FINAL DRAFT INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST FOR THE COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW CONTROL POLICY OMB No. 2040 0170; EPA ICR No. 1680.03 November 2000 Prepared for:

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OFFICE OF WATER OFFICE OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT MC 4203M ARIEL RIOS BUILDING 1200 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON, DC 20460 Prepared by:

Limno Tech, Inc. 1705 De Sales Street, NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 EPA Contract No. 68 C 00 116 EPA Work Assignment No. WW 0 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1( a) Title of the Information Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2.0 NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2( a) Need For The Information Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2( b) Use and Users Of The Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.0 NON DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3( a) Non Duplication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to OMB Submission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3( c) Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3( d) Minimizing Burden and the Effects of Less Frequent Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3( e) General Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3( f) Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3( g) Sensitive Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.0 THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4( a) Respondents' Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4( b) Information Requested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ( i) Nine Minimum Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ( ii) Long Term CSO Control Plans and Supplementary Information . . . . . 10 ( iii) Compliance Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4( c) Respondent Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 ( i) Nine Minimum Control Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 ( ii) Long Term CSO Control Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 ( iii) Compliance Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4( d) Consideration of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.0 THE INFORMATION COLLECTED   AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5( a) Agency And Approved NPDES State Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5( b) Review of Municipal Submittals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 5( c) Collection Methodology and Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5( d) Small Entity Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5( e) Collection Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6.0 ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF COLLECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 6( a) Estimated Respondent Burden And Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 ( i) Nine Minimum Control Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 ( ii) Long Term CSO Control Plan Burden and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 ( iii) Compliance Monitoring Burden and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6( b) Estimated Government Burden And Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 ( i) State and Federal Government Tally . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6( c) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 6( d) Reason for Change in Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 6( e) Burden Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 i LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 6 1. Estimated Burden and Cost of Documenting the Nine Minimum Control Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Exhibit 6 2. Estimated Burden Calculation for Public Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Exhibit 6 3. Estimated Burden and Cost of Writing Long Term CSO Control Plans . . . . . 23 Exhibit 6 4. Estimated Burden and Cost of Compliance Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Exhibit 6 5. Estimated State Burden and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Exhibit 6 6. Estimated Federal Burden and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Exhibit 6 7. Estimated Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 ii 1 1.0 IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a) Title of the Information Collection This renewal ICR is titled " Information Collection Request for the Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy."

1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract The purpose of this renewal ICR estimates the information collection burden associated with the Combined Sewer Overflow ( CSO) Control Policy. The Policy is issued as a guidance to National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permitting and enforcement authorities, State water quality standards authorities, municipalities with combined sewer systems, and other stakeholders. It recommends a consistent approach to controlling CSOs that is flexible enough to take into account individual combined sewer system characteristics, past CSO control efforts, and the financial capability of the municipality. The Policy recommends a national framework for bringing CSOs into compliance with the CWA and for achieving compliance with applicable State water quality standards ( WQS).

The main activities for municipalities under the Policy include ( 1) documentation of the implementation of the nine minimum controls, ( 2) development and implementation of a long term Control Plan ( LTCP), and ( 3) compliance monitoring and reporting to demonstrate the combined sewer system is in continuing compliance with State WQS and NPDES permit conditions.

In most cases, the Policy envisions that municipal activities will be carried out through the NPDES permitting process. However, NPDES authorities may use other tools ( e. g., § 308 information requests) to require that municipalities develop and implement CSO control programs and to require that municipalities submit the information necessary to determine that the Policy is being implemented. This renewal ICR estimates the total burden and cost associated with information collection and reporting under the CSO Control Policy.

According to 5 CFR 1320, ICRs should include not only the reporting burden, but also the burden to gather any required information necessary to meet information requests that is not readily available. Gathering includes monitoring, surveying, testing and similar activities. 2 The cost and burden for installing the nine minimum control measures and for installing control measures identified in the LTCP are beyond the scope of 5 CFR 1320. The burden to collect sufficient information to document the nine minimum control measures and to evaluate alternatives under the LTCP is included in the renewal ICR. Capital costs for CSO controls are estimated in EPA's 1996 Needs Survey. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the capital costs associated with public notification of CSO locations, events and public health and environmental impacts are included.

State activities under the Policy include permit development and reissuance, and review of NMC documentation, LTCPs, and CSO monitoring data in discharge monitoring reports ( DMRs). Federal activities include the same activities and the review of State information submitted to EPA for developing the performance reports under the Government Performance and Results Act.

For this ICR, EPA estimates burden and costs associated for permittee, State, and federal authorities affected by the Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy. This ICR estimates a total nationwide burden of 1,740,131 hours and a cost of $ 61,444,026 associated with information collection burdens, that will be spread over a three year period.

Nationwide approximately 900 municipalities in 30 States and 9 EPA Regions have CSSs that may have CSOs and are affected by the Policy.

Combined sewer systems ( CSSs) are wastewater collection systems which convey sanitary wastewaters ( domestic, commercial, and industrial wastewaters) and storm water through a single pipe to publicly owned treatment works ( POTWs). A combined sewer overflow is a discharge from a CSS at a point prior to the POTW treatment plant. CSOs are classified as point sources subject to National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permit requirements. CSOs are not subject to secondary treatment requirements applicable to POTWs.

CSOs often contain high levels of suspended solids, bacteria and other pathogens,

toxic pollutants, floatables, nutrients, oxygen demanding organic compounds, oil and grease,

and other pollutants. CSOs can cause exceedances of water quality standards ( WQS). Such exceedances may pose risks to human health, threaten aquatic life and its habitat, and impair the use of the nation's waterways.

In the United States there are approximately 900 CSSs. The systems are located primarily in the northeast and northern Midwest regions; 92 percent of the outfalls are in EPA 3 Regions 1, 2, 3, and 5. Approximately 62 percent of CSSs serve 10,000 people or less. Only seven percent of the systems serve populations greater than 100,000. These larger systems,

however, account for approximately 70 percent of the total population served by CSSs.

In 1989 EPA's Office of Water established the National Combined Sewer Overflow Control Strategy ( 54 Federal Register 37370) and in April 1994 issued its National CSO Control Policy ( 59FR 18688). This Policy provides guidance to permittees with CSOs,

NPDES permitting authorities, State water quality standards authorities and NPDES enforcement authorities. The purpose of the Policy is to coordinate the planning, selection,

design, and implementation of CSO control programs to meet the requirements of the CWA and to involve the public in the decision making process. The Policy represents a comprehensive national strategy to ensure that municipalities, permitting authorities, WQS authorities, and the public engage in a comprehensive and coordinated planning effort to achieve cost effective CSO control programs that meet the objectives of the CWA. The Policy recognizes the site specific nature of CSOs and their impacts and provides the necessary flexibility to develop a control plan tailored to local situations.

This ICR addresses six broad areas of information collection burdens:

a) the information collection costs to municipalities to implement and document implementation of the nine minimum controls,

b) the information collection costs to municipalities to develop long term CSO control plans ( LTCPs) consistent with the expectations in the CSO Control Policy,

c) the information collection costs to municipalities to implement a postconstruction compliance monitoring program,

d) the burden on EPA and States to review and evaluate the information submitted by municipalities,

e) the burden on municipalities for third party notification associated with one of the nine minimum controls, and f) the burden on States with approved NPDES programs to issue/ reissue NPDES permits or other enforceable mechanisms requiring municipalities to implement the recommendations in the CSO Policy. 4 Activities associated with costs a) and b) above are one time efforts and are being completed largely through the NPDES permitting processes. For purposes of estimating annual burden, EPA assumes that these one time activities will occur over a three year period consistent with the approval period of this renewal ICR. The only burden for CSO requirements in the NPDES base ICRs is in the Discharge Monitoring Reports ( DMR) ICR ( 2040 0004) which includes a burden of 96 hours per combined sewer system per year for monitoring and reporting.

2.0 NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION EPA needs the information described in this ICR to ensure that municipalities are developing and implementing CSO control programs that are consistent with the objectives of the CSO Control Policy and to determine whether the EPA's national CSO control program is achieving its performance goals established under the Government Performance and Results Act.

2( a) Need For The Information Collection Under Section 301( a) of the Clean Water Act ( CWA), the discharge of any pollutant from a point source into a water of the United States is " unlawful" unless in accordance with the Act. Section 402 of the Clean Water Act as amended, 33 USC 1342 et seq. authorizes EPA to issue a permit for the discharge of any pollutant subject to certain terms and conditions, including effluent limitations.

The information collection activities described in this ICR provide the minimum data necessary for the Federal government to assure that all municipalities with CSSs are:

( 1) developing and implementing CSO control programs that are consistent with the CSO Control Policy and ( 2) that these CSO control programs will meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act and will achieve compliance with applicable State water quality standards.

2( b) Use and Users Of The Data Information submitted by municipalities under the Policy will provide NPDES authorities ( EPA Regions and States with approved NPDES programs) with the necessary information to determine whether a municipality's CSO control program is adequate to achieve compliance with CWA requirements and applicable State WQS, to establish permit terms and conditions for CSOs, to track performance, to identify and assess violations, and to 5 target inspection and enforcement actions. The information will also be used by Regions and States to develop and evaluate the success of their CSO Control Strategies. The information may be collected through the NPDES permitting process, § 308 information request, or other enforceable means.

EPA will also use this data to measure its performance in achieving its objectives under its Performance Plan for the CSO Control Policy. The primary outcome of the performance plan for the CSO control program is measurable progress in implementation of the EPA's CSO Control Policy. The information that will be collected under this renewal ICR will allow EPA to measure that progress. 1 Combined Sewer Overflow Work Group Policy Dialogue  Final Report, RESOLVE, March 1993.

6 3.0 NON DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3( a) Non Duplication This Policy and this renewal ICR address only those municipalities with CSSs that have CSOs. The information collected is not available from other sources. Any system that has substantially developed or is implementing a CSO control program under an existing enforceable mechanism may not be subject to most of the Policy's planning and information submission requirements.

3( b) Public notice required prior to ICR submission to OMB.

In compliance with the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act ( PRA), any agency developing a non rule related ICR must solicit public comments for a 60 day period prior to submitting the ICR to OMB. These comments, which are used partly to determine realistic burden estimates for respondents, must be considered when completing the Supporting Statement that is submitted to OMB. EPA first public noticed this ICR on July 3, 2000 ( 65 FR 41065 ).

No public comments were received.

3( c) Consultations In developing the Policy, EPA arranged for a CSO Work Group under the Office of Water's ( OW's) Management Advisory Group to discuss and recommend a CSO Control Policy. The Work Group met three times between July 23 and September 9, 1992. Although the Work Group did not reach a complete consensus on the best approach for the CSO Policy,

EPA had the opportunity to hear the views of a variety of interested parties and was able to incorporate these views into the Policy1. Entities participating in the Work Group included:

! The American Public Works Association,

! The Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Authorities,

! The Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators ( ASIWPCA),

! The Center for Marine Conservation,

! The Chemical Manufacturers Association ( CMA), 7 ! The CSO Partnership,

! The Environmental Defense Fund,

! The Lower James River Association,

! The National League of Cities ( NLC),

! The Natural Resources Defense Council ( NRDC), and ! Sewage Treatment Out of the Park ( STOP).

The Agency believes that the Policy is a comprehensive approach that is both flexible and effective. The flexibility means that permitting authorities will be able to tailor permit conditions to each CSO municipality's unique characteristics.

3( d) Minimizing Burden and the Effects of Less Frequent Reporting In developing the Policy, the Office of Water ( OW) carefully considered the need to balance environmental protection with the resources of municipalities. The Policy contains flexibility in the timing of control installation based on the financial capability of the responding municipality. In addition, NPDES permitting authorities may reduce the reporting burden of small CSO municipalities ( less than 75,000 persons served by the CSS).

Less than semi annual reporting of CSO compliance monitoring data in DMRs will limit EPA's ability to prepare the reports that are required to show the progress that Agency is making in achieving the annual GPRA performance objectives established for the CSO control program.

3( e) General Guidelines None of the Policy's provisions exceed Paperwork Reduction Act guidelines for response time. During emergencies, POTW operators ( including those operating CSSs) may bypass their systems pursuant to 40 CFR 122.41. If such a bypass occurs, the system operator must notify EPA within 24 hours, which exceeds the maximum reporting frequencies specified at 5 CFR 1320. This requirement is part of existing regulations addressed in the NPDES compliance assessment ICR ( OMB Control No. 2040 0110); it is not addressed in this ICR. 8 3( f) Confidentiality The information collected under the Policy includes no confidential information, such as proprietary formulas or techniques, because all respondents are public entities. In addition,

the information is collected for the Agency's internal use and to prepare the performance reports required by the Government Performance and Results Act.

3( g) Sensitive Questions There are no sensitive questions associated with this renewal ICR. 9 4.0 THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED The primary respondents to the Policy will be municipalities with CSSs that have CSOs and States with approved NPDES programs which have jurisdiction over those municipalities.

Nationwide, approximately 900 municipalities in nine EPA Regions and 30 States have CSSs and are subject to the Policy. In the majority of Regions and States, CSO requirements are included in NPDES permits. In States and EPA Regions where municipalities are implementing or have already implemented CSO control programs, the Policy will impose a reduced burden. The Policy will result in a larger impact on municipalities that have not yet begun to implement the CSO Control Policy.

The following sections identify respondents and list the data collection and other associated activities that States and municipalities are subject to under the Policy. This renewal ICR updates the incremental burden and costs associated with the CSO policy, not those associated with overall NPDES program. Note that the facilities potentially affected by the Policy are a subset of the larger universe of facilities covered by the Agency's NPDES program, so it is assumed that the universe of NPDES respondents will not increase by virtue of the Policy being implemented.

4( a) Respondents' Standard Industrial Classification ( SIC) Codes The Policy will affect approximately 900 municipalities with CSSs, and the NPDES authorities which are responsible for implementing the CSO Control Policy. The SIC code for municipal sewerage systems is 4952, within Industry Group 495 ( Sanitary Services) and Major Group 49 ( Electric, Gas, and Sanitary Services). Governmental environmental agencies have an SIC code of 951.

4( b) Information Requested There are two types of information collections for permittees with CSSs described in the Policy: ( 1) those associated with one time activities, including documenting the nine minimum controls and developing a LTCP, and ( 2) those associated with on going activities,

such as compliance monitoring and record keeping. 10 ( i) Nine Minimum Controls The CSO Control Policy recommends that municipalities implement the nine minimum controls ( NMC) and submit documentation demonstrating their implementation activities.

NPDES permitting authorities generally require this activity as a NPDES permit condition.

The Policy recommended that this documentation be submitted within two years after this requirement is included in a NPDES permit or other enforceable mechanism. The NMC identified in the Policy are:

1. Proper operation and regular maintenance programs for the collection system and the CSOs,

2. Maximum use of the collection system for storage,

3. Review and modification of pretreatment requirements to ensure that CSO impacts are minimized,

4. Maximization of flow to the POTW for treatment,

5. Elimination of CSOs during dry weather,

6. Control of solid and floatable materials in CSOs,

7. Pollution prevention programs to reduce contaminants in CSOs,

8. Public notification to ensure that the public receives adequate notification of CSO occurrences and CSO impacts, and 9. Monitoring to effectively characterize CSO impacts and the efficacy of CSO controls.

In May 1995, EPA issued a guidance manual ( Combined Sewer Overflows: Guidance for Nine Minimum Controls, EPA 832 B 95 003) that provides municipalities and NPDES permitting authorities with information relating to the implementation of each of the NMC and with examples of appropriate documentation for demonstrating implementation of each NMC.

( ii) Long Term CSO Control Plans and Supplementary Information The CSO Control Policy recommends to permit writers that permittees develop and submit a LTCP within two years after the inclusion of LTCP requirements in a NPDES permit or other enforceable mechanism. A LTCP should contain the following components:

! Sewer System Characterization, Monitoring, and Modeling ! Evaluation of Alternatives ! Cost/ Performance Considerations ! Consideration of Sensitive Areas 11 ! Maximize Treatment at the POTW Treatment Plant ! Operational Plan ! Public Participation ! Implementation Schedule ! Post Construction Compliance Monitoring Program In September 1995, EPA issued a guidance document ( Combined Sewer Overflows:

Guidance for Long Term Control Plan, EPA 832 B 95 002) to assist municipalities with the development of LTCPs that are consistent with the CSO Control Policy and to provide NPDES permitting authorities with useful information for reviewing LTCP submittals. LTCPs should recognize the site specific nature of CSOs and their impacts on receiving waters. The guidance document describes how to develop a LTCP that includes technology based and water quality based control measures that are technically feasible, affordable, and consistent with the Policy.

( iii) Compliance Monitoring The Policy recommends that municipalities develop compliance monitoring programs to document compliance with applicable State water quality standards, protection of designated uses, and to measure the effectiveness of CSO control programs after they are implemented.

The NPDES permitting authority should approve the compliance monitoring program as part of the LTCP review process. During the term of this renewal ICR, municipalities will collect and submit to the NPDES permitting authority, information on the sampling and analysis of pollutants in CSOs and the impacts of CSOs on the quality of the recovering waters.

In January 1999, EPA issued a guidance document ( Combined Sewer Overflows Guidance for Monitoring and Modeling, EPA 832 B 99 002) to provide municipalities with a set of general guidelines for developing a site specific monitoring and modeling strategy for characterizing combined sewer system operations and impacts and for developing and implementing a LTCP. The guidance document presents a suggested framework for monitoring and modeling but is not a " how to" manual defining how many samples to collect or which flow metering technologies to use.

4( c) Respondent Activities Sections ( i), ( ii), and ( iii) describe the activities outlined in the Policy as CSO permit requirements. According to 5 CFR 1320, ICRs should include not only the reporting burden,

but also the burden to gather any information that is not readily available. Gathering includes 12 monitoring, surveying, testing and similar activities. Burden and cost estimates for Policy activities are provided in Section 6.0.

Information collection and activities that qualify as " customary and usual business practice" are exempt from further burden and cost analysis.

In documenting the nine minimum controls and developing a LTCP, the permittee will perform a variety of activities including gathering and generating information, sampling discharges and receiving waters, and maintaining records. In performing compliance monitoring, the permittee will sample and analyze CSOs for pollutants of concern. At present,

the pollutants of concern are assumed to be fecal coliform, total suspended solids, and biochemical oxygen demand ( BOD).

( i) Nine Minimum Control Measures The burden associated with documenting the nine minimum controls will result from recording and reporting on planned or implemented activities for each NMC. The municipality will need to gather information about the planned or completed implementation ( e. g.,

information on how the public is notified of CSO events), assemble that information into a report format, submit the information, and maintain a record of the report and supporting information for three years. In most cases, and with the exception of the monitoring measure,

the record keeping requirement will result in small burdens, as documenting the measures will not require extensive discharge or water quality records. It is assumed that while record keeping for the basic monitoring measure will require some effort, existing databases used to keep track of the POTWs discharge records will also be used to keep track of the basic CSO monitoring. The additional record keeping burden is included in the general reporting subsection of the nine minimum controls in Section 6( a).

( ii) Long Term CSO Control Plan Under the Policy, the municipality should submit the information requested under the LTCP components, including characterizing the CSS and showing that it considered a range of control alternatives using either the presumption approach or the demonstration approach as presented in the CSO control policy. The NPDES permitting authority will generally include in a NPDES permit or other enforceable mechanism, a schedule for the submission of interim deliverables relating to the LTCP. Examples of interim deliverables include a report on system characterization activities, a report on the evaluation of alternatives, and a compliance monitoring program. 13 Ongoing reporting activities associated with the LTCP allow the permittee and the reviewer to check progress towards meeting the requirements of the CWA and complying with applicable State WQS. These activities include monitoring, reporting, and record keeping.

Specific monitoring activities include effluent and ambient monitoring, biological assessments,

whole effluent toxicity testing, and sediment sampling. These activities are recorded and reported according to the monitoring protocol established in the permit.

( iii) Compliance Monitoring As municipalities implement various CSO control measures as part of their CSO control program, they will initiate compliance monitoring to determine their progress in achieving compliance with CWA requirements and with applicable State WQS. Municipalities will sample CSOs and analyze the samples for pollutant concentrations to determine compliance with applicable permit requirements. They will also perform water quality monitoring to determine compliance with applicable State WQS.

4( d) Consideration of Alternatives As discussed in greater detail in Section 5( b), EPA worked closely with representatives of States, affected municipalities, and environmental groups to produce a Policy that would result in better control of CSOs, clarification of the existing regulations, and sufficient flexibility to adapt to limited municipal resources and characteristics of individual CSSs. The Agency believes that the resulting Policy is a comprehensive approach that is both flexible and effective. Flexibility is incorporated into the Policy so that NPDES authorities will be able to tailor permits and other enforceable mechanisms to each municipality's site specific circumstances. In the long run, this should help ensure that CWA mandates are satisfied while minimizing municipal burden and cost. 14 5.0 THE INFORMATION COLLECTED   AGENCY ACTIVITIES,

COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5( a) Agency And Approved NPDES State Activities EPA and States with approved NPDES programs have authority to issue permits under the NPDES program. Of approximately 900 municipalities with CSSs, EPA will issue approximately 75 CSO permits, while States are responsible for the remaining 825 permits.

The Policy clarifies the requirements CSO permits should contain. There are four main CSO related Agency activities discussed below: ( l) issuing NPDES permits or other enforceable mechanism to the remaining municipalities that have not yet received them, ( 2)

review of nine minimum control documentation and LTCPs, ( 3) review of DMR data from compliance monitoring activities, and ( 4) permit oversight. In addition, EPA is responsible for compiling and reviewing summary program information submitted by the States.

5( b) Review of Municipal Submittals Review burden is incurred by a NPDES authority when a permittee submits CSO materials in support of a new, modified or revised permit, or in response to other mechanisms.

Following is a description of the reviews to be performed by EPA and States:

! Government Review of Demonstration of Implementation of the Nine Minimum CSO Controls: The Policy calls for CSO municipalities to implement the nine minimum controls and then submit documentation of their implementation to the NPDES authority. NPDES authorities must review the documentation to determine whether it is complete and accurate, and whether the nine controls have been implemented in accordance with NPDES permit requirements.

! Government Review of Long Term CSO Control Plans ( LTCP): EPA and State permitting authorities will review LTCPs to ascertain whether they are consistent with the provisions of the CSO Control Policy and that, when they are implemented, the selected control measures will achieve compliance with applicable State WQS and meet the objectives of the Clean Water Act. 15 ! Review of Compliance Monitoring Data: NPDES permitting authorities ( EPA Regions and approved States) will review monitoring data for CSOs that are submitted by municipalities in response to a requirement in a NPDES permit or other enforceable mechanism.

5( c) Collection Methodology and Management Municipalities will submit NMC documentation and LTCPs as one time submittals in response to a requirement in a NPDES permit or other enforceable mechanism. EPA assumes that compliance monitoring data will be submitted semi annually in DMRs in response to a NPDES permit requirement. EPA assumes that the collected compliance monitoring data will be stored in existing databases.

5( d) Small Entity Flexibility To assist communities with CSSs that serve populations less than 75,000, EPA recommends that NPDES authorities use discretion when requiring these communities to develop a LTCP. It is recommended in the Policy that small systems be required to document implementation of the nine minimum controls, prepare LTCPs that give high priority to controlling overflows to sensitive areas, and employ public participation in their decision making process. The intent of this provision is to focus the limited resources of smaller communities on controlling CSOs. Small entities will conduct compliance monitoring.

The extent of the monitoring should be reduced because the systems are small with few CSOs.

5( e) Collection Schedule The policy recommends that municipalities have up to two years from issuance of permits or other enforceable mechanism to document the implementation of the nine minimum controls and to develop and submit a LTCP. Complex systems can be provided more time for the LTCP. Generally it is expected that these requirements will be incorporated into NPDES permits as the permits come up for reissuance. NPDES authorities may use other tools to initiate the CSO planning process where appropriate. 16 6.0 ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF COLLECTION 6( a) Estimated Respondent Burden And Cost This renewal ICR assumes that the average annual salary for a municipal employee likely to be analyzing the CSS is similar to that of a federal GS 9, Step 10 salary: $ 45,900. At 2,080 hours per year, the hourly rate is $ 22.07. Overhead costs are assumed to add an additional 60 percent to the cost, or $ 13.24 per hour. The assumed total hourly cost is $ 35.31.

According to 5 CFR 1320, ICRs should include not only the reporting burden, but also the burden to gather any required information not readily available. " Gathering" includes monitoring, surveying, testing and similar activities.

Since the renewal ICR was approved three years ago, the estimated number of municipalities with CSSs has been reduced to approximately 900. This reduction is the result of data and information collected from EPA Regions and conversations with EPA Regional and State CSO program staff.

For this renewal ICR, the percentage of small, medium, large, and very large systems distributed among the estimated 900 municipalities with CSSs is as follows: 65% of the communities will be small ( under 10,000 population), 25% will be medium sized ( populations between 10,000 and 75,000), 8% will be large ( populations between 75,000 and 400,000),

and the remaining 2% will be very large ( populations over 400,000)

( i) Nine Minimum Control Measures There are two burdens associated with documenting implementation of the nine minimum controls: ( 1) the burden of writing a report documenting the implementation of the controls, and ( 2) the burden of gathering the information necessary to document that the controls have been implemented. The cost of actually implementing a control measure, for example, purchasing netting to control floating debris, is not included in the ICR because it is not an information collection activity.

The burden of collecting information to support the documentation, will vary widely among systems, since some of the systems may already have available information and others may not. 17 EPA estimates that over the life of the prior ICRs, 58% of the 900 municipalities with CSSs have submitted NMC documentation to the appropriate NPDES permitting authority.

This estimate is supported by information from EPA Regional and NPDES State CSO program staff. As a result of this information, EPA is estimating that the remaining 42% will submit the necessary documentation over the next three years. EPA expects that 378 municipalities will submit this information. Of these systems, 245 small communities, 95 medium communities, and 30 large communities will need to gather the information documenting that they implemented each of the NMC. No very large communities will need to prepare and submit reports to the appropriate NPDES permitting authority.

Exhibit 6 1 presents the estimated system and nation wide costs of documenting the implementation of each NMC and for reporting the information to the appropriate NPDES authority. 18 Exhibit 6 1. Estimated Burden and Cost of Documenting the Nine Minimum Control Measures By Control Measure By System Size Nationwide Total Avg. Per System Nationwide Total Avg. Per System Hours Systems Cost Burden Cost Burden Cost Burden Cost Burden Operations and Maintenance $ 103,811 2,940 $ 281 8 Small 4 245 $ 34,604 980 $ 141 4 Medium 8 95 $ 26,836 760 $ 282 8 Large 40 30 $ 42,372 1,200 $ 1,412 40 Maximize Storage of System $ 207,623 5,880 $ 561 16 Small 8 245 $ 69,208 1,960 $ 282 8 Medium 16 95 $ 53,671 1,520 $ 565 16 Large 80 30 $ 84,744 2,400 $ 2,825 80 Pretreatment Programs $ 103,811 2,940 $ 281 8 Small 4 245 $ 34,604 980 $ 141 4 Medium 8 95 $ 26,836 760 $ 282 8 Large 40 30 $ 42,372 1,200 $ 1,412 40 Maximize Flow to the POTW $ 207,623 5,880 $ 561 16 Small 8 245 $ 69,208 1,960 $ 282 8 Medium 16 95 $ 53,671 1,520 $ 565 16 Large 80 30 $ 84,744 2,400 $ 2,825 80 Dry weather Overflows $ 224,925 6,370 $ 608 17 Small 18 245 $ 155,717 4,410 $ 636 18 Medium 8 95 $ 26,836 760 $ 282 8 Large 40 30 $ 42,372 1,200 $ 1,412 40 Control Solids and Floatables $ 103,811 2,940 $ 281 8 Small 4 245 $ 34,604 980 $ 141 4 Medium 8 95 $ 26,836 760 $ 282 8 Large 40 30 $ 42,372 1,200 $ 1,412 40 Pollution Prevention $ 103,811 2,940 $ 281 8 Small 4 245 $ 34,604 980 $ 141 4 Medium 8 95 $ 26,836 760 $ 282 8 Large 40 30 $ 42,372 1,200 $ 1,412 40 Public Notification $ 103,811 2,940 $ 281 8 Small 4 245 $ 34,604 980 $ 141 4 Medium 8 95 $ 26,836 760 $ 282 8 Large 40 30 $ 42,372 1,200 $ 1,412 40 Monitor $ 234,458 6,640 $ 634 18 Small 16 245 $ 138,415 3,920 $ 565 16 Medium 16 95 $ 53,671 1,520 $ 565 16 Large 40 30 $ 42,372 1,200 $ 1,412 40 General Reporting $ 300,841 8,520 $ 813 23 Small 8 245 $ 69,208 1,960 $ 282 8 Medium 16 95 $ 53,671 1,520 $ 565 16 Large 80 30 $ 84,744 2,400 $ 2,825 80 Very Large 240 11 $ 93,218 2,640 $ 8,474 240 Record Keeping $ 269,768 7,640 $ 729 21 Small 8 245 $ 69,208 1,960 $ 282 8 Medium 16 95 $ 53,671 1,520 $ 565 16 Large 80 30 $ 84,744 2,400 $ 2,825 80 Very Large 160 11 $ 62,146 1,760 $ 5,650 160 Total Per System Small ( 245) $ 743,984 21,070 $ 3,037 86 Medium ( 95) $ 429,371 12,160 $ 4,520 128 Large ( 30) $ 635,580 18,000 $ 21,186 600 Very Large ( 11) $ 155,364 4,400 $ 14,124 400 All Systems ( 381) $ 1,964,299 55,630 $ 5,156 146 19 Cost And Burden of Third Party Notification Under the CSO Policy, the public notification provision of the nine minimum controls is necessary to inform the public of the location of CSO outfalls, the actual occurrences of CSOs,

the possible health and environmental effects of CSOs, and the recreational or commercial activities ( e. g., swimming and shellfish harvesting) curtailed as a result of CSOs. Public notification is of particular concern at beach and recreation areas directly or indirectly affected by CSOs, where public exposure is likely to be significant.

The CSO Control Policy and EPA's guidance documents provide considerable flexibility to municipalities in implementing the public notification provision, because the most appropriate mechanism for public notification will vary with local circumstances, such as the character and size of the use area and means of public assess. The selected measure should be the most costeffective measure that provides reasonable assurance that the affected public is informed in a timely manner. Municipalities will choose from measures that include posting signs at affected use areas, posting signs at CSO outfalls, and notices in newspapers or radio broadcasts.

The CSO Control Policy acknowledges the resource constraints facing smaller municipalities and provides relief to municipalities with populations under 75,000 from certain long term planing and evaluation activities.

Implementation of the nine minimum controls is expected to be highly site specific. A community's means of notifying the public about CSO occurrences and impacts will be tailored to the use of the receiving water and the anticipated level of public exposure. The selected measure should be the most cost effective measure that provides reasonable assurance that the affected public is informed in a timely manner.

Public notification will be provided either on a one time basis ( e. g., through posting of permanent signs) or on a case by case basis ( e. g., through public service announcements) as necessary to protect public health from the impacts of CSOs. The frequency of notification is that necessary to provide prompt notification of CSO occurrences and potential impacts.

The public notification provision of the nine minimum controls will not require any of the following:

! Reporting of information to the Agency;

! Preparation of a written response by the respondent; 20 ! Submittal of documentation to the Agency, other than documentation demonstrating implementation of the nine minimum controls.

This ICR renewal calculates an annual nationwide burden of $ 604,963 for affected municipalities to notify the public of CSO occurrences and impacts. As detailed in Exhibit 6 2,

this burden comprises $ 422,838 for operation and maintenance ( 3,992 hours annually to install and maintain notification signs and provide press or radio advisories regarding CSO occurrences and impacts), and $ 182,125 for capital and start up cost ( the capital cost for municipalities to purchase notification signs).

The calculations in Exhibit 6 2 reflect the following assumptions:

( 1) For purposes of calculating burden, this ICR assumes that notification will take either of three forms: permanent signs at outfalls, permanent signs at beaches or other public exposure areas, or press or radio advisories. Based on its experience to date, EPA believes that the vast majority of CSO communities will use either, or some combination of, these methods of public notification.

( 2) Some communities already have procedures in place to warn the public of health risks from CSOs and other water pollution issues. Many have long standing provisions to notify the public of beach closures or shell fishing restrictions, for example. This does not address public notification that is provided for other reasons, such as local public health ordinances, that are not attributable to the CSO Control Policy. EPA believes that approximately 50 percent of cities already provide notification. Thus EPA estimates that 50 percent of cities already provide notification directly as a result of the CSO Policy.

( 3) All 900 communities with combined sewer systems should have procedures in place to notify the public of CSO occurrences and impacts. EPA estimates that, of the communities that are implementing public notification procedures as a result of the CSO Policy, approximately one quarter will incur sign installation and/ or replacement costs annually.

( 4) EPA assumes that communities posting CSO outfalls will post one sign per outfall. It also assumes that communities posting beaches and other public exposure areas will post five signs per community. 21 ( 5) EPA assumes that all public notification activities are performed by in house staff and none are contracted out. 22 Exhibit 6 2. Estimated Burden Calculation for Public Notification LABOR HOURS LABOR COST CAPITAL COST TOTAL COST 1. Number of cities with CSOs: 900 2. Percentage of cities providing public notification per CSO Policy 50%

3. Number of respondents = ( 1) x ( 2): 450 4. Labor cost, per hour: $ 35.31 Option 1. Signs at outfalls.

5. Percentage of respondents using Option 1: 25%

6. Number of respondents using Option 1 = ( 3) x ( 5): 112.5 7. Number of CSO outfalls nationwide: 11,000 8. Average number of outfalls per respondent  ( 7) / ( 1): 12.22 9. Number of outfall signs nationwide = ( 6) x ( 8): 1,375 10. Installation/ maintenance burden per sign: 2 $ 71 $ 94 11. Total national burden for Option 1 = ( 9) x ( 10): 2,750 $ 97,103 $ 129,250 Option 2. Signs at beaches, other public exposure areas.

12. Percentage of respondents using Option 2: 25%

13. Number of respondents using Option 2 = ( 3) x ( 12): 112.5 14. Number of signs posted by each respondent: 5 15. Number of signs at public exposure areas nationwide ( 13) x ( 14): 562.5 16. Installation/ maintenance burden per sign: 2 $ 71 $ 94 17. Total national burden for Option 2 = ( 15) x 16): 1,125 $ 39,724 $ 52,875 Option 3. Press or radio advisories.

18. Percentage of respondents using Option 3: 20%

19. Number of respondents using Option 3 = ( 3) x ( 18): 90 20. Number of advisories per respondent: 30 21. Total number of advisories nationwide: 2,700 22. Burden per advisory: 3 $ 106 $ 0 23. Total national burden for Option 3: 8,100 $ 286,011 $ 0 TOTAL BURDEN, OPTIONS 1 3 11,975 $ 422,838 $ 182,125 $ 604,963 23 Total Cost The total nationwide burden of the effort to document the implementation of the nine minimum controls and to provide public notification of CSO locations and CSO events is 67,605 hours, and the cost is $ 2,569,262. This includes $ 182,125 in capital costs for installing and maintaining the signs to be posted under the public notification element of the NMC.

( ii) Long Term CSO Control Plan Burden and Cost Following are information collection burdens calculated for components of the LTCP.

The burdens are calculated assuming that the permit writer required in the permit that the permittee develop the LTCP and that the permittee address each component of the LTCP. The calculated burdens are adjusted for several factors: ( 1) a number of CSS municipalities have already completed long term plans that contain part or all of the LTCP components included in the policy, ( 2) the small system consideration in the Policy may potentially relieve small systems of some of the burden in developing a LTCP, and ( 3) not every component of the LTCP will be applicable to every CSS and every outfall.

Exhibit 6 3. Estimated Burden and Cost of Writing Long Term CSO Control Plans By Control Measure By System Size Nationwide Total Avg. Per System Nationwide Total Avg. Per System Hours Systems Cost Burden Cost Burden Cost Burden Cost Burden Systems with Existing Studies $ 6,812,711 192,940 $ 60,828 1,723 Small 812 31 $ 888,823 25,172 $ 28,672 812 Medium 1,664 62 $ 3,642,862 103,168 $ 58,756 1,664 Large 3,400 19 $ 2,281,026 64,600 $ 120,054 3,400 Systems without Existing Studies $ 39,831,516 1,128,052 $ 108,533 3,074 Small 812 285 $ 8,171,440 231,420 $ 28,672 812 Medium 8,864 63 $ 19,718,234 558,432 $ 312,988 8,864 Large 17,800 19 $ 11,941,842 338,200 $ 628,518 17,800 Record Keeping, All Systems $ 1,850,526 52,408 $ 3,863 109 Small 88 316 $ 981,900 27,808 $ 3,107 88 Medium 136 125 $ 600,270 17,000 $ 4,802 136 Large 200 38 $ 268,356 7,600 $ 7,062 200 Total 479 $ 48,494,753 1,373,400 $ 101,242 2,867 Small 316 $ 10,042,163 284,400 $ 31,779 900 Medium 125 $ 23,961,678 678,600 $ 191,691 5,429 Large 38 $ 14,491,224 410,400 $ 381,348 10,800 For purposes of calculating the burden of developing a LTCP, municipalities were divided into three categories: ( 1) those serving greater than 75,000 persons ( approximately 38 systems)

termed " large," ( 2) those serving between 10,000 and 75,000 persons ( approximately 125 systems) termed " medium," and ( 3) those serving less than 10,000 persons ( approximately 316 systems) termed " small." 24 The following was assumed in estimating LTCP costs:

! Estimated burdens do not account for extended negotiations or litigation and do not include the cost of legal counsel.

! The estimated burden is based only on the incremental effort resulting from the Policy at this time. Costs already incurred, and costs for related issues such as POTW planning are not included.

! Very large systems have already characterized their systems, and have developed CSO control programs.

! Large Systems which have not studied their systems to date will, on average,

spend roughly $ 500,000 on LTCPs.

! Roughly half of municipalities with large sized systems have performed a formal study of their CSS. For these systems, the LTCP is assumed to build upon these previous studies as much as possible, and cost $ 100,000.

! Medium Systems: The cost of LTCPs for medium systems will vary widely because some municipalities will use municipal personnel and others will hire engineering contractors. The estimated average cost is $ 250,000.

! For approximately half of municipalities with medium sized systems that have performed some study of their CSS, the LTCP is assumed to build upon these previous studies as much as possible and cost $ 50,000.

! Small Systems: The average cost for small systems is estimated at $ 25,000. This is based on the following assumptions: that municipal personnel will be used,

that cost saving measures are employed, and that permit writers will use the small system flexibility in the Policy to reduce the burden on these municipalities in developing their LTCPs.

! It is assumed that many municipalities with small sized systems have not performed a formal study of their CSS. 25 Total Nationwide Cost to Prepare LTCPs: Over the next three years ( the life of this renewal ICR), the estimated one time burden to develop LTCPs is 1,373,400 hours and the estimated cost is $ 48,494,753.

Each CSS is unique in terms of its condition, design, operation, and the extent that it has been studied. Each of the components of the LTCP overlaps with the other components to a varying degree depending upon the individual systems characteristics. For example, for one system consideration of sensitive areas may be tied closely with consideration of control alternatives, while, in another situation it may be nearly a separate condition. In a third situation no identifiable sensitive area may exist. Finally, the amount of information collection required to support the LTCP will vary greatly from system to system.

( iii) Compliance Monitoring Burden and Cost The CSO Control Policy recommends that CSO communities conduct compliance monitoring to demonstrate that their implemented CSO control plans do achieve compliance with CWA requirements and applicable State WQS. Over the life of this renewal ICR, EPA estimates that 65% of the 900 CSO municipalities ( 585) will conduct compliance monitoring activities.

EPA, based on discussions with State NPDES and EPA Regional Office Staff, believes that communities will submit CSO monitoring results in their DMRs semiannually. EPA estimates that, during each semiannual reporting period, CSO communities will sample wet weather discharges from CSOs during three wet weather events. During each of three storm events,

municipalities will sample two CSO discharge points, taking 2 samples per outfall. Each sample will be analyzed for TSS, BOD and fecal coliform. Municipalities may be required as a condition of their NPDES permit, to analyze for additional pollutants based on the site specific circumstances in each case. EPA anticipates that NPDES permitting authorities will require as a permit condition that municipalities estimate and report the volume, frequency, and duration of CSOs that they experience in each reporting period.

Exhibit 6 4 provides the estimated burden and cost associated with compliance monitoring. The assumptions used to estimate the hours of sampling, analysis, and reporting time per response are taken from the ICR on Discharge Monitoring Reports. The total burden and cost for compliance monitoring over the 3 year life of this renewal ICR is 243,945 hours and $ 8,613,698. 26 Exhibit 6 4. Estimated Burden and Cost of Compliance Monitoring LABOR HOURS LABOR COST 1. Number of cities submitting DMRs ( 65% of 900) 585 2. Number of DMRs per year per respondent 2 3. Number of responses per year = ( 1) x ( 2): 1,170 4. Number of years for ICR 3 5. Number of responses for ICR period = ( 3) x ( 4) 3,510 6. Hours of sampling time per response 27 7. Total hours of sampling time = ( 5) x ( 6) 94,770 8. Total cost of sampling = ( 7) x Average Hourly Rate $ 3,346,329 9. Hours of sampling per response 18 10. Total hours of analysis time = ( 5) x ( 9) 63,180 11. Total cost of analysis = ( 10) x Average Hourly Rate $ 2,230,886 12. Hours per response to estimate flow parameters 20 13. Total hours to estimate flow parameters = ( 12) x ( 5) 70,200 14. Total cost to estimate flow parameters = ( 13) x Average Hourly Rate $ 2,478,762 15. Hours to prepare and submit DMRs 2 16. Total hours to prepare and submit DMRs = ( 15) x ( 5) 7,020 17. Total cost to prepare and submit DMRs = ( 16) x Average Hourly Rate $ 247,876 18. Hours per response for record keeping 15 19. Total hours for record keeping = ( 1) x ( 18) 8,775 20. Total cost for record keeping ( 19) x Average Hourly Rate $ 309,845 21. Total hours for compliance monitoring = ( 7) + ( 10) + ( 13) + ( 16) +

( 19) 243,945 22. Total cost for compliance monitoring = ( 8) + ( 11) + ( 14) + ( 17) = ( 20) $ 8,613,698 6( b) Estimated Government Burden And Costs This ICR assumes that the average annual salary for both a federal and State employee is $ 45,900 based on a federal GS 9, Step 10 salary. At 2,080 hours per year, the hourly rate is $ 22.07. Overhead costs are assumed to add an additional 60 percent to the cost of the average federal or State salary, or $ 13.24 per hour. The assumed total hourly cost is $ 35.31.

( i) State and Federal Government Tally Exhibit 6 5 summarizes the State burden and Exhibit 6 6 summarizes the federal burden for reviewing documentation of the nine minimum controls, LTCPs, and compliance monitoring data submitted in semi annual DMRs and for ongoing permit oversight. The estimated total burden which will be spread over three years is 60,075 hours. The estimated cost to States is $ 1,948,441 and the estimated cost to Regions is $ 172,807. Of the State costs, $ 42,372 is for 27 reporting data to EPA. The total federal and State costs for the review of State and municipal submittals is $ 2,121,248. 21990 Needs Survey, Office of Wastewater Management.

28 6( c) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs Exhibit 6 7 includes the total burden hours and costs of 1,684,950 hours and $ 59,495,584 broken out by reporting and recordkeeping and by respondents. It provides the same categories on an annual basis and per respondent.

6( d) Reason for Change in Burden The main activities for municipalities under the Policy include ( 1) documentation of the implementation of the nine minimum controls, ( 2) development and implementation of a longterm Control Plan ( LTCP), and ( 3) compliance monitoring and reporting to demonstrate the combined sewer system is in continuing compliance with State WQS and NPDES permit conditions.

State activities under the Policy include permit development and reissuance, and review of NMC documentation, LTCPs, and CSO monitoring data in discharge monitoring reports ( DMRs). Federal activities include the same activities and the review of State information submitted to EPA for developing the performance reports under the Government Performance and Results Act.

Both the size of combined sewer systems ( CSSs) and municipalities with CSSs vary greatly. Approximately 62 percent of CSSs serve 10,000 people or less, while only 7 percent of the systems serve populations greater than 100,000. These larger systems, however, account for approximately 70 percent of the total population served by CSSs2. For purposes of estimating burdens, this renewal ICR categorizes CSSs as follows: " very large" systems serve populations greater than 400,000, " large" systems serve populations greater than 75,000, " medium" systems serve populations between 75,000 and 10,000 and " small" systems serve populations less than 10,000. Because the larger systems will have significantly higher burdens and costs relative to the small systems, yet the majority of systems are small, the average system burden will be well below that experienced by systems located in large cities.

The total nationwide cost to municipalities to document the nine minimum controls is $ 2,146,424, including $ 182,125 in capital costs for notifying the public of CSOs. This is an annual cost of $ 715,475 over the next three years. The total nationwide cost to develop LTCPs is $ 48,494,753, the annual value is $ 16,164,918. The estimated cost of collecting and reporting 29 reviewing CSO monitoring data is $ 8,613,698 over the next three years. On an annual basis, the cost is $ 2,871,233. The estimated cost for State and federal review of documentation of the nine minimum controls, LTCPs, and CSO monitoring data is $ 1,638,227 over the next three years.

On an annual basis, the cost is $ 546,092.

6( e) Burden Statement The bottom line burdens and costs for non government respondents ( municipalities) and States are displayed in Table 6 7 as programmatic totals, as annual totals, and as average annual values per respondent. The total reporting burden and cost for 900 municipalities are 1,616,127 hours and $ 57,065,444, respectively. The record keeping burden and cost are 68,823 hours and $ 2,430,140, respectively. The reporting burden and cost for 30 states are 54,834 hours and $ 1,936,189, respectively. The record keeping burden and cost are 347 hours and $ 12,253,

respectively.

The average burden for each responding municipality is estimated to be 1,872 hours;

spread over three years; this is equivalent to 624 hours annually. This includes documenting implementation of the nine minimum controls, third party notification under the public notification element of the NMC, developing a long term CSO control plan, and sampling, analysis, reporting and record keeping associated with compliance monitoring. The average annual burden and cost per respondent ( municipalities and States) are 624 hours and $ 22,023, respectively.

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.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies 30 Division, Office of Environmental Information, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 2822),

Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D. C. 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, N. W.,

Washington, D. C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the EPA ICR number and the OMB control number in any correspondence. 31 Exhibit 6 5. Estimated State Burden and Cost Respondents Burden Hours Total Burden Hourly Labor Cost Total Cost Item/ Type of Respondent Review Discharge Monitoring Reports for CSO Data/ Follow Up on 50% of DMRs 3218/ 1609 0.167/ 0.5 537/ 804 $ 35.31 $ 47,351 State Reporting to EPA 30 40 1,200 $ 35.31 $ 42,372 Review Nine Minimum Control Documentation 347 40 13,880 $ 35.31 $ 490,103 Review LTCPs Very Large Systems 6 319 1,914 $ 35.31 $ 67,583 Large Systems 29 159 4,611 $ 35.31 $ 162,814 Medium Systems 89 99 8,811 $ 35.31 $ 311,116 Small Systems 223 59 13,157 $ 35.31 $ 464,574 Permit Reissuance or Other Mechanisms ( § 308) 248 40 9,920 $ 35.31 $ 350,275 Record Keeping 347 1 347 $ 35.31 $ 12,253 Totals 55,181 $ 1,948,441 32 Exhibit 6 6. Estimated Federal Burden and Cost Respondents Burden Hours Total Burden Hourly Labor Cost Total Cost Item/ Type of Respondent Review Discharge Monitoring Reports for CSO Data/ Follow Up on 50% of DMRs 293/ 147 0.167/ 0.5 49/ 74 $ 35.31 $ 4,343 Review Nine Minimum Control Documentation 31 40 1,240 $ 35.31 $ 43,784 Review LTCPs Very Large Systems 0 320  $ 35.31 $ 0 Large Systems 2 160 320 $ 35.31 $ 11,299 Medium Systems 10 100 1,000 $ 35.31 $ 35,310 Small Systems 21 60 1,260 $ 35.31 $ 44,491 Permit Reissuance or Other Mechanisms ( § 308) 23 40 920 $ 35.31 $ 32,485 Record Keeping 31 1 31 $ 35.31 $ 1,095 Totals 4,894 $ 172,807 33 Exhibit 6 7. Estimated Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs Summary Nongovernment States Total Number of Respondents 900 30 930 Total Burdens and Costs Reporting Burden 1,616,127 54,834 1,670,961 Reporting Cost $ 57,065,444 $ 1,936,189 $ 59,001,633 Record Keeping Burden 68,823 347 69,170 Record Keeping Cost $ 2,430,140 $ 12,253 $ 2,442,393 Total Burden 1,684,950 55,181 1,740,131 Total Cost $ 59,495,584 $ 1,948,442 $ 61,444,026 Total Annual Burdens and Costs Reporting Burden 538,709 18,278 556,987 Reporting Cost $ 19,021,815 $ 645,396 $ 19,667,211 Record Keeping Burden 22,941 116 23,057 Record Keeping Cost $ 810,047 $ 4,096 $ 814,143 Total Burden 561,650 18,394 580,044 Total Cost $ 19,831,862 $ 649,492 $ 20,481,354 Annual Burdens and Costs per Respondent Reporting 599 609 599 Reporting Cost $ 21,135 $ 21,513 $ 21,148 Record Keeping Burden 25 4 25 Record Keeping Cost $ 900 $ 137 $ 875 Total 624 613 624 Total Cost $ 22,035 $ 21,650 $ 22,023