007­
2009,
the
average
response
(
e.
g.,
responses
from
systems
and
States)
is
associated
with
a
burden
of
10.7
hours,
with
a
labor
plus
non­
labor
cost
of
$
1,609
per
response.

The
annual
average
per
respondent
burden
hours
and
costs
for
the
ICR
period
of
2007­
2009
are:
small
systems
 
2.3
hour
burden
at
$
57
for
labor;
large
systems
 
7.5
hours
at
$
204
for
labor,
and
$
1,894
for
analytical
costs;
very
large
systems
 
15.6
hours
at
$
512
for
labor,
and
$
7,392
for
analytical
costs;
and
States
 
203.2
hours
at
$
11,107
for
labor.
Annual
average
burden
and
cost
per
respondent
(
including
both
systems
and
States)
is
estimated
to
be
9.02
hours,
with
a
labor
plus
non­
labor
cost
of
$
1,355
per
respondent
(
note
that
small
systems
do
not
pay
for
testing
costs,
so
they
only
incur
labor
costs).

The
Agency
estimates
the
annual
burden
to
EPA
for
proposed
UCMR
program
activities
during
the
ICR
years
of
2007­
2009
to
be
9,533
hours,
at
an
annual
labor
cost
of
$
0.6
million.
EPA's
annual
non­
labor
costs
are
estimated
to
be
$
2.8
million.
Non­
labor
costs
are
primarily
attributed
to
the
cost
of
sample
testing
for
small
systems
(
testing
is
just
under
90
percent
of
nonlabor

Exhibit
16
presents
per
respondent
and
per
response
burdens
and
costs
over
the
UCMR
ICR
period
of
2007­
2009
(
analogous
information
for
the
2007­
2011
UCMR
2
implementation
period
is
provided
in
Exhibit
B­
5,
Appendix
B).
This
Exhibit
also
presents
average
annual
burdens
and
costs.
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
47
Exhibit
16:
UCMR
2
Per
Respondent
Burden
and
Cost
Summary
for
the
ICR
Period
(
2007­
2009)
(
corresponds
with
Exhibit
B­
5)

Burden
(
hours)/
Cost
(
dollars)
Small
Systems
Large
Systems
Very
Large
Systems
States
EPA
National
Average
with
EPA1
National
Average
without
EPA
Three­
Year
Total
per
Respondent
Total
#
of
Responses
Per
Respondent
2.2
2.5
3.6
3.0
n/
a
n/
a
2.5
Labor
Cost
Per
Respondent
$
171
$
612
$
1,537
$
33,320
$
1,797,795
$
1,368
$
963
Non­
Labor
Cost
Per
Respondent
$
0
$
5,682
$
22,176
$
0
$
8,444,467
$
7,068
$
5,169
Total
Cost
(
Labor
plus
Non­
Labor)
$
171
$
6,294
$
23,713
$
33,320
$
10,242,262
$
8,436
$
6,132
Total
Cost
Per
Response
$
76
$
2,495
$
6,548
$
11,107
n/
a
n/
a
$
1,609
Total
Burden
Per
Respondent
6.8
22.4
46.8
609.7
28,600.0
33.5
27.1
Total
Burden
Per
Response
3.1
8.9
12.9
203.2
n/
a
n/
a
10.7
Average
Annual
per
Respondent
Ave.
#
of
Responses
Per
Respondent
0.7
0.8
1.2
1.0
n/
a
n/
a
0.8
Labor
Cost
Per
Respondent
$
57
$
204
$
512
$
11,107
$
599,265
$
456
$
321
Non­
Labor
Cost
Per
Respondent
$
0
$
1,894
$
7,392
$
0
$
2,814,822
$
2,356
$
1,723
Ave.
Cost
(
Labor
plus
Non­
Labor)
$
57
$
2,098
$
7,904
$
11,107
$
3,414,087
$
2,812
$
2,044
Ave.
Cost
Per
Response
$
25
$
832
$
2,183
$
3,702
n/
a
n/
a
$
536
Ave.
Burden
Per
Respondent
2.3
7.5
15.6
203.2
9,533.3
11.2
9.0
Ave.
Burden
Per
Response
1.0
3.0
4.3
67.7
n/
a
n/
a
3.6
1
National
average
burdens
and
costs
differ
greatly
between
the
State
respondents
and
the
various
system
respondents.
This
should
be
taken
into
consideration
when
looking
at
the
national
average
with
or
without
EPA.
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
48
This
UCMR
is
necessary
for
several
reasons.
Its
primary
purpose
is
to
support
the
development
of
the
CCL,
the
Administrator's
determination
of
whether
to
regulate
a
contaminant,
and
regulation
development.
The
data
collected
under
UCMR
may
also
be
used
as
a
basis
for
determining
exposure,
for
establishing
the
baseline
for
health
effects
and
economic
analyses,
for
contaminant
co­
occurrence
analyses,
and
for
treatment
technology
evaluation,
including
contaminant
source
management.
Further,
the
data
may
indicate
the
need
to
initiate
research
on
health
effects
and
treatment
technology
research,
if
they
suggest
that
certain
contaminants
have
significant
occurrence.
Finally,
as
a
secondary
use,
the
data
may
guide
future
source
water
protection
efforts.

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

To
comment
on
the
Agency's
need
for
this
information,
the
accuracy
of
the
provided
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques,
EPA
has
established
a
public
docket
for
this
ICR
under
Docket
ID
No.
OW­
2004­
0001,
which
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
Water
Docket
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center
(
EPA/
DC),
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC.
The
EPA
Docket
Center
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566­
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
Water
Docket
is
(
202)
566­
2426.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA
Dockets
(
EDOCKET)
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket.
Use
EDOCKET
to
submit
or
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Once
in
the
system,
select
"
search,"
then
key
in
the
docket
ID
number
identified
above.
Also,
you
can
send
comments
to
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
725
17th
Street,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20503,
Attention:
Desk
Office
for
EPA.
Please
include
the
EPA
Docket
ID
No.
(
OW­
2004­
0001)
in
any
correspondence.
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
49
 
PART
B
OF
THE
SUPPORTING
STATEMENT
 
1
SURVEY
OBJECTIVES,
KEY
VARIABLES,
AND
OTHER
PRELIMINARIES
1(
a)
Survey
Objectives
The
primary
objective
of
the
statistical
methods
applied
in
this
information
collection
is
for
EPA
to
identify
and
select
a
sample
of
PWSs
that
is
representative
of
PWSs
nationwide.
The
selected
sample
of
PWSs
will
conduct
monitoring
of
contaminants
identified
by
the
UCMR
program.
The
representativeness
of
this
sample
of
systems
is
critical
to
the
UCMR
program
because
the
drinking
water
contaminant
occurrence
data
collected
by
the
PWSs
will
be
used
to:
estimate
national
occurrence
and
exposure,
establish
a
baseline
for
health
effects
and
economic
analyses,
and
provide
information
for
regulatory
determinations.

1(
b)
Key
Variables
Key
variables
associated
with
selecting
a
nationally
representative
sample
of
PWSs
include:
system
size,
source
water
type,
and
geographical
location.

1(
c)
Statistical
Approach
Section
1445(
a)(
2)
of
SDWA
(
as
amended
in
1996)
requires
that
the
UCMR
program
include
only
a
representative
sample
of
systems
serving
10,000
or
fewer
people.
In
addition
to
satisfying
statutory
requirements,
selection
of
a
sample
of
systems
for
participation
in
UCMR
allows
for
significant
national
costs
savings,
as
compared
to
monitoring
by
all
PWSs.
To
estimate
national
occurrence
and
exposure,
the
primary
UCMR
program
objective,
the
representative
sample
of
PWSs
must
allow
EPA
to
collect
high
quality
data
about
contaminant
occurrence.

1(
d)
Feasibility
EPA
anticipates
that
the
survey
(
the
statistical
sample)
objectives
are
achievable
given
the
existing
time
and
resource
constraints.

°
High
PWS
response/
participation
rates
(>
95%)
during
UCMR
1
have
given
EPA
confidence
that
equivalent
or
better
can
be
achieved
during
UCMR
2.

°
The
statistical
approach
to
this
data
collection
requires
only
a
fraction
of
small
systems
to
conduct
monitoring,
resulting
in
much
smaller
cost
and
burden
at
the
national
level
than
would
be
incurred
if
all
systems
monitored.
Small
systems
that
are
selected
for
UCMR
2
monitoring
will
incur
only
a
few
hours
of
labor
burden.
EPA
will
pay
for
all
laboratory
fees
and
shipping
costs
related
to
small
system
testing.

°
The
survey
results
will
be
completed
in
time
to
inform
the
corresponding
cycle
of
CCL
regulatory
determinations.
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
50
2
SURVEY
DESIGN
2(
a)
Target
Population
and
Coverage
Public
water
systems
are
the
target
population
for
UCMR
monitoring.
Transient
non­
community
water
systems
and
those
that
purchase
all
of
their
water
from
another
system
are
not
subject
to
UCMR
2.
All
other
PWSs
that
serve
more
than
10,000
people
will
be
subject
to
at
least
the
Assessment
Monitoring
component
of
UCMR
2
monitoring.
Eligible
small
PWSs
(
serving
10,000
or
fewer
people)
will
only
be
required
to
conduct
UCMR
2
monitoring
if
they
are
part
of
the
statistical
selection,
as
described
below.
Small
PWSs
will
only
be
selected
to
monitor
for
either
Assessment
Monitoring
or
the
Screening
Survey,
not
both.

2(
b)
Sample
Design
2(
b)(
i)
Sampling
Frame
EPA
will
develop
the
sample
frame
for
the
statistical
selection
of
UCMR
systems,
including
the
system
PWSID,
name,
source
water
category,
and
population­
served
data
for
each
UCMR­
eligible
PWS.
Initial
data
will
be
pulled
from
EPA's
Safe
Drinking
Water
Information
System
(
SDWIS)
inventory
database,
and
will
be
adjusted
to
account
for
known
anomalies
in
population
and
inventory
reporting
(
for
example,
how
consecutive
systems
or
wholesalers
report
their
population
data).

2(
b)(
ii)
Sample
Size
UCMR
2
monitoring
will
include:
Assessment
Monitoring
conducted
by
all
PWSs
serving
more
than
10,000
people
("
large"
PWSs),
and
800
representative
PWSs
serving
10,000
or
fewer
people
("
small"
PWSs);
and
Screening
Survey
conducted
by
all
PWSs
serving
more
than
100,000
people,
and
800
representative
PWSs
serving
100,000
or
fewer
people.

2(
b)(
iii)
Stratification
Variables
In
developing
the
representative
sample,
EPA
considers
factors
such
as
population
served,
water
source,
and
geographic
location.
The
sample
PWSs
will
be
stratified
by
population
served
(
system
size),
allocating
samples
proportionately
to
each
State
by
system
size,
and
then
by
water
source
type.
(
Other
provisions,
presented
below,
ensure
broad
geographic
coverage.)

2(
b)(
iv)
Sampling
Method
To
satisfy
the
specifications
of
SDWA
section
1445(
a)(
2)(
A),
the
representative
sample
of
systems
will
account
for
different
system
sizes,
sources
of
water
supply,
and
geographic
location
(
e.
g.,
States).
The
sample
will
be
stratified
water
source
type
(
i.
e.,
ground
or
surface
water)
and
by
system
size
category
(
i.
e.,
serves
25
to
500
people,
501
to
3,300
people,
etc.).
This
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
51
stratification
allows
EPA
to
account
for
different
exposure
risks
of
contaminant
occurrence
that
may
be
related
to
the
vulnerability
differences
between
surface
and
ground
water
sources
and
differing
management
and
financial
capacity
that
can
vary
across
system
sizes.

With
contaminant
exposure
assessment
as
a
primary
goal,
systems
will
be
selected
in
proportion
to
the
population
served,
as
was
generally
done
under
UCMR
1.
This
population­
weighted
allocation
leads
to
statistically
valid
estimates
of
national
exposure.
To
ensure
the
sample
provides
equity
across
States
for
involvement
in
the
UCMR,
EPA
will
include
at
least
two
systems
from
each
State.
This
additional
PWS
selection
requirement
will
provide
allocation
across
all
the
States
and
territories
to
account
for
differences
in
spatial
vulnerability
and
contaminant
occurrence,
and
to
ensure
equity
in
participation.
Small
Tribal
water
systems
across
the
EPA
Regions
are
grouped
into
a
single
category
(
equivalent
to
a
"
State")
for
the
representative
sample.

2(
b)(
v)
Multi­
Stage
Sampling
Because
PWS
status
often
changes
over
time,
EPA
will
also
select
"
alternate"
systems
that
fit
the
size/
source
water
strata
of
the
originally
selected
system.
Through
an
interactive
review
process
with
the
States,
systems
that
no
longer
meet
eligibility
criteria
(
for
example,
if
they
are
in
a
different
size
category
than
when
originally
selected,
have
become
inactive,
or
purchase
all
of
their
water)
will
be
replaced
by
an
alternate
system
that
meets
the
stratification
criteria.

2(
c)
Precision
Requirements
2(
c)(
i)
Precision
Targets
The
representative
sample
of
PWSs
must
be
selected
so
that
the
data
collected
yield
accurate
and
precise
estimates
of
national
contaminant
occurrence
(
the
fraction
of
systems
in
which
a
contaminant
occurs)
and
exposure
(
the
fraction
of
people
exposed
to
a
contaminant).
For
estimates
of
exposure
fractions,
EPA
will
allow
a
margin
of
error
of
±
1%
with
99%
confidence,
when
the
estimated
exposure
fraction
is
1%.
That
is,
if
the
estimated
exposure
fraction
is
1%,
EPA
must
be
able
to
state
with
99%
confidence
that
the
true
exposure
fraction
is
between
0%
and
2%.
Because
there
are
uncertainties
and
sources
of
variation
in
this
and
other
such
sampling
programs,
statistical
sampling
theory
used
to
derive
levels
of
accuracy
and
precision
may
not
account
for
all
of
these
sources
of
variation.
Hence,
the
high
confidence
level,
low
allowable
error,
and
consequent
large
sample
size
should
help
ensure
adequate
data
to
meet
the
objectives
of
the
UCMR
program.
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
52
2(
c)(
ii)
Nonsampling
error
For
those
PWSs
required
to
conduct
UCMR
monitoring,
response
is
a
requirement.
As
with
any
regulation,
some
non­
compliance
can
be
expected.
However,
high
compliance
levels
(>
95%)
during
UCMR
1
(
attributable
to
extensive
outreach
and
compliance
assistance)
give
EPA
confidence
that
the
same
or
better
can
be
achieved
during
UCMR
2.
EPA
plans
to
continue
outreach
and
compliance
assistance
efforts,
as
needed.

2(
d)
Questionnaire
Design
No
questionnaires
will
be
used
for
the
UCMR.
Analytical
results
for
contaminant
occurrence
will
be
electronically
reported
directly
by
the
laboratories
to
EPA's
electronic
reporting
system.

3
PRETESTS
AND
PILOT
TESTS
For
UCMR
2,
EPA
will
apply
the
same
basic
statistical
methods
that
were
used
for
the
UCMR
1
national
representative
sample
of
small
systems.
Following
sample
adjustments
made
through
communications
with
States,
>
99%
of
the
final
sample
of
small
systems
(
and
>
95%
of
large
systems)
completed
their
required
monitoring
and
reporting.

4
COLLECTION
METHODS
AND
FOLLOW­
UP
4(
a)
Collection
Methods
Large
PWSs
(
those
serving
more
than
10,000
people)
are
required
to
submit
their
data
through
EPA's
electronic
data
reporting
system.
Small
PWSs
(
those
serving
10,000
or
fewer
people)
will
be
working
directly
with
an
EPA­
appointed
UCMR
Sampling
Coordinator,
and
monitoring
data
from
the
small
PWSs
will
be
submitted
directly
to
EPA's
electronic
reporting
system
by
the
laboratories
conducting
the
analyses.

4(
b)
Survey
Response
and
Follow­
up
High
compliance
levels
(>
95%)
during
UCMR
1
have
given
EPA
confidence
that
equivalent
or
better
levels
can
be
achieved
during
UCMR
2.
EPA
plans
to
continue
outreach
and
compliance
assistance
efforts,
as
needed.
Each
small
system
will
be
working
with
a
UCMR
Sampling
Coordinator,
and
will
have
minimal
reporting
requirements
and
one­
on­
one
compliance
assistance.

"
Lessons
learned"
during
UCMR
1
helped
refine
several
UCMR
2
requirements.
Monitoring
schedules
in
UCMR
2
will
be
specified
for
all
large
systems
(
whereas
in
UCMR
1,
large
systems
could
choose
when
to
monitor
across
a
multi­
year
monitoring
period).
In
addition,
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
53
reporting
deadlines
have
been
more
clearly
defined.
In
some
cases
during
UCMR
1,
EPA
had
to
wait
until
the
end
of
a
three­
year
monitoring
period
to
make
a
compliance
determination
and
contact
systems
with
appropriate
follow­
up.
With
the
revisions
under
UCMR
2,
EPA
or
participating
States
will
have
the
ability
to
quickly
contact
systems
regarding
sample
results
that
are
not
received
when
expected.

5
ANALYZING
AND
REPORTING
SURVEY
RESULTS
5(
a)
Data
Preparation
After
PWSs
or
their
laboratories
post
their
UCMR
2
monitoring
results
and
required
data
elements
to
EPA's
electronic
reporting
system,
EPA
allows
a
specified
time
for
quality
control
review
by
the
PWS,
States,
and
the
Agency
before
placing
the
data
in
NCOD
for
public
access.

Data
problems
will
likely
exist,
but
the
following
efforts
will
be
taken
by
EPA
to
reduce
problems
and
increase
the
dependability
and
quality
of
the
occurrence
data.
The
UCMR
electronic
data
reporting
system
and
EPA
QA/
QC
assessments
will
screen
for
the
use
of
inappropriate
measurement
units
and
other
improper
data.
In
addition,
EPA
plans
to
have
other
automated
QC
functions
in
place
to
identify
possible
data
quality
issues
such
as
duplicate
data
submissions,
and
data
completeness.
All
samples
will
be
collected
by
trained
PWS
staff
and
analytical
results
will
be
generated
by
laboratories
that
are
approved
for
UCMR
2
drinking
water
analysis.
Electronic
data
submission
also
avoids
potential
re­
keying
errors.
Therefore,
some
assumptions
are
made
regarding
the
general
quality
of
the
raw
data
that
will
be
received.
As
part
of
the
data
QA/
QC
procedures,
all
edits
or
changes
made
to
the
data
will
be
documented.

5(
b)
Analysis
For
UCMR
1,
EPA
developed
a
two­
stage
analytical
approach
for
the
evaluation
of
the
national
occurrence
of
contaminants.
UCMR
2
expects
to
use
the
same
2­
tier
approach
to
analyzing
the
data.

The
first
stage
of
analysis,
Stage
1,
provides
a
straight­
forward
evaluation
of
occurrence
for
simple,
and
conservative
assessments
of
contaminant
occurrence.
The
Stage
1
analysis
of
the
UCMR
data
consists
of
non­
parametric,
unweighted
counts
and
simple
descriptive
statistics
of
analytical
results
for
each
of
the
contaminants.
These
occurrence
analyses
are
conducted
at
the
sample
level,
system
level
and
population­
served
level.
For
each
contaminant,
occurrence
measures
include
the
number
and
percent
of
samples
for
each
contaminant
with
analytical
detections,
and
the
minimum,
median,
maximum,
and
99th
percentile
values
of
those
detections.
System­
level
occurrence
measures
include
the
number
and
percent
of
systems
with
one
or
more
analytical
detections,
and
the
number
and
percent
of
systems
with
two
or
more
analytical
detections
of
a
given
contaminant.
Population­
served
occurrence
measures
include:
the
number
and
percent
of
population­
served
by
systems
with
one
or
more
analytical
detections,
and
the
number
and
percent
of
population­
served
by
systems
with
two
or
more
analytical
detections
of
a
given
contaminant.
Similar
measures
may
also
be
conducted
for
each
entry
point
to
the
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
54
distribution
system
for
each
system.
Since
these
contaminant
and
system
level
occurrence
measures
are
based
on
raw
occurrence
data
(
that
have
not
been
adjusted
for
population­
weighting
and
sampling),
they
are
less
accurate
representations
of
national
occurrence
than
occurrence
measures
based
on
adjusted
occurrence
data.

Based
on
the
findings
of
the
Stage
1
analysis,
EPA
can
select
contaminant(
s)
for
which
more
detailed
and
sophisticated
statistical
evaluations
­­
the
Stage
2
analysis
­­
may
be
warranted
as
a
next
step
to
generate
national
probability
estimates
of
contaminant
occurrence
and
exposure.
Specifically,
the
modeling
and
estimation
of
system
mean
contaminant
concentrations
may
be
desired.
The
Stage
2
analysis
uses
a
Bayesian­
based
hierarchical
model
to
estimate
the
percent
(
and
number)
of
systems
with
a
mean
contaminant
concentration
above
any
specified
concentration
threshold.
The
Bayesian­
based
Hierarchical
Model
also
provides
quantified
error
of
estimation,
and
enables
estimates
of
mean
contaminant
concentrations
below
the
MRL.
This
statistical
model
was
used
to
generate
the
contaminant
occurrence
estimates
for
60
regulated
contaminants
for
the
first
Six­
Year
Review
of
NPDWRs,
for
which
it
underwent
a
peer
review.

5(
c)
Reporting
Results
After
final
review,
formatting,
and
analysis
of
the
data
collected
through
this
ICR,
the
data
will
be
made
available
to
the
public
through
the
NCOD,
as
is
being
done
with
the
data
collected
and
analyzed
for
UCMR
1.
A
full
report,
including
detailed
descriptions
of
the
occurrence
analysis
approach;
data
characteristics
(
including
data
quality
and
limitations);
analytical
methodology;
and
analytical
results,
will
be
provided
to
the
public
and
posted
on
the
UCMR
2
Web
site
once
complete.
The
analytical
results
and
report
will
provide
support
for
regulatory
determinations
for
the
drinking
water
CCL.
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
APPENDICES
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
A­
1
APPENDIX
A:
Relevant
Authorities
in
the
SDWA
1996
Amendments
Section
1401
For
purposes
of
this
title:

(
1)
The
term
"
primary
drinking
water
regulation"
means
a
regulation
which­
(
A)
applies
to
public
water
systems;
(
B)
specifies
contaminants
which,
in
the
judgement
of
the
Administrator,
may
have
any
adverse
effect
on
the
health
of
persons;
(
C)
specifies
for
each
such
contaminant
either
 
(
i)
a
maximum
contaminant
level,
if,
in
the
judgment
of
the
Administrator,
it
is
economically
or
technologically
feasible
to
ascertain
the
level
of
such
contaminant
in
water
in
public
water
systems,
or
(
ii)
if,
in
the
judgment
of
the
Administrator,
it
is
not
economically
or
technologically
feasible
to
ascertain
the
level
of
such
contaminant
sufficient
to
satisfy
the
requirements
of
section
1412;
and
(
D)
contains
criteria
and
procedures
to
assure
a
supply
of
drinking
water
which
dependably
complies
with
such
maximum
contaminant
levels;
including
accepted
methods
for
quality
control
and
testing
procedures
to
insure
compliance
with
such
levels
and
to
insure
proper
operation
and
maintenance
of
the
system,
and
requirements
as
to
(
i)
the
minimum
quality
of
water
which
may
be
taken
into
the
system
and
(
ii)
siting
for
new
facilities
for
public
water
systems.
At
any
time
after
promulgation
of
a
regulation
referred
to
in
this
paragraph,
the
Administrator
may
add
equally
effective
quality
control
and
testing
procedures
by
guidance
published
in
the
Federal
Register.
Such
procedures
shall
be
treated
as
an
alternative
for
public
water
systems
to
the
quality
control
and
testing
procedures
listed
in
the
regulation.

Section
1412(
b)(
1)
Identification
of
contaminants
for
listing
 
(
A)
General
authority
 
The
Administrator
shall,
in
accordance
with
the
procedures
established
by
this
subsection,
publish
a
maximum
contaminant
level
goal
and
promulgate
a
national
primary
drinking
water
regulation
for
a
contaminant
(
other
than
a
contaminant
referred
to
in
paragraph
(
2)
for
which
a
national
primary
drinking
water
regulation
has
been
promulgated
as
of
the
date
of
enactment
of
the
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act
Amendments
of
1996)
if
the
Administrator
determines
that
 
(
i)
the
contaminant
may
have
an
adverse
effect
on
the
health
of
persons;
(
ii)
the
contaminant
is
known
to
occur
or
there
is
a
substantial
likelihood
that
the
contaminant
will
occur
in
public
water
systems
with
a
frequency
and
at
levels
of
public
health
concern;
and
(
iii)
in
the
sole
judgment
of
the
Administrator,
regulation
of
such
contaminant
presents
a
meaningful
opportunity
for
health
risk
reduction
for
persons
served
by
public
water
systems.
(
B)
Regulation
of
unregulated
contaminants
 
(
i)
Listing
of
contaminants
for
consideration
 
(
I)
Not
later
than
18
months
after
the
date
of
enactment
of
the
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act
Amendments
of
1996
and
every
5
years
thereafter,
the
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
A­
2
Administrator,
after
consultation
with
the
scientific
community,
including
the
Science
Advisory
Board,
after
notice
and
opportunity
for
public
comment,
and
after
considering
the
occurrence
data
base
established
under
section
1445(
g),
shall
publish
a
list
of
contaminants
which,
at
the
time
of
publication,
are
not
subject
to
any
proposed
or
promulgated
national
primary
drinking
water
regulation,
which
are
known
or
anticipated
to
occur
in
public
water
systems,
and
which
may
require
regulation
under
this
title.
(
II)
The
unregulated
contaminants
considered
under
subclause
(
i)
shall
include,
but
not
be
limited
to,
substances
referred
to
in
section
101(
14)
of
the
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Act
of
1980,
and
substances
registered
as
pesticides
under
the
Federal
Insecticide,
Fungicide,
and
Rodenticide
Act.
(
III)
The
Administrator's
decision
whether
or
not
to
select
an
unregulated
contaminant
for
a
list
under
this
clause
shall
not
be
subject
to
judicial
review.
(
ii)
Determination
to
regulate
 
(
I)
Not
later
than
5
years
after
the
date
of
enactment
of
the
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act
Amendments
of
1996,
and
every
5
years
thereafter,
the
Administrator
shall,
after
notice
of
the
preliminary
determination
and
opportunity
for
public
comment,
for
not
fewer
than
5
contaminants
included
on
the
list
published
under
clause
(
i),
make
determinations
of
whether
or
not
to
regulate
such
contaminants.
(
II)
A
determination
to
regulate
a
contaminant
shall
be
based
on
findings
that
the
criteria
of
clauses
(
i),
(
ii),
and
(
iii)
of
subparagraph
(
A)
are
satisfied.
Such
findings
shall
be
based
on
the
best
available
public
health
information,
including
the
occurrence
data
base
established
under
section
1445(
g).
(
III)
The
Administrator
may
make
a
determination
to
regulate
a
contaminant
that
does
not
appear
on
a
list
under
clause
(
i)
if
the
determination
to
regulate
is
made
pursuant
to
subclause
(
II).
(
IV)
A
determination
under
this
clause
not
to
regulate
a
contaminant
shall
be
considered
final
agency
action
and
subject
to
judicial
review.
(
iii)
Review
 
Each
document
setting
forth
the
determination
for
a
contaminant
under
clause
(
ii)
shall
be
available
for
public
comment
at
such
time
as
the
determination
is
published.
(
C)
Priorities
 
In
selecting
unregulated
contaminants
for
consideration
under
subparagraph
(
B),
the
Administrator
shall
select
contaminants
that
present
the
greatest
public
health
concern.
The
Administrator,
in
making
such
selection,
shall
take
into
consideration,
among
other
factors
of
public
health
concern,
the
effect
of
such
contaminants
upon
subgroups
that
comprise
a
meaningful
portion
of
the
general
population
(
such
as
infants,
children,
pregnant
women,
the
elderly,
individuals
with
a
history
of
serious
illness,
or
other
subpopulations)
that
are
identifiable
as
being
at
greater
risk
of
adverse
health
effects
due
to
exposure
to
contaminants
in
drinking
water
than
the
general
population.
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
A­
3
(
D)
Urgent
threats
to
public
health
 
The
Administrator
may
promulgate
an
interim
national
primary
drinking
water
regulation
for
a
contaminant
without
making
a
determination
for
the
contaminant
under
paragraph
(
4)(
C),
or
completing
the
analysis
under
paragraph
(
3)(
C),
to
address
an
urgent
threat
to
public
health
as
determined
by
the
Administrator
after
consultation
with
and
written
response
to
any
comments
provided
by
the
Secretary
of
Health
and
Human
Services,
acting
through
the
director
of
the
Centers
for
Disease
Control
and
Prevention
or
the
director
of
the
National
Institutes
of
Health.
A
determination
for
any
contaminant
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
4)(
C)
subject
to
an
interim
regulation
under
this
subparagraph
shall
be
issued,
and
a
completed
analysis
meeting
the
requirements
of
paragraph
(
3)(
C)
shall
be
published,
not
later
than
3
years
after
the
date
on
which
the
regulation
is
promulgated
and
the
regulation
shall
be
repromulgated,
or
revised
if
appropriate,
not
later
than
5
years
after
that
date.
(
E)
Regulation
 
For
each
contaminant
that
the
Administrator
determines
to
regulate
under
subparagraph
(
B),
the
Administrator
shall
publish
maximum
contaminant
level
goals
and
promulgate,
by
rule,
national
primary
drinking
water
regulations
under
this
subsection.
The
Administrator
shall
propose
the
maximum
contaminant
level
goal
and
national
primary
drinking
water
regulation
for
a
contaminant
not
later
than
24
months
after
the
determination
to
regulate
under
subparagraph
(
B),
and
may
publish
such
proposed
regulation
concurrent
with
the
determination
to
regulate.
The
Administrator
shall
publish
a
maximum
contaminant
level
goal
and
promulgate
a
national
primary
drinking
water
regulation
within
18
months
after
the
proposal
thereof.
The
Administrator,
by
notice
in
the
Federal
Register,
may
extend
the
deadline
for
such
promulgation
for
up
to
9
months.
(
F)
Health
advisories
and
other
actions
 
The
Administrator
may
publish
health
advisories
(
which
are
not
regulations)
or
take
other
appropriate
actions
for
contaminants
not
subject
to
any
national
primary
drinking
water
regulation.

Section
1412(
b)(
4)
Goals
and
standards
 
(
A)
Maximum
contaminant
level
goals
 
Each
maximum
contaminant
level
goal
established
under
this
subsection
shall
be
set
at
the
level
at
which
no
known
or
anticipated
adverse
effects
of
health
of
persons
occur
and
which
allows
an
adequate
margin
of
safety.
(
B)
Maximum
contaminant
levels
 
Except
as
provided
in
paragraphs
(
5)
and
(
6),
each
national
primary
drinking
water
regulation
for
a
contaminant
for
which
a
maximum
contaminant
level
goal
is
established
under
this
subsection
shall
specify
a
maximum
contaminant
level
for
such
a
contaminant
which
is
as
close
to
the
maximum
contaminant
level
goal
as
is
feasible.
(
C)
Determination
 
At
the
time
the
Administrator
proposes
a
national
primary
drinking
water
regulation
under
this
paragraph,
the
Administrator
shall
publish
a
determination
as
to
whether
the
benefits
of
the
maximum
contaminant
level
justify,
or
do
not
justify,
the
costs
based
on
the
analysis
conducted
under
paragraph
(
3)(
C).
(
D)
Definition
of
feasible
 
For
the
purposes
of
this
subsection,
the
term
"
feasible"
means
feasible
with
the
use
of
the
best
technology,
treatment
techniques,
and
other
means
which
the
Administrator
finds,
after
examination
for
efficacy
under
field
conditions
and
not
solely
under
laboratory
conditions,
are
available
(
taking
cost
into
consideration).
For
the
purpose
of
this
paragraph,
granular
activated
carbon
is
feasible
for
the
control
of
synthetic
organic
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
A­
4
chemicals,
and
any
technology,
treatment
technique,
or
other
means
found
to
be
the
best
available
for
the
control
of
synthetic
organic
chemicals
must
be
at
least
as
effective
in
controlling
synthetic
organic
chemicals
as
granular
activated
carbon.
(
E)
Feasible
technologies
 
(
i)
In
general
 
Each
national
primary
drinking
water
regulation
which
establishes
a
maximum
contaminant
level
shall
list
the
technology,
treatment
techniques,
and
other
means
which
the
Administrator
finds
to
be
feasible
for
purposes
of
meeting
such
maximum
contaminant
level,
but
regulation
under
this
subsection
shall
not
require
that
any
specified
technology,
treatment
technique,
or
other
means
be
used
for
purposes
of
meeting
such
maximum
contaminant
level.
(
ii)
List
of
technologies
for
small
systems
 
The
Administrator
shall
include
in
the
list
any
technology,
treatment
technique,
or
other
means
that
is
affordable,
as
determined
by
the
Administrator
in
consultation
with
the
States,
for
small
public
water
systems
serving
 
(
I)
a
population
of
10,000
or
fewer
but
more
than
3,300;
(
II)
a
population
of
3,300
or
fewer
but
more
than
500;
and
(
III)
a
population
of
500
or
fewer
but
more
than
25;
and
that
achieves
compliance
with
the
maximum
contaminant
level
or
treatment
technique,
including
packaged
or
modular
systems
and
point­
of­
entry
or
point­
ofuse
treatment
units.
Point­
of­
entry
and
point­
of­
use
treatment
units
shall
be
owned,
controlled
and
maintained
by
the
public
water
system
or
by
a
person
under
contract
with
the
public
water
system
to
ensure
proper
operation
and
maintenance
and
compliance
with
the
maximum
contaminant
level
or
treatment
technique
and
equipped
with
mechanical
warnings
to
ensure
that
customers
are
automatically
notified
of
operational
problems.
The
Administrator
shall
not
include
in
the
list
any
point­
of­
use
treatment
technology,
treatment
technique,
or
other
means
to
achieve
compliance
with
a
maximum
contaminant
level
or
treatment
technique
requirement
for
a
microbial
contaminant
(
or
an
indicator
of
a
microbial
contaminant).
If
the
American
National
Standards
Institute
has
issued
product
standards
applicable
to
a
specific
type
of
point­
of­
entry
or
point­
of­
use
treatment
unit,
individual
units
of
that
type
shall
not
be
accepted
for
compliance
with
a
maximum
contaminant
level
or
treatment
technique
requirement
unless
they
are
independently
certified
in
accordance
with
such
standards.
In
listing
any
technology,
treatment
technique,
or
other
means
pursuant
to
this
clause,
the
Administrator
shall
consider
the
quality
of
the
source
water
to
be
treated.
(
iii)
List
of
technologies
that
achieve
compliance
 
Except
as
provided
in
clause
(
v),
not
later
than
2
years
after
the
date
of
enactment
of
this
clause
and
after
consultation
with
the
States,
the
Administrator
shall
issue
a
list
of
technologies
that
achieve
compliance
with
the
maximum
contaminant
level
or
treatment
technique
for
each
category
of
public
water
systems
described
in
subclauses
(
I),
(
II),
and
(
III)
of
clause
(
ii)
for
each
national
primary
drinking
water
regulation
promulgated
prior
to
the
date
of
enactment
of
this
paragraph.
(
iv)
Additional
technologies
 
The
Administrator
may,
at
any
time
after
a
national
primary
drinking
water
regulation
has
been
promulgated,
supplement
the
list
of
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
A­
5
technologies
describing
additional
or
new
or
innovative
treatment
technologies
that
meet
the
requirements
of
this
paragraph
for
categories
of
small
public
water
systems
described
in
subclauses
(
I),
(
II),
and
(
III)
of
clause
(
ii)
that
are
subject
to
the
regulation.
(
v)
Technologies
that
meet
surface
water
treatment
rule
 
Within
one
year
after
the
date
of
enactment
of
this
clause,
the
Administrator
shall
list
technologies
that
meet
the
Surface
Water
Treatment
Rule
for
each
category
of
public
water
systems
described
in
subclauses
(
I),
(
II),
and
(
III)
of
clause
(
ii).

Section
1445(
a)(
1)(
A)
Every
person
who
is
subject
to
any
requirement
of
this
title
or
who
is
a
grantee,
shall
establish
and
maintain
such
records,
make
such
reports,
conduct
such
monitoring,
and
provide
such
information
as
the
Administrator
may
reasonably
require
by
regulation
to
assist
the
Administrator
in
establishing
regulations
under
this
title,
in
determining
whether
such
person
has
acted
or
is
acting
in
compliance
with
this
title,
in
administering
any
program
of
financial
assistance
under
this
title,
in
evaluating
the
health
risks
of
unregulated
contaminants,
or
in
advising
the
public
of
such
risks.
In
requiring
a
public
water
system
to
monitor
under
this
subsection,
the
Administrator
may
take
into
consideration
the
system
size
and
the
contaminants
likely
to
be
found
in
the
system's
drinking
water.
(
B)
Every
person
who
is
subject
to
a
national
primary
drinking
water
regulation
under
section
1412
shall
provide
such
information
as
the
Administrator
may
reasonably
require,
after
consultation
with
the
State
in
which
such
person
is
located
if
such
State
has
primary
enforcement
responsibility
for
public
water
systems,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
to
determine
whether
such
person
has
acted
or
is
acting
in
compliance
with
this
title.
(
C)
Every
person
who
is
subject
to
a
national
primary
drinking
water
regulation
under
section
1412
shall
provide
such
information
as
the
Administrator
may
reasonably
require
to
assist
the
Administrator
in
establishing
regulations
under
section
1412
of
this
title,
after
consultation
with
States
and
suppliers
of
water.
The
Administrator
may
not
require
under
this
subparagraph
the
installation
of
treatment
equipment
or
process
changes,
the
testing
of
treatment
technology,
or
the
analysis
or
processing
of
monitoring
samples,
except
where
the
Administrator
provides
the
funding
for
such
activities.
Before
exercising
this
authority,
the
Administrator
shall
first
seek
to
obtain
the
information
by
voluntary
submission.
(
D)
The
Administrator
shall
not
later
than
2
years
after
the
date
of
enactment
of
this
subparagraph,
after
consultation
with
public
health
experts,
representatives
of
the
general
public,
and
officials
of
State
and
local
governments,
review
the
monitoring
requirements
for
not
fewer
than
12
contaminants
identified
by
the
Administrator,
and
promulgate
any
necessary
modifications.

(
2)
MONITORING
PROGRAM
FOR
UNREGULATED
CONTAMINANTS­
(
A)
ESTABLISHMENT­
The
Administrator
shall
promulgate
regulations
establishing
the
criteria
for
a
monitoring
program
for
unregulated
contaminants.
The
regulations
shall
require
monitoring
of
drinking
water
supplied
by
public
water
systems
and
shall
vary
the
frequency
and
schedule
for
monitoring
requirements
for
systems
based
on
the
number
of
persons
served
by
the
system,
the
source
of
supply,
and
the
contaminants
likely
to
be
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
A­
6
found,
ensuring
that
only
a
representative
sample
of
systems
serving
10,000
persons
or
fewer
are
required
to
monitor.
(
B)
MONITORING
PROGRAM
FOR
CERTAIN
UNREGULATED
CONTAMINANTS­
(
i)
INITIAL
LIST­
Not
later
than
3
years
after
the
date
of
enactment
of
the
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act
Amendments
of
1996
and
every
5
years
thereafter,
the
Administrator
shall
issue
a
list
pursuant
to
subparagraph
(
A)
of
not
more
than
30
unregulated
contaminants
to
be
monitored
by
public
water
systems
and
to
be
included
in
the
national
drinking
water
occurrence
data
base
maintained
pursuant
to
subsection
(
g).
(
ii)
GOVERNORS'
PETITION­
The
Administrator
shall
include
among
the
list
of
contaminants
for
which
monitoring
is
required
under
this
paragraph
each
contaminant
recommended
in
a
petition
signed
by
the
Governor
of
each
of
7
or
more
States,
unless
the
Administrator
determines
that
the
action
would
prevent
the
listing
of
other
contaminants
of
a
higher
public
health
concern.
(
C)
MONITORING
PLAN
FOR
SMALL
AND
MEDIUM
SYSTEMS­
(
i)
IN
GENERAL­
Based
on
the
regulations
promulgated
by
the
Administrator,
each
State
may
develop
a
representative
monitoring
plan
to
assess
the
occurrence
of
unregulated
contaminants
in
public
water
systems
that
serve
a
population
of
10,000
or
fewer
in
that
State.
The
plan
shall
require
monitoring
for
systems
representative
of
different
sizes,
types,
and
geographic
locations
in
the
State.
(
ii)
GRANTS
FOR
SMALL
SYSTEM
COSTS­
From
funds
reserved
under
section
1452(
o)
or
appropriated
under
subparagraph
(
H),
the
Administrator
shall
pay
the
reasonable
cost
of
such
testing
and
laboratory
analysis
as
are
necessary
to
carry
out
monitoring
under
the
plan.
(
D)
MONITORING
RESULTS­
Each
public
water
system
that
conducts
monitoring
of
unregulated
contaminants
pursuant
to
this
paragraph
shall
provide
the
results
of
the
monitoring
to
the
primary
enforcement
authority
for
the
system.
(
E)
NOTIFICATION­
Notification
of
the
availability
of
the
results
of
monitoring
programs
required
under
paragraph
(
2)(
A)
shall
be
given
to
the
persons
served
by
the
system.
(
F)
WAIVER
OF
MONITORING
REQUIREMENT­
The
Administrator
shall
waive
the
requirement
for
monitoring
for
a
contaminant
under
this
paragraph
in
a
State,
if
the
State
demonstrates
that
the
criteria
for
listing
the
contaminant
do
not
apply
in
that
State.
(
G)
ANALYTICAL
METHODS­
The
State
may
use
screening
methods
approved
by
the
Administrator
under
subsection
(
i)
in
lieu
of
monitoring
for
particular
contaminants
under
this
paragraph.
(
H)
AUTHORIZATION
OF
APPROPRIATIONS­
There
are
authorized
to
be
appropriated
to
carry
out
this
paragraph
$
10,000,000
for
each
of
the
fiscal
years
1997
through
2003.

(
d)
SCREENING
METHODS­
Section
1445
(
42
U.
S.
C.
300j­
4)
is
amended
by
adding
the
following
after
subsection
(
h):
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
A­
7
(
I)
SCREENING
METHODS­
The
Administrator
shall
review
new
analytical
methods
to
screen
for
regulated
contaminants
and
may
approve
such
methods
as
are
more
accurate
or
cost­
effective
than
established
reference
methods
for
use
in
compliance
monitoring.

(
g)
OCCURRENCE
DATA
BASE­
(
1)
IN
GENERAL­
Not
later
than
3
years
after
the
date
of
enactment
of
the
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act
Amendments
of
1996,
the
Administrator
shall
assemble
and
maintain
a
national
drinking
water
contaminant
occurrence
data
base,
using
information
on
the
occurrence
of
both
regulated
and
unregulated
contaminants
in
public
water
systems
obtained
under
subsection
(
a)(
1)(
A)
or
subsection
(
a)(
2)
and
reliable
information
from
other
public
and
private
sources.
(
2)
PUBLIC
INPUT­
In
establishing
the
occurrence
data
base,
the
Administrator
shall
solicit
recommendations
from
the
Science
Advisory
Board,
the
States,
and
other
interested
parties
concerning
the
development
and
maintenance
of
a
national
drinking
water
contaminant
occurrence
data
base,
including
such
issues
as
the
structure
and
design
of
the
data
base,
data
input
parameters
and
requirements,
and
the
use
and
interpretation
of
data.
(
3)
USE­
The
data
shall
be
used
by
the
Administrator
in
making
determinations
under
section
1412(
b)(
1)
with
respect
to
the
occurrence
of
a
contaminant
in
drinking
water
at
a
level
of
public
health
concern.
(
4)
PUBLIC
RECOMMENDATIONS­
The
Administrator
shall
periodically
solicit
recommendations
from
the
appropriate
officials
of
the
National
Academy
of
Sciences
and
the
States,
and
any
person
may
submit
recommendations
to
the
Administrator,
with
respect
to
contaminants
that
should
be
included
in
the
national
drinking
water
contaminant
occurrence
data
base,
including
recommendations
with
respect
to
additional
unregulated
contaminants
that
should
be
listed
under
subsection
(
a)(
2).
Any
recommendation
submitted
under
this
clause
shall
be
accompanied
by
reasonable
documentation
that
 
(
A)
the
contaminant
occurs
or
is
likely
to
occur
in
drinking
water;
and
(
B)
the
contaminant
poses
a
risk
to
public
health.
(
5)
PUBLIC
AVAILABILITY­
The
information
from
the
data
base
shall
be
available
to
the
public
in
readily
accessible
form.
(
6)
REGULATED
CONTAMINANTS­
With
respect
to
each
contaminant
for
which
a
national
primary
drinking
water
regulation
has
been
established,
the
data
base
shall
include
information
on
the
detection
of
the
contaminant
at
a
quantifiable
level
in
public
water
systems
(
including
detection
of
the
contaminant
at
levels
not
constituting
a
violation
of
the
maximum
contaminant
level
for
the
contaminant).
(
7)
UNREGULATED
CONTAMINANTS­
With
respect
to
contaminants
for
which
a
national
primary
drinking
water
regulation
has
not
been
established,
the
data
base
shall
include­­
(
A)
monitoring
information
collected
by
public
water
systems
that
serve
a
population
of
more
than
10,000,
as
required
by
the
Administrator
under
subsection
(
a);
(
B)
monitoring
information
collected
from
a
representative
sampling
of
public
water
systems
that
serve
a
population
of
10,000
or
fewer;
and
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
A­
8
(
C)
other
reliable
and
appropriate
monitoring
information
on
the
occurrence
of
the
contaminants
in
public
water
systems
that
is
available
to
the
Administrator.
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
B­
1
APPENDIX
B:
Burden
and
Cost
Exhibits
for
the
Five­
Year
UCMR
2
Cycle
of
2007­
2011
Exhibit
B­
1a:
Yearly
Cost
to
Systems,
by
System
Size
and
by
Type
of
Cost
(
2007­
2011)
(
corresponds
to
Exhibit
11a)
Cost
Description
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Total
SMALL
SYSTEMS
(
serving
10,000
or
fewer
people)
Labor
Costs
Reading
and
Initial
Reporting
$
94,444
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
94,444
Monitoring
$
20,375
$
40,749
$
26,256
$
5,881
$
0
$
93,261
Reporting
of
Results
$
8,020
$
16,039
$
11,475
$
3,455
$
0
$
38,989
Non­
Labor
Costs
(
Laboratory
Analysis
and
Shipping
(
paid
for
by
EPA))

$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Subtotal
 
Small
Systems
$
122,839
$
56,788
$
37,731
$
9,336
$
0
$
226,694
LARGE
SYSTEMS
(
serving
10,001
to
100,000
people)
Labor
Costs
Reading
and
Initial
Reporting
$
946,564
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
946,564
Monitoring
$
67,802
$
135,605
$
118,104
$
50,302
$
0
$
371,813
Reporting
of
Results
$
90,139
$
180,277
$
167,139
$
77,001
$
0
$
514,556
Non­
Labor
Costs
(
Laboratory
Analysis
and
Shipping)

$
3,335,493
$
6,670,985
$
5,834,963
$
2,499,470
$
0
$
18,340,911
Subtotal
 
Large
Systems
$
4,439,998
$
6,986,867
$
6,120,206
$
2,626,773
$
0
$
20,173,844
VERY
LARGE
SYSTEMS
(
serving
greater
than
100,000
people)
Labor
Costs
Reading
and
Initial
Reporting
$
164,069
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
164,069
Monitoring
$
44,384
$
88,768
$
44,384
$
0
$
0
$
177,536
Reporting
of
Results
$
38,291
$
76,583
$
38,291
$
0
$
0
$
153,165
Non­
Labor
Costs
(
Laboratory
Analysis
and
Shipping)

$
2,905,235
$
3,570,317
$
665,083
$
0
$
0
$
7,140,635
Subtotal
 
Very
Large
Systems
$
3,151,979
$
3,735,668
$
747,758
$
0
$
0
$
7,635,405
ALL
SYSTEMS
Total
Labor
for
All
Systems
$
1,474,088
$
538,021
$
405,649
$
136,639
$
0
$
2,554,397
Total
Non­
Labor
for
All
Systems
$
6,240,728
$
10,241,302
$
6,500,046
$
2,499,470
$
0
$
25,481,546
Total
Labor
and
Non­
Labor
for
All
Systems
$
7,714,816
$
10,779,323
$
6,905,695
$
2,636,109
$
0
$
28,035,943
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
B­
2
Exhibit
B­
1b:
Per
System
(
Respondent)
and
Per
Response
UCMR
Costs
(
2007­
2011)
(
corresponds
with
Exhibit
11b)

Burden
/
Cost
Total
over
2007­
2011
Annual
Average
over
2007­
2011
Small
Systems
Large
Systems
Very
Large
Systems
Small
Systems
Large
Systems
Very
Large
Systems
PER
RESPONDENT:

Labor
Cost
$
177
$
657
$
1,537
$
35
$
131
$
307
Non­
Labor
Cost
$
0
$
6,580
$
22,175
$
0
$
1,316
$
4,435
Burden
(
labor
hours)
7.2
24.0
46.8
1.4
4.8
9.4
PER
RESPONSE:

Number
Responses
per
Respondent
2.5
3.0
12.9
0.5
0.6
2.6
Labor
Cost
per
Response
$
76
$
217
$
424
$
15
$
43
$
85
Non­
Labor
Cost
per
Response
$
0
$
2,173
$
6,124
$
0
$
435
$
1,225
Burden
(
labor
hours)
per
Response
2.9
7.9
12.9
0.6
1.6
2.6
Exhibit
B­
2a:
Yearly
Cost
and
Burden
to
States
for
Implementation
of
UCMR
(
2007­
2011)
1
(
corresponds
with
Exhibit
13a)

Cost/
Burden
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Total
Annual
Average
Costs
to
All
States
for
labor
related
to
UCMR
implementation
and
oversight
$
617,360
$
648,343
$
600,227
$
313,317
$
274,447
$
2,453,694
$
490,739
Labor
burden
for
all
States
for
UCMR
implementation
and
oversight
11,635
11,861
10,649
5,371
5,295
44,811
8,962
1
All
costs
are
attributed
to
labor
and
are
estimated
over
the
period
2007­
2011.

Exhibit
B­
2b:
Per
State
(
Respondent)
and
Per
Response
UCMR
Costs
(
2007­
2011)
(
corresponds
with
Exhibit
13b)

Burden
/
Cost
Total
over
2007­
2011
Annual
Average
over
2007­
2011
PER
RESPONDENT:

Labor
Cost
$
43,816
$
8,763
Non­
Labor
Cost
$
0
$
0
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
Exhibit
B­
2b:
Per
State
(
Respondent)
and
Per
Response
UCMR
Costs
(
2007­
2011)
(
corresponds
with
Exhibit
13b)

Burden
/
Cost
Total
over
2007­
2011
Annual
Average
over
2007­
2011
B­
3
Burden
(
labor
hours)
800.2
160.0
PER
RESPONSE:

Number
Responses
per
Respondent1
5.0
1.0
Labor
Cost
per
Response
$
8,763
$
1,753
Non­
Labor
Cost
per
Response
$
0
$
0
Burden
(
labor
hours)
per
Response
160.0
32.0
1
States
are
assumed
to
have
1
response
per
year,
since
there
are
no
specific
cyclical
State
reporting
requirements
under
the
UCMR
program.

Exhibit
B­
3a:
Yearly
Cost
to
EPA
for
UCMR
Implementation,
by
Type
of
Cost
(
2007­
2011)
1
(
corresponds
with
Exhibit
14a)

Cost
Description
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Total
Average
Regulatory
Support
Activities:
laboratory
proficiency
testing;
QC
audits;
analytical
standards
provision;
and
technical
support,
guidance
document
development
Lab
PT
$
200,000
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
200,000
$
40,000
QC
Audits
$
14,457
$
28,915
$
28,915
$
14,457
$
0
$
86,744
$
17,349
Analytical
$
100,000
$
200,000
$
200,000
$
100,000
$
0
$
600,000
$
120,000
Technical
Support
$
100,000
$
50,000
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
150,000
$
30,000
Subtotal
 
Regulatory
$
414,457
$
278,915
$
228,915
$
114,457
$
0
$
1,036,744
$
207,349
National
and
Regional
Oversight
and
Data
Analysis:
UCMR
management
oversight;
review
and
evaluation
of
data
from
Assessment
Monitoring
$
359,559
$
719,118
$
719,118
$
719,118
$
0
$
2,516,913
$
503,383
Small
System
Testing:
implementation
coordination;
and
analytical
and
shipping
costs
for
small
system
testing
for
both
Assessment
Monitoring
and
Screening
Surveys
Implementation
Coordination
$
646,855
$
1,293,710
$
839,718
$
192,863
$
0
$
2,973,146
$
594,629
Fees
for
Analysis
and
shipping
$
1,101,096
$
2,202,193
$
1,438,607
$
337,510
$
0
$
5,079,406
$
1,015,881
Subtotal
 
Small
System
$
1,747,951
$
3,495,903
$
2,278,325
$
530,374
$
0
$
8,052,553
$
1,610,511
TOTAL
$
2,521,967
$
4,493,936
$
3,226,358
$
1,363,949
$
0
$
11,606,210
$
2,321,242
1
Agency
costs
are
estimated
over
the
period
2007­
2011.
Though
some
start­
up
costs
will
likely
begin
in
2006,
costs
are
presented
beginning
in
2007,
with
beginning
of
rule
implementation
activities.
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
B­
4
Exhibit
B­
3b:
Summary
of
EPA
Burdens
and
Costs
for
UCMR
Implementation
(
2007­
2011)
(
corresponds
with
Exhibit
14b)

Burden
/
Cost
Annual
Average
Cost
over
(
2007­
2011)

Labor
Cost
$
503,383
Non­
Labor
Cost
$
1,817,859
Total
Cost
to
EPA
for
UCMR
Implementation
$
2,321,242
Burden
(
labor
hours)
8,008
Exhibit
B­
4:
National
Cost
Summary
for
UCMR
2
Implementation
(
2007­
2011)
(
corresponds
with
Exhibit
15)

Type
of
Cost
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
TOTAL
Small
Systems
Labor
Cost
$
122,838
$
56,789
$
37,731
$
9,337
$
0
$
226,695
Non­
Labor
Cost
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Total
Small
System
Cost
$
122,838
$
56,789
$
37,731
$
9,337
$
0
$
226,695
Large
Systems
Labor
Cost
$
1,104,505
$
315,882
$
285,244
$
127,303
$
0
$
1,832,934
Non­
Labor
Cost
$
3,335,493
$
6,670,985
$
5,834,963
$
2,499,470
$
0
$
18,340,911
Total
Large
System
Cost
$
4,439,998
$
6,986,867
$
6,120,207
$
2,626,773
$
0
$
20,173,845
Very
Large
Systems
Labor
Cost
$
246,744
$
165,351
$
82,676
$
0
$
0
$
494,770
Non­
Labor
Cost
$
2,905,235
$
3,570,317
$
665,083
$
0
$
0
$
7,140,635
Total
Very
Large
System
Cost
$
3,151,979
$
3,735,668
$
747,759
$
0
$
0
$
7,635,405
States
Labor
Cost
$
617,360
$
648,343
$
600,227
$
313,317
$
274,447
$
2,453,694
Non­
Labor
Cost
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
Exhibit
B­
4:
National
Cost
Summary
for
UCMR
2
Implementation
(
2007­
2011)
(
corresponds
with
Exhibit
15)

Type
of
Cost
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
TOTAL
B­
5
Total
State
Cost
$
617,360
$
648,343
$
600,227
$
313,317
$
274,447
$
2,453,694
EPA
Labor
Cost
$
359,559
$
719,118
$
719,118
$
719,118
$
0
$
2,516,913
Non­
Labor
Cost
$
2,162,409
$
3,774,818
$
2,507,240
$
644,831
$
0
$
9,089,298
Total
EPA
Cost
$
2,521,968
$
4,493,936
$
3,226,358
$
1,363,949
$
0
$
11,606,211
National
Total
Total
with
EPA
$
10,854,143
$
15,921,603
$
10,732,282
$
4,313,376
$
274,447
$
42,095,850
Total
without
EPA
$
8,332,175
$
11,427,667
$
7,505,924
$
2,949,427
$
274,447
$
30,489,639
Total
Burden
(
hours)
for
All
Responses
Small
Systems
4,971
2,263
1,515
384
0
9,133
Large
Systems
40,355
11,541
10,422
4,651
0
66,969
Very
Large
Systems
7,514
5,035
2,518
0
0
15,067
States
11,635
11,861
10,649
5,371
5,295
44,811
EPA
5,720
11,440
11,440
11,440
0
40,040
Total
with
EPA
70,195
42,140
36,544
21,846
5,295
176,020
Total
without
EPA
64,475
30,700
25,104
10,406
5,295
135,980
1
Although
EPA
is
not
considered
a
respondent
to
the
UCMR
regulations,
Agency
burdens
are
shown
here
to
illustrate
the
national
costs
of
the
program.
National
totals
are
shown
with
and
without
the
Agency
costs.

Exhibit
B­
5:
UCMR
2
Per
Respondent
Burden
and
Cost
Summary
(
2007­
2011)
(
corresponds
with
Exhibit
16)

Burden
(
hours)/
Cost
(
dollars)
Small
Systems
Large
Systems
Very
Large
Systems
States
EPA
National
Average
with
EPA1
National
Average
without
EPA
Five­
Year
Total
per
Respondent
Total
#
of
Responses
Per
Respondent
2.5
3.0
3.6
5.0
n/
a
n/
a
2.9
Draft
ICR
for
UCMR
2
Proposed
Rule
May
2005
Exhibit
B­
5:
UCMR
2
Per
Respondent
Burden
and
Cost
Summary
(
2007­
2011)
(
corresponds
with
Exhibit
16)

Burden
(
hours)/
Cost
(
dollars)
Small
Systems
Large
Systems
Very
Large
Systems
States
EPA
National
Average
with
EPA1
National
Average
without
EPA
B­
6
Labor
Cost
Per
Respondent
$
177
$
657
$
1,537
$
43,816
$
2,516,914
$
1,692
$
1,126
Non­
Labor
Cost
Per
Respondent
$
0
$
6,580
$
22,175
$
0
$
9,089,297
$
7,775
$
5,730
Total
Cost
(
Labor
plus
Non­
Labor)
$
177
$
7,237
$
23,712
$
43,816
$
11,606,211
$
9,467
$
6,856
Total
Cost
Per
Response
$
72
$
2,390
$
6,548
$
8,763
n/
a
n/
a
$
2,338
Total
Burden
Per
Respondent
7.2
24.0
46.8
800.2
40,040.0
39.6
30.6
Total
Burden
Per
Response
2.9
7.9
12.9
203.2
n/
a
n/
a
10.7
Average
Annual
per
Respondent
Ave.
#
of
Responses
Per
Respondent
0.5
0.6
0.7
1.0
n/
a
n/
a
0.6
Labor
Cost
Per
Respondent
$
35
$
131
$
307
$
8,763
$
503,383
$
338
$
225
Non­
Labor
Cost
Per
Respondent
$
0
$
1,316
$
4,435
$
0
$
1,817,859
$
1,555
$
1,146
Ave.
Cost
(
Labor
plus
Non­
Labor)
$
35
$
1,447
$
4,742
$
8,763
$
2,321,242
$
1,893
$
1,371
Ave.
Cost
Per
Response
$
14
$
478
$
1,310
$
1,753
n/
a
n/
a
$
468
Ave.
Burden
Per
Respondent
1.4
4.8
9.4
160.0
8,008.0
7.9
6.1
Ave.
Burden
Per
Response
0.6
1.6
2.6
40.6
n/
a
n/
a
2.1
1
National
average
burdens
and
costs
differ
greatly
between
the
State
respondents
and
the
various
system
respondents.
This
should
be
taken
into
consideration
when
looking
at
the
national
average
with
or
without
EPA.
