1
Supporting
Statement
for
ICR
1463.06
Part
A.

1.
Identification
of
the
Information
Collection
1(
a)
Title:

National
Oil
and
Hazardous
Substances
Pollution
Contingency
Plan
(
NCP),
(
40
CFR
part
300)
EPA
ICR
1463.06,
OMB
Control
Number
2050­
0096
1(
b)
Abstract:

ICR
1463.06
is
a
renewal
of
ICR
1463.05;
the
renewal
is
due
October
31,
2004.
ICR
1463.06
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.

2.
Need
for
and
use
of
the
Information
Collection
2(
a)
Need/
Authority
for
Collection:

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.

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
2
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
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
Stateand
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.

3.
Non­
duplication,
consultations,
and
other
ICR
criteria
3(
a)
Non­
duplication
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
ICR
submission
to
OMB
The
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
requires
that
ICRs
be
made
available
to
the
public
for
comment
prior
to
submission
to
OMB.
This
is
done
through
two
notices
to
the
Federal
Register.
The
first
Federal
Register
Notice,
which
describes
the
ICR
and
provides
numbers
for
burden
hours
and
costs
and
solicits
public
comment,
was
published
on
April
30,
2004.
A
60­
day
comment
period
was
given;
no
comments
were
received.
The
second
Federal
Register
Notice
will
be
published
at
the
same
time
the
ICR
is
submitted
to
3
OMB.
This
notice
states
that
the
ICR
has
been
submitted
and
provides
an
abstract
and
final
burden
numbers.

3(
c)
Consultations
In
addition
to
EPA
Regional
offices,
State
representatives
participated
in
NCP
workgroup
meetings
leading
to
the
1990
NCP
revisions.
State
representatives
provided
guidance
on
avoiding
problems
associated
with
implementation
of
the
NCP
requirements.
The
public
and
other
Federal
and
State
agencies
also
had
the
opportunity
to
submit
comments
on
the
proposed
revisions
to
the
NCP
(
53
FR
51394;
December
21,
1988).
These
comments
are
addressed
in
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule
and
in
the
Response
to
Comments
document
supporting
the
final
rule.

An
EPA
Superfund
database
which
is
updated
daily
and
contract
records
from
the
past
eight
years
provide
a
basis
for
some
estimates
in
this
ICR.
Estimates
are
also
informed
by
specific
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.

3(
d)
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
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
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
3
year
ICR
period
as
cleanups
typically
take
more
than
3
years.

3(
f)
Confidentiality
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
4
privacy
concerns.

3(
g)
Sensitive
Questions
The
information
gathering
activities
discussed
in
this
ICR
generally
do
not
involve
any
sensitive
questions.
The
Agency
has
found,
however,
that
some
information
gathered
during
community
interviews
may
be
sensitive
information
with
respect
to
privacy
concerns.

4.
Respondents
and
Information
requested
4(
a)
Respondents/
SIC
Codes
Respondents
to
this
ICR
are
State/
Tribal
governments
and
individual
community
members
who
voluntarily
participate
in
the
remedial
phase
of
the
Superfund
program
and
in
associated
community
involvement
activities
throughout
the
Superfund
process.
SIC
Codes
are
OSHA's
Standard
Industrial
Classification
System
used
to
identify
different
groups.
State/
Tribal
governments
are
categorized
as
Division
J:
Public
Administration,
Major
Group
95:
Administration
of
Environmental
Quality
and
Housing
Programs,
Industry
Group
951:
Administration
of
Environmental
Quality,
subgroup
9511:
Air
and
Water
Resource
and
Solid
Waste
Management.
The
other
respondents,
community
members,
do
not
have
a
SIC
Code
as
they
do
not
constitute
an
industry.

4(
b)
Information
requested
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
5
­
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
6
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.
Included
as
an
integral
part
of
the
risk
assessment
process
is
the
uncertainty
evaluation,
which
identifies
the
degree
of
uncertainty
associated
with
the
final
risk
estimates
by
identifying
uncertainties
related
to
the
data
and
the
assumptions.
This
evaluation
of
uncertainties
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
12
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
2
RI/
FS
per
year
over
the
three­
year
ICR
period.
The
Federal
government
will
have
the
lead
on
the
10
remaining
sites
per
year.
These
estimates
are
based
on
data
obtained
from
a
Superfund
database
7
concerning
new
sites
entering
the
remedial
phase
of
the
Superfund
process.
The
average
represents
actual
numbers
from
the
previous
ICR
period
and
planned
data
for
the
renewal
ICR
period.
On
average,
90%
of
RI/
FS
are
completed
within
2­
5
years
(
13­
60
mos.)
of
the
start
date.
This
average
represents
an
analysis
of
actual
and
planned
date
from
Fiscal
Year
(
FY)
2001
to
FY
2006,
grouped
both
by
3
year
ICR
periods
and
across
the
years.
The
number
of
RI/
FS
that
EPA
expects
at
both
Federal
and
State
lead
sites
represents
an
average
taken
across
each
three
year
grouping
for
number
of
starts
and
for
total
time
to
completion.

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

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

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

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

Finally,
CERCLA
§
l17
requires
the
lead
agency
to
offer
the
opportunity
for
a
public
meeting
to
discuss
and
answer
questions
and
to
obtain
feedback
about
the
RI/
FS
report
and
the
Proposed
Plan.
The
lead
agency
establishes
a
date
and
time
for
the
meeting,
reserves
a
facility,
and
arranges
for
any
special
needs.
The
lead
agency
also
designs
the
meeting
program,
including
identifying
specific
issues
and
tasks
to
be
addressed,
preparing
an
agenda,
identifying
presenters,
and
rehearsing
presentations.
Printed
materials,
visual
aids
or
graphics,
and
other
materials
are
prepared
and
special
arrangements
made,
such
as
hiring
a
court
reporter.
Finally,
the
meeting
is
held,
and
a
transcript
of
the
meeting
notes
is
prepared
by
the
lead
agency.
The
transcript
is
made
available
to
the
public
as
required
by
CERCLA
§
117.
8
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
4
State­
lead
sites
in
each
year
of
the
3
years
covered
by
this
ICR.

Records
of
Decision
The
lead
agency
prepares
a
ROD
in
response
to
the
statutory
requirements
in
CERCLA
§
l13
(
42
USC
9613)
for
a
statement
of
basis
and
purpose
of
the
selected
remedy
at
a
site
and
in
CERCLA
§
117
(
42
USC
9617),
which
calls
for
a
remedial
action
plan
to
be
adopted
and
released
to
the
public.
The
ROD
is
prepared
by
the
lead
agency
in
consultation
with
the
support
agency
for
a
site.
It
is
the
decision
document
used
to
describe
the
selected
remedy
for
a
site
or
a
particular
component
of
a
site
(
e.
g.,
geographic
area,
pathway,
or
source
control),
and
to
explain
the
rationale
for
the
selected
remedy.
In
addition,
RODs
demonstrate
the
lead
agency's
decision­
making
process
has
been
carried
out
in
accordance
with
CERCLA
and
the
NCP.
RODs
typically
have
three
major
sections:
the
Declaration,
the
Decision
Summary,
and
the
Responsiveness
Summary.
All
RODs
are
signed
by
EPA
Regional
Administrators
or
the
Assistant
Administrator
for
OSWER.
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
Assistant
Administrator
of
OSWER)
which
affirms
that
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
9
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
4
RODs
will
be
completed
annually
at
State­
lead
sites
over
the
three­
year
ICR
period,
while
46
RODs
will
be
completed
annually
by
the
Federal
government.
This
average
is
based
on
data
in
a
Superfund
database
concerning
the
actual
number
of
RODs
issued
each
10
year
since
1995
and
those
planned
through
2007.
The
average
takes
into
account
that
planned
numbers
routinely
are
higher
than
actual
numbers.
The
averages
from
the
database
match
well
with
a
2001
EPA
ROD
Accomplishment
Report.

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
45
sites
(
10
Federal­
lead,
2
State­
lead,
33
Federal
facilities)
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
State­
lead
action
of
RI/
FS,
RD,
and
RA,
States
have
historically
had
the
lead
on
20%
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
100
sites
each
year.

Initial
Community
Involvement
Plan(
CIP)/
Revised
CIP
Community
Involvement
Plans
are
developed
at
remedial
sites
to
identify
community
concerns
and
to
select
techniques
and
approaches
to
use
in
addressing
these
concerns.
The
initial
CIP
developed
for
a
site
presents
the
community
involvement
program
that
is
to
be
followed
during
the
RI/
FS
stage
of
the
remedial
phase.
The
NCP
requires
the
CIP
be
completed
and
in
place
before
field
work
begins
for
the
RI.
However,
as
the
Agency
seeks
to
accomplish
RI
field
work
during
preremedial
actions
to
expedite
cleanups,
EPA
is
finding
it
necessary
to
begin
its
community
involvement
11
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.

Prior
to
commencement
of
the
Remedial
Design/
Remedial
Action
stage,
the
CIP
is
reviewed
to
determine
whether
it
should
be
revised
to
address
the
community
concerns
at
that
time.
These
plans
are
written
as
5­
year
plans
that
are
renewed
every
three
years.
This
cycle
will
be
followed
at
all
active
sites
throughout
the
duration
of
remedial
activities.
The
process
for
preparing
the
revised
CIP
is
essentially
the
same
as
that
followed
in
preparing
the
initial
CIP:
­
Background
research
is
conducted
on
activities
that
have
occurred
since
the
CIP
was
first
written
or
last
revised;
­
Community
interviews
are
planned
and
conducted;
­
The
community
involvement
program
is
revised
to
address
the
current
citizen
concerns;
and
­
The
CIP
document
is
revised.

Since
the
Initial
CIP
is
developed
concurrent
with
the
RI/
FS,
the
estimated
number
of
sites
at
which
the
State
will
conduct
an
RI/
FS
each
year
is
applied
to
the
Initial
CIP.
Therefore,
EPA
expects
2
CIPs
to
be
completed
by
States
each
year
of
the
three­
year
ICR
period.
Federal­
lead
sites
are
expected
to
complete
10
initial
CIPs
each
year.
CIPs
are
revised
every
5
years
for
all
active
Superfund
sites.
Superfund
data
indicates
that
States
have
the
lead
on
approximately
100
active
Superfund
sites.
Therefore,
a
rough
estimate
is
that
each
year
20
of
these
sites
will
require
a
CIP
revision.
EPA
estimates
that
CIPs
will
be
revised
at
80
active
Federal­
lead
Superfund
sites
each
year.

Fact
Sheets
12
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
100
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
4
fact
sheets
will
be
completed
at
each
active
Superfund
site.
Because
of
the
site­
specific
need
for
fact
sheets,
it
is
anticipated
that
some
sites
will
generate
far
more
than
4
fact
sheets
in
a
single
year
and
other
sites
will
require
the
writing
of
hardly
any.

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
4
times
per
year
at
1%
of
active
sites
(
1
at
State­
lead
sites,
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
estimate
that
a
workshop
is
conducted
at
2%
(
currently
~
10
sites)
of
all
active
sites
each
year.
Since
the
State
has
the
lead
on
20%
of
active
sites,
EPA
estimates
that
the
State
will
prepare
and
conduct
a
workshop
at
2
sites
annually.
EPA
estimates
that
it
will
conduct
a
workshop
at
8
Federal­
lead
sites
each
year.

Technical
Assistance
Grant
Application/
TAG
Management
SARA
amended
CERCLA
§
117(
e)
to
provide
for
Technical
Assistance
Grants
(
TAGs)
to
eligible
community
groups
for
an
initial
grant
up
to
$
50,000.
The
purpose
of
these
grants
is
to
give
communities
that
are
affected
by
Superfund
sites
the
opportunity
to
obtain
expert
information
and
consultation
about
the
site.
The
TAG
allows
community
groups
to
hire
an
independent
advisor
who
can
help
them
understand
various
technical
aspects
of
the
site,
such
as
characteristics
of
the
contamination,
the
proposed
remedies,
the
remedial
design,
the
technical
aspects
of
the
remedy,
the
health
risk
and
analysis,
and
site
construction.
TAGs
may
be
renewed
to
facilitate
public
participation
throughout
the
Superfund
remedial
process.
Community
groups
apply
for
TAGs
and
manage
those
that
they
already
have.
TAGs
are
processed
and
granted
by
the
Federal
government.
There
is
no
State
burden
or
cost
for
TAGs.
EPA
Community
Involvement
staff
estimate
that
15
TAG
applications
will
be
filed
and
120
maintained
each
year.
13
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
help
EPA
improve
it's
community
involvement
activities
and
relationships
with
communities
at
Superfund
sites.
EPA
estimates
that
these
surveys
will
be
completed
at
5
active
Superfund
Federal­
lead
sites
each
year.
Information
and
estimates
about
these
surveys
are
provided
by
EPA
Headquarters
Community
Involvement
staff
who
are
involved
in
administering
these
surveys.

(
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.

5.
Information
collected:
Agency
activities,
collection
methodology,
information
management
5(
a)
Agency
activities
14
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%
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
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
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
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.
15
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
Information
Collection
6(
a)
Estimating
respondent
burden
Respondent
burden
estimates
are
calculated
from
a
combination
of
sources:
historic
and
projected
data
from
Superfund
databases,
contract
records,
consultation
with
EPA
Headquarters
and
Regional
staff,
and
information
contained
in
the
2001
version
of
this
ICR.
Burden
hours
are
estimated
for
the
number
of
hours
expected
annually
for
each
activity.
The
annual
hours
per
activity
figure
is
multiplied
by
the
number
of
sites
expected
to
be
engaging
in
the
activity
every
year.
This
calculation
gives
the
total
annual
hours
for
all
sites
by
activity.
All
burden
hours,
with
the
exception
of
ARARS,
placed
on
States
refer
to
only
activities
conducted
at
State­
lead
sites.
All
burden
hours
placed
on
communities
refer
to
activities
that
are
conducted
at
all
Federal
and
State­
lead
sites.

The
estimated
number
of
respondents
reported
for
this
information
collection
is
7,970.
This
number
is
the
sum
of
all
State­
lead
activities,
280,
and
people
participating
in
community
activities
at
all
sites,
7690.
The
estimated
number
of
responses
is
8,498.
This
is
the
sum
of
State
responses,
583
State­
lead
activities
at
all
sites
each
year,
and
community
responses,
7,915
people
participating
in
all
activities
at
all
sites.

(
i)
State
Burden
Hours
The
total
hours
for
an
RI/
FS
is
assumed
to
consist
of
80%
contractor
work
and
20%
government
work.
The
total
contractor
hours
for
an
RI/
FS
project,
4200
hours,
is
calculated
from
Office
of
Superfund
Remediation
and
Technology
Innovation
(
OSRTI)
contract
records
from
1996
through
2004.
Data
for
costs
billed
as
direct
labor
across
all
projects
and
years
provides
information
about
the
number
of
hours
spent
on
an
average
RI/
FS.
Burden
hours
can
be
divided
among
different
labor
categories
based
on
contract
records:
62%
professional
labor,
30%
direct
labor,
4%
clerical
labor,
and
4%
technical
labor.
Total
contractor
hours
per
RI/
FS
is
estimated
to
be
4,200
hours
per
year,
which
is
estimated
to
account
for
80%
of
the
hours
for
an
RI/
FS.
The
remaining
20%
of
RI/
FS
work,
1,050
hours,
is
done
by
the
State
government.
Therefore,
the
total
annual
time
devoted
to
a
single
RI/
FS
is
estimated
to
be
5,250
hours.
This
ICR
estimates
that
2
State­
lead
sites
will
be
in
the
process
of
conducting
an
RI/
FS
every
year.
The
total
annual
burden
hours
is
10,500.

Total
burden
hours
for
each
Proposed
Plan
is
estimated
to
be
80
hours.
This
figure
covers
the
time
taken
for
writing,
printing,
notification,
and
distribution
of
the
Proposed
Plan.
This
estimate
remains
the
same
from
the
previous
ICR
renewal.
Since
Proposed
Plans
are
expected
to
be
completed
at
4
State­
lead
sites
each
year,
a
total
annual
estimate
of
burden
is
320
hours.
These
estimates
are
confirmed
by
EPA
Headquarters
and
Regional
management.

The
hours
required
to
complete
a
ROD
are
highly
variable
across
the
Superfund
program
given
site
complexity
and
enforcement
issues.
The
burden
hours
for
a
ROD
are
assumed
to
include
the
time
needed
for
writing,
reviewing,
negotiating,
and
obtaining
concurrence.
The
ROD
finalization
process
is
one
that
takes
quite
a
lot
of
time
and
energy.
The
estimates
are
based
on
consultation
with
EPA
staff
experienced
in
writing
RODs
and
involved
in
writing
the
ROD
guidance
document
("
A
Guide
to
Preparing
Superfund
Proposed
Plans,
Records
of
Decision,
and
Other
Remedy
Selection
Decision
Documents,"
EPA
540­
R­
98­
16
031,
OSWER
9200.1­
23.
P,
July
1999).
Experience
with
very
complex
and
more
straight­
forward
RODs
was
used
in
calculating
an
average
value
for
ROD
burden
hours.
For
the
purpose
of
this
ICR
it
is
estimated
that
the
average
ROD
requires
a
total
of
1,300
hours.
This
estimate
is
based
on
a
9
month
time
frame
in
which
one
full­
time
employee
dedicates
50%
of
work
time
to
the
ROD
for
a
total
of
720
hours,
and,
two
full­
time
employees
dedicate
20%
of
work
time
for
a
total
of
576
hours.
The
former
employee
is
typically
the
Remedial
Project
Manager
(
RPM)
for
the
site
and
the
latter
two
employees
consist
of
policy
analysts,
attorneys,
and
managers.
This
ICR
estimates
that
RODs
will
be
completed
at
4
State­
lead
sites
each
year;
thus,
the
estimated
total
annual
ROD
burden
to
States
is
5,200
hours.

The
total
estimated
annual
burden
for
identification
of
ARARs
is
33
hours
at
each
Federal,
State,
or
Federal
facility
lead
site.
This
estimate
is
the
same
as
the
ARAR
estimate
in
the
previous
version
of
this
ICR.
The
figure
is
also
confirmed
by
EPA
staff
experienced
in
evaluating
ARARs.
ARARs
are
expected
to
be
evaluated
at
45
sites
annually,
resulting
in
an
estimated
burden
of
1,485
hours.

The
establishment
and
maintenance
of
one
site's
Administrative
Record
is
estimated
to
take
40
hours
annually.
Since
States
are
estimated
to
have
the
lead
on
100
active
Superfund
sites,
EPA
expects
States
to
spend
4,000
total
hours
on
Administrative
Records.
This
estimate
is
provided
by
a
group
of
experienced
EPA
Headquarters
and
Regional
staff.

Total
estimated
annual
burden
hours
for
each
initial
and
revised
CIP
are
200
and
100,
respectively.
Initial
CIPs
are
estimated
to
be
completed
at
2
State­
lead
sites
each
year
for
a
total
annual
burden
of
400
hours.
Revised
CIPs
are
estimated
to
be
completed
at
20
State­
lead
sites
each
year
for
a
total
annual
burden
of
2,000
hours.
These
hours
are
estimated
by
a
group
of
EPA
Headquarters
and
Regional
staff
experienced
in
the
development
and
revisions
of
CIPs.

EPA
estimates
that
each
fact
sheet
will
require
an
average
of
40
hours
of
work
per
year.
This
estimate
is
the
result
of
discussion
by
a
group
of
experienced
EPA
Headquarters
and
Regional
Community
Involvement
staff.
An
average
of
4
fact
sheets
are
expected
at
each
of
the
100
estimated
State­
lead
active
sites.
Therefore,
fact
sheets
will
require
a
total
annual
estimate
of
160
burden
hours
at
each
site.
EPA
estimates
that
States
will
issue
fact
sheets
at
100
active
sites
per
year.
Thus,
the
total
estimated
annual
burden
hours
for
fact
sheets
is
16,000.

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

The
estimated
annual
burden
for
each
workshop
is
80
hours.
EPA
estimates
that
the
State
will
be
conducting
1
workshop
at
2
sites
in
the
course
of
one
year
and
will,
thus,
devote
160
hours
to
workshop
efforts.
These
estimates
are
based
on
the
knowledge
of
EPA
Community
Involvement
staff
experienced
in
preparing
and
conducting
workshops
at
Superfund
sites.
17
Estimated
Burden
Hours
placed
on
States
Activity
#
of
Sites
with
Statelead
Activities/
yr
#
of
Activities
at
each
site/
yr.
Hrs.
per
Activity/
yr
Annual
Hrs.
for
Activity
at
a
Site
Total
Annual
Hrs.
for
all
Sites
RI/
FS
2
1
5,250
5,250
10,500
Proposed
Plans
4
1
80
80
320
RODs
4
1
1,300
1,300
5,200
ARARs
45
1
33
33
1,485
Administrative
Record
100
1
40
40
4,000
Initial
CIP
2
1
200
200
400
Revised
CIP
20
1
100
100
2,000
Fact
Sheets
100
4
40
160
16,000
Focus
Groups
1
4
30
120
120
Workshops
2
1
80
80
160
TOTAL
40,185
(
ii)
Community
Burden
Hours
All
community
burden
hours
are
due
to
voluntary
participation
in
activities
at
Superfund
sites.
The
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
(
PRA)
requires
the
inclusion
of
information
gathering
activities
in
which
the
community
participates.
These
activities
are
those
for
which
information
is
expressly
collected
from
community
members.
The
PRA
(
5
CFR
part
1320,
"
Controlling
Paperwork
Burdens
on
the
Public,
FRN
8/
29/
1995,
Sect.
1320.3
(
h)(
8))
excludes
the
following
activities
from
the
definition
of
information
for
the
purpose
of
Information
Collection
Requests:
attendance
at
public
informational
meetings
or
briefings,
response
to
comments
on
EPA
documents,
participation
in
community
groups
for
which
EPA
is
not
a
sponsor,
reading
fact
sheets,
and
making
use
of
EPA
open
office
hours.
This
ICR
records
estimated
burden
hours
for
community
members
for
initial
and
revised
CIP
interviews,
participation
in
focus
groups
and
workshops,
TAG
application
and
management,
and
completion
of
satisfaction
surveys.
All
estimates
are
provided
by
a
group
of
experienced
EPA
Headquarters
and
Regional
Community
Involvement
Staff.

EPA
estimates
that
40
people
will
be
interviewed
for
1
hour
each
at
12
Federal
and
State
lead
Superfund
sites
each
year
for
initial
CIPs.
The
total
annual
estimated
burden
for
initial
CIP
interviews
at
all
sites
is
480
hours.
It
is
estimated
that
25
people
will
be
interviewed
for
1
hour
each
at
100
active
Superfund
sites
each
year
for
the
purpose
of
revising
the
CIPs.
Therefore,
the
total
estimated
annual
burden
is
2,500
hours.

EPA
estimates
that
an
average
of
15
people
will
participate
in
a
2
hour
focus
group
4
times
a
year
at
5
active
Superfund
sites.
The
total
estimated
burden
for
all
sites
for
each
year
is
600
hours.
18
An
average
of
50
people
are
expected
to
participate
in
a
3
hour
workshop
session
once
a
year
at
10
active
Superfund
sites.
The
total
estimated
annual
burden
for
all
sites
is
1,500
hours.

EPA
estimates
that
community
groups
will
apply
for
available
TAGs
at
15
Superfund
sites.
The
application
process
is
estimated
to
take
approximately
60
hours.
The
total
estimated
annual
burden
for
all
sites
is
900
hours.
Management
of
TAGs
takes
place
each
year
at
an
estimated
120
sites.
This
requires
approximately
200
hours
per
year.
The
total
estimated
annual
burden
for
all
sites
is
24,000
hours.

EPA
expects
to
distribute
satisfaction
surveys
at
5
sites
each
year.
It
is
estimated
that
800
people
will
spend
0.25
hours
(
15
minutes)
completing
each
survey.
The
total
estimated
annual
burden
hours
at
all
sites
is
1,000.

Estimated
Burden
Hours
placed
on
Communities
Activity
#
Federal
and
Statelead
Sites/
yr.
#
of
Activities
at
each
site
#
of
People
involved
Hrs.
per
Activity/
yr.
Annual
Hrs.
for
Activity
at
a
Site
Total
Annual
Hrs.
for
all
Sites
Initial
CIP
Interview
12
1
40
1
40
480
Revised
CIP
Interviews
100
1
25
1
25
2,500
Focus
Group
Participation
5
4
15
2
120
600
Workshop
Participation
10
1
50
3
150
1,500
TAG
application
15
1
N/
A
60
60
900
TAG
management
120
1
N/
A
200
200
24,000
Satisfaction
Surveys
5
1
800
0.25
200
1,000
TOTAL
30,980
6(
b)
Estimating
respondent
costs
Respondent
costs
are
divided
into
labor
costs
and
other
costs,
which
includes
all
operation
and
maintenance,
non­
labor,
and
capital
costs.
The
methodology
for
calculating
these
costs
for
the
three
year
ICR
period
is
addressed
in
detail
below.

All
costs
the
State
incurs,
with
the
exception
of
the
ARARs
analysis,
is
ultimately
paid
for
by
the
Federal
government
through
any
one
of
two
relevant
cooperative
agreements
(
CAs)
as
stipulated
in
Subpart
O
of
the
NCP.
These
cooperative
agreements
are
CORE
agreements
which
provide
fund
for
infrastructure
work
19
and
are
non­
site­
specific
in
nature,
and
Remedial
CAs
that
provide
site­
specific
money
for
remedial
process
actions
in
Superfund.

(
i)
Estimating
labor
costs
Labor
rates
for
government
employees
are
estimated
using
the
Office
of
Personnel
Management's
General
Schedule
pay
tables
for
2004.
For
the
purposes
of
this
ICR,
State
government
salaries
are
assumed
to
be
the
same
as
Federal
pay
scales.
It
is
assumed
that
the
average
unit
of
remedial
work
is
comprised
of
10%
managerial,
80%
technical,
and
10%
support
staff
effort.
Thus,
a
weighted
average
is
used
to
represent
the
hourly
labor
rate
of
government
work.
Step
5
of
each
GS­
13,
GS­
11,
and
GS­
7
is
used
to
provide
a
median
value
for
each
grade
level
of
employee.
Total
salary
for
each
includes
the
direct
salary
plus
60%
of
direct
salary
to
account
for
benefits.
As
of
February
2004,
the
hourly
labor
salaries
are:
­
GS­
13,
Step
5:
$
54.66
­
GS­
11,
Step
5:
$
38.35
­
GS­
7,
Step
5:
$
25.90
The
average
governmental
hourly
labor
rate
is
$
38.74,
calculated
by:
[
0.1(
54.66)+
0.8(
38.35)+
0.1(
25.90)].
This
average
hourly
labor
rate
applies
to
the
following
activities
conducted
by
State
agencies
for
the
Superfund
remedial
program:
Proposed
Plans,
RODs,
ARARs,
Administrative
Records,
initial
CIPs,
revised
CIPs,
fact
sheets,
focus
groups,
and
workshops.
The
same
hourly
labor
rate
applies
to
all
Federal
activities.

The
hourly
labor
rate
for
the
RI/
FS
activity
is
calculated
as
20%
government
and
80%
contractor
effort.
These
assessments
involve
a
great
deal
of
field
work
and
typically
involve
lots
of
contractor
support.
The
labor
value
is
calculated
from
RI/
FS
contract
records
from
OSRTI
dating
from
1996
through
2004.
Direct
labor
costs
from
over
1,000
projects
are
used
to
arrive
at
an
average
contractor
hourly
labor
rate
of
$
24.80.
The
average
government
hourly
labor
rate
of
$
38.74
is
used
for
the
government's
20%.
Therefore,
the
average
hourly
labor
rate
for
RI/
FS
work
is
$
27.59,
calculated
by:
[
0.2(
38.74)
+
0.8
(
24.80)].

The
hourly
labor
rate
for
community
members
who
participate
in
Superfund
remedial
activities
on
a
voluntary,
and
non­
paid,
basis
is
$
16.
The
value
is
based
on
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
data,
which
reports
an
average
hourly
wage
of
$
15.50
for
"
production,
non­
supervisory
on
private
non
farm
payrolls,
seasonally­
adjusted"
employees.
The
recent
trend
in
this
category
of
BLS
data
is
for
the
rate
to
increase
approximately
$
0.50
per
year.
Therefore,
$
16
is
the
average
rate
over
the
3
year
period
of
this
ICR
for
all
activities
in
which
the
community
may
participate.
Labor
costs
for
community
activities
represent
hypothetical
costs
only.

(
ii)
Estimating
capital,
operations
and
maintenance,
and
other
costs
Capital,
operation
and
maintenance
(
O&
M),
and
non­
labor
costs
to
States
apply
for
the
following
Superfund
remedial
activities:
RI/
FS,
Proposed
Plans,
RODs,
Administrative
Records,
and
fact
sheets.
The
Federal
government
incurs
none
of
these
costs
for
oversight
of
State
activities.
The
Federal
government
does
incur
non­
labor
costs
for
the
Administrative
Records,
fact
sheets,
and
satisfaction
surveys.
Community
members
have
no
O&
M,
non­
labor,
or
capital
costs.
States,
communities,
and
the
Federal
government
do
not
incur
any
capital
costs
in
these
Superfund
remedial
activities
as
no
new
equipment
is
purchased
for
their
purposes.
20
All
O&
M
and
non­
labor
costs
for
RI/
FS
conducted
at
State­
lead
sites
are
calculated
from
OSRTI
contracts
records
from
1996­
2004.
Contractor
non­
labor
costs
for
RI/
FS
includes
$
77,135
in
fees
and
profits,
$
110,991
for
equipment,
and
$
73,943
for
indirect
costs
such
as
travel
and
reports.
The
costs
for
equipment
reflects
charges
for
the
use
of
equipment,
such
as
computers
and
sampling
instruments,
that
the
contractor
already
owns.
The
total
non­
labor
costs
for
each
RI/
FS
in
a
single
year
is,
therefore,
estimated
at
$
262,069.

Operation
and
maintenance
is
defined
as
activities
that
are
required
to
keep
projects
supported
and
moving
forward.
For
the
RI/
FS
it
is
estimated
that
contractors
incur
approximately
$
38,390
in
a
single
year
for
each
project.
These
costs
include
charges
for
mail,
supplies,
and
faxes.
O&
M
costs
incurred
by
the
Agency
are
discussed
in
the
following
paragraph.

The
bulk
of
O&
M
costs
associated
with
Proposed
Plans,
RODs,
Administrative
Records,
and
fact
sheets
are
those
costs
that
are
required
for
printing,
document
distribution,
newspaper
announcements,
and
records
management.
Costs
for
mailing
and
data
collection
with
contractor
support
also
apply
to
the
satisfaction
survey.
Annual
non­
labor
costs
for
satisfaction
surveys
is
estimated
by
EPA
staff
conducting
the
survey
to
be
$
6,000.
For
all
other
activities
with
O&
M
costs,
the
values
from
the
2001
version
of
this
ICR
are
used
and
adjusted
for
inflation.
Inflation
is
calculated
by
using
a
percent
of
cost
change
value
of
4.27.
This
value
is
estimated
for
the
3
year
period
of
the
ICR
based
on
calculations
from
the
National
Aeronautics
and
Space
Administration's
"
Gross
Domestic
Product
Deflator
Inflation
Calculator."
This
number
represents
an
average
of
the
percent
of
cost
change
from
three
3­
year
periods
(
2002­
2005;
2003­
2006;
2004­
2007).
Using
4.27
as
an
inflation
value,
the
following
O&
M
annual
costs
for
each
activity
are:
­
Proposed
Plan:
$
1,618
­
RODs:
$
1,743
­
Administrative
Record:$
1,310
­
Fact
Sheets:
$
1,571
(
iii)
Annualizing
capital
costs
No
significant
capital
costs
are
incurred
during
the
activities
described
in
this
ICR.
21
Estimated
Cost
to
States
Activity
Total
Statelead
Activities
at
Sites/
yr
Hrs.
per
Activity/

yr
Hrly
Labor
Rate
Labor
Costs
per
Activity
*
Capital
Costs
per
Activity/

yr
Non­
labor
Costs
per
Activity/

yr
O&
M
Costs
per
Activity/

yr
*
Total
Annual
Costs
per
Activity
Total
Annual
Labor
Costs
for
all
Sites
Total
Annual
Capital
Costs
for
all
sites
Total
Annual
Non­
labor
Costs
for
all
sites
Total
Annual
O&
M
Costs
for
all
Sites
Total
Annual
Costs
for
all
Sites
RI/
FS
2
5,250
$
27.59
$
144,848
$
0
$
262,069
$
38,390
$
445,307
$
289,696
$
0
$
524,138
$
76,780
$
890,614
Proposed
Plans
4
80
$
38.74
$
3,099
$
0
$
0
$
1,618
$
4,717
$
12,397
$
0
$
0
$
6,472
$
18,869
RODs
4
1,300
$
38.74
$
50,362
$
0
$
0
$
1,743
$
52,105
$
201,448
$
0
$
0
$
6,972
$
208,420
ARARs
45
33
$
38.74
$
1,278
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
1,278
$
57,529
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
57,529
Admin
Record
100
40
$
38.74
$
1,550
$
0
$
0
$
1,310
$
2,860
$
154,960
$
0
$
0
$
131,000
$
285,960
Initial
CIP
2
200
$
38.74
$
7,748
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
7,748
$
15,496
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
15,496
Revised
CIP
20
100
$
38.74
$
3,874
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
3,874
$
77,480
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
77,480
Fact
Sheets
400
40
$
38.74
$
1,550
$
0
$
0
$
1,571
$
3,121
$
619,840
$
0
$
0
$
628,400
$
1,248,240
Focus
Groups
4
30
$
38.74
$
1,162
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
1,162
$
4,649
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
4,649
Workshops
2
80
$
38.74
$
3,099
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
3,099
$
6,198
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
6,198
TOTAL
$
2,813,455
Federal
Funds
Used
$
2,755,926
Total
State
$
$
57,529
*
Rounded
to
the
nearest
whole
dollar
22
Estimated
Costs
to
Communities
(
Voluntary
activities,
not
actually
expended
costs)

Activity
Total
Activites
at
Fed.
and
Statelead
Sites/
yr
Hrs.
per
Activ
ity/
yr.
Hrly
Labor
Rate
Annual
Labor
Costs
per
Activity
*
Capital,
O&
M,
Non­
labor
Costs
per
Activity/
yr
Total
Annual
Costs
per
Activity
Total
Annual
Labor
Costs
for
all
Sites
*
Total
Annual
Capital,
O&
M,
Non­
labor
Costs
for
all
Sites
Total
Annual
Costs
for
all
Sites
Initial
CIP
Interview
480
1
$
16
$
16
$
0
$
16
$
7,680
$
0
$
7,680
Revised
CIP
Interviews
2500
1
$
16
$
16
$
0
$
16
$
40,000
$
0
$
40,000
Focus
Group
Participation
300
2
$
16
$
32
$
0
$
32
$
9,600
$
0
$
9,600
Workshop
Participation
500
3
$
16
$
48
$
0
$
48
$
24,000
$
0
$
24,000
TAG
application
15
60
$
16
$
960
$
0
$
960
$
14,400
$
0
$
14,4
TAG
management
120
200
$
16
$
3,200
$
0
$
3,200
$
384,000
$
0
$
384,000
Satisfaction
Surveys
4000
0.25
$
16
$
4
$
0
$
4
$
16,000
$
0
$
16,000
TOTAL
$
495,680
*
Rounded
to
nearest
whole
dollar
6(
c)
Estimating
Agency
burden
and
cost
Burden
on
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
covered
in
the
ICR
includes
those
hours
and
costs
incurred
in
overseeing
State
activities.
For
the
RI/
FS,
Proposed
Plans,
ARARs,
initial
and
revised
CIPs,
the
assumption
is
that
Federal
oversight
hours
are
10%
of
the
State's
burden
hours
for
respective
activities.
For
the
Administrative
Record,
fact
sheets,
focus
groups,
and
workshops
the
assumption
is
that
Federal
oversight
hours
are
5%
of
the
State's
burden
hours.
These
assumptions
were
provided
by
a
group
of
Headquarters
and
Regional
Community
Involvement
EPA
employees
with
the
experience
to
estimate
the
average
Federal
oversight
hours
for
these
activities.
The
total
estimated
annual
burden
hours
placed
on
EPA
for
oversight
of
State
activities
is
3,005.
23
Estimated
Burden
Hours
for
Federal
Oversight
of
State
Activities
Activity
#
of
Sites
with
Statelead
Activities/
yr
#
of
Activities
at
each
site
Hrs.
per
Activity/
yr
Annual
Hrs.
for
Activity
at
a
Site
Total
Annual
Hrs.
for
all
Sites
RI/
FS
2
1
525
525
1,050
Proposed
Plans
4
1
8
8
32
RODs
4
1
130
130
520
ARARs
45
1
3.3
3.3
149
Administrative
Record
100
1
2
2
200
Initial
CIP
2
1
20
20
40
Revised
CIP
20
1
10
10
200
Fact
Sheets
100
4
2
8
800
Focus
Groups
1
4
1.5
6
6
Workshops
2
1
4
4
8
TOTAL
3,005
Burden
on
EPA
covered
in
the
ICR
also
includes
those
hours
and
costs
incurred
in
the
implementation
of
Community
Involvement
activities.
These
activities
include
initial
and
revised
CIPs,
fact
sheets,
focus
groups,
workshops,
satisfaction
surveys,
and
TAGs.
For
these
activities
that
are
also
conducted
by
States
at
State­
lead
sites,
the
average
hours
required
per
activity
is
the
same
as
the
burden
hours
placed
on
the
States.
Total
number
of
activities
and
the
Federal
hours
required
to
complete
them
are
estimated
by
a
group
of
Headquarters
and
Regional
Community
Involvement
EPA
employees.
EPA
is
also
responsible
for
maintaining
the
Administrative
Record
at
all
active
Federal­
lead
sites
at
all
stages
of
the
cleanup
process.
It
is
estimated
that
these
sites
comprise
about
80%
of
all
active
sites.
At
the
time
of
this
writing
there
are
approximately
500
active
NPL
sites
(
EPA
database).
Therefore,
EPA
is
responsible
for
maintaining
the
AR
at
400
sites.
The
total
estimated
annual
burden
hours
placed
on
EPA
for
Community
Involvement
activities
is
99,920.
24
Estimated
Burden
Hours
for
Federal
Community
Activities
Activity
#
Federallead
Sites/
yr.
#
of
Activities
at
each
site
Hrs.
per
Activity/
yr.
Annual
Hrs.
for
Activity
at
a
Site
Total
Annual
Hrs.
for
all
Sites
Administrative
Record
400
1
40
40
16,000
Initial
CIP
10
1
200
200
2,000
Revised
CIP
80
1
100
100
8,000
Fact
Sheets
400
4
40
160
64,000
Focus
Group
4
4
30
120
480
Workshop
8
1
80
80
640
TAG
application
15
1
120
120
1,800
TAG
management
120
1
50
50
6,000
Satisfaction
Surveys
5
1
200
200
1,000
TOTAL
99,920
Labor
costs
to
EPA
were
calculated
using
a
weighted
average
hourly
rate
for
government
employees.
The
assumption
is
made
that
the
typical
division
of
labor
for
these
activities
is
10%
managerial,
80%
technical,
and
10%
support.
These
values
are
used
to
calculate
a
weighted
hourly
labor
rate
based
on
the
current
GS
Schedule
using
values
for
GS­
13,
GS­
11,
GS­
7,
all
Step
5,
plus
60%
of
each
salary
to
account
for
benefits.
The
average
hourly
rate
is
$
38.64.
The
annual
labor
cost
for
each
activity
that
involves
use
of
Federal
hours
is
calculated
using
this
labor
rate.
Labor
costs
to
EPA
are
the
only
Federal
costs
accounted
for
oversight
of
State
activities.
The
total
estimated
annual
costs
incurred
by
EPA
for
oversight
of
State
activities
is
$
116,396.
The
total
estimated
annual
costs
EPA
incurs
for
Community
Involvement
activities
is
$
6,938,
501.

Estimated
Costs
for
Federal
Oversight
of
State
Activities
Activity
Total
Statelead
Activities
at
Sites/
yr
Hrs.
per
Activity/
yr
Hrly
Labor
Rate
Annual
Labor
Costs
per
Activity
*
Annual
Capital,
O&
M,

Nonlabor
Costs
per
Activity
Total
Annual
Costs
per
Activity
Total
Annual
Labor
Costs
for
all
Sites
*
Total
Annual
Capital,
O&
M,
Non­
labor
Costs
for
all
Sites
Total
Annual
Costs
for
all
Sites
RI/
FS
2
525
$
38.74
$
20,339
$
0
$
20,339
$
40,678
$
0
$
40,678
Proposed
Plans
4
8
$
38.74
$
310
$
0
$
310
$
1,240
$
0
$
1,240
RODs
4
130
$
38.74
$
5,036
$
0
$
5,036
$
20,145
$
0
$
20,145
ARARs
45
3.3
$
38.74
$
128
$
0
$
128
$
5,753
$
0
$
5,753
Administrative
Record
100
2
$
38.74
$
77
$
0
$
77
$
7,748
$
0
$
7,748
Initial
CIP
2
20
$
38.74
$
775
$
0
$
775
$
1,550
$
0
$
1,550
Revised
CIP
20
10
$
38.74
$
387
$
0
$
387
$
7,748
$
0
$
7,748
Fact
Sheets
400
2
$
38.74
$
77
$
0
$
77
$
30,992
$
0
$
30,992
Focus
Groups
4
1.5
$
38.74
$
58
$
0
$
58
$
232
$
0
$
232
Workshops
2
4
$
38.74
$
155
$
0
$
155
$
310
$
0
$
310
TOTAL
$
116,396
25
*
Rounded
to
nearest
whole
dollar
Estimated
Costs
for
Federal
Government
for
Community
Activities
Activity
Total
Activ
ities
at
Fed.­

lead
Sites/

yr.
Hrs.
per
Activity/

yr.
Hrly
Labor
Rate
Annual
Labor
Costs
per
Activity
*
Annual
Capital
Costs
per
Activity
Annual
Nonlabor
Cost
per
Activity
Annual
O&
M
Costs
per
Activity
Total
Annual
Costs
per
Activity
Total
Annual
Labor
Costs
for
all
Sites
*
Total
Annual
Capital
Costs
for
all
sites
Total
Annual
Nonlabor
Costs
for
all
sites
Total
Annual
O&
M
Costs
for
all
Sites
Total
Annual
Costs
for
all
Sites
Admin.

Record
400
40
$
38.74
$
1,550
$
0
$
0
$
1,310
$
2,860
$
619,840
$
0
$
0
$
524,000
$
1,143,840
Initial
CIP
10
200
$
38.74
$
7,748
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
7,748
$
77,480
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
77,480
Revised
CIP
80
100
$
38.74
$
3,874
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
3,874
$
309,920
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
309,920
Fact
Sheets
1600
40
$
38.74
$
1,550
$
0
$
0
$
1,571
$
3,121
$
2,479,360
$
0
$
0
$
2,513,6
00
$
4,992,960
Focus
Group
16
30
$
38.74
$
1,162
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
1,162
$
18,595
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
18,595
Worksho
p
8
80
$
38.74
$
3,099
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
3,099
$
24,794
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
24,794
TAG
applicati
on
15
120
$
38.74
$
4,649
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
4,649
$
69,732
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
69,732
TAG
manage
ment
120
50
$
38.74
$
1,937
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
1,937
$
232,440
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
232,440
Satisfacti
on
Surveys
5
200
$
38.74
$
7,748
$
0
$
0
$
6,000
$
13,748
$
38,740
$
0
$
0
$
30,000
$
68,740
TOTAL
$
6,938,501
*
Rounded
to
the
nearest
whole
dollar
26
(
d)
Estimating
the
respondent
universe
and
total
burden
and
cost
The
respondent
universe
is
based
on
the
number
of
State­
lead
and
active
Superfund
sites
predicted
for
the
three
year
period
of
the
ICR.
These
numbers
come
from
Superfund
data
about
past
activities
and
scheduled
plans
for
future
activities.
The
number
of
community
members
involved
at
each
site
clearly
varies
and
this
respondent
universe
is
based
on
past
program
averages.
The
total
burden
and
cost
to
each
respondent
is
a
summation
of
all
activities
described
in
detail
in
previous
sections
of
this
document.

6(
e)
Bottom­
line
burden
hours
and
cost
tables
(
i)
Respondent
tally
The
total
burden
hours
and
costs
displayed
in
the
table
below
reflects
the
combined
burden
and
costs
on
both
categories
of
respondents:
States
at
State­
lead
sites
and
individual
community
members
participating
voluntarily
at
Superfund
sites.
Community
costs
are
all
hypothetical
and
do
not
represent
the
actual
expenditure
of
dollars
because
all
participation
is
voluntary.
The
majority
of
State
costs
may
be
paid
through
various
grants
from
the
Federal
government.
The
actual
costs
to
States
is
$
57,529
for
the
ARAR
analysis.

Total
Respondent
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
Respondent
Annual
Burden
Annual
Cost
Total
3
yr.
Burden
Total
3
yr.
Cost
States
40,185
$
2,813,455
120,555
$
8,440,365
Communities
30,980
$
495,680
92,940
$
1,487,040
Total
71,165
$
3,309,135
213,495
$
9,927,405
(
ii)
Agency
tally
The
total
burden
and
costs
represented
in
the
following
table
is
the
amount
EPA
expects
to
spend
directly
in
oversight
of
State
activities
and
the
information
gathering
activities
EPA
conducts
with
communities
at
Superfund
sites.

Total
Federal
Agency
Burden
Hours
and
Costs
Agency
Annual
Burden
Annual
Cost
Total
3
yr.
Burden
Total
3
yr.
Cost
Federal
Oversight­
States
3,005
$
116,396
9,015
$
349,188
Federal­
Community
Activities
99,920
$
6,938,501
299,760
$
20,815,503
Federal
Total
102,925
$
7,054,897
308,775
$
21,164,691
(
iii)
Variations
in
the
annual
bottom
line
27
Variations
to
the
annual
bottom
line
numbers
may
occur
as
sites
enter
different
phases
of
the
remedial
process
in
different
years.
Additional,
activities
that
depend
almost
exclusively
on
the
need
at
the
site,
such
as
fact
sheet,
are
likely
to
vary
year
to
year.
However,
EPA
expects
the
relative
number
of
annual
activities
to
be
similar
in
each
year
of
the
ICR
period.

6(
f)
Reasons
for
change
in
burden
There
were
two
avenues
for
change
in
the
renewal
of
the
ICR:
1)
omission
of
items
the
inclusion
of
which
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
does
not
require,
2)
programmatic
changes.
Programmatic
changes
include
the
rate
at
which
the
Superfund
program
is
able
to
address
NPL
sites
and
the
timeline
of
the
cleanup
program
as
a
whole
as
to
the
remedial
stages
of
many
of
the
sites.
Other
changes
in
burden
hours
and
costs
to
respondents
reflect
the
fact
that
the
assumptions
and
resources
used
to
obtain
the
numbers
are
not
included
in
the
previous
renewal
of
the
ICR.
Assumptions
and
resources
have
been
well
documented
in
this
Supporting
Statement.

The
total
estimated
annual
burden
hours
for
respondents
decreased
by
114,745
from
the
previous
ICR
(
185,910
hours).
The
total
estimated
annual
costs
to
respondents
increased
by
$
2,583,435.
State
burden
hours
decreased
by
127,725
and
costs
increased
by
$
2,763,735.
This
increase
is
due
to
the
fact
that
the
numbers
in
this
ICR
reflect
the
total
cost
including
that
which
can
be
paid
for
indirectly
with
Federal
dollars.
The
estimated
amount
that
will
actually
be
funded
with
State
monies
is
$
57,529,
which
is
an
increase
of
$
7,809.
The
amount
the
2001
ICR
listed
for
total
costs
was
$
9,627,356,
which
is
considerably
higher
than
the
current
estimate
due
to
28
more
sites
undergoing
the
most
costly
activity:
RI/
FS.
Community
member
burden
hours
increased
by13,030
and
costs
decreased
by
$
180,300.
Another
factor
in
reported
costs
is
that,
although
O&
M
costs
were
accounted
for
in
the
previous
ICR,
they
were
merged
with
other
kinds
of
costs
under
"
Other",
and
thus
were
not
shown
as
O&
M
costs.

6(
g)
Burden
statement
The
total
estimated
annual
burden
hours
placed
on
State
governments
for
all
remedial
activities
is
40,185.
The
total
estimated
annual
burden
hours
placed
on
communities
is
30,980.
Total
burden
hours
placed
on
7,970
respondents
through
8,498
responses
is
71,165
hours.
The
annual
public
reporting
and
recordkeeping
burden
for
this
collection
of
information
is
estimated
to
average
8.4
hours
per
response.

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

Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
28
disclose
the
information.
An
agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to,
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
part
9
and
48
CFR
chapter
15.

To
comment
on
the
Agency's
need
for
this
information,
the
accuracy
of
the
provided
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques,
EPA
has
established
a
public
docket
for
this
ICR
under
Docket
ID
No.
SFUND­
2004­
0002.
This
docket
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
Superfund
Docket
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center
(
EPA/
DC),
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC.
The
EPA
Docket
Center
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566­
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
Superfund
Docket
is
(
202)
566­
0276.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA
Dockets
(
EDOCKET)
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket.
Use
EDOCKET
to
submit
or
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
public
docket,
and
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.

Once
in
the
system,
select
"
search,"
then
key
in
the
docket
ID
number
identified
above.
Comments
can
also
be
sent
to
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
725
17th
Street,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20503,
Attention:
Desk
Office
for
EPA.
Please
include
the
EPA
Docket
ID
No.
SFUND­
2004­
0002
and
OMB
control
number
2050­
0096
in
any
correspondence.

Part
B.

This
part
is
not
applicable
because
no
statistical
methods
were
used
in
collecting
this
information.
