INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST 

SUPERFUND SITE EVALUATION AND HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM 

(RENEWAL) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation 

State, Tribe, and Site Identification Branch 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20460 
ii

TABLE OF 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 ..................................................................................................4 

3. NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA ...........................5 

3(a) Non-duplication ................................................................................................................................5 

3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB...............................................................5 

3(c) Consultations.....................................................................................................................................6 

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection..................................................................................................6 

3(e) General Guidelines............................................................................................................................6 

3(f) Confidentiality ..................................................................................................................................6 

3(g) Sensitive Questions...........................................................................................................................7 

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED.............................................................7 

4(a) Respondents Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes ...........................................................7 

4(b) Information Requested......................................................................................................................7 

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED - AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, 

AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT....................................................................................................11 

5(a) Agency Activities............................................................................................................................11 

5(b) Collection Methodology and Management .....................................................................................11 

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility...................................................................................................................13 

5(d) Collection Schedule ........................................................................................................................13 

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION.......................................................14 

6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden.......................................................................................................14 

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs..........................................................................................................15 

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Costs.............................................................................................16 

6(d) Estimating Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs.......................................................17 

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs ............................................................................................17 

6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden........................................................................................................17 

6(g) Burden Statement............................................................................................................................17 

7. REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................................19 
iii

LIST OF EXHIBITS 

Exhibit 1. Major Components of EPA’s Superfund Site Assessment Process ..............................................................1 

Exhibit 2. Use and Users of the Site Assessment Data..................................................................................................5 

Exhibit 3. Detailed Site Assessment Activities and Data Collected ..............................................................................8 

Exhibit 4. EPA’s Integrated Assessment Process........................................................................................................13 

Exhibit 5. Annual Respondent Burden ........................................................................................................................14 

Exhibit 6. Site Assessment Screening Process ............................................................................................................15 

Exhibit 7. Annual Respondent Burden and Costs........................................................................................................16 

Exhibit 8. Annual Agency Burden and Cost................................................................................................................16 

Exhibit 9. Total Estimated Respondent Burden and Cost Summary ...........................................................................17 

1

1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 

1(a) Title of the Information Collection 

This Information Collection Request (ICR) is number 1488.07 (OMB control number 2050-0095) and is 

titled, “Superfund Site Evaluation and Hazard Ranking System (Renewal).” It is a revised version of the current 

ICR for the Superfund site assessment process. 

1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract 

In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA) to address threats posed to human health and the environment by uncontrolled releases of hazardous 

substances into the environment. Section 105 of CERCLA required EPA to establish criteria for determining 

priorities among releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances for the purpose of taking remedial action. 

In response, EPA developed a model to systematically rank hazardous waste sites with regard to their relative threat 

to human health and the environment. This model, the Hazard Ranking System (HRS), was adopted by EPA in 

1982 and later revised in December 1990. The HRS criteria take into account the population at risk, the hazard 

potential of the substances, as well as the potential for contamination of drinking water supplies, direct human 

contact, destruction of sensitive ecosystems, damage to natural resources affecting the human food chain, 

contamination of surface water used for recreation or potable water consumption, and contamination of ambient air. 

The Superfund site evaluation process uses a series of progressively more complex site assessment phases 

to determine and implement the appropriate responses to releases of hazardous substances to the environment. 

Exhibit 1 outlines the major components of the site assessment process. 

Pre-CERCLIS

Screen/Site

Discovery

Preliminary

Assessment

(PA)

Site 

Inspection

(SI)

Hazard Ranking

System Package

(HRS)

National

Priorities

List (NPL)

NFRAP and Deferred

(Information provided to states & other regulatory programs)

Removal actions may occur at any time

Exhibit 1: Major Components of EPA’s Superfund Site Assessment Process

Pre-CERCLIS

Screen/Site

Discovery

Preliminary

Assessment

(PA)

Site 

Inspection

(SI)

Hazard Ranking

System Package

(HRS)

National

Priorities

List (NPL)

NFRAP and Deferred

(Information provided to states & other regulatory programs)

Removal actions may occur at any time

Exhibit 1: Major Components of EPA’s Superfund Site Assessment Process

At the conclusion of each phase of the site assessment process, the HRS model is applied to derive a 

preliminary site HRS score. The HRS score is crucial since it is the primary mechanism used to determine whether 

a site is eligible to be included on the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL is a list of those sites that are 

priorities for long-term evaluation and remedial response. Sites with HRS scores of 28.50 or greater are eligible for 

placement on the NPL. Only sites on the NPL are eligible for Superfund-financed remedial actions. Sites with HRS 

scores below 28.5 generally require no further Superfund site evaluation. Uniform application of the HRS by the 

EPA, States and Tribes enables EPA to identify and prioritize hazardous waste sites that warrant further 

investigation.1

 

1 

55 Federal Register 51532 (12/14/90) as codified in 40 CFR Part 300 at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/40cfr300_03.html.
2

Under this ICR, the States (including U.S. Territories) and Tribes will apply the HRS by collecting and 

documenting HRS data needs required for each site assessment phase conducted. EPA Regions work with States 

and Tribes to determine which sites will receive each type of assessment. The HRS data collected by States and 

Tribes during site assessment activities are derived from the sources described in this information collection, 

including conducting field reconnaissance, taking samples at the site, and reviewing available reports and 

documents. States and Tribes conclude each site assessment phase by completing and submitting the appropriate 

site assessment report to EPA. The number and type of assessment reports to be conducted by States and Tribes is a 

function of available funding, site assessment backlogs, Superfund site assessment goals, and site assessment 

priorities; therefore, the type of information collected under this ICR is considered to be a periodic report. The 

States and Tribes are reimbursed 100 percent of their costs to develop these reports, except for record maintenance. 

EPA Regions review each site assessment report submitted by States and Tribes for accuracy and 

completeness, and to ensure conformance with Superfund site assessment guidance. EPA Regions then use this 

information to make a decision regarding next Superfund steps for a site. EPA Regions also enter summary 

information about each report and the associated decision on next steps into the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS). EPA maintains reports submitted by States 

and Tribes in site files. 

The annual burden incurred by States and Tribes for collecting information necessary to move a site 

through the site assessment process is a function of the average estimated hours and dollars per site assessment 

activity, the estimated number of assessment activities completed per year, and State/Tribal infrastructure costs 

supporting these assessment activities. In order to calculate the burden for this ICR, EPA Regions provided annual 

average estimates of site assessment activities to be completed by States and Tribes from FY08 through FY10. EPA 

Regions also provided estimated average hours and dollars incurred by States and Tribes to complete each type of 

site assessment activity, along with estimated infrastructure costs used by States and Tribes to perform Superfund 

work. 

Projected FY08-FY10 data provided by EPA regions show that the estimated annual hour and cost burden 

to State and Tribal respondents for performing site assessment activities is approximately 148,873 hours and 

$11,740,260, respectively. However, one hundred percent of the respondent cost ($11,740,260) is reimbursed by the 

EPA through cooperative agreements (CAs) as set forth by Section 104(d) of CERCLA, thus state and tribal 

respondents do not effectively bear any cost burden.2

 Section 6.0 of this document, Estimating the Burden and Cost 

of Collection, provides a more detailed discussion of the burden to respondents. 

This ICR is prepared using the guidance contained in EPA’s ICR Handbook revised November, 2005. This 

document is the most recent document for preparing an ICR and follows the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (44 U.S.C. §1320) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidelines. It can be found on the EPA 

website at www.epa.gov/icr. 

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 

2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection 

CERCLA’s passage in 1980 launched the Superfund program that provided EPA the authority needed to 

respond to threats posed by the uncontrolled releases of hazardous substances into the environment. The 

fundamental purpose of the Superfund program is to address threats and protect human health and the environment 

from releases or potential releases of hazardous substances from abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. 

The HRS is a crucial part of EPA’s Superfund program because its application enables EPA to evaluate the relative 

threats of hazardous waste sites. Collecting uniform information during the site assessment process enables EPA to 

consistently apply the HRS model. Consistent application of HRS by respondents enables EPA to identify and 

 

2

 Section 104 of CERCLA can be found at http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title42/chapter103_subchapteri_.html 
3

classify those releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that warrant further investigation in 

anticipation of corrective actions. 

EPA submitted the Agency's 2006 - 2011 Strategic Plan 3

 to Congress on September 29, 2006, as required 

under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993. EPA’s strategic plan includes a target for 

making a cumulative total of 40,491 final Superfund site assessment decisions by the end of FY 2011. The site 

assessment reports submitted by States and Tribes as described under this ICR are used to assist EPA in determining 

whether a final Superfund site assessment decision has been made. 

CERCLA establishes the legal authority to perform site assessment and NPL listing activities. Specifically: 

Section 105 of CERCLA required that the National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency 

Plan (NCP) be amended to include the following: 

“[C]riteria for determining priorities among releases throughout the United States for the purpose 

of taking remedial action... Criteria and priorities... shall be based upon relative risk or danger to 

public health, welfare, or the environment... taking into account... the population at risk, the hazard 

potential of the hazardous substances... the potential for contamination of drinking water supplies, 

the potential for direct human contact, the potential for destruction of sensitive ecosystems... and 

other appropriate factors.” 

To meet these requirements, the HRS was adopted and enacted as part of the revised NCP in July 1982. 

Section 105(8)(B) of CERCLA requires the NCP to include a “list.... of national priorities among the known releases 

or threatened releases throughout the United States...” Application of the HRS determines whether an uncontrolled 

hazardous waste site may be eligible for inclusion on the NPL. Each State is also required to “establish and submit 

for consideration by the President priorities for remedial action among known releases and potential releases in that 

State based upon the criteria” in Section 105(8)(A). 

In 1986, CERCLA was amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). EPA 

modified the HRS in 1990 so that, “to the maximum extent feasible, [it] accurately assesses the relative degree of 

risk to human health and the environment posed by sites and facilities subject to review.” Section 105 of SARA 

mandates that the HRS take into account, to the extent possible, the following: 

• Human health risks associated with the contamination or potential contamination of surface water 

that is or can be used for recreation or potable water consumption; 

• Damage to natural resources that may affect the food chain; and 

• Contamination or potential contamination of the ambient air, which is associated with the release 

or threatened release. 

Section 118 of CERCLA requires that a high priority be given to facilities where the release of hazardous 

substances or pollutants has resulted in the closing of drinking water wells or a principal drinking water supply. 

Section 125 of CERCLA requires the HRS to assess sites containing a substantial volume of waste as 

described in Section 3001(b)(3)(A)(I) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. These wastes include fly ash wastes, bottom 

ash wastes, slag wastes, and flue gas emission control wastes generated primarily from the combustion of coal or 

other fossil fuels. Section 125 of CERCLA requires EPA to consider each of the following site-specific 

characteristics: 

• Degree of risk to human health and the environment; 

• Quantity, toxicity, and concentrations of hazardous constituents; and 

• Extent of and the potential for the release of hazardous constituents into the environment. 

 

3

 EPA’s 2006-2011 Strategic Plan can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/2006/entire_report.pdf 
4

The specific sections of CERCLA cited above can be found at 

http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title42/chapter103_subchapteri_.html. 

2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data 

The data collected through the site assessment process described in this ICR are used to support a site 

decision regarding the need for further Superfund action. The various data elements gathered, which relate to the 

HRS criteria, are used to complete the HRS score. All of this information is used within the Superfund program to: 

• Identify sites that pose a potential threat to human health and the environment; 

• Determine if sites pose a potential hazard and whether further action is necessary; 

• Refer sites to EPA’s removal program if removal actions may be needed; 

• Develop preliminary and final HRS scores; 

• Set priorities for further assessment work; 

• Allocate resources (e.g., money, staff); and 

• Evaluate Superfund program performance. 

In addition, EPA Headquarters’ staff use the information collected to aid in the general management and 

oversight of the Superfund program. Currently, EPA uses the information to assess resource needs; allocate funds; 

prepare site assessment guidance materials; list NPL sites; conduct quality assurance (QA) reviews of HRS 

packages; and track Regional and State Superfund performance. Headquarters also uses the information to respond 

to information requests, and perform analyses for EPA management, OMB, Congress, and the general public. 

Staff at the ten EPA Regions use Superfund site assessment data for purposes similar to Headquarters, 

including: developing operating budgets and program plans; allocating resources; tracking State-by-State 

performance; responding to information inquiries under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA); and supplying 

input to CERCLIS. Regions must also respond to inquiries from EPA Headquarters. As a function of their program 

authority, EPA Regions also have the responsibility for overseeing site assessments and generating HRS scores. 

State and Tribal use of site assessment data is more site-specific. These authorities use the data to perform 

site assessments; generate HRS scores; maintain site files; track site status; and respond to information inquiries 

under FOIA. They also use the information gathered to maintain their own site files. Exhibit 2 summarizes the use 

and users of site assessment and HRS information. 
5

Exhibit 2: Use and Users of the Site Assessment Data 

EPA HEADQUARTERS 

• List NPL sites 

• QA HRS packages 

• Prepare site assessment guidance manuals 

• Establish national Superfund budget 

• Track Regional and State Superfund performance 

• Respond to Congress 

• Respond to information inquiries (FOIA) 

EPA REGIONS 

• Oversee site assessment 

• Review HRS scores 

• Supply input to Congress 

• Track site status 

• Coordinate with other programs 

• Maintain site files 

• Respond to information inquiries (FOIA) 

STATES/TRIBES 

• Perform site assessment 

• Generate HRS scores 

• Track site status 

• Coordinate with other environmental programs 

• Maintain site files 

• Respond to information inquiries (FOIA) 

3. NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 

3(a) Non-duplication 

The primary sources of data required to complete site assessments and prepare HRS packages are Federal, 

State, and local government agencies and private parties. Data are gathered through the performance of actual onsite investigations (e.g., samples, on-site measurements). Much of the information (i.e., site history, population 

surrounding the site, location of drinking water supplies) is collected from readily available public information 

sources, thereby minimizing the amount of collection of this primary information. The field data gathered during 

the site assessment activities covered under this ICR are not generally collected by any other Federal agency. 

Through pre-CERCLIS screening, EPA screens out sites being addressed by other parties to prevent 

duplication of assessment activities. Generally, the SI is the first investigation to collect and analyze waste and 

environmental samples. In instances where prior sampling has been completed and analytical data has been 

collected, performance of additional sampling may not be necessary. 

3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to Submission to OMB 

A notice stating this ICR was up for renewal was published in the Federal Register on September 4, 2007 

(72 FR 50679). This initiated a 60-day comment period which closed on November 5, 2007. No comments were 

received during the comment period. 
6

3(c) Consultations 

In order to calculate the burden of site assessment activities on the States and Tribes and present the results 

in this report, State and Tribal burden information was based on average annual site assessment activity projections 

for FY 2008 through FY 2010. As part of obtaining the State and Tribal burden information, EPA Regions were 

contacted to determine the nature of site assessment activities performed by States and Tribes in each respective 

Region and the costs (dollars and hours) associated with these activities. EPA Regions reviewed cooperative 

agreement progress reports submitted by States and Tribes as necessary to gather the State and Tribal data for this 

ICR. 

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection 

Site assessment information collection does not occur on a regularly scheduled basis. Yearly collection 

activities associated with the site assessment process are based on the number of sites discovered, the number of 

sites in the CERCLIS inventory needing assessment work, the amount of available Superfund funding, and 

Superfund site assessment goals and priorities. The frequency of collection is driven by the schedule established in 

Section 116(b) of CERCLA. Section 116(b) requires an HRS evaluation (if warranted) within four years of the site's 

entry into CERCLIS.4

 For sites brought to EPA’s attention via a citizen’s petition, Section 105(d) of CERCLA 

requires completion of a Preliminary Assessment (PA), or an explanation of why a PA is not appropriate, within one 

year after receiving the petition. Less frequent collection of site assessment reports may compromise EPA’s ability 

to comply with statutory schedules and could negatively impact EPA’s progress towards achieving the strategic 

target for making final site assessment decisions. 

3(e) General Guidelines 

The reporting frequency guideline set forth in 5 CFR 1320.6 of the Paperwork Reduction Act Guidelines 

may not be met depending on the nature of new sites discovered and urgency of assessment work needed. 

Collection of information occurs continually as new sites are identified. EPA is currently operating NPL 

development activities so that as sites with higher priorities are identified, the information is forwarded to the 

appropriate office for review and validation. 

States and Tribes have at least 30 days in which to respond to any information requests specified in the 

NCP. This time frame is in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act guidelines. The record retention period 

for administrative records is not specified in the National Contingency Plan. The site records are to be maintained 

for the duration of the assessment and any subsequent remediation at sites and for as long as necessary for litigation 

purposes. Responsibility for these files will continue beyond the three year ICR period, as assessment and, if 

necessary, remediation may take more than three years. 

3(f) Confidentiality 

Application of the HRS does not typically require collection of information that is considered confidential. 

EPA handles instances where confidentiality claims are asserted by private parties on a case-by-case basis. States 

and Tribes (the respondents) have been informed that any confidential information submitted to document an HRS 

score must be marked clearly as such and sent under separate cover so that it is properly handled. 

 

4

 Section 116 of CERCLA as amended by SARA can be found at http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title42/chapter103_subchapteri_.html. 
7

3(g) Sensitive Questions 

Sensitive questions are not associated with the information collection activities performed during site 

assessment and HRS score preparation.5

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 

4(a) Respondents Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes 

Activities conducted as part of the Superfund site assessment process require that information be gathered 

from Federal, State, and local government agencies. While the performance of the various phases of site assessment 

will require the involvement of State and local agencies, identification of the particular State or local agency 

involved is not possible until a site has been identified. SIC codes associated with environmental protection 

agencies (governmental) are classified in Division J, Public Administration; Major Group 95, Administration of 

Environmental Quality and Housing Programs; Industry Group 951, Administration of Environmental Quality; and 

9511 Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste Management. The corresponding North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) code is 924110: Administration of Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste 

Management Programs. 

4(b) Information Requested 

The data collection requirements associated with the various phases of the site assessment process are 

designed to enable the consistent application of the HRS. Information gathering activities are intended to help EPA 

determine whether hazardous substances are present at the site, and whether they are migrating to the surrounding 

environment. Data required for the site assessment process and HRS score preparation are often collected from 

readily available public information sources such as State and local government offices, Regional EPA offices, and 

potentially responsible parties (PRPs). The amount of data collected during the site assessment process and the 

activities associated with collection vary from site to site depending on the level of proposed threat. Data collection 

activities also vary from phase to phase of the site assessment process based on the type of information needed to 

satisfy the HRS requirements such as waste characterization and target assessments. Although reporting activities 

(e.g., data collection, report preparation) comprise the majority of the site assessment effort, approximately 13 

percent of the total effort can be attributed to recordkeeping activities (e.g., developing and maintaining databases, 

entering data, and filing). 

This section provides a detailed description of the type of data that needs to be collected to complete a site 

assessment and the activities associated with this collection process. It also provides estimates of the average 

annual projections of number of respondent activities from FY 2008 through FY 2010. State and Tribal respondents 

submit a site assessment report to EPA for each activity conducted. EPA enters key information contained in these 

reports into CERCLIS. 

Collection activities are discussed for the major phases of site assessment including: Pre-CERCLIS 

Screening, Preliminary Assessment, Site Inspection, and HRS Package Preparation. Other assessment activities are 

also described, including: Integrated Removal/Remedial Evaluation (Integrated Assessment), Expanded Site 

Inspection and Site Reassessment. 

Exhibit 3 provides an overview of the activities performed and data items collected for the various phases 

of site assessment. It also illustrates where the sub-phases may be utilized and the various outcomes that can occur. 

Section 6.0, Estimating the Burden and Cost of Collection, provides the estimated average hours associated with 

each of the phases of the site assessment process. 

 

5

 As stated in EPA’s ICR Handbook, revised November 2005, sensitive questions are those concerning sexual behavior, attitudes, religious 

beliefs, or matters usually considered private. 
8

CERCLA/

NCP

(HRS RULE)

Pre-CERCLIS

Screening

Assessment

• Non-sampling data collection

• Report preparation

Exhibit 3: Detailed Site Assessment Activities and Data Collected

Authority/

Regulation

Site

Assessment

/

Respondent Site

Activities

Data Items

Preliminary

Assessment

Site

Inspection

Integrated

Assessment

Expanded

Site

Inspection

Site

Reassessment

HRS Package

• Work plan preparation

• Non-sampling data collection

• Site reconnaissance

• PA-Scoresheet completion

• PA-Score generation

• Report preparation

• Work plan preparation

• Sample plan preparation

• Health and safety plan preparation

• Site reconnaissance

• Sample collection

• Data validation

• SI scoresheet completion

• SUPER-Screen generation

• Report preparation

• Site name, location

• Superfund eligibility

• CERCLIS entry decision

• Site name, location and 

mailing address

• Historical site information

• Current/past owners and 

operators

• Identification of potential 

sources

• Location of drinking water 

supplies

• Samples

• Additional site history

• Information on environmental 

setting

• Work plan preparation

• Sample plan preparation

• Non-sampling data collection

• Focused sample collection

• Score update

• Report generation

• Samples

• Additional field data

• File review

• Draft score

• Revise score

• Prepare docket

• Pathways

• Likelihood of release

• Waste Characteristics

• Targets

CERCLA/

NCP

(HRS RULE)

Pre-CERCLIS

Screening

Assessment

• Non-sampling data collection

• Report preparation

Exhibit 3: Detailed Site Assessment Activities and Data Collected

Authority/

Regulation

Site

Assessment

/

Respondent Site

Activities

Data Items

Preliminary

Assessment

Site

Inspection

Integrated

Assessment

Expanded

Site

Inspection

Site

Reassessment

HRS Package

• Work plan preparation

• Non-sampling data collection

• Site reconnaissance

• PA-Scoresheet completion

• PA-Score generation

• Report preparation

• Work plan preparation

• Sample plan preparation

• Health and safety plan preparation

• Site reconnaissance

• Sample collection

• Data validation

• SI scoresheet completion

• SUPER-Screen generation

• Report preparation

• Site name, location

• Superfund eligibility

• CERCLIS entry decision

• Site name, location and 

mailing address

• Historical site information

• Current/past owners and 

operators

• Identification of potential 

sources

• Location of drinking water 

supplies

• Samples

• Additional site history

• Information on environmental 

setting

• Work plan preparation

• Sample plan preparation

• Non-sampling data collection

• Focused sample collection

• Score update

• Report generation

• Samples

• Additional field data

• File review

• Draft score

• Revise score

• Prepare docket

• Pathways

• Likelihood of release

• Waste Characteristics

• Targets

Pre-CERCLIS Screening

Pre-CERCLIS screening is the process of reviewing data on a potential hazardous waste site brought to 

EPA’s attention to determine whether it should be entered into CERCLIS for further evaluation or response action. 6

 

Pre-CERCLIS screening is intended to be a low-cost effort to ensure uncontaminated or lightly contaminated sites 

are not arbitrarily entered into CERCLIS for Superfund-financed evaluation, cleanup, or oversight activities. The 

process can be initiated through the use of several mechanisms, such as a phone call or referral by a State or other 

Federal agency. Following notification of a potential site to EPA, Regions generally contact State, Tribal, or other 

appropriate Federal staff to determine whether the site is already being addressed by another party and to define 

EPA’s role at the site. From FY 2008 through FY 2010, EPA projects an annual average of 342 Pre-CERCLIS 

screenings will be performed by States or Tribes. 

 

6

 USEPA, Improving Site Assessment: Pre-CERCLIS Screening Assessments, OSWER 9375.2-11FS, October 1999. 
9

Preliminary Assessment

The preliminary assessment (PA) is a relatively rapid, low-cost compilation of readily available 

information pertaining to the site and its surroundings.7

 From FY 2008 through FY 2010, EPA projects an annual 

average of 111 PAs will be performed by States or Tribes to identify target populations and other targets that may be 

affected by contamination at sites. The scope of the PA must be sufficient to complete several activities, including: 

• Reviewing existing information about the site; 

• Conducting a site and environmental reconnaissance; 

• Collecting information about the site, with the emphasis on target information; 

• Evaluating all information and developing a preliminary HRS score; and 

• Preparing a brief site summary report and site characteristics form. 

Data collected during PA activities include: site-specific data, historical site information, potential 

contamination sources, types of hazardous waste, target information, and location of drinking water supplies. 

Sampling activities are not performed during this phase of site assessment. 

In certain situations, an Abbreviated PA (APA)8

 may be conducted in lieu of a full PA. APAs are 

appropriate when the following conditions exist: 

• A site has been inappropriately listed in CERCLIS because it is either not eligible or it could be 

deferred to another response program; 

• A site can be addressed as part of another site already in CERCLIS; 

• Available information allows EPA to make an early decision to undertake a Site Inspection (SI); 

or 

• A NFRAP designation can be made without completing a full PA. 

For such sites, the typical PA reporting requirements are abbreviated. 

Site Inspection

SIs build upon and supplement the information collected during the PA. The primary purpose of the SI is to 

gather enough information to determine whether further Superfund action is warranted as a result of a significant 

threat to human health and the environment.9

 From FY 2008 through FY 2010, EPA projects an annual average of 

75 SIs will be performed by States or Tribes. During the SI, the respondent will collect data to determine whether 

the site is an NPL candidate or if it should receive a NFRAP or other decision (i.e., deferral to RCRA, further 

assessment needed). The SI consists of five major activities: 

• Reviewing available information including analytical data; 

• Organizing the project team and developing an SI work plan, sample plan, health and safety plan, 

and investigation-derived wastes (IDW) plan; 

• Performing field work to visually inspect the site and collect samples; 

• Evaluating all information and developing a site score based on the HRS; and 

• Preparing a site summary report. 

 

7

 USEPA, Guidance for Performing Preliminary Assessments Under CERCLA, OSWER 9345.0-01A, September 1991. 

8

 USEPA, Improving Site Assessment: Abbreviated Preliminary Assessments, OSWER 9375.2-09FS, October 1999 

9 USEPA, Guidance for Performing Site Inspections Under CERCLA, Interim Final, OSWER 9345.1-05, September 1992.
10

Data collected during the SI could include additional non-sampling data (e.g., field observations, sitespecific information) and sampling data collected during the on-site reconnaissance. 

Integrated Removal/Remedial Evaluations (Integrated Assessments)

Site assessment and removal assessment activities may be combined into a single Integrated Assessment 

activity if the appropriate site conditions exist.10 Integrated Assessments further reduce repetitive tasks and costs on 

site characterization. The two most common types of Integrated Assessments include: Integrated Removal 

Assessment & PA; and Integrated Removal Assessment & SI. From FY 2008 through FY 2010, EPA projects an 

annual average of 7 Integrated Assessments will be performed by States or Tribes. The stand-alone requirements 

from the site assessment and removal assessment activities must be met even though the data will be integrated.11

Expanded Site Inspection

The ESI further investigates critical hypotheses proposed in the SI regarding the nature and extent of 

contamination at a site. ESIs typically include additional site sampling, which in some cases, may require 

specialized techniques or equipment (e.g., installation of monitoring wells, geophysical surveys). Data generated are 

used to modify the preliminary HRS score developed during the SI. An ESI report is the final product of this phase. 

ESI activities should include: 

• Organizing the project team and developing ESI work plan, sample plan, health and safety plan, 

and IDW plan; 

• Investigating and documenting critical new hypotheses or assumptions; 

• Collecting samples to attribute hazardous substances to site operations; 

• Collecting samples to establish representative background levels; 

• Collecting other missing non-sampling data for pathways of concern; and 

• Preparing a site summary report. 

The data collected during the ESI may be used to support previous documentation or references, and fulfill 

remaining HRS data requirements for pathways of concern.12 From FY 2008 through FY 2010, EPA projects an 

annual average of 30 ESIs will be performed by States or Tribes. 

Site Reassessment

The Site Reassessment represents the gathering and evaluation of new information on a site previously 

assessed under the Federal Superfund program to determine whether further Superfund attention is needed. The 

scope of work for a Site Reassessment activity is flexible, but will usually represent a component of PA or SI 

activities. As such, it serves as a supplement to previous assessment work, and not as a substitute for an initial PA 

or SI.13 From FY 2008 through FY 2010, EPA projects an annual average of 84 site reassessments will be 

performed by States or Tribes. 

HRS Package Preparation

The final phase in the site assessment process is HRS package preparation. The primary activities 

associated with this phase of site assessment are: 

 

10 USEPA, Improving Site Assessment: Integrating Removal and Remedial Site Evaluations, OSWER-9360.0-39FS, April 2000. 

11

 USEPA, Superfund Program Implementation Manual Fiscal Year 2008/2009, EPA 9200.3-14-1G-S, April 2007. 

12

 USEPA, Guidance for Performing Site Inspections Under CERCLA, Interim Final, OSWER 9345.1-05, September 1992. 

13 USEPA, Superfund Program Implementation Manual Fiscal Year 2008/2009, EPA 9200.3-14-1G-S, April 2007. 
11

• File review; 

• Determining site score; 

• Revising site score; and 

• Preparing the documentation record and supporting information. 

After completion of the site evaluation, compiled data are used to score a site using scoresheets based on 

the HRS model. Under the HRS, numerical values are assigned to a site based on various aspects of the site and its 

immediate surroundings through the evaluation of four pathways: (1) ground water migration; (2) surface water 

migration; (3) soil exposure; and (4) air migration. The scoring system for each pathway is based on a number of 

individual factors grouped into three factor categories: (1) likelihood of release or, for the soil exposure pathway, 

likelihood of exposure; (2) waste characteristics; and (3) targets (i.e., potentially affected populations, etc.). 

Individual factors are evaluated and the factor values are calculated to produce four category values. An example of 

the scoresheets used during HRS package preparation can be found at 

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/training/hrstrain/htmain/3path.htm. 

From FY 2008 through FY 2010, EPA projects an annual average of 7 HRS packages will be performed by 

States or Tribes. 

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED - AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, 

AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 

5(a) EPA Activities 

EPA region offices review and manage sites assessed under Superfund by States and Tribes, and provide 

oversight for State and Tribal site assessment cooperative agreements. EPA generally performs the following duties 

for each of the site assessment activities covered under this ICR: 

• Coordinate site specific work and review draft documents and reports; 

• Prepare summary reports and decision documents; 

• Identify stakeholders and communicate site assessment plans and progress; 

• Respond to information requests; and 

• Perform data management activities to record and track assessments. 

5(b) Collection Methodology and Management 

Data gathered during the site assessment process fall into three main categories: historical; field related; 

and HRS related. At each phase of assessment, data from these broad categories are collected and analyzed in order 

to screen out sites that do not need to be addressed by the Superfund program. As a site moves from one phase to 

another in the site assessment process, it must satisfy an increasing number of data requirements for the HRS model. 

Sites may be screened out of the site assessment process based on a Pre-CERCLIS screening to determine whether a 

potential hazardous waste site should be added into CERCLIS for further evaluation or response. In addition, sites 

may also be screened out based on the HRS score generated; a referral to other Federal and State programs; or a 

referral to the removal program. 

Following entry of a site discovery into CERCLIS, the PA process is initiated. During the PA, professional 

judgment is used to make assumptions for unavailable data. Information collection at this phase is accomplished 

mostly from the desktop by reviewing historical documents and conducting telephone interviews. The majority of 

the data collected is historical information and target information for the HRS model. A site drive-by may also be 

conducted to verify the site location and status. During the PA, the HRS is applied through development of a 

preliminary HRS score. A PA report is the final product of this phase. Information collected during the PA is 

incorporated into subsequent work. 
12

A site that is recommended for continued Superfund evaluation after PA completion proceeds to the SI 

phase. Data collection goals for this phase are similar in scope to the PA with the addition of detailed field data 

(e.g., site samples). During this phase, a field team conducts an on-site visit and sampling. Site sampling is limited 

in scope; generally, about 15 samples are collected per site. The media selected for sampling depends on the 

perceived threat and may include all or some of the following: ground water, surface water, sediment, soil, and air. 

Source samples may also be taken when deemed necessary. Detailed chemical analysis and data validation is 

performed on each sample taken. During the SI, the HRS model is applied by revising the preliminary HRS score 

developed during the PA. An SI report is the final product of this phase. Information collected during the SI is 

incorporated into subsequent assessment work. 

A site that is recommended for continued investigation may have an ESI performed. At this stage, specific 

information is usually gathered for the pathway of greatest concern. The goal of this investigation is to test 

remaining theories about the nature and extent of contamination proposed in the SI. Additional field data that are 

collected usually require specialized techniques or equipment (e.g., installation of monitoring wells, geophysical 

surveys). Data generated are used to modify the preliminary HRS score developed during the SI. An ESI report is 

the final product of this phase. Information collected during the ESI is incorporated into subsequent assessment 

work. 

A site that generates a preliminary HRS score of 28.50 or greater after all assessment work is complete is 

eligible for proposal to the NPL, although additional factors are considered before EPA moves forward with 

proposing a site. To propose a site, a detailed and defensible HRS Scoring Package must be prepared. This phase of 

data collection brings together all of the information collected during the site assessment process. The HRS Package 

is thoroughly and meticulously referenced. The final product of this phase is the final HRS score. A public docket 

for a proposed site is maintained by EPA to provide an opportunity for all interested parties to examine and 

comment on the HRS Package before it is finalized in the Federal Register.

In order to expedite the data management effort and minimize the burden, EPA developed “Quickscore” 

software for use as an automated site scoring tool under the revised HRS. Quickscore includes a user’s manual, help 

screens, HRS score sheet calculation package, and a computerized option for site score generation. 

In addition, EPA has sought to minimize the burden of data collection requirements by making substantial 

resources available to the respondents through the use of EPA contractors. EPA will continue to provide training to 

States and Tribes on a yearly basis through a national training program. To facilitate the HRS scoring effort, EPA 

has, wherever possible, included tables to minimize the level of effort necessary for data collection. 

EPA’s assessment process allows for the integration of traditional site assessment activities to facilitate 

continuous assessment for high-priority sites until all the necessary data are collected. Combining some phases of 

the site assessment process will often reduce the level of effort expended on the duplication of similar data-gathering 

activities. Exhibit 4 presents EPA’s Integrated Assessment process. This integrated approach provides: 

• Prompt risk reduction through early action (removal or cleanup activities); 

• Continuous process for assessing site-specific conditions and the need for action; 

• Appropriate cleanup of long-term environmental problems; 

• Cross-program coordination of response planning; 

• Early initiation of enforcement activities; and 

• Early public notification and participation. 
13

Initial Field

Investigation

(Recon)

Report Received/

Release Identified

Exhibit 4: EPA’s Integrated Assessment Process

No Further Action Sample (Optional) No Further Action

Definitely

Initial >28.5

Screening

For 

Emergency 

Eligibility

File Search

(if time 

allows)

Classic

Emergency

Response

Review

Data/Decision on 

Further Action

Complete the

PA and Report

>28.5

Do 

Removal

SI/Removal

Assessment

Sampling

Report

Integrated

Sampling

Plan

Sampling

Needed?

Time

Critical

Removal?

Regional

Decision

Team

Do 

Removal

No

< 28.5

May be

>28.5

The Site Reassessment represents the gathering and evaluation of new information on a site previously 

assessed under the Federal Superfund Program to determine whether further Superfund attention is needed. The 

scope of work for a Site Reassessment activity is flexible, but will usually represent a component of a traditional site 

assessment action. As such, it serves as a supplement to previous assessment work, and not as a replacement for 

traditional assessment activities (e.g., PA, SI). 

All data collection activities require the maintenance of file information. The final report for each phase of 

the site assessment process is only part of the documentation of a site. All relevant site information collected or 

generated during the investigations should be securely stored and accurately tracked for future reference. This 

information is critical for the preparation of any final HRS packages and for future site disposition. Each agency 

performing site assessments or involved in the decision-making process of a site should maintain a file of site data. 

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility 

Except in circumstances where a small business is a potentially responsible party (PRP) or may provide 

some original information about a specific site, small businesses are not burdened by the collection of data for this 

program. 

5(d) Collection Schedule 

 The site assessment process is intended to be a flexible method for determining priorities among releases or 

threatened releases of hazardous substances for the purpose of determining if further investigation is necessary. Site 

assessment information collection does not occur on a regularly scheduled basis. The frequency of collection is 

driven by the schedule established in Section 116(b) of CERCLA. Section 116(b) requires an HRS evaluation (if 

warranted) within four years of the site's entry into CERCLIS.14 For sites brought to EPA’s attention via a citizen’s 

 

14

 Section 116 of CERCLA as amended by SARA can be found at http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title42/chapter103_subchapteri_.html. 
14

petition, Section 105(d) of CERCLA requires completion of a PA, or an explanation of why a PA is not appropriate, 

within one year after receiving the petition. 

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION 

6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden 

EPA estimates an annual average of 60 States and Tribes will conduct the site assessment activities 

described in this ICR. The annual burden for respondents is a function of the number of State- and Tribal-lead 

activities performed each year. The estimated total annual burden for State and Tribal authorities to conduct these 

activities is approximately 148,873 hours. This estimate was calculated by multiplying the estimated average annual 

number of State- and Tribal-lead activities projected from FY 2008 through FY 2011 by the average hours needed to 

perform each activity. Exhibit 5 provides detailed information on the estimated annual respondent burden 

(calculated as a weighted average based on information provided by EPA regions). 

Exhibit 5: Annual Respondent Burden 

Respondent Activities 

Estimated Hours 

Per Activity1 

Estimated Annual Number of 

State/Tribal Activities1

Total Annual National 

Hours by Activity 

Pre-CERCLIS Screening 99.08 342 33,885

Preliminary Assessment (PA) 200.34 111 22,238

Site Inspection (SI) 596.40 75 44,730

Integrated Assessment (IA) 565.14 7 3,956

Expanded Site Inspection (ESI) 702.56 30 21,077

Site Reassessment 214.25 84 17,997

HRS Package 712.86 7 4,990

TOTAL 656 148,873

1 Weighted average based on activity hours provided by the EPA Regions

To reduce the burden on respondents, EPA has streamlined the process of screening sites to ensure that 

sites are assessed as efficiently and inexpensively as conditions allow. Sites not requiring Federal action are 

screened out of the process early, thus avoiding lengthy and more expensive evaluations. For example, only about 

four percent of the sites in the site assessment process have been listed on the NPL.15 

Exhibit 6 provides an illustration of the site assessment screening process. The process is portrayed as a 

funnel to show how the number of respondent activities performed generally decreases as sites progress down the 

funnel and are screened out of the process. Depending upon how far a particular site progresses through the site 

assessment process, the burden per site may range on average from 99 hours (average for conducting pre-CERCLIS 

screening and no other work) to 2,311 hours (cumulative average for conducting pre-CERCLIS screening, PA, SI, 

ESI, and HRS package work). 

 

15 Figure provided by EPA Headquarters. 
15

Exhibit 6: Site Assessment Screening Process 

*Historically includes about four percent of all sites in the CERCLIS site assessment inventory. 

Pre-CERCLIS Screenings

Preliminary Assessments

(PA)

Site Inspections

(SI)

HRS Scoring

Packages

NPL Listing *

Pre-CERCLIS Screenings

Preliminary Assessments

(PA)

Site Inspections

(SI)

HRS Scoring

Packages

NPL Listing *

Pre-CERCLIS Screenings

Preliminary Assessments

(PA)

Site Inspections

(SI)

HRS Scoring

Packages

NPL Listing *

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs 

The costs incurred by State and Tribal respondents for conducting site assessment activities equals the 

estimated average cost per activity (including laboratory costs) multiplied by the number of State/Tribal lead 

activities. In addition to activity-specific costs, the States and Tribes incur infrastructure costs associated with 

developing and maintaining a State or Tribal site assessment program. These infrastructure costs include such items 

as training, developing standard operating procedures, administrative support, and computers and automated data 

processing (ADP) support. 

The total estimated annual respondent cost is $11,740,260, however both activity-specific costs and 

infrastructure costs are reimbursed by the EPA, thus the effective respondent cost is $0. 

Exhibit 7 provides detailed information on the estimated annual respondent burden and costs as calculated 

based on projected FY 2008 through FY 2010 activity data. Depending upon how far a particular site progresses 

through the site assessment process, the respondent cost per site may range from $5,226 (average for conducting 

pre-CERCLIS screening and no other work) to $152,848 (cumulative average for conducting pre-CERCLIS 

screening, PA, SI, ESI and HRS package work). 
16

Exhibit 7: Annual Respondent Burden and Costs 

Respondent 

Activities 

Estimated 

Cost per 

Activity1 

Estimated Annual 

Number of State/Tribal 

Activities1

Total Annual 

National Cost 

by Activity 

Pre-CERCLIS Screening $5,226 342 $1,787,385

Preliminary Assessment (PA) $8,938 111 $992,084

Site Inspection (SI) $36,214 75 $2,716,035

Integrated Assessment (IA) $25,043 7 $175,300

Expanded Site Inspection (ESI) $52,521 30 $1,575,635

Site Reassessment $14,072 84 $1,182,066

HRS Package $49,949 7 $349,642

State/Tribal Infrastructure $2,962,113

SUBTOTAL 656 $11,740,260

Less Federal Reimbursement -$11,740,260

TOTAL 656 $0

1 Weighted average based on activity costs provided by the EPA Regions

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Costs 

The EPA Regional offices review and manage sites assessed under Superfund by States and Tribes, and 

provide oversight for State and Tribal site assessment cooperative agreements. Based on average annual projections 

from FY 2008 through FY 2010, the estimated average annual burden to the EPA for reviewing and managing site 

assessment activities conducted by States and Tribes under Superfund is 49,669 hours at an estimated cost of 

$4,529,813. Reimbursement of state costs brings the total Agency cost to $16,270,073. Exhibit 8 provides detailed 

information on the estimated annual Agency burden and costs as calculated based on projected FY 2008 through FY 

2010 activity data. Based on the 2007 GS pay schedule, EPA estimates an average hourly Regional labor cost of 

$57, excluding the impact of benefits, to review and manage the work covered under this ICR. To derive hourly 

estimates, EPA divided annual compensation estimates by 2,080 which is the number of hours in the Federal work 

year. EPA uses a multiplication factor of 1.6 to derive hourly estimates inclusive of benefits. Taking into account 

benefits, the average hourly rate is $91.20 ($57 x 1.6). 

Exhibit 8: Annual Agency Burden and Cost 

Respondent Activity Estimated 

Hours per 

Activity 1

Estimated 

Cost per 

Activity 

Estimated 

No. 

Activities 

Total 

Hours by 

Activity 

Total Costs 

by Activity 

Review/Manage Pre-CERCLIS Screening 23 $2,098 106 7,805 $711,816 

Review/Manage Preliminary Assessment 58 $5,290 94 6,469 $589,973 

Review/Manage Site Inspection 274 $24,989 61 20,556 $1,874,707 

Review/Manage Integrated Assessment 98 $8,938 3 684 $62,381 

Review/Manage Expanded Site Inspection 138 $12,586 38 4,138 $377,386 

Review/Manage Site Reassessment 92 $8,390 76 7,767 $708,350 

Review/Manage HRS Package 321 $29,275 25 2,250 $205,200 

SUBTOTAL 656 49,669 $4,529,813 

Reimbursement of State Costs $11,740,260 

TOTAL 656 49,669 $16,270,073 
17

1 Weighted average based on activity hours provided by the EPA Regions 

Approximately 61 regional EPA staff review and manage the Superfund site assessment work carried out 

by states and tribes. In addition to reviewing site assessment reports submitted by states and tribes, EPA staff 

conduct site management, oversight and quality assurance activities. Oversight activities include: reporting and 

recordkeeping activities such as establishing and maintaining a master database; answering respondent questions; 

auditing and reviewing data submissions; recording and entering data submissions; analyzing requests for 

confidentiality and providing confidentiality protection; reformatting and distributing data; and storing data. 

6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs 

EPA estimates that an annual average of 60 States (including U.S. Territories) and Tribes will perform the 

site assessment activities described in this ICR. The estimated annual burden to these respondents for performing 

these activities is approximately 148,873 hours at a cost of approximately $11,740,260. One hundred percent of the 

respondent cost ($11,740,260) is reimbursed by the EPA through cooperative agreements. On average, EPA 

estimates each respondent will complete and submit approximately 11 assessment reports per year. 

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs 

Total annual average estimated respondent burden hours and costs are shown in Exhibit 9 below. Exhibit 9 

combines information in Exhibit 5 (respondent hours burden) and Exhibit 7 (respondent cost burden) into a single 

table. Total Agency burden hours and costs are shown in Exhibit 8 above. 

Exhibit 9: Total Estimated Respondent Burden and Cost Summary 

Respondent Activity Estimated 

Hours per 

Activity 

Estimated 

Cost per 

Activity 

Estimated 

No. 

Activities 

Total 

Hours by 

Activity 

Total Costs 

by Activity 

Review/Manage Pre-CERCLIS Screening 99.08 $5,226 342 33,885 $1,787,385 

Review/Manage Preliminary Assessment 200.34 $8,938 111 22,238 $992,084 

Review/Manage Site Inspection 596.4 $36,214 75 44,730 $2,716,035 

Review/Manage Integrated Assessment 565.14 $25,043 7 3,956 $175,300 

Review/Manage Expanded Site Inspection 702.56 $52,521 30 21,077 $1,575,635 

Review/Manage Site Reassessment 214.25 $14,072 84 17,997 $1,182,066 

Review/Manage HRS Package 712.86 $49,949 7 4,990 $349,642 

State/Tribal Infrastructure $2,962,113 

SUBTOTAL 656 148,873 $11,740,260 

Less Federal Reimbursement -$11,740,260

TOTAL 656 148,873 $0 

6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden 

The estimated respondent burden presented in this ICR represents an adjustment from the burden estimates 

of the previous ICR. Respondent burden is estimated to decline by 1,412 hours and by $1,840,115. This decrease is 

primarily due to a 28 percent decline in the number of total activities to be performed by respondents combined with 

a 21 percent decline in State/Tribal infrastructure costs. The total hour burden will decline by only one percent as 

respondents are expected to perform a greater number of the more labor intensive ESI and HRS package activities. 

6(g) Burden Statement 
18

Depending on the number and type of activities performed, average burden per Response is estimated as 

226.9 hours. Burden ranges from 99 to 2,311 hours per site. The number of hours required to assess a particular site 

depends on how far a site progresses through the site assessment process. Sites where only a pre-CERCLIS 

screening is performed will on average require approximately 99 hours (average for conducting pre-CERCLIS 

screening and no other work), while sites that progress to NPL listing may require approximately 2,311 hours 

(cumulative average for conducting pre-CERCLIS screening, PA, SI, ESI and HRS package work). This burden 

estimate includes reporting activities and minimal recordkeeping activities. 

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 number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0888, which is 

available online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Superfund Docket in the EPA Docket 

enter (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 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 Superfund Docket is 

(202) 566-0276. An electronic version of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov. This site can be 

used 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. When in the system, select “search,” then key 

in the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: 

Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0888 and OMB Control 

Number2050-0095 in any correspondence. 
19

7. REFERENCES

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation. 

Guidance for Performing Preliminary Assessments Under CERCLA. OSWER 9345.0-01A. 

EPA/540/G-91/013. September 1991. 

(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres) 

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/) 

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation. 

Guidance for Performing Site Inspections Under CERCLA, Interim Final. OSWER 9345.1-05. EPA 540-R-92-021. 

September 1992. 

(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres) 

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Hazard Ranking 

System Guidance Manual. Interim Final. Publication 9345.1-07. PB92-963377. EPA 540-R-92-026. November 

1992. 

(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres) 

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. USEPA, 

Superfund Program Implementation Manual Fiscal Year 2008/2009, EPA 9200.3-14-1G-S, April 2007. 

(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/process/spim08.htm) 

42 US Code, Chapter 103, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability. January 1999. 

(http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title42/chapter103_subchapteri_.html)

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Improving Site 

Assessment: Pre-CERCLIS Screening Assessments. 9375.2-11FS, October 1999. 

(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/fact/sascreen.pdf) 

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Improving Site 

Assessment: Abbreviated Preliminary Assessments. 9375.2-09FS, October 1999. 

(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/fact/apa.pdf) 

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Improving Site 

Assessment: Integrating Removal and Remedial Site Evaluations. 9330.0-39FS, April 2000. 

(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/fact/r&reval.pdf)