WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Make sure you're still with us. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Still. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Here. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Yup! 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 So good. Thank you. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Give it another 30 seconds or so. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Started. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 To today's Internet seminar course from the Federal facilities online Academy. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Federal Facility 5 year Review. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Sponsored by the Us. EPA. Federal facilities, restoration and reuse office. My name is Michael Adam, with he. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Us. EPA. And I will. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Be moderating today's session and get started in a few moments. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 And I'm gonna have a few instructions here on how to join. Today's webinar. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Uh! Actually, those were sent to you. Uh, when you registered for the event. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 And um. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Most of you who are hearing me right now have already done this. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Uh cause you've already joined us here in the zoom. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 But if you're somehow on an audio. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 A phone line. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Um. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 I get a um. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 You'll need to go to your email. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Uh to join us on the zoom. Call. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Uh, you can also download the slides. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 From the homepage, which is um. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Which will which will take you over uh, which has the full slides for us to to download. But we prefer that you. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Join us. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Um. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 In the Zoom Meeting. You'll be the best, best uh. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Experience for you. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 There's a seminar homepage where you can provide you where you can find more information about today. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Seminar. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Um. And remember this page because we'll go back to it. I'll come back to this at the end of the presentation. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Especially for the feedback form. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 But um going forward this this page will stay there if you'd hope like to go back and reference the slides. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Other references that we have posted there, or read about. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Today's presenters. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Uh today's session is going to be hosted in Zoom, as most of you already know. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Uh! You should be familiar with this interface by now. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Um. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Would you have any technical difficulties joining us in zoom? We do have options to download the presentation materials. As I mentioned. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Um. And then you can listen by phone. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 And that is sort of our secondary option. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Please. You can change or modify your audio options in the lower left. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Zoom interface to select your preferred option. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Remember to check your local volume settings, to adjust your audio as needed before checking in with us. If you have any technical difficulties. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Um. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 For today's webinar. We'll be using the chat feature. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Uh, we will not be using the chat feature. If you have a question, you can use the QA. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Uh button instead. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 And to remember um. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 You can use that at any time to privately submit a question. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 We do have. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 A couple of QA. Sessions today. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 But you can. You can submit your question at any time. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 And if you have. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 A slide-specific question. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 We? We ask that you uh put the slide number in there for us to reference it later. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 And you can also use the closed caption button to access the webinar. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Subtitles. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 If you need. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Uh, today's session is being recorded and you'll receive an email shortly after our live delivery so that you can watch it. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 On demand later. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 And we'll have a number of of things to to bring up at the end. So stay with us till the till the very end. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Um. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Most of you should know how the zoom. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Features work. I've already discussed most of these. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Um, but. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Uh live closed captioning is available. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Um again, we are using the the QA. Features to make questions. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 May, if you want, make sure to click the box to make sure if you want to keep your. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Your question. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:00.000 Submission. Um. 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:05.000 Anonymous. 00:00:05.000 --> 00:00:07.000 So good afternoon. Everyone. 00:00:07.000 --> 00:00:11.000 Um, thanks, Mike. My name is Monica Mcgi. I'm a member of. 00:00:11.000 --> 00:00:16.000 Um, I actually work for the Federal facilities, restoration. 00:00:16.000 --> 00:00:20.000 And today's webinar is part of what we call the Federal Facilities Academy. 00:00:20.000 --> 00:00:24.000 Um, it's a voluntary training program developed. 00:00:24.000 --> 00:00:32.000 For EPA Rpms. Project managers from other Federal agencies, state government and tribal groups who work on Federal facilities, super fund, cleanup. 00:00:32.000 --> 00:00:40.000 This 12 webinars. I'm sorry. 11 webinars in a 3 day classroom training. 00:00:40.000 --> 00:00:50.000 That's actually part of the Federal Facilities Academy. And of course, today we'll be talking about Federal facilities. 5 year reviews. 00:00:50.000 --> 00:00:51.000 Um if you are able. 00:00:51.000 --> 00:00:53.000 Um to complete. 00:00:53.000 --> 00:00:58.000 The Webinars, the 11 Webinars, and the 3 day classroom training. 00:00:58.000 --> 00:01:01.000 Then you receive a certificate of a completion. 00:01:01.000 --> 00:01:05.000 Let me say the 3 day classroom we have. 00:01:05.000 --> 00:01:11.000 An offering of that class. Um, that classroom training in October and uh in Kansas. 00:01:11.000 --> 00:01:20.000 But also before the end of this calendar year we will be offering a virtual um offering of that 3 day classroom. 00:01:20.000 --> 00:01:33.000 So again, if you're able to complete the webinars and the um, the in person or virtual classroom training, then you will receive a certificate completion. 00:01:33.000 --> 00:01:47.000 And all of the previous webinars that have occurred are on the train X website. They are actually available. Um, they have been recorded. So they are available, so you can go back and watch them. 00:01:47.000 --> 00:01:53.000 Think that's it? Thanks, Mike. 00:01:53.000 --> 00:02:04.000 And again, I'm sorry you can register for the courses through Train X. 00:02:04.000 --> 00:02:05.000 Thanks. 00:02:05.000 --> 00:02:08.000 Thanks, Mike, thanks. Monica. Um. 00:02:08.000 --> 00:02:11.000 We have the slides up uh I am. 00:02:11.000 --> 00:02:12.000 Jen Edwards um. 00:02:12.000 --> 00:02:24.000 I work in um EPA um in the office of super fun, remediation, technology, innovation. I work closely with Monica, who just introduced herself. Um. And through this training, um, we're gonna. 00:02:24.000 --> 00:02:31.000 Um jointly um teach uh, you know, taking turns through the slides as we go, so you'll hear from me. 00:02:31.000 --> 00:02:34.000 Um! And Monica. As we move forward. 00:02:34.000 --> 00:02:42.000 Um. So you know really quickly the purpose of this course. Um is to discuss EPA's guidance on conducting 5 year reviews. 00:02:42.000 --> 00:02:48.000 Um at Federal facilities on the national priorities list. Um under circle um, so we will cover topics related to that. 00:02:48.000 --> 00:03:01.000 Um, we are. Gonna start um quickly with a um group to try to understand some of the experience you all have with 5 year reviews at Federal facility, super fun, sites. 00:03:01.000 --> 00:03:07.000 Um, and Mike will launch that poll for everyone. Um. 00:03:07.000 --> 00:03:08.000 Shortly. 00:03:08.000 --> 00:03:09.000 I think this group. 00:03:09.000 --> 00:03:16.000 This group, poll is actually going to be accomplished through the QA. Box. 00:03:16.000 --> 00:03:17.000 Got it. 00:03:17.000 --> 00:03:22.000 Correct. So um, you can, because it's an open, ended question. You can submit your your responses to this. 00:03:22.000 --> 00:03:28.000 Through the Q. And a module. 00:03:28.000 --> 00:03:51.000 Thanks for the reminder. 00:03:51.000 --> 00:03:59.000 Jen, this is Monica, and I see a lot of folks saying novice or no experience at all, or limited experience. 00:03:59.000 --> 00:04:05.000 So this is a great course for those who have a limited experience. 00:04:05.000 --> 00:04:06.000 Um. 00:04:06.000 --> 00:04:08.000 Haven't done one yet. 00:04:08.000 --> 00:04:10.000 So looks like a lot of folks. 00:04:10.000 --> 00:04:13.000 Um have not had much experience. 00:04:13.000 --> 00:04:16.000 As far as Um, with. 00:04:16.000 --> 00:04:19.000 Ah! Federal facilities by their reviews. 00:04:19.000 --> 00:04:21.000 Great. 00:04:21.000 --> 00:04:24.000 Hey, Monica? And yes, agree. Um good place to start so. 00:04:24.000 --> 00:04:38.000 Uh, we'll jump into it. Um, here's the agenda. We're gonna talk a little bit about the 5 year view purpose, um, and regulatory context. Um, we'll discuss how to review a 5 year review. 00:04:38.000 --> 00:04:53.000 Um. We'll talk about some community involvement for a 5 year. Reviews uh, we'll talk about determinations and statements. Um, I see we have an error on the side apologize for that. We do not have a case study today. So we're gonna skip over that right. 00:04:53.000 --> 00:05:00.000 To independent findings. Um! And then addressing emerging contaminants. Um! So that sets us up for what you're gonna hear. 00:05:00.000 --> 00:05:02.000 Um in this webinar. 00:05:02.000 --> 00:05:07.000 Alright. So to start with regulatory context. 00:05:07.000 --> 00:05:16.000 So uh 5 year reviews are um required under circle um, they are identified in Circa 121 c. 00:05:16.000 --> 00:05:19.000 Um. The text is written uh there on the slide. Um. 00:05:19.000 --> 00:05:31.000 You can see in that text. Um, it tells you, you know, when they might be required. If the President selects a remedial action that results in hazardous substances remaining on the site. 00:05:31.000 --> 00:05:35.000 Um! And then how frequently, no less often than each 5 years. 00:05:35.000 --> 00:05:40.000 Um, and each 5 years after what, after the initiation of such remedial action. 00:05:40.000 --> 00:05:45.000 Um. So it gives you a lot of information of whether your remedy selected under circle. 00:05:45.000 --> 00:05:48.000 You know, requires a 5 year review, and when you'll need to do it. 00:05:48.000 --> 00:05:54.000 Um. It also gives us some information about the purpose of the 5 year view, which will cover more in depth next. 00:05:54.000 --> 00:06:02.000 Um, where it continues to say to assure that human health in the environment are being protected by the remedial action being implemented. 00:06:02.000 --> 00:06:07.000 Um. The National Contingency plan went further. Um, in talking about 5 year reviews. 00:06:07.000 --> 00:06:13.000 Um to add that if we're meeting, option is selected, that results in hazardous substances or contaminants. 00:06:13.000 --> 00:06:19.000 Remaining above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. 00:06:19.000 --> 00:06:26.000 The lead agency shall review such action no less than every 5 years after the initiation of the selected remedial action. 00:06:26.000 --> 00:06:35.000 Um. So again it repeats some of the information in Circle um, and gives a little more information about um. 00:06:35.000 --> 00:06:42.000 When 5 year reviews would be required. 00:06:42.000 --> 00:06:49.000 So the purpose of a 5 year review. So a 5 year review um. 00:06:49.000 --> 00:06:58.000 Should determine whether the remedy at a site is or upon completion will be protective of human health in the environment. Um, so we're talking about whether the remedy. 00:06:58.000 --> 00:07:01.000 Um is protective. Uh. In looking for information about that. 00:07:01.000 --> 00:07:06.000 You'll note in this sentence that it says, or upon completion will be. 00:07:06.000 --> 00:07:23.000 Um in the previous slide. We talked about how um, 5 year reviews may be required at the initiation of a remedial action, so it is possible for a remedial action that takes longer than 5 years, that you may do a 5 year review before you've completed construction of that remedial action. 00:07:23.000 --> 00:07:27.000 Um additionally in a 5 year review, follow up actions. 00:07:27.000 --> 00:07:29.000 Um. 00:07:29.000 --> 00:07:36.000 Should be identified for any recommendations that are needed to ensure protectiveness. Um, these could be. 00:07:36.000 --> 00:07:38.000 Um. 00:07:38.000 --> 00:07:39.000 Uh. 00:07:39.000 --> 00:07:51.000 Things that need to be addressed to ensure a remedy remains protective in the long term, or um to evaluate whether there's additional actions needed to ensure a remedy remains protective in the long term. Um. 00:07:51.000 --> 00:08:00.000 Or it could be um actions related to kind of current protective um, or an understanding of any current unacceptable exposures that may be. 00:08:00.000 --> 00:08:05.000 Occurring. 00:08:05.000 --> 00:08:10.000 Alright! Um, so uh! In the 5 Year Review itself. 00:08:10.000 --> 00:08:17.000 Um. There are. There is a technical assessment, and there are some questions identified in EPA. 5 year review guidance. 00:08:17.000 --> 00:08:18.000 Um. 00:08:18.000 --> 00:08:19.000 That. 00:08:19.000 --> 00:08:26.000 In answering them. Help, you understand, and um, provide information to support the protectiveness of your remedy. 00:08:26.000 --> 00:08:38.000 Um. Those questions are, you know, is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents. So, looking back at the decision documents, what was selected, and trying to understand the current operation or. 00:08:38.000 --> 00:08:47.000 Or implementation of the remedy to uh determine whether it is functioning as intended. Uh whatever stage it happens to be at the time. 00:08:47.000 --> 00:08:50.000 Um our exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels. 00:08:50.000 --> 00:09:02.000 And remedial action objectives used at the time of the remedy still valid? Um, so again, looking back at the decision documents and uh determining, if there have been changes to exposure, assumptions, toxicity, data, or other. 00:09:02.000 --> 00:09:03.000 Um. 00:09:03.000 --> 00:09:06.000 Things that could impact. 00:09:06.000 --> 00:09:11.000 Um that could impact the validity of your decision document or the protectiveness um. 00:09:11.000 --> 00:09:14.000 Of that remedy selection. 00:09:14.000 --> 00:09:17.000 Um there! So. 00:09:17.000 --> 00:09:21.000 Um, that I know that question. 00:09:21.000 --> 00:09:29.000 Covers a lot of things. Um, and we are gonna talk a little bit more about um, some of them, when we get to talking about emerging contaminants. 00:09:29.000 --> 00:09:33.000 Um, you'll know exposure, assumptions that could be changes and exposure pathways. 00:09:33.000 --> 00:09:36.000 Um or uh additional receptors. 00:09:36.000 --> 00:09:39.000 Um that we are not aware of at the time of remedy, selection. 00:09:39.000 --> 00:09:52.000 Um? And then the 3rd question, um is, uh. In some ways a catch all question. Um, it is asking, you know, has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy. 00:09:52.000 --> 00:10:00.000 Um, so is there anything that wasn't discussed under the 1st and second questions that could impact the remedy. 00:10:00.000 --> 00:10:01.000 Um. 00:10:01.000 --> 00:10:02.000 That. 00:10:02.000 --> 00:10:06.000 Uh should be raised um and discussed in the 5 Year Review. 00:10:06.000 --> 00:10:15.000 Um. And here, you know, as we've been talking, our focus here again is protectiveness. Um, of the remedy. 00:10:15.000 --> 00:10:21.000 Alright, and on the next slide I'm gonna turn over to Monica to continue. 00:10:21.000 --> 00:10:23.000 Uh this discussion. 00:10:23.000 --> 00:10:30.000 Thanks. Jen. Um, so this next slide is really talks about the differences between. 00:10:30.000 --> 00:10:38.000 Um federal facilities super fund sites in our private super fund sites and basically for Federal facility, 5 year reviews. 00:10:38.000 --> 00:10:43.000 Consistent with the Executive order. 1, 2, 5, 8, 0, the other Federal agency. 00:10:43.000 --> 00:10:45.000 Is. 00:10:45.000 --> 00:11:00.000 Is actually responsible for ensuring that the 5 year reviews are conducted as sites were required or appropriate. Um, the Federal facility sites that Federal agency. They conduct the Review. 00:11:00.000 --> 00:11:06.000 They prepare the report, and they submit the report to EPA. In the State for review and comment. 00:11:06.000 --> 00:11:09.000 EPA has a role at. 00:11:09.000 --> 00:11:21.000 At Npl. Federal facility sites an EPA can either agree or concur with the protectance determination by the other Federal agency, or we could issue our own. 00:11:21.000 --> 00:11:22.000 Independent finding of protectiveness. 00:11:22.000 --> 00:11:42.000 In the last bullet talks about also, the lead agency is re responsible for ensuring that the recommendations um, particularly those recommendations that apply to current and future protectiness, ensuring that those recommendations are implemented in. 00:11:42.000 --> 00:11:49.000 Um in the future, and actually that the report is completed. 00:11:49.000 --> 00:11:51.000 So. 00:11:51.000 --> 00:11:55.000 Just some background. Um, and. 00:11:55.000 --> 00:12:07.000 2010, around 2010. EPA's office of Inspector General did a evaluation, particularly on Federal facility. 00:12:07.000 --> 00:12:22.000 5 year reviews. And in that evaluation they basically a identified 8 actions that EPA needed to take to ensure that the 5 year reviews were completed by the statutory due date. 00:12:22.000 --> 00:12:26.000 And in those with those 5 actions. 00:12:26.000 --> 00:12:37.000 My office, Ola. We identify 7 of those actions, and then our other sister office. Our Enforcement Office identified the other action. 00:12:37.000 --> 00:12:41.000 And part of one of the one of the. 00:12:41.000 --> 00:12:42.000 Um. 00:12:42.000 --> 00:12:43.000 Actually, one. 00:12:43.000 --> 00:12:54.000 Thing that we did in Ole was to issue this 2,011 EPA program priorities. Memo. And this memo was really guidance to our EPA rpms. 00:12:54.000 --> 00:13:01.000 To ensure that the 5 year reviews were completed by the statutory due date. 00:13:01.000 --> 00:13:12.000 So this diagram basically describes what is EPA's responsibility again, for Npl facility sites. 00:13:12.000 --> 00:13:18.000 We can either agree with the Federal agencies protected termination, or we can issue our own. 00:13:18.000 --> 00:13:22.000 Protected this determination by the statutory date. 00:13:22.000 --> 00:13:32.000 And we do this by writing a letter to the Federal agency, basically a green or disagreeing with the protecting. The statement. 00:13:32.000 --> 00:13:36.000 We also made a commitment that we would track the issues. 00:13:36.000 --> 00:13:43.000 And update the issues and recommendations in the report that we would track them in our Sims database. 00:13:43.000 --> 00:13:51.000 And those uh those recommendations would be monitored to ensure that they were being updated. 00:13:51.000 --> 00:13:53.000 In the letter. We also. 00:13:53.000 --> 00:13:58.000 Um specify when the next 5 year review is due. 00:13:58.000 --> 00:14:02.000 Um, based on again the statutory due date. 00:14:02.000 --> 00:14:08.000 And then we also identify that late signature and 5 year view does not delay future due dates. 00:14:08.000 --> 00:14:15.000 Okay. And so this is a memo. Again, that was written for guidance to. 00:14:15.000 --> 00:14:22.000 Ah, regional remedial project, a regional remedial project, managers. 00:14:22.000 --> 00:14:29.000 So next slides we want to talk about is how to review a Federal facility. 5 year review. 00:14:29.000 --> 00:14:34.000 And we know that these sometimes these documents can be quite large. 00:14:34.000 --> 00:14:35.000 So um. 00:14:35.000 --> 00:14:38.000 Me go back, apologize. 00:14:38.000 --> 00:14:50.000 Um. So we know that these documents can be quite large. So one of the things is that we have some kind of some tips on how to review these documents. 00:14:50.000 --> 00:14:52.000 Oh, sorry! 00:14:52.000 --> 00:14:54.000 Ah! 00:14:54.000 --> 00:14:56.000 Again, as I mentioned to you before. 00:14:56.000 --> 00:15:00.000 It's the responsibility to Federal agency to write the report. 00:15:00.000 --> 00:15:15.000 What our EPA's role is again for Npl sites is to either agree with the um protecting statement or issued independent. Finding we track the recommendations in the Sims database. 00:15:15.000 --> 00:15:18.000 The one of the things that we remind our. 00:15:18.000 --> 00:15:25.000 Uh project managers, that the report is complete. Once the information is entered into, Sims. 00:15:25.000 --> 00:15:39.000 And um once the report, once the letter or the report is signed by the division director, then it should be entered into Sims, which is our database that we use to track. 00:15:39.000 --> 00:15:46.000 You know, super fun, um data. Um one. It should be entered into the database within 5 days. 00:15:46.000 --> 00:16:11.000 One of the things we do in conjunction with. 00:16:11.000 --> 00:16:13.000 Why we had to make an independent finding. 00:16:13.000 --> 00:16:18.000 So um, that's actually the Federal facilities. 00:16:18.000 --> 00:16:19.000 5 year review. 00:16:19.000 --> 00:16:21.000 Process. 00:16:21.000 --> 00:16:23.000 The next slide talks about. 00:16:23.000 --> 00:16:29.000 Um review and submission process. And again, this is more of an iterative process. 00:16:29.000 --> 00:16:32.000 So. 00:16:32.000 --> 00:16:36.000 Really, when starting a 5 year, review the Lead Federal Agency. 00:16:36.000 --> 00:16:44.000 Project manager really should be contacting EPA in a State Rpm technical specialist. 00:16:44.000 --> 00:16:49.000 Um to stay sort of up to date on emerging contaminants, but also to. 00:16:49.000 --> 00:16:58.000 Identify um, really, to have a scoping meeting to determine what OS are going to be included in this 5 Year Review report. 00:16:58.000 --> 00:16:59.000 Um. 00:16:59.000 --> 00:17:10.000 Whether what type of monitoring data has been done. So this should be a scoping meeting to go over some of what data is going to be included in the report. 00:17:10.000 --> 00:17:23.000 Also um EPA in a State should re remind the Federal agency. If there's any uh changes, any Federal changes to any constituents that needs to be that needs to be known. 00:17:23.000 --> 00:17:30.000 Um, really, this all of this information should be done in a scoping meeting, and all of this information. 00:17:30.000 --> 00:17:32.000 Should be use. 00:17:32.000 --> 00:17:38.000 Um to help write the report. And so one of the things we we. 00:17:38.000 --> 00:17:49.000 Emphasize to our rpms. Is that you that this scoping meeting needs to occur at least a year or year and a half before the 5 Year Review document is due. 00:17:49.000 --> 00:17:50.000 Um so. 00:17:50.000 --> 00:18:00.000 Once the lead agency submits the draft. Um, usually the regular submit comments. Usually that time period is about 60 days. 00:18:00.000 --> 00:18:02.000 For the Regulators to submit comments. 00:18:02.000 --> 00:18:09.000 Um. The lead agency responds to those comments. Sometimes this takes quite a bit of time. 00:18:09.000 --> 00:18:13.000 Um. And and hopefully, you know this. 00:18:13.000 --> 00:18:21.000 Process, or this review process is built into the schedule to have the final report completed by the statutory due date. 00:18:21.000 --> 00:18:22.000 Um. 00:18:22.000 --> 00:18:48.000 And again the report is finalized and signed in EPA. Would either in some cases EPA could sign the report, or EPA would issue a letter which um agrees with the protectance, determination. Not a Federal agency or issues, or EPA has issued independent finding of protectiveness. 00:18:48.000 --> 00:18:49.000 Okay. 00:18:49.000 --> 00:18:52.000 And again. Sometimes this review process, cycle. 00:18:52.000 --> 00:18:53.000 Is, is. 00:18:53.000 --> 00:18:58.000 Maybe it takes one review. Sometimes it takes 2 or 3 reviews. 00:18:58.000 --> 00:19:08.000 So again, but all of that should be part of the the schedule for completing a 5 year review by the statutory due date. 00:19:08.000 --> 00:19:10.000 So as I mentioned. So it's it's. 00:19:10.000 --> 00:19:15.000 N, it's not up to the Federal agency to actually. 00:19:15.000 --> 00:19:20.000 Right. I mean, it's up to the Federal agency to prepare the report, but there has to be some. 00:19:20.000 --> 00:19:23.000 Opportunities for um. 00:19:23.000 --> 00:19:34.000 A a scoping meeting for um, not only the Federal rpm, but also EPA in the State to get together to talk about what's going to be in the report. 00:19:34.000 --> 00:19:53.000 And, as I mentioned, team members need to work together early and often to get real time input while conducting a review and writing a report. In some cases site teams may need at least maybe 12 to 18 months ahead of a due date, depending on, you know, contract issues uh, depending on um. 00:19:53.000 --> 00:19:58.000 Other issues. So um, again, we encourage. 00:19:58.000 --> 00:20:01.000 Site teams to basically. 00:20:01.000 --> 00:20:08.000 Um have a schedule to try to complete the 5 Year Review by the statutory due date. 00:20:08.000 --> 00:20:10.000 And, as I mentioned earlier. 00:20:10.000 --> 00:20:18.000 Ensure that 5 year reviews are completed for the required ouse operate um operable units. 00:20:18.000 --> 00:20:25.000 Um. And again, we're gonna look at what our pro units should be included in a 5 area view. And basically those. 00:20:25.000 --> 00:20:28.000 Units where remedy has been selected. 00:20:28.000 --> 00:20:42.000 And we're gonna talk more about oas remedy or other activities that, including report, do not need a protective statement and an oas with a remedy, but which have not initiated the remedial action, do not need to be included. 00:20:42.000 --> 00:20:46.000 So we we have another uh slide that talks more about this. But again. 00:20:46.000 --> 00:20:58.000 Um. The the real main focus is to have a schedule to complete the 5 Year Review by the statutory due date. 00:20:58.000 --> 00:21:01.000 So this. 00:21:01.000 --> 00:21:03.000 Graphic basically talks about. 00:21:03.000 --> 00:21:10.000 Um what ous need to be evaluated during a 5 year review process. 00:21:10.000 --> 00:21:13.000 Um, and again, generally, a decision document should be in place. 00:21:13.000 --> 00:21:18.000 And a remedial action initiated within the ou that leaves waste in place. 00:21:18.000 --> 00:21:22.000 Um. If the ou has no decision, document. 00:21:22.000 --> 00:21:25.000 And like an action memo over uh. 00:21:25.000 --> 00:21:30.000 Under a recur, or decision, or rod, then a remedy. 00:21:30.000 --> 00:21:40.000 Ha! Has not been selected, an evaluation is not required. So the 1st question, is there right or minimum or final? For this ou. 00:21:40.000 --> 00:21:48.000 If it's if it's no, then the remedy has not been selected. Evaluation is not required, and it does not need to be evaluated in the 5 Year Review. 00:21:48.000 --> 00:21:59.000 Um. So again, if there is a uh, if there is a ride or some kind of decision document um, there are certain types of statutory reviews and policy reviews. 00:21:59.000 --> 00:22:06.000 Policy reviews that are no later than 5 years after the site has reached construction. 00:22:06.000 --> 00:22:07.000 If there's an action, memo. 00:22:07.000 --> 00:22:20.000 Um some for the for sites where there's maybe a removal. Only action. There could be an opportunity to to evaluate that removal. Only action within a 5 year. Review report. 00:22:20.000 --> 00:22:25.000 Um, and if the and in the term what's called uu. 00:22:25.000 --> 00:22:38.000 Which means the selected remedy will place no restrictions on a potential use of the land or other or other natural resources. If an operable unit has reached the term of Uu. 00:22:38.000 --> 00:22:47.000 Then for that 1st time, that that unit in that should be discussed in that in that report indicating how it's reached. 00:22:47.000 --> 00:22:49.000 Um UUUE, and then after that, in this. 00:22:49.000 --> 00:22:57.000 In the future. 5 year Review reports that Ou. Does not need to be discussed in the report. 00:22:57.000 --> 00:23:17.000 And one of the things that we wanted to mention is that um no further action or no further immediate action plan does not mean ue, and also, O use that are deleted from the Mpl. May needs may still need to be evaluated. 00:23:17.000 --> 00:23:21.000 In the Five-year Review, particularly if they have not reached UUE. 00:23:21.000 --> 00:23:30.000 And all of this information is in our which is our 2,001 comprehensive Federal. 00:23:30.000 --> 00:23:35.000 I'm sorry, comprehensive. 5 year review guidance, which is a reference for this. Um. 00:23:35.000 --> 00:23:41.000 For this. 00:23:41.000 --> 00:23:45.000 So this slide talks about some common EPA comments. 00:23:45.000 --> 00:23:57.000 On Federal facility. 5 year reviews. Again, this is based, just based on experience from reviewing. Um most of the Federal facilities. 5 year review draft reports within the last. 00:23:57.000 --> 00:24:08.000 Um 15 years. Um, you know. So one come. One is one comment that we have is as a reminder. You're doing one protective statement per ou. 00:24:08.000 --> 00:24:11.000 Um! So again. 00:24:11.000 --> 00:24:22.000 Um. Sometimes we see um several protecting the statements for an ou, but this is but you really wanna one protecting statement for all you um. 00:24:22.000 --> 00:24:34.000 We do also see in a report sometimes protecting statements issue for Ouse that really don't need O's, because there hasn't been a remedial action taken at that? Ou. 00:24:34.000 --> 00:24:37.000 Um. Another common um. 00:24:37.000 --> 00:24:39.000 Comment that we see. 00:24:39.000 --> 00:24:40.000 Um! That. 00:24:40.000 --> 00:24:52.000 Again, protective statements not issue for all use that need them. Again. Reverse of what I just said, particularly for sites under construction, where, if a site is under construct for that O use under construction. 00:24:52.000 --> 00:25:00.000 Um and is there, and it has been a remedial action. Then that site would um the protecting. A statement would. 00:25:00.000 --> 00:25:07.000 Would be will be protective. And Jen is gonna talk about a little bit later about the 5 protective statements again. Um. 00:25:07.000 --> 00:25:20.000 One of the things we see is wrong statement chosen particularly for um, those uh chemicals that are considered emerging contaminants, and we'll talk a little bit more about that later in the presentation. 00:25:20.000 --> 00:25:31.000 In A, in the last one is a site wide, protective statement. You issue a site wide, protecting statement. Once the site has reached um, which EPA's term construction, completion. 00:25:31.000 --> 00:25:44.000 And in some cases we see sites that have not reached construction where there is a site wide, protected statement. 00:25:44.000 --> 00:25:45.000 Um. 00:25:45.000 --> 00:25:46.000 So again. 00:25:46.000 --> 00:25:48.000 You know the. 00:25:48.000 --> 00:25:49.000 The. 00:25:49.000 --> 00:26:05.000 As Jim as Jen mentioned. Um, one of the purpose, you know the purpose of the 5 Year Review is to determine whether you know the protectiveness of of the remedy, and so sometimes, as I mentioned earlier, sometimes these reports are very long. 00:26:05.000 --> 00:26:10.000 And they're really not focused on the protectiveness statement. And so one of the key things. 00:26:10.000 --> 00:26:22.000 Ah! One of our comments would be is, you know what? When you did the technical assessment? How did you come up with the protective statement for that particular ou. 00:26:22.000 --> 00:26:25.000 And again. Sometimes the reports don't have. 00:26:25.000 --> 00:26:30.000 The sufficient data to support a protective statement. Um. 00:26:30.000 --> 00:26:42.000 Would talk more about remedial action objectives. But again, technical evaluations in the report do not link to existing remedial action objectives or the risk based on the rod. 00:26:42.000 --> 00:26:50.000 Actually not enough information is provided to identify the status of issues being tracked from the last 5 year. Review. 00:26:50.000 --> 00:26:57.000 Um, this is a key. Um. One of the key points that we noticed is that sometimes, when we, reviewing these reports. 00:26:57.000 --> 00:27:01.000 It's issues were identified in previous 5 year. Reviews sometimes. 00:27:01.000 --> 00:27:12.000 And at least 2 5 year reviews, and they haven't been actually implemented. So this is the this becomes, you know, we may issue a comment on that. 00:27:12.000 --> 00:27:20.000 And again, reports include issues that do not affect current or future protect instead of remedy. Um, some reports identify um. 00:27:20.000 --> 00:27:21.000 Um! Those. 00:27:21.000 --> 00:27:33.000 Um, O and M issues as issues as recommendations. But they're really not recommendations. There are in some cases, things that can be done immediately. 00:27:33.000 --> 00:27:49.000 Um, but um, they have been identified as ish as potential issues that. 00:27:49.000 --> 00:27:57.000 So our role, as I mentioned to you, I'm from the Federal Facilities Restoration Reuse Office here at EPA. Headquarters. 00:27:57.000 --> 00:27:58.000 And um. 00:27:58.000 --> 00:28:02.000 So, you know we do review all of. 00:28:02.000 --> 00:28:07.000 Uh federal of all of the draft reports, for, of course, for Mpl. Federal facility, sites. 00:28:07.000 --> 00:28:15.000 Um, we've done this. We've made a commitment to do this in order to improve the quality and consistency of reports. 00:28:15.000 --> 00:28:24.000 We continue, we continue to have training on 5 year reviews such as this Webinar um, we also have training on national. 00:28:24.000 --> 00:28:29.000 At National Conferences. We also have. 00:28:29.000 --> 00:28:33.000 Um a few slides doing a um. 00:28:33.000 --> 00:28:37.000 Our in person training on 5 year reviews. 00:28:37.000 --> 00:28:45.000 And so in this memo, and made a 3.rd We also made these commitments to the Ig. That we would do these things. 00:28:45.000 --> 00:28:59.000 Um. We do follow up with the regions, not only on the Federal facility side, but also on a private super fun side. We follow up with them on the implementation of the issues and recommendations identified in the report, and specifically for. 00:28:59.000 --> 00:29:03.000 Um federal facilities is those issues. 00:29:03.000 --> 00:29:09.000 And those issues and recommendations that affect current and future. 00:29:09.000 --> 00:29:18.000 We also issued a May 2,018 memo. That is really a memo that supports uh what we do for the annual report to Congress. 00:29:18.000 --> 00:29:25.000 Again we identify sites where EPA made an independent assessment of the Protect. 00:29:25.000 --> 00:29:26.000 Um. 00:29:26.000 --> 00:29:32.000 The regions will send a when it regions have made an independent um finding of protecting this. 00:29:32.000 --> 00:29:35.000 Then they will send it to headquarters. Headquarters will review those. 00:29:35.000 --> 00:29:41.000 Um memos and provide comments. I'm sorry. Review those letters provide comments to. 00:29:41.000 --> 00:29:44.000 Um the rpm. 00:29:44.000 --> 00:29:50.000 Um. We also um report again, as I mentioned before, protecting this of each site. 00:29:50.000 --> 00:30:01.000 Um. We do also. If if a region has issued independent finding of not protected, we will continue to follow up with the region on what actions is the Federal agency taking. 00:30:01.000 --> 00:30:09.000 To move that site from not protected to another. Um! Another protected. 00:30:09.000 --> 00:30:18.000 So. And again, those those 2 memos are part of the reference for this course. 00:30:18.000 --> 00:30:21.000 So um for. 00:30:21.000 --> 00:30:32.000 For those folks again. Um! We, as I mentioned earlier, we in 5th Row, which is the Federal facilities Restoration Reuse Office with an EPA headquarters. 00:30:32.000 --> 00:30:36.000 We review all of the 5 year reviews. 00:30:36.000 --> 00:30:46.000 We have um, we track and review them. We viewed it. We have made a commitment to have our comments back to the Rpm. Within 30 days. 00:30:46.000 --> 00:30:48.000 We have a um. 00:30:48.000 --> 00:30:55.000 Not just. I'm reviewing it, but also a subject matter. Experts are reviewing them to develop consistency and. 00:30:55.000 --> 00:31:12.000 Um. From that we have developed some what we call Rpm bulletins, and particularly we have an Rpm bulletin out about um emerging contaminants, and when you're evaluating merging contaminants for within a 5 year review process. 00:31:12.000 --> 00:31:16.000 And again I always send out comments to the regions. 00:31:16.000 --> 00:31:19.000 Um. We discuss resolve those comments before. 00:31:19.000 --> 00:31:28.000 Ah! Project Manager sends their comments to the other Federal agency. 00:31:28.000 --> 00:31:31.000 Again in in our role is really to promote national consistency. 00:31:31.000 --> 00:31:40.000 Um, we based on what we're seeing in the 5 Year Review reports, we are developing recommendations. 00:31:40.000 --> 00:31:48.000 And like I said, um. One of the things we recently did was a Rpm. That provided some. 00:31:48.000 --> 00:31:55.000 Um direction to our rpms when evaluating contaminants in Federal facilities. 5 year reviews. 00:31:55.000 --> 00:31:58.000 We've also um. 00:31:58.000 --> 00:32:08.000 Have a um pretty much a systematic approach to our review. We have a standard operating procedures and a review template that we use when we're reviewing these 5 year reviews. 00:32:08.000 --> 00:32:25.000 And again, as I mentioned, it's it is a team effort. Um, our. Our effort is to analyze any results of the review of we're identifying trends, gaps. And from this information we're providing guidance to our regions. Um, based on. 00:32:25.000 --> 00:32:31.000 Um some of the things that we're learning from these, from the documents. 00:32:31.000 --> 00:32:32.000 Um. 00:32:32.000 --> 00:32:54.000 There is a state role and responsibility, and there is a document that is put out regarding um State roles and responsibilities. Re uh, on Federal facilities. 5 year reviews again, this is a reference. But it's basically this. This document says, state role and responsibilities are scribe described in a July 2,008 document. 00:32:54.000 --> 00:33:05.000 And that um the what the State concerns are Mpl. Facilities. They should work through EPA. Under the Federal facility, agreement to resolve issues and concern. 00:33:05.000 --> 00:33:13.000 And for non npl facilities. 1st seek informal resolution. If there's a disagreement on a protecting statements. 00:33:13.000 --> 00:33:22.000 However that fail, stakes may seek dispute resolution through their defense statement of agreement, or they just smaller. 00:33:22.000 --> 00:33:27.000 And again you have that as a reference. 00:33:27.000 --> 00:33:31.000 Now we wanna talk a little bit about um. 00:33:31.000 --> 00:33:37.000 Communities and community um, talk about communities related to 5 year reviews. 00:33:37.000 --> 00:33:38.000 And one of the things um, that. 00:33:38.000 --> 00:33:46.000 Several several years ago. One of the things that I worked with other, particularly with other Federal agencies. We did. 00:33:46.000 --> 00:33:58.000 Um, develop this group called the Federal Work Group on 5 year reviews and some of the tools that we developed. There were tools to be used by communities. 00:33:58.000 --> 00:34:02.000 And also to be used by project managers. 00:34:02.000 --> 00:34:15.000 So we would like to share this video with you as far as a video that you can share with your communities when you're doing when you're developing a 5 year review. 00:34:15.000 --> 00:34:18.000 So, Mike, should I just hit the. 00:34:18.000 --> 00:34:23.000 The play, button. 00:34:23.000 --> 00:34:26.000 Okay. 00:34:26.000 --> 00:34:28.000 It doesn't work. We have enough. 00:34:28.000 --> 00:34:31.000 Aye. 00:34:31.000 --> 00:34:32.000 I think maybe you would have to do it, since it's your slide. 00:34:32.000 --> 00:34:33.000 There we go! 00:34:33.000 --> 00:34:44.000 Yeah, mhm. 00:34:44.000 --> 00:35:14.000 Think we have an sound issue. 00:35:51.000 --> 00:36:08.000 Yeah, I I think there's still a sound issue. Mike. 00:36:08.000 --> 00:36:10.000 You cannot hear it. 00:36:10.000 --> 00:36:26.000 No, we cannot hear it. 00:36:26.000 --> 00:36:31.000 Jennifer, you deal for Jennifer, you'd be able to hear it. 00:36:31.000 --> 00:36:52.000 No, I can't hear it either. 00:36:52.000 --> 00:36:54.000 Interest, of time. Maybe. 00:36:54.000 --> 00:36:55.000 We'll just have folks. 00:36:55.000 --> 00:37:00.000 Goes right. 00:37:00.000 --> 00:37:03.000 We the link to the Youtube video. 00:37:03.000 --> 00:37:04.000 Yeah. 00:37:04.000 --> 00:37:05.000 Yeah. 00:37:05.000 --> 00:37:06.000 That night. 00:37:06.000 --> 00:37:09.000 You may have to turn. Make sure your volume, I mean, make sure your audio. 00:37:09.000 --> 00:37:12.000 Is. 00:37:12.000 --> 00:37:14.000 Plane. 00:37:14.000 --> 00:37:20.000 Um, I think there's a way to make sure your autos coming from your computer. 00:37:20.000 --> 00:37:21.000 Yeah. 00:37:21.000 --> 00:37:29.000 Does that make sense. 00:37:29.000 --> 00:37:30.000 I don't know. I could hear it. 00:37:30.000 --> 00:37:33.000 I couldn't hear it when it was on the. 00:37:33.000 --> 00:37:37.000 On the slide. But let's get back to the. 00:37:37.000 --> 00:37:41.000 Okay. Well, why don't we go back to the slides? 00:37:41.000 --> 00:37:44.000 I do know that um, and we'll make sure folks. 00:37:44.000 --> 00:37:48.000 Um have a copy of it. I do know that it is on. 00:37:48.000 --> 00:37:51.000 Are um, the. 00:37:51.000 --> 00:37:53.000 Effect of a website. 00:37:53.000 --> 00:37:58.000 Um, which we will provide you with a um. 00:37:58.000 --> 00:38:04.000 You know the link to our website. So this um. But again, this video was developed by this interagency work group. 00:38:04.000 --> 00:38:09.000 Which included Department Defense Department of Energy Department of Commerce. 00:38:09.000 --> 00:38:15.000 Um on, really? How do you communicate to communities about. 00:38:15.000 --> 00:38:19.000 Um about um, 5 year reviews. 00:38:19.000 --> 00:38:21.000 Um, and and it was really um. 00:38:21.000 --> 00:38:33.000 A good video like in case you are working with communities, and they know nothing above 5 years. It gives them an idea of the purpose of the 5 Year Review. Some comments from. 00:38:33.000 --> 00:38:47.000 You know, not only the uh remedial, the all other Federal agency remedial manager, but EPA remedial manager and also community folks. So um, we will definitely make sure you have a copy of it. 00:38:47.000 --> 00:38:50.000 Um. 00:38:50.000 --> 00:38:54.000 Go to the next slide. 00:38:54.000 --> 00:38:58.000 This is. 00:38:58.000 --> 00:39:00.000 See. 00:39:00.000 --> 00:39:05.000 Let's see, Mike, I think I'm having a hard time going to the next slide. Alright. 00:39:05.000 --> 00:39:07.000 Thank you. 00:39:07.000 --> 00:39:08.000 Um. 00:39:08.000 --> 00:39:14.000 Again, community involvement and Federal facilities, 5 year reviews and and and general just. 00:39:14.000 --> 00:39:18.000 Not only set up facilities with 5 year reviews in general. 00:39:18.000 --> 00:39:20.000 Um. 00:39:20.000 --> 00:39:26.000 So, as I mentioned, we have what we call a comprehensive 5 year review guidance. 00:39:26.000 --> 00:39:30.000 Is it? It was written in 2,001. 00:39:30.000 --> 00:39:31.000 And. 00:39:31.000 --> 00:39:36.000 What it says regarding community involvement is really at a minimum. 00:39:36.000 --> 00:39:44.000 Before a 5 year review starts, you should inform the community that you're about to start the 5 year review process. 00:39:44.000 --> 00:39:55.000 And then, after the um quality of view report is complete, then you should inform the communities and other potential interest parties at a 5 year review was conducted. 00:39:55.000 --> 00:39:59.000 Again, this is the minimum. This is the minimum. 00:39:59.000 --> 00:40:01.000 There are many other things that you can do. 00:40:01.000 --> 00:40:07.000 And one of the things that we are in my office we're working on is. 00:40:07.000 --> 00:40:15.000 Um providing information to our Rpms about some other things that you can do regarding community involvement. 00:40:15.000 --> 00:40:26.000 Um, because it's important for the communities to know that the remedies that have that have been constructed, remedies that are in place are being protective. 00:40:26.000 --> 00:40:31.000 And there's we've referenced also, not only our guidance, but the community involvement handbook. 00:40:31.000 --> 00:40:37.000 And in chapter 3, section 10, it talks about uh Federal uh talks about 5 year reviews. 00:40:37.000 --> 00:40:44.000 Um. And then also, there's a community involvement toolkit that um talks about. 00:40:44.000 --> 00:40:56.000 Um 5 year reviews, so I would encourage you to take a look at those um 3 guidance. 00:40:56.000 --> 00:41:07.000 So when you for 5 reviews and committee involvement, you know. 1st thing is, you should consider work with the Site Committee on a communication strategy. 00:41:07.000 --> 00:41:11.000 How are you? Gonna how are you gonna communicate. 00:41:11.000 --> 00:41:15.000 To the community the protectiveness of the remed. 00:41:15.000 --> 00:41:19.000 Again. I I think it's important that you um. 00:41:19.000 --> 00:41:23.000 You know. Look at ways to how you communicate that. 00:41:23.000 --> 00:41:36.000 Um, you know. At at one time there was a suggestion to put in art. You know something in newspaper, you know, lots of folks that they don't get their information now from newspapers they get to information from. 00:41:36.000 --> 00:41:52.000 Other places social media. So I also encourage you to look at other ways of how to how to inform the community about the 5 year review, and the and actually, really, whether the remedy remains protective of human health and environment. 00:41:52.000 --> 00:42:11.000 So again, after the 5 years completed, you may prepare a brief summary of the results, using a fact sheet one of the days, the Interagency Work group that I mentioned to you earlier. But we put together a fact sheet, and we have a copy of one that we that we can share with you. And it's also on our website. 00:42:11.000 --> 00:42:20.000 Um. And in that fact sheet you're informing the community. A 5 year review was completed, and what were the results of that review. 00:42:20.000 --> 00:42:29.000 As, as I mentioned, you can post the report on the site web page. If a site has some type of social media page, you can also post it on that. 00:42:29.000 --> 00:42:36.000 Um, but again make the report and the summary available to the public in the information. 00:42:36.000 --> 00:42:38.000 So um. 00:42:38.000 --> 00:42:47.000 And and one other thing that the 5 year, the 2,001 5 Year Review Guide is, talks about is interviewing community folks. 00:42:47.000 --> 00:42:58.000 Um, and and I think it's important. I've seen a review some 5 year reviews where interviews have occurred, but it's in some cases 2 things happen. There is no um. 00:42:58.000 --> 00:43:11.000 And you know, community people may make a comment. There's no action associated with the comment. Um! And then I also would argue that community folks may need to have different questions. 00:43:11.000 --> 00:43:20.000 Then someone that is being interviewed at the at the site level. 00:43:20.000 --> 00:43:21.000 Alright, so. 00:43:21.000 --> 00:43:27.000 Before we talk about. Uh, I think I skipped as I apologize. 00:43:27.000 --> 00:43:41.000 Okay, I mentioned about the uh community fact sheet. This is a fact sheet that it's actually draft fact sheet is actually on a website that we put uh that the interagency Federal Work group put together. Um. 00:43:41.000 --> 00:43:47.000 Um talks about a 5 year. Review gives you some chronological. 00:43:47.000 --> 00:44:02.000 Um, and also talks about site. History gives you a map, but more importantly, talks about what development since the last 5 of you and issues and follow actions identified, and also the protecting us for the different oh, use. 00:44:02.000 --> 00:44:17.000 And again it does. It's not a lot. It's not a long document. In this case. It's a um front and back document, but it gives a summary to um communities about uh what? The what? The not only purpose of the 5 Year Review, but what you found out. 00:44:17.000 --> 00:44:20.000 As related to protecting us. 00:44:20.000 --> 00:44:25.000 Um, the different oh, use at the at the Federal facility site. 00:44:25.000 --> 00:44:28.000 So. 00:44:28.000 --> 00:44:37.000 Um before we talk about, before Jen talks about protecting statements. I wanted to see um, Mike, if we have any questions. 00:44:37.000 --> 00:44:45.000 Um, that we can answer right now. Um! As far as time is concerned, we're doing pretty well. 00:44:45.000 --> 00:44:50.000 Yeah, we do have some questions. Um. 00:44:50.000 --> 00:44:53.000 Start with. 00:44:53.000 --> 00:44:55.000 I think early on you talked about a guidance. Is that a. 00:44:55.000 --> 00:45:00.000 2 uh 2,011 or 2,010 devices. 00:45:00.000 --> 00:45:05.000 So, yeah, we we talked about. I talked about 2. 00:45:05.000 --> 00:45:16.000 Talked about an Ig report that was done in 2,011, and I talked about program priorities. That was, I'm sorry. An Ig report that was done in 2,010 and in a program. 00:45:16.000 --> 00:45:17.000 Um. 00:45:17.000 --> 00:45:23.000 Actually, it was a a memo to our Rpms program priorities in 20. 00:45:23.000 --> 00:45:25.000 Actually in 2011. 00:45:25.000 --> 00:45:26.000 Yes. 00:45:26.000 --> 00:45:33.000 Um and and the uh memo to our Rpms. The 2011. 00:45:33.000 --> 00:45:38.000 Memo, a program priorities. Memo is on our um. 00:45:38.000 --> 00:45:42.000 Website. If folks want to take a look at it. 00:45:42.000 --> 00:45:44.000 Was that the question, Michael? 00:45:44.000 --> 00:45:50.000 It was. Uh, we also have. 00:45:50.000 --> 00:45:56.000 Sorry I've got a little bug here on that. 00:45:56.000 --> 00:46:01.000 Um. 00:46:01.000 --> 00:46:02.000 Mm-hmm. 00:46:02.000 --> 00:46:03.000 Of course we had a few questions here about statutory deadlines, about whether they could be changed. 00:46:03.000 --> 00:46:06.000 And how uh signature timing can. 00:46:06.000 --> 00:46:12.000 Um can either change them or doesn't change them. 00:46:12.000 --> 00:46:13.000 So um. 00:46:13.000 --> 00:46:14.000 So. 00:46:14.000 --> 00:46:15.000 Go ahead! 00:46:15.000 --> 00:46:16.000 I was. Gonna say, Monica, I could take the first, st and then you can talk about. 00:46:16.000 --> 00:46:18.000 Go ahead! 00:46:18.000 --> 00:46:19.000 Please do, Jen. 00:46:19.000 --> 00:46:24.000 Um. So the statutory deadline um is for the, you know, for the 1st 5 year review. 00:46:24.000 --> 00:46:39.000 Um as uh, I talked about this site, the the slide that talked about circle of 121 and the 5 year review requirement. Um, it identifies a trigger as the initiation of the 1st room. That's gonna leave waste in place. 00:46:39.000 --> 00:46:40.000 Um, so that. 00:46:40.000 --> 00:46:41.000 Trigger. 00:46:41.000 --> 00:46:47.000 Tells you that 5 years from then is when your 1st statutory 5 year review is going to be due. 00:46:47.000 --> 00:46:54.000 Um, so that due date would not change unless you had, you know, an erroneous date put in for your trigger action. So. 00:46:54.000 --> 00:47:02.000 If um, you had accidentally put in the wrong date for the initiation of the remedial option, and then revise that. Then your 5 year review. 00:47:02.000 --> 00:47:10.000 Would move along with that. But once that initiation date is finalized and correct. That is the trigger date that gives you. 00:47:10.000 --> 00:47:14.000 The due date of the 5 Year Review, and it would the 1st 5 year view, and it would not change. 00:47:14.000 --> 00:47:15.000 Um. 00:47:15.000 --> 00:47:20.000 And then, Monica, I think there was further question about subsequent 5 year reviews and. 00:47:20.000 --> 00:47:25.000 Um concurrence or signature dates of those, and how um the due dates work with that. 00:47:25.000 --> 00:47:35.000 Well, once. Um! Once the statutory date is finalized, as Jen mentioned. That will be the date and subsequent 5 year reviews will be due. 00:47:35.000 --> 00:47:38.000 Based on 5 years from that date. 00:47:38.000 --> 00:47:45.000 Um. And and one of the things as this memo, this 2,011 memo talks about is that we would adhere to those. 00:47:45.000 --> 00:47:48.000 Statutory due dates. 00:47:48.000 --> 00:48:05.000 And even if a report is signed after the statutory due date, the statutory did statute the date for the next 5 year review is based on 5 years from that statutory due date. 00:48:05.000 --> 00:48:10.000 Does so. The the second part of that question is, does an early signature. 00:48:10.000 --> 00:48:12.000 Change, the due date. 00:48:12.000 --> 00:48:17.000 To the next one to an earlier day. 00:48:17.000 --> 00:48:18.000 So. 00:48:18.000 --> 00:48:19.000 Does say they know the signature doesn't change. 00:48:19.000 --> 00:48:20.000 The due date. 00:48:20.000 --> 00:48:21.000 The statutory due date. 00:48:21.000 --> 00:48:23.000 Is the statutory due date. 00:48:23.000 --> 00:48:25.000 Go go ahead, Jim! 00:48:25.000 --> 00:48:32.000 Monica. I was. Gonna say, I think in your program priorities memo, and I don't remember the exact language, but it says something like, if uh. 00:48:32.000 --> 00:48:36.000 If a 5 year view a Federal facility, 5 year review is completed. 00:48:36.000 --> 00:48:46.000 3 months or more. Early. Um, that there can be discussion about whether the next one should be completed early or not. 00:48:46.000 --> 00:48:47.000 Um. 00:48:47.000 --> 00:48:48.000 We. 00:48:48.000 --> 00:48:49.000 Yeah, that. Yeah. 00:48:49.000 --> 00:48:50.000 Yeah, that that actually, you're right. 00:48:50.000 --> 00:48:52.000 Um. 00:48:52.000 --> 00:48:54.000 That actually was a. 00:48:54.000 --> 00:48:59.000 Correction to the 2,011. So if. 00:48:59.000 --> 00:49:04.000 Completed, and and that memo talks about um really. 00:49:04.000 --> 00:49:08.000 Um tracking. And you're right, Jen, if it's completed. 00:49:08.000 --> 00:49:16.000 Um 3 day. What is it 3 months earlier than there is a possibility that we can look at changing that date. 00:49:16.000 --> 00:49:22.000 Um. Because because really, I think what we what the actual 121. 00:49:22.000 --> 00:49:33.000 See, says that it a review has to be done at least every 5 years. So we wanna if we wanna make sure it's done at least every 5 years. If it's. 00:49:33.000 --> 00:49:50.000 More than 5 years. That's an issue. If it's less than 5 years we can, we can kinda have a discussion with the Rpm if we need to change that date. 00:49:50.000 --> 00:49:52.000 Okay. 00:49:52.000 --> 00:49:54.000 Um. 00:49:54.000 --> 00:49:55.000 Yes, there's there's plenty. 00:49:55.000 --> 00:49:56.000 Are there any other questions? 00:49:56.000 --> 00:49:58.000 Do we need to move on or um. 00:49:58.000 --> 00:50:00.000 Yes, uh. 00:50:00.000 --> 00:50:01.000 There's a Federal facilities. 00:50:01.000 --> 00:50:04.000 5 year review, process, slide. 00:50:04.000 --> 00:50:08.000 Um. And I think the question is asking, okay. 00:50:08.000 --> 00:50:10.000 When when you say independent findings. 00:50:10.000 --> 00:50:16.000 Mm-hmm. 00:50:16.000 --> 00:50:17.000 No. 00:50:17.000 --> 00:50:18.000 Does that mean? EPA is collecting independent data used to draw new conclusions or ease. 00:50:18.000 --> 00:50:19.000 Independent conclusions. 00:50:19.000 --> 00:50:22.000 Based off the same data and information. 00:50:22.000 --> 00:50:23.000 The Lead Agency. 00:50:23.000 --> 00:50:24.000 Used. 00:50:24.000 --> 00:50:32.000 Yeah. Apologize. If I wasn't clear about that. When I say independent, finding, I mean that EPA. 00:50:32.000 --> 00:50:34.000 Based on its. 00:50:34.000 --> 00:50:37.000 Uh role and responsibility. 00:50:37.000 --> 00:50:51.000 Uh circle it can. Actually, we can actually make an independent finding of the protectiveness of a particular ou, so if um, for example, we can make a different protectiveness statement for that. Ou. 00:50:51.000 --> 00:51:04.000 Um. And and that's what I mean by independent finding that we did. For example, if the Federal agency made a protect in a statement of protect it for that. Ou. 00:51:04.000 --> 00:51:17.000 An EPA disagrees. With that protecting statement we can make an independent finding of another type of protectance, such as maybe short term protectiveness or deferred protectiveness. 00:51:17.000 --> 00:51:22.000 And that's what I mean by independent finding. 00:51:22.000 --> 00:51:26.000 And and and in some cases we make those independent findings. 00:51:26.000 --> 00:51:29.000 Based on whether or not. 00:51:29.000 --> 00:51:37.000 The Federal agency has considered, for example, emerging contaminants or other exposure pathways. 00:51:37.000 --> 00:51:41.000 And we'll talk more about independent um, and. 00:51:41.000 --> 00:51:46.000 Some of the slides. Um coming up soon. 00:51:46.000 --> 00:51:48.000 I think. 00:51:48.000 --> 00:51:49.000 I think there's. 00:51:49.000 --> 00:51:50.000 I think we need to move on. 00:51:50.000 --> 00:52:01.000 Yeah, I was. Gonna say that there's some good questions here, and I don't know if we'll be able to get to them. We'll have time to get to zip back to what we can try to do is if there's a common. 00:52:01.000 --> 00:52:02.000 Bye. 00:52:02.000 --> 00:52:03.000 Few here we maybe can respond to these afterwards. 00:52:03.000 --> 00:52:04.000 Right. 00:52:04.000 --> 00:52:05.000 Right. 00:52:05.000 --> 00:52:09.000 And and I think both Jen and I are committed to responding to any questions. 00:52:09.000 --> 00:52:13.000 You know that we may not get to today. 00:52:13.000 --> 00:52:16.000 I'm going to turn it over to Jen. 00:52:16.000 --> 00:52:24.000 To talk about protecting the statements. 00:52:24.000 --> 00:52:26.000 Okay. 00:52:26.000 --> 00:52:28.000 Ah! 00:52:28.000 --> 00:52:33.000 Protectedness, determinations and statements. So I'm gonna start. 00:52:33.000 --> 00:52:36.000 Um by talking um a little bit about. 00:52:36.000 --> 00:52:37.000 Um. 00:52:37.000 --> 00:52:41.000 Keeping in mind uh the context, and how you're getting to that protectiveness statement. 00:52:41.000 --> 00:52:49.000 Um. So we talked earlier about the purpose of the 5 Year Review. So it's determining the protectedness of the remedy. 00:52:49.000 --> 00:52:55.000 Um. What we also wanna look for is ensure that the data and information. 00:52:55.000 --> 00:52:58.000 Included in the 5 Year Review Report. 00:52:58.000 --> 00:53:03.000 Um provides us the support that we need for the protectiveness, determination, and statement. 00:53:03.000 --> 00:53:11.000 Um, so you can see um something in this graphic um that is labeled The Critical information path. 00:53:11.000 --> 00:53:20.000 Um so remedial action objectives. Um, if you um think about remedial action objectives, they're included in our super fund decision documents. 00:53:20.000 --> 00:53:24.000 Um, and they give us information that helps us understand. 00:53:24.000 --> 00:53:27.000 What a remedy was meant to achieve. 00:53:27.000 --> 00:53:34.000 Um, so they can have different goals, you know. Restore groundwater. We could have um. 00:53:34.000 --> 00:53:35.000 I. 00:53:35.000 --> 00:53:48.000 Sorry. Eliminate um, or remove uh contamination from the site. Um, and I may be giving bad examples of arias. I'm trying to do it off the top of my head, and I should have prepared better. But they they have different. 00:53:48.000 --> 00:53:50.000 Purposes and objectives. 00:53:50.000 --> 00:53:54.000 And that helps us understand what the remedy was meant to do. 00:53:54.000 --> 00:53:55.000 Um. 00:53:55.000 --> 00:53:59.000 As you um take those um remedial action objectives. 00:53:59.000 --> 00:54:08.000 And move into the technical assessment of the 5 Year Review. Um, that gets to the discussion we talked about earlier. Um. 00:54:08.000 --> 00:54:11.000 With the 3 questions of you know, is the remedy functioning as intended. 00:54:11.000 --> 00:54:24.000 In order to answer that question, we need to understand what our action objectives were. Um, to be able to determine whether that remedy is functioning as intended, and to understand what information we might need. 00:54:24.000 --> 00:54:26.000 Um in order to support that. 00:54:26.000 --> 00:54:29.000 The answer to that question, as well. 00:54:29.000 --> 00:54:35.000 Um. So we will have remedial action objectives um for different um remedial actions. 00:54:35.000 --> 00:54:48.000 For uh media for contaminants. Um! And so it'll just help us understand, you know, was our groundwater remedy meant to, you know, restore groundwater? Or was our groundwater remedy meant to contain. 00:54:48.000 --> 00:54:52.000 Um a groundwater plume. Um. 00:54:52.000 --> 00:55:00.000 Or prevent uh an exposure. Um, so, you know, preventing an exposure might be an institutional controls to ensure no. 00:55:00.000 --> 00:55:01.000 Um. 00:55:01.000 --> 00:55:05.000 You know, has exposure versus um restoration, which is the treatment. 00:55:05.000 --> 00:55:10.000 Um of of the the contamination. Um down to. 00:55:10.000 --> 00:55:11.000 Um. 00:55:11.000 --> 00:55:13.000 Acceptable risk levels. 00:55:13.000 --> 00:55:17.000 Um, and so. 00:55:17.000 --> 00:55:22.000 With that information? Um, you can, you know, work through your technical assessment. 00:55:22.000 --> 00:55:23.000 Um to get. 00:55:23.000 --> 00:55:28.000 To an understanding of what you think. Your protectiveness statement may be. 00:55:28.000 --> 00:55:44.000 Um, it helps uh to focus on the protectiveness. So, understanding what the objectives are, um helps you go through your technical assessment and other portions of your 5 year Review report with a focus on that. 00:55:44.000 --> 00:55:47.000 Um remedy protectiveness. Um, and. 00:55:47.000 --> 00:55:51.000 Understanding what you may need to support that um determination. 00:55:51.000 --> 00:56:02.000 Um. The other questions in the technical assessment, such as the you know, art uh, exposure assumptions, city levels clean up levels, etc. Um. Still valid. 00:56:02.000 --> 00:56:14.000 Um, those also. Um again help you support your statement. So your understanding of you know what remedial action objectives do you have? Are there exposure pathways where you don't have. 00:56:14.000 --> 00:56:22.000 Um objectives um, where there might be an acceptable risk that you need to look into or not. 00:56:22.000 --> 00:56:23.000 Um. 00:56:23.000 --> 00:56:38.000 You know, all helps you with that information to um to support that protected um and statement that you get to at the end. Um. It's sort of allows you to have that complete story um, and ensure that the. 00:56:38.000 --> 00:56:40.000 Um any issues. 00:56:40.000 --> 00:56:45.000 That may impact current or future protectiveness can be raised in the in the document. 00:56:45.000 --> 00:56:49.000 Um, including recommendations to address those issues. 00:56:49.000 --> 00:56:50.000 Um. 00:56:50.000 --> 00:56:53.000 There! 00:56:53.000 --> 00:56:55.000 Let's see. 00:56:55.000 --> 00:56:58.000 Okay, so. 00:56:58.000 --> 00:57:07.000 Um. As I was talking about Ario's Um Arias have a few components, so you can see here what some of the components are. So we talk about the the risk. 00:57:07.000 --> 00:57:08.000 Um. 00:57:08.000 --> 00:57:14.000 Drivers there. So media contaminants of concern. What are the exposure? Pathways? What are the receptors. 00:57:14.000 --> 00:57:18.000 Um, it does uh key in to current and future land use. So do we have. 00:57:18.000 --> 00:57:26.000 Um residential land use or commercial, industrial or um, you know, recreational or some other. 00:57:26.000 --> 00:57:32.000 Um land use currently and then reasonably anticipated in the future. Um. 00:57:32.000 --> 00:57:38.000 As well. Um, and then it talks about the purpose of the action, so preventing, minimizing, eliminating. 00:57:38.000 --> 00:57:46.000 And restoring. Um, so it it helps you um again. As I was um talking on the last slide, it helps you direct. 00:57:46.000 --> 00:57:50.000 You know your technical assessment, and what you need to speak about. 00:57:50.000 --> 00:57:53.000 Um, in order to understand if your remedy remains um. 00:57:53.000 --> 00:57:56.000 Protective. 00:57:56.000 --> 00:58:10.000 And to understand what information you may need to support that determination as well. 00:58:10.000 --> 00:58:18.000 So we're gonna think about um all those questions. Um, as we as we answer those questions, we're gonna think about the arias um as we do this. 00:58:18.000 --> 00:58:23.000 Um. It's gonna uh help us. 00:58:23.000 --> 00:58:24.000 Sorry. 00:58:24.000 --> 00:58:30.000 Losing control of my screen here. It's gonna help us um, understand what we need. Um. 00:58:30.000 --> 00:58:34.000 As far as data and information to support. 00:58:34.000 --> 00:58:36.000 Um are. 00:58:36.000 --> 00:58:38.000 Uh Protectiveness, determination. 00:58:38.000 --> 00:58:42.000 Uh, we need to think about um. 00:58:42.000 --> 00:58:52.000 You know. Are there other folks we need to coordinate with, based on what Ouros are and what information we may need? Um. So if uh you know as a. 00:58:52.000 --> 00:58:53.000 Project, manager. 00:58:53.000 --> 00:59:04.000 Um, we have a hydrogeologist on our team, and we have an O related to groundwater restoration. Um, do we need to work with them to ensure. We have the, you know, sufficient. 00:59:04.000 --> 00:59:09.000 Data available to understand whether the remedy is functioning as intended. 00:59:09.000 --> 00:59:13.000 Um, do we need to work with the toxicologists or risk assessor? If we have changes in. 00:59:13.000 --> 00:59:18.000 Um exposure assumptions or uh toxicity. 00:59:18.000 --> 00:59:20.000 Um. 00:59:20.000 --> 00:59:21.000 And other items. 00:59:21.000 --> 00:59:23.000 Um. 00:59:23.000 --> 00:59:27.000 There are resources out there. Um, so. 00:59:27.000 --> 00:59:40.000 You know, as a screening tool, you can look to EPA's um regional screening levels website, um to see when when those um regional screening levels are updated. Um, that may indicate there's been some. 00:59:40.000 --> 00:59:50.000 Uh changes in toxicity. Information so might be, you know, if it's for a contaminant concern you have at your site, um would be a good indication that you might wanna look into something um in question being ensure. Your. 00:59:50.000 --> 00:59:56.000 Cleanup level. Um, the toxicity change doesn't impact. Uh, what a protective cleanup level would be. 00:59:56.000 --> 00:59:58.000 Um. 00:59:58.000 --> 01:00:03.000 They're also, you know, updates on the Federal facilities. Um. 01:00:03.000 --> 01:00:07.000 5 Year Review website, and others for additional. 01:00:07.000 --> 01:00:09.000 Um guidance that can can help. 01:00:09.000 --> 01:00:16.000 Um. EPA's iris also releases toxicity changes so um, so those can. Those can help as well. 01:00:16.000 --> 01:00:19.000 Um, and also uh, you know. 01:00:19.000 --> 01:00:34.000 The different um State agencies. Um, so there could be information related to different um State toxicity, information, or um variables that may apply to your site based on the state you are located in. Um, so it's also helpful to. 01:00:34.000 --> 01:00:41.000 You know, to to look there, to to see if there's any changes. Um, that could impact your, you know, be impacted by your. 01:00:41.000 --> 01:00:47.000 Your ars that you should consider um in your 5 year review. 01:00:47.000 --> 01:00:49.000 Um. 01:00:49.000 --> 01:00:50.000 Oop. 01:00:50.000 --> 01:00:53.000 Sorry, and I just wanted to note on that that you. 01:00:53.000 --> 01:00:56.000 Keep in mind. A change doesn't always mean something is not protective. 01:00:56.000 --> 01:00:57.000 Um. 01:00:57.000 --> 01:01:05.000 There are some changes that may occur. Um, not all of them impact the protectiveness of your remed. 01:01:05.000 --> 01:01:16.000 Um, which is why you need to again go back and think about your remedial action objectives, what you're hoping to achieve. Understand? You know what are your remedy is implemented. Um. 01:01:16.000 --> 01:01:26.000 And uh, look at the the change. Um! In light of a question of protectiveness. 01:01:26.000 --> 01:01:29.000 Um. I will note uh. 01:01:29.000 --> 01:01:34.000 Question. C. Here is anything else. Is there anything else to consider? I noted um. 01:01:34.000 --> 01:01:37.000 Earlier that it's almost a catch-all. Um. 01:01:37.000 --> 01:01:42.000 There is some consideration in there for um. 01:01:42.000 --> 01:01:51.000 You know, if there's any uh climate change impacts that could impact the remedy that you haven't already. 01:01:51.000 --> 01:01:54.000 Considered elsewhere. Um. So if your remedy wasn't um. 01:01:54.000 --> 01:01:58.000 Designed to be in a flood plain, and it is now in a flood plain. 01:01:58.000 --> 01:02:00.000 Um. 01:02:00.000 --> 01:02:01.000 You know. 01:02:01.000 --> 01:02:09.000 That could be something that could be mentioned in question. C. Um. Sometimes, in our remedies we have considered these things, and there may be changes. 01:02:09.000 --> 01:02:16.000 Um, so it doesn't always show up in question. C, but that is um. A note to to think about that. There. 01:02:16.000 --> 01:02:18.000 Um. 01:02:18.000 --> 01:02:22.000 And uh just um cause. I know this. 01:02:22.000 --> 01:02:23.000 Training is not. 01:02:23.000 --> 01:02:24.000 You know. 01:02:24.000 --> 01:02:31.000 Comprehensive, and going to answer all of your questions in the 2,001 comprehensive 5 year review guidance that Monica mentioned. 01:02:31.000 --> 01:02:39.000 Um. It does go into further detail about these um technical assessment questions, um, and things to consider for each of them. 01:02:39.000 --> 01:02:42.000 Um, and so that can be a resource to look at. 01:02:42.000 --> 01:02:44.000 Um if you. 01:02:44.000 --> 01:02:46.000 Are um. 01:02:46.000 --> 01:02:53.000 Wanting more information about how to conduct the technical assessment. 01:02:53.000 --> 01:02:57.000 Okay, um, so protectiveness determinations in 5 year reviews. 01:02:57.000 --> 01:03:05.000 So 5 year view guidance identifies um, 5 different protective that can be identified. 01:03:05.000 --> 01:03:07.000 During the 5 Year Review. 01:03:07.000 --> 01:03:15.000 Um. Remember that Monica noted that you need to have a protective determination for each of you that is included in the 5 Year view. 01:03:15.000 --> 01:03:17.000 Um, and that's. 01:03:17.000 --> 01:03:23.000 Epas ou designation. I know some federal facility. Sites may have multiple um. 01:03:23.000 --> 01:03:33.000 Sorry some federal facilities. They have multiple sites or units of sites within an EPA ou um, so you'll need to keep that in mind as you go through, and and try to determine which. 01:03:33.000 --> 01:03:39.000 Or use need protectionist determinations, and what they may be. 01:03:39.000 --> 01:03:41.000 Um. 01:03:41.000 --> 01:03:46.000 So to to go through the 5 determinations. Um. 01:03:46.000 --> 01:03:47.000 Protective. 01:03:47.000 --> 01:03:53.000 Um. So there the remedy is operating or completed, with no exposures. Um and. 01:03:53.000 --> 01:04:07.000 You know, it's either working towards meeting Arios in the long term. Um, and we don't see any issues with that um, or we've achieved Ario's already, such as um, you know, a containment system. 01:04:07.000 --> 01:04:13.000 Uh where we we kept something um, and achieved that ro. And now we're just in the long term on that area. 01:04:13.000 --> 01:04:19.000 Um we have will be protective once the remedy is completed. Um! This is. 01:04:19.000 --> 01:04:24.000 For remedies that are still under construction. At the time of the 5 Year Review. 01:04:24.000 --> 01:04:31.000 Um. So here we're looking at where we've implemented a remedy to date. Um, everything appears that it is, you know. 01:04:31.000 --> 01:04:38.000 Going to be protective should it continue to be implemented in the way it's being implemented. Um. 01:04:38.000 --> 01:04:39.000 So uh. 01:04:39.000 --> 01:04:44.000 It is not for remedies where we are, you know. 01:04:44.000 --> 01:04:46.000 Completed construction. Um. 01:04:46.000 --> 01:04:47.000 It's for those where we're still. 01:04:47.000 --> 01:04:51.000 Still working, and may not have fully implemented it yet. 01:04:51.000 --> 01:04:55.000 Um protective in the short term. 01:04:55.000 --> 01:04:59.000 Um. So the the text on the slide um gives a little more context of. 01:04:59.000 --> 01:05:00.000 You know. 01:05:00.000 --> 01:05:03.000 We are. 01:05:03.000 --> 01:05:05.000 Um. 01:05:05.000 --> 01:05:07.000 Protective currently. 01:05:07.000 --> 01:05:11.000 In the short term, but we may have some things to deal with to ensure protection in the long term. 01:05:11.000 --> 01:05:20.000 Um. So these remedies are operating or completed, and there are protections in place to prevent on a current unacceptable exposures. 01:05:20.000 --> 01:05:22.000 But the remedies are either, you know. 01:05:22.000 --> 01:05:35.000 We're not certain they're working to meet Arios in the long term, or we need to make some adjustments to ensure they will meet arios in the long term. Um, and in these cases you're going to be identifying. 01:05:35.000 --> 01:05:38.000 Um issues and recommendations that need to be done. 01:05:38.000 --> 01:05:42.000 To uh, to remedy those issues. 01:05:42.000 --> 01:05:49.000 Um, and those generally should be recommendations that can be implemented before the next 5 year. Review. 01:05:49.000 --> 01:06:03.000 Um, you know, cause the goal is to, you know, move our remedies to being protective in both the short and the long term. Um. So when we're looking for identifying issues and recommendations? Um, that's what we are. Um. 01:06:03.000 --> 01:06:05.000 That's what the goal is. There. 01:06:05.000 --> 01:06:10.000 Um. So we also have protectedness deferred. Um, so this is where protectedness, determination. 01:06:10.000 --> 01:06:15.000 Cannot be determined, determined until additional information is obtained. 01:06:15.000 --> 01:06:20.000 So this is where uh, we may not have enough information about the. 01:06:20.000 --> 01:06:21.000 Current. 01:06:21.000 --> 01:06:29.000 About whether there are current unacceptable exposures, and we need to gather additional information before we can make a determination about that. 01:06:29.000 --> 01:06:34.000 Um, so these should clearly identify. You know what. 01:06:34.000 --> 01:06:36.000 What is that information we need? Is it? You know? 01:06:36.000 --> 01:06:41.000 What kind of data? How are we going to collect it? When will we collect it? 01:06:41.000 --> 01:06:45.000 Um. And we need to identify that timeframe. Um. 01:06:45.000 --> 01:06:47.000 As well. 01:06:47.000 --> 01:06:48.000 Um, because. 01:06:48.000 --> 01:06:50.000 Uh deferred protectiveness will also. 01:06:50.000 --> 01:06:55.000 Um, bring with it a requirement to do a 5 year. Review addendum. 01:06:55.000 --> 01:06:57.000 Um, and in the 5 Year Review addendum is where. 01:06:57.000 --> 01:07:04.000 The information that was gathered that tells us what we need to know about current exposures will be reported. 01:07:04.000 --> 01:07:07.000 To provide a protectiveness, determination. 01:07:07.000 --> 01:07:10.000 Um. Protectiveness deferred is really. 01:07:10.000 --> 01:07:12.000 You know you're not making a protective determination. 01:07:12.000 --> 01:07:15.000 Um about short term protective. 01:07:15.000 --> 01:07:16.000 Ness. 01:07:16.000 --> 01:07:21.000 Um, because you don't have enough information about whether there's current unacceptable exposures. 01:07:21.000 --> 01:07:26.000 Um, and then we have not protective um. So the remedies are. 01:07:26.000 --> 01:07:29.000 Um. 01:07:29.000 --> 01:07:32.000 They could be under construction um, or completed. 01:07:32.000 --> 01:07:36.000 Um. But what we know is that they're not on track to meet ours. Um! They're not. 01:07:36.000 --> 01:07:40.000 Preventing current, unacceptable exposures. 01:07:40.000 --> 01:07:43.000 Um, and those exposures, you know, are occurring. 01:07:43.000 --> 01:07:46.000 Um, and so. 01:07:46.000 --> 01:07:52.000 What we need to do for those is similar to what I mentioned for the previous 2 is, you also need to clearly identify. 01:07:52.000 --> 01:07:58.000 What actions are necessary to achieve protectiveness and identify that timeframe. So what is the issue. 01:07:58.000 --> 01:08:00.000 That's causing um. 01:08:00.000 --> 01:08:07.000 You to be not protective? Is it a current, unacceptable exposure? What is it, and what can be done to address it? 01:08:07.000 --> 01:08:11.000 Um, and and cut off that exposure pathway. 01:08:11.000 --> 01:08:19.000 Um to address that protectiveness issue um, and again, that should be clearly identified in the 5 Year Review document. 01:08:19.000 --> 01:08:27.000 Um in your issues and recommendations. 01:08:27.000 --> 01:08:36.000 Alright, Michael! There we go! 01:08:36.000 --> 01:08:43.000 Um. Alright, I can read it. Um! Have you worked on a Federal facility? 5 year Review, where the determination was protectiveness deferred. 01:08:43.000 --> 01:08:50.000 What was the cause for making that determination? Um, and we have a B and C. 01:08:50.000 --> 01:08:57.000 Um as the options. A is sampling needed to confirm exposure pathways. B, new contaminant cleanup levels issued and. 01:08:57.000 --> 01:08:59.000 Um need to be evaluated. 01:08:59.000 --> 01:09:08.000 Uh see emerging contaminants need to be investigated, or the other. 01:09:08.000 --> 01:09:11.000 Mike, just let me know when you. 01:09:11.000 --> 01:09:14.000 Want to end the poll. 01:09:14.000 --> 01:09:18.000 I think it looks like most people have. 01:09:18.000 --> 01:09:23.000 Responded. Okay. 01:09:23.000 --> 01:09:24.000 Okay. 01:09:24.000 --> 01:09:26.000 Um. So we have um. 01:09:26.000 --> 01:09:35.000 A lot of folks with experience with emerging contaminants needing to be investigated and sampling um needed to confirm exposure. 01:09:35.000 --> 01:09:36.000 Um. 01:09:36.000 --> 01:09:52.000 A large group of other um, which makes sense in some ways cause there could be many different other scenarios. Um, and a few folks who have new contaminant cleanup levels that need to be um evaluated. 01:09:52.000 --> 01:09:56.000 Monica, did you want to comment anything on. 01:09:56.000 --> 01:09:57.000 Um. 01:09:57.000 --> 01:09:58.000 On the poll. 01:09:58.000 --> 01:10:00.000 Before we move to the next slide. 01:10:00.000 --> 01:10:01.000 Nope. 01:10:01.000 --> 01:10:03.000 No yes. 01:10:03.000 --> 01:10:08.000 Mostly like you said emerging need to be investigated. 01:10:08.000 --> 01:10:14.000 Is one reason why we have our issue deferred or short term. 01:10:14.000 --> 01:10:15.000 Yeah. 01:10:15.000 --> 01:10:18.000 Yup makes sense alright. 01:10:18.000 --> 01:10:21.000 Oops! Sorry. 01:10:21.000 --> 01:10:22.000 Alright! 01:10:22.000 --> 01:10:24.000 Okay, so I'll turn it over to Monica for the next slide. 01:10:24.000 --> 01:10:25.000 Thank you. 01:10:25.000 --> 01:10:28.000 Yeah, thanks. Alright. So this slide. Um. 01:10:28.000 --> 01:10:34.000 This slide was actually one of the training tools that was developed by. 01:10:34.000 --> 01:10:52.000 Um the Federal Interagency work group. Then I described it earlier about a group of um folks from the different um Federal agencies that will be um got together. And where, as I mentioned, we develop tools, community tools, such as the video uh, Mike has put that in the um. 01:10:52.000 --> 01:11:02.000 In the QA. So you can take a look at the video and other community tools like fact sheets. But we also develop community. Uh, we also develop tools for project managers. 01:11:02.000 --> 01:11:04.000 So. 01:11:04.000 --> 01:11:14.000 This is this, and we. And we share this uh graphic with you, because, you know, question is, you know, how do you determine which protectness. 01:11:14.000 --> 01:11:18.000 Um statement, or what is the protecting this? How do you determine the protecting this for that one? For an ou. 01:11:18.000 --> 01:11:30.000 And we go through. Basically, this is a flow chart that can help you choose the correct protecting statement based on your answers to questions, A, B and C. 01:11:30.000 --> 01:11:34.000 Um! And again, there's there's also this um. 01:11:34.000 --> 01:11:41.000 So I'd also refers to a 2012 clarifying memo memoranda on the use of the State determinations. 01:11:41.000 --> 01:11:48.000 A 5 year reviews, and that basically memo talks about, how do you write a protected. 01:11:48.000 --> 01:11:50.000 I mean protecting a statement. Excuse me. 01:11:50.000 --> 01:12:05.000 How do you, writer will be protective, not protective, in short, term um deferredness and protective so gives you guidance on how that 2,012 memo gives you guidance on how to write a protectedness. Um statement. 01:12:05.000 --> 01:12:08.000 Okay. Again. 01:12:08.000 --> 01:12:09.000 Um. 01:12:09.000 --> 01:12:11.000 Going through this um. 01:12:11.000 --> 01:12:17.000 This actual flow chart. Okay? Trigger met. That means, really, do you have a rod for that? Ou. 01:12:17.000 --> 01:12:25.000 Um for statutory review has a remedial action begun for um actually is the ou suitable for uu. 01:12:25.000 --> 01:12:39.000 Only issue of protective statement. The 1st time the ou reaches ue uu, as I mentioned before, if the and if but if the ou has was not uu at the time of the rod? So again it have you met a trigger. 01:12:39.000 --> 01:12:56.000 If if you haven't met a trigger. No, then you don't write a protecting. If you have met a trigger, then you need to look at. As Jim said, the remedial action objectives. And you need to go through that technical assessment. Go into questions A, B and C. 01:12:56.000 --> 01:13:01.000 Um and the green boxes talk about is the remedy under construction. 01:13:01.000 --> 01:13:08.000 Um. This generally applies to engineering controls and not institutional controls. 01:13:08.000 --> 01:13:17.000 Is there enough information? Um the purple boxes to support a protectorate statement? Or must additional data be gathered. 01:13:17.000 --> 01:13:41.000 Again. This kind of this flow chart goes through some of the questions you should be asking to determine whether you're going to defer the Protect. And as Jen mentioned, if you defer, there's um, you um. There's an addendum that is required after you and and basically protect means you don't have enough information to make a final protective determination for that on you. So you have to collect additional information. 01:13:41.000 --> 01:13:51.000 Once you collect that additional information, then you would submit an addendum which makes the final protectance determination for that ou. 01:13:51.000 --> 01:14:04.000 And in the gray box. Um! It talks about exposures, remedies on track and in protection in place. If the remedies on track and it's an protection is in place. 01:14:04.000 --> 01:14:06.000 You know you um. 01:14:06.000 --> 01:14:13.000 If that's the case, then we'll be protective. Possibly, if not the case. If the remedy is not on track. 01:14:13.000 --> 01:14:24.000 Then may not be protective. If exposures occur, it could be um remedi um remedies working to meet the ro's roos in a long term. Yes, then it's protective. Um. 01:14:24.000 --> 01:14:28.000 Could be not protective. 01:14:28.000 --> 01:14:29.000 Um again! This um. 01:14:29.000 --> 01:14:35.000 A flow chart helps to address some of the uh helps to. 01:14:35.000 --> 01:14:44.000 Help you come up with protecting the determination for each for an ou um. And so we wanted to share that information with you. 01:14:44.000 --> 01:14:46.000 So the next. 01:14:46.000 --> 01:14:54.000 Um is a poll question. And, le, let me go through this. So the poll question is. 01:14:54.000 --> 01:14:58.000 So you have an ou one is preparing for a second 5 year review. 01:14:58.000 --> 01:15:01.000 The rod was issued in 2,005. 01:15:01.000 --> 01:15:08.000 The cleanup level, for the primary contaminant concern became more stringent. In 2,012. 01:15:08.000 --> 01:15:18.000 Um. So again it was. The ou was prepared for a second 5 year review. Um! This coc became more stringent in 2,012. 01:15:18.000 --> 01:15:22.000 Based on the existing data. The Crc cleanup. 01:15:22.000 --> 01:15:32.000 Um, and so crc concentration exceeded the cleanup, the cleanup level. Since the Ah. Rls. Were met, no sampling has taken place. Institution controls are no longer in place. 01:15:32.000 --> 01:15:37.000 It is not known if the groundwater is being used. 01:15:37.000 --> 01:15:41.000 The other Federal agency concludes that the remedy is still protective. 01:15:41.000 --> 01:15:47.000 So what protectives determination should EPA assign to this? Ou. 01:15:47.000 --> 01:15:51.000 So um! The poll is up. 01:15:51.000 --> 01:15:52.000 Please um. 01:15:52.000 --> 01:15:57.000 What? What would be the protect? In this determination. 01:15:57.000 --> 01:15:59.000 It might just let me know when a poll has ended. 01:15:59.000 --> 01:16:01.000 We give it a few more seconds here. 01:16:01.000 --> 01:16:05.000 We are a little bit behind, so we do need to catch up a little. So again. 01:16:05.000 --> 01:16:06.000 Not knowing. 01:16:06.000 --> 01:16:10.000 Okay, yeah, we are. 01:16:10.000 --> 01:16:11.000 Or I'm gonna end the poll. 01:16:11.000 --> 01:16:15.000 Okay. 01:16:15.000 --> 01:16:23.000 Looks like 51%. Half of the folks say protected is deferred, which is C. Some of some folks say. 01:16:23.000 --> 01:16:27.000 Protective in the short term. 01:16:27.000 --> 01:16:37.000 Um, and then some folks say d not protective, and in this case the answer is, really, see, protecting is deferred. 01:16:37.000 --> 01:16:42.000 So in in in the reason why, if the if the remedy cannot meet a new cleanup level. 01:16:42.000 --> 01:16:51.000 And the previous cleanup level is outside the risk range. Then the remedy um cannot 1st of all cannot be considered protective. 01:16:51.000 --> 01:16:56.000 When this is the case, maybe follow up action should be recommended. 01:16:56.000 --> 01:17:04.000 Um, for example, the 5 Year View could recommend that the new clean up level, based on the new standard should be adopted if necessary. 01:17:04.000 --> 01:17:12.000 Um, the remedy may be modified. So in this case, maybe you need additional data to determine whether or not. 01:17:12.000 --> 01:17:18.000 You know. 1st of all, you need additional data, because the cleanup level has. 01:17:18.000 --> 01:17:42.000 The cleanup level for the primary contaminant became more stringent and 2 12. So it has changed. And but you haven't collected any additional data to show whether you are within a risk range. So, therefore, one of the things that you would recommend in this case, and you would defer the protectiveness is to um to collect additional data. So you can make a finalist statement. 01:17:42.000 --> 01:17:50.000 Of whether or not you are still in a protective range, or whether you're in protective in the short term or in maybe. 01:17:50.000 --> 01:17:54.000 It's maybe not protective at all. 01:17:54.000 --> 01:17:57.000 I don't know, Jen, did you wanna comment on this or. 01:17:57.000 --> 01:18:00.000 Alright! Any. 01:18:00.000 --> 01:18:01.000 Nope, good. 01:18:01.000 --> 01:18:02.000 Thank you. Monica. 01:18:02.000 --> 01:18:03.000 Okay. 01:18:03.000 --> 01:18:05.000 Alright! Thanks. 01:18:05.000 --> 01:18:11.000 Why we move on and try to get through these last few slides. 01:18:11.000 --> 01:18:12.000 Um. 01:18:12.000 --> 01:18:30.000 I think we talked about this earlier. What are items of reviews you look for in a protected statement. Again we talked about the idea, and Jen mentioned one protective statement per ou adequate support in the technical evaluation. What progress are you making towards the remedial action? Objectives. 01:18:30.000 --> 01:18:33.000 Making sure you had the correct protecting this determination. 01:18:33.000 --> 01:18:46.000 Um consistency with issues and recommendations table and identifying um, actually, a date when that um, that recommendation will be implemented. 01:18:46.000 --> 01:18:59.000 You know you're using the standard format. I mentioned 12 clarifying memo, using that language to um to come up with protective statement. And again, the last um. 01:18:59.000 --> 01:19:10.000 Check is if a site has reached construction, then you're doing a site wide, protective statement. If it hasn't reached construction of completion, you are not doing a site. Wide protective statement. 01:19:10.000 --> 01:19:13.000 Okay. 01:19:13.000 --> 01:19:18.000 Move it on to anatomy protecting us. I'm gonna turn this back over to Jim. 01:19:18.000 --> 01:19:27.000 Thank you. Monica. Um, so this gives you an example of, uh a protected statement, sort of identifying that there are. 01:19:27.000 --> 01:19:36.000 Um different parts to this statement itself. Um, we've mentioned the 2012, clarifying the use of statements. Guidance. Um, that gives. 01:19:36.000 --> 01:19:51.000 Um example language of how the statement should be structured. Um, so you know, if we look at this one, that's an example on the slide. Um, the 1st thing we're gonna do is identify the ou. This applies to, and the protectedness, determination. 01:19:51.000 --> 01:19:57.000 Um. So the remedy at oui currently protects human health in the environment. 01:19:57.000 --> 01:20:01.000 Um, that's going to be a short term protective cause. We're currently protecting it. 01:20:01.000 --> 01:20:08.000 Um, the next step of the protection statement. We are going to identify what activities justify the protected statement. 01:20:08.000 --> 01:20:16.000 Um, so as you can read. Uh, because land use controls, prevent water use and are in place, and groundwater treatment will continue until concentrations. 01:20:16.000 --> 01:20:23.000 Throughout the plume are below the Mcl. Um. So that's telling us, why are we currently protective. 01:20:23.000 --> 01:20:24.000 Um. 01:20:24.000 --> 01:20:31.000 And then uh, because this is short term protective. We do have um issues or potential issues with long term protectiveness. 01:20:31.000 --> 01:20:33.000 Um, and so. 01:20:33.000 --> 01:20:40.000 Um. This tells you. You know, this is the next section, if not protective, identify what activities are needed for the remedy to be fully protective. 01:20:40.000 --> 01:20:45.000 Um. So we can read the language there to be protective in the long term. 01:20:45.000 --> 01:20:47.000 The IC boundary should be. 01:20:47.000 --> 01:20:48.000 Expanded. 01:20:48.000 --> 01:20:56.000 Um. So again, it's important to follow the standard format to help promote the consistency across 5 year reviews. 01:20:56.000 --> 01:20:58.000 Um. And so that when reading this statement. 01:20:58.000 --> 01:21:09.000 Um, we see consistency with the protectiveness, determination being made. So when we see a short term protective determination. This is the way the statement is worded so that we get the information we need to understand. 01:21:09.000 --> 01:21:12.000 You know what is the protectiveness. 01:21:12.000 --> 01:21:18.000 What's making it currently protective. And what issues do we have that we need to address in the future. 01:21:18.000 --> 01:21:35.000 Um, so this it, you know, is one example. Um, you can, you know, look to the guidance to see the examples for the other protectiveness, determinations. Um, such as protective, deferred, protective, not protective, etc. 01:21:35.000 --> 01:21:36.000 Too fast! Alright! 01:21:36.000 --> 01:21:44.000 Um, so a little more detail on remedies considered not protective. Um. These are some examples of things that we see in 5 year reviews. 01:21:44.000 --> 01:21:56.000 Um. So remedies that are considered not protective may have an immediate threat. That's present. Um, for example, exposure pathways that result in unacceptable risks. Um not being controlled. 01:21:56.000 --> 01:22:00.000 Um, we could see a migration of contaminants that's uncontrolled. 01:22:00.000 --> 01:22:05.000 And presents unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. 01:22:05.000 --> 01:22:22.000 Uh, we have potential or actual exposure is clearly present, or there's evidence of exposure. So Ics are not in place or not in force and exposure is occurring, so we don't have Ics to prevent use of groundwater um, and we know that groundwater is being used. Contaminated groundwater is being used. 01:22:22.000 --> 01:22:24.000 Um. 01:22:24.000 --> 01:22:28.000 Or the remedy could not meet a new cleanup level. 01:22:28.000 --> 01:22:29.000 Um. 01:22:29.000 --> 01:22:41.000 And the previous cleanup levels outside the risk range. Um, again, this would depend on site specifications. Um, but it's just an example of where you have may have a remedy that's considered not protective. 01:22:41.000 --> 01:22:49.000 Um. In all of these cases you're gonna need to identify issues and recommendations, and there'll be follow up actions to address um. 01:22:49.000 --> 01:22:54.000 The issue that's causing it to be not protective here. 01:22:54.000 --> 01:23:00.000 So follow up actions. Um, based on the 5 year view. So for remedy is not protective. 01:23:00.000 --> 01:23:06.000 Short term, protective or deferred. Um recommendations to address should be identified. 01:23:06.000 --> 01:23:12.000 Um, and so those would be included in the 5 Year Review Report. Um, identified in your protectiveness statements. 01:23:12.000 --> 01:23:24.000 Um and uh, on EPA side, we'll be putting those into the Super Fund enterprise management system, or which we've noted before. Um, that we're gonna use to track the follow up on those issues. 01:23:24.000 --> 01:23:29.000 Um. If the 5 year Review determines, the remedy is not performing. 01:23:29.000 --> 01:23:30.000 Um. 01:23:30.000 --> 01:23:35.000 As designed. Or there's other issues uh that result in changes to the selected remedy. 01:23:35.000 --> 01:23:40.000 Uh, there could be changes that um may need. 01:23:40.000 --> 01:23:44.000 To be identified through an Esd or amendment. 01:23:44.000 --> 01:23:46.000 Um. 01:23:46.000 --> 01:23:50.000 And um. 01:23:50.000 --> 01:24:00.000 Sorry. And so uh, you know, those kinds of things are also um identified in the 5 Year Review. 01:24:00.000 --> 01:24:01.000 Um. 01:24:01.000 --> 01:24:05.000 So I just want to note um. 01:24:05.000 --> 01:24:11.000 That for Federal facilities um EPA considers 5 year review reports to be standalone primary documents. 01:24:11.000 --> 01:24:17.000 Or part of another related primary docket document that should have an enforceable schedule within the ffa. 01:24:17.000 --> 01:24:19.000 Um. 01:24:19.000 --> 01:24:27.000 And Monica can answer more questions about that, but just wanted to note that um. 01:24:27.000 --> 01:24:32.000 4 or 5 year reviews. 01:24:32.000 --> 01:24:33.000 Hey! 01:24:33.000 --> 01:24:42.000 So next, um, following up on recommendations between 5 year reviews. Um, as I noted, EPA is going to be entering. 01:24:42.000 --> 01:24:51.000 The recommendations into Sam's um. EPA also updates periodically, and when milestones are met. 01:24:51.000 --> 01:24:57.000 Um. So there we do keep track of the status of each recommendation in that system. 01:24:57.000 --> 01:25:04.000 Um. These are, you know, generally the options in the system for the status. So um under discussion. We're we're kind of. 01:25:04.000 --> 01:25:07.000 Planning for, or. 01:25:07.000 --> 01:25:12.000 Um, you know, discussing what can be done to address the recommendations. So actual work not done yet. 01:25:12.000 --> 01:25:19.000 Um ongoing so where we started addressing the recommendation, but have not finished it yet. 01:25:19.000 --> 01:25:26.000 Um consider, not implemented. Maybe we identified something we thought was needed, and additional information since then has. 01:25:26.000 --> 01:25:29.000 Um shown us that it is not needed. Um! 01:25:29.000 --> 01:25:35.000 That could be a status uh completed where we have completed that work. 01:25:35.000 --> 01:25:43.000 Um and address in the next 5 year. Review. Um, this is an option only for sort of the last update of those issues and recommendations usually done during. 01:25:43.000 --> 01:25:57.000 Uh the preparation for the next 5 year Review. So as you're working on your current 5 year review, you may be marking issues from your previous 5 year. Review, addressed in the next 5 year. Review. Um, for all of these statuses. Um, especially those. 01:25:57.000 --> 01:26:01.000 Um such as consider it not implemented and completed. 01:26:01.000 --> 01:26:05.000 Um. There should generally be some documentation that supports the update. 01:26:05.000 --> 01:26:08.000 Um. So if we needed to, you know. 01:26:08.000 --> 01:26:19.000 Um complete an evaluation uh to close out a recommendation. We have that evaluation available that we can point to to show why the issue and recommendation is completed. 01:26:19.000 --> 01:26:23.000 Um. This information will also be reported in the progress. 01:26:23.000 --> 01:26:29.000 Since the last 5 year review section of a current 5 year review report. So that's where we're gonna um. 01:26:29.000 --> 01:26:38.000 Give the the status of the recommendations. Um from the prior 5 year review. 01:26:38.000 --> 01:26:44.000 Okay, and on that I will turn it over to Monica. 01:26:44.000 --> 01:26:49.000 Alright. Thanks, Jen. We're gonna talk about independent findings and. 01:26:49.000 --> 01:26:50.000 Let me just. 01:26:50.000 --> 01:26:52.000 Uh let me just say um. 01:26:52.000 --> 01:26:54.000 Just wanna make sure folks understand. So. 01:26:54.000 --> 01:26:55.000 You know. 01:26:55.000 --> 01:27:01.000 Um. When I say when we say independent findings or. 01:27:01.000 --> 01:27:05.000 Of protecting this. You know. EPA um has the authority. 01:27:05.000 --> 01:27:11.000 To issue and to issue a different protective statement than the other fellow agency. 01:27:11.000 --> 01:27:15.000 Because EPA has. 01:27:15.000 --> 01:27:18.000 Uh statutory um. 01:27:18.000 --> 01:27:26.000 Uh actually is, is statutorily able to independently select a remedy for a particular ou. 01:27:26.000 --> 01:27:33.000 Or particular site. So that's really under EPA's roles and responsibilities. Again. 01:27:33.000 --> 01:27:43.000 Particular, again, is specifically for npl, federal npl facility sites um, so. 01:27:43.000 --> 01:27:46.000 Because the. 01:27:46.000 --> 01:28:00.000 5 Year review is related to the protectiveness of of remedy. EPA can, independently, as I mentioned before, select a different protectiveness statement than the other Federal agency. 01:28:00.000 --> 01:28:04.000 Um, and we've already talked a little bit about what these. 01:28:04.000 --> 01:28:15.000 Concurrence letters, what information should be in these letters? And so, when EPA um either agrees with the protected statement. 01:28:15.000 --> 01:28:33.000 Um by the Federal agency, or disagrees with the Protectance um statement by the Federal agency. EPA will submit a letter to the Federal agency, indicating whether degrees or disagrees, or and if it disagrees, is gonna issue an independent finding of protect. 01:28:33.000 --> 01:28:41.000 And also EPA will in that letter identify um, which issues and recommendations. 01:28:41.000 --> 01:28:50.000 Um are going to be tracked in Sims, and what action should be taken in order to um implement that recommendation. 01:28:50.000 --> 01:28:51.000 Um. 01:28:51.000 --> 01:28:56.000 The, and we would also request a response from the Federal agency. 01:28:56.000 --> 01:29:01.000 Um. We will be, as I mentioned before, when EPA. 01:29:01.000 --> 01:29:08.000 When we do our report to Congress, which is a joint report to Congress with our super fund, private sites. 01:29:08.000 --> 01:29:36.000 We identify in that report to Congress any sites where we had to make an independent finding of protecting us. So you will see in that report to Congress a list of the Federal facility sites where the 5 Year Review is due for that fiscal year. The protecting this statement for that site, and also a table in the back. That list out those sites where we made an independent. 01:29:36.000 --> 01:29:45.000 Okay. So these next 2 slides gives you some information of why EPA has made an independent finding of protecting this. 01:29:45.000 --> 01:29:50.000 Sometimes. Um! We have not received a report by the statutory due date. 01:29:50.000 --> 01:29:55.000 The report may be late or not at all, as I said, for EPA to review. 01:29:55.000 --> 01:30:20.000 It's not finalized by the statutory due date. Again, EPA just does not agree with the Protectoration for a for an ou within the site. Um, and some of those reasons why we may not agree are, you know, the emerging contaminants not addressed in a report? Maybe some new exposure pathways that had not been addressed, or in some cases land use. 01:30:20.000 --> 01:30:23.000 These controls, not evaluated. 01:30:23.000 --> 01:30:35.000 This next chart to gives you a little bit indication of the number of independent findings that we're doing as you can. And this is up to 2020 we do have. We will update this graphic to reflect. 01:30:35.000 --> 01:30:38.000 2122, and 23. 01:30:38.000 --> 01:30:58.000 Um Federal facility. 5 year reviews that have been completed, and the ones that we issued independent assessment, and the ones that where the reports relate, and as you can, and see from this graph, the number of independent findings that we are making at these sites are increasing. So we are communicating to. 01:30:58.000 --> 01:31:02.000 To our other federal agencies about this data, and some of the things. 01:31:02.000 --> 01:31:10.000 That can be done, so that EPA does not need to make an issue, I mean does not need to make an independent fine and protect this. 01:31:10.000 --> 01:31:13.000 Um. And one of the things that we are. 01:31:13.000 --> 01:31:18.000 Encouraging our rpms is to work with the other Federal agencies. 01:31:18.000 --> 01:31:25.000 To ensure that they know what the due date is to ensure. They know what a user being evaluated, what information is needed. 01:31:25.000 --> 01:31:36.000 Um for to do the technical assessment for those particular use. So you can come up with this statement again. Um, these are some of the um. 01:31:36.000 --> 01:31:45.000 These are some of the um conversations we're having with the other agencies and also with our project managers. 01:31:45.000 --> 01:31:49.000 Um. Now we have a group. Poll. 01:31:49.000 --> 01:31:51.000 Um. 01:31:51.000 --> 01:32:04.000 So the and this is a, this is one that you can just respond in a. QA. Have you worked on a Federal facility. 5 year Review, where EPA. Any other Federal agency disagree on a protecting statement. 01:32:04.000 --> 01:32:05.000 How was it resolved? 01:32:05.000 --> 01:32:12.000 So, Mike, I think we're asking people to put their if you have a situation to put that. 01:32:12.000 --> 01:32:16.000 Bad example in the um in the QA. 01:32:16.000 --> 01:32:19.000 Correct. 01:32:19.000 --> 01:32:21.000 Correct. 01:32:21.000 --> 01:32:24.000 I don't think we really have a lot of time to go and. 01:32:24.000 --> 01:32:25.000 Okay. 01:32:25.000 --> 01:32:26.000 Chit chat about any of these results, but. 01:32:26.000 --> 01:32:27.000 Okay. 01:32:27.000 --> 01:32:28.000 We can. We can. 01:32:28.000 --> 01:32:29.000 Regroup in. 01:32:29.000 --> 01:32:30.000 So we have. Let's let's move on to. And if. 01:32:30.000 --> 01:32:34.000 We? Yeah? Cause we wanted to spend some time just on some questions, and. 01:32:34.000 --> 01:32:42.000 We would. Um, we wanna be able to answer some of those questions. Let's go about. Let's go to apply your understanding. 01:32:42.000 --> 01:32:47.000 Yeah, we have some scenarios here, and we, this is a poll, too, and you'll be able to respond. 01:32:47.000 --> 01:32:51.000 Um through the poll. But the 1st scenario is. 01:32:51.000 --> 01:32:52.000 Um. 01:32:52.000 --> 01:32:54.000 As an EPA. Rpm. 01:32:54.000 --> 01:32:58.000 You received and reviewed the draft. 5 year Review report. 01:32:58.000 --> 01:33:07.000 After reviewing a document and providing a document for Headquarters review, you are able to concur with the protective statement in the draft report. 01:33:07.000 --> 01:33:11.000 However, the report will not be final by the statutory due date. 01:33:11.000 --> 01:33:13.000 What are a follow up actions for the EPA rpm. 01:33:13.000 --> 01:33:16.000 A. You can write a concurrence, lettering. 01:33:16.000 --> 01:33:24.000 With the federal agencies protecting this determination. B identify issues, recommendations and actions. 01:33:24.000 --> 01:33:35.000 That will be taken. Submit letter and draft report to Sims or D. Nothing. EPA cannot proceed until the report is finalized. 01:33:35.000 --> 01:33:39.000 So. 01:33:39.000 --> 01:33:49.000 Well, tell me when you're ending a poll, Mike. Then I'll be ready. 01:33:49.000 --> 01:33:54.000 All right. The poll has ended. Oh, what else has it? Okay. 01:33:54.000 --> 01:33:56.000 Trying to get at least about 30% here. 01:33:56.000 --> 01:33:57.000 Okay. 01:33:57.000 --> 01:34:00.000 Give you a good zoom. 01:34:00.000 --> 01:34:05.000 Okay. Blended. 01:34:05.000 --> 01:34:06.000 So, yeah, so. 01:34:06.000 --> 01:34:23.000 Um. The answer is, yes, one a. You would write a concurrent letter agreeing with the Federal agency's protective statement. Um, you would um say that in a letter, and you would be very specific, that I agree with the protective statement, flow. Just list out their own use. 01:34:23.000 --> 01:34:35.000 Um any issues or recommendations that you would see that you see that should be identified. That may not be in the report. You should you should identify those. 01:34:35.000 --> 01:34:39.000 You should submit your letter and draft report to SIM. 01:34:39.000 --> 01:34:42.000 Um, and and D is real, and d is not an option for a um. 01:34:42.000 --> 01:34:44.000 I put EPAR, p. 01:34:44.000 --> 01:34:53.000 Okay? Um, it's not an option. We have made a commitment to meet the statutory deadline for all of these. 01:34:53.000 --> 01:34:58.000 Federal facilities. 5 year review. So D is not an option. But ABC is definitely things that you. 01:34:58.000 --> 01:34:59.000 Do and. 01:34:59.000 --> 01:35:02.000 Um again um! But. 01:35:02.000 --> 01:35:11.000 The I would say also, um, you should be sending your letter to the other Federal agency. So they know what um. 01:35:11.000 --> 01:35:24.000 Um what you're writing, what you're saying and what will be actually reported to Congress. So in that letter you can also include a statement indicating what we, what EPA, will be reporting to Congress for that site. 01:35:24.000 --> 01:35:28.000 In our annual report to Congress. 01:35:28.000 --> 01:35:37.000 Alright. Why don't we go to the next question, Mike. 01:35:37.000 --> 01:35:41.000 Um. Let's see. Scenario 2 scenario, 2. 01:35:41.000 --> 01:35:45.000 Um. So as an Epr pm. You receive. 01:35:45.000 --> 01:35:56.000 And review draft 5 year review port. After reviewing the document and providing a document for Hq. For review, you're able to conclude that EPA. Does not agree with the protected statement and draft report. 01:35:56.000 --> 01:36:02.000 Also, the report will not be final by the statutory due date. What are the follow? Actions for the EPA rpm. 01:36:02.000 --> 01:36:06.000 A make an independent fine, and protect us by statutory due date. 01:36:06.000 --> 01:36:08.000 Please share the draft letter. 01:36:08.000 --> 01:36:21.000 Um with the Federal agency for appropriate review, submit letter and draft. Report to Sims, and send a draft letter to Fitra for review before signature. 01:36:21.000 --> 01:36:29.000 Okay. 01:36:29.000 --> 01:36:38.000 Alright! 01:36:38.000 --> 01:36:41.000 Alright, so yes, um! We could end the poll now and again. 01:36:41.000 --> 01:36:47.000 Um, you are going to make it independent, fine, and protecting this by the statutory due date. 01:36:47.000 --> 01:36:50.000 And and and this is a letter to the Federal agency. 01:36:50.000 --> 01:36:55.000 You don't need to share the draft letter with the Federal agency. 01:36:55.000 --> 01:37:10.000 Um you? No, you don't need to do that. You submit the letter and draft report to Sims, and then you send the draft letter. Of course you send it to us for us to review but you once the letter is finalized, then you would submit the uh letter to the Federal agency. 01:37:10.000 --> 01:37:19.000 Okay? And you would again indicate in that letter that we're doing with EPA is responsible to do an annual report to Congress. 01:37:19.000 --> 01:37:24.000 In that annual report to Congress, we will be reporting whatever that protecting is. 01:37:24.000 --> 01:37:26.000 Um determination for that site. 01:37:26.000 --> 01:37:28.000 Okay. 01:37:28.000 --> 01:37:29.000 Alright! 01:37:29.000 --> 01:37:39.000 Scenario 3. We can move on. 01:37:39.000 --> 01:37:43.000 So here's a situation that you, as an EPA. Rpm, you receive a draft report. 01:37:43.000 --> 01:37:48.000 From the Federal agency, but don't have sufficient time to conduct the review. 01:37:48.000 --> 01:37:56.000 Um. The report will not be final by the statutory due date. With it a. Follow up actions for your EPA. Rpm. 01:37:56.000 --> 01:37:59.000 Again make an independent. 01:37:59.000 --> 01:38:04.000 Make it independent, finding, defining, deferring, a protecting, a statement. 01:38:04.000 --> 01:38:15.000 I'm sorry, deferring to protect by the statutory due date. Share the draft letter with the Federal agency, submit letter and draft report to Sims, and send a draft letter to the 5th row. Review. 01:38:15.000 --> 01:38:33.000 So most yes, most people got it. Yes, for this situation you will be as an EPA. Rpm, you will be making an independent finding of deferring the protectedness again deferring the protectors only means that you don't have enough information to make a final protect in this statement. 01:38:33.000 --> 01:38:40.000 You would be deferring a protecting a statement, and you will be writing a letter to the Federal agency, saying. 01:38:40.000 --> 01:38:43.000 We're defer our independent finance to further protect in this. 01:38:43.000 --> 01:38:52.000 We, and we expect the Federal agency to finalize the report to Congress. Once we get the final report, then. 01:38:52.000 --> 01:39:04.000 We will be doing because we're deferring it. We will be doing an addendum which will finalize the protectedness um protectance determination for that particular ou, and for that site. 01:39:04.000 --> 01:39:11.000 And again, yeah, you numbers. Ah, letter C was submitting a letter and draft report to Sims. 01:39:11.000 --> 01:39:16.000 By the way, that letter should be in in all cases. That letter should also not only be um. 01:39:16.000 --> 01:39:26.000 Uh, and the draft not only sit to the draft report sent to Sims, but it also should be part of the administrative record for that site. 01:39:26.000 --> 01:39:37.000 And before the letter is finalized the draft letter comes to 5th row for review, and we review um. 2 days. 01:39:37.000 --> 01:39:38.000 Alrighty! 01:39:38.000 --> 01:39:43.000 Thank you. Let's go to the next scenario. The last one. 01:39:43.000 --> 01:39:56.000 Which is Scenario 4. So in case the 5 Year Review Report has been finalized by the statutory due date. In later discussions the Federal Agency express. It is not willing. 01:39:56.000 --> 01:40:02.000 To implement the recommendations in a 5 year review. What are the potential follow-up actions for the Rpm. 01:40:02.000 --> 01:40:15.000 Hey? There's nothing EPA can do. Please send a letter to the Federal agency outlining the issue and recommendations, seek plans of action and schedule from Federal agency. 01:40:15.000 --> 01:40:23.000 Or see if progress is not made in a reasonable time. Consider sending a letter requiring the actions as additional work. 01:40:23.000 --> 01:40:45.000 Under the Federal facilities. Agreement subject to dispute, resolution, or D. EPA. Will do the actions themselves. 01:40:45.000 --> 01:40:55.000 Alright, I think we can end the poll. And exactly most people have B and C. We would send a letter to the Federal agency. 01:40:55.000 --> 01:40:57.000 Outlining the issues and recommend. 01:40:57.000 --> 01:41:08.000 And we would seek a point we would identify in that letter a plan of action and schedules from the Federal agency. And if we don't think things are going to be done in a reasonable time. 01:41:08.000 --> 01:41:09.000 We could at the point. 01:41:09.000 --> 01:41:27.000 Um, send a letter requiring the actions as additional work under the Federal facilities agreement, and it could be this action could be subject to either informal or formal dispute. Resolution based on the Federal facility agreement for that site. 01:41:27.000 --> 01:41:30.000 Alright! 01:41:30.000 --> 01:41:32.000 Move him right along. 01:41:32.000 --> 01:41:48.000 Addressing emerging contaminants. So remember, I mentioned that we do have an Rpm. Bulletin out there. Um! That talks about how we address with within the Federal facility world, and for Npl facility sites. How we address emerging contaminants. 01:41:48.000 --> 01:41:50.000 Within a 5 year review process. 01:41:50.000 --> 01:41:55.000 And um some. I saw some folks that that um. 01:41:55.000 --> 01:42:11.000 That um Rpm. Bulletin was shared with us, not only with our super fund private site, but was also shared with other Federal agencies. So it is available. Um, we can make sure folks get a copy of it so you can see. 01:42:11.000 --> 01:42:12.000 What it says. 01:42:12.000 --> 01:42:14.000 Um. 01:42:14.000 --> 01:42:25.000 And we, as I mentioned to you, um, one of the things that we have done within um 5th row is that we have a group of folks who are reviewing. 01:42:25.000 --> 01:42:34.000 All of the uh Npo. Facility draft reports. We we have a commitment to get um comments to the Rpm. Within 30 days. 01:42:34.000 --> 01:42:43.000 We do have a few people who are looking specifically at emerging contaminants, and how emerging contaminants are dressed in a 5 year review. 01:42:43.000 --> 01:42:50.000 And one of the days from the 2,001 comprehensive 5 year review, guidance. 01:42:50.000 --> 01:42:52.000 In his own. Page 4, 9. 01:42:52.000 --> 01:42:58.000 It says that new site conditions such as discovery and new contam. 01:42:58.000 --> 01:43:03.000 Can also impact the remedo action objectives and remedy protecting us. 01:43:03.000 --> 01:43:08.000 Under question. B. Where it says, are there new contaminants? A new contaminant sources. 01:43:08.000 --> 01:43:10.000 That have been identified. 01:43:10.000 --> 01:43:18.000 Um, you should evaluate whether the Aos in the rod is sufficiently comprehensive to cover any new or change conditions at a site. 01:43:18.000 --> 01:43:23.000 So if a new condition at a site is not covered by the. 01:43:23.000 --> 01:43:29.000 You should recommend further investigations in a 5 year review report to determine whether additional response actions are needed. 01:43:29.000 --> 01:43:38.000 So when you're addressing the emergent contaminants, we are saying that you should be addressing it. Any question. B. 01:43:38.000 --> 01:43:40.000 Um where the emerging contam is captured. 01:43:40.000 --> 01:43:52.000 Under question. B, um, that's a question that we're asking ourselves. Is this guidance suggested? It's most appropriate question to be asking to be addressing contaminants. 01:43:52.000 --> 01:44:02.000 Um. Are there any follow up on sample? Is is it? I'm sorry if there is any follow on sample included, then it needs to be captured within the 5 Year Review. 01:44:02.000 --> 01:44:07.000 Um doesn't emergent contaminate effectiveness. 01:44:07.000 --> 01:44:14.000 Um, it could affect protecting us. And so that's why it's important that um. 01:44:14.000 --> 01:44:24.000 If it if it affects protecting us. In some cases EPA may make it independent of either, you know. Maybe short term protections. 01:44:24.000 --> 01:44:35.000 And maybe protecting is deferred because you may not have additional information, but does emerging contaminance, effectiveness? Yes, it does. 01:44:35.000 --> 01:44:38.000 And again we can share the Rpm. 01:44:38.000 --> 01:44:41.000 Um bulletin. With this group. 01:44:41.000 --> 01:44:50.000 And last um slide. I wanted to introduce you all to um, particularly the EPA rpms. 01:44:50.000 --> 01:45:05.000 Here are your regional coordinators. So if you have a question related to any of your sites, you um, you can contact your regional coordinator. As I mentioned earlier, I am not only the region 10. 01:45:05.000 --> 01:45:12.000 Coordinator. But I'm also the 5 Year Review Coordinator for Federal facility sites. 01:45:12.000 --> 01:45:16.000 And Jen and I work together, and um. 01:45:16.000 --> 01:45:23.000 We um share information, and we ask each other's questions so, and I'm saying that to say um. 01:45:23.000 --> 01:45:25.000 That in in most cases. 01:45:25.000 --> 01:45:34.000 You know, if we're making decisions, we are sharing information, and our decisions are consistent with how the private Super fund site is is um. 01:45:34.000 --> 01:45:41.000 Is addressing some issues related to 5 year reviews. 01:45:41.000 --> 01:45:46.000 Here's our contact information. In case you have additional questions. 01:45:46.000 --> 01:45:47.000 Um. 01:45:47.000 --> 01:45:55.000 Please don't hesitate to contact me or Jen, and we will work to try to answer your question, and it's uh. 01:45:55.000 --> 01:45:58.000 As quickly as we can. 01:45:58.000 --> 01:46:01.000 And then the last um slide. I think we're at. 01:46:01.000 --> 01:46:06.000 2 50, so we have some time for questions. So I am going to ask Mike. 01:46:06.000 --> 01:46:12.000 To go through the QA. And see if there's any questions we can answer right. 01:46:12.000 --> 01:46:23.000 And again. Um! As I mentioned before, Jen and I are committed to um answering any any questions that we're not able to answer today we will follow up and try to um. 01:46:23.000 --> 01:46:27.000 Provide answers to those questions. 01:46:27.000 --> 01:46:29.000 Mike. 01:46:29.000 --> 01:46:30.000 Anything. 01:46:30.000 --> 01:46:41.000 Yes, thank you. There's there's a lot of questions here. Um, some of them we I don't think we'll be able to get to um. 01:46:41.000 --> 01:46:43.000 Okay. Um. 01:46:43.000 --> 01:46:48.000 Back to your uh determination slide. 01:46:48.000 --> 01:46:54.000 What protectiveness determination should be made for sites with remedies in place, not designed to address emerging contaminants. 01:46:54.000 --> 01:46:58.000 What if a new circle of processes started. 01:46:58.000 --> 01:47:04.000 And uh, in order to address the emerging contaminant, should emerging contaminants be covered. 01:47:04.000 --> 01:47:05.000 In the 5 Year Review. 01:47:05.000 --> 01:47:11.000 At all if it has reached remedy stage, yet. 01:47:11.000 --> 01:47:13.000 Jen, you. 01:47:13.000 --> 01:47:16.000 So that's a lot in that question. 01:47:16.000 --> 01:47:17.000 Um. 01:47:17.000 --> 01:47:20.000 Maybe we need to take that piecemeal. 01:47:20.000 --> 01:47:21.000 Yeah. 01:47:21.000 --> 01:47:26.000 Feel like it's gonna be a site specific determination. What the practice is. Um, probably depends on the the type of remedy and. 01:47:26.000 --> 01:47:31.000 Um, what's currently being covered in the 5 Year Review. 01:47:31.000 --> 01:47:38.000 Um to determine whether um it should be included or not. 01:47:38.000 --> 01:47:39.000 Right. 01:47:39.000 --> 01:47:40.000 Yeah. 01:47:40.000 --> 01:47:53.000 I think, yeah, I I agree with you and some of these questions, if they're site specific, we probably need a lot more detail. Um, and it may be difficult for us to respond or answer the question. 01:47:53.000 --> 01:47:54.000 Um. 01:47:54.000 --> 01:47:58.000 So I would suggest that if you, if you. 01:47:58.000 --> 01:48:01.000 A site specific question. 01:48:01.000 --> 01:48:02.000 To um. 01:48:02.000 --> 01:48:06.000 Contact us or contact your regional. 01:48:06.000 --> 01:48:08.000 Um, your your regional project manager. 01:48:08.000 --> 01:48:19.000 To help respond to those questions. 01:48:19.000 --> 01:48:21.000 And looks like. There's some questions here regarding some of the. 01:48:21.000 --> 01:48:23.000 Some of the um. 01:48:23.000 --> 01:48:27.000 Uh resources discussed if they're not already available on. 01:48:27.000 --> 01:48:30.000 The um, the webinar homepage. 01:48:30.000 --> 01:48:33.000 Um. 01:48:33.000 --> 01:48:34.000 We'll we'll try to make sure. 01:48:34.000 --> 01:48:39.000 They get, added. 01:48:39.000 --> 01:48:51.000 So. 01:48:51.000 --> 01:48:52.000 Mhm. 01:48:52.000 --> 01:48:57.000 Yeah. And I think a lot of the guidance documents we discussed um are not directly linked on the webinar homepage, but are available on the 5 Year Review website or the Federal facilities. 5 year Review website. Um, there are a wealth of guidance documents that we didn't even mention. 01:48:57.000 --> 01:49:00.000 Um, and those are on those websites. There. 01:49:00.000 --> 01:49:06.000 So so, Mike, I'm looking at a question regarding nonplo facility. 01:49:06.000 --> 01:49:18.000 Um again, EPA's role. And and I and I'm hopeful. Hopefully, I've emphasized it. EPA has a role for Npl facility. 5 year reviews. 01:49:18.000 --> 01:49:19.000 Um. 01:49:19.000 --> 01:49:22.000 Our role. We we do not. 01:49:22.000 --> 01:49:35.000 And do we track recommendations made during non? Mpl. No, we do not. We are involved in, we are. We generally are not involved in non mpl facility. 5 year reviews. 01:49:35.000 --> 01:49:43.000 And I say generally, it's it's very rare. The only reason why we would be involved if the community has asked us to be involved. 01:49:43.000 --> 01:49:53.000 And that's also explained in a 2,001 guidance. 01:49:53.000 --> 01:50:03.000 So regarding the report to Congress regarding five-year reviews. Again, it's a joint report to Congress with private super fund sites in Federal facility sites. 01:50:03.000 --> 01:50:12.000 And what we report are is basically what we, what we're reporting is the name of the facility. 01:50:12.000 --> 01:50:18.000 Um. You know the region and where the facility is located and the protecting this determination for that site. 01:50:18.000 --> 01:50:22.000 And again for Federal facility. 01:50:22.000 --> 01:50:27.000 Mpl. Sites. If EPA's made an independent finding of protecting this. 01:50:27.000 --> 01:50:39.000 We will report that independent finding of protecting us for that site, and the reason why we made that determination. 01:50:39.000 --> 01:50:40.000 Yes. 01:50:40.000 --> 01:50:43.000 And those reports to Congress are posted on the Um super fun. 5 year review web page. Um. So if you go to that link. You can find them. 01:50:43.000 --> 01:50:50.000 Uh to see what's in them. 01:50:50.000 --> 01:50:58.000 Okay. 01:50:58.000 --> 01:51:09.000 Uh, there's a question about what happens if EPA number issues to a 5 year review for the Federal facility, or if there's no response from EPA. 01:51:09.000 --> 01:51:15.000 What happens if EPA never concurs on a 5 year review. 01:51:15.000 --> 01:51:17.000 I'm not sure I understand the question. 01:51:17.000 --> 01:51:23.000 If it ever issues a concurrence to the 5 year for a Federal facility. Um. 01:51:23.000 --> 01:51:31.000 The follow up is, what if there's no response from EPA. 01:51:31.000 --> 01:51:33.000 So I'm I'm not. 01:51:33.000 --> 01:51:36.000 I guess I'm not really understanding the question. EPA. 01:51:36.000 --> 01:51:37.000 Okay. 01:51:37.000 --> 01:51:40.000 Okay, I mean, we have a step. We have a statute. 01:51:40.000 --> 01:51:57.000 Toy obligation to review the remedies of these sites, I mean EPA. And this is related to the fact that EPA can make an independent selection of a remedy at an at an Federal facility site. 01:51:57.000 --> 01:52:10.000 So, therefore, we have a statutory obligation to review whether those remedies remain protective of human health in the environment. 01:52:10.000 --> 01:52:17.000 So I see that what happens Vpa. Never issues to 5 year review for the Federal facility. 01:52:17.000 --> 01:52:23.000 We will continue to. One of the things we will do is we will continue to report to Congress on that. 01:52:23.000 --> 01:52:27.000 Um if we are, we do have some concerns. 01:52:27.000 --> 01:52:41.000 About the protectedness of a remedy. Then we would evaluate what actions we can take, whether we can take some enforcement action. Whether that's available again. It depends on the Federal facilities agreement. 01:52:41.000 --> 01:52:46.000 Um. So again, there's a lot of lot of questions. 01:52:46.000 --> 01:52:49.000 That are associated with that question. But. 01:52:49.000 --> 01:52:50.000 Um EPA. 01:52:50.000 --> 01:52:52.000 Does have a responsibility. 01:52:52.000 --> 01:52:57.000 Um. And if we find that we're constantly. 01:52:57.000 --> 01:53:03.000 Not agreeing protective statement with a particular site. I think that would be something that we would need to. 01:53:03.000 --> 01:53:08.000 As staff people, we would elevate it to our senior folks, and we also would. 01:53:08.000 --> 01:53:11.000 Take a look at whether there are any. 01:53:11.000 --> 01:53:20.000 Possible enforcement actions that can be taken. 01:53:20.000 --> 01:53:43.000 Um question do we prefer? Does Fifo prefer to review the 1st draft 5 year review concurrently with the region? Or should a region review it. First, st resolve comments with the ofa, then send the second draft. Yet we were. We would prefer to resolve, come that the Rpm. Would work with the other Federal agency to review the 1st draft and submit comments, and then. 01:53:43.000 --> 01:53:48.000 Submit the second draft of 5th row, but it's all in reference is all about timing. 01:53:48.000 --> 01:54:15.000 Um if we have a a report that's due, and if you know, there's not enough time for us to review um, you know, for us to for you to review the 1st draft and get comments back and review second draft. If there's not enough time, we certainly would be willing to review 1st draft of a 5 year. View concurrently with the region. 01:54:15.000 --> 01:54:19.000 Uh? Who drafts the addendum. 01:54:19.000 --> 01:54:22.000 For the protectiveness. 01:54:22.000 --> 01:54:23.000 For no, you. 01:54:23.000 --> 01:54:27.000 So for the addendum. That's for when you defer the protectance. 01:54:27.000 --> 01:54:34.000 Of an ou. The addendum is drafted by the other Federal agency. 01:54:34.000 --> 01:54:49.000 And EPA would review that document. 01:54:49.000 --> 01:54:50.000 Okay. Um. 01:54:50.000 --> 01:54:51.000 We're ah! 01:54:51.000 --> 01:54:53.000 But at the end of the time for today's session. 01:54:53.000 --> 01:54:55.000 Um. 01:54:55.000 --> 01:54:56.000 So I will. 01:54:56.000 --> 01:54:59.000 Wrap things up for us. 01:54:59.000 --> 01:55:00.000 Real quick here. 01:55:00.000 --> 01:55:04.000 And we want to say thank you to everybody who. 01:55:04.000 --> 01:55:14.000 Um, who participated in today's session. As you, you have our contact information. Um, we try to get. You know, we definitely will get back in touch with you. Um! 01:55:14.000 --> 01:55:29.000 And I think we are committed to responding to your questions, and again thank you for your time. 01:55:29.000 --> 01:55:33.000 So like, I remind everybody that today's seminar homepage. 01:55:33.000 --> 01:55:36.000 As uh. 01:55:36.000 --> 01:55:38.000 The information related, links. 01:55:38.000 --> 01:55:45.000 And importantly, the feedback form which you need to fill out. If you want to get credit for today's session. 01:55:45.000 --> 01:55:46.000 Uh, and a reminder that. 01:55:46.000 --> 01:55:48.000 We are. 01:55:48.000 --> 01:55:53.000 Uh we, we, this is a multi session uh program. 01:55:53.000 --> 01:55:58.000 Uh, you can learn more about that at the next site that is uh listed here. 01:55:58.000 --> 01:56:00.000 Uh some more information about. 01:56:00.000 --> 01:56:02.000 Clue in, and some of our Newsletters. 01:56:02.000 --> 01:56:06.000 Um. 01:56:06.000 --> 01:56:09.000 Mention again the certificates. 01:56:09.000 --> 01:56:11.000 And thank everybody for participating. 01:56:11.000 --> 01:56:19.000 Once again. The seminar homepage has ah has a bunch of information, and we will also uh, the instructors will work on. 01:56:19.000 --> 01:56:25.000 Taking a look at the uh remaining questions that we weren't able to get to, and um. 01:56:25.000 --> 01:56:33.000 Hopefully providing some answers. And if there's anything that we uh did not uh link, either directly or indirectly. 01:56:33.000 --> 01:56:37.000 Um once again there's a there's a link to the Federal facilities. Page. 01:56:37.000 --> 01:56:40.000 Um on the seminar homepage. But if there's anything in there that. 01:56:40.000 --> 01:56:44.000 We left it to include Google at that. Again. 01:56:44.000 --> 01:56:46.000 So thank you. Thanks. Thank you. 01:56:46.000 --> 01:56:55.000 For today's presenters and have a good day.