## 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 S ite Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20460

### ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION ................................ ................................ ... 1 1(a) Ti tle of the Information Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 1 1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 1 2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION ................................ ................................ ........................... 2 2(a) Nee d/Authority for the Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 2 2(b) Practical Utility/Users Of The Data ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 3. NON - DUPLICATION, CONSULT AT IONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION C RITERIA ........................... 5 3(a) Non - duplication ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 5 3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB ................................ ............................... 6 3(c) Consultations ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 6 3(d) Effec ts of Less Frequent Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 6 3(e) General Guidelines ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 6 3(f) Confidentiali ty ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 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, AN D INFORMATION MANAGEMENT ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 11 5(a) Agency Activities ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 11 5(b) Collecti on Methodology and Management ................................ ................................ ..................... 11 5(c) Small Entity Fle xibility ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 13 5(d) Collection Schedule ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 13 6. ESTIMATING THE BURD EN 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 Tota l Burden and Costs ................................ ....................... 17 6(e) Botto m Line Burden Hours and Costs ................................ ................................ ............................ 18 6( f ) Reasons for Change in Burden ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 18 6(g ) Burden Statement ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 18 7. REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 20

### 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 Exhibi t 5. Annual Respondent Burden ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 14 Exhibit 6. Site Assessment Screening Process ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 15 Exhibit 7. Annua l Respondent Burden and Costs ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 16 Exhibit 8. Annual Agency Burden and Cost ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 1 7 Exhibit 9. Total Estimated Respo ndent Burden and Cost Summary ................................ ................................ ........... 18

### 1

1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1(a) Title of the Information Collection This Information Collection Request (ICR) is number 1488.0 8 (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 ecosys tems, 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 com plex 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.

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 N PL 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. S ites 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://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/textidx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40cfr300_main_02.tpl .

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

### 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 ea ch 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 10 0 percent of their costs to develop these reports, except for record maintenance. EPA Region s review each site assessment report submitted by States and Tribes for accuracy and completeness, and to ensure conformance with Superfund site assessment guidance. EPA Region s then use this information to make a decision regarding next Superfund steps fo r a site. EPA Region s 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 St ates 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 FY 12 through FY1 4 . 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 cos ts used by States and Tribes to perform Superfund work. Projected FY 12 - FY1 4 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 121,68 1 hours and $ 11,238,970 , respectively. However, o ne hundred percent of the respondent cost ( $ 11,238,970 ) 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 effec tively 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 No vember, 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.e pa.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 ad dress 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 enabl es 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://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi - bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=BROWSE&TITLE=42USCC103

### 3

classify those releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that warrant further investigation in anticipation of corrective actions. EPA submitted the Agency's 20 11 - 201 5 Strategic Plan 3 to Congress on September 30 , 20 10 , as required under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993. EPA’s strategic plan i ncludes a target for making a cumulative total of 93,400 Superfund site assessment s by the end of FY 201 5 . The site assessment reports submitted by State s and Tribes are included in this target . 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 a ction... 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 contaminat ion 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 si te 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 Secti on 105(8)(A). In 1986, CERCLA was amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). EPA mo dified the HRS in 1990 so that, “to the maximum extent feasible, [it] accurately assesses the relative degree of risk to human health and the envi ronment 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 wat er 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 relea se. 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 require s 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 generate d 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 2011 - 2015 Strategic Plan can be found at http://epa.gov/planandbudget/strategicplan.html

### 4 The specific sections of CER CLA cited above can be found at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi - bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=BROWSE&TITLE=42USCC103 . 2(b) Practical Utility/Users o f the Data The data collected through the site assessment process described in this ICR are u sed to support a site decision regarding the need for further Superfund action. The various data elements gathered, w hich 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;  Re fer 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 man agement 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 Reg ional 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: d evelop ing operating budgets and program plans; allocating resources; tracking State - by - State performance; respond ing to information inquiries under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA); and supply ing input to CERCLIS. EPA regions also use the data to help identify which cleanup option should be used to address sites needing potential remediation (e.g., NPL listing, RCRA, state cleanup program). 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 per form site assessments; generate HRS scores; maintain site files; track site status; and respond to informati on inquiries under FOIA. They also use the information gathered to maintain their own site files. Exhibit 2 summarizes the use and users of site a ssessment 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  Revie w 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, CONSULT AT IONS, 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 various electronic data sources and through the performance of actual on - site investig ations (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 from these state and tribal respondents . Through pre - CERCLIS screening s and Abbreviated Preliminary Assessments , 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 ins tances where prior sampling has been completed and analytical data has been collected, performance of additional sampling may not be necessary.

### 6

3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to Submission to OMB A notice stating this IC R was up for renewal was published in the Federal Register on February 8, 2011 (76 FR 6782) . This initiated a 60 - day comment period which closed on April 11, 2011 . No comments were received during the comment period. 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 projection s for FY 20 1 2 through FY 201 4 . As part of obtaining the State and Tribal burden information, EPA Region s were contacted to determine the nature of site assessment activities p erformed by States and Tribes in each respective Region and the costs (dollars and hours) as sociated with these activities. EPA Region s 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 CE RCLA. 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 P reliminary Assessment (P A) , 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 progr ess towards achieving the strategic target for com

pleting Superfund site assessments . 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 ne w 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 asse ssment 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

4 Section 116 of CERCLA as amended by SARA can be found at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=BROWSE&TITLE=42USCC103 .

### 7

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. 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 S tate 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 e nvironmental p rotection a gencies (governmental) are classified in Division J, Public Admi nistration; 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 Cl assification 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 d esigned to enable the consistent application of the HRS. Information gathering activities are intended to help EPA determine whether hazardous substanc es 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 loca l 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 fili ng). 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 num ber of respondent activities from FY 20 12 through FY 201 4 . 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 . 5 As stated in EPA’s IC R Handbook , revised November 2005, sensitive questions are those concerning sexual behavior, attitudes, religious beliefs, or matters usually considered private.

### 8 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 utili zed 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.

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 - cos t 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 pho ne 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 part y and to define 6 USEPA, Improving Site Assessment: Pre - CERCLIS Screening Assessments, OSWER 9375.2 - 11FS, October 1999.

CERCLA/ NCP (HRS RULE) Pre - CERCLIS Screening As sessment • Non - sampling data collection • Report preparation Exhibit 3: Detailed Site Assessment Activities and Data Collecte d Authority/ Re gulation Site

Asse ssme nt

/ Respondent Site Activities Data Items

Preliminary Assessment

Site In spection

Integrated As sessment Expanded Site In spection 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 • Id entification of potential sources • Location of drinking water supplies

• Samples • Ad ditional site history • In formation on environmental setting

• Workplan preparation • Sample plan preparation • Non - sampling data collection • Focused sample collection • Score update • Report generation • Samples • Additional field data

• Fi le review • Draft score • Revise score • Prepare docket • Pathways • Lik elihood of release • Wa ste Characteristics • Targets CERCLA/ NCP (HRS RULE) Pre - CERCLIS Screening As sessment • Non - sampling data collection • Report preparation Exhibit 3: Detailed Site Assessment Activities and Data Collecte d Authority/ Re gulation Site

Asse ssme nt

/ Respondent Site Activities Data Items

Preliminary Assessment

Site In spection

Integrated As sessment Expanded Site In spection 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 • Id entification of potential sources • Location of drinking water supplies

• Samples • Ad ditional site history • In formation on environmental setting

• Workplan preparation • Sample plan preparation • Non - sampling data collection • Focused sample collection • Score update • Report generation • Samples • Additional field data

• Fi le review • Draft score • Revise score • Prepare docket • Pathways • Lik elihood of release • Wa ste Characteristics • Targets

### 9

EPA’s role at the site. From FY 20 12 through FY 201 4 , EPA projects an annual average of 268 Pre - CERCLIS screenings will be performed by State s or Tribes. 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 20 12 through FY 201 4 , EPA projects an annual average of 140 PAs will be performed by States or Tribes to identify target po pulations and other targets that may be affected by contamination at sites . The scope of the PA must be sufficient to complete several activities , including :  Revie wing existing information about the site;  Conducting a site and environmental reconnaissanc e;  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 a ctivities include: site - specific data, historical site information, potential contamination sources, types of hazardous waste, target information, and location of drinking water supplies . Sam pling 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 inappropriate ly 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 20 12 through FY 201 4 , EPA projects an annual average of 58 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 deci sion (i.e., deferral to RCRA, further assessment needed). The SI consists of five major activities:

 Revie wing 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; 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 I nspections Un der CERCLA , I nterim Final, OSWER 9345.1 - 05, September 1992.

### 10  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. Data collected during the SI could include additional non - sampling data (e.g., field observations, site specific 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 mo st common type s of Integrated Assessments include : Integrated Removal Assessment & PA; and I ntegrated Removal Assessment & SI . From FY 20 12 through FY 201 4 , EPA projects an annual average of 2 Integrated Assessments will be performed by States or Tribes. The stand - alo ne 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 prelimi nary 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 ne w 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 20 12 through FY 201 4 , EPA project s an annual average of 22 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 whethe r further Superfund attention is needed. The scope of work for a Site Reassessment activity is flexible, but will usually represe nt a component of PA or SI activities. As such, it serves as a supplement to previous assessment wo rk, and not as a substitut e for an initial PA or SI . 13 From FY 20 12 through FY 201 4 , EPA p rojects an annual average of 70 site reassessments will be performed by States or Tribes . HRS Package Preparation 10 USEPA, Improving Site Assessment: I ntegrating Removal and Remedial Site Evaluations , OSWER - 9360.0 - 39FS, April 2000. 11 USEPA, Superfund Program I mplementation Manual Fiscal Year 200 8 /200 9 , EPA 9200.3 - 14 - 1G - S , April 200 7 . 12 USEPA, Guidance for Performing Site I nspections Under CERCLA , I nterim Final, OSWER 9345.1 - 05, September 1992. 13 USEPA, Superfund Program I mplementation Manual Fiscal Year 20 11 , EPA 9200.3 - 14 - 1G - V , October, 2010 .

### 11 The final phase in the site assessment process is HRS package preparation. The primary activities associated with this phase of site assessment are:

 File review;  Determining site score;  Revising site score; and  Preparing the documentation record and supporting information. After completion of the site evaluation, compi led 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 wate r 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 p athway, 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 scoresheet s used during HRS package preparation can be found at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/training/hrstrain/htmain/index.htm . From FY 20 12 through FY 201 4 , EPA projects an annual average of 9 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 offi ces 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 un der 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 re lated; 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 add ed 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 mo stly from the desktop by reviewing historical documents and conducting telephone interviews. The majority of

### 12

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. 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 pha se, 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 preli minary 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 ar e 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 com plete 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 asse ssment 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 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 allow s for the integration of traditional site assessment activities to facilitate continuous assessment for high - priority sites until all the necessary data are colle cted. 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:

 Prom

pt 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 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 suppleme nt 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 i n 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://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi Initial Field In vestigation (Recon) Report Received/ Release Identified Exhibit 4: EPA ’ s Integrated Assessment Process

No Further Action Sam ple (Optional) No Further Action Definitely >28.5 Initial 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

### 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. ESTI MATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION 6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden EPA estimates an annual average of 60 States and Tribes will conduct th e 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 thes e activities is approximately 121,681 hours. This estimate was calculated by multiplying the estimated average annual number of State - and Tribal - lead activities projected from FY 20 12 through FY 201 4 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 Activity 1 Estimated Annual Number of

State/Tribal Activities 1 Total Annual National Hours by Activity Pre - CERCLIS Screening 89.19 268 23,904 P reliminary A ssessment (PA) 154.52 140 21,633 Site Inspection (SI) 605.68 58 35,129 Integrated Assessment (IA) 347.00 2 694 Expanded Site Inspection (ESI) 816.10 22 17,954 Site Reassessment 218.66 70 15,306 HRS Package 784.44 9 7,060 TO TAL 569 121,681 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 f our 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 pro cess, the burden per site may range on average from 89 hours (average for conducting pre - CERCLIS screening and no other work) to 2,450 hours (cumulative average for conducting pre - CERCLIS screening, PA, SI, ESI, and HRS package work).

bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=BROWSE&TITLE=42USCC103 . 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.

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs The costs incurred by State and Trib al 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 aut omated data processing (ADP) support. The total estimated annual respondent cost is $ 11,238,970 , however b oth 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 20 12 through FY 201 4 activity data. Depending upon how far a particular site progresses through the site assessment process, the respondent cost p er site may range from $ 7,052 (average for conducting pre - CERCLIS screening and no other work) to $ 190,022 (cumulative average for conducting pre - CERCLIS screening, PA, SI, ESI and HRS package work).



# 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 *

### 16 Exhibit 7 : Annual Respondent Burden and Costs Respondent Activities Estimated Cost per Activity 1 Estimated Annual

Number of State/Tribal Activities 1 Total Annual National Cost by Activity Pre - CERCLIS Screening $ 7,052 268 $ 1,889,998 P reliminary A ssessment (PA) $ 10,071 140 $ 1,409,976 Site Inspection ( SI ) $ 42,962 58 $ 2,491,785 Integrated Assessment (IA) $ 14,000 2 $ 28,000 E xpanded Site Inspection (E SI ) $ 77,438 22 $ 1,703,636 Site Reassessment $ 19,626 70 $ 1,373,810 HRS Package $ 52,499 9 $ 472,495 State/Tribal Infrastructure $ 1,869,270 **SUBTOTAL 569**  **$ 11,238,970**  Less Federal Reimbursement - $ 11,238,970 **TOTAL 569**  **$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 20 12 through FY 201 4 , the estimated average annual burden to the EPA for reviewing and managing site assessment activities conducted by States and Tribes under Superfund is 28,631 hours at an estimated cost of $1,969,813 . Reimbursement of state cos ts brings the total Agency cost to $ 13,208,782 . Exhibit 8 provides detailed information on the estimated annual Agency burden and costs as calculated based on projected FY 20 12 through FY 201 4 activity data. Based on the 20 1 1 GS pay schedule, EPA estimate s an average hourly Regional labor cost of $ 43 , 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 Fede ral 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 $ 68.80 ($ 43 x 1.6).

### 17 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 Revie w/Manage Pre - CERCLIS Screening 24 $ 1,624 268 6,326 $ 435,229 Revie w/Manage Preliminary Assessment 34 $ 2,351 140 4,785 $ 329,208 Revie w/Manage Site Inspection 106 $ 7,309 58 6,162 $ 423,946 Revie w/Manage Integrated Assessment 18 $ 1,238 2 36 $ 2,477 Revie w/Manage Expanded Site Inspection 136 $ 9,382 22 8 3,000 $ 206,400 Revie w/Manage Site Reassessment 71 $ 4,867 70 4,952 $ 340,698 Revie w/Manage HRS Package 374 $ 25,762 9 3,370 $ 231,856 **SUBTOTAL 569**  **28,631 $**  **1,969,813** Reimbursement of State Costs $11, 238,970 **TOTAL 569**  **28,631 $1**  **3,208,782** 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 submissi ons; 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 es timates 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 1 21,68 1 hours at a cost of approximately $ 11, 238,970 . One hundred percent of the respondent cost ($ 11, 238,970 ) is reimbursed by the EPA through cooperative agreements. On average, EPA estimates each respondent will complete and submit approximately 9 to 10 assessment reports per year.

### 18

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs Total annual average estimated respondent burden hours and co sts are shown in Exhibit 9 above . 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. 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 27,192 hours and by $ 50 1,290 . This decrease is primarily due to a 13 percent decline in the number of total activities to be performed by responde nts com bined with a 37 percent decline in State/Tribal infrastructure costs. 6( g ) Burden Statement Depending on the number and type of activities performed, average burden per Response is estimated as 2 13.85 hours. Burden ranges from 8 9 to 2, 450 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 8 9 hours (average for conducting pre - CERCLIS screening and no other work), wh ile sites that progress to NPL listing may require approximately 2, 450 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 s ponsor, and a person is not

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 Revie w/Manage Pre - CERCLIS Screening 89.19 $ 7,052 268 23,904 $ 1,889,998 Revie w/Manage Preliminary Assessment 154.52 $ 10,071 140 21,633 $ 1,409,976 Revie w/Manage Site Inspection 605.68 $ 42,962 58 35,129 $ 2,491,785 Revie w/Manage Integrated Assessment 347.00 $ 14,000 2 694 $ 28,000 Revie w/Manage Expanded Site Inspection 816.10 $ 77,438 22 17,954 $ 1,703,636 Revie w/Manage Site Reassessment 218.66 $ 19,626 70 15,306 $ 1,373,810 Revie w/Manage HRS Package 784.44 $ 52,499 9 7,060 $ 472,495 State/Tribal Infrastructure $ 1,869,270 SUBTOTAL 569 121,681 $11, 238,970 Less Federal Reimbursement - $11, 238,970 **TOTAL 569**  **121,681 $0** 

### 19

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 A gency’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 Docke t ID number EPA - HQ - SFUND - 20 11 - 0 052 , which is available online viewing at http://www.regulations.gov , or in person vie wing at the Superfund Docket in the EPA Docket C enter (EPA/DC) , EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. The EPA/DC 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 v ersion of the public docket is available at http://www.regulations.gov . This site can be used to obtain a copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to ac cess 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 o f Management and Budget, 725 17 th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA - HQ - SFUND - 20 11 - 0 052 and OMB Control Number 2050 - 0095 in any correspondence.

### 20

**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 Sy stem Guidance Manual . Interim Final. Pub lication 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 Manu al Fiscal Year 20 11 , EPA 9200.3 - 14 - 1G - V , October 1, 2010 . ( 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. Im proving 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. Im proving 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. Im proving Site Assessment: Integrating Removal and Remedial Site Evaluations . 9330.0 - 39FS, April 20 00. ( http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/fact/r&reval.pdf )