WEBVTT

00:00:01.000 --> 00:00:13.000
And with that again, welcome to Rods and more. I apologize. There's a typo there, but this is Rodson Moore. You are in the right place.

00:00:13.000 --> 00:00:26.000
And, um… I guess that's it. So let's let's get this wonderful webinar started.

00:00:26.000 --> 00:00:36.000
Oh, I forgot one other thing. I I apologize. So again, this is number 2 of 11 webinars.

00:00:36.000 --> 00:00:51.000
and this is rods and more at federal facilities. Today, March 25th. And these are the rest of the webinars that will be available for the rest of the year, and you can register for these.

00:00:51.000 --> 00:00:56.000
And again, there's there's a delay in the slide, so I apologize. So.

00:00:56.000 --> 00:01:09.000
If you are able to. complete all the webinars, whether it's live virtual like now, or go back and look at the archive and fill out the appropriate.

00:01:09.000 --> 00:01:25.000
survey and question, and you attend a in-person 3-day course or the online 3-day course you are eligible to receive the certificate. But please keep in mind that the 3 day course is only.

00:01:25.000 --> 00:01:42.000
for those that are employees of the EPA, other federal agencies connected with cleanup and state organizations.

00:01:42.000 --> 00:01:56.000
And so we'll try this again with that. Welcome to the second series in the webinar, Federal Facility Academy Records to Decision and More at Federal Facilities. So at this time, I'm going to turn over to Rashmi.

00:01:56.000 --> 00:02:05.000
Hello, everyone. I just wanted to welcome you all to this ROD webinar, and I'm just going to go off camera.

00:02:05.000 --> 00:02:22.000
Just wanted to say hello. So the purpose of this course is to discuss how different types of decision documents can be used at Federal Facility Superfund sites that are listed on the national priorities list. This is in accordance with CERCLA, which stands for the Comprehensive Environmental Response.

00:02:22.000 --> 00:02:37.000
Compensation and Liability Acts. We will also discuss removal actions, post fraud decisions, and how fire reviews impacts remedies on sites as well.

00:02:37.000 --> 00:02:52.000
So, just wanted… we presented ourselves, you know, the host. And again, I'm from headquarters. We wanted to give a headquarters perspective. And then Jenna is a federal facility RPM.

00:02:52.000 --> 00:03:04.000
Um, and Aaron Miraz is a private site RPM, so we kind of wanted to give a perspective from the regional point of view as well. So I want to thank them.

00:03:04.000 --> 00:03:19.000
So at this time, we just wanted to get an idea of what kind of experience the audience has. So I'm going to ask Jr. If he could release the poll for everyone to kind of to respond to the poll.

00:03:19.000 --> 00:03:20.000
That would be awesome. Thanks, JR.

00:03:20.000 --> 00:03:25.000
The poll is released.

00:03:25.000 --> 00:03:38.000
If you guys can respond to the poll. Just to get an idea of experience of, you know, what type of experience people have, and reviewing or writing decision documents.

00:03:38.000 --> 00:03:45.000
Okay, the results are starting to come in. We're approaching 50%, and.

00:03:45.000 --> 00:03:53.000
Looks like a lot of people have experience with rod removal action seems to be what is trending right now.

00:03:53.000 --> 00:03:54.000
Awesome.

00:03:54.000 --> 00:04:00.000
We're getting close to 75%.

00:04:00.000 --> 00:04:04.000
Thanks! That sounds, uh, sounds like… sounds great. Um…

00:04:04.000 --> 00:04:10.000
and I will be closing in 3, 2, 1. I'm closing the poll now.

00:04:10.000 --> 00:04:16.000
and I'm sharing the results.

00:04:16.000 --> 00:04:17.000
Everyone.

00:04:17.000 --> 00:04:27.000
So it looks like there's a lot of removal actions. People have done, which is great. And then pretty paramount doing record of decisions.

00:04:27.000 --> 00:04:40.000
Um, awesome. Thank you. Thanks so much, Jr. Appreciate that.

00:04:40.000 --> 00:04:55.000
Jean, it's okay, got it. It's a little slow. Sorry, guys. Um, so I wanted to kind of go over what we will be covering. I will be covering circular process at NPL sites, and how headquarters.

00:04:55.000 --> 00:05:19.000
Um, supports actually how that we can be helpful in regards to either reviewing or writing decision documents. Jenna will be covering removal actions and post raw decisions while Erin will be covering rods and 5-year reviews, and those impacts on decision documents.

00:05:19.000 --> 00:05:28.000
I am gonna start with the circle process at Federal Facility NPL sites.

00:05:28.000 --> 00:05:47.000
So, I wanted to start with an introduction to CERCLA. Cercla in 1980, Congress enacted CERCLA, which is also commonly known as the Superfund program. And it authorizes the president to respond to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances into the environment.

00:05:47.000 --> 00:06:03.000
Congress then amended the CERCLA through the Superfund amendments and Reauthorization Act in 1986 to strengthen CERCLA. And CERCLA's major emphasis is on the cleanup of inactive hazardous waste sites.

00:06:03.000 --> 00:06:16.000
And the liability for cleanup cost on arrangers and transportators of hazardous substances, and also on current and former owners of facilities where hazardous substances were disposed of.

00:06:16.000 --> 00:06:31.000
Um, CERCLA gives the President authority to clean up these sites under requirements generically referred to as removal or remedial provisions, and the National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan, which is NCP for short.

00:06:31.000 --> 00:06:50.000
Outline CERCLA's implementing both these removal and remedial actions. Agencies must follow the procedures and standards that are detailed in the NCP when they are remediating these Superfund sites. There's also the executive Order 12580.

00:06:50.000 --> 00:07:07.000
which delegates the presidential authorities under CERCLA to heads of various executive branch agencies or other federal agencies that have created the contamination examples include Department of War and Department of Energy.

00:07:07.000 --> 00:07:23.000
And in these instances, they are the lead agencies at Superfund site cleanups, while EPA provides oversight. And this is all in accordance with the site-specific federal facility agreements.

00:07:23.000 --> 00:07:41.000
So I wanted to talk a little bit about the the definition of lead agency, and the National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan also states the cases where another federal agency besides EPA serves as the lead agency.

00:07:41.000 --> 00:07:56.000
That other federal lead agency is the agency that will provide the on-scene coordinator for removal actions and for remedial actions. It will be the remedial project manager. In addition to the lead agency staff.

00:07:56.000 --> 00:08:06.000
You will have the EPA Federal Facility RPM, the State Project Officer, and usually there's a contractor.

00:08:06.000 --> 00:08:22.000
For the lead agency that supports, um, supports the cleanup. So they all kind of work in a team. In the case of release of hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminants where the release is on, or where the source of the release is from.

00:08:22.000 --> 00:08:38.000
Any federal facility or vessel under the jurisdiction, custody, or control of another federal agency. Again, an example is Department of War, Department of Energy. They will be the lead agency, and they will conduct the remedial or removal actions.

00:08:38.000 --> 00:08:58.000
Um, there is another scenario as well where a state or political subdivision of a state operating under a cooperative agreement or under a super fund memorandum of agreement may also be the lead for a response action.

00:08:58.000 --> 00:09:14.000
So I wanted to cover. This is Circular 120, which is very important for federal facilities. So in addition to making federal facilities subject to the same CERCLA mandates that apply to private sites under super fund.

00:09:14.000 --> 00:09:35.000
Section 120 imposes additional requirements on federal facilities. Sir Clark also contains what is called a waiver of sovereign immunity to permit individuals and states to bring citizen suits if a lead agency is not adhering to a CERC law mandate. In addition to the waiver of sovereign immunity.

00:09:35.000 --> 00:09:54.000
Um, the EPA administrator has final say over a remedy selection, and the lead agency does document the remedy selection decision in a record of decision, but it requires approval by EPA under CERCLA.

00:09:54.000 --> 00:10:11.000
So, um, the NCP, which again stands for National Contingency Plan, is a regulatory framework, and it acts as a blueprint for CERCLA. It gives a step-by-step processes for conducting a removal and remedial actions in Superfund sites.

00:10:11.000 --> 00:10:25.000
And we've included the web link below here. So take a look at it. It's very detailed and it's, uh, you know, we've included that web link for your review.

00:10:25.000 --> 00:10:40.000
I kind of… I wanted to go over the overall circular medial process on a Superfund site. So the first step includes listing a site which is called a preliminary assessment site inspection.

00:10:40.000 --> 00:10:59.000
And in this, there's a hazardous rank system. And if it scores high enough, it goes on to the national priorities list. So it is a super fund site. So once that happens, either a removal action, which again, an on-scene coordinator would do.

00:10:59.000 --> 00:11:18.000
If there's a really immediate threat that can be conducted, or a remedial cleanup where there's a whole line of steps that I'm going to go through in a remedial cleanup. So the first step in a remedial cleanup is a remedial investigation feasibility study.

00:11:18.000 --> 00:11:34.000
And in the remedial investigation, what happens is a delineation is done of what the contamination is and where that contamination is. And this is like a multimedia investigation. Then the feasibility study looks at cleanup options.

00:11:34.000 --> 00:11:51.000
Um, for each media, and we'll go into a risk assessment, um, and then have a preferred remedy. So once the remedial investigation feasibility study is done, then you go on to the decision documents. So you start off with a proposed plan.

00:11:51.000 --> 00:12:07.000
And again, in that, there's a whole line of, uh, you know, there's a risk assessment and information as far as the preferred remedy. And then the major thing with the proposed plan is that there's a public comment period and a public meeting where.

00:12:07.000 --> 00:12:23.000
the remedy is discussed what the preferred remedy is, and it's really to get community input on the preferred remedy. So, if all goes well in regards to the public comments, um, then the next step.

00:12:23.000 --> 00:12:39.000
is to do a record of decision, which lays out again the preferred remedy. There are some legal errors that are also listed in the record of decision, but this is the actual legal document in regards to the cleanup.

00:12:39.000 --> 00:12:55.000
Um, so once a record of decision is completed, and also there's a responsiveness summary at the end of this decision document that outlines all the public comments and responses. So once a rod is completed, then you go into the remedial design for the preferred.

00:12:55.000 --> 00:13:13.000
cleanup, and then the remedial action is the actual on-site construction for that cleanup. Um, so once that is done, you have a five-year reviews that are statutory, um, reviews that kind of show if the remedy is still protective.

00:13:13.000 --> 00:13:32.000
Um, so that is done if there's waste in place. There's also policy five reviews, and I think this is going to be covered later on, so I'm not going to go into detail. Um, there's also an O&M, which you're collecting a lot of groundwater data, you're ensuring the caps are okay, you know, is protective.

00:13:32.000 --> 00:13:44.000
Um, and then the last step is really if all the operable units meet the remedial action objectives in each decision document for the site.

00:13:44.000 --> 00:13:59.000
APA has to sign off on this, and a site can be deleted from an NPL. The other quick thing I want to mention is that there's… when there are major changes or minor changes to a decision document, this can be an explanation of success.

00:13:59.000 --> 00:14:07.000
significant difference or a record of decision. We're going to go into that later on in the presentation.

00:14:07.000 --> 00:14:18.000
So now I want to talk about how headquarters can be helpful at federal facility sites when you're dealing with decision documents.

00:14:18.000 --> 00:14:38.000
So there's a lot of resources that are available online. And so there's again, we had listed the Ncp and the web link that kind of goes into specific information for needle and removal actions, and really the best DPA guidance is this 1999 ROD guidance.

00:14:38.000 --> 00:14:53.000
Um, you can click the link and go to it, but it is a very detailed guidance that talks about what should be in a proposed plan, what sections are there, what should be in a rod, what should be an explanation of significant difference or rot amount.

00:14:53.000 --> 00:15:12.000
I mean, how are… how are they different? How is an ESD different from a broad amendment? There's checklist, which I think I'm going to go into the next slide, and headquarters has templates as well that kind of make it easy in Word, kind of specifying what the required sections are with.

00:15:12.000 --> 00:15:24.000
Important information as far as what should be in each section. Um, so those are the templates, and those are the ROD and proposed builders. There's also the Superfund implementation, um.

00:15:24.000 --> 00:15:42.000
SPIM, which kind of goes over measures, specific measures for each remedial process. And then there's a super fund remedy decisions web page. There's a lot of good information on decision documents, and then I'm going to go into who the headquarters Federal Facility Regional Coordinators are on the next slide.

00:15:42.000 --> 00:15:58.000
Any questions you may have on decision documents or 5-year reviews, please feel free to reach out to them. And then for EPA and State staff, there's National Association of Remedial Projects Manager Training, which.

00:15:58.000 --> 00:16:13.000
which may happen in the future, and in that… in that training, there are specific courses that are on riding rods and writing remedial action objectives for decision documents. So a lot of good information.

00:16:13.000 --> 00:16:29.000
I listed all each region has a specific headquarters, federal facility regional coordinator. So I've listed them on a slide. Feel free to email them if if you have a question again on decision documents or 5-year reviews in your particular region.

00:16:29.000 --> 00:16:52.000
Um, they're there to help. Um, so there's very specific checklist. Again, the 1999 guidance document is very, very helpful. There's again proposed plan and rod checklist. There's I had mentioned, you know, how is it yet? Explanation of significant difference?

00:16:52.000 --> 00:17:09.000
Um, different from a Rod Amendment, um, so that's really helpful. There's also, if your supervisor, when they're looking at a decision document, what they should be looking for, um, and it goes into the different types of records of decisions, and how they can be used. No action RODs, interim action.

00:17:09.000 --> 00:17:19.000
Rods, contingency, um, decision documents, and we will be going into these different types later on in the presentation.

00:17:19.000 --> 00:17:35.000
So I wanted to really quickly touch upon when you are reviewing or writing a decision document. It is very important for folks to be reviewing the ROD. So you have the, you know, the lead agency's RPM.

00:17:35.000 --> 00:17:52.000
Their supervisor may look at it, there's, you know, technical support. If there's groundwater, having the hydro look at it, having the site attorney look at, you know, the airs are very important. The state also has a, you know, project manager, um, and.

00:17:52.000 --> 00:18:11.000
They will have to concur with the remedy, and they may have their supervisor or technical support look at it as well, and then the EPA RPM as well. They have their technical support, risk assessors, hydro, and then additionally their attorneys. So it's really important so that the.

00:18:11.000 --> 00:18:28.000
Decision document is in good shape for these levels of review. I just wanted to mention for federal facilities, there are some required consultations that I wanted to just kind of identify. If a remedy is over $100 million.

00:18:28.000 --> 00:18:44.000
Um, that is a required consultation. If there are ARAR waivers, for instance, a technical impractical waiver for groundwater, that is a consultation. Um, M&A, PFAS, RAD, and IC-only remedies.

00:18:44.000 --> 00:19:01.000
are another reason for consultation. Any decision documents dealing with munitions consultation as well, and then residential lead and five-year reviews for statutory reviews. That is a required consultation at headquarters.

00:19:01.000 --> 00:19:11.000
Um, so reach out to your federal facility coordinators if you have any questions on those particular items.

00:19:11.000 --> 00:19:27.000
So I wanted to kind of just mention that all removal actions along with remedial actions kind of work hand in hand together. And then five year reviews really ensure that the remedies or protection.

00:19:27.000 --> 00:19:42.000
protective, and if there has to be any revisions, there may be some ESDs and rod amendments. So they all kind of work together to ensure the remedy is still protective.

00:19:42.000 --> 00:19:48.000
Um, so I think that's it for my portion. Are there any questions?

00:19:48.000 --> 00:19:54.000
Uh, I'm gonna open it up for questions for myself right now. I'm from headquarters.

00:19:54.000 --> 00:20:08.000
Hey, Rashmi. So on slide 10, 2 questions came up. This looks like the same process for all Superfund sites. What is unique in the flowchart on slide 10 for federal facilities?

00:20:08.000 --> 00:20:14.000
And then the additional question was, when do five-year review stop?

00:20:14.000 --> 00:20:22.000
Can… can you? Can you go to slide 10, so I can look at it? Or let's see. Okay, because I can't remember what it was.

00:20:22.000 --> 00:20:25.000
Okay, so sorry, now can you ask a question, please?

00:20:25.000 --> 00:20:29.000
Um, this looks like the same process for all Superfund sites. What is unique in the flowchart on slide 10 for federal facilities?

00:20:29.000 --> 00:20:34.000
Mm-hmm.

00:20:34.000 --> 00:20:52.000
So, for federal facilities, what happens is the lead agency, which is the lead, the other federal lead agency, is the one who is who is writing the record of decision. So the EPA remedial Project Manager will be reviewing that decision document and giving input.

00:20:52.000 --> 00:21:08.000
And on private sites, as far as, um, or on fund lead sites, especially with fund lead sites, the EPA RPM with an EPA contractor would be actually writing the decision document on a PRP site.

00:21:08.000 --> 00:21:28.000
The PRP's contractor would probably be giving a drafted decision document for EPA approval. So that's kind of how it's different. So the federal facility sites, the EPA RPM will be reviewing that.

00:21:28.000 --> 00:21:29.000
When do 5-year reviews stop?

00:21:29.000 --> 00:21:46.000
Uh, the decision document. Does that answer your question? And then… Review. So five… so we have more information later on in the presentation, but a policy. So there's a policy five year reviews, and there's a statutory 5-year reviews. If there is waste in place.

00:21:46.000 --> 00:22:01.000
Even after… If a site is deleted from the NPL, the 5-year reviews will continue, because there's… as long as there's waste in place, they will… they will continue. So they pretty much… Uh, going, you know, go…

00:22:01.000 --> 00:22:07.000
For as long as that waste is in place. Erin, do you have any more input on that?

00:22:07.000 --> 00:22:08.000
No, I mean, I think you got it right with the five-year views. They stop if.

00:22:08.000 --> 00:22:12.000
just because you're…

00:22:12.000 --> 00:22:26.000
If waste in place, they keep going. They will stop if all cleanup standards have been met, and there's… it's UU, UE, unlimited use, unlimited exposure. So there's a chance they can stop in certain instances.

00:22:26.000 --> 00:22:28.000
Okay, awesome.

00:22:28.000 --> 00:22:34.000
Um, do you have time for one more question? Do you want to transition to the next slides?

00:22:34.000 --> 00:22:39.000
Uh, I don't know, Jean, do we have time for more questions?

00:22:39.000 --> 00:22:48.000
or and I yeah, sorry. Okay, and I won't… I can respond to the questions afterwards, just FYI.

00:22:48.000 --> 00:22:55.000
Next, I will turn it over to Jenna.

00:22:55.000 --> 00:23:02.000
Good afternoon, everyone. Just waiting for the slides to.

00:23:02.000 --> 00:23:10.000
Reverse back to the first. There we go. Introduction.

00:23:10.000 --> 00:23:16.000
All right. So thanks, Rashmi, for that great presentation. I'm going to talk about removal actions.

00:23:16.000 --> 00:23:23.000
And on this slide are the learning objectives for this module.

00:23:23.000 --> 00:23:37.000
So the first module, our first objective is to distinguish what constitute an emergency versus time critical versus non-time critical removal action, and when those can be used.

00:23:37.000 --> 00:23:44.000
Secondly, understand how the NCP governs removals and how CERCLA Section 120 applies to federal facilities.

00:23:44.000 --> 00:23:50.000
No key decision documents, public participation, and compliance requirements.

00:23:50.000 --> 00:24:00.000
and recognize federal facilities specific roles, agreements, and pitfalls.

00:24:00.000 --> 00:24:12.000
Um, so response actions at federal facilities generally involve multiple media contaminants and land areas. Therefore, addressing cleanup requires use of multiple types of actions and strategies.

00:24:12.000 --> 00:24:18.000
Priorities should be given to addressing the presence of principal threat waste and ongoing releases.

00:24:18.000 --> 00:24:31.000
And conditions posing an imminent threat of endangerment. One of the circle of tools that can be used for high-priority environmental problems warranty actions is removals.

00:24:31.000 --> 00:24:44.000
I included links here to EPA guidance on using one type of removal action, the non-time critical removal action, because of all three types, this one requires the most documentation and has the most requirements.

00:24:44.000 --> 00:24:56.000
In addition to removal actions, early actions, interim remedial actions, and final remedial actions can all be used to achieve cleanup.

00:24:56.000 --> 00:25:04.000
Often, a short-term action is designated to address an immediate threat to health or the environment.

00:25:04.000 --> 00:25:13.000
All of the requirements for implementing a removal action can be found in 40 CFR Section 300.415.

00:25:13.000 --> 00:25:22.000
And as I said, removals are short-term actions generally, but they can also be long-term actions as well.

00:25:22.000 --> 00:25:28.000
Um, and as Rashmi mentioned earlier, Executive Order 12580.

00:25:28.000 --> 00:25:44.000
Um, authorizes Circle Authority to federal agencies. So the goal of these removal actions is not only to address high priority threats, but also to accelerate cleanup to the extent practicable and when appropriate.

00:25:44.000 --> 00:25:57.000
And to contribute to the efficient performance of many anticipated long-term remedial actions.

00:25:57.000 --> 00:26:07.000
At federal facilities, if the lead agency proposes to take a removal action rather than to wait for selection of a remedial action in a record of decision.

00:26:07.000 --> 00:26:13.000
Such proposals should be sufficiently justified as appropriate and protective.

00:26:13.000 --> 00:26:23.000
This is because the evaluation process and documentation requirements for removals are much less rigorous than what is required for remedial actions.

00:26:23.000 --> 00:26:30.000
And the decision to select a removal alternative and take action does not require regulator approval.

00:26:30.000 --> 00:26:43.000
So the premise for agreeing to conduct a removal action is that the lead agency has identified reasons why conducting removal rather than just proceeding with continuing the remedial process.

00:26:43.000 --> 00:26:50.000
is sufficiently justified and appropriate.

00:26:50.000 --> 00:27:02.000
As Rasmi discussed earlier, section circulate section 120 requires EPA to enter into federal facility agreements with the lead agencies listed on the National Priorities List.

00:27:02.000 --> 00:27:09.000
And this is done to ensure that cleanups are protective and completed in a timely manner.

00:27:09.000 --> 00:27:14.000
Under Federal facility agreements, and in accordance with Section 120.

00:27:14.000 --> 00:27:24.000
EPA expects early notification of proposed investigations and identification of problems warranting CERCLA action.

00:27:24.000 --> 00:27:42.000
Joint scoping and for removals, cooperation and working towards agreement at whether the removal action is an emergency, a time critical, or a 9 time critical action.

00:27:42.000 --> 00:27:52.000
Additionally, under Section 120, federal agencies must comply to the same extent as any non-governmental entity.

00:27:52.000 --> 00:28:03.000
Additional commitments are also included in the federal facility agreement, which all of the FFA parties who signed that agreement must adhere to.

00:28:03.000 --> 00:28:10.000
For example, federal facility agreements to document which areas at a site are subject to CERCLA.

00:28:10.000 --> 00:28:17.000
Specify schedules and dates and required deliverables that will be needed to implement the cleanup.

00:28:17.000 --> 00:28:21.000
These dates and requirements are referred to as milestones.

00:28:21.000 --> 00:28:29.000
and are generally designated for each area and site identified as a warranty a circle action.

00:28:29.000 --> 00:28:37.000
All parties to the FFA, including the lead agency, EPA, and the state, must agree on the milestones.

00:28:37.000 --> 00:28:43.000
With the regulators having approval authority subject to dispute resolution.

00:28:43.000 --> 00:28:56.000
If disputes arise, EPA can elevate these disputes to management, and if needed, use FFA enforcement tools to keep work on schedule and within the agreed scope.

00:28:56.000 --> 00:29:11.000
A note here about FFA milestones. I think it's important to talk a little bit about why establishing milestones for CERCLA work at Federal facilities, which includes for removal and remedial actions, is so important.

00:29:11.000 --> 00:29:23.000
An FFA is a legally binding agreement. As such, the establishment of milestone dates accomplishes kind of five main objectives.

00:29:23.000 --> 00:29:30.000
The first is to make sure the cleanup is enforceable. It turns vague obligations into specific deadlines.

00:29:30.000 --> 00:29:39.000
allows regulators to hold the facility accountable by triggering enforcement actions or penalties if milestones are missed.

00:29:39.000 --> 00:29:52.000
It keeps complex projects moving. Cleanups involve many steps, including both remedial and removal processes, and establishment of milestones provides manageable, trackable phases.

00:29:52.000 --> 00:30:00.000
that can help prevent bottlenecks between agencies and contractors, and helps to coordinate the multiple stakeholders.

00:30:00.000 --> 00:30:07.000
30 creates transparency. It gives the public a clear timeline of what's happening at the site.

00:30:07.000 --> 00:30:12.000
And allows communities and regulators to track whether commitments are being met.

00:30:12.000 --> 00:30:19.000
It supports credibility and regulators can also have easy.

00:30:19.000 --> 00:30:27.000
format to follow that shows when commitments are supposed to be completed and whether they're being met.

00:30:27.000 --> 00:30:33.000
And fourth, it drives funding and resource planning, and this is critical to any project.

00:30:33.000 --> 00:30:41.000
It helps justify and sequence the funding requests, aligns the cleanup work with annual budget cycles.

00:30:41.000 --> 00:30:45.000
And ensures the contractors and staff are available when needed.

00:30:45.000 --> 00:30:53.000
In other words, no defined schedule equals poor funding equals delays to the project.

00:30:53.000 --> 00:30:57.000
The fifth and last, it reduces the legal and program risk.

00:30:57.000 --> 00:31:03.000
Missed or undefined timelines can lead to disputes, increased cost of the project.

00:31:03.000 --> 00:31:18.000
delays and ultimately frustration on everyone's part.

00:31:18.000 --> 00:31:25.000
There we go. So we'll talk about EPA's role specifically in removals at federal facilities.

00:31:25.000 --> 00:31:34.000
EPA refused the action memorandum for time-critical Removal actions and non-time critical removal actions.

00:31:34.000 --> 00:31:41.000
The action memo is the decision document that selects the removal alternative to be implemented.

00:31:41.000 --> 00:31:57.000
Much like a rod selects a remedial action. In addition, if the removal is a non-time critical action, EPA reviews the NCTRA required engineering evaluation and cost analysis document.

00:31:57.000 --> 00:32:02.000
Which is analogous to a proposed plan in the remedial process.

00:32:02.000 --> 00:32:10.000
ECAs are not required for time-critical removals or emergency removals, only for 9 time critical.

00:32:10.000 --> 00:32:19.000
But action memos are required for both non-time critical actions and time critical because they are the decision document that.

00:32:19.000 --> 00:32:25.000
has the information about what is being what action is being taken and why.

00:32:25.000 --> 00:32:38.000
EPA is also responsible for communicating the agency's findings about whether proposed removal actions are believed to be protective, consistent with the NCP, and compliant with.

00:32:38.000 --> 00:32:47.000
ARS to the extent practical, including all chemical specific location specific, and action-specific requirements.

00:32:47.000 --> 00:33:02.000
However, because removal actions are generally not the final action, some ARARs may not be able to be fully complied with. And this is okay as long as they are addressed in the final remedial action.

00:33:02.000 --> 00:33:14.000
EPA also supports the lead agency in facilitating coordination with states, tribes, and the public.

00:33:14.000 --> 00:33:31.000
Also includes oversight. Review removal action work plans, sampling and analysis plans, quality assurance, project plans, any data that's generated with the project, and may also include things such as conducting site visits.

00:33:31.000 --> 00:33:40.000
And collecting split or confirmatory samples. Verifying data quality and assessing the action's protectiveness.

00:33:40.000 --> 00:33:46.000
Note that under the Ncp, EPA retains approval authority of SAPs.

00:33:46.000 --> 00:33:52.000
sampling analysis plans, but does not have approval authority for the action memo.

00:33:52.000 --> 00:34:05.000
However, if you are working with a federal facility that has an FFA, you should check the Federal Facility Agreement to see what it states about EPA's approval of SAPs or the.

00:34:05.000 --> 00:34:18.000
States regulator approval of SAPs. For instance, even though under the NCP, the regulations specify that EPA has regulator approval of SAPs.

00:34:18.000 --> 00:34:31.000
For one federal facility, Oak Ridge Reservation, the FFA says that the sampling analysis plans are secondary documents and therefore not subject to EPA approval.

00:34:31.000 --> 00:34:38.000
So make sure you really know your FFA agreements inside and out.

00:34:38.000 --> 00:34:47.000
Under the National Response System, the interface for emergencies is that the pre-designated federal on-scene coordinator.

00:34:47.000 --> 00:34:58.000
um, coordinates the response under the NCP. So a federal facility may conduct emergency actions with its own OSC.

00:34:58.000 --> 00:35:09.000
But EPA's OSC retains coordination and oversight authority and can direct efforts where necessary to abate imminent and substantial endangerment.

00:35:09.000 --> 00:35:27.000
EPA may take independent response action or issue orders if necessary to address an imminent and substantial endangerment where the lead agency is not responding timely or appropriately.

00:35:27.000 --> 00:35:46.000
However, in reality, most often, if there's disagreements about response, those are worked out in a tri-party agreement through negotiations and discussion using the FFA.

00:35:46.000 --> 00:35:59.000
So EPA is also it's important that they provide input to the lead agency that they are abiding by all community and stakeholder involvement requirements.

00:35:59.000 --> 00:36:04.000
And these are laid out in 40 CFR Section 300.832.

00:36:04.000 --> 00:36:09.000
We'll talk a little more about this later on.

00:36:09.000 --> 00:36:24.000
Additionally, if hazardous substances remain at levels that do not allow unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, which is often the case because they're usually followed with remedial action, the lead agency must conduct 5-year reviews.

00:36:24.000 --> 00:36:38.000
Including at areas where removals were conducted. EPA is also responsible for verifying that any institutional controls, long-term monitoring, and any other post-removal operations and maintenance requirements.

00:36:38.000 --> 00:36:49.000
are maintained to ensure the protectiveness of the sites.

00:36:49.000 --> 00:37:05.000
In summary, EPA's oversight aims to ensure that removal actions led by other federal agencies are timely, protective, and consistent with Circle and the Ncp. And EPA accomplishes this by working through the FFA.

00:37:05.000 --> 00:37:20.000
to coordinate with the lead agency, provide rigorous technical reviews of information and decision documents, ensuring the ARARs are being identified and met to the maximum extent practical for removals.

00:37:20.000 --> 00:37:35.000
Ensuring appropriate community involvement, off-site disposal requirements are met, and any field execution, data quality and schedules and overall quality are being met.

00:37:35.000 --> 00:37:41.000
So now I'm going to talk more specifically about the different types of removal actions.

00:37:41.000 --> 00:37:55.000
The emergency removals are as stated, require an immediate response to releases or threaten threatened releases, and are initiated usually within hours or days of the determination that a removal action is appropriate.

00:37:55.000 --> 00:38:05.000
Time-critical removals are generally completed when removal is appropriate and on-site removal activities must begin within six months.

00:38:05.000 --> 00:38:11.000
And again, the action memo documents the selection of the removal action.

00:38:11.000 --> 00:38:26.000
And then nine time critical removals are undertaken when a removal action is appropriate and the situation allows for planning for a period of at least 6 months or greater before on-site activities must begin.

00:38:26.000 --> 00:38:36.000
And, as I mentioned, the engineering evaluation and cost analysis, which is essentially like a proposed plan is a requirement for these types of removals.

00:38:36.000 --> 00:38:51.000
And then once the removal action has been determined, an action memo is written documenting the selection of that action.

00:38:51.000 --> 00:38:55.000
So the action memo, as I said, was the primary decision document.

00:38:55.000 --> 00:39:04.000
And this slide just lists the required items that must be included in such a document.

00:39:04.000 --> 00:39:12.000
BPA does have a policy of accelerating circular environmental restorations.

00:39:12.000 --> 00:39:30.000
And this slide refers to the EPA guidance that provides that information. The purpose of this guidance is to encourage and support efforts at federal facilities to accelerate and develop streamlined approaches for cleanup of hazardous waste.

00:39:30.000 --> 00:39:43.000
This policy was signed jointly by EPA, the Department of War, and the Department of Energy in 1994.

00:39:43.000 --> 00:39:48.000
Let me talk just a little bit about sampling analysis plans with respect to removals.

00:39:48.000 --> 00:39:56.000
Under Environmental Related Removal Actions, EPA should review and approve SAPs for environmental actions.

00:39:56.000 --> 00:40:06.000
As I said earlier though, please check your FFAs because they may have additional requirements or different expectations when it comes to these.

00:40:06.000 --> 00:40:18.000
Types and requirements. And as we all know, there's several EPA guidance documents pertaining to what's required in sampling analysis plans and quality assurance project plans.

00:40:18.000 --> 00:40:28.000
And when it comes to Federal facilities, I'm sure most of you are aware that there is a guidance out there that's called the Uniform Federal Policy Act.

00:40:28.000 --> 00:40:35.000
for. for quality assurance project plans.

00:40:35.000 --> 00:40:43.000
However, I really wanted to mention that in 2023, EPA came out what was a new.

00:40:43.000 --> 00:40:56.000
And it's this EPA it slash IM directive standard Quality Assurance Project Plan Standard that you'll see on your slide is highlighted in red.

00:40:56.000 --> 00:41:07.000
This standard includes everything that's been previously identified in EPA guidance, but it adds an additional component that is now required, and that is.

00:41:07.000 --> 00:41:13.000
All environmental information operations must be addressed by the QAP.

00:41:13.000 --> 00:41:29.000
So not just sampling and analysis. This includes things such as if you have a model that produces data that feeds into your decision about what the environmental problems warranty action are, or what actions to take.

00:41:29.000 --> 00:41:38.000
That should be included in your QAP. Also, if you have any kind of statistical data, or.

00:41:38.000 --> 00:41:56.000
Process knowledge information or calculations that somehow support the overall information about your site, those should be covered by your quality assurance project plan. And that's what this EPA standard does.

00:41:56.000 --> 00:42:10.000
And just a note on that, too, if you just googled the 2023 EPA quack standard, it will bring that standard right up, and you can. You can view it for yourself.

00:42:10.000 --> 00:42:16.000
All right. So let's talk about time critical actions.

00:42:16.000 --> 00:42:26.000
Often referred to as TIPRAs. Tech runs are completed when there's less than six months of planning before the on-site activity must occur.

00:42:26.000 --> 00:42:50.000
Sorry, my slide is lagging there. And then. A notice of availability of the action memo stating what action will be taken must be placed in administrative record file and be placed in a major media outlet or other online resource so that the public can access it.

00:42:50.000 --> 00:42:57.000
This must be done within 60 days of initiation of the on-site removal activity.

00:42:57.000 --> 00:43:09.000
There must be a public comment period for at least 30 days, and if there's substantial comments, a responsiveness summary must be prepared.

00:43:09.000 --> 00:43:15.000
If on-site work is to extend beyond 120 days or 6 months.

00:43:15.000 --> 00:43:23.000
The regulations also state that a community involvement plan should be established and maintained in the repository.

00:43:23.000 --> 00:43:38.000
Um, and also a community involvement coordinator should be appointed in order to coordinate any responses and respond to questions or inquiries.

00:43:38.000 --> 00:43:43.000
The items that must be included in an action memo, which is.

00:43:43.000 --> 00:43:59.000
The concise written record of the removal action selection include these items listed here, which are site background, threat determination, objectives and scope, alternatives considered, the selected action.

00:43:59.000 --> 00:44:08.000
The cost estimate, any statutory limits. Community involvement. The offsite rule compliance.

00:44:08.000 --> 00:44:21.000
The expected duration of the action. The consistency with the anticipated future remedial action, any institutional controls that must be applied or post removal site controls.

00:44:21.000 --> 00:44:30.000
And all of this must be placed in the administrative record file.

00:44:30.000 --> 00:44:37.000
completion of the time critical removal action. There must be a closeout report.

00:44:37.000 --> 00:44:48.000
And it will be needed to ensure that the transition to the remedial action is consistent and comprehensive in manner.

00:44:48.000 --> 00:44:54.000
Typically, the remedial action completion or removal action completion.

00:44:54.000 --> 00:45:00.000
Um, has to be reviewed and approved by the regulators.

00:45:00.000 --> 00:45:06.000
And now, just to talk quickly about non time-critical removal actions.

00:45:06.000 --> 00:45:15.000
The NCP states that whenever a planning period of at least 6 months, as we stated before, exists before on-site activities must be initiated.

00:45:15.000 --> 00:45:26.000
And the lead agency determines based on a site evaluation that removal is appropriate, the lead agency shall conduct an engineering evaluation and cost analysis.

00:45:26.000 --> 00:45:35.000
This includes data collected as part of the investigation and documents the evaluation of the removal alternatives for implementing the responses.

00:45:35.000 --> 00:45:45.000
Similar to a feasibility study and proposed plan.

00:45:45.000 --> 00:45:56.000
And then just to follow up here. So the initial evaluation is often documented as a removal site evaluation.

00:45:56.000 --> 00:46:02.000
And then in this removal site evaluation, there is an event.

00:46:02.000 --> 00:46:16.000
A set defined set of evaluation criteria that must be considered, and the ARARS must also be evaluated.

00:46:16.000 --> 00:46:31.000
The ECA will define the removal action objectives and the scope, identify the range of alternatives, identify all Arars, and evaluate the alternatives using 3 criteria: effectiveness, implementability.

00:46:31.000 --> 00:46:40.000
And cost.

00:46:40.000 --> 00:46:50.000
It selects the removal alternative, documents the basis for selection, discusses the threats addressed. The ARs that will be met.

00:46:50.000 --> 00:47:03.000
The estimated cost, any statutory limits. Um, consistency with the future remedial action, and as said again, any institutional controls are post-removal control needs.

00:47:03.000 --> 00:47:11.000
The public participation requirements include a 30-day public notice and comment period.

00:47:11.000 --> 00:47:16.000
The establishment of a repository to include the administrative record file.

00:47:16.000 --> 00:47:21.000
And to hold a public meeting if there is sufficient interest.

00:47:21.000 --> 00:47:29.000
It's not necessarily required, but encouraged if there is significant public involvement and interest in the site.

00:47:29.000 --> 00:47:38.000
And then, of course, for any comments, a responsiveness summary must be provided.

00:47:38.000 --> 00:47:52.000
And at the end of that, then the action memo is written which documents the selection of this decision, and is again made available to the public.

00:47:52.000 --> 00:47:59.000
So in 1995, EPA and the Department of Energy wrote a joint policy memo.

00:47:59.000 --> 00:48:12.000
Um, which established the approach for decommissioning surplus Department of Energy facilities consistent with CERCLA that achieves risk reduction without unnecessary delay.

00:48:12.000 --> 00:48:21.000
For purposes of this policy, decommissioning includes those activities that take place after a facility has been deactivated.

00:48:21.000 --> 00:48:30.000
And then this is sort of unique because Department of Energy facilities have usually this added component of dealing with.

00:48:30.000 --> 00:48:49.000
High radiation facilities. So deactivation, which occurs before decommissioning, is the process of placing a facility in a safe and stable condition that is protective of workers, the public, and the environment until the decommissioning can be completed.

00:48:49.000 --> 00:49:01.000
As the bridge between operations and decommissioning, deactivation can accomplish operations like activities such as completing final process runs.

00:49:01.000 --> 00:49:09.000
Um, performing some decontamination. And in some instances, such as for nuclear reactors, this.

00:49:09.000 --> 00:49:14.000
Phase can be known as making the facility cold and dark.

00:49:14.000 --> 00:49:23.000
Referring to the removal and or stabilization and deactivation of radiological material and operations.

00:49:23.000 --> 00:49:34.000
The decommissioning that follows and the dismantlement. are what's considered generally part of the CERCLA process.

00:49:34.000 --> 00:49:39.000
So, in general terms. The deactivation.

00:49:39.000 --> 00:49:46.000
is sort of pre-CERCLA, although there can be components of that where the regulators are involved.

00:49:46.000 --> 00:50:02.000
And so, again, you should check your FFA and you should talk to your federal partners about plans they have for deactivation and decommissioning and how that fits into the CERCLA action.

00:50:02.000 --> 00:50:10.000
And that concludes my discussion on removals, and I'll turn it over to Erin for his talk on records of decisions.

00:50:10.000 --> 00:50:40.000
Okay, thank you, Jane, and I'll actually address some of the questions that are coming up and kind of gain some time back. So moving on to record decisions, and this is a type of decision document. Think about a decision document. It is… It's the rod, the ESD, the memo to file. It documents some sort of cleanup. So some of the other stuff like a feasibility study, a type memo. That's not a decision document. An example of a good decision document is pretty much anyone I ride.

00:50:40.000 --> 00:50:56.000
Um, just kidding, but the best way to know if it's a good decision document is if it is following the 1999 rod guidance, even though it's an oldie, it's a really good one. So as an RPM, when I'm writing that.

00:50:56.000 --> 00:51:09.000
and you'll keep hearing me talk about it. Having that 1999 rod guidance as you're working through the rod, or in even in throughout the Refs.

00:51:09.000 --> 00:51:24.000
phase is a good thing to do, because it's items that you're going to have to cover. And one… another thing you'll hear me talk about, and I'm going to keep referencing, is the CFI, the NCP, and just looking at that, where it is, um, because that's the.

00:51:24.000 --> 00:51:40.000
That's what the regulators are following from on the EPA side is what… what are we on in the NCP? And you go to ecfr.gov in kind of 40 and find the NCP to get an up-to-date version.

00:51:40.000 --> 00:51:53.000
And really, the purpose of a rod. is, uh, it's a legal document that certifies the remedy selection process was carried out in accordance with CERCLA to the extent practical in the national contingency plan.

00:51:53.000 --> 00:52:08.000
also the substantive summary of the technical rationale and background information contained in the administrative record file. Also, it's a technical document that provides information necessary for determining.

00:52:08.000 --> 00:52:17.000
the conceptual engineering components and which outlines the remedial action objectives and cleanup levels for that selected remedy.

00:52:17.000 --> 00:52:30.000
And it's a key communication tool for the public that explains the contamination problems and the remedy that seeks to address the rationale for its selection.

00:52:30.000 --> 00:52:40.000
And kind of just… I want to kind of go back and just a reminder, as you're going through that RIFS, because it all leads in to the record of decision. It's the focus.

00:52:40.000 --> 00:52:52.000
Um, part of it is to focus on what you're doing is you're collecting the data to make that decision. And I, two references here are from the one is from the NCP and another is from the.

00:52:52.000 --> 00:53:05.000
REFS guidance that just. highlights that is the the one of the main portions of the remedial investigation, or maybe even the most important part is you're collecting data so you can make a decision.

00:53:05.000 --> 00:53:13.000
to clean up an issue, and identifying an issue that you have to clean up and then cleaning it up.

00:53:13.000 --> 00:53:18.000
Oh, sorry, clicked it twice, and then the feasibility study.

00:53:18.000 --> 00:53:33.000
The next little part that I'll just go back to you're really just looking at what are the alternatives that we're looking at.

00:53:33.000 --> 00:53:39.000
That was not me. But let me get you back to the slide.

00:53:39.000 --> 00:53:47.000
The feasibility study. You're you're evaluating the potential alternatives that you're going to use to then be selected.

00:53:47.000 --> 00:54:03.000
And that is going to be the basis for the proposed plan and the record of decision. So, as I kind of move forward, and it's into the rod, but realize a lot of this information is stuff you're going to want to consider as the feasibility is either being drafted.

00:54:03.000 --> 00:54:09.000
reviewed of where you're you're most likely to address the comments is up front.

00:54:09.000 --> 00:54:14.000
Because once… it's already gonna… if your draft… when the rod is being written.

00:54:14.000 --> 00:54:31.000
Um, it's already gone through a public. comment period. There's always been reviews, so there's not going to be much changed from the what alternatives you're looking at, or anything like that, and that there's something fundamentally wrong, or that was missed.

00:54:31.000 --> 00:54:37.000
Uh, and then. And just moving in through the Superfund process proposed plan.

00:54:37.000 --> 00:54:48.000
Just something to remember, like, you can kind of move forward at different times, and the rod guidance goes into it that there are ways to start it earlier in the process. And really, it's just.

00:54:48.000 --> 00:54:56.000
It's whether there is that basis of action. Does the site say you can actually start moving forward in a proposed plan.

00:54:56.000 --> 00:55:11.000
and realized through the remedial investigation and the feasibility study, you're collecting information that is going to be used to support the decision that's going to document.

00:55:11.000 --> 00:55:30.000
why the rod is signed. So that is getting acquired throughout the process. And the lead agency still establish an amenities record that contains the documents that form that basis of selection and response action. It's updated when the proposed plan is.

00:55:30.000 --> 00:55:36.000
Um, out for public comment. So this way the public comment, the public can review the documents that.

00:55:36.000 --> 00:55:48.000
The lead agency in the EPA use and the state used to make that decision, and then it's updated again when the rod is signed.

00:55:48.000 --> 00:55:55.000
And this highlight is kind of getting right into the rod guidance. You'll notice a lot of times I'll take right from here.

00:55:55.000 --> 00:56:03.000
It's the diff… it's a recommended outline for how a record of decision should be.

00:56:03.000 --> 00:56:18.000
Written. A few of the key items that we're going to highlight is just in the blue to the right.

00:56:18.000 --> 00:56:25.000
Sorry, just drink some water. So the basis of action. There's 4 things to say, can. Is there something we have to clean up?

00:56:25.000 --> 00:56:34.000
And those are it, and you're gonna have to trigger that to perform a to get to a rod. Is there a risk there?

00:56:34.000 --> 00:56:42.000
Is there a lease of or substantial threat of release of hazardous substance into the environment or pollutant or contaminant.

00:56:42.000 --> 00:56:50.000
Um, which that may present an imminent or substantial danger to public health or welfare.

00:56:50.000 --> 00:56:56.000
Is there an unacceptable risk? That's the above 10 to the negative 4 from a.

00:56:56.000 --> 00:57:04.000
carcinogenic risk or above HI of 1, so that's kind of the baseline human health risk assessment. Is that… will that trigger it?

00:57:04.000 --> 00:57:12.000
or from the ecological standpoint, from the Slera or the barra, is there an adverse environmental impact?

00:57:12.000 --> 00:57:21.000
And then, lastly, it's the exceedance of chemical specific standards or other measures that define acceptable risk levels.

00:57:21.000 --> 00:57:27.000
And that's kind of the, um, you know, your drinking water standards can trigger a.

00:57:27.000 --> 00:57:33.000
action.

00:57:33.000 --> 00:57:39.000
And then kind of responding to the one of the items that you're going to want to.

00:57:39.000 --> 00:57:51.000
When you're looking at if you're writing a rod or viewing a rod, or looking at, there's certain language that is there in the 1999 rod guidance that is required to be in.

00:57:51.000 --> 00:57:57.000
the decision documents. And this one highlight, uh, 612.

00:57:57.000 --> 00:58:12.000
depends on if it's a circular hazardous substance or it's a pollutant or contaminant. And the circular hazardous substances are written defined in the Ncp, and that's in 40 CFR 302.4.

00:58:12.000 --> 00:58:24.000
And it lists them all. It was updated over the last few years when PFOA and PFOS were added as CERCLA hazardous substances.

00:58:24.000 --> 00:58:35.000
Remedial act objectives, another little Ncp. reference, and it's all they're all defined right through the Ncp.

00:58:35.000 --> 00:58:46.000
But the lead agency shall establish your metal objective action objectives for the contaminants of concern that you're addressing the media that it's addressing.

00:58:46.000 --> 00:58:56.000
potential exposure pathway in the remediation goal. for a little more information.

00:58:56.000 --> 00:59:02.000
You heard this a lot already. It's the rod guidance has some.

00:59:02.000 --> 00:59:11.000
The REOs think of it, describes what that cleanup is going to accomplish, and if it's proposed, or if it is actually going to get there.

00:59:11.000 --> 00:59:17.000
And then the rags for the Human Health Risk Assessment has additional information on the.

00:59:17.000 --> 00:59:28.000
RAOs. and then kind of moving forward, remedial action objectives in the Fs and the rod actually changes where.

00:59:28.000 --> 00:59:41.000
We're identifying the unacceptable risk. We have a remedial action objectives that are going to be pretty much the same, but in the FS, we call it a preliminary remediation goal.

00:59:41.000 --> 00:59:57.000
based on what the range of the different alternatives are. But in the rod, when the actual remedy is selected, it becomes the cleanup level we're actually going to meet and should be. And that's the wording that should be used in the record decision as a cleanup level.

00:59:57.000 --> 01:00:05.000
and that is addressed is it addresses the remedial component.

01:00:05.000 --> 01:00:21.000
and certain words that you're going to want to hear. What's the objective? Are you preventing contact from contamination? Are you protecting from contamination? Are we restoring groundwater to beneficial use? What does that cleanup?

01:00:21.000 --> 01:00:28.000
going to accomplish. You're going to minimize risk, reduce risk.

01:00:28.000 --> 01:00:33.000
Key things to factor in focus in on as you're writing a.

01:00:33.000 --> 01:00:47.000
Remedial action objective or reviewing one. and kind of coming up with those remediation goals. And this gets into the ars and figuring out, okay, what are we? What are we actually meeting? And there's a few.

01:00:47.000 --> 01:00:53.000
Um, in the NCP and in Circle, it says, okay, this… are we going to consider this?

01:00:53.000 --> 01:01:00.000
Mcls and non-zero Mclgs like. Are we saying those are relevant?

01:01:00.000 --> 01:01:10.000
and appropriate where they need to be met for beneficial use. If it's a surface water remedy, are we considering the.

01:01:10.000 --> 01:01:17.000
Federal Ambient water quality criteria, or if the state has a promulgated.

01:01:17.000 --> 01:01:30.000
surface water criteria, is that something we're looking at? As you're coming up with these preliminary remediation goals, to consider where they're coming from, what should they be, and realize the identification.

01:01:30.000 --> 01:01:45.000
of the ARAR should start at the be right at the beginning of the remedial investigation phase, because you're going to figure out, okay, what are those… you should always have the idea of what's gonna… what are we going to get to in the end? So you're going to want to think about what those.

01:01:45.000 --> 01:01:52.000
potentially could be, but realize they're only ARs are only finalized once that rod is signed.

01:01:52.000 --> 01:01:58.000
And then if there's multiple contaminants, will the the.

01:01:58.000 --> 01:02:04.000
in in the Fs. Are there other preliminary goals? If you meet them all.

01:02:04.000 --> 01:02:08.000
Are you still going to meet that, say, hypothetically, that.

01:02:08.000 --> 01:02:20.000
10 to the negative… for HI of one cumulative risk, because that's your basis of action. Like, are you going to actually clean it up below a basis of action?

01:02:20.000 --> 01:02:28.000
So just all some things to consider as you're figuring out what you need to clean it up to.

01:02:28.000 --> 01:02:34.000
And then, when you're picking a remedy. There's the 9 criteria.

01:02:34.000 --> 01:02:44.000
And they're separated into 3 different, and I'll kind of go into each one individually and give a little an example. There's the threshold criteria.

01:02:44.000 --> 01:02:57.000
That, um… that has to be made for overhaul protection of human health and the environment. And the compliance with Aras. There's the primary balancing criteria, the long-term effectiveness.

01:02:57.000 --> 01:03:14.000
The reduction of toxicity, mobility, volume. There's short-term effectiveness, implementability, and cost, and the modifying criteria is state acceptance and community acceptance.

01:03:14.000 --> 01:03:18.000
Uh, and kind of just going through each one now.

01:03:18.000 --> 01:03:31.000
Overall protection of human health and the environment. Kind of it's that statutory requirement. Did you address the contamination where there's not going to be any unexpected exposures?

01:03:31.000 --> 01:03:40.000
and is required. So you think you got to kind of meet this one in a rod or it's not going to fly.

01:03:40.000 --> 01:03:59.000
Next one that also has to be. MET is the compliance with ARs and realize is not required for just an interim action and specific ARs like a drinking water standard can be waived if we go through that process to determine if you know you can't meet that standard.

01:03:59.000 --> 01:04:06.000
From a technical impracticability standpoint. And it's another regulatory.

01:04:06.000 --> 01:04:14.000
So then getting into the balancing criteria, there's long-term effectiveness and permanence.

01:04:14.000 --> 01:04:26.000
and things, and some of these items that I'm kind of keying on is right on that Ncp. We can kind of see exactly what I'm going into. It's the magnitude of the remaining risk and the adequacy.

01:04:26.000 --> 01:04:31.000
of the controls. So give an example of this.

01:04:31.000 --> 01:04:46.000
Um, like if you're building a cap in a floodplain and it's only a soil cover in a floodplain, is that going to last in the long term? And the answer is no. So that might… get the alternative.

01:04:46.000 --> 01:04:53.000
get you away from moving with that alternative.

01:04:53.000 --> 01:05:03.000
Next is the reduction of a toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment. One thing when.

01:05:03.000 --> 01:05:18.000
The writers were… working on Circle, they just didn't want, uh… to create a bunch of different landfills everywhere and just move contamination from one thing. So toxicity, mobility. They want treatment. There is a true.

01:05:18.000 --> 01:05:29.000
a preference for treatment. and it deals with how you're going to treat it. What chemical like an example of.

01:05:29.000 --> 01:05:36.000
this alternative, and what you'd consider when you're dealing with this criteria is.

01:05:36.000 --> 01:05:46.000
In hypothetical situation, if you're doing an in situ treatment of groundwater and one of the alternatives says you're going to inject.

01:05:46.000 --> 01:06:03.000
a chemical is that chemical going to actually address the contaminants that are there?

01:06:03.000 --> 01:06:07.000
So short term. And the next is short-term effectiveness.

01:06:07.000 --> 01:06:16.000
Um, how is that going to affect the community? Is there going to be a lot of dust there? Can the workers.

01:06:16.000 --> 01:06:30.000
Like, are the workers going to be safely able to implement the construction to do the cleanup? How long is it going to take and some other factors like that?

01:06:30.000 --> 01:06:46.000
Implementability. One of those words that I didn't realize existed until I joined EPA. It's the technical ability to construct and operate the remedy. Like, is it administratively feasible?

01:06:46.000 --> 01:07:01.000
So things to think, consider if this was, you're going to do a dig and haul right next to a building, say, if you're going to go down to 50 feet, are you physically going to actually be able to engineer this remedy? It's something you'll look at with an engineering, or are you going to dig right near a.

01:07:01.000 --> 01:07:12.000
railroad line. Can you get that close to a rail line? Some things to consider from an implementability standpoint.

01:07:12.000 --> 01:07:18.000
Uh, and then last from the. balancing criteria.

01:07:18.000 --> 01:07:25.000
is cost, and then the Ncp kind of says you in the prep and the rod, you gotta have these 3.

01:07:25.000 --> 01:07:33.000
down to compare, and it's the capital cost of how much it's going to take right now to.

01:07:33.000 --> 01:07:41.000
to construct the remedy to provide the cleanup. Then there's the how much is it going to annually cost from an annual operation and maintenance cost?

01:07:41.000 --> 01:07:57.000
Moving forward. and last is the net present value of capital and operation and maintenance. That's where we kind of take a discount factor moving forward to determine that cost.

01:07:57.000 --> 01:08:05.000
And kind of… it balances out the costs with over time and the current one.

01:08:05.000 --> 01:08:26.000
And then we get into the modifying criteria. There's the state acceptance and realize the actual state acceptance isn't until after the public comment period closes because the state, and this is one of the questions in there should be reviewing will be reviewing the prep.

01:08:26.000 --> 01:08:37.000
They're going to be reviewing the rod, and they're not going to file it until they see that draft rod with the hey, this is the public comments and the responsiveness summary that we received. So State should be.

01:08:37.000 --> 01:08:49.000
They hefters, they should be reviewing the prep and the rod. They should also be throughout the process reviewing everything to make sure they're on board throughout the process, because you don't want to.

01:08:49.000 --> 01:08:52.000
And while rods can be signed without State acceptance.

01:08:52.000 --> 01:09:01.000
It's not in good practice, and they should be in agreement.

01:09:01.000 --> 01:09:11.000
And then lastly is community acceptance. And that's why we have the public comment period, so they can provide input on.

01:09:11.000 --> 01:09:25.000
um the remedy and realize with the community. acceptance will looking to see if there's something the agencies, the lead agency or EPA would miss from a.

01:09:25.000 --> 01:09:37.000
through by following CERCLA and get their input on it.

01:09:37.000 --> 01:09:57.000
And then. some things that kind of want to make sure is within the rod is how if there's principal threat waste, and how it's a how it is addressed. So principal threat waste are those source materials considered to be highly toxic.

01:09:57.000 --> 01:10:08.000
are highly mobile that generally can't be reliably contained or would present a significant risk to human health or the environment should exposure.

01:10:08.000 --> 01:10:12.000
occur, and that's usually some like your Dean apples, your ln apples.

01:10:12.000 --> 01:10:23.000
There's a 1990, uh. EPA guidance on PCB Superfund sites, and they define that as if you have PCBs over 500, and it's kind of.

01:10:23.000 --> 01:10:28.000
Uh, it could be very specific to the site.

01:10:28.000 --> 01:10:39.000
Um, and then statue, remember, we're following Circle. So there's the statutory determinations that we're required to be there, and if we're not following one of those, we have to present the reason why not.

01:10:39.000 --> 01:10:44.000
There's the protection… to protect human health and the environment.

01:10:44.000 --> 01:10:51.000
The compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements, those two things, these are those two items.

01:10:51.000 --> 01:11:07.000
In the as the, um… The first two criteria is the cost effectiveness. There's the preference, uh, the utilized permanent solutions and alternative treatment.

01:11:07.000 --> 01:11:26.000
to the maximal extent practicable, or there's and there's also the preference for treatment as a principal threat element. So if there is a remedy where you're not doing treatment at some point in the statutory determinations of the rod, whoever's writing it is going to explain why.

01:11:26.000 --> 01:11:43.000
Treatment is not there, I mean, and there could be a good reason of like, hey, we got this low level of contamination, treatment isn't possible, so we're just getting it to a… nearby disposal facility.

01:11:43.000 --> 01:11:58.000
And then another item that is required at the end of rods is if there is a 5-year view requirement. What is the 5 year view requirement? And that is in 121 C of and you won't see this.

01:11:58.000 --> 01:12:15.000
determination in rods before Sarah, because section 121. was added as part of Sarah in the late 1980s. So it's… do you need a five-year view? Is there a waste in place? Do you need to address? Or is the…

01:12:15.000 --> 01:12:20.000
Waste is the contaminant… is the cleanup to when when you meet.

01:12:20.000 --> 01:12:27.000
Cleanup standards going to take that long for a five-year review is required.

01:12:27.000 --> 01:12:32.000
And then Rashman, I think you wanted to kind of get on to the types of the rods. I'll let you.

01:12:32.000 --> 01:12:48.000
Yeah, yeah. So I wanted to kind of hit upon the different types of the rods and what the purpose is. So a no action rod means that a risk assessment concluded that there's no site.

01:12:48.000 --> 01:13:06.000
Risk. Um, and this may be due to a removal or RECRA action that was completed already. So there there's no active remediation. So it's more of a passive remedy, and that could include putting land use controls or monitoring.

01:13:06.000 --> 01:13:22.000
Um, the second type of rod I wanted to talk about was the early action rod, and this is a remedial action taken before the remedial investigation feasibility study is completed, and this could, um, this could occur.

01:13:22.000 --> 01:13:38.000
Because you're trying to protect human health and the environment from an imminent threat in the short term before a final remedy is being developed for the site. So a good example is providing a temporary alternative water supply to residents.

01:13:38.000 --> 01:13:54.000
prior to a remedy being selected for the groundwater later down the road. There's also interim action record of decisions and those are more completed.

01:13:54.000 --> 01:14:08.000
at separate operable units, or as a component of a final rod for a site. So a interim rod must be followed by a final rod so that it is protective in the long term.

01:14:08.000 --> 01:14:18.000
Um, and an example of that could be excavating a hot spot soil area where the contamination may be.

01:14:18.000 --> 01:14:35.000
Migrating to the groundwater, um, so that excavation for the soil is an interim remedy until a final remedy is taken for the groundwater. Um, then we have a contingency action rod.

01:14:35.000 --> 01:14:52.000
And this is more appropriate when there is significant uncertainty about the ability of a preferred remedy to achieve cleanup levels. So you may have, for instance, a groundwater remedy such as bioremediation.

01:14:52.000 --> 01:15:08.000
Um, and you may have a contingency remedy for thermal or something else, um, where you are unsure, but there needs to be clear, um, designation for when that preferred remedy fails, and when that.

01:15:08.000 --> 01:15:21.000
Contingency remedy, um, is taken over. Um, so that's another type of decision document. And then the last type I wanted to talk about is more the adaptive management.

01:15:21.000 --> 01:15:37.000
Um, Action Rod, and this really occurs when you're looking at a phase interim remedies with contingency remedies, um, that really provide a formal process to achieve site cleanup goals and remedial action objectives.

01:15:37.000 --> 01:15:52.000
Um, and this is really an approach for multiple components where you're looking at multiple technologies to get to the end of that cleanup. An example may be a source control for a soil.

01:15:52.000 --> 01:16:07.000
Um, and then moving into the groundwater remediation and having a selection for, for instance, bio and having something in place if that fails, um, and then maybe.

01:16:07.000 --> 01:16:23.000
At the end, going to M&A, um, but with an adaptive management rod, it's really important that the whole team agrees upon where… where's the data points? What are they going to be collected, um, to show that you are completed with that.

01:16:23.000 --> 01:16:30.000
first technology going to a next. Um, so those are the ones I wanted to talk about.

01:16:30.000 --> 01:16:44.000
And… I think they're all the ones I've talked about. And I just wanted to touch upon interim actions. So EPA again for groundwater remedies, a lot of times.

01:16:44.000 --> 01:17:06.000
There may be an interim action done and later on an M&A may take over, but Department of Energy has expressed support for the use of interim action rods, whereas more Department of War does not like interim rods and has a preference for final rods. So I just wanted to mention it really depends on that.

01:17:06.000 --> 01:17:11.000
Um, the, uh, views for interactions from that other federal agency.

01:17:11.000 --> 01:17:24.000
So I think that is it on my end. And I will turn it over for changing the remedy post-Rod. And I think that is, is that you, Jenna? Yep.

01:17:24.000 --> 01:17:25.000
Yes. All right. Thanks, Rashni.

01:17:25.000 --> 01:17:30.000
Thanks.

01:17:30.000 --> 01:17:34.000
All right. So sometimes the need arises.

01:17:34.000 --> 01:17:43.000
To change a remedy for multiple multitude of reasons.

01:17:43.000 --> 01:17:55.000
So post-ROD changes can come about. For things such as maybe there's something in the document that just wasn't.

01:17:55.000 --> 01:18:00.000
quite accurate, that needs to be corrected, or maybe the remedy isn't.

01:18:00.000 --> 01:18:16.000
Performing as everyone thought it would, and there's some change needed to the remedy, or maybe there's just an increase in the amount of waste that's being produced, which increases the cost. So there's all sorts of different reasons. But the 3 types of broad changes.

01:18:16.000 --> 01:18:31.000
Are insignificant or minor. And then that's just documented with a memo to file, but it must be documented and included in the administrative record file so that there's a complete record for what was changed.

01:18:31.000 --> 01:18:43.000
The second type is… oops. Sorry about that. The second type is a significant change, and this usually arises during.

01:18:43.000 --> 01:18:58.000
Implementation of the remedy where something has changed. As I said, something as far as how the remedy is operating, the success of that remedy. Something needs to be.

01:18:58.000 --> 01:19:10.000
changed within the confines of what was selected. And those significant changes require an explanation of significant difference be written.

01:19:10.000 --> 01:19:20.000
And then finally, if… The team decides that the remedy that has been selected is not working at all, or there's some major reason why.

01:19:20.000 --> 01:19:36.000
You have to then reevaluate what kind of remedy really will be effective. That's called a fundamental change. And those changes have to be documented in what's called a ROD amendment.

01:19:36.000 --> 01:19:54.000
So determine the type of post rod change is determined by the scope. Does the scope change the performance? Is there something about how the performance is of the remedy is working, and the cost.

01:19:54.000 --> 01:20:09.000
And again, for insignificant or minor changes. Those are documented in a memo to file and included in the administrative record file. Examples include a change to the monitoring frequency.

01:20:09.000 --> 01:20:12.000
or a small increase in the volume of waste.

01:20:12.000 --> 01:20:35.000
And I will give you a little example. So there was a remedy that was being implemented where there was a small increase in the volume of waste requiring going from an estimated 60,000 cubic yards to 75,000 cubic yards of waste.

01:20:35.000 --> 01:20:42.000
But the estimated cost of the overall remedy will only increase by a small percentage.

01:20:42.000 --> 01:20:51.000
This may constitute an insignificant or minor change.

01:20:51.000 --> 01:21:01.000
So changes which are significant. But do not fundamentally affect the remedy selected in the rod.

01:21:01.000 --> 01:21:12.000
are issued as an explanation of difference. An ESD must describe to the public why the change is needed, the nature of the significant change.

01:21:12.000 --> 01:21:16.000
Summarize the information that led to making the change.

01:21:16.000 --> 01:21:25.000
And affirms that the revised remedy complies with the NCP and the statutory requirements of CERCLA.

01:21:25.000 --> 01:21:36.000
Addition information regarding what's required in an ESD and what constitute an ESD, again, can be found in the 1999 ROD guidance that's been mentioned.

01:21:36.000 --> 01:21:47.000
During this presentation.

01:21:47.000 --> 01:21:52.000
Generally, for an ESD, a new 9 criteria analysis is not required.

01:21:52.000 --> 01:21:59.000
But it is helpful to provide a side-by-side comparison of the original and the proposed remedy.

01:21:59.000 --> 01:22:05.000
In order to clearly display the significant differences. Public notice is required.

01:22:05.000 --> 01:22:11.000
and must be provided to the public in a media that can be accessed readily.

01:22:11.000 --> 01:22:15.000
And as part… becomes part of the administrative record file.

01:22:15.000 --> 01:22:23.000
A public meeting is not required. So here's a couple of examples.

01:22:23.000 --> 01:22:30.000
You have a large increase in the volume or cost associated with the remedy.

01:22:30.000 --> 01:22:40.000
So for instance, sampling during the remedial design phase indicated the need to significantly increase the volume of contaminated waste material, substantially increasing the cost of the remedy.

01:22:40.000 --> 01:22:56.000
The change is significant but not fundamental. Another example is the lead agency decides to use a biological treatment method instead of air stripping, which was identified in the RAD for treatment of the extracted groundwater.

01:22:56.000 --> 01:23:05.000
The basic pump and treat approach remains unaltered, and the cleanup levels in the rod remain the same, and will be met by the alternative technology.

01:23:05.000 --> 01:23:12.000
But there is a change in the actual treatment method of the groundwater. So that is.

01:23:12.000 --> 01:23:26.000
Because it's retained as a pump and treat method, but it's just treating has a different modem or modality, that is a significant change, but not a fundamental change.

01:23:26.000 --> 01:23:36.000
So route amendments. When a fundamental change is made to the remedy selected in the rod with respect to scope, performance, or cost.

01:23:36.000 --> 01:23:46.000
The portion of the rod that's amended has to go through what's called a rod amendment, with a new 9 criteria analysis, including new arriars.

01:23:46.000 --> 01:23:58.000
And demonstration that it meets the NCP. This entails the issuance of a revised proposed plan that highlights the proposed changes.

01:23:58.000 --> 01:24:13.000
And it provides this comparison. The focus of the amendment should be to document the rationale for the amendment and provide assurances that the remedy satisfies the statutory requirements.

01:24:13.000 --> 01:24:20.000
Um… And according to NCP, 300.430.

01:24:20.000 --> 01:24:38.000
Components of the remedy not described in the ROD must attain or waive requirements that are identified as applicable or relevant and appropriate at the time the amendment to the rod is completed.

01:24:38.000 --> 01:24:53.000
Medial design and remedial action activities being conducted on other portions of the site or at other OUs not proposed for changes may continue during the amendment process.

01:24:53.000 --> 01:25:04.000
When fundamental changes are proposed to the rod, the lead agency must conduct public participation and documentation procedures as specified in the NCP.

01:25:04.000 --> 01:25:13.000
300.435 and 300.825, which includes a public comment period on the proposed plan.

01:25:13.000 --> 01:25:27.000
Given the changes proposed are fundamentally different from the original remedy, the public has the opportunity to provide comments that were not considered in the original ROD.

01:25:27.000 --> 01:25:35.000
And here's a couple of examples. The 1st example is a change in the primary treatment method.

01:25:35.000 --> 01:25:45.000
The in situ soil washing remedy selected in the rod proves to be infeasible to implement after testing during the remedial design.

01:25:45.000 --> 01:25:52.000
A decision is made to fundamentally change the remedy to excavate and thermally treat the waste.

01:25:52.000 --> 01:26:05.000
Another example is during a five-year review for a small industrial site, tests indicate that the containment remedy will not be protective, and now a more active response approach.

01:26:05.000 --> 01:26:13.000
For example, treatment is necessary. A new remedy must be selected that will meet the protectiveness requirements.

01:26:13.000 --> 01:26:29.000
This will also increase the cost. And then as just one additional example, if you're performing, say, like a groundwater pump and treat type of remedy, and.

01:26:29.000 --> 01:26:39.000
you haven't anticipated discovering additional contamination, but during this process, additional contamination, including DNAPL, is identified.

01:26:39.000 --> 01:26:46.000
Because the treatment of DNAPL zone is impracticable from an engineering perspective.

01:26:46.000 --> 01:26:58.000
Rather than try to treat that source material with the pump and treat system, a decision is made to implement a containment approach or a slurry wall to contain the DNAPL zone.

01:26:58.000 --> 01:27:13.000
Even though pump and treat will continue outside the containment zone because there is a new scope, performance and remedy, it is a fundamental change, and therefore a route amendment must be completed.

01:27:13.000 --> 01:27:20.000
And that's it, and I will turn it back over to, I believe it's Aaron for the 5-year review.

01:27:20.000 --> 01:27:29.000
Yeah, it's 5-year views, and I'm actually in the middle of 3 of them right now. So… Perfect topic at three of my sights.

01:27:29.000 --> 01:27:39.000
Um… Here we go. So statutory requirement in 5 year views, and I think I mentioned earlier 5 year views.

01:27:39.000 --> 01:27:57.000
um, came about… As part of Sarah, it's one section 121 of CERCLA. So there's a few different types. There's three different types. There's statutory. If it is a post rod.

01:27:57.000 --> 01:28:05.000
5-year review. Sorry, a post. Sarah, 5-year review that leaves waste in place.

01:28:05.000 --> 01:28:15.000
Then it is a statutory five-year review. If it is a hypothetical, if it's a host.

01:28:15.000 --> 01:28:29.000
Sarah. rod that is just hypothetically, there's no groundwater contamination, not waste isn't going to be left in place. It's just a groundwater cleanup. Those 5-year views, but those… that time, it's going to take a while to clean up.

01:28:29.000 --> 01:28:42.000
that site. Those are policy reviews. And then also pre-Sarah Rod for the site, if that's the only rod that's in place that those are also policy rods.

01:28:42.000 --> 01:28:53.000
And then there's also discretionary that can be done at any times, but those are definitely few and far between.

01:28:53.000 --> 01:29:11.000
And at Federal facility for Federal facilities, the lead agency, which is not the EPA, would conduct the review and prepares the reports and submits the report to EPA for review and comment. Epa will either concur on the protagonist determination or provide.

01:29:11.000 --> 01:29:21.000
independent findings, and part of the review process. It should go through the State on the private side. They are required review.

01:29:21.000 --> 01:29:25.000
of these 5-year views also, they'll get the draft.

01:29:25.000 --> 01:29:30.000
And then final also. And then another item on the five-year review.

01:29:30.000 --> 01:29:46.000
The lead agency is responsible for ensuring that the recommendations and follow-up actions in the report are completed, and that is one thing at EPA is tracked and definitely reminders are sent out to say, how is this?

01:29:46.000 --> 01:29:58.000
issue. and recommendation being addressed.

01:29:58.000 --> 01:30:07.000
There we go. And there's the 5 different protagonist determinations. The five-year view is determining is the remedy still protective?

01:30:07.000 --> 01:30:17.000
The best one that we like to see is is a protect… it's protective. There's no exposure pathways, there's nothing in there that we don't think it's not going to be protective.

01:30:17.000 --> 01:30:23.000
Um, there's no… and so there's no issues and no recommendations. Another one, depending on.

01:30:23.000 --> 01:30:29.000
Where you start and where you are with your construction of the remedy, there's a chance that you can just say.

01:30:29.000 --> 01:30:45.000
Um, because the trigger action for a… sorry, you could say it's going to be protective because the triggering action for now for a statutory five-year review is the on-site construction. So that's taking longer than 5 years to complete.

01:30:45.000 --> 01:30:53.000
you're probably going to say, and you're constructing the remedy. Still, you're probably going to say, Hey, the remedy is going to be protective.

01:30:53.000 --> 01:31:05.000
Uh, next is protecting this in the short term. But there's some items that could affect the protagonist in the long term. That's when there is an issue and recommendation.

01:31:05.000 --> 01:31:18.000
Um, noted that needs to be addressed to determine how that protect… about the protecting this. So if there is an issuing recommendation, you're at least one of these… you're at least short-term protective.

01:31:18.000 --> 01:31:32.000
Next is not protective. That's if… is there some exposure that you're looking at, the unknown exposure? Or sorry, is there a known exposure there that's not… the remedy isn't protective, and that might.

01:31:32.000 --> 01:31:38.000
trigger what Jenna got into earlier regarding a route amendment or something else to consider that you're going to have to do.

01:31:38.000 --> 01:31:48.000
And then lastly, if there's not enough information. the protagonist can be deferred.

01:31:48.000 --> 01:31:59.000
Until that information is known. But with that, you need to have a specified timeframe and the rod amendment is also required. I mean, sorry, not a rod amendment.

01:31:59.000 --> 01:32:10.000
Uh, five-year review amendment is then required to address the deferring of the protagonist.

01:32:10.000 --> 01:32:18.000
And just helpful components, because think about it, but you're kind of looking back at the Rios and exposure and contamination kind of what's the media?

01:32:18.000 --> 01:32:29.000
the path, the risk. What are those risk drivers? What are those COCs? What are those cleanup levels? Kind of has the land use changed? Are there new residential buildings nearby?

01:32:29.000 --> 01:32:32.000
Um, and then what's that purpose of the action? Are you preventing?

01:32:32.000 --> 01:32:37.000
the exposure, you eliminating the release, you're storing groundwater.

01:32:37.000 --> 01:32:48.000
Beneficial use. And this kind of get, I… kind of just give some examples of remedies that are not considered protective.

01:32:48.000 --> 01:32:58.000
You know, they're not going to meet the cleanup levels, someone's being exposed.

01:32:58.000 --> 01:33:07.000
And kind of I mentioned this earlier. You know, if it's not if the remedy is not protective, you're going to need an ESD or rod amendment.

01:33:07.000 --> 01:33:13.000
It's not protective in the short term. And then.

01:33:13.000 --> 01:33:18.000
It's gonna… you're gonna have to deal with them. And then kind of moving out of the 5-year review.

01:33:18.000 --> 01:33:24.000
Rome, but into the kind of the end of the Superfund process, even in.

01:33:24.000 --> 01:33:42.000
A site can be deleted. If there's still waste in place, if the REOs are met, if ICs are in place, because operational maintenance can still be ongoing. So you would still have 5-year views, and realize site deletion is kind of, did you meet the cleanup levels? Did you meet the REOs?

01:33:42.000 --> 01:33:47.000
It's more of an administrative…

01:33:47.000 --> 01:34:04.000
I am not a. It's not. It doesn't really. It's more. It changes it administratively realize. And if you're going to delete site, there's no further response that is appropriate that we know of at the time.

01:34:04.000 --> 01:34:14.000
And then I think, um… It's like we there's the course summary, but I think we wanted to get into is it questions now?

01:34:14.000 --> 01:34:26.000
Uh, yes, sir. This is Jr. Reynolds. I can go over some of the questions. No particular order.

01:34:26.000 --> 01:34:39.000
Let's see… if you have bad REOs is your only option a rod amendment to fix them?

01:34:39.000 --> 01:34:44.000
Sorry, but the question was bad REOs is the only way to.

01:34:44.000 --> 01:34:50.000
If you have bad REOs is the only option a rod amendment to fix them.

01:34:50.000 --> 01:34:59.000
I'm trying to understand the question if it's like a… If it's, like, how we're defining bad, if it's something that…

01:34:59.000 --> 01:35:06.000
It really depends on what the remedial action objective is on the site. I mean, it's very site-specific.

01:35:06.000 --> 01:35:14.000
you know it's really hard generically to answer that question. But a lot of times.

01:35:14.000 --> 01:35:20.000
I know, you know, if there are remedial action objectives that are not met, um.

01:35:20.000 --> 01:35:29.000
An ESD or RAD amendment may have to be done because the remedy is not working, or… and they may have to supplement that remedy, so it really depends on.

01:35:29.000 --> 01:35:38.000
The… what the remedy is and what the remedial action objectives are cited in the decision document.

01:35:38.000 --> 01:35:40.000
Aaron or Jenna, you want to add add anything?

01:35:40.000 --> 01:35:49.000
I think, yeah, it's very specific. I think. I think that we need more information on the question.

01:35:49.000 --> 01:35:50.000
to really answer it. You're not just going to change… Yeah, it's very specific of what's really happening. Are you not meeting a standard?

01:35:50.000 --> 01:35:51.000
It is very site-specific.

01:35:51.000 --> 01:35:55.000
You can. And…

01:35:55.000 --> 01:36:01.000
Um, you're not gonna be aware of the process is.

01:36:01.000 --> 01:36:02.000
Yeah.

01:36:02.000 --> 01:36:10.000
And. And the person can reach out to any of our three panelists for for clarification. Does the EPA define federal facilities to include only federal sites that are listed on the MPL?

01:36:10.000 --> 01:36:18.000
The need for a federal facility agreement and the APA oversight role under EEO 12580.

01:36:18.000 --> 01:36:36.000
Yeah, I mean, so, a federal… an NPL site for a federal facility is one that's listed on a national priorities list, and that's based on the hazardous ranking system. If it's list on the site, that's a preliminary assessment site inspection. So yes, it has. It has to be listed on the Npl.

01:36:36.000 --> 01:36:46.000
Um, in regards to be… in regards to being a Superfund site. And then there are federal facility agreements for each site, each specific site.

01:36:46.000 --> 01:36:57.000
And each lead agency. So, you know, there could be DOE, DOW. So they're very site-specific.

01:36:57.000 --> 01:37:02.000
Information in each federal facility agreement. Jenna, you want to add anything to that?

01:37:02.000 --> 01:37:14.000
I just want to say we do have occasionally we do have a federal facility which we don't have an FFA for, but we are working towards getting an FFA. It doesn't mean that we don't stop.

01:37:14.000 --> 01:37:30.000
acting in our role as regulators irregardless. It's just the FFA is helpful because it really defines the scope of the responsibilities of all 3 parties and the requirements of you know what's going to be implemented.

01:37:30.000 --> 01:37:39.000
All right. The next question is, when does the clock start ticking for the Tikra after the am.

01:37:39.000 --> 01:37:50.000
So generally, yes, the the regulations aren't super specific. They provide for, you know, the.

01:37:50.000 --> 01:38:10.000
The 6-month, there's the 6 month deadline that defines whether it's non-time critical or time critical. There's the 30 day public comment period, and that 30-day public comment period starts when the action memo or when the ECA is provided for public review. So when once it's placed in the ARF.

01:38:10.000 --> 01:38:24.000
That's administrative record file and repository that starts the 30 day comment period. And I think there was a question, too, about whether that affects the, um.

01:38:24.000 --> 01:38:29.000
the time for when the action has to start.

01:38:29.000 --> 01:38:43.000
Again, I think the comment period needs to be completed prior to that time limit, but it's not a hard and fast rule in the regulations. It's sort of negotiable.

01:38:43.000 --> 01:38:49.000
As far as, you know, what clock starts when and what's included in that clock.

01:38:49.000 --> 01:39:11.000
Alright, awesome. Thank you. This is kind of a 3-part question. So we'll we'll try to tackle and see what happens. Which is the question, what happens when the EPA and the lead agency disagree on the protectiveness determinations in the 5-year review.

01:39:11.000 --> 01:39:13.000
But Donna, do you want to answer that one?

01:39:13.000 --> 01:39:16.000
And then the same goes what happens when the state also or the EPA doesn't agree.

01:39:16.000 --> 01:39:22.000
What?

01:39:22.000 --> 01:39:39.000
I think, you know, a lot of that may be defined in the Federal Facility Agreement. And then, you know, it all comes down to milestones. So if you have an action where you have a deadline to either implement that action or.

01:39:39.000 --> 01:39:45.000
To complete an action or to meet a certain remedial action objective.

01:39:45.000 --> 01:39:52.000
Then if those things are missed, then that's subject to dispute and to federal facility enforcement.

01:39:52.000 --> 01:39:53.000
Okay.

01:39:53.000 --> 01:40:09.000
So there is, um, you know, if the lead agency and EPA disagree, the EPA, RPM can do an independent determination and write, you know, so that occurs a lot of times on federal facility sites. Just wanted to mention that. Erin, did you?

01:40:09.000 --> 01:40:11.000
want to say anything?

01:40:11.000 --> 01:40:12.000
Good point.

01:40:12.000 --> 01:40:24.000
Yeah, no, I think you nailed it for the independent determination from the EPA side. But then for the State side, yeah, the State. Well, it's not a concurrence on the 5 year view. It's kind of like a hey, review.

01:40:24.000 --> 01:40:42.000
EPA doesn't have to address the comments and move forward with it. Well, there'll be some back and forth and discussion of what to what we're doing and why. But it's not like a rod from a the state is concurring on a 5 year view. It's more. Hey, you're helping with the review. You're helping with the process.

01:40:42.000 --> 01:40:47.000
This is what we think. Do we have an agreement? Are we in agreement?

01:40:47.000 --> 01:40:55.000
And I would just add also, if there's an objective that you feel is not being met at the site, like some cleanups not.

01:40:55.000 --> 01:41:10.000
Action doesn't EPA determines it's not protective. You can negotiate with the federal agency, the lead federal agency to put a new milestone into your FFA that says this particular site or this particular problem.

01:41:10.000 --> 01:41:18.000
will be addressed, and here's how we're going to address it, and here's our deadline. So that's kind of how you can move forward on something like that.

01:41:18.000 --> 01:41:23.000
Um, is really, you know, working through that FFA process.

01:41:23.000 --> 01:41:34.000
And there's also… I mean, if there's not enough information or data, that's another option, then you could, you know, the protectiveness can be deferred until that data is collected. So I just wanted to.

01:41:34.000 --> 01:41:36.000
Mention that scenario as well.

01:41:36.000 --> 01:41:48.000
And speaking of deferred, that was the third part of this question was, is it possible to have protectiveness defer more than once on a DOE/DOD site?

01:41:48.000 --> 01:42:05.000
More than once, I'm… yes, I mean, that's a possibility that can occur. I mean, I think it's clear that there has to be some milestones and dates that are included in the 5-year review, and but that is a possibility that could happen. I mean, it could be.

01:42:05.000 --> 01:42:18.000
It could happen twice, and yes, but I think it's clear then to really provide the recommendations, um, that are needed with appropriate timelines so that it doesn't keep on being.

01:42:18.000 --> 01:42:25.000
not protect, you know, not protective. I don't know if Aaron, Jenna, you want to add anything?

01:42:25.000 --> 01:42:39.000
I mean, I think they'll… it should… it should be in that… within that timeframe, so they… you find the information that you wouldn't have to defer, because it's not a you're not making it. If you're deferring the protectiveness, you're not make… doesn't have to become protective. It just you need an answer. So… I don't.

01:42:39.000 --> 01:42:42.000
You need to understand what needs to be. Completed.

01:42:42.000 --> 01:42:47.000
Yeah, so I don't think… it shouldn't take 5 years to figure that out.

01:42:47.000 --> 01:42:53.000
That is in the Aaron world. So we'll I mean, this is the real world, though.

01:42:53.000 --> 01:43:03.000
And so, just switching a little bit to a different area. How is a early action rod different than implementing a TICRA?

01:43:03.000 --> 01:43:04.000
So.

01:43:04.000 --> 01:43:11.000
So I think I put that in the chat. So a time-critical removal action, an OSC.

01:43:11.000 --> 01:43:29.000
Has to make that determination, and it is more imminent. And the removal action memo has to be completed while a early action rod, an RIFS is not completed, but that information and data should be included in the ROD, so that.

01:43:29.000 --> 01:43:39.000
you know, it's part of the administrative record, so, uh, you know, a rod has to be done. Whereas, you know, and that's something that a roomy deal project manager would handle versus an OSC.

01:43:39.000 --> 01:43:41.000
Jenna, you want to answer any add anything?

01:43:41.000 --> 01:43:59.000
Yeah. Sure. And another difference is a time critical removal action can be taken at the lead agency's discretion. They don't have to have regulation or regulator approval. A rod does require regulator approval and signature.

01:43:59.000 --> 01:44:01.000
Good point.

01:44:01.000 --> 01:44:09.000
Um, where are operable units defined in the rod or another decision document?

01:44:09.000 --> 01:44:10.000
You have that one portion of the yeah that has it in the rod.

01:44:10.000 --> 01:44:15.000
It's in the rod. Yep, it should be in the rod.

01:44:15.000 --> 01:44:18.000
You know, let's find the problem.

01:44:18.000 --> 01:44:27.000
Okay, this is the question's incomplete, but we'll try it. What about PFAS? Is that enough to force a new rod?

01:44:27.000 --> 01:44:42.000
So I yeah, I I see this one. I can answer it. So potentially. So if there is like if you'd have to look at how pfas is impacted by that current remedy in place. If you have like a hypothetical situation.

01:44:42.000 --> 01:44:48.000
If you have a pump and treat site that has a treatment train that can treat pre-PFAS.

01:44:48.000 --> 01:45:01.000
And it's being captured and dealt with. It potentially could only be a new ESD. So it's very it's going to be very site specific of what's that nature and extent? How are you going to address it and what you have now.

01:45:01.000 --> 01:45:06.000
And is it site specific? Is it site-specific?

01:45:06.000 --> 01:45:07.000
And then this question is probably… Go ahead. I'm sorry.

01:45:07.000 --> 01:45:24.000
Yeah. Yes, if it's a yes, if it is, um… If it's related to the site, EPA can't take action at super fund sites for background.

01:45:24.000 --> 01:45:32.000
This question happened on earlier. Do those models also include risk assessment calculations?

01:45:32.000 --> 01:45:35.000
I'm trying to figure out where that was con.

01:45:35.000 --> 01:45:36.000
But that was in relation to the the quap guidance like how.

01:45:36.000 --> 01:45:40.000
I did not understand that, like, I wasn't sure what…

01:45:40.000 --> 01:45:41.000
Oh.

01:45:41.000 --> 01:45:42.000
I actually have, and…

01:45:42.000 --> 01:45:53.000
Yeah. Yes. I think the answer is yes. Anything that generates any type of information that may be used to make decisions at your site needs to be covered under the QAP.

01:45:53.000 --> 01:45:57.000
So yes, it would include the risk assessment.

01:45:57.000 --> 01:46:05.000
Perfect. Let's see.

01:46:05.000 --> 01:46:16.000
Uh, other moderatories, feel free to jump in. I'm just trying to… Our 5-year reviews require for IRA only OUs?

01:46:16.000 --> 01:46:20.000
Operating units. Not sure that…

01:46:20.000 --> 01:46:34.000
It's gonna be dependent on the exact interim run. So potentially… what it would depend on… what the remedy components are, where's the waste, what are you actually doing?

01:46:34.000 --> 01:46:45.000
And the interim rod is going to have to be contingent. There is an interim route. It needs to be will need to be.

01:46:45.000 --> 01:46:46.000
Yeah, it has… there has to be… I was gonna say, there has to be a final rod.

01:46:46.000 --> 01:46:49.000
fit in with the final rut.

01:46:49.000 --> 01:46:51.000
for long-term protectiveness. Yeah.

01:46:51.000 --> 01:47:07.000
And I would say as long as there's waste in place above UUEE, like Erin was talking about earlier, regardless of whether it's a removal or an IROD or… What it is. I… the 5-year review still applies.

01:47:07.000 --> 01:47:08.000
Even if a site… yeah, even if a site's deleted.

01:47:08.000 --> 01:47:13.000
to ensure that. Yeah. Okay.

01:47:13.000 --> 01:47:27.000
Okay, we're gonna go back to PFAS again. the gift that Keith's giving. If the PFAS is in a different area of the site, it would create a new operable unit. Is that a whole new rod?

01:47:27.000 --> 01:47:31.000
If it creates a new opera, yeah, it probably would be a whole new.

01:47:31.000 --> 01:47:37.000
Right, but I mean, it all depends on that. It's all that site-specific of how it's set up.

01:47:37.000 --> 01:47:38.000
So…

01:47:38.000 --> 01:47:45.000
It depends. It kind of depends on… It depends if it's site-wide, or is it under, you know, where it is on the site? It could be a separate operable, you know.

01:47:45.000 --> 01:47:52.000
It kind of… Depends. It could be.

01:47:52.000 --> 01:48:06.000
All right. I don't know… If this pops will answer this, and you know, 2 min less. But are there good in quotation rods that we can try to emulate?

01:48:06.000 --> 01:48:13.000
Well, that was when I answered on my thing, the ones I write.

01:48:13.000 --> 01:48:14.000
Just email Aaron.

01:48:14.000 --> 01:48:27.000
It's gonna be following the 1999 guidance and following the NCP is the and it's going to be very determinant on the rod. I don't think there's one that we're gonna call it and say, this is the greatest.

01:48:27.000 --> 01:48:41.000
Yeah, now, the guidance document is really good. Of course, you know, in the you can talk to your senior Rpms and and ask in the regions, you know, which which garage they.

01:48:41.000 --> 01:48:49.000
You know, do they view… you can talk to headquarters, the regional, you know, the federal facility coordinators, and get their advice, but.

01:48:49.000 --> 01:48:59.000
Really, the 1999 guidance document is really great. There's templates also, which are, you know, which kind of.

01:48:59.000 --> 01:49:04.000
Identify the sections, and then what should be included. So that's another option. But, um.

01:49:04.000 --> 01:49:07.000
Nate.

01:49:07.000 --> 01:49:10.000
I would say, and talk to your colleagues who the more experienced colleagues.

01:49:10.000 --> 01:49:14.000
Yeah.

01:49:14.000 --> 01:49:23.000
Um, who have written a number of rods, or reviewed a number of rods to reach out to them as well. That's what I would say.

01:49:23.000 --> 01:49:29.000
All right, I believe.

01:49:29.000 --> 01:49:38.000
That I really think that is it, because any other questions here probably require more than 2 to 3 min. So I think at this time.

01:49:38.000 --> 01:49:42.000
I'm gonna turn it over to Gene.

01:49:42.000 --> 01:50:02.000
All right, thank you so very much, Jr. And I'm going to swap out the view of materials here and walk through just a few final closing reminders. But before I do so, I wanted to thank each of our three fantastic presenters. So Gemma, Rashmi, Erin, thank you so much for your time and expertise today.

01:50:02.000 --> 01:50:23.000
You did a fabulous job on that rapid fire Q&A period in presenting a lot of content on our session today. I also want to thank the support staff who joined me in the background today as we've been hinting at on some of the most recent CLUEN webinars, I am transitioning over to a new position here at EPA, so I will no longer be on these sessions.

01:50:23.000 --> 01:50:35.000
And you all will be joined by a fantastic group of individuals, such as JR, Ray, and Shelly, who have been on helping to run today's session. So I want to thank the three of them for stepping up to help make today's session a possibility.

01:50:35.000 --> 01:50:36.000
And we want to thank you, Jean. Thanks for being on this last.

01:50:36.000 --> 01:50:40.000
With that. Thank you.

01:50:40.000 --> 01:50:41.000
Session, appreciate it.

01:50:41.000 --> 01:50:59.000
I appreciate it. It was a privilege. And of course, I want to be sure that all of our audience has their final questions answered before we close things out today. I did see a few basic questions in the Q&A asking if copies of the presentations will be shared. We actually posted the updated version of the slides.

01:50:59.000 --> 01:51:14.000
Just shortly after we got things started today, so as was noted at the start, I'll show it here in just a moment, on the seminar homepage, there's a section where you can download a PDF copy of the presentation materials. We do not share written copies of all of the questions that were read out loud and responded to.

01:51:14.000 --> 01:51:38.000
However, this session was recorded and you'll be able to replay the full session, including the Q&A periods that we've had, so that others will be able to get the benefit of the full transfer of knowledge. And I'll walk through all of those reminders here in just a second. So the first reminder I have is that I encourage everybody to keep visiting us at the Cleanup Information Network or kulin.org, and please be sure that you are a subscriber to TechDirect, which is our free monthly newsletter that I send out on the first of each month.

01:51:38.000 --> 01:51:45.000
And we'll highlight free online training sessions, such as today's FRTR, Federal Facilities Academy session.

01:51:45.000 --> 01:52:07.000
The unique seminar homepage that was created for today's session is shown on this slide in the red URL. You can access it through the QR code as well. That website is available from today forward. That means you can bookmark it, you can save it, you can share that link with other people. It's the same site you went to when registering. It's the same place you went to when checking in, and it's the same place where I'll be sending you to now after the live event.

01:52:07.000 --> 01:52:22.000
There are sections on that site that if you scroll up and down, you'll be able to access information about our speakers, access copies of the presentation materials, access related websites and guidance documents that were discussed. And most importantly, there is a link to the online feedback form for today's session.

01:52:22.000 --> 01:52:43.000
Because one of the most common questions that the new team is going to face, as I learned over my years here working on webinars, is participants asking if they can get a copy of the certificate of participation. We do not issue PDHs or CEUs. However, we can provide you with a certificate of participation if you fill out the online feedback form.

01:52:43.000 --> 01:53:04.000
So make sure you visit the seminar homepage, again, through the QR code or the URL shown in red. Fill out the feedback form and check the box at the bottom of the form certifying you are here for the entire live delivery. Once you fill out that form and submit it, you'll then have access to download or print out a certificate. I'll leave an email a copy to you, but sometimes those get caught up in junk or spam filters, so I usually encourage people to download it.

01:53:04.000 --> 01:53:24.000
From that confirmation screen when they see them. If you hosted a watch party and from the stats that I see, there were a handful of you who had others joining with you at your location. If you were the one who registered, I encourage you to share the link to that seminar homepage to others who joined you in the room and each person can fill out the feedback form even if you didn't register on your own to get your own certificate.

01:53:24.000 --> 01:53:32.000
So again, share the link. We want to get feedback. We do read each and every comment that you share, and we use those to improve future deliveries.

01:53:32.000 --> 01:53:49.000
So that seminar home page is all important, and it is where we will post again links to the recorded version of today's session. It usually takes us about one to 2 weeks to produce the recorded archive and post it on the website, and you'll automatically get an email when that archive is available. You're welcome to forward that to other interested parties.

01:53:49.000 --> 01:54:05.000
Uh, so that they can watch it, and you can still submit feedback based on replaying the recorded version to get a certificate of participation. So if you are one of the lucky ones watching the recorded version of today's session, right above my head, in the recorded version, you'll see some buttons that will take you to that seminar feedback form.

01:54:05.000 --> 01:54:11.000
Go ahead and fill it out, check the box to say you watched the whole archive, and you'll get your own certificate for your own records.

01:54:11.000 --> 01:54:34.000
So with that, it is my pleasure to say thank you to each and every one of you one more time. I hope that you found this to be a valuable expenditure of your time and that you will join the new team on a future CLUEN webinar. With that, I'll formally conclude today's live broadcast. Thank you so very much for joining us.