1487ss13

Exhibit 11. Estimated Costs to Communities (Voluntary activities, not actually expended costs) for the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) 51

Exhibit 12: Annual Agency Burden and Cost for Superfund Site Evaluation and HRS 52

Exhibit 13: Total Agency Burden for Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions 54

Exhibit 14. Estimated Burden Hours for Federal Oversight of State Activities for the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) 55

Exhibit 15. Estimated Burden Hours for Federal Community Activities for the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) 56

Exhibit 16. Estimated Costs for Federal Oversight of State Activities for the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NCP) 57

Exhibit 17. Estimated Costs to the Federal Government for Community Activities for the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) 58

Exhibit 18. Total Respondent Burden Hours and Costs for the NCP 59

Exhibit 19. Total Federal Agency Burden Hours and Costs for the NCP 59

Exhibit 20. Total Estimated Respondent Burden and Costs Summary for the Superfund Site Evaluation and Hazard Ranking System 60

IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

1(a) Title of the Information Collection

This Information Collection Request (ICR) has EPA ICR number 1487.13 (OMB control number 2050-0179) and is titled, “Consolidated Superfund Information Collection Request (Renewal).”

1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract

This ICR covers reporting and recordkeeping requirements for three major areas of the Superfund program:

Superfund Site Evaluation and Hazard Ranking System
Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

Superfund Site Evaluation and Hazard Ranking System

In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) to address threats posed to human health and the environment by uncontrolled releases of hazardous substances into the environment. Section 105 of CERCLA required EPA to establish criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances for the purpose of taking remedial action. In response, EPA developed a model to systematically rank hazardous waste sites with regard to their relative threat to human health and the environment. This model, the Hazard Ranking System (HRS), was adopted by EPA in 1982 and later revised in December 1990. The HRS criteria take into account the population at risk, the hazard potential of the substances, as well as the potential for contamination of drinking water supplies, direct human contact, destruction of sensitive ecosystems, damage to natural resources affecting the human food chain, contamination of surface water used for recreation or potable water consumption, and contamination of ambient air.

The Superfund site evaluation process uses a series of progressively more complex site assessment phases to determine and implement the appropriate responses to releases of hazardous substances to the environment. Exhibit 1 outlines the major components of the site assessment process.

Shape1

At the conclusion of each phase of the site assessment process, the HRS model is applied to identify if a site warrants further consideration for placement on the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL is a list of those sites that are priorities for long-term evaluation and remedial response. Sites with HRS scores of 28.50 or greater are eligible for placement on the NPL. Only sites on the NPL are eligible for Superfund-financed remedial actions. Sites with HRS scores below 28.5 generally require no further Superfund site evaluation. Uniform application of the HRS by the EPA, States and Tribes enables EPA to identify and prioritize hazardous waste sites that warrant further investigation.^¹

Under this ICR, the States (including U.S. Territories) and Tribes will apply the HRS by collecting and documenting HRS data needs required for each site assessment phase conducted. EPA Regions work with States and Tribes to determine which sites will receive each type of assessment. The HRS-based data collected by States and Tribes during site assessment activities are derived from the sources described in this information collection, including conducting field reconnaissance, taking samples at the site, and reviewing available reports and documents. States and Tribes conclude each site assessment phase by completing and submitting the appropriate site assessment report to EPA. The number and type of assessment reports to be conducted by States and Tribes is a function of available funding, site assessment backlogs, Superfund site assessment goals, and site assessment priorities; therefore, the type of information collected under this ICR is considered to be a periodic report. The States and Tribes are reimbursed 100 percent of their costs to develop these reports, except for record maintenance.

EPA Regions review each site assessment report submitted by States and Tribes for accuracy and completeness, and to ensure conformance with Superfund site assessment guidance. EPA Regions then use this information to make a decision regarding next Superfund steps for a site. EPA Regions also enter summary information about each report and the associated decision on next steps into the Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS). EPA maintains reports submitted by States and Tribes in site files.

The annual burden incurred by States and Tribes for collecting information necessary to move a site through the site assessment process is a function of the average estimated hours and dollars per site assessment activity, the estimated number of assessment activities completed per year, and State/Tribal infrastructure costs supporting these assessment activities. In order to calculate the burden for this ICR, EPA Regions provided annual average estimates of site assessment activities to be completed by States and Tribes from FY16 through FY18. EPA Regions also provided estimated average hours and dollars incurred by States and Tribes to complete each type of site assessment activity, along with estimated infrastructure costs used by States and Tribes to perform Superfund work.

Projected FY16-FY18 data provided by EPA regions show that the estimated annual hour and cost burden to State and Tribal respondents for performing site assessment activities is approximately 156,526 hours and $14,200,043, respectively. However, one hundred percent of the respondent cost ($14,200,043) is reimbursed by the EPA through cooperative agreements (CAs) as set forth by Section 104(d) of CERCLA, thus state and tribal respondents do not effectively bear any cost burden.^² Section 6.0 of this document, Estimating the Burden and Cost of Collection, provides a more detailed discussion of the burden to respondents.

Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions

This is a request for an updated Information Collection Request (ICR). The title of this submission is: “Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions.” This ICR authorizes the collection of information under EPA’s Superfund Rule at 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart O, that establishes the administrative requirements for CERCLA-funded cooperative agreements for State, political subdivisions, and Federally-recognized Indian Tribes and Tribal Consortia response actions. The regulation includes only those provisions mandated by CERCLA, required by OMB circulars, or added by EPA to ensure sound and effective financial assistance management under this regulation. The information is collected from applicants and/or recipients of EPA assistance and is used to make awards, pay recipients, and collect information on how Federal funds are being utilized. EPA requires this information to meet its Federal stewardship responsibilities. Recipient responses are required to obtain a benefit (Federal funds) under 40 CFR Part 31, “Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments” and under 40 CFR Part 35, “State and Local Assistance.”

It is estimated that the information collection will involve 597 new respondents and 964 amendments to existing agreements with recipients impose a burden of 14,248.34 hours and $456,484.46. Previous Information Collection burdens were approved under OMB control number 2050-0179. The prior ICR was approved without any terms of clearance.

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)

This ICR addresses the portion of the NCP that details the requirements for remedial activities at sites on the National Priority List (Superfund Sites). The NCP is the rule that stipulates requirements for fulfilling the legislative mandates of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 as amended (CERCLA or Superfund). This ICR covers remedial activities conducted at state-lead sites, participation by community members at all Superfund sites, Federally-conducted community involvement activities, and Federal oversight of state activities. The information collected via these activities is critical to characterizing contamination at sites, determining appropriate remedies and goals for cleanup, and involving the community in the process. All of these steps help ensure that some of the nation’s worst hazardous waste sites are cleaned up in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment, and, where practical, returned to productive use.

NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection

Superfund Site Evaluation and Hazard Ranking System

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.

EPA’s FY 2014-2018 Strategic Plan^³ submitted to Congress on September 30, 2010, as required under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993. EPA’s strategic plan includes a target for making a cumulative total of 95,500 Superfund site assessments by the end of FY 2018. The site assessment reports submitted by States and Tribes are included in this target.

CERCLA establishes the legal authority to perform site assessment and NPL listing activities. Specifically Section 105 of CERCLA required that the National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) be amended to include the following:

“[C]riteria for determining priorities among releases throughout the United States for the purpose of taking remedial action... Criteria and priorities... shall be based upon relative risk or danger to public health, welfare, or the environment... taking into account... the population at risk, the hazard potential of the hazardous substances... the potential for contamination of drinking water supplies, the potential for direct human contact, the potential for destruction of sensitive ecosystems... and other appropriate factors.”

To meet these requirements, the HRS was adopted and enacted as part of the revised NCP in July 1982. Section 105(8)(B) of CERCLA requires the NCP to include a “list.... of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases throughout the United States...” Application of the HRS determines whether an uncontrolled hazardous waste site may be eligible for inclusion on the NPL. Each State is also eligible to “establish and submit for consideration by the President priorities for remedial action among known releases and potential releases in that State based upon the criteria” in Section 105(8)(A).

In 1986, CERCLA was amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). EPA modified the HRS in 1990 so that, “to the maximum extent feasible, [it] accurately assesses the relative degree of risk to human health and the environment posed by sites and facilities subject to review.” Section 105 of SARA mandates that the HRS take into account, to the extent possible, the following:

-Human health risks associated with the contamination or potential contamination of surface water that is or can be used for recreation or potable water consumption;

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

-Contamination or potential contamination of the ambient air, which is associated with the release or threatened release.

Section 118 of CERCLA requires that a high priority be given to facilities where the release of hazardous substances or pollutants has resulted in the closing of drinking water wells or a principal drinking water supply.

Section 125 of CERCLA requires the HRS to assess sites containing a substantial volume of waste as described in Section 3001(b)(3)(A)(I) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. These wastes include fly ash wastes, bottom ash wastes, slag wastes, and flue gas emission control wastes generated primarily from the combustion of coal or other fossil fuels. Section 125 of CERCLA requires EPA to consider each of the following site-specific characteristics:

-Degree of risk to human health and the environment;

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

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

The specific sections of CERCLA cited above can be found at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=BROWSE&TITLE=42USCC103.

Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions

This ICR is necessary due to the information collection and reporting requirements in the Superfund rule 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart O, “Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions.” Due to the statutory cost recovery requirements in

CERCLA and the need to carefully track all costs, Superfund recipients must comply with administrative requirements sufficient to meet these provisions of the law. The regulation sets forth the pre-award, post-award, and closeout cooperative agreement requirements which are conditions for receiving/managing a Superfund Cooperative Agreement (CA) or a Superfund State Contract (SSC). This information is needed by EPA project officers, grant specialists, and finance officials to manage/oversee the funding activities and cleanup activities at Superfund sites. EPA also uses the information to update the Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS) which tracks progress made at Superfund sites, and to update COMPASS, EPA’s database for tracking financial management.

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)

CERCLA authorizes the President to undertake removal and remedial actions in response to releases, or threats of releases, of hazardous substances and certain pollutants and contaminants into the environment. Revisions were made to the NCP in 1982 to incorporate the provisions of CERCLA. These revisions to the NCP established procedures for data collection, analysis, and reporting to be conducted during remedial and removal responses at Superfund sites. Subsequent revisions to the NCP in 1985 added additional procedures. Finally, the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) amended CERCLA and mandated, among other provisions, that the NCP be revised within 18 months of the date of enactment of SARA to incorporate provisions of the new law (42 USC 9605(b)). The revised NCP, published in March 1990, included new reporting and record keeping provisions for Superfund remedial responses as described in 40 CFR 300.430 and 300.435.

EPA uses the information provided by the states to ensure state actions are consistent with the provisions of CERCLA and SARA and that their decisions are protective of human health and the environment. EPA uses the information gathered from private citizens to plan activities geared to educating them where necessary, keeping them informed of activities within the community, and ensuring they have had an opportunity to assume an active role in the decision making process that affects their community. EPA also uses information from private citizens to measure the effectiveness of community involvement activities and to improve those activities as needed. EPA believes involvement of the members of the community surrounding a Superfund site is critical to ensuring effective site cleanups.

2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data

Superfund Site Evaluation and Hazard Ranking System

The data collected through the site assessment process described in this ICR are used to support a site decision regarding the need for further Superfund action. The various data elements gathered, which relate to the HRS criteria, are used to complete the HRS score. All of this information is used within the Superfund program to:

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

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

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

-Develop preliminary and final HRS scores;

-Set priorities for further assessment work;

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

-Evaluate Superfund program performance.

In addition, EPA Headquarters’ staff use the information collected to aid in the general management and oversight of the Superfund program. Currently, EPA uses the information to assess resource needs; allocate funds; prepare site assessment guidance materials; list NPL sites; conduct quality assurance (QA) reviews of HRS packages; and track Regional and State Superfund performance. Headquarters also uses the information to respond to information requests, and perform analyses for EPA management, OMB, Congress, and the general public.

Staff at the ten EPA Regions use Superfund site assessment data for purposes similar to Headquarters, including: developing operating budgets and program plans; allocating resources; tracking State-by-State performance; responding to information inquiries under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA); and supplying input to CERCLIS. EPA regions also use the data to help identify which cleanup option should be used to address sites needing potential remediation (e.g., NPL listing, RCRA, state cleanup program). Regions must also respond to inquiries from EPA Headquarters. As a function of their program authority, EPA Regions also have the responsibility for overseeing site assessments and generating HRS scores.

State and Tribal use of site assessment data is more site-specific. These authorities use the data to perform site assessments; generate HRS scores; maintain site files; track site status; and respond to information inquiries under FOIA. They also use the information gathered to maintain their own site files. Exhibit 2 summarizes the use and users of site assessment and HRS information.

Exhibit 2: Use and Users of the Site Assessment Data

EPA HEADQUARTERS

List NPL sites
QA HRS packages
Prepare site assessment guidance manuals
Establish national Superfund budget
Track Regional and State Superfund performance
Respond to Congress
Respond to information inquiries (FOIA)

EPA REGIONS

Oversee site assessment
Review HRS scores
Supply input to Congress
Track site status
Coordinate with other programs
Maintain site files
Respond to information inquiries (FOIA)

STATES/TRIBES

Perform site assessment
Generate HRS scores
Track site status
Coordinate with other environmental programs
Maintain site files
Respond to information inquiries (FOIA)

Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions

The information collected is used by EPA to manage and administer cooperative agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund response actions. The pre-award information is used to qualify cooperative agreement applicants and award cooperative agreements. The post-award information is used to meet the statutory and regulatory requirements and monitor recipient performance. The closeout information is used to meet reporting and record keeping requirements necessary for cost recovery purposes and for closing out awards. The information is necessary to ensure fiscal control and accountability for Superfund money to deter waste, fraud, and abuse.

40 CFR Part 35, Subpart O, also supplements EPA’s general assistance regulation, 40 CFR Part 31, “Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments.” Part 31, which implements the requirements of OMB Circular A-102, became effective for awards made on or after October 1, 1988. The Part 31 rule (common rule) established uniformity among Federal agencies that award Federal grants and cooperative agreements to States, political subdivisions thereof, and Federally-recognized Indian Tribes and Tribal Consortia. Many of the information collection requirements for Superfund cooperative agreements were approved under the OMB Paperwork Clearance #2030-0020 associated with 40 CFR Part 31 prior to this ICR.

Due to statutory cost recovery requirements, and the need to carefully track costs by site and activity, Superfund recipients must comply with all administrative requirements to satisfy the provisions of the law. There are additional requirements in this regulation, which supplements Part 31, and are necessary for effective cost recovery from potentially responsible parties. States may be able to follow their own rules for certain aspects of the program, such as in procurement, if their administrative requirements and financial management capabilities are sufficient.

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)

The lead agency, whether EPA or the state, conducts many data-gathering activities, including development of the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) and the preparation of the Proposed Plan and the Record of Decision (ROD). This data is used by the lead agency to make informed decisions regarding remedial responses. When states assume the lead agency responsibilities, EPA Regions use the information collected to oversee states in the conduct of remedial responses at hazardous waste sites. Specifically, this information is used to ensure that remedies are selected in accordance with CERCLA and the NCP, that cleanup standards are attained, and that community concerns are appropriately addressed. The data are also made available to the public and may help community members understand health risks and participate in site-related decisions.

States also identify all potential applicable, relevant, and appropriate requirements (ARARs) at all state- and Federal-lead sites during the RI/FS. The ARARs are used to determine cleanup levels and to select the remedy to be used at a site. ARARs include chemical-specific, location-specific, and action-specific levels that may need to be met at a site for it be determined protective of human health and the environment. These levels may be contained in federal statues, such as the Safe Drinking Water Act or the Endangered Species Act, or in state laws, which must be used if the levels are more stringent than those promulgated in a corresponding federal statute.

Community interviews and information provided by community groups are used by the lead agency to ensure public involvement in site-related decisions, as required by CERCLA and SARA, and provide appropriate opportunities for the community to learn about the site. EPA uses the information gathered through research instruments, such as satisfaction surveys, to obtain timely feedback on the community involvement process at the site level. Communities are viewed as integral participants in the Superfund cleanup process and their early and often involvement can often expedite cleanup and result in future reuse that meets the communities’ needs.

NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

3(a) Non-duplication

Superfund Site Evaluation and Hazard Ranking System

The primary sources of data required to complete site assessments and prepare HRS packages are Federal, State, and local government agencies and private parties. Data are gathered through the various electronic data sources and through the performance of actual on-site investigations (e.g., samples, on-site measurements). Much of the information (i.e., site history, population surrounding the site, location of drinking water supplies) is collected from readily available public information sources, thereby minimizing the amount of collection of this primary information. The field data gathered during the site assessment activities covered under this ICR are not generally collected by any other Federal agency from these state and tribal respondents.

Through pre-CERCLA screenings, EPA screens out sites being addressed by other parties to prevent duplication of assessment activities. Limited sampling to collect and analyze waste and environmental samples can be taken throughout the assessment process. In instances where prior sampling has been completed and analytical data has been collected, performance of additional sampling may not be necessary.

Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions

All information collected is used to continue administering cooperative agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund response actions. This data is not available from other sources, as it is specifically related to the requirements of 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart O, and the award, management, and closeout of cooperative agreements and Superfund State Contracts within this program.

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)

Duplication of other Federal data collection efforts is expected to be minimal. Site information is gathered cumulatively from identification through remedial action. To the extent practicable, respondents are encouraged to use information in the site file to inform other subsequent activities at the site.

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

A notice stating this ICR was up for renewal was published in the Federal Register on December 7, 2015 (80 FR 76015). This initiated a 60-day comment period. No comments were received during the comment period.

3(c) Consultations

Superfund Site Evaluation and Hazard Ranking System

In order to calculate the burden of site assessment activities on the States and Tribes and present the results in this report, State and Tribal burden information was based on average annual site assessment activity projections for FY 2016 through FY 2018. As part of obtaining the State and Tribal burden information, EPA Regions were contacted to determine the nature of site assessment activities performed by States and Tribes in each respective Region and the costs (dollars and hours) associated with these activities. EPA Regions reviewed cooperative agreement progress reports submitted by States and Tribes as necessary to gather the State and Tribal data for this ICR.

Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions

The following organizations were contacted to provide additional input towards the calculation of burden imposed by this ICR:

Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
One Winter St.
Boston, MA 02108

Site Remediation and Solid Waste Program
Division of Remedial Management & Response
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
CN 413
Trenton, NJ 08625

Office of Remediation Programs
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
629 E. Main St.
Richmond, VA 23219

Indiana Department of Environmental Management

Division: Office of Land Quality/Remediation Branch

Phone: 317-232-4535

100 N Senate Ave IGCN 1101

Indianapolis, IN 46204

Remedial Response Section #4

Superfund Division

U.S. EPA, Region 5

77 West Jackson Blvd.

Mailcode: SR-6J

Chicago, IL 60604

Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Environmental Response and Remediation
195 North 1950 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84116

Six of the organizations contacted responded. These respondents commented on the burdens presented in the burden table, below are respondents and their responses.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency - No significant changes
Indiana Department of Environmental Management - Estimated burden seems low
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection - Provided updated burden hour estimates
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection – Provided updated burden hour estimates
Utah Department of Environmental Quality – No significant changes
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality - Provided updated burden hour estimates

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)

An EPA Superfund database provides the basis for the planned number of proposed plans, RODs and active NPL sites in this ICR. These numbers, in conjunction with best professional judgment, serve as the foundation from which estimates of the number of activities (e.g., RI/FS, Community Involvement Plans, etc.) were developed in consultation with subject matter experts in both EPA Headquarters and Regional offices. Discussions with these experts involved feedback on the accuracy of burden and cost estimates. Agency experience in addressing community issues has included semi-annual or annual meetings with Regional community involvement staff, meetings with groups of states, and meetings with citizen groups. Finally, information from actual historical contract activity inform the estimates of the number of hours to perform an RI/FS as well as the breakout of labor type when developing an RI/FS.

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection

Superfund Site Evaluation and Hazard Ranking System

Site assessment information collection does not occur on a regularly scheduled basis. Yearly collection activities associated with the site assessment process are based on the number of sites discovered, the number of sites in the SEMS Active site inventory needing assessment work, the amount of available Superfund funding, and Superfund site assessment goals and priorities. The frequency of collection is driven by the schedule established in Section 116(b) of CERCLA. Section 116(b) requires an HRS evaluation (if warranted) within four years of the site's entry into the Active site inventory SEMS.^⁴ For sites brought to EPA’s attention via a citizen’s petition, Section 105(d) of CERCLA requires completion of a Preliminary Assessment (PA), or an explanation of why a PA is not appropriate, within one year after receiving the petition. Less frequent collection of site assessment reports may compromise EPA’s ability to comply with statutory schedules and could negatively impact EPA’s progress towards achieving the strategic target for completing Superfund site assessments.

Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions

There is no fixed schedule for the collection of this information. It is required on an as needed basis as stated in the rule at 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart O, “Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions.” Therefore, there is no possibility that the information can be collected less frequently than required by the regulation.

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)

Information is collected as appropriate to the remedial stage of the Superfund process. The frequency of these collections vary depending on several factors at the site, such as complexity of issues, cleanup technology used, level of community interest, and duration of cleanup. Information collection frequencies outlined in the NCP are the minimal amount necessary to ensure cleanup of NPL sites and the proper implementation of CERCLA.

3(e) General Guidelines

Superfund Site Evaluation and Hazard Ranking System

The reporting frequency guideline set forth in 5 CFR 1320.6 of the Paperwork Reduction Act Guidelines may not be met depending on the nature of new sites discovered and urgency of assessment work needed. Collection of information occurs continually as new sites are identified. EPA is currently operating NPL development activities so that as sites with higher priorities are identified, the information is forwarded to the appropriate office for review and validation.

States and Tribes have at least 30 days in which to respond to any information requests specified in the NCP. This time frame is in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act guidelines. The record retention period for administrative records is not specified in the National Contingency Plan. The site records are to be maintained for the duration of the assessment and any subsequent remediation at sites and for as long as necessary for litigation purposes. Responsibility for these files will continue beyond the three year ICR period, as assessment and, if necessary, remediation may take more than three years.

Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions

The information collection is consistent with the guidelines set forth in 5 CFR 1320.5 of the Paperwork Reduction Act Guidelines.

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)

States 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 NCP. The site records are to be maintained for the duration of remedial responses at sites and for as long as necessary for litigation purposes. Responsibility for these files will continue beyond the three-year ICR period as cleanups typically take more than three years.

3(f) Confidentiality

Superfund Site Evaluation and Hazard Ranking System

Application of the HRS does not typically require collection of information that is considered confidential. EPA handles instances where confidentiality claims are asserted by private parties on a case-by-case basis. States and Tribes (the respondents) have been informed that any confidential information submitted to document an HRS score must be marked clearly as such and sent under separate cover so that it is properly handled.

Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions

No sensitive information is expected to be collected under this ICR. However, any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B - Confidentiality of Business Information (see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)

The nature of the data being gathered as part of this information collection is not confidential. Information may be gathered from Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) that the PRP considers to be Confidential Business Information (CBI). When information is designated as CBI by a PRP, EPA follows restricted access procedures in handling the information. These procedures include keeping the information in locked areas and only allowing CBI-cleared personnel access to the information. PRP information is gathered in anticipation of litigation. EPA, therefore, does not have to grant Freedom of Information Act requests for this information.

Lists of participants in community interviews and lists of attendees of public meetings are not confidential. Some data gathered during community interviews may not be releasable, however, due to privacy concerns.

3(g) Sensitive Questions

None of the information being collected will contain sensitive questions or require collecting sensitive information.^⁵

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

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

Superfund Site Evaluation and Hazard Ranking System

Activities conducted as part of the Superfund site assessment process require that information be gathered from Federal, State, and local government agencies. While the performance of the various phases of site assessment will require the involvement of State and local agencies, identification of the particular State or local agency involved is not possible until a site has been identified. SIC codes associated with environmental protection agencies (governmental) are classified in Division J, Public Administration; Major Group 95, Administration of Environmental Quality and Housing Programs; Industry Group 951, Administration of Environmental Quality; and 9511 Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste Management. The corresponding North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 924110: Administration of Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste Management Programs.

Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions

The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are:

	SIC Codes	NAICS Codes
Other General Government Support	9119	921190
American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Governments	8641	921150

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)

Respondents to this ICR are state/tribal governments and individual community members who voluntarily participate in the remedial phase of the Superfund program and in associated community involvement activities throughout the Superfund process. SIC Codes are OSHA’s Standard Industrial Classification System used to identify different groups. State/tribal governments are categorized as Division J: Public Administration, Major Group 95: Administration of Environmental Quality and Housing Programs, Industry Group 951: Administration of Environmental Quality, subgroup 9511: Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste Management. The other respondents, community members, do not have a SIC Code as they do not constitute an industry.

4(b) Information Requested

Superfund Site Evaluation and Hazard Ranking System

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 is often collected from readily available public information sources such as State and local government offices, Regional EPA offices, and potentially responsible parties (PRPs). The amount of data collected during the site assessment process and the activities associated with collection vary from site to site depending on the level of proposed threat. Data collection activities also vary from phase to phase of the site assessment process based on the type of information needed to satisfy the HRS requirements such as waste characterization and target assessments. Although reporting activities (e.g., data collection, report preparation) comprise the majority of the site assessment effort, approximately 13 percent of the total effort can be attributed to recordkeeping activities (e.g., developing and maintaining databases, entering data, and filing).

This section provides a detailed description of the type of data that needs to be collected to complete a site assessment and the activities associated with this collection process. It also provides estimates of the average annual projections of number of respondent activities from FY 2016 through FY 2018. State and Tribal respondents submit a site assessment report to EPA for each activity conducted. EPA enters key information contained in these reports into SEMS.

Collection activities are discussed for the major phases of site assessment including: Pre-CERCLA Screening, Preliminary Assessment, Site Inspection, and HRS Package Preparation. Other assessment activities are also described, including: Integrated Removal/Remedial Evaluation (Integrated Assessment), Expanded Site Inspection and Site Reassessment.

Exhibit 3 provides an overview of the activities performed and data items collected for the various phases of site assessment. It also illustrates where the sub-phases may be utilized and the various outcomes that can occur. Section 6.0, Estimating the Burden and Cost of Collection, provides the estimated average hours associated with each of the phases of the site assessment process.

Exhibit 3: Detailed Site Assessment Activities and Data

Authority/ Regulation	Site Assessment	Respondent Site Activities	Data Items
CERCLA/NCP (HRS Rule)	Pre-CERCLA Screening	Data collection Report preparation	Site name, location Superfund eligibility SEMS active site inventory decision
	Preliminary Assessment	Work plan preparation Data collection Site reconnaissance Preliminary HRS score Report preparation	Site name, location updates Historical site information Current and past owners and operators Identification of potential sources Location of drinking water supplies
	Site Inspection	Work plan preparation Sample plan preparation Health and safety plan preparation Site reconnaissance Sample collection Data validation Preliminary HRS score update Report preparation	Samples Additional site history Information on environmental setting
	Expanded Site Inspection	Work plan preparation Sample plan preparation Focused sample collection Non-sampling data collection Preliminary HRS score update Report preparation	Samples Additional field data
	Integrated Assessments	Data collection for remedial assessment as described elsewhere on this table in addition to data collection as part of an NCP-based removal assessment Integrated report preparation	Data items described above and additional samples and field data supporting removal assessment
	Site Reassessment	Review of new information reported on a previously assessed site Select components of a remedial preliminary assessment or site inspection.	Updates of data collected from previous remedial assessment activities as described above
	HRS Package	File review Draft HRS score Revise HRS score Prepare docket	Pathways Likelihood of release Waste characteristics Targets

Pre-CERCLA Screening

Pre-CERCLA 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 the SEMS Active site inventory for further evaluation or response action. ^⁶ The process can be initiated through the use of several mechanisms, such as a phone call or referral by a State or other Federal agency. Following notification of a potential site to EPA, Regions generally contact State, Tribal, or other appropriate Federal staff to determine whether the site is already being addressed by another party and to define EPA’s role at the site. From FY 2016 through FY 2018, EPA projects an annual average of 321 Pre-CERCLA screenings will be performed by States or Tribes.

Preliminary Assessment

The preliminary assessment (PA) is a relatively rapid, low-cost compilation of readily available information pertaining to the site and its surroundings.^⁷ From FY 2016 through FY 2018, EPA projects an annual average of 163 PAs will be performed by States or Tribes to identify target populations and other targets that may be affected by contamination at sites. The scope of the PA must be sufficient to complete several activities, including:

Reviewing existing information about the site;
Conducting a site and environmental reconnaissance;

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

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

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

Data collected during PA activities include: site-specific data, historical site information, potential contamination sources, and types of hazardous waste, target information, and location of drinking water supplies. Sampling activities are not performed during this phase of site assessment.

In certain situations, an Abbreviated PA (APA)^⁸ may be conducted in lieu of a full PA. APAs are appropriate when the following conditions exist:

A site has been inappropriately listed in SEMS because it is either not eligible or it could be deferred to another response program;
A site can be addressed as part of another site already in SEMS;
Available information allows EPA to make an early decision to undertake a Site Inspection (SI); or
A NFRAP designation can be made without completing a full PA.

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

Site Inspection

SIs build upon and supplement the information collected during the PA. The primary purpose of the SI is to gather enough information to determine whether further Superfund action is warranted as a result of a significant threat to human health and the environment.^⁹ From FY 2016 through FY 20148 EPA projects an annual average of 92 SIs will be performed by States or Tribes. During the SI, the respondent will collect data to determine whether the site is an NPL candidate or if it should receive a NFRAP or other decision (i.e., deferral to RCRA, further assessment needed). The SI consists of five major activities:

 Reviewing available information including analytical data;

 Organizing the project team and developing an SI work plan, sample plan, health and safety plan, and investigation-derived wastes (IDW) plan;

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

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

 Preparing a site summary report.

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

Integrated Removal/Remedial Evaluations (Integrated Assessments)

Site assessment and removal assessment activities may be combined into a single Integrated Assessment activity if the appropriate site conditions exist.^¹⁰ Integrated Assessments further reduce repetitive tasks and costs on site characterization. The two most common types of Integrated Assessments include: Integrated Removal Assessment & PA; and Integrated Removal Assessment & SI. The stand-alone requirements from the site assessment and removal assessment activities must be met even though the data will be integrated.^¹¹

Expanded Site Inspection

The ESI further investigates critical hypotheses proposed in the SI regarding the nature and extent of contamination at a site. ESIs typically include additional site sampling, which in some cases, may require specialized techniques or equipment (e.g., installation of monitoring wells, geophysical surveys). Data generated are used to modify the preliminary HRS score developed during the SI. An ESI report is the final product of this phase. ESI activities should include:

 Organizing the project team and developing ESI work plan, sample plan, health and safety plan, and IDW plan;

 Investigating and documenting critical new hypotheses or assumptions;

 Collecting samples to attribute hazardous substances to site operations;

 Collecting samples to establish representative background levels;

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

 Preparing a site summary report.

The data collected during the ESI may be used to support previous documentation or references, and fulfill remaining HRS data requirements for pathways of concern.^¹² From FY 2016 through FY 2018, EPA projects an annual average of 35 ESIs will be performed by States or Tribes.

Site Reassessment

The Site Reassessment represents the gathering and evaluation of new information on a site previously assessed under the Federal Superfund program to determine whether further Superfund attention is needed. The scope of work for a Site Reassessment activity is flexible, but will usually represent a component of PA or SI activities. As such, it serves as a supplement to previous assessment work, and not as a substitute for an initial PA or SI.^¹³ From FY 2016 through FY 2018, EPA projects an annual average of 108 site reassessments will be performed by States or Tribes.

HRS Package Preparation

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

 File review;

 Determining site score;

 Revising site score; and

 Preparing the documentation record and supporting information.

After completion of the site evaluation, compiled data are used to score a site using scoresheets based on the HRS model. Under the HRS, numerical values are assigned to a site based on various aspects of the site and its immediate surroundings through the evaluation of four pathways: (1) ground water migration; (2) surface water migration; (3) soil exposure; and (4) air migration. The scoring system for each pathway is based on a number of individual factors grouped into three factor categories: (1) likelihood of release or, for the soil exposure pathway, likelihood of exposure; (2) waste characteristics; and (3) targets (i.e., potentially affected populations, etc.). Individual factors are evaluated and the factor values are calculated to produce four category values. An example of the scoresheets used during HRS package preparation can be found at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/training/hrstrain/htmain/index.htm.

From FY 2016 through FY 2018, EPA projects an annual average of 8 HRS packages will be performed by States or Tribes.

Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions

(i) Data Items (Including recordkeeping requirements)

Information requested – Information relating to the following cooperative agreement types and Superfund State Contracts will be collected to ensure sound and effective financial assistance management and to help EPA meet its Federal stewardship responsibilities under this program:

Pre-Remedial Cooperative Agreements;
Remedial Response Cooperative Agreements;
Enforcement Cooperative Agreements;

Removal Cooperative Agreements;
Core Program Cooperative Agreements;
Support Agency Cooperative Agreements;
Superfund State Contract;
Conclusion of Superfund State Contracts;
Consolidated Funding Cooperative Agreements;
Conclusion of the Cooperative Agreement; and
Records Retention.

This information will also be used to update and maintain the IFMS database.

(ii) Respondent Activities

Respondents will:

Prepare and submit cooperative agreements application materials including work plans;

Conduct research and gather data as needed;
Prepare and submit quarterly/or bi-annual/or annual reports that contain: (1) An explanation of work accomplished during the reporting period, delays, or other problems, if any, and a description of the corrective measures that are planned. For Pre‑remedial Cooperative Agreements, the report must include a list of the site‑specific products completed and the estimated number of technical hours spent to complete each product. (2) A comparison of the percentage of the project completed to the project schedule, and an explanation of significant discrepancies. (3) A comparison of the estimated funds spent to date to planned expenditures and an explanation of significant discrepancies. For remedial, enforcement, and removal reports, the comparison must be on a per task basis. (4) An estimate of the time and funds needed to complete the work required in the Cooperative Agreement, a comparison of that estimate to the time and funds remaining, and a justification for any increase.
Prepare other standardized non-construction assurances referenced and covered under 40 CFR Part 31 and OMB Circular A-102;

Perform required recordkeeping activities;

Respond to EPA requests for additional information; and

Perform other activities as necessary as required by 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart O.

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)

This ICR requests information from states at state-lead sites as it relates to CERCLA activities. Each of the following categories will be addressed in detail in this section: RI/FS, Proposed Plans, RODs, ARARs, Administrative Record, initial and revised Community Involvement Plans (CIP), Fact Sheets, focus groups, and workshops. Information is also requested on a voluntary basis from community members at all active Federal and state lead sites. The following community activities will be addressed in detail in this section: initial and revised CIP interviews, focus group participation, workgroup participation, TAG application, TAG management, and satisfaction surveys. Federal activities will be discussed in a subsequent section of this document.

(i) Data items, including record-keeping requirements

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study

The first step in conducting the RI/FS, which is authorized under CERCLA §104 (42 USC 9604(a)(1); 40 CFR 300.430), is the development of a project plan, which describes the scope and content of the RI/FS and includes work plans. Work plans are developed as part of the project plan and detail the site management strategy. The work plans identify initial boundaries of the study area, likely remedial response objectives, operable units (if any), and the procedures that will be followed to satisfy the strategy. In addition, an initial site evaluation is presented in the typical work plan. This evaluation includes:

- Site description;

- Preliminary definition of the contamination problems;

- Likely contaminant migration pathways;

- Environmental and health effects associated with migration; and

- Description of any initial remedial measures for the site.

A preliminary assessment of remedial alternatives may be included in the work plan. The data requirements necessary to support the selection of a remedy are also discussed.

Based on preliminary site information, the objectives and the scope of work for the RI and FS are developed. The scope of work for the RI includes many components, including plans for project operations that will be followed in conducting a survey of the study area, in characterizing the source of contamination, and in identifying Federal and state ARARs. The work plan also includes procedures that will be followed in evaluating contamination pathway and transport, and in evaluating the potential risk to public health posed by the site. Plans for testing the feasibility of remedial technologies may also be included. Initial data quality objectives, quality assurance procedures that will be followed, procedures to be followed in preparing the RI report, and information on the technical and financial management of the RI project also are discussed in the RI scope of work section of a site work plan.

The sampling and analysis plan for a site is developed during the scoping phase of the RI. This plan describes the sampling, calibration, and analytical procedures that will be followed in collecting air, water, soil and source samples. Additionally, quality assurance objectives to be met throughout the sampling task are discussed. These objectives include procedures that will be followed to ensure the accuracy and precision of the analysis, as well as the completeness, representativeness, and comparability of the sampling. Hundreds of samples are taken during the typical RI, and the analysis of the site samples provides basic information on the concentration, source, and potential paths of migration of contaminants at a site. Sampling and analysis plans generally include a project description that summarizes the site history, environmental setting, and project objectives such as the media to be sampled, sampling locations on the site, and sampling schedule. A health and safety plan is drafted that identifies potentially hazardous operations and exposures, and prescribes appropriate protective measures.

In the scope of work for the FS, procedures are established for developing remedial alternatives for the site. Alternative screening and analysis procedures, methods for conducting a comparative evaluation of acceptable alternatives, and details on preparing the FS report are included.

Concurrent with the preparation of the RI work plan, EPA conducts community interviews, as required by the NCP, in preparation for the required Community Involvement Plan, which must be finalized before any RI field work begins.

Upon completion and approval of the work plans and sampling and analysis plans, the RI/FS can begin. The RI/FS includes site work, analysis of data, and preparation of the RI report. Drilling and sampling detailed in the sample and analysis plan requires not only time spent at the site boring holes in the earth and taking air and water samples, but also time to mobilize drilling equipment and to train personnel in the sampling and decontamination techniques to be used at the site. Upon completion of the site work, the samples are sent to a laboratory for evaluation, and the results of the analyses are verified. Standard evaluation techniques include analyzing samples for organics, metals, and cyanide.

The RI serves as the mechanism for collecting data for site and waste characterization and for conducting treatability testing as necessary to: (1) evaluate the performance and cost of the treatment technologies considered for use at a site; and (2) support the design of selected potential remedies. The FS serves as the mechanism for the development, screening, and detailed evaluation of potential remedial alternatives. The RI and FS are conducted concurrently. Data collected in the RI influence the development of remedial alternatives in the FS, which in turn affects the data needs and scope of treatability studies and additional field investigations. The site characterization developed during the RI provides the data necessary to estimate the risks to human health and the environment posed by a site, to establish cleanup goals or ranges, and to identify viable cleanup alternatives. The FS draws upon the data collected and analyzed during the RI in the process of developing alternatives and conducting a detailed analysis of the most viable alternatives. Because of the interactive nature of this process, the sequence of the various phases and associated activities frequently will not be distinct in practice.

A risk assessment is conducted during the RI to estimate the health consequences of exposure to contaminants at a site. In this assessment, the physical and chemical properties of hazardous substances and their toxicological effects are studied to determine the potential for the substances to cause adverse health effects, and the likely pathways and magnitude of exposure of populations and/or individuals near the site. An evaluation of dose-response information is completed to estimate the health effects (e.g., incident of certain diseases) that may result from exposure to the hazardous or toxic substances at a site.

A risk characterization brings together the exposure and the dose-response information to predict the likely range and severity of health effects that may occur as a result of the substances at a site, and the number of people affected. The uncertainty evaluation is an integral part of the risk assessment process; it identifies the degree of uncertainty associated with the final risk estimates by identifying uncertainties related to the data and the assumptions. This uncertainties evaluation places bounds on the final estimate and target areas needing improvement. The FS process includes the initial evaluation and screening of a number of potential alternatives. Alternatives are eliminated from further evaluation for a number of reasons, including technical problems, lack of effectiveness in the long term or short term, failure to protect human health and the environment, cost, or implementation time. The universe of potential remedies is reduced to a reasonable number (usually between three and five) of good alternatives on which detailed analyses are conducted. If existing site and treatment data are insufficient to evaluate the alternatives adequately, treatability tests may be necessary to evaluate a particular technology or specific site wastes. Treatability tests generally involve bench-scale testing to assess the feasibility of a technology, although a pilot-scale study may be required in a few situations.

Once sufficient data are available, alternatives are evaluated in detail with respect to nine evaluation criteria: protection of human health and the environment; compliance with ARARs; long-term effectiveness and permanence; reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume; short-term effectiveness; implementability; cost; support agency acceptance; and community acceptance. The alternatives are evaluated individually against each criterion and then relative to other alternatives to understand the strengths and weaknesses of each alternative. At the end of this analysis process, the RI/FS report is prepared.

For the purposes of this analysis, EPA estimates that there will be an average of 260 RI/FS per year. This estimate includes new and on-going RI/FS. The state-lead portion of these RI/FS is estimated to be 52 RI/FS per year over the three-year ICR period. The Federal government will have the lead on the 208 remaining sites per year. However, for new RI/FS, EPA estimates that there will be an average of 20 new RI/FS per year with 4 being state-lead and 16 being Federal government-lead. These estimates are based on historical and planned data obtained from a Superfund database from Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 to FY 2017.

Proposed Plans

The requirement to issue a Proposed Plan was added to the remedial process by SARA, (42 USC 9617(a); 40 CFR 300.430(f)(2)). This document is to be prepared by the lead agency, in consultation with the support agency, at a site after completion of the RI/FS report and prior to selection of a response action. The lead agency's primary objective in preparing and releasing the Proposed Plan is to seek public comment on the preferred alternative for addressing a problem at a site, and on the other alternatives discussed in the detailed analysis section of the RI/FS. The Proposed Plan serves as a precursor to the Record of Decision (ROD), which details the remedial action to be conducted at the site. The ROD is usually is draft form while the Proposed Plan is finalized and released for public comment.

The Proposed Plan is written using information from the RI/FS report. The purpose of the Proposed Plan is to highlight the RI/FS report, provide a brief analysis of remedial alternatives under consideration, identify a preferred alternative, and provide the public with information on how they can participate in the remedy selection process.

In developing the Proposed Plan, the lead and support agencies first review the RI/FS report prepared for a site, identify an initial preferred alternative, and prepare a draft Proposed Plan. The lead agency's management is briefed on the draft Proposed Plan, which is then forwarded to the support agency for comments. At the end of the support agency review period, the Proposed Plan is finalized and released to the public for comment.

CERCLA, as amended, also requires the lead agency to publish a brief notice and description of the Proposed Plan in a local newspaper of general circulation. As required by CERCLA §117(a) (42 USC 9617(a)), this notice includes information sufficient to provide a reasonable explanation of the preferred alternative and the other alternatives studied. This notice will also announce the availability of the RI/FS report and any planned public participation activities, especially the required Proposed Plan Public Meeting and 30-day comment period.

Finally, CERCLA §l17 requires the lead agency to offer the opportunity for a public meeting to discuss and answer questions and to obtain feedback about the RI/FS report and the Proposed Plan. The lead agency establishes a date and time for the meeting, reserves a facility, and arranges for any special needs. The lead agency also designs the meeting program, including identifying specific issues and tasks to be addressed, preparing an agenda, identifying presenters, and rehearsing presentations. Printed materials, visual aids or graphics, and other materials are prepared and special arrangements made, such as hiring a court reporter. Finally, the meeting is held, and a transcript of the meeting notes is prepared by the lead agency. The transcript is made available to the public as required by CERCLA §117.

Because the Proposed Plan typically is followed closely in time by the ROD, the total number estimated to be written annually at state-lead sites is based on data collected for RODs. Proposed Plans are completed in a discrete amount of time and are assumed not to extend beyond one year. The ROD data comes from the Superfund database and will be discussed in detail in the following section. EPA estimates that Proposed Plans will be finalized at 20 state-lead sites in each year of the three years covered by this ICR.

Records of Decision

The lead agency prepares a ROD in response to the statutory requirements in CERCLA §l13 (42 USC 9613) for a statement of basis and purpose of the selected remedy at a site and in CERCLA §117 (42 USC 9617), which calls for a remedial action plan to be adopted and released to the public.

The ROD is prepared by the lead agency in consultation with the support agency for a site. It is the decision document used to describe the selected remedy for a site or a particular component of a site (e.g., geographic area, pathway, or source control), and to explain the rationale for the selected remedy. In addition, RODs demonstrate the lead agency's decision-making process has been carried out in accordance with CERCLA and the NCP. RODs typically have three major sections: the Declaration, the Decision Summary, and the Responsiveness Summary. All RODs are signed by EPA Regional Administrators or the Assistant Administrator for OLEM. In addition, a representative from a state may sign a ROD.

The Declaration is the formal statement (signed by the EPA regional administrator or the OLEM assistant administrator) that affirms the selected remedy for a site is selected in accordance with CERCLA and is consistent, to the extent practicable, with the NCP. It provides a brief description of the selected remedy. The Decision Summary is the focus of the ROD. The Summary begins with a brief discussion of the site history and a detailed site description, including:

-Site area and topography,

-Adjacent land uses;

-Natural resource uses;

-Distance to nearby populations;

-General water resources, and

-Surface and subsurface features.

Next, the history of state and Federal site investigations and CERCLA enforcement actions at the site are summarized. This historical summary is followed by a discussion of the community involvement activities that have been conducted for the site.

The Decision Summary summarizes the scope of the response action and the site characteristics. The site characteristics section draws on information presented in the RI/FS report and includes details on:

-Types, quantity, and concentration of hazardous substances at a site:

-All known or suspected sources of contamination;

-All known or potential routes of migration, including the mobility, toxicity, and volume of waste;

-Lateral and vertical extent of contamination at the site; and

-Potential surface and subsurface pathways of migration.

Maps illustrating the location of units or contaminants and charts of contaminant types and concentrations often are used in the site characterization section of the Decision Summary. In addition, the results of the site risk assessment and any significant changes made to the preferred alternative in the Proposed Plan are summarized.

Another major component of the Decision Summary is the evaluation of the remedial alternatives considered for the site and identification of the selected remedy. The evaluation of alternatives section first presents a brief description of each of the remedial alternatives. Each alternative for which a detailed analysis was completed (typically five) is discussed. These discussions include:

-Summaries of the technology considered, such as in-situ treatment, clean closure, or thermal treatment;

-The type and quantity of waste to be contained or treated; and

-The major ARARs and standards being met or utilized for specific components of the waste management process.

The estimated capital and O&M costs, as well as estimated implementation time of alternatives, also are presented. A comparative analysis is presented in which the remedial alternatives are evaluated based on the nine criteria described under the RI/FS process and comments on the Proposed Plan. At the end of this analysis, the selected remedy is highlighted as a remedy that meets the statutory requirements of CERCLA and provides the best balance among the evaluation criteria.

The Decision Summary concludes with a detailed discussion of the selected remedy. The summary presents the risk levels to be attained after implementation of the remedy and summarizes the cleanup objectives for the different media at the site. Finally, the selected remedy section of the Decision Summary demonstrates that the selected remedy complies with the statutory requirements in CERCLA §121 (42 USC 9621), that is, the remedy will protect human health and the environment, attain Federal and state ARARs, be cost-effective, and utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable. A discussion of the extent to which the selected remedy fulfills the statutory preference for treatment that reduces the mobility, toxicity, or volume of the principal threats at a site is presented in this section.

The final component of the ROD is the Responsiveness Summary, which is a requirement in CERCLA §117 (42 USC 9617). This part summarizes the written and oral public comments received on the RI/FS report, the Proposed Plan, and the Administrative Record and the lead agency's responses to each major category of comments. The Responsiveness Summary not only provides decision makers with information about community preferences regarding the remedial alternatives considered for a site, but also demonstrates to the public how their comments were taken into account as an integral part of the decision making process.

In preparing the Responsiveness Summary, background research is done to identify citizen input and concerns. In this process, transcripts of the public meeting on the RI/FS report and the Proposed Plan are reviewed, major public comments are organized and summarized, and the lead agency's responses to these comments are prepared. The level of effort to be devoted to this section of the ROD varies, depending in part on the number, length, and complexity of comments and the number of policy issues outstanding at a site.

For the purposes of this ICR, it is estimated that 2 RODs or ROD Amendments will be completed annually at state-lead sites over the three-year ICR period, while 79 RODs or ROD Amendments will be completed annually by the Federal government. This average is based on data in a Superfund database concerning the actual number of RODs or ROD Amendments issued between FY 2012-2015 and those planned through 2017.

Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements

SARA added a requirement to CERCLA §121(d) (42 USC 9621(d)) that all remedial actions must be in compliance with promulgated state ARARs that are more stringent than Federal ARARs. To this end, the current revisions to the NCP require states to identify potential state ARARs for all Federal, state or Federal facility-lead sites. States are not reimbursed for any costs associated with researching and identifying ARARs for a site.

Potential state ARARs are to be identified as early in the RI/FS process as possible. Therefore, the estimate of sites where ARAR identification is necessary is based on RI/FS start data from a Superfund database. The average for each type of site is taken across actual and planned dates for RI/FS starts. It is estimated that a total of 25 sites will require ARAR identification each year.

Administrative Records

SARA amended CERCLA §113 to require that an Administrative Record be established to document the basis for selection of response action. The record must be made available to the public at a location near the site (42 USC 9613 (1)). As a result, two records, one near the site and one at the lead agency office, are compiled and maintained at each remedial site. In developing the records, an appropriate location for the record must be identified. This location must be publicly accessible. Then, documents included in the record must be maintained by updating information as necessary, and verifying the information is available that should be included in the record. The information record will be maintained as long as site remediation continues and for as long as is needed in the event there is litigation. Because remedial responses often last longer than three years, the record keeping associated with remedial responses typically will be maintained for more than three years.

The Administrative Record must be maintained at all active Superfund sites each year. For the purposes of this ICR, active sites are those that have not yet achieve the Construction Complete milestone. These sites may have studies pending, design and study underway, or construction underway. Based on historical program data, EPA estimates there to be approximately 590 active Federal and state-lead Superfund sites. For RI/FS, RD, and RA activities, states have historically had the lead on 20 percent of sites. This percentage of active sites also is applicable for the revised CIP, fact sheets, and focus groups. Therefore, it is estimated that the state will maintain the administrative record at 118 sites each year.

Initial Community Involvement Plan (CIP)/Revised CIP

Community Involvement Plans are developed at remedial sites to identify community concerns and to select techniques and approaches to use in addressing these concerns. The initial CIP developed for a site presents the community involvement program that is to be followed during the RI/FS stage of the remedial phase. The NCP requires the CIP be completed and in place before field work begins for the RI. However, as the Agency seeks to accomplish RI field work during pre-remedial actions to expedite cleanups, EPA is finding it necessary to begin its community involvement activity, including preparation of the CIP, very early in the pre-remedial phase. The NCP also requires that EPA review its CIP prior to the Remedial Design/Remedial Action phase, and make any changes necessary to accommodate changes in the community.

The initial steps in the preparation of CIPs involve conducting a review of the site and the surrounding community. Lead agency technical personnel summarize the problems at a site, the origins of those problems, and potential steps for addressing the problems. As part of this process, lead agency files on the site are reviewed and local newspaper files are searched. Once a basic understanding of the site and previously performed activities is established, community involvement personnel from the lead agency conduct interviews with local community members to better determine community concerns and the level of community knowledge of site activities. In this process, a contact list is prepared, interviews are scheduled and conducted, and the results of the interviews are summarized. This process also includes the use of interviews for the purpose of establishing baseline measures of citizen concerns and attitudes from which changes can be measured, as well as to gain additional information that will help in the preparation of the CIP.

Once the background research is completed, a community involvement program is designed. This program may recommend such activities as distributing information brochures and fact sheets that explain Superfund program activities and the role of the lead agency in the remediation of Superfund sites. Small group meetings between lead agency staff, citizens, and local officials may be held to promote an informal exchange of ideas. To maximize the potential to bring about improvement in government services, EPA will utilize telephone interviews of fact sheet recipients and meeting attendees to assess the effectiveness of specific outreach products. EPA may also use focus groups to gather citizen input. At some sites, formal community groups may be established that provide regular involvement and input to site activities.

In some cases, updates or comprehensive CIP revisions are undertaken at specific benchmarks in the Superfund cleanup process, such as after a record of decision (ROD) is signed, at Explanations of Significant Differences or ROD amendments, when the remedial action has begun, or at the time of the five-year review. Others are updated or revised according to a timetable, such as every three or five years.

The decision to undertake a comprehensive revision of the CIP sometimes is made based on a change in the level or nature of community interest. When there is a high level of interest at a site, the CIP should be revised regularly so that the document continues to reflect current conditions and community interests. On the other hand, it may be time to conduct a comprehensive CIP revision when community interest has waned over a long period of time. It also may be appropriate to revise a CIP after demographic, economic, or political change in the community. A CIP revision is in order when CICs believe that a change their strategy on involving communities may be necessary.

Since the Initial CIP is generally developed concurrent with the RI/FS, the estimated number of sites at which the state will conduct a new RI/FS each year is applied to the Initial CIP. Therefore, EPA expects 4 CIPs to be completed by states each year of the three-year ICR period. Federal-lead sites are expected to complete 16 initial CIPs each year. Assuming CIPs are revised every five years for all active Superfund sites, Superfund data indicates that states have the lead on approximately 118 active Superfund sites; therefore, a rough estimate is that each year 23 of these sites will require a CIP revision. EPA estimates that CIPs will be revised at 95 active Federal-lead Superfund sites each year.

Fact Sheets

The lead agency provides fact sheets to communities at various points, both pre and post Construction Completion, in the Superfund remedial process. The number and frequency of fact sheets developed varies depending on community interest, complexity of remedial technologies, PRP/enforcement issues, and the extent of relocation and reuse potentials. Fact sheets may describe the details of a specific technology used, the physical changes that may occur at the site, the extent of contamination and health risks, the status of enforcement actions and negotiations with PRPs, etc. The lead agency develops fact sheets on an “as needed” basis. These fact sheets may be mailed to a list of interested community members.

EPA estimates that the states are the lead agency for 118 active Superfund sites and, thus, are expected to write fact sheets for these sites. A group of experienced EPA Headquarters and Regional Community Involvement staff estimate that an average of four (4) fact sheets will be completed at each active Superfund site. Because of the site-specific need for fact sheets, it is anticipated that some sites will generate far more than four (4) fact sheets in a single year and other sites will require far fewer.

Focus Groups

For this ICR, focus groups are defined as meetings or sessions the purpose of which is to obtain community input and in which the lead agency asks the community specific questions. These groups typically involved a small select group of community members who are gathered to provide feedback from the community perspective on particular on-going issues and concerns. A group of EPA Headquarters and Regional Community Involvement staff provided information and estimates for this analysis. EPA estimates that focus groups will be conducted an average of four (4) times per year at five (5) active sites (one [1] at state-lead sites, four [4] at Federal-lead sites).

Workshops

This ICR defines workshops as meetings or sessions that are open to the general public and whose subject matter is broad in scope. These workshops are often used as planning tools in which specific broad overview questions are asked of the community to gather ideas about their visions for the site and potential future uses. EPA headquarters and regional Community Involvement staff estimates that a workshop is conducted at approximately 10 sites each year. Since the state has the lead on 20 percent of active sites, EPA estimates that the state will prepare and conduct a workshop at two (2) sites annually. EPA estimates that it will conduct a workshop at eight (8) Federal-lead sites each year.

Technical Assistance Grant Application/TAG Management

SARA amended CERCLA §117(e) to provide for Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs) to eligible community groups for an initial grant up to $50,000. The purpose of these grants is to give communities that are affected by Superfund sites the opportunity to obtain expert information and consultation about the site. The TAG allows community groups to hire an independent advisor who can help them understand various technical aspects of the site, such as characteristics of the contamination, the proposed remedies, the remedial design, the technical aspects of the remedy, the health risk and analysis, and site construction. TAGs may be renewed to facilitate public participation throughout the Superfund remedial process. Community groups apply for TAGs and manage those that they already have. TAGs are processed and granted by the Federal government. There is no state burden or cost for TAGs. EPA Community Involvement staff estimate that 15 TAG applications will be filed and 75 maintained each year.

Satisfaction Surveys

Satisfaction surveys are used by EPA to gather community input about EPA’s community involvement efforts. These surveys consist of up to ten questions asking community members to provide opinions and to rank EPA’s community interactions, the level of knowledge citizens have gained about the site and issues, how citizens learned information about the site, and the desires of the community for how they would like to interact with EPA. The information gathered in these satisfaction surveys helps EPA improve its community involvement activities and relationships with communities at Superfund sites. EPA estimates that these surveys will be completed at ten (10) active Superfund Federal-lead sites each year. The template for this survey accompanies this ICR.

(ii)Respondent Activities

In complying with reporting and record-keeping requirements at state-lead sites, state employees may need to:

-Read instructions;

-Plan activities;

-Receive training;

-Gather information;

-Conduct tests, investigations, and studies;

-Write documents;

-Process, compile, and review information for accuracy and appropriateness;

-Complete written forms or other paperwork;

-Substantiate claims of confidential business information;

-Record and disclose information; and

-Store, file, and maintain the information.

In identifying ARARs at Federal, state, and Federal facility-lead sites, state employees may need to:

-Gather information on new state laws and regulations;

-Process, compile, and review information for accuracy and appropriateness;

-Record and disclose information; and

-Store, file, and maintain information.

In participating in the remedial phase, community members may disclose information to state and EPA personnel during interviews. Community members may perform any or all of the following activities:

-Participate in interviews;

-Participate in focus groups;

-Participate in workshops;

-Apply for a Technical Assistance Grant (TAG)

-Manage a TAG; and

-Respond to surveys.

THE INFORMATION COLLECTED - AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

5(a) EPA Activities

Superfund Site Evaluation and Hazard Ranking System

EPA region offices review and manage sites assessed under Superfund by States and Tribes, and provide oversight for State and Tribal site assessment cooperative agreements. EPA generally performs the following duties for each of the site assessment activities covered under this ICR:

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

-Prepare summary reports and decision documents;

-Identify stakeholders and communicate site assessment plans and progress;

-Respond to information requests; and

-Perform data management activities to record and track assessments.

Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions

EPA will collect the requested information using standardized reports and record keeping appropriate to support cost recovery. The grants information is entered into IGMS, the Agency’s database for tracking the status of grant/cooperative agreement actions. Financial information is entered into IFMS, the Agency’s database for tracking financial management.

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)

Agency activities that relate to the information gathered from states are predominantly oversight functions at state-lead sites to ensure that the Superfund sites are being addressed according to CERCLA and to EPA’s current policies. In this role, the Agency may obtain, review, and maintain the information gathered by states. The Agency also reviews the state ARARs at all Superfund sites. A standard 10 percent of annual hours is applied to Federal oversight of the following state activities: RI/FS, Proposed Plans, RODs, ARAR evaluation, and initial and revised CIPs. A group of experienced EPA headquarters and regional Community Involvement employees provided the oversight hours estimates for all other activities: Administrative Record, fact sheets, focus groups, and workshops.

At all Federal-lead sites, the Agency conducts the following activities: maintaining the Administrative Record, initial CIP, revised CIP, fact sheets, focus groups, workshops, TAG applications, TAG management, and satisfaction surveys.

5(b) Collection Methodology and Management

Superfund Site Evaluation and Hazard Ranking System

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-CERCLA screening to determine whether a potential hazardous waste site should be added to the Active site inventory for further remedial 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 into the Active site inventory for remedial assessment, the PA process is initiated. During the PA, professional judgment is used to make assumptions for unavailable data. Information collection at this phase is accomplished mostly from the desktop by reviewing historical documents and conducting telephone interviews. The majority of the data collected is historical information and target information for the HRS model. A site drive-by may also be conducted to verify the site location and status. During the PA, the HRS is applied through development of a preliminary HRS score. A PA report is the final product of this phase. Information collected during the PA is incorporated into subsequent work.

A site that is recommended for continued Superfund evaluation after PA completion proceeds to the SI phase. Data collection goals for this phase are similar in scope to the PA with the addition of detailed field data (e.g., site samples). During this phase, a field team conducts an on-site visit and sampling. Site sampling is limited in scope; generally, about 15 samples are collected per site. The media selected for sampling depends on the perceived threat and may include all or some of the following: ground water, surface water, sediment, soil, and air. Source samples may also be taken when deemed necessary. Detailed chemical analysis and data validation is performed on each sample taken. During the SI, the HRS model is applied by revising the preliminary HRS score developed during the PA. An SI report is the final product of this phase. Information collected during the SI is incorporated into subsequent assessment work.

A site that is recommended for continued investigation may have an ESI performed. At this stage, specific information is usually gathered for the pathway of greatest concern. The goal of this investigation is to test remaining theories about the nature and extent of contamination proposed in the SI. Additional field data that are collected usually require specialized techniques or equipment (e.g., installation of monitoring wells, geophysical surveys). Data generated are used to modify the preliminary HRS score developed during the SI. An ESI report is the final product of this phase. Information collected during the ESI is incorporated into subsequent assessment work.

A site that generates a preliminary HRS score of 28.50 or greater after all assessment work is complete is eligible for proposal to the NPL, although additional factors are considered before EPA moves forward with proposing a site. To propose a site, a detailed and defensible HRS Scoring Package must be prepared. This phase of data collection brings together all of the information collected during the site assessment process. The HRS Package is thoroughly and meticulously referenced. The final product of this phase is the final HRS score. A public docket for a proposed site is maintained by EPA to provide an opportunity for all interested parties to examine and comment on the HRS Package before it is finalized in the Federal Register.

In order to expedite the data management effort and minimize the burden, EPA developed “Quickscore” software for use as an automated site scoring tool under the revised HRS. Quickscore includes a user’s manual, help screens, HRS score sheet calculation package, and a computerized option for site score generation.

In addition, EPA has sought to minimize the burden of data collection requirements by making resources available to the respondents through the use of EPA contractors. EPA will continue to provide training to States and Tribes on a yearly basis through a national training program. To facilitate the HRS scoring effort, EPA has, wherever possible, included tables to minimize the level of effort necessary for data collection.

EPA’s assessment process allows for the integration of traditional site assessment activities to facilitate continuous assessment for high-priority sites until all the necessary data are collected. Combining some phases of the site assessment process will often reduce the level of effort expended on the duplication of similar data-gathering activities. Exhibit 4 presents EPA’s Integrated Assessment process. This integrated approach provides:

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

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

 Appropriate cleanup of long-term environmental problems;

 Cross-program coordination of response planning;

 Early initiation of enforcement activities; and

 Early public notification and participation.

Combining PA and SI or ESI activities into a single event may be performed at sites where it is known that more intensive sample collection as warranted and where time and cost efficiencies can clearly be gained. When combining remedial assessments, the PA documentation must still be developed to meet NCP requirements. An APA report is sufficient for this purpose.

The Site Reassessment represents the gathering and evaluation of new information on a site previously assessed under the Federal Superfund Program to determine whether further Superfund attention is needed. The scope of work for a Site Reassessment activity is flexible, but will usually represent a component of a traditional site assessment action. As such, it serves as a supplement to previous assessment work, and not as a replacement for traditional assessment activities (e.g., PA, SI).

All data collection activities require the maintenance of file information. The final report for each phase of the site assessment process is only part of the documentation of a site. All relevant site information collected or generated during the investigations should be securely stored and accurately tracked for future reference. This information is critical for the preparation of any final HRS packages and for future site disposition. Each agency performing site assessments or involved in the decision-making process of a site should maintain a file of site data.

Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions

EPA will conduct activities in connection with the acquisition, analysis, storage, and utilization of the requested cooperative agreement and Superfund State Contract-related information and financial data. This information and financial data are reviewed in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart O.

Superfund recipients must retain records for 10 years following the submission of the final Financial Status Report, and must retain those records longer if an enforcement action is ongoing. This ensures that response action information will be available to support EPA litigation efforts to recover Superfund costs from responsible parties. The Agency also conducts periodic on-site reviews to ensure recipient compliance with applicable requirements.

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)

The information collection methodology varies depending on the type of activity being conducted. For example, an RI/FS requires many more hours than other activities because it involves field work and sampling. In contrast, evaluation of ARARs involves systematic and routine research. A large component of Proposed Plans and RODs is the actual preparing and finalizing of the document.

States provide information to EPA Regional Offices in the form of document copies. Regions review the documents to ensure consistency with the NCP. Regions and states use various media avenues (e.g., local newspaper announcements, mailings, etc.) to notify the public about meetings, focus groups, and workshops. The regions and states may also communicate with Community Advisory Groups (CAGs) and other involved citizen groups. Phone calls and office hours are other means by which the governments communicate with communities.

The activities reflected in this ICR do not lend themselves to automation because of the decentralized nature of each remedial activity. These activities are site-specific and, therefore, are not conducive to mass data collection efforts. The NCP does not specify a particular method of accomplishing information collection; the use of improved information technology is not prohibited in any way.

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

Superfund Site Evaluation and Hazard Ranking System

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.

Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions

There are no small businesses affected by this information collection. Small Governmental Jurisdictions are affected, but the burden is minimal, and steps have been taken to reduce the burden imposed by this information collection. As 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart O is a fully-funded regulation, all burden imposed by the regulation is required in order for recipients to obtain and manage financial awards.

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)

Information collection from small entities (individual community members, community organizations, etc.) is primarily done on a voluntary basis. Since these respondents are providing information voluntarily, the Federal government is not placing any undue burden on small entities and does provide plenty of flexibility.

5(d) Collection Schedule

Superfund Site Evaluation and Hazard Ranking System

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 the Active site inventory for remedial assessment.^¹⁴ 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.

Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions

The collection schedule for this information relating to cooperative agreements and Superfund State Contracts is variable depending on such factors as: date of applications, magnitude of efforts, and project periods, etc.

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)

Information is collected according to the sequence of remedial activities at Superfund sites: RI/FS, ARAR evaluation, Proposed Plan, ROD, and initial Community Involvement Plan (CIP). Other activities are conducted throughout the remedial process as needed. These include maintenance of the Administrative Record, revising the CIP, issuing fact sheets, processing Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs), gathering community satisfaction surveys, and conducting focus groups and workshops with community members. The frequency of these activities will depend on many site-specific factors such as complexity of clean-up technologies, level of community interest, and duration of each of the remedial stages.

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden

Superfund Site Evaluation and Hazard Ranking System

EPA estimates an annual average of 60 States and Tribes will conduct the site assessment activities described in this ICR. The annual burden for respondents is a function of the number of State- and Tribal-lead activities performed each year. The estimated total annual burden for State and Tribal authorities to conduct these activities is approximately 156,526 hours. This estimate was calculated by multiplying the estimated average annual number of State- and Tribal-lead activities projected from FY 2016 through FY 2018 by the average hours needed to perform each activity. Exhibit 5 provides detailed information on the estimated annual respondent burden (calculated as a weighted average based on information provided by EPA regions).

Exhibit 5: Annual Respondent Burden of Superfund Site Evaluation and HRS

Respondent Activities

Estimated Hours

Per Activity¹

Estimated Annual Number of State/Tribal Activities¹

Total Annual National Hours by Activity

Pre-CERCLA Screening

72.034

321

23,123

Preliminary Assessment (PA)

170.96

163

27,866

Site Inspection (SI)

534.58

49,181

Expanded Site Inspection (ESI)

761.77

26,662

Site Reassessment

214.91

108

23,210

HRS Package

810.50

6,484

TOTAL

727

156,526

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

To reduce the burden on respondents, EPA has streamlined the process of screening sites to ensure that sites are assessed as efficiently and inexpensively as conditions allow. Sites not requiring Federal action are screened out of the process early, thus avoiding lengthy and more expensive evaluations. For example, only about four percent of the sites in the site assessment process have been listed on the NPL.^¹⁵

Exhibit 6 provides an illustration of the site assessment screening process. The process is portrayed as a funnel to show how the number of respondent activities performed generally decreases as sites progress down the funnel and are screened out of the process. Depending upon how far a particular site progresses through the site assessment process, the burden per site may range on average from 72 hours (average for conducting pre-CERCLA screening and no other work) to 2,350 hours (cumulative average for conducting pre-CERCLA screening, PA, SI, ESI, and HRS package work).

Shape2

Exhibit 6: Site Assessment Screening Process

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

Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions

Exhibit 6, “Total Respondent Burden,” documents the computation of individual burdens for providing the information required for the application and administration of each type of cooperative agreement and each Superfund State Contract included in this ICR. The individual burden is expressed under a heading believed to be consistent with the concept of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Responses to this information collection are mandatory, as they are required to properly manage and administer the funds awarded under cooperative agreements and Superfund State Contracts.

The 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.

Exhibit 6: Total Respondent Burden

Activity		Average number of respondents per Year 2015	Unit Burden (Hours)	Unit Labor Cost (Dollars)	Total Unit Cost (Dollars)	Total Burden (Hours)	Total Cost (Dollars)
Pre-Remedial CA	New	20.2	24	$41.40	$993.60	484.8	$20,070.72
Pre-Remedial CA	Amendment	28.8	11.28	$13.80	$155.66	324.864	$4,483.12
Remedial response CA	New	40.8	38	$41.40	$1,573.20	1550.4	$64,186.56
Remedial response CA	Amendment	82.2	14.5	$13.80	$200.10	1191.9	$16,448.22
Enforcement CA	New	12	50	$41.40	$2,070.00	600	$24,840.00
Enforcement CA	Amendment	20.6	14.2	$13.80	$195.96	292.52	$4,036.78
Removal response CA	New	6.6	49	$41.40	$2,028.60	323.4	$13,388.76
Removal response CA	Amendment	3.6	14.5	$13.80	$200.10	52.2	$720.36
Core program CA	New	21	15	$41.40	$621.00	315	$13,041.00
Core program CA	Amendment	26.4	8	$13.80	$110.40	211.2	$2,914.56
Support agency CA	New	51.2	21.25	$41.40	$879.75	1088	$45,043.20
Support agency CA	Amendment	79.4	10.6	$13.80	$146.28	841.64	$11,614.63
Superfund State Contract	New	6	37	$41.40	$1,531.80	222	$9,190.80
Superfund State Contract	Amendment	18.6	18.1	$13.80	$249.78	336.66	$4,645.91
Conclusion of Superfund State Contract	New	16.2	12	$41.40	$496.80	194.4	$8,048.16
Conclusion of Superfund State Contract	Amendment	0	6.8	$13.80	$93.84	0	$0.00
Consolidated funding CA	New	4	81	$41.40	$3,353.40	324	$13,413.60
Consolidated funding CA	Amendment	13.2	9.2	$13.80	$126.96	121.44	$1,675.87
Conclusion of CA	New	11.4	20.8	$41.40	$861.12	237.12	$9,816.77
Conclusion of CA	Amendment	0	6.8	$13.80	$93.84	0	$0.00
Records retention	New	407.6	10	$41.40	$414.00	4076	$168,746.40
Records retention	Amendment	664	2.2	$13.80	$30.36	1460.8	$20,159.04
TOTAL							$456,484.46
TOTAL NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS					*		1,534
TOTAL BURDEN HOURS*						*		14,248.34
AVERAGE BURDEN HOURS PER RESPONDENT*						*		9.29
TOTAL COST								$456,484.46

*Amendment respondents are assumed to have only 1/3 of the burden imposed as Full respondents, since the process of amending is not as extensive as it is for a new application for a CA

A “unit” burden is the burden incurred by a respondent for performing a cooperative agreement specific activity. States incur burdens under an estimated 1,534 cooperative agreement and Superfund State Contract activities per year for reporting, certifications, schedules, notifications, assurances, and record keeping activities. The estimated burden is incurred by activities under the following types of Cooperative Agreements/Superfund State Contracts and other requirements:

Pre-Remedial Cooperative Agreements;

Remedial Response Cooperative Agreements;

Enforcement Cooperative Agreements;

Removal Cooperative Agreements;

Core Program Cooperative Agreements;
Support Agency Cooperative Agreements;
Superfund State Contract;
Conclusion of Superfund State Contracts;
Consolidated Funding Cooperative Agreements;

Conclusion of the Cooperative Agreements; and
Records Retention.

The estimated average burden associated with each Cooperative Agreement/Superfund State Contract/Other requirement is discussed below and summarized in Table 1, “Total Respondent Burden.”

The estimated burden associated with Pre-Remedial Cooperative Agreements represents the number of hours that are spent in identification of environmental results, research, data collection, analysis, negotiation, preparation, and post-award monitoring of the Pre-Remedial Cooperative Agreement. EPA estimates that approximately 49 (20 new respondent CAs and 29 amended respondent CAs) Pre-Remedial Cooperative Agreements involving States, Tribes, or political subdivisions, will be in place each year. EPA estimates that an average of 18 hours are necessary to prepare all the plans, compliance documents, lists and schedules required in the application for this type of Cooperative Agreement within Subpart O.

The estimated burden associated with Remedial Response Cooperative Agreements represents the number of hours that are spent in identification of environmental results, research, plan preparation, data collection, analysis, negotiation in preparing the materials required for, and post-award monitoring of Remedial Response Cooperative Agreements. EPA estimates that approximately 123 (41 new respondent CAs and 82 amended respondent CAs) Remedial Response Cooperative Agreements, which involve States, Tribes, and political subdivisions, will be in place each year. EPA estimates that an average of 26 hours is necessary to prepare all the materials required in an application for this type of Cooperative Agreement. Those materials include: a project narrative, which includes much more site-specific information than a project narrative for a Pre-Remedial Cooperative Agreement; compliance documents and certifications; CERCLA assurances; and notifications. The majority of the burden under this Cooperative Agreement is associated with the preparation of the schedule of deliverables. Though the format of that schedule is fairly standard, the planning and negotiation involved can be time consuming.

The estimated burden associated with Enforcement Cooperative Agreements represents the number of hours that are spent in identification of environmental results, research, plan and certification documentation preparation, such as the quality assurance plan, data collection, analysis in the preparation of materials involved in acquiring and operating within an Enforcement cooperative agreement. EPA estimates that an average of 33 (12 new respondent CAs and 21 amended respondent CAs) Enforcement Cooperative Agreements will be in place each year. EPA also estimates that 32 hours are needed to fulfill the requirements imposed by this type of Cooperative Agreement. Those requirements include: creating the site description; creating the site specific statement of work; producing the statement designating lead site project manager; creating the site specific health and safety plan; producing the quality assurance plan; developing the schedule of deliverables; and producing a copy of the applicable state, local, or tribal statutes. The majority of the burden is imposed by the creation of the site specific statement of work, the quality assurance plan, and the schedule of deliverables.

The estimated burden associated with Removal Response Cooperative Agreements represents the number of hours that are spent in identification of environmental results, research, plan preparation, data collection, analysis, negotiation in preparing the materials required for, and post-award monitoring of, a Removal Response Cooperative Agreement. EPA estimates that approximately 11 (7 new respondent CAs and 4 amended respondent CAs) Removal Response Cooperative Agreements, which involve States, Tribes, and political subdivisions, will be in place each year. EPA estimates that an average of 32 hours is necessary to prepare all the materials required for this type of Cooperative Agreement. Those required materials include: a site description; a site specific statement of work; a statement designating lead site project manager; a site specific community relations plan; a site specific health and safety plan; a quality assurance plan; a schedule of deliverables. Program experience has shown that the majority of the burden imposed under the requirements for this type of Cooperative Agreement can be attributed to the development of the schedule of deliverables and the quality assurance plan.

The estimated burden associated with Core Program Cooperative Agreements represents the number of hours that are spent in identification of environmental results, research, data collection, analysis, negotiation in preparing the materials required for, and post-award monitoring of a Core Program Cooperative Agreement. EPA estimates that 47 (21 new respondent CAs and 26 amended respondent CAs) Core Program Cooperative Agreements, which involve States, Tribes, and political subdivisions, will be in place each year. Superfund program experience indicates that, on average, about 12hours are needed to fulfill the requirements imposed by this type of Cooperative Agreement. Those requirements include preparing a statement of work, and a background statement. Those two requirements are responsible for the majority of burden attributed to Core Program Cooperative Agreements.

The estimated burden associated with Support Agency Cooperative Agreements represents the number of hours that are spent in identification of environmental results, research, data collection, analysis, negotiation in preparing the materials required for, and post-award monitoring of a Support Agency Cooperative Agreement. EPA estimates that approximately 130 (51new respondent CAs and 79 amended respondent CAs) Support Agency Cooperative Agreements, which involve States, Tribes, and political subdivisions, will be in place each year. EPA estimates that an average of 16 hours are needed to prepare all the materials required for this type of Cooperative Agreement. The majority of the burden imposed by a Support Agency Cooperative Agreement can attributed to the development of the required statement of work.

The estimated burden associated with the contents of a Superfund State Contract represents the number of hours that are spent in identification of environmental results, research, data collection, analysis, negotiation, and preparation of the Superfund State Contract each year. EPA estimates that approximately 25 (6 new respondent CAs and 19 amended respondent CAs) Superfund State Contracts are in place each year. The Superfund grants program workgroup estimates that about 28 hours are needed to meet the burden imposed by the requirements under a Superfund State Contract. Those requirements include: general authorities; purpose statement; site description; statement to follow guidance; statement of work; schedule of deliverables; SPOC; CERCLA assurances; list of Support Agency Cooperative Agreements; sanctions for failure to comply with the terms of the Superfund State Contract; site access; joint inspection of the remedy; exclusion of third party benefits; State review; and a list of responsible party activities.

The estimated burden associated with the Conclusion of a Superfund State Contract represents the number of hours that are spent in assembling and reconciling financial data, identifying any outstanding contractual issues, assembling relevant agreement data deliverables and other documentation, coordinating with USEPA personnel in the disposition of equipment and other acquisitions under the Superfund State Contract, determining final cost shares and preparing the site for the operation and maintenance. EPA estimates that approximately 16 (16 new respondents and 0 amended respondents) Superfund State Contracts are concluded each year. The Superfund Subpart O Workgroup estimates that an average of 9 hours is needed to meet the burden imposed by the requirements under a Superfund State Contract. Those requirements include: general authorities; purpose statement; site description; statement to follow guidance; statement of work; schedule of deliverables; SPOC; CERCLA assurances; list of Support Agency Cooperative Agreements; sanctions for failure to comply with the terms of the Superfund State Contract; site access; joint inspection of the remedy; exclusion of third party benefits; State review; and a list of responsible party activities.

The estimated burden associated with Consolidated Funding Cooperative Agreements represents the number of hours that are spent in identification of environmental results, research, data collection, analysis, negotiation, and preparation of Consolidated Funding Cooperative Agreements each year. EPA estimates that approximately 17 (4 new respondent CA and 13 amended respondent CAs) Consolidated Funding Cooperative Agreements are in place each year. EPA estimates that approximately 45 hours a year are necessary to meet the requirements of a Consolidated Funding Cooperative Agreement. This type of agreement is composed of a Pre-Remedial, Core Program, and Support Agency Cooperative Agreement.

The estimated burden associated with the Conclusion of a Cooperative Agreement represents the number of hours that are spent in assembling and reconciling financial data, identifying any outstanding contractual issues, assembling relevant data deliverables and other documentation, coordinating with USEPA personnel in the disposition of equipment and other acquisitions under the agreement, determining final cost shares and preparing the site for the operation and maintenance. EPA estimates that approximately 11 (11 new respondent CAs and 0 amended respondent CAs) Cooperative Agreements are concluded each year. The Superfund Subpart O Workgroup estimates an average of 14 hours are needed to meet the burden imposed by the requirements under a Cooperative Agreement. Those requirements include: general authorities; purpose statement; site description; statement to follow guidance; statement of work; schedule of deliverables; SPOC; CERCLA assurances; list of Support Agency Cooperative Agreements; sanctions for failure to comply with the terms of the Cooperative Agreement; site access; joint inspection of the remedy; exclusion of third party benefits; State review; and a list of responsible party activities.

The estimated burden associated with the Records Retention requirements represents the number of hours that are spent each year beyond the 10-year (Superfund) retention requirement for record maintenance, storage, and any document requests that would be made throughout the year. All cooperative agreements must meet these Records Retention requirements, and incur the resulting burden. EPA estimates that approximately 1,072 (408 new respondent CAs and 664 amended respondent CAs) Cooperative Agreements will be in place each year. Superfund program experience indicates that an average of 6 hours will be required each year to meet the burden imposed by this regulation’s Records Retention requirements.

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)

Respondent burden estimates are calculated from a combination of sources: historic and projected data from Superfund databases, contract records, consultation with EPA headquarters and regional staff, and information contained in the previous version of this ICR. Burden hours are estimated for the number of hours expected annually for each activity. The annual hours per activity figure is multiplied by the number of sites expected to be engaging in the activity every year. This calculation gives the total annual hours for all sites by activity. All burden hours, with the exception of ARARS, placed on states refer to only activities conducted at state-lead sites. All burden hours placed on communities refer to activities that are conducted at all Federal and state-lead sites.

The estimated number of respondents reported for this information collection is 12,690. This number is the sum of all sites with state-lead activities, 365 (Exhibit 7), and people participating in community activities at all sites, 12,325 (Exhibit 8). The estimated number of responses is 13,272. This number of responses was calculated by summing the state responses for all activities at all sites per year of 722 (Exhibit 7) and community (or individual) responses of 12,550 (Exhibit 8) for all activities at all sites.

(i) State Burden Hours

The total hours for an RI/FS is assumed to consist of 80 percent contractor work and 20 percent government work. The total contractor hours for an RI/FS project, 10,000 hours, is calculated based on recent contract records from the Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI) and recent discussions with Superfund contract experts. Data for costs billed as direct labor across all projects and years provides information about the number of hours spent on an average RI/FS. Burden hours can be divided among different labor categories based on contract records: 62 percent professional labor, 30 percent direct labor, 4 percent clerical labor, and 4 percent technical labor. Total contractor hours per RI/FS is estimated to be 10,000 hours per year, which is estimated to account for 80 percent of the hours for an RI/FS. The remaining 20 percent of RI/FS work, 2,500 hours, is done by the state government. Therefore, the total annual time devoted to a single RI/FS is estimated to be 12,500 hours. This ICR estimates that 52 state-lead sites will be in the process of conducting an RI/FS every year. The total annual burden hours is 650,000 (Exhibit 7).

Total burden hours for each Proposed Plan is estimated to be 80 hours. This figure covers the time taken for writing, printing, notification, and distribution of the Proposed Plan. This estimate remains the same from the previous ICR renewal. Since Proposed Plans are expected to be completed at 20 state-lead sites each year, a total annual estimate of burden is 1,600 hours.

The hours required to complete a ROD are highly variable across the Superfund program given site complexity and enforcement issues. The burden hours for a ROD are assumed to include the time needed for writing, reviewing, negotiating, and obtaining concurrence. The ROD finalization process is one that takes quite a lot of time and energy. The estimates are based on consultation with EPA staff experienced in writing RODs and involved in writing the ROD guidance document (“A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents,” EPA 540-R-98-031, OLEM 9200.1-23.P, July 1999). Experience with very complex and more straight-forward RODs was used in calculating an average value for ROD burden hours. For the purpose of this ICR it is estimated that the average ROD requires a total of 1,300 hours. This estimate is based on a nine-month time frame in which one full-time employee dedicates 50 percent of work time to the ROD for a total of 720 hours, and, two full-time employees dedicate 20 percent of work time for a total of 576 hours. The former employee is typically the Remedial Project Manager (RPM) for the site and the latter two employees consist of policy analysts, attorneys and managers. This ICR estimates that RODs will be completed at 2 state-lead sites each year; thus, the estimated total annual ROD burden to states is 2,600 hours.

The total estimated annual burden for identification of ARARs is 33 hours at each Federal, state or Federal facility-lead site. This estimate is the same as the ARAR estimate in the previous version of this ICR. The figure is also confirmed by EPA staff experienced in evaluating ARARs. ARARs are expected to be evaluated at 25 sites annually, resulting in an estimated burden of 825 hours.

The establishment and maintenance of one site’s Administrative Record is estimated to take 40 hours annually. Since states are estimated to have the lead on 118 active Superfund sites, EPA expects states to spend 4,720 total hours on Administrative Records. This estimate is provided by a group of experienced EPA headquarters and regional staff.

Total estimated annual burden hours for each initial and revised CIP are 200 and 100, respectively. Initial CIPs are estimated to be completed at 4 state-lead sites each year for a total annual burden of 800 hours. Revised CIPs are estimated to be completed at 23 state-lead sites each year for a total annual burden of 2,300 hours. These hours are estimated by a group of EPA headquarters and regional staff experienced in the development and revisions of CIPs.

EPA estimates that each fact sheet will require an average of 40 hours of work per year. This estimate is the result of discussion by a group of experienced EPA headquarters and regional Community Involvement staff. An average of four (4) fact sheets are expected at each of the 118 estimated state-lead active sites. Therefore, fact sheets will require a total annual estimate of 160 burden hours at each site. EPA estimates that states will issue fact sheets at 118 active sites per year. Thus, the total estimated annual burden hours for fact sheets is 18,880.

The estimated time that each focus group session will require of the state is 30 hours. This includes preparation for the meeting and attendance. EPA expects the state to conduct four (4) focus group sessions at one site in each year, resulting in a total annual estimated burden of 120 hours. These estimates are provided by a group of experienced EPA Community Involvement staff.

The estimated annual burden for each workshop is 80 hours. EPA estimates that the state will be conducting one (1) workshop at two (2) sites in the course of one year and will, thus, devote 160 hours to workshop efforts. These estimates are based on the knowledge of EPA Community Involvement staff experienced in preparing and conducting workshops at Superfund sites.

Exhibit 7: Estimated Burden Hours Placed on States for National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)

Activity	# of Sites with State-lead Activities/yr	# of Activities at each site/yr.	Hrs. per Activity/yr	Annual Hrs. for Activity at a Site	Total Annual Hrs. for all Sites
RI/FS	52	1	12,500	12,500	650,000
Proposed Plans	20	1	80	80	1,600
RODs	2	1	1,300	1,300	2,600
ARARs	25	1	33	33	825
Administrative Record	118	1	40	40	4,720
Initial CIP	4	1	200	200	800
Revised CIP	23	1	100	100	2,300
Fact Sheets	118	4	40	160	18,880
Focus Groups	1	4	30	120	120
Workshops	2	1	80	80	160
Total State Respondents	365
Total State Responses		722		TOTAL	682,005

(ii) Community Burden Hours

All community burden hours are due to voluntary participation in activities at Superfund sites. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requires the inclusion of information gathering activities in which the community participates. These activities are those for which information is expressly collected from community members. The PRA (5 CFR part 1320, “Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public, FRN 8/29/1995, Sect. 1320.3 (h)(8)) excludes the following activities from the definition of information for the purpose of Information Collection Requests: attendance at public informational meetings or briefings, response to comments on EPA documents, participation in community groups for which EPA is not a sponsor, reading fact sheets, and making use of EPA open office hours. This ICR records estimated burden hours for community members for initial and revised CIP interviews, participation in focus groups and workshops, TAG application and management, and completion of satisfaction surveys. All estimates are provided by a group of experienced EPA Headquarters and Regional Community Involvement Staff.

EPA estimates that 40 people will be interviewed for one hour each at 20 Federal and State lead Superfund sites each year for initial CIPs. The total annual estimated burden for initial CIP interviews at all sites is 800 hours. It is estimated that 25 people will be interviewed for 1 hour each at 118 active Superfund sites each year (23 state-lead and 95 Federal-lead) for the purpose of revising the CIPs. Therefore, the total estimated annual burden is 2,950 hours (Exhibit 8).

EPA estimates that an average of 15 people will participate in a two-hour focus group 4 times a year at 5 active Superfund sites. The total estimated burden for all sites for each year is 600 hours.

An average of 50 people is expected to participate in a three-hour workshop session once a year at 10 active Superfund sites. The total estimated annual burden for all sites is 1,500 hours.

EPA estimates that community groups will apply for available TAGs at 15 Superfund sites. The application process is estimated to take approximately 60 hours. The total estimated annual burden for all sites is 900 hours. Management of TAGs takes place each year at an estimated 75 sites. This requires approximately 200 hours per year per site. The total estimated annual burden for all sites is 15,000 hours.

EPA expects to distribute satisfaction surveys at ten (10) sites each year. It is estimated that 800 people will spend 0.25 hours (15 minutes) completing each survey. The total estimated annual burden hours at all sites is 2,000.

Exhibit 8: Estimated Burden Hours Placed on Communities for National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)

Activity	# Federal and State-lead Sites/ yr.	# of Activities at each site	# of People involved	Hrs. per Activity/yr.	Annual Hrs. for Activity at a Site	Total Annual Hrs. for all Sites
Initial CIP Interview	20	1	40	1	40	800
Revised CIP Interviews	118	1	25	1	25	2,950
Focus Group Participation	5	4	15	2	120	600
Workshop Participation	10	1	50	3	150	1,500
TAG application	15	1	N/A	60	60	900
TAG management	75	1	N/A	200	200	15,000
Satisfaction Surveys	10	1	800	0.25	200	2,000
Total Individual Respondents at all Sites*			12,325
Total Individual Responses at all Activities at all sites**			12,550		TOTAL	23,750

*The total individual respondents includes the sum of all the people involved at the all the Sites: 20(40) + 118(25) + 5(15) + 10(50) + 10(800) = 12,325

**The total individual responses includes the sum of all the activities at all the Sites: 20(40) + 118(25) + 5(4)(15) + 10(50) + 10(800) = 12,550

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs

Superfund Site Evaluation and Hazard Ranking System

The costs incurred by State and Tribal respondents for conducting site assessment activities equals the estimated average cost per activity (including laboratory costs) multiplied by the number of State/Tribal lead activities. In addition to activity-specific costs, the States and Tribes incur infrastructure costs associated with developing and maintaining a State or Tribal site assessment program. These infrastructure costs include such items as training, developing standard operating procedures, administrative support, and computers and automated data processing (ADP) support.

The total estimated annual respondent cost is $14,200,043, however both activity-specific costs and infrastructure costs are reimbursed by the EPA, thus the effective respondent cost is $0.

Exhibit 9 provides detailed information on the estimated annual respondent burden and costs as calculated based on projected FY 2016 through FY 2018 activity data. Depending upon how far a particular site progresses through the site assessment process, the respondent cost per site may range from $5,384 (average for conducting pre-CERCLA screening and no other work) to $186,315 (cumulative average for conducting pre-CERCLA screening, PA, SI, ESI and HRS package work).

Exhibit 9: Total Annual Respondent Burden and Costs of Superfund Site Evaluation and HRS

Respondent

Activities

Estimated

Cost per

Activity¹

Estimated Annual Number of State/Tribal Activities¹

Total Annual

National Cost

by Activity

Pre-CERCLA Screening

$5,384.33

321

$1,728,371

Preliminary Assessment (PA)

$12,854.94

163

$2,100,246

Site Inspection (SI)

$43,171.01

$3,971,733

Expanded Site Inspection (ESI)

$67,271.40

$2,354,499

Site Reassessment

$17,013.49

108

$1,837,457

HRS Package

$57,604.13

$460,833

State/Tribal Infrastructure

$1,746,904

SUBTOTAL

727

$14,200,043

Less Federal Reimbursement

-$14,200,043

TOTAL

727

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

Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Action

(i) Estimating Labor Costs

For all activities covered by this ICR, wage rates for State, Tribal, and political subdivision personnel are estimated to be comparable to those of Federal government personnel. These wage rates were estimated based upon corresponding Federal GS wage rates as of January 2015. The rates, as outlined below are multiplied by a 1.6 benefits multiplication factor to account for government overhead expenses.

Management GS 13, step 1 $56.05/hour

Technical GS 11, step 1 $39.33/hour

Clerical GS 7, step 1 $26.57/hour

These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) “2015 General Schedule” which excludes locality rates of pay. These rates can be obtained from the OPM website, https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/2015/general-schedule/

It is further estimated that approximately 20% of the respondent activity is Managerial, 70% is Technical, and 10% is Clerical in nature. Based upon the above, the weighted average is $41.40 per hour [(56.05*0.2)+( 39.33*0.7)+( 26.57*0.1)].

(ii) Estimating Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs

The only type of costs associated with this information collection activity is labor costs. There is no estimated Capital/Startup and Operation and Maintenance Costs associated with this collection of information.

(iii) Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs

The total capital/startup costs for this ICR are $0.

The total operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for this ICR are $0.

The total respondent costs in block 14 have been calculated as the addition of the capital/startup costs, and the annual operation and maintenance costs. The average annual cost for capital/startup and operation and maintenance costs to respondents over the next three years of the ICR is estimated to be $0.

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)

Respondent costs are divided into labor costs and other costs, which includes all operation and maintenance, non-labor, and capital costs. The methodology for calculating these costs for the three year ICR period is addressed in detail below.

All costs the state incurs, with the exception of the ARARs analysis, is ultimately paid for by the Federal government through any one of two relevant cooperative agreements (CAs) as stipulated in Subpart O of the NCP. These cooperative agreements are CORE agreements, which provide fund for infrastructure work and are non-site-specific in nature, and Remedial CAs that provide site-specific money for remedial process actions in Superfund.

(i) Estimating labor costs

Labor rates for government employees are estimated using the Office of Personnel Management’s General Schedule pay tables as of January 2016. For the purposes of this ICR, state government salaries are assumed to be the same as Federal pay scales. It is assumed that the average unit of remedial work is comprised of 10 percent managerial, 80 percent technical, and 10 percent support staff effort. Thus, a weighted average is used to represent the hourly labor rate of government work. To determine the hourly wage, 50 percent of the value of a Step 5, GS-12 ($33.72) and GS-13, ($40.10) are summed and averaged ($36.91) and then adjusted for locality pay using a factor of 1.20, which results in $44.29. To further adjust for overhead, $44.29 is multiplied by 1.6, which results in $70.87, the governmental hourly labor rate applied to the following activities conducted by state agencies for the Superfund remedial program: Proposed Plans, RODs, ARARs, Administrative Records, initial CIPs, revised CIPs, fact sheets, focus groups, and workshops. The same hourly labor rate applies to all Federal activities.

The hourly labor rate for the RI/FS activity is calculated as 20 percent government and 80 percent contractor effort. These assessments involve a great deal of field work and typically involve lots of contractor support. Using past historical rates, the average contractor hourly labor rate is estimated to be approximately 62 percent of the average government hourly labor rate. Therefore, the average contractor hourly labor rate is estimated to be $43.94. The average government hourly labor rate of $70.87 is used for the government’s 20 percent. Therefore, the average hourly labor rate for RI/FS work is $49.33, calculated by: [0.2(70.87) + 0.8 (43.94)].

The hourly labor rate for community members who participate in Superfund remedial activities on a voluntary, and non-paid, basis is $25.85. The value is based on Bureau of Labor Statistics February 2016 data, which reports an average hourly wage of $25.35 for “employees on private nonfarm payrolls by industry sector, seasonally adjusted.” The recent trend in this category of BLS data is for the rate to increase approximately $0.50 per year. Therefore, $25.85 is the average rate over the three-year period of this ICR for all activities in which the community may participate. Labor costs for community activities represent hypothetical costs only.

(ii) Estimating capital, operations and maintenance, and other costs

Capital, operation and maintenance (O&M), and non-labor costs to states apply for the following Superfund remedial activities: RI/FS, Proposed Plans, RODs, Administrative Records, and fact sheets. The Federal government incurs none of these costs for oversight of state activities. The Federal government does incur non-labor costs for the Administrative Records, fact sheets, and satisfaction surveys. Community members have no O&M, non-labor or capital costs. States, communities, and the Federal government do not incur any capital costs in these Superfund remedial activities as no new equipment is purchased for their purposes.

All O&M and non-labor costs for RI/FS conducted at state-lead sites are calculated from OSRTI contracts records from the previous version of this ICR, adjusted for inflation, using a factor of 2.2, which is the average inflation rate in the United States from 2005-2015, based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index. The RI/FS contractor non-labor cost includes $86,155.62 in fees and profits, $123,969.62 for equipment, and $82,589.86 for indirect costs such as travel and reports. The equipment costs reflect charges for the use of equipment, such as computers and sampling instruments, which the contractor already owns. The total non-labor cost for each RI/FS in a single year is, therefore, estimated at $292,715.10 (Exhibit 10).

Operation and maintenance is defined as activities that are required to keep projects supported and moving forward. For the RI/FS it is estimated that contractors incur approximately $41,878.49 in a single year for each project. These costs include charges for mail, supplies, and faxes. O&M costs incurred by the Agency are discussed in the following paragraph.

The bulk of O&M costs associated with Proposed Plans, RODs, Administrative Records, and fact sheets are those costs that are required for printing, document distribution, newspaper announcements, and records management. Costs for mailing and data collection with contractor support also apply to the satisfaction survey. Annual non-labor costs for satisfaction surveys are estimated by EPA staff conducting the survey to be $6,277.12. For all other activities with O&M costs, the values from the previous version of this ICR are used and adjusted for inflation. Inflation is calculated by using a factor of 2.2, which is the average inflation rate in the United States from 2005-2015, based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index. Using 2.2 as an inflation value, the following O&M annual costs for each activity are:

-Proposed Plan: $1,763.97

-RODs: $1,900.92

-Administrative Record: $1,423.65

-Fact Sheets: $1,712.87

(iii) Annualizing capital costs

No significant capital costs are incurred during the activities described in this ICR.

Exhibit 10: Estimated Cost to States for the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)

Exhibit 11: Estimated Costs to Communities (Voluntary activities, not actually expended costs) for the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Costs

Superfund Site Evaluation and Hazard Ranking System

The EPA Regional offices review and manage sites assessed under Superfund by States and Tribes, and provide oversight for State and Tribal site assessment cooperative agreements. Based on average annual projections from FY 2016 through FY 2018, the estimated average annual burden to the EPA for reviewing and managing site assessment activities conducted by States and Tribes under Superfund is 28,784 hours at an estimated cost of $2,040,196. Reimbursement of state costs brings the total Agency cost to $16,240,239. Exhibit 12 provides detailed information on the estimated annual Agency burden and costs as calculated based on projected FY 2016 through FY 2018 activity data. Based on the 2016 GS pay schedule, EPA estimates an average hourly Regional labor cost of $44.30, excluding the impact of benefits, to review and manage the work covered under this ICR. To derive hourly estimates, EPA divided annual compensation estimates by 2,080 which is the number of hours in the Federal work year. EPA uses a multiplication factor of 1.6 to derive hourly estimates inclusive of benefits. Taking into account benefits, the average hourly rate is $70.88 ($44.30 x 1.6).

	Exhibit 12: Annual Agency Burden and Cost for Superfund Site Evaluation & HRS
Respondent Activity		Estimated Hours per Activity ¹	Estimated Cost per Activity	Estimated No. Activities	Total Hours by Activity	Total Costs by Activity
Review/Manage Pre-CERCLA Screening		14.29	$1,013.25	321	4,589	$325,254
Review/Manage Preliminary Assessment		29.68	$2,104.22	163	4,890	$342,988
Review/Manage Site Inspection		80.26	$5,688.89	92	7,360	$523,378
Review/Manage Expanded Site Inspection		127.43	$9,032.14	35	4,445	$316,125
Review/Manage Site Reassessment		43.905	$3,112.16	108	4,752	$336,113
Review/Manage HRS Package		346.25	$24,542.25	8	2,768	$196,338
SUBTOTAL				727	28,784	$2,040,196
Reimbursement of State Costs						$14,200,043
TOTAL				727	28,784	$16,240,239
¹Weighted average based on activity hours provided by the EPA Regions

Approximately 61 regional EPA staff review and manage the Superfund site assessment work carried out by states and tribes. In addition to reviewing site assessment reports submitted by states and tribes, EPA staff conduct site management, oversight and quality assurance activities. Oversight activities include: reporting and recordkeeping activities such as establishing and maintaining a master database; answering respondent questions; auditing and reviewing data submissions; recording and entering data submissions; analyzing requests for confidentiality and providing confidentiality protection; reformatting and distributing data; and storing data.

Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions

The only costs to the Agency are those costs associated with maintenance, analysis, and utilization of the collected information.

The average Agency cost for the collection and administration of the information required by this ICR is estimated to be $452,264.6641. This cost is based on the average hourly labor rate at a GS-12, Step 1, times a 1.6 benefits multiplication factor to account for government overhead expenses for a total hourly rate of $47.14.

These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) “2015 General Schedule” which excludes locality rates of pay. These rates can be obtained from the OPM website,https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/2015/general-schedule/. Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Exhibit 13, “Total Agency Burden,” below.

Exhibit 13: Total Agency Burden

Activity		Average number of respondents per Year 2015	Unit Burden (Hours)	Unit Labor Cost (Dollars)	Total Unit Cost (Dollars)	Total Burden (Hours)	Total Cost (Dollars)
Pre-Remedial CA	New	20.2	27.5	$47.14	$1,296.35	555.5	$26,186.27
Pre-Remedial CA	Amendment	28.8	12.92	$15.71	$203.02	372.096	$5,846.87
Remedial response CA	New	40.8	33.6	$47.14	$1,583.90	1370.88	$64,623.28
Remedial response CA	Amendment	82.2	22.125	$15.71	$347.66	1818.675	$28,577.45
Enforcement CA	New	12	39.5	$47.14	$1,862.03	474	$22,344.36
Enforcement CA	Amendment	20.6	15.4	$15.71	$241.99	317.24	$4,984.90
Removal response CA	New	6.6	40.5	$47.14	$1,909.17	267.3	$12,600.52
Removal response CA	Amendment	3.6	14.5	$15.71	$227.84	52.2	$820.24
Core program CA	New	21	20.6	$47.14	$971.08	432.6	$20,392.76
Core program CA	Amendment	26.4	7.4	$15.71	$116.28	195.36	$3,069.76
Support agency CA	New	51.2	22.9	$47.14	$1,079.51	1172.48	$55,270.71
Support agency CA	Amendment	79.4	10.58	$15.71	$166.25	840.052	$13,200.02
Superfund State Contract	New	6	44.5	$47.14	$2,097.73	267	$12,586.38
Superfund State Contract	Amendment	18.6	15.8	$15.71	$248.27	293.88	$4,617.83
Conclusion of Superfund State Contract	New	16.2	17.5	$47.14	$824.95	283.5	$13,364.19
Conclusion of Superfund State Contract	Amendment	0	6.8	$15.71	$106.85	0	$0.00
Consolidated funding CA	New	4	24.5	$47.14	$1,154.93	98	$4,619.72
Consolidated funding CA	Amendment	13.2	9.2	$15.71	$144.56	121.44	$1,908.23
Conclusion of CA	New	11.4	17.5	$47.14	$824.95	199.5	$9,404.43
Conclusion of CA	Amendment	0	6.8	$15.71	$106.85	0	$0.00
Records retention	New	407.6	6.5	$47.14	$306.41	2649.4	$124,892.72
Records retention	Amendment	664	2.2	$15.71	$34.57	1460.8	$22,954.04
TOTAL							$452,264.66
TOTAL NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS					*		1533.8
TOTAL BURDEN HOURS*						*		13,241.90
AVERAGE BURDEN HOURS PER RESPONDENT*						*		8.63
TOTAL COST								$452,264.66

*Amendment respondents are assumed to have only 1/3 of the burden imposed as Full respondents, since the process of amending is not as extensive as it is for a new application for a CA.

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)

Burden on the Environmental Protection Agency covered in the ICR includes those hours and costs incurred in overseeing state activities. For the RI/FS, Proposed Plans, ARARs, initial and revised CIPs, the assumption is that Federal oversight hours are 10 percent of the state’s burden hours for respective activities. For the Administrative Record, fact sheets, focus groups, and workshops the assumption is that Federal oversight hours are 5 percent of the state’s burden hours. These assumptions were provided by a group of Headquarters and Regional Community Involvement EPA employees with the experience to estimate the average Federal oversight hours for these activities. The total estimated annual burden hours placed on EPA for oversight of state activities is 11,981.5 (Exhibit 14).

Exhibit 14: Estimated Burden Hours for Federal Oversight of State Activities for the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)


Activity	# of Sites with State-lead Activities/yr	# of Activities at each site	Hrs. per Activity/yr	Annual Hrs. for Activity at a Site	Total Annual Hrs. for all Sites
RI/FS	52	1	1,250	1,250	9,975
Proposed Plans	20	1	8	8	160
RODs	2	1	130	130	260
ARARs	25	1	3.3	3.3	82.5
Administrative Record	118	1	2	2	236
Initial CIP	4	1	20	20	80
Revised CIP	23	1	10	10	230
Fact Sheets	118	4	2	8	944
Focus Groups	1	4	1.5	6	6
Workshops	2	1	4	4	8

				TOTAL	11,981.5

Burden on EPA covered in the ICR also includes those hours and costs incurred in the implementation of Community Involvement activities. These activities include initial and revised CIPs, fact sheets, focus groups, workshops, satisfaction surveys, and TAGs. For these activities that are also conducted by states at state-lead sites, the average hours required per activity is the same as the burden hours placed on the states. Total number of activities and the Federal hours required to complete them are estimated by a group of Headquarters and Regional Community Involvement EPA employees. EPA is also responsible for maintaining the Administrative Record at all active Federal-lead sites at all stages of the cleanup process. At the time of this writing there are approximately 472 active Federal-lead NPL sites (EPA database). Therefore, EPA is responsible for maintaining the AR at 472 sites. The total estimated annual burden hours placed on EPA for Community Involvement activities is 115,770 (Exhibit 15).

Exhibit 15: Estimated Burden Hours for Federal Community Activities for the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)

Activity	# Federal-lead Sites/ yr.	# of Activities at each site	Hrs. per Activity/yr.	Annual Hrs. for Activity at a Site	Total Annual Hrs. for all Sites
Administrative Record	472	1	40	40	18,880
Initial CIP	16	1	200	200	3,200
Revised CIP	95	1	100	100	9,500
Fact Sheets	472	4	40	160	75,520
Focus Group	4	4	30	120	480
Workshop	8	1	80	80	640
TAG application	15	1	120	120	1,800
TAG management	75	1	50	50	3,750
Satisfaction Surveys	10	1	200	200	2,000

				TOTAL	115,770

Labor costs to EPA were calculated using a weighted average hourly rate for government employees. The assumption is made that the typical division of labor for these activities is 10 percent managerial, 80 percent technical, and 10 percent support. To determine the hourly wage, 50 percent of the value of a Step 5, GS-12 ($33.72) and GS-13, ($40.10) are summed and averaged ($36.91) and then adjusted for locality pay using a factor of 1.20, which results in $44.29. To further adjust for overhead, $44.29 is multiplied by 1.6, which results in $70.87. The annual labor cost for each activity that involves use of Federal hours is calculated using this labor rate. Labor costs to EPA are the only Federal costs accounted for oversight of state activities. The total estimated annual costs incurred by EPA for oversight of state activities is $4,758,750.66 (Exhibit 16). The total estimated annual costs EPA incurs for Community Involvement activities is $12,110,481.26 (Exhibit 17).

Exhibit 16. Estimated Costs for Federal Oversight of State Activities for the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)

Exhibit 17: Estimated Costs to the Federal Government for Community Activities for the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)

(i) Respondent tally

The total burden hours and costs displayed in the table below reflects the combined burden and costs on both categories of respondents: states at state-lead sites and individual community members participating voluntarily at Superfund sites. Community costs of $706,997.50 (Exhibit 18) are all hypothetical and do not represent the actual expenditure of dollars because all participation is voluntary. The majority of state costs may be paid through various grants from the Federal government. The actual cost to states is $58,467.75 (Exhibit 18) for the ARAR analysis.

Exhibit 18: Total Respondent Burden Hours and Costs for the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)

Respondent	Annual Burden (Hours)	Annual Cost	Total 3 yr. Burden	Total 3 yr. Cost
States	682,005	$58,467.75	2,046,015	$175,403.25
Communities	23,750	$706,997.50	71,250	$2,120,992.50
Total	705,755	$765,465.25	2,117,265	$2,296,395.70

(ii) Agency tally

The total burden and costs represented in the following exhibit is the amount EPA expects to spend directly in oversight of state activities and the information gathering activities EPA conducts with communities at Superfund sites.

Exhibit 19: Total Federal Agency Burden Hours and Costs for the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)

Agency	Annual Burden (Hours)	Annual Cost	Total 3 yr. Burden	Total 3 yr. Cost
Federal Oversight-States	11,981.5	$55,821,137.04	35,944.5	$167,463,411.12
Federal-Community Activities	115,770	$12,110,481.26	347,310	$36,331,443.78
Federal Total	127,751.50	$67,931,618	383,254.50	$203,794,854.90

(iii) Variations in the annual bottom line

Variations to the annual bottom line numbers may occur as sites enter different phases of the remedial process in different years. Additional, activities that depend almost exclusively on the need at the site, such as fact sheet, are likely to vary year to year. However, EPA expects the relative number of annual activities to be similar in each year of the ICR period.

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

Superfund Site Evaluation and Hazard Ranking System

EPA estimates that an annual average of 60 States (including U.S. Territories) and Tribes will perform the site assessment activities described in this ICR. The estimated annual burden to these respondents for performing these activities is approximately 156,526 hours at a cost of approximately $14,200,043. One hundred percent of the respondent cost ($14,200,043) is reimbursed by the EPA through cooperative agreements. On average, EPA estimates each respondent will complete and submit approximately 12 assessment reports per year.

Exhibit 20: Total Estimated Respondent Burden and Cost Summary for the Superfund Site Evaluation and Hazard Ranking System
Respondent Activity	Estimated Hours per Activity	Estimated Cost per Activity	Estimated No. Activities	Total Hours by Activity	Total Costs by Activity
Review/Manage Pre-CERCLA Screening	72.03	$5,384.33	321	23,123	$1,728,371
Review/Manage Preliminary Assessment	170.96	$12,854.94	163	27,866	$2,100,246
Review/Manage Site Inspection	534.58	$43,171.01	92	49,181	$3,971,733
Review/Manage Expanded Site Inspection	761.77	$67,271.40	35	26,662	$2,354,499
Review/Manage Site Reassessment	214.91	$17,013.49	108	23,210	$1,837,457
Review/Manage HRS Package	810.50	$57,604.13	8	6,484	$460,833
State/Tribal Infrastructure					$1,746,904
SUBTOTAL			727	156,526	$14,200,043
Less Federal Reimbursement					-$14,200,043
TOTAL			727	156,526	$0

Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions

Based on our research for this ICR, approximately 1,534 respondents will provide the information required under 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart O each year.

The number of Total Annual Responses is 1,534.

The total annual labor costs are $456,484.46. Details regarding these estimates may be found in Exhibit 7 (Total Respondent Burden of Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund).

Note that the total annual capital and O&M costs to the regulated entity are $0. These costs are detailed in Section 6(b)(iii), Capital/Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs.

The total annual burden is 14,248 hours.

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs

Consolidated ICRs Respondent Burden:

	Respondents	Responses	Respondent Hours	O&M Cost	Total Respondent Cost
Hazard Ranking System*	60.00	727	156,526.00	0.00	$0.00
Superfund Cooperative Agreements	1,534	1,534	14,248	0.00	$456,484.46
NCP**	12,690 (365 for States & 12,325 for Communities)	13,272 (722 for States & 12,550 for Communities)	705,755.00 (Sum of exhibits 7 & 8)	0.00	$58,467.75
Total	14,284	15,533	876,529	0.00	$514,952.21

* The total cost is $14,200,043, includes $1,746,904 annualized capital or O&M costs, however all these costs are reimbursed by the Federal Government through cooperative agreements, resulting in no net cost to respondents for this ICR.

**The total cost is $51,130,854.13, including $2,586,872.08 annualized capital or O&M costs, however, Federal funds will cover $51,072,386.38 and State Funds will cover $58,467.75 (see Exhibit 10: Estimated Cost to States for the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan).

Consolidated ICRs Annual Agency Burden

	Agency Hours	Agency Cost
Hazard Ranking System	28,784.00	$16,240,239.00
Superfund Cooperative Agreements	13,241.90	$452,264.66
NCP	127,751.50	$67,931,618.00
Total	169,777.40	$84,624,121.66

6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden

Superfund Site Evaluation and Hazard Ranking System

The increase in burden for the Superfund Site Evaluation and Hazard Ranking System for this ICR is primarily due to a 28% increase in the number of assessment reports estimated to be completed by respondents during FY 2016-2018. State respondents have significantly increased their production of Pre-CERCLA Screening reports to help place new and existing state inventory sites into the appropriate cleanup program. The increase in burden is partially offset by a slight decline in hours per assessment throughout the various types of assessment reports. This decline is likely due to efficiencies gained in gathering site information (e.g., increased electronic availability of data, more efficient sampling equipment.)

Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions

The increase in respondent burden for the Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions from the previous ICR of $236,262.87 and 7,086.20 hours reflects an increase in the estimated number of respondents from the previous ICR and an increase of the hourly rate. The burden hours were increased as respondents and the agency directed.

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)

The increase in total Agency cost for the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) portion of this ICR is due to both an increase in the hourly labor rate from the previous ICR and a significant increase in total contractor hours for an RI/FS project of 138% from the previous ICR. This increase in cost is also the reason why the overall Agency burden for this ICR is higher than the last approved ICR.

There is a decrease in total respondent cost because the number of state-lead ARARs that were estimated per year decreased by 73.7%.

6(g) Burden Statement

Superfund Site Evaluation and Hazard Ranking System

Depending on the number and type of activities performed, average burden per Response is estimated as 215.30 hours. Burden ranges from 72 to 2,350 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-CERCLA screening is performed will on average require approximately 72 hours (average for conducting pre-CERCLA screening and no other work), while sites that progress to NPL listing may require approximately 2,350 hours (cumulative average for conducting pre-CERCLA screening, PA, SI, ESI and HRS package work). This burden estimate includes reporting activities and minimal recordkeeping activities.

Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 9 hours per response.

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)

The total estimated annual burden hours placed on state governments for all remedial activities is 682,005. The total estimated annual burden hours placed on communities is 23,750. Total burden hours placed on 12,690 respondents through 25,380 responses is 705,755 hours. The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 27.81 hours per response.

The ICR covers an array of activities that may occur at various discrete points in time or periodically throughout the entire Superfund remedial process. Therefore, the number of likely respondents per Superfund site in both the state and community categories will vary by site depending on its position in the remedial process, the lead agency, and the level of community involvement warranted. Additionally, the frequency of response to all activities covered by the ICR can only be described as occurring when required to meet CERCLA requirements and the needs of the Superfund site and the community.

The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 56 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; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2004-0008, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Superfund Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Superfund Docket is (202) 566-0276. An electronic version of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov. This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. When in the system, select “search,” then key in the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2004-0008 and OMB Control Number 2050-0179 in any correspondence.

7. REFERENCES

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation. Guidance for Performing Preliminary Assessments Under CERCLA. OLEM 9345.0-01A.

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

(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/hrs-toolbox)

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

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation. Guidance for Performing Site Inspections Under CERCLA, Interim Final. OLEM 9345.1-05. EPA 540-R-92-021. September 1992.

(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/hrs-toolbox)

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Hazard Ranking System Guidance Manual. Interim Final. Publication 9345.1-07. PB92-963377. EPA 540-R-92-026. November 1992.

(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/hrs-toolbox)

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. USEPA, Superfund Program Implementation Manual Fiscal Year 2016, EPA 9200.3-15-1G-Z, September 30, 2015.

(http://semspub.epa.gov/work/11/177097.pdf)

42 US Code, Chapter 103, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability. January 1999. (http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title42/chapter103_subchapteri_.html)

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Improving Site Assessment: Pre‑CERCLIS Screening Assessments. 9375.2‑11FS, October 1999. (http://semspub.epa.gov/work/11/174018.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://semspub.epa.gov/work/11/174004.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://semspub.epa.gov/work/11/174013.pdf)

1¹55 Federal Register 51532 (12/14/90) as codified in 40 CFR Part 300 at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40cfr300_main_02.tpl.

2 Section 104 of CERCLA can be found at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=BROWSE&TITLE=42USCC103

3 EPA’s 2014-2018 Strategic Plan can be found at http://epa.gov/planandbudget/strategicplan.html

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

5 As stated in EPA’s ICR Handbook, revised November 2005, sensitive questions are those concerning sexual behavior, attitudes, religious ^{beliefs,
or matters usually considered private.}

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

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

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

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

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

11 USEPA, Superfund Program Implementation Manual Fiscal Year 2016, EPA 9200.3-15-1G-Z, September 2015.

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

13 USEPA, Superfund Program Implementation Manual Fiscal Year 2011, EPA 9200.3-14-1G-V, October, 2010.

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

15 Figure provided by EPA Headquarters.

File Type	application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
File Title	INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST
Author	Randy
File Modified	0000-00-00
File Created	2021-01-23