CONSOLIDATED SUPERFUND INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST (RENEWAL)

                     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                    Office of Land and Emergency Management
           Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
                        1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
                             Washington, DC 20460

                               Table of Contents
1.	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION	4
1(a)	Title of the Information Collection	4
1(b)	Short Characterization/Abstract	4
2.	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION	6
2(a)	Need/Authority for the Collection	6
2(b)	Practical Utility/Users of the Data	8
3.	NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA	11
3(a)	Non-duplication	11
3(b)	Public Notice Required Prior to Submission to OMB	12
3(c)	Consultations	12
3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection	12
3(e)	General Guidelines	13
3(f)	Confidentiality	14
3(g)	Sensitive Questions	14
4.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED	14
4(a)	Respondents Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes	14
4(b)	Information Requested	15
5.	THE INFORMATION COLLECTED - AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT	29
5(a)	EPA Activities	29
5(b)	Collection Methodology and Management	29
5(c) Small Entity Flexibility	31
5(d)	Collection Schedule	32
6.	ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION	32
6(a)	Estimating Respondent Burden	32
6(b)	Estimating Respondent Costs	41
6(c)	Estimating Agency Burden and Costs	47
6(d)	Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs	54
6(e)	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs	56
6(f)	Reasons for Change in Burden	56
6(g)	Burden Statement	57
7.	REFERENCES	59

                               LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1. Major Components of EPA's Superfund Site Assessment Process	4
Exhibit 2. Use and Users of the Site Assessment Data	10
Exhibit 3. Detailed Site Assessment Activities and Data Collected	16
Exhibit 4. Annual Respondent Burden of Superfund Site Evaluation and HRS	33
Exhibit 5. Total Respondent Burden (Cooperative Agreements & Superfund State Contracts)	34
Exhibit 6. Estimated Burden Hours Placed on States for National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan	39
Exhibit 7. Estimated Burden Hours Placed on Communities for National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan	41
Exhibit 8. Total Annual Respondent Burden and Costs of Superfund Site Evaluation and HRS	42
Exhibit 9. Estimated Cost to States for the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)	45
Exhibit 10. Estimated Costs to Communities (Voluntary activities, not actually expended costs) for the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)	46
Exhibit 11: Annual Agency Burden and Cost for Superfund Site Evaluation and HRS 	47
Exhibit 12: Total Agency Burden for Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions	49
Exhibit 13. Estimated Burden Hours for Federal Oversight of State Activities for the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)	50
Exhibit 14. Estimated Burden Hours for Federal Community Activities for the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) 	51
Exhibit 15. Estimated Costs for Federal Oversight of State Activities for the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NCP)	52
Exhibit 16. Estimated Costs to the Federal Government for Community Activities for the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)	53
Exhibit 17. Total Respondent Burden Hours and Costs for the NCP	54
Exhibit 18. Total Federal Agency Burden Hours and Costs for the NCP	54
Exhibit 19. Total Estimated Respondent Burden and Costs Summary for the Superfund Site Evaluation and Hazard Ranking System	55

IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION
1(a)	Title of the Information Collection

This Information Collection Request (ICR) has EPA ICR number 1487.14 (OMB control number 2050-0179) and is titled, "Consolidated Superfund Information Collection Request (Renewal)."

1(b)	Short Characterization/Abstract

 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.  A rulemaking to add the subsurface intrusion (SsI) component to the HRS was signed on December 7, 2016. This rule was published in the Federal Register (FR) on January 9, 2017.  The HRS criteria take into account the population at risk, the hazard potential of the substances, as well as the potential for contamination of drinking water supplies, direct human contact, destruction of sensitive ecosystems, damage to natural resources affecting the human food chain, contamination of surface water used for recreation or potable water consumption, and contamination of ambient air.

      The Superfund site evaluation process uses a series of progressively more complex site assessment phases to determine and implement the appropriate responses to releases of hazardous substances to the environment.  Exhibit 1 outlines the major components of the site assessment process.
      Pre
-
CERCLA
Screen/Site
Discovery
Preliminary
Assessment
(PA)
Site
Inspection
(SI)
Hazard Ranking
System Package
(HRS)
National
Priorities
List (NPL)
NFRAP and Deferred
(Information provided to states & other regulatory programs)
Removal actions may occur at any time
Exhibit 1: Major Components of EPA's Superfund Site Assessment Process

Pre
-
Screen/Site
Discovery
Preliminary
Assessment
(PA)
Site
Inspection
(SI)
Hazard Ranking
System Package
(HRS)
National
Priorities
List (NPL)
NFRAP and Deferred
(Information provided to states & other regulatory programs)
Removal actions may occur at any time

Pre
-
CERCLA
Screen/Site
Discovery
Preliminary
Assessment
(PA)
Site
Inspection
(SI)
Hazard Ranking
System Package
(HRS)
National
Priorities
List (NPL)
NFRAP and Deferred
(Information provided to states & other regulatory programs)
Removal actions may occur at any time
Exhibit 1: Major Components of EPA's Superfund Site Assessment Process

Pre
-
Screen/Site
Discovery
Preliminary
Assessment
(PA)
Site
Inspection
(SI)
Hazard Ranking
System Package
(HRS)
National
Priorities
List (NPL)
NFRAP and Deferred
(Information provided to states & other regulatory programs)
Removal actions may occur at any time

      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 28.50 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.

      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 SEMS or 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 FY19 through FY21.  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 FY19-FY21 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 94,253 hours and $10,099,537, respectively.  However, one hundred percent of the respondent cost ($10,099,537) 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.  Section 6.0 of this document, Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection, provides a more detailed discussion of the burden to respondents.

 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 2 CFR Part 200, "Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards" and under 40 CFR Part 35, "State and Local Assistance."

      It is estimated that the information collection will involve 341 new respondents and 505 amendments to existing agreements with recipients impose a burden of 11,281.7 hours and $367,678.08.

 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 tracks site assessment report completions as a key performance internal program measure. Objective 1.3  -  Revitalize Land and Prevent Contamination within EPA's FY 2019 Justification of Appropriation Estimates for the Committee on Appropriations includes target and accomplishment information for the number of Superfund remedial site assessment reports completed. The site assessment reports submitted by States and Tribes are included in these estimates and accomplishments.

      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.

	In 2016, the subsurface intrusion component was added to the HRS. This update to the rule was published in the FR on January 9, 2017. The addition of the subsurface intrusion component to the HRS meets the congressional mandate in CERCLA to identify releases of hazardous substances at sites that warrant further investigation. This addition now enables the EPA to consider human exposure to hazardous substances or pollutants and contaminants that enter regularly occupied structures through subsurface intrusion when evaluating a site for placement on the NPL.

      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://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title42/chapter103&edition=prelim.

 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 SEMS.  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 records; track site status; and respond to information inquiries. 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 records
       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

 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, 2 CFR Part 200, "Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards."  2 CFR Part 200, became effective on January 1, 2014.  The 2 CFR Part 200 establishes uniformity among Federal agencies that award Federal grants and cooperative agreements to States, political subdivisions thereof, and Federally-recognized Indian Tribes and Tribal Consortia.

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 2 CFR Part 200, 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 September 24, 2018 (83 FR 48310).  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 2019 through FY 2021.  As part of obtaining the State and Tribal burden information, EPA Regions were contacted to determine the estimated quantity of site assessment reports to be completed by States and Tribes in each respective Region and the average costs (dollars and hours) to develop these reports.  EPA Regions reviewed cooperative agreement progress reports and other relevant information as necessary to gather the State and Tribal data for this ICR.

 Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions
      This is a request for renewal of an information collection request, and in addition to the initial Federal Register notice, state and tribal organizations were contacted to provide additional input towards the calculation of burden imposed by this ICR.  These respondents commented on the burdens presented in the burden table below.

 National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)
      An EPA Superfund database provides the basis for the actual and 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.  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 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.
 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

      Respondents to this ICR are state/tribal governments who participate in cooperative agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund response actions. 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.

 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; 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.  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 2019 through FY 2021.  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, Expanded Site Inspection, Site Reassessment and HRS Package Preparation.

      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

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.  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 2019 through FY 2021, EPA projects an annual average of 262 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.  From FY 2019 through FY 2021, EPA projects an annual average of 112 PAs will be performed by States or Tribes to identify target populations and other targets that may be affected by contamination at sites.  The scope of the PA must be sufficient to complete several activities, including:

       Reviewing existing information about the site;
       Conducting a site and environmental reconnaissance;
	Collecting information about the site, with the emphasis on target information;
	Evaluating all information and developing a preliminary HRS score; and
	Preparing a brief site summary report and site characteristics form.

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

      In certain situations, an Abbreviated PA (APA) 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.  From FY 2019 through FY 2021 EPA projects an annual average of 52 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.

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.  From FY 2019 through FY 2021, EPA projects an annual average of 17 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.  From FY 2019 through FY 2021, EPA projects an annual average of 38 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 subsurface intrusion; 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 and subsurface intrusion pathway, likelihood of exposure; (2) waste characteristics; and (3) targets (i.e., potentially affected populations, etc.).  The HRS site score, which ranges from 0 to 100, is obtained by combining the pathway scores.  A site may be scored for one or more of the pathways depending on the nature of the release. Any site scoring 28.50 or greater is eligible for placement on the NPL.

      From FY 2019 through FY 2021, EPA projects an annual average of 4 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 Compass 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 2 CFR Part 200;
 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 271 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 5 RI/FS per year over the three-year ICR period.  The Federal government will have the lead on the 266 remaining sites per year.  However, for new RI/FS, EPA estimates that there will be an average of 23 new RI/FS per year with 1 being state-lead and 22 being Federal government-lead. These estimates are based on historical data obtained from a Superfund database from FY 2015 to FY 2018.

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 §117 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 2 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 §113 (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 57 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 2015-2018 and those planned through 2021.

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 34 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 500 active Federal and state-lead Superfund sites.  For RI/FS, RD, and RA activities, states have historically had the lead on 14 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 70 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, when 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 developed in advance of field work supporting an 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 less than one (1) CIPs to be completed by states each year of the three-year ICR period.  Federal-lead sites are expected to complete 29 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 70 active Superfund sites; therefore, a rough estimate is that each year 14 of these sites will require a CIP revision.  EPA estimates that CIPs will be revised at 46 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 70 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 for a total of 280 fact sheets.  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.  EPA estimates that the state will prepare and conduct a workshop at one (1) site 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.  Based upon historical information provided in February of 2019, EPA Community Involvement staff estimate that two (2) TAG applications will be filed and 40 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 grants.gov, the Agency's database for tracking the status of grant/cooperative agreement actions.  Financial information is entered into Compass Financials, 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.

      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).

      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 via a final EPA rule published 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. To facilitate the HRS scoring effort, EPA has, wherever possible, included tables to minimize the level of effort necessary for data collection.

      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.
      EPA's assessment process allows for combining some phases of the site assessment process to reduce the level of effort expended on the duplication of similar data-gathering activities. 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 will be needed 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.

      All data collection activities require the maintenance of associated records.  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 record 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.  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 53 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 94,253 hours.  This estimate was calculated by multiplying the estimated average annual number of State- and Tribal-lead activities projected from FY 2019 through FY 2021 by the average hours needed to perform each activity.  Exhibit 4 provides detailed information on the estimated annual respondent burden (calculated as a weighted average based on information provided by EPA regions).

   Exhibit 4: Annual Respondent Burden of Superfund Site Evaluation and HRS

                             Respondent Activities

                               Estimated Hours
                               Per Activity[1]
             Estimated Annual Number of State/Tribal Activities[1]
                    Total Annual National Hours by Activity

                             Pre-CERCLA Screening
                                     93.32

                                      262

                                    24,449

                          Preliminary Assessment (PA)
                                    151.73

                                      112

                                    16,994

                             Site Inspection (SI)

                                    513.81

                                      52

                                    26,718

                        Expanded Site Inspection (ESI)

                                    642.94

                                      17

                                    10,930

                               Site Reassessment

                                    330.37

                                      38

                                    12,554

                                  HRS Package

                                      652
                                       4

                                     2,608

                                     TOTAL

                                      485

                                    94,253
1 Weighted average based on activity hours provided by the EPA Regions.

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

      The number of respondent activities performed generally decreases as sites progress through the site assessment screening process.  Depending upon how far a particular site progresses through this process, the burden per site may range on average from approximately 93 hours (average for conducting pre-CERCLA screening and no other work) to 2,054 hours (cumulative average for conducting pre-CERCLA screening, PA, SI, ESI, and HRS package work).

 Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions
	Exhibit 5, "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.

Exhibit 5: Total Respondent Burden

                                   Activity

                    Average number of respondents per Year
                                      2018
                              Unit Burden (Hours)
                           Unit Labor Cost (Dollars)

                           Total Unit Cost (Dollars)

                             Total Burden (Hours)

                             Total Cost (Dollars)
Pre-Remedial CA
                                      New
                                     14.8
                                     25.44
                                    $42.83
                                   $1,089.60
                                    376.51
                                  $16,126.01

                                   Amendment
                                     30.6
                                     11.78
                                    $14.28
                                    $168.20
                                    360.51
                                   $5,146.86
Remedial response CA
                                      New
                                     29.8
                                     41.69
                                    $42.83
                                   $1,785.54
                                    1242.33
                                  $53,208.95

                                   Amendment
                                     58.6
                                     14.91
                                    $14.28
                                    $212.93
                                    873.98
                                  $12,477.48
Enforcement CA
                                      New
                                     11.2
                                     52.50
                                    $42.83
                                   $2,248.58
                                      588
                                  $25,184.04

                                   Amendment
                                     26.6
                                     14.61
                                    $14.28
                                    $208.52
                                    388.51
                                   $5,546.66
Removal response CA
                                      New
                                      4.4
                                     55.33
                                    $42.83
                                   $2,369.57
                                    243.43
                                  $10,426.11

                                   Amendment
                                      3.8
                                     14.91
                                    $14.28
                                    $212.93
                                     56.67
                                    $809.12
Core program CA
                                      New
                                     16.4
                                     16.65
                                    $42.83
                                    $713.12
                                    273.06
                                  $11,695.16

                                   Amendment
                                     27.4
                                     8.53
                                    $14.28
                                    $121.83
                                    233.81
                                   $3,338.08
Support agency CA
                                      New
                                     46.4
                                     22.23
                                    $42.83
                                    $951.90
                                    1031.24
                                  $44,168.01

                                   Amendment
                                     70.6
                                     11.46
                                    $14.28
                                    $163.67
                                    809.36
                                  $11,554.94
Superfund State Contract
                                      New
                                     28.2
                                     38.88
                                    $42.83
                                   $1,665.23
                                    1096.42
                                  $46,959.50

                                   Amendment
                                      24
                                     19.54
                                    $14.28
                                    $278.92
                                    468.89
                                   $6,694.16
Conclusion of Superfund State Contract
                                      New
                                      9.8
                                     13.75
                                    $42.83
                                    $588.72
                                    134.71
                                   $5,769.43

                                   Amendment
                                       0
                                     7.07
                                    $14.28
                                    $100.96
                                       0
                                     $0.00
Consolidated funding CA
                                      New
                                      3.2
                                     84.60
                                    $42.83
                                   $3,623.42
                                    270.72
                                  $11,594.94

                                   Amendment
                                     10.8
                                     10.57
                                    $14.28
                                    $150.89
                                    114.14
                                   $1,629.60
Conclusion of CA
                                      New
                                      6.2
                                     22.47
                                    $42.83
                                    $962.39
                                    139.31
                                   $5,966.82

                                   Amendment
                                       0
                                     6.97
                                    $14.28
                                    $99.51
                                       0
                                     $0.00
Records retention
                                      New
                                     170.4
                                     10.80
                                    $42.83
                                    $462.56
                                    1840.32
                                  $78,820.91

                                   Amendment
                                     252.4
                                     2.93
                                    $14.28
                                    $41.84
                                    739.76
                                  $10,561.33
TOTAL

                                  $367,678.08
TOTAL NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS
                                       *
                                      846
TOTAL BURDEN HOURS*
                                       *
                                   11,281.7
AVERAGE BURDEN HOURS PER RESPONDENT*
                                       *
                                     13.34
TOTAL COST

                                  $367,678.08
*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 846 cooperative agreement and Superfund State Contract activities per year for reporting, certifications, schedules, notifications, assurances, and record keeping activities.  Data was extracted from Compass Financials and SEMS to obtain a five year average of the number of respondents. 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 Exhibit 5, "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 46 (15 new respondent CAs and 31 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 19 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 89 (30 new respondent CAs and 59 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 28 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 38 (11 new respondent CAs and 27 amended respondent CAs) Enforcement Cooperative Agreements will be in place each year.  EPA also estimates that 34 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 8 (4 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 35 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 44 (17 new respondent CAs and 27 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 13 hours 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 117 (46 new respondent CAs and 71 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 17 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 52 (28 new respondent CAs and 24 amended respondent CAs) Superfund State Contracts are in place each year.  The Superfund grants program workgroup estimates that about 29 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 10 (10 new respondents and 0 amended respondents) Superfund State Contracts are concluded each year.  The Superfund Subpart O Workgroup estimates that an average of 10 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.