1287ss10 - Old Version

OMB Review Draft--Do Not Quote, Cite, or Distribute

*** DRAFT ***

Information Collection Request:
Recognition Application for Sustainable Water
Leadership Program
EPA ICR No. 1287.10
OMB Control No. 2040-0101

May 2010

Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Wastewater Management
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460

Prepared by
Tetra Tech, Inc.
10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340
Fairfax, VA 22030

EPA Contract Number EP-C-05-046
EPA Work Assignment Number 2-43

OMB Review Draft--Do Not Quote, Cite, or Distribute

Contents
1. Identification of the Information Collection ................................................................... 1
1(a) Title of the Information Collection.......................................................................... 1
1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract .............................................................................. 1
2. Need For and Use of the Collection................................................................................ 2
2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection........................................................................... 2
2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data .......................................................................... 3
3. Non-duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria...................................... 3
3(a) Non-duplication....................................................................................................... 3
3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB..................................... 3
3(c) Consultations ........................................................................................................... 3
3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection ........................................................................ 4
3(e) General Guidelines .................................................................................................. 4
3(f) Confidentiality ......................................................................................................... 4
3(g) Sensitive Questions ................................................................................................. 4
4. The Respondents and the Information Requested .......................................................... 5
4(a) Respondents/SIC and NAICS Codes....................................................................... 5
4(b) Information Requested ............................................................................................ 5
4(b)(i) Data Items, Including Record Keeping Requirements .................................... 5
4(b)(ii) Respondent Activities..................................................................................... 5
5. The Information Collected—Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and
Information Management ...................................................................................... 5
5(a) Agency Activities .................................................................................................... 5
5(b) Collection Methodology and Management ............................................................. 6
5(c) Small Entity Flexibility ........................................................................................... 6
5(d) Collection Schedule................................................................................................. 6
6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection ......................................................... 7
6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden ............................................................................... 7
6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs.................................................................................. 8
6(b)(i) Estimating Labor Costs ................................................................................... 8
6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost ...................................................................... 8
6(d) Estimating the Respondents Universe and Total Burden and Cost......................... 9
6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Estimates...................................................... 9
6(e)(i) Respondent Tally ............................................................................................. 9
6(e)(ii) The Agency Tally ........................................................................................... 9
6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden .............................................................................. 10
6(g) Burden Statement .................................................................................................. 11

Appendices
A. 40 CFR Part 105
B. Section 501(e) of the CWA
C. Current Application

OMB Review Draft--Do Not Quote, Cite, or Distribute
D. Respondents and Other Assumptions
E. Respondent Activities Exhibits
F. Agency Activities Exhibits

Tables
Table 1. Respondent Tally .................................................................................................. 9
Table 2. Summary of Agency Cost for the ICR Approval Period .................................... 10
Table 3. Burden Change ................................................................................................... 10

OMB Review Draft--Do Not Quote, Cite, or Distribute

1. Identification of the Information Collection
1(a) Title of the Information Collection
Title: Recognition Application for Sustainable Water Leadership Program
OMB Control No. 2040-0101
EPA ICR No. 1287.10

1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract
This Information Collection Request (ICR) calculates the burden and costs associated with the
recognition application for the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Sustainable Water
Leadership Program, formerly the National Clean Water Act Recognition Awards Program and
prior to that, the National Wastewater Management Excellence Awards Program.
This voluntary program has been updated to reflect new industry practices consistent with EPA’s
sustainable infrastructure initiatives and is now called the Sustainable Water Leadership
Program. It is authorized by Section 501(e) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Sustainable
Water Leadership Program maintains elements from the previous Clean Water Act Recognition
Awards Program, namely, excellence in operations and maintenance, biosolids, combined sewer
overflows, pretreatment, and stormwater management, and also expands eligibility to community
drinking water utilities and systems, as well as managed decentralized treatment systems (public
or private). The development of the Sustainable Water Leadership Program is the latest evolution
in EPA’s commitment to recognize and award outstanding and innovative utility management
practices.
In 1985, EPA established the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) awards program to provide a
positive incentive for compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES). Because of the successes of the O&M Awards program, in 1988, EPA amended the
program to include the Beneficial Biosolids Use awards (formerly Sludge awards). In 1989, the
Pretreatment awards were added. Pretreatment Program activities are covered under a separate
ICR (OMB Control No. 2040-0009, EPA ICR No. 0002.14). In 1990, EPA established the
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) and Stormwater Management awards programs and added
these programs to the Clean Water Act Recognition Awards Program.
The Sustainable Water Leadership Program consists of two components: 1) a recognition
program that acknowledges applicants that are moving toward sustainable operations and meet
specified criteria identified in the application, and 2) a competitive awards program to showcase
the “best of the best” in a specific topic area selected in advance by EPA. This ICR addresses the
application burden for the recognition component; the awards component is still under
development. An update to this ICR will be provided following finalization of the awards
component. The recognition component requires that an applicant meet criteria under specific
categories. One category Effective Utility Management, is mandatory for all applicants, and is
based on the Attributes of Effectively Managed Systems that EPA and members of the water
sector have endorsed. In addition, applicants are asked to describe activities in other areas of
their choice including: biosolids, pretreatment, decentralized systems, energy management, water

1

OMB Review Draft--Do Not Quote, Cite, or Distribute
efficiency, climate change adaptation and or mitigation, and watershed approaches, including
source water protection and stormwater.
The updated application provides the mechanism for the applicants to demonstrate how they
meet the required criteria. Organizations applying for recognition will be evaluated on the basis
of the criteria described in the application but will not compete directly with other applicants for
recognition.
The regulation which establishes the framework to implement the recognition program is at 40
CFR Part 105. A copy is attached in Appendix A.
The respondent will read the instructions for completing the application. It is anticipated that
respondents will use existing files, planning and progress reports, and institutional knowledge to
complete the application. Based on the instructions provided with the application, the respondent
will compile the requested information and write up to a 10-page narrative on how the facility
meets the specified criteria in the application.
The information collection will be used by EPA’s Office of Water, led by the Office of
Wastewater Management, to evaluate and determine if the required criteria are met for
recognition. Based on the collection, national panels will evaluate the nominee's efforts and
recommend finalists.
Utilities that are recognized will receive a letter and certificate signed by the EPA Administrator
or Assistant Administrator for Water, their utility name will be posted on EPA and outside
organization web sites, and announced at national conferences. EPA regions may also opt to hold
Regional ceremonies. Additional recognition will be made through a Federal Register notice, and
other national publications.
During the 3 years covered by this ICR, the information collection for the Sustainable Water
Leadership Program would involve responses from an estimated total of 2,036 respondents and
cost approximately $1.8 million (all labor cost), with annual averages of 679 respondents, 13,574
burden hours, and costs of $614,919 per year (for additional detail, see Section 6). EPA estimates
assume that water systems in multiple size-categories will have different response rates to
Program outreach. The cost to the Agency is estimated to be approximately $56,575 per year,
with no anticipated capital or operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.

2. Need For and Use of the Collection
2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection
Section 501(e) of the CWA (copy attached in Appendix B) authorizes a program to recognize
political subdivisions of states and industrial organizations that demonstrate outstanding
technological achievements, innovative processes, devices or other outstanding methods in their
waste treatment and pollution abatement programs. Recognition is given through EPA's
voluntary Sustainable Water Leadership Program. EPA will recognize applicants that are moving
toward sustainable operations and meet specific criteria identified in the application. Applicants

2

OMB Review Draft--Do Not Quote, Cite, or Distribute
will be asked to describe activities in the area of Effective Utility Management and in other areas
of their choice related to Resource Protection and Efficiency. A narrative description of how the
utility meets the criteria is needed to complete the application and determine whether to
recognize the utility.

2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data
Information collected will be used for the Sustainable Water Leadership Program by EPA’s
Office of Water. The information collected will be used by EPA to evaluate and determine if the
required criteria are met for recognition. Based on the collection, national panels will evaluate
the nominee's efforts and recommend finalists who have demonstrated that they are moving
toward sustainable operations and are implementing practices identified in the application.

3. Non-duplication, Consultations, and Other
Collection Criteria
3(a) Non-duplication
The design, operating, and environmental information needed to complete the application is not
immediately available in databases or files of a State or Federal office. If such data is available, it
may exist in an outdated report or database which cannot be timely or readily cross-referenced to
the requested data. Demonstrations of program accomplishments required by the Sustainable
Water Leadership Program must be provided from the water and wastewater management
facilities and programs as it is not available from any other source.

3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB
In compliance with the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), any agency developing a nonrule-related ICR must solicit public comments before 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.
This ICR was published in the Federal Register on Feb. 19, 2010 (75 FR 33). The notice
included a request for comments on the content and impact of these information collection
requirements on the regulated community.

3(c) Consultations
EPA has spent over two years consulting with other water and wastewater professionals on the
development of this new program. EPA headquarters convened an EPA Regional Workgroup
that assisted in the program development including the criteria and content of the new
recognition application. In addition, EPA had several meetings with outside stakeholders and
trade associations that represent the potential respondents for this application. Feedback from
these consultation groups was considered and is reflected in the new application being used for
information collection.

3

OMB Review Draft--Do Not Quote, Cite, or Distribute
EPA strives to minimize the burden on all respondents, especially small communities/businesses.
In previous years, EPA asked the Regional and State personnel to assist the respondents where
necessary in completing the application. For the new program, EPA will continue to request that
the Regions assist the respondents where necessary. In addition, EPA tentatively plans to
conduct at least one webcast on completing the application and will be available for specific
questions from potential respondents. Guidance on completing the application will also be
provided on EPA’s web site.
For the previous program, EPA managers solicited feedback on its application from non-Federal
panelists and from past municipal winners in a very informal manner. EPA managers also
received indirect comments from Regional EPA employees, who were also in contact with
municipal and industrial entities and State officials. Positive and negative feedback were both
evaluated. Feedback from the State’s facility operators stated that the old application form for
awards was too complex and was a significant burden for the plant staff. Based on these
comments and feedback from Regions, EPA has attempted to make the new application form for
the Sustainable Water Leadership Program more streamlined.

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection
Recognition will be determined every other year, with recognition lasting a total of three years.
The EPA recognition program manager sends out the application and instructions in May/June of
each recognition-year. The completed application is received by EPA headquarters in
September/October, and an EPA panel reviews the applications in November/December.
Recognition letters and certificates are sent in January/February [final schedule to be
determined]. Since the program is designed to recognize the current state of treatment facilities,
less frequent collection of information would impact the goals of the program to recognize and
incentivize innovative and effective practices for water treatment.

3(e) General Guidelines
This information collection request is consistent with guidelines contained in 5 CFR
1320.5(d)(2).

3(f) Confidentiality
Respondents are not being asked to submit any confidential information in the recognition
application. As a result, no confidential information is involved for this collection activity.
However, any claim of confidentiality must be asserted at the time of submission. If any
confidential information is submitted, all confidential data will be handled in accordance with 40
CFR 122.7, 40 CFR Part 2.

3(g) Sensitive Questions
Sensitive questions are defined in EPA’s ICR Handbook, Guide to Writing Information
Collection Requests Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 as “questions concerning
sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, or other matters usually considered private.” The
requirements addressed in this ICR do not include sensitive questions.

4

OMB Review Draft--Do Not Quote, Cite, or Distribute

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested
4(a) Respondents/SIC and NAICS Codes
The Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) and North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS) codes for the respondents affected by this information collection activity are as
follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•

SIC: 4952; NAICS: 22131 - Water Supply and Irrigation Systems
SIC: 4952; NAICS: 22132 - Sewage Treatment Facilities
SIC: 8711; NAICS: 54133 - Engineering Services
SIC: 4953; NAICS: 56292, 562211-262213, 562219 - Refuse Systems
SIC: 8221; NAICS: 61131 - Colleges, Universities, Professional Schools
SIC: 9511; NAICS: 92411 - Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste Management
(Administration of Environmental Quality)

4(b) Information Requested
This section presents the data items, including recordkeeping requirements, and required
respondent activities involved in preparing and submitting those data items.
4(b)(i) Data Items, Including Record Keeping Requirements

The requested information should be readily available from facility operating records.
Respondents may include flow, permit, operating, and environmental compliance data with the
required narrative description of the facility’s activities.
4(b)(ii) Respondent Activities

To be considered for recognition, the respondent will read the instructions for completing the
application. The respondent will use existing files when possible, planning and progress reports,
and institutional knowledge to complete the application. The respondent will prepare a written
narrative description on how the facility meets the criteria stated in the application. A copy of the
current application is attached in Appendix C.

5. The Information Collected—Agency Activities,
Collection Methodology, and Information Management
5(a) Agency Activities
The completed application is sent directly to EPA headquarters by the specified application
deadline. EPA is strongly requesting that applications be sent electronically to the specified
email address on the application. The review of electronic applications will reduce the burden on
the agency. EPA will still accept hand-written applications.
Each application is first reviewed by EPA for completeness. The completed applications will
then be sent to EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance for a criminal
compliance check. In addition to criminal compliance, information for each application will also

5

OMB Review Draft--Do Not Quote, Cite, or Distribute
be entered into EPA’s Online Tracking Information System (OTIS) for an administrative
compliance check. It is assumed that 20 percent of the completed applications will not be in
compliance with applicable water quality requirements for the past year and will not have a
satisfactory record with respect to environmental quality. The remaining 80 percent of the
applications will then move forward in the review process.
The applications that are deemed complete and without compliance violations will be provided
to the respective review panels consisting of representatives from EPA's headquarters and
Regions and also potentially non-EPA technical professionals. The panels will review each
application to determine if it meets the specified criteria. The panels will make recommendations
to EPA management on which facilities to recognize.
The facilities that are recognized will receive a letter and certificate signed by the EPA
Administrator or Assistant Administrator for Water, their utility name will be posted on EPA and
outside organization web sites, and announced at national conferences. EPA regions may also
opt to hold Regional ceremonies. Additional recognition will be made through a Federal Register
notice, and other national publications.

5(b) Collection Methodology and Management
All nominees are screened for environmental compliance by EPA. Data quality information will
be retrieved from the Agency's Permit Compliance System (PCS), OTIS, Safe Drinking Water
Information System (SDWIS), the new Integrated Compliance Information System (ICISNPDES) database, other environmental reports, and professional knowledge of the facility or
program.

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility
This information collection activity does not concern a rulemaking. A framework to implement
the awards recognition program is at 40 CFR Part 105. EPA strives to minimize the burden on all
respondents, especially small communities/businesses. The recognition application for the
Sustainable Water Leadership Program includes reduced requirements for small entities. EPA
headquarters and some EPA Regions will be available to assist respondents to answer the
application.

5(d) Collection Schedule
The information collection schedule is contained in the respondents' application. The EPA
recognition program manager sends out the application and instructions in May/June of each
year. The completed application is received by EPA headquarters in September/October, and the
panel reviews the applications in November/December. Recognition letters and certificates are
sent in January/February [schedule to be determined by EPA].

6

OMB Review Draft--Do Not Quote, Cite, or Distribute

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection
The following sections present the rationale, assumptions made, and results of EPA’s estimation
of burden and costs for the Sustainable Water Leadership Program. See Appendix D for specific
assumptions made to estimate the burden and cost of the Program.

6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden
This section describes the burden estimates for facilities to complete the application, as well as
the methods used and assumptions made to derive them. Respondent activities are separated into
those activities that will occur in year 1 of the program and those activities that will occur in year
3 of the program. The reason for this is that applications for recognition are submitted every 2
years. The Respondent Activity Exhibits E.1-E.6 in Appendix E presents all calculations and
results discussed in this subsection. EPA estimates that the total annual burden to applicant
respondents is approximately 13,600 hours.
To calculate the total annual applicant respondent burden, EPA first calculated the burden for
each type of applicant respondent in years 1 and 3 of the program 1 . The Agency then added these
together. Then, the sum of the burdens for each respondent expected over the next three years
was divided by three to obtain the estimated total annual burden.
For those applicants applying for recognition, this ICR only calculates burden and cost for a
three year period. At the end of that period, this ICR will be revised with new calculations, as
appropriate, for the following three years. Therefore, for the burden and cost calculations for
respondents applying for recognition, the estimate of the total number of applicants expected
over the next three years is divided by three to obtain the estimated number of applicants per
annum. Exhibit E.1 estimates the number of respondents that will provide application
information over the next three years.
The total number of applicant respondents is estimated to be 2,037, including 530 applicants in
Year 1 and 1,507 in Year 3. The responses are collected once every two years. EPA estimates the
total annual number of applicant respondents to be 679.
The respondents reporting burden is estimated to be 20 hours per response: 2 hours for manager
to read instructions and search data; 16 hours for staff to gather information and complete the
application; and 2 hours for administrative support staff to prepare forms. The average annual
burden is estimated to be 13,574 hours. For a more detailed presentation of hourly burdens for
applicant respondents see Exhibits E.3-E.9 in Appendix E.
In addition, states will not incur any burden and costs associated with this ICR since EPA will
conduct the review of applications. As a result, the burden and cost for reviewing applications
will belong to the federal government exclusively.

1

Each type of applicant includes potential respondents from the following types of utilities: publicly or privately
owned wastewater treatment plants or systems, community drinking water plants or systems, managed decentralized
treatment systems (public or private), and municipally-owned stormwater systems. These respondents encompass
the applicant pool from drinking water, wastewater, and pretreatment facilities.

7

OMB Review Draft--Do Not Quote, Cite, or Distribute

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs
This section describes cost estimates for respondents, as well as the methods used to derive them.
Because EPA has determined that there are no capital or operation and maintenance costs
associated with any of the respondent activities, this ICR only includes labor costs in its
estimates.
6(b)(i) Estimating Labor Costs

The costs to applicant respondents associated with the ICR activities can be estimated by
multiplying the time spent in each labor category by an appropriately loaded hourly wage rate.
EPA used the following categories and hourly rates to estimate labor costs for activities by
applicant respondents. A labor rate of $55.00 hour was used for managers, $46.86 for staff, and
$23.12 for administrative support. These rates are based on the mean hourly cost of employment
for all occupations, including benefits, and are adjusted with the Employment Cost Index (ECI)
for civilian workers to September 2009 dollars. These hourly rates were based on the average
hourly wage for civilian workers as determined by the U.S. Department of Labor. 2

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost
EPA’s estimate of its burden and costs are from the activities described in Section 5(a). When
calculating the Agency cost, EPA makes the following assumption:
EPA determined the hourly employment cost of federal employees using methodology
established in previous ICRs. According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 2009
General Schedule (2009-GS), the average hourly wage of a federal employee at the GS-13, Step
5 level is $38.35. Assuming overhead costs of 50 percent, or $19.18 per hour, the fully loaded
cost of employment for a program management-level federal employee is $57.53. The average
hourly wage for a federal employee at the GS-8, Step 5 level is $20.13. Assuming overhead costs
of 50 percent, or $10.07 per hour, the fully loaded cost of employment for program support-level
federal employee is $30.20.
Completeness Review
EPA estimates that the Agency will spend approximately 0.17 hour (10 minutes) reviewing each
application for completeness. In addition, EPA estimates that 10 percent of the applications
submitted will be incomplete and will result in 0.5 hour each for additional follow-up. The total
annual burden for the completeness review is 147 hours and $8,454. See Exhibits F.1, F.2 and
F.9 in Appendix F.
Compliance Review

2

From U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, Table
2, “Employer costs per hour worked for employee compensation and costs as a percent of total compensation:
Civilian workers, by occupational and industry group, June 2009.”: Management, business, and financial: $54.95,
Professional and related: $46.61, Office and administrative support: $23.04.
(http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t02.htm)

8

OMB Review Draft--Do Not Quote, Cite, or Distribute
EPA estimates that the Agency will spend 0.33 hour (20 minutes) reviewing each application for
compliance. The total annual burden for the compliance review is 204 hours and $11,717. See
Exhibits F.3, F.4, and F.9 in Appendix F.
Substantive Review
EPA estimates that the Agency will spend 0.33 hour (20 minutes) per panel member for the
substantive review. EPA assumed a total of three panel members which results in a substantive
review of 60 minutes for each application. The total annual burden for the substantive review is
489 hours and $28,111. See Exhibits F.5, F.6 and F.9 in Appendix F.
Post-Review Recognition
The burden and cost for EPA is based on the time required to develop and review the certificate
and letter. EPA estimates that 0.33 hour (20 minutes) are required per recipient for certificates
and letters. The total annual burden for the post-review recognition is 122 hours and $8,294. See
Exhibits F.7, F.8, and F.9 in Appendix F.

6(d) Estimating the Respondents Universe and Total Burden
and Cost
Detailed information describing the universe and basis for burden and costs is provided in
Section 6(a). Exhibits E.1 and E.2 in Appendix E provides the respondents universe for all
respondent categories used throughout this ICR. The total burden and costs for respondents
submitting an application are summarized in Exhibit E.9 in Appendix E.

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Estimates
6(e)(i) Respondent Tally

The bottom line burden hours and costs for applicant respondents are the average annual hours
and costs collectively incurred for all activities during the 3-year period covered by this ICR.
Table 1 provides a summary of the average annual number of respondents, burden hours, and
costs. See Exhibit E.9 in Appendix E for additional details.
Table 1. Respondent Tally
Totals
Total Annual Number of Respondents
Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours
Average Burden Hours per Respondent
Costs (labor)
Costs (capital)-annualized
Costs (O&M)
Total Respondent Costs

679
13,564
20.00
$614,315
$0
$0
$614,919

6(e)(ii) The Agency Tally

The bottom line burden hours and costs for the Agency are the total annual hours and costs
collectively incurred for all activities during the period covered by this ICR. Table 2 provides a

9

OMB Review Draft--Do Not Quote, Cite, or Distribute
summary for Appendix F of the average annual Agency costs. See Exhibit F.9 in Appendix F for
additional details.
Table 2. Summary of Agency Cost for the ICR Approval Period

Total Annual Costs (2009$)
$56,575

Agency Totals

6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden
This ICR includes programmatic changes to the National Clean Water Act Recognition Awards
Program to develop the Sustainable Water Leadership Program which are detailed below.
The current burden approved by OMB for the previous Clean Water Act (CWA) Recognition
Awards ICR is 2,030 hours. In addition, the current burden approved by OMB for pretreatment
awards (whose burden will be consolidated into this ICR) is 210 hours. This ICR estimates a
total burden that is 11,544 hours more than the currently approved burden for the previous ICR.
Table 3 presents the change in burden.
Table 3. Burden Change
Respondent

Change

Reported Annual Burden (hours)
Previous ICR
Current ICR
OMB Inventory

Respondents
Applicant
Respondents
Subtotal
NPDES-Authorized States
NPDES-Authorized
States
Subtotal
Total

1,160

13,574

12,414

1,160

13,574

12,414

870

0

-870

870
2,030

0
13,574

-870
11,544

Some reasons for the change in burden include the following:
• Changes and adjustments in the number and types of applicants eligible for recognition
under the Sustainable Water Leadership Program. These three changes are anticipated to
increase the average annual number of interested responses from 145 to 678.
o The universe of eligible entities now includes community drinking water utilities
and systems, as well as managed decentralized treatment systems (public or
private), which were previously not addressed in any ICR for the Clean Water Act
Recognition Awards Program.
o Changes in the design of the program are expected to attract more eligible
applicants.
o Additionally, it is anticipated that EPA’s active outreach will increase the number
of respondents interested in participating in the program.

10

OMB Review Draft--Do Not Quote, Cite, or Distribute
•
•
•

EPA updated the estimated time spent by respondents to complete the revised
Recognition Application for Sustainable Water Leadership Program to 20 hours per
respondent based on staff input.
Previously, EPA accounted for 870 hours for NPDES-Authorized States for reviewing
applications. EPA has assumed the burden and cost for this activity since States are not
expected to have requirements under the Sustainable Water Leadership Program.
This ICR now encompasses burden hours for pretreatment awards. Historically,
pretreatment burden hours were covered under a separate ICR for the National
Pretreatment Program (OMB Control No. 2040-009, EPA ICR No. 0002.14). Burden
hours for awards applications totaled 210 hours (120 for POTW’s and 90 for state
agencies) in the most recent Pretreatment ICR. These hours will be removed from the
Pretreatment Program ICR at its next renewal.

6(g) Burden Statement
The public reporting burden for respondents is estimated to average 20 hours per response per
year. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the
time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems
for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining
information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with
any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are
listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden
estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of
automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2003-0064, which is available for public viewing at the Water Docket in
the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 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 the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov/. Use FDMS 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, 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. EPA-HQ-OW-20030064 and OMB control number 2040-0101 in any correspondence.

11

Appendix A – 40 CFR 105

Environmental Protection Agency

§ 105.2
SELECTION CRITERIA

the hearing clerk, if it is filed during
the course of the hearing, shall be also
filed with the Presiding Officer. A copy
of each document or paper filed by any
party with the Presiding Officer, with
the hearing clerk, or with the Administrator shall be served upon all other
parties, except to the extent that the
list of parties to be so served may be
modified by order of the Presiding Officer, and each such document or paper
shall be accompanied by a certificate
of such service.
(b) A party may be represented in
any proceeding under this part by an
attorney or other authorized representative. When any document or paper is
required under these rules to be served
upon a party such service shall be
made upon such attorney or other representative.
(c) Except where these rules or an
order of the Presiding Officer require
receipt of a document by a certain
date, any document or paper required
or authorized to be filed by this part
shall be deemed to be filed when postmarked, or in the case of papers delivered other than by mail, when received
by the hearing clerk.
(d) Sundays and legal holidays shall
be included in computing the time allowed for the filing of any document or
paper, provided, that when such time
expires on a Sunday or legal holiday,
such period shall be extended to include the next following business day.

105.10 What do I need to be considered for
an award?
105.11 Who selects the award winners?
105.12 How is the awards review committee
selected?
105.13 How are the awards winners selected?
AWARDS RECOGNITION
105.14 How are award winners notified?
105.15 How are award winners recognized?
105.16 How are award winners publicized?
AUTHORITY: Section 501(a) and (e) of the
Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1361(a) and
(e).
SOURCE: 67 FR 6142, Feb. 8, 2002, unless otherwise noted.

GENERAL
§ 105.1

Background.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Water Act (CWA) Recognition Awards Program is authorized
by CWA section 501(e). The Administrator may provide official recognition
to industrial organizations and political subdivisions of States which during the preceding year demonstrated
an outstanding technological achievement or an innovative process, method
or device in their waste treatment and
pollution abatement programs. The
wastewater management programs can
generally be characterized as waste
treatment and/or pollution abatement
programs. Individual EPA Regional Administrators (and Regional officials
they may designate) also may conduct
Regional CWA Recognition Awards
Programs according to and consistent
with the provisions of this part.

PART 105—RECOGNITION AWARDS
UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT
Sec.

§ 105.2

GENERAL
105.1
105.2
105.3

Background.
Definitions.
Title.
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS

105.4 What are the requirements for the
Awards Program?
105.5 Who is eligible to win an award?
105.6 What are the Awards Program categories for which I may be eligible?
APPLICATION AND NOMINATION PROCESS
105.7
105.8
105.9

Definitions.

Applicant means the person authorized to complete the application on behalf of an industrial organization or
political subdivision of States.
Application means a completed questionnaire, nomination form, or other
documentation submitted to or by the
States, EPA Regions or headquarters
for consideration of a national CWA
Recognition Award.
I means the applicant for an award.
Industrial organization means any
company,
corporation,
association,
partnership, firm, university, not-forprofit organization, or wastewater

How do I apply for an award?
When can I apply for an award?
How can I get nominated for an award?

11

VerDate Aug<04>2004

01:15 Aug 17, 2005

Jkt 205161

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 8010

Sfmt 8010

Y:\SGML\205161.XXX

205161

§ 105.3

40 CFR Ch. I (7–1–05 Edition)

treatment facility, as well as a Federal, State or Tribal government
wastewater treatment facility, or U.S.
military command to the extent such
government and other organizations
operate in an ‘‘industrial’’ capacity in
the treatment of wastes or abatement
of pollution.
Nominee means a candidate recommended by the State or Tribe or
EPA for consideration for a CWA Recognition Award.
Political subdivision of State means a
municipality, city, town, borough,
county, parish, district, association, or
other public body (including an intermunicipal agency of two or more of the
foregoing entities) created by or pursuant to State law.
State means any of the 50 States, the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin
Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and
the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands.
State water pollution control agency
means the State agency designated by
the Governing Authority having responsibility for enforcing State laws
relating to the abatement of water pollution.
You means the applicant for an
award.
§ 105.3

their
outstanding
technological
achievement or innovative process,
method or device in their waste treatment and/or pollution abatement programs.
(d) EPA may issue annual guidance
memoranda to administer each year’s
awards programs. For information on
the availability of additional guidance,
contact the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Assistance
Branch, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW., Mail Code 4204–M, Washington,
DC 20460. You may also visit EPA’s
Web site at www.epa.gov/owm.
§ 105.5 Who
award?

is

eligible

to

Title.

§ 105.6 What are the Awards Program
categories for which I may be eligible?

ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS

EPA will publish from time to time,
a notice in the FEDERAL REGISTER announcing the current Awards Program
categories. EPA also may subsequently
discontinue, combine, or rename categories by notice published in the FEDERAL REGISTER.

§ 105.4 What are the requirements for
the Awards Program?
(a) EPA will administer the Awards
Program, and should establish annual
guidance as necessary to administer
the Awards Program. EPA will request
from the various offices, and States
and Tribes as appropriate, nominations
for the Awards Program.
(b) Nominees must be in total compliance with all applicable water quality requirements under the CWA in
order to be eligible for an award, and
otherwise have a satisfactory record
with respect to environmental quality.
(c) Nominees must provide written
documentation as evidence to support

APPLICATION AND NOMINATION PROCESS
§ 105.7

How do I apply for an award?

You may contact your local EPA Regional office for information on the
Awards Program guidance each year,
or check the Web site at http://
www.epa.gov/owm/intnet.htm. EPA may
use an application or nomination process, as appropriate for the program or
Region.

12

01:15 Aug 17, 2005

Jkt 205161

PO 00000

Frm 00022

an

A municipality, city, town, borough,
county, parish, district, association,
government agency, or other public
body, (including an intermunicipal
agency of two or more of the foregoing
entities) created by or pursuant to
State law; a company, corporation, association, partnership, firm, university, not-for-profit organization, or
wastewater treatment facility, as well
as a Federal, State or Tribal government wastewater treatment facility, or
U.S. military command to the extent
such government and other organizations operate in an industrial capacity
in the treatment of wastes or abatement of pollution may be considered
for a recognition award.

The awards are known as the National Clean Water Act Recognition
Awards (hereinafter, the Awards Program).

VerDate Aug<04>2004

win

Fmt 8010

Sfmt 8010

Y:\SGML\205161.XXX

205161

Environmental Protection Agency

§ 105.16

§ 105.8 When can I apply for an award?
You can contact your local EPA Regional office for award submission
deadline information which may vary
for the award categories, or check the
Web site at http://www.epa.gov/owm/
intnet.htm.

§ 105.13 How are the award winners
selected?
Nominees and applications are recommended by EPA regions. EPA personnel conduct compliance evaluations
prior to presenting a national award.
EPA selects national award winners
based on demonstrated evidence of outstanding and/or innovative wastewater
treatment and pollution abatement
programs or projects which result in
environmental benefits, cost savings
and/or public acceptance. Based upon
results of review committee evaluations, the Agency selects first place
winners for a national award in the appropriate awards categories. A second
place winner may or may not be selected. EPA may or may not select an
award winner for every awards program category. Award decisions are
not subject to administrative review.

§ 105.9 How can I get nominated for an
award?
You may apply to, or ask your State,
Tribe or EPA Region to nominate you
for an award. Only applications or
nominations recommended by EPA Regions are considered for the national
award. EPA personnel conduct compliance evaluations prior to presenting a
national award.
SELECTION CRITERIA
§ 105.10 What do I need to be considered for an award?
Your facility or pollution abatement
program must be in total compliance
with all applicable water quality requirements, and otherwise have a satisfactory record with respect to environmental quality. Additionally, your facility or pollution abatement program
must provide written documentation as
evidence of an outstanding technological achievement or an innovative
process, method or device demonstrated in the preceding year, which
resulted in environmental benefits,
cost savings and/or public acceptance.

AWARDS RECOGNITION
§ 105.14 How are award winners notified?
EPA notifies national award winners
by letter.
§ 105.15 How are award winners recognized?
EPA presents national award winners
with a certificate or plaque at an
awards presentation ceremony as recognition for an outstanding technological achievement or an innovative
process, method or device in wastewater treatment and/or pollution
abatement programs. The President of
the United States, the Governor of the
State, or Tribal leader of the jurisdiction reservation in which the awardee
is situated, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President pro
tempore of the Senate are notified by
the Administrator.

§ 105.11 Who selects the award winners?
After EPA receives the completed application, the application is evaluated
by a review committee. After the review committee completes its evaluation of the programs that have been
nominated, they make recommendations for the national awards. EPA
then analyzes the results and selects
the award winners.
§ 105.12 How is the awards review
committee selected?
EPA review committee members are
selected by the EPA and in some cases,
State or Tribal water pollution control
agencies. The number of participants
in a nominations review process is
based on staff availability, and may be
one person.

§ 105.16 How are award winners publicized?
EPA announces the annual national
recognition award winners through notice published in the FEDERAL REGISTER.

13

VerDate Aug<04>2004

01:15 Aug 17, 2005

Jkt 205161

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 8010

Sfmt 8010

Y:\SGML\205161.XXX

205161

Appendix B – Section 501(e) of the CWA

Sec. 501

FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

208

the Administrator shall identify, and maintain a list of, discrete coastal recreation waters adjacent to beaches or similar
points of access that are used by the public that—
(A) specifies any waters described in this paragraph
that are subject to a monitoring and notification program
consistent with the performance criteria established under
subsection (a); and
(B) specifies any waters described in this paragraph
for which there is no monitoring and notification program
(including waters for which fiscal constraints will prevent
the State or the Administrator from performing monitoring
and notification consistent with the performance criteria
established under subsection (a)).
(2) AVAILABILITY.—The Administrator shall make the list
described in paragraph (1) available to the public through—
(A) publication in the Federal Register; and
(B) electronic media.
(3) UPDATES.—The Administrator shall update the list described in paragraph (1) periodically as new information becomes available.
(h) EPA IMPLEMENTATION.—In the case of a State that has no
program for monitoring and notification that is consistent with the
performance criteria published under subsection (a) after the last
day of the 3-year period beginning on the date on which the Administrator lists waters in the State under subsection (g)(1)(B), the
Administrator shall conduct a monitoring and notification program
for the listed waters based on a priority ranking established by the
Administrator using funds appropriated for grants under subsection (i)—
(1) to conduct monitoring and notification; and
(2) for related salaries, expenses, and travel.
(i) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to
be appropriated for making grants under subsection (b), including
implementation of monitoring and notification programs by the Administrator under subsection (h), $30,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2001 through 2005.
(33 U.S.C. 1346)

TITLE V—GENERAL PROVISIONS
ADMINISTRATION

SEC. 501. (a) The Administrator is authorized to prescribe such
regulations as are necessary to carry out his functions under this
Act.
(b) The Administrator, with the consent of the head of any
other agency of the United States, may utilize such officers and
employees of such agency as may be found necessary to assist in
carrying out the purposes of this Act.
(c) Each recipient of financial assistance under this Act shall
keep such records as the Administrator shall prescribe, including
records which fully disclose the amount and disposition by such recipient of the proceeds of such assistance, the total cost of the
project or undertaking in connection with which such assistance is
given or used, and the amount of that portion of the cost of the
January 21, 2003

209

FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

Sec. 502

project or undertaking supplied by other sources, and such other
records as will facilitate an effective audit.
(d) The Administrator and the Comptroller General of the
United States, or any of their duly authorized representatives,
shall have access, for the purpose of audit and examination, to any
books, documents, papers, and records of the recipients that are
pertinent to the grants received under this Act. For the purpose of
carrying out audits and examinations with respect to recipients of
Federal assistance under this Act, the Administrator is authorized
to enter into noncompetitive procurement contracts with independent State audit organizations, consistent with chapter 75 of
title 31, United States Code. Such contracts may only be entered
into to the extent and in such amounts as may be provided in advance in appropriation Acts.
(e)(1) It is the purpose of this subsection to authorize a program which will provide official recognition by the United States
Government to those industrial organizations and political subdivisions of States which during the preceding year demonstrated an
outstanding technological achievement or an innovative process,
method, or device in their waste treatment and pollution abatement programs. The Administrator shall, in consultation with the
appropriate State water pollution control agencies, establish regulations under which such recognition may be applied for and granted, except that no applicant shall be eligible for an award under
this subsection if such applicant is not in total compliance with all
applicable water quality requirements under this Act, or otherwise
does not have a satisfactory record with respect to environmental
quality.
(2) The Administrator shall award a certificate or plaque of
suitable design to each industrial organization or political subdivision which qualifies for such recognition under regulations established under this subsection.
(3) The President of the United States, the Governor of the appropriate State, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and
the President pro tempore of the Senate shall be notified of the
award by the Administrator and the awarding of such recognition
shall be published in the Federal Register.
(f) Upon the request of a State water pollution control agency,
personnel of the Environmental Protection Agency may be detailed
to such agency for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this
Act.
(33 U.S.C. 1361)
GENERAL DEFINITIONS

SEC. 502. Except as otherwise specifically provided, when used
in this Act:
(1) The term ‘‘State water pollution control agency’’ means the
State agency designated by the Governor having responsibility for
enforcing State laws relating to the abatement of pollution.
(2) The term ‘‘interstate agency’’ means an agency of two or
more States established by or pursuant to an agreement or compact approved by the Congress, or any other agency of two or more
States, having substantial powers or duties pertaining to the control of pollution as determined and approved by the Adminstrator.
January 21, 2003

Appendix C
Current Application

June 7, 2010 – Page 1

Sustainable Water Leadership Program
Application: Recognition of Sustainable Water Systems
Purpose of the Sustainable Water Leadership Program
This application is for recognition and is open to those entities described in the
‘Eligibility’ section below. EPA is implementing this program to recognize applicants
that have made a commitment to sustainable management approaches that promote
resource efficiency and protection. Organizations applying for recognition will be
evaluated on the basis of the criteria described in this application but will not compete
directly with other applicants for recognition.
I.

Eligibility

A.

Applicants are limited to: publicly or privately owned wastewater treatment plants
or systems, community drinking water systems, managed decentralized treatment
systems (public or private), and municipally-owned stormwater systems

B.

Applicants must be in compliance with applicable Federal, State, Tribal and local
water quality requirements for one year and have a satisfactory record with
respect to environmental quality.

Indicate the type of facility (check all that apply):

Publicly or privately owned wastewater treatment plant or system
Community drinking water system
Municipally-owned stormwater system
Managed decentralized treatment system

Indicate the organization size:

Large (wastewater utility designed to discharge 1 million gallons per day (MGD) or
more; drinking water utility designed to serve at least 10,000 people; and
municipally-owned storm sewer system designed to serve 100,000 people or more)
Small (wastewater utility designed to discharge less than 1 MGD; drinking water
utility designed to serve fewer than 10,000 people; municipally-owned storm sewer
system designed to serve less than 100,000 people; and managed decentralized
system)

Note: Combined systems meeting either of the criteria for “Large” systems above will be considered large
systems for the purposes of this recognition program.

June 7, 2010 – Page 2

II.

Application Requirements

All applicants must submit a written narrative of the activities the organization (or other
entity described in the Eligibility section) is implementing. Applicant may describe past
activities, but the written narrative must illustrate how those activities impact current
accomplishments (within the past 12 months). The narrative must not exceed 5000 words
(approximately 10 pages of single-spaced, 12-point text).
This application consists of two sections; Effective Utility Management, and Resource
Efficiency and Protection. (IV - sections A & B) For your application to be complete,
both sections must be addressed according to the section specific directions. Please read
each section carefully to ensure all requirements are fully understood. For questions or
assistance with the application, please visit the SWLP program website for helpful
resources. http://www.epa.gov/owm/mtb/intnet.htm

III

Contact Information

A.

Applicant Information

Organization Name: _______________________________________________________
City: _________________________________________________ State: ___________
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit or Public Water
Supply Identification Number(s) (as applicable): _______________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Facility Manager Name and Title: ___________________________________________
Mailing Address: ________________________________________________________
City: ___________________________________State: _______ZIP: _______________
Phone: ____________________________ Fax: ________________________________
E-mail: ________________________________________________________________
Secondary Contact Name: _________________________________________________
Phone and E-mail: _______________________________________________________
B

Project Partner Information (Optional)

You may wish to list your project partner organizations whose help and assistance may
have been important to the success of your programs or activities cited in your
application. However, this list of project partners will not increase your eligibility nor
will it be used in the actual evaluation of your application.
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

June 7, 2010 – Page 3

IV.
A.

Recognition Application Sections
Effective Utility Management

Prepare a written narrative of the types of management practices the applicant conducts
or has conducted that demonstrate Effective Utility Management (EUM) based on the 10
Attributes of Effectively Managed Utilities. (May 2007) Background information on the
attributes, including the Keys to Management Success and a list of potential performance
measures is found in the EUM Primer, Appendix C. The Primer provides guidance on
assessment processes and a list of potential performance measures related to each of the
Attributes. Applicants may use the performance measures contained in the Primer as a
useful reference point for consideration. The Primer also describes a process that
applicants can use to assess their existing programs and how well they address the 10
attributes. To view the Primer or learn more about EUM please visit:
http://www.epa.gov/waterinfrastructure/pdfs/tools_si_watereum_primerforeffectiveutilities.pdf.

In developing the narrative under this category, describe the following: (1) How the
applicant’s current management program addresses the selected attributes and how the
applicant assessed its operations before selecting these attributes; (2) the specific
performance measures the applicant is using to track improvements in the selected
attribute areas; (3) how the applicant evaluates performance based on these measures and
makes any necessary changes based on this evaluation; and (4) subsequent changes or
improvements to the operation that increases current or future performance.
Drinking water facilities may be more familiar with the Capacity Development Program
based on 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments than the EUM. These
organizations are strongly encouraged to apply and will be equally eligible for
recognition. While some differences in terminology exist, the technical, managerial, and
financial (TMF) elements of Capacity Development correspond very closely to the
attributes of EUM. Applicants may refer to TMF elements in their narrative statements,
but must refer back to the corresponding EUM category for review purposes. Please visit
the SWLP website for helpful resources to assist in matching the elements of TMF and
the attributes of EUM. If TMF elements are utilized, the response requirements of the
application do not change. For more information on the Capacity Development Program,
please visit http://www.epa.gov/safewater/smallsystems/basicinformation.html.
Requirements for large organizations:
• Demonstrate 6 of the 10 Attributes of Effectively Managed Utilities under the
Effective Utility Management category.
Requirements for small organizations:
• Demonstrate 4 of the 10 Attributes of Effectively Managed Utilities under the
Effective Utility Management category.
The applicant should select attributes that their organization can most effectively
demonstrate. Please only address the number of attributes required even if your
organization is able to demonstrate more.
June 7, 2010 – Page 4

Effective Utility Management

Entity is managing its operation and infrastructure based on the Attributes of Effectively Managed
Utilities, Keys to Management Success, and Utility Performance measures endorsed by EPA and six
major water and wastewater associations.
Descriptions of the Attributes are below. Please check which attributes you are describing.
o Product Quality: Produces potable water, treated effluent, and process residuals in full
compliance with regulatory and reliability requirements and consistent with customer, public
health, and ecological needs.
o Customer Satisfaction: Provides reliable, responsive, and affordable services in line with
explicit, customer-accepted service levels. Receives timely customer feedback to maintain
responsiveness to customer needs and emergencies.
o Employee and Leadership Development: Recruits and retains a workforce that is competent,
motivated, adaptive, and safe-working. Establishes a participatory, collaborative organization
dedicated to continual learning and improvement. Ensures employee institutional knowledge is
retained and improved upon over time. Provides a focus on and emphasizes opportunities for
professional and leadership development and strives to create an integrated and well-coordinated
senior leadership team.
o Operational Optimization: Ensures ongoing, timely, cost-effective, reliable, and sustainable
performance improvements in all facets of its operations. Minimizes resource use, loss, and
impacts from day-to-day operations. Maintains awareness of information and operational
technology developments to anticipate and support timely adoption of improvements.
o Financial Viability: Understands the full life-cycle cost of the utility and establishes and
maintains an effective balance between long-term debt, asset values, operations and maintenance
expenditures, and operating revenues. Establishes predictable rates— consistent with community
expectations and acceptability—adequate to recover costs, provide for reserves, maintain support
from bond rating agencies, and plan and invest for future needs.
o Infrastructure Stability: Understands the condition of and costs associated with critical
infrastructure assets. Maintains and enhances the condition of all assets over the long-term at the
lowest possible life-cycle cost and acceptable risk consistent with customer, community, and
regulator-supported service levels, and consistent with anticipated growth and system reliability
goals. Assures asset repair, rehabilitation, and replacement efforts are coordinated within the
community to minimize disruptions and other negative consequences.
o Operational Resiliency: Ensures utility leadership and staff work together to anticipate and
avoid problems. Proactively identifies, assesses, establishes tolerance levels for, and effectively
manages a full range of business risks (including legal, regulatory, financial, environmental,
safety, security, and natural disaster-related) in a proactive way consistent with industry trends
and system reliability goals. For additional information, see EPA’s “10 Features of an Active
and Effective Protective Program” located at:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/safewater/watersecurity/features.cfm.
o Community Sustainability: Is explicitly cognizant of and attentive to the impacts its decisions
have on current and long-term future community and watershed health and welfare. Manages
operations, infrastructure, and investments to protect, restore, and enhance the natural
environment; efficiently use water and energy resources; promote economic vitality; and
engender overall community improvement. Explicitly considers a variety of pollution prevention,
watershed, and source water protection approaches as part of an overall strategy to maintain and
enhance ecological and community sustainability.
o Water Resource Adequacy: Ensures water availability consistent with current and future
customer needs through long-term resource supply and demand analysis, conservation, and
public education. Explicitly considers its role in water availability and manages operations to
provide for long-term aquifer and surface water sustainability and replenishment.
o Stakeholder Understanding and Support: Engenders understanding and support from
oversight bodies, community and watershed interests, and regulatory bodies for service levels,
rate structures, operating budgets, capital improvement programs, and risk management
decisions. Actively involves stakeholders in the decisions that will affect them.

June 7, 2010 – Page 5

B.

Resource Efficiency and Protection
To be recognized, the applicant must demonstrate implementation of activities in
the appropriate number of categories below. Where appropriate, identify changes
or improvements to the operation that increases current or future performance.
Place an X in the appropriate box(s) to indicate the applicant’s selection for the
other activities of choice. The applicant should select the box(s) for the area in
which the organization can demonstrate the greatest success.

•
•

Large organizations: demonstrate activities in 3 boxes in this category
Small organizations: demonstrate activities in 2 boxes in this category

Note: Because of the breadth of activities under the category of Ground Water and
Surface Water Protection on a Watershed Basis this box counts as two boxes. For
example, to complete this section (B), a small organization would not need to
demonstrate additional activities, and a large organization would only need to
demonstrate one additional selection.

Water Efficiency

The organization has adopted and is implementing a Water Efficiency/Water Conservation Program
or a Stormwater Program that has at least three of the following elements in place (for additional
detail see EPA’s Water Conservation Plan Guidelines, EPA-832-D-98-001, August, 1998; online at
http://www.epa.gov/watersense/pubs/guide.htm):
• Joining, and actively participating in EPA’s WaterSense Program as a Promotional Partner
• Water metering measures including, but not limited to: source-water metering, service connection
metering and reading, public use metering (e.g., parks), meter accuracy analyses, and meter
repair/replacement
• Active water system audit program(s). Activities may include: analysis of impervious surface; leak
detection and repair; loss-prevention program; large-volume user and landscape audits; and/or
analysis of non-accounted for water (e.g. using the IWA/AWWA water audit method at
www.awwa.org/Resources/WaterLossControl.cfm?ItemNumber=48055);
• The entity has conservation rate structures in place.
• Active outreach program such as: understandable and informative utility bills, prompt public
violation notifications, school activities, public education/workshops, “downspout disconnect”
programs, or establishment of advisory committees
• Promoting new technologies and implementing rebate/voucher/incentive programs
• Retrofit program(s) and kits are available and are being targeted and distributed
• The entity has active conservation programs for commercial, industrial, and institutional facilities
(e.g. a rewards program for users that significantly conserve or reuse water or reduce runoff)
• Active and successful water recycling, reuse, or reclamation operations that treat wastewater or
divert runoff to be used for beneficial purposes (e.g. agricultural and landscape irrigation,
industrial processes, toilet flushing, and/or ground water basin replenishment; refer to “Guidelines
for Water Reuse, EPA-625-R-04-108, September 2004; online at
http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/625r04108/625r04108.pdf).

June 7, 2010 – Page 6

Pretreatment

Facility has adopted and is implementing an approved Pretreatment Program Plan, as described in 40
CFR 403. An applicant under this category should include at least two of the following
achievements.
• Pretreatment programs or pollutant strategies in place that address existing and emerging
pollutants or sources with demonstrated environmental and/or staff resource benefits. (Examples
could include: fats, oils, and greases (FOG) programs with food services industries that
demonstrate decreases in sanitary sewer overflows and reductions in staff response resources;
dental amalgam separation programs; or expired pharmaceutical collection programs with health
services industries.)

• Production of high quality biosolids meeting limits in Tables 1 and 3 of 40 CFR 503.13
attributable to pollutant control programs with industrial users.

• Participation in state or local incentive or recognition programs to encourage zero discharge for
categorical industrial users (CIUs) and non-categorical significant industrial users (SIUs)
Decentralized Systems

Organization has an actively managed decentralized treatment system in place that is implementing
at least six of the following activities (for additional detail see EPA’s Voluntary National Guidelines
for Management of Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment Systems, EPA 832B-03-001, March 2003; online at http://www.epa.gov/owm/septic/pubs/septic_guidelines.pdf):
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Maintain an inventory of all systems within the service area
Conduct public education efforts to inform owners of plans and actions to be taken
Employ trained and certified system installers, operators and haulers
Employ subsurface treatment options based on a soil evaluation by a licensed soil evaluator
Conduct regular inspections and/or monitoring
Dispose of residuals in accordance with regulatory requirements
Utilize specific and measurable performance requirements along with compliance monitoring
Require system inspection prior to sale of property
Send maintenance reminders to owners at regular intervals
Utilize a responsible management entity (RME) with legal authority to implement its management
practices

Biosolids / Septage / Residuals Management

Facility has a certified environmental management system (EMS) under the National Biosolids
Partnership (NBP) (www.biosolids.org) or has undertaken significant activities to address
biosolids/septage/residuals management utilizing the principles and practices described in the NBP
EMS Program Manual of Good Practice at:
www.biosolids.org/ems_main.asp?sectionid=48&pageid=189&pagename=Manual%20of%20Good
%20Practice in two or more of the following areas:
• Innovative reuse activities focused on soil improvement and productivity (e.g.,
revegetating/restoring/reclaiming mine sites and spoils piles, construction sites, and other highly
disturbed or contaminated areas, including industrial Superfund and Brownfields sites)
• Conversion to high value products (e.g., Class A/EQ-quality soil amendments or fertilizers, fuel
sources comparable to powdered coal or low grade oil, etc.)
• Effective management of treatment operations leading to overcoming serious odors/acceptance
problems, significant energy production, recovery of useful products, etc.
• Effective and open communication with and involvement of stakeholders and active dialog with
the public on issues of concern regarding biosolids/septage/residuals management.

June 7, 2010 – Page 7

Energy Management

Facility has conducted an energy audit and is implementing changes in process(s), procedures and/or
equipment to reduce energy consumption by at least 20%, or produce 50% or more of its energy
needs by sustainable power either onsite (e.g., by CHP using biogas from anaerobic digestion, etc.)
or by alternatives energy production technologies (e.g., solar, wind, geothermal) to decrease
purchase and use of energy derived from non-renewable fossil fuels, consistent with the steps
described in EPA's Energy Management Guidelines for Wastewater and Water Utilities, located at
http://www.epa.gov/waterinfrastructure/bettermanagement_energy.html, including the use of EPA's
Energy Benchmarking tool located at www.energystar.gov/benchmark. Other resource documents
include:
• “Opportunities for and Benefits of Combined Heat and Power at Wastewater Treatment
Facilities” (EPA-430-R-07-003; April 2007) at:
www.epa.gov/chp/documents/chp_wwtf_opportunities.pdf
• "Water and Energy: Leveraging Voluntary Programs to Save Both Water and Energy” (March
2008) at:
www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/publications/pubdocs/Final%20Report%20Mar%202008.pdf
• ”Water and Wastewater Energy Best Practice Guidebook” (2006) at:
www.werf.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CO
NTENTID=10245

Climate Change Adaptation or Mitigation

Facility is actively adapting to the effects of climate change or taking actions to mitigate these
effects. For example:
• Entity has assessed the organization’s vulnerability to impacts of climate change in order to plan
for needed adaptation. For additional information, see Feature 4 of EPA’s “10 Features of an
Active and Effective Protective Program” located at:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/safewater/watersecurity/features.cfm.
• A drought management plan, including a water efficiency program as described under the water
efficiency section above has been developed and includes 50-year sustainable yield and demand
analyses
• The implementation of adaptation strategies into capital planning and budgeting processes (e.g.,
relocation or hardening of facility, redesigning systems, and adopting stormwater strategies that
include green infrastructure solutions and account for more extreme fluctuations in precipitation)
• Entity is collecting gases as an energy source for either the facility and/or local community (e.g.,
capturing methane from a bioreactive landfill; or scrubbing and converting anaerobic digester
biogas to fuel local city transit fleet)
• Entity has enacted community outreach information programs to address: water supply issues;
climate change; and/or linking water use to energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. See
http://www.epa.gov/ow/climatechange.
• Entity has adopted Water Environment Research Foundation’s (WERF’s) Roadmap to
Sustainability, with goals and milestones for 100% energy self-sustainability by 2040 (final
document in development; reference to be provided).

June 7, 2010 – Page 8

Ground Water and Surface Water Protection on a Watershed Basis (counts as 2 boxes under
section B. All four components must be addressed)
Engage With Local or Regional Partners
Facility has engaged local or regional partners to jointly take action to protect source
water/watershed.
Examples include:
• Applicant participates in or manages a committee made up of key stakeholders in land use
decisions in the delineated area (watershed or wellhead protection area).
• The committee engages with local officials on land-use planning and land-use management,
environmental regulations, review of site designs for residential, commercial, and industrial
development within source water/watershed areas, works with relevant Federal and state
government program managers.
• Meetings are held several times a year and recommendations are made to key decision makers
who have jurisdictional authority over source water/watershed areas.
Characterize the Watershed
Facility has in place goals, priorities and strategies based on an analysis of the watershed. Describe
how data analysis is conducted and documented to identify current and future infrastructure,
watershed, water quality, and water quantity issues.
Examples include:
• Uses the state-developed or locally modified source water assessments as a basis for analyzing
prevalence of current drinking water contaminants of concern and/or prevalence of current sources
of those contaminants.
• Uses data, mapping and surveying to evaluate the hydrologic system and to evaluate water and
wastewater infrastructure needs, including, for example, “build-out” analyses showing effects of
long-term development trends; has determined susceptibility of waters to pollution from point and
nonpoint sources of contamination; has projected changes in hydrologic cycles due to climate
change, etc.
• Has undertaken an integrated evaluation or analysis of wet weather problems tied to receiving
water integrity
• Evaluates multimedia effects of industrial sites within a municipality (pretreatment, stormwater,
and air emissions from industrial facilities).
• Identifies goals, strategies and, where possible, measurable objectives as a result of analysis.
Examples of metrics include:
o Reducing flow rates in existing storm sewer systems by 50% by 2015, resulting in
decreased sedimentation and improved aquatic habitat.
o Removal of 50 acres of asphalt and replacing it with pervious surface by 2015, and in
increments thereafter, to achieve at least 90% effective permeability in the plan area.
o All new construction will conform to LID principles by 2012 and will retain and filter a
rainfall volume equal to a 10-year storm frequency event without discharge to the
municipal storm sewer system.
o Substantially reduce the risk of drinking water contaminants from identified sources (e.g.
on-site decentralized systems) in drinking water source areas thereby decreasing the need
for utilities to invest in treatment technologies.

June 7, 2010 – Page 9

Actively Implement the Watershed Plan
Describe the institutional frameworks that are in place and how the watershed plan is being
implemented by the applicant.
Examples include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Riparian reforestation to enhance pollutant mitigation functions.
Stream channel restoration for increased hydrologic stability.
Critical land acquisitions (e.g., conservation easements, purchases).
Formal and informal agreements that include sources and leveraging of funding.
A holistic, integrated protection approach implemented to manage significant potential sources of
contaminants in the watershed that covers both ground water and surface water sources of drinking
water and avoids transferring pollutants from one resource to another.
Community has developed an integrated program to address wet weather issues, including such
sources as: regulated stormwater, unregulated runoff (nonpoint sources), CSOs, SSOs, peak flow
at POTWs, source water protection.
Codes and ordinances with green infrastructure performance standards have been adopted (e.g.,
infiltration, evapotranspiration, capture and reuse of stormwater); a site plan review process is
active; inspection, tracking and enforcement procedure are in place.
Ordinances are protective of public drinking water supplies and source water protection areas.
Prioritization of cost-effective activities which support source water protection.
Applicant is implementing a watershed-based permit under a watershed permitting strategy, where
applicable.
Active nutrient water quality trading is being implemented under a watershed-based permit.

Use an Adaptive Management Process to Document Results
Progress is monitored and environmental improvements are documented, and data supports a formal
adaptive management process. Document and summarize your analytical approach to evaluating the
effectiveness of actions. Describe, as applicable, how results are being monitored; time frames for
re-evaluation and adjustment; uncertainties and research needs, and how the project contributes to
filling those needs; how data has been collected and used to modify plans; quality standards for
applying new information; and/or process to ensure transparency to stakeholders and the public.
Examples include:
• Sustainable infrastructure measures that are used to document project benefits, such as anticipated
or actual capital cost-avoidance.
• An evaluation strategy is in place that uses environmental metrics demonstrating environmental
improvement or protection to determine whether the land-use policies/watershed plan is effective
in reducing the risks to the source water/watershed.
• Has established a process for reviewing the results of the evaluation strategy, for communicating
these results to local officials, and for adjusting source water/watershed protection measures as
needed to better meet program goals.
• Provides examples of how the program has adapted to information from the evaluation program.
• Documents improvements based on established targets and goals.

June 7, 2010 – Page 10

V.

Certification Statement

I certify that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or
supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel
properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based upon my inquiry of the
person or persons directly involved in gathering and evaluating the information, the
information submitted is to the best of my knowledge and belief true, accurate and
complete. I further certify that the applicant organization is in compliance with
applicable Federal, State, Tribal, and local water quality requirements, has been for the
past 12 months and has a satisfactory record with respect to environmental quality.
Print Name: ____________________________________________________________
Title: __________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________ / __________________
Signature of Facility Management Representative
Date

June 7, 2010 – Page 11

VI.

Application Submittal Instructions

EPA requests that all completed applications be electronically submitted and must be
completely filled out. These applications must be submitted using only one submission
method, and must be sent in its entirety. Multiple submissions or sections of the
application received piece meal will not be reviewed.
In addition to the written narrative, applicants may also submit up to three electronic
photos (in jpg format) with descriptive captions of activities or facilities related to the
main achievements of the application. These photos may be used for publicizing
recognition winners.
Note: photos will not be reviewed for purposes of determining whether criteria have been
met – only the written narrative will be reviewed. If you plan to include pictures but are
not submitting your application electronically, please include the pictures along with your
mailed application.
Applicants that are unable to submit electronically, may produce the application on
double-sided recycled paper, and submit the complete application to the Sustainable
Water Leadership Program Coordinator by [date pending]:
Sustainable Water Leadership Program
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
MC 4204M
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564 1997
[email protected]

June 7, 2010 – Page 12

Appendix D
Number of Respondents and Other Assumptions

Appendix D
Exhibit D.1 Respondents and Other Assumptions
Description
Wastewater (Year 1)

Number

Source

Submit Recognition Application
Drinking Water (Year 1)

194

Assumed 194 total applicants (mean estimate) - EPA Spreadsheet
(simulation_DW_application_numbers)

Submit Recognition Application
Total Applications Submitted (Year 1)

336
530

Assumed 336 total applicants (mean estimate) for drinking water - EPA Spreadsheet
(simulation_DW_application_numbers)
Totals may not add exactly due to rounding errors (the data were developed using spreadsheets).

Wastewater (Year 2)
Submit Recognition Application
Drinking Water (Year 2)
Submit Recognition Application
Total Applications Submitted (Year 2)

0

Recognition program will run every-other year starting in 2010.

0
0

Recognition program will run every-other year starting in 2010.

Wastewater (Year 3)
Submit Recognition Application
Drinking Water (Year 3)

343

Submit Recognition Application
Total Applications Submitted (Year 3)

920
1263

Assumed 343 total applicants (mean estimate) - EPA Spreadsheet
(simulation_DW_application_numbers)
Assumed 336 total applicants (mean estimate) for drinking water - EPA Spreadsheet
(simulation_DW_application_numbers)
Total excludes applicants that did not get recognized in Year 1

Wastewater
Application time-burden, Year 1
Time for manager to read instructions and search existing
data sources
Time for staff to gather information and complete the
questionnaire
Time for administrative support to prepare forms
Total

2.0

Revised estimates for new Recognition Application

16.0
2.0
20.0

Revised estimates for new Recognition Application
Revised estimates for new Recognition Application

Application time-burden, Year 2
Time for manager to read instructions and search existing
data sources
Time for staff to gather information and complete the
questionnaire
Time for administrative support to prepare forms
Total

0.0

No applicants in Year 2

0.0
0.0
0.0

No applicants in Year 2
No applicants in Year 2

D-1

Application time-burden, Year 3
Time for manager to read instructions and search existing data
sources
Time for staff to gather information and complete the
questionnaire
Time for administrative support to prepare forms
Total

2.0

Assumed the same burden as initial application

16.0
2.0
20.0

Assumed the same burden as initial application
Assumed the same burden as initial application

Drinking Water
Application time-burden, Year 1
Time for manager to read instructions and search existing data
sources
Time for staff to gather information and complete the
questionnaire
Time for administrative support to prepare forms
Total

2.0

Assumed the same burden as for Wastewater Applicants

16.0
2.0
20.0

Assumed the same burden as for Wastewater Applicants
Assumed the same burden as for Wastewater Applicants

Application time-burden, Year 2
Time for manager to read instructions and search existing data
sources
Time for staff to gather information and complete the
questionnaire
Time for administrative support to prepare forms
Total

0.0

No applicants in Year 2

0.0
0.0
0.0

No applicants in Year 2
No applicants in Year 2

2.0

Assumed the same burden as Year 1 application

16.0
2.0
20.0

Assumed the same burden as Year 1 application
Assumed the same burden as Year 1 application

Application time-burden, Year 3
Time for manager to read instructions and search existing data
sources
Time for staff to gather information and complete the
questionnaire
Time for administrative support to prepare forms
Total

D-2

Agency
Completeness Review
Percentage of Incomplete Recognition Applications Submitted
Time for OWM Staff to Review application
Time for additional follow-up for incomplete application

0.1
0.16666667
0.5

Assumed 10% of applicants would submit an incomplete application and re-apply in year 3 based on BPJ
Assumed 10 minutes/application based on BPJ
Assumed 30 minutes for additional follow-up: BPJ

Compliance Review
Percentage of applications meeting compliance
Time for OECA staff to review application
Time for OW staff to review application

0.8
0.25
0.08333333

Assumed 80% of applicants would meet compliance
Assumed 15 minutes/application based on BPJ
Assumed 5 minutes/application based on BPJ

Substantive Review
Percentage of applications meeting program criteria
Time for one panel member to review application
Number on Review Panel
Post-Review Awards Process
Time to prepare certificates and letters
Patches
Printing and Postage

0.75
0.33
3

Assumed 75% of applicants would meet program criteria
Assumed 20 minutes/application/panel member
Assumed 3 panel members for the review

0.17

Assumed 10 minutes/cert. and letter ( 5 min for Program Manager + 5 min for Admin Support)
Removed for this part of the ICR
ODC Cost

$8.00

D-3

Appendix E
Respondents Activities Exhibits

Exhibit E.1 Number of Respondents in Year 1
Information Collection Activity
Wastewater
Number of Applications
Number of Incomplete Applications
Number of Applications for Compliance Review
Number of Applications Meeting Compliance
Number of Applications Meeting Program Criteria
Number of Applications not Eligible for Recognition
Drinking Water
Number of Applications
Number of Incomplete Applications
Number of Applications for Compliance Review
Number of Applications Meeting Compliance
Number of Applications Meeting Program Criteria
Number of Applications not Eligible for Recognition
Total Number of Applications Submitted
Total Number of Respondents Recognized
Total Number of Respondents not Eligible for
Recognition

Number of Respondents*
194
19
175
140
105
89
336
34
302
241
181
155
530
286
244

* Totals may not add exactly due to rounding errors (the data were developed using spreadsheets).

Exhibit E.2 Number of Respondents in Year 3
Information Collection Activity
Wastewater
Number of Applications**
Number of Incomplete Applications
Number of Applications for Compliance Review
Number of Applications Meeting Compliance
Number of Applications Meeting Program Criteria
Number of Applications not Eligible for Recognition
Drinking Water
Number of Applications**
Number of Incomplete Applications
Number of Applications for Compliance Review
Number of Applications Meeting Compliance
Number of Applications Meeting Program Criteria
Number of Applications not Eligible for Recognition
Total Number of Applications Submitted
Total Number of Respondents Recognized
Total Number of Respondents not Eligible for
Recognition

Number of Respondents*
432
43
389
311
233
199
1075
107
968
774
581
494
1507
814
693

* Totals may not add exactly due to rounding errors (the data were developed using spreadsheets).
**Includes respondents re-applying from Year 1

E-1

Exhibit E.3 Estimated Burden and Cost for Wastewater Applicant Respondent Activities (Year 1)

Activity
Application
Manager reads instructions and search existing
data sources
Staff gathers information and complete the
questionnaire
Administrative support prepares forms
Subtotal

Total Burden

Respondent
Labor Cost
($/hr)

Total Labor
Cost ($)

2.0

388

$55.00

$21,340.00

16.0
2.0
20.0

3104
388
3880

$46.86
$23.12
-

$145,453.44
$8,970.56
$175,764.00

Total Labor
Cost ($)

Number of
Respondents

Number of
Responses

Burden Per
Response

194

194

194
194
-

194
194
-

Exhibit E.4 Estimated Burden and Cost for Drinking Water Applicant Respondent Activities (Year 1)

Activity
Application
Manager reads instructions and search existing
data sources
Staff gathers information and complete the
questionnaire
Administrative support prepares forms
Subtotal

Number of
Respondents

Number of
Responses

Burden Per
Response

Total Burden

Respondent
Labor Cost
($/hr)

336

336

2.0

671

$55.00

$36,905.00

336
336
-

336
336
-

16.0
2.0
20.0

5371
671
6713

$46.86
$23.12
-

$251,685.06
$15,513.52
$304,103.58

Totals may not add exactly due to rounding errors (the data were developed using spreadsheets).

E-2

Exhibit E.5 Estimated Burden and Cost for Wastewater Applicant Respondent Activities
(Year 3)

Activity
Application*
Manager reads instructions and search existing
data sources
Staff gathers information and complete the
questionnaire
Administrative support prepares forms
Subtotal

Total Burden

Respondent
Labor Cost
($/hr)

Total Labor
Cost ($)

2.0

864

$55.00

$47,520.00

16.0
2.0
20.0

6912
864
8640

$46.86
$23.12
-

$323,896.32
$19,975.68
$391,392.00

Total Labor
Cost ($)

Number of
Respondents

Number of
Responses

Burden Per
Response

432

432

432
432
-

432
432
-

Exhibit E.6 Estimated Burden and Cost for Drinking Water Applicant Respondent Activities (Year 3)

Activity
Application*
Manager reads instructions and search existing
data sources
Staff gathers information and complete the
questionnaire
Administrative support prepares forms
Subtotal

Number of
Respondents

Number of
Responses

Burden Per
Response

Total Burden

Respondent
Labor Cost
($/hr)

1075

1075

2.0

2149

$55.00

$118,195.00

1075
1075
-

1075
1075
-

16.0
2.0
20.0

17192
2149
21490

$46.86
$23.12
-

$805,617.12
$49,684.88
$973,497.00

*EPA assumes the burden per response is the same as the initial application burden in Year 1

E-3

Exhibit E.9 Summary of the Burden, Respondents, Responses, and Costs for the ICR Approval
Period
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
3-year
Annual
Application
Total
Average
2010
2011
2012
Respondents (number)
530
0
1,507
2,036
679
Responses (number)
530
0
1,507
2,036
679
Burden (hours)
10,593
0
30,130
40,723
13,574
$
Costs (labor)
$
479,868 $
- $ 1,364,889 1,844,757
$
614,919
Costs (capital)-annualized
$
$
- $
$
$
Costs (O&M)
$
$
- $
$
$
$
Total Costs
$
479,868 $
- $ 1,364,889 1,844,757
$
614,919

* Totals may not add exactly due to rounding errors (the data were developed using spreadsheets).
**Includes respondents re-applying from Year 1

E-4

Appendix F
Agency Activities Exhibits

Exhibit F.1 Estimated Agency Burden and Costs for Completeness Review (Year 1)
OWM Staff
Administrative
Respondents
Assumed Loaded Hourly Rate
$57.53
$30.20
Activity
A
Level of Effort (hrs)
Completeness Review
530
0.17
Additional Follow-up for Incomplete
Applications
53
0.5
Total
Exhibit F.2 Estimated Agency Burden and Costs for Completeness Review (Year 3)
Contractor (P1)
Supervisor
Respondents
Assumed Loaded Hourly Rate
$57.53
$30.20
Activity
A
Level of Effort (hrs)
Completeness Review
1507
0.17
Additional Follow-up for Incomplete
Applications
150
0.5
Total
Total Burden and Cost

Burden
Per
Response

Labor
Cost per
Response

Total
Burden
(hrs.)

Total
Initial
Cost

B
0.17

C
$9.59

A*B
88

A*C
$5,078

0.5
-

$28.76
-

26.5
115

$1,524
$6,603

Burden
Per
Response

Labor
Cost per
Response

Total
Burden
(hrs.)

Total
Initial
Cost

B
0.17

C
$9.59

A*B
251

A*C
$14,444

0.5
-

$28.76
-

75
326

$4,314
$18,758

441

$25,361

F-1

Exhibit F.3 Estimated Agency Burden and Costs for Compliance Review (Year 1)
Respondents
Activity

A

ODWGW
OECA Staff
OWM Staff
Staff
Assumed Loaded Hourly Rate
$57.53
$57.53
$57.53
Level of Effort (hrs)

Burden
per
Response

Labor
Cost per
Response

Total
Burden
(hrs.)

Total
Cost

B

C

A*B

A*C

Wastewater Compliance Review

175

0.25

0.08

-

0.33

$19.18

58

$3,356

Drinking Water Compliance Review

302

0.25

-

0.08

0.33

$19.18

101

$5,785

-

-

-

-

-

159

$9,141

Burden
Per
Response

Labor
Cost per
Response

Total
Burden
(hrs.)

Total
Cost

B

C

A*B

A*C

Totals

-

Exhibit F.4 Estimated Agency Burden and Costs for Compliance Review (Year 3)
Respondents
Activity

A

ODWGW
OECA Staff
OWM Staff
Staff
Assumed Loaded Hourly Rate
$57.53
$57.53
$57.53
Level of Effort (hrs)

Wastewater Compliance Review

389

0.25

0.08

-

0.33

$19.18

130

$7,459

Drinking Water Compliance Review

968

0.25

-

0.08

0.33

$19.17

323

$18,552

-

-

-

-

-

452

$26,011

Totals

Total Burden and Cost

-

611

$35,152

F-2

Exhibit F.5 Estimated Agency Burden and Costs for Substantive Review (Year 1)

Activity
Substantive Review

Number of
Respondents
381

Number of
Responses
381

Burden Per
Response
per Panel
Member
0.33

Number of
Members
on Panel
3.0

Respondent
Labor Cost
($/hr)
$57.53

Total
Burden
381

Total Cost
($)
$21,917.03

Respondent
Labor Cost
($/hr)
$57.53

Total
Burden
1085

Total Cost
($)
$62,414.63

1466

$84,331.65

Exhibit F.6 Estimated Agency Burden and Costs for Substantive Review (Year 3)

Activity
Substantive Review
Total Burden and Cost

Number of
Respondents
1085

Number of
Responses
1085

Burden Per
Response
per Panel
Member
0.33

Number of
Members
on Panel
3.0

F-3

Exhibit F.7 Estimated Agency Burden and Cost for Individual Post-Review Activities (Year 1)
OWM Staff Administrative
Labor
EPA
Burden per
Assumed Loaded Hourly
Cost per
(Responses)
Response
Rate
Response
$57.53
$30.20
Activity
A
Level of Effort (hrs)
B
C
Certificates and Letters
Totals

286
-

O&M Cost
per
Response*

Total Cost

Total
Burden
(hrs.)

Total
Cost

D

C+D

A*B

A*(C+D)

0.17

0.17

0.33

$14.62

$8.00

22.62

95

$6,469

-

-

-

-

-

-

95

$6,469

O&M Cost
per
Response*

Total Cost

Total
Burden
(hrs.)

Total
Cost

D

C+D

A*B

A*(C+D)

*O&M costs for printing and
mailing

Exhibit F.8 Estimated Agency Burden and Cost forIndividual Post-Review Activities (Year 3)
OWM Staff Administrative
Labor
EPA
Burden per
Assumed Loaded Hourly
Cost per
(Responses)
Response
Rate
Response
$57.53
$30.20
Activity
A
Level of Effort (hrs)
B
C
Certificates and Letters
Totals

814
-

0.17

0.17

0.33

$14.62

$8.00

22.62

271

$18,413

-

-

-

-

-

-

271

$18,413

*O&M costs for printing and
mailing

Total Burden and Cost

367

$24,882

F-4

Exhibit F.9 Summary of the Agency Burden and Costs for the ICR Approval Period
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
3-year
Annual
Total
Average
Agency Burden
2010
2011
2012
Completeness Review
115
0
326
441
147
Compliance Review
159
0
452
611
204
Substantive Review
381
0
1,085
1466
489
Post-Review Recognition
95
0
271
367
122
Total Burden
750
0
1,809
2,559
853
Year 1
2010

Agency Cost
Completeness Review
Compliance Review
Substantive Review
Post-Review Recognition
Total Cost

$

6,603

$
9,141
$
21,917
$
6,469
$
44,130

Year 2
2011
$
$
$
$
$
-

Year 3
2012
$
18,758
$
26,011
$
62,415
$
18,413
$
125,596

3-year
Total
$
25,361
$
35,152
$
84,332
$
24,882
$
169,726

Annual
Average
$
8,454
$
11,717
$
28,111
$
8,294
$
56,575

F-5