Document ID: EPA-HQ-SFUND-2004-0005-0004
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2004-11-22T05:00Z

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
i
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
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
2(
a)
Need/
Authority
for
the
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
2(
b)
Practical
Utility/
Users
Of
The
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
3.
NON­
DUPLICATION,
CONSULTATIONS,
AND
OTHER
COLLECTION
CRITERIA
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
3(
a)
Non­
duplication
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
3(
b)
Public
Notice
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
3(
c)
Consultations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
3(
d)
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
3(
e)
General
Guidelines
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
3(
f)
Confidentiality
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
3(
g)
Sensitive
Questions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
4.
THE
RESPONDENTS
AND
THE
INFORMATION
REQUESTED
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
4(
a)
Respondents
Standard
Industrial
Classification
(
SIC)
Codes
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
4(
b)
Information
Requested
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
5.
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTED
­
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY,
AND
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15
5(
a)
EPA
Activities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15
5(
b)
Collection
Methodology
and
Management
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15
5(
c)
Small
Entity
Flexibility
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
5(
d)
Collection
Schedule
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
6.
ESTIMATING
THE
BURDEN
AND
COST
OF
THE
COLLECTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
6(
a)
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
6(
b)
Estimating
Respondent
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
6(
c)
Estimating
Agency
Burden
and
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
21
6(
d)
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
22
6(
e)
Reasons
for
Change
in
Burden
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
23
6(
f)
Burden
Statement
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
23
7.
REFERENCES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
24
ii
LIST
OF
EXHIBITS
Exhibit
1.
Major
Components
of
EPA's
Superfund
Site
Assessment
Process
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
Exhibit
2.
Use
and
Users
of
the
Site
Assessment
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
Exhibit
3.
Detailed
Site
Assessment
Activities
and
Data
Collected
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10
Exhibit
4.
EPA's
Integrated
Assessment
Process
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
Exhibit
5.
Annual
Respondent
Burden
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
19
Exhibit
6.
Site
Assessment
Screening
Process
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
Exhibit
7.
Annual
Respondent
Burden
and
Costs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
21
Exhibit
8.
Annual
Agency
Burden
and
Cost
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
22
1
55
Federal
Register
51532
(
12/
14/
90)
as
codified
in
40
CFR
part
300,
http://
uscode.
house.
gov/
download/
title_
42.
php.
2
USEPA,
Improving
Site
Assessment:
Pre­
CERCLIS
Screening
Assessments,
OSWER
9375.2­
11FS,
October
1999.
3
USEPA,
Guidance
for
Performing
Site
Inspections
Under
CERCLA,
Interim
Final,
OSWER
9345.1­
05,
September
1992.

1
1.
IDENTIFICATION
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
1(
a)
Title
of
the
Information
Collection
This
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
is
number
1488.06
and
is
entitled,
"
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.
Uniform
application
of
the
HRS
by
the
EPA,
States,
Tribes,
and
their
contractors
enables
EPA
to
identify
and
prioritize
hazardous
waste
sites
that
warrant
further
investigation.
1
EPA
uses
a
multi­
phase
evaluation
to
determine
and
implement
the
appropriate
responses
to
releases
of
hazardous
substances
to
the
environment.
Each
site
undergoes
a
minimal
screening
process
(
CERCLIS
pre­
screening)
2
to
determine
whether
the
CERCLA
site
assessment
process
is
appropriate
for
the
site
or
if
another
option
is
more
appropriate.
Once
a
hazardous
waste
site
is
identified
as
appropriate
for
the
site
assessment
process,
EPA
enters
information
about
the
site
in
a
database
called
the
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Information
System
(
CERCLIS).
Sites
listed
in
CERCLIS
generally
go
through
the
site
assessment
process.
During
the
site
assessment
process,
EPA
and
States
or
Tribes
collect
data
to
identify,
evaluate,
and
rank
hazardous
waste
sites
based
on
HRS
criteria.

Throughout
the
site
assessment
process,
the
HRS
is
used
as
a
screening
tool
for
determining
whether
a
site
should
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
scoring
28.50
or
greater
are
eligible
for
placement
on
the
NPL.
3
A
more
detailed
explanation
of
how
data
collected
during
the
site
assessment
process
are
used
by
the
Superfund
program
is
provided
in
Section
2.2,
Use
and
Users
of
the
Data.

The
site
assessment
process
includes
three
primary
screening
activities:
Preliminary
Assessment
(
PA),
Site
Inspection
(
SI),
and
HRS
scoring
package
development.
During
the
PA,
EPA
collects
and
reviews
readily
available
information
(
i.
e.,
site
history,
drinking
water
sources,
surrounding
populations)
about
a
site
to
determine
whether
a
threat
or
potential
threat
exists
and
to
decide
if
further
investigation
is
needed.
During
an
SI,
EPA
further
evaluates
the
extent
to
which
a
site
presents
a
threat
to
human
health
or
the
environment
by
performing
fieldwork
to
determine
whether
hazardous
substances
are
present
at
the
site
4
USEPA,
Hazard
Ranking
System
Guidance
Manual,
Interim
Final,
OSWER
9345.1­
07,
November
1992.

2
Pre­
CERCLIS
Screen/
Site
Discovery
Preliminary
Assessment
(
PA)
Site
Inspection
(
SI)
Hazard
Ranking
System
(
HRS)
National
Priorities
List
(
NPL)

Removal
Actions
May
Occur
At
Any
Time
NFRAP
and
Deferred
(
Information
provided
to
states
&
other
regulatory
agencies)
and
are
migrating
to
the
surrounding
environment.
There
also
is
an
effort
to
review
data
when
it
first
comes
to
EPA's
attention.
Through
pre­
CERCLIS
screening
EPA
can
ensure
that
uncontaminated
or
lightly
contaminated
sites
are
not
arbitrarily
entered
into
CERCLIS
for
Superfund­
financed
cleanup,
evaluation,
or
oversight
activities.
Low­
cost
mechanisms
are
used
to
determine
whether
the
site
is
already
being
addressed
by
another
party
and
to
define
EPA's
role/
potential
role
at
the
site.
At
the
conclusion
of
each
phase
of
the
site
assessment
process,
EPA
applies
the
HRS
model
to
derive
a
preliminary
site
score.
The
site
score
is
used
to
determine
whether
further
investigation
is
necessary
or
whether
the
site
should
receive
a
"
No
Further
Remedial
Action
Planned"
(
NFRAP)
designation.
A
NFRAP
designation
means
that
further
remedial
assessment
under
the
Federal
Superfund
program
is
not
planned,
although
Superfund
removal
assessment
and/
or
action
may
still
take
place.
Aside
from
the
NFRAP
designation,
sites
are
subject
to
several
other
outcomes.
Sites
that
present
an
immediate
danger
to
human
health
and
the
environment
may
be
referred
to
the
removal
program
for
emergency
response.
Sites
can
also
be
referred
to
the
State
or
to
other
programs
for
further
consideration
(
i.
e.,
deferral
to
RCRA
Corrective
Action
Authorities).
4
Exhibit
1
outlines
the
major
components
of
the
site
assessment
process
from
pre­
CERCLIS
screening/
site
discovery
to
NPL
listing.
More
detailed
information
on
the
general
activities
performed
and
data
collected
during
the
Superfund
site
assessment
process
is
provided
in
Section
4(
b)
Information
Requested.

Exhibit
1.
Major
Components
of
EPA's
Superfund
Site
Assessment
Process
5
USEPA,
Guidance
for
Performing
Site
Inspections
Under
CERCLA,
Interim
Final,
OSWER
9345.1­
05,
September
1992.
6
USEPA,
Site
Inspection
Prioritization
Guidance,
OSWER
9345.1­
15FS,
August
1993.
7
Section
104
of
CERCLA
can
be
found
in
http://
uscode.
house.
gov/
download/
title_
42.
php
3
Sites
investigated
by
EPA
range
in
complexity;
therefore
the
site
assessment
process
is
designed
to
adapt
investigations
to
expedite
site
decisions.
Some
sites
may
require
that
specialized
field
data
gathering
techniques
such
as
ground
water
monitoring
well
installation
be
used
to
adequately
assess
the
risks.
In
such
cases,
an
Expanded
Site
Inspection
(
ESI)
may
be
needed
to
produce
reliable
HRS
data.
ESIs
test
hypotheses
developed
during
the
SI
by
collecting
additional
data
beyond
that
collected
in
the
SI.
5
A
Site
Inspection
Prioritization
(
SIP)
was
established
by
EPA
as
a
temporary
intermediate
step
in
the
site
assessment
process
to
collect
additional
information
for
sites
that
were
placed
on
hold
prior
to
publication
of
the
HRS
final
rule
in
December
1990.
Additional
information
was
needed
for
these
sites
in
order
to
meet
the
data
requirements
of
the
revised
HRS.
6
EPA
authorized
SIPs
only
for
sites
that
had
an
SI
performed
prior
to
August
1992.

In
an
effort
to
reduce
the
amount
of
time
and
money
spent
on
a
given
site,
some
phases
of
the
site
assessment
process
may
be
combined.
For
example,
a
single
combined
PA/
SI
investigation
instead
of
the
two
separate
investigations
may
be
performed.
In
some
cases,
removal
site
evaluation
activities
can
be
coordinated
with
site
assessment
activities
to
form
a
single
investigation
called
an
Integrated
Removal
and
Remedial
Site
Evaluation
(
Integrated
Assessment).
When
applicable,
Integrated
Assessments
reduce
duplicative
efforts,
saving
both
time
and
money
for
all
parties
involved.
In
addition,
an
ESI/
Remedial
Investigation
(
RI)
may
be
performed
on
a
site.
An
ESI/
RI
combines
the
data­
gathering
activities
that
are
common
to
both
the
ESI
and
the
RI,.
and
are
recommended
at
sites
where
conditions
indicate
that
the
HRS
score
will
be
above
28.50.
ESI/
RIs
do
not
necessarily
replace
RIs
because
the
characteristics
of
a
site
may
not
be
known
prior
to
completion
of
an
ESI/
RI.
Occasionally,
new
information
on
sites
previously
assessed
is
identified.
In
these
cases,
a
Site
Reassessment
may
be
performed
as
a
supplement
to
the
previous
assessment
work.

State
and
Tribal
involvement
in
the
Superfund
program
has
grown
over
time.
States
are
now
involved
in
virtually
every
phase
of
the
Superfund
decision­
making
process.
CERCLA
requires
EPA
to
coordinate
with
States
and
Tribes
when
the
Federal
government
leads
or
oversees
the
site
response.

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
per
site
assessment
activity
multiplied
by
the
average
number
of
sites
assessed
per
year.
In
order
to
calculate
the
burden
for
this
ICR,
EPA
Regions
provided
information
on
the
burden
of
site
assessment
activities
on
State
and
Tribal
respondents.

Projected
FY04
data
provided
by
EPA
Headquarters
and
Regional
information
from
the
States
and
Tribes
show
that
the
estimated
annual
hour
and
cost
burden
to
State
and
Tribal
respondents
for
performing
site
assessment
activities
is
approximately
150,285
hours
and
$
13,580,375,
respectively.
One
hundred
percent
of
the
respondent
cost
($
13,580,375)
is
reimbursed
by
the
EPA
through
cooperative
agreements
(
CAs)
as
set
forth
by
Section
104(
d)
of
CERCLA.
7
Section
6.0
of
this
document,
Estimating
the
Burden
and
Cost
of
Collection,
provides
a
more
detailed
discussion
of
the
burden
to
respondents.
4
This
ICR
is
prepared
using
the
guidance
contained
in
the
Office
of
Policy,
Planning,
and
Evaluation's
(
OPPE's)
February
1999
ICR
Handbook.
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
classify
those
releases
or
threatened
releases
of
hazardous
substances
that
warrant
further
investigation
in
anticipation
of
corrective
actions.

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
should
be
included
on
the
NPL.
Each
State
or
Tribe
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
5
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.

The
specific
sections
of
CERCLA
cited
above
can
be
found
in
Http://
uscode.
house.
gov/
download/
title_
42.
php.

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;

Respond
to
sites
where
removal
actions
are
warranted;

Rank
sites
based
on
the
HRS;

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
maintain
the
CERCLIS
database,
respond
to
information
requests,
and
perform
analyses
for
EPA
management,
OMB,
Congress,
and
the
general
public.
6
Staff
at
the
ten
EPA
Regions
use
Superfund
site
assessment
data
for
purposes
similar
to
Headquarters
­
to
develop
operating
budgets
and
program
plans;
allocate
resources;
track
State­
by­
State
performance;
respond
to
information
inquiries
under
the
Freedom
of
Information
Act
(
FOIA);
and
supply
input
to
CERCLIS.
Regions
must
also
respond
to
inquiries
by
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
State
files.

Exhibit
2
summarizes
the
use
and
users
of
site
assessment
and
HRS
information.

Exhibit
2.
Use
and
Users
of
the
Site
Assessment
Data
EPA
HEADQUARTERS
$
List
NPL
sites
$
QA
HRS
packages
$
Prepare
site
assessment
guidance
manuals
$
Maintain
CERCLIS
$
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
$
Perform
site
assessment
$
Generate
HRS
scores
$
Track
site
status
$
Coordinate
with
other
environmental
programs
$
Maintain
site
files
$
Respond
to
information
inquiries
(
FOIA)
7
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
on­
site
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.

Except
for
federal
facilities,
the
field
data
gathered
during
the
site
assessment
process
are
not
generally
collected
by
any
other
Federal
agency.
In
the
case
of
federal
facilities,
the
appropriate
federal
agency
collects
the
necessary
data,
prepares
the
assessment
report
(
e.
g.,
PA,
SI),
and
submits
the
report
to
EPA
for
review.
Since
EPA
only
reviews
these
reports,
there
is
no
duplication
of
effort.

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
A
notice
stating
that
this
ICR
was
up
for
renewal
was
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
June
21,
2004
(
69
FR
34346).
This
initiated
a
60­
day
comment
period
which
closed
on
August
21,
2004.
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
FY
2004
site
assessment
projections.
As
part
of
obtaining
the
State
and
Tribal
burden
information,
EPA
Regional
offices
were
contacted
to
determine
the
nature
of
site
assessment
activities
performed
by
States
and
Tribes
in
that
Region
and
the
costs
(
dollars
and
hours)
associated
with
these
activities.

3(
d)
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
Yearly
collection
activities
associated
with
the
site
assessment
process
are
based
on
the
number
of
sites
discovered
and
the
number
of
sites
in
the
CERCLIS
inventory
needing
assessment
work.
The
application
of
various
guidance
documents
and
other
directives
allows
for
the
combination
of
several
stages
of
the
site
assessment
process
that
result
in
a
minimization
of
the
data
collection
burden.
In
addition,
pre­
CERCLIS
screening
avoids
the
discovery
of
sites
that
are
not
appropriate
for
the
CERCLA
site
assessment
process.
8
As
stated
in
the
Office
of
Policy,
Planning,
and
Evaluation's
(
OPPE's)
February
1999
ICR
Handbook,
sensitive
questions
are
those
concerning
sexual
behavior,
attitudes,
religious
beliefs,
or
matters
usually
considered
private.

8
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
due
to
the
following
circumstances:
frequency
of
site
discoveries;
time
required
for
site
evaluation
and
scoring;
and
the
number
of
NPL
update
proposals
performed
during
a
given
year.
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
3
year
ICR
period,
as
assessment
and,
if
necessary,
remediation
may
take
more
than
3
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
caseby
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.

3(
g)
Sensitive
Questions
Sensitive
questions
are
not
associated
with
the
information
collection
activities
performed
during
site
assessment
and
HRS
score
preparation.
8
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.
9
Based
on
actual
LOE
and
clerical
figures
related
to
site
evaluation
activities
over
a
five­
year
period.

9
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
(
i.
e.,
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).
9
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
annual
burden
incurred
by
States
and
Tribes
for
collecting
information
necessary
to
move
a
site
through
the
site
assessment
process.
In
order
to
determine
this
burden,
the
EPA
Regions
provided
information
about
State
and
Tribal
site
assessment
activities
and
FY04
projections
of
number
of
activities,
average
hours,
and
average
dollars.

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:
Combined
Preliminary
Assessment/
Site
Inspection,
Integrated
Removal/
Remedial
Evaluation,
Site
Inspection
Prioritization,
Expanded
Site
Inspection,
and
Expanded
Site
Inspection/
Remedial
Investigation.

Exhibit
3
provides
an
overview
of
the
activities
performed
and
data
items
collected
for
the
various
phases
of
site
assessment
and
illustrates
where
the
sub­
phases
may
be
utilized
and
the
various
outcomes.
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.
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.
In
FY04,
EPA
10
projects
that
607
Pre­
CERCLIS
screenings
will
be
performed,
of
which
approximately
501
will
be
State/
Tribal­
lead
(
i.
e.,
a
State
or
Tribe
is
conducting
the
activity).
11
Pre­
CERCLIS
Screening
Assessment
PA
SI
Combined
PA/
SI
SIP
Integrated
Removal
Assessment/
Remedial
Evaluation
ESI
HRS
Package
Preparation
ESI/
RI

Non­
sampling
data
colllection

Report
Preparation

Work
Plan
Preparation

Non­
Sampling
data
collection

Site
Reconnaissance

PA­
Scoresheets
completion

PA­
Score
generation

Report
peneration

Work
plan
preparation

Sample
plan
preparation

Health
and
safety
plan
preparation

Non­
sampling
data
collection

Site
reconnaissance

Sample
Collection

Data
Validation

SI­
Scoresheet
completion

SUPER­
Sreen
generation

Report
preparation
Site
Reassessment

Work
plan
preparation

Sample
plan
preparation

Non­
sampling
data
collection

Focused
sample
collection

Score
update

Report
generation

File
review

Draft
score

Revise
score

Prepare
Docket

Site
name,
location

Superfund
eligibility

CERCLIS
entry
decision

Site
name,
location
and
mailing
address

Historical
site
information

Current/
past
owners
&
operators

Identification
of
potential
sources

Location
of
drinking
water
supplies

Samples

Additional
site
history

Information
on
environmental
setting

Samples

Additional
field
data

Pathways

Likelihood
of
release

Waste
characteristics

Targets
AUTHORITY/
REGULATION
CERCLA
/
NCP
(
HRS
RULE)
SITE
ASSESSMENT
RESPONDENT
SITE
ACTIVITIES
DATA
ITEMS
Exhibit
3.
Detailed
Site
Assessment
Activities
and
Data
Collected
Preliminary
Assessment
The
PA
is
a
relatively
rapid,
low­
cost
compilation
of
readily
available
information
pertaining
to
the
site
and
its
surroundings.
In
FY04,
EPA
projected
that
227
PAs
will
be
performed,
of
which
approximately
133
will
be
State/
Tribal­
lead.
Data
collection
activities
performed
during
the
PA
emphasize
10
USEPA,
Guidance
for
Performing
Preliminary
Assessments
Under
CERCLA,
OSWER
9345.0­
01A,
September
1991.
11
USEPA,
Improving
Site
Assessment:
Abbreviated
Preliminary
Assessments,
OSWER
9375.2­
09FS,
October
1999
12
USEPA,
Guidance
for
Performing
Site
Inspections
Under
CERCLA,
Interim
Final,
OSWER
9345.1­
05,
September
1992.

12
identifying
target
populations
and
other
targets
that
may
be
affected
by
contamination
at
the
site.
The
scope
of
the
PA
investigation
must
be
sufficient
to
complete
several
activities:

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.
10
Sampling
activities
are
not
performed
during
this
phase
of
site
assessment.

In
certain
situations,
an
Abbreviated
PA
(
APA)
11
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;

$
Available
information
allows
EPA
to
make
an
early
decision
to
undertake
a
Combined
PA/
SI,
and
SI,
or
another
Superfund
investigation;
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.
Looking
ahead
to
FY04,
129
SIs
are
projected
to
be
performed
nationally,
of
which
approximately
68
will
be
State/
Tribal­
lead
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.

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.
12
13
USEPA,
Improving
Site
Assessment:
Combined
PA/
SI
Assessments,
OSWER
9375.2­
10FS,
October
1999
14
USEPA,
Site
Inspection
Prioritization
Guidance,
OSWER
9345.1­
15FS,
August
1993.
15
USEPA,
Improving
Site
Assessment:
Integrating
Removal
and
Remedial
Site
Evaluations,
OSWER­
9360.0­
39FS,
April
2000.

13
Combined
PA/
SI
If
site
conditions
warrant,
these
two
site
assessment
processes
(
PA
and
SI)
may
be
performed
simultaneously
as
a
Combined
PA/
SI13.
The
product
will
be
one
report
that
incorporates
all
the
requirements
of
PAs
and
SIs.
In
FY01,
EPA
projects
that
73
Combined
PA/
SIs
will
be
performed,
and
of
those
43
will
be
State/
Tribal­
lead.
As
with
the
separate
PA
and
SI
assessments,
a
combined
PA/
SI
is
performed
to
determine
what
steps,
if
any,
need
to
occur
next
at
the
site.

Site
Inspection
Prioritization
A
SIP
is
a
temporary
intermediate
step
in
the
site
assessment
process
designed
to
update
SIs
that
were
performed
before
publication
of
the
September
1992
Guidance
for
Performing
Site
Inspections
Under
CERCLA.
Changes
in
SI
guidance
were
made
in
response
to
revisions
to
the
HRS
in
December
1990.
During
the
SIP,
additional
data
are
gathered
to
make
screening
decisions
on
the
discrete
universe
of
sites
using
minimal
resources.
Data
gathering
activities
conducted
for
a
SIP
depend
on
the
amount
of
additional
information
necessary
to
update
existing
SIs
in
accordance
with
current
guidance
and
the
revised
HRS.
Typical
SIP
activities
include:

Reviewing
available
information
including
analytical
data;

Organizing
the
project
team
and
developing
a
SIP
work
plan;

Collecting
non­
sampling
data;

Performing
limited
sampling
if
needed;

Evaluating
all
information
and
updating
the
SI
score
based
on
the
revised
HRS;
and

Preparing
a
brief
site
summary
report
(
usually
in
the
form
of
a
memo).

Data
gathered
during
the
SIP
may
include
correcting
additional
site
information
(
e.
g.,
historical
site
use)
and
target
information
(
e.
g.,
wells
within
four
miles,
surface
water
intakes,
fisheries
and
sensitive
environments
within
15
miles
downstream).
Limited
samples
may
also
be
collected
during
the
SIP
if
it
is
required
for
a
screening
decision.
14
While
the
SIP
backlog
has
been
essentially
completed,
this
activity
may
be
appropriate
at
some
older
sites
requiring
reassessment
if
and
when
new
information
is
identified.
In
FY04,
EPA
projects
that
15
SIPs
will
be
performed,
and
of
those
none
will
be
State/
Tribal­
lead.

Integrated
Removal/
Remedial
Evaluations
Site
assessment
and
removal
assessment
activities
may
be
combined
into
a
single
Integrated
Assessment
activity
if
the
appropriate
site
conditions
exist.
15
Integrated
Assessments
further
reduce
repetitive
tasks
and
costs
on
site
characterization.
The
three
most
common
types
of
Integrated
Assessments
include:
Integrated
Removal
Assessment
&
PA;
Integrated
Removal
Assessment
&
SI;
and
Integrated
Removal
Assessment
&
Combined
PA/
SI.
In
FY04,
EPA
projects
that
26
Integrated
Removal/
Remedial
Evaluations
will
be
performed,
and
of
those
12
will
be
State/
Tribal­
lead.
The
stand­
alone
requirements
16
USEPA,
Superfund
Program
Implementation
Manual
Fiscal
Year
2002/
2003,
EPA
9200.3­
14­
1G­
P,
April
2001.
17
USEPA,
Guidance
for
Performing
Site
Inspections
Under
CERCLA,
Interim
Final,
OSWER
9345.1­
05,
September
1992.
18
USEPA,
Superfund
Program
Implementation
Manual
Fiscal
Year
2002/
2003,
EPA
9200.3­
14­
1G­
P,
April
2001.
19
USEPA,
Superfund
Program
Implementation
Manual
Fiscal
Year
2002/
2003,
EPA
9200.3­
14­
1G­
P,
April
2001.

14
from
the
site
assessment
and
removal
assessment
activities
must
be
met
even
though
the
data
will
be
integrated.
16
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.
17
In
FY04,
EPA
projects
that
81
ESIs
will
be
performed,
and
of
those
43
will
be
State/
Tribal­
lead.

Expanded
Site
Inspection/
Remedial
Investigation
The
ESI
may
be
combined
with
a
remedial
investigation
to
produce
an
ESI/
RI.
An
RI
uses
site
characterization
data
to
develop
and
evaluate
effective
remedial
alternatives.
It
also
provides
assessments
of
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
During
the
ESI/
RI,
site
characterization
data
common
to
both
ESI
and
RI
activities
are
collected.
It
is
recommended
to
perform
ESI/
RIs
on
sites
where
conditions
indicate
that
the
HRS
score
will
be
greater
than
28.50
and
remediation
will
be
necessary.
In
FY04,
EPA
projects
that
two
ESI/
RIs
will
be
performed,
and
one
of
those
will
be
State/
Tribal­
lead.
A
separate
RI
is
performed
subsequent
to
this
step,
however
the
RI
can
now
be
more
specific
and
accurate
by
utilizing
the
site
characterization
data
obtained
through
the
ESI/
RI.
18
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
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).
19
In
FY04,
EPA
projects
that
158
Site
Reassessments
will
be
performed,
and
of
those
82
will
be
State/
Tribal­
lead.
15
HRS
Package
Preparation
The
final
phase
in
the
site
assessment
process
is
HRS
package
preparation.
It
is
projected
that
19
sites
will
have
HRS
packages
prepared
in
FY04;
of
those,
two
will
be
State/
Tribal­
lead.
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,
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
in
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
superfund/
resources/
hrstrain/
htmain/
3path.
htm.

Federal
Facility
Reviews
EPA
plays
an
advisory
role
when
it
comes
to
PAs,
SIs,
and
ESIs
at
Federal
Facilities.
EPA
is
limited
to
reviewing
PA,
SI,
and
ESI
reports
developed
and
submitted
by
the
Federal
Agencies
responsible
for
a
given
Federal
Facility.
Upon
reviewing
the
PA,
SI,
or
ESI
for
completeness,
and
working
with
the
other
Federal
Agency
to
address
any
deficiencies,
EPA
then
determines
what
next
steps
are
appropriate
with
respect
to
NPL
listing.
It
is
projected
that
45
sites
will
have
Federal
Facility
reviews
in
FY04,
of
which
20
reviews
will
be
State/
Tribal­
lead.
16
5.
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTED
­
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY,
AND
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
5(
a)
EPA
Activities
The
EPA
Regions
conduct
site
assessment
activities,
as
well
as
providing
oversight
for
State
and
Tribal
site
assessment
cooperative
agreements.
The
EPA
Regions
utilize
contractors
to
support
the
completion
of
the
site
assessment
activities
specified
in
Exhibit
3.

In
addition
to
overseeing
the
activities
of
the
Regional
and
State
offices,
EPA
Headquarters
performs
the
following
functions
in
conjunction
with
the
activities
associated
with
site
assessment
and
HRS
score
generation:

Audits
and
reviews
data
submissions;

Maintains
CERCLIS
database;
and

Answers
respondent
questions.

EPA
Headquarters
is
responsible
for
ensuring
national
consistency
for
site
assessment
and
placement
of
sites
on
the
NPL.
A
quality
assurance
review
is
conducted
by
EPA
Headquarters
on
each
HRS
package
prepared
by
the
Regions,
States
or
Tribes.
EPA
Headquarters
uses
a
contractor
to
support
activities
relating
to
site
assessment,
HRS
scoring,
and
NPL
listing.

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
the
use
of
PA­
Score
Sheets,
PA­
Score
software,
or
other
suitable
methods
to
generate
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
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
20
USEPA,
Superfund
Program
Implementation
Manual
Fiscal
Year
2002/
2003,
EPA
9200.3­
14­
1G­
P,
April
2001.
21
Ibid.

17
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
through
the
use
of
SI
Scoresheets
or
the
SUPERScreen
software
package
generating
a
preliminary
HRS
score.
An
SI
report
is
the
final
product
of
this
phase.
Information
collected
during
the
SI
is
incorporated
into
subsequent
assessment
work.

Regions
can
combine
PA
and
SI
activities
where
warranted
by
site
conditions
to
reduce
repetitive
tasks
and
ultimately
costs.
The
combining
of
PA
and
SI
activities
is
known
as
a
Combined
PA/
SI
Assessment.
A
Combined
PA/
SI
may
be
contained
in
one
physical
report,
as
long
as
it
contains
all
of
the
elements
that
would
have
been
addressed
under
separate
PA
and
SI
reports.
As
with
the
separate
PA
and
SI
assessments,
a
Combined
PA/
SI
is
performed
to
determine
what
steps,
if
any,
need
to
occur
next
at
the
site.
20
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.

When
site
conditions
indicate
that
it
is
likely
to
score
28.50
or
above
and
an
RI
will
be
needed,
an
ESI/
RI
may
be
performed
to
save
the
time
and
cost
of
characterizing
the
site
on
different
occasions.
An
ESI/
RI
is
an
integrated
assessment
consisting
of
an
ESI
and
an
RI.
The
ESI/
RI
is
used
to
expedite
remedial
response
by
gathering
site
characterization
data
common
to
both
ESI
and
RI
activities
in
one
step.
21
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
has
developed
an
automated
site
scoring
tool
for
the
revised
HRS,
called
"
SUPERScreen"
(
formerly
known
as
PREScore).
SUPERScreen
includes
a
user's
manual,
help
screens,
HRS
scoresheet
calculation
package,
and
documentation
for
the
Quality
Assurance
process.
SUPERScreen
assists
individuals
who
perform
site
assessments
by
providing
a
computerized
option
for
site
score
generation.
A
second
computer
program,
"
PA­
Score,"
is
available
to
facilitate
application
of
the
HRS
at
the
PA
stage.
PA­
Score
uses
a
number
of
18
Report
Received/
Release
Identified
Initial
Screening
for
Emergency
Eligibility
File
Search
(
if
time
allows)
Initial
Field
Investigation
(
Recon)
Review
Data/
Decision
on
Further
Action
Complete
the
PA
and
Report
Classic
Emergency
Response
Do
Removal
Time
Critical
Removal?
Sampling
Needed?
Integrated
Sampling
Plan
SI/
Removal
Assessment
sampling
Report
Do
Removal
Regional
Decision
Team
No
Further
Action
Sample
(
Optional)
No
Further
Action
<
28.50
Definitely
>
28.50
May
be
>
28.50
No
>
28.50
default
values
for
information
not
normally
available
at
the
PA
stage
of
the
site
assessment
process
so
that
a
preliminary
assessment
of
the
threats
posed
by
the
site
can
be
determined.

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
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.

Exhibit
4.
EPA's
Integrated
Assessment
Process
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
22
Section
116
of
CERCLA
as
amended
by
SARA
can
be
found
in
http://
uscode.
house.
gov/
download/
title_
42.
php.

19
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.
22
For
sites
brought
to
EPA's
attention
via
a
citizen's
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
The
annual
burden
for
respondents
is
a
function
of
the
number
of
State­
lead
activities
performed
per
year.
The
estimated
annual
burden
for
State
and
Tribal
authorities
for
site
evaluation
activities
is
approximately
150,285
hours.
This
estimate
was
calculated
by
multiplying
the
estimated
number
of
State/
Tribal
activities
projected
for
FY04
by
the
average
hours
needed
to
perform
each
activity
and
summing
the
totals
for
all
Regions.
Exhibit
5
provides
detailed
information
on
the
estimated
annual
respondent
burden
(
calculated
as
a
weighted
average).
23
Figure
provided
by
EPA
Headquarters.

20
Exhibit
5.
Annual
Respondent
Burden
Respondent
Activities
Estimated
Hours
Per
Activity
1
No.
FY2004
State/
Tribal
Lead
Activities1
Total
Annual
National
Hours
by
Activity
Pre­
CERCLIS
Screening
56
501
28,129
PA
129
133
17,160
SI
494
68
33,587
Combined
PA/
SI
551
43
23,703
SIP
0
0
0
Integrated
Removal
Assessment
&
PA
308
5
1,540
Integrated
Removal
Assessment
&
SI
536
3
1,608
Integrated
Removal
Assessment
&
Combined
PA/
SI
588
4
2,350
ESI
655
43
28,170
ESI/
RI
2,500
1
2,500
Site
Reassessment
103
82
8,438
HRS
550
2
1,100
Federal
Facility
PA
Review
60
10
600
Federal
Facility
SI
Review
140
10
1,400
Federal
Facility
ESI
Review
0
0
0
TOTAL
905
150,285
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
five
percent
of
the
sites
in
the
site
assessment
process
are
currently
listed
on
the
NPL.
23
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
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
56
hours
(
average
for
conducting
pre­
CERCLIS
screening
and
no
other
work)
to
1884
hours
(
cumulative
average
for
conducting
pre­
CERCLIS
screening,
PA,
SI,
ESI,
and
HRS
package
work).

Exhibit
6.
Site
Assessment
Screening
Process
*
Historically
includes
five
percent
of
the
total
sites
in
the
CERCLIS
inventory.
21
Pre­
CERCLIS
Screenings
Preliminary
Assessments
(
PA)

Site
Inspections
(
SI)

HRS
Scoring
Packages
NPL
Listing
*

6(
b)
Estimating
Respondent
Costs
The
costs
incurred
by
States
and
Tribes
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.
Both
activityspecific
costs
and
infrastructure
costs
are
reimbursed
by
the
EPA.
The
total
estimated
annual
respondent
cost
is
$
13,580,375.
Exhibit
7
provides
detailed
information
on
the
estimated
annual
respondent
burden
and
costs
as
calculated
based
on
projected
FY04
activity
data.
Depending
upon
how
far
a
particular
site
progresses
through
the
site
assessment
process,
the
respondent
cost
per
site
may
range
from
$
3,431
(
average
for
conducting
pre­
CERCLIS
screening
and
no
other
work)
to
$
119,510
(
cumulative
average
for
conducting
pre­
CERCLIS
screening,
PA,
SI,
ESI
and
HRS
package
work).
24
Based
on
information
provided
by
EPA
Headquarters
and
EPA
Regions.

22
Exhibit
7.
Annual
Respondent
Burden
and
Costs
Respondent
Activities
Estimated
Cost
per
Activity1
No.
FY2004
State/
Tribal
Lead
Activities
Total
Annual
National
Cost
by
Activity
Pre­
CERCLIS
Screening
3,431
501
1,719,055
PA
7,951
133
1,057,499
SI
28,901
68
1,965,276
Combined
PA/
SI
36,746
43
1,580,064
SIP
0
0
0
Integrated
Removal
Assessment
&
PA
13,350
5
66,748
Integrated
Removal
Assessment
&
SI
26,137
3
78,410
Integrated
Removal
Assessment
&
Combined
PA/
SI
37,561
4
150,245
ESI
49,727
43
2,138,268
ESI/
RI
350,000
1
350,000
Site
Reassessment
6,318
82
518,000
HRS
29,500
2
59,000
Federal
Facility
PA
Review
3,600
10
36,000
Federal
Facility
SI
Review
8,400
10
84,000
Federal
Facility
ESI
Review
0
0
0
State/
Tribal
Infrastructure
3,777,750
TOTAL
905
$
13,580,375
1
Weighted
average
based
on
activity
costs
provided
by
the
EPA
Regions
6(
c)
Estimating
Agency
Burden
and
Costs
EPA
Regional
offices
conduct
site
evaluation
and
HRS
package
preparation
activities
for
EPAlead
sites
parallel
to
those
conducted
by
State/
Tribal
respondents
for
State/
Tribal­
lead
sites.
Based
on
FY04
projections,
the
estimated
annual
burden
to
the
EPA
for
site
assessment
activities
is
$
204,593
hours.
24
Based
on
Regional
projections,
estimated
annual
cost
to
the
EPA
is
$
24,953,255.
Exhibit
8
provides
detailed
information
on
the
estimated
annual
Agency
burden
and
costs
as
calculated
based
on
projected
FY04
activity
data.
25
Based
on
information
provided
by
EPA
Headquarters.

23
Exhibit
8.
Annual
Agency
Burden
and
Cost
Respondent
Activity
Estimated
Hours
per
Activity
1
Estimated
Cost
per
Activity1
Estimated
No.
FY2004
EPALead
Activities
Total
Hours
by
Activity
Total
Costs
by
Activity
Pre­
CERCLIS
Screening
19
1,004
106
2,007
106,400
PA
150
9,521
94
14,137
895,020
SI
738
49,985
61
45,000
3,049,088
Combined
PA/
SI
819
57,668
30
24,583
1,730,026
SIP
650
45,193
15
9,743
677,889
Integrated
Removal
Assessment
&
PA
326
16,333
3
978
48,999
Integrated
Removal
Assessment
&
SI
612
59,065
1
612
59,065
Integrated
Removal
Assessment
&
Combined
PA/
SI
733
60,470
10
7,330
604,700
ESI
1,076
82,940
38
40,906
3,151,715
ESI/
RI
3,200
330,000
1
3,200
330,000
Site
Reassessment
273
18,101
76
20,729
1,375,698
HRS
602
36,826
25
15,053
920,647
Federal
Facility
PA
Review
32
2,197
15
475
32,950
Federal
Facility
SI
Review
113
8,552
9
1,015
76,970
Federal
Facility
ESI
Review
69
3,850
1
69
3,850
Other
Costs
18,756
11,890,238
TOTAL
485
204,593
$
24,953,255
1
Weighted
average
based
on
activity
hours
and
costs
provided
by
the
EPA
Regions
The
total
burden
includes
costs
for
Regional
contractors
for
each
of
the
site
assessment
activities
and
Other
Costs.
Other
Costs
includes
Headquarters
HRS
contractor
costs,
EPA
Headquarters
and
Regional
staffing
costs,
and
lab
costs
associated
with
EPA's
Contract
Laboratory
Program.
Approximately
14
full­
time
equivalents
(
FTE)
at
EPA
Headquarters
and
90
FTE
at
EPA
Regional
offices
perform
oversight
and
quality
assurance
activities
for
all
State,
Tribal,
and
EPA­
lead
sites.
25
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)
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
The
estimated
annual
burden
to
State
and
Tribal
respondents
for
performing
site
assessment
activities
is
approximately
150,285
hours
and
costs
approximately
$
13,580,375.
One
hundred
percent
of
the
respondent
cost
($
13,580,375)
is
reimbursed
by
the
EPA
through
cooperative
agreements.
24
6(
e)
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
decreased
by
80,248
hours
and
by
$
4,795,987
million.
The
decrease
is
largely
due
to
the
decline
in
number
of
site
assessment
activities
conducted
nationally.

6(
f)
Burden
Statement
Depending
on
the
number
and
type
of
activities
performed,
average
burden
per
Response
the
is
estimated
as
166.1
hours.
Burden
ranges
from
56
to
1,884
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
56
hours
(
average
for
conducting
pre­
CERCLIS
screening
and
no
other
work),
whereas
sites
that
progress
to
NPL
listing
may
require
approximately
1,884
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.

Send
comments
on
the
Agency's
need
for
this
information,
the
accuracy
of
the
provided
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
through
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques
to
the
Director,
Collection
Strategies
Division,
U.
S
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
Mail
Code
2822),
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC.
20460;
and
to
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
725
17th
Street,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20503,
Attention:
Desk
Officer
for
EPA.
Include
the
EPA
ICR
number
1488.06
and
OMB
control
number
2050­
0095
in
any
correspondence.

Part
B:

This
part
is
not
applicable
because
no
statistical
methods
were
used
in
collecting
this
information.
25
REFERENCES
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
Office
of
Emergency
and
Remedial
Response.
Guidance
for
Performing
Preliminary
Assessments
Under
CERCLA.
OSWER
9345.0­
01A.
EPA/
540/
G­
91/
013.
September
1991.

United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
Office
of
Emergency
and
Remedial
Response.
Guidance
for
Performing
Site
Inspections
Under
CERCLA,
Interim
Final.
OSWER
9345.1­
05.
EPA
540­
R­
92­
021.
September
1992.

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.

United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response.
Site
Inspection
Prioritization
Guidance.
Directive
9345.1­
15FS.
EPA/
540/
F­
93/
037.
August
1993.

United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response.
Superfund
Program
Implementation
Manual
Fiscal
Year
2002/
2003,
Volume
1.
Directive
9200.3­
14­
1G­
P.
EPA
540­
R­
01­
004.
April
2001.
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
superfund/
action/
process/
spim.
htm)

42
U.
S.
C.
Chapter
103,
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Act.
January
1999.
(
http://
uscode.
house.
gov/
download/
42C103.
DOC)

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/
programs/
siteasmt/
prefin.
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/
programs/
siteasmt/
apa.
pdf)

United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response.
Improving
Site
Assessment:
Combined
PA/
SI
Assessments.
9375.2­
10FS,
October
1999.
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
superfund/
programs/
siteasmt/
pasifin.
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/
programs/
siteasmt/
intrem.
pdf)