Document ID: EPA-HQ-ORD-2004-0022-0004
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2005-02-24T05:00Z

Renewal
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
REQUEST
U.
S.
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
Technology
Performance
and
Product
Information
to
Support
Vendor
Information
Summaries
ICR
Number
2154.02,
OMB
Control
Number
2050
 
0194
February
2005
February
2005
1
PART
A
OF
THE
SUPPORTING
STATEMENT
1.
Identification
of
the
Information
Collection
1(
a)
Title
of
the
Information
Collection
ICR:
Technology
Performance
and
Product
Information
to
Support
Vendor
Information
Summaries
(
Revised
Title)

OMB
Control
Number:
2050­
0194
1(
b)
Short
Characterization
(
Abstract)

The
U.
S.
EPA
Office
of
Research
and
Development's
National
Homeland
Security
Research
Center
(
NHSRC)
is
helping
to
protect
human
health
and
the
environment
from
adverse
impacts
resulting
from
intentional
acts
of
terror.
With
an
emphasis
on
decontamination
and
consequence
management,
water
infrastructure
protection,
and
threat
and
consequence
assessment,
NHSRC
scientists
and
engineers
are
working
to
develop
tools
and
information
that
will
help
detect
the
intentional
introduction
of
chemical,
biological,
and
radiological
contaminants
in
buildings
or
water
systems,
the
containment
of
these
contaminants,
the
decontamination
of
buildings
and/
or
water
systems,
and
the
disposal
of
material
resulting
from
cleanups.

An
important
facet
of
the
NHSRC
mission
is
identifying,
testing,
and
evaluating
technologies
to
support
water
utility
operators,
emergency
responders,
and
consequence
managers.
EPA
lacks
a
well
documented
array
of
technological
tools
to
adequately
address
all
of
the
monitoring,
detection,
decontamination,
and
treatment
tasks
associated
with
remediating
contaminated
facilities
and
drinking
water
supply
systems.
EPA
is
aware
that
significant
research,

development,
and
commercialization
efforts
are
underway
by
the
private
sector,
but
EPA
needs
to
manage
the
information
concerning
the
myriad
of
technology
choices
faced
by
its
customers.
Information
Collection
Request
Part
A
of
the
Supporting
Statement
February
2005
2
EPA
has
initiated
this
effort
to
develop
brief
vendor
information
summaries
of
available
technologies
relevant
to
the
detection
and
decontamination
of
drinking
water
systems,
building
materials,
building
structures,
and
indoor
air
that
may
become
contaminated
with
chemical,

biological,
or
radiological
contaminants.
These
summaries
will
be
based
upon
vendor­
generated
or
provided
information
including
any
independent,
validated
test
data
generated
by
governmental
or
other
organizations
and
provided
to
EPA
through
this
ICR.

EPA
will
produce
4­
10
page
summaries
on
each
of
the
technologies
for
which
vendors
voluntarily
agreed
to
submit
the
requested
information.
These
summaries
will
be
shared
with
EPA
and
other
emergency
response
personnel,
building
and
facility
managers,
and
water
utility
operators.
The
information
provided
by
technology
developers
and
vendors
will
also
be
used
by
the
NHSRC's
Technology
Testing
and
Evaluation
Program
(
TTEP)
to
identify
technologies
that
may
be
suitable
candidates
for
testing
and
evaluation
and
to
track
those
technologies
under
development
that
may
eventually
be
ready
for
rigorous
testing
and
evaluation.

Developers
and
vendors
with
applicable
technologies
are
being
searched
through
all
available
mechanisms.
Once
identified,
the
developer
or
vendor
is
sent
a
letter
requesting
the
submission
of
specific
information
pertinent
to
the
performance,
operation,
maintenance,
and
cost
of
the
technology
(
see
attachment).

The
submission
of
information
is
voluntary.
Because
the
summarized
information
will
be
publically
available,
technology
vendors/
developers
will
be
discouraged
from
submitting
confidential
business
information,
proprietary
information,
or
any
sensitive
business
information..
Information
Collection
Request
Part
A
of
the
Supporting
Statement
February
2005
3
2.
Need
For
and
Use
of
the
Collection
2(
a)
Need/
Authority
for
the
Collection
The
Public
Health
Security
and
Bioterrorism
Preparedness
and
Response
Act
(
Bioterrorism
Act)
of
2002
is
the
legislative
mandate
for
EPA's
work
in
water
security.
This
law,

coupled
with
executive
directives
and
the
Agency's
own
strategic
plan
for
homeland
security,

guides
the
Agency's
research
and
technical
support
activities
to
protect
water
infrastructure.
The
Homeland
Security
Presidential
Directive
on
Critical
Infrastructure
Identification,
Prioritization,

and
Protection
(
HSPD­
7)
reinforces
EPA's
role
as
the
sector­
specific
lead
for
water
infrastructure.
It
also
assigns
the
responsibility
of
coordinating
the
overall
national
effort
to
protect
critical
infrastructure
and
key
resources
of
the
United
States
to
the
Department
of
Homeland
Security.
As
the
sector­
specific
federal
lead
for
protecting
the
nation's
drinking
water
and
wastewater
infrastructures,
EPA
plays
a
critical
role
in
the
homeland
security
arena.

The
U.
S.
EPA
Office
of
Research
and
Development's
National
Homeland
Security
Research
Center
(
NHSRC)
mission
includes
identifying,
testing,
evaluating,
and
reporting
on
technologies
that
help
decision­
makers
prepare
for,
detect,
contain,
and
decontaminate
chemical,

biological,
and
radiological
attacks
directed
against
buildings,
outdoor
areas,
and
water
treatment
systems.
EPA's
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response
(
OSWER)
is
EPA's
lead
office
on
Federal
cleanup
actions
authorized
under
the
National
Contingency
Plan.
Past
attacks
and
ongoing
threat
scenario
analyses
of
potential
terrorist
incidents
of
national
significance
have
illustrated
a
vulnerability
in
EPA's
emergency
response
preparedness.
Mainly,
EPA
lacks
a
well
documented
array
of
technological
tools
to
adequately
address
many
of
the
monitoring,
detection,

and
decontamination
tasks
associated
with
remediating
contaminated
facilities
and
drinking
water
supply
systems.
EPA
is
aware
that
significant
unstructured
research
and
development
is
being
performed
in
the
private
sector,
and
multiple
technological
tools
that
are
either
directly
applicable
Information
Collection
Request
Part
A
of
the
Supporting
Statement
February
2005
4
or
can
be
adapted
for
the
decontamination
tasks
have
been
developed
and
are
being
marketed.

The
information
collected
through
this
ICR
bundles
the
needs
of
the
following
programs:

$
ORD,
NHSRC:
Identify
response
technology
gaps
and
priority
areas
for
testing
and
evaluation
through
the
Center's
Technology
Testing
and
Evaluation
Program
(
TTEP).

$
OW,
OGWDW,
Water
Security
Division
­
Water
and
Wastewater
Security
Product
Guide:
Technical
information
on
market­
ready
technologies
for
drinking
water
system
protection.

$
OSWER
­
Readily
available
technology
summaries
for
use
by
first
responders
to
determine
appropriate
technologies
available
for
use
and
to
make
informed
purchase
decisions.

2(
b)
Practical
Utility/
Users
of
the
Data
The
information
collected
from
technology
vendors
will
serve
as
an
important,
objective
reference
for
EPA's
on­
scene
coordinators,
the
nation's
water
utility
operators,
and
those
responsible
for
decontamination
after
a
terrorist
attack.
Users
of
technologies
are
faced
with
the
daunting
task
of
sorting
through
an
often
confusing
mass
of
information
provided
by
a
vendor.

Much
of
it
is
presented
in
the
form
of
sales
brochures
and
anecdotal
information.
It
is
difficult
and
time
consuming
for
the
user
to
extract
the
important
technical
nuggets
out
of
product
literature.

Users
are
often
faced
with
making
quick
decisions
about
which
technology
or
technologies
should
or
should
not
be
used
and
do
not
have
the
luxury
of
time
for
wading
through
vendor­
provided
information.
This
information
collection
and
review
will
result
in
technology
information
summaries
that
will
be
easily
accessible
to
potential
users.
The
summaries
will
be
used
to
share
the
pertinent
pieces
of
performance
information
so
that
the
user
can
quickly
match
a
technology
to
a
given
task.
Information
Collection
Request
Part
A
of
the
Supporting
Statement
February
2005
5
The
information
collected
also
serves
another
purpose
in
supporting
the
NHSRC's
Technology
Testing
and
Evaluation
Program
(
TTEP).
The
purpose
of
TTEP
is
to
test,
evaluate,

and
report
on
the
performance
of
commercially
available
homeland
security­
related
technologies.

TTEP
will
use
the
information
collected
as
the
basis
for
inviting
technology
vendors
to
have
their
technology
evaluated.

EPA
is
producing
4­
10
page
summaries
on
each
of
the
technologies
for
which
vendors
agree
to
submit
the
requested
information
(
as
defined
in
4(
b)).
These
summaries
will
be
shared
with
the
Environmental
Response
Team
and
the
Emergency
Response
Technology
Workgroup,

advisors
and
decision
makers,
respectively,
on
national
technology
purchase
decisions.

Summaries
will
also
be
supplied
directly
to
U.
S.
EPA's
Federal
On­
Scene
Coordinators
and
technical
personnel
supporting
the
Agency's
cleanup
efforts
through
their
online
information
systems.
Additionally,
information
will
be
provided
to
other
federal
agencies
that
are
involved
in
supporting
the
government's
counterterrorism
efforts.
Specifically,
raw
information
and
the
final
reports
will
be
shared
with
the
Department
of
State/
Department
of
Defense
managed
Technical
Support
Working
Group
(
TSWG)
and
the
Department
of
Homeland
Security's
SAFETY
Act
Program
Office.

Water
utilities,
whether
operated
privately
or
by
a
municipality,
are
trying
to
identify
technologies
that
they
can
use
to
protect
the
public
they
serve.
Although
the
utility
operators
are
not
typically
faced
with
decision
making
under
crisis,
they
are
faced
with
the
same
confusing
mass
of
information
that
technology
vendors
typically
provide.
Utility
operators
will
use
the
information
collected
under
this
activity
to
identify
technologies
for
establishing
contaminant
warning
systems,
for
treating
contaminated
water,
and
for
decontaminating
distribution
systems
after
an
attack.
EPA's
Water
Security
Division
has
already
established
the
Security
Product
Guide
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
safewater/
watersecurity/
guide/
index.
html)
for
use
by
water
utilities.
The
technology
information
summaries
will
be
linked
to
this
site
so
that
they
are
easily
available
to
the
users
and
so
that
it
will
not
require
going
to
a
separate
web
site
to
review
the
summaries.
Information
Collection
Request
Part
A
of
the
Supporting
Statement
February
2005
6
The
initial
6
month
period
has
been
primarily
used
to
(
1)
test
the
information
collection
letter
and
attachments
(
see
attachment)
with
a
small
number
of
vendors
and
(
2)
to
develop
the
most
useful
format
for
the
summaries.
To
date
only
a
few
technology
summaries
have
been
prepared
and
reviewed.
The
rollout
of
the
first
batch
of
summaries
will
occur
in
the
second
quarter
of
FY05.

3.
Nonduplication,
Consultations,
and
Other
Collection
Criteria
This
information
collection
activity
complies
with
all
the
certification
requirements
identified
in
OMB
Form
83­
I.

3(
a)
Nonduplication
EPA
has
performed
an
exhaustive
review
encompassing
EPA,
Department
of
Homeland
Security
(
DHS),
Department
of
Defense
(
DoD),
Department
of
Energy
(
DOE),
and
other
organizations,
to
identify
specific
programs,
projects,
or
reports
(
referred
to
as
programs)

collecting
information
on
technologies
similar
to
what
is
to
be
sought
through
this
ICR.
The
purpose
was
to
avoid
duplication
of
efforts
and,
to
the
extent
possible,
reduce
the
reporting
burden
by
collecting
information
that
is
already
available,
and
contacting
vendors
solely
for
the
unavailable
portions.
In
addition,
EPA
contacted
selected
individuals
at
these
agencies
to
solicit
follow­
up
information.
EPA
has
produced
a
tool
to
track
the
information
in
these
programs
(
Homeland
Security
Technology
Roadmap),
including
the
types
of
technologies
reviewed,
status,

and
the
type
of
information
they
contain.
More
than
40
specific
programs
were
identified
and
will
be
tapped
for
the
information
they
already
contain.
However,
significant
information
gaps
continue
to
exist
as
many
of
the
programs
collect
only
basic
information
(
such
as
company
and
product
names),
or
information
on
products
beyond
the
scope
of
EPA's
needs
under
this
effort
(
such
as
emergency
communications
equipment).
Information
Collection
Request
Part
A
of
the
Supporting
Statement
February
2005
7
3(
b)
Public
Notice
Required
Prior
to
ICR
Submission
to
OMB
On
December
21,
2004
EPA
sought
comments
on
this
renewal
ICR
(
69
FR
76464).
EPA
received
no
comments.

3(
c)
Consultations
Thomas
R.
Archibald,
President/
CEO
HazTech
Systems,
Inc.

800­
543­
5487
or
209­
966­
8088
www.
hazcat.
com
MicroCat/
WMD
Kit
Mr.
Archibald
indicated
that
he
found
responding
to
the
request
straight­
forward
and
clear.
He
worked
closely
with
EPA
contractor
staff
to
ensure
that
all
the
topics
were
addressed.

Dr.
Jonathan
Shein
Executive
VP,
Sales
&
Marketing
NITON
LLC
800­
875­
1578
x
313
978­
670­
7460
x
313
www.
niton.
com
Dr.
Shein
was
asked
to
review
a
draft
of
the
cover
letter
and
the
corresponding
attachments
that
were
ultimately
sent
to
vendors.
He
stated
"
The
document
appears
quite
comprehensive.
I
personally
wouldn't
think
it
a
problem
to
answer
these
questions,
especially
since
the
website
would
provide
me
as
a
vendor
with
potential
exposure
to
users
that
would
otherwise
be
difficult
to
achieve.
From
NITON's
perspective,
it
would
be
of
value
to
add
a
brief
part
on
report
generation
and
data
integrity
(
how
easy
is
it
to
document
the
results
achieved
with
the
analyzers,
Information
Collection
Request
Part
A
of
the
Supporting
Statement
February
2005
8
and
is
it
possible
for
users
of
the
equipment
to
modify
the
data,
either
accidentally
or
intentionally)."
His
suggestions
were
added
to
the
final
package
Kevin
M.
Morley
Regulatory
Analyst
American
Water
Works
Association
202­
628­
8303
Mr.
Morley
works
closely
with
the
nation's
water
utility
operators.
He
was
asked
to
review
the
vendor
letter
and
the
corresponding
attachments.
He
felt
that
the
information
collected
under
this
ICR
and
shared
with
the
water
utilities
would
be
very
valuable
and
useful
for
protecting
water
systems
and
supplies.

Ms.
Wendy
Howe
Director
Support
Anti­
terrorism
by
Fostering
Effective
Technologies
(
SAFETY)
Act
Office
Department
of
Homeland
Security
202­
772­
9887
Ms.
Howe
has
been
briefed
about
this
information
collection
activity
on
two
occasions.
The
SAFETY
Act
program
collects
very
detailed
information
from
technology
vendors
but
is
unable
to
share
it
outside
of
DHS.
Ms.
Howe
agreed
to
encourage
vendors
to
supply
their
SAFETY
Act
submittal
to
EPA
to,
in
part,
satisfy
our
information
collection
needs.
She
found
the
letter
and
the
attachments
useful
and
encouraged
EPA
to
move
ahead
with
the
effort.

Mr.
Lance
Brooks
Chemical
Countermeasures
Portfolio
DHS,
OST.
PPB
Information
Collection
Request
Part
A
of
the
Supporting
Statement
February
2005
9
202­
254­
5768
Mr.
Brooks
has
been
briefed
about
this
information
collection
activity
on
numerous
occasions.
He
has
been
instrumental
in
sharing
the
names
and
contacts
of
vendors
whose
technologies
may
be
good
candidates
for
testing
under
TTEP
and
for
having
their
existing
information
available
through
this
information
collection
activity.

The
following
paragraphs
describe
the
specific
outreach
activities
that
EPA
staff
performed
during
the
questionnaire
development
period.
These
activities
were
intended
to
provide
EPA
with
feedback
on
issues
such
as
questionnaire
format,
terminology,
and
technical
quality.

In
addition
to
these
personal
contacts,
the
information
collection
staff
also
provided
briefings
for
members
of
EPA's
Emergency
Response
Technical
Workgroup
(
ERTG),
EPA's
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
and
Toxic
Substances
(
OPPTS),
and
EPA's
Office
of
Water
during
the
development
of
the
information
collection
materials.
NHSRC
continues
to
nurture
a
working
relationship
with
the
On­
Scene
Coordinators
to
ensure
that
the
information
collected
and
distributed
is
adequately
addresses
their
needs.

The
information
collection
activities
were
also
briefed
to
the
Distribution
System
Research
Consortium
(
DSRC).
The
consortium
meets
twice
a
year
to
address
research
and
technical
support
issues
around
distribution
systems.
Members
include
representatives
from
the
Department
of
Homeland
Security,
the
Centers
for
Disease
Control
and
Prevention,
the
Department
of
Defense,
the
Department
of
Energy,
and
the
U.
S.
Geological
Survey,
among
others.

3(
d)
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
Information
Collection
Request
Part
A
of
the
Supporting
Statement
February
2005
10
This
information
collection
activity
is
not
conducted
according
to
a
periodic
or
episodic
schedule.
A
master
list
of
technology
vendors
is
being
compiled
and
vendors
will
be
contacted
in
batches
of
10
to
15
vendors
at
a
time.
Vendors
will
be
invited
to
review
their
submittal
on
an
annual
basis
to
determine
if
the
existing
information
needs
to
be
revised
and
updated.
It
is
expected
that
most
of
the
possible
vendors
will
have
been
contacted
and
have
their
reports
prepared
by
the
third
quarter
of
FY06.

3(
e)
General
Guidelines
This
information
collection
activity
complies
with
the
eight
stipulations
identified
in
the
guidance.

3(
f)
Confidentiality
The
cover
letter
specifically
states
that
proprietary
or
confidential
business
information
will
not
be
accepted
because
all
the
information
the
Agency
collects
under
this
information
collection
activity
will
be
made
available
to
the
public.

3(
g)
Sensitive
Questions
No
sensitive
questions
pertaining
to
private
or
personal
information,
such
as
sexual
behavior
or
religious
beliefs,
are
being
asked
in
the
information
request
letter.

4.
The
Respondents
and
the
Information
Requested
4(
a)
Respondents/
SIC
Information
Collection
Request
Part
A
of
the
Supporting
Statement
1http://
www.
census.
gov/
epcd/
www/
naicstab.
htm
February
2005
11
Most
of
the
vendors
are
categorized
as
miscellaneous
manufacturing
industries
(
SIC
Code
39xx)
and
some
are
categorized
under
SIC
Code
3826
­
Laboratory
analytical
instruments1.
This
includes
environmental
technology
vendors,
laboratory
analytical
instrument
manufacturers
(
e.
g.,

analytical
chemistry
and
sample
collection),
sensor
manufacturers,
signal
processing
vendors,
and
test
kit
manufacturers.

4(
b)
Information
Requested
(
i)
Data
items,
including
record
keeping
requirements
This
information
collection
activity
does
not
require
the
respondent
to
keep
any
records.

The
data
items
being
collected
are
identified
in
the
attachment.

(
ii)
Respondent
Activities
The
letter
will
be
sent
to
a
contact
within
the
company
that
was
identified
through
a
preliminary
search
(
web,
literature,
and
word
of
mouth)
by
EPA.
The
respondent
will
need
to:

Review
the
instructions
provided
in
the
cover
letter

Identify
a
point
of
contact

Collect
and
assemble
the
information
necessary
to
address
the
criteria
identified
in
the
attachment
to
the
cover
letter

Organize
the
information
into
a
coherent
package

Transmit
the
information
to
EPA
by
mail
or
by
email
(
O&
M
cost
for
postage,

computer,
and
photocopying)

Answer
follow
up
questions
for
clarification
(
O&
M
cost
for
use
of
telephone)
Information
Collection
Request
Part
A
of
the
Supporting
Statement
February
2005
12

Review
and
comment
on
draft
summary
(
O&
M
cost
for
postage,
computer,
and
photocopying)

Answer
follow
up
questions
for
clarification
(
O&
M
cost
for
use
of
telephone)

Once
the
information
is
received
and
reviewed
by
EPA,
the
respondent's
point
of
contact
may
need
to
be
contacted
for
clarification
or
for
additional
information
or
both.

After
EPA
condenses
the
information
into
a
4
to
10
page
summary,
a
draft
copy
will
be
provided
to
the
respondent
for
review
to
ensure
that
there
are
no
significant
errors
or
omissions.

The
attachment
to
the
cover
letter
includes
many
data
items
that
the
respondent
should
already
possess.
It
is
anticipated
that
the
respondent
will
have
all
this
information
available
and
accessible
for
compilation
and
submittal
to
EPA.
The
data
items
identified
should
have
been
generated
through
the
respondents
customary
and
usual
business
practices;
however,
compiling
the
data
to
satisfy
the
Agency's
request
is
unique
and
will
require
the
respondent
to
devote
staff
time
to
the
effort.

5.
The
Information
Collected
­
Agency
Activities,
Collection,
Methodology
and
Information
Management
This
information
collection
activity
complies
with
all
the
certification
requirements
identified
in
form
OMB
83­
I.

5(
a)
Agency
Activities
The
Agency
activities
associated
with
the
preparation
of
technology
information
summaries
will
consist
of
the
following:
Information
Collection
Request
Part
A
of
the
Supporting
Statement
February
2005
13

Prepare
letter
and
send
to
respondent;

Perform
an
initial
review
of
the
submittal
for
completeness;

If
the
package
is
incomplete,
contact
the
respondent
for
clarification;

Perform
a
detailed
review
of
the
information
and
compile
a
4
to
10
page
summary;

Review
the
summary;

Provide
a
draft
of
the
summary
to
the
respondent
for
comment;

Reconcile
respondent
comments;
and

Produce
final
summary.

5(
b)
Collection
Methodology
and
Information
Management
In
collecting
and
analyzing
the
information
associated
with
this
ICR,
EPA
will
use
personal
computers
and
applicable
database
and
word
processing
software
to
manage
the
information.
EPA
will
ensure
the
accuracy
and
completeness
of
collected
information
by
reviewing
each
submittal.
EPA
will
also
provide
a
draft
copy
of
the
summary
to
the
respondent
for
review
and
comment.
A
complete
vendor
information
submission
package
will
be
kept
on
file
by
the
Office
of
Research
and
Development.
The
information
will
not
be
entered
into
a
database
and
stored
electronically.
Technology
information
summaries
will
be
available
online
through
the
Water
Security
Division's
Security
Product
Guide
and
separately
through
the
Response
Technology
Ready
Reference
web
site.

5(
c)
Small
Entity
Flexibility
This
information
collection
activity
is
voluntary
not
compulsory.
EPA
has
attempted
to
streamline
the
information
collection
to
minimize
the
amount
of
time
the
respondent
will
need
to
devote
to
compiling
the
items
identified
in
the
attachment
to
the
cover
letter.
The
Agency's
intent
is
to
minimize
the
information
collection
burden
to
all
businesses
regardless
of
size.
If
a
respondent
believes
that
it
is
too
time
consuming,
they
are
under
no
obligation
to
provide
any
Information
Collection
Request
Part
A
of
the
Supporting
Statement
February
2005
14
information.
The
respondent
will
still
be
identified
on
the
above
mentioned
web
sites,
but
the
user
of
the
web
site
will
be
referred
to
the
vendor
for
specific
information.

5(
d)
Collection
Schedule
This
information
collection
activity
is
not
conducted
according
to
a
periodic
or
episodic
schedule.
A
master
list
of
technology
vendors
is
being
compiled
and
vendors
will
be
contacted
in
batches
of
10
to
15
vendors
at
a
time.
The
respondent
will
be
mailed
a
letter
requesting
that
specific
information
be
sent
to
EPA
within
30
days
of
receipt.
Vendors
will
be
invited
to
review
their
submittal
on
an
annual
basis
to
determine
if
the
existing
information
needs
to
be
revised
and
updated.
It
is
expected
that
most
of
the
vendors
will
have
been
contacted
and
have
their
reports
prepared
by
the
third
quarter
of
FY06.

6.
Estimating
the
Burden
and
Cost
of
the
Collection
This
information
collection
will
necessitate
the
involvement
of
four
general
labor
categories
for
each
respondent:

Legal
staff

Management

Technical
staff

Clerical
staff
There
are
no
third­
party
reporting
requirements
associated
with
this
information
collection
activity.

6(
a)
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
Information
Collection
Request
Part
A
of
the
Supporting
Statement
February
2005
15
For
the
purpose
of
estimating
respondent
burden,
these
are
the
tasks
anticipated
for
each
labor
category:

Legal
staff
 
perform
initial
review
of
the
letter;
a
review
of
the
respondents
information
submittal
package;
review
the
draft
summary
and
technical
staff
comments
Management
 
perform
initial
review
of
the
letter;
a
review
of
the
respondents
information
submittal
package;
review
the
draft
summary
and
technical
staff
comments
Technical
staff
 
perform
initial
review
of
the
letter;
collect
and
organize
information
into
a
coherent
package;
spend
time
on
the
phone
clarifying
response
(
after
response
submittal
and
after
review
of
summary);
if
necessary,

provide
additional
supporting
documentation
(
after
response
submittal
and
after
review
of
summary)
and
review
draft
summary
Clerical
staff
 
provides
clerical
support
such
as
typing
comments
for
technical
staff,

sending
emails,
and
packaging
and
shipping
information.

The
estimated
hours
associated
with
these
tasks
is
included
in
Table
6­
1.
No
comments
were
received
from
the
public
during
the
comment
period.
Therefore,
the
hours
were
estimated
after
discussions
with
the
individuals
previously
mentioned
(
Section
3(
c))
as
well
as
discussions
with
the
EPA
and
contractor
technical
staff
working
on
this
information
collection.
As
a
result
of
these
discussions,
the
burden
estimates
have
been
increased
above
those
levels
estimated
in
the
December
21,
2004
(
69
FR
76464)
notice.
Information
Collection
Request
Part
A
of
the
Supporting
Statement
February
2005
16
6(
a)
Estimating
Respondent
Costs
(
i)
Estimating
Labor
Costs
The
labor
rates
and
categories
available
in
the
Labor
Department's
Employer
costs
for
Employee
Compensation
are
not
directly
applicable
to
this
information
collection.
The
labor
cost
estimates
used
for
this
information
collection
are
based
on
previous
discussions
with
the
individuals
previously
mentioned
and
the
EPA
and
contractor
technical
staff
working
on
this
information
collection.
The
hourly
rates
used
in
Table
6­
1
are
comparable
to
approximately
half
those
of
the
average
GSA
Schedule
Professional
Engineering
Services
contractor
labor
categories.

(
ii)
Estimating
Capital
and
Operations
and
Maintenance
Costs
Respondents
will
not
incur
capital
costs
in
responding
to
this
information
collection.
The
O&
M
costs
to
respondents
are
very
small
and
include
photocopying,
postage,
telephone
system
usage
(
principally
long
distance
telephone
call
charges
and
a
portion
of
the
costs
of
maintaining
a
phone
system),
and
the
use
of
existing
computers
for
typing
letters,
and
collecting
and
managing
the
information
provided
to
the
Agency
in
response
to
this
information
collection.
The
O&
M
costs
are
identified
in
Table
6­
1.
They
were
derived
in
the
same
manner
as
the
labor
categories
and
costs.

(
iii)
Capital/
Start­
up
vs.
Operating
and
Maintenance
(
O&
M)
Costs
See
Section
6(
a)(
ii).
Information
Collection
Request
Part
A
of
the
Supporting
Statement
February
2005
17
(
iv)
Annualizing
Capital
Costs
Not
applicable
to
this
information
collection
action.
Information
Collection
Request
Part
A
of
the
Supporting
Statement
b
Postage,
computer,
photocopying
c
Telephone
system
use
February
2005
18
Table
6­
1
Estimated
Annual
Respondent
Burden
and
Cost
Information
Collection
Activity
Tasks
Hours
and
Costs
per
Respondent
Total
Hours
and
Costs
Legal
$
100/
hr
Mgr
$
95/
hr
Tech.

$
55/
hr
Clerical
$
28/
hr
Respond
hr/
yr
Labor
$/
year
Capital/
Startup
Cost
O&
M
Cost
Number
of
Respond.
Total
hrs/
yr
Total
$/
yr
Review
the
instructions
provided
in
cover
letter
.5
.5
.5
1.5
$
125.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
70
105
$
8,750.00
Collect
information
3
3
$
165.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
210
$
11,550.00
Assemble
and
organize
information
2
1
3
$
138.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
210
$
9,660.00
Review
package
for
completeness
.5
.5
.5
1.5
$
125.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
105
$
8,750.00
Transmit
information
to
Agency
.5
0.5
$
14.00
$
0.00
$
2.00b
35
$
982.00
Answer
follow
up
questions
for
clarification
1
1
$
55.00
$
0.00
$
1.00c
70
$
3,851.00
Review
and
comment
on
draft
summary
1
1
1
3
$
250.00
$
0.00
$
1.00a
210
$
17,501.00
Transmit
comments
to
Agency
.5
0.5
$
14.00
$
0.00
$
1.00a
35
$
981.00
Answer
follow
up
questions
for
clarification
1
1
$
55.00
$
0.00
$
1.00b
70
$
3,851.00
Subtotal
2
2
9
2
15
$
941.00
$
0.00
$
6.00
Annualized
Totals
1050
$
65,876.00
Information
Collection
Request
Part
A
of
the
Supporting
Statement
February
2005
19
6(
c)
Estimating
Agency
Burden
and
Cost
This
information
collection
will
necessitate
the
involvement
of
the
following
general
labor
categories:

EPA

Management

Technical
staff
Contractor

Management

Technical
staff

Clerical
Table
6­
2
contains
a
detailed
estimate
of
the
Agency
and
contractor
labor
hours
and
costs
associated
with
this
information
collection
activity.
The
estimates
are
based
on
the
information
requests
that
were
sent
to
technology
vendors
(
respondents)
during
the
180­
day
emergency
ICR
period.
There
are
no
start­
up
or
capital
costs.
Operations
and
maintenance
costs
for
the
contractor
staff
are
included
in
the
fully­
loaded
hourly
costs
identified
in
the
table.
Information
Collection
Request
Part
A
of
the
Supporting
Statement
February
2005
20
Table
6­
2
Estimated
Annual
Agency
Burden
and
Cost
Information
Collection
Activity
Tasks
Agency
Hours
and
Costs
Contractor
Hours
and
Costs
Total
Hours
and
Costs
Mgr
$
60/
hr
Tech.

$
50/
hr
Agency
hr/
yr
Agency
$/
yr
Mgr
$
150/
hr
Tech.

$
100/
hr
Clerc.

$
40/
hr
Contractor
hr/
yr
Contractor
$/
yr
Number
of
Respond.
Total
hrs/
yr
Total
$/
yr
Prepare
letter
and
send
to
respondent
0.25
0.50
0.75
$
40.00
0.25
0.50
0.25
1.00
$
97.50
70
122.5
$
9,625.00
Perform
initial
review
of
submittal
for
completeness
0.00
$
0.00
3.00
3.00
$
300.00
210
$
21,000.00
Contact
respondent
for
clarification
0.00
$
0.00
1.00
1.00
$
100.00
70
$
7,000.00
Review
and
evaluate
information
0.00
$
0.00
5.00
5.00
$
500.00
350
$
35,000.00
Prepare
draft
4
to
10
page
summary
0.00
$
0.00
15.00
3.00
18.00
$
1,620.00
1260
$
113,400.00
Internal
review
of
draft
summary
2.00
2.00
$
100.00
2.00
2.00
$
300.00
280
$
28,000.00
Send
draft
to
respondent
for
review
and
comment
0.00
$
0.00
0.25
0.25
$
10.00
17.5
$
700.00
Review
respondent
comments
1.00
1.00
$
50.00
1.00
1.00
2.00
$
250.00
210
$
21,000.00
Contact
respondent
for
clarification
0.00
$
0.00
1.00
1.00
$
100.00
70
$
7,000.00
Reconcile
comments
and
produce
final
summary
1.00
1.00
$
50.00
3.00
1.00
4.00
$
340.00
350
$
27,300.00
Review
and
release
final
summary
1.00
2.00
3.00
$
160.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
$
350.00
420
$
35,700.00
Bi­
weekly
teleconferences
to
discuss
status
0.10
0.10
$
5.00
0.10
1.00
1.10
$
115.00
84
$
8,400.00
Subtotal
1.25
6.60
7.85
$
405.00
4.35
32.50
4.50
41.35
$
4,082.50
Annualized
Totals
3444
$
314,125.00
Information
Collection
Request
Part
A
of
the
Supporting
Statement
February
2005
21
6(
d)
Estimating
the
Respondent
Universe
and
Total
Burden
and
Costs
Tables
6­
1
and
6­
2
include
these
totals.

6(
e)
Bottom
Line
Burden
hours
and
Cost
Tables
Tables
6­
1
and
6­
2
include
these
totals.

6(
f)
Reasons
for
Change
in
Burden
After
consultation
with
the
respondents,
it
was
determined
that
the
original
estimate
of
burden
was
too
low.
The
increase
can
be
attributed
to
adjustments
in
the
amount
of
time
necessary
for
the
various
labor
categories
to
devote
to
compiling,
submitting,
and
commenting
on
the
information
package.
None
of
the
increase
in
burden
is
attributed
to
a
program
change.

The
original
estimate
was
that
150
respondents
would
be
contacted
in
each
year
and
spend,
on
average,
2.5
hours
completing
the
ICR.
The
revised
estimate
is
that
70
respondents
will
be
contacted
each
year
and
will
spend,
on
average,
15
hours
completing
the
ICR.

6(
g)
Burden
Statement
The
annual
public
reporting
and
recordkeeping
burden
for
this
collection
of
information
is
estimated
to
average
15
hours
per
response.
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;
Information
Collection
Request
Part
A
of
the
Supporting
Statement
February
2005
22
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.
An
agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to,
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
part
9
and
48
CFR
chapter
15.

To
comment
on
the
Agency's
need
for
this
information,
the
accuracy
of
the
provided
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques,
EPA
has
established
a
public
docket
for
this
ICR
under
Docket
ID
No.
ORD­
2004­
0022,
which
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
Office
of
Research
and
Development
(
ORD)
Docket
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center
(
EPA/
DC),
EPA
West,
Room
B102,

1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC.
The
EPA
Docket
Center
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566­
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
Office
of
Research
and
Development
Docket
is
(
202)
566­
1752.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA
Dockets
(
EDOCKET)
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket.

Use
EDOCKET
to
submit
or
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.

Once
in
the
system,
select
"
search,"
then
key
in
the
docket
ID
number
identified
above.
Also,
you
can
send
comments
to
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
725
17th
Street,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20503,
Attention:
Desk
Office
for
EPA.

Please
include
the
EPA
Docket
ID
No.
(
ORD­
2004­
0022)
and
OMB
control
number
(
2050­

0194)
in
any
correspondence.
February
2005
23
ATTACHMENT
Information
Request
Cover
Letter
with
Attachment
OMB
Control
Number
2050­
0194
Expiration
Date
xx/
yy/
zzzz
Dear:

The
purpose
of
this
letter
is
to
invite
your
company
to
participate
in
a
technology
information
collection
activity
being
coordinated
by
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency's
(
EPA)
National
Homeland
Security
Research
Center
(
NHSRC).
This
information
collection
activity
is
part
of
a
project
called
the
Response
Technology
Ready
Reference
(
RTRR).
The
purpose
of
RTRR
is
to
gather
existing
technology
performance
information,
summarize
it,
and
have
it
available
to
technology
users.

The
Agency
is
actively
participating
in
the
ongoing
national
efforts
to
ensure
the
safety
and
security
of
select
portions
of
the
nation's
critical
infrastructure
 
specifically
focusing
on
water
treatment
infrastructure
and
the
decontamination
of
buildings,
structures,
and
outdoor
areas.
A
critical
facet
of
the
Center's
overall
homeland
security
mission
is
identifying,
testing,
and
evaluating
technologies.

The
RTRR
contains
brief
summaries
of
technologies
that
can
be
used
by
emergency
responders,
consequence
managers,
and
water
utility
operators
in
responding
to
a
chemical,

biological,
or
radiological
terrorist
attack.
This
information
also
serves
as
a
ready
reference
of
technologies
that
may
be
appropriate
for
testing
and
evaluation
under
the
Agency's
Homeland
Security
Technology
Testing
and
Evaluation
Program
(
TTEP).
The
Center
will
develop
brief
summaries
(
4
to
12
page
reports)
of
commercially
available
technologies
relevant
to
the
detection
and
decontamination
of
water
treatment
infrastructure,
building
materials,
building
structures,

outdoor
areas,
and
indoor
air
that
may
become
contaminated
with
chemical,
biological,
and
radiological
warfare
agents.
These
summaries
will
be
based
upon
vendor­
provided
data
including
validated
test
data
generated
by
governmental
or
other
organizations.
February
2005
24
This
invitation
requests
your
company
to
supply
detailed
technical
information
to
help
us
more
fully
understand
the
capabilities
of
the
NAME
of
Technology
and
to
summarize
the
information
for
the
technology
users
mentioned
previously.
Attachment
1
identifies
the
types
of
information
and
data
we
would
like
to
include
in
each
summary.
We
would
appreciate
your
providing
this
information
to
us
and
identifying
a
technical
point
of
contact
that
EPA
can
communicate
with
concerning
questions
or
clarifications
about
the
submittal.
This
is
a
voluntary
program
and
the
government
will
not
be
responsible
for
costs
your
company
may
incur
in
responding
to
this
request.

For
this
submission,
please
do
not
submit
any
proprietary
information,
confidential
business
information,
or
other
information
that
you
do
not
wish
to
be
made
public.
The
technology
information
summary
report
to
be
prepared
under
this
effort,
along
with
selected
supporting
documentation,
will
be
made
available
on
a
web
site
for
dissemination
to
the
public
(
http://
www.
cluin.
org/
rtrr).

We
plan
to
complete
an
information
summary
for
your
technology
within
30
days
of
receipt
of
your
complete
response
to
the
items
identified
in
Attachment
1.
Information
submitted
after
30
days
may
be
deferred
for
later
review
and
inclusion.
A
member
of
the
review
team
will
be
assigned
to
your
technology
to
work
with
you
in
compiling
your
information,
and
will
contact
you
in
the
interim
should
information
gaps
be
identified.
We
will
provide
you
with
the
opportunity
to
review
the
summary
report
before
it
is
finalized.

Please
email
the
name,
address,
telephone
and
fax
number,
and
email
address
of
your
technical
point
of
contact
and
any
questions
you
might
have.
Please
e­
mail
materials
to
richard.
lafreniere@
ttemi.
com
or
send
them
to
the
following
address:

Mr.
Richard
LaFreniere
Tetra
Tech
EM
Inc.
February
2005
25
1881
Campus
Commons
Drive,
Suite
200
Reston,
VA
20191
If
you
have
questions
about
this
request,
please
contact
Eric
Koglin,
EPA,
NHSRC
at
702­
798­
2332
or
koglin.
eric@
epa.
gov.

Sincerely,

Andrew
P.
Avel
Acting
Director
National
Homeland
Security
Research
Center
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
Burden
Statement:
The
public
reporting
and
recordkeeping
burden
for
this
collection
of
information
is
estimated
to
average
15
per
response.
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
(
2822T),
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
D.
C.
20460.
Include
the
OMB
control
number
in
any
correspondence.
Do
not
send
the
information
requested
above
to
this
address.
February
2005
26
Attachment
Detection
Technologies
for
Biological
and
Chemical
Threats
Criteria
for
Technology
Assessment
Background
Information:
The
following
criteria
are
intended
for
use
in
assessment
of
products/
technologies
used
for
detection
of
biological
agents
and
toxins
in
indoor
air.
These
criteria
also
will
have
applicability
to
products/
technologies
used
for
detection
of
chemical
warfare
agents
and
industrial
chemicals.

Category
1
­
Product
and
Vendor
Information
1.
Product
Name
and
Classification
2.
Company
Information
3.
Company
Representative
4.
Individual
Submitting
Application
5.
Commercial
Availability
 
Discusses
whether
the
product
is
currently
commercially
available.

Category
2
­
Product
Description
1.
Product
Description
 
Detailed
description
of
the
product;
including
operation,
functions,
intended
use,

size,
dimensions,
and
weight.

2.
Method
of
Detection
 
Description
of
the
principles
of
operation.

3.
Intended
User(
s)
 
Types
of
individuals
who
will
use
the
product
(
for
example,
first
responders,
HazMat,

military
personnel,
plant
engineers,
skilled
laborers,
etc.).

4.
Utility
Requirements
 
Description
of
the
electric,
water,
telephone,
internet,
and
other
utility
requirements
for
the
product.

5.
Durability
 
Ability
to
withstand
wear
and
tear,
based
on
engineering
design
and
materials
of
construction
(
also
considering
conditions
or
factors
that
could
reduce
the
operating
lifetime.)

6.
Application(
s)
 
Specify
the
area
in
which
the
product
is
designed
to
operate
(
for
example,
ducts,
rooms,

plenum,
air
returns,
piping,
or
in
process).

7.
Accessories
 
Description
of
accessories
required
for
proper
use
of
the
"
base
model"
as
well
as
optional
accessories.

8.
Decontamination
 
Description
of
the
method
for
decontaminating
the
product
following
use.
February
2005
27
9.
Portability
 
Ability
to
transport
the
product.
Takes
into
account
whether
the
product
requires
installation
to
operate
and
special
licensing
or
other
requirements
for
transport
or
shipping.
Includes
information
about
whether
unit
can
be
carried
by
hand
or
needs
a
vehicle
for
operation.

Category
3
­
Performance
Characteristics
1.
Detected
Compounds
and/
or
Agents
 
List
of
chemical
and/
or
biological
agents
the
unit
is
capable
of
detecting.

2.
Units
of
Measurement
 
Identify
if
the
unit
produces
a
qualitative
or
quantitative
result
(
or
either,

depending
on
configuration).
For
quantitative
results,
identify
the
unit
of
measurement
as
ppb,
mg/
m3,

CFU,
Fg/
L,
or
other
unit.
For
qualitative
results,
describe
the
indicator
(
e.
g.,
color
change,
plus/
minus
sign,
noise)
and
the
threshold
value.
Identify
if
there
is
an
audible
or
visible
alarm.

3.
Throughput
or
Measurement
Rate
 
Identify
the
amount
of
time
required
to
set
up,
conduct
analysis,

and
produce
results
(
also
noting
factors
that
affect
the
throughput
or
measurement
rate).

4.
Standard
Operating
Procedure,
Method,
or
User's
Manual
 
Is
a
procedure
for
the
operation
of
the
unit
documented
and
available?

Method
Start­
up
 
What
steps,
if
any,
are
required
to
validate
the
method
for
a
specific
application?
What
steps
should
be
used
to
verify
the
proficiency
of
an
operator?

Quality
Control
Procedures
 
Identify
recommended
QC
checks
and
frequency
for
normal
operation
Instrument
Calibration
 
Describe
the
process
that
is
required
to
calibrate
the
instrument
in
the
field
(
if
necessary).

5.
Performance
Parameters
 
For
the
performance
parameters
below,
provide
performance
data
using
the
method
along
with
a
brief
description
of
how
the
performance
data
were
generated.

°
Accuracy
°
Precision
°
Bias
°
False
positive/
false
negative
rate
°
Upper
and
Lower
Detection
Limits
°
Linear
Dynamic
Range
°
Method/
Instrument
Sensitivity
°
Method
Optimization
and
Ruggedness
Testing
6.
Detector
Saturation
 
Concentrations
of
agents
or
compounds
that
may
produce
saturation
or
instrument
flooding,
and
lead
to
false
negative
readings.

7.
Operational
Considerations
 
Information
regarding
operational
considerations
that
may
affect
product
performance,
including
ranges
of
temperature,
humidity,
dust,
wind
movement,
and/
or
rain.
Also
includes
information
about
operation
in
explosive
atmospheres,
near
high
voltage
wires,
or
other
conditions.

8.
Potential
Interferences
 
Potential
cross
sensitivities,
spectral
interferences,
or
other
potential
interference
that
could
affect
product
performance;
also
noting
ways
to
modify
the
method
to
remove
or
compensate
for
common
interferences.

Category
4
 
Cost
Information
1.
Product
Cost
 
The
cost
of
the
basic
model
and
all
required
accessories.

2.
Accessories
Cost
 
Cost
of
required
accessories
and
optional
accessories.

3.
Consumable
Material
Cost
 
Cost
of
consumable
materials
(
for
example,
solutions,
sampling
media)

required
for
proper
operation.
Identify
those
consumables
that
are
proprietary
and
include
information
about
their
availability.

4.
Special
Testing
Cost
 
Cost
of
scheduled
special
testing
(
for
example,
wipe
testing).

5.
Calibration
Cost
 
Cost
of
regularly
scheduled
manufacturer
calibration.

6.
Training
Cost
 
Cost
of
vendor­
required
or
recommended
training
for
users/
operators
of
the
product.

7.
Warranty
Information
 
Information
about
the
warranty
for
the
product
and
accessories.

8.
Technical
Service
 
Types
of
customer
and
technical
service
provided
to
customers
in
the
event
that
the
instrument
requires
a
repair.

Category
5
­
Other
Information
1.
Personnel
Requirements
 
Number
and
experience
level
of
personnel
required
to
operate
the
unit.

2.
Training
Requirements
 
Requirements
or
recommendations
for
training
personnel
to
be
able
to
operate
the
product.

3.
Data
Management
­
Method
of
storing
and
managing
data.
Includes
whether
the
product
is
programmable,
manual,
or
automatic;
how
many
sets
of
data
can
be
stored;
whether
or
not
there
are
any
software
requirements;
and
ability
to
log
data
remotely.

4.
Storage
and
Handling
 
Description
of
how
the
unit
should
be
stored.

5.
Waste
Generation
 
Description
of
waste
streams
generated
from
the
method
their
disposition.

6.
Routine
Maintenance
Requirements
 
Routine
requirements
for
maintenance.
7.
Independent
Validation/
Verification
 
Indication
of
availability
of
independent
evaluations
or
reviews
(
for
example,
industry
review,
peer­
review,
scientific
journals,
military
reviews,
or
independent
laboratory
evaluations).
Includes
information
about
testing
with
live
agent
(
if
applicable).

8.
Recommended
Corroborative
or
Supporting
Data
 
The
vendor
should
suggest
other
analytical
techniques
that
can
be
used
to
confirm
or
corroborate
the
results
of
the
method,
and
any
supporting
data
(
e.
g.,
meteorological)
that
are
required
for
interpretation
of
the
results.

Category
6
­
Health
and
Safety
Information
1.
Personnel
Hazard
 
Potential
health
hazard
(
acute
or
chronic),
if
any,
to
personnel
operating
the
device
(
e.
g.
electrical
hazards,
explosion,
radiation,
exposure
or
chemicals).
May
also
include
information
about
the
proper
personal
protection
equipment
required
during
use
to
ensure
worker
health
and
safety.

2.
Environmental
Hazard
 
Degree
of
environmental
hazard
or
impact
associated
with
direct
contact
to
the
product
or
its
by­
products.

3.
Public
Health
Hazard
 
Potential
health
hazard
(
acute
or
chronic)
to
the
public
(
building
visitors,

occupants,
and/
or
community)
resulting
from
the
operation
of
the
device.