WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:12.000 With that, I see our very first speaker, Emmy Laiha, who's on the screen. So Emi, at this time, I think I'd like to turn the floor to you 00:00:12.000 --> 00:00:21.000 And actually, have you provide a bit of an overview to the ongoing series before we get started. 00:00:21.000 --> 00:00:28.000 There we go. Sorry. Of course I can't find the unmute button, as is the course but 00:00:28.000 --> 00:00:41.000 Never mind that. Hi, everyone. My name is Emerald Laihe. I am in the Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office here at EPA headquarters, and we're very excited to be bringing you another webinar under the Federal Facilities Academy. 00:00:41.000 --> 00:00:45.000 We put this program together originally to help 00:00:45.000 --> 00:00:57.000 EPA Remedo project managers and project managers from other federal agencies, state government, tribal groups, all who work on federal facility super fund cleanups, because understanding Superfund is one thing and then 00:00:57.000 --> 00:01:21.000 On top of that, the nuances of federal facility cleanups, there's a lot to learn there. So we're very excited to be bringing you this webinar. Jean will again provide that information on how to get your certificates to receive credit for each webinar that you take. If you are interested in completing the entire program, which is these 11 webinars, as well as an in-person three-day classroom training, I should say. 00:01:21.000 --> 00:01:26.000 The course is about once a year at least or more offered virtually as well. 00:01:26.000 --> 00:01:45.000 If you complete all of those courses, you can get a certificate of completion from the director of our federal facility super fund program. So definitely let us know if you're interested in that. We'll have all the details as far as how to get credit for those. And we're just very glad that you all are here today. 00:01:45.000 --> 00:01:52.000 All right, thanks. So very quickly, as Emmy said, there's a whole series of classes that are being offered as live online webinars through Cluwin. 00:01:52.000 --> 00:02:00.000 At the end of each session, I'll provide instructions on how you can submit feedback and through that feedback form, there's an option to check a box to request a certificate of completion. 00:02:00.000 --> 00:02:08.000 This option is available to those of you attending live today, as well as those who replay a recorded version. So for any of those online sessions. 00:02:08.000 --> 00:02:16.000 You can watch the live session or watch the recorded version, share your feedback and receive a certificate of participation online through that feedback form. 00:02:16.000 --> 00:02:30.000 And then for those who are eligible and able to complete the in-person delivery, if you do that along with all 11 of the webinars through any combination of live or online replay, you'll then be eligible to receive that entire Federal Facilities Academy certificate. 00:02:30.000 --> 00:02:35.000 So I'll give you more detailed instructions on how to get today's certificate at the end of today's webinar. 00:02:35.000 --> 00:02:37.000 I mean, I think with that. 00:02:37.000 --> 00:02:38.000 Oh, sure, go ahead. 00:02:38.000 --> 00:02:44.000 The only other thing I'll add, Jean, sorry to cut you off. We offered revised or updated versions of these webinars about every other year. 00:02:44.000 --> 00:02:58.000 So maybe you've taken this webinar before. You took one a few years ago, always suggest that you come back because we do update it with any new guidance, policies, any new information that we can share. So just keep that in mind. 00:02:58.000 --> 00:03:01.000 Excellent. Thanks, Emmy. I'm going to call up your materials. 00:03:01.000 --> 00:03:02.000 Thank you. 00:03:02.000 --> 00:03:04.000 And if you can see your slides, feel free to begin. 00:03:04.000 --> 00:03:12.000 All right. Let's get into today's content. So today we'll be providing a webinar on Superfund groundwater policy. 00:03:12.000 --> 00:03:30.000 Very excited to bring this information to you. We'll be looking at things like groundwater classification, response actions, monitored natural attenuation, and technical and practicability waivers. We could talk for days about either of those items, and we'll finish out with a topic on remedy optimization. 00:03:30.000 --> 00:03:47.000 So before we jump into all of that, I'd like to just get a sense for some of the challenges that you all have experienced in looking at groundwater response action. So if you could just type in the Q&A box, what has been your biggest challenge when it comes to dealing with groundwater remedies at a Superfund site? 00:03:47.000 --> 00:03:55.000 be it selecting appropriate institutional controls or maybe coming to agreement with your regulators. 00:03:55.000 --> 00:04:14.000 or with your responsible party, if you are a regulator, anything. I just would like to get a sense of some of the challenges that you all have had and maybe understand better what brought you to today's webinar. 00:04:14.000 --> 00:04:16.000 we see those response. Oh, Jean, you're on mute. 00:04:16.000 --> 00:04:20.000 Here we go. Gotcha. So I'm seeing some responses come in. 00:04:20.000 --> 00:04:21.000 Okay. 00:04:21.000 --> 00:04:28.000 And some of these early responses are mentioning getting a TI waiver, delineating the extent of a plume. 00:04:28.000 --> 00:04:31.000 Integration with RECRA TSDs. 00:04:31.000 --> 00:04:35.000 Taking sufficient sampling to support a remedy or lack thereof. 00:04:35.000 --> 00:04:39.000 Stormwater infiltration, coming to agreement with the regulators. 00:04:39.000 --> 00:04:42.000 State groundwater classification and standards. 00:04:42.000 --> 00:04:54.000 Looking at anthropogenic water sources. I see several individuals talking about differences of opinion. So trying to get all of those stakeholders and regulators kind of coming to consensus on components of their site. 00:04:54.000 --> 00:05:00.000 More buy-in from their stakeholders. Previously established M&A as a remedy. 00:05:00.000 --> 00:05:03.000 Resistance to treatment throughout their plume. 00:05:03.000 --> 00:05:11.000 Looking to get their site to go beyond an institutional control for a groundwater remedy and then including active remedial alternatives. 00:05:11.000 --> 00:05:16.000 So I'm seeing other ones who are dealing with interim versus final actions. 00:05:16.000 --> 00:05:22.000 And then again, some hesitancy to commit to long-term remedy to restore groundwater to drinking water standards. 00:05:22.000 --> 00:05:23.000 So great responses. Thanks, everyone. 00:05:23.000 --> 00:05:31.000 Yeah, no, that's great. Thank you for sharing that. Just gives us a better sense of what parts of the material you all might be most interested in. 00:05:31.000 --> 00:05:38.000 Before we jump into all of that, I did want to give just an overview of how our groundwater remedies 00:05:38.000 --> 00:05:47.000 playing out in the Superfund program as of late. So I've taken some figures from the latest Superfund remedy report that's a publicly accessible report. 00:05:47.000 --> 00:05:53.000 This one was just issued last year, 2023, to provide a bit of the landscape that we're dealing with. 00:05:53.000 --> 00:06:12.000 So looking at decision documents from 1981 to 2020, there are almost 6,000 decision documents that were looked at, about 4,000 of those being rods, about 500 rod amendments, and then about 1,400 as explanation of significant differences or ESDs. 00:06:12.000 --> 00:06:23.000 I will point out that just over 35% of these decision documents are for federal facilities. And that really just paints the picture of, although we only have 175 00:06:23.000 --> 00:06:33.000 better facilities on the national priorities list, the NPL, because they are so large and often have so many operable units, the number of decision documents 00:06:33.000 --> 00:06:45.000 are a large contributor to the cleanup decisions that are made across the entire Superfund program. So you can see those trends over time here, cleanup decisions being issued. 00:06:45.000 --> 00:06:55.000 I'll come to this next slide where we focus more closely on groundwater remedies over this same timeframe. And you can see here the red 00:06:55.000 --> 00:07:04.000 I get red or the little line with the circle, the dashed line with the circle, if you're having a hard time seeing the color, shows how pump and tree trends have 00:07:04.000 --> 00:07:19.000 happened over time. So back in the early 90s, we were definitely selecting a lot of pump and treat. And then over time, that generally has declined. But you'll notice that things like in the blue line with the circle. 00:07:19.000 --> 00:07:23.000 alternative water supply remedies are 00:07:23.000 --> 00:07:35.000 mostly steady, maybe picking up a little bit. Also VEB, that's vertical engineered barrier, not selected as often, pretty steady with a little uptick in more recent years. 00:07:35.000 --> 00:07:40.000 you'll see in situ treatment, that dark blue line with the square that has 00:07:40.000 --> 00:07:48.000 been trending upward, generally speaking, over this timeframe. And then we have institutional controls. 00:07:48.000 --> 00:08:05.000 in the green, which are typically part of a groundwater remedy. So keep in mind that more than one component might be selected as part of a remedy or cleanup decision. So often you'll have those institutional controls being selected in addition to some kind of active treatment. 00:08:05.000 --> 00:08:16.000 But we'll go more into that in the next slide. I just wanted to give this lay of the land, so to speak, and how groundwater remedies are looking across the Superfund program. 00:08:16.000 --> 00:08:22.000 Looking more recently at decisions since 2028 to 2020, 00:08:22.000 --> 00:08:33.000 we have a preference for treatment when it comes to groundwater, especially in trying to restore it to its beneficial use. So it makes sense that remedies that have a treatment component 00:08:33.000 --> 00:08:46.000 are higher than others. So be it in situ or exitua, you see at about 67% of the groundwater remedies selected in this timeframe have that active treatment component. And then to a lesser extent, we have 00:08:46.000 --> 00:08:56.000 monitored natural attenuation, vertical engineered barriers that are also selective, but at a much lower frequency. 00:08:56.000 --> 00:09:07.000 Yes, so I'll leave it. I actually had to look up VEB when I first saw the acronym. So now I'm like, oh, wow, there's one more acronym to add to the list. 00:09:07.000 --> 00:09:18.000 I'm going to go ahead and hand it over now to our next speaker, who I'll ask to introduce themselves, get a little background before they get us into groundwater classification. 00:09:18.000 --> 00:09:25.000 Thanks, Emmy. And hi, everyone. I'm Michael McCarroll. I'm a hydrogeologist in the science policy branch. 00:09:25.000 --> 00:09:31.000 And I was ready. And I'm going to talk a little bit about groundwater classification. 00:09:31.000 --> 00:09:35.000 So the federal guidelines for groundwater classification 00:09:35.000 --> 00:09:38.000 are outlined in our 1986 00:09:38.000 --> 00:09:46.000 guidance for groundwater classification. And this guidance breaks down aquifers into one of three classes. 00:09:46.000 --> 00:09:50.000 And they are class one special groundwater 00:09:50.000 --> 00:09:57.000 class two actual or potential drinking water source. And this is further broken down into class 2A, which is a current source 00:09:57.000 --> 00:10:02.000 and class 2B, which is a potential source of drinking water. 00:10:02.000 --> 00:10:04.000 agricultural or other beneficial use. 00:10:04.000 --> 00:10:06.000 And then we have class three 00:10:06.000 --> 00:10:09.000 which is not a potential source of drinking water. 00:10:09.000 --> 00:10:15.000 And is of limited beneficial use. And I'll get more into these in the next few slides. 00:10:15.000 --> 00:10:18.000 Many states have also developed their own 00:10:18.000 --> 00:10:24.000 groundwater protection approaches tailored to their particular land use and hydrogeologic conditions. 00:10:24.000 --> 00:10:27.000 The state agencies responsible for managing groundwater 00:10:27.000 --> 00:10:31.000 can use these classification systems for their general program use. 00:10:31.000 --> 00:10:42.000 But at Superfund sites, which are regulated under CERCLA, the federal classification system should be used when making determinations for current infusion groundwater use. 00:10:42.000 --> 00:10:53.000 The exception being when a state has an approved comprehensive state groundwater protection program, otherwise known as a KISWIP. 00:10:53.000 --> 00:10:59.000 So 13 states have comprehensive state groundwater protection programs. 00:10:59.000 --> 00:11:01.000 Out of these 00:11:01.000 --> 00:11:03.000 Delaware and Washington. 00:11:03.000 --> 00:11:09.000 have his whips, but do not include provisions for site-specific decision making. 00:11:09.000 --> 00:11:13.000 And so they can't be used for EPA remediation programs. 00:11:13.000 --> 00:11:15.000 And this is outlined in the 1997 00:11:15.000 --> 00:11:19.000 Because web guidance, which also clarifies 00:11:19.000 --> 00:11:22.000 that EPA regions should generally defer to state 00:11:22.000 --> 00:11:25.000 determinations of current and future groundwater uses. 00:11:25.000 --> 00:11:30.000 when based on an EPA endorsed KISWIP that has provisions for site specific 00:11:30.000 --> 00:11:36.000 decisions, also that they should participate in EPA's review and endorsement of KISWIPs. 00:11:36.000 --> 00:11:38.000 and should use 00:11:38.000 --> 00:11:41.000 KISWIP provisions as appropriate 00:11:41.000 --> 00:11:44.000 for more effective or efficient program implementation. 00:11:44.000 --> 00:11:50.000 An example would be increased program emphasis in geographic areas identified in a KISWIP. 00:11:50.000 --> 00:11:56.000 as having higher resource value or priority. 00:11:56.000 --> 00:11:59.000 So getting more into the groundwater classifications 00:11:59.000 --> 00:12:02.000 Class one is special groundwater. 00:12:02.000 --> 00:12:09.000 These are resources of unusually high value that are highly vulnerable to contamination. 00:12:09.000 --> 00:12:13.000 They're also irreplaceable sources of drinking water and 00:12:13.000 --> 00:12:16.000 may serve a substantial population or 00:12:16.000 --> 00:12:20.000 alternative sources in the area are economically infeasible. 00:12:20.000 --> 00:12:26.000 They're also ecologically vital and supply a sensitive ecological system that supports a unique habitat. 00:12:26.000 --> 00:12:29.000 And a unique habitat is defined 00:12:29.000 --> 00:12:36.000 to include habitats for endangered or threatened species listed or proposed for listing on the Endangered Species Act. 00:12:36.000 --> 00:12:44.000 As well as certain types of federally managed or protected lands. 00:12:44.000 --> 00:12:47.000 Class two is actual or potential drinking water source. 00:12:47.000 --> 00:12:54.000 All non-class one groundwater currently used or potentially available for use as drinking water 00:12:54.000 --> 00:12:56.000 And other beneficial use is in this category. 00:12:56.000 --> 00:13:01.000 whether or not it's particularly vulnerable to contamination or not. 00:13:01.000 --> 00:13:05.000 So it's considered a current source of drinking water under two conditions. 00:13:05.000 --> 00:13:12.000 the presence of one or more drinking water wells or springs in operation in the classification review area 00:13:12.000 --> 00:13:18.000 The second requires the presence of a water supply reservoir watershed designated 00:13:18.000 --> 00:13:20.000 for water quality protection. 00:13:20.000 --> 00:13:23.000 We also have Class 2B. 00:13:23.000 --> 00:13:25.000 which is a potential drinking water source. 00:13:25.000 --> 00:13:31.000 And it's considered a potential drinking water source if it's capable of yielding a quantity of drinking water 00:13:31.000 --> 00:13:36.000 to a well or spring sufficient of the needs of an average family and 00:13:36.000 --> 00:13:39.000 that criteria is over here in this blue box. 00:13:39.000 --> 00:13:44.000 It's the sufficient yield criterion has been established at 150 00:13:44.000 --> 00:13:46.000 gallons per day. 00:13:46.000 --> 00:13:49.000 the drinking water also needs to have a total dissolved solid 00:13:49.000 --> 00:13:52.000 concentration of less than 00:13:52.000 --> 00:13:54.000 10,000 milligrams per liter 00:13:54.000 --> 00:14:03.000 And it can be used without treatment or treatment with methods found in a public water supply system. 00:14:03.000 --> 00:14:06.000 Okay, and then we have our class 00:14:06.000 --> 00:14:10.000 three, which is not a potential drinking water 00:14:10.000 --> 00:14:15.000 not a potential drinking water source and of limited beneficial use. 00:14:15.000 --> 00:14:21.000 these groundwaters have a total dissolved solids greater than or equal to 10,000 milligrams per liter. 00:14:21.000 --> 00:14:26.000 they may be contaminated by naturally occurring conditions or by broad-scale human activity. 00:14:26.000 --> 00:14:31.000 unrelated to specific pollution of specific pollution incident. 00:14:31.000 --> 00:14:35.000 that they cannot be treated by a public water system. 00:14:35.000 --> 00:14:42.000 the insufficient yield for an average household size. So it may be less than 150 gallons per day. 00:14:42.000 --> 00:14:46.000 And because of the very low likelihood that a class 00:14:46.000 --> 00:14:55.000 three groundwater would be used as a drinking water source, it may be appropriate in some situations to manage existing contamination differently. 00:14:55.000 --> 00:14:57.000 or to take preventative measures. 00:14:57.000 --> 00:15:01.000 that would not be taken for class one or two groundwaters. 00:15:01.000 --> 00:15:03.000 These are broken down into 00:15:03.000 --> 00:15:05.000 Class 3A, which is 00:15:05.000 --> 00:15:09.000 high to intermediate degree of interconnection 00:15:09.000 --> 00:15:14.000 with adjacent units or class 3B, which is a low degree of interconnection. 00:15:14.000 --> 00:15:17.000 to adjacent units and i mentioned that 00:15:17.000 --> 00:15:21.000 They may have to be managed a bit differently depending on interconnection. 00:15:21.000 --> 00:15:26.000 if you have an aquifer, a class 3A aquifer that's 00:15:26.000 --> 00:15:32.000 highly interconnected to an adjacent unit that is a drinking water source. 00:15:32.000 --> 00:15:37.000 you may need to manage your class three aquifer as if it were 00:15:37.000 --> 00:15:41.000 a drinking water source just to be protective of that 00:15:41.000 --> 00:15:45.000 adjacent class two aquifer. 00:15:45.000 --> 00:15:48.000 So those are the situations where this aquifer might be managed. 00:15:48.000 --> 00:15:53.000 a bit differently. 00:15:53.000 --> 00:15:56.000 So these are just some quotes from the NCP. 00:15:56.000 --> 00:16:05.000 To the degree that the state or local government has classified their groundwater, EPAY will consider those classifications and their applicability 00:16:05.000 --> 00:16:07.000 to the selection of an appropriate remedy. 00:16:07.000 --> 00:16:13.000 And if a state classification would lead to a less stringent solution than the EPA classification scheme. 00:16:13.000 --> 00:16:17.000 then the remediation goals would generally be based on the EPA classification. 00:16:17.000 --> 00:16:28.000 If the use of a state classification would result in the selection of a non-productive remedy, ePay will not follow that state scheme. 00:16:28.000 --> 00:16:32.000 So here I have something new this time. This is our new 00:16:32.000 --> 00:16:37.000 Beneficial use designation for groundwater at Superfund sites flowchart. 00:16:37.000 --> 00:16:41.000 And this is something we've been working on for a bit now. So happy to finally get this out. 00:16:41.000 --> 00:16:48.000 This flow chart is part of a new beneficial use document that we've been working on and 00:16:48.000 --> 00:16:54.000 So it includes a narrative section too. This is just the flow chart part of it. 00:16:54.000 --> 00:17:00.000 But the impetus for this was that we've noticed an increase in questions on this topic coming to our branch 00:17:00.000 --> 00:17:04.000 over the last few years, and the program in general has just had a lot of new hires so 00:17:04.000 --> 00:17:08.000 The intention of this document and this flowchart is really 00:17:08.000 --> 00:17:11.000 to make groundwater classification easier. 00:17:11.000 --> 00:17:17.000 It's not any new guidance, but it's based on and distilled down from existing guidance. 00:17:17.000 --> 00:17:21.000 So I'll just go ahead and walk through it a bit. 00:17:21.000 --> 00:17:25.000 The first blue section here is kind of your 00:17:25.000 --> 00:17:33.000 your KISWIP area, before you make your EKH determination, some questions to consider. 00:17:33.000 --> 00:17:37.000 your kids who have applicability, does your state 00:17:37.000 --> 00:17:40.000 or tribe have an EPA endorsed KISWIP for Superfund. 00:17:40.000 --> 00:17:43.000 If yes, use the KISWIP. 00:17:43.000 --> 00:17:45.000 If not, determine your EPA class. 00:17:45.000 --> 00:17:48.000 In this gray box here. 00:17:48.000 --> 00:17:53.000 this is kind of your EPA classification area. 00:17:53.000 --> 00:17:56.000 The first question is. 00:17:56.000 --> 00:18:00.000 is your groundwater ecologically vital and or vulnerable? 00:18:00.000 --> 00:18:02.000 If yes, then if 00:18:02.000 --> 00:18:07.000 that you don't have to go any further. Your class one, ecologically vital. 00:18:07.000 --> 00:18:11.000 If no, you proceed onward to the second box. 00:18:11.000 --> 00:18:13.000 Is it a current source of drinking water? 00:18:13.000 --> 00:18:17.000 If yes, you follow the arrow down. 00:18:17.000 --> 00:18:22.000 Is it irreplaceable or for a substantial population and vulnerable? 00:18:22.000 --> 00:18:25.000 If yes, you're also class one. 00:18:25.000 --> 00:18:27.000 If no, it kicks you over into class 00:18:27.000 --> 00:18:30.000 to A. 00:18:30.000 --> 00:18:35.000 Going back up to the second box, if you answered no to if it's a current source of drinking water. 00:18:35.000 --> 00:18:37.000 that brings you over to box four. 00:18:37.000 --> 00:18:39.000 Is there a watershed? 00:18:39.000 --> 00:18:42.000 with a protected drinking water 00:18:42.000 --> 00:18:45.000 reservoir or intake. 00:18:45.000 --> 00:18:52.000 I believe. Yes. If it's yes, then it's a class 3A. 00:18:52.000 --> 00:18:53.000 drinking water source if no 00:18:53.000 --> 00:18:56.000 It asks you the sufficient yield question. 00:18:56.000 --> 00:18:59.000 is it at least 150 gallons per day? 00:18:59.000 --> 00:19:05.000 If yes, it asks you the total dissolved solid question, is it less than 10,000 00:19:05.000 --> 00:19:07.000 part per million. 00:19:07.000 --> 00:19:13.000 If yes to this question also, you have a class to be potential drinking water source. 00:19:13.000 --> 00:19:16.000 If you answer no to either of these. 00:19:16.000 --> 00:19:19.000 it brings you over to your interconnectivity question 00:19:19.000 --> 00:19:27.000 a high or intermediate or high degree of interconnection brings you down to class 3A. 00:19:27.000 --> 00:19:30.000 These may not 00:19:30.000 --> 00:19:33.000 need to be restored to be restored 00:19:33.000 --> 00:19:36.000 a drinking water standards unless, like I mentioned before 00:19:36.000 --> 00:19:40.000 you have this high degree of interconnection to an adjacent 00:19:40.000 --> 00:19:45.000 drinking water source or an ecologically vital or vulnerable 00:19:45.000 --> 00:19:47.000 aquifer. 00:19:47.000 --> 00:19:50.000 If you have low interconnection. 00:19:50.000 --> 00:19:54.000 that brings you down to your last classification here, Class 3B. 00:19:54.000 --> 00:19:56.000 not drinking water and low interconnectivity. 00:19:56.000 --> 00:19:59.000 So generally. 00:19:59.000 --> 00:20:03.000 don't need to reach drinking water standards for these. 00:20:03.000 --> 00:20:06.000 So once you're done your EPA classification in the middle. 00:20:06.000 --> 00:20:08.000 and you're outside the box. 00:20:08.000 --> 00:20:12.000 Now you want to compare your EPA classification 00:20:12.000 --> 00:20:15.000 to the state and tribe classifications. 00:20:15.000 --> 00:20:19.000 And ask yourself, is the EPA classification more stringent? 00:20:19.000 --> 00:20:23.000 If the EPA classification is more stringent, then you follow 00:20:23.000 --> 00:20:28.000 the EPA system, the classification system. 00:20:28.000 --> 00:20:30.000 If not, if the state or tribe is more stringent. 00:20:30.000 --> 00:20:33.000 then you can have the ability to consider 00:20:33.000 --> 00:20:37.000 using that state or tribe classification instead. 00:20:37.000 --> 00:20:40.000 So each of these sections 00:20:40.000 --> 00:20:46.000 I know I went over a lot. Each of these sections is expanded upon in the narrative of this document. 00:20:46.000 --> 00:20:52.000 corresponding, you know, they're color coded corresponding to the colors of each of these sections so 00:20:52.000 --> 00:20:56.000 This document can be found on EPA's homepage. 00:20:56.000 --> 00:20:58.000 on our website and on our website 00:20:58.000 --> 00:21:00.000 the link can also be found here. 00:21:00.000 --> 00:21:03.000 below if you're interested. 00:21:03.000 --> 00:21:05.000 And looking into it further. 00:21:05.000 --> 00:21:09.000 And so next, I think we have a poll. 00:21:09.000 --> 00:21:14.000 We do. All right. So at this time, ladies and gentlemen. 00:21:14.000 --> 00:21:17.000 I am going to launch a poll question. 00:21:17.000 --> 00:21:28.000 As I do that, a new window should open up for all of you on your screen. If you have any trouble though accessing that pop-up window, we do have the question right on the slide and you are certainly welcome to type your response. 00:21:28.000 --> 00:21:31.000 as a message into the Q&A. 00:21:31.000 --> 00:21:41.000 So here in this scenario, we're asking you to consider a state without an EPA endorsed comprehensive state groundwater protection program. 00:21:41.000 --> 00:21:48.000 has designated an aquifer as not a potential source of drinking water, so class three. 00:21:48.000 --> 00:21:53.000 EPA classified the aquifer as a potential source of drinking water, Class 2B. 00:21:53.000 --> 00:21:57.000 How should the aquifer be considered during remedy selection? 00:21:57.000 --> 00:22:02.000 Is it a current source of drinking water, B, special groundwater. 00:22:02.000 --> 00:22:07.000 C, potential source of drinking water, or D, not drinking water. 00:22:07.000 --> 00:22:14.000 So I'll ask you to consider those four options and then click the circle to the left of the answer that you think is correct and then hit the submit. 00:22:14.000 --> 00:22:21.000 If you happen to be hosting a viewing party and have others at your location, talk it out and settle upon one answer for your group and then hit that submit button. 00:22:21.000 --> 00:22:29.000 It looks like about half the audience has responded, so just take a few seconds here and just put in your best guess. We won't individually grade each of you. 00:22:29.000 --> 00:22:33.000 And I'll close the poll down here in just a moment. 00:22:33.000 --> 00:22:38.000 And we'll talk through that correct answer. I'm going to close it down. 00:22:38.000 --> 00:22:41.000 In three… 00:22:41.000 --> 00:22:44.000 two, one. 00:22:44.000 --> 00:22:51.000 All right, and looking at the results, about 92% of you picked C, potential source of drinking water. Is that the right answer, Michael? 00:22:51.000 --> 00:22:55.000 Yes, that is. Nice job, everyone. Yep. 00:22:55.000 --> 00:23:00.000 If the state classification would lead to a less stringent solution and also 00:23:00.000 --> 00:23:05.000 that state doesn't have a KISWIP, we would generally go with the pay classifications to keep 00:23:05.000 --> 00:23:10.000 scheme. So nice job, everyone. 00:23:10.000 --> 00:23:18.000 All right. I think we'll pause here and just take a question or two, if it's okay, before we move on in the presentation. 00:23:18.000 --> 00:23:27.000 Michael, I've had a couple of people asking about this very long, beautiful acronym, which is on this slide. 00:23:27.000 --> 00:23:30.000 People are hearing you say the word KISWIP. 00:23:30.000 --> 00:23:38.000 And they want to make sure that you're talking about this acronym, the C 00:23:38.000 --> 00:23:39.000 Mm-hmm. 00:23:39.000 --> 00:23:40.000 SG W P P. So can you confirm KISWIP is that 00:23:40.000 --> 00:23:41.000 And can you define it again? Okay. 00:23:41.000 --> 00:23:43.000 Yep, that's it. 00:23:43.000 --> 00:23:44.000 That's right. Yep. 00:23:44.000 --> 00:23:46.000 Okay. All right. 00:23:46.000 --> 00:23:53.000 And then if a state does not have a KISWIP, can they use state AARS? 00:23:53.000 --> 00:23:56.000 that are applicable? 00:23:56.000 --> 00:23:59.000 If it's arar 00:23:59.000 --> 00:24:01.000 So, um. 00:24:01.000 --> 00:24:05.000 For a cleanup look, for setting cleanup levels, if it's ARAR, 00:24:05.000 --> 00:24:08.000 And it applies to that site. 00:24:08.000 --> 00:24:10.000 I would think you could use those ARRs. 00:24:10.000 --> 00:24:11.000 Mm-hmm. 00:24:11.000 --> 00:24:14.000 for groundwater classification 00:24:14.000 --> 00:24:20.000 If your classification leads to the state classification leads to a less stringent 00:24:20.000 --> 00:24:23.000 classification and you don't have a KISWIP, 00:24:23.000 --> 00:24:26.000 then in most cases we would go with 00:24:26.000 --> 00:24:28.000 the EPA classification. 00:24:28.000 --> 00:24:32.000 the exception would be if the state has a 00:24:32.000 --> 00:24:35.000 more stringent classification? 00:24:35.000 --> 00:24:41.000 then we have the option to consider that and can use that kind of on a site-by-site basis. 00:24:41.000 --> 00:24:46.000 Okay. Do you happen to know how many states don't have KISWIPs? 00:24:46.000 --> 00:24:48.000 13 do. 00:24:48.000 --> 00:24:52.000 So what is that? 37? 00:24:52.000 --> 00:24:53.000 Excellent. 00:24:53.000 --> 00:24:54.000 Doing math. 00:24:54.000 --> 00:24:56.000 Great. Thank you. And then can you help 00:24:56.000 --> 00:24:59.000 Although the caveat to that, sorry, is that 00:24:59.000 --> 00:25:00.000 Okay. 00:25:00.000 --> 00:25:02.000 So 37 may not have KISWIPs, but 00:25:02.000 --> 00:25:06.000 39 states cannot use their KISWIPs. 00:25:06.000 --> 00:25:16.000 for EPA remediation programs, because like I mentioned, even though Delaware and Washington have KISWIPs, they cannot be used for EPA remediation programs. 00:25:16.000 --> 00:25:26.000 Okay. All right. Beautiful. And the question earlier about states not having KISWIPs, they were wondering if the state ARRs could be more stringent. 00:25:26.000 --> 00:25:28.000 They just clarified when they were talking about 00:25:28.000 --> 00:25:32.000 using can state ARRs be used as applicable? 00:25:32.000 --> 00:25:37.000 And we had a clarifying statement. They were just referring to the more stringent aspect. 00:25:37.000 --> 00:25:38.000 So I just wanted to thank you 00:25:38.000 --> 00:25:39.000 who were 00:25:39.000 --> 00:25:41.000 for cleanup levels? 00:25:41.000 --> 00:25:48.000 I believe that's what they're saying. I see if the state does not have a KISWIP, then can state ARRs be used as applicable? 00:25:48.000 --> 00:25:57.000 And then they responded, I was referring to more stringent. 00:25:57.000 --> 00:25:58.000 Okay. 00:25:58.000 --> 00:26:00.000 As far as setting cleanup bubbles, that I'm not 100% sure about. We have to check with more 00:26:00.000 --> 00:26:04.000 someone who has more expertise on setting ars but 00:26:04.000 --> 00:26:10.000 As for cleanup bubbles, that is. But if it leads to a more stringent groundwater classification then 00:26:10.000 --> 00:26:13.000 we do have the option to go 00:26:13.000 --> 00:26:15.000 with that state classification. 00:26:15.000 --> 00:26:17.000 Okay. And one last question. 00:26:17.000 --> 00:26:23.000 Could you help explain the term, quote, ecologically vital groundwater? 00:26:23.000 --> 00:26:25.000 Yeah, so ecologically vital 00:26:25.000 --> 00:26:33.000 If it serves, let's see, I have a, I think I mentioned 00:26:33.000 --> 00:26:37.000 If it has a unique habitat. 00:26:37.000 --> 00:26:40.000 Yeah, surprisingly sensitive. 00:26:40.000 --> 00:26:45.000 ecological system that supports a unique habitat. And so this would be 00:26:45.000 --> 00:26:50.000 defined as habitats for endangered or threatened species. 00:26:50.000 --> 00:26:57.000 or proposed for listing on the Endangered Species Act, as well as certain types of federally managed and protective lands. 00:26:57.000 --> 00:27:03.000 So any kind of species that would fall into that category that relies on these groundwaters. 00:27:03.000 --> 00:27:05.000 that would kind of 00:27:05.000 --> 00:27:08.000 classify it as ecologically vital. 00:27:08.000 --> 00:27:10.000 Okay. Okay. 00:27:10.000 --> 00:27:15.000 And then I'm seeing some additional comments that are coming in from some of the state regulators. 00:27:15.000 --> 00:27:30.000 that are just sort of clarifying that earlier question. Some are noting that some states have in their constitutions that their aquifers are class twos. 00:27:30.000 --> 00:27:31.000 Mm-hmm. 00:27:31.000 --> 00:27:34.000 Some states classify all groundwater as drinking water source, regardless of the current use. And so therefore their state classification is always going to be more stringent. 00:27:34.000 --> 00:27:35.000 Mm-hmm. 00:27:35.000 --> 00:27:36.000 And so. 00:27:36.000 --> 00:27:44.000 there's just comments saying that that state, more stringent AR can be used even when there is no approved KISWIP. 00:27:44.000 --> 00:27:51.000 As long as the EPA classification supports that it is a class one or class two aquifer. So I'm not sure if you can 00:27:51.000 --> 00:27:52.000 Chime in. 00:27:52.000 --> 00:27:53.000 Yeah. And I think that that 00:27:53.000 --> 00:27:58.000 If I'm understanding right, I think that would fall into a 00:27:58.000 --> 00:28:01.000 a situation where a state may be more stringent 00:28:01.000 --> 00:28:04.000 And so it sounds like that state 00:28:04.000 --> 00:28:07.000 all waters are designated as 00:28:07.000 --> 00:28:12.000 potential drinking water sources. So even if the EPA classification might say 00:28:12.000 --> 00:28:15.000 it's not a potential source of drinking water. 00:28:15.000 --> 00:28:20.000 that state classification would be more stringent and so 00:28:20.000 --> 00:28:22.000 Because it's more stringent, even though 00:28:22.000 --> 00:28:25.000 they don't have a KISWIP. We still have the option to 00:28:25.000 --> 00:28:27.000 go with the state classification. 00:28:27.000 --> 00:28:29.000 That's still an option that we have. 00:28:29.000 --> 00:28:34.000 So, and we can determine that on a site-by-state basis, like I said. 00:28:34.000 --> 00:28:45.000 Okay. All right. Excellent. I think what we'll do in the interest of time is let's carry on with the presentation. But for my attendees, if you have additional questions, you can continue to submit those in the Q&A. 00:28:45.000 --> 00:28:53.000 I believe, Emmy, you are next up. So let me turn the floor over to you and we will move you forward right in that slide deck. 00:28:53.000 --> 00:28:55.000 So we can carry on with the presentation. 00:28:55.000 --> 00:29:00.000 Yes, we'll be going on to institutional controls now. 00:29:00.000 --> 00:29:08.000 So when it comes to institutional controls and groundwater remedies, there can be a lot of excitement and discussion. 00:29:08.000 --> 00:29:17.000 So ICs generally are not to be included when evaluating whether a circular remedial action is appropriate. 00:29:17.000 --> 00:29:24.000 So what that means is when you're determining if there's an unacceptable risk, as according to the super or the circle of risk range. 00:29:24.000 --> 00:29:35.000 you're not assuming ICs are in place. For example, you're not assuming, oh, there's a fence around this land so people can't get to the groundwater. So there's no risk. 00:29:35.000 --> 00:29:45.000 That's what the phrase is essentially trying to say. I see should not be considered when determining if a response or remedial action is appropriate. 00:29:45.000 --> 00:29:48.000 However, those institutional controls 00:29:48.000 --> 00:29:59.000 be it against use of groundwater or surface use can be part of the response action, part of a larger effort, not the sole effort. 00:29:59.000 --> 00:30:04.000 ICs don't actively address the contamination. There's no real treatment. It doesn't address 00:30:04.000 --> 00:30:11.000 a preference for treatment when it comes to Superfund cleanups. So they are considered to be limited action alternatives 00:30:11.000 --> 00:30:17.000 if the goal or the intent is to apply an IC only remedy. 00:30:17.000 --> 00:30:24.000 that tends to get a lot of attention if you're at a site, if it's an IC only remedy likely will 00:30:24.000 --> 00:30:34.000 come to regional attention, headquarters attention at EPA will want to know, well, why is this IC only remedy moving forward? It may be appropriate. 00:30:34.000 --> 00:30:43.000 all of the action or active treatment happened under interim actions. And now all that's left are these long-term institutional controls. 00:30:43.000 --> 00:30:50.000 So there are instances when it may be appropriate, but if active treatment, source removal, things like that haven't occurred. 00:30:50.000 --> 00:30:54.000 it's going to be very difficult to get something like that approved. 00:30:54.000 --> 00:31:07.000 Another thing to keep in mind when it comes to ICs is that they are not intended to substitute for active response measures. Institutional controls should not be looked to as the sole remedy. Again, put a fence 00:31:07.000 --> 00:31:14.000 around it and walk away, perhaps this contaminated groundwater is in a very remote area 00:31:14.000 --> 00:31:22.000 And arguments are being made that, oh, no one's ever going to use this water. This federal agency is going to own the land in perpetuity so why 00:31:22.000 --> 00:31:28.000 let's just put in this institutional control like a fence or a restriction against 00:31:28.000 --> 00:31:32.000 installing new wells and call it good. 00:31:32.000 --> 00:31:38.000 Again, ICs are not meant to substitute for active response. 00:31:38.000 --> 00:31:40.000 measures unless 00:31:40.000 --> 00:31:48.000 it's been determined that it's not practicable to take action. We'll talk a little bit more about that later in the presentation. 00:31:48.000 --> 00:31:50.000 So institutional controls 00:31:50.000 --> 00:32:12.000 typically are seen as a supplementary protective measure, particularly during a groundwater remedies implementation where you haven't reached those remedial action objectives or cleanup goals, and there would be an acceptable risk if someone were to drink that contaminated water or come in contact with it in some way, some kind of exposure that's 00:32:12.000 --> 00:32:15.000 where we typically see the institutional controls come into play. 00:32:15.000 --> 00:32:19.000 I'm going to switch gears a little bit now and talk about 00:32:19.000 --> 00:32:26.000 response actions and not just the IC component. So when it comes to groundwater response actions. 00:32:26.000 --> 00:32:30.000 There is specific language in CERCLA. It's in section 121. 00:32:30.000 --> 00:32:33.000 where Congress has mandated 00:32:33.000 --> 00:32:42.000 that we will conduct these groundwater response actions. And that such a media auction will require a level or standard of control which 00:32:42.000 --> 00:32:50.000 at least attains maximum contaminant level goals, MCLGs, established under the Safe Drinking Water Act. 00:32:50.000 --> 00:32:58.000 And the water quality criteria established under Section 304 or 303 of the Clean Water Act, where those goals 00:32:58.000 --> 00:33:04.000 or criteria are identified as relevant and appropriate for the release. 00:33:04.000 --> 00:33:09.000 So there sometimes, at least what I've seen when there's 00:33:09.000 --> 00:33:15.000 trying to resolve issues between parties, federal facility agreement parties and talking about groundwater action. 00:33:15.000 --> 00:33:19.000 this perception that, oh, EPA just wants 00:33:19.000 --> 00:33:26.000 the responsible parties to spend a ton of money on this, even though no one is ever going to use this groundwater. 00:33:26.000 --> 00:33:35.000 Well, it's not that EPA prefers this or this is how they want it to be done. It's actually what is in 00:33:35.000 --> 00:33:38.000 the language of CERCLA that 00:33:38.000 --> 00:33:48.000 this is what has to be met when it comes to groundwater response action. So that does not leave a lot of space for flexibility if the NCP says 00:33:48.000 --> 00:33:57.000 The general expectation for groundwater restoration is that these usable groundwaters will be restored to their beneficial use wherever practicable. 00:33:57.000 --> 00:34:02.000 within a timeframe that's reasonable given the circumstances of the site. 00:34:02.000 --> 00:34:11.000 So I've highlighted some words on this slide because when you hear the word practicable, okay, well, what does that mean? It's a bit of a gray space, right? As well as reasonable. 00:34:11.000 --> 00:34:17.000 reasonable. What's a reasonable timeframe for a site that 50 years, 100 years. 00:34:17.000 --> 00:34:32.000 300 years. There's no set number, no clear red line that this is the timeframe that's reasonable for all sites across the program. It really comes down to site specific circumstances and making these determinations. 00:34:32.000 --> 00:34:40.000 So when we look at our EPA groundwater policies and they have very strong language, that's often because those policies are 00:34:40.000 --> 00:34:43.000 based on the language that is in CERCLA, 00:34:43.000 --> 00:34:50.000 And in many cases, that really means that EPA regulators for EPA 00:34:50.000 --> 00:34:59.000 have limited or maybe even no flexibility in the way a groundwater policy is interpreted because the policy is in fact the language as it's 00:34:59.000 --> 00:35:07.000 presented in the law itself. So not always a ton of wiggle room. I did say there's these gray spaces like 00:35:07.000 --> 00:35:17.000 practicable practicable, what does that mean? Reasonable? How does that vary? And that's when you get into that hard work with your site teams to determine what's 00:35:17.000 --> 00:35:20.000 appropriate for your site. 00:35:20.000 --> 00:35:26.000 When restoration to beneficial use is not practicable, be it 00:35:26.000 --> 00:35:37.000 complex, very complex geology or technology doesn't exist for the contamination that's present or something that actually does meet that 00:35:37.000 --> 00:35:39.000 bar of, oh, yeah, this 00:35:39.000 --> 00:35:46.000 we really can't restore this aquifer for very clear reasons, then the expectation is that 00:35:46.000 --> 00:36:06.000 further migration of that plume will be prevented, preventing exposure to that contaminated groundwater. Again, that's where institutional controls may come in to play a large role. And evaluating any other opportunities for further risk reduction from that contamination. 00:36:06.000 --> 00:36:21.000 I want to touch on some of the principles of groundwater restoration. If you are perhaps new to these type of remedies, you're trying to better understand where regulators may be coming from when it comes to groundwater restoration. We have a 2009 EPA guidance that 00:36:21.000 --> 00:36:27.000 outlines these principles that carry us through. So the first one is that 00:36:27.000 --> 00:36:39.000 If groundwater that's identified as a current or a potential source of drinking water is contaminated above protective levels, often meaning contaminated above MCLs, but there could be other risk-based 00:36:39.000 --> 00:36:47.000 levels, a remedial action under CERCLA should seek to restore that aquifer to beneficial use wherever practicable. 00:36:47.000 --> 00:36:50.000 Keep in mind practicable 00:36:50.000 --> 00:36:52.000 does not mean 00:36:52.000 --> 00:37:01.000 oh, if it's too expensive, then we don't have to do this. Or if it's not likely someone will drink this water because it's such in a remote area, it's not practicable. That's not 00:37:01.000 --> 00:37:07.000 quite what that term means. It means through engineering, through available technologies it's not 00:37:07.000 --> 00:37:11.000 practicable to be able to implement a response action there. 00:37:11.000 --> 00:37:16.000 The second principle is what we just mentioned, again, going back to that language. 00:37:16.000 --> 00:37:20.000 in the NCP and in CERCLA that 00:37:20.000 --> 00:37:28.000 for that contaminated groundwater, it should not be allowed to migrate and further contaminate the aquifer or other media. 00:37:28.000 --> 00:37:36.000 We don't want that to happen. We want to contain it. That's where things like vertical engineered barriers may come into play for hydraulic containment. 00:37:36.000 --> 00:37:51.000 Say you're in a site where you really can't get to the cleanup and a technical, I'm sorry, you really can't get to the contamination and a technical impracticability waiver is being considered. That waiver or other waivers may be considered if 00:37:51.000 --> 00:37:55.000 all the circumstances are met where it would be appropriate. 00:37:55.000 --> 00:38:04.000 to identify that groundwater cleanup in this circumstance would be impracticable. We'll talk more about TA waivers in a bit. 00:38:04.000 --> 00:38:14.000 Other principles are that early action should be considered as soon as possible when it comes to groundwater contamination, let's not wait. Let's take actions 00:38:14.000 --> 00:38:21.000 Where we can take those early actions, interim actions, all to get to our final remedial action objectives for that. 00:38:21.000 --> 00:38:38.000 resource. The fifth principle, as we've already talked about, IC should not be relied upon as the only response to contaminated groundwater or as a justification for not taking action under CERCLA. Again, let's just put a fence around it. No one's ever going to drink this water. It'll be fine. 00:38:38.000 --> 00:38:49.000 That's not sufficient justification to not take an action. And those cleanup levels should address all pathways of exposure that pose an actual or potential risk to human health and the environment. 00:38:49.000 --> 00:38:54.000 be it drinking wells being put in, surface discharge that's contaminating 00:38:54.000 --> 00:38:57.000 a source of drinking water. 00:38:57.000 --> 00:39:04.000 or exposure pathways that happen from that surface body surface body of water. 00:39:04.000 --> 00:39:24.000 In here in the blue box, I just wanted to highlight that when it comes to the Superfund program, be it sites that are private sites where we have PRPs, potential responsible parties or federal facilities where we have other federal lead agencies implementing the cleanup, that the expectations are the same, the extent 00:39:24.000 --> 00:39:40.000 of those expectations are at the same at any super fund site. So just wanting to clarify, there's not a different bar for a federal facility versus an EPA lead or private site PRP. 00:39:40.000 --> 00:39:46.000 Since we are focusing a bit more on federal facilities with this webinar, I did want to take a second to talk about 00:39:46.000 --> 00:39:51.000 some Department of Defense guidance and just note that in 00:39:51.000 --> 00:40:00.000 this DOD guidance I'm going to reference here, those expectations laid out in the NCP are identified as well. 00:40:00.000 --> 00:40:09.000 Sometimes it's hard to get on the same page with the regulated and your regulators. I think we saw that in our initial poll for this webinar. 00:40:09.000 --> 00:40:14.000 But I want to just show there is some common ground here with the DOE dirt manual. 00:40:14.000 --> 00:40:20.000 have that language on the NCP expectations for groundwater restorations. 00:40:20.000 --> 00:40:28.000 And I've had it highlighted on this slide as well that DOD components should consider that NCP expectation that usable groundwaters 00:40:28.000 --> 00:40:31.000 will be returned to their beneficial uses 00:40:31.000 --> 00:40:41.000 with that same language, wherever practicable within a timeframe that is reasonable given the particular circumstances of the site so 00:40:41.000 --> 00:40:47.000 Just wanted to highlight that we are on the same page in some instances. 00:40:47.000 --> 00:40:55.000 Just a few more points I want to hit when it comes to groundwater response actions. And this one I think is really important, the phased approach. 00:40:55.000 --> 00:40:57.000 A lot of our groundwater 00:40:57.000 --> 00:41:03.000 remedies are very large scale handling potentially multiple contaminants over 00:41:03.000 --> 00:41:07.000 maybe square, you know, multiple square miles of 00:41:07.000 --> 00:41:29.000 area. So a phased approach often can make a lot of sense. So here we have response activities that are implemented in a sequence of steps. So as information is gained, data is gained, analyzed, we have a better understanding of our conceptual site model for a site from those earlier phases of data collection, it allows for subsequent 00:41:29.000 --> 00:41:31.000 investigations where needed. 00:41:31.000 --> 00:41:39.000 refining of objectives and selection of remedial actions. So those early and interim actions, really opportunities 00:41:39.000 --> 00:41:50.000 to learn and better hone what the final remedy for a site will be. So when considering using interim actions, just keeping in mind it isn't 00:41:50.000 --> 00:42:01.000 opportunity to gather more data, attain objectives that are reasonable for that interim action. If you know, for example, you say you have contaminants with an MCL, 00:42:01.000 --> 00:42:12.000 you can't get to them maybe in this initial phase of a remedy, but you can start to reduce the contamination, treat it, immobilize it, remove it. 00:42:12.000 --> 00:42:17.000 what have you, then that is getting you closer to those final remedial objectives. 00:42:17.000 --> 00:42:26.000 for the site. And it might also help in identifying opportunities for increasing remedy performance when you've had time to study the remedy. 00:42:26.000 --> 00:42:37.000 So a big pitch for phased approaches when it comes to really, really big sites with complex groundwater challenges. 00:42:37.000 --> 00:42:43.000 And I wanted to come back to this basis for CERCLA action and really just 00:42:43.000 --> 00:42:49.000 hitting on having to look at the exposure pathways, whatever they may be that 00:42:49.000 --> 00:43:07.000 understand your conceptual site model and what those pathways are, you're looking at baseline risk assessments that are going to determine if remediation is necessary. From there, you can go on to determine what your preliminary mediation goals will be and ultimately your cleanup levels. But that initial 00:43:07.000 --> 00:43:19.000 trigger for action, the basis for a circle action really comes from your baseline risk assessment. Remember, we're not going to assume any kind of protection from institutional controls. 00:43:19.000 --> 00:43:26.000 And we're also going to look at existing EPA policy, language in the NCPN CERCLA, 00:43:26.000 --> 00:43:38.000 that for groundwaters that are a current potential source of drinking water that exceed risk-based standards such as MCLs or that pose an unacceptable risk, will generally warrant 00:43:38.000 --> 00:43:43.000 a circle action, a response action, that contamination needs to be addressed. 00:43:43.000 --> 00:43:51.000 So other routes of exposure, be it vapor intrusion, is it sediment quality, surface water quality, wetlands. 00:43:51.000 --> 00:43:54.000 All of those types of 00:43:54.000 --> 00:44:00.000 exposure pathways may also be the basis for remedial action under CERCLA. It's not just 00:44:00.000 --> 00:44:06.000 oh, we have this contaminated groundwater, but it's below MCL, so we're fine. No, let's look at the entirety 00:44:06.000 --> 00:44:16.000 of the conceptual site model to understand if there are other routes of exposure that need to be considered that might be posing an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. 00:44:16.000 --> 00:44:21.000 Again, those wetlands critical critical habitats for other species. 00:44:21.000 --> 00:44:24.000 anything that falls into those categories. 00:44:24.000 --> 00:44:30.000 When it comes to the extent of contamination, nature and extent, right, that is a very important part 00:44:30.000 --> 00:44:38.000 of being able to move forward with remedy selection. When it comes to groundwater, groundwater doesn't care if there's a fence 00:44:38.000 --> 00:44:42.000 at the surface that says this is the end of this super fund site 00:44:42.000 --> 00:44:46.000 Groundwater doesn't pay attention to lines on a map. 00:44:46.000 --> 00:44:51.000 So when groundwater contamination is migrating past 00:44:51.000 --> 00:44:55.000 that boundary, right? That land surface boundary then 00:44:55.000 --> 00:45:02.000 you're under circle, you're going to chase that plume. That's essentially how you'll hear it referred to. So the site will 00:45:02.000 --> 00:45:13.000 can also include areas where that contamination has gone beyond the fence or beyond the site boundary. So you go after the groundwater plumes essentially. 00:45:13.000 --> 00:45:17.000 But remember, one of the big goals is that 00:45:17.000 --> 00:45:25.000 with this response actions, that groundwater contamination shouldn't be allowed to migrate offsite if it can be avoided. 00:45:25.000 --> 00:45:29.000 And you want to get control of that plume as soon as you can because 00:45:29.000 --> 00:45:36.000 further contamination of the aquifer or other media, it's not desirable that's not 00:45:36.000 --> 00:45:41.000 what we want to see with our groundwater cleanups. 00:45:41.000 --> 00:45:45.000 When it comes to ABRARS and groundwater, that is 00:45:45.000 --> 00:46:01.000 Very big discussion. I will say we do have a course dedicated to ARRs and how to determine them if you want to check that out as well. But just to touch on it here, when it comes to MCLGs, those maximum contaminant level goals that are 00:46:01.000 --> 00:46:04.000 set under the Safe Drinking Water Act. 00:46:04.000 --> 00:46:27.000 those levels that are above zero should be attained by remedial actions for ground or surface waters, again, that are current or potential sources of drinking water, where those MCLGs are relevant and appropriate. Again, how do we know if they're relevant and appropriate? That comes down to the specific circumstances of your site. So going through that appropriate analysis 00:46:27.000 --> 00:46:31.000 to determine if those are in fact ARRs for your cleanup. 00:46:31.000 --> 00:46:35.000 Let's say that the maximum contaminant 00:46:35.000 --> 00:46:47.000 level goal is determined not to be relevant and appropriate, then the corresponding MCL, maximum contaminant level, shall be attained where relevant and appropriate to the circumstances of the release. 00:46:47.000 --> 00:47:01.000 So MTLGs, MCLs definitely will have conversations around that as you are moving forward with remediation of current or potential drinking water sources. 00:47:01.000 --> 00:47:05.000 In the NTP preamble, there's actually language that clarifies 00:47:05.000 --> 00:47:13.000 With EPA's policies that MCLs or MCLGs above zero should generally be relevant and appropriate requirements. 00:47:13.000 --> 00:47:24.000 for groundwater that could be used for drinking water and that a waiver is generally needed in situations where those will not be met or not be attained. 00:47:24.000 --> 00:47:32.000 So there's a lot there when it comes to non-zero MCLGs and MCLs. But here is just some initial 00:47:32.000 --> 00:47:40.000 clarifications and guidance that can help with those conversations because they are very, very site specific. 00:47:40.000 --> 00:47:47.000 All right. I have been talking for a minute. I'm going to pause and let Jean take us through this poll. 00:47:47.000 --> 00:47:51.000 All right. Thank you. So I'm going to launch our very next poll. 00:47:51.000 --> 00:48:00.000 So you'll see a new pop-up on the screen. If anyone doesn't see the pop-up, for some attendees, it might be under the three dots more menu where you can access polls. 00:48:00.000 --> 00:48:07.000 Again, we've got the poll right here on the screen in the slide, so you're welcome to share your response by typing a message into the Q&A. 00:48:07.000 --> 00:48:14.000 So for this next apply your understanding poll, we're asking, which is not true when addressing groundwater contamination at surplus sites? 00:48:14.000 --> 00:48:27.000 Is it A, early actions should be considered as soon as possible? Is it B, groundwater contamination migrating beyond the, quote, fence line or established land site boundary should be considered? 00:48:27.000 --> 00:48:32.000 How about C, technical and practicability waivers and other waivers may be considered 00:48:32.000 --> 00:48:36.000 Or is it D, institutional controls can be relied upon 00:48:36.000 --> 00:48:44.000 as the only response to contaminated groundwater or as justification for not taking action under CERCLA. 00:48:44.000 --> 00:48:55.000 I'll let you consider those four responses and then click the circle to the left of the answer that you think is correct. Again, which one is not true when addressing groundwater contamination at circle sites? 00:48:55.000 --> 00:48:59.000 And we'll have you hit that submit button and we'll talk through the results here. 00:48:59.000 --> 00:49:05.000 So as I'm scrolling through, it looks like about two thirds of you have cast your vote. 00:49:05.000 --> 00:49:09.000 I'll go ahead and ask you to quickly get those in. I'll close the poll down. 00:49:09.000 --> 00:49:11.000 In three, two. 00:49:11.000 --> 00:49:14.000 Two, one. 00:49:14.000 --> 00:49:17.000 All right, Emmy, without a doubt. 00:49:17.000 --> 00:49:21.000 93% of the audience picked D. 00:49:21.000 --> 00:49:23.000 Is that the right answer? 00:49:23.000 --> 00:49:30.000 Yes. D as in dog is the answer that we were looking for in this case. So good job. 00:49:30.000 --> 00:49:32.000 folks who were able to 00:49:32.000 --> 00:49:41.000 to pick that one out. 00:49:41.000 --> 00:49:42.000 Okay. 00:49:42.000 --> 00:49:44.000 Excellent. Emmy, I think before we carry on, there were just a handful of questions. I think we might have time to be able to jump into just one or two of them. I think this 00:49:44.000 --> 00:49:51.000 This first one are fines a component of the ICs, the institutional controls. 00:49:51.000 --> 00:50:05.000 Fines might be a result of a type of administrative control that can be held at a site. I don't know if we would 00:50:05.000 --> 00:50:06.000 Okay. 00:50:06.000 --> 00:50:09.000 identify those as institutional controls off the bat, but I would say fines can be the result of having institutional controls 00:50:09.000 --> 00:50:13.000 In the form of administrative controls at your site. 00:50:13.000 --> 00:50:26.000 Okay. And then one other question, where does the term, quote, reasonably anticipated future use come in? I've heard that term quite a bit. And in some of our cases, it seems very practical to have ICs as the only remedy. 00:50:26.000 --> 00:50:30.000 At a minimum in conjunction with M&A. 00:50:30.000 --> 00:50:37.000 Is there ever a discussion to rewrite sections of the NCP for more practical policies? 00:50:37.000 --> 00:50:38.000 Sure. 00:50:38.000 --> 00:50:39.000 So again, just where does that phrase come from? 00:50:39.000 --> 00:50:45.000 So when we talk about land use determinations, which happened at the beginning of 00:50:45.000 --> 00:51:02.000 the CERCLA process for a site where we're trying to determine what are the end states of this site going to look at that's where you have those land use determinations. We actually have a whole webinar on that as well if you'd like to get into more specifics. 00:51:02.000 --> 00:51:13.000 essentially is looking what is reasonably going to be used here at this land? Is it likely to be commercial, residential? Is it going to be a national wildlife refuge? What can 00:51:13.000 --> 00:51:20.000 reasonably be expected as far as land use for this area and making sure that the cleanup ultimately can support that. 00:51:20.000 --> 00:51:31.000 Okay. All right. And just quickly, a couple of individuals chimed in on the question regarding fines. 00:51:31.000 --> 00:51:32.000 Okay. 00:51:32.000 --> 00:51:35.000 And one individual noted that ICs typically control some kind of direct exposure pathway, whereas a fine is not specific in that way. 00:51:35.000 --> 00:51:36.000 Okay. 00:51:36.000 --> 00:51:38.000 So we just wanted to thank those of you who are chiming in with some clarifications on your end. 00:51:38.000 --> 00:51:43.000 All right. I think we're ready to carry on and we're going to turn the floor over to our next 00:51:43.000 --> 00:51:45.000 presenter so dave 00:51:45.000 --> 00:51:49.000 If you want to unmute and carry on, please do. 00:51:49.000 --> 00:51:55.000 Okay, thank you, Jane. I'm Dave Bartenfelder. I am in Els Ready. 00:51:55.000 --> 00:52:02.000 Separate from Emmy, I'm in the assessment radiation division and in the science policy branch. 00:52:02.000 --> 00:52:05.000 like Mike, who talked to you earlier about 00:52:05.000 --> 00:52:09.000 the beneficial use designation. 00:52:09.000 --> 00:52:10.000 So I'm going to talk a little section 00:52:10.000 --> 00:52:13.000 on a couple topics, three of them to be specific. 00:52:13.000 --> 00:52:17.000 Alternate concentration limits, degree of cleanup. 00:52:17.000 --> 00:52:21.000 And timeframes. So I'm going to start with ACLs. 00:52:21.000 --> 00:52:26.000 which is the common use acronym for alternate concentration limits 00:52:26.000 --> 00:52:30.000 And this subject topic, if you will. 00:52:30.000 --> 00:52:32.000 is an area that has been 00:52:32.000 --> 00:52:37.000 challenging and somewhat confusing over the years. 00:52:37.000 --> 00:52:42.000 Part of it is due to its very similarity to MCLs. 00:52:42.000 --> 00:52:46.000 The other thing is that other 00:52:46.000 --> 00:52:49.000 programs and agencies 00:52:49.000 --> 00:52:53.000 Within and outside of EPA, maybe even states 00:52:53.000 --> 00:52:58.000 have their own version of alternate concentration limits. 00:52:58.000 --> 00:53:04.000 And there was a reevaluation, a reinterpretation, if you will. 00:53:04.000 --> 00:53:08.000 of ACLs within the Superfund program 00:53:08.000 --> 00:53:11.000 that happened in 2005. 00:53:11.000 --> 00:53:13.000 that clarify 00:53:13.000 --> 00:53:15.000 how ACLs would be used 00:53:15.000 --> 00:53:18.000 in the Superfund program. 00:53:18.000 --> 00:53:20.000 So ACLs. 00:53:20.000 --> 00:53:25.000 are something and a 00:53:25.000 --> 00:53:29.000 mechanism that is identified in CERTLA. 00:53:29.000 --> 00:53:31.000 In section 121, 00:53:31.000 --> 00:53:38.000 And how they could be used under a CERCLA situation. 00:53:38.000 --> 00:53:42.000 And it's a very specific application. 00:53:42.000 --> 00:53:46.000 within the CERCA program, it doesn't appear to ever to have been 00:53:46.000 --> 00:53:49.000 viewed as a widespread application. 00:53:49.000 --> 00:53:53.000 But as you will see that the acl 00:53:53.000 --> 00:53:56.000 can be used 00:53:56.000 --> 00:54:00.000 in a situation where you have a groundwater and some kind of 00:54:00.000 --> 00:54:03.000 surface water interaction. 00:54:03.000 --> 00:54:07.000 So HCLs may not be used 00:54:07.000 --> 00:54:12.000 When there's going to be a point of human exposure 00:54:12.000 --> 00:54:14.000 outside of the facility boundary. 00:54:14.000 --> 00:54:17.000 except for 00:54:17.000 --> 00:54:21.000 CERCLA identified three criteria 00:54:21.000 --> 00:54:23.000 for where acl's would 00:54:23.000 --> 00:54:27.000 be appropriate if these criteria are met. 00:54:27.000 --> 00:54:31.000 And the first criteria is there are known 00:54:31.000 --> 00:54:36.000 and projected points of entry of the groundwater 00:54:36.000 --> 00:54:38.000 into surface water. 00:54:38.000 --> 00:54:42.000 Very important first criteria. 00:54:42.000 --> 00:54:44.000 The second criteria is 00:54:44.000 --> 00:54:47.000 There will be no statistically significant increase 00:54:47.000 --> 00:54:52.000 And the concentration of the constituents in the surface water 00:54:52.000 --> 00:54:54.000 at any point. 00:54:54.000 --> 00:54:58.000 And the issue is. 00:54:58.000 --> 00:55:00.000 that this 00:55:00.000 --> 00:55:02.000 Determination is firstly made 00:55:02.000 --> 00:55:06.000 at the groundwater surface interaction. 00:55:06.000 --> 00:55:08.000 or interface, sorry. 00:55:08.000 --> 00:55:10.000 The second thing is 00:55:10.000 --> 00:55:15.000 The point about any downstream is to capture any kind of bioaccumulation 00:55:15.000 --> 00:55:17.000 of any particular constituents 00:55:17.000 --> 00:55:20.000 that might happen through biological 00:55:20.000 --> 00:55:26.000 media or even through soil or sediment. 00:55:26.000 --> 00:55:29.000 So it's a situation, just to clarify. 00:55:29.000 --> 00:55:32.000 that if you have a very large 00:55:32.000 --> 00:55:36.000 river that you just can't go onto the middle of it. 00:55:36.000 --> 00:55:40.000 And say, we took a sample and we don't detect our 00:55:40.000 --> 00:55:43.000 are consistent of concern there so 00:55:43.000 --> 00:55:45.000 we can use ACLs. 00:55:45.000 --> 00:55:49.000 is where the groundwater meets the surface water that interface 00:55:49.000 --> 00:55:55.000 Not due to a dilution of a lot of surface water flow. 00:55:55.000 --> 00:55:58.000 The third criteria is 00:55:58.000 --> 00:56:04.000 the rubino action of the ACL must include an enforceable measures 00:56:04.000 --> 00:56:06.000 that will preclude any human exposure 00:56:06.000 --> 00:56:08.000 to the contaminated groundwater. 00:56:08.000 --> 00:56:12.000 So this plays back into the point of human exposure. 00:56:12.000 --> 00:56:16.000 So the general conceptual site model for the acl 00:56:16.000 --> 00:56:18.000 implementation is 00:56:18.000 --> 00:56:21.000 where there is a facility 00:56:21.000 --> 00:56:23.000 that is in close proximity 00:56:23.000 --> 00:56:29.000 to a water body, not a facility that is miles away 00:56:29.000 --> 00:56:31.000 that you could have human exposures. 00:56:31.000 --> 00:56:34.000 between the circle 00:56:34.000 --> 00:56:42.000 unit super fund side, and the water body 00:56:42.000 --> 00:56:44.000 Okay. 00:56:44.000 --> 00:56:47.000 So I mentioned previously 00:56:47.000 --> 00:56:52.000 about the 2005 memo that clarified 00:56:52.000 --> 00:56:54.000 the use of ACLs. 00:56:54.000 --> 00:56:59.000 Initially, ACLs were used 00:56:59.000 --> 00:57:01.000 for situations 00:57:01.000 --> 00:57:05.000 that you had applicable and 00:57:05.000 --> 00:57:07.000 Relevant and appropriate 00:57:07.000 --> 00:57:10.000 So the 2005 memo 00:57:10.000 --> 00:57:15.000 added some clarification, further clarification 00:57:15.000 --> 00:57:18.000 to CERCLA as to how the ACLs could be used. 00:57:18.000 --> 00:57:21.000 under Section 121. 00:57:21.000 --> 00:57:27.000 And it expanded on the three criteria that are in CERCLA 00:57:27.000 --> 00:57:30.000 to an additional seven. 00:57:30.000 --> 00:57:32.000 that are for consideration 00:57:32.000 --> 00:57:34.000 as one goes through 00:57:34.000 --> 00:57:36.000 a acl 00:57:36.000 --> 00:57:40.000 analysis for their particular site. 00:57:40.000 --> 00:57:42.000 And then there were two very important 00:57:42.000 --> 00:57:47.000 clarifications that were noted in this 2005 00:57:47.000 --> 00:57:50.000 memo on accels 00:57:50.000 --> 00:57:56.000 And the first one is that acl 00:57:56.000 --> 00:57:59.000 The application is only for 00:57:59.000 --> 00:58:02.000 applicable situation in ARARS. 00:58:02.000 --> 00:58:04.000 and meet the criteria 00:58:04.000 --> 00:58:09.000 the three criteria and the other seven that were identified. 00:58:09.000 --> 00:58:12.000 The other second clarification was 00:58:12.000 --> 00:58:15.000 that ACLs cannot be used 00:58:15.000 --> 00:58:19.000 when there's a relevant and an appropriate standard 00:58:19.000 --> 00:58:22.000 A roar, commonly an MCL, 00:58:22.000 --> 00:58:26.000 or water quality criteria under the Clean Water Act. 00:58:26.000 --> 00:58:30.000 So this is not a substitute for that. 00:58:30.000 --> 00:58:33.000 If you have either one of those, you have to stick 00:58:33.000 --> 00:58:35.000 with the MCL. 00:58:35.000 --> 00:58:40.000 ACLs are not a substitute for MCLs. 00:58:40.000 --> 00:58:43.000 And to keep it in context, you know. 00:58:43.000 --> 00:58:46.000 Mike earlier talked about 00:58:46.000 --> 00:58:49.000 um you know the beneficial use designation 00:58:49.000 --> 00:58:52.000 So this will also play into 00:58:52.000 --> 00:58:55.000 the usage of ACLs 00:58:55.000 --> 00:58:58.000 If it is a 00:58:58.000 --> 00:59:02.000 you know class one or class two versus a class three 00:59:02.000 --> 00:59:07.000 type aquifer. 00:59:07.000 --> 00:59:10.000 The next topic and the second of the three 00:59:10.000 --> 00:59:13.000 is the notion of circular cleanup 00:59:13.000 --> 00:59:15.000 And to what degree 00:59:15.000 --> 00:59:19.000 the cleanups need to be pursued. 00:59:19.000 --> 00:59:23.000 And once again, under surplus Section 121 00:59:23.000 --> 00:59:25.000 It stays. 00:59:25.000 --> 00:59:29.000 The circle cleanup should attain a degree of cleanup 00:59:29.000 --> 00:59:32.000 that's protective of human health and environment. 00:59:32.000 --> 00:59:36.000 And that in most cases, at a minimum will be 00:59:36.000 --> 00:59:40.000 AAR, if one is available. 00:59:40.000 --> 00:59:47.000 And if not, it will be based on some kind of risk or health-based determination. 00:59:47.000 --> 00:59:51.000 The caveat to that is 00:59:51.000 --> 00:59:53.000 bed. 00:59:53.000 --> 00:59:56.000 CERCLA identified 00:59:56.000 --> 00:59:59.000 that while we strive 00:59:59.000 --> 01:00:01.000 for cleaning up 01:00:01.000 --> 01:00:03.000 Groundwater to its beneficial use. 01:00:03.000 --> 01:00:06.000 there will be situations 01:00:06.000 --> 01:00:08.000 where that cannot be achieved. 01:00:08.000 --> 01:00:12.000 And it identified six identified 01:00:12.000 --> 01:00:14.000 AR waivers that 01:00:14.000 --> 01:00:17.000 could potentially be used. 01:00:17.000 --> 01:00:22.000 And we will talk about one of those six later on 01:00:22.000 --> 01:00:28.000 in this webinar, and that's the technical and practicability waiver. 01:00:28.000 --> 01:00:35.000 As I mentioned just a few seconds ago, that the Safe Drinking Water Act has NCLs that are generally considered 01:00:35.000 --> 01:00:38.000 and viewed to be relevant appropriate 01:00:38.000 --> 01:00:40.000 with regard to 01:00:40.000 --> 01:00:43.000 rail water cleanup levels. 01:00:43.000 --> 01:00:46.000 That is consistent with our approach 01:00:46.000 --> 01:00:48.000 And like I said, and what Mike mentioned. 01:00:48.000 --> 01:00:51.000 it's appropriate for 01:00:51.000 --> 01:00:55.000 Groundwater that's class one and class two 01:00:55.000 --> 01:00:59.000 Generally, if it's a class three aquifer, as Mike mentioned. 01:00:59.000 --> 01:01:03.000 It's not a drinking water, so it wouldn't be appropriate 01:01:03.000 --> 01:01:06.000 However, as Mike mentioned. 01:01:06.000 --> 01:01:09.000 when you have this high level of interconnection 01:01:09.000 --> 01:01:11.000 of groundwaters 01:01:11.000 --> 01:01:13.000 Different groundwater aquifers 01:01:13.000 --> 01:01:18.000 then you might have to consider managing a class three aquifer 01:01:18.000 --> 01:01:28.000 as a lower number, like a class one or class two, then you might still need to restore 01:01:28.000 --> 01:01:32.000 Last topic is the remediation timeframe and 01:01:32.000 --> 01:01:36.000 Emmy touched on this a little bit too, and we're not going to go into great 01:01:36.000 --> 01:01:41.000 details. But for groundwater as the most cleanup activities 01:01:41.000 --> 01:01:44.000 In the Superfund program. 01:01:44.000 --> 01:01:49.000 that determinations are made on a site-specific basis. 01:01:49.000 --> 01:01:52.000 Considering the site contaminants 01:01:52.000 --> 01:01:55.000 The subsurface hydrogeologic conditions. 01:01:55.000 --> 01:02:00.000 size of the plume, remediation technologies. 01:02:00.000 --> 01:02:02.000 And cost. 01:02:02.000 --> 01:02:07.000 I mentioned cost, but cost is a secondary criteria 01:02:07.000 --> 01:02:11.000 Based on the nine criteria for remedy selection. 01:02:11.000 --> 01:02:17.000 So cost is not a primary one determining the timeframe. 01:02:17.000 --> 01:02:21.000 Going back to the earliest days of SARCL, 01:02:21.000 --> 01:02:23.000 It mentions that there is 01:02:23.000 --> 01:02:28.000 EPA's preference for rapid restoration, especially 01:02:28.000 --> 01:02:31.000 when you're dealing with a class one aquifer. 01:02:31.000 --> 01:02:34.000 Which is a special aquifer or a class 2A 01:02:34.000 --> 01:02:38.000 which is a current drinking water source. 01:02:38.000 --> 01:02:42.000 When you are dealing with a 01:02:42.000 --> 01:02:47.000 Potential drinking water source, restoration is still your goal 01:02:47.000 --> 01:02:53.000 But there might be a little bit more flexibility or latitude with regard to your remediation timeframe. 01:02:53.000 --> 01:02:57.000 Since it is not currently being used and it's not a special 01:02:57.000 --> 01:03:02.000 water body that affords the highest level of protection that we can possibly 01:03:02.000 --> 01:03:05.000 a tribute to 01:03:05.000 --> 01:03:07.000 that situation. 01:03:07.000 --> 01:03:09.000 So we do have some flexibility. 01:03:09.000 --> 01:03:11.000 With regard to time frame. 01:03:11.000 --> 01:03:15.000 But it's going to be very specific. And it's not a situation where 01:03:15.000 --> 01:03:21.000 um you know it's determined, oh, this was done at another site. I want the same thing. 01:03:21.000 --> 01:03:24.000 there might be some similarities 01:03:24.000 --> 01:03:26.000 But it might not be a complete overlap 01:03:26.000 --> 01:03:28.000 So the radiation time frame 01:03:28.000 --> 01:03:31.000 will be very much decided 01:03:31.000 --> 01:03:36.000 on this bundling of a lot of different criteria 01:03:36.000 --> 01:03:39.000 And then what is the appropriate time frame 01:03:39.000 --> 01:03:49.000 for that specific situation. 01:03:49.000 --> 01:03:52.000 So. 01:03:52.000 --> 01:03:55.000 I think the last thing is 01:03:55.000 --> 01:03:58.000 And this is an area that has 01:03:58.000 --> 01:04:01.000 been of a lot of 01:04:01.000 --> 01:04:03.000 concern and interest as the move. 01:04:03.000 --> 01:04:07.000 The Superfarm program and groundwater clearance has become more mature. 01:04:07.000 --> 01:04:09.000 And it's the basic question of 01:04:09.000 --> 01:04:11.000 When am I done? 01:04:11.000 --> 01:04:15.000 And there has been all kinds 01:04:15.000 --> 01:04:19.000 of metrics, if you will, as to 01:04:19.000 --> 01:04:21.000 One is… 01:04:21.000 --> 01:04:24.000 When have I met my groundwater cleanup levels? 01:04:24.000 --> 01:04:26.000 Some of them have been very arbitrary. 01:04:26.000 --> 01:04:30.000 But we do have at our disposal 01:04:30.000 --> 01:04:34.000 Guidance is going back in time and 01:04:34.000 --> 01:04:37.000 other 01:04:37.000 --> 01:04:39.000 groups that 01:04:39.000 --> 01:04:43.000 help to set up at least a common understanding 01:04:43.000 --> 01:04:47.000 of what needs to be done and what will be the metric 01:04:47.000 --> 01:04:50.000 for determining when the groundwater 01:04:50.000 --> 01:04:53.000 Groundwater remediation is complete. 01:04:53.000 --> 01:04:58.000 And in the mid 01:04:58.000 --> 01:05:00.000 2010s 2010s 01:05:00.000 --> 01:05:05.000 the 2014, several guidances were put out to try and help 01:05:05.000 --> 01:05:07.000 clarify that and set up what 01:05:07.000 --> 01:05:09.000 is the appropriate 01:05:09.000 --> 01:05:15.000 metric and approach for determining when a groundwater remediation is complete. 01:05:15.000 --> 01:05:19.000 And between 2013 guidances that are included in your 01:05:19.000 --> 01:05:26.000 references and 2014 guidance, which is a recommended approach 01:05:26.000 --> 01:05:28.000 a system was set up 01:05:28.000 --> 01:05:32.000 that recommends the evaluation for the 01:05:32.000 --> 01:05:37.000 COCs at the site on a well-by-well basis 01:05:37.000 --> 01:05:39.000 Not average across wells. 01:05:39.000 --> 01:05:44.000 for two phases. One was identified as a remediation monitoring phase 01:05:44.000 --> 01:05:48.000 The second one was an attainment monitoring phase. 01:05:48.000 --> 01:05:53.000 They have different criteria within each one of these phases. 01:05:53.000 --> 01:05:58.000 And the reason that there is a differentiation between the two is 01:05:58.000 --> 01:06:00.000 Remediation monitoring 01:06:00.000 --> 01:06:04.000 is the phase that allows you to say. 01:06:04.000 --> 01:06:06.000 we have come 01:06:06.000 --> 01:06:08.000 to mathematically 01:06:08.000 --> 01:06:12.000 achieve our cleanup goal. 01:06:12.000 --> 01:06:18.000 But you're not done there. The attainment monitoring phase was also added 01:06:18.000 --> 01:06:21.000 and is also needed and comes after the remediation module. 01:06:21.000 --> 01:06:23.000 phase to make sure you can 01:06:23.000 --> 01:06:25.000 maintain meeting 01:06:25.000 --> 01:06:30.000 your cleanup goal. And this is especially germane 01:06:30.000 --> 01:06:32.000 In the context of 01:06:32.000 --> 01:06:38.000 active remedies because sometimes an active remedy will create an artifact in the subsurface environment 01:06:38.000 --> 01:06:41.000 And when you turn off the remediation phase. 01:06:41.000 --> 01:06:44.000 Because you've met the numerical numbers 01:06:44.000 --> 01:06:48.000 the system will now respond to that react to that 01:06:48.000 --> 01:06:52.000 And you might have what we commonly know as rebound 01:06:52.000 --> 01:06:54.000 levels will go back up again. 01:06:54.000 --> 01:06:56.000 So you have these two 01:06:56.000 --> 01:07:00.000 phases that you need to meet. 01:07:00.000 --> 01:07:03.000 to determine that your groundwater is 01:07:03.000 --> 01:07:05.000 met its goals. 01:07:05.000 --> 01:07:11.000 And this is done on a well-specific situation, not averaged across a bunch of wells. 01:07:11.000 --> 01:07:13.000 Because different wells 01:07:13.000 --> 01:07:18.000 for different parts of the aquifer can respond differently. 01:07:18.000 --> 01:07:24.000 So the main point is finding out when these contaminant levels for each CRC has been achieved. 01:07:24.000 --> 01:07:26.000 And we'll continue to meet 01:07:26.000 --> 01:07:28.000 those levels in the future. 01:07:28.000 --> 01:07:33.000 And doing it this way is part and parcel to, it's not an all or everything. 01:07:33.000 --> 01:07:38.000 Because this does allow for either a complete deletion of all groundwater 01:07:38.000 --> 01:07:41.000 or a partial deletion of groundwater. 01:07:41.000 --> 01:07:48.000 If appropriate in the situation. 01:07:48.000 --> 01:07:50.000 I think that's it. 01:07:50.000 --> 01:07:55.000 So I will stop here and i will stop here 01:07:55.000 --> 01:07:58.000 Jean, I will turn it back over to you. 01:07:58.000 --> 01:08:04.000 All right. Thanks so much, Dave. I'm just looking at our time here to be mindful. 01:08:04.000 --> 01:08:08.000 Looking at the slide that we're at. 01:08:08.000 --> 01:08:16.000 I think what we're going to do, Dave, is we're going to carry on with the presentation, but I do have a few questions that came in. I'm going to circle back to you just a little bit later. 01:08:16.000 --> 01:08:22.000 So I'm going to go ahead and switch the floor over to our next speaker just so that we can stay on track with time. 01:08:22.000 --> 01:08:28.000 And Lisa, let me pull you up so that you can introduce yourself and carry on with that presentation. 01:08:28.000 --> 01:08:38.000 All right. Hello, I'm Lisa Ratterink, and I also work in Azrati in the science policy branch with Mike and Dave, and I have a focus on groundwater. 01:08:38.000 --> 01:08:45.000 So today I will be presenting information regarding monitor natural attenuation or M&A. 01:08:45.000 --> 01:08:54.000 The EPA defines this as the use of natural attenuation processes within the context of a carefully controlled and monitored site cleanup approach. 01:08:54.000 --> 01:09:05.000 that will reduce contaminated concentrations to levels that are protective of human health and the environment with a reasonable timeframe. 01:09:05.000 --> 01:09:12.000 So as part of evaluating if M&A is appropriate for your site, there are a few things to keep in mind. 01:09:12.000 --> 01:09:20.000 M&A is often referred to as a passive remedy because natural attenuation processes occur without human interference. 01:09:20.000 --> 01:09:26.000 And that's maybe inferred to be a no action or a walk away remedial approach, which is not the case. 01:09:26.000 --> 01:09:35.000 The selection of M&A will still require that activities associated with investigating the site and or selecting and implementing a remedy. 01:09:35.000 --> 01:09:40.000 For M&A to be considered an appropriate remedial approach at Superfund sites. 01:09:40.000 --> 01:09:46.000 the relevant remedy criteria must be met for that specific regulatory program. 01:09:46.000 --> 01:09:55.000 and site data and information should demonstrate that remedial objectives can be achieved within a reasonable timeframe compared to other remedial options. 01:09:55.000 --> 01:10:04.000 In addition, M&A should only be implemented where contaminated plumes are stable or shrinking, indicating a low potential for contaminant migration. 01:10:04.000 --> 01:10:12.000 M&A does not preclude active remediation measures. It only imply that they are infeasible or technically impractical. 01:10:12.000 --> 01:10:20.000 Emily is considered a potential alternative to active remedy approaches and can be used for many classes of contaminants. 01:10:20.000 --> 01:10:30.000 Organics such as BTEX or chlorinated solvents are well-known contaminants that can respond well to M&A and therefore is the most common class associated. 01:10:30.000 --> 01:10:35.000 However, M&A can also be applied to the inorganics and radionuclides. 01:10:35.000 --> 01:10:42.000 The inorganic contaminants can be transferred between solid, liquid, or gaseous phases within the aquifer, but will always be present. 01:10:42.000 --> 01:10:55.000 And radionuclides will degrade via radioactive decay. In addition, may be mobilized via zorption or two aquifer solids. 01:10:55.000 --> 01:10:59.000 So as a reminder, M&A is not an all or nothing approach. 01:10:59.000 --> 01:11:04.000 It may be appropriate for a portion of your plume or even just a subset of your contaminants. 01:11:04.000 --> 01:11:15.000 While using M&A in combination with an active remedy approach, you must be careful to ensure that you're not equating your active remedy attenuation to those of natural processes. 01:11:15.000 --> 01:11:25.000 There are a variety of active remedies that can promote attenuation processes while the aquifer is under those influences. The remedy is no longer considered M&A. 01:11:25.000 --> 01:11:32.000 However, once the active remedy is no longer influencing the aquifer, an evaluation for M&A can be conducted. 01:11:32.000 --> 01:11:42.000 And if evidence supports natural attenuation is occurring, it can be used as a follow-up or polishing step to bring the remediation to completion. 01:11:42.000 --> 01:11:45.000 And source control is a huge 01:11:45.000 --> 01:11:53.000 part of it and it must be evaluated and still considered the most effective means for timely attainment of remediation goals. 01:11:53.000 --> 01:11:59.000 So there are a variety of M&A in situ processes listed here. 01:11:59.000 --> 01:12:01.000 biodegradation, dispersion 01:12:01.000 --> 01:12:03.000 Delusion, absorption 01:12:03.000 --> 01:12:15.000 But when relying on these natural attenuation processes, the EPA prefers those that degrade or destroy contaminants. 01:12:15.000 --> 01:12:22.000 And there are a number of pros and cons to consider when evaluating if M&A is appropriate at a site. 01:12:22.000 --> 01:12:32.000 Generally speaking, most of the pros relate to a less disturbance to site conditions or less generated waste and lower long-term costs. 01:12:32.000 --> 01:12:42.000 M&A can be used in conjunction with active remedies. It should be noted that they are not used in the same area. It should be noted that they are not used in the same area of the plume. 01:12:42.000 --> 01:12:48.000 Like I had mentioned earlier, you can use them in combination, but if you are 01:12:48.000 --> 01:12:51.000 doing it active, it can influence 01:12:51.000 --> 01:12:55.000 your natural and therefore it is no longer natural. 01:12:55.000 --> 01:12:58.000 So therefore. 01:12:58.000 --> 01:13:00.000 You can do M&A in 01:13:00.000 --> 01:13:03.000 the distal portion or affluence portion of the plume. 01:13:03.000 --> 01:13:06.000 while you are actively treating your source area. 01:13:06.000 --> 01:13:12.000 While these can be appealing reasons to implement M&A, there are also a bunch of cons to consider. 01:13:12.000 --> 01:13:16.000 There's the potential for more upfront costs. 01:13:16.000 --> 01:13:20.000 Especially with the implementation at a complex geologic site. 01:13:20.000 --> 01:13:27.000 This is due to the level of site characterization generally needed to support a comprehensive evaluation of M&A. 01:13:27.000 --> 01:13:29.000 Which tends to be more detailed 01:13:29.000 --> 01:13:34.000 And generally a more detailed geologic 01:13:34.000 --> 01:13:39.000 evaluations generally needed to support than to support an active remedy. 01:13:39.000 --> 01:13:44.000 There's also the potential for daughter products to stall the natural attenuation products. 01:13:44.000 --> 01:13:51.000 process or the migration of the plume, which would both indicate the need to reevaluate M&A as your remedy. 01:13:51.000 --> 01:14:02.000 In addition, you will generally see longer timeframe to achieve remediation goals. Therefore, EPA or other regulatory authorities should consider a number of factors when evaluating 01:14:02.000 --> 01:14:04.000 reasonable time frame 01:14:04.000 --> 01:14:14.000 These factors should allow the overseeing regulatory authority to determine whether a natural attenuation remedy will fully protect potential receptors 01:14:14.000 --> 01:14:17.000 and meet site remediation objectives within a reasonable timeframe. 01:14:17.000 --> 01:14:21.000 to restore your contaminated groundwater to its beneficial use. 01:14:21.000 --> 01:14:33.000 When these conditions cannot be met using M&A, a remedial alternative that more likely would meet these expectations should be selected. 01:14:33.000 --> 01:14:41.000 So before M&A can be selected as the remedy, evidence needs to be presented to support that natural attenuation is in fact occurring at the site. 01:14:41.000 --> 01:14:46.000 A three-tiered approach is utilized to determine if this is occurring. 01:14:46.000 --> 01:14:59.000 In this approach, detailed information is collected as necessary to provide a specified level of confidence on the estimates of attenuation rates and remediation timeframe. 01:14:59.000 --> 01:15:08.000 The first line of evidence is to present historical groundwater and soil chemistry data to demonstrate a clear and meaningful trend of decreasing contaminant mass 01:15:08.000 --> 01:15:12.000 or concentration over time at appropriate monitoring or sampling points. 01:15:12.000 --> 01:15:17.000 The decreasing concentration should not be solely the result of plume migration. 01:15:17.000 --> 01:15:22.000 And no less than four data points should be used to evaluate the trends. 01:15:22.000 --> 01:15:26.000 And those trends should be evaluated for individual wells along flow paths. 01:15:26.000 --> 01:15:34.000 In the case of inorganic contaminants, the primary attenuating mechanism should also be understood. 01:15:34.000 --> 01:15:47.000 If the historical data from the first line of evidence is deemed insufficient, then data characterizing the nature and rates of natural attenuation processes at the site should be provided as a secondary line of evidence. 01:15:47.000 --> 01:15:55.000 The second line of evidence is to use hydraulic, hydrogeologic, and geochemical data to demonstrate indirectly 01:15:55.000 --> 01:15:59.000 the types of natural attenuation a process is active at the site. 01:15:59.000 --> 01:16:04.000 And then the rate at which such processes will reduce contaminated 01:16:04.000 --> 01:16:07.000 concentrations to required levels. 01:16:07.000 --> 01:16:12.000 For example, characterization data may be used to quantify the rates of contaminant 01:16:12.000 --> 01:16:16.000 contaminant sorption, dilution, or volatilization. 01:16:16.000 --> 01:16:23.000 or to demonstrate that quantifying the rates of biological degradation processes occurring at the site. 01:16:23.000 --> 01:16:28.000 If the data from the second line of evidence is inadequate or inconclusive. 01:16:28.000 --> 01:16:31.000 Data from microcosm studies may also be necessary. 01:16:31.000 --> 01:16:40.000 The third line of evidence utilizes data from field or microcosm studies, which are conducted in or with actual contaminated site media. 01:16:40.000 --> 01:16:50.000 This can directly demonstrate the occurrence of a particular natural attenuation process at the site and its ability to degrade the contaminants of contaminants of concern. 01:16:50.000 --> 01:16:52.000 Please. 01:16:52.000 --> 01:16:57.000 This is typically used for biological degradation processes. 01:16:57.000 --> 01:17:08.000 At sites with contaminants that do not readily degrade through biological processes or that transform into more toxic or mobile forms than their parent compound. 01:17:08.000 --> 01:17:15.000 additional supporting information may be required to demonstrate the effectiveness of M&A. 01:17:15.000 --> 01:17:23.000 And for anyone who is not aware, there will be an updated M&A document which compiles and summarizes the 01:17:23.000 --> 01:17:25.000 1999, 2015. 01:17:25.000 --> 01:17:30.000 I was writing guidance along with a number of ORD documents regarding M&A. 01:17:30.000 --> 01:17:38.000 And this updated document is planned for public release before the end of the calendar year. 01:17:38.000 --> 01:17:40.000 And I believe… 01:17:40.000 --> 01:17:42.000 After that, yeah, then it's 01:17:42.000 --> 01:17:50.000 Over to Emmy to discuss M&A at DOE sites. 01:17:50.000 --> 01:17:57.000 Thank you so much for that, Lisa. Just wanted to touch base on some other federal agency guidance regarding M&A. 01:17:57.000 --> 01:18:11.000 And how it compares to EPAs, mostly for awareness. If you are interested or work at a Department of Energy site, being aware that they have their M&A guidance that also advocates the use of a tiered decision-making approach. 01:18:11.000 --> 01:18:16.000 I won't go into the details of speaking for Dewey on their 01:18:16.000 --> 01:18:24.000 tiered approach, but wanted you all to be aware that this exists. And if you're working at a DOE site, it would be helpful to be it 01:18:24.000 --> 01:18:34.000 whichever group you work for, be it a regulator or DOE themselves, take a closer look at what's provided in this guidance. 01:18:34.000 --> 01:18:53.000 From there, just taking up some of the highlights of that M&A guidance with the tiered approach, starting with that scoping and planning phase and the tier one, getting into technical analysis and tier two to determine the timeframe needed for M&A to attain those remediation objectives. 01:18:53.000 --> 01:19:00.000 Considering what the future land use and groundwater use are and distance to receptors. 01:19:00.000 --> 01:19:08.000 from getting to the tier three, which really gets into those risk management considerations that go into effectiveness, implementability, and cost. 01:19:08.000 --> 01:19:17.000 consideration. So I'll just touch on that for now to let you all know that's available if it relates to the cleanup work that you do. 01:19:17.000 --> 01:19:27.000 Now, I'm sure we're all excited to get into the next topic of technical and practicability waivers. Jean, are we moving on or are we pausing for questions? 01:19:27.000 --> 01:19:39.000 I think just keeping myself mindful of the topic and the time. Let's carry on and we'll circle back to questions later because I definitely see some already in the queue for the TI waivers. 01:19:39.000 --> 01:19:44.000 So Dave, I'll turn the floor over to you to carry on with this next section. 01:19:44.000 --> 01:19:48.000 Great view. Well, thank you, Jean. I'm back. 01:19:48.000 --> 01:19:57.000 So one of our all-time favorite topics, technical and practicability waivers, garners a lot of interest and a lot of attention. 01:19:57.000 --> 01:20:03.000 Hopefully, after hearing this presentation, we'll be able to dispel some 01:20:03.000 --> 01:20:05.000 misunderstandings and some 01:20:05.000 --> 01:20:08.000 misconceptions about 01:20:08.000 --> 01:20:11.000 technical practicabilities, what they do and 01:20:11.000 --> 01:20:16.000 whether you can actually get them. 01:20:16.000 --> 01:20:20.000 So as I mentioned earlier, CERCLA 01:20:20.000 --> 01:20:23.000 You know, while we strive to 01:20:23.000 --> 01:20:25.000 clean up and restore 01:20:25.000 --> 01:20:32.000 that it was recognized that we might not be able to restore all groundwater in every situation to ARRs. 01:20:32.000 --> 01:20:35.000 And Circle identified 01:20:35.000 --> 01:20:38.000 the six AR waivers that might be 01:20:38.000 --> 01:20:43.000 used in limited situations in this 01:20:43.000 --> 01:20:45.000 super fun universe. 01:20:45.000 --> 01:20:50.000 And of those six, there are waivers 01:20:50.000 --> 01:20:51.000 TI is one of them. 01:20:51.000 --> 01:20:55.000 And it is probably the most used 01:20:55.000 --> 01:20:59.000 of all the ARR waivers 01:20:59.000 --> 01:21:02.000 And has the most guidance. 01:21:02.000 --> 01:21:06.000 on what it is and how to use it. 01:21:06.000 --> 01:21:10.000 So in general, what is a TI waiver? 01:21:10.000 --> 01:21:12.000 And when is it appropriate? 01:21:12.000 --> 01:21:15.000 It is used when 01:21:15.000 --> 01:21:18.000 compliance with 01:21:18.000 --> 01:21:21.000 either an applicable or relevant appropriate 01:21:21.000 --> 01:21:26.000 requirement is technically impractical from an engineering perspective. 01:21:26.000 --> 01:21:29.000 Which means you just can't achieve it 01:21:29.000 --> 01:21:32.000 based on the situation at hand. 01:21:32.000 --> 01:21:37.000 The timing of the remediation and the cost. And once again, cost 01:21:37.000 --> 01:21:43.000 is a subordinate factor, not the primary driver. 01:21:43.000 --> 01:21:45.000 Having said that. 01:21:45.000 --> 01:21:52.000 The TI waiver must still be protective of human health and the environment. 01:21:52.000 --> 01:21:55.000 All we're saying with the TI waiver is 01:21:55.000 --> 01:21:58.000 you do not 01:21:58.000 --> 01:22:01.000 you are waiving meeting the AR. 01:22:01.000 --> 01:22:05.000 We're not saying that you don't have to do nothing 01:22:05.000 --> 01:22:08.000 remedy or you don't have to do anything 01:22:08.000 --> 01:22:12.000 there is still the usage of 01:22:12.000 --> 01:22:18.000 a remedy and the way that we ultimately probably achieve protectiveness 01:22:18.000 --> 01:22:21.000 even though we cannot meet an mcl 01:22:21.000 --> 01:22:27.000 is through what Emmy described earlier, the use of institutional controls. 01:22:27.000 --> 01:22:33.000 And there will basically put in covenants or work to have covenants to say. 01:22:33.000 --> 01:22:35.000 not to use the groundwater 01:22:35.000 --> 01:22:37.000 for drinking water. 01:22:37.000 --> 01:22:43.000 Because it will cause adverse health effects. 01:22:43.000 --> 01:22:46.000 The other thing I want to mention is that 01:22:46.000 --> 01:22:49.000 TI waivers are only for ARRARS. 01:22:49.000 --> 01:22:52.000 If your site has 01:22:52.000 --> 01:22:54.000 non-AR constituents 01:22:54.000 --> 01:22:57.000 that are risk or health-based numbers. 01:22:57.000 --> 01:23:01.000 You cannot do an ARRAR. You cannot do a TI waiver. 01:23:01.000 --> 01:23:03.000 It's only good for ARARS. 01:23:03.000 --> 01:23:08.000 The other thing we want to drive home is, as Mike mentioned with the class three 01:23:08.000 --> 01:23:13.000 that are not highly interconnected 01:23:13.000 --> 01:23:19.000 probably would not need to do a TI waiver because it's not drinking water. So we would not have to meet 01:23:19.000 --> 01:23:22.000 at least relevant and appropriate. 01:23:22.000 --> 01:23:25.000 Applicable, maybe have to. So there is once again some 01:23:25.000 --> 01:23:30.000 gray area, if you will, some flexibility there as to 01:23:30.000 --> 01:23:32.000 how our technical practicability waivers 01:23:32.000 --> 01:23:36.000 may be used. 01:23:36.000 --> 01:23:39.000 One of the misconceptions that 01:23:39.000 --> 01:23:44.000 I've heard over the years is EPA doesn't grant TI waivers. 01:23:44.000 --> 01:23:46.000 And that's not correct. 01:23:46.000 --> 01:23:50.000 Since the inception of CERCLA, 01:23:50.000 --> 01:23:53.000 We have 130 plus 01:23:53.000 --> 01:23:56.000 PI waivers to date. 01:23:56.000 --> 01:23:59.000 Most of the ti waivers 01:23:59.000 --> 01:24:02.000 are for groundwater. 01:24:02.000 --> 01:24:05.000 But we do have a few 01:24:05.000 --> 01:24:07.000 TI waivers for surface water because 01:24:07.000 --> 01:24:12.000 Keep in mind, a TI waiver is just for AR. 01:24:12.000 --> 01:24:14.000 So if you have an ARRAR, 01:24:14.000 --> 01:24:17.000 you potentially could waive it. 01:24:17.000 --> 01:24:19.000 Because it's technically impracticable. 01:24:19.000 --> 01:24:22.000 So that's why we do have 01:24:22.000 --> 01:24:25.000 a few surface waters in connection conjunction 01:24:25.000 --> 01:24:29.000 with our other groundwater TI waivers. 01:24:29.000 --> 01:24:31.000 So what do you do 01:24:31.000 --> 01:24:34.000 PI waivers basically do 01:24:34.000 --> 01:24:36.000 It is a recognition 01:24:36.000 --> 01:24:43.000 that there is an inability to treat, remove, contain contaminants 01:24:43.000 --> 01:24:46.000 to the designated 01:24:46.000 --> 01:24:51.000 ARR. And that could be based on several factors, not just one. 01:24:51.000 --> 01:24:57.000 And they are that there could be some uniqueness to the chemical contaminant 01:24:57.000 --> 01:24:59.000 and the physical properties. 01:24:59.000 --> 01:25:03.000 there could be something that is related to 01:25:03.000 --> 01:25:06.000 The subsurface geology, hydrogeology. 01:25:06.000 --> 01:25:10.000 Basically, you have a complex situation 01:25:10.000 --> 01:25:12.000 You know, fracture bedrock. 01:25:12.000 --> 01:25:20.000 complex sedimentary deposits, things like that. They don't equate and automatically guarantee you 01:25:20.000 --> 01:25:25.000 But those seem to be situations that lend themselves well 01:25:25.000 --> 01:25:28.000 and are more amenable to a TI waiver. 01:25:28.000 --> 01:25:32.000 The other thing is, what does technology allow us? 01:25:32.000 --> 01:25:34.000 there might not be a technology 01:25:34.000 --> 01:25:37.000 to effectively 01:25:37.000 --> 01:25:42.000 address achievement of the MCL or the arar 01:25:42.000 --> 01:25:46.000 in this subsurface situation. 01:25:46.000 --> 01:25:50.000 there could be the ability to do it 01:25:50.000 --> 01:25:53.000 But it's going to be an exceptionally long time frame. 01:25:53.000 --> 01:25:57.000 We don't have a line drawn in the sand. 01:25:57.000 --> 01:26:02.000 Even though there's the parenthetical of 100 years in the 1993 guidance 01:26:02.000 --> 01:26:07.000 But it could be, once again, very site specific. 01:26:07.000 --> 01:26:09.000 It could be hundreds of thousands of years. 01:26:09.000 --> 01:26:12.000 And as I mentioned earlier, it's not on this slide. 01:26:12.000 --> 01:26:16.000 cost plays into it, but it has to be an inordinate cost. 01:26:16.000 --> 01:26:20.000 for TI and its subordinate 01:26:20.000 --> 01:26:26.000 at the end of the considerations of the ones I've just talked about. 01:26:26.000 --> 01:26:32.000 So this slide and the next slide kind of give you just a general 01:26:32.000 --> 01:26:35.000 picture of the TI waivers 01:26:35.000 --> 01:26:37.000 the TI waiver universe. 01:26:37.000 --> 01:26:40.000 that we have. And this was pulled 01:26:40.000 --> 01:26:43.000 from sims and some of our other information. 01:26:43.000 --> 01:26:48.000 So from here, you can see over the years, there's been an ebb and flow 01:26:48.000 --> 01:26:50.000 of ti waivers 01:26:50.000 --> 01:26:52.000 over time 01:26:52.000 --> 01:26:54.000 And… 01:26:54.000 --> 01:26:58.000 You know, there are things that bounce up bounce down 01:26:58.000 --> 01:27:01.000 You can notice that the 01:27:01.000 --> 01:27:06.000 blue portions of these bar graphs are ones for federal facilities. 01:27:06.000 --> 01:27:09.000 And we do have 16 TI waivers 01:27:09.000 --> 01:27:12.000 at federal facilities of 13 sites. 01:27:12.000 --> 01:27:15.000 We generally, in the last couple of years 01:27:15.000 --> 01:27:19.000 get a couple TI waivers, not an inordinate amount 01:27:19.000 --> 01:27:22.000 you know three four five that come in 01:27:22.000 --> 01:27:26.000 Sometimes they go through quickly. 01:27:26.000 --> 01:27:28.000 sometimes they come 01:27:28.000 --> 01:27:31.000 not so quickly. 01:27:31.000 --> 01:27:34.000 there are things to be worked out in details. 01:27:34.000 --> 01:27:43.000 what that TI waiver is actually going to constitute. 01:27:43.000 --> 01:27:51.000 This slide goes on and it's just a different representation of the TI waivers, but it's based on our 10 EPA regions. 01:27:51.000 --> 01:27:56.000 And you can see from here, some regions are more amenable to TI waivers. 01:27:56.000 --> 01:28:00.000 And some regions are more amenable to 01:28:00.000 --> 01:28:03.000 federal facility ti waivers. 01:28:03.000 --> 01:28:05.000 Region 10, for example. 01:28:05.000 --> 01:28:07.000 They have four TI waivers 01:28:07.000 --> 01:28:11.000 And two of those four are federal facilities. 01:28:11.000 --> 01:28:18.000 One of the things also to keep in mind is that some of these correlations, not so much with this slide. 01:28:18.000 --> 01:28:21.000 But the previous slide 01:28:21.000 --> 01:28:26.000 probably goes along with some of the TI guides that has come out. 01:28:26.000 --> 01:28:29.000 In 1993, 01:28:29.000 --> 01:28:31.000 was the first TI guidance 01:28:31.000 --> 01:28:36.000 And you'll notice an uptick of TI waivers after that. 01:28:36.000 --> 01:28:38.000 we put out something 01:28:38.000 --> 01:28:40.000 In 95, 01:28:40.000 --> 01:28:45.000 In 2012, we have our lesson summary 01:28:45.000 --> 01:28:49.000 I'll talk about quickly here in a second. And then 2016, 01:28:49.000 --> 01:28:52.000 we put out a clarification, mainly a process. 01:28:52.000 --> 01:28:56.000 to help people understand what is the process 01:28:56.000 --> 01:28:57.000 that a TI waiver goes through. 01:28:57.000 --> 01:29:01.000 And it includes the development of the package 01:29:01.000 --> 01:29:03.000 It's evaluated by the regions 01:29:03.000 --> 01:29:07.000 He comes to headquarters for a consultation. 01:29:07.000 --> 01:29:09.000 And if everything goes 01:29:09.000 --> 01:29:11.000 in a certain way 01:29:11.000 --> 01:29:13.000 It's approved. 01:29:13.000 --> 01:29:16.000 But it's not official until 01:29:16.000 --> 01:29:22.000 that TI waiver is memorialized in the decision document. 01:29:22.000 --> 01:29:35.000 Whether it's a rod, a rod amendment, or an ESD. 01:29:35.000 --> 01:29:38.000 So with regard to the TI waivers. 01:29:38.000 --> 01:29:44.000 TI and the other waivers can be considered when it's appropriate under the statutory criteria 01:29:44.000 --> 01:29:47.000 that were laid out and they're very general. 01:29:47.000 --> 01:29:50.000 but ultimately 01:29:50.000 --> 01:29:53.000 The waiver decision itself 01:29:53.000 --> 01:29:56.000 should be scientifically supported 01:29:56.000 --> 01:29:58.000 and clearly documented 01:29:58.000 --> 01:30:03.000 Like I said, in the administrative decision document 01:30:03.000 --> 01:30:07.000 And can be substantiated. 01:30:07.000 --> 01:30:10.000 I had mentioned in 2016 we put out a document 01:30:10.000 --> 01:30:14.000 And it further lays out the review process 01:30:14.000 --> 01:30:17.000 with regards to 01:30:17.000 --> 01:30:20.000 how the TI package moves through 01:30:20.000 --> 01:30:24.000 the regional offices and ultimately the headquarters at olem 01:30:24.000 --> 01:30:27.000 for the consultation. 01:30:27.000 --> 01:30:28.000 And what the ti 01:30:28.000 --> 01:30:34.000 will look like if it's approved or denied. 01:30:34.000 --> 01:30:40.000 The TI should address elements that were laid out in the checklist. 01:30:40.000 --> 01:30:44.000 that was part and parcel to the 2016 guidance. 01:30:44.000 --> 01:30:52.000 And that is a distillation of a lot of information in that checklist. 01:30:52.000 --> 01:30:55.000 from the 1993 guidance to help 01:30:55.000 --> 01:31:00.000 facilitate the development and the review 01:31:00.000 --> 01:31:03.000 of the TI submission as to whether 01:31:03.000 --> 01:31:05.000 It meets the statutory requirement 01:31:05.000 --> 01:31:10.000 for awarding the TI waiver. 01:31:10.000 --> 01:31:18.000 So when we evaluate the technical and practicability waivers, I mentioned there was a checklist that was developed in the 2016 guidance. 01:31:18.000 --> 01:31:21.000 And it has some general areas. 01:31:21.000 --> 01:31:29.000 um you know information about the CRC, specific ARs, or the media cleanup standards 01:31:29.000 --> 01:31:33.000 that are unique to the TI waiver that's being sought 01:31:33.000 --> 01:31:41.000 address the technical feasibility of the potential for the restoration of some of the groundwater. 01:31:41.000 --> 01:31:45.000 And the TI waiver, once again, like Lisa mentioned, is not an all or nothing. 01:31:45.000 --> 01:31:50.000 A TI waiver can be for all the plume 01:31:50.000 --> 01:31:52.000 Or it can be for part of the plume. 01:31:52.000 --> 01:31:59.000 Horizontally and vertically delineated depending on the site-specific situations. 01:31:59.000 --> 01:32:05.000 So the spatial extent of the TI is another big area with regard 01:32:05.000 --> 01:32:10.000 to the checklist to identify what is the spatial horizontal 01:32:10.000 --> 01:32:14.000 Distribution. 01:32:14.000 --> 01:32:18.000 PICOCs are concerned to delineate it. 01:32:18.000 --> 01:32:21.000 When we do that, it's also 01:32:21.000 --> 01:32:26.000 one of our premises and driving criteria is to try and 01:32:26.000 --> 01:32:30.000 have a small of a TI zone as possible 01:32:30.000 --> 01:32:34.000 Our first goal in Superfund is to restore as much 01:32:34.000 --> 01:32:37.000 of the groundwater as we possibly can 01:32:37.000 --> 01:32:43.000 And in these days, especially in 01:32:43.000 --> 01:32:48.000 portions of the United States where water is such a valuable resource and in such high demand. 01:32:48.000 --> 01:32:51.000 We want to try and preserve 01:32:51.000 --> 01:32:54.000 that resource for everyone. 01:32:54.000 --> 01:32:57.000 And then the last thing is information on 01:32:57.000 --> 01:33:03.000 The conceptual site model and how to develop the conceptual site model hydrologically, geologically 01:33:03.000 --> 01:33:05.000 contaminant distribution 01:33:05.000 --> 01:33:09.000 how the state and transport parameters are to see 01:33:09.000 --> 01:33:12.000 what is the appropriate delineation 01:33:12.000 --> 01:33:14.000 of the ti 01:33:14.000 --> 01:33:22.000 that will ultimately be set upon. 01:33:22.000 --> 01:33:26.000 The checklist here is kind of a re 01:33:26.000 --> 01:33:30.000 hashing of what I've been saying the last couple of slides. 01:33:30.000 --> 01:33:34.000 the evaluation of the restoration potential, cost estimates. 01:33:34.000 --> 01:33:39.000 The alternate remedial strategy, I want to spend a few minutes on 01:33:39.000 --> 01:33:41.000 Because a lot of people 01:33:41.000 --> 01:33:45.000 do not appreciate the alternate remedia strategy. 01:33:45.000 --> 01:33:50.000 And once again, a TI is not a do nothing. A TI just says you're not going to meet the ARs. 01:33:50.000 --> 01:33:54.000 But in the alter amino strategy, you come up with your strategy 01:33:54.000 --> 01:33:57.000 as to what you're going to do. 01:33:57.000 --> 01:34:01.000 And if the state ARR is what you're waiving. 01:34:01.000 --> 01:34:05.000 maybe the Rubino strategy is we can't meet the state they are 01:34:05.000 --> 01:34:09.000 But we will meet the federal AOR, which might be a higher number. 01:34:09.000 --> 01:34:14.000 or we are going to go ahead and do containment 01:34:14.000 --> 01:34:21.000 to make sure that plume does not continue to expand and negatively impact 01:34:21.000 --> 01:34:23.000 other viable 01:34:23.000 --> 01:34:29.000 aquifers for drinking water. 01:34:29.000 --> 01:34:32.000 So… 01:34:32.000 --> 01:34:34.000 That's where my 01:34:34.000 --> 01:34:39.000 presentation ends. Gene, I don't know if we have time for a few questions now or 01:34:39.000 --> 01:34:41.000 if we need to wait. 01:34:41.000 --> 01:34:52.000 We do. I think we're going to take a few. I'm going to start with some TI waiver questions now. And then some of the questions that came in on M&A and ACLs, we'll circle back to those ones later. So let's 01:34:52.000 --> 01:34:55.000 start with some of these TI waivers. 01:34:55.000 --> 01:35:01.000 And Dave, this first question asks, if a TI waiver 01:35:01.000 --> 01:35:06.000 waves in AR is another cleanup goal established. 01:35:06.000 --> 01:35:13.000 It may be. It could be setting up another cleanup level that might be health or risk based. 01:35:13.000 --> 01:35:16.000 Maybe in the risk range. 01:35:16.000 --> 01:35:19.000 Or it could be set up that you're just going to do containment. 01:35:19.000 --> 01:35:23.000 it couldn't be site-specific. 01:35:23.000 --> 01:35:28.000 Okay. All right. Our next question is asking 01:35:28.000 --> 01:35:32.000 Our TI waivers granted upfront in the rod? 01:35:32.000 --> 01:35:42.000 Or do you attempt to remediate as much as possible, but then get a TI waiver when it is clear that an ARR cannot be achieved? 01:35:42.000 --> 01:35:44.000 A GI waiver can be granted 01:35:44.000 --> 01:35:47.000 In either situation, however. 01:35:47.000 --> 01:35:55.000 Our preference is to do what is commonly known or colloquially known as the back-ended TI 01:35:55.000 --> 01:35:58.000 where actions are attempted. 01:35:58.000 --> 01:36:01.000 and they 01:36:01.000 --> 01:36:04.000 Engineeringly cannot be accomplished. 01:36:04.000 --> 01:36:08.000 So that is a line of evidence. 01:36:08.000 --> 01:36:10.000 for the TI waiver. 01:36:10.000 --> 01:36:12.000 An upfront one upfront 01:36:12.000 --> 01:36:14.000 is always more suspect 01:36:14.000 --> 01:36:17.000 But… 01:36:17.000 --> 01:36:20.000 that is available. 01:36:20.000 --> 01:36:25.000 Okay. And another question that came in on TI waivers. 01:36:25.000 --> 01:36:32.000 Can a TI waiver rely on the remedy being in direct conflict with the federal facility? 01:36:32.000 --> 01:36:39.000 For example, destroying valuable wildlife habitat on a refuge to implement a groundwater remedy 01:36:39.000 --> 01:36:45.000 And they note that the groundwater plume is small, old, and shrinking. It's on a class three site. 01:36:45.000 --> 01:36:52.000 And they go on to say, for example, the quote, juice isn't worth the squeeze. 01:36:52.000 --> 01:36:57.000 Well, Gene, that's a very interesting question and it's very complicated. And there's a couple elements to there. 01:36:57.000 --> 01:36:58.000 Mm-hmm. 01:36:58.000 --> 01:37:04.000 One is that if it's a class three aquifer. 01:37:04.000 --> 01:37:09.000 It probably is not drinking water. It probably is not raw. 01:37:09.000 --> 01:37:13.000 And we probably would not look to do 01:37:13.000 --> 01:37:15.000 a TI waiver because it's 01:37:15.000 --> 01:37:17.000 it's not it would probably not be an ARAR. 01:37:17.000 --> 01:37:19.000 Mm-hmm. 01:37:19.000 --> 01:37:24.000 The situation that was set up is maybe not appropriate for technical impracticability. 01:37:24.000 --> 01:37:28.000 But maybe it's appropriate for one of the other ARR waivers. 01:37:28.000 --> 01:37:29.000 Okay. 01:37:29.000 --> 01:37:33.000 And the one I'm thinking about is there is a greater harm to the environment error waiver. 01:37:33.000 --> 01:37:34.000 Hmm. 01:37:34.000 --> 01:37:36.000 So if you're going to do 01:37:36.000 --> 01:37:39.000 more damage in cleaning up than 01:37:39.000 --> 01:37:42.000 the risk or the unprotectedness of 01:37:42.000 --> 01:37:44.000 what the situation is 01:37:44.000 --> 01:37:52.000 maybe a greater harm to the environment waiver might be more appropriate than the TI waiver. So I wouldn't try to put a square peg in a round hole in that situation. 01:37:52.000 --> 01:38:01.000 Got it. Okay. All right. It is 243 by my clock. I think we're going to pause with the questions here and to carry on. We've got just a few more sections to get through. 01:38:01.000 --> 01:38:04.000 And then we do have time for additional Q&A at the very end. 01:38:04.000 --> 01:38:12.000 So Jill, I see you're on camera. I'm going to turn the floor over to you so we can carry on with the presentation. 01:38:12.000 --> 01:38:15.000 Thank you so much, Jean. Can you just give me a thumbs up if you can hear me? 01:38:15.000 --> 01:38:16.000 I can. I can hear you. 01:38:16.000 --> 01:38:24.000 Perfect. All right. For remedy optimization, this used to be several different types of phase specific. 01:38:24.000 --> 01:38:27.000 optimization and so 01:38:27.000 --> 01:38:37.000 In 2013, if you can go to the next slide, we brought all three independent types and some others under one term of optimization. 01:38:37.000 --> 01:38:40.000 The goal is to improve efficiency and cost effectiveness 01:38:40.000 --> 01:38:43.000 It can also improve the protectiveness of the remedy. 01:38:43.000 --> 01:38:48.000 and long-term implementation, important because it 01:38:48.000 --> 01:38:52.000 can move it more quickly along towards site completion. 01:38:52.000 --> 01:38:55.000 We do consider groundwater remedies. 01:38:55.000 --> 01:39:01.000 very beneficial from optimization efforts because they often can take such a long time to complete and 01:39:01.000 --> 01:39:06.000 As we'll go over in a second, it does consider changes to the conceptual site model. 01:39:06.000 --> 01:39:10.000 If you go to the next slide. 01:39:10.000 --> 01:39:15.000 Thank you. As you've heard several times already, and you will hear again in federal facilities especially. 01:39:15.000 --> 01:39:18.000 These are site specific. 01:39:18.000 --> 01:39:21.000 The goals of the remedy include 01:39:21.000 --> 01:39:28.000 Sorry, the review of the optimization includes the goals of the remedy, site data, and the conceptual site model. 01:39:28.000 --> 01:39:35.000 Those are often considered for new information that's come available since the remedy was originally implemented. 01:39:35.000 --> 01:39:40.000 Remedy performance, and considering your exit strategy so what 01:39:40.000 --> 01:39:43.000 conclusion looks like at this particular site. 01:39:43.000 --> 01:39:50.000 any possible reuse or redevelopment who will be legally responsible for the site following conclusion of the remedy 01:39:50.000 --> 01:39:57.000 and others. So some of the activities, site documents, interviews of all of the site stakeholders. 01:39:57.000 --> 01:40:02.000 evaluating the data and compiling a report for documentation. 01:40:02.000 --> 01:40:08.000 It's helpful to take a thorough look at the site to identify possible improvements 01:40:08.000 --> 01:40:10.000 at any stage. 01:40:10.000 --> 01:40:14.000 If we go to the next one, please. 01:40:14.000 --> 01:40:25.000 This is just a visual of what we're talking about. You'll see the key optimization components up in the corner. And we also wanted to highlight that optimization can take place at any point 01:40:25.000 --> 01:40:31.000 in the circular process, anywhere from site assessment all the way down to operation maintenance. 01:40:31.000 --> 01:40:37.000 We are, for example, looking at a site right now that we're just starting the optimization process 01:40:37.000 --> 01:40:40.000 It has been in the cleanup process for quite a while. 01:40:40.000 --> 01:40:42.000 I think the original rod was signed in 1990. 01:40:42.000 --> 01:40:48.000 And it's vapor intrusion site that there has been vapor intrusion into a residential basement 01:40:48.000 --> 01:40:50.000 They have tried a lot of different things. 01:40:50.000 --> 01:40:54.000 So we are now looking at the optimization with our 01:40:54.000 --> 01:40:57.000 headquarters team to see if we can come up with a new strategy. 01:40:57.000 --> 01:40:59.000 And… 01:40:59.000 --> 01:41:02.000 I think that's everything I wanted to cover on that graphic. 01:41:02.000 --> 01:41:06.000 And the next one, please. 01:41:06.000 --> 01:41:12.000 Okay, so just the review, the report that comes out of the optimization review. 01:41:12.000 --> 01:41:17.000 We'll generally include the following. So a summary of the characterization objectives 01:41:17.000 --> 01:41:19.000 The alternatives looked at 01:41:19.000 --> 01:41:24.000 And any conclusions and recommendations from the optimization team. 01:41:24.000 --> 01:41:26.000 And I think… 01:41:26.000 --> 01:41:30.000 That's most of mine. Is that correct, Jean? I think we have a poll next. 01:41:30.000 --> 01:41:32.000 We certainly do. 01:41:32.000 --> 01:41:37.000 And I'm going to go ahead and move us forward and then launch that poll. 01:41:37.000 --> 01:41:48.000 So as I click the pop-up to launch the poll, I will go ahead and remind everyone you'll see that question in the separate window. It might be under the three dots or more. 01:41:48.000 --> 01:41:55.000 And of course, if you can't see it, I'm going to read it out loud and the options, and you're welcome to type a response into the Q&A 01:41:55.000 --> 01:42:01.000 So our question right now is during which parts of the CERCLA process can optimization be considered? 01:42:01.000 --> 01:42:08.000 Is it A-R-I-F-S? Is it B, remedy design? Is it C, remedy construction? 01:42:08.000 --> 01:42:14.000 Is it D, remedy operation and maintenance, or E, at any time of the process? 01:42:14.000 --> 01:42:19.000 So click the circle to the left and then hit the submit button. 01:42:19.000 --> 01:42:24.000 seeing about half of the audience having chimed in with their responses. 01:42:24.000 --> 01:42:28.000 I'll go ahead and give you just a few more seconds here to close out. 01:42:28.000 --> 01:42:30.000 And get those votes in. 01:42:30.000 --> 01:42:32.000 On three… 01:42:32.000 --> 01:42:34.000 Two… 01:42:34.000 --> 01:42:36.000 One. 01:42:36.000 --> 01:42:38.000 And let's look at those results. 01:42:38.000 --> 01:42:50.000 About 83% said E at any time, but we have a number of people who thought perhaps it was only D, remedy, operation, and maintenance, or even just remedy design and RIFS. 01:42:50.000 --> 01:42:52.000 Jill, what's the correct answer? 01:42:52.000 --> 01:42:56.000 83% of you got it right. It is at any time in the process. 01:42:56.000 --> 01:43:05.000 There we go. All right. Thank you. All right. I think we're ready to go ahead and carry on. And Emmy, I see you are staged, so I will… 01:43:05.000 --> 01:43:07.000 Turn the spotlight over to you. 01:43:07.000 --> 01:43:11.000 Sure. So I just wanted to spend these last two slides 01:43:11.000 --> 01:43:30.000 letting folks know that there are other optimization guidances from other federal agencies that can be referred to as well, particularly if your cleanups are being held at those sites. DOE has a guidance for optimizing groundwater response actions. It's from 2002, but still has good information in it. 01:43:30.000 --> 01:43:35.000 You can refer to that if you're working on one of those sites. And DoD also has 01:43:35.000 --> 01:43:39.000 remedial optimization policy, that's from 2012. 01:43:39.000 --> 01:43:51.000 And I really just want to highlight with these that there is overlap or shared interest in looking at optimization of our remedies, particularly those for groundwater, since they tend to be 01:43:51.000 --> 01:44:01.000 longer timeframes for implementation. I won't go into the details just for the sake of time, but you should have links to those in your participant manual. 01:44:01.000 --> 01:44:05.000 And Jean, do we have questions that we can address in our last minutes together? 01:44:05.000 --> 01:44:17.000 Oh, we certainly do. So I'll go ahead and invite any and all of my panelists to go ahead and place themselves back on video if you can, and we will start going through those questions that have come into the queue. 01:44:17.000 --> 01:44:26.000 For the live audience, if you have additional questions, you can keep typing them in during this last remaining segment here that we've got going on. 01:44:26.000 --> 01:44:31.000 And I'm going to call up a bunch of these questions and start going through. 01:44:31.000 --> 01:44:35.000 There are a number of questions that came in early on. 01:44:35.000 --> 01:44:37.000 When we were talking about MCLs. 01:44:37.000 --> 01:44:44.000 And this first question is asking, what if a state MCL is more stringent than EPA MCLs? 01:44:44.000 --> 01:44:51.000 And can that cause informal disputes? 01:44:51.000 --> 01:45:05.000 So if a state has a cleanup level that's more stringent than the federal ones, it really comes down to that site-specific discussion on what's appropriate as far as ARARs go for that site. 01:45:05.000 --> 01:45:06.000 Mm-hmm. 01:45:06.000 --> 01:45:08.000 If it's promulgated and it is 01:45:08.000 --> 01:45:11.000 fully, you know, been passed by the state 01:45:11.000 --> 01:45:18.000 And it's been applied consistently throughout the state, then I would say that definitely needs to be looked at closely to see if 01:45:18.000 --> 01:45:26.000 it would apply in that specific cleanup decision. And I look at my other team members if you have other, if anyone wants to jump in on that one. 01:45:26.000 --> 01:45:27.000 I think we're okay. 01:45:27.000 --> 01:45:44.000 Okay. All right. Can you define beneficial use considering it says for every classification, considering it is reasonable and practicable. 01:45:44.000 --> 01:45:48.000 I'm not sure. So can you reread the question? 01:45:48.000 --> 01:45:49.000 If you mind. 01:45:49.000 --> 01:45:59.000 It says, yeah, sure, please define beneficial use for every classification, considering it is reasonable and practicable. 01:45:59.000 --> 01:46:03.000 For every designation, considering it's reasonable and practicable. 01:46:03.000 --> 01:46:06.000 So, um. 01:46:06.000 --> 01:46:12.000 The beneficiary use designations, the class one special groundwater 01:46:12.000 --> 01:46:16.000 Class two is the current 01:46:16.000 --> 01:46:18.000 drinking water source or potential drinking water source. 01:46:18.000 --> 01:46:19.000 Mm-hmm. 01:46:19.000 --> 01:46:21.000 And class three is not 01:46:21.000 --> 01:46:23.000 a potential drinking water source so 01:46:23.000 --> 01:46:26.000 it's not really related to 01:46:26.000 --> 01:46:28.000 if it's practical. 01:46:28.000 --> 01:46:32.000 to clean it up or not it's more related to 01:46:32.000 --> 01:46:39.000 how that groundwater is being used or could potentially be used in the future. 01:46:39.000 --> 01:46:40.000 So that's more the consideration of what 01:46:40.000 --> 01:46:43.000 goes into in the classification rather than the 01:46:43.000 --> 01:46:45.000 uh, uh. 01:46:45.000 --> 01:46:49.000 technical and practicability or practicability of it. 01:46:49.000 --> 01:46:50.000 If that makes sense. 01:46:50.000 --> 01:46:52.000 Okay. Okay. 01:46:52.000 --> 01:46:55.000 I have some questions here on ACLs. 01:46:55.000 --> 01:47:06.000 Can you give an example of how an ACL would be used? And if we can define that acronym before we answer that question, because I have some people asking, what is an ACL? 01:47:06.000 --> 01:47:10.000 Okay, ACL is an alternate 01:47:10.000 --> 01:47:13.000 concentration limit. 01:47:13.000 --> 01:47:20.000 Okay. And how would you use an ACL? 01:47:20.000 --> 01:47:24.000 The use of the ACO would be 01:47:24.000 --> 01:47:29.000 If you meet the criteria, the three criteria in 01:47:29.000 --> 01:47:32.000 the CERCLA. 01:47:32.000 --> 01:47:35.000 And reiterated in the 20 01:47:35.000 --> 01:47:36.000 Mm-hmm. 01:47:36.000 --> 01:47:38.000 five guidance and the other seven criteria 01:47:38.000 --> 01:47:40.000 If… 01:47:40.000 --> 01:47:48.000 those are met. You could set the groundwater cleanup levels 01:47:48.000 --> 01:47:51.000 at the site that are downgrading 01:47:51.000 --> 01:47:53.000 of the facility 01:47:53.000 --> 01:47:56.000 to the surface water that 01:47:56.000 --> 01:47:58.000 would be an alternative, would be acceptable. 01:47:58.000 --> 01:48:02.000 Because those groundwater concentrations 01:48:02.000 --> 01:48:09.000 would not adversely affect the surface water body. They would not increase the concentration 01:48:09.000 --> 01:48:11.000 in the surface water body at the interface. 01:48:11.000 --> 01:48:14.000 they would not bioaccumulate. 01:48:14.000 --> 01:48:19.000 they would not create any kind of adverse human exposure 01:48:19.000 --> 01:48:22.000 And they would be enforceable. 01:48:22.000 --> 01:48:26.000 So in general, I think that's the way it would be used. 01:48:26.000 --> 01:48:29.000 That's very specific to Superfund. 01:48:29.000 --> 01:48:33.000 that might not be the same way 01:48:33.000 --> 01:48:35.000 other programs 01:48:35.000 --> 01:48:39.000 Like Rick Room would use, and I think they have a slightly different 01:48:39.000 --> 01:48:45.000 application and there might be other federal agencies or other states who have 01:48:45.000 --> 01:48:49.000 an acl that might deal with it differently. 01:48:49.000 --> 01:48:51.000 But that's how we would look at it. 01:48:51.000 --> 01:48:57.000 Okay, let's switch gears and head over to questions on M&A. 01:48:57.000 --> 01:49:01.000 Does EPA have the ultimate approval 01:49:01.000 --> 01:49:08.000 of the DOE MNA tiered approach. 01:49:08.000 --> 01:49:17.000 I can start on that one. So while EPA, DOE, DOD, any other federal agency can issue their own policy and guidance. 01:49:17.000 --> 01:49:21.000 When it comes to Superfund cleanups, it's important that 01:49:21.000 --> 01:49:37.000 any policy and guidance that is used, it's not inconsistent with EPA policy and guidance, but we don't play EPA doesn't play an approval role in DOE or DOD's guidance. However, when it comes to selecting the remedy. 01:49:37.000 --> 01:49:51.000 We're following CERCLA. We're looking at the nine criteria identified in the NCP for remedy selection. All of that stays the same. At our federal facilities, ultimately EPA still has to approve of that 01:49:51.000 --> 01:49:53.000 remedial decision that's being 01:49:53.000 --> 01:49:57.000 selected. So while we're not approving their guidance. 01:49:57.000 --> 01:50:01.000 Ultimately, we are still ensuring that any 01:50:01.000 --> 01:50:06.000 cleanups or excuse me remedies that are selected are consistent with CERCLA. 01:50:06.000 --> 01:50:10.000 and the NCP. 01:50:10.000 --> 01:50:20.000 Okay, how about our next one asking, is there a comparable DoD M&A guidance? 01:50:20.000 --> 01:50:24.000 Not that I'm aware of. There may be one, but 01:50:24.000 --> 01:50:26.000 I may not have included it here. 01:50:26.000 --> 01:50:29.000 Okay. All right. 01:50:29.000 --> 01:50:33.000 Our next question, let's 01:50:33.000 --> 01:50:36.000 This one came in earlier. 01:50:36.000 --> 01:50:41.000 If there's a case where M&A has been deployed for a long period. 01:50:41.000 --> 01:50:50.000 But it hasn't resulted in an achievement of remedial goals. Would a TI waiver be considered or appropriate? 01:50:50.000 --> 01:50:53.000 Oh, um. 01:50:53.000 --> 01:50:57.000 This is Dave, and I'll answer that. It may be 01:50:57.000 --> 01:51:02.000 appropriate, but it may not be appropriate. If M&A is not achieved 01:51:02.000 --> 01:51:05.000 for restoration, I would think 01:51:05.000 --> 01:51:08.000 You could look at TI, but you also probably would 01:51:08.000 --> 01:51:15.000 also need to look at some active remedy. 01:51:15.000 --> 01:51:18.000 So just because M&A failed does not automatically 01:51:18.000 --> 01:51:21.000 shunt you right towards the TI. 01:51:21.000 --> 01:51:23.000 Okay. Okay. 01:51:23.000 --> 01:51:27.000 This is a question. 01:51:27.000 --> 01:51:35.000 On the optimization process. And so one of the participants just mentioned a potential concern 01:51:35.000 --> 01:51:41.000 that responsible parties could use, quote, optimization to eliminate circless steps. 01:51:41.000 --> 01:51:48.000 And we're wondering, Jill or Emmy, if you have any thoughts that optimization 01:51:48.000 --> 01:51:55.000 doesn't lead to that, that we're using optimization to ensure that the appropriate steps are being followed. 01:51:55.000 --> 01:52:01.000 Yeah, that's in conjunction with all of the appropriate steps through the CERCLA process. It is not in place any. 01:52:01.000 --> 01:52:04.000 Okay. All right. 01:52:04.000 --> 01:52:19.000 Earlier today, we had a comment on a greater harm to the environment waiver, and some of our participants are asking if there is a name or a number or where they can find more information about that waiver. 01:52:19.000 --> 01:52:22.000 Gene, this is Dave. 01:52:22.000 --> 01:52:23.000 Mm-hmm. 01:52:23.000 --> 01:52:26.000 It's… 01:52:26.000 --> 01:52:31.000 there is not guidance on greater harm to the environment waivers like we have for TI. 01:52:31.000 --> 01:52:33.000 there are snippets 01:52:33.000 --> 01:52:35.000 in multiple places 01:52:35.000 --> 01:52:39.000 some AR fact sheets and some other guidances 01:52:39.000 --> 01:52:43.000 that we have, I think rule of thumb maybe some others 01:52:43.000 --> 01:52:46.000 that do speak 01:52:46.000 --> 01:52:51.000 to some extent, a paragraph or two or three will greater harm to the environment 01:52:51.000 --> 01:52:54.000 waiver like some of the other waivers. 01:52:54.000 --> 01:52:57.000 But, um. 01:52:57.000 --> 01:53:03.000 Except for something like the AR, one of the AR fact sheets from like 1991 01:53:03.000 --> 01:53:05.000 Or 1990. 01:53:05.000 --> 01:53:09.000 There's not a dedicated one. It's almost like you just have to search them. 01:53:09.000 --> 01:53:12.000 word search for them. 01:53:12.000 --> 01:53:16.000 But they're only a couple paragraphs. They don't say a whole lot. 01:53:16.000 --> 01:53:21.000 Okay. All right. And one last question here. 01:53:21.000 --> 01:53:22.000 Sure. 01:53:22.000 --> 01:53:23.000 Jing, I will just pitch our coming ars 01:53:23.000 --> 01:53:34.000 webinar that we have as part of the Federal Facilities Academy that does provide a lot more discussion on real examples of those greater risks to the environment or greater harm 01:53:34.000 --> 01:53:38.000 ARR waivers, if that might be helpful. 01:53:38.000 --> 01:53:46.000 Absolutely. And so as Emmy was just highlighting, it is one of the many. We did one earlier this year, so you can find it. We'll talk about that in just a moment. 01:53:46.000 --> 01:53:51.000 One last quick question, and then we'll go ahead and walk through some final reminders before we close out today. 01:53:51.000 --> 01:53:55.000 This question has come in a few times and they're just looking 01:53:55.000 --> 01:54:00.000 for input on a scenario. And I'm just going to read it as it's written. 01:54:00.000 --> 01:54:04.000 Groundwater will continue to meet all COCs 01:54:04.000 --> 01:54:07.000 basically on a continuous basis. 01:54:07.000 --> 01:54:14.000 Does this assume that the contaminant source is active? 01:54:14.000 --> 01:54:22.000 And they clarified and then added in groundwater quote remediation will continue to meet all COCs basically on a continuous basis. 01:54:22.000 --> 01:54:26.000 Does this assume that the contaminant source is active? 01:54:26.000 --> 01:54:35.000 No, not necessarily. Ideally, any sources would have been treated in advance of or parallel to the groundwater remediation itself. 01:54:35.000 --> 01:54:36.000 Okay. 01:54:36.000 --> 01:54:37.000 So I think there's a lot of 01:54:37.000 --> 01:54:38.000 I need more information on that one. 01:54:38.000 --> 01:54:42.000 Yeah. Yeah. 01:54:42.000 --> 01:54:53.000 Yep. Okay. All right. Well, I do realize it is three o'clock. We have run short on time. So if it's okay with you, Emmy, I think I'll walk through some final reminders, but I want to thank all of our presenters and 01:54:53.000 --> 01:54:58.000 our technical support staff and all of you who joined us for today's live broadcast. 01:54:58.000 --> 01:55:08.000 I'm going to go ahead and walk through just a few quick reminders before I send everyone off for the rest of your day. So as Emmy noted, this is part of an ongoing series for the Federal Facilities Online Academy. 01:55:08.000 --> 01:55:12.000 We have one more webinar left in the series, and that will be on December 12th. 01:55:12.000 --> 01:55:26.000 which will focus on coordinating with tribes at federal facilities. But all of the previous deliveries have been archived on the CLUIN Seminar. And I'll talk a little bit more about how you can get access to those as well as get certificates for participating. 01:55:26.000 --> 01:55:37.000 So I encourage you to visit us at the cleanup information network at cluwin.org, and please be sure to sign up for our free monthly newsletter, Tech Direct, which I send out on the first of each month, and I'll highlight internet seminars such as today's 01:55:37.000 --> 01:55:40.000 and other resources related to hazardous waste site cleanup. 01:55:40.000 --> 01:56:04.000 There is a unique seminar homepage. The URL is shown in red on this slide. There's a QR code here. It's the same page that you went to when you signed up. It's the same page I sent you in your reminder and confirmation emails. And it's the same place I'll send you to get that participant manual that has links to all of the documents and guidance that were highlighted. 01:56:04.000 --> 01:56:05.000 Bye. 01:56:05.000 --> 01:56:14.000 As well as a few other resources. And then on that page, make sure you scroll down, you'll find a link to our feedback form. Now, these are individual sections, so you may find it helpful to click the plus and minus 01:56:14.000 --> 01:56:15.000 Okay. 01:56:15.000 --> 01:56:17.000 icons to expand. But I will ask you all to take just a brief moment to fill out that online feedback form, because at the bottom of that feedback form. 01:56:17.000 --> 01:56:26.000 You will then have access to a box once you fill out the feedback form to certify you were here for the entire live delivery. If you check that box and submit your feedback. 01:56:26.000 --> 01:56:31.000 You will then have access to a certificate of participation that you can save or print out for your own records. 01:56:31.000 --> 01:56:38.000 I'll also email a copy to you, but sometimes those get caught up in junk or spam filters, so I encourage you to download it right from that confirmation page. 01:56:38.000 --> 01:56:49.000 If you hosted a viewing party in your location, each person can be directed to that seminar homepage and fill out the feedback form even though they didn't register on their own. So everybody can get their own certificate of participation. 01:56:49.000 --> 01:56:52.000 As long as you point them to this seminar homepage. 01:56:52.000 --> 01:56:57.000 For those of you who are watching the recorded version of today's session, and yes, today's broadcast was recorded. 01:56:57.000 --> 01:57:02.000 I will follow up with an automatic email when that archive is posted on the CLUIN website. 01:57:02.000 --> 01:57:21.000 And for anyone who watches the recorded version right about now in the archived version above my head in the upper corner, there will be a button that will allow you to head over to that seminar homepage and access the feedback form so you can share your feedback based off the replay and still check the box at the bottom to get your own certificate based on your replay or rewatch of the archived version. 01:57:21.000 --> 01:57:26.000 So with that, I want to thank the over 300 individuals who joined us for today's live delivery. 01:57:26.000 --> 01:57:38.000 For our participants who shared their questions, engaged with our speakers, participated in our activities, and for all of our presenters, organizers, and technical support staff on in the background. I hope that you found this to be a valuable expenditure of your time 01:57:38.000 --> 01:57:47.000 And that you'll join us on your future seminar. With that, I'll go ahead and formally conclude today's live broadcast. Thank you so very much for joining us.